U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

31–446 WASHINGTON : 2018

STATE VOTER REGISTRATION LIST MAINTENANCE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 25, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi, Chairman 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois, Vice Chairman 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, 

Ranking Member 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
(1) 

STATE VOTER REGISTRATION LIST 

MAINTENANCE 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:04 a.m., in room 

1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Gregg Harper (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Harper, Davis, Comstock, Loudermilk, 

Brady, and Raskin. 

Staff Present: Sean Moran, Staff Director; Bob Sensenbrenner, 

General Counsel; Cole Felder, Deputy General Counsel; Dan 

Jarrell, Legislative Clerk; Erin McCracken, Communications Director; Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director; Khalil Abboud, Minority 

Deputy Staff Director; Tanya Sehgal, Minority Elections Counsel; 

and Eddie Flaherty, Minority Chief Clerk. 

The CHAIRMAN. I now call to order the Committee on House Administration for purposes of today’s hearing on State voter registration list maintenance. 

The hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days so 

Members may submit any materials they wish to include. 

A quorum is present, so we may proceed. 

I first would like to thank our witnesses for their appearance before the Committee. Today’s hearing addresses an important subject both for our democracy and certainly for each of us as Members. We are each uniquely dependent on States conducting accurate elections every 2 years. The accuracy of our elections is the 

bedrock upon which all of our work in the people’s House lies. 

Therefore, it is paramount that every election be conducted in a 

fair and open manner. 

To that end, today, we have asked our witnesses to testify on 

State voter registration list maintenance. Ensuring the accuracy of 

voter registration lists is the foundation to a successful election. 

Having accurate lists increases voter confidence, eases the administration of elections, reduces wait times, and certainly helps prevent 

voter fraud and irregularity. The Bauer-Ginsberg Commission, 

headed by Bob Bauer, former President Barack Obama’s campaign 

counsel and later White House counsel, and Ben Ginsberg, former 

President George W. Bush’s campaign counsel and Mitt Romney’s 

campaign counsel, noted this in the report stating, and I quote: 

‘‘Improving the accuracy of registration rolls, for example, can expand access, reduce administrative costs, prevent fraud and irregularity, and reduce polling place congestion leading to long lines.’’ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
2 

Many times, the work accomplished by our State and local election officials goes unsung. However, their work on ensuring the accuracy of voter rolls can clear the way for a better voting experience. It could both drive more citizens out to the polls and reduce 

voter fraud and irregularities. Voter list maintenance is the most 

important homework that each State and local election official 

needs to do. 

Under our Constitution, it is the responsibility of the States to 

run elections. Congress can pass legislation to place mandates on 

States concerning the times, places, and manner of elections, which 

includes voter list maintenance requirements. Congress has enacted these requirements in the National Voter Registration Act, or 

NVRA, and the Help America Vote Act. But the implementation of 

these requirements lies with States, who have the ultimate responsibility for elections. Specifically, section 8 of the NVRA requires 

that States conduct a general program that makes reasonable efforts to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists. 

These laws were a product of legislative compromise, and each 

State has a responsibility to follow that law. The duties imposed 

by NVRA require critical functions in ensuring the accuracy and integrity of our elections. 

When States do fail to follow the law, problems arise. For example, it seems intuitive that States should not have more registered 

voters than citizens of voting age. However, the most recent election administration surveys indicate that eight States have such 

problems. Even if States are given the benefit of the doubt that 

these inaccuracies are caused simply by voters moving out of a 

State and not canceling their previous registration, confidence in 

the election process is shaken and confusion at the polls can run 

rampant. 

As we review these laws and others that impact State voter registration lists, it is important to remember that our country has 

changed from when NVRA was initially adopted in 1993. Technology has changed. Many other things have taken place. There 

have been a number of profound changes over the years since the 

law was enacted, and it is worth examining the mandates of the 

NVRA and how States bring that law into effect. 

We must also recognize that the Federal Government is the partner of the States in list maintenance. We need to hear how the 

Federal Government can provide appropriate access of Federal 

databases to further their list maintenance efforts. For example, 

does the Social Security Death Index provide the appropriate information to States? How can the Federal Government improve the 

information sharing between States concerning residents while recognizing that States have already banned together and created programs to do so? 

These are some of the important issues that are essential to our 

democracy. And on these specific points that I have mentioned, I 

want to again thank Indiana’s Secretary of State and President of 

the National Association of Secretaries of State, Connie Lawson, for 

her hard work on this issue and for agreeing to be here to testify. 

And I now recognize Ranking Member Brady for any opening statement he may wish to give. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
3 

I want to thank you for calling this hearing. And I want to thank 

our witnesses for joining us today. I will have a longer statement 

for the record. So I will just make a few comments now. The National Voter Registration Act, or motor voter law, added an estimated 300 million new voters on the rolls. It was a commonsense 

idea: If you need to access a government service, you should be reminded to vote. It was that simple principle that inspired me to introduce the Automatic Voter Registration Act of 2017, which expanded the motor voter act. 

But we need to carefully maintain voter lists. In maintaining 

these lists, we need to have one principle: No one who has lawfully 

registered to vote should be kicked off the rolls to keep them from 

voting. For example, the Ohio Secretary of State was using a process of list maintenance that involved canceling registrations of individuals who had not voted since 2008. That should not have happened. Again, I would like to thank the chairman for calling this 

hearing, and I look forward to the witnesses’ testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Brady. 

The Chair will now recognize Mr. Raskin for the purposes of an 

opening statement. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much, and thanks for 

calling this really important hearing. I appreciate it. 

And thank you also to the Ranking Member, Mr. Brady, for his 

leadership on these election issues. 

You know, one of our great Presidents spoke of government of 

the people, by the people, and for the people. And I think that that 

beautiful tantalizing ideal expresses what we want to think of as 

democracy in America. Of course we didn’t start that way. We 

started as a slave republic of white male property owners over the 

age of 21. The vast majority of people couldn’t vote. And it has only 

been through political struggle and constitutional changes that we 

have opened America up to voting by everybody for the expression 

of popular will. So the 15th Amendment banned race discrimination in voting. The 14th Amendment established equal protection. 

The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. The 17th 

Amendment shifted the mode of election of U.S. Senators from the 

legislatures to the people. The 24th Amendment banned poll taxes 

in elections. The 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18. So 

we have opened democracy up to full participation by the people. 

But even when we have these formal constitutional changes, we 

know that there have been repeated efforts to nullify the vote with 

things like the literacy test, the poll tax, grandfather clauses, obstacles to registration, difficulties imposed on the path to voting 

and so on. So, on the one hand, nothing is more American than the 

ideal of one person, one vote that was articulated in Reynolds v. 

Sims, Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, a series of cases that 

established the right of everybody to vote. On the other hand, we 

also know that it is pretty American to see impulses or the impulse 

expressed in different places to disenfranchise people through behind-the-scenes political manipulation dressed up as bureaucratic 

extremism. And in our times, we have seen a lot of people 

disenfranchised through governmental efforts that were later discredited and found to be completely illegitimate. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
4 

I think a lot about the contested Presidential election that took 

place in Florida in 2000, where the Secretary of State, Katherine 

Harris, ordered a purge of the voter rolls to get rid of people who 

might be convicted felons and contracted out for more than a million dollars to a private party to do that. 

And there was a memo written back to her saying: Well, we are 

getting some near matches, but the middle names are different. 

They are not quite right. There is a junior in one place, not in another. 

And she wrote back: Cast a wide net. 

And it came out in hearings after the election took place that 

more than 17,000 people were unlawfully denied the right to vote 

in Florida there. And we have seen lots of cases like that, where 

there have been efforts to disenfranchise populations, often targeted in minority communities, through bureaucratic efforts that 

are later determined to be imperfect. 

So, when I think about this, Mr. Chairman, I think a lot about 

William Blackstone’s famous comment that, in a free society, it is 

better that 10 guilty persons escape punishment than 1 innocent 

person be sent to prison. And I think about voting. You know, is 

it better to disenfranchise a thousand people who are legitimate 

bona fide voters in order to get one person whose name may have 

appeared in the same place in two different jurisdictions and might 

decide to engage in the ludicrous activity of trying to commit voter 

fraud by voting in two different places, which we know is extremely 

rare? 

So I just want to make sure, as we go about this, I totally agree 

with you that we want accuracy, we want integrity in the voting 

process, but we don’t want a voting process that actually works 

against the interests of the voters. So I will be very interested to 

hear what our witnesses have to say about that. And I welcome 

them today. Thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

I would now like to introduce our witnesses for today. Connie 

Lawson serves as Indiana’s 61st secretary of state. She has served 

in that capacity since 2012. Prior to her service as secretary of 

state, she served for 16 years in the Indiana Senate, where she was 

the first woman to serve as majority floor leader. Before joining the 

Indiana Senate, she served as the clerk of the Hendricks County 

Circuit Court. Secretary Lawson currently serves as the President 

of NASS, the National Association of Secretaries of State. She is 

also an Honorary Governor of the Richard Lugar Public Service Series, an Honorary Chairwoman of the Lupus Foundation of Indiana, and Co-Chair of the Hendricks County United Way. 

Dale Ho is the Director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and 

supervises the ACLU’s voting rights litigation and advocacy work 

nationwide. His current cases include Husted v. A. Philip Randolph 

Institute, a voter list maintenance case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Dale is also an adjunct professor of law at NYU 

School of Law and Brooklyn Law School. He is a graduate of Yale 

Law School and Princeton University. 

The Committee has received your written testimony. You will 

each have 5 minutes to offer and present a summary of that submission. As you know, to help you keep the time, you see the lights 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
5 

on the desk. So it will be green for 4 minutes, yellow for the last 

minute, and when time is expired, it will run red. So that would 

mean it is time to bring it in for a landing at that point. 

The Chair now recognizes Secretary Lawson for the purposes of 

her opening statement for 5 minutes. Welcome. 

STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE CONNIE LAWSON, INDIANA 

SECRETARY OF STATE; AND DALE HO, DIRECTOR OF VOTING RIGHTS PROJECT, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CONNIE LAWSON 

Ms. LAWSON. Well, good morning, Chairman Harper, Vice Chairman Davis, and Ranking Member Brady. I am very honored to be 

here with you this morning and to address you. 

Voter list maintenance is needed because approximately 24 million, or one out of every eight, voter registrations in the United 

States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate according 

to the 2012 study by the Pew Center. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires the removal of inaccurate voter registration records but with multiple safeguards to protect voters. In most 

cases, before a registration record may be canceled, the record must 

be identified as showing an inaccurate current address for the 

voter. Only after two Federal elections have taken place, up to 4 

years, and only if the voter has not confirmed during those 4 years 

that the record is in fact accurate can the voter registration record 

be canceled, as required by this Federal law. Simple failure to vote 

never causes a registration record to be canceled. Cancellation only 

occurs if the registration contains inaccurate information which indicates that the voter is no longer qualified to vote at that address. 

Local election administrators in Indiana’s 92 counties, who are 

most familiar with their voters and communities, perform voter list 

maintenance daily by updating information on voters who have 

moved, died, or requested that their registration be canceled. However, many counties do not have the money to do the periodic and 

uniform mailings that are required by Federal law. Thus, the State 

has taken the lead. This process begins when the State mails all 

Indiana voters a postcard. Some are returned due to an unknown 

or insufficient address. The State mails these voters a second 

forwardable postcard, asking the voter to provide us with updated 

information. If the voter responds, their county updates their information and no further action is needed. If they do not respond to 

either mailing, their record is marked inactive. Once a record is 

marked inactive, it is not removed from the list unless the voter 

misses the next two Federal elections or otherwise fails to confirm 

their address is in fact correct. The voter is still eligible to vote 

during this 4-year period. If the voter casts a ballot from that address during any election in that 4-year period, the primary, the 

general, or the special, their record is automatically returned to an 

active status. 

In 2014, Indiana undertook voter list maintenance using the 

statewide mailing process. Inactive registrations remained on the 

rolls for 2014, 2015, 2016. Records that were still inactive at the 

end of that period were canceled in 2017. As of today, 481,235 voter 

registrations have been canceled through this process. Voter list 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
6 

maintenance reduces election costs. Counties with bloated voter 

rolls are forced to spend more money to purchase extra equipment, 

secure additional locations, and pay for election workers. Allowing 

invalid registrations to remain on the rolls distorts the reality of 

actual voter participation and turnout. In 2016, the official voter 

turnout in Indiana was 58 percent of all registered voters, despite 

a record number of voters turning out to vote. If the voter list 

maintenance conducted this year, in 2017, had taken place before 

the 2016 election, Indiana’s turnout would have been about 65 percent. 

Voter list maintenance also boosts voter confidence in our election system. I often hear from poll workers and county officials that 

voters are disturbed by seeing the name of a deceased family member or neighbor still on the list years after death or moving away. 

As I close, I want to address the uncertainty that clouds voter 

list maintenance across the country. In States that are attempting 

to comply with Federal law, like Indiana, activist groups are suing 

to keep maintenance from being done. In States that are not participating, activist groups are suing to force the process. Performing 

voter list maintenance is the law, according to the NVRA. This law 

was a compromise that required voter registrations to be available 

at government offices, such as the BMV, and voter list maintenance to be performed. We enforce the registration portion of the 

law uniformly but not the voter list maintenance piece. So I encourage Congress to clarify this expectation for the States, and I 

congratulate and commend the efforts of State officials around the 

country who are continuing to work hard in the face of this uncertainty. 

The last piece I want to include is that our office does participate 

in the Interstate Crosscheck Program to assist voter list maintenance, and I am happy to explain how this works in Indiana if 

need be. Thank you again for the opportunity. 

[The statement of Ms. Lawson follows:] 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
7 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 19 31446A.001
8 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 20 31446A.002
9 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Secretary Lawson. 

The Chair will now recognize Mr. Ho for 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening statement. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DALE HO 

Mr. HO. Thank you, Chairman Harper, Ranking Member Brady, 

and Members of this Committee. Thank you for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to testify today. 

The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy. And we at 

the ACLU seek to protect it on equal terms for all Americans. But 

you can’t vote if you are not on the rolls. And voter list accuracy 

therefore requires ensuring that eligible voters are able to get on 

the lists, that they are not erroneously purged, and that thinning 

the rolls only occurs when people are or become ineligible to vote. 

Unfortunately, as described in my written testimony and as was 

referenced by Ranking Member Brady and Congressman Raskin, 

erroneous list maintenance efforts in States like Florida, Ohio, and 

Texas have wrongfully targeted thousands of vote voters for removal from the rolls. In one incident in Madison County, Mississippi, 10,000 voters were illegally purged just days before an 

election, including David Landrum, a Republican candidate for 

what is now Chairman Harper’s district. Just yesterday, my home 

city of New York acknowledged wrongfully purging about 114,000 

voters in advance of last year’s Presidential primary. So this problem is not limited to any region or party. 

Our registration systems should of course be modernized to better account for people who move. And that is why 10 States, most 

recently Representative Davis’ home State of Illinois, on a bipartisan basis, adopted a system of automatic registration, which ensures that unregistered voters are registered and updates rolls 

when voters move. It is an innovation that both maintains accuracy 

and helps voters participate without unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles. 

Now Secretary Lawson has referenced the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck system, which purports to compare voter rolls 

in multiple States. And with due respect to the secretary, we advise against Crosscheck, which a team of researchers at Stanford, 

Harvard, UPenn, and Microsoft found misidentify supposed double 

voters more than 99 percent of the time. Crosscheck’s user manual 

itself states, quote, ‘‘A significant number of apparent double votes 

are false positives.’’ And, therefore, States, including Florida, Oregon, and Washington, have dropped out of the program all together. 

We sometimes also hear suggestions to compare State voters 

rolls to the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien 

Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, database. But citing concerns about accuracy, courts have struck down list maintenance efforts involving SAVE in States like Iowa and Florida, where bad 

matching protocols led the State of Florida to mistakenly designate 

thousands of Americans as noncitizens, including Bill Internicola, 

a Brooklyn born World War II veteran who had fought at the Battle of the Bulge. Now, as you know, on June 28, the Department 

of Justice requested information on list maintenance from 44 

States, a sweeping inquiry that Vanita Gupta, former head of 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
10 

DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and now president of the Leadership 

Conference on Civil Rights, has described as, quote, ‘‘virtually unprecedented.’’ 

The timing of this request is also suspect, coming on the same 

day as an infamous demand by the Presidential Commission on 

Election Integrity for all 50 States’ voter rolls. Stockpiling huge 

amounts voters’ personal data in this manner raises significant cybersecurity concerns. The Commission’s plans have been described 

as a, quote, ‘‘hacker’s gold mine’’ by cybersecurity experts. And this 

week, it was reported that passwords for Crosscheck have been disseminated via email to dozens of people at a time, a risky practice 

that could permit unauthorized access to voter data from 30 States. 

Given that dozens of States’ registration systems were victims of 

attempted cyber attacks last year, these plans are risky at best. 

But I want to emphasize that, as Secretary Lawson said at a 

Senate Intelligence Committee hearing last year, there is no indication that vote counting was manipulated last year. And as Representative Walker stated last year, there are cases from time to 

time that need to be investigated, but there is, quote, no mass conspiracy of voter fraud going on. Although we face threats, our elections are secure. 

Now, unfortunately, we as Americans increasingly seem to refuse 

to accept the basic legitimacy of our political opponents on the assumption that their electoral support must be the result of fraud. 

Suggestions along these lines, like the President’s false statement 

that millions of illegal votes cost him the popular vote, do a disservice to men and women who have risked their lives for our democracy, people like my grandfather, Raymundo Sena Estacion, 

and other Filipino veterans who, as we speak during this hearing, 

are being awarded the Congressional Gold Medal in Emancipation 

Hall for their service in World War II. 

I, therefore, urge this Committee to facilitate participation by encouraging States to adopt systems that automatically update voters’ registration information along the lines of Ranking Member 

Brady’s bill, to reject plans that purge eligible voters from the rolls, 

to help ensure that votes are counted accurately by supporting 

State efforts to enhance cybersecurity systems. Our democracy is 

more vibrant and more truly representative when more Americans 

participate. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Ho follows:] 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
11 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 26 31446A.003
12 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 27 31446A.004
13 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 28 31446A.005
14 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 29 31446A.006
15 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 30 31446A.007
16 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 31 31446A.008
17 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 32 31446A.009
18 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 33 31446A.010
19 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 34 31446A.011
20 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 35 31446A.012
21 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 36 31446A.013
22 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 37 31446A.014
23 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 38 31446A.015
24 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 39 31446A.016
25 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 31446A.017
26 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 41 31446A.018
27 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 42 31446A.019
28 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 43 31446A.020
29 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 44 31446A.021
30 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 45 31446A.022
31 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 46 31446A.023
32 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 47 31446A.024
33 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 48 31446A.025
34 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank each of you for your testimony 

and for starting this hearing on what we know is a very essential 

and important subject. And I want to again thank you both for taking the time to be here. 

We now have the opportunity for our Committee Members to ask 

each of you questions. Each member is allotted 5 minutes to question the witnesses. To help us keep track of our time, we have got 

the same lights in front of us—that you can’t see—to keep us on 

track. 

And I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for the purposes 

of asking those questions. If I could, Mr. Ho, just to kind of follow 

up on the Mississippi example that you gave from Madison County, 

Mississippi, most of which is in my district, some in Congressman 

Thompson’s district, and it is my understanding of course that approximately 10,000 voters were purged from the rolls about 2 

weeks before the election. But to clear that up, I want to commend 

our secretary of state, Delbert Hosemann, whose staff worked well 

and very hard to make sure that was corrected. And it was corrected in time for the election. So there was no impact because it 

was detected. Is that correct? 

Mr. HO. That is my understanding as well, that Secretary 

Hosemann understood that this was an illegal purge because it was 

being conducted—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Within 90 days. 

Mr. HO. Exactly. And that his staff worked overtime to make 

sure that those voters were restored to the rolls. So it is a testament to the hard work of his office that no voters were 

disenfranchised as a result of that illegal purge. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is something we certainly commend his 

staff. And they continue to do a great job of making sure we do 

those things. Secretary Lawson, in your experience, what impact 

would you say that inaccurate voter registration lists might have 

on the lines at polling locations? That seems to be the big story a 

lot of times on why people walk away, is maybe the lines are too 

lengthy. 

Ms. LAWSON. Well, I think it can make a difference. Obviously, 

we want to make sure that the voters that show up to vote are able 

to vote. But I think what it does more than increase the time to 

vote, it increases the process time. So it is the time that the poll 

workers have to process someone when we have an inaccurate list 

to help that person with an individual request. That is where the 

lines get longer. 

The CHAIRMAN. When you are discussing coming up with how to 

make sure the list—and look, I understand a voter list is never 

going to be 100 percent accurate. We get that. There is always 

going to be things that happen and take place. But what impact 

would accurate voter registration lists have on the costs of your administering elections? 

Ms. LAWSON. Well, you know, counties have to send to each voting location the correct number of machines, supplies, ballots, have 

the right amount of poll workers. And all of that costs money. So, 

if the lists are inflated, it can make a difference. But I think because of the light of all of the things we have heard about election 

security and integrity, what it probably does as well is that it takes 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
35 

away money that could be spent by local election jurisdictions on 

security and integrity of our elections. 

The CHAIRMAN. I know that when we are looking at the law— 

and title 52, section 21083(a)(3), says the appropriate State or local 

office shall provide adequate technological security measures to 

prevent the unauthorized access to the computerized lists established under this section. So we are not only discussing getting to 

an accurate list but also the protection of that and cybersecurity 

threats. Are you satisfied that those measures are being taken and 

followed in your State? 

Ms. LAWSON. Regarding cybersecurity? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Ms. LAWSON. I think, across the country, secretaries are spending hours every day on cybersecurity. And there are a number of 

activities going on. My legislature has been supportive, luckily, in 

Indiana for us to take a number of steps to improve our election 

security. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I am sure that that is a major topic when 

you have your meetings for the National Association of Secretaries 

of State. 

Ms. LAWSON. That is correct. The national association has a 

number of meetings. We have developed our own cybersecurity task 

force. We are a member of the Government Coordinating Council 

for DHS to make sure that we do everything we can to increase the 

security of our elections. 

The CHAIRMAN. Explain to us what is Indiana’s voter list maintenance policy and who is responsible for it. 

Ms. LAWSON. Well, in Indiana, it is a bipartisan effort. We have 

our Indiana Election Division, where we have a bipartisan attorney 

and director. It is also—it is the counties that make the decision 

whether or not a voter’s records should be removed. And that is a 

bipartisan county election board as well. And then the actual Indiana General Assembly appropriates the money, and those are bipartisan votes as well, so that we can afford, the State can do that 

mailing on behalf of the counties. 

The CHAIRMAN. Those bipartisan election boards or election commissioners, whatever they may be in various States, that is probably the most thankless job that is out there. And so, for the 

record, I want to thank all the hardworking people that do make 

sure that they do their best effort on that. That is a lot of work. 

So thank you each for your answers. 

The Chair will now recognize Mr. Brady for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As I said earlier, I have introduced the automatic voter registration bill for the last few Congresses. The Brennan Center estimated 

my proposal could add 50 million voters to the rolls. Could both of 

you comment on this idea generally? 

Ladies first. 

Ms. LAWSON. Indiana does not have automatic voter registration, 

but we have done a number of things over the years to increase access. For an example, our Indianavoters.com, we have an outward 

facing online voter registration. Voters do get asked at the BMV, 

at our Bureau of Motor Vehicles we call it, if they want to register 

to vote. We just passed some laws that increased that participation 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
36 

with our BMV. And I am not—I apologize, Mr. Brady. I have not 

been aware of your bill. 

Mr. BRADY. That is okay. A lot of people haven’t been. 

Mr. Ho. 

Mr. HO. If I may. And thank you, Ranking Member Brady, for 

introducing that legislation. We are generally supportive of the 

idea of automatic registration. We think this is a way to accomplish 

both the goals of making sure that the registration lists are accurate and as up-to-date as possible while at the same time increasing access and facilitating participation for more Americans. Ten 

States have adopted some form of automatic registration. This includes States that are sometimes called red, sometimes called blue, 

States like Alaska, West Virginia, and, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, most recently, Illinois, signed into law by a Republican Governor. So we think it is a good idea. We think it is very 

important that those systems have adequate safeguards to ensure 

that people who are ineligible to vote don’t become automatically 

registered. That doesn’t do good for either elections or for those 

people themselves. But as long as those safeguards are built in, we 

think these systems are generally a good idea. 

Mr. BRADY. How would such a proposal fit into proper list maintenance so that tragedies like what happened in Ohio will not happen again? 

Mr. HO. Well, if you had a situation like that, then programs like 

Ohio’s, the one that you referenced in your remarks, and which we 

at the ACLU have been litigating, that case is set to go to the Supreme Court 2 weeks from today, programs like Ohio’s would be 

unnecessary. I mean, Ohio is a really extreme outlier. They treat 

a person, if you do not vote in a 2-year period, they treat that as 

evidence that you may have moved and, not just moved, but moved 

out of the country—I am sorry, out of the county or out of the State 

and become ineligible on that basis. Now, in our midterm elections, 

typically more than half of registered voters don’t participate. So 

that is an awfully heroic assumption on the part of the State of 

Ohio. And, fortunately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed with us last year, and 7,500 people were able to vote 

as a result of the ruling we got. 

But if you had an automatic system that updated people’s registration statuses when they interacted with the State, then maybe 

overzealous programs like Ohio’s would no longer be necessary. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you. 

Madam Secretary, all my bill does is expand motor voter. Social 

Security offices, food stamp offices, city and State agencies. That 

gives the people an opportunity to let them know that they can— 

check a box and they can get a registration and vote automatically 

right there. It just allows more people to participate in our democratic system. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brady yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Davis, the vice chairman of the 

Committee. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Chairman. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
37 

Madam Secretary, first, just a quick question. We hear a lot in 

elections about voter turnout. Do accurate voter registration lists 

help you as a Secretary of State depict better turnout models? 

Ms. LAWSON. Well, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, I believe it does. Indiana did voter list maintenance starting in 2014, 

but we weren’t able to complete it until after the 2016 general election cycle. The maintenance that we did this year would have actually given us a 65-percent turnout rather than a 58-percent turnout. And I think that encourages the voters to be a part of the 

group of people who are active voters and do turn out to vote. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

You know, as Mr. Ho mentioned, my home State of Illinois just 

implemented automatic voter registration. We have had motor 

voter. Now I want to ask you about sharing that information between States. A resident of Illinois moves to Indiana. Do your two 

States or do all States, effectively, share this information with the 

DMV to ensure that those individuals aren’t registered in both 

States? 

Ms. LAWSON. It is my understanding that it is really and truly 

the information that the voter gives. So I believe that every State 

will ask, what is your previous address? And if the voter states 

that correctly, then that State is notified. But if the voter doesn’t 

give the information, the States don’t get it. They can’t share it. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Ho, how many counties do you think nationwide 

maybe have more than 100 percent registered on their voter rolls? 

Mr. HO. I don’t have the specific number in front of me, Representative Davis. But I think what I should note is that sometimes assertions about there being more registered voters than 

total population or adult population in a particular county are exaggerations. PolitiFact, for instance, looked at an assertion by the 

Public Interest Legal Foundation that Bryan County, Georgia—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Actually, if I could, I want to stick to the numbers. 

Do you have any estimate of how many counties you think would 

reach that, regardless of whether or not having more than a hundred percent—we can have that debate later, but I don’t have 

enough time. I mean, I have got a report or a letter here from the 

American Civil Rights Union that says 200 counties, over 200 counties nationwide. That doesn’t sound like much when you look at our 

country, right? But I have got from the Illinois State Board of Elections that 24 of 102 counties in my home State have more than 100 

percent registered in their county, more so than their population 

that is eligible to vote. So, with that being said, and especially now 

that we have automatic voter registration, I mean what would you 

recommend our States do, our State Board of Elections in Illinois, 

Secretary of State in Indiana, and others, to make sure that no one 

is eligible to vote in two jurisdictions and therefore can’t do some 

of the things that we have seen voters unfortunately do in the 

past? A prime example of misusing voting privileges would have 

been one of the previous secretaries of state in the State of Indiana. 

So, obviously, I think we need to be better prepared. So what do 

you recommend we do? 

Mr. HO. I guess I would say three things to that, Representative 

Davis. The first is just to take a step back and look at what those 

numbers actually signify. So, when you say that there are more 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
38 

voters in a jurisdiction than people, a lot of times those counts include people who are designated as inactive registrants, which 

means they are in the process of being removed from the rolls. So 

PolitiFact, for instance, rated a claim that Bryan County, Georgia, 

had more registered voters than adults as false, and gave it that 

inaccurate rating. 

But the second thing I would say is, in principle, there is nothing 

wrong with the idea of sharing information across State lines. You 

just have to make sure that the underlying data is accurate and 

that your matching protocols don’t generate false positives. And, 

unfortunately, the Crosscheck system, which we hear referenced 

frequently, suffers from flaws in both of those regards. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you think this hundred percent, more than 100 

percent voter registration in certain counties, regardless of the justification—is it Bryan County, Georgia? Is that what you said? 

Mr. HO. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Is that your district, Barry? 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. No, it is not. 

Mr. DAVIS. Regardless of that, I mean, don’t you think the negative stories impact voter confidence? Wouldn’t it be better to be 

able to say, ‘‘Hey, we have got 65 percent turnout, this is record 

turnout in the State of Indiana,’’ because in the end, don’t we all 

want everyone who is eligible to vote to vote? 

Mr. HO. Of course we want as much turnout as possible. Our democracy is better off when more Americans—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Absolutely. Absolutely. I guess what I don’t get is, 

how can we work together to make sure that we put better systems 

in place, especially with the institution of automatic voter registration in my home State, what can we do to work together just to 

make it better so that we know everybody who is eligible to vote 

can and those who are not can’t do it more than once? 

Mr. HO. Well, I would agree with you that we need to make our 

voter registration systems more accurate and more modern. And I 

think the automatic system that you have just adopted in Illinois, 

I mean, it has just been signed into law, so it hasn’t had the opportunity to go to work yet. I think that is a very good first step towards making progress in that area. 

Mr. DAVIS. I look forward to working with you and the ACLU in 

making sure that we implement standards while this new process 

is being put in place to ensure that they are the most accurate 

voter rolls. So thank you very much. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize Mr. Raskin for 5 minutes for the 

purposes of asking questions. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. 

And thank you both for your fine testimony. 

Mr. Ho, you testified that there was this study done by researchers at Stanford and UPenn and some other universities and Microsoft, which found that the Crosscheck Program, which is being used 

by a lot of States, would eliminate about 200 voter registrations 

used to cast legitimate votes for every one registration used to cast 

a double vote. Can you explain why that is the case? And then I 

have got a followup on that. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
39 

Mr. HO. Sure. I am not an expert myself in computer database 

matching efforts, but my understanding is that the Crosscheck system, the criteria that are employed for matching people are very 

loose. So, for instance, Crosscheck treats people as a match when 

their first name, last name, and date of birth are matches. But 

even when there is other information in the States’ records, say a 

middle name, a Social Security number that does not match and 

that indicates that we are in fact not talking about the same person. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. And that mirrors what I was talking about 

happened in Florida, and I remember it being scandalized by the 

wide net that was cast to purge legitimate voters from the rolls. Do 

you want to say anything about the potential for the disproportionate effect of that on minority communities? Because I saw some 

Census data which shows that minorities are overrepresented in 85 

of the 100 most common last names where we are most likely to 

have confusion. So, if your name is Washington, there is an 89-percent chance that you are African American. If your last name is 

Hernandez, there is a 94-percent chance you are a Hispanic. If your 

last name is Kim, there is a 95-percent chance you are Asian. So 

what is the effect in those communities if you cast a wide net and 

it is enough to have a birthday and a first and last name match 

as opposed to adding in Social Security information, addresses, and 

so on? 

Mr. HO. What you referenced is my understanding as well, that 

when you have loose matching criteria amongst State voter lists to 

try to identify potential double registrants, you end up with false 

positives that disproportionately affect communities of color. 

Mr. RASKIN. Got you. Okay. 

And so, Madam Secretary, let me ask you: Back to the initial 

kind of philosophical puzzle I started with, how many legitimate 

voters is it worth disenfranchising to catch one actual double registration in two different States? 

Ms. LAWSON. I don’t think we want to take anyone off the rolls 

that shouldn’t be off the rolls that doesn’t have an inaccurate 

record. 

I will tell you, as regards to the Crosscheck program that Indiana participates, we developed a software program where we have 

a confidence level. So, if the first name and the last name matches, 

that is 30, 15 points, 15 points. If the middle name is exactly the 

same, that is another number of points. And until it reaches 75 

percent or 75 points of confidence, our bipartisan county election 

boards don’t even get the information. And, ultimately, they are the 

ones that are—— 

Mr. RASKIN. Can you give me the other point scorings that you 

have there? So how much is it for first name and last name and 

middle name? 

Ms. LAWSON. There are a number. We use first name. We use 

last name. We use middle name, obviously. A suffix. Whether it is 

an initial for the middle name only. I can’t remember exactly how 

many points, but I can certainly provide it to you after this testimony. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
40 

Ms. LAWSON. I think I have that information. But it is driver’s 

license number. It is Social Security number. 

Mr. RASKIN. Let me just see if I can understand it. This is complicated stuff. If I find on one list, say, a Connie Meredith Lawson 

and I find on another list a Connie Julia Lawson, one way of doing 

it would say, ‘‘Well, the middle names don’t match; we will keep 

that person on the rolls.’’ But you are saying I could continue to 

accumulate points that would disqualify that person? 

Ms. LAWSON. No. If the middle name doesn’t match, I don’t believe that would reach that level. 

Mr. RASKIN. Even if you had the other requisite number of 

points? 

Ms. LAWSON. Yes, yes. 

Mr. RASKIN. So, in other words, you get to that number of points 

and then there are certain disqualifying irreconcilable information 

that would then remove that from the potential of a purge? 

Ms. LAWSON. I can tell you if it doesn’t reach a 75-point confidence level, it doesn’t even go to the county officials. They never 

see it. We worked with a statistician who told us that the way we 

were doing our work, that I would have a better chance of winning 

the lottery than the counties removing the wrong person the way 

we were doing our confidence. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. We definitely need to get to the bottom of 

that because that is clearly contrary to that finding by those other 

researchers who said, in 99 percent of the cases, under a 

Crosscheck disqualification system, you are going to get false 

positives. But you are saying reaching the 75 points in Indiana is 

necessary, but it is not sufficient for removal from the rolls? 

Ms. LAWSON. That is correct. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. Could you provide us more detailed information on precisely the point scoring system you have? 

Ms. LAWSON. Absolutely. 

Mr. RASKIN. And is that the system that is used in all of the jurisdictions? 

Ms. LAWSON. That is what we use in Indiana. I can’t answer for 

the other States. 

Mr. RASKIN. Was that something that was provided by 

Crosscheck or that was something that you guys came up with? 

Ms. LAWSON. That is something that we developed, sir. 

Mr. RASKIN. In the Secretary of State’s office? 

Ms. LAWSON. Yes. Well, the Election Division, our bipartisan 

Election Division. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. Very good. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentlelady from Virginia, Mrs. 

Comstock, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. COMSTOCK. Thank you. I appreciate the hearing topic. And 

I know, you know, a lot of times we have anecdotes and things and 

people make statements, you know, publicly about false voting and 

all, but I wanted to bring a specific case to mind because it was 

something that happened in my very own precinct. We had two voters who moved from my precinct in 2011, late 2011 or so, early 

2012, and moved from Virginia to Maryland. And 2012 was a PresiVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:47 Sep 25, 2018 Jkt 031446 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A446.XXX A446

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
41 

dential election. Maryland was not going to be a swing State or a 

competitive State; Virginia was. These people came back, and they 

registered to vote at a friend’s house on the same street. Now, as 

it happened, a woman on the same street also was an election officer in 2012. So, when she got the election rolls and saw that the 

couple, who she knew, because it had been a neighbor for years, 

was now registered at a new house on the street that she knew 

they were not living in, because she lived on the street and knew 

that was somebody else’s house, she looked at that and said: Well, 

this is strange. 

They moved out of say—I am making up the number—but she 

moved out of 100 Smith Street and came back and registered to 

105 Smith Street. And the election officer happened to live on 110 

Smith Street and knew they weren’t living there. So, when she 

went to be the election officer on election day and this couple came 

in, she said: Hey, you don’t live here. Why are you coming in to 

vote? 

And they said: Oh, no, we are homeless. We are living at Jeff’s 

house, and we are still looking for a house. 

So they ended up being allowed to vote because you challenged 

them, and they didn’t even have to vote in a contested vote. They 

got to vote because they had their election card because they had 

gone and fraudulently registered to vote at this other person’s 

house, even though they had their residence in Maryland. 

So Virginia has elections every year. So, before the 2013 race 

came about, people in the neighborhood, because there were other 

people who knew this had happened, got information showing that 

they had gone—there was a newcomer newsletter in Maryland. 

They were living in Annapolis. They weren’t living on the street. 

Numerous people on the street said: They are not living here. 

Some stories got written up about it. This was all brought to the 

attention of the election board in our county, who then wrote up 

this fraudulent report and sent it to the prosecutors, who declined 

to prosecute. 

So I guess I would ask you both, now, because this got so much 

attention, because these letters were publicized, because these letters were written, and because they were identified by name by numerous neighbors on the street, as well as by the person whose 

house they were living in who was a local Democrat activist, they 

did not show up to vote in 2013, which, given I was on the ballot, 

I was very appreciative of that. But what laws on the books or not 

on the books could—how do we get that type of case to not—I guess 

maybe I will direct it to Mr. Ho. What would you say we should 

do in that case? Because I think it was a pretty clear case of fraud. 

They weren’t living on that street or in that neighborhood anymore, 

yet they were allowed to vote in 2012. And I was in the House of 

Delegates at that time. That district came out exactly tied between 

Obama and Romney. So, then, in 2013, it wasn’t exactly tied; I 

had—you know, but it was a close election. So we are talking about 

a lot of close elections here, which is why they obviously wanted 

to vote here. What do you think we should do in those types of 

cases? And when you had a prosecutor who just wouldn’t prosecute, 

what could we do to correct that? 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
42 

Mr. HO. Thank you for the question, Representative Comstock. 

So I am not an expert in law enforcement. I am not familiar with 

the details of that case and why the prosecutor in that case declined to bring charges. It may very well be the case that whatever 

evidence was adduced was insufficient to meet the standards for 

probable cause for an indictment. I guess I would say this, is that 

no one is denying that there aren’t cases from time to time that 

merit investigation and prosecution, as Representative Walker, 

who is not with us right now, has said. 

But what we don’t have is a substantial pattern of evidence of 

widespread fraud. We do have evidence that overenthusiastic 

purges have removed legitimate voters from the rolls. And I guess 

what I would say is that, when we are trying to balance these concerns, let’s go where the evidence leads us. Let’s make decisions 

based on that evidence and do a cost-benefit analysis here. And if 

we have evidence that these purges are overzealous, maybe we 

shouldn’t be talking about doing more purging. Maybe we should 

be talking about doing less and more accurate purging. 

Mrs. COMSTOCK. Or maybe more prosecution in terms of looking 

at that. Would that help in terms so that you are not purging as 

much as you are saying—you know, having more information available. Because we didn’t have the Maryland rolls available. Actually, we were able, you know, people were able to look into that 

and see they hadn’t yet registered in Maryland, because obviously 

they wanted to continue to vote in Virginia because there were 

closer elections in Virginia. So I think there is clearly a problem 

here. And I can tell you people kept coming to us saying: You 

know, they can’t show up to vote. 

I mean, you can imagine the neighbors who were sitting there 

watching them, their frustration of just having them bald-facedly 

lie to them about living on their street when they didn’t. It is beyond anecdote. And so I think wherever we can highlight real fraud 

and make sure there is a response to it, it would be helpful. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize gentleman from Georgia, Mr. 

Loudermilk, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank both of the witnesses for being here today. Secretary 

Lawson, first of all, thank you for your service. I know that sometimes that can be a thankless job, especially when you are dealing 

in the voters and voter registration and especially with the myriad 

of laws and regulations and procedures. And we often don’t make 

it easy on you to do your job. 

Let me ask you a quick question. Do you know or do you believe 

that there is duplicativeness between voter rolls in various States, 

for instance that there are people registered in one State and they 

are registered in another State? 

Ms. LAWSON. I am sure that is the case, sir. You know, it is not— 

voters don’t think about changing or canceling their voter registration in one State when they move to another, and it is certainly 

not against the law to be registered in more than one State. But 

it is against the law to vote in more than one State. And so, yes, 

I am sure that is the case. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
43 

Mr. Ho, do you know that there are duplicativeness between 

States in their voter rolls? 

Mr. HO. I mean, news reports came out I think after the election 

that various members of the President’s, for example, Cabinet and 

inner circle, like Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, former adviser Steve 

Bannon, former press secretary Sean Spicer were all registered to 

vote in more than one State last year. But no one accused them 

of fraud or anyone committing any kind of fraudulent activity in 

their names. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. So you take that news report as valid that they 

are—I mean, you are referencing a news report as a statement that 

you do believe that this is the case? 

Mr. HO. I don’t have any reason to doubt the veracity of the report. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. You kind of dispelled other news reports 

as invalid, and I just want to make sure that you are not trying 

to justify a particular end. I am living in a world of reality. Let me 

share with you this, and I have some other questions. I particularly 

know of three people that were registered in three different States 

simultaneously. They didn’t know that they should cancel. That is 

not their responsibility. I think it is the responsibility of the States. 

So I asked one of them, because they work construction, they traveled, and a lot of times you live, and if you are doing a project that 

lasts for a year, you will move there, and you will live in Virginia 

for a year. Then you will move to Florida for a year. Then you go 

home to your home State of Texas for a while or whatever. And I 

asked one of them: With an election coming up, are you going to 

go home in time for the election? 

They said: I am just going to vote right here. 

I said: Oh, did you change your residency? 

He said: No, I just registered to vote in this State. 

I said: So did you cancel your registration? 

No, I actually voted in the municipal election back in my home 

State when I was there a few months ago. 

Now, this is somebody who is actually registered in three different States and, out of convenience, is just going to go vote from 

whatever State that they live in. So I know for a fact in at least 

three instances, and I am sure if, in my small group of folks that 

I know, that people would tell me, that that there has got to be 

multiple individuals that fall in that category. 

Now, I do have issues with this automatic registration. I had 

issues with motor voter when it was put in because I come from 

an IT background. And there is one thing in the information technology arena, a rule we live by: If you don’t have the data, you 

don’t have to protect it. And we live in an age right now—I just 

came out of a hearing in Science and Technology where it is suspected that Russia is using a U.S. company to mine American intelligence information off personal computers. We live in a very 

dangerous world. And automatic voter registration that is going to 

register somebody who may not even know they were registered to 

vote, may not even know that their information is out there on a 

database, and who may never ever exercise their right to vote really puts those people at risk. I think voting is a responsibility, and 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
44 

you need to make an effort to go vote. Now, that was my statement 

for the day. 

A question to Ms. Lawson. Are there mandates in the NVRA that 

make it difficult for secretaries such as yourself to run an effective 

list maintenance program? 

Ms. LAWSON. I believe that the requirement to mail two mailings 

to an individual is an impediment. As I mentioned, our counties 

couldn’t afford to do it themselves as required by law. So the State 

took that over. It might be nice if there was just one mailing that 

was required, and it would be a forwardable postcard with that. 

There are other things that we could take advantage of, the 

States, if we were allowed to. I think my State takes advantage of 

some tools that the Federal Government gives us. We do the 

STEVE, State and Territorial Exchange of Vital Events. In case 

somebody who lives on the border of our State goes to Kentucky 

and dies in a hospital there, we get that information. We get the 

EVE information. But there is other information that the Federal 

Government could give us that would help us. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chairman, can I have another 30 seconds 

to follow up? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. So we do know that there are times that we 

do need to remove somebody from a database. In fact, I think it is 

the responsibility for that person’s personal information security 

that we do that. Knowing that there could be mistakes made, what 

safeguards does Indiana have to make sure their voters do not 

have their voter registration inaccurately canceled? And if a voter 

is in an inactive status, can they still cast a provisional ballot? 

Ms. LAWSON. I appreciate the question. And the answer is, if the 

voter status is inactive when they show up to the polls, it is transparent to them and to the poll worker. So they are allowed to vote 

if they are in the inactive status. 

If they have been removed and because they didn’t respond to 

the two mail pieces and they didn’t vote and they were removed, 

but they decided in 2016 that they wanted to show up and vote, 

according to NVRA, all they have to do is give an oral affirmation 

that they have never moved from that address and they are allowed to vote a regular ballot, not a provisional ballot. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the time that I have exceeded. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

As a followup on that real quick, if they are not on the inactive 

but they say that ‘‘I am supposed to be able to vote here,’’ do they 

still cast a provisional ballot and then the election board reviews 

that to see if it should be counted or not, or are they just escorted 

out? 

Ms. LAWSON. It depends on the circumstances, but I know, in Indiana, the instructions that we give is that no voter is to be turned 

away. If their name is removed through a voter list maintenance 

effort and it should not have been, they can make an oral affirmation and still vote. If it is for some other reason that they are not 

there, they can vote provisionally, and that gives then the county 

10 days to deal with that issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
45 

Thank both of you for being here. This is certainly a very vital 

subject. And your insight is much appreciated. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit to the chair additional written questions for the witnesses, 

which we will forward and ask the witnesses to respond as promptly as they can so that their answers may be made a part of the 

record. 

Without objection, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING