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

52–798 2009

EXAMINING UNIFORMITY IN ELECTION 

STANDARDS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 15, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

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


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD 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 

Professional Staff 

S. ELIZABETH BIRNBAUM, Staff Director 

VICTOR ARNOLD-BIK, Minority Staff Director 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

EXAMINING UNIFORMITY IN ELECTION 

STANDARDS 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2009 

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

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in room 1310, 

Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Zoe Lofgren (chairwoman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lofgren, Gonzalez, Davis of California, 

Davis of Alabama, McCarthy and Harper. 

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

Election Counsel; Janelle Hu, Election Counsel; Jennifer Daehn, 

Election Counsel; Matt Pinkus, Professional Staff/Parliamentarian; 

Kyle Anderson, Press Director; Kristin McCowan, Chief Legislative 

Clerk; Daniel Favarulo, Legislative Assistant, Elections; Joe Wallace, Legislative Clerk; Peter Schalestock, Minority Counsel; Karin 

Moore, Minority Legislative Counsel; and Salley Collins, Minority 

Press Secretary. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Good afternoon, and welcome to the Committee on 

House Administration’s Subcommittee on Elections. Our hearing is 

on Examining the Uniformity in Election Standards. 

Now, the purpose of today’s hearing is to explore uniform standards in the administration of elections, primarily in three areas: 

pollworker training, provisional balloting, and emergency paper 

ballots. I note that it was the subcommittee’s intention to invite 

stakeholders interested in creating uniform standards for overseas 

absentee voting, but the Uniform Law Commission is hosting a 

convention on the same date as our hearing to discuss this very 

same issue. And so the witnesses were not available and hopefully 

we will get back to that subject at a future date. 

The American election system, as we know, is not uniform. There 

are various local, State as well as Federal election laws and policies. Now, we are not questioning that the responsibility to administer elections rests with the State and locals. However, this has 

led to inconsistency and inequality in the voting process in some 

cases. 

We explored in hearings in the 110th Congress the fact that 

pollworkers play an absolutely key role in administering elections. 

The Federal elections require over 2 million pollworkers, but often 

training is left to local jurisdictions with little guidance, requirements, and, importantly, funding. There are currently no Federal 

requirements related to pollworker training, and less than half the 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
2 

States have developed uniform training materials. This ad hoc approach to training can result in deficiencies. 

The next area we will hear about today is provisional ballots. 

Now, under HAVA, these ballots were supposed to provide voters 

whose eligibility could not be determined at the polling place on 

election day an opportunity to nevertheless vote on that election 

day. Unfortunately, provisional ballots are administered very differently in each State and even within the States. And this lack of 

uniformity could create unfair disparities, creating opportunities 

even for partisanship in tallying ballots or contributing to confusion 

among pollworkers or among voters and disenfranchising, in some 

cases, eligible voters. 

Finally, we will address voting equipment allocation and the 

issuance of emergency paper ballot standards. In most States allocation of voting equipment is largely determined by local election 

officials. There is oftentimes little or no allocation plan for polling 

places, and that can result in polls being ill-prepared and voters experiencing long lines. Directly related to this is the need to supply 

jurisdictions with emergency and backup paper ballots for when 

voting equipment breaks down. 

Now, in all of these matters the question comes down to: Should 

the Federal Government develop uniform standards to ensure that 

an equal and fair voting process occurs everywhere in the United 

States? And if the answer is yes, what form should the standards 

take and should they be mandatory or voluntary? And what funding is required to ensure compliance with consistencies in these 

standards? 

I look forward to our witnesses addressing these issues today, 

and I appreciate that they have, all four, come to lend their expertise and guidance. 

[The statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:] 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
3 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 7 here 52798A.001
4 

Ms. LOFGREN. And now I would turn to Mr. Harper for any opening statement that he may have, and we will certainly give Mr. 

McCarthy an opportunity when he arrives. 

Mr. HARPER. I want to thank the Chair for calling today’s hearing. As we address the application of election procedure today, I 

hope that we will approach this issue not in terms of federally required standards, but how to make the various standard election 

procedures as effective as possible. 

It is important to recognize from the outset that a great strength 

of this Nation is the diversity of its States. States have different 

election cultures, histories and practices. The States know best 

which policies will be most effective in their unique circumstances. 

Allowing States the flexibility to meet their specific needs provides 

an environment for innovation in the operation of elections. 

It would be shortsighted of this body to presume that the Federal 

Government can best direct that process by imposing the same 

rules for each State. However, with that deference, I mean to be 

clear that election procedures, once established, should be applied 

consistently statewide. 

Recent history offers two case studies where inconsistent application led to challenged outcomes. The 2004 Governor’s election in 

Washington and the 2008 U.S. Senator’s election in Minnesota. 

We have seen the adaptability and success of our current system 

in bringing more people into the voting process. The Pew Research 

Center, in a report published April 30, 2009, observed that the electorate in last year’s Presidential election was the most racially and 

ethnically diverse in U.S. history. 

As we receive the testimonies of our witnesses, I urge my colleagues to approach the issue with a view to ways we can 

incentivize the States to make election procedures simpler and 

more accessible to the voter. At the same time, we must not implement mandates that may restrict States’ abilities to install necessary safeguards against voter fraud. 

With that, I want to thank each of you for being here. We look 

forward to receiving your testimony today. Thank you very much. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Harper. 

[The information follows:] 

[COMMITTEE INSERT] 

[The statement of Mr. McCarthy follows:] 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
5 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 52798A.002
6 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 52798A.003
7 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 52798A.004
8 

Ms. LOFGREN. And unless the gentlelady from California has an 

opening statement? 

Mr. HARPER. Madam Chair, if I may, I have two articles I would 

like to submit for the record. One pertains to the 2004 Governor’s 

election in Washington, and one about the 2008 Senate race in 

Minnesota. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Those will be made a part of the record, by unanimous consent. 

[The information follows:] 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
9 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 52798A.087
10 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 52798A.088
11 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 52798A.089
12 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 52798A.090
13 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 52798A.091
14 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 52798A.092
15 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 52798A.093
16 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 52798A.094
17 

Ms. LOFGREN. And since we are doing that, I would like to note 

also that, by unanimous consent, I would ask that the following 

documents be made part of this hearing: a statement from the Federation of American Women’s Club Overseas; a statement from the 

Pew Center on the States; the Pew Report on Provisional Voting; 

and the Pew Data for Democracy Report. 

[The information follows:] 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
18 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 52798A.006
19 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 52798A.007
20 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 52798A.008
21 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 52798A.009
22 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 52798A.010
23 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 52798A.011
24 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 52798A.012
25 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 52798A.013
26 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 52798A.014
27 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 52798A.015
28 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 52798A.016
29 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 52798A.017
30 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 52798A.018
31 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 52798A.019
32 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 52798A.020
33 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 52798A.021
34 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 52798A.022
35 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 52798A.023
36 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 52798A.024
37 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 52798A.025
38 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 52798A.026
39 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 52798A.027
40 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 52798A.028
41 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 52798A.029
42 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 52798A.030
43 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 52798A.031
44 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 52798A.032
45 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 52798A.033
46 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 52798A.034
47 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 52798A.035
48 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 52798A.036
49 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 52798A.037
50 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 52798A.038
51 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 52798A.039
52 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 52798A.040
53 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 52798A.041
54 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 52798A.042
55 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 52798A.043
56 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 52798A.044
57 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 52798A.045
58 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 52798A.046
59 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 52798A.047
60 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 52798A.048
61 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 52798A.049
62 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 52798A.050
63 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 52798A.051
64 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 52798A.052
65 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 52798A.053
66 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 52798A.054
67 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 52798A.055
68 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 52798A.056
69 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 52798A.057
70 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 52798A.058
71 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 52798A.059
72 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 52798A.060
73 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 52798A.061
74 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 52798A.062
75 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 52798A.063
76 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 52798A.064
77 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 52798A.065
78 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 52798A.066
79 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 52798A.067
80 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 52798A.068
81 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 52798A.069
82 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 52798A.070
83 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 52798A.071
84 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 52798A.072
85 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 52798A.073
86 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 52798A.074
87 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 52798A.075
88 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 52798A.076
89 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 87 here 52798A.077
90 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 88 here 52798A.078
91 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 89 here 52798A.079
92 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 52798A.080
93 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 52798A.081
94 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 52798A.082
95 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 52798A.083
96 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 52798A.084
97 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 52798A.085
98 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 52798A.086
99 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would like now to introduce our witnesses. We 

will make your full written statement part of this hearing record. 

And we ask that your testimony consume about 5 minutes so we 

will have an opportunity to ask questions at the conclusion. There 

is a little machine sitting there on the front. And there will be a 

green light. And when it turns yellow it means you have a minute 

left. And when it turns red, it means—this is always surprising to 

people, they have actually spoken for 5 minutes. And we won’t cut 

you off mid-sentence, but we would ask you to try and wrap up at 

that point so that everybody can be heard. 

I would like to introduce the Honorable Mary Herrera. Ms. Herrera currently serves as New Mexico’s Secretary of State, where 

she has been the Chief Election Administrator since her election in 

2006. Prior to that she served as Bernalillo County Clerk. She is 

active in many organizations, including serving as the president of 

the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, 

as well as being a member of the EAC Standards Board. 

We also have the Honorable Ron Thornburgh. He currently 

serves as Secretary of State of Kansas. He has held that position 

since 1994. He is the former president of the National Association 

of Secretaries of States and is an active member of the EAC Standards Board. 

Ms. Freddie Oakley currently serves as the County Clerk Recorder for Yolo County in California. In 2005 she was Chair of the 

California Secretary of State’s Task Force on Uniform Pollworker 

Standards. 

And finally we have the Reverend Edward A. Hailes, Jr. Reverend Hailes currently serves as managing director and general 

counsel for Advancement Project, a policy and legal action group. 

Prior to his work with the Advancement Project Mr. Hailes was 

general counsel for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and legal 

counsel for NAACP. 

So welcome to all of you. 

STATEMENTS OF HON. MARY HERRERA, SECRETARY OF 

STATE, NEW MEXICO; HON. RON THORNBURGH, SECRETARY 

OF STATE, KANSAS; FREDDIE OAKLEY, YOLO COUNTY 

CLERK-RECORDER, CALIFORNIA; AND EDWARD A. HAILES, 

JR., MANAGING DIRECTOR AND GENERAL COUNSEL, ADVANCEMENT PROJECT 

Ms. LOFGREN. And we will begin with you Ms. Herrera. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARY HERRERA 

Ms. HERRERA. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman Lofgren. It is a 

pleasure to be here this afternoon. I am honored to be here to 

speak to you on elections. 

Prior to becoming county clerk, I worked elections for probably 

25 years before that. I held positions as a voting machine technician, I was a pollworker, I worked on the absentee board, I have 

worked as a radio dispatcher, taking off for election day and fulfilling those duties. I have seen elections progress through all of 

these years of being involved in the election process. 

I am very proud to announce that New Mexico did set standards 

for provisional ballots this last election and we did have a great 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
100 

election. It was actually recorded as one of the best elections in a 

long time in history. It was the largest turnout ever. The standards 

did help within the 33 counties in the State of New Mexico. It was 

actually implemented after the Bush and Gore election in 2000. 

After enacting the provisional voting in the Help America Vote Act, 

Section 302, the Office of Secretary of State, we developed the uniform standards for many of the processes during that election. This 

included providing uniform standards for provisional voting. 

Certain areas of the State were not uniformly canvassing the ballots issued for provisional voters, so we issued standards and rules 

for securing the secrecy of provisional paper ballots, especially during canvassing; reviewing, recounting, and protecting against fraud 

in the voting process. 

Most of the clerks supported the uniform standards. The change 

gave them clear concise rules with respect to the processing and 

canvassing of provisional voting. The administrative rule specifies 

how the tally of the ballots should be accomplished and the system 

was definitely improved. Also—and I will be open for more questions. I also would like to request, I did bring a handout with all 

of the rules and the procedures and the laws of the State of New 

Mexico, and I ask that I can enter that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. By unanimous consent, we will make that part of 

the record. Thank you for doing that. 

[The information follows:] 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
101 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 52798A.095
102 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 52798A.096
103 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 52798A.097
104 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 52798A.098
105 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 52798A.099
106 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 52798A.100
107 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 52798A.101
108 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 52798A.102
109 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 52798A.103
110 

Ms. HERRERA. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Pollworker training. This year I was instrumental, with the help 

of the Governor of the State of New Mexico, to receive some extra 

funding. We helped pollworker training for all the pollworkers. The 

manuals were produced at the Secretary of State level and issued 

to all 33 county clerks. And we did go out and do an extra 

pollworker training with the funding that we received through the 

Governor’s help. 

What we did was, there wasn’t enough funding to train all 

pollworkers, but we did train the presiding judges and we went 

into the issues that were causing some of the confusion and delays: 

opening and closing of the polls; what is a provisional ballot? That 

is where I believe it ran a lot more smoother, because the 

pollworkers were more aware of what a provisional ballot is; when 

do I issue a provisional ballot; why do I issue a provisional ballot. 

There was a lot of confusion when provisional ballots first came 

into law, and that really helped this last election. The number actually went down on provisional ballots that were issued out at the 

early voting sites, absentee and election day. I really was glad that 

extra training was available. 

I want to speak about funding at this point. I am going to make 

it very clear there are so many issues in areas that we can improve 

in the election process, but the funding isn’t always there. I have 

to commend all of the county clerks in the State of New Mexico. 

They do a great, great job with a limited amount of funding. It is 

just not there. They work hard and they do a great job; but the 

funding, we have to keep that in mind. 

There are a lot of demands. Basically every single county clerk 

and Secretary of State, we want to do a good job. We do not want 

to disenfranchise the voters. That is why we take these positions. 

We want to be the best for the citizens. But funding, I just needed 

to throw that in because that is always a factor. 

When we attend the National Association of Secretaries of 

States, that seems to be everyone’s issue throughout every State. 

Military and overseas voting. During the 2008 election New Mexico partnered up with the Federal Voting Assistance Program. We 

set up a link on our Web site that gave voters information through 

FVAP. Partnering with them, we implemented the voter registration ballot delivery tool, providing military and overseas voters an 

easier way to register to vote, and request and receive absentee 

ballots without sacrificing the secrecy of the voter’s identity. 

The tool, Web-based application, it simplified the process for the 

uniformed service members and their families, as well as the 

United States residents residing overseas, and completed the voter 

registration and absentee ballot request form. We issued guides to 

citizens through completion according to New Mexico-specific requirements. We provided the opportunity to further assist the citizens by allowing local election officials to send a blank ballot for 

those citizens to transmit their completed form to a local election 

office via a secure server. 

I really commend the Voting Assistance Program for having that 

tool available to all of the States, and I believe we had more voters 

vote through that system. It was just a real, real great success. 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
111 

Back to provisional ballots, because that is the one I am very, 

very proud about. When I was county clerk for the largest county 

in the State of New Mexico, two-thirds of the votes of the State of 

New Mexico, that was the first year we had provisional ballots, and 

there were no rules. We didn’t really understand them. It was 

quick. It was right after the HAVA requirements. And we were trying to process them. 

In my county alone, we had close to 9,000 provisional ballots. 

Probably by the time we ended up qualifying them and counting 

them, there were probably about 4,600 that were valid ballots. 

That was great that they were available. But we did experience 

that. That is why it was important for our State to issue standards 

on counting and canvassing. 

Also, I can recall as county clerk, they would argue because we 

had a very close high-profile race in the State of New Mexico. 

Every party, both parties, all parties, were fighting for one particular ballot. It was taking hours and hours because there was no 

Voter intent. This year also in the State of New Mexico, we have 

a ballot intent, examples that we issued out to the boards as they 

count these votes. That cut down all of the confusion and argument 

about what constitutes a vote. 

That was what we passed, and they no longer could stand there 

and argue for hours and hours. We have ten days to canvas, so that 

was a very important factor for the State of New Mexico that we 

process and get these results, especially these high-profile races, 

the press and the public, and the public are angry with the election 

officials because they do not understand that we have all of these 

requirements and laws that we have to abide to. That really, really 

helped. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you so much. 

Ms. HERRERA. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 

[COMMITTEE INSERT] 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Thornburgh, we would love to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON THORNBURGH 

Mr. THORNBURGH. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman. My 

name is Ron Thornburgh, Secretary of State for the State of Kansas, and it is an honor to appear before the committee once again. 

The last time I had the opportunity to appear before the committee was in 2001, 2002, as we were developing the Help America 

Vote Act. And as you recall during that time, many questions were 

raised in our country as to the technical prowess of our system and 

whether the system worked or not. And I appear before you today 

and say that I believe that HAVA and the work that was created 

in HAVA is some of the most significant election law in a number 

of generations in the United States because of the framework. 

And I want to talk about that broader issue of the framework 

today, if I might, Madam Chairwoman. HAVA did a number of 

things. 

Number one, it guaranteed every American the right to an independent and secret ballot for the first time in our history, and I 

think that is extraordinary. 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
112 

Secondly, it infused technology into a system that was vastly too 

reliant upon Big Chief tablet and number 2 pencils, and we were 

able to infuse that technology. But most importantly, I think HAVA 

developed and maintained an appropriate role in Federal and State 

relationships. And that was really what drove so much of the response of what we were trying to do. 

The point of emphasis during that discussion—and I hope will 

continue with the committee—remain today. And that is that equal 

protection and opportunity for every voter; that any uniform standard must be driven to the outcome and not to the process, so that 

we can maintain State and local innovation and ability; that the 

system must be designed not for election administrators, not for political parties, not even for candidates, the system must be designed to protect the voter and provide those opportunities for the 

voter. And lastly, we must do everything we can to maintain a 

clean and accurate voter registration list. 

If we look back to HAVA and what I choose to use as a model, 

the most effective elements of HAVA respected the roles of the Federal, State and local partners. 

Using my State of Kansas as an example, we used the HAVA resources to create the required statewide voter registration database, as I believe every other State has done as well. We have been 

able to take that voter registration database, and now, through 

memorandums of understanding with other States, we created 

partnerships with 11 other States, that we can now share databases with our other States to find places where perhaps a person 

moved from one State to another. And we can keep our lists cleaner. That was not something that was designed through the Federal 

legislation, but through innovation we have been able to do that. 

We have been able to create online voter registration, again, not 

required by HAVA, but it is certainly an outcome that I think everyone would want to see. 

E-motor voter. When a person registers to vote at the Division 

of Motor Vehicles, there is an electronic transaction that automatically updates their voter registration information as well as their 

driver’s license information. 

All of these elements came about because we had the flexibility 

and the freedom to try to move forward in an aggressive way. I believe that we have that opportunity today. In the one case—and 

certainly no disrespect to my friends at the EAC or at NIST—but 

in the one case where the Federal Government maintained all control was in voting machine certification. And it was removed from 

almost a voluntary process through the National Association of 

State Election Directors to our Federal partners. And in that case 

it took 7 years. 

Now, certainly there were extraordinary difficulties to overcome, 

and I understand what a mess it was. But in the one case where 

we had Federal oversight, for lack of a better term, the system just 

simply did not work as well as when the States and localities were 

given the reins to try to move forward as aggressively as we could. 

I would ask that as you consider legislation, that we allow all entities to play to their strengths. In my personal opinion, I think 

that our Federal partners certainly have an obligation toward a 

broad framework, incentives. And I wouldn’t be from a State if I 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
113 

didn’t ask for funding while I was here as well. I fully understand 

my role in that. But that Federal funding has meant that we have 

had the opportunity to do things we simply did not have the chance 

to do before. 

The work that we have accomplished in the Kansas Secretary of 

State’s Office could not have been done without the Help America 

Vote Act. However, the work we have done in the State of Kansas 

also could not have been done with a Help America Vote Act that 

was driven through Federal standards rather than State opportunity. 

I appreciate the chance to appear before you today and I look forward to answering your questions. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Thornburgh follows:] 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
114 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 52798A.104
115 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 52798A.105
116 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 52798A.106
117 

Ms. LOFGREN. And now we will hear from Ms. Oakley. 

STATEMENT OF FREDDIE OAKLEY 

Ms. OAKLEY. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I am 

Freddie Oakley, the elected clerk recorder for Yolo County, California. Yolo County is a medium-sized county. We are right across 

the river from the State capitol, and we are the home of University 

of California/Davis, which has been a tremendous resource for me 

as county clerk. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the 

pollworker training standards. It is a subject on which I have some 

expertise, having chaired the Secretary of State’s 2005 task force 

and having personally trained thousands of pollworkers during my 

career. 

The first issue that I would like to address is the foundational 

one to all others concerning pollworkers, and that is who are they. 

Well, the answer is that they are a broad spectrum of Americans. 

And they run the gamut from highly compassionate and helpful to 

mean and bossy people. 

Pollworker training is absolutely necessary, in my view, to establish boundaries and limits on their discretionary authority. In California we emphasize in our best practices that pollworkers must be 

oriented to this underlying and overarching philosophy. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Ms. Oakley, can you see if your microphone is on? 

Ms. OAKLEY. Silly me. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you so much. 

Ms. OAKLEY. In California we emphasize in our best practices 

that pollworkers must be oriented to the underlying and overarching philosophy of election administration, which is first and 

foremost. We are here to help people vote and to protect their ballots. 

Second, we will help every potential voter who enters our polling 

place regardless of physical and mental abilities, race, religion, language or shoe size. In short, we have to get pollworkers to believe 

that they are not cops, they are more like nurses. And their first 

thought should be, how can I help you? This is, incidentally, one 

reason that California has developed a system to verify voter identity in the office rather than at the polls. We want absolutely to 

have uniform application of voter ID laws. And we believe that if 

it is left to pollworkers, who are essentially volunteers who are 

trained for an hour or two and who work a couple of times a year, 

we will not get that uniform application. 

The question arises: What should we be teaching pollworkers? 

Well, first we need to orient them to the rights of voters, the requirement to be helpful and the requirement to respect and assist 

voters with disabilities, different languages and different cultures. 

We should also orient pollworkers to their election day duties 

and how to carry them out. And we must orient them to the requirements for polling place setup, poll opening as well as poll closing, ballot security, accounting tasks, and how to deliver securely 

the ballots. This is far too much for one class. 

So what we really need to do is to strongly instruct pollworkers 

on the limits of their authority and the requirement to be helpful, 

and then to teach them about the many resources that we provide 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
118 

for them on election day. We try to do all the work up front for 

them so that they have laminated cheat sheets, they have checkoff lists, they have booklets to follow as they open and close the 

polls. And the effect of this is that we can concentrate in training 

on the more complex intellectual matters, and we can leave the 

nuts and bolts to our extremely well-designed resource materials. 

In California we recommend, and in my county we require, at 

least 1 hour of hands-on practice on the voting system itself. Most 

voting systems now depend on complex and finely tuned computer 

systems and there is no adequate substitute for hands-on experience. 

This hands-on training during which pollworkers practice setting 

up, using, and taking down the voting system, also provides a critical opportunity for my staff, or our staffs, to meet returning and, 

more importantly, new pollworkers. We get to assess their 

strengths and weaknesses and to reinforce our underlying and 

overarching philosophy of helpfulness. And during training, handson training, we are also able to remind pollworkers that they are 

not cops; that they should use provisional ballots, which are their 

personal get-out-of-jail-free cards—if they will use provisionals we 

will make the tough decisions for them—and to remind them to call 

troubleshooters when they need them. 

The question arises: Should pollworker training be standardized? 

Well, I believe it should. In California our absolutely wonderful 

Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, is well on the way to instituting 

most of the uniform standards recommended by the 2005 task 

force. We would hope that she also institutes adequate funding for 

counties to comply with those requirements. 

Our expectation is that the application of these uniform requirements and standards will help us approach real equal opportunity 

for voters, which they deserve and have a right to demand. My personal belief is that national standards would extend the principle 

of equality even more broadly and I believe that is a good thing. 

Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Ms. Oakley follows:] 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
119 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 52798A.107
120 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 52798A.108
121 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 52798A.109
122 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 52798A.110
123 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 52798A.111
124 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 52798A.112
125 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 52798A.113
126 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 52798A.114
127 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 52798A.115
128 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 52798A.116
129 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 52798A.117
130 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 52798A.118
131 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 52798A.119
132 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 52798A.120
133 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 52798A.121
134 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 52798A.122
135 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 52798A.123
136 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 52798A.124
137 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 52798A.125
138 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 52798A.126
139 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 52798A.127
140 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 52798A.128
141 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 52798A.129
142 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 52798A.130
143 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 52798A.131
144 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 52798A.132
145 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 52798A.133
146 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 52798A.134
147 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 52798A.135
148 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 52798A.136
149 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 52798A.137
150 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 52798A.138
151 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 52798A.139
152 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 52798A.140
153 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 52798A.141
154 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 52798A.142
155 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 52798A.143
156 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 52798A.144
157 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 52798A.145
158 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 52798A.146
159 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 52798A.147
160 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 52798A.148
161 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 52798A.149
162 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 52798A.150
163 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 52798A.151
164 

Ms. LOFGREN. And finally we turn to you, Reverend Hailes. We 

would love to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD A. HAILES, JR. 

Mr. HAILES. Thank you very much, Chairwoman, and members 

of this committee. Certainly it is my honor to present this testimony on behalf of Advancement Project. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Could you please turn your mike on? There is a 

little button there. 

Mr. HAILES. All right. Is that better? Fantastic. 

Again, on behalf of Advancement Project, we thank you for this 

opportunity to present a focus on specific issues within the context 

of election administration. There are many areas of election administration where we believe uniform standards would be helpful. 

Today, my testimony will focus on emergency ballots and provisional ballots. For nearly 10 years, Advancement Project has 

worked on the ground with a number of voters and groups that 

support voters. We have examined disparities and irregularities in 

the administration of election procedures in the course of helping 

voters when they need help the most. We are plainly concerned 

with the lack of uniformity across the Nation. We are more familiar 

with particular States, but we do know that geography makes a 

difference in whether voters will have their rights protected or violated. In the absence of an unequivocal, explicit, affirmative right 

to vote in the United States Constitution, voters are subject to the 

13,000 separate voting systems across the Nation that interpret 

and apply laws differently. Without uniform standards we find that 

some voters are treated differently, and unfairly particularly voters 

of color in historically disenfranchised communities. 

Again, because I want to focus on emergency ballots and provisional ballots, I will just take for one example the State of Pennsylvania and its administration of emergency ballots in the 2008 elections. I am joined today by my colleague Kathy Boockvar who is 

a senior attorney with Advancement Project in Pennsylvania, and 

her dutiful work, along with a number of coalition partners, really 

put a spotlight on a system that did not provide emergency ballots 

in cases where a number of voting machines had broken down during the primary. The groups came together, did an analysis, pointed out the real problem of waiting for 100 percent of all voting machines to be broken down—before emergency ballots were provided, 

and made specific recommendations to the Department of State. 

Those recommendations including directions and proposed uniform 

rules included making certain that emergency paper ballots must 

be offered immediately to voters as soon as at least half of the voting machines in a precinct were not functioning, they pointed out 

that emergency paper ballots must be clearly distinguished from 

provisional and other ballots; i.e., that emergency paper ballots 

must be treated as regular, not provisional ballots. They should be 

paper ballots, and no qualified regular voter who votes by emergency ballot should be subject to any requirement associated with 

provisional ballots, which I will talk about in just a minute. And 

then, consistent with Ms. Oakley’s point about pollworker training, 

all pollworkers must be properly trained about these distinctions 

and requirements. 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
165 

Secretary of State Cortes took steps in the right direction in response to these urgent requests following the primaries, but he did 

not go far enough. A lawsuit was filed. And on October 29th, less 

than a week before the general election, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction on the ground that the 

delay associated with waiting to vote in a precinct where 50 percent or more of the voting machines were inoperable could unduly 

burden voting rights, in violation of the Federal equal protection 

clause. 

And subsequent to the election, the court issued a permanent injunction requiring that emergency ballots be distributed as soon as 

half of the voting machines in a precinct fail. That is as a result 

of litigation; that is as a result of aggressive advocacy. This emergency ballot rule does not exist in every State. 

Similarly, in Virginia, there was a strong need for emergency 

ballots. An analysis was conducted by Advancement Project, working with other groups, that point out that there was a simple 

misallocation of polling-place resources—from pollworkers to machines—by precinct, which resulted in what we call a time tax 

where certain voters in specific precincts were required to—to 

stand in longer polling place lines than others. So that time tax can 

only be eliminated with uniform standards related to polling-place 

resources. 

Provisional ballots. We need to amend HAVA. HAVA must be 

amended to ensure that people voting in the so-called wrong precinct are actually allowed to have their ballots counted for all of the 

officials for which they are eligible to vote. Thank you very much. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Hailes follows:] 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
166 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 52798A.152
167 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 52798A.153
168 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 52798A.154
169 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 52798A.155
170 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 52798A.156
171 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 52798A.157
172 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 52798A.158
173 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 52798A.159
174 

Ms. LOFGREN. And thanks to all of our witnesses for useful testimony. 

Now is the time when we will have a chance to ask some of our 

questions, and I would like to give the first opportunity to question 

to our Ranking Member, Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank 

you to all the witnesses today. I appreciate the testimony. 

If I can just quickly follow up on your last testimony. So I am 

looking at nationwide data table—and you alluded to that on calls 

to election protection hotline 2008. And I went down to Pennsylvania, and they keep the data of why people call. The number one 

reason people call is because they want to know where their polling 

place is, 1,600. 

The next one is about registration, 1,300. The next one is polling 

place again. It is a polling place problem and registration problem. 

By high numbers. I only see here—those are 400 and 411—177 

called about equipment problems. But you were relating to a lawsuit that you sued, and there were a lot of equipment problems, but 

I don’t see the correlation to the data of the phone calls that were 

made. 

Mr. HAILES. By the calls—you are making a determination by 

the number of calls? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. If I had a problem and I was calling and I didn’t 

have equipment, I would call about the equipment. 

Mr. HAILES. Some people call the election offices. Some election 

officials did the right thing and were on the spot with certified 

technicians to correct those problems. So, in fact, the lawsuit did 

work. You had fewer calls because some election officials acted and 

voters did not have to make calls to the hotline. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. What made you do the lawsuit in the first place? 

Mr. HAILES. The lawsuit was filed because there was no final 

judgment by the Secretary in place that machines broken—50 percent of them—would result in emergency ballots being provided. 

Without the lawsuit, the State would have required all of the machines in all of the precincts to be broken before emergency ballots 

would be provided. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Did you bring a lawsuit to give greater information to people to know where their polling places were or how to 

do registration? 

Mr. HAILES. We did not bring any lawsuit in Pennsylvania. We 

worked with the Secretary to make it happen. Other groups within 

our coalition did bring the lawsuit. We, as many other groups that 

we work with, use litigation as a last resort. I have been very 

pleased with the amount of cooperation we get from election officials once they get the data, get the information, and see that in 

order to protect the rights of voters they have to take very assertive steps. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Watching the data shows there are certain priorities of things. Educating the voters seems like it would be a top 

item. 

But if I could go to Secretary Ron Thornburgh, you said you 

worked with HAVA. Could you give me a little update of when you 

worked through that balance between Federal and State, because 

that was a major change in pattern, particularly in the area of proVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:13 Dec 10, 2009 Jkt 052798 PO 00000 Frm 00176 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A798.XXX A798

bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
175 

visional ballots; how did you guys go about doing that debating? 

What were some of the tough difficult times of getting to where you 

got to? 

Mr. THORNBURGH. Well, if I might, I would say first we have to 

understand the emotions of the time. We had just come off a 2000 

Presidential election in which there was, if I may be so bold as to 

say, there was an incredible movement within Washington, D.C. to 

federalize elections. Obviously it wasn’t working. We need to federalize it. I think, rather clearly, was opposed to that. And the 

point that I consistently tried to make is that although the process 

was flawed, the system worked and we ultimately got to where we 

needed to go. Some will still disagree with that yet today. 

But as we finally got to the biggest issue, and that is the one you 

have outlined there: What is the appropriate role for the Federal 

Government and what is the appropriate role for the States and 

what is the appropriate role for local entities as well as for a number of private entities that are out there pushing this along as 

well? 

I think what we ultimately found is that the States given—and 

I have said this in my testimony—when they are given the reins 

and the opportunity to do something, we are not restricted through 

Federal regulation, then we can go above and beyond. 

And if I may use a brief example. On voting machines and emergency paper ballots, for instance, within the State of Kansas, I can 

tell you we don’t mark emergency ballots by how many machines 

go down. We mark it by voters are having to wait in line; get them 

a ballot. And if that voter chooses to wait in line, then they certainly may do so. 

And so a Federal law that would require a basis upon how many 

machines break down would completely disrupt and, I think, serve 

Kansas voters worse than what we are able to do now. And so I 

think we have to be careful on that. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Madam Chairman, one quick follow-up that I 

want to get to. My understanding is you just started an on-line registration. 

Mr. THORNBURGH. That is right. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Quickly, because we have some votes coming up, 

what are the safeguards you built in if somebody registers on line? 

Mr. THORNBURGH. The single most important safeguard is that 

an on-line voter registration, in my opinion, only works when it is 

tied in with the Division of Motor Vehicles. So in order for a person 

to register to vote on line in the State of Kansas, they must be registered—or have a driver’s license. Because at that point, we have 

already captured a signature and we have gone through the other 

elements of security that go along with that as well, and now they 

can tie in and receive the voter registration opportunity. 

And then we have the follow-up when we mail that individual 

their voter registration information to verify they actually live 

where they say they live. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. You have a signature to check. 

Mr. THORNBURGH. That is correct. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to 

submit for the record the nationwide data table for the Advancement Project project voter. 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
176 

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection, that table will be made part of 

the record. 

[The information follows:] 

[COMMITTEE INSERT] 

Ms. LOFGREN. And I would now turn to my colleague from California, Mrs. Davis, for any questions she may have. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you 

all for being here. 

One of the things that I have learned in coming to this committee is really how varied it is out there. And I think in some 

cases we would say that is a really good thing, because it gives the 

flexibility. But on the other hand, I think it creates a lot of confusion as well. 

I know that when during the election time here in D.C. It feels 

people just make mistakes because they are listening to the radio, 

they are hearing several different ways in which they can access 

polling hours and absentee ballots, et cetera. And that really does 

seem to confuse everybody. 

We also know from the military and overseas voting that people 

have to grapple with 50 different sets of absentee ballot requirements, and that becomes a problem. 

So I think that having some things uniform is important. The 

Constitution only lays out the fact that people have to vote on 

Tuesday. That is the only thing that is truly uniform across the 

country. 

And I wonder, then, could you share a few areas in which you 

think actually some of the standardization, the uniformity, should 

be in place that would be helpful, cause less confusion for voters, 

and, in the end, really benefit the voter rather than necessarily the 

counties in terms of ease of election material? Is there anything 

else that you feel that you can share with us that you really do believe should be more uniform? 

Ms. HERRERA. Madam Chair, Ranking Member McCarthy and 

members of the committee. As my colleague right here is mentioning, they have on-line voter registration. In New Mexico it 

wouldn’t work because we are not at that level yet. However, sitting on the EAC Advisory Board, I do use a lot of their issued voluntary standards. I believe if we get some of those voluntary standards out to some of these States, or they start utilizing them or 

practicing some of the practices that they are issued out, I believe 

we probably would come a little bit closer than everyone running 

their own in the States. 

But it won’t always—everything won’t work for every State, because I have my laws, he has his laws that he has to abide to. So 

it would kind of interfere with our State statute. 

I will just give you an example. I am for standardizing—before 

I go on, we should standardize and run our State’s uniformity. I 

think that is important. It shouldn’t be any different within the 

States. However, we have to make sure that we do not disenfranchise any voters. Like New Mexico, we have a lot of native lands, 

and we have got to make sure that they are not disenfranchised. 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
177 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. I think also, if I may just inject, we are 

also talking not just statewide elections, but we are also talking 

Federal elections. 

Ms. HERRERA. Correct. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Where people should have an equal opportunity and equal chance to cast their ballot, which, in some 

cases, I think that is really not true. 

Ms. HERRERA. In New Mexico I do everything in my power to 

make sure that no one is disenfranchised. I do depend a lot on EAC 

standards and work with the lawmakers in the State of New Mexico. 

Ms. OAKLEY. Mrs. Davis, I would like to point out that what you 

have brought up is essentially a little cascade that occurs in elections. The Feds kick it down to the States; you know, okay, we 

have the NVRA, but now we have the States. They get to decide 

what they are going to do. 

In California at least, the State kicks it down to the counties. 

Now the counties are going to decide how things are done. And 

then finally, in essence, the counties kick it down to the 

pollworkers, and now you have got four 75-year-old ladies deciding 

how things should be done. 

And I truly believe that unless you have an overarching standard, you don’t have overarching equality. And to me that is very 

worrisome. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Did you want to comment. Mr. 

Thornburgh. 

Mr. THORNBURGH. I tried very hard to not, but I have to. I want 

to go back to part of what I said. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Well, my time is going to be up. So, 

Madam Chair. 

Ms. LOFGREN. By unanimous consent, the gentlelady is granted 

an additional minute so Mr. Thornburgh can answer. 

Mr. THORNBURGH. I will be very brief. I think where there is a 

need for standards, we need to look to outcomes rather than process. Because what works for Los Angeles, California, is not going 

to work for Leoti, Kansas. And we have to understand and appreciate those differences in this country of ours. And certainly we 

want to push outcomes that provide for equal opportunity and 

equal access for every voter. 

And I absolutely believe that we are working towards that. And 

if we can keep outcomes in mind rather than process, then I think 

we are on the right track. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Can I just ask as a no-excuse absentee 

voter State, do you think it is appropriate that people do not have 

to get a notary signature, for example, in order to vote absentee? 

Mr. THORNBURGH. In Kansas? 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Yes. 

Mr. THORNBURGH. Yes, I do think that is appropriate. I think 

that a notarization is an unnecessary burden in that particular 

process. I don’t know that it is appropriate for me to tell my friends 

in other States what I think is appropriate for them, but in Kansas 

that works well for us. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Thank you very much. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Harper. 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
178 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, having in another life as a highly unpaid political volunteer for 30 years—and 

I was county party chair in my home county and had to run primaries for 7 years, and of course the clerks’ offices do an incredible 

job in Mississippi—I am just trying to figure out how Federal control over that process is going to help those pollworkers do better 

than the system that is in place. The problem that we had sometimes was, no matter how much training you had of pollworkers 

that, sometimes they still didn’t quite get it on election day. 

And so I want to say that the system that we have used worked 

extremely well, which was we had a very involved circuit clerk’s office. We had people available to answer questions. If they ran short 

of ballots, we got them to them when we were doing paper ballots 

back years ago. 

And then, invariably, we had problems with the electronic machines. That has happened this past time. And no matter how you 

plan ahead, you have those issues. 

But I would just say that we want uniform standards within that 

individual State, but I don’t want to have Washington, D.C. Be the 

one to tell you how it should be done in New Mexico or Kansas or 

California, Mississippi. If those States—and we have an incredible 

group of secretaries of state that do an exceptional job across our 

country to make sure that those things happen. 

I assume if you looked for the imposition and management of 

Federal standards that were mandatory on you, would you envision 

the EAC being the organization to oversee that—or the Department of Justice? Anybody have an answer to that? 

Mr. HAILES. Let me start by saying—and thank you for the question, Mr. Harper—that both the EAC and the Department of Justice could play a role in overseeing the administration of standards 

once they are in place. 

The advantage of having uniform standards is to help avoid the 

type of 11th-hour litigation that causes many pollworkers and election officials to complain about. Pollworkers find themselves on 

election day with different interpretations of their responsibilities. 

There is no clear, uniform answer for them to determine what happens to a voter who moves within the last 20 days from one county 

to another; whether they have to cast a regular ballot or a provisional ballot. And so they are looking for clear direction, and that 

can be done through uniform standards. 

Mr. HARPER. Reverend Hailes, can’t the secretary of State for 

that State along with the clerk’s office for that county handle and 

answer those questions? And of course in our State we provide that 

training for those pollworkers in those primaries, and of course in 

the general election the circuit clerk’s office handles those in my 

State. Don’t you think that local control and local training is better 

than having someone come in from Washington, D.C. Let’s say to 

do that. And I would be interested in knowing Secretary Herrera 

what your response is on that. 

Ms. HERRERA. I agree that the Secretary of State and the county 

clerks within the State should run their elections as needed. I 

agree that at the Federal level there can be some standardization. 

For instance, of course, like the time; you know, election day 7:00 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
179 

a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Just items like that, that won’t interfere with the 

election process. 

What works in New Mexico won’t work in other states. Also, anyone can vote absentee; they don’t have to have a reason. I know 

some States do. Maybe that could be one of the standards and 

allow folks to vote absentee, I don’t know. 

I know that the ID requirement is always coming up in all the 

States, just make sure it is standard. Something like that can be 

a standardized item, rather than getting into the nitty-gritty of 

running elections, because we have already voting sites. I have 15 

in the larger counties—18, 2, and none in some of our smaller 

counties. 

Mr. HARPER. Secretary Herrera, my time is almost up, but I 

know there was an issue with ACORN in your State. 

Ms. HERRERA. Right. 

Mr. HARPER. Have you been involved in any of the investigation 

of the voter fraud allegations there, either working with the FBI 

investigators—or have you been involved in any hearings on those 

allegations? 

Ms. HERRERA. I was county clerk when we turned some of the 

voter registration forms over to the U.S. Attorney General for review. And so, yes, I have been involved. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Let me 

hone in on a provisional ballot question because it strikes me as 

the most interesting question that we are dealing with. Who on the 

panel believes that there should be a uniform nationwide standard 

for how provisional ballots are handled, at least in Federal races? 

Mr. HAILES. I would say I do, if it is the right uniform standard. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Well, it is the one you write. I get that. 

Who on the panel believes it is a general proposition? Ms. Herrera. 

Ms. HERRERA. I think qualifying provisional ballots and who is 

entitled to provisional ballots can be a standard at a Federal level, 

because we are all stating we don’t want anyone to be 

disenfranchised. Right now we have requirements that we must 

issue provisional ballots if we received any of the HAVA funding. 

So why not make standards as far as who is entitled and why, and 

why they exist? I believe that would help nationwide. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Let me follow up on that. The whole policy purpose behind provisional ballots, as I understand it, is to 

allow eligible voters to have an opportunity to maintain their eligibility or to assert their eligibility if it is somehow questioned on 

election day. 

Now, the way eligibility is defined in Federal races is you have 

to be an American citizen who is 18 years of age or over. And, of 

course, given States have restrictions, for example, on convicted felons. I think that is the most popular and the only kind of exclusion 

that I really know of—if you are a convicted felon and have committed a certain class of crime, you are disenfranchised. 

So if an American citizen is over the age of 18 and does not have 

a felony status, shouldn’t that individual be presumed to be eligible 

to vote in any Federal election? 

Ms. OAKLEY. I would say yes, absolutely. 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
180 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. I think we all agree with that, so that 

leads to my question. 

Mr. THORNBURGH. I apologize for interrupting. I am not sure we 

all agree with it, because I am not sure I followed the—— 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Well, you may see where my question is 

going. 

Mr. THORNBURGH. Did we say we assume every person who 

shows up is qualified to vote? 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. No. 

Mr. THORNBURGH. I misunderstood. I apologize. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. An American who is a citizen who is over 

the age of 18 and has no felony disqualification, I think all of us 

would agree States ought to have the right—or most of us would 

agree States ought to have the right to wade into that area. You 

may disagree as a matter of public policy, but most of us would 

agree that States have the right to wade into that area. 

So stipulate that for one second. Someone who is not disqualified 

because of a prior conviction, who is an American citizen who is 

over the age of 18 and who lives in that State, I would assume we 

would agree that a person who fits those characteristics ought to 

be able to cast a vote in a Federal race in that State, correct? 

So, therefore, if we allow multiple States to have different standards when it comes to provisional ballots, don’t we undermine that 

agreement? 

For example, I am looking at the data the committee provided: 

17 States will count provisional ballots if you voted in the wrong 

precinct; 27 States won’t. 

Now, whether I live in Mountain Brook, Alabama or Homewood, 

Alabama doesn’t touch one of those core qualifications that I mentioned: my age, my status as an American, and my non-felony condition. 

So it would seem to me Congress does have the right to say that 

there is kind of a national eligibility standard that exists, and that 

given communities can’t chip away at that. Because if there are 27 

States that would not allow a vote in the wrong precinct by someone who fits those standards to count, arguably those 27 States are 

undermining a principle of enfranchisement. 

You are nodding your head affirmatively, Ms. Oakley. I assume 

you agree. 

Mr. Thornburgh, you are seeming to disagree. Tell me why you 

disagree. 

Mr. THORNBURGH. Well, I wanted to clarify one point, because I 

think one of the elements of the opportunity to vote is also registration. And registration is an element that is important. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. If someone is registered and they are voting in the wrong precinct, why shouldn’t they be allowed to still 

vote? 

Mr. THORNBURGH. For the races in which they are eligible to 

vote—— 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. For Federal races, for President of the 

United States. 

Mr. THORNBURGH. In my State of Kansas, if a person shows up 

in the wrong polling place, they are given a provisional ballot, and 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
181 

we count the votes for the offices in which they were eligible to 

vote, from Federal through State. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. But some States don’t do that. Don’t you 

think it is problematic that some States can deny the franchise to 

someone who is otherwise legally entitled to vote in a Federal race? 

Because that is what happens. 

If I can have an additional 30 seconds, Madam Chairwoman, 

isn’t that what happens? If some States can deny the provisional 

ballot based on precinct, haven’t they undermined a core Federal 

ability to participate in an election? 

Mr. THORNBURGH. I would respectfully disagree, in that part of 

the process is that a person in order to be able to cast their ballot— 

I hate to fall back on the rules of the game, but the rules are you 

kind of have to follow the rules of the election. You need to vote 

on a ballot. You need to vote on the voting machine. You need to 

follow that process. And that process has been established to—either having a ballot sent to you, in the case of advance voting or 

whatever the case may be, or going to the appropriate polling place 

to have that cast. 

So I don’t know that the State removed that individual’s right to 

cast their vote, but the individual didn’t follow the rules established by the State. 

Mr. HAILES. But if I may, Mr. Thornburgh said it is not about 

process, it is about outcomes. The outcome in that circumstance 

would be disenfranchisement. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. My time has expired. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And my time has begun. First let me thank all of 

the witnesses for your very interesting testimony. I think what we 

want to do is to help enfranchise people. I think you all want to 

do that. And the question is, what is the appropriate role for the 

Federal Government to help promote that? 

Just listening, I was fascinated by your description, Ms. Herrera, 

of outlining what is voter intent in advance of the election. What 

a smart thing to do, so you are not with the candidates, fighting 

over what does it mean when you do the happy faces around the 

candidate’s name, that is going to decide the outcome of the election. You decide how to read that type of nonsense in advance so 

that everybody knows. 

I don’t know whether best practices that States engage in will 

simply be adopted by States if the EAC provides that information. 

I think, probably, yes. 

But there are certain elements—I think that certainly we rely on 

the States and counties to run the elections, but the Federal Government has the opportunity or responsibility for Federal elections. 

And we want to make sure that if there are Americans who are 

being disenfranchised, that that doesn’t happen. 

I guess the question I have is: If you had voluntary standards, 

let’s say, for example, use Mr. Davis’ example of provisional ballots, 

and it is very clear from the ballot that a majority of the provisional ballots cast are not counted in the United States. That 

doesn’t mean that is true in all of your jurisdictions. But if you add 

it up in the United States, that is the fact. So it is really not necessarily serving the intent that people had in mind to the extent 

that people were, in fact, Americans over 18 and eligible to vote. 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
182 

If we had those standards and made them voluntary, but mandatory, to the extent that States accepted HAVA money, would that 

be effective in your judgment? 

Mr. Thornburgh, would that be offensive if it was made—if you 

take the money, you have to take the rules? 

Mr. THORNBURGH. Well, I think to a large extent, those rules are 

in effect; if you take the money, you need to follow these rules. 

If I may talk about the provisional for just a moment, you said 

there were a vast majority of provisionals that were not counted. 

I would assume—and I don’t know these facts so I should be careful what I say—but I would assume that a large number of those 

were individuals who were not registered to vote, who showed up 

on election day. I don’t know that for a fact. 

But I can tell you in the State of Kansas, the single thing that 

we have done, of the provisional ballots prior to the previous election, of the provisional ballots on election day, there were individuals who registered to vote through the Division of Motor Vehicles. 

The paper process was not forwarded to the county election officer. 

That person applied to register to vote but was never, in fact, registered. So that was a mistake on the process part. 

We then created the electronic transmission of that same information, and we addressed, I think, about 80 percent of the problems on election day through that single change that we made for 

that. 

So we were both getting to the same point. Let’s reduce the number of provisional ballots and make sure everyone’s vote counts who 

has an opportunity to do so; but we may disagree on what that is 

supposed to look like or what the road map looks like. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I understand your point. I think the point on outcomes has merit as well, because the idea—and I like your ‘‘time 

tax’’ phrase because that is exactly what it is. If one citizen has to 

wait for 15 hours to vote and another citizen has to wait for 5 minutes, that is not equal protection. That is not fair. 

But the answer may not be how many polling places; it is what 

do you have to do when the wait is over 15 minutes? And that 

would be the outcome that you are suggesting; am I correct, Mr. 

Thornburgh? 

Mr. THORNBURGH. Yes, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I guess the other thing I wanted to mention, we 

had a hearing last Congress about title VII of the National Voting 

Rights Act, which is widely ignored, unfortunately, around the 

United States. And I think your motor vehicle advance sounds like 

a very thoughtful and useful procedure. 

Have you also instituted those procedures in social service agencies and the like, as title VII suggests should occur? 

Mr. THORNBURGH. Madam Chairwoman, we have not implemented those in the other social service agencies because the vast 

majority of registrations—and I want to say it is about 65 percent 

of all new registrations in the State of Kansas—now come through 

DMV. So we were trying to wrestle the biggest one first. 

We do have the opportunity through title VII to do that through 

the other agencies, but we have not made that electronically. 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
183 

Ms. LOFGREN. My time has expired and I don’t want as Chair to 

take advantage of that, but I do hope that you will take a look at 

that. 

One of the things that we were—I was frustrated about—was 

that the Department of Justice really didn’t do anything about title 

VII last year. And I think with the new Department, that is going 

to change. So I think it is a good time for all secretaries of state 

to review their title VII compliance. 

With that, I am going to thank once again all the members of 

the committee and the witnesses. I would note that the hearing 

record will be open for 5 days for additional questions that members may have and the written record will be maintained. 

[The information follows:] 

[COMMITTEE INSERT] 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am advised that Reverend Hailes wanted to submit something, so let me invite you to bring that up at this time. 

Mr. HAILES. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman. This is 

an Advancement Project 2008 report on provisional voting entitled 

‘‘Fail-Safe Voting or Trap Door to Disenfranchisement?’’ 

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection, that will be made a part of the 

record. 

[The information follows:] 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
184 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 215 52798A.160
185 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 216 52798A.161
186 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 217 52798A.162
187 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 218 52798A.163
188 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 219 52798A.164
189 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 220 52798A.165
190 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 221 52798A.166
191 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 222 52798A.167
192 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 223 52798A.168
193 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 224 52798A.169
194 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 225 52798A.170
195 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 226 52798A.171
196 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 227 52798A.172
197 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 228 52798A.173
198 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 229 52798A.174
199 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 230 52798A.175
200 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 231 52798A.176
201 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 232 52798A.177
202 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 233 52798A.178
203 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 234 52798A.179
204 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 235 52798A.180
205 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 236 52798A.181
206 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 237 52798A.182
207 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 238 52798A.183
208 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 239 52798A.184
209 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 240 52798A.185
210 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 241 52798A.186
211 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 242 52798A.187
212 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 243 52798A.188
213 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 244 52798A.189
214 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 245 52798A.190
215 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 246 52798A.191
216 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 247 52798A.192
217 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 248 52798A.193
218 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 249 52798A.194
219 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 250 52798A.195
220 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 251 52798A.196
221 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 252 52798A.197
222 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 253 52798A.198
223 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 254 52798A.199
224 

Ms. LOFGREN. If there is nothing further, then we will be adjourned; and just in time, because we have been called for votes 

across the street on the House floor. Thank you very much. 

This meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
225 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 256 52798A.200
226 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 257 52798A.201
227 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 258 52798A.202
228 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 259 52798A.203
229 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 260 52798A.204
230 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 261 52798A.205
231 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 262 52798A.206
232 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 263 52798A.207
233 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 264 52798A.208
234 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 265 52798A.209
235 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 266 52798A.210
236 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 267 52798A.211
237 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 268 52798A.212
238 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 269 52798A.213
239 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 270 52798A.214
240 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 271 52798A.215
241 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 272 52798A.216
242 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 273 52798A.217
243 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 274 52798A.218
244 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 275 52798A.219
245 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 276 52798A.220
246 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 277 52798A.221
247 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 278 52798A.222
248 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 279 52798A.223
249 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 280 52798A.224
250 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 281 52798A.225
251 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 282 52798A.226
252 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 283 52798A.227
253 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 284 52798A.228
254 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 285 52798A.229
255 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 289 52798A.233
256 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 290 52798A.234
257 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 291 52798A.235
258 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 292 52798A.236
259 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 293 52798A.237
260 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 294 52798A.238
261 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 295 52798A.239
262 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 296 52798A.240
263 


bajohnson on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 297/400 52798A.241