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

82–232 2013

H.R. 2115, THE VOTER REGISTRATION EFFICIENCY 

ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Held in Washington, DC, June 4, 2013 

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available on the Internet 

www.fdsys.gov 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan, Chairman 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PHIL GINGREY, M.D., Georgia 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

Ranking Minority Member 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

KELLY CRAVEN, Staff Director 

JAMIE FLEET, Minority Staff Director 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

H.R. 2115, THE VOTER REGISTRATION 

EFFICIENCY ACT 

TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2013 

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

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:03 p.m., in room 

1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Candice S. Miller 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Miller, Rokita, Nugent, and Brady. 

Staff Present: Kelly Craven, Staff Director; Peter Schalestock, 

Deputy General Counsel; Joe Wallace, Legislative Clerk; Yael 

Barash, Assistant Legislative Clerk; Salley Wood, Communications 

Director; Linda Ulrich, Director of Oversight; Bob Sensenbrenner, 

Elections Counsel; Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director; Matt 

Pinkus, Senior Policy Analyst; Khalil Abboud, Minority Elections 

Staff; Thomas Hicks, Minority Elections Counsel; Greg Abbott, Minority Professional Staff Member; and Eddie Flaherty, Minority 

Professional Staff Member. 

The CHAIRMAN. If the witness will come to the table, we spent 

a little more time in the markup than we thought, but we are delighted to have them here. We will begin the hearing portion of our 

committee on House Administration regarding H.R. 2115, the Voter 

Registration Efficiency Act. First of all, let me announce that the 

hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days so that any 

members that want to submit any materials for the record may do 

so to be included therein. Again, a quorum is present so we can 

proceed. 

The purpose of our hearing today is to discuss the need for a simple legislative fix to the National Voter Registration Act that would 

assist states in their efforts to maintain up to date and accurate 

voter lists and hopefully reduce some of the administrative costs 

associated with identifying duplicate registrations in multiple 

States. And in doing those things, H.R. 2115 will also increase confidence in our election by making it less likely for voters to be registered in more than one State at a time, whether that is by accident or whether that is by intent. And obviously, if a voter is not 

registered in more than one State, it is much less likely that they 

will be able to vote in more than one State. 

According to a February 2012 study commissioned by the Pew 

Center of the States, one out of eight registrations in the United 

States are inaccurate and approximately 2.7 million people have 

active registrations in multiple States. As those figures show these 

problems are not imaginary. In 2004, the New York Daily News exVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:30 Jul 31, 2013 Jkt 082232 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A232.XXX A232

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

amined voter registrations in Florida and New York City, not even 

the whole State just in the city. And they found about 46,000 people were registered to vote in both States and 400 or more who had 

actually voted in both. That same year, the Cleveland Plain Dealer 

found 27,000 people registered in Ohio and Florida, and about 400 

who had voted in both States. Because of these findings, States 

have taken steps on their own to try and reduce double registration. Kansas actually initiated a cross-State matching program that 

my State of Michigan and Secretary Bennett’s State of Arizona 

have both belonged to that is designed to help identify people registered in multiple States so that the voter rolls can be corrected. 

Another program called the Electronic Registration Information 

Center has many other purposes, but it also helps its member 

States to identify double registrations. Even with programs like 

this in place, double registration and double voting, it is still happening. In fact, just last year a candidate actually in Maryland was 

charged with illegally voting in both Maryland and Florida in 2006 

and 2010. This was a candidate for Congress that voted in two separate States, twice. 

Finding double registrations is only one part of the process. The 

next step is removing any of the registrations and as Michigan discovered when it was sued for trying to eliminate double registration, the NVRA makes that both difficult and expensive. As a 

former Secretary in Michigan, I am certainly no stranger to the 

challenges election officials face when trying to comply with section 

8 of NVRA, the section which requires each State to implement 

some form of a list maintenance program that keeps the voter registration current. 

I was very aware of these challenges when I left office back in 

the day 2003, and since then, we haven’t seen the much needed updates to NVRA which is now two decades old. And this is occurring 

at a time when nearly every State, and nearly every State really 

is up against severe budgetary constraints further challenged their 

ability to administer elections, no less implement list maintenance 

programs was the challenge, as I say, years ago and I am sure it 

has not gotten any easier for the secretaries and election administrators in those States. 

And today we are here to listen to our witnesses about their experiences with list maintenance and the tools or information that 

they need to keep their list current. I am especially interested in 

hearing their feedback on this bill that we are considering today, 

H.R. 2115, which Congressman Rokita and I introduced to help assist States with this mandate. 

The Voter Registration Efficiency Act is simple, it requires new 

State residents who are applying for a driver’s license to notify the 

State of their intent to vote in that State. If so, the previous State 

of residence is notified and then the lists are updated accordingly. 

The NVRA requires motor vehicle offices to offer voter registration, 

this bill will go one step further and hopefully save States some 

time and money in their efforts to keep their lists accurate. 

Obviously the foundation of our democracy is the fundamental 

right to vote as we just had this very large debate here during the 

mark as well. And the Constitution tasks each State with the immense responsibility of administering and protecting that right. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

And as we seek ways to help the States, we must keep in mind 

their challenges and avoiding costly mandates that inhibit their 

ability to protect the integrity of our system, and instead, try to 

find ways to alleviate those burdens. 

This bill, again, I think serves to do just that. And I do believe 

we can agree certainly on two things, all eligible voters should have 

the opportunity to vote, but just one time in any election. And our 

State election administrators should be given every tool to allow 

them to protect the integrity of the process. I believe this legislation is going to help provide States with just such a tool to ensure 

more accurate, qualified voter lists and to preserve the integrity of 

our electoral process. 

I certainly appreciate both the witnesses coming, all three of the 

witnesses for coming, and I will be making a more formal intro in 

just a moment. But I would like, at this time, to recognize my colleague and ranking member of the committee, Mr. Brady, for his 

opening statement. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I thank you for holding this important hearing. I appreciate the chairman’s work in 

linking State voter registration processes to apply for renewing a 

driver’s license. In 1993, Congress enacted the National Voter Registration Act, better known as the motor voter law. While motor 

voter has registered thousands of voters who may not have registered otherwise, it is not perfect. 

Congress can strengthen motor voter in many ways such as what 

is proposed here, the legislation we are discussing today is a welcome start to improving the administration’s for elections for Americans. I ask any consideration of this legislation we examine the inclusion of some sort of failsafe voting procedure to ensure this bill 

results is no disenfranchisement whatsoever. No American should 

lose the right to vote because of a clerical or bureaucratic error. 

And I thank you for, Madam Chairman, again, for holding this very 

important hearing. I look forward to the testimony from our witnesses today. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman very much. Does any 

other member wish to give an opening statement? The gentleman 

from Florida. 

Mr. NUGENT. Just briefly I just want to make a point when you 

start talking about duplicate voters, once again Florida stood out 

when you brought that up, but back in 2004, there was a New York 

Daily News article that found 46,000 New Yorkers were eligible to 

vote in both New York and Florida. And so I think that anything 

that we can do to strengthen, say, one vote per person. I came from 

Chicago, and it used to be vote early and often and dead vote twice. 

But we want to make sure that one vote per person, and I think 

this goes a long ways in ensuring that, so with that, I yield back. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. It is interesting because 

when you come from a State like Michigan or New York, Pennsylvania, whatever, we all like to winter as we get older in Florida, 

and that is apparently what is happening with this dual voter registration. So we think this bill will be an easy way to assist the respective States. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

Let me just take a moment to introduce our witnesses. First of 

all Secretary of State Ken Bennett, we welcome you so very much 

taking time to come and talk to the committee. The Secretary was 

appointed by Governor Jan Brewer to replace her as Secretary of 

State. He has been serving there since 2009, he served four terms 

in the State Senate from 1999 to 2007, served as Senate President 

in his final 4 years. He served as Republican floor leader in 2002, 

was chairman of the Senate Education Committee. And prior to 

joining the legislature, Secretary Bennett was a member of the Arizona State Board of Education for 7 years. President of the Board 

in 1996, and then in 1998, and he also served on the Arizona charter schools board for 3 years and was the founding member of the 

Educational Leaders Council in Washington, D.C. So we welcome 

you very much, Mr. Secretary, for coming. 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Chris Thomas actually has been our elections director in Michigan since 1981, not to date you, we are dating ourselves here. He served under four different Secretaries of State, including myself, and certainly continues to serve under our current 

Secretary of State, Ruth Johnson. And I would just say this sincerely, he is the go-to guy I think nationally on elections. And I 

don’t just say that because you happen to be sitting in front of me. 

I think that is widely known by the NASS, National Association of 

Secretaries of State, I know he is the president of NASED, National Association of Election Directors. And many of the improvements that have been made in Michigan, Secretaries of State like 

to take credit for, but I will tell you the brains behind most of it, 

really, has been Chris Thomas. He has got a great vision for how 

we keep our elections open free and fair; how to make sure that 

every person who is eligible to vote is registered to vote; how we 

can do a better job all the time on increasing participation from all 

of these who are eligible. 

And I would just point out it was sort of interesting, you actually 

began your career, I think, on this committee back in the day, back 

in the day I won’t mention the year, back in the day. And then 

went onto the FEC, et cetera, et cetera. So again, we just appreciate you coming, Chris, and look forward to your testimony on 

this. 

And our third witness, Ms. Elisabeth MacNamara, we certainly 

welcome you to the committee. We appreciate you taking the time 

to come here today. Ms. MacNamara is the 18th president of the 

League of Women Voters in the United States, chair of the League 

of Women Voters Education Fund, served in this position since 

2010. She joined the League in 1983, and has since served in leadership roles at all levels. In 1984, she joined the board of directors 

of the DeKalb League serving as court criminal justice chair, education committee chair, vice president, secretary, et cetera, has 

been President of that league as well. And she joined the board of 

directors of the League of Women Voters in Georgia in 1999, served 

as President of that board beginning in 2001, et cetera. A long distinguished career, and we certainly welcome you, welcome all the 

witnesses as well. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

We have received your written testimony, all the members do 

have that. And at this time, the chair would recognize Secretary 

Bennett for his testimony and the floor is yours, sir. Thank you. 

STATEMENTS OF HON. KEN BENNETT, SECRETARY OF STATE, 

ARIZONA; ELISABETH MACNAMARA, PRESIDENT, LEAGUE OF 

WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES; AND CHRIS THOMAS, STATE ELECTIONS DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN BENNETT 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Madam Chair and members, I am Ken 

Bennett, Secretary of State from the State of Arizona. I never really anticipated being the chief election officer of my State, but I 

have been such for the last 41⁄2 years. Arizona has about 61⁄2 million residents, about 3.2 million registered voters, about 36 percent 

Republican, about 33 percent Independent, we have a large independent group of voters in Arizona, about 30 percent Democrat. 

I am happy to be here to testify on this legislation, Arizona supports this legislation. In fact, we supported it so much we have 

been doing something very similar to it. Since about 2008, 2009, we 

were one of the first seven States that joined the Interstate Crosscheck Program where we began sharing our voter data with seven 

other States that has now grown to 22 States. And once an election 

occurs in Arizona we share our file as to who voted, obviously not 

how they voted, but who voted. 

We share four pieces of information, their last name, their first 

name, date of birth, and the last four digits of their Social Security 

number. In our most recent cross-check which was done on the 

votes that occurred in the 2012 election, the 22 States, including 

Arizona, shared about 84 million records of voters who had voted 

in those 22 States. 

Obviously, that would have been much more if it were nationwide. But essentially, we do this voluntarily at no cost to any of 

the States to help ensure that our voter registration files are as 

current as they possibly can be. Of the data that was shared in 

2012, we had over 45,000 duplicate records affecting voters in Arizona that came back to us from those other States. 

Typically, if we didn’t have this program, we would wait for another two Federal election cycles for NVRA, to kick in, and for 

those 45,000 to eventually be removed from our rolls, but this allows us to—after checking and making sure that the matches are, 

in fact, hard matches, there is a soft match and a hard match process. We take very seriously when a match occurs and each one is 

checked and verified, otherwise we would have waited perhaps 4 or 

more years for the removal of those duplicate registrations. 

This program is not unlike what we really do in our State as a 

part of HAVA, our office is the chief elections office, serves with our 

statewide voter database to allow the counties to communicate with 

each other. In Arizona, we have 15 counties, county recorders oversee the voter registration in Arizona, we have eight Democrat county recorders, seven Republican recorders, but they work very closely together. And just since HAVA came in to being in Arizona and 

throughout the country, we have processed over 670,000 duplicate 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

registrations as people move from one county to another. Over 

300,000 death records, over 75,000 court records. 

So it is an important part of how we maintain current and upto-date voter registrations within our State. 

H.R. 2115, I think, would be a very positive step forward in causing that same type of interaction and communication between the 

States, between our motor vehicle record offices, and then their 

contact back to the chief election officials in the counties from 

there. 

Obviously, the main goal of this legislation is to enhance the accuracy of our voter registration records throughout the country, but 

I think a side benefit would be to deter duplicate voting, because 

of this interstate cross-check program that we have been running 

in Arizona. In the first cycle, after we shared data with the other 

States, we had about ten couples that—probably about 15 individuals because there were some couples and individuals who were 

found to have voted in Arizona and another State. We had a couple 

who voted in Kansas and Arizona. Two individuals had voted in 

Colorado and Arizona, and one couple that voted in Nevada, Arizona and attempted to vote in Kansas. So we are using this information to deter that and actually in these cases they are being 

prosecuted. 

The last thing I will say, I see my time is short, it is very critical 

and I applaud the legislation that it keeps the notification process 

away from a one-size-fits-all type of an approach and we would be 

happy as a member of the national associate personally, as a member of the National Association of Secretaries of State to offer our 

organization or sister organizations to help make sure that the details of how the notifications go from State to State are worked out. 

But I will be happy to answer any questions as we get into those 

details if you have any questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Thank you very much 

Secretary Bennett. 

[The statement of Mr. Bennett follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 82232A.003
8 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 82232A.004
9 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 82232A.005
10 

The CHAIRMAN. At this time the chair recognizes Chris Thomas, 

State Elections Director, for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS THOMAS 

Mr. THOMAS. Good morning, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to be 

here before you at the helm of this committee. And I must say that 

I enjoy working with you for your two terms as Secretary of State 

in Michigan, we did great things for Michigan’s election system 

during that period. I also extend Secretary Johnson’s greetings to 

you and members of the committee. I thank you and Congressman 

Rokita for introducing this bill and holding a hearing on 2115, the 

Voter Registration Efficiency Act. 

I believe it is appropriate to make sensible adjustments to the 

National Voter Registration Act as we celebrate the 20th anniversary of this good law. This amendment to the NVRA adds one new 

requirement: The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) will ask an 

applicant for a driver’s license whether the applicant intends the 

new State to serve as his or her residence for voting purposes. 

Currently, the DMVs require every applicant coming from another State to surrender their driver’s license from their former 

State of residence. Every State has a good reason to ensure that 

drivers don’t have multiple driver’s licenses in their wallets or 

purses. Further, the DMV has informed the former State of residence of the surrendered driver’s license. The problem addressed by 

this legislation is the unnecessary retention of voter registration 

records of individuals who have left the State and applied for a 

driver’s license in their new State of residence. 

The vast majority of these voters who have moved from one State 

to another have no intention of remaining as a resident of the 

former State for voting purposes. In fiscal year 2012, we had over 

73,000 individuals reported to Michigan as having moved to another State. Under current practices, these individuals must remain on our qualified voter file for two November Federal elections 

after cancellation notice is sent to them. They may remain on the 

file for as long as 4 years after the notice is sent. 

To be clear, there are instances where an individual who makes 

a temporary move to another State is required to apply for a driver’s license, even though the individual is not relinquishing his residence in the former State. Both the NVRA and the Help America 

Vote Act have as their purpose: The improvement of the accuracy 

integrity of voter registration files used in Federal elections. Retaining tens of thousands of non-residents on our voter registration 

files does not further the purpose of either Federal law. 

H.R. 2115 would leverage the relationship established by the 

NVRA and HAVA between election officials and motor vehicle administrators to make voter registration files more accurate by permitting the removal of records of voters who have moved to another 

State and have affirmatively stated to the DMV that they now reside in a new State for voting purposes. 

The conclusion of a 2008 Federal court case in Michigan was that 

a voter may reside in one State for driving purposes and in another 

State for voting purposes. The court found that States do not determine whether applicants moving to a State are intending the new 

State to be their residence for voting purposes. An affirmative 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

statement that the new State is the residence for voting purposes 

was the necessary requirement under the court’s reasoning. 

Recent Federal legislation and interstate driver license compact 

all have a similar requirement in regards to residency, one license, 

one record. The Federal REAL ID Act of 2005 prohibits a REAL ID 

driver’s license applicant from holding more than one REAL ID 

driver’s license. Further, the American Association of Motor Vehicle 

Administrators has adopted a commonsense policy: One license, 

one driving control record. Michigan, like all other States, have implemented this policy through the State vehicle code. 

In summary, H.R. 2115 requires the DMV to ask new applicants 

two questions. The first as already being asked, did the individual 

reside in another State prior to applying for a license? The second 

is new, does the individual intend the new State to serve as the 

individual residence for voting registration purposes? Under the 

amendment, the DMV will attach an indicator to the list of those 

who have surrendered their license as already being sent to the 

former State of residence. The indicator could be as simple as yes 

or no under the column heading ‘‘residence for voting purposes’’ 

where now licensed. The residence information will be then transmitted to the State election official thus providing confirmation 

from the applicant necessary to retain or cancel the voter registration. 

This amendment is a commonsense adjustment to the NVRA 

that protects voters who are only making a temporary move to another State while enabling States to more efficiently manage their 

voter registration file for the vast majority of applicants who are 

making a permanent move to a new state. 

I thank the committee for the opportunity to testify on this 

amendment, and personally thank Chairman Miller for introducing 

the legislation. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. 

[The statement of Mr. Thomas follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 28 82232A.006
13 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 29 82232A.007
14 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 30 82232A.008
15 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 31 82232A.009
16 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 32 82232A.010
17 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 33 82232A.011
18 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 34 82232A.012
19 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 35 82232A.013
20 

The CHAIRMAN. At this time, the chair recognizes Ms. 

MacNamara for her testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ELISABETH MACNAMARA 

Ms. MACNAMARA. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chairman, 

members of the committee, I am very pleased to be here today to 

voice the League’s support for the basic goal H.R. 2115, providing 

a mechanism to ensure that voters are not registered in more than 

one State, and to make some suggestions for avoiding possible unintended consequences that could result from the legislation as currently drafted. The Census Bureau reports that approximately 4 

million individuals, age 16 and over, moved from one State to another between 2011 and 2012. Though we are not aware of solid 

data on the number of voters who move from one State to another, 

certainly a significant number has been indicated here this morning have done so. Thus, H.R. 2115 aims at a worthy goal. We are 

concerned, however, about the specific mechanisms of the bill. 

Our concerns come in four areas: First, the mechanism will likely 

result in inaccurate removal; two, it could interfere with the motor 

voter registration process; three, it is technologically outdated rather than modern, efficient and cost effective; and four, the legislation does not deal with a larger but similar problem. In our view, 

these are all surmountable problems. 

The mechanism in H.R. 2115 will likely result in erroneous removal to properly registered voters because of inaccurate data for 

matching individuals to voter registration records without adequate 

safeguards. For example, errors likely will be introduced under 

H.R. 2115 at multiple steps beginning with the motor vehicle authority in one State copies the data from the applicant’s paper application form and sends it to the second State’s motor vehicle authority. 

The best way to improve accuracy would be to require the data 

be handled electronically. The benefits of electronic transfer are 

demonstrated by the fact that many States are already providing 

for it. According to the Brennan Center, at least 23 States currently or will soon have fully or substantially automated voter registration at DMVs. When the voter registers or updates their information at the DMVs, the information is electronically transmitted 

to election officials. 

In addition, the Help America Vote Act already requires States 

to maintain their lists on a statewide computerized voter registration list. In any case, it is vitally important for the legislation to 

make adequate safeguards to prevent incorrect removals. The best 

way is to provide written notice to the voter as in the NVRA, but 

H.R. 2115 does not seem to maintain this fundamental safeguard 

for interstate movers. 

We are also concerned that the current mechanism in H.R. 2115 

could interfere with the voter registration process. Again, this is a 

solvable problem. The motor vehicle registration application form 

under the NVRA is simple, clear, and unambiguous. H.R. 2115 as 

currently written, however, adds three new requirements for applicants to answer that will likely result in erroneous rejections as 

well as confusing the applicant and providing ambiguous or inconsistent information to election officials. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

Under H.R. 2115, even if the applicant is fully eligible to vote, 

and fully and correctly fills out the motor vehicle form, failure to 

answer any of the three questions could result in rejection because 

of these new requirements. 

In addition, by requiring duplicative information, the draft legislation creates confusion for the applicant. For example, the motor 

vehicle form already requires the intent to register in the new 

State, that is what an application is. By requiring the intent question to be answered a second time, the legislation simply confuses. 

In addition, the requirements add ambiguity for election officials. 

What if, for example, the applicant provides apparently conflicting 

answers? What happens if the applicant indicates he or she does 

not intend for the new State to serve as the voting residence, but 

still fills out the motor voter application form? 

The most effective way to reduce confusion and ambiguity is to 

modify those elements of the proposed legislation that are duplicative or the current processes under the NVRA. Much of the information from the driver’s license applicant required in H.R. 2115 is 

already included on the National voter registration application 

form under the NVRA. The purpose of H.R. 2115 could be fulfilled 

by requiring information from the voter motor voter application to 

be transferred to another State when the applicant was previously 

registered to vote in another State. 

The Census Bureau also reports that nearly 23 million individuals moved within a State between 2011 and 2012. And with approximately 5 million moving from one county to another. And I 

see that I am running out of time but would be happy to answer 

questions about our concerns about interstate moves. The League 

looks forward to working with you further on this legislation and 

thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady very much for her testimony and I thank all of you for your testimony. 

[The statement of Ms. MacNamara follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 82232A.014
23 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 41 82232A.015
24 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 42 82232A.016
25 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 43 82232A.017
26 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 44 82232A.018
27 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 45 82232A.019
28 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 46 82232A.020
29 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 47 82232A.021
30 

The CHAIRMAN. I had just taken a couple of notes while were you 

talking here. The gentlelady mentioned about the electronic registration, et cetera, 23 States which I have a list of all the different 

States here, but I will just mention in Michigan—again, I am mostly familiar with Michigan more so than obviously the other States, 

but I think we are the forerunner of the electronic registration, 

what we still continue to call the qualified voter list, which was an 

incredible product really, and I don’t say that without some prejudice, but I will note that we were noted in the Ford, Carter Presidential Commission report as a national model. And in Michigan, 

unlike many other States where usually the counties operate the 

voter registration rolls in our State, it is every city, every village, 

every township clerk, to the extent that we have almost 1800 various voter registration lists that were individually maintained previous to our qualified voter file unless we did that electronically. 

And it was a little bit easier for us, I will agree, than other 

States because Michigan is only one of only three States in the Nation where the Secretary is also the motor vehicle administrator. 

I think it is Michigan, Illinois and Maine, I believe are the three. 

So the motor voter had its genesis in Michigan, so we had the data 

already, we had the database already, but we went through our file 

and eliminated three quarters of a million registrations once we 

were able to electronically meld this in our State and dedupe all 

of that. 

And one thing that we also did, I am just mentioning this because I think it has some bearing on why we introduce this bill trying to help make sure that these lists are always up—as clean as 

they possibly can and using technology, I think through the advantage of the voters, et cetera. We also passed a bill that said we 

don’t care where you register to vote, but your voter registration 

address must match your driver address, wherever that is. And 

that deduped an incredible amount, as you might imagine even 

from the college towns in particular. I am always of the impression 

that if you are smart enough to go to college, you should be smart 

enough to get an absentee ballot and vote AV. And that is a criteria that is allowed in Michigan law. But again, it really helped, 

I think, clean up the list to make sure we didn’t have duplicate registrations across the State because people are moving a lot, particularly college students as they are going to college as well. 

Mr. Thomas mentioned that the driver’s licenses right now can’t 

be duplicate in various States, and that is all through the database 

shared by AMBA I suppose, and so that is an important thing as 

well. And also I mentioned that 73,000 people moved just in the 

last year, and yet you are required in our case, in our State, I am 

not sure how many moved—a lot of us moved to Arizona, unfortunately we are going to stop that. We keep our folks in Michigan, 

a lot of people do move, and yet, we are required under the current 

law—you can’t take those off the list for at least 2 years, maybe 

4 years which just does not seem to be a very good practice. 

As well, I guess my question, I would first start with Secretary 

Bennett, our whole impetus for this bill when we introduced it is 

to again make it as easy as possible for the secretaries for all the 

voting administrators to expedite their process, keep it free, fair 

and open. Is there anything that you would see in this particular 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

bill that might cause that not to be a better situation or an expense, an expense as well? 

Mr. BENNETT. Madam Chair, I don’t see anything, I think the 

points made by Ms. MacNamara are cogent and can be considered 

as this legislation moves forward. I think some of the concerns 

about you are already asking one question, why ask it again, I 

think the points made by Mr. Thomas are that the first ask of the 

question, whether it is on a paper form or electronically, can serve 

as the question proposed by 2115. So I don’t see anything here, Arizona is not one of the States that has motor voter under the Secretary’s office, but because we were the first State to do online 

voter registration, and most of our citizens who do so do so coming 

through from our Motor Vehicle Department. We have very close 

ties with them and I don’t see anything in the legislation that is 

going to complicate that or make it more expensive. 

The CHAIRMAN. Really, I would think that that is not particularly 

inherent to Arizona; it would seem like in every State, you would 

be much more likely to go to the DMV or the Secretary of State 

or whatever the case is to change your driver’s license or address 

before you think about your voter registration. That, at least, has 

been our experience, I think, there as well. One of you, I think Mr. 

Thomas mentioned about REAL ID, which I was involved with. I 

also sit—I am vice chair of the Homeland Security Committee in 

the House here, I tell you before anything, we are Americans. And 

your identification, driver’s license in particular, is your foundation 

of identification, you are using it to get on an airplane or to do anything else. 

So having good safeguards there and then working with voter 

registration as well is such a natural transition I think. 

So again I just appreciate all of you coming. I think this bill, if 

we can get it to the floor and get it moved, does have the potential 

to be a real step forward. 

I hope it will be embraced by the Secretaries of State as well nationally, and the election officers as well nationally. My only other 

question before my time expires here is that, curiosity, I was thinking as you were talking, Mr. Thomas, what has been the experience 

in Michigan, and I am not sure if other States are talking about 

utilizing new technology, the electronic poll books, and how would 

this impact that if at all? 

Mr. THOMAS. It will definitely impact the Kansas project interstate cross-checks, it really eliminates errors by election officials in 

terms of scanning voter history. The electronic poll books are far 

more accurate. What we have seen already is that when it shows 

somebody has voted, there is very little question whether that is 

accurate data, which has proven to be very beneficial. In terms of 

looking at what can be done with the data coming from the DMV, 

they use driver’s license numbers for all their matching criteria. 

When that comes back to Michigan, it comes back with a driver’s 

license number, and in some cases, the State even makes a copy 

of the license and send it back to Michigan. It makes a very accurate match, then, in terms of which voter has moved out of State. 

It is not whether the name and birthday and all that are accurate. 

It really goes number to number, which is a very efficient way to 

do that. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

The CHAIRMAN. So regardless of how an individual votes, whether they vote absentee, whether they show up at the polls or what 

have you, they really should assist? 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. At this time the chair would recognize the 

ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My only question 

would be that I understand from State to State, change your driver’s license, you get taken off the previous State which I happen 

to support and agree with. Would it make any sense to have some 

registration materials maybe mandatory provide that they have 

some registration materials that you are being taken off a State 

giving them the opportunity, not mandatory asking you to register, 

but giving them the opportunity with the materials here that they 

could register right there, to register in a new State? Anybody? 

Mr. THOMAS. Well, Congressman Brady, that is the law, the 

DMVs are mandated by Federal law to offer voter registration opportunity to every single person who comes in and either renews 

or applies for a new driver’s license. When that person moves to 

the State, they should be asked. Now if you go look at the figures 

that come out every 2 years that the EAC publishes, unfortunately 

I think it shows that not all States are doing that equally. When 

you start seeing the percentage of registration far below 50 percent 

coming out of the DMV, then some serious questions need to be 

asked whether those DMVs are really offering voter registration 

opportunities. That is really more of an enforcement question. 

So what I like about this bill is it says, look, we are going ask 

you this question, and we are going to be mandated to ask the 

question, ‘‘is this your State for voting purposes,’’ whether or not 

you register to vote? But I certainly and sincerely hope that the 

DMVs’ next step in the application process is offering that person 

the opportunity to register. 

Mr. BRADY. When you asked the question that you want to relinquish your ability to vote in the previous State, is it mandatory 

that you ask them at that time? We do have materials here that 

allow you to vote in this State that you register for your driver’s 

license. 

Mr. THOMAS. It seems like the reasonable time to ask that. Different States do it at different points within their process. But really the question is not so much are you rejecting your former State, 

the question is, is this your State that you are applying for a license for? Is this your State for voting purposes? And if they answer ‘‘yes’’ to that, it seems to me the next obvious question is 

‘‘would you like to register to vote.’’ We are going to sign you up 

right now on the spot, and that is the way it should be done. 

Mr. BRADY. I appreciate that, thank you. 

Ms. MACNAMARA. Mr. Brady, I think that question is one of the 

concerns that it the League has, no matter how well educated you 

are. A lot of folks do not understand our election process, it is complex and varies greatly from State to State. 

Our concern with asking the question is this the State that you 

intend to register to vote in, is what is implied in that is that, you 

can chose whether or not the State of your residence is the State 

that you want to vote in. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

My son just recently moved from Virginia back to Georgia and 

had to go in and apply for a driver’s license. He just graduated 

from medical school, and he has had a lot of exposure to elections 

through his mother. I promise you if you had asked him that question, he would have to call me, and say does this mean that I have 

an opportunity to say I would rather leave my registration in the 

State of Virginia and move my driver’s license to Georgia, that is 

what we are concerned about, is that that is going to be confusing 

for voters. The mere fact that they are offered the opportunity to 

register, chose to register on the NVRA application should be sufficient evidence of intent because you are applying to register to vote 

in the State to which you were moving. And so we would just suggest that in achieving this very worthy goal that that question 

could be very confusing. 

Mr. BRADY. How would you pose the question? 

Ms. MACNAMARA. I would suggest that everyone is supposed to 

be offered, under motor voter, the opportunity to register at the 

motor vehicle office. There are applications available for that. If 

you fill out that application, I think your intent is obvious, you are 

intending to register to vote at that time through the DMV. 

Asking the additional question, I do think suggests—we would 

suggest that you leave off the additional question and make the requirement that if the person fills out the motor voter registration 

form, that that is evidence of their intent that can be sent back to 

the State when—where they were registered and we would also 

suggest that that be done Secretary or election official to election 

official as opposed to having everything go from one DMV to an 

election official from the DMV to another DMV to another election 

official. Because we see since all States aren’t doing this the same, 

we do see a lot of opportunity for transcription errors and matching 

errors that can make it difficult for election officials to determine 

whether or not they are taking the right person off the list. 

So that would be our suggestion, let’s streamline the process, 

let’s use the NVRA, the motor voter registration form as your indication of intent. 

Mr. BRADY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BENNETT. Madam Chairman, Mr. Miller, at the same time 

that Ms. MacNamara’s concerns point out a concern about whether 

that question is going to confuse somebody, I think it also represents an opportunity to see in the legislation how this could help 

people who, whether they are just graduating from college—I talk 

to a lot of people in Arizona who assume that when they move 

their driver’s license, that it automatically moves their voter registration and that is not necessarily the case. And what this legislation will do, I think in a very positive way, is cause all of the 

States to at least go through that process, whether electronic or 

paper, or in front of a person, and reinforce the concept that the 

voter needs to make the decision of whether they want to be registered in the new State. 

As Mr. Thomas pointed out, it is not such do you want to give 

up your registration where you were previously, but it is a wonderful opportunity and will cause all of the States to ask voters, who 

I think many of them now assume that by moving my driver’s license, my voter registration is going to automatically follow, and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

this will help them understand that that is not necessarily the 

case. And if we ask the questions in the right way, which I think 

the legislation can be constructed and with the assistance of organizations around the country to implement it correctly, we will 

have a very positive effect on many voters who find themselves in 

that situation. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you. If I have any further questions, we will 

submit to you in writing. And I do want to be supportive of the bill 

and support our chair. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlemen. 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, the cosponsor of the bill, Mr. Rokita. 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chair. Appreciate the discussion here, 

regarding intent versus confusion. Using just a little bit of my 

time, I would like Mr. Thomas to chime in on the subject. You may 

have touched on it earlier go ahead based off these two excellent 

witnesses, how would you referee the differing viewpoints since you 

are unelected. 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, I am unelected and nonpartisan, it is a great 

bill and I think you ought to pass it. 

Mr. ROKITA. But you are a politician? 

Mr. THOMAS. No, I think it asks the right question, and I don’t 

think—there is always room for confusion obviously, but this is a 

straightforward question, ‘‘is this your State for voting purposes,’’ 

yes or no? If they say ‘‘no’’ the question asked by Ms. MacNamara 

and her testimony is ‘‘what would happen if they don’t answer, or 

they answer ‘no.’ ’’ Well, then, particularly if they say no, then we 

won’t take any action, they we will be presumed to stay on the file 

in Michigan and won’t send them a notice and spend that money. 

Where now they surrender that driver’s license, we are getting that 

notification and we are sending them a notice. If they happen not 

to vote in those next two Federal elections we are canceling them. 

Whereas if this voter says, ‘‘no, I am not moving to this State for 

voting purposes,’’ we are going to leave them on the file. If they 

don’t answer it, then we will just use the regular NVRA process 

and send them a notice. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Chris, I appreciate that. Excuse me, Mr. 

Thomas, I didn’t mean to cuss at you by calling you a politician. 

I apologize for that. I want to thank the witness for being here, it 

was very instructive, appreciate it. 

I would like, Madam Chair, to indicate for the record, reemphasize for the record that the National Association of Secretaries of 

State, I believe, have just offered to help with the particulars about 

the process and the details. And I know by personal experience, as 

do you that they can put together committees in a very bipartisan, 

nonpartisan way to accomplish that, and I think as this bill moves 

forward, we ought to take them up on that. Without objection, if 

that could be noted. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. ROKITA. The time I have remaining I want to focus on my 

friend, Ken Bennett’s remarks, when he talked about—I think Ken 

when I was still a Secretary of State, it was interstate compacts, 

or some kind of agreement that we had to have State by State to 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

share the newly-organized statewide voter registration data. Is 

what you describe in your testimony an outcry of that or is that 

same kind of concept that we were dealing with? 

Mr. BENNETT. Madam Chair, Congressman, I was coming into 

my role as Secretary of State about the time you were leaving so 

I don’t know that I was—— 

Mr. ROKITA. You mentioned there are 22 States now. 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes. We call it the interstate cross-check. It wasn’t 

so much a compact in the formal sense of what I would interpret 

compact to mean, but it had just been originated by the previous 

Secretary, now Governor Brewer. Her office had joined with six 

other States and it was just a voluntary program to share our data 

to see if we were having duplicate voters. 

Mr. ROKITA. I want to unpack that, because I want to see how 

this bill will impact other States going into that. 

Mr. BENNETT. Okay. 

Mr. ROKITA. And then I will have Mr. Thomas comment. Do you 

have any demographics on these States, are these 22 States, is the 

chief election officer an elected official? Are they Secretaries of 

State? Are they more blue States? Are they more red States? If I 

am looking like you don’t have that answer, I ask that for you to 

provide—— 

Mr. BENNETT. We can get that information to you and the rest 

of the members of the committee. I am sure we have that data, and 

get that to you. 

Mr. ROKITA. We are looking for what drives States, the 22 which 

is a big number from where we started but only half the total number roughly what drives that. And Chris, if you want to comment 

as well, Mr. Thomas. 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, the driver, again, is trying to clean the files 

up; we participated in 2010 and 2012. And the combined number, 

this is the gross number that has not been worked out, is over 

300,000 duplicate records across these 22 States. 

Mr. ROKITA. So the fact that this legislation, if enacted, would be 

a requirement on every State, which as you heard from earlier part 

of today’s proceedings I am sensitive to, would a silver lining in 

this legislation be more States entering into these compacts to get 

the job done or not? 

Mr. THOMAS. I think so, I think it would be worth their while to 

do so, and this would sort out the 300,000. I am sure half of them 

are people who have moved and are just sitting in our files because 

we sent the two notices and have to wait through two Federal elections. If we could move them off and leave them where they have 

now permanently moved, then this cross-check really gets down to 

the nuts and bolts of what is left and that is the serious stuff. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. In the 20 seconds or so we have left, Ms. 

MacNamara, you worked—the bell or the light ended your testimony. Is there anything else you want to get on the record? 

Ms. MACNAMARA. Well, yes. And thank you very much. 

Mr. ROKITA. Now you are out of time. Really quickly, in ten seconds or so. 

Ms. MACNAMARA. Right. We would also like the committee to 

consider the interstate–intra-State moves, an awful lot of folks 

move within their State and are completely unaware that they 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

need to reregister in most States in order to keep their registration 

active. And so if we were looking in electronic ways, and we are 

looking at compacts as we are looking at ways to make our voting 

rolls more accurate, certainly we would like to focus the committee’s attention on the fact that many, many more folks move within 

a State than move between States, and that also can be a barrier 

for voters. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlemen and certainly thank all 

the witnesses and the gentlemen was mentioning about NASS and 

NASED really helping with the questions. I mean, the whole impetus of the bill is to make sure that people are not duplicate registers, right? That they are not registered in two different places. 

It would seem part of the question is do you understand you can 

only be registered to vote in one place? So pick your place, only 

once so you can only be registered in one place. I just throw that 

out as a NASS or NASED would be looking at this there might be 

a way to phrase a question that would answer your concerns as 

well, I think. 

With that, I certainly again want to thank all of the witnesses. 

I think this is—this bill may be not perfect, I think maybe we can 

make it work. I am appreciative of the support that we receive for 

this bill, we look forward to reporting it to the House. 

And with that, I, without objection, would mention that all members will have five legislative days to submit to the chair additional 

written questions for the witnesses, which we will forward and ask 

the witnesses to respond to promptly as they can so that their answers will be part of the record. And with that the hearing is adjourned. Thank you all again. 

[Whereupon, at 12:53 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 82232A.001
38 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 82232A.002
39 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 64 82232A.022
40 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 65 82232A.023
41 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 66 82232A.024
42 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 67 82232A.025
43 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 68 82232A.026
44 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 69 82232A.027
45 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 70 82232A.028
46 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 71 82232A.029
47 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 72 82232A.030
48 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 73 82232A.031
49 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 74 82232A.032
50 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 75 82232A.033
51 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 76 82232A.034
52 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 77 82232A.035
53 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 78 82232A.036
54 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 79 82232A.037
55 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 80 82232A.038
56 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 81 82232A.039
57 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 82 82232A.040
58 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 83 82232A.041
59 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 84 82232A.042
60 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 85 82232A.043
61 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 86 82232A.044
62 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 87 82232A.045