069–006 

1Please see Appendix A for Directive 2008–025. 

110TH CONGRESS REPT. 110–851 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 1 

VETERAN VOTING SUPPORT ACT 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2008.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on House 

Administration, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 6625] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on House Administration, to whom was referred 

the bill (H.R. 6625) to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 

permit facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs to be designated as voter registration agencies, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

In section 4(2), strike the semicolon and insert the following: ‘‘, except that nothing in this paragraph may be construed to waive any requirement under State or 

local law regarding an individual’s eligibility to receive an absentee ballot or vote 

by absentee ballot in any election;’’. 

VETERAN VOTING SUPPORT ACT OF 2008 

PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION

H.R. 6625, the Veteran Voting Support Act, was introduced in response to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ voting assistance 

policy adopted in Directive 2008-025 1, which denies our veterans 

the voter registration opportunities and voting assistance they deserve. Despite several meetings and concerns expressed by state 

election officials, advocacy groups, and congressional members, inVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:41 Sep 16, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR851P1.XXX HR851P1

rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTS
2 

2 H.R. 6625 is supported by the American Legion, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Disabled 

American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Veterans Association, American Association of People with Disabilities, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Brennan 

Center, DEMOS, Common Cause, People for the American Way, and the NAACP Legal Defense 

and Educational Fund (LDF). Please see Appendix E for Letters of Support. 3 James P. Peake, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, letter to Debra Bowen, California Secretary 

of State, May 19, 2008. 4O’Leary, Mary, ‘‘State officials protest ban on voter registration at VA facilities,’’ New Haven 

Register, July 1, 2008. 5 Bysiewicz, Susan, Connecticut Secretary of State, letter to James P. Peake, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, July 16, 2008. 

cluding this Committee, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

refused to change its voting assistance policy. Consequently, this 

legislation would require the VA to proactively provide voter registration opportunities and enthusiastically assist our veterans 

with the voting process. H.R. 6625 is co-sponsored by 37 Members 

of Congress and supported by organizations that represent over six 

million veterans and hundreds of thousands of concerned citizens.2

Our veterans have dedicated their lives to protecting our country 

and deserve every commitment from the government to offer them 

the opportunity to participate in the political process. However, it 

is apparent through the VA’s policies and actions that the VA 

views voter registration and assistance as a hindrance rather than 

a responsibility. For example, the VA’s voting assistance policy only 

permits voting assistance if requested and restricts opportunities 

for veterans to become registered to vote. In addition, the VA’s refusal to accept the California Secretary of State’s request for VA facilities to help assist in registering veterans is unprecedented.3 The 

VA should seriously and proactively assist our veterans with the 

voting process. H.R. 6625 would require the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to permit States to designate VA facilities as voter registration agencies under Section 7 of the National Voter Registration 

Act. As designated voter registration agencies under Section 7, the 

VA facilities would be required to regularly offer registration and 

assist veterans in voting. 

Implementation of Directive 2008–025 has created instances 

where state election officials have been denied the opportunity to 

educate and assist veterans with the voting process at VA facilities. 

Specifically, in July of 2008 the Connecticut Secretary of State was 

denied access to the West Haven Veterans Center to educate veterans about the state’s new voting equipment as well as conduct 

voter registration efforts.4 This situation is unacceptable as election 

officials have the expertise and knowledge to assist our veterans in 

the registration and voting process. These sentiments were also expressed in a July 16, 2008 letter sent by 20 Secretaries of State 

urging the VA to change its voter assistance policy.5

H.R. 6625 will ensure that the very individuals with voting expertise and experience are not denied access to VA facilities. To 

guarantee that veterans utilizing VA facilities are able to benefit 

from the expertise of election officials, H.R. 6625 specifically prohibits the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from banning election administration officials from providing voting information to veterans 

at designated VA facilities. State election officials are responsible 

for encouraging participation and ensuring integrity in our election 

system and federal agencies should not undermine these efforts. 

H.R. 6625 also addresses the VA prohibition on voter registration 

drives at VA facilities. By prohibiting non-partisan voter registraVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:41 Sep 16, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR851P1.XXX HR851P1

rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTS
3 

6 H.R. 6625 instructs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide States the ability to designate facilities of the Department of Veterans as voter registration agencies. However, the 

Committee recognizes the range of VA facilities spans medical centers, outpatient clinics, cemeteries and psychiatric clinics. States are urged to use discretion in the designation of facilities 

and consider whether a VA cemetery is an appropriate venue to conduct education and outreach. 

The Committee does not believe it is. Furthermore, reasonable care must be taken by all to ensure that ongoing medical care services at VA facilities are not disrupted. The Committee anticipates that the States will take care regarding this imperative. 7 ‘‘Political Activity and the Federal Employee,’’ U.S. Office of Special Counsel, December 2005. 8There have been legitimate concerns about the requirement that the VA make available absentee ballots when requested. It should be noted that the VA should not store blank absentee 

ballots at facilities but rather ensure requested absentee ballots sent by local election offices are 

made available to inidividuals who request them. 

tion drives, the VA overlooks one of the most effective tools in promoting veterans’ right to vote. Across the country, millions of voters who historically have not participated in elections have been 

energized to participate this year through new and innovative registration programs, many of which are conducted by election officials and non-partisan organizations. It is unreasonable to deny 

veterans these opportunities merely because they reside in VA facilities. Therefore, H.R. 6625 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to allow election officials and non-partisan organizations to provide voter registration and assistance at VA facilities.6

The VA has repeatedly objected to voter registration drives under 

the premise that local VA facilities would have the purportedly 

burdensome task of determining which organizations are in fact 

non-partisan and which are partisan. This task has already been 

accomplished through 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3), the registration of nonprofit charities under the United States Internal Revenue Code. By 

allowing 501(c)(3) organizations to conduct registration drives, local 

VA facilities would not have to investigate whether an organization 

has a political affiliation. Instead, an organization that has been 

classified by the United States Government as a 501(c)(3) organization in good standing should be considered non-partisan. The VA 

can rest assured that if the Internal Revenue Service finds that an 

organization is violating its status as a 501(c)(3) organization, the 

proper steps will be taken to remedy the situation; in fact, the draconian consequences of violating 501(c)(3) standards make most 

non-profits extraordinary careful to avoid such violations. In addition, despite claims made by the VA, the Hatch Act (53 Stat. 1147) 

does not prohibit federal employees from assisting in voter registration drives, nor does the Hatch Act prohibit federal property from 

being used for nonpartisan education and registration activities.7

H.R. 6625 also requires designated VA facilities to provide absentee voting information, assist veterans in registering as well as voting absentee, and work with election officials to ensure proper delivery of voting materials. These additional requirements are necessary to ensure the VA is proactively assisting our veterans. Furthermore, many veterans using the VA facilities may be disabled 

and may require additional assistance.8

Lastly, the VA has argued that providing voter registration opportunities will disrupt facility operations. We have heard these 

unsupported arguments before, by critics of the National Voter 

Registration Act requirements. However, as witnessed through Departments of Motor Vehicles’ ‘‘motor voter’’ registrations, agencies 

can successfully conduct their primary responsibilities and register 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTS
4 

9 It should be noted that of the 36 million voter registration applications processed from 2004– 

2006, over 50% were received from motor vehicle agencies or other public assistance agencies. 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s ‘‘The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act, 2005– 

2006.’’ 10 Hearing on the National Voter Registration Act, Section 7: The Challenges That Public Assistance Agencies Face. 110th Congress 2nd Sess. Page 95 (April 1, 2008). 

voters as well.9 In addition, as noted by Ms. Kathy Truss of the 

Michigan Department of Human Services during the April 1, 2008 

Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Elections 

Hearing, ‘‘compliance with the National Voter Registration Act is 

not just another federal mandate; it is a key component for families 

to act on their own behalf and become part of the public debate.’’ 10

Promoting civic engagement at the Department of Veterans Affairs 

should not be viewed as a disruption in operations; rather, it is an 

instrumental component of providing medical and social support 

services to our veterans. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION

Section One—Establishes the short title of this legislation as the 

‘‘Veteran Voting Support Act’’ 

Section Two: Findings 

• Finds that veterans have risked the greatest sacrifice in the 

name of our country and deserve to be supported by the people and 

the government of the United States. 

• Finds that veterans are especially qualified to understand 

issues of foreign policy and should be able to voice that understanding through voting. 

• Finds that the Department of Veterans Affairs should make 

every effort to assist veterans in participating in our democracy by 

helping veterans register and vote. 

Section Three—Department of Veterans Affairs facilities as voter 

registration agencies 

• Requires that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs permit states 

to designate VA facilities as voter registration agencies under Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act. 

Section Four—Assistance with absentee ballots 

• Requires VA facilities designated as voter registration agencies 

to provide voting information, assist veterans in registering as well 

as voting, and work with election officials to ensure proper delivery 

of voting materials. Provides that nothing in this act may be construed to waive any requirement under State or local law regarding 

an individual’s eligibility to receive an absentee ballot or vote by 

absentee ballot. 

Section Five—Assistance provided by non-partisan organizations 

• Requires that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs allow non-partisan organizations to provide voter registration and assistance at 

VA facilities. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTS
5 

Section Six—Assistance provided by election administration officials 

• Prohibits the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from banning election administration officials from providing voting information to 

veterans at any VA facility. 

• Defines ‘voting information’ as non-partisan information intended for the public about voting, which includes voter registration, voting systems, absentee balloting, polling locations, and other 

important resources for voters. 

Section Seven—Annual report 

• Requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs submit to Congress 

an annual report on how the Secretary has complied with the requirements of this Act. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF THE LEGISLATION INTRODUCTION

On July 29, 2008, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, along with 37 

members of the House, introduced H.R. 6625, which was referred 

to the Committee on House Administration with an additional referral to the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee. On Wednesday, 

July 30, 2008, the Committee met to mark up H.R. 6625. The Committee ordered H.R. 6625 be favorably reported to the House with 

an amendment by a voice vote. 

MATTERS REQUIRED UNDER THE RULES OF THE HOUSE

COMMITTEE RECORD VOTES

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

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

the name of those voting for and against, to be printed in the committee report. There were no recorded votes during the consideration of H.R. 6625. 

Amendment agreed to by voice vote 

Ehlers Amendment #2: This amendment would provide clarification language in Section 4 that nothing in this act may be construed to waive any requirement under State or local law regarding 

an individual’s eligibility to receive an absentee ballot or vote by 

absentee ballot. The amendment was agreed to by a voice vote. 

Amendments not agreed to by voice vote 

Ehlers Amendment #1: This amendment would remove the requirement in Section 4 that the Department of Veterans Affairs 

make absentee ballots available as well as assist veterans in completing absentee ballots. The amendment was not agreed to by a 

voice vote. 

Ehlers Amendment #3: This amendment would remove Section 5 

of the legislation, which requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

to permit non-partisan organizations to provide voter registration 

and assistance at VA facilities. The amendment was not agreed to 

by a voice vote. 

Ehlers Amendment #4: This amendment would limit the VA facilities that states can designate as voter registration agencies 

under Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act to only 

those in which the Veterans Affairs Voluntary Service does not proVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:41 Sep 16, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR851P1.XXX HR851P1

rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTS
6 

vide voter registration assistance. The amendment was not agreed 

to by a voice vote. 

Ehlers Amendment #5: This amendment would limit Section 4 

requirements to only inpatient or residential facilities. The amendment was not agreed to by a voice vote. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

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

House of Representatives, the Committee states that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on the oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this 

report. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

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

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

manner of holding Federal elections. 

EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI, H.R. 6625 does not include any 

congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI. 

PREEMPTION CLARIFICATION

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires the 

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

committee statement on the extent to which the bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state or local law. H.R. 6625 is intended to apply in all States and preempt laws to the contrary in 

their application to Federal elections. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

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

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

the bill, the following estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, September 15, 2008. 

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

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 6625, the Veteran Voting 

Support Act. 

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Dwayne M. Wright. 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT A. SUNSHINE

(For Peter R. Orszag, Director). 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTS
7 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 6625—Veteran Voting Support Act 

H.R. 6625 would require the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to allow states to designate VA facilities as voter 

registration sites and to provide information and assistance to individuals wishing to register to vote or to cast an absentee ballot. 

The bill also would permit nonpartisan organizations—such as the 

League of Women Voters—to provide such information and assistance at VA facilities. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 6625 

would cost less than $500,000 over the 2009–2013 period, subject 

to appropriation of the necessary amounts. Enacting the bill would 

not affect direct spending or revenues. 

The 1,330 facilities under VA’s jurisdiction include Vet Centers, 

VA Medical Centers, community-based outpatient clinics, regional 

offices, and cemeteries. Assuming that all but the national cemeteries—about 135 in total—are feasible as voter registration sites, 

about 1,200 facilities could be used to offer the services that would 

be required under H.R. 6625. 

The materials necessary for voter registration and absentee balloting are prepared by the states. The states also have existing programs to train individuals on compliance with the National Voter 

Registration Act. Furthermore, VA recently announced plans to use 

the managers of its Voluntary Services Program (VSP) as site coordinators to direct the efforts of volunteers working to ensure timely 

delivery of materials and information to individuals needing assistance with voter registration at VA hospitals and clinics. Assuming 

that VSP managers or current VA employees would be used as site 

coordinators at other VA facilities, and that most of the work would 

be done by volunteers, CBO expects that the costs associated with 

completing those extra duties would be less than $500,000 over the 

2009–2013 period. 

H.R. 6625 also would require VA to complete annual compliance 

reports to the Congress outlining its efforts to utilize VA facilities 

as voter registration sites. CBO estimates that implementing section 7 would cost less than $500,000 over the 2009–2013 period, 

subject to appropriation of the necessary amounts. 

H.R. 6625 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

This estimate was prepared by Dwayne M. Wright. The estimate 

was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

H.R. 6625 makes no changes to existing law. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTS
8 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 12 here HR851A.001
9 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 13 here HR851A.002
10 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 14 here HR851A.003
11 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 15 here HR851A.004
12 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 16 here HR851A.005
13 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 17 here HR851A.006
14 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 18 here HR851A.007
15 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 19 here HR851A.008
16 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 20 here HR851A.009
17 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 21 here HR851A.010
18 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 22 here HR851A.011
19 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 23 here HR851A.012
20 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 24 here HR851A.013
21 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 25 here HR851A.014
22 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 26 here HR851A.015
23 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 27 here HR851A.016
24 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 28 here HR851A.017
25 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 29 here HR851A.018
26 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 30 here HR851A.019
27 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 31 here HR851A.020
28 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 32 here HR851A.021
29 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 33 here HR851A.022
30 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 34 here HR851A.023
31 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 35 here HR851A.024
32 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 36 here HR851A.025
33 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 37 here HR851A.026
34 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 38 here HR851A.027
35 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 39 here HR851A.028
36 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 40 here HR851A.029
37 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 41 here HR851A.030
38 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 42 here HR851A.031
39 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 43 here HR851A.032
40 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 44 here HR851A.033
(41) 

MINORITY VIEWS 

H.R. 6625 VETERAN VOTING SUPPORT ACT (VVSA) 

On July 30, 2008, the Committee on House Administration ordered H.R. 6625 reported favorably by voice vote. H.R. 6625 provides for the designation of Veterans Affairs facilities as Voter Registration Agencies under section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, establishes additional requirements with respect 

to the provision of special absentee voting services at such facilities, and prohibits the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from excluding 

third party voter registration groups from VA facilities even when 

doing so is in the best interest of the Veterans who use these facilities. 

While we laud the Committee for addressing the critical issue of 

enfranchising those who have served our nation, and we support 

some of the bill’s provisions, we have serious concerns about the 

breadth of H.R. 6625, and the potential for unintended detrimental 

consequences. In addition, we are disappointed by the manner in 

which the Majority introduced this legislation—less than twentyfour hours before bringing it to mark up—which left insufficient 

time for meaningful reflection and discussion about this important 

issue and denied the members of this Committee the benefit of receiving testimony from interested parties. 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FACILITES AS VOTER

REGISTRATION AGENCIES; SPECIAL ABSENTEE VOTING SERVICES

Section 3 of H.R. 6625 permits a State to designate VA facilities 

located in that state as voter registration agencies (VRAs) under 

section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act. Section 4 then imposes upon VA facilities designated as VRAs additional duties with 

respect to absentee voting services. While we do not categorically 

oppose the designation of VA facilities as voter registration agencies where a state seeks such designation (provided that in doing 

so patient care is not compromised), we are concerned about the 

consequences of burdening VA facilities with additional, potentially 

redundant obligations. 

As a preliminary matter, we note that H.R. 6625 fails to take advantage of the important role of the VA’s Voluntary Service 

(VAVS), one of the largest centralized volunteer programs in the 

federal government. In order to ensure that veterans receive voter 

assistance services in a non-partisan manner, with minimal disruption to facility operations, and at the least risk to patients, we believe voter assistance services should be coordinated through the 

VAVS to the greatest extent practicable. Moreover, under VHA Directive 2008–025, the VA already requires that each facility Director ensure that each facility has a policy addressing assistance to 

VA patients who seek to exercise their right to register and vote, 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTS
42 

1 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg–5(a). 

including informing all patients of the opportunity to receive voting 

assistance, and obtaining and maintaining materials used to assist 

with voter registration and voting. 

Second, we are concerned about the special absentee voting services imposed upon VA facilities that are designated as VRAs pursuant to section 3 of H.R. 6625. Under section 7 of the NVRA, which 

applies to public assistance agencies, public libraries, marriage license bureaus, unemployment compensation offices, military recruiting offices, and voter registration services provided to a person 

with a disability at the person’s home, certain services must be 

made available: Distribution of voter registration applications, assistance in completing voter registration applications, and acceptance of completed voter registration forms for transmittal to the 

appropriate office.1 H.R. 6625 would impose upon VA facilities additional duties relating specifically to absentee voting; however, the 

Majority has not provided any justification for this special treatment of VA facilities under NVRA. If there are concerns about the 

adequacy of the services made available at all VRAs, the Committee should investigate this issue before haphazardly imposing 

additional obligations on VA facilities, especially where such a burden may cause disruptions to facility operations. This is also an example of how the Committee would have benefitted from conducting a hearing on this bill before marking it up. 

The Veterans Administration currently operates approximately 

155 medical centers, 125 nursing homes, 717 ambulatory care and 

clinic facilities, 45 residential rehabilitation treatment programs, 

209 vet centers, 125 cemeteries, and hundreds of administrative 

and other offices nationwide. Clearly the voter assistance needs of 

veterans at these facilities vary. For example, where a resident of 

a VA facility is unable to vote in person on Election Day for health 

reasons, it is appropriate and desirable to provide that individual 

with assistance with absentee voting. However, in other circumstances, it may be duplicative or unnecessary to provide voter 

assistance above and beyond what is required at all other NVRA 

section 7 VRAs. Recognizing this distinction, Mr. Ehlers offered an 

amendment that would limit the scope of the applicability of the 

special absentee voting provisions to those VA facilities where patients reside; however, this amendment was defeated along party 

lines. 

In addition, we specifically object to requiring the VA to provide 

‘‘absentee ballots upon request.’’ We believe that those who are eligible to vote absentee under the laws of the state of their residence 

should be offered absentee voting information and the means to request an absentee ballot. As stated supra, we expect VA facilities 

to provide their patients with the opportunity to receive registration and voting assistance when needed. However, we have serious 

concerns about potential conflicts with state law regarding the handling of absentee ballots under this provision, and we question the 

wisdom and practicability of such a mandate. No other NVRA section 7 VRA is required to keep on hand a stack of absentee ballots. 

An amendment offered by Mr. Ehlers, which would strike the proVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:41 Sep 16, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR851P1.XXX HR851P1

rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTS
43 

2Preminger v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 517 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

vision requiring absentee ballots upon demand, was defeated along 

partisan lines. 

Mr. Ehlers also offered an amendment to section 4, providing 

that nothing in this bill may be construed to waive any requirement under State or Local law regarding an individual’s eligibility 

to receive an absentee ballot or vote absentee. This amendment, 

which was adopted by voice vote, illustrates the care which Congress must exercise when legislating in the area of elections, which 

have traditionally been the province of state and local officials. 

THIRD PARTY VOTER REGISTRATION ORGANIZATIONS

Section 5 of H.R. 6625 requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

to permit certain organizations to provide voter registration information and assistance at any VA facility. Although the Committee 

on House Administration does not have jurisdiction over this section of the bill (and accordingly we were not able to offer any 

amendments), we nonetheless strongly object to this section. 

Specifically, section 5 provides that the VA ‘‘shall permit a meaningful opportunity for nonpartisan organizations to provide voter 

registration information and assistance’’ at VA facilities. However, 

the bill does not define ‘‘meaningful opportunity,’’ ‘‘voter registration information and assistance,’’ or ‘‘nonpartisan organization.’’ 

Without providing definitions of these key terms, section 5 is overly 

vague and difficult to apply fairly and consistently. For example, 

the phrase ‘‘meaningful opportunity’’ means different things to different people, and it would be inexcusable for a Veteran who wishes to convalesce in a private setting to be intruded upon by volunteers from a voter registration group, no matter how well intentioned. 

A recent California case illustrates these risks inherent in allowing outside organizations unfettered access to VA facilities and patients, as section 5 of H.R. 6225 provides for: 

In April 2004, the chairman of the Santa Clara County 

California Democratic Central Committee (SCCDC), Steven Preminger, along with two other individuals, visited a 

VA facility in Menlo Park, California, intending to register 

voters. One of the individuals accompanying Mr. 

Preminger was wearing a ‘‘John Kerry’’ button, and introduced the group as being affiliated with the Democratic 

Party. When Mr. Preminger and his associates were denied permission to register voters, based on a VA regulation prohibiting partisan activities on VA property, Mr. 

Preminger sued the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

In August 2007, a federal court upheld the regulation 

generally prohibiting partisan activities at VA facilities, 

holding that ‘‘the VA must be able to maintain a place of 

healing and rehabilitation for the veterans for which it 

provides services.’’ 2 In August 2008, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower 

court decision holding that the Department of Veterans Affairs properly prohibited Mr. Preminger registering voters 

at the Menlo Park facility and that the VA’s application of 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTS
44 

3Preminger v. Peake, et al., 2008 WL 3168617 (9th Cir. 2008). 

4 Id., at *5. 

5 Id. 

6 Because of the Committee’s lack of jurisdiction over section 5, this amendment, as drafted, 

would have applied only to section 4. However, we believe these concerns apply to the provision 

of voter registration services at all VA facilities. 

the regulation was reasonable and viewpoint neutral.3 The 

Court recognized that the ‘‘primary mission’’ of the VA facility is to provide veterans with needed healthcare, and 

that ‘‘the VA’s concern that voter registration drives could 

compromise its ability to provide health care services to 

veterans was a reasonable rationale for denying 

[Preminger’s] permission to register voters.’’ 4 And moreover, the court held that the VA ‘‘reasonably concluded’’ 

that ‘‘supervising numerous voter registration campaigns 

would be difficult and time consuming, diverting resources 

vital to the residents’ treatment.’’ 5

The grounds upon which the Court relied in upholding the VA’s 

prohibition on partisan voter registration activities at Menlo Park 

apply equally to any voter registration activities: interference with 

the provision of healthcare to Veterans, and disruption to facility 

operations. These concerns do not necessarily reflect a mistrust of 

the motivations of third party organizations that seek to conduct 

voter registration activities, or their volunteers, but rather demonstrate a commitment to protecting the health and dignity of our 

nation’s Veterans. 

Accordingly, we were troubled that the Majority defeated an 

amendment offered by Mr. Ehlers that would prohibit the provision 

of voter registration services where doing so would be detrimental 

to the health of, or interfere with the provision of other services to 

any patient or beneficiary.6

VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION DIRECTIVE 2008–053

On September 8, 2008, several weeks after the Committee 

marked up H.R. 6625, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs issued a new directive revising the Department’s policy regarding the provision of voter assistance services at VA facilities. Specifically, the new Directive allows state and local election 

officials and qualified non-partisan organizations some access to 

VA hospitals and outpatient facilities for the purpose of assisting 

VA officials in registering voters. The new policy also requires that 

state and local government officials and outside groups coordinate 

their voter registration activities with the VA to avoid potential 

disruptions in critical patient care. 

In addition, the Directive mandates each VA facility establish a 

written policy on voter assistance that addresses the following: 

(a) Patients are granted authorized absence for such periods of 

time as necessary to register and to vote, subject to the opinions 

of their health care providers. 

(b) If patients are unable to leave the facility, assistance is provided for registering and for voting by absentee ballot. 

(c) Information on the voting assistance program is posted 

throughout the facility. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTS
45 

7 VHA Directive 2008–053. 

(d) Criteria for evaluating the time, place, and manner of voter 

registration and voter assistance activities are established.7

We applaud the VA’s ongoing efforts to ensure that our nation’s 

Veterans are provided voter registration services. Nevertheless, as 

we expressed during the markup of H.R. 6625, we have serious 

concerns about allowing third-party groups unfettered access to VA 

facilities; and accordingly, we are pleased that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs reflected this concern in Directive 2008–053, requiring VA facilities to establish criteria to evaluate appropriate times, 

places and manners of voter registration activities conducted at 

their facilities. Likewise, we supported establishing a role for the 

VA’s Voluntary Service (VAVS) in voter registration at VA facilities, and therefore we support the VA’s decision to involve the 

VAVS with implementation of the new voter assistance policy. 

However, we are not assured that these new policies will be sufficient to address our concerns until we can determine with certainty 

that the voter registration practices of third party organizations 

are not conducted in a partisan manner and will not disrupt a facility’s ability to provide patient care. 

Directive 2008–053 addresses some, but not all of our concerns 

with H.R. 6625. Nevertheless, at this time it is our sincerest hope 

that Directive 2008–053 will provide the necessary assistance to 

Veterans that elect to exercise their right to register to vote. But 

the real test will come in the implementation of the new policy. 

And, in the meantime, we see no reason to move forward with H.R. 

6625. 

CONCLUSION

Nothing is more important than ensuring that every vote is 

counted, and every eligible citizen is able to cast a ballot. Accordingly, we fully support measures to guarantee that members of the 

Armed Forces and our nation’s Veterans are provided with sufficient information, opportunities, and balloting materials to foster 

their participation in Federal elections. However, we have serious 

concerns about the unintended consequences of H.R. 6625, especially any potential harm to the health and dignity of our nation’s 

Veterans. 

Finally, while the Majority rushed to mark up H.R. 6625 within 

twenty-four hours of its introduction in the House of Representatives, they have been unwilling to address the problem of the disenfranchisement of the members of our nation’s Armed Forces. 

Data from the 2004 and 2006 elections reveal that our military 

service members stationed overseas face substantial obstacles to 

their participation in elections, including untimely receipt of ballots. Specifically, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, in a 

September 2007 UOCAVA Survey, found that, out of the overseas 

military voters who requested absentee ballots for the 2006 election, only 47.6% of them actually had their ballots cast or counted; 

and moreover, of the military and overseas absentee ballots that 

reached election officials, nearly 10% were rejected because they 

were received after the deadline. Recognizing the need to act on 

this problem, Rep. Kevin McCarthy introduced the Military Voter 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTS
46 

Protection Act of 2008 (MVP Act), which would provide for the expedited return of completed ballots. In addition, Rep. Roy Blunt introduced H. Con Res. 388, expressing the sense of Congress that 

the federal government should take certain additional and timely 

measures to ensure that members of the Armed Forces and their 

dependents are provided with reasonable information on how to 

register to vote and vote in the 2008 general elections. Unfortunately, the Majority has refused to act on either of these pieces of 

legislation. We urge the Majority to consider the voting rights of 

the members of our Armed Forces as well as our nation’s veterans. 

VERNON J. EHLERS. 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN. 

KEVIN MCCARTHY. 

Æ 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with REPORTS