69–006 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 110–581 

UNIVERSAL RIGHT TO VOTE BY MAIL ACT OF 2008 

APRIL 14, 2008.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on House 

Administration, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 281] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on House Administration, to whom was referred 

the bill (H.R. 281) to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to 

allow all eligible voters to vote by mail in Federal elections, having 

considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment 

and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act of 2008’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds the following: 

(1) An inequity of voting rights exists in the United States because voters in 

some States have the universal right to vote by mail while voters in other 

States do not. 

(2) Many voters often have work, family, or other commitments that make 

getting to polls on the date of an election difficult or impossible. 

(3) Allowing voters to vote by mail can lead to increased voter participation. 

(4) Voting by mail is more convenient for many voters. 

(5) Voting by mail gives voters more time to consider their choices. 

(6) Studies show that an overwhelming majority of voters prefer voting by 

mail as an alternative to going to the polls. 

(7) No evidence exists suggesting the potential for fraud in absentee balloting 

is greater than the potential for fraud by any other method of voting. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
2 

(8) 28 States currently allow universal absentee voting, which permits any 

voter to request a mail-in ballot without providing a reason for the request. 

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

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle A of title III of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 

U.S.C. 15481 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 303 the following new 

section: 

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

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—If an individual in a State is eligible to cast a vote in an election for Federal office, the State may not impose any additional conditions or requirements on the eligibility of the individual to cast the vote in such election by 

mail, except as required under subsection (b) and except to the extent that the State 

imposes a deadline for requesting the ballot and related voting materials from the 

appropriate State or local election official and for returning the ballot to the appropriate State or local election official. 

‘‘(b) REQUIRING SIGNATURE VERIFICATION.—A State may not accept and process an 

absentee ballot submitted by any individual with respect to an election for Federal 

office unless the State verifies the identification of the individual by comparing the 

individual’s signature on the absentee ballot with the individual’s signature on the 

official list of registered voters in the State, in accordance with such procedures as 

the State may adopt. 

‘‘(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—A State shall be required to comply with the requirements 

of this section with respect to the regularly scheduled general elections for Federal 

office held in November 2010 and each succeeding election for Federal office.’’. 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT.—Section 401 of such 

Act (42 U.S.C. 15511) is amended by striking ‘‘and 303’’ and inserting ‘‘303, and 

303A’’. 

(c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents for such Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 303 the following new item: 

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

PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION

Since the time of the Civil War, the absentee ballot has allowed 

voters who cannot make it to the polls a chance to exercise their 

right to vote. States have historically allowed absentee voting for 

such reasons as absence, illness, advanced age, religious obligation 

or military service. 

Although these reasons or ‘‘excuses’’ for requesting an absentee 

ballot are logical, they are not the only reasons why a voter might 

not be able to vote at the polls. For example, many voters today 

work long hours, commute great distances or have childcare or 

other obligations that make voting in person difficult or impossible. 

In addition, during high turnout elections, long lines at the polls 

can prevent voters from voting. No voter should be prohibited from 

voting simply because he or she cannot be at the polls at a certain 

time. 

Moreover, many states’ acceptable excuses are hard to define and 

even harder to verify. For instance, some states use ‘‘absence’’ to 

mean out of the precinct, while others define it as out of the city, 

county or community. Some states specify acceptable and unacceptable reasons for that absence; others do not. Some states say a 

voter must be absent during the entire time the polls are open; others do not. Illness is also difficult to limit in any useful way. Some 

states only permit ill voters to vote absentee if they cannot get to 

polls without assistance from another person; others do not. Drawing lines between medical conditions is not easy and does not serve 

a useful purpose. 

In addition, to verify excuses, some states require voters to spend 

time and money acquiring a notary signature or doctor’s note. 

Other states infringe upon voters’ privacy by requiring them to deVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:08 Apr 15, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR581.XXX HR581

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
3 

tail vacation plans, medical conditions or employment information 

in order to request an absentee ballot. It is of questionable necessity that any state should require such personal, private information. Releasing this information does not increase security in any 

meaningful way and only serves to increase the burden on elections 

officials. Arduous or intrusive verification requirements may deter 

voters from requesting absentee ballots and consequently from voting altogether. 

In 1967, Kansas became the first state to offer ‘‘No Excuse’’ absentee voting, a process by which any eligible voter could request 

an absentee or mail ballot for any reason. Over time, No Excuse 

absentee voting has become popular with both elections officials 

and voters. Currently 28 states offer No Excuse absentee voting. 

No state has reverted back. 

Voters like No Excuse absentee voting because it gives them 

peace of mind knowing that they will be able to vote no matter 

what comes up on Election Day. Many also appreciate the opportunity to take the time to study their choices and appreciate not 

feeling rushed in a voting booth. 

In states with No Excuse absentee voting, between 20 and 45 

percent of voters generally choose to vote absentee. Elections officials also like No Excuse absentee voting because they do not have 

to check excuses on a case-by-case basis, which gives them more 

time to process ballots, and it relieves some of the strain at the 

polls on Election Day. 

A recent study by the Election Assistance Commission found that 

65 percent of Americans said that all voters should have the option 

to vote absentee. 

While 28 states allow their voters to vote absentee for any reason, 22 states, the District of Columbia and all of the territories 

still restrict many voters from obtaining absentee ballots by requiring excuses. Thus, there exists a great inequity across the nation 

in voting opportunities because some voters can vote at any time 

(within the absentee period) while others must vote only when the 

polls are open (either on Election Day or through early voting). Voters in ‘‘No Excuse’’ states have a significant advantage over those 

in the other states and territories in federal elections. 

Although there are indications that individual states will continue to remove absentee conditions and that eventually all will be 

‘‘No Excuse’’ states, there is no reason voters should lose opportunities in the meantime. 

The intent of H.R. 281 is to maximize voter opportunity by allowing all voters in the United States to have the option to vote by 

absentee ballot. H.R. 281 ensures that there will be no more barriers to absentee voting than there are to poll voting. It prevents 

states from adding restrictions to absentee eligibility that they do 

not add for poll voting eligibility. For example, if a notary signature is not required to vote at the polls, it would not be required 

to vote by mail. Or, if voters of all ages can vote at the polls, voters 

of all ages can vote by absentee. 

Importantly, this bill does not force any voter to vote by mail or 

deprive voters of the opportunity of going to the polls to vote. Its 

intention is only to provide voters the choice of using an absentee 

ballot subject to the same eligibility requirements as in-person voting. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
4 

While this bill removes voters’ barriers to absentee voting, it does 

not impose upon a state’s right to administer elections. It does not 

interfere with the request or receipt deadlines or how a state processes its absentee ballots. 

In response to concerns that the bill did not give states enough 

time to prepare for processing the likely increased number of absentee ballots, the Committee accepted an amendment to change 

the date of enactment from 2008 to 2010. This change should give 

elections officials ample time to adjust. Since all states currently 

have secure systems to process absentee ballots, this bill does not 

ask elections officials to do anything new. It merely expands the 

pool of voters eligible to vote by absentee. 

Because absentee voting is so popular in current No Excuse 

states, the Committee encourages officials in states that currently 

have restrictions to learn from the best practices in states that currently process large numbers of absentee ballots. One such practice 

is the offering of ‘‘Permanent Absentee’’ status to voters. This allows the state to automatically send ballots by mail to voters who 

have indicated they want to vote absentee every time. This practice 

saves the voters the time of requesting a ballot each time and results in elections officials saving time and money because of decreased data entry costs. 

Finally, in order to ensure that states continue to make absentee 

voting as free from fraud as possible, the Committee accepted an 

amendment to require elections officials to use signature checks. 

Signature checks by trained professionals have proven to be the 

most effective way to verify that an absentee ballot was actually 

voted by the correct voter. States use this method currently and 

should continue to do so to enhance ballot security. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title 

(a) Entitles bill ‘‘Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act of 2007’’

Section 2. Findings 

(a) Finds that an inequality of voting rights exists because voters 

in some States have the universal right to vote by mail while voters in other States do not. 

(b) Finds that many voters often have work, family or other commitments that make getting to polls on the date of an election difficult or impossible. 

(c) Finds that allowing voters to vote by mail can lead to increased voter participation. 

(d) Finds that voting by mail is more convenient for many voters. 

(e) Finds that voting by mail gives voters more time to consider 

their choices. 

(f) Finds that studies show that an overwhelming majority of voters prefer voting by mail as an alternative to going to polls. 

(g) Finds that no evidence exists suggesting that the potential for 

fraud in absentee balloting is greater than the potential for fraud 

by any other method of voting. 

(h) Finds that 28 states currently allow for universal absentee 

voting. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
5 

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

(a) Amends the Help America Vote Act by adding new subsection 

303A. 

(b) Subsection 303A provides that a State may not impose any 

additional conditions or requirements on the eligibility of an individual to cast his or her vote in such election by mail, except to the 

extent that the State imposes a deadline for requesting the ballot 

or returning the ballot to the appropriate State or local election official. 

(c) Makes this section effective with respect to federal elections 

held in 2010 and thereafter. 

(d) Requires States to verify a voter’s signature before it accepts 

and processes an absentee ballot submitted by an individual. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF THE LEGISLATION

INTRODUCTION AND REFERRAL

On January 5, 2007, Mrs. Davis of California (for herself, Mrs. 

Jones of Ohio, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Schiff, Mrs. Capps, 

Ms. Hooley, Ms. Woolsey, and Mr. McDermott) introduced H.R. 

281; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration. 

HEARINGS

On October 16, 2007, the Committee on House Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections held a hearing entitled ‘‘Expanding and 

Improving Opportunities to Vote by Mail or Absentee.’’ The following members were present at the hearing: Subcommittee Chair 

Zoe Lofgren, Reps. Charles A. Gonzalez, Susan A. Davis, Artur 

Davis and Kevin McCarthy. 

Witnesses 

Panel One: 

1. The Honorable Susan A. Davis, Congresswoman (CA–53) 

Panel Two: 

1. Commissioner Ruth Goldway, Postal Rate Commission 

2. The Honorable Deborah L. Markowitz, Secretary of State 

of Vermont 

3. Mr. Joe Holland, County Clerk, Recorder and Assessor, 

Santa Barbara County, CA 

4. Mr. Jonathan Bechtle, Director of Evergreen Freedom 

Foundation’s Citizenship and Governance Center 

On October 22, 2007, the Committee on House Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections continued its hearing entitled ‘‘Expanding and Improving Opportunities to Vote by Mail or Absentee.’’

Members present: Subcommittee Chair Zoe Lofgren, Reps. 

Charles A. Gonzalez, Susan A. Davis, Vernon J. Ehlers and Kevin 

McCarthy. 

Witnesses 

1. Mr. John Fortier, American Enterprise Institute 

2. Mr. Warren Harrison, former Director of Elections for the 

State of Texas 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
6 

MARKUP

On Wednesday, April 2, 2008, the Committee met to mark up 

H.R. 281. The Committee favorably reported H.R. 281, as amended, 

by a voice vote, a quorum being present. 

MATTERS REQUIRED UNDER THE RULES OF THE HOUSE

COMMITTEE RECORD VOTES

Clause 3(b) of House rule XIII requires that the results of each 

record vote on an amendment or motion to report, together with 

the name of those voting for and against, to be printed in the committee report. 

Record votes on amendments to H.R. 281 

The first recorded vote of the markup was Mr. Ehlers’ Amendment #2, which would require a State, prior to providing an individual with an absentee ballot, to require that individual to sign, 

under penalty of perjury, an attestation that the voter has requested the ballot free from coercion and is casting the ballot freely 

and without undue influence. The vote was 3–4 and the amendment was not agreed to. 

Member Ayes Noes Present 

Mr. Brady ............................................................................................................................ ................ X ................

Ms. Lofgren ......................................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................

Mr. Capuano ....................................................................................................................... ................ X ................

Mr. Gonzalez ........................................................................................................................ ................ ................ ................

Mrs. Davis (CA) ................................................................................................................... ................ X ................

Mr. Davis (AL) ..................................................................................................................... ................ X ................

Mr. Ehlers ............................................................................................................................ X ................ ................

Mr. Lungren ......................................................................................................................... X ................ ................

Mr. McCarthy ....................................................................................................................... X ................ ................

Total ........................................................................................................................... 3 4 ................

The Committee then voted on Mr. Ehlers’ Amendment #3, which 

would have preserved state conditions and requirements concerning the eligibility of an individual to obtain an absentee ballot 

by mail that are in effect as of the effective date of the Act. The 

vote was 3–4 and the amendment was not agreed to. 

Member Ayes Noes Present 

Mr. Brady ............................................................................................................................ ................ X ................

Ms. Lofgren ......................................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................

Mr. Capuano ....................................................................................................................... ................ X ................

Mr. Gonzalez ........................................................................................................................ ................ ................ ................

Mrs. Davis (CA) ................................................................................................................... ................ X ................

Mr. Davis (AL) ..................................................................................................................... ................ X ................

Mr. Ehlers ............................................................................................................................ X ................ ................

Mr. Lungren ......................................................................................................................... X ................ ................

Mr. McCarthy ....................................................................................................................... X ................ ................

Total ........................................................................................................................... 3 4 ................

Amendments that were withdrawn 

After discussion in the Committee, Mr. McCarthy withdrew his 

Amendment #2, which would have struck the language in Section 

3 of the bill and would have inserted the following: ‘‘If an indiVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:08 Apr 15, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR581.XXX HR581

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
7 

vidual in a State is eligible to obtain a ballot to cast a vote in an 

election for Federal Office, the State may not impose any additional 

conditions or requirements on the eligibility of the individual to obtain the ballot in advance of the election for purposes of casting the 

ballot by mail, except to the extent that the State imposes a deadline for requesting the ballot and related voting materials from the 

appropriate State or local election official and to the extent that the 

State considers necessary to prevent the occurrence of voter fraud.’’

No vote was taken. 

Amendments agreed to by voice vote 

The Committee voted to accept Mr. Ehlers’ Amendment #1, 

which postponed the effective date of H.R. 281 until the year 2010. 

The Committee also voted to accept Mr. McCarthy’s Amendment 

#1, which requires States to verify a voter’s signature before it accepts and processes an absentee ballot submitted by an individual. 

The Committee then voted to favorably report H.R. 281, as 

amended. The vote to report favorably was approved by a voice 

vote. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee states that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

In compliance with clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII, the Committee 

states that Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the authority to make laws governing the time, place and 

manner of holding Federal elections. 

EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI, H.R. 281, the Universal Right 

to Vote by Mail Act, does not include any congressional earmarks, 

limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 

9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI. 

PREEMPTION CLARIFICATION

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires the 

report of any committee on a bill or joint resolution to include a 

committee statement on the extent to which the bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state or local law. H.R. 281 is intended 

to apply in all States and preempt laws to the contrary in their application to Federal elections. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the to the bill, the following estimate and comparison prepared by 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
8 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

APRIL 8, 2008. 

Hon. ROBERT A. BRADY, Chairman, Committee on House Administration, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 281, the Universal Right 

to Vote by Mail Act of 2007. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford, who 

can be reached at 226–2860. 

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 281—Universal Right To Vote by Mail Act of 2008 

H.R. 281 would amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require states, beginning in 2010, to allow eligible voters to request 

a mail-in ballot for all federal elections without having to provide 

a reason. States would also be required to verify the signature on 

the absentee ballot by cross-checking it with the voter’s signature 

on the official list of registered voters. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 281 would have no impact on the federal budget. 

Section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes from 

the application of that act any legislative provisions that enforce 

the constitutional rights of individuals. CBO has determined that 

H.R. 281 would fall within that exclusion because it would protect 

individuals’ voting rights. Therefore, we have not reviewed the bill 

for mandates. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew Pickford. 

This estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 

Summary: H.R. 281 would amend the Help America Vote Act of 

2002 to require states, beginning in 2010, to allow eligible voters 

to request a mail-in ballot for all federal elections without having 

to provide a reason. States would also be required to verify the signature on the absentee ballot by cross-checking it with the voter’s 

signature on the official list of registered voters. CBO estimates 

that implementing H.R. 281 would have no impact on the federal 

budget. 

Section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes from 

the application of that act any legislative provisions that enforce 

the constitutional rights of individuals. CBO has determined that 

H.R. 281 would fall within that exclusion because it would protect 

individuals’ voting rights. Therefore, we have not reviewed the bill 

for mandates. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew Pickford. 

This estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
9 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 2002 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) * * * 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of this Act is as 

follows: 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE III—UNIFORM AND NONDISCRIMINATORY ELECTION TECHNOLOGY 

AND ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS 

Subtitle A—Requirements 

Sec. 301. Voting systems standards. 

* * * * * * * 

Sec. 303. Computerized statewide voter registration list requirements and 

requirements for voters who register by mail. 

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

* * * * * * * 

TITLE III—UNIFORM AND NONDISCRIMINATORY ELECTION TECHNOLOGY 

AND ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS 

Subtitle A—Requirements 

* * * * * * * 

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

(a) IN GENERAL.—If an individual in a State is eligible to cast a 

vote in an election for Federal office, the State may not impose any 

additional conditions or requirements on the eligibility of the individual to cast the vote in such election by mail, except as required 

under subsection (b) and except to the extent that the State imposes 

a deadline for requesting the ballot and related voting materials 

from the appropriate State or local election official and for returning the ballot to the appropriate State or local election official. 

(b) REQUIRING SIGNATURE VERIFICATION.—A State may not accept and process an absentee ballot submitted by any individual 

with respect to an election for Federal office unless the State verifies 

the identification of the individual by comparing the individual’s 

signature on the absentee ballot with the individual’s signature on 

the official list of registered voters in the State, in accordance with 

such procedures as the State may adopt. 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—A State shall be required to comply with 

the requirements of this section with respect to the regularly scheduled general elections for Federal office held in November 2010 and 

each succeeding election for Federal office. 

* * * * * * * 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
10 

TITLE IV—ENFORCEMENT 

SEC. 401. ACTIONS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DECLARATORY 

AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. 

The Attorney General may bring a civil action against any State 

or jurisdiction in an appropriate United States District Court for 

such declaratory and injunctive relief (including a temporary restraining order, a permanent or temporary injunction, or other 

order) as may be necessary to carry out the uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements under sections 301, 302, øand 303¿ 303, and 303A. 

* * * * * * * 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
(11) 

MINORITY VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE VERNON J. EHLERS 

AND THE HONORABLE DAN LUNGREN 

H.R. 281, UNIVERSAL RIGHT TO VOTE BY MAIL ACT OF 2007 

I. INTRODUCTION

On Wednesday, April 3, 2008, the Committee on House Administration ordered favorably reported to the House, by voice vote, H.R. 

281, the ‘‘Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act of 2007’’ as amended. 

In our view, H.R. 281 unnecessarily abrogates states’ rights, and 

opens the door to organized fraud. 

II. KEY ISSUES

Preserving States’ rights 

The administration of elections in this country has always been 

the province of states and localities, and most of the elections involve predominately local and state offices and issues. We maintain 

that each state should decide for itself, to the greatest extent practicable, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution, the preferred 

method of selecting its elected officials and electors. While we fully 

support striving to improve the electoral process, the imposition of 

universal national standards is not the answer. Rather, improvements to the electoral process should be developed in concert with 

the states and localities, and not be thrust upon them, and we 

must recognize that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. 

By contrast, H.R. 281 would preempt existing election laws in 

twenty-two states. We disagree with the characterization made by 

the bill’s sponsor, Mrs. Davis, that these laws are an ‘‘antiquated 

patchwork.’’ Rather, we believe that there is no panacea, and that 

nationalized standards for the administration of elections undermine the traditional role of states as laboratories of democracy. On 

a more practical level, state and local elections administrators are 

better positioned than the U.S. Congress to develop and implement 

election procedures to best serve their voters—what works best in 

California or Oregon may not best serve the voters of Kansas or 

Michigan. 

Moreover, we are troubled by the concerns expressed to the 

Members of this Committee by the National Conference of State 

Legislatures (NCSL). State Legislatures are paying attention to 

this issue, and their concerns are well founded. It is natural that 

states would be concerned about being ‘‘forced to overhaul their 

standards, protocols and policies in a very short period of time and 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
12 

1Letter from the National Conference of State Legislatures to the Committee on House Administration, April 1, 2008. 2Prigmore v. Renfro, 356 F. Supp. 427, 432 (D.C.Ala., 1972), aff’d 410 U.S. 919, 93 S. Ct. 1369, 

35 L.Ed.2d 582 (U.S.Ala. Feb 20, 1973). 

with no appropriated federal dollars in place,’’ and these concerns 

should be addressed.1

The adoption of the amendment offered by Mr. Ehlers, to postpone the effective date of this legislation until 2010, is merely one 

small step towards addressing these concerns. However, states 

whose laws are impacted by this legislation should be allowed to 

seek an extension of time to comply, in cases where such time is 

necessary for states to implement the safeguards necessary for expanded absentee voting. 

We support the amendment offered by Mr. Ehlers, providing that 

notwithstanding any other provision of H.R. 281, any state may 

continue to enforce any condition or requirement concerning the 

eligibility of an individual to obtain an absentee ballot by mail. 

This amendment failed on a party line vote of 3–4. 

Until the passage of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) 

in 1993, the federal government generally did not interfere with 

the administration of elections by state and local officials. However, 

long before the passage of NVRA, states implemented measures for 

the fair and efficient administration of elections, including absentee 

voting. For example, during the Civil War, twenty-six states passed 

laws allowing soldiers to vote absentee; and by 1924, all but three 

states had enacted absentee voting provisions. The federal government ought not to force states to abandon these measures. Instead, 

the federal government should strive to work with states to develop 

ways to improve election administration generally, including absentee ballots. 

Finally, we question the finding of Congress that an inequity of 

voting rights exists in the Untied States because voters in some 

states have the universal right to vote by mail while voters in other 

states do not. Historically, the absentee ballot has always been 

viewed as a privilege, not an absolute right. As the U.S. Supreme 

Court explained, the right to vote is unquestionably basic to a democracy, but the right to an absentee ballot is not.2 Preserving the 

rights of states to establish safeguards with respect to absentee 

voting does not interfere with the fundamental right to vote. 

Preventing fraud 

As with all aspects of election administration, the rules regarding 

absentee voting must be carefully assessed to ensure that the integrity of the electoral process is not sacrificed in the interest of expediency, and to this end, sufficient safeguards must be established. Our overriding concern is that legitimate votes may be cancelled out by fraudulent votes. This concern is particularly acute 

with respect to absentee voting, which inherently lacks the secrecy 

that is the hallmark of in-person voting. 

Mail-in absentee voting is appropriate in cases where the voter 

would otherwise be unable to cast a ballot at the polls on Election 

Day, for example, the elderly, or overseas military service men and 

women. However, there is a genuine risk that the expansion of absentee voting may inadvertently create opportunities for those who 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
13 

would seek to systematically and in an organized fashion interfere 

with the electoral process. An examination of the legislative histories of states’ absentee voting laws demonstrates that legislatures 

were concerned with the prevention of fraud when they enacted absentee voting requirements. Before forcing states to repeal these requirements, we must ensure that states are able to find other ways 

to address the potential for fraud and abuse. 

We question the assertion that no evidence exists demonstrating 

that the potential for fraud in absentee balloting is greater than 

the potential for fraud by any other means of voting. When a ballot 

is cast someplace other than the traditional polling place, it is 

much more difficult to guarantee that the ballot is being cast by 

an eligible voter, that his or her selection is made without inappropriate interference, and that the voted ballot makes it safely back 

to the elections office to be counted. For example, in 1996, in Dodge 

County, Georgia, supporters of candidates for sheriff were found 

guilty of paying voters for their absentee ballots. And in 2005, in 

Benton Harbor, Michigan, an individual was accused of unlawful 

possession of absentee ballots, and attempting to improperly influence absentee voters. 

We support the amendment offered by Mr. Ehlers, to require any 

state that offers no-excuse absentee voting to implement an attestation requirement under which a voter would sign a statement attesting that the ballot was requested voluntarily and without coercion, and that the ballot would be voted without outside influence. 

This amendment was, unfortunately, defeated by 3–4, again along 

party lines. 

Let there be no mistake: the intent of Mr. Ehlers’ amendment 

was not to impose a second signature requirement, nor to create an 

independent grounds to challenge an absentee ballot. Moreover, 

contrary to the assertions made in opposition to this amendment, 

an attestation requirement does not criminalize the victim of voter 

intimidation. Perjury is a specific intent crime, which means that 

the government must demonstrate the voter voluntarily made the 

false statement with knowledge of its falsity. Accordingly, a voter 

who has been forced to falsely sign an attestation requirement has 

not made that statement voluntarily, and therefore will not be 

prosecuted. 

More importantly, an attestation requirement not only addresses 

the potential for fraud, but also draws attention to the solemnity 

of the act of casting a vote, reinforces the importance of secrecy of 

one’s vote, and protects the freedom to vote as one desires. Therefore, we urge states that adopt so-called ‘‘no excuse’’ absentee voting to implement an attestation requirement to prevent improper 

casting of ballots. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
14 

III. CONCLUSION

In certain circumstances, absentee voting provides a means for 

those who would otherwise not be able to participate in the democratic process to cast a ballot. However, H.R. 281, a federal mandate requiring states to implement across-the-board ‘‘no excuse’’ absentee voting, raises fundamental questions about states’ rights 

and preservation of the integrity of the electoral process. 

VERNON J. EHLERS. DANIEL E. LUNGREN. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
(15) 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 19 HR581.001
16 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 20 HR581.002
17 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 21 HR581.003
18 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 22 HR581.004
19 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 23 HR581.005
20 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 24 HR581.006
21 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 25 HR581.007
22 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 26 HR581.008
23 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 27 HR581.009
24 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 28 HR581.010