FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL EFFORTS 

TO PREPARE FOR THE 2008 ELECTION 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, 

CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 

Serial No. 110–148 

(Committee on the Judiciary) 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary and the 

Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

and http://cha.house.gov 

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL EFFORTS TO PREPARE FOR THE 2008 ELECTION 

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

44–612 PDF 2009

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL EFFORTS 

TO PREPARE FOR THE 2008 ELECTION 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, 

CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 

Serial No. 110–148 

(Committee on the Judiciary) 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary and the 

Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

and http://cha.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chairman 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

DAVID LACHMANN, Chief of Staff 

PAUL B. TAYLOR, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

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 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, 

Ranking Minority Member 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California 

S. ELIZABETH BIRNBAUM, Staff Director 

WILLIAM PLASTER, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS

ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Elections, Committee on 

House Administration .......................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 

Rights, and Civil Liberties, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 3 

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 

Rights, and Civil Liberties, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 9 

The Honorable Kevin McCarthy, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Elections, Committee 

on House Administration ..................................................................................... 10 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Pedro A. Corte ́s, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, President, National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 69 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 71 

Mr. David M. Farrell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and Director 

of Elections, Office of the Ohio Secretary of State 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 181 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 184 

Mr. Rokey W. Suleman, General Registrar, Fairfax County Office of Elections 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 187 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 190 

Mr. Doug Lewis, Director, National Association of Election Officials 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 193 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 195 

Ms. Grace Chung Becker, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights 

Division, U.S. Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 224 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 227 

Mr. Paul F. Hancock, Partner, Kirkpatrick and Lockhart Preston Gates and 

Ellis, LLP 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 236 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 238 

Ms. Karen K. Narasaki, Executive Director, Asian American Justice Center 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 245 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 246 

Mr. Bryan P. O’Leary, Public Policy Consultant, Crowell Moring 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 265 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 277 

Mr. James Terry, Chief Public Advocate, Consumers Rights League 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 286 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 287 

Ms. Jocelyn Benson, Assistant Professor, Wayne State University Law School 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 300 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 302 

Page

VI 

Ms. Kristen Clarke Avery, Co-Director, Political Participation Group, NAACP 

Legal Defense Fund 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 311 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 313 

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 419 

(1) 

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL EFFORTS 

TO PREPARE FOR THE 2008 ELECTION 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, AND THE

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

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m., in 

room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John 

Conyers, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee on the Judicary) presiding. 

Present from the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, 

and Civil Liberties: Representatives Conyers, Nadler, Lofgren, 

Davis of Alabama, Ellison, Watt, Cohen, Franks, Issa, King, and 

Jordan. 

Present from the Subcommittee on Elections: Lofgren, Gonzalez, 

Davis of Alabama, Davis of California, McCarthy, and Ehlers. 

Also present: Representatives Waters and Delahunt. 

Staff present from the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 

Rights, and Civil Liberties: LaShawn Warren, Majority Counsel; 

and Paul Taylor, Minority Counsel. 

Staff present from the Subcommittee on Elections: Tom Hicks, 

Majority Counsel; and Gineen Beach, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. CONYERS. Good morning. The Subcommittees will come to 

order. 

I have asked the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Elections, 

Zoe Lofgren from California, to begin the proceedings. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Chairman Conyers. 

I think this is an important, and really unprecedented, joint 

hearing between the Elections Subcommittee of the House Administration Committee and of course, the Constitution Subcommittee 

of the Judiciary Committee. 

I am honored to serve on both the Judiciary Committee and 

Chair the Elections Subommittee allowing us to focus on really one 

of the most important issues that faces our country, which is to 

make sure that we have an election that makes sure that individuals who are eligible to vote are able to vote, that our American 

citizens come to the polls and are not disenfranchised. 

The election 4 years ago and 8 years ago left a very bad taste 

in the mouths of Americans because there were people who were 

2 

not able to vote. They were disenfranchised. And if that happens 

again—if half of America thinks that the election was not fair, that 

people who had a right to vote were denied that right—we are 

going to be in a real pickle in this country. 

And so this hearing is to hear from election officials, but also to 

make sure that we have the proper proactive effort to make sure 

that people are not disenfranchised again. 

Now, how can you be disenfranchised? In many different ways. 

I actually personally spoke to people who waited 8 hours to vote 

in a precinct in Ohio. If you have to wait 8 hours to vote, you are 

disenfranchised. 

Now, for students, their classes were canceled, so they could 

stand in line. But if you are an employed person, you can’t take off 

8 hours from work to vote. And you shouldn’t have to. 

And so we know that if that happens again, Americans are going 

to feel that something funny was going on with the electoral process. And I expect that we will identify those areas where problems 

are likely and proactively step forward and say, this is the emergency effort you need to make. If you need to have backup paper 

ballots so you can have your registration people go along the line 

and check in those voters and vote so they don’t have to wait 8 

hours, we need to plan for that. 

Equipment failures, voter registration lists, and I want to talk 

about vote caging. When Monica Goodling appeared before this 

Committee and talked about the Justice Department people who 

took time off to do vote caging, and I remember saying, ‘‘What is 

it?’’ And I turned to another Member of the Judiciary Committee, 

I said, ‘‘What is that?’’ And he didn’t know, either. 

Well, it turns out, I have now learned, that it is a very racist and 

I think illegal activity that is intended to disenfranchise voters. 

What has happened around the country is that registered letters 

have been sent in African-American or other minority communities, 

and if they are not responded to, then that person is identified as 

not a real voter. 

Well, there is a lot of reasons why people might not want to go 

down to the post office and pick up a registered letter. And to allow 

for that kind of systematic suppression of minority voting, I think, 

is a civil rights violation and I think ought to be proactively prohibited. 

Not only does it disenfranchise the American citizen who is a 

voter, but the fight over this disenfranchises everybody else who is 

waiting in line—so creating tremendous delay so that people have 

to give up and go back to work. 

This is so important for our country, that we get this right. But 

I want to hear from the witnesses what they are doing. This is not 

the end of what we are going to do. Tomorrow the Elections Subcommittee is having a hearing on the suppression of student votes 

that we have learned about, where students have been told that if 

they actually register at their campus, which they are permitted to, 

that they will have their student aid removed. That is false. What 

are we doing as a government to prevent that disenfranchisement? 

So this is an important hearing, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to participate in it, and I hope that the efforts that we will make will 

have a positive impact on having a fair vote this November. 

3 

And I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much for starting us off. 

I am pleased to recognize Trent Franks, an outstanding Member 

of House Judiciary Committee and Ranking Member on the Constitution Subcommittee, from Arizona. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, it has been said so often that voting is the lifeblood of a democracy. And certainly there are no legitimate leaders 

in a democracy without legitimate elections. And I indeed look forward to hearing from our witnesses here today regarding the good 

work that the voting section of the Civil Rights Division has done 

and will do to protect voting rights. 

And I am told they may have their hands rather full this year. 

I say that because in recent years, one particular organization has 

become increasingly embroiled in illegal voting activity. That organization is called ACORN, which stands for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Let me read that again: Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. 

It seems that one very famous community organizer got that in 

his resume by being an organizer for an association of community 

organizations for reform now. Presidential candidate Barack 

Obama is highlighted in this regard. ACORN is one of the organizations he helped organize, as Senator Obama served as a lawyer 

for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. 

Now, I think it is important to take a look at ACORN’s resume 

directly. And as you will hear, it almost sounds more like a rap 

sheet these days. As John Fund of the Wall Street Journal has reported, in Seattle local prosecutors indicted seven workers for 

ACORN. Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed once said, 

ACORN’s campaign of phony registration forms is ‘‘the worst case 

of voter registration fraud in history.’’ And of course he is speaking 

of Washington State. 

But of the 2,000 names submitted by ACORN, only nine were 

confirmed as valid. Out of 2,000, nine were confirmed as valid. The 

rest, over 97 percent, were fake. 

In Missouri, officials found that over 1,000 addresses listed on 

voter registration lists resulting from ACORN’s efforts didn’t exist. 

Eight ACORN employees pleaded guilty to Federal election fraud 

there. In Ohio, a worker for one ACORN affiliate was given crack 

cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters and dead people. 

And just a few weeks ago, ACORN curtailed more of its voter 

registration activities in Ohio after election officials announced that 

they were investigating its suspicious activities there. ACORN 

workers repeatedly handed in the same names on a number of 

voter registration cards that show that person living at different 

addresses. Other times, cards have the same name listed, but a different date of birth. Still others showed a number of people living 

at an address that turned out to be a restaurant. 

In March of this year, Philadelphia officials accused ACORN of 

filing fraudulent voter registrations in advance of the April Pennsylvania primary. Also in Pennsylvania, another ACORN worker 

recently questioned by Dauphin County investigators about bogus 

voter registration forms, is now a wanted man with regard for inVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:46 Jan 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\092408\44612.000 HJUD1 PsN: 44612
4 

formation leading to his capture. He is accused by authorities of 

submitting more than 100 fraudulent voter registration forms he 

collected and is charged with 19 counts of perjury, making false 

statements, forgery and identity theft in connection with the voter 

registration forms. 

In February, the special investigations unit of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, police department issued a report that concluded 18 people 

were sworn in as deputy registrars that were convicted felons and 

under the department of corrections supervision. Of the 15 felons 

who listed a sponsoring organization, eight named ACORN—that 

is, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now—as 

their sponsoring agency. 

And last month, the Milwaukee election commission announced 

that criminal investigations could be launched against at least six 

voter registration workers for ACORN who tried to add dead, imprisoned or imaginary people to voter rolls. 

And the Detroit Free Press just reported last week that, ‘‘several 

municipal clerks across the state are reporting fraudulent and duplicate voter registration applications, most of them from ACORN.’’ 

According to the Michigan Secretary of State’s office, ‘‘there appears to be a sizable number of duplicate and fraudulent applications and it appears to be widespread.’’ 

As one county clerk points out, trying to weed out all these 

fraudulent registration cases causes a huge slowdown in voting 

preparations and operations in general. As you can see, Senator 

Obama could probably filibuster a bill to allow more offshore drilling by simply reading ACORN’s extensive rap sheet on the Senate 

floor. 

A recent article in The New York Times also revealed just how 

shady ACORN’s financial operations can be, as well. As The New 

York Times reported, ACORN chose to treat the embezzlement of 

nearly $1 million as an internal matter and did not even notify its 

board. A whistleblower forced ACORN to disclose the embezzlement, which involved the brother of the organization’s founder, who 

embezzled nearly $1 million from ACORN and affiliated charitable 

organizations. But a small group of executives decided not to alert 

law enforcement. 

Senator Obama is still involved with ACORN, despite its vast 

history of corrupting the election process and even its own finances. 

As recently was reported in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign paid more than 

$800,000 to an offshoot of ACORN for services that the Democrat’s 

campaign said they mistakenly misrepresented in Federal reports. 

The Obama campaign initially reported that the ACORN affiliate 

that received the $800,000 used all money for polling, advance 

work, and event staging. But what did the ACORN affiliate really 

use the money for? It used it for the same, ‘‘get out the vote 

projects,’’ that has mired ACORN in criminal investigations in at 

least 12 states. 

Now, I commend the voting section act of the Civil Rights Division for the work its done to date. And I fully expect it will prosecute voting violations that may occur before and during the upcoming election. And with groups like ACORN involved in this 

5 

year’s election, the Department of Justice may well have to work 

overtime. 

And Mr. Chairman, with that happy thought, I—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield—— 

Mr. FRANKS [continuing]. Our witnesses, and—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield for a question? 

Mr. FRANKS. Certainly. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Because I would like to know, these 12 states, 

what are the 12 states, and what—because this is news to me. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, I would be glad to follow up with you and put 

that in writing. Would that be all right? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I think you have made a rather inflammatory statement that I believe is false. 

Mr. FRANKS. We will—— 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. And I think you should be prepared 

to—— 

Mr. FRANKS. We will follow that up and if I—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. You can say the statement—— 

Mr. FRANKS. If I have made any statement that is false, I will 

certainly be glad to correct it. 

Ms. LOFGREN. You just made a statement indicating—I would 

ask unanimous consent that we place in the record a communication from ACORN refuting all of your points. But it is a defamatory 

statement to accuse a person of a crime. And if you can’t back it 

up—— 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, I quoted the Wall Street Journal and the 

Pittsburgh newspapers. Perhaps we should call them in here and 

see if they can straighten this out. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I—I am appalled that you would make a 

statement that you are unable to actually back up. And I thank the 

gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. CONYERS. Does the gentlelady wish to put the statement— 

article in the record, the ACORN? 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

6 


A-1.eps
7 


A-2.eps
8 


A-3.eps
9 

Mr. CONYERS. The Chair is pleased to call on the Chairman of 

the Constitution Subcommittee in the Judiciary Committee, Jerry 

Nadler of New York. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, the right to vote is the bulwark of all our other 

rights. Without an effective franchise, all our other rights are vulnerable. For that reason, the history of our country has been one 

of fulfilling the promise of the Declaration of Independence and the 

Constitution by progressively extending the right to vote to all citizens. 

That struggle has gone on for generations, but the struggle to ensure that the legal right to vote translates into an actual right to 

cast a ballot and have it counted remains far from fulfilled, as we 

know. We know that people waited in Ohio, for example, and probably in other places, 8, 9 hours to vote. And they had their votes 

taken away from them. 

We know that in 2000, the governor and the secretary of state 

of Florida conspired to hire a private firm to purge the voter lists, 

knowing that the error rate of that private firm was 20 percent— 

meaning that they knew that 20 percent of the voters whose names 

would be purged were perfectly legitimate voters. And that even if 

they were purging people who had no right to vote, they were also 

purging 20 percent—that is, 20 percent of those they were purging 

had a right to vote and would be illegally disenfranchised by the 

deliberate acts of the governor and secretary of state of Florida, 

and they got away with it. 

We know that these kinds of things go on all over the time. We 

know that certain politicians engaging in inflammatory campaign 

rhetoric of questionable relevancy, such as we just heard about 

ACORN, in order to cover up the deprivation of the right to vote 

of many people. 

Now, let’s take the case of ACORN for a moment. I am not going 

to talk about any specifics, because I don’t know about any of the 

specifics. But let’s assume that everything that was said was true. 

What does that indicate? It indicates that law enforcement ought 

to be looking into them and prosecuting, perhaps and to—whatever. 

It does not indicate, assuming that there is a group out there 

that is deliberately or because they hired people who don’t know 

what they are doing, inadvertently improperly registering voters— 

it means that the registrars of elections, the boards of election, the 

department, whoever, should be carefully monitoring that and 

checking the validity. 

It does not mean that it justifies in any way all the vote caging 

and the voter suppression practices and the purging of legitimate 

voters that we know has gone on and that we are here to deal with. 

And it is really a red herring to distract attention from them. Certainly no one will justify anybody deliberately or even inadvertently registering people who should not be allowed to register—although most people should be allowed to register, obviously, and a 

lot of this is simply a problem with proper identification, especially 

with recent laws. 

But the fact is, the overwhelming problem is that legitimate voters are being denied the right to register or being denied the right 

10 

to vote because of vote caging or because of improper purging or 

because of inadequate resources at the polls, or because of improper clerical procedures so that your name isn’t there when you 

get there to vote. 

We saw, when the late congresswoman, our late colleague Julia 

Carson went to vote, she was denied the right to vote because her 

congressional ID was not sufficient voter ID under Indiana’s laws, 

which was absurd, obviously. We saw that the 12 nuns didn’t have 

their identification because they didn’t drive. And we know that 

much of the effect of a lot of these new laws is to deprive legitimate 

voters of their right to vote. 

So the question before us is how to make sure that everyone’s 

right to vote is secured and to minimize any fraud or punitive 

fraud. And let me say one other thing here. We have seen—and I 

am sure it will be—I shouldn’t say I am sure, perhaps it will be 

mentioned at this hearing—I have seen it in New York, I have seen 

it alleged in New York, I have seen it other places: if someone is 

registered in two places—they are registered in New York and 

Florida, they are registered in two different counties in New York, 

whatever—and this is evidence of massive fraud. No, it isn’t. 

What it is, is evidence of is 20th century or 19th century technology. That when you registered, let’s say in New York City, and 

you move to Miami, they don’t necessarily remove your voting card 

until a couple of years go by in New York. It doesn’t mean that you 

are voting in both places. That we have not seen demonstrated. We 

have heard a lot of loose rhetoric about people registered in two 

places. We have not a seen a lot of facts about people voting in two 

places, which is a very different question. 

So I hope that we will concentrate on how to make sure that people are enabled to cast their vote and have it counted when they 

are entitled to do so. And that, it seems to me, we have fallen badly 

down on the job. And when you can have a governor and a secretary of state knowingly, deliberately, and admittedly purge 20 

percent of—that is, use a purge list which they know and don’t 

deny and freely admit is inaccurate 20 percent—and no one says, 

why don’t we impeach the governor? No one criticizes the governor, 

we just let it go by the board—it shows that we do not regard voting rights with as much care as we ought to. 

I hope this hearing will go a long way towards—will go some way 

toward changing that. I must apologize at this point. I am going 

to have to leave fairly soon for a markup of the Transportation 

Committee. In Congress they expect you to be in two or three 

places at the same time. It is still difficult, despite modern physics. 

But I congratulate the Chairman of the Committee for calling 

this hearing, because it is a necessary step in a necessary battle. 

I thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

I am pleased now to recognize Kevin McCarthy, the Ranking 

Member of the Elections Subcommittee of the House Administration Committee. And we would like to invite you for any opening 

remarks, sir. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate you having this joint hearing today. You know, we 

are like 41 days away from the election. And if I could start, Mr. 

11 

Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to submit some material to include in today’s proceedings, and—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


B-1.eps
12 


B-2.eps
13 


B-3.eps
14 


B-4.eps
15 


B-5.eps
16 


B-6.eps
17 


B-7.eps
18 


B-8.eps
19 


B-9.eps
20 


B-10.eps
21 


B-11.eps
22 


B-12.eps
23 


B-13.eps
24 


B-14.eps
25 


B-15.eps
26 


B-16.eps
27 


B-17.eps
28 


B-18.eps
29 


B-19.eps
30 


B-20.eps
31 


B-21.eps
32 


B-22.eps
33 


B-23.eps
34 


B-24.eps
35 


B-25.eps
36 


B-26.eps
37 


B-27.eps
38 


B-28.eps
39 


B-29.eps
40 


B-30.eps
41 


B-31.eps
42 


B-32.eps
43 


B-33.eps
44 


B-34.eps
45 


B-35.eps
46 


B-36.eps
47 


B-37.eps
48 


B-38.eps
49 


B-39.eps
50 


B-40.eps
51 


B-41.eps
52 


B-42.eps
53 


B-43.eps
54 


B-44.eps
55 


B-45.eps
56 


B-46.eps
57 


B-47.eps
58 


B-48.eps
59 


B-49.eps
60 


B-50.eps
61 


B-51.eps
62 


B-52.eps
63 


B-53.eps
64 


B-54.eps
65 


B-55.eps
66 


B-56.eps
67 


B-57.eps
68 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Part of this will probably answer some of the 

questions of my colleague, Mrs. Lofgren. 

This section right here is just from the Department of Elections, 

State of Michigan—pertaining to ACORN, whereas some of these 

applicants, 15 years old, 7 years old, lives in Canada, but—could 

answer a lot of questions you had of my colleague, Mr. Frank, as 

well. 

But today this hearing and these panels really is something 

House Administration has been looking at over the last 2 years. We 

have had a contested election we have studied. We have gone 

through looking at voter fraud. 

We have also looked at—which I am very interested in hearing 

in the second panel, Mr. O’Leary—also those who are being denied 

their right to vote are Servicemen and women. You will find today, 

and hopefully many will listen, that a number of those votes are 

not counted. They arrived too late—these are our brave men and 

women serving overseas. And I think when you think about defending this country and the right to participate in an election, we can 

actually do a lot more. We can do a lot better. And we have 41 days 

to go. 

We have had a hearing on a number of bills. One, the MVP Act, 

I think will solve a lot of the problems as we look forward. 

But the hearing today, we will look at the voter fraud. We will 

also look at the eligibility and making sure all of the votes are 

counted and that those serving in other parts of this world defending this Nation have the right to vote, as well. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very, very much. 

We also have our good friend from the Judiciary Committee, Jim 

Jordan of Ohio. Did you have any comments you would like to 

make at this time, sir? 

Mr. JORDAN. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will have some 

questions later. 

Mr. CONYERS. All right. Very good. 

And we also have Charles Gonzalez, distinguished Member from 

Texas on the Elections Subcommittee. We would like to welcome 

him here to Judiciary and ask if he has any comment. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. [OFF MIKE] 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

We have some distinguished witnesses in the first panel: Mr. 

Lewis, Mr. Suleman, Mr. Farrell, and Mr. Corte ́s. 

Pedro Corte ́s is the current secretary of the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania. He is also the chief election official and president of 

the National Association of State Secretaries. Before that he was 

executive director of the Pennsylvania Governors’ Advisory Commission on Latino Affairs and served with the Pennsylvania State 

Civil Service. 

We welcome you. All witnesses’ testimony will be included in the 

record. And we invite you to begin our discussion today. Welcome 

to the Committee. 

69 

TESTIMONY OF PEDRO A. CORTE ́ S, SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECRETARIES OF STATE (NASS) 

Mr. CORTE ́S. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Chairman Conyers, Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member Franks, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member McCarthy. I am honored to be here today to testify in two capacities: as 

Pennsylvania Secretary of State and chief election official; and as 

president of the National Association of Secretaries of State, also 

known as NASS. 

I would like to discuss the states’ readiness for the November 

2008 election, including efforts in Pennsylvania. 

The Nation’s state chief election officials have been working hard 

to ensure eligible voters will have a positive voting experience and 

an election that is fair, accurate, accessible and secure. There has 

been a dramatic increase in voter registration figures, and predictions of high turnout. Nearly 58 million Americans voted in the 

2008 presidential primaries. I am here to report that state election 

officials take their responsibilities seriously, and that the states 

will be prepared for a potential record turnout in November. 

NASS proactively conducted a survey of all states’ chief election 

officials. Our objective was to gain insight into the states’ efforts 

to inform and prepare voters, increase and facilitate voter participation, ensure that polling places run smoothly on Election Day, 

and communicate election results to the public. The NASS report, 

which is being released today, is titled, ‘‘Engaging the Energized 

Electorate: NASS Survey on State Preparations for the 2008 Presidential Election.’’ I have copies of that report available with me. 

The survey responses demonstrated the states have concentrated 

their preparations in three major areas: one, voter participation; 

two, polling place management; and three, election results reporting. 

First, to enhance voter participation, states are conducting vigorous statewide public outreach campaigns to inform voters about 

everything from registration deadlines to identification requirements and absentee or early voting options. A growing number of 

states are using the internet and social networking sites such as 

YouTube and MySpace. Many states, including Pennsylvania, are 

also offering tools such as polling place locators, voter registration 

lookups, and provisional ballot trackers. 

Others have targeted outreach efforts to mobilize young voters, 

senior voters, voters with disabilities, military and overseas civilian 

voters and alternative language voters, among others. 

The second area of preparation, polling place management and 

operations, seeks to ensure the positive experience on Election Day. 

Efforts in this area include broadening the pool of potential poll 

workers by seeking students, bilingual citizens, private sector and 

state employees; maintaining consistency in poll worker training; 

and establishing standards to provide assurance that poll workers 

are properly equipped to administer voting, handle emergencies, 

and use election systems. 

Finally, states are enhancing election results reporting features 

for 2008 while maintaining transparency to boost voter confidence. 

70 

This is done via new interactive Web sites and through laws enacted for improving post-election audits and audit procedures. 

NASS also created CanIVote.org, the association’s nonpartisan 

Web site that serves as a portal to state and local election sites. 

In addition to voter registration lookups and polling place locators, 

voters can use the site to find state-specific information on polling 

place hours, voter registration deadlines, identification requirements and how to become a poll worker. 

In my home state of Pennsylvania, election officials remain committed to eliminating barriers to voting and to conducting fair, accurate, accessible and secure elections. The Department of State, 

working closely with the Commonwealth’s 67 counties, is building 

upon the lessons of the primary to prepare for November 4. 

One way we are preparing in Pennsylvania is through the use of 

technology. For example, the Commonwealth has benefited from 

the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors, more commonly known 

as SURE. SURE is the centralized voter registration and election 

management system used by the counties and the department to 

ensure the accuracy and integrity of the Commonwealth’s voter 

registration records. All 67 counties have used SURE since 2006. 

The innovative use of technology gives counties increased flexibility 

for more employees to enter voter registration data. 

Pennsylvania also values voter education. The Department is 

proud of Ready.Set.Vote, an interactive voter education campaign 

that features television, radio, print, online and out-of-home advertising. The campaign’s goal is to ensure that Pennsylvania voters 

are familiar with voting processes, rights and technology. 

An important component of this campaign is VotesPA.com, the 

Commonwealth’s online voting information and resource center. 

Through VotesPA.com, Pennsylvanians can find information about 

voting rights and procedures, locate directions to their polling 

place, and may even sign up for election-related reminders sent directly to their mobile devices. 

In August, Pennsylvania adopted an innovative, secure online 

tool offered by the Federal Voting Assistance Program at the Department of Defense that provides military and overseas citizen 

voters the option of requesting and/or receiving absentee ballots 

electronically through the Federal program’s Web site. As of today 

34 counties, including Philadelphia and Allegheny, have availed 

themselves of this program. 

These are only a few examples of the many election initiatives 

underway in Pennsylvania and throughout the United States. 

Based on these preparations, I am confident that the Nation, including Pennsylvania, will be well prepared for the general election 

and that we will have a well-informed electorate. 

On behalf of my colleagues at NASS, thank you for your support 

in safeguarding our most fundamental right of citizenship. I appreciate your invitation to testify today. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Corte ́s follows:] 

71 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PEDRO A. CORTE ́S


PC-1.eps
72 


PC-2.eps
73 


PC-3.eps
74 


PC-4.eps
75 


PC-5.eps
76 


PC-6.eps
77 


PC-7.eps
78 


PC-8.eps
79 

1The NASS report printed in this hearing record is a revised version of the original report 

referred to by the witness. The revised version of the report was the electronic version of the 

file available at the time of the printing of this hearing. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, sir. Did you want to put the report 1

in the record? 

Mr. CORTE ́S. If I may, I would like to do that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. All right. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


C-1.eps
80 


C-2.eps
81 


C-3.eps
82 


C-4.eps
83 


C-5.eps
84 


C-6.eps
85 


C-7.eps
86 


C-8.eps
87 


C-9.eps
88 


C-10.eps
89 


C-11.eps
90 


C-12.eps
91 


C-13.eps
92 


C-14.eps
93 


C-15.eps
94 


C-16.eps
95 


C-17.eps
96 


C-18.eps
97 


C-19.eps
98 


C-20.eps
99 


C-21.eps
100 


C-22.eps
101 


C-23.eps
102 


C-24.eps
103 


C-25.eps
104 


C-26.eps
105 


C-27.eps
106 


C-28.eps
107 


C-29.eps
108 


C-30.eps
109 


C-31.eps
110 


C-32.eps
111 


C-33.eps
112 


C-34.eps
113 


C-35.eps
114 


C-36.eps
115 


C-37.eps
116 


C-38.eps
117 


C-39.eps
118 


C-40.eps
119 


C-41.eps
120 


C-42.eps
121 


C-43.eps
122 


C-44.eps
123 


C-45.eps
124 


C-46.eps
125 


C-47.eps
126 


C-48.eps
127 


C-49.eps
128 


C-50.eps
129 


C-51.eps
130 


C-52.eps
131 


C-53.eps
132 


C-54.eps
133 


C-55.eps
134 


C-56.eps
135 


C-57.eps
136 


C-58.eps
137 


C-59.eps
138 


C-60.eps
139 


C-61.eps
140 


C-62.eps
141 


C-63.eps
142 


C-64.eps
143 


C-65.eps
144 


C-66.eps
145 


C-67.eps
146 


C-68.eps
147 


C-69.eps
148 


C-70.eps
149 


C-71.eps
150 


C-72.eps
151 


C-73.eps
152 


C-74.eps
153 


C-75.eps
154 


C-76.eps
155 


C-77.eps
156 


C-78.eps
157 


C-79.eps
158 


C-80.eps
159 


C-81.eps
160 


C-82.eps
161 


C-83.eps
162 


C-84.eps
163 


C-85.eps
164 


C-86.eps
165 


C-87.eps
166 


C-88.eps
167 


C-89.eps
168 


C-90.eps
169 


C-91.eps
170 


C-92.eps
171 


C-93.eps
172 


C-94.eps
173 


C-95.eps
174 


C-96.eps
175 


C-97.eps
176 


C-98.eps
177 


C-99.eps
178 


C-100.eps
179 


C-101.eps
180 


C-102.eps
181 

1The information referred to, because of its voluminous size, is not being reprinted in this 

hearing but can be accessed at http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/elections/electResultsMain/ 

2008ElectionResults.aspx. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now, this is a new report. Did it just come out 

today or yesterday? 

Mr. CORTE ́S [continuing]. Today. 

Mr. CONYERS. Today. You are—— 

Mr. CORTE ́S. The report is a survey of all the states, the 50 states 

and the District of Columbia, that reports on the various steps that 

the states are taking to first, inform voters about their rights and 

the rules of voting and engaging those voters; second, ensuring that 

voters have a smooth and fair experience at the polls on Election 

Day; and third, to ensure a report on increased capabilities to accurately report results on election night. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

The Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and the Director of Elections for Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is Mr. David 

Farrell. We welcome you here today. You oversee the election section, the campaign finance section, and the field staff section. He 

was formerly a member of the Clark County board of elections for 

7 years, and the chairman of the board for 3 years before that. 

Welcome to this hearing. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID M. FARRELL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE AND DIRECTOR OF ELECTIONS, OFFICE 

OF THE OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE 

Mr. FARRELL. Thank you. 

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony on Ohio’s state and local efforts to prepare for the 2008 general election. 

The state of election system in Ohio has come a long way since 

Secretary Brunner took office in January of 2007. Between that 

time and now, Secretary Brunner has taken substantial efforts to 

examine, strengthen and continually adjust and make improvements to the elections system. Evidence of our successes can be 

found by looking at Ohio’s March primary election, where we had 

a 46 percent turnout and over 500,000 absentee voters, despite experiencing severe weather problems and other emergencies. 

Chair Lofgren, I would like to offer into the record the March 

2008 Ohio primary election report, which fully details the significant advancements Ohio has made in its elections system since 

Secretary Brunner came into office.1

Mr. CONYERS. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. FARRELL. Thank you. 

With November 4 approaching, there is great work to do in Ohio 

in every county, and we are getting that work done. This will be 

a historic November election, and in Ohio, where we can realistically anticipate a statewide turnout of 80 percent, Secretary Brunner has focused on three objectives: preparation, partnership and 

success. 

Secretary Brunner is focused on strengthening Ohio’s voter operations, which is the nuts and bolts of elections administration. She 

understands that given the technological advances made over the 

last decade and the implementation of the Help America Vote Act 

182 

of 2002, also known as HAVA, getting voter operations right is crucial. She has made great strides in this respect. 

For example, to equitably apply Ohio’s elections laws to all voters, Secretary Brunner implemented an aggressive statewide poll 

worker training program, which includes an interactive, online poll 

worker training component. She created and made available a 

quick reference guide for all poll workers to use on Election Day. 

Secretary Brunner also issued a directive which provides minimum 

standards for poll worker training for all counties. 

In addition, Secretary Brunner made compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 a priority for all Ohioans. While 

the Act has been law for 28 years, Secretary Brunner was the first 

chief elections officer of the State of Ohio to provide the 88 county 

boards of elections with an easy-to-use checklist that permits local 

boards to confirm their compliance. We thank Congress for providing ADA grant dollars to Ohio and allowing us to make available $500,000 in funds to address ADA concerns at polling places 

in 2008. 

Secretary Brunner and local boards of elections are also preparing for any problems that may arise on or before Election Day. 

In 2004, Ohio became the unfortunate poster child for long lines at 

polls and concerns about voter disenfranchisement. Secretary Brunner has taken a number of steps to address long lines and a host 

of other issues that cut to the core of voter confidence in our elections. 

First, a key ‘‘best practice’’ focus has been backup paper ballots 

for counties using direct recording electronic voting machines, also 

known as DREs. In the March primary election, these backup 

paper ballots made the difference for polling places impacted by severe weather, power outages, and machine problems. Secretary 

Brunner was very supportive of Chair Lofgren’s bill, H.R. 5803, 

which would have provided funding for states to provide backup 

paper ballots. Although that bill did not pass, in Ohio we will utilize HAVA funds to reimburse boards of elections for the cost of 

backup paper ballots equal to 25 percent of the turnout in that precinct in 2004 for this November 4 election. 

Second, we have also provided boards of elections with a formula, 

developed by the Ohio General Assembly and based on HAVA, for 

the equitable distribution of voting machines on Election Day. This 

will help us find problems with distribution plans ahead of time 

and assure a scientific, facts-based approach to allocating voting 

machines for Ohioans. 

Secretary Brunner’s preparation efforts also include making sure 

that voting is secure. This spring, our office brought together a bipartisan working group to craft best practices for election security. 

From the board of elections office to the ballot box and back again, 

we have created a suite of directives that provide ‘‘best-in-class’’ security for Ohio’s voting systems. 

Those directives include security at the polling place and board 

of elections offices; minimum storage; security access and inventory 

control requirements for voting systems equipment at boards of 

elections; voting machine delivery requirements; chain of custody 

for ballots; and security for voting equipment supplies. 

183 

Secretary Brunner also required boards of elections to end the 

practice of so-called ‘‘sleepovers’’ for voting machines in Ohio, and 

we are now phasing in secure machine transport for every county 

in Ohio. 

Between now and November 4, we in Ohio will all be focused on 

preparing for success. We are confident that state and local election 

officials can address any new set of problems that may arise because we have established a partnership that works to get things 

done. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Farrell follows:] 

184 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID M. FARRELL


DF-1.eps
185 


DF-2.eps
186 


DF-3.eps
187 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rokey Suleman, recently appointed to be the Fairfax County 

Registrar—— 

Mr. SULEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chair—— 

Mr. CONYERS [continuing]. In Virginia—I have got a lot more to 

tell about you. 

Mr. SULEMAN. Okay. 

Mr. CONYERS [continuing]. Prior to your appointment as deputy 

director of the board of elections in Trumbell County, Ohio. And 

while there, Mr. Suleman took part in the Everest Voting System 

Review, which is an assessment of the security of Ohio’s voting systems, and led the transition from punch cards to optical scan and 

direct record electronic combination systems in Trumbell County. 

We are glad to have you here this morning. 

TESTIMONY OF ROKEY W. SULEMAN, GENERAL REGISTRAR, 

FAIRFAX COUNTY OFFICE OF ELECTIONS 

Mr. SULEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and distinguished Members of the Committee. 

My name is Rokey Suleman, II. I am the general registrar of the 

Fairfax County Office of Elections in Fairfax, Virginia. I am 

pleased to be here this morning to discuss election preparation for 

the 2008 general election at the local level. 

The 2008 general election is not a single national event. Rather, 

it is the simultaneous occurrence of thousands of smaller, local 

events. I am here to discuss the preparations of one of those local 

events. 

Fairfax County is the largest election jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Virginia. We serve one in seven of all of the registered voters in the Commonwealth. 

Preparations for an election like this do not happen overnight. 

Fairfax County has been planning for the 2008 general election for 

several years. As a matter of fact, we are already making plans toward the governor’s race in 2009, redistricting in 2011, and the 

2012 presidential election. 

Part of the difficulty for preparing for an election such as this is 

the increase in new voter registrations. Our office has processed 

nearly 69,000 registration applications since our February presidential primary. We have registered nearly 41,000 new voters and 

updated or transferred into our county nearly 28,000 registrations. 

The office has also transferred over 19,000 voters to other jurisdictions in the state and removed 2,500 deceased voters from the 

rolls. By the time of the October 6th registration deadline, our office will have handled nearly 20 percent of all of our registration 

cards in the period between the primary and general election. 

Some of this registration activity is taking place by college students. There has been much debate in Virginia as to a student’s 

resident status when they are at a university. It is the opinion of 

this office that if the student chooses to list their school residence 

as their primary residence, they may do so. They are attesting to 

this under penalty of perjury, so we take the application at its face. 

If we have reason to believe that someone does not live at the 

address in which they are registered, we will make an inquiry. 

188 

This election will not only see record registration, but record 

turnout for our county. In the 2004 general election, Fairfax County saw 467,000 out of 633,000 registered voters participate in the 

process—a 73 percent turnout. This November, we are expecting 

nearly 80 percent of our expected 665,000 registered voters to cast 

a ballot. 

Increases in registration and participation strain the resources of 

our system. We are expecting long lines at the polls this November. 

Fairfax County averages 3,000 voters in a precinct. We are telling 

folks now to expect the lines. They will exist. We are also taking 

steps to process voters in an expedited fashion. 

Virginia passed a ban against acquiring direct-recording electronics, also known as DRE equipment, in 2007. Knowing that our 

county had an inadequate number of voting machines and weren’t 

able to acquire more, the decision was made to add optical scan 

ballots to the polls this November. 

Fairfax County purchased optical scan equipment in July. Our 

county has ordered enough paper ballots to serve over 103 percent 

of our voter population this November. Voters will be given a paper 

ballot, but may vote on DRE equipment if they so choose. We believe that we will be able to process voters faster with the optical 

scan equipment, thus reducing wait times. 

This process does not come without significant planning and expense. Solving the pressure of lines is not as easy as adding optical 

scan machines for jurisdictions. Everything that is crucial to operate an optical scan system needed to be purchased. Our county did 

not have privacy booths to fill out the ballots, so we purchased as 

many as we could, and then we purchased clipboards to mark ballots on if voters do not want to wait for a privacy booth. 

We had to purchase secrecy sleeves to hold the ballot before insertion in the machine, ballot boxes to hold the expected number 

of ballots, ink pens to mark the ballots, security seals to secure machines, boxes and locate a storage facility large enough to store the 

used and unused ballots for the required 22 months. We have backup equipment and batteries in case of machine failure. 

Should a polling place become unavailable due to emergency during the day, we have equipment standing by to open up a secondary location within 1 hour. This implementation increased my 

budget approximately 25 percent this year. 

Another policy the county has instituted to complement the optical scan system is the division of poll books. Normally, precincts 

would have one to three poll books to serve voters, with splits dependent on the precinct’s size. This November our precincts will 

have two to five poll book splits. More splits allow us to divide the 

incoming groups of voters and process them faster. This, coupled 

with the paper ballot, should help ease the pressure of turnout. 

Dividing the poll books also requires poll workers to man the tables. In 2004 we utilized 2,516 poll workers. This election, we are 

expecting to use almost 3,100—a 20 percent increase. Recruiting 

and training these volunteers takes time and money. We are expecting to hold over 70 training classes in 30 days. We have to 

train our folks on how to use the new equipment, reinforce training 

on the older equipment, and help them manage the turnout. Our 

poll workers must learn how to be technicians, legal experts and 

189 

customer service specialists—all from a 3-hour class that some people may take 35 days before the election. 

Fairfax County is also encouraging the use of absentee voting 

this election. Although Virginia has one of the most restrictive absentee ballot requirements in the country, we expect a record 

amount of absentee ballots. In 2004, almost 54,000 people voted absentee. As of this Saturday, we had over 17,000 absentee ballot applications, and nearly 250 people voted on the first day of in-person 

absentee voting this Friday. We are utilizing email ballots so that 

our overseas civilian and military voters receive their ballots faster. 

Adding to the complexity of the election is the electorate of Fairfax County. There are numerous languages spoken here among our 

citizens. Although we do not meet the threshold under the Voting 

Rights Act requiring the availability of a minority language ballot, 

we are offering several services to our voters. We have native 

Spanish and Korean speakers on staff, as well as staff trained in 

American Sign Language. At the polls we offer a telephone translation service with over 100 available languages. Each polling location will have a video demonstration of our new voting equipment 

and in precincts with a high concentration of Hispanic, Korean or 

Vietnamese voters, the video will be offered in both languages. 

All of this comes at an added expense to our office. Staff are now 

working 7 days a week processing registrations and absentee applications. Seventy-hour work weeks are not uncommon. As we get 

closer to November, these days get longer. Voters call to inquire 

about polling locations, registration issues, ballot problems and 

general information. Voters will even call our office to find out 

where to pick up a sign for a candidate. Second shifts are added 

just to process paperwork that accumulates during the day. Our 

staff now consists of our normal contingent of 25 full-time employees and 56 temporary-seasonal staff, with more arriving next week. 

The long hours are necessary because we do not have the luxury 

of flexible deadlines. No matter the level of work, it all must be 

completed in time for November 4. Election officials are expected 

to be 100 percent accurate in their work, and mistakes have the 

potential to disenfranchise a voter. We take that responsibility very 

seriously. Not only that, but it seems that everyone now has teams 

of lawyers waiting to pounce if the smallest mistake is made. This 

only adds to the level of stress. 

I do want to take this time to thank and commend my staff. The 

workload grows and grows, yet staffing levels remain stagnant. 

Laws become more complex and require more service, yet local 

budgets feel revenue constraints. We do not have everything that 

I would like to run an election, but we will be successful. Staff 

know that time spent at home will suffer. We joke that our families 

should place our pictures on milk cartons. But they still have 

smiles on their faces. They truly love to serve the voters, and although we are incredibly busy, we are excited to see all of the participation. 

All of this effort occurs so that the voter has as little difficulty 

participating as possible. It is difficult to ask the entire Nation to 

do the same thing on the same day. It takes months of planning 

that 1 day so the voter has the ability to arrive at their polling loVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:46 Jan 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00197 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\092408\44612.000 HJUD1 PsN: 44612
190 

cation and participate in our most basic and most important part 

of a democracy. 

Thank you for the invitation to speak today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Suleman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROKEY W. SULEMAN


RWS-1.eps
191 


RWS-2.eps
192 


RWS-3.eps
193 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

The executive director of the Elections Center is Mr. Doug Lewis. 

It is a non-profit organization of election officials that trains, informs and advocates for the election administration community. 

We would love to hear what you make of all of this today, Mr. 

Lewis. Welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF DOUG LEWIS, DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELECTION OFFICIALS 

Mr. LEWIS. Congressman, thank you. 

My name is Doug Lewis. Obviously, I am not going to get 

through eight pages of testimony in 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. How about you turn on your microphone? 

Mr. LEWIS [continuing]. Try to read all of it. 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. Turn on your microphone. 

Mr. LEWIS. I will point to some parts of it so that hopefully you 

all will be able to see the kind of preparation that is going on in 

America for elections. There isn’t an election official anywhere in 

America that wants voters to have a bad experience. There isn’t an 

election official anywhere in America that wants voters to wait in 

long lines. 

And yet the fact of the matter is, we are going to be hit with a 

tsunami this time. We are going to have waves of voters that we 

have not been able to see in our working lifetime. 

I guess mine is not on or I am not speaking right into it. Okay. 

I come from Texas. We just had a big hurricane blow through 

there. This is one election year where we don’t like Ike. And when 

you look at what happened to Galveston, who did all kinds of preparations for a big hurricane, expecting 12-foot waves and they got, 

you know, 15 to 25-foot waves—they were overwhelmed. We may 

very well be overwhelmed in this election. We are going to try to 

do the best we can. 

We didn’t start planning for this election in 2008; we started in 

2001, and 2002, and 2004, 2006—with all of the things that we saw 

happened in each one of those. We have been working on what is— 

strange as it may seem—is planning for failure. Where are the failure points that can happen in an election? How do we make this 

a good experience? How do we make this work for voters? 

Well, when you look at that—this is a pretty complex system, 

folks. You know, we are going to have, according to—I just looked 

up what the Census Bureau says are voting-population—that is 

227 million people of voting-age population. In 2004, we had 178 

million of those as registered voters. We are expecting a huge increase over that for this time. 

In 2004, there were 122 million voters. We were swamped in 

2004. We are going to have more voters this time, we think, by a 

significant number. And so we are looking at that. 

You have got roughly 7,500 election jurisdictions in America scattered over counties and townships, depending on how they run 

elections, in America. There are roughly 800,000 voting devices. 

There is somewhat less than 200,000 polling places, 1.4 million poll 

workers, and roughly 19,000 people who at least derive part of 

their income from running elections for their jurisdiction. 

194 

When you look at that, the numbers are just staggering in terms 

of what we can do. If you look at the average number of voters having to be handled by the full-time employees like Rokey and even 

Secretary Corte ́s, you are looking at maybe a ratio of one employee 

to every 6,200 voters. There is no business that operates like that 

in America. There is no enterprise that operates like that in America. 

On Election Day, we are going to put the equivalent of several 

divisions of several armies in the field with two to three hours of 

training who are supposed to make things come off flawlessly. It 

can’t happen. It will sometimes not be perfect. But perfect is not 

what we are after here. What we are after is an honest, fair, and 

accurate election. 

And we need to remember that—that when all is said and done, 

the important part is, is the result an accurate reflection of the 

public will? And we think that is where if folks will focus on what 

the end objective is and not on the hiccups that may occur, then 

we will end up with a good election in America. 

You know, I have to tell you, I am concerned about this. When 

you look at the fact that we have, because the economy is doing a 

dipsy-doodle—we have county commissions and we have local budget authorities all over America who are cutting budgets in elections 

offices when we are expecting the largest election in our lifetime. 

So elections officials are having to do more with less. And as I 

think Rokey pointed out, my goodness—his jurisdiction alone has 

grown enormously over the last 20 years, and yet I am going to 

guess that his staffing level is probably the same or less than it 

was 20 years ago. 

This is what we are faced with when you look at this election. 

We want it to be a good experience. We want it to be a good election. But I am going to say to all of you, we are also at the point 

where we have had so many allegations made about the process, 

that I am not sure we are not doing permanent damage to the process. We have to get to the point where we understand the process 

is more important than partisanship. And we have to remember 

that. Because we lose partisanship if we lose the process. 

I would say to you that we are very concerned that we do this 

election, that we do it well, that we do it well for voters, that we 

make it a good experience for the voters, that voters are happy— 

and we have some suggestions for that. 

In terms of what we think can happen this time, we certainly 

would encourage voters to be at the point of where they check their 

official registration. Make sure you are on the voter rolls. Make 

sure you have done what you need to do. Make sure you know 

where your polling place is. The truth of the matter is, is on Election Day, we are not going to be able to answer all those calls that 

come in that want to know where their polling place is. Voters need 

to know beforehand where their polling place is, and this will help 

this be a good, and smooth, and wonderful election. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lewis follows:] 

195 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUG LEWIS


DL-1.eps
196 


DL-2.eps
197 


DL-3.eps
198 


DL-4.eps
199 


DL-5.eps
200 


DL-6.eps
201 


DL-7.eps
202 


DL-8.eps
203 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you for your sobering comments, Mr. Lewis. 

Let’s begin our discussion with Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I have just a few questions. First, Mr. Farrell, I was pleased 

to hear of the efforts that Secretary Brunner has made to prepare 

for this huge election in Ohio, and also let her know how much I 

appreciated her support of the backup paper ballot bill that failed, 

really, on the House floor. Which I thought was a shame. 

But certainly jurisdictions have the legal ability to spend HAVA 

money to get additional paper ballots in case of an emergency. And 

the emergency could be anything from machine failure to you got 

a huge line—that is really disenfranchise people. 

Are you—and I will ask the same of Pennsylvania and Fairfax 

County—are your jurisdictions prepared with the backup paper 

ballot if you are overwhelmed just with the sheer numbers of people showing up, do you think? 

Mr. FARRELL. Yes, we believe we are. We have issued instructions for polling place layouts which hopefully will guide boards on 

how to lay out the polling place so that there is clearly two options 

for voters. So that in a scenario where it just happens to be a huge 

turnout and folks normally would just have the choice of one line 

for a touch-screen voting machine, they now clearly have the option 

of voting a paper ballot. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Unless if they want to wait in line, they can do 

that, but the choice is theirs. 

Mr. FARRELL. Exactly. 

In addition to that, I had mentioned poll worker training materials, which incorporates this. Most elections are only as good as 

the people on the front lines. So we have invested a lot of time and 

technology in preparing them for this particular type of layout in 

polling places. 

And we have given, to local county boards of election, some flexibility on how they lay that out. As I mentioned on the primary, just 

through fate we had power outages, flooding, ice storms, and some 

counties in the primary found that paper ballots did save the day 

in extreme circumstances. 

Well, heading into 80 percent turnout for this fall, it could be 

that even without a power outage, these could be an extreme circumstance when it comes to long lines. 

Ms. LOFGREN. What about Pennsylvania? 

Mr. CORTE ́S. Madame Chair, I am glad to report that Pennsylvania has taken similar steps to prepare our voters. 

We find that there are two necessary components to a good election experience. First, you have to have a well informed and prepared voter. As Mr. Lewis noted, you have to confirm that you are 

registered. Where is your polling place, how do I get there? If I am 

a first-time voter, is there an ID requirement? Know the rights of 

provisional ballots and such. 

The second component is to make sure that the poll workers are 

properly prepared. We find that in Pennsylvania many times our 

issues related to long lines are not related to deficiencies with the 

equipment. They may have to do with an inefficient way of registering voters or checking them in at the polls. We are encouraging, and we are glad to say that most of our counties are going 

204 

to be, splitting their poll books to have a line for, let’s say, voters 

with the last name A through L, and then another one M through 

Z. 

Pennsylvania law, however, does provide that in order for a jurisdiction, a polling place, with direct reporting electronic machines to 

be able to hand out an emergency paper backup ballots, you have 

to have—all systems that are present in that jurisdiction to be 

down or inoperable. Which means that the fact that you have a 

long line does not give us the legal authority to just simply hand 

out ballots. 

But again, measures are being taken in terms of preparation, in 

terms of proper training, to minimize the chances that we will have 

long lines. We are also trying to manage the expectations on the 

part of the voters, reminding voters that you are usually more likely to find long lines when we open the polling place at 7 a.m., from 

7 say until 9, and then when we are closing the polls, between 5 

and 8. 

And to the extent voters are able to modify their calendars, we 

encourage them to do so. 

Ms. LOFGREN. All right. 

And Fairfax County, I think we are going to have just an enormous turnout in Fairfax County, from what I am—you are on the 

field, but—is 103 percent going to be enough? 

Mr. SULEMAN. Yes, we do believe that 103 percent of the paper 

ballots will certainly be enough. We figured that 103 percent on a 

number that was 4 percent larger than the actual number of registered voters that we have. 

Ms. LOFGREN. What about distribution? Because in the primary 

in some states—for example, my county in California—we had such 

a huge turnout in the northern part of the county that I live in that 

they ran out of ballots. And they had to get ballots in other places, 

it was chaotic. 

The county did their very best, but in retrospect, talking to the 

county officials, they wished that they had spent a little bit—I 

mean, I was in local government for 14 years. It is hard financially, 

but it would have been cheaper for them to actually proactively 

provide more ballots than what they ended up spending on Election 

Day, because they were just caught short. 

And so moving around within the county, you know, I think 

there is a level of excitement in your county about this election 

that is really stunning. 

Mr. SULEMAN. There certainly is. And again, we based our 103 

percent on a number that was higher than the actual number of 

registered voters that we have. I recommend that every jurisdiction 

purchase over 100 percent of ballots, paper ballots, for their—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. For that—— 

Mr. SULEMAN [continuing]. For that reason. 

Local governments were under serious budget constraints. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I know that. 

Mr. SULEMAN. And it is odd to—when you are deciding how to 

purchase paper ballots—well, if you only have 70 percent turnout, 

why did you buy 100 percent? You wasted that money. If you only 

had 60 percent turnout, why did you buy 100 percent? 

Ms. LOFGREN. I understand. 

205 

Mr. SULEMAN. You wasted that money. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Been there, done that. But—you can use HAVA 

money for this. 

Mr. SULEMAN. Yes, yes. And, we know, we are going to look into 

that. But with the local government, we just figure that, it is my 

opinion that this is one point where you can blame waste on the 

taxpayer. Because we have to prepare for every voter to show up. 

And if a voter would call us and say, I am not going to vote on 

Tuesday, don’t buy my ballot, we would be happy to do that. But 

we have to assume that they are going to show up. 

So we have enough ballots if somebody makes a mistake on their 

ballot, they can get a second ballot. And we believe we are going 

to be well prepared for this record turnout. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Could I just ask one final question. We are going 

to have a hearing on this tomorrow in the House Administration 

Committee, but we have all read about problems with voter registration—I think it was Virginia Tech—but I mean, students are 

reading this, and if you come from a state where you can’t do, by 

right, absentee voting, the only way you are going to be able to vote 

on Election Day is if you register where you are at college. 

What proactive steps are being taken by the registrars in Virginia to correct the misinformation that students whose residence 

is at their college are going to lose their student loans if they register and vote? 

Mr. SULEMAN. I believe the State Board of Elections has put out 

some press releases to all the universities stating that you are allowed to register from your dorm. If that is your residence, that is 

your domicile in the state of Virginia, then you are allowed to register from that point. 

There was some misinformation being bandied about across the 

state by some registrars, who I believe were just being well-meaning and trying to be—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am not suggesting there was a—— 

Mr. SULEMAN. No. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. There was a wrong intention, but—— 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. Wrong information—— 

Mr. SULEMAN. There was misinformation. I believe they were 

just trying to be good moms and dads when they are looking out 

for the students. And I believe the State Board has taken the lead 

on that and notified all the colleges so as to rectify that problem. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. I see we have been joined by Vern Ehlers from 

Grand Rapids, MI, the Ranking Member on the House Administration Committee. 

Welcome, sir. 

I turn now to Trent Franks. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I know that in election seasons, sometimes there 

are partisan considerations and comments on both sides, and I certainly don’t deny that I am a partisan Republican. But I always 

want to make sure that everything I say is absolutely accurate. 

And just to respond to one of the questions earlier related to 

ACORN, I just wanted to briefly say that in 2008 alone, ACORN’s 

206 

activities have prompted calls for investigation in Louisiana, Connecticut, New Mexico, Texas, Nevada and North Carolina. 

Now, in my opening testimony, I cited public newspaper reports 

recounting specific ACORN-related criminal activity in Washington, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. 

Now, those reports concern the last few years alone. The number 

of 12 states is cited in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, specifically 

adding Colorado to that list. And other examples are cited in John 

Fund’s article in the Wall Street Journal and his new book—it is 

called ‘‘Stealing Elections,’’ and it certainly will be discussed in the 

second panel. 

As I say in my opening statement, I simply focused on the public 

reports in the last—in six states as they occurred in the last few 

years. But I would be very happy to see a hearing exploring 

ACORN activities over the last 10 or 20 years across the Nation. 

And if that hearing suggests that I have overstated anything, I 

would be more than happy to apologize publicly to the Committee 

and to Ms. Lofgren. But I am afraid that it would only show that 

I understated the situation, far more than overstated it. 

So with that said, my question is first I guess to Mr. Lewis, and 

I will give the others an opportunity. 

In Seattle, both the prosecutors indicted seven workers for 

ACORN that in the last year had registered more than 540,000 low 

income and minority voters nationwide and employed more than 

4,000 get-out-the-vote workers. The ACORN defendants stand accused of submitting phony forms in what Secretary of State Sam 

Reed says is, ‘‘the worst case of voter registration fraud in the history of the state. 

Given that the state doesn’t require the showing of any identification before voting, it is entirely possible people could have illegally voted using those names. Local officials invalidated 1,762 

ACORN registrations. Felony charges were filed against seven of 

its workers, some who already have criminal records. And prosecutors say ACORN’s oversight of its workers was virtually non-existent. To avoid prosecution, ACORN agrees to pay $25,000 of restitution. 

Mr. Lewis, I think that you have at least expressed a tone of 

wanting to make sure that our elections are honest, and I believe 

that. Do these reports concern you at all, however? 

Mr. LEWIS. I don’t know specifics about the one that you are talking about. And certainly I know that Sam Reed is one of those who 

is not prone to overstatement. 

But let me say to you—we are concerned from an administrative 

standpoint about third-party registrations altogether. We like 

them. We want them. They do a good job in many cases of bringing 

people into the process, and that is always healthy for democracy. 

But this unfettered, unbounded, unregulated use of third-party 

registrations, the point of where they sit on those registrations 

right until the end and try to turn them all in at the very last 

minute—it just screws up the system. It disenfranchises voters. It 

is one of those things that just is frustrating to us as elections officials. 

That voter that was solicited by a third-party registration outfit 

may have signed up with them 6 weeks ago, 8 weeks ago, 12 weeks 

207 

ago, and yet that card hadn’t been turned in to the election official. 

When these kinds of occurrences go on, we hope that they will be 

turned in within 3 days. If they are turned in within 3 days of contacting the voter, then we have a chance to get them on the roll. 

And if there is more information that is needed, to be able to get 

that information back in time so they vote a legitimate ballot, they 

vote a real ballot, not a provisional ballot. 

And so those are our real concerns—— 

Mr. FRANKS. Let me follow up with one last question. Mr. Obama 

has sued on behalf of ACORN. ACORN later invited Mr. Obama to 

help train its staff. Mr. Obama would also sit on the board of the 

Woods Fund for Chicago, which gives funds to ACORN. And its 

registration efforts, of course, have been scandal-prone. 

In St. Louis, Missouri, officials found that in 2006 over 1,000 addresses listed on its registrations didn’t even exist. Later, Federal 

authorities indicted eight of the group’s local workers, and one, of 

course, has already pleaded guilty. That has got to concern you too, 

as well—correct? 

Mr. LEWIS. We are always concerned, as elections administrators, 

that elections not only have real integrity, but also have the appearance of integrity. Because for voters, when they begin to perceive that the process is too loose or that it doesn’t adequately protect the system altogether, then they lose faith in it, too. 

But the truth of the matter is, how do we, as elections officials— 

other than with our limited resources and the limited amount of 

time that is allowed to us—how do we find out about most of these? 

Well, we only find out about them, quite frankly, if they occur in 

the normal course of business and we have the resources to be able 

to do that. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. Now I would like to recognize Mr. Charles Gonzalez of Texas. 

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

Let me pose—well first of all, I think the most obvious observation from this side—it is refreshing to hear someone on the other 

side of the aisle calling for more oversight and regulation. May be 

too late and it may be the wrong subject, but regardless. 

I am going to ask the same question of the individuals that have 

testified, and that is, so that we walk away with here something 

that is relevant to the hearing today: what is the number one challenge that you identify as being the greatest to you in conducting 

a successful election, knowing the increased numbers on November 

4 and prior to? 

And what are you asking us to do to assist you? 

And I will start off with Secretary Corte ́s. 

Mr. CORTE ́S. Thank you, Congressman. 

The biggest challenge that the states are going to face is the 

large number of voters who are registering and will participate. In 

terms of the registration, as it was noted, it is processing those applications in a timely fashion. I know that in Pennsylvania, many 

of my colleagues have taken the steps necessary to communicate 

with any group that is doing third-party voter registration to enVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:46 Jan 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00215 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\092408\44612.000 HJUD1 PsN: 44612
208 

sure those applications are turned into the voter registration offices 

as quickly as possible. 

But the bottom line is preparation, preparation on the part of 

that voter. One of the main messages that I am taking out to all 

Pennsylvanians is: if you are registered, no matter which way you 

do so—third party, online, in person—you should be receiving within 2 weeks, 14 days of that registration, a confirmation from your 

county that says you are registered, and where you vote. Preparation on the part of the voter alleviates many of the issues that we 

face on Election Day. 

So I would like to take that message of preparation. How can you 

help us? Financial resources are always needed. It was noted here 

already, very eloquently, by the registrar from Virginia that we are 

in a situation where we don’t have enough financial resources. And 

to that you can add human resources, which oftentimes will require 

money to bring in. 

So you can help us with resources. You can also help us by understanding, as Mr. Lewis noted, that it is a complex process, and 

that we have gone through a number of reforms since 2000, which 

I support and are very needed. Give us time to work through those 

reforms before we enact even more on top of those, because that 

creates frustration on the part of election administrators. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Farrell? 

Mr. FARRELL. Well, this won’t be the first time you have heard 

this, but our number one challenge is funding. And it specifically 

relates to the machines themselves. The new machines do wear out 

more quickly than the old-style levers did. In Ohio we conducted 

a study and found there were some serious deficiencies in the voting machines. But with no funding, there was no way to replace 

those, which is why we implemented a plethora of security practices and procedures and chain of custody and other items to try 

and offset that. 

But even that required local boards to, unfortunately, spend 

more of their funds to make sure these machines—that they had 

enough, that they also were operating properly. 

And the other challenge is training. And as you heard, on the 

front lines are these poll workers with the ID requirements and 

trying to make sure that everything is followed properly. And 

training costs money, as well. So funding would be Ohio’s number 

one priority. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Suleman? 

Mr. SULEMAN. To sound like a broken record, it is funding. I 

have got a litany of issues that I could correct in my office with 

a much better funding mechanism. We were very proactive with 

our voters this year and sent each voter a new voter registration 

card to let them know their polling location and to give them an 

updated voter ID to bring to the polls so that would ease along the 

process. And that alone cost $300,000 that we haven’t been able to 

replace in our budget. 

I could have better poll worker training. In Ohio, I had one of 

the first counties that went online poll worker training. And I don’t 

have the resources to do that in Virginia. I am not an educator, but 

I am charged with training my poll workers. I don’t know how well 

209 

they are learning. If I had the software package, I could track their 

learning, see where their problems are, and change my policies and 

procedures. 

Funding to purchase more privacy booths to allow more voters to 

vote paper ballots will move the lines along. Funding solves the 

majority of our problems. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And Mr. Lewis? 

Mr. LEWIS. At the risk of earning the enmity of my colleagues 

here, funding is only a part of this. We are at the point where practices and procedures and training issues are indeed key to this 

process. But we keep changing the process, faster than we can 

adapt to it. 

And we have had, since the Help America Vote Act, states and 

locales and administrative decisions, legislative decisions by state 

legislatures, that we keep changing and changing and changing. 

You are not going to have good elections as long as we continue to 

force the pace of change at such a rapid pace that we can never 

get to the point that it is stable. 

And so it seems to me that we have to start taking an attitude 

that we want a certain kind of end result in the process, without 

trying to Band-Aid each of the pieces. We need to look at, how do 

we do this as an overall process to make sure it truly works for voters? 

That is indeed probably going to cost more money in some respects. But our concern right now is that if we don’t stop the pace 

of change, if we don’t stop this constant assumption that we can 

manipulate each and every part—of all of the processes, we are 

going to be in for real trouble. Because this system is close enough 

now to where we have overwhelmed it. We are at a point now 

where in my testimony I pointed—we have had about half the people in this business retire, because they have gone through all of 

this accelerated pace of change. 

We need time. We need time and stability and then, obviously, 

the answer is we also need money. But local jurisdictions—you 

know, I don’t know what the right answer is here. But if you are 

a county commissioner and you have got too many competing goods 

for available dollars, what do you do? 

And yet at the same time, we are on the receiving end of that 

as elections administrators. We have got more and more voters 

coming in every election cycle, and yet we are asked to do with less 

and less. And this is a recipe for disaster long-term. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much. 

And each of you, thank you for your service. 

Yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Mr. Kevin McCarthy, Ranking on the Elections Subcommittee? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank all of you for your service and work you are doing. You 

have to do a lot of preparation, and I don’t know if it is coincidence 

or on-purpose, but we have Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia—you are 

all battleground states. So you have got a lot of work before you. 

I have a few questions. Mr. Corte ́s, if I could start with you. You 

are not only secretary of state of Pennsylvania, you are also presiVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:46 Jan 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00217 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\092408\44612.000 HJUD1 PsN: 44612
210 

dent of the National Association of Secretary of States, is that correct? 

And you have 39 states in your association, is that—— 

Mr. CORTE ́S. We have—all jurisdictions are within our membership. Secretaries of state not only oversee elections, but we do corporate filings, we do professional licensures, records management— 

so our association comprises all 50 states, the District of Columbia, 

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Guam. So everybody is covered. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. So you wear a big hat. You have got to not only 

look at your state, but everybody else’s. I will tell you, in my home 

state, I have found that every election, things have kind of 

changed. That people want to have a greater ability to vote, make 

it easier to vote. One of our colleagues from California, Mrs. Davis 

and I, had worked on absentee balloting, which has continued to 

grow in California. You will find in some districts, more than half 

the people vote before Election Day. 

Now, part of that work and what we have done in working on 

legislation, it is also the greatest ability to have fraud. Because you 

are outside and moving through, and then we have heard from our 

colleagues before here as well, the fraud in voter registration. You 

have got to be able to prepare, and that takes time, just like preparing for an election. If someone sends in the application, you 

have got to do the due diligence to make sure that person’s lived 

there, not 7 years old, as we showed that someone before. 

What type of work do you do in Pennsylvania for preparation if 

someone turns in an application or first does a voter registration? 

Do you check that before someone gets an application by mail to 

vote? Or can they get it on the same day? 

Mr. CORTE ́S. In Pennsylvania you must register to vote 30 days 

prior to Election Day, so there is a requirement of registration. Forgive me, but I am going to ask you to rephrase the question. I am 

trying to follow it—— 

Mr. MCCARTHY. If I walk in and I register to vote. So I register 

to vote with you—could I get an application to vote by mail on that 

same day? Or do you do any checks and balances to make sure 

what I say on my voter registration, that I am a citizen, where I 

say my age—is there any checks and balances on there that—— 

Mr. CORTE ́S. There are, Congressman. Yes, you can submit a request for both, but the voter registration process is handled first. 

In other words, you don’t have to put in an application and come 

back a week later for an absentee ballot—you can submit them 

both at the same time. However, the process whereby we verify 

that there is no duplicate in the registration, that we can verify 

that you are the person you say you are, is a check that is done 

first. 

And we have the statewide voter registration database that we 

are mandated to have by HAVA to thank for the ability to have 

greater transparency and duplicate checks, the checks and balances 

that I believe you are alluding to. So a jurisdiction will receive an 

application, will go through their due diligence, check everything, 

including verification and check up with either Pennsylvania driver’s license number, comparing the information on that application 

211 

to our Department of Motor Vehicles registration records, or the 

last four digits of a person with the Social Security Administration. 

So those check-ups and verification that the person is not registered elsewhere happen first. Once that is verified, then the application for absentee ballot can be processed. In Pennsylvania we 

have, however, what is known as excused absentee voting. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. He has to have a rationale—— 

Mr. CORTE ́S. Only 14 categories exist for which you can qualify 

for an absentee ballot. But the process is very transparent—— 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, if I can follow up—I appreciate the work 

that you have done there. Now, the concern I have, and one thing 

that we looked at voter fraud and others—but you bring the word 

‘‘transparency.’’ On Election Day, you allow people in from the outside to watch, right? Counting the votes and others? 

Mr. CORTE ́S. Yes. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, I am concerned about—I listened to Mr. 

Farrell, and he talked about, was it preparation, partnership, and 

one other—success. Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner of Ohio, 

her new advisory that prohibits observers during the 35-day period 

where a person votes in person—she doesn’t allow people to observe during that time. So if you are in Ohio, you can’t do what— 

you can do something that you can’t do in Pennsylvania. I could 

walk in, I could register to vote, and I could vote in person the 

exact same day and no transparency where someone could actually 

view it from the outside, because of this new advisory. 

And I am just asking, in all the hats that you wear, what was 

your opinion on having that activity? 

Mr. CORTE ́S. Well, I guess my answer to that, Congressman, will 

be the one that applies to the sometimes-heard suggestion that one 

size fits all for our country. We recognize that we have a rich history of diversity within our Nation. I am not in a position, nor will 

I comment, on the decisions of my colleagues in Ohio or other state, 

for that matter. I believe the decisions made by that state chief 

election official, I would like to think, is being done with due diligence and with the application of the law. 

Many times what creates a difference in the way we approach 

and we handle elections are constraints that are in law—either 

Federal, most of the time state—that the chief election officials 

have to abide by. People have to frequently defend even the Help 

America Vote Act and the merits of that act, and we are the implementers, not the body that created the law. 

But I will say that the processes that I have observed have within them inherent checks and balances that take into account those 

potentialities. What I will say in terms of voter fraud—most of our 

states, by the way, have established 1-800 toll-free hotlines that 

people can call in to report fraud. When we have instances of fraud, 

we go to those issues and attack them vigorously. In fact, the 

states of Alabama and West Virginia have created election voter 

fraud task forces to address that. 

So I will say, respectfully, that I believe that the states are operating within their legal constraints and acting in the way that they 

believe is best fit for their electorate. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I appreciate the time you have given me. And 

one thing I will say is, we have contested elections here. And we 

212 

sit on the panel—there was just three of us that did it. Once someone casts that ballot, and that ballot is then uncounted, you have 

a hard time going back through finding out which one it is. 

I appreciate the due diligence that you do and the transparency 

that you do. And I do believe maybe one size doesn’t fit all. But 

I also believe that having a checks and balance across the Nation 

makes a much safer election and a more honest election and a 

greater partnership—as well. 

I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thanks, Mr. McCarthy. 

The Chair is pleased to recognize Mrs. Susan Davis of California 

on the Elections Subcommittee 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you all for being here. 

I am going to follow up on a topic of importance to me, which 

is absentee voting. And I appreciate the fact that my colleague has 

started some of that discussion. One of the reasons that I think it 

is so important is that so many people in this country are voting 

absentee today. And in fact, there are areas where it is projected 

that about a third of the country might vote by mail in this election. 

So we need to certainly be very aware of what is happening. And 

as we know, states vary tremendously in the way they approach 

this issue. 

And I wanted to ask you, Mr. Suleman: Virginia’s laws on absentee voting are quite intriguing, really. And there are many excuses 

that happen to be valid, but it looks like the forms are fairly complex for folks, and certainly there is some invasion of privacy, as 

well. 

I have got that form here. If you are sick or you have a disability, 

you have to specify the nature of your illness. If you work, you 

need to indicate your hours and the name and address of your employer. If you have a religious obligation, you need to describe it. 

If you are taking care of an ailing relative, you need to name that 

person and describe their illness. If you are on vacation, you need 

to say where you are going. And you also need to tell the state if 

you are pregnant. 

Now, could you tell me why all that is necessary? What do you 

do with that information? How much time does it take to verify 

that? Does it cost more to check these excuses than it would to go 

to no excuses voting like California or Ohio? Why is all this necessary? 

Mr. SULEMAN. I think that is a question for the Virginia legislature. Quite honestly, I don’t believe that it is necessary. My personal opinion is that it is not necessary. I have come to Virginia 

from a state that instituted no-fault absentee voting—Ohio—and I 

believe no-fault absentee voting works. 

The forms are very restrictive. I am denying forms every day for 

voters that are not filling out the forms properly. I don’t like doing 

it, but I don’t have the option to not do that. I don’t have the ability—— 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. How much—what does it cost you? 

What about the personnel required? 

213 

Mr. SULEMAN. Oh—personnel. My MT department right now is 

the largest department that I have, which I probably have about 

25 people. And it is probably a quarter of my personnel budget at 

this time. I can’t give you an exact number of expense, but the cost 

of denying this form, sending the form back to a voter, saying that 

you missed this part of the form or this wasn’t checked properly 

or you didn’t list your employer on the form when you are working—sending that back to the voter and having it sent back in— 

the cost in time and postage and money is astronomical. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Hmmm. Thank you. 

Mr. Farrell, you went to no-excuse voting. And you had some 

forms that were pretty complex as well, but you have changed that. 

How has that affected your ability to do this part of your job? 

Mr. FARRELL. Well, it is interesting. Even with Ohio’s fairly recent no-fault absentee application process—meaning that you really 

don’t have to have a specific reason—there have still been some 

challenges. Because, under Ohio law, certain information must be 

provided. What is interesting is Ohio, for absentee ballot applications, does not actually require a form. A citizen—or a voter, I 

should say—can even hand-write the request as long as it has specific components. 

So boards of elections in Ohio face similar challenges, but are 

very used to someone who requests an absentee ballot maybe not 

having all the required information. They have a process or procedure where they notify the voter of what is missing and have them 

turn that in. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. So there is a lot of extra time involved in that. 

Mr. FARRELL. There is a lot of extra time. And unfortunately 

some criticism when boards try to adhere to that law and, you 

know, have to go through that effort. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. 

I just want to turn to Mr. Corte ́s quickly, because Pennsylvania’s 

form is not as invasive as it is in Virginia. But nevertheless, you 

have to state your illness and doctor’s excuses—what has that 

done, and how much time do you spend? And I think the other 

thing that is quite significant, Mr. Suleman, that you cited is that 

you are turning back a lot of those forms, not because people don’t 

have a valid excuse, but because they somehow read the form incorrectly. 

How has it affected your voting? 

Mr. CORTE ́S. In Pennsylvania, this has been the law for so many 

years that our administrators are well attuned to handling the applications. So I can say that we do so fairly expediently. The issue 

of the no-fault or the no-excuse absentee voting was covered in a 

commission that I chaired back in 2005. It was the unanimous recommendation of our body that we do without the excuse absentee 

voting. We don’t see it—as in the case of Ohio, we don’t necessarily 

see the value as much anymore. 

There is a nostalgia about voting in person, but we recognize 

that with the complexities of today’s life, people may want to vote 

by absentee ballot. In Pennsylvania, you must check off a reason. 

You don’t have to explain it in detail, just check it off. You are 

swearing that under oath, as an affidavit, and you would be subject 

214 

or could be subject to penalties if in fact somebody is found to misrepresent that decision. 

But we believe that for the proper administration of elections, 

there are enough checks and balances and other things that we can 

do, and we should relax those requirements. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. That you should relax them. 

Mr. CORTE ́S. Yes. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mrs. Davis. 

The Ranking Member of House Administration, Vern Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. I thank my colleague from Michigan, and thank you 

for holding this hearing. 

I will repeat the mantra which I have said numerous times in 

the House Administration Committee, what I hold dear in voting: 

Number one: Every legal voter should be assured of the right to 

vote and be assured that their vote will be counted accurately and 

correctly. That is number one. 

Number two: Every legal voter should be assured that their vote 

will not be diluted or negated by other individuals registering or 

voting illegally. 

And I think we have done very well in the past several years— 

in fact, quite a few years—about ensuring that legal voters are able 

to cast their votes legally and to be assured that it is counted legally. We know of the few instances throughout the Nation where 

this has not always happened. But by and large I think we do pretty well there. 

I think we are not doing as well on the other part, and that is, 

stopping the fraud of people who are voting illegally—in other 

words, negating or diluting the votes of people voting legally. 

And there are lots of ways that this can happen. And part of my 

cynicism comes from having served on contested case hearings in 

various parts of the country where we observed behavior that was 

certainly not appropriate. 

And some of it is not at all the fault of the voter. The one that 

disturbed me the most was an organization that was telling undocumented aliens that of course they had the right. And helping 

them become registered, and telling them how to vote. 

Now, first of all, this is not only illegal, but it is of huge danger 

to the undocumented aliens, because if discovered they are automatically deported. And I think that that is one of the most egregious examples. 

I am very bothered by the behavior of ACORN. Mr. Lewis, you 

gave the example of their dumping everything on you. That may 

not be particularly egregious, but it certainly makes your work 

more difficult. And the question is, why would it be done if you are 

not trying to confuse the process or overload your staff? 

There are other examples of ACORN; many of us have heard 

those. And why do these organizations exist, why are they trying 

to break the law? And I am delighted to have an organization that 

is trying to register more voters. That is what we need, that is 

what we should have. But why do they feel the necessity to resort 

to irresponsible behavior or perhaps illegal behavior? And I am just 

215 

wondering if any of you can enlighten me on that. And are there 

other organizations that you see attempting to do the same thing? 

Let’s go down the line. Mr. Corte ́s? 

Mr. CORTE ́S. I would say that all state and local election officials 

share the same views in terms of what you have expressed. Every 

legal vote should be counted; no legal vote should be diluted. And 

nobody that I know condones fraudulent activity in any of its manifestations. 

Based on personal experience and on what I read and my discussions with the Department of Justice and district attorneys and 

those that prosecute fraud, most groups that engage in third-party 

voter registration do so for all the right reasons. They are trying 

to franchise and make sure that every voice is heard. 

There is always a bad apple, so to speak, in every group. And I 

can tell you that for one, and all my colleagues with me, are always 

eager to learn of those instances. If information does surface that 

you have individuals who are acting unbecoming, we want to know 

about that. And we would work with the proper law enforcement 

authorities to see that the law is followed. 

But my opinion is that by and large, groups that engage in voter 

registration do so with all good intentions, and that sometimes part 

of the problem is inadequate training of those individuals who may 

not even be well suited to assist a potential registered voter to complete the forms. And that creates delays, inconveniences and burdens for the election administrators. 

So we share your views as far as that, and I cannot comment 

more thoroughly with regards to ACORN. Some of this information 

that is coming to me is news today. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. Well, what bothers me is they seem to be deliberately trying to subvert the process, and there is no need for it. 

If they want to register voters, register them properly and honorably. 

Mr. Farrell, any comments? 

Mr. FARRELL. Well, prior to working at the Secretary of State’s 

office, I was chairman of the Clark County board of elections in 

Springfield, Ohio. And interestingly enough, we had a fraud case. 

It was not with ACORN. It was with another group, out of Dayton, 

Ohio. And a couple of things about that were interesting, because 

we actually had a hearing and took testimony to try and work with 

the prosecutor’s office in Clark County on this subject. 

From what I recall, there was a group that wanted to register 

voters, and they subcontracted with an agency to do the hiring and 

the training of these folks that would go out and register what they 

believed were unregistered voters. Well, they paid these folks based 

on the number of registrations that would come in. 

Well, it didn’t take long before one or two employees quickly figured out, gee, we will make more money if we claim we signed up 

more people as voters. And that, in that particular instance, 

seemed to be what led to the fraud. If I recall, the prosecutor pursued it and the agency itself. There wasn’t any type of conviction 

for it, but obviously the individuals that did this, were punished. 

So it caused me to kind of think about who is really at fault here, 

where is the real blame, is it folks just trying to make a living that 

kind of overstepped, or is it the training, as my colleague here 

216 

mentioned? Or is it something that we need to do, you know, to 

work and outreach with groups so that we can prevent it. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Lewis, let me just jump to you. You said 

ACORN has come in and periodically, it seemed to be a habit, just 

dumped a bunch of registrations on you at the last minute. Why 

would they do that? 

Mr. LEWIS. Well, first let me say, I have seen it happen on both 

sides of the aisle in terms of dumping in on the last minute. The 

problem is that these groups I think all think that they are going 

to surprise the other campaign with how many people they have 

registered. 

And the truth of the matter is, if it is valid registrations that we 

are after as groups—and we welcome all the groups to do this— 

but they need to turn those in as they collect them, as they get 

them from folks. So that there is an orderly process here and so 

that we can indeed make sure that the voter has done everything 

the voter needs to do to be on the rolls. 

If they will do that, then we have legitimate voters that we are 

communicating with well in advance of an election. But by dumping all of them in that last 2 or 3 days before registration cutoff, 

they almost assure that we are going to end up disenfranchising 

some of those people. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Suleman, do you have anything you wish to add? 

Mr. SULEMAN. Yes, I do. We do see in the elections business registrations that are turned in improperly. Registrations can be 

termed fraudulent. But I think the system works. The system 

catches those registrations. They may be turned in, but those fake 

registrations are never put on the voter books. They are caught 

through our checks and balances that we have as local officials. We 

find them and then we say, okay, these are fraudulent. They don’t 

go on the rolls. Those people don’t show up to vote. 

So in that instance, the system does work. I have personally instigated six cases of elections fraud and gotten four convictions 

when I was in Ohio. And the fraud occurred at the petition level 

when, as Mr. Farrell said, organizations pay people to go out and 

get signatures for referendums or for initiatives or for campaigning. 

And they will pay $1 a signature or $2 a signature. They tend to 

pick up a phone book and fill out the forms. 

And they tend to be the unluckiest human beings in the world, 

because they pick dead people that we discover that are still in the 

phone book. 

So there is some fraud that exists, but I believe it exists more 

at the petition level than at the voter registration level. We catch 

the fraud at the voter registration level. And I think we are doing 

a pretty good job of preventing fraudulent voters. 

Mr. EHLERS. Well, I am from Michigan, and naturally we are 

very suspicious of fraud in Ohio, particularly in Big 10 football 

games. [Laughter.] 

And so we recognize you have more problems than most states. 

Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Ehlers. 

At this time the Chair is going to recognize the gentleman from 

North Carolina, Mr. Watt. 

217 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief, because we have been called for votes, and I am sure Mr. King would 

like to go, and I want to respect this panel and not hold him. 

Let me just, first of all, apologize to the members of this panel 

for not being here. We have been trying to deal with the financial 

crisis in which we have found ourselves. But I assure you that it 

was because of that crisis that I was not here. Because I think we 

could have an impending crisis around this election, and that 

would be equally devastating if the world or people in the United 

States walk away from this election believing that it has not been 

administered fairly, has not been—you know, the machines have 

broken down, the people have been standing in line forever. 

And, you know—so this is a serious, serious concern, especially 

given the level of interest in this. Especially given the level of new 

registrants. And when I walked in, somebody, I don’t even know 

which one of you it was—and I am sure it was innocent, I am certainly not discouraging using the language that you used—but I 

am always disappointed to hear that we need to lower the expectation of voters. 

This is a democracy that, at least until recent years, was the 

symbol of democracy around the world. And we should have the 

very highest expectations that we can conduct an election that appears to the world and appears to our citizens to be a fair election. 

And the last couple of elections, we have really had some serious 

problems. 

Actually, being from North Carolina and knowing the level of 

under-count that has historically taken place going back—not decisive of outcomes, potentially, but certainly indicative of real serious 

problems in our election system—we have got to raise our standards. And that is part of the reason that voters have high expectations, because this is America. 

So I hope that we can conduct an election this time. And one of 

the concerns I have is really the allocation of machines and the effectiveness of machines. Allocations—the prior secretary of state in 

Ohio, Mr. Blackwell, was here in our Committee, and you know, 

they apparently are using—according to him, he would like to use 

the same criteria in allocating machines that historically have been 

used in the past. And I don’t think that is going to work in this 

election. We know that turnout in various communities is going to 

be higher—much, much higher—than it has been. 

And for us to be using the same models that we have used and 

the allocation of machines based on historical voting patterns, in 

my opinion, would be irresponsible. And I can’t say to my voters, 

lower your expectations about being to get into the voting booth to 

cast your vote in some reasonable time. 

And I shouldn’t be asking my constituents to lower their expectations. I should be doing everything I can to live up to those expectations, because I believe that is what America and our democracy 

should be expected, and that is what we are expected to do around 

the world. 

So—believe me, I can’t even—when I walked in I heard ‘‘lower 

expectations,’’ and I don’t even know which one of you it was that 

said it. And forgive me if I sound like I am fussing at anybody. I 

am not. But we can’t lower our expectations in this area. This is 

218 

central to our democracy. It is central to the way that we perceive 

ourselves and that way we are perceived around the world. 

And I honor and respect everything that you do to live up to 

those expectations, but please don’t ask us to lower our expectations. Not the American people. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. I didn’t even ask a question, and forgive me—whichever one of you it was that said it, because I am sure it was said in the best of intentions. And my comments back are said with the best of intentions. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Mr. Watt. 

The Chair is going to recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 

Jordan, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thanks. I thank the Chairman. 

And I want to thank our witnesses for being here today, for the 

work you do back in your respective states to help our election 

process. 

I want to focus my comments to my fellow Buckeye from the 

county just south of the one I live in, Mr. Farrell. And I want to 

pick up where Congressman McCarthy was just a few minutes ago 

and talk about this overlap that is going to be there in Ohio law 

starting next Tuesday, where early voting can start and registration can still be done, you can do it on the same day. 

Ohio law, as it was pointed out in Mr. McCarthy’s questioning, 

Ohio’s law is like Pennsylvania’s law. You have got to be a citizen, 

you have got to be 18 years old, you have got to live in the state, 

you have got to vote in the precinct and county you reside in. And 

you have to be registered to vote for 30 days prior to voting. 

Next Tuesday, the absentee ballot voting can start in our state. 

And it is my understanding that earlier this month, on the 11th, 

the secretary of state issued a directive saying that in fact, you can 

do just what Mr. McCarthy described about and the potential problems that are associated with that, in my judgment, and frankly in 

his judgment. You can come in and—she is going to allow people 

to come in and register and the same day vote. 

Is that the case, Mr. Farrell? 

Mr. FARRELL. I believe she advised boards to follow past practice 

and yes, allow that to happen. 

Mr. JORDAN. And explain to me how that complies with Ohio 

law, which when I read it, says that the citizen of the United 

States is 18 years old and has been registered to vote for 30 days. 

How can we allow someone to come in and register and vote on the 

exact same day? How does that comply with being registered for 30 

days? 

Mr. FARRELL. Well, first let me point out I am not an attorney, 

so I will try and tell you what I have heard from some of the election attorneys in our office. I think what this hinges on is the term 

‘‘vote.’’ Is that when the ballot is turned in, or is it when the ballot 

is counted? Absentee ballots in Ohio are counted on election night. 

So one of the things that can happen in between the ballot actually being counted on election night and when that absentee was 

cast—regardless of whether it was during the 5-day window or 6 

days prior to the election—is for voter registrations, there is a procVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:46 Jan 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00226 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\092408\44612.000 HJUD1 PsN: 44612
219 

ess to check and safeguard and detect someone that maybe is not 

eligible to register. 

With an in-person absentee ballot, it goes into an envelope and 

can be pulled, if you will, by the board, or if someone wants to challenge it and say, we have reason to believe this voter registration 

wasn’t valid. 

Mr. JORDAN. What do you do when someone comes in like in this 

situation? What are you going to do to verify that they are in fact 

a resident? I mean, what are you going to do to check and make 

sure they are an eligible voter? 

Mr. FARRELL. Well, boards have a couple of things that they usually do to check. One is, as my colleague from Pennsylvania had 

mentioned, there is a statewide voter registration database—they 

can instantly look up to see if that person is registered somewhere 

else. 

The other thing is, they do have a window of time to process and 

mail a notice to this person. If that notice were to come back as 

undeliverable or there was some sort of flag regarding residency, 

again, because that ballot is in an envelope and set aside and not 

to be counted until election night, the board then could have a decision made on that voter registration which would disqualify that 

ballot from being counted on election night. 

Mr. JORDAN. So her whole—the directive is based on her understanding that, because there is going to be 30 days from the time 

that that individual votes, that is when the clock kind of runs 

through, because the vote actually counts on Election Day. That is 

your understanding? 

Mr. FARRELL. That is my understanding. 

Mr. JORDAN. What if—let me give you a scenario, then. What if 

I am a poll worker assigned to work at the Republican polling station on a primary Election Day, and knowing that I am going to 

be busy that day, I get an absentee ballot before the primary election. And I ask for a Democrat ballot, and I vote that and turn that 

in. Would that disqualify me from being a poll worker for the Republicans on that primary day? 

Mr. FARRELL. I would have to check on that. I don’t know the answer right off the time of my head, I apologize. 

Mr. JORDAN. My guess it would. You know, if I pull a Democrat 

ballot and I am assigned to work as a Republican poll worker, my 

guess it would disqualify me for that day. But according to your 

logic, it shouldn’t, because that vote won’t be counted until the end 

of Election Day later and I am not officially a ‘‘Democrat’’ until that 

is actually counted. That is my concern with the ruling the secretary of state’s put on her plate. 

It doesn’t make sense to me. It doesn’t square with the law. But 

more importantly, it is the issue that Representative McCarthy 

brought up: can we really do the due diligence, have the transparency that we need to make sure we are having fair elections? 

Mr. FARRELL. And now that you have mentioned that, I do believe under Ohio law, a person’s party affiliation is determined by 

the ballot they cast in the primary. And I believe that affiliation—— 

Mr. JORDAN [continuing]. I would say most, and I would say most 

Ohioans, most Americans, think you vote when you vote. Not 35 

220 

days later or whenever it is counted. When you vote is when you 

vote, and you should have been—according to Ohio law, an elector 

registered for 30 days prior to doing that. That is the problem with 

her ruling. 

And if it is my understanding, too, she did this in a directive on 

September 11th. Ohio law says that directives before Ohio don’t 

have to have public notice, public comment after—excuse me, September 11. After September 12, they do. So she issued this before 

there could be the public comment and notice and all the things 

that are required under Ohio law. Is that true? 

Mr. FARRELL. I would have to check the dates, sir. And I don’t 

know if this was an advisory, you are referring to, which 

doesn’t—— 

Mr. JORDAN. My understanding was its directive 2008-91 issued 

on September 11th regarding this very issue, this overlap in when 

absentee voting and registration can both take place. And because 

it occurred before September 12th, there is not the public notice 

and public comment period that is traditionally there with Ohio 

law. 

Mr. FARRELL. I will accept your word for it, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. All right. I thank the Chairman and yield back. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much. 

The Chair will recognize Mr. Ellison for 5 minutes of questioning. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for having 

this important hearing. 

I wonder, gentlemen, if you would offer any views on how government-issued photographic ID requirements might impact this upcoming election. I know in Indiana there is a requirement, in Arizona there is, there is a few other states that have them. Could you 

offer a viewpoint on how these impact this upcoming election, particularly in light of the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the Indiana law? 

Mr. CORTE ́S. Again, this is an issue of great debate throughout 

the Nation. I stand by the belief that every state adopts laws and 

procedures that are suited for their state. In Pennsylvania, we 

don’t have a photo ID requirement. We do want to make sure, 

though, that we can verify the identities of first-time voters. So we 

do have an ID requirement that includes not only photo identification, but also forms of non-photo identification, such as a recent 

bank statement, pay stub, utility bill that shows a person’s name 

and address. 

In other states, again, the issue has been debated at length, and 

the belief is that having the photo ID is a deterrent to fraud, and 

I respectfully just will comment that those states believe that that 

is in their best interest, and they believe that they have ways to 

mitigate the use of the requirement of the photo ID without 

disenfranchising voters. But again, I think that is a question that 

is best suited for those states that have that type of requirement. 

Pennsylvania is not one of them. 

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Lewis, you have a national purview on this. Do 

you have any views on this, particularly in some of the states that 

have these requirements? 

221 

Mr. LEWIS. Well, obviously, this has been one of those raging battles has gone on for 40 years in terms of elections. There are some 

who honestly feel that we should indeed have photo ID on everyone. And then there are those who say that by doing that, you really end up disenfranchising folks. 

And there is no easy resolution to this. I will say to you, the 

states that have it—and I think we are at 11 or 12 that are actually doing it—the ones that did it more recently than the ones that 

had it for a long time are our laboratory, and at this point so far, 

the allegations that it will slow down the process or cause administrative problems for the process seem not to have proved out. 

On the other hand, it still doesn’t solve that age-old argument of 

whether or not it may or may not be unfair to certain elements of 

society. I think as long as the government of the states that do it 

actually make sure that they take care of paying for it, if they are 

going to order it, if they pay for it so that everybody who needs one 

has got one—then it seems to work okay. 

Mr. ELLISON. My thought was that for the states that have those 

kinds of requirements—and again, I am on record as being very 

much those requirements—but for the states that have chosen to 

do that, I think it is important for them to do some public comment 

and notice so that people don’t arrive at the ballot box and not 

have the proper equipment, the ID. 

Mr. LEWIS. I agree with you. You know, you don’t want folks 

showing up not knowing that they needed X, Y, Z in order to be 

able to vote. And yet at the same time, I am going to tell you one 

of the hardest things that we ever find in elections—as my colleagues here will tell you—folks don’t show up ordinarily with their 

voter registration card. If they did, we would have a whole lot less 

likelihood of them being in the wrong place all the time. 

But the photo ID thing, at least so far—all I can tell you is just 

from what the experience has been so far—seems not to have been 

a major problem yet. That doesn’t mean it won’t be. 

Mr. ELLISON. Except for in Indiana, there was the story about 

the 98-year-old nun who was turned away from the ballot box. And 

some of her colleagues were, too, and some of other folks were. Now 

it is true this is the first time it was implemented, and maybe it 

won’t be as bad at the general election. 

But I think it is important for the record to be clear, there were 

people who were turned away in Indiana who would be otherwise 

eligible voters. 

Mr. LEWIS. What I think we are really confronted with is that 

first-time voters—inexperienced voters and first-time voters—and 

those are two distinct categories, because you have some that are 

occasional voters—because this is not a habit for them, they don’t 

know what to do in each instance. And particularly if they have 

changed residence of the state they were in. They are going to be 

the ones that we have the most difficult time explaining to folks, 

‘‘yes, but you needed this in order to do this.’’ And so that is always 

an issue for us. 

It is one of the reasons that, I think you heard Secretary Corte ́s 

saying, in Pennsylvania he is pushing very hard to make sure that 

every voter knows what is expected of them before they get to the 

polls. And that is one of those things that we wish we had tons of 

222 

money so that we could advertise. My God, it would give us some 

great relief just not to see a presidential ad once in a while so that 

you could see an ad about the voting. You know? 

Mr. ELLISON. What about—I mean, elections are public in nature. I mean, yes, I have often thought to myself that it might be 

a good public service announcement in some of these states to say, 

hey look, you know, this is what you need in order to vote. And 

again, you know, in Indiana and other states that have these requirements, my thought is, look: while I am against these requirements, I think they are unnecessary and we shouldn’t have them, 

they are there. I realize that—there needs to be some sort of concerted effort to let the public know. 

Particularly in an election like this, where you are going to have 

this enormous turnout, at least that is what folks are expecting, 

that we hadn’t had in the past. 

Mr. LEWIS. What ordinarily happens—and I can’t say this in 

every instance, because I haven’t looked, obviously, at all 7,500 jurisdictions—but what ordinarily happens is that the elections officials are indeed, they are trying to tell you publicly in public news 

announcements, or they are mailing notices with the voter registration card telling you where your polling place is, also what you 

need to have with you in order to vote. Sometimes that gets there, 

sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes people read it, sometimes they 

don’t remember getting it. You know, this is where we are. 

We try to notify. But the truth of the matter is, is we don’t have 

the funds on the administration side, the election administration 

side, to do what would really be most effective, which is radio and 

television advertising to tell folks what they need. 

Mr. ELLISON. Well, I will take that as something we need to start 

thinking about, Mr. Lewis. Thank you. 

My next question, and it will be my last one, is: you know, one 

of the things that also I think is somewhat disturbing is that in 

the last election, there were a number of jurisdictions in which before the election, people got flyers that were stating improper and 

actually inaccurate information that was, I think, designed to discourage them from voting. 

For example, in Milwaukee there was something, a flyer that had 

Milwaukee Black Voters League—you cannot vote unless you have, 

if you have any outstanding child support, if you have any unpaid 

parking tickets. And then of course, that was just Milwaukee. 

These flyers were found all over the country. And they were different and tailored to the jurisdiction. 

You know, if a voter gets something like this, maybe they are one 

of these inexperienced voters Mr. Lewis is talking about. Maybe 

they can be taken in by something like this. Is there any kind of— 

do your states and your jurisdictions have hotlines where people 

can call to get that quick voting information? And if you find out 

there is this sort of voter suppression kind of thing going on, what 

can you do about it? 

Mr. CORTE ́S. Congressman, I am happy to address that issue. 

NASS is releasing today our survey of all the states in terms of our 

preparedness, and that is one of the issues that we cover. And I 

am happy to report that 36 states have toll-free hotlines that they 

223 

utilize to report not only concerns that they may have, but to have 

questions answered, as well as to receive general voter information. 

There are also a number of groups, such as Common Cause and 

the League that have those hotlines available. And we encourage 

people to report and to contact the state election officials or county 

election officials for clarification. 

If I could, and in fairness to our colleagues in Indiana, Michigan, 

and Georgia that have the photo ID requirements, I just want the 

record to reflect that those states are making ID requirements central to their voter education and outreach so that it is taking place 

as we speak. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you. 

Mr. LEWIS. I think the real issue here is one of fairness, always. 

Fairness is what democracy is about. And any group or organization that seems to me to misdirect folks in terms of their rights as 

citizens of this country ought to be deplored everywhere. This is 

just not right. Voting has to be fair. And we cannot fear that folks 

who we don’t like or don’t agree with show up at the polls. If they 

are legitimate voters, they are entitled to be there, and we ought 

not to have anything that misdirects them. 

Mr. FARRELL. In Ohio, the secretary of state’s office is working 

closely with the attorney general’s office. If there are situations 

that occur such as you describe, we would definitely want to work 

with them, see what the options were in terms of possible prosecution. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Ellison. 

We are running under some time constraints, and we have seven 

witnesses on the next panel—but I know that Mr. Jordan has a request for an additional question. And I would just ask my colleague 

if it is going to be really brief? The reason is we have got to get 

to the next panel as Members come back. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the Chairman. The Chairman will maybe 

note that I was real close to my five limit and no one else was. But 

I will be real brief. 

Mr. Farrell, tell me the difference between the directive and advisory opinion. 

Mr. FARRELL. A directive, from what I understand, carries the 

weight of law and must be followed by boards of elections. An advisory is pretty much just advising them of ‘‘here is what the law is.’’ 

Mr. JORDAN. And I want to be clear. A directive prior to September 12th doesn’t require notice and public comment? A directive 

after September 12th does, under Ohio law? 

Mr. FARRELL. I am sorry, could you repeat that? 

Mr. JORDAN. A directive issued prior to September 12th doesn’t 

require public notice, or notice and public comment? A directive 

issued after September 12th of this year—you know, close to the 

election—does require notice and public comment, is that true? 

Mr. FARRELL. From my understanding, yes, that is correct. 

Mr. JORDAN. So the directive on this overlapping voting was 

issued prior to the requirement that we have notice and public 

comment. 

Mr. FARRELL. If there was indeed a directive issued prior to the 

12th, then yes, it would not require—— 

224 

Mr. JORDAN. Have there been any directives issued by the secretary of state after September 12th up until today? 

Mr. FARRELL. I am sorry, could you repeat that? 

Mr. JORDAN. Have there been any directives issued after September 12th through today, over the past 2 weeks? 

Mr. FARRELL. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. JORDAN. Have there been any advisory opinions issued in 

that same time frame? 

Mr. FARRELL. I believe there have been one or two. 

Mr. JORDAN. How come—do you know why the secretary of state 

would do an advisory opinion after September 12th and thereby— 

it seems to me a logical conclusion she is trying to avoid any 

chance for notice and public comment by issuing advisory opinions 

after that day. 

Mr. FARRELL. I am assuming the reason the advisories were 

issued was in response to additional questions for advice boards 

had requested from our office. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. [Presiding.] Thank you. 

I believe, unless there are any other Members who are present, 

I think there are not, that concludes our first panel. And I thank 

our witnesses for being here. And I excuse the first panel. 

And want to welcome our second panel of witnesses and ask 

them to come forward. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Let me thank our second panel of witnesses, and given the size of the panel, I will introduce each member of the panel separately and then ask them to make their 5- 

minute statement. But there are a number of you. 

Our first witness will be Grace Chung Becker. 

Ms. Becker, welcome. 

Ms. Becker is the acting assistant attorney general in the Civil 

Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Prior to her current 

position, she was the deputy assistant attorney general of the Civil 

Rights Division as a former prosecutor in the criminal division of 

the Justice Department. 

Are you prepared to proceed, Ms. Becker? 

You have to turn on your mic. If you are prepared to proceed, you 

have 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF GRACE CHUNG BECKER, ACTING ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Ms. BECKER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Good afternoon, Chairman Davis, and other Members of the Subcommittee and the Committee. I am honored to appear here today 

to discuss the civil rights division’s plans for the 2008 general election. 

This is an unprecedented election year. As we have heard from 

the first panel, voters are registering in record numbers and record 

turnout is expected at the polls. Although the first panel witnesses 

and the constituencies they represent have the primary responsibility on Election Day for administering elections, there is an imVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:46 Jan 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00232 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\092408\44612.000 HJUD1 PsN: 44612
225 

portant role for the Justice Department to play, and we are preparing to do our part. 

I am fortunate to have a tremendously talented and hardworking 

team of about 40 attorneys and 40 non-attorneys in the voting section. I have asked them to vigorously enforce all of the voting statutes in the division based solely upon the facts and the law. I have 

echoed the words of Attorney General Mukasey and emphasized 

that politics has no role in our decision making in this election 

year. 

I know that Members of this Committee are particularly concerned about voter intimidation. The division takes a multifaceted 

approach to combating and preventing voter intimidation. First, we 

successfully brought lawsuits under section 2 of the Voting Rights 

Act that have included allegations of voter intimidation based on 

race, color, or membership in a language-minority group. 

We brought cases in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Boston, 

Florida and Mississippi. For example, we have addressed situations 

in which voters were subjected to hostile and discriminatory remarks and unfounded and discriminatory challenges; that they 

have had their ballot choices improperly influenced, coerced or 

changed; that entrances were blocked to polling places; that attempts were made to prohibit eligible voters from voting; that voters were challenged on the basis of race, and that they were subjected to hostile treatment. 

Another way to prevent voter intimidation is to empower vulnerable voters. For example, we brought 10 of the 12 cases ever 

brought under section 208 of the Voting Rights Act to ensure that 

voters have the assistor of their choice in the voting booth. In addition, we brought 29 cases under the language minority provisions 

of that act. Translated voting materials and bilingual poll workers 

empower nationalized American citizen voters and can prevent intimidation from occurring at the polls. 

Third, the division’s election monitoring program also helps to 

ensure that voters are not intimidated. So far during calendar year 

2008, we have sent 397 Federal observers and 158 department personnel to monitor 51 elections in 47 jurisdictions in 17 states. On 

November 4, hundreds of Federal Government employees will be 

deployed in counties, cities and towns across the country. 

The department will have a toll-free hotline with interpretation 

services. We will have a fax number and internet-based mechanism 

for reporting problems. As part of our pre-election outreach efforts, 

we have heard concerns over the longstanding practice of using 

small numbers of criminal prosecutors as monitors on Election 

Day. And while we have not heard of any actual intimidation resulting from this practice and have never received complaints from 

voters about it, we nevertheless take these concerns very seriously. 

Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, I have determined that 

no criminal prosecutors will be used as monitors on Election Day. 

I know that the Committee has also been concerned about voter 

ID laws. And while the Supreme Court has decided that Indiana’s 

voter identification law is constitutional on its face, it is important 

to emphasize that the court also held, consistently with the department’s position, that individuals can sue if a voter ID law is applied to them in an unconstitutional manner. 

226 

In addition, the Civil Rights Division is prepared to take action 

if an ID law or any voting law is being enforced in a discriminatory 

manner. For example, this summer we filed and favorably settled 

a Voting Rights Act section 2 case in Penns Grove, New Jersey, 

that included allegations that Hispanic voters were required to 

show more identification than White voters. And this is even 

though the state law did not require any voter identification. 

In conclusion, the department stands ready to take any appropriate law enforcement action, whether civil or criminal, in response to voter intimidation that implicates the statutes that we 

enforce. We remain committed to vigorously enforcing all of our 

statutes where warranted by the facts and the law. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Becker follows:] 

227 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GRACE CHUNG BECKER


GCB-1.eps
228 


GCB-2.eps
229 


GCB-3.eps
230 


GCB-4.eps
231 


GCB-5.eps
232 


GCB-6.eps
233 


GCB-7.eps
234 


GCB-8.eps
235 


GCB-9.eps
236 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Thank you, Ms. Becker. 

The second witness today on this panel is Paul Hancock, who is 

a veteran voting rights litigator. He was one of the litigators in 

Bush v. Gore at the Florida Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme 

Court level, and previously attained the highest-ranking career 

civil service position in the Civil Rights Division of the Department 

of Justice. 

Mr. Hancock? You have 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL F. HANCOCK, PARTNER, KIRKPATRICK 

AND LOCKHART PRESTON GATES AND ELLIS, LLP 

Mr. HANCOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I address this issue as a Department of Justice official. I have 

worked on complying with the Voting Rights Act as the attorney 

general for the state of Florida. And I was involved in one of the 

most contentious voting rights cases in the history of our country. 

I think the overall theme that I would like to state to you today 

is that presidential elections are not re-run. So when we talk about 

preparing for this election, what we need to do is have a procedure 

in place, a program in place, for identifying the problems before the 

day of the election and correcting those problems before the day of 

the election, or at least promptly as the election is taking place. 

That differentiates this election from any other election that is 

conducted. The voting rights section, the voting section of the Civil 

Rights Division, also often has had Federal observers in place designed to monitor the election, decide whether problems existed, 

and worked to correct those problems later. That doesn’t work in 

a presidential election. The problems need to be identified and corrected before the election is held. 

The only legal authority for the Department of Justice to observe 

the election process at the polling place arises from Voting Rights 

Act. And the sole legal basis provided by the Voting Rights Act for 

Department of Justice officials or Federal observers to enter the 

polls to observe the process is if the department believes, has a reasoned basis for believing that there may be denial or abridgement 

of the right to vote on account of race, color, or in contravention 

of the language minority guarantees of the Voting Rights Act. That 

is the only reason for being there. 

The Voting Rights Act was passed after a really sorry history in 

our country of voter intimidation and suppression directed at 

Blacks. And it was directed under the color of law by law enforcement officials and by state government officials. 

We have come a long way since then. The candidates prove that 

in this election. But the act has been in effect for only 43 years. 

Many Americans who will turn up to vote at this election—many 

of them who have been away for many years—have lived through 

the suppression and intimidation that was effectuated under color 

of law. 

But the department is under—must apply a difficult balance 

here of having, monitoring to make sure that there is not a denial 

or abridgement of the right to vote on account of race, color or language minority status—at the same time making sure that law enforcement isn’t used in a way that will have a countervailing effect 

of intimidating people from voting. 

237 

I am pleased with what Ms. Becker said a minute ago, that 

criminal prosecutors aren’t being used to monitor the election process this year. Because that reflects the consideration that needs to 

be given to the problems that might arise at this election. 

We likely, as we said, we will likely have the largest turnout and 

certainly the largest Black turnout in the history of our country. 

And we can expect that there will be confusion on the polls on the 

day of the election. And I suggest that preparations be made to 

avoid that. 

And I would like to just take some disagreement with what Mr. 

Lewis said in the first panel. And that is, I believe that election 

officials do have a responsibility to direct voters to the right polling 

place. And that is important in the context of the way the HAVA 

provisional ballot law has been implemented by the state. Let me 

just take a minute to explain that. 

When Florida enacted its election reform legislation after the 

2000 problems, a provisional ballot provision was in that election 

reform legislation. And the Florida law, like the law of many 

states, provided that a provisional ballot would be counted as a 

valid vote not—it wasn’t to be counted merely because a person 

was properly registered to vote. It was only to be counted if the 

person was properly registered and actually appeared at the proper 

precinct. So if the voter was supposed to be at this table and went 

to that table, and they are given a provisional ballot, that ballot 

isn’t counted in Florida. And it isn’t counted in many other states. 

Thus, the Department of Justice was very concerned about that 

provision of Florida law and the course of the section 5 review process, and granted section 5 pre-clearance only on the condition that 

election officials would, before they gave a provisional ballot to any 

voter, would first look up the proper precinct for the voter and direct that voter to the proper precinct before they gave them a provisional ballot. 

I suggest to you that in many states—and it is not uniform—but 

in many states, including Florida, provisional ballots are an illusory promise. They most often aren’t counted. They most often 

aren’t valid votes. And the reason most frequently those are not 

valid votes is the person is just voting at the wrong table. They 

showed up at the wrong schoolhouse. 

HAVA now requires that state officials maintain a master list of 

registered voters, and there should be no issue with election officials, before giving the provisional ballot, first direct voters to the 

proper precinct. Discrimination under the Voting Rights Act—and 

let me just emphasize that—provisional balloting is an illusory 

promise. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Let me also ask you to wrap up quickly, 

Mr. Hancock, as we have so many panelists. You are over your 

time limit. 

Mr. HANCOCK. Sure. I will stop and leave it for questioning. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hancock follows:] 

238 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL F. HANCOCK


PFH-1.eps
239 


PFH-2.eps
240 


PFH-3.eps
241 


PFH-4.eps
242 


PFH-5.eps
243 


PFH-6.eps
244 


PFH-7.eps
245 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Thank you, Mr. Hancock. 

Our next witness is Karen K. Narasaki, who is the president and 

executive director of the Asian American Justice Center, has been 

a long-time advocate for the Asian American community and is a 

leading expert on immigrant civil liberties and human rights. 

Ms. Narasaki, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF KAREN K. NARASAKI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ASIAN AMERICAN JUSTICE CENTER 

Ms. NARASAKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask that our longer, 

written testimony be submitted for the record. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Narasaki follows:] 

246 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KAREN K. NARASAKI


KKN-1.eps
247 


KKN-2.eps
248 


KKN-3.eps
249 


KKN-4.eps
250 


KKN-5.eps
251 


KKN-6.eps
252 


KKN-7.eps
253 


KKN-8.eps
254 


KKN-9.eps
255 


KKN-10.eps
256 


KKN-11.eps
257 


KKN-12.eps
258 


KKN-13.eps
259 


KKN-14.eps
260 


KKN-15.eps
261 


KKN-16.eps
262 


KKN-17.eps
263 


KKN-18.eps
264 

Ms. NARASAKI. Thank you. 

According to the census, more than four million voting-age citizens who are Latino, Asian American, or American Indian and 

Alaska Native and who speak English less than very well lived in 

section 203-covered jurisdictions in 2000, 8 years ago. Many naturalized citizens, as you know, who are also racial minorities face 

discrimination when voting. And limited English-proficient citizens 

can have difficulty understanding complex voting materials and 

procedures. Too often, they face hostile or impatient poll workers 

or denied needed or lawfully required assistance. 

Unfortunately, section 203 non-compliance continues to be a 

problem. As a result, the Department of Justice has had to bring 

enforcement actions against cities like the City of Walnut in California on behalf of Asian American voters and in Kane County, Illinois on behalf of Latino voters. 

Similarly, the Native American Rights Fund and the ACLU successfully sued Alaska on behalf of Alaskan Natives to provide effective language assistance to citizens who speak Yup’ik, the primary 

language of minority voters in the Bethel region in Alaska. 

With elections less than 2 months away, we are urging that DOJ 

remind jurisdictions about their obligations under section 2 and 

203, offer technical assistance, and continue to pursue the enforcement actions. They must work to ensure that these jurisdictions 

are ready for the tens and thousands of new Asian, Latino and Native American voters who are being urged to come out this year. 

Some poll workers are reluctant to help language minority voters. Maybe they are unaware of how to help, or they are suspicious 

of the bilingual poll workers or the voters. Incidents include sending limited English-proficient voters to the back of the line because 

they are taking too long, or segregating them from the Englishspeaking voters. Even more problematic are poll workers who are 

openly hostile and discriminate against these voters who are not 

completely fluent. 

DOJ should urge jurisdictions covered by 203 to do a better job 

of recruiting, screening and supervising poll workers. These poll 

workers who are hostile or unwilling to assist should not be tolerated, and DOJ must hold jurisdictions accountable for not properly 

supervising and managing them. 

Problems also exist with poll workers who were under-trained. 

For example, many were aware of section 203 or the existence of 

provisional ballots in the last election. Polls are also confused as 

to what ID requirements are required, and this can result in racial 

and ethnic profiling and wrongly asking minorities for ID that are 

not required. 

Additionally, many poll workers do not know section 208, which 

allows minority voters to take a person of their choice into the voting booth. DOJ must continue to monitor for such problems and remind jurisdictions to train specifically on these issues. 

Anti-immigrant sentiments and rhetoric have been growing, unfortunately, and consequently Asian American and Latino voters 

face hostility because of the erroneous assumption that they could 

not be citizens, including unwarranted challenges of their registration or at the polls, or even intimidation. We hope that the DOJ 

will actively engage and closely monitor areas where there have 

265 

been particularly heavy anti-immigrant sentiments or acrimonious 

policy debates, to ensure that local election officials are doing all 

they can to prevent that kind of behavior from creeping into the 

polling place. 

Finally, agency requests that the Department of Justice looks 

into why there has been a decrease in bilingual poll workers in 

Santa Clara, including the Santa Clara County’s registered methodology for determining how many bilingual workers are needed 

and whether or not there is section 203 non-compliance occurring. 

We applaud the Department of Justice for bringing section 203 

cases against jurisdictions such as the ones that the assistant attorney general mentioned. DOJ also successfully brought an action 

against Boston on behalf of Chinese and Vietnamese voters. We 

urge them to monitor Boston during the upcoming general election, 

as they did during the recent primary. 

We also urge them to continue press the Massachusetts Secretary of State to fully transliterate candidate names in Chinese 

language ballots and boxes. We believe that a fully bilingual ballot 

for Chinese American voters includes these transliterated candidate names. 

Finally, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus has 

asked the department about its plan for upcoming election in a letter dated August 22. It raises specific questions about several specific sites, such as: Why did DOJ declare a plan under section 5 

that will reduce the number of Chinese and Korean interpreters at 

poll sites in New York, New York? We are hoping that they answer 

these quickly, in time for the election, so that corrections can be 

made. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Thank you. 

Our next witness is Bryan O’Leary, who is a graduate of the 

United States Naval Academy and a former F-18 Hornet pilot. Mr. 

O’Leary, after he finished his time serving our country, participated in helping investigate the Department of Defense’s voting 

program. He is now a public policy consultant at Crowell and 

Moring’s public policy practice group. 

Mr. O’Leary, thank you for your service. You have 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF BRYAN P. O’LEARY, PUBLIC POLICY 

CONSULTANT, CROWELL MORING 

Mr. O’LEARY. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. 

In 1952, President Harry Truman wrote to Congress regarding 

military absentee voting. He said, ‘‘At a time when these young 

people are defending our country, the least we at home can do is 

to make sure that they are able to enjoy the rights they are being 

asked to fight to preserve.’’ Over 50 years later, military voting remains a burdensome bureaucratic process that prevents our military men and women from being able to enjoy their rights as citizens. 

I experienced this broken system firsthand as a Marine, when I 

was not able to vote. Despite my lack of success, I was picked to 

be the voting assistance officer to help all of my Marines vote. My 

story is not unusual. Voting officers have little or no training; they 

266 

are not JAG lawyers. They are front-line officers, oftentimes commanding soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in battle. 

It is absurd to expect that a young lieutenant who is commanding a platoon of Marines in Hellman Province in Afghanistan 

or Ramadi in Iraq is going to succeed sifting through local, state 

and Federal laws and regulations that are all different, deadlines 

and ballot requirements that are all different, in order to ensure 

his or her Marines can vote, while at the same time fighting a war 

in a remote, austere environment. 

Clearly, this is almost an impossible task. Even if that lieutenant 

could figure out all the different deadlines and rules, it is unlikely 

that those Marines would get their ballots in time to have them returned and be counted. Because of long delays shipping ballots to 

and from war zones, for the votes of our men and women deployed 

to Iraq and Afghanistan to count, today is their Election Day. Our 

military postal system has informed deployed soldiers that they 

should send in their ballots no later than September 30th in order 

to be counted on time. However, unfortunately, many states and 

counties will not even print their ballots and send them until October. 

And if those ballots do finally reach their correct local election officials, they are greeted by political party operatives and lawyers 

who are determined to throw out every military ballot that is not 

perfect. Throwing out a military ballot that was prepared in a war 

zone is shameful. Both political parties and both presidential campaigns should condemn any legal attacks or challenges challenging 

the validity of the ballots of our military men and women. 

The evidence continues to stack up that the DOD has failed our 

military men and women. This last week, the Pew Center on the 

States released a report that further documents that failure. Although 77 percent of the military said that they were very interested in voting, only 20.4 percent voted in 2006—that is half the 

rate of the general public. In 2006, for the general public, 85.8 percent of absentee ballots requested were cast, versus only 26.5 percent of military ballots. 

If the military rates matched the general public rates, there 

would be roughly a half a million more military votes cast and 

counted. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the 

Pew report be included in the record. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

267 


D-1.eps
268 


D-2.eps
269 


D-3.eps
270 


D-4.eps
271 


D-5.eps
272 


D-6.eps
273 


D-7.eps
274 


D-8.eps
275 


D-9.eps
276 

Mr. O’LEARY. Sadly, the Election Assistance Commission results 

were even worse. Of the estimated six million military personnel 

dependents and citizens eligible, only 992,000 requested a ballot. 

Only 330,000 of those were cast. And we also know that 48,628 

were rejected. This is a shocking rate of only 5.5 percent voter participation from military and overseas citizens. 

This problem could have and should have been solved years ago. 

Yet our Industrial Age bureaucracy has failed to embrace the Information Age. Technology is available today to securely encrypt and 

electronically transmit blank ballots to military men and women 

around the world. Congress directed the DOD to execute such a 

program in 2006, and the DOD failed to execute it. 

The Administration, the DOD, and the DOJ need to stop making 

excuses for their failure. Instead, Congress and the DOJ should 

stop accepting those excuses and force action to fix this problem. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify today. I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Leary follows:] 

277 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRYAN P. O’LEARY


BO-1.eps
278 


BO-2.eps
279 


BO-3.eps
280 


BO-4.eps
281 


BO-5.eps
282 


BO-6.eps
283 


BO-7.eps
284 


BO-8.eps
285 


BO-9.eps
286 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Thank you, Mr. O’Leary. 

Our next witness is James Terry, who is the chief public advocate for the Consumer Rights League. And he and his organization 

have a long history of not only helping Americans register to vote, 

but also facilitating the participation in the political process. 

Mr. Terry, you have 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES TERRY, CHIEF PUBLIC ADVOCATE, 

CONSUMERS RIGHTS LEAGUE 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today, and I ask that 

my extended remarks be entered into the record. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Terry follows:] 

287 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES TERRY


JT-1.eps
288 


JT-2.eps
289 


JT-3.eps
290 


JT-4.eps
291 


JT-5.eps
292 


JT-6.eps
293 


JT-7.eps
294 


JT-8.eps
295 


JT-9.eps
296 


JT-10.eps
297 


JT-11.eps
298 


JT-12.eps
299 

Mr. TERRY. The Consumers Rights League supports aggressive 

efforts to educate, motivate, register and assist all citizens in voting, so long as those efforts are legal. Unfortunately, there are 

some groups that don’t seem to share that concern. 

First-hand accounts from current and former employees, major 

news stories, and court cases across the country expose corruption 

at every level of the Association of Community Organizations for 

Reform Now, or ACORN. To truly grasp the potential impact that 

ACORN’s activities may have on the upcoming elections and future 

elections, it is important to understand their structure. 

ACORN is a massive organization with 150 subsidiary organiza- tions and an estimated $110 million budget this year that is centrally controlled from the top down. Thus, there should be no distinction between crimes or alleged crimes perpetrated by personnel 

from affiliates, like Project Vote, or those from ACORN. 

A careful observer will note a 10-year record of voter registration 

fraud on the part of ACORN and Project Vote. Ten years and five 

election cycles is not a series of mistakes: it is a pattern. In fact, 

rather than showing any signs of improvement, all signs point to 

increased lawbreaking. 

A quick snapshot of ACORN’s record from 1998 to 2007 alone includes thousands of false or fraudulent registrations in Missouri; at 

least two convictions of ex-ACORN employees following Colorado’s 

2004 election; the 2004 arrest of a former ACORN employee in 

Minnesota with 300 voter registration cards in his trunk; the 2000 

indictment of several workers in Washington State, which has been 

cited earlier as the worst case of voter registration fraud in the history of the state. 

In April 2008, eight former ACORN employees in Missouri pled 

guilty to voter fraud in the 2006 election. 

Each time ACORN is accused of faulty registrations, the organization blames a handful of its supposedly rogue workers. It promises to clean up its act and impose tighter restrictions. Yet after 10 

years, they have not been able to do so. In 2000 alone, ACORN’s 

activities have prompted calls for investigations in nearly a dozen 

states: Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Mexico, Texas, 

Nevada, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, and just as recently as yesterday you can add Florida to the list. 

In July, Pennsylvania officials charged a former ACORN employee with 19 counts of perjury, making false statements, forgery 

and identity theft. In New Mexico, Bernalillo County officials are 

currently investigating 1,100 possibly fraudulent cards. In Texas, 

about 40 percent of the 27,000 registration cards gathered by 

ACORN from January to July have been rejected or placed in 

limbo. In Michigan, a case that was cited earlier, the secretary of 

state said problems appear to be sizable. Duplicate fraudulent applications is widespread. 

In Ohio, ACORN’s pattern of voter registration fraud apparently 

includes the 73 registration cards turned in this year for just one 

individual. Cuyahoga County election boards officials have compiled a binder of evidence of suspicious activity. That binder is 

more than an inch thick. 

In Wisconsin, by the end of August, Milwaukee’s election commission executive director had referred over 49 individuals to prosVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:46 Jan 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00307 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\092408\44612.000 HJUD1 PsN: 44612
300 

ecutors for suspected voter registration fraud. Of them, 37 were 

ACORN employees. And just last week, Durham County, North 

Carolina’s election officials asked for an investigation of dozens of 

cards submitted by ACORN. One was for a 14-year-old boy. 

ACORN routinely says it will clean up its act. Yet given its decade-long history of voter fraud, embezzlement, and misuses of taxpayer funds, ACORN’s pattern of fraud can no longer be dismissed 

as a series of unfortunate events. We know about the thousands of 

fraudulent voter registration cards turned in by ACORN and 

caught by officials. But given the size of ACORN’s efforts and the 

fact that the abuses appear to be systemic, we believe it is fair to 

question how many more fraudulent registrations have not been 

discovered. 

And furthermore, as this mega-organization with a decade’s-long 

history of violating the law has turned to get-out-the-vote efforts, 

we believe it is fair to question how many fraudulent registrations 

may lead to fraudulent votes, or what other activities they may be 

willing to undertake to influence the election. 

These are serious questions, especially in light of recent election 

results which show that just a few votes can change the outcome 

of an election. While we do not presume to tell this Committee how 

to address this problem, we respectfully submit that our Nation’s 

election system is facing a concerted campaign that raises serious 

issues that merit the Committee’s oversight and intervention. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and I look forward 

to your questions. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Thank you, Mr. Terry. 

Our next witness is Jocelyn Benson, who is an assistant professor of law at Wayne State University Law School. She is also the 

founder and director of the Richard Austin Center on Election Law 

and Administration and is a member of the ABA’s standing committee on election law. 

Professor Benson, welcome. You have 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF JOCELYN BENSON, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, 

WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL 

Ms. BENSON. Thank you. 

Several years ago I served as a law clerk to the Honorable 

Damon J. Keith, a Federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals. 

Judge Keith famously cautioned us that ‘‘Democracies die behind 

closed doors.’’ Democracies also die, I believe, when the doors that 

lead to political participation and enfranchisement are pushed 

closed. They die when Americans lawfully seeking to cast a legal 

ballot are deterred or disenfranchised, and they die when government actors fail to ensure that pathways to democracy are free 

from the congestion of challengers who block lawful voters from 

participating in an election. 

This role of election challengers, whether they be representatives 

from political parties or other groups in the polls on Election Day, 

has increased in prominence in recent elections. Today I would like 

to detail a recent controversy in Michigan over the use of foreclosure lists to challenge the residency, and thus eligibility, of voters on Election Day. 

301 

Two weeks ago, a Web site called Michigan Messenger reported 

allegations that Republican Party challengers may be using lists of 

foreclosed to challenge the eligibility of voters when they arrive to 

vote. Michigan demographics may suggest that voters on these lists 

may be disproportionately African American. Now these allegations, importantly, were forcefully denied, and I am not here today 

to challenge those denials. I instead wish to highlight the resulting 

confusion in Michigan over whether voters facing foreclosure wonder now whether they will still be entitled to vote in November. 

The fact is that under Michigan law, voters cannot be challenged 

without good cause. And under Michigan law, only residents who 

have moved outside of their city or township to another county 

prior to September 4 are required to re-register at their new address. Voters who move within a county, according to the Michigan 

secretary of state, are permitted to vote one last time at their old 

address. 

Thus, the listing of a voter’s residence on a list of foreclosed 

homes does not, in and of itself, provide sufficient information to 

indicate that that voter has moved to a new home outside of that 

county prior to September 4, 2008. 

Nor should any list acquired from mailings sent to those foreclosed homes that bounced back as undeliverable lead to similar 

conclusions. The voter confusion that I have observed in Michigan 

since these stories emerged has been, in my view, compounded by 

a lack of clear and thorough clarification of the law from election 

officials in the state. 

For that reason, my first recommendation today is that in Michigan and in any other state dealing with voter confusion, the state’s 

chief election authority issue clear directives to local election officials and the public on the law that ensures that voters and election officials are empowered with a full understanding of the law. 

My second recommendation is similarly, that election officials engage in extensive public education efforts and outreach that are focused on explaining the hows and mechanics of voting. In addition 

to press releases, public service announcements, mailings, phone 

calls, and also posters in the polling place that simply state the law 

in its entirety are, I believe, required to ensure that this education 

campaign is successful. 

In addition, I believe an education campaign is best coupled with 

my third recommendation, the development of collaborative relationships with community-based organizations. These organizations, I believe, know best what the needs of their communities are, 

and collaborative relationships between election officials and these 

organizations can help ensure that both are proceeding in the best 

interests of the voter. 

My last two recommendations deal with training and regulating 

challengers and poll workers. I believe that mandating training for 

challengers in Michigan and in other states and also improving 

training for poll workers will ensure that both are equipped with 

the knowledge of the law and ensure that the law is followed on 

Election Day. 

I also recommend the use of comment cards in the polling places 

on Election Day that would empower voters to interact with poll 

workers and evaluate and offer feedback on their experience. 

302 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Benson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOCELYN BENSON


JFB-1.eps
303 


JFB-2.eps
304 


JFB-3.eps
305 


JFB-4.eps
306 


JFB-5.eps
307 


JFB-6.eps
308 


JFB-7.eps
309 


JFB-8.eps
310 


JFB-9.eps
311 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Thank you, Professor Benson. 

Our last witness for this panel is Kristen Clarke Avery, who is 

an expert on voting rights and election law. She is the co-director 

of the Political Participation Group at the NAACP Legal Defense 

and Educational Fund and has a long, extensive history of voting 

rights litigation. 

Ms. Clarke, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF KRISTEN CLARKE AVERY, CO-DIRECTOR, POLITICAL PARTICIPATION GROUP, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE 

FUND 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you. 

Founded under the direction of Thurgood Marshall, the NAACP 

Legal Defense Fund is the Nation’s oldest, and we believe finest, 

civil rights firm that has served has served as legal counsel for African Americans over the course of the last several decades. LDF 

has provided testimony in support of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 

and other Federal voting rights laws and core voting protections. 

The last two presidential elections have significantly undermined 

public confidence in our political system. So what I would like to 

do today is take my time to identify some specific actions that the 

Department of Justice can and must take to help restore that lost 

faith and confidence and help ensure that this election is a smooth 

one. 

First, DOJ must deploy Federal observers to protect minority 

voters in those areas of the country where we are hearing complaints of potential voter intimidation and suppression tactics that 

might rear their head on Election Day. 

Second, DOJ should terminate its use of criminal prosecutors as 

poll monitors. And I want to take a moment to recognize Acting Assistant Attorney General Becker’s recent decision to cease this 

practice. But let me take a moment just to provide some context 

about why this has been a very important issue for us at the Legal 

Defense Fund. 

Criminal prosecutors at U.S. attorneys’ offices have been at the 

front lines of aggressive vote fraud investigations that have been 

taking place around the country in recent years. And there certainly is a very long history that has shown that law enforcement 

officials and prosecutors who lie at the heart of their efforts can 

have the effect of intimidating minority voters at the polls. 

We are pleased that the Department of Justice has decided to reconsider its practice and shift course here, and we hope that this 

will become a permanent policy on the part of the Justice Department. 

Third, the Justice Department should develop an action plan for 

Election Day, an action plan to respond to the serious problems 

that might emerge both on or immediately prior to the election. We 

want DOJ to be proactive, and we are in a position where we can 

foresee and anticipate some of the problems that are likely to arise. 

We know that there will be high turnout. We know that there may 

be long lines. We know that we face the potential of seeing situations that we have seen during the 2000 and 2004 presidential 

elections. 

312 

Emergency Election Day litigation may be necessary to ensure 

that all voters receive a fair and equal opportunity to cast their 

ballots. Although the relief that would be sought in any emergency 

litigation will vary depending on the facts at hand, we certainly 

know that an extension of poll hours may be appropriate in those 

jurisdictions that are not equipped or prepared to handle high 

turnout, or in areas where machines malfunction or where polling 

sites open late. 

By way of another example, a court’s order may add value where 

poll officials are failing to offer provisional ballots to voters pursuant to the Help America Vote Act. In recent elections it has been 

the advocacy community and the civil rights organizations that 

have largely borne the burden here. DOJ should construct and publicize its own plan for turning to the courts on Election Day where 

local and state officials prove unwilling to voluntarily to take steps 

necessary to quickly resolve the problems that might emerge. 

Fourth, the Justice Department’s goal should be our goal: making sure that everyone who wants to vote in this election cycle gets 

to do so. And what does that mean? That is making sure right now 

that there is compliance across the board with the mandates of the 

National Voter Registration Act. Making sure that DMVs and other 

state agencies are offering registration opportunities as mandated 

by state law. Making sure that those agencies are timely transmitting those forms to election officials so that the forms can be processed. 

But above and beyond DOJ’s statutory enforcement responsibilities, I also think that DOJ can use its leverage to encourage state 

and local officials to make every effort to go above and beyond their 

ability to reach historically disenfranchised populations. In the 

state of Alabama, a local activist by the name of Reverend Kenneth 

Glasgow recently initiated a non-partisan voter registration drive 

aimed at reaching eligible, but not yet registered voters inside of 

local jails. Although the registration drive was initially supported 

by the Alabama prison commissioner, the drive was terminated 

after receiving complaints from the state’s Republican Party leadership. 

To the extent that these eligible voters, a disproportionate number of whom are African American, may already encounter significant barriers in their efforts to register and vote, voter registration 

drives such as these should be encouraged. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Ms. Clarke, let me encourage you to 

wrap up, since you are over the time limit. 

Ms. CLARKE. I will wrap up. I urge Congress and this Committee 

to consider a post-election oversight hearing that measures the success in the administration and conduct of the November election 

against the series of very good recommendations that have been offered during today’s hearing. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Clarke follows:] 

313 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KRISTEN CLARKE AVERY


KCA-1.eps
314 


KCA-2.eps
315 


KCA-3.eps
316 


KCA-4.eps
317 


KCA-5.eps
318 


KCA-6.eps
319 


KCA-7.eps
320 


KCA-8.eps
321 


KCA-9.eps
322 


KCA-10.eps
323 


KCA-11.eps
324 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Thank you, Ms. Clarke. 

And let me thank all the witnesses and remind them that their 

full written statements will be made a part of the record. And I 

will take up the first round of questions for 5 minutes. 

And Ms. Becker, let me begin, if I can, with you and try to dispose of one matter very quickly. During the first panel, there was 

a lot of conversation about a particular group called ACORN. And 

Mr. Terry made some statements that were, shall we say, unflattering with respect to that group. So let me consult the record. 

To your knowledge, are there any pending Federal indictments 

regarding ACORN? Towards membership and activities connected 

with ACORN? 

Ms. BECKER. That is a very important issue. That is an issue 

which is typically handled by criminal prosecutors in the 93 U.S. 

attorneys’ offices around the country—— 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. But do you know of any? 

Ms. BECKER [continuing]. Consultation of the election crime unit 

of the public integrity section of the criminal division. And they 

would be the ones that would be in the best position to know that. 

We in the Civil Rights Division are focused primarily on voter access and the voter intimidation and suppression arm of it. But 

there are other components that handle those issues. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Well, does that mean that you don’t 

know the answer to the question? Do you know if there are any 

pending indictments or if there have been any pending indictments 

in, say, the last 4 years against ACORN or its members at the Federal level for registration activities? 

Ms. BECKER. I am aware of one guilty plea involving ACORN employees attempting to defraud the ACORN organization. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Was it in connection with voter registration? 

Ms. BECKER. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Now, my understanding is that—I am 

frankly not familiar with that instance. I know of one instance 

where there was an indictment that was brought after the 2004 

election. My understanding is that it was at the Federal level. My 

understanding is that that indictment was dismissed; and very unusually, it was dismissed with prejudice, meaning that the government couldn’t come back and bring back the claims again. 

So I simply want to make that observation, given the consistent 

references to ACORN today. 

But I want to move to another line of questions. Professor Benson talked at some length, Ms. Becker, about allegations regarding, 

I believe, the state of Michigan. And regarding efforts in Michigan 

to prevent people who may have been foreclosed from casting a 

vote. When you hear Professor Benson’s testimony, what is your reaction as someone who is in charge of enforcing the voting rights 

laws? Does that send up a red flag for you, people trying to limit 

the vote for folks who have been foreclosed? 

Ms. BECKER. If those allegations were true, that would be something that would be of concern to us in the Civil Rights Division. 

I notice that foreclosure doesn’t necessarily mean, you know, that 

somebody is no longer living in their particular home. It doesn’t 

necessarily mean that they have been evicted or the home has been 

325 

repossessed. And so that is something that we would want to continue to monitor closely. 

We would be focused primarily on two areas in the Civil Rights 

Division. If that information is being used to challenge voters at 

the polls in a discriminatory fashion on the basis of race, color, or 

because they are in a language minority group, that would be 

something that we would be looking for. 

We would also be concerned if they are using those lists to improperly remove voters from the voter registration lists to the extent they may implicate some of the statutes that we enforce here 

in the civil rights—— 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. You note that you are concerned about 

it. There have been various newspaper reports, and you have a live 

witness who is here today who appears to be knowledgeable on the 

question. What steps is the Department of Justice, your particular 

division, taken since you have heard about the issues related to 

foreclosures? 

Ms. BECKER. My understanding of the testimony, and Professor 

Benson probably can confirm this, is that there was media reports 

expressing an intention that was denied. There is an allegation 

that a statement of intention was made, and then there is a strong 

statement of denial—so we are continuing to follow the situation 

very closely as we approach Election Day. This is a very important 

issue. But at this point, we are proceeding very carefully and cautiously. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Well, I would certainly, and I think this 

Committee, or at least this side of the Committee, would encourage 

your vigilance. The fact that there is denial—I don’t spend all of 

my time reading the newspapers to see what people say when they 

are accused of a crime, but I think 99 percent of the time the denial is what you hear before the facts are adduced. 

The second set of questions: there was extensive reporting in the 

metro Washington-Virginia area about erroneous information given 

out by a Virginia registrar which suggested that college students 

could, if they voted in Virginia, their parents could lose their ability to claim them as a deduction, that they could lose their financial aid. You are aware of those news reports, I assume, Ms. Becker? 

Ms. BECKER. I am. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Does that concern you? 

Ms. BECKER. That is also something that has been a concern to 

the Civil Rights Division. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. And what steps have been taken based 

on that concern? 

Ms. BECKER. The rules determining when college students can 

register to vote in their particular jurisdictions vary from state to 

state. And certainly, as we heard from the first panel, there has 

been some action taken at the local level or the state level to address this situation. But it is primarily a state law matter as to 

whether or not those students can register and whether or not they 

are being improperly—— 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Well, it is a state law matter—— 

Ms. BECKER [continuing]. Based upon residency. 

326 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. It is a state law matter, but the Voting 

Rights Act obviously covers state law. 

Ms. BECKER. Yes. And our concern here would be a law exactly 

along those lines, Congressman Davis, in that if it implicates one 

of the statutes that we enforce; if we are seeing that these allegations are resulting, for example, in improper rejections of voter registration lists in violation of one of the Federal statutes that we enforce, that may be something that we would be very interested in 

looking at closely. 

So we are closely monitoring these reports as well to see if there 

is appropriate jurisdiction and action for us to take in civil rights. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Ms. Becker, we are both over our time, 

but if I can ask the indulgence of my friend from Arizona, and I 

will extend him an additional minute as well. What you just said 

triggers the last question I want to pose to you. 

On the DOJ website, there is a question and answer section. The 

question is, what responsibilities does the Justice Department have 

with regard to voter fraud or intimidation? And the answer on the 

website says, ‘‘In some exceptional cases where voter fraud or intimidation involving racial basis occurs in local or state elections, 

Federal criminal charges may be brought by the criminal section 

of the Civil Rights Division.’’ 

I understand that you don’t run that division, but help me understand what that means, ‘‘some exceptional cases.’’ Because my understanding of the statute is that the statute confers upon the Department of Justice jurisdiction involving voter fraud or intimidation involving racial bias in any local or state election. I don’t think 

it delineates between the exceptional and the garden variety. So 

tell me what exceptional means. 

Ms. BECKER. I don’t have the Web site text in front of me. But 

my understanding is as I have testified, which is that voter fraud 

prosecutions, criminal prosecutions, are handled by U.S. attorneys’ 

offices around the country in consultation with the criminal division. We have limited criminal jurisdiction in voting matters related to voter intimidation and voter suppression when race, color, 

national origin or religion are implicated. And that is set forth by 

regulation in 28 C.F.R. section 0.50 and 0.55. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. So your position is that ‘‘exceptional 

cases’’ refers to cases involving racial bias, and there is not some 

separate class of cases. 

Ms. BECKER. None that I am aware of. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Okay—before drafting. 

Let me yield to my friend from Arizona, the Ranking Member. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Mr. Chairman, in all sincere respect, I want to address one 

of the questions you had asked related to a Federal indictment 

pending. Most of the indictments or potential indictments or investigations or pending indictments that I was referring to in my 

opening statement would probably be pursued or probably are 

being pursued on the basis of state law. And I think that that is 

an important consideration. 

Ms. Becker, the Pew Center for the states’ military and overseas 

citizen voting project just released a report confirming the fact that 

military voters cast votes at roughly half that of the general popuVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:46 Jan 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00334 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\092408\44612.000 HJUD1 PsN: 44612
327 

lation. Eighty-six percent of the general population who request absentee ballots actually cast those ballots. But only 26 percent of 

military personnel who request an absentee ballot cast their ballots. Very clearly, those members of the Armed Forces who want 

to vote—they obviously want to vote—but they are not able to due 

to the tragic shortcomings in the system of ballot delivery. 

And that has got to change. It is a tragedy. So how do you suggest that Congress go about changing that injustice? 

Ms. BECKER. Congressman, thank you for that question. You are 

raising a very, very important issue. As someone who has worked 

in the Pentagon and as a civilian for the United States Army and 

for the Department of Defense, I think that this is a very important issue. I can tell you that the enforcement of that statute, the 

Uniform Overseas Absentee Voting Act, UOCAVA, is shared between the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice. 

Our role in the Civil Rights Division is to ensure that states are 

getting adequate time for sending out the absentee ballots to our 

men and women in uniform overseas, as well as overseas citizens, 

and providing enough time for it to come back. Just in the last 

week I have approved two UOCAVA lawsuits, and we are working 

with the jurisdiction to try to resolve those issues. This is a time 

period where we work very actively in that area to make sure that 

there is adequate time well before the election. 

Some of the issues that were raised by Mr. O’Leary are very important issues. Those are issues that fall within the jurisdiction of 

the Department of Defense, and I have shared those concerns with 

the Department of Defense. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you very much, Ms. Becker. 

Mr. O’Leary, maybe I can turn to you. First of all, thank you for 

your service. I know that individuals such as yourself don’t go out 

into wars to fight because they hate what is in front of them. They 

do so because they love what is behind them. And I honor you in 

every way, sir. 

As Election Day approached in 2004, there were stories circulating about parents of Service members calling campaign headquarters on Election Day to complain that their son or daughter 

wanted to vote in the election, but had not received a requested 

ballot. In your opinion, is the Department of Justice doing enough 

to monitor the Defense Department’s efforts to make sure that 

those dedicated servants who are serving our country and their 

families have every opportunity to vote by absentee ballot in a 

timely manner to ensure that their votes count? 

Mr. O’LEARY. Thank you, Congressman. 

First of all, I would be remiss if I didn’t applaud the DOJ’s work 

to hold the states accountable. Unfortunately, I mean, you really 

have a broken system, and we need to hold the Department of Defense accountable. You know, we have made it so that this broken 

system can be in effect where there are different rules and different requirements in every state. 

For years, the Department of Defense has said it is going to take 

45 days. Ballots need to be sent 45 days prior in order to get there 

on time. And we haven’t changed anything. The Department of Defense is not facilitating it this year. There were two amendments 

328 

on the National Defense Authorization Act on the Senate side that 

failed to get a vote to expedite ballots coming back. 

But you know, when we say over and over again that it takes 

45 days, and there are still states that aren’t printing and sending 

their ballots until October, and at the same time the military postal service is saying the ballots need to be sent from Afghanistan 

or Iraq on September 30th, we have a problem. We have a civil 

rights issue, and it is a civil rights issue that is worth litigating 

over. 

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. O’Leary, I guess my last question—obviously, 

this has got to affect everyone on the Committee. I know, and I am 

just going to be—there is a pink elephant in the room, and that is 

a lot of the military favor Republican candidates. And certainly 

that may be part of my motivation here. 

But the ultimate, and the deepest motivation here, is to see those 

people who, rather than talking about freedom as we do on this 

panel, are going out and giving their lives to defend it. And if they 

don’t have the opportunity to vote, it just seems like it is a disgrace 

to the entire system. So if you could say any one thing that you 

could do, to encourage Congress to do or the Department of Defense to do, what would be one thing that you would do to try to 

solve this issue? 

Mr. O’LEARY. Well, I would urge Congress to call on the Secretary of Defense to immediately ensure that military ballots get 

urgent handling. Now, if that takes contracting with FedEx or UPS 

to get overnight shipment of those ballots back from theater, you 

know, then that needs to happen. Whether the—and frankly, one 

of the problems with that on the Senate side is the postal unions 

that didn’t think that was a good idea. Well, you know what? I 

think our troops should take a higher priority than the postal 

unions. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, sir. Thank you for your service, 

and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Thank you, thank you. 

Our next questioner will be the distinguished Chair of the full 

Judiciary Committee. Before I recognize him for questions, I simply 

want to make one quick addition to my friend from Arizona’s comment. I will remind us of Al Gore’s excellent example in 2000, 

when he had an opportunity on a closely contested election to challenge military ballots. He and his running mate declined to do so, 

and I want to make sure the hearing doesn’t conclude without saluting them for that. 

Mr. Chairman, I will leave the next question to you. They have 

just called a vote. If you would like to proceed, or if you would like 

us to recess now, and we can come back and you can pick up the 

questions after vote? 

Mr. CONYERS. Oh, I will start now. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Okay. The Chairman is recognized. 

Mr. CONYERS. Did you say that you commended him for not challenging the ballots? 

Mr. FRANKS. I commended him for doing that. There was no insult intended at all. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. I certainly meant to commend him, Mr. 

Chairman. 

329 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I am not so happy that he didn’t challenge 

the ballots. I mean, why are we so—I have to talk to both of you 

Members after this hearing. 

But anyway, we are all here to learn. 

This may be one of the most important hearings that our Committees together have ever had. The recent history of voting problems is legendary. 

Ms. Becker, you are in the one place in the Department of Justice where we can take care of that. And you have been before us, 

I believe this is your third time? Remind me, how long have you 

been in this position? 

Ms. BECKER. I have been with the Civil Rights Division since 

March of 2006, and I have been acting since December of 2007. 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes. Now, have you ever heard of Professor Spencer Overton? 

Ms. BECKER. The name doesn’t ring a bell. 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. Have you ever heard of Mark Crispin Miller? 

Ms. BECKER. No. 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. Well, we don’t have much time, because Mr. 

Overton has written extensively on the subject which brings us 

here today. I think his most recent book is ‘‘Stealing Democracy: 

The New Politics of Voter Suppression.’’ And just to make sure that 

you start on it right away, we are going to give you a copy of it. 

Well, I suppose I should loan you a copy, since we bought it with 

the government resources. Please. 

Ms. BECKER. I would be happy to purchase a copy. 

Mr. CONYERS. No, I can loan you a copy, it is all right. I trust 

you. [Laughter.] 

Now, the other book is Mark Crispin Miller’s ‘‘Fooled Again.’’ 

And that is about the same subject. 

Now, we agreed before the Committee hearing with Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren—and I would like to add any of our colleagues 

of the two Committees that want to join us—we were going to meet 

extensively on this subject. We asked to have the Department of 

Justice staff meet to with the Judiciary Committee staff because 

there is a certain amount of artificiality about the hearings. They 

are formal, they are stilted, there is a 5-minute rule, digressions, 

and votes. 

And there is a lot to be said when you have two branches of the 

Federal Government trying to improve the voting system. We are 

almost walking distance apart. Why can’t we meet more frequently, 

without the stenographer and television, and all that? 

So I would like for us to meet more frequently, especially since 

we are not happy with only two or three markedly insufficient 

meetings between staffs. 

Now, you are not responsible for all the problems that the Committee has with the Department of Justice. But we are all in this 

together—that is the way I feel about it. I do not want people after 

November 4, saying, ‘‘Why didn’t the Department of Justice do this, 

that or the other thing?’’ They are going to say, well, what was the 

Judiciary Committee doing? And what was the House Administration Committee doing with a whole Subcommittee on Elections? 

330 

Everybody on both Committees wants to facilitate the vote. We 

want to create openness. We want to provide security. We want to 

improve the Armed Services’ participation. We want to preclude 

fraud. There is a whole range of activities—and I know pro bono 

groups and non-profits have the same goal. 

Now, this is a democratic system. What is to prevent all of us 

from working very closely together over and above the Committee 

hearings, of which there are not likely to be any more, to work together toward this great goal of ensuring the integrity of the voting 

system in perhaps the highest voter participation in the history of 

the country? In many ways, it is a momentous election. 

I understand that Chris Coates is here today. 

Ms. BECKER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. Is that right? Who is Chris Coates? 

Ms. BECKER. Right behind me. 

Mr. CONYERS. Dozens and dozens of problems have been raised. 

Some have been adequately responded to. But I liked what the gentleman in the first panel said: we are not seeking perfection. All 

we want to do is make it as efficient as reasonably intelligent people can make it. 

So I would like to enlist not only Ms. Becker, who has already 

agreed to this, but all of our panelists. We need to get the election 

system on track. There are some things we can’t do. Unfortunately, 

we can’t increase the funding to the level that it should be. I wish 

we could. 

But given other than that, we will need to work together as well 

as we can. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I feel better today than I did after the 

last hearing we have had about elections. I mean, they were not 

very pleasant at all. It seems to be that we are up to speed now. 

So I want to commend you for Chairing the Committee and giving 

me as much time as I needed to get this off my chest. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Mr. Chairman, you always have as much 

time as you want. 

We are going to kind of figure out our housekeeping a moment, 

Ms. Becker. But before I do that, I want to make one other observation. I think I asked you about a question of a Web site, and I 

think you clarified to me what you mean the language to say. I 

want to ask you if, I will have the staff to give you a copy of this. 

Because at a minimum, we have a reference to an exception, in 

front of a clause, in front of a subjunctive reference to ‘‘may.’’ And 

no matter where you are, that can raise confusion. So it is certainly 

not the most elegantly drafted sentence I have ever seen, and I will 

ask you to look at changing this section that I reference so it says 

what you mean it to say. 

And we have approximately 71⁄2 minutes left on a vote. Mr. 

McCarthy, my friend from California, assures me that he will take 

less than 5 minutes, so I recognize him. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My comment is to Mr. O’Leary. Because what you raise is one 

to me, very, very important. We had a hearing in House Administration. And I have a bill up and the companion bill over in the 

Senate side, Senator Cornyn, as well. What it does is exactly what 

you recommend: that contract out and allow, where it would be 

331 

traced delivery back and forth. We send stuff across this country, 

around the world. You go on the internet and see exactly where it 

is, you know where it is located. And I believe that would be a very 

good answer going forward. 

And I would like to work with you in the future on how to get 

this through, because we had a hearing on it. I think there is some 

opposition on the other side because they are afraid somebody who 

might win the contract might not be union. And I would rather just 

see the men and women have the right to vote. But I appreciate 

your service, and—if the Chairman would indulge, I would just 

yield any time left to my colleague from Ohio. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Mr. Jordan, you are recognized. I ask 

you to be mindful of the fact that we have 5 minutes left on the 

vote. So I assume you intend to be extremely brief so we can all 

go vote. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, can I come back, then, after the 

vote? 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Yes, certainly. 

Mr. JORDAN. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Thank you. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Thank you. 

We are going to recess the hearing. We have approximately 5 

minutes left in the vote. The hearing will resume after approximately 25 minutes of real time, as we have about three votes. 

Hearing is recessed. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. GONZALEZ. [Presiding.] Going to call the Committee back. 

Reconvene at this time. I know we have maybe a couple of witnesses that will be walking back in, so we will wait for their arrival. But I can at least tell you what the afternoon holds for you 

and that will be just a couple of us here. There may be others that 

will be filtering in. 

But we do appreciate the patience that you have shown, and 

your testimony is important. And as you are aware, your written 

statements are made part of the record, as well as your testimony 

this morning, your responses to the questions. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. At this time the Chair is going to recognize my 

colleague, Mr. Jordan, from the great state of Ohio. And I want you 

to know that I was pulling for the Buckeyes against USC, it just 

didn’t turn out that day. 

Mr. JORDAN. Sure didn’t. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And of course, we will welcome back Professor 

Benson when she arrives. But I have been told that the question 

being posted by Mr. Jordon is not to Professor Benson. So accordingly, we will proceed at this time. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank you, Chairman. I want to thank our witnesses for coming today and for your service, particularly Mr. 

O’Leary, for your service to our country. 

My question is actually going to go—I am going to go to Mr. Hancock and Mr. Terry. 

And I will start with Mr. Terry. I want to just highlight what 

Ohio is planning on doing, what our secretary of state is planning 

on doing. And this was raised in the first panel, when we had 

someone from the Ohio secretary of state’s office here. But starting 

332 

next Tuesday, you can begin to vote absentee. No-fault absentee we 

have in Ohio. 

And you can also, our law requires you register 30 days prior— 

be registered, you know, the typical thing to be a qualified elector. 

So there is going to be a 1-week window of time where our secretary of state has said that she is going to allow registration and 

voting—same-day registration and voting for this week time period 

starting next Tuesday and going through October 6th. 

I believe there is a real potential for mischief and problems 

there. I want to get your thoughts, what you think about that possibility. And the ability to make sure that we have fair elections, 

make sure that we have qualified voters. To make sure it is fair. 

And I am actually—I would like to, when I look at Mr. Hancock’s 

testimony, he had a few sentences in bold print. Presidential elections simply are not a re-run, you can’t do them over. He talked 

about the central problems must be identified and resolved prior to 

Election Day. 

And we have heard—we know this is going to be a record turnout election. So with all that in play, I can’t figure out why—and 

I think our law is clear that you shouldn’t be able to do this, but 

nevertheless, that is the decision of our secretary of state. I would 

like your thoughts on that. 

Mr. TERRY. I am certainly not an expert on Ohio elections, but 

I think any time that you have a loophole or at least an apparent 

loophole of that size or that kind of an overlap, it should be concerning. But I think from the respect of ACORN and perhaps similar groups, what would be even more concerning is the size of their 

effort. 

If you look at—you sort of asked a question, you know, how much 

damage can be done in a 1-week time. You are looking at, you 

know, they have already produced hundreds of thousands of registrations in the state of Ohio. And have, you know, hundreds if not 

thousands of individuals on the ground. And I think that you would 

want to look at—you would hope there were certain controls within 

their organization and controls within the state of Ohio to sort of 

prevent that overlap. But I think it is a sizable loophole and the 

size of the operations that are going on out there should be of great 

concern. 

Mr. JORDAN. It seems to me that, you know, once that vote is 

cast and it is in the form that they keep it at the board of elections, 

they are going to have this huge turnout, it is going to be tough 

to really thoroughly check and make sure this individual was in 

fact a qualified voter. 

And we all know what happens on election night. Count the vote, 

count the vote. We haven’t thoroughly checked, count the vote. And 

I think there are real problems. 

Mr. Hancock, I would like your comment. 

Mr. HANCOCK. I would just point out that the Voting Rights Act 

eliminated residency requirements for voting, and the state laws 

that you talk about were all enacted in accordance with that. And 

basically the structure is, people who were properly registered and 

move shouldn’t be denied the right to vote. So they can either vote 

at their new location or their old location, depending on the timing 

of when they moved. And that 30-day requirement is the Federal 

333 

standard that they use. As long as they are there 30 days before 

the election, they should be entitled to register and vote. 

And if it is shorter than that, they can vote where they were before. So it is, there are—I share your concern about what happens 

on Election Day, and there is going to be a lot of confusion on Election Day. And I reiterate what I said before. I think we best will 

have a fair election if we try to address these issues before Election 

Day rather than trying to address them on the day of the election. 

But I do think that on the day of election, that it is important 

under the new Help America Vote Act that there will be a master 

list of all registered voters and where they should be voting, the 

precinct that they should be voting at. And a provisional ballot 

should be a last resort, not the first resort, but only the last resort. 

The first step that should be made would be to look at that polling 

list to see if the people are not on the list of the precinct where 

they showed up, then are they properly registered in another precinct, and they should be directed to that precinct before they are 

given a provisional ballot. 

And I think the Department of Justice can play a role in this, 

just as it did with us in Florida when I was with the attorney general’s office. The department at that time was very active in making sure that as we implemented the new provisional voting procedure, that we would do it in a way that tried to make sure that 

people were properly registered. But let’s not—this is a presidential 

election, and in many respects it shouldn’t matter what table you 

go to. You are entitled to vote for president if you are properly registered.. 

But we don’t want their vote nullified just because they went to 

the wrong precinct. And the department was very tough on us in 

Florida at the time when I was with the state, to make sure that 

we were going to do that right. And I would hope the department 

does the same thing with other states. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Jordan. 

At this time, the Chair is going to recognize the Chairwoman of 

the Subcommittee on Elections of the House Administration Committee, Zoe Lofgren, of the great state of California. But Zoe I need 

to remind you all, in the year 2005, the Texas Longhorns beat both 

Ohio State and USC. Actually, it was 2006 in the Rose Bowl. 

Ms. LOFGREN. USC is in a different state—in southern California. [Laughter.] 

Actually we no longer have hostilities between north and south 

in the state of California. Although at one time, that did exist. 

I am interested in what the Department of Justice is going to do 

between now and Election Day. We had a chance to talk briefly informally before this hearing began. There were a number of problems in the 2008 primaries that emerged. We know the problems 

that occurred in 2004, and I think it is wise for us to assume that 

some of those problems could present again. 

Director Mueller from the FBI was before the Committee, I think 

it was last week or earlier this week—time flies at this point in the 

congressional session. And Ms. Waters asked what the FBI was 

doing to investigate violations of the Voting Rights Act. I mean, we 

334 

have—I have a couple of lawyers on the Elections Subcommittee 

staff. You have the entire FBI to find out about wrongdoing. 

He didn’t seem to know what they were doing on this. Can you 

tell us? 

Ms. BECKER. Thank you very much for raising that important 

issue on the Voting Rights Act. 

The FBI is certainly an important partner of ours in our criminal 

investigations, both in the criminal division of the Justice Department and when there are specific civil rights crimes that occur on 

unrelated voting or on civil rights crimes. The Voting Rights Act 

is a civil statute where we do not utilize the FBI. Our investigations of the Voting Rights Act are—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. If there were a RICO conspiracy, wouldn’t that be 

a problem? 

Ms. BECKER. If there are criminal—if there are criminal, if we 

observe any indicia of criminal, we can certainly make a referral. 

And that is something that is within our jurisdiction to do. 

With respect to the Voting Rights Act, we have filed a number 

of lawsuits which are set forth in the written statement that I have 

provided to the Committee on the Voting Rights Act. In addition, 

we have done training to officials in all 93 U.S. attorneys’ offices. 

We will be at their offices on Election Day, so that when they receive calls about potential violations of the Voting Rights Act, they 

will be able to direct it to the Civil Rights Division. 

We have done outreach with both state and local officials and 

with civil rights organizations to inform them about the statutes 

that we enforce—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. But let me just ask you—what about 11(b), isn’t 

that a criminal statute? 

Ms. BECKER. 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act is a civil provision 

that prohibits voter intimidation. There are criminal statutes that 

also prohibit voter intimidation—for example, 18 U.S.C. section 594 

might be one potential statute that would be enforced by the criminal section of the Civil Rights Division. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask you about what we might do before 

Election Day. I will just recall that in 2005 Hans von Spakovsky 

wrote to the secretary of state of Arizona, which has a very strict 

voter ID law, that for those who did not have ID, that they did not 

have to offer a provisional ballot. 

Well, that wasn’t true. I mean that was wrong advice that Mr. 

von Spakovsky volunteered to the department. It later had to be 

retracted, but it did cause confusion and may have suppressed— 

you know we don’t know what the impact was. It certainly wasn’t 

a positive impact in terms of—— 

Are opinion letters going to go out unsolicited from your department? And how are you going to make sure that the advice given 

is correct and nonpartisan? 

Ms. BECKER. Congresswoman, I think it is very important for us 

to inform the jurisdictions of the statutes that we enforce. 

I have sent out letters on, for example, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, because there are certain timeframes where they need to get those ballots out 45 days before an 

election. So those letters have already gone out. 

335 

I intend to send another letter to state and local election officials 

to talk about the statues that we enforce, including the language 

minority provision of the Voting Rights Act, which has been raised 

by other panelists here, as well as other issues involving the wide 

variety of statutes that we enforce in the Civil Rights Division, so 

that they know what the Federal law requires. 

Many of them are very experienced. They have worked with us 

in the past, or they have been sued by us in the past. And hopefully, that will help inform some of their decision making also. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Now, the attorney general has told civil rights 

groups that having a smoothly running election that did not violate 

the civil rights of Americans was a very important top priority for 

him. 

And as we have discussed before the hearing, I am concerned 

that some practices that have been engaged in have had not only 

the effect, but clearly the intent of suppressing or disenfranchising 

minority voters, specifically vote caging programs that target 

neighborhoods that are minority—primarily inhabited by minorities. 

What is your department doing to stop that? 

Ms. BECKER. There are four different things that we can do in 

the Civil Rights Division when we hear about allegations of vote 

caging. 

If these vote-caging lists that are compiled are being used to 

challenge voters at the polls in a fashion that is racially discriminatory, then that is certainly something that we can bring a lawsuit 

under the Voting Rights Act. 

In addition, if those lists are being used to improperly remove 

voters from the voter registration list, that may be something that 

we can look at under the National Voter Registration Act, which 

under the NVRA the way they set forth specific criteria in terms 

of when voters can be removed. 

And if you look at five of the eight cases that we have brought 

under Section VIII of the NVRA to ensure that voters who should 

be on the list are on the list either because jurisdictions have allegedly improperly removed them or failed to include them when they 

should have included them. 

Ms. LOFGREN. But let me ask you this. If I don’t know what kind 

of investigative effort is being made by the department. But we 

have had in past years ample evidence of vote caging efforts that 

were directed entirely to African American neighborhoods. 

Do you think that is proper? 

Ms. BECKER. And the other thing that we can—well, what we can 

do if we find about these allegations before Election Day, we can 

send monitors and observers out to the polls. 

Ms. LOFGREN. But what are you going to do to stop the process, 

the racially motivated process of suppressing African American 

votes? 

Ms. BECKER. Oftentimes our presence at the polls on Election 

Day will ensure that those lists are not used at the polls. We work 

with state and local election officials. Oftentimes they have cured 

the problem when they hear about allegations of vote caging as 

well. We—— 

336 

Ms. LOFGREN. Have you considered suing to enjoin a process that 

is racially motivated and discriminatory such as that? 

Ms. BECKER. If it would come—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. I mean you are lawyers. You are full of lawyers. 

Ms. BECKER. If one of the Federal statues that we enforce are implicated, we certainly are prepared to take any appropriate action. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I see my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I thank 

you. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Ms. Lofgren. 

The Chair is going to recognize himself for a couple of questions 

quickly, and I am going to ask the same question of each of you, 

but I am going to ask for a yes or no, whether you agree with me 

or not. 

I believe that the greatest impediment or challenge to conducting 

fair elections, robust elections, and efficient elections in this country would be the following, as far as the hierarchy of concerns. 

First and foremost would be the logistics of conducting the election and all that that would entail, from the polling place to the 

machines to the ballot, including ballot design, and then of course 

personnel, the proper training and competent personnel. 

Next, I imagine a great impediment is going to be voter intimidation and rules and such that make it so hard, so complex, and the 

misreading of those rules and such that deny people. 

And then the ugly kind of disenfranchisement that some of my 

colleagues have referred to such as the caging, the intimidation 

that was referred to in the written testimony by Mr. Lewis of the 

poll watchers appearing to be officials when they are not. 

And lastly, but of concern, and which has been brought out 

prominently in today’s hearing, is going to be the potential for 

fraudulent registering—and I use that word very carefully—registering of votes—not necessarily the casting of the vote, but just 

voter registration and fraud. 

Do you agree with my analysis that that would be the hierarchy 

of impediments and challenges to the way we conduct elections 

today in attempting to achieve fair, robust and efficient elections? 

Simply yes or no. 

Obviously, you know this is the lawyer question where you just 

want a yes or no, and I appreciate your patience with that. 

And I will start with Attorney General Becker. 

Ms. BECKER. I think they are all very important concerns, Congressman Gonzalez, and I wouldn’t be one to categorize any of 

them, but I think they are all very, very important. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Well, but you are. And let me explain why. You 

have limited resources. Where would you apply those limited resources? 

If you were a doctor and someone came into the emergency room 

that had a serious head wound, serious chest injury and a hangnail, would you be getting all of your resources to treat the hangnail? No. 

And that is our responsibility as elected officials, as well as individuals in the different departments and agencies. 

Mr. Hancock, your own experience? 

Mr. HANCOCK. Yes, I would say that that is a pretty comprehensive list, and I wouldn’t quibble with it. 

337 

I would say for this oversight hearing, however, that focuses on 

the voting section in the Voting Rights Act, that suppression of minority voters is a very important issue in this election. And in the 

previous talk we hear racial animus is not a necessary element of 

a claim under the Voting Rights Act. 

If people are targeted because of their race, the design may be 

to achieve a partisan political objective, but it still implicates the 

Voting Rights Act. 

And my friends in the department have always been put in a difficult position of enforcing the act when it might be viewed as having some partisan results. 

We heard today about how overseas voters—military voters— 

might be more apt to vote Republican. That doesn’t have any impact on how that law should be enforced. 

We have heard how efforts to challenge suppression of Black voters might benefit the Democratic candidate. That is not a factor in 

deciding whether the case should be brought. 

If there are efforts to suppress voters in violation of the Voting 

Rights Act, the department has an obligation without regard to politics to pursue those violations. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Right. 

Mr. HANCOCK. And I think your waterfall of issues is valid. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. Narasaki? 

Ms. NARASAKI. I very much agree with your hierarchy of issues. 

And it strikes me. I am very excited because there is so much excitement among immigrant Americans, who have worked hard to 

be able to meet the requirements of citizenship and will be voting 

for the first time. 

And anybody who has had the opportunity to see someone be 

able to exercise for the first time the true mark of being a citizen 

in the U.S. has to be concerned about whether that person will be 

able to exercise. 

And as you know, as a minority you are never really—you can 

never really take for granted that you will be welcomed at anywhere you go at the polls. 

And I think that the heated debates about immigration are going 

to make it very challenging for many of these new immigrants to 

vote. And I am very concerned that their first experience would be 

one where they are made to feel not welcome. 

Whether it is because of intentional intimidation or confusion, 

lack of training, I think all of those things would be quite a shame 

for this Nation. 

I do find that the allegations of voter fraud are very overblown, 

and there are some very good studies that I would like to submit 

to the record, if possible. One is called ‘‘The Myth of Widespread 

Non-Citizen Voting,’’ which was done by Truth in Immigration, 

which is a project of the Mexican American Legal Defense Education Fund. 

And the other is the Brennan Center for Justice, ‘‘The Truth 

About Voter Fraud,’’ which documents, in case after case, that 

when you are talking about really a handful of votes, a handful of 

registrations, that really does not impact the election, the issue of 

minorities who are made to feel unwelcome and unable to really 

338 

cast their vote, that will be a legacy that will hurt us for years to 

come. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Okay. Miss Narasaki, let me clarify something. 

You have something that you want to submit for the record. Is that 

correct? 

Ms. NARASAKI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Okay. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


E-1.eps
339 


E-2.eps
340 


E-3.eps
341 


E-4.eps
342 


E-5.eps
343 


E-6.eps
344 


E-7.eps
345 


E-8.eps
346 


E-9.eps
347 


E-10.eps
348 


E-11.eps
349 


E-12.eps
350 


E-13.eps
351 


E-14.eps
352 


E-15.eps
353 


E-16.eps
354 


E-17.eps
355 


E-18.eps
356 


E-19.eps
357 


E-20.eps
358 


E-21.eps
359 


F-1.eps
360 


F-2.eps
361 


F-3.eps
362 


F-4.eps
363 


F-5.eps
364 


F-6.eps
365 


F-7.eps
366 


F-8.eps
367 


F-9.eps
368 


F-10.eps
369 


F-11.eps
370 


F-12.eps
371 


F-13.eps
372 


F-14.eps
373 


F-15.eps
374 


F-16.eps
375 


F-17.eps
376 


F-18.eps
377 


F-19.eps
378 


F-20.eps
379 


F-21.eps
380 


F-22.eps
381 


F-23.eps
382 


F-24.eps
383 


F-25.eps
384 


F-26.eps
385 


F-27.eps
386 


F-28.eps
387 


F-29.eps
388 


F-30.eps
389 


F-31.eps
390 


F-32.eps
391 


F-33.eps
392 


F-34.eps
393 


F-35.eps
394 


F-36.eps
395 


F-37.eps
396 


F-38.eps
397 


F-39.eps
398 


F-40.eps
399 


F-41.eps
400 


F-42.eps
401 


F-43.eps
402 


F-44.eps
403 


F-45.eps
404 


F-46.eps
405 


F-47.eps
406 


F-48.eps
407 


F-49.eps
408 


F-50.eps
409 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And then I will yield to Ms. Lofgren at this time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I, unfortunately, had to have a meeting with the 

speaker, which prevented me from being here to receive the testimony, although I have had a chance to read it. 

And I was so anxious to ask Ms. Becker the questions that I 

asked that I didn’t have a chance to say thanks to Karen for being 

here all the way from—you know she does wonderful work not only 

in California, but throughout the United States. 

And it is a pleasure to see someone from home who is here. And 

I just neglected to say that. 

And I also did want to—I am advised by counsel that 11B of the 

Voting Rights Act, although in the civil section, is actually a criminal statute. 

So I think we should find—you know get to the bottom of that. 

I don’t want to get into an argument here today, but maybe we can 

pursue that and reach a conclusion together on that point after the 

hearing. 

And I thank the gentleman for your—— 

Mr. GONZALEZ. You are welcome. 

Reclaiming my time, Mr. O’Leary, I know you are not here to 

give maybe this kind of opinion, but I think you have had enough 

experience with logistics and how we do things. 

But I want to make one comment. I appreciate everything that 

you are doing. You are now a resource in my book with my staff, 

because we are getting responses from DOD and others that are 

not satisfactory as to why we can’t start doing some voting projects 

and pilot projects with the military overseas via the Internet. 

So I will really welcome some of your input. 

But do you have an opinion on my question that was posed to 

the panel? 

Mr. O’LEARY. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. And I would 

agree that the points that you brought up are in order, and the five 

points are important. 

I am not going to quibble one or the other about priorities. But 

really I think you know fundamentally what this gets down to is 

a matter of will to do the right thing for the country, thinking longterm and not thinking in terms of what our partisan benefits are 

going to be if one group—you know if we work for one group or 

work for another group, we need to think to the long term to the 

good of the country. 

And I would hope that Congress has an attention span that goes 

past the November election. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Just keep reminding us. That is—— 

Mr. O’LEARY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Terry? 

Mr. TERRY. Yes, sir. I certainly agree with the list. I think that 

they are all perhaps equally important, because I think they are 

probably very interrelated. And it takes all of them to come to what 

I think we have all agreed that the goal is that of fair elections. 

And if you take, for instance, the voter registration component, 

I think you can see where it will affect every other item on your 

list. 

410 

The logistics—if you are talking about in cases where you are 

talking about 27,000 potentially fraudulent—or erroneous even— 

registrations, the logistics of trying to deal with that at the polling 

place on Election Day, the personnel it takes to do that. 

Certainly on the voter intimidation, manipulation of registrations 

is sort of the core element of the caging of this. 

And I think they are all equally relevant and should be addressed to achieve a fair election. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And I would agree with you conceptually. The 

problem is, to the degree and the extent that you have any of these 

factors actually existing, not just the potential, but the reality. 

And so I am saying we need to be dealing with the reality. 

And I want to go on with the—Professor Benson? 

Ms. BENSON. Thank you. I believe in data driven decisions. And 

based on that, anything that blocks any eligible voter from voting 

and disenfranchising them is a problem. 

And to your list I would add in that regard voter education and 

clarity, which I believe is the responsibility of the government to 

ensure that every voter is aware of her rights. 

In that case, if they arrive at the polls and they are intimidated 

or told that they can’t vote, that they are aware that they can and 

they are able to produce any necessary evidence to ensure that 

they vote. 

So I would add voter education on the qualifications of voting 

and the requirements on Election Day where the polling place is. 

And I would emphasize that I do believe it is the responsibility 

of election officials and the government generally to ensure that 

every voter knows how to vote. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Clarke? 

Ms. CLARKE. The one thing that I would add to that list is the 

failure of a lot of states to put in place a contingency plan for the 

problems that we know are going to happen, are going to emerge 

on Election Day. 

We have got to be prepared to put in place a Plan B for when 

Plan A fails us. We have got to be prepared to turn to the courts 

to get orders to extend poll hours or order the release that is necessary that will make sure, make certain that every voter gets to 

cast a vote that counts on Election Day. 

So I am concerned about the lack of contingency plan and emergency plan in a lot of states. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much. 

At this time I do want to inquire. I know that the Chairman of 

the full Committee of the Judiciary is here—if he has any further 

questions or observations before we wrap it up. 

Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes. Thank you very much. I want to thank you 

for all of your work. I think it was quite productive today. 

And of course I am indebted to the witnesses for their stamina, 

first, and their contributions, secondly. 

A couple of things occur to me. The rhetoric that comes from the 

symbolic and actual importance and significance of voting can really get quite remarkable. I mean everybody agrees it is important, 

sacred, the basis of a democratic representative government. 

411 

What I wanted to ask as we close, do any of you have any recollections of the history of voting in America? I mean it is not the 

most beautiful picture you would want to teach young people that 

are going into the—that are looking at the voting process. 

This election is marked for the young people that have been 

brought into and caught up in and engaged in the electoral process 

in numbers never before recorded. 

But there are a long list of unsavory incidents in the history of 

the electoral process in America. Does anybody remember them besides me? Not that I was there, but I have been around for a little 

longer than most everybody in this room. 

But using the Gonzalez technique, let us go down the row. What 

do you think, Ms. Clark? We are talking about the history. 

To come into this without any full knowledge of what has gone 

on before can leave you in a rather elevated aspiration or keep 

hope alive mode that belies what has been reported as the true history of voting in America. 

Ms. CLARKE. During your remarks I was reminded of Bloody 

Sunday and folks who marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge 

in Selma, Alabama, and who fought and gave their lives to see that 

all citizens in our country have the ability to exercise the fundamental right to vote. 

So we at the Legal Defense Fund continue to fight and will continue to fight and expect that the others here on the dais, including 

the Justice Department, will do everything in its power to make 

sure that all voters can cast their ballots in November. 

Ms. BENSON. I thank you for reminding us of the very important 

history that came before all of us. I am a former resident of Montgomery, Alabama, and spent some time—a lot of time—in Selma. 

And so I in fact every March would go, when I was down there, 

to the bridge and take my students down there every March now 

to go to the bridge. 

So I think it is crucial to remember that. And back to what I was 

saying with regards to election administration, I do fully believe in 

data driven decision making with regard to the priorities for election administration. 

And I believe in historical data as well. In that regard I think 

voter intimidation and any ongoing efforts to disenfranchise any 

voter needs to be taken in light of the context of history and the 

way that seemingly innocent policies in the past have been used to 

disenfranchise voters, particularly historically to disenfranchise 

populations like African Americans and Latino voters and voters of 

Asian descent and Native American voters. 

And so I think it is a priority for all of us to ensure that our election system encourages the participation of everyone, disenfranchises no one, and that we move forward based on addressing any 

limitations that we know block voters from voting on Election Day. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Mr. Terry? 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think perhaps the word 

‘‘recollection’’—my recollection is probably very different from 

yours, probably more based on things I have read in books. 

But I think that what we have as a country come a very long 

way through some very bad times, but I think if there is one thing 

412 

that we can probably all agree on leaving here today after the discussions is that we still have a long way to go. 

And we certainly appreciate the Committee’s time in addressing 

this. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Mr. O’LEARY. Mr. Chairman, I think we can all agree that we all 

need to fight to create a more perfect union, but in that regard I 

think from women’s suffrage to the civil rights movement, this 

country has come a long way, and we have a lot to be proud of. 

And I know that it is the business of this body to look at the 

ways to make things better, but at the same time we should recognize how great a system we have. 

Ms. NARASAKI. Mr. Chairman, my recollection begins actually 

even before you get to vote. My grandmother immigrated in the 

1920’s from Japan, and by law she was not allowed until the 1950’s 

to become a citizen because she had come from Japan. 

And that has been one of the ways that Asian Americans have 

faced a series of suppressions of our vote. Then my parents were 

interned with my grandmother during World War II, even though 

they were born here. And I am certain that they were not given 

an opportunity to vote during those days. 

But I think it is important to note that it is not just our history. 

We just went through the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act 

with your leadership. And we know that all of these things are still 

happening. 

And then when we have the hearings and when we reached out 

and heard from tribal leaders in South Dakota, who just 4 years 

ago were talking about how they were being deprived of their right 

to vote, I think it is important for Americans to understand it is 

not just our history, it is also what is going on right now. 

And I very much appreciate the fact that you are doing this hearing to bring that to light. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Mr. HANCOCK. I would say that you nailed it, sir. And I would 

add that our preparation for this election has to be implemented 

in the context of that history. 

And I would give you one example from our—in Florida in 

2000—and I would add to what you said that the discrimination 

was effectuated under color of law by government officials. 

And so when in 2000 police officers outside of Tallahassee set up 

a drivers license checkpoint near a polling place, it was viewed as 

harmless by White citizens, but southern Blacks were intimidated 

because of what they live through. 

So this is not ancient history. We are going to have a lot of voters 

who live through this. 

And that is why it is particularly important, as we balance this 

issue of vote fraud with the right to vote and the Voting Rights 

Act, that we not—we do it in a very delicate balance so that in effectuating criminal laws, we are not intimidating people from voting. 

And that is I think this department took a terrific step forward 

with this year’s plans to not use criminal prosecutors for that reason. 

413 

So we have a very—I mean we have made remarkable progress, 

and the candidates on this ballot show that progress, but we still 

live in a context of a very sorry history of discrimination in this 

country, that we need to make sure as we plan for this election 

that we understand that. 

And to give you one other example in the housing context, someone in your generation who reads a housing ad that says housing 

is restricted might do that differently than a younger African 

American person. 

So we have to go forward with this plan for this election, recognizing how discrimination can be effectuated in very subtle ways. 

And it is not, as I said before, racial animus is not a prerequisite 

for a claim under the Voting Rights Act. 

The question is are people being singled out or targeted because 

of their race or national origin or language minority status? That 

is not a difficult standard. 

And some of the things we are hearing about now certainly raise 

issues under the Voting Rights Act that I suggest the department 

should be looking at actively with investigations. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Hancock. Does that suggest that 

caging could be illegal if racism was not even involved? 

Mr. HANCOCK. People target—voter suppression is done because 

the people doing it believe that the persons they are targeting are 

more likely to vote for the opposite party. 

And the question is what is their reason for believing that? The 

Detroit, the Macomb County incident—and I am not going to discuss the merits of that. I am just going to discuss the allegations. 

But if people who face foreclosure notices are being targeted to 

be challenged, the question is why does someone believe that people who had a foreclosure notice are most likely to vote for the 

other party? 

And if you look at foreclosure statistics, I think they would show 

that they are disproportionately minority. So there becomes a link 

there. 

We know in this election that people could be targeted for suppression based on the color of their skin because of the candidates 

that we have in this election. 

So yes, I would say that those allegations raise claims under the 

Voting Rights Act. I am not commenting whether they can be 

proved or can’t be proved, but I think that they certainly raise 

issues that implicate the Voting Rights Act. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Ms. Becker? 

Ms. BECKER. I agree with my other panelists here that certainly 

Selma is one. I was just reading yesterday—last night—Congressman Lewis’ book and was just admiring his bravery during that 

time period. 

One other person that I would like to note in terms of historical 

perspective in Fannie Lou Hamer, who was one of the individuals 

who was named in the 2006 reauthorization act, which the department is currently defending the constitutionality of in Federal 

court. 

She was again another person who exhibited tremendous bravery, a woman who was just a regular person like so many AmeriVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:46 Jan 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00421 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\092408\44612.000 HJUD1 PsN: 44612
414 

cans here today. And while progress has been made, I agree with 

the other panelists that there is more work to be done. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now, looking at just a little bit different dimension, we have also in our history allegations of a lot of unsavory 

practices in voting. 

Half a pint of whiskey if you vote, and vote right—whatever that 

might have meant to the person giving out the alcoholic beverage. 

Stories of a Chicago machine politics in which the ward boss 

would go into the polling place with the voter to make sure he or 

she voted the right way. No one was depending on anyone’s integrity. 

And we have had—I hate to raise this with the Chairman in the 

seat here, but in Texas we have had some elections that involved 

former President Lyndon Johnson that have been written about 

from different perspectives. 

Indeed, even the Kennedy election within our memory was highly 

debated and contested for many, many years. 

Louisiana—you could write volumes about voting practices there 

that I can only hope have been ended—and throughout the South 

in its entirety. 

So what are you suggesting, Chairman Conyers? 

Well, I am suggesting that we keep these things in perspective 

as the patriotic rhetoric rises to the sky. Elections are a reflection 

culturally of a people. I mean, the whole notion of war by any other 

means—a great way to duke it out in America is to win an election. 

Well, like in sports, people resort to excesses to win. I mean you 

want to win. The question on—I just saw it leaving the majority 

leader’s office on, I think, it was Time or Newsweek magazine. It 

said, ‘‘Will McCain win nasty?’’ Everybody knows what that means. 

They could put in anybody else’s name. 

There is something in our cultural situation like in sports. U of 

M has got to beat MSU in Michigan or else. Well and, of course, 

Michigan State is just reverse, and so it is across the country. I 

mean sports is a great way to get it off your chest. Let’s pulverize 

these guys. Let’s win. 

And in our system it translates over into everything: elections, 

voting. But I haven’t heard any discussion of that. In other words, 

if we just ignore that and say, ‘‘Well, everybody is honorable and 

ethical, and everybody wants everybody else to vote, and we don’t 

want any hanky-panky or froth. 

But, look, we are all human, so how does, Attorney Avery, this 

factor into it? We are trying to get the best, fairest election we can 

in 42 days, so what about that factor? There are people that are 

saying, ‘‘We have got to win. Look, this election is so critical. We 

have got to win it.’’ 

Ms. CLARKE. I think that some of the examples that you raised, 

you know, may very well be true and are isolated, frankly. The examples of persons who are seeking to buy votes, seeking to fraudulently cast votes, seeking to impersonate the dead, I think those incidents are few and far between in our country. 

And what I think we are seeing today is a real struggle where 

people are trying to overcome very real barriers that stand between 

them and the ballot box, trying to overcome the burdens imposed 

by restrictive mandatory, government-issued photo identification 

415 

requirements, trying to overcome tactics like what we are seeing in 

Macomb County. 

And although party officials have since backed down from their 

plans to use foreclosure lists to challenge voters, the chilling effect 

remains. And who knows how many voters may be discouraged or 

deterred from turning out on November 4 because of Macomb 

County officials’ initial plan. 

So I remain very focused and think that we are all better served 

remaining focused on the substantial barriers and burdens that 

voters are up against today, and that we sometimes allow ourselves 

to be unnecessarily sidetracked by these isolated examples of votebuying that you hear about from time to time. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, the only problem is, though, that some of the 

intimidation and coercion is not coming from citizens or other 

groups. It is coming from the government. I mean citizens didn’t 

dream up ID, all these incredible barriers to people that don’t even 

drive and can’t even get to a place and couldn’t afford it if they 

could. 

The foreclosure lists may have been dreamed up by a political 

party, but you know, as I think a little bit more about this, is that 

there seems to be two classifications of people in this country. 

There are some people that honestly want to restrict the right of 

the ballot. They want to make it tough, tough as they can, exclude 

as many people however you can. And there are other people that 

want to make it as open as you can, inclusive as you can, simple 

as you can. 

Isn’t bad individuals that still have Election Day on a Tuesday. 

Why is it a government requirement that you have to vote after 

you get the kids to school however you can. You got to get to work. 

You got to hope the weather is good, all of this. 

But nobody says, ‘‘Well, look, why do we that? Why don’t we just 

have a day off for voting?’’ which many modern countries have been 

doing for quite awhile now. That is not mal-intentioned individuals. 

That is government. That is the ID notion. That is the make it 

tough as you can. 

If you are a student, how can you vote from your dormitory? You 

are signed up in Ann Arbor. You live in Ann Arbor. You can’t vote 

in Lansing. I mean these are government initiatives. I am not talking about a few bad eggs floating around in the community. What 

about that? That is government-directed strategies that do not encourage voting and do not make it any fairer or safer or less fraudulent. 

Ms. BENSON. Congressman, if I could add, as you may know, I 

live in the city of Detroit where a state legislator named Papa 

George, in 2004, was quoted as saying, ‘‘If we do not suppress the 

Detroit vote, we are going to have a tough time in this election.’’ 

And that was something that he talked about and was covered in 

The New York Times and other places. 

And so from my perspective and as I tried to make clear in my 

testimony, denials are denials. We know Acorn has also denied 

things. You know, the discussion still needs to go forward around 

clarifying the issue for voters, ensuring that voters know they are 

welcome and encouraged to participate on Election Day and also 

recognizing that there is at times a pattern of statements that are 

416 

made, as you said, by government officials about suppressing the 

vote that does need to be emphasized. 

Mr. TERRY. Yes, I think one of the core elements that I sort of 

took out of your remarks is when you talk about sports and, you 

know, doing anything to win is at the core of human nature, 

human nature to win. 

And human nature, you know, we all have morals and values 

and things that got us, that sort of draw us away from those more 

natural instincts. But when those aren’t enough, we build laws and 

institutions, structures and government. 

And you talk about a lot of examples of where government is 

doing this, and in this country we are government by the people. 

And very often that government gets it wrong, and that is why it 

takes other people to fix the government. 

And so I don’t have any solutions for any of those things, but it 

did strike me that, you know, human nature being bound by rules, 

morals and laws and government being bound by the people, and 

that is ultimately the solution. 

Mr. O’LEARY. Mr. Chairman, I think I don’t need to tell you this 

after your years of service to your country, but what I think this 

all comes down to is the difference between running for elected office for power or running for elected office because you want to 

serve your country. 

If it is about power, you are willing to do anything. If it is about 

service, you are only willing to do the right thing. 

Ms. NARASAKI. One of the things I finally have figured out after 

about 20 years of doing this is—one of the challenges that I think 

really needs to be rethought about our system is we rely on the 

candidates and the parties to get people out to vote. 

And what we have seen with the immigrant community is because they are first-time voters and no one is sure how they are 

going to vote, there is actually no incentive by many of the parties 

or the candidates to actually get them out to vote. 

And I think government really needs to take a much more active 

role and responsibility in the realm of how do we make sure that 

people get the information they need, know what their rights and 

responsibilities are and get that real opportunity to vote. 

And we shouldn’t rely anymore on private sectors because what 

it spawns is what you said. The example that came to mind when 

you were talking was the Department of Justice had to intervene 

in Bayou La Batre, Alabama. 

Now, there is a Vietnamese community in Bayou La Batre, Alabama. It is on the coast, and they are shrimpers. And for the first 

time, a Vietnamese-American was going to run for a local office. 

Well, the incumbent decided that the best way to prevent him 

from winning was to challenge the voter rolls of everybody who had 

an Asian name assuming, of course, that the Asians would vote for 

him. 

The Department of Justice intervened. What I found so striking 

about the story was that the people who challenged it were then 

supposed to be the main poll-workers in the general election, and 

that is the problem. 

We have to really take this more out of the hands of the teams, 

as you will, and put it more in a neutral forum so that what Mr. 

417 

O’Leary refers to, the focus is on what the greater importance of 

democracy is for America and not on the short-term wins and 

losses. 

Mr. HANCOCK. I guess my comments would be that, first of all, 

I could argue about the propriety of certain laws that we have. I 

mean if you are going to vote for President, why does it matter 

where you go? Everybody can vote for President. 

But at the same time, we are not going to change those laws before this election, and they are going to be enforced, and we are 

going to have live with them. And there is room for principle disagreement as to what the best result is, but there is no room for 

any disagreement that the national policy is reflected in the Voting 

Rights Act. 

And that is that while partisan politics can drive conduct, partisan politics cannot use race to drive that conduct so that to the 

extent—and I emphasize this repeatedly because I think it is so important, given the election that we are facing—that people are 

going to be identified as possibly supporting a particular candidate 

by the color of their skin. And suppression efforts likely are going 

to be directed just like the example that was given earlier based 

on that factor. 

So although the people doing it may claim that their motivating 

factor is partisan politics, that does not absolve them from liability 

under the Voting Rights Act because they are using race to carry 

that out. And this Congress passed a law 43 years ago that said 

you can’t do that, and I would hope that that would be enforced 

stringently as we proceed to this election. 

And having been in the department for many years—I spent 27 

years in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice— 

I know that there is a great reluctance to get involved with issues 

at the time of a presidential election because it might appear to be 

partisan. 

But over the years, the department has always addressed partisan issues. They have precleared redistricting plans that might 

favor one political over another or they have objected to redistricting plans that might favor one political party over the other. 

So that even though a particular vote-caging effort that is directed at African-Americans, a remedy for it might favor a political 

candidate, that is not a reason for the department not to act, and 

they have always been under a burden to act in a non-partisan way 

in enforcing this law. I recognize that it is very difficult for them 

to do it, but I would urge you to demand that they do it. 

Ms. BECKER. I would like to emphasize something that I said in 

my opening remarks, which is that I have made clear, as Mr. Hancock has suggested, to everyone on the voting issues that we handle, that we need to enforce all of the statutes that we have. Where 

are the facts in law? Well, we have evidence and the law is there 

for us to bring a case, and to do so without regard to politics and 

just let the chips fall where they may at the end of the day. If we 

do our job, which is to vigorously enforce the laws under our authority, that is all we can do. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I thank you all. 

418 

Ms. Becker, let me ask you about another book. Have you ever 

heard of the book ‘‘What Went Wrong in Ohio?’’ It is about the 

2004 election. 

Ms. BECKER. I printed that off of the internet, but I haven’t seen 

the actual bound copy of the book. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, you will immediately after this hearing. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BECKER. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. You are more than welcome. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, sir. 

I don’t believe that we have any other Members seeking recognition. Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit to the clerk of each Committee additional written questions 

for the witnesses, which will then be forwarded and then ask the 

witnesses to respond as promptly as they can so that their answers 

may be made part of the record. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit any additional materials for inclusion in the record. 

This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:07 p.m., the Subcommittees were adjourned.] 

419 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


G-1.eps
420 


G-2.eps
421 

f 


G-3.eps
422 


H-1.eps
423 

f 


H-2.eps
424 


I-1.eps
425 

f 


I-2.eps
426 

f 


J.eps
427 


K-1.eps
428 


K-2.eps
429 


K-3.eps
430 


K-4.eps
431 


K-5.eps
432 

f 


K-6.eps
433 

f 


L.eps
434 

f 


M.eps
435 


N-1.eps
436 

f 


N-2.eps
437 


O-1.eps
438 

f 


O-2.eps
439 


P-1.eps
440 

f 


P-2.eps
441 


Q-1.eps
442 


Q-2.eps
443 


Q-3.eps
444 


Q-4.eps
445 


Q-5.eps
446 


Q-6.eps
447 


Q-7.eps
448 


Q-8.eps
449 


Q-9.eps
450 


Q-10.eps
451 


Q-11.eps
452 

f 


Q-12.eps
453 


R-1.eps
454 


R-2.eps
455 


R-3.eps
456 


R-4.eps
457 

f 


R-5.eps
458 


S-1.eps
459 


S-2.eps
460 


S-3.eps
461 


S-4.eps
462 


S-5.eps
463 


S-6.eps
464 


S-7.eps
465 


S-8.eps
466 


S-9.eps
467 


S-10.eps
468 

f 


S-11.eps
469 


AA-1.eps
470 


AA-2.eps
471 


AA-3.eps
472 

f 


AA-4.eps
473 


BB-1.eps
474 


BB-2.eps
475 


BB-3.eps
476 


BB-4.eps
477 


BB-5.eps
478 

f 


BB-6.eps
479 

Æ 


CC.eps