S. Hrg. 113–610 

COMPILATION OF HEARINGS AND MARKUPS 

HEARINGS AND MARKUPS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON RULES 

AND ADMINISTRATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS 

FEBRUARY 13, 2013; FEBRUARY 27, 2013; JUNE 12, 2013; JULY 24, 2013; 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2013; SEPTEMBER 24, 2013; DECEMBER 11, 2013; JANUARY 29, 2014; FEBRUARY 12, 2014; MARCH 12, 2014; APRIL 9, 2014; 

APRIL 30, 2014; MAY 14, 2014; JUNE 25, 2014; JULY 23, 2014; SEPTEMBER 10, 2014; DECEMBER 3, 2014 

( 
COMPILATION OF HEARINGS AND MARKUPS 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

93–918 2015

S. HRG. 113–610 

COMPILATION OF HEARINGS AND MARKUPS 

HEARINGS AND MARKUPS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON RULES 

AND ADMINISTRATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS 

FEBRUARY 13, 2013; FEBRUARY 27, 2013; JUNE 12, 2013; JULY 24, 2013; 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2013; SEPTEMBER 24, 2013; DECEMBER 11, 2013; JANUARY 29, 2014; FEBRUARY 12, 2014; MARCH 12, 2014; APRIL 9, 2014; 

APRIL 30, 2014; MAY 14, 2014; JUNE 25, 2014; JULY 23, 2014; SEPTEMBER 10, 2014; DECEMBER 3, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Rules and Administration 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION 

FIRST SESSION 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York, Chairman 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK R. WARNER, Virginia 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

Note: Archived webcasts of all hearings and an electronic version of this report are 

available at http://rules.senate.gov. 
(III) 

COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION 

SECOND SESSION 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York, Chairman 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK R. WARNER, Virginia 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

JOHN E. WALSH, Montana 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

February 13, 2013 

ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Angus S. King, Jr., Acting Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State 

of Maine ................................................................................................................ 1 

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 1 

February 27, 2013 

BUSINESS MEETING—TO CONSIDER S. RES. 64, AN ORIGINAL 

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES BY SENATE COMMITTEES 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Angus S. King, Jr., Acting Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State 

of Maine ................................................................................................................ 3 

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 3 

June 12, 2013 

HEARING—NOMINATION OF DAVITA VANCE-COOKS, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE 

THE PUBLIC PRINTER 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Angus S. King, Jr., Acting Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State 

of Maine ................................................................................................................ 5 

Hon. Pat Roberts, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas ............................... 6 

Hon. Mark R. Warner, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia ...................... 7 

TESTIMONY OF: 

Mrs. Davita Vance-Cooks, Nominee to be the Public Printer .............................. 8 

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF: 

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 18 

Mrs. Davita Vance-Cooks, Nominee to be the Public Printer .............................. 19 

MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Statement Submitted by American Association of Law Libraries ....................... 25 

Statement Submitted by International Brotherhood of Teamsters ..................... 27 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, a U.S. Senator from the State of New York to 

Ms. Davita Vance-Cooks, Nominee ..................................................................... 28 
Page

VI 

Hon. Thad Cochran, a U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi to Ms. 

Davita Vance-Cooks, Nominee ............................................................................ 36 

July 24, 2013 

HEARING—NOMINATIONS OF ANN M. RAVEL AND LEE E. GOODMAN 

TO BE MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 39 

Hon. Pat Roberts, Ranking Member, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas 40 

Hon. Tom Udall, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ......................... 41 

Hon. Thad Cochran, a U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi ..................... 42 

Hon. Roy Blunt, a U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ................................ 42 

TESTIMONY OF: 

Mr. Lee E. Goodman, Nominee, Federal Election Commission, (VA) ................. 43 

Ms. Ann M. Ravel, Nominee, Federal Election Commission, (CA) ...................... 44 

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF: 

Mr. Lee E. Goodman, Nominee, Federal Election Commission, (VA) ................. 56 

Ms. Ann Miller Ravel, Nominee, Federal Election Commission, (CA) ................ 59 

MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

‘‘The FEC’s lame-duck overreach,’’ Submitted by Senator Tom Udall ................ 64 

‘‘Sabotage at the Election Commission,’’ Submitted by Senator Tom Udall ....... 65 

Statement submitted by California Political Attorneys Association ................... 66 

Statement submitted by Catherine C. Sprinkles .................................................. 68 

Statement submitted by Congressman Michael M. Honda .................................. 70 

Statement submitted by Congressman Robert Hurt ............................................ 71 

Statement submitted by Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren ........................................ 72 

Statement submitted by David E. Anderson ......................................................... 73 

Statement submitted by Lynn Montgomery .......................................................... 74 

Statement submitted by Mayor Don Gage, Gilroy (CA) ....................................... 75 

Statement submitted by Michael C. Genest .......................................................... 76 

Statement submitted by Richard E. Wiley ............................................................ 78 

Statement submitted by Ronald D. Rotunda ........................................................ 79 

Statement submitted by Sean Eskovitz ................................................................. 81 

Statement submitted by Thomas M. Wolf ............................................................. 82 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Hon. Pat Roberts, Ranking Member, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas 

to Lee E. Goodman, Nominee .............................................................................. 84 

July 24, 2013 

BUSINESS MEETING—TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF DAVITA 

VANCE-COOKS TO BE PUBLIC PRINTER AND S. 375 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 86 

Hon. Thad Cochran, a U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi ..................... 86 

Hon. Pat Roberts, Ranking Member, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas 87 
Page

VII 

September 17, 2013 

BUSINESS MEETING—TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF ANN M. 

RAVEL AND LEE E. GOODMAN TO BE MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL 

ELECTION COMMISSION AND S. RES. 229 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 89 

September 24, 2013 

BUSINESS MEETING—TO CONSIDER S. RES. 253, AN ORIGINAL RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURES OF SENATE COMMITTEES 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 91 

December 11, 2013 

HEARING—NOMINATIONS OF THOMAS HICKS AND MYRNA PE ́ REZ TO BE 

MEMBERS OF THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Angus. S. King, Acting Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of 

Maine .................................................................................................................... 93 

Hon. Pat Roberts, Ranking Member, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas 95 

TESTIMONY OF: 

Mr. Thomas Hicks, Nominee, Election Assistance Commission, (VA) ................ 97 

Ms. Myrna Pe ́rez, Nominee, Election Assistance Commission, (TX) ................... 99 

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF: 

Mr. Thomas Hicks, Nominee, Election Assistance Commission, (VA) ................ 108 

Ms. Myrna Pe ́rez, Nominee, Election Assistance Commission, (TX) ................... 111 

MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Statement submitted by America’s Congressional Black Caucus ........................ 115 

Statement submitted by Democrats Abroad .......................................................... 116 

Statement submitted by Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational 

Fund ...................................................................................................................... 119 

Statement submitted by National Hispanic Leadership Agenda ........................ 121 

January 29, 2014 

HEARING—SENTRI ACT (S. 1728) IMPROVING VOTER REGISTRATION 

AND VOTING OPPORTUNITIES FOR MILITARY AND OVERSEAS VOTERS 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Angus. S. King, Acting Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of 

Maine .................................................................................................................... 123 

Hon. Pat Roberts, Ranking Member, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas 124 

Hon. Roy Blunt, a U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ................................ 125 
Page

VIII 

TESTIMONY OF: 

Mr. Matt Boehmer, Director, Federal Voting Assistance Program, U.S. Department of Defense, Washington (DC) ............................................................. 126 

Mr. Kevin Kennedy, Director and General Counsel, Wisconsin Government 

Accountability Board, Madison (WI) ................................................................... 127 

Mr. Don Palmer, Secretary of the Board, Virginia Board of Elections, Richmond (VA) ............................................................................................................. 129 

Hon. John Cornyn, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ................................ 138 

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF: 

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 143

Hon. Roy Blunt, a U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ................................ 145 

Mr. Matt Boehmer, Director, Federal Voting Assistance Program, U.S. Department of Defense, Washington (DC) ............................................................. 147 

Mr. Kevin Kennedy, Director and General Counsel, Wisconsin Government 

Accountability Board, Madison (WI) ................................................................... 152 

Mr. Don Palmer, Secretary of the Board, Virginia Board of Elections, Richmond (VA) ............................................................................................................. 158 

Hon. John Cornyn, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ................................ 163 

MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Statement submitted by Hon. Richard Durbin, a U.S. Senator from the State 

of Illinois ............................................................................................................... 166 

Statement submitted by American Veterans ........................................................ 168 

Statement submitted by Association of the United States Navy ......................... 169 

Statement submitted by Common Cause .............................................................. 170 

Statement submitted by National Association for Uniformed Services .............. 172 

Statement submitted by Verified Voting ............................................................... 173 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Hon. Amy Klobuchar, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota to Mr. 

Don Palmer ........................................................................................................... 175 

Hon. Amy Klobuchar, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota to Mr. 

Kevin Kennedy ..................................................................................................... 178 

Hon. Amy Klobuchar, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota to Mr. 

Matt Boehmer ....................................................................................................... 179 

Hon. Patty Murray, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington to Mr. 

Matt Boehmer ....................................................................................................... 180 

Hon. Pat Roberts, Ranking Member, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas 

to Mr. Matt Boehmer ........................................................................................... 183 

February 12, 2014 

HEARING—BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR IMPROVING U.S. ELECTIONS: 

AN OVERVIEW FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON ELECTION 

ADMINISTRATION 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 186

Hon. Pat Roberts, Ranking Member, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas 188 

Hon. Amy Klobuchar, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota .................... 188 

TESTIMONY OF: 

Mr. Robert F. Bauer, Co-Chair, The Presidential Commission on Election 

Administration, Washington (DC) ...................................................................... 190 

Mr. Benjamin L. Ginsberg, Co-Chair, The Presidential Commission on Election Administration, Washington (DC) .............................................................. 192 
Page

IX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF: 

Mr. Robert F. Bauer, Co-Chair, The Presidential Commission on Election 

Administration, Washington (DC) ...................................................................... 208 

Hon. Richard J. Durbin, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois ..................... 212 

Mr. Benjamin L. Ginsberg, Co-Chair, The Presidential Commission on Election Administration, Washington (DC) .............................................................. 214 

MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Statement submitted by Verified Voting ............................................................... 219 

March 12, 2014 

HEARING—ELECTION ADMINISTRATION: INNOVATION, ADMINISTRATIVE 

IMPROVEMENTS AND COST SAVINGS 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 220

Hon. Pat Roberts, Ranking Member, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas 221 

Hon. Mark R. Warner, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia ...................... 222 

TESTIMONY OF: 

Hon. Barbara Boxer, a U.S. Senator from the State of California ...................... 223 

Hon. Chris Coons, a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ........................... 225 

Ms. Linda Lamone, Administrator of Elections, Maryland State Board of 

Elections, Annapolis (MD) ................................................................................... 228 

Ms. Tammy Patrick, Federal Compliance Officer, Maricopa County Elections, 

Phoenix (AZ) ......................................................................................................... 230 

Ms. Cameron Quinn, General Registrar, Fairfax County, Fairfax (VA) ............. 232 

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF: 

Ms. Linda Lamone, Administrator of Elections, Maryland State Board of 

Elections, Annapolis (MD) ................................................................................... 238 

Ms. Tammy Patrick, Federal Compliance Officer, Maricopa County Elections, 

Phoenix (AZ) ......................................................................................................... 243 

Ms. Cameron Quinn, General Registrar, Fairfax County, Fairfax (VA) ............. 247 

MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Statement submitted by Senator Bill Nelson, a U.S. Senator from the State 

of Florida ............................................................................................................... 262 

Statement submitted by Ms. Tammy Patrick, Federal Compliance Officer, 

Maricopa County Elections (AZ) ......................................................................... 264 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Hon. Pat Roberts, Ranking Member, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas 

to Committee witnesses ....................................................................................... 266 

April 9, 2014 

HEARING—ELECTION ADMINISTRATION: MAKING VOTER ROLLS MORE 

COMPLETE AND MORE ACCURATE 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. John Walsh, Acting Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of Montana ....................................................................................................................... 270

Hon. Pat Roberts, Ranking Member, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas 271 
Page

X 

TESTIMONY OF: 

Ms. Elaine Manlove, Delaware State Election Commissioner, Dover (DE) ........ 272 

Mr. John Lindback, Executive Director, Electronic Registration Information 

Center, Washington (DC) .................................................................................... 274 

Mr. Judd Choate, Director of Elections, Denver (CO) .......................................... 275 

Mr. Christopher Thomas, Director of Elections, Lansing (MI) ............................ 277 

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF: 

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 286

Ms. Elaine Manlove, Delaware State Election Commissioner, Dover (DE) ........ 288 

Mr. John Lindback, Executive Director, Electronic Registration Information 

Center, Washington (DC) .................................................................................... 293 

Mr. Judd Choate, Director of Elections, Denver (CO) .......................................... 300 

Mr. Christopher Thomas, Director of Elections, Lansing (MI) ............................ 304 

April 9, 2014 

BUSINESS MEETING—TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF THOMAS 

HICKS AND MYRNA PE ́ REZ TO BE MEMBERS OF THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION AND S. 1728, S. 1937, S. 1947, AND S. 2197 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. John Walsh, Acting Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of Montana ....................................................................................................................... 319

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 320

Hon. Pat Roberts, Ranking Member, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas 320 

April 30, 2014 

HEARING—DOLLARS AND SENSE: HOW UNDISCLOSED MONEY 

AND POST-MCCUTCHEON CAMPAIGN FINANCE WILL AFFECT THE 2014 

ELECTION AND BEYOND 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Angus S. King, Acting Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of 

Maine .................................................................................................................... 324 

Hon. Pat Roberts, Ranking Member, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas 326 

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 327

TESTIMONY OF: 

Hon. John Paul Stevens, Associated Justice (Ret.), United States Supreme 

Court ..................................................................................................................... 329 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Ted Cruz, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ...................................... 331 

Hon. Tom Udall, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ......................... 333 

Hon. John Walsh, a U.S. Senator from the State of Montana ............................. 335 

TESTIMONY OF: 

Mr. Donald F. McGahn, Attorney, Washington (DC) ........................................... 336 

Mr. Norman J. Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute, Washington (DC) ..... 338 

Mr. Trevor Potter, President and General Counsel, Campaign Legal Center, 

Washington (DC) .................................................................................................. 341 

Hon. Ann Ravel, Vice Chair, Federal Election Commission, Washington (DC) . 342 

Mr. Neil Reiff, Attorney, Washington (DC) ........................................................... 344 
Page

XI 

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF: 

Hon. John Paul Stevens, Associated Justice (Ret.), United States Supreme 

Court ..................................................................................................................... 361 

Mr. Donald F. McGahn, Attorney, and Mr. Neil Reiff, Attorney, Washington 

(DC) ....................................................................................................................... 368

Mr. Norman J. Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute, Washington (DC) ..... 377 

Mr. Trevor Potter, President and General Counsel, Campaign Legal Center, 

Washington (DC) .................................................................................................. 384 

Hon. Ann Ravel, Vice Chair, Federal Election Commission, Washington (DC) . 391 

MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

‘‘A Decade of McCain-Feingold: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,’’ Submitted 

by Mr. Donald F. McGahn and Mr. Neil Reiff ................................................... 397 

‘‘Brief of United States Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and John McCain as 

Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents,’’ Submitted by Senator Sheldon 

Whitehouse ........................................................................................................... 402 

Statement submitted by American Bar Association ............................................. 433 

Statement submitted by Center for Competitive Politics ..................................... 441 

Statement submitted by Democracy 21 ................................................................. 459 

Statement submitted by De ̄mos ............................................................................. 476 

Statement submitted by Free Speech for People .................................................. 492 

Statement submitted by Fund for the Republic .................................................... 496 

Statement submitted by National Association for the Advancement of Colored 

People .................................................................................................................... 499 

Statement submitted by Public Campaign ............................................................ 501 

Statement submitted by Public Citizen ................................................................. 505 

Statement submitted by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse ........................................ 521 

Statement submitted by Stetson Law .................................................................... 524 

Statement submitted by Sunlight Foundation ...................................................... 579 

Statement submitted by Wesleyan Media Project ................................................ 583 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Hon. Angus S. King, a U.S. Senator from the State of Maine to Ann Ravel, 

Vice Chair, Federal Election Commission .......................................................... 590 

May 14, 2014 

HEARING—COLLECTION, ANALYSIS AND USE OF ELECTIONS DATA: A 

MEASURED APPROACH TO IMPROVING ELECTION ADMINISTRATION 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Amy Klobuchar, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota .................... 592 

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 592

TESTIMONY OF: 

Ms. Heather K. Gerken, Yale Law School, New Haven (CT) ............................... 596 

Mr. Charles Stewart III, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 

(MA) ....................................................................................................................... 597

Mr. Kevin J. Kennedy, Director and General Counsel, Wisconsin Government 

Accountability Board, Madison (WI) ................................................................... 599 

Mr. David J. Becker, Director, Election Initiatives, The Pew Charitable 

Trusts, Washington (DC) ..................................................................................... 600 

Mr. Justin Riemer, Former Deputy Secretary, Virginia State Board of Elections, Richmond (VA) ........................................................................................... 603 

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF: 

Ms. Heather K. Gerken, Yale Law School, New Haven (CT) ............................... 621 

Mr. Charles Stewart III, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 

(MA) ....................................................................................................................... 635
Page

XII 

Mr. Kevin J. Kennedy, Director and General Counsel, Wisconsin Government 

Accountability Board, Madison (WI) ................................................................... 651 

Mr. David J. Becker, Director, Election Initiatives, The Pew Charitable 

Trusts, Washington (DC) ..................................................................................... 659 

Mr. Justin Riemer, Former Deputy Secretary, Virginia Board of Elections, 

Richmond (VA) ..................................................................................................... 662 

MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Statement submitted by FairVote .......................................................................... 669 

Statement submitted by Doug Chapin ................................................................... 678 

Statement submitted by IBM Center for The Business of Government ............. 683 

Statement submitted by Republican National Lawyers Association ................... 727 

Statement submitted by The PEW Charitable Trusts ......................................... 766 

Statement submitted by Verified Voting ............................................................... 778 

June 25, 2014 

HEARING—ELECTION ADMINISTRATION: EXAMINING HOW EARLY 

AND ABSENTEE VOTING CAN BENEFIT CITIZENS AND ADMINISTRATORS 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. John Walsh, Acting Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of Montana ....................................................................................................................... 780

TESTIMONY OF: 

The Honorable Kate Brown, Secretary of State, State of Oregon, Salem (OR) .. 781 

Dr. John C. Fortier, Director, Democracy Project, Bipartisan Policy Center, 

Washington (DC) .................................................................................................. 782 

Mr. Harvard Lomax, Registrar of Voters (Retired), Clark County Election 

Department, Las Vegas (NV) .............................................................................. 784 

Ms. Rhonda Whiting, Chairman of the Board, Western Native Voice, Missoula 

(MT) ....................................................................................................................... 786

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF: 

The Honorable Kate Brown, Secretary of State, State of Oregon, Salem (OR) .. 791 

Dr. John C. Fortier, Director, Democracy Project, Bipartisan Policy Center, 

Washington (DC) .................................................................................................. 795 

Mr. Harvard Lomax, Registrar of Voters (Retired), Clark County Election 

Department, Las Vegas (NV) .............................................................................. 800 

Ms. Rhonda Whiting, Chairman of the Board, Western Native Voice, Missoula 

(MT) ....................................................................................................................... 805

MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Statement Submitted by Ms. Wendy Weiser, Brennan Center for Justice ......... 808 

Statement Submitted by Common Cause .............................................................. 813 

Statement Submitted by Douglas Chapin ............................................................. 854 

Statement Submitted by Julie Alexander .............................................................. 857 

Statement Submitted by Kim Wyman, Washington Secretary of State ............. 858 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, a U.S. Senator from the State of New York to 

Dr. John C. Fortier, Director, Democracy Project, Bipartisan Policy Center . 860 

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, a U.S. Senator from the State of New York to 

Mr. Harvard Lomax, Registrar of Voters (Retired), Clark County Election 

Department ........................................................................................................... 861 
Page

XIII 

July 23, 2014 

HEARING—THE DISCLOSE ACT (S. 2516) AND THE NEED FOR EXPANDED 

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF FUNDS RAISED AND SPENT TO INFLUENCE 

FEDERAL ELECTIONS 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Angus S. King, Acting Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of 

Maine .................................................................................................................... 863 

Hon. Pat Roberts, Ranking Member, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas 865 

Hon. Mitch McConnell, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kentucky ................... 867 

Hon. Tom Udall, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ......................... 870 

TESTIMONY OF: 

Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ....... 872 

Ms. Heather K. Gerken, Yale Law School, New Haven (CT) ............................... 874 

Mr. Bradley A. Smith, Chairman, Center for Competitive Politics, Alexandria 

(VA) ....................................................................................................................... 876

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF: 

Mr. Daniel Tokaji, Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University, Columbus 

(OH) ....................................................................................................................... 901

Ms. Heather K. Gerken, Yale Law School, New Haven (CT) ............................... 907 

Mr. Bradley A. Smith, Chairman, Center for Competitive Politics, Alexandria 

(VA) ....................................................................................................................... 916

MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Statement submitted by American Civil Liberties Union .................................... 936 

Statement submitted by Chamber of Commerce .................................................. 941 

Statement submitted by Common Cause .............................................................. 943 

Statement submitted by Democracy 21 ................................................................. 948 

Statement submitted by Scholars Strategy Network ........................................... 950 

Statement submitted by The Campaign Legal Center ......................................... 951 

September 10, 2014 

HEARING—NOMINATIONS OF MATTHEW MASTERSON AND CHRISTY 

MCCORMICK TO BE MEMBERS OF THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Angus S. King, Acting Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of 

Maine .................................................................................................................... 957 

TESTIMONY OF: 

Mr. Matthew V. Masterson, Nominee, Election Assistance Commission, (OH) . 959 

Ms. Christy A. McCormick, Nominee, Election Assistance Commission, (VA) ... 960 

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF: 

Hon. Pat Roberts, Ranking Member, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas 968 

Mr. Matthew V. Masterson, Nominee, Election Assistance Commission, (OH) . 969 

Ms. Christy A. McCormick, Nominee, Election Assistance Commission, (VA) ... 972 

MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Statement submitted by NALEO Educational Fund ............................................ 975 

Statement submitted by National Disability Rights Network ............................. 978 

Statement submitted by The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human 

Rights .................................................................................................................... 980 

Statement submitted by Verified Voting ............................................................... 982 
Page

XIV 

December 3, 2014 

BUSINESS MEETING—TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF MATTHEW 

MASTERSON AND CHRISTY MCCORMICK TO BE MEMBERS OF THE 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

OPENING STATEMENT OF: 

Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 983

MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Statement submitted by The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human 

Rights .................................................................................................................... 986 
(1) 

ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2013 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

SR–301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Angus King, presiding. 

Present: Senator King. 

Staff Present: Jean Bordewich, Staff Director; Kelly Fado, Deputy Staff Director, Professional Staff; Lynden Armstrong, Chief 

Clerk; Mary Suit Jones, Republican Staff Director; Shaun Parkin, 

Republican Deputy Staff Director; Paul Vinovich, Republican Chief 

Shaun Parkin, Republican Deputy Staff Director; Matt McGowan, 

Professional Staff; Rachel Creviston, Republican Professional Staff; 

and Adam Topper, Rooms Coordinator. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ANGUS S. KING Jr. 

Senator KING. The Rules Committee will come to order. This is 

our first meeting of the 113th Congress, the Committee’s organizational meeting. Welcome. There are two items on the agenda—the 

adoption of the Committee Rules of Procedure and an original resolution which will fund the Rules Committee during the 113th Congress. We currently do not have a quorum needed to adopt the 

Committee rules and approve the Committee budget. So, the Committee is recessed, subject to the call of the chair. We will let your 

office know when we will meet, hopefully off of the floor this afternoon, to vote on the items. 

[Whereupon, at 10:06 a.m., the Committee was recessed to the 

call of the Chair.] 

[The Committee reconvened on Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 

12:21 p.m., in Room S–219, United States Capitol, Hon. Charles E. 

Schumer, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.] 

Present: Senators Schumer, Feinstein, Durbin, Pryor, Udall, 

Warner, Leahy, Klobuchar, King, Roberts, Chambliss, Shelby, and 

Blunt. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SCHUMER 

Chairman SCHUMER. The Rules Committee will come to order for 

the continuation of its organizational meeting. Good afternoon, 

thank you for coming. I would like to warmly welcome our new 

Ranking Member, Senator Roberts and our new Members, Senator 

Amy Klobuchar, Senator Angus King, and Senator Ted Cruz. We 

have a legislative quorum of 10 members, so let’s take our two 
2 

votes. Is there any further debate? I move we adopt by voice the 

Committee Rules of Procedure—is there a second? 

Senator LEAHY. Second 

Chairman SCHUMER. All in favor, say ‘‘aye’’ 

[a chorus of ‘‘ayes.’’] 

Chairman SCHUMER. All opposed, say ‘‘nay’’ 

[No response.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. The ‘‘ayes’’ have it. Now, I move that we 

adopt by voice vote the 7-month authorizing resolution for the 

Rules Committee budget. Is there a second? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Second 

Chairman SCHUMER. All in favor, say ‘‘aye.’’ 

[Chorus of ‘‘ayes.’’] 

Chairman SCHUMER. All opposed, ‘‘nay.’’ 

[No response.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. The ‘‘ayes’’ have it. Since there is no further 

business, the Committee is adjourned and we thank you for making 

this meeting our most successful yet. 

[Whereupon, at 12:24 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
3 

BUSINESS MEETING—TO CONSIDER S. RES. 

64, AN ORIGINAL RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING 

EXPENDITURES BY SENATE COMMITTEES 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2013 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

SR–301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Angus S. King, presiding. 

Present: Senator King. 

Staff Present: Jean Bordewich, Staff Director; Kelly Fado, Deputy Staff Director, Professional Staff; Lynden Armstrong, Chief 

Clerk; Mary Suit Jones, Republican Staff Director; Shaun Parkin, 

Republican Deputy Staff Director; Paul Vinovich, Republican Chief; 

Shaun Parkin, Republican Deputy Staff Director; Matt McGowan, 

Professional Staff; Rachel Creviston, Republican Professional Staff; 

and Adam Topper, Staff Assistant. 

[Committee gavel.] 

Senator KING. The Rules Committee will come to order for the 

mark-up on its omnibus funding resolution for the Committees. 

Welcome. We currently do not have a quorum needed to pass the 

resolution, so the Committee is recessed, subject to the call of the 

chair. 

[Committee gavel.] 

The Committee reconvened on Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 

3:00 p.m., in Room S–216, United States Capitol Building, Hon. 

Charles E. Schumer, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Schumer, Feinstein, Durbin, Pryor, Warner, 

Leahy, Klobuchar, King, Roberts, Chambliss, Shelby, Blunt, and 

Cruz. 

[Committee gavel.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SCHUMER 

Chairman SCHUMER. The Rules Committee will come to order for 

the continuation of the mark-up on its omnibus funding resolution 

for Committees. You were all sent the resolution yesterday. We 

have a legislative quorum of ten members, so let’s take our vote. 

Is there any further debate? 

[A chorus of no.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. I move that we adopt by voice vote the 7- 

month omnibus authorizing resolution for Senate Committees. Is 

there a second? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Second. 

Chairman SCHUMER. All in favor say ‘‘aye.’’ 

[A chorus of ‘‘ayes.’’] 

Chairman SCHUMER. All opposed? 

[No response.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. The ayes have it. Since there is no further 

business, the Committee is adjourned. 
4 

[Committee gavel.] 
5 

HEARING—NOMINATION OF DAVITA 

VANCE-COOKS, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE THE 

PUBLIC PRINTER 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2013 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 

SR–301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Angus S. King, Jr., 

presiding. 

Present: Senators King, Klobuchar, and Roberts. 

Staff Present: Jean Bordewich, Staff Director; Kelly Fado, Deputy Staff Director; Stacy Ettinger, Chief Counsel; Ellen Zeng, Elections Counsel; Sharon Larimer, Assistant to the Staff Director; 

Abbie Sorrendino, Professional Staff; Nicole Tatz, Legislative Correspondent; Lynden Armstrong, Chief Clerk; Matthew McGowan, 

Professional Staff; Adam Topper, Staff Assistant; Mary Suit Jones, 

Republican Staff Director; Shaun Parkin, Republican Deputy Staff 

Director; Paul Vinovich, Republican Chief Counsel; Sarah Little, 

Communications Director; Trish Kent, Republican Professional 

Staff; and Rachel Creviston, Republican Professional Staff. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KING 

Senator KING. The United States Senate Committee on Rules 

and Administration shall come to order. Good morning. 

On today’s agenda is the consideration of the nomination of 

Davita Vance-Cooks for the position of Public Printer of the United 

States Government Printing Office. 

Chairman Schumer is unable to attend today’s hearing and 

asked that I extend his congratulations to Mrs. Vance-Cooks on her 

nomination. Without objection, I ask that his statement be submitted for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Schumer was submitted 

for the record:] 

Senator KING. I would also like to welcome Mrs. Vance-Cooks’ 

husband, Cliff Cooks, who is joining us here today. 

The Government Printing Office opened its doors the day that 

Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated as the 16th President of the 

United States in 1861. For more than 150 years, the GPO has 

played an instrumental role in keeping the nation informed and 

providing permanent public access to government information. 

GPO publishes the nation’s important government information in 

both digital and print forms. It publishes official documents for 

Congress and the executive branch, created and maintains the Federal Digital System, an enormous Web site and database of digital 

documents, and also supports the Federal Depository Libraries all 

over the country. 

A broad operational review of the GPO conducted by the National Academy of Public Administration in 2012 concluded that 

under the guidance of the Acting Public Printer, our nominee here 
6 

today, GPO has made significant progress in rebooting the agency 

from a print-based organization to one that focuses on publishing 

content in many forms. 

Mrs. Vance-Cooks came to us with a distinguished 34-year career 

that includes 25 years in the private sector and nine years of management and executive experience at the GPO itself. As Acting 

Public Printer, she has worked to modernize the process of making 

information available to the public in digital as well as print form. 

Senator, welcome. 

On May 9, the President nominated Mrs. Vance-Cooks to be the 

Public Printer. If confirmed, she would be the 27th person to hold 

this position, the first African American, and the first woman. As 

Deputy Public Printer, she assumed the responsibilities of Acting 

Public Printer on January 4, 2012. 

On behalf of the committee, I want to welcome Mrs. Vance-Cooks 

to today’s hearing and we look forward to her testimony. 

Senator Roberts, do you have any opening remarks? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERTS 

Senator ROBERTS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

This will be somewhat repetitive, but it deserves repeating because of the qualifications of Mrs. Vance-Cooks, and I would like 

to welcome her here today. Thank you for paying a very nice courtesy call to my office prior to this hearing and thank you for your 

willingness to serve as the Public Printer. 

I want to formally acknowledge the great work that the GPO 

does. They produce all of the printing and information products ordered by Congress and Federal agencies, which is the equivalent of 

nearly $700 million of work annually. Praise is due to the good 

work of the 1,900 GPO employees who work tirelessly on behalf of 

Congress. 

And I want to commend the implementation of technology that 

has made the GPO more efficient, has allowed the agency to function with fewer resources, publish more information, make it more 

accessible to the public, and still meet the increasing demands of 

Congress on a day-to-day basis—no small job. I also want to stress 

the importance of innovation as the GPO continues to make the 

shift from print to digital documents. 

The committee looks forward to hearing Mrs. Vance-Cooks’ remarks and her vision for the future of the GPO. She is eminently 

qualified, and I will hold my remarks in the effort to expedite this 

confirmation, which she deserves. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Warner is a member of this committee and one of the 

Senators from Mrs. Vance-Cooks’ home State of Virginia. He had 

hoped to introduce the nominee here today but is tied up in another committee markup, which is the order of the day around here 

this week. I would like to read part of his introductory statement 

and, without objection, ask that the statement in its entirety be included in the committee record at this point. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Warner was included for the 

record:] 
7 

Senator WARNER. I wish I could be there in person to introduce 

fellow Virginian and President Obama’s nominee to be Public 

Printer, Mrs. Davita Vance-Cooks. 

Davita is exceptionally well-qualified to carry out the duties and 

responsibilities of Public Printer. She brings more than 30 years of 

private sector and federal government experience to her current 

role as Deputy Public Printer. Davita joined the Government Printing Office in 2004 and has held a succession of senior management 

positions. In one of her previous roles as Deputy Managing Director 

of Consumer Services, Davita oversaw the award of a $50 million 

contract for the production of the 2010 census materials. This was 

one of the largest procurements in the agency’s history. 

Additionally, as Managing Director of GPO’s Publications and Information Sales business unit, Davita led GPO’s effort to partner 

with Google to sell federal publications in an eBook format, 

launched an award winning government book blog, modernized 

GPO’s customer contact center, and oversaw the renovation of the 

agency’s retail bookstore in Washington, D.C. 

Recognized for her hard work and successful efforts, Davita was 

named GPO’s Chief of Staff in January 2011, where she continued 

to have a positive impact on the organization. In only eleven 

months she created and implemented an agency-wide strategic performance plan while managing the day-to-day operations, budgets, 

and performance goals of the executive offices. In December of that 

same year she was once again promoted—this time to the appointed position of Deputy Public Printer. 

As a former businessman, I’d also like to highlight Davita’s success in the private sector. Before joining GPO she served as General Manager of HTH Worldwide Insurance Services. Before that 

she was Senior Vice-President of Operations for NYLCare 

MidAtlantic Health Plan. Prior to that, she worked for several Blue 

Cross/Blue Shield plans, where she was Director of Customer Service and Claims, Director of Membership and Billing, and Director 

of Market Research and Product Development. Her wide range of 

experience as a business executive should not be overlooked. 

Virginians are proud to call Davita one of their own. She is a 

member of the Northern Virginia Alumnae Chapter of Delta Sigma 

Theta, Inc., a national sorority that will celebrate its centennial 

this year. She and her husband Clifford Cooks are active members 

of the Antioch Baptist Church in Fairfax Station, and they are the 

proud parents of Chandra and Christopher, both of whom graduated from James Madison University. For the past several years, 

while serving as a senior manager at GPO, Davita has coached 

girls basketball for the Springfield Youth Club and the Braddock 

Road Youth Club in Fairfax County. Cliff is an assistant coach for 

the boys JV basketball team at Bishop Ireton High School. Despite 

Davita’s nomination, it’s a tough week in the Cooks household— 

Davita is a Spurs fan and Cliff roots for the Heat. 

I would like to extend a warm welcome to Davita and her family, 

who have so much to be proud of. I enthusiastically support Davita, 

and urge the committee to favorably report her nomination and 

look forward to working towards her swift confirmation on the Senate floor. 
8 

Senator KING. Senator Warner’s statement says, in part, ‘‘Mr. 

Chairman, I wish I could be there in person to introduce fellow Virginian and President Obama’s nominee to be the Public Printer, 

Mrs. Davita Vance-Cooks. Davita is exceptionally well qualified to 

carry out the duties and responsibilities of the Public Printer. She 

brings more than 30 years of private sector and Federal Government experience to her current role as Deputy Public Printer. 

‘‘Virginians are proud to call Davita one of their own. She is a 

member of the Northern Virginia Alumni Chapter of Delta Sigma 

Theta, the national sorority that will celebrate its centennial this 

year. She and her husband, Clifford Cooks, are active members of 

the Antioch Baptist Church in Fairfax Station and they are proud 

parents of Chandra and Christopher, both of whom graduated from 

James Madison University. 

‘‘For the past several years, while serving as a Senior Manager 

at the GPO, Davita has coached girls’ basketball for the Springfield 

Youth Club and the Braddock Road Youth Club in Fairfax County. 

Cliff is an assistant coach for the boys’ JV basketball team at 

Bishop Ireton High School. 

‘‘Despite Davita’s nomination, it has been a rather tough week in 

the Cooks’ family household because Davita is a Spurs fan, and I 

understand that Cliff roots for the Heat. So last night must have 

taken—been some satisfying for you, Davita. 

‘‘I would like to extend a warm welcome to Davita and her family’’—these are the words of Senator Warner—‘‘who have so much 

to be proud of. I enthusiastically support Davita and urge the committee to favorably report her nomination and look forward to 

working towards her swift confirmation on the Senate floor.’’ 

Now, Mrs. Vance-Cooks, please make your statement to the committee. 

STATEMENT OF DAVITA VANCE-COOKS, OF VIRGINIA, 

NOMINATED TO BE THE PUBLIC PRINTER 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of 

the Committee on Rules and Administration, I am honored to be 

here this morning to assist in your consideration of my nomination 

by President Barack Obama to be the Public Printer of the United 

States Government Printing Office. 

Before I begin, I would like to formally introduce you to Clifford 

Cooks, my husband and my best friend of 33 years, back there. 

In the interest of time, I will briefly summarize my prepared remarks, which have been submitted for the record. 

I am currently the Deputy Public Printer and I have been serving in the capacity of Acting Public Printer for the past 18 months. 

For 152 years, GPO has faithfully carried out its mission of keeping America informed about the business of the government, first 

by traditional printing, and today by digital technology. 

Clearly, the GPO is no longer just a printing business. Today, we 

operate in an environment that is dominated by constantly evolving technology, the proliferation of content available through multiple formats and devices, rapidly changing and demanding stakeholder expectations, and significant financial budget pressure. In 

response, we have repositioned our core business of ink on paper 

to emphasize the development of a digital information platform for 
9 

the delivery of a growing variety of options to access government 

information. 

As I have detailed in my prepared statement, my educational 

background, which includes an MBA from Columbia University, 25 

years of private sector experience with progressively challenging 

leadership roles, nine years of GPO management and executive 

business experience, all have prepared me to lead this wonderful 

agency at this particular time, in this environment, and during this 

digital transformation. 

My career at the GPO began when I directly managed our nationwide print procurement business, and then I became responsible for the print and E-commerce information sales operation, and 

later, I oversaw the administrative business units. I facilitated 

GPO’s entry into the E-book market with the establishment of Ebook partnerships with Google and other providers. And as the 

Chief of Staff, I guided the conduct of an agency-wide buyout, resulting in a restructured workforce and the lowest staffing level at 

GPO in more than a century, but still maintaining a high level of 

customer service. 

This background has provided me with a broad knowledge of 

GPO’s mission, our customers, our partners, operations, capabilities, employees, and organizational culture. If confirmed by the 

Senate, I will not need a learning curve to lead the agency as the 

Public Printer. 

Furthermore, during my year-and-a-half as the Acting Public 

Printer, the collaboration between management and employees has 

resulted in a number of achievements, and I am so very proud of 

those achievements. I would like to list some of them for the 

record. 

We completed fiscal year 2012 with positive net income and reduced our overhead costs to 2008 levels. To date, in fiscal year 

2013, we have managed to absorb the effects of the sequestration 

while continuing to carry out the program of doing more with less. 

We developed a five-year strategic plan. We pioneered new mobile 

apps for the delivery of government information to mobile devices, 

one of which won a Digital Government Service Award. We expanded the scope of information made available by the Federal Digital System. We opened a Secure Credential Operations site for the 

increased demand of secure cards. We delivered the work supporting the 2013 Presidential Inauguration. We added new professional certifications for our plant operations so we are now designated as Best in Class. And we initiated the Federal Depository 

Library State Forecasting Project to ensure the digital future of the 

program in collaboration with the Depository Libraries. And most 

importantly, the National Academy of Public Administration, after 

a ten-month Congressionally mandated study, validated our mission and our program of digital transition. 

So in developing and carrying out our plans for moving the GPO 

forward, I have been and will always be committed to consulting 

with Congress and our stakeholders, and I have an unwavering belief in the vital mission of GPO, which is to keep America informed. 

And I will ensure that GPO stays dedicated and true to that mission. 
10 

So in closing, I would like to state for the record that I have the 

deepest admiration and respect for the GPO employees. They are 

the agency’s strongest and most important assets. They are the nation’s experts in the production and dissemination of the information that is needed by the public. And for the past nine years, I 

have been fortunate to work with the dedicated and talented men 

and women of the GPO, and I look forward to continuing to work 

with them if I am confirmed as their Public Printer. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Rules and Administration, thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. 

I must admit, I am absolutely thrilled about this opportunity, and 

this concludes my prepared statement and I am prepared to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Vance-Cooks Submitted for the 

Record:] 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

Before we get to questions, Senator Klobuchar has joined us. 

Senator, did you have an opening statement of any kind? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. No, I think we should just move on to questions, but I welcome the nominee and congratulate her and her 

family. Thank you, and thank you for your good work. 

Senator KING. Mrs. Vance-Cooks, I understand that one of the 

first things you did when you took over as Acting Public Printer 

was hold Town Hall meetings with your staff. The feedback we got 

was very positive from that, that they appreciated your transparency and your willingness to listen. 

You made it through, as you noted in your comments, the sequester pressure, and I wondered how you view the next couple of 

years. As you know, the sequester is not a one-year event, but unless it is modified, it is in the law for the next nine years. How do 

you see that relating to your ability to carry out your mission? 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. First of all, thank you for acknowledging the 

Town Hall meetings. I made it an objective to have Town Hall 

meetings around the clock every quarter with the employees, and 

since we are, in fact, a 24-hour by seven operation, we have Town 

Hall meetings that go around the clock, and it is very important 

for us to communicate with our employees to let them know where 

we are going and why we are moving in that direction. I have 

found that when we communicate with our employees, we tend to 

get better buy-in, and that buy-in allows us to make hard decisions, 

but decisions which they, in fact, understand, and that leads me to 

the point about the sequester. 

In February, I had a series of Town Hall meetings to talk to 

them about what I called the Perfect Storm. At that point, it was 

the sequestration; it was the Continuing Resolution and the debt 

ceiling. And I explained to them that it is important for us to manage our expenses very carefully. And I wanted them to understand 

that when we manage our expenses, is to make sure that we are 

a viable operation. So they understand why we have to cut back 

on training sometimes or why we have to cut back on some of the 

technological investments that had been planned for the future. 

The way in which I understand, or the way in which we have 

planned to make it through the next few years with the sequestration is to make sure we understand our expenses. Our expenses are 
11 

at the lowest level right now. We have reached all the way down 

to the 2008 level. But it is what I call targeted expenses. It is not 

a slash across the board. It is making sure that we target the right 

areas, and we will continue to do that. 

We also will continue to try to increase our revenue. Our financial model is set up so that only 16 percent of our budget is due 

to appropriations. The 84 percent balance, we actually earn it. And 

so that earned revenue is what we will target to make sure that 

we can ride through the sequester. That earned revenue will come 

from procurement business and will come from other types of information, such as secure cards and passports. 

So the balance between our expenses and managing our revenue 

will allow us to go further. But I want to stress that it is targeted 

revenue opportunities and it is targeted expense opportunities, and 

it is also making sure that we collaborate with our employees so 

that they understand our vision. 

Senator KING. Thank you. The Depository Library Program, the 

localized program that helps ensure public access to Federal Government documents, is an old and tried and true program. However, how does that program fit in, in your vision, with digital access? Do we need Federal Depository Libraries if everybody can access all the information from their living room? 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. Well, first of all, we definitely need Federal 

Depository Libraries. That is a guaranteed issue. Yes. In fact, you 

know that we have 1,200 Depository Libraries spread throughout 

the United States. We need it because of the fact that not everyone 

is on digital. Not everyone is on a digital platform. And the libraries are needed to serve the underserved, those individuals who do 

not have access to digital content. And I know for a fact that we 

have a lot of pockets like that. 

Now, I will admit that the FDLP Program is moving towards a 

digital platform. We need to help them manage the digital platform. They have identified a number of issues, such as they want 

improved access online. They want enhanced catalog records. They 

want the information to be easily discoverable. They want us to 

digitize more historical content. They want more flexibility in 

terms of how we manage the collection according to Title 44. And 

they want preservation. 

We hear them. We agree with them. And that is why, back in 

2012, we initiated a study called the State Forecasting Project. It 

is a collaborative project with all of the libraries, and we asked 

them, how can we as GPO best help to serve you? How can we help 

you to serve your patrons, whether digital or whether tangible? We 

have been working on all of the analysis, all of the recommendations, and we intend to present a National Federal Digital Program 

Plan by October to address all of those issues. 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, I thank the Acting Chairman and I 

thank you, Mrs. Vance-Cooks. What is the appropriate title after 

your confirmation here? I have got Chief Executive Officer. CEO 

seems a little—Madam CEO does not quite get it. What do you 

take as the proper title? 

[Laughter.] 
12 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. Well, you know, I like Madam CEO. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I would like the record to reflect I also 

think that is a good title, Senator Roberts. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. It is now four-to-zero. I can understand that. 

Okay. 

Well, Madam CEO, you have already responded to about three 

of my questions and they were asked in a very timely fashion by 

our Acting Chairman. I have got a question. In your view, what is 

the appropriate mix of agency printing that should be performed by 

GPO and will you continue to support a robust private sector printing industry? 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. Today, we have an in-plant operation and we 

have a print procurement operation. Our in-plant operation primarily handles Congressional products and inherently government 

information, such as the Federal Register. Our Print Procurement 

Program handles the Federal agency printing. And, as you know, 

a number of Federal agencies come to us for printing. We know 

that approximately 70 percent of the mix that comes in, or 70 percent of the work orders that come in, are for the Federal agencies. 

That work is sent out to our nationwide network of businesses 

that are printers. And we know that when we send that out, about 

80 percent of those printers who actually get business from us are 

employees or employers with fewer than 20 employees. So, basically, we are funding the small business network for printers. 

I believe strongly in the Print Procurement Program because it 

is a way to leverage a tremendous amount of buying capability to 

get competitive prices. It is a competitive bid process, and it is a 

longstanding partnership between the government and private sector. And, in fact, when I started at GPO, I started managing that 

Print Procurement Program, so I am very much familiar with it. 

It will continue. It generates about—well, in fiscal year 2012, it 

generated about $350 million in revenue for all these private businesses. 

This is, however, an area that I am very concerned about for the 

sequester, because when the sequestration hit, the Federal agencies, of course, the first thing they looked at were different line 

items about which they can cut. And one of the things they probably will start to cut will be printing, and that is, of course, because they might think about how they can put things online or 

they might think that they may not need as many orders. 

So this is what I am calling the rippling effect. When they submit fewer orders to us, we, in turn, will submit fewer orders to the 

private businesses. So we are watching that very carefully. Right 

now, since the sequester has come on board, we are seeing about 

an eight to ten percent decline in printing on that side. 

Senator ROBERTS. When you make those adjustments, you are 

talking about the small business community and your average was 

22 people or less. Obviously, if you have an eight to ten percent 

cut, that is going to hit, if it is across the board. How are you going 

to manage that? Are you going to pick and choose, or—— 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. No. This is a competitive bid process. Right 

now, we have about 16,000 vendors on our master list, and so when 
13 

an order comes in, we then send it out to all the businesses to bid. 

They actually bid on the particular order. And then we give it to 

the best possible price. 

Senator ROBERTS. All right. I appreciate that. 

You have got about one million—well, not about—you have got 

exactly 1,431,600 square feet of total space in four buildings over 

there. I have been there on several occasions, but not lately, so I 

have got to get back over. And about 437,200 square feet of that 

space is classified as being unusable. We are talking about pipes, 

stairwells, mechanical rooms, et cetera, et cetera. With costs that 

are significantly rising to maintain the aging buildings, what kind 

of advice can you give us on getting the best economic value out 

of the usable space while continuing to meet the core needs of the 

GPO and the Congress? 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. We are leasing that space. In fact, I always 

tease Andy Sherman, sitting behind me, and Jim Bradley on the 

other side, because I call them my RE/MAX salesmen because of 

the fact that we had that—— 

Senator ROBERTS. You do not have a reverse mortgage or anything like that, do you? 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. No, I do not. No. 

[Laughter.] 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. No. But we do lease the space. In fact, we have four renters now and they contribute about $1.7 million annually, and that funding is used to defray the cost of operating the 

building. 

We are in the process of looking for additional renters. Again, I 

will admit, the sequestration has sort of slowed that process. But 

that is what we intend to do. 

Senator ROBERTS. I appreciate that, and the red light is blinking, 

Mr. Chairman, so let us move on. 

Senator KING. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. Again, welcome, and as Senator 

Roberts is now aware, the Public Printer is the Chief Executive Officer—— 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. Right. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. —of the GPO, and in this capacity, you are 

responsible, or will be responsible for leading and managing the organization. I know you have had significant experience in both the 

public and private sector. Could you talk a little bit about how your 

experiences in the private sector will inform your decision making 

as the CEO of the GPO? 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. Thank you for that CEO title. Thank you 

very much. 

My private sector experience actually has given me a unique perspective on the organizational challenges of the GPO. In my private 

sector experience, I specialized in operations management, change 

management, and strategic planning. When I became the Chief of 

Staff, I immediately took my strategic planning emphasis and 

brought it to the GPO. I have developed a very coordinated, very 

standard process for strategic planning. 

We developed a five-year strategic plan several years ago. It is 

a dynamic plan. By that, I mean we continually update it. It is updated every year to go to the next year. On top of that, every six 
14 

months, we have a report that identifies where we stand in terms 

of our operational plans. And every year, at the end of that year, 

we identify what we have accomplished. All of that information is 

open and transparent and it is on the web so you can see exactly 

what our plans are going forward. 

In terms of operations management from the private sector, I 

have brought that here because I understand how to manage. I can 

manage and I can strategically plan. And then my change management experience is also helpful because this is an organization that 

is going through a lot of transformation and we need that kind of 

skill set to make sure that we understand where we are going and 

get the buy-in. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. As you talk about change, I know that Senator King asked you some questions, which I thought were very 

good, on the new, the digital, and referenced that. Are you doing 

anything with social media, with Facebook, Twitter? 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. Absolutely. We have a Facebook. We have 

YouTube, which is half Pinterest, which I think is kind of interesting, okay. And we believe in social media. Social media is the 

best way to get out our name. It is the best way to communicate 

what we do. It is also a reference to the fact that there is a new 

generation coming and this is how they communicate. This is how 

they learn about us. So we cannot wait for them to come to us. Social media allows us to go to them. And we also have a Twitter account. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Have you ever thought that the name 

should be changed? 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. Absolutely. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. From Government Printing Office—— 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. To Government Publishing Office. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, there we go. We have a goal now. But 

it does seem like that might be a good idea, because it is hard for 

you to say on social media, to use the Government Printing Office 

when you are giving them digital access. 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. Exactly. And the Government Printing Office 

title, the name is a great name full of history. It is steeped in tradition. But it is limiting. It makes people think that the only thing 

we do is printing. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Exactly. 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. We actually publish digital information. So 

we are a digital publisher. We have E-commerce through E-books. 

We create mobile apps. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And then people will stop saying, well, why 

do you have to exist when you are the Printing Office? 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. Exactly. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. We have a goal. 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. All right. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. You talked with Senator King about the importance of the depositories, even in the digital age, a place for everyone to access the records, and I found out, which I did not know, 

getting ready for this, that the University of Minnesota is the Regional—— 
15 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. That is right. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR [continuing]. Depository Library for Minnesota and South Dakota and Michigan, housing more than a million volumes of government publications. Can you talk about how 

that works? I know you mentioned, was it 1,200—— 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. There are 1,200 Depository Libraries—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But these are regional ones, and so what 

role do they play and how do you work with the universities? 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. Okay. The regional role—the Regional Libraries are responsible for coordinating with the Depository Libraries, and I think of the Regional and the Depository Libraries as actually collaborating with each other to make sure that they have 

the right documents on file, to make sure that they are not duplicating efforts, and to make sure that they serve the patrons. 

So in terms of how they work with the universities, it is the 

same thing. What do the universities want? Let us make sure we 

have the information that they need. 

And I would also like to say that with all of these libraries that 

cover a number of areas, it is academic, it is law, it is public. It 

goes on and on. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. The National Academy of Public Administration report found that, based on a conservative set of assumptions, the GPO only has the cash necessary to offset operating 

losses and fund modest investment for another seven years. Do you 

agree with that assessment and what do you think can be done 

with your business background to ensure a brighter financial future? 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. I do not agree with that assessment. I believe that the GPO has a bright future and a good financial strong 

future and we will be here for a very long time. We earn our revenue, as I said, with the 84 percent. It comes from passports, and 

we are in the process of coordinating with the State Department 

for the next generation of passports. I think most people know that 

we have been working with the State Department since the 1920s 

on our passports. We leverage that expertise with our passports to 

create secure credentials. We consider the secure credential market 

to be a very large market opportunity for us. 

Our print procurement is also an area of opportunity for us because we believe that we should do more market outreach to the 

Federal agencies to let them know that we are here to assist them 

with their printing needs because printing will not go away. Tangible print is here and it will always remain, it is just that there 

will be a balance between tangible print and online. 

Now, because I mentioned earlier that we intend to reposition 

our core business, by that, I mean the traditional printing, we are 

looking for market niche opportunities to support it. So that would 

be print on demand. That would be E-books. That would be all of 

those type of market opportunities to bolster the revenue to move 

forward. 

I think we are going to be just fine. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Well, I would love to work with you 

on the name change—— 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. Well, thank you. 
16 

Senator KLOBUCHAR [continuing] Because I just realized you can 

still be the CEO of the GPO— 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. That is right. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR [continuing]. Because it would be the Publications Office. That would make it easier for everyone in Washington to keep the same acronym. 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. And it does not bother our letterhead too 

much. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. Then we save money and we can keep 

the old letterhead. Okay. We are ready to work on it. 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. All right. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. Thank you. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. 

Before closing the hearing, there is so much talk these days in 

terms of bad news, particularly sometimes focusing on Federal employees. I just want to take this occasion to thank you and the people at GPO that go to work every day quietly, do their job in a 

quality manner serving the public in responsive and creative ways 

and just thank you for that, and please convey the thanks of this 

committee to your loyal and creative and good serving employees. 

Would you do that for me? 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. I will. Thank you very much. 

Senator KING. Thank you. On behalf of the Rules Committee, I 

want to thank you for your testimony this morning. 

The record on this hearing will remain open for five business 

days for additional comments. There may be post-hearing questions 

submitted in writing for the nominee to answer. We plan to consider this nomination in a timely manner, hopefully within the 

next few days, so the Senate can have an opportunity to confirm 

Mrs. Vance-Cooks as the next Public Printer in an expeditious 

manner. 

With no further business to come before the committee, the committee is adjourned. 

Mrs. VANCE-COOKS. Thank you, sir. 

[Whereupon, at 10:39 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
(17) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 

HEARING—NOMINATIONS OF ANN M. RAVEL 

AND LEE E. GOODMAN TO BE MEMBERS 

OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2013 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 

SR–301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. Schumer, 

Chairman of the committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Schumer, Durbin, Udall, King, Roberts, Cochran, and Blunt. 

Staff Present: Jean Bordewich, Staff Director; Kelly Fado, Deputy Staff Director; Stacy Ettinger, Chief Counsel; Ellen Zeng, Elections Counsel; Sharon Larimer, Assistant to the Staff Director; 

Abbie Sorrendino, Professional Staff; Nicole Tatz, Legislative Correspondent; Matthew McGowan, Professional Staff; Adam Topper, 

Staff Assistant; Mary Suit Jones, Republican Staff Director; Shaun 

Parkin, Republican Deputy Staff Director; Paul Vinovich, Republican Chief Counsel; Sarah Little, Communications Director; Trish 

Kent, Republican Professional Staff; and Rachel Creviston, Republican Professional Staff. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SCHUMER 

Chairman SCHUMER. Now we will begin for two nominees to the 

Federal Election Commission. I ask the witnesses to please take 

their seats at the table, and on today’s agenda is the consideration 

of nominations of Mr. Lee Goodman and Ms. Ann Ravel to be members of the FEC, Federal Election Commission. Before anyone suggests that I might have overlooked the common courtesy of ladies 

before gentlemen, we have introduced the nominees in alphabetical 

order for simplicity’s sake. So, Mr. Goodman and Ms. Ravel, I 

would very much like to welcome you here today, congratulate you 

on your nomination. 

Mr. Goodman, I understand you are accompanied by your family 

members, your wife, Paige Pippin, your daughter, Piper, and your 

son, Kemper. Maybe they can stand so we can say hello. It is such 

a nice family. 

[Applause.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. And I know the three of you are 

proud of your husband and dad, so thanks for coming. 

Ms. Ravel, I understand you, too, have brought family and 

friends your husband, Steve Ravel, your son and daughter-in-law, 

Gabriel Ravel and Katie Marcellus Ravel, your daughter, Shana 

Ravel, and your good friend, Elaine Mielke, and they are a very 

nice family and friends, too, so will you please stand so we can recognize you and thank you for coming. 

[Applause.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. 
40 

I also want to welcome FEC Chair Ellen Weintraub and Commissioner Caroline Hunter, along with FEC Director Alec Palmer. 

Thank you all for coming, and since you do not have your adorable 

families with you, we are not going to ask you to stand, although 

I know they are adorable. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. The nomination of new Federal Election 

Commission members comes at a critical juncture. Originally envisioned as an independent Federal watchdog agency, the FEC of 

today seems to be stuck in its own version of partisan gridlock. As 

we know, by law, no more than three Commissioners can be members of the same political party and at least four votes are required 

for any Commission action. This structure was encouraged to create nonpartisan decisions. We also recognize that three-three deadlock votes are not always unexpected. 

The problem, however, is in recent years, deadlock votes are occurring with increasing frequency, and as a result, enforcement of 

existing campaign finance laws is down significantly. Violators may 

go unpunished. Others may be emboldened to cross the line on our 

campaign finance laws and rules, and that is unacceptable. So, at 

a time when the amount of money in politics, as Senator Udall ably 

noted, is reaching new highs, we must have a functioning FEC. 

The Commission is designed to play a critical role in our campaign finance system. Almost 40 years ago, Congress created the 

FEC to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act, 

and that is the law that governs the financing of Federal elections. 

The agency is tasked with investigating and stopping financial 

campaign abuses. It also ensures disclosure of legally mandated 

campaign finance information, and it audits campaigns and organizations to ensure compliance with our nation’s laws as enacted by 

Congress and interpreted by the courts. The search for compromise 

on each of these functions, we know, is difficult, but it is worth the 

effort. 

I am encouraged by the nomination of two well-qualified candidates testifying before the committee. Your experience with campaign finance issues suggests that both of you have the ability to 

find workable compromises. I hope to hear from both of you that 

you also have the will and desire to do so. 

I strongly urge both nominees to work diligently to restore the 

role of the Federal Election Commission as a fully functioning independent Federal watchdog for the nation’s campaign finance laws. 

It is my hope you will work together with your FEC colleagues to 

find common ground and that the FEC will move past the current 

partisan gridlock. With that, let me turn to Senator Roberts for an 

opening statement, if he wishes to make one. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERTS 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

calling this hearing. 

We do have with us today two very well qualified nominees before us. I have to apologize to both. I know we were to have a personal visit, a courtesy call, and unfortunately, things did not work 

that way with votes. We had the Bob Dole 90th birthday celebration last night, which took a lot of preparation, but at any rate, I 
41 

apologize for that. But you have both answered the questions that 

I submitted to you and I really appreciate that. 

Each brings an impressive legal background, Mr. Chairman, as 

you have said, in the field of election law. And in their prepared 

remarks, they each have expressed a commitment to follow exactly 

your admonition, Mr. Chairman, to follow the law, administer the 

campaign laws in a nonpartisan way. No party can have a majority 

on the FEC. This does require each party to work with the other 

for the Commission to act. It prevents either party from using the 

Commission to target and harass any political opponent. It compels 

collaboration and allows the public and the regulated community to 

have confidence that regulations will be developed and complaints 

considered by a panel that neither party controls. Critics of the 

FEC frequently claim it has been designed to fail. I understand 

that, but I think the critics are wrong. The FEC is not designed 

to fail. It is designed to prevent abuse. That can only be assured 

when each party has an equal voice in its decisions. I hope the 

nominees before us today will recognize that for the Commission to 

function, they must work together to achieve consensus, a tough 

job. 

Should they be confirmed, they will be joining a Commission that 

is now grappling with many important issues. Their decisions will 

impact our citizens’ ability to exercise fundamental constitutional 

rights, the rights to speak and to participate in our democratic 

process. I hope they will approach that task with the seriousness 

it deserves. I am sure they will. I look forward to hearing their remarks. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

Senator Udall. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR UDALL 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Chairman Schumer. Mr. 

Chairman, we really appreciate you holding this hearing today. As 

you know, I am a strong supporter of reforming our campaign finance system. I believe one important step is to have a functioning 

FEC where all six seats are filled with Commissioners in terms 

that have not expired. Regrettably, that has not been the case for 

quite a while. I hope we can begin to change that with today’s 

hearings. 

Comprehensive campaign finance reform is crucial to our democracy, but at the very least, we need to make sure that the FEC is 

enforcing the laws that are on the books. Unfortunately, recent Supreme Court decisions have gutted many of those laws and we 

have seen the devastating impact on our elections. In the Republican Presidential primaries alone last year, super PACs spent over 

$100 million. More than half of that was for negative TV ads, further poisoning our political process, by groups that did not even 

have to say who was paying for all that venom. By billionaires hiding in dark corners with checkbooks open. 

The Supreme Court laid the groundwork for this broken system 

in 1976 with Buckley v. Valeo. Ruling that a restriction on independent campaign spending violated the First Amendment right to 

free speech. In effect, it said money and free speech were the same 
42 

thing. I do not think we can truly fix this broken system until we 

undo that false premise. 

That is why I have again introduced a constitutional amendment. We need to overturn Buckley and the subsequent decisions 

that relied on it. We have also tried to pass more modest reforms, 

such as Senator Whitehouse’s Disclose Act. That bill had 40 cosponsors but could not overcome a filibuster last year. 

Campaign finance reform historically has been a bipartisan 

issue. I hope it will be again. In the meantime, the FEC has a vital 

role to play by diligently enforcing existing laws, and I welcome our 

nominees and look forward to hearing their testimony today. 

Thank you very much, Chairman Schumer. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

Senator Cochran. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COCHRAN 

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you and 

the other members of the committee in welcoming the witnesses 

and am looking forward to our discussion at the hearing. 

Thank you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Cochran. 

Senator King. 

Senator KING. No statement, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Senator Blunt. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BLUNT 

Senator BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, for eight years, I was the Secretary of State in Missouri, which is the chief election official in our 

State. We dealt with the FEC often and with good results during 

that period of time. I am glad to see these two individuals with 

strong backgrounds. An FEC that can meet the hopes of the organization when it was formed is something I think we have not accomplished yet. I’m hopeful with the addition of these two new people, 

we will get a step closer to making the FEC the functioning and 

refereeing group we hoped it would be when it was created. 

I am glad to be here. Thank you for having this hearing today. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Blunt. 

And now, since we have more than two members here, we can 

swear the witnesses in, so will the witnesses please rise and raise 

their right hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are to provide is the truth, 

the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. GOODMAN. I do. 

Ms. RAVEL. I do. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Please be seated. 

We will now hear from our nominees in alphabetical order. First, 

Mr. Goodman, and then Ms. Ravel. Your entire statements will be 

read into the record, so if you can limit your statements to five 

minutes, we would appreciate it. 

Before Mr. Goodman begins, I want to thank a member of this 

committee, Senator Feinstein, who could not be here this morning 

but submitted a statement in support of Ms. Ravel. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Feinstein inserted for the 

record:] 
43 

Chairman SCHUMER. I also want to express my appreciation for 

the letters of support for Mr. Goodman and Ms. Ravel sent in by 

colleagues and friends, so without objection, I will ask Senator 

Feinstein’s statement and letters of support be included in the 

record. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Mr. Goodman, you may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF LEE E. GOODMAN, OF VIRGINIA, NOMINATED 

TO BE A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

FOR A TERM ENDING APRIL 30, 2015 

Mr. GOODMAN. Thank you, Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member 

Roberts, and distinguished members of the committee. It is an 

honor to be President Obama’s nominee for the Federal Election 

Commission. I appreciate Senator McConnell’s recommendation of 

me to the President and the decision of the President to nominate 

me. 

If you will indulge me, Senator Schumer, thank you for recognizing my family. I would like to introduce them myself with a little bit more detail. My wife, Paige, has been a public schoolteacher. 

She teaches civics in Albemarle County, Virginia, for over 20 years 

and she is a high school volleyball coach. 

My daughter, Piper, is a soccer and a volleyball player and she 

gets all As in Latin, which she started taking in the fifth grade. 

And my son, Kemper—we often call him Kemp after my favorite 

politician of the 20th century—he is a Little League all-star catcher. He is a goalie in soccer, and he loves Charles Dickens novels, 

especially Oliver Twist and Pip and Great Expectations. 

My wife and I met at the University of Virginia in the 1980s. We 

both were government majors. We both took classes from Larry 

Sabato, a rather renowned political scientist who, above all things, 

taught me a refrain, and it is on a bumper sticker on our car now 

and it says, ‘‘Politics is a good thing.’’ 

I got involved in politics about 25 years ago upon graduation, 

and since that time, I have worked in politics at virtually all levels 

of politics. I have been a policy and legal advisor to a Governor and 

a State Attorney General. I have been a campaign staffer. My first 

job out of college was working for Vice President Bush’s Political 

Action Committee, the Fund for America’s Future. And I have been 

a lawyer for political party committees and for campaigns, from 

school board members all the way to Presidential campaigns. 

And probably the most influential role I have played in politics 

is being a legal counsel to State and local political parties, where 

I have seen citizens from all walks of life come together to participate in our democratic process. And I know that you know these 

people. They are the people who knock on doors for you. They are 

the people who call. They are the people who put signs in their 

yards. They are the people who give you contributions. 

And what I can tell you from my experience and over 25 years 

of involvement in politics is that I have a deep and abiding respect 

for our American democratic process and respect in the virtue of 

the people who engage in civic participation. And so I have come 

to know what Larry Sabato taught me over 25 years ago, that politics is indeed a good thing. 
44 

Now, to keep it a good thing, Congress created the Federal Election Commission. Senator Schumer, you summarized the history of 

the Federal Election Commission quite appropriately. But the difficulty that has arisen and permeated this field over the years has 

been the delicate balancing between the regulation of politics to 

prevent corruption of it on the one hand and the protection of the 

First Amendment rights of the citizens who participate in our political process on the other. And this has proved a complicated enterprise, not just at the Commission, but for this Congress and for the 

courts who have dealt with these issues. 

If the Senate confirms my nomination, I commit to you that I 

will undertake this balancing role, of balancing First Amendment 

protections against protection of the political system against corruption, with several guiding principles in mind. 

First, the Commission must address legal and factual questions 

without partisan bias. I have represented both Democratic interests and Republican interests in my professional career. 

Second, the Commission’s procedures must be fair. 

Third, the Commission’s regulations must be clear. Many grassroots organizations cannot afford to hire lawyers to guide them 

through a complex set of regulations. 

Fourth, the Commission must fulfill its role to help people comply. 

And, fifth, I will endeavor to serve with integrity, ethically, and 

with civility toward my colleagues on the Commission. 

In conclusion, it would be an honor to serve as a Commissioner 

on the Federal Election Commission. I hope it is the pleasure of 

this committee and the Senate to confirm my nomination, and I 

look forward to answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goodman submitted for the 

record:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. You are a very precise man. You ended at 

exactly five minutes to the second. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Ms. Ravel. 

TESTIMONY OF ANN MILLER RAVEL, OF CALIFORNIA, NOMINATED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION FOR A TERM EXPIRING APRIL 30, 2017 

Ms. RAVEL. Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member Roberts, and 

distinguished members of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, I am very grateful to you for scheduling this hearing 

to consider my nomination to serve on the Federal Election Commission, and I also want to express my deep appreciation to Senator Feinstein for her letter of support and to President Obama for 

his confidence. 

I know you introduced my family that is here today, but I do 

have some family and friends watching in California very early in 

the morning and I would like to mention them, as well. My older 

son, Aaron, and his wife, Simone, and my gorgeous granddaughter, 

two-and-a-half years old, Sofia, are at home, as well as my brother, 

Paul Miller, his wife, Beth, and also my great staff at the California Fair Political Practices Commission, who got up at seven to 

go to the office to watch this. 
45 

It is truly an honor and a privilege for me to be here today. I 

know, having lived in Latin America most of my life, how important it is to live in a country in which the government is truly a 

representative one and in which every citizen has the opportunity 

to take part in the governing process. 

I am the child of two orphans, both of whom grew up in poverty. 

They would have been so proud to see their daughter here today 

sitting in this beautiful chambers as a Presidential nominee to the 

FEC. My parents forever instilled in me a devotion to democratic 

values and public service. 

Through hard work and the opportunities that were afforded to 

him, my father was able to obtain a Ph.D. and ultimately become 

a professor. My mother was an immigrant from Latin America 

when they married and when she became a naturalized citizen, her 

proudest moment and the proudest thing in her life was that she 

could vote in this country and participate in the public political 

process. 

My parents always stressed to me the importance of engaged 

participation in our representative democracy. Throughout my career, I have endeavored to fulfill that charge. I have worked at 

every level of government, as County Counsel, and I was there— 

I hate to admit this—32 years, and after that at the—as a Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice, then the 

California Fair Political Practices Commission. I have devoted decades to independently analyzing, adhering to the language and intent of statutory and case law, and writing and interpreting regulations consistent with law. 

As Chair of the FPPC, to your point, Senator Roberts, I have undertaken an overhaul of complex and sometimes contradictory regulatory scheme to ensure that the regulations support the law 

which was enacted by the public, to make sure that everything is 

consistent with the original intent of the law. 

While at the Department of Justice, I helped to develop a regulatory structure to ensure that legislation that provided compensation to the first responders of 9/11 was properly implemented. I 

met with interested parties, listened to their concerns, analyzed the 

law, and worked to build consensus among stakeholders, particularly consensus that was consistent with Congress’ intent that was 

enshrined in the legislation. 

Throughout my career, I have worked very hard to build consensus and interpret and apply the law in a neutral and evenhanded manner. As County Counsel, I served a politically diverse 

board, and yet my advice was always, above all, clear, unbiased, 

and honest, and the same at the FPPC. I have worked with a very 

politically diverse board and have always achieved consensus. 

If concern—well, thank you very much. Thank you for the invitation to appear, and I am happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ravel was submitted for the 

record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Mr. Goodman has set the model of preciseness—— 

Ms. RAVEL. Yes, he did. He did. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SCHUMER [continuing]. Which you ably followed. Okay. 
46 

Well, let me ask the first round of questions here, and we are 

going to try to limit the questioning to five minutes per member. 

So these questions are for both nominees. 

As I mentioned in my statement, I am extremely concerned about 

the FEC’s failure in recent years to enforce existing campaign finance laws and rules. What actions would you take as an FEC 

Commissioner to ensure effective enforcement of campaign finance 

laws? So, first, Mr. Goodman, then Ms. Ravel. 

Mr. GOODMAN. Well, Senator, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, I am committed to enforcement of the Act as written by 

Congress and I am committed to nonpartisan enforcement of the 

Act. I do not intend to call balls and strikes one way for one party 

and another way for a different party. 

As far as the experience that the FEC has undergone in recent 

years on an increasing number of three-three splits, I do not know 

what the number of those is. I have read some studies that indicate 

that approximately—in approximately 15 percent of the cases, the 

Commission appears to be splitting three-three. Now, we need to 

look at that as somewhat glass half full. That means in 85 percent 

of the time, the Commission is in agreement and there is consensus. One of the reasons why the Commission was built to be 

three-three was so that there would be some consensus requirement between the parties in enforcement decisions. 

I think one reason we have been seeing an increase in threethree splits in recent years is not necessarily because of obstruction 

but because the law has been changing at a rapid pace. Just in the 

last ten years, from the passage of the bipartisan Campaign Finance Act and the McConnell, the FEC decision, we then saw 

changes in the law as applied challenges in Wisconsin Right to 

Life. We then saw Citizens United and we have seen several important decisions that have altered the First Amendment jurisprudence in this area out of the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District 

of Columbia, particularly in the case of Emily’s List and then a 

case following up on Citizens United called Speech Now. 

And the changing First Amendment landscape, I think, has given 

rise to, in some cases, honest disagreements, and the Commission 

is trying to find its way in the wake of those decisions. 

Now, I am committed to making the FEC functional, working for 

compromise, working in a nonpartisan way, but I believe we do 

have to understand the three-three splits in that broader context. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Ms. Ravel. 

Ms. RAVEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of the FEC 

is clearly to instill confidence in the public in the political system, 

and one of the mechanisms for doing that is enforcement of our 

campaign finance laws. And I think that the public perception now 

is that because of some of the stalemate and the difficulty of reaching agreement at the Commission, that those campaign finance 

laws have not been enforced sufficiently. 

I would commit, and I think this is a very important thing to the 

public, they expect the law to be followed as was promulgated by 

Congress and their intent, so I will commit, understanding, of 

course, that there are constitutional First Amendment issues that 

need to be observed and concerned about, but I will commit to work 

very closely with my fellow nominee if we are, in fact, confirmed 
47 

together, and the rest of the Commission, to work very assiduously 

at enforcing those laws. 

Chairman SCHUMER. My time has expired, so Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Piper, I 

am very impressed with your five year commitment to Latin. I had 

to take Latin. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. I think my comments indicate that was not my 

desire. My dad told me that if I took Latin, I would fully understand—better understand the English language. I said, it is a dead 

language, and if I had put the amount of time that I had to study 

in Latin on English, I would get As in English. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. I had to take Latin. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. Dale Kildee, a former member of the House of 

Representatives, was a Latin teacher, and every time I would walk 

down the aisle to see Dale again in the House, he would say, ‘‘Mica, 

mica, parva stella. Miror quaenam sis tam bella,’’ which you know 

is ‘‘Twinkle, twinkle, little star.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. It is the only thing I remember, so I wanted 

to commend you for that. 

All right. One of the questions I sent to the witnesses prior to 

the hearings, and Ms. Ravel addressed some of the statements that 

reflect my concern, I really appreciate the commitment that you 

have expressed to not prejudge matters that may come before the 

FEC. Here is my problem, or my real issue of concern. 

The mere filing of a complaint, even a specious one, will generate 

news coverage. That is just what happens. A political opponent can 

then point to the complaint as if it is somehow evidence of wrongdoing. Senator so-and-so has been accused of, and you know the 

rest of it, as if the accusation itself somehow reflects poorly on the 

subject of the complaint. It is very important, it seems to me, that 

FEC Commissioners withhold judgment on complaints and not publicly comment on them, even though all the pressure from the 

Fourth Estate, until the parties have had a chance to respond and 

all the facts are in. I am assuming you would both agree. Just nod 

your heads. 

Mr. GOODMAN. I do. 

Ms. RAVEL. Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS. I will, something like that. 

Ms. RAVEL. Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS. All right. So, I have your commitment that you 

will withhold judgment and comment while complaints are being 

investigated, and I also want to ask how we treat Internet communications. I understand that in California, and by the way, Ms. 

Ravel, thank you for giving the Chairman, myself, all members of 

the committee more California exposure than we have ever had—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. But at any rate, I understand in California, 

where everything happens first, there is some consideration of a 

regulation that would cover bloggers, requiring them to disclose if 

they have received payments from campaigns. Now, we debated 
48 

this in Congress a couple years ago. Our Majority Leader, Senator 

Reid, actually introduced a bill to exempt Internet communications 

from regulation. The FEC ultimately adopted a regulation that covered only Internet communications that are placed on another person’s site for a fee. 

My question to you, ma’am, is how far are we going to take this 

full disclosure idea? Do we really need to start regulating bloggers, 

or for that matter, texters or tweeters or any other form of communication that is so popular today? Are new Internet regulations 

needed? 

Ms. RAVEL. Thank you very much for the question, Senator Roberts. The California rule that is being proposed, and it has not yet 

been adopted by the Commission, does not regulate bloggers. It regulates the committees that are already regulated under our laws, 

and that regulation that is being proposed, and it is actually going 

to be heard in our August meeting of the Commission, requires 

committees to explain with specificity all payments that are being 

made to organizations and other groups for their political purposes, 

which is consistent with what is already being done in California. 

It is merely explaining more specificity with respect to Internet 

communications, and it does not apply to tweeting or other such 

events that are done on the Internet. 

Senator ROBERTS. I am an old newspaper man. I should have 

said, I am a newspaper man. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Former. 

Senator ROBERTS. Former newspaper man. Former. Former. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The First Amendment covers journalists. 

Ms. RAVEL. Correct. 

Senator ROBERTS. Is a blogger a journalist? 

Ms. RAVEL. Well, there is some question about that, but most 

journalists—most newspapers do not get paid for political opinions 

that are placed in them, say, in their editorials—— 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, you have to have an awful lot of online 

connection to the newspapers, who are getting smaller and smaller 

and they are having a very difficult time to monetize the product. 

I just wonder if, in fact—I went to journalism school. We paid attention to the canons of journalism that were issued by the University of Missouri some time ago. I doubt if any blogger does that, 

any common blogger, whatever that means. 

And that really gets to my question. How do you define a journalist today? Is it a blogger? Is it a tweeter, a texter, and so forth? 

And some of the blogs are extremely popular, as you know. And 

some, I think, would like to be considered as journalists. That is 

an open question. 

Ms. RAVEL. Right. 

Senator ROBERTS. I do not know what the answer is. 

Ms. RAVEL. I agree with you. I do not think that it is a simple 

question, and I have relied on counsel for their analysis in this 

matter. But, as I said, we have received public comment. We will 

receive more public comment at the meeting that we are having to 

discuss this issue—— 

Senator ROBERTS. Right. 
49 

Ms. RAVEL. and so there is no decision that has been made. 

Senator ROBERTS. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I am over a 

minute-twelve, so we will have to call on Mr. Goodman to give me 

more time back. 

Chairman SCHUMER. No, no, he used exactly the right amount. 

Senator ROBERTS. That is my point. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Senator Udall, would you like to ask some 

questions? 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Goodman, there was an editorial recently in the Washington 

Post, on July 14, that said, and I quote, ‘‘Fundamentally, the Republican Commissioners seem not to believe in the campaign finance laws that Congress has passed and that they are bound to 

enforce,’’ and that is the end of the quote. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that that editorial be put into the record. 

[The information of Senator Udall submitted for the record:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Without objection. 

Senator UDALL. Can we receive your commitment that, if confirmed, you will fully enforce all existing campaign finance laws 

and FEC regulations, even if you have personal opposition to a law 

or FEC regulation? 

Mr. GOODMAN. Yes, Senator, you can. I undertake this post with 

the solemnity of knowing that it is a law enforcement post. I would 

not undertake it with any intent to subterfuge the law that I am 

agreeing to enforce. 

Senator UDALL. And are there any existing campaign finance 

laws that you think should be repealed or not enforced, and if so, 

which ones and why? 

Mr. GOODMAN. Well, Senator Roberts addressed some questions 

to Chairman Ravel and to me that gave some examples of some 

that should be repealed, and those were the ones that were squarely and unequivocally held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme 

Court in the Citizens United decision. So, for example, if you look 

in the U.S. Code, and you can look in the Code of Federal Regulations today, three years after the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens 

United, and you can see in 11 CFR Section 114.2(b) an express prohibition against labor unions and corporations from spending 

money to make independent expenditures. There is a law that says 

they cannot spend their treasury funds to expressly advocate to the 

public the election or defeat of any candidate. That regulation, that 

rule of law, was held unconstitutional in Citizens United. 

It has historically been the practice of the Commission to eliminate regulations that have been held unconstitutional, even by 

courts lower than the Supreme Court. So, for example, when the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled three regulations to be unconstitutional and to exceed the Act in a case 

brought by Emily’s List, the Commission thereafter repealed those 

three regulations. 

So that would be a case where I would feel prohibited by the ruling of the Supreme Court from enforcing a law that is still on the 

books. 

Senator UDALL. The unfortunate thing about the Citizens United 

ruling, in my opinion, is that we have now, and the following 
50 

Speech Now ruling, is that we have now reached the point with 

that ruling that corporate treasuries are now in play in terms of 

campaign finance. And so, just to pick one corporation, ExxonMobil 

has $81 billion in its corporate treasury that now can go into the 

campaign system. As you know, in the last election, both the President and all the other Federal officials spent about $6 billion. So 

this is a huge amount of money flooding into the system, and I 

think it corrupts the system. So we are going to have to deal with 

that ruling. I have a constitutional amendment to deal with that, 

but you are also going to have to deal with that as an FEC Commissioner. 

The New York Times recently published an editorial titled, ‘‘Sabotage at the Election Commission.’’ I would ask that that editorial, 

Mr. Chairman, also be included in the record. 

[The information of Senator Udall submitted for the record:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Without objection. 

Senator UDALL. The editorial opposed efforts to take advantage 

of a temporary three-to-two Republican majority on the FEC to 

change the agency’s enforcement rules, including how DOJ and the 

FEC can communicate. What is your opinion of the proposed 

changes to the FEC Enforcement Manual to change how DOJ and 

FEC can communicate? Do you think the Commission should attempt to make substantial changes when there are only five Commissioners with nominees pending Senate confirmation? And I 

would ask you both to answer that. 

Mr. GOODMAN. Senator, I will have to defer judgment on the substance of the manual because there is a long history, there is a 

longstanding Memorandum of Understanding between the FEC 

and the Department of Justice that I have not been privy to. I have 

not read the extant manual and my knowledge of it is essentially 

what I have read in the New York Times and other publications. 

What I would want to be apprised of is the substance of the historical MOU, historical practice within the Commission, and I 

would also want to be apprised of some things I have read in the 

newspaper about whether or not the General Counsel’s Office in 

the Federal Election Commission has been keeping the Commission, its client, apprised of communications with the Department of 

Justice, before I came to a definitive substantive position on how 

that Enforcement Manual should be changed, if at all. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Ms. RAVEL. Thank you, Senator Udall. I have some of the same 

concerns and views that Mr. Goodman has with respect to this 

issue. While I have read the articles in the newspaper, I do not 

know sufficient information relating to the Enforcement Manual 

and the rules of the FEC with regard to voting and what is appropriate in this particular matter. So I would hesitate to make a commitment or a judgment at this moment. 

I would say that at the FPPC, we worked on the case involving 

a theft of a lot of money from 300 committees in California by the 

treasurer and we worked closely with DOJ and with the FBI on 

that matter because a couple Federal candidates were subjects of 

that fraud and that theft. So it would be important to me to see 

what the issues are in this case because I have had some experience in this and think that it worked out very well for California. 
51 

Senator UDALL. Thank you both very much, and we look forward 

to you sorting out this dysfunctional FEC. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

Senator Cochran. 

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me ask the witnesses about a filing requirement of the Campaign Disclosure Parity Act. I am a sponsor of an amendment that 

we were considering offering to this bill that would be equivalent 

to the Campaign Disclosure Parity Act, S. 375. I was a cosponsor 

with other Senators of this bill and it deals with the filing of the 

finance reports directly with the FEC. Currently, Senators file 

their reports with the Secretary of the Senate, and the procedure, 

as I understand it, is printing of the report and distributing it to 

the members of the FEC and others, and I am told that eliminating 

this extra step would save up to $500,000 a year and provide greater transparency in the campaign finance disclosure process. 

I am curious to know whether you think that is a good idea, to 

support that change, or not. Ms. Ravel. 

Ms. RAVEL. Thank you very much, Senator Cochran. I am a very 

strong advocate of e-filing and working very hard to do that in 

California, and I do understand that it saves time, it saves a lot 

of money for the agency, and also gives greater transparency to the 

public, which is one of the core reasons for the existence of the 

FEC. 

However, of course, whatever it is that Congress determines is 

what, if I were confirmed, I would implement. 

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Goodman. 

Mr. GOODMAN. Senator, I certainly defer to the Senate’s judgment on how the Senate wants to regulate itself. But in the 21st 

century, I see local campaigns for House of Delegates and other 

campaigns using electronic filing quite effectively. It does eliminate 

steps. It does aid transparency. It is less expensive to deal with on 

the agency side. And Chairman Ravel and I have already discussed 

one area of agreement, which is to improve the transparency and 

reporting on the FEC’s Web site of campaign data. The Web site 

is a bit dated and a bit clunky. 

So I would, in concept, certainly support the—if it is the Senate’s 

desire to report electronically, I think it is a good idea. 

Senator COCHRAN. Yes. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Cochran. 

Senator Blunt. 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Goodman, I thought actually citing your favorite politician of 

the 20th century was very shrewd because we are all competitive 

and it gives us all a chance to be your favorite politician of the 21st 

century. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GOODMAN. For my third child. 

Senator BLUNT. Exactly. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BLUNT. I had a number of people reach out to me about 

your reliable work over the years and your willingness to work for 

both Democrats and Republicans. One of them is, Harvey 
52 

Tettlebaum, a Republican lawyer in Missouri who has been the 

State Party Counsel among other things. I think you both are also 

involved in some of the same groups, as well. I am pleased you are 

here today. 

Ms. Ravel, the same with you. Your background is an excellent 

one to bring to the Commission. 

You mentioned there were examples of insufficient enforcement 

of campaign finance laws. Do you have some specific examples of 

that? 

Ms. RAVEL. I merely was saying, Senator Blunt, that I had 

heard, because, you know, clearly, I am in California and I do not 

know the specifics of what has transpired at the FEC. But I read 

news reports and that is what I am basing it on. I did not indicate 

that there were specific examples. What my view is, that the public 

perception is, as has been transmitted in some news reports, is 

that there has been insufficient enforcement. So I do not have any 

specific examples. 

Senator BLUNT. The FEC is equally divided, is that right? 

Ms. RAVEL. Yes, it is, sir. 

Senator BLUNT. So it is possible at the FEC to have a tie vote. 

In most agencies, not, but it is possible at the FEC. 

Ms. RAVEL. No question. It is possible. 

Senator BLUNT. And we all understand the reason for that, and 

I am not advocating. 

Ms. RAVEL. Right. 

Senator BLUNT. It is one of the few agencies where actually you 

can wind up with a disagreement with everybody participating, 

whether it is the current moment when there happens to be one 

more person from the other party. It is not usual, and one of the 

few agencies like that. We need the FEC to work, and those of us 

who run for office need it to work in a way that is fair and defends 

us from people doing things outside the law, but at the same time 

allows the discourse of the campaign to occur. 

Ms. RAVEL. Right. 

Senator BLUNT. Have you had any examples in your job in California that you think would be particularly applicable to what you 

will be doing here? 

Ms. RAVEL. Well, I think the best example is that I absolutely 

agree with you that an important aspect of this job is to ensure 

that people participate in politics, and that is not just voters but 

that people can run and run in a way that is not encumbered by 

terribly cumbersome, difficult to understand regulations, and that 

enforcement should be only with respect to those matters that are 

serious and matters that evidence corruption, and not matters that 

are inadvertent mistakes. 

And in California, when I began as the chair, they were clearly 

enforcing against candidates, and, of course, California, these are 

candidates all the way from Water District and School Board to the 

Legislature and the Governor that we oversee. And many of those 

candidates do not have lawyers. They have treasurers who are 

their mother-in-law or, you know, somebody like that, most of 

them. 

And so when I began, I said, we need to make sure that enforcement is fair and that we are not trying to trap people in inad-
53 

vertent mistakes, that we are actually regulating and enforcing 

only the most serious violations of people who are purposely trying 

to flaunt the law. So I believe that my views are consistent with 

yours, Senator, in this instance. 

Senator BLUNT. Well, they certainly are on that issue. One of the 

things we have done in the country in the last 20 years, and many 

of us here have participated in it one way or another, is pass laws 

that essentially criminalize politics and criminalize mistakes that 

people can make. I think that is such an important principle. 

Mr. Goodman, would you like to comment on that? This will be 

my last question here. 

Mr. GOODMAN. Yes, Senator. As I mentioned, in 85 percent of the 

cases, the Commission is in agreement and they are enforcing the 

law. And the area of disagreement is largely permeated by changing First Amendment jurisprudence. The three-three split not only 

protects one side against partisan bias in enforcement, but the 

three-three constitution and sometimes three-three splits also respects philosophical disagreements on how to regulate the process. 

And I think we have to acknowledge that. 

To use a sports analogy, if one team has a great passing offense 

and also gets to set the rules, well, then the linemen are going to 

be able to hold. There will be no bumping by cornerbacks at all of 

the wide receiver, and you can never hit the quarterback. 

Senator BLUNT. Jack Kemp would be proud. 

Mr. GOODMAN. That is right. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I am done. Thank you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. And so would the Buffalo Bills. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Are there any—does anyone wish a second 

round of questioning? 

Senator ROBERTS. I just want to ask unanimous consent that the 

five letters of support from very esteemed friends of Mr. Goodman 

be inserted in the record at this point. 

[Letters submitted for the record:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Without objection. 

Senator ROBERTS. And just to follow up on Senator Blunt’s comments, I think there is a comparability or a commensurate example 

between the FEC and the esteemed Senate Ethics Committee. I 

have been appointed to the Ethics Committee for all of my public 

service in the Senate. I do not know what I have done wrong. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. I have resigned twice. The resignation has not 

been accepted by the leadership. 

And I worry about these ‘‘gotcha’’ opportunities that every campaign, unfortunately, seems to use as a tool in their campaigning, 

and I mentioned this before in my statement. I do not even know 

if we need to ask you for a comment, because I think I know exactly what you are going to say in terms of how you are going to 

hope that the FEC will comport themselves in a way that this does 

not happen, i.e., publicly stating something about somebody’s complaint. Many times, they are specious. 

I will tell you that the Ethics Committee receives complaints 

every day. Most of them are about minutiae. But when that hap-
54 

pens, anybody can file an ethics complaint, and as a result, it gets 

press coverage immediately, and the Senate Ethics Committee then 

sees it in the public domain, whether it be a blog or whether it be 

in print or whether it be anything, and we will investigate it. And 

then that takes about three months, and during that time, why, 

the person who lodged the complaint just pounds the living youknow-what out of his or her opponent. 

We cannot comment on anything. I mean, there are no leaks in 

the Senate Ethics Committee. That has been the way for, what, 14, 

15 years that I have been on it—16. I just do not think that is 

right, and I have always been trying on the Ethics Committee to 

say, let us be very selective about what really is an ethics violation 

as opposed to just open season. 

If people who are looking to run for office, and we are looking 

for good people to run for office, both parties, Independents, whomever, whatever level, my Lord, if they really realized and went 

through the entire Ethics Manual, which I defy anybody to explain—we used to try to do that at the beginning of every Congress. Harry Reid and I tried to do that. Harry Reid and I tried 

to simplify it, the regs on the Ethics Committee. That was a bad 

mistake. We went to the Republican Conference and Harry went to 

the Democratic Caucus and it grew bigger. You open it up and you 

have people putting more stuff in there. 

And now, you have a situation that I think if candidates would 

really take the time for a couple of days to look at all the stuff that 

they have to do and what could happen to them and how much 

they have to reveal, I am not sure they would run. I think there 

is a hindrance there, and I think that factor, there again, of what 

people do with the FEC and with House Ethics Committee—the 

House has two Ethics Committees. What is that all about? We have 

an Ethics Committee first to determine whether or not it should go 

to the Ethics Committee. It is that bad. 

And so I think there is a lot of common sense here that we could 

apply and I hope you both—I know you will, because you have a 

very rich background and you have already declared that. I just 

wanted to express my concern on the record for that, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for that. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, I thank you, and knowing your record 

on the Ethics Committee, I think you would make an outstanding 

nominee to the FEC. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. And I think I might urge Senator McConnell to consider you. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Anyway, all kidding aside, I thank the witnesses for their outstanding testimony. We are going to look forward to working with you for our goal of swift confirmation by the 

full Senate. 

The record is going to remain open for five business days for additional statements and post-hearing questions submitted in writing for the nominees to answer. 

Being there no further business before the committee, the committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:57 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
(55) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 

BUSINESS MEETING—TO CONSIDER THE 

NOMINATION OF DAVITA VANCE-COOKS 

TO BE PUBLIC PRINTER AND S. 375 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2013 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:59 a.m., in Room 

SR–301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. Schumer, 

Chairman of the committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Schumer, Udall, King, Roberts, Cochran, and 

Blunt. 

Staff Present: Jean Bordewich, Staff Director; Kelly Fado, Deputy Staff Director; Stacy Ettinger, Chief Counsel; Ellen Zeng, Elections Counsel; Sharon Larimer, Assistant to the Staff Director; 

Abbie Sorrendino, Professional Staff; Nicole Tatz, Legislative Correspondent; Matthew McGowan, Professional Staff; Adam Topper, 

Staff Assistant; Mary Suit Jones, Republican Staff Director; Shaun 

Parkin, Republican Deputy Staff Director; Paul Vinovich, Republican Chief Counsel; Sarah Little, Communications Director; Trish 

Kent, Republican Professional Staff; and Rachel Creviston, Republican Professional Staff. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SCHUMER 

Chairman SCHUMER. The hearing will come to order. The committee needs a quorum, ten members. We ask the members to 

maybe stay around. We are going to try to round up four more— 

we have six now—so we can actually move forward on these nominees. Then we will go to the hearing but come back into the session 

from the hearing session if we can get ten. 

But, in the meantime, does any Senator wish to make a statement on either the nomination of Davita Vance-Cooks to be Public 

Printer or I know we have some cosponsors of S. 375, the electronic 

filing bill, to require Senate candidates to file designations, statements, and reports in electronic form. I do not have a statement, 

but if you do, go right ahead. 

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement on the 

Campaign Disclosure Parity Act. Is that something that we are 

going to consider this morning, as well? 

Chairman SCHUMER. Yes, it is, indeed. 

Senator ROBERTS. Why do you not go ahead and then I will—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Go ahead, Thad. The Senator from Mississippi and then any of the Senators on our side will be recognized, too. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COCHRAN 

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be one of the 

sponsors of this bill, the Campaign Disclosure Parity Act, and we 

thank you for holding this markup today to consider it. 
87 

Not only does the bill have the support of a group of 34 cosponsors from both parties, including several members of this committee, but it also has the support of the Secretary of the Senate 

and the Federal Elections Commission. 

In a time of sequestration and fiscal restraint, this bill affords an 

opportunity for us to save over $500,000 per year for the Senate 

and the Federal Elections Commission. It would reduce duplicative 

work and would align the filing process for Senate candidates with 

those of political committees and candidates for Federal office, including Presidential candidates and candidates for the U.S. House 

of Representatives. 

I am pleased to join Senator Tester as a cosponsor of this bill and 

I am hopeful the committee will favorably report it to the full Senate. Thank you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Cochran. 

Senator Udall, do you want to make a statement? 

Senator UDALL. My statement is on the FEC nominees. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. Senator Roberts, and then Senator King. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERTS 

Senator ROBERTS. I only say that it always is of some concern to 

me that when we go down the road to reform and we wave the banner of reform, we want to see what is underneath it, and I think 

there is something called the First Amendment there and I want 

to make sure that we appreciate that fact. 

Thank you for your leadership, and I hope we can get a quorum 

of ten to finish our business. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

I will also ask, Senator King, do you wish to make an opening 

statement? 

Senator KING. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Senator Blunt. 

Senator BLUNT. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. It is long past time for Senate candidates to file campaign reports in the same way as every other 

Federal candidate has for years. The Senate’s current system is 

stuck in the past and wastes over half-a-million tax dollars a year 

to perpetuate a redundant, slow, and completely unnecessary process that prevents the public from seeing Senate candidates’ expenditures for more than a month after the reports are already online. 

At a time when Federal budgets have been slashed and savings are 

being sought, there is no reason to continue. 

And I want to thank Senator Tester for his strong leadership on 

this issue. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. We do not have a quorum, so I think 

we will go on to the hearing. 

Okay. So, we have to go into recess. I would now recess our 

markup subject to the call of the chair. What we will try to do is 

assemble a quorum of ten, since I do not think we will get it this 

morning, off the floor when we have one of the votes, and I would 

urge the members here and all other members whose staff is here 

to please cooperate. As you know, we are trying to move nomina-
88 

tions. These are non-controversial nominations, and so if we could 

move them quickly, that would be of great help. 

With that, we are recessed. 

[Whereupon, at 10:06 a.m., the committee recessed, subject to the 

call of the chair.] 

The committee reconvened, at 4:05 p.m., July 24, 2013, in Room 

S–217, United States Capitol Building, Hon. Charles E. Schumer, 

chairman of the committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Schumer, Roberts, Durbin, Murray, 

Chambliss, Pryor, Tom Udall, Warner, Leahy, Klobuchar, and King 

Staff Present: Jean Bordewich, Staff Director; Kelly Fado, Deputy Staff Director; Stacy Ettinger, Chief Counsel; Abbie Sorrendino, 

Legislative Assistant; Mary Jones, Republican Staff Director; 

Shaun Parkin, Republican Deputy Staff Director; Paul Vinovich, 

Republican Chief Counsel; Rachel Creviston, Republican Professional Staff, and Adam Topper, Staff Assistant. 

Chairman SCHUMER. We now have a quorum of 10 Members to 

continue our markup. 

Is there any further debate on the nomination of Davita VanceCooks to be the public printer? 

The question is on reporting the nomination favorably to the 

Senate. Unless there is a request for a roll call vote, this will be 

a voice vote. 

Chairman SCHUMER. All in favor, say aye. 

[A chorus of ayes.] 

All opposed, say nay. 

Chairman SCHUMER. The ayes have it. The nomination is ordered 

favorably reported to the Senate with the recommendation that the 

nominee be confirmed. 

The second item is S. 375. Unless there is a request for a roll 

call vote, this will be a voice vote. Is there any further debate on 

S.375, a bill to require Senate candidates to file their campaign reports directly with the Federal Election Commission in electronic 

format, rather than on paper with the Secretary of the Senate? 

The question is on reporting S. 375 favorably to the Senate. 

Chairman SCHUMER. All in favor, say aye. 

[A chorus of ayes.] 

All opposed, say nay. 

The Ayes have it. S. 375 is ordered reported to the Senate. 

I want to thank everyone for coming. The meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:14 p.m., the committee adjourned.] 
89 

BUSINESS MEETING—TO CONSIDER THE 

NOMINATIONS OF ANN M. RAVEL AND LEE E. 

GOODMAN TO BE MEMBERS OF THE 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

AND S. RES. 229 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, Washington, DC. 

The committee met pursuant to notice, at 11:01 a.m., in room S– 

219, United States Capitol, Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman of 

the committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Schumer, Murray, Klobuchar, King, Roberts, 

Cochran, Chambliss, Alexander, Shelby, Blunt. 

Staff Present: Jean Bordewich, Staff Director; Kelly Fado, Deputy Staff Director; Stacy Ettinger, Chief Counsel; Abbie Sorrendino, 

Legislative Assistant; Mary Jones, Republican Staff Director; 

Shaun Parkin, Republican Deputy Staff Director; Paul Vinovich, 

Republican Chief Counsel; Sarah Little, Republican Communications Director; Rachel Creviston, Republican Professional Staff, and 

Adam Topper, Staff Assistant. 

Chairman SCHUMER. We now have a quorum of 10 Members to 

continue our markup. We will consider the two FEC nominations 

individually, followed by consideration of two resolutions related to 

committee funding. 

Unless anyone objects, my statement regarding the markup of 

the two FEC nominees will be included in the Committee record. 

[So ordered.] 

Is there any further debate on the nominations of Lee Goodman 

or Ann Ravel to be Members of the Federal Election Commission? 

The question is on reporting the nominations favorably to the 

Senate. Unless there is a request for a roll call vote, this will be 

a voice vote. 

First up for consideration is Mr. Lee Goodman. 

All in favor, say aye. 

[A chorus of ayes.] 

All opposed, say nay. 

The ayes have it. The nomination of Mr. Lee Goodman is ordered 

favorably reported to the Senate with the recommendation that the 

nominee be confirmed. 

Next up for consideration is Ms. Ann Ravel. 

All in favor, say aye. 

[A chorus of ayes.] 

All opposed, say nay. 

The Ayes have it. The resolution is ordered reported to the Senate. 

The final item for consideration is an original resolution authorizing expenditures by the Committee on Rules and Administration 

for the remainder of the 113th Congress. 
90 

For Fiscal Year 2014, the amount is not to exceed $2,334,743, 

and the same amount is pro-rated for the first five months of Fiscal 

Year 2015.This is the same level as the current expenditure guidance. 

Is there any further debate on the resolution authorizing expenditures by the Committee on Rules and Administration for the remainder of the 113th Congress? 

The question is on reporting the resolution favorably to the Senate. Unless there is a request for a roll call vote, this will be a voice 

vote. 

All in favor, say aye. 

[A chorus of ayes.] 

All opposed, say nay. 

The Ayes have it. The resolution is ordered reported to the Senate. 

I want to thank everyone for coming. Before I adjourn, I am 

going to ask our Ranking Member, Senator Roberts, whether he 

wishes to make any remarks. 

Thank you. The meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:09 a.m., the committee adjourned.] 
91 

BUSINESS MEETING—TO CONSIDER S. RES. 

253, AN ORIGINAL RESOLUTION 

AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURES 

OF SENATE COMMITTEES 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

SR–301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. Schumer, 

Chairman of the committee, presiding. 

Present: Senator Schumer. 

Staff Present: Jean Bordewich, Staff Director; Kelly Fado, Deputy Staff Director; Stacy Ettinger, Chief Counsel; Abbie Sorrendino, 

Professional Staff; Lynden Armstrong, Chief Clerk; Adam Topper, 

Staff Assistant; Mary Jones, Republican Staff Director; Shaun 

Parkin, Republican Deputy Staff Director; Paul Vinovich, Republican Chief Counsel; Sarah Little, Communications Director; Trish 

Kent, Republican Professional Staff; and Rachel Creviston, Republican Professional Staff. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SCHUMER 

Chairman SCHUMER. All right, the Committee will come to order. 

We do not have a quorum of ten members present. We cannot 

proceed to vote on the item, the Omnibus Committee Funding Resolution, on the announced agenda for this business meeting. 

Since a quorum is not present, the Committee will recess, subject 

to the call of the Chair, take up this matter when we can obtain 

a quorum. 

I intend to convene another meeting, most likely immediately 

after the 11:45 judge vote on the Senate floor. 

The Committee stands in recess, subject to the call of the Chair. 

[Whereupon, at 10:05 a.m., the Committee was recessed.] 

The committee reconvened, at 11:55 a.m., September 24, 2013, in 

Room S–219, United States Capitol Building, Hon. Charles E. 

Schumer, chairman of the committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Schumer, Feinstein, Durbin, Murray, Pryor, 

Leahy, Klobuchar, King, Roberts, Cochran, and Alexander. 

Chairman SCHUMER. We have a quorum of ten members. Is there 

any further debate on the resolution authorizing the reporting of 

committee funding resolutions for the period October 1, 2013, 

through February 28, 2015? 

Chairman SCHUMER. The question is on reporting the resolution 

favorably to the Senate. Unless there is a request for a roll call 

vote, this will be a voice vote. Is there a second? 

Senator ROBERTS. Second. 

Chairman SCHUMER. All in favor say ‘‘aye.’’ 

[A chorus of ‘‘ayes’’.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. All opposed? 

[No response.] 
92 

Chairman SCHUMER. The ayes have it. The resolution is ordered 

reported to the Senate. 

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
93 

HEARING—NOMINATIONS OF THOMAS HICKS 

AND MYRNA PE ́ REZ TO BE MEMBERS OF THE 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2013 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

SR–301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Angus King, presiding. 

Present: Senators King and Roberts. 

Staff Present: Jean Bordewich, Staff Director; Stacy Ettinger, 

Chief Counsel; Veronica Gillespie, Elections Counsel; Abbie 

Sorrendino, Professional Staff; Phillip Rumsey, Staff Assistant; 

Lynden Armstrong, Chief Clerk; Matthew McGowan, Professional 

Staff; Mary Suit Jones, Republican Staff Director; Shaun Parkin, 

Republican Deputy Staff Director; Paul Vinovich, Republican Chief 

Counsel; Trish Kent, Republican Professional Staff; and Rachel 

Creviston, Republican Professional Staff. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF ACTING CHAIRMAN KING 

Senator KING. The Rules Committee will please come to order. 

Good morning. 

I would like to ask the witnesses to be at the table, which I see 

that they are, and on today’s agenda is the consideration of the 

nominations of Mr. Thomas Hicks and Ms. Myrna Pe ́rez, to be 

members of the Election Assistance Commission. 

As we now have at least two members present, I will proceed to 

swear in the nominees. I know that members have other places to 

go, and I want to swear in our witnesses promptly. After the 

swearing in, we will move to opening remarks from the committee 

members. 

So, if our witnesses could stand and raise your right hand. Do 

you swear that the testimony you are to provide is the truth, the 

whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. HICKS. I do. 

Ms. PE ́ REZ. I do. 

Senator KING. Thank you. Please be seated. 

Mr. Hicks and Ms. Pe ́rez, I would like to welcome you both here 

today and congratulate you on your nomination to be members of 

the Election Assistance Commission. 

I would also like to welcome both of your families who have 

joined you here today. Mr. Hicks, I understand that you are accompanied by your parents, Annie and Bennie Hicks, along with your 

daughters, Lizzie and Meg, and your son, Eddie Hicks, and if you 

would like, could your family please rise and be acknowledged. 

Thank you. Glad to have you here with us today. We appreciate 

your coming, especially Lizzie and Meg. Glad to have you here. 
94 

And, Ms. Pe ́rez, I understand you are accompanied by your husband, Mark Muntzel, and your son, Diego, and if you could stand, 

please. Welcome to both of you. 

Ms. PE ́ REZ. They are actually still parking right now. 

Senator KING. Oh, they are parking. Well, they will be ready 

here to join us. 

Elections are at the heart of our democratic system. Citizens 

need to be confident that elections are being conducted in a free 

and fair manner. 

This Commission was established by the Help America Vote Act 

of 2002. The EAC was created to be an independent, bipartisan 

commission charged with a number of responsibilities, including 

developing guidelines to meet HAVA requirements, adopting voluntary voting system guidelines, and serving, importantly, as a national clearinghouse of information on election administration. 

The EAC has four Commissioner positions, two allocated to the 

Democrats and two for Republicans, with candidates recommended 

by Congress—to Congress to the President. The EAC has not had 

a quorum since late 2010 and has had no Commissioners since December of 2011. Without a quorum, the EAC has not been able to 

fill the positions of Executive Director and General Counsel. The 

Standards Board and the Board of Advisors to the EAC, composed 

of State and local election officials and members of the broader 

elections community, have been unable to convene and do their 

work. 

While election administration in the United States is decentralized, the primary responsibility for conducting elections falls on 

State and local election officials. But we also must ensure that the 

Federal Government is able to fulfill its election-related responsibilities. While most of the original funds designated by HAVA to 

upgrade elections systems in the States have been distributed, 

many of the important functions of the EAC remain. 

The Election Administration and Voting Survey, which is compiled from data supplied from every election jurisdiction, provides 

the only comprehensive picture of election administration across 

the country and has won widespread acclaim from election officials, 

scholars, and other experts as a valuable source of information. 

Additionally, all States have access to the state-of-the-art EAC 

testing and certification program. The law in some States requires 

the use of Federally certified voting systems. Elsewhere, State and 

local officials may not have the resources to detect voting system 

problems on their own, and the EAC can examine whether they are 

getting fair prices, quality equipment, and good service from the 

vendors they hire. This program will become increasingly important as existing voting systems become obsolete and States must 

buy new ones in the near future. 

The EAC’s work to broaden access for voters with disabilities and 

language minorities has saved money for local jurisdictions that 

may otherwise be required to pay for this work themselves. 

And, finally, and, I believe, importantly, the clearinghouse function of the agency can help highlight innovation at the State and 

local levels. As a former Governor, I often observed the lack of information that flows between the States. I used to say that Jeffer-
95 

son characterized the States as the laboratories of democracy, but 

nobody reads the lab reports. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KING. There is very little communication, and I think 

one important function this Commission can provide is as a clearinghouse of best practices from across the country. 

As local budgets are increasingly strained, the importance of 

identifying best practices and sharing information becomes even 

more important because it helps local and State election officials do 

their jobs as cost effectively as possible. 

I am pleased that we have two well-qualified candidates that 

have been nominated and are testifying before the committee 

today. I understand that there are questions about the continued 

efficacy of the Commission itself and I suspect that we will have 

statements raising those questions, but today, we want to focus on 

these two nominees. But I welcome the comments of my colleague, 

Senator Roberts, and would call upon him for opening remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERTS 

Senator ROBERTS. I want to thank the Acting Chairman. 

I want to make it very clear that none of my comments is a reflection of the nominees’ experience and commitment and ability 

and desire to serve. Nevertheless, it seems like we have been here 

before. It sounds like a song. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. But, at any rate, this is the second time that 

our witnesses have been before the committee as nominees for this 

Commission. We previously had a confirmation hearing for the 

nominees in June of 2011. Welcome back. I do not know what to 

call this. I think maybe ‘‘nomination purgatory’’ might be appropriate. 

One significant difference today is the absence of a Republican 

nominee. As the Acting Chairman has pointed out, the Election Assistance Commission was established as a bipartisan commission, 

intended to be evenly divided with two Republicans and two Democrats acting as Commissioners. 

As my colleague, Senator Alexander, ably demonstrated at the 

hearing over two years ago, the Election Assistance Commission 

has fulfilled its purpose and should be eliminated. As I say again, 

no reflection on the nominees. At that hearing, while Republicans 

on this committee called for hearings to examine the need for this 

Commission, something that you might think would be pretty 

basic, those hearings have never happened, Mr. Chairman. Instead, 

we are back here over two years later with the very same nominees. I think we owe you an apology. 

This committee has never had an oversight hearing on the EAC, 

never. Despite its now expired authorization, we have never examined the real continuing need for this Commission or considered 

whether any remaining responsibilities could be taken on by other 

agencies, or as the Chairman has ably pointed out, the State laboratories, with regard to elections. We cannot apparently be bothered to perform these basic oversight obligations. 

Nominations to commissions like this have normally been paired 

with a Republican nominee joined to a Democrat. Because Repub-
96 

licans have called for the elimination of the agency, we simply have 

not put forward any new nominees. Now, in light of our new rules, 

51–50, the majority can, if they choose, do whatever they would 

like to do and move these nominations with no minority support 

and no Republican pair, something I hope does not happen. That 

presents a problem for us in that it puts us in the position of having to make appointments to a commission that we do not think 

is necessary or otherwise simply allow the majority to make its 

own appointments and thereby control the Commission. While I do 

not think we need this Commission, I do believe that if it is going 

to exist, it must be balanced. 

And the curious thing about the nominations before us today is 

that Republicans do not seem to be the only ones who have questioned the need for this Commission. Democrats do not seem to 

have much regard for the EAC, either, though that lack of regard 

has been expressed in deed rather than word. These nominations 

had been made by the President of the United States, yet when the 

President wanted an examination of the problems in the 2012 election, did he turn to the EAC? No, he did not. In fact, in March of 

this year, he created a new commission by Executive Order, the 

Presidential Commission on Election Administration. 

Compare the two missions. The Acting Chairman correctly stated 

the mission of the EAC, but according to the President’s Commission on Election Administration, the Commission , ‘‘shall identify 

best practices and otherwise make recommendations to promote 

the efficient administration of elections in order to ensure that all 

eligible voters have the opportunity to cast their ballots without 

undue delay and to improve the experience of voters facing other 

obstacles in casting their ballots, such as members of the military, 

overseas voters, voters with disabilities, and voters with limited 

English proficiency.’’ Wait a minute. Is that not what the EAC is 

for? Do we need two commissions for this? If President Obama does 

not think the EAC can do its job, why is he making new nominations to it? 

Even my majority colleagues here on this committee do not seem 

to have much regard for the EAC, and fortunately, last week, I received a letter from the Government Accountability Office advising 

me that they were conducting a study into the impact of voter ID 

requirements, alleged voter suppression in Kansas and Tennessee. 

The study was initiated at the request of some majority members 

of this committee, including its Chairman. 

So, think about that for a minute. We are here today because the 

majority says we need to preserve the EAC, but when majority 

members of this committee want a study done on a voting issue, 

they do not think the EAC apparently is up to the task. If they 

think the GAO is better able to do these studies, why do we need 

the EAC? Or, if the EAC can do the job, why are we writing the 

letter to the GAO? 

This is a sad state of affairs. It is embarrassing to this member. 

I think it is embarrassing to the Acting Chairman, hopefully, 

maybe, or at least of interest. And the same for the nominees. 

If the majority sees the light, maybe we can finally both eliminate this Commission and save the taxpayers some money, or if the 

majority persists in pursuing these nominees through, we may be 
97 

back here for another confirmation hearing to ensure the Commission maintains some measure of balance. Only time will tell. I urge 

the Acting Chairman to talk with his leadership. I have already 

talked with ours, and only time will tell, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, I apologize to the nominees. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Senator Roberts. I understand the 

concerns that you raise and I think that is a—I think the issues 

of the efficacy and continued necessity of the Commission are ones 

that the committee should discuss, and I certainly will use my best 

efforts to see that occur. But, as you point out, we have the nominees before us today, and perhaps part of their testimony can be 

helpful to us in understanding the role of this Commission and how 

it can be effective and important in improving election administration. 

Chairman Schumer is unable to attend today’s hearing. He asked 

that I convey his congratulations and best wishes to both of you, 

and without objection, I ask that his statement be submitted for 

the record. Hearing none, Chairman Schumer’s statement will appear in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Schumer was submitted 

for the record:] 

Senator KING. We will now hear from our nominees, first, Mr. 

Hicks, and then Ms. Pe ́rez. Your entire statements will be entered 

into the record, so please limit your remarks to five minutes and 

then we will have a chance to have some discussion. 

Mr. Hicks, please proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS HICKS, OF VIRGINIA, NOMINATED TO 

BE A MEMBER OF THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

FOR A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 12, 2017 

Mr. HICKS. Good morning, Chairman King, Ranking Member 

Roberts. Thank you for holding this hearing on my nomination to 

serve on the United States Election Assistance Commission. I am 

truly honored to be a nominee to serve on the Commission. I look 

forward to the opportunity to testify on my qualifications and interest in becoming an EAC Commissioner. 

I thank House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi for resubmitting 

my name to the President and for the President for submitting my 

nomination to the Senate. I thank members of the Committee on 

House Administration for supporting my nomination, including 

Ranking Member Bob Brady and past Ranking Members Steny 

Hoyer and John Larson. I thank other members from both sides of 

the aisle and chambers, a list that is too long to enumerate, who 

have not only supported and encouraged my nomination, but 

helped me throughout my career in Washington. 

My interest in elections started as a child, when my mother 

brought my brother and me into a voting booth and pulled the 

lever. She gently reminded us that when she was growing up in 

Southern Georgia, it was a lot harder for minorities to vote than 

on that day when she voted for President Jimmy Carter. I was able 

to share the story with President Carter a few years ago. The ability to help facilitate access to our voting systems, the cornerstone 

of our participatory system of government, for all eligible Americans continues to be a strong motivating factor in my career. 
98 

Over the last ten-plus years, I have worked at the Committee on 

House Administration, the equivalent committee in the House to 

Senate Rules and Administration. I interviewed for the job the day 

after my oldest daughter was born. My primary responsibility is 

advising and providing guidance to the committee and members 

and caucus on election issues. Prior to that, I worked at Common 

Cause, a nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy organization that empowers citizens to make their voices heard in the political process and 

to hold the elected leaders accountable to the public interest. I 

enjoy working with State and local election officials, civil rights organizations, and other stakeholders to improve the voting process. 

I believe in the Election Assistance Commission. I believe in the 

primary mission of the agency, ensuring all eligible Americans 

have the information needed to register to vote, cast a ballot, and 

have that ballot counted. Whether those Americans are voting in 

New Hampshire, Maine, California, Georgia, or Afghanistan, they 

should have the same confidence that their ballots are being counted. I believe our elections must be administered in a manner that 

ensures accuracy while allowing for openness and transparency. I 

also believe the process should ensure malicious actions are prevented from influencing the final outcome of our elections. This is 

a challenge that must be accomplished with small budgets and 

without the option of failure. Elections do not allow for do-overs. 

Above all else, we must always uphold the public’s trust and ensure confidence in the process. 

Through my present job of Senior Elections Counsel, I have communicated with Americans in every State about voting experiences. 

I have worked with State and local election officials across America 

to address critical election concerns. I have had a unique opportunity to work and speak with Americans overseas concerning the 

obstacles they face in registering to vote and casting their ballots. 

Should I be confirmed, I will use this knowledge and experience in 

my role as an EAC Commissioner. 

I believe that, regardless of partisan ideology and political affiliation, we all want the same thing, fair, accurate elections where we 

are confident of the outcome and all eligible Americans, domestic 

and overseas, are able to participate in our process, the best in the 

world. Should I be confirmed, I hope to use the lessons learned in 

life and my experience to continue working to achieve this goal. 

Lastly, I would like to thank my mother and father, both now retired and enjoying the love and admiration of their grandchildren, 

and I would also like to acknowledge, again, my three children, 

Elizabeth, 10, Megan, 7, and Eddie, 5. I am most gratified that 

their experiences with voting and participating in our electoral system will be far different from that of their grandmother. 

Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any and all questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hicks submitted for the record:] 

Senator KING. Thank you, Mr. Hicks. 

Ms. Pe ́rez, your statement, please. 
99 

TESTIMONY OF MYRNA PE ́ REZ, OF TEXAS, NOMINATED TO BE 

A MEMBER OF THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

FOR A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 12, 2015 

Ms. PE ́ REZ. Thank you, Senator King. Thank you, Senator Roberts. Thank you for holding this hearing and giving me the opportunity to discuss with you my qualifications to serve on the U.S. 

Election Assistance Commission. I care deeply about the fair, impartial, and accurate administration of elections and I would be 

honored at the chance to serve, should the Senate choose to confirm 

my nomination. 

I have been extremely fortunate in my life and career. I am a native Texan, a resident of New Jersey, and a lawyer working in New 

York City. My parents were born in Mexico and moved to the 

United States as children and grew up with limited means. They 

raised me and my brother to be proud Americans in an environment which respected public service. My father served in the U.S. 

Air Force and worked many years for county government. My 

mother works for the U.S. Postal Service. And they made possible 

my ability to attend Yale College, Harvard University’s School of 

Government, my ability to attend law school at Columbia, and for 

my brother to pursue a career in law enforcement. 

I have been given a great many gifts and I believe that responsible stewardship of those gifts means I must explore opportunities 

to use my good fortune in service of others, whether it be by correcting Bible study lessons for people in prison, or serving breakfasts to those in my neighborhood who are food insecure, or in a 

variety of many other ways through my professional experiences in 

the private, nonprofit, and government sector. 

It is with great gratitude that I experience your consideration for 

the opportunity to serve my country and the democratic principles 

for which it stands. 

Elections are the cornerstone of our democracy and all Americans 

have an interest in their efficient and secure administration. Administering elections, however, is a difficult task. State and Federal election laws governing election administration are complicated. Resources for election administration are scarce. The technology is always changing. And it can be challenging to inoculate 

the administration of elections from the politics of elections. 

The EAC’s mission, in my view, is to provide resources and reliable information to election administrators and voters on issues of 

election administration. I believe I can further that mission because I understand election administration from a variety of perspectives. 

My interest in voting and election administration started the 

summer in college that I worked for my county’s election administration office, processing registration forms and identifying potential polling locations. Professionally, as a Deputy Director of the 

Democracy Program and the Director of the Voting Rights and 

Election Project at the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice at 

NYU’s School of Law, I represent voters, talk frequently with election administrators, study Federal and State election laws, and research election practices. 

Congress gave the EAC the duties of conducting research, collecting and disseminating information, certifying voting systems, 
100 

and maintaining the Federal form. I have certain skills which I 

think will be very useful to the EAC in performing these duties, if 

I am confirmed. 

First, I have substantial experience in researching and collecting 

and disseminating information. I was a Policy Analyst for the GAO 

and I had to perform qualitative and quantitative research on 

issues requested by Congress. At the Brennan Center, I conduct research on election administration and I have to pay close attention 

to methodologies and make information accessible to a variety of 

audiences. 

I also have a deep subject matter knowledge on issues related to 

election administration. I have spent the better part of the past 

seven years working on issues related to election administration, 

from list maintenance efforts to statewide voter registration databases. And while my focus has been on the experiences of voters, 

one cannot effectively serve voters without understanding the realities faced by election administrators. 

Finally, I have strong strategic and public management skills. In 

my personal and professional life, I have worked for organizations 

where resources are limited, the organizational purpose has been 

defined, and the operational environment has been key to mission 

achievement, very much like the EAC. 

It would be premature for me to commit to any particular course 

of action without being more familiar with the internal workings 

of the EAC and talking with State and local election administrators 

who are the end users of the EAC services, but I can tell you that, 

if confirmed, my approach to my role and duties would reflect the 

following. 

A clear understanding of the role of the EAC. State and Federal 

laws govern election administration, not the EAC. It is my view 

that the EAC will function best if it focuses on the nuts and bolts 

of election administration and is not distracted by questions that 

are best suited for the legislatures and the courts. 

A desire to work closely with election administrators. I have a 

great deal of respect for the work that they do, and part of my job 

involves learning from them on almost a daily basis. 

A responsible attitude toward public funds. These are tough fiscal times and I will expect the EAC to use its resources effectively 

and thoughtfully. I will work with others to make sure that its administration is top notch. 

And, finally, a respect for data. My work on election administration is guided by research about what works and what does not. 

I would ensure that any advice and assistance provided to election 

administrators be thoughtful and well researched. 

A significant part of my career has been dedicated to protecting 

and preserving the right to vote and improving our election system. 

As a voter, as a person who has represented voters, I know that 

election administration is critically important to our democracy. 

The EAC, if operating well, is a valuable resource to election administrators because of its nationwide scope, targeted focus, and 

expressly delineated responsibilities. 

If confirmed, I would look forward to working collaboratively 

with the members of this committee to achieve the goal of an efficient and effective EAC. 
101 

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today, and 

I am very pleased to respond to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pe ́rez was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator KING. Each of us will have a round of questions. 

This is an unusual situation in that—I cannot speak for my colleague, but for myself, each of you is superbly qualified by a variety 

of different backgrounds and, I think, complement one another. The 

issue, really, is the effectiveness and the necessity for the Commission. So, that is what I want to address my questions to. 

I would like to ask both of you, let us change the focus of this 

hearing from you to the Commission, and the basic question before 

us that I think is going to be discussed on an ongoing basis is why 

we need this Commission and what role do you think that it plays 

in our democratic system. Mr. Hicks, do you want to tackle that. 

Mr. HICKS. Thank you, Chairman King. The Commission is still 

needed. We have elections every two years, and every two years, 

there are similar problems that occur. Ranking Member Roberts 

talked a little bit about the President having a Commission on 

Elections, as well, but the truth of that is that the commission only 

exists for six months. They are tasked with a very narrow scope of 

issues that they have to face, mostly long lines. 

The EAC delves into all sorts of aspects in the administration of 

elections. They are the only place in the Federal Government that 

certifies voting equipment. They are the only place that is the 

clearinghouse for a lot of the information that State and local election officials depend upon in their smaller budgets to get out to 

their constituents and make their elections run more effectively. 

The agency itself, like all Federal agencies, has certain problems 

that I think need to be addressed, and if I am confirmed, I hope 

to address those problems. One of the added features that I have 

had the opportunity to work on in my role as Senior Elections 

Counsel and observed from afar, because I have had to recuse myself from a lot of these things, is the fact that our committee, the 

Democrats on the committee offered a bill to reform the EAC to address a lot of the problems that Senator Roberts addressed and a 

lot of the other members have talked about. So, I think that looking at reforming the agency in the way that makes it more effective 

to address the needs that the American people have, because we 

are not running elections as we were ten years ago and those problems that were occurring in Florida. 

There are people who still support the agency, a lot of State and 

local election officials, a lot of Democrats, and some Republicans, 

as well, and I hope to be confirmed so that we can move the agency 

forward. 

Senator KING. Ms. Pe ́rez, would you like to make a statement 

on—not on your own qualifications, which are impressive, but on 

the importance of the agency as you have studied and reviewed it. 

Ms. PE ́ REZ. Certainly, Senator King. Our elections are a source 

of national pride and international inspiration, and we have our 

election administrators, thousands of them at the State and local 

level across the country to thank. And, currently, they are underresourced. In these tight fiscal times, their budgets are increasingly 

being cut and yet elections are dynamic. It is constantly changing. 
102 

The technology is changing. The laws that they operate under are 

changing. They have staff turnover. And they simply do not have 

the resources to be able to perform all of their incredibly important 

functions. 

A national organization is incredibly useful, if it is operating 

well, to the achievement of that task. Its national scope allows it 

to have a birdseye view and connect far flung offices such that best 

practices can be shared, ideas for innovation can be shared, people 

can learn what it is that they do not know and the way some of 

their partners in other States are handling some of the important 

matters of the day. 

Beyond that, there are economies of scale and economies of scope 

that accrue when you have one national organization doing incredibly resource-intensive activities, and I am thinking primarily of 

voting system certification. It should not be the case that we need 

to reinvent the wheel 50 times and have each State come up with 

its own system of testing and certification, just for something as 

foundational as making sure that our voting systems are secure 

and reliable. 

The EAC has the opportunity to be able to provide important resources for State and local election officials at a time where they 

need those resources and when the American public is demanding 

good customer service in the realm of election administration. 

Senator KING. As I understand both of your answers, the agency 

is not regulatory in the sense of issuing regulations that are binding on States or localities. It is more information providing and 

then the function that you just mentioned, of being the kind of Underwriter Laboratories of voting machines. Is that accurate, that it 

is not a regulatory agency? 

Ms. PE ́ REZ. Certainly, the enabling legislation sets forth a number of responsibilities, including conducting studies, serving as a 

clearinghouse, maintaining the Federal form, and certifying voting 

systems. The EAC does not set policy, but it does provide resources 

to election administrators who have a very difficult task that is 

constantly changing in a dynamic environment. 

Senator KING. Mr. Hicks. 

Mr. HICKS. The only piece I would add is that the EAC does have 

a small piece of regulatory authority with the National Voter Registration Act, and that is it. All the other pieces are just basically 

providing guidance and resources to the States. 

Senator KING. Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, thank you both for your statements and 

for coming. 

Mr. Chairman, the EAC has been in operation since 2002, I 

think. The primary purpose, as I recall, was to distribute grants to 

States so they can better serve their people with regard to voter 

participation and to eliminate voter fraud and the sanctity of the 

ballot. But those funds are not forthcoming anymore and those 

grants have been distributed. 

Again, I remember taking part in the Motor Voter legislation. Al 

Swift, a Democrat friend of mine from Washington, and myself, as 

the Ranking Member then in the House, we had considerable debate. 
103 

I just mention this to—I wish we could have a real hearing with 

regard to the need for the EAC. I am not trying to denigrate it, I 

am just saying we have never done that. 

Let me just ask the question of both of you: Do you agree the 

EAC must operate in a bipartisan fashion? Obviously, the answer 

to that is yes. We can get past that pretty quickly, probably. But, 

how would you work toward that goal if the leadership on both 

sides can come to some kind of an agreement as to whether we go 

forward or whether we have a hearing and get you in a position— 

I know you have been at work, but in terms of being truly effective 

with the mission of the EAC as envisioned. Again, I have to apologize to you, but how would you do that? How would you work toward that goal? 

Mr. Hicks, do you want to try that one on? 

Mr. HICKS. Thank you, sir. One of the unique opportunities that 

I have had in my life is when I worked at Common Cause and 

working on the Help America Vote Act. That piece of legislation 

was passed—it was the quickest civil rights piece of legislation ever 

passed in history, to my knowledge. And the way that it passed, 

it did not pass with just Republican support. It did not pass with 

just Democratic support. It passed with House support. It passed 

with Senate support. It passed 98 to 2 in the Senate. And we 

brought everyone into the room, where we had civil rights organizations, we had State and local election officials, we had voter integrity groups come in, and we had good government groups come 

in. The only way that it was able to pass was because everyone was 

in the room and everyone was able to talk and get their information out and get those issues on the board. 

And I think that in order for this to truly work, we have to have 

bipartisan support and we have to have Democrats, we have to 

have Republicans, we have to have Independents. And I think that 

is why I have not given up my nomination. I have been in a holding pattern for three-and-a-half years, and I believe in the agency. 

I believe that it can work effectively. And I believe that for me just 

to give up would be me just turning over and saying, I quit, which 

I cannot do. I believe that the agency can work, but it has to work 

in a bipartisan manner. 

Senator ROBERTS. I appreciate that very much. Ms. Pe ́rez. 

Ms. PE ́ REZ. I think there is no dispute among any American that 

we need elections to be fair, impartial, accurate, and secure, and 

I believe that there is significant common ground that can be 

achieved by focusing on the core mission of the EAC, which is to 

provide resources and information to the local election administrators who are trying to do an incredibly important task and are 

under-resourced in doing so. 

I think the best way for the EAC to function is, again, to focus 

on the nuts and bolts of election administration, to look for best 

practices on how you find polling locations, how do you train poll 

workers, how do you send out election notices, how do you certify 

election results. And I do not think there is significant disagreement among people of any political background that these tasks are 

vitally important. 

The way that I would proceed is the way that I proceed in my 

practice, which is with a collaborative spirit, an open mind, and ap-
104 

proaching information with respect to data and evidence, talking to 

all of the stakeholders, and trying to achieve and celebrate the 

common ground when it is found. 

Senator ROBERTS. I appreciate that, and thank you for your comments. 

Let me just point out the EAC has been forced to make payments 

to victims of hiring discrimination in the past, in one case, the discrimination against a candidate on the basis of party affiliation, 

and another due to military service status. If confirmed, how would 

you handle this kind of situation so we would not see a reoccurrence of these kind of episodes? We will do it in reverse. Ms. Pe ́rez. 

Ms. PE ́ REZ. I think one important way is to be very clear about 

State and Federal laws and best practices with respect to hiring. 

I think it is incredibly important to focus on the qualifications and 

to focus on the mission. Personal attributes and backgrounds, those 

kinds of things, are not relevant to the tasks that the EAC needs 

to perform. 

I was not there when that happened and I do not know all of the 

details, but I can assure you that I have a strong interest in making sure that the open positions are filled by the highest-caliber 

people and to ensure that the management of the EAC is top notch 

and that the public feels very confident that its taxpayer dollars 

are being well spent and in an appropriate and fair manner. 

Senator ROBERTS. Mr. Hicks. 

Mr. HICKS. I believe that it is going to be a challenge to ensure 

that we have the best-qualified candidates for any position at the 

EAC. The agency has taken so many hits over the years in terms 

of financial and other problems that they have faced. I think that 

with any sort of candidate that comes before the Commission, they 

should be evaluated under the law and the best way that HR’s provisions establish. 

Senator ROBERTS. I appreciate that. 

Let me just say that both of you, I think, have indicated that the 

EAC should have an advisory mission as opposed to more of a regulatory agency. Am I correct in assuming that is the case? Ms. 

Pe ́rez. 

Ms. PE ́ REZ. Congress has set forth the EAC’s duties, and its primary duties are to provide resources and information. ‘‘Advisory’’ 

is even a different word than I would use. It serves as a clearinghouse function. It brings people together. It allows election administrators to hear how other people are handling similar problems 

in their States. It performs studies that are designed to assist election administrators with the jobs that they do. 

It does have a couple of functions with respect to certifying voting systems and the maintenance of the Federal form, but the primary responsibility, in my mind, of the EAC is to provide accurate, 

cutting edge, and needed data and information that election administrators want in order to be able to provide good customer service 

to their voters. 

Senator ROBERTS. And with that information, they would make 

their own decisions, hopefully. Mr. Hicks. 

Mr. HICKS. I believe that the agency’s functions are spelled out 

in HAVA correctly, and I think that unless Congress expands 
105 

those, that we should follow the only roles that the Commission 

has set out in the law. 

Senator ROBERTS. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, just on a personal note, since the GAO apparently will be making some advisory 

comments, hopefully, with the State of Tennessee and Kansas, and 

I think perhaps Indiana, maybe Arizona, this issue is extremely 

important to me. My great-grandfathers came to Kansas before it 

was a State. One established the second-oldest newspaper and the 

other about the fourth. They did not particularly care for each 

other, and they wrote editorials that would make both of us blush 

with the adjectives and adverbs used back in the day. We think it 

is tough today. You should see those. 

But the one thing that they were committed to is that they came 

as abolitionists and they fought through bleeding Kansas. Both 

newspapers were threatened by Quantrell when he rode in from 

Missouri. 

I mention this personal history only that we have a commitment 

in Kansas with regard to ballot sanctity and with regard to voter 

access that, I think, represents a very fine effort to try to follow 

through with that historical precedence. So, for me personally, I 

think I want to indicate how strongly I feel about this. 

Thank you for appearing. Again, I wish we had better direction 

for you. Both of us will work on that, so I truly appreciate it. 

Thank you so much. 

Senator KING. I want to also thank you, and I think you have 

presented yourself very well today and been helpful to us, and now 

it is our job to find a way to move forward. 

It is my understanding that a quorum requires more than just 

two members, is that correct? So, you cannot act—if the two of you 

are confirmed, you could still not act as the Commission, lacking 

a Republican—actually, two Republican members, is that correct? 

Ms. PE ́ REZ. Yes. 

Mr. HICKS. [Shaking head.] 

Senator KING. Okay. Well, we have some work to do ourselves, 

but I want to sincerely express my appreciation on behalf of myself 

and Senator Roberts to your commitment and willingness to step 

forward in these somewhat difficult circumstances. 

I also notice your very young man has joined us and I want to 

welcome him to probably his first hearing in the United States 

Senate. 

Again, I want to thank both of you and we are going to be meeting as a committee to talk about some of these issues to see if we 

cannot resolve the differences between the two parties and get this 

Commission into a place where it can perform the function that the 

Congress has assigned it and protect this basic important right of 

all Americans to vote. 

Before we close, I have one other matter. The Chairman and the 

Ranking Member have received a report from committee staff regarding a petition contesting the special election that took place in 

New Jersey on October 16, 2013. This petition was referred to the 

committee on October 28, 2013. Committee staff for both the majority and the minority reviewed the petition, found it to be without 

merit, and concluded that further consideration by the committee 
106 

is not warranted. Without objection, the committee adopts the staff 

recommendation and will take no further action on the petition. 

Thank you, again, to both of you. Thank you for your families. 

The record will remain open for five business days for additional 

statements and comments and post-hearing questions submitted in 

writing for the nominees to answer. 

Again, thank you very much for joining us here this morning, 

and since there is no further business to come before the committee, the committee meeting this morning is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:44 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
(107) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 

HEARING—SENTRI ACT (S. 1728) IMPROVING 

VOTER REGISTRATION AND VOTING 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR MILITARY 

AND OVERSEAS VOTERS 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 2014 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in Room 

SR–301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. Schumer, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Schumer, King, Roberts and Blunt. 

Staff Present: Jean Bordewich, Staff Director; Stacy Ettinger, 

Chief Counsel; Veronica Gillespie, Elections Counsel; Benjamin 

Hovland, Senior Counsel; Ellen Zeng, Counsel; Phillip Rumsey, 

Legislative Correspondent; Lynden Armstrong, Chief Clerk; Matthew McGowan, Professional Staff; Lean Alwood, Chief Auditor; 

Mary Jones, Republican Staff Director; Shaun Parkin, Republican 

Deputy Staff Director; Paul Vinovich, Republican Chief Counsel; 

and Rachel Creviston, Republican Professional Staff. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KING 

Senator KING. The Rules Committee will come to order. 

Good morning, and I see that our—well, if you—oh, let’s have our 

witnesses take their seats at the table. 

Our hearing today is on the SENTRI Act, legislation intended to 

improve voter registration and voting opportunities for military 

and overseas voters. 

I am Angus King, Senator from Maine, sitting in at the beginning of today’s hearing for Senator Schumer, who is at a meeting 

of the Judiciary Committee. He will be joining us a little bit later. 

With me is Senator Roberts of Kansas, who is the Ranking Member of this Committee, and we will proceed. 

Voting is our most fundamental democratic right. Today we are 

going to discuss legislation which is aimed at ensuring that members of our military and other American citizens who are overseas 

are able to cast a ballot and participate in our democracy. 

Americans who are on the other side of the world clearly face 

barriers to voting that most of here in this country do not. Congress has previously passed two pieces of legislation to improve access and participation for our military and overseas populations. 

The first was the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee 

Voting Act, known as UOCAVA, and that was passed in 1986. 

And, as with most legislation—all legislation, in my experience— 

after implementation, we learned that improvements can and 

should be made. This is particularly true where advancements in 

technology allow for new innovation and can help modernize existing practices. With these factors in mind, many improvements were 

made to the UOCAVA legislation in 2009 with the passage of the 

Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act. 
124 

Reports from the 2012 general election, however, show that only 

70 percent of the ballots sent to military and nonmilitary voters 

were returned—only 70 percent. On top of that, many of the ballots 

that were returned were unable to be counted because they arrived 

after the deadline. 

We think we can do better than this. We must do whatever we 

can to ensure that the men and women who serve our country in 

uniform are not disenfranchised by unnecessary administrative 

barriers. 

I am also a member of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel, and this is an issue which I take very seriously. 

The SENTRI Act builds on past legislation to provide many of 

the solutions that our military and overseas voters deserve. This 

bipartisan bill makes improvements to military and overseas voting 

that I believe Congress can reach agreement on. 

The SENTRI Act provides important safeguards to the right to 

vote for military and overseas voters in a number of ways. 

First, the SENTRI Act improves voter registration and voting opportunities for service members through the use of an online system, certainly not part of the original Act in 1986. It requires voter 

assistance as a routine part of service members’ annual training. 

Simplifying, streamlining and reducing the time associated with 

voter registration will ensure that more of our citizens overseas are 

able to vote in future elections. 

Also, this legislation ensures requests for absentee ballots remain 

valid for one full Federal election cycle, thereby eliminating some 

of the confusion and variance in implementation that has been 

seen across the country. 

Another important feature of the SENTRI Act requires reporting 

on implementation and effectiveness of new voter assistance obligations that would allow for better monitoring and deeper understanding of the voting experience of our military and overseas citizens. 

Overall, the SENTRI Act strengthens protections of voting rights 

of military and overseas voters. For this reason and others, the 

SENTRI Act enjoys support from a number of nonpartisan organizations dedicating to serving members of our military, veterans and 

protecting the right to vote for all Americans. 

I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this important piece of legislation, and I would like to thank everyone who is able to join us 

today to discuss this topic, and I look forward to hearing the testimony of the experts on our panel. 

Now I would like to turn to Senator Roberts for his opening remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERTS 

Senator ROBERTS. Why thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

your willingness to preside here again so we can stay on schedule. 

I want to thank the witnesses for agreeing to testify, and I look 

forward to their remarks. 

I also want to thank my friend, John Cornyn, for his work on 

this issue. I look forward to hearing from him later. 

We have a good panel of witnesses before us, and I want to hear 

from them. So I will not take up too much time. 
125 

I am glad we have witnesses from both the Federal and state 

agencies because they have to work together to ensure our service 

personnel are able to vote and have that vote counted. 

As a Marine, I obviously care deeply about those who serve us 

abroad and want to make sure we are doing everything possible to 

make sure that those who wish to vote are able to do so. 

This Committee produced, as the Acting Chairman indicated, the 

Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, the MOVE Act, in 

2009, to make sure ballots were sent out in sufficient time for them 

to be received and returned in time to be counted. Now we have 

gone through two general elections since those requirements went 

into effect, and it appears some problems remain. 

The question is where those problems lie and what really needs 

to be done to address them. Is the problem at the state and local 

level, or the Federal level, or both? 

I hope our hearing today will shed some light on that question. 

We need to know where the problem is before we can figure out 

how to fix it. 

The SENTRI bill proposes some changes at both the state and 

Federal levels. I look forward to its consideration and the testimony of our witnesses here today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KING. Senator Blunt, we are just getting underway. If 

you would like to make a statement, we would be delighted to hear 

from you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BLUNT 

Senator BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement for the record. 

This is obviously an important issue. It is one that when I was 

the chief election official in Missouri for eight years, and the secretary of state, I was very involved in. 

I hope we can continue to find things that ensure that people 

who are serving in the military not only get to cast their votes but 

get that vote counted, get it back in a way that gets it counted. 

And I look forward to the testimony, and I am glad that we are 

talking about this bill. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Blunt was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

We will move to our first panel, who is at the table. 

We have Mr. Matt Boehmer—we are going to go in alphabetical 

order—Director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program in the 

U.S. Department of Defense. Second is Mr. Kevin Kennedy, the Director and General Counsel of the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, and third, Mr. Donald Palmer, the Secretary of the 

Board of the Virginia Board of Elections. 

Thank you all, gentlemen, for joining us today. 

And I would like to ask, if you possibly can, to limit your statements to five minutes, and if you have provided the Committee 

with a longer written statement, we would be delighted to accept 

that for the record. 

Mr. Boehmer, please proceed. 
126 

STATEMENT OF MATT BOEHMER, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL VOTING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. BOEHMER. Chairman King, Ranking Member Roberts and 

distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department of Defense’s voting assistance activities and our view on the SENTRI Act. 

Senator Cornyn and Senator Schumer, for the record, thank you 

for your continued commitment to our men and women in uniform. 

As Congress and the courts have repeatedly affirmed, voting is 

a citizen’s most fundamental right. 

The Federal voting assistance program is committed to two voting assistance tenets—promoting the awareness of the right to vote 

and eliminating barriers for those who choose to exercise that 

right. 

Last year, FVAP and the Department exemplified this commitment by advancing three major initiatives—creating a robust information portal, implementing greater voter assistance capabilities 

and commencing work to increase the efficiency of mail delivery. 

We recently optimized our web site, which is FVAP.gov, by reorganizing content to enhance the user experience, implementing a 

section of the portal to track performance metrics for our voting assistance officers and updating online training which will be released in the early spring of 2014. 

To improve our voting assistance capabilities, FVAP created a 

suite of materials in 2013 to provide absentee voter-specific information. 

We are also providing online and in-person trainings for our 

voter assistance officers and election officials to make sure they are 

prepared to assist our UOCAVA voters. 

Realizing that the time required to redirect mail once overseas 

may serve as a hindrance to casting an absentee ballot, the Military Postal Service Agency is serving as the lead agency in an effort with the Department of State and the United States Postal 

Service to lead an effort to modernize military mail delivery. The 

system will redirect election materials to military and diplomatic 

addresses, similar to how the civilian change of address system 

works, and should be available in October of 2014. 

These activities illustrate the continuous work of the Department, and the proposals in the SENTRI bill enhance the notion of 

change and offer some real benefits to our UOCAVA voters. 

The Department supports the initiatives in the SENTRI bill as 

written. However, we would like to work with the Committee to 

clarify some of the technical requirements to make sure that we 

are successful in meeting the intent of the bill. 

FVAP is already working to address some of the initiatives listed 

in SENTRI. 

We currently link voters to state systems where they are available. 

And, we are working with an internal department system to 

prompt service members when they update their address to complete a new Federal Post Card Application upon every single address update. 
127 

We are also willing and capable to create an annual training by 

the 2016 general election for our active duty military members, 

which would then lead them to FVAP.gov to complete a new FPCA 

or to decline assistance. We would then be able to provide you with 

the aggregate numbers on the users who chose to go to FVAP.gov 

for assistance and for those who declined. 

The language in Section 201, which requires electronic transmission of a completed FPCA by the Department to the appropriate 

state and local election officials, is where we have our greatest concern. The bill, as written, appears to focus entirely on an electronic 

process which would prove costly and could be incompatible with 

the 55 states’ and territories’ election rules, specifically in regard 

to the different rules governing physical signatures and the approved method of transmission of elections. 

Removing this requirement would remedy the Department’s concern with this section and recognize the role of states to field their 

own systems and offer electronic voter registration. The cost associated with the requirement to simply pre-populate our forms would 

be relatively low. 

Senator King, Ranking Member Roberts and the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to share the Department’s view on 

the SENTRI Act. We appreciate the Congress’s ongoing interest in 

improving military voting. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Boehmer was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator KING. Thank you, Mr. Boehmer. 

I presume you will give to the Committee the details of the suggestions you have on those matters that you just mentioned. 

Mr. BOEHMER. Absolutely, sir. Thank you. 

Senator KING. I appreciate it. 

Mr. KENNEDY. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN KENNEDY, DIRECTOR AND GENERAL 

COUNSEL, WISCONSIN GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 

BOARD, MADISON, WI 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Chairman King, Ranking Member 

Roberts and distinguished Committee members. I appreciate the 

opportunity to provide information to this Senate Committee on the 

SENTRI Act. 

A little bit of background. I am Wisconsin’s Chief Election Officer. I am a nonpartisan, appointed official and have served in that 

capacity for more than 30 years. 

Wisconsin has been—I am also a former president of the National Association of State Election Directors. 

Wisconsin has been a leader in making changes to facilitate voting for our military and overseas voters. In Wisconsin, we administer our elections at the local level. I have 1,852 local election officials who are responsible for getting the ballots out to all of our 

voters, including our UOCAVA voters. 

We have developed an electronic delivery system that we put in 

place in 2012 that has cut the ballot transit in time and allowed 

us, even when some of those clerks fail, to ensure that ballots are 

delivered and returned in time for counting before the election. 
128 

When you are herding a group of cats, such as we often do, we 

find some human failings, but we have found with our electronic 

ballot delivery system, even with a handful of ballots that might 

have missed what was then the 45-day deadline, we were still able 

to get the ballots back in time. 

The SENTRI Act makes a number of reforms and improvements 

to safeguard elections, and the spirit behind these reforms and improvements is commendable and has the support of state election 

officials. However, implementation of some aspects of these reforms, while not insurmountable, could be problematic. 

For example, with data collection, the time frames for collecting 

and reporting data present challenges, especially around the deadline for transmitting ballots—46 days before the election. 

If a Federal election is held on a Tuesday, as is the norm, day 

46 is always a Friday. This means local election officials are scrambling to get the UOCAVA ballot requests filled before the mail goes 

out. The next two days are not business days. Yet, state officials 

must collect and compile data from local election officials and submit a report on the Monday following the transmission deadline. 

This is particularly challenging for a state like Wisconsin, and 

other states, where the municipal election officials are responsible 

for fulfilling UOCAVA absentee ballot requests. 

The SENTRI Act provides for express delivery of ballots that are 

not transmitted by the deadline. 

We can still effectively implement the reporting deadline if we 

move it to 5 or 7 days after the 46-day deadline. This is particularly true when the UOCAVA voter has requested to receive the 

ballot electronically. Because the SENTRI Act provides for express 

delivery of ballots that are not transmitted by that 46-day deadline, 

the required information would still be captured with a slightly 

later reporting deadline, but it would also have the advantage that 

it would not be an incomplete report. 

What you are going to get under the current provisions is a report, if there are failures, of incompleteness. 

If we postpone that deadline by two or four more business days, 

what you will get is a report that tells you if the ballots were not 

delivered, how that was remedied, because the SENTRI Act provides for the express. Instead of having several reports, you will get 

one complete report, and the Department of Justice and the Federal Voting Assistance Program will know where there was a problem but also how that problem was solved. 

So I really encourage you, instead of having that day 43 reporting, that it be day 41 or, even better, day 39 because you will get 

one report that will be much more complete. 

Our goal has been to make it as easy as possible for our local 

election officials to complete the reporting requirement so that they 

can maximize the time they spend serving the voters as we do at 

the state level. 

Another suggestion is that the Department of Defense and the 

U.S. Elections Assistance Commission have coordinated their collection of post-election data. Yet, there are two different deadlines 

for filing and getting that information. I would suggest that rather 

than the 90-day deadline we have currently that we dovetail that 
129 

with the deadline that is available for reporting to the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission. 

As has been said, elections are the cornerstone of our democracy. 

A citizen’s right to vote is one of our most enduring principles. Our 

uniformed services and overseas voters make extreme sacrifices to 

protect that right for us. They deserve the commitment and effort 

of all of our public officials to enable them to fully participate in 

the electoral process. 

I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts with you, and 

I would be happy to answer any questions Committee members 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kennedy was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator KING. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. 

Your testimony about what day election day is allows me, perhaps for the only time in my service in this body, to share one bit 

of knowledge that I have carried around for a long time. 

Do you know the definition of when a presidential election occurs? It is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November 

of every even-numbered year, equally divisible by four. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KING. Isn’t that a wonderful rule to have? 

Mr. KENNEDY. That is a great rule. 

Senator KING. I am afraid that may be taking up room in my 

brain for other more useful things, but—Mr. Palmer, please. 

STATEMENT OF DON PALMER, SECRETARY OF THE BOARD, 

VIRGINIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS, RICHMOND, VA 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Chairman King, Ranking Member Roberts and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today on the SENTRI Act, which continues the improvements to the military voting process under the MOVE Act. 

The recent release of the report from the Presidential Commission on Election Administration noted the continued difficulties of 

UOCAVA voters in registering to vote, receiving their ballots in a 

timely manner and returning their ballots to election officials in 

time to be counted. 

The SENTRI Act recognizes that military voters have lower registration and participation rates and much lower rates of absentee 

ballots that are successfully returned and counted. The rate of successful return for overseas military ballots remains in the high 60s 

while the successful return of domestic absentee ballots is closer to 

98 percent. 

In a world full of technology, we must not forget the very human 

purpose of this legislation, and that is to allow all members of the 

republic to vote, no matter where they are on the globe. 

The Presidential Commission also noted the difficult situation 

that UOCAVA voters continue to find themselves. The sponsors of 

the SENTRI Act have shown focus and foresight to determine 

where the MOVE Act is succeeding and where it must be amended. 

While the language was drafted well before the Commission report, 

the legislation reflects many of the bipartisan recommendations on 

how to improve that registration and absentee ballot process. 
130 

The Presidential Commission also specifically called for online 

mechanisms for UOCAVA voters to easily and quickly update their 

address or registration status. The SENTRI Act requires annual 

voter assistance and updates of registration data by the military 

member with online tools. DoD would facilitate the update of registration information at the same time that members would normally update their information due to deployments, overseas duty 

or changes in duty station or some other change in status. 

Based on my military experience, there are more than a dozen 

different forms that must be updated online each year, not only before deployment or a new duty station but for training purposes or 

for a calendar, or fiscal, new year. This process should fit nicely 

into existing procedures for updating materials. 

The Commission noted in its report that military and overseas 

voters represent the population most likely to benefit from the increased use of the internet and the registration process. And, 

again, DoD members are a very mobile population of voters. Because of this mobility, inaccurate addresses and information lead to 

significant delays in ballots reaching the military or result in undeliverable ballots where the ballots never reach the voter at all. 

The SENTRI Act would provide online mechanisms to maintain 

accurate voter registration information on UOCAVA voters for the 

benefit of all state and local election officials. 

My experience with electronic registration in Virginia shows that 

an online process can be secure with appropriate verification of 

identity and will improve the overall integrity of the registration 

process and voter rolls. 

The Presidential Commission specifically recommended the data 

exchange of voter registration information between states. Data 

from other states allow state and local election officials to maintain 

accurate voter rolls by keeping up with a mobile population. Similarly, any DoD system that provides a consistent and reliable flow 

of updated data for military voters would dramatically increase the 

accuracy of the registration data at the local and state levels. 

The Commission also noted that compliance with UOCAVA and 

the MOVE Act for military and overseas voters continues to be inconsistent and inadequate, and enforcement must be strengthened. 

The SENTRI Act does provide special rules in the case of failure 

by state or local officials to transmit their ballots on time. Despite 

good efforts, there have been some failures in 2010 and 2012. State 

election officials often do not have the authority to require local 

election officials to report the transmission of ballots and are not 

aware of failures. 

As time goes by, jurisdictions get better with this process. However, the failures have resulted in a great deal of litigation. 

The SENTRI Act may resolve the litigious nature of the MOVE 

Act. The law would require jurisdictions to automatically send ballots by express delivery if they fail to meet the 45-day deadline. 

The proposed law would reduce the amount of lawsuits by immediately providing a built-in remedy for the voter. Federal law would 

prioritize the express transmittal of the ballot over waiting for 

post-election litigation and appropriate judicial relief. 

The SENTRI Act is a bipartisan piece of legislation on which 

election community has been consulted on a number of occasions. 
131 

The authors have responded to the input of state and local election 

officials and other stakeholders. Many sections of this bill are 

aligned with the major bipartisan recommendations of the Presidential Commission. 

In my estimation, the use of technology, data-sharing and other 

common-sense reforms will help UOCAVA voters more efficiently 

register and request absentee ballots, improve the integrity of 

UOCAVA registration data and improve election administration in 

the United States. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important issue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Palmer was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator KING. Thank you, gentlemen. 

We will now have a five-minute round of questions, and there 

will be, hopefully, some opportunity for follow-up. 

Mr. Kennedy, you testified about the deadlines and moving the 

46 days to 39 or some other number. 

I guess the first issue is, is there an issue with making that 

change? 

It seems sort of straightforward. But, is there a counter argument as to why not to shorten those deadlines or, actually, lengthen them? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, the main argument would be to have the 

data as quickly as possible, but I think what cuts against that argument—you know, to have the data in the hands of the Department of Justice and the Federal Voting Assistance Program. 

What cuts against that—and I base this on our experience from 

2012—is that if there has been a failure, that information is going 

to be incomplete and the state officials are going to be working 

hard to remedy this. 

I think Mr. Palmer made the point—and I tried to as well—that 

we have built in remedies that normally would be part of litigation 

or a discussion. And, by moving that deadline by two days, we are 

going to give one report that is going to say the ballots were sent 

out, or if they were not, this is what was done to make sure that 

they got sent out even though they missed the 46-day deadline. 

Senator KING. Is there any cost on the local election officials to 

implementing this whole structure? 

Mr. KENNEDY. It is a time cost. As I said, they are busy trying 

to make sure that they fulfill the absentee ballots. It is a matter 

of how much time they have. 

We have built in Wisconsin a very good data collection tool which 

we will refine to ensure that we have that. As I said, we spent a 

lot of time in Wisconsin with a handful of municipalities that were 

difficult to track down, contacting them by e-mail, phone, to make 

sure that they got their data into us. That is really the challenge— 

is making sure that that information is available. 

Senator KING. Mr. Palmer, you talked about online registration, 

and clearly, we are moving in that direction. Talk to me about security of online registration and utilizing the internet for these 

kinds of transactions. Are local election officials comfortable that 

there is not a high risk of fraud in this kind of situation? 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I believe that local and state officials are very much leaning toward online or electronic registration 
132 

because you are usually taking the registration and the information from the voter and you are actually comparing it to a database 

such as at the Department of Motor Vehicles. So you have confirmation of the person’s identity. You have confirmation of the person’s—you will have their signature online, and you will have their 

photo. 

So there is already a process where that individual has been confirmed with another state agency, and so once there is that match, 

it raises the level of confidence of election officials on the integrity 

of that registration. 

Senator KING. Mr. Boehmer, would you like to comment on moving in this direction? 

Mr. BOEHMER. Sir, from the Federal Voting Assistance Program, 

as I mentioned in my oral testimony, we actually on our web site 

will link to the states that have these online voter registration systems. 

So, from an assistance standpoint, you know, the use of the internet and the tools will really help our voters. And, from that point, 

we hand it off to the states and let the states do the administration 

of elections. 

Senator KING. So, in the states that have those systems, a young 

member of the military who had not registered at all when they 

left the country could register in Virginia or in Wisconsin from 

abroad and then go through the voting process; is that correct? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Absolutely. Wisconsin has the same online system, and it has worked very well in 2012 for us. 

Senator KING. And how many states have this kind of system? 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is probably up to 18. It 

is just above 15 to 18, I would say—the number of states that have 

some sort of online registration. 

Senator KING. And I presume that is growing each election year, 

that states are adding this capacity. 

Mr. PALMER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KING. Mr. Boehmer, what are the gaps that you see the 

SENTRI Act filling that you are unable to do under the current 

law? 

Mr. BOEHMER. Mr. Chairman, I believe that regardless of the 

SENTRI Act we are always looking to improve our processes and 

improve the assistance that we provide our military and overseas 

citizen voters. 

The SENTRI Act offers provisions that we think will be very 

helpful for our voters. A couple of these, for example: 

Increasing the validity period of the Federal Post Card Application from one calendar year to one general election cycle makes 

sense, particularly from a voter’s expectation standpoint. You 

know, a voter expects to be able to request to register, excuse me, 

to register and then request an absentee ballot only once in a general election cycle, and so increasing the validity of the FPCA to 

one general election cycle should align with our voters’ expectation. 

In addition, we mention the issue is not necessarily all about registration. Sometimes it is about the fact that our military population is particularly mobile. And, as I mentioned again in my 

opening statement, we are working on initiatives already that are 

mentioned in SENTRI on making sure that our military members 
133 

know the importance of every time they move to notify their local 

election official. That provision is actually in SENTRI. 

And we are actually working on taking some of the Department’s 

internal systems, where military members naturally go to update 

their address information for health care benefits, for example, and 

then prompting them at that time, to say, you just changed an address; it is important for you to remember that you need to notify 

your local election official. 

And they can then go to FVAP.gov and actually fill out a new 

FPCA to change their address right there online. 

Senator KING. Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS. The Election Assistance Commission’s Election 

Administration Voting Survey for 2012 found that of 33.1 million 

domestic absentee ballots transmitted, 83.5 percent were returned 

and submitted for counting. 

For military and overseas voters, 876,000 were transmitted—and 

that prompts one question, if you have 3 million people in the military why only 876,000 requested to vote—but then only 66 percent 

were returned and submitted for counting. 

So, obviously, the lower rate of return for military and overseas 

voters is cause for concern, but the question arises—whose fault is 

this? Where is the problem? 

Let’s start with you, Mr. Boehmer. 

Mr. BOEHMER. Thank you for the question, sir. 

I think what we really want to take a look at are assistance activities and what we can do to help our military members. 

We say that the military is registered at a higher rate that their 

civilian counterparts, and what we need to make sure is the fact 

that the military members, who, again, are a very mobile population—we need to recognize that. So making sure that military 

members receive their absentee ballot is going to be incredibly important. 

Again, voting is an absolutely personal choice, and we want to 

make sure, though, that for those who want to vote that they really 

do have the tools and resources to do that. 

Therefore, initiatives such as the Military Postal Service Agency, 

you know, working hand in hand with the Department of State and 

the United States Postal Service to modernize the mail delivery 

system is something that is going to be really important—so that 

a change of address, that the local election officials will send out 

the absentee ballot. A change of address will happen right there at 

the local post office instead of having to wait all the way to an 

overseas location for that to change. 

So we know that the issue of time is something that is against 

our military members, and this should go towards helping solve 

that. 

Senator ROBERTS. Mr. Kennedy, any comments? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. I think increased use of technology will help. 

The states like Wisconsin and Virginia that have electronic ballot 

delivery have been able to ensure that our end of the bargain has 

been fulfilled. Even in Wisconsin, where out of about 10,000 ballots 

we had 4 that missed the deadline, those ballots went out with 

electronic transmission and were returned before the election and 

counted. 
134 

And I think the emphasis has to be looking at the electronic return of the ballots and improving the return rate—the focus of the 

Federal Voting Assistance Program on increased communication 

with the members. 

Senator ROBERTS. So it is electronic capability—— 

Mr. KENNEDY. I think that would—— 

Senator ROBERTS [continuing]. That you are talking about our 

technology. 

Mr. Palmer, do you have anything to say about this. 

Mr. PALMER. Yes, sir. It is time and distance. It is the age problem that we have with the mail system getting to a remote voter 

in a land far away, and there is really no margin of error in the 

absentee balloting process. If there are any errors, there is a potential of delay that may impact the voter. 

I think Kevin Kennedy talked about the ballot return. The return 

of the ballot is the problem. It seems to be in most cases. Thirty 

states allow the return of the ballot by some sort of e-mail or fax 

to sort of mitigate that problem, and that is not an issue with this 

legislation, but it shows that the Postal Service has some issues 

with getting the ballots back on time. 

Senator ROBERTS. Let me just say that on page 4 of the Act— 

and my reference here—Mr. Chairman, pardon my delay. I am not 

sure I can even—oh, dear. 

Well, under G and 1 and A and B and then the capital letter I, 

Roman number II, iii, we finally get down to this should not be 

paid by the voter but may be required by the state to be paid by 

a local jurisdiction if the state determines election officials in such 

jurisdiction are responsible for the failure to transmit the ballot by 

any state required under this paragraph. 

In 105 counties in Kansas, that is not in the bill. 

There is Harriet out there, who is the local county election official. She has been doing a good job for many years. She would like 

to retire, but everybody wants to keep her on because they have 

had no ballot fraud. We do not know what ballot fraud is in Kansas, thank goodness. 

But I just wonder; is the county going to pay for this if, in fact, 

you know, they do not get this ballot back? 

What kind of costs are you incurring in the State of Wisconsin 

with regard to county election officials? 

This is a follow-on of the Chairman. This looks like to me it could 

be a real problem with another unfunded mandate. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, it may be an unfunded mandate, but it is 

a mandate that is created by the failure of the local election official. 

We do it at the municipal level. So, rather than my 72 counties, 

it is my 1,852 municipalities. As I indicated, we had 4 that missed 

the 45-day transit time—— 

Senator ROBERTS. Right. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. And we were all over them. 

And, to me, the fact that we have a remedy built into the system—I can point to this and say, you are going to pay the cost for 

this, and this will be a lesson learned. 

Our compliance has gone up tremendously with the more oversight that we do. 
135 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, you only had 4, but 34 percent did not 

return them, and that seems to me to be a big problem. 

I am out of tine, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir. 

Senator KING. Senator Blunt. 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you. 

Senator Roberts, I may be wrong on this, but I think a lot of that 

34 percent did not receive them in time. 

One of the things that Senator Cornyn and I have worked on— 

and others I am sure have, too—is to get the Post Office to buy the 

equipment for military mail that they have for everybody else, and 

they have just agreed in the last defense discussion to do that. 

If something was mailed to anybody in this room who is not in 

the military, in almost all cases, if there is a forwarding address 

that gets disrupted in the process of the first delivery. 

In the military, they do not have that equipment yet for military 

mail. So it either goes to the location, as I think Mr. Palmer suggested it might, where the person was when they first requested 

the ballot, or it comes back to the APO address and then goes 

again. 

So just getting an investment in equipment here, which the Defense Department has agreed to do—so, hopefully, by the next 

cycle, that part of this problem will minimize the rest. But, if you 

do not get the ballot before the election is over, you obviously cannot mail it back. 

And I agree totally with Mr. Kennedy that the penalty needs to 

be on the election official that does not get the job done. There is 

no reason for the Federal Government to make it easy for that person not to do their job. And it is a minimal kind of penalty, but 

it is one you do not want to explain to your boss, if you are the 

local election official, why it is. 

And what would the remedy be again, Mr. Kennedy? Is it you 

have to send it under some sort of expedited mail? 

Mr. KENNEDY. You send it by express mail, and if it is delayed, 

the local election official will pay the express mail cost as well. 

Senator BLUNT. Right, right. 

On the registration—the electronic registration—apparently, Mr. 

Boehmer, you are concerned that there may be some conflict here 

with state laws that require the application for a registration to 

come in writing. Am I right on that? 

Mr. PALMER. That is correct, sir. 

Senator BLUNT. And in the states that have electronic registration, do any or all of them have that just for military, or military 

and overseas, registrations? 

In the states that have electronic registration, Mr. Palmer, is it 

your view that anybody can do that, or are there categories of people that have that electronic registration available to them? 

Mr. PALMER. If you are a registered voter in a state which has 

a program like that, you could either update your registration online or update your status with that program. 

Senator BLUNT. Online. And you think about 18 states are doing 

that now? 

Mr. PALMER. Eighteen states. And I believe that, obviously, a lot 

of different states have different requirements on what they want 
136 

on the document, either the registration document or the FPCA, 

which is the military absentee ballot request form. 

But, if that information could be sent—prepopulated and then 

sent to the jurisdiction, it would serve the same purpose until the 

individual state makes the policy decision to go with online registration. 

Senator BLUNT. And we could override the registration in writing 

for Federal offices, I believe, but we could not override it for state 

and local offices. And you want to be sure that everybody can participate in every election they should be eligible to participate in, 

no matter how they register. Is that right, Mr. Boehmer? 

Mr. BOEHMER. Our assistance is for Federal elections. 

Senator BLUNT. Right. 

Mr. BOEHMER. So what we want to make sure of is that our voters from the Department of Defense standpoint do not get confused 

about the requirements of individual states. So, when we can link 

off to states’ own registration systems, it really serves our voters 

well, and as you mentioned, states are actually moving towards 

these online registration systems. 

To Mr. Palmer’s point, what we can definitely do at the Federal 

level is prepopulate that form to make it easier on the voter so that 

when they can send it to the state that information would already 

be filled out. 

Senator BLUNT. And does anybody disagree with—Mr. Kennedy, 

as I understand your view on the deadline, you just think a few 

days there would make a big difference. From the deadline we have 

in the legislation to what deadline would you suggest? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I would suggest that it be day 39. 

Senator BLUNT. Instead of 40? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Instead of 43. 

Senator BLUNT. Three. 

Mr. KENNEDY. In other words, it is one week after the deadline 

that ballots should be out. What you will get is a more complete 

report that says: Yes, we hit our target. If we missed on four, this 

is how we solved the problem because the SENTRI Act puts the 

remedy right in there. 

Otherwise, what you are going to get is a report that says: We 

have not got all of the data yet. Or, if we have the data, here is 

what we have. And, if it is incomplete, this is what we are doing. 

And then you get another report under the Act. 

This way, you get one report that is more complete. 

And, if you do have an outlier clerk or local election official, that 

will be focused. But most of these problems are going to get solved 

in that time period. 

Senator BLUNT. Okay. I see the Chairman and the principal 

sponsor of the bill is here, and my time is up. 

Senator ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous 

consent, with the permission of the distinguished Chairman, that 

the Senator from Missouri be granted another two minutes and if 

he would yield for a question. 

Senator BLUNT. I will be glad to yield. 

Senator ROBERTS. I am sorry. I did not see you leaving. I would 

not have interrupted. 

Senator BLUNT. I am on the way to the floor. 
137 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, you have some unique experience with 

the State of Missouri, obviously, with your past experience. I am 

still troubled by the 3 million people in the military and 876,000 

requested ballots, and then of that, only 66 percent were returned. 

There is 34 percent missing right there. 

And then on the top of it, something seems to be wrong. 

I mean, you know what? Well, I guess you would like to have a 

system where it was 100 percent. 

But the thing that bothers me is that I think from your expertise 

and from the panel’s discussion and their expertise that you have 

got a lot of problems with the Post Office and the Defense Department. 

I am not trying to point anything to you, sir. 

And I just do not want, again, Harriet out there in some county 

that does not have the technology yet, that that is going to cost the 

state something and that the burden of cost is on that county despite the fact that they have had a spotless record to date. If, in 

fact, it is a Post Office problem or a DoD problem, they ought to 

pay for it. 

I do not like unfunded mandates, which I know everybody here 

agrees that is not the case, but I worry about it. 

Senator BLUNT. Right. I think the challenge on the delivery is 

not that the local election official does not get the ballot in the mail 

on time. But you do have a very mobile population that in the normal delivery system their mobility would be taken care of in transit 

of the mail itself wherein the way that DoD does it, they do it like 

they would have done it 20 years ago, where it has to go somewhere and then be forwarded or maybe go back—— 

Senator ROBERTS. Right. 

Senator BLUNT [continuing]. To the original APO box. 

And I do not know how much of that problem will be solved by 

new equipment, but a significant amount of this problem is an 

equipment problem, and the Department of Defense has agreed to 

buy for the Post Office the equipment the Post Office needs to treat 

military mail like they treat all other mail now, and the way mail 

moves forward. So that will take care of a lot of it. 

But that is not a case where the local election official got the ballot in the mail late. They do not get it not because it got in the 

mail late but because it does not catch them where they are until 

perhaps it is too late to cast the ballot. 

Senator ROBERTS. I appreciate that insight, and I thank you very 

much. 

Senator KING. No further questions? 

[Pause.] 

Senator KING. Thank you very much, gentleman. 

Chairman SCHUMER [presiding]. Well, thank you. 

I want to thank our panel and thank Senator King for stepping 

in and chairing the hearing. He is a great new member of the Senate and of this Committee. 

We are proud to have you on. 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

Chairman SCHUMER. And now we will call our next panel, our 

next witness, Senator Cornyn. 
138 

Okay. I want to thank my good friend, Senator Cornyn, for 

speaking with us this morning about the SENTRI Act, for sponsoring this important bill. 

He and I have worked together as a team because we feel it is 

so important that the men and women who are risking their lives 

for our right to vote have that right themselves. We share a deep 

commitment to protecting and strengthening voting rights of military and overseas voters. 

So, Senator, I have read your statement. I could not agree more 

with it and with your statement on the Senate floor four years ago, 

that if our soldiers can risk their lives for us, we can at least allow 

them to vote. 

And I thank you. You are so concerned about this, and your diligence is helping us move this forward. 

I will ask unanimous consent my statement be put in the record 

and call on our witness, Senator Cornyn. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Schumer was submitted 

for the record:] 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CORNYN, A UNITED 

STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Senator CORNYN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Ranking Member Senator Roberts, for your important work on this subject, and I am glad to be before you this 

morning. 

Of course, Senator Roberts is the most senior Marine in the 

United States Congress, and of course, there is no doubt about his 

commitment and our collective commitment to making sure that 

our men and women who are deployed overseas can exercise the 

most basic right of a citizen, which is to cast their vote effectively. 

The 2012 election made clear that there are too many barriers 

to military service members and their families voting, and to having their votes actually counted, and we need to do more. 

In the weeks before the last election, November 2012, I heard 

from many military service members from Texas, both overseas 

and stateside, because they were having trouble casting their ballots. They reached out for help because election day was rapidly approaching and they still had not gotten their absentee ballot. 

I heard from the grandmother of one Texas Marine, who was 

serving in Afghanistan, and the father of another because both deployed Marines were missing their ballots. 

I heard from the mother of an Airman from Texas that was in 

the middle of moving from one Air Force base to another and did 

not know where his ballot was going to be sent and whether it 

would reach him in time. 

These are just examples of the hurdles that our military voters 

have in every election cycle. 

Of course, we all understand—and Mr. Chairman, you just acknowledge again—that these Americans make tremendous sacrifices in the defense of our Nation and those sacrifices should not 

include giving up their most basic rights as citizens. 

Without question, it remains much more difficult today for military service members and their families to exercise their right to 

vote than their civilian counterparts. Most problems experienced by 
139 

the military stem from their being gone from their home voting jurisdiction on election day, which is a direct result of their service. 

While it may never be as easy to vote for service members who are 

away from home, we owe them our best efforts to remove as many 

obstacles as possible. 

To that end, this past November, I introduced—along with the 

Chairman, Senator Schumer—the Safeguarding Elections for our 

Nation’s Troops Through Reforms and Improvements Act, the socalled SENTRI Act. This represents the third effort, Mr. Chairman, 

you and I and others have made together to improve military voting, and I want to thank all of those members who have joined us 

in this important bipartisan effort. 

Congress has already removed some major hurdles that have 

hampered military voting in the past, for example, in 2009, by enacting a number of important reforms through the so-called MOVE 

Act that was supported by Senators Schumer and Chambliss, 

among others. And I was proud to support the MOVE Act and author two parts of it. 

The 2012 election was the first presidential election since the 

MOVE Act, and post-election analysis shows that this law has improved various aspects of the process, including reducing the number of marked ballots that were rejected by local election officials. 

But this data also reveal a large number of military and overseas 

voters who continue to experience problems. For example, all of the 

blank absentee ballots that were sent out to military and overseas 

voters—of all of them, only 30 percent—I should say 30 percent did 

not make it back. 

Let me state that again just for clarity. For example, of all the 

blank absentee ballots that were sent out to the military and overseas voters in 2012, more than 30 percent never made it back to 

local election officials to be counted. This suggests that many of 

those ballots never reached the intended voter likely due to outdated voter registrations or ballot delivery problems. 

So the MOVE Act made a difference, but clearly, there is more 

that needs to be done. 

The area perhaps most demanding of our attention is military 

voter assistance. The significant drop in absentee ballot requests in 

2012 points to the need for the Department of Defense to enhance 

its military voter assistance to put them more on par with motor 

voter-style assistance programs that benefit civilians stateside. 

Blank absentee ballots have a significantly better chance of 

reaching registered military voters at the correct mailing address 

if those service members are able to keep their voter registration 

current, which can be challenging because of the transient nature 

of military service. 

In the MOVE Act, we attempted to address this issue by creating 

a voter assistance office on every military installation, but the DoD 

was resistant, honestly, to that. And I had conversations with the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, among others, about that. 

So the SENTRI Act would require the DoD to offer military voters an affirmative annual online opportunity to fill out a voter registration and absentee ballot request form. 

Helping military voters to keep their voter registration current 

would also aid local governments, which I know is a big concern 
140 

of the Ranking Member—the burdens on them. So this would help 

facilitate that. 

So, in conclusion, the SENTRI Act is aimed at fixing the system’s 

most glaring deficiencies which continue to inhibit our service 

members’ ability to vote, and I hope the Committee will vote this 

out favorably. 

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the various problems that 

our military face when it comes to voting, but I am hopeful that 

we can continue to make good progress. 

And I am grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, and to Senator Roberts, 

the Ranking Member, for your commitment to this noble cause. 

And so I look forward to working with you to see its final passage. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that various letters of support I have in favor of the SENTRI Act be made 

part of the record, following my remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cornyn was submitted for 

the record:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Without objection. 

[The information was submitted for the record:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. And thank you, Senator Cornyn, not only 

for your eloquent testimony on behalf of the men and women serving us overseas but also your just steadfastness on this bill and on 

the whole issue. We are not going to get things done without 

your—it would not get done without your leadership. So thank you 

for caring. 

I do not have any questions. 

I have submitted my statement in the record. 

Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to submit three questions—one to Mr. Boehmer with 

regard to the law requiring voting assistance for military voters 

and clear must be enforced, et cetera, et cetera, and we did not 

have enough time to really get into that, and then one with the 

MOVE Act and its requirements. 

The Defense Department Inspector General attempted to contact 

every one of the installations’ voting assistance offices but was unable to do so 50 percent of the time. So that is a real problem. And 

he, the IG, simply recommended we change the law to get rid of 

the requirement and make it discretionary, which is pretty—it 

notes a significant difference with regard to the testimony today. 

So that would go to Mr. Boehmer. 

And then one other question—I do not need to go into it other 

than to make the statement that if the distinguished Senator from 

Texas has any problem, any area in Texas, we can send pretty fast 

horses with saddle bags from Dodge City anytime he needs it. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Or, from Brooklyn, New York. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. I would like to thank Senator Roberts and 

assure him—first, without objection—those questions are submitted for the record. We would ask the witnesses to respond within a week in writing, if that is okay. 

Okay, without objection. 

And I want to thank Senator Cornyn. 
141 

I want to thank Senator Roberts and assure him we want to 

work with him to try and deal with the problems he has so we can 

move forward. 

So, without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 

five business days for additional statements and post-hearing questions submitted in writing—okay, I gave a week. I will modify that 

to five days—for our first panel of witnesses to answer. 

I want to thank my colleagues for participating, particularly Senator King, who pinch-hit for me, and sharing his thoughts. 

And, since there is no further business, the Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:54 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(142) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 

HEARING—BIPARTISAN SUPPORT 

FOR IMPROVING U.S. ELECTIONS: AN OVERVIEW FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON ELECTION ADMINISTRATION 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2014 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

SR–301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. Schumer 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Schumer, Klobuchar, King and Roberts. 

Staff Present: Jean Bordewich, Staff Director; Stacy Ettinger, 

Chief Counsel; Veronica Gillespie, Elections Counsel; Benjamin 

Hovland, Senior Counsel; Ellen Zeng, Counsel; Abbie Sorrendino, 

Legislative Assistant; Phillip Rumsey, Legislative Correspondent; 

Lynden Armstrong, Chief Clerk; Lean Alwood, Chief Auditor; Benjamin Grazda, Staff Assistant; Mary Suit Jones, Republican Staff 

Director; Shaun Parkin, Republican Deputy Staff Director; Paul 

Vinovich, Republican Chief Counsel; Trish Kent, Republican Professional Staff; and Rachel Creviston, Republican Professional 

Staff. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SCHUMER 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay, the Rules Committee will call to 

order. 

Our hearing today is on The Presidential Commission on Election Administration, the report and recommendations on best practices in election administration. 

At the core of our national identity as Americans is a pride that 

we live in a democracy and, of course, have the right to vote. 

It is a beautiful thing to me that on November nights in New 

York, cold November nights, citizens, tired, coming home from 

work—they want to get home and put dinner on the table for the 

kids, just get home because they have had a hard day at work, put 

their feet up on the table, and on the coffee table, and watch their 

TV show. 

But, in quiet dignity, they line up, go into the polling place, do 

their duty, and the next morning we all abide by the decision. 

It is an amazing thing that does not happen in most countries 

still to this day and has not happened in any country for as long 

as it has happened in ours. So it is a beautiful thing. 

And, in the 225-year journey since the first presidential election, 

many things about elections have changed. Of course, more people 

are eligible to vote. 

As I look around the room here, I do not know if either King or 

Roberts is a property owner, but half of us would not be allowed 

to vote when the Republic was founded. 

And, if you guys—your ancestors did not own property—— 
187 

Senator ROBERTS. I am a property owner. 

Chairman SCHUMER. That is right. I should not have brought 

that up. 

Yes, you are. 

Senator ROBERTS. Do you want to emphasize that? 

Chairman SCHUMER. No, no, it was unintended. Okay. 

Anyway, more people are eligible to vote—African-Americans, 18 

to 20 year-olds. Today’s expanded electorate is much more reflective of our Nation. But, as recent examples have shown, there are 

still problems with our elections, many of which could be addressed 

by improving the way we administer them. 

Election administration is a difficult, often a thankless, task. So, 

before I go any further, I would like to thank the election administrators and officials for all of the Election Days that have gone 

right over the years. It is not an easy job. Because it is so important to our democracy, we have to aspire to perfection. 

In reality, most Americans do not even think about running of 

an election until something goes wrong. We all remember Florida 

2000 and Minnesota’s 2008 Senate race, where recounts put our 

election process under a microscope. As recently as the 2012 election, many polling places throughout the country had unacceptably 

long lines, and this was not the first election with that problem, 

but we would all like it to be the last. 

In his election night victory speech, President Obama referenced 

those long lines, declaring, ‘‘We need to fix that.’’ 

That is a difficult task because elections in the United States are 

uniquely run at the state and local level. With our 50 states, we 

have 50 unique election systems and thousands of election districts, 

with this patchwork system sometimes creating challenges. 

Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously called 

the states ‘‘laboratories of democracy.’’ They sometimes provide us 

with examples of innovation that can be shared throughout the 

country. 

Soon after the last election, the President acted and created a bipartisan commission to study election administration and best 

practices for improving voting in America. The President insisted 

this not be a partisan exercise. The Commission was supposed to 

seek out the best ideas for making voting easier and better no matter where they came from, and that is just what the Commission 

did. 

The Presidential Commission on Election Administration was 

made up of 10 members, included current and former election officials, executives from successful customer service-oriented businesses and two chairs—both well known, one a Republican, one a 

Democrat, but each with a long storied history in this area. 

And so, Mr. Bauer and Mr. Ginsberg, you have been on opposing 

sides in political campaigns and in the courtroom. You both have 

top-notch credentials as advocates and champions of your respective parties. So you are uniquely qualified to identify areas where 

we should move forward. 

And I think on behalf of our whole Committee, those present and 

those not, I would like to thank you for serving on the Commission 

and finding places where we can move beyond partisanship and 
188 

focus on the nuts and bolts of making running elections easier and 

better for voters and administrators alike. 

Your Commission’s report, in my judgment, is an outstanding 

piece of work, a valuable road map for improving election administration in this country. 

While the Commission’s charge did not include recommendations 

for Federal legislation, the report makes it clear there are areas of 

existing law and its enforcement that must be improved, and our 

Committee will study your report and your testimony today carefully. 

So I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me 

in using this report to help improve our election system and 

strengthen our democracy. 

So we thank you for your work and look forward to hearing your 

testimony. 

And, with that, let me turn it over to Senator Roberts. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERTS 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I look forward to hearing the presentation of our witnesses. 

I want to thank you for your service. They are to be commended 

for giving their time on this project, and lending their experience 

and their expertise, which is considerable. 

I know there were a number of other well-qualified commissioners who are not with us today, but I thank them as well for 

their efforts. 

The Commission was charged with making best practice recommendations rather than legislative recommendations, and that 

is what the report has done. It recognizes that elections are carried 

out at the state and local level and that is where we must focus 

our attention. 

For our elections to function properly, we need all of the parties—election officials, poll workers, and the voters themselves— 

and the voters themselves—to do their part. This requires proper 

planning and effective administration. 

I hope the work that the Commission and the recommendations 

that it has made will help advance the effective administration of 

our elections and improve the voter experience. 

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

I welcome opening statements by the other members of the 

panel. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KLOBUCHAR 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you very much, Senator Schumer. 

I just want to, again, as a member of the Judiciary Committee 

and having looked at some of these voter issues from that perspective, want to thank our witnesses today for their good work. 

And also, I would note while you did mention Minnesota with the 

recount, okay, and the fact that, as we all remember, someone did 

vote for someone named Lizard Person in that particular election 
189 

when we painfully looked at every single ballot in the State, our 

State actually has a very proud tradition of high voter turnout. We 

are always, consistently in the top few states of voter turnout, and 

a lot of that has to do that we have same-day registration. 

And I studied and looked, and of the top six states for voter turnout they are not necessarily Democratic or Republican states. Iowa 

is usually one of the top ones. Maine is one of the top states. But 

they tend to have something in common; most of them have sameday registration. 

So I know that is not necessarily part of what you looked at in 

terms of legislation, but I think that it would go a long way. And 

I have a bill with Senator Tester to look at rolling that out on a 

national level. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. 

I would say my experience is as broad as either of yours. Minnesota has one of the best election systems and really tries to do 

it fairly and in a nonpartisan way, as does Maine actually. 

Senator King. 

Senator KING. I do not really have a statement, Mr. Chairman, 

except that since Minnesota and Maine have been brought up, 

Jesse Ventura and I always thought it was states with independent 

governors that had the high voter turnout. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But I will point out that Senator King did 

not wear a feather boa at his inaugural party. 

Senator KING. Well, you do not know that, Senator. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KING. No, I have. 

Chairman SCHUMER. This hearing is proving to be much more interesting than anyone ever imagined. 

Senator KING. I will reserve my comments, and I look forward 

to hearing from the witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. So we want to thank our witnesses— 

first, Mr. Bob Bauer. 

In addition to serving as a Co-Chair of the Presidential Commission we are here to discuss, Mr. Bauer is a partner in the law firm 

of Perkins Coie. He is general counsel to the Democratic National 

Committee and, in the 2008 and 2012 election cycles, was general 

counsel to Obama for President. So, as you can see, his credentials 

on the Democratic side are strong. 

Equally strong is Mr. Ben Ginsberg. In addition to serving as CoChair of the Commission, Mr. Ginsberg is a partner in the Patton 

Boggs Law Firm. In 2012 and 2008, he served as national counsel 

to the Romney for President campaigns. And I will not get into it, 

but he has had a profound effect in our electoral system. 

In 1992 and 1994, you changed America, not in a way I would 

like, but it was amazing what you did. 

And, with that, let me turn it over to Mr. Bauer. 

We would ask each of our witnesses to limit their statements to 

five minutes, and additional statements, without objection—additional remarks, without objection, will be read into the record. 

Mr. Bauer. 
190 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. BAUER, CO-CHAIR AND MEMBER, 

THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON ELECTION ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. BAUER. Thank you very much, Senator Schumer, Senator 

Roberts, members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity 

of testifying here today with my Co-Chair, Ben Ginsberg. 

We discussed in advance how we would organize this. So I am 

going to open with, very quickly, some general considerations identified in the report that we asked our readers to keep in mind as 

we laid out then our recommendations and the best practices we 

identified, and then I am going to illustrate a little bit of the approach that we took by talking about the signature issue—the issue 

most associated with the Commission—and that is the problem of 

long lines at the polls. 

There are, of course, a number of other issues that Ben will cover 

that we address in six major recommendations along with, as I 

said, highlighted best practices. 

But let me say first that the Commission was structured, and its 

membership was selected, on the theory that election administration is a topic of public administration and needs to be treated as 

such and that the voters ought to be considered very much as we 

would consider any other recipients of services provided. That is to 

say, elsewhere in their lives, Americans think a good bit about customer service and about how customer service is rendered to them 

in their roles as consumers and in other walks of life. 

And, likewise, our view was—and I think the President’s intention was—that the Commission consider the voters as entitled to 

that level of customer service and provided the kind of service in 

the voting process that we all believe, as the drivers of our democracy, the voters deserve. 

So this theme of public administration was essential to our work. 

One illustration of the importance to the Commission and the approach the Commission took in this thought about public administration and this emphasis on public administration is our reliance 

on data. Our view was that we ought to look at election administration as thoroughly as possible through the lens of the best possible information, social science and research that was available. 

And we were very fortunate that some of the witnesses who came 

before the Commission were able to fashion fresh data for purposes 

of their testimony that the Commission could rely upon, and that 

included an extraordinary survey of several thousand state and 

local election administrators conducted by some of the country’s top 

political scientists and survey research experts. And we gleaned 

very significant information about some of the issues that we addressed from that survey. 

But, overall, throughout the report, the effort was to look very 

closely at the evidence—how the electoral system was performing. 

And, in that connection, one of the recommendations that we make 

is that we need, in this country, much more systematic collection 

and analysis of data to enable us to pinpoint both the strengths 

and the weaknesses in the performance of our electoral process. 

Beyond that, there were a few other—and I will tick through 

them very quickly—considerations that we discuss at the outset of 

our report. 
191 

Does one size fit all? We have many different jurisdictions. Some 

believe that you cannot generalize reforms across all jurisdictional 

lines. To some extent, that is true, but it is also true that there is 

enough in the way of common features to election administration 

across the United States that one size in many respects can fit all 

for many of these recommendations. And the recommendations we 

have made, we have made on the basis that they truly fit all. 

Issue of resources. Election administration costs money. And, too 

often, we heard from administrators that budget priorities are 

such, and the fiscal pressures on the states and local jurisdictions 

are such, that too often the needs of election administrators—the 

fiscal needs of election administrators—are shuffled to the bottom 

of the deck. 

We do not make specific recommendations. That was not our 

charge. But, clearly, it was important for us to note that we cannot 

have soundly conducted elections without money. 

Thirdly, the technology challenge. I will leave this to my colleague, Mr. Ginsberg, to discuss in greater detail, but it is clear 

that one warning bell that we rang here was the impending crisis 

in voting technology. 

Enforcement of existing law. It is very important, even though 

we do not make legislative recommendations, for us to call attention to problems in compliance with existing Federal statutes that 

were enacted to protect certain populations of voters—language minority voters, disabled voters and the voters among our uniformed 

military and overseas populations. 

Some of these statutes, like the MOVE Act, have had significant 

salutary effect, but there are still gaps in compliance we identify 

in our report—compliance with the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, compliance with the Voting Rights Act and the provisions that 

protect language minorities and performance of public assistance 

agencies under the National Voter Registration Act in supporting 

the registration process. 

So those are some fundamental points that we make. 

And then let me say very briefly the point about lines. I just 

have a few seconds left. 

There are many factors that feed into lines. We tried to analyze 

what those factors might be. They raise a whole host of issues that 

each can be individually addressed, and then in the aggregate the 

problem of lines can be substantially resolved. 

And we also—and this is something we call attention to—are 

publicizing certain online tools now on our web site and to be permanently hosted on the Cal Tech-MIT Voting Technology Project 

web site, that administrators can use immediately and, over time, 

improve upon that will enable them to efficiently allocate resources 

within the polling place and plan for long lines and address them. 

This is a report, but it is also a project. And our work begins 

now, to work with you, the Congress, state legislative leaders, community leaders and election administrators around the country, to 

see to their effective implementation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bauer was submitted for the 

record:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Mr. Ginsberg. 
192 

STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN L. GINSBERG, CO-CHAIR AND MEMBER, THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON ELECTION ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. GINSBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having us here 

today. 

It has been a pleasure to work with Bob on this, and it is fair 

to say we are both proud of the work of our Commission. 

We were charged with making recommendations to the state and 

local officials who actually put on our elections, to remove barriers 

to duly qualified citizens being able to cast their votes easily. 

Elections and voting is an area where there can be conflict between Republicans and Democrats, but it is also a subject where 

Republicans and Democrats can agree on the basic principle and on 

common-sense solutions to make the voting experience better. 

Bob and I were fortunate to work with eight other commissioners 

and a talented research director from whom we learned a tremendous amount. 

We were able to reach bipartisan and unanimous agreement on 

the report’s recommendations and best practices. We found that the 

basic principles on which Republicans and Democrats agree is that 

every legally registered voter has the right to be able to cast his 

or her ballot easily and without impediments. 

As to the details of voting, Bob and I had some history to fall 

back on. We have been on the opposite side of many partisan battles over the years and, undoubtedly, will be again as we amble 

along the path to the old election lawyers’ home. 

Among those battles have been a lot of recounts. All those recounts were instructive to this exercise because they provide an unparalleled view of how the system works. 

We will both tell you that there are problems with our system 

of voting. The Commission presented a unique opportunity for us 

to address some of those topics that both Republicans and Democrats know are problems and which we need to do something about. 

That is not a partisan issue. It is trying to get right something 

that very much needs to be gotten right. In fact, it is so important 

to get it right that it deserves doing even if it does not satisfy everything that one party or another believes needs to be fought in 

this area. 

As for fixing these problems, the Commission recognized that our 

elections are administered by approximately 8,000 different jurisdictions, largely using volunteers who do not receive much training. 

As a result, achieving uniformity in our elections has proven challenging. 

Let me turn to a couple of the big-picture issues that jurisdictions face. 

As Bob mentioned, the state of our voting equipment and technology is an impending crisis. The machines now being used in virtually every jurisdiction, purchased 10 years ago with HAVA funds 

after the Florida recount, will no longer be functional within the 

next 10 years. 

Voting equipment, generally, has not kept up with technological 

advances in our daily lives. The current equipment is expensive 

and unsatisfactory to virtually every elections official with whom 

the Commission spoke. That is heavily due to a Federal certifi-
193 

cation process that is broken and must be reformed. This is a subject to which few are paying attention and which will not end well 

on its current path. 

One of the issues we heard about consistently was having adequate physical facilities for polling places. In most communities, 

those facilities are schools, but officials in an increasing number of 

jurisdictions cite safety concerns as a reason for not making schools 

available for voting. 

Adequate facilities to vote and safety for our children cannot be 

competing interests. The Commission felt a strong need to call attention to the problem and to recommend that security concerns be 

addressed by making Election Day an in-service day for students 

and teachers. 

Bob already talked about long lines. Let me touch quickly on 

some of the other subjects of the Commission’s specific recommendations and best practices to the state and local officials. 

Early voting was one. Our Commission charge was to make it 

easier for all eligible voters to vote. A majority of states, with both 

Democratic and Republican state officials leading the way, now 

have early voting and told us that early voting is both here to stay 

and increasingly demanded by voters. The details of the number of 

days and hours will vary by state and county and locality, and the 

decisions are best made there. 

More accurate voting lists. Whether to help ensure that only dually qualified voters vote or to facilitate more people being able to 

vote more easily, the Commission found agreement and support 

across the political spectrum for more accurate voter lists. We 

made two recommendations in that regard. 

One is the adoption and use of more online registration. The 

SupportTheVoter.gov web site has examples of tools that can do 

that. 

And, secondly, we recommend that all states join two existing 

and complementary programs—the Interstate Voter Cross Check, 

or Kansas, Project and the Election Registration and Information 

Center. Both allow states to share data in ways that will make 

their lists more accurate on their own initiative. 

Finally, the report also touches on a number of subjects that are 

summarized in my testimony: 

Military and overseas voting; 

Disabled policies and law that require accessible polling for the 

Nation’s voters with disabilities, a group that is growing larger 

with the Baby Boom generation, recommendations that entail state 

and local voting officials meeting with members of the disabled 

community and those with language proficiency issues to be able 

to work out solutions for local polling; 

And, data and testing. There should be testing of our machines 

after each election to see how well they performed and to share information among jurisdictions. And there should be more uniform 

collection of data because, as our political scientist friends—led by 

our research director, Nate Persily, of Stanford University—told us, 

more data leads to better solutions. 

With that, thank you again for having us, and I know Bob and 

I would be happy to answer questions. 
194 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ginsberg was submitted for the 

record:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, thank you both for your great report 

and excellent testimony. 

I will start off. 

The report recommends that states adopt online voting registration, a reform that improves accuracy and saves money. Nineteen 

states have done it. So that means 31 have not, if my math is correct. 

What is the barrier to the other states doing it, and is there anything that we can do to overcome those barriers? 

[Pause.] 

Mr. BAUER. You will notice we continue the bipartisan effort with 

each other—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. I see that. 

Mr. BAUER. —to make sure that we do not interrupt. We will 

start interrupting as soon as we return to our day jobs, yes. 

We are not seeing a barrier so much. Sometimes it takes a while 

for the discussions to take place within a state and, ultimately, decisions to be reached in favor of changes like online voter registration. 

We are optimistic that this is one of the developments, a key 

and, I think, well-tested introduction of a technology into the electoral process that is going to sort of move irresistibly across the 

country. 

And one of our goals in keeping with the slogan—this is not a 

report; it is a project—is to go out and, as we have been invited 

to do, make the case wherever we can. 

And wherever, Senator, that case can be made, whether it is by 

Federal legislative leaders, state legislative leaders, voting rights 

groups, community leaders or election administrators, that case 

does need to be made. I think it will wind up being an effective 

case. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Is there an up-front cost? 

Mr. BAUER. There is an up-front cost, but the—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. How much? Is it significant? 

Mr. BAUER. No, it is not significant, and over time it is clear from 

studies that have been done in states that have adopted online registration that that cost is more than recovered. It is a net savings— 

fiscal savings. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right. We have a lot of instances in our 

government where an up-front cost is recouped over the next 10 

years, but because of budget processes, which are not that different 

in the states, people do not want to make the expenditures in year 

1 and year 2. 

But that is not proving to be barrier. That is not a barrier in 

your eyes as of yet. 

Mr. BAUER. No, Senator, it is not. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right. 

Second, the report states that electronic poll books have the potential to solve Election Day issues, that election officials want this 

technology. Can you discuss how electronic poll books make a difference and what is the delaying the adoption of that one? 
195 

Mr. GINSBERG. It is much easier to describe how they make a difference than to describe why it has been a problem so far. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. 

Mr. GINSBERG. They make a difference because the information 

that can be put on an electronic poll book takes care of a lot of sort 

of the antiquated paper that is in a polling place. You can call up 

much more information, including signature verification and photo 

IDs for people. It can cut down on the traditional line problems 

that have plagued some jurisdictions on Election Day. So they are 

a low-cost simple solution to putting a lot of paper in one place 

where poll workers can access it easily. 

Chairman SCHUMER. What is delaying their implementation? 

Mr. GINSBERG. Well, this goes into the whole sort of morass we 

have fallen into with technology. Part of the problem is that the 

certification program for new ballot systems is kind of fatally broken, and new systems are having a great deal of difficulty coming 

online because the certification process now takes so long and is 

virtually impossible to get through. Some of these solutions are just 

proving very nettlesome for manufacturers to find a market to put 

them in place. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Got it. Okay. 

Next, Delaware is highlighted in your report as a national leader 

in implementing the National Voter Registration Act. Delaware 

seems to seamlessly transfer information from the DMV—motor vehicles—to the election rolls. Can you tell us a little bit more about 

this and explain why it is better than what most other states do 

and, again, why aren’t more states doing it? 

Mr. BAUER. We, Senator, laud Delaware in particular because of 

our concern about the inconsistent performance of Departments of 

Motor Vehicles across the country in implementing their responsibility under the National Voter Registration, or Motor Voter, Act. 

This is a significant issue. 

One of our commissioners, Chris Thomas, is intimately familiar 

with this issue, twice Director of the National Association of Election Directors, and has really called attention to this as a major, 

major shortfall in compliance with Federal law. 

And we are calling attention to the fact that (A) there is no reason why this DMV performance cannot be improved and (B) there 

are models like Delaware to which states can look that really illustrate how effectively this can be done and what a difference it 

makes in election administration. 

There really needs to be major consistent attention to the fact 

that this is a serious, serious problem in the operation of current 

Federal statutes. That is to say compliance with those statutes. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. 

My time is expired. 

Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I want to talk about the long line problem, and we often hear 

about long lines are the result of some kind of a real plan of some 

sort that certain areas are being targeted and the lines are a result 

of a deliberate effort to disenfranchise groups. 

My question is, did you find any evidence of that? 
196 

Second, are these lines resulting from management problems or 

deliberate schemes to disenfranchise people? 

Mr. GINSBERG. Well, I will let Bob address this as well. 

What we saw is that almost exclusively—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Please turn the microphone towards you. 

Yes. Thank you. 

Mr. GINSBERG [continuing]. That this was a management issue, 

that there are any number of solutions that we put forward in the 

report to deal with the specific problems of long lines. 

We held extensive hearings with the jurisdictions, in the jurisdictions, where long lines had occurred, and we found that there are— 

the problems are all identifiable, and they are all solvable, and 

there were no plots or conspiracies that caused the lines. 

In fact, if you—we spent some time in the jurisdictions in south 

Florida and held a hearing in Miami, and what we found was that 

in the polling places where there were long lines in those counties 

that occurred in less than 1 percent of the polling places in that 

particular county. That would suggest a resource allocation issue 

and a way to look at management techniques and facilities to be 

able to improve that. 

And one of the things that Bob mentioned in his testimony was 

the providing of online tools for precinct officials to be able to gauge 

the flow over the course of the day and better allocate the equipment that they have within a county—— 

[Audio system malfunction.] 

Senator ROBERTS. . . . casting ballots a month before the actual 

Election Day, don’t we want voters to be casting their ballots based 

on the same set of facts? 

Is there a value in the communal act of voting [inaudible]? Are 

we wise to sacrifice that in the name of convenience? 

Does early voting increase turnout, or does it just spread it 

around? 

Is it bringing in people who otherwise would not vote, or is it just 

making it more convenient for those who would be voting anyway? 

The thing that I am trying to point out here is you are voting 

45 days before the Election Day and then within the 45 days several big issues come up with regard to the campaign and the voters 

who have voted 45 days early have no chance to factor that in, in 

regard to the Election Day period. 

Now I have asked you about four or five questions. I will stop 

there. 

You know, I have not heard from Bob. Why don’t you go ahead? 

Mr. BAUER. Certainly, Senator. Thank you. 

Senator, the—— 

Senator ROBERTS. You will have to speak up. I am sorry. 

Mr. BAUER [continuing]. There are two points that I would make 

about the early voting and the issue that you raise about whether 

or not it cuts off the opportunity for citizen deliberation prior to the 

casting of ballots. 

The first is that without speaking now to the amount of early 

voting that a state might be prepared to provide, the expense of the 

early voting provided, voters actively resist the notion that they all 

need to be funneled through on one day, on Tuesday, from 7:00 

a.m. until 8:00 p.m. or 9:00 p.m. at night. The traditional Election 
197 

Day model has not only broken down from the standpoint of administrators—it is less feasible from their perspective—but it simply 

runs up against the grain of voter expectation that they should be 

cramped in, if you will, to this one day to vote. 

I think it creates a whole host of problems and does contribute, 

for example, to issues like lines. 

The second point I would make, Senator, is that the studies show 

that the voters who vote early are the voters who are the most settled on their choice. They are voters who have made up their 

minds, whether you call them the most partisan or the most ideologically committed, but one way or the other, those are the voters 

least likely to be moved by any sort of anticipated changes in the 

campaign agenda over the remaining days of the season. 

So, on balance, when you weigh what voters expect and what 

they believe they ought to be offered in the way of options for voting against the risks that they will be denied an opportunity for 

information they really need for deliberation, our Commission concluded that early voting in some form or another wins out. 

Mr. GINSBERG. I believe this is an area where the individual 

states really have the best feel for how much early voting their voters want. And we did hear across the political spectrum from officials of both parties, who say that voters in many jurisdictions really appreciate and expect to be able to have some options at the 

time that they cast their vote. 

In terms of resources, it can be more efficient for jurisdictions to 

have early voting and not have to jam everything onto Election 

Day. That is not always true. 

But I think this is one of those areas where we aim the report 

at state and local officials, and they are the ones who end up deciding. 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you. 

There is an article by Norm Ornstein, and it is back in 2004, but 

I feel I still think it is very relevant. The headline said ‘‘Early Voting Necessary But Toxic in Large Doses.’’ 

The article forcefully details the dangers inherent in early voting, 

and the points he makes, I think, are at least worth considering. 

I commend it to the attention of all of our colleagues. 

I have some other questions, but my time is expired. Maybe we 

can get back on another round, or I could submit them for the 

record. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, thank you, Senator Roberts. 

I have a prior commitment. Senator King has graciously agreed 

to continue to chair the hearing. No problem with the second round 

if it is okay with the Chairman. 

Senator Klobuchar is next. 

And we do have an executive session to nominate two people to 

the Election Assistance Commission—Thomas Hicks and Myrna 

Pe ́rez. We will do that off the floor at about noon, when we have 

a series of votes. 

So, with that, let me call on Senator Klobuchar and thank Senator King for once again generously agreeing to chair. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 
198 

I first want to start by thanking you for that kind of consumer 

model you have developed here—that people should not be waiting 

in line. And you can look at it in that simple fashion. 

But I did want to follow up on something that Senator Roberts 

was asking about, of you, Mr. Ginsberg, and that was when you 

looked at these and studied these things, were people trying to disenfranchise people or was it management issues, and you said it 

was management issues. 

And I could see that in our State sometimes when we have problems at polling booths. Mistakes are made. 

But I do think that some of the efforts that are going on right 

now in some of the states—you have come out for early voting. Yet, 

North Carolina and Florida recently started efforts or enacted laws 

that would cut back on early voting, or North Carolina stopped 

same-day registration, or some of these other things that you see 

states doing. 

What I am concerned about is the effect of this is to disenfranchise voters, whether it is done at the individual precinct level or 

not. This is about laws that are being enacted with stringent license requirements and things like that. 

So my question is, one, do you think that some of that is going 

on. 

And, number two, just to get the stuff done that you want to get 

done, is there the political will to do it in these states and in Congress, when we see the kinds of things that are going on in so 

many of the states and, in fact, backtracking from this idea that 

we should allow more people to vote? 

I guess I start with you, Mr. Bauer. 

Mr. BAUER. Senator, two quick responses to your comment. 

The first is we were surprised—maybe not surprised. I do not 

want to overstate the case. But we certainly were struck, I will put 

it this way, by the wealth of testimony around the country—Democratic and Republican, in jurisdictions that might be thought, you 

know, much redder than bluer or, in some cases, much bluer than 

redder—at the uniform wish once the lights were off and the doors 

were closed, or in hearings where the agenda was well-defined, a 

wish to see election administration in fact be first-rate public administration for the benefit of the voters. 

I mean, across the board, that is what we heard. 

And we had, after all, an opportunity at all of our hearings for 

anybody who wanted to be heard to be heard, and so we might 

have had an opportunity then for discordant voices then and very 

partisan voices. But, by and large, the hearings and the other discussions we had seemed to have welcomed as an opportunity for 

people to voice their wish that we had an election system that we 

could be proud of. 

Now, granted, outside of many of the issues we discuss, there are 

controversial enactments that the parties are quite divided about. 

And I assure you that if Ben and I went off into a room in our 

non-Co-Chair capacity we would wind up brawling about just those 

issues again. Right now, we are in statesmanship mode. 

Mr. GINSBERG. It is sort of painful. 

Mr. BAUER. It is painful, but we are holding out as long as we 

possibly can. 
199 

But that is not the whole story. 

The second point I would make—and this is a critical point—is 

that if we strengthen some of the key administrative sort of features of our electoral infrastructure, if, for example, we have an understanding that we are going to strive toward the 30-minute wait 

time maximum that we articulate in the report, and address some 

of the issues that lead to long lines, then we are going to risk the 

vulnerability of the system to partisan mischief. 

Senator Roberts raised the question, could you have plots to sort 

of create long lines? 

Well, there is more vulnerability in the system to those sorts of 

shenanigans if the system itself is weak, and it will break down 

under pressure. 

If it is strong, it is less likely that it will break down under political pressure or by political design. 

So those would be two of the responses I would offer you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Ginsberg. 

Mr. GINSBERG. I think this area is fraught with partisan feelings. 

I think that is unfortunate. 

I think you cannot equate cutting back hours in early voting with 

trying to disenfranchise people. 

The simple fact of the matter is in North Carolina and Florida, 

as an example, no one has suggested ending early voting. What 

people have suggested is that there are administrative concerns 

about having unlimited early voting. 

That is a fair debate to have. It does not entail voter disenfranchisement. And we get into sort of nasty rhetorical detours on this 

issue all too often. 

I would also point out that in all the studies that we saw early 

voting does not increase turnout. That is an unproven assertion— 

that having more hours actually does increase turnout. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But does same-day registration—a different 

matter, of course. Do you think that increases it? 

Mr. GINSBERG. Well, it is a different matter. It is a little bit hard 

to say because the states that you mentioned as having early voting do have a history of increased participation. 

So I think the laboratory of the states to see if same-day registration works or not has not yet been taken on. 

And I think in some of the states where there is low turnout 

same-day registration would create all sorts of problems for the administrators that might in fact devolve into problems like longer 

lines if you had same-day registration. 

So I think it is an unproven, untested area so far. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. For eight years, I enforced our election laws 

and looked back through every single painstaking—every single account of double voting. Ninety percent of them were a father and 

son with the same name. And we just saw so little fraud in a major 

county with over two million people. 

And every so often there would be someone who was mad and 

voted twice or a felon who did not know that they were on probation and that they could not vote. We had things like that happen. 

It was true. 
200 

But, for the most part, people were not going to go out there and 

try to commit a felony and vote. 

So that is just my general concern, and why I am so glad about 

what you are doing is that I just do not see that as the major problem as much as it is that it has become hard for people to vote. 

Or, for some reason they do not want to go stand in these lines because they hear about the lines, and then they do not want to go 

out and vote. And that is why I appreciate what you are doing. 

And I would just have one more question along the lines of your 

recommendations. That was on the schools. I wanted to know more 

about what they identified as these security issues. Have there 

been incidences at schools? 

We still have a lot of voting at schools in Minnesota, obviously, 

and it is the central place where people feel comfortable to go. 

And how do you think we fix it? 

Mr. GINSBERG. I think this area was one of the greatest areas of 

surprise to us when we heard from so many local officials that it 

was a problem. 

The concern is that since the incidents at schools with shootings 

and violence, that having strangers walking around in the schools 

and on the campuses was a source of concern, and that is the reason that some states, some localities, are cutting back the use of 

schools. 

It is a tremendous problem because in the majority of jurisdictions schools provide the best facilities for voting. There is ample 

space. They are accessible—all the things that you want in a polling place. 

So the conflict between the interest of safety to children and voters is a conflict that should not be allowed to exist. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And you had suggested like having volunteers there or something? 

Mr. GINSBERG. Well, to have a school holiday basically, on Election Day so that it would be a training day for teachers. 

Mr. BAUER. So that would mean, in effect, you are not changing 

the school calendar; you are not costing them a day, because they 

would take the in-service training they always schedule anyway 

and move it to Election Day. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And have it scheduled on Election Day, 

with their time to vote as well put in there—that makes sense. 

Thank you. 

Senator KING [presiding]. Gentlemen, thank you. 

I am sure my kids would vote for an extra day off. 

Mr. GINSBERG. Not an extra day. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. No, they are just changing the in-service 

day. 

Senator KING. I know. I know. I know. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. All right. 

Senator KING. Senator Schumer mentioned laboratories of democracy, and I have often thought that in fact the states are laboratories of democracy. The problem is no one reads the lab reports 

and we do not do a very good job of sharing the information. 

So I commend you because I think what you have done here is 

exactly that function of collecting data and information across the 
201 

states and sharing best practices. This is principally a state and 

local issue. 

I will—in echoing Senator Roberts, we had a situation in a 

Maine election recently where we had very early voting. I cannot 

remember how. It was a month or more before the election. The dynamics of the election changed in the last several weeks, and we 

actually had people going into their town offices, trying to retrieve 

their early vote to change it because of developments in the election. 

So I do think that there is a legitimate issue about how far in 

advance because elections do tend to sometimes come into focus in 

the last several weeks. 

And we actually had that experience. I knew people that went 

to their town office and said, how can I get my vote back? I want 

to change it. 

And they could not. 

It was a very distinct situation. 

The long lines issue—how widespread is it? Is it a national problem, or is extremely localized? 

You mentioned in one district it was 1 percent of the precincts 

or something like that. 

I mean, are we searching for a Federal solution to what is really 

a very isolated local problem that needs to be dealt with by local 

officials? 

Mr. Bauer, do you want to tackle that? 

Mr. BAUER. Certainly. We are not recommending a Federal solution. We are definitely recommending, however, a series of reforms 

and best practices by which state and local governments can keep 

the wait lines down and, hopefully, comply with the 30-minute 

standard that we have articulated. 

But we did point out that—and this, by the way, is not intended 

as an adverse reflection in any way on the Election Assistance 

Commission, which has other duties which it has performed extremely well. Our report is replete with references to the top-flight 

work that they have done developing best practices and disseminating them to the jurisdictions. 

But here, knowing that there is going to be continued conflict 

about its role, there is a structural blockage here that simply needs 

to be addressed. And we cannot wait for some day we might hope 

for, when partisan fevers will subside and the Election Assistance 

Commission will somehow sort of experience a new dawn in this 

particular area. 

The problem that Ben has identified is just simply too urgent, 

and therefore, some answer has to be found. 

Senator KING. Senator Roberts, second round. 

Senator ROBERTS. Mr. Acting Chairman, it occurs to me, coming 

back at this point, that as usual you have focused on the very questions that I was going to ask. And our witnesses, with their expert 

knowledge, have already answered them. 

So the question is, do I simply repeat the questions that you 

have asked and have them do it over again or simply ask permission to put this article by Norman Ornstein—it is clear back in 

2004, ‘‘Early Voting Necessary But Toxic in Large Doses.’’ I am not 
202 

going to read it to you, but I would commend it to the attention 

of everybody. I think it still is very viable today. 

Senator ROBERTS. And I want to thank the witnesses and everybody concerned with this. 

And, since my questions are a duplication of the questions already asked, I yield back and I thank you, sir. 

Senator KING. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a few more questions about some actual individual recommendations you had. The first I thought was interesting was the 

internet feed idea. 

I come from a state where we literally put a camera on rising 

waters on a river, and everyone in the community tunes in to see 

what is exactly happening so they can see it. 

Or, we use this all the time, obviously, for weather. People are 

constantly checking today, right, when the storm is coming in tonight. 

And the simple idea that people could, with simple technology, 

check to see what is happening with voting lines in their precincts—could you talk a little bit, how you would envision that 

working? Would you be tuning a camera on the people, or would 

you just be giving reports? 

Mr. BAUER. I think what we would envision is that the administrators would be continuously assessing wait times and then posting accessible reports that citizens could consult as they sort of 

plan out when it would be most convenient for them, most efficient 

for them to vote. 

And, as you point out, Senator, quite correctly, this is fairly 

straightforward. It is one of the ways in which we believe we have 

to be continuously thinking about the introduction of technology to 

support the voting process. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So you are just thinking election administrators in each precinct saying that there are no wait times or 

something like that? 

Mr. BAUER. Twenty minutes, half an hour, forty-five minutes, 

correct. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Then you had another one on poll 

working training. You spent a lot of time discussing the importance 

of that and professional workers operating in the polling places and 

training standards for poll workers. How would this work? 

Mr. GINSBERG. Again, it is something that really can be talked 

about by the state but implemented by either the state or local jurisdictions. 

And poll workers are the point of contact for most voters. So having well-trained poll workers is extremely important to the smooth 

functioning of the system and just the way voters feel about voting. 

It comes down to training and whether that is a top priority or not 

with local administrators—to be able to recruit poll workers. 

One of the laments we heard from elections officials was how difficult it is to recruit poll workers, to find enough to be in the polling places. 

So we have some suggestions about using college students and 

even high school students. Apparently, high school students are 

more reliable in showing up than college students. Go figure. 
203 

And, to encourage businesses to allow their employees to be able 

to help out as poll workers on Election Day and then to have sufficient training. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Your report also talked about the importance of access to information in languages other than English, including ballots in other languages, outreach to non-English media 

outlets, bilingual poll workers. 

I know we have made some efforts in Minnesota with voters, 

with Asian and Pacific Islander groups. 

Why are efforts to make voting accessible to these different 

groups so important? 

Mr. BAUER. We want to stress, and have stressed throughout the 

entire report, that the broader theme that the Commission 

struck—and I think it is well within its charge—was improving the 

voter experience. 

For language minority voters to go to the polls and to find that 

there is nobody there to help them, who can speak their language 

successfully, is simply just not consistent with offering the kind of 

experience that all of our voters deserve. 

And, as we pointed out, there is support that by Federal law this 

Congress has tendered to these voters, and the statutes that provide for this protection are not drawing universally consistent compliance. 

And so, in a variety of ways, both in the localities recruiting— 

systematically recruiting—poll workers with language capability 

and then on the more—sort of on the next scale, next point up the 

scale, devoting their efforts in compliance with the Voting Rights 

Act provisions, protecting language minorities, there is a significant amount more to be done. And it is absolutely critical to reflecting respect for the voter. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. One of the things you also talk about in 

here is the people serving overseas in our military and how having 

online registration materials would be so helpful to them. I think 

that it makes a lot of sense. But, do you want to explain that? 

Mr. GINSBERG. We found inconsistencies among the states in the 

sort of usefulness of their web sites for people serving in the military, especially people serving in the military overseas or living 

overseas. And so there are some states that seem to have more robust sites than others. 

Web sites are kind of the easiest way to communicate if you are 

overseas or in the military, much more so than a postal service or 

even a direct delivery system. And so we would encourage at least 

the provision of registration materials on state web sites to be enhanced in the states. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Senator KING. I want to follow up again on the question of certification because you both identified there is a kind of coming-atus wave of replacement of machines with new technology, and yet, 

if the certification system is broken, that could be a real problem 

in 4 to 6 to 10 years. 

Is the problem the structure and the lack of functionality of the 

EAC, or is it the idea of Federal certification itself? 

I see those as two separate issues. 
204 

In other words, if the EAC tomorrow became fully functional, 

would this open the process and we would take care of this in an 

expeditious manner, or should we seriously consider saying, hey, 

this is a state and local responsibility; why do we need Federal certification? 

Mr. Ginsberg, your thoughts? 

Mr. GINSBERG. It is an area where a Federal certification process 

makes sense in which the states, in some ways, desire it. There 

certainly needs to be a central body to be able to judge machines 

and to give the states some comfort in the quality of machines. 

Senator KING. Like UL, Underwriters Laboratories for appliances. 

Mr. GINSBERG. Well, perhaps something like that. Again, the 

state election directors forming a group was the model before the 

EAC. 

I would agree that the EAC and its functionality is a completely 

separate question wrapped up in a lot of other different things. 

Senator KING. But it is a question that is important because if 

it does not get fixed then we do not get the certification, right? 

Mr. GINSBERG. Correct. So it should be fixed. 

Personally, I am partial to the state election directors solution for 

it. I think that could happen much more expeditiously, with kind 

of a greater need. There would be a Federal role in terms of the 

expertise that would need to be brought to it, but that is not necessarily through the current certification process. 

Senator KING. Mr. Bauer, your thoughts on my question? 

Mr. BAUER. Yes, I think you posed the question exactly correctly. 

I mean, I think that there are—it is possible to confuse the 

issues. 

I do believe that we would not have arrived at this conclusion, 

I do not think, and made this recommendation if the EAC in this 

particular area had not been in somewhat of a state of paralysis. 

And so, if your question is had this never developed and the EAC 

was sort of fully functioning, could it discharge this role successfully, the answer in my judgment is yes. 

We had to take into account the reality that that may not be 

prove to be the case. And we cannot wait for a solution that may 

not be available to us in the political or public policy sphere, or in 

the political sphere, and so other alternatives have to be developed 

on a fairly urgent basis. 

Senator KING. Would it take legislation for those alternatives because right now isn’t the certification—I mean it is just behind the 

dam, right? 

I mean, it cannot happen. 

What do we do? 

This is a problem that is going to come at us in the next two to 

four years. 

Mr. BAUER. I think that that is where—my Co-Chair will correct 

me if I am wrong. I think that that is part of the discussion that 

I think needs to take place right now, which is, what steps should 

be taken and how could they be taken to fully develop out those 

alternatives? 

We indicated only in broad brush strokes what those alternatives 

might be, but we did not grapple with the details in this report. 
205 

Senator KING. Mr. Ginsberg suggested he thought an alternative 

where the state directors created a certifying agency would be an 

acceptable alternative. Would that be acceptable to you, or do you 

think this has to be a Federal responsibility? 

Mr. BAUER. I would certainly be prepared to consider all of the 

alternatives. 

I would not want any position that we take to be—again, one of 

the concerns we have always had is that it would be taken to be 

sort of a damning sort of conclusion about the EAC and its future. 

That is not our intention, certainly not my intention. 

But I think any alternative that promises to be the most effective 

and efficient alternative is one I certainly would consider. 

Senator KING. No, my question is even assuming the EAC is perfectly functional, does this need to be a Federal responsibility, I 

guess is the question I am asking. 

Mr. BAUER. I do not know that I would define it as a Federal responsibility by necessity, but I am also not prepared to say that 

there is an alternative that—I am not prepared at this point because I am not sure I have studied it closely enough or reached a 

conclusion in my own mind, which of the alternatives, the one Ben 

suggested or potentially another with more Federal involvement, 

might be the most effective. 

All, in my mind, that we need to do is sort of focus on what 

would be most effective, and on that I do not have a conclusion. 

Senator KING. Well, we have to do something. 

I mean, the alarm bells are ringing. 

Mr. BAUER. Yes. 

Mr. GINSBERG. If I might, Senator, the way the system works is 

that different states have different standards. Almost inevitably, 

they say the machines that are used in their state need to have 

been certified by, right now, the existing structure. 

It is not that there is Federal legislation or a Federal role that 

particular blesses a particular machine when it gets done. 

I mean, there is still state legislation that refers back to a central testing facility for the machines to be sure that they are worthy of use. That can or cannot be a Federal function—that group 

that is judging the quality of the machines. 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

Mr. BAUER. Or, if I may, Senator, it could be a function that is 

not federally directed but federally supported. 

Senator KING. Right. Well, thank you both for your thoughts on 

this. 

And, if you have additional thoughts on this important issue, 

please file them with the Committee. I would appreciate having 

them. 

Any other questions, Senator Klobuchar? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. No. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. On behalf of the Committee, I would like to 

thank both of you, Mr. Bauer and Mr. Ginsberg, for your important 

testimony and particularly for your work on this Commission. It is 

important. It is important to the people of America. It is important 

to our processes. It is important to who we are as a country. 

And I really appreciate the work that you have done on this, and 

thank you very much. 
206 

This concludes the panel for today’s hearing. On behalf of the 

Rules Committee, I would like to thank all of our witnesses. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for five 

business days for additional statements and post-hearing questions 

submitted in writing for our witnesses to answer. 

I want to thank my colleagues for participating in this hearing 

and sharing their thoughts and comments on this important topic. 

This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(207) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 

HEARING—ELECTION ADMINISTRATION: 

INNOVATION, ADMINISTRATIVE 

IMPROVEMENTS AND COST SAVINGS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2014 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:51 a.m., in Room 

301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. Schumer, 

chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Schumer, Warner and Roberts 

Staff Present: Jean Bordewich, Staff Director; Stacy Ettinger, 

Chief Counsel; Veronica Gillespie, Elections Counsel; Ben Hovland, 

Senior Counsel; Abbie Sorrendino, Legislative Assistant; Phillip 

Rumsey, Legislative Correspondent; Jeff Johnson, Clerk; Benjamin 

Grazda, Staff Assistant; Mary Suit Jones, Republican Staff Director; Shaun Parkin, Republican Deputy Staff Director; Paul 

Vinovich, Republican Chief Counsel; and Rachel Creviston, Republican Professional Staff. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SCHUMER 

Chairman SCHUMER. The Rules Committee will come to order. 

Good morning. You cannot say good morning before you say that 

the Rules Committee will come to order, I have learned. 

Anyway, this hearing is the Committee’s second in a planned series on improving the administration of elections. Today’s hearing 

focuses on innovation, administrative improvements and cost savings. Last month, the Committee met to hear from the bipartisan 

co-chairs of the President’s Commission on Election Administration. The president established the Commission to study how elections are administered across the country and identify best practices for improving our elections. And as we heard from two very 

bright and very thoughtful co-chairs, Bob Bauer and Ben Ginsberg, 

there are a number of improvements that can be made as to how 

elections are administered, and they had some bipartisan suggestions. 

As Americans, we are and should be proud of our Democratic traditions. Expansion of the voting franchise over the past two centuries reflects the best of America. And part of being American is 

recognizing the importance of giving a voice to all Americans to 

participate in our democracy, and that is why we plan to introduce 

legislation that builds on the best practices recommended by the 

Presidential Commission on Election Administration. 

American voters deserve an election system that allows every eligible American who wants to participate in our democracy the opportunity to do so without unnecessary burdens. Common sense reforms that utilize our existing technology can make our election administration more voter-friendly while increasing efficiency and reducing costs. 
221 

Many of our colleagues have been very interested in this issue, 

and at the top of the list are the two senators testifying first on 

our panel—they are Senator Boxer and Senator Coons. They are 

committed to improving the administration of elections and to talk 

about their legislation, very thoughtful, good legislation that each 

of them has offered. 

Senator Boxer is here to discuss the Lines Interfere with National Elections Act, known quite coincidentally as the LINE Act, 

which seeks to create accountability and ensure voters never have 

to wait more than 30 minutes to vote. This goal, also highlighted 

by the Presidential Commission, is an important one for which we 

should strive. I think it is a great idea. Nothing pains me more 

than to see people on a cold November night waiting to go home, 

put food on the table, relax, waiting in the cold, in line, that goes— 

and we have it in my home neighborhood and my home borough. 

So I think Senator Boxer’s legislation is needed and thoughtful. 

Senator Coons was gracious enough to join us today to discuss 

the Fair, Accurate, Secure and Timely Voting Act, known as the 

FAST Voting Act, coincidentally as well. The bill creates an incentive for race-to-the-top structure to encourage states to adopt many 

of the best of the best practices, and I think that is a great idea 

too, to have the states compete to do better and give them a reward 

for doing better, work very well and race to the top. And I think 

it will work very well in elections too where you have the same 

idea. Federal interest but basically state laws govern. 

At the Presidential Commission, we heard an overview of the reforms, and today we are going to hear a more in-depth explanation 

of the benefits of online registration and electronic poll books from 

our second panel of witnesses, which includes state and local elected officials. I look forward to their first-hand accounts of how technological upgrades can help in providing good customer service to 

voters, and we should regard the voters as customers, as well as 

cost savings, by eliminating unnecessary data entry. These are the 

types of common sense, cost-effective reforms we hope to move forward in this Committee. 

So at the end of the day, I am going to ask that the rest of my 

statement be read into the record. It talks about the kinds of 

things that the Committee is going to pursue. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Schumer was submitted 

for the record:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. But I want to get right to our witnesses, 

who have been patient and on time. So I will ask Senator Roberts 

if he wishes to make any opening remarks, ask Senator Warner if 

he does, and then we will go right to the testimony. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERTS 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry I am 

late, and special greetings to Senator Boxer and Senator Coons. 

I appreciate your calling this hearing and thank the witnesses 

for their appearance here today. We will hear from folks representing all levels of our government, from our Senate colleagues, 

state and local election officials as well. I appreciate their commitment to improve our election process. 
222 

This is our second hearing to consider the recommendation of the 

President’s Commission on the Election Administration. The Commission recognized that reforms must be implemented at the state 

and local level, and that is where recommendations were focused. 

Wisely, the Commission did not call for federal legislation to implement their recommendations. Our Committee can call attention 

to the Commission’s recommendations and promote their adoption, 

I think, without seeking to impose and through enactment of federal legislation, with all due respect to my colleagues. 

I know my colleagues here today have legislation that seek to do 

just that, but I think the Commission found, and I agree, that for 

these reforms to be effective, they must be adopted by and tailored 

to the needs of the local communities that will be responsible for 

implementing them. Imposition of federal requirements, though 

perhaps well intentioned, could make things worse rather than better, as we have seen with the Federal Voting Machine Certification 

Program which has stifled innovation and increased costs while actually impeding utilization of the best, most modern technologies. 

I am pleased to see that states are adopting many recommended 

improvements on their own, and seen very positive results. I hope 

we will not advance any federal legislation that could hinder that 

progress. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again. Thank the 

witnesses for appearing here today, and I look forward to their remarks. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Senator Warner. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARNER 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling this hearing, and looking forward as well to the testimony of 

Senator Boxer and Senator Coons. 

I just want to point out one of the things that drives such interest for me in this issue is that we can and must do better. In Virginia in 2012, we saw folks wait up to five hours in line in America 

to vote. That is just unacceptable. We saw in Fairfax County, in 

a precinct in Skyline, folks waiting until about 10:00. We saw in 

Woodbridge, Virginia folks waiting until 10:45, and I would say our 

voting hours end at 7. 

We saw lines, similar lines downstate in Chesapeake. And the 

idea that this should be accepted as a status quo is totally unacceptable to me. Part of this may be ratios of machines to voters. 

Maryland, I think they are at 1 to 250; 1 to 750 in Virginia. 

So those are things that probably should be dealt with at the 

state level. But one of the reasons why I am such a supporter and 

original co-sponsor of Senator Coons’ bill is that this does not take 

the one-size-fits-all federal approach but says, let us go ahead and 

put some incentive dollars out there for states to compete on best 

practices; how we can assure that we get this fair, swifter approach. I think my staff pointed out, if we can find ways to deliver 

beer to ice fishermen in Michigan in a timely manner in tough conditions, we ought to be able to find a way, through using technology and improve systems, to not have folks wait three and four 

hours to vote in America at this point. 
223 

So I appreciate you calling the hearing, and I know we are a little pressed by time, so anxious to get to witnesses. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. And now let us call on our witnesses. We are honored to have Senators Boxer and Coons with us. 

We share their interests—or I do—in finding ways to improve the 

administration of elections. I do not agree with my dear friend Senator Roberts that we do not need any federal legislation. There are 

things where the Federal Government can improve things. But that 

is why we have hearings here. 

So I will first call on Senator Boxer, then Senator Coons, to proceed as they wish. Their entire statements will be read into the 

record. 

Thank you so much for coming and caring about this vital American issue. Senator Boxer. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BARBARA BOXER, A UNITED 

STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Roberts, Senator Warner, my friends. I am here very briefly—because I know 

you have a lot of other things you need to do—to talk about a bill 

that I introduced with Senator Bill Nelson. I am here to talk about 

a bill that Senator Bill Nelson and I worked very hard on called 

the LINE Act of 2014, S. 2017. 

The right to vote is something we all share, regardless of what 

state we come from. It is really the essence of our democracy. It 

is really a gift that we inherited from our founders. But when you 

make people wait in line for hours and hours and hours, and you 

force them to choose between voting or perhaps caring for a sick 

child or going through severe pain as they wait in line, or perhaps 

even risking their jobs if they wait in line, and so many other reasons why people suffered through this last election, I think their 

right to participate in our democracy is fundamentally denied, because many of them did give up. We know that. 

So they say a picture is worth a thousand words, and I have brief 

words for you and I have two photos for you. Here is what we witnessed in states across the nation on Election Day 2012. If you 

take a look at this picture—and I can give you smaller versions of 

it—this is Florida, Miami, people waiting for hours and hours to 

vote. And here are a couple of quotes from them. Mr. Blake 

Yagman said, quote, ‘‘I was there for about three and a half hours. 

Each of the lines was four to five hours. It took my mom eight and 

a half hours to vote,’’ unquote. 

This gentleman is severely hypoglycemic. He actually—excuse 

me for using this word because it is not a nice word—he spent several hours actually vomiting after standing in the sun for so long. 

Ultimately, he had to give up. So this is a gentleman who we know 

about, and I am sure, Senator Roberts, he would be happy to come 

up here and explain how painful it was for him. 

And who could forget 102-year-old Florida voter Desiline Victor, 

who waited in line for three hours to cast her ballot—102. She almost turned 103 waiting in line. She persevered—what a patriot— 

until she got to the ballot box. But many like her, and younger 

than her, gave up. 
224 

Now, the second one is going to be close to Senator Warner’s 

heart. At College Park Elementary School in Virginia Beach, Virginia, the line went all the way from that basketball court all the 

way into the building around here. It is just unbelievable. They 

were heart breaking stories. At this precinct, Virginia voter Mary 

Atkinson said, and I quote, ‘‘Some of us have been out here four 

hours. I have been here three and a half hours. I had knee surgery 

and my knee is killing me,’’ unquote. Another Virginia voter, Robin 

Marohl said, quote, ‘‘I cannot tell you how many people I have 

counted leaving and saying, ’the heck with it. I am not going to 

vote because I cannot get in there,’ ’’ unquote. 

Unbelievably, many voters in Florida, Virginia and other states 

were still standing in line, as Senator Warner described, hours 

after the polls closed and into early Wednesday morning. Mr. 

Chairman and Ranking Member and Senator Warner, we should 

not apply survival of the fittest to the right to vote. You should not 

have to be a marathon runner. That is not what our founders envisioned. 

So when we force people to stand in line for hours, our right to 

vote becomes ephemeral. It is not really a right if you cannot make 

it. And that is why Senator Nelson and I wrote this bill. Let me 

quickly explain what it is, and I hope when you consider legislation, you can take this idea. I mean, I am not wedded to every 

word, but what we said was, we had this test case in the last national federal election, and we had all these problems in certain 

places. In other places, it was smooth as silk. 

So what we say is if you had a situation where voters waited in 

line longer than 30 minutes, and this is an idea that the bipartisan 

Presidential Commission came out with really, that you should not 

have to wait more than 30 minutes. The Attorney General and the 

Election Assistance Commission should identify those jurisdictions 

where voters waited a long time—we say 30 minutes; it could be 

an hour—and then they should talk to the state, talk to the county, 

and come up with a common sense plan to minimize waiting times 

at those jurisdictions, because they failed the test. 

Now, if there is a problem with Senator Roberts—and I mean, I 

know Senator Roberts and I know he has a problem with this idea 

of a federal law. But if you crafted it in such a way that it is not 

one size fits all, that the local people and the state people come up 

with their own ideas, this could be a really good way to bring experts together to fix the problems where they occur. So it is not 

rocket science. Either we have a right to vote or we do not have 

a right to vote. 

I am so proud of this Committee on all sides for holding these 

hearings, because as the senator said it breaks his heart. I will tell 

you something—I just got sick looking at this—on the one hand 

proud of our people, that they would put up with this, on the other 

hand, knowing full well that some of them, because of their age, 

because of their circumstance, because of illness, just could not do 

it, could not make it, and lost that right to vote. 

So I stand by ready to help you on both sides of the aisle in any 

way. We can use our common sense to make this thing get better, 

because this is not what America should look like on election night. 

Thank you so much. 
225 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer was submitted for the 

record:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Boxer, for your excellent testimony. These pictures are worth a thousand words. 

Senator BOXER. I will give them to you as a gift. 

Chairman SCHUMER. There are a thousand people, he says. 

Senator BOXER. Yeah. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Four thousand in one place, I guess. But it 

is an amazing thing that Americans stand in quiet dignity on cold 

nights and wait and wait and wait, and it should not be. 

Senator ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, could I just go on record that 

I am opposed to long lines? I mean, I am not—— 

Senator BOXER. That you are opposed to long lines? 

Senator ROBERTS. I am opposed to long lines and people waiting—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. He is for cell phones only. 

Senator ROBERTS [continuing]. An inordinate amount of time. I 

just think we can settle that in Tallahassee better than Washington. But that is all I am saying. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Senator Warner knows—— 

Senator BOXER. I hear you, and I think we can craft something 

that will allow that to occur if we are smart about it. I know that 

my colleagues, very pragmatic, success-oriented people, are sitting 

in front of me, and I think you can figure out how to do it without 

undue intrusion by the Feds. 

Senator WARNER. I know we need to get to Senator Coons and 

the next panel, but I just want to say, you see this in a place like 

Virginia where we have not always had the best record on voting 

and protecting voting rights. I mean, this becomes in effect a de 

facto poll tax. 

Senator BOXER. Yeah. 

Senator WARNER. Because those who can afford to stand in line 

for hours can do it. Those who cannot afford, cannot. And that is 

just not the way we should be operating. 

Senator BOXER. Well, that is definitely another aspect. I never 

thought of it that way. It is an endurance test and it is also a financial test. So whatever it is, we have to make it better, I think. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. And let us hope we can all work 

together to come to an agreement on how to deal with this. 

Senator BOXER. I stand by to help. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Senator Coons, who also has an excellent 

idea, that is cognizant of Senator Roberts’ concerns that one size 

does not fit all. Senator Coons. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRIS COONS, A UNITED 

STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator COONS. Thank you Chairman Schumer, and thank you 

Ranking Member Roberts, for inviting me to testify. And thank you 

especially to Senator Warner for his leadership and advocacy for 

the legislation I am here to present on, the Fair, Accurate, Secure 

and Timely—or FAST—Voting Act. 

It is built upon the idea of a federally incentivized competition 

between states, incentivizing and rewarding those states that make 

substantial improvements to the administration of their elections 
226 

in order to make voting faster and more accessible. It encourages 

states to put forward their best ideas, and then through a competitive grant program, rewards those with the best proposals that 

have the greatest impact with the seed money to make it happen. 

The critical metrics for this evaluation are clear. In fact, the bipartisan Presidential Commission on Electoral Administration, 

which you just heard from, highlights the need for all states to improve in a variety of areas which are also enumerated in this FAST 

Voting Act: Online voter registration to enhance the accuracy and 

efficiency of voter rolls; early voting by mail or in person so all people who work can also vote; improving the ability of our deployed 

members of the Armed Forces and other military and overseas 

members to access ballots and voting materials; electronic poll 

books for greater accuracy; enhancing the training of poll workers; 

and addressing the needs of voters with disabilities and limited 

English proficiency. 

We all know what needs to be done. It is time to work together 

and get moving. These November 2012 elections were a critical 

wakeup call. Tens of thousands of Americans, Republicans and 

Democrats in states both red and blue, saw their fundamental 

right to vote for the candidate of their choice limited by exceptionally long lines and confusing procedures. 

We saw errors in voting rolls in Ohio, delays in counting ballots 

in Arizona. We saw a waiting line, as Senator Warner referenced, 

of nearly five hours in Virginia, and more than eight hours in Florida. There are documented instances of voting machines recording 

an opposite vote of that cast in states across the country, from Colorado to Pennsylvania. Frankly, this is unacceptable. 

Voting is the ultimate, most foundational civil right in our free 

society, and we should treat it accordingly. When a polling station 

runs out of ballots, our friends and neighbors are effectively 

disenfranchised. When the lines at a polling station are too long, 

citizens are forced to choose between losing their job and forfeiting 

their right to vote. 

As the chairman of the Africa Subcommittee on Foreign Relations, I have helped lead efforts by our country to encourage dozens 

of emerging democracies to make all the changes recommended by 

the presidential commission. It is frankly, to me, an embarrassment that we, the oldest functioning democracy in the world, cannot make these simple fixes in a way that allows the states to lead 

in implementing reforms. 

It does not have to be this way. We can pass the FAST Voting 

Act to accelerate the adoption by states of efficient and effective 

practices for the administration of elections. While many states are 

struggling, there are also some good examples to follow. Not surprisingly, I offer my home state of Delaware. We have an exceptional state election commissioner in Elaine Manlove, who has 

helped lead the way through her tireless efforts. An instructive example is her leadership on eSignature, or electronic signatures. 

eSignature is a voter registration method that could be implemented in registration sites across the country to streamline the 

transmission from the Department of Motor Vehicles to the voter 

rolls, the selection of party and registration. In the old system—the 

need for a signature, which was accomplished on a paper applica-
227 

tion, which would then be collected from DMV locations, transferred to the Election Commission, reviewed and entered by another person and then archived—has been replaced with an electronic signature available on exactly the same interface, collected 

at the DMV, transmitted and stored directly and error free in voting rolls. Because of Elaine Manlove’s leadership in Delaware, 

Delaware voters experience fewer errors, less wait time and lower 

operational costs. 

We owe it to our fellow citizens to help spread the lessons of 

state innovation in dealing with the challenges of election administration. As I mentioned earlier, as the oldest currently functioning—continuously functioning democracy in the world, we are 

sadly showing our age in that with these instances in the 2012 

elections, we have failed to make the voting franchise fully and 

freely accessible to all who seek it. We cannot stand idly by as our 

elections become a ritual in embarrassment. Let us work together, 

use competition between the states rather than one uniformed federal mandate, and demonstrate how our states can conduct the 

elections our constituents deserve. 

I look forward to working with this Committee, to the Ranking 

and to the Chair, and I am grateful to Senator Warner for his early 

leadership both in voting and on this bill in particular. Thank you, 

Mr. Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Coons was submitted for the 

record:] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Coons. I think it is a 

very, very creative idea to deal with this issue and maybe thread 

the needle between those who want to see the states have complete 

control and the Federal Government encourage the best practices. 

I thank both—I do not have any questions. I know we are going 

to have votes at 10:30. We want to get to our second panel I would 

like to get to. 

Do you have any questions, Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS. I was going to ask—Senator Warner said he 

had a very distinguished career as governor at Virginia. What initiatives did you think would really help out there with regard to 

the lines that you are experiencing or a poll tax on people when 

they are voting, or what you said would amount to? But I know 

that you probably really focused on this. Can you single out just 

a couple of things? 

Senator WARNER. Yeah. I would say that what we have seen in 

Virginia was this problem dramatically increase over the last decade plus, because we have not changed our ratio of machines to 

people, number one. In Virginia, we have elections every year. And 

then we have seen this particularly—and unfortunately, since Virginia has a one-term governor restriction, I was not able to stay as 

governor through the Obama cycles. But you saw a dramatic upsurge in participation in 2008 and ’12, and our system did not keep 

track, did not stay in track. So—— 

Senator ROBERTS. Was that mostly in Northern Virginia? Because most of the people were in rural communities. 

Senator WARNER. No. The picture that was worth a thousand 

words—Senator Boxer only got 200 words in on describing the pic-
228 

ture—was actually from Virginia Beach. So we had this in areas 

across the state. 

Senator ROBERTS. I see. I appreciate that. I am fine. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Coons. 

Great testimony. Senator Warner has graciously agreed to chair 

the second panel, so we are going to turn it over to him. 

And I apologize to the second panel. I will have to excuse myself, 

but I will assiduously go over your testimony. 

Senator WARNER [presiding]. Could we go ahead and get the second panel up here? And with apologies on the front end, because 

we do have a series of votes starting at 10:30, which means we will 

probably have to leave here at 10:40. So I am going to ask the 

panel as they quickly get to the front—all three of the panelists, 

please quickly get to the front—that we keep your testimony to five 

minutes apiece so that hopefully Senator Roberts and I will get a 

chance to get in a couple questions. 

I am going to dispense with the long introductions. Again, apologies since we got started a little late. But we have Ms. Linda 

Lamone, who is the state administrator of elections from Maryland. 

We have Ms. Tammy Patrick, who is the federal compliance officer 

for Maricopa County Board of Elections in Arizona. And Senator 

Roberts, I actually have the individual who served partially as the 

head of state board of elections when I was beginning of my term 

of governor and has moved on to Fairfax County; has some ideas 

as well—Ms. Cameron Quinn, who is the general registrar for Fairfax County in Virginia—but she was also chair of the State Board 

of Elections. 

Senator ROBERTS. I appreciate that very much. Thank you. I am 

sorry. I apologize. 

Senator WARNER. Let us get started. 

STATEMENT OF LINDA LAMONE, ADMINISTRATOR OF 

ELECTIONS, MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS 

Ms. LAMONE. Thank you very much. Linda Lamone, state administrator of elections for the State of Maryland. I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today, and in light of your all schedule, I 

will try to be as brief as possible. 

I am here to talk today about how implementation of electronic 

poll books in Maryland has improved the election administration 

process. I want to note at the beginning that under Maryland law, 

I am required to maximize the use of technology in election administration, and to that effect, the governor and the General Assembly has directed me, and I have implemented, integrated candidacy 

and ballot databases, a statewide touch screen voting system, a 

statewide voter registration system. 

We offer online registration and a campaign filing system. And 

we have introduced technology at one of the most public parts of 

the voting process, the check-in process. The check-in process in 

Maryland, at least, has historically been a very paper-driven and 

manual process. And I have with me today, if the members of the 

Committee or the staff would like to see them, a printed paper registrar that used to be used, as well as an electronic poll book that 

we use in Maryland to check the voters in. 
229 

With the paper process, you had this huge book of thousands of 

pages perhaps and the poll workers would have to leaf through 

them and find the voter’s name and hope they checked off the right 

one—Junior or Senior, so forth—manually mark the registers and 

then manually program the cards that told the voting system what 

ballot the voter should get. And there were often mistakes made 

and voters got the wrong ballot, Republican, Democrat, so forth in 

the primaries, and then, of course, everything had to be manually 

tabulated. 

With the introduction of the electronic poll books, it streamed the 

check-in process hugely, provided automated voter counts, real 

time instructions for the poll workers, and most importantly, we 

did not have to have alpha line breakdowns. The poll books captured data that helped us a lot both in tracking patterns, i.e., what 

time did the polls open, what time did the voters vote, and gives 

us information on our poll worker performance. 

We implemented the system in 2006. We currently have 6,800 

electronic poll books that will be used in 1,700 polling places and 

63 early voting centers this year. We chose a poll book that works 

with our direct recording voting system, touch screen. As you all 

probably know, the poll book itself programs the card that tells the 

voting system what ballot to present to the voter. 

While there are significant Election Day benefits for poll books, 

it would be impossible to conduct early voting, at least the way we 

do it in Maryland, with the same level of integrity without the electronic poll books. For example, if we were to use the paper registrars in Maryland, the judges would have no information if a 

voter is not in the right polling place. With the electronic poll 

books, we have all 3.8 million registered voters programmed on to 

each poll book. 

So if the voter goes to the wrong precinct, our poll workers can 

tell him or her where they should go, not literally but really—and 

as I said, equally important, there is no need to have the alpha 

check-in, so that you might have a line from A to C and no line 

and then one of the others, and people get very frustrated by that. 

During early voting, our poll books are all connected throughout 

the State of Maryland so that when a voter checks in at one early 

voting center, the poll books throughout the state know that that 

voter has now voted and helps protect the integrity of the system. 

Senator WARNER. What was the cost of the system? 

Ms. LAMONE. The cost of the system was, when we bought them, 

I think it was about $3,000 a piece. Baltimore County, for example, 

has 847 of them, so they spent about 2.6 million. Now, they were 

expensive; I admit that. But how do—what is the cost for integrity 

and accuracy of the election, I guess is the response. 

So we have the virtual private network. It protects the integrity. 

With the paper-based system, you might be able to eventually detect that someone voted twice, but you would never be able to prevent it. With the poll books, you can do that. 

And then Montgomery County, for example, which is our largest 

jurisdiction, all nine of the early voting centers have complete lists 

of all the 625,000 registered voters in Montgomery County. So 

there again is another benefit of the poll books. Another one is 

the—in a jurisdiction in Maryland, a gubernatorial primary there 
230 

can be over a hundred different ballot styles in each precinct, and 

with the poll books, you guarantee that the voter is getting the correct ballot style. 

The other real big advantage—and I see my time is running 

out—is it helps the efficiency of the canvas, because after Election 

Day, we load the entire results from check-in voters into our central system, and that is available to the counties for the canvas. So 

when they are doing their absentee and provisional, they know exactly who has voted—either early voting or on Election Day—and 

therefore, either not count the absentee or not count the provisional ballot. Without the poll books, that would be very difficult. 

The other real value to them—— 

Senator WARNER. Can you wrap up in a minute, because we have 

a 10:30 fairly hard stop. We do not get to wait three hours in line 

voting in the Senate. We have to actually vote in a timely fashion, 

and I want to make sure we get all of the testimony in. 

Ms. LAMONE. One of the early concerns that we had was how 

would the poll workers adopt to the poll books, and we found that 

when we gave them some training, they just simply love them, absolutely love them. And with that, I will stop. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lamone was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator WARNER. Ms. Patrick. 

STATEMENT OF TAMMY PATRICK, FEDERAL COMPLIANCE 

OFFICER, MARICOPA COUNTY ELECTIONS 

Ms. PATRICK. Thank you, Senator Warner. It is an honor to be 

here today to discuss voter registration modernization. I was honored last year to be appointed by the president to the Presidential 

Commission on Election Administration, and in January, we issued 

our report on recommendations to improve the voting experience in 

America, which we recommend online voter registration, sound 

data collection, and analysis. 

In 2007, I worked with the Pew Center on the States and the 

Brennan Center and studied online voter registration, its cost efficiencies and quality. The result of that collaboration is the oft cited 

80-cent processing cost savings for every online voter registration 

that we receive. And we average—325,000, or 70 to 80 percent of 

our total voter registrations, annually come online. 

After the aforementioned reports were published, I spoke to election officials and state legislatures around the country about online 

registration. And I have included my testimony, in my written testimony, a presentation that I gave to the National Conference of 

State Legislators at their national conference in 2012. 

There are a couple of points I would like to highlight from that 

presentation. In addition to the cost savings, there are the benefits 

of access, accuracy and improved security. Voter registration, particularly for states with mobile ready systems, is now available any 

time anywhere for voters. Election administrators lament when 

voters do not keep their information current, but it is incumbent 

upon us to reduce every possible barrier to the voters doing just 

that. 

With the saturation of internet connectivity with smart devices, 

access to this channel of voter registration is no longer isolated to 
231 

a small segment of our population. There are additional quality 

benefits to the voters themselves entering in their information, 

first, no more interpretation of illegible handwriting. Secondly, 

should a keying error occur, a voter is more likely to notice that 

their information has been entered incorrectly. 

In a paper-based system, applicants complete a form replete with 

personal information: their signature, date of birth, Social Security 

number, and then hand it over to a complete stranger. The registration of voters is a noble task, and I do not mean to denigrate 

it in any manner, nor imply that registration drives should be curtailed. However, we need to improve the process and capitalize on 

these efforts. 

Currently, most forms are turned in on the final deadline for 

voter registration. But if registration drives submitted forms electronically, the voter is more likely to make it on to the voter rolls 

on Election Day, particularly if ePoll books are used. 

Which brings me to my final point about the benefits of online 

systems, and that is the ease of expansion. Washington State improved upon the basic system interface with the Department of 

Motor Vehicles to allow for all NVRA agencies, registration drives, 

campaigns, et cetera, to get their own exclusive URL extension that 

allows for data to flow directly into the online system but still have 

the source of origin tracked. This encourages use of a more efficient 

system, while giving the users the information that they want— 

who did they actually register—but not providing them with the 

voters’ more sensitive information and signature. This system has 

allowed the Secretary of State’s office in Washington to expand 

their footprint with innovative partnerships with Rock the Vote 

and Facebook. 

Improving the data flow, particularly with the Department of 

Motor Vehicles, is crucial to success. Even in states like Minnesota, 

where they have Election Day registration, they have found that 

these applicants, the vast majority of the voters, had applied and 

updated their information with the DMV, so regardless of the systems, streamlining these governmental data sharing relationships 

is a benefit to the voter. 

Increasing the ability to easily track voter registration forms cannot be underrated. Twenty years after the NVRA was passed, we 

still have issues with the enforcement of the law and participation. 

In San Diego County, California, they saw this first-hand when 

they implemented a more robust tracking mechanism that allows 

them to identify the volume of registrations coming from each distinct NVRA office. This improvement, going from less than a thousand forms a year to 10,000 forms from NVRA agencies in 2012. 

Online systems aid in the ability to effectively track applications 

and therefore, ensuring compliance. 

One of the most critical aspects of the expansion of the online 

system is that it can be used to reach our military and overseas 

voters. The UOCAVA voter not only benefits from online services 

but is more reliant on them than any other voting population. With 

minor additions, the fields present in the Federal Post Card Application that are not on a standard registration form can easily be 

added. This could, however, create a legal quandary for some states 

who do not consider our UOCAVA voters to be full, actively reg-
232 

istered voters. They do not accrue a voting history in these states. 

They are not taken into consideration in the turnout calculations, 

and their voter registrations, not just their absent ballot applications, are canceled at the end of the FPCA time period. 

The real question is then why have not more states implanted 

the registration of online voters? It is my belief that it is probably 

out of fear that it somehow may benefit the other side of the aisle. 

However, there are blue states and red states that have implemented it, and when you look at the data of who is using the online 

registration, the political composition reflects that of our voting 

population as a whole. 

Lastly, the use of the online system was most often used to keep 

registrations current, not just as an entry into the system itself— 

the very behavior we ask of our voters. 

And with that, I will be happy to answer any questions we have, 

should there be time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Patrick was submitted for the 

record:] 

STATEMENT OF CAMERON QUINN, GENERAL REGISTRAR, 

FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA 

Ms. QUINN. Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity 

to speak here today. And Governor Warner, I appreciated your 

leadership when we worked together, and I am glad we have a 

chance to do so again. 

I want to make three points in talking about innovation and administrative improvements and cost savings. Number one, technology can be a huge plus, really a huge benefit. Number two, not 

all technology ends up being a huge plus or benefit, sometimes because the technology was not set up properly in the first place; 

sometimes because of software and sometimes because of people 

skills that are needed to use it. And the third point is, we do not 

have enough election officials already, and we are really lagging in 

being able to attract the ones we need with the right skill sets. 

In addressing online voter registration, technology can be a huge 

plus, and online registration is already proving the case in Virginia. It started in July of this last year, and about 23,000 people 

registered online, without a lot of publicity about the whole thing, 

in time for our November elections. 

On the day that registration closed, 3,000 people across the state 

effectively were able to register or change their address online. A 

thousand of them were in Fairfax County. That thousand people 

who registered online saved us three seasonal staffers spending 

two weeks doing nothing else but entering those thousand registrations. It made a huge difference for us. By the time we get to 2016, 

this is going to be an enormous plus. 

Tammy has talked about all of the benefits that you get, the ease 

of being able to get things right, the ease for everybody in doing 

it. I will not go over those, but that is going to be terrific, just terrific. 

But not all technology is a panacea, and in fact, our experience 

with electronic poll books in Fairfax County has been rather challenging and troubling. I think some of this may have been due to 

the particular choices made by the electronic poll books solution 
233 

which Fairfax adopted. We continue to have some kind of issues 

with our technology and sometimes it is hard to tell if it is hardware or software. 

Having said that, we think electronic poll books are worth continuing to work with, but we are hoping when we finish our imminent acquisition of new voting equipment in Fairfax County, we 

will then turn around and acquire new electronic poll books that 

will be easier for everyone to use. 

I would note that in addition, one of the challenges with technology is introducing it early enough you have time to work 

through the kinks. And fortunately, despite all the kinks, we did 

that in Fairfax County with the electronic poll books. We are doing 

that with the new equipment. We are determined to have this 

equipment in use for this fall’s elections, which is a relatively easy 

administrative election, so that when we get to next year, when we 

have the highest number of ballot styles in the state—for the 2015 

elections, we have already worked through a lot of the kinks. And 

by the time we get to 2016, many of our voters who are regular 

voters will be comfortable with the new equipment, making it easier to focus on those people who only vote once every four years. 

And the third point, when I started in elections 15 years ago, 

election officer recruitment was already a challenge in a number of 

places usually your large suburban and urban areas where they 

struggle to get enough people to serve at a polling place on Election 

Day. It has only gotten worse. And one of the things that is sort 

of stunning—but the last week, or week and a half, before an election we will lose 10 to 15 percent of our election workers who said 

they would serve, which means we are typically struggling to get 

up to the number we wanted to recruit in the first place. 

So this is already a huge problem, and it has been compounded 

by the use of technology in the polling places, because one of the 

things we found in some of our places with longer lines was that 

our election workers were not checking voters in very well because 

they were not very comfortable using the technology. 

Now, understand, the nice thing in Fairfax is we can provide 

classes for people, and they can come back again and again and 

make themselves more comfortable. We still have people with all 

that training who were not comfortable and were trying to use the 

technology, and in fact, the technology made it harder in some 

places rather than easier. 

So we need to be, in addition to just recruiting more election officers, recruiting people who are comfortable with the technology 

which is going to become the absolute critical foundation for our 

polling place operations with new equipment and electronic poll 

books. 

So those are my points. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. 

I will be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Quinn was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator WARNER. Well, thank all three of you for your comments. 

I have two questions, and we are going to keep plowing until votes 

start. 

First, I guess, is as somebody who is—and I think in Virginia we 

have had our—generally speaking, a very good system. I cannot 
234 

comment much on the others. We have the challenge in Virginia 

that we have elections every year, so we get to retest in a major 

way every year. 

It seems from a couple steps that there have been secretaries of 

states or boards of elections and others—unfortunately, it seems 

like this has gotten a little more political, again, on both sides than 

it was in the past. Do you all feel, particularly as we look at technology and we think—Ms. Lamone, when you mentioned you buying that in Maryland in ’06, it is still a relatively short period of 

time as we move into this new technology. Is there enough sharing 

between states and then within states of best practices? 

Ms. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, if I could actually start that by saying, when I was at State Board and Linda Lamone was at the 

Maryland State Board, we were working together on a number of 

issues, and I very much appreciated the fact that I could call her 

up, she had a little more experience than I—and she would give me 

some great suggestions and ideas on how we could do things. 

The answer is yes. The biggest challenge is that you do not typically get to meet that many people outside your state to be able to 

share those ideas. 

Ms. LAMONE. And the states are so different in the way they run 

elections, Senator. In Maryland, it is all centralized. I am the leader of the pack, and the Board and I establish the policy based, of 

course, upon the law that is enacted. So the local jurisdictions do 

not have much discretion. 

So to answer your question, we do share. We are constantly 

interacting between the state and the counties in Maryland. But in 

other jurisdictions, I think, you all would agree, I mean, there are 

some states where it is very disparate and there is not a lot of 

sharing that goes—— 

Senator WARNER. Ms. Patrick, I am going to ask one last question. You get to answer first and then we will take the others. I 

am going to—again, I think we are down to 13 minutes. 

One of the things that I think drives a lot of us was the seeing 

of the long lines, why we are saying we have to figure out a way 

to fix this. I guess very quickly—and if you want to submit longer 

answers as we sort through a solution set—and recognizing the 

very legitimate concerns Senator Roberts raised that this should 

not be kind of a one-size-fits-all federal proposition, is the biggest 

challenge number of machines per voter ratio? Is the biggest challenge the check-in process? Is the biggest challenge not knowing 

the surge capability in a particular precinct? Obviously, the lines 

mostly appear in presidential elections. Is it, as Cameron mentioned, the biggest problem having election officials who are fully 

trained up? 

If you could be brief and then give me a longer answer. Because 

I think the heart of this, we are trying with ideas that—we think 

competitive grant program, or some of the ideas that Senator Boxer 

had, but you guys are the experts. 

Ms. Patrick, you get first—— 

Ms. PATRICK. Thank you, Senator. So the answer is yes, all of the 

above. Of course, it is—— 
235 

Senator WARNER. You are not a senator, Ms. Patrick. You cannot 

give the all-the-above answer. That is what we would do. On the 

one hand . . . on the other hand. 

Ms. PATRICK. If I were to say that the number one issue that affects most of the areas where we have long lines, it is voter registration. It is the archaic nature with which we register voters, 

maintain the voter registration. 

Senator WARNER. Not ratio of machines? 

Ms. PATRICK. I do not believe it is the ratio of machines, although there are issues in some cases with machine ratios, but 

that really only ties into the places where they are using touch 

screen voting machines, because that is the only point where a 

voter can cast their ballot as opposed to places that are using optical scan where you can hand out 100 ballots and people can vote 

them at the tables in the school cafeteria. 

So I do not think it is necessarily the voting machines, but it 

could be resource allocations as far as how many ePoll books there 

are, how many poll workers there are, how many booths are being 

present. So that is why the Commission conveyed in our report 

that we have a toolkit of resource allocation tools where local administrators, state administrators can go in and check their own 

formulas to see against the ones from MIT and some of the other 

places. 

But it all ties into your first question that has to do with the professionalism of the field, and that is something that we discuss in 

here as well. Because there are some states that have strong state 

leadership or they have strong state programs where the counties 

can share information and the best practices amongst themselves. 

And what you found, and what we found as the Commission 

went around the country, is that we see the same counties, the 

same representatives at all of these national meetings, because not 

everyone can afford to attend the national conferences. So it is very 

distinct across the country, whereas, if you had—each state had a 

very rigorous program—to take some of that information they received and share it with the counties, that everyone would be much 

better off, I believe. 

Senator WARNER. Lighting round, Ms. Lamone and Ms. Quinn. 

Thirty seconds each, and my apologies to the witnesses. Very important hearing, but I am going to have to go over and vote. 

Ms. QUINN. The answer is, the problem changes depending on 

the precinct. But, more EOs help. If you have more election officials, you are more likely to be able to solve problems and keep 

lines moving. But I gave GAO about a five-page outline of all the 

reasons you can have a problem with polling places, and there really are that many. 

Ms. LAMONE. And I second that. And it is money. Money is always an issue. 

Senator WARNER. It is interesting. I would have thought perhaps 

it was more about machines, but you are saying it is more about 

process of getting registered and the quality and—not quality—the 

quality and knowledge of the election officials? 

Ms. PATRICK. As I mentioned, the quantity of the machines is 

really only tied into the touch screen, the DRE voting equipment, 

with the exception of places like Florida where they had five- and 
236 

six-page ballots. For the first time I think in many places’ history, 

there was congestion at the optical scan machine because every 

voter had to feed in five and six pages, and then there would be, 

you know, subsequent jams when they try and put them all in at 

the same time, that sort of thing. 

So that was really an exception to the rule, and thankfully and 

hopefully an anomaly. 

Senator WARNER. Recognizing that this has traditionally been a 

state function—although I would think that, you know, we did 

have Federal Motor Voter at one point that did have resources and 

others to incent states. I would, again, come back to Senator Coons 

and I are working on this notion of a competitive grant process 

that would not mandate the state does X, Y or Z, but if we could 

get the kind of best practices and then create some competition 

amongst states, I would like in your written answers, if you could 

give me some comments on that, and if you think it is dreadful, 

probably easier to say that in written comments versus in a hearing. 

So without objection, and with apologies to the very good witnesses, and the fact that we got started late, and your professionalism and your approach, I am going to say without objection 

the hearing record will remain open for five business days for additional statements and post-hearing questions submitted in writing 

for particularly our second panel of witnesses to answer. 

I would say that, again, just editorially, the long lines we experienced in Virginia and across the country, that just should not be 

in America in the 21st Century. So I urge us to continue to press 

us and press your colleagues across the country to figure out a way 

to get this right. 

With that, without any further objection, since there is nobody 

else here to object, the hearing is adjourned. Thank you all. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson was submitted for 

the record:] 

[Whereupon, at 10:41 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(237) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 

HEARING—ELECTION ADMINISTRATION: 

MAKING VOTER ROLLS MORE COMPLETE 

AND MORE ACCURATE 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2014 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in Room 

SR–301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Walsh, presiding. 

Present: Senators Walsh and Roberts. 

Staff Present: Jean Bordewich, Staff Director; Stacy Ettinger, 

Chief Counsel; Veronica Gillespie, Elections Counsel; Ben Hovland, 

Senior Counsel; Abbie Sorrendino, Legislative Assistant; Phillip 

Rumsey, Legislative Assistant; Jeff Johnson, Clerk; Benjamin 

Grazda, Staff Assistant; Julia Richardson, Senior Counsel; Mary 

Suit Jones, Republican Staff Director; Paul Vinovich, Republican 

Chief Counsel; Trish Kent, Republican Professional Staff; and Rachel Creviston, Republican Professional Staff. 

Senator WALSH. We will now proceed to our hearing schedule for 

this morning. 

This hearing is the committee’s third in a planned series on improving the administration of elections. Today’s hearing focuses on 

making the voter rolls more complete and more accurate. 

Chairman Schumer wanted to be here today, but was not able to 

attend due to other business. He has a statement that, without objection, will be entered into the record. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Schumer was submitted 

for the record:] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WALSH 

Senator WALSH. I would like to now make a few opening remarks. 

Montanans are very proud of their election system. Our country’s 

democratic tradition is something that should make all Americans 

very proud. At the core of this tradition is the fundamental right 

to vote. Of course, Americans’ ability to exercise their right to vote 

is only as good as our system of election administration. We must 

work to make sure voter registration is accessible and accurate. 

That is why this series of hearings is so needed and why I am 

pleased to be here today to discuss these very important issues. 

This bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election Administration identified common sense State and local innovations that are 

improving how elections are run. These are not partisan proposals. 

They are simply matters of good governance that will make voting 

easier while saving taxpayers dollars. Registering to vote and voting should be as accessible as possible, regardless of where voters 

live. 

At the hearing held by this committee last month, we heard from 

State and local administrators about their implementation of online 
271 

voter registration and electronic poll books. We heard how these reforms have the potential to save States money and free up local 

government. 

I support these proposals. These common sense innovations, like 

online registration, would have an enormous impact in rural States 

like Montana, where distance can be a barrier to voting and voter 

registration for seniors, voters with disabilities, veterans, farmers 

and ranchers, and Native Americans. 

Today, the Rules Committee is holding a third hearing on the 

Presidential Commission’s recommendations. Today’s focus is on innovations that help Americans get registered to vote or ensure 

their registration is current, while also making sure their voter 

rolls are as accurate as possible. 

The committee is fortunate to have a panel of current and former 

State elected officials who are working every day to improve how 

elections are run in their States. The reforms they will talk about 

focus on the voter registration process. As we learned from the 

Presidential Commission report and from Commissioner Tammy 

Patrick’s testimony at the March hearing, many of the issues that 

occur on election day can be prevented by making improvements 

early in the registration process. Making registration easier and 

more accurate will reduce lines, expand access, and save money. 

Solving issues before they become problems is the type of common 

sense solution that we should be providing to our constituents. 

Also during the March hearing, Senator Coons highlighted the 

efforts of one of our witnesses, Elaine Manlove, the State Election 

Commissioner from Delaware. I am interested in learning more 

about the e-Signature program that Delaware has used to streamline the voter registration process at motor vehicle offices. 

We also have witnesses here today to tell us about a multi-State 

effort known as the Electronic Registration Information Center, or 

ERIC. This program, which aims to improve the accuracy of voter 

rolls, is making a difference for the member States. So, I look forward to learning more about the ERIC program and how it is helping to engage voters, improve the quality of the voter list, and improve election administration. 

I would like to thank all of our witnesses, and I look forward to 

your testimony. 

With that, Senator Roberts, do you wish to make any opening remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERTS 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for agreeing 

to chair this hearing. It is my pleasure to welcome you to the committee, sir. 

We have a good panel of witnesses here today. I look forward to 

hearing their testimony. I will have some questions following the 

testimony, but at this point have no further statement at this time 

to expedite the hearing. 

Thank you, sir. 

Senator WALSH. It does not look like we have any other members 

who are going to make any comments today. Do we have any members that have submitted anything to be added to the record? 
272 

Okay. We will now hear from our panel of witnesses. First, Ms. 

Elaine Manlove, the State Election Commissioner of Delaware. 

STATEMENT OF ELAINE MANLOVE, DELAWARE STATE 

ELECTION COMMISSIONER, DOVER, DELAWARE 

Ms. MANLOVE. Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to 

discuss Delaware’s e-Signature program. 

Let me start with a little background. I began working in the Department of Elections for Newcastle County in 1999, so my first big 

election was in the 2000 general election. While the country focused on Florida, I was concerned about the 50 court orders that 

we had requested for voters who came to their polling place assuming they were registered voters but were not on the poll list. Sometimes, this was a husband and wife. Only one would be on our 

rolls, while they were both certain they had registered at DMV. 

Our Election Offices could check DMV records and see that they 

had been there, but we had no application or declination. 

Our process was paper, and if we did not get the paper, the voter 

did not get registered. There were too many reasons for this—there 

were many reasons for this, but at the end of the day, the voter 

was the loser. Some of the problems with the paper process were 

DMV would be out of applications in the printer, the printer would 

jam, the voter would leave without signing. 

Every day, we picked up the applications from DMV and 

matched them with the electronic list of the applications we should 

have received. They were then mailed new applications to those 

citizens whose applications we did not receive. About half of those 

came back to Elections. 

I knew there had to be a better way to do this. As is always the 

case, every idea we had cost money and there just was none. Then 

came HAVA. Since Delaware’s voting machines were fairly new 

and we had already met the Statewide database mandate, we decided to focus on the use of technology to improve all of our services. Our Department of Technology and Information hired two 

HAVA-paid programmers to focus on what we called the Elections 

Wish List—all the projects that we knew would improve our services, but were too large in scope to be handled by the programmers 

assigned to Elections by DTI. 

I thought the struggle was behind us until we started meeting 

with DMV. No one said, no, this cannot be done. However, our 

meetings never seemed to move forward. DMV worried that our solution would slow their lines. Then, on the election side, when we 

were in election mode, we would have to move our focus back to 

that. 

In 2007, a new DMV Director was appointed and this project 

moved forward quickly. Early in 2009, e-Signature went live. It 

was a success from day one. I want to emphasize that this was not 

rocket science, just a common sense solution to an ongoing problem. 

The DMV clerks work from a script that is in front of them on 

their computer screen. They can tell if their customer is a new registrant or is already registered to vote. That fact determines which 

screen comes up in front of them and the questions they ask. They 
273 

collect name, address, Social Security numbers, and date of birth, 

as well as any additional information for DMV use. 

The customer verifies their voter information on the screen of the 

credit card device on the counter. If their information is correct, 

they are asked if they want to register to vote or update their information with the Department of Elections. On the next screen, the 

voter affirms their citizenship, chooses their political party, and 

signs. All of this is captured and transmitted to Elections in real 

time. 

Customers can go to any DMV in the State. Their voter registration application will be sent to a queue in the Election Office in 

their home county. The Elections Office will determine if this is a 

duplicate, run a felon check, and process their polling place card. 

All voter registration decisions are made in the Election Office, removing that onus from DMV. 

My goal when we started this project was just to ensure that we 

received every application. What I did not anticipate were the unintended consequences. We had no paper, no paper to pick up at 

DMV, no paper to file, no paper to verify, no paper at all. This 

saved us space in all three county offices. Rows of filing cabinets 

were eventually eliminated. Time, no paper to file, and no files to 

go through on election day when we needed to prove that a voter 

was registered, and money at both DMV and Elections. Elections 

eliminated five vacant positions for a $200,000 annual savings. 

Once phase one was complete, we changed the process for mail 

applications. We began scanning in any paper applications that 

came into our offices, Federal mail applications, et cetera. Our 

clerks still have to do data entry on those applications, but they 

electronically link that entry with the paper application containing 

the signature. The paper application can then be shredded. 

Our next phase was to take this technology to Delaware’s Health 

and Social Service Agencies as well as our Department of Labor, 

the other two agencies in Delaware that do voter registration. We 

began first at Health and Social Services and provided computers 

and credit card signature devices. However, the numbers have not 

increased as much as we had hoped. In today’s economy, both agencies are being encouraged to offer online applications for their customers. Our solution is in the works. We will very soon link our 

online voter registration process to their online system for both of 

those agencies. 

In closing, the initial cost for DMV project was $600,000. With 

newer technology today, it would be less. It has paid for itself by 

savings to both DMV as well as Elections. It has also saved time. 

DMV’s initial concern was that we would slow their lines, because 

they allocated 90 seconds for the elections piece of each customer 

transaction. It is now 30 seconds. 

Delaware has shared our solution with many States. It is an easy 

solution that works well for both agencies and could work well for 

other States. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Manlove was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator WALSH. Thank you, Ms. Manlove, for your testimony. 
274 

Second, Mr. John Lindback, the Executive Director of the Electronic Registration Information Center. Mr. Lindback. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN LINDBACK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION INFORMATION CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. LINDBACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

ERIC, as you said, stands for the Electronic Registration Information Center. The mission of ERIC is to assist States to improve 

the accuracy of voter rolls, reduce costs, and improve the efficiency 

for State and local election offices. ERIC does that by using stateof-the-art sophisticated data matching technology to match voter 

registration records against motor vehicle licensing records in its 

member States. It also matches those records against databases 

such as the Social Security Death Index and the National Change 

of Address Information from the U.S. Postal Service. 

ERIC was initially formed with the generous financial and technical support of the Pew Charitable Trusts, but it is now fully operational, self-governing, self-supporting, and an independent organization governed by the States. The current members are Colorado, 

Delaware, Maryland, Nevada, Utah, Virginia, and Washington. 

Those are the seven States that originally formed ERIC. Since that 

time, the District of Columbia, Oregon, and Connecticut have 

joined. 

The organization is State run. It is governed by membership 

agreements and a set of bylaws. There are two full-time employees. 

The States are now receiving routine uploads and reports and we 

are recruiting new members. 

The reports that the States receive after the matching of all that 

data is they get information about people who have moved—people 

on their voter registration lists who have moved within their State, 

people on their voter registration list who have moved across State 

lines to other ERIC States, people on their lists who have died. 

They get information on in-State duplicate registrations, in case 

you have a registration for the same person in more than one county, for example. And, they get a report on potentially eligible but 

unregistered individuals that reside in their State. 

The numbers so far, and these are from the seven original States 

that formed ERIC that have reported back to them, is that there 

is a total of about 1.6 million records that have been reported back 

to the States. That includes almost 1.3 million people who have 

moved within their State and they had a more recent address on 

file with their DMV. It includes about just shy of 230,000 people 

who have moved across State lines within the ERIC States, about 

47,000 people who were on the rolls and were deceased, almost 

30,000 duplicate registrations within those State voter registration 

databases. In addition, ERIC has reported to them the names of 

about 6.1 million people who are on their DMV list but are not registered to vote, spread out among all those States. 

The benefits to the States are numerous of ERIC. There are financial benefits. When you have a more accurate list, you get financial benefits, for example, because there is less returned mail. 

There are savings by joint purchases of Death Index data and 
275 

NCOA data that the States are now individually purchasing on 

their own, but ERIC now purchases as a group. 

On election day, cleaner rolls mean savings at election time because there will be fewer problems at the polls. Pre-election day, 

it means a reduced spike in registration activity at election time. 

It is uncanny, if you look at registration activity in the States. It 

is fairly even until you get to a Presidential election. Then, there 

is a huge spike in virtually every State that you look at, and that 

presents an administrative issue. You have to bring in extra people 

to hand-input all those registrations, et cetera. If you can even out 

that activity and get those updates taken care of earlier in time, 

you can reduce that spike of activity. 

Also, additional benefits include a proactive approach by the 

ERIC States. It discourages election-eve matching by interest 

groups who are sometimes fond of doing that match very close to 

an election and then claiming that the voter rolls are full of people 

who are deceased or are otherwise inaccurate. It also demonstrates 

for the ERIC States that they are doing everything they can to 

keep their rolls clean and up to date. 

And I will wrap up my testimony there, Mr. Chairman, and remain open to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lindback was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator WALSH. All right. Thank you, Mr. Lindback. 

Next, we have Dr. Judd Choate. 

STATEMENT OF JUDD CHOATE, DIRECTOR OF ELECTIONS, 

COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE’S OFFICE, DENVER, COLORADO 

Mr. CHOATE. Good. Thanks. My name is Judd Choate. I am the 

Election Director for the State of Colorado and Chairman of the 

Board for ERIC, the organization that John just described. 

Under the leadership of Secretary of State Scott Gessler, Colorado has implemented mobile optimized voter registration, worked 

with the Federal Government to identify non-citizen voters, and actively participates in the ERIC project, making Colorado a national 

leader in voter initiatives. For instance, during the 2012 Presidential election, Colorado helped lead the way with some of the 

highest voter turnout levels in the country. I am happy to be here 

today to share our experiences and best practices. 

Let me tell you about Colorado’s experience as an initial ERIC 

State. Colorado joined ERIC in July of 2012, along with the six 

States that John just listed. Two months later, in September of 

2012, we sent postcards to 723,000 people, encouraging them to 

register to vote prior to the 29-day registration deadline for the 

Presidential election. Just over ten percent of those contacted, 

74,528, registered to vote prior to the deadline. Of those, 32,000, 

or about 44 percent, voted in the 2012 election. 

ERIC also provided Colorado with data to clean their voter rolls. 

ERIC has the unique ability to link files in various formats, using 

minimum matching criteria. This process marries data to find electors that have moved. ERIC provides the States four kinds of data 

to clean their rolls, matching data to indicate a move within a 

State, a move from one State to another State, matching data indi-
276 

cating that two files are actually the same person, and matching 

data indicating that a person on the State’s voter rolls died outside 

of the State and is listed on the Social Security Administration 

Death List. 

Colorado’s most recent Clean Report, which is the report we receive from ERIC, covered the months of January and February of 

2014. So, for only those two months, we received from ERIC 26,320 

in-State movers, 1,181 people who have moved out of State—and 

just to clarify, that is only out of State with those States that are 

participating; if we had all 50 States in, we would receive a lot 

larger number—112 voters who have more than one registration— 

the reason why that number is so low is because we have used 

ERIC over the last several months and that number has been reduced because of our participation in ERIC—and 2,180 dead voters 

who died outside of the State of Colorado in only those two months. 

Colorado developed and rolled out online voter registration in 

2010. By using online voter registration both in the mailing to voters encouraging them to register and in mailing to people who have 

moved out of State, encouraging them to cancel their voter registration, Colorado has maximized the integrity of their voter rolls. Online voter registration makes it easy and straightforward for people 

to register, update their registration, or cancel registration when 

that voter moves to another State. 

ERIC is the future of elections. It cleans rolls. It finds possible 

new voters. It allows jurisdictions to proactively work with their 

voters, our customers, instead of reacting to bad mailing addresses 

12 months after that voter has moved. And, as more States join, 

the system will work better because there will be more data to 

match. 

Another program lauded by the Presidential Commission and important to Colorado’s efforts to improve list maintenance is the 

Kansas Cross-Check. The Cross-Check is also a data matching program where 28 States send their voter files to Kansas following the 

general election. Since 2008, Colorado has identified approximately 

15 people who very likely voted in Colorado and another State in 

the same election. Several of these suspected double-voters received 

a visit from the FBI, and a handful were charged with double-voting in our partner States of Arizona and Kansas. 

Colorado’s experience in ERIC and the Kansas Cross-Check has 

been very positive. We have registered new voters at an impressive 

rate. Our voter registration database is improving all the time. 

And, we protect the database from fraud and double-voting. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I will take any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Choate was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator WALSH. Thank you, Mr. Choate. 

And, fourth, Mr. Chris Thomas, the Director of Elections in the 

Michigan Department of State and a member of the Presidential 

Commission on Election Administration. 
277 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER THOMAS, DIRECTOR OF ELECTIONS, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE—BUREAU OF 

ELECTIONS, LANSING, MICHIGAN 

Mr. THOMAS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator Roberts. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. It is a pleasure to 

be here to talk about the Presidential Commission on Election Administration’s recommendations about the Motor/Voter Program instituted by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. 

I know of no other voter registration program that has the scope 

or diversity as motor voter. No other program offers the level of potential improvement to the election system of this country. 

I began my career in election administration in 1974 here in 

Washington and have served as Michigan’s Elections Director since 

1981. I am pleased to see the Pew Report on Election Performance 

again showed Michigan as a high-performing State. 

In 1975, Secretary of State Richard Austin came up with the idea 

of Motor/Voter. In Michigan, the Department of Motor Vehicles 

(DMV) and the elections are controlled by the Secretary of State, 

and he thought it was a great idea that if people are standing there 

to get a license, that they ought to be asked to register to vote. Our 

Motor/Voter system is totally integrated with the DMV data. For 

example, our law requires that people use the same address for 

both voting and driving, and all of the electronic data that comes 

from the DMV gets sent to the local clerks, which means they do 

not have to reenter that data. Over 80 percent of our annual voter 

registration transactions come through the DMV. 

I was honored to be on the Commission and to serve there. We 

did not have a legislative agenda, so I am not here advocating any 

legislation today. 

We found that the DMVs come up short in terms of implementing the Motor/Voter law, which is over 20 years old. We used 

the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) data and testimony 

as the basis for this conclusion. In addition to Michigan and Delaware, represented by my colleague who is here today, are the only 

two States that are fully compliant, in my view. Seven other States 

have made a concerted effort. In my view, if a State receives less 

than 50% of its total transactions, from the DMV, the DMV is not 

doing its job. 

The Commission took a strong position on this because the negative consequences of a bad administration in DMV are reflected on 

election day. So, I would like to make the following points about 

DMVs and Motor/Voter. 

First of all, DMVs have an extremely complex mission. They 

have a huge workload. In many States, they have aging legacy 

computer systems, and many of them are undergoing modernization now. 

The beauty of Motor/Voter is it cuts across all political and socioeconomic strata. For example, in Michigan, 75 percent of those receiving public assistance who are registered voters registered to 

vote with the DMV, not in a public assistance agency. An inaccurate list will increase the cost of mailings. About 75 percent of 

all transactions are change of address transactions, which are critical to keeping the lists accurate. 
278 

When the lists are not accurate, you end up with increased provisional ballots. Provisional ballots mean you have longer wait times, 

some voters have a bad election day experience, there is extra 

work. Our neighbors to the south of us, Ohio, had over 200,000 provisional ballots. In Michigan, we had 2,600 provisional ballots. 

Only 14 percent of Ohio’s voter registration transactions come from 

the DMV. I will note they have made some efforts since 2012 to improve that. A good DMV would eliminate most of those provisional 

ballots. 

And it is important to remember that every voter registration application that comes through a DMV is from a person who has had 

a face-to-face transaction at some point, who has had their identity 

and their legal presence verified. So, that also increases the integrity of the voter file. 

The Commission highlighted Delaware because the state was 

able to design a system that did not integrate voter registration 

data with the DMV, which is a costly and lengthy process. Their 

e-Signature interface basically sends the driver license data directly to the voter registration system. They have created a lower 

cost solution without integrating their voter registration data into 

the DMV, which can be much more quickly accomplished. 

Twenty States, the Commission has noted, have also gone to online voter registration, and these systems at some point, will become portals for DMVs that are not in compliance. 

In conclusion, I would say that a better Motor/Voter performance 

through full compliance will substantially improve the accuracy of 

voter registration files and improve the election day experience of 

many voters. With lower-cost options available, DMVs now have a 

clearer, less expensive path to fulfill the letter and the spirit of the 

NVRA. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thomas was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator WALSH. Thank you, Mr. Thomas, and thank you to all 

of our individuals for speaking today. 

We are going to open it up for questions now, and my first question is for Ms. Manlove. I have two quick questions. First is, in discussing this e-Signature program with election officials from other 

States, have you heard any good reasons that this would not work 

in other States? And, second, because Delaware is also an ERIC 

State, I wanted to give you a minute to discuss your experience 

participating in that program, as well. 

Ms. MANLOVE. Now, I have met with other States. We have had 

several States come to Delaware. And if I have been in a conference in their State, I have gone to meet their DMV. I have not 

had a reason why this would not work. It is such a simple solution, 

I am actually always surprised that we get so much good press out 

of it. For us, it was just a way to solve the problem at the end of 

the day. 

And ERIC has been wonderful for us, and it has even shown our 

in-State—I think all the States show that. But, even our in-State 

addresses are not always as accurate as we would like, and we 

have a great DMV process. We have removed voters who are deceased that were deceased in the State, and we went back and 
279 

checked with our Vital Statistics and found out it was a time when 

they were having some change-over and we did not get good 

records. So, we have cleaned up a lot of our records. We mailed out, 

I think, 26,500 postcards to eligible but unregistered voters and 

about 4,000 of those registered to vote before election day. 

Senator WALSH. Thank you. 

Next is for Mr. Lindback. I want to ask you how ERIC protects 

privacy of voters. Montanans value their privacy, and you mentioned the privacy protocols that govern the ERIC program. Can 

you elaborate on how ERIC protects the privacy of voters? 

Mr. LINDBACK. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ERIC uses 

a technique called anonymization to anonymize data that would be 

considered confidential within an ERIC State. So, they can—and in 

virtually all of the States, that would include data such as date of 

birth or the last four digits of their Social Security number. 

The anonymization process is also called one-way hashing, and 

this is done to the data before it leaves State control. And so the 

States are issued the anonymization program by ERIC. They run 

their date of birth information and the last four digits of the Social 

Security number, as examples, through the anonymizer. It translates that into an indecipherable string of, like, 40 letters and numbers. Then when that data reaches ERIC, it is anonymized a second time. It is run through the data matching process, and so 

ERIC is matching anonymized data against anonymized data from 

other States. 

When the States receive their reports back, they are told, for example, that the date of birth matches in the other State, but they 

are not told what the date of birth actually is because that data 

has been anonymized. They do not need to know that. They only 

need to know it is a match. 

And so that data is anonymized before it leaves State control. 

The data center itself, of course, follows all the security protocols. 

When ERIC was created, we ran the plan through the Center for 

Democracy and Technology, one of the leading privacy and advocacy organizations in the United States. They were impressed with 

the plan. They issued a report that is on the ERIC Web site issuing 

recommendations on how ERIC should minimize risk to security 

and privacy, and ERIC is following each of those recommendations. 

So, I think it is fair to say that we are doing everything possible 

to minimize risk of disclosure of that data. 

Senator WALSH. Thank you very much. 

I would now like to open it to the Ranking Member, Mr. Roberts, 

to ask any questions that you may have. Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Manlove, your statement references your use of the Help 

America Vote Act, i.e., Federal money, to build your system, and 

you also talk about the savings that it has generated. I think I read 

your statement to the effect that $600,000 enabled you to get up 

and running—— 

Ms. MANLOVE. Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS [continuing]. And that you were able to achieve 

$200,000 savings. Within your oral statement, you indicated that 

came from letting five people go. Is that correct? 
280 

Ms. MANLOVE. We did not let five people go. We had vacant positions—— 

Senator ROBERTS. Oh, I see. 

Ms. MANLOVE. At that point in time, there was a hiring freeze 

in the State—— 

Senator ROBERTS. I cannot imagine anybody in government letting anybody go. 

Ms. MANLOVE. No. We did not let anyone go. 

Senator ROBERTS. All right. But, do we need Federal incentives 

to get States to adopt reforms that will save them money? I think 

it is obvious. I mean, you have stated it very clearly that once you 

explain it to States—I guess my question is, why do we need the 

Federal start-up money when States know they are going to save 

themselves money? 

Ms. MANLOVE. I do not know. We would not have been able to 

do it without the HAVA money. It just was a project that was, in 

scope for Delaware, too big at that point in time. 

Senator ROBERTS. Right. 

Ms. MANLOVE. We really did not look at it as a money saving 

process. We looked at it—it started as just a way to get everything. 

We were—— 

Senator ROBERTS. But now, you are—— 

Ms. MANLOVE. In hindsight, yes, we did save funds. 

Senator ROBERTS. Yes. All right. Okay. You are the proof of the 

pudding. In other words, you did not know you could have the pudding until you made it, and then after you made it, you saved 

money. And so I guess my message to other States is that you do 

not have to ask us, and we have very limited help because of the 

budget and all of that. 

Are other States starting to realize they can quickly recoup any 

initial cost by the savings when you talk with them? 

Ms. MANLOVE. Well, I explain that with every presentation I 

give. I use practically the same presentation every time I talk 

about e-Signature. But, we have continued on using our HAVA 

funds to do other projects that otherwise would not have been able 

to happen. 

Senator ROBERTS. Pardon my lack of experience here, but how do 

you use the e-Signature? Is it compared to anything, or is it just 

e-Signature? 

Ms. MANLOVE. Well, it comes to us in real time, was the biggest 

issue. What was happening with the paper process is, we just were 

not getting the actual application and we needed that signature to 

process the voter registration application. So now, rather than picking up paper and physically bringing the paper, everything comes 

to us electronically in real time. So, none of the issues of losing applications happen. 

Senator ROBERTS. I understand that, but is it legible? I mean—— 

Ms. MANLOVE. Oh, yes, it is. 

Senator ROBERTS. It is legible? 

Ms. MANLOVE. Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS. So, it is not like my signature when I am trying to sign on a credit card screen—— 

Ms. MANLOVE. It is the same credit card screen, but it is—— 
281 

Senator ROBERTS [continuing]. It looks like some child who is 

three years old. 

Ms. MANLOVE. I think it is pretty stable, and because everyone 

at DMV is signing on that, so they are secured to the countertop, 

and we are getting really pretty good signatures. 

Senator ROBERTS. Is it compared to a signature on paper? 

Ms. MANLOVE. No, because in a lot of cases, we do not have another signature. That is the only signature we have. 

Senator ROBERTS. No, I mean just in terms of legibility. You 

think it is roughly the same? 

Ms. MANLOVE. Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS. I see. Thank you. 

Mr. Lindback, you mentioned the National Voter Registration 

Act, or motor voter requirements for the removal of registrants. My 

question is, how do States participating in your program that receive death notices remove voters? Is that immediately or after 

going through the NVRA process? And, I would add, it is my understanding that that process requires the voter be mailed a notice. 

They are only removed if they do not respond to the notice and 

then fail to vote in two subsequent Federal general elections, is 

that correct? 

Mr. LINDBACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think there may be 

a difference between—maybe my other panel members can confirm 

for me, but I think there may be a difference between what the 

NVRA requires for confirmation of death notices and confirmation 

of voters who have moved. But, there are processes in place by the 

NVRA. There is nothing about membership in ERIC that changes 

any of those requirements. The only thing that changes for the 

States is that they are getting information about voters who have 

moved and voters who have died sooner than they otherwise would 

receive it. 

Senator ROBERTS. Okay. That is what I was trying to get at. My 

next question was, and you have just answered it, does ERIC speed 

up that process? 

Mr. LINDBACK. Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS. And that answer is yes. 

Mr. Lindback, Mr. Thomas mentioned a House bill to require 

States to remove registrants who have moved to another State and 

declared that State as their voting residence. How do States in the 

ERIC program remove voters when they receive a change of address notification? Do they still go through the NVRA process or 

are they removed immediately? 

Mr. LINDBACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The States go through 

the NVRA process, and the bylaws are specific that the NVRA 

mandated mailings must be followed by the States. 

Senator ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I would 

like to ask permission for another, oh, two minutes so I may conclude. 

Senator WALSH. Permission granted. 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Last week, there was an ABC report about a couple in California 

that received a registration application with their party affiliation 

premarked. They were already registered Republicans, but they 

were mailed a registration application with the Democrat box 
282 

premarked. They received an application because they had signed 

up for health care through an Obamacare exchange run by the 

State of California. 

Apparently, some groups have been arguing that the States are 

obligated to offer registration services through the Obamacare exchange and then find out that their party affiliation has already 

been premarked. Just a question for the panel. What is your view 

of that and how is your State handling this issue, or are you even 

aware of it? 

Mr. CHOATE. So, the State of Colorado has determined, based on 

our interpretation of both State and Federal law, that our exchange 

is not obligated to give the opportunity to register to vote because 

our exchange is not technically operated by the State of Colorado. 

However, under the NVRA, if the exchange or health care provider, 

the provider of that service, is operated by the State, then I think 

under the NVRA, they would have to provide an opportunity to register. 

Senator ROBERTS. So, you have both the DMV and the State exchange operating together? 

Mr. CHOATE. So, the DMV has to do it. That is one section of the 

NVRA. But then, also, the agencies that provide social services 

have to provide an opportunity to register to vote, as well, under 

a different section. 

Senator ROBERTS. Where you get hunting licenses, is that 

also—— 

Mr. CHOATE. That would not be a social service that would be 

covered by the NVRA. 

Senator ROBERTS. I was part of that voting determination in the 

House 23 years ago. I am not going to go into that, but at any 

rate—— 

Well, I think it was you, Mr. Choate, that said that there were 

15 votes that were double-counted in Kansas and Colorado. 

Mr. CHOATE. Yes. So, Kansas—— 

Senator ROBERTS. Do you realize you just cost me 15 votes during that check? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CHOATE. Well, they were not all in Kansas, but some of them 

were in Kansas. I think—— 

Senator ROBERTS. Do you know how hard it is to find the State 

line in Western Kansas and Eastern Colorado? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CHOATE. I do, actually. I am from Hays, so that is—I am a 

little familiar with Kansas. 

Senator ROBERTS. Hays City, America? 

Mr. CHOATE. I am from Hays City, America. That is right. 

Senator ROBERTS. How about that. Have you climbed Mount 

Sunflower? 

Mr. CHOATE. I have climbed Mount Sunflower. I am one of the 

many. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. Yes. The trick is not to climb it. The trick is 

to find it. 

Mr. CHOATE. Exactly. 

[Laughter.] 
283 

Mr. CHOATE. Well, there is a big post there identifying it. 

Senator ROBERTS. I know that, but you drive to Colorado first 

and then somebody tells you, whoops, you are in Colorado. Go back. 

Mr. CHOATE. That is usually the way it works. 

Senator ROBERTS. I have a feeling that is where those 15 votes 

came from. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CHOATE. That is certainly possible. 

Senator ROBERTS. All right. I have obviously overstayed my time, 

Mr. Chairman. Thank you all. Thanks to the panel. 

Senator WALSH. Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

Dr. Choate, as an election administrator from a State that participates in both the ERIC program and the Interstate Voter Registration Cross-Check program, can you highlight the differences 

between the two, focusing on costs and potential savings? 

Mr. CHOATE. I would be happy to. So, the Kansas Cross-Check, 

which is the second of the two that you just described, and ERIC 

are actually very different programs that sort of get you to a similar spot. So, the way that the Kansas project works is that 28 

States send their data after a major election, after a Presidential 

election, to Kansas. Then Kansas checks all of those, compares all 

of those to identify who may be on multiple lists, so, whether a 

voter is potentially listed as a registrant on a list in, say, Colorado 

or in Kansas. Then we, as a staff, then go through that and figure 

out if that data was correct and if those voters voted, and then drill 

down to whether, in fact, we have people who have voted across 

State lines. That is a pretty labor intensive process, so the crosscheck requires quite a bit of labor on the back end. 

ERIC, by contrast, does not actually involve all that much work 

on the back end. It is much more labor intensive on the front end. 

So, once you have collected the data and sent that data to ERIC, 

ERIC gives you a report and you then distribute that report to your 

jurisdictions. So, in our case, that would be the counties, and the 

counties use that information to process their voters. So, it is actually very seamless. 

Kansas is much more labor intensive. So, one costs money, so 

ERIC costs money to be in, to be a member, but you save money 

because you are not using that for personnel costs that you would 

have to use for the Kansas project. So, they both have expenses. 

They both have time obligations. But, the ERIC one is much more 

front-loaded and Kansas is sort of on the back end. 

And in our particular circumstance, we use ERIC for a much 

broader kind of analysis. So, we use ERIC to analyze who our voters are and to help clean the data and to identify potential new 

voters. We only use the Kansas project to identify people who have 

potentially double-voted. 

Senator WALSH. Thank you very much. 

On behalf of the Rules Committee, I would like to thank all of 

our witnesses today for your important testimony and appreciate 

the work that you have put into this project. This concludes the 

panel for today’s hearing. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for five 

business days for additional statements and post-hearing questions 

submitted in writing for our witnesses to answer. 
284 

Again, I want to thank my colleagues for participating in this 

hearing and sharing their thoughts and comments on this important topic. 

This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the committee proceeded to other 

business.] 
(285) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 

BUSINESS MEETING—TO CONSIDER THE 

NOMINATIONS OF THOMAS HICKS 

AND MYRNA PE ́ REZ TO BE MEMBERS 

OF THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

AND S. 1728, S. 1937, S. 1947, AND S. 2197 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2014 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:50 a.m., in Room 

SR–301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Walsh, presiding. 

Present: Senator Walsh. 

Staff Present: Jean Bordewich, Staff Director; Stacy Ettinger, 

Chief Counsel; Veronica Gillespie, Elections Counsel; Abbie 

Sorrendino, Legislative Assistant; Phillip Rumsey, Legislative Assistant; Jeff Johnson, Clerk; Benjamin Grazda, Staff Assistant; 

Mary Suit Jones, Republican Staff Director; Paul Vinovich, Republican Chief Counsel; Rachel Creviston, Republican Senior Professional Staff; Trish Kent, Republican Senior Professional Staff. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WALSH 

Senator WALSH. Now, I would like to gavel in for the Executive 

Session. Good morning. The committee will now come to order for 

the business meeting noticed for this morning. 

Unfortunately, we do not have a quorum of ten members present, 

and thus, we cannot proceed to vote on the two nominations and 

four pieces of legislation on this announced agenda for this business meeting. 

Since a quorum is not present, the committee will recess, subject 

to the call of the Chair, and take up these matters when we obtain 

a quorum. The Chairman intends to convene another meeting at 

11:15 a.m. in Senate 219, Second Floor, Capitol, immediately following the 11:00 a.m. roll call vote on the floor. 

The committee stands in recess until the call of the Chairman. 

[Whereupon, at 10:51 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

The committee reconvened, at 11:19 a.m., April 9, 2014, in Room 

S–219, United States Capitol Building, Hon. Charles E. Schumer, 

chairman of the committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Schumer, Feinstein, Durbin, Pryor, Udall, 

Warner, Leahy, King, Walsh, Roberts, Cochran. 

Staff Present: Jean Bordewich, Staff Director; Stacy Ettinger, 

Chief Counsel; Abbie Sorrendino, Legislative Assistant; Phillip 

Rumsey, Legislative Assistant; Jeff Johnson, Clerk; Benjamin 

Grazda, Staff Assistant; Mary Suit Jones, Republican Staff Director; Shaun Parkin, Republican Deputy Staff Director; Paul 

Vinovich, Republican Chief Counsel; Rachel Creviston, Republican 

Senior Professional Staff. 
320 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SCHUMER 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you all for coming. We now have a 

quorum of 10 Members to continue our markup. We will consider 

the two EAC nominations individually, followed by consideration of 

four bills. As usual, we will make these voice votes. However, if the 

Ranking member requests a recorded vote, I will ask the clerk to 

call the roll. Is there any debate on the nominations of Thomas 

Hicks and Myrna Pe ́rez to be Commissioners of the EAC? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERTS 

Senator ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman—as you know I have called for 

the elimination of this agency as I believe it has outlived its usefulness. I have also said, however, that if it is going to exist it should 

be bi-partisan as the statute that created it stated. 

I cannot support moving these nominations forward without any 

Republican nominees to join them. It is my understanding the 

White House is currently in the process of reviewing potential Republican nominees. Hopefully we will have those nominations before the nominees we consider today reach the Floor so they can 

all be considered together by the full Senate. 

I cannot, however, support moving these nominations without 

Republican counterparts and accordingly will vote no. I am not calling for a recorded vote. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Ranking Member Roberts. As 

soon as we get republican nominations I give you my word, we will 

move them expeditiously. The nominations just haven’t been submitted yet but I appreciate your comments. 

Chairman SCHUMER. The question is on reporting the nominations favorably to the Senate. Unless there is a request for a roll 

call vote this will be a voice vote. 

First, Mr. Thomas Hicks. Is there a second? 

Senator LEAHY. Second. 

Chairman SCHUMER. All those in favor, say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. All those opposed, say no. 

[Nays.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. The ayes have it. The nomination of Thomas Hicks is ordered favorably reported to the Senate with recommendation the nomination be confirmed. 

Next up, Ms. Myrna Pe ́rez. Is there a second? 

Senator UDALL. Second. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Is there a demand for a recorded vote? 

[Pause.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Then let us have a voice vote. 

All those in favor, say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. All those opposed, say no. 

[Nays.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. The ayes have it. The nomination of Ms. 

Myrna Pe ́rez is ordered favorably reported to the Senate with recommendation the nominee be confirmed. 

The next item for consideration is S. 1728 the SENTRI Act. We 

have a pending amendment from Senator Roberts and a Chairman’s Mark. 
321 

Senator Roberts, would you like to offer your amendment for consideration? 

Senator ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I know ours staffs met and 

agreed to some very good changes to this bill so I thank you for 

including me, pardon me, for including those in your Mark. I do 

have concerns about one remaining section of the bill though and 

will offer an amendment to strike it. Specifically, I seek to delete 

Section 101, which would require States and every county official, 

and Aunt Mildred out in Hamilton County, Kansas, to provide reports to the Department of Justice on the status of their ballot 

transmissions. I understand the Department of Justice has sought 

to impose a requirement of this nature, but I cannot support it. 

I fear this section will impose an onerous reporting obligation on 

thousands of jurisdictions that are fully compliant with the law. We 

do not need to require every jurisdiction to compile these reports 

just to get at the few that may be out of compliance. 

As you know, election administrators operate under tight timeframes with limited resources. Their time and resources should be 

dedicated to serving our voting population, not to filling out reports 

for the Department of Justice. 

Furthermore, the timeframes in the bill are unrealistic. The 

timeframes are likely to result in incomplete reports. States are 

given a mere three days to produce these reports which are immediately made public. When those reports do not contain all of the 

required information, as they inevitably will not with the limited 

time provided to gather the information, the false impression will 

be created that jurisdictions are failing to deliver ballots when in 

reality they have failed only to report having done so. 

If we want our election officials to serve military and overseas 

voters, we should allow them to do it. If the choice is between sending ballots to soldiers or reports to Washington, I choose the former 

and I want election officials to be able to do the same. 

I therefore offer this amendment to strike Section 101 and would 

ask for a recorded vote and urge Members to vote in favor of it. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I recommend a vote against this amendment. The reporting provisions strengthen protection of voting 

rights of military voters by providing the Department of Defense 

and the Department of Justice with critical information on whether 

absentee ballots were timely transmitted to our service men and 

women. 

The question is on the adoption of the amendment. And now we 

will ask the Clerk to call the roll. 

The CLERK. Ms. Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Pryor. 

Senator PRYOR. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Udall. 

Senator UDALL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Warner. 

Senator WARNER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Leahy. 

Senator LEAHY. No. 
322 

The CLERK. Ms. Klobuchar. 

[Pause.] 

The CLERK. Mr. King. 

Senator KING. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Walsh. 

Senator WALSH. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McConnell. 

Senator MCCONNELL. [No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Cochran. 

Senator COCHRAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chambliss. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. [Aye by proxy.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. [No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Shelby. 

Senator SHELBY. [No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Blunt. 

Senator BLUNT. [No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Cruz. 

Senator CRUZ. [No response.] 

The CLERK. Chairman Schumer. 

Chairman SCHUMER. No. 

The CLERK. On this vote, the ayes are three (3). The nays are 

eight (8). The Amendment is not agreed to. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. The no’s have it, the amendment is not adopted. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Next up is the Chairman’s Mark. The question is on reporting the Chairman’s mark—an amendment in the 

nature of a substitute—favorably to the Senate. Unless there is a 

request for a roll call vote, this will be a voice vote. Is there any 

further debate on the mark? 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for allowing a vote 

on my amendment. 

In spite of my concerns about that section, which I may bring to 

the Floor, I believe on balance the bill is worth supporting and I 

will do so. I hope this legislation will improve the voting experience 

for our military and overseas voters, and am pleased to vote in 

favor of reporting it. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Any request for a recorded vote? 

[Pause.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. All those in favor, say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. All those opposed, say nay. 

[Pause.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. The ayes have it. The bill is reported to the 

Senate. 

Chairman SCHUMER. The next item for consideration is S. 1937— 

The Elections Preparedness Requires Early Planning Act, known 

as the Elections PREP Act. 

The question is on reporting the bill favorably to the Senate. Unless there is a request for a roll call vote, there will be a voice vote. 

Is there any further debate? 
323 

Senator ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this legislation and intend to vote no. The states are perfectly capable of developing disaster contingency plans without federal compulsion or assistance. 

The National Association of Secretaries of State just convened a 

task force to study this subject and issued a report with recommendations for how to deal with it. That report is available to 

states to formulate their contingency plans and federal legislation 

is not required to affect the goals of this legislation. Accordingly, 

I will vote no. I am not requesting a recorded vote. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Any other debate? All in favor, say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. All those opposed, say nay. 

[Nays.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. The ayes have it. The bill is ordered reported to the Senate. 

Chairman SCHUMER. The next item for consideration is S. 1947— 

The Government Publishing Office Act of 2014. Is there any debate? 

Senator ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I support this legislation to 

more accurately reflect the modern mission and structure of the 

Government Printing Office and ask other Committee Members to 

do the same. We are changing printing to publishing. I guess it is 

all in the name. There is nothing in here about carbon paper. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Is there any further debate? I think that 

settles it. Anyone want a recorded vote, if not we will do a voice 

vote. 

Chairman SCHUMER. All in favor, say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. All those opposed, say nay. 

[Pause.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. The ayes have it. The bill is reported to the 

Senate. 

Chairman SCHUMER. The final item for consideration is S. 2197— 

The Senate Stationery Bill. This question is on reporting the bill 

favorably to the Senate. Is there any debate? 

Senator ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I am a co-sponsor of this bill 

and ask the other Members to support it. It eliminates an archaic 

requirement and will help the Senate procure the best products at 

the lowest cost. I will vote aye and I ask other Members to do the 

same. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Any further debate? Any request for a recorded vote? We will do a voice vote. 

Chairman SCHUMER. All in favor, say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. All those opposed, say nay. 

[Pause.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. The ayes have it. The bill is reported to the 

Senate. And I want to thank everyone for coming, I know you had 

busy schedules. We got a lot done. This was a record day for the 

Rules Committee. Senator Roberts, do you have any further remarks you might wish to make? 

Senator ROBERTS. No, sir. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Then the meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
324 

HEARING—DOLLARS AND SENSE: 

HOW UNDISCLOSED MONEY 

AND POST-McCUTCHEON CAMPAIGN 

FINANCE WILL AFFECT THE 2014 ELECTION 

AND BEYOND 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2014 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:15 p.m., in Room 

SH–216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Angus S. King, Jr. presiding. 

Present: Senators Schumer, Udall, Klobuchar, King, Walsh, 

Roberts, and Cruz. 

Staff Present: Jean Bordewich, Staff Director; Kelly Fado, Deputy Staff Director; Stacy Ettinger, Chief Counsel; Veronica Gillespie, Elections Counsel; Ben Hovland, Senior Counsel; Julia Richardson, Senior Counsel; Abbie Sorrendino, Legislative Assistant; 

Philip Rumsey, Legislative Correspondent; Jeff Johnson, Clerk; 

Matthew McGowan, Professional Staff; Benjamin Grazda, Staff Assistant; Mary Suit Jones, Republican Staff Director; Shaun Parkin, 

Republican Deputy Staff Director; Paul Vinovich, Republican Chief 

Counsel; Sarah Little, Republican Communications Director; Trish 

Kent, Republican Senior Professional Staff; and Rachel Creviston, 

Republican Senior Professional Staff. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KING 

Senator KING. The Rules Committee will come to order. Good 

morning, everyone. The format that we are going to follow for the 

next few minutes will be that I will deliver an opening statement, 

then followed by Ranking Member Senator Roberts, and Chairman 

Schumer, and then we will hear from Justice Stevens, and following his testimony, we will have the panel, and if other Senators 

join us during the course, they will deliver their opening statements after Justice Stevens joins us. 

I am deeply worried about the future of our democracy. For over 

100 years, we have struggled with the issue of money and politics, 

always seeking to find the right balance between freedom of political expression and the corrosive influence of the unchecked flow of 

money to public officials. 

We have had periodic scandals and periodic corrections. We have 

had new laws and new ways to evade those laws. But we have 

never before seen what is happening today. As we will learn this 

morning, a perfect storm of new forces—court opinions, clever political operatives, and the high stakes inherent in governmental decisions—have created a qualitatively new political landscape where 

candidates are compelled to raise more and more money, and yet, 

at the same time, have to contend with virtually unlimited spending by shadowy entities representing nameless donors. 
325 

What has occurred in the past five years represents revolutionary, not evolutionary, change in the way campaigns are financed in America. These are changes I view as a threat to undermine the fundamental principle of American democracy—one person, one vote. There are well-intentioned people, people who I respect, who believe that restrictions on who can give to campaigns 

and how much they can give trespass on cherished First Amendment freedom of speech protections. 

Others, and I am among them, are worried that the recent decision’s elimination of even modest limits on campaign contributions, 

combined with a Byzantine system that, in too many cases, masks 

disclosure of who is giving and allows a flood of so-called dark 

money into the process, has the very real potential to corrode the 

integrity of the system itself. 

Historically, the flow of money has rested in and out of political 

campaigns on three pillars: Regulation of sources, regulation of 

amounts, and disclosure. Recent decisions have severely restricted 

our ability to control sources and amounts. But in those decisions— 

and I am referring, of course, to Citizens United and McCutcheon, 

the Court has explicitly invited Congress to utilize disclosure as the 

protection of the public interest in these situations. 

Justice Kennedy and Justice Roberts, in their opinions, cite disclosure as the reason that the limitations do not have to be upheld. 

Unfortunately, the disclosure requirements that they mention in 

those opinions as the bulwark against abuse and corruption simply 

do not exist. 

For example, according to a new study by the Center for Responsive Politics, total individual expenditures reported to the FEC by 

outside groups totals about $70 million to this point in 2014, nearly 

three times more than was spent at this point in 2010. That is the 

point I want to emphasize, is that this is not a gradual growth of 

a change of a few dollars here and there. What we have is an explosion of this kind of money, not only of outside expenditures, but 

also of expenditures where we do not know the source. 

We have created a kind of parallel universe of campaign finance, 

the traditional candidate-based system with clear limits on sources 

and amounts and strict disclosure requirements and the independent system with no control of sources, no limits, and no disclosure. 

Naturally, this troubling new world of campaign finance impacts 

how we as elected officials interact with the fund-raising process, 

quantitatively, in the amounts of money that elected officials need 

to be made. An average U.S. Senator—and of course, all Senators 

are above-average—but an average U.S. Senator running for reelection has to raise something on the order of $5,000 to $8,000 a day 

every day, 365 days a year for six years in order to accumulate the 

funds necessary to run for reelection. And I can tell you, at the rate 

of $5,000 to $6,000 a day, you very quickly run out of friends and 

family. 

My concern here is the system. This is not a Democratic or a Republican issue, and the country does not benefit from an undisclosed contribution and an arm’s race in contributions. Disclosure 

in this context is not an infringement on the First Amendment. But 

what we are allowing to happen before our eyes is already having 
326 

its inevitable effect, the erosion of confidence in our system and in 

us as stewards of our country’s future. 

The challenge here, the challenge before us is to find the balance 

between competing goods, the freedom to exercise our political 

voice on the one hand, and the public’s interest in safeguarding the 

integrity of the political process on the other, to restore that balance in what feels like an increasingly unbalanced system. 

I welcome our witnesses today and look forward to their contributions to these important deliberations. Senator Roberts. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERTS 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased 

to be here today on this very important subject, and I brought my 

own chart. We in the minority do not have enough money for another display unit over there, so I would ask unanimous consent. 

We could put our chart up where you had your chart. 

Senator KING. Without objection. 

Senator ROBERTS. The chart bears the text of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. And I believe that 

is what we are talking about today, the rights of citizens to express 

themselves, to make their views known on the issues that affect 

their daily lives and pocketbooks, or any other issue they wish to 

discuss. 

The First Amendment protects those rights and it prevents the 

Government from restricting them. The exercise of those rights 

does not threaten our democracy. It is the attempt to restrict these 

rights that we must fear. We are living today with the consequences of the failed attempt to restrict them. This failure was 

not hard to perceive. It is not the fault of the courts or the Federal 

Election Commission. 

It is the direct consequence of the poor decision Congress made 

when it passed the McCain-Feingold bill. I opposed that bill. I and 

others who voted against it did so because we knew it would restrict people’s right to participate in the political process. It would 

not get money out of the system, but would simply divert it to 

other avenues. 

Supporters of the bill, of course, denied it. They assured us it 

would not happen, that our system would be better. It should be 

clear now who was right and who was wrong. But rather than 

admit they were wrong, the proponents of speech regulation have 

just proposed new regulations. Because the courts have properly 

found much of their last efforts to be unconstitutional, they have 

proposed new regulatory schemes under the guise of disclosure. 

No longer able to simply prohibit speech they do not like, they 

seek to prevent it by imposing onerous disclosure requirements on 

those who wish to speak. Now, respectfully, Mr. Chairman, as we 

consider suggestions for ways to improve the system, the last people we should be asking for advice at this hearing are those who 

helped write the law that created the problem in the first place. 

Let us stop this fool’s errand of speech regulation. Let us stop 

trying to prevent people from criticizing us. Let us stop demonizing 

citizens who exercise their First Amendment rights. Let us stop 

pretending more speech somehow threatens our democracy. We 

have nothing to fear from a free marketplace of ideas. We do, how-
327 

ever, need to fear a Government empowered to investigate its own 

citizens for exercising their rights. The revelations of the Internal 

Revenue Service targeting of conservative groups and others have 

shown this to be a real danger. 

We hear a lot about corruption when this issue is debated. I 

think for many people that the definition of corruption is the promotion of ideas with which they disagree. It is amazing how for 

years George Soros has been spending millions of dollars to promote liberal and progressive causes. None of my friends on the 

other side of the aisle seem to be concerned about it. 

Now that the Koch family is spending money to promote free 

markets and private enterprise, we are supposed to believe that 

our democracy is at risk. That is absurd. Corporate spending is 

supposed to be a concern, but corporations have long exercised unfettered rights to express themselves, provided they were media 

corporations. 

I am pleased to say that the Citizens United case changed that. 

The Supreme Court recognized the First Amendment does not 

allow this Congress to choose who gets to speak and properly ended 

this nonsensical distinction with the only consequence being that 

now more voices are heard. And I know, I know, there are some 

in this body who do not want those voices to be heard and they are 

doing everything they can to silence them. 

Our majority leader, unfortunate, who has a fixation with the 

Koch family that can only be described as bizarre, takes to the floor 

on an almost daily basis to attack them. Why? I think it is because 

he fears they pose a threat to his hold on power, or the majority. 

He wants them to stop talking. Well, that is why the First Amendment begins, Congress shall make no law. The First Amendment 

does not allow us to silence those who oppose us. That applies to 

corporations, labor unions, Mr. Soros, and the Koch family. It applies to everyone. 

Let us stop trying to do so, Mr. Chairman. Let us stop trying to 

impose regulations designed to deter and harass our opponents. Instead, let us just admit the mistake we made when we tried to regulate political speech in the first place. Let us remove those restrictions. Let us allow those who want to contribute and engage in our 

political system to give money where they want as long as they follow the law. 

Everyone in this country has the right to express themselves, Mr. 

Chairman, even people who do not manage to get themselves invited to appear on television shows or to testify at Senate hearings. 

People, all people, individually and as groups, have every right to 

make their views known. Instead of trying to stop them, let us reinvigorate our system. 

New restrictions and regulations are not going to improve the 

system. Getting rid of those we already have imposed will. That is 

the course we should take, Mr. Chairman. Simply, let us just do 

it. Thank you for your time. 

Senator KING. Senator Schumer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SCHUMER 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. First, let me thank you, Senator King, for suggesting this hearing and for your chairing the 
328 

hearing, as well as your invitation to Justice Stevens, who I look 

forward to hearing from. 

Well, I think McCutcheon is a real turning point in our debate 

about money in politics. McCutcheon seemed to say that free 

speech absolutely defined, as McCutcheon does, allows anyone to 

spend any amount of money in any way in our political system. 

McCutcheon, carried to its logical extreme, will get rid of individual 

limits, will get rid of limits on corporations, will just allow money 

to totally, totally envelope our system. 

It is frightening. It is frightening. And the reason we have this 

hearing is not because of some new ads—Koch Brothers have been 

doing ads for years and years—but because of the McCutcheon decision and its implications for our democracy. The bottom line is 

very simple. I respect my colleagues’ fidelity to the First Amendment, but no amendment is absolute. 

Most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle support antipornography legislation. That is a limitation on the First Amendment. Most everyone here believes you cannot falsely scream fire 

in a crowded theater. That is a limitation on the First Amendment. 

We have many, many, many different laws that pose limits on the 

amendments because through 200-and-some-odd years of jurisprudence, the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court have realized 

that no amendment, no amendment is absolute. 

We have noise ordinances. Everyone accepts them. That is a limitation on the First Amendment. So if you impose a view that just 

when it comes to allowing one person to put the 7,112th ad on television that the First Amendment is absolute, but in so many other 

areas it is not, you have to ask why. You have to ask why. 

And then, when many on the other side of the aisle do not support disclosure, which is actually an enhancement of the First 

Amendment, free debate, free knowledge, one wonders why. One 

wonders why. The First Amendment protection of free speech is 

part of what makes America great. So is the concept of one person, 

one vote. And when a small group of people, 700 in this case, who 

were affected by McCutcheon, have so much more power to influence the political process than everybody else, our democracy is at 

risk. That is the problem here. 

There is a balancing test and there are many concepts in the 

Constitution, the concept of having a somewhat level playing field 

so that those who have overwhelming wealth and choose to spend 

it, whether they be on the left or the right, the laws we are proposing affect the Koch Brothers and George Soros, and should. 

And so, because now legislation could bring disclosure, but could 

now will not stop the path McCutcheon is on, Senate Democrats 

are going to vote this year on my colleague, Tom Udall’s constitutional amendment which once and for all would allow Congress to 

make laws to deal with the balance between equality, each vote is 

equal, each person is equal, and the First Amendment, a careful 

balance. 

But not what the five members of the Supreme Court have said, 

no balance. We will bring that amendment to the floor shortly, and 

we will vote on it, and I will be working with Senator Udall and 

Majority Leader Reid, and hopefully every Republican who cares 

about honest elections, to bring it to the floor this year. 
329 

When the Supreme Court, or any of my colleagues, say that the 

Koch Brothers’ First Amendment rights are being deprived, that 

they are not being heard, it defies common sense, it defies logic. 

And the same would apply to some very liberal person who put on 

10,000 ads. The ability to be heard is different than the ability to 

drown out every other point of view using modern technology simply because you have a lot more money than somebody else who 

has an equally valid view. 

So I hope that Senator Udall’s amendment will track bipartisan 

support, but it will draw to a fine point where we are at, and that 

is that the First Amendment is sacred, but that the First Amendment is not absolute. And by making it absolute, you actually make 

it less sacred to most Americans. 

We have to bring some balance to our political system. If people 

lose faith in this system, which they are rapidly doing, in large 

part, because they feel, correctly, that people with a lot of money 

have far more say in the actual political dialogue than they do, this 

great democracy could falter. We do not want it to happen. And the 

best way to stop it is to show the Supreme Court or limit the Supreme Court, show them that their absolutist view is wrong and 

support and amendment like Senator Udall’s. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Senator KING. For the information of Senator Cruz, Senator 

Walsh, and Senator Udall who arrived after my introduction, the 

schedule we are going to follow is I am now going to invite Justice 

Stevens to speak, and then each of you will be asked to provide a 

statement, if you wish to do so. Justice Stevens, if you would join 

us at the table? 

Justice John Paul Stevens is a retired Justice of the United 

States Supreme Court, was appointed to the Court in 1975 by 

President Gerald Ford, I think the third longest sitting Justice of 

the Supreme Court. Justice Stevens, I knew that you were a distinguished jurist, but my eye was caught by a headline in the paper 

over the weekend that says, Pope to Move John Paul for Sainthood. 

I realized later it was not the same John Paul. 

In any case, we are delighted to have you here today. Thank you 

very much for joining us, Justice. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN PAUL STEVENS, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE (RET.), UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Justice STEVENS. Thank you very much, Senator. Senator King, 

Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member Roberts, and distinguished 

members of this Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the important issue of campaign 

finance. 

When I last appeared before this body in December of 1975, my 

confirmation hearing stretched over three days. Today, I shall 

spend only a few minutes making five brief points. First, campaign 

finance is not a partisan issue. For years, the Court’s campaign finance jurisprudence has been incorrectly predicated on the assumption that avoiding corruption or the appearance of corruption 

is the only justification for regulating campaign speech and the financing of political campaigns. 
330 

That is quite wrong. We can safely assume that all of our elected 

representatives and candidates for office are law-abiding citizens, 

and the laws against bribery provide an adequate protection 

against misconduct in office. It is fundamentally wrong to assume 

that preventing corruption is the only justification for laws limiting 

the First Amendment rights of candidates and their supporters. 

Elections are contests between rival candidates for public office. 

Like rules that govern athletic contests or adversary litigation, 

those rules should create a level playing field. The interest in creating a level playing field justifies regulation of campaign speech 

that does not apply to speech about general issues that is not designed to affect the outcome of elections. 

The rules should give rival candidates, irrespective of their party 

and incumbency status, an equal opportunity to persuade citizens 

to vote for them. Just as procedures in contested litigation regulates speech in order to give adversary parties a fair and equal opportunity to persuade the decision-maker to rule in their favors, 

rules regulating political campaigns should have the same objective. 

In elections, the decision-makers are voters, not judges or jurors, 

but that does not change the imperative for the equality of opportunity. 

Second, all elected officials would lead happier lives and be better able to perform their public responsibilities if they did not have 

to spend so much time raising money. 

Third, rules limiting campaign contributions and expenditures 

should recognize the distinction between money provided by their 

constituents and money provided by non-voters, such as corporations and people living in other jurisdictions. An important recent 

opinion written by Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit, and 

summarily affirmed by the Supreme Court, Blumen against the 

Federal Election Commission, upheld the constitutionality of the 

Federal statute that prohibits foreign citizens from spending money 

to support or oppose candidates for Federal office. 

While the Federal interest in preventing foreigners from taking 

part in elections in this country justified the financial regulation, 

it placed no limit on Canadians’ freedom to speak about issues of 

general interest. During World War II, the reasoning behind the 

statute would have prohibited Japanese agents from spending 

money opposing the reelection of FDR, but would not have limited 

their ability to broadcast propaganda to our troops. 

Similar reasoning would have justified the State of Michigan 

placing restrictions on campaign expenditures made by residents of 

Wisconsin or Indiana without curtailing their speech about general 

issues. Voters’ fundamental right to participate in electing their 

own political leaders is far more compelling than the right of nonvoters such as corporations and non-residents to support or oppose 

candidates for public office. 

The Blumen case illustrates that the interest in protecting campaign speech by non-voters is less worthy of protection than the interest in protecting speech about general issues. 

Fourth, while money is used to finance speech, money is not 

speech. Speech is only one of the activities that are financed by 

campaign contributions and expenditures. Those financial activities 
331 

should not receive precisely the same constitutional protection as 

speech itself. After all, campaign funds were used to finance the 

Watergate burglaries, actions that clearly were not protected by the 

First Amendment. 

Fifth, and this perhaps is the most important thing I want to 

say, is the central error in the Court’s campaign finance jurisprudence is the holding in the 1976 case of Buckley against Valeo that 

denies Congress the power to impose limitations on campaign expenditures. My friend, Justice Byron White, was the only member 

of the Court to dissent from that holding. 

As an athlete and as a participant in Jack Kennedy’s campaign 

for the Presidency, he was familiar with the importance of rules requiring a level playing field. I did not arrive at the Court in time 

to participate in the decision of the Buckley case, but I have always 

thought that Byron got it right. 

After the decision was announced, Judge Skelly Wright, who was 

one of the Federal judiciary’s most ardent supporter of a broad interpretation of the First Amendment, characterized its ruling on 

campaign expenditures as, quote, tragically misguided, unquote. 

Because that erroneous holding has been consistently followed ever 

since 1976, we need an amendment to the Constitution to correct 

that fundamental error. 

I favor the adoption of this simple amendment, quote, Neither 

the First Amendment nor any provision of this Constitution shall 

be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing 

reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office or their supporters may spend in election campaigns, unquote. 

I think it wise to include the reasonable, the word reasonable, to 

ensure that legislatures do not proscribe limits that are so low that 

incumbents have an unfair advantage or that interfere with the 

freedom of the press. I have confidence that my former colleagues 

would not use that word to justify a continuation of the practice of 

treating any limitation as unreasonable. 

Unlimited campaign expenditures impair the process of democratic self-government. They create a risk that successful candidates will pay more attention to the interests of non-voters who 

provide them with money than to the interests of the voters who 

elected them. That risk is unacceptable. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Justice Stevens was submitted for 

the record:] 

Senator KING. Mr. Justice, thank you very much for your considered remarks. We appreciate your willingness to share them with 

us here today. Thank you. 

Justice STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

Senator KING. You are excused. 

In accordance with the process that we discussed at the beginning, I will now turn to Senator Cruz for an opening statement, if 

you choose to make one. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CRUZ 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to 

thank Justice Stevens for being here and joining us. Prior to being 

in the Senate, I spent much of my professional career as an advo-
332 

cate before the Court, and I must say it is a different position to 

be on this side of the dais rather than answering questions from 

Justice Stevens. And I will note that of all the Justices, Justice Stevens most often disagreed with the position of my clients. 

And there was no Justice whose questions were more incisive, 

more friendly, and, frankly, more dangerous than Justice Stevens. 

Always with a twinkle in an eye, he would ask a question, ‘‘Counsel, would you not just agree with this small little thing?’’ And if 

you said yes, it would walk you down a road that would unravel 

the entire position in your case. So it is very nice to have the good 

Justice with us. 

I want to thank all of the witnesses who are here for our second 

panel as well. This topic is a topic of great importance. Of the entire Bill of Rights, the First Amendment is the most important. It 

is the foundational right of every other right of citizens that is protected. 

I will say that the issue of campaign finance reform, is perhaps 

the most misunderstood issue in all of politics, because campaign 

finance reform restrictions are always pitched as, ‘‘Let us prevent 

corruption, let us hold politicians accountable.’’ And they do exactly 

the opposite. Every single restriction this body puts in place is designed to do one thing; protect incumbent politicians. 

And it is powerfully good at that because, at the end of the day, 

there are three speakers in a political debate. There are politicians, 

there is the media, and there are the citizens. Campaign finance 

reform is all about silencing number three so that the politicians 

can speak unimpeded. And I will say there are colleagues of mine 

in both parties who will stand up and say, ‘‘These pesky citizen 

groups, they keep criticizing me.’’ 

Well, that is the nature of our democratic process. If you choose 

to run for public office, there are 300 million Americans who have 

a right to criticize you all day long and twice on Sundays. That is 

how our system was built. And I will tell you this, I am certainly 

one who will defend the rights of our citizens to speak out, whether 

I agree with their speech or not. 

The Sierra Club has an absolute right to defend their views, as 

does the NRA. Planned Parenthood has an absolute right to defend 

its views, as does the National Right to Life. That is the way our 

system operates. And campaign finance reform is all about lower 

the limits, lower the limits, restrict the speech, restrict the speech. 

And what happens is the only people who can win elections then 

are incumbent politicians, because incumbent politicians have armies of lobbyists and entrenched interests that raise the money 

and fund them, and any challenger that comes across has to raise 

the money. And if you do not have an army of thousands upon 

thousands of bundlers, you cannot effectively challenge an incumbent, and that is not the unintended effect of these laws. That is 

the intended effect. 

Our current system makes no sense. Right now we have super 

PACs that are speaking on the sidelines. And you have politicians 

who play games. Since they cannot speak directly under the law, 

they simply will say, ‘‘Who will rid me of this troublesome cleric?’’ 

And a group springs up and speaks and if this group is supporting 

you, you kind of hope what they say bears some resemblance to 
333 

what you believe, but you are not allowed to talk to them. So if 

they happen to get it wrong, there is not a darn thing you can do. 

A far better system would be to allow individuals unlimited contributions to candidates and require immediate disclosure. As John 

Stuart Mill said, let the marketplace of ideas operate, let more 

speech counter bad speech, rather than this silly game we play 

right now. 

Now, I will note there are a series of canards that get discussed 

in this issue. The number one canard is money is not speech. We 

can restrict money because it has nothing to do with speech. That 

statement is categorically, objectively false. Money is and has always been used as a critical tool of speech, whether publishing 

books, or putting on events, or broadcasting over the airwaves. 

And I would suggest to each of the witnesses and to everyone 

thinking about this issue, ask yourself one question. For every restriction that members of Congress or advocates put forth, ask 

yourself one question. Would you be willing to apply that same restriction to the New York Times? And let me know. The New York 

Times is a corporation, so anyone who says corporations have no 

rights, fine. 

There are some who say, ‘‘Let us restrict political speech within 

90 days of an election.’’ Very well then. Would you be willing to say 

the New York Times may not speak about politics within 90 days 

of an election? McCutcheon said you cannot tell citizens they can 

only support nine candidates. If they want to support 10 or 11 or 

12, they are entitled to do so. 

If you think McCutcheon is wrong, would you be willing to tell 

the New York Times, ‘‘You may only speak about nine candidates, 

or only candidates in New York?’’ Look, those restrictions are all 

obviously and facially unconstitutional, and I would ask you, Why 

does a corporation like the New York Times or CBS or any other 

media corporation, in Congress’s view, enjoy greater First Amendment rights than individual citizens? 

Our democratic process is broken and corrupt right now because 

politicians in both parties hold onto incumbency. We need to empower the individual citizens, and I will say this in closing. I agree 

very much with Justice Hugo Black who famously said, with regard 

to the First Amendment, the words Congress shall make no law 

abridging the freedom of speech means exactly what it says. 

No law means no law, and we should be vigorous protecting the 

rights of individual citizens to be engaged in the political process 

and hold every one of us on both sides of the aisle accountable. It 

is the only thing that keeps our democratic process working. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KING. Senator Udall. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR UDALL 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Chairman King, and good 

morning, and thank you for holding this very important hearing. 

I want to thank the witnesses that I know are going to be here 

later to discuss what I think is a very, very important topic. 

Let me say to the Chairman of the Rules Committee, Chairman 

Schumer, I really appreciate your statement that we are going to 

have a vote this year on a constitutional amendment. I think it is 
334 

about time. We have had several votes. I think we had one in 1997, 

we had one in 2001, but these rulings by the Supreme Court have 

gone so far that we are really ripe for having a vote and trying to 

coalesce around something. 

I know that Justice Stevens has left, but I want to say the words 

I had in my statement to him. I am sure it will get to him. As the 

author, Justice Stevens, of the dissent in Citizens United, you 

wrote that, ‘‘The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation.’’ 

And I have found myself agreeing with Justice Stevens. Unfortunately, this is another of those times. Four years after Citizens 

United, the damage continues. The Court’s decision this month in 

McCutcheon was one more step in dismantling our campaign finance system. It is now crystal clear an amendment to the Constitution is necessary to allow meaningful campaign finance rules. 

And as I heard Chairman Schumer talk about the issue of it 

being absolute, that is what we are talking about, is allowing 

meaningful campaign finance rules, not in any way abridging the 

First Amendment. 

Most Americans do not have unlimited dollars to spend on elections around the country. They only get their one vote. They can 

support one candidate, the one who represents their district or 

state, but for the wealthy and the super-wealthy, McCutcheon says 

they get so much more. That decision gave them a green light, full 

speed ahead to donate to an unlimited number of candidates. 

Now a billionaire in one state gets to influence the elections in 49 other states. Under McCutcheon, one donor can dole out $3.6 

million every two years, just like that. Consider this: An American 

citizen working full-time making minimum wage would have to 

work 239 years to make that kind of money, 239 years. 

The Court has shown a willingness to strike down sensible regulations by a narrow majority and is returning our campaign finance 

system to Watergate-era rules, the same rules that foster corruption, outraged voters, and promoted campaign finance standards in 

the first place. 

But our campaign finance system was in trouble long before. The 

Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions just picked up the pace. 

The Court laid the groundwork many years ago, and I know Justice 

Stevens mentioned this, in the case of Buckley versus Valeo. It 

goes all the way back to 1976. 

The Court ruled that restricting independent campaign expenditures violates the First Amendment right to free speech. In effect, 

money and speech are the same thing. This is tortured logic and 

ignores the reality of political campaigns. The outcome is not surprising. Elections have become more about the quantity of cash and 

less about the quality of ideas, more about special interests and 

less about public service. 

We have a broken system based on a deeply flawed premise. 

That is why I introduced SJ Res. 19 last June. It now has 35 cosponsors, and I think—I believe Senator King and Senator Schumer are both on it. It is similar to bipartisan resolutions in previous Congresses. Actually, it started with Senator Ted Stevens, I 

believe, back in 1983. So it has true bipartisan roots and is consistent with the amendment that Justice Stevens has proposed. 
335 

It would restore the authority of Congress stripped by the Court 

to regulate the raising and spending of money for Federal political 

campaigns. This would include independent expenditures and it 

would allow states to do the same at their level. It would not dictate any specific policies or regulations, but it would allow Congress to pass sensible campaign finance reform, reform that withstands constitutional challenges. 

In the Federalist Paper Number 49, James Madison argued that 

the U.S. Constitution should be amended only—and he used this 

term—only in great and extraordinary occasions should we go with 

a constitutional amendment, and I agree with him. I also believe 

we have reached one of those occasions. Free and fair elections are 

a founding principle of our democracy. They should not be for sale 

to the highest bidder. 

This effort started decades ago. There is a long, and I might add, 

bipartisan history here. Many of our predecessors from both parties 

understand the danger. They knew the corrosive effect money has 

had on our political system. They spent years championing the 

cause. 

In 1983, the 98th Congress, Senator Ted Stevens, introduced an 

amendment to overturn Buckley, and in every Congress from the 

99th to the 108th, Senator Fritz Hollings introduced bipartisan 

constitutional amendments similar to mine. Senator Schumer and 

Cochran continued the effort in the 109th Congress. And that was 

before the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions, before things 

went from bad to worse. 

The out of control spending after Citizens United has further 

poisoned our elections, but it has also ignited a broad movement 

to amend the Constitution. McCutcheon is the latest misguided decision, but it will not be the last. It is time for Congress to take 

back control and pass a constitutional amendment. 

And again, Chairman King and Chairman Schumer, I thank you 

for holding this hearing and I think it is very, very timely on the 

heels of McCutcheon. Appreciate it. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Senator. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WALSH 

Senator WALSH. Thank you Senator King, Chairman Schumer, 

and Ranking Member Roberts. 

Citizens United unleashed a torrent of dark money into our elections, allowing wealthy donors and corporations to shuffle money 

among third party groups to evade disclosure laws and influence 

elections. 

Last month, the Supreme Court again promoted the influence of 

the wealthy in our democracy by striking down a 40-year-old limit 

on how much the richest donors can give to candidates and parties. 

As it is, less than one-percent of Americans provide over twothirds of contributions. Small-dollar donors, the average American, 

are being made irrelevant by a campaign finance system that allows wealthy donors to secretly fund attack ads. 

Concentrations of wealth and dark money have a big impact in 

Montana. Our airtime is cheap and our state contribution limits 

are relatively low. Montana’s voters don’t yet need to be able to 

write million dollar checks to get a candidate’s attention, but this 
336 

ease of access makes Montana’s elections a prime target for dark 

money. 

Indeed, Montana has frequently been at the center of the campaign finance debate. Our state ban on corporate campaign expenditures and donations, passed by voter initiative in 1912 after William Clark used his mining wealth to buy a Senate seat, was 

struck down because of Citizens United. Since then, we’ve seen 

dark money groups like American Tradition Partnership ignore our 

disclosure laws and illegally coordinate with candidates to influence elections. 

The role of average Americans in our democracy is in danger if 

wealthy donors and secretive groups can spend vast amounts of undisclosed money to influence elections. 

We must act to strengthen our disclosure requirements, and we 

must find a way to empower small, individual donors. Otherwise, 

our elections will be controlled by the few Americans that can afford to write million-dollar checks. I want to thank the Chair and 

the witnesses, and I look forward to their testimony. 

Senator KING. If our next panel could take their seats, I will introduce you. We are going to hear from this panel in alphabetical 

order. First is Mr. Donald F. McGahn, a partner with the law firm 

of Patton Boggs. Previously he was a Commissioner and Chairman 

of the FEC. He also served as the general counsel for the National 

Republican Congressional Committee for ten years. 

Second is Norman Ornstein, Resident Scholar at the American 

Enterprise Institute, well-known columnist, and frequent commenter on campaign finance issues. Third is Mr. Trevor Potter, 

President and General Counsel for the Campaign Legal Center. 

Previously he was a Commissioner and Chair of the FEC and later 

served as general counsel to John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. 

Fourth, Ms. Ann Ravel, former Chair of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, currently Vice Chair of the Federal 

Election Commission. And finally, Neil P. Reiff, who is a founding 

member of the law firm of Sandler, Reiff, Young & Lamb, and a 

former deputy general counsel for the Democratic National Committee. 

Thank you all for joining us today and I welcome your opening 

statements. If you have more lengthy statements, they can be submitted for the record, but we look forward to hearing from you and 

then we will discuss these issues. Mr. McGahn. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD F. McGAHN, ESQ., PATTON BOGGS, 

LLP, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. MCGAHN. Chairman King, Ranking Member Roberts, and 

members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. It is an honor and a privilege, particularly 

in light of the appearance of former Justice John Paul Stevens. Per 

the Committee’s request, I submitted written testimony prior to the 

hearing, jointly filed with another panelist here today, Neil Reiff. 

Mr. Reiff and I are practitioners in the area of campaign finance 

and our views are shaped by decades of experience in advising and 

representing real people who wish to participate in politics in a legally compliant manner. 
337 

Although we have similar clients, and are not here to represent 

the views of any of those clients, we differ in one significant way. 

One of us represents Republicans, conservatives, and Libertarians; 

while the other represents Democrats, liberals, and progressives. 

Such a partisan difference in the modern world would ordinarily 

preclude any notion of common ground, but not here. 

Recently we co-authored an article that was published in Campaigns and Elections magazine that explained our views on the 

good, the bad, and the ugly of the current law, particularly the aspects imposed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 

commonly called McCain-Feingold. 

In our article which we have already submitted to the Committee, we explained that much of what many perceive to be the 

problems in the current system can be traced back to the underlying statute itself. As we predicted back in 2002, McCain-Feingold 

has become a warped version of itself, where heavily regulated candidates and party committees have taken a backseat in our current 

system. 

We suggest a different approach, one that flows from a different 

premise firmly grounded in our shared First Amendment tradition, 

that in order for voters to be truly informed, they need to hear directly from the candidates themselves. Thus, the candidate’s voice 

ought to be the central voice in American democracy. In our view, 

the parties are the best vehicles to assist with achieving that goal. 

In other words, political parties are uniquely situated to echo their 

candidate’s message. 

Critically, our views and suggestions are not designed to simply 

transfer relevancy back to the parties for relevancy’s sake. Recall 

that the plaintiff in Buckley versus Valeo, Senator James Buckley 

of New York, was not nominated by either of the two major parties, 

and it was precisely that sort of candidate, one outside of that era’s 

establishment, that felt the burdens of that wave of reform the 

most. 

We care, first and foremost, about grassroots and local activity 

by ordinary citizens, and believe that McCain-Feingold in its effort 

to change the culture of Washington, D.C. has reached too far into 

state and local politics and contributed to pushing local activists 

outside the parties. 

Unfortunately, current law has placed parties at a competitive 

disadvantage and has federalized virtually all state and local party 

programs, which brings us to the 2014 campaign landscape. Certainly direct contribution limits remain, albeit at artificially low 

levels that do not match the rate of inflation that has occurred 

since they were first instituted. 

For example, the $10,000 state party limit in today’s dollars 

ought to be, if adjusted for inflation, about $48,000. In addition to 

regular inflation, the cost of campaigning has skyrocketed, particularly due to the cost of television advertising. Other prophylactic 

measures imposed by the law have been struck by the courts, except those that limit the ability of political party committees to effectively assist their candidates. 

Candidates are struggling to be heard over the din of single issue 

and other groups and the party committees who historically had 

been a candidate’s natural ally has significantly diminished and es-
338 

sentially been replaced by independent super-PACs and singleissue non-profits. So that just seems backwards and, ironically, is 

the opposite of the so-called reform. 

Some claim more disclosure is the answer. Separate and apart 

from my work with Mr. Reiff, in my own view, this is not the answer. Certainly campaign disclosure has survived judicial review, 

albeit in a more limited form than that which was originally 

passed. But disclosure has had a mixed record in the courts, sometimes upheld, but often struck or limited. 

Whether one looks to Talley versus California, Thomas v. Collins, 

NAACP versus Alabama, Buckley versus Valeo, or most recently, 

Davis versus FEC, disclosure has its limitations. As Justice John 

Paul Stevens himself said, writing for the Court’s majority in McIntyre versus Ohio, quote, Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of 

the majority. It exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights 

and of the First Amendment in particular, unquote. 

Justice Stevens also said, speaking for the Court, quote, the freedom to publish anonymously extends beyond the literary realm, unquote. Continuing, On occasion, quite apart from any threat or 

prosecution, an advocate may believe her ideas would be more persuasive if the readers are unaware of her identity. Anonymity, 

thereby, provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not be prejudge her message 

simply because they do not like its proponent. Thus, even in the 

field of political rhetoric where the identity of the speaker is an important component of the many attempts to persuade, the most effective advocates have sometimes opted for anonymity, unquote. 

And what of McCutcheon versus FEC? We anticipate that 

McCutcheon will help address the unfairness, the parties, and most 

candidates to some degree, but it did not strike limitations and prohibitions on direct contributions to candidates and party committees. What was struck was the so-called biennial limit, essentially 

an umbrella limit that prevented citizens from giving to more than 

a few handful of candidates and party committees. 

Thus, the impact of McCutcheon. More candidates, including 

challengers and those that are not seen as safe bets, will have access to additional financial support. Hopefully, direct contributions 

will no longer be the province of a select few well ensconced within 

the ruling class. 

Similarly, the upstart challenge of candidates’ natural ally, the 

political party, will no longer have to compete with each other for 

resources to the degree caused by McCain-Feingold. But this sort 

of change is not enough to fix what ails our system of privately 

funded campaign finance. McCain-Feingold must be revisited. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present these views. 

[The prepared joint statement of Mr. McGahn and Mr. Reiff was 

submitted for the record:] 

Senator KING. Thank you, Mr. McGahn. Mr. Ornstein. 

STATEMENT OF NORMAN J. ORNSTEIN, AMERICAN 

ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. ORNSTEIN. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman, and it is really 

a pleasure to be here to talk about this issue. I want to start by 

commending Senator Cruz for his full-throated support of disclo-
339 

sure, and I look forward to his vote for the DISCLOSE Act when 

it comes up in the Senate. 

Senator KING. I wrote that down myself. 

Mr. ORNSTEIN. I also want to thank Senator Roberts for putting 

up the text of the First Amendment, which I read and re-read as 

I have done so many times and I am still looking for the word 

money in the First Amendment. And I just have to say that if 

money is defined as speech, then the rights of citizens as equals in 

this process to participate simply gets blown away. Those who have 

lots of money have lots of speech; those who have little money have 

very little or no speech. 

Having said that, I want to really talk about two larger concerns 

that are generated by the multiple recent moves that I believe have 

knocked the pins out from under the regulatory regime that has 

long operated in American politics. 

I wrote my testimony going back to the Tillman Act in 1907, but 

as I have reflected on it, it really does take us back at least to the 

1830s, and the two things I want to talk about are, first, the corrosive corruption that has caused when you remove the modest limits 

on money that have existed, and second, a real focus of the hearing, of course, is the efforts to limit disclosure and enable these 

huge flows of dark money to enter the system without the accountability necessary in a democratic political system. 

As I look through history, what we know is that the focus on corruption, the concerns about corruption and money are not new at 

all. They go back at least to an attempt, in 1837, to prohibit the 

parties from shaking down Government employees and giving contributions. 

As historian John Lawrence noted, Abraham Lincoln, who I believe was a Republican, warned that concentrated capital had become, quote, enthroned in the political system, and he worried 

about an era of, quote, corruption in high places until the republic 

is destroyed. I have to believe that if Abraham Lincoln were around 

today, he would be reinforced in that particular judgment. 

As we went through the corruption in the Grant Administration 

that led to the Pendleton Act in 1883, the corruption involving outsized corporation influence on President Theodore Roosevelt that 

led to the Tillman Act in 1907, the Teapot Dome scandal that resulted in the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, the abuse of 

Federal employees that led, in 1938, to the passage of the Hatch 

Act, the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, the Watergate scandal spurring 

the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, and that was revised, 

of course, by Buckley, and on through the abuses of soft money and 

in other ways that brought about the Federal Election Campaign— 

the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. 

It was scandals that led to corruption that led to change. All of 

that focus was turned on its head by Citizens United brought as 

a very narrow, as applied, decision and then broadened out to basically take away almost all of those protections, at least going back 

to 1907, and then to McCutcheon. 

Now, I want to make a couple of broad points, particularly about 

McCutcheon. Despite some of the other focal points, what has 

alarmed me the most about the McCutcheon decision was Justice 

Roberts basically now taking corruption out of the equation, and 
340 

the appearance of corruption entirely out of the equation, and defining corruption in the narrowest way, as a quid pro quo that 

would only be applicable in a case like ABSCAM or its more popularized American Hustle variety where you have videotape and an 

exchange of money in return for a favor. 

That is so far away from the real world, and in particular now 

with McCutcheon, where officials, elected officials can solicit large 

contributions, something that we tried to restrain deeply in the 

McCain-Feingold bill. It takes me back to an era that I remember 

well where we had president’s clubs and speaker’s clubs and leader’s clubs around here with a menu of access. 

Give $10,000 and you get to meet with all the Committee chairs. 

Give $25,000, you could have a one-on-one with the Speaker. This 

is a trade of access-for-money and it leads down a dangerous path 

and a path that becomes even more dangerous when we do not 

have disclosure of who is involved with a lot of these contributions. 

Frankly, the notion that McCutcheon is going to enhance disclosure was, I think, blown out of the water by Justice Breyer’s very 

compelling dissent, and what we have already seen happening 

within a day after McCutcheon was passed where high-priced lawyers, some of whom are in this room, are working very feverishly 

to make sure that these contributions get channeled through multiple committees back and forth in different ways so that we will 

not have any effective disclosure. 

Let me end with just a few recommendations for the Committee 

or for what Congress could do from now on. First, Congress should 

make every effort to pass the DISCLOSE Act. Let us get some reasonable disclosure. Second, the Senate should hold public hearings, 

and this Committee, on the dysfunctional Federal Election Commission and look to reform it to make it a reasonably functional 

body that acts to enforce the law, not to thwart it. 

Third, for every hearing that we see on the purported scandal at 

the IRS, which is trying to apply the law now, which says that organizations called 501(c)(4) shall be exclusively social welfare organizations, we should have a hearing on the real meaning of social 

welfare organizations and the need to clarify those regulations. 

Fourth, the Senate should pass a rule amending its ethics code 

to make it a violation for Senators or senior staffers to solicit the 

large contributions for party committees now allowed under 

McCutcheon. Next, you should consider the broader reform of the 

campaign finance system, and I am delighted that there will be a 

vote on Senator Udall’s constitutional amendment. 

We have a lot of work and a lot of heavy lifting to do. The next 

huge scandal is going to bring about a new drive for reform, but 

before that, I fear that things will get a whole lot worse. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ornstein was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator KING. Thank you, sir. Mr. Trevor Potter. 
341 

STATEMENT OF TREVOR POTTER, ESQ., PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, WASHINGTON, 

D.C. 

Mr. POTTER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today, Senator Roberts, Senator Udall. I appreciate the opportunity to be here to talk about these important issues. 

I know, Mr. Chairman that you have said that you would like the 

focus to be on the McCutcheon case and the issue of disclosure and 

the lack of disclosure. I would make two brief points in response 

to testimony and comments today about the McCain-Feingold law. 

First, I was pleased to see the endorsement by my colleagues on 

this panel, Mr. McGahn and Mr. Reiff, in their written testimony 

today of the McCain-Feingold goal of prohibiting, ‘‘six and sevenfigure contributions’’, to national party committees, ‘‘in exchange 

for access to Executive Branch personnel as well as members of 

Congress.’’ 

I agree such huge contributions were and are potentially corrupting and give rise to the appearance of corruption, and thus, are 

bad for our democracy. I worry that they will resurface after the 

McCutcheon decision through the device of contributions to party 

committees participating in joint fundraising committees. I also 

worry that the Supreme Court’s majority in Citizens United and 

McCutcheon does not share the same concern about the corruption 

inherent in Congress or the Executive Branch selling access that 

Mr. McGahn, Mr. Reiff, Mr. Ornstein and I do. 

My second point about party committees under McCain-Feingold 

is that they have actually done quite well financially. Look at the 

picture of two elections, 2000, the last presidential campaign before 

McCain-Feingold, and 2012, our most recent. 

In 2000, the two political parties and their presidential candidates raised and spent a combined total of $1.1 billion in that 

election, a huge sum. Today, adjusted for inflation, that would be 

$1.45 billion. Compare that to the amount spent in the most recent 

election by the parties and their candidates. In 2012, the total was 

$2.5 billion, double the actual amount, up 80 percent in inflationadjusted dollars. 

It is true that outside groups also spent significant sums in 2012, 

but the national party committees and their candidates clearly 

were well-resourced, better than before McCain-Feingold. 

In terms of disclosure, or the lack of disclosure, my written testimony describes how we have ended up in a situation where the Supreme Court stated in Citizens United the importance to our democracy of full disclosure of the sources of campaign funding, but 

we have less and less of it. My written testimony says that the 

FEC has deadlocked repeatedly on whether to issue a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking to deal with the question of disclosure after 

Citizens United. That is correct. The Commission appears to still 

be deadlocked on this issue. 

However, I would like to note for the record that the Commission, in late 2011, managed to issue a Citizens United rulemaking 

notice that did not mention disclosure. The Commission even had 

a hearing, but that is the end of the story. No new regulation, no 

action on disclosure. 
342 

Mr. Ornstein’s written testimony demonstrates how dramatically 

disclosure of the sources of funding of public advertising has fallen. 

In 2004, the first election under McCain-Feingold, 98 percent of 

outside groups running campaign ads disclosed their donors. A few 

years later, that number was down to 34 percent. In absolute dollars, the amount spent on advertising, only 40 percent was disclosed as to source in 2012 by these outside groups. 

Why is this a problem? Let me turn to Justice Kennedy’s explanation in Citizens United. He said, ‘‘with the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders 

and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and 

elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters.’’ 

Shareholders can determine whether their corporations political 

speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and 

citizens can see whether elected officials are, ‘‘in the pocket of socalled moneyed interests.’’ 

The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure 

permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages. 

So Justice Kennedy said the deal was unlimited independent expenditures, but full disclosure of funders. And today, we have only 

half the deal, and as Justice Kennedy says, speaking for eight justices, that is a problem for our democracy. 

How can shareholders hold their corporations accountable for the 

shareholder money spent in political campaigns if they have no 

idea what is being spent, and for and against which candidates? 

How can voters hold elected officials accountable if they do not 

know which moneyed interests are financing those officials’ election? 

Finally, how can the electorate, voters, make informed decisions 

and give proper weight to different speakers and messages, as the 

Court says is important to the functioning of our democracy, if voters do not know who is financing the constant barrage of advertising run by these groups? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Potter was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator KING. Thank you, Mr. Potter. Our next panel member is 

Ann Ravel, former Chair of the California Fair Political Practices 

Commission and currently Vice Chair of the Federal Election Commission. Ms. Ravel, thank you for joining us. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANN M. RAVEL, VICE CHAIR, 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. RAVEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Roberts, and Senator Udall. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. 

As indicated, I am the Vice Chair of the Federal Election Commission, but I am not testifying in that capacity today, nor am I speaking for the Commission. Instead, my testimony concerns a case pursued during my tenure as Chair of the California Fair Political 

Practices Commission, FPPC, to expose dark money in a California 

election. 
343 

FPPC versus Americans for Responsible Leadership—and I am 

going to use the word of the day—is a Byzantine story of campaign 

contributions being funneled all over the country in an apparent effort to avoid revealing to the public who is behind political campaigns. 

We discovered that networks of non-profits anonymously injected 

millions of dollars into our election by using shell corporate entities, wire transfers, and fund-swapping. This allowed donors to 

skirt disclosure laws and cloak their identities from the public 

view. 

Just a few weeks before the 2012 election, a California political 

action committee, which was focused on supporting one and defeating another ballot measure, received an $11 million contribution. 

This was the largest anonymous contribution ever made in the history of California elections. The contribution came from an Arizona 

non-profit, Americans for Responsible Leadership, or ARL, which 

had never before spent a dime in California. 

After a complaint was filed with the FPPC, we attempted to determine whether ARL abided by the requirements of California law 

to disclose the source of the contribution. We eventually had to 

seek relief in court. The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously in an emergency Sunday session that ARL had to hand 

over its records. 

Because of this, the day before the election, ARL revealed that 

the sources of the $11 million were two other non-profits, one based 

in Virginia and another in Arizona called CPPR. ARL admitted 

that it functioned solely as an intermediary to receive the money 

from the two non-profits and funnel it to the California political action committees. 

This is a clear violation of the law that prohibits making contributions in the name of another. After the election, a full investigation found that approximately $25 million raised from California donors who wished to remain anonymous went to the Virginia non-profit and then was transferred to the other non-profit, 

CPPR. 

There was a tacit understanding that CPPR would direct other 

funds back to California in the same amount or more through an 

intricate web of groups. After passing through multiple non-profits 

around the country, $15 million was then returned to California to 

the original political committees to spend on the ballot measures. 

$11 million of that money was funneled through ARL and $4 million through an Iowa non-profit. 

Because of the FPPC litigation that was pending, the remaining 

$10 million of the original $25 million raised from the California 

donors was not anonymously pumped back into the California election. The FPPC, which is a bipartisan commission, unanimously 

levied a record-setting fine of $1 million, and also sought 

disgorgement from the recipient committees of the $15 million in 

improperly disclosed funds. 

The FPPC’s investigation and litigation demonstrates clearly 

that public officials from both parties can work together to uphold 

disclosure laws, but the story of FPPC versus ARL also shows that 

dark money is a national problem that is best solved on the Fed-
344 

eral level. I would be glad to answer your questions about this 

case. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ravel was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator KING. Thank you for joining us today. Finally, Neil P. 

Reiff, as I mentioned, a lawyer here in Washington and former 

Deputy General Counsel for the Democratic National Committee. 

Mr. Reiff. 

STATEMENT OF NEIL P. REIFF, ESQ., SANDLER, REIFF, YOUNG 

& LAMB, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. REIFF. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am here today as a practitioner in the field of campaign finance law and I represent over 40 Democratic state party 

committees. As a recent article explains, McCain-Feingold has had 

a profound effect on state and local party committees, and I would 

like to provide a couple of examples that illustrate how the law has 

federalized most of the state parties’ activities in connection with 

state and local elections. 

As Mr. McGahn said, it ought to be revisited. In our article, we 

agree that national party soft money ban and the limitation on solicitations by national party officers, Federal candidates, and officeholders achieve the goals to address soft money practices at the national level at the time of its passage. 

However, Congress could have and should have stopped there. 

Instead, with little forethought to its consequences, McCain-Feingold extended its reach to state and local party committees who, 

unlike national party committees, were thoroughly invested and 

acted in state and local elections. 

Under McCain-Feingold, state parties have been subject to a labyrinth of regulation that seeks to intercept all of their activities 

and force them in the Federal system, regardless of whether those 

activities have any relation to Federal elections or candidates. 

McCain-Feingold federalized all elections through its introduction 

of a new term, Federal election activity, which subjected traditionally local activities, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote 

to Federal regulation and limitation. 

The implementation of this new concept has proven rocky. When 

passed, it was claimed to be a narrowly targeted anti-circumvention measure. Defense of the law followed suit and minimized the 

reach of the new law. After the law was upheld in McConnell 

versus FEC, however, supporters changed their tune and argued 

that the Federal Election Commission, the agency charged with enforcing the law, was not reading the new mandates broadly enough. 

Additional litigation ensued and courts instructed the FEC to rewrite and broaden its rules governing state and local parties. 

For example, under the FEC’s recently redefined definition of 

get-out-the-vote, essentially all public communications undertaken 

by a state party committee, even those made totally independent 

of any Federal candidate involvement, are subject to Federal law 

merely by exhorting the voter to go vote for a state or local candidate. Therefore, if a party committee wishes to air a television or 

radio ad that tells listeners or viewers to go vote for Smith for Gov-
345 

ernor, Federal law may mandate that this advertisement be paid 

for entirely or in part with Federally regulated funds. 

Prior to McCain-Feingold, state law governs state or local candidate support, but today, parties are governed by Federal law; 

whereas, a non-party group could run the same exact advertisement free of such Federal limitation. 

In addition, under the FEC get-out-the-vote definition, if a party 

committee sends out a mailing on behalf of a state or local candidate and merely informs the voter on when the polls are open, 

the location of their polling place, or how to obtain an absentee ballot, Federal law regulates and limits the funding of the mail piece 

based upon the provision of such information in the mailer even 

when the mailing makes no reference to any Federal candidate. 

It is common practice for state parties to avoid including such information in mailings in order to avoid federalizing those communications. Simply put, party committees have been muzzled when 

it comes to their ability to inform voters of the most basic voting 

information if they want to avoid being subject to Federal regulation. We cannot conceive of any policy justification that would support this, particularly when other groups who engage in the exact 

same sort of activity do so without such regulation. 

McCain-Feingold has had other detrimental effects. Its federalization of state parties has created disincentives for state parties to run joint campaigns that feature the entire party ticket. 

Prior to McCain-Feingold, it was commonplace for state parties to 

pay for communications that featured candidates from the top of 

the ticket to the bottom of the ticket. 

In addition, state and local candidates have bypassed party committees when engaging in advocacy and get-out-the-vote activities 

due to the incompatibility of Federal and state law. The current 

structure of the law has caused a significant demise in state and 

local party relevancy as funding sources seek out less regulated organizations such as Federal, state, and local super PACs who may 

independently spend money without any restriction on how those 

communications are funded and how much voting information that 

they can provide. 

The demise of parties has had serious implications for the American political system. Party committees have played a vital role in 

grassroots campaigning. Historically, parties have been instrumental in delivering positive party messaging, an increasing turnout in American elections to grassroots voter contact methods, now 

what some may characterize as single issue outside groups have 

come in to fill the void. 

Although such activities are perfectly legal, it seems to be exactly 

the opposite system of what was envisioned by proponents of reform. Recently, the Association of State Democratic Chairs passed 

a unanimous resolution at its meeting in November of last year 

that calls on Congress and the FEC to reevaluate how state and 

local party committees are regulated. 

We have provided a copy of this resolution and legislative recommendations made by the ASDC for your review. None of the proposals made by the ASDC advocate for the repeat of any contribution limit. Rather, the ASDC seeks common sense regulation that 
346 

balances the need to have vital party organizations along with the 

need to provide safeguards against political corruption. 

Although Mr. McGahn and I each have a number of ideas and 

suggestions regarding specific changes to the law, we both believe 

that any common sense steps to help revitalize state and local 

party committees would be helpful. I have a few examples. 

Refine and simplify the existing volunteer exemptions for grassroots activities to make them easier to use by state party committees and consider expanding them to other grassroots activities. 

Repeal the McCain-Feingold provisions that have needlessly federalized joint and non-Federal campaign activities undertaken by 

state party committees. In the alternative, modify the FEC’s current interpretation of the existing rules to scale back the expansive 

scope that essentially federalizes all party campaigning on behalf 

of state and local candidates. 

And finally, index contribution limits to party committees as 

these limits were inexplicably excluded from the contribution indexing provisions provided for by McCain-Feingold. Similarly to the 

extent that limitations on coordinated party expenditures are still 

required, update those limits to more closely reflect modern economic reality. 

In the short time we have today, we can only briefly touch upon 

the Byzantine nature of Federal regulation that state parties are 

subject to. Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Mr. Reiff. We are going to have sevenminute question rounds. I would like to begin. First, the term Byzantine has been used a couple of times. This is a chart prepared 

by the Center for Responsive Politics that is a chart of money in 

2012. I think we are insulting the Byzantines, frankly, by likening 

this to their conduct. This chart will be available in larger form. 

It is illustrative of what is going on. I did a rough calculation. 

There are $300 or $400 million here that is flowing through all of 

these various organizations. They have even come up with a name 

which I think is a marvelous one, a disregarded entity. That is— 

I do not know quite what that it is. It is an oxymoron, I would 

think. 

Mr. Ornstein, in preparing for this hearing, to coin a phrase, my 

conclusion was it is worse than I thought. We got a report just yesterday from the Wesleyan Media Project, which is a very interesting project that does not try to track contributions, because a lot 

of them are not disclosed, but tracks ads on television all over the 

country and then attributes a value to them based—estimated 

value—based upon the air time in the media market. And, of 

course, it is only air time. It is not production or other costs. 

But the startling thing, this is spending by non-disclosure groups’ 

cycle to date, in other words, to April 29th, yesterday. And what 

struck me is the gigantic growth in these independent expenditures. And that is what I meant in my opening statement, that this 

is not a little incremental change. This is a revolutionary change. 

And the same thing, this is non-disclosure money cycle to date. 

This is outside spending cycle to date and these are the off-year 

elections, and you can see between 2010 and 2014 an enormous 

growth, almost ten times more. 
347 

Would you say that this is an accelerating problem and that is 

one of the reasons we should have to address it? 

Mr. ORNSTEIN. It is an exploding problem, Mr. Chairman, and I 

think what we have seen is a set of very often explicit efforts to 

try to hide where the money is coming from. It is not only through 

these—I will not call them Byzantine—bizarre sets of arrangements. And Ann, I think, described very well how this can play out 

across many state lines. 

I only briefly alluded to the role of the IRS in all of this, and one 

thing that we know is that moving towards 2012, there was another explosion which was applications for 501(c)(4) status from 

groups that, in many cases, and we knew leading up to this, were 

moving into influence elections and were using that IRS status 

simply to hide the names of donors. 

We know that American Crossroads created another entity, 

Crossroads GPS, and basically the head of it said very clearly, this 

is for people who do not want to disclose. So lots of groups moved 

in there. The IRS, in a pretty ham-handed way, tried to deal with 

this explosion by using code words. 

Of course, the reality is, if you have a group that has the name 

party in it and they say in their application that they want to influence elections, they should be registering under Section 527 of 

the Code. And now the IRS is moving to try and come up with common sense regulations that keeps these sham groups that are not 

social welfare organizations in any way, shape, and form from 

doing what the law intended and they are being attacked viciously. 

Senator KING. We all remember the Swift Boat Veterans for 

Truth in 2004. That was a 527. But that required disclosure of donors. As I understand it, that vehicle has atrophied and is very 

rarely used, and now it is the 501(c)(4)s, which do not require disclosure of donors and that is where all the money seems to be 

going. Is that correct? 

Mr. ORNSTEIN. That is correct. And some of the other 501(c)s 

may be used as well. But we know that in 2000, before McCainFeingold, Congress actually did move to try and require disclosure, 

more disclosure from 527s. 

It is also important to emphasize what Trevor Potter put very 

eloquently into his testimony, which is, so much of the problem 

here is not based on either the law or the court, which is very 

much in favor of disclosure. It is the Federal Election Commission 

which has tried to redefine—you know, take Pat Moynihan’s term 

of defining deviancy down. 

They have tried to define disclosure down to make it even more 

difficult, and that is the root of some of the problems here as well. 

Senator KING. Well, Mr. Potter, as I went back and looked at 

Citizens United and McCutcheon, it was clear that the whole holding was based upon a premise of vigorous disclosure. That was how 

the courts justified—those two courts—justified eliminating the 

limits, but they posited a disclosure regimen that does not exist. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. POTTER. Yes. As an outsider, I think one of the mysteries to 

the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United is the very strong 

language by Justice Kennedy where he says ‘‘until today, we have 

not had a system with unlimited corporate spending but full disclo-
348 

sure.’’ And now that we have corporate spending allowed in Federal 

elections and full disclosure, and then he goes as I quoted in my 

opening statement, ‘‘Citizens will be able to figure out who is 

spending the money. Shareholders will know what their corporations are up to.’’ 

So the question is, why did Justice Kennedy say that? I think the 

answer is pretty clear, which is he is looking at the law. He is looking at McCain-Feingold, the Bipartisan Campaign Act, which requires disclosure of the sources of spending of advertising if someone gives more than $1,000 to the groups that are doing it or if it 

is done through a separate group they set up for that spending. 

Senator KING. Before my time expires, the issue about disclosure, 

as I have heard it articulated, that if donors’ names are disclosed, 

they will be subject to intimidation and threats and those kinds of 

things. My old colleague from Virginia law school, who I know as 

Nino Scalia—I understand is now Antonin Scalia—said requiring 

people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic 

courage without which democracy is doomed. 

In Maine, we have town meetings every spring. Nobody is allowed to go to a Maine town meeting with a bag over their head. 

If they are going to make a speech, they have to acknowledge who 

they are, and that is part of the information that the voters need, 

it seems to me. 

Mr. Ornstein, what do you make of this argument that disclosure 

will lead to reactions and intimidation and threats? 

Mr. ORNSTEIN. I agree with Justice Scalia very much in this 

front. I must say, Mr. Chairman, you know, as I have been watching the pictures from Ukraine and you see these people not with 

bags but with masks over their heads, it made me think about this 

a little bit, that there are societies where they try to hide identities. That is not what America is all about. 

And some of the discussion here that goes back to a case involving the NAACP is really not a very good parallel. It is one thing 

if you have threats of death and the like, but in a democracy where 

there is rough and tumble, and it is something actually that I think 

both Senator Roberts and Senator Cruz talked about, that is the 

nature of a democracy. 

If you are going to be involved in this process and somebody is 

going to criticize you for it, there is nothing wrong with that. You 

have to have some reasonable limits, it is true, if you do have direct intimidation, but there are laws very much that guard against 

that already on the books. 

Senator KING. Thank you. Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS. I would just like to observe that no one spending money exercising their First Amendment rights, to my knowledge, is endorsing fire in theaters or pornography or noise pollution. I suspect, however, that many on both sides of the aisle have 

characterized their opponents as stating noise pollution or conducting themselves with regard to noise pollution. 

The other thing I would say is the exercise of free speech that 

one disagrees with is not pornography, although we all know it 

when we see it, when we put on our partisan glasses, nor is it necessary to label repeatedly, repeatedly to characterize those with 

whom you disagree as un-American. 
349 

Mr. Ornstein, Norm, the IRS is not moving to promulgate the 

regulations that were in place, the exact regulations that were in 

place that some of us believe caused the problem with the IRS 

trampling on the rights, the First Amendment rights of some conservative groups, primarily the Tea Party. 

They are not moving because they received over 200,000 comments, and by law, you have got to go through them and so they 

have stopped, but they have also stopped because Senator Flake of 

Arizona and myself, at least suggested to John Koskinen, the new 

Commissioner of IRS, that it might be a good thing to withhold 

writing the regulations until the Finance Committee of the United 

States Senate, Ways and Means Committee of the House, and the 

Inspector General would get done with the investigations. 

We are having problems, like every other investigation, with redaction and other things, but we are persevering and we are trying 

to do it in a bipartisan manner, more especially with the Senate 

Finance Committee. So they have held off right now, and I think 

that is a good idea, and I think once we finish the investigations, 

we can determine what actually happened. 

I have some feeling about that as to where that really came from 

and I think it came from more than a number of Senators writing 

basically to the IRS stating that they felt the activities of various 

groups were not in keeping with what they envisioned the provision to call for. But that aside, I just wanted to mention that. 

You referenced the Hatch Act. Yesterday it was announced that 

an FEC attorney resigned for admitted violations of the Act. According to a release from the Office of Special Counsel, the employee posted dozens of partisan political tweets, including many 

soliciting campaign contributions to the President’s 2012 election 

campaign and other political campaigns, despite the Hatch Act restrictions that prohibit the FEC and other further restricted employees from such activity. 

The employee also participated in a Huffington Post live Internet 

broadcast via webcam at an FEC facility criticizing the Republican 

Party and the presidential candidate at that time, Mitt Romney. 

I think you can understand why reports of this nature make Republicans somewhat wary of the FEC and their ability to regulate 

their behavior. Are we to believe that there are not others at the 

Commission who share these views but just have not been caught 

expressing them? Now, I mentioned you, Norm, but really that 

question is directed to Ms. Ravel, who I think could give a better 

answer, although I am sure you could give a good answer. 

Ms. RAVEL. Well, as I indicated, Senator Roberts, I cannot speak 

on behalf of the FEC, but I will tell you that the FEC responded 

very quickly to that issue when it came to the attention of people 

within the agency, and understood that it was totally inappropriate 

behavior on behalf of an employee. 

And further, there has been an investigation internally and there 

is no reason to believe that this is extensive or goes beyond anybody except this one individual who has since been terminated. 

Senator ROBERTS. That was my next question and you have already answered it. My question was, in your experience at the 

Commission, are any negative views of the Republican Party widespread among the employees there or members of the FEC? Even 
350 

sitting around and having coffee and saying, My God, what are 

those crazy Republicans doing now? 

Ms. RAVEL. Senator—— 

Senator ROBERTS. Or what Roberts is doing? 

Ms. RAVEL [continuing]. I have never heard your name mentioned—— 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you. 

Ms. RAVEL [continuing]. At the FEC. 

Senator ROBERTS. At least I am not part of that dark money 

scandal. 

Ms. RAVEL. No. And as I indicated, I was speaking on behalf of— 

relating to an incident, the case at the FPPC, but I, in my six 

months at the FEC, have never heard any partisan communications by either employees or Commissioners. While we all are appointed based on our party—— 

Senator ROBERTS. That must be one agency that is an island in 

the sun. Mr. McGahn, what do you think about this? What was 

your experience in this regard? Should we view this as an isolated 

incident or as evidence of a broader problem? 

Mr. MCGAHN. I saw the news and I was very troubled by it. 

When the FEC has that issue, I think it is very serious. I think 

it certainly calls into question what many of the reform lobbyists 

have sold for years, which is that there is this idea of a non-partisan staff that can exist divorced from politics and provide objective advice and that sort of thing. 

That being said, what I can say is, most of the folks at the FEC 

play it straight. They show up on time, they do their job well, they 

are very committed to their job, and they do not have an agenda. 

But there are some folks who seem to get a little carried away with 

themselves from time to time and I think that is troubling. 

The cure for this is, one, the Hatch Act; two, keep in mind what 

the FEC is and that it is not. It is not an independent agency composed of career staff. It is actually six persons appointed by the 

President, confirmed by the Senate. It is not a non-partisan agency. 

It is a bipartisan agency. And under the statute, in order for the 

Commission to actually take action, it takes at least four of six 

Commissioners to confirm that. 

So if staff get a little carried away, that is not good, but in my 

view, the Commission is then—this is a reason why Commissioners 

need to remain vigilant and really exercise the power the Congress 

has given them under the statute to run the agency. 

The idea that the Commissioners want to delegate to staff and 

that sort of thing, I have never been a big fan of that and I think 

the unfortunate release that came out yesterday is evidence that 

my view of the law is sound that really it shows the wisdom of the 

original system of the FEC where the Commissioners have to act 

in a bipartisan manner to avoid one party essentially targeting the 

other party. 

Senator ROBERTS. I appreciate that. My time has expired, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Senator. Senator Udall. Oh, sorry. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. We look similar. 

Senator KING. I am awfully sorry. Senator Klobuchar, welcome 

to the hearing. 
351 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

I had two previous hearings, including the Joint Economic Committee where I am the Senate Chair. So I apologize for getting here 

now, but I think this is an incredibly important topic. I thank you 

for holding this hearing. I thank Justice Stevens for his testimony 

and his support for a constitutional amendment. I also thank my 

colleague here, Senator Udall, for his work in leading the constitutional amendment, which I am a co-sponsor. 

I am very troubled by the recent Supreme Court decision, the 

McCutcheon decision, extending the damage Citizens United 

caused in my mind. I looked back. I was cleaning out a back room 

in my house in Minnesota last week and found a bunch of things 

from my campaign for Hennepin County Attorney, where, Mr. 

Chairman, we had a $100 limit on contributions in the off election 

years and $500 in the election year. 

I literally found letters where we returned $10.00 if people had 

gone over the $100 limit. I then thought of my first days. I found 

a bunch of stuff from the 2006 Senate campaign where I knew no 

one to ask money from nationally. I literally went through my entire Rolodex and I remember setting the all-time Senate record of 

raising $17,000 from ex-boyfriends. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Those days are behind us as we head into 

this new era, after the Supreme Court decisions, and I am incredibly troubled by these decisions when you can have a few thousand 

people be able to give hundreds of thousands of dollars, and I just 

think it destroys our campaign finance system. 

I guess I will start with you, Mr. Potter. There has been a lot 

of discussion about what the real world impact of Citizens United 

has been and how McCutcheon will affect it going forward. Can you 

describe what trends or major shifts you see in campaign finance 

since the Citizens United ruling and how McCutcheon will impact 

those trends in the future? 

Mr. POTTER. Yes, thank you, Senator. Well, I think the first 

trend, which was noted in the Chairman’s question a moment ago, 

is that contrary to what the Supreme Court said in Citizens 

United, we are seeing secret spending. The Court’s assumption was 

that although we would have new sources of spending, corporations 

and then unions, that they would be disclosed and that shareholders and citizens therefore would know who was speaking, and 

could evaluate that speech. 

That is not what is happening now. Because of the FEC’s position on what has to be disclosed, because of the proliferation of tax 

exempt groups that do not disclose their donors, we have ended up 

with a parallel avenue of spending in elections. 

Essentially, if someone wants to influence an election today, if 

they are being solicited for money, the first question is, ‘‘well, am 

I willing to have my spending disclosed or not?’’ And if not, then 

you look at all of these vehicles that are available to spend the 

same money, to run the same ads, but have it avoid being a matter 

of public record, so that—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. I remember $99.00 contributions in my 

$100 race for county attorney, and I know that, but this is taking 
352 

it to a whole different level, as you point out, when there is no disclosure and the effect that will have. 

I guess the other question—you took this even a step further, 

Mr. Ornstein, when you talked about how the definition of corruption is so narrow in the Supreme Court case. It says that we can 

only regulate donations to prevent actual quid pro quo bribery. 

Why do you think this is problematic, and should we be able to regulate this? 

Mr. ORNSTEIN. First of all, let me say that you were a great Hennepin County Attorney. But beyond that, anybody, I think, who has 

been around the political process at all knows what happens when 

you have money intersect with power and the many ways, indirect 

and otherwise, that you get corrupting influences. 

I have had some of your colleagues tell me, in the aftermath not 

just of Citizens United, but what I think was an equally corrosive 

decision, Speech Now, that followed it that created the explosion of 

the super PACs and in other ways, say that they are visited by 

somebody who says, I am representing Americans for a Better 

America, and they have got more money than God and, you know, 

pouring in $10 million in the final two weeks of a campaign to destroy somebody, that is easy. 

They really want this amendment. I do not know what will happen if somebody opposes them, but that is the reality, and they 

leave. And human beings are going to think, well, it is one little 

amendment, or will think, I had better raise $10 million not just 

what I need for my campaign, but as an insurance fund just in case 

because I cannot do that in the final two weeks of a campaign. 

That is just one set of examples. Now in the aftermath of 

McCutcheon, I can imagine a bunch of people coming in and waving checkbooks and saying, each one of us has checks that can total 

$3.75 million now that we will give to the hundreds of committees, 

the joint fund-raising committees, spread it around, and, of course, 

we will have candidates we would prefer. The notion that this will 

actually keep the individual limit is out the window. 

We will all write these checks, but there is one little thing here 

in the legislative arena that we want in return. You do not have 

to say it directly and it will not be on videotape. This is corrupting. 

We saw it in the gilded age, and what I think both Justice Kennedy and Justice Roberts have now done in these decisions is to 

open up a new gilded age. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And you being a political scientist and not 

just a campaign expert here understand that one of the problems 

is we have had people so polarized, you know, whatever special interest is to the left or the right, and one of the things I am worried 

about as I looked at this McCutcheon decision, even more than the 

expenditures decision, is that it will just play to the poles. 

It will make it even harder for people to do things in the middle 

where they have to compromise and they have to be able to kind 

of go in the face of some of the people from their own base, from 

their own party, if they are just going to be punished in a big way 

by major donors. Do you think there is any truth to that? 

Mr. ORNSTEIN. I think you get, when it comes to big donors, 

maybe four categories of people. There are two that represent the 
353 

poles and they are trying to use their money as electoral magnets 

to pull people further apart. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. That is a good analogy. 

Mr. ORNSTEIN. A third type are those who may not have a deep 

ideological interest, but they have pecuniary interests and they will 

use money to make money. I, frankly, am surprised that we do not 

have more spending by big corporate interests in Washington because it is the best investment you can make. Put in, you know, 

$20 million that goes into funding of campaigns. Maybe you will 

get a billion dollar contract out of it. And we will see more of that 

now and I think we are heading down a slippery slope of direct 

contributions by corporations to candidates. 

And then maybe you have a category of those who are just looking out for the broader public interest. But I think that is a much 

smaller category than the other three. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I think the last thing I would raise, no 

question, and maybe we can go back after you are done, Senator 

King, but it is just this issue where even when you are making a 

decision as an elected official to do what you consider the right 

thing for your state, you know, maybe you have a lot of employees 

in a certain area and you think it is very important or you think 

it is the right thing for the country. 

I think with this lack of trust with all these big contributions, 

people still will now look at it, even though you know in your heart 

you made the decision for the right reason, and they look and they 

see, Oh, but you got money from these interests. I just think even 

when you are doing it for the right reason, it completely breaks 

down trust from the public about why you are doing things. 

And that is one of the major problems and why I support this 

constitutional amendment. 

Senator KING. Thank you. A couple of follow-up questions. In listening to this and thinking about these organizations that essentially are designed to disguise identify, the term identity laundering comes to mind. I mean, that is what is really going on here. 

It is a reverse on the whole idea of money laundering. 

Ms. Ravel, which was essentially exactly what was going on in 

your case, where there were donors in California who the money 

went to Virginia to Arizona back to California. It was all about 

laundering the identity out of that contribution. Is that not correct? 

Ms. RAVEL. Yes. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The initial request for the 

money in California was, if you want your identity to be known, 

you can give directly to a PAC. If you do not want your identity 

to be known and you want to remain anonymous, it can go to this 

Virginia non-profit. 

And so, the money that went to the Virginia non-profit was specifically for the purpose of not revealing identity and it was then 

moved circuitously through all the other non-profits for the same 

reason. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Ms. Ravel. That is exactly the way it 

appeared. Mr. Ornstein, one of the situations is, whenever you try 

to do something about an issue like this—and by the way, I really 

enjoyed this morning sitting literally in the center between Senator 

Roberts and Senator Schumer—but when you try to do something, 
354 

everybody thinks of it in partisan terms. Does this advantage my 

party versus the other party, my candidate versus the other? 

But this data I referred to that came out yesterday indicates that 

the gap—the red or the more conservative-leaning groups, the blue 

are more liberal groups, and the gap between them is diminishing 

significantly. It was 85 or 90 percent conservative back in 2010. As 

you see here, there is still a big disproportionate in 2012. But the 

gap is now 60–40. 

Hopefully, both sides are going to realize that this is a danger. 

I think this is not a partisan issue to me. I think this non-disclosed 

money is a danger to the republic no matter who it favors one year 

to the next. As the Old Testament says, if you sow the wind, you 

will reap the whirlwind. I am afraid that people are sort of saying, 

Okay, right now today this benefits my party, but next year or the 

year after that, it could benefit the other party. That is why I think 

we need to make a change like this. 

Mr. ORNSTEIN. You know, it is interesting, Mr. Chairman, that 

before McCain-Feingold, you really did have a bipartisan consensus 

on the need for more disclosure. And indeed, when Congress was 

considering, in 2000, requiring more disclosure of 527 groups, we 

had overwhelming bipartisan majority support it. 

One who did not was the Senate Republican leader, Mitch 

McConnell, but what Senator McConnell said at the time was he 

did not support it because it did not require enough disclosure, including what he said was a requirement for disclosure from these 

non-profit groups, now what we think of as the 501(c)(4)s. 

We have a very different attitude now. It has become more polarized. And I do not see why disclosure should be a partisan issue 

at this point. I do not see why we cannot cut through that, and I 

do think that this is something where now that there are more avenues for money, people who have interests, and that includes the 

polar opposites as well on both sides, are going to start to pour 

more and more money into it and, in many cases, they are going 

to try and hide where that money is coming from. 

One of the things that we have seen is, they will often use inappropriate vehicles, 501(c)(3)s, the pure non-profits, to then give 

grants of money to other groups that can go to other groups that 

can go to other groups that finally end up in a 501(c)(4) that does 

not get disclosed. 

There are so many opportunities here to hide identities and to 

hide money that how can voters figure out when a message is coming who is providing that message, which is a requirement of context, to know whether to believe it. 

Senator KING. Well, one of the interesting data points in this 

new study from Wesleyan is that voters tend to put more credit to 

ads that come from these groups than they do from the candidates, 

even though they do not know who the groups are. The groups may 

be Americans for Greener Grass and voters tend to think, well, it 

is not a candidate ad, it must have more authority, but they do not 

know who is funding Americans for Greener Grass. By the way, I 

am in favor of these ads. 

Mr. ORNSTEIN. One of the things as well, we have talked, and 

Senator—excuse me—Justice Stevens talked about a level playing 

field. One of the things that concerns me is that the level playing 
355 

field is moving very much away from the candidates of both parties 

and in a host of ways. Candidates have to raise money in $2,600 

increments and groups that now can spend untold amounts, that 

can pour it in at the end of a campaign when a candidate does not 

have an opportunity to answer those messages have now, I think, 

an overweening influence. 

And it is not that that money will necessarily be spent. The 

threat of spending, unless something is done, is enough. In many 

cases, we will see actions taken by Government behind closed doors 

or by changing amendments that nobody will know about without 

a dime being spent under these circumstances as anonymous 

groups apply that threat. It is not a good way to run business in 

a democracy. 

Senator KING. Mr. Potter, I thought one of the most interesting 

moments today was when Senator Cruz said, unlimited contributions and immediate disclosure. React to that concept. 

Mr. POTTER. Well, I think there are two different issues here. 

One is the idea of full and immediate disclosure, which is the one 

Senator Cruz talked about, I believe, in the context, in fairness to 

Senator Cruz, in the context of contributions to candidates. The 

other is the issue of how much candidates should be able to accept 

as contributions, or party committees which are comprised of candidates, without citizens thinking that they have been bought. 

That has been the debate, really, since certainly Watergate 

where you had million-dollar contributions. 

Senator KING. But if you have full disclosure, the citizens can 

make that decision. They can say, look, my candidate took half a 

million dollars from XYZ and I do not like that. 

Mr. POTTER. They can and that is where we were in the early 

1970s when there were million-dollar contributions to the Nixon reelection campaign. The reaction was, something is being sold or 

something is being bought for a million dollars. The Supreme Court 

in Buckley said, it is not an irrational conclusion. It is common 

sense that people will believe that huge contributions are intended 

to buy access and influence legislative results, and that people who 

take those contributions are in some way being bought. 

So that is why the Court in Buckley said it makes perfectly good 

sense to limit the size of contributions to candidates and party committees because of the perception, the danger and the perception 

that there is a transaction. 

If you have an unlimited contribution that is fully disclosed, you 

still have the million dollars coming in. And the question, Justice 

Stevens’ question asked is, so what about people who do not have 

a million dollars? They just do not get to buy any access or influence? 

That has been the justification for the contribution limits. The 

debate has been, what size should they be? The assumption has 

been that those contributions will be disclosed, and as far as we 

know they are all fully disclosed, but that the independent expenditures that the Court allowed in the Buckley decision, which the 

Court said were not going to be corrupting because they would be 

totally, wholly, completely independent of candidates, would also be 

fully disclosed. 
356 

We have ended up, in a way, with the worst of both worlds, 

which is contrary to what the Court said, these expenditures are 

not fully disclosed, as we have discussed, or they need not be. 

There is an option there. And secondly, they are not wholly, totally, 

and completely independent of candidates either. 

The Court’s assumption was they cannot be corrupting because 

candidates and parties will have nothing to do with them, but the 

reality, as we have seen, is that many of these super PACs are created by former employees of candidates and close associates of candidates. They are, in many ways, tied to the candidates. 

Candidates have appeared at events for these groups to thank 

donors for giving to them so they are not totally, wholly independent as the Court expected. In that sense, they are not fulfilling 

the role that the Court thought they would. 

Senator KING. We have used the word—and this is a subject that 

really has not come up today—we have used the word perception 

a number of times. I do not think there is much question, and polls 

support this, that this whole money and politics is part of what is 

turning off the American people to the process. It is part of what 

is undermining the confidence and trust in the system, which is ultimately what our system rests upon. 

I think that is part of it. It does not have to be a bribe. It just 

is unseemly and people realize that. It may be one of the reasons 

that our collective approval rating around here is below al Qaeda. 

And it just strikes me. There has not been enough discussion of 

that, is the underlying distaste for this whole system that is undermining trust and confidence in our Government. 

Senator Klobuchar, you wanted to follow up? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Sure. I was just listening to Mr. Potter, so 

I am a big fan of transparency, but I do not think in any way will 

it solve all the problems because I think what is going to happen, 

I want to get it, but it is going to happen, I know it. Certain people 

who give in certain states where maybe their entity or what they 

have done is not as unpopular, and then someone else will give 

money in another state. 

They will just find a way. I think with good disclosure law, they 

will have to disclose, but I just do not think it is going to fix the 

problem of the trust that Senator King just talked about, as well 

as the amount of money that can be spent. Not just the 

unseemliness, but it is a thin line between what is unseemly and 

what is almost a bribe. 

So, Mr. Potter, what do you think? Do you think disclosure is 

enough? 

Mr. POTTER. Well, as you point out, if you get full disclosure, you 

now know what is happening. Will people like what is happening? 

That is a different question. And it may well be that full disclosure 

leads the American public to think that only a limited number of 

people are being able to buy access, that these campaigns cost so 

much that members have to spend so much time raising money 

and they are going to spend it logically with the people who have 

money. 

So full disclosure does not get you everywhere. Full disclosure is, 

I think, a start to a larger discussion of how we want to finance 

campaigns. 
357 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So you think it is very possible we need to 

do more than just disclosure? 

Mr. POTTER. Oh, absolutely. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay, good. But I think that your argument 

would be that if you have disclosure, then maybe that will more 

easily lead to other measures. 

Mr. POTTER. Right. My concern here, going back to the 

McCutcheon decision—is that I think the five Justices in the Court 

majority are in a position where they are saying, Congress, you 

cannot do more. We have said disclosure is fine, Internet disclosure, all that is really great, but unless it is bribery, it is okay. 

So this intermediate area that the Chairman talks about, which 

is it is unseemly, that it diminishes confidence in Government, that 

used to be covered by the, ‘‘appearance of corruption’’, the notion 

that Congress could legislate, as it did with soft money, not because there was proof of quid pro quo bribery with people going to 

jail, but because of the unseemliness of six and seven figure contributions, as Mr. Ornstein says, these were often solicited in terms 

of join the Chairman’s Club, have a breakfast meeting with the 

Chairman of the XYZ Committee. 

Congress said, you cannot do that because it is bad for the institution and it is bad for public confidence in Congress. And what I 

worry about is that the five Justices in the Court majority are saying, too bad, you cannot fix that, and you cannot regulate that. If 

it is not actual outright bribery, Congress cannot prevent that sort 

of activity. And that seems to me to be a crisis for this institution 

in terms of public confidence. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Ornstein. 

Mr. ORNSTEIN. Senator Klobuchar, I want to add a couple of 

points to this. One is, when we think about corruption, it goes both 

ways, and I think one of the problems with removing all the limits 

is that the pressure on big donors who can no longer say with an 

umbrella of protection, I have maxed out, being pushed to give 

more and more. 

Or in some instances, as we have seen before, being told that if 

they give to the other side, then mayhem will ensue upon them in 

the legislative process, is another part of this that is a very real 

problem. And then what I would also like to say, if you will give 

me permission is, Senator Cruz said none of these reforms have 

done anything except increase corruption. 

I think it is important to set the record straight in the sense 

that, you know, Mr. Potter talked about Watergate and it led to a 

law that changed the way presidential campaigns were funded. 

And to me, it is just incontrovertibly clear that for decades after, 

we changed the presidential system. 

So there were voluntary spending limits and there were public 

grants. We had a much cleaner and better system. It fell apart because we did not adjust those numbers and it became absurd. 

There was not enough money there. And to be frank, there was not 

enough public support for public money in the campaigns. 

Now I think you are absolutely right, Senator King, that—and 

we have lots of polls that show it—the sense that the public believes that all of politics, and particularly in Washington, is thoroughly corrupt, that citizens do not have much of a say here, that 
358 

other interests are prevailing, has a corrosive impact on the ability 

of a democracy to function with legitimacy. 

And these two Supreme Court decisions pretty much blithely 

push that aside, to me, is a really troubling development. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And I am convinced that it is not just a 

perception issue, which it is, but I think in Minnesota where we 

have had some very strong limits at the local and the state levels— 

I mentioned the ones I had for county attorney—it made a difference. It makes a difference in the kind of politics. It makes a difference in the civility. 

It has made a difference in the outcome. It gave us Governor 

Jesse Ventura, which is for sure, because we had the public funds. 

But it gave the citizens a say and we have the highest voter turnout in the country nearly every single year, and a lot of that, I 

think, is because people can have a better trust in their Government and they do not see that big money, at least at the state 

level. 

Speaking of that, Ms. Ravel, you were talking about the dark 

money and the Virginia and Arizona in the case that you worked 

on. One of the things that has been debated is the impact of these 

decisions on foreign entities to be involved in funding. You know, 

if you can do this from state to state to state and it is all hidden, 

do you think that these decisions could make it easier for foreign 

entities to fund United States elections? 

Ms. RAVEL. I do not think there is any question about that. One 

of the positive things about transparency and disclosure for all 

groups, regardless of their tax status or how they are set up, is 

that the public will know, or prosecutors could know whether or 

not some of the contributions are made illegally, and that includes 

foreign money. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. Just last, a trust issue. Under 

Federal law, super PACs, as you know, are not allowed to coordinate with their candidates’ campaigns or coordinate activities. I already see you having a smirk on your face, Mr. Ornstein. 

But there has been a lot of discussion over the fact that the organizers of some super PACs have had very close ties to candidates 

that they have supported. This is on both sides. What impact do 

you think this has on the public trust of Government? 

Mr. ORNSTEIN. When you have presumed independence and then 

you see big funders standing behind candidates as they give their 

speeches, appearing with them at fund-raising efforts, riding with 

them on their private planes and sitting right next to them, and 

then we have the idea which is infused in Citizens United, that because they are independent, then these entities can give as much 

money as they want and we do not need to worry about corruption 

or the appearance of corruption, it is a big joke, frankly. For that, 

we have to thank, as I said, not just Citizens United, but Speech 

Now. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Right. Thank you very much. 

Senator KING. Senator Klobuchar, since you brought up my independent gubernatorial colleague, Jesse Ventura, I have to—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Is it true that he once asked you to be his 

running mate for President? 

Senator KING. The answer to that is true. 
359 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I just thought we should get that on the 

record. 

Senator KING. If you would like to say no to Jesse, you are welcome to. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KING. But it has been attributed to him, I think, one of 

the most ingenious suggestions on this issue. He believes that 

members of Congress should have to wear jackets like NASCAR 

drivers with their sponsors on the jacket. Only Jesse would come 

up with an idea as creative as that. 

Mr. ORNSTEIN. You would need trench coats, actually. 

Senator KING. I want to thank all of you on behalf of the Rules 

Committee for your important testimony today. I also want to 

thank the Center for Responsive Politics and the Wesleyan Project 

for their help, as well as Fred Wertheimer at Common Cause, Dean 

Olsen, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington who 

helped develop a lot of the background. 

This concludes the second panel for today’s hearing. Before we 

adjourn, I would like to ask unanimous consent that a Supreme 

Court brief written on this subject by Senators McCain and 

Whitehouse be included in the record without objection. 

[Brief of United States Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and John 

McCain as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents was submitted 

for the record:] 

Senator KING. And also without objection, the hearing record will 

remain open for five business days for additional statements and 

post-hearing questions submitted in writing for our witnesses to 

answer. I want to thank my colleagues for participating and joining 

us in this hearing, sharing their thoughts and comments on this 

important topic. This hearing of the Rules Committee of the United 

States Senate is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(360) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
361 
362 
363 
364 
365 
366 
367 
368 
369 
370 
371 
372 
373 
374 
375 
376 
377 
378 
379 
380 
381 
382 
383 
384 
385 
386 
387 
388 
389 
390 
391 
392 
393 
394 
395 
396 
397 
398 
399 
400 
401 
402 
403 
404 
405 
406 
407 
408 
409 
410 
411 
412 
413 
414 
415 
416 
417 
418 
419 
420 
421 
422 
423 
424 
425 
426 
427 
428 
429 
430 
431 
432 
433 
434 
435 
436 
437 
438 
439 
440 
441 
442 
443 
444 
445 
446 
447 
448 
449 
450 
451 
452 
453 
454 
455 
456 
457 
458 
459 
460 
461 
462 
463 
464 
465 
466 
467 
468 
469 
470 
471 
472 
473 
474 
475 
476 
477 
478 
479 
480 
481 
482 
483 
484 
485 
486 
487 
488 
489 
490 
491 
492 
493 
494 
495 
496 
497 
498 
499 
500 
501 
502 
503 
504 
505 
506 
507 
508 
509 
510 
511 
512 
513 
514 
515 
516 
517 
518 
519 
520 
521 
522 
523 
524 
525 
526 
527 
528 
529 
530 
531 
532 
533 
534 
535 
536 
537 
538 
539 
540 
541 
542 
543 
544 
545 
546 
547 
548 
549 
550 
551 
552 
553 
554 
555 
556 
557 
558 
559 
560 
561 
562 
563 
564 
565 
566 
567 
568 
569 
570 
571 
572 
573 
574 
575 
576 
577 
578 
579 
580 
581 
582 
583 
584 
585 
586 
587 
588 
589 
590 
591 
592 

HEARING—COLLECTION, ANALYSIS AND USE 

OF ELECTIONS DATA: A MEASURED 

APPROACH TO IMPROVING ELECTION 

ADMINISTRATION 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2014 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 a.m., in Room 

SR–301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Amy Klobuchar, presiding. 

Present: Senators Klobuchar and Schumer. 

Staff Present: Jean Bordewich, Staff Director; Kelly Fado, Deputy Staff Director; Stacy Ettinger, Chief Counsel; Veronica Gillespie, Elections Counsel; Ben Hovland, Senior Counsel; Julia Richardson, Senior Counsel; Abbie Sorrendino, Legislative Assistant; 

Phillip Rumsey, Legislative Correspondent; Jeffrey Johnson, Clerk; 

Benjamin Grazda, Staff Assistant; Mary Suit Jones, Republican 

Staff Director; Shaun Parkin, Republican Deputy Staff Director; 

Paul Vinovich, Republican Chief Counsel; and Rachel Creviston, 

Republican Senior Professional Staff. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KLOBUCHAR 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Welcome to today’s hearing of the Rules 

Committee. Good morning, everyone. 

We are going to be focusing today on the use of data to improve 

the administration of elections. I want to thank Chairman Schumer 

for calling attention to this very important issue and for inviting 

me to chair this hearing. 

I also want to acknowledge Staff Director, Jean Bordewich. Congratulations on your incredible service to this committee, and we 

wish you well in your new position, and I know that Chairman 

Schumer wanted to say a few words about Jean. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SCHUMER 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, thank you, and first, let me thank 

Senator Klobuchar, not only for chairing this hearing, but being a 

great member of the Rules Committee and a great member of the 

Senate. 

And, I want to also welcome Heather Gerken, who was my 

daughter’s teacher at Yale Law School, and I got to know her 

there, so thank you for coming, and all the other witnesses, of 

course, too—— 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SCHUMER [continuing]. Who did not have the opportunity to teach my daughter. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. But, today, I want to take a moment to recognize and thank one of the Senate’s great public servants, the 
593 

Staff Director of the Rules Committee, my dear friend, Jean Parvin 

Bordewich. Today is Jean’s final hearing with the Rules Committee. She is retiring from the Senate after 20.5 years of service 

to the House and to the Senate, but our time goes back much 

longer than that. 

Jeanie and I met in 1969, when we were both young and impressionable interns on the Hill. I was interning for a Republican, New 

York Senator Charles Goodell, whose son is now the head of the 

NFL, but he represented Western New York, Jamestown. Jeanie 

was on the House side. She was interning for Representative Richardson Preyer of North Carolina. We met each other and almost instantaneously became friends as we learned our way around Capitol Hill and met people from all over the country. 

Many years later, our paths crossed again. I was running for the 

Senate. Jeanie was running for Congress in New York’s Hudson 

Valley. We saw each other out on the campaign trail and our 

friendship picked up right where it left off. While Jeanie did not 

win that race, the 22nd District’s loss was the Senate’s and my 

gain. 

Shortly into my first term, Jean joined my staff and opened up 

the first office in the Hudson Valley that I think a Senator ever 

had. It was located in her basement in Red Hook in the Hudson 

Valley. Eventually, we let her have her house back. 

After seven terrific years, Jean left my staff to become Chief of 

Staff to newly elected Congressman John Hall. She led him to a 

tough reelection victory, and as soon as she did that—that was her 

duty, and Jean is a person of duty—I was able to convince her to 

return to the Senate and help me as Staff Director when I became 

Chairman of this committee. 

Over the past few years, Jeanie has helped guide the Senate 

community, assisting countless offices, staffs, and Senators, Republican and Democrat, in keeping with the grand tradition of this 

committee. Probably a week does not go by where a Senator does 

not come up to me and say thank you for just arranging this administrative thing which seemed impossible, and that has been 

done by the capable, non-political Rules staff under the guidance 

of Jean Bordewich. 

Among her most noteworthy achievements was her organization 

of the 57th Presidential Inauguration Ceremony. It is a huge task, 

but Jean was up to the challenge and everyone said that the inauguration was one of the best. One of my fondest memories of Jean 

is from that inauguration. The sight of my old friend Jeanie leading President Obama onto the podium as a billion people watched 

throughout the world was a sight I will never forget. She had sure 

come a long way from our days as young, impressionable interns. 

And now, all good things come to an end, so Jeanie is—you know, 

she is always an adventurer. She is always interested in new 

things and new ideas. Well, it is time to start another chapter in 

her life, and she and her husband, Fergus, who everyone knows is 

a very well known, insightful author and a delightful person, are 

ready to start a new adventure. She is retiring from the Senate to 

go to San Francisco, and I hope everyone—Jean is just public servant par excellence. When they used to talk about the British civil 

service and dedicated people who would just do the job through 
594 

thick and thin and made the British Empire what it was, well, if 

you had to think of an American version of that reputed, admired 

British civil servant, it would be Jean Bordewich. 

She is a dear friend. She is part of our family, and we will stay 

friends for life, no matter where she and I end up on this globe. 

But, I want to thank her for her service to me, to this committee, 

to the Senate, to New York, to our country and our world. Jeanie, 

we will miss you. 

[Applause.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, we feel like we should just end the 

hearing now. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. That was just beautiful. We do not usually 

have so much emotion at the Rules Committee. But, I was thinking 

as I sat here how I make the segue to the great stories about 

Jean’s service and her steady hand, and I think a lot of the work 

of the Rules Committee is not just making sure the Senate works 

and that the inaugurations work, but it is also making sure our democracy works and that our election works, and Senator Schumer 

has taken a particular lead in looking at these issues. 

We had a tremendous hearing last week on campaign finance 

and what that means to our democracy and this is really a part of 

that work, because, as you all know, earlier this year, the Bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election Administration came 

out with a very important report about how we can do things like 

reduce lines at polling places and improve the experience of people 

that can vote. When you have 100-year-old women who have to 

wait in line for hours, as the President pointed out at one of his 

State of the Unions, then we have a problem. 

And, we appreciated the work of both the Bipartisan Commission 

put together from the counsel of the Romney campaign and counsel 

of the Obama campaign and coming up with some ideas. And one 

of the key conclusions of that report was that, quote, ‘‘despite the 

fact that elections drown in data, election administration has largely escaped this data revolution.’’ The private sector has already figured out that using data to improve performance is the wave of the 

future. People going to the polls to exercise their right to vote deserves no less. 

As our witnesses will discuss, collecting and analyzing data 

about how we run our elections can help us figure out what is 

going wrong and point us toward some cost effective solutions. 

Data can help us answer questions about these nuts and bolts 

things like, why are the lines so long? Did the Ward 2 polling place 

have enough workers at 8:00 a.m.? We have over 171,000 precincts 

across America. How do they do things differently and how does 

this affect someone trying to squeeze in picking the kids up from 

a soccer practice and getting that moment in to cast their vote, as 

is their right? 

I have introduced a bill with Senator Tester, the Same Day Registration Act, which would try to make the voting process easier by 

allowing people to register on the same day as they cast their ballot. And we actually looked at the data when we introduced this 

bill and found that in the States that have some of the highest 

voter turnout, the vast majority of them, if you look at the top ten, 
595 

have the same day registration. And when you look at the ones at 

the bottom, none of them have same day registration. 

And, I would point that these are blue States and red States and 

purple States and it does not necessarily have to do with their political bent as much as it has to do with the States’ interest in having election participation and not limiting people’s right to go to 

the polls. 

What have we found from the data? Well, it turns out that something around 70 percent of people needed to update their address 

because they had moved since the last election. They were already 

registered, but this change needed to happen before they could 

vote. That is something that our State discovered from the data. 

Because we had this information, our State looked at how we 

could fix the underlying issue. Just last week, our State legislature 

passed a bill that lets the Secretary of State automatically update 

voter registration rolls when people move within our State. We 

have consistently had one of the highest turnout rates in the country, and that is why Senator Tester and I and Congressman Ellison 

in the House are so devoted to this idea of same day registration. 

With that, we are going to move to our panel of witnesses. We 

have, as Senator Schumer noted, Ms. Heather Gerken, the J. 

Skelly Wright Professor of Law at Yale Law School and the author 

of the book, The Democracy Index. 

We also have with us Mr. Charles Stewart, who is a Distinguished Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Co-Director of the CalTech-MIT Voting 

Technology Project. 

We have Mr. Kevin Kennedy, the Director and General Counsel 

at the Wisconsin—that is our neighbor, we do not always like the 

Packers—Government Accountability Board—but we will still have 

you as a witness. 

We have Mr. David Becker, the Director of Election Initiatives at 

the Pew Charitable Trusts. 

And, my personal favorite, because I was not wearing my glasses 

when I came in and saw the name ‘‘Justin Riemer’’ and thought we 

had Justin Bieber as a witness. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I was wondering why, perhaps, we did not 

have more press here—— 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. With you, Madam Chair, have a long history—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR [continuing]. Yes, I have a long history 

which we do not want to get into right now. If someone is out there 

watching this hearing on C–SPAN, he and I had a dispute about 

a bill I had. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But, in any case, we have Justin Riemer, 

who serves as the Deputy Secretary and the Governor’s Confidential Policy Advisory at the Virginia State Board of Elections. 

I thank you all for joining us today and I would like to ask each 

of you to limit your statements to five minutes. If you have provided the committee with a longer written statement, without objection, the entire statement will be entered into the record. 
596 

Ms. Gerken, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HEATHER K. GERKEN, J. SKELLY WRIGHT 

PROFESSOR OF LAW, YALE LAW SCHOOL, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 

Ms. GERKEN. Senator Schumer, Senator Klobuchar, and members 

of the committee, I am a professor of election law and constitutional law at Yale Law School and I have written extensively on 

data-driven management and election administration. It is an 

honor to be here to discuss this important topic, although I will 

say, two Senators are a hard act to follow. 

We measure what matters. The public and private sectors routinely collect and analyze data on virtually every aspect of our 

lives. As you just pointed out, Senator, data-driven management is 

not the ideal anymore, it is the norm, for corporations and the public sector alike. Good data help us spot, surface, and solve existing 

problems. They do not just allow us to identify policy making priorities, but they help move the policy making process forward. If you 

want a democracy worthy of our storied history, you must have 

21st century management practices, and 21st century management 

practices require 21st century data collection. 

This hearing could not be more timely, because data collection is 

at an inflection point in election administration. Things have improved in recent years, with a number of dynamic election administrators and State policy makers deploying data to identify problems 

and find solutions. Thanks to the effort by the public and private 

sector, most notably the Election Assistance Commission and the 

Pew Trusts, we now have the nation’s first Election Performance 

Index, an idea I proposed several years ago but believed would take 

at least a decade to bring about. 

For the first time, we have a baseline to compare State performance and evaluate the effects of reform over time. Thanks to the 

Pew Trusts and the efforts of, actually, many of the people sitting 

beside me, that index will provide a crucial policy making tool 

going forward. 

Nonetheless, election administration still lags behind many public and private institutions on the data collection front. We still 

lack sufficient data on a wide variety of important issues, including 

the cost of elections, local performance, and voter experience. In 

some instances, the data are being collected, but they are not collected in a form that is accessible, let alone one that enables comparisons across jurisdictions. 

The absence of good data handicaps our efforts to fix the problems we see in the elections process, to anticipate the problems we 

do not yet see, and to manage the reform process going forward. 

Unless we capitalize on the data collection efforts of recent years, 

we will never have an election system that meets the expectations 

of the American people. 

The Federal Government is uniquely well suited to assist the 

States in nascent data collection efforts. The market variation in 

State and local election schemes lives up to Justice Brandeis’ aphorism about the laboratories of democracy. But the laboratories of 

democracy can only work if someone is recording the results of the 

experiments. The Federal Government can provide what the States 
597 

cannot supply on their own, a cost effective, easy to use strategy 

for collecting, aggregating, and comparing State and local data. 

As a scholar not just of elections but of Federalism, I know many 

worry about Federal interference with State policy making. But 

here, Congressional action will vindicate rather than undermine 

Federalism by making it easier for States to do their jobs. 

All of the States—all of us—benefit from more and better data 

on election policy. Without more and better data, we risk turning 

the great promise of decentralization, that it can help us identify 

and implement better policy, into an empty promise. Data helps 

States identify the drivers of performance, pinpoint the cost effective strategies for solving shared problems, and decide when the reform gain is not worth the candle. 

It would be a terrible waste of time and resources to ask the already cash-strapped States to move toward 21st century data collection practices on their own. Local election administrators are already asked to do too much with too little. The Federal Government must play its proper role. It should fund standardized data 

collection systems to record the results of the States’ non-standardized practices. It should maintain a clearinghouse for policy makers 

so that States learn from one another’s best practices and fix their 

own worst ones. It should make it easier for States to collect the 

data that we need with the limited resources that they have. The 

Federal Government can foster the competition and innovation that 

Federalism is supposed to produce without intruding on State policy making. 

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gerken was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Ms. Gerken. 

Mr. Stewart. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES STEWART III, KENAN SAHIN DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. It is an honor 

today to be before the committee and to speak about the collection, 

analysis, and use of data to improve elections for all Americans. 

I have three points I would like to make today. The first is, there 

is a need for a more data-centered approach to making election policy in the United States. Imagine if we had a national debate about 

the state of our educational system without any reference to measures like graduation rates, enrollment statistics, student-teacher 

ratios, or school budgets. Yet, this is exactly how we often talk 

about elections policy in the United States. We struggle to improve 

access and security in voting without much, if any, attention to 

metrics in many places in this country. Instead, policy gets made 

based on anecdote, beliefs that are grounded in sparse facts and 

wishful thinking. 

Now, the good news is that elections are awash in data, as you 

mentioned previously, Senator Klobuchar. There is a growing network of election officials, academics, and other experts who are developing a fact-based science of election administration to parallel 
598 

similar networks in areas like education, health care, and law enforcement. A major barrier to approaching elections policy more scientifically is the continued uncertainty about the future of the 

EAC, which alone among Federal agencies is charged with promoting research and disseminating best practices in election administration through its research and clearinghouse mandates. 

The second point I would like to make is that the two Federal 

data collection efforts related to election administration in the 

United States need to be supported and strengthened. The granddaddy of all Federal election data efforts is the Voting and Registration Supplement of the Current Population Survey, which is 

conducted after each Federal election by the Census Bureau. It is 

the indispensable source of data that tracks the improvement of 

elections due to Federal laws, like the Voting Rights Act and the 

National Voter Registration Act. 

The second of these Federal election data efforts is the Election 

Administration and Voting Survey, or the EAVS, which is administered by the EAC. The EAVS, which was begun in 2004, is the only 

national census of basic information about local election administration. Because of the EAVS, election officials, legislators, and the 

general public are now privy to statistics about a wide range of 

facts on topics ranging from voter registration to the staffing of 

polling places. 

The future of the EAVS remains cloudy, due, again, to the uncertainty about the EAC’s continued existence. Thankfully, the Commission staff continues to administer the EAVS in the absence of 

Commissioners. Still, no important Federal data gathering program 

can evolve under these conditions. Whatever the future of the EAC, 

the EAVS needs to be protected. 

The third and final point is that local governments need help in 

converting the mountain of data that is generated in the conduct 

of elections into information they can use to better manage these 

elections. Addressing problems at the polling place, such as long 

lines at the polls, requires that local election officials have very 

precise information at their fingertips. They need to know basic 

facts, such as the arrival times of voters at the polls and the 

amount of time it takes them to cast ballots. Retailers know that 

service data like this is critical for effective management. Why do 

not all election officials have access to similar data? A major reason 

is that election equipment is rarely set up to produce the types of 

reports that would be useful to election officials as they make their 

plans to conduct elections. 

Two focused Federal actions could help local officials manage 

their polling places more precisely. First, the EAC could fund a 

small grant program to spur the development of computer tools to 

take existing service data and turn it into information that local officials could use to manage elections more effectively. 

Second, the Federal Government could continue to encourage the 

efforts that are underway to develop common data standards that 

would allow the seamless sharing of data across different types of 

computerized election equipment. One such effort is being undertaken by a working group under the Voting System Standards 

Committee of the IEEE computer society. The work of groups like 

this ultimately depends on forward progress in the EAC’s Vol-
599 

untary Voting System Standards. Without a functioning EAC, it is 

impossible to approve new Voluntary Voting System Standards, 

and without these standards, the work of creating a common data 

format for elections-related data will be slowed significantly. 

So, to conclude, I thank the committee for their time and for 

holding hearings on these important topics and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stewart was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very, very much for your work. 

Next, we have Mr. Kennedy. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN J. KENNEDY, DIRECTOR AND GENERAL 

COUNSEL, WISCONSIN GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 

BOARD, MADISON, WISCONSIN 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. I very much appreciate the opportunity to provide information to this committee 

on the collection, analysis, and use of election data. It is an honor 

to be here. This is a subject that State and local election officials 

in Wisconsin recognize as an essential element in conducting elections. 

Numbers are what elections are all about. The basic concept of 

elections is the person with the most votes wins. There are some 

exceptions, as we know, in Presidential elections and the Electoral 

College. Rank choice voting also adds some more complicated math 

to the process. And, we also know that the prayer of all election 

officials involves numbers: ‘‘May your margins be wide.’’ 

As Wisconsin’s chief election officer, I have developed a mantra 

when I talk to our local election officials. That is, ‘‘know your numbers.’’ Let me give you some numbers related to Wisconsin. 

Wisconsin is, arguably, the most decentralized election system in 

the nation. The State administers elections with the support of 72 

counties, and our 1,852 municipalities conduct each election. About 

62 percent of those municipal clerks are part-time. We have over 

6,700 wards, often referred to as precincts in other States, organized into more than 3,500 reporting units. Those 3,500 reporting 

units are the data points that we use in elections. 

We do not give county-level results or municipal results. We give 

those reporting unit results when we are collecting data. It helps 

us identify problems within particular polling places. For example, 

working with Charles Stewart in our recent reporting, we found 

that our municipal data was accurate, but within that, we found 

errors in the polling places where they were misallocating numbers. 

Other numbers in Wisconsin, we have 4.3 million voters. We 

have had Election Day registration since 1976. Like Minnesota, we 

have learned from those numbers that 80 percent of all of our voters entered the voter registration system through Election Day registration. That is an important fact for us to know. Our numbers 

are very similar to Minnesota’s when it comes to what happens on 

Election Day. We know what those numbers are, and Wisconsin 

has had a long history of tracking voter turnout and voter registration numbers. 
600 

We also have been, as a result of those numbers, competing with 

Minnesota, we are usually first or second in Presidential voter 

turnout in every election. A little ahead in Super Bowls. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Oh, so unnecessary. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. You know, my dad wrote a book called, Will 

the Vikings Ever Win the Super Bowl, in the, I think, early 1980s, 

and sadly, it is still relevant today, but—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, my son-in-law will let me know when they 

do, I am sure. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KENNEDY. Also, with these numbers, we have learned that 

Wisconsin, along with Minnesota, routinely performs in the top five 

in the Pew Charitable Trusts Performance Index of Elections. 

Wisconsin’s long history of data collection has been amplified by 

the fact that in 2008, we took our paper-driven system, where we 

had our 1,850-plus municipalities giving us paper data, using a 

grant from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, we took that 

data and made that electronic. We now get that data more cost effectively. We no longer have boxes of paper sitting in our office. Instead, we get that data and this is something that can easily be 

replicated across the States. 

We use this data for a number of things. In the last legislative 

session that just ended, 18 separate pieces of legislation were introduced. We were able, as a result of that legislation, to provide clear 

data analyzing the impact of, say, reducing the hours of in-person 

early voting, when those occurred, so that people could actually 

measure that. We could also measure what would be the cost if we 

eliminated Election Day registration. 

From our experiences collecting and analyzing data, we can identify several valuable lessons learned. Data collection should be purpose-driven. With data, more is not necessarily better. Data collection, audit and analysis requires extensive resources and time and 

effort should be spent wisely. It is a commitment. 

Data should be ‘‘smart’’ data. It should be simple, measurable, 

actionable, relevant and timely. It is also important that those reporting data clearly understand what you are asking of them and 

what they are reporting. This requires providing training for our 

local election officials that is clear, detailed, and easily understood. 

I cannot emphasize that enough, given the number of election officials we have. 

With that, I will end my testimony. I look forward to answering 

questions from the committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kennedy was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you very much. 

Next, we have Mr. Becker. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID J. BECKER, DIRECTOR, ELECTION INITIATIVES, THE PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS, WASHINGTON, 

D.C. 

Mr. BECKER. Senator, thank you for the opportunity to be here 

today to discuss this important topic. 
601 

We at the Pew Charitable Trusts began to look at the issue of 

using data to measure performance in the field of election administration several years ago, partially in response to what we heard 

from election officials who felt bombarded by news stories driven 

by anecdotes, not data. These stories about long waiting times to 

vote, or polling places opening late, or registration problems are 

important, but it is never clear whether they truly represent systemic problems or if they are simply one-time challenges. We knew 

that in other policy areas, such as health and education, there 

must be a way to use data and empirical evidence to get a clearer 

picture of what is happening across the States. 

Following important research by Professor Gerken and many 

others in the elections field, Pew partnered with Professor Stewart 

and MIT in 2010 to pull together an advisory group of State and 

local election officials from around the country, as well as leading 

academics in the field of elections and public administration, to determine what data was available to accurately and objectively 

measure the performance in this field. 

In 2013, Pew unveiled the results of this research, the Elections 

Performance Index, or EPI, the first comprehensive assessment of 

election administration in all 50 States and D.C. The release introduced the Index’s 17 indicators of performance, including such data 

relating to wait times at polling locations, voter registration rates 

and problems, military and overseas voting, and mail ballots. This 

data, collected from five different data sources, including the Census and the EAC, provided a baseline of performance using 2008 

and 2010 data, giving users a way to evaluate States’ elections side 

by side. 

Pew’s latest edition of the Index, released just over a month ago, 

adds analysis using data from the 2012 election. This provides the 

first opportunity to compare a State’s performance across similar 

elections, the 2008 and 2012 Presidential contests, and presents a 

rich picture of the U.S. democratic process that will be enhanced 

as new data are added each election cycle. 

The results from the 2012 EPI were generally good news for the 

States and for voters, as elections performance improved overall. 

Nationally, the overall average improved 4.4 percentage points in 

2012 compared with 2008, and the scores of 21 States and the District improved at a rate greater than the national average. 

In addition, we had several findings. First, high performing 

States tended to remain high performing, and vice versa. Most of 

the highest performing States in 2012, those in the top 25 percent, 

including States such as Wisconsin and Minnesota, were also 

among the highest performers in 2008 and 2010. The same was 

true for the lowest performing States in all three years. 

Second, gains were seen in most indicators. Of the 17 indicators, 

overall national performance improved on 12 of them, including a 

decrease in the average wait times to vote and an increase in the 

number of States allowing online voter registration. 

Third, wait times decreased, on average, about three minutes 

since 2008. 

Fourth, although voters turned out at a lower rate in 2012 generally, fewer of those who did not vote said they were deterred from 
602 

the polls by illness, disability, or problems with registration or absentee ballots. 

Fifth, 13 States offered convenient and cost effective online registration in 2012, compared with just two in 2008, which may have 

contributed to the reduction in voter registration problems. 

Sixth, more States offered online voter information look-up tools 

in 2012. 

And, seventh, States are reporting more complete and accurate 

data. Eighteen States and the District reported 100 percent complete data in 2012, compared with only seven in 2008. 

We present all these data in an interactive report, which can be 

found at pewstates.org/EPI, that allows policy makers, election officials, and citizens to dig through each piece of information. 

We make a series of recommendations in this report, but two are 

particularly relevant to this hearing. First, States should work to 

upgrade their voter registration systems. By adopting innovative 

reforms, such as online voter registration, better sharing data within a State between motor vehicles agencies, et cetera, and using a 

tool like the Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC, 

to better share voter registration between States—voter registration data between States, all recommendations of the Bipartisan 

Presidential Commission on Election Administration, States can 

see a marked improvement in their performance. For instance, of 

the bipartisan group of seven States who founded ERIC in 2012, 

including Virginia, five of those States were among the highest performers in that year. 

Second, we encourage that States report and collect even more 

elections data. Several States, such as Wisconsin, have pioneered 

efforts to better collect source data from local election jurisdictions, 

but many do not. As the Presidential Commission notes, if the experience of individual voters is to improve, the availability and use 

of data by local jurisdictions must increase substantially. 

And, we continue our work toward this end. Just last week, we 

released a report entitled, ‘‘Measuring Motor Voter,’’ where we attempted to rate how well States were providing voters with the opportunity to register or update their registrations at motor vehicles 

offices. What we found was that States’ performance in this area 

could not be fully measured because States were not collecting or 

reporting adequate data to document the provision of these important services. We, therefore, made several recommendations, including that States prioritize, automate, and centralize motor voter 

data collection. We went on to highlight several States, such as 

Delaware, Michigan, and North Carolina, that have already made 

great strides in this area. 

Pew continues to see this data-driven approach lead to higher 

performance in the States. The EPI is being cited by policy makers 

and others in official testimony and is being used in a geographically and politically diverse group of States to help reform policy 

and technology in election administration. We will continue this 

work as we look forward to publishing the 2014 edition of the Index 

and ensuring the data-driven performance measurement is enshrined in this field for years to come. 

Thank you. 
603 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Becker was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Riemer. 

STATEMENT OF JUSTIN RIEMER, FORMER DEPUTY SECRETARY, VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 

Mr. RIEMER. Senator, thank you for the opportunity to address 

you today regarding data in elections. I am a former Virginia election official and co-author and editor of a recent report from the 

Republican National Lawyers Association reviewing the Presidential Commission on Election Administration’s report and providing additional suggestions to improve election administration. 

I would first like to discuss issues pertaining to ranking State 

election performance, then to offer a few reasons why we have such 

challenges in obtaining good data, and, finally, to express concerns 

regarding how ever-increasing election data and records requests 

have become an administrative burden on local election officials. 

Using data to rank States’ performance has value to identify both 

deficiencies and best practices, but there are also concerns. First is 

a worry that graders will penalize States for not adopting policies, 

such as expanded early voting, vote by mail, and election day registration. The RNLA, many nonpartisan election officials, and other 

stakeholders, have significant policy reservations regarding these 

issues and they should not be included as indicators of performance. 

Similarly, graders should reward, not penalize, States for implementing voter integrity measures, such as reasonable voter ID requirements and enhanced voter registration list maintenance activities. Election officials and organizations with particular concern 

for the integrity of our elections will be more likely to embrace 

these performance indexing efforts if they recognize State efforts to 

prevent fraud. 

Second, I would like to discuss a few of the many challenges election officials have when gathering and reporting election data. The 

first lies in limitations with State voter registration databases, and 

second is a difficulty in collecting accurate data from the polling 

place. 

Statewide election databases, created as a result of requirements 

in the Help America Vote Act, suffered from many problems commonly associated with large government IT projects. In the scramble to meet implementation deadlines, building in adequate data 

reporting and analytics capabilities became a secondary concern to 

complying with the specific database requirements outlined in 

HAVA. 

In Virginia’s case, it was impossible to reverse-engineer the system after it was launched to add better data collecting and reporting capabilities. While HAVA’s database requirements mostly address voter registration functions, many States design these systems to be much more comprehensive. For example, Virginia’s 

database administers most of the electoral functions at the State 

and local levels, including absentee voting, voter registration, and 

data collected at the polling place on election day, and part of the 
604 

system’s job is to gather data related to those processes. Consequently, these database limitations impact a broad array of a 

State’s electoral functions and make it difficult for officials to provide the data sought by the EAC and other interested parties. 

A second challenge is that much of the data used to analyze elections is collected on election day by poll workers who receive minimal training, work only a few days out of the year, and are paid 

very little. Poll workers must complete a significant amount of complex paperwork after a long day and frequently make mistakes or 

omit important information on forms. This information is often impossible to correct or collect later if not captured properly on election night. Poll workers also, understandably, treat supplemental 

data reporting as a secondary priority to reporting precinct vote totals and ensuring the security of ballots, voting equipment, and 

other important election materials. 

Fortunately, State and local officials are gradually overcoming 

some of these hurdles. First, States have improved their databases 

and analytics capabilities. In addition, the adoption of electronic 

poll books at the polling place will result in better data collection 

on election day. The nationwide trend towards online voter registration and electronically sending registration applications completed at DMVs to registration officials will also help improve the 

quality of voter registration records. Multi-State data sharing programs, like the Interstate Voter Registration Cross Check and 

ERIC, are also further helping improve the quality of States’ voter 

registration data. 

The PCEA and RNLA endorse these reforms, and RNLA also recommends that States pair electronic poll books with ID card bar 

code scanners to improve the reliability of voter history data. 

A final issue for policy makers to consider is how increasing demands for data and records impose significant administrative burdens on election officials. Survey obligations from the EAC, Federal 

Voting Assistance Program, and other stakeholders are tedious, but 

manageable. However, adding an increased request from FOIAs, 

State and local governments, litigation, and a public records disclosure provision in the National Voter Registration Act have turned 

basic data and records reporting obligations into a significant administrative burden. Combined with an increasingly shorter election off-season, because of 45-day absentee ballot mailing deadlines 

and expanded early voting, these obligations make it more difficult 

for election officials to perform their core job functions and make 

improvements to their election processes. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Riemer was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much to all of you. 

I will start with you, Ms. Gerken. I know you have made the 

point that it is hard for us to really take advantage of the States 

as the laboratories of democracy, as you noted, if we cannot figure 

out the way to compare what they are doing. And, States and localities have a big role to play in actually carrying out our elections, 

but that makes it harder to have uniform data. So, I figure we need 

to make sure we are not comparing apples and oranges and that 

we are actually trying to compare things in the right way to figure 
605 

out how we make the voting experience better and how we get 

more people to vote. What do you think the Federal Government’s 

role is in improving election administration, and what should Congress be doing to increase the supply of quality data while respecting our State and local partners who carry out the election? 

Ms. GERKEN. There are many things that the Federal Government should do, in my view, and I will just begin by agreeing with 

Professor Stewart that one of the most important things is to support current ongoing efforts to provide data from the States, which 

is done through the Elections Assistance Commission. The Elections Assistance Commission has a somewhat inconsistent reputation among election administrators. However, I think there is little 

question that—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Why is that? 

Ms. GERKEN [continuing]. Because I think that there has been 

some frustration with the way that it is administered, both its 

grants and its surveys. While those criticisms are well taken, the 

importance of the EAC survey cannot be underestimated. It is the 

best set of data we have on a variety of practices. The EAC has 

also done something very useful, which is to help us standardize 

what kinds of terminology are used, so we are comparing apples 

and apples rather than apples and oranges. 

As Professor Stewart has mentioned, I think there are many 

other ways that the Federal Government can be supportive here. 

Some of them are as simple as assisting the States through modest 

funding to figure out how to get the data that they do have and 

put it in an accessible form that everyone can share. 

I would also love to see more work on the costs of administering 

elections. One of the things one begins to believe in working in 

these areas is that there will be no reform unless Almighty God 

comes down to dictate it. But sometimes the almighty dollar does 

the trick. One of the real reasons why we have seen such a push 

for online registration has been the immense cost savings that 

come from it. Having data on those kinds of questions is extremely 

important to the States in helping do their job—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. You mean how much money it saves to do 

the online? 

Ms. GERKEN [continuing]. Exactly. It is not only more accurate, 

but it turns out to be much more efficient in terms of cost. So, having just that kind of information in no way intrudes on State policy 

making, but enables them to make better decisions going forward. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Why do we not move on to the online, since you brought that up, and whether a State allows online 

registration is one of the 17 factors included in the Index. Why do 

you think—I will start with you, Mr. Stewart, and maybe Mr. 

Becker—why do you think this is a good thing to do online registration, and how do you think we get the other States to adopt 

it? 

Mr. STEWART. Well, maybe I can say why this is a good thing and 

Mr. Becker probably has some well thought out ideas about getting 

States to adopt it. 

I think there are two good things about online registration. One, 

picking up from what Professor Gerken said, is the cost. The second, as well, is accuracy. I think we all wish to see more accurate 
606 

voter rolls. It is easier for voters. More accurate rolls dispel many 

concerns about fraud and can help us to hone in on where there 

are, in fact, problems with people coming and trying to vote who 

should not. 

So there is the accuracy side and the cost side, and I know Mr. 

Becker has thought a lot about getting States to say yes. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Becker. 

Mr. BECKER. Yes, that is right. We just put out a brief on this 

in January called ‘‘Understanding Online Voter Registration,’’ 

which can be found at pewstates.org/OVR. And, what we found in 

our research in this field over many years is that online voter registration is one of those rare win-wins in government. It saves 

money and it produces a better product by making voter registration more complete, more accurate, and more convenient. 

So, for instance, with regard to costs, every State that has kept 

data on this has found tremendous cost savings, ranging—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Now, maybe you told me this in your testimony, Mr. Becker—— 

Mr. BECKER. Yes—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR [continuing]. But do we know how many 

States are doing it? 

Mr. BECKER [continuing]. So, by our count, we show 19 States 

that are currently offering their citizens an opportunity to register 

to vote online without ever having to print, mail, or—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And, how long has it been going on? 

Mr. BECKER [continuing]. Since 2002. Arizona was the first State, 

but it took six years until the second State offered online voter registration, Washington in 2008. They were the only two States that 

offered it in 2008. That number went up to 13 in 2012, and now 

it is up to—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. You really know these numbers, 

so—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR [continuing]. Let us continue on. It went up 

to 13 when? 

Mr. BECKER. It went to 13 in 2008, and now there are 19 States, 

almost 100 million Americans who currently can complete a voter 

registration application entirely online, without ever having to handle a piece of paper in any way or mail anything in. And, this is 

leading to huge cost savings. States are seeing cost savings ranging 

from about 70 to 80 cents in States like Colorado, Arizona, to over 

$2 per registration transaction in a State like California. California—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And they still make the mail available for 

people that do not have—— 

Mr. BECKER [continuing]. Absolutely. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR [continuing]. And, what is the resistance in 

some of the States? 

Mr. BECKER. I do not think we are really seeing much real resistance. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. It is just—— 

Mr. BECKER. I think it is just a matter of time. There is a capital 

expenditure that is needed to put it in place. Our research indicates that, on average, it costs about $240,000, which is not very 
607 

much, to install an online voter registration system. But, still, some 

States are working towards that end. But, we are going to see 

many more States. I think, easily, half the States will be offering 

it, if not many more, by the 2016—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR [continuing]. And, have you been able to 

show direct correlation with increasing voting? 

Mr. BECKER [continuing]. I do not think we have been able to see 

that online voter registration directly leads to turnout. We have not 

had a controlled experiment in that regard. What we do know 

about online voter registration is it transfers a lot of the not cost 

effective and not convenient paper activity that would ordinarily 

occur that can lead to duplicates and errors to electronic activity, 

which is much more convenient and cost effective. So, at a minimum, it is saving election offices a lot of money and leading to a 

lot more convenience for the voters. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. Anyone else want to comment 

on that? Do you have that in Wisconsin yet? 

Mr. KENNEDY. We do not have that in Wisconsin. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Ah, that is why I asked that question. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KENNEDY. I know that Minnesota just did. I will tell you that 

Wisconsin has done a cost-benefit analysis on this. We partnered 

with our University of Wisconsin La Follette School of Public Policy 

and have determined that, if properly implemented, we will save 

over a million dollars, most of that at the local level, where it is 

really effective. It is the cost of that. So, Wisconsin has been using 

our data for things like that. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. KENNEDY. We had a hearing on that two weeks ago and that 

data was prominent. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And, you have same day? 

Mr. KENNEDY. We have Election Day registration. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. I think that is probably why—probably, in States like ours that—while I think it is a good thing, it 

maybe matters a little less when we already have the higher—you 

will not see quite the dramatic increase because of the fact that 

people can always register. 

Mr. KENNEDY. No, and it is not really a question—turnout is 

driven by so many other things, but one of the things I always emphasize is that we talk about numbers. We talk about election administration. Ultimately, it is all about the voter, and certainly, online registration, which is one thing that was not mentioned, provides a service to the voter. It makes it convenient. 

This is why Election Day registration has worked very well in 

Minnesota and Wisconsin, because we find it serves the voter. It 

provides them convenience. They are not thinking about elections 

every day. They are thinking about it when the elections come 

around. That means being prepared. So, online registration fits in 

very well with that. It is a nice pairing with Election Day registration. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Riemer, what do you think about the 

electronic registration? 

Mr. RIEMER. Well, Senator, Virginia implemented online voter 

registration approximately a year ago. It was passed with broad bi-
608 

partisan support and it is very popular. The voters love it. The 

local election officials love it and the State Board of Elections, the 

State election officials love it, as well. It works well, and for all the 

reasons described. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Good. A different topic, now. Ms. 

Gerken, I was interested in your testimony about using the Census 

as a model for comprehensive gathering of information on election 

administration. You advocated for some basic information to be 

gathered nationwide, but with a deeper dive into some randomly 

selected polling places. Can you elaborate on how this system 

would work and the challenges it would face. Having been at hearings, I think it was with the Joint Economic Committee, about the 

Census and some of the political things that surround it—whether 

true or not—we all know it is very important and many of us are 

always working to protect the Census and making sure it continues. Let me hear what you think we could do to make it even 

better, and then try to put on my political hat and figure out if we 

could get it done. 

Ms. GERKEN. Sure. The analogy to the Census was simply that 

the Census has a very widely known strategy for getting information. It asks for a little bit of information from everyone, and then 

a lot of information from a few people, and in doing so is able to 

get at the kinds of things we need to know. 

This strikes me as a particularly good model for local elections. 

One of the things that you learn very quickly whenever you talk 

to Secretaries of State is that they all know of one or two localities 

that really are outliers within the State. They all are nervous that 

those outliers are going to make the State the next Florida 2000, 

or the next Ohio in 2004, but they have very little ability to influence what is going on there because, one, they do not have data, 

and two, they do not actually have much by way of regulatory authority over localities. In many places, localities are very powerful. 

Having more and better information on the variation within localities is just as important as it is to have information about variation among the States for the same kinds of reasons. The trouble 

is, and here, I agree entirely with Mr. Riemer, localities are 

strapped and they are often staffed by people who work part-time, 

or who run the elections and run many other things in their towns, 

so you cannot ask them to do the kind of sophisticated data drops 

that you can ask from State officials. 

That is why the Census is a nice model, to get a little information from all of them and then have more and better in-depth information from a number so we can learn how things are going. 

And, the last thing I will say on this—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I am not an expert on the Census, so, this 

would be, like, additional questions you would add on, or—— 

Ms. GERKEN. It would be like a short form and a long form. I do 

not know if you have ever gotten the long form. It takes a while 

to fill out. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Oh, yes. 

Ms. GERKEN. But, the other thing I actually just added, and 

again, I will agree—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And so in the long form, they sometimes 

add different questions. 
609 

Ms. GERKEN. Yes, a lot of different questions. Exactly. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So, this would be something, and this 

would be to supplement what we are getting from the Election Administration and Voting Survey? 

Ms. GERKEN. Exactly. If you randomly selected localities, it 

would help us glean information about the variation among them. 

And, the last thing I will just say is I agree with Mr. Riemer that 

one of the great dilemmas of election administration is that a lot 

of the data comes from poll workers who are part-time and not always well trained. Here, I think the way to think about that problem is to think about it in exactly the way that Burger King and 

McDonald’s think about that problem. If I remember from high 

school, the pimply faced 16-year-olds that used to work behind the 

counter there were not sophisticated data collectors, and yet they 

were part of a sophisticated data collection system that was adapted to their abilities. And so anything that the Federal Government 

can do to help us think about how to get information from poll 

workers without having to train them or to expect more than we 

can expect from them would be very useful. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. 

Mr. Stewart, do you think this Census idea is a good one, or do 

you think there is more we should be doing with the Election Administration and Voting Survey? 

Mr. STEWART. As you can tell from my testimony, I am a big 

EAVS fan. I would emphasize assisting the States that are currently not reporting and complying with the EAVS data requests 

to actually report the data that they need to report. So, that is one 

thought. 

The other thing, I think that you hear a lot of agreement on this 

panel—is that diving deeply into precincts and localities requires 

the creation of a technology that allows relatively untrained and 

unsophisticated poll workers to gather the data that is needed. 

That is why things like electronic poll books are very promising, 

because you can automate a lot of this data gathering. If you could 

automate a lot of data gathering in electronic poll books, in the voting equipment that is used, then county officials or State officials 

who have the capability to aggregate data could become more involved. 

So, I would push a bit more on the technology side and on encouraging States to report the EAVS data. It seems to me if Wisconsin can do it, and Mr. Kennedy and his folks are my data heroes 

in this regard, I think any State can do it. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. And, so, this is an example 

where you got some funding, Mr. Kennedy, from the Election Assistance Commission, a $2 million grant. So, how did you use that 

money? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Basically, because Wisconsin already was committed to collecting certain data, we wanted to get it as granular 

as possible, and we recognized when we applied for the grant we 

could go from municipality-based reporting right down to the reporting unit. You know, Milwaukee has 202 polling places, but 

there are 324 separate reporting units, and knowing how each of 

those wards collects that data. 
610 

So, what we did is provide a portal where that data can be easily 

entered. We are using the polling place data. And what we learned 

is it is training. Now, we did start out with a bribe. The first time 

around, we paid every municipal clerk $100—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Now, not everyone in elections wants to use 

the word ‘‘bribe.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KENNEDY. I understand. I understand. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. We are in a small room. 

Mr. KENNEDY. It was an incentive. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. There is not a lot of media here, but I—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KENNEDY. It was an inducement or incentive—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. An inducement. An incentive. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. To get them to do this. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Uh-huh. 

Mr. KENNEDY. And I think it is important to find some way to 

convince election officials why this is important. In 2011 and 2012, 

Wisconsin got a lot of attention because we had a number of recall 

elections. We had 16 separate recalls. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I remember hearing about those. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. And one of the big policy debates was, if we 

are going to have a Statewide recall, what is that going to cost? 

And it landed in 2012. We did some surveying to estimate that, 

and then, based on that surveying, we built a data collection cost 

tool with a lot of give and take with the municipalities. We were 

able to demonstrate that the $37 million that we spent on administering elections at the county and municipal level in 2012, 14 million of that was directly related to the 2012 recall elections, money 

that was not budgeted for. That provided good information for the 

governing bodies that had to support this, you know, why did the 

costs go up? Where did they come from? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Another issue that we talked about or 

touched on with the long line issue—and who was giving me the 

numbers, was it you, Mr. Becker, on the decreasing—that there 

was some decrease in three minutes per voter, was that what it is, 

from the last Presidential—was it from 2008 to 2012? 

Mr. BECKER. That is right, from 2008 to 2012, three minutes—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So, then, how is the—what is the total 

wait? What is the—— 

Mr. BECKER [continuing]. Right now, it is at 11 minutes, on average, nationally. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR [continuing]. So, what we are dealing here 

with—because I think most people think they can wait ten minutes—so, what we are dealing with here is the fact that there are 

some—would it be, in Ms. Gerken’s words, outliers of some areas 

that have really bad problems that we have to try to get at? 

Mr. BECKER. Well, of course, that is one of the reasons that the 

work of people like Professor Stewart is so important and why we 

hope the Index can be helpful, is that it is important to assess this 

not based on just the anecdotes of all the cable news stations outside that one polling place in Miami at 2:00 a.m. on election night, 

but to really see what is going on all across the country, because 
611 

the cable news stations are not camped out at polling places in 

other States looking at what is happening. 

So, what we found was, in fact, yes, Florida was the worst reported wait times, of around 45 minutes in 2012. Many States saw 

wait times of below ten minutes. The Presidential Commission, I 

believe, came to the—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. The average in Florida was not 45, was it? 

Mr. BECKER [continuing]. I am sorry? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Was the average in Florida 45—— 

Mr. BECKER. That was the average reported wait time of those 

that were surveyed on this issue. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR [continuing]. So, would that mean across 

polling places in Florida? 

Mr. BECKER. Yes, across the State, across polling places—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. That seems like a real problem—— 

Mr. BECKER [continuing]. In a survey conducted by Professor 

Stewart. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR [continuing]. And that would seem like a deterrent to getting people to vote. 

Mr. BECKER. It is probably not a good thing. I think election officials in Florida would be the first to say that. They did see an increase in their reported wait times. The Presidential Commission 

came to the conclusion in their research that about—that under 30 

minutes was the target. I think that was a reasonable conclusion. 

And, I think States getting that data is very important to them, because once they can assess the depth of the problem, they can start 

looking at ways to try to correct that problem. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. 

Mr. BECKER. One of the conclusions we consistently reach is that 

having inaccurate voter rolls is one of the key things that can drive 

lines, that can lead to delays at the polling place and cause a logjam when people are trying to get their ballot and cast their ballot. 

So, States that are seeing improvements in that area are seeing 

lower lines—smaller lines. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And this would be because of technology, 

they are seeing improvements? This is the voting roll issue? What 

do you think, Mr. Stewart? 

Mr. STEWART. Well, part of it is technology, in terms of shorter 

lines. Part of it is technology. Part of it is also that some States 

and localities are becoming more sophisticated in using data to 

move resources around. I mentioned in my testimony the field of 

industrial engineering, which does these things. Some of the larger 

jurisdictions are able to put some brainpower behind optimizing 

where their resources go. 

It is also the case, that States are beginning to experiment with 

moving some voters off of election day into the early voting period. 

One of the things that does is take some of the pressure off of election day voting. Little bits and pieces here and there can take pressure off and can reduce lines. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So, you know, I used to administer—prosecute the cases for eight years of any voting issues that came out 

of our county in Minnesota. We had the biggest county. It was over 

a million people and was an urban county, but also had 45 suburbs. And we had a Secretary of State who was pretty aggressive 
612 

at the time, and so I was very careful that we would look at every 

case that came our way. And so I have actually had this on-theground experience with this. 

We would have, at first, hundreds of cases that looked like they 

were a problem, and I had a full-time investigator—I do not know 

why we—but this was my job—that would look at these cases, and 

80 percent of them were father and sons that had the same name 

and so they were not voting fraud. Then we would have a number 

of ones where felons would still be on probation and they would actually, I think, be either gotten some wrong information or just not 

understood that they were still on probation, and those were sort 

of sad cases, because then we would prosecute these felons on probation for voting. They would attempt to, then not be allowed to 

vote the next time, and then would be restored or something like 

that. 

But, there were not that many of those cases, and so that is 

going to be one of my questions, because I am wondering if with 

this online—and, I know States have different rules—if we could 

do a better job of taking care of that, because a lot of times, they 

just did not quite understand. They were still on probation. Minnesota puts tons of people on probation. We use less prison time. 

And then the second one, which I will just tell you for your own 

amusement, my investigator called a guy and said, ‘‘Sir, it looked 

like you voted twice,’’ and the guy goes, ‘‘Yeah, I did.’’ And the investigator goes, ‘‘Well, sir, do you mind if I turn on my tape recorder here so I can get your story,’’ because we had to legally do 

that, and the guy goes, ‘‘No, no, I will just write you a letter, because I live in Minneapolis and it is so hard for a Republican to 

get elected, I just decided to vote twice.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So, the guy wrote him a letter and went on 

and on about how he had voted twice, and then we had to issue 

some kind of a complaint, and then he was much more sheepish 

when he came in, and I think he was banned from voting one more 

time. 

But, we had a few of those type of cases, but they were very, very 

rare. And what bothers me, having looked at this, like, around the 

five years, having been in a State that had this dramatic recount 

in the Franken-Coleman race, that we did have some issues with 

felons voting, there is no doubt, but a lot of it, from my view, was 

mistakes. It was not some intentional thing, both on the election 

administrator side and on the felon side. 

And then the ones that actually deliberately voted twice, like the 

person who—this was another one I had—the school board line 

goes through their house, and the husband and wife decided that 

they are going to vote in both elections because they wanted to vote 

in both school board races, but then did not really realize that they 

were then actually also voting double, and they would each vote on 

each race for President. And then when we told them we had to 

do research for them, because they wanted to know where they 

should vote when the line goes through your house, we said, well, 

you vote where you sleep, and then they called back and said, well, 

what if we say we sleep in separate rooms? 

[Laughter.] 
613 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. That was the level of detail we got to with 

them. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Those cases, where someone actually votes 

twice, either for some crazy reason, because a line is going through 

their house and they do not understand it, or because their mom 

fills out the form and then they then vote—they voted by mail, and 

then they vote again—were very rare. And what bothers me is that 

a lot of our election laws and these reasons that we are not talking 

about today, about some of the things that ban people from voting 

or do not allow them to register to vote, we have so used one or 

two examples of these when the vast majority of them, to me, could 

most likely be solved by data, especially some of the felon information, so we get that straight. 

And I just wondered if you think that this technology could help 

us to ferret through what is clearly mistakes in most of the cases, 

as opposed to this guy who was intentionally voting twice, which 

is such a rarity. So, a lot of times, it might involve mental illness 

when people do it. But, the point is, it is a rarity, and so, yes, it 

is used as the defining reason why we have to have all these strict 

registration laws and why it makes it so hard so people cannot 

same day register like they do in Minnesota and Wisconsin, which, 

by the way, produces very different results, as you know, Mr. Kennedy, in our Governors’ political parties, in our legislators’ political 

parties, and yet we make it easy for people to vote. 

So, if you could just address this, if there is some way we could 

get at this online with some of this technology to make it not 

even—not just the voting experience better, but also to make it so 

that we have a defense, almost, against some of these claims so 

that we do not keep limiting people’s ability to register and make 

it easier for them to sign up. Does anyone want to go for that one? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I could mention that in Wisconsin, we have similar rules in terms of felon voting, and there has always been an 

issue about what is the extent of voter fraud, and most of the cases 

that we have identified, I mean, the technology that has been put 

in place since 2006 with our Statewide voter registration system, 

we have identified those rare cases of double voting. Usually, it is 

because they own property in two places and want to vote because 

they pay taxes and it is a conscious decision, or they have just 

moved, and again, very rare. But, mostly, it is the felons, and so 

we have—we do—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And you understand what I mean about 

that they are on probation, but it is not clear. Like, they really do 

not want to commit another felony by voting, most likely. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. Well, using those numbers, we have 

built in a couple of checks. We have Election Day registration, at 

the polling place we have access to a list of all the felons in that 

municipality or county, depending on the size, so it can be doublechecked so that people can be advised. 

I mean, the best anecdote was someone who came in to vote who 

was on the felon list, was not eligible. The person said, ‘‘Oh, one 

more thing I cannot do,’’ once the poll worker said, ‘‘I am sorry, we 

cannot let you vote because of this.’’ But, the technology was there. 

It was available. I think that is very helpful. 
614 

But, it also allowed us to build some checks into the process so 

that when the person is sentenced, part of the instructions the 

judge gives is, you will not be allowed to vote until you complete 

the terms of your sentence. When they are released from incarceration, they get the same information, and they also sign paperwork. So, we use that—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Now, some States, when they get released 

from incarceration, then they just get to vote, I think, right? Or, 

can they vote while they are on probation? I mean, that is the 

other way to think about it. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. A few States can do that, but the 

general norm is you have to complete the terms and get off paper, 

as they say. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Right. Exactly. And, I think that is what 

creates that confusion. If someone has been in prison, they get out 

and they think they can vote then, like everyone else, even though 

they may have been—so, I am just trying to find a way to doublecheck this so they do not get in trouble and so it does not create 

this aura about our elections. 

Mr. KENNEDY. And it is something that, by matching the data 

with the Corrections Department, you can have that so that they 

are flagged in the voter registration list. As I said, Wisconsin produces lists that we make available for the clerks to download that 

give that information. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Does anyone want to add to that? 

Mr. BECKER. I would just add that I think you are absolutely 

right. Technology is important in two very key areas. First, it can 

help ensure that all eligible voters, but only eligible voters, have 

access to the process, using things like e-Poll books to ensure that 

people do not sign on the wrong line in a paper poll book, which 

can lead to these problems. Things like online voter registration, 

which can actually walk someone through the voter registration 

process, require that they affirmatively click on and check a box 

that clearly describes what the eligibility requirements are before 

they proceed, and as you pointed out, often accidentally come into 

a violation of the law. Things like ERIC, which can help whittle 

down the number of people that might be reached out to that 

should not be—that are not eligible to vote and should not be encouraged to register. Doing that, all these things can help ensure 

that all eligible, but only eligible, can take part. 

And, I think a very important thing that technology can also do 

is ensure that we correct some of the data collection problems that 

we currently experience. So much of data collection right now is 

done after the election, where local election officials have to reconstruct the election after the fact, report up to the State election officials, who then report that to the Election Assistance Commission, 

often without many checks in between in each of those processes. 

So, the data often is not of high quality. We have to go through and 

reconnect with all of the States and many of the localities to ensure 

that the data is correct and up to date. 

And what we see with technology now is there are systems put 

in place—election management systems, e-Poll books, et cetera— 

that can be designed at the start with collection of data in mind. 

So, the data is collected as it is ongoing and you can just push a 
615 

button and report it out after the fact. I think Wisconsin has done 

some tremendous things in that regard. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. You know what I love about this data collection is that you can then get the information out there and then 

it creates incentives—as opposed to bribes, Mr. Kennedy—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. It creates incentives for States, because 

they want to compete with each other. And, I just think about 

when we talked to our electric companies, one of the things they 

found is the best way to get people to turn down the heat and save 

electricity—it is so interesting—it is not, oh, it is good for the environment. It is not, oh, you can even save money, and showing them 

how much money they save. It is showing what an unknown neighbor saves in a similarly sized house. And then they see that and 

they think, well, why am I not saving that much? 

And with elected officials, of course, it is much more public, so 

that if you have a State, like your story of Florida, where the lines 

are so much longer than other places and you can get that data 

out, it creates incentives for the citizenry to start asking their 

elected officials, what are you going to do to improve this? This is 

outrageous. 

So, when I hear this, in a very marketplace way, Mr. Riemer, I 

am thinking that there is a huge advantage to getting this data 

out, just to create the incentives so the States can change their 

processes. But, if we do not get the data out, we are just putting 

our heads in the sand and hiding. 

So, I assume most of you agree with that, but, so, what do you 

think is the best thing we can do? I know—if we could go down the 

line here, from the Federal Government perspective. It is keeping 

on funding the Voter Survey. Is it also expanding into Census, from 

your line, Ms. Gerken, from your perspective, or what can we be 

doing? 

Ms. GERKEN. Well, I have already given a little bit of my spiel 

on this one, but the one thing I will add is just to build on the 

point that you made. It is remarkable how much the right to vote 

is protected by a well-run bureaucracy that believes in best practices. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. 

Ms. GERKEN. And one of the things you quickly learn about election administration is that it does not have yet the sense of robust 

professional practices the way, for example, lawyers or doctors or 

accountants do. Anything that the Federal Government can do to 

support that—and that means something as simple as providing a 

clearinghouse with a menu of options for different States, because 

States do look to one another in trying to figure out what they do. 

The peer pressure that you described works as well for States and 

institutions as it does for teenagers, and as a result, they will look 

to each other. 

Giving them an accessible, easy to use system where they can 

see what other States are doing to solve the same problems is very, 

very useful. That is something the Election Assistance Commission 

is all but built to do. It is nonpartisan. It does not interfere with 

States’ decision making. It just helps them make better decisions. 
616 

And so I would certainly encourage the Federal Government to do 

that, as well. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Stewart. 

Mr. STEWART. Much of the same record. The clearinghouse and 

research function of the EAC are invaluable, and that is really the 

core of the EAC. They do this one big election data gathering effort 

and they fund basic research. I think if that core can be maintained and developed, that would be a—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. How about getting the research out there? 

So, you get the research. So, I am finding this out for the first time. 

I kind of watch the news, read things probably more than a lot of 

people, very aware of the States that are at the top for voting. And, 

I even gave, like, an hour-long talk on this, but I did not really 

have—I was not conversant with which States had these long lines 

and things like that. How do we get that out there nationally so 

it gets States to have that incentive to move themselves up in the 

rankings? 

Mr. STEWART [continuing]. Well, part of it is the Election Performance Index and ideas in Professor Gerken’s book. Another 

thing I have seen develop which I mention in my testimony is that 

we need a marriage of election officials and researchers together 

who can understand each others’ worlds. Quite frankly, there has 

been mistrust between the two, because researchers oftentimes just 

want data to write papers and do not understand the challenges 

that are faced by local election officials. So, part of it is the creation—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And there are a lot of challenges. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. Part of it is creation of this network of people 

with shared interests and concerns with each others’ problems. 

That is an important thing. The EAC has a role in that, but universities and foundations also have a role in that, too. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I would say that the States have a very prominent 

role that needs to be done here. You know, one, the Wisconsin idea 

in our education has always been to bring the University of Wisconsin and its satellite campuses into the communities, and one of 

the reasons we are very successful is that we have a tremendous 

relationship with the University of Wisconsin’s political scientists 

and they show a lot of interest. We have been trying to feed their 

needs by giving them a lot of data. So, the marriage that Professor 

Stewart talked about is very important and it is something that 

comes natural from our experience. 

The other thing is for the State to be taking a leadership role. 

I mentioned in my testimony how important it is to get buy-in from 

our local election officials, giving them reasons why this data is important, addressing their very real concerns about, well, it is not 

fair that we are getting compared against each other, and it is, 

like, well, this is part of the exchange of information. It is going 

to help you improve and it forces you to explain your case, why 

your costs might be higher, for example, because it is something we 

have gotten a lot of data on. 

But, the other thing is the State can take a leadership role in 

the technology that we are talking about. Electronic poll books, we 

have been talking about, is going to make sure that that data is 
617 

collected in real time. We know what time people are coming into 

the polling places with electronic poll books. Making sure that the 

voting equipment that people are using has—will also show the 

kind of data that can then be—you know, the State can take the 

lead in taking it, as long as it is in electronic format, leveraging 

technology. So, this is where the State provides a leadership role 

to the locals on that. So, that is where I would see it. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Becker. 

Mr. BECKER. Well, I would say several things. First, obviously, 

we should make everyone aware that there is a baseline that exists 

out there. At pewstates.org/EPI, the Index exists. And not only the 

17 indicators, but you can isolate any particular indicator. If you 

just want to look at wait times or voter registration rates or turnouts, or look at a combination, or compare States, that is all available. 

And I think one of the things that comes up—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, maybe we could have, like, some kind 

of a little press event on the Hill when the numbers come out, 

or—— 

Mr. BECKER [continuing]. We have got them—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR [continuing]. The Rules Committee, we 

could do a very exciting press conference—— 

Mr. BECKER. We have got a wonderful interactive that people can 

play with that enables them to compare regions, States, one State 

over time, look at any particular indicator or combination of indicators. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. 

Mr. BECKER. You know, some of the interesting things that come 

out of it is though Florida was the worst on wait times in 2012, 

Florida actually performed about in the middle of all the States—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I saw that in the thing. So, I did not mean 

to, like—— 

Mr. BECKER [continuing]. No, I—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR [continuing]. There are a bunch of people 

from my State who move down there and everything, but I—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BECKER. A bunch of people from every State move down 

there. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BECKER. But, it is one of those things, that if anecdotes 

drives this debate, everyone would think Florida is ground zero for 

worst election administration—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. No, but there are other issues, and so it is 

trying to rationally get that out there, and hopefully in a bipartisan 

way—— 

Mr. BECKER [continuing]. Exactly. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR [continuing]. Which was so much of the 

issue with this. It can be very—okay. 

Last, Mr. Riemer, and then I have to go to another hearing on 

bulletproof vests, which will be a little different than this one. 

Mr. RIEMER. Thank you, Senator. I think the combination of the 

EAC survey, the Census data, combined with organizations like 

Pew doing these performance index measures, is the way to go. 
618 

And, I think the States are beginning to produce better data. The 

EAC survey was, in many ways, just—it floored State election officials about the amount of data that was asked for, and I think, 

while we have been doing this for a decade, it is only done once 

every Federal election. So, this survey has only been done four or 

five times and States are getting progressively better at it. 

I know in Virginia, our first EAC survey response was, frankly, 

a joke. I do not think—I think we only reported about a quarter 

of the information that was asked for. Now, we are getting much 

better at it. We have made changes to our database and polling 

place practices to obtain this data. So, I think we are getting there. 

And, I think what has been discussed is the more that things are 

automated at the polling place, from electronic poll books, to scanning IDs, to the equipment having better metrics, I think we are 

going to get there—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Right, and you have all these decentralized 

local election people that are really into this stuff. As much as 

some of them are overburdened, they do like to—I think it is their 

thing they do. And, I would think that, eventually, for some of 

them, getting that data is kind of fun and interesting and they are 

able to look at what is going on across the country and how the 

State, at least, measures up. So, do you think that is true, or is 

it not fun, Mr. Riemer? 

Mr. RIEMER. Virginia is a very diverse State—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. 

Mr. RIEMER [continuing.] From very cosmopolitan and urban in 

Northern Virginia—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. 

Mr. RIEMER [continuing]. To Appalachian—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Right. Well, we have this, too. Yes. 

Mr. RIEMER. Exactly. So, I think some definitely are. You have 

election policy wonks that are the local registrars. And then some, 

frankly, are just there—some of them are part-time. We have 17 

part-time registrars in Virginia—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. 

Mr. RIEMER [continuing]. And, I will be honest, they are not really that interested in what you are talking about. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. What is happening across the thing, yes. 

Mr. RIEMER. Not all of them, and I do not mean to—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I will have to check in on Finland—Finland, Minnesota. I just know the rural ones that I have worked 

with, they get really concerned about the cost issue, and so they 

are interested in it that way, that if they think things can make 

it better or things can make it worse, they are going to be outspoken. So, in that way, I just think that while they may not be 

into the wonkish part of it, they actually may be into knowing 

some facts about how it is going and what is working and what is 

not working, because they do speak out on it. I know that from 

having been around our State, and I am sure you know that, too, 

so—— 

Mr. RIEMER [continuing]. Absolutely. They care very much about 

the process. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. They do. 

Mr. RIEMER. They still want to fix the process, it is just—— 
619 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. They do, and so that is why I think getting 

that information out there is a good thing. 

Well, with that, I am going to include Senator Schumer’s statement, without objection, that he asked to have entered into the 

record. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Schumer was submitted 

for the record:] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And, on behalf of the Rules Committee, I 

would like to thank all of our witnesses today for their important 

testimony this morning. 

This concludes the panels, and without objection, the hearing 

record will remain open for five business days for additional statements and post-hearing questions submitted in writing for our witnesses to answer. 

We will miss you, Jean, but we know you are going to do great 

out there. 

Thank you. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:51 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
(620) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
621 
622 
623 
624 
625 
626 
627 
628 
629 
630 
631 
632 
633 
634 
635 
636 
637 
638 
639 
640 
641 
642 
643 
644 
645 
646 
647 
648 
649 
650 
651 
652 
653 
654 
655 
656 
657 
658 
659 
660 
661 
662 
663 
664 
665 
666 
667 
668 
669 
670 
671 
672 
673 
674 
675 
676 
677 
678 
679 
680 
681 
682 
683 
684 
685 
686 
687 
688 
689 
690 
691 
692 
693 
694 
695 
696 
697 
698 
699 
700 
701 
702 
703 
704 
705 
706 
707 
708 
709 
710 
711 
712 
713 
714 
715 
716 
717 
718 
719 
720 
721 
722 
723 
724 
725 
726 
727 
728 
729 
730 
731 
732 
733 
734 
735 
736 
737 
738 
739 
740 
741 
742 
743 
744 
745 
746 
747 
748 
749 
750 
751 
752 
753 
754 
755 
756 
757 
758 
759 
760 
761 
762 
763 
764 
765 
766 
767 
768 
769 
770 
771 
772 
773 
774 
775 
776 
777 
778 
779 
780 

HEARING—ELECTION ADMINISTRATION: 

EXAMINING HOW EARLY AND ABSENTEE 

VOTING CAN BENEFIT CITIZENS 

AND ADMINISTRATORS 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 2014 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 

SR–301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Walsh, presiding. 

Present: Senator Walsh. 

Staff Present: Kelly Fado, Staff Director; Stacy Ettinger, Chief 

Counsel; Veronica Gillespie, Elections Counsel; Ben Hovland, Senior Counsel; Julia Richardson, Senior Counsel; Abbie Sorrendino, 

Legislative Assistant; Jeffrey Johnson, Clerk; Benjamin Grazda, 

Staff Assistant; Mary Suit Jones, Republican Staff Director; Paul 

Vinovich, Republican Chief Counsel; and Rachel Creviston, Republican Senior Professional Staff. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WALSH 

Senator WALSH. The Rules Committee will come to order. I want 

to wish everyone a very good afternoon and thank you for being 

here. 

We have had a series of votes scheduled to start at 2:30, so in 

order to hear from all of our witnesses, we are going to stick to the 

time limits and I will keep my statement brief for the sake of time. 

This hearing is the committee’s fifth in a series on improving the 

administration of elections. Today’s hearing focuses on how early 

and absentee voting can benefit citizens and administrators. Chairman Schumer wanted to be here today, but was unable to attend. 

Today, we will discuss how common sense reforms, like early voting and absentee voting can help more Americans, especially those 

in rural areas or in Indian Country, participate in our democracy. 

Tuesday has been our official Election Day since 1845, but it is 

not always possible for voters to make time to vote on the second 

Tuesday in November. This is especially true for voters in rural 

areas, Indian Country, farmers, ranchers, the disabled, our veterans, and working parents. Many Americans face significant time 

and distance-related barriers to voting on time. 

My home State of Montana is also known as Big Sky Country, 

and for good reason. If you have ever driven around Montana, you 

have seen that there is a lot of open space. We have counties that 

would swallow Rhode Island. This means many Montanans do not 

live close to their polling place or election office. If you live in Indian Country or in many of our rural counties, you could face several hours’ drive to the voting ballot. 

The pressures of time and space mean Tuesday just does not 

work for a wide range of folks, whether they are working, a working parent that wants to get home to see their kids, or a Tribal 
781 

voter that faces a hundred-mile journey to vote. Expanding early 

and absentee voting will provide more Americans with an opportunity to vote. That is why this hearing is so needed. 

These reforms are not about favoring one party over another or 

any particular group of Americans. They are simply matters of 

good governance that benefit all Americans and that will strengthen our democracy. 

The committee is fortunate to have an excellent panel of witnesses. Today, we have with us the Oregon Secretary of State, Kate 

Brown. Kate oversees elections that are entirely run by mail, helping voters exercise their right on their schedule. 

Larry Lomax, who served as the Registrar in Clark County, Nevada, implemented what is certainly one of the best examples in 

the country of citizen-focused early voting. 

I am particularly pleased to have my fellow Montanan, Rhonda 

Whiting from Western Native Voice, here today to discuss how election administration reforms can help ease some of the difficulties 

Americans face in getting to the ballot box. Rhonda, thank you for 

being here. If we can implement reforms that help overcome the 

barriers of time and space that Rhonda routinely sees in Montana’s 

Indian Country, I am confident that we can expand voting access 

to voters across the country. 

With that, I would like to thank all of our witnesses and I look 

forward to our testimony. 

At this time, we will now hear from our panel of witnesses in alphabetical order. First, we will hear from Secretary of State Kate 

Brown, who, again, serves as Oregon’s Secretary of State. Kate. 

STATEMENT OF KATE BROWN, SECRETARY OF STATE, STATE 

OF OREGON, SALEM, OREGON 

Ms. BROWN. Good afternoon and thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. I am Kate Brown. I am currently serving as Oregon’s Secretary of State, and I am honored to be here with you 

today. I applaud your efforts to provide American voters with 

choices on how and when to vote. 

In Oregon, we believe that your vote is your voice and that every 

single voice matters, and vote by mail is a great way to put a ballot 

in the hands of every eligible voter. Our 30-year experience with 

vote by mail has been a smashing success. Vote by mail enhances 

turnout, is cost effective, and is secure. 

Oregonians love vote by mail because it is convenient and accessible to cast an informed ballot. Voters with disabilities can vote 

independently in their own homes. And, rural Oregonians who live 

miles from an elections office can simply drop a ballot in the mailbox. 

Oregon has been at the top ten of States in voter turnout 

amongst registered voters in the last two Presidential cycles. It is 

the only State in the top ten that does not have same-day voter 

registration. 

But where I think vote by mail shines is in turnout in primary 

and special elections. In May of 2014, 35.9 percent of registered Oregon voters voted in our primary. As the Chief Elections Officer, I 

normally would not brag about this figure, but so far, excluding 

yesterday’s primaries, it is greater than any of the other 20 States 
782 

have held primaries so far this year. For example, Kentucky had 

27 percent turnout and Georgia had 19 percent turnout. 

And then in special elections, we shine, as well. In 2011, both 

California and Oregon had special elections to fill Congressional 

vacancies. Oregon’s turnout in our special election for that particular Congressional race was 51 percent and California’s was 25 

percent, a huge difference. 

Also, in these financially strapped times, the savings from vote 

by mail are critical. We estimate the savings are 20 to 30 percent 

over polling place elections. 

Vote by mail is also secure. To combat fraud, we have a number 

of security measures in place. To ensure the integrity of every single ballot, we check every single signature. We track ballots with 

bar codes, and voters can now confirm that their ballot has arrived 

at the elections office. 

In the over 30 years of vote by mail, we have absolutely no evidence of coercion, either, and the penalties for both fraud and coercion are very, very severe. 

Some folks are critical about vote by mail because they say we 

no longer share the ritual of waiting in very long lines to vote. 

Well, I would argue that it has been replaced by a much richer 

version of civic engagement. Voters’ pamphlets come three weeks 

before the election and our ballots arrive about two-and-a-half 

weeks prior to the election. Families sit down at the dinner table 

and talk about who is on the ballot and what is on the ballot. And, 

I know, at neighborhood associations, they meet to discuss both 

candidates and the issues that are on the ballot. This gives voters 

ample opportunity to consider all of the issues on their ballot. 

Across the West, voters are embracing vote by mail. Colorado 

and Washington have also joined us in only serving their voters via 

the mail, and not only through the mail, but primarily mail ballot. 

And, many voters in States like Arizona and California and Hawaii 

have made their choice. Secretary of State Wyman from Washington is submitting a letter in support today, as well, so it has 

broad bipartisan support. 

I urge you to support efforts across the States to put ballots in 

the hands of every eligible voter using our Postal Service. Thank 

you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator WALSH. Thank you, Ms. Brown. 

Next, we will have John Fortier, the Director of the Democracy 

Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center. John. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. FORTIER, DIRECTOR, DEMOCRACY 

PROJECT, BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Dr. FORTIER. Great. Thank you, Senator Walsh, and thank you 

for inviting me to testify today. 

I am the author of a book, Absentee and Early Voting, of several 

years ago and I wanted to give a little bit of background of the rise 

of two types of convenience voting, one, vote by mail, and also inperson early voting, and then lay out some of the pluses and 

minuses. 
783 

If I could first start by noting two commissions, one which you 

will hear from, Larry Lomax, the President’s Commission on Election Administration, which I have some connection with in that we 

are going to be working closely with the Commission on their recommendations, and also a commission that put out a report yesterday, the Commission on Political Reform out of the Bipartisan Policy Center. Both have recommendations regarding early and absentee voting. 

Quickly stated, the PCAA calls for the States to expand opportunities to vote before Election Day, but notes that they do not want 

the expansion of pre-Election Day voting to come at the expense of 

facilities and resources dedicated to Election Day. 

And then the other, the Commission on Political Reform, has a 

recommendation for a seven- to ten-day intense period of early voting, which includes at least voting on one day of the week before 

Election Day. 

What I will note is both of these methods of voting have risen 

dramatically. If you went back 35 years ago, you would have found 

only about five percent of America voting before Election Day, 

mostly by mail, for a reason, for a specific reason, being away from 

the polls or being infirm or overseas. That number has risen to 

about a third today, and both types have significant participation, 

with about 17 percent or so—a little bit more—voting by mail, and 

another 14 percent of the electorate voting early in person. 

But, I will note that there is very great variation among the 

States. Many of the Western States are much more vote by mail. 

Many of the Eastern States, Northeastern States, have a very traditional single Election Day polling place-focused election without 

much of either type of voting. And, then, States like Texas and 

Tennessee and now Georgia and North Carolina have a lot of inperson early voting. So, there really is a great variety of practices 

across the country. 

I want to address quickly the issue of turnout in these methods 

of voting. I guess my big message is, I do not think moving to either in-person early voting or voting by mail, the primary reason 

you should do so is to dramatically increase turnout. When I used 

to testify, I would say I think that, really, the research showed that 

there was not much at all increase in voter turnout. I think there 

is some more recent evidence or studies in the vote by mail which 

show a small increase in voter turnout. But, really, I think, these 

changes are not dramatic, but the reasons for adopting them are 

more convenience or to help election officials spread out the vote 

across elections. 

I will note two exceptions to this, and I think Secretary Brown 

pointed to one. On very low turnout elections—local elections or 

ballot initiatives or perhaps primaries—there is a significant increase based on vote by mail, not so much when you see the larger 

general elections. 

And then on the early voting side, we do see some increase in 

turnout based on vote centers, the ability to choose among different 

locations within your county on a pre-Election Day or sometimes 

even on Election Day itself basis, where you are not limited to one 

local place, that you can actually go to a place closer to work or 
784 

on your commuting pattern. So, I think those are two important exceptions. 

What are my concerns? I am actually much more of a fan of early 

voting in person than voting by mail, and my concerns about vote 

by mail are some which Secretary Brown addressed. One is privacy 

and the secret ballot. It may not be the experience of most people 

that they have someone who might coerce their vote, but there certainly are people who are pressured or in a position where they are 

not casting their vote freely. And, the secret ballot, of being able 

to go into a polling place and put the curtain behind you, allows 

you to escape those pressures. 

Secondly, there are some problems in transmission of the ballot. 

If we see vote fraud—people argue whether there is a lot or not a 

lot, but I think most people would agree that most of the cases we 

have are in the absentee or vote by mail realm. 

And then, finally, there is some question of error checking, 

whether the ballot that you cast by mail does not have the error 

checking that you would have at the polling place, and more ballots 

are lost, either because they do not have the signature requirements or the ballots themselves have some errors that would have 

been caught. 

I will say that on early voting, the simple point is that there is 

no single formula. I would not impose a formula for across the 

country because we have rural and urban. We have places that do 

lots of vote by mail, lots of early voting, some who do not do a lot. 

But, my preference would be for a short, intense period of early 

voting, one that has significant hours, good locations, but that it is 

not a Federal matter where you prescribe one type for all the 

States. The States have to weigh their particular circumstances to 

figure out whether the early voting that they might adopt in their 

State is proper for their State. 

So, I will conclude my testimony with that. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Fortier was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator WALSH. Thank you, Dr. Fortier. 

Mr. Lomax, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HARVARD ‘‘LARRY’’ LOMAX, REGISTRAR OF 

VOTERS (RETIRED), CLARK COUNTY ELECTION DEPARTMENT, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 

Mr. LOMAX. Good afternoon. I was asked here today to talk about 

Clark County’s early voting program, which my personal belief is 

it is one of the most successful in the country. 

Many States claim they conduct early voting, but what they 

mean varies widely from State to State. In some States, early voting simply means anyone can request an absentee ballot and vote 

by mail. In others, it means voters can vote in person prior to Election Day, but only at the Clerk’s Office. 

In Clark County, early voting means that during a two-week period prior to Election Day, any registered voter can vote in person 

at a time and place convenient for them. Rather than requiring the 

voter to come to a government office, which is invariably an inconvenient experience for the voter, we take the opposite approach. 
785 

We look to see where voters go during their normal day-to-day 

routines and then we take our voting machines into their neighborhoods to them. Most voters, in fact, will pass by one of our early 

voting locations during the two-week early voting period during 

their normal course of business. We provide early voting sites in 

supermarkets, all the major malls, in libraries, in recreation centers and other facilities that attract the local population whether 

or not an election is in process. 

So the voters will know when we will be in their neighborhood 

prior to the beginning of early voting, every voter in Nevada is 

mailed a sample ballot, which includes the complete early voting 

schedule. 

Sites that are located in the malls, in major shopping locations, 

and in a few minority areas where there are no major shopping locations, are open early day during the two-week period. In major 

elections, if the facility is open for business, so are we. Thus, in our 

mall sites, people can cast their ballot from ten in the morning 

until nine at night. 

We also have mobile voting teams that rotate through neighborhood locations, primarily supermarkets, recreation centers, and libraries, and conduct voting for two or three days in those locations. 

If they are in a library or recreation center, they are available to 

the voter as long as the facility is open. Since most supermarkets 

in Las Vegas Valley are open 24/7, our supermarket teams are 

typically open from eight in the morning until seven at night. 

To serve areas in the county where there are no suitable facilities in which to conduct voting, often minority areas, we have four 

generator-powered self-sustaining voter trailers which we can position anywhere in the county. With these trailers, we can ensure all 

voters in Clark County have easy access to an early voting location, 

and their popularity is reflected by the fact that more than 60,000 

voters have voted in these trailers in the last two Presidential elections. 

So, how have the voters in Clark County taken to early voting? 

The great majority of them love it and the turnout numbers show 

it. While the number of Election Day voters over the last five Presidential elections—and this is Election Day voters—has remained 

relatively constant at about 200,000 voters per Presidential election, during the same time period, early voting turnout has exploded. 

In the 1996 Presidential election, the first year of early voting, 

17 percent of the voters, or 46,000 people, voted early. Sixteen 

years later, in the last Presidential election, 437,000 people voted 

early. That was 63 percent of everybody who voted in the election. 

And, let me point out, in 2012, it only took us 450 voting machines to support the 437,000 voters who voted in those two weeks. 

On Election Day, it took us 4,000 voting machines to support the 

200,000 people because they had to go to specific polling places to 

cast their ballot. I point this out because one of the arguments 

against early voting is the alleged increase in the cost of an election. Certainly, there is a cost to early voting, but it also significantly reduces the amount of voting equipment that a jurisdiction 

requires, in our case, by 50 percent. 
786 

In addition to allowing voters the opportunity to vote at a time 

and place convenient for them, there are additional benefits to 

early voting. Post-election audits show fewer mistakes are made 

each election because early voting workers, working 14 consecutive 

days, are much more experienced and, therefore, make less mistakes than the thousands of workers recruited to train and work 

only on Election Day, what we call our One Day Wonders. 

And, finally, as the popularity of early voting has increased, our 

voter turnout has also increased. In the 1996 and 2000 Presidential 

elections, when early voting was just starting and on the rise, the 

percentage of registered voters who voted overall in the election 

was in the 60 percent range. In the last three Presidential elections, where early voting turnout has always been 50 percent or 

more of the turnout, our voter turnout has been 80 percent or 

more. 

In summary, Clark County’s two-week early voting program has 

been an enormous success. The voters love it. Elections run 

smoothly, and Election Day lines are a thing of the past. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lomax was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator WALSH. Thank you, Mr. Lomax. 

Ms. Whiting, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF RHONDA WHITING, CHAIRMAN OF THE 

BOARD, WESTERN NATIVE VOICE, MISSOULA, MONTANA 

Ms. WHITING. Yes. Thank you, Senator Walsh. I am here as the 

Chairman of the Western Native Voice Board of Directors for the 

Tribes in Montana. 

The history of Native American voting is the story of a group of 

U.S. citizens who were compelled to be incorporated into the nation 

and then given the rights of citizens in a disjointed manner, in 

many cases, over many decades. It is the story of a group of U.S. 

citizens who were unlawfully denied the right to vote through illegal means, at times. Even though Native American citizens have 

served in the military, pay taxes, and are a major part of the 

United States, they were not able to vote until they became citizens 

in 1924, with the Indian Citizenship Act. Then, the Tribes were 

sent to reservations through the New Deal times with the Reorganization Act. 

Many of these reservations are isolated, and what happens on 

the reservations is that we are not able to use the—we are not able 

to use doing voting or doing anything without our computers and 

network systems, and that is not the norm for most reservations 

at this point in time. We talk about bridging the digital divide. We 

are making progress, but we do have—we are isolated in lots of 

ways. In fact, in reservations like Fort Peck, a lot of times, you cannot even use your cell phone. So, we really do need to continue to 

work on that. 

I would like to propose some practical solutions that will alleviate some of the problems to keep Native Americans from exercising 

their right to vote. 

First of all, expansion of access to registration modes will enable 

and facilitate voting. Intake of voting registration forms by govern-
787 

ment offices and educational facilities. For example, in Montana, 

the Indian Health Service and Tribally controlled community colleges, which we have on each reservation—not all Tribes have 

that—it would be a practical method of capturing voter registration 

forms. This would help increase the voting tremendously. 

In 2014, electronic registration options that are secure, safe, and 

verifiable are desirable, particularly for younger people who are 

used to conducting business online. Creating a Federal standard for 

electronic voting is critical to modernizing the Federal process. 

Another issue that we face is the distance involved for Native 

Americans and other rural voters to travel to vote. In Montana, 

with election services based in county seats, there is considerable 

distance for most Native American communities. Some Indians 

have to travel in excess of 100 miles to vote. It is hard to overstate 

the burden that is imposed upon Native American citizens by traveling long distances to cast their vote. The remote locations for 

many people and the economic problems that they face make it 

very difficult to get to the polling places. 

Placing satellite early voting locations in Native American communities would alleviate these barriers. One of the complaints that 

we hear, that it is a greater cost to the Secretary of State, we are 

hoping that we can overcome that and be able to have the satellite 

offices. It is important to emphasize the economic burdens, and 

that is why these remote communities really need the satellite offices. 

And the experience is in Montana that the same-day registration 

expands access to the polls for many citizens with busy lives and 

demanding careers. The same-day registration by college students, 

working mothers, busy professionals, and service people indicates 

that it is a basic part of the election administration to provide the 

ability to vote. 

Native Americans have benefitted in that same way. Same-day 

registration in Montana has helped lessen the negative effects of 

the electoral system for Natives, who overwhelmingly support it. 

Sadly, same-day registration is under attack in Montana with some 

ballot initiatives that were rolled out. They do not look at the Native Americans and what we need to do to enable us to vote. 

I believe that if we were able to do these practical solutions, 

which would include satellite voting and same-day registration, 

that the voting for Native Americans would increase. We have, at 

times, with a lot of work—and I have been working on this for a 

long time, formally since 1988—and when we had a lot of people 

helping us, we were able to get in some polling places 90 percent 

turnout. That is not always the case, and it would certainly be 

much more efficient if we could do satellite voting. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Whiting was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator WALSH. Thank you, Ms. Whiting, for your comments. 

We now have time for a few questions. I have asked each Senator 

to limit their questions to five minutes, and I think I will go first. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WALSH. With that, Ms. Whiting, thank you for traveling 

all the way from Big Sky Country to visit us today. It is great to 
788 

have more Montanans in the District. You mentioned the economic 

barriers many Tribal members and rural residents face while exercising their right to vote. Could you elaborate on how these barriers affect their ability to cast a vote. 

Ms. WHITING. I know for a fact that the Superintendent of 

Schools, Margaret Campbell, had talked to me about the people on 

the Fort Belknap Reservation and those that live in Hays/Lodge 

Pole. She said that with 30 percent of the people not being employed, and higher numbers than that, that she could go vote, but 

to drive into Harlem, which is a round-trip 100 miles, but a lot of 

people do not have the ability to do that. So, economically, we have 

the highest poverty rate in the State, and in many States across 

the United States. So, financially, it is very, very difficult for some 

people. 

Senator WALSH. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Lomax, you have raised turnout and increased voting access 

by making early voting sites more accessible for your voters. Clark 

County, Nevada, however, has about twice the population that 

Montana has. Do you think that your early voting reforms, particularly innovations like mobile voting sites, could be applied in more 

rural areas that do not have the technology that you may have 

throughout your State? 

Mr. LOMAX. Yes, I certainly do. Yes, sir. There is a variety of 

ways by which you can provide the voters with ballots, and we 

have a lot of very rural counties in Nevada. In fact, 75 percent of 

the population is in Clark County. About 20 percent is in Washoe 

County. And, all the other 14 counties share the rest, and so there 

are lots of counties up there that have several thousand registered 

voters in total and they are spread out throughout the county. 

They depend—they do not use technology nearly as much up 

there. They just—they use the—they have to move the voting machines to where the voters are. It is still the same concept. And, 

usually, the voters are going to be concentrated in some areas 

around the counties. But, I see no reason it would not work. 

Senator WALSH. Okay. Thank you. 

Secretary Brown, Dr. Fortier mentioned some potential concerns 

with vote by mail, such as secrecy of the ballot, transmission 

issues, and potential voter errors that are unable to be corrected. 

Given your experience overseeing elections in Oregon, do you share 

these concerns, and can you describe any efforts that have solved 

some of the problems that you have faced. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Senator Walsh. As the Chief Elections 

Officer, my primary concern is to ensure the integrity of the ballot. 

We have a number of methods in place to ensure the integrity of 

Oregon’s ballot. We have a centralized voter registration database. 

As I mentioned in my testimony, we check every single signature 

to verify it against our voter registration rolls. And, we have a bar 

code on the ballot to track every single ballot. So, these measures 

ensure the integrity of Oregon’s ballot. These are some of the measures that we have. 

I will share, vote by mail was adopted by Oregon voters in 1998. 

Since 2000, we have been regularly voting by mail, roughly 17 million ballots. We have had 13 convictions for voter fraud during that 

time period. So, the incident of fraud is extremely small. 
789 

In terms of privacy of the ballot and coercion, as I mentioned, we 

have had absolutely no evidence of coercion in voting in Oregon 

since we implemented vote by mail. I reached out to one of the 

women that represents our Oregon Coalition Against Domestic and 

Sexual Violence to verify this information. They have reviewed restraining orders in the past. My predecessor, Secretary Bill 

Bradbury, also worked with the domestic violence community. We 

have just heard of no evidence of coercion in the vote by mail ballots in Oregon. 

Senator WALSH. Okay. Thank you, Secretary Brown. 

So, that completes my questions, so on behalf of the Rules Committee, I would like to take this time to thank all of our witnesses 

for being here today and for your important testimony. We will 

make this available to all of our members of the committee and we 

will take a look at it, and if they have any questions, they may 

reach out to you. But, again, I appreciate you taking the time out 

of your busy schedules to be here with us today. 

So, this concludes the panel for today’s hearing. Without hearing 

any objection, the hearing record will remain open for five business 

days for additional statements and post-hearing questions submitted in writing for our witnesses to answer. 

Again, I apologize for none of my colleagues being able to be here 

today. They have busy schedules, a lot going on. But, this is very 

important. We want to make sure that all of our citizens have the 

ability to vote and that they can participate in our democracy, and 

I think this hearing today will help us move forward with that respect. So, thank you very much. 

This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:29 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
(790) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
791 
792 
793 
794 
795 
796 
797 
798 
799 
800 
801 
802 
803 
804 
805 
806 
807 
808 
809 
810 
811 
812 
813 
814 
815 
816 
817 
818 
819 
820 
821 
822 
823 
824 
825 
826 
827 
828 
829 
830 
831 
832 
833 
834 
835 
836 
837 
838 
839 
840 
841 
842 
843 
844 
845 
846 
847 
848 
849 
850 
851 
852 
853 
854 
855 
856 
857 
858 
859 
860 
861 
862 
863 

HEARING—THE DISCLOSE ACT (S. 2516) 

AND THE NEED FOR EXPANDED PUBLIC 

DISCLOSURE OF FUNDS RAISED AND SPENT 

TO INFLUENCE FEDERAL ELECTIONS 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2014 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

SR–301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Angus S. King, Jr., 

presiding. 

Present: Senators King, Schumer, Udall, Klobuchar, Roberts, 

McConnell, Blunt, and Cruz. 

Staff Present: Kelly Fado, Staff Director; Veronica Gillespie, 

Elections Counsel; Ben Hovland, Senior Counsel; Sharon Larimer, 

Professional Staff; Julia Richardson, Senior Counsel; Abbie 

Sorrendino, Legislative Assistant; Phillip Rumsey, Legislative Correspondent; Leigh Schisler, Special Assistant; Jeffrey Johnson, 

Clerk; Benjamin Grazda, Staff Assistant; Mary Suit Jones, Republican Staff Director; Shaun Parkin, Republican Deputy Staff Director; Paul Vinovich, Republican Chief Counsel; Sarah Little, Republican Communications Director; Trish Kent, Republican Senior Professional Staff; and Rachel Creviston, Republican Senior Professional Staff. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KING 

Senator KING. Good morning. The Rules Committee will come to 

order. Good morning to everyone who has joined us. Senator 

Whitehouse is at the table. 

This hearing is the Committee’s second hearing following the Supreme Court’s McCutcheon decision earlier this year that looks at 

issues surrounding money in our political system. 

In April, the Committee met to hear from a panel of experts 

about the McCutcheon decision and how our campaign finance 

landscape has changed in recent years. We know that McCutcheon 

coupled with the Citizens United decision have created an environment where we will see record amounts of money spent to influence 

elections around the country. Today’s hearing will focus specifically 

on the issue of campaign finance in American politics and the need 

for expanded disclosure. 

Our constitutional system contains many provisions that are in 

tension with one another, important provisions which often touch 

our basic rights and responsibilities in sometimes conflicting and 

contradictory ways. One of these, which I wrestle with daily as a 

member of the Intelligence Committee, for example, is the tension 

between the fundamental charge of the Preamble that we are to 

provide for the common defense and ensure the domestic tranquility, while at the same time observing the privacy protections of 

the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. 
864 

Another example is the subject of today’s hearing: How do we respect and enhance the freedom of expression enshrined in the First 

Amendment while protecting the Government from being corrupted 

by the unchecked flow of money to public officials? We have wrestled with this problem for well over 100 years through periodic 

scandals and periodic corrections, new laws and new ways to evade 

those laws. But as I observed at the outset of our Committee’s 

hearing on this subject several months ago, we have never seen 

anything like what is happening today. 

The average Senator now must raise more than $5,000 a day, 7 

days a week, 365 days a year for 6 years in order to be prepared 

for the next election. But as disheartening as that is, it is only part 

of the story. 

Over the last decade, and accelerating in the last 4 or 5 years, 

is a new phenomenon: the unchecked, unlimited, undisclosed gusher of money from individuals, interest groups, and shadowy organizations that has become a kind of parallel universe of essentially 

unregulated campaign cash. 

In recent years, the Supreme Court has steadily chipped away at 

two of the three pillars of the campaign finance regulation concept, 

which goes back to the early days of the last century, and has effectively eliminated limits on sources and amounts. But the Court’s 

fundamental basis for doing so was the assumption that the third 

pillar—disclosure of the source of contributions—remained as a 

bulwark against corruption which would otherwise threaten the 

heart of our political process. 

Justice Roberts in the McCutcheon case said, ‘‘Disclosure of contributions minimizes the potential for abuse of the campaign finance system. Disclosure requirements are in part justified based 

upon a governmental interest in providing the electorate with information about the sources of election-related spending. They may 

also deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption 

by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of 

publicity.’’ 

That is Justice Roberts. And he makes total sense. But, sadly, 

this kind of disclosure, the disclosure which the Court relied upon 

as a principal justification for the McCutcheon and Citizens United 

decisions simply does not exist under today’s campaign finance 

laws, and the result is an almost total loss of accountability, the 

hiding of vital information from voters—who it is that is trying to 

influence their votes—and an inevitable slide toward corruption 

and scandal. 

I know that many consider this a partisan issue. I do not. Although the momentary advantage under the present system appears to favor the Republicans, the whim of a couple of liberal billionaires could change that perception overnight. This is a systemic 

issue which should be fixed with an eye to the long-term health of 

our democracy, not a fine calculation of who might gain an edge in 

the next election. 

Today we meet to consider a bill to remedy the shortfall. Senator 

Whitehouse has been a leader on this issue for many years. His bill 

is not the only bill. I also have a bill, the Real Time Transparency 

Act, which would require Members of Congress, PACs, and political 
865 

committees to report $1,000 donations electronically within 48 

hours. 

Probably the purest form of free political speech in America is 

the traditional New England town meeting. It is a place where citizens from all walks of life gather together, usually on a cool Saturday morning in early March, to debate, argue, and decide the 

school budget, whether to buy a new police cruiser, or which roads 

will be paved in the coming year. I have been to those meetings 

in Maine, and I have heard the spirited debates and seen some 

folks go home angry and hurt when their point of view did not prevail. 

But everyone speaks up for themselves in Maine, and I have 

never seen someone stand to speak in disguise. I have never seen 

someone stand to speak in disguise. We know who is doing the 

talking, and that in itself is valuable information. And so it should 

be in November. Because what is an election but a big town meeting where the people decide the future of their community or their 

country? And an essential part of the debate, an essential part of 

how we make decisions is knowing who is doing the talking. 

Senator Roberts. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERTS 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For those of us who opposed the McCain-Feingold bill, it is always an interesting experience to hear concerns being expressed 

about the current state of our campaign finance system. I opposed 

that legislation, along with most of my Republican colleagues, because we feared it would make our system worse, not better. We 

feared it would not get money out of the system but would simply 

divert it to other sources. That has now come to pass. It was not 

hard to predict. 

Unfortunately, instead of recognizing the folly and the futility of 

the last regulatory scheme, the majority seeks to impose a new one, 

this time under the guise of disclosure. 

Now, that sounds harmless enough. It sounds very reasonable, 

especially when it is articulated by my good friend. The bill before 

the Committee today has been introduced in one form or another 

in each of the last three Congresses. Though the provisions have 

varied in some respects, the goal has been consistent: to suppress 

speech by imposing costly and burdensome regulations on its exercise. 

While other efforts to achieve this goal have been struck down 

as unconstitutional by the courts, the majority has attempted to 

use disclosure as a means to erect a new regulatory scheme to silence their opponents. This effort must be seen in the context of 

their larger goal to amend the First Amendment to permit even 

more regulation of political speech. 

I have here the Constitution of the United States and also the 

First Amendment: ‘‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or 

abridging the freedom of speech.’’ It also mentions the press and 

the right of the people peacefully to assemble and to petition the 

Government for a redress of grievances, whether it be in Kansas 

or in New England. 
866 

This effort must be seen, again, in the context of the larger goal 

to amend the First Amendment to permit even more regulation of 

political speech. I repeated that on purpose. 

The Judiciary Committee has reported a constitutional amendment, which our Majority Leader has said we will be voting on in 

September that would allow the Congress to impose reasonable restrictions on speech. Luckily, previous considerations of the DISCLOSE Act provide some insight into what the majority regards as 

reasonable. 

For starters, when the DISCLOSE Act was considered by the 

House in 2010, the restrictions and obligations it imposed were applied to groups disfavored by the majority. A number of corporations were simply prohibited from speaking. Government contractors and TARP recipients were prohibited from making independent expenditures. During floor consideration, an amendment 

was added to also prohibit speech by companies that explore and 

produce oil and gas on the Outer Continental shelf. What is that 

all about? Well, the bill was on the floor soon after the Deepwater 

Horizon spill, you see, so this was an easy target. 

Not surprisingly, the majority thought it was perfectly reasonable to prevent any of these companies from speaking, but did not 

think it was necessary to extend those restrictions to the unions 

that might represent the workforce in these companies. Republican 

amendments to extend the restrictions to these unions were rejected. The majority did not find them reasonable, apparently. In 

some cases, groups were excluded from the disclosure obligation 

solely because the votes were not there to include them. 

That is what happens once the Congress starts to impose speech 

restrictions. The restrictions get applied to whoever does not have 

enough votes in the Congress to prevent them. That is why the 

First Amendment begins, ‘‘Congress shall make no law . . . ’’ Imposing speech regulations based on the whims of whatever party happens to be in the majority in Congress at a given time is not a reasonable exercise, but it is exactly what happens once we start down 

this path. 

I give this little recent history lesson, Mr. Chairman, because I 

think it is important we not try to fool ourselves or anybody else 

about what is going on here. There is no mystery about the purpose 

of the DISCLOSE Act, this version or any other prior one. We 

know the majority is upset about the ads that are attacking them 

and their agenda. We know they want those ads to stop. We know 

they hope new disclosure requirements will achieve that goal. We 

know they think the requirements they want to impose are reasonable. We just do not agree. 

We do not believe new regulations will improve our system. We 

do not think imposing new costs on the exercise of free speech 

rights will improve our democracy. 

If the IRS targeting scandal has taught us anything, it should be 

that giving Federal bureaucrats control over the political activity of 

American citizens is a recipe for disaster. It is time to admit the 

failure of the regulatory model and reverse the mistake we made 

when we passed McCain-Feingold and the Federal Election Campaign Act before it. I know my friends in the majority want to silence their opponents by any available means, but they should stop 
867 

trying. New regulations will not make our system better. Getting 

rid of the regulations we have will. 

If we really want disclosure, we should be advancing proposals 

that will redirect resources to the candidates and the parties. That 

is long overdue. They are fully accountable and fully disclose everything they spend and receive. Getting rid of the limits on parties 

and candidates would increase transparency and enhance disclosure. If disclosure is the goal, that is the way to achieve it. Unfortunately, the DISCLOSE Act has another goal, one no American 

who supports the Constitution should support. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KING. We are pleased to have join us this morning the 

distinguished Republican Leader, Senator McConnell. Senator 

McConnell, a statement? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR McCONNELL 

Senator MCCONNELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Roberts. I appreciate the opportunity to be here to talk about the DISCLOSE Act, and I will get right to it. 

The proposal is not new. This is the third time we have seen it. 

But it is precisely because of the doggedness of the proponents of 

this bill that I have come here today to make my observations. 

For more than two centuries, we have had regularly scheduled 

elections in our country. Every 2 years, the major parties present 

a vision for the future with confidence in the people, with confidence that the marketplace of ideas, the best arguments, will win 

out. And yet every 2 years now, with near metronomic regularity, 

our friends on the other side can now be expected to propose some 

new attempt to silence their critics, or in the case of the DISCLOSE Act, an old attempt to silence critics. 

Sadly, it has now come to the point where you can set your clock 

to the Democrats’ attempt to stifle the free speech rights of the 

American people. To me, this means they have either lost confidence in the centuries-old bargain that said the best political argument will prevail or they have simply lost faith in the First 

Amendment itself. 

But either way, it is now fairly clear that our friends on the 

other side have given up on the power of their governing vision 

alone to carry the day electorally. That is not just a shame; it is 

not just a commentary on the left, and it is not simply some political stunt aimed at exciting the base in an election year, because 

if that is all it was, we could just dismiss it and move on. 

But it is actually far worse than all that. Collectively and individually, these continued efforts to weaken voter participation in 

our elections poses a real threat to the right of free speech in this 

country, something which is guaranteed by the First Amendment 

to the Bill of Rights and which has ensured the integrity of the political process in this country for more than two centuries. We have 

not always lived up to the promise of the First Amendment as a 

Nation, but we have always had recourse to it in correcting past 

mistakes. And no one—no one—should be tampering with it. 

Yet again and again in recent years, that is just exactly what we 

have seen. We saw it on shameful display at the IRS, as detailed 

in the IG report on the agency’s activities leading up to the 2012 
868 

election and in the administration’s subsequent efforts to codify 

through regulation just the kind of targeting that took place. We 

saw it in recent efforts by Democrats to empower Congress, as Senator Roberts pointed out, through a constitutional amendment to 

limit the free speech rights of individuals and groups—a truly radical proposal that would end all arguments about what little regard 

our friends on the other side have for the rights of free citizens to 

set the direction of our country. And we have seen it three times 

now in the biennial revival of the DISCLOSE Act. 

Let me be blunt. This proposal is little more than a crude intimidation tactic masquerading as good government. And the fact that 

we have been forced to consider it once again is the clearest proof 

yet that our friends on the other side are fixated—on suppressing 

speech. 

It is no secret that the First Amendment has been a consuming 

passion of mine for many years. I have fought hard to defend it on 

the Senate floor and in the highest Court of the land. It has pitted 

me at times against members of my own party, including President 

Bush. And in its defense, I have occasionally formed alliances with 

some unlikely allies. Among them is the American Civil Liberties 

Union, and I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, consent to enclose 

a letter from the ACLU opposing the DISCLOSE Act in the record 

at this point. 

Senator KING. Without objection. 

[The letter was submitted for the record:] 

Senator MCCONNELL. It is to the great credit of the ACLU that, 

even though largely not aligned with most members of my party on 

most issues, they have stood strong in opposition to the DISCLOSE 

Act. I am grateful for their efforts on this issue yet again. 

Some might say that the arguments on both sides of this proposal hardly need repeating since Democrats have now proposed it 

on three separate occasions, but I see it differently. In my view, it 

is precisely when we stop speaking out against proposals like this 

that we are in the greatest danger of ceding our rights to those who 

would deprive us of them. 

Whenever our friends spring from behind closed doors with a bill 

like this one, we need to be ready to respond in kind. And in this 

case, the first part of that response should be to point out the obvious. At a time when millions of Americans are struggling to find 

work, small businesses are sputtering under the weight of an increasingly brazen regulatory state, our VA system is failing our 

veterans, and tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors have 

been flowing across the border without any clear policy solution 

from either the White House or Democratic leaders in Congress, 

Democratic leaders should not be focused on a bill the primary purpose of which is to silence their critics. Their persistence at this 

particular moment is eloquent testimony to where the priorities lie. 

The second thing I would like to say about this proposal is that 

the entire premise for it is utterly baseless. The supposed justification of this bill is the need to ‘‘do something’’ about certain people 

in voluntary associations participating in the political process. But 

this, of course, gets it exactly backwards. We should not be trying 

to think of ways to keep people from participating in the political 

process. We should be encouraging more of it. As veteran columnist 
869 

George Will has noted, the political process is not some private club 

in which the parties and candidates control the membership. And 

yet that is precisely what the DISCLOSE Act aims to do. 

Now, I know our Democratic friends are frustrated. Prior attempts to pass a constitutional amendment limiting political speech 

have failed spectacularly, hitting a high watermark of 40 votes in 

2001. 

The Supreme Court has also spoken clearly and emphatically 

that, under the Constitution, free speech is not limited to corporations that own liberal media outlets. 

The purpose of the DISCLOSE Act is to get around all of that. 

If the supporters of this proposal cannot suppress individuals or 

groups, the thinking on the left goes, then they should just go after 

the funding that amplifies the message, and they will do it in the 

old-fashioned way, through donor harassment and intimidation. 

We have seen this kind of thing before, my friends, perhaps most 

vividly in the 1950s when the State of Alabama tried to get its 

hands on the donor list of the NAACP. The Supreme Court knew 

what that was about, which is why they ruled against forced disclosure then. They knew that the forced disclosure of donors mitigated 

against the rights of free association, because if people have reason 

to fear that their names and reputations will be attacked because 

of the causes they support, well, then, they are less likely to support them, of course. And that is the last thing we should want in 

a free society. 

The FEC, interestingly enough, has applied this same principle, 

by the way, in protecting the donor list of the Socialist Workers 

Party, which most of you probably did not even known existed. The 

FEC has supported protecting the donor list of the Socialist Workers Party since 1979. So we have seen what the loudest proponents 

of disclosure have intended in the past, and it is not good government. 

The President likes to say that the only people who oppose disclosure are people who have something to hide. History tells us 

otherwise. The sad fact is this kind of Government-led intimidation 

is part of a much broader effort that has been underway within the 

Obama administration for years. We have seen parallel efforts at 

suppressing speech at the FCC, the SEC, the IRS, DOJ, and HHS. 

And the tactics we saw during the 2012 campaign speak for themselves, from the enemies list of conservative donors on the Obama 

campaign’s Web site to the strategic name dropping of conservative 

targets by the President’s political advisers. And that is what this 

proposal is about. It is about harvesting the names of donors in the 

hopes of driving them off the playing field. We have seen it before, 

and we are seeing it now. 

So let me just repeat today what I have said elsewhere on this 

entire effort. No individual or group in this country should have to 

face harassment or intimidation or incur crippling expenses defending themselves against their own Government simply because that 

Government does not like the message they are advocating. It is 

pretty simple, really. If you cannot convince people of the wisdom 

of your policies, it is time to come up with better arguments. 

But tampering with our First Amendment rights is a dangerous 

business, and that is what this legislation before us aims to do. It 
870 

is an unprecedented requirement for groups to publicly disclose 

their donors, stripping a protection recognized and solidified by the 

courts. From the NAACP to the Sierra Club to the Chamber of 

Commerce, every one of them would now be forced to subject their 

members to the kind of public intimidation we have seen at other 

moments in our history. 

The authors of this bill have sought bipartisan cover for this latest effort by claiming that labor unions would also be required to 

disclose their donors under this bill. Upon closer inspection, however, it becomes clear that through a cynical and elaborate scheme 

of thresholds and triggers, these unions are given, of course, a free 

pass, and that just underscores who the true targets of this legislation are. The targets are anyone who criticizes Democrats. 

Which brings me to the final point. For 4 years now, we have 

heard how the Supreme Court unleashed a torrent of corporate 

money into the political process through the Citizens United ruling. 

Well, here is the truth. Individuals from New York to California 

have given tens of millions of dollars to candidates and causes, as 

is their First Amendment right. But the big money, it turns out, 

is coming from the same unions that are exempted from this bill, 

which, by one count, have spent nearly $4.5 billion over the past 

9 years on politics, including $800 million in 2008 alone. 

So for those who want to ‘‘do something,’’ allow me to make a 

humble suggestion. Instead of suppressing free speech, let us look 

to State models for guidance. The endless web of campaign finance 

laws we have seen at the Federal level have done nothing but sow 

confusion. But they have been good for one group: The election lawyers are doing great. 

A simpler, more reasoned approach would be for us to adopt the 

Virginia plan: remove the limits, allow candidates to accept and report all contributions, and let the citizens decide what is proper or 

not. Money will never be removed from politics. It is just like trying 

to put a rock on Jell-O. It just moves somewhere else. The intellectually honest approach is to remove the rock. 

So, in closing, Mr. Chairman, I will continue to do everything in 

my power to protect the First Amendment rights from this latest 

iteration of the DISCLOSE Act and every other effort to suppress 

the free speech rights of the American people. And I sincerely hope 

my colleagues, all of whom swore the same oath to support and defend the Constitution that I did, will stand up. The First Amendment undergirds all other rights. We need to defend it with everything we have got. 

Thank you. 

Senator KING. Thank you. Thank you, Senator McConnell. 

Senator Udall. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR UDALL 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman King, and it is good to see 

my good friend Senator Whitehouse here, who has always been a 

champion of open and fair elections. And I very much support his 

DISCLOSE Act and hope that we can move it forward. 

We have a serious problem and a great challenge. Our campaign 

finance system is failing and it is broken. It is being dismantled 

step by step by a narrow majority of the Supreme Court, taking us 
871 

back to Watergate-era rules, the same rules that fostered corruption, outraged voters, and prompted campaign finance regulations 

in the first place, from 1976 in Buckley v. Valeo, when the Court 

first tied campaign cash to free speech, to Citizens United, when 

the tortured logic reached its peak and corporations became people. 

The Court’s McCutcheon decision in April was the latest blow, further opening the floodgates for wealthy individuals to donate to an 

unlimited number of candidates. At this point, five conservative 

Justices have said preventing outright bribery is the only legitimate basis for regulation. 

This is not about free speech, and the American people know it. 

It is about wealthy interests trying to buy elections, in secret, with 

no limits, period. Because the speech we are talking about here is 

not free, Citizens United and McCutcheon are not about the grassroots small donor. It is about the big guys, the really big guys— 

billionaires and millionaires. 

Politico reporter Ken Vogel has come out with a book about the 

new era of campaign spending. He calls the book ‘‘Big Money.’’ He 

reports that outside groups, super PACs, and other independent 

outfits spent $2.5 billion in the 2012 campaign. Open a newspaper. 

We are seeing more and more political coverage about which billionaires are spending tens of millions of dollars on the political 

system. This is all coming at the expense of middle-class citizens 

and the challenges they face. It is a broken system based on a 

flawed premise that spending money on elections is the same thing 

as free speech. 

There are only two ways to fix this: the Court overturns Buckley, 

which is not likely, or amend the Constitution to overturn previous 

misguided Court decisions and prevent future ones. That is why I 

built on bipartisan efforts going back decades and introduced S.J. 

Res. 19 last June to restore the historic authority of Congress to 

regulate the raising and spending of money for Federal political 

campaigns. This would include independent expenditures and 

would allow States to do the same at their level. It would not dictate any specific policies or regulations, but it would allow Congress to pass sensible campaign finance reform laws that withstand 

constitutional challenges. 

We are seeing momentum. S.J. Res. 19 was just reported by the 

Judiciary Committee last month. It now has 46 cosponsors. And a 

companion measure has been introduced in the House with more 

than 110 cosponsors. I will continue to push for a constitutional 

amendment. We need comprehensive reform, but then in the interim we also need to follow the money, which is exactly what Senator Whitehouse and the DISCLOSE Act intend to do. 

The DISCLOSE Act of 2014 asks a basic and more than fair 

question: Where does the money come from, and where is it going? 

The American people deserve to know who is spending all this 

money to influence their vote, and they deserve to know before, not 

after, they head to the polls. That is what the DISCLOSE Act will 

achieve. It is practical, sensible, and long overdue. We have a broken system. McCutcheon is the latest misguided decision. It will 

not be the last. Congress needs to take back control by passing a 

constitutional amendment. We all know that it will take time. In 
872 

the meantime, the checkbooks will be out, the money will keep 

flowing. We should pass the DISCLOSE Act. 

Billionaires may keep spending, but they cannot keep hiding. 

Americans are losing faith in our electoral system. There is just too 

much money hidden in the shadows. It is time to restore that faith. 

The DISCLOSE Act is a step in the right direction. 

You know, it was said here several times over and over again 

that somehow this is about free speech. What DISCLOSE is about 

is the basic core principle of the voters knowing where the money 

is coming from. Hundreds of millions of dark money—and I see a 

chart here on the table that I know Senator Whitehouse is going 

to talk about. Hundreds of millions of dark money in 2012 and in 

2010 are infiltrating the system. Nobody knows who gives that 

money except the billionaires and millionaires who are doing it. 

So thank you, Senator Whitehouse, for being here today, and 

thank you very much, Chairman King, for holding this very, very 

important hearing on our democracy. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

We have two panels today. The first is Senator Whitehouse, who 

is the principal sponsor of the DISCLOSE Act, and he has been involved in this issue for some years. And, Senator Whitehouse, we 

look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, A 

UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Chairman King 

and Ranking Member Roberts, for convening this important hearing on the need for public disclosure of who is behind the funds 

raised and spent to influence Federal elections, not to silence or 

limit that speech, to be clear, just to have the public know who is 

behind the funds raised and spent to influence Federal elections. 

I am pleased to testify about the DISCLOSE Act, which I introduced with 50 colleagues last month, to end the toxic scourge of 

massive, undisclosed spending in elections, a scourge that is undermining public faith in our democracy, happily for the special interests who want to pull strings behind the scenes and who profit 

from a discouraged citizenry. 

The Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision opened the 

floodgates to unlimited corporate in elections. Every day it becomes 

clearer that this decision will go down as one of the Court’s worst, 

like such discredited rulings as Lochner v. New York. Citizens 

United is so far the crowning achievement of a set of politicized, 

activist judges who are acting, to quote Justice Breyer, ‘‘like junior 

varsity politicians.’’ 

This term’s McCutcheon decision, which struck down aggregate 

limits on individual donations, has compounded the need for this 

transparency. This year, the toxic influence of Citizens United can 

be seen in the country’s most competitive Senate races. According 

to the Wesleyan Media Project, roughly 90 percent of all television 

ads in both the Michigan and North Carolina Senate races have 

been run by outside groups. Many of these independent groups 

mislead voters and give no clear idea of who is supporting or opposing the candidates. 
873 

When groups can run ad campaigns without disclosing their true 

identities, they freely resort to vicious and dishonest attack ads 

with no fear of anyone being held accountable for those claims. 

The DISCLOSE Act would help rein in what one Kentucky columnist has dubbed this ‘‘Tsunami of Slime.’’ The bill, which is unchanged from the version introduced in July 2012, would require 

organizations spending money in elections, including super PACs 

and tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups, to promptly disclose donors who 

have given $10,000 or more during an election cycle. The bill includes robust transfer reporting requirements to prevent political 

operatives from using shell corporations to hide donor identities. 

Provisions such as the high disclosure threshold protect membership organizations from having to disclose their member lists and 

allow organizations to exempt donors who do not wish their contributions to be used for political purposes. 

We do have to do this together. We tried to get this legislation 

passed in 2010, and Republicans filibustered. We tried again in 

2012, and again Republicans filibustered. It will take Republicans 

to join us to get this done. 

There is a chance of that. It was not too long ago that Republicans supported disclosure. Here is what Republican colleagues 

have said about disclosure in the past: 

‘‘I do not like it when a large source of money is out there funding ads and is unaccountable,’’ one said. 

As another put it, ‘‘I think the system needs more transparency 

so people can more easily reach their own conclusions.’’ 

A third colleague summed it up nicely: ‘‘Virtually everybody in 

the Senate is in favor of enhanced disclosure, greater disclosure. 

That is really hardly a controversial subject.’’ 

Leader McConnell back in the day said, ‘‘Virtually everybody in 

the Senate is in favor of enhanced disclosure. Public disclosure of 

campaign contributions should be expedited,’’ he said, ‘‘so voters 

can judge for themselves what is appropriate.’’ 

They were right then, and Americans know it now. 

Americans of all political stripes are disgusted by the influence 

of unlimited, anonymous cash in our elections and by campaigns 

that prize billionaire backers and secretive slush funds. We need 

to pull together and solve this. 

Passing the DISCLOSE Act would at least make transparent the 

anonymous money pouring into elections and would signal to the 

American people that Congress is committed to fairness and openness. As a Republican former Federal Election Commission Chairman, Trevor Potter, has said, this bill is, and I will quote him, ‘‘appropriately targeted, narrowly tailored, clearly constitutional, and 

desperately needed.’’ 

In 2010 we came within one vote in this chamber of passing the 

DISCLOSE Act. This year, let us redouble our efforts to contain the 

damage done by Citizens United with transparency. We must preserve Government of the people, by the people, and for the people 

from this tide of unlimited, unaccountable, and anonymous money 

polluting our elections from this tsunami of slime. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 
874 

Senator KING. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. I appreciate your 

testimony, and I appreciate your sponsorship and strong support of 

this legislation. 

I would like to ask our second panel to take their seats at the 

table, please. We will now hear from our second panel. 

First, Ms. Heather Gerken, who is the J. Skelly Wright Professor 

of Law at Yale Law School and a Commissioner on the Bipartisan 

Policy Center’s Commission on Political Reform. 

And, second, Mr. Bradley A. Smith, Chairman of the Center for 

Competitive Politics. 

I see that Senator Schumer, the Chair of the Committee has 

joined us. Senator Schumer? 

Chairman SCHUMER. Yes, I was going to congratulate Senator 

Whitehouse on his great work here, so I will do that and now turn 

it back over to you, Mr. Chairman. And I will be back in a minute. 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

And Mr. Daniel Tokaji, the Robert M. Duncan/Jones Day Designated Professor of Law at the Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law, was planning to be here today, but a plane delay has 

kept him from joining us. But his testimony will be inserted into 

the record. He will be available to answer questions for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tokaji was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator KING. Thank you both for joining us today, and I would 

like to ask each of you to limit your statements to 5 minutes, and 

then we can ask questions. And I know that you both have submitted longer written statements, which will be submitted into the 

record of the Committee, without objection. 

Ms. Gerken, could you proceed, please? You need to press the 

button, I think, to start your microphone. 

STATEMENT OF HEATHER K. GERKEN, J. SKELLY WRIGHT 

PROFESSOR OF LAW, YALE LAW SCHOOL, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 

Ms. GERKEN. Thank you very much, Chairman King and Senator 

Roberts. 

Robust disclosure mechanisms are an essential foundation for 

any campaign finance system, and ours are neither adequate nor 

effective. Dark money flows freely through the system and grows 

in significance each election cycle. The need for adequate disclosure 

mechanisms has become even more important as the Supreme 

Court dismantles much of our current campaign finance system, 

leaving American politics even more vulnerable to money’s hidden 

influence than before. 

I want to make three points today. 

First, disclosure rules have garnered considerable bipartisan support, and with good reason. Disclosure sits at the sweet spot in policymaking, where democratic idealism and political realism meet. 

These rules provide the American people with the information they 

need to make informed decisions without placing restrictions on 

where and how donors spend their money. 

As a result, outside of Washington’s tight circles, transparency 

measures enjoy a high level of support among policymakers, academics, and the American people. 
875 

As one of the 29 Commissioners on the Bipartisan Policy Center’s 

Commission on Political Reform, which was chaired by Senators 

Trent Lott, Olympia Snowe, and Tom Daschle, Secretary Dan 

Glickman, and Governor Dick Kempthorne, I witnessed firsthand 

what happens when a bipartisan and savvy group debates about 

transparency. 

After a lively debate, the Commission recommended the disclosure of ‘‘all political contributions, including those made to outside 

or it groups,’’ and I would like to emphasize that it did so unanimously. 

My academic work has also convinced me of the importance of robust disclosure rules. What I have called ‘‘shadow parties’’ have 

emerged—independent organizations like 501(c)(4)s and super 

PACs that exist outside of the formal party structures and closely 

cooperate with campaigns even if they do not, as a legal matter, 

coordinate with them. These shadow parties enjoy substantial advantages over the formal parties in terms of fundraising capacity. 

But many—specifically, 501(c)(4)s—also offer donors another significant advantage: anonymity. 

These shadow parties are shifting the center of gravity away 

from the formal party apparatus into private and non-transparent 

organizations. An important report authored by Professor Tokaji 

and Renata Strause offers compelling evidence of the new problems 

associated with this regime, and I would be happy to discuss that 

during questions and answers. 

Second, transparency mandates stand on firmer constitutional 

footing than any other type of campaign finance regulation. Do not 

let cases from the 1950s, when lynching and murders occurred, 

mislead you. While the First Amendment limits Congress’ ability to 

regulate campaign finance generally, the Court has concluded that 

transparency rules promote First Amendment values by providing 

Americans with the information they need to evaluate the ads that 

they watch. With the exception of Justice Thomas, the Justices who 

are the most skeptical of campaign finance regulations generally 

have consistently voted to uphold transparency measures and have 

authored many of the touchstone opinions in this area. 

Finally, there are a variety of models for ensuring that disclosure 

requirements remain robust and efficacious over many election cycles. Wade Gibson, Webb Lyons, and I have proposed a new one 

aimed at the central problem in campaign finance law which Senator Roberts mentioned, which is keeping up with the ever changing strategies that donors use to conceal their influence. Whenever 

regulations make it harder for wealthy donors to fund politics 

through one outlet, they tend to find another. And Congress and 

the FEC have long struggled with this question as each new election cycle new organizations emerge. We think of it as the carnival 

equivalent of Whack-A-Mole. 

Our proposal avoids what Senator Roberts is worried about, 

which is the Whack-A-Mole problem because it regulates the ad, 

not the organization. Rather than trying to guess which organizations will emerge in the next campaign cycle, we offer a very simple fix. Any advertisement funded, directly or indirectly, by an organization that does not disclose its donors must simply acknowl-
876 

edge that fact with a truthful disclaimer: ‘‘This ad was paid for by 

X,’’ which does not disclose the identity of its donors. 

The fix is universal and flexible enough to accommodate changes 

in future election cycles, and because it offers universal disclosure, 

it guarantees that regulations will keep pace with politics. 

For all these reasons, now is the right moment for Congress to 

pass new disclosure requirements. This is one of the rare instances 

where the need for change is significant, the time is ripe, and the 

American people are ready. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gerken was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator KING. Our next witness is Mr. Brad Smith, Bradley 

Smith, who is the Chair of the Center for Competitive Politics. Mr. 

Smith, we are delighted to have you here. I read your testimony 

in full, and I must say very impressive and thoughtful testimony. 

I appreciate the effort that you have put forth to discuss this issue 

with us. Mr. Smith? 

STATEMENT OF BRADLEY A. SMITH, CHAIRMAN, CENTER FOR 

COMPETITIVE POLITICS, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your kind words, and 

thank you, Senator Roberts, as well. 

Let us start with the basic fact. There are currently more laws 

mandating public disclosure of politically related spending than at 

any time in our Nation’s history. None of these disclosure laws 

have been altered in any way by the Supreme Court in Citizens 

United, in McCutcheon, or in any other decision. Candidates, political parties, PACs, super PACs already disclose all of their donors 

and expenditures beyond the most de minimus amounts. Federal 

law also requires reporting of all independent expenditures over 

$250 and of all ‘‘electioneering communications’’ of over $10,000, including the names of donors who contribute for those purposes. 

This information is all publicly available on the FEC Web site. 527 

organizations that are not State- or FEC-registered PACs also report all donors to the Internal Revenue Service, which makes that 

information available to the public. 

Additionally, the FCC requires broadcast ads to include the identity of a spender to be made public within the ad itself and requires 

further information to be made available through the political file 

each station is compelled to maintain. 

Given this extensive disclosure regime, it is simply a misnomer 

to talk of dark money or non-disclosing groups. Rather, what we 

have is a system in which some politically related spending occurs 

with less information than some people would like about the spenders’ members, donors, and internal operations. 

Assuming that this is a problem, the question is how big a problem is it. The FEC reports that $7.3 billion was spent on Federal 

races in 2012. Approximately $311 million of that was spent by organizations that did not itemize and disclose all of their donors; 

that is, a bit under 4.5 percent of total spending came from groups 

that did not itemize their donors. 

Even this number tends to overstate the issue because many of 

these groups are well known to the public, groups such as the 
877 

League of Conservation Voters and the United States Chamber of 

Commerce. But some still ask, Why not seek still more information? Why not dig further into the disclosure well? Well, there are 

several reasons. 

First, studies show that compulsory disclosure disproportionately 

limits smaller grassroots organizations, particularly organizations 

that rely on volunteers. This is simply because of the regulatory 

compliance issues. 

Second, transfer provisions of the DISCLOSE Act would create a 

fundraising nightmare for nonprofits, even those that do no political work at all, hindering general nonprofits’ social welfare activity 

in society at large. 

Third, the DISCLOSE Act creates a great deal of junk disclosure. 

Much of the disclosure required by the act would actually confuse 

the public. It would be unfair to persons who would have their 

names attached to speech they did not intend to or did not actually 

fund, and it would be misleading as to the amounts actually spent 

on political activity by requiring double, triple, and even more frequent counting of the same money. 

Finally, we cannot overlook the costs in privacy that come with 

excessive compulsory disclosure, costs which have led the Supreme 

Court to repeatedly strike down excessive disclosure laws, including in the 1970s, 1990s, and 2000s. DISCLOSE, if passed, will certainly be challenged on constitutional grounds. But even if it were 

to withstand those challenges, this body should recognize and show 

consideration for the privacy and other interests that would justify 

such a challenge. The purpose of disclosure is to allow citizens to 

monitor their Government. It is not to allow the Government to 

monitor the political activity of its citizens. 

As the ACLU has put it, ‘‘Absent anonymity, some donors on 

both the left and right will simply not donate out of a legitimate 

fear that they will be harassed or retaliated against for their advocacy.’’ 

We cannot have a serious hearing today without recognizing the 

cost that compulsory disclosure has for unpopular speakers and 

new, often unpopular, ideas—that may in later years become quite 

popular, as was the case with abolition or more recently same-sex 

marriage. The CEO of a consumer business in West Virginia or 

Kentucky who believes that coal should be more heavily regulated; 

the small-town Alabama businessman who wants to fund a suit by 

the ACLU challenging prayer in the area’s public schools; a Montana businesswoman who favors gun control—these people should 

not be compelled by the Government to put forward information 

that will lead others to boycott them and destroy their businesses. 

Rightly or wrongly, and regardless of what some members of this 

panel may want to hear, millions of Americans already believe that 

their Government is inappropriately spying on them. Tens of millions of Americans do believe—and I think there is enough evidence that this is hardly irrational, even if some think it is incorrect—that the IRS is being used as a tool to harass points of view 

that are critical of the current Executive. There are millions of 

Americans who hear a Senator publicly call for criminal prosecutions of political activity, and they see themselves as the intended 

target of that Senator’s wrath. 
878 

Too often today, disclosure is not used to evaluate messages; 

rather, people admit that they openly hate the message and seek 

to use disclosure to stop the speech altogether. As one organizer 

stated a while back, years ago we would never have been able to 

get a blacklist together so fast and quickly. Thanks to compulsory 

disclosure and computers, it is much easier to blacklist fellow 

Americans than in the past, but many Americans will not see this 

as progress. 

Frankly, the approval of this bill is unlikely to improve trust in 

Government precisely because many people do not trust the Government now. If you wish to increase that trust and create a climate in which serious improvements, bipartisan improvements in 

disclosure laws can be considered, then you must at least appear 

to take seriously the fact that the Inspector General for Treasury 

has found that the IRS targeted speakers on the basis of their political activity, that the key IRS employee involved has pleaded the 

Fifth Amendment and similarly lost a large cache of e-mails in 

what a poll shows a substantial majority of Americans believe are 

highly suspicious circumstances. 

We must stop proposing to amend the Constitution for what appears to millions of Americans to be nothing more than short-term 

partisan gain, and we must no longer tolerate the disgraceful, ongoing vilification on the floor of the United States of individual citizens because of their lawful political activity. 

In other words, if we wish to create improved trust in Government and create a climate favorable to meaningful and serious revision of disclosure laws, we must first act within this body to create a climate of trust. This bill is not helpful. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator KING. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

We will have 7-minute rounds and questions for both witnesses. 

Ms. Gerken, you mentioned the NAACP case, and I believe Senator McConnell mentioned it as well, where the Supreme Court 

recognized in that case the importance of protecting donor lists. 

Can you distinguish that case from the situation that we are talking about here this morning? 

Ms. GERKEN. So it has always been true that the Supreme Court 

has made sure that there are protections for people who are likely 

to suffer a real threat of harassment, and the case involving the 

NAACP is, of course, the quintessential version of that. We all 

know what was going on in the Deep South in the 1950s. It was 

a dangerous time to be seen as donating and supporting the 

NAACP. 

The Supreme Court continues to reaffirm that precedent, so anyone who is concerned about this level of harassment need only 

show a reasonable probability of harassment. 

What we have not seen, however, is many people succeeding 

under these standards. The National Socialist Workers Party has 

done so, but in two recent high-profile cases, which are often invoked as examples of harassment, when Federal courts look at the 

facts, they have concluded that that level of harassment is not actually a problem. People taking signs off of your doorstep, and 
879 

mooning on one occasion someone, does not constitute a sufficient 

harassment to undermine disclosure rules. 

And I should just note that oftentimes when people talk about 

what constitutes harassment, they talk about consumer boycotts. If 

we are going to talk about the civil rights movement, we should remember, consumer boycotts have long been a robust and treasured 

tool of those who believe in the First Amendment and use their 

power as consumers in order to pursue their aims. 

So harassment of the sort that the National Socialist Workers experienced is grounds for suspending disclosure rules. Harassment 

of the sort that we have seen in recent years has not been. 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

Mr. Smith, you talk very movingly about the plight of the small donor, but doesn’t this bill only apply to $10,000 and above? I 

would not call that necessarily a grassroots donation. Isn’t there a 

distinction to be had? This bill that is before us has a $10,000 and 

above cutoff and does not deal with small contributions. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, obviously most Americans cannot afford to con- tribute $10,000 to any type of cause. However, millions of Americans can, and in fact do, and they often speak for other Americans 

of more modest means who share their points of view. And many 

of these people I think will be dissuaded from participating in the 

system. 

The academic literature is really pretty clear on this that disclosure does dissuade people from spending—not everybody, not most 

people, but it does discourage some people from participating in 

campaigns. 

Senator KING. But what about the issue of information? Part of 

the—it goes back to the beginning of the country. It goes back to 

the statement that Chief Justice Roberts made in McCutcheon, 

that knowing who is doing the talking is part of the information 

voters need in order to assess the message. Isn’t that a legitimate 

public interest? 

Mr. SMITH. I think that is, and I think that is why we have as 

much disclosure as we have. But the Court has never approved, for 

example, it has never given its blessing to something like this act. 

It might do so if given this act, but there is good reason to think 

that it would not. Again, in Buckley v. Valeo, for example, it vastly 

trimmed down the disclosure statutes, in McIntyre v. Ohio Election 

Commission. And so I think that we cannot assume that the Court 

is going to approve this, and there are reasons why we should be 

hesitant about it. What we see more and more now is that, as I 

mentioned, people are not saying, ‘‘Boy, I need to understand this 

ad.’’ Rather, people are saying, ‘‘I hate that speech. I want to stop 

that speech.’’ 

A group called ‘‘Media Matters’’ is out raising funds specifically 

promising to distort and harass people’s speech, i.e., their giving 

and the speech that it funds, in order to gin up public backlash 

against them and ‘‘dissuade’’ them from participating. And I do not 

think Congress should be a party to forcing people to provide information that their political opponents will use to harass and vilify 

them and try to dissuade them from participating in democracy. 

Senator KING. Well, on the constitutional question, the issue of 

disclosure was specifically endorsed very strongly by both Kennedy 
880 

in Citizens United and Roberts in McCutcheon, and it was not a 

minor matter because Justice Thomas dissented on that issue. So 

it clearly looks to me like eight members of the Supreme Court 

have asked us to enact greater disclosure requirements because 

that is the only thing left after they have dismantled the other protections. They have said it is okay that we are doing this because 

we have disclosure, which, of course, we do not. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, I think that that would be something that you 

would undertake at your peril. I mean, they have not endorsed this 

particular item. What they have said is we have a disclosure regime and that is adequate. They have not said if Congress did more 

we would have an adequate disclosure regime. They have specifically talked about what we have on the books and viewed that as 

significant enough. 

It is true, however, that I think the courts—let us put it this 

way: Without those statements, I would tell you flat out I think 

this bill is unconstitutional, and I can only tell you that there 

would be a serious challenge made to it. We should remember, 

though, that anonymity has a long history in the United States, 

from the Federalist Papers; former Chief Justice John Marshall 

used to fund anonymous political speech; Thomas Jefferson used to 

fund anonymous political speech; Abraham Lincoln used to fund 

anonymous political speech. We know that now only years after 

their death, and we should be aware that, again, you can dissuade 

and discourage people from speaking, and we need to be sensitive 

to that. And I think at this point we have a great deal of disclosure, and one of the reasons people are hostile to the idea of extending it further is that they see this as a partisan effort and they 

see the IRS investigations and they say this is exactly why I do not 

want to disclose. 

Senator KING. I can assure you that this Senator does not view 

this as a partisan issue. As I said in my opening statement, I think 

this is a democracy issue. And all we need is a couple of liberal billionaires to start spending in a way that others are, and suddenly 

you would see a change in the atmosphere around here. 

Ms. Gerken, Professor Gerken, is there a disclosure problem? Mr. 

Smith makes the case that we really do not have a disclosure problem; we have got lots of disclosure. But what about what has been 

happening in the last 5 years? 

Ms. GERKEN. No, I appreciate Professor Smith acknowledging 

what the Court said in Citizens United. I have a lot of trouble 

imagining the Court finding this type of regulation to be a problem 

because all it is doing is leveling the playing field. Right now, super 

PACs and political parties have to do a great deal of disclosure. No 

one has suggested that this violates the First Amendment or burdens speech unduly. And so now all we are doing is extending— 

all that the Congress is proposing to do is extending this idea to 

organizations like 501(c)(4)s. And it is incredibly important to do 

that. If you do not level the playing field, then as we have seen 

over time, the (c)(4)s will become increasingly important players 

because they offer something that no one else can offer, which is 

unlimited fundraising ability and anonymity in doing so. 

So this is in some ways the game of regulatory Whack-A–Mole. 

This is imperative. If you do not stop the money here, it is just 
881 

going to keep moving into the (c)(4)s, which is exactly what we 

have seen. Between 2008 and 2012, the amount of money spent in 

the system by undisclosed dark money is roughly three times what 

it was before. 

So this is just simply extending a set of regulations that we have 

lived with for a long time that have never been subject to any serious constitutional doubt to the new organization on the block which 

is spending money in a new way in campaigns. 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

both for coming and for giving excellent testimony. 

Ms. Gerken, your testimony did not endorse the DISCLOSE Act, 

or at least that is how I read it, but I think in terms of your commentary, you probably support it. Do you endorse it? 

Ms. GERKEN. You know, actually no one has ever asked me if I 

have endorsed anything because I am not a Senator. So I do think 

that, one, we need more disclosure rules for the 501(c)(3)s. I think, 

two, this act is constitutional. It is narrowly tailored and sensibly 

targeted at the right opportunities. 

Senator ROBERTS. So you support it. 

Ms. GERKEN. I would support it. If I were in your shoes, I would 

vote for it. 

Senator ROBERTS. Okay. Well, you are not in my shoes. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Maybe one day. 

Senator ROBERTS. They would be a little different shoes, Mr. 

Chairman. 

You like cowboy boots? 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. GERKEN. I am a New Englander. We do not wear cowboy 

boots. 

Senator ROBERTS. That is part of your problem. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. Your bio indicates you were a senior legal adviser to the Obama campaign in 2008 and 2012. The President has 

been criticized for attending fundraisers in the midst of a number 

of international crises. Last week, he was in Manhattan to attend 

a fundraiser for the House Majority PAC. That is a super PAC 

dedicated to electing a Democratic majority in the House. 

The House Majority PAC is one of a number of groups that gets 

support from the Democracy Alliance. Another group that gets support from the Democracy Alliance is the Scholars Support Network. 

You are a member of that. Is that correct? 

Ms. GERKEN. That is right. 

Senator ROBERTS. Following its annual meeting at the Ritz 

Carlton in Chicago this year, Politico reported on a memo to the 

board of the Democracy Alliance that contained the recommendations on how to deal with media inquiries about the conference and 

its participants. This is what the memo said: 

‘‘As a matter of policy, we do not make public the names of our 

members. Rather,’’ the memo went on, ‘‘the Alliance abides by the 

preference of our members. Many of our donors choose not to participate publicly, and we respect that. The Democracy Alliance ex-
882 

ists to provide a comfortable environment for our partners to collectively make a real impact.’’ 

Why would disclosure make some of the members of this alliance 

uncomfortable? 

Ms. GERKEN. So I actually do not know the reason for that. I am 

simply one member of the organization. But I will just say that 

there is a fundamental difference between many of the organizations that we are talking about here and those that are trying to 

affect politics with large amounts of money. The reason why—— 

Senator ROBERTS. All right. Would you—— 

Ms. GERKEN [continuing]. Justice Kennedy—— 

Senator ROBERTS. Would you agree—I am sorry to interrupt, but 

we have got 4 minutes here, although the Chairman has been very 

liberal with his time allowance. Do you agree this desire to remain 

comfortably anonymous should be respected? 

Ms. GERKEN. I will say that if you are trying to use large 

amounts of money to influence politics, then you should do exactly 

what Justice Scalia says, which is to have the civic courage to have 

your name publicly listed. And so I am in support of this bill, and 

if the Scholars Strategy Network started to try and influence politics with large quantities of money, I would be in favor of disclosure. 

Senator ROBERTS. Does the Scholars Support Network publicly 

disclose its donors? 

Ms. GERKEN. I do not actually—I do not think it does, but I do 

not know the answer to that question. As I said before, it is not 

trying to influence—— 

Senator ROBERTS. Shouldn’t that be respected? 

Ms. GERKEN. It is not trying to influence Federal elections. And 

if it were, this bill would ensure that it, in fact, disclosed all of the 

donors that were trying to do so. That is the key to this bill. This 

bill allows for the privacy of groups engaged in a variety of publicoriented activities to remain anonymous—— 

Senator ROBERTS. All right. 

Ms. GERKEN [continuing]. But when they try to influence elections, that money—— 

Senator ROBERTS. I got it. 

Ms. GERKEN [continuing]. And donor must be disclosed. And I 

support that heartily. 

Senator ROBERTS. I got it. 

As a 501(c)(3), it is not supposed to engage in any political activity. Is that right? 

Ms. GERKEN. A 501(c)(3) has—there are a variety of requirements about 501(c)(3), about what it means. But as a general matter, they are not supposed to. 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, how is it then that the Scholars Support 

Network has been supported by the Democracy Alliance which stipulates that each organization it supports be politically active and 

progressive? 

Ms. GERKEN. So the Scholars Strategy Network is a very simple 

thing. It is designed to do something that academics are very bad 

at, which is to figure out how to convey their ideas to the broader 

public and to policymakers. You have thousands of universities 

across the country generating good idea after good idea by people 
883 

who barely go outside during the day, who have never talked to a 

reporter, who have certainly never spoken to a Senator, and have 

no idea how to convey their ideas in a broader way. That network 

is designed to take a bunch of people who are basically nerds and 

help them figure out how to convey their ideas to the real world. 

That is a useful—— 

Senator ROBERTS. Sort of a nerd network? 

Ms. GERKEN. It is a nerd network, but it is a policy-oriented network to get ideas that are already in the public arena to policymakers. That is a very—— 

Senator ROBERTS. I have every confidence that the Chairman of 

the Committee sitting to my right gets calls a lot from nerds and 

all sorts of other people. I do, even in Kansas, the University of 

Kansas, Kansas State, Wichita State University. We have got a lot 

of nerds. New England has nerds, don’t they? 

Senator KING. I do not think there are any in Kansas. 

Senator ROBERTS. I can testify there are nerds in Kansas. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROBERTS. What about the American Constitution Society? At the Chicago conference it took credit for helping to make 

possible the Senate rule changes imposed by the Majority Leader 

that led to the confirmation of ‘‘progressive judges’’ to the D.C. Circuit. You have also been involved with the American Constitution 

Society. Is that correct? 

Ms. GERKEN. Yes, I have. 

Senator ROBERTS. Do they publicly disclose their donors? 

Ms. GERKEN. I do not believe that they do, but they also—if the 

DISCLOSE Act were passed, if they were engaged in using large 

sums of money to influence politics, they would be required to disclose their donors, and that would be a good thing for democracy. 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, my point is you would recognize the Senate rules changes in the appointments to the D.C. Circuit were 

somewhat politicized. Would you agree with that? 

Ms. GERKEN. You know, in this world almost everything is politicized, I suppose. 

Senator ROBERTS. I understand. Would the DISCLOSE Act apply 

to 501(c)(3)s? 

Ms. GERKEN. The DISCLOSE Act is going to apply to any organization that uses money to influence politics. If 501(c)(3)s are engaged in some politicking, then they do something very simple, 

which is they segregate their funds. This is a traditional strategy 

used by many organizations to keep separate these two kinds of donations. That means that donors, for example, who want to support 

the American Constitution Society’s general activities can give 

money without having it go to politics. But if they want ACS to use 

that money to influence politics, to influence the election system, 

then they have to have a segregated fund. That is a very simple— 

it is a simple and elegant solution to the kind of problem that you 

are describing here. 

Senator ROBERTS. I do not know—oh, I have been informed here 

that it does not apply to (c)(3)s. So should it? 

Ms. GERKEN. So this goes back to the—if a 501(c)(3) would like 

to start to influence—to do the things that are outside the usual 

ambit and it starts to take in large quantities of money that are 
884 

going to be used to influence elections, then it is going to have to 

disclose those activities. It would pull itself outside of 501(c)(3)s. 

They would become 501(c)(4)s, presumably. 

Senator ROBERTS. I think you are talking about a regulatory morass, but at any rate, thank you so much for answering my questions. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

I understand a vote has just gone, and Senator Schumer wants 

to have a few words, and then Senator Cruz. We will adjourn to 

vote, and we will be coming back. You all will talk among yourselves while we go and vote, and we will be back. If you can get 

this settled while we are gone, that would be good. 

Senator Schumer. 

Chairman SCHUMER [presiding.] Well, thank you. And first let 

me thank Senator King. He has been chairing a series of hearings 

on this very important issue and has done it in his able, fair, and 

independent way. So thank you very much. 

First, I just wanted to note Senator McConnell came and spoke 

as a member of the Committee and talked about being against the 

DISCLOSE Act. I recall during the days when we debated McCainFeingold, Senator McConnell was a leading advocate of disclosure 

and said that is what we should do, we should not limit contributions but disclosure would be enough. And that was true of most 

of my colleagues who were opposed to McCain-Feingold from the 

other side of the aisle. And then, of course, now all of a sudden 

they are against disclosure, and I would argue that is for political 

advantage. There is no principled reason to be against disclosure. 

This is a democracy. Things are disclosed. Justice Scalia’s statement makes the same. 

And I would just ask my friend Brad Smith, who I know has 

been involved in this for a long time and opposed McCain-Feingold 

and every other limitation on campaigns that is here, why wouldn’t 

the same argument apply to voting? I vote. I get protested all the 

time. Some of those protests are pretty loud and noisy and raucous. 

Maybe we should keep voting secret, what our legislators do, because it might intimidate them. How can you make the distinction 

between the two? Both are participating in the political process. 

The public has a right to know. 

You know, for 200 years it has been regarded as progress that 

there is more and more openness in Government. People decry 

closed-ness in Government. In fact, there is a bipartisan bill coming 

about—I think Senator Cornyn in the Republican sponsor, along 

with Senator Leahy—to make Government more open and available in terms of the bureaucracy. 

It is just confounding and strikes me as perhaps self-interested 

that people are actually against disclosure. There are all kinds of 

arguments about limitations, what you should limit and what you 

should not. And Senator Cruz and I have had an ongoing argument 

about the First Amendment in this regard. That is not what we are 

discussing today because, clearly, you would say there is no First 

Amendment block or any sort of First Amendment right to not disclose. Is that right? Or do you think the First Amendment argues 

for non-disclosure? 
885 

Mr. SMITH. Well, you have a bunch of questions, and I appreciate 

it. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Yes, so you can answer them all. 

Mr. SMITH. And I do want to say, by the way—and you and I 

have not been face to face in, I think, 14 years, but I still remember the great courtesy you showed to my children at my confirmation hearing 14 years ago, and I appreciate that. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Your kids were cute then. Now they are 

probably grown up, right? 

Mr. SMITH. They are. 

Chairman SCHUMER. But to parents, they are always cute, right? 

Mr. SMITH. That is right. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. 

Mr. SMITH. You asked about voting, to begin with, and that 

draws, I think, a key distinction that we make at the Center for 

Competitive Policy. The purpose of disclosure is for the public to 

keep tabs on its legislators, so when legislators vote, of course, the 

public needs to know that. And that is why we support disclosure 

of contributions to candidates, parties, and so on. 

However, when you are talking about citizens talking to other 

citizens, I am less sure that there is a compelling Government interest there. Of course, we note that another type of voting is entirely secret. You are not required to display your vote in any State 

in the United States anymore. Now, Justice Scalia does not believe 

that is a constitutionally protected right to a secret ballot, and I 

think he has got, you know, a solid argument there. But as a policy 

matter, whether it is constitutionally required or not, we have 

agreed that people should have the ability to keep their political 

views quiet. And that goes to the question, when we talk about, 

you know, people are against disclosure. I think everybody is in 

favor—pretty much everybody—of some degree of disclosure, and 

the question is: What should be disclosed? 

And I think part of the colloquy between Senator Roberts and my 

colleague here relates to the question of what should be disclosed, 

and Heather would say, well, if they are engaged in political activity. But what is political activity? A great many (c)(3) organizations, such as some of the ones Senator Roberts was discussing, are 

doing things—the American Constitution Society is clearly trying 

to affect how people think about political issues, and that may ultimately affect how those people vote. 

When I was Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, I 

used to note that if you tell me, you know, what groups you want 

to silence, I can come up with a neutral method that will get mainly those groups and not many—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, why would disclosure silence people? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, studies—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. I mean, we are a democracy here, and you 

can always say that somebody could argue you are wrong. But that 

is not—I mean, if you—that is the most slippery slope argument 

I have heard. It just says anytime someone thinks they might be 

intimidated they do not have to disclose anything. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, it does not necessarily go that far. But, again, 

you might ask, why do we have a secret ballot? Why were the Federalist Papers published anonymously? Why has the Supreme 
886 

Court in cases like Buckley v. Valeo, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections 

Commission, Watchtower Bible & Tract v. Village of Stratton, 

Thomas v. Cullens repeatedly protected citizens’ anonymity when 

engaged in various types of political activity? Studies do show that 

disclosure, mandatory, compulsory disclosure, has a deterrent effect 

on some people participating in politics. 

Chairman SCHUMER. But the Supreme Court—no court that I am 

aware of has made the argument that there is any constitutional 

requirement for that. Is that right? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, the Court has repeatedly struck down overly 

broad disclosure laws. Whether it would strike this down—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. But not on a First Amendment basis. 

Mr. SMITH. But I have to say, Senator—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right? Is that right? Not on a First Amendment basis? 

Mr. SMITH. No. On First Amendment grounds, it has narrowed 

statutes or struck them down. And I have to say, Senator, that you 

yourself, when you earlier introduced a version of this act, you stated that, ‘‘The deterrent effect should not be underestimated.’’ So I 

think you do recognize that there can be a deterrent effect. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Oh, let me tell you, I think it is good when 

somebody is trying to influence Government for their purposes, directly, with ads and everything else. It is good to have a deterrent 

effect. If you cannot stand by publicly what you are doing, then you 

probably think something is wrong. 

Mr. SMITH. So—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. I do not think you are afraid of being protested or picketed or something like that. 

Mr. SMITH. So the author of ‘‘Common Sense,’’ the authors of the 

Federalist Papers—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. You know, we did not have a democracy 

then. That is not fair. The British were running the show. Tom 

Paine was worried he would be arrested. We are not worried that 

if you publish something here in America you would be arrested. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, I can only, again, go back to saying that a great 

many people feel that they have fears of excessive disclosure, that 

the Supreme Court has recognized this in many, many contexts, including the context of political giving. And I think it is common 

sense to all of us that there are times when one would rather not 

have to be publicly identified with certain political views, such as, 

again, the examples I gave in my testimony. For example, a person, 

a small business owner in Kentucky or West Virginia who favors 

increased regulation of the coal industry might be very concerned 

about what that could do to his business if he were to voice those 

views. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, but different if he gives money to a 

political campaign to influence the candidate. The disclosure here 

is not based on what we should know about the individual but the 

effect on an elected official, and that is the distinction that I think 

you sometimes fail to make. 

Mr. SMITH. But if he gives money—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. I will give you the last word before we are 

out of time. 
887 

Mr. SMITH. If he gives money to a political campaign, then it is 

disclosed. It is only—we are talking about giving money to a nonprofit (c)(4) at this point. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. I want to thank the witnesses. We 

are going to be in temporary recess, and Chairman King will come 

back, and I guess Senator Cruz will come back. Thank you both. 

[Recess.] 

Senator KING [presiding.] The hearing will resume. The hearing 

of the Rules Committee on the DISCLOSE Act will resume. 

Senator Cruz, your questions. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to say 

thank you to both the witnesses for joining us today. 

You know, before we broke, I thought the exchange with Senator 

Schumer was actually quite revealing where Senator Schumer 

asked Mr. Smith, well, gosh, why can’t we restrict the freedom of 

American citizens? Because, after all, when Members of Congress 

vote, our votes are public. And I think that really reveals the issue 

here, that the votes of Members of Congress are public because we 

are supposed to be public servants. We are supposed to be accountable to the American people. And indeed what this effort is about 

and what much of the efforts of this Senate is about is trying to 

have politicians hold the American people accountable, which is 

backwards from the way it is supposed to work. 

Jefferson famously said when leaders fear the citizens, there is 

liberty; but when citizens fear their leaders, there is tyranny. 

We are just a few months away from an election, and so often 

Congress will devolve into the silly season where we will have a 

series of votes that are not intended to pass but are intended somehow to be messaging votes because the majority party thinks it will 

be beneficial for the upcoming election. 

Related to this legislation is a proposal that has been voted on 

by the Senate Judiciary Committee that 47 Democrats have put 

their name to a constitutional amendment that would repeal the 

free speech provisions of the First Amendment. It is the most radical legislation the Senate has ever considered. 

In 1997, when the Senate considered a constitutional amendment 

along similar lines, then-Senator Ted Kennedy said the following: 

‘‘In the entire history of the Constitution, we have never amended 

the Bill of Rights, and now is no time to start.’’ 

I emphatically agree with Senator Ted Kennedy. 

Likewise, Senator Russ Feingold, not exactly a right-wing conservative, said the following: ‘‘Mr. President, the Constitution of 

this country was not a rough draft. We must stop treating it as 

such. The First Amendment is the bedrock of the Bill of Rights.’’ 

And he continued, in 2001, ‘‘I want to leave the First Amendment 

undisturbed.’’ 

For 47 Senators to put their name to a constitutional amendment 

that would repeal the free speech protections of the Bill of Rights 

is astonishing. And it ought to be disturbing to anyone who believes in free speech, to anyone who believes in the rights of the 

citizenry to express their views and politics. 

And, Mr. Smith, I want to ask a question to you: At the Constitution Subcommittee’s hearing on that proposed national amendment—I am the Ranking Member on that Subcommittee; the 
888 

Chairman is Senator Durbin—I asked Chairman Durbin three 

questions about the amendment that he had introduced. 

The amendment, by the way, provides that Congress can put reasonable restrictions on all political speech. 

I would note, by the way, the First Amendment right now does 

not entrust determinations of reasonableness to Members of Congress. Congress thought the Alien and Sedition Acts were reasonable, and indeed the heart of the First Amendment is about protecting unreasonable speech, not reasonable speech. 

When the Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, Illinois, Nazi speech 

is the very definition of unreasonable speech. It is hateful, bigoted, 

ignorant, and yet the Supreme Court rightly said the Nazis had a 

First Amendment right to express their hateful, bigoted, ignorant, 

unreasonable speech. And then all of us have a constitutional right, 

and I would say a moral obligation, to denounce that speech, because as John Stuart Mill said, the best cure for bad speech is 

more speech, not restricting it. 

So the three questions that I asked Chairman Durbin, I said: Do 

you believe Congress should have the constitutional authority to 

ban movies? Do you believe Congress should have the constitutional authority to ban books? And do you believe Congress should 

have the constitutional authority to ban the NAACP from speaking 

about politics? 

And what I observed is that for me the answer to all those three 

questions is easy: Absolutely no, in no circumstances. And yet in 

the amendment that every single Senate Democrat on the Judiciary Committee voted for, Congress would have the constitutional 

authority to do all three of those. 

My question to you, Mr. Smith, is: What is your view of the dangers of giving Congress the constitutional power to ban movies, to 

ban books, and to ban groups like the NAACP from speaking about 

politics? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, thank you, Senator. You know, I think the danger is obvious, and it goes to the core of why we have a First 

Amendment. And you have hit the point I think very well when 

you said, you know, the precise idea of the First Amendment is to 

prevent Congress from deciding what is reasonable. There is a view 

that this was too dangerous a power to cede to the Government. 

During the first panel, Senator Whitehouse mentioned that he 

did not want to dissuade anybody from speaking; he just wanted 

to have people disclose their information. But if you look at, for example, this bill, many parts of it require a regulatory regime that 

will dissuade people from speaking, including the possibility of 

prosecution if people make mistakes in knowing what other folks 

they are going to give money to will do. And Senator Whitehouse 

has been very vocal in urging criminal prosecutors against political 

speakers. 

So, you know, I think the First Amendment is there precisely to 

say this is just too dangerous a power to give to the Government. 

As Chief Justice Roberts said in the McCutcheon decision, the last 

people we want deciding, you know, who needs to speak more or 

who needs to speak less in a campaign or what is reasonable regulation is the Government itself, the people who have a vested interest in being returned to office. 
889 

And as I have often pointed out, even assuming the good faith 

of all actors, if rules and regulations tend to favor the party in 

power and the incumbents, then they will remain in place. And if 

they tend to disadvantage those people, then they will be changed. 

So we do not have to assume bad faith to see the danger in giving 

Government that kind of power. 

Senator CRUZ. Well, and we have seen—in the Senate Judiciary 

Committee there were some Democratic cosponsors of the amendment who said, ‘‘It is not our intention to ban movies or ban books 

or ban the NAACP from speaking.’’ And at that hearing I observed 

this is the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate. The 

inchoate intentions of members of this Committee that may be buried in their hearts are not terribly relevant when 47 Senators are 

proposing a constitutional amendment to the Bill of Rights that 

would explicitly, under the language of the amendment, give Congress the power—and the amendment says—‘‘to prohibit speech 

from any corporations.’’ Paramount Pictures is a corporation. 

Under the language of that amendment, you could prohibit Paramount Pictures from publishing a movie critical of a politician. 

Indeed, Citizens United, which is the subject of so much demagoguery, was the Federal Government trying to find a movie maker 

who dared to make a movie critical of Hillary Clinton. I think the 

movie maker has a constitutional right to do so, just like Michael 

Moore has a constitutional right to make movies that I think are 

pretty silly, but he has got a constitutional right to continue to 

make them for all time. 

As regard to books, Simon & Schuster is a corporation. Under 

the text of the constitutional amendment, Congress could prohibit 

Simon & Schuster from speaking. As the ACLU said—for those of 

you who are here today who may say, ‘‘Well, Cruz is a Republican. 

I am skeptical of what Republicans say.’’ If you are skeptical of 

what I say, perhaps you are not skeptical of the ACLU. The ACLU 

said in writing, this amendment would fundamentally abridge the 

free speech protections of the First Amendment, and they said it 

would give Congress the power to ban Hillary Clinton’s book, ‘‘Hard 

Choices.’’ 

There is a reason that I have referred to the proponents of this 

amendment as the ‘‘Fahrenheit 451 Democrats,’’ because they are 

literally proposing giving Congress the power to ban books. That 

ought to trouble everyone. 

And with respect to the NAACP and La Raza and the Human 

Rights Committee and Sierra Club and Planned Parenthood, who 

are all corporations—and they should not be prohibited from speaking—we should be empowering the free speech of the citizens, not 

empowering the IRS and Congress and Government to silence and 

regulate the speech of the citizenry. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Senator. 

As one of the sponsors of that amendment, I am not sure we are 

talking about the same document, because the one I sponsor talks 

about regulating campaign contributions. It does not talk about 

banning books or movies or in any way abridge the free speech. 

But I am sure that is a debate that you and I can have at a later 

date. Thank you for your questions. 
890 

Senator—— 

Senator CRUZ. Mr. Chairman, just in response to the question 

you ask, I would note that the text of the amendment says, ‘‘Congress and the States shall have the power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish 

between natural persons and corporations, or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from 

spending money to influence elections.’’ And since book publishers 

are almost always corporations, under the explicit text of that constitutional amendment, Congress would have the power to prohibit 

corporations like Simon & Schuster from publishing books, which 

I would note is exactly what the ACLU said in response to it as 

well. 

So that is the plain text of the amendment that has been introduced, and I think it is a very dangerous suggested addition to the 

Bill of Rights of our Constitution. 

Senator KING. A discussion which we shall undoubtedly continue 

at a later date. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to our witnesses. Good to have you back, Ms. Gerken. 

I remember the hearing that I chaired. You did a good job. 

Ms. GERKEN. Thank you very much for having me again. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. Smith goes to Washington. You can say that now, I guess, at 

the hearing. That was a little joke. 

It is good to be here. Obviously Senator Cruz and I disagree, and 

I wanted to refocus this, first of all, on the bill before us, the DISCLOSE Act, which, it is my understanding, having looked at these 

cases, the Supreme Court, the Roberts Court, actually anticipated 

that we might have some limits on disclosure and that those would 

not be allowed. Is that right, Ms. Gerken? 

Ms. GERKEN. Yes. In fact, I actually think it would be fair to say 

that Citizens United at least was premised on the idea that there 

would be adequate disclosure. So Justice Kennedy, the author of 

the opinion, notes that as long as you have adequate disclosure, 

you need worry much less about independent expenditures. What 

Justice Kennedy may not have contemplated was the possibility 

that $310 million in the last election cycle was being spent independently by groups that were not disclosing the identity of their 

donor. 

But Kennedy was absolutely clear that disclosure promotes First 

Amendment values, the ability of everyday people to make decisions to hold their representatives accountable. That is why disclosure rules are consistent with the First Amendment. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So he specifically used the words ‘‘disclosure rules’’ in the opinion? 

Ms. GERKEN. He not only specifically used the words. He actually 

specifically affirmed them and rejected the kinds of challenges that 

have been levied against the DISCLOSE Act by noting that because disclosure rules are not stopping someone from spending 

their money and are not putting the kinds of hard caps on that you 

see in other parts of the campaign finance regime, that they are 

subject to a much more generous constitutional standard, that Con-
891 

gress has much more leeway to impose them, precisely because 

they further First Amendment values rather than undermine them. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And I bring this up because Senator Cruz’s 

long speech there was mostly focused on the constitutionality of 

this. First of all, he was talking about the amendment, which I 

support, and I will get to that maybe a little later, but this is about 

the DISCLOSE Act today. And that the Court clearly contemplated 

the DISCLOSE Act—the disclose rules—I am not going to say this 

act—that rules could be constitutional. 

Ms. GERKEN. Yes, exactly. And if you begin to sort of think a little bit about the sorts of arguments that are being made against 

the constitutionality of this provision, of this act, they would, I 

would think, also prevent you from regulating super PACs and the 

political parties. That is, there are all sorts of instances where we 

require donors to have the civic courage to acknowledge that they 

have given money to support a political candidate or influence elections. And that is all that the DISCLOSE Act does. It levels the 

playing field, subjecting (c)(4) organizations, which have become 

immensely powerful in the elections process, to the same kinds of 

regulations we see for super PACs and parties. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Which have been allowed as reasonable 

limits in the past. 

Ms. GERKEN. I mean, the statement—the kinds of arguments 

that would be made that would knock those down are so radical 

that—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. That you would not be able—that they 

could not go after you for yelling ‘‘Fire’’ in a theater. 

Ms. GERKEN. Well, I will just say that the First Amendment law 

that exists on the books, written by the Justices who have been the 

most skeptical of campaign finance regulation, have, with all but 

one exception—eight of them have affirmed these kinds of disclosure rules, and with good reason. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Good. Well, then, let us go from there. 

What I am concerned about here—and I talked about it when 

you were here; I talked about it at the Judiciary Committee—is 

just the fact that, in fact, the situation we have now with these 

hundreds of millions of dollars drowns out the speech of regular 

people so that they cannot speak because they are not going to be 

able to have a voice if you have a regular person running for office 

that basically cannot bring in millions into the campaign, has to 

raise money, let us say they do what they are supposed to, I know 

what this was like, calling, calling, calling, raising $500, raising 

$1,000, and then all of a sudden someone could just come in and 

plow in hundreds of millions of dollars, or in the case, I think, of 

some of these recent races, $25 million so far against individual 

candidates, to the point where it almost becomes ridiculous for you 

to raise your own money because you could be plowed down and 

stamped on by this outside money. 

And so the purpose of this bill is to simply make sure that we 

have adequate disclosure to know that money is coming from, to 

give that person an adequate fighting chance, to say look who is 

funding the attacks against me. Is that right? 

Ms. GERKEN. Yes. In fact, a lot of my research has been on what 

I call the ‘‘rise of the shadow parties,’’ these organizations outside 
892 

the formal party structure, which are having an increasingly large 

influence over the elections process. And the trouble with shadow 

parties is that unlike your party and unlike the Republican Party, 

they are not open to average and everyday people; that is, the price 

of admission to a 501(c)(4) is money, money, money, and more 

money. That means that the everyday people who inhabit our parties, the party faithful and the voters, are losing the chance to influence the shape of the political process precisely because all the 

power is moving in the direction of the shadow parties. This is a 

step toward halting that flow. It will not fix it entirely, but at least 

it will do something to help us hold these groups accountable. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. One of the things that the Supreme Court 

pointed to in its recent McCutcheon decision was that now more 

things are online for people to take a look at. They may be true, 

but as you know, not everything is written online. It is very hard 

for people sometimes to find things. 

Do you think that improving the technology that we use for disclosing money—this is outside of—it is part of the DISCLOSE Act 

but not in the bill—in elections to help make it easier for groups 

to report on this and for the public to know what is really happening? 

Ms. GERKEN. I think that anything that can be done to make it 

easier on the public to figure out the source of an ad is helpful, 

which is one of the reasons why we made the proposal that we did, 

that for ads that are essentially paid for by groups that do not disclose their donors, that should be on the ad, because citizens have 

a right to know who is behind the money. And I will say that for 

the average citizen, even the system we have now requires an inordinate amount of work for them to figure out who is behind some 

of these ads and who is not. 

So, yes, anything that can be done, both in terms of putting labels on the ads and increasing the transparency of the way money 

flows through the system, is a good thing, in my view. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I totally know this because even how I have 

not had a lot of independent ads run against me, they have had 

issue groups do it sometimes. I have tried to figure out who is financing when my name is in it, and I cannot figure it out. 

Ms. GERKEN. No, I actually once made a joke in my election law 

class that you could have a group called ‘‘Americans for America,’’ 

and then one of my students proposed—I do not know if this is 

true—that, in fact, that group exists. So you never know who is behind it. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. There you go. So one of the things that has 

intrigued me with this is that this just has not been a partisan 

issue in the past. People have come together on trying to find a 

way to regulate campaign contributions, understanding that it becomes actually corrupt when there is so much outside money and 

people cannot tell where it is coming from. And I truly believe the 

integrity of our electoral system is at stake, and from what I am 

seeing, there is a bipartisan support in the public for doing something about all this outside money, but we are not seeing it here. 

Why do you think that is? How do you think we can change that? 

Ms. GERKEN. Well, I do think that there is actually generally bipartisan support. The American people overwhelmingly favor 
893 

transparency. I also think that when you move a little bit outside 

of Washington, you find that people on both sides of the aisle are 

in support of transparency. 

Certainly when McCain-Feingold was debated, virtually everyone 

on both sides of the aisle was in favor of transparency, and I had 

the pleasure of working on a commission with Senator Trent Lott, 

with Representative Henry Bonilla, with Senator Olympia Snowe, 

and we unanimously decided to endorse transparency rules for 

independent funding. And in many ways, I think that one way to 

understand what that commission’s purpose was to think about the 

relationship between elections and governance, because governance 

is breaking down in Washington. And the group as a whole was 

deeply concerned with that. Transparency rules are part of what 

makes governance work. It helps the American people hold their 

representatives accountable. And it helps us all figure out where 

the money is flowing and how power is working in Washington. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Smith, you know, one of the witnesses 

that we had at the Judiciary Committee was—actually I pushed 

him a little, and he said when—remember, this is not about the 

DISCLOSE Act. This is about the constitutional amendment that 

Senator Cruz was referring to. And he basically said he thought we 

should not have any limits at all on—any kind of limits on contributions. Do you share that view? 

Mr. SMITH. You are asking me? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. I am sorry. Well, let us put it this way: I think we 

should have good, reasonable limits on contributions. The current 

limits on contributions are substantially less than what they would 

be had they even been raised for inflation since they were first enacted in 1974, and it is worth noting that, prior to 1974, we never 

had any limits on direct contributions by individuals to campaigns. 

Individuals up to 1974 were free to contribute $20 million directly 

to a campaign if they wished to do so. 

Several States still allow that, and there is nothing that indicates to me that it has had detrimental effect. In fact, those States 

consistently rank near the top of the best governed and least corrupt States in America. 

So I guess the better question to me would be, you know, what 

really—how strong is the justification for limits, especially limits at 

the low levels that we have them now? When people ask me, you 

know, would I do away with all limits, I guess I always say, you 

know, might, but, look, I understand why people want limits. I 

think what we need are more reasonable limits. That would be a 

good starting place. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But do you think it would be—it is constitutional to have those limits in place? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that it 

is constitutional to have limits on contributions. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Right. 

Mr. SMITH. There are several Justices, both now and former Justices, who have disputed that, but it has never been a majority position on the Court. 
894 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And then do you think there is a constitutional issue then with actually disclosing the names of those people 

that there are limits—— 

Mr. SMITH. They are disclosed. I mean, if you give money to a 

campaign, your name is disclosed. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But you have an issue with the DISCLOSE 

Act then? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, I do, because I think we need to recognize, first, 

the Roberts Court has not said that rules like ‘‘this’’ are constitutional. It has said—it has been generous toward disclosure. It has 

never ruled on rules like this. In Citizens United, in McCutcheon, 

it is ruling against a background of existing disclosure rules. And 

as I mentioned in my prepared testimony, we have more disclosure 

now than at any time in American history. And the Court has 

looked at that and said this is the solution, this is adequate. It 

should not be read to suggest that the Court is saying go ahead 

and do whatever things more you want to do. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But what is so wrong with disclosing the 

people that give these kinds of contributions? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, the question, again—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Why would that make it different than the 

other rules? 

Mr. SMITH. The question is who or what is going to be disclosed. 

For example, this act does not require disclosure by the American 

Constitution Society of its donors. Maybe it should. The American 

Constitution Society would escape it because it is a (c)(3). It does 

not engage in a certain type of political activity. But anybody who 

says that it is not out there trying to influence politics is not serious. I mean, that is what a lot of groups do. 

So, again, the question is not that people are opposed to disclosure as if this is some clear, obvious thing. The question is: What 

should be disclosed—right?—when and how? And to what extend 

do we want to tie our system up trying to get, you know, the last 

little bit of disclosure out of the system? 

501(c)(4)s have long done very, very hard-hitting issue ads. The 

NAACP ran ads in 2000 that re-enacted the lynching of a man 

named James Byrd, and the narrator specifically blamed it on 

then-Governor George W. Bush. It ran these ads in October just before the election. They did not disclose their donors. Nobody got 

upset about it at the time. This is not something new in that respect. It is not new since Citizens United. It has only been viewed 

as a crisis, so to speak, since Citizens United, and I think that really is a reaction to Citizens United rather than a serious, you know, 

re-evaluation of the need for added discussion in this area. 

So, you know, again my organization and I have supported disclosure. I have supported it in my academic writings. But it is a 

question of what should be disclosed and how much. The Supreme 

Court has not endorsed all disclosure. In many cases, in the 1970s, 

1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, it has protected the right of citizens to engage in political activity anonymously, and nothing in Citizens 

United or McCutcheon overrules any of those decisions. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Do you have concerns that once—you know, 

we do not know where this money is coming from because it is not 
895 

disclosed, that you could have foreign money come in when we do 

not know what the money is and—— 

Mr. SMITH. You can have foreign money come in anyway. People 

just would not have to—they would not report it. They would—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yeah, but if they have to report it—— 

Mr. SMITH. If they want to break the law, they will break the 

law. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR [continuing]. You can add it up and see 

what it adds to. It would take another step if you made up where 

the money was from. This time you would at least be able to know 

where it was from. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. Well, as I pointed out, it is about 4 percent of 

the money that is not itemized by donors that is in the system, and 

so I think we need to keep that in perspective. And I think the end 

result is I think that one could consider changes to disclosure rules, 

and there may be some things that we would want to do. But I 

think that this bill in particular has a lot of problems, again, as 

I pointed out, it brings up what we call ‘‘junk disclosure,’’ double 

counting of funds, relating people to money that they did not give 

for purposes of advertising, misdirecting the public about who is 

giving, in fact, or who is not giving. And so I think that we need 

to be conscious of the fact that this is simply not a good bill on its 

own technical merits. But I think also as we design bills, we need 

to be conscious of the fact—and I think the data supports this pretty clearly—that excessive disclosure discourages honest, good political participation, and we need to be careful about that and sensitive to that reality. And it can be misused in the same way that 

anonymity can be misused when people intentionally say our goal 

is going to be to smear and attack people based on political activity 

they might be vaguely related to through some financial transaction. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Ms. Gerken, do you want to respond? 

Ms. GERKEN. Well, I want to agree with Professor Smith that the 

Supreme Court said what it said about disclosure when it robustly 

and emphatically affirmed the validity of disclosure rules. It did so 

against a background in which super PACs are regulated, political 

parties are regulated in the same way that 501(c)(4) organizations 

would be regulated going forward. They are the outlier. All that 

this bill does is pull 501(c)(4)s into the ambit of the kind of disclosure rules that we have had for a very long time without anyone 

worrying about the First Amendment or suppressing speech. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I just think it so much weighs on the side 

of getting this disclosed, and this is just from my own—you know, 

I am not the constitutional expert that you two are. It is just based 

on my practical experience. I remember when I had a $100 contribution limit in local office. That is what we had in non-election 

years. So, like, six of my election—six of my years out of eight I 

had a $100 limit on contributions during the 8 years that I was 

county attorney. I would still get numerous contributions for $99 

because then people knew that their name would not be out there. 

And, okay, maybe that is okay when you are dealing with $99, 

$100. But when you are dealing with the millions of dollars we are 

looking at here, I just do not think it is okay. It is a difference because of the impact that extra money can have. And the outsize im-
896 

pact when you look at what individuals can give in an individual 

race, so you can get a max of, what, $5,000, a lot of the contributions I get are like $1,000, and then someone coming in with $25 

million against you and then you cannot tell who those people are. 

Ms. GERKEN. And, Senator, Professor Tokaji is not here to talk 

about his report, but it really provides compelling evidence that the 

numbers here are important, but what is more important is the 

way it is changing the political landscape. There are $310 million— 

there is complete agreement that at least that amount of money 

was not disclosed in 2012. But the way that it is changing how people run their campaigns and work with these shadow parties is 

quite astonishing. The parties are becoming more sophisticated. 

This is looking a lot more like what anyone in the world would call 

‘‘coordination’’ except for a few lawyers. And so it is becoming an 

increasingly worrisome problem, and it is hard to imagine 2016 is 

going to be any better. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Right. And the last thing I would say politically, as the Chairman, as someone who likes to get things done 

and try to find some common ground, I just think this money in 

these extreme forms from the outside is not going to foster that at 

all, because people are not—they are going to know something is 

going to hit them that will just outweigh all that money that normal people give you at $100 or $500 or $50 or $20, it will just be 

outweighed by some interest group who does not agree with you on 

one issue or that you have not toed the party line on one thing, either right or left, and that money is just going to come in and blow 

you out. And that is why I think that in the end not only is this 

bad for just the traditional idea that we should know who is giving 

money, I just think it is bad for our democracy in terms of getting 

things done. 

So thank you very much. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Senator. 

Just a couple of follow-up questions. It occurs to me, Mr. Smith, 

that the reality—and this is a change that has happened almost 

overnight, really just in the last few years. Yes, there were 

501(c)(4)s back along—but I would argue that the quantitative 

change equals a qualitative change. And what we have now is it 

is like the legends of the Trojan War where the Greeks and the 

Trojans fought each other, but the gods were fighting in the skies. 

We have parallel universes of campaigns, and it is getting to the 

point where the candidates themselves are the little guys, and the 

real fight is between the billionaires who are controlling it. And we 

have had for 100 years various kinds of controls that have come 

and gone, but it has all been because of scandals and the danger 

of corruption that people have recognized since Teddy Roosevelt. 

That has not gone away. Human nature has not changed. And it 

just seems to me that all we are talking about here—and you yourself have said we have got lots of disclosure, and I would agree that 

we do, except in this one area. 

You have indicated you think it is only 4 percent, but you are 

counting, I think, as I carefully read your testimony, you are counting as disclosure when a group is listed, Americans for Greener 

Grass, as the contributor, that is disclosure. That is not disclosure. 
897 

Disclosure is knowing who gave the money to Americans for 

Greener Grass. 

So I think you are—the 4-percent number, if it were true, we 

would not be wasting our time here. But the truth is there is a ton 

of money coming in, it is accelerating, and I think most of us have 

said, okay, the Court has said what they said, and those are the 

rules about campaign finance. But the only tool they have left us 

is disclosure. And it seems to me—and you talk about, well, you 

know, there could be harassment. I think Justice Scalia said it very 

well. This is part of civic engagement. And if a billionaire can 

spend millions of dollars attacking my record or my character, I at 

least ought to have the opportunity to know who it is. To me, it 

is just—again, go back to the New England town meeting. No one 

is allowed to speak in a Maine town meeting with a bag over their 

head. Who the speaker is, is part of the information, and that is 

the purest form of political speech in our country today. 

Give me your thoughts. All we are talking about, I think Professor Gerken is right, we are talking about applying to the (c)(4)s 

and whatever the next iteration is the same rules that we have had 

for years where, if somebody contributes to my campaign, if it is 

100 bucks, I have got to list their name, address, phone number, 

occupation, but then somebody can spend $20 million and have no 

idea who they are or where they are from. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. No, I think those are all good points. Let me 

try to address those in some order that may not correspond to their 

importance or the order in which you raised them. 

But, first, let us note that I think that the McCutcheon decision, 

if that is the concern, is actually a good decision in that, again, 

McCutcheon allows more money to flow directly into political campaigns. 

Senator KING. I understand. 

Mr. SMITH. Which is fully disclosed. 

Senator KING. And that may actually diminish the pressure toward these un—— 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, I do not see it having a major effect, but I do 

see it having some effect there. And I think along with that, as I 

noted earlier in response to Senator Klobuchar, we have not raised 

contribution thresholds to anything close to what they would be 

even if adjusted for inflation. And in my view, they should be substantially higher than that inflation adjustment, and that would 

also, I think, relieve some of the pressure on office holders’ fundraising and help to make them, again, more important in their own 

races, so to speak. This is a self-inflicted wound when I hear office 

holders complaining about this. 

Now, you make a good point. You know, things change, right? 

And people change, and how things operate changes. And there is 

no doubt that is true. All I can say is that I do not think there is 

much evidence at all that these campaign finance—this web of regulation we have thrown at our political activity, mainly since 

1974—before that the laws were pretty easily evaded, there were 

very few rules enforced. I do not think there is much evidence that 

it has helped. And if we look at States that are deregulated versus 

States that are highly regulated, there is little evidence that the 

latter group performs better in almost any measurement you 
898 

choose—educational attainment, personal income, unemployment, 

almost any measure of Government policy effectiveness you might 

want to come up with. 

And in those old days, we always heard the same sort of stories—‘‘It is just not like it used to be.’’ You know, in the 1920s, the 

parties were complaining about the expense of getting radio into 

everybody’s house. And in the 1850s, they were complaining about, 

‘‘Ah, ever since Van Buren, we have to do all these pamphlets and 

so on.’’ They have always been raising those kinds of issues. 

But there are other ways in which society has changed. For example, it used to be if you wanted to see disclosure reports, somebody had to go down and manually look them up. Nowadays you 

can sit on the computer, pull up your neighbor’s finances. There 

are sites that directly link giving to people’s—to maps to people’s 

homes. What is the purpose of that other than intimidation? 

And we should be aware that there are increasingly groups out 

there—Media Matters is one; there are several others, one called 

‘‘Accountable Americans,’’ and so on—that are very open about 

wanting to harass and vilify people. 

Now, Justice Scalia is being quoted all the time by people who 

never would quote Justice Scalia for anything else, right? Well, I 

think Justice Scalia is wrong here. I mean, if this is true, how did 

America survive until 1974? It is pretty hard to figure out. Why do 

we have the secret ballot, right? 

So, again, the question is not, you know, do we oppose disclosure? No, we do not oppose disclosure. What we want to keep reminding ourselves is our purpose is to allow the people to keep tabs 

on the Government. It is not necessarily let the Government or let 

candidates keep tabs on the people. And while those often are 

intertwined in a way that cannot be separated, I think if we start 

with that premise in mind and we are sensitive to honest concerns 

about harassment, then I think we might have some room to devise 

more effective disclosure rules that would get at some of the issues 

that seem to spur interest in the DISCLOSE Act. 

But what I am not seeing in this act and what I am not seeing 

in the public statements I have heard about—and I do not mean 

in this room today or anything; I mean generally when I hear it 

talked about in the press—is any sensitivity to those kinds of 

issues or to why some people might fear Government or unofficial 

retaliation and why those concerns are illegitimate. I think they 

are legitimate. The people give anonymously for all kinds of reasons. People give to hospitals anonymously, right? And I think we 

need to respect that. To have the Government compel people to disclose information on themselves is not something we normally do. 

It needs to be carefully done and with a strong rationale behind it. 

Senator KING. I would not disagree that there are not issues in 

that regard, but it seems to me it is a balancing case, a balancing 

test of trying to weigh the public interest in knowing who is trying 

to influence their vote and also the corruption issue against the 

dangers of intimidation and this is—I tend to agree with Justice 

Scalia on this, although I do not agree with him on everything. 

Mr. SMITH. And so that we can end on a point of agreement, I 

agree with your statement there up until the point of Justices. But 

I think obviously the devil is in the details. 
899 

Senator KING. Well, I want to thank both of you for your testimony, and I want to thank you for the thoughtfulness with which 

you have answered the questions and the work that you put into 

the testimony that you presented to this Committee. This is an important issue. It is one that is not going to go away, and I believe 

that it is going to continue to bedevil us for some time unless we 

can find some resolution. 

So, again, I appreciate your joining us, and that is on my behalf 

and on behalf of the Committee. This concludes the second panel 

of today’s hearing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 business days for additional statements and posthearing questions submitted in writing for our second panel of witnesses to answer. 

I want to thank Senator Klobuchar and the other Senators who 

participated today, and there being no further business before the 

Committee this morning, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(900) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
901 
902 
903 
904 
905 
906 
907 
908 
909 
910 
911 
912 
913 
914 
915 
916 
917 
918 
919 
920 
921 
922 
923 
924 
925 
926 
927 
928 
929 
930 
931 
932 
933 
934 
935 
936 
937 
938 
939 
940 
941 
942 
943 
944 
945 
946 
947 
948 
949 
950 
951 
952 
953 
954 
955 
956 
957 

HEARING—NOMINATIONS OF MATTHEW 

MASTERSON AND CHRISTY McCORMICK 

TO BE MEMBERS OF THE ELECTION 

ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:58 a.m., in Room 

SR–301, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Angus S. King, presiding. 

Present: Senator King. 

Staff Present: Kelly Fado, Staff Director; Stacy Ettinger, Chief 

Counsel; Ben Hovland, Senior Counsel; Sharon Larimer, Professional Staff; Julia Richardson, Senior Counsel; Abbie Sorrendino, 

Legislative Assistant; Phillip Rumsey, Legislative Correspondent; 

Jeffrey Johnson, Clerk; Annalee Ashley, Staff Assistant; Mary Suit 

Jones, Republican Staff Director; Shaun Parkin, Republican Staff 

Director; and Paul Vinovich, Republican Chief Counsel. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KING 

Senator KING. This hearing will come to order. Welcome. 

On today’s agenda is the consideration of the nomination of Mr. 

Matt Masterson and Ms. Christy McCormick to be members of the 

Election Assistance Commission. Both of our nominees have strong 

backgrounds in election law and procedure. Mr. Masterson, recommended by Speaker John Boehner, currently serves as Deputy 

Chief of Staff and Chief Information Officer at the Ohio Secretary 

of State’s Office. Ms. McCormick, recommended by Senate Minority 

Leader Mitch McConnell, currently serves as a Department of Justice trial attorney with the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division. 

Mr. Masterson and Ms. McCormick, I would like to welcome both 

of you here today, and I congratulate you on your nomination to 

be members of the Election Assistance Commission. 

Mr. Masterson, I understand your wife, Joanna, and brother, 

Justin, are here with you, and we would like to welcome them. 

And, Ms. McCormick, your daughter, Elizabeth, and sister, Cecily, 

are here. The committee would like to welcome your family members and are very happy that they could join you here today. We 

are also pleased to have members of the Election Assistance Commission staff with us today as well. 

Following the Presidential Commission on Election Administration’s release of its final report in January of this year, the Rules 

Committee has held five hearings on election administration. These 

hearings focused on the bipartisan best practice recommendations 

of the Presidential Commission. 

Election officials and experts from around the country have testified before us on many of the most successful efforts to improve 

how our elections are run. I am particularly enthusiastic about this 
958 

project because I believe, particularly as a former governor, that 

too often, we have good solutions worked out in individual States 

and nobody knows about them. So, best practices—sharing best 

practices, I think, is something that we should always strive to do 

more of. 

A frequent topic of concern at the hearings that we have had was 

the EAC, and it has been operating, as you know, without a 

quorum of Commissioners since late 2010 and has not had Commissioners sitting since December of 2011. This Commission was 

established by the Help America Vote Act in 2002, HAVA. The 

EAC was created to be an independent, bipartisan commission 

charged with a number of important responsibilities, including developing guidance for State and local election officials to meet 

HAVA requirements, adopting voluntary voting system guidelines, 

and serving as a national clearinghouse of information on election 

administration. 

Without a quorum of Commissioners, however, the EAC has been 

severely limited in its ability to fully function as Congress intended. Additionally, the advisory boards, composed of State and 

local election officials and members of the broader elections community, have been unable to convene and do their work. 

Despite these severe limitations, during the election administration hearing series, this committee repeatedly heard about the 

value and importance of the EAC’s work. Several election experts 

discussed how important the Election Administration and Voting 

Survey is to understanding how elections are administered across 

the country. Beyond the survey, it was evident that many of the 

State innovations that were held out as best practice recommendations to be replicated were made possible because of EAC grant 

programs. We also heard about the need for a fully functioning 

EAC to help address the growing challenges of aging voting systems and the need for adoption of new voting system guidelines. 

The Presidential Commission’s report and this committee’s hearings made it clear that the EAC’s role as a clearinghouse of election 

information and best practices is needed and should be expanded. 

In short, the EAC has work that needs to be done, and today, we 

have an opportunity to take the next step in helping this agency 

function as it was intended under the Help America Vote Act. 

I am pleased that we have two very well qualified candidates 

who have been nominated and are testifying before the committee 

today. Your experience and background in elections will undoubtedly help the EAC to move forward. 

I hope we can move your nominations swiftly and create a fully 

functioning EAC that our elections and voters deserve. It is a very 

tight schedule here, as you know, during the next several weeks, 

but we are hopeful that we will be able to move your nominations 

before Congress recesses later in September. 

Senator Roberts, our Ranking Member, could not be here this 

morning, but if he has opening remarks, we will certainly see that 

they are put into the record, without objection. 

So, with that as background, we will hear from our nominees in 

alphabetical order. 

I have to stop and tell an amusing story about elections. In 

Maine, as in most States, the ballot order is determined alphabeti-
959 

cally. Mr. Bailey is always on the ballot ahead of Mr. Mitchell. One 

year, there was a bill in the Maine legislature—this was many 

years ago—to change that rule to make it random, to make the 

order selected at random in terms of how you would appear on the 

ballot. 

In the Maine House of Representatives, we have two large lighted tally boards that tally the votes of the members of the House, 

yes or no, on each issue that comes before us. And, lo and behold, 

when this issue came before the House of Representatives to go 

from the alphabetical system to the random system, all the names 

in alphabetical order of the members of the House on the left side 

of the body voted no and all the people on the right side, who were 

lower down in the alphabet, voted yes. To my knowledge, it is the 

only time that has ever happened in the history of the Maine legislature. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KING. So, thank you, Mr. Masterson, and if you will proceed, I look forward to your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW V. MASTERSON, NOMINATED TO BE 

A MEMBER OF THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

Mr. MASTERSON. Well, thank you, Chairman King, and good 

morning. Thank you for holding this hearing on my nomination to 

serve on the United States Election Assistance Commission. 

I also want to thank Speaker Boehner for submitting my name 

to President Obama for consideration and to thank the President 

for nominating me. It is truly an honor. 

I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify on my qualifications and interest in becoming an EAC Commissioner. My career 

in elections started, appropriately, at the U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission after I graduated from law school. Since that time, I 

have worked with both State and local election officials to serve 

voters primarily through the use of technology. 

While at the EAC, I worked with election officials, voter advocates, computer scientists, and manufacturers to help create the 

EAC’s voting system testing and certification program. This program was the first of its kind, designed to allow States to voluntarily utilize federally accredited test laboratories to have their systems tested and certified to a robust set of standards. 

In 2011, I left the EAC to return home to Ohio and worked for 

the Ohio Secretary of State, where I currently serve as Deputy 

Chief of Staff and Chief Information Officer. The opportunity to 

work in the most important swing State in the country during a 

Presidential election cycle was a dream come true. In my time in 

Ohio, I have continued leveraging technology to improve services to 

election officials and voters. I have helped implement several programs that have modernized elections in Ohio and truly made it a 

national leader, including an online change of address system, a 

data sharing program with the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, and 

more user-friendly voter information tools. All of these have helped 

to make the voting process more accessible and more usable for 

voters. 

For the past three years, I have also served on the Executive 

Board of the National Association of State Election Directors and 
960 

as a member of the EAC’s Technical Guidelines Development Committee. I also testified in front of the President’s Commission on 

Election Administration regarding the aging voting equipment the 

States are currently using and the future of voting technology. 

State and local election officials across the country are in an incredibly tough position. Most of their systems are a decade or more 

old, which is ancient by information technology standards, and will 

need to be replaced in the very near future. Recognizing that voters 

will lose confidence in a voting process that uses 1990s technology 

instead of modern technology, election officials are craving innovation in election systems. I am fully invested in trying to bring 

about these kinds of innovations, and if confirmed, I believe I can 

continue that work at the EAC. 

Finally, I want to thank some of the people who have helped me 

along the way. First, I want to thank all of the election officials 

across the country whom I have worked with and learned from. 

You all do a tremendous service to this country that too often goes 

unappreciated. I especially want to thank those election officials 

who have patiently mentored me along the way, teaching me that 

every detail matters in elections. Thank you to the team at the 

Ohio Secretary of State’s Office, especially Secretary Husted, for 

welcoming me home and giving me an opportunity to run elections 

in Ohio. 

To my Mom, Pam, my brother, Brian, and my twin brother, Justin, who is here with me today, thanks for helping me get to a 

place where I am doing something I truly love. 

To my wife, Joanna, who is also here with me today, and my two 

children, Lilah and Nathaniel, thank you for all of your support. 

Finally, I want to thank my father, Vince Masterson, who passed 

away on Sunday, and who I know was very proud of this opportunity. 

Chairman King, I thank you for consideration of my nomination 

and will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Masterson was submitted for the 

record:] 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

We will hear from Ms. McCormick first, and then we will have 

questions for both of you. Ms. McCormick. 

TESTIMONY OF CHRISTY A. McCORMICK, NOMINATED TO BE A 

MEMBER OF THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

Ms. MCCORMICK. Good morning, Chairman King. I am pleased to 

be here to discuss my nomination to serve on the United States 

Election Assistance Commission. 

I thank Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell for submitting 

my name to the President and to President Obama for nominating 

me. I am deeply honored that you are considering me for a position 

of trust in our government. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify on my background and 

qualifications to become an EAC Commissioner. My interest in 

elections started as a young adult, when my parents involved our 

family in working on campaigns and hosting fundraisers for candidates at our family home in Massachusetts. I was excited to be 
961 

able to cast my first vote at the age of 18 in New York, and found 

myself running for office in Michigan by the age of 20. I volunteered to be an Assistant Voter Registrar in Connecticut in the 

1980s, and again in Virginia when I moved there in the 1990s. 

Having been involved in elections and voting in several States 

early on in my life gives me a unique perspective. 

In 2006, I joined the U.S. Department of Justice Voting Section, 

where I continue to serve as a trial attorney. My work at the Justice Department involves investigating and prosecuting violations 

of Federal voting statutes, including the Voting Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens 

Absentee Voting Act, also known as UOCAVA, and the MOVE Act, 

most of which have some nexus with the work of the EAC. 

I have been privileged throughout my career at the Justice Department and at the Office of the Virginia Attorney General to contribute to some very important cases and to have had an impact 

on First Amendment, civil rights, and voting jurisprudence. 

In addition to litigation, I also conduct election monitoring for 

the Justice Department and have observed numerous elections and 

polling places all across America. 

In 2009, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General sent me on 

a year-long detail to Iraq, where I served as an attorney advisor 

and Acting Deputy Rule of Law Coordinator. The Office of the Rule 

of Law Coordinator was embedded in Embassy Baghdad and was 

responsible for collaborating with the Department of State, the 

U.S. military, and other Federal agencies, along with our international partners, on rule of law initiatives. We provided advice 

and support to Iraqi ministries and legal institutions, including the 

Higher Judicial Council, the General Secretariat for the Council of 

Ministers, the Ministries of Justice, Interior, Human Rights, and 

Women’s Affairs, among others. I also served as a liaison to parallel ministries in the Kurdish region. 

One of my main and most exciting assignments was to serve as 

the Justice Department’s expert on elections in Iraq. Along with 

our State Department colleagues, I worked with the Iraqis on their 

2010 national elections. This included providing assistance and advice to the independent High Electoral Commission during the runup to the elections, participating in a team observing the elections 

in the Wasit Province, and witnessing the extensive 12-day election 

recount. I was deeply impressed to see a large number of women 

voting on election day and very encouraged by watching families 

bring their children into the polls to teach them about democracy 

and to dip their fingers in the electoral ink. It is my deepest hope 

that the idea of democracy and fair elections will still be possible 

in Iraq in the future. 

As for elections here in the United States, if confirmed, I will do 

my best at the EAC to assist our 8,000 jurisdictions in fairly and 

smoothly administering their elections. We have much work to do 

to assure that all eligible voters are able to cast their votes in elections that are secure and in which the electorate can place its full 

confidence. 

While the EAC is not tasked with rulemaking or running elections, it is in a position to provide information, share best practices, 

collect data for election analysis, and offer programs that support 
962 

modern elections such that the public has full access to the ballot 

box and trust in our electoral outcomes. I believe this is essential 

to the health of our Republic and I would like to continue this important work at the EAC. 

As with all of us, I did not come to this place without the help 

of many others. I want to thank the many people I have worked 

with and for, including Justice Elizabeth McClanahan, Professor 

Michael I. Krauss, Commissioner Judith Williams Jagdmann, 

former Solicitor of Virginia William Hurd, many of my current and 

former colleagues in the United States Department of Justice and 

in the Virginia Office of the Attorney General who have provided 

me with amazing opportunities and helped me hone my legal abilities. 

Thank you, also, to the election officials I have met and worked 

with across the country over the past eight years, who work long 

hours, deal with often complex logistics, and do so many things 

that go unnoticed in running our elections. 

Thank you to my dear friends, some of whom are here today, 

with whom I am able to debate and discuss the issues of our day 

and who provide me with love, support me with prayer, and encourage me with many laughs. 

Thank you to my family, especially my parents, Keith and Carol 

Cutbill, who introduced me to campaigns and elections; my sisters, 

Catherine, Laura and Lynda; my brother, Chaz, and his wife, 

Corie; my nephew, Parker, and niece, Bentley. Special thanks to 

my sister, Cecily Cutbill, who is here with me today, and to her 

husband, Christopher Thorne, my niece, Caroline, and nephew, 

William, who have sacrificially housed me and fed me. Finally, my 

deepest love and appreciation go to my beautiful daughter, Elizabeth Mead, who is here today from California. Thank you for your 

love and for inspiring me daily. 

Chairman King, if confirmed, I am prepared to do my best to 

serve our country as an EAC Commissioner, and in that role, to 

commit to appear and testify before Congress upon its request, and 

I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCormick was submitted for 

the record:] 

Senator KING. I have two preliminary observations. The first is, 

I want to be sure the record shows my appreciation to Speaker 

Boehner and Leader McConnell for finding you two extraordinarily 

well qualified, thoughtful people, and I want to thank them publicly for putting your names forward to the President and thank 

the President for making those nominations. 

The second observation is that Senators are often in a position 

of asking questions to people who know more about the subject 

matter than they do, and that is certainly true today, but I am 

going to forge ahead anyway and ask a few questions of each of 

you, not in any spirit of trying to trip you up or embarrass you in 

any way, but in a genuine pursuit of information and your thinking 

about this job that you are proposed to embark upon. 

Mr. Masterson, you mentioned about technology and how many 

jurisdictions are upgrading their technology. It seems to me that 

one of the challenges is to assure people that their vote is going to 

be counted and that there is no mischief to be had when there is 
963 

not a piece of paper. In my hometown, we vote. There is still a 

piece of paper and we fill in an arrow—I am sure you are familiar 

with that style—and then it goes into a machine. But, there is a 

certain confidence that there is something tangible if all else fails 

that can be reviewed. 

How do we build a technological system that the public can have 

confidence in when we hear about Home Depot or Target being 

hacked or something like that? Our election process and the integrity is so important to public confidence in our democracy. How do 

we weigh the desire for technology and efficiency against the risks 

of technological failure that would impede or impair the confidence 

of the public in the voting process? 

Mr. MASTERSON. Well, thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. It is a great question, and the answer, not surprisingly, is one 

that election officials across the country constantly battle with. 

That is, the convenience of the technology with the assurance that 

every vote is counted as cast. And, that is the role that I hope to 

play in going to the Election Assistance Commission, is disseminating best practices that these election officials across the country 

have worked on and developed to deal with that very struggle of 

the balance between security and accessibility or usability of the 

systems in order to provide the best service to voters. Election officials across the country with these systems have found new and innovative ways to provide that assurance that you just talked about, 

whether it is in the form of a paper ballot or post-election audits, 

while still providing the level of convenience that voters expect. 

Senator KING. Are we moving toward paperless voting systems? 

Is that the trajectory of the technology? 

Mr. MASTERSON. I think that is a really fair question. I think 

some jurisdictions already have paperless technology and other jurisdictions insist on having the paper ballot. And, so, not surprisingly, like with all things in elections, it is what the voters expect 

in order to have confidence in the process. 

Voters, for instance, in the State of Georgia, embrace their voting 

system and their touch-screen system for what it is, and that is 

what the election officials in the State of Georgia have chosen to 

use and the voters have undertaken and accept. In Maine, for instance, like you said, the expectation is to have that paper ballot. 

And, so, that choice and the availability of best practices on how 

to manage either a paper system or another type of voting system 

is important so that it can be done well and with integrity. 

Senator KING. Well, it seems to me that the integrity, the last 

word you used, is so important, because all it would take would be 

one disaster that would undermine confidence nationally. In this 

day and age, with communications being what they are, if there is 

one district in one State where the vote totals were 10,250 and 

there were only 8,000 people in the district, it would be a catastrophe for our democracy, I think. 

So, I hope, in your work, you will keep in mind these dual goals 

of efficiency versus verifiability and confidence. There is an intangible that is so important here, I think. So, I hope that is something that you will bear in mind in your work on the Commission. 

Mr. MASTERSON. Absolutely. 
964 

Senator KING. Ms. McCormick, I am fascinated by your experience in Iraq. I think that probably the two most important elections in the last several years have been Iraq and Ohio, I mean—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KING. Share with me your observations from that experience. Do we have anything to learn from the way that those elections were conducted? 

Ms. MCCORMICK. Well, it was, obviously—thank you for the 

question. It was an interesting experience, a dangerous assignment. There are lessons that we can learn from that experience. 

One of the things that the Iraqis did exceptionally well was transparency. Everybody knew who was able to vote in a particular polling place because they actually listed the names of all voters outside the polling place. And, they had a very good system where 

they had a center where people could go if their names were not 

found so that they could be sent to the correct location so that their 

ballot could be cast and counted. The Iraqis did, I think, a better 

job, in my view, than some of our own jurisdictions that I have witnessed. So, I do believe that we have some work to do in some 

places. We should always be striving to improve our elections. 

Hopefully, the Iraqis will get back on track. It is very disconcerting, what is happening there right now. Unfortunately, 

much of the work that we had achieved has—now almost seems for 

naught, but hopefully not. 

We had some very dangerous travels. We had people running 

after us with AK–47s and we had—we were not allowed to bring 

security into the polling booth with us, so, fortunately for us, we 

do not suffer the same security issues that they do in Iraq. 

But, for me, it was a great learning experience, to see the enthusiasm of the people there who were finally able to vote, and hopefully, we can encourage our electorate to get out and vote. I think 

it is kind of sad that we have elections where very few people vote, 

and it would be my wish to have everyone vote who is eligible in 

any given election. 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

One of the—I am not sure of the jurisdiction in the Commission, 

but one of the issues that we are facing around the country is not 

necessarily Election Day itself, but issues like early voting and 

mail voting, and I am sure at some point there is going to be a proposal for online voting. To what extent does your jurisdiction, does 

your thinking extend to those kinds of issues, or is it strictly what 

happens on Election Day? 

Ms. MCCORMICK. No, I think we are tasked with looking at everything, information and best practices on everything. The States 

have the authority to run our elections, the State and local jurisdictions, and as Mr. Masterson mentioned, different States in different jurisdictions do things in different ways. Our role at the 

Commission will be to collect that information, disseminate best 

practices, share experiences so that, like you said, some State 

might have a better way of doing something than another State, 

and for us to facilitate that communication so that we can all improve elections together based on best practices out in the States 

and the jurisdictions. 
965 

Senator KING. Well, you used the right word, and Mr. Masterson, 

one of the keys to this is data, I think. Data—it is so hard to get 

the data that will drive good policy. One of my favorite sayings is, 

the plural of anecdote is a data. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KING. And, I hope that that is an area that you can help 

and pursue, because, for example, questions about early voting and 

what are the influences and those kind of things, if we know what 

percentage of people are voting early, and the more of that information we have, the better decisions we can make on these matters, in my view. 

Mr. MASTERSON. Yeah, I completely agree. Fortunately, through 

the EAC’s Election Day Survey and other efforts to collect data, 

election officials more and more—and I see it in Ohio all the time 

and we do it in the Secretary of State’s Office—are leveraging data 

to not only look at those numbers, like you suggest, but create efficiencies and cost savings. The reality is, that data really helps inform election officials’ decisions in an area where resources are extremely tight and service and expectations are extremely high. 

And, that data is what helps inform them. And, I know there will 

be election officials across the country thrilled that you are bringing up the need for good data and constant improvement to that 

data. 

Senator KING. Well, one example would be voting patterns by 

hour so that you knew how to staff and you could staff to the demand. And, if you have a historic record of when people are more 

likely to show up with some real substantial basis, you can—that, 

in itself, would improve the efficiency because you would be able 

to move more people through during those hours when the demand 

is the highest. 

Mr. MASTERSON. Absolutely. We have election officials in Ohio 

who literally sit with a stopwatch to time how fast it takes their 

clerks to check in registrations to figure out just that, how much 

time and staff do we need to do certain tasks. So, that data speaks 

directly to informing the process and creating both better services 

for voters and greater efficiency. 

Senator KING. Well, let me ask a sort of concluding question of 

both of you, which is pretty broad. Ms. McCormick, what are your 

priorities as you go, as you have thought about this job, as you go 

in? What is it you want to focus on? Where do you think the gaps 

are? I mean, you are coming to this with huge experience and you 

must have some view of what—and, you are going to be in charge, 

I mean, with the other two Commissioners, you are going to be setting the agenda. Where do you see the need for action and work 

by the Commission? 

Ms. MCCORMICK. Thank you, Senator. I think the first thing that 

we need to do, because the Commission has been without a quorum 

and Commissioners for so many years, I think the very first thing 

we need to do is to review the roles and the responsibilities of the 

agency and its employees and to figure out exactly where the agency stands now, what our statutory duties are, and where we should 

be going forward. I think that will take some time. There is a lot 

to be done, but I am excited about it and I think that we can serve 

our clients once we get up and running again. 
966 

It is hard for me to say right now exactly what the first priority 

would be, other than to figure out what exactly has been going on 

at the Commission for the last several years and how it matches 

up with what we are supposed to be doing under the statute. 

Senator KING. Good. Thank you. 

Mr. Masterson. 

Mr. MASTERSON. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, the first 

thing I would look to do is begin the process of updating the voting 

system standards, which is one of the core tenets in HAVA for the 

role of the EAC. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, election 

officials are at the end of life for their voting systems and the voting system standards have not been substantially updated in quite 

some time. And, so, to begin that process and begin the work to update the voting system standards so that election officials can begin 

to see the innovation that they desire would be the first point I 

would focus on. 

Senator KING. Any additional comments that either of you would 

like to make for the record before we close the hearing? 

Ms. MCCORMICK. No, Senator. I have no more comments. Thank 

you. 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

Mr. MASTERSON. No, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your time. 

Senator KING. Well, thank you both, and I sincerely appreciate 

your willingness to take on this task, particularly given your extraordinary credentials. It is an important one. It is at the heart 

of our democracy and our system, and public confidence is so important. There is a little bit of a dilemma. Part of public confidence 

is being sure every vote counts. Part of public confidence is not 

having to stand in line for three hours and feel that there is 

some—that voting is a huge chore. So, we have to find the right 

balance, and I certainly appreciate your willingness to step forward 

and take on this responsibility. 

We will hold the record of this hearing open for, I believe it is 

24 hours, the close of business tomorrow, Thursday, September 11, 

for additional statements and post-hearing questions submitted in 

writing for the nominees to answer. 

There is no further business to come before the committee. I declare this meeting adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:29 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
(967) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
968 
969 
970 
971 
972 
973 
974 
975 
976 
977 
978 
979 
980 
981 
982 
983 

BUSINESS MEETING—TO CONSIDER THE 

NOMINATIONS OF MATTHEW MASTERSON 

AND CHRISTY McCORMICK TO BE MEMBERS 

OF THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2014 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 5:40 p.m., in Room 

216, United States Capitol, Hon. Charles E. Schumer, presiding. 

Present: Senators Schumer, Durbin, Pryor, Udall, Warner, 

Leahy, King, Walsh, Roberts, Shelby, Blunt, Cruz. 

Staff Present: Kelly Fado, Staff Director; Stacy Ettinger, Chief 

Counsel; Jay McCarthy, Director of Operations Oversight; Veronica 

Gillespie, Counsel; Ben Hovland, Counsel; Abbie Sorrendino, Legislative Assistant; Phillip Rumsey, Legislative Assistant; Jeff Johnson, Clerk; Benjamin Grazda, Staff Assistant; Mary Suit Jones, Republican Staff Director; Paul Vinovich, Republican Chief Counsel; 

Rachel Creviston, Republican Senior Professional Staff; Trish Kent, 

Republican Senior Professional Staff 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SCHUMER 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you for coming. We have a quorum 

of 10 Members so we can proceed. Under consideration are the 

nominations of Matthew Masterson and Christy McCormick to be 

Commissioners of the EAC. Is there any further debate on the 

nominees? No. Then we will now consider the nominations individually. As usual, we will make these voice votes. However, if the 

Ranking member requests a recorded vote, I will ask the clerk to 

call the roll. The question is on reporting the nominations favorably 

to the Senate. 

Chairman SCHUMER. First, Mr. Matthew Masterson. Is there a 

second? 

Senator ROBERTS. Second. 

Chairman SCHUMER. All those in favor, say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. All those opposed, say no. 

Chairman SCHUMER. The ayes have it. The nomination of Matthew Masterson is ordered favorably reported to the Senate with 

recommendation the nomination be confirmed. 

Next up, is Ms. Christy McCormick. Is there a second? 

Senator UDALL. Second. 

Chairman SCHUMER. All those in favor, say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. All those opposed, say no. 

Chairman SCHUMER. The ayes have it. The nomination of Ms. 

Christy McCormick is ordered favorably reported to the Senate 

with recommendation the nominee be confirmed. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I’d like to thank everybody for coming and 

I am going to ask our Ranking Member, who will no longer be the 
984 

Ranking Member of anything, if he’d like to make some concluding 

remarks. 

Senator ROBERTS. No, sir. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Then the meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 6:30 p .m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(985) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
986 
987 

Æ