U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

81–713 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 112–794 

THE STATE OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE AFTER 

THE 2012 ELECTION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DECEMBER 19, 2012 

Serial No. J–112–96 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Coons, Hon. Christopher A., a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ........... 6 

Durbin, Hon. Dick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .............................. 4 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 3 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 178 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ...... 5 

WITNESSES 

Bennett, Ken, Secretary of State of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona .......................... 15 

Crist, Charles, Jr., Former Governor of Florida, St. Petersburg, Florida ........... 9 

Cobb-Hunter, Hon. Gilda, House of Representatives from the State of South 

Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina ................................................................... 13 

Nelson, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Senator from the State of Florida ................................ 7 

Perales, Nina, Vice President of Litigation, Mexican American Legal Defense 

and Educational Fund (MALDEF), San Antonio, Texas ................................... 17 

Schultz, Matt, Secretary of State of Iowa, Des Moines, Iowa .............................. 11 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Nina Perales to questions submitted by Senator Klobuchar ......... 31 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Asian American Justice Center, Mee Moua, President and Executive Director, 

Washington, DC, statement ................................................................................ 38 

African American Ministers Leadership Council (AAMLC), Minister Leslie 

Watson Malachi, Director, December 19, 2012, letter ...................................... 45 

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Laura W. Murphy, Director, Deborah 

J. Vagins, Senior Legislative Counsel, Demelza Baer, Policy Counsel, Washington, DC, joint statement ................................................................................. 48 

Advancement Project, Judith A. Browne Dianis, Co-Director, Washington, 

DC, statement ...................................................................................................... 71 

Arizona Advocacy Network, Phoenix, Arizona, statement ................................... 81 

Bennett, Ken, Secretary of State of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, statement 

and attachments ................................................................................................... 84 

Bus Project Foundation, Caitlin Baggott, Executive Director, Portland Oregon, December 26, 2012, letter .......................................................................... 90 

Center for American Progress, Scott Keyes, Washington, DC, December 18, 

2012, letter ............................................................................................................ 94 

Cobb-Hunter, Hon. Gilda, House of Representatives from the State of South 

Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, statement ............................................... 106 

Common Cause, Jenny Rose Flanagan, Director of Voting & Elections, Washington, DC, statement .......................................................................................... 116 

Crist, Charles, Jr., Former Governor of Florida, St. Petersburg, Florida, statement ...................................................................................................................... 126 

De ́mons Ideas & Action, Tova Andrea Wang, Senior Democracy Fellow, New 

York, New York, statement ................................................................................. 131 

Detzner, Kenneth W., Secretary of State, Florida Department of State, 

Tallahasee, Florida, statement ........................................................................... 150 

Forward Montana Foundation (FMF), Andrea Marcoccio, Executive Director, 

Missoula, Montana, December 26, 2012, letter ................................................. 153 
Page

IV 

House, Tanya Clay, Public Policy Director, Lawyers Committee for Civil 

Rights Under Law, Washington, DC, statement ............................................... 156 

Henderson, Wade, President & CEO, Leadership Conference on Civil and 

Human Rights, Washington, DC, statement ..................................................... 173 

Nelson, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Senator from the State of Florida, statement ............. 181 

National Action Network (NAN), Rev. Al Sharpton, President and Founder, 

Re. W. Franklyn Richardson, Chairman, and Tamika Mallory, National 

Executive Director, Washington, DC, joint statement ...................................... 186 

National Association of Social Workers (NASW), Elizabeth J. Clark, PhD, 

ACSW, MPH, Chief Executive Officer, Washington, DC, statement ............... 189 

Palm Beach Post, Sunday October 28, 2012, article ............................................. 197 

Perales, Nina, Vice President of Litigation, Mexican American Legal Defense 

and Educational Fund (MALDEF), San Antonio, Texas, statement ................ 202 

Schultz, Matt, Secretary of State of Iowa, Des Moines, Iowa, statement ........... 213 

ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Submissions for the record not printed due to voluminous nature, previously 

printed by an agency of the Federal Government or other criteria determined by the Committee, list: 

Nelson, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Senator from the State of Florida, Mitchell Depo, 

http://www.billnelson.senate.gov/supporting/mitchelldepo.pdf 
(1) 

THE STATE OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE AFTER 

THE 2012 ELECTION 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Durbin, Whitehouse, Coons, Grassley, 

and Lee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. I am told that Senator Grassley is on his way, 

and I am going to start and, of course, yield to him when he comes. 

Our Nation has grown stronger since its founding as more Americans have been able to exercise their right to vote. The actions 

taken by previous generations—through a Civil War, through constitutional amendments—in fact, Senator Grassley is here—and 

through the long struggles of the civil rights movement—have 

worked to break down barriers that stood in the way of all Americans participating in our democracy. Yet as we saw in last month’s 

election, our work is far from done. Barriers to voting continue to 

exist and evolve. 

In my State of Vermont, where we have the town meeting with 

open participation, democracy, Vermonters cannot understand why 

there is this barrier to voting. 

You know, the right to vote and to have your vote count is a 

foundational right because it secures the effectiveness of the other 

protections of the law and the Constitution. Before the election, we 

held a hearing that focused on new barriers to the right to vote, 

building on the work done in field hearings held by Senator Durbin 

in Florida and Ohio. We heard testimony about the renewed effort 

in many States to deny millions of Americans access to the ballot 

box through voter purges and voter identification laws. I was concerned that these barriers would stand between millions of Americans and the ballot box. 

What we saw during the election shows that we were right to be 

concerned. Purges of voter rolls, restrictions on voter registration, 

and limitations on early voting—which in previous elections enabled millions to vote—led to unnecessary and avoidable problems 

on election day. 
2 

You had onerous and confusing voter identification requirements, 

complications in places like Pennsylvania, Arizona, Texas, and 

South Carolina. And throughout the country, misleading political 

advertising and robocalls worked to sow confusion and suppress the 

vote. 

Just because millions of Americans successfully overcame abusive practices in order to cast their ballot does not make these 

practices right. It does not justify the burdens that prevented millions more from being able to vote. Barriers that remind us of a 

time when discriminatory practices such as poll taxes, literacy 

tests, and grandfather clauses were commonplace have no place in 

21st century America. Barriers that seem to fall heaviest on African Americans, Hispanics, military veterans, college students, the 

poor, and senior citizens risk undermining our Constitution’s core 

values. 

The Constitution is for all of us. Ensuring that all Americans are 

able to vote and have their vote counted should be an issue of concern to Democrats and Republicans. It should be a matter of conscience for all of us regardless of what political party we belong to. 

That is how it was 6 years ago when Members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, stood together on the Capitol steps to reaffirm our commitment to full democratic participation when we reauthorized the key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

Our work in 2006 to reinvigorate and reauthorize the Voting 

Rights Act stood in stark contrast to the tremendous resistance and 

bitter politics which met the initial enactment of that landmark 

law. And the Committee played a key role. After nearly 20 hearings in this Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, we 

found that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act continues to be an 

effective and necessary tool for protecting voting rights against 

modern-day barriers to voting. The legislation contained specific 

findings about the need for reauthorization and concluded that 

without reauthorization the gains we have made would be undermined. Our efforts reached completion when President Bush signed 

the bill into law after a unanimous vote in the Senate and nearly 

unanimous vote in the House. 

The Supreme Court got it right three years ago when it upheld 

a challenge to the constitutional authority of Congress to reauthorize Section 5. Next year, the Supreme Court is going to have a 

similar challenge. Neither the words of the Constitution nor the 

importance of these critical provisions for protecting the right to 

vote has changed in the last three years. Under the specific words 

of the 14th and 15th Amendments, Congress has the power to remedy discrimination and enforce these Amendments by enacting 

laws that address racial discrimination in connection with voting. 

We did that virtually unanimously six years ago. 

The Voting Rights Act transformed America by ushering the Nation out of a history of discrimination into an era of greater inclusion. So we cannot turn away from our commitment to the right 

to vote for all Americans, every single American, Republican, Democrat, Independent, no matter who they are. 

I thank the witnesses for being here, and I am going to turn to 

Senator Grassley, but I do want to mention again what a great 

service Senator Durbin did in holding these field hearings. They 
3 

were extremely important. And I know Senator Nelson was there 

in Florida and is here today. 

Senator Grassley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also to all of 

our witnesses. This is a very important hearing because voting is 

a vital part of citizenship and a right of citizenship. It seems to me 

today that in any election or in any discussion of voting rights, the 

term ‘‘suppression’’ on the one hand or ‘‘disenfranchisement’’ on the 

other are thrown about, sometimes in a cavalier fashion. That approach is not helpful to protecting voting rights. 

The history of voting in this country was expanded with great effort and sometimes with great bloodshed. Those who oppose expanding the franchise to our fellow citizens sometimes use force 

and trickery. Comparing common-sense voter ID requirements, 

which enjoys the support of three-fourths of the electorate and even 

a majority of the Democrats, to poll taxes or worse trivializes the 

sufferings of millions of Americans who were denied the right to 

vote. 

We also hear that voting should be expanded in any way possible 

and the fewer the restrictions on voting the better. We should 

never trivialize efforts to expand the voter rolls, but we should 

make sure that those people that get on the voter rolls are entitled 

to be there. 

But fraud does exist. It is a fact of life. And it will be discussed 

at this hearing, and it will get worse if the only response is denial. 

The States are as justified in taking measures to deter potential 

fraud as to prosecute actual fraud. Earlier this year, the Pew Center on the States issued a report that found that there are 24 million voter registrations in this country that are no longer valid or 

are inaccurate. Who can justify that? It concluded that there are 

almost 3 million individuals who are registered to vote in multiple 

States. Who can justify that? Tens of thousands are registered to 

vote in three or more States. Who can justify that? 

The study also identified close to two million dead people on the 

voter rolls. Who can justify that? NBC News found 25,000 names 

of likely deceased voters on California rolls. Who can justify that? 

Some voted years after they died. One woman who died in 2004 

voted in 2008 and 2012. Who can justify that? A man who died in 

2001 has voted eight times since 2005. Who can justify that? 

The New York Times recently wrote that, ‘‘In Florida, absentee 

ballot scandals seem to arrive like clockwork.’’ 

I am pleased that two Secretaries of State are with us today. I 

welcome Iowa’s Secretary of State, Matt Schultz. State election officials are well versed on the procedures that are needed to run fair 

elections. Conscientious State officials, such as my Secretary of 

State, have sought to remove non-citizens from the voter rolls. Federal officials did not assist them in ensuring that legal votes are 

not diluted by the counting of votes from ineligible voters. In fact, 

the Department of Homeland Security did all it could to prevent 

maintaining the integrity of voting rolls. 
4 

We will hear that turnout rises when ballot integrity is fostered. 

States have a fair amount of discretion in how they choose to run 

elections. Early voting has grown in popularity, but there is a cost 

even beyond the lack of a common civic engagement on election 

day. 

I look forward to this hearing and hope that we get answers to 

these questions. But circumstances could change or new arguments 

or deliberations could lead someone to later wish to have voted differently. That is one of the issues with early voting. There should 

not be a one-way ratchet in which States that experiment with 

loosening voting rules can never try another approach. Of course, 

apparently neutral voting changes can hide bad motives. 

I voted to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. In fact, I remember 

as a new member of this Committee in 1981 when the reauthorization was up, I think for the first time, I went to Senator Biden and 

said, ‘‘I would like to help you.’’ He probably said he wanted help. 

But at the time, you know, Republicans had just taken over the 

Senate. Everybody thought we were not going to reauthorize it. 

And Senator Biden said—— 

Chairman LEAHY. You were a stalwart. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. I want to finish this story. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GRASSLEY. I do not think he believed me, but four or five 

months later, as the bill was going through the Senate, he says, 

‘‘You know, you were true in your wanting to help us reauthorize 

this,’’ because voting is the basis of our representative system of 

Government and ought to be preserved for all people. But nobody’s 

vote should be diluted by people that are not eligible to vote voting. 

I yield the floor. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you very much, and you were a 

stalwart then, and, again, one of the reasons why Senator Grassley 

and I have been such good friends all these years. 

I have to go to the floor to manage an appropriations bill. I am 

also on the Appropriations Committee. And Senator Durbin has 

agreed to take over the hearing, and we are going to have statements for the record from Senator Warner on voting problems in 

Virginia and also from other organizations. Those will be placed as 

part of the record. 

[The information referred to appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Durbin has been such a stalwart on 

this, and I wonder, Senator Durbin, if you would take my place 

here in the chair. And, Senator Grassley, thank you as always. 

Senator DURBIN. I think you are a stalwart, too, Senator Grassley. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you all for being here, and I am just 

going to make a brief opening statement and invite my colleagues 

if they would like to do the same. 

I see Senator Nelson here, and I can recall going to Tampa, Florida, with Senator Nelson with a hearing of our Subcommittee on 
5 

the Constitution and Civil Rights. And if you will recall, the first 

panel of experts that we had from your home State of Florida were 

election officials, Democrats and Republicans. And the first question I asked them was: What was the evidence of voter fraud and 

vote abuse that you believe led to these changes in the law restricting opportunities to vote in Florida? And they said there were 

none. There were none. And I asked them if there were prosecutions of voter fraud in Florida that caused a scandal that led to 

this, and they said, no, there were not. It turns out there were almost none when it came to actually prosecutions. 

I did the same thing in Ohio with Senator Brown in Cleveland, 

the same witnesses of Ohio election officials, same questions, same 

answers. And this is what I have concluded. It has come down to 

this: Elections in America are supposed to be about a contest between candidates with voters making the ultimate judgment. Instead, in too many States, elections have become contests between 

voters and special interest groups like ALEC which are hellbent on 

limiting the right of Americans to vote. And look what happened 

during this last election, things that I think need to be changed 

and are embarrassing to us. 

How can we be satisfied when our fellow citizens stand in line 

for seven hours to vote until 2:30 in the morning? Does it make 

sense for State legislatures to reduce early voting opportunities and 

the flexibility many working Americans need to exercise their right 

to vote? How can we watch laws being passed in legislatures requiring identification which the legislators know full well that hundreds of thousands of people will never be able to obtain in time 

to vote? Shouldn’t we be disappointed by the increasing number of 

provisional ballots issued and the fact that a disproportionate number of those provisional ballots were given to minority voters in the 

United States of America? Is it really necessary to threaten high 

school teachers with criminal conviction and thousand dollar fines 

just for offering to help students register to vote? 

That was the reality of this election cycle. That is the challenge 

to us. I know there are many other things I can speak to, but I do 

believe we have got to be honest in this coming Congress. I believe 

that when it comes to Federal elections, we have a Federal responsibility to make sure that qualified voters do not have obstacles 

thrown in their paths. And to those who will, I hope you took a lesson from November 6th. There were people who stood there for 

seven hours to defy you, to tell you that every obstacle you threw 

in their path was another challenge for them to stand and vote and 

be counted, whatever the time, whatever the cost. Thank goodness 

they did. It was a reaffirmation of who we are as Americans. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. I will just speak 

very briefly. I am delighted that we are having this hearing. The 

right to vote is perhaps the basic American right. It is the anchor 

of our democracy, and, unfortunately I believe it is being challenged. I think the modern-day Republican Party has a problem, 

which is that most of the goals of the party are ones that Ameri-
6 

cans do not support. And so they have to resort to strategies to try 

to push their agenda that allow them to get around the problem 

that most Americans do not support the radical Tea Party agenda. 

Those include using hostage theory-type negotiating tactics in the 

legislature. We saw that with the debt limit. We are seeing it right 

now with the fiscal cliff. ‘‘Unless you give us things that the American public does not want, we are going to do something worse to 

the country’’ is fundamentally the threat there. And we have seen 

it with voter suppression. We have seen it over and over with voter 

suppression, election after election with voter suppression. And I 

have the greatest respect and admiration for the Ranking Member, 

but I do think that ‘‘voter suppression’’ is actually the appropriate 

term to use. 

As a former prosecutor, we sometimes look at the question of motive when you are looking at—it is only one element, but you do 

look at motive, and the motive, I think, has long been established 

by the Republican Party in the voter caging cases in which they 

have actually been put under court order to stop, cease and desist 

the practice of trying to clear voters off the rolls through voter caging efforts directed at particularly minority communities. 

So I think this is a very live issue. I think it is a very important 

issue. It is vital to our democracy, and I am delighted that we are 

having this hearing where not only my view but the distinguished 

Ranking Member’s views and others’ can all be ventilated here. 

Senator DURBIN. Senator Coons. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER COONS, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Senator Durbin. Thank you for the 

opportunity to join you in this important hearing today. 

Like all of us, I watched the outcome on the night of the election 

and then for days afterwards with a sinking heart and with a 

growing concern. As someone who treasures the right to vote and 

who believes, as I know all of us do, Republican and Democrat, 

that it is one of the most fundamental civil rights in the United 

States, what we have seen is the steady whittling away of the opportunity to actually exercise that right in meaningful ways. In the 

last election and after the last several elections, this is of grave 

concern to me. 

Now, there are number of bills that have been introduced. I am 

a sponsor of one. A number of you are cosponsors, Senator 

Gillibrand, Senator Boxer; there are a number of others. Some 

seek, as mine does, to inspire a competition between States in partnership with the Federal Government to improve timeliness, access, accuracy. Others mandate a Federal standard. I look forward 

to hearing from this range of witnesses today about the real impact 

on the ground, its impact on access to the ballot, its impact on outcomes, and the questions that it raises in my view about the Voting 

Rights Act. We do not yet know the Supreme Court’s path, but I 

think regardless of what happens in the upcoming Supreme Court 

case, this Committee, this Congress, has a duty, in my view, to reauthorize, to strengthen, and extend the Voting Rights Act in a 

way that takes into account the very real concerns about voting 
7 

and accessing the right to vote in this country that this most recent 

election brought forward. 

Thank you. 

Senator DURBIN. Thanks, Senator Coons. 

We welcome our colleague, Senator Bill Nelson. Bill has just gone 

through an election contest in a State where this was an issue, 

and, Bill, please submit your testimony and give us a few words 

here to start our hearing. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, A UNITED STATES 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership. 

Thank you for coming to Florida so that you could receive direct 

testimony. You did that early in this year, and we have just closed 

a very ugly chapter in Florida political history, a chapter that occurred over the last 2 years, of an attempt to suppress the rights 

of voters, to suppress that vote, and I want to bring you some proof 

today. 

First of all, I would like to submit my written statement for the 

record. I would like to submit for the record a summary of what 

I am about to say that came in the Palm Beach Post in their Sunday, October 28, 2012, article, an investigative piece. And, third, I 

would like to submit for the record the deposition of an Emmett 

Mitchell IV, serving as the general counsel for the Florida Republican Party, when he gave a deposition in the case styled State of 

Florida v. United States of America, a deposition that was given 

earlier this year, when the State of Florida sued the U.S. Government for court determination of the preclearance under the Voting 

Rights Act of 1965, preclearance of five counties for discrimination; 

and, further, sued the U.S. Government by questioning the constitutionality of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. 

In the discovery for that case, the testimony was taken of this 

former general counsel of the Florida Republican Party, and what 

I would like you to know is this key individual who—with your permission, with the Committee’s permission, I would like to insert 

those documents in the record. 

In his testimony, given in April, Mr. Mitchell said—and it is in 

the sworn testimony—that he was asked to draft the original 

version of the legislation that became law. He was asked to draft 

it by Republican Party leaders specifically after consultations with 

Andy Palmer, then the executive director of the Florida GOP; 

Frank Terrafirma, head of the GOP State House campaigns; and 

Joel Springer, head of the State Senator Republican campaigns; 

and in early talks with executive director of the Florida GOP. And 

with this full testimony, you will see that there was a deliberate 

effort to change the election law of Florida in order to do a number 

of things. 

Now, it was not the first time that Mr. Mitchell’s name has surfaced with voting-related controversy, because back in the infamous 

2000 election, when there was the State of Florida’s efforts to purge 

possible felons from the voter rolls, and that effort led to thousands 

of eligible voters being turned away at the polls during that Presidential election year because their names were removed from the 

rolls, I said thousands of eligible voters who were purged. 
8 

This latest election law was introduced and passed in spite of the 

vehement opposition of the elections officials in the counties that 

conduct the elections, the supervisors of election. They collectively, 

through their State association and a wide array of other groups, 

had vehement opposition to the proposed bill that became law, reducing the number of early voting days from 14 to 8, which very 

conveniently eliminated the Sunday voting before the Tuesday election, which Professor Dan Smith from the University of Florida testified at your hearing in Tampa, in fact, that his investigation, his 

university investigation, found that there were two particular 

groups that utilized in the history of Florida early voting over the 

previous decade Sundays as the time that they voted: one was African Americans, and the other was Hispanics. That was one thing 

the legislation did. 

The law also made voting harder for people who had moved from 

one county to another and had a different address, because when 

they showed up to their new voter registration, if they did not have 

in their documentation, such as their driver’s license, which likely 

they had not updated from their old address, if it was a different 

county, they were not allowed a ballot. They were given a provisional ballot, and we know from the 2008 election of the provisional 

ballots cast, one-half of them in 2008 were thrown out. 

Now, as a result of the new voter suppression law—you have already stated it, Mr. Chairman—long lines, an avalanche of provisional ballots, court challenges, all of it has come to pass. You are 

going to have to draw your own conclusions, Mr. Chairman and 

this Committee, but it is pretty straightforward for the senior Senator from Florida. Florida’s 2011 election law changes were politically motivated by the documents that I submit, and they were 

clearly designed to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters and not, 

as the Republican sponsors in the legislature contended, to prevent 

voter fraud. You will see in the documentation where Mr. Mitchell, 

when asked directly, ‘‘Do you think that voter fraud is a problem? ’’ 

he says no. When asked, on voter registration that eliminated organizations like the League of Women Voters for a year and a half 

to stop their registration of voters because it changed the previous 

law from 10 days to turn in the names to 48 hours, which also 

added a huge fine for the person collecting the signatures if they 

did not get it in in 48 hours—by the way, 48 hours included Saturdays and Sundays. And when asked in this deposition, ‘‘Did, in 

fact, you think that 48 hours was long enough? ’’ he says no. He felt 

comfortable with the 10 days. 

And so, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity that I can 

bring this documentation to you, setting the stage for testimony 

that will follow me by the panel. And do not forget that what I am 

telling you about that happened in Florida took place against a 

backdrop of a broader Republican-led campaign to restrict voting in 

at least a dozen States. And those were States that were controlled 

by the Republicans, and they approved new obstacles to voting as 

part of a campaign that was linked to the American Legislative Exchange Council, ALEC, which receives substantial funding from the 

Koch brothers. 

And so, Mr. Chairman, I conclude by saying that singling out 

Americans, stopping those or trying to stop those, as they failed in 
9 

Florida because of the seven hours that they stood in line that you 

already noted, and trying to stop them from going to the polls, this 

is against the American way. It is against one of our most precious 

rights, and it is against what is guaranteed to us by the Constitution of the United States. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the privilege of being here. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Nelson. The documents you 

have referred to will be made part of the record. We appreciate 

your testimony and your continuing interest in this issue. 

[The documents appear as a submission for the record.] 

Senator DURBIN. I now would like to call the first panel of witnesses, if they would please come forward and stand for the oath, 

the traditional, customary oath that is administered in these hearings before the Judiciary Committee. Please raise your right hand. 

Do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give before the 

Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you God? 

Mr. CRIST. Yes. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Yes. 

Ms. COBB-HUNTER. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes. 

Ms. PERALES. Yes. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you. Let the record reflect that the witnesses all answered in the affirmative, and I am going to start with 

Governor Charlie Crist. He served as Governor of the State of Florida from 2007 to 2011. Under Governor Crist’s leadership, Florida 

passed a number of laws relating to voting, and clearly Florida has 

been front and center as the beginning of our discussion in this 

Committee today. We welcome your testimony. Your entire written 

statement and any documentation you would like to submit will be 

made part of the record, without objection. So please proceed, Governor. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHARLES CRIST, JR., 

FORMER GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA, ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA 

Mr. CRIST. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Grassley, and thank you, members of the Judiciary Committee, for inviting me to testify today on what is the most fundamental of rights for our fellow Americans—the right to self-determination through voting. 

Quite literally, we are here today because just over 236 years 

ago, 56 brave American patriots signed away their lives by declaring independence from Great Britain in the name of all who lived 

in the colonies. At the core of their statement—our Declaration of 

Independence—‘‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all 

men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator 

with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and 

the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights governments 

are instituted among men’’—embodies the simple principle that everyday Americans, the people who we all represent, hold the power; 

that government is truly for the people, by the people, and not the 

other way around. 
10 

In fairness, they did not get it totally right at the beginning. Far 

too many Americans were initially denied the right to vote, and far 

too many more died in the ensuing battles to ensure that every 

American adult would have the right to participate in self-determination. But throughout the history of this great Nation, whether 

through laws or conflicts, America has always taken steps forward 

to make voting easier and more accessible—well, until this year. 

For a good part of my adult life, I was employed in the service 

of the people of the great State of Florida, a State that has had 

more than its share of voting drama. For four of those years, I had 

the truly humbling privilege serving as Florida’s Governor, and 

during those four years, we undertook some important steps to 

make it easier for Floridians to vote. 

We eased the State’s vote-by-mail laws to make it easier for Floridians to choose to vote from the comfort of their home. 

We instituted a standard 14 days of in-person early voting. 

We made paper ballots mandatory to ensure that there would be 

a record in the case of a recount. 

We streamlined the system so Floridians who had paid their entire debt to society could regain their right to vote and have their 

rights restored. 

And when, during the historic election of 2008, long lines at early 

voting sites led to some Floridians waiting many hours to cast a 

ballot, I as Governor signed an executive order extending early voting hours so that no Floridian would be faced with an unnecessary 

wait at the polls. In the end, some 54 percent of Floridians cast a 

ballot before election day in 2008. And thanks to the steps we had 

taken, despite a record 8.3 million votes cast that year, we knew 

the outcome of the State election before the 11 o’clock news. 

Unfortunately, the last few years in Florida have not been so forward thinking. In 2011, the State legislature voted for and Governor Scott signed a massive election law designed, I believe, to 

make it harder for some Floridians to legally vote, and designed to 

encourage a certain partisan outcome. The law, among other 

things, put ridiculous restrictions on the rights of everyday lawabiding Floridians to register their fellow citizens to vote and reduced the number of early voting days from 14 to 8—and under the 

law before the Justice Department demanded changes, could have 

reduced early voting hours to as few as 48 in some of our counties. 

Furthermore, changes to the law made it harder for voters who 

went to the wrong precinct to cast a legal vote, which when combined with budget cuts in many counties that reduced the number 

of election day polling locations, resulted in unnecessary confusion 

and suppression on election day. In addition, the State tried to 

purge nearly 200,000 legal Floridians from the polls. Thankfully, 

public pressure as well as questions from the Justice Department, 

forced the State to back down. 

The outcome of these decisions was quite obvious. Florida, which 

four years earlier was a model for efficiency, became once again a 

late night TV joke. Voters who wanted to vote early were frequently subjected to lines of 3 and 4 hours; and as Governor Scott 

refused to take action to ease the lines, in some cases those lines 

extended to six and seven hours. Election day confusion led to horrifying lines again on election day itself, which played a role in 
11 

Florida remaining in the undecided category until Thursday, some 

two days after the last ballot was cast. Thankfully, this time the 

Presidency did not hang in the balance. 

Senators, as you spend time thinking about how we can make 

voting easier and more accessible, I would encourage you to think 

long and hard about establishing some national standards, standards that would ensure lengthy in-person early voting, as well as 

common-sense provisions. 

And I leave you once again with the words of our Founding Fathers: ‘‘Governments are instituted among men (and women), deriving their powers from the consent of the governed.’’ Ladies and 

gentlemen, we work for them. We offer ourselves to their service, 

and they choose. And as any of us knows who has lost well know, 

we do not always like the outcome. But that is how this works. In 

the end, America wins and democracy thrives when more people 

vote. 

Thank you again for the invitation. I look forward to the discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crist appears as a submission for 

the record.] 

Senator DURBIN. Thanks, Governor. 

Our next witness is the Iowa Secretary of State, Matt Schultz, 

elected to office in 2010 as the youngest Secretary of State in the 

country, currently serving his first term. He was elected to public 

office in 2005 as a city councilman in Council Bluffs, where he was 

re-elected and served for a total of five years. 

Secretary Schultz, thank you for coming, and please, any written 

testimony that you have will become a part of the record, and I 

would like you to take five minutes or whatever you can use to give 

us your thoughts on this issue. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MATT SCHULTZ, 

SECRETARY OF STATE OF IOWA, DES MOINES, IOWA 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you stated, my 

name is Matt Schultz, and I am the Secretary of State of Iowa. I 

do appreciate the opportunity to testify before your Committee 

today. I especially want to thank Senator Grassley for extending 

the invitation to appear before the Committee. 

I was elected to the office of Secretary of State in 2010. Fighting 

for election integrity in Iowa was a cornerstone of my campaign. 

It seems clear that a lack of confidence in the integrity of our 

elections is one of the reasons people do not vote. Some believe 

their votes do not matter, and that belief is a true cause of voter 

suppression across this country. 

We have seen that measures adopted to protect the integrity of 

elections, such as voter identification laws, have actually led to an 

increase in voter participation. 

Opponents of these measures frequently claim that laws meant 

to enhance election integrity are suppressing the vote. Yet they 

offer no evidence to support their claims, only theories often 

cloaked in political rhetoric. 

The truth is that when election officials take steps to secure the 

integrity and safety of the ballot box, confidence in the outcome 

rises, and voter participation increases. 
12 

Iowa is nationally known for having a model election system. 

However, as with any system, there is room for improvement, and 

I have been advocating for those improvements for the past two 

years. One of my significant initiatives in this area involves an 

agreement with the Iowa Department of Public Safety to have a 

special agent from the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation assigned to investigate election misconduct. 

The DCI agent is conducting multiple investigations into absentee ballot fraud, voting by individuals who are ineligible, and double voting. Since August 2012, charges have been filed in eight 

election misconduct cases based on information received from my 

staff, our local election officials, and members of the public. Anyone 

who says that voter fraud does not exist should look at the numbers that have been produced in a few short months. We all know 

that criminal investigations take time, and we expect many more 

charges related to election misconduct to be filed in the coming 

months. 

In our efforts to ensure election integrity, my office has taken 

several steps to maintain accurate voting lists in order to prevent 

people from taking advantage of loopholes in our election system. 

First, Iowa is one of numerous states participating in the Kansas 

Project, the purpose of which is to identify voters who may be registered or voting in more than one State. 

Second, Iowa matched voter registration records with death 

records from the Social Security Administration. More than 3,000 

individuals were identified who were deceased and registered to 

vote. 

Finally, my office compared a list of non-citizens with a driver’s 

license to Iowa’s voter registration data base. This comparison resulted in the unfortunate discovery that Iowa potentially had thousands of non-citizens who were registered to vote and over a thousand that may have cast illegal ballots. 

In determining how to proceed in light of this information, I recognized the delicate balance between the need for integrity in our 

elections and the fundamental right of voters to participate in the 

electoral process. Thus, it was important to proceed with the utmost caution to ensure that no citizen’s right to vote was improperly challenged. 

As such, my office attempted to work with the Federal Department of Homeland Security over several months to develop a system that would enable us to enact appropriate measures in dealing 

with this issue. We realized it was likely that some of the individuals identified during this process subsequently might have become 

naturalized citizens of the United States. 

Therefore, a vital part of our effort was an attempt to gain access 

to the Systematic Alien Verification and Entitlements (SAVE) data 

base. Our intent was to use SAVE in order to determine if those 

individuals who were identified as being non-citizens were indeed 

still non-citizens. 

Throughout this process, I have worked with our Democratic Attorney General, Tom Miller, in a bipartisan manner to ensure that 

Iowa maintains the delicate balance between voters’ rights and 

election integrity. 
13 

While some States have found this balance difficult to navigate, 

in Iowa we have worked hard to achieve this result. Attorney General Miller has supported my efforts and recently said that his 

goal, my goal, is zero voter fraud, zero voter intimidation. 

Critics of this bipartisan effort to prevent non-citizens from illegally voting continually argue that voters are being suppressed. I 

am pleased to sit before you and report that Iowa had the largest 

voter turnout in our State’s history. This shows that our election 

integrity efforts did not have a suppressing effect in Iowa. That is 

a result of working together across party lines. 

Again, thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee 

for the opportunity to testify today. I will be happy to answer any 

questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schultz appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much, Secretary Schultz. We 

appreciate your testimony, and we will have some questions. 

I would like to now recognize the Honorable Gilda Cobb-Hunter, 

who is here today representing the South Carolina House of Representatives, where she has been a representative from Orangeburg County, District 66, for over 21 years. Ms. Cobb-Hunter is 

also the first African American woman in Orangeburg County ever 

elected to statewide office. 

Thank you for joining us today. The floor is yours, and any written testimony will be made part of the record. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GILDA COBB-HUNTER, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 

COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA 

Ms. COBB-HUNTER. Good morning, and thank you, Senator, and 

to Ranking Member Grassley and all other members of this Committee. I really appreciate you all having this hearing. 

I am here really to paint a face on a lot of information that you 

have read to hopefully make this real so that you understand as 

you deliberate the importance of the Voting Rights Act, that there 

are actual people who are affected by this. 

I am here in my capacity as a veteran legislator to talk specifically about South Carolina and about the implementation of the 

Voting Rights Act and how I want to offer two examples to show 

how important it is. 

First, of course, are efforts to enact a voter ID bill. The Ranking 

Member talked about a common-sense voter ID bill, and I assure 

you those of us in South Carolina who opposed this legislation 

agree that common-sense voter ID bills are certainly things that 

are important. We would argue that the legislation that passed in 

South Carolina was not a common-sense bill, and I would like to 

tell you why. 

I represent a rural area. I represent a district that is 63 percent 

black. Over 97 percent of the students are on free and reduced 

lunches. A lot of my constituents were born on farms. They were 

delivered by midwives. It sounds easy to say a free ID, as was offered by our State. It is more complicated than that. There are a 

number of documents that are required to get a free ID,—a birth 

certificate, for example. When you live in a rural community, it is 
14 

very difficult, if you are 70 miles from the county seat—and that 

is 70 miles round trip—to have to pay someone to take you to the 

health department, to the DMV office, or wherever to get that. So 

there are barriers there that I think is important for us to keep in 

mind. 

I am here because, were it not for Section 5 of the Voting Rights 

Act, this notion of reasonable impediment that is a part of the 

South Carolina statute would still be there. It was only because of 

the preclearance that is required under Section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act and it was only because South Carolina was forced to 

have this aired before a three-judge panel that we got some expansion of that definition at the trial. 

It is important, in my opinion, to note that when we talk about 

South Carolina, we need to understand the importance of the patterns and history of racism and discrimination that unfortunately 

we are still suffering. There are a number of things that suggest 

that we live in a post-racial society. I would respectfully suggest to 

you that that is not the case in South Carolina. 

I want to just kind of bring closure to my comments by suggesting to you that I have submitted written testimony that expands what I think are the important points, and I have chosen to 

take this opportunity to just talk with you a bit about the district, 

the people who were there. 

I assure you that communities of color in South Carolina and 

across this country take the right to vote very seriously. There is 

no sentiment in my community or any other community that I am 

aware of for tolerating voter fraud. 

I would point out to you, Mr. Chair and other members of this 

Committee, that in South Carolina, when we debated this legislation and the question of voter impersonation using an ID was 

posed, there was not one example that was cited, and much with 

what Senator Nelson talked about in the State of Florida. 

So I encourage you to recognize the importance of the Voting 

Rights Act, to recognize that it has a function of preventing discrimination, hopefully before it takes root, and in the case in South 

Carolina, it most certainly did that. I do not think it is too strong 

language to say that the legislation was a poll tax as implemented 

in our State. 

Thank you for the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cobb-Hunter appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much, Representative. We appreciate your testimony, and there will be some questions to follow. 

Our next witness is Ken Bennett. He has served as Arizona’s 

Secretary of State since 2009, previously served as president of the 

Arizona State Senate for four years, and in private business was 

the chief executive officer of GeoBio Energy. He has a long bio that 

will be made part of our record here, and we invite you now for 

your oral testimony and to submit any written testimony that you 

would like for the record. 
15 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KEN BENNETT, SECRETARY 

OF STATE OF ARIZONA, PHOENIX, ARIZONA 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members, for allowing me to be here today. I have submitted written testimony 

and ask that it be accepted, but I am going to speak more from the 

heart today and tell you a little bit about what is going on in Arizona. 

First, I would like to just take a moment and bring the thoughts 

and prayers of Arizonans to the folks in Connecticut. Having experienced, not as large but a similar incident a few years ago with 

Representative Giffords, who sat next to me on the floor of the 

State Senate, we know the heartache, and our thoughts go out to 

them. 

Even though the Secretary of State is the chief elections official 

in Arizona, the real work mostly is done at the county level. Within 

our 15 counties, we have county recorders and election directors 

who are very bipartisan, multi-partisan, and work across party 

lines within their counties and across county lines to try to make 

sure that every Arizonan who is eligible to vote gets to vote. We 

have very dedicated people at the county level, and it is kind of a 

misnomer to say that the chief elections official is at the State and 

people get the idea that the State runs elections. In Arizona, it is 

really the counties. 

I think Arizona has been served very well by having local officials elected by their friends and neighbors in those counties and 

communities that actually conduct the elections, and they are, 

more than anyone else, interested in making sure that all of their 

citizens who are eligible to vote get the right to do so and make 

it as convenient as possible. 

Elections in Arizona really happen in one of four phases, and I 

will go briefly through each one. The first phase is the voter registration process. We have a little over 3.1 million registered voters 

in Arizona. That is down slightly from a high point a couple years 

ago at a little over 3.2 million. Most of that drop occurred with 

cleaning up the rolls in 2011 per Federal and State legislation. I 

know of no complaints or thoughts that anyone was removed or 

purged—in fact, it was not a purge. It was just a normal cleaning 

of the rolls that Federal and State laws call for. 

Arizona was the first State to allow online voter registration. Almost 80 percent of our voter registrations occur through that process. It goes through the Department of Motor Vehicles. 

We also allow what is called the Permanent Early Voter List 

where voters can be on a list and be mailed a ballot for every election that they are eligible to vote in without having to request each 

time. 

For the last 40 years, Arizona’s voter participation in elections 

has been very steady around the 75-percent level. Again this year, 

we were at 74.6 percent, I think it was. 

In 2004, the citizens of our State did pass a proof of citizenship 

and ID at the polls legislation that we have been implementing, 

and, you know, I would agree that our fundamental first right is 

our right to vote. I think closely behind it or maybe equal with it 

is the right to know that our vote is not being canceled out or offset 

by somebody who is not allowed to vote or eligible to vote. 
16 

The second part of our system is how candidates get on the ballot. I do not think there is anything real unique about Arizona. We 

had a couple of redistricting issues and a couple of Congresspeople 

combined into the same district, and we had some challenges there. 

But we worked all through those. 

The third phase in our system is how do we get the ballots to 

the voters and get them back. In Arizona, about two-thirds of our 

voters vote by mail, most of them on this Permanent Early Voter 

List. The other third still enjoy going to the polls. The voters rejected within the last 10 years a ballot proposition to go to all-mail 

elections. And so we have about two-thirds that vote by mail, onethird that go to the polls. This year we had a significant reduction 

in the numbers who went to the polls and had to come back to 

show ID. Those number of voters dropped by almost half. 

And then I see my time is quickly going away, so I will go to the 

fourth phase of our election system. That is the counting of the ballots. We focus on two things there: accuracy and the inclusion of 

as many voters as possible. I personally sat with officials and volunteers from both parties in the counties working through processing ballots and identifying when somebody has spilled something on their ballot and the machine cannot count it. Tens of thousands of ballots meticulously duplicated so that we can include and 

count the ballot of every eligible voter. 

And as far as accuracy, we had a unique situation, and I will 

conclude very briefly. Two years ago, we had the first recount of 

a statewide election in the State’s history. One of the ballot measures was losing by about 126 votes out of over 1.8 million votes 

cast for or against that ballot measure. To make a long story short, 

as an accounting graduate, I began to fear that when we did the 

recount—which State law says you have to have a recount if it is 

less than 200 vote difference between the winner and loser. I realized that if we were 99 percent accurate in the recount, we could 

be off by about 18,000 votes from the first count. If we were 99.9 

percent accurate, it would be 1,800, or 99.99 percent accurate, 180 

still in excess of the difference between the yeses and noes. When 

it was all said and done, the vote total on the second recount 

changed by 66 votes out of 1.8 million. I think our accuracy percentage was 99.9994 percent. 

Our goal in Arizona is to have the best election system in the 

world. We are on the way there. We are not perfect. We have a lot 

of improvements that we can make, but we have a lot of dedicated 

individuals from both parties that are working hard to make sure 

that every Arizonan that is eligible to vote can and does so. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bennett appears as a submission 

for he record.] 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Bennett. 

Nina Perales is vice president of litigation for MALDEF, the 

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She is 

well known in the civil rights community for her work on voting 

rights, and her cases includes LULAC v. Perry, a challenge to 

Texas’ congressional redistricting, which she led through trial and 

a successful appeal to the U.S. something. 

Ms. Perales, the floor is yours. 
17 

STATEMENT OF NINA PERALES, VICE PRESIDENT OF LITIGATION, MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND (MALDEF), SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 

Ms. PERALES. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grassley, and 

members of the Judiciary Committee, thank you for inviting me to 

testify today. 

Today, Latinos constitute the largest racial minority group in the 

United States. Over the same decade, the number of Latino eligible 

voters—U.S. citizen adults—increased from 13 million to 21 million. 

As the Latino and other racial minority communities have grown 

and expanded their share of the U.S. electorate, some States have 

attempted to slow registration and participation of new voters. 

For example, Arizona adopted a new law in 2004 that changed 

voter registration rules to require only new voter registrants to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship. Prop 200, as it is called, 

has had a broad negative impact on voter registration across Arizona. Following enactment of the law, over 30,000 individuals were 

rejected for voter registration. 

Prop 200 does impose special burdens on naturalized U.S. citizens. Although registrants are encouraged to write their driver’s license number on the registration form, naturalized citizens who obtained their driver’s licenses years earlier, when they were permanent legal resident immigrants and, unbeknownst to them, were 

coded as foreigners in the driver’s license data base, are flagged for 

rejection of their voter registration applications. This often forces 

them to have to register twice and sometimes even register in person because the naturalization certificate says on its face that it 

should not be photocopied. 

The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, invalidated Prop 200 as inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act. Arizona’s appeal is now pending in the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Although Prop 200 states that its purpose is to combat undocumented immigration, Arizona has not identified a single instance 

in which an undocumented immigrant registered or voted in Arizona. 

In Texas, in 2011, the legislature enacted the strictest photo 

voter ID law in the Nation. The law has not gone into effect, however, because a Federal court in Washington, D.C., concluded that 

it violated the Federal Voting Rights Act. 

Texas already has a voter ID requirement. The 2011 law reduced 

the list of acceptable ID, eliminating, for example, voter registration cards, birth certificates, student ID cards issued from State 

universities, and employment identification cards with photos. Although there is no logical connection between citizenship and holding a driver’s license, during the enactment of the Texas voter ID 

law elected officials consistently affirmed that a State-issued photo 

voter ID was needed to prevent non-citizens from voting. 

In her testimony in the voter ID case, State Representative 

Debbie Riddle, when asked about specific incidents that she knew 

of voter fraud, described one incident in which she saw a Hispanic, 

Spanish-speaking woman who needed assistance voting. Representative Riddle offered this incident as an example of voter fraud, de-
18 

spite the fact that she also testified she had no knowledge whether 

the voter was a citizen or not, only that she was Hispanic. 

In 2012, both Florida and Colorado launched voter purges, claiming an urgent need to remove thousands—thousands—of non-citizens from the rolls. In both cases, the purges were based on the 

same flawed driver’s license data base searches that were found by 

the Arizona Federal court in 2008 to misclassify naturalized citizens as non-citizens. Both purge efforts, after sending letters to 

thousands of voters threatening to remove them from the voter 

rolls for non-citizenship, diminished to less than 200 voters in each 

State. In terms of identifying actual non-citizens, the outcome was 

predictably small. 

In Miami-Dade, 13 registrants reported they were not citizens, 

two of whom had voted. In Colorado, 14 voters were removed from 

the rolls. None had voted. 

The Texas 2011 redistricting also targeted Latino voters. Despite 

the fact that Latinos constituted 65 percent of the State’s overall 

population growth over the past decade and was, therefore, the 

leading reason that Texas gained four new congressional seats, the 

Texas legislature enacted redistricting plans that intentionally 

thwarted the growing Latino electorate. The plans for Congress 

and House of Representatives were blocked by a Federal court in 

Washington, D.C., on the ground that both plans reduced minority 

political strength and that the congressional redistricting plan was 

purposefully discriminatory on the basis of race. 

Although Latino registration and voting rates still lag behind 

those of Anglos, Latino voters are steadily increasing in number 

and achieving higher levels of voter participation. State practices 

that seek to freeze in place their current electorates and limit the 

entry of Latino voters can run afoul of Federal law as well as the 

Constitution and are fundamentally undemocratic. 

Thank you for the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Perales appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

I would like to ask the election officials here, Mr. Bennett and 

Mr. Schultz, the following: If you believe—and we all do—that 

voter fraud is, if not a crime, a serious act that should be dealt 

with in terms of our policy and laws, and if you believe that such 

cases should be investigated and prosecuted because of the serious 

nature of those cases, I would like for both of you to give me the 

evidence in Iowa and Arizona of convictions for voter fraud that 

have led to your changes in the law. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Do you mind if I got first, Mr. Chairman? 

Senator DURBIN. Please. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Thank you. I think that is a great question, and 

I think it is a very difficult question in some ways because not 

until now have we had resources to even go after this. 

Senator DURBIN. I beg your pardon? 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Not until recently have we as the Secretary of 

State’s office had resources dedicated toward an investigator to go 

and do investigations into these crimes. 

Senator DURBIN. Excuse me, sir. You are saying that the law was 

changed in Iowa even before the investigation began? 
19 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Well, let me back up. The law has not been 

changed in Iowa. I would say Iowa—let me address some of your 

concerns that you stated in your opening statement. Iowa has 40 

days of early voting. Our polls are open from 7 to 9 on election day. 

We do everything we can to encourage people to go vote. 

The question is then, when you have non-citizens who are registered to vote and voting, you have potential people double voting, 

you have absentee ballot fraud—— 

Senator DURBIN. Do you have evidence of non-citizens voting in 

Iowa? 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Yes, we have actually arrested—since August 

2012, six people have been arrested—— 

Senator DURBIN. Six. How many have voted since—— 

Mr. SCHULTZ. All of those who had voted. 

Senator DURBIN. No. I am saying of the total number of voters 

since 2012. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Well, it is a difficult question because we have 

three—we identified 3,582 non-citizens who were registered to vote, 

but we were not sure if they were still non-citizens. 

Senator DURBIN. I am guessing that millions—millions have 

voted? 

Mr. SCHULTZ. 1.6 million—— 

Senator DURBIN. 1.6 million, and there were six cases. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. No. That is what we have so far. We just started 

these investigations in August. 

Senator DURBIN. Well, let me ask Mr. Bennett that same question. You have heard Ms. Perales’ comments. It strikes me that 

there are legitimate questions as to why, if voter fraud is a serious 

issue, you have decided to only ask for proof, a birth certificate, of 

new voters as opposed to all voters. 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, I think that paints an incorrect picture of 

what the voters passed in 2004. What they did is grandfather anyone who had a State driver’s license or a State-issued ID before a 

certain cutoff. I think it was 1996. 

Senator DURBIN. I think that is what she said. 

Mr. BENNETT. So that essentially everyone was grandfathered in, 

and then as new voters move around and come in, they are asked 

to provide proof of citizenship. 

As to the evidence of voter fraud, we have prosecuted about 15 

cases within the last 18 months or so of people who were found to 

have voted in an election—these were all the Presidential election 

of 2008, I believe it was—voters who had been found to have voted 

in Arizona in an election that they also voted in another State. We 

have counties that report to us that they remove hundreds of voters from the registration voter rolls monthly who report on forms 

that are sent out to potential jurors that they are, in fact, not citizens and cannot serve on a jury, but when those juror questionnaires are reviewed by the county officials, hundreds who are found 

to also be on the voter rolls have to be removed from the voter 

rolls. 

I do not know of any—— 

Senator DURBIN. Fifteen have been prosecuted? You say 15 have 

been prosecuted? 
20 

Mr. BENNETT. Fifteen have been prosecuted during the last 18 

months or so. 

Senator DURBIN. And how many voted, for example, in the November 6th election in Arizona? 

Mr. BENNETT. About 2.3 million. 

Senator DURBIN. Ms. Perales, I would like you to take this to the 

obvious question. We are not looking to justify voter fraud, make 

it easy for those who are ineligible to vote. We are trying to stop 

those obstacles and intimidation of voters, which holds many people back who are eligible. So how are we to deal with this question, 

do you believe, in a fair fashion? 

Ms. PERALES. Thank you, Senator. What we have learned 

through these efforts by the States, some of which have been described here, is that there are very, very, very tiny numbers, sporadic, isolated incidents of people being registered when they are 

not eligible because of citizenship. The numbers are very consistent 

across the States, less than 10, less than 20. And Arizona, when 

it had the opportunity to prove this in court, came up with less 

than 20, most of whom were Canadians, by the way, for some 

strange reason. 

Senator DURBIN. A serious problem. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. PERALES. And less than 10 who had voted. So we know the 

numbers are very tiny, very consistently small—in fact, so small 

that they are even smaller than the 99.9994 accuracy level that 

Secretary Bennett is rightfully proud of in terms of the accuracy 

of counting ballots. 

Contrast that with the efforts themselves where thousands of letters have been sent to persons who have been erroneously identified as non-citizens because of the use of flawed driver’s license 

data bases. I have to take one small issue with Secretary Schultz, 

who said he had identified 3,500 non-citizens using the driver’s license rolls. He did not. He identified 3,500 people who were noncitizens at the time that they obtained their driver’s licenses, and 

we know that since that time and before they registered to vote, 

the overwhelming majority—and perhaps all of them—have become 

naturalized citizens. 

So any State at this point that undertakes to accuse people of 

non-citizenship based on driver’s license rolls is on notice that this 

is not correct and should not be done. It is fundamentally unfair. 

So, yes, are there tiny numbers—and Senator Grassley did a 

wonderful job of describing also much greater numbers of persons, 

for example, who are registered in more than one State. And these 

things ought to be approached in a very common-sense, fair way 

with very individualized looks at people who might possibly be ineligible. But sending out thousands of letters to people accusing 

them of non-citizenship, telling them they will be thrown off the 

rolls if they do not respond with paperwork within 30 days is not 

the way to go about it. 

Senator DURBIN. Governor Crist, my time is up, but I wanted to 

note one fact here. It is my information that some 8.3, 8.4 million 

people cast votes in the Presidential election in Florida, and the 

President’s margin was about 74,000, which is a very, very small 

margin. 
21 

When I came down to Florida, the thing that I found interesting 

was most of the legislative activity had been focused on early voting and registration as opposed to absentee voting. 

Mr. CRIST. Yes, sir. 

Senator DURBIN. Historically, we had testimony in Florida that 

Republicans have used absentee voting much more effectively than 

Democrats. Democrats have used early voting. 

Mr. CRIST. I have seen it. 

Senator DURBIN. I will bet you have. If you were out to stop voter 

fraud and believe that you have got to limit early voting, would it 

not also stand to reason that you would be making some limitations on absentee voting? And I do not believe Florida did. 

Mr. CRIST. Well, yes, sir, to answer your question in the affirmative. But I think that what all of us want are free, open, and fair 

elections for everyone, and I think the unfortunate thing that we 

have seen over the last couple of elections is, through interest 

groups like ALEC, a concerted effort to try to make it easier for one 

party to win over another. And I think the greatest example of 

that, Mr. Chairman, is the elimination in my State of the Sunday 

voting before the Tuesday election. And my friend Senator Nelson 

pointed this out in his opening testimony about the fact that in two 

specific communities, generally you see a historic tradition of citizens that are Hispanic or African American take the opportunity, 

typically after church, on that Sunday before the Tuesday election 

to go to the polls. That was eliminated in my State in 2011. We 

had in 2008. And what we did to adjust to that this year was organize a ‘‘Souls to the Polls’’ effort two Sundays before the Tuesday 

election, and it was pretty successful. But it pointed out something 

else, that even when these road blocks are put in place—and I was 

very proud of my fellow Floridians. They at first I think were frustrated, but I think ultimately became infuriated that somebody was 

daring to try to take away their opportunity and put obstacles in 

place in front of them for simply trying to exercise this precious 

right to vote. And so in Florida, even though the race had already 

been called for the Presidency, my fellow Floridians, as I think you 

indicated, continued to stay in line after the decision had been concluded because they were not going to be denied their right to vote 

in that election, and God bless them for that. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you. 

Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you very much. Thank you all for appearing, and particularly my own Secretary of State for coming, 

and my first question would be to my Secretary of State, applauding your efforts to give non-citizens who you thought were on the 

voter rolls that should not be there notice and an opportunity to 

be heard before they were removed from the rolls, and I think that 

our own Attorney General, a Democrat, has thought your efforts 

were well-meaning. But you have been unable, am I right, to proceed fairly to remove ineligible voters because you have received no 

cooperation from the Department of Homeland Security? So I 

would like to give you an opportunity to describe your request for 

assistance from that Department, their response, and have they 

shown any concern that ineligible voters may be diluting the votes 

of citizens? 
22 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Thank you, Senator. I think it goes back to in 

March, when we did this match—and I would be very clear—of potential non-citizens. Unlike Florida and other States, we did not 

ask to have these people removed, we did not send any notices, because we recognized there was a potential for these individuals, 

that they may have, when they got their driver’s licenses, been 

non-citizens and then later became citizens and voted. And so we 

attempted to try and get access to the SAVE data base. U.S. Code 

is very clear that we should have access to that information. And 

so we started talking to SAVE and its representatives in March 

and put our initial application in April, and then there was a lot 

of back-and-forth until July when they finally said that they would 

give us access to it. But then we did not get access to it, and we 

still have not received access to it. 

Now, in all fairness, in late August we were sued by the ACLU, 

but that did not prevent us from being able to get access to the 

data base. It was more of what we would be able to do with it after 

that point. We still have not received access to the data base. The 

discussions have just basically gone silent. And, you know, it is disappointing because we are trying to do the right thing. We do not 

want to accuse somebody who is a citizen of the United States that 

they are not able to vote and that they are not a citizen. That 

SAVE data base gives us real-time information on an individual’s 

citizenship and would allow us to make sure, of those 3,582, that 

we would be able to find out who is a citizen and who is not. We 

do know at least six of those individuals were not citizens because 

our Department of Criminal Investigation did find that out through 

investigative work, but that takes a lot of time. Had we been able 

to get access to this information, we would have been able to do 

this differently. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Governor Crist, the charge that the Florida 

law suppressed voting and was designed to do so, it is my understanding in Brown v. Detzner that the court rejected that argument, finding that the law’s voting changes neither had the intent 

nor the effect of discriminating on the basis, and that means the 

court rejected the claim of voter suppression. 

So isn’t it the case then that the Federal court rejected the argument of Floridians, and maybe your argument as well, that the 

Florida law ‘‘resulted in the suppression on election day’’ ? 

Mr. CRIST. Perhaps by that interpretation, but I have the experience of having been in Miami Gardens in Miami-Dade County during early voting, as well as Aventura in Miami-Dade County during 

early voting, and witnessing firsthand the long lines that were created by the law that was passed in my State in 2011 and signed 

by our current Governor. There were lines in Miami Gardens, 

which is largely African American, 3 and 4 hours people had to 

wait to vote in early voting. And over in Aventura on the same 

afternoon, I saw lines that were requiring people to wait 21⁄2 to 3 

hours for early voting. So I am not sure what the court was looking 

at, but I know what I saw, and it was suppressive. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Governor. 

I would go to Secretary Bennett. I believe that the voter ID laws 

are common-sense measures to prevent voter fraud, so, Secretary 

Bennett, it is my understanding that Arizona does have a voter ID 
23 

law. From your own experience and that in other States, has the 

adoption of voter ID laws suppressed minority turnout? Or maybe 

I should say turnout generally, but I think you ought to answer 

from the—— 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator. Actually, we 

have the highest number of registered Latino voters in Arizona and 

as a percentage of our total voter base now, eight years after the 

adoption of Prop 200, as was mentioned by Ms. Perales. So there 

is no evidence in Arizona that voter ID or proof of citizenship in 

order to register has had a negative effect on minorities. And the 

only one—we do not collect ethnic data in any way on our voter 

registration form. The only way we can really do these studies is 

by exit polling or some of our larger counties do Hispanic surname 

evaluation. From the Hispanic surname evaluation, we have the 

largest percentage of Latino voters of our population now, 8 years 

after Prop 200 went in. We have the highest number of total Latino 

voters in Arizona than we have ever had. And they are participating at the polls in higher percentages than ever before. 

Just 2 weeks ago, I met with two individuals, heads of organizations, that did large Hispanic and Latino voter registration drives 

in Arizona. Just between these two organizations alone, they registered over 34,000 Latino voters in a matter of weeks or a couple 

of months maybe before the primary and general elections. And the 

voter turnout is higher than it has ever been from that group. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you all. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you. 

Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Senator Durbin. I would like to 

thank the whole panel for your testimony today and for your determination to make sure that we have a free, fair, open electoral system in the United States. 

It seems to me that the core issue in this hearing is one of balance, of understanding consequence and scale. As Senator Durbin 

I think rather pointedly questioned the two State election officials, 

voter integrity, vote integrity is a critical issue. But you can only 

point to a handful of instances where there are real demonstrated 

challenges. And in my view, what we have heard in this hearing 

and in other hearings and what I have read and observed, denial 

of access to polling places, whether through very long lines or 

through aggressive purges of the rolls or through a variety of other 

tactical or technical means, has a significantly greater impact on 

the actual ability to exercise the franchise. 

And in reality, a lot of this comes down to being outcome determinative, as lawyers tend to say. When Florida had an election in 

2000 where the Presidential election hung in the balance and the 

initial difference was, I think, 537 votes, you suddenly begin to 

focus a lot of attention on these very minor—you know, 99.999 

versus 99.9999 can actually determine who is Governor, who is 

Senator, who is President. 

And so I think it is deserving of real thorough attention to what 

the impact is on the ability to vote of some of these very restrictive 

changes, and I was truly disturbed and troubled by Senator Nelson’s testimony and by former Governor Crist’s testimony about 
24 

what may have motivated some of the changes and decisions that 

may have been taken in Florida and their impact on access to the 

polls. 

So if I might, with a first question to Governor Crist, what do 

you view as the most important election administration reforms 

that would actually sustainably and successfully improve access to 

the ballot and ease of voting? 

Mr. CRIST. Well, I think there are several things, and, Senator, 

I appreciate the question. Number one, if you would restore the 

early voting days from the now restricted 8 days back to 14, I think 

that would be a step in the right direction. 

I also think, as we chatted about earlier, the fact that reopening 

that Sunday before the Tuesday election would be honoring of a lot 

more people, candidly, and the practice that they may want to participate in, in the fashion they want to participate in it. 

I also think that as it relates to voting by mail, the new law in 

Florida passed in 2011 said that when people sent in their mail 

ballot—and I am pretty sure I have got this right—the only evidence that could be utilized to determine that the person sending 

in the ballot was actually the one purporting to do so was their signature on that ballot when they sent it in and that it matched up 

with the signature at the supervisor’s office. 

Well, if you are in a situation like my mother, who last year, unfortunately, had a stroke—by the grace of God, she is doing pretty 

well now, and literally, thank God for that. But one residual that 

is lingering is that she is not able to write with her right hand, and 

she is right-handed. And so how in the world are you going to have 

your signature match up with the signature that is on file with the 

supervisor’s office if you have suffered that difficulty. 

So there are several things that I think are just common sense: 

more time to vote, make it more convenient to vote, appreciate that 

some people’s ability to sign their signature as they did before may 

have altered or changed, and just be respectful to the voter, the 

people that we are supposed to work for, and allow them to exercise this wonderful opportunity and privilege that we have in 

America to choose our leaders and have the chance to exercise that 

right that so many have fought and died for in a common-sense 

way. 

Senator COONS. Well, thank you, Governor. One of the things I 

have tried to contribute to the conversation here in the Senate is 

a bill, the Fair, Accurate, Secure and Timely, or FAST, Voting Act 

that urges States to compete for a pot of Federal matching funds 

and to put forward proposals for things that they might do—online, 

registration, voting by mail, expanding the days available—to ensure that we have got as much access to the opportunity to exercise 

the right to vote as reasonably possible. Other bills impose Federal 

minimum standards in terms of access, and I would be interested— 

if I might, to Secretary Bennett, I admire your stated goal of having the best election system, I think you said ‘‘in the world.’’ I serve 

on the Foreign Relations Committee with Senator Durbin, and we 

both are quite interested in and engaged in the promotion of democracy in the developing world. It is an embarrassment, I think, 

to this country, when we have an election where there are 6-, 

7-, 8-hour waiting lines, and I am really concerned and troubled by 
25 

what seem to be some of the motivations behind more aggressive 

registration and voter ID laws. 

Help me understand—you made passing reference to county officials—as a former county official. What do you see as the capability, the capacity of States and counties to comply with Federal 

mandates, minimum standards to ensure that we really do have 

the best voting system in the world? 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Senator. It has probably been better 

than ever before since the passage of HAVA and the related Federal dollars that came out because of that. But I think we are at 

the point where, at least in Arizona, and from conversations I have 

had with people around the country, a lot of the equipment that 

was purchased with those dollars are nearing end-of-life cycles. 

That is a point that I have discussed with the 15 county recorders 

and election directors in Arizona as recently as last week to come 

up with a funding stream. I have proposed something along the 

lines of maybe $3 or $5 per voter per year be budgeted at each of 

the county levels as well as out of the State general fund budget. 

To me, $5 a year per registered voter is a reasonable sum to accomplish the very fundamental purpose of allowing people to vote without having to set in long lines, upgrade equipment, maybe more in 

the direction of voting centers—two of our counties, for example, 

have already moved in that direction—where any voter from a 

county can go to any voting center, and you do not have the phenomenon of, ‘‘I am in the wrong polling location, and the ballot that 

I cast did not count because I did not find the right polling location.’’ 

Senator COONS. That is compelling. 

Mr. BENNETT. So there are technological advances and things 

that we can do. There is no more Federal money. We still have a 

little bit of it left in Arizona that we will probably make available 

as seed money to the counties, maybe in a matching thing, to address the renewal of our equipment. But the resources are getting 

very thin. 

Senator COONS. Understood. I appreciate that input, and the regional voting centers idea strikes me as compelling. 

Mr. Chairman, might I have one last question? Thank you. 

Ms. Perales, would you agree—I believe from your testimony you 

would agree—that access to the ballot is diminished by long waiting times and that we should be concerned about disparate impact? 

A recent study by Hart Research showed that in this election, 2012, 

22 percent of African Americans and 24 percent of Latinos had to 

wait more than 30 minutes, 30 minutes or longer, but only 9 percent of Caucasian or white voters had to wait 30 minutes or longer. 

Would you care to think and share with me about the cause of this 

disparity, what can be done to remedy it, and what does it say 

about the continued value of the Voting Rights Act at a time when 

the Supreme Court is reviewing its appropriateness? 

Ms. PERALES. Well, thank you. I do not have an explanation for 

why there are longer lines for some minority groups nationwide. I 

think the explanation may vary State by State. But it is very discouraging to have to wait such a long time to be able to cast your 

vote. And if you have a job where you do not have the flexibility 

to take time off to vote, it makes it even tighter because you are 
26 

in line and you realize you have to go back or you are going to get 

in trouble with your boss. Or many of us face, you know, the afterwork attempt to vote where you have got to get home and you have 

got to cook dinner, and you have these things that you have to do 

with your family. So it makes it very difficult, and we have seen 

a lot of people just get out of line and go home. 

With respect to Section 5, I have to say that it has been so critically important for the minority community over time and since the 

time that the covered jurisdictions were covered in 1965 and 1975. 

Just this year, speaking from my perspective as a litigator, it has 

continued to be critical and very much alive for us. In Texas, when 

the legislature passed a plan that absolutely, clearly discriminated 

against Latinos and African Americans, and even was found to 

have purposefully racially discriminated, if we did not have Section 

5, those plans would have gone into effect while we struggled in 

court with our limited resources to assemble enough experts and 

other witnesses to convince a three-judge panel in Texas that eventually it would have to be enjoined. 

You know, Section 5 shifts the burden properly to jurisdictions 

that are covered to show at the outset that their laws are not discriminatory. In the case of Texas and the 2011 redistricting, Texas 

could not prove that its plans were non-discriminatory in the D.C. 

court, and the plans were rightfully enjoined. And as a result, we 

had elections under interim plans that were vastly more fair than 

they would have been otherwise. 

So Section 5 is very much alive for us. That is not the only example I could give, but I am giving you a short answer. It is alive, 

it is vibrant, and it is so needed. It is precious to us and the core 

of the most effective piece of civil rights legislation ever passed by 

Congress. 

Senator COONS. Thank you very much. Thank you both for your 

testimony and for your very hard work litigating what I know are 

complex and difficult cases. 

Just in closing, if I might, Mr. Chairman, say that I, too, am passionate about ensuring that the Voting Rights Act remains alive 

and relevant and that the ugly history that led to the 1965 Voting 

Rights Act and to these preclearance requirements, there is plenty 

of evidence—and you cite the Texas case—to suggest that these 

are, sadly, still valid concerns and that they require strong Federal 

legislative action to ensure access to the polls, that a safe, that a 

fair, and that an open electoral system remains a part or is a part, 

becomes a part of America’s electoral future, because our history 

suggests that in the absence of determination and rigor, we may 

lose one of the most foundational civil rights in this country. 

Thank you for your work. Thank you all for your testimony 

today. 

Senator DURBIN. Thanks, Senator Coons. 

Let me ask Representative Cobb-Hunter and Ms. Perales the following question. I think I know—I do know the answer, but I want 

to hear your response. 

What is the big deal? If I want to ride on an airplane, I have got 

to show an ID. If I want to rent a car, I have got to show an ID. 

Sometimes even to go to a Presidential rally, I have to show an ID. 
27 

So what is the big deal of showing an ID to vote, for goodness’ 

sakes, to make sure that I am who I say I am? 

Ms. COBB-HUNTER. Well, Senator, we heard that question a lot 

during the debate in South Carolina, and I will tell you what the 

big deal is for my constituents. An ID is something that is difficult 

to come by, and my perspective is rural and dealing with people 

who do not have documentation that might be necessary. 

It is important to note that the notion of an ID in and of itself 

is not the problem. We, those of us in South Carolina, members of 

the Legislative Black Caucus, who walked out of our legislature 

during the debate on this, where we came down in disagreement 

was that the barriers that requiring a photo ID set in some communities were just simply too much for our constituents to deal 

with. 

For example, there was the offer of a free ID, just go to the DMV 

and you can get a free ID. The reality, as I said earlier and as is 

in my written testimony, is that it is not that simple. 

For example, women who are divorced, if you go to the DMV and 

a name is different than what you had, then you are talking about 

incurring expenses of going through name changes because it does 

not match what is on the original voter registration. If you lived 

on a farm and you were delivered by a midwife and the record of 

your birth, for example, is in a family Bible—in a lot of communities of color, births are recorded in family Bibles. 

So the issue is not the ID. The issue for us in South Carolina 

was the documentation that is required to get an ID. And so it is 

not that we support fraud, and I would point out again that there 

were absolutely zero—I have heard six, I have heard different 

numbers here. In South Carolina, there was not and is not one case 

that can be cited of a person showing up at the polls with the ID 

of another person attempting to vote. 

It is critical for us in South Carolina that the preclearance requirement of Section 5 be maintained, and let me just end by saying we were fortunate in our State that the three-judge panel ruled 

that this ID law could not take effect before the November elections. Where we are concerned is that, given my history in the legislature in South Carolina, all of the conversation and explanation 

that we had before the three-judge panel, where our State election 

officials and their discussion of reasonable impediment, in effect 

creates a new law. I am concerned about what the implementation 

will actually look like. 

We have no record of saying—in response to the other question 

about whether or not these voter ID laws had impacted voter turnout, we cannot answer that question yet in South Carolina because 

it has not been implemented. But I will say that there is mass confusion in the State. We have got an election that will come up in 

January, a local election, and there is confusion because people are 

still under the impression that the law that was litigated before the 

three-judge panel is the law that will take effect then. 

So we are all for integrity, but we are not for barriers that preclude people the right to vote. 

Senator DURBIN. Ms. Perales, would you like to add something? 

Ms. PERALES. Thank you, yes. So the big deal is that most people 

do have a photo ID that could use to vote, depending on what State 
28 

you are in. But many people do not, and there are higher numbers 

of these people in certain subcommunities, so I will mention briefly 

the clients that I had in the voter ID litigation in Texas. 

Two young women, recently graduated from high school, Victoria 

and Nicole Rodriguez, top of their class, the pride of our community, full scholarships to college. They had student IDs from high 

school, but they did not have driver’s licenses because it was too 

expensive in their very limited income home to put them on the car 

insurance, because when you get a driver’s license, your parents’ 

car insurance goes through the roof, especially if there are two of 

you. 

And so these young women actually came to D.C. and testified, 

and they boarded a plane using their student ID. They got here. 

They were able to check into a hotel, and we helped them along 

the way. But this was ID that under the Texas new law was not 

going to be sufficient. So the tighter the voter ID law is, the more 

difficult it is for certain groups. 

Victoria and Nicole were young, and they were poor, quite frankly. And in that group, especially if you are dependent on public 

transportation, there are going to be much higher rates of people 

without voter ID. 

The first analysis done by Texas in the preclearance process in 

front of DOJ yielded a statistical result that Latinos were twice as 

likely as non-Latinos to lack an official driver’s license issued by 

Texas. Nobody is really sure whether that is the true number, but 

that was the first number that Texas came up with. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Bennett, I am going to ask you the last question here. Could 

you say in just a few words, could you describe to me why a person 

in Arizona, when they attempted to vote, would receive a provisional ballot? 

Mr. BENNETT. The most common reason is that—this past year, 

this past election just a month ago, the most common reason is 

that they had been mailed an early ballot and either lost it in their 

household shuffle or whatever and showed up on election day at a 

polling location to vote. At that point, there is an indication by 

their name that they have a live ballot that was mailed to them 

at home. So that they do not inadvertently get to vote twice, they 

are asked to vote a provisional ballot. The provisional ballots are 

set aside for a day or two until all of the late-arriving ballots by 

mail are verified. And then once we know that we did not receive 

a ballot by mail from that voter, then their provisional ballot is 

cast. 

We had many voters who admitted that they heard on the media 

or whatever that, you know, if you had mailed your ballot on Friday or Saturday, with the election on Tuesday, it might not get 

there in time, so as a fail-safe, go down and vote a provisional ballot. So the first reason why people were asked to vote provisionals 

was they had already been mailed a live early ballot. 

Senator DURBIN. So did you detect any trends in terms of this 

instance where people were given a provisional ballot based on 

being sent an early ballot? I mean, were there more whites, more 

blacks, more Hispanics, more women, more men? 
29 

Mr. BENNETT. No. In fact, our largest county, Maricopa County, 

around the Phoenix metropolitan area—I should probably have provided you with a wonderful map that they did that identifies the 

Hispanic surname voters in the precincts throughout Maricopa 

County, and the higher percentages are a darker color. And then 

they have done an evaluation already of where did the provisional 

ballots come in. And the provision ballots are scattered all throughout the county. 

Senator DURBIN. So the largest or the most dominant reason for 

issuance of provisional ballots appeared to be across the board, affecting everybody. 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, absolutely. 

Senator DURBIN. That is why I wanted to ask you this question, 

because you spoke about Maricopa County in your testimony here. 

Statewide in Arizona, in the 2012 election, 172,000 provisional ballots, roughly, were cast. That is 7.4 percent of the total number of 

ballots cast. More than two-thirds of the provisional ballots cast 

statewide, however, were cast in Maricopa County, where a large 

number of Arizona’s minority voters reside. Nineteen percent of all 

provisional ballots in the State were rejected and not counted. 

According to an analysis by the Arizona Capitol Times, Maricopa 

County voters living in precincts with higher percentages of minorities had a greater chance of casting provisional ballots in the November 6th election. Eighty-two percent of the voters in the Holly 

precinct, north of Phoenix, are minorities. In that precinct, 18.5 

percent of all ballots cast were provisional. In Tempe’s Hudson precinct, where 43 percent of the residents are minorities, 32 percent 

of all ballots cast were provisional. 

Can you explain why voters in Arizona’s predominantly minority 

precincts were so much more likely to receive and cast provisional 

ballots that may ultimately not be counted? 

Mr. BENNETT. First of all, Senator, the data that you are referring to in the Capitol Times article is not data that I have heard 

from the counties themselves. What I did glean from the meeting 

that I referred to with the two Hispanic voter registration groups, 

one of them admitted that of the 34,000 Latino voters that they 

registered within the last few weeks or a month or two before the 

election, on many of those voter registration forms, the voter themselves had not checked the box to be on what is called the Permanent Early Voter List and receive their ballot by mail. 

For the purposes of the organization that was pushing the drive, 

I was frankly a bit surprised that they admitted to me that the organization officials had checked a box on the voter registration 

form that the voter may not have known had been checked by the 

group that they gave it to, which caused a ballot to be mailed to 

those folks, and they were thinking, ‘‘I am going to go to the polls 

and vote.’’ Then a ballot shows up. Perhaps they thought it was a 

sample ballot or whatever. So there was at least some anecdotal 

evidence of these groups that registered large Latino voters—— 

Senator DURBIN. I understand that, but what you said earlier 

was when you looked at provisional ballots, they were across the 

board; but what the statistics show is that provisional ballots were 

more likely in the minority precincts—— 
30 

Mr. BENNETT. I do not think statistically that is correct, Senator. 

I think they could find, as I think that article indicates, that of the 

darker blue—the color that they used on these maps. Of the darker 

blue precincts that had a higher percentage of minorities or Hispanic surname registered voters, I am sure some of those precincts 

did have higher percentages maybe than the average. But when 

you look at the map of where the provisional ballots came in from 

across the county, they were scattered throughout the county, came 

from some of our—I personally sat at a table with a volunteer and 

processed a large group of provisional ballots from one of our predominantly non-minority precincts. And so I would respectfully 

suggest that they might be picking one or two precincts that correlate between high voter registration—or high minority registration and high provisional ballots. But there were as many or more 

precincts that did not, that had low minority percentages. 

Senator DURBIN. So we will take a look at that and perhaps compare some statistics. 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you. 

Senator DURBIN. I want to thank this panel, and I want to thank 

all of you who have followed this hearing today. The obvious question is: The election is over. Why are you concerned about it? And 

we are concerned about it for something very basic stated by our 

courts. The Supreme Court said the right to vote is indeed ‘‘preservative of other basic civil and political rights.’’ I remember when 

that question was asked I think of every Supreme Court nominee 

if they understood how important this one right was. And, in fact, 

they all testified that they did, and we should not forget it. 

So we have a lot of organizations that want to put written statements in the record: Leadership Conference on Civil and Human 

Rights, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, Center for American 

Progress, African American Ministers Leadership Council, the 

American Civil Liberties Union, and DEMOS. Without objection, 

the statements will be put in the record. No objection. 

[The information referred to appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Senator DURBIN. The hearing record will be held open for 1 week 

for additional statements. Written questions may be sent your way 

to the witnesses at the close of business. We hope that 1 week from 

today you will spend Christmas Eve and Christmas Day completing 

the questionnaire and get them back to us. We will ask the witnesses to respond promptly so we can complete the record. And if 

there are no further comments from our panel or my colleagues, I 

thank the witnesses for attending and colleagues for participating. 

The hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 
31 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

'(I) ~~~~~D~~ "., Edo~"."" 'OM .~. QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

San Antonio 

Regional Office 

110BI'oadway 

Suite 300 

Sun Antonio, 'IX 7&'205 

Tel: 210.224,5476 

Fllx: 210.224.5382 

National Headquarters 

Los Angefes 

Regional Office 

634 S. Spring Street 

L(lsAngelcs, CA 90014 

Tel: 213.629.2512 

Fax: 213.629.0266 

Chicago 

Regional Offk:e 

11 East Adams Street 

Suite 700 

Chicabto. 11. 60003 

Tel: 312.427.0701 

I'ux: 312.427.0691 

Sacramento 

Policy Office 

1512 14th Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Tel: 916.444.3031 

Fax: Q!G,444.7207 

Washington, D.C. 

Regional Office 

lOW 16th Slreel, NW 

Suite 100 

Washington, DC 200:m 

Tel: 202.293.2828 

Pax: 202.293.2849 

From Senator Amy Klobucbar 

"The Siale ofille Rigltt to Vote After the 2012 Electioll" 

December 19,2012 

Questions for Nina Perales 

Voter 10 Laws: 

~ To the best of your knowledge, did the implementation of new votcr identification 

requirements cause confusion or contributed to long lines at the polls in this year's 

election? 

First, I would like to thank Senator Klobuchar and the Senate Judiciary Committee for 

the opportunity to provide additional infonnation regarding restrictive voter 

identification requirements at the polls. As I mentioned in my oral testimony, we 

believe there are many reasons for long lines at the polls on Election Day and that 

restricting voter identification rules arc a contributing factor to poll worker and voter 

confhsion that can and often does lead to longer lines, 

In Texas for example, the proposed photo voter 10 law enacted by the Texas 

Legislature under SB 14, but not implemented because it failed to gain preclearance 

under section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act, did result in confusion for poll 

workers and election officials. On March 12,2012, the United States Attomey General 

denied administrative preclearance of the Texas photo voter ID law (SB 14), concluding 

that Texas had failed to show that SB 14 will not have "the effect of denying or 

abridging the right to vote on account of race." On August 30,2012, the United States 

District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order in Stale of Texas v. Holder, 

Civil Action No.1 :11-CV-00128, denying the state's request for a deelaratory judgment 

preclearing SB 14. Nonetheless, the Texas Secretary of State required county election 

officia1s to add language to the registration certificates sent to every Texas voter 

describing the requirements of the photo voter 10 that never went into effect. 

Thc voter registration certificate designed by the Secretary of State stated: 

Upon federal approval of a photo identification law passed by the Texas 

Legislature in 2011, a voter must show one of the following fonns of 

photo identification at the polling location before the voter may be 

accepted for voting: Driver's license, election identification certificate, 

persollal identification card or concealed handgun license issued by the 

Texas Department of Public Safety; United States Military identification 

card that contains the person's photograph; United States citizenship 

certificate that contains the person's photograph; or a United States 

passport. 

Advancing Latino Civil Ri[Jhts for over 40 leal'S 

ww\\cmaldcLol'g 
32 

Because Texas counties are required by law to send this certificate to all registered voters, 

including those who registered to vote following August 30, 2012, millions of individuals 

continued to carry an official election document stating inaccurate infonnation regarding the 

requirements for voting in the November 6, 2012 election. 

The voter confusion created by the dissemination of inaccurate voter registration certificates was 

compounded by the incorrect infonnation provided to voters by the Texas Secretary of State on 

her websites. 

The website for the Elections Division of the Secretary of State provided a number of links for 

voter infonnation, including a tab for "Voter Illfonnation" and "Frequently Asked Questions." 

These tabs guided the voter to the website VoteTexas.gov (also maintained by the Secretary of 

State) and a page titled "Need ID?" which did not provide a complete list of acceptable voter 

identification documents established by the Texas Election Code §§ 63.001 and 63.0101. Most 

important, the Secretary of State excluded from her list the voter registration certificate, which is 

acceptable voter identification under current Texas law and also the most accessible fonn of 

identification because it does not cost money and comes to the voter by mail before an election. 

TIle Spanish language translation of the site contained the same error. Thus Texas voters 

searching online for infonnation from the Secretary of Statc on acceptable voter ID were 

seriously misinfonned about their ability to vote at the polls on Election Day. 

Many Texas county election officials provided links to the erroneous Secretary of State election 

webpages on their own websites, which further exacerbated the problem of misinfonnation on 

voter identification. Even worse, some counties that correctly stated that voters may use tlleir 

voter registration certificates as voter identification at the polls contradicted themselves by 

linking to the websites maintained by the Texas Secretary of State. Finally, other counties that 

relied on the Secretary of State web sites for voter identification infonnatioll provided 

contradictory infonnation in English and Spanish. For example, Tarrant County correctly stated 

on its website in English that voters may use their voter registration certificates as voter 

identification, but then directed Spanish speaking voters to the incorrect infonnation on the 

Secretary of State websites. 

Media outlets in Texas that relied on the infonnation distributed by the Secretary of State also 

reported incorrect lists of voter identification. For example, in McAllen, Texas, a city of more 

than 125,000 that is also 85% Hispanic, the local television station reported an incorrect list of 

acceptable voter !D. 

TIms, voters who were initially confused by the restrictive SB \4 identification requirements 

printed Oll their voter registration certificates were further misled by the infonnation presented 

by the Texas Secretary of State as well as local election officials and news outlets that relied on 

the Secretary of State's websites. 

Texas poll worker confusion regarding voter identification was chronicled by Wayne Slater, a 

Dallas Morning News Reporter, when he attempted to vote in Williamson County utilizing his 

2 
33 

utility bill (an acceptable fonn of voter identification in Texas) and was asked by the poll worker 

for additional identification. l 

The nonpartisan Election Protection coalition in 2012 reported misinfonnation and confusion 

about voter identification in Michigan and Pennsylvania2 In Pennsylvania many voters reported 

being confused and deterred by requests for ID. Election Protection received reports from across 

the state from voters who were improperly tumed away for lacking photo ID and reported the 

following: 

TIlis was exacerbated by widespread misinfonnation disseminated at polling places. 

Voters in polling places in Dauphin County, for example, were greeted with misleading 

signs stating that voters must show an approved form of photo ID to vote. The state 

itself put out such misleading infonnation, issuing a mailing the week before the 

election that read, 'If you want to vote, SHOW !T .... Under a new law, voters are 

supposed to show a fonn of ID' and contained no mention that votcr's did were not 

required to show photo identification in order to vote on Election Day.3 

Ultimately, it's difficult to quantify the confusion caused by strict voter identification 

requirements (enacted or proposed) and its relationship to long lines in polling places. Voters 

obtain election infonnation from multiple sources including media, word of mouth, official and 

non-official web sites, mailers and emails from political parties, poll workers, county officials, 

candidates, and third parties. In states with litigation over enacted voter ID laws such as Texas 

and Pennsylvania, misleading and inaccurate infonnation, in some cases from the election 

officials themselves, likely caused confusion among voters and poll worker alike as well as 

delays in accepting voters on Election Day when poll workers demanded the wrong types of ID. 

~ In your opinion, are any types of voter ID laws consistent with protecting voting rights? 

The short answer to your question is yes. MALDEF does not contend that all voter identification 

requirements will automatically result in violations of the Voting Rights Act or any other 

Constitutional or legal protections. With that said, MALDEF believes that any voter 

identification requirement ought to allow eligible voters who do not have preferred identification 

to participate by showing other fonns of identification, signing an affidavit, and/or providing 

other identifying infonnation. Furthennore, any substantive change in voting policies, including 

a change in identification requirements, must be accompanied by a robust and multi-faceted 

public education campaign. Last, voting should not cost money, and any additional 

identification requirement should be accompanied by a program to ensure that required 

identification is free of cost, including underlying identification needed to obtain voter ID, such 

as birth, marriage and naturalization certificates as well as, where feasible, mobile identification 

nnits to provide identification to those who cannot physically go to govenllnellt agencies that 

issue state photo identification documents. 

I Available at http://tr~ilblalersblog.daliasnews.com!2012/IO!voter-id-is-not-the-law·in-te,as-but.law-schmawdemand-it-anvway.htmlf 

2 See http://www .Iawverscolllm ittee.org!~d minisi te/do climentsm les/EP-20 12-Pre I im inar\,-Repoll -(0'( engressFINAL.pdfat 15. , Id. 

3 
34 

The most detailed information we have about the impact of voter identification laws comes from 

the litigation in which MALDEF represents eligible voters who were turned away or would have 

been turned away from the polls as well as voter organizations. These cases include Gonzalez v. 

Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012) and Texas v Holder, 2012 WL 3743676 (D.D.C. 2012). 

At the trial of Gonzalez v Arizona, Arizona could not produce any example of impersonation 

voter fraud to justify its voter ID law. The lack of evidence of even a single incident of 

impersonation voter fraud is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's observation in the Indiana 

voter ID case that "the record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in 

Indiana at any time in its history." Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U. S. (2008) 

(slip op at II). What we have learned about voter ID laws is that they are unjustified by a real 

problem of impersonation voter fraud and are thus a solution in search of a problem. 

Although unsupported by the evidence, Arizona's voter ID law has resulted in thousands of 

voters being turned away from the polls. During these elections, a voter whose name was on the 

rolls but who could not provide the required ID was given a conditional provisional ballot and 

told to return within five days with ID or the baUot would not be counted. 

Because of Arizona's voter ID law, many eligible voters whose names were on the voter rolls 

found themselves suddenly unable to vote because of one problem - they did not have the 

specific combination of documents required by the Arizona voter ID law. These citizens - all 

ages, races, party affiliations and income levels - were representative of the general electorate 

but found themselves excluded from the democratic process. 

For example, 

Karen Lewsader, a police officer and registered Republican, was forced to cast a 

conditional provisional ballot because her driver's license listed a different address than 

the address assigned to her in the voter rolls. She had previously moved and changed her 

address with the Motor Vehicles Department, but the practice of the agency is to change 

the records in its database and not replace the physical driver's license unless the driver 

pays an additional fee. When she was at the poll Ms. Lewsader went back to her car to 

try to find another form of identification with the correct name and address so she could 

cast a regular ballot, but the vehicle registration information she found was under her 

husband's name. When the demands of her job prevented her from returning to the 

county to show additional ID, her vote was not counted. 

Kristopherlee Russell, a registered Democrat, was forced to cast a provisional ballot 

because his driver's license and voter roll addresses did not match. His license had the 

address from his time as a student at the University of Arizona. After graduation he went 

to the DMV to update his information, but did not pay for a replacement license. When 

he went to vote his valid driver's license and voter registration card were not sufficient 

proof of identification. Mr. Russell did not have any other acceptable form of 

identification with him at the time and ultimately cast a provisional ballot. Minutes after 

leaving the polling place he found his Vehicle Registration and Proof of Insurance 

information in his car and attempted to present them at the same polling place as proper 

4 
35 

fonns of identification, but the poll workers did not allow him to change ballots. Mr. 

Russell's vote was not counted. 

Caleb LaPorte is a technician who works in chemical pumps and mines in Phoenix. Poll 

workers gave him a provisional ballot because the address on his license did not match 

the address on the voter rolls, even though he brought a letter from the voting bureau that 

stated it received his change of address and that he could use the letter as a form of 

identification. Mr. LaPorte was living with his girlfriend in her apartment at the time, 

and all the utility bills were in her name. When a poll worker explained that any fonn of 

mail would suffice as identification for voting, Mr. LaPorte returned with the only mail 

he received at that address- advertisement mail. Upon showing the envelope to the poll 

workers, they concluded it was not acceptable and gave him a conditional provisional 

ballot. The poll workers told Mr. LaPorte that the only way he could "cure" his ballot 

was to get a ncw driver's license. Mr. LaPorte did not have the time to do this before the 

5-day deadline and his ballot was not counted. 

Georgia Morrison-Flores was a newlywed when she registered to vote and she registered 

under her married name. However, when she went to vote her maiden name on her 

driver's license did not match her married name under which she was registered. 

Because the names did not match, even though her valid ID showed her photo, birth date 

and first name, Ms. Morrison-Flores was turned away from the poll by an election worker 

who knew her and had been her childhood neighbor. Ms. Morrison-Flores was unable to 

cast a ballot of any kind, despite her status as a qualified voter. 

Although the federal courts upheld the Arizona voter ID law is not unconstitutional, the 

examples of eligible voters turned away at the polls remain in the record as a stark reminder of 

the disenfranchising effects of such laws. 

In Texas, the enacted, but not pre-cleared SB 14 would have been far stricter than Indiana's or 

Georgia's voter ID laws4 as well as Arizona's in tenns of acceptable identification and the lack 

of exceptions for potentially eligible voters that lacked the necessary identification. In Texas v. 

Holder, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that Texas could not bear its 

burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the photo ID legislation lacked a 

retrogressive effect in part because the Legislature rejected amendments that would have ensured 

appropriate safeguards including, but not limited to, waiving all fees for indigent persons who 

needed underlying documents, reimbursing low-income Texans that for travel to obtain an ID, 

including student IDs and Medicare cards in the list of acceptable photo IDs, and accepting 

expired driver's licenses.5 

Restrictive photo ID legislation forces certain voters to take additional steps to acquire 

acceptable forms of identification or exclude these voters from voting altogether. In addition, 

because these laws force some voters to return home for more documentation before returning to 

the polls for a second attempt at voting, the present themselves for voting a second time, the laws 

discourage voters from exercising the franchise. 

4 Texas v Holder opinion at 26. 

l See lD at 26, 55.56. 

5 
36 

This type of legislation also creates the likelihood that election officials will refuse to accept 

voters whose photo identifications list an address or name that does not match their address or 

name on the voter rolls. For example, a voter who changes addresses before his driver's license 

expires will have an address on that license that differs from the address in the voter rolls. If you 

want a license that reflects your new address, you have to pay additional fees. Poll workers are 

often unsure about what to do with a voter whose photo identification lists a name that is 

different from that on the voter rolls, and sometimes poll workers respond by turning away the 

voter, or allowing the voter to cast only a provisional ballot that is ultimately not counted. 

MALDEF recognizes that not all voter identification laws are the same. Many voter 

identification requirements include safeguards to ensure voters will not be disenfranchised. 

Many of these safeguards are more effective than others and if safeguards are combined, it can 

significantly reduce potential disenfranchisement of eligible voters. These include: 

Effective 

Allowing a county or government issued voter registration certificate as acceptable form 

of identification; 

• A broad list of identification documents that includes student identification, non-photo 

government-sent correspondence and other documents consistent with the Help America 

Vote Act list of documents for first-time registrants in a state that does not have a 

statewide voter database; 

An affidavit process similar to Michigan, New Mexico or Florida to ensure eligible voters 

are not disenfranchised; these safeguards have proven effective in reducing legal 

challenges; 

• Free identification cards become less effective if voters are subject to rules that require 

other documents that are not free. 

Less Effective 

Limiting acceptable identification to photo identification excludes voters who lack a 

photo ID but who do have other forms of non-photo identification; 

Narrow exceptions for the disability community and those over a certain age fail to 

provide a meaningful opportunity for many voters who lack ID; 

• Short "cure" periods in which voters who cast provisional ballots must return with 

satisfactory ID present serious barriers to voters with inflexible work schedules or limited 

access to transportation. 

6 
37 

Conclusion: 

Ultimately, laws related to voter identification must strike the right balance between security and 

access to the polls. Attempts to make the identification requirement exceptionally strict are often 

not rooted in good policy, or even reality, and can result in significant disenfranchisement. Any 

law that requires an identification requirement beyond what is required by HA VA for first time 

registrants should be viewed skeptically and should not implemented without a significant efforts 

to determine the impact on racial minorities, students, the elderly, the disability community, and 

the indigent. Any change in voter identification laws must be accompanied by a robust 

education campaign that encourages voters to obtain the necessary and easily obtainable 

identification and to exercise their franchise. If the proper conditions and safeguards are met, 

MALDEF does object to reasonable identification requirements to vote at the polls. 

7 
38 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

ASIAN AMERICAN iDIPJIII MIMlll.Ror 11~.4!I ASW, A\·URlC'IN JUSTICE CENTER I-.:! IURAIW,\NClNC IUsrlU 

Statement of 

MeeMoua 

President and Executive Direetor, Asian American Justice Center 

Before the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

Hearing on 

"The State of the Right to Vote after the 2012 Election" 

December 19, 2012 

Introductory Statement 

The election cycle of2012 was an important one for Asian American voters. Not only 

did we see increased excitement and participation by Asian American voters, as evidenced by 

numerous surveys, it was also the first major election since the new determinations under Section 

203 were made based on census 20 I 0 data. The Asian American Justice Center (AAJC) submits 

this statement about Asian Americans and the 2012 election and asks that it be made part of the 

record. 

Organizational Background 

AAJC is a national non-profit, non-partisan organization that works to advance the 

human and civil rights of Asian Americans, and build and promote a fair and equitable society 

for aiL AAJC is a member of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice ("Advancing 

Justice") along with three affiliates: the Asian American Institute in Chicago, the Asian Law 

Caucus in San Francisco, and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center in Los Angeles. All 

members of Advancing Justice have been engaged in working with their community members to 

ensure their right to vote. AAJC also has 120 community partners serving their communities in 

60 cities across 30 states, and Washington, D.C. 

AAJC, and the other members of Advancing Justice, work to eliminate barriers to the 

participation of Asian Americans in our nation's political process. This includes working to 

defend and enforce the Voting Rights Act (VRA), encouraging voter registration through 

enforcement ofthe National Voter Registration Act, improving election systems, and providing 

analysis of Asian American electoral participation. AAJC also provides training and technical 

assistance to local groups on a wide range of issues that remove barriers to voting, such as 

implementation of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and enforcing the language assistance 

provisions of the VRA. 

ASIA~ A"[RICA~ JUSTICE CE~TER 

1140 Con:"lecticut Ave .. N W., Suite 1200. Washhgto'l, DC. 20036 

T (202} 296-2300 F (202) 28-13-2318-

~vvtN.aaJc advancJngiustice org 

Ch!Ulg0. f\sian Law Caucus in Sail Frar'lcisCD 3ild As:an Pacific A,M~nCart Legsl Cenl&r in los ,Iv,ge!es 
39 

Election Protection 

For the 2012 election, AAJC and the other members of Advancing Justice conducted a 

comprehensive Section 203 advocacy and monitoring project, focusing on jurisdictions with 

newly-covered languages and newly-covered jurisdictions under Section 203. The project 

supported local partners in their advocacy efforts with local elections officials through advocacy 

training and materials, community education materials, and technical assistance from AAJC and 

the other members of Advancing Justice. The project also included a coordinated poll 

monitoring effort. On Election Day, AAJC, the other members of Advancing Justice, and our 

community partner organizations sent close to 500 poll monitors to nearly 900 election precincts 

across eight states. 

AAJC also launched a project with the other Advancing Justice members and other 

national Asian American organizations to increase Asian American civic participation and 

protect Asian American voting rights during the 2012 election cycle. AAJC produced inlanguage, state-specific "Know Your Rights" palm cards for our partners to distribute to 

community members in nine states: Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, 

Ohio, Texas and Virginia. For each state, we created palm cards in four languages: one in 

English and the remainder in three Asian languages chosen in consultation with local partners. 

Working with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (Lawyers' 

Committee), AAJC and APIA Vote launched the first ever multilingual Asian language Election 

Protection hotline-I-888-API-VOTE-in Virginia and Florida. The hotline provided assistance 

to the Asian American community in two critical states with a growing Asian American 

population. The hotline fielded numerous complaints from Asian Americans attempting to 

exercise their right to vote. 

Asian American Community Profile 

As the fastest growing minority group in the U.S., with a growth rate of 46%, surpassing 

that of the Latino community, the current political climate has created numerous opportunities 

and challenges, particularly in the realm of voting for the Asian American community. As a 

majority immigrant community, there are now over 17.3 million Asian Americans, comprising 

6% of the nation's population. This growth is occurring in states with large, established Asian 

American populations, such as California and New York, as well as in states with emerging 

Asian American communities, such as Nevada, which is home to the nation's fastest growing 

Asian American population, Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia. Texas and New Jersey 

became home to the third and fourth largest Asian American populations, overtaking Hawaii in 

numbers of Asian Americans since the previous census.! 

The rising diversity of America's populace has resulted in more voices participating in 

the political debate, with many racial and ethnic groups seeing an overall increase in civic 

engagement. For example, approximately 600,000 additional Asian Americans voted in the 

I Asian American Center for Advancing Justice,A Community o/Contrasts: Asian Americans in the United States 

2011, (Los Angeles, 2011), 6, http://www.advancingjustice.org/pdf/Cammunity_aCCantrast.pdf. 

ASIA'i -HIERlCA'i JI'STlCE CE'iTER 
40 

2008 Presidential election as compared to 2004.2 In addition, we have seen the Asian American 

voters' political voice being heard through the election of Asian American candidates. A record 

number of Asian Americans won Congressional seats in the November 2012 election with six 

new AAPI leaders, who will be joining eight returning members to serve in the 113th Congress. 3 

Nevertheless, we still see a gap between voter registration rates of non-Hispanic Whites and 

Asian Americans. In 2008, 55% of voting-age Asian American citizens registered to vote 

compared to 74% of non-Hispanic White citizens.4 Once Asian Americans are registered, 

however, the turnout gap narrows significantly, with 86% of registered Asian American voters 

turning out compared to 90% of non-Hispanic White voters.s 

Election 2012 & Asian Americans 

While Asian American voters suffered from many of the same election administration 

issues faced by voters across the country, such as long lines and lack of enough voting 

equipment, language issues continued to be a significant barrier for Asian American voters in the 

2012 elections. Nearly three out of four Asian Americans speak a language other than English at 

home and roughly one-third of them are limited-English proficient (LEP).6 Additional language 

and cultural barriers occur for LEP Asian Americans when confronted by the complex election 

process. 

Election after election, LEP Asian American voters experience discrimination while 

attempting to vote or continue to be denied needed assistance at the polls. For example, in 

Annandale, Virginia, poll workers attempted to separate LEP Korean American seniors from 

native-English speakers, in an attempt to eliminate long lines. According to Virginia voting 

procedures, poll workers are required to ask all voters to repeat their names and home 

addresses-asimple request for a native English speaker. However for the Korean American 

seniors, many of whom had never voted in previous elections, they had difficulty completing the 

task asked of them. Unable to respond promptly, the poll workers became frustrated with the 

Korean American seniors who were having difficulty answering due to language barriers. They 

attempted to place the LEP Korean Americans into separate line and then proceeded to help the 

English-speaking voters before addressing the Korean Americans.7 Unaware of why two lines 

were being formed, many of the Korean American seniors expressed their confusion and 

irritation with the voting procedure and the way in which the poll workers handled the situation. 

2 U.S. Census Bureau, Voting and Registration in the Election qfNovember 2008, May 2010, 2-4, 

http://www.census.gov/prodl2010pubs/p20-562.pdf. 

3 "AsianwAmericans make historic gains in Congress." Compiled by Associated Press Writer Ron DePasquale in 

New York, New England Cable News (Nov. 13,2012) at http://www.necn.comlI1l13112/Asian-Americans-makehistoric·gains-in-C/landing nation.html?&aplD~35172b55ca824722b03d463e5adfl b64 

'U.S. Census Bureau, Voti-;;g and Registration in the Election a/November 2008, May 2010, at 2-4, 

http://www.census.gov/prodl2010puhs/p20-562.pdf. 

5 Ibid., 4. 

6 Asian American Center for Advancing Justice, A Community a/Contrasts, 24. 

7 Jason Cherkis, "Election Problems Included Confusion, Intimidation, Untrained Poll Workers," The H~ffington 

Post, November 12, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/eiection-problems-confusionintimidation _ n _ 2095384.html. 

ASIA:\' .ntERIC"" JrSTICE CE"TER 
41 

In another part of the country, at a precinct in Minnesota, poll workers asked a group of 

elderly Hmong American voters to provide identification. When the white male in line behind 

the Hmong American voters was in the process of getting out his wallet to provide his !D to the 

poll worker, the poll worker told him that he did not need to provide identification. However, the 

poll worker continued to insist on identification from the Hmong voters. Also in Minnesota, a 

volunteer attorney and interpreter was told that she was only allowed to help up to three voters 

and the head election judge called the police to the polling location to confront the volunteer 

attorney for providing language assistance to Hmong elders who struggled to read elections 

materials and ballots. 

Improve Section 203 Compliance 

Section 203 jurisdictions are required to provide language assistance throughout the 

election process. 8 Language assistance includes written, translated voting materials, oral 

assistance on Election Day, and community outreach and publicity regarding the availability of 

language assistance to the covered language group. While Section 203 jurisdictions made an 

effort to provide adequate language assistance to LEP voters at numerous polling sites, many had 

serious problems, indicating that further education and training is required. These problems 

included a lack of bilingual poll workers and translated ballots and resistance to providing 

language assistance, which in some cases required prompting from outside poll monitors before 

poll workers complied. Additionally, there were also a number of jurisdictions that purposely 

refused to comply with Section 203 requirements. 

For example, in Kings County. New York (Queens), the Board of Elections failed to 

provide a Bengali translation of the ballot for the November 20 12 election. While the Queens 

Board of Election blamed their vendor for having significant technical difficulties with 

incorporating Bengali into its voting system and provided some interim steps to address the 

Bengali language needs. it was clear that Kings County was not in compliance with Section 203 

and had not done enough to meet their obligation. Section 203 determinations were announced 

in October 2011. giving the jurisdiction over a year to determine which Asian Indian languages 

for which it needed to provide assistance and how to actualize the assistance. 9 

In Bergen County, New Jersey, elections officials did not provide Korean translations of 

the candidate names on the sample ballots and ballots. Although Bergen County Clerk officials 

were following their interpretation of New Jersey election law, which states candidate names 

cannot be translated into any language, refusing to provide a transliteration of candidate names 

runs afoul of the county's obligations under Section 203. This failure to provide the Korean 

transliteration of the candidate's name was particularly problematic because many Korean voters 

heavily rely on the Korean ethnic media for the information on elections and candidates, and 

almost all Korean media only have candidate names in Korean. 10 In fact, when Korean 

8 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-1a 

9 Terence M. Cullen, "Board of Elections leaves Bengali off ballot," The Queens Courier, September 7, 2012, 

http://queenscourier.com/20 12/board -of-el ections-I eaves-bengal i-off-ballot!. 

10 Candidate name should be transliterated in Bergen County - that is, the selection of Asian language characters to 

represent the phonetic equivalent of the syllables of an English name, or a name in any other language that is not 

traditionally written using Asian language characters. 

ASH:\" A'IERIC~:\" .nsnCE CE,\TER 
42 

American Civic Empowerment (KACE) conducted an independent exit poll during the primary 

election to assess the voting patterns ofthe Korean American community and measure the 

impact of not having translated candidate names, KACE found that about 52% of Korean 

American voters were receiving information about candidates and elections from Korean media, 

which only uses Korean transliteration of candidate names and 28% of Korean American voters 

experienced difficulties voting because of the lack of Korean translation of candidate names. 

Thus, the failure of Bergen County to translate the candidate names had real-life consequences 

and impaired these individuals' right to vote. 

Even when jurisdictions are willing to translate documents, issues about the quality of the 

translations continue to be a concern. For example, in Harris County, Texas, after the County 

Clerk shared translations with its advisory committee for review, an advisory committee member 

discovered a poor translation that failed to distinguish between state and federal level positions 

on one of the ballot measures for a municipality. The titles in English were the same (i.e., 

Secretary of State), but in context should have used a different translation. When the County 

Clerk's office informed the municipality that the translation was incorrect on their ballot 

measure, the municipality told the county to leave it as is with the incorrect translation. For 

future elections, it will be important that all translations provided by the various municipalities 

be reviewed by the local advisory committee for accuracy. Also, again in Bergen County, New 

Jersey, the Korean advisory committee utilized by KACE reviewed the translations of the mail-in 

ballots and instructions and found an erroneous translation on voting machine instructions. 

Other instances of poor translations included a translation error that occurred in Clark County, 

Nevada, on their Tagalog voter registration form, where the only way a reader was able to 

understand the translation was to compare it to the original English. In San Diego County, the 

word for "registration" was initially translated using a term associated with communist prison 

camps.11 

On Election Day, we saw numerous polling sites in numerous jurisdictions that did not 

provide effective language assistance to LEP Asian American voters, either because of poor 

written language assistance or poor bilingual oral assistance. For example, in Hamtramck, 

Michigan poll workers were not responsive to requests to comply with language access 

requirements and precincts often lacked signs indicating bilingual assistance, leaving voters 

confused and without any help or direction. One person reported that poll workers were 

withholding assistance to Bengali speaking voters. Poll workers denied requests to offer 

bilingual ballots and to post a sign indicating that Bengali assistance was available at the site. 

One poll worker questioned the need to tell voters about the availability of Bengali ballots, that 

doing so would be "racial profiling," and indicated that voters should know about the inlanguage ballots before coming to the polls. None ofthe poll workers were wearing name 

badges indicating their language ability and thus were not identifiable as bilingual poll workers. 

This situation was not unique to Hamtramck, Michigan. For example, in a number of 

covered counties in California, polling sites with a high number of recently naturalized Asian 

American voters had instances of missing translated ballots in certain Asian languages, of 

"Timothy Pratt, "More Asian Immigrants Are Finding Ballots in Their Native Tongue," New York Times, October 

18, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/1 0!19/us/politics/more-asian-immigrants-are-finding-ballots-in-theirnative-tongue.html? J=O. 
43 

materials stacked on top of one another, or a lack of space to adequately display materials 

making the materials hidden from voters. For example, at Global Family Elementary School in 

Oakland, the bilingual Vietnamese/English ballots and the Tagalog/English ballots were 

unavailable to voters. At the Popular Recreation Center, also in Oakland, monitors noted a lack 

of bilingual signage to indicate the availability of Chinese language assistance. Similarly in 

Cook County, Illinois, materials were often not made available to voters unless requested and not 

well displayed, going against the spirit of Section 203. 12 In some counties, no bilingual poll 

workers were present. For example, in Los Angeles County, over one out of five election 

precincts lacked bilingual poll workers because the workers failed to show up. 

Lack of Clarity on Assistance Requirements under Section 208 

Another common language assistance issue that arose with poll workers was a lack of 

understanding about Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 208 requires assistance for 

voters by reason of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write English. Any such voter 

may be given assistance by a person of the voter's choice, other than the voter's employer, agent 

of the employer, or officer or agent of the voter's union. Section 208 applies nationwide, and is 

particularly important for LEP voters because it allows them to take a person into the voting 

booth with them to assist them in understanding the ballot (without needing to meet a threshold 

or be of a certain language group as required under Section 203). 

Unfortunately, many poll workers are unaware of Section 208's requirements and refuse 

to allow language minority voters to take an assistor of choice into the voting booth, often 

expressing suspicion about the voter. This exact scenario occurred in November 2012 in 

Quincy, Massachusetts, in which a voter was not allowed to use a helper inside the voting booth. 

In Minnesota, individuals at certain precincts who were providing language assistance to voters 

in the polling booth ran into similar issues with poll workers. Poll workers limited each assistor 

to only three voters, even though Section 208 does not place any limits on such assistance. Poll 

workers stated that they were complying with their understanding of Minnesota law as opposed 

to complying with federal law. While a compromise was struck with the County Attorney's 

office where assistors could help more than three voters so long as two election judges were 

observing the assistance provided, this compromise also did not comply with federal law and 

was only accepted in order to expedite language assistance for the remainder of Election Day. It 

is clear that more thorough training of poll workers and elections officials on Section 208 is 

needed to ensure that LEP voters can access Section 208 assistance in future elections. 

Conclusion 

As evidenced above by the experiences of Asian American voters in the 2012 election 

cycle, it is clear that election officials have more work to do in ensuring that effective language 

assistance is provided for LEP voters. Quality translated materials are extremely helpful for LEP 

voters. From bilingual signs and poll worker nametags to translated ballots and sample ballots, 

increasing the production and utilization of these materials would improve language assistance 

and demonstrate a commitment by the jurisdiction to Section 203 implementation. Just as 

12 Odette Yousef, "Precincts hit bumps with Asian Indian language voting requirement," WSEZ 91.5, November 8, 

20 12, http://www . wbez.orgfnews/precincts-hit-bumps-asian-indian-Ianguage-voting-requirement-l 03766 . 

.... SIA'i .UIEHICA'i .JrSTICE CE'iTER 
44 

important is the need for well-trained poll workers. In both Section 203 jurisdictions and other 

jurisdictions with LEP voting populations. thorough poll worker training on language assistance 

rights is necessary to ensure that LEP voters can effectively cast their ballots on Election Day. 

By understanding the rights of voters under Section 208 and Section 203, poll workers not only 

provide the assistance needed, but can make Election Day run smoother for everyone. 

AAJC and the members of Advancing Justice are currently developing a national report 

analyzing the effectiveness of language assistance in Section 203 jurisdictions, which includes 

best practices and recommendations for implementation. This report will be available in early 

2013. I thank the committee for the opportunity to submit today's testimony and press upon the 

Senate and Congress to address these issues of importance. AAJC stands willing and able to 

assist the committee in policy reforms that ensure every American has the right to vote. 

ASIA'i HIERICA'i .J{;~T1CE CE'iTER 
45 

AAMLC 

AFRICAN AMERICAN MINISTERS trAIIERS",p COUNCI! 

December 19, 2012 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy, Chairman 

Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Wash ington, DC 20510 

RE: Hearing, 'The State ofthe Right to Vote After the 2012 Election" 

Dear Chairman Leahy: 

Thank you for holding this hearing on this critical issue. 

In 2011 and 2012, 19 states passed laws and executive actions making it more difficult for their citizens 

to cast ballots. From voter 10 laws to restrictions on early voting to uneccessary registration hurdles, 

these laws intentionally targeted those who have been traditionally disenfranchised: African Americans, 

people with low incomes, and the young. This year, I worked with a network of I,JOO African-American 

churches in 22 states to counteract these laws as best we could by educating, motivating and turning out 

our congregations and communities. The result was historically high African-American turnout. We're 

tremendously proud of the work we did this year, but we fear that as more voting restrictions targeted at 

African Americans go into effect, the promise of "one person, one vote" will be a harder one for our 

country to keep. 

Across the country, restrictions on voting led to confusion and discouragement among voters. But they 

also were a powerful motivator, especially for those of us who lived and fought through the Civil Rights 

Movement. As Elder Lee Harris of Mt. Olive Primitive Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Florida, put it, 

"We've come too far and fought too hard to let anybody take away our vote again." Our task was to 

reach out to as many voters as we could to educate them on what they needed to vote and to make sure 

they got to the polls and stayed there. 

Some of the strongest attacks on voting rights came in Ohio, where they met with strong opposition 

from members of People For the American Way Foundation's African American Minsters Leadership 

Council. In the months leading up to the election, Ohio's legislature and elections officials passed a 

number of measures aimed at suppressing voter turnout, especially among African Americansintentionally, as one county elections official admitted. Notable among these were restrictions on early 

voting that hit heavily African-American counties the hardest. One early voting restriction - which 

ordered the polls closed in the all-important three days leading up to the election was ultimately 

rebuffed by the courts, but voters still faced unacceptably long lines at their polling places. 

Rev. Dr. T.C. Thomas of Metropolotin CME Church in Cincinnati reported that the main obstacles he 

faced in turning out the vote were confusion over the rules and long lines at polling places. To counter 

these challenges, Dr. Thomas worked together with clergy in the area to hold nonpartisan get-out-thevote rallies and educate their communities on their rights at the polls. On Election Day, Dr. Thomas and 

11 01 15" Street, NW • Suite 600 • Washington, DC 20005 

Telephone 202.467.4999. Fax 202.293.2672 • E-mail pfaw@pfaw.org • Web site http://www.pfaw.org 
46 

church volunteers provided shuttle service to polling places and checked in on polling places with long 

lines to make sure that those who were unable to stand for long periods got to the front of the lines. 

Dr. Tony Minor of Community of Faith Assembly in Cleveland was one of the most outspoken voices 

against voter suppression in Ohio, penning an op-ed in the Cleveland Plain Dealer and appearing on 

several radio and television news shows. Rev. Minor and his fellow clergy in Cleveland organized a ride 

to the polls hotline, which they advertised in area churches and which ended up providing hundreds of 

rides on Election Day. 

In all, the African American Ministers Leadership Council in Ohio arranged for over 5,000 rides to the 

polls during early voting and over 3,000 rides on Election Day through the "I am a VESSEL and I Vote" 

program. 

Some of the worst voter suppression measures in the country were implemented in Florida, where new 

voter registration restrictions shut down major nonpartisan registration operations and severely cut down 

on early voting hours. We all remember seeing photographs of voters standing in line until 2:00 am on 

election night, waiting to cast their ballots even after the presidential election had been called. 

Behind the turnout in Florida were the efforts of many community organizers, including clergy leaders. 

Elder Lee Harris ofMt. Olive Primitive Baptist Church in Jacksonville also cited confusion about 

polling places and voting rules and long lines at the polls as the main obstacles facing voters. In 

response, Elder Harris said, he and his fellow clergy "just tried to leave no stone unturned." A coalition 

of African-American clergy in five counties organized to air public service announcements about the 

importance of voting, bought paid radio spots in the week leading up to the election, and distributed 

fliers about their rides to the polls program in churches and malls. They pooled their church vans to 

provide free rides to the polls on every day of early voting and on Election Day. In Florida, members of 

the African American Ministers Leadership Council transported over 1,000 people to the polls. 

In all, members of the African American Ministers Leadership Council facilitated over 400,000 voter 

registrations and transported over 27,000 people to the polls. 

We are proud of the work that we did to bring thousands of African Americans to the polls. But we're 

reluctant to claim victory over voter suppression. A number of suppressive laws, including voter lD 

requirements in Pennsylvania and South Carolina, may go into effect next year. Cutbacks in early voting 

days in Ohio and Florida created barriers to voting we should never see in our democracy. In addition, 

ever-changing rules about voter registration and provisional ballots create confusion among voters, 

especially new and infrequent voters. 

In the end, our efforts to educate and organize can only go so far. Equally important in the effort to 

maintain the right to vote has been the role of state and federal courts, where Americans can tum when 

powerful forces seek to deprive them of their right to vote. Federal courts playa particularly important 

role in protecting the guarantees set forth in the Voting Rights Act. From Ohio to Florida to 

Pennsylvania to South Carolina to Texas, the courts were critical in tamping down efforts to suppress 

the votes of African Americans and other targeted groups. As the Supreme Court prepares to review 

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, this year offered us many powerful reminders that the preclearance 

-2-
47 

provisions of the VRA are still relevant and still vitally necessary. In August, when a federal court 

struck down Texas' new voter ID requirement, Rev. Dr. Simeon L. Queen of Prairie View, Texas, 

offered these words: 

"It is inexcusable that nearly 50 years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, politicians are still 

trying to make it harder for African Americans in Texas to vote. I wish the Voting Rights Act wasn't 

still necessary, but thank the Lord it's still there. African Americans in Texas have struggled throughout 

our history to exercise all of our rights as citizens, including the right to vote without unnecessary 

restrictions meant to discourage and disenfranchise. Today, thanks to the Voting Rights Act, a major 

threat to that effort has been defeated." 

The civil rights movement continues in many places, and chief among those is the voting booth. As 

African-American clergy, we see it as our duty to make sure our communities' voices are heard at the 

polls, and that every single one of us can and does cast a vote that counts. Just as the Voting Rights Act 

continues to protect us against attacks on our rights, the Black Church continues to stand up for the right 

of every American to vote. 

Sincerely, 

Minister Leslie Watson Malachi 

Director, African American Religious Affairs 

People For the American Way Foundation 

CC: Ranking Member Chuck Grassley 

Committee Members 

- 3-
48 

Introduction 

AMERICAN CIVIl.. I..IBERTIES UNION 

American Civil Liberties Union 

Statement For 

"The State of the Right to Vote After the 2012 Election" 

Hearing Before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Submitted by 

Laura W. Murphy, Director 

Deborah J. Vagins, Senior Legislative Counsel 

Demelza Baer, Policy Counsel 

ACLU Washington Legislative Office 

December 19, 2012 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), on behalf of its over half a million 

members, countless additional supporters and activists, and fifty-three affiliates nationwide, is 

pleased to submit this statement for the record for the "The State of the Right to Vote After the 

2012 Election" Hearing, before the U.S. Senate Committee on the JUdiciary. The ACLU is a 

nationwide, non-partisan organization working daily in courts, Congress, state legislatures, and 

communities across the country to defend and preserve the civil rights and liberties that the 

Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country. The ACLU works 

at the federal, state and local levels to lobby, litigate, and conduct public education in order both 

expand opportunities and to prevent barriers to the ballot box. 

In the wake of significant voter suppression efforts and other election administration 

concerns that arose on Election Day, which threatened the electoral participation of millions of 

Americans, disproportionately racial and ethnic minority voters, it is particularly crucial and 

timely for the Senate judiciary Committee to consider the state of our most fundamental right as 

citizens. We thank the Committee for its attention to these barriers, and we ask that the 

Committee consider advancing the federal reforms outlined in this statement in order to ensure 

full electoral participation. 
49 

I. The State of the Right to Vote in 2012 

Although state voter suppression efforts are not a new phenomenon, during the past two 

state legislative sessions, there was a dramatic proliferation of bills that would restrict access to 

the ballot. Regressive measures were introduced in 38 states in 2011 1 and in 22 states in 2012,2 

with 25 new or expanded barriers signed into law since January 2011.3 These laws cumulatively 

represented a significant retrenchment in voting rights, and they had the potential to disfranchise 

as many as five million Americans during the 2012 election.4 

However, due to a series of successful legal challenges and advocacy in support of voting 

rights, the effect of many of these new laws was blunted in time for the 2012 election. Notably, 

voter ID laws were enjoined from going into effect in time for the 2012 election in Pennsylvania, 

Texas, Wisconsin, and South Carolina. Other legal challenges resulted in the preservation of 

early voting on the three days before Election Day in Ohio,S the allotment of the same number of 

early voting hours in Florida as in 2008 (albeit over 8 days, rather than 14), and the removal of 

strict restrictions on third-party voter registration in F1orida.6 

Yet, despite the injunction or defeat of several laws that would likely have disfranchised 

millions of Americans, access to the ballot was nonetheless limited in many places across the 

country. Reports from news organizations, poll monitors, and non-partisan election protection 

officials indicated that certain election administration problems, such as polling places that were 

not properly equipped, outdated or inaccurate voter rolls, and poll workers who were poorly or 

inadequately trained on issues like the use of provisional ballots or the type, if any, of 

identification required of voters in their state, were national in scope. 

Some of these types of issues recur every presidential election year, when voter turnout is 

at its highest nationally, but the 2012 election proved particularly difficult to administer in states 

that enacted suppressive voter measures because those laws often strain resources and create 

1 BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE, ApPENDIX: SUMMARY OF STATE LAWS AND BILLS (201l), available at 

http://hrennan.3cdn.netl28377eda8414bb7b55 rxm6ibk4c.pdf [hereinafter State Laws Appendix]; See also ACLU 

Map, 2011: Voting Rights Under Attack in State Legislature, available at http://www.aclu.org/mapsI2011-votingrights-under-attack-state-legislatures; Letter from American Civil Liberties Union and Lawyers' Committee for 

Civil Rights Under Law to T. Christian Herren, Chief, Voting Section, Civil Rights Division (September 28, 2011), 

available at http://www.lawyerscommittee.orgladmin/votin~rights/documents/filesILC-ACLU-comment-letterfinal.pdf; Jessica Bakeman, Voter ID 1nitiative Passes, The (Jackson, MS) Clarion-Ledger, November 9,2011, 

available at http://www.clarionledger.comlarticleI20111 lO9INEWS04/11I090358Noter-ID-initiative-

~asses?odyssey=modldefconlimgIHome . 

• See generally, WENDY R. WEISER & DIANA KASDAN, BRENNAN CTR. FOR JUSTICE, VOTING LA W CHANGES: 

ELECTION UPDATE, available at 

http://www . brennancenter.org/contentiresource/votingJaw _ changes_e1ection_update/ [hereinafter Voting Law 

Changes). 

3 Id. 

4 Id. at l. 

5 See Dbama For America v. Husted, 2012 WL 4753397 (6th. Cir. 2012); Florida v. United States, CA No. 11-

01428 (D.D.C). 

6 League of Women Voters v. Browning, 2012 WL 1957793 (N.D. Fla.). 

2 
50 

additional bureaucratic challenges for election officials and poll workers. Minority voters were 

also disproportionately impacted by both the retrogressive state election laws. as well as election 

administration challenges. According to Hart Research Associates, African American and 

Hispanic voters are between two to three times more likely than white voters to wait more than 

30 minutes to vote. 7 

This statement will explore the impact of different changes to state election laws and the 

election administration concerns, their effect on minority voters, and suggestions for federal 

reforms. Federal legislative reform is sorely needed in order to establish uniform national 

standards, not only to help protect the fundamental right of every American to participate across 

the states, but also to help produce a modern, more streamlined election process that works for 

all voters. 

II. Voting Law Changes Impacting Access to the Polls 

A. Cutbacks to Early Voting 

Generous early voting periods, that include weekend days, facilitate voter participation.s 

Early voting eases congestion at polling places on Election Day, and thereby improves the 

efficient operation of elections by reducing the ratio of poll workers to voters. Early voting 

periods also afford extra time to address deficiencies in election administration, including 

inaccuracies in voter rolls, which could prevent votes from being timely cast and counted, if 

encountered for the first time on Election Day itself. Early voting is an increasingly popular 

option for citizens, particularly minority voters. Yet, five states passed legislation to reduce their 

early voting after the 2010 election, including Florida and Ohio both of which eliminated early 

voting on the Sunday before Election Day. 9 Although legal challenges resulted in voters being 

able to vote early during the three days before Election Day in Ohio, including SundaylO, and for 

the same number of cumulative early voting hours in Florida as in 2008 (96 hours over 8 days, 

rather than the 14 days of early voting),!! the reductions in early voting days foreclosed the 

option of votin¥ early for hundreds of thousands of people and resulted in long lines for residents 

of both states.! In Florida, for instance, about 300,000 fewer vote were cast early in 2012 (2.4 

7 Hart Research Associates. AFL-CIO Election Night Survey 2012 (2012). 

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/l TGQPrvxJ50DgSPf4CLaSIHKVmrzM4UF70gs04IUal o/present?pli-I &ueb-true#slide-id.D59. See also Ari Benman. The GOP's Voter 

Suppression Strategy. NAT!ON. Dec. 10.2012. available at http://www.thenation.com/articleI171404/gops-votersuppression-strategy#; Paul Leonard, Study Finds Blacks More Likely to Wait in Long Lines at Polls, 

http;llcarrollgardens.patch.comiarticles/study-finds-blacks-more-Iikely-to-wait-in-Iong-Iines-at-polls. 

B Jan E. Leighley and Jonathan Nagler. The Effect of Non-Precinct Voting Reforms on Turnout. 1972-200813-14 

(January 15,2009), available at http://www.electiononline.org; Paul Gronke et aI., Early Voting in Florida. 2004 2. 

The Early Voting Information Center. Sept. 1. 2005. available at http://people.reed.eduJ-gronkep/docs/ 

GronkeBishinStevensGalanes-Rosenbaum.APSA. 2005.pdf. 

9 Voting Law Changes, supra note 2, at 3. 

J() Obama For America v. Husted, 2012 WL 4753397 (6th. Cif. 2012). 

"League of Women Voters v. Browning, 2012 WL 1957793 (N.D. Fla.); Florida v. United States, CA No. 11-

01428 (D.D.C. Oct. 28. 201l). 

12 Luke Johnson, Ohio Early Voting; Long Lines Reported Outside Polling Places, THE HUFFlNGTON POST, Nov. 4, 

20 12, http://www.huffingtonpost.coml2012/11/04/ohio-early-votinlLn_2073287.html. 

3 
51 

million), in comparison with 2008 (2.7 million), which academic observers attributed to the state 

legislature's decision to sharply reduce early voting by six days. 13 

Given the flexibility early voting affords citizens, it is not surprising that many voters 

have taken advantage of this option. In states like Tennessee, Nevada, Oregon, and Florida, 

more than half of all votes in recent elections have been cast during early voting periods or by 

absentee ballot. 14 In 2008, 13% of all votes nationwide were cast during early voting periods;15 

the total number of early voters in 2012 was comparable to 2008 - 32 million voted early.16 

Many battleground states including Colorado, Florida, Iowa, and Ohio experienced 

increases in early voting numbers in 2012 compared with 2008.17 Early voting options are also 

used more frequently by voters of color. In Florida in 2008, for example, African Americans 

comprised 13% of the electorate, but cast 22% of early votes. 18 Although comparable data for 

2012 is not yet available, reports of the first few days of early voting in Florida indicate that a 

similar percentage of early votes (23.7%) were cast by African Americans. 19 Likewise, 

approximately half of African American voters in North Carolina voted early in 2008 and 2012, 

compared to about 40% of white North Carolina voters.20 

The option of voting on the Sunday before Election Day is particularly popular with 

African American and Latino voters, a significant number of whom participate in voter turnout 

efforts organized by churches on that day. For instance, on that Sunday before Election Day in 

2008 in Florida, one-third of the voters were African American, even though they only comprise 

13% of the state's electorate.21 In an effort to encourage early voting and highlight the negative 

13 Lloyd Dunkelberger, Change in Florida voting law is felt al polls, HERALD-TRIBUNE, Nov. 5, 2012, available at 

http://politics.heraldtribune.coml2012/11/05/change-in-florida-voting-Iaw-is-felt-at-polls/. 

14 See Florida Early Voling May Change, WJHG.COM Apr. 20, 2011, available at 

http://www.wjhg.comlhome/headlineslFlorida_Early_Voting...May_Change_120255094.html; Editorial, They Want 

to Make Voling Harder', N.Y. TIMES, June 5, 2011, available al 

http://www.nytimes.coml2011l06/06/0pinionl06monl.html?_r=1 [hereinafter Voting Harder]; Early Voting 

Information Center, Frequently Asked Questions, available at http://earlyvoting.netlfaq (last visited Aug. 31, 2011). 

15 U.S. Election Assistance Commission, The 2008 Election Administration and Voting Survey (November 2009) at 

9, available at 

http://www.eac.gov/assets/llDocuments!2008%20Election%20Administration%20and%20Voting%20Survey%20E 

A VS%20Report.pdf. 

16 United States Elections Project, 2012 Early Voting Statistics, http://elections.gmu.edulearly_vote_2012.html(last 

visited Dec. 17.2012); United States Elections Project, 2008 Early Voting Statistics, 

http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2008.html(last visited Dec. 17,2012). 

17 Elizabeth Hartfield, Early Voting Battleground Tallies, ABC NEWS, Nov. 6, 2012, available at 

http://abcnews.go.comiPolitics/OTUSlbattleground-state-early-voting-tallies/story?id= 17652724#. UMuH80SxzX w. 

18 Letter from Laughlin McDonald, ACLU Voting Rights Project, to T. Christian Herren, Chief, Voting Section, 

Civil Rights Division, (2011) available at http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs12011-06-20-ACLUDOJLetter.pdf [hereinafter 

FL Preclearance Letter]. 

19 Joy-Ann Reid, African-Americans voting early in large numbers, campaign says, THEGRIO, Oct. 30, 2012, 

availa bleat http://thegrio.coml2012/ 1 0/30/african-americans-early-voting-in-record-num bers!. 

20 Voting Harder, supra note 12; United States Elections Project, 2012 Early Voting Statistics, 

http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.htmJ (last visited Dec. 17,2012); Atrican American turnout in NC, THE 

DAILY Kos, Nov. 4, 2012, http://www.dailykos.comlstory12012/11104/1155592/-African-American-turnout-in-NC. 

21 Voting Law Changes, supra note 2, at 4. 

4 
52 

consequences of these restrictions for minority voter participation, the ACLU has worked with 

pastors to protect early voting and their "Take Your Souls to the Polls" programs.22 

Thus, legislation reducing early voting on the weekend before Election Day not only 

complicates administration of polling places during the general election, but it also has a 

disparate negative impact on voting by people of color. In Ohio, voting during the three days 

prior to Election Day was ultimately restored after a legal challenge.23 Litigation challenging the 

prohibition on early voting in the three days prior to Election Day succeeded on equal protection 

grounds, since Ohio was permitting military and overseas voters to vote during that time period, 

thereby providing differential treatment to one group of voters over another24 

The Ohio Secretary of State also prompted public indignation over disparities in early 

voting hours between counties with more registered Republicans and counties with more 

registered Democrats, with the Democratic-dominant counties of Cleveland and Cincinnati 

receiving shorter early voting hours. 25 This differential also had a disparate impact on voters of 

color, as counties with longer early voting hours -like Butler and Warren - tended to have fewer 

minority voters, while counties with shorter early voting hours - like Cincinnati and Cleveland 

have majority-minority populations.26 In response to public pressure, Secretary Husted 

standardized the early voting hours statewide. 

In Florida, voters facing lines up to seven hours in the state's most populous counties on 

the Saturday before Election Day the last day of early voting were granted a re?rieve when 

federal lawsuits were filed the following day to force the state to extend early voting. 7 Although 

early voting was not available to Florida voters on the Sunday or Monday before Election Day, 

22 Take Your Souls to the Polls is an effort organized by African American churches to take advantage of early 

voting, and most recently, to combat voter suppression laws. The program initially encouraged voting by taking 

church members directly from Sunday services to the polls. See ACLU, Take Your Souls to the Polls: Voting Early 

in Ohio, 

http://www.aclu.orgivoting-rights/take-your-souls-polls-voting-early-ohio (last visited Dec. 12,2012). 

See al,w Deborah J. Vagins & Mike Brickner, Keeping Ohio's Souls at the Polls: Sen. Durbin Holds Field Hearing 

on Ohio Voting Law, ACLU, (May 4, 2012), http://www.ac!u.orglbloglvoting-rights!kceping-ohios-souls-polIs-sendurbin-holds-field-hearing-ohio-voting-law (Congressional field hearing in Ohio); Remarks of Deborah J. Vagins, 

ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel, at Congressional Black Caucus: Inaugural Faith Leaders Summit on Voting 

Rights, U.S. Voting Rights Forum (May 30, 2012), available at http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SVot. 

23 Obama for America v. Husted, 2012 WL 4753397 (6th Cir. Oct. 5, 2012); Senate Field Hearing: New State 

Voting Laws Ill: Protecting the Right to Vote in America's Heartland Before the Subcomm. on Constitution. Civil 

Rights and Human Rights on the Judiciary, 112th Congo (2012) (statement of the American Civil Liberties Union of 

Ohio), available at 

http://www.ac!uohio.org!issues!VotingRightsrrestimonyStatementForSenateFieldHearing2012_0507.pdf. 

24 Obama For America V. Husted, 2012 WL 4753397 (6th. Cir. Oct. 5, 2012). 

25 Editorial, Overt Discrimination in Ohio, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 14,2012, at A22, available at 

http://www.nytimes.com12012!08!15!opinion/overt-discrimination-in-ohio.html? _r=2&hp. 

26 [d. ("Cincinnati, for example, is 45 percent black, and Cleveland 53 percent. Butler County, however, is 8 percent 

black, and Warren 3.5 percent."). 

27 Florida Democratic Party V. Detzner, 1:2012cv24000 (November 4, 2012), available at 

http://imaoes.politieo,comi21obaIl2012I1l1fdp v detzner- complaint.pdf; Warren Richey, Democrats reach 

settlement in Florida early-voting lawsuit, CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, Nov. 5, 2012, available at 

http://www.csmonitor.com!USAIElections!20121l105IDemocrats-reach-settlement-in-Florida-early-voting-lailli.\!.i!; 

Lizette Alvarez, Democrats Sue to Extend Florida's Early Voting, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 4, 2012, 

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.comi20 12!11104!democrats-sue-to-extend-floridas-early -voting! 

5 
53 

election supervisors in Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward Counties permitted individuals to 

request and to vote by in-person absentee ballots on those days in recognition of their inability to 

accommodate all of the voters who sought to cast an early ballot,'8 

B. Voter 10 Laws 

Voter ID laws have become increasingly common across the country. Today, 33 states 

have laws requiring voters to present some form of identification to vote in federal, state and 

local elections,29 although some laws or initiatives passed since 2011 have not yet gone into 

effect. 30 Some must also be pre-cleared under the Voting Rights Act prior to implementation. In 

II of those 33 states, voters must (or will soon be required to) present a photo 10 - that in many 

states must be government-issued - in order to cast a regular ballot.3] Strict photo ID laws were 

only in effect in 4 states - Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, and Tennessee - for the general election this 

year, due to ongoing legal challenges, the need for Section 5 preclearance under the Voting 

Rights Act, or a delayed implementation date for the new photo 10 law. However, confusion 

over whether these photo ID laws were in effect appeared to have depressed voter participation 

in at least once of the states - Pennsylvania where litigation postponed the law's 

implementation. Pennsylvania voter turnout was down by 7% from 2008, desfite extensive 

outreach by both presidential campaigns and non-partisan get-out-the-vote efforts.3 

Strict voter ID laws deny the right to vote to thousands of registered voters who do not 

have, and, in many instances, cannot obtain the limited forms of identification accepted for 

voting. Since so many Americans of voting age - 21 million, in total -lack documentation that 

would satisfy photo ID laws,33 there was a substantial risk that millions would be disfranchised 

in the 2012 elections, had all of the new photo 10 laws gone into effect. This exclusion from the 

electorate would have disproportionately impacted low-income Americans, racial and ethnic 

minorities34, and the elderly. As many as one in four African Americans of voting age lack 

government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% of their white counterparts.35 Eighteen 

percent of Americans over the age of 65 do not have government-issued photo 10.36 

In addition, many of these Americans cannot afford to pay for the documents required to 

secure a government-issued photo 10. Requiring voters to pay for an ID, as well as the 

28 Richey. supra note 27. 

29 National Conference of State Legislatures, Voter Identification Requirements, http://www.ncs1.orgllegislatureselections!elections!voter-id.aspx#OK (last visited Dec. 17,2012) [hereinafter NCSL Map]. 

30 [d. 

31 These states include Alabama. Georgia, Kansas, Indiana, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. Voters without photographic identification meeting the state statutory 

requirements are permitted to cast a provisional baUot, and return with their photographic identification within a 

specified time period after Election Day in order to have their ballot counted. [d.; State Laws Appendix, supra note 1 

3w Berman, supra note 7. 

33 BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE, CITIZENS WITHOUT PROOF: A SURVEY OF AMERICANS' POSSESSION OF 

DOCUMENT AR Y PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP AND PHOTO IDENTIFICATION (2006), available at 

http://www. brennancenter.org!page!-!d!download_fiIe _39242.pdf [hereinafter Without Proof]. 

34 NALEO Educational Fund, Latino Voters At Risk (2012), available at 

http://www.naleo.org/downloadsINALEO LatinoVotersatRisk (Condensed).pdf. 

35 Without Proof, supra note 33, at 3. 

36 [d. 

6 
54 

background documents necessary to obtain an ID in order to vote, is tantamount to a poll tax. 

Although some states issue IDs for free, the birth certificates, passports, or other documents 

necessary to secure a government-issued ID cost money, and many Americans simply cannot 

afford to pay for them. Furthermore, obtaining a government-issued photo ID poses significantat times insurmountable - obstacles to certain members of the electorate, including low-income 

individuals who lack the funds to pay for documentation, people with disabilities, individuals 

with limited access to transportation, and elderly Americans who never had a birth certificate and 

cannot obtain alternate proof of their birth in the U.S.3

? 

However, in advance of the general election, court challenges to many of these laws 

temporarily halted their implementation.38 In those states covered by Section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act (VRA), the Department of Justice objected to suppressive voting laws by denying 

preclearance and litigating subsequent challenges. South Carolina and Texas, both of which 

passed strict voter ID laws within the past two years, were blocked from implementing their laws 

in this year's election. Both states, which are covered in their entirety by Section 5, were denied 

preclearance, and then brought unsuccessful challenges in the D.C. District Court. 

Demonstrating the critical role of Section 5 of the VRA in blocking regressive voting 

changes, in each case, the court determined that neither state met their burden to show that their 

measures would not result in a discriminatory impact on minority voters in the general election.39 

The ACLU intervened in the South Carolina and Texas cases, along with other civil rights 

organizations, urging rejection of that the proposed changes, because the voting power of 

minorities would be diluted or diminished. 

In the Texas litigation, the district court based its holding on the fact that, "(I) a 

substantial subgroup of Texas voters, many of whom are African American or Hispanic, lack 

photo ID; (2) the burdens associated with obtaining ID will weigh most heavily on the poor; and 

)7 See, e.g., Coalition of Civic Organizations Oppose Texas Voter ID Law, Vote Set For Monday, LATINO DAILY 

NEWS,Mar. 18,2011, 

available at http://www.hispanicaHyspeakingnews.com/notitas-de-noticias/detalls/coalition-of-civic-organizationsoDpose-texas-voter-id-law-vote-set-fo/61991 (statement of Terri Burke, Executive Director of the ACLU of Texas). 

)'Elizabeth Titus, GOP suffers tough weekfor voting issues in court, POLfflCO, Aug. 31, 2012, 

http://www.politico.comlblogs/charlie-mahtesian!2012l08/gop-suffers-tough-week-for-voting-issues-in-court134027.html. Note, however, that the State of New Hampshire's voter 10 law (which takes effect in 2013) was 

precleared by the Department of Justice after the state suspended a proposed change to the affidavit option 

alternative for those without !D. Thus, voters without 10 in New Hampshire next year may cast a regular ballot, 

after signing an affidavit affirming that they are who they purport to be, that they are qualified to vote, and that they 

have a legal domicile in the ward or town that they are voting in. Emily Schultheis, Justice Dept. clears New 

Hampshire voter ID law, POLITICO, Sept. 5, 2012, available at http://www.politico.comlblogslburnshabermanl20 12/09/justice-dept-c1ears-new-hampshire-voter-id-law-134499.html; Ryan Reilly, Justice Department 

Clears New Hampshire Voter ID Law, TALKING POINTS MEMO, Sept. 5, 2012, 

http:lnivewire.talkingpointsmemo.comlentry/justice-department-clears-new-hampshire-voter-id-law.,. 

)'Texas v. Holder, 2012 WL 3743676 (D. D.C. 2012); South Carolina v. Holder, 2012 WL 4814094 (D. D.C. 2012) 

(granting preclearance for subsequent elections but only because the state law "allows citizens with non-photo 

registration cards to still vote without a photo 10 so long as they state the reason for not having obtained one." This 

provision, known as the "reasonable impediment" provision, was given the broadest possible interpretation by the 

court and any future limitations on the exception, according to the court, would be subject to additional Section 5 

preclearance. Finally, the court stressed, no voter will be denied the right to vote "if they have the non-photo voter 

registration card."). 

7 
55 

(3) racial minorities in Texas are disproportionately likely to live in poverty." Thus, the court 

concluded that the photo ID law would "likely 'lead to a retrogression in the position of racial 

minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise. ",40 In the South 

Carolina decision, the court based its decision on similar reasoning, determining that there was 

not sufficient time to implement the law prior to the 2012 general election in a manner that 

would not disparately impact minority voters. Yet, the court did grant preclearance of South 

Carolina's voter ID law for future elections, on the condition that the law create a safety valve 

for individuals without an ID, who could provide one of certain enumerated reasons for lacking 

an ID.41 

In addition to Section 5 litigation this year, strict new voter ID laws were also challenged 

in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by the ACLU and coalition partners. These laws were enjoined 

in both states in time for the general election, on the basis that the photo ID requirements 

violated their respective state constitutions due to the restrictions they imposed on individuals' 

access to the ballot and the likely discriminatory impact on minority voters. However, the 

litigation challenges to the voter ID laws in both Wisconsin42 and Pennsylvania43 are ongoing, so 

eventual implementation of the laws is possible in the near future. The voter ID law in 

Tennessee, which was also enacted within the past two years, was not fully in effect for the 

general election. 

Finally, on Election Day, Minnesota voters became the first in the nation to reject a voter ID 

proposal, which would have amended their State Constitution to require voters to present an ID 

in order to vote. 44 

4D Texas v. Holder, 2012 WL 3743676 *26 (D. D.C. 2012) (citing Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 141 (1976)). 

41 South Carolina v. Holder, 2012 WL4814094 *3 (D. D.C. 2012). 

42 On March 6, Circuit Court Judge David Flanagan issued a temporary injunction blocking the implementation of 

the voter 10 provisions, finding that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits at trial and that further 

implementation of the law would cause irreparable harm. NAACP v. Walker. No. 11 CV 5492 (Wis. Cir. Ct. 2012) 

(order granting temporary injunction), available at 

http://www.courthousenews.coml2012/03/07NoterIDInjunction.pdf.This decision was made permanent with a 

March 12 decision by Judge Neiss granting a permanent injunction against the implementation of the voter ID law, 

having found it unconstitutional under the Wisconsin constitution. League of Women Voters Y. Walker, No. 11 CV 

4669 (Wis, Cir. Ct 2012) (order granting permanent injunction), available at 

hJtp:l!mediaj§.onli!le,com/documents/voteridruling,pdf, The ACLU has a pending case challenging Wisconsin's 

voter 10 law under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Frank v, Walker, No, 2:11-<:v-01128 fE,D, Wis,), 

43 The ACLU and coalition partners were successful in preventing the implementation of the Pennsylvania photo ID 

requirement for the general election. The court granted a preliminary injunction against implementation of the 

requirement for the November 2012 presidential election, concluding that it would cause disfranchisement of voters. 

A final decision on the merits of the case is pending, See Applewhite v, Pennsylvania, 2012 WL 4497211 (Pa, 

Commw, Ct. Oct 2012). 

Karen Langley, State voter ID law isfar from resolved, PITTSBURGH PosT-GAZETfE, Dec, 14,2012, available at 

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/locaVstate/state-voter -id-Iaw-is-far -from-resolved-6663 12/, 

44 Doug Belden, Minnesota voter ID amendment defeated, Nov, 7, 2012, available at 

http://www.twineities.comlelections/ci_21946038/minnesota-voter-id-amendment -trailing-60-precincts-tallied, 
56 

C. Restrictions on Third Party Voter Registration 

After passage of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) facilitated third-party 

registration efforts, these organizations have registered millions of Americans to vote. For 

instance, in the 2004 election cycle, the non-profit Project Vote registered 1.2 million voters.45 

During the following election cycle in 2008, Rock the Vote registered 2.5 million voters.46 

Unfortunately, efforts to restrict voter participation have included imposing unjustified 

restrictions on third-party registration activities. Since 2011, six states have passed laws making 

it more difficult to register to vote, with Florida and Texas enacting laws that strictly limited the 

voter registration activities of third-party organizations. Although the laws in Texas and Florida 

were ultimately lifted prior to the general election, residents of the state were impacted by the 

absence of groups conducting registration drives for nearly one year. 47 In Florida, for instance, 

new voter registration was down by 14% from the 2008 election period, prior to the injunction of 

thelaw:8 

Minority voters nationally are vulnerable to the effects of such laws placing restrictions 

on third-party groups. When the NVRA was initially drafted, it was premised on the concern 

that "discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct and damaging 

effect on voter participation in elections for Federal office and disproportionately harm voter 

participation by various groups, including racial minorities.,,49 As data from the 2008 election 

indicated, more than 33% of voters who registered through third-party drives were racial 

minorities,50 though minorities constituted only 18% of the voting age population51 According 

to the League of Women Voters working in Florida, African American and Latino voters register 

with third-party groups at twice the rate of other voters.52 

The ACLU, along with a coalition of civil rights groups, won an lTIJunction blocking 

Florida's suppressive law in advance of the general election.53 The League of Women Voters 

45 Letter from Penda D. Hair, Co-Director, Advancement Project and Holli Holliday, National Director, Project 

Vote, to The Honorable Cathy Cox, Chairperson, Georgia State Election Board (Sept. 12, 2005) at I, available at 

http://www.advancementproject.org/sites/defaultifiles/GAcom2.pdf. 

46 Ari Berman, The GOP War 0/' Voting. ROLLING STONE, Aug. 30, 2011, available at 

http://www.rollingstone.comlpolitics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830?page=2 [hereinafter Rolling Stone], 

47 Jeska Vess, Court Ol'ertun'lS Texas voter registration ruling. KVUE, Sept. 7, 2012, 

http://www.kvue.com/news/Court--168890916.html; 

Adam C. Smith, League of Women Voters to restart registration drive, MIAMI HERALD, June 6, 2012, available at 

http://www.miamiherald.coml201210610612836567Ileague-of-women-voters-to-restart.html. 

48 Bennan, supra note 7. 

"The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, P,L. 103-31,107 Stat.77, 77 (1993), 

50 FL Preclearance letter, supra note 18, at 19. 

"U,S, Census Bureau, Reported Voting and Registration of the Voting-Age Population, by Sex, Race and Hispanic 

Origin, for States, Table 4b, (Nov, 2008), available at 

http://www.census.govlhhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p2012008/tables.html. 

52 Dan Wagner, Voting law's Sunday punch, SARASOTA HERALD-TRIBUNE, June 15,2011, available at 

http://www.heraldtribune.comiarticleI20110615/0pinionlll 0619722. 

53 League of Women Voters v, Browning, 2012 WL 1957793 (N,D, Aa,), On May 31, 2012, the Florida District 

Court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the most of the third party registration provisions. 

Following the decision, the state withdrew the remaining changes involving restrictions on third party registration 

organizations, and advised the court that it had amended some of the changes and would later submit them to DOJ 

for preclearance, On September 12, 2012, the DOJ precleared the early voting changing providing for 96 hours of 

9 
57 

and other organizations resumed their voter registration drives in advance of the general election, 

after ceasing all registration activity for about a year due to the steep threat of legal consequences 

for failure to adhere to each of the law's new provision.54 Unfortunately, new forms of state 

voting restrictions, modeled after legislation passed in Florida and Texas, could chill registration 

among these historically disfranchised groups in other states in advance of the next federal 

election. 

D. Criminal Disfranchisement 

Millions of Americans have had their right to vote revoked because of criminal 

convictions. Upon release from incarceration, these citizens work, pay taxes, live in our 

communities and bring up families, yet they are without a voice. An estimated 5.85 million 

citizens cannot vote as a result of criminal convictions, and nearly 4.4 million of those have been 

released from prison and are living and working in the community. 55 

Sadly, in reversing a trend over the last decade to dismantle these barriers to the ballot, 

two states - Florida and Iowa - enacted regressive policy changes through administrative 

changes to make it nearly impossible for people with past convictions to ever regain their voting 

rights.56 Those states now join Kentucky and Virginia in essentially imposing lifetime voting 

bans on people with felony records.57 In Florida alone, an estimated 1.5 million citizens may be 

affected by this draconian policy. 58 In addition to these roll-backs of rights for people with 

convictions, South Dakota recently passed a law disfranchising people on probation. 

States have vastly different approaches to voting eligibility for those with a criminal 

conviction. Some states permanently disfranchise some, but not all, citizens with felony 

convictions, while others allow voting after a sentence is completed or after release from 

prison. 59 Unfortunately, this patchwork of voting laws has caused widespread confusion about 

the proper administration of state laws that, in turn, has contributed to the disfranchisement of 

even citizens eligible to vote. 60 These criminal disfranchisement laws also have a troubling 

history, as they are rooted in the Jim Crow era and were originally intended to bar minorities 

from voting. The disproportionate impact of these laws on African Americans continues today, 

early voting over an eight day period from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm. Also on September 12, 2012, 001 filed a notice that 

all claims were now moot. And on October IS, 2012, all parties filed ajoint stipulation of dismissal of all claims. 

The following day, the court issued its final judgment and order dismissing the case. 

54 Smith, supra note 47, 

55 CHRISTOPHER UGGEN, SARAH SHANNON, & JEff MANZA, THE SENTENCING PROJECT, STATE-LEVEL ESTIMATES 

OF FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 2010 I (2012), available at 

http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/fd State Level Estimates of Felon Disen 2QlJ1pQf 

56 Georgeanne M. Usova, The Democracy Restoration Act: Everyone Deserves a Voice, ACLU, Apr. 24, 2012, 

http://www.aclu.orglblog/voting-rights/democracy-restoration-act-everyone-deserves-voice. 

57 UGGEN et al., supra note 55, at 3. 

58 /d. 

" See ACLU Map, Voting Rightsfor People with Criminal Records, http://www.acIu.orgimap-state-felonydisfranchisement-laws (last visited Aug. 8,2011) (contains a map detailing state laws); see also DEBORAH 1. VAGINS 

AND ERIKA WOOD, AMERICAN CONSTITUTION SOCIETY, THE DEMOCRACY RESTORATION ACT: ADDRESSING A 

CENTURIES-OLD INJUSTICE (2010), available at http://www.acslaw.org/issues/democracy-andvoting. 

60 See ERIKA WOOD AND RACHEL BLOOM, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION AND BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE, 

DEFACTO DISENFRANCHISEMENT (2008). 

10 
58 

as I of every 13 of African Americans male citizens have lost the right to vote - a rate seven 

times the national average.61 

The disfranchisement of millions of citizens is undemocratic, contributes to confusion in 

election administration, and it is counterproductive to the rehabilitation and reintegration ofthese 

citizens into society. For all these reasons, the ACLU continues to be a leader in supporting the 

Democracy Restoration Act,62 introduced by Rep. John Conyers in the House of Representatives 

and Senator Ben Cardin in the Senate, which would restore voting rights in federal elections to 

the millions of Americans who are living in the community, but continue to be denied their 

ability to fully participate in civic life. 63 

E. Proof of Citizenship Requirements 

Laws mandating presentation of proof of citizenship impose a potentially insunnountable 

burden for a sizable number of Americans, for whom obtaining documentary proof of citizenship 

is difficult or impossible. Research from the Brennan Center found that an estimated 7% of 

Americans more than 13 million people - do not have ready access to proof of their 

citizenship.64 People with low incomes, the elderly, women, and people of color living in rural 

areas are among those least likely to have appropriate documentation. As birth registration was 

becoming standard practice throughout the U.S. in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s, for example, Native 

Amel1cans, children born to Spanish-speaking families, and others with minimal access to formal 

healthcare remained significantly less likely than their urban and white counterparts to have their 

births officially recorded. 65 Such individuals often cannot obtain a delayed birth certificate 

because no living birth witness is available.66 Women of voting age are also disproportionately 

impacted by these laws, since as many as 32 million women of voting age lack documentation of 

citizenship reflecting their current legal names. 67 

Despite the significant potential that proof of citizenship laws have to prevent many 

Americans from registering and casting a ballot, three states Alabama, Kansas, and Tennessee 

- passed laws in the past two years implementing such a requirement,68 joining Arizona and 

Georgia.69 In October, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the Ninth Circuit's 

detennination that the National Voter Registration Act superseded Arizona's documentary proof 

61 Fact Sheet, ACLU. The Democracy Restoration Act of 2011 (2011), available at http://www.ac1u.orglracialjustice-votiof!-right!:i/aclu-f<lctsheet-democracy-restoration-act-20ll; 

Voting After Criminal Conviction, Brennan Center, 

http://ww\v.brennancenter.org/contentlsectionlcategory/votlog after criminal conviction (last visited Dec. 17, 

2012). 

62 Democracy Restoration Act of 2011, H.R. 22121S. 2017, 112th Congo (2011). 

" Fact Sheet, supra note 61. 

64 Without Proof, supra note 33. 

65 Hetzel, U.S. Vital Statistics System Major Activities and Developments, 1950-95,59, (U.S. Dept. of Health and 

Human Services 1997). available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/dataimisc/usvss.pdf. 

66 Gonzalez Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact Nos. 570-72, Gonzalez v. Arizona, No. CV 06-1268-PHX-ROS 

(D. Ariz., May 9, 2006). 

67 Without Proof, supra note 33. 

68 WENDyR. WEISER & LAWRENCENoRDEN,BRENNAN CTR. FOR JUSTICE, VOTING LAW CHANGES IN 201217 

(2011). 

69 [d. at 16-17. 

11 
59 

of citizenship law.7o The ACLU, along with other civil rights organizations, won the legal 

challenge in the lower courts, in the consolidated case of Gonzalez v. Arizona.71 The en bane 

decision by the Ninth Circuit affirmed the panel ruling from October 26, 2010, finding that the 

NVRA preem.pted Arizona's proof of citizenship requirement for registration by mail using the 

federal form. 7

• 

F. Improper Purges of Voter Registration Rolls 

While the maintenance of accurate and current voter rolls is necessary to the efficient 

administration of elections, improper purges of voter registration may result in the exclusion of 

duly-registered citizens from the electoral process. Such voter purges often employ incorrect and 

incomplete information in the decision to cull the voter rolls, and these systematic decisions tend 

to disproportionately impact - and exclude minority voters. Furthermore, the utility of these 

mass voter purges is often questionable, since they may produce very few, if any, erroneouslyregistered voters. 

For example, prior to the 2012 general election, both Florida and Texas engaged in the 

systematic purges of registered voters from the rolls. In Florida, in an effort to remove "noncitizens" from voter rolls, the state sent an error-ridden list of 2,700 possible non-citizens to 

county election supervisors for verification. 73 From the list of 2,700 individuals, hundreds 

responded within the 30 day time frame to prove their citizenship and avert being dropped from 

the rolls; only 40 individuals were identified as non-citizens by the state, but it is inconclusive if 

any of those individuals intentionally registered or have ever voted. 74 The threat of being purged 

did disproportionately target minority voters in Florida. Although minorities comprise only 30% 

of Florida voters, they constituted 82% of the 2,700 names on the purge list.75 Thus, this voter 

purge - and others like it - disproportionately endanger the voting rights of minority citizens 

without any indication that they are successful in pinpointing non-citizen voters. 

Similarly, Texas' voter purge efforts are predicated on outdated inforll1ation from 

unreliable sources, prompting even County officials to admit that errors are inevitable.76 One of 

the tactics employed in Texas' voter purges is to drop registered voters with identical names to 

the recently deceased or other individuals who moved to another county in Texas. Yet, in Harris 

County, Texas alone, more than 100,000 voters share duplicate names; for example, former 

County Election Commissioner, Sylvia Garcia, shares her name with 35 other individuals in the 

7{) Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012), cat. granted Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council (U.S. Oct. 15, 

2012) (No. 12-71). 

71 See Gonzalez v. Arizona, 624 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th CiL 2010). 

72 Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383, (9th CiL 2012) (en bane decision) ami/able at 

http://www.ca9.lIscouI1s.£ov/dmastoTe/opinions/20 12/o4117/08-17094.pdf. 

73 Rachel Weiner, Florida's Voter Purge Explained, WASH. POST, Jun 18,2012, available at 

http://www.washingtonpost.comlb logs/the-fix/postJfloridas-voter-purgeexplainedJ2012/06/18/gJOAhvc:-liV blog.htm!. 

74 Marc Caputo, County Elections Chiefs to State: We Won't Resume Voter Purge Program, MIAMI HERALD, June 8, 

2012, available at http://www.miamiherald.com/2012!06/07/2838176/county-elections-chiefs-to-state.htm!. 

75 Ari Berman, Florida Voter Purge Is Unlikely to Resume, THE NATION, July 3, 2012, available at 

http://www.thenation.comlblo gl16 87141florida-voter-purge-unlikely-resume#. 

76 Lise Olsen, Watch out for voter registration cancellations, CHRON, June 7, 2012, available at 

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/articleiW ateh-out -for-voter-registration-cancellations-3606064. php. 

12 
60 

county77 Purges under such parameters can result in the removal of voters whose registrations 

are both current and active. 

The potential disfranchisement of Florida and Texas voters, however, was blunted by 

several litigation challenges to these purge efforts. The ACLU, and many other civil and voting 

rights organizations filed suit against Florida's voting purge.78 Representing five citizens 

threatened with removal from the rolls, the ACLU sought an injunction to block Florida from 

drop~ing qualified voters, arguing that the state's actions violated Section 5 of the Voting Rights 

Act. 9 Since five of Florida's counties are covered jurisdictions under Section 5, any statewide 

change in election procedures affecting those counties requires DOJ approval. 80 The United 

States filed a lengthy Statement of Interest that Florida was in violation of Section 5;81 the 

litigation is still pending.82 

Days after the filing of the ACLU's suit against Florida, DOJ also brought suit, under 

Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which prohibits the purging of voter 

rolls 90 days prior to an election for federal office. 83 DOJ's challenge to Florida's purge of 

voters was dismissed on October 4, with the court interpreting that the purge based on citizenship 

challenges was permitted under the NVRA. Although the litigation challenge was unsuccessful, 

Florida had proactively reduced its swollen purge list of nearly 3,000 names down to 200 during 

the pendency oflegal proceedings.84 

Similar challenges to voter purges in Texas proved more successful, where a coalition of 

civil rights organizations reached a settlement with Harris County, after the County incorrectly 

sent over 9,000 individuals' letters threatening to remove them from voter rolls on the incorrect 

belief that those individuals were deceased. As a result of the settlement, Harris County agreed 

to send written notice to each of the more than 9,000 impacted voters to advise them that they 

would not be removed from the rolls and could vote in the general election.85 

77 Id. 

78Mi Familia Vota v. Detzner, No. 8:12-cv-01294 (M.D. Fla.). 

79 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Req. for a Three Judge Panel Mi Familia Vota v, Detzner. 

No. 8:12-cv-01294 (M.D. Fla.}une 8, 2012), available at htlp:llmiamiherald.typepad.comlfilesI2012-06-

acluvote[purgecomplaint.pdf. 

80 The Department of Justice, CivlJ Rights Division, Voting Section 5 Covered Jurisdictions, 

http://www.justice.gov/crt/aboutivotlsec_S/covered.php (last visited Dec. 17,2012). 

81 Press Release, ACLU, Department of Justice Supports ACLU Suit to stop Florida's Inaccurate and Illegal Voter 

Purge (July 30,2012), available at http://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/department-justice-supports-aclu-suit-stopfloridas-inaccurate-and-illegal-voter-purge. 

82 Mi Familia Vota v. Detzner, No. 8:12-cv-01294 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2012) (case management and scheduling 

order), available at http://moritzla w.osu.edulelectionla wllitigationldocuments/OrderSettingTrialDate.pdf. 

83 Press Release, Department of Justice, Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against Florida Alleging Violations of the 

National Voter Registration Act (June 12,2012), available at http://www.justice.gov/opaJpr/2012/June/12-crt746.html. 

84 Michael Peltier, Federal Judge Approves Scaled-down Florida Voter Purge REUTERS, Oct. 4, 2012, available at 

http://www.reuters.comlarticleI2012/10IOS/us-usa-campaign-florida-voting-idUSBRE8940042012100S. 

85 Lawsuit Forces Partial Settlement jar Harris County, Texas Voters, Project Vote (Oct. 19,2012), available at 

http://\','\..vw.projectvote.org/newsreleases/953-1awsuit-forces-partial-settlement-for-harris-county-texas-voters.html. 

13 
61 

III. Election Administration Issues Impacting Access to the Polls 

In addition to the impact or confusion caused by voter suppression efforts on Election 

Day this year, voters also encountered difficulty voting because of election administration issues. 

These included last minute changes to state procedures, failure to maintain accurate voter rolls, 

inadequate poll worker training, including the improper use of provisional ballots, 

disproportionate allocation of resources, and technological glitches with voting equipment. 

The cumulative impact of election administration issues is significant. Across the 

country this year, voters waited in line for hours to cast their ballot, with reports of wait times of 

four to five hours in Texas, Virginia, and Florida.86 In fact, some voters were still in line when 

Mitt Romney conceded the presidential race to the incumbent, President Obama.87 In his 

acceptance speech, President Obama acknowledged the pervasiveness of the problem, when he 

thanked everyone who participated, "whether you voted for the first time, or waited in line for a 

very long time," before adding, "by the way we have to fix that."s8 

These administration issues have become endemic in our national elections despite 

previous efforts to address them at the federal level through legislation, such as the Help 

America Vote Act. In the absence of stronger and uniform federal standards for election 

administration, differences in state or county-level procedures have the potential to turn voters 

away. These issues are deserving of searching, bipartisan Congressional inquiry. With fewer 

than 4 million votes separating the presidential candidates this election year, election 

administration barriers could easily become determinative of election outcomes.S9 The following 

section represents only a snapshot view of election administration issues in the 2012 election. 

A. Last Minute Changes to Election Administration Procedures 

On the eve of the election, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted issued a last minute 

directive to election officials on provisional ballots. Previously, poll workers were responsible 

for correctly recording which form of ID the voter presented when voting provisionally, but 

Secretary Husted's order placed this burden on the voter. This change in election administration 

increased the possibility of error, and risked the disfranchisement of those forced to cast a 

provisional ballot - because his order provided that any incorrectly filled-out provisional ballot 

would not be counted. 9o 

B. Failure to Maintain Accurate Voter Rolls 

86 Ethan Bronner, Long Lines, Demands for ID and Provisional Ballots Mar Voting for Some, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 6, 

2012, available at http://www.nytimes.coml20 12/11/07/us/politicsllong-lines-id-demands-and-provisional-balJotsmar-voting.html. 

87 Scott T. Smith, Not All Florida Voting Precincts are Created Equally, CBS 12 NEWS, Nov. 17,2012, available at 

http://www.cbsI2.comlnews/top-stories/stories/vid_3179 .shtml. 

88 Dan Froomkin, Obama Oil Long Lines at the Polls: 'We Have to Fix That.' HUFFINGTONPOST, Nov. 7, 2012, 

available at http://www.huffingtonpost.coml2012IJ 1/07/0bama-long-lines-polls n 2086291.hlml. 

89 See generally, Alexander Keyssar, Voter Suppression Returns, HARVARD MAGAZINE, July-Aug. 2012, available 

at http://harvardmagazine.coml20 12/07/voter -suppression-returns. 

90 Ari Berman, Eleventh-Hour GOP Voter Suppression Could Swing Ohio, THE NATION, Nov. 4, 2012, available at 

http://www.thenation.comlblo glI71 0 II leleventh-hour -gop-voter-suppression-could-swing-ohio# 

14 
62 

In addition to the improper purges, discussed above, voter rolls do not always reflect 

those who are properly registered, People whose names are not found on the rolls may be denied 

the opportunity to cast a ballot even a provisional one, For instance, Arizona sent removal 

notices to 1,6 million voters in the state, which equates to almost half of the state's total 

registered voters; the national average ratio of removal notices to number of registered voters 

was 7,8%,91 Such removal efforts can significantly reduce the number of people on the voter 

rolls in advance of an election. 

Another election administration issue impacting the accuracy of voter rolls is the failure 

of a state or locality to enter all of the voter registration forms into their system prior to Election 

Day. Some localities produce a supplemental voting list the night before Election Day, to 

account for these late registrations, but not all poll workers or election officials are aware of such 

lists or that the named individuals are entitled to vote with a regular ballot. In Fulton Country, 

Georgia and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for instance, there were reports of voters being either 

turned away from the polls or given provisional ballots, because poll workers forgot about or did 

not consult the supplemental voting list.92 

C. Inadequate Poll Worker Training 

i. Misuse of Provisional Ballots 

On Election Day, poll workers across the country were given the daunting task of 

managing limited resources, confusing interpretations of state law, and higher turnout than was 

anticipated in many jurisdictions. In the absence of adequate training, too many poll workers 

misinterpreted the law,93 as in Pennsylvania, where voters did not need a photo ID to vote in the 

2012 election. The temporary order issued in the ACLU's challenge to Pennsylvania's voter ID 

law permitted poll workers to ask voters for a photo ID, but explicitly provided that voters could 

cast a regular ballot regardless of whether they could produce an ID on Election Day.94 The 

ACLU of Pennsylvania predicted that this order could produce confusion among poll workers on 

Election Day,95 and there were multiple reports that poll workers gave provisional ballots to 

91 US ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMM'N. THE IMPACT OF THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 1993 ON THE 

ADMINISTRATION OF ELECTIONS FOR FEDERAL OFFICE 2009-2010 (June 30, 2011), available at 

http://www.eac.gov/assets/lillocumentsJ2010%20NVRA%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf. 

9Z Johnny Edwards. et aI., Fulton elections operations riddled with glitches, ATL. J. CONST., Nov. 6, 2012, available 

at http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/fulton-elections-operations-riddled-¥/ith-

?]itches/nSywQ . . . . . Reglstered PJlIlly volers reqUired to cast provlswnal ballots mlarge numbers, PHILADELPHIA CITY PAPER. Nov. 6, 

2012, available at http://www.citypaper.netlblogs/nakedcityll77510161.html. 

94 Ryan J. Reilly, Pennsylvania Judge Rules Poll Workers Can Still Ask For ID, TPM, Oct. 2, 2012, 

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.comJ201211 O/pennsyl vania_ voter_id_law -,uling. php. 

95 Pennsylvania State Education Association, It's simple: No photo ID required to vote Nov. 6 (Nov. 2012), 

http://www.psea.orglgeneral.aspx?id-9894 (last visited Dec. 17,2012). ('''You can't be telling people you need ID 

if you're not actually requiring ID,' said Vic Walczak, ACLU-PA attorney. 'Confusion is not a good thing on 

Election Day. Confusion is going to mean some voters stay home. Confusion is going to mean that some poll 

workers get it wrong."'). 

15 
63 

voters without ID under the mistaken impression that the law was fully in effect.96 In 

Philadelphia, twice as many voters had to cast provisional ballots as in 2008, and the Lawyers 

Committee' Election Protection program reported more than 9,000 calls from the state on 

Election Day, with many voters being told that a photo ID was necessary to cast a regular 

ballot.97 

While voters have a right to vote provisionally if their names do not show up on a valid 

voter list, the Help America Vote Act "does not direct state or local election officials to conduct 

any particular investigation to determine whether the provisional ballot should be counted.,,98 

Since individual county boards of elections may determine voter eligibility, in the absence of 

stronger federal legislation, the decision to give a provisional ballot to a voter may result in their 

vote not ultimately being counted. 

ii. Non-Compliance with Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act and Refusals to 

Assist Language Minority Voters 

Across the country, language minority voters encountered difficulty voting. Under 

Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, covered jurisdictions are required to provide language 

assistance at polling locations and to provide election material in the minority language if a 

jurisdiction meets certain population thresholds.99 In covered jurisdictions across the country 

this year, language minority voters' right to participate was jeopardized after jurisdictions failed 

to provide, or provided misleading, information to these individuals. The Asian American Legal 

Defense and Education Fund reported that its poll monitoring uncovered violations of Section 

203, including error-ridden election materials, in jurisdictions around the country, ranging from 

Queens, New York to Harris County, Texas to Cook County, llIinois. lOo The Asian American 

Justice Center reported similar issues, including indications of violations of Section 203 in 

covered jurisdictions in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, and New Jersey.lOl 

% Dan Stamm, More Provisional Ballots Will Be Supplied if Needed in Philly, NBC 10, Nov. 6, 2012, available at 

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.cominews/politicslProvisional-Ballots-Philadelphia-Low-I77542311.html; Mary 

Wilson, Number of provisional ballots, voter ID issues spur call/or Pa. probe a/voting irregularities, NEWSWORKS, 

Nov. 14,2012, available at http://www.newsworks.org/index.phpnocal//philadelphia/47046-number-of-provisionalballors-voter-id-issues-spur-call-for-pa-probe-of-voting-irregularities; Ryan J. Reilly, Turmoil Follows As 

Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Meets Reality, TPM, Nov. 6, 

2012).http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.coml20121l I/pennsylvania voter id election day.php?ref-fpnewsf 

eed; Ethan Bronner, Long Lines, Demands for ID and Provisional Ballots Mar Voting for Some, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 

6, 2012 at P9, available at http://www.nytimes.coml20l21ll/07/us/politics/long-lines-id-demands-and-provisionalballots-mar-voting.html. 

97 Bennan, supra note 7. 

9B RlCHARD L. HASEN, THE VDTING WARS: FROM FLDRIDA 2000 TO THE NEXT ELECTION MELTDOWN 112 (Yale 

University Press 2012). 

99 Department of Justice, The Voting Rights Act of 1965, http://www.justice.gov/crtfaboutivotlvra06.php (last 

visited Dec. 17, 2012); CAROLINE FREDRICKSON & DEBORAH 1. V AGlNS, ACLU, PROMISES TO KEEP (Mar. 2006), 

available at http://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/promises-keep-impact-voting-rights-act-2006. 

100 AALDEF, LANGUAGE ACCESS FOR ASIA AMERICANS UNDER THE VOTlNG RlGHTS ACT IN THE 2012 ELECTIONS 

(2012), available at http://aaldef.orglAALDEF%20Election%202012%20Interim%20Report.pdf. 

IOJ Press Release, Asian American Justice Center, Poll monitors, voter hotline in 10+ states find language assistance 

for Asian American voters, but also missing bilingual poll workers, lack of knowledge about language access laws 

(Nov. 7, 2012), available at http://www.advancingequality.org/news-releaseslpoll-monitors-voter-hotline-in-IO16 
64 

There were also multiple reports of misinfonnation given to Spanish-speaking voters in 

Maricopa County, Arizona, including the County listing the wrong election date on Spanishlanguage election materials, including voter registration cards,102 and inaccurate bookmarks 

produced by the County Election Board. IOJ In addition, there were multiple incidents across the 

country in coveredlO4 and non-coveredl05 jurisdictions of polling locations being ill-equipped to 

handle non-English-speaking voters. 106 Some of these limited-English proficient voters, who 

were duly-registered and qualified voters, were turned away from the polls or experienced long 

delays when preferential treatment was provided to English speaking voters. I07 For instance, the 

Lawyers' Committee National Election Protection program received a report of Korean 

American senior citizens being segregated into a separate voting line from native-English 

speakers in Virginia on Election Day. lOS Finally, Native American voters - particularly in states 

with a significant proportion of tribal members - continue to confront Section 203 violations, in 

addition to violations of other language access provisions of the VRA, like Section 208. 109 

D. Disproportionate Allocation of Election Administration Resources 

Given the highly-localized nature of elections currently, states, and even counties, have 

adopted different standards for the allocation of scarce election resources. In the absence of 

additional federal standards for the allocation of resources, there are significant variations in their 

distribution that can impact voter access. For example, from reports on Election Day, the 

allocation of electronic voting machines and ballot scanners was highly variable from location to 

location, sometimes insufficient to meet the voter turnout. l1O 

states-find-language-assistance-for-asian-american-voters-but-also-missing-bilingual-poB-workers-lack-ofknowledge-about-language-access-laws [hereinafter "AAJC"j. 

102 Ed Payne & Michael Martinez. Arizona county gives wrong election date in Spanish voter cards. CNN, Oct. 18, 

20 12, http://www.cnn.coml2012/10118/us/arizona-spanish-election-ballotlindex.html. 

103 Matthew Hendley, Maricopa County Elections Office Had More Materials With Wrong Election Date in Spanish. 

So It Got a Calendar. PHOENIX NEW TIMES. Oct. 23. 2012, 

http://blogs.phoenixnev.ti mes.com/val!eyfever/20 12/1 O/maricopa_county _elections_ offi_l. php. 

104 Jean-Paul Salamanca, Arizona Election Results 2012: Votes Finally Counted, But Many Call For Reform to 

Ballot-Counting Measures, LATINOS POST, http://www.latinospost.comlarticlesI7252120121123/arizona-electionresults-20 12-vOles-final! y-counted.htm. 

105 Borys Krawczeniuk & Laura Legere, Polls officially closed in Pennsylvania, TlMES-TRIBUNE, Nov. 6,2012, 

available at http://thetimes-tribune.comlnews/polls-officiall y-closed-in-pennsyl vania-I. 1399309. 

106 AAJC, supra note 10 1. 

107 Jason Cherkis, Election Problems Included Confusion, Intimidation, Untrained Poll Workers, HUFFINGmN POST, 

Nov. 12, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com12012111/08/election-problems-confusionintimidation_n_2095384.html. 

108 AAJC, supra note 101. 

109 See, e.g. Nick v. Bethel, Alaska, No. 3:07-CV-0098 (TMB) (D. Alaska) (The ACLU and the Native American 

Rights Fund obtained a settlement against the City of Bethel and the State of Alaska on behalf of Yup'ik-speaking 

voters for violating Section 203 of the VRA, by failing to provide any written assistance and providing little to no 

oral language assistance, and Section 208 of the VRA, by preventing Yup'ik voters from bringing a person of their 

choosing into the voting booth to assist them with casting a ballot.). 

110 Adam Brandolph, Voters report problems with long lines, confusion over voter ID law, PITTSBURGH TRIB.-REV., 

Nov. 6, 2012, available at http://triblive.comlnews/adminpage/2904078-74/0utside-county-identification-judgepolls-order-asking-homestead-voters-allegheny#axzz2EBvbh2ZC; Donna Rapado et a!., Voters Endured Delays 

Amid Election Day Glitches in South Florida, NBC MIAMI, Nov. 7, 2012, 

http://www.nbcmiami.cominewslMalfunctioning-Machines-Reported-Throughout-South-Florida-on-Election-Day17 
65 

In Florida, for instance, the number of registered voters assigned to polling places can 

vary from 1,000 to 8,000, which means that some voters - who are assigned to less populated 

polling sites - will have a greater number of voting booths and ballot scanners at their 

disposal. I II These variations can have a disparate impact on predominantly minority 

communities. An analysis of Orange County, Florida this election year, where the average 

number of registered voters assigned to each precinct was 3,042, indicated that precincts with a 

majority of Hispanic voters had an average of 3,575 voters. By comparison, precincts with a 

majority of white voters (at least 80%) in Orange County had an average of 2,144 voters 

assigned. I 12 

In the absence of federal guidelines providing for equitable distribution of equipment and 

polling sites, minority communities will continue to be vulnerable to changes in state election 

procedures or resource allocations. 

E. Technological Glitches with Voting Equipment 

During early voting and Election Day, there were reports from across the country of 

machine glitches that impacted voters. Some poll workers encountered difficulty unlocking or 

activating the electronic voting machines, so they could be operational for voters. In Galveston 

County, Texas, electronic voting machines at all 45 polling places expeIienced delays "zeroing 

out," which is the process by which the machine verifies that no ballots have been recorded prior 

to the beginning of voting.lI3 This delayed the opening of polling places by as long as two 

hours, and interfered with the ability of hundreds of Galveston County residents to vote during 

the early morning poll hours. 114 In response to a request from the County Clerk to extend the 

poll hours to account for the delay, the district judge ordered that the polls remain open 

approximately two additional hours rather than the scheduled 7pm closure - but that all ballots 

cast after 7pm would be provisional. 115 

These technological glitches were not limited to the electronic voting machine 

themselves, as states with paper ballots experienced technological problems with ballot scanners. 

In Cuyahoga County, Ohio, multiple cities - including Maple Heights, Cleveland Heights, 

Cleveland, and Parma - reported that their ballot scanners jammed, forcing voters to put their 

177488311.html; Renee Standera & Jack Kuenzie, Richland County election investigation: not enough voting 

machines used, WISTV, Dec. 9,2012, http://www.wistv.comistory/20223227/richland-county-electioninvestigation-not-enough-voting-machines-used; Ed Barnes, Electronic Voting Machine Problems Raise Early 

Concerns. Fox NEWS, Nov. 2, 2012, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/20101I1/02/electronic-voting-machineproblems-raise-concerns/; Beth Sawicki, Election Day glitches Jrustrate voters, WXIA-TV, Nov. 6, 2012, 

http://www.llalive.comlne ws/articlel263 250/31E1ection-Day-glitches-frustrate-voters. 

111 Scott T. Smith, Not All Florida Voting Precincts Are Created Equal, CBSI2 NEWS, Nov. 17,2012, 

http://www.cbs12.cominews/top-stories/stories/vid_3179.shtml. 

112 [d. 

113 Harvey Rice, Galveston County voting extended two hours, HOUSTON CHRON., Nov. 6, 2012, available at 

http://www.chron.com/news!houston-texas!houston/article/Galveston-County-voting-extended-two-hours4012465.php. 

114 [d. 

115 [d. 

18 
66 

paper ballots in a holding box until the scanners were repaired. ll6 In Broward County, Florida, 

there were also reports of scanners malfunctioning throughout Election Day, with some poll 

workers advising voters to put their ballots in a sealed bag, and others providing voters with the 

option to wait to scan their ballots themselves when the replacement equipment arrived. ll7 

IV. Recommendations for Reform 

The 2012 election firmly established the necessity of vigorous enforcement of the Voting 

Rights Act and other federal voting statutes, as well as of the need for more uniform standards 

and procedures for the administration of federal elections. Both suppressive voting laws and 

faulty election administration procedures can result in the denial of the right to vote, and 

minorities continue to be disproportionately impacted. 

A. Additional Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and Other Federal Voting Rights 

Statutes 

When Congress re-authorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006 on a broad, bi-partisan 

basis, it concluded that "without the continuation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 protections, 

racial and language minority citizens will be deprived of the opportunity to exercise their right to 

vote, or will have their votes diluted, undermining the significant gains made by minorities in the 

last 40 years."ll8 In the re-authorization process, Congress extended the Section 5 provisions for 

another twenty-five years, based on the voluminous record compiled, which unequivocally 

demonstrated that despite gains, minorities continue to confront pernicious voter suppression 

tactics in states that have historically excluded them from the electoral process. 

It is particularly crucial that the Department of Justice continue to take action under 

Section 5 in response to voter suppression in states with a sordid history of excluding racial and 

ethnic minorities. In addition, DOJ should also refuse to pre-clear any new criminal 

disfranchisement laws, which is has not yet done, because these laws disproportionately impact 

communities of color. 

Indeed, the role of Section 5 is particularly important. Not only does it provide an 

important deterrent to discrimination, if some states still try to enact discriminatory laws, Section 

5 also stands as the bulwark to place the burden on those states to show that their laws do not 

discriminate, rather than placing that burden on the shoulders of historically disfranchised 

groups. This is precisely what the congressional drafters of the Voting Rights Act intended. 

While the nation has made significant progress since the Voting Rights Act first became law in 

1965, in 2006, Congress deternlined that Section 5' s broad and remedial powers were still 

necessary in covered districts to avert a potential backslide to the legacy of entrenched voter 

116 Sarah Jane Tribble, Voting equipment down at several locations in Cuyahoga County; elections chief say., all 

votes will be counted, PLAIN DEALER, Nov. 6, 2012, available at 

http://www.cleveland.com/politicslindex.ssf/2012/11/votin~equipmencdown_acscatt.html. 

1 17 Donna Rapado et al. supra note 110. 

liS Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act 

of 2006, § 2(b)(9), 120 STAT. 578 (2006). 

19 
67 

suppression and ineffective piecemeal litigation challenges that pre-dated the Voting Rights 

Act. 119 In reaffirming Congress' findings on the continued necessity of Section 5, the D.C. 

Circuit Court of Appeals, in Shelby County v. Holder, found that sufficient evidence exists for 

Congress to conclude that "intentional racial discrimination in voting remains so serious and 

widespread in covered jurisdictions that section 5 preclearance is still needed".120 Shelby County 

will be heard by the Supreme Court this term. 121 

In addition to litigation challenges brought under the Section 5, other challenges under 

state constitutional provisions successfully forestalled some voter suppression measures that 

would have impacted the general election. However, the ultimate fate of many of these laws was 

simply postponed until after the election, so access to the franchise may be restricted in the next 

election cycle to a greater degree than it was this year - making DO}' s continuing in vol vement 

in these and new voter suppression efforts necessary. Therefore, in addition to additional Section 

5 objections, where applicable to the voter suppression tactic at issue, the Voting Section of the 

Civil Rights Division should also increase emphasis on prosecution of Section 2 and lIb cases 

under the Voting Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Help America 

Vote Act (HAVA). 

DO} and local agencies should also provide additional training for election officials and 

poll workers and greater outreach to the public. Polls are often run by dedicated, civic-minded 

volunteers who generously give their time to help make Election Day run smoothly, but they 

often are not provided with adequate training or with comprehensive information on election 

laws specific to their state. Better training for poll workers and election officials will help ensure 

that everyone has up-to-date information on the often-rapidly changing voting laws in their 

jurisdictions. 

Finally, the ACLU and other civil rights groups will continue to engage in voter 

empowerment and public education campaigns, but it is also the responsibility of federal, state, 

and local officials to ensure that voters know what their rights are and what they need to do in 

order to cast a ballot. 

B. Congressional Action Supporting Uniform Standards in Federal Legislation 

In a speech this month at the JFK Library in Boston, Attorney General Eric Holder spoke 

on the urgency of enacting uniform election standards to prevent the problems seen on Election 

119 Laughlin McDonald & Laura W. Murphy, Voting·rights struggle isn't over, POLffICO, Aug. 6, 2011, available at 

http://www.politico.cominews/stories/0811/60787.html. 

120 Shelby County v. Holder, 679 F.3d 848, 866 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The court goes on to hold that, "After thoroughly 

scrutinizing the record and given that overt racial discrimination persists in covered jurisdictions notwithstanding 

decades of section 5 preclearance, we, like the district court, are satisfied that Congress's judgment deserves judicial 

deference" [d. at 873. 

121 Shelby County v. Holder, 679 F.3d 848 (D.C. CiT. 2012), cert. granted (Nov. 9, 2012) (No. 92-16), available at 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/II 0912zed 18e. pdf. 

20 
68 

Day this year. 122 He echoes the sentiment of the nation -- according to a study by the MacArthur 

Foundation, nearly 90% of voters support the creation of national election standards. 123 

Congress should heed the Attorney General's call and respond to these ongoing threats to 

the full democratic participation of citizens. Specifically, Congress should enact legislation 

providing uniform standards in federal elections that can help address the problems identified in 

this statement. Among other reforms, such legislation should maintain and expand upon early 

voting periods, address the distribution, casting and counting of provisional ballots, reenfranchise all citizens, encourage no-excuse absentee voting, and ensure equitable distribution 

ofresources. More specifically, such reforms should include: 

Longer early voting periods, with uniform requirements across states on the 

number of days and hours of operation, including the weekend before the election. 

This would help ensure that voters have more flexibility in participating and ease 

the burden of accommodating potentially thousands of voters on a single day. 

• Greater federal requirements on the use and criteria for distributing, casting, and 

counting provisional ballots. In his recent speech, Attorney General Holder said: 

"[ w]e must recognize that, in some cases, there is a risk that elections may hang in 

the balance for days or weeks due to the need to count hundreds - if not thousands 

or hundreds of thousands - of provisional ballots; and that it is a potential 

problem if these ballots are subject to counting standards that vary between 

jurisdictions.,,124 This change would help ensure that all eligible voters have their 

vote counted, in addition to ending the confusion among state and local officials 

about how to handle provisional ballots. 

• Elimination of mandatory excuses to vote absentee. Voters in many states must 

provide a qualifying "excuse" in order to vote by mail. 125 Requirements to justify 

the "excuse" vary by state, but can go so far as to require that the voter produce a 

notary's seal, a doctor's note, or signatures from multiple witnesses to request an 

absentee ballot. Still other states require a voter to list work hours, explain a 

religious obligation, or detail the nature of a disability in order to prove that the 

voter fits into one of the state's "excuse" categories. The disclosure of personal 

information or the imposition of financial burdens should not be required for 

citizens to exercise their right to vote. Voters in some states should not be more 

heavily burdened, simply because of their location, while voters in other states 

can conveniently, without question or cost, request a mail-in ballot. 

'22 Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General, Address at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library (Dec. 11,2012), 

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opaJag/speeches/2012/ag-speech-121211.htm!. 

123 A recent study by the MacArthur Foundation found that nearly 90% of those who voted in the general election 

would support creating national voting standards. Press Release, MacArthur Foundation, New Poll: Americans 

Strongly Support National Standards for Voting (Nov. 14,2012), available at 

http://www.macfound.org/press/press-releases/new-poll-americans-strongly-support-national-standards-votingl. 

124 Holder, supra note 122. 

125 National Conference of State Legislatures, Absentee and Early Voting, http://www.ncs!.orgllegislatureselections/elections/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx (last visited Dec. 12,2012). 

21 
69 

A federal law is needed to guarantee that all citizens have the same opportunity to 

vote by mail in federal elections if they so choose. The Universal Right to Vote 

by Mail Act'26 would give all voters the choice of voting by mail by eliminating 

the unnecessary, burdensome, and often intrusive "excuse" requirements that 

some states impose on voters requesting absentee ballots. 127 While this would 

supplement, not replace, in-person voting, allowing voters this choice could help 

more voters avoid long lines. 

• Increase future funding for election administration and streamline eXisting 

resources. Long lines should never be caused by a lack of paper ballots or 

inequitable distribution of voting machines or ballot scanners. Congress should 

examine current allocation of resources, working with state officials in assessing 

inequities, and appropriate or allocate additional funds as needed. 

• Re-enfranchise people with past convictions. Congress should also pass the 

Democracy Restoration Act, which will re-enfranchise millions of citizens with 

past convictions. These Americans are living and working in our communities, 

but they are denied their most basic right - to participate in our democracy 

through exercise ofthe franchise. 

The provisions of the Democracy Restoration Actl28 would: 

o Restore voting rights in federal elections to the 4.4 million Americans who 

have been released from prison and are living in the community. 

o Ensure that probationers never lose their right to vote in federal elections. 

o Notify people about their right to vote in federal elections when they are 

leaving prison, sentenced to probation, or convicted of a misdemeanor. 

Passage of the Democracy Restoration Act would: 

o Create a uniform standard across the country in federal elections. 

o Strengthen our democracy by creating a broader and more just base of 

voter participation. 

o Aid law enforcement by encouraging participation in civic life, assisting 

reintegration, and rebuilding ties to the community. 

o Facilitate election administration by streamlining registration issues and 

eliminating the opportunity for erroneous purges of eligible voters. 

o Eliminate the confusion about who is eligible to vote 

126 The Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act of 2011, H.R. 2084, 112th Congo (2011). 

127 Letter from Laura Murphy, Director & Deborah Vagins, Legislative Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative 

Office to U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration regarding the Universal Right Vote by Mail Act 

(Apr. 29, 2010), available at http://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/aclu-letter-support-llniversal-riQht-vote-mail-actsenate-rules-hearing. 

128 Democracy Restoration Act of2011, H.R. 2212/S. 2017, 112th Congo (2011). 

22 
70 

V. Conclusion 

The ACLU thanks the Senate judiciary Committee for holding this important hearing to 

address the issues of voter suppression and concerns over election administration during the 

2012 election. As Attorney General Holder recently remarked: "we must also acknowledge that 

which is historically true: that the arc of American history has bent towards expanding the 

franchise. This generation must be true to that more inclusive history. This is our time; it is not a 

time to restrict the franchise.,,129 

Therefore, it is crucial that additional legal and congressional action be taken to resolve 

the widespread issues that imped access to the ballot. All the other rights we enjoy as citizens 

depend on our ability to vote; it is necessary that we safeguard access to the ballot for every 

citizen. 

129 Holder, supra note 122. 

23 
71 

fADVANCEMENT 

=\PRO]ECT 

Testimony of Judith A. Browne Dianis 

Co-Director, Advancement Project 

Hearing on "The State ofthe Right to Vote After the 2012 Election" 

Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Washington, DC 

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 

Chainnan Leahy and Members of the Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present 

testimony on "The State of the Right to Vote After the 2012 Elections," on continued threats to voting in America 

and opportunities to advance a more just democracy. Mr. Chairman, having testified before the Subcommittee on 

the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights in 2011 on states' new voting laws that threatened the ability of 

voters to cast a ballot, I thank you for continuing the needed dialogue on this important right - the cornerstone of 

American democracy - the right to vote, 

I submit this testimony today in my capacity as Co-Director of Advancement Project-a national civil 

rights organization that advances universal opportunity and ajust democracy.' Since 2000, we have worked 

closely with a broad array of local community, voter registration, GOTV groups, statewide civic engagement 

coalitions, national partners and election officials to eliminate barriers to voting in communities of color. For 

almost 20 years, I have been a civil rights litigator bringing cases on behalf of individuals and organizations on a 

range of issues including voting rights. In these past twenty years, I have not seen such widespread attempts to 

disenfranchise voters as we have seen over the past two years. Inclusive democracy has been under attack in 

ways that continue to disproportionately impact people of color, young voters, senior citizens, veterans, the 

working poor and people with disabilities. We submit this testimony to strongly recommend enshrining an 

affinnative right to vote explicitly in the Constitution or federal law to protect our most fundamental right, once 

and for all. 

A glimpse of a more robust democracy prevailed in 2012 as voters pushed back against restrictive new 

voting laws. As they braved long lines and other barriers on Election Day, we saw voters' determination to protect 

their most basic right. We saw it in the long lines outside of polling places in Florida, Ohio and Virginia, as 

citizens showed up for early voting in record numbers. We saw it in the deternlination of voters like Desilyn 

1 Advancement Project is a next generation, multi~racial civil rights organization. founded in 1999 by a team of veteran civil 

rights lawyers. With offices in California and a national office in Washington, DC, we exist to fulfill America's promise of 

an inclusive and just democracy, rooted in the great human rights struggles for equality and justice. We use innovative tools 

and strategies to strengthen social movements and achieve high~impact policy change. Locally, we provide strategic policy, 

legal, and communications support to grassroots organizations, increasing their capacity to identifY and address racial 

injustices in their communities. On the national level, we extend and replicate lessons learned on the ground, through the use 

oflegal advocacy, networking, media outreach, and public education. 
72 

Victor, who at 103, due to fatigue, had to leave her polling place at North Miami Library after waiting in line for 

four hours, only to insist on returning later with members of our staff to cast her ballot. When she emerged from 

the polling place wearing her "I voted" sticker after casting her ballot, hoping this is not the last time she will do 

so, the crowds still waiting to vote erupted in applause. We saw when Florida poll workers closed their doors on 

an unexpectedly massive crowd of early voters, only to be met with chants of "We want to vote! We want to 

vote!" We saw it in black church leaders who, in response to Florida's elimination of the last Sunday of early 

voting, set a new date for their community's popu1ar tlSouls to the Polls" voter mobilization campaign -- and made 

history with a larger-than-ever early voting turnout. 

But thousands of citizens -- disproportionately African Americans and Latinos -- were improperly forced 

to vote a provisional ballot, particularly in Ohio, Florida and Arizona. At one Tampa precinct, voters were given 

so many provisional ballots that it was dubbed "Provisional City." And although the resolve of voters who waited 

in line for up to eight hours was inspiring, it proved that administration of our elections is in dire need of repair. 

As President Obama said in his re-election victory speech, "We have to fix that.!! 

And fix it we must. If the prologue to this Election Day was an unprecedented effort to hinder voting 

rights -- the largest since the Reconstruction-era days of poll taxes and literacy tests -- its epilogue will define the 

character of our nation and the future course of our democracy. How we respond to this election will set the 

course for our nation's future. 

The war on voting is not over, and more threats loom on the horizon as a spate of new state legislative 

proposals stand to make it harder for people to vote, as states push error-ridden purge practices, and as the 

Supreme Court undertakes review ofthe nation's most impactful voting law. This is a critical time to enshrine an 

explicit, affirmative right to vote under federal law for all Americans. The absence of an explicit federal provision 

conferring a fundamental right to vote has left Americans at the mercy of state constitutions, state legislatures, 

elected and appointed judges, local bureaucrats and a patchwork of practices in 13,000 distinct local election 

jurisdictions. To that end, the continued work to guarantee and protect the right to vote must involve new, 

affirmative measures to solve the problems with our election infrastructure -- reforms like a modernized, 

automated voter registration system; Early Voting in every state; same-day voter registration during Early Voting 

and on Election Day; automatic restoration of rights for people with past felony convictions; and declaring 

Election Day as a federal holiday or moving it to a weekend to encourage greater voting access and participation. 

Now is the time to work to finally enshrine the right to vote in federal law to provide national standards for our 

election system. This election cycle and the threats that lie ahead demonstrate the need to ensure that the right to 

vote is explicitly protected. Advancement Project has advocated for guaranteeing a fundamental right to vote in 

federal law.' 

In Pursuit of an Affirmative Right to Vote 

The 2012 elections have energized a movement for election reform, and we must capitalize on this 

momentum. Several members of Congress have already proposed legislation that begins to address these 

concerns,' but a more comprehensive approach is needed. While proposals such as the Voter Empowerment Act, 

HR 5799, provide a promising avenue to address systemic election problems, there must be an unambiguous 

2 Advancement Project, H]n Pursuit of an Affirmative Right to Vote," (July 2008), available at: 

http://b.3cdn.net/advancement/ac94ee5ad8686f5760 27m6vrOi7.pdf 

1 Congo George Miller, "New Legislation \Vould Help Shorten Voting Lines. Strengthen People's Ability to Vote," The Daify 

Kos, 1\ov. 15.2012. http://www.dailvkos.com/story!2012/11/lSf1161979/-.\lew-Legi slation~WouldwHelp-Shot1cn-VotingLines-Strenethcn-PC'ople-s-Ability-to-Vote; Democrats Propose Speeding Up Voting, Rolf Carr, Nov. 15. 20ll. 

http://www.rolicall.com/ne.rvs!democrats propose speeding up voting-219234-1.html?pos""'hbtxt; Kirsten Gi11ibrand 

Introducing Voter Empowerment Act In Senate. Huffington Post. 9/2l112, 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/20]2/09/2]/kirsten-gillibrand-voter-empowennent-actnI903462.html 

2 
73 

commitment to solid, unifonn standards that are ultimately enacted and followed by strong, consistent 

enforcement. The declining reach of the Help America Vote Act to address structural disenfranchisement in our 

21 st century democracy. including the current weakening of the US Election Assistance Commission it created, 

make a compelling case for enacting broader, stronger protections for voters. 

In the final analysis, most Americans would be surprised to learn that there is no provision in the 

Constitution or federal law affinnatively guaranteeing all citizens the right to vote. Indeed, the Supreme Court has 

stated that the "individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the 

United States.,,4 This impacts the state of voting all over the country. In Crawford v Marion County Election 

Board, the only voter lD case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court so far, the Court upheld Indiana's restrictive 

photo lD law, applying a lenient level of scrutiny given to rights that are not "fundamental.'" 

Under this standard, courts will generally defer to the wishes of legislators, without requiring them to 

prove that their law actually achieves tangible results. There was no evidence of fraud in the Indiana case; instead, 

state officials claimed that they should be able to combat a perception offraud. This is a kind of deference we 

would never tolerate with rights that we deem truly fundamental, like the right of free speech, or freedom of 

religion. 

If the right to vote were explicitly constitutionally enshrined, it is likely that a higher level of scrutiny 

would have required Indiana to demonstrate that the law was narrowly tailored to advance a compelling interesta threshold the state would have been unable to meet because Indiana had no evidence of a voter fraud problem to 

support its claim that the strict new photo lD law was needed to combat voter fraud. The difference is meaningful. 

Indeed, applying that higher standard afforded to "fundamental" rights led the Missouri Supreme Court to reject a 

similar photo lD law in Missouri, finding that the law imposed "a heavy and substantial burden on Missourians' 

free exercise of the right of suffrage. ,,6 There, the court found that the state Constitution, which includes a specific 

right to vote provision, "establish[esJ with unmistakable clarity that the right to vote is fundamental to Missouri 

citizens"·· a right that the court found "at the core of Missouri's constitution and, hence, receive[ s] state 

constitutional protections even more extensive than those provided by the federal constitution.'" 

Advocates in some states are trying to advance greater protections for voting in the wake of new voting 

restrictions passed over the last two years and the threats to legal protections like the Voting Rights Act. In 

Florida, for example, Advancement Project and others are calling on voters to consider a state constitutional 

amendment to make the right to vote explicit, establishing equal protection standards for violations, and a citizen 

advisory board to review changes to voting laws.8 

Proposals like these will be helpful, but the federal government should not leave these corrections to the 

states. History tells us that the statewide patchwork of election practices, underfunded state bureaucracies and 

partisan elections officials are more likely to contract, rather than expand, the franchise. 

4 Bush v Gore. 531 US 98, 104(2000) 

5 Crawfordv. Marion Cnty. Election Bd, 553 U.S. 181, 190 (2008). The Court found that the voter ID law "impose[d] only a 

limited burden on voters' rights," and that the interests advanced by the state were sufficient to outweigh that burden. Id. at 

202-D3. 

6 Weinschenkv. State, 203 S.W.3d 201 (Mo. 2006) 

?fd. 

a See, e.g., Dara Kam, "Coalition Calls for Florida Voting Changes, Federal Voting Investigation," Palm Beach Post, Nov. 

12, 2012, available at: http://vl/'\Vw.postonpoJitics.com/20 12ill/coalition-cal1s-for-florida-voting-changes-fedemlinvestigationl; Advancement Project, What We Learned About Voting in Florida This Year and How to Fix It, at 

http://www.advancementprojecLoro/campaigns/protect-your-vote/pages/my-vote-fl. 
74 

As former Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., noted when he introduced House Joint Resolution 28 to 

enshrine an explicit constitutional right to vote for all US citizens 18 and older,' our present system of voting 

remains unequal because of a lack of federal legal guidelines protecting the right to vote as we protect other 

fundamental rights. Voting in the United States is controlled by "50 states, 3,067 counties, and 13,000 different 

local election jurisdictions," he said, which means that the amount of access Americans have to vote depends on 

where they live and their social circumstances. IO 

International observers in the U.S. during elections in 2012 made note of this patchwork process, 

observing that "elections were administered at the state level with many responsibilities delegated to county-level 

officials, resulting in a wide variety of practices" and noting, "there is no federal election management body with 

oversight responsibility." 11 

While our federal constitution mentions the right to vote more than any other right, forbidding it from 

being abridged based on race, gender, age or ability to pay a poll tax, it contains no affirmative language that 

would make explicit what is already implicit. This would go a long way towards ensuring uniform standards and 

ensure that voting no longer be treated as a privilege but as a right fundamental to all citizens. Harvard Law 

Professor Lani Guinier has suggested that "access to voting is like access to water - a necessity for the survival of 

our democracy.,,12 

We still have a long way to go to make voting like water, as an estimated 50 million eligible citizens were 

not even registered to vote this ejection, "bringing into question the effectiveness of existing measures to ensure 

that all persons entitled to vote are able to exercise that right." 13 Congress has the power to regulate voting,I4 and 

should take up the charge to ensure that the right to vote is strongly protected under law. The government should 

have to demonstrate that it has a compelling reason before it can enact policies that make it harder to vote, and 

should have to show that the mechanism is narrowly tailored and will actually advance that goal. Yet no provision 

offederal law makes this explicit. The U.S. is one of only eleven of the 119 democratic countries in the world that 

do not explicitly provide the right to vote in their Constitutions. IS The result is a patchwork of state and local rules 

that are arbitrarily applied, which not only have major political consequences, but profoundly impact the social 

fabric of our nation. These disparities are an obstacle to eliminating structural disenfranchisement. 

A robust and inclusive democracy is the very essence of American exceptionalism. The ballot box is the 

one place where every citizen -- rich or poor, young or old, and of every race -- has an equal voice in determining 

the course of our government. But with 50 states administering elections in 50 different ways, it's far too easy to 

9 H.J. Res. 28. Ii0th Congo (2007) 

10 See Jesse L Jackson, Je .. "Democrats Should Fight for a 'Right to Vote' Amendment," The Nation, Nov. 15,2005, 

available at http://vvww.jesseiacksonjr.orgigueryicreadpr.cgi?id=6908. 

11 OSCE/ODlHR LIMITED ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION 

United States of America - General Elections, 6 November 2012, STATEMENT OF PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND 

CONCLUSIONS, available at: http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections!96960. 

12 Advancement Project, ttln Pursuit ofan Affirmative Right to Vote," (2008) at 19, available at: 

htlp:llb.3cdn.netiadvancement/ae94ee5ad8686B760. 

13 OSCE/ODIHR LIMITED ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION 

United States of America - General Elections, 6 November 2012, STATEMENT OF PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND 

CONCLUSIONS, available at: http://www.osce.orgiodihrielectionsI96960 

14 Pamela S. Karlan, Congressional Power to Establish an Affirmative Right to Vote (July 2005) unpublished paper on file 

with Advancement Project. 

15 Alexander Kirshner, The International Status of the Right to Vote, DEMOCRACY COALITION PROJECT, (2003), at 9, 

available at http://www.demcoalition.orgipdflInternational_Status_oUhe _ Right_to _ Vote.pdf. These eleven countries 

include: Australia, the Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, India, Indonesia, Nauru, Samoa, United States of America, 

and the United Kingdom. ld 

4 
75 

manipulate the system. It is imperative that we finally enshrine the right to vote in federal law to provide national 

standards for our election system. 

Greatest Rollback of Voting Rights in a Century 

When I testified before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights last year, I 

described the rash of new voting restrictions in the states the "largest legislative effort to rollback voting rights 

since the post-reconstruction era" effectuating a trifecta of vater suppression- making it harder to register to vote, 

harder to cast a ballot, and harder to have a vote counted." Legislative activity in the states since the 20 I 0 

midterm elections marked a sharp departure from our historical trend of expanding access, with more than 180 

restrictive voting bills introduced in 41 states in the past two years: voter identification restrictions, cutbacks to 

early voting, restrictions on voter registration activities, proof of citizenship requirements, and more. 17 Their 

impact was not evenly distributed,18 and they were designed to effectuate political results." The measures weren't 

limited to legislation. In Florida, the Secretary of State initiated a deeply flawed program to purge the voter rolls 

to combat non-citizen voting-a problem that was largely nonexistent. The 2012 Florida purge threatened 

thousands of U.S. citizens in the process - and a number of other states got in line to do the same. 

Voter Suppression Strategy Backfired 

The 2012 voter suppression strategy failed. In some cases, the courts and Justice Department stepped in to 

stop restrictive laws from being implemented. Ten major voting laws were blocked by the courts and turnout 

among Black and Latino voters and youth - groups targeted by voter suppression initiatives increased. 

For example, we saw restrictive voter ID laws proposed in 38 states but in the end, only Tennessee, 

Georgia, Indiana and Kansas ended up with strict voter ID laws in place during the 2012 general elections - due to 

gubernatorial vetoes of photo ID laws in six states, and court or Department of Justice orders blocking restrictive 

photo ID laws for 2012 in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Texas, Mississippi and South Carolina. Federal courts in 

Florida and Texas struck down new restrictions on voter registration activities, and a federal court rejected efforts 

in Ohio to eliminate the last weekend before Election Day from the early voting period. In cases brought by 

16 New State Voting Laws: Barriers to the Ballot?: Hearing Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on 

the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights, I 12th Congo 2, at 19 (2011) (statement of Judith Browne-Dianis, CoDirector, Advancement Project), available at 

http://wv,.'\\'.advancementproject.org/sites/detaultiflles/publicationsiAdvancement%20Project%20Barriers%120to°,.-o20the%120 

Ballot%20Testimonv%1209-8-20 ll.pdf. 

17 See Brennan Center for Justice, "Voting Changes in 2012," 

http://v.:ww.brennancenter.oro/contentJresourceJvoting law changes in 10121 

18 For example, African Americans were twice as likely to cast early ballots in states tbat enacted restrictions on early voting. 

In Florida in 2008. 53% of African Americans cast early ballots compared to 27% of white voters. See Florida Department of 

State, County Early Voting Reports, https:l!doe.dos.state.fl.us!fvrscountyb(lllotreports/FVRSAvailableFiles,aspx. African 

Americans, who make up about 13% of the electorate, cast 22% of those votes. Halfof African Americans who voted, cast 

early ballots. 

19 See, Ari Berman, "How the GOP's War on Voting Backfired," The ;!I,Tation, Nov. 8,2012, 

http://,,yww,thenation,com!blog/171146!gops-faiied-voter-suppression-strategy# ("By pushing voter suppression laws, 

Republicans wanted the 2012 electorate to be older, whiter and more conservative than the young and diverse 2008 

electorate."); See also, Dara Kam and John Lantigua, "'Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason they 

pushed new election law," Palm Bc{{cil Post, http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regionai-govt-politicsiearlvvotinQ:-curbs-calied-power-plavinTFDy!: See Ryan J. Reilly. "Romney Co-Chair: Voter ID \Vould Have Won Us 

Wisconsin," Talking Points ,\lema, Nov. 13,2012, 

http://tpmmuckraker.talkinQ:pointsmemo,comJ2012/II/romnev wisconsin voter id.php?utm medium=refcrral&utm source 

=pulscnews 

5 
76 

Advancement Project, ajudge in Missouri tossed language of a proposed Photo ID ballot initiative, a court in 

Ohio ordered that provisional ballots wrongly cast due to poll worker error should be counted, and Pennsylvania 

and Wisconsin courts provided injunctive relief to freeze the application of strict photo ID laws during the 

election. Finally, another lawsuit by Advancement Project challenging voter purge practices in Florida led to a 

favorable settlement. 

Even more, voters were determined to make their voices heard. Remarkably, in states that had been 

targeted for voter suppression laws, voters of color increased their presence at the polls. Prof. Matt Barreto, a 

founder of polling and research firm Latino Decisions, said: 'There were huge organizing efforts in the black, 

Hispanic and Asian community, more than there would've been, as a direct result of the voter suppression 

efforts.,,20 The youth vote rose from 18 to 19 percent, and the voter turnout by people of color increased from 26 

to 28 percent. More African Americans voted in 2012 in Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida - states 

fighting some of the worst restrictions on voting - than in 2008.21 Even in Ohio, where efforts to cut weekend 

voting substantially reduced early voting in counties with the state's largest African American populations,22 

overall voter turnout by African Americans in Ohio nevertheless increased 4 points from II percent in 2008 to 15 

percent in 2012.23 African Americans also saW increased turnout in Florida (13%), North Carolina (23%) and 

Virginia (20%).24 Even states like Missouri - where the African American vote was actively recruited in 2008 but 

not 2012 - saw a meaningful 3-point increase in African American turnout from 13% in 2008 to 16% in 2012. 25 

Turnout by Latinos also increased, from 9 percent in 2008 to 10 percent in 2012." The share of the Latino 

vote increased in swing states where voter suppression efforts targeted Latinos, such as in Nevada (19%, up 4%), 

Florida (17%, up 3%), and Colorado (up I %).27 Of course, it is hard to predict how many voters were held back 

by photo ID laws that were in effect in Kansas or Tennessee or how many people didn't vote due to confusion 

over voting laws under challenge in Pennsylvania or Ohio or any of the 22 states with restrictions on voting rights 

this year, or how many were dissuaded due to long lines in Florida or Ohio. 

Election Day Problems Show Need for Reform 

Despite voters' inspiring resolve to cast a ballot, their election experiences show that reform is sorely 

needed. Reports of 6-8 hour wait times in Florida, voters wrongly made to cast provisional ballots in Ohio, and 

confusion on voter ID requirements in Pennsylvania, show that voting reform is more needed than ever. 

Advancement Project's lawyers and advocates were on the ground in states around the country in support 

of Election Day monitoring efforts in 2012. The reports show that the election administration structural problems 

that have lingered since the 2000 election debacle continue to erode our democracy: 

20 Ari Berman, "The GOP's Voter Suppression Strategy: How voter lD laws inspired progressive voters to fight stronger and 

turn out in higher numbers," The Nation, Nov. 26, 2012, available at: 

http://wv..rw.alterncLorgltea-party-and-right!oops-voter-suporessionstra(egv?akid~9721.140808.z86XuQ&rd~ l&src~ncwsletter7 50513&p 13 

21 CNN Exit Polis, http://ww ..... cnn.com/eiection!2012/results!main 

22 45 ,395 people voted early in person in Cuyahoga County in 2012, compared to 54,340 in 2008, a decrease of 16 percent. 

See, Ari Bennan, "Obama's Ohio Early Voting Advantage," The A1

ation, Nov. 5, 2012, availab1e at: 

http://www.thenation.comJhlog!l 7104 3/obamas-ohio-early-votIng-ad vanta2e# 

23 See, Ari Berman, "How the GOP's War on Voting Backfired," The Nation, Nov. 8, 2012, 

http://\'¥'ww.thenation.co m/blog!1 71146/ gops-failed-voter-s uppression-strategy# 

24 CNN Exit Polis, http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main 

25 rd. 26 rd. 

27 Id.; Latino Decisions, http://www.latinodecisions.com/ 

6 
77 

Thousands of citizens -- disproportionately A frican Americans and Latinos -- were wrongly made to cast 

provisional ballots, especially in Ohio, Florida, Arizona, and Pennsylvania," 

The day after the election, 600,000 early votes and provisional ballots remained uncounted in Arizona, most 

of them in Maricopa County, which has a high Latino population,29 

The 1-866-0ur-Vote Election Protection hotline received more than 9,000 calls from voters in Pennsylvania 

on Election Day, many who were wrongly told by poll workers that a photo ID was required in order to vote. 

Twice as many voters in Philadelphia as in 2008 had to cast provisional ballots because their names were 

missing from voter rolls. Pennsylvania had the sharpest drop in voter turnout among other swing states, down 

by more than 7 percent from 2008, which some have attributed to confusion over its photo ID law. 30 

Botched registration rolls caused voters to be turned away or delayed when they found themselves missing 

from the rolls.31 

Voters in Richland County, South Carolina faced six-hour lines when voting machines broke down, even as 

the county was using only 700 of the more than 900 machines available.32 

Some jurisdictions didn't have enough poll workers, causing long Iines. 33 

Long lines were epidemic around the country on Election Day and disproportionately impacted Black and 

Latino voters, who were two to three times more likely than whites to wait more than thirty minutes to vote.34 

Florida's early voting experience is a case study on the need for reform. In-person early voting dropped 

from 2008 thanks to Florida's enactment ofHB1355, which reduced early voting days." According to a 

Dartmouth University study of early voting in Florida in 2012, racial minorities were disproportionately impacted 

by cuts to early voting and the long lines that followed. 36 In Miami-Dade and Palm Beach Counties, notoriously 

long lines during early voting caused some voters on Saturday November 3 to stay well past midnight, ultimately 

not casting ballots until Sunday, November 4. Palm Beach County didn't wrap up voting until 2:30 a.m. on 

Sunday morning. After midnight early voters explain 573 of the early votes cast on Sunday, November 4, 431 in 

28 Judith Browne-Dianis, "In this Election, Democracy \Vas on the Ballot," Huffingfon Post, Nov. 14,2012, available at: 

http://www.hum ngtonpost.com/judith-hTO'l.vne-d ianis!in-this-election-democracy b 2130435 ,html. 

29 Ari Berman, "The GOP's Voter Suppression Strategy: How voter ID laws inspired progressive voters to fight stronger and 

turn out in higher numbers," The Nation, Nov. 26, 2012, available at: 

http://v.,--'.vw.altemet.orgltea-party-and-right!gops-voter-suppressionstrategy?akid~9721.140808.z86XuQ&rd~ I &src~news letter750513&t~ 13 

)0 ld. 

Jl Brad Plumer, "'Five Ways to Make Long Election Lines Shorter," 1Yashington Post, Nov. 8, 2012, available at: 

http://wv/w.washinf!tonpost.com/blogs/won kb loW\'/p/20 12/ J 1 !08!five-wavs-to-cut-long~election-l ines/ 

32 "Richland EIec. Official: That is Unacceptable'," WLTX, Nov. 8, 2012, available at: 

http://www.wltx.com/news/articl el208228!2/Richland-Elec-Offici<ll-That-is-U nacceptable 

3J Mike Rego, "Long Lines Await East Providence Voters," EastBayRl, Nov. 6, 2012, available at: 

http://www.eastbayri.com/ne\vsJ!ong-lines-<lwait-east-providence-voters! 

34 Hart Research, "2012 Election Night Surveys," Nov. 7, 2012, available at: 

hUns;! I docs.l!oogle.com/a!deniseli eberman.comJnresentation/ d/ 1 TGOPrvxJ5 ODgS Pf4CL· 

as 1 HKVmrzlV14UF702:s04ICa 1 o/edit#slide--id.p59 

35 HB 1355's voter registration restrictions also impacted voter registration, which dropped by 14 percent in Florida due to the 

twelve months when voter registration drives were all but shut down due to restrictions on third party registration activities. 

See, Ari Bennan, "The GOP's Voter Suppression Strategy: How voter ID laws inspired progressive voters to fight stronger 

and turn out in higher numbers," The ,Vation, Nov. 26, 2012, available at: 

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right!gops-voter-suppressionstratcgy?akid·~9721.140808.z86XuQ&rd~ I&src~news letter750513&t~ 13 

36 Michael C. Herron & Daniel A. Smith, "Early Voting in Florida in 2012," Nov. 7, 2012 

http://www.dartmouth.edU!~herron/HerronSmithFloridaEarly2012.pdf. The report reviewed 67 county early voting files 

made public by the Florida Department of State, and disaggregated the 2.4 million early votes cast by race and ethnicity. It 

found that racial minorities "were disproportionately more likely ... to cast ballots on both the first Sunday and the final 

Saturday of early voting." 
78 

Miami-Dade County and 142 in Palm Beach County.37 Those voters were disproportionately African 

Americans.38 The study concluded that racial minorities were hardest hit by the new voting restrictions: 

"Insofar as the longest early voting lines appear to have occurred on the day in which minority 

voter turnout was the greatest, it appears that minority voters. and in particular black voters, 

have borne heavily the burden of House Bill 1355.,,39 

Voters of color were also disparately impacted by Florida's flawed voter purge efforts. Naturalized 

citizens like Karla Vanessa Arcia, whose name was wrongly placed on a list of ineligible voters, were targeted as 

part of an aggressive program in Florida to remove alleged noncitizens from its list of eligible voters. MiamiDade's supervisor of elections sent Arcia a lelter giving her 30 days to prove her citizenship and residency. The 

majority of voters sent such lelters were Latino, and 82 percent were voters of color." Florida's flawed purge list 

showed that liberty, at least as exercised at the polling booth, was far less secure than it should be--{)ver 98% of 

the 562 people who responded to the purge letters in Miami-Dade proved they were U.S. citizens." Although 

Advancement Project and our partners favorably settled a discrimination claim under Section 2 of the Voting 

Rights Act, Arcia is now a plaintiff in Advancement Project's ongoing lawsuit. This lawsuit challenges the purge 

of alleged noncitizens through the inappropriate use of federal SAVE immigration data as a violation of the 

National Voter Registration Act's prohibition on purging within 90 days ofa federal election. Fifteen other states 

have followed Florida's lead and asked the federal government for access to SAVE, which targets naturalized 

citizens and makes them subject to removal from the voter rolls if they don't show proof of citizenship. The great 

majority of naturalized citizens in our country are voters of color.42 

We saw similar errors in lists developed by private groups associated with True the Vote to remove 

allegedly ineligible felons from the rolls. The Florida Department of State reviewed a list of voters submitted by 

Tampa Vote Fair, who were alleged to have had felony convictions in Hillsborough County, and found none were 

actually ineligible to vote. 43 Moreover, confusion was widespread. 44 

37 See "'Early Voting Ends \\lith Long Lines, Long Waits," CBS Sews Report, Nov. 4, 2012, available at 

http:;'/miami,cbslocal.com12012/11/04/carly-voting-ends-with-long-lines-long-waits; "Another election, another legal tangle 

in Florida," Sun Sentinel, Nov. 5, 2012, available at http:.!/www,sun-sentine1.com!news/browardlfJ-florida-voting-mess20121105 0.6901020.full.stary. 

38 Michael C. Herron & Daniel A. Smith, "Early Voting in Florida in 2012," Nov. 7,2012 

http://www ,dartmouth.edu/~ herron/HerronSmithFIoridaEarly20 12, pdf 

39 Id. 

40 CampI. ~ 26, Arcia v. De/zner. I: 12-CV-22282 (S.D. Fla., June 19,2012)(82% of voters on purge list of2,625 Florida 

voters were voters of color), 

41 Id. at1139. 

42 See, e.g., Advancement Project, "Segregating American Citizenship: Latino Voter Disenfranchisement in 2012," (Sept. 24, 

2012) at 4*7 (citing various sources including federal Census data), available at 

http://h.3cdn.netiadvancementJ691d4ca5tlfb88ac7f gurn6yzl ie.pdf. 

43 Of a subset of27 such voters, 23either did not meet the match criteria established or had not been convicted of a felony, 

and the remaining four required additional investigation. See Sept. 14, 2012 Email from M. Matthews (Department of State) 

to M. H. Farris (Hillsborough County), on file with Advancement Project. 

44 On the first day of early voting, Advancement Project staff met Kirk Griffin, a voter who had been standing in line at the 

Miami Gardens Library polling location for hours. Mr. Griffin had been convicted of a felony 18 years earlier, and thought he 

had completed the process to have his rights restored. He recalled completing a form and was armed with a voter registration 

card that he received in the mail a year earlier. But Mr. Griffin's name was not on the voter rolls; some quick research 

revealed that he was not registered and had likely been removed during a purge of registered voters with prior felony 

convictions. Mr. Griffin did not receive direct assistance to navigate the bureaucratic maze that is the new restoration of 

rights process established in the wake ofrestrictive administrative changes to Florida's restoration process since the 2010 

election cycle. (Notes on file at Advancement Project.) 
79 

The 2012 elections reveal that our election system lacks uniformity and sufficient protections for voters. 

We need national standards to ensure that one person, one vote is a guarantee for all eligible Americans. 

More Threats Ahead 

The war on voting is far from over and more roadblocks lie ahead as last year's legal rulings are on 

appeal, as legislatures propose new laws to make it harder for people to vote, as states push error-ridden purge 

practices, and as the Supreme Court undertakes review of the nation's most impactful voting law. All this is 

occurring as census data shows that voters of color will continue to occupy a growing portion of the electorate and 

will be particularly vulnerable to these assaults on voting." 

Some of the recent court rulings striking voter suppression laws, such as the legal challenges to 

Pennsylvania and South Carolina's photo ID laws, were partial wins with laws blocked in 2012, but on track to 

take effect in the next election. Mississippi's law is on hold for now. A federal court recently heard an appeal to 

Texas' voter registration restrictions. Court orders striking photo ID laws in Wisconsin and Texas are still to be 

considered by higher courts. And federal challenges to photo ID laws in Wisconsin, including one brought by 

Advancement Project, remain to have their day in court. 

Meanwhile, states plan to forge ahead with flawed purge practices that purport to target non-citizens on 

the rolls, but in reality target naturalized Latinos and render them second-class citizens. Citizens like Karla Arcia 

are by no means alone as a victim of a national trend that has seen nearly half of the states erect legislative and 

regulatory barriers, including strict photo ID and proof of citizenship laws, as well as attempts to access to data to 

purge voting rolls based on federal immigration databases, which disproportionately affect Latino voters. 

Moreover, the spate of new proposals that would make voting harder await state lawmakers as they 

prepare to reconvene in January, with photo ID restrictions, further cuts to early voting and proposals to eliminate 

same day registration looming in statehouses around the country. 

In addition, officials in states that have passed some of the most restrictive voting laws, instead of pushing 

meaningful investigation and government accountability to ensure access to voting for all who are eligible, are 

instead working to protect their ability to implement restrictive voting practices. 

In Florida, Secretary of State Ken Detmer, who championed the state's most onerous voter suppression 

measures of the 2012 election cycle, has been selected to lead an investigation of what caused long lines on 

Election Day and advocate reforros." 

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach has asked legislators to give his office new powers to search and 

prosecute suspected cases of voter fraud, a proposal the Kansas City Star criticized as a "'distraction" because 

"there is so little evidence that it actually takes place."" 

Wisconsin's new Senate majority leader wants to remove retired judges who currently sit on the state's 

Government Accountability Board - one of the strongest non-partisan elections oversight bodies in the 

45 According to recently released Census estimates, by 2043, whites will no longer be in the majority, and by 2060, Hispanics 

will account for nearly one in three people in the U.S., nearly doubJe their share of the population today. Laura Meckler, 

"Hispanic Future in the Cards" The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 13,2012, available at: 

http://online.wsj.com/artic1e/SB 1 000 1424127887323981504578175284228844590.html 

46 Steve Bousquet, "State elections officials to investigate voting problems in Mjami~Dade, Broward and Palm Beach 

counties," Jliami Herald, Dec, 4, 2012, available at: http://www.miamiherald.com!20 12JI 2/04/3126158/state-clectionsofticials-to~investigate.html 

47 See, Editorial, "Just say 'no' to Kris Kobach, the secretary of distractions," Kansas City Star, Dec. 3, 2012, 

availab Ie at: http://www.kansascity.com/20 12!12/03!v-print/3946973ithe-stars-editorial-just -sav-no.html 

9 
80 

country - and replace them with political appointees, a proposal that Ohio State University Election Law 

Professor Daniel Tokaji called a "the worst idea I've heard this year."" 

Even more, the nation's most impactful voting rights law is under threat as the Supreme Court agreed, 

just three days after the election, to hear a constitutional challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the 

provision that gives the federal government teeth to enforce the Act's protections against racially retrogressive 

voting laws. As the experiences of the 2012 election cycle and proposed measures going forward demonstrate, 

policies that effectively deny racial minorities the opportunity to participate equally in our democracy continue to 

persist. The preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which Attorney General Eric Holder has called "the 

keystone of our voting rights,,,49 ensure that voting discrimination canoot take root because jurisdictions covered 

by the provision - those with a history of discriminatory voting practices - must submit proposed voting changes 

for review before they can be implemented. This protection is essential to combat threats to voting. Of the nine 

states fully covered by Section 5, six passed new voting restrictions since 2010. The Justice Department, however, 

was able to step in and halt onerous measures in Texas, Florida, and South Carolina. But this protection now 

hangs in the balance, and could be removed by the Court, which hears arguments in Shelby on February 27, 2013. 

Losing this provision would give the green light to measures that make it harder to vote. 

Legal protection for voting is needed now more than ever, both to safeguard hard-fought progress and to 

defeat persistent and ongoing attempts to narrow the franchise. 

The 2012 elections have energized a movement for election reform, and now is the time to capitalize on 

this momentum by enshrining an affirmative right to vote to advance America's promise ofa robust and inclusive 

democracy. Our nation was founded on the belief that we all are created equal, but that can't work if all who are 

eligible don't have a seat at the table. We must take steps to ensure that the most enduring promise of our 

democracy - our right to vote - is protected. 

48 Patrick Marley, "Incoming Senate leader favors political appointees over judges on GAB," Ali/waukee Journal Sentinel, 

Dec. 3, 2012, available at: http://www.ison1ine.com/ne .... ·s/statepolitics!incoming~senate-leader-favors-po Jitical-appointeesover-judges-on-eab-cc7sgef-181860 ISI.html 

49 Attorney General Eric Holder Speech at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, 

Austin, TX December 13, 2011, available at: http://www.justice.gov/iso/opalaglspeeches/201 l/ag-speech-111213.html 

10 
81 

Statement for the Record 

Submitted by 

The Arizona Advocacy Network 

Hearing on 

"The State ofthe Rightto Vote After the 2012 Election" 

Before the 

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee 

Submitted on December 26, 2012 

Thank you Chairman Leahy, Ranking member Grassley, and members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary 

Committee for allowing us to submit testimony on the state of the right to vote. Specifically, this 

testimony addresses the state of voting rights in Arizona, as witnessed by the Arizona Advocacy Network 

("AlAN"). AZAN's mission is to secure electoral justice, political rights and full civic participation, 

especially for underrepresented and marginalized constituencies, to achieve government for the People, 

not corporations. Through organizing voter registration drives and voter protection efforts, AlAN has 

become aware of and dealt with the numerous problems encountered by Arizona voters both in the 

registration process and at the polls on Election Day, particularly with regards to the barriers imposed by 

Proposition 200, a law passed by Arizona voters in 2004. 

History of Voting in Arizona 

Arizona has a conflicted history in the protection of voting rights for the citizens of its state and, despite 

achieving progress, unnecessary and unfair barriers continue to exist to this day. In 1912, the same year 

it became a state, Arizona joined eight other states to be the first to allow women to vote. More 

recently, Arizona increased access to the registration and voting process by giving voters the option to 

vote by mail in every election and becoming the first state in the nation to allow for online voter 

registration. We are proud of these recent improvements and look forward to continuing strides 

towards fully open democracy .. Although online voter registration is a great step, it is only accessible 

to voters who have an Arizona Driver License or non-operating Identification Card issued by the Motor 

Vehicle Division. Furthermore, in 2004, Arizonans passed Prop 200, a proposition supported by the 

American Legislative Exchange Council ("ALEC), after a well-funded propaganda campaign that instilled 

false fears that the integrity of our electoral process was threatened by Mexicans Nationals who crossed 

the border to vote in American elections. Proposition 200 instituted a new voter ID requirement and a 

requirement that new registrants provide documentary proof of citizenship. As explained in further 

detail below, the passage of this law and its unequal application have resulted in the denial of equal 

access to the electoral process in the Grand Canyon State 

Proposition 200 

Proposition 200 has instituted new barriers to registration and voting in Arizona. One part of the law 

requires voters to present voter identification when voting at the polls on Election Day. A second part 

requires that applicants for voter registration present documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for their 

registration to be approved. Initially, this requirement was applied to all voter registration applications 

regardless of whether the applicant utilized the state or federal voter registration form. As a result of a 

1 
82 

lawsuit, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (lTCA) v. Bennett, No. 08-17115, to which AZAN is an 

organizational plaintiff, the documentary proof of citizenship requirement for voter registration was 

found to be in violation of federal law when applied to the federal voter registration form. Although this 

case is set to be heard by the Supreme Court, pursuant to an appeal by Arizona officials, the state is 

under obligation to comply with an order by the U.S. District Court of Arizona to accept the federal voter 

registration form without applying the documentary proof of citizenship requirement, and to make the 

federal registration form available to voters. 

Unfortunately, despite the favorable ruling in ITCA v. Bennett, Arizona voters continue to face barriers to 

registration and voting when using the federal registration form for various reasons. First, the Secretary 

of State website does not clarify that documentary proof of citizenship is not necessary if the applicant 

utilizes the federal registration form. Second, some Arizona counties, including Maricopa, placed 

registrants who registered using the federal form on a "suspense list" if the applicants registered using 

the federal form and did not provide the last four digits of their social security number or an Arizona 

Driver License or non-operating Identification Card on the form. 

Applicants who were placed on the suspense list encountered increased barriers. For example, they did 

not receive sample ballots or voter registration cards; they were not placed on the Permanent Early 

Voter List ("PEVL") if they requested it and were not sent mail-in ballots; and they were not placed on 

the voter signature rolls utilized to check voter registration on Election Day. As a result, many of these 

voters were left without the necessary information to find their assigned polling place and some of them 

who went to vote on Election Day were turned away for lacking the state required voter ID, a 

requirement they would not have had to comply with if they been placed on the regular voter rolls and 

allowed to vote by mail. This procedure had a disparate impact on minorities and high school and 

college students, who are more likely to lack a driver's license or Arizona issued ID, or the utility bills 

that would be accepted as proper forms of identification at the polls. Voters in other counties, however, 

were placed on the regular voter rolls. The defiance ofthe court order and the varied application ofthe 

law from county to county resulted in unequal access to the electoral process and disenfranchised 

thousands of eligible voters. 

Removing Voting Barriers 

Arizona State should prioritize removing unnecessary barriers and ensure that the law is evenly applied 

to ensure free, fair and equally accessible elections throughout the state. In addition to the barriers 

summarized above, voters face great challenges on Election Day. On November 6, AZAN volunteers 

witnessed poll workers accepting a type of identification (electronic utility statements) for some voters, 

but not for others. At the ASU Hudson precinct in Maricopa County, paper utility bills were accepted 

while electronic ones were incorrectly rejected; a U.S. passport was not enough to prove one college 

voter's identity, nor were out of state driver's licenses or university photo ID cards sufficient proof of ID 

for hundreds of students trying to vote in person. A first-time voter was turned away at the Desert Sky 

polling place, a heavily Latino precinct, because the address on his Arizona Driver's License was not 

current. Wishing to vote a regular ballot, this voter went home to get a utility bill to satisfy the 

identification requirement. Unfortunately, upon returning to the polling place, he learned that his name 

was not on the signature roster despite having a copy of his voter registration form dated five days 

before the registration deadline. Despite this voter's efforts to comply with the requirements for 

registration and voting, he nonetheless was forced to vote a provisional ballot. Another voter, a Latina, 

had moved from Yavapai County to Maricopa County after the voter registration deadline and was 

denied the right to vote in her new community. She was confused and heartbroken that she could not 

2 
83 

even vote for statewide offices or the presidency despite having documents to prove her identity and 

residence. We are also aware of voters who, although eligible to vote, lacked the necessary 

identification or documentary proof of citizenship to be allowed to register or cast a regular ballot on 

Election Day. 

Arizonans seek free, fair, and accessible elections and voter registration, but the state has much work to 

do to accomplish this goal. Voters face continued problems such as lack of information, confusion about 

their assigned polling place, misapplication of voter ID laws, overuse of provisional ballots, and long 

lines. Lack of preparation and planning by some election officials also results in great confusion and 

disorder on Election Day. For example, the use of regional voting centers in Yuma County was extremely 

problematic. Voters attempting to exercise their fundamental right to vote showed up at the polls only 

to find that the printers were broken, electronic machines were malfunctioning and the lines were very 

long. Regional voting centers can be a positive change, particularly because they can help reduce the 

thousands of ballots cast and not counted because a voter shows up at the wrong polling place. 

However, regional voting centers should not be utilized in lieu of neighborhood voting locations. Relying 

solely on regional voting centers would limit access to the polls for individuals who lack transportation, 

namely low-income, disabled, and elderly voters. In light of these considerations, it is crucial for Election 

Officials in Arizona to identify continuing barriers and institute reform to ensure that access to the 

electoral process for eligible Arizona voters is fair and unencumbered. 

Conclusion 

The right to vote is one of the most fundamental rights afforded to citizens in the United States. This 

fundamental right protects our individual freedoms and preserves our democratic system. Although 

progress has been achieved in the expansion of this right to eligible citizens in Arizona, more work needs 

to be done to ensure that participation in the electoral process is free of unnecessary barriers. The 

Arizona Advocacy Network firmly believes in the protection of this fundamental right, and appreciates 

the Senate Judiciary Committee's interest on this issue. 

3 
84 

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF' THE HONORABLE KEN BENNETT 

SECRETARY OF' STATE 

STATE OF' ARIZONA 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HEARING ON 

"THE STATE OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE APTER THE 2012 ELECTION" 

DIRKSEN SENATE OF'FlCE BUILDING 

DECEMBER 19. 2012 

10:00 A.M. 
85 

Serving as Arizona's Chief Election Officer allows me the unique opportunity to observe and 

supervise the state's system of elections. While our office is responsible for transmitting 

statewide results, certifying candidates and training county election officials; it is important 

to note that Arizona's County Recorders and Election Directors are on the front lines of 

election management. From registration to participation, our Recorders implement the 

laws, procedures and policies set forth by state and federal law. 

For nearly four decades, Arizona's voter turnout during a Presidential election has averaged 

74%. Forty-three days ago, voters once again participated at that same percentage. While 

historical rates of turnout have remained consistent over the last 10 presidential elections, 

many but not all voting trends in the Grand Canyon State have remained the same. 

As you know, Arizona makes a process of early balloting available to its citizens. Requesting 

an early ballot or choosing to join the state's Permanent Early Ballot List (PEVL) allows our 

County Recorders to mail voters a ballot for each election in which they are eligible to 

participate. 

In 2004, when you had to request an early ballot before each election, more than 800,000 

ballots were cast by early ballot. Four years later with the permanent list available, the 

number swelled to 1.3 million and this year, 1.7 million voters received an early ballot for 

the general election. 

Contrary to published reports, our analysis of ballot processing shows the state's 15 

counties handled more ballots in 14 days this year than they did in 15 days in 2008. While 

it's true that our counties are tabulating more ballots in less time, the 2012 general election 

saw an increase in the number of "late-arriving" early ballots returned over the final four 

days of the election cycle. 

In Maricopa County, the largest voting jurisdiction in the state, a record 960,000 early 

ballots were received by the Recorder. One-third were received during the last weekend of 

the election cycle, and more than 200,000 were actually received on Election Day. 

In the days immediately following the election, I witnessed first-hand the size and scope of 

the challenge that faces our County Recorders and Election Officials who process and count 

both early and provisional ballots. 
86 

Processing early ballots includes the verification of each individual voter's signature to 

make sure it was the voter who actually signed his or her ballot envelope and then crediting 

the voter's history for auditing purposes. The ballot is then removed from the envelope by 

a bi-partisan team and prepared for tabulation. 

During this process, bi-partisan teams find thousands of ballots that cannot be read by the 

tabulating machines because the voter spilled something on the ballot, or used crayon, 

glitter ink, or other methods to mark his or her ballot. These ballots are given to bi-partisan 

duplication teams who copy the unusable ballot onto a new ballot that can be successfully 

counted. 

Once the early ballots have been tabulated, the counties can begin tackling provisional 

ballots. Provisional ballots provide a fail-safe opportunity for every person who shows up at 

the polls to cast a ballot. It also provides an additional layer of security to prevent a voter 

from inadvertently casting more than one ballot. Although there was a slight increase in 

the number of provisional ballots this year, most or all of that increase was the result of 

voters who were mailed an early ballot but instead voted at the polls. 

Additional reasons why a voter would be issued a provisional ballot include: insufficient 

identification at the polling place; the voter's name does not appear on the signature 

roster; or the voter has moved but failed to update his or her registration. 

Each of these ballots must be reviewed before it can be counted. Election officials must be 

sure a voter who was issued an early ballot but who also went to the polling place doesn't 

vote twice. When a voter moves into a new precinct, the election official has to be sure the 

voter did not vote at his or her old precinct, etc. This verification process takes time and 

requires County Recorders to reallocate election resources to assess a voter's registration 

status, identification, and jurisdiction to determine if his or her ballot can be counted. 

Waiting for elections personnel to process ballots can be a frustrating time for voters and 

candidates alike. As the number of people voting an early ballot continues to increase, we 

plan to explore options to more effectively manage the increasing number of early ballots 

arriving late in the election cycle. This would allow us to provide final results to the public 

sooner. Speed has never been the most important factor, accuracy and assuring that every 

ballot that can count is counted is our top priority. 
87 

Arizona has been on the leading edge of election-related improvements. We were the first 

state to allow online voter registration and the ability for military and overseas voters to 

receive and upload a ballot electronically. That said, I believe we can do better. Though the 

system of counting ballots is functioning as it was designed it doesn't mean that we 

shouldn't look to make improvements. 

Over the next few months, we will be meeting with the County Recorders and Election 

Directors to review what went well and explore areas where we might have the opportunity 

to speed up the system of counting ballots. I'm confident that by working together with our 

counties we can keep the things we're doing well and make adjustments to better handle 

changes in voter behavior. 

Our goal for Arizona is to have the best system of elections in the world. We're focused on 

fair, accurate and efficient elections that voters can trust. Steps we take to improve the 

process must be consistent with those principles. 
88 
89 

,GILl;, 

" BEND 249 MOBILE 

. ,'" 

SENTINEL 

569 

417 

H1CKIWAN 

290 

Percent A2 Provisional 8allots 

A 

R 

E 

A 
90 

VIA E-MAIL 

THE 

BUS 

PROJECT 

FOUNDATION 

December 26, 2012 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy, Chair 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Leahy, and Members of the Committee: 

On behalf of the Bus Project Foundation, I express my deep gratitude to the Committee for 

investigating the state of the right to vote in American following the 2012 elections, and hope that this is 

the first of significant work to come to improve secure access to the ballot for eligible citizens. I submit this 

testimony in hopes that it can help shed further light on the successes and challenges of building an everbetter democracy in our country. 

The Bus Project Foundation is a charitable nonprofit dedicated to engaging and developing a new 

generation of public interest leaders in Oregon, and to protecting the right and ability to vote for all citizens. 

It is our belief that the United States should lead the way in enfranchising all eligible citizens, and that 

systematic efforts to increase voter registration and partiCipation are possible in the 21 st century that were 

not conceivable in prior eras -- and that we have a unique chance right now to create the legislation, tools, 

and rules to do so. 

As a youth-led organization, the vast majority of our expertise leans toward the experience of 

younger voters, and of those registering and voting for the first time. We coordinate statewide nonpartisan 

voter registration drives, based in high schools and at concerts, festivals, churches and transit hubs. Since 

our founding, we have helped over 85,000 Oregonians register to vote, including over 14,000 in 2012. In 

addition, we follow up with those registrants to ensure they receive their ballots and have the necessary 

information to vote securely and ensure that their ballot is counted. This work offers us a wide range of 

first-hand knowledge of the ability for our eligible citizens to exercise their right to vote. 

In Oregon, we take great pride in our democracy. We consider ourselves as one of the strongest 

democracies in the country (which is, in turn, among the strongest democracies in the world). In such a 

place, we can never accept complacency and must always strive to improve our systems of elections to 

make them more accurate, more secure and more accessible to eligible citizens, free of deception and 

misinformation. Many elements of our democracy are working well and ought to be exported to other 

states. Several elements need improvement. In general, the chief challenge for our democracy is to tweak 

a 20th century election system to meet the needs of a 21st century world. Our democracy tends to improve 

as we modernize it. When we let it lag, it falters. 
91 

THE 

BUS 

PROJECT 

FOUNDATION 

Perhaps the most famous piece of Oregon's voting system is that we vote entirely by mail, having 

done away with precinct polling places entirely by the year 2000. While this tends to give us higher than 

average turnout of registered voters, it does little to improve turnout among the voter eligible population, 

where we tend to be in the middle of the pack'. Studies have shown that while vote-by-mail provides a 

small impact in improving voter turnout in elections, most of that improvement comes from increased voting 

among already high-propensity populations - that is older, whiter, higher-income voters2. This fits our 

experience in Oregon. Younger, lower-income voters (including many voters in communities of color) are 

highly mobile, often moving once or more in a year. When we move, our ballots do not follow us and our 

voter registration lapses. Thus, large-scale voter registration drives are necessary in Oregon every two 

years, merely to maintain consistent voter registration levels. 

In urban parts of Oregon, we have a decent supply of ballot drop boxes for those voters who do not 

have a stamp or do not wish to mail in their ballot. In Washington State and many rural counties in Oregon, 

ballot drop locations are sparse, forcing citizens to either pay for a stamp or forgo voting. Forcing an 

eligible citizen to pay to vote (even a small amount) may be found to be a poll tax and thus unconstitutional. 

As Congress considers vote-by-mail as a potential nationwide reform, we strongly urge a national standard 

of highly accessible, secure ballot drop boxes, or pre-paid postage for all ballots. 

While we support no-excuse absentee voting, universal vote-by-mail is an imperfect reform. A onesize-fits-all approach to voting does not help meet the diverse needs of our populations. For relatively 

static households, no-excuse absentee voting is an excellent option. For more mobile populations, precinct 

polling places with early voting and same-day voter registration would improve ballot access. In all cases, 

modernizing our voter registration system will help tremendously. 

Republicans, Democrats, and independents can agree, the process for registering voters in 

America borders on the ridiculous. When a citizen fills out a paper voter registration form (by far the most 

common way to register), it is brought to a county election official, who then hand-enters the information 

into a database, which is generally then sent to a statewide centralized database. The inefficiencies and 

chance for error in this system are legion. First, the printing cost of paper forms is high, although lower than 

the cost of employing data-entry workers to process these forms. Meanwhile, anyone who has tried to read 

a stranger's handwriting can attest to the chance for scriveners errors. On top of that, the chance for dataentry mishaps are high when these elections workers are sometimes processing hundreds or thousands of 

registrations per day. All told, this makes for a needlessly ungainly, expensive system. 

Meanwhile, these same citizens offer all the information necessary to determine their residency 

and eligibility to other government agencies over the course of the year -- through Departments of Motor 

, McDonald, Michael. "2008 General Election Turnout Rates." United States Elections Project. George Mason 

University, 312012. Web. 26 Dec 2012. <http://elections.gmu.edulTurnout_2008G.html>. 

2 Berinsky, Adam J., Nancy Burns, and Michael W. Traugott. "Who Votes By Mail? A Dynamic Model of the IndividualLevel Consequences of Voting-by-Mail Systems." Public Opinion Quarterly 65 (2001): 178-197. 
92 

THE 

BUS 

PROJECT 

FOUNDATION 

Vehicles, the Departments of Revenue, university systems and Departments of Human Services. By 

integrating these services with voter registration services, we can save states untold millions of dollars 

while ensuring greater accuracy and security of our voter registration rolls. Meanwhile, the regular address 

updates that accompany these services can serve to establish greater permanence for voter registrations, 

diminishing the negative effects of vote-by-mail on highly mobile populations. One early element of 

modernization we have already used in Oregon is online voter registration. 

In 2009, Oregon became the 4th state to allow eligible citizens to register to vote online, using 

their Drivers License or ID Card. Since then, hundreds of thousands of eligible Oregonians have used the 

tool, making up a rnassive portion of new registrations in our state. This expands franchise to Oregonians 

across demographics, with Dernocrats and Republicans using the tool at roughly equal rates. The cost of 

online voter registration is also dramatically less. In Maricopa County, Arizona, the cost of an online voter 

registration is $.03 per registration, versus $.83 per paper forrn3 . The accuracy is also up to five times 

higher than paper forms'. 

As with many states, Oregon's compliance with the National Voter Registration Act could be 

rnuch irnproved, particularly at the human services agency level. As you likely know, the National Voter 

Registration Act required hurnan services agencies to supply voter registration services with all other 

services provided, and to keep record of every request, registration and declination. When successfully 

irnplernented, this is a highly effective way to securely and accurately register voters often left out by other 

paths to registration. Federal guidelines for cornpliance have proven helpful, but further action to ensure 

compliance at the state level will likely lead to even rnore eligible voters becoming enfranchised. Using 

online voter registration technology at these agencies in the context of voter registration modernization will 

also lead to significant cost savings. 

Several other changes can improve our voter registration systerns to eliminate redundancies. For 

instance, lowering the pre-registration age to 16 can significantly expand secure franchise. Roughly half 

of voter registrations come from the Department of Motor Vehicles, through the highly successful Motor 

Voter prograrns. These registrations, like all agency registrations, are highly secure as they are done in 

a government building, with significant supervision. However, many Americans receive their first Drivers 

License when they are 16-or-17-years-old. Without the ability to pre-register (so as to becorne a registered 

voter once one turns 18), these young Americans miss the opportunity to use Motor Voter for up to five 

years, until their license needs renewal. Creating and standardizing a pre-registration age at 16-years-old 

can ensure that young citizens become voters once they're eligible and stay voters throughout their lives. 

As an added benefit, pre-registration can help to ern power high school students to hold their own voter 

3 Maricopa County Elections Department, . "Arizona Online Voter Registration." IACREOT 2011 National Conference. 

Atlantic City: Web. 26 Dec. 2012. <IACREOT 2011 National Conference>. 

, Ponoroff, Christopher, and Wendy Weiser, eds. 'Voter Registration in a Digital Age." Brennan Center for Justice. 

New York University, n.d. Web. 26 Dec 2012. <http://brennan.3cdn.netl806abSea23fde7c261_n1m6b1s4z.pdf>. 

S Rogers, Estelle. "The National Voter Registration Act: Fifteen Years On." American Constitution Society for Law 

and Policy Issue Briel. (2009): n. page. Web. 26 Dec. 2012. <http://www.acslaw.org/sites/defaultifiles/Rogers_-

_NVRA_aUS.pdf>. 
93 

THE BUS 

PROJECT 

FOUNDATION 

registration drives on campus, fostering a civic spirit and a social context for civic participation early in their 

lives. 

Lastly, misinformation is a massive problem in our state, particularly as it pertains to the right 

to vote for formerly incarcerated citizens. While federal standards prevent people convicted of felonies 

from voting. Oregon restores franchise to these citizens for state and local elections as soon as their 

incarceration ends. However, parole officers frequently misinform these people, potentially leaving 

thousands believing they cannot vote. Whether this misinformation is intentional or accidental, it 

unquestionably disenfranchises a significant number of eligible Oregonians. A simple, system-wide training 

(or a more democracy-friendly national standard) would likely prevent these problems. While we must all 

vigorously guard against voter fraud, we must equally guard against misinformation and intimidation. 

As lifelong stewards of democracy and champions of preserving the right of eligible citizens to vote, 

the Bus Project Foundation thanks you for considering our testimony and attempting to improve secure 

access to the ballot for all eligible Americans. 

Caitlin Baggott 

Executive Director 

Bus Project Foundation 
94 

Center for American Progress 

Strengthening Our Democracy by 

Expanding Voting Rights 

1he past two years were not kind to those who hold dear one of our most cherished 

rights-the right to vote, After the Republican wave of 20 I 0, which saw conservative 

majorities swept into governors' mansions and state legislatures, mOTe than a dozen 

states-including Wisconsin, Florida and Texas-passed legislation making it more 

difficult for voters to cast a ballot.! lhe conservative cause celebre became legislation enacting voter ID, shortening early votingl and requiring citizens to show a birth 

certificate or passport in order to register to vote. In the face of this assault on suffrage, 

voting-rights advocates fought back and were able to block or modify a number of the 

worst new laws, including voter ID laws in Wisconsin, Texas, and South Carolina, as well 

as laws in Ohio and elsewhere shortening early voting periods.z 

With the 2013 legislative session approaching, voting rights advocates have an opportunity to shift their effort from simply stopping bad laws to proposing good ones. It's time 

to stop playing defense and start going on offense. 

Suffrage that is equally accessible to all Americans is the very backbone of our democ" 

racy. We rightfully take pride in the fact that no matter how privileged or seemingly 

disadvantaged someone is, each person's vote counts equally. Our voting laws should 

reflect this fundamental belief, making the ballot box equally accessible for all. After a11J 

our elections are best when the electorate closely mirrors society. If students and the 

poor, for example, tended to vote at higher rates-rates more representative of their 

numbers-it would be more difficult for politicians to ignore their issues. In essence, 

more voters means more legitimacy. 

'Ihis paper briefly details 11 pieces of legislation that lawmakers can enact to strengthen 

voting rights in their state. A llumber of these policies would make registering to vote 

more accessible, including online voter registration, Election Day registratioll, and 

requiring public schools to help register voters. Others would make it simpler for citi~ 

X.ens to cast a ballot, such as expanding early voting, permitting citizens to vote at any 

polling location, and allowing no"excuse absentee voting. States can also discourage 

those trying to suppress the vote by outlawing voter caging, strengthening penaltie,,<; for 

1 CenterforAm-ericanProgres, I 
95 

knowingly deceiving voters, and reforming the voter-challenge process. Finally, legislators can pass other pro-voting policies, such as restoringv-oting rights to ex-felons and 

enacting constitutional language affirming an equal right to vote. 

These are not partisan pieces oflegislation. States as ideologically opposed as New York 

and Utah have passed online registration legislation, and states as large as California and as 

small as New Hampshire allow citizens to register on Election Day. 'illese are simply goodgovernment bills. With voting rights under attack' in state legislatures across the country 

and voters in many states enduring long lines4 and other hurdles5 before they can cast a 

ballot, here are Ii ways for voting rights advocates to turn the tide and help ensure that 

every American can exercise his or her right to vote. First let's look at voter registration. 

Online reg;strat:on 

Nowadays most government forms can be filed online. The Internal Revenue Service 

allows you to e-file your taxes. Many states permit yOll to register your vehicle on the 

Internet. Seniors can even apply for Social Security and Medicare online. And all of it is 

done safely and secorely. Yet the vast majority of states still don't allow their citizens to 

register to vote on the web. 

According to Project Vote/ less than 63 percent of Americans aged 

18-34were registered to vote in 2009, yet a Nielsen survey~ found that 

these young citizens were by far the most electron.ically connected, 

with 88 percent having an Internet connection at home. Modernizing 

the voter-registration process and allowing people to register online 

would be a boon for the overall number of voters in our country. 

A handful of states are bringing voting rights into the 21st century. 

Already 16 states have passed bills pennitting their citizens to register 

States with online voting registration: Arizona,a 

California,14(olorado, I, Delaware {upcoming),16 Con~ 

necticut (implemented by 2014),17 Hawaii {imple:-

mented by 2016},18 lndiana, 11 Kansas,2{llouisiana,<\ 

Maryland,n NevadaP NewYork,14 Oregon,25 South 

Carollna,16 Utah," and Washlngton.13 

online, and lawmakers in other states are pushing online voter-registration as welLS The 

Brennan Center at New York University School of Law, a key player in the voting-rights 

discussion, ba.cks online voter registration as a central tenet of modernizing our eJections.9 

Another upside of online registration is that it isn't just good for voters-it's good for 

state budgets as well. In Maricopa County, Arizonaj for instance, to processing a paper 

application costs taxpayers approximately 83 cents; an electronic application will cost 

them just 3 cents. '[he state of Washington found that the introduction of online registration reduced overall data entry time by 80 percent in some counties.!l 

One final benefit of registering online is that it prevents many derical snafus that often 

result in voters being disenfranchised.lnArizona the number of human and data.-

entry errors fell significantly because voters could enter and double-check their own 

information electronicaUy.12 

2 Center for American Progress i 
96 

Because voting in the United States is a two-step process-YOll must register to vote 

before you can actually vote~m:mr citizens can't cast a ballot because they miss 

the registration deadline. Though less than two-thirds of eligible 

Americans typically vote in our presidential elections, the turnout 

rate among those who have registered to vote is typically between 7S 

percent and 90 percent.l9 

It's not difncult to see why this is the case. Most states bar their 

residents from registering in the weeks just before an election-at a 

time when media coverage is at a fever pitch and less-engaged citizens 

arc just starting to tune in. Some states, such as Pennsylvania, stop 

States with Election Day registration: California, n 

Connectkut,l41daho,oS Iowa, Th Minnesota, v Montana,Sa 

New H~rnpshire,>9 Rhode Island (in presidential years},4tl 

Washington DC/! Wisconsln,4.1 andWyoming,4} 

allowing people to register 30 days before an election.3D There were surely thousands 

of Phil adelphia Phillies fans who were paying more attention to their tearn's 2008 

World Series run than they were to the state's voter-registration deadline that October. 

Procrastination is not a crime and shouldn't preclude one from voting. Certainly daw~ 

dJers have as much a right to vote as anyone. 

That is why lO states and Washington, nc enable their residents to avoid such dead· 

lines by allowing their citizens to register to vote right up to and on EJection Day. 

'fhis forward-thinking group includes states ranging Wyoming to Wisconsin and New 

Hampshire to Iowa. In 2008 alone, more than 1 million individuals registered on 

Election Day in these states. Studies have found that Election Day registration boosts 

turnout on average by 7-percentage points,j to 14-percentage points.32 

Recent momentum has been building for Election Day registration. In 2012 both 

California and Connecticut passed Election Day registration legislation, coming on the 

heels ofIow-a in 2007 and Montana in 200S. Still, challenges remain In 2011 Maine 

legislators tried to eliminate the state's 38 year-old Election Day registration law. A petition drive forced the matter to a statewide referendum, where voters overwhelmingly 

rebuked the move and reinstated Election Day registration. 

P.rquirc public schools to help rel;ister voters 

Young Americans continue to vote at far lower rates than the rest of 

the citizenry. This year, for instlnce, only half of the voting-eligible 

population between the ages of 18 and 24 cast a ballot, compared to 

more than two-thirds of senior citizens.4-4 

One simple way to encourage students to vote is for states to require 

that public schools provide voter-registration services. Currently, at 

3 Center for American Progres5 i 

Stateswith public school voter registration: 

California, Connecticllt, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Massachusetts,' New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, and 

Rhodelsland.47 
97 

least 10 states'S require public high schools and colleges to either facilitate registration 

drives or provide voter-registration forms and accept completed applications. 

1hough not a state typically known for strong voting protections, Kentucky does an 

admirable job helping students register to vote. As Project Vote notes,46 high school 

principals across the state work in conjunction with the State Board of Elections to provide voter-registration resources to all students eligible to vote. 

Let's turn next to the issue of voting legislation. 

early voting 

Arguably the most successful eleLiion refonn in the past decade has been 

the advent of early voting, After widespread voting problems in the 2000 

election, many states passed legislation to open up polling sites for more 

than one month leading up to Ejection Day. 'The move has been a ,.,rinwin for states and voters, Citizens get more flexibility to vote at their convenience-not everyone can take off an hour or two from work on the 

first Tuesday ofNovember-wruch leads to higher turnout! something 

former Florida Gov.Jeb Bush (R) called "wonderful,"4~ Meanwhile! early 

voting allows election officials to spread the process of counting ballots 

over a number of days or weeks! rather than getting inundated aU at once. 

States with early voting: Alaska, so Arkansas/I 

Arizona, $2 California, $3 Colorado,M Floridal~l. Georgia,S6 

Hawaii,S; Idaho,,8 Ulinols?IJndlana,w IoWa, 61 KansasP louisiana,6;' Maine,"" Maryland,~SMontana,~ 

Nebtaska,G1 Nevada,~ New Meidco,~ North Carolina,ro 

North Dakota}l Ohio/~ Oklahoma,71 SouthDakota/4 

Tennessee/5 Texas/{i Utan,n Vermont, "* Washh"lgton 

DC, ~WestVirginia.-Sll Wisconsin. 8t andWyomlng.al 

Earlyvoting has been a major boon for minority turnout Many African American 

churches, for instance, participate in a "souls to the polls"voting drive on the Sunday 

before Election Day helping boost bla<:k early voting rates, In Cuyahoga County, Ohio a 

study found that the early vote rate among African American residents was more than 20 

times greater the rate for white voters in 2008.4g 

At present 32 states and Wasrungton, D.C offer some form of in·person early voting 

with the length of the early-voting period differing from state to state, Leading the way 

are states like Iowa and South Dakota, which begin their early voting periods in late 

September, giving their citizens more than one month to vote. Pulling up the rear is 

Florida, which cut its early voting period from 14 days to just 8 thanks to Gov, Rick 

Scott (R) and the 2011-12 Republican dominated state legislature. The 16 states that 

have yet to embrace in-person early voting include some historically progressive states 

like Minnesota, New York! and Massachusetts, 

Advocates looking to expand early voting should target not only the 16 states that don't 

offer early voting at the moment, but also states-such as Florida, Texas, and Illinoiswith relatively short voting periods. 

4 Center for American Progress : 
98 

In the past decade some U.S. counties have begun testing an innovative pilot project 

called "voting centers." Rather than restricting voters to one assigned precinct where 

they must cast their ballot, a handful of counties now allow residents 

to vote at any polling location in their home county. Travis County, 

Texas, home to Austin, for example, conducted a study of its new 

policy after it was introduced in 2011 and found that allowing voters 

to cast a ballot at any of the county's 207 polling locations led directly 

to a 1.4 percent increase in turnout. 83 Approximately one in three voters ended up going to a different polling location than their usual one. 

States. with countywide voting: Arlzona,i!4 (010-

rado,85 lndiana,u New Jersey,M New Mexlco,S$ South 

DaKota,89Texas,90 

It's not difficult to grasp why the program is popular. If a voter lives on one side of town 

but works in another, it's far more convenient for her or him to vote at a location close to 

his or her job. In addition, polling locations often change between elections, potentially 

confusing some voters. Providing tlexibility could make the difference for many citiZens 

as they decide whether or not they can take time during the day to vote. 

1hough elections are largely conducted at a county level in the United States, states can 

encourage counties to allow resident voting at any polling location by providing fund~ 

ing, pilot programs, and studies showing the policy's efficacy. 

No-excuse 

For many Americans taking time off during the work day to vote is 

not an option. Fortunately for them an increasing number of states are 

enacting "no~excuse absentee" laws that allow anyone who requests an 

absentL'e ballot to receive one, not just indhriduals who will be out of 

tmvn or have another reason barring them from voting on Election Day. 

l\.1aking absentee vo.ting mo.re accessible doesn't just benefit'voters who. 

work on Ejection Day; it also allows citizens to research candidates and 

ballot issues while they have the actual ballot in their hands. With recur~ 

ring voting machine snafus and long lines at the ballot box, millions of 

Americans have taken advantage of their state's absentee voting option.91 

States with nOMextuseabsentee voting: Alaska, 

Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgla, Hawaii, 

Idaho, illinOis, Iowa, Kansas, Main.e, Maryland, Mon~ 

tana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New, Mexico, 

North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South 

Dakota, Utah, Vermont Washington DC, Wisconsin, 

and Wyomin9.9) 

Currently, 27 states and Washington, nc. allow for no-excuse absentee voting. Others 

states such as Pennsylvania and Michigan require voters to have a certain excuse for 

requesting an absentee ballot, such as a physical disability preventing them from reach~ 

ing the polls, All SO states should allow their citizens to vote absentee jf they so choose. 

Let's turn now to the serious issue of voter suppression, 

5 Center for American Progre" i 
99 

Strengthen pel:aities for deceivln9 voier:; 

Though voter fraud is largely a myth,93 one form of actual election hijinks occurs when 

individuals or groups purposefully deceive certain voters about when or how to vote. 

Such deceptive practices are unfortunately commonplace. Here is a small sample of such 

instances from the past decade; 

• Robocalls to California Latino voters in 2010 reminding them to vote 

on November 3rd (the election was held on November 2, thatyear)94 

• Fliers in South Carolina during the 2000 Republican presidential 

primary accusing Sen. John McCain (R~AZ) of fathering an illegitimate black child 

States outlawing deceptive voting practices: 

Florlda,97 Connectlcut,'18 Illinois, Kansas, 

and Minnesota. 

* Fliers in Maryland's 2006 Senate election falsely claiming that certain prominentAfrican 

Americans had endorsed the Republican candidate, former Lt. Gov . .Michael Steele 

• Fliers or robocalls in several states telling people that because of anticipated massive 

turnout, Republicans are instructed to vote on Tuesdaywhile Democrats should show 

up at the polls on WednesdayqS 

• Signs at polting places telling voters that photo ID is required when no such require~ 

ment actually exists 

• A fictional organization called the Milwaukee Black Voters League in 2004 put out 

flyers in the city's minority areas warning anyone who has "ever been found guilty of 

anything [that] you can't vote in the presidential election:' Doing so could "get ten 

years in prison and your children will get taken away from yoU."96 

States should not only specifically ban deceptive practices, but classify them as a felony. 

Currently, just five states outlaw deceiving voters about the election. (At least 39 states 

have laws that bar certain forms of voter intimidation, but they would do well to add 

dear and specific language banning deceptive practices.) 

Outlav'V \Ioter ca~lr:g'· 

Voter caging is when an operative or group sends letters to a "target's" 

home and uses any returned mail to challenge that voter's eligibility 011 

the presumption that they don't live at the listed residence. Foryears, 

political operatives have used voter caging as a tactic to_suppress turnout 

among largely minority populations.99 hl 2004 alone hundreds of thousands had their eligibility challenged as part of voter-caging operations 

6 Center for American Progress i 

States with strongest legislatIon banning voter 

caging: M!nnesota/ 01 Washlngton.1ro 
100 

in states as widespread as Nevada] Ohio, Louisiana, and North Carolina. More recently, 

voters in Florida, Kansas, Montana, Michigan, and California were targeted by voter cag. 

ing attacks. 10 

States should affirmatively ban the practice of voter caging. It's a process that is riddled 

"With problems, WI There are dozens of reasons why a piece of mail would be returned 

that are more plausible than a voter intending to commit voter fraud, including as cleri~ 

cal errors or military deployment, and serves primarily to suppress legitimate voters. 

At least tw-o states have adopted legislation banning voter caging, but it is dear that more 

states need to follow suit. 

Reforrn the 

Poll watchers became a household term in the 2012 election as campaigns and outside 

groups like Tme lhe Vote trained thousands of volunteers to challenge voters' eligibility anytime they suspected irregularities. Because volunteers often approached the duty 

with ulterior motives, frivolous challenges have become commonplace, with voters 

sometimes being targeted just because of their accent or skin color. 

This is not altogether surprising. Like poll taxes and literacy tests] laws 

allo'\o\-ing for poll challengers have their roots in the Reconstruction 

Era as a means of suppressing the vote of newly freed slaves. 'These 

barriers to the ballot were used extenSively to threaten and ultimately 

suppress black turnout. If poll-challenger laws can't be eliminated 

entirely) there are still ways to reform and improve them. 

When a poll watcher makes a challenge most states place the burden 

of proof on the voter to prove he or she is eligible to cast a ballot) a 

process that does little to disincentivize frivolous challenges. States 

States placing the burden on the challenger: Arizona, 

California, Delaw~'lre, Georgia, Idaho, Indian~ Ma!l1e, 

Montana.: North Carolina, Rhode Island, Washington, 

and Washington DC}05 

States that penalize: frivolous challenges: Florida,. 

Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Vermont 100 

therefore should pass legislation shifting the burden of proof from the voter to the cha1~ 

lenger. In addition, states should impose penalties on individuals and groups who make 

frivolous challenges. For instance, Florida law classifies frivolous challenges as a firstdegree misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison and a $1,000 fine. HH 

Here are some other measures that will go a long way in making suffrage equally accessible to all Americans, 

7 Center for American Progress i 
101 

Felons in most states aren't just barred from voting while in prison; a 

handful of states strip them of their voting rights for the rest of their 

life, even after completing their sentence. As a result, 3.1 million 

Americans were disenfranchised in 2008.107 

lfwe as a society want to reintegrate people with felony convictions 

back into society after they finish their prison terms) it makes little 

sense to permanently brand them with a scarlet letter. 

In all, 11 states disenfranchise certain classes offelons for life.lOs Four 

of those states permanently strip all fdons of their right to cast a ballot. Passing legislation to restore voting rights for individuals in these 

states would rectify this injustice and help ex-felons become goodStates that a1low ex~felon> to vote: Alaska, At~ 

kansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, 

Hawaii, Idaho, llIlnols, Indiana, Kansas, louisIana. 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,. MiMe:~ 

sota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hamp~ 

shire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York. North 

Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South 

Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Washington DC, West Virginia, and WisconsinY)9 

standing members of society once more. Currently) only two states allow-prisoners to 

vote (Maine and Vennont); 18 states allow probationers to vote; and 19 states allow 

felons who have completed their entire sentence to vote, 

consnutional affirrnin9 Jll eqUal rigfH to 

When Wisconsin passed voter ID legislation in 2011 the only thing stopping its implementation in the 20 12 election was the state constitution's language affirming Wisconsin 

residents' right to vote. "Voting is a constitutional right," wrote Judge David Flanagan in 

March 2012, striking down Wisconsin's controversial voter ID law. Flanagan painted to 

the state constitution's provision on voting rights---"Every United States citizen age 18 

or older who is a residcntof an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that 

district"-and noted that any legislation which denies a qualified elector his or her bal~ 

loti such as voter ID, is unconstitutionaL 

Every state constitution has different language regarding the right 

to vote. Still, the most important thing voting· rights advocates can 

proactively do to prevent further attacks on voting rights such as voter 

ID is to strengthen their state's constitutional1anguage regarding the 

right to vote. 

States with model constitutions~ Wlsconsln.lltl 

Admittedly, this can be a difficult task, as a state's constitution is only as good as the judges 

who interpret it and even the most carefully drafted constitutional amendment cannot 

defend fully against a state supreme court hostile to voting rights. Nevertheless, votingrights advocates can mitigate this problem by chOOSing language that carefully maps the 

words that the U.S. Supreme Court has used to describe rights deserving the highest 

degree of constitutional protection, such as stating explicitly that the right to votc is a 

B Centerfor Amelican Progre"SS I 
102 

"fundamental right" and that any burden on this right will be subject to the most exacting 

constitutional scrutiny. An ideal amendment would also specifically name common votersuppression techniques, such as voter ID laws, and explicitly forbid them. 

Conclusion 

The right to vote is so fundamental in the United State. .. that ifs easy to take for granted. 

After the rapid spread of voter-suppression laws over the past two years, however, complacency is no longer an option. If there's one lesson to take away from the recent attacks on 

voting rights, ifs this; progressives can't just get in the game when they need to play defense. 

Each one of the 11 pieces oflegislation in this paper goes a long way to increasing access 

to the ballot box and making our elections as fair and equitable as possible. No one piece 

is a panacea, but neither is any a pipe dream. Every law has already been tested in states 

across the nation and been proven effective. 

Now, with progressives back in control of state legisbtures like Oregon, Maine, 

Colorado, and Minnesota, voting-rights advocates have a real opportunity to spread 

voter protection laws. If 2011 and 2012 are immortalized as the years when Jim Crowstyle voter-suppression tactics re-emerged, progressives now have an opportunity to 

make 2013 the most important year for voting rights since the 19605. 

Scott Keyes is a Researcher for the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Greg Noth also 

contributed substantial researc11 to this paper. 

9 Center for AmNican Progress ! 
103 

Endnotes 

8 New Jersey bill s.116S for20!2·2013 les.,on,ava,lableat 

http://WWW·90W~(k.\l\Nates/n)lbills/2012·2(l13/.2168 

20 "K~n5a\onlmevote,~gistlatjonre'vlce:ava'lable~t 

htlos/iwwwkdQforglyotf'f!>{)tll@lioolDe@!!ltasm; 

10 Center for American Progress I 

21 "LoUislanaonlinevot...,,,,g,stratlonse,vice;avaiiable3t 

~~OOLQcl;\W.t,=lI, 

Z3 ·Nevadaonl!nevote''',g!~VatlOn\e,yic<':~v.,:abieat 

http"l!nY50'9oy(mdmx~ 

24 "NewYo,konlmevoterreq>S!lM'on5e'YKe:.va,iabieat 

ll.u.uJ~~ 

26 'South Ca'oiinaQ.l1iine,...,t .. r ' .... "tration ;ervi~e;available 

athuprd!jrfQ'<yotf<\(gQvl!:ngIQYf%m.a~ 

28 "Walhingtononlmevo\err"9"\"'!",ns,,;vlte;ava'",~"ilt 

tlnID.i.L~.%1..QI1'd"9fncylmo<!enlPage5Inwym~ 

36'I(>waS","'ewyQfS!ate;availableatb~ 

e!eniQ"'}V91ernfQrm"~. 

37·M'nn"50t~Sec"'t~,yofS!ate;availableat~ 

HMemn ISlmde"a5m?pag",,?Q4 

3$ "MontanaSecretaryofState;aval!ableathrlp'&'l.U!lt9l!YL 

*=t~cl!:&ru;I. 

40·Rhodel'",ndBoard<lfEI.ct±C>n5:availabl<"at~.l'I'Y!'. 

~QIlj,~~a~. 

41·D,mictofC(>lombiaeo.lldofEI<"ct±C>ns,"availabieath.~ 

~. 
104 

43 "Wyomin9Secfetafyof$lale;av.,I.blealIillD.:li1.Q.'i'!'l)I. 

~~t2ll.llrl::<:IDu:r.i~W~Qtll.,imI~ 

66 

~~~ 

"Moma!1aSe""'ta,yofState;av~'lable~thMJL~ 

67"Nebra$kaSe;:;"'tafyofState;avallable.(~ 

ne.&Wyf.ele>:l~ 

68 "NevadaS""r><taryofSlate."ava,lableatJlliJ;l;LLr:l:u1l.UlQl/l 

1ru1~D;ll~l!!Il.2 

69 ·NewMe~!coSec,eta.yofSta~;avallableat~ 

=.wIe.n[!jJWYQieLlD.fQrmaJ.J.Q[]/.M:;nll.e!Land...~tL 

¥~ 

7(} "ChathamCo!JmyNo'thCarOliAawebSlte;.va,lableat 

hnp·ilwwwchath?mnco'gJll'>dna<O"?Dage=4QZ 

71'LongD"tance"ote,;ava'lable~Ihl:tuiL~ 

taPcey9tffO'9iearly yQ!!OQ ",!e<~ !!MYD 4MSJyw 

73"OkI~hoffiilSlate£I"'t>onBo.rd;"vallablea\~ 

J,;>..~Wm.hlmllldI 

74 "Long Distance Voter,"avJllable athl:W;lj.l'lll!\!!lJlI.mlru~ 

Llnt:.e'&I!:[.w:gI.till~-YWiml-..!I.lLe.~ 

7S "T"n"e"ee5e"etaryofSt~1e;~va'lableatlmll;/l.\'d!rw. 

~nne.ll'~!<~il.!.l\'YltlLOO.lllm 

76 "Tcxa,S",retaryofSlat ... "ava'lablea!hnRiI.YQl~I!mllB2'd 

~tl:t:YQ~nw. 

77 "UtahD~v'sCountyClerk;avaiiablea!~wwbQun!!-

SO"StateofAla,kaDivi""flOfEie<:lio~s;avaHableilthtt.llii ful\it4h~rkA",al<hQwCQn\eat2'px'!~ 

wwwe!?ctQD<alalka!)oyl)/.U:iI--l:~J.!iJl!ll;! 

78 'VermontSecret"ryofState;av~'lableat~=nt: 

51 "Arkanla;Se<:"'taryoIS!dte;av~'lableatb1ID;/Lw"w.'J\f..lim, l:let1wru..o.rgL~ru.1i<lIDJ:r,klLQ~ 

~vLl:lNnn\f"9f5lyotno!"A!.aD\il\a<1l!\ 

N D,swc!o(CQlumb,a Board offl",!ions and Hh,cs,"ava'!~ble 

S2"A""onaVot"rGulde;avajlablea\~~u:rg].Il\k.. atb~.!k.~.f,j,gl~>lW.J~dW 

mm[~'l.\l 

53 

~~ 

"l""9UeQfWomenVotc<sofc~lifofnia;av",lableal!llI;t;li 

S4 "ColoradoSe;:;fetaryofState;avaiiableat~ 8t "W;>con'inGovemmentAc{aunt~bililyBoard;availableat 

lliI.~-ill1Il><QQ12fle('onCal"odarpdf b..ImiLwI.b&i.>iwd~rll.el: 

5S"F1orid"D<v,,,ooofEle(!loos:ava!t~bl,,at~ 82"Wy<lm",gSec'''taryofSt"te;availatMea1h1\Q;il~ 

WJ.~~~!n!"Il..!hlml ~,J,I1/E~~ 

S6'"Geo'9'aBoardofEJect'O"'3"dR"9i«rat1o,,;avallableat 

b.t!ll1[~Il.'-!l.Q.D~,CQ.Q.b(m!n!yvagoyIAcll@n(~'iru!.D9.ub.v. 

S7"l1dwa"Se<:"'ta')'ofState;av311.bleot!:i.ttll.llb!l!'/~~ 

~Qt'.:I~.Y.Il.l~~ 

S8"tdah(>Vot,,",;av~,lableal~~IJ.Q.~).&Q.'tL 

~Jl.:illilli.H1M 

6() "l"dl~n.Se"ewyofState;"vallableat.l:lllJ,):.I.'.w\"i.\:l.ln,SQxl 

~WllruLll\UlJlm 86"I"dianaSecretaryofState;ava;labl"~th1!/,l;/'i~~Il:YJ. 

62 

61"low.Se<:'etaryofState;ava,'ableatbrul..:lLiQ~ 

PK~"sa$ 

~~ 

Secrewy (>/ Stale; available at tum:LLl'i.~LQi, 

ll~~~~ 

63"Lou<s]anaSecletJryofSta!e;a"3<1ableat~ 

liMlQ.'ill.ablli!Lt~.l&f£ll1.!tlJ;l~ 

&4"M~"'eSeCfeta,yofState;a"3jlableathl.~ 

.\W.YL~«lelec!im>eoteegudl:hlr!J.l 

65 "MarylandState{loardof£lectt{)fl':~vailab!eat!ll:ID;ilcl!!k 

t!Qo:;5tilWmd"<!YQlog/gilrt~l 

11 C .. nterfor American Progress I 

~~.a5..M.h1ro 
105 

90 Mashood,"TravfSCountyrel,dent,canvomatanypolltng 

pia(eon Elewon Day," 

91Unite<:!StamsEle(tion$Project,"200sEa,lyVoMgStat,s(;cs: 

avaiI301 .. athrul.ilell:!;11Y...~~'I2tLW:01llil:roJ 

97"FlorirlaStatute![)4.061S:avaiiableat~~wi\te, 

-~ 

12 Center for American Progress i 

102 "Mlnn",otaOffic:eofRevlsorofStatut",;ava;lableJt!:tttruil 

~e.l'l!!J!Jllll&Q_ID~~ 

1()4"Flo"daStaMel01,111;av",lableathl:l~ 

QoviJilW\iSW,&sflQJ2IlQJ111 
106 

Testimony of Representative Gilda Cobb-Hunter, 

South Carolina House of Representatives 

United States Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary 

Hearing on 

"The State of the Right to Vote After the 2012 Election" 

Dirksen Senate Office Building 

December 19, 2012 

10:00 a.m. 
107 

Good morning. Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and all other 

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, thank you for holding this important 

hearing on voting rights. My name is Gilda Yevette Cobb-Hunter. I appreciate the 

opportunity to testify today. 

I am here to address the critical role of the Voting Rights Act in protecting 

the most precious of all civil rights-the right to vote. I am a twenty-one year 

veteran member of the South Carolina House of Representatives. In that capacity, 

I would like to focus my testimony on the following two points: first, South 

Carolina's efforts to enact Act R54, a photo identification measure that requires 

voters to present a designated form of photo ID to vote in-person in South 

Carolina, which has a discriminatory effect but for an ameliorative "reasonable 

impediment" exemption from that photo ID requirement; and second, the essential 

role that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act played in protecting the most 

vulnerable of my constituents in South Carolina's District 66, and voters in the 

State more broadly, from the implementation of a restrictive photo ID law for the 

November 2012 general election. 

Background on District 66 

Before I discuss the events surrounding South Carolina's attempt to 

implement Act R54, I would like to tell you about the voters that I represent in 

District 66, which encompasses eastern Orangeburg County, South Carolina. 

Rep. Cobb-Hunter Senate Testimony, 12/19/12 2 
108 

Considered a part of the Low Country, District 66, which is 63 percent AfricanAmerican, is a poor, rural stretch of South Carolina, where agriculture is the main 

industry. Some of my constituents were born on a farm and/or delivered by midwives and thus lack birth certificates. In my district, nearly 100 percent of the 

students receive free and reduced price lunch, broadband Internet access is scarce, 

and there is no public transportation. The city of Orangeburg, the county seat, and 

other areas where my constituents conduct business, has only recently become 

accessible through some public transportation. I am humbled, incredibly proud, 

and honored to serve my constituents, who represent the very best of South 

Carolina, and, who, in the finest democratic traditions of our country and their 

culture, take exercising their right to vote very seriously. That said, my 

constituents, for a variety of reasons, including lack of transportation and ready 

access to birth certificates, are among the least likely voters in South Carolina to 

possess the type of photo ID that Act R54 requires. 

South Carolina's Passage of Act R54 

Citing the need to combat non-existent in-person voter fraud, members of 

the South Carolina General Assembly championed a requirement that voters 

produce restrictive photo ID to vote in-person. I strongly opposed the measure 

because I understood how it would materially burden the voting rights of my 

constituents in District 66 and many other South Carolinians. Given South 

Rep. Cobb-Hunter Senate Testimony, 12/19/12 3 
109 

Carolina's horrible history and modern day experiences with racial discrimination 

in voting, our legislature should have actively sought ways to harness the historic 

rate at which my constituents voted in the 2008 Presidential election by 

encouraging more people to participate in the political process. Instead, Act R54's 

proponents, citing a solution in search of a non-existent problem of voter fraud, 

sought to make voting more difficult for many of my constituents who, because of 

their poverty and lack of access to transportation, among many other reasons, 

simply do not have access to the unnecessary photo ID required by Act R54. For 

example, a voter residing in the easternmost part of my district would have to incur 

the costs of traveling approximately 70 miles roundtrip to the county seat to obtain 

a photo ID. Some of my constituents live even further away from the county seat. 

To make matters worse, when pressed to provide an example of voter 

impersonation, Act R54's proponents could not cite one case as a basis for 

enacting the photo ID law. There's a good reason for that: studies show that one 

is more likely to be struck by lightning than to witness an instance of in-person 

voter fraud. 

But here, however, the racially discriminatory effects of South Carolina's 

proposed photo ID measure were not lost on its proponents. In October 2011, 

Rep. Cobb-Hunter Senate Testimony, 12/19/12 4 
110 

political strategists in South Carolina publicly boasted that suppression of the 

African-American vote was "why we need [voter ID laws in South Carolina].,,1 

Given this reality, I strongly opposed Act R54 on the floor of the South 

Carolina House of Representatives and in public and private conversations with 

proponents of the legislation. My opposition, and that of every member of the 

Legislative Black Caucus, was ignored. Also ignored were all of our suggestions 

for ameliorative provisions to Act R54, including expanding the universe of 

acceptable IDs to include, among others, student IDs and federal and state 

employee IDs, or exempting voters 65 years and older. Indeed, we became so 

frustrated with the process and the absence of consideration of the wisdom and 

experience of the House Legislative Black Caucus and the people that we 

represent, that we, along with supportive white colleagues, walked out of the 

General Assembly in protest of Act R54. 

Section 5 Preclearance - tlte DOJ & Federal District Court's Review 

Unfortunately, South Carolina ultimately enacted Act R54 in May 2011. 

But, thankfully, the story did not end there. South Carolina, because of its history 

of racial discrimination in voting, is fully covered under Section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act, and is thus required to submit all of its proposed voting changes to the 

See Joan McCarter, South Carolina GOP Operative Admits Suppressing Black Vote is 

Goal of Voter ID Law. Daily Kos, Oct. 19, 2011, 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/201111 0/1911 028056/-South-Carolina-GOP-operative-admitssuppressing-black-vote-is-goal-of-voter-ID-Iaw (last visited Dec. 17,2012). 

Rep. Cobb-Hunter Senate Testimony, 12/19/12 5 
111 

United States Department of Justice ("DOl") and/or to a three-judge panel of the 

District Court of the District of Columbia to ensure that they are free of racial 

discrimination before they can be implemented. South Carolina ultimately did 

both. I am pleased to report today that Section 5 protected my constituents and 

other voters across South Carolina from implementation of this discriminatory 

measure in both instances. 

First, South Carolina submitted Act R54 to the DOJ for preclearance. 

Thankfully, in December 2011, the DOJ denied preclearance under Section 5, 

finding, based on South Carolina's own data, that "minority registered voters were 

nearly 20% more likely to lack DMV-issued ID than white registered voters," and 

would be effectively disfranchised by the state's proposed requirements. 2 

South Carolina defended the discriminatory effect of this law by relying on 

the Act R54's so-called "reasonable impediment" exemption for voters who lacked 

the designated IDs. However, the DOJ also found that Act R54 failed to define 

what constitutes a "reasonable impediment" that would prevent a voter from 

obtaining photo ID, and also to provide guidance for the individual county boards 

of registration and elections about how to interpret and apply this provision. 

Because of the uncertainty surrounding this purported exemption from the photo 

Letter from Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez of the U.S. DOJ, Civil Rights 

Division, to Assistant Deputy Attorney General C. Havird Jones, Jr. of South Carolina, dated 

Dec. 23, 2011, available at hltp:llbrennan.3cdn.netl594b9cf4396be7ebc8_ Opm6i2fx6.pdf. 

Rep. Cobb-Huuter Seuate Testimouy, 12/19/12 6 
112 

ID requirement, the DOJ determined that the provision could not mitigate, but in 

fact could exacerbate, the law's discriminatory effects. 

Second, undeterred by DOl's rejection of its discriminatory photo ID 

measure, South Carolina, in February 2012, filed a lawsuit in federal district court 

seeking judicial preclearance of its photo ID measure in time for the November 

2012 election.3 Significantly, in October 2012, this three-judge district court panel 

found that there was insufficient time before the 2012 November election to 

implement the voter ID law, particularly the "reasonable impediment" provision in 

a non-discriminatory manner.4 

Because a/Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the "reasonable impediment" 

provision was significantly revised during the course of the preclearance trial such 

that a three-judge federal district court panel, composed of two George W. Bush 

appointees (Judges Brett Kavanaugh and John Bates) and one Bill Clinton 

appointee (Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly), referred to it as a "new" and 

"expansive" provision. 5 The "reasonable impediment" provision, during the 

Section 5 preclearance process, was expanded to provide every South Carolina 

voter who lacks a photo ID an opportunity to assert any reason for lacking one of 

the required photo IDs. In practice, eligible voters in my district who lack 

See State of South Carolina v. Holder, Civ. A. No. 12-203 (BMK) (CKK) (JDB). 

Id. 

See, e.g., id. at 2-3 (panel opinion) 

Rep. Cobb-Hunter Senate Testimony, 12/19/12 7 
113 

transportation and/or a birth certificate to access the required photo ID under the 

law should be able to use this provision to cast a ballot that counts in South 

Carolina elections. According to Judge Bates, "the evolving interpretations of ... , 

particularly the reasonable impediment provision, subsequently presented to this 

Court were driven by South Carolina officials' efforts to satisfy the requirements 

of the Voting Rights Act.,,6 

While the federal court rejected South Carolina's implementation of its 

photo ID measure for the November 2012 election, it ultimately permitted the law 

to go into effect for future elections. Judge Bates recognized that: 

Act R54 as now precleared is not the R54 enacted in May 2011. ... 

An evolutionary process has produced a law that ... protect[ s] every 

individual's right to vote and a law that addresses the significant 

concerns raised about Act R54's potential impact on a group that all 

agree is disproportionately African-American. 7 

Judge Bates also made clear "the vital function that Section 5 ... has played 

[in South Carolina's preclearance request]. Without the review process under the 

Voting Rights Act, South Carolina's voter photo ID law certainly would have been 

more restrictive."s Moreover, Judge Bates reasoned that the "Section 5 process 

here did not force South Carolina to jump through unnecessary hoops. Rather, the 

history of Act R54 demonstrates the continuing need for Section 5 of the Voting 

Id. at 2 (Bates, J. concurring). 

Id. at 1 (Bates, J. concurring). 

!d. 

Rep. Cobb-Hunter Senate Testimony, 12119/12 8 
114 

Rights Act in deterring problematic, and hence encouraging non-discriminatory, 

changes in state and local voting laws.,,9 

Even after the new law's implementation, Section 5 remains a needed 

protection for South Carolina voters if the State alters its interpretation of the 

"reasonable impediment" provision or any other aspect of the precleared Act. And 

my history in this Legislature suggests that South Carolina may develop selective 

amnesia about the expansive and thus nondiscriminatory interpretation of the 

"reasonable impediment" provision that the court precleared. Even more, Section 

5 review protects voters from any other voting change that South Carolina may 

enact in the future. 

Conclusion 

Even as our country has made significant progress in combating serious 

racial discrimination in our political system-in great measure because of the 

protections afforded under the Voting Rights Act-South Carolina's efforts to 

implement a discriminatory photo ID law make plain that there are continuing 

efforts to deny voters of color the opportunity to participate meaningfully in our 

shared democracy which require aggressive protection. 

Id. at 2 (Bates, J. concurring). 

Rep. Cobb-Hunter Senate Testimony, 12/19/12 9 
115 

Here, Section 5 blocked South Carolina's discriminatory photo ID law 

before it took root and had the opportunity to diminish the voting rights of my 

constituents in District 66 and other voters in South Carolina. Section 5 of the 

Voting Rights Act, based on South Carolina's recent and not as recent history of 

voting discrimination, is needed now more than ever, both to safeguard hardfought progress, i.e., historic turnout of voters of color resulting in the election of 

the first person of color to the highest office in this country, and to defeat 

persistent attempts, e.g., nonexistent voter impersonation fraud as a basis for 

adopting photo ID legislation, to narrow the franchise. Unfortunately, it is wishful 

thinking that we live in a post-racial society. 

For these reasons, Section 5 remains vital to ensuring fairness in our 

democratic process and answering the ultimate question that the Senate Judiciary 

Committee is considering today: how can we collectively encourage more people 

to participate in the political process? 

Thank you. 

Rep. Cobb-Hunter Senate Testimony, 12/19/12 10 
116 

".~ ~ COMMON CAUSE 

Common Cause Testimony for the 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

"The State of the Right to Vote After the 2012 Election" 

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. 

Submitted By 

Jenny Rose Flanagan 

Director of Voting & Elections 

Common Cause 

Common Cause is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that is dedicated to restoring the core 

values of American democracy, reinventing an open, honest and accountable government that 

serves the public interest, and empowering ordinary people to make their voices heard in the 

political process. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the state ofthe right to 

vote after the 2012 election. 

Voting should not be an endurance sport in our country, yet tens of thousands of Americans from 

every political stripe faced lines up to six hours long on Election Day because of inadequate 

planning, unfair rules and restricted access to the ballot box. Voter suppression became a catchall name for the many restrictive voting laws and policies underlying the 2012 election cycle. I 

The resulting impact on voters was profound long lines, hundreds of thousands of provisional 

ballots, confusion over ID rules and intimidation frustrated our right to vote. What we learned 

from voters at polling locations across the country makes a compelling case for significant 

changes to our elections process. 

Common Cause and our partners ran a coordinated campaign with the national Election 

Protection coalition to protect the voters. Together, we worked directly with election officials, 

litigated when necessary to strike down restrictive voting laws, and rallied thousands of 

Americans to stand up against ballot box bullies. Common Cause organized partners and 

coordinated thousands of grassroots volunteers who served as election workers and election 

monitors defending the bedrock freedom of our democracy: casting a ballot and having it 

counted. 

For months leading up to Election Day, Common Cause recruited thousands of nonpartisan poll 

monitors and hundreds of poll workers across the country -in swing states, red states, and blue 

states. We worked in Florida, California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Arizona New Mexico and New York. These volunteers were our 

eyes and ears - and boots on the ground - in our efforts to help voters with nonpartisan, critical 

election information. Clad in dark blue Election Protection t-shirts, palm cards in hand, they 

'Michael Cooper, "New State Rules Raising Hurdles at Voting Booth," New York Times. Oct. 2, 2011, 

http://www.nytimes.comI20 11/1 0/03/us/new-state-laws-are-limiting-access-for-voters. html?pagewanted~all 

1 
117 

helped voters find precincts, assisted voters confused by new identification requirements where 

necessary, and documented the challenges voters faced on Election Day. 

The Problems on Election Day 

The problems we saw on Election Day presented as long lines, inadequate poll worker trainings, 

and too few options to cast a ballot. Underneath these problems were antiquated voter 

registration systems, under-resourced election offices, and restrictive voting laws and deceptive 

practices targeted at minimizing participation by specific populations. Florida and Ohio have 

gained national attention as places with significant election administration problems. However, 

in our experience, problems existed in every state in our nation. From Pennsylvania and Virginia 

to California and Arizona and everywhere in between, eligible American voters were turned 

away because of problems such as improper training of poll workers, faulty voter registration 

records, and long, long lines. 

In this section we provide a summary of some of the problems voters faced, with state specific 

reports we received. This summary is not exhaustive, but highlights some of the most egregious 

problems that voters experienced on Election Day. 

Voter Registration: Plain and simple, our antiquated voter registration process prevents eligible 

Americans from voting. In fact, registration issues were the most frequent problem we addressed 

with our partners at Election Protection. 

The 2012 election provided yet another demonstration of a failed voter registration system that 

has not worked for years. According to a Harvard/MIT study, in 2008, an estimated 2 million to 

3 million eligible Americans tried to vote but could not because of voter registration problems; 

millions more were thwarted by registration deadlines and residency requirements.' Nationwide, 

we received reports of voters who thought they were registered but found they were not on the 

rolls when they went to their precincts. 

Of course, official list maintenance presents its own challenges. In the lead up to Election Day, 

state administrators and officials in some jurisdictions threatened to 'purge' voter rolls of noncitizens. Their efforts caused unnecessary confusion, fear and serious administrative errors with 

voter records. 

In Pennsylvania, voters who were in fact properly registered and at the correct polling 

location were told they were not in the voter registration book. Common Cause and our 

partners independently verified these voters' registration records. It appears the issue in 

some locations was that supplemental pages of the voter rolls were not sent by the county 

to the polling place. Some voters felt the response by poll workers to their problems was 

inadequate, because the officials treated them as a nuisance rather than a citizen who 

deserved full attention. 

2 Wendy R. Weiser, "We Have to Fix That," Brennan Center forJustice, Nov. 9,2012, 

http://www .brennancenteLorg/b10glarchives/we _have_to _ fix_that!. 

2 
118 

Colorado and Florida took the most aggressive action to 'purge' non citizens from the 

voter rolls, using a faulty process that captured eligible voters threatening their right to 

vote.) 

In New Mexico, the Secretary of State mailed nearly 178,000 potential purge cards, 

which stated "Ifthis card is not returned and you do not vote in any election from the date 

ofthis notice through the November, 2014 general election, your name will be removed 

from the voter registration IiSt.,,4 This mailing went to many eligible voters, causing 

confusion and fear in the lead up to Election Day. 

Poll Worker Training: Poll workers serve on the front lines of our elections and can be a 

defining influence on the success or failure of an election. Across the country, county 

administrators struggled to meet the demands of poll workers. We witnessed a consistent 

problem of too few adequately trained poll workers. Even worse, we received reports about poll 

workers and election observers whom some voters found intimidating and discouraging of their 

effort to cast ballots. 

• In Colorado, issues arising from poorly trained judges included judges asking for 

photo !D (which is not required), requesting more than one form of!D, requiring an 

address match between the poll book and the voter's !D (only a Colorado address is 

required), failing to properly consult the poll books and supplements and therefore 

informing voters that they were not registered (Jefferson County in particular), 

incomplete understanding of the emergency registration process, and inconsistent 

practices within and among counties on directing voters to correct polling locations 

versus offering them a provisional ballot. 

Provisional Ballots: In several states - Colorado, Ohio, and Florida to name a few - many voters 

reported that officials instructed them to vote a provisional ballot rather than directing them to 

the correct polling place. Other voters reported that officials offered a provisional ballot as a 

way of speeding up lines at the polling locations. Even worse, some voters reported that they 

were never even offered a provisional ballot when it should have been provided as a matter of 

right. Confusion around rules for provisional ballots can also result in over-use of provisional 

ballots, many of which will not be counted. 

• Ohio relies heavily on provisional ballots, with over 206,000 cast in 2008 - more than 

any other state except California and New York. Over 80% of those ballots were 

eventually counted, but that still left almost 40,000 uncounted. On the Friday before 

Election Day, the Ohio Secretary of State established a rule that voters (rather than 

poll workers) had to fill out identification information on provisional ballots and that 

boards of elections were not permitted to count the vote if the information was not 

filled out correctly. This directive circumvented Ohio law and created a real obstacle 

3 Corey Dade, "Florida, Colorado Voter Purges Net Few Noncitizens, So Far," NPR, Sept. 5, 2012, 

http://www .npr.orgib logslitsallro I iticsi20 12109/05/160624313 !florida-co lorado-voter-purges-net -few- noncitizensso-far 

4 Steve Terrell, "Secretary of State's Voter Roll Cleanup Targets 'Shocked' Voting Rights Advocate," The New 

Mexican, Aug. 9, 2012, http://www.santafenewmexican.comiLocal%20News/081012S0S 

3 
119 

to voters' access to casting a ballot that is properly counted. Unfortunately, on 

Election Day 2012, Ohioans cast 204,927 provisional ballots. 

Early Voting: We saw a serious cut-back of days and hours available for early voting. We 

particularly note that in Florida and Ohio these early voting options were reduced and voters 

suffered the consequences. These reductions raised questions about partisan manipulation of 

election rules, and ultimately resulted in longer lines, mass confusion and headaches for election 

officials.s 

Polling Place Preparedness and Technology: While technology will continue to do wonders for 

our elections, untested technology and a lack of resources plague our elections. We saw a 

reduction in the number of machines available to cast ballots. Many machines purchased with 

federal HAVA money are reaching the end of their shelf life and are breaking down. We also 

met confusion at the polling place about when to deploy emergency ballots and how to deal with 

equipment malfunctions. These resulted in heartbreakingly unnecessary delays and voters forced 

to wait. 

Virginia stands out as example where we saw some of the longest lines on Election Day. 

Several factors contributed to the long lines, including limited numbers of voting 

machines.6 

Even Rhode Island, a state that has not historically seen significant lines at polling 

locations, caught many voters off-guard. In at least two jurisdictions, incorrect ballots 

were delivered and polls did not open. Other polling locations suffered mechanical 

problems with ballot scanners, as well as problems running out of materials (ballots, 

ballot applications). 

New York and New Jersey faced unprecedented challenges due to the intensity of 

Hurricane Sandy. Election officials - through heroic efforts - made voting available 

despite sever power outages and treacherous conditions. The last minute crisis 

demonstrates the need for us to adopt national standards for emergency planning in the 

face of future disasters. 

New Jersey's last-minute decision to allow voters to send ballots over the Internet was an 

honorable, but failed effort for voters and election officials. New Jersey law requires 

that voters also send in a hard copy of their ballot to provide a necessary paper back-up, 

but this provision was not outlined in the original directive, which caused voter 

confusion. Local election officials described the email voting plan as a "disaster" and 

"catastrophe" as servers crashed and email in boxes overflowed with voters' absentee 

ballots and applications disenfranchising an untold number ofvoters. 7 

5 Dara Kam & John Lantingua, "Dems to Justice Department: Probe Florida Election Law," Palm Beach Post, Dec. 

13, 20 12, http://www.palmbea~hpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt -politics/ dems-to-justice-department-probeflorida-election-/nTWRfI. 

6 Anne E. Marimow, "Long Voting Lines Blamed on High Turnout, Too-Few Poll Workers and Voting Machines," 

Nov. 7, 2012, http://articles.washingtonpost.coml20 12-11-07110caI/35504612 _I yoll-workers-electronic-machinestouch~screen-machines 

7 Bob Sullivan, "New Jersey's Email Voting Suffers Major Glitches, Deadline Extended to Friday," Nov. 6,2012, 

NBC News, http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_ news/20 121111061l4974588-new-jerseys-email-voting-suffers-majorglitches-deadline-extended-to-friday?lite 

4 
120 

Photo ID Requirements: Common Cause and its allies in the voting rights community have 

fought against unreasonably restrictive photo identification requirements because they prevent 

eligible voters from participating, impose enormous and unjustified costs on states, and do not 

serve the goals that are put forward. 

Millions of citizens residing in states with these restrictive laws do not currently possess the 

requisite photo ID and may be unable to exercise their right to vote on Election Day. Studies 

show that those without ID are disproportionately likely to be African American, Latino, lowincome voters, young adults, senior citizens, and people with disabilities. For many of these 

eligible persons, it is no simple matter to obtain the necessary ID - the hurdles involved can 

make doing so difficult, and in some cases, impossible.s 

With 13 states passing new laws to require voter JD at the polls, Pennsylvania's restrictive photo 

ID requirement stood out as the example of why restrictive ID requirements serve to discriminate 

and potentially keep people from voting. 

• In the weeks leading up to the election, Pennsylvania's state government ran a large 

number of misleading ads telling voters "if you care about this election ... show it [photo 

IDl" While the Pennsylvania court did allow election officials to ask for photo JD, it 

was not required, and this state-sponsored message contributed to mass confusion on 

Election Day. 

• On Election Day, our volunteers in the field heard direct reports of poll workers 

misinforming voters about the voter ID law. Some poll workers called the Election 

Protection hotline, alarmed that they were instructed to place posters around the polling 

places telling voters to show photo JD. We spoke with appalled voters who truly felt 

discriminated against. In one instance, a voter shared that even though he was able to 

vote, he was made to feel that his vote did not matter. 

There was also confusion about photo JD requirements in states that did not have photo JD laws 

in place or where last minute changes to the law kept things in limbo. Virginia was one of the 

states to adopt a new voter ID requirement, and we received numerous calls from voters 

concerned about the new rules and what they meant for the right to vote. In several counties in 

New Mexico, election judges were asking for ID where it was not required. Voting rights 

advocates had to engage county officials to step in and correct their actions to ensure voters were 

able to vote. 

Deceptive Voting Practices: Usually targeted at minorities and in minority neighborhoods, 

deceptive practices are the intentional dissemination of false or misleading information about the 

voting process with the intent to prevent an eligible voter from casting a ballot. It is an insidious 

form of voter suppression that often goes unaddressed by authorities and the perpetrators are 

virtually never caught. Historically, deceptive practices have taken the form of flyers distributed 

in a particular neighborhood; in recent years, with the advent of new technology, "robocalls" 

'Common Cause, Demos, Fair Elections Legal Network, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, "GOT 

ID? HELPING AMERICANS GET VOTER IDENTIFICA nON," http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7Bfb3cI7e2-cddl4dfO-92be-bd4429893665% 7D/GOT%201D%20FINA %204-18-12.PDF 

5 
121 

have been employed to spread misinformation. Deceptive practices are often targeted toward 

communities of color, students, and other populations to suppress turnout. They are becoming 

more sophisticated through the use of hacking. 

Virginia voters received robo calls claiming people could vote by phone just weeks 

before Election Day. The suspicious phone calls incorrectly informed voters that they 

couldvote earll and over the phone, due to the possibility oflong lines at the polls on 

Election Day. It's not clear how many voters received this call. 

• Billboards in Ohio and Wisconsin were placed in predominantly African American and 

Latino communities as well as around student populations which displayed a massive 

gavel, and written text warning that "VOTER FRAUD IS A FELONY! Up to 3 Y, YRS & 

$10,000 Fine." These billboards were placed with the clear intent to deter responsible, 

eligible Americans from voting by placing a stigma on these communities. 

Florida voters received letters in the mail, under that auspices of a state seal, falsely 

notifying them that their registration was purged. 10 Intimidation at the Polls: Common 

Cause Texas poll monitors observed individuals during early vote who were circulating 

an anti-immigration petition confront Hispanic voters who would not sign their petition 

and say things like, "Go back where you came from" or "Are you even a citizen?" 

Challenges: In the months and weeks leading up to the election, groups with close ties to the 

Tea Party announced plans to recruit tens of thousands of volunteers to serve as poll watchers. I I 

Although poll watching and poll challenging is legal in most states, there was substantial concern 

that ill-trained volunteer poll watchers would foster a climate offear and intimidation given the 

unsubstantiated rhetoric around in-person voter impersonation fraud and published reports of 

voter intimidation during the 20 I 0 midterm elections. 12 A leader of one prominent challenger 

group, True the Vote, told an audience of volunteers in Florida that poll watchers should make 

polling places feel "like driving down the road and looking up in that rearview mirror and seeing 

that there is an officer of the law following you." Il Disturbingly, the self-published poll watcher 

training materials that some volunteer groups disseminated contained false information about the 

voting process that had no basis in law and could have been used to justify illegitimate 

challenges that disenfranchised voters. 14 

9 WDBJ, "Phone Scam Targets Voters," Oct. 12,2012, WDB17.comhttp://www.wdbj7.com/news/wdbj7-2phonescam-targets-voters-20 121 0 12,0,7642527 .story 

10 Associated Press, "FBI joins probe of bogus FL vote purge letters 

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/ e I ecti ons/pres i dentlFB (-j oins-pro be-of-bogus-Fla-v ote-purgeletters 22206013 

11 Steph-;;nie Saul, "Looking, Very Closely, for Voter Fraud." New York Times, Sept. 16,2012, available at 

http://www.nytimes.com/20 12/09/17/us/politicsl groups-like-true-the-vote-are-looking-very -closely-for-voterfraud.html?pagewanted~all& _r~O&pagewanted~print; Mariah Blake, "The Ballot Cops," The Atlantic, October 

20 12, http://wv..W.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/20 12/1 0/the-ballot-cops/3 090 85/. 

12 See Liz Kennedy et aI., BULLIES AT THE BALLOT Box (Common Cause & Demos), September 2012, available at 

htlp:llwww.commol1cause.org/bullies; Letter from Rep. Elijah Cummings, Ranking Member of House Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform to Catherine Engelbrecht, President of True the Vote, Oct. 18,2012. 

13 True the Vote National Summit Remarks by Bill Ouren, April 27-28, 2012, http://vimeo.com/42865480. 

14 Sam Levin, «True the Vote Promoting False Information, Possible Intimidation, Says Common Cause," Denver 

Westward, Nov. 2, 2012, 

6 
122 

• Moreover, groups organizing poll watchers to carry out challenges on Election Day were 

also training volunteers with proprietary software to scour voter registration databases 

and challenge voters' registrations before Election Day.IS Unfortunately, their dubious 

investigatory techniques threatened to kick many eligible voters off the rolls - including 

students, elderly Americans, military voters and other transitory populations.I6 The 

problem, according to one prominent professor of election law, is that "some citizen 

vigilantes see the law as they want it to be, not as it is. They hunt voters registered at 

business address, ignoring the fact that small business owners or managers may live 

where they work. They hunt immigrants, ignoring the fact that noncitizens may have 

become naturalized. They hunt students and others in group housing, ignoring the fact 

that legal residence may not be intuitive.,,17 

• In Ohio, for example, a tea party group challenged at least 2, I 00 names on the voter 

rolls. IS Hundreds of students at Ohio colleges and universities faced challenges to their 

voter registration for the sole reason that they failed to include a dorm room number. 19 

This information was not required under Ohio state law.20 Fortunately, in many 

jurisdictions, all ofthese challenges were dismissed.21 

"We Need to Fix That" 

The images of voters waiting in lines, and the frustrations we heard from voters who were made 

to feel that their vote did not matter are no way to run a free, fair and accessible election. The 

health of our democracy and our right to vote requires decisive action now to ensure that all 

Americans can truly participate in our elections. Reform is not only possible, but already 

outlined and embodied in the Voter Empowerment Act (VEA) (S. 3608) and other pieces of 

legislation noted below. The VEA offers comprehensive legislation that would go a long way to 

reducing long lines at the polls, reducing other significant barriers to voting, and ensuring that 

every vote is counted as cast. 

We must continue the fight for free, fair and accessible elections: 

Modernize: Bringing our elections into the 21 5t Century requires us to ensure that all eligible 

Americans are registered to vote. Four key reforms will increase accuracy and save on costs: 

http://blogs,westword.convlatestv.-ord/2012111/true the vote false information voter intimidation colorado com 

mon cause.php. 

" A.J. Vicens & Natasha Khan, "Voters Feel Intimidated by Election Observers," News21, Aug. 12,2012, 

http://votingrights .news21.com/article/poll-watchers/. 

16 Justin Levitt, "The Danger of Voter Fraud Vigilantes," New York Times, Oct. 29. 2012, 

http://campaignstops.blogs.nyt;mes.co m/20 12/1 0!29/the-danger-of-voter-frau d-vi gilantes!. 17/d 

18 Michael Finnegan, "Tea Party Groups Work to Remoye Names from Ohio Voter Rolls," Los Angeles Times, Sept. 

26, 2012, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nal;on!la-na-ohio-yotin~-fighl-20 120927.0.1 0 1 0709,full.story. 

19/d 

20 Josh Jarman, "Voter-Roll Challenges Dismissed," The Columbus Dispatch, Sept. 25,2012, 

hup:/lwww.ctispatch.comlcontent!stories/locaIl2012/09/25/voler-roll-challenges-dismissed.htm!. 

21 Id. 

7 
123 

Automated Registration: Election officials automatically register eligible citizens by 

electronically transmitting reliable information from government list; 

• Portability: Once an eligible citizen is on a state's voter rolls, she remains registered 

and her records move with her so long as she continues to reside in that state; 

• Safety Net: Eligible citizens can correct errors on the voter rolls before and on 

Election Day; and 

• Online Access: Voters can register, check and update their registration records 

through a secure and accessible online portal. The Voter Empowerment Act serves as 

a model to modernize our voter registration process. 

Improve: To reduce long lines, we need to expand access to voting by broadening voting 

options - including providing for early voting and no-fault absentee balloting. According to 

George Mason University Professor Michael McDonald, 34% of Americans voted early in 2012, 

and 12 states saw increases in participation during early vote as compared to 2008.22 Yet 15 

states do not have any form of early voting, and for states with early voting, the number of days 

varies greatly between states and counties. We need to adopt federal standards to determine the 

minimum days for early voting, locations of polling places, voting machine requirements, 

emergency and paper back-ups, poll worker training and provisional ballots. Congressman 

Miller's "Streamlining and Improving Methods at Polling Locations and Early (SIMPLE) Voting 

Act" (H.R. 6591) is a strong model for reforming early voting and polling place preparedness, as 

well as the Voter Empowerment Act (VEA) (S. 3608) as noted above. 

Provisional ballots should be counted for all races and questions for which the voter is deemed 

eligible to vote. Election judges should be trained more thoroughly on the laws surrounding 

provisional ballots, including redirecting a voter who may be in the wrong precinct or county; 

and an ample and easily accessible supply of provisional ballots in all ballot styles should be 

printed and supplied to all polling places/vote centers in each county. 

Secure: We urge careful thought and deliberation before plans are adopted to alleviate the 

problems of lines at the polls. Many ideas will be fielded, including allowing voters to cast a 

ballot from their home computer or other device. 

We are compelled to state: Voting by Internet, Email or Fax is Not the Solution. Cyber 

security experts at the Department of Homeland Security and at the National Institute for 

Standards and Technology have warned that because the security tools currently available would 

not be able to protect these votes from cyber-attacks, Internet voting is not recommended at this 

time because it places our elections at risk. 23 

22 http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/government/turnout-should-be-key-factor-in-any-expansion-ofearly/article 327f712c-13 89-528b-b I b8-cc61 al4ed29b.html 

2l NIST Activities on UOCAVA Voting, http://www.nist.gov/itlivote/uocava.cfm; Nelson Hastings et aI., SECURITY 

CONSIDERATIONS FOR REMOTE ELECTRONIC UOCA V A VOTING, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

United States Department of Commerce. February 2011, 

http://www.nist.govlitllvoteluploadINISTlR-7700-Jeb2011.pdf; Pam Fessler, "Online Voting 'Premature,' Warns 

Government Cybersecurity Expert." NPR News, March 29, 2012, 

http://www.npr.orglblogs/itsallpol itics!20 12103119/149634 764!online-voti ng-premature-warns-~overnmentcybersecurity-expert 

8 
124 

Additionally, any new funding allocated towards the purchase of new voting systems should only 

be appropriated if those systems produce a voter verifiable paper record or ballot that the voter 

can review. Without a paper record of the votes cast, there is no way for election officials to 

conduct a meaningful recount or to conduct post-election audits. 

Post-election audits to verify that the outcome of the election is correct should be mandatory. 

We cannot simply rely on the machine counts without a manual check on whether votes were 

recorded correctly. Too many times, simple software glitches and human errors have led to 

miscounts which were caught by post-election audits. In a municipal election in Palm Beach 

County, Florida, in March 2012, a problem with election management software allotted votes to 

the wrong candidate and the wrong contest. 24 The official results were only changed after a 

court-sanctioned public hand count of the votes. States which do not conduct post-election audits 

have no way of catching these types of errors which can lead to the wrong person assuming 

elected office. 

States should be required to conduct robust ballot accounting and reconciliation practices. These 

basic procedures, including reconciling the number of votes cast to the number of voters who 

signed in and reconciling precinct totals with county-level totals, help ensure that no ballots are 

lost or added as the votes are tallied and aggregated from the local up to the state level. 

Protect: Intimidation and deceptive voting practices cannot be tolerated, bad actors need to be 

accountable, and penalties must be increased to prevent these acts from keeping people from 

voting. The Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2011(S. 1994) is 

designed to protect voters across the nation from election fraud and voter intimidation by 

creating criminal penalties for deceptive voting practices and by giving individual voters the 

right to take action 

Addressing challengers at the polls is critical, as state law is varied as to how pre-Election Day 

and polling place challenges are resolved. There are certain practices that could better protect 

voters from unlawful challenges before Election Day or in the wake of overzealous volunteers 

self-policing at the polls. Many of these recommendations are included in a report by Common 

Cause and Demos, Bullies at the Ballot Box: Protecting the Freedom to Vote Against Wrongful 

Challenges and Inlimidalion.25 

As for challenges before Election Day, challengers should be required to bear the burden of 

proof throughout the process and only base their challenges on first-hand personal knowledge by 

written sworn statements. Challenges should not be allowed too close to Election Day and 

should be resolved far in advance. This will help to ensure that administrative burdens do not 

further distract officials from their voting preparations. Frivolous challenges should be a 

24 George Bennett et aI., "Recount Shows Wrong Winners Declared in Two Wellington Election Races," Palm 

Beach Post, Mar. 20, 2012, htlp:llwww.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/recount-shows-wrong-winners-declared-intwo-well-lInLhmxl. 

25 Liz Kennedy et aI., BULLIES AT THE BALLOT Box (Common Cause & Demos), September 2012, available at 

http://www.commoncallse.org/bullies 

9 
125 

misdemeanor. Moreover, before any voters are kicked off of the rolls before Election Day, they 

should be afforded the opportunity for a hearing. 

As for challenges to voter registration on Election Day, rules should be exceptionally clear as to 

what can provide the basis for a challenge. States vary in this regard. Only election officials 

should have the authority to challenge a voter's eligibility, which should be in writing with 

supporting facts, including documentary evidence in support thereof. Grounds for challenge 

should be limited to citizenship, residency. identity and age, and there should be strong penalties 

for frivolous challenges. Challengers should be required to show by clear and convincing 

evidence that a person is ineligible to vote. Importantly, returned mail should not be considered 

prima facie evidence that an individual is unlawfully presenting herself to vote because that is an 

inadequate basis to prove eligibility. And if a challenged voter swears to her eligibility by 

affidavit. she should be able to vote a regular ballot. 

Perhaps most importantly, voters should be protected from inappropriate behavior by poll 

watchers, which includes communicating directly with voters, or videotaping and photographing 

voters inside of polling places. Under absolutely no circumstances should a poll watcher be able 

to observe a voter's ballot. 

Voting Rights Act 

In addition to these proactive reforms to modernize, improve, secure and protect our elections, 

we must also ensure that all American voters are afforded their right to vote. With section 5 of 

the Voting Rights Act under attack, minority voters have reason to fear that their right to vote is 

at risk. The reality is that targeted Americans, particularly people of color, low income 

individuals and youth continue to be pushed out of the voting process. The Voting Rights Act is 

an essential tool to combat the recent assault on our voting rights, protecting us from 

discriminatory local, state, and federal redistricting plans, attempts to strictly reduce early voting, 

and discriminatory government issued photo identification laws. This protection is needed now 

more than ever, both to safeguard hard-fought progress and to defeat persistent and clever 

attempts to narrow the franchise. 

Conclusion 

No American citizen should have to question whether or not they have the right to vote, or if 

their vote will be counted. No American should wait for hours in a line to vote, only to be told 

they are not on the registration rolls when they took the steps necessary to participate. The 

stories of thousands of Americans who had trouble voting in 2012 define our current election 

process, because when eligible Americans are obstructed in their right to vote, the integrity of 

our democracy comes into question. 

We look forward to working with you, our members, and the public to reform our voting process 

so that every eligible citizen can easily register to vote, cast a ballot without undue 

burden, and be assured that those ballots are counted as cast. 

10 
126 

Testimony of The Honorable Charles Crist, Jr. 

Former Governor of Florida 

United States Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary 

Hearing on 

liThe State of the Right to Vote After the 2012 Election" 

Dirksen Senate Office Building 

December 19,2012 

10:00 a.m. 
127 

Thank you Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley and thank you members of 

the Judiciary Committee for inviting me to testify today on what is the most 

fundamental of rights for Americans-the right to self-determination through 

voting. 

Quite literally, we are here today because just over 236 years ago, 56 brave 

American patriots signed away their lives by declaring independence from the 

Great Britain in the name of all who lived in the colonies. At the core of their 

statement - our Declaration of Independence -- "We hold these truths to be selfevident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator 

with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of 

happiness, that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men"-

embodies the simple principle that everyday Americans - the people who we all 

represent hold the power - that government is truly for the people, by the people 

- not the other way around. 

In fairness, they didn't get it totally right at the beginning. Far too many 

Americans were initially denied the right to vote, and far too many more died in 

the ensuing battles to ensure that every American adult would have the right to 

participate in self-determination. But throughout the history of this great nation, 

whether through laws or conflicts, America has always taken steps forward to 

make voting easier and more accessible - well, until this year. 

For a good part of my adult life, I was employed in the service of the people of the 

great state of Florida, a state has had more than its share of voting drama. For 
128 

four of those years, I had the truly awesome privilege serving of state's Governor, 

and during those four years, we undertook some important steps to make it 

easier for Floridians to vote. 

• We eased the state's vote by mail laws to make it easier for Floridians to 

choose to vote from the comfort oftheir own home. 

• We instituted a standard fourteen days of in person early voting. 

• We made paper ballots mandatory to ensure that there would be a record 

in the case of recounts. 

• We streamlined the system so Floridian who had paid their entire debt to 

society could regain their right to vote. 

And when, during the historic election of 2008, long lines at early voting sites led 

to some Floridians waiting for many hours to cast a ballot, your former colleague 

- and my former Chief of Staff George Lemieux and I figured out a legal 

justification for extending early voting hours so that no Floridian would be faced 

with an unnecessary wait at the polls. In the end, some 54% of Floridians cast a 

ballot before election day in 2008 - and thanks to the steps we had taken, despite 

a record 8.3 million votes cast that year, we knew the outcome of our state's 

election before the 11:00 news. 

Unfortunately, the last few years in Florida haven't been so forward thinking. In 

2011, the state legislature voted for and Governor Scott signed a massive 

elections law designed, I believe, to make it harder for some Floridians to legally 

vote - and designed to encourage a certain partisan outcome. The law, among 
129 

other things, put ridiculous restrictions on the rights of everyday law abiding 

Floridians to register their fellow citizens to vote and reduced the number of early 

voting days from 14 to 8 - and under the law before the Justice Department 

demanded changes, could have reduced early voting hours to as few as 48 in 

some counties. Furthermore, changes to the law made it harder for voters who 

went to the wrong precinct to cast a legal vote - which when combined with 

budget cuts in many counties that reduced the number of election day polling 

locations - resulted in unnecessary confusion and suppression on election day. In 

addition, the state tried to purge nearly 200,000 legal Floridians from the polls. 

Thankfully, public pressure as well as questions from the Justice Department, 

forced the state to back down. 

The outcome of these decisions was obvious. Florida, which four years earlier 

was a model for efficiency, became once again a late night tv joke. Voters who 

wanted to vote early were frequently subjected to lines ofthree and four hoursand as Governor Scott refused to take action to ease the lines, in some cases 

those lines extended to six and seven hours. Election Day confusion led to 

horrifying lines again on Election Day, which played a role in Florida remaining in 

the undecided category until Thursday, some two days after the last ballot was 

cast. Thankfully, the Presidency didn't hang in the balance. 

Senators, as you spend time thinking about how we can make voting easier and 

more accessible, I would encourage you to think long and hard about establishing 

some national standards, standards that would ensure lengthy in person early 
130 

voting, as well as common sense provisions such as same day voter registration 

and allowing voters to vote at the precinct most convenient for them. 

I leave you once again with the words of our founding fathers - "Governments are 

instituted among men (and women), deriving their powers from the consent of 

the government." Ladies and gentlemen - we work for them. We offer ourselves 

to their service and they choose - and as any of us who have lost well know, we 

don't always like the outcome. But that is how this works. In the end, America 

wins and democracy thrives when more people vote. 

Thank you again for the invitation. I look forward to speaking with you further 

about this important issue. 
131 

Demos 

IDEAS & ACTION 

2012 Election Lessons Learned: How Voters Stood Up 

Against Suppression, ID, and Intimidation 

By Tova Andrea Wang, Senior Democracy Fellow, Demos 

The right to vote is just that - a fundamental right which is the cornerstone of 

American democracy. In the 2012 election, that sacred value was challenged in 

a way we have not seen in a couple of generations, perhaps since the civil and 

voting rights movements of the 1960s. Some powerful people tried to deny 

this right; legislatures in many states decided that the freedom to vote should 

be restricted, and they erected many unnecessary and discriminatory barriers to 

registration and voting. 

The measures taken were so blatant and widespread that they served to 

energize coalitions of citizens to fight for voting rights harder than ever, and 

made many voters more determined to vote and have their vote count. The U.S. 

Department of Justice was compelled to intervene through its powers under 

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, because the laws enacted in several covered 

states were clearly discriminatory in purpose and/or effect. State and federal 

courts also struck down or delayed many of the worst of these laws. And where 

identification laws did come into effect, some were made more flexible and less 

of a burden on voters after having gone through Department of Justice and 

court review. 

President Obama himself confirmed the need for national attention to 

protecting the freedom to vote in his acceptance speech on election night, 

noting the problems that many Americans had faced in attempting to vote, and 

declaring "we need to fix that." President Obama is right. His call to action 

frames both the unacceptable problems that affected the right to vote in 2012 

and the need for action going forward to ensure that all eligible Americans can 

exercise their right to vote. 

MlDt. CONTACT 

Communic.rtions DepilrtmeI1t 

l"",rli'"Str.ayer 

i.str>lyer@i:lf;!mos.org 

(212)3B9·1iI13 
132 

As will be discussed below, the measures to make voting harder for eligible 

Americanstook many forms. Most of them were instigated by Republican 

dominated state legislatures which in 2010 and 2011 passed laws that would 

disproportionately exclude certain groups from the voting process, particularly 

African Americans, youth and Latinos. It was for obvious reasons: African 

Americans, Latinos and young people tend to vote for Democrats. And in 2008 

these three groups came out in record numbers. So the vote suppression 

efforts were, unfortunately, focused on demographic groups that historically 

have been targeted in efforts to restrict voting rights. 

The new laws and procedures included strict photo identification and proof of 

citizenship laws; rules making it harder for former felons to regain their voting 

rights; laws making voter registration more difficult; pre-election purges of 

eligible voters; cutbacks on early voting which predictably resulted in 

unacceptably long lines at the polls; and misuse and manipulation of rules 

around provisional ballots. Other problems that arose included challenges to 

voters' right to vote by organizations connected to or empowered by True the 

Vote; disregard by state election officials of legal requirements to provide 

language assistance at the polls; and efforts by groups and individuals to 

intimidate and mislead voters about voting procedures. There were also new, 

unanticipated challenges on the East Coast as a result of the damage wrought 

by Hurricane Sandy. 

In the end, however, many of the attempts at voter exclusion went just too far, 

and backfired on those who would seek to make disenfranchisement an election 

strategy. Given the strong turnout of the very groups that were targeted, it 

seems that the American voters were ready to take on this challenge. African 

Americans matched their record turnout of 2008 and were 13 percent of the 

electorate. Latinos raised their share -- they were 10 percent of the electorate 

this year, up from 9 percent in 2008. For all the talk of youth disengagement, 

the proportion of the electorate under 30 went from 18 to 19 percent. Indeed, 

just as significant a sign that the tide has turned is the fact that a ballot 

amendment that would have made photo identification a requirement to vote 

went down to defeat in Minnesota. At one time the polls showed 80 percent 

support for the measure. But a strong grassroots campaign to educate the 
133 

public about the measure turned the tide. As noted in one press report, 

"volunteers made contact with more than 1.5 million voters over the past four 

months to explain the costs, complications and consequences of the 

amendment." The success of this campaign may be the strongest indicator yet 

of public opinion turning against these efforts to put up unnecessary red tape 

around the voting process. 

The pushback against vote suppression laws was facilitated by the efforts 

before Election Day of a coalition of pro-voter organizations and citizens who 

came together and fought back on efforts to exclude Americans from voting. 

Restrictive photo ID requirements were blocked by the Department of Justice 

and/or the courts in Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin, and 

vetoed by governors in Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, and 

North Carolina. Extreme restrictions on voter registration drives were 

permanently blocked by the courts in Florida. Cutbacks to early voting were 

reversed in Ohio. Finally, an Arizona law that required documentary proof of 

citizenship to register to vote was blocked by the courts. 

Moreover, the threats made by True the Vote and its allied organizations to 

challenge peoples' rights at the polls turned out to be more bark than bite. 

Demos and other groups worked to put a spotlight on their misguided and 

possibly illegal intentions, and relatively few of these threats materialized. 

Nonetheless, there was plenty of disenfranchisement and possible exclusion in 

the 2012 election that will help point us in a new direction going forward: 

enacting election reforms that expand access to the ballot and create a more 

inclusive democracy. These measures include Same Day Registration and other 

reforms to modernize our voter registration system; expansion of early voting 

to avoid long lines on Election Day; laws to prevent unfounded challenges and 

other forms of voter harassment and intimidation and greater efforts to ensure 

Americans who are not proficient in English can exercise their right to vote. 

Impact of Voter 10 laws 
134 

Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, 

and Wisconsin all passed new strict photo ID laws in their 2011 or 2012 

legislative sessions. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, requiring people to 

show government issued photo identification in order to vote is unnecessary. 

discriminatory and has the potential to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands 

of people. 

The Department of Justice objected to the laws in Texas and South Carolina 

under the Voting Rights Act -- those two states are covered by Section 5 of the 

Act and all changes in election procedures must be approved before they can 

be implemented. The states filed lawsuits to obtain approval of these laws in 

the federal district court for the District of Columbia, butthe courts rejected 

those efforts, and blocked the photo ID laws from being implemented in the 

2012 election. In the process, Texas' own data showed that 795.955 registered 

voters did not have the ID required and these voters were disproportionately 

Latino and African American. South Carolina's own statistics showed 239,000 

registered voters in that state did not have the requisite ID. In Wisconsin the 

courts struck the law down as unconstitutional under the state constitution. In 

Pennsylvania the courts also said that the photo ID law passed there could not 

be implemented this year because the state had not taken the necessary steps 

to educate voters about the new requirements and ensure that people could 

obtain IDs. 

Therefore, four states had strict photo ID laws in force-Kansas, Georgia, 

Indiana, and Tennessee. We already know from past elections that many ~ 

have been disenfranchised by Indiana's voter ID law, and we know that the 

voter ID law in Indiana impacts the ability of African Americans and Latinos in 

that state much more than other groups. Advocates fighting the Tennessee law 

estimate that 390,000 registered voters in that state do not have the picture ID 

now required to vote in that state. Yet the state has only "issued 20,923 state 

IDs for voting purposes." Research will reveal what impact these laws had in 

2012. 

Then there was the problem of voter and poll worker confusion, especially in 

states such as Pennsylvania. In that state shortly before the election, the courts 
135 

finally halted the state's new 10 law, yet the State continued running 

advertisements claiming 10 would be required at the polls. 

All of the polling places in Crawford County, Pennsylvania, posted signs saying 

that identification was required to vote. This was not true. An Allegheny 

County judge issued an order to halt electioneering outside a polling location in 

Homestead, Pennsylvania when it was found that Republicans outside a polling 

location were stopping people outside the polls and asking for identification. 

As predicted by voting rights advocates, many voters across Pennsylvania 

encountered poll workers'wrongfully requiring identification, turning some 

voters away or requiring them to vote provisional ballots 

less Noticed-Proof of Citizenship laws 

Arizona enacted a requirement that citizens provide documentary proof of 

citizenship before being allowed to register to vote in 2004. It has been in 

litigation ever since and the Supreme Court has just agreed to hear the case. 

The argument in the case is that the Arizona law violates the National Voter 

Registration Act, which requires states to accept the federal voter registration 

form. The federal form does not have a proof of citizenship requirement, and 

the NVRA does not permit states to add their own requirements as a condition 

of accepting the form. Apart from its inconsistency with the NVRA, the Arizona 

law threatened to disenfranchise eligible voters who may not have ready access 

to documentation of their citizenship. Furthermore, such requirements create 

tremendous barriers to voter registration drives. People don't always walk 

around with proof of their citizenship, and groups doing voter registration 

don't usually walk around with photocopying machines to copy such citizenship 

documents, as the law requires. Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee have also 

enacted proof of citizenship laws, and again it remains to be seen what their 

impact was in 2012. 

Felon Disenfranchisement Continues 

We know that some 5.85 million American citizens were excluded from the 

voting process on November 6. These are the Americans who at one point in 

their lives committed a felony and are barred by laws in most states from voting 

-even though 4.4 million of those Americans have served their time. Thirteen 
136 

percent of African American men are denied the right to vote in this country 

because of such laws. 

In two states-the swing states of Florida and Iowa-Republican governors 

made it even harder for a former felon to regain his or her voting rights in the 

last two years. In Florida there is a mandatory 5 year waiting time before a 

citizen can even apply to the governor's clemency board and there is a backlog 

now of over 100,000 applications awaiting action. The Sentencing Project says 

there are about 1.3 million disenfranchised ex-felons just in Florida. Onequarter of African American voting age men in Florida were disenfranchised on 

November 6 because of this antiquated and anachronistic rule. 

Voter Registration Made More Difficult, Especially In Florida 

Voter registration has been demonstrated to be the key to voter participation. 

Once people are registered. they vote. Unfortunately, the US is one of only a 

few western democracies that puts the burden on citizens to get through the 

registration process and make sure they continue to update their registration 

every time they move or change their name. The burdens of the voter 

registration process particularly depress participation by low income Americans 

and communities of color. Yet, some states attempted to make registration 

even harder prior to the 2012 election. 

Nowhere was this more the case than in Florida. Rock the Vote and the League 

of Women Voters stopped conducting registration drives in Florida last year 

because a new law passed by that state's Republican legislature required 

groups to turn in voter registration forms within 48 hours after collecting them 

or face a fine of up to $1,000. As noted in a recent law review article by Ryan 

Haygood of the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, community based 

voter registration drives are particularly important for registering communities 

of color and low-income communities:. 

For example, in 2004, while only 7.4% of white voters registered at private 

drives, 12.7% of African American voters and 12.9% of Latino voters used this 

channel to register. The disparity was likewise apparent in 2008: while only 

5.0% of white voters registered at private drives, 11.0% of African American 
137 

voters and 9.6% of Latino voters registered at these events. And 2010 was no 

different: 6% of white voters registered through a voter registration drive, as 

compared with 14% of Latino voters and 12% of African American voters. 

Purges 

Partisan election administrators and the group True the Vote (TTV) and its 

affiliates attempted to purge thousands of voters from the rolls before the 

election, claiming they were not citizens or had died. 

For example, right before the election a group calling itself The Voter Integrity 

Project in North Carolina challenged thousands of registrations claiming people 

were dead. In addition to wasting the time of already stressed elections 

officials who threw many of the challenges out because the data matching the 

group used was so flawed, hundreds of people in NC had to prove they weren't 

dead to the BOL 

According to the Houston Chronicle, in Texas state election officials "repeatedly 

and mistakenly matched active longtime Texas voters to deceased strangers 

across the country - some of whom perished more than a decade ago - in an 

error-ridden effort to purge dead voters just weeks before the presidential 

election ... Voters in legislative districts across Texas with heavy concentrations 

of Hispanics or African-Americans were more often targeted in that flawed 

purge effort, according the Chronicle's analysis of more than 68,000 voters 

identified as possibly dead." 

In Florida earlier this year, the governor and secretary of state claimed 182,000 

noncitizens had been flagged on the state's voter rolls. But reporters and 

activists found hundreds of native and naturalized U.S. citizens among them. 

Additionally, advocates found that a hugely disproportionate share of the 

flagged group was Latino or black. The list of potential ineligible voters 

eventually whittled down to 198, with even that number in question. 

After being embarrassed by his own inaccuracy, Colorado Secretary of State 

Scott Gessler (R) decided not to pursue a voter purge he initiated by sending 

letters asking almost 4,000 voters to prove their citizenship. After 482 people 
138 

responded with proof and almost 90 percent of the suspected non-citizens 

were verified through a federal database, Gessler planned to challenge 141 

names still in question, but did not have enough time to handle the hearings 

before Election Day. Then after early voting had actually begun in the state, 

Gessler announced that a new round of checks revealed more individuals who 

he believes are illegally registered. However, only fourteen of the 141 flagged 

in that first round were actually removed from the rolls -- and none have a 

record of voting. 

Cutbacks on Early Voting 

Another mode of attack was to reduce the number of days people could vote 

early, and more particularly to cut out the last Sunday before Election Day. 

Nearly 54% of Florida's African American voters in 2008 voted at early-voting 

sites. Florida legislators knew very well about the "Soul to the Polls" program 

that had become a tradition in the last few election cycles. African American 

churches had come to routinely organize their congregations to, after services, 

go to an early voting site together and vote. African Americans comprised onethird of the entire statewide turnout in Florida on the last Sunday before the 

2008 election. The Ohio State legislature similarly tried to cut back on early 

voting days and its new law was also struck down by the courts - the Secretary 

of State appealed to the Supreme Court which turned down his request for an 

emergency stay. 

According to reports, the cutbacks to early voting may have reduced the 

number of Florida voters who participated in early voting this year by 300.000 

Y.Qte..s.. According to an analysis by the Herald Tribune the drop in the early 

voting hit the Democrats harder because they accounted for 46 percent of the 

early votes to the Republicans' 36 percent - or a 248,000-vote edge, based on 

party registration. 

long lines 

The other sad outcome of Governor Rick Scott's cutting of early voting was that 

many Floridians were forced to wait hours in line during the days that were 

available. Long lines were reported across the state, including a six-hour wait 

time at one early-voting site in Miami-Dade County. In Palm Beach County. 
139 

early voting went on until 2:30 a.m. Sunday morning the weekend before the 

election because of long lines of voters who were waiting to vote before 7 p.m. 

Saturday, the official ending time. 

Scott refused to extend early voting hours to accommodate more votes. In 

response, Miami-Dade County and other counties allowed in-person absentee 

balloting on Sunday and Monday. The Florida Democratic Party filed a lawsuit to 

force Governor Scott to extend the early voting period. A settlement was 

reached the day before the election, allowing people to vote by in-person 

absentee ballot on Monday until 5 pm. On Monday, as the controversy wore on, 

and the lines for absentee voting grew, Broward Supervisor of Elections Brenda 

Snipes extended in-person absentee voting to 7 p.m. 

Long lines continued to plague Florida on Election Day, when voters were still in 

line in the early morning hours of Wednesday, November 7, after Governor 

Romney had conceded. And it wasn't just Florida. In Virginia and Texas some 

voters waited in line for four hours. There were reports of long lines and hours 

long wait times throughout the country, inevitably leading to stories of some 

voters having to walk away without voting. 

In addition, throughout the country but especially in Philadelphia and 

Pittsburgh, high numbers of people who were registered to vote were not on 

the voter registration lists, especially first time voters. The causes for this are 

still being investigated. 

Provisional Ballots 

One of the most under-the-radar ways in which people are disenfranchised is 

the treatment of provisional ballots. When voters show up at the polling place, 

and their names aren't on the list of registered voters, poll workers are 

instructed to tell voters to complete provisional ballots. Often, those ballots are 

simply not counted because it turns out these voters were at the wrong 

precinct. Despite Ohio Secretary of State John Husted's appeals the courts ruled 

that ballots cast at the wrong precinct but the correct polling place must be 

counted. However, several swing states, such as Florida, Nevada, Iowa, and 

Virginia, do not count ballots cast in the wrong precinct, even if it was through 
140 

no fault of the voter. Moreover, the legal ruling in Ohio did not stop Secretary 

Husted from continuing to try to disenfranchise voters through provisional 

balloting. Just three days before the election, he issued a directive ordering 

county boards of election to reject provisional ballots when the identification 

information contained in Step 2 of the ballot affirmation form is not filled out 

by the voter - a step that poll workers, not voters, are supposed to take. The 

directive was in clear contradiction to Ohio law. The issue is still being litigated. 

Challengers from True the Vote and Others 

An organization called True the Vote (TTV) , which grew out of a Texas tea party 

group, claimed in the months leading to the election that it wanted to recruit 

one million citizen activists to challenge peoples' right to vote at the polling 

place on Election Day. Early signs indicated that as in 2010, such challenges 

were targeting minority neighborhoods. Before the election, various groups 

challenged the right of certain citizens to be on the registration lists in a 

number of swing states using deeply flawed name matching systems, even 

using Facebook to verify citizens' information. They said they wanted to make 

the experience of voting to be "like driving and seeing the police following 

you." On Election Day, however, after extensive criticism from voting rights 

advocates and the media, they were hardly seen or heard from. 

Challenges by individuals did occur during early voting in North Carolina. 

Officials reported "people showing up at polling places and thinking they have 

the right to walk right in and inspect things. 'People have a skewed idea about 

their rights at these polling locations,'" said one election administrator. "'And 

even observers seem to have a misguided definition of what their role is. They 

think they are election police. That is not what they are there for. Observer is a 

title for a reason. It says you can observe. It does not say you are in charge ... 

Many observers "felt like it was their job to go up and tell a voter that they 

couldn't do a particular thing," McLean said. "They thought they had more 

authority." 

On Election Day the Franklin County, Ohio Board of Elections determined that 

True the Vote may have falsified the forms submitted for election observers, 

who must be appointed by a group of candidates. According to the news article, 
141 

'The new observer forms, filed over the past few days by True the Vote 

representative (and Hilliard Tea Party Member) Jan Loar, used candidate 

signatures copied from a previous set of forms filed in early October. All but 

one of the six candidates whose names appeared on the original form had 

withdrawn permission to use their signatures." TTV observers were banned 

from the polls in that county. 

In Racine, Wisconsin, which had been the scene of disruptive challenges to 

African American and Latino voters in the June recall election for Governor Scott 

Walker, IlmQlli indicated that on November 6, election officials more tightly 

enforced the laws preventing disruption by election observers, and were better 

able to protect voters from intimidation by challengers who did show up. 

For the most part, however, the threat of thousands of challengers at polling 

places on Election Day did not materialize. The failure of these efforts will 

hopefully deter organizations in the future from exploiting the challenge 

process to try to intimidate and possibly disenfranchise American voters, and 

lead to reform of the laws that allow groups to engage in these kinds of tactics 

going forward. 

Voter Intimidation and Deceptive Practices 

In early October, billboards began appearing - 85 in the Milwaukee area and 30 

each in Cleveland and Columbus - saying "Voter Fraud is a Felony!" punishable 

by up to 3 1/2 years in prison and fines of $10,000. The billboards only 

appeared in low income, minority areas. 

After Demos and other voting rights advocates attacked the billboards as 

blatantly meant to intimidate, Clear Channel Outdoor took them down. Even 

better, they were replaced by billboards in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, 

and Milwaukee with signs that urged residents to "Stand Up and Have Your Say 

- VOTE." A second set of billboards reminded voters that "When We Vote, We 

Are All Equal." The pro-voter billboards also included the Election Protection 

coalition's voter hotline number, 1-866-0UR-VOTE. 
142 

In addition to the challenges in North Carolina, there were other attempts to 

deter voters in that state during early voting. The Board of Election put out a 

memo, stating 'This office is also receiving reports of voters purposefully being 

given misinformation about the 2012General Election." For example: 

Voters are being told that they can vote by phone or online 

• Voters are being told that if they are affiliated with a certain political 

party that they must vote 

on Wednesday, November 7th instead of Tuesday, November 6th. 

Voters are being visited by individuals who are misrepresenting 

themselves as county board of 

elections officials who are charged with conducting voter surveys 

• Voters who have already voted are receiving phone calls advising them 

that their absentee 

ballot is already in the mail. 

• Voters are being told that if they have an outstanding ticket, they cannot 

vote 

Voters are receiving misinformation that they are required to re-register 

each time they vote. 

Some voters, primarily African American, in the swing states of Florida, North 

Carolina and Virginia received phones calls for weeks erroneously telling them 

they could vote by phone. 

Phoenix NBC Channel 12 reported that Republican Jeff Flake's US Senate 

campaign made robo-calls over the weekend to registered Democrats and gave 

them the wrong polling place location. 

Registration forms were also a route used to disenfranchise some voters. 

A voter registration worker associated with the Republican Party was charged 

with voter registration fraud for throwing filled out registration forms in a 

garbage bin. His arrest came just weeks after the Republican National 

Committee said it had cut ties with his employer. Nathan Sproul, after several 

Florida counties complained that Sproul's firm had submitted hundreds of voter 

registration forms with irregularities or missing information. 
143 

In addition, disturbingly both the Romney Campaign and nv affiliates were 

found to be giving wrong information to people they were training to work the 

polls, such as with regard to voter identification requirements and ex-felon 

voting rights. 

language Assistance 

Once again, groups found that language assistance requirements were not 

consistently implemented at the polls. The Asian American Legal Defense and 

Education Fund reported a number of failures, stating, "States with the most 

egregious violations include Virginia, where Korean American voters were 

segregated from other voters into a separate line; Philadelphia, where 

Vietnamese American voters faced a severe shortage of language assistance 

[and] Michigan, where Bengali materials were severely mistranslated." In New 

~ it was reported that in at least three major polling places, language 

services were not provided to voters needing help with translations. 

Hurricane Sandy 

The human toll of Hurricane Sandy was immeasurable in states on the East 

Coast. It also took a toll on the ability of people to vote. As a result 

extraordinary measures were taken. In New York and New Jersey those 

displaced by the storm were allowed to cast a provisional ballot anywhere in the 

state and have it counted in elections for which the voter was eligible, which 

included at least statewide races and the Presidential race. New lersey also 

allowed people unable to get to their polling site to vote bye-mail, but there 

were significant problems with that process leading the governor to announce 

that faxed and email ballots would be accepted until E.!:i.d..a',t after the election. 

New Jersey also used military trucks using generators in replacement of 

traditional polling places that had been damaged or destroyed. The state also 

extended the deadline for when county clerks could accept mail-in ballot 

applications to the close of business the Friday before the election. 

As of Monday night, more than 100 polling places in New York State had been 

changed, including about 60 in the city. New York State extended the deadline 

for absentee ballots to be received and counted to l3 days after Election Day, 
144 

from seven days. The biggest challenge was on Long Island, among the hardest 

hit places. 

As might have been predicted there were long lines and lots of confusion in 

those two states on Election Day. 

In person absentee balloting and early voting days were J..Q51 in Virginia and 

North Carolina because of Sandy. In Connecticut, the governor signed an 

executive order extending the voter registration deadline until the Thursday 

before Election Day for those affected by the storm. In Pennsylvania, the 

governor ordered the deadline for county election offices to receive applications 

for absentee ballots to be extended, on a county-by-county basis 

A Pro-Voter Agenda 

In the lead-up to the 2012 election, the fight against vote suppression laws and 

the threat of voter intimidation and harassment consumed enormous amounts 

of time and energy for pro-voter organizations. As important as that battle 

was, the real problem with the American voting process remains - as it has 

been for years -- that too many eligible people don't participate at all because 

of unnecessary red tape around the voting process. Now that we have beaten 

back some of the worst attempts at voter exclusion (and we will continue to 

fight them), it is time to move toward pro-voter reforms that welcome 

Americans into the voting process and create greater access to the ballot box. 

Such reforms must begin with the voter registration process, which remains the 

biggest structural barrier to full participation. 

Prior to the election, approximately S 1 million eligible Americans were 

still not registered to vote. This represents almost one in four eligible 

persons, disproportionately low-income voters, people of color, and 

younger Americans. Among eligible voters, some 30 percent of African 

Americans, 40 percent of Hispanics, 4S percent of Asian Americans, and 

41 percent of young adults (age 18-24), were not registered to vote in 

the historic 2008 election. 
145 

• In the 2008 elections, the voting rate for all eligible persons of voting age 

was only 64 percent, while the voting rate for people who were registered 

to vote was 90 percent - showing that registration is key to turnout. 

• In many states, pre-election registration deadlines of 25-30 days prior to 

the election have not been updated for decades; such deadlines may have 

been adopted long before the age of the Internet or computers, and no 

longer make sense in today's world. 

• In the 2008 election, 2 to 3 million registered voters were prevented from 

voting because of various administrative problems, and 9 million eligible 

Americans were not registered because of residency rules or registration 

deadlines. 

While there are certainly social and cultural reasons for low participation, there 

are legal changes that can be made that will make a significant impact on 

participation rates. 

SAME DAY VOTER REGISTRATION 

The single most effective change we can make is to allow for Same Day 

Registration. Eleven states, plus the District of Columbia, have now adopted 

Same Day Registration in order to ensure that eligible voters are not turned 

away because of errors with their registrations or failure to register in advance 

of Election Day. Same Day Registration eliminates arbitrary pre-election 

deadlines and allows voters to register and vote on the same day, making it a 

more convenient one-stop process and ensuring that eligible individuals who 

are not on the lists can register to vote, or correct inaccurate existing 

registration information. Same Day Registration means that voters no longer are 

without recourse when faced with registration problems that threaten their 

rig ht to vote. 

Same Day Registration increases political participation, without undue costs or 

administrative burdens. States that allow Same Day Registration have 

consistently led the nation in voter participation. Indeed, the top five states for 

voter turnout in 2008 all had Same Day Registration, and average voter turnout 

was seven percentage points higher in Same Day Registration states in the 2008 

presidential elections. 
146 

Experts have projected substantial voter turnout increases in states that have 

considered adopting Same Day Registration, with average voting projected to 

rise by over 4 to nearly 9 percent. Even greater increases are estimated for 

young people, low-income populations, people of color, newly naturalized 

citizens, and those who have recently changed residences. 

OTHER REFORMS TO MODERNIZE VOTER REGISTRATION 

In addition to Same Day Registration, we need a modernized voter registration 

system in which eligible citizens interacting with the government will be asked 

if they consent to being registered to vote, and will be added to the rolls 

through a paperless process if they do. This shifts the administrative burden off 

of the individual voter and onto the government to register eligible citizens to 

vote. 

Voter registration should become portable and permanent for persons who 

move within a state, by automatic updates to registration records as citizens 

change their address. Because all states now are required to have statewide 

voter registration databases, there should be no need for persons to register 

anew each time they move within a state. 

BLOCKING THE BULLIES: LIMITING CHALLENGES AND PREVENTING VOTER 

INTIMIDATION 

Every election cycle we have political parties, groups and individuals taking it 

upon themselves to try to knock people off the voter registration list and 

challenge Americans' right to vote at the polls based on flawed and often 

discriminatory targeting. This problem threatened to be much worse this year 

with the efforts of True the Vote and similar organizations to recruit thousands 

of challengers. Unwarranted challenges to the right to vote, and behavior that 

creates disruption and intimidation at the polling place need to end. 

As Demos made clear in Bullies at the Ballot Box the procedure of making and 

adjudicating challenges to a voter's qualifications should be designed more 

explicitly to protect a voter's right to vote. States could quite easily eliminate 

the problem of registered Americans showing up at the polls to find that their 
147 

right to vote has been challenged by prohibiting Election Day challenges by 

private individuals. If some states wanted to preserve a voter protective 

procedure for challenging voters on Election Day, they could reserve that power 

for an Election Judge to administer. 

If states allow challenges by private individuals, a person who wants to 

challenge another voter's right to vote should be required to have personal 

knowledge of the cause for which they are challenging that voter. Returned mail 

should not be considered prima facie evidence to sustain a challenge. 

People who seek to jeopardize the voting rights of another citizen should at the 

very least have to sign their challenge as an oath. They should declare under 

penalty of perjury that the "statement of facts are true and based on my own 

personal knowledge." 

The burden of proof must rest on the challenger to establish a legitimate basis 

for the challenge, and there should never be a presumption that a challenged 

voter is ineligible. The tie has to go to the voter. The challenged voter should 

be able to vote a regular ballot if she answers the poll workers' questions 

regarding eligibility or signs an affidavit affirming her eligibility. 

There are also steps we can take to strengthen protections against intimidating 

behavior at the polls, beyond just voter challenges. Poll watchers or poll 

observers should not be allowed to interfere with voters inside the polling 

place. Elections officials should have statutory authority to reject anyone 

interfering with the orderly conduct of elections, and interfering with the 

orderly conduct of elections should be prohibited by law. 

Finally, deceptive practices meant to burden a person's right to vote should be 

made a crime. The Voting Rights Act already prohibits intimidation, threats, or 

coercion with respect to the exercise of the right to vote. However, we need 

more specific legal protections against insidious practices such as making calls 

telling people they can vote by phone if they have been long-time voters, and 

pretending to record their vote by phone; voters being told that if they have an 

outstanding traffic ticket, or unpaid child support obligations, they cannot vote 
148 

and may even be arrested at the polling place; and calls telling voters that their 

polling station has moved when it hasn't. Federal law should enable the Justice 

Department to prosecute people for these types of deceptive practices, and give 

voters who have been harmed the right to sue to stop the deceptive practices. 

LONG LINES 

A modern democracy should not depend upon the willingness of eligible voters 

to stand in line for hours (in some states, in excess of three, four, five or six 

hours) in order to exercise the right to vote. Many voters who have jobs that 

depend on strict attendance simply cannot exercise their fundamental right to 

vote when wait times approach such extremes. Florida was a prime example in 

the 2012 election the state's Republican leadership decided to reduce early 

voting hours that had been critical to allowing communities of color to vote, 

especially on the Sunday before Election Day. The long lines noted above in 

Florida and elsewhere confirm the need for states to provide early voting in 

order to avoid logjams on Election Day. North Carolina could be a model for 

this; North Carolina allows Same Day Registration during early voting - people 

who come to early voting sites are able to register and vote on the same day 

during the early voting period. This is a tremendous win-win for voters. When 

North Carolina first implemented Same Day Registration in the 2008 election, 

over 250,000 voters took advantage of it and used it to register and vote on the 

same day. 

LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE 

We must ensure that Latino, Asian, and Native American voters get the 

assistance they ought to receive if this is to be a fully participatory democracy. 

Existing mandates regarding language assistance must be better enforced. In 

addition, though many states provide election information and material on their 

websites in alternative languages, even some that are covered by the language 

translation requirements of Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act do not; as web 

use becomes increasingly prevalent across a wide spectrum of groups, the 

parties should advocate measures that require states to do so. All states should 

be strongly encouraged to provide web-based information and materials, such 

as registration forms, in alternative languages known to be commonly used. 

Several states already do this: for example, Minnesota provides voter 
149 

registration forms in Hmong, Spanish, Somali, Russian, and Vietnamese. Iowa 

provides forms in Spanish, Vietnamese, Lao, and Bosnian. This is an easy, 

inexpensive way to get more information and easier access to limited-English 

speakers and should be done elsewhere. 

CONCLUSION 

The last two years saw a tremendous battle for voting rights supporters, with 

laws being passed in a tidal wave that were designed to suppress the votes of 

millions of voters. At the end of the day, the American people and American 

democracy won. Despite it all, because of the efforts of advocates and the 

strength and courage of the voters, the American people made their voices 

heard. But there is much left to do to ensure we become a more inclusive and 

representative democracy. That work begins today. 
150 

Written Testimony by 

Kenneth W. Detzner 

Secretary of State 

Florida Department of State 

On 

liThe State of the Right to Vote After the 2012 Election" 

United States Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary 

December 26, 2012 
151 

Thank you Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley and the members of the Senate Judiciary 

Committee for allowing me to submit a testimony on the current state of elections in Florida 

and the preparations being made to further improve voter accessibility and overall fairness in 

elections. 

I am fortunate to be serving as Florida's Secretary of State and therefore the state's Chief of 

Elections for a second time. In addition to the privilege it is to again serve the people of Florida, 

a second appointment has given me a unique perspective to see and experience how Florida's 

election system has changed since my last appointment nearly 10 years ago, and specifically 

how Florida elections have become more accessible to voters. 

Today, I am proud to report that Florida is one of only three southeastern states, and one of 

only 26 states nationwide, that offers both early voting and no-excuse absentee voting. This 

flexibility for voters in the 2012 General Election allowed more than 2.4 million Floridians to 

vote "early" and nearly 2.4 million Floridians to vote absentee - a Florida election record. 

During the 2012 General Election, more Floridians voted than in any election in our state's 

history, with more than 8.S million Floridians casting a ballot. The array of improvements to 

Florida's election system during the last 10 years certainly contributed to this historic election. 

But while the record vote total was a tremendous achievement, we intend to do better. Florida 

Governor Rick Scott has already tasked me with making preparations to ensure Florida's voting 

system is the most fair and accessible elections system in the United States. 

Since Election Day, I have been traveling the state and seeking out the opinions of Florida's 

supervisors of elections to get their input on how to improve Florida's election system. I have 

also been in close contact with other knowledgeable Floridians, among them the Miami-Dade 

County Mayor who created a local task force to analyze the election and make 

recommendations. Additionally, I have asked my staff to do their own thorough assessment of 

the election. These efforts will ensure our recommended improvements reflect a variety of 

opinions that include local and statewide perspectives. 

My fact-finding efforts are not yet complete, but there are already areas that have been 

identified for improvement. The most prominent and widely-cited issue for improvement 

involves taking further steps to increase the accessibility of Florida elections. There is no reason 

Floridians should have to wait hours in line to vote. 

Several factors appear to have contributed to Florida's long lines at the polling places. These 

factors include a long ballot, fewer polling locations and a record number of voters. But these 

are all issues that can be corrected or be better anticipated during the planning process. I 

strongly support Governor Scott's call for bipartisan legislation that deals with the length of the 

ballot, the size of voting sites and the number of early voting days. Improvements in each of 

these areas will allow more Floridians to vote and to do so in a timelier manner. 

2 
152 

In addition to steps taken at the statewide level, I intend to hold local officials publicly 

accountable if they do not meet the needs of their constituents. The local administration of an 

election is a key component to the success of an election, and all but one of Florida's 67 county 

supervisors of elections are elected to make the best decisions for their county. But all of the 

supervisors have a responsibility to ensure fair elections. One county that doesn't properly 

serve its voters does a disservice for the entire state and has the potential to cloud the positive 

steps taken by the rest of the state to conduct a fair and accessible election. 

I can confidently say Florida conducted a fair and accessible election in 2012. But I am just as 

confident we can improve upon the election, because every election can be improved upon. 

Technology changes, needs change and experience encourages more innovation. When 

Governor Scott and the Florida Legislature recognized ways to improve our state's election 

system in 2011, the appropriate changes were made without delay. In 2013, Florida will make 

the right adjustments again because it's what Florida voters expect, need and deserve. 

In the last 10 years, I have witnessed continual improvements in Florida elections, and I know 

Florida will continue its tremendous progress. My goal is to be able to report to you in two 

years that Florida conducted the most fair and most accessible election in 2014. 

Florida is soon to be the third largest state in the nation. We do not intend to settle for good 

elections. We have a responsibility to conduct great elections. Elections are a symbol of our 

nation's freedom, and we need to show the world how great it is to live in a country with a 

government of the people, by the people and for the people. 

Thank you again for allowing me to submit a testimony on this very important issue to my state 

and our country. 

3 
153 

VIA E-MAIL 

December 26,2012 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy, Chair 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Leahy, and Members of the Committee: 

Forward Montana Foundation (FMF) thanks the Committee for holding this hearing on the state 

of the right to vote following the 2012 elections. We write to offer our insight and perspective on 

this cornerstone American right. 

FMF trains, mobilizes, and educates the next generation of civic leaders for the State of 

Montana. With the decline in civic education through public schools, organizations like ours 

have taken on an increased role in developing the citizenship habits of the youth in our state. 

In 2012 alone, Forward Montana Foundation mobilized over 530 volunteers and helped 11,421 

Montanans register to vote, a number that includes more than 1.5% of the total population of 

our state. In fact, we must acknowledge that some of the problems we highlight are a result of 

renewed interest in our democracy. After waning participation in the mid-90S, registration and 

turnout have risen back to levels previously seen in the 1970s. 

Earlier this month, Montana District Court Judge Stewart Stadler wrote, "[nhe right to vote and 

to have that vote recorded is a fundamental right". (Helena IR, "Recount ordered in schools 

superintendent race 

," Dec. 7, 2012). Unfortunately, inadequate resources, poorly drafted laws, and election 

administration errors threaten to disenfranchise and deny these rights to many Montanans. 

This year, in the final weeks of the election and on Election Day itself, FMF fielded hundreds of 

inquiries from voters, many of whom we helped register or re-register to vote. Their concerns 

ranged from never receiving absentee ballots to inaccurate information provided through the 

Montana Secretary of State's website provided to allow voters to access information. In addition, 

on Election Day, FMF staff and volunteers helped provide information regarding polling place 

location to hundreds of confused voters directed to the county elections office in Missoula, MT, 

where our office is based. 

The challenges around maintaining and protecting our right to vote largely fall within three 

categories: 1) out-of-date laws related to voter registration, mail and early voting, and polling 

place access; 2) inadequate resources and poor management of available resources to 

administer elections; and 3) inadequate safeguards against malicious attempts to suppress 
154 

FORW~I~~QNI\ F 0 UNO A T ION 

eligible votes. 

In Montana, voter registration forms and request forms for absentee ballots (with the exception 

of overseas voters) must be prepared and submitted on paper. The reliance on paper increases 

costs from data entry, increases the likelihood of data errors due to sloppy handwriting, and 

increases the workload for proper implementation of the National Voter Registration Act. In 

addition, simple generational expectations are not being met. Many of the young adults we 

encounter while helping voters register simply state that they will register online, often not 

understanding that in many states this option is unavailable. 

With a significant uptick in participation in vote-by-mail, Montana has considered shifting entirely 

away from polling place-based elections. In the meantime, increased polling place consolidation 

has been motivated at the county level by a lack of financial and human resources. This 

consolidation of polling places has highlighted a significant concern with shifts to mail elections, 

especially if implemented without standards regarding availability of free ballot drop boxes. 

Historically disenfranchised populations such as American Indians are very likely to live great 

distances from county seats, increasing the chances that they'll face burdens to participate in 

elections under polling place consolidation or mail balloting. 

This lack of resources is not entirely the fault of local governments. Many of the highest cost 

elections include significant federal and state questions, especially with an expansion in the 

number of ballot measures being referred by legislators and citizens. These questions can cost 

significant resources, but generally come with little to no financial support for ongoing election 

administration. Meanwhile, counties are expected to comply with state laws that may not 

prioritize efficient and secure election administration as much as partisan desires to shape the 

electorate. Despite our concern that current resources are inadequate, there is some indication 

that resources are also poorly spent. Election offices spend significant money on mailings and 

billboards to educate people about voting issues without much evidence that these expensive 

communication methods accomplish much in terms of informing the public. 

Finally, the right to vote is not threatened simply by a sometimes chaotic and dysfunctional 

public system. It also frequently comes under attack by outside partisan interests. Shortly after 

8pm on Election Day, as roughly 275 people waited in line to vote, two poll watchers threatened 

to challenge every person remaining in line (Missoulian, "Poll Watchers Challenge All LateRegistering Voters in Missoula," Nov. 6, 2012). This effort comes on the heels of a high profile 

effort in 2008 by the Montana Republican Party to challenge nearly 6,000 voters including 

one World War II hero and one deploying soldier, both properly registered, on the apparent 

basis of living in highly Democratic counties (TPM, "Montana GOP Targets War Hero in Voter 

Challenge," Oct. 6, 208). None of these challenges resulted in legal consequences despite 

sowing confusion, carrying virtually no chance of success, and imposing significant burdens 

upon election administration. 
155 

FORW~,~gNj\ F 0 UNO A T ION 

Addressing these issues should not raise partisan concerns. Improving the efficiency and 

accuracy of our registration and voting systems should strengthen the security of the system 

while also making it easier to audit for deficiencies. While we agree that we must safeguard 

against voter fraud, we must be equally vigilant about malicious efforts to deny eligible 

Americans' right to vote. 

Thank you for your consideration of our comments on the issue of the right to vote. 

Andrea Marcoccio, 

Executive Director 

Forward Montana Foundation 
156 

TESTIMONY OF 

THE LAWYERS' COMMITTEE 

FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 

SUBMITTED TO: 

THE U.S. SENATE 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

On 

to the 

December 19, 2012 
157 

Testimony Submitted by Tanya Clay House 

Public Policy Director, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 

Before the U.S. Senate Committee on the judiciary 

to 

Chairman Leahy and Ranking member Grassley, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights 

Under Law appreciates this opportunity to provide testimony on the critical matter of our 

electoral system. The 2012 election demonstrated to us that many Americans are willing to go 

beyond any reasonable expcctation in order to participate in their civil duty of voting; however it 

also showed us that election officials have much work to do to make surc that all eligible voters 

are able to cast a ballot and that voters are not SUbjected to unnecessary or malicious barricrs to 

the ballot. The fact that in many states, voters were forccd to wait in line for hours on end is 

unacceptable Through the non-partisan Election Protection coalition, we were able to documcnt 

a great deal of useful information that we hope will provide a foundation for nccessary 

improvcmcnts in our electoral system. This testimony will discuss some of these points and 

includes a Preliminary Report ofthc data collectcd by the Election Protection coalition's efforts 

during the recent 2012 Presidential Election. 

BACKGROUND 

The Lawyers' Committee was founded in 1963 following a meeting in which Prcsident John F. 

Kennedy chargcd the private bar with the mission of providing legal services to address racial 

discrimination. We continue to work with private law firms as well as public interest 

organizations to advance racial equality in our country by increasing educational opportunities, 

fair employment and business opportunities, community development, fair housing, 

environmental health and criminal justice, and meaningful participation in the electoral process. 

Indeed, since our inception, voting rights has been at thc center of our work. As part of our 

voting and elections work, we are also leaders in the Election Protection coalition. Election 

Protection works throughout thc elcction cycle to expand access to our democracy for all eligible 

Americans, educates and empowers voters through various tools, including the 1-866-0URVOTE, 1-888-VE-Y-VOTA and 888-API-VOTE hotlines, collects data about the real problems 

with our clection system, and puts a comprehensive support structure in place on Election Day. 

Since its inception, the 1-866-0UR-VOTE hotline has received calls from over half a million 

voters. Most recently, the Election Protection hotline received ovcr 170,000 calls from voters 

seeking information and assistance during the 2012 Election cyele. As a supplement to this 

testimony. we have included a Preliminary Report of Election Protection that highlights the 

program for the 2012 Election cycle. The final report will be released in January 2013. 

2 
158 

Major Issues of Concern 

Throughout the year prognosticators and pundits kept searching for this year's version of the 

hanging chad that would come to define the 2012 elections. It turns out it wasn't clairvoyance 

that was necessary to predict the problems that would most plague this year's election, but rather 

an understanding of recent history (or a quick read of Election Protection's previous four postelection reports). Because the breakdowns that most bedeviled election officials and led to 

problems for voters in 2012 weren't new; many of the problems mirrored past years: voters 

turned away or being forced to cast a provisional ballot due to problems with our antiquated 

voter registration system, inadequately trained poll workers misapplying voter ID laws or 

mismanaging polling sites, confusion over polling locations, problems with absentee voting, long 

lines, and deceptive and intimidating practices. The true tragedy in all of this is that our elected 

leaders had opportunities to fix these problems and too many of them chose another path that 

only exacerbated the situation. 

Voting Registration 

This hcaring is critical because Congress must come together in a bi-partisan way to ensure that 

all Americans are able to participate in our country's democracy in a meaningful way. As this 

testimony will show, it is imperative that our voter registration be modernized. The Lawyers' 

Committee took thousands of calls prior to Election Day answering registration questions alone. 

Voter registration problems led to countless additional issues during the election including the 

overuse of provisional ballots and ultimately the disenfranchisement of countless voters. 

Early Voting 

In addition to modernizing our registration system, it is critical that we continue to expand 

options for early voting. As documented through the Election Protection Hotline and on the 

ground efforts, limiting early voting only serves to create massive voter confusion and 

disenfranchisement at the polling place. 

Poll Worker Training 

This testimony highlights the ongoing problems with the lack of poll worker training and poll 

worker confusion at the polls. This resulted in numerous errors ultimately disenfranchising 

voters, particularly those with disabilities, low-income voters, students and the elderly. 

3 
159 

Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation 

Modernizing voting registration and expanding early voting practices is only a part of the puzzle. 

It is also critical that Congress address the problem of deceptive election practices. During the 

2012 election deceptive practices unfortunately continued to playa prevalent role in confusing 

voters regarding their voting rights, including time, manner and place of voting as well as false 

information regarding who is able to vote. For example, in North Carolina, voters received phone 

calls informing them they would be able to "vote by phone." Other examples include the 

hundreds of suppressive billboards erected in predominately African American and Latino 

communities in certain states. These types of practices unfairly and maliciously deprive eligible 

voters of their right to vote. More of these deceptive practices are document in the attached 

Preliminary Report and in the upcoming Final Report to be released in January of 2013. 

Since the 20 I 0 mid elections, many state legislatures passed new laws requiring that voters show 

restrictive photo identification in order to get a ballot. However, litigation against several of 

these laws was successful and courts struck down or expanded the identification options. These 

laws passed created mass confusion at the polls and exacerbated long lines. Some states did not 

meet their obligations and provided Voters with limited education and information in many cases 

about the change in voter ID requirements. In addition, many poll workers were also confused 

about what identification voters were required to provide. This kind of confusion results in 

handing out unnecessary provisional ballots as well as adding wait time to vote. States like 

Pennsylvania experienced massive confusion on Election Day and this is highlighted more in the 

attached Preliminary Report. 

Highlighted States of Concern 

In addition to widespread issues across various states, we are especially concerned about several 

states that seemed to have particularly unique or acute problems including unreasonably long 

lines, widespread poor election administration, heightened instances of deceptive practices and 

widespread confusion regarding new election laws. While we discuss other states more in our 

"Preliminary Election Protection Report," we wanted to highlight a few states - Florida, 

Michigan and Ohio which remain at the top of our list of states that must address their election 

law deficiencies prior to the 2014 midterm elections in order to prevent disenfranchisement. 

4 
160 

Florida 

This year, voters in Florida had to navigate a series of obstacles including incredibly long lines, 

absentee ballot issues, poorly trained poll workers, and inadequate election administration. 

Election Protection had over 500 volunteers in Miami-Dade, Broward, Hillsborough, Orange and 

Leon County to help and protect voters. In 2011, Florida passed HB 1355, a law that shortened 

early voting days, created extra steps for voters who moved to new counties and limited third 

party voter registration. The third party voter registration restrictions were held unconstitutional; 

however, the shortened early voting days and confusion over the additional requirements for 

voters who relocated to different counties compounded the problems that had already existed in 

Florida's tumultuous elections history. 

Early Voting Highlights 

Voters across Florida faced incredibly long lines during early voting and on Election Day. In 

Miami-Dade County, voters waited on line at the North Miami Library for over 8 hours on the 

Saturday before Election Day with the last voters voting after midnight. Despite repeated calls 

for Governor Scott to extend early voting to inelude the Sunday before Election Day, he refused. 

Miami-Dade attempted to hclp the problem by allowing voters to cast absentee ballots in person 

on Sunday. However, shortly after voting began, the Supervisor of Elections shut down voting 

after being overwhelmed by the number of voters. After hundreds of voters waiting outside 

protested, the Supervisor reopened the office for voting. 

Election Day Highlights 

On Election Day, Floridians continued to face long lines with the longest lines in Orange 

County, Miami-Dade County and Broward County. In Miami-Dade County, voters were 

incredibly determined to have their vote counted that they continued to vote after the presidential 

election was called. 

>- In Orlando, at the Lake Nona YMCA precinct, over 100 people were still in line to 

vote at 9:30 p.m. In Broward County, voters waited for hours and until at least IOpm 

in Tarmac and Weston. 

>- In Miramar, tbe long lines became even more problematic when precinct 27 ran out 

of ballots. Additional ballots didn't arrive until almost 7 p.m. 

*More information with be in the forthcoming Final Election Protection Report in January 

of 2013 

Voters with Disabilities 

Voters with disabilities faced huge problems. During early voting and on Election Day, we 

received numerous calls from voters who were unable to stand in long lines. When they asked a 

5 
161 

poll worker for assistance, or for a place to sit down while they waited for their turn in line, they 

were told there was nothing that could be done. 

~ A diabetic voter in Orlando, who had recent foot surgery, went to vote in Orange 

County. When she asked for a place to sit down while she waited, she was told there 

were no extra chairs. The voter had to stand in line for three and a half hours. 

~ A voter in Miami-Dade was unable to stand on the four hour line, when he asked for 

a place to sit down, he was told there was no room and to come back later. He came 

back twice before he was finally able to vote. Election Protection discussed these 

problems with the Supervisor's office but due to the restrictions on locations for 

early voting sites, there was not enough room at these locations to increase waiting 

areas for voters who could not wait in line. 

*More information with be in the forthcoming Final Election Protection Report in January 

of 2013 

Absentee Ballot Problems 

Voters were also plagued with absentee ballot issues. In Palm Beach, a printing error forced the 

county to hand copy 35,000 returned absentee ballots so they could be counted. When the 

county realized there was a problem, they halted sending out remaining absentee ballots but 

failed to notify voters who were waiting to receive them. In Broward County, we received 

numerous reports of voters who were not receiving the absentee ballots they had requested. For 

those who did not receive their absentee ballots, when they went to vote in person, they faced 

problems when poll workers attempted to determine if the voter had been sent the ballot. 

Another problem was the signature match requirement in Florida. Throughout the year, the 

Lawyers' Committee worked with state partners to educate voters on the signature match and to 

urge voters to update their signature. Despite these efforts, Election Protection received 

numerous calls from voters who received letters that their absentee ballot was rejected. It is 

estimated that 1-3% of absentee ballots were rejected. 

Poll Worker Confusion 

Additionally, poll workers were confused over the new requirements for voters who moved to a 

different county. Voters who moved to a new county and failed to update their address were 

required to vote provisional ballots. This change did not impact voters who moved within their 

county. Across the state, voters who moved within their county were told by poll workers that 

they must vote a provisional ballot. Election Protection contacted Supervisors of Elections to 

notify them of this error. In some instances, the poll workers were reminded of the law, in 

others, the Supervisors did not have the capability to reeducate them. 

6 
162 

Poll Location Confusion 

Voters faced confusion when they voted in polling locations that housed more than one precinct 

and when polling locations moved. In Hillsborough, voters arrived to a polling location for three 

precincts and didn't know which precinct line to stand on. The site only had three computers for 

a voter to look up their precinct number; however, the computers ran slowly and broke down 

during different times during the day. If a voter wai ted on the wrong precinct line, when they 

wcrc not on the list of voters for the precinct, the poll worker was supposcd to dircct them to thc 

right precinct, however, because of computer and phone problcms at the Hillsborough 

Supervisor's office, thcy were unable to do so. In our upcoming rcport, we will document 

examples of votcrs who were dirccted to the wrong polling place because of misinformation 

obtained at another polling place. 

Fortunately, when Election Protection spoke to the Hillsborough Supervisor of Election's office 

about problems with voters in thc wrong polling location, we asked if there was anything we 

could do to assist with this problem. The office encouraged us to ask votcrs arriving at the polls 

to chcck thc Election Protection App to make sure they were in the right polling location. This 

helpcd to ease the burden on the poll workers. 

Michigan 

On Election Day, Michigan voters were met with considerable disorganization, widespread 

machine failurcs, inadequate staffing, and long lines. Election Protection volunteers, in close 

collaboration with the Michigan Election Coalition, wcrc dcployed at precincts throughout the 

state including Detroit, Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Southfield, Oak Park, Pontiac, Flint, Saginaw, 

Dearborn, Hamtramck, Lansing, East Lansing, Allegan, Benton Harbor, and St. Joseph. 

Volunteers were also dispatchcd to Warren, Westland, and Taylor as needed. Voters suffered 

from a combination of resource deficits, poor planning by election officials, and legislative 

distractions that took focus away from the real problems voters face on Election Day. 

Long Lines 

Long lines were thc problcm of the day. In Wayne and Oakland counties voters experienced 

machine brcakdowns and malfunctions, long lines, and poor polling place management. Detroit 

had wait times that lasted sevcral hours. 

~ At thc Wayne County Community College polling sitc, a voter reported waiting in a 

Iinc that was 300 people deep and several other polling places had wait times of thrce 

hours or longer. 

~ An eldcrly couple in their eighties who had been standing in line for ovcr an hour 

asked to move to the front of the line, but wcre denied and left without voting. 

7 
163 

~ Long lines were also a persistent problem in in Battle Creek, Flint, Lansing, Saginaw, 

and Grand Rapids and many other smaller towns such as Hamtramck, Belleville, and 

Westland. 

*More information with be in the forthcoming Final Election Protection Report in January 

of 2013 

Election Protection volunteers helped alleviate lines by assisting voters to verify registration and 

polling place information, working with election officials to cut wait times, and even obtaining 

privacy screens so more voters could vote at one time. Midway through Election Day, Election 

Protection transitioned poll monitors in high-traffic polling locations out of their roles handing 

out voter rights information, and instead encouraging voters to stay in line. Many of them 

distributed coffee and snacks which were well-received by impatient and cold voters standing 

outside. 

Voting Machine Failures 

Contributing to the long lines were voting machine failures around the state. 

~ In East Lansing at the Vineyard Church polling site a paper jam in the ballot counter, 

caused poll workers to unlock the ballot box to place the ballots there for safekeeping 

until the machine was fixed and the ballots could actually be fed in. The voter, not 

trusting that process, waited until the machine was fixed to watch her ballot be fed to 

the vote machine, however the voter reported that most people around her were just 

putting their ballots in the ballot box but uncounted. 

~ Another voter from Oakland County reported that a voting machine rejected the ballot 

of a voter in front of her, that the vote counter did not go up when she entered hers, 

but did go up when voter behind her entered his. Again, the voter was concerned that 

her vote would not count. 

Machine problems were reported from Detroit, Taylor, Macomb County, Lake Charter, Bellville, 

Ypsilanti, Van Buren, Livonia, and other areas around the state. 

*More information with be in the forthcoming Final Election Protection Report in January 

of 2013 

Voter ID Problems 

One of the most frequent problems reported was with voters who were not being issued an 

identification affidavit in lieu of providing a photo ID, as required by Michigan law. In Royal 

Oak, Michigan, a voter reported that while she was waiting in a long line at the Emanuel Bethel 

Church polling location, a woman was standing outside shouting at the people in line, "Don't 

forget you need your ID to vote." When the voter asked a poll worker, the poll worker 

responded that it was true that voters need photo ID to vote, but when the voter persisted the poll 

8 
164 

worker finally admitted no ID was required. While the voter was ultimately able to vote without 

ID, many reports were received from voters who were being turned away because they did not 

have photo ID. This has been a recurring and significant problem every election since Michigan 

passed its photo ID law. This problem was reported in Detroit, Oakland County, Macomb 

County, Benton Harbor, Grand Rapids, Dearborn, Warren, and Waterford. 

Polling Location Confusion 

Election Protection volunteers attributed the disorganization to polling locations housing 

multiple precincts and inadequate signage and supervision to direct voters to the correct line. 

Much of the chaos and wait times at the polling locations were the result of poor organization 

and supervision of multi-precinct polling locations. Voters were extremely frustrated at the 

prospect of waiting in a two-hour line with no knowledge of whether they were standing in the 

correct line and many left in frustration. Disorganization at multi-precinct polling sites 

combined with malfunctioning machines and poorly trained poll workers became a recipe for 

chaos and voter frustration. It became obvious to Election Protection that more and better 

trained poll workers were needed. Election administration planning and contingency protocols 

were lacking in the face of equipment failures and ballot shortages. 

Voter Registration Problems 

Other widespread problems reported were from voters who had registered to vote but who were 

not showing up on the voter rolls at their polling place. This problem was reported from around 

the state with voters insisting they registered to vote. In some cases, Election Protection was 

able to verify a voter as properly registered even though they were not on the rolls. For 

instance: 

~ In Flint, a voter reported that she was told she was not registered even though she 

registered to vote in April 2011. She asked to vote a provisional ballot, but was 

turned away. Similar stories of poll workers refusing to issue provisional ballots were 

reported from voters in West Flint, Detroit, and Davison after waiting in line for 

hours. 

*More information with be in the forthcoming Final Election Protection Report in January 

of 2013 

Election Day Resources and Additional Concerns 

Several jurisdictions also ran out of election materials, including ballots and ballot applications. 

One caller reported in the city of Warren that their polling location ran out of ballots at 10:45 am. 

Election Protection volunteers were able to ensure that supplies were replenished before voters 

were turned away. 

9 
165 

Overall, Election Protection responded to over 500 calls and countless field volunteer alerts 

across the state, which had a significant impact on the experience of Michigan voters and the 

integrity of the election. In addition to Election Day assistance, Election Protection and the 

Michigan Election Coalition worked with clerks to identify counties in need ofresources -

including bilingual poll workers and encouraged trained volunteers to apply. 

Ohio 

While Election Day went smoothly for many of Ohio's voters, many others dealt with distinct 

and recurring voting problems. Issues with provisional ballots, voting machine failures, voters 

missing from the rolls, voter identification rules, and poll worker confusion were reported around 

the State. Some counties, like Cuyahoga County, were better organized and efficiently 

responded to issues as they came up on Election Day, while others, such as Summit County, 

suffered general disorganization at the polling locations with poll worker problems, inadequate 

staffing, ballot shortages, poor signage, and inadequate response to equipment failures. The 

Ohio Election Protection program took calls from around the state and administered 

comprehensive field programs with hundreds of volunteers monitoring polling locations in target 

counties that included Hamilton, Franklin, Cuyahoga, Montgomery, Lucas, Mahoning, and 

Trumbull. Election Protection also deployed field volunteers to Summit and Stark counties on 

Election Day to respond to recurring problems reported into the hotline. 

State Legislative Changes Caused Confusion at the Polls 

Well before Election Day, Ohio elections were marred by a series of election bills designed to 

change voting rules of the state. In early 2011 Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted announced a 

legislative proposal entitled "Ready 2012 and Beyond" (Ready 2012). Ready 2012 was a 

package of changes to Ohio's election laws that, among its numerous proposals, aimed to reduce 

the early voting period from 35 days to 16 days, limit the hours that county boards of elections 

were able to offer early voting on Saturdays, eliminate early voting on Sundays altogether, and 

eliminate the last three days of the early voting period. The cuts to early voting were extremely 

controversial due to the fact that early voting has become an extremely popular way for voters to 

cast their ballots, especially among Ohio's African American voters. In 2008, African American 

churches organized massive GOTV efforts on Sundays, popularly known as "Souls to the Polls," 

and the elimination of Sunday voting was regarded by many within the community as a racially 

motivated effort to suppress turnout because of perceived political ideologies. The legislation 

was also unpopular given the provision eradicating the last three days of early voting which had 

historically been the period with the highest voter turnout during the early voting period. In 

addition to the reductions in early voting, the Ready 2012 proposals would have reduced the 

absentee voting period from 35 to 21 days prior to an election, eliminated "Golden Week" which 

allows voters to register to vote and vote early at the same time, and prohibited county boards of 

10 
166 

election from encouraging absentee ballot participation by prohibiting counties from sending 

unsolicited absentee ballot applications, and from paying return postage on applications or votcd 

ballots. 

Unfortunately, HB 194 quickly passed through the Ohio legislature and was signed into law by 

Governor John Kasich. In response, voter advocates initiated an effort to put HB 194 to a 

referendum vote in the November 2012 election and were successful in obtaining enough 

signatures - over 250,000 certified signatures -effectively halting the effect of the law until after 

Election Day. Ultimately, a repcal bill was introduccd and SB 295 was the first bill in Ohio 

history that repealed a bill awaiting referendum by voters. 

The early voting fight, however, did not end with HB 194's repcaL A subsequent bill, HB 224, 

was enacted which separately eliminated the last three days of early voting for most of Ohio's 

voters and, when combined with the repeal of HB 194, established a more generous early voting 

deadline for military and overseas votcrs. A lawsuit filed by the Presidential campaign of 

Barack Obama (Obama for America or "OFA"), challenged the disparate early voting deadlines 

and sought to restore early voting for the three days prior to Election Day for all Ohio voters. In 

support of its challenge, OF A c1aimcd that "tens ofthousands of Ohio voters" would attempt to 

cast ballots on those days, and that early voters are disproportionately members of minority 

groups and the working class. To support these assertions, OF A cited election studies to 

estimate the minority component of the early in person voter universe that the proposed 

rcstrictions to the early in person voting period in Ohio disproportionately harm African 

Americans in Cuyahoga County, where ovcr half of early voters are estimated to be African 

Americans. Ultimately, these arguments and empirical reports factored into a fcderal judge's 

decision to grant OF A a preliminary injunction, thereby temporarily reinstating the prior Ohio 

early voting period. 

Finally, on August 15, 2012, in response to a series of tie votes submitted by boards of elections 

on the issue of extended early voting hours, which was widely offered by boards of election 

during the 2008 election, the Secretary of State issued Directive 2012-35, which effectively 

prohibited counties from offering any weekend voting hours whatsoever and limited the number 

of hours boards of election were able to offer early voting on weekdays beyond regular business 

hours. 

Voter ID Problems 

One of the most extensively reported problems statewide was too many provisional ballots being 

issued by widespread misapplication ofthe voter ID requirements specifically, forcing voters 

with valid driver's licenses to vote provisionally even though such voters were entitled to a 

regular ballot. Ohio law permits driver's licenses with outdated addresses to be used as an 

acceptable form of identification so long as the voter is properly registered at their current 

address. 

11 
167 

:Y A voter from Cincinnati reported that a poll worker at the Little Sisters of the Poor 

nursing home told him he had to vote provisionally because they would not accept his 

driver's license with his previous address, even though he was properly registered to 

vote at his current address. The voter was able to provide the additional proof and 

was given a regular ballot, but was but was concerned that other voters would be 

wrongly required to vote a provisional ballot. 

:Y This problem came up frequently in in Lucas, Montgomery Hamilton, Franklin, 

Cuyahoga, Stark and Summit counties. 

*More information with be in the forthcoming Final Election Protection Report in January 

of2013 

Voting Machine Failures 

Machine failures were a systemic problem on Election Day, with multiple reports from 

Cuyahoga, Hamilton, Lorain, Lucas, Montgomcry, Summit, and Franklin counties. Election 

Protection documented at least 10 polling locations in Cuyahoga County where there were 

machine breakdowns or malfunctions such as: 

:Y The Deborah Delisle Educational Center polling location in Cleveland Heights, where 

a voter reported that the optical scan machine was not working and she was instructed 

to put ballot in an emergency slot, which was overflowing with ballots. The voter 

was concerned her vote would not be count. This was not an unusual occurrence or 

concern reported by voters to Election Protection. 

The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections was responsive to machine issues as they arose, 

however the problems continued to occur throughout the day. For example: 

:Y In Canton, a voter reported that only three out of seven machines were printing out 

the verified paper record for voters, leading to longer lines. Election Protection 

worked with the Stark County Board of Elections, which deployed a technician to 

polling site and directed poll workers to issue emergency paper ballots in the interim. 

*More information with be in the forthcoming Final Election Protection Report in January 

of 2013 

Poll Worker Confosion 

Enlarging the problem of machine failures were poll workers who did not follow appropriate 

procedures when machine issues occurred, often leaving voters distressed that their vote would 

not count. For example: 

:Y A disabled veteran accidentally selected two choices on his ballot for President and 

the smudge was picked up by the machine, and gave him an option to recast the 

12 
168 

ballot. The poll worker hit the decline option to recast on the machine without the 

voter's permission, even though the voter wanted to recast his ballot. Under Ohio 

law, voters with spoiled ballots are entitled to cast three ballots. 

*More information with be in the forthcoming Final Election Protection Report in January 

of2013 

Long Lines 

Long lines were reported in in Summit, Cuyahoga, Warren, Franklin, and Montgomery counties. 

;. A caller from Summit County reported that voters were waiting for over two hours to 

vote at the Laurel Lake location, a retirement community, and that elderly voters were 

having trouble standing in line for that long. 

~ Adding to the delay was confusion among Ohio State student voters about their 

proper polling location who mistakenly believed the Ohio Union served all Ohio State 

University students. Election Protection deployed a team of volunteers to help verify 

the polling locations of students. 

Montgomery County in particular experienced much longer lines than in 2008. In addition to 

machine breakdowns and inefficiencies at the polling sites, Montgomery instituted the most far 

reaching precinct and polling place consolidation in the State after the 2008 presidential election. 

There were very few lines in 2008 and those that formed were only for a few minutes in the 

morning. This year, Election Protection visited at least ten locations that had lines in the 

mornings, half of which continued into the early afternoon. 

*More information with he in the forthcoming Final Election Protection Report in January 

of 2013 

Ineffective and Confusing Administrative Procedures 

Another issue identified in Cuyahoga and Franklin counties was inadequate matching protocols 

which identified a large number of voters who requested absentee ballots as unregistered, when 

they were in fact registered. Voting advocates worked with the Cuyahoga County Board of 

Elections to correct this with improved matching techniques and the Board followed up with 

these voters. However, the same deficient matching process is also potentially being employed 

by other counties to verify the eligibility of voters who cast provisional ballots. In response to 

these concerns, voting advocates worked with the Ohio Secretary of State's office to develop 

best practices for Boards of Election to use when matching voters to the voter file. 

Voter Registration Problems 

Finally, Election Protection received reports from around the state oflist maintenance problems 

with the voter registration list. A number of voters reported not being on the rolls even though 

13 
169 

they registered to vote. This problem was reported in Hamilton, Franklin, and Cuyahoga 

counties. For example: 

,. In Franklin County, voters reported they had Franklin County Board of Election 

registration cards verifying their precincts, but poll workers were unable to find them 

in the poll books. 

Election Protection observed that many of the voting problems experienced on Election Day are 

attributable to poll worker problems and inadequate training. Election Protection volunteers who 

attended the trainings stated that they were quick and did not provide adequate instructions to 

poll workers. 

*More information with be in the forthcoming Final Election Protection Report in January 

of 2013 

Policy Recommendations 

Overhaul the American Electoral System 

While the American electoral system is primarily controlled by the states, the federal government 

does have very important and substantial role to play in ensuring that the rights of all voters are 

protected. If the continuing problems of the recent elections are any guide, among other things, 

the modernization of the nation's voter registration system is long overdue. Such a structural 

overhaul would substantially decrease, ifnot eliminate, many of the problems just highlighted in 

this testimony and our Preliminary Election Protection Report. Onee again, as in previous 

elections, in 2012, a high pereentage--of all problems reported to Election Protection were a 

result of registration. Modernizing the registration system will not only improve the foundation 

of our democracy, it will allow communities to reinvest these resources in other critical 

funetions. Modernizing voter registration will make the American electoral system far more 

efficient and effective. 

Voter Registration Modernization 

This concept of voter registration modernization is a comprehensive approach to overhauling the 

primary way in which voters register, maintain and update their registration. This would include 

adopting such policies as automatic and penn anent registration and same-day voter registration. 

While this may simplistic, the reverberating effects of sueh ehanges are momentous. If 

implemented correctly, these basic changes eould help to correct the following problems almost 

immediately: under-registration of traditionally disenfranchised communities, including people 

of color, low ineome, students, elderly, people with disabilities and more; missing names from 

14 
170 

voter registration rolls; challenges to registration status and the misuse and overuse of 

provisional ballots because of clerical errors, voter change in residency or other issues. 

Currently, the primary vehicle that includes a version of such a policy prescription is the Voter 

Empowerment Act (YEA). Many Americans, particularly communities of color as well as other 

historically disenfranchised groups, face significant barriers preventing them from freely casting 

a ballot on Election Day. In order to ensure that all Americans can exercise their fundamental 

constitutional right to vote, the Voter Empowerment Act, introduced by Congressman John 

Lewis in June 2012, would make voter registration more accessible for all Americans and 

improve the integrity of our elections by creating greater accountability for election officials. By 

ensuring that eligible voters can participate on Election Day, the VEA will safeguard the vitality 

of our democracy and the Lawyers' Committee strongly supports this effort. 

Expand Early Voting Opportunities 

In addition to modernizing our registration system, it is critical that we continue to expand 

options for early voting. The long lines that were experienced in sevcral states during this 

election cycle demonstratc why it is important that expanded opportunities are crucial. Allowing 

people to excise their right to vote early helps to alleviate long lines on Election Day and 

prevents polls from having to stay open later than anticipated, which costs counties additional 

money. The Lawyers' Committee supports legislative options to expand such early voting 

opportunities. 

Election-Day Registration 

Voters may not realize that their registration is not updated before Election Day, at which point, 

in states without same day registration, these voters will be unable to take any remedial steps to 

be able to cast a ballot. By utilizing already-existing databases with updated information about, 

for example, a voter's current address, states may make it easier for voters to ensure that their 

registration remains current. Additionally, same day registration permits voters to update their 

registration or even register for the first time on Election Day. Other reforms such as online 

registration make voting more accessible for eligible voters. 

Criminalize Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation 

Voters are often given false information about elections from parties who wish to manipulate the 

result of that election. Perpetrators of deceptive practices and voter intimidation disenfranchise 

voters by deliberately disseminating misinformation about an election or exercising coercive 

influence over a votcr's choice of candidate. Most states do not have laws addressing deceptive 

practices, or, in states that do have these laws, they are not enforced due to ambiguity about the 

types of deceptive practices they cover. Deceptive practices and voter intimidation prevent 

elections from being an accurate reflection of the peoples' electoral choice. 

15 
171 

For these reasons and more, Congress should immediately pass a law that provides counties and 

states with the tools necessary properly punish dirty tricks and voter intimidation. Again, as 

highlighted in this report, deceptive voter practices include the creation and distribution of 

resources listing the wrong date or time for the election, giving inaccurate information about 

voter ineligibility, or promoting false endorsements of candidatcs. Sadly, these dirty tricks 

continue to proliferate every election cycle. Current law is clearly deficient in protecting voters' 

rights against these onerous practices. There nceds to be a clear civil action to an additional 

deterrent and give more resources for enforcement officials to go after perpetrators of voter 

deception. Of course, once the false information has been disseminated, the damage has been 

done. A mechanism must be put in place to ensure the government quickly and widely 

publicizes corrective information so voters are not fooled by this activity. 

On December 14,2011, Senators Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced 

the bill, Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2011, to create tough 

criminal and civil pcnalties for those who use voter deception tacticsl

. This bill will clarify the 

definition of deceptive practices for law enforcement officials, making it casier for these officials 

to prosecute perpetrators of deceptive practices. Additionally, the bill's criminal provisions 

create deterrence measures to prevent future acts intended to intimidate and mislead voters, and 

also ensure that pcrpetrators face real consequences when they mislead voters. Finally, the bill 

will also require the federal government to investigate allegations of deceptive practices. This is 

necessary so that it can take an active role in protecting voters against false information 

regarding the ability to participate in elections by immediately taking action and publicizing 

correctivc information if it receives credible reports of deceptive voting practices. The 

immediate dissemination of this information will mitigate the potentially disenfranchising 

confusion pcrpetrators of these actions are trying to sow. 

This legislation sheds light on the severity of deceptive voter practices that threaten our 

democracy and recognizes the power of Congress to prohibit discriminatory tactics in elections 

as stated under the Fifteenth Amendment and the 1965 Voting Rights Actl6 . The Deceptive 

Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2011 has been endorsed by the Lawyers' 

Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and we urge its swift passage. 

Prohibit Voter Caging 

Some individuals or organizations targeting particular groups of voters practice "voter caging," 

in which the individual or group sends out a non-forwardable mass mailing, challenging voters 

whose mailings are returned. The Lawyers' Committee supports legislation like that introduced 

by Senator Whitehouse that would institute criminal penalties for individuals engaging in voter 

caging, protecting voters from disenfranchisement on Election Day. 

1 Dp-ed piece by u.s. Senator Ben Cardin "Deceptive Voter Practices Cannot Be Tolerated" available at 

http://cardin.senate.gov/newsroom/news/deceptive-voter-practices-cannot-be-tolerated 

16 
172 

Conclusion 

Federal funding is desperately needed. Election officials are under-resourced and overworked. Voting equipment regularly malfunctions and many jurisdictions' machines are at the f 

offices need to be professionally staffed at the proper capacity. Technology must be adopted to 

create greater efficiencies across the system, especially for modernizing voter registration. Voter 

education is so minimal that it has little effect to actually infornling voters of the labyrinth of 

rules and procedures they must follow to exercise their right to vote. Even as Ohio Secretary of 

State Jon Husted recently stated, "You can't run elections on the cheap." Democracy is at ilie 

very core of how we define ourselves as Americans. Election funding should be a top priority 

for our nation's leaders. 

It is far past time that we take advantage of advances in technology to modernize our system of 

registration in order to save money, ensure all voters are able to participate in our democracy, 

and improve voter confidence. An opportunity has been created for Congress to lead in a bipartisan fashion and set our country on the course to a truly accessible and secure system of 

elections. The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law looks forward to working wiili 

leaders on both sides of the aisle to make iliat opportunity a reality. 

17 
173 

The leadership Conference 

on Civil and Human Rights 

1629 

Hoor 

VV£;lshjr.gto~\ DC 

20006 

, , r" The Leadership 

Conference 

STATEMENT OF 

WADE HENDERSON, PRESIDENT & CEO 

THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

"THE STATE OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE AFTER THE 2012 ELECTION" 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

DECEMBER 19, 2012 

Chainnan Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and Members of the Committee: I am Wade 

Henderson, president & CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Thank 

you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record regarding the state of the right to vote 

after the 2012 election. 

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights is a coalition charged by its diverse 

membership to promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States. 

Founded in 1950 by A. Philip Randolph, Arnold Aronson, and Roy Wilkins, The Leadership 

Conference works in support of policies that further the goal of equality under law through 

legislative advocacy and public education. The Leadership Conference's more than 200 national 

organizations represent persons of color, women, children, organized labor, persons with 

disabilities, the elderly, gays and lesbians, and major religious groups. 

The Leadership Conference believes that voting in a democracy is a critical civil right. In fact, 

the right to vote is fundamental to the attainment and preservation of every other civil right. It is 

essential to our democracy. Indeed, it is the language of our democracy. 

Our communities fought hard to secure the right to vote, and to eliminate the barriers to voting --

the poll taxes, literacy tests, and brutal physical intimidation that marred our nation's history. We 

fought for the passage of the Voting Rights Act, and for each of the overwhelmingly successful 

reauthorization efforts. Today's efforts at disfranchisement, while more subtle, are no less 

pernicious. 

A National Pattern of Voter Suppression 

Over the past few years, there has been an assault waged against our constitutional right to vote 

that is nothing short ofa concerted effort to decide the outcome of the 2012 elections before any 

ballot was cast. 
174 

Page 2 of5 7'" I, The 

These efforts were part of a coordinated, insidious effort to restrict voting rights across the 

country led by the corporate-sponsored American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), among 

others, which provided model voter suppression legislation to state legislators. 

Since the 2010 midterm elections, state legislators across the country have introduced and passed 

an unprecedented number of voting measures that threaten our democracy by suppressing voter 

participation. Recently erected barriers included photo ID requirements, shortened early voting 

periods, limits on poll worker assistance, proof of citizenship requirements, restrictions on same 

day and community-based registration, and the disenfranchisement of formerly incarcerated 

persons. The Brennan Center for Justice, in its report "Voting Law Changes in 2012," estimated 

that more than five million Americans would be disenfranchised by these laws.] 

In 2011 alone, voter suppression bills were introduced in 34 states and laws passed in 14 of those 

states. This past year, legislation was pending in 32 states, which included new voter ID 

proposals in 14 states, proposals to strengthen existing voter ID laws in ten states, and bills in 

nine states to amend the new voter ID laws passed in 20 II. The governors of both Pennsylvania 

and Virginia signed new voter ID bills passed by their states' legislatures. As the Brennan Center 

for Justice noted, the states that have passed such laws account for 171 electoral-college votes, 

two-thirds of the 270 needed to win the presidency.2 

Voting rights advocates fought these laws in all imaginable ways. Groups such as Color of 

Change put pressure on corporations with membership in ALEC, resulting in almost a dozen 

high profile corporation and foundation withdrawals from ALEC, and forcing ALEC to disband 

its Public Safety and Elections Task Force, which provided the model Voter ID bills. 

While we can only hope that ALEC will truly move away from its attempts at voter suppression, 

such laws continue to proliferate and we have seen a continuation of state-sponsored suppressive 

voting legislation throughout the country as state legislative session begin to resume. Many 

advocates worked state by state, educating voters, collecting signatures, filing lawsuits, and 

lobbying the state legislatures to reverse this damaging trend. The League of Women Voters and 

the ACLU brought suit in Wisconsin challenging voter ID and registration changes,3 Project 

Vote, Advancement Project, Fair Elections Legal Network, and Latino Justice PRLDEF filed suit 

in Florida challenging purges of voter rolls;4 the Advancement Project along with local 

advocates, filed suit challenging Pennsylvania'S photo ID law;5 and the Brennan Center for 

Justice and Common Cause Colorado challenged the Colorado Secretary of State's effort to limit 

which voters got ballots mailed to them.6 In Wisconsin and Ohio, as the election neared, 

anonymously-funded billboards appeared in predominantly low-income and minority 

1 Brennan Center for Justice. "Voting Law Changes in 2012" 

http://v.w\-\'.brennancentcr.org/contentirc50urce/voting law changes in 2012! 

2 Jd. 

3 http://colorlincs_com!archivcs/2012/03iiudg~ halts wisconsins touQ.hcst~irHheMnation voter id law.html 

4 http://\\\v\V,projectvotC".orgfnc\Ysrclcascs.html'!start=30 

5 bl1p:J!www.citiLcnscaILnetJpublil:-accountabilitv!pa-votlng-rkhts-advocates-fi!e-suit-o\.er-voter-id-la\;I. .. -and-s~ek-injunction-toblock-enfbrcemcnt-for-no\-election! 

6 hUp:I!\v\vw.brennancenter.org./contentlresource/gessler v. johnson! 
175 

Page 3 of 5 

neighborhoods threatening "Voter Fraud is a Felony! up to 3 Yz years & $10,000 Fine." National 

advocacy groups banded together to pressure the billboard companies to remove the signs, and 

then funded countervailing billboards urging citizens to vote. 7 In Ohio, after the state legislature 

passed HB 194, a law that would have severely limited early and absentee voting, prohibited poll 

workers from assisting voters, and made it more difficult for local boards of elections to promote 

early voting to registered voters, advocates organized in massive numbers to fight these 

restrictive measures. The citizens of Ohio, led by Fair Elections Ohio and a coalition of allies 

that included labor, civil rights, the faith community, and good government groups organized to 

protect the right to vote by utilizing the constitutional referendum process. As proof of its 

strength and commitment, this coalition collected 400,000 signatures, significantly more than the 

231,000 required, to put HB 194 on the ballot for the November 2012 presidential election. 

Fearing reversal, the state legislature introduced a new bill to repeal most of HB 194. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) also played a crucial role in ensuring that access to the vote 

was protected. Attorney General Eric Holder spoke several times on the importance of voter 

access and the Civil Rights Division has used the Voting Rights Act to protect against the 

implementation of discriminatory laws. 

The Continued Need for the Voting Rights Act 

The 2012 election, for all its problems, reaffirmed the tremendous power of the vote. In spite of 

attempts to disenfranchise a targeted group of citizens, the American people showed up to make 

their voices heard. Although results are still being tabulated, the power of the Black vote, the 

Latino vote, the Asian American vote, the youth vote, and the vote of women in the 2012 

election confirmed our hopes coming out of the 2008 election - that the profound demographic 

shifts taking place in our country can be harnessed to create a new coalition of voters whose 

voices cannot be ignored. 8 

But these voters had the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the Department of Justice to thank for 

helping to ensure that their vote was protected. Without the protection of the VRA, especially 

Section 5, the threat to the right to vote would have been much greater. 

Just this past year, DOJ objected to a total of 16 proposed changes under Section 5. The Justice 

Department used the VRA to block voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina, to invalidate new 

district maps in Texas, and to prevent some jurisdictions in Florida from reducing early voting.9 

The value of Section 5 as the primary means to protect the right to vote of traditionally 

disenfranchised groups cannot be overlooked or understated. In a recent speech, Attorney 

General Holder reaffirmed this sentiment when he stated "the unfortunate reality is that, even 

today, too many citizens have reason to fear that their right to vote, their access to the ballotand their ability to have their votes counted - is under threat. In too many places, troubling 

7 http://\vww.npr .org/bJogs/itsalJpuljtic~/20 12/1 Of 18/163158185/swing~statevbillboardsR\yarnlng-against-\, oter~ fraud-stiT-backlash 

8 http://mvw,£a!lup.comipoll!1545591us-presidential-election-center.aspx 

9 http://\vww.propublica,org/artic]c!the-state-of.scction-5 
176 

Page 4 of5 ff ~l1e leadership 

Conference 

divisions and disparities remain. And, despite the remarkable, once-unimaginable progress that 

we've seen over the last half century - indeed, over the last four years Section 5 remains an 

indispensible tool for eradicating racial discrimination."lo 

That is why so many agree that Section 5 remains essential to protecting the rights of millions 

across this country. It is so powerful that in many instances, jurisdictions withdraw their 

proposed changes rather than have the federal government block them. A 2007 Columbia 

University paperll found that of the 800 times since 1982 the Department of Justice merely asked 

for more information from states and local governments about proposed changes, more than a 

quarter ofthose jurisdictions voluntarily withdrew their proposals. This prophylactic effect is 

often overlooked, but is critical to the success and continued need of Section 5. Without Section 

5, it is entirely possible that we would be dealing with a wave of discriminatory voting laws that 

would be practically impossible for voting rights advocates and litigators to handle. 

In 2006, after review of an extensive record with overwhelming evidence of voting 

discrimination against minorities in the covered jurisdictions, Congress, almost unanimously, 

reauthorized Section 5 for an addition 25 years. Notably, the VRA includes a provision that 

allows jurisdictions to bailout if they meet certain conditions. The Attorney General noted, 

"since the provision took effect in 1984, bailout has been granted in 38 separate cases - with 20 

of those cases in the past three years alone.,,12 1n Virginia alone, 18 jurisdictions have 

successfully bailed out of Section 5 preclearance. Kings County, North Carolina and Sandy 

Sprin?s, Georgia became the first 110n-VA jurisdictions to bailout of coverage on September 22, 

2010. ) The effectiveness ofthis provision proves that Section 5 is not only necessary, but 

proportionate to the challenges it seeks to address. 

Voting Rights Reform Moving Forward 

While the VRA is a crucial tool in the arsenal of securing the right to vote, we believe there are 

several measures Congress can take to strengthen our democracy and improve the overall 

administration of elections. 

Election Day 2012 showed everyone what civil and human rights advocates have known for a 

very long time: our electoral system is outdated, inefficient, confusing, and difficult for citizens 

to easily navigate. Many people stood in lines for nearly eight hours in places like Virginia, 

Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio to cast their vote l4 and, despite legislation passed over the last 

few decades, such as the Help American Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act to 

improve registration and voting, too many people were turned away or forced to vote 

10 Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library Boston Tuesday, December 11,2012 

hHp://ww"\.v.justice.go"/is%pa/ag/speeches/2012!ao-speech-121211.html 

II http://valela\vjoumal.or!!i'lhe-\'a!e-I<I\v-iournal-pocket-par1!e!cction-la\v!the-promise-anu-pitfalls-of-thc-nc\v-voting-righ1s-ac1-

%28vra%29! 

12 Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library Boston Tuesday. December 11,2012 

http://w\Vw.justicc.£!ov/iso/opaiag/spl'cches/2012/ag-speech-121211.html 

13 http://www.iustlcc.govlopa/pr/2010lSeptembcrI10~crt-l067.html 

J4 http://w"\v.y.usatodav.com/story !ncws/politics!20 121 II !06!votjng~problems-prcsidcntjal-clection! 16857831 
177 

Page 5 of5 

provisionally in many states because of clerical errors, lack of resources, and problems with poll 

worker training. 

On election night, President Obama noted the long election lines and recognized the need to fix 

our system. The Voter Empowerment Act, introduced earlier this year, is a comprehensive bill 

which includes the components necessary to address many ofthe problems in the system. We 

believe that any comprehensive electoral reform legislation must include modernized voter 

registration that should be automatic, online, and portable; same-day registration; national 

standards for poll worker training; requirements that states equitably allocate staff, equipment, 

ballots and voting locations to ensure that the voting experience is as easy as possible; and early 

voting to avoid unreasonable election day lines. It is imperative that we bring our elections into 

the 21 51 century, in order to improve their integrity and conserve taxpayer dollars. 

We urge you to work to remove the barriers to participation for all citizens, not to erect new ones 

under the guise of political rhetoric. Removing barriers involves modernizing the voting system 

with automated registration, online access to records, and accessible voting machines that would 

allow more than 6S million eligible Americans to participate. Investing in a uniform, 

simplified process for voting would eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic processes, save states 

money, and save election officials time. 

Conclusion 

In a speech last year on voting, the Attorney General stated, "all eligible citizens can and should 

be automatically registered to vote. The ability to vote is a right - it is not a privilege.,,15 

Though voting is the language of democracy, we have gotten into the habit of focusing on it 

primarily in election years when there are threats or when it is time to engage our communities in 

the process. Our commitment to protecting the right to vote and encouraging civic participation 

has to become embedded in the daily business of our work going forward, rather than driven by 

election cycles. Now is the time to look forward to the future of our democracy and work on how 

to perfect it. That endeavor starts with improving the overall voting process. 

Thank you for your leadership on this critical issue. 

15 http://w,,''w.justice.Q.oy/iso/opwagispeeches/2011!ag-specch~111213.html 
178 

Chairman Patrick Leahy 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Hearing on the State of the Right to Vote After the 2012 Election 

December 19,2012 

Our Nation has grown stronger since its Founding as more Americans have been able to exercise 

their right to vote. The actions taken by previous generations -- through a Civil War, through 

Constitutional amendments, and through the long struggles of the civil rights movement-- have 

worked to break down barriers that stood in the way of all Americans participating in our 

Democracy. Yet, as we saw in last month's election, our work is far from done. Barriers to 

voting continue to exist and evolve. 

The right to vote and to have your vote count is a foundational right because it secures the 

effectiveness of the other protections of the law and the Constitution. Before the election, we 

held a hearing that focused on new barriers to the right to vote, building on the work done in 

field hearings held by Senator Durbin in Florida and Ohio. We heard testimony about the 

renewed effort in many states to deny millions of Americans access to the ballot box through 

voter purges and voter identification laws. I was concerned that these barriers would stand 

between millions of Americans and the ballot box. 

What we saw during the election shows that we were right to be concerned. Purges of voter 

rolls, restrictions on voter registration and limitations on early voting - which in previous 

elections enabled millions to vote-- led to unnecessary and avoidable problems on Election 

Day. In places like Florida and Virginia, voters including senior citizens were required to stand 

in line for hours before casting a vote. In Ohio, provisional ballots were used in place of regular 

ballots in far too many precincts, particularly those with heavier minority populations, and some 

voters were wrongly denied the ability to cast ballots at all. Onerous and confusing voter 

identification requirements led to complications in places like Pennsylvania, Arizona, Texas, and 

South Carolina. Throughout the country, misleading political advertising and robo calls worked 

to sow confusion and suppress the vote. 

Some Republican officials behind these barriers have been remarkably honest that they enacted 

these laws to help their candidates win elections. A consultant to the campaign of the 

Republican presidential candidate said recently, "A lot of us are campaign officials -- or 

campaign professionals -- and we want to do everything we can to help our side. Sometimes we 

think that's voter ID, sometimes we think that's longer lines -- whatever it may be." Before the 

election, Pennsylvania's House Republican leader said they passed Pennsylvania's new voter lD 

law in order to "allow" Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to win the state. These 

are not good enough reasons to take away the right to vote and they are shameful. 

Just because millions of Americans successfully overcame abusive practices in order to cast their 

ballot does not make those practices right. It does not justifY the burdens that prevented millions 

more from being able to vote. Barriers that remind us of a time when discriminatory practices 

such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses were commonplace have no place in 

21 st century America. Barriers that seem to fall heaviest on African-Americans, Hispanics, 

military veterans, college students, the poor, and senior citizens risk undermining our 

Constitution's core values. 
179 

Ensuring that all Americans are able to vote and have their vote counted should be an issue of 

concern to Democrats and Republicans, and a matter of conscience for all of us regardless of 

political party. That is how it was six years ago, when members of Congress, Republicans and 

Democrats, stood together on the Capitol steps to reaffirm our commitment to full democratic 

participation by reauthorizing the key expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

The Voting Rights Act was the result of a historic struggle for civil rights, which reached a 

crucial turning point on March 7, 1965, on the Edmund Pettis Bridge in Selma, Alabama, when 

state troopers brutally attacked John Lewis and his fellow civil rights marchers who were trying 

to exercise their civil rights. The events of that day, now known as "Bloody Sunday," were a 

catalyst to the passage of the landmark Voting Rights Act, which finally ensured 100 years after 

the enactment of the Civil War amendments that the Constitution's guarantees of equal access to 

the political process, regardless of race, would not be undermined by discriminatory practices. 

Our work in 2006 to reinvigorate and reauthorize the Voting Rights Act stood in stark contrast to 

the tremendous resistance and bitter politics which met the initial enactment ofthat landmark 

law. This Committee played a key role. After nearly 20 hearings in this Committee and the 

House Judiciary Committee, we found that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act continues to be an 

effective and necessary tool for protecting voting rights against modem day barriers to 

voting. The legislation contained specific findings about the need for reauthorization and 

concluded that without reauthorization the gains we have made would be undermined. Our 

efforts reached completion when President Bush signed the bill into law after a unanimous vote 

in the Senate and nearly unanimous vote in the House. 

The Supreme Court got it right three years ago when it upheld a challenge to the constitutional 

authority of Congress to reauthorize Section 5. Next year, the Supreme Court will hear a similar 

challenge. Neither the words of the Constitution nor the importance of these critical provisions 

for protecting the right to vote has changed in the last three years. Under the specific words of 

the 14th and 15th Amendments, Congress has the power to remedy discrimination and enforce 

these Amendments by enacting laws that address racial discrimination in connection with 

voting. That is what we did nearly unanimously just six years ago. 

The events of this year's election only serve to remind us anew of the continuing need for 

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Despite the gains we have made in building a more inclusive 

democracy, the law's work is not yet complete. Earlier this year, panels of judges appointed by 

presidents of both parties found that Texas intentionally discriminated against minority voters in 

redistricting, and that Texas failed to demonstrate that its voter ID law does not impose greater 

burdens on minority voters. A separate panel of three federal judges approved South Carolina's 

voter identification law under Section 5 starting next year, with judges appointed by Republican 

and Democratic Presidents noting that South Carolina legislators passed a less restrictive law 

than they desired specifically in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Without Section 5 

of the Voting Rights Act, worse laws would be in place and the fundamental rights of many 

Americans would be diminished. 
180 

Our witnesses today will help us better understand the impact of the new barriers being placed on 

voters across the country. I look forward to exploring at this hearing and in the months ahead 

how we can ensure that the abusive practices we saw in the recent election are never repeated. 

The Voting Rights Act transformed America by ushering the nation out of a history of 

discrimination into an era of greater inclusion. We must not tum away from our commitment to 

the right to vote for all Americans. I thank the witnesses for being here today and look forward 

to their testimony. 

##### 

3 
181 

Statement of U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

December 19, 2012 

Chairmen Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley, thank you for holding this hearing on "The 

State of the Right to Vote After the November 2012 Election." 

Our goal is get to the bottom of why many places around the country, including my home state 

of Florida, experienced embarrassingly long lines at the polls and encountered unacceptable 

roadblocks to voting during this year's November election. 

I want to take this opportunity to share what we've learned so far with regards to attempts to 

suppress registration of new voters and voting itself in Florida. 

Since Sen. Durbin brought his subcommittee to Tampa in January 2012, some new information 

has come to light. 

As it turns out, we now know that a key individual behind Florida's controversial voting law was 

none other than the general counsel of the Florida Republican Party - Emmett "Bucky" Mitchell 

IV. 

According to testimony he gave in April as part of a federal voting rights lawsuit, Mr. Mitchell 

said he was asked to draft the original version ofthe legislation by state Republican Party 

leaders, including its executive director and two state GOP campaign operatives. 

I would like to submit Mr. Mitchell's full testimony from that lawsuit as part of the official 

congressional record on this matter. 

And I would also note this isn't the first time Mr. Mitchell's name has surfaced with votingrelated controversy. 

In 2000, he was at the center of the State of Florida's efforts to purge possible felons from the 

voter rolls. That misguided effort led to thousands of eligible voters being turned away at the 

polls during.the presidential election because their names were removed from voter rolls. 

The latest election law was introduced and passed in spite of vehement opposition from a wide 

array of groups because the law, among other things, reduced the number of early-voting days 

and canceled voting on the Sunday right before the Tuesday election. The law also made voting 

harder for people who recently moved to another county and had a different address, because 

they couldn't change their address anymore at the polls. 

Practically every one of the concerns of these groups - possible long lines, an avalanche of 

provisional ballots, court challenges - have come to pass. 

1 
182 

Mr. Chairman, this committee will have to draw its own conclusions, but for me it's pretty 

straight forward: Florida's 2011 election law changes were politically motivated and clearly 

designed to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters - and, not, as its Republican sponsors 

contended, to prevent voter fraud. 

Those who asked for the voting restrictions in Florida - including reduced early voting - held 

jobs with the sole aim of electing Republican lawmakers. 

The attorney who obliged them, the lawyer who wrote the bill, represented the state Republican 

Party. He's the same lawyer who is identified in separate testimony before the U.S. Civil Rights 

Commission as the person who created the 2000 purge list that led to thousands in Florida being 

erroneously identified as possiblc felons. 

And let's not forget that this eiIort in Florida took place against the backdrop of a broader 

Republican-led campaign to restrict voting. Leading up to the 2012 election, at least a dozen 

states controlled by Republicans approved new obstacles to voting as part of a campaign linked 

to the American Legislative Exchange Council, which receives substantial funding from the 

Koch brothers. 

Singling out Americans, stopping those who want to vote from going to the polls, and all the 

other solutions in search of non-existent problems must be stopped. Not because of politics, but 

to protect the founding document of our nation, the Constitution. 

So, thank you Mr. Chairman for this opportunity. I look forward to continuing our work together 

on these issues that are critical to my home state of Florida and the country. 

2 
183 

~'CTI()"~ 

@ 

%neE HOff-" 

National Action Network 

Reverend AI Sharpton, President and Founder 

Reverend Dr, W, Franklyn Richardson, Chairman 

Tamika Mallory, National Executive Director 

Statement for the Record 

Submitted by 

National Action Network 

Testimony on 

"The State of the Right to Vote After the 2012 Election" 

Before the 

u.s. Senate Judiciary Committee 

Submitted December 19, 2012 

Thank you Chairman Leahy and members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee for allowing 

us to submit testimony regarding individual's right to vote after the 2012 election. National 

Action Network ("NAN"), a leading civil rights organization that fights for one standard of 

justice, decency and equal opportunities for all people regardless of race, religion, national 

origin, and gender, fully supports the hearing on and exploration of "The State of the Right to 

Vote after the 2012 Election". 

During this past election cycle, NAN was focused on ensuring that every eligible voter in the 

United States had the opportunity to cast a ballot. It is unimaginable that in 2012 we had to 

make such a concerted effort, but with the constant law revisions that created barriers to the 

polis, we had to ensure that voters across the country were aware of the changes and able to 

cast their ballot. Since the 2008 election, there has been a calculated effort by certain groups to 

restrict the voting rights of millions of eligible voters across the United States. Rather than 

removing barriers allowing for voting to be easier for the general popUlation, state legislatures 

enacted suppressive voting laws that often made it harder for people to vote. These laws 

required voters to present a government issued photo IDs, reduced the period for early voting, 

and shortened the voter registration period. These laws affected all Americans but specifically 

561 Seventh Ave. 14th FL New York, NY 10018 

www.nationalactionnetwork.net 

646-380-2000 
184 

~ 

National 

~ Action Network 

Reverend AI Sharpton, President and Founder 

Reverend Dr. W. Franklyn Richardson, Chairman 

Tamiko Mallory, National Executive Director 

the elderly, low income families, college students, disabled, and minorities. It was estimated by 

the Brennan Center for Justice that nearly 5 million voters would not be able to vote with the 

restrictive laws in place. Upon hearing about the regressive law changes and the potential to 

disenfranchise Americans, NAN fought to make sure every vote in every community across the 

nation was counted. 

In December 2011, NAN held a 25 city one day rally where we spoke out against voter 

suppression. We held rallies in the following cities where the state legislature passed or were 

trying to pass voter suppression laws: Houston, TX; Cleveland, OH; Akron, OH; Columbus, OH; 

Memphis, TN; Montgomery, AL; Milwaukee, WI; Columbus, MO; and Atlanta, GA. During these 

rallies community leaders, activist, and clergy implored state's legislature to vote against or 

repeal voter suppression laws. In March, we re-enacted the 1965 Selma to Montgomery March 

to underscore the importance of voting. In 1965, the march was to fight for equal voting rights 

for all, and once again in 2012 we were marching to fight for equal voting rights for all. Dr. 

Martin Luther King and other leaders of the civil rights movement marched from Selma, 

Alabama to Montgomery, Alabama to raise awareness and make a plea to Alabama and the 

entire country to pass and enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 2012, NAN, along with civil 

rights organizations, labor unions, activists and everyday citizens, were in Alabama to oppose 

the harsh legislation that potentially stood in the way of many people's ability to cast a ballot. 

Thousands came to Alabama to support and participate in the 60 mile march across Alabama. 

In June 2012, NAN started our Voter Engagement Tour with a goal to educate and empower the 

electorate on how to combat these restrictive new voter requirements and ultimately protect 

voter rights. Our tour focused on states impacted by voter suppression laws. We toured 

Cleveland, Ohio; Miami, Florida; Orlando, Florida; Atlanta, Georgia; Detroit, Michigan; Dallas, 

Texas; Columbia, South Carolina; Richmond, Virginia; Philadelphia, PennsylVania; and 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The day-long program began with a luncheon with clergy members 

561 Seventh Ave. 14'h FL New York, NY 10018 

www.nationalactionnetwork.net 

646-380-2000 
185 

Q 

~ "'...."., . .",.,.'" National Action Network 

Reverend Al Sharpton, President and Founder 

Reverend Dr. W. Franklyn Richardson, Chairman 

Tamika Maffory, National Executive Director 

and community leaders and was focused on creating an infrastructure in each city to continue 

voter education and protection. Teaming up with Education for a Better America, we hosted a 

workshop during the latter part of the afternoon designed to inform the voting public about 

new and existing laws that would impact them in their respective communities. Later in the 

evening we hosted a rally at a local church which was keynoted by our Founder and President, 

Reverend AI Sharpton. During our afternoon and evening sessions we held voter registration 

drives to register any eligible individuals who were not registered to vote. Our voter 

engagement tours allowed us to speak with thousands of potential voters, educating them on 

new identification requirements, early voting periods (if applicable), and any possible problems 

that may arise at the polling site. 

During each tour stop, we instated state leads to continue the work established by the voter 

engagement tour. Our state leads continued to register people to vote up until the state's 

registration deadline. They partnered with local organizations and clergy to hold additional 

voter education workshops. We widely promoted the use of early voting in states which 

allowed for early voting. In Florida, we organized "Souls to the Polls" efforts, where church 

congregations would head to the polls to early vote after attending their church services on 

Sunday. In Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, and Georgia, we organized church vans to drive people to 

and from the polls. We interacted with voters continuously to encourage people to register, 

educate themselves and their families, get out to vote, and report any problems at the polls. 

Additionally, Rev. Sharpton used his nationally syndicated radio and television show to draw 

much needed national attention to voter suppression laws occurring throughout the country. 

Rev. Sharpton talked about the disparate impact on minorities and the elderly that occurred 

when cutting back on early voting periods. Early voting is a resource that many in the African 

American community use to participate in the voting process. Early voting allows for people to 

avoid long lines on Election Day and allows individuals the opportunity to conveniently vote at 

561 Seventh Ave. 14th FL New York, NY 10018 

www.nationalactionnetwork.net 

646-380-2000 
186 

~ "'o~,.tfO~c; 

National Action Network 

Reverend Af Sharpton, President and Founder 

Reverend Dr. W. Franklyn Richardson, Chairman 

Tom/ko Mal/ory, Notional Executive Director 

times more suitable for their schedules. Rev. Sharpton directed millions of viewers to National 

Actions Network's website, where we had a dedicated voter engagement webpage. On the 

webpage we posted information about voter suppression, including how nearly 25 percent of 

African Americans lack a suitable ID to vote in states that have restrictive photo ID laws. We 

also posted all of the state's voting registration deadlines, early voting periods, absentee ballot 

deadlines, and ID requirements. 

Due to the awareness raised by National Action Network and the legal work done by other civil 

rights organizations, states such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ohio were unable to change 

the voter ID requirement and/or the early voting period for the 2012 election. The Department 

of Justice also stepped in and prevented other states from enforcing their new voter 

suppression laws. These actions restored the ability for millions of voters to vote in the election. 

While some states were able to enforce their voter suppression laws, our efforts to educate the 

public stopped many minorities from being marginalized during the election process. 

Thanks to the hard work of community leaders, clergy, civil rights organizations, and many 

others there was not a drastic impact on voter turnout. However, on Election Day many voters 

were met with long lines, poll workers relaying incorrect voting information, malfunctioning 

voting machines, poll sites closing early, and other issues at the polling site. National Action 

Network staff members worked the Election Protection Hotline on Election Day and heard 

many horrific stories about people who were denied the right to vote due to those issues. 

There were reports that people in Florida had to wait over 8 hours in line to vote. People were 

incorrectly told they needed to show photo ID, and if they were unable to present an ID they 

were not allowed to vote. Sites across the country had malfunctioning polling machines, 

sometimes leaving a location with only one working machine. These recurring issues show the 

need for Election Day reform. President Obama even made note of the Election Day problems 

in his acceptance speech. 

561 Seventh Ave. 14th FL New York, NY 10018 

www.nationalactionnetwork.net 

646-380-2000 
187 

e\ 

~ "lIsncfiMO~ 

National Action Network 

Reverend AI Sharpton, President and Founder 

Reverend Dr. W. Franklyn Richardson, Chairman 

Tamika Mallory, National Executive Director 

Restrictive laws and voting place issues are a hindrance to full participation in the electoral 

process. Voter Suppression laws prevent individuals from performing their granted right to 

vote. While some may believe getting a government issued ID is not a difficult task, many 

seniors, low income citizens, and students do not have the necessary funds, time, 

transportation, or documentation needed to get a photo ID. Before making laws requiring 

individuals to have government issued ID, we have to ensure that all citizens are capable of 

acquire them. Currently, we have not reached that threshold. Likewise, long lines and waiting 

times at polling locations must be remedied. There are many working Americans who cannot 

afford a day off of work to stand in lines for extended periods. Waiting in a line on a Tuesday for 

over 2 hours is unacceptable. 

Post-election 2012 we must address these issues legislatively to find a way to make the election 

process more effective and efficient. Expanding early voting is a solution that could help 

alleviate the problems which occur on Election Day. Instead of state legislatures trying to 

reduce or not allow early voting, they should embrace the idea of early voting. Expanded early 

voting could reduce long lines and could also be used to test the voting machines to guarantee 

that they will be functional on Election Day. Currently, 32 states and the District of Columbia 

offer early voting. Each state varies on time availability and locations. All states should offer 

early voting and should look into ways to make the early voting more efficient so more voters 

will take advantage of the system. Same day registration could also help in the election 

process. One of the major issues during the 2012 election were individuals who claimed that 

they registered to vote but their name did not appear on the voter roll. If voters were allowed 

to register the same day, the problem of lost registration would be solved because you could 

register people on the spot. Another option that must be seriously looked at is voting by mail. 

States such as Oregon and Washington conduct their election all by mail in ballots. This process 

seems to be very effective and reduces the stress on voters by allowing them to stay in their 

561 Seventh Ave. 14th FL New York, NY 10018 

www.nationalactionnetwork.net 

646-380-2000 
188 

National Action Network 

Reverend AI Sharpton, President and Founder 

Reverend Dr. W. Franklyn Richardson, Chairman 

Tomika Mallory, National Executive Director 

homes to vote. Finally, this past election, we saw an increase in money spent by interest groups 

to Political Action Committees. These donations gave Political Action Committees incredible 

amount of influence over the political process that normal citizens do not possess. Their 

influence helped push the attacks on early voting and voter ID laws with the intent to prevent 

millions from voting. New policies must be created to protect American citizens from losing 

their vote to big money committees. 

In 2013, National Action Network will continue to work with chapters and members to educate 

people locally about the laws and ensure that the electorate is in compliance with state laws 

while continuing to fight for equal protection for all voters. We will work with allied groups to 

fight and repeal existing suppression laws. Our DC Bureau is willing to work with Congress to 

create legislation that will extend federal protection to voters and prohibit the use of state 

based ID in federal elections. On the state level we will strive to ensure that there are adequate 

voting machines for the voting population to alleviate the long waits to cast a ballot. Finally, we 

will make sure that the early voting periods are not restrictive to certain groups of people or to 

certain geographic areas. It is our hope that the Senate Judiciary Committee will have the 

shared goals and vision. 

We once again thank you for allowing us to submit testimony on this matter and look forward 

to working with the Senate Judiciary Committee on this issue in the future. 

561 Seventh Ave. 14th FL New York, NY 10018 

www.nationalactionnetwork.net 

646-380-2000 
189 

NASW Nolionol Associ Qlioo of Socia! Workers 

Office of the Executive Director Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Hearings on 

> .the power of socioJ work 

Elizabeth J. dork, PhD, ACSW, MPH 

Execvtwe Director 

"The State ofthe Right to Vote after Ihe 2012 Electioo." 

Slatement of 

Elizabeth J. Clark, PhD, ACSW, MPH 

Chief Executive Officer 

National Association of Social Workers 

December 19, 2012 

Chainnan Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and Members of the Judiciary Committee: 

On behalf of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), thank you for holding this 

important hearing and allowing our Association the opportunity to submit testimony on this 

topic. It is both timely and critical to our collective effort to improve the nation's voting process. 

NASW is a professional membership organization that is comprised of 145,000 members with 

chapters in all 50 states, several territories, and internationally, We have a dual mission of 

promoting and protecting our profession, as well as a strong social justice agenda. 

The NASW national office and members from our local chapters have been active advocates for 

Voting Rights activities for many years. We were particularly concerned, during the last 

Presidential and Congressional elections, about efforts in many states to suppress the votes of 

individuals from minority communities, the elderly, students, and young people. NASW, with its 

long history of championing social justice and human rights for those who are disadvantaged or 

vulnerable in our country, is very supportive of the Committee's effort to examine where the 

nation is in regards to ensuring free and unencumbered access for each citizen to exercise his or 

her right to vote. 

During the 2012 election cycle, NASW was proud to join the many organizations and individuals 

that spent countless hours in challenging state laws that appeared to be aimed at suppressing 

votes. It is our firm belief that were it not for the efforts of the national voters' rights coalitions, 

that the outcomes of the past election could have been drastically different. For that reason, 

NAS W members recognize that we all must continue to be vigilant and active in monitoring the 

election processes including ongoing and persistent efforts to suppress the vote. We must join in 

the process of developing corrective remedies and solutions for such concerns as: 

Efforts to end or severely limit early voting; 

Purges of voter rolls that target minorities; 

Unreasonable voter J.D. laws that appear to be designed to suppress the votes; 

Strategies to ensure inordinately long lines at polling places; 

Excessive non-disclosed campaign funding as a result the Supreme Court's "Citizens 

United" ruling; and 
190 

.. The recent 

Act. 

Court decision to take up a challenge to Section 5 of the Voters 

country. 

NASW is committed to continued involvement with the voters' 

Presidential and efforts to the 

We will also encourage our 

other leaders to initiate reviews 

issues and will assist in 

at federal and stllte levels. 

to engage state and 
191 

/8>' 

:>:, ... /' 

NATIONAL ." .' .... 

DISABIUTY RIGHTS .... / 

NETWORK 

Protection & Advocacy for Individuals with Disabilities / 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Hearing on "The State of the Right to Vote After the 2012 Election" 

December 19, 2012 10:00 a.m. 

The National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) would like to thank Chairman Leahy, 

Ranking Member Grassley, and the Senate Judiciary Committee for holding this 

important and timely hearing to assess the right to vote after the 2012 election. We 

appreciate the opportunity to draw attention to the continuing needs of people with 

disabilities for increased accessibility to the electoral system. NDRN and the network of 

Protection and Advocacy Systems have been involved since passage of the Help 

America Vote Act with advocating for the rights of people with disabilities to vote and 

monitoring the accessibility of the electoral system. Although the United States has 

made significant progress toward ensuring that its electoral system is accessible to 

everyone, there is still much work to be done. 

Who Are NDRN and the Protection and Advocacy Systems? 

NDRN is the nonprofit membership organization for the federally mandated Protection 

and Advocacy (P&A) Systems for individuals with disabilities. The P&As were 

established by the United States Congress through eight separate statutes to protect 

the rights of people with disabilities and their families through legal support, advocacy, 

referral, and education. P&As are in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 

and the U.S. Territories (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and the 

US Virgin Islands), and there is a P&A affiliated with the Native American Consortium 

which includes the Hopi, Navaho and Piute Nations in the Four Corners region of the 

Southwest. Collectively, the P&A Network is the largest provider of legally based 

advocacy services to people with disabilities in the United States. 

One of the eight statutes establishing the P&A Systems is the Protection and Advocacy 

for Voter Access (PAVA) program passed in 2002 as part of the Help America Vote Act 

(HAVA) to address the barriers that people with disabilities face when voting or 

registering to vote. Congress recognized the need to "ensure the full participation in the 

electoral process for individuals with disabilities, including registering to vote, casting a 

vote, and accessing polling places." 

The History of Inaccessibility of Voting Places 

Unfortunately, the right to vote has long been denied to many people with disabilities. 

People with disabilities have faced voting places that did not allow access to the voting 

booths for people in wheelchairs, have faced voting machines with limited technology 
192 

that has denied people with visual impairments the ability to vote confidentially, and 

other obstacles that have limited the ability of people with other disabilities to register to 

vote. A 2001 GAO report on the 2000 Presidential election found that 84 percent of 

polling places had impediments to accessibility for people with disabilities. 1 A similar 

report based on the 2008 Presidential elections found that the situation for people with 

disabilities had improved, but there were still significant problems - 73 percent of all 

polling places studied still had impediments to accessibility.2 Although 2008 Census 

data shows that 14.7 million people with disabilities voted in the presidential election, 

research by Rutgers University shows that the voter turnout rate of people with 

disabilities was 7 percentage points lower than that of people without disabilities.3 

Challenges to Polling Place Accessibility in the 2012 Elections 

The Protection and Advocacy Network found continued barriers to accessibility in the 

2012 election. In addition to challenges faced by people with disabilities in the past, 

such as polling places that are physically inaccessible and ballots that are not 

accessible to people with visual impairments, the 2012 election saw people with 

disabilities unable to vote for other reasons as well. For example, groups ostensibly 

working to protect the voting process overall inappropriately challenged the ability of 

people with disabilities to vote based on a perception that they did not have the legal 

capacity to vote or that they needed a guardian's approval to vote. Often times, people 

with disabilities were incorrectly informed that they did not have the right to vote. 

In one example of this barrier, a North Carolina-based entity that receives and 

processes applications of individuals for mental health services filed a complaint that 

one of its contractors registered a person with a disability to vote without the consent of 

the voter's guardian. The entity characterized the registration of people with mental 

illness who have guardians to vote as "voter fraud," even though the North Carolina 

Constitution and state law provides that people with guardians retain the right to vote. 

Moreover, the North Carolina Division of Medical Assistance (DMA) found that this 

entity and other mental health care providers did not regularly offer people with mental 

illness the ability to register to vote. Disability Rights North Carolina, the North Carolina 

P&A, has filed a complaint with the Department of Justice Voting Rights Section over 

the refusal of this and other North Carolina mental health care providers to recognize 

the right of people with mental illness to vote. 

In another instance, a District Attorney in a County in Texas announced, before the 

election, that he would convene a grand jury on election assistance programs in the 

1 u.s. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-02-107, Voters with Disabilities: Access to Polling Places and Alternative 

Voting Methods (2001). 

2 U.s. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-09-68S, Voters With Disabilities: More Polling Places 

Had No Potential Impediments Than In 2000, But Challenges Remain (2009), 

http://www.ga 0 .gov / cgi-b in/getrpt ?GAO-09-68S. 

3 Lisa Schur, Rutgers University Professor, Testimony before Election Assistance Commission 

(Oct. 8, 2009), available at http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Events/testimony%201-

3%20Iisa%20schur%20public%20meeting%200ctober%2008%202009.pdf. 
193 

Texas County that has the highest rate of assisted voting in the State. The District 

Attorney stated that he would subpoena voters to ask them under oath why they 

requested assistance in voting and threaten prosecution against those who assisted 

people with voting. Doing so would force many voters to disclose confidential 

information about the nature of their disabilities and could easily create a chilling effect 

both on people with disabilities and the people who volunteer to assist them with voting. 

Disability Rights Texas, the Texas P&A, sent the District Attorney a letter requesting 

that he refrain from interrogating people who come to their polling places with someone 

to assist them with voting and not subpoena voters with disabilities to testify before a 

grand jury. 

Other problems that were experienced across the country include a lack of accessible 

voting machines, poll workers who were not able to assist voters with the machines, a 

lack of accessible parking, long lines and people not being allowed to sit while waiting to 

vote, and other problems with physical accessibility of polling places. The Protection 

and Advocacy agencies will be issuing reports and engaging in follow-up with local 

Boards of Elections and Secretaries of State to ensure that they are aware of these 

problems and that work continues toward full accessibility of polling places for people 

with disabilities. We will be sure to share these reports with the Senate Judiciary 

Committee to demonstrate the issues surrounding the accessibility of voting for people 

with disabilities during the 2012 elections. 

Voting is perhaps the most fundamental of the rights accorded United States' citizens, 

and must be made accessible and available to all people. NDRN and the Protection 

and Advocacy agencies nationwide hope to continue to work with Congress and with 

state and local voting officials to improve accessibility. In order to continue to improve 

voter accessibility for people with disabilities, we recommend the following steps: 

1) Increase funding for the PAVA program to help ensure that people with 

disabilities are allowed to participate in this important constitutional right; 

2) Allow the Native American Consortium to receive funding under the PAVA 

program. Although all of the other Protection and Advocacy agencies receive 

funding under the PAVA program to advocate for voter accessibility, the Native 

American P&A does not because it does not fit the definition of a "state" under 

the Help America Vote Act; and 

3) Provide funding to State and local election officials to help them address voting 

accessibility issues. 

Again, thank you for holding this timely hearing, and we appreciate this opportunity to 

provide testimony regarding these important issues. If you would like further 

information, please contact Patrick Wojahn at (202) 408-9514, x102. 
194 

/cY.'.' 

". 0. ' > .. NATIONAL <. ..• ... 

DISABILITY RIGHTS 'v J 

NETWORK 

Protection & Advocacy for Individuals with Disabilities / 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

Hearing on "The State of the Right to Vote After the 2012 Election" 

December 19, 2012 10:00 a.m. 

The National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) would like to thank Chairman Leahy, 

Ranking Member Grassley, and the Senate Judiciary Committee for holding this 

important and timely hearing to assess the right to vote after the 2012 election. We 

appreciate the opportunity to draw attention to the continuing needs of people with 

disabilities for increased accessibility to the electoral system. NDRN and the network of 

Protection and Advocacy Systems have been involved since passage of the Help 

America Vote Act with advocating for the rights of people with disabilities to vote and 

monitoring the accessibility of the electoral system. Although the United States has 

made significant progress toward ensuring that its electoral system is accessible to 

everyone, there is still much work to be done. 

Who Are NDRN and the Protection and Advocacy Systems? 

NDRN is the nonprofit membership organization for the federally mandated Protection 

and Advocacy (P&A) Systems for individuals with disabilities. The P&As were 

established by the United States Congress through eight separate statutes to protect 

the rights of people with disabilities and their families through legal support, advocacy, 

referral, and education. P&As are in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 

and the U.S. Territories (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and the 

US Virgin Islands), and there is a P&A affiliated with the Native American Consortium 

which includes the Hopi, Navaho and Piute Nations in the Four Corners region of the 

Southwest. Collectively, the P&A Network is the largest provider of legally based 

advocacy services to people with disabilities in the United States. 

One of the eight statutes establishing the P&A Systems is the Protection and Advocacy 

for Voter Access (PAVA) program passed in 2002 as part of the Help America Vote Act 

(HAVA) to address the barriers that people with disabilities face when voting or 

registering to vote. Congress recognized the need to "ensure the full participation in the 

electoral process for individuals with disabilities, including registering to vote, casting a 

vote, and accessing polling places." 

The History of Inaccessibility of Voting Places 

Unfortunately, the right to vote has long been denied to many people with disabilities. 

People with disabilities have faced voting places that did not allow access to the voting 

booths for people in wheelchairs, have faced voting machines with limited technology 
195 

that has denied people with visual impairments the ability to vote confidentially, and 

other obstacles that have limited the ability of people with other disabilities to register to 

vote. A 2001 GAO report on the 2000 Presidential election found that 84 percent of 

polling places had impediments to accessibility for people with disabilities. 1 A similar 

report based on the 2008 Presidential elections found that the situation for people with 

disabilities had improved, but there were still significant problems - 73 percent of all 

polling places studied still had impediments to accessibility2 Although 2008 Census 

data shows that 14.7 million people with disabilities voted in the presidential election, 

research by Rutgers University shows that the voter turnout rate of people with 

disabilities was 7 percentage points lower than that of people without disabilities3 

Challenges to Polling Place Accessibility in the 2012 Elections 

The Protection and Advocacy Network found continued barriers to accessibility in the 

2012 election. In addition to challenges faced by people with disabilities in the past, 

such as polling places that are physically inaccessible and ballots that are not 

accessible to people with visual impairments, the 2012 election saw people with 

disabilities unable to vote for other reasons as well. For example, groups ostensibly 

working to protect the voting process overall inappropriately challenged the ability of 

people with disabilities to vote based on a perception that they did not have the legal 

capacity to vote or that they needed a guardian's approval to vote. Often times, people 

with disabilities were incorrectly informed that they did not have the right to vote. 

In one example of this barrier, a North Carolina-based entity that receives and 

processes applications of individuals for mental health services filed a complaint that 

one of its contractors registered a person with a disability to vote without the consent of 

the voter's guardian. The entity characterized the registration of people with mental 

illness who have guardians to vote as "voter fraud," even though the North Carolina 

Constitution and state law provides that people with guardians retain the right to vote. 

Moreover, the North Carolina Division of Medical Assistance (DMA) found that this 

entity and other mental health care providers did not regularly offer people with mental 

illness the ability to register to vote. Disability Rights North Carolina, the North Carolina 

P&A, has filed a complaint with the Department of Justice Voting Rights Section over 

the refusal of this and other North Carolina mental health care providers to recognize 

the right of people with mental illness to vote. 

In another instance, a District Attorney in a County in Texas announced, before the 

election, that he would convene a grand jury on election assistance programs in the 

1 U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-02-107, Voters with Disabilities: Access to Polling Places and Alternative 

Voting Methods (2001). 

2 U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-09-685, Voters With Disabilities: More Polling Places 

Had No Potential Impediments Than In 2000, But Challenges Remain (2009), 

http://www.ga 0 .gov / cgi-bi n/ getrpt?GAO-09-685. 

3 Lisa Schur, Rutgers University Professor, Testimony before Election Assistance Commission 

(Oct. 8, 2009), available at http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Events/testimony%201-

3%20Iisa%20schur%20public%20meeting%20october%2008%202009.pdf. 
196 

Texas County that has the highest rate of assisted voting in the State. The District 

Attorney stated that he would subpoena voters to ask them under oath why they 

requested assistance in voting and threaten prosecution against those who assisted 

people with voting. Doing so would force many voters to disclose confidential 

information about the nature of their disabilities and could easily create a chilling effect 

both on people with disabilities and the people who volunteer to assist them with voting. 

Disability Rights Texas, the Texas P&A, sent the District Attorney a letter requesting 

that he refrain from interrogating people who come to their polling places with someone 

to assist them with voting and not subpoena voters with disabilities to testify before a 

grand jury. 

Other problems that were experienced across the country include a lack of accessible 

voting machines, poll workers who were not able to assist voters with the machines, a 

lack of accessible parking, long lines and people not being allowed to sit while waiting to 

vote, and other problems with physical accessibility of polling places. The Protection 

and Advocacy agencies will be issuing reports and engaging in follow-up with local 

Boards of Elections and Secretaries of State to ensure that they are aware of these 

problems and that work continues toward full accessibility of polling places for people 

with disabilities. We will be sure to share these reports with the Senate Judiciary 

Committee to demonstrate the issues surrounding the accessibility of voting for people 

with disabilities during the 2012 elections. 

Voting is perhaps the most fundamental of the rights accorded United States' citizens, 

and must be made accessible and available to all people. NDRN and the Protection 

and Advocacy agencies nationwide hope to continue to work with Congress and with 

state and local voting officials to improve accessibility. In order to continue to improve 

voter accessibility for people with disabilities, we recommend the following steps: 

1) Increase funding for the PAVA program to help ensure that people with 

disabilities are allowed to participate in this important constitutional right; 

2) Allow the Native American Consortium to receive funding under the PAVA 

program. Although all of the other Protection and Advocacy agencies receive 

funding under the PAVA program to advocate for voter accessibility, the Native 

American P&A does not because it does not fit the definition of a "state" under 

the Help America Vote Act; and 

3) Provide funding to State and local election officials to help them address voting 

accessibility issues. 

Again, thank you for holding this timely hearing, and we appreciate this opportunity to 

provide testimony regarding these important issues. If you would like further 

information, please contact Patrick Wojahn at (202) 408-9514, x102. 
197 

Palm Beach Post 

Sunday, Oct. 28, 2012 

Architect of felon voter purge behind 

Florida's new limits 

By Dara Kam and John Lantigua 

Palm Beach Post Staff Writers 

The Republican attorney who engineered the 2000 Florida felons list, which African 

American leaders said purged thousands of eligible blacks from voter rolls in the state 

and helped swing that election to the GOP, also wrote the first draft of Florida's 

controversial House Bill 1355 that has restricted early voting and voter registration 

campaigns in 2012. 

Emmett "Ducky" Mitchell IV, former senior attorney for the Florida Division of 

Elections, now in private practice in Tallahassee and serving as general counsel for the 

Florida GOP, testified in April in a federal voting rights lawsuit that he wrote the first 

draft of 1355. The Palm Beach Post uncovered the deposition while researching the 

origins of the law. 

Dierdre Macnab, president of the Florida League of Women Voters, reacted angrily 

when learning from The Post of Mitchell's involvement in writing 1355, which took effect 

in 2011. 

''1' d be deeply concerned to think that members of a political party who are not elected 

officials, nor staff to legislators, are drawing up voter-suppression laws in back rooms," 

Macnab said. "It should be deeply troubling to the public." 

That 2011 law reduced the number of early voting days from 14 to eight in Florida and 

threatened independent organizations that register voters - such as the League of 

Women Voters - with large fines if they did not meet tight schedules for filing 

registration applications they collect. That latter part of the law was overturned by 

federal courts this year, but registration groups say that by then their ability to sign up 

new voters had been curtailed for several months ofthis year's presidential election 

campaign season. 

The new law also eliminated the ability of people who have moved from one county to 

another, and have not officially recorded their newaddress, to cast a regular ballot at the 

polls Nov. 6. They must now cast provisional ballots. Critics say that historically only 

about 50 percent of provisional ballots are accepted and counted. 
198 

Supporters of 1355 say it fights voter fraud. Florida has seen false voter registration 

forms filed in recent years by the now defunct, left leaning community activism group 

ACORN, and also by Strategic Allied Consulting, a voter registration firm hired by 

Republicans. 

But critics of 1355 say there ultimately are very few cases of voter fraud in Florida and 

the real purpose of the bill is to reduce voter registration and turnout. They say that in 

particular the Jaw will suppress the number of minority and young voters this ejection 

year - most of whom would be expected to vote for President Obama. 

Dale Landry, chairman ofthe Florida NAACP Criminal and Civil Justice Committee, 

said he was also appalled by Mitchell's involvement in 1355. 

"It really angers me that people would resort to these tactics," Landry said. "We need an 

investigation. We really need to look at and see what other damage was done." 

In 2001, Mitchell was identified in testimony before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission as 

the person who directed the creation of the felons purge list that led to thousands in 

Florida being erroneously identified as possible felons, their names included on lists 

used to reduce the voter rolls. A disproportionately high number of those people were 

blacks, who are traditionally Democratic voters. 

Mitchell left the Division of Elections - where he worked under Secretary of State 

Katherine Harris - shortly after the 2000 election. He now works for the Coates Law 

Firm, which represents the Florida Republican Party. He did not return phone or email 

requests for comment for this story. 

During the deposition in Tallahassee April 4, Mitchell was questioned by attorneys for 

the League of Women voters, which along with other voter registration organizations 

had sued to overturn 1355. 

He said he was asked to write the early version of 1355 around January 2011, after 

consultations with three top Florida GOP officials: Andy Palmer, then executive director 

of the Florida GOP; Frank Terraferma, head of GOP State House campaigns; and Joel 

Springer, head of State Senate cam paigns. Also included in early talks was former 

executive director of the Florida GOP Jim Rimes, now a senior partner at Enwright 

Consulting, a Tallahassee political consulting firm that counsels GOP political 

candidates. Rimes was also a client of Mitchell's. 

"Typically, what I do before a (legislative) session begins is, I look at changes that I think 

would be beneficial to our clients," Mitchell testified, especially regarding campaign 

finance issues. "In this case, that's how this election bill got started." 

The new law required any person registering voters to sign a sworn statement 

acknowledging that, if they violated any of the registration regulations, they faced 

criminal penalties and fines as high as $5,000, an increase from the previous maximum 

aggregate fine of $1,000. Those fines would apply even if inaccuracies were inadvertent. 
199 

The law also called for fines for voter registration organizations if forms were turned in 

more than 48 hours after they were filled out, as compared to a 10-day grace period that 

applied previously. 

Critics of the new law said it was meant to intimidate would-be voter registration 

workers. Many voter registration organizations in Florida closed down their operations 

after 13SS became law, afraid of incurring fines they couldn't pay. 

In his testimony, Mitchell said he did not think the law should keep those organizations 

from working. He also said he did not know why his Republican Party clients or Rimes 

had called for the fines to be increased. In other words, the decision was not his but 

theirs. 

As for the 48-hour provision, Mitchell testified that had been added after he wrote his 

first draft. "I personally felt like 10 days was fine." 

Later in the deposition, Mitchell said the 48-hour restriction was inserted by 

RepUblicans in the legislature and that the issue didn't interest him. "I personally 

thought it might have been too short a period, but I didn't really care," he said. 

The 48-hour provision was overturned in August by federal District Court Judge Robert 

Hinkle, who called the reduced window "harsh and impractical." 

"Allowing responsible organizations to conduct voter-registration drives - thus making 

it easier for citizens to register and vote - promotes democracy," Hinkle said when he 

granted an original injunction in May. 

In regard to the controversial reduction of early voting days, from 14 to eight, Mitchell 

said he was responding to the desires of some elections supervisors. 

"There are a number of supervisors that really don't like the number of hours that are 

currently provided," he testified. "It's very expensive for them and they don't get lot of 

additional turn-out from early voting." 

But on April 29, 2011, the Florida Association of Supervisors of Elections had issued a 

document condemning the reduction in early voting days. "Not having the Is-day time 

frame for the general election could result in crowding and confusion at early voting 

sites and on Election Day at the precincts," said the supervisors' document, which was 

quoted during the deposition. 

Another facet of the original 13SS -Was also condemned by the supervisors. 

According to Mitchell, the original draft of 1355 would have forced anyone who had 

changed their address - even within a county - and who had not previously notified a 

supervisor's office, to file a provisional ballot at a polling place. 
200 

Supervisors objected before the final bill was written, saying they would be forced to 

deal with a flood of provisional ballots on Election Day and Mitchell said he understood 

the supervisors' concerns. The bill was changed to affect only people moving from 

county to county, but in their April 29, 2011 document supervisors objected to that as 

well. 

"There are no reports of widespread abuse or double voting," the supervisors said. "This 

will significantly delay election results." But the change was made anyway. 

Backers ofthat provisional ballot requirement say it will help prevent double-voting by 

one person but while giving his deposition, Mitchell said he could not name one 

instance of double-voting in Florida. 

"Were you aware of any instances of any voters in Florida voting twice in a single 

election?" he was asked by League of Women Voters attorney Daniel O'Connor. 

"Not specifically, no," Mitchell responded. 

"Were you aware of any other types of fraud or misconduct by voters who moved and 

attempted to update their address at a polling place and vote that same day?" O'Connor 

asked. 

"No," Mitchell responded. 

Opponents of the provisional ballot rule also point to the number of such ballots that 

end up thrown out. Data that emerged during the deposition indicated that of 35,635 

provisional ballots cast in 2008, oilly 17,312 provisional ballots were counted, or 48.58 

percent. Common reasons for disqualifying provisional ballots are that voters names do 

not appear on the voter roBs or they are voting in the wrong precinct. 

Another section of the bill gives the secretary of state additional power to issue 

directives to county supervisors of elections, who traditionally guard their independence 

tenaciously. The section was toned down after some back and forth between Mitchell 

and GOP House staffers. 

"Staff is revising language to make it seem like less of a power grab," said a note from 

one anonymous staffer. 

At the end of his deposition, Mitchell was asked if any of the changes made in Florida 

election laws was done for racially discriminatory purposes. He said no. Florida African 

American leaders have expressed doubts. 

During the 2001 Civil Rights Commission hearings, executives for Database 

Technologies, the Boca Raton firm hired by the Florida Division of Elections to compile 

purge lists of possible felons who were not eligible to vote, testified that they took their 

marching orders from Mitchell. Tijey said he ordered them to include names on the list 
201 

that simply approximated the names of convicted felons. Those people then had to 

prove their eligibility to vote. 

Supervisors of elections later complained that the lists were full of errors. In one case, 

Leon County Supervisor Ion Sancho said the purge list he was sent of 690 names were 

almost all legitimate voters. Only 33 were even contacted and asked to prove their 

eligibility, he said. 

At the time, 15 percent of the Florida population was black, but 54 percent of the state 

prison population was black. Counties reported that the people on the purge list were 

disproportionately black. For example, in Palm Beach County, 11 percent of the 

population was black, but 44 percent of those purged by the felons list were black. 

Hillsborough County had a black population of 15 percent but 54 percent of the names 

on its purge list were black. In Miami-Dade, where blacks were 20 percent of the 

population, a list of 5,762 people contained the names of 3,794 blacks, or 66 percent. 

Poll workers later testified that thousands around the state were refused the right to 

vote because they were not included on voter rolls, in part because of the felon purge 

lists. GOP candidate George W. Bush won by 537 votes. 

Asked about it by a reporter in 2001, Mitchell offered this rationale for the loose 

standards used in assembling the purge lists: "Just as some people might have been 

removed from the list who shouldn't have been, some voted who shouldn't have." 

Post researchers Michelle Quigley and Niels Heimeriks contributed to this story. 
202 

Testimony of Nina Perales, MALDEF Vice President of Litigation 

Regarding "The State of the Right to Vote After the 2012 Election" 

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

December 19,2012 

Chairman Durbin and members of the Judiciary Committee, thank you for the 

invitation to testify regarding "The State of the Right to Vote After the 2012 Election." 

My name is Nina Perales and I serve as Vice President of Litigation for MALDEF, the 

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. MALDEF is a national 

civil rights organization that conducts community education, policy advocacy and where 

necessary litigation. Since our founding as a non-partisan civil rights organization in 

1968, MALDEF has served as the primary organization that litigates voting rights cases 

on behalf of Latinos in the United States. 

Today, Latinos constitute the largest racial minority group in the United States. 

According to the Census, the Latino community in the U.S. grew by over 15 million from 

2000 to 2010 and accounted for more than half the nation's total growth. lOver the same 

decade, the number of Latino eligible voters-U.S. citizen adults-also increased, from 

13.2 million in 2000 to 21.3 million in 2010.2 

As the Latino and other racial minority communities have grown and expanded 

their share of the U.S. electorate, some states have attempted to cap or even reduce the 

electoral strength of minority voters. These new practices target voters at various points 

in the election process, including registration, voting at the polls and in redistricting. 

This testimony will focus on three examples of recent state laws that operate to limit 

Latino political participation. 

Arizona Requirement of Documentary Proof of Citizenship 

In Arizona, the Latino population increased by almost 600,000 from 2000 to 2010 

(reaching 29.6% of the state's population in 2010). In 2004, Arizona voters adopted 

Proposition 200 which changed voter registration rules to require all new voter registrants 

to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship. Following enactment of Proposition 

200, over 30,000 individuals were rejected for voter registration in Arizona. 3 Reflecting 

the demographic composition of voter registrants in Arizona, over 80% of the rejected 

I JEFFREY S. PASSEL, ET AL., CENSUS 2010: 50 MILLION LATINOS HISPANICS ACCOUNT 

FOR MORE THAN HALF OF NA nON'S GROWTH IN PAST DECADE (Pew Hispanic Center, 

Mar. 24,2011), available at http://www.pewhispanic.org/filesireports/140.pdf. 

2 MARK HUGO LOPEZ, THE LATINO ELECTORATE IN 20 I 0: MORE VOTERS, MORE NONVOTERS (Pew Hispanic Center, April 26, 201 I), available at 

http://w\Vw.pewhispanic.ol·gltlles/reportsI141.pdf. 

3 Gonzalez v. Arizona, No. 06-cv-01268, Dkt. No. 104 I, at 13 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2008). 
203 

voters were not Latino. 4 Voter registration in community-based voter drives in the state's 

largest county plummeted 44%. 

The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, invalidated Proposition 200 as inconsistent 

with the National Voter Registration Act, 42 U .S.c. 1973gg et seq. 5 The case is now 

pending in the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Proposition 200 has had a broad negative impact on voter registrants across 

Arizona. Individuals whose voter registration forms are commonly rejected for failure to 

provide proof of citizenship include Arizona residents who have a driver's license issued 

before October I, 1996 (such as those over age 32), who do not have a current Arizona 

driver's license (including students and new state residents), or who, unbeknownst to 

them, have a driver's license with a state database code of "Foreign" because the license 

was issued to them before they became naturalized citizens. 

In order to register, these citizens must include with their registration - which 

otherwise can be a stand-alone form a copy of their U.S. birth certificate, passport or 

naturalization papers. Even if a registrant has a document to satisfy the provision, 

Proposition 200 requires the registrant to locate the document, photocopy it, and mail it to 

the county recorder. Alternatively, the registrant must travel to the county recorder's 

office to present the required document. As a result of the additional burdens imposed by 

Proposition 200, less than one-third of the rejected registrants subsequently registered to 

vote. 6 

The federal court in Arizona found that naturalized citizens will have difficulty 

registering with their drivers licenses and are subsequently faced with either purchasing a 

new license or registering with the naturalization certificate (often in person). This 

different treatment makes voter registration more difficult for naturalized citizens when 

compared to native born citizens. The problems for naturalized citizens who try to 

register are predictable and systemic to Proposition 200 and its implementation by 

Arizona election officials. 

Although most people in Arizona register to vote by providing the number of their 

Arizona driver's license, which under Proposition 200 constitutes "satisfactory evidence 

of citizenship" if it was issued after October 1, 1996.23 However, because offlaws in the 

Arizona Motor Vehicles Division database, naturalized citizens encounter unique 

problems when attempting to register to vote using their Arizona driver's licenses. 

The Arizona MVD codes driver's licenses as "Type F" when the applicant for a 

driver's license used an identity document showing that he or she has permission by the 

federal government to be present in the United States. The MVD uses the letter "F" to 

signify "foreign." Because the Type F license does not show its designation on its face, 

naturalized citizens who obtained their licenses before they naturalized are unaware that 

they posses Type F licenses. Instead, they provide their drivers license numbers when 

they register to vote and are rejected and required to apply to register again and provide 

different citizenship information. 

In 2005 alone, 6,785 people in Arizona naturalized and became eligible to register 

to vote. The Secretary of State does not know how many of these naturalized citizens 

4 Id. 

5 See Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012). 

6 Gonzalez v. Arizona, No. 06-cv-01268, Dkt. No. 1041, at 14 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2008). 

2 
204 

hold licenses that are coded Type F in the MVD database but the Secretary of State does 

know that since January of 2005, Service Arizona, its online voter registration system, 

has rejected approximately 1,300 voter registration applicants who possess either Type F 

licenses or licenses issued before October I, 1996. 

Although Arizona knows that its naturalized citizens are likely to possess Type F 

licenses, it continues to reject these voter applicants, thereby forcing them to suffer 

rejection of their voter registration application and requiring them to register to vote a 

second time. 

The purpose of Proposition 200's registration requirement, as described in the 

statute, is to combat undocumented immigration. However, Arizona hasn't identified a 

single instance in which undocumented immigrants registered or voted in Arizona. 

The federal court in Arizona found that there were only a handful of "instances" 

in which non-citizens had registered to vote and even fewer in which noncitizens cast a 

ballot. 7 Importantly, the court cited evidence that the small number of non-citizens who 

had registered to vote had done so mistakenly and without realizing they were ineligible 

to vote. 8 Consistent with this finding, the Arizona Secretary of State's office wrote prior 

to the passage of Proposition 200, the "strong desire to remain in the United States and 

fear of deportation outweigh [noncitizen's] desire to deliberately register to vote before 

obtaining citizenship. Those who are in the county illegally are especially fearful of 

registering their names and addresses with a government agency for fear of detection 

and deportation." 

In all, the court found that Arizona had provided evidence that ten non-citizens 

had registered to vote (four of whom had voted) in 2005 and nine non-citizens - had 

registered to vote (five of whom had voted) in 2007. 9 The evidence amounts to nine 

voters having cast ballots out of 2.7 million registered voters in Arizona during this same 

period. The Ninth Circuit concluded, when denying the stay of its mandate, that 

"Arizona has not provided persuasive evidence that voter fraud in registration procedures 

is a significant problem in Arizona; moreover, the [National Voter Registration Act] 

includes safeguards addressing voter fraud."IO 

The voting restrictions imposed by Arizona's Proposition 200, ostensibly to curb 

registration by immigrants who are not qualified to vote, come at a time when Latinos 

comprise Arizona's fastest-growing citizen voting age population and Arizona is 

engulfed in an often heated debate about immigrants from Mexico living in the state. As 

Latinos strive to overcome the effects of past exclusion from the political process, 

Proposition 200 has operated to thwart Latino entry into the electorate. 

Texas 2011 Voter ID 

In 2011, the Texas Legislature enacted the strictest photo voter ID law in the 

nation. The law has not gone into effect however because a federal court in Washington 

DC concluded that it violated the federal Voting Rights Act. 

7 Gonzalez v. Arizona, No. 06-cv-0 1268, Dkt. No.1 041, at 34 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2008). 

8 Id. at 15-17 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2008). 

9 Id. 

10 Gonzalez v. Arizona, No. 08-17094 at 8 (9th Cir. June 7, 2012) (order denying stay). 

3 
205 

Compared to the pre-existing voter identification law in Texas, the Texas voter 10 

law, known as SB 14, permits fewer forms of 10 for in-person voting. Specifically, SB 

14 eliminates the voter registration certificate as an acceptable form of 10 as well as other 

non-photo documents that are acceptable under the current Texas voter ID law such as 

utility bills, birth certificates and government correspondence. SB 14 also eliminated 

certain photo 10 that was acceptable under the pre-existing Texas voter 10 law such as 

student lD cards and employment identification. 1 I 

Texas has never disputed, and the federal court found, that "there exists a 

subgroup of registered voters, including minorities, who lack SB 14-approved photo 

10.,,12 Even at trial, Texas's "own expert's study" concluded the same. 13 The court 

found as a matter of "undisputed record evidence," that "racial minorities in Texas are 

disproportionally likely to live in poverty and, because SB 14 will weigh more heavily on 

the poor, the law will likely have retrogressive effect.,,14 Texas was aware of the 

provisions of other states' voter identification laws and was also aware that "SB 14 is far 

stricter than either Indiana's or Georgia's voter ID laws." 15 

The U.S. Department of Justice denied preclearance to SB 14 in part because the 

statistical analysis provided by Texas in the preclearance process showed that "Hispanic 

registered voters are more than twice as likely as non-Hispanic registered voters to lack" 

a DPS-issued driver's license or 10 card. 

Texas was well aware that its very strict photo voter lD law was likely to have a 

disproportionate impact on minority voters. In the previous 2009 legislative session, 

when the Texas House took up the issue of voter 10, the Chairman of the House 

Elections Committee was aware that minority voters are less likely to have photo voter 

lD. He also understood that allowing the use of a non-photo lD alternative would 

"significantly lessen any marginal additional burden" that 10 requirements placed on 

some voters. House members who opposed the 2009 voter ID bill expressed concern 

about the impact of the bill on minority voters. 

In 2011, SB 14 rushed through the legislative process with few amendments to 

ameliorate its effect on voters who lacked 10. The House Select Committee to which SB 

14 was assigned held only one hearing on SB 14 before voting it out of committee. 

Members of the Select Committee heard expert witnesses explain that restrictive lD 

requirements adversely impact minority voters, and that most voters who are required to 

return to the polls and present identification to have their provisional ballots counted do 

not return. 

During House floor consideration, numerous legislators expressed concerns about 

SB 14's impact on minority voters. Many of the amendments that were offered but did 

not pass were accompanied by statements that the amendments would mitigate the bill's 

impact on minority voters, including by prohibiting the Department of Public Safety from 

charging a fee for underlying 10; reimbursing the costs for indigent individuals to travel 

to obtain compliant 10; requiring a study showing no adverse impact on minorities; 

11 TEX. ELEC. CODE § 63.0101. 

12 Texas v. Holder, 2012 WL 3743676, at *27 (D.D.C. 2012). 

13 [d. 

14 [d., at *14. 

15[d.,at*15. 

4 
206 

requiring the Secretary of State to determine whether a majority of voters who cast 

provisional ballots were minorities; requiring a study by county and ethnicity to 

determine access to necessary ID and analysis of impact on voters; and allowing county 

clerks to issue voter ID cards. 

Furthermore, although expired driver's licenses would have been acceptable 

under the predecessor bills to SB 14 so long as they had expired within the past two years 

SB 14 did not accept driver's licenses, personal ID cards issued by DPS, US passports, or 

concealed handgun licenses as acceptable fonns of photo 10 if they had expired more 

than 60 days prior to their presentation. An amendment to SB 14, adopted in the House, 

included language that the statewide public education program should target low-income 

and minority voters. The amendment was subsequently stripped from the bill in 

conference committee. The SB 14 conference committee, which consisted of eight 

supporters and two opponents of SB 14, removed tribal ID as one of the allowable forms 

ofID, and removed a provision that focused SB 14's voter education program at lowincome and minority communities. Thus, despite their knowledge of the potential 

discriminatory effects on minority voters, Texas legislators refused to alter SB 14. 

Reviewing the evidence of the impact of SB 14, the federal court concluded that, 

"[s]imply put, many Hispanics and African Americans who voted in the last election will, 

because of the burdens imposed by SB 14, likely be unable to vote in the next election.,,16 

Debates in the three previous legislative sessions on the issue of voter 10 often 

included claims that voter 10 was needed to stop voter fraud by non-U.S. citizens. 

During the year of and before the passage of SB 14, elected public officials in the State of 

Texas-including Texas State Senators and Representatives, the Secretary of State, the 

Lieutenant Governor, and the Governor-received a substantial number of letters and 

emails from constituents that characterized voter 10 legislation as legislation related to 

illegal immigration, often urging them to enact voter 10 legislation to stop illegal 

immigrants from voting, and often using inflammatory references to "criminal aliens," 

"wetbacks," and similar derogatory phrases and racial epithets to refer to unqualified 

voters who needed to be stopped from casting ballots through the enactment of voter 10. 

Although legal permanent resident immigrants and other immigrants with 

authorized status possess Texas driver's licenses and state-issued photo ID cards, in 

responding to constituents, elected officials consistently affirmed that a voter 10 was 

needed to prevent non-citizens from voting. In February 2011, Lt. Gov. Dewhurst wrote 

to a constituent regarding photo ID, stating, "Voter ID will help stamp out voter fraud 

and increase public confidence in our election process by ensuring that only U.S citizens 

-- who are legally eligible -- vote in Texas elections." At the same time, Lt. Gov. 

Dewhurst's U.S. Senate campaign website listed his support of voter 10 legislation under 

the heading: "David Dewhurst Opposes Illegal Immigration." Under this topic of illegal 

immigration, which included news articles on strengthening the U.S. Border and 

increasing the size of the Border Patrol, Lt. Gov. Dewhurst posted news articles 

describing his "push for the voter 10 law for two sessions" and quotes himself as saying: 

"At the end ofthe day, there's nothing more important than protecting the sanctity of 

everyone's right to vote." Upon Senate passage of SB 14, Lt. Gov. Dewhurst issued a 

press release stating that SB 14 will increase voter confidence "by ensuring only U.S. 

16 Jd., at *29. 

5 
207 

cItizens who are legally eligible - vote in Texas elections." Non-citizens, the vast 

majority of whom in Texas are Latino, thus became the target of the voter TO debate in 

2011. 

Some legislators went as far as to connect Latinos and Spanish-speakers directly 

to fraudulent voting. In her testimony in the voter ID litigation case, Rep. Riddle, when 

asked about specific incidents of voter fraud, described one incident in which she saw a 

Hispanic, Spanish-speaking woman who appeared at a polling place to vote but needed 

assistance because she was unable to communicate in English and was unfamiliar with 

the process. Rep. Riddle offered this incident as an example of voter fraud despite the 

fact that she also testified that she had no knowledge of whether the voter was a citizen or 

not, only that she was Hispanic and Spanish-speaking. 

Voter Purges in Florida and Colorado 

By 2010, Latinos constituted 22.5% ofthe Florida population. 17 In May 2012 the 

Florida Department of State launched a deeply flawed voter purge effort that originally 

identified 180,000 registered voters as potential non-citizens. The Department of State 

sent letters demanding proof of citizenship to 2,600 registered voters. Sixty percent of 

the people on the list were Latino even though Latino voters constitute just 13 percent of 

the state's electorate. 18 Many who received the letters were U.S. citizens. In Broward 

County, a 91-year-old World War II veteran was forced to provide proof of his 

citizenship in order to remain on the voter rolls. 19 And in Seminole County, an election 

official tweeted a picture of himself with one man who received a warning letter. In the 

picture, the two men stood side by side, holding the suspect voter's U.S. passport. 20 

By September, the purge, which had faltered when county elections officials 

questioned the methodology, started up again, this time with a much smaller list of 198 

registered voters, the majority of whom were also Latino and African American. The list 

was purportedly from the Department of Homeland Security but also contained serious 

flaws. For example, Yeral Arroliga, a U.S. citizen who immigrated from Nicaragua in 

17 JEFFREY S. PASSEL, ET AL., CENsus2010: 50 MILLION LATINOS HISPANICS ACCOUNT 

FOR MORE THAN HALF OF NA nON'S GROWTH IN PAST DECADE (Pew Hispanic Center, 

Mar. 24, 2011), available at http://www.pewhispanic.org/tiles/reportsI140.pdf. 

18 Janel! Ross, Florida Voter Purge Will Continue, Defying Federal Warning, 

HUFFINGTON POST, June 2, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.comI20 I 2/06/02/floridavoter-purge-federal-warning n 1564131.html. 

19 Greg Allen, World War II Vet Caught Up In Florida's Voter Purge Controversy, 

National Public Radio (May 31, 2012), available at 

http://www.npr.orglblogs/itsallpolitics/20 12/05/31 11 54020289/world-war-ii-vet-caughtup-in-tloridas-voter-purge-controversv. 

20 Michael Ertel, Passport of one of our voters who recently was incorrectly targeted by 

the State of Florida as a non-citizen, TWITTER (May 21, 2012), available at 

https:/ltwitter.com/MikeErtel!status/204678285383 3 07264/photol I. 

6 
208 

1995 and has been a Florida voter since 2007, appeared on the new list after he already 

sent proof of citizenship in response to having been placed on the first purge list. 21 

The results of this effort were wasted government resources, official 

embarrassment over targeting U.S. citizens for a voter purge, lawsuits, and voter 

confusion close to the election. In terms of identifying non-citizen voters, the outcome 

was predictably small in scope. In Miami Dade 13 registrants reported they were not 

citizens, two of whom had voted. This is consistent with what we know: non-citizen 

registrants are very few and normally under the mistaken impression that they are eligible 

to vote. In Florida, after all was said and done, one individual, a Canadian citizen was 

convicted for voting in the 2008 General Election. 22 There are 12 million registered 

voters in Florida. 23 

In Colorado, where Latinos constitute 20.7% of the population, the Secretary of 

State launched a similarly flawed voter purge of alleged citizens that also dwindled to 

very small numbers. After claiming there were up to 11,000 non-citizens on the 

Colorado voter rolls, and then sending almost 4,000 letters accusing individual registered 

voters of non-citizenship, Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler admitted that he 

thought 141 voters were potentially non-citizens and that he could not confirm that any 

were non-citizens before the General Election. 24 Ultimately 14 of these voters were 

removed from the rolls; none had voted. 25 There are 3.6 million registered voters in 

Colorado. 26 

Texas 2011 Redistricting 

Following release of the 2010 Census, which showed an increase of over 2.7 

million Latinos in Texas, and the increase of four seats in the congressional delegation, 

21 Marc Caputo, et a!., Fla. Gov. Rick Scott's voter purge efforts start anew , TAMPA BAY 

TIMES, Sept. 27, 2012, http://www.tampabav.com/news/politics/nationallfla-gov-rickscotts-voter-purge-eff0l1s-start -anewl 125 3 5 3 8. 

22 Toluse Olorunnipa, Canadian man living in Broward pleads guilty to voting illegally in 

'08 presidential election, THE MIAMI HERALD, Aug. 30, 2012, 

http://www.miamiherald.com/2 012/08/30/29772051 canadian-man-living -inbroward.html. 

23 VOTER REGISTRA TlON STATISTICS, FLORIDA DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, 

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/nvralaffiliation.asp (last visited Dec. 18,2012). 

24 Voter Purging Resurfaces in Colorado (ABC News/Univision Oct., 24, 2012), 

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC U nivision/voter-purging-resurfacescolorado/story?id=17552694#.UM DKHdsaIE. 

25 Sam Levin, Out offourteen illegal voters banned afier Scott Gessler's campaign, how 

many voted? Zero, DENVER WESTWORD BLOGS (Oct. 12,2012), 

http://blogs.wes(word.com/1atestword/2012/1 O/scott gessler illegal colorado voters fou 

rteen.php. 

26 TOTAL REGISTERED VOTERS BY STATUS, 2012 VOTER REGISTRA TlON STATISTICS, 

COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE, 

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/VoterRegN urn bers/20 121N ovem berN oterCoun 

tsByStatus.pdf (last visited Dec. 18, 2012). 

7 
209 

the Texas Legislature enacted redistricting plans that intentionally thwarted the growing 

Latino electorate. The Legislature's redistricting plans for state House of Representatives 

and U.S. Congress were blocked by a federal court in Washington DC on the grounds 

that both plans reduced minority political strength and that the Congressional plan was 

purposefully discriminatory on the basis of race. 

Despite the fact that Latinos constituted 65% of the State's overall population 

growth over the past decade, and was therefore the leading reason Texas gained four new 

congressional seats, the State did not increase the number of Latino majority districts in 

its Congressional redistricting plan. This was a particularly challenging task in light of 

the fact that most of the Latino growth occurred where there was already substantial 

Latino population. In addition, all of the Latino majority districts in South and West 

Texas were overpopulated and this required Latinos to be shifted into other districts in 

order to comply with the mandate of one person one vote. 

In order to equalize population across districts, but not create additional Latino 

majority districts, Texas engaged in a sophisticated project of racial gerrymandering. 

First, the Legislature significantly redrew the boundaries of Congressional District 

("CD") 23. (This was the district re-drawn in 2006 in response to the Supreme Court's 

holding in LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006), that Texas's 2003 Congressional 

redistricting plan violated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and bore the mark of racial 

discrimination against Latino voters). Following the boundary revision by the LULAC 

district court, CD 23 had elected the Latino-preferred candidate in 2006 and 2008. In 

20 I 0, an Anglo-preferred candidate Francisco Canseco defeated the Latino-preferred 

incumbent with 49.3% of the vote. In 2011, Texas redistricting officials feared Mr. 

Canseco would be defeated in 2012 and sought to make CD 23 safer for Mr. Canseco.27 

While he was drawing CD 23 using the Texas Legislative Council's computer 

software, the Legislature's chief Congressional mapper moved precincts into and out of 

CD 23 for the purpose of strengthening the district for an incumbent who is not the 

Latino candidate of choice. 28 In particular, he "swapped out" precincts where Latino 

registered voters were more likely to tum out to vote and "swapped in" precincts with 

lower Latino turnout. Although benchmark CD 23 was overpopUlated by approximately 

149,000 and needed to release population to meet the new population ideal, Texas 

redistricters shifted more than 600,000 people into and out of the district. 29 

An email exchange between lawyers for the Texas House Speaker who were 

working on the redistricting plans stated that the goal of changes to CD 23 was to "help 

pull the district's Total Hispanic Pop[ulation] and Hispanic CVAPs up to majority status, 

but leave the Spanish Surname [Registered Voter] and [turnout numbers] the lowest," 

which would be "especially valuable in shoring up [CD 23 incumbent] Canseco." 

In altering CD 23, the State's mapper testified that he moved majority Anglo 

counties north of the Pecos River into CD 23, and split the heavily Latino, politically 

mobilized Maverick County so that half of it would be located outside of CD 23. 30 He 

did this even though he and Senate Redistricting Committee Chairman Kel Seliger 

27 Texas v. United States, 2012 WL 3671924, at *57 (D.D.C. 2012). 

28 Jd., at *60. 

29 Jd., at *59-60. 

30 Jd., at *60 

8 
210 

admitted that "the excess population in CD 23 could have been addressed by simply 

moving CD 23 down toward the border with Mexico," and Chairman Seliger admitted 

that if this were done, "Hispanic voters would 'determine[J the outcome' of the election 

in CD 23.,,31 The State's mapper admitted to removing the highly- and increasinglymobilized Maverick County voters, who are over 95% Latino, from CD 23 because they 

would not vote for the incumbent he sought to protect. 32 

While redistricters were swapping Latino voters in and out of CD 23, they were 

keeping a careful eye on both Latino population and how the district performed 

electorally so that the final product would have the ability to elect the Latino-preferred 

candidate in only one of ten elections. 33 

The State's own expert witness, Dr. John Alford, testified with respect to the 

Legislature's changes to CD 23 and the 2003 redistricting of CD 23 that was invalidated 

by this Court's decision in LULAC v. Perry, that "[t]here are some obvious parallels 

between what happened previously and what happened this time" and "we feel like we 

are all having deja vu[.]". 

The district court found "an abundance of evidence that Texas, in fact, [used] 

various techniques to maintain the semblance of Hispanic voting power in the district 

while decreasing its effectiveness.,,34 

In the Dallas Ft. Worth Metroplex, Texas redistricters excised Latino voters from 

the City of Fort Worth congressional district and joined them with a heavily Anglo 

electorate to the north in Denton County.35 This "lightning bolt" extension of the 

predominantly Anglo CD 26 into Ft. Worth also used race methodically to separate 

Latino voters from African American voters in the area, splitting 38 precincts in the 

process. 36 

Based on this evidence, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, 

which was tasked with drawing interim plans for use while the enacted plans were being 

litigated, determined that it could not legally incorporate the enacted CD 26 into its 

interim plans. 37 The U.S. Supreme Court found in Perry v. Perez that the state's 

redistricting in the Dallas Ft. Worth Metroplex "appear[s] to be subject to strong 

challenges in the §5 proceeding" and that departing from the State's enacted plan in the 

interim plan "seems appropriate.,,38 Similarly, the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia found that, "[t]he purpose behind the split VTDs was to move Hispanic 

populations into enacted CD 26 and split the non-Hispanic population out of the 

district.,,39 

The Legislature's plan for the State House: reduced the number of Latinoopportunity districts; drew oddly shaped districts in areas with concentrated Latino 

311d. 

32 ld., at *61. 

33 ld., at *62. 

34 1d.,at*16. 

35 See id., at *71-72. 36 1d. 

37 See Perez v. Texas, 2012 WL 4094933, at * 15 (W.O. Tex, 2012). 

38 Perryv. Perez, 132 S.Ct. 934, 944 (2012). 

39 Texas v. United States, 2012 WL 3671924, at *72. 

9 
211 

populations that impaired Latino voters' ability to elect the candidates of their choice; 

and refused to draw majority-Latino districts in areas with significant increases in the 

Latino population. 

For example, Texas eliminated House District 33 (HD 33) in Nueces County, a 

majority-Latino county in South Texas where Latino population growth was substantial. 

In the benchmark plan, HD 33 is located inside the City of Corpus Christi and contains 

55% Spanish-surnamed voter registration. The Legislature's plan relocates HD 33 to 

Rockwall and Collin counties in North Texas where the district contains 8.5% Spanishsurnamed voter registration and is not a Latino-opportunity district. 40 

In addition to reducing the number of Latino-majority districts, the Legislature 

also drew districts in areas with substantial Latino populations in ways that minimized 

Latino voters' opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. In EI Paso County, which 

is 80% Latino, the State re-drew HD 78 into a bizarre shape that maximized the number 

of Anglo voters in the district. As a result, although the remaining House districts in EI 

Paso County have an average of 74% Latino registered voters, HD 78 in the Legislature's 

plan contains 47% Latino registered voters. The Legislature's reconfiguration ofHD 78 

splits 15 voting precincts, and does not follow traditional features such as the mountain 

range that dominates the area's geography. The U.S. District Court for the Western 

District of Texas concluded that the "deer antler" protrusions of the district and "the high 

number of split precincts in the protrusions increases the likelihood that the map-drawers 

were focused on race because partisan voting data are not available below the precinct 

level" and found that the plaintiffs in that case had presented a viable claim of purposeful 

discrimination.41 

In Bexar County, where Latinos are in the majority and the Latino population 

over the last decade increased by 250,000, Texas withdrew HD 117 from more active 

precincts and extended the district into rural areas with relatively lower Latino turnout in 

order to protect the incumbent who was not Latino-preferred. 42 

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia concluded that the Texas 

Legislature's State House plan reduced minority abili?; to elect and that "Texas did not 

create any new ability districts to offset those losses." 3 

Conclusion 

Although Latino registration and voting rates still lag behind those of Anglos, 

Latino voters are steadily increasing in number and achieving record high levels of voter 

participation in each successive 4-year cycle. 44 State practices that seek to "freeze in 

40 Id., at *27. 

41 Perez v. Texas, No. II-cv-00360, Dkt. No. 690 at p. 10-11 (W.O. Tex. Mar. 19,2012). 

42 Texas v. United States, 2012 WL 3671924, at *31, 88. 

43 Id., at *26. 

44 MARK HUGO LOPEZ ET AL., A RECORD 24 MILLION LA TlNOS ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE, 

BUT TURNOUT RA TE HAS LAGGED THAT OF WHITES, BLACKS (Pew Hispanic Center, Oct. 

1,2012), available at 

http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2012110/trends in Latino votcr pal1icipation FINAL 

REVISED.pdf 

10 
212 

place" their current electorates and limit the entry of Latino voters can run afoul of 

federal law as well as the Constitution and are fundamentally undemocratic. 

11 
213 

Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz Testimony 

Senate Judiciary Committee 

December 19, 2012 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. 

My name is Matt Schultz and I am the Iowa Secretary of State. I appreciate the opportunity to 

testify before your committee today. I especially want to thank Senator Grassley for extending 

the invitation to appear before this committee. 

I was elected to the office of Secretary of State in 2010. Fighting for election integrity in Iowa 

was a cornerstone of my campaign. 

Citizen participation in our democracy is not only a sacred right, but a responsibility. 

Unfortunately, citizen involvement in elections declined steadily from the 1950's through the 

1990's. But there is good news. We have seen voter participation rates rise again since the late 

1990's as voter ID laws and election integrity efforts have become more prominent. 

It seems clear that a lack of confidence in the integrity of our elections is one of the reasons 

people do not vote. Some believe their votes do not matter and that belief is a true cause of voter 

suppression across this country. 

We have seen that measures adopted to protect the integrity of elections, such as voter 

identification laws, have actually led to an increase in voter participation increased. I 

Opponents ofthese measures frequently claim that laws meant to enhance election integrity are 

suppressing the vote. Yet they offer no evidence to support their claims, only theories often 

cloaked in political rhetoric. 

The truth is that when election officials take steps to secure the integrity and safety of the ballot 

box, confidence in the outcome rises, and voter participation increases. 

Iowa is nationally known for having a model election system. However, as with any system, 

there is room for improvement and I have been advocating for those improvements for the past 

two years. One of my significant initiatives in this area involves an agreement with the Iowa 

Department of Public Safety to have a Special Agent from the Iowa Division of Criminal 

Investigation (DCI) assigned to investigate election misconduct. 

The DCI Agent is conducting multiple investigations into absentee ballot fraud, voting by 

individuals who are ineligible, and double voting. Since August of2012, charges have been filed 

in eight election misconduct cases based on information received from my staff, our local 

election officials, and members ofthe public. Anyone who says that voter fraud does not exist 

should look at the numbers that have been produced in a few short months. We all know that 

criminal investigations take time and we expect many more charges related to election 

misconduct to be filed in the months to come. 

J See Atlanta lournal-Constitution, "Despite Voter ID Law, Minority Turnout Up in Georgia," by Shannon 

McCaffrey, September 3, 2012. 
214 

In our efforts to ensure election integrity, my office has taken several steps to maintain accurate 

voting lists in order to prevent people from taking advantage of the loop holes in our election 

system. First, Iowa is one of numerous states participating in the Kansas Project, the purpose of 

which is to identify voters who may be registered or voting in more than one state. 

Second, Iowa matched voter registration records with death records from the Social Security 

Administration. More than 3,000 individuals were identified who were deceased and registered 

to vote. 

Finally, my office compared a list of non-citizens with a driver's license to Iowa's voter 

registration database. This comparison resulted in the unfortunate discovery that Iowa 

potentially had thousands of non-citizens who were registered to vote, and over a thousand that 

may have cast illegal ballots. 

In determining how to proceed in light ofthis information, I recognized the delicate balance 

between the need for integrity in our elections and the fundamental right of voters to participate 

in the electoral process. Thus, it was important to proceed with the utmost caution to ensure that 

no citizen's right to vote was improperly challenged. 

As such, my office attempted to work with the federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

over several months to develop a system that would enable us to enact appropriate measures in 

dealing with this issue. We realized it was likely that some ofthe individuals identified during 

this process subsequently might have become naturalized citizens of the United States. 

Therefore, a vital part of our effort was an attempt to gain access to the Systematic Alien 

Verification and Entitlements (SAVE) database. Our intent was to use SAVE in order to 

determine if those individuals who were identified as being non-citizens were indeed still noncitizens. 

Although federal law explicitly grants states the right to access the citizenship information 

contained in the SAVE database, Iowa has yet to gain this access despite the fact that other states 

have successfully done so. There have been multiple delays in communications attributable to 

that agency which I will detail shortly. 

Throughout this process, I have worked with our Democratic Attorney General, Tom Miller in a 

bipartisan manner to ensure that Iowa maintains the delicate balance between voters' rights and 

election integrity. 

While some states have found this balance difficult to navigate, in Iowa we have worked hard to 

achieve this result. Attorney General Miller has supported my efforts and recently said that, "His 

goal, my goal is zero voter fraud, zero voter intimidation." 

Critics of this bipartisan effort to prevent non-citizens from illegally voting continually argue 

that voters are being suppressed. I am pleased to sit before you and report that Iowa had the 

largest voter turnout in our state's history. This shows that our election integrity efforts did not 

have a suppressing effect in Iowa. 

The interactions between my office and DHS in attempting to negotiate access to the SAVE 

database can be summarized as follows: 
215 

Æ 

In March my office reached out to the federal government by contacting DHS, and by mid-April 

my staff made the first fonnal application for access to the database. On May 7, DHS staff 

requested further information concerning our proposed use of the data. On May 22, we provided 

a detailed response, including information on administrative rules I intended to adopt if SA VE 

access was granted. 

We did not hear back from DHS until July 17. On that date, a DHS staff member called my 

office and indicated that DHS was in a position to "go ahead and get Iowa signed up" for SAVE 

access. We were instructed to submit yet another formal application. 

On July 20, I adopted administrative rules to implement the process Iowa would use with the 

SAVE data and submitted a second fonnal application as requested. We received no further 

communication from DHS concerning the status of our application until August 15, following a 

call to DHS from the Chief of Staff of the Iowa Attorney General's office asking for an update. 

On August 16, a draft Memorandum of Agreement was received from DHS based on the 

agreement that had been reached with the State of Florida. On August 22, my staff responded to 

DHS, indicating my willingness to execute the agreement and DHS again asked for additional 

infonnation that was provided by my office the same day. 

The following day, my staff was advised that the Memorandum of Agreement had been 

forwarded to the DHS Office of Chief Counsel. On August 27, DHS staff requested the addition 

of one sentence to the Memorandum. I agreed. Then on September 6, DHS infonned my staff 

that the Memorandum had been sent to its legal counsel for yet another final review. 

During this process a lawsuit was filed concerning the proposed administrative rules. On 

September 14, a temporary injunction was issued prohibiting my office from implementing the 

rules due to the proximity of the general election. A copy of the court order was emailed to DHS 

for their information on September 17. We heard nothing further from DHS until October 26, 

and have yet to receive the Memorandum we negotiated. As such, no agreement has been 

executed. The multiple delays from DHS during our negotiations and their review of language 

that was based on an existing template developed by their own office has been frustrating. 

Despite what has happened over the past year, I am committed to reaching an agreement with 

DHS to ensure we continue balancing the rights of voters with the integrity of elections. That is 

why we are working together across party lines in Iowa. 

Again, thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify. I 

will be happy to answer any questions that any of you may have.