U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

54–018 2009

MARKUP OF H.R. 3224, H.R. 2843, COMMITTEE 

RESOLUTION 111–6, COMMITTEE RESOLUTION 

111–7, H.R. 3542, AND H.R. 3489 

MEETING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, NOVEMBER 4, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

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


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ZOE LOFGREN, California, 

Vice-Chairwoman 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California, 

Ranking Minority Member 

KEVIN MCCARTHY, California 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

JAMIE FLEET, Staff Director 

VICTOR ARNOLD-BIK, Minority Staff Director 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

MARKUP OF H.R. 3224, H.R. 2843, COMMITTEE 

RESOLUTION 111–6, COMMITTEE RESOLUTION 111–7, H.R. 3542, AND H.R. 3489 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2009 

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

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:05 a.m., in Room 

1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Robert A. Brady 

[chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Brady, Lofgren, Capuano, Davis of California, Davis of Alabama, Lungren, McCarthy, and Harper. 

Staff Present: Jamie Fleet, Staff Director; Tom Hicks, Senior 

Elections Counsel; Jennifer Daehn, Elections Counsel; Matt 

Pinkus, Professional Staff/Parliamentarian; Kyle Anderson, Press 

Director; Joe Wallace, Legislative Clerk; Daniel Favarulo, Legislative Assistant, Elections; Shervan Sebastian, Staff Assistant; Victor 

Arnold-Bik, Minority Staff Director; Peter Schalestock, Minority 

Counsel; Karin Moore, Minority Legislative Counsel; Salley Collins, 

Minority Press Secretary; and Mary Sue Englund, Minority Professional Staff. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to call the Committee on House Administration to order. 

We have a number of items on today’s agenda. But before we 

begin, I would like to let members know that we have a completed 

calendar for the committee for the 110th Congress, and it is available for your review. 

I plan to take up H.R. 3224, H.R. 2843, Committee Resolution 

111–6, and Committee Resolution 111–7 en bloc. 

[The information follows:] 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
2 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 6 here 54018A.001
3 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 7 here 54018A.002
4 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 8 here 54018A.003
5 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 9 here 54018A.004
6 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here 54018A.005
7 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 54018A.006
8 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 54018A.007
9 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 54018A.008
10 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 54018A.009
11 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 54018A.010
12 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 54018A.011
13 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 54018A.012
14 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 54018A.013
15 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 54018A.014
16 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 54018A.015
17 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 54018A.016
18 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 54018A.017
19 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 54018A.018
20 

The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone have anything to say on these 

items? 

If there is no objection we order the two bills favorably reported 

and pass the two committee resolutions. 

With regard to Committee Resolution 111–6 regarding Voucher 

Documentation Standards, I agree that we will take up the security 

and printing documentation requirement on the next markup. So 

we are adopting the committee resolution excluding those two provisions, and we will work with all and any to resolve the differences between now and then. 

And members may insert for the record on all these matters. 

[The information follows:] 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
21 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 25 54018A.019
22 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lungren, I would like to recognize you for 

any comments. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

You have accurately reflected the agreement we have entered 

into, with respect to the various bills we are talking about today. 

I appreciate the comity, and I thank you for working so well with 

us. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

So, without objection, H.R. 3224, H.R. 2843 are ordered reported 

favorably to the House, and then Committee Resolutions 111–6 and 

111–7 are adopted. 

All those in favor, signify by saying, ‘‘Aye.’’ 

None opposed. 

So ordered; they are adopted. 

The next item on the agenda is H.R. 3542, the ‘‘State Admission 

Day Recognition Act of 2009.’’ 

This bill, which was introduced by Ranking Member Lungren 

would commemorate each State’s admission to the Union by directing the Architect to fly a State’s flag over the Capitol on the anniversary date of its admission, beginning with Delaware, the first 

State. 

I understand that the ranking member has concerns about the 

disposition of the flags. And I commit to working with him to word 

the regulations to provide that, during the first year of commemorating, the flags would be delivered to the Governor of each State 

or territory and that, in the future years, the Governors will have 

the option to deliver these flags to universities, high schools, and 

elementary schools. 

I now would like to recognize the sponsor of this legislation, the 

ranking member, Mr. Lungren, for an opening statement. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for bringing 

this bill to the committee. I am pleased to have authored this legislation, brought to me by one of my constituents, at least the suggestion was. 

It instructs the Architect of the Capitol to fly flags of each individual State of these United States over the Capitol Building on 

the anniversary of the admission of that State into the Union. As 

the embodiment of the phrase which appears on the seal of the 

United States, ‘‘E Pluribus Unum,’’ meaning, ‘‘Out of Many, One,’’ 

the flying of the States’ flags will honor each State for their contribution to our country. 

Additionally, this legislation supports the concept that our Nation was created to be a Federal system as opposed to a centrally 

based system of government and will serve as a reminder of the 

unique ideas incorporated by our Founding Fathers in drafting the 

Constitution and the charge we carry forward as stewards of our 

Nation. 

And I urge support of my colleagues and thank the chairman for 

bringing the bill before our committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

And I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 3542. Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the 

bill is considered as read and open for amendment at any point. 

[The information follows:] 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
23 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 54018A.020
24 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 54018A.021
25 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair now would like to offer an amendment, which is in the members’ packet and which would provide 

greater specifics about how the bill would operate and authorize 

the issuance of regulations. 

Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. 

[The information follows:] 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
26 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 54018A.022
27 

The CHAIRMAN. And I now would like to again ask the ranking 

member for any comments. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I support the chairman’s amendment and ask for 

its adoption. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any additional debate on the amendment? If not, the question is on the amendment. 

All those in favor, signify by saying, ‘‘Aye.’’ 

Any opposed? 

So ordered. The ayes have it, in the opinion of the Chair, and the 

amendment is agreed to. 

Are there any additional amendments? 

If not, I now move to report H.R. 3542 favorably to the House, 

as amended. 

All those in favor, signify by saying, ‘‘Aye.’’ 

Any opposed, ‘‘No.’’ 

So ordered. The ayes have it, in opinion of the Chair. And the 

bill, as amended, is ordered reported to the House. 

Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. 

The next item on the agenda is H.R. 3489, a bill to amend the 

Help America Vote Act of 2002. 

This bill will protect persons residing in a house subject to foreclosure proceedings or in an area which has been affected by a natural disaster from challenges by election officials to their eligibility 

to register to vote. 

Because our voter registration system is based on people’s residence, the current foreclosure crisis has the potential to do considerable damage to the integrity of the Nation’s elections. 

Reports surfaced during the 2008 presidential election that political operatives planned to use lists of foreclosed properties in 

Michigan and Ohio to challenge voters’ residency. Election officials 

around the country reportedly received numerous questions from 

foreclosed homeowners regarding their voting status. 

But there is no rational basis for using foreclosure lists to challenge a voter’s eligibility. Otherwise-eligible voters may be renting 

a foreclosed home or working with a bank to refinance. And voters 

displaced by hurricanes and other natural disasters should have 

the right to vote in communities in which they intend to return. 

H.R. 3489 is an important bill that will help ensure the integrity 

of our elections. It has been a long time since there were property 

requirements for voting. We should act now to ensure that voters 

do not lose their civil right to vote because they have lost or may 

lose their homes. I strongly urge support of this bill. 

And I would like to recognize the ranking member, Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I knew that, despite the comity and our agreement on most everything, there would be times in which we would disagree. 

Whenever this committee deals with something as sensitive as 

an individual’s constitutional right to vote and to not have that 

vote diluted by fraudulent votes, I think we must act carefully and 

deliberately. And when it comes to fundamental rights, I would 

hope that we would not tinker with the law based on mere accusations or mere possibilities. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
28 

Yet, as I examine this legislation, I fear that is exactly where we 

are headed. Far from being just unnecessary, I feel the legislation 

could be dangerous to the health of our electoral system. 

The two separate prongs of the bill, dealing with the victims of 

natural disasters and individuals facing foreclosure, both carry 

their own set of concerns. 

The most staggering implication of the provision prohibiting the 

challenge of voters in areas that have been declared a natural disasters is its breadth. The wording of the bill suggests that it would 

be impossible to challenge anyone for any reason if they happen to 

be in a disaster area. 

For example, in the event that someone attempted to vote fraudulently under the name of a person known to be deceased or an individual who is known to not be a citizen of the United States, it 

would not be possible to challenge that individual, the person attempting to vote, if they live in an area that has been declared a 

disaster area. There is no limiting language to suggest that the 

challenge has to be one based solely on residency. 

In addition, there is zero language in the bill that would limit 

how long the prohibition against challenges would last in disaster 

areas. Under the current language of the bill, any area that has 

been declared by the President to be a disaster area at any time— 

no limit—would be subject to a complete ban on challenges of any 

kind. A disaster may have happened and recovery completed decades ago, yet the wording of this bill would permit no challenges 

to be brought in these areas. So the scope of the provision is truly 

staggering. 

Presumably, this portion of the bill was drafted to cover situations like that which occurred to the victims in Hurricane Katrina. 

Yet the two States affected most by that disaster, Mississippi and 

Louisiana, have both filed letters of opposition with the committee. 

In their letters, both secretaries of State’s offices—that is, of the 

States most directly affected—detailed the ways in which they have 

already made provisions for displaced voters under State law. I 

would like unanimous consent to enter both of those letters into 

the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
29 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 54018A.023
30 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 54018A.024
31 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 54018A.025
32 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 54018A.026
33 

Mr. LUNGREN. Regarding the foreclosure provision, I can understand my colleagues’ concerns, given the high number of foreclosures. And this particularly affects my State. In fact, it particularly affects my district. We do have a large number of foreclosures. 

We have had people who have left our area after their house has 

been foreclosed. 

At times, when they have left, we found that, not only were they 

living there, but we have had some major marijuana growing going 

on in houses in my district that have been foreclosed. 

But to thus my knowledge—and we have not held a hearing on 

this bill, so I can’t say for certain—the only basis for the foreclosures provision in this bill is a posting on one blog citing statements by party representatives that were vehemently denied by 

those who purportedly uttered them. Both parties even signed 

court documents stating they would not use foreclosure lists. I have 

certainly not seen any evidence that foreclosure lists were used to 

challenge voters. 

In my last election, as I mentioned, I was the subject of suppression calls to try and limit the number of people voting in my district at a crucial time, on the afternoon of the election. But I 

haven’t seen any evidence nor do I know anything about people 

being denied their right to vote because people used foreclosure 

lists. 

But even if this were an actual problem, I believe this committee 

could find a more prudent way to protect the affected voters. Rather than narrowly focusing on voters affected by foreclosure lists as 

was written, the bill now goes far beyond that and establishes a 

new Federal, quote/unquote, ‘‘good cause’’ standard by which all 

voter challenges would be measured. 

So we are told that this bill deals with the question of foreclosure 

and deals with the other problem of people in natural disaster 

areas, but it goes far beyond that and creates this new standard, 

good faith standard, to which all voter challenges would be measured. And this is without the benefit of defining what ‘‘good cause’’ 

would be, even having a hearing on what we are talking about. 

I think it would be of great benefit to both the intended beneficiaries of the bill and those who would be charged with its implementation if the bill were referred to the Subcommittee on Elections for a hearing. 

Yet, if the committee proceeds in considering the legislation, I 

would hope, at a minimum, the chairman and my colleagues would 

adopt the amendments we plan to offer to address a number of 

these issues, not to getting rid of the final import of this bill but 

trying to limit its application because of the concerns that I have 

expressed. 

And, with that, I would yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

And I would like to recognize the chairwoman of the Elections 

Subcommittee, Ms. Lofgren, for the purpose of a statement. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, first, I would ask unanimous consent that documents related to the bill be made a part of the 

record. That would be articles from The New York Times, the 

Michigan Messenger, The Columbus Dispatch; the NAACP Legal 

Defense Fund memo and court order on the case of Herring v. MarVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:39 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 054018 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A018.XXX A018

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
34 

ion County; advisories and press releases from Maryland, Ohio, Nevada, Missouri, and Minnesota on challenges related to home foreclosure; information regarding the home foreclosure and voting bill 

that passed the Michigan House of Representatives last year; as 

well as letters from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights regarding challenges related to home foreclosures. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
35 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 54018A.027
36 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 54018A.028
37 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 54018A.029
38 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 54018A.030
39 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 54018A.031
40 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 54018A.032
41 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 54018A.033
42 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 54018A.034
43 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 54018A.035
44 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 54018A.036
45 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 54018A.037
46 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 54018A.038
47 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 54018A.039
48 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 54018A.040
49 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 54018A.041
50 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 54018A.042
51 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 54018A.043
52 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 54018A.044
53 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 54018A.045
54 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 54018A.046
55 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 54018A.047
56 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 54018A.048
57 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 54018A.049
58 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 54018A.050
59 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 54018A.051
60 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 54018A.052
61 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, it is important that—and we all 

agree on this—that eligible voters be permitted to vote. And the 

use of foreclosure lists to challenge voters has, actually, nothing to 

do with a voter’s eligibility. 

Placement of a house on public foreclosure notice doesn’t say 

anything about a voter’s eligibility. Foreclosure notices reflect ownership, not residence, as, for example, eligible voters may be renting a foreclosed home. In addition, a foreclosure notice does not require anyone to leave his or her home, and many homeowners, in 

fact, do remain in their homes well after foreclosure proceedings 

begin, as they negotiate with lenders in an attempt to refinance. 

I would add that the other element to this is that individuals 

who are in foreclosure proceedings are often very distraught and 

sometimes even ashamed of what has happened to them financially. And to have the humiliation of being challenged off a foreclosure list in front of your neighbors at your polling place is something that I think is to be avoided. 

As to the natural disaster element, I think it is worth noting, in 

the case, for example, of the Katrina hurricane, that people who 

maintain their residence, their lawful residence, in the zone in 

some cases took a very long time to return. And it is important 

that those people who maintain their legal residence but were displaced have an opportunity to continue to vote once in their legal 

residence. 

So I think this is an important step forward. I hope that we can 

adopt the bill. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the lady. 

Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like unanimous consent to submit for the record a USA 

Today article in which the Macomb Republican county chairman 

named in the MichiganMessenger blog post denies he ever intended 

to use foreclosure lists and demands a retraction. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
62 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 73 54018A.053
63 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Harper. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you. 

I would like to take just a minute to expand on a point that my 

colleague from California brought up in his opening statement. 

After Hurricane Katrina, one of the many problems facing my 

home State of Mississippi was how to deal with displaced voters. 

The secretary of State, along with our State legislature, saw that 

challenge and met it with legislation addressing the problem. 

I find it both presumptive and perhaps somewhat arrogant that 

this committee is considering legislation today having not consulted 

with the States this legislation would affect the most. 

In a letter opposing the legislation we are considering today, Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann offered a frank assessment of H.R. 3489, declaring it to be unwise and an attempt 

to Federalize challenges to voter qualifications. 

Secretary Hosemann further explained in his letter that this bill 

poses a serious threat to the integrity of our election system by undermining legitimate challenges to voter qualification. As an example, he detailed circumstances in which a registered voter may be 

protected from challenge due to the locale in the case of a disaster 

area, despite failing to meet the most basic requirement of election 

law: citizenship. 

When States are responding to their citizens’ needs in the wake 

of a natural disaster, what they need is flexibility, not a blanket 

Federal mandate that will handcuff them to one course of action. 

I hope the committee will consider moving this misguided and unnecessary legislation and encourage you to vote ‘‘no.’’ 

Thank you, and I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Any other statements? 

We do have four votes on the floor. I was hoping we could probably get through before that, but it doesn’t look like it can happen 

because there are other amendments to this bill. So what I would 

like to do is just recess until the last vote and come back and reconvene and just finish this bill up. Okay? 

Thank you all. We are now in recess until the last vote on the 

floor. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to call the Committee on House Administration back to order. 

And I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 3489. Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the 

bill is considered as read and open to amendments at any point. 

[The information follows:] 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
64 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 77 54018A.054
65 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 78 54018A.055
66 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 79 54018A.056
67 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 80 54018A.057
68 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any debate? 

Yes, Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Mr. LUNGREN. In fact, I have three amendments. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. This will be the first amendment. 

[The information follows:] 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
69 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 82 54018A.058
70 

The CHAIRMAN. Amendment No. 1. The Chair recognizes Mr. 

Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses fundamental ambiguity in the bill as written and, as I see it, a danger 

in the language of the bill. And it attempts to address it by striking 

the amorphous new standard merely defined as ‘‘good cause.’’ 

Right now, the bill would override all States’ laws on voter challenges and say that challenges cannot be made except for, quote/ 

unquote, ‘‘good cause,’’ which is not defined in this bill. It then provides a nonexclusive list of two things that are not good cause, 

leaving it to creative lawyers in every State and local court in the 

Nation to decide what else might not be good cause. 

Mr. Chairman, rather than creating a broad new threshold that 

will undoubtedly lead to conflicting interpretations, I would hope 

that the bill would be narrowly and clearly drafted to approach this 

issue. This is achieved by explicitly addressing the two targets of 

the bill: foreclosure proceedings and natural disaster areas. 

Additionally, the original wording of the bill is so broad that it 

may inadvertently prevent valid challenges. For example, if hard 

evidence exists demonstrating that an individual is registered and 

voting in another jurisdiction, the bill might block a challenge just 

because the person also claims to reside in a natural disaster area 

or to have had a foreclosure. 

The amendment would make it clear that only challenges based 

solely on those factors and not challenges based on other evidence 

where those factors might be present. It is an attempt to try and 

refine the bill and hopefully not override all of the law that currently exists, having been developed over the years with all of the 

States dealing with challenges in their jurisdictions. 

And I would hope I could get the support of my colleagues. And 

I will yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief because I 

know that you want to move us to the other amendments, but two 

observations. 

First of all, I think everyone understands, especially my friend, 

the former attorney general of California, that forfeiture is a process—or foreclosure, rather, is a process. A notice of foreclosure is 

no more the termination or the end of a process than an arrest or 

an indictment is the end of a criminal process. 

I don’t think that anyone on the other side of the aisle would propose that if someone were arrested that we go through and we 

comb the list of people who have been arrested and try to use that 

to challenge their capacity to vote. The legal or the technical capacity is there to do that, but I don’t think anyone believes that would 

be a good thing to do from the standpoint of public policy. 

It strikes me that, if we use a foreclosure proceeding, or the initiation of a foreclosure proceeding, as the basis to challenge a voter’s 

suffrage, that is not fundamentally different from using an arrest 

record as the basis to do it, that obviously do not result in convictions. 

Second observation: Several years ago, I introduced a bill that 

would have dealt with the problem of displaced voters after a natVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:39 Jan 08, 2010 Jkt 054018 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A018.XXX A018

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
71 

ural disaster. The bill was not marked up in committee, but I 

thought that it was an important way to resolve the clear ambiguities that exist and that occurred after Katrina, when someone is 

knocked out of their home, they don’t have a permanent place to 

live. 

But since that approach wasn’t adopted, frankly the bill that we 

have today seems to me to be the next best thing. It provides some 

safe haven for people who may have been affected by a natural disaster. And, again, not having acted on the bill I proposed several 

years ago, I think that this is a good alternative. So I would certainly urge the rejection of this amendment on those grounds. 

I will yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Anyone else wish to speak on the amendment? 

If not, the question is on the amendment offered by Mr. Lungren. 

All those in favor, signify by saying, ‘‘Aye.’’ 

Those opposed, say, ‘‘No.’’ 

In opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the amendment is 

not agreed to. 

I would now like to recognize Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment. This 

is Amendment No. 3. It is the 18-month expiration. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered 

as having been read. 

[The information follows:] 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
72 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 87 54018A.059
73 

The CHAIRMAN. And the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would establish a 

sunset for the application of the restrictions on challenges involved 

in a disaster area. 

Right now, there is absolutely no limitation whatsoever. It could 

be decades later, a year later, or years later. By providing an 18- 

month timeline for the disaster—that is, a limit of 18 months after 

the disaster declaration—we would protect against the application 

of the provisions to an event many years past. For example, without a sunset on the eligibility of an event, one might be able to 

argue that a natural disaster from the 1980s prevented a voter eligibility challenge today. 

The amendment is simply clarifying to ensure that the purpose 

of the remedy is appropriately applied, and the 18–month period is 

the same period that FEMA provides temporary housing for disaster victims. So I would hope we would get support for this limiting amendment. 

And, with that, I would yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think in some ways the amendment actually points to the reason that we should have the legislation before us. And I think that 

the 18 months—I mean, we just have to think about the number 

of people in Katrina that were affected and how long it took for 

them to get back. I think about some of the fires in San Diego, 

where people had to wait, you know, a good 2 years before they 

even got their insurance to okay their development plans. 

And so I think that trying to put a time limit on this, I think, 

is really too limiting. It may be that, you know, 10 years out would 

be reasonable, but someone could argue that that is not necessarily 

appropriate either. 

So I think trying to have it—personal responsibility here is really 

important, and people have a number of reasons that they have to 

leave the area in which they choose to vote. And I think that we 

need to be open on this one. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief again. 

Just 1 month ago, there was a group of folks who came to my 

office who were previously residents of New Orleans. This is, by my 

count, approximately 4 years after Katrina, a little bit more than 

4 years. These individuals, who I think right now are living in the 

Mobile/Baldwin County area, would love to return to New Orleans. 

They never got the assistance the government promised them 4 

years ago. And they are exactly in that gray area that my bill several years ago sought to address: people who were displaced because of Katrina, individuals who have not gotten the assistance 

that was promised them, who have every desire and intent to return to their original domicile. 

The problem with the amendment is natural disasters can have 

a long-running consequence. Katrina may be a worst case, but it 

is a worst case that many individuals are living with. 

So, again, I agree with my friend from California that there is 

surely some reasonable time period that we could agree on. But it 

absolutely is not 18 months if people are coming to see me 4 years 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
74 

later, much less what would have happened in the time frame 18 

months from Katrina. 

I will yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Any other discussion on the amendment? 

Hearing none, the question is on the amendment offered by Mr. 

Lungren, No. 3. 

All those in favor, signify by saying, ‘‘Aye.’’ 

Those opposed, say, ‘‘No.’’ 

In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the amendment 

is not agreed to. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have a last amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered 

as having been read. 

[The information follows:] 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
75 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 54018A.060
76 

The CHAIRMAN. And the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. This amendment goes to the point that Mr. Davis 

made just a moment ago about the initiation of foreclosure. It is 

also a point that was made by Ms. Lofgren when we were here earlier. 

So, while we can all agree that simply having a foreclosure proceeding initiated would not be enough to indicate the person no 

longer lives there and therefore is not an eligible voter, when a 

foreclosure is completed and individuals have left the residence in 

question, I think we can agree that this should be eligible evidence 

to challenge a voter. It is not conclusive evidence, but it is evidence 

that would allow the challenge. 

This legislation should not preclude challenges based on concrete 

evidence that an individual no longer resides in the home. And the 

amendment makes clear that this legislation applies only to—that 

this legislation would apply to completed foreclosures and not just 

pending foreclosures, as was the complaint raised by the gentleman 

from Alabama. 

And so I am attempting to try and deal with the issue that he 

mentioned, and hope that this would gain his support and the support of others on the committee. 

And, with that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. If I understand the gentleman’s amendment correctly, there is still a problem with scope. The fact that a 

foreclosure may be affected still doesn’t necessarily speak to who 

actually owns the property and who actually may be voting. 

For example, I think someone mentioned earlier that someone 

could be a resident of a foreclosed home, but, again, the fact that 

there is a foreclosure notice doesn’t necessarily goes to their status, 

in terms of whether or not they are still in that jurisdiction. 

So I am concerned that, once again, the gentleman’s amendment 

is going to sweep in a group of people—and whether it is a narrow 

group or a large group, we don’t know; whether people have a right 

to exercise the capacity to vote—that it is going to sweep in a group 

of people who were, frankly, not intended to be reached by the 

amendment. And that is why I would urge its rejection. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any other question on the amendment? Any 

other speakers? 

The question of the amendment is over Mr. Lungren. 

All those in favor, signify by saying, ‘‘Aye.’’ 

Those opposed, ‘‘No.’’ 

In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the amendment 

is not agreed to. 

I now move to report H.R. 3489 favorably to the House. 

All those in favor, signify by saying, ‘‘Aye.’’ 

Any opposed? 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the bill is ordered. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, on that I would ask for a recorded 

vote. 

The CHAIRMAN. The clerk would call the roll. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren? 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
77 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano? 

Mr. CAPUANO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis? 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren? 

Mr. LUNGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Harper? 

Mr. HARPER. No. 

The CLERK. Chairman Brady? 

The CHAIRMAN. Aye. 

The vote is four ayes, two against. The bill passes. 

And, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the 

floor. 

Without objection, the staff will be authorized to make any necessary technical and conforming changes to the matters considered 

today. 

And the committee meeting on House Administration now stands 

adjourned. Thank you all. 

[Whereupon, at 12:22 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
78 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97/200 here 54018A.061