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

40–581 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–277

PREVENTION OF DECEPTIVE PRACTICES AND

VOTER INTIMIDATION IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS:

S. 453

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 7, 2007

Serial No. J–110–42

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ............. 1

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 123

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin ............. 4

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

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 161

Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New York ............ 5

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 242

WITNESSES 

Briffault, Richard, Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of Legislation, Columbia 

Law School, New York, New York ...................................................................... 21

Canfield, William B., Principal, Williams & Jensen PLLC, Washington, D.C. .. 22

Gansler, Hon. Douglas F., Attorney General, State of Maryland, Baltimore, 

Maryland ............................................................................................................... 10

Johnson, Hon. Jack B., County Executive, Prince George’s County, Maryland, 

Upper Marlboro, Maryland ................................................................................. 12

Kirsanow, Peter N., Commissioner, United States Commission on Civil 

Rights, Washington, D.C. .................................................................................... 23

Obama, Hon. Barack, a U.S Senator from the State of Illinois ........................... 7

Shelton, Hilary O., Director, Washington Bureau, National Association for 

the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Washington, D.C. ................... 17

Trasvin ̃ a, John, President and General Counsel, Mexican American Legal 

Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), Los Angeles, California .............. 19

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Center for Voting Rights, Washington, D.C., report ........................... 37

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, January 22, 2001, article ....................................... 111

Associated Press: 

June 29, 1999, article ....................................................................................... 113

June 10, 2007, article ....................................................................................... 114

June 9, 2007, article ......................................................................................... 115

Briffault, Richard, Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of Legislation, Columbia 

Law School, New York, New York, statement ................................................... 116

Canfield, William B., Principal, Williams & Jensen PLLC, Washington, D.C., 

statement .............................................................................................................. 120

Fox News, October 16, 2002, article ....................................................................... 127

Gale Group Inc., October 30, 2006, article ............................................................ 129

Gansler, Hon. Douglas F., Attorney General, State of Maryland, Baltimore, 

Maryland, statement, statement ......................................................................... 133

Houston Post, November 3, 1964, reproduction of ‘‘public notice’’ ...................... 137

Johnson, Hon. Jack B., County Executive, Prince George’s County, Maryland, 

Upper Marlboro, Maryland, statement .............................................................. 138

Joint Task Force Investigating Election Fraud, May 10, 2005 ............................ 142

Kirsanow, Peter N., Commissioner, United States Commission on Civil 

Rights, Washington, D.C., statement and attachments .................................... 149

Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Barbara Arnwine, Executive 

Director, Washington, D.C., statement .............................................................. 156

Lott, John R., Jr., Department of Economics, SUNY Binghamton, Binghamton, New York, statement ............................................................................ 163

Manhattan Institute, City Journal, Fall 2004, articles ........................................ 190

Page

IV

Mathias, Charles McC., Jr., former U.S. Senator, Washington, D.C., letter ...... 195

Miami Herald: 

December 2, 2000, article .................................................................................... 200

January 19, 2001, article ..................................................................................... 202

January 22, 2001, article ..................................................................................... 204

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, article ...................................................................... 208

MSNBC.com, article ................................................................................................ 213

National Public Radio, July 25, 2002, interview ................................................... 214

National Review, June 11, 2007, article ................................................................ 218

New York Times, November 2, 1990, article ......................................................... 220

Organizations requesting the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate 

potential violations of the Voting Rights Act, joint letter and attachments ... 222

People for the American Way, Washington, D.C., statement .............................. 231

Roberts, Patricia M., President, Citizens Against Un-American Voter Intimidation, Washington, D.C., statement ................................................................. 237

Shelton, Hilary O., Director, Washington Bureau, National Association for 

the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Washington, D.C., statement 244

Toledo Blade, October 19, 2004, article ................................................................. 247

Trasvin ̃ a, John, President and General Counsel, Mexican American Legal 

Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), Los Angeles, California, statement ...................................................................................................................... 250

U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, Southern Division, complaint, 

memorandum in support of complaint, and temporary restraining order ...... 254

Wall Street Journal, June 13, 2007, article ........................................................... 270

Washington Post, October 25, 1986, article ........................................................... 272

(1)

PREVENTION OF DECEPTIVE PRACTICES AND 

VOTER INTIMIDATION IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS: S. 453 

THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, Pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Cardin, Feingold, and Hatch. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. The Judiciary Committee will come to order. 

First, I want to thank Chairman Leahy for holding these hearings today in regards to the ‘‘Prevention of Deceptive Practices and 

Voter Intimidation in Federal Elections, S. 453’’ and thank him for 

his leadership on this issue and allowing me to chair the hearing 

today. 

After having served in elective office in Annapolis for 20 years 

and in Washington for 20 years, I understand that campaigns are 

a rough and tumble business. I expect that candidates will question 

and criticize my record and judgment, and voters ultimately have 

the right to choose their candidate. 

What goes beyond the pale is when campaigns use deceptive tactics to deliberately marginalize and disenfranchise minority voters. 

Sadly, this tactic was seen in the 2006 elections. These tactics seem 

to be deliberately targeted to minority neighborhoods and are blatant attempts to reduce minority turnout. 

In previous elections we have seen deceptive literature distributed which gave the wrong date for the election, the wrong times 

when polling places were open, and even suggested that people 

could be arrested if they had unpaid parking tickets or unpaid 

taxes and tried to vote. Other literature purported to give a different general election day for Republicans and Democrats. 

So I want to start the hearing today by going through a few examples of actual literature that was distributed in recent elections. 

These fliers will be made part of our record of our Committee, without objection. And, in particular, I want to thank the Lawyers 

Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and its Executive Director 

Barbara Arnwine and Jonah Goldman, the Director of the National 

2

Campaign for Fair Elections for categorizing and documenting 

these practices. 

Let me first show you Exhibit 1, which is from Jefferson County, 

Alabama, which gives the wrong day for the election. 

Exhibit 2 is one that I am very familiar with, which was used 

in the Maryland elections and purports to have the endorsement of 

prominent African-Americans. The person who was running on the 

Republican ticket, when two of these prominent African-Americans, 

was, in fact, the Democratic candidate. These types of deceptive literature are despicable and outrageous. It is clearly designed to 

mislead African-American voters. Maryland voters have a legal 

right to vote and pick the candidate of their choice. I was also 

upset to learn from the Washington Post that the Republican Party 

had instructed their poll watchers to challenge voters in an effort, 

I believe, to suppress minority vote. 

Exhibit 3 is from Franklin County, Ohio, in the 2004 election 

campaign. It said that due to ‘‘confusion caused by unexpected 

heavy voter registrations’’ that Republicans should vote on Tuesday 

and Democrats should vote on Wednesday. 

Exhibit 4 is from Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, in the 2004 

general election. It stated that ‘‘due to immense voter turnout’’ that 

Republicans should vote on—I am sorry. I think I mixed up the 

two. This is the one that has on Tuesdays and Republicans should 

vote—Democrats should vote on Wednesday. 

Let me go to Exhibit 5, which is from Orange County, California, 

in the 2006 general election. The distinguished President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund John Trasvin ̃ a, who will be testifying later—the original version is in Spanish and we have a translation in English. The 

letter was sent to individuals who had recently registered to vote. 

Paragraph 2 warns the individual, in part, that if they are immigrants that ‘‘voting in a Federal election is a crime that can result 

in incarceration and possible deportation for voting without the 

right to do so.’’

Exhibit 6, I return to Maryland and Baltimore City, in the 2002 

elections. It gives the wrong date—November 6th—for the election. 

It was distributed in minority communities, and it warns voters to 

pay parking tickets, motor vehicle tickets, overdue rent ‘‘before you 

come to vote.’’ It also warns them about ‘‘any warrants.’’

And, last, Exhibit 7 is from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in the 2004 

general elections. The flier contains ‘‘some warnings for election 

time’’ and states that you can only vote once a year; and if you are 

found guilty of anything, even a traffic ticket, that you cannot vote 

in the Presidential election; and that it you ‘‘violate any of these 

laws you can get 10 years in prison and your children can be taken 

away from you.’’

Now, what is in common with all seven of these exhibits is that 

they were targeted to minority communities in an effort to suppress minority vote. It has been 137 years since Congress and the 

States ratified the 15th Amendment to the Constitution in 1870, 

which states that ‘‘the right of citizens of the United States to vote 

shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any 

State on account of race [or] color.’’ The amendment also gave Congress power to enforce articles by ‘‘appropriate legislation.’’ AfricanVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:26 Feb 13, 2008 Jkt 040581 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\40581.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
3

Americans suffered through nearly another 100 years of discrimination at the hands of Jim Crow laws and regulations, designed to 

make it difficult if not impossible for African-American to register 

to vote due to literacy tests, poll taxes, and outright harassment 

and violence. It took Congress and the States nearly another century until we adopted the 24th Amendment to the Constitution in 

1964, which prohibited poll taxes or any tax on the right to vote. 

In 1965 Congress finally enacted the Voting Rights Act, which once 

and for all was supposed to end discriminatory actions against voters based upon race. 

It is time for Congress to once again take action to stop the latest 

reprehensible tactics that are being used against African-American, 

Latino, and other minority voters to interfere with their right to 

vote. I particularly want to thank my colleagues Senator Obama 

and Senator Schumer, and I am pleased to join them with S. 453, 

a bill that would allow the Federal Government to say clearly that 

these are illegal tactics and to use our influence to make sure that 

they are not part of any elections. 

In the House I understand that similar legislation, H.R. 1281, 

has been approved by the House Judiciary Committee and is awaiting action in the full House. 

I also want to thank one of my predecessors in the Senate, the 

Honorable Mac Mathias, a Republican from the State of Maryland, 

for his thoughtful letter of June 4, 2007. Senator Mathias is with 

us today, and I thank you very much for gracing our Committee 

room, one of the really outstanding Members of the U.S. Senate. 

And, Senator Mathias, if I might, I would like to just quote from 

part of your letter: 

‘‘While the methods employed to deter voting differ today from 

those in vogue 40 years ago, the deplorable objective remains the 

same: to help destroy the integrity of the election process by suppressing participation, especially by minorities. Because these more 

modern methods of coercion and intimidation do not fall neatly 

within the gambit of current law, legislation amending Section 

1971(b) is needed. I believe S. 453 fills that gap admirably.’’

Recently we celebrated the 42nd anniversary of the voting rights 

march of Selma, Alabama. Our own House colleague, Congressman 

John Lewis from Georgia, was savagely beaten and tear-gassed by 

police for peacefully marching and protesting on what is now 

known as ‘‘Bloody Sunday.’’ He and so many others, including Dr. 

Martin Luther King, Jr., ultimately led a peaceful march into 

Montgomery to help their fellow citizens register to vote. Media 

coverage of the mistreatment of our own American citizens garnered worldwide attention and led President Johnson to introduce 

the Voting Rights Act. Congress passed this historic Act in less 

than 5 months. 

Today we have the obligation and the duty to fulfill the promises 

made by Congress and the States nearly 140 years ago, after the 

end of the Civil War, and over 40 years after the enactment of the 

Voting Rights Act. 

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

At this time I would recognize Senator Feingold for opening comments. 

4

STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing. I have to leave shortly for a hearing of the Intelligence 

Committee, but I want to thank you for recognizing me to say a 

couple of words, and I am honored to be in the presence of Senator 

Mathias as well and my colleagues on this panel. 

I strongly support this bill, and I am pleased to join you as an 

original cosponsor. S. 453 targets the deceptive practices and voter 

suppression tactics that have become endemic in American elections since the enactment of the Voting Rights Act. This bill would 

have been timely 20 years ago. Today, Mr. Chairman, it is essential. Voter suppression tactics poison the democratic process, especially because they are frequently used against the most vulnerable 

segments of the electorate. Young people, racial and ethnic minorities, and the elderly are too often subjected to misleading phone 

calls, threatening fliers and intimidating so-called ballot security 

programs designed to keep them from exercising their right to vote. 

These tactics strike at the heart of our democracy. They are nothing less than an attempt to undermine the hard-won gains of the 

civil rights movement. Every anonymous flier, every thug at a polling place, every caging list is a reminder that Jim Crow was not 

that long ago. 

This bill represents a renewed commitment to protecting and 

strengthening the right to vote for all Americans. We have a responsibility to fight back against those who commit these acts, to 

protect the people they victimize, and to preserve the integrity of 

the electoral process. 

Mr. Chairman, some people have questioned whether this bill is 

necessary and even whether voter suppression actually occurs. I 

submit there is ample evidence—a shameful amount of evidence—

of these deceptive practices accumulated over a 25-year period. Let 

me discuss just a couple examples, some of which may be familiar 

to my colleagues and our witnesses today. 

In 1986, the RNC implemented a caging program in Louisiana 

designed to, in the words of one RNC operative, ‘‘eliminate 60,000 

to 80,000 folks from the rolls and keep the black vote down considerably.’’ For the record, I have a Washington Post article which details that caging program. 

In 1990, 150,000 North Carolina voters, most of them AfricanAmerican, received postcards which falsely claimed that a voter 

was ineligible unless he or she had lived in the same voting precinct for 30 days before the election. I will submit a New York 

Times article about that incident for the record. 

In 2000, a Federal judge found ‘‘there was intimidation particularly targeted at Native Americans in Charles Mix County, South 

Dakota, by persons who were acting on behalf of the Republican 

candidate for the U.S. Senate. The judge issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting Republican campaign workers from following Native Americans from the polls and taking down their license plate numbers. I have a copy of that temporary restraining 

order for the record. 

Finally, I want to comment on the flier that Senator Cardin mentioned which appeared in certain African-American neighborhoods 

5

in Milwaukee in 2004. It provides a series of blatantly false statements, including a warning to voters that, ‘‘If you have ever been 

found guilty of anything, even a traffic violation, you can’t vote in 

the Presidential election.’’ The flier states that, ‘‘If you violate any 

of these laws, you can get 10 years in prison and your children will 

get taken away from you.’’

Unfortunately, this kind of flier is not unique to Wisconsin or to 

the 2004 election. Attorney General Gansler refers to a very similar 

flier in his testimony which appeared in Baltimore in 2004. Indeed, 

this kind of flier, which represents one of the worst kinds of voter 

suppression, has been endemic to American elections for the last 50 

years. 

I will place in the record the text of a flier distributed in Texas 

in 1964, a year before the Voting Rights Act. The flier says that 

a list of voters has been drawn up to be arrested after the vote for 

committing any of a list of offenses, including unpaid traffic and 

parking tickets, having been questioned by the police, and delinquent child support payments. 

Some may think these kinds of tactics are humorous or just runof-the-mill political dirty tricks. I disagree. People who create and 

distribute these kinds of fliers are attempting to intimidate their 

fellow citizens into not exercising the franchise that is guaranteed 

to all of us. This bill is the Senate’s opportunity to fight back on 

behalf of citizens and voters, and I again thank the Chair for the 

hearing and for letting me make my remarks. 

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

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much, Senator Feingold. 

Our first panel are two of our colleagues who have been leaders 

in regards to strengthening our laws against crime and ensuring 

the integrity of our system for all of our citizens. I am pleased to 

recognize the Honorable Charles Schumer and the Honorable 

Barack Obama. It is a pleasure to have you on our panel. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and first I want 

to thank you, Senator Cardin, for the incredibly good work you 

have done on this issue. Your experiences in Maryland have proved 

to be a starting point for your getting involved in making sure we 

do something nationally as it affects all the States, and I thank you 

for it. 

And, of course, I want to thank my colleague and the lead sponsor on this legislation, Senator Obama, who, again, felt just as we 

did, when hearing about these things, they make your blood boil. 

And he has worked very carefully and thoughtfully, as is usual, on 

putting together both a strong but effective and balanced piece of 

legislation. 

I also want to thank Chairman Leahy for allowing us to hold this 

hearing. 

The right to vote is the wellspring of our democracy. It is the 

most cherished right of citizenship. Yet far too often, our elections 

are marred by a troubling pattern of disenfranchisement by deception. 

6

We are seeing—and it is more frequent now than before—a host 

of cynical and concerted efforts to keep voters away from the polls 

and to interfere with their choice of candidates. All too frequently, 

these dirty tricks target minority or disadvantaged communities. 

Make no mistake about it: These deceptive and intimidating practices are a form of disenfranchisement just as surely as poll taxes 

were. And we have seen the examples. I am not going to repeat 

them because you held them up, Mr. Chairman. 

These deliberate lies and all the deceptive practices we have seen 

in recent elections are, in a word, repugnant. They are despicable. 

I call them disgusting. They are an affront to the civil rights and 

intelligence of the voters, and they insult our democracy. They go 

beyond—you know, we all know that, as Boss Plunkett said back 

in the 1870s, ‘‘Politics ain’t bean bag.’’ And people respect that, and 

campaigns these days are very tough. But this goes way beyond 

that. This goes to the health, the vitality of a democracy. And when 

things like this are allowed to happen, it really says something 

about the status of democracy in America. 

And yet when these dirty tricks, these poisons occur, they are not 

prosecuted, and that is because it is not a Federal crime to disenfranchise voters by deception. The literature that you experienced in your election, Senator Cardin, well, I was furious, and 

even before you were actually sworn into office, I was pushing the 

Justice Department to investigate these fliers. They told me there 

was no legal basis to do so. If there was ever an evidence that 

spoke overwhelmingly in favor of the law we are pushing, it is that 

statement from the Justice Department that they cannot do anything about it. 

So we have the power and responsibility to give the Department 

of Justice the tools to investigate and punish acts of voter deception 

and intimidation. Our bill recognizes that voter disenfranchisement 

by deception is just as serious as voter intimidation, which has long 

been criminalized. And the penalties are tough—up to 5 years in 

jail. Somebody who does this, Mr. Chairman, does not deserve a 

slap on the wrist or even a fine. They deserve to go to jail just like 

a bank robber does because they are robbing people of their democracy. And I think the penalties are tough but deserved. I mean, the 

people who do these things make my blood boil far more than people who do hard-hitting campaign ads, even ads that might be 

below the belt. 

So our bill is tough, but at the same time it is narrowly tailored 

to protect both free speech and the right to vote. It does not just 

cover any information communicated during an election. It focuses 

on voter access to basic and verifiable facts that are essential to exercising the right to vote. The basic facts are where, when, and how 

you can cast a vote, whether you are eligible to vote, and whether 

an organization or person you trust has endorsed a particular candidate. So it is very limited, but very focused. 

With our bill, the Justice Department’s tools will not be limited 

to punishing wrongdoers after the fact. The Department will have 

a responsibility to communicate corrected information in order to 

undo the damage by deceptive practices before the polls open so 

that the damage can be undone. 

7

Let me be clear about what this bill will not do. It will not criminalize honest mistakes. Only deliberate lies that have no place in 

our democracy will be prosecuted. It will not impede legitimate political speech. It is narrowly tailored, as I mentioned. 

And let me say, Mr. Chairman, this should not be a partisan 

issue. We should have people on both sides of the aisle supporting 

this because we all care equally about our wonderful, long-lived, 

and cherished democracy. 

Opponents of this legislation may claim that it is unnecessary or 

flawed. I could not disagree more. The bill is urgently needed, it 

is carefully crafted, and it is no more than what we owe the voters 

across America. 

I would ask unanimous consent my entire statement be placed 

in the record, and thank you for having this hearing. 

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

Senator CARDIN. Without objection, the statements of all the witnesses will be included in the record. 

Senator Obama, the principal sponsor of S. 453, we thank you 

very much for your leadership on this issue and so many other 

issues of concern to enfranchise the people of our country. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARACK OBAMA, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Senator OBAMA. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin, and I 

want to thank Senator Feingold for being here and Committee 

Chairman Leahy for holding this hearing. I want to express my 

thanks to Senator Mathias for coming in and for his statement. 

The essence of this is how can we bolster the integrity of our 

electoral system. In January, I was pleased to reintroduce the Deceptive Practices Act and the Voter Intimidation Poverty Act along 

with my colleague Senator Schumer. And he has shown outstanding leadership on this issue, and I am very grateful for all his 

help. 

Several other members of this Committee, such as Chairman 

Leahy, Senators Feingold and Kennedy, and, of course, yourself, 

Mr. Chairman, have joined this bill. I am also honored that there 

is a companion bill in the House that is supported by Judiciary 

Committee Chairman John Conyers. 

I also want to thank the many groups that have endorsed this 

legislation for their support. A number of them are here today, especially the People for the American Way, the Lawyers Committee 

for Civil Rights under the Law, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the NAACP, and Common Cause. 

It is hard to imagine that we should need a bill like this, but, 

unfortunately, there are people who will stop at nothing to try to 

deceive voters and keep them away from the polls. And what is 

worse, these practices often target and exploit vulnerable populations such as minorities, the disabled, the elderly, and the poor. 

While these practices have a long history, we saw some high-profile 

examples of this in the 2006 election cycle. You, Mr. Chairman, experienced some egregious examples of it, and you have mentioned, 

as have Senator Schumer and Senator Feingold, some of those 

other examples. 

8

Of course, most of these pieces of literature that are distributed 

have no basis in fact. They are made with only one goal in mind: 

to keep Americans away from the polls. We see these problems 

year after year in election after election, and my hope is that this 

bill will finally stop these practices in time for the next election. 

The Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act 

makes voter intimidation and deception punishable by law, and it 

contains strong penalties so that people who commit these crimes 

suffer more than just a slap on the wrist. The bill also seeks to address the real harm of these crimes—people who are prevented 

from voting by misinformation—by establishing a process for reaching out to those misinformed voters with accurate information before the time is completed for them to be able to vote so that they 

can actually cast their votes in time. 

Now, there are some issues in this country that are inherently 

difficult and inherently political. We are dealing with one right now 

on the floor with immigration. There are a lot of conflicting interests and conflicting values at stake there. But making sure that 

every American is able to cast a ballot should not be one of those 

difficult issues. There is no place for politics in this debate, no room 

for those who feel that they should be able to gain partisan advantage by keeping away people from the polls. 

As members of this Committee know all too well, politics have 

colored some of the recent actions of the Department of Justice, so 

our bill includes a private right of action to ensure that individuals 

who are victims of deceptive information have legal recourse if an 

Attorney General turns a blind eye to these types of practices. 

The New York Times stated in its January 31st editorial on this 

issue that our bill ‘‘is an important step toward making elections 

more honest and fair. There is no reason it should not be passed 

by Congress unanimously.’’

I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that this editorial be placed into the 

record. 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection, it will be. 

Senator OBAMA. In conclusion, I think it is time to deal with this 

problem in a bipartisan fashion. I look forward to working with 

you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Specter, 

my outstanding colleague Senator Schumer, and those on the 

House Committee who are also interested, to make sure that we 

pass this legislation this year. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, let me thank both of you for your testimony. 

Let me just make an observation and try to get your response to 

it. I saw this type of literature in 2002 and in 2004 and was outraged by it. It was difficult to trace who was putting out the literature. Sometimes it appears with no real responsible individual 

willing to claim that they put out the material. But in 2006, it was 

blatant. In my State, it was a major political party’s candidate for 

Governor and the U.S. Senate that just put that literature out the 

night before the election without any hesitation whatsoever and 

thought it was a good campaign strategy, that one of the strategies 

that we all use in campaign is get out the vote. We try to get out 

our vote. We spend a lot of resources knocking on doors and makVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:26 Feb 13, 2008 Jkt 040581 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\40581.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
9

ing phone calls and sending literature to communities in which we 

are trying to get people out to vote. 

So I expect their attitude was, well, if getting out the vote is OK, 

what is wrong with trying to suppress the vote? What is wrong 

with that tactic as part of a way to win elections? It is pretty effective. If I can keep the minority vote numbers down, it has an impact on who is going to win the election. 

I find that just unacceptable, as I know you two also believe. But 

it seems to me we have to set the ground rules because if you do 

not set the ground rules, what happened in 2006 is only going to 

accelerate, and you will see more and more of these blatant efforts 

to affect the outcome of elections. 

So I just really want to get your observations on that. How far 

can we go in this area? And how does the First Amendment play 

into making sure that we get it done right? 

Senator OBAMA. Well, look, political speech is the most valuable 

and most protected speech, and we are very careful to make sure 

that that speech is not impacted by this bill. Political speech does 

not encompass the right to deliberately lie or provide misinformation to voters in order to suppress the vote. And so that is the line 

that we draw on this bill. We are very careful to make sure that 

it is not impacting political speech that says Senator Obama voted 

against such-and-such or has failed his constituents on this issue 

or that issue. That obviously is appropriate—not always comfortable but appropriate. 

Senator SCHUMER. Blatantly false. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator OBAMA. Absolutely. So I think that you make the broad 

point properly, Mr. Chairman, and that is that there is a great difference between trying to increase your own vote and suppressing 

somebody else’s vote. And those are tactics that are not acceptable. 

We think that this is a useful baseline, as you put it. There are 

still going to be some areas that are not reached by this bill. The 

New York Times noted that one of the most egregious tactics that 

was used were these robo-calls that were used under the guise of 

one candidate trying to get the vote out, essentially irritating people so badly that it suppressed potential voters in certain areas. 

You know, there are always going to be some dirty tricks out 

there that are employed. What we do not want to do, though, is to 

permit some of these tactics that we can deal with from preventing 

people from exercising their franchise and maintaining a robust democracy. 

Senator SCHUMER. Senator Obama said it all. 

Senator CARDIN. I think it is a healthy message. It makes it clear 

what we are attempting to do, and if this bill becomes law—and 

I certainly hope it will be—it puts political parties and candidates 

on notice. 

Senator OBAMA. And I think you make a very important point, 

Mr. Chairman. Some of this is prophylactic. If people know that the 

law takes this seriously, they will not do it. The reason that a lot 

of these practices are engaged in right now is because people feel 

as if there are no consequences to these actions. 

Senator SCHUMER. We did debate whether there should just be 

a fine or jail time, which obviously is far more serious, taking away 

10

someone’s freedom. And I think the consensus not only among ourselves as the sponsors but among many people and experts we 

talked to is that jail time is perfectly appropriate and necessary so 

that people do not think it is just a slap on the wrist or you pay 

a price for doing this. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, and I applaud you for that. I think you 

made the bill tough, but you have also focused it. You have erred 

on the side of making it a narrowly focused bill so that it does meet 

the constitutional test, and I think you needed to do that. But I 

also do think it is a clear message that, yes, we understand you 

may be able to figure out ways to try to get around this bill, but 

that is not what we should be doing. We should be, as Americans, 

trying to figure out ways to win elections clearly on the issues and 

on legitimate campaign strategies and not trying to suppress minority vote. 

Let me thank both of you for your leadership on this issue and 

for being here. I appreciate it. 

Senator CARDIN. Our second panel, I am very pleased to have the 

Attorney General of the State of Maryland, the Honorable Doug 

Gansler. Attorney General Gansler is the former State’s Attorney 

of Montgomery County, and he has broad experience in the criminal justice system and has a distinguished career in our State and 

is the new Attorney General for the State of Maryland. 

We also have the County Executive from Prince George’s County, 

Maryland, Jack Johnson. Jack is also a former prosecutor, former 

State’s Attorney from Prince George’s County and has a very distinguished record as the State’s Attorney significantly reducing 

crime in Prince George’s County, which is, of course, our neighboring county. It borders the District of Columbia. He has done a 

super job as our leader in Prince George’s County. 

It is a pleasure to have both of you before our Committee, and 

we will start off with General Gansler. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, STATE OF MARYLAND, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 

Mr. GANSLER. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your leadership on this issue. Immediately after the election, Senator 

Cardin, you called our office and we got together. While we have 

put together a task force to look at voter irregularities on the State 

level, your leadership here on the Federal level has clearly been exemplary. And I want to also think the principal sponsor, Senator 

Obama, and Jack Johnson for being here today. He is going to 

focus on the issues in Prince George’s County. And I would like to 

mention the Director of our Civil Rights Department of the Attorney General’s Office, Carl Snowden, is here as well. 

I would like to focus my comments—my testimony is in the 

record, but I would like to focus my comments on the question you 

asked, Senator, regarding the juxtaposition of the First Amendment with this bill. It seems to me there are three categories of deceptive communications at issue here in elections. 

The first is the mischaracterization of a candidate’s viewpoint. 

One of the most classic examples would be the Willie Horton ads 

of days gone by, where you take a situation out of context. It is fair 

game, it is protected by the First Amendment, it is somewhat insidVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:26 Feb 13, 2008 Jkt 040581 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\40581.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
11

ious and adds cynicism to the process, but it is protected by the 

First Amendment. 

The second category would be the category that is addressed by 

this bill and one that Mr. Johnson is going to be talking about, 

which is the flier in Prince George’s County, which is really akin 

to libel; that is, it is knowingly making a false statement in an effort to sway a particular voter or voters. The Prince George’s County flier would be the classic example of that when these three people clearly endorsed somebody else and then on election day all of 

a sudden they are purported to have endorsed a different candidate. 

My comments would focus and I think the bill properly focuses 

on the third category, and the third category is statements, deception that is not focused on swaying a particular candidate—or a 

particular voter to vote for a particular candidate; that is, it is not 

aimed at persuasion but aimed at suppression. And that is the 

problem, and that is what this bill addresses. It may or may not 

be motivated by wanting to sway voters toward a particular candidate or away from a particular candidate. But the motives are irrelevant, and that obviously is the case in the Baltimore City case 

where it says, ‘‘Urgent Notice. Come out to vote on November 6th.’’ 

The election was not on November 6th. 

‘‘Before you come to vote, make sure you pay your parking tickets, motor vehicle tickets, overdue rent, and, most important, any 

warrants.’’ Now, that does not talk about any candidate at all. 

What that is aimed at is voter suppression, keeping people away 

from the polls, which is precisely why the 1965 Voting Rights Act 

was passed in the first place. 

This legislation that is put forward takes a measured approach 

to addressing the important issue, imposing penalties for deceptive 

communications where the communication does two things: first, 

the person who puts it out knows the information to be false; and, 

second, acts with the intent to prevent another person from exercising the right to vote in an election. The legislation properly, in 

my view, respects the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of 

speech while recognizing the strong Federal interest in safeguarding the right to vote and prohibiting tactics that have frequently been employed in racially discriminatory ways. 

The examples of such tactics that have been discussed today illustrate that shame has proved to be an insufficient deterrent in 

this area for those who would engage in such practices. Senate Bill 

453 is an important component of what has to be a comprehensive 

approach, at both the Federal and State levels, to ensuring that 

voter rights are protected. 

So I strongly endorse the bill and its passage. I commend you, 

Senator, for your leadership and thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today. 

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

for the record.] 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Johnson? 

12

STATEMENT OF HON. JACK B. JOHNSON, COUNTY EXECUTIVE, 

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND, UPPER MARLBORO, 

MARYLAND 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be here and 

actually honored to be here. Let me begin by offering my support 

for S. 453. It is absolutely critical that this bill is passed. 

Let me talk about two things. On the evening of the election, as 

I traveled the county, I saw thousands of signs that said, ‘‘We are 

not slave to the Democrats.’’ Interestingly, the signs were in the 

very same colors of this sign—red, black and green. And what it 

referenced is the dark period in our history, and it dealt with the 

whole substance of slavery. And, in essence, what it said was that 

the Democrats were treating African-Americans as slaves. 

Interestingly, our county is a very large African-American community, and I believe that that literature was designed to suppress 

the African-American vote on the next day of the election. 

Now, I am not sure whether that is illegal, and I am not sure 

that that is not protected. But the point is that it is so egregious 

and designed to suppress the vote. 

Now, the African-American tie to slavery and the Democratic 

Party issue pales in terms of what I saw the next morning. As I 

said, this slavery signage paled by comparison with what I encountered on election day. I woke up and went to the polls early to 

gauge what was going on, as I often do. I went to my polling place 

and saw someone I did not know handing out literature saying that 

I was supporting the candidate for U.S. Senate who was a Republican. The literature said, ‘‘These are Our Choices.’’ On the cover 

was my picture, the leader of the Democratic Party allegedly endorsing not only the Governor, who is a Republican, but also the 

candidate for the U.S. Senate. This was a falsehood. I do not believe—it is deceptive, it was a hoax, and I do not believe at all that 

it is free speech protected by the First Amendment. 

Phone calls came early and often that election day. Angry citizens wanted to know why I was a turncoat and why I had abandoned the Democratic Party. I was simply flabbergasted that my 

name and likeness could be appropriated in such a manner. Rather 

than using my time to visit with voters and discuss issues that 

were of concern to me and the county, I spent the entire day, Mr. 

Chairman, as you know, trying to inform citizens that this was a 

hoax and that it was not true. 

The outrage continued all day as we learned that the people that 

were distributing this literature came in early that morning from 

Philadelphia, all of them homeless, having been promised a ride 

back home as well as $100. Many of them were later abandoned 

at the polling places, and many of them, when they found out the 

truth, decided that they would not pass out this literature. Delegate JoAnne Benson and others had to reach into their own pockets 

and pay many of the homeless people rides back to Philadelphia. 

Of course, everyone denied that they had anything to do with these 

fliers. No one had no way of knowing how it happened, and nobody 

knew anything. 

Many citizens told me they saw my face on the literature and 

voted accordingly. Voters should not expect to see signs posted 

about being slaves, and voters should not be handed a false ballot 

13

with pictures of people they have come to trust and respect purportedly supporting candidates they have never endorsed. And let 

me say I found it just so offensive that, again, my likeness and my 

name would be associated with the Republican Party endorsing 

these candidates. 

I want to make clear, though, that as a Democrat, I do vote for 

various people, and I saw Mac Mathias, Senator Mathias here, and 

that was the first vote that I cast when I was a young person and 

first moved to the State of Maryland, voting for Mathias because 

I knew the record he had on civil rights, justice, liberty, and the 

things that are important. 

I have seen firsthand the lingering vestiges of slavery and Jim 

Crow laws. The memories pain me, and those who live in our county and throughout America. There are those who seek to exploit 

this sad history, but I have confidence that this and other practices 

I described here today can be curtailed with the adoption of S. 453. 

I urge you to support and I urge that the Congress will support 

this piece of legislation. It is absolutely important. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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

for the record.] 

Senator CARDIN. Let me thank both of you for your testimony. 

Senator Mathias wanted to be here today. He knew what the hearing was about and wanted to be here, and it was not easy for him 

to physically get here. And, without objection, we are going to put 

his letter into the Committee record. I appreciate both of you acknowledging that. 

Jack, you are rather calm today, but I remember talking to you 

the day before the election, and you were not quite as calm. There 

was a pattern in Maryland. You mentioned the slavery posters that 

were up, that we do not know for sure who put up those posters 

because they were not identified. But it was part of a pattern to 

try to anger African-American voters so perhaps they would not 

show up to vote. They knew that a large number would not vote 

Republican. If they could just keep the numbers down, it would 

help the Republican candidates. 

But then we did see this brochure that you refer to that came 

out the night before the election, and that has the authority line 

of the Republican candidate. So we know who put that out, and 

that is clearly, as you put it, a hoax. ‘‘Misleading’’ is, I think, kind 

to it. But once again, it was an effort to try to confuse minority voters in the largest jurisdiction in Maryland of minority voters, 

Prince George’s County, a critical county in the election. 

And then we also know about the busing in—by the way, we 

know that that was paid for by the Republicans because it was acknowledged, bringing in homeless people from Philadelphia who 

had no idea what they were doing. They thought they were getting 

a job in Maryland handing out the literature on election day so 

they could have an African-American face handing out the literature in the polling places—again, to try to adversely affect the 

minority vote. 

But it goes beyond that. The Republicans had control of the election process because we had a Republican Governor, and as I have 

talked to the Attorney General about, in Prince George’s County 

14

and in Baltimore City, the two large jurisdictions of African-American voters, there were more voting machines that did not function 

and the lines to vote were the longest. I visited Prince George’s 

County late on election day and was shocked to find out that the 

average wait to vote in many of the precincts in Prince George’s 

County was 2 hours to cast a vote. 

Now, that was not true in other jurisdictions in our State. Where 

I voted, it took me 10 minutes to vote during a pretty busy time. 

So you put all this together, and you see where there were instructions that the Republicans had at one point to start challenging—have their poll watchers challenge voters indiscriminately, again, in order to, we think, make the lines longer. 

This is a pattern to try to win an election by diminishing a vote, 

not increasing a vote. And it has got to be dealt with because it 

is the poll tax of our time. 

I know the bill that is before us is narrowly focused because we 

need to do that constitutionally. I do not think we could outlaw the 

slavery-type poster. I would like to do it. I would hope that people 

would be outraged by it and it will not have the intended effect, 

and that the robo-call that you referred to was pretty clever, because it was somewhat of an obnoxious robo-call mentioning the opponent’s name over and over again hoping that people would hang 

up and think that he was the person that was calling in order to 

aggravate voters. 

But it seems to me, Attorney General Gansler, that we need to 

look at strengthening not only the Federal laws but State laws in 

order to make these types of patterns illegal and to give both parties due notice that we will not tolerate that type of conduct by our 

political parties or by our candidates. 

Mr. GANSLER. I agree with that, Mr. Chairman, and I think this 

bill deals with the speech conduct, the deceptive speech, and that 

ought to be Federal because it should not—this type of conduct, 

just like poll taxes and literacy tests were outlawed by the Voting 

Rights Act of 1965, this is really an extension of that, and that 

ought to be pervasive throughout the country. 

On the State level, each State, unfortunately, or fortunately, has 

a different method by which they vote, different machines, actually 

different technology, and so forth. In Maryland, we have assembled 

a task force, and your office and you have been instrumental in 

looking at those issues as well. And I was the same way. I was absolutely disgusted at what I saw in a placed called Evangel Cathedral in Prince George’s County. I was there at 11 o’clock, and people literally took 3 hours to vote. Of course, what was heartening 

was how many people stayed there to exercise their franchise. 

What was discouraging were the people who had 1 hour for lunch 

and had to leave. 

We are going to look at it on the State level as to why that happened, how it happened, and, most importantly, to make sure it 

does not happen again—without really casting blame and going 

back, because there is no law, there is nothing to enforce there, but 

just to make sure it does not happen and make sure we have the 

laws on the books so that we can enforce it if, in fact, it happens 

again next time, because it is hard enough to get people to go out 

and vote. There is a lot of cynicism involved in politics and whether 

15

somebody’s vote counts. Much of that is because of the nature of 

the political ads we have, and what this bill does is make sure that 

the political ads at least stop at a particular line, a line protected 

by the First Amendment, and does not cross that line into libel or 

into content that is specifically designed to suppress the vote. But 

on the State level, we also have to take measures as well. 

Senator CARDIN. Right. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, if I could just say that I wanted to put 

the entire concept of what happened in Prince George’s County in 

context. You are absolutely right, I am calm today, but on election 

night it is probably the most important election we have had in 25 

years in Prince George’s County. The U.S. Senate was on the line. 

It is not one sign that said the Democrats in a sense enslave black 

people. The roads were paved with it, just for miles along at 10 feet 

apart at the most. ‘‘We are not slaves to the Democrats.’’ The 

Democrats are enslaving African-Americans in essence. 

Then the next morning you get up and you see a total hoax, 

falsehood, in the terms of a literature that says—and everyone 

knew that being the leader of the Democratic Party and that many 

of the Democrats in the county follow my advice on where we 

should go in the election. So my likeness is crucial in the election. 

It is appropriated, it is stolen, it is taken, and it is false. 

Then the other thing is that we go to the polls on election day. 

I walked to my polling place. Not only at my polling place I am getting this literature, but, more importantly, the polls are not open. 

It is raining, as you recall. At 7 o’clock, none of the machines are 

open. At 7:30, none of the machines are open. At 8 o’clock, the machines are not open. I said, ‘‘What is the problem?’’ ‘‘Oh, it is a 

technical problem with a computer.’’

I got on the telephone and called our computer experts, said, 

‘‘Get down here because the polls are not open, and they are telling 

me it is a technology issue. You need to come and fix it.’’

My technology chief called everybody—because the Government 

is closed. You have to come in and help fix the problem. Many people left because they intended to vote before going to work. When 

they came back in the evening, the lines are 2 hours long and they 

cannot vote. We missed many votes on election day. And as you 

know, this was a critical election. The experts said it could go any 

way. And we lost many votes, and they knew that the votes would 

turn in Prince George’s County in one election. 

We understand that S. 453 deals with the issue of falsehoods, 

which the First Amendment appropriately protects—or will allow, 

but the other issue was designed to show the problem that we confront and that I think is confronted all over America in having a 

fair and honest and open election, which is the essence of our democracy. 

Senator CARDIN. I need to put in the record that I agree with you 

that hundreds, if not thousands, of potential voters were denied the 

opportunity to vote in this past election in Prince George’s County 

as a result of the cumulative impact of all the methods that we 

have talked about. 

Having said that, to the credit of the people of Prince George’s 

County, you had record turnouts, you had large turnouts of voters 

that stayed and cast their votes. And the margin that I received 

16

in that election was larger than the margin in Baltimore City, 

which is my base. 

I point that out because the voters of Prince George’s County I 

think saw through a lot that was happening. 

Mr. JOHNSON. They did. 

Senator CARDIN. That is not to say that there were not a lot of 

people disenfranchised. There were, no question about it. They 

could not wait 3 hours, as the Attorney General said. They could 

not come back when the polls were not open in the morning. They 

were disgusted by what they saw, and they said, you know, ‘‘Forget 

it. I am not going to show up to vote.’’ There is no question that 

it had an impact on the number of voters in the county. But I do 

really congratulate the people of Prince George’s County, many of 

whom just said—to wait 3 hours to vote is quite a commitment, 

and thousands did that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Many people voted after midnight. That is how 

long the polls were—

Senator CARDIN. I know. I was waiting for those precincts to 

come in. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARDIN. Let me thank both of you again for being here 

today. This is an important subject. I think we can learn a lot from 

the local governments. We are trying to get this right. I know that 

in Maryland we are trying to figure out what is the best voting system. There has been a lot of debate here in Washington as to the 

verifiable voting machines, et cetera. In Maryland, we changed 

ours in the last elections, and it has been somewhat confusing. But 

we need to make sure that voters can get their votes recorded properly and that tactics that are aimed at minority communities are 

not tolerated. And I know that the two of you will be continuing 

to work with us to make sure in our State we handle it correctly. 

But it is very important that you have a Federal partner. And the 

Justice Department has told us, as they told Senator Schumer, that 

they do not believe they have the laws necessary in order to deal 

with this today. That is why Senator Obama has introduced his 

bill, and if we can get that bill through Congress, then I think we 

can give you a Federal partner to try to make sure what happened 

in Maryland does not happen again or does not happen any place 

else in our country. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GANSLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. We will now have panel three: Hilary Shelton, 

the Director of the Washington Bureau, National Association for 

the Advancement of Colored People; John Trasvin ̃ a, President and 

General Counsel, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund; Richard Briffault, the Joseph Chamberlain Professor 

of Legislation, the Columbia Law School; William Canfield, a principal at Williams & Jensen; and Peter Kirsanow, Commissioner, 

United States Commission on Civil Rights. 

If I could ask you all to please stand in order to be sworn in. 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? 

17

Mr. SHELTON. I do. 

Mr. TRASVIN ̃ A. I do. 

Mr. BRIFFAULT. I do. 

Mr. CANFIELD. I do. 

Mr. KIRSANOW. I do. 

Senator CARDIN. Please be seated. We will start with Mr. Hilary 

Shelton. 

STATEMENT OF HILARY O. SHELTON, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON BUREAU, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE (NAACP), WASHINGTON, 

D.C. 

Mr. SHELTON. Thank you, Senator. Good afternoon. As you said, 

my name is Hilary Shelton, and I am the Director of the NAACP’s 

Washington Bureau, the Federal legislative and national public 

policy arm of our Nation’s oldest, largest. and most widely recognized grassroots civil rights organization, with membership units 

literally in every State in our country. 

The right to vote has always been an ultimate priority for the 

NAACP. For almost a century, the NAACP has fought against 

those who wish to suppress the votes of African-Americans and 

other racial or ethnic minority Americans through unfair or unjust 

laws, deception and/or intimidation. 

With the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it became 

illegal for States or local municipalities to pass laws that in any 

way infringed on a person’s constitutional right to register and cast 

an unfettered vote. Subsequent laws and reauthorizations of the 

Voting Rights Act have further addressed these tactics and made 

it harder for a State or a local government to infringe on a citizen’s 

right and ability to cast an unfettered vote. 

Unfortunately, some people are still so desperate to win elections—elections that they fear they cannot rightfully win—that 

they resort to deceptive practices, misinformation, and lies to try 

to keep legitimate voters away from the polls or to support candidates whom they might not otherwise vote for. It is even more 

unfortunate that these practices often target and exploit many of 

the same populations that have historically been excluded from the 

ballot box. Specifically, vulnerable populations, such as racial and 

ethnic minorities, the disabled and/or poor and senior citizens are 

often targeted by those perpetuating these deceptive practices. 

To put it bluntly, it is now against the law to use official means 

to prevent whole communities of American citizens from casting a 

free and unfettered ballot. Yet there are still people and organizations in our country who are so afraid of the outcome of our democratic process that they must stoop to lies, duplicitous behavior, 

and intimidation to try to keep certain segments of our population 

and communities away from the voting poll. 

That is why the NAACP so ardently supports the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, S. 453, introduced by 

Senators Obama, Cardin, Schumer, Feingold, and others. This legislation seeks to address the real harm of these crimes—people who 

are prevented from voting by misinformation or intimidation—by 

establishing a process for reaching out to those voters with accurate information so they can cast their votes in time and ensure a 

18

more genuine outcome of the election. The bill also makes voter intimidation and deception punishable by law, and it contains strong 

penalties so that people are deterred from committing these crimes, 

knowing that they will suffer more than just a slap on the wrist 

if caught and convicted. 

The fact of the matter is that if an individual wins an election 

by a few votes, even when it can be proven that many potential 

voters were kept away from the voting booth by deceptive or intimidating behavior, the winner remains in office for the duration 

of the term. That is why it is so important to correct the misinformation before the election is over and the damage has been 

done. 

As we have heard and will hear today, examples of malicious deceptive practices, almost all of which targeted racial or ethnic minority populations, were rampant as recently as the general election in 2006. In Ingham County, Michigan, a partisan poll challenger confronted every African-American attempting to vote that 

day. There were no reports of any Caucasian voters even being 

questioned. 

In Orange County, California, 14,000 Latino voters got letters in 

Spanish saying it was a crime for immigrants to vote in a Federal 

election. It did not state or even clarify that immigrants who are 

citizens have the right to vote and indeed should. 

In Baltimore, Maryland, misleading fliers were placed on cars in 

predominantly African-American neighborhoods giving the wrong 

date for the upcoming election day. 

In Virginia, registered voters received recorded (robotic) calls 

that falsely stated that the recipient of the call was registered in 

another State and would face criminal charges if they came to the 

polls to vote that day. It was also in Virginia that voters received 

phone calls stating that because they were such regular voters they 

could vote this time by telephone, by simply pressing a number at 

that time for the candidate of their choice. The call ended by repeating that they had now voted and did not need to go to the 

polls. The disenfranchisement strategies continue. 

In all of these cases, a quick response to expose the lies that 

were told and provide corrected information to get legitimate voters 

to the polls in time to have their vote counted was clearly warranted. Unfortunately, nothing was done by the Federal Government to aid the clearing-up of these lies. It was, therefore, up to 

the local and national media, as well as advocacy groups like ours, 

to scramble to try to undo the damage. While it is difficult to conclusively demonstrate that these specific misdeeds had an impact 

on an election, it is the position of the NAACP that if even one lawful voter was deceived or intimidated and, therefore, did not cast 

a legitimate vote, that is one too many in a Federal election, and 

the Government must do something. 

When Presidential elections can be won or lost by a few hundred 

votes, it is up to the Federal Government to do all it can to ensure 

that every eligible person who wants to vote can and that every 

vote legitimately cast will be counted. 

It is unfortunate yet necessary that the Deceptive Practices and 

Voter Intimidation Prevention Act needs to be passed now, before 

19

another election comes, more lies are told, and more voters are 

locked out of our system of democratic process. 

The NAACP would like to thank the sponsors and cosponsors of 

S. 453 and H.R. 1281, the companion bill in the House, as well as 

Chairman Cardin and Senators Schumer and Obama for their leadership and their demonstrated commitment to this crucial issue. 

The NAACP stands ready to offer the assistance of our members, 

staff, and leadership to do all we can to encourage the quick enactment of the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention 

Act. 

Thank you so much. 

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

for the record.] 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Trasvin ̃ a? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN TRASVIN ̃ A, PRESIDENT AND GENERAL 

COUNSEL, MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND (MALDEF), LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. TRASVIN ̃ A. Chairman Cardin, Senator Hatch, thank you for 

the opportunity to testify on MALDEF’s behalf in support of the 

Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, cosponsored by 15 Senators, including 7 members of this Committee. 

My colleague Hilary Shelton puts it very, very well. Voter intimidation and deceptive practices present serious threats to the integrity of the American democratic system. Since our founding in 

1968, MALDEF has used every legal and policy mechanism at our 

disposal to protect Latino voters from election practices that limit 

our ability to fully participate in American democracy. When voters 

are targeted for intimidation, and especially when they are targeted because of their race or national origin, all Americans suffer. 

We have recently witnessed serious incidents of voter suppression, intimidation, and deceptive practices aimed at Latino voters. 

When a community organizes politically and begins to make new 

political gains, it often becomes subject to deliberate attempts to 

halt its electoral advancement by any available means, including 

the use of deceptive practices and voter intimidation. For example, 

on November 7, 2006, MALDEF attorneys witnessed an extreme 

act of voter intimidation in Tucson, Arizona. Vigilantes, one of 

whom was armed, approached Latino voters before they entered 

the 49th Precinct polling place in an apparent attempt to suppress 

the Latino vote in the congressional midterm elections. One man 

carried a camcorder, another held a clipboard, and a third wore a 

law enforcement emblem and a holstered gun as they approached 

only Latino voters. The vigilantes asked Latino voters pointed 

questions about their political views, wrote down Latino voters’ 

personal information, and videotaped them as they went to cast 

their vote. The vigilantes’ website indicated that they were 

videotaping Latino voters in order to confirm that all Latino voters 

were properly registered to vote. 

You have heard about this letter in Orange County, California, 

sent to approximately 14,000 Spanish-surname voters. An outrage, 

this letter, solely meant to intimidate foreign-born voters. A list 

was bought by one of the candidates and used to send out on a 

20

third-party organization’s letter head a letter written in Spanish 

that appeared on the letterhead of an organization well known for 

its views on immigration. It was signed by a fictitious person and 

contained numerous deceptive and intimidating statements. 

First, the Orange County letter falsely advised prospective voters 

that immigrants who vote in Federal elections are committing a 

crime that can result in incarceration and possible deportation. 

This is a false and deceptive statement. Naturalized immigrants, 

including our own Governor of California, who are otherwise eligible to vote are free to vote in Federal elections without fear of penalties. 

Second, the letter stated that ‘‘the U.S. Government is installing 

a new computerized system to verify names of all newly registered 

voters who participate in the elections... Organizations against emigration will be able to request information from this new computerized system,’’ according to the letter. Clearly not true, but clearly 

intended in an intimidating tone using false information to undermine voter confidence within the targeted group of voters. 

Finally, the letter stated that ‘‘[n]ot like in Mexico, here there is 

no benefit to voting.’’ This letter, representing a coordinated and 

extensive effort to suppress the Latino vote in the days leading up 

to a congressional election, was traced by State election officials to 

a candidate running for the congressional seat. And, in particular, 

foreign-born voters new to our process are more susceptible to 

these types of letters because they often have a system to fall back 

on, a system different than our American democracy. They are new 

to our American democracy, and it is easier to use these type of letters to intimidate them. That is why they are so wrong. 

S. 453 will provide critical tools to address the types of voter suppression and intimidation that MALDEF has combated in previous 

elections and expect to continue to combat as the Latino vote grows 

in strength over the coming years. S. 453 will provide administrative and judicial remedies for voters targeted for intentionally deceptive practices, and it will provide security to all voters by providing for increased Federal protections in the elections process. 

If S. 453 had been in place during the 2006 election cycle, the 

deceptive practices of voter intimidation described would have resulted in different outcomes. MALDEF notified the United States 

Department of Justice, which had senior staff monitoring the election in Arizona, but we are unaware of any resulting Federal investigation or prosecution that has resulted from our notice that day. 

If S. 453 were Federal law at the time, DOJ would have been 

charged with conducting an investigation and prosecuting the offending parties if they engaged in intentional deceptive practices. 

The Orange County voter suppression letter described also would 

have triggered Federal action. We wrote to the Attorney General, 

who initiated an investigation but instituted no corrective actions 

to remedy the receipt of the misinformation contained in the letter. 

Instead, MALDEF worked with the California Secretary of State to 

distribute corrective action letters to all affected voters that contained the correct voter eligibility information. 

MALDEF supports this legislation as a remedy against voter intimidation and deceptive practices that limit Americans’ ability to 

freely participate in the democratic process. Prevention of the repVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:26 Feb 13, 2008 Jkt 040581 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\40581.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
21

rehensible practices barred under S. 453 strengthens our democracy. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Trasvin ̃ a appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Briffault? 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD BRIFFAULT, JOSEPH P. CHAMBERLAIN PROFESSOR OF LEGISLATION, COLUMBIA LAW 

SCHOOL, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Mr. BRIFFAULT. Senator Cardin, Senator Hatch, thank you for 

the honor of inviting me here to testify today. My name is Richard 

Briffault. I am a professor of law at Columbia Law School, specializing in election law issues. 

Congress plainly has the authority to adopt laws vindicating the 

integrity of Federal elections and protecting the rights of Federal 

voters. Moreover, S. 453 is entirely consistent with the First 

Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech. My comments today 

will focus on the First Amendment question. 

S. 453 is aimed solely at preventing the knowing dissemination 

of falsehoods with the intent to interfere with the right to vote. The 

Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment does 

not protect intentionally false statements of fact. In the Court’s 

words, ‘‘there is no constitutional value in false statements of 

facts.’’ Moreover, S. 453 promotes the compelling governmental interest in electoral integrity. The Supreme Court has repeatedly indicated that the States may restrict even constitutionally protected 

speech when protecting the right of its citizens to vote freely for the 

candidates of their choice. Congress has a compelling interest in 

protecting voters from confusion and undue influence and in ensuring that an individual’s right to vote is not undermined by fraud 

in the election process. 

S. 453 satisfies the Supreme Court’s requirement that a law regulating false statements be narrowly tailored to avoid impinging on 

or chilling constitutionally protected speech. S. 453 is narrowly tailored in three ways. 

First, S. 453 is limited to the communication of falsehoods that 

the speaker knows to be false and which the speaker communicates 

in order to prevent another person from voting. This is actually significantly tighter than the so-called ‘‘actual malice’’ test adopted by 

Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan, which permits the 

prohibition of both knowing falsehoods and statements made with 

reckless disregard for truth or falsity. Innocent, merely negligent, 

or even reckless mistakes are not penalized under the bill. 

Second, S. 453 is limited to a very constrained set of false statements of fact—statements dealing with the time, place, or manner 

of voting; with eligibility to vote; and with explicit endorsements by 

persons or organizations. These involve simple statements of fact 

that do not remotely deal with matters of opinion, or the issues, 

ideas, or political views that make up an election campaign. Such 

false statements can serve only to confuse or mislead voters, deceiving some to vote against their own political preferences and 

leading others not to vote at all. To the extent that such false stateVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:26 Feb 13, 2008 Jkt 040581 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\40581.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
22

ments are aimed at lower-income groups, the less educated, or racial minorities, they will tend to systematically undermine the ability of the election to represent the views of the entire community. 

Third, the bill provides a tight temporal limit for its restrictions. 

The prohibitions on knowing communication of false information 

apply only during the 60 days before an election. As a result, S. 

453 is narrowly tailored, which is the Supreme Court’s standard, 

to promote the compelling governmental interest in electoral integrity and in the protection of the rights of voters. 

Approximately 18 States have adopted some laws prohibiting 

false campaign statements. Courts have generally upheld in principle bans on intentionally false election statements as constitutional, although some specific statutes have fallen. S. 453 is actually more narrowly tailored than virtually all existing State false 

campaign statement laws and, thus, should have no problem in 

passing a constitutional challenge. 

In short, by protecting voters from false statements intended to 

deceive them or prevent them from voting, S. 453 is not only constitutional but actually promotes the values of political participation and personal autonomy that are at the heart of the First 

Amendment. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Briffault appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Canfield? 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM B. CANFIELD, PRINCIPAL, WILLIAMS 

& JENSEN PLLC, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. CANFIELD. Good afternoon, Mr. Cardin and Senator Hatch. 

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. My name 

is Bill Canfield. I am a partner in the Washington, D.C., law firm 

of Williams & Jensen. You have my prepared statement, and I will 

not bother to go through it. I will make a few observations based 

on my unique experience. I think I am the only member of this 

panel and any of the other panels that actually practices in this 

area of the law. Therefore, I have a sort of fundamental understanding of how the courts look at these issues and how these 

issues get resolved in real-time setting in the head of a difficult 

and sometimes tendacious campaign. 

No one here, least of all myself, is arguing for or on behalf of 

voter intimidation or any other kinds of vile things that have been 

presented before the Committee today. What I urge you to do is 

look at the four issues that I outlined in my prepared remarks and 

focus your attention on those four issues. This bill is well meaning, 

I believe, but it is subject to some criticism based on its scope and 

the definitions that it uses. 

As a person who practices in this area of the law, I have to counsel my clients, which are campaigns and campaign committee managers and those kinds of professionals, as to the status of current 

law. It is a very difficult situation to do when the law that you 

have before you is open to various levels of interpretation. 

I would remind you that the Supreme Court has said in many, 

many instances that speech is the most highly protected of our valVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:26 Feb 13, 2008 Jkt 040581 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\40581.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
23

ues as American citizens, and of all kinds of speech, I would say 

political speech is probably the most singularly protected. And the 

courts have unanimously or regularly upheld that general principle, so I would urge the Congress in moving forward into an area 

that addresses, at least marginally or tangentially, the First 

Amendment’s application to a bill such as this that we tread carefully and tread narrowly. Otherwise, the courts are going to have 

to, you know, interpret what you say and work their will. 

The other observation I would generally make is I have seen a 

tendency in the last 25 or 30 years to begin criminalizing various 

aspects of Federal election law. I think this is a terrible, terrible, 

terrible way to go. The Federal Election Commission exists for the 

sole purpose of overseeing the Federal Election Campaign Act. You 

have many agencies of the executive branch of Government who 

also have a role in this. To criminalize activities that have never 

been criminalized before within the electoral setting is a challenge, 

I think, in and of itself. 

The bill’s provision for a private right of action by a person who 

is aggrieved by some form of intimidation also troubles me. I think 

it will lead to the opening of Pandora’s Box. If it is easy now in 

the course of a campaign to file a spurious campaign complaint 

with the Federal Election Commission and hold a press conference 

and get the attention of the local press alleging that your opponent 

has engaged in some violation of Federal election law without any 

real interest in seeing how the FEC deals with the matter, which 

is always after the fact, think how easy it is going to be for some 

campaign manager who is aggrieved by the campaign tactics of the 

other side to get someone, either himself or some supporter, to file 

a private right of action, to go to the U.S. Attorney, to go to the 

Attorney General, to file a private right of action to try and suppress whatever that campaign manager does not like the other side 

doing to his campaign. 

So I just encourage you to look at the practical aspects of the 

bill’s such as this that you are looking for because the difficulty we 

have as practitioners is actually implementing them after they 

have been agreed to by the Congress. 

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

for the record.] 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Kirsanow? 

STATEMENT OF PETER N. KIRSANOW, COMMISSIONER, U.S. 

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. KIRSANOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Hatch. I am 

Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 

also a member—

Senator CARDIN. Would you turn your microphone one? 

Mr. KIRSANOW. Thank you. I am a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and also the National Labor Relations Board. 

I am here in my personal capacity. 

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was established pursuant 

to the 1957 Civil Rights Act to, among other things, act as a national clearinghouse for matters pertaining to equal protection and 

voting rights. 

24

In furtherance of the clearinghouse function, the Commission on 

a regular basis conducts hearings on voter suppression, intimidation, and harassment. And the last such hearing was in October of 

2006, just before the midterm elections. 

Based on the evidence adduced at that Commission hearing, I 

would urge the Committee in its deliberations of Senate bill 453 to 

consider at least three deceptive practices not currently covered by 

the bill; that is, false registrations, multiple registration, and compromised absentee ballots. 

The evidence adduced shows that at least two prongs to the problem of deceptive practices that deal with election integrity: first is 

voter suppression, broadly defined; second is voter fraud. 

The empirical shows that the first prong is generally a function 

of provisional ballots and also of election disinformation. Sections 

3(a)(2)(A)(ii) and 3(b)(1)(A)(ii) cover at least certain elements of the 

first prong, that is, preventing eligible voters from voting, but leave 

wholly unaddressed the second prong of affirmative voter fraud, 

and deceptive practice at least as consequential as voter suppression and intimidation, and possibly more so. 

For example, in the 2000 Presidential election, there were voluminous claims of rampant voter intimidation, harassment, and suppression. The Civil Rights Commission conducted a 6-month investigation immediately after the election. The Civil Rights Division of 

the Department of Justice also conducted an investigation. 

Despite the widespread claims of intimidation, harassment, and 

suppression, the investigation yielded just two ostensible cases of 

perceived voter intimidation, and the Civil Rights Division’s investigation concluded that there was no credible evidence of any Floridians having their votes intentionally denied. 

Now, in contrast, a subsequent media investigation showed that 

there were at least 2,000 ballots cast illegally in Florida, and since 

the vote margin was 537 votes, the fraudulent votes were sufficient 

to affect the outcome of the election. 

This is not an isolated occurrence. The evidence adduced at Commission hearings, particularly from Mark Hearne, who is an adviser to the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform, 

shows that there are numerous instances, suggesting numerous instances of significant voter fraud. The allegations include individuals and organizations that aid and abet ineligible voters to vote. 

Now, there are numerous cases that have been reported of people 

paid to register those ineligible to vote and fictitious characters. 

The infamous case in Ohio during the 2004 Presidential election 

campaign of a canvasser paid with crack cocaine to register Dick 

Tracy, Mary Poppins, and scores of other equally notable voters is 

fairly well known. 

Again, these are not isolated circumstances. In 2001, a major 

voter registration drive in the black community of St. Louis produced 3,800 new voter registration cards. When some of the names 

appeared suspicious, elections officials reviewed all of the cards and 

determined that nearly every single one was fraudulent. Dogs, the 

dead, and people who simply did not want to register to vote were 

among the new registrants. 

Now, the problem is not simply that canvassers are being paid 

to register manifestly fraudulent voters. It is also that voting rolls 

25

throughout the country are being padded with perhaps hundreds of 

thousands of false and fraudulent names. Testimony before the 

Senate Rules Committee by John Sample showed that Alaska, for 

example, had 503,000 people on the voting rolls, yet there are only 

437,000 people of voting age in Alaska. 

The problem is magnified by those who solicit and aid individuals to vote in multiple jurisdictions. One hundred and forty thousand Floridians are registered in multiple jurisdictions; 60,000 voters are registered in both North Carolina and South Carolina; 

8,000 Kentuckians are registered in Tennessee. The bill is silent 

with respect to these deceptive practices, and multiple registrations 

and fraudulent registrations are compounded by the problem of 

compromised absentee ballot integrity. The practice of misleadingly 

assisting individuals to cast an absentee ballot can lead to wholesale disenfranchisement. This is a potentially troublesome problem, 

particularly with respect to bilingual ballots. 

This is not a minor concern. The 1998 Miami mayoral election 

was actually set aside because of rampant absentee ballot forgeries. 

These deceptive practices have the capacity to affect the outcome 

of an election. They undermine public confidence in the electoral 

process. And the bill is silent on these. These are significant omissions. 

So I would urge this Committee to consider including these deceptive practices in the bill’s prohibitions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kirsanow appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you for your testimony, and I thank 

the entire panel for their testimony here today. 

Mr. Kirsanow, let me start with you, if I might. You were here 

during the testimony of what happened in my State of Maryland 

in 2006. Does that trouble you? Does that concern you that there 

were efforts made to provide the minority community with deceitful 

information during the course of the campaign and that minority 

voters had a much more difficult time in casting their votes in the 

State of Maryland? 

Mr. KIRSANOW. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. As a member of the 

Civil Rights Commission, we address these issues on a regular 

basis. These matters are brought before us quite often, and they 

are not simply relegated to your State. They are not a partisan 

issue. They go on both sides. 

During the 2000 Presidential campaign, there were radio ads in 

my community, Cleveland, Ohio—I live in a majority black neighborhood—that would talk about the fact that casting a vote for a 

Republican is casting a vote for lynching, that casting a vote for a 

Republican means another church is going to be burned down. 

Those kinds of things are reprehensible, despicable. We deplore 

those things. 

My testimony is focused on the fact that this bill can be significantly enhanced by addressing some significant issues with respect 

to election integrity, and those deal with voter fraud. These are 

things that are not simply matters of recent import. They go back 

throughout our history where we have had thousands, perhaps tens 

26

of thousands of cases in which, again, the dead or others have been 

registered to vote and people voting in their names. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me agree with you on the first point that 

you made. I find that despicable, the statements made that voting 

for a particular candidate is equivalent to the circumstances you 

said. That is why I agree completely. I think it was Senator Obama 

or Senator Schumer who said this is not a partisan issue. We are 

going to fight very hard in elections to get our vote out, but we 

should not be fighting to suppress the vote or mislead the vote. 

And that is wrong, and anything that we do that tries to mislead 

the vote in that regard, whether it is a Democratic candidate trying 

to get minority votes away from a Republican or a Republican from 

a Democrat, that is wrong. 

We have seen these practices now—it is not isolated. We have 

seen these practices in many States, and the practices appear to be 

growing. I do not know whether your Commission has investigated 

what happened in Maryland in 2006 or what happened in Virginia 

or what happened in California. I hope that you are doing that because in each of these cases it was clear that the intention of the 

individuals who were responsible for this material was to diminish 

minority voters. And that is something that should have no place 

in American politics. 

So I am just somewhat interested as to how your Commission is 

looking at this. You have indicated you have done some studies, 

and I would love—I think our Committee would welcome the review on the circumstances that have been brought out at this hearing. We had this hearing, and there has been now significant testimony, and I have not seen any investigations by your Commission 

in regards to those issues. So I would welcome your review of that. 

You do mention the 2000 election and at least 2,000 voters who 

cast votes illegally according to the Media Analysis. Is that the 

group that you—

Mr. KIRSANOW. Yes. 

Senator CARDIN. Now, has your Commission or any law enforcement agency or any academic research borne out these numbers? 

Mr. KIRSANOW. No law enforcement agency has done so, and very 

often it is difficult to prove the negative. But there have been some 

academic studies with respect to matters such as this. If you look 

at the—

Senator CARDIN. Could you make that available to our Committee? 

Mr. KIRSANOW. I sure could. 

Senator CARDIN. So we could see what basis—

Mr. KIRSANOW. Our civil rights—

Senator CARDIN. You made a pretty strong statement. 

Mr. KIRSANOW. Yes. 

Senator CARDIN. I could tell you that I heard a similar statement 

made about fraudulent voting in a California congressional election 

when I was a Member of the House, and we investigated that in 

the House committee because the election was contested, and it 

bore out that there were no demonstrated fraudulent votes. So I 

know statements are often made, but we like to see the facts behind those statements. So I would appreciate it if you could make 

available to us the specifics that would bear out those numbers. 

27

Mr. KIRSANOW. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I would just offer 

that, as you know, in Florida in 2000 there was a significant problem with respect to purging the voter rolls of felons who at that 

time at least were barred from voting in Florida. And when matching the names of those felons to those who vote or at least checked 

off—who were checked off by registrars as voting, there was a correlative that showed that individuals not entitled to vote were actually voting. And this is not something that is unusual. 

Senator CARDIN. I will just give you my own observations. I have 

been at polling places a lot in my lifetime. There are more eligible 

voters who were not able to cast votes, even though provisional ballots are required, than any documented cases that I know of, of 

people who were ineligible to vote who cast their votes. 

So I am all for making sure that people who are eligible to vote 

are only the ones that vote. But I worry about what happened in 

Prince George’s County, Maryland, in which the county executive 

I think pretty clearly pointed out that hundreds, if not thousands, 

of voters in that one county were denied an opportunity to vote because of the practices in this past election. And I would hope that 

your Commission would take a look at that type of activity, because 

I think it has a much stronger impact on the system than the other 

issues. 

I am going to come back on a second round, but let me recognize 

Senator Hatch. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just ask the panel this question, and any or all of you 

can answer it, as far as I am concerned. This legislation proposes 

to create a new crime for communicating false information that has 

the intent to prevent another person from voting in an election. 

What about communicating false information that encourages another person to illegally vote in an election? Should that be part 

of this bill? If I encouraged, say, an illegal alien to vote in an upcoming election, knowing that this type of activity is illegal, 

shouldn’t that also be a crime under this legislation? Now, to me 

it would not appear to be so under this bill. 

I would also like to ask every member of the panel to say whether they would support the inclusion of this type of illegal activity. 

We can start over there with you, Mr. Shelton. 

Mr. SHELTON. Senator Hatch, good afternoon, sir. Let me first 

say that it is already a crime for one who is not a U.S. citizen to 

vote in an election, and certainly if one conspires with someone to 

commit a crime, they are also committing a crime. I think this particular piece of legislation needs to address those concerns. 

But may I also say on a different note that was raised earlier, 

the NAACP would love the opportunity to submit transcripts from 

hearings that were held in Florida after the 2000 election that 

showed a number of things, including every African-American male 

going to certain polling sites actually being intimidated away from 

the polls by being asked if indeed they had a felony on their 

records. That was the outcome of many of the problems that were 

raised by my colleague at the other end of the table. 

We would love to provide that kind of information, and certainly 

we would also love to provide information about the outcome of the 

St. Louis election as well in which only on the north side of St. 

28

Louis, the predominantly African-American community, where polling sites opened late and were not allowed to stay open late until 

lawsuits were filed by the NAACP to do such. 

So in answer to your first question, I do not think this legislation 

needs to cover an issue that is already covered by law, and certainly we look forward to seeing that particular law being further 

enforced. As a matter of fact, as we talked about the issue of the 

crimes that were committed, it is also interesting to the NAACP, 

and I think to others in this room, that the Justice Department actually convicted no one of crimes of fraud in the election process. 

Senator HATCH. Do you all agree that this is presently covered? 

Mr. TRASVIN ̃ A. Senator, I believe that over the years you have 

closed those loopholes. You have closed those loopholes about if 

there is any perception of unauthorized immigrants being able to 

be persuaded to vote. In the 1996 Act on immigration, that is already taken care of. I would be surprised if that continued to be 

a problem to the extent it even was a problem before. And the 

Chairman alluded to the 46th Congressional District investigations 

back in the mid-1990s. 

I think Commissioner Kirsanow talks about the problem particularly with bilingual voting, and you recall from the 1992 hearings 

on the Voting Rights Act extension, and even back to 1982, we always hear about bilingual ballots or causing undocumented immigrants to vote. And every time somebody comes up with a list, they 

go back and registrars look at the list, and they find the problem 

was not with the voters. The problem was with the incomplete and 

not up-to-date INS records that do not show the naturalization 

date of the person so that the person was properly registered, properly voted, and that there have not been cases of unauthorized immigrants voting in elections. We made it a deportable offense, 

made it a bar to naturalization. Those are the types of things that 

are already in place that mean that this law does not need to be 

amended for that purpose. 

Mr. BRIFFAULT. It was my impression that at least since the 

motor-voter law, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, that 

false voting and false registration are already penalized, and I 

would imagine that conspiracy, which is the situation you are describing of somebody encouraging a false voting or false registration, would fall within the general penalization of false registration 

and false voting. So I suspect that the situation you are describing 

already violates Federal law. 

Mr. CANFIELD. I would just like to pick up on something that Mr. 

Shelton said a minute ago about the voters in Florida who were 

being challenged at the polling station and asked whether they 

were felons or not. You know, I do not think anybody can countenance that kind of activity. But at the same time, I think that 

there has to be some sort of recognition given to the fact that Federal and State law allows certain people to vote and bars other people from voting. 

One of the reasons you might be barred from voting in a particular State is that you have a felony conviction on your record. 

We do not want to go so far to the extreme that all past convictions 

for felonies are no longer subject or could be challenged when a 

person goes to a voting place. I do not think you can single out peoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:26 Feb 13, 2008 Jkt 040581 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\40581.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
29

ple in a particular precinct based on race or ethnicity, obviously, 

but it is still a legitimate question in a larger context to make sure 

that felons are not voting. 

Mr. KIRSANOW. Senator Hatch, I said in my remarks that there 

are two prongs to the problem of deceptive voting practices. This 

bill addresses one of the prongs, and that is, preventing the eligible 

voters—or trying to prevent eligible voters from voting. The other 

prong is getting ineligible voters to vote, and there are a number 

of mechanisms by which this happens. 

There is an example, for example, that I have in my written testimony of a non-citizen from Barbados who is told that, well, if you 

are in the United States for 7 years, you can vote. So she registered. She did not vote, but was later told by election officials 

that somebody had voted in her name. 

Now, it is difficult to know how frequently that happens. It usually only happens when someone who is registered says, hey, wait 

a minute, I did not vote; or someone who is not registered finds 

out—this would hardly ever happen—finds out that somebody 

voted in their name or their name was placed on a roll illegitimately. 

So there are these mechanisms that occur, and some of these are 

addressed in State statutes, some of it you can look at—as Mr. 

Trasvin ̃ a indicated, you look would at other statutes that are not 

discrete to this particular bill. But I think the intent of this particular bill was to place in one discrete bill the issue of deceptive 

practices. In that regard, the bill has certain omissions that I think 

inclusion of which would strengthen the bill. 

Senator HATCH. Thank you all for that. 

Mr. Canfield, your testimony mentions the problems that could 

be encountered under the legislation by providing authority to Federal agents to make, you know, in the days leading up to the election, instantaneous judgments as to who and what types of voter 

campaign deceptive practices should be brought before a grand 

jury. 

Now, do you worry that this type of grand jury activity could presumably negatively affect the very election it is trying to protect? 

Mr. CANFIELD. Well, of course I do, Senator, because, you know, 

the existence of a grand jury’s meeting on election law problems 

are not very closely held in this country. It soon becomes evident 

to the press and other people that a grand jury is meeting. 

The problem I see is that giving a role, as the legislation purports to do, to officers of the Federal Government to draw conclusions or make observations in the immediate days before an election sends, I think, a bad signal because it empowers agents of the 

Federal Government to draw distinctions in the context of an election which in theory should be separate and apart from the Federal 

Government’s role at all, I would say. And to empower Federal 

agents to have some sort of role in making determinations as to 

whether certain publications or certain announcements are fraudulent or intended to suppress the vote tends, I think, in the abstract 

to give a role to the Federal Government that I do not think is appropriate. 

Senator HATCH. Well, another problem with the legislation, at 

least as I view it in your opinion, Mr. Canfield, is the definition of 

30

‘‘deceptive practices.’’ Given how hard it is for people to define what 

is considered deceptive, I worry about these subjective views. Could 

they lead to a great deal of confusion and problems with political 

campaigns from both political parties? And how would you address 

the definitions that are utilized in this bill? 

Mr. CANFIELD. I pointed out in my testimony that I thought that 

was a problematic area as well. You know, I represented the Senate Rules Committee in the contested election in Louisiana in 1996 

when Mary Landrieu was first elected to the Senate. And one of 

the accusations by her opponent, of course, was that there were all 

kinds of shenanigans going on in Louisiana before and during election day. And I remember turning to my Democratic colleague and 

dear, dear friend, Bob Bauer, who is at Perkins Coie. Bob said to 

me, ‘‘Well, you know, this probably does not matter and does not 

amount to much.’’ And I said to him, ‘‘Bob, this is Louisiana. 

Whether we like it or not, we are going to have to look into this.’’

There are some areas of the country that are prone to problems 

on election day. There are other parts of the country which have 

never had a history of election day problems. So to create a national standard is going to be, I think, somewhat difficult to enforce 

across the country. But that is just my experience. 

Senator HATCH. Well, you highlight a portion of the bill that 

would provide a private right of action for individuals who believe 

that they themselves were subject of some loosely drafted—or 

loosely defined, I guess, election deceptive practice. Now, given that 

the Civil Rights Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and the local 

law enforcement are available for complaints from citizens, could 

this new private right of action create, you know, an innumerable 

number, let’s say, of Federal cases based upon the whims of individuals? 

Mr. CANFIELD. If I had to single out one part of the bill that 

ought to be really, really closely examined, I think it is the private 

right to action. I understand the intent of the authors, and I think 

the intent is not a bad one. But I think the unintended consequence of creating a private right of action will be to cause lawyers to have even more roles in the elections than they currently 

do. I think every Federal candidate is going to have to have one 

or more lawyers with him or her at almost all occasions. And I 

think that the campaign managers are going to understand that 

one of the great attributes that they have to take a shot at their 

opponent is to file a private cause of action against some agent or 

friend of their opponent for publishing a scurrilous document like 

this, or whatever, and having the press conference announcing the 

fact that the private right of action is being taken. 

I think it is just the law of unintended consequences, and from 

my experience in the Federal Election Campaign Act realm for 30 

years, it is by definition the law of unintended consequences. 

Senator HATCH. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Briffault, let me bring you into this discussion, because I was 

impressed by your testimony as to how this bill has been drafted, 

particularly in light—I was not aware that there were 18 States 

that have passed laws in this area that, according to your testiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:26 Feb 13, 2008 Jkt 040581 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\40581.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
31

mony, this law, the Federal bill that is being suggested is one of 

the more tightly drawn and focused of the bills that are out there. 

If I understand the Obama bill, it only involves communications 

within 60 days of an election. We heard the concern of grand juries 

being out there. My understanding is it takes a little bit of time 

for those types of issues. I think the real purpose of this bill is to 

prevent activities, not to prosecute, and that prosecution would 

take more than 60 days under the most expedited process, so that 

the likelihood of these matters reaching the courts would be well 

after the elections themselves. That is not the main purpose of the 

bill. The purpose of the bill is to put people on record as to what 

we are trying to achieve. 

So let me try to get your view as to how this is drafted relative 

to the other bills that you have seen around the Nation and whether we are on safe ground in the way that we have dealt with it. 

Mr. BRIFFAULT. Sure. Thank you, Senator. I think it is considerably tighter in two ways. One is in the requirement of an intentional falsehood intended to affect an election. Many of the State 

laws are drafted somewhat more broadly and pick up falsehoods or 

negligent or reckless falsehoods and do not always have the specific 

addition of an intent to influence an election. So to begin with, it 

is really more tightly focused on intentional falsehood. 

My second point relates to Mr. Canfield’s reference a few minutes 

ago about the breadth of the idea of deceptive. Although the bill is 

titled ‘‘deceptive,’’ it actually only targets three very specifically defined types of actions, and that I think is also unusual. Instead of 

a general prohibition of false, deceptive, or misleading statements, 

which is the kind of language you see in some of the State laws, 

it targets these three specific types of factual misstatements: the 

time, place, and manner of the election. Is the election going to be 

on Tuesday or on Wednesday? Is it on November 2nd or November 

3rd, which is an area where it is easy to get the facts right. If you 

can prove that such a statement is intentionally—it is also easy to 

make it an error, so you can prove that it is intentionally wrong—

the only effect of that kind of intentional falsehood is to confuse 

people. False statement concerning eligibility to vote, the kinds 

that were mentioned earlier, you cannot vote if you have not paid 

your parking tickets, which, again, if that is knowingly false and 

that can be proven on the part of the speaker, again, the only effect 

of that is to induce people who have the right to vote not to vote. 

As for false statements concerning endorsements, the only effect of 

that is to persuade people to vote against their preferences, to mislead the voters. 

None of this really addresses statements about issues or hyperbole, nasty comments, exaggerations of a candidate’s record or anything like that, which would be obviously far more problematic and 

probably un constitutional to try and regulate statements like that. 

Senator CARDIN. I thank you. 

Mr. Shelton and Mr. Trasvin ̃ a, let me try to get your response 

to the need for Federal legislation. One of the reasons that this bill 

has been—we are trying to move it is the view from Justice that 

they do not have the authority currently to go after these practices. 

Senator Schumer contacted the Justice Department, as he testified, 

after the 2006 elections, and the Attorney General responded and 

32

even before our Committee responded that he did not believe that 

he had the legal authority to look into these types of issues because 

there is no Federal law that makes these practices illegal. 

Now, there are some State laws, I am finding out, so I would just 

like to find out from you how important you believe it is to have 

Federal law enforcement in order to try to combat these types of 

practices. 

Mr. SHELTON. Why don’t I begin by saying that the most important provisions in this bill from the NAACP’s standpoint is the preventative provisions; that is, indeed what the bill does is engage 

the Federal Government to utilize, for instance, its CRS division to 

be able to provide the correct information to the local constituencies so that they can actually know when the elections are being 

held and they will not lose the opportunity to cast that vote. They 

will not indeed be disenfranchised. 

Indeed, that is an extremely important provision in this bill that 

will help make sure that after the fact, too often as we see when 

there is fraud in an election, the votes are lost, the decisions are 

made, and, quite frankly, the candidate that a majority of those living in that particular precinct, State, or otherwise is not the person 

that wins the election. 

So, indeed, engaging the Federal Government, giving the Federal 

Government the authority to actually utilize the local media, to utilize other entities to be able to get the information out so that people indeed can cast that vote in due time. 

Mr. TRASVIN ̃ A. And I would just add that having the Federal 

Government involved in this gives it the outside independence that 

is particularly important on these issues, and with candidates who 

are often involved in local parties, have it one step removed from 

the State. The Federal Government is the appropriate place for this 

authority to be rested. 

Senator CARDIN. Historically, of course, it has been the Federal 

actions that have brought about the greatest advancements as far 

as removing barriers. 

Senator Hatch? 

Senator HATCH. Let me just ask the panel—I have been sitting 

here thinking. In the 2000 Presidential elections, news organizations erroneously announced that the polls in Florida had closed 

and that Gore had won at that particular point. Couldn’t this proposed legislation be used to prosecute members of these news organizations? Or could it? I would at least like to have your viewpoint 

on it. We will start with you, Mr. Shelton. 

Mr. SHELTON. If it can be proven that it was intentional to—

Senator HATCH. You think that is what the pivotal question 

would be. Do you agree, Mr. Trasvin ̃ a? 

Mr. TRASVIN ̃ A. I do not believe that this legislation would cover 

that type of situation. 

Senator HATCH. OK. Mr. Briffault? 

Mr. BRIFFAULT. If the reporter knew that the polls were open 

and said they were closed and did that in order to persuade people 

not to vote when they were still eligible to vote, then I could it 

might fall within this. I would have to think about whether there 

is a broader press exemption. But I think in a situation of a reporter abusing a reporter’s position to intentionally disseminate 

33

false information with the intention of getting people not to vote, 

that could fall within this. 

Senator HATCH. Well, we have never seen that around here, of 

course. 

Mr. Canfield? 

Mr. CANFIELD. Senator Hatch, I would just say that your question, I think, points out one shortcoming, and that is, there are 

many ways of getting out false and disseminating false information 

in a campaign setting that can never be attributed to anybody in 

the campaign itself. More often than not, in my experience, the 

problems that occur at the local grassroots precinct level are caused 

by people acting at that level not in connection with some higher 

authority at the State party or the Federal national party committees or that kind of thing. 

State and Federal elections tend to be very result oriented, and 

if you are a local campaign operative or supporter of a candidate, 

you may not have a position in the campaign, but if you are sufficiently motivated to support that candidate, you will in some instances do whatever you think is necessary to achieve that end. 

That is what strikes me about so much of this anecdotal information that we see here. With the exception of the one that was allegedly attributed to the gubernatorial and senatorial Republican candidates in Maryland, the rest of this looks like it is done by somebody in their basement. It does not look very professional. It does 

not look like a campaign would put it out. 

So what I think is you have in most instances where stuff like 

this comes across the transom, you have people who are operating 

independently of anybody, whose intentions are to help or hurt one 

party, but are not acting in concert or as an agent of that party. 

Senator HATCH. OK. Mr. Kirsanow? 

Mr. KIRSANOW. Senator, Section 3(b)(1)(A)(ii) talks about intent 

and the information that is conveyed in terms of time and place of 

the election. I agree with Professor Briffault that if there was some 

showing of intent on the part of the media agencies, it could possibly fall within that. 

In my day job on the National Labor Relations Board, we conduct 

elections. Now, electing Senators may not be as important as electing a union, but, nonetheless, we have got all kinds of manners of 

structures to protect that right to vote. And one of the things we 

are concerned about is having a buffer during the election campaign that recognizes that even if, you know, it may be unlawful, 

we have got to be very careful to make sure that that buffer does 

not somehow intrude upon legitimate speech. You have got to be 

very careful in taking a scalpel in how you carve out what is prohibited speech. 

Now, I do not think that there is—I am not a First Amendment 

scholar, so I will not address the First Amendment concerns at all. 

And I think these kinds of acts are despicable and need to be addressed. But, nonetheless, I think it would probably be a fairly high 

hurdle to show that media is intentionally trying to defraud or mislead voters. In Tallahassee and the Panhandle of Florida, there 

were allegations that came to our attention that there were hundreds of people who were in line ready to vote, and then there was 

a report that, in fact, you know, one of the candidates had, in fact, 

34

won. And a lot of people went home, and it turned out to be that 

that was false. Then there were reports that certain polling stations were closed and people go home. Mr. Shelton talked about 

that in St. Louis, and that occurs in a lot of areas. 

The question is: Can you show intent? The question is: How 

broadly is intent defined? 

Senator HATCH. Thank you. 

Professor Briffault, we are honored to have all of you here, and 

I have enjoyed your testimony, but in his testimony, Mr. Johnson 

testified or cited several examples of ‘‘false and deceptive’’ practices 

that he believes should be prohibited and criminalized by this legislation. 

Now, one of the examples, as I understand it, that Mr. Johnson 

provided was a political sign saying, ‘‘We are not slaves to the 

Democrats.’’ Do you agree with Mr. Johnson’s assessment that 

these signs were ‘‘false and deceptive’’ and were a ‘‘deliberate effort 

to confuse, to mislead, and to suppress African-American votes’’? 

And, furthermore, would these signs fall into the purview of this 

legislation? And the last question would be: Where do you draw the 

line? 

Mr. BRIFFAULT. Those statements would not fall within this legislation. They do not deal with any of the three specific things this 

legislation addresses—time, place, and manner, qualifications to 

vote, or false statement of endorsements. 

More generally, no, I would not consider them to be the kinds of 

‘‘false statements’’ that you could regulate. They are hyperbole. 

They are the kinds of strong statements that are, you know, the 

heart of politics. I mean, like it or not, these things are the kinds 

of strong, exaggerated, often negative statements, the harsh rhetoric that have been part of American politics since the founding. 

And these kinds of statements would not be picked up by this bill. 

They should be challenged by people on the other side. They should 

be decried for the kinds of images that they use, but the response 

to these kinds of statements is more counter statements. I do not 

think they—I believe they are not regulated by this bill. I do not 

believe they could be regulated by any bill constitutionally, and I 

think that is the right result. 

I think the kind of line that has been drawn is the line that the 

Supreme Court has drawn, which is about statements of fact and 

things which will be perceived as statements of fact. I think in a 

situation like that, no one would believe that anyone was being 

treated as a slave in a literal sense. It is being used in a 

metaphoric sense, and I think that is the way any person seeing 

the billboard would react to it. 

Senator HATCH. Mr. Canfield, do you agree with that? 

Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would give you an example of 

the kind of problem that is addressed in the legislation, the false 

endorsement right up before the general election. In my experience, 

there is a mechanism currently in Federal law to deal with a situation like that, and I give you as an example the campaign of Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher a few years ago in California, I would 

say now about 8 or 10 years ago. I think it was her first term. She 

ran against a Republican, and during the heart of the campaign, 

within probably a month of the general election, a flier went out 

35

to all of the registered Democrats in her district. It was allegedly 

signed by George Miller of California, I think the dean of the California House delegation—obviously, it was not his signature, but it 

was a facsimile of his signature—saying that Ellen Tauscher was 

wrong on several fronts. She had voted with the Bush administration on certain legislation and was not supported by rank-and-file 

Democrats. 

It caused a big stir in that district. It was never proven where 

the source of the flier came from. It was never proven that it came 

from her Republican opponent. But a Federal grand jury in Washington met on that allegation. The Federal Election Commission 

got a whole of it first because there was a complaint by the 

Tauscher campaign against her opponent. After the Federal Election Commission was involved, there was a Federal grand jury 

seated in Washington, and I had a client who testified before that 

grand jury. 

So to say that the Federal Government or the Justice Department does not regularly oversee or prosecute in this area is not correct. They did in that instance. They got a criminal conviction, the 

Justice Department, in that instance. 

Senator HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Canfield, I should have taken you to the 

Justice Department when I met with them to see whether they 

would pursue the Maryland circumstances, because they told me 

they had no authority to do it. We had some discussions about that. 

I would just point, again, I agree with Senator Hatch. I thank 

all of you for your testimony. I found this panel to be extremely 

helpful. We know we are dealing with tough subjects. Whenever 

you are dealing with First Amendment issues, you have a difficult 

issue to deal with, and election laws make it even more complicated. I do not mean to minimize that, but I would just make 

an observation. I was not on this Committee when the Voting 

Rights Act was passed in the 1960’s, but I imagine some of the 

points that were made that these are just local issues and they are 

isolated and they are not really part of a pattern of a political party 

were made back then. And the Congress did right when they 

passed the Voting Rights Act and made it clear that we would not 

tolerate as a Nation practices that try to infringe upon the rights 

of individuals to vote. 

Mr. Canfield, I would just point out that I think this is somewhat 

evolutionary. Yes, the fliers that I first saw, I had no idea who put 

them out. They were hard to figure out who was identifying these 

fliers. But then we saw in California and Virginia and Maryland 

organized efforts. These were not individual independent operators. 

These were sophisticated operations using targeted lists, using 

robo-calls, and in Maryland using literature under the authority of 

the Governor and candidate for U.S. Senate. 

So this was not something that was without a great deal of 

thought, and unless we clarify this situation, I expect that you will 

see bolder actions and the acceptability that it is fair game to win 

an election to try to suppress vote. 

Now, the fact that they do it the night before the election tells 

you just how proud they are of the tactics they are using, and I 

think you will see a lot of that continue to happen. 

36

This bill is very narrowly drawn. When Mr. Johnson was testifying about the slavery posters, I pointed out that that would not 

be affected by this bill. As despicable as those ballots were, this bill 

is not aimed at that, nor should it be aimed at that. There is a lot 

of information put out in campaigns I have been involved with 

against me that were absolutely wrong. But that is part of the political process, and people put spins on different things, and I have 

got to be prepared to respond to it. And I am prepared to respond 

to it, even if it comes at the 11th hour. 

But what I should not have been to be dealing with and no candidate should be subjected to is tactics used to suppress minority 

vote. And this bill, I think, is very narrowly drawn. I would argue 

that perhaps we should consider broadening it, but I think we have 

the right support group now, and I hope that we can move it the 

way it has been negotiated. 

But I would just urge all of you to take a look at this, look at 

what we are trying to achieve and send a clear message of what 

we think is right and wrong in the election process, and to look at 

the purpose of this legislation. I am pleased that the House committee has already acted on it. I was talking to Congressman Hoyer 

earlier, and I am hopeful that the House will act on this bill. And 

I hope that our Committee and the Senate will act on this legislation. I think it is an important issue. I do not know of anything 

that is more important than making sure that our elections are 

fair, open, and available to all of our eligible voters and we try to 

get the highest possible participation. That is not a partisan issue 

and one in which Democrats and Republicans need to come together on and the Federal Government needs to play a critical role 

in that. 

The record will be held open for 1 week for written testimony 

from other groups that wish to submit it. Again, I thank all of you 

for participating, and the Committee will stand in recess. 

[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.]

37


40581.001
38


40581.002
39


40581.003
40


40581.004
41


40581.005
42


40581.006
43


40581.007
44


40581.008
45


40581.009
46


40581.010
47


40581.011
48


40581.012
49


40581.013
50


40581.014
51


40581.015
52


40581.016
53


40581.017
54


40581.018
55


40581.019
56


40581.020
57


40581.021
58


40581.022
59


40581.023
60


40581.024
61


40581.025
62


40581.026
63


40581.027
64


40581.028
65


40581.029
66


40581.030
67


40581.031
68


40581.032
69


40581.033
70


40581.034
71


40581.035
72


40581.036
73


40581.037
74


40581.038
75


40581.039
76


40581.040
77


40581.041
78


40581.042
79


40581.043
80


40581.044
81


40581.045
82


40581.046
83


40581.047
84


40581.048
85


40581.049
86


40581.050
87


40581.051
88


40581.052
89


40581.053
90


40581.054
91


40581.055
92


40581.056
93


40581.057
94


40581.058
95


40581.059
96


40581.060
97


40581.061
98


40581.062
99


40581.063
100


40581.064
101


40581.065
102


40581.066
103


40581.067
104


40581.068
105


40581.069
106


40581.070
107


40581.071
108


40581.072
109


40581.073
110


40581.074
111


40581.075
112


40581.076
113


40581.077
114


40581.078
115


40581.079
116


40581.080
117


40581.081
118


40581.082
119


40581.083
120


40581.084
121


40581.085
122


40581.086
123


40581.087
124


40581.088
125


40581.089
126


40581.090
127


40581.091
128


40581.092
129


40581.093
130


40581.094
131


40581.095
132


40581.096
133


40581.097
134


40581.098
135


40581.099
136


40581.100
137


40581.101
138


40581.102
139


40581.103
140


40581.104
141


40581.105
142


40581.106
143


40581.107
144


40581.108
145


40581.109
146


40581.110
147


40581.111
148


40581.112
149


40581.113
150


40581.114
151


40581.115
152


40581.116
153


40581.117
154


40581.118
155


40581.119
156


40581.120
157


40581.121
158


40581.122
159


40581.123
160


40581.124
161


40581.125
162


40581.126
163


40581.127
164


40581.128
165


40581.129
166


40581.130
167


40581.131
168


40581.132
169


40581.133
170


40581.134
171


40581.135
172


40581.136
173


40581.137
174


40581.138
175


40581.139
176


40581.140
177


40581.141
178


40581.142
179


40581.143
180


40581.144
181


40581.145
182


40581.146
183


40581.147
184


40581.148
185


40581.149
186


40581.150
187


40581.151
188


40581.152
189


40581.153
190


40581.154
191


40581.155
192


40581.156
193


40581.157
194


40581.158
195


40581.159
196


40581.160
197


40581.161
198


40581.162
199


40581.163
200


40581.164
201


40581.165
202


40581.166
203


40581.167
204


40581.168
205


40581.169
206


40581.170
207


40581.171
208


40581.172
209


40581.173
210


40581.174
211


40581.175
212


40581.176
213


40581.177
214


40581.178
215


40581.179
216


40581.180
217


40581.181
218


40581.182
219


40581.183
220


40581.184
221


40581.185
222


40581.186
223


40581.187
224


40581.188
225


40581.189
226


40581.190
227


40581.191
228


40581.192
229


40581.193
230


40581.194
231


40581.195
232


40581.196
233


40581.197
234


40581.198
235


40581.199
236


40581.200
237


40581.201
238


40581.202
239


40581.203
240


40581.204
241


40581.205
242


40581.206
243


40581.207
244


40581.208
245


40581.209
246


40581.210
247


40581.211
248


40581.212
249


40581.213
250


40581.214
251


40581.215
252


40581.216
253


40581.217
254


40581.218
255


40581.219
256


40581.220
257


40581.221
258


40581.222
259


40581.223
260


40581.224
261


40581.225
262


40581.226
263


40581.227
264


40581.228
265


40581.229
266


40581.230
267


40581.231
268


40581.232
269


40581.233
270


40581.234
271


40581.235
272


40581.236
273

Æ


40581.237