109th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 109-666
======================================================================
FEDERAL ELECTION INTEGRITY ACT OF 2006
_______
September 19, 2006.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Ehlers, from the Committee on House Administration, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 4844]
The Committee on House Administration, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 4844) to amend the National Voter Registration
Act of 1993 to require any individual who desires to register
or re-register to vote in an election for Federal office to
provide the appropriate State election official with proof that
the individual is a citizen of the United States to prevent
fraud in Federal elections, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Election Integrity Act of
2006'' .
SEC. 2. REQUIRING VOTERS TO PROVIDE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION.
(a) Requirement to Provide Photo Identification as Condition of
Receiving Ballot.--Section 303(b) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002
(42 U.S.C. 15483(b)) is amended--
(1) in the heading, by striking ``for Voters Who Register by
Mail'' and inserting ``for Providing Photo Identification'';
and
(2) by striking paragraphs (1) through (3) and inserting the
following:
``(1) Individuals voting in person.--
``(A) Requirement to provide identification.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except
as provided in subparagraph (B), the appropriate State
or local election official may not provide a ballot for
an election for Federal office to an individual who
desires to vote in person unless the individual
presents to the official--
``(i) a government-issued, current, and valid
photo identification; or
``(ii) in the case of the regularly scheduled
general election for Federal office held in
November 2010 and each subsequent election for
Federal office, a government-issued, current,
and valid photo identification for which the
individual was required to provide proof of
United States citizenship as a condition for
the issuance of the identification.
``(B) Availability of provisional ballot.--If an
individual does not present the identification required
under subparagraph (A), the individual shall be
permitted to cast a provisional ballot with respect to
the election under section 302(a), except that the
appropriate State or local election official may not
make a determination under section 302(a)(4) that the
individual is eligible under State law to vote in the
election unless the individual presents the
identification required under subparagraph (A) to the
official not later than 48 hours after casting the
provisional ballot.
``(2) Individuals voting other than in person.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law and except as provided in subparagraph
(B), the appropriate State or local election official
may not accept any ballot for an election for Federal
office provided by an individual who votes other than
in person unless the individual submits with the
ballot--
``(i) a copy of a government-issued, current,
and valid photo identification; or
``(ii) in the case of the regularly scheduled
general election for Federal office held in
November 2010 and each subsequent election for
Federal office, a copy of a government-issued,
current, and valid photo identification for
which the individual was required to provide
proof of United States citizenship as a
condition for the issuance of the
identification.
``(B) Exception for overseas military voters.--
Subparagraph (A) does not apply with respect to a
ballot provided by an absent uniformed services voter
who, by reason of active duty or service, is absent
from the United States on the date of the election
involved. In this subparagraph, the term `absent
uniformed services voter' has the meaning given such
term in section 107(1) of the Uniformed and Overseas
Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff--6(1)),
other than an individual described in section 107(1)(C)
of such Act.
``(3) Specific requirements for identifications.--For
purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2)--
``(A) an identification is `government-issued' if it
is issued by the Federal Government or by the
government of a State; and
``(B) an identification is one for which an
individual was required to provide proof of United
States citizenship as a condition for issuance if the
identification displays an official marking or other
indication that the individual is a United States
citizen.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 303 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15483)
is amended--
(1) in the heading, by striking ``for Voters Who Register by
Mail'' and inserting ``for Providing Photo Identification'';
and
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``subsections
(a)(5)(A)(i)(II) and (b)(3)(B)(i)(II)'' and inserting
``subsection (a)(5)(A)(i)(II)''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act is amended
by amending the item relating to section 303 to read as follows:
``Sec. 303. Computerized statewide voter registration list requirements
and requirements for providing photo identification.''.
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--This section and the amendments made by this
section shall apply with respect to the regularly scheduled
general election for Federal office held in November 2008 and
each subsequent election for Federal office.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 303(d)(2) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 15483(d)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Requirement to provide photo identification.--
Paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) shall apply with
respect to the regularly scheduled general election for Federal
office held in November 2008 and each subsequent election for
Federal office.''.
SEC. 3. MAKING PHOTO IDENTIFICATIONS AVAILABLE.
(a) Requiring States to Make Identification Available.--Section
303(b) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(b)), as
amended by section 2(a)(2), is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs (5)
and (6); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Making photo identifications available.--
``(A) In general.--During fiscal year 2008 and each
succeeding fiscal year, each State shall establish a
program to provide photo identifications which may be
used to meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2)
by individuals who desire to vote in elections held in
the State but who do not otherwise possess a
government-issued photo identification.
``(B) Identifications provided at no cost to indigent
individuals.--If a State charges an individual a fee
for providing a photo identification under the program
established under subparagraph (A)--
``(i) the fee charged may not exceed the
reasonable cost to the State of providing the
identification to the individual; and
``(ii) the State may not charge a fee to any
individual who provides an attestation that the
individual is unable to afford the fee.
``(C) Identifications not to be used for other
purposes.--Any photo identification provided under the
program established under subparagraph (A) may not
serve as a government-issued photo identification for
purposes of any program or function of a State or local
government other than the administration of
elections.''.
(b) Payments to States to Cover Costs.--Subtitle D of title II of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 15321 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new part:
``PART 7--PAYMENTS TO COVER COSTS OF PROVIDING PHOTO IDENTIFICATIONS TO
INDIGENT INDIVIDUALS
``SEC. 297. PAYMENTS TO COVER COSTS TO STATES OF PROVIDING PHOTO
IDENTIFICATIONS FOR VOTING TO INDIGENT INDIVIDUALS.
``(a) Payments to States.--The Commission shall make payments to
States to cover the costs incurred in providing photo identifications
under the program established under section 303(b)(4) to individuals
who are unable to afford the fee that would otherwise be charged under
the program.
``(b) Amount of Payment.--The amount of the payment made to a State
under this part for any year shall be equal to the amount of fees which
would have been collected by the State during the year under the
program established under section 303(b)(4) but for the application of
section 303(b)(4)(B)(ii), as determined on the basis of information
furnished to the Commission by the State at such time and in such form
as the Commission may require.
``SEC. 297A. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated for payments under this
part such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2008 and each
succeeding fiscal year.''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act is amended
by adding at the end of the item relating to subtitle D of title II the
following:
``Part 7--Payments to Cover Costs of Providing Photo Identifications to
Indigent Individuals
``Sec. 297. Payments to cover costs to States of providing photo
identifications for voting to indigent individuals.
``Sec. 297A. Authorization of appropriations.''.
(d) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made by this
section shall take effect October 1, 2007.
Amend the title so as to read:
A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to
require each individual who desires to vote in an election for
Federal office to provide the appropriate election official
with a government-issued photo identification, and for other
purposes.
H.R. 4844-FEDERAL ELECTION INTEGRITY ACT OF 2006
Purpose of Legislation
The purpose of H.R. 4844, the Federal Election Integrity
Act of 2006 is to protect the franchise and reduce the
opportunities for, and incidence of, vote fraud. Requiring
those exercising the right to vote to properly identify
themselves is a basic and necessary step to preserve the
integrity of the voting process. Presenting photo
identification when voting provides a simple and effective
method for election officials to confirm identity and
eligibility. It will deter fraud and reduce the incidence of
double voting and voting in the name of another. Most states do
not currently require a photo identification to vote in federal
elections.\1\ The absence of this basic protection in so many
states leaves our elections susceptible to fraud. H.R. 4844
seeks to address this problem by requiring all persons casting
ballots in elections for Federal office to present a current
and valid government issued photo identification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Only six States, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Hawaii, Louisiana
and South Dakota, require individuals to show photo identification
before casting a ballot while 18 other States require a photo or some
other acceptable form of identification to be shown at the polls in all
elections. The remaining 26 states only require an identification to be
presented for first time voters who register by mail. Of the 26 States,
Kansas and Pennsylvania require photo and non-photo identification for
all first time voters, not just the ones that had registered by mail.
See electionline.org, available at http://www.electionline.org/
Default.aspx?tabid=364.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the enactment of the Help America Vote Act of 2002
\2\ (HAVA) election officials have strived to create an
election system that expands access for all eligible voters and
protects the integrity of the ballot. HAVA imposed an
identification requirement, but limited it to first time voters
who register by mail. The clear intent of this provision was to
ensure that people who did not register in person would at some
point be obligated to demonstrate, before voting, that they are
in fact a real live human being who is eligible to vote.\3\
This demonstration could be made by production of any one of a
number of different forms of identification or documentation
that would show who the person was, or production of
information that would allow an election official to verify
identity.\4\ Important as it is, this provision still imposes
no identification requirement whatsoever on most voters. Even
more problematic, some states have interpreted it to not apply
to registrations that are hand delivered instead of being
mailed, thereby continuing to allow votes to be cast by persons
who have never presented themselves in person or provided any
identification or documentation necessary to confirm
eligibility. Testimony of Dan Bryant in Las Cruces revealed
this is the practice in New Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Pub. L. No. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666, 42 U.S.C. 15301 to 15545
(2002).
\3\ During the HAVA debate, Senator Kit Bond famously advised
members of a dog that had been on the voter rolls for several years
under the name Ritzy Mekler. Senator Bond, presented Ritzy Mekler's
voter registration information to demonstrate how lax registration
requirements can allow even non-persons to register and vote. See floor
statement February 26, 2002. a
\4\ Pursuant to section 303(b)(2) of HAVA, only those first-time
voters registering by mail are required to present one of the following
forms of identification before casting a ballot: (1) current and valid
photo identification, (2) current utility bill, (3) current bank
statement, (4) government check, (5) paycheck, (6) other government
document that shows the name and address of the vote. Individuals who
register to vote by mail under section 6 of the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-4) and submit with his or
her registration either a driver's license number or at least the last
4 digits of their social security number are exempt from the
requirement to provide one of the 6 forms of acceptable HAVA
identification at the polls. See Section 303(b)(3)(B)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The vast majority of the voting public is already in
possession of the ID that will be required under the
legislation for the general election in November 2008.\5\ For
the small percentage of the voting public not currently in
possession of the necessary ID, the bill gives them two full
years to acquire it. It obligates states to set up programs to
distribute ID's to those who need them, and requires that they
be given free to those who cannot afford them. Federal funds
are authorized to reimburse states for the cost of distributing
these free ID's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See ``The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993
on the Administration of Elections for Federal Office, 1995-1996,''
Federal Elections Commission, page 5-6 (stating approximately 87
percent of persons 18 years and older have acquired a driver's
license); see also Report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform
Building Confidence in U.S. Elections, September 2005, FN 22 citing a
U.S. Department of Transportation study: ``A comparison of driver's
license records and census data for 2003 suggests that about 88 percent
of Americans aged 18 and over have a driver's license, see U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Licensed
Total Drivers, By Age, 2003, Table DL-22, Oct. 2004, at
www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs03/htm/dl22.htm, and U.S. Census Bureau,
Annual Estimates of the Population by Selected Age Groups and Sex for
the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2004, (June 2005),
available at www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2004-sa.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commencing in 2010 and for all elections thereafter, voters
will be required to present an ID that they could not have
obtained without proving that they are citizens. The Congress
has already determined, by its passage of the REAL ID Act of
2005 \6\ that States must verify the legal status of applicants
before issuing an ID to them. REAL ID compliant identification
will be required if citizens want to use the ID for any of a
number of defined Federal purposes such as boarding an airplane
or entering a government building.\7\ The implementation
deadline for the REAL ID Act is May 11, 2008. H.R. 4844 intends
that citizens will be able to use their newly acquired REAL
ID's to vote in elections beginning 2010. As non-citizens will
be able to acquire REAL ID's, H.R. 4844 requires the ID contain
some marking or other indicia that will show the bearer is a
citizen. Individuals who arrive at the polls without the
required identification will be permitted to cast a provisional
ballot, which can be counted if the individual presents the
appropriate election official with a qualifying identification
within 48 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Pub. L. No. 109-13, 49 U.S.C. Section 30301.
\7\ Division B-Real ID Act of 2005, Title II, Section 201 states
REAL IDs are to be used not only for the purpose of operating a motor
vehicle but for ``accessing Federal facilities, boarding federally
regulated commercial aircraft, entering nuclear power plants, and any
other purposes that the Secretary shall determine''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requiring photo identification for voting has been endorsed
by a high profile bi-partisan election reform Commission. The
Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform, in its
report ``Building Confidence in U.S. Elections'' recommended a
national standard for voter identification based on the REAL ID
card or an equivalent for people without a driver's license to
enhance ballot security. The Commission recommendation for a
uniform identification requirement was motivated by a concern
that differing requirements from state-to-state (or even voter-
to-voter) could impede voting by unequal or discriminatory
application of varied requirements. The Commission reasoned
that the use of REAL ID cards for voting purposes could
eliminate voting impediments and ensure fair and equal
treatment to all voters.
A single, uniform ID requirement will reduce the incidence
of selective or discriminatory application. It will actually
guard against discriminatory practices as those who possess the
ID will be able to present it with confidence that it will
prove their identity and eligibility. Civil rights leader
Andrew Young has recognized the empowering nature of such an
ID.\8\ Former President Jimmy Cater and Former Secretary of
State James Baker also acknowledged the benefits of a uniform
identification requirement.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In his editorial, Young stated in relevant part: ``At the end
of the day, a photo ID is a true weapon against the bondages of
poverty. Anyone driving through a low-income neighborhood sees the
ubiquitous check-cashing storefronts, which thrive because other
establishments, such as supermarkets and banks, won't cash checks
without a standard photo ID. Why not enfranchise the 12 percent of
Americans who don't have drivers' licenses or government-issued photo
IDs?'' Andrew Young, ``Voter IDs Only Part of Elections Solution'',
ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, September 30, 2005 at A15.
\9\ ``Our concern was that the differing requirements from state-
to-state could be a source of discrimination, and so we recommended a
standard for the entire country, the Real ID card, the standardized
driver's licenses mandated by federal law last May. With that law, a
driver's license can double as a voting card. All but three of our 21
commission members accepted the proposal, in part because the choice
was no longer whether to have voter IDs, but rather what kind of IDs
voters should have.'' See Jimmy Carter and James A. Baker, ``Voting
Reform Is in the Cards'', NEW YORK TIMES, at pg. A19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Federally mandated photo identification requirement
provides a basic and crucial protection against voter fraud.
During hearings conducted by the Committee on House
Administration, witnesses cited many instances of fraudulent
registration and voting in our country.
Daniel A. Bryant, attorney for Otero County, New Mexico,
testified in Las Cruces New Mexico about a woman named Vada
Hart who had not voted for years, only to discover that someone
had been voting in her name--thereby not only stealing her vote
but also illegally negating the vote of an eligible
citizen.\10\ Other testimony presented to the Committee
revealed that a registered voter in New Mexico was not
permitted to cast a ballot in the 2004 elections because
records showed that someone had already voted in his place.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Mr. Bryant presented a verified statement from Ms. Hart's son
and daughter in-law attesting that she has not voted in any election
since 1996 due to her physical and mental state. An investigative
hearing on July 22, in Dona Ana Complex revealed that Ms. Hart's voter
card showed that someone had voted in her name several times since
1996.
\11\ Testimony of Patrick Rogers, Committee on House
Administration, U.S. House of Representatives, Hearing on Non-Citizen
voting, June 22, 2006 http/cha.house.gov/hearings/testimony.aspx?TID-
896
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Votes cast in the name of deceased individuals across the
country in federal and local elections demonstrate the need for
a photo identification requirement. In Maryland, computer
science students at Johns Hopkins University learned through
their voter registration database research that Baltimore
City's voter rolls revealed ``1,500 dead people listed as
active registered voters. Fifty of those dead people somehow
voted in the [2004] election.'' After further investigation by
the Baltimore City Paper, at least 26 of the 50 names reported
were confirmed ``dead voters''. In Georgia, an audit of its
voter registration rolls showed that 5,412 votes had been cast
by deceased voters.\12\ Another investigation on voting
irregularities administered in Wisconsin by a joint Task Force
comprised of the U.S. Attorney's Office, Milwaukee Police
Department, Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed over 300 accounts of
illegal voting, which included more than 100 votes cast by
individuals voting twice, individuals using false names and
names of deceased individuals.\13\ Also significant was
evidence of 4,500 more votes cast in the City of Milwaukee than
individuals recorded as voting.\14\ The Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel, in reporting the Task Force's findings, indicated
that photo identification could have prevented some of the
incidents of voter fraud that occurred.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Even Death Can't Stop Some Voters-Records: Illegally Cast
Ballots Are Not Rare.'' THE ATLANTA JOURNAL CONSTITUTION, November 6,
2000.
\13\ Greg J. Borowski ``Inquiry Finds Evidence of Fraud in
Election,'' MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL, May 11, 2005, available at
http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/electionfraud.pdf.
\14\ Report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform Building
Confidence in U.S. Elections at pg. 4 (citing Preliminary Findings of
Joint Task Force Investigating Possible Election Fraud. May 10, 2005.
Available at http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/electionfraud.pdf.)
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recently, evidence of illegal voting was discovered
during the gubernatorial election and recount that occurred in
the State of Washington between Christine Gregorie and Dino
Rossi. In this case, there were many reports of fraudulent
votes cast. For example, in King County, Washington, it was
reported that at least eight people who died before the
November elections in 2004 had cast ballots on Election Day for
the Governor's race. Specifically, in the election contest that
ensued, the Chelan County Superior Court determined there were
a total of 1678 illegal votes cast in the 2004 general
election.\16\ The race was decided by a 133 vote margin. Judge
Bridges determined that although the number of illegal votes
cast in this race clearly exceeded the margin of victory, the
results of the election could not have been set aside.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Of the total 1,687 illegal votes cast; 1,401 were cast by
illegal felons, 19 votes were cast by deceased voters, 6 votes were
cast by double voting, and 252 votes were cast by unregistered
voters.'' See generally, Transcript Of Decision By Chelan County
Superior Court Judge John Bridges, June 6, 2005.
\17\ From the decision ``The Court concludes further that no matter
the number of illegal votes, whether they total 1,678, as determined by
this Court, or 2,820, as argued by petitioners in their closing, this
election may not be set aside merely because the number of illegal or
invalid votes exceed the margin of victory, because the election
contest statute requires the contestant to show that the illegal votes
or misconduct changed the election's result.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the increasing number of non-citizens illegally
residing in the country, illegal voting by non-citizens is
further cause for concern. The non-citizen population in the
United States is growing at an unprecedented rate. Census
Bureau data shows that the nation's foreign-born or immigrant
population (legal and illegal) reached 35 million in March of
2005. The data also indicate that the first half of this decade
has been the highest five-year period of immigration in
American history. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated 8.7 million
illegal aliens were in the U.S. in 2000. Immigration officials
estimate that the illegal alien population grows by as many as
500,000 every year. These non-citizen population growth rates
increase the potential for non-citizens to exploit and
manipulate the outcome of elections.
In 1996, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act was enacted, making it a federal crime for
non-citizens to vote in any federal election. Enforcement of
the statute is hampered by the difficulty involved in detecting
violations. As no proof of citizenship is required prior to
voting, violations by persons falsely presenting themselves as
citizens can go unnoticed. Even when evidence of a violation
presents itself, finding the perpetrators and gathering
sufficient evidence to prosecute them is very difficult.
Despite the law that prohibits it, documented reports of
non-citizen voting have increased. During the June 22, hearing
before this Committee, Dan Stein, President of the Federation
for American Immigration Reform, presented the following
documented cases of illegal voting: (1) In the 2000 election,
``election observers reported that a `sizable number' of votes
may have been cast by ineligible felons, illegal immigrants,
and non-citizens'' in Florida; (3) In Utah, Legislative Auditor
General John Schaff said in a February 8, 2005 report to the
President of the Utah Senate that more than 58,000 illegal
immigrants had Utah drivers' licenses, nearly 400 of them used
their license to register to vote in Utah, and a sampling of
that group revealed at least 14 actually voted in an election;
and (4) Hawaiian Election officials found 543 Oahu residents
who were not U.S. citizens had registered to vote. Moreover, an
investigation by the Immigration and Naturalization Service
into alleged fraud in a 1996 Orange County, California
congressional race revealed that non-citizens were registered
to vote in the 46th Congressional District in the disputed
election between Republican Robert Dornan and Democrat Loretta
Sanchez. The Task Force established by the Committee on House
Oversight found clear and convincing evidence that 748 invalid
votes were cast in that election.\18\ Further, state officials
found that over 300 non-citizens illegally voted in that
contest. These figures did not exceed the margin of victory,
but they clearly demonstrate this problem is real and can
impact the outcome in a close election.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ U.S. House of Representatives Report 105-416 ``Dismissing the
Election Contest Against Loretta Sanchez'' 105th Congress 2d Session,
February 12, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Rogers, a New Mexico attorney, proffered compelling
examples of illegal and fraudulent voting at the Committee's
hearing on June 22, 2006. In support of this testimony, Mr.
Rogers presented to the Committee the voter identification card
of a woman holding a green card, who claimed she was pressured
to register while standing in line to receive government
services. Mr. Rogers also provided the Committee with several
documented examples of illegal voting by non-citizens in the
United States as follows:
(1) In Maryland, a 2006 e-mail from a member of the
Montgomery County Board of Elections in Montgomery
County, Maryland was made public indicating he was
going to register people to vote ``regardless of
status.'' (2) Donna Hope, a non-citizen immigrant from
Barbados who resides in Philadelphia, was told by a
representative of the voter registration group ``Voting
is Power,'' the voter mobilization arm of the Muslim
American Society, that she could register to vote if
she has been in the United States at least 7 years. Ms.
Hope completed the registration form and was added to
the voting rolls. In November of 2004, Ms. Hope did not
vote because she was not a citizen, but someone
illegally cast a ballot in her name. (3) In 1998,
California Secretary of State Bill Jones referred to
the INS claims by nearly 450 people called for jury
duty in Orange County, California who claimed they were
exempt from jury duty because they were non-citizens.
The jury duty lists are pulled from driver's license
and registered voter files.
The Committee's field briefing in Arizona also revealed
accounts of voter fraud perpetrated by non-citizens. The
Honorable Andrew Thomas, Maricopa County Attorney, advised the
Committee of indictments of ten individuals who were non-
citizens who nevertheless registered to vote. His testimony
states in relevant part:
They were charged with filing false documents, a class 6
felony. Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell referred these
matters to the County Attorney's Office after her office
received jury questionnaire forms from the county jury
commissioner. These forms were filled out by potential jurors
who claimed they were unable to serve on a jury because they
were not citizens. The county recorder's office found that they
had claimed to be citizens when they filled out a voter
registration form. Four of these defendants voted in at least
one election. In addition to the ten charged defendants, the
County Attorney is reviewing 149 other cases in which non-
citizens have allegedly illegally registered to vote.
The county recorder has received inquiries from people
seeking to become U.S. citizens who have been told by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement to obtain a letter from her
office confirming they have neither registered to vote nor
voted. To date, a review of these matters has turned up 37 non-
citizens who have registered to vote. Fifteen of these
individuals have voted. And these numbers come from a
relatively small universe of individuals--legal immigrants who
seek to become citizens. These numbers do not tell us how many
illegal immigrants have registered and voted.
The United States Department of Justice has also
investigated and prosecuted several cases of non-citizen
voting.\19\ In Colorado, U.S. Attorneys convicted an individual
of providing false information concerning U.S. citizenship for
voter registration purposes.\20\ In Alaska, a non-citizen was
charged and found guilty of voting in the 2000, 2002 and 2004
elections in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 611.\21\
Additionally, 15 non-citizens were charged and 10 were
convicted of voting in Federal elections conducted in counties
located in South Florida.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Election Fraud Prosecutions & Convictions Ballot Access &
Voting Integrity Initiative, Criminal Division, Public Integrity
Division, United States Department of Justice, October 2002-September
2005.
\20\ Id., United States v. Shah, Case No. 04-CR-00458.
\21\ Id., United States v. Rogelio Mejorada-Lopez, Case No. 05-CR-
074.
\22\ Id., United States v. McKenzie, Case No. 04-CR-60160; United
States v. Francois, No. 04-CR-60159; United States v. Exavier, No. 04-
CR-60161; United States v. Lloyd Palmer, No. 04-CR-60159; United States
v. Velrine Palmer, No. 04-CR-60162; United States v. Shivdayal, No. 04-
CR-60164; United States v. Rickman, No. 04-CR-20491; United States v.
Knight, No. 04-CR-20490; United States v. Sweeting, No. 04-CR-20489;
United States v. Lubin, No. 04-CR-60163; United States v. Bennett, No.
04-CR-14048; United States v. O'Neil, No. 04-CR-60165; United States v.
Torres-Perez, No. 04-CR-14046; United States v. Phillip, No. 04-CR-
80103; United States v. Bain Knight, No. 04-CR-14047.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While these examples demonstrate the need for additional
protections to ensure only citizens are voting, the facts also
reveal that eligible citizens are able to prove their
eligibility and are not dissuaded from voting if required to do
so. States that have implemented an identification requirement
for voting have experienced positive results. At the
Committee's field briefing in Arizona, Secretary of State Jan
Brewer discussed the effects of the newly enacted
identification law known as Proposition 200. Under Proposition
200, all voters are required to present identification at the
polls before casting a ballot and all new voter registration
applications must be accompanied by sufficient proof of
citizenship. While identification is required in all Arizona
jurisdictions, 15 jurisdictions have successfully implemented a
proof of citizenship requirement. Secretary Brewer testified
that Arizona has experienced a 15.4 percent increase in voter
registration since the requirements of Proposition 200 went
into effect. Other studies recently conducted also demonstrate
that implementation of anti-fraud measures can increase, not
decrease, voter turnout.\23\ Moreover, in more than 100
democracies across the world, voters routinely present photo
IDs in elections without any apprehension of being
disenfranchised.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See generally, John R. Lott, Jr., ``Evidence of Voter Fraud
and the Impact that Regulations to Reduce Fraud Have on Voter
Participation Rates.'' August 2006, available at http://ssrn.com/
abstract=925611.
\24\ Report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, Building
Confidence in U.S. Elections, at pg. 4. See also, FN 5 ``The following
democracies constitute some of the nearly 100 countries that utilize a
national ID system: Belgium, Cost Rica, Germany, India, Italy, the
Netherlands, Portugal, South Africa, and Spain. See Privacy.org,
``dentity Cards: FAQ,'' August 24, 1996, available at http://
www.privacy.org/pi/activities/idcard/idcard--faq.html''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, state and local governments do not have any
effective way to prevent non-citizens from registering to vote
and voting. Section 303(b)(4)(A) of HAVA requires inclusion of
a citizenship box on the National Voter Registration Form. When
applying to register to vote, individuals must check the box
affirming their citizenship. The law provides that registration
forms that do not have the box checked should be rejected and
returned to the individual. However, some states are not
enforcing this requirement. Even in states that do enforce the
citizenship requirement, it is still done on an honor system
that relies on the truthful response of the registrant. While
the present state of the law leaves the system open to abuse,
H.R. 4844's identification and proof of citizenship requirement
will ensure that only eligible citizens are voting.
While there may be disputes about the nature and extent of
voter fraud, there can be no dispute that it occurs. In close
elections, even a small amount of fraud can affect the outcome.
More importantly, reports of fraud can cause people to lose
confidence in the integrity of the system and thereby
discourage participation. People must be encouraged to vote
with confidence that their vote will be counted and will not be
cancelled out by an illegal vote.
Furthermore, the very lack of any photo identification
requirement in most states makes it difficult to accurately
assess the size of the problem. Persons voting in the name of
another may do so now without ever having to identify
themselves, so their criminal acts can be committed without
detection and with little fear of prosecution.
Showing proof of identification and citizenship is
warranted and commonplace in today's society. Individuals are
required to have photo identification to engage in routine
activities such as boarding an airplane, entering a government
building, purchasing cigarettes and cashing a check. Our voting
system deserves at least as much protection as these other
activities. H.R. 4844 offers these identification requirements
to protect the fundamental right to vote, to build confidence
in our voting system, encourage voter participation and ensure
all individuals that when they cast a ballot, their vote will
not be diluted by an illegal vote.
Summary of the Legislation
Section 1.--Short title: ``Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006''
Section 2.--Requiring voters to provide photo identification
Amends section 303(b) of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002, (HAVA) by requiring voters to show a
government-issued current and valid photo
identification before casting a ballot for the 2008
general elections for Federal office.
Currently under HAVA, only first time voters who registered
by mail are required to show one of seven acceptable forms of
identification prior to voting. Section 2 amends the
identification provision contained in HAVA by requiring all
voters to show identification, and making a current and valid
government issued photo identification the only acceptable
form.
Amends section 303(b) of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002, (HAVA) by requiring voters to show a
current and valid photo identification for which the
individual was required to provide proof of United
States citizenship as a condition for issuance
effective for the 2010 general elections for federal
office and each subsequent Federal election.This
provision further strengthens ballot security by adding a proof of
citizenship requirement, and requiring that photo identification
contain some indicia of citizenship. The REAL ID Act of 2005, (Pub. L.
No. 109-13) will have to be implemented by States in May 2008. This
provision allows voters to use the identification they will obtain
through the REAL ID process to vote. Voters must show photo
identification that affirms citizenship before casting a ballot at the
polls for the 2010 federal elections and all subsequent federal
elections. This identification requirement provides election officials
with a mechanism to protect and secure the franchise of all United
States citizens against ballots being cast illegally by non-citizens
and other ineligible voters.
Permits individuals that are unable to
produce identification at the polls to cast a
provisional ballot. In order for the provisional ballot
to count, the voter must present qualifying
identification to an election official within 48 hours
of casting their provisional ballot.
This provision allows individuals who arrive at the polls
without the required photo identification the opportunity to
vote by provisional ballot. Presently, HAVA requires that
states provide individuals with the opportunity to cast a
provisional ballot if the voter believes he or she is
registered and eligible to vote in their election district but
their name does not appear on the voter rolls. This provision
will ensure that no voter is disenfranchised or turned away at
the polls on Election Day for failure to produce the necessary
identification and allow their vote to count if they present to
the appropriate election official the identification necessary
to prove eligibility within 48 hours.
Amends section 303(b) of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002, (HAVA) by requiring individuals who
do not vote in person to submit with the ballot for the
2008 general elections for Federal office a copy of a
government-issued current, and valid photo
identification. For the 2010 general elections for
federal office and each subsequent election for Federal
office, individuals who do not vote in person must
submit with the ballot a copy of a government-issued
current and valid photo identification that affirms
citizenship.
This provision extends the same photo identification
requirements to individuals that vote in person to individuals
that vote by mail. The current law requires only first time
voters who registered by mail to provide one of the seven forms
of identification acceptable under HAVA with the ballot. This
provision will ensure equal treatment to voters whether ballots
are cast in-person or by mail.
Provides an exemption for overseas military
voters who qualify as absent uniformed service voters
that are eligible to cast absentee ballots by reason of
active duty or service and are absent from the United
States on Election Day.
This provision conforms to section 107(1) of the Uniformed
and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-
6(1)).
Section 3.--Making photo identification available
Requires states to establish a program to
provide photo identification to individuals in
accordance with the photo identification requirement
contained in H.R. 4844. For those individuals who do
not possess photo identification and cannot afford to
obtain one, states will provide photo identification to
them at no cost.
This provision ensures that all individuals have the
opportunity to obtain the required government issued photo
identification. First, it requires states to establish a
program to provide government-issued photo identification to
all individuals who do not possess photo identification that
satisfies H.R. 4844. Second, it requires states to provide
government-issued photo identification to all indigent
individuals who do not possess or have means to obtain
identification.
Adds a new section to the Help America Vote
Act of 2002, (HAVA) that requires the Election
Assistance Commission to provide funding to cover state
incurred costs for providing qualifying government-
issued photo identification to indigent individuals.
Authorizes federal funds to reimburse states for the
cost of distributing the identifications.
Committee Consideration of the Legislation
INTRODUCTION, REFERRAL, MARKUP, AND VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE
On March 2, 2006, Mr. Hyde introduced H.R. 4844, the
``Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006,'' which was referred
to the Committee on House Administration. The Committee on
House Administration held a markup of H.R. 4844 on September
14, 2006. Members present: Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Mica, Mr. Doolittle,
Mrs. Miller, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr. Brady, and Ms.
Lofgren. The Committee favorably reported H.R. 4844 by a record
vote of 4-3, with a quorum being present.
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the following statements are made
concerning the votes of the Committee on House Administration
in its consideration of the bill, H.R. 4844.
MOTION TO REPORT THE BILL
The bill, H.R. 4844, as amended, was ordered favorably
reported by a rollcall vote of 4 yeas to 3 nays (with a quorum
being present). The vote was as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representatives Yea Nay Present Representatives Yea Nay Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ehlers.................... X ......... ......... Ms. Millender- ........ X .........
McDonald.
Mr. Ney....................... ........ ......... ......... Mr. Brady........ ........ X .........
Mr. Mica...................... X ......... ......... Ms. Lofgren...... ........ X .........
Mr. Doolittle................. X ......... ......... ................. ........ ........ .........
Mr. Reynolds.................. ........ ......... ......... ................. ........ ........ .........
Mrs. Miller................... X ......... ......... ................. ........ ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOTE ON EHLERS AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE
A rollcall vote was conducted on the Chairman's amendment
in the nature of a substitute. The amendment passed by a
rollcall vote of 4 yeas to 3 nays. The vote was as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representatives Yea Nay Present Representatives Yea Nay Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ehlers..................... X ........ ......... Ms. Millender- ........ X .........
McDonald.
Mr. Ney........................ ........ ........ ......... Mr. Brady........ ........ X .........
Mr. Mica....................... X ........ ......... Ms. Lofgren...... ........ X .........
Mr. Doolittle.................. X ........
Mr. Reynolds................... ........ ........
Mrs. Miller.................... X ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOTE ON LOFGREN AMENDMENT
A rollcall vote was conducted on the following amendment to
the Chairman's amendment in the nature of a substitute.
An amendment by Ms. Lofgren, to delay implementation of the
identification requirements until a study could be completed on
the anticipated effects of implementation of the program on
certain populations, was defeated by a rollcall vote of 3 yeas
to 4 nays. The vote was as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representatives Yea Nay Present Representatives Yea Nay Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ehlers..................... ........ X ......... Ms. Millender- X ........ .........
McDonald.
Mr. Ney........................ ........ ........ ......... Mr. Brady........ X ........ .........
Mr. Mica....................... ........ X ......... Ms. Lofgren...... X ........ .........
Mr. Doolittle.................. ........ X
Mr. Reynolds................... ........ ........
Mrs. Miller.................... ........ X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOTE ON MILLENDER-MCDONALD AMENDMENT
A rollcall vote was conducted on the following amendment to
the Chairman's amendment in the nature of a substitute.
An amendment by Ms. Millender-McDonald, to set standards
for provisional ballots, to assess penalties for voter
suppression, and to implement alternative methods for fraud
prevention, was defeated by a rollcall vote of 3 yeas to 4
nays. The vote was as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representatives Yea Nay Present Representatives Yea Nay Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ehlers..................... ........ X ......... Ms. Millender- X ........ .........
McDonald.
Mr. Ney........................ ........ ........ ......... Mr. Brady........ X ........ .........
Mr. Mica....................... ........ X ......... Ms. Lofgren...... X ........ .........
Mr. Doolittle.................. ........ X
Mr. Reynolds................... ........ ........
Mrs. Miller.................... ........ X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee states that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive
portions of this report.
General Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states, with respect to clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, that
the goal and objective of H.R. 4844 is to protect the franchise
and reduce the opportunities for, and incidence of, vote fraud.
Constitutional Authority
In compliance with clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII, the
Committee states that Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S.
Constitution grants Congress the authority to make law
governing the time, place and manner of holding federal
elections.
Federal Mandates
The Committee states, with respect to section 423 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that the bill obligates
States to establish a program to make available photo
identification to individuals, including that it be at no cost
to indigent individuals.
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. The Committee states that the identification
requirement will apply in all States and preempt laws to the
contrary.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 2002
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Help America
Vote Act of 2002''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act is
as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--COMMISSION
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Election Assistance
Part 1--Requirements Payments
Sec. 251. Requirements payments.
* * * * * * *
Part 7--Payments to Cover Costs of Providing Photo Identifications to
Indigent Individuals
Sec. 297. Payments to cover costs to States of providing photo
identifications for voting to indigent individuals.
Sec. 297A. Authorization of appropriations.
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--UNIFORM AND NONDISCRIMINATORY ELECTION TECHNOLOGY AND
ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
Subtitle A--Requirements
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 303. Computerized statewide voter registration list requirements
and requirements for voters who register by mail.]
Sec. 303. Computerized statewide voter registration list requirements
and requirements for providing photo identification.
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--COMMISSION
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Election Assistance
* * * * * * *
PART 7--PAYMENTS TO COVER COSTS OF PROVIDING PHOTO IDENTIFICATIONS TO
INDIGENT INDIVIDUALS
SEC. 297. PAYMENTS TO COVER COSTS TO STATES OF PROVIDING PHOTO
IDENTIFICATIONS FOR VOTING TO INDIGENT INDIVIDUALS.
(a) Payments to States.--The Commission shall make payments
to States to cover the costs incurred in providing photo
identifications under the program established under section
303(b)(4) to individuals who are unable to afford the fee that
would otherwise be charged under the program.
(b) Amount of Payment.--The amount of the payment made to a
State under this part for any year shall be equal to the amount
of fees which would have been collected by the State during the
year under the program established under section 303(b)(4) but
for the application of section 303(b)(4)(B)(ii), as determined
on the basis of information furnished to the Commission by the
State at such time and in such form as the Commission may
require.
SEC. 297A. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated for payments under
this part such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2008
and each succeeding fiscal year.
TITLE III--UNIFORM AND NONDISCRIMINATORY ELECTION TECHNOLOGY AND
ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
Subtitle A--Requirements
* * * * * * *
SEC. 303. COMPUTERIZED STATEWIDE VOTER REGISTRATION LIST REQUIREMENTS
AND REQUIREMENTS [FOR VOTERS WHO REGISTER BY MAIL]
FOR PROVIDING PHOTO IDENTIFICATION.
(a) * * *
(b) Requirements [for Voters Who Register by Mail] for
Providing Photo Identification.--
[(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 6(c) of the
National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C.
1973gg-4(c)) and subject to paragraph (3), a State
shall, in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner,
require an individual to meet the requirements of
paragraph (2) if--
[(A) the individual registered to vote in a
jurisdiction by mail; and
[(B)(i) the individual has not previously
voted in an election for Federal office in the
State; or
[(ii) the individual has not previously voted
in such an election in the jurisdiction and the
jurisdiction is located in a State that does
not have a computerized list that complies with
the requirements of subsection (a).
[(2) Requirements.--
[(A) In general.--An individual meets the
requirements of this paragraph if the
individual--
[(i) in the case of an individual who
votes in person--
[(I) presents to the
appropriate State or local
election official a current and
valid photo identification; or
[(II) presents to the
appropriate State or local
election official a copy of a
current utility bill, bank
statement, government check,
paycheck, or other government
document that shows the name
and address of the voter; or
[(ii) in the case of an individual
who votes by mail, submits with the
ballot--
[(I) a copy of a current and
valid photo identification; or
[(II) a copy of a current
utility bill, bank statement,
government check, paycheck, or
other government document that
shows the name and address of
the voter.
[(B) Fail-safe voting.--
[(i) In person.--An individual who
desires to vote in person, but who does
not meet the requirements of
subparagraph (A)(i), may cast a
provisional ballot under section
302(a).
[(ii) By mail.--An individual who
desires to vote by mail but who does
not meet the requirements of
subparagraph (A)(ii) may cast such a
ballot by mail and the ballot shall be
counted as a provisional ballot in
accordance with section 302(a).
[(3) Inapplicability.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply
in the case of a person--
[(A) who registers to vote by mail under
section 6 of the National Voter Registration
Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-4) and submits as
part of such registration either--
[(i) a copy of a current and valid
photo identification; or
[(ii) a copy of a current utility
bill, bank statement, government check,
paycheck, or government document that
shows the name and address of the
voter;
[(B)(i) who registers to vote by mail under
section 6 of the National Voter Registration
Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-4) and submits
with such registration either--
[(I) a driver's license number; or
[(II) at least the last 4 digits of
the individual's social security
number; and
[(ii) with respect to whom a State or local
election official matches the information
submitted under clause (i) with an existing
State identification record bearing the same
number, name and date of birth as provided in
such registration; or
[(C) who is--
[(i) entitled to vote by absentee
ballot under the Uniformed and Overseas
Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C.
1973ff-1 et seq.);
[(ii) provided the right to vote
otherwise than in person under section
3(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Voting
Accessibility for the Elderly and
Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ee-
1(b)(2)(B)(ii)); or
[(iii) entitled to vote otherwise
than in person under any other Federal
law.]
(1) Individuals voting in person.--
(A) Requirement to provide identification.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law and
except as provided in subparagraph (B), the
appropriate State or local election official
may not provide a ballot for an election for
Federal office to an individual who desires to
vote in person unless the individual presents
to the official--
(i) a government-issued, current, and
valid photo identification; or
(ii) in the case of the regularly
scheduled general election for Federal
office held in November 2010 and each
subsequent election for Federal office,
a government-issued, current, and valid
photo identification for which the
individual was required to provide
proof of United States citizenship as a
condition for the issuance of the
identification.
(B) Availability of provisional ballot.--If
an individual does not present the
identification required under subparagraph (A),
the individual shall be permitted to cast a
provisional ballot with respect to the election
under section 302(a), except that the
appropriate State or local election official
may not make a determination under section
302(a)(4) that the individual is eligible under
State law to vote in the election unless the
individual presents the identification required
under subparagraph (A) to the official not
later than 48 hours after casting the
provisional ballot.
(2) Individuals voting other than in person.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law and except as provided in
subparagraph (B), the appropriate State or
local election official may not accept any
ballot for an election for Federal office
provided by an individual who votes other than
in person unless the individual submits with
the ballot--
(i) a copy of a government-issued,
current, and valid photo
identification; or
(ii) in the case of the regularly
scheduled general election for Federal
office held in November 2010 and each
subsequent election for Federal office,
a copy of a government-issued, current,
and valid photo identification for
which the individual was required to
provide proof of United States
citizenship as a condition for the
issuance of the identification.
(B) Exception for overseas military voters.--
Subparagraph (A) does not apply with respect to
a ballot provided by an absent uniformed
services voter who, by reason of active duty or
service, is absent from the United States on
the date of the election involved. In this
subparagraph, the term ``absent uniformed
services voter'' has the meaning given such
term in section 107(1) of the Uniformed and
Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42
U.S.C. 1973ff--6(1)), other than an individual
described in section 107(1)(C) of such Act.
(3) Specific requirements for identifications.--For
purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2)--
(A) an identification is ``government-
issued'' if it is issued by the Federal
Government or by the government of a State; and
(B) an identification is one for which an
individual was required to provide proof of
United States citizenship as a condition for
issuance if the identification displays an
official marking or other indication that the
individual is a United States citizen.
(4) Making photo identifications available.--
(A) In general.--During fiscal year 2008 and
each succeeding fiscal year, each State shall
establish a program to provide photo
identifications which may be used to meet the
requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) by
individuals who desire to vote in elections
held in the State but who do not otherwise
possess a government-issued photo
identification.
(B) Identifications provided at no cost to
indigent individuals.--If a State charges an
individual a fee for providing a photo
identification under the program established
under subparagraph (A)--
(i) the fee charged may not exceed
the reasonable cost to the State of
providing the identification to the
individual; and
(ii) the State may not charge a fee
to any individual who provides an
attestation that the individual is
unable to afford the fee.
(C) Identifications not to be used for other
purposes.--Any photo identification provided
under the program established under
subparagraph (A) may not serve as a government-
issued photo identification for purposes of any
program or function of a State or local
government other than the administration of
elections.
[(4)] (5) Contents of mail-in registration form.--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(5)] (6) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to require a State that was not
required to comply with a provision of the National
Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et
seq.) before the date of the enactment of this Act to
comply with such a provision after such date.
(c) Permitted Use of Last 4 Digits of Social Security
Numbers.--The last 4 digits of a social security number
described in [subsections (a)(5)(A)(i)(II) and
(b)(3)(B)(i)(II)] subsection (a)(5)(A)(i)(II) shall not be
considered to be a social security number for purposes of
section 7 of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a note).
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) * * *
[(2) Requirement for voters who register by mail.--
[(A) In general.--Each State and jurisdiction
shall be required to comply with the
requirements of subsection (b) on and after
January 1, 2004, and shall be prepared to
receive registration materials submitted by
individuals described in subparagraph (B) on
and after the date described in such
subparagraph.
[(B) Applicability with respect to
individuals.--The provisions of subsection (b)
shall apply to any individual who registers to
vote on or after January 1, 2003.]
(2) Requirement to provide photo identification.--
Paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) shall apply
with respect to the regularly scheduled general
election for Federal office held in November 2008 and
each subsequent election for Federal office.
* * * * * * *
MINORITY VIEWS OF RANKING MEMBER JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD OF
CALIFORNIA, REP. ROBERT A. BRADY OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND REP. ZOE LOFGREN
OF CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
The Committee on House Administration amended and ordered
reported H.R. 4844, the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006,
by a recorded vote of 4-3. The inescapable consequence of
enacting H.R. 4844 will be to decrease the number of citizens
able to vote. Unfortunately the Majority made no effort to
determine how many voters will be disenfranchised by this
legislation. The fact that millions of Americans do not have
the identification and proof of citizenship that the bill
requires does not appear to concern the Majority, nor does the
fact that those citizens, who are most likely to lose their
right to vote, are disproportionately the elderly, the disabled
and racial minorities. The Majority has abandoned the
bipartisanship reflected in the previous election legislation
to pursue a partisan agenda. In the view of the Minority, H.R.
4844 will do far more to suppress turnout and intimidate voters
than to prevent voter fraud, the purported objective of the
Majority. Millions of Americans will be denied their right to
vote because the Majority is rushing this bill to the floor to
address a problem that is not supported by quantitative or
empirical data to show that real problems exist.
THE REAL FRAUD: VOTER SUPPRESSION
What H.R. 4844 does not do is more striking than what it
does. For all the concern that the Majority expresses about
protecting the right to vote, the bill does nothing to stop
voter suppression or correct the myriad of administrative
problems that are plaguing our elections and robbing our
citizens of their right to vote. H.R. 4844, as amended, will do
nothing to stop the intentional forms of voter suppression like
the instances in 2004 when unsuspecting voters were misinformed
about the time or place of the election or about the
qualifications for voting. It will not remedy the long lines,
the misallocated voting equipment or voter registration rules
and election procedures that deny citizens the opportunity to
vote. These are the issues that the Committee should be
addressing.
Instead the Majority devises a modern day poll tax in the
form of proof of citizenship that will keep eligible citizens
from voting. No citizen should have to pay in order to exercise
his or her Constitutional right to vote. Proof of citizenship
requirements place on the voter the difficult, time consuming,
and costly burden of obtaining the necessary documentation to
prove citizenship or identity in order to cast a ballot. And
this burden falls mostly on the elderly, the poor and some
racial minorities. For example, the United States State
Department reports that only 23 percent of all Americans
possess a passport and the cost of obtaining one exceeds $100.
A majority of Americans do not currently possess the
identification required by H.R. 4844, and requiring them to
obtain one imposes an unconstitutional burden on their right to
vote. Some Americans will be unable to acquire the necessary
documents at any cost because they lack a birth certificate.
Instead of making it difficult to vote, our job should be
to promote more broadly civic participation. Instead of
erecting new barriers, we should be devoting our resources to
prosecuting the illegal intimidation tactics that continue to
surface with each election cycle.
This legislation will do absolutely nothing to address the
widespread voter disenfranchisement caused by administrative
incompetence and irrational election rules and procedures. Just
two years ago, thousands of voters waited in line for long
hours to cast a ballot because of the misallocation of voting
equipment, or because of the selective interpretation of the
voting laws for partisan gain.
No one would disagree with the Majority that voter fraud is
wrong and anyone who breaks the law should be prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law. Falsely claiming citizenship and
voting fraud have long been state and federal offenses. And the
country has strong laws in place today to address this concern.
Federal law (18 U.S.C. Sec. 611) prohibits non-citizens from
voting in national elections or from providing false
information about citizenship when registering (18 U.S.C.
Sec. 911). Both provisions carry prison time and stiff
financial penalties. In addition, ever since U.S. immigration
laws were reformed in 1996, immigrants who try to vote can be
criminally prosecuted, and after that, are automatically given
a one-way ticket out of the country. These laws deter non-
citizens from registering and voting. That is one reason that
the Majority was unable to document that illegal voting by non-
citizens is a problem. Another reason is that non-citizens have
little interest in voting and in doing so, exposing themselves
to possible deportation. Burdensome proof of citizenship
requirements will only penalize U.S. citizens who simply desire
to exercise their Constitutional right to vote.
H.R. 4844 is a solution in search of a problem, as the
testimony from our June 2006 hearing attests. The Majority's
own witnesses admitted that the ``need'' for a proof of
citizenship requirement is not documented by studies or by
empirical data. The question is why the Majority is so willing
to sacrifice the right to vote of millions of Americans to
prevent what even the Majority's own witnesses see are at worst
an occasional and isolated instance of non-citizens voting.
H.R. 4844
H.R. 4844, would:
require an individual to present a
government issued photo ID in order to cast a ballot
for the 2008 Federal elections;
prevent voters from casting a ballot unless
they offer proof of citizenship in order to vote in
2010;
allow for the counting of a provisional
ballot only if the individual who cast the ballot
returns to the appropriate election official within 48
hours of casting the provisional ballot with the
required photo ID;
require anyone other than overseas active
military personnel to include with their absentee
ballot a copy of a current and valid government-issued
photo ID. This has the potential for disenfranchising
thousands of voters in states like Oregon, which
conduct all of their elections by mail-in ballots, or
states that are moving in that direction, like
Washington state;
instruct the Election Assistance Commission
to make payments to the states to cover the cost
incurred in providing photo ID to certain individuals;
and
authorizes appropriations to pay states for
the cost of providing photo IDs to indigent
individuals. Citizens who are not indigent would still
have an out-of-pocket expense, and indigent citizens
will still need to bear the costs of obtaining proof of
citizenship to obtain the state-issued photo ID.
DEMOCRATIC ALTERNATIVE
Ranking Member Millender-McDonald offered a perfecting
amendment in the Committee in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 4844, which was rejected by the Majority 4-3.
If adopted, the amendment would have improved voter access
to the polls, prevented election fraud, and supported election
integrity. The amendment proposed to:
(1) establish uniform standards for the treatment of
provisional ballots;
(2) create uniform standard for treatment of
provisional ballots cast at incorrect polling places;
(3) clarify criminal penalties for voter fraud under
the HAVA;
(4) codify a Federal Court decision that HAVA
matching requirements are intended as an administrative
safeguard, not as a restriction on voter eligibility;
and
(5) provide to the states additional fraud prevention
methods.
Congresswoman Lofgren offered an amendment that would have
prevented H.R. 4844 from taking effect unless the EAC reports
to Congress on the anticipated impact of the Act on voter
participation, and the report concludes that implementation of
H.R. 4844 will not disproportionately affect voter
participation by the elderly, disabled and racial minorities.
This amendment was also rejected 4-3.
The Federal Elections Commission noted in its 1997 report
to Congress that photo identification entails major expenses,
both initially and in maintenance. Such a requirement also
presents an undue and potentially discriminatory burden on
citizens in exercising their basic right to vote.
Partisan attempts to burden our Nation with troublesome
proof of citizenship requirements are not the direction our
Committee or the country should be heading. This Committee
should focus on ensuring that all Americans, who are eligible
to vote, are able to do so without having to wait for many long
hours to cast a ballot. Further, this Committee should be
concentrating on ways to ensure all Americans that their
ballots will be fully accounted for, and their votes will be
accurately counted. The Congress and this Committee should be
addressing the real voter fraud issues, because electoral fraud
perpetrated on Americans: voter intimidation, threats;
misinformation, and other forms of voter suppression are still
disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of American citizens
today.
CITIZEN GROUPS OPPOSING H.R. 4844
To date, we have received testimony and letters from 89
citizen groups that vehemently oppose voter ID and proof of
citizenship requirements to vote. We would like to include the
attached letters of opposition from the following groups:
A. Philip Randolph Institute.
ACORN.
Advancement Project.
Aguila Youth Leadership Institute.
Alliance for Retired Americans.
American Association of People with Disabilities.
American Association of Retired Persons (AARP).
American Civil Liberties Union.
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.
American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial
Organizations (AFL-CIO).
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees.
American Immigration Lawyers Association.
American Policy Center.
Americans for Democratic Action.
Arizona Advocacy Network.
Arizona Consumers Council.
Arizona Hispanic Community Forum.
Arizona Students' Association.
Asian American Justice Center.
Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote (APIA Vote).
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO.
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
Center for Digital Democracy.
Common Cause.
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.
Concerned Foreign Service Officers.
Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Consumer Action.
Cyber Privacy Project.
Democratic Women's Working Group.
Demos: A Network for Ideas & Action.
Electronic Privacy Information Center.
Emigrantes Sin Fronteras.
Fairfax County Privacy Council.
Friends Committee on National Legislation.
Hispanic Federation.
Hispanic National Bar Association.
Interfaith Worker Justice of Arizona.
Intertribal Council of Arizona.
Japanese American Citizens League (JACL).
La Union Del Pueblo Entero (LUPE).
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement.
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
League of United Latin American Citizens.
League of Women Voters of Greater Tucson.
League of Women Voters of the United States.
Legal Momentum.
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP).
National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed
Officials Educational Fund.
National Center for Transgender Equality.
National Congress of American Indians.
National Council of Jewish Women.
National Council of La Raza.
National Disability Rights Network.
National Education Association.
National Korean American Service & Education Consortium.
National Urban League.
National Voting Rights Institute.
Navajo Nation.
New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc./NYPIRG.
Ohio Taxpayers Association & OTA Foundation.
People for the American Way Foundation.
Project for Arizona's Future.
Protection and Advocacy System.
RainbowPUSH Coalition.
Republican Liberty Caucus.
SEIU Local 5 Arizona.
Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF).
Somos America/We Are America.
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project.
The Multiracial Activist.
The Rutherford Institute.
Tohono O'odham Nation.
Transgender Law Center.
U.S. PIRG.
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.
United Auto Workers.
United Church of Christ Justice & Witness Ministries.
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and
Society.
United States Student Association.
United Steelworkers.
UNITE-HERE.
Velvet Revolution.
William C. Velasquez Institute.
YWCA USA.
CONCLUSION
The proponents of H.R. 4844 characterize this legislation
merely as an administrative protection that is simple to
implement and necessary to prevent fraud. The truth is H.R.
4844 is a draconian measure that will suppress voting and
undermine laws that Congress has passed to assure all citizens
have a full and equal right to participate. Enacting this law
measure will be an affront to all Americans who take pride in
the progress our country has made in extending the franchise to
all of its citizens and who take offense at the political
manipulation of our election process.
Let us not forget, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita forced
nearly 700,000 citizens from the Gulf Coast last year. What
about the Katrina victims who not only lost houses and jobs,
but under this bill will lose their right to vote because they
lost the documentation necessary to vote? There will be other
victims of this ill-conceived legislation including those
because of their disability cannot locate the necessary
documents or those who were born at home because they were
denied access to their local hospital or those that are wrongly
denied by government error, the necessary documentation.
Democrats along with well intentioned Republicans have
fought for and won the extension of voting rights to eligible
Americans. During the last century, our country has expanded
the right to vote to millions of Americans with the passage of
the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote; the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 preventing institutional voter suppression;
the 26th amendment giving the right to vote to 18 year olds;
the National Voter Registration Act of 1993; and the Help
America Vote Act of 2002. We will not shirk our responsibility
to defend those gains and we will not let those gains be lost
to undocumented allegations of fraud or to partisan efforts to
secure a political advantage. The right to vote is too precious
to allow any citizen's vote to be sacrificed to those who would
treat it carelessly.
Juanita Millender-McDonald.
Rob A. Brady.
Zoe Lofgren.
MINORITY ATTACHMENTS
APIA Vote,
Washington, DC, September 15, 2006.
Hon. Vernon Ehlers,
Chairman, Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,
Ranking Member, Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives Ehlers and Millender-McDonald: The
Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote (APIAVote) and the
South Asian American Leaders for Tomorrow (SAALT) write to
express our grave concerns about the government-issued photo
identification requirements for voting proposed in H.R. 4844,
the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006. If enacted, H.R.
4844 will require every eligible voter to obtain and present
government-issued photo for federal elections in 2008 and
thereafter. H.R. 4844 creates burdensome obstacles to our
democratic electoral process and will have a disenfranchising
impact on the civic participation of eligible Asian Pacific
Islander American (APIA) voters.
H.R. 4844 will significantly impede the growing trend of
increased participation by Asian Pacific Islander Americans in
our nation's democracy. Over the past ten years, the number of
Asian Pacific Islander American voters increased from less than
one million to 1.98 million, a 118% growth. In 2004 alone, 3.2
million APIAs registered to vote and 85% appeared at the polls
on Election Day to cast their ballot and have their ballot
counted. However, H.R. 4844 imposes administrative barriers
that would discourage all current eligible voters.
Furthermore, limited English proficient (LEP) voters may be
less likely to understand the new requirement. Even within
jurisdictions with Section 203 coverage under the Voting Rights
Act, this new requirement will take time for APIA LEP voters to
understand and comply.
Proponents of H.R. 4844 claim that the integrity of our
democracy is at stake and widespread voter fraud demands the
passage of the drastic proposed measures. However, the United
States Department of Justice has documented less than 100
allegations of ballot fraud and far less actual convictions
nationwide. Congress should not respond to these exaggerated
claims by mandating that every eligible voter obtain and
present government-issued photo identification, especially when
there are numerous other measures, such as signature
verification and legally-binding affidavits, that can be
established to reinforce fair elections. This misguided piece
of legislation will simply lead to the disenfranchisement of
limited English proficient voters, immigrant voters, and
minority voters.
As Congress considers H.R. 4844, we implore to consider
whether the legislation advances our democracy, promotes civic
engagement, and restores confidence in the electoral process.
If H.R. 4844 disenfranchises even one eligible voter, which it
will surely do if enacted, then it is a great disservice to the
principles of our society.
------
People for the American Way,
Washington, DC, September 14, 2006.
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Committee Member: On behalf of the more than 900,000
members and activists of People for the American Way, we urge
you to stand up for the right of all citizens to fully
participate in our democratic society and oppose measures, such
as H.R. 4844, or other proof of citizenship or voter ID
requirements, that seek to erect barriers to the ballot. Our
American democracy is one of inclusion that thrives on the
diversity of our populace and the full participation of its
citizenry. Overly burdensome and unnecessary voter ID and proof
of citizenship requirements are an anathema to this ideal and
only serve to alienate and disenfranchise eligible citizens.
Election Fraud
Fraud takes many forms. While proponents of H.R. 4844 and
other voter ID requirements claim to be addressing the
existence of massive ``voter fraud,'' particularly by illegal
immigrants; to date, there are no credible reports of
significant fraud to support the need for such restrictive
proposals. While it is true that the integrity of the electoral
process must be protected, this can only be done by addressing
actual problems that truly serve to undermine voter confidence.
This necessarily includes procedures and actions by individuals
and election administrators that will prevent eligible voters
from participating in the electoral process. Voter intimidation
and harassment of voters at the polls are some of the more
obvious forms of activities that disenfranchise voters and
contribute to fraud in our election process. Other actions such
as election officials removing eligible voters from the
registration rolls, the destruction of voter registration cards
because of registrants' political affiliation, or the mass
challenging of minority voters at the polling places are other
fraudulent activities that must be addressed. Any definition
that is not sufficiently broad to include such activities
prevents decision makers from devising appropriate solutions.
Proof of Citizenship Requirements
Proof of citizenship requirements are unnecessary. Those
registering to vote are already required to take an oath of
citizenship. The extra requirement for providing documents only
creates an additional hurdle for voters.
Unfortunately, proposals to require proof of citizenship
are often a way to disguise racist and anti-immigrant sentiment
and only serve to disenfranchise eligible citizens. This is
because proponents know that proof of citizenship requirements
are impossible for members of some communities to acquire and
very hard for others. For instance, in certain parts of the
country, elderly African Americans and many Native Americans
were born at home, under the care ofelderly African Americans
and many Native Americans were born at home, under the care of
midwives, and do not possess birth certificates. People of color,
people with disabilities, elderly people, young people, and low-income
citizens are among the demographic groups least likely to have
documents in their possession to prove citizenship. Furthermore for
victims of natural disasters like hurricane Katrina, it may be
impossible to obtain birth certificates or other documents because they
have been destroyed.
Legislation such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the
Help America Vote Act have made it easier for all citizens to
vote, and have resulted in increased voter participation by
Latinos and other minorities. This progress should be continued
and we should not allow retrogressive proposals like
Proposition 200 or others to turn back the progress of these
significant civil rights laws.
Voter Identification Requirements
Restrictive voter ID requirements are similarly unnecessary
and harmful. Like proof of citizenship requirements, such voter
ID requirements impose a severe burden and are likely to
disenfranchise poor, minority, elderly and young voters, who
are less likely to have photo identification and move more
frequently. The data is clear:
Approximately 6 to 10% of the American
electorate does not have any form of state
identification.
African Americans are four to five times less
likely than whites to have photo identification.
Young adults (age 20-29) move almost 6 times
more frequently than adults over 55, and minorities
move 50% more frequently than whites.
In Georgia, It is estimated that nearly 40%
of seniors lack photo identification.
Instead of addressing unsubstantiated voter fraud, such
restrictive voting measures erect barriers to the ballot and
are likely to be enforced in discriminatory ways against poor
and minority voters to intimidate, misinform, stigmatize, and
ultimately suppress the vote.
Real Solutions
Even if fraud were a problem, there are positive steps that
states can take to lessen the threat of fraud and protect the
integrity of the ballot box without risking disenfranchising
voters, such as implementing statewide voter registration
databases as mandated by HA VA. Additional ``fraud-protection''
measures could include accurate cleansing of voter registration
rolls, verification of voters' unique identifying numbers, in-
person affirmation, signature comparison, and finally, the
vigorous prosecution of any cases of election fraud. These are
real solutions to actual documented problems.
Conclusion
Since the 2000 Presidential Election, our sister
organization, People For the American Way Foundation, has been
a leader in the Election Protection Coalition along with its
allies the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights under Law and
the NAACP. Integral to Election Protection was the deployment
of thousands of volunteers across the country to serve as poll
monitors to assist voters and document the problems voters
faced as they attempted to exercise their right to vote. The
data collected from volunteers and voters through reports from
the field and through the Election Protection Hotline clearly
evidence a need for election officials to address the real
problems created by voter harassment and intimidation, the lack
of machines at low-income and minority poll sites, improperly
trained poll workers and the creation of overly burdensome
voter registration procedures by partisan election officials,
just to name a few. These are the real problems that deserve
the priority of election officials. Only then can we truly
maintain the integrity of our electoral system and protect the
right to vote of all eligible citizens. Voter ID and proof of
citizenship proposals are simply forms of a 21st century poll
tax that have no business in our electoral process. The right
to vote is fundamental and Congress should be focused on ways
to open the franchise to all eligible citizens. PFAW looks
forward to working with Congress to protect this right to vote
for all Americans.
Sincerely,
Ralph G. Neas,
President.
Tanya Clay House,
Director, Public Policy.
------
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, September 14, 2006.
Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers,
Chairman, House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration, Washington, DC.
Hon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,
Ranking Member, House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald:
As Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, we write to
express our opposition to H.R. 4844, the Federal Election
Integrity Act of 2006. This legislation, purporting to secure
our electoral system against fraud, is merely a backdoor effort
to intimidate and disenfranchise otherwise eligible voters. As
we have said before to this committee, it is regrettable that
once again two unrelated issues--non-citizens and voting
fraud--are linked in the public's mind to create a controversy
were none exists.
We hold a longstanding opposition to identification
requirement as part of the voting process. For some time we
have heard of the need for a photo identification requirement
as a necessary tool to combat fraud. However, there is no
evidence of widespread fraud in any recent election, in
particular any linked to non-citizens voting in federal
elections. In those instances when a violation occurred, our
judicial system has responded swiftly.
While a photo identification requirement at the polls seems
entirely reasonable, it is important to note that some people
simply do not possess photo identification. For example, in the
Latino community, there are many low-income households in which
no one possesses a car, and certainly not a driver's license,
let alone a passport. There are people in such households who
do not even possess alternatives to photo identification, such
as utility bills or government checks in their name. For such
low-income individuals, the cost of obtaining photo
identification is itself a burden, and such a requirement is
all too reminiscent of past barriers to voting.
Requiring any form of identification at the polling place
would inevitably create similar barriers and hurdles for racial
and ethnic minority voters and would have a chilling effect on
voter participation. Identification provisions have rightfully
been prohibited because of the disparate impact they have on
minority electoral participation. In addition, it would have a
devastating effect on rural voters, as well as the elderly and
disabled. As responsible policy makers, we need to consider
whether the proposed remedy to a problem will cause greater
harm than good. If in our efforts to prevent fraud we impose a
burdensome requirement, then we have not created good policy.
This legislation, H.R. 4844, goes further than simply
requiring photo identification and would amend the P.L. 103-31,
the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), to make proof-of-
citizenship a federal requirement for voting in states that
require registration. This presents several problems in that if
improperly implemented, a voter ID law would likely violate
other federal voting rights laws such as the Voting Rights Act
of 1965 and the Help America Vote Act of 2002. In addition,
states would have to create new forms and a new system to
capture registrations by mail, otherwise they would be non-
compliant with the law the bill intends to amend, NVRA.
Moreover, it would fail to stop fraud that could occur via
mail-in voting or by the use of absentee ballots.
Currently, federal voter registration forms allow persons
to attest to the fact that they are citizens. If H.R. 4844 were
implemented, the requirements would be akin to imposing a
modern-day poll tax because citizens would now have to pay to
secure documents to prove what they have already confirmed via
attestation, that they are indeed citizens. For persons of
limited means, the prospect of spending $85 for a passport or
time locating a birth certificate could easily discourage them
from voting at all. In the case of naturalized citizens, this
requirement is problematic in that the Department of Homeland
Security makes it punishable by law to ``copy, print, or
photograph'' a citizenship certificate. Any naturalized citizen
would be in violation of one law in an attempt to comply with
another. No individual should have to make that choice.
The negative consequence of some measures ostensibly
designed to combat fraud is the disenfranchisement of
legitimate voters. Any anti-fraud measure should pass a test
that asks how much fraud the measure will prevent and how many
legitimate voters will be prevented from voting. If the latter
number is greater than the former, then the measure fails the
test.
We urge you to consider the risks inherent in
identification requirements and to oppose this bill in
particular.
Sincerely,
Grace Flores Napolitano,
Chair, Congressional
Hispanic Caucus.
Charles A. Gonzalez,
Chair, CHC Civil Rights Task
Force.
------
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
New York, NY, September 13, 2006.
Hon. Vernon Ehlers,
Chairman, Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,
Ranking Member, Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald:
The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) strongly
opposes H.R. 4844, the ``Federal Election Integrity Act of
2006.''
H.R. 4844 would prohibit qualified voters from voting in
elections if they do not have a government-issued form of photo
identification, which in turn requires individual voters to
furnish proof of citizenship or a copy (in most states, a
certified copy) of a document proving citizenship. H.R. 4844
will disproportionately affect poor, racial minority, disabled,
homeless, and elderly voters by erecting a new, costly,
unnecessary, and unjustifiable barrier to voting. We urge you
to vote against this measure.
We are particularly concerned that the requirements of H.R.
4844 will have a disproportionate effect on low-income Black
voters. As evidenced by Hurricane Katrina, poor voters impacted
by circumstances outside of their control are often unable to
obtain the documents required for government issued
identification because they are destroyed or otherwise
unavailable. These same voters should not be denied access to
the polling place under such circumstances.
In addition, many of the underlying documents required to
obtain government issued photo identification are unavailable
to poor and elderly minority voters who disproportionately
either (a) did not receive a birth certificate at the time of
birth or (b) do not have a certified copy of their birth
certificate at their disposal. Under the provisions of H.R.
4844, these otherwise eligible voters would be disfranchised.
LDF opposes any measure that attempts to impose a fee in
order to exercise the fundamental right to vote. Persistent
attempts to mask an unconstitutional poll tax by shifting the
payment window from the poll house door to the Department of
Motor Vehicles (when a fee is charged for a state
identification card), or the Department of Health (when a fee
is charged to obtain a copy of a birth certificate) does not
alter the disproportionately prohibitive nature of such costs
to poor, minority, and elderly voters.
Finally, the proponents of H.R. 4844 simply have not
proffered sufficient evidence of ``unchecked fraud'' to justify
the prohibitive impact of H.R. 4844 on eligible voters. Thus,
there is no need for Congress to remedy a problem that has not
been demonstrated to exist in any widespread fashion. Moreover,
as a practical matter, state penalties for fraudulent voting,
as well as the onerous task of identifying and locating a voter
to impersonate, and then casting an illegal ballot without
suspicion, adequately curtail the number of ineligible persons,
if any, attempting to vote by misrepresenting their identity at
the polls. Although the government must guard against voter
fraud, electoral integrity is not achieved when eligible voters
are denied access to the core of our democracy: the fundamental
right to vote.
The right to vote, recognized by the United States Supreme
Court as the ``civil right of the highest order,'' is
preservative of all other rights. New voting rights challenges,
like photo identification requirements, threaten to undermine
the legitimacy of our democracy. The recent Voting Rights Act
renewal focused on the shared goal of protecting the
fundamental right to vote. Congress should not now enact
legislation that will have the effect of excluding the same
eligible voters the VRA protects.
Sincerely,
Theodore M. Shaw,
Director-Counsel and President.
Cc: All House Administration Committee Members.
------
NAACP,
Washington Bureau,
Washington, DC, September 13, 2006.
Hon. Vernon Ehlers,
Chairman, Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,
Ranking Member, Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald:
On behalf of the NAACP, our nation's oldest and largest
grassroots based civil rights organization, I write to express
our strong opposition to H.R. 4844, the misnamed, ``Federal
Election Integrity Act of 2006.'' If implemented, HR. 4844
would require all voters to obtain and present a government-
issued photo ID that proves their citizenship in order to vote
beginning in 2008. We are convinced in doing so, H.R. 4844
would facilitate and in some cases even encourage
discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities, as well as
the elderly and the poor at polling places and prevent many
eligible voters across the country from participating in our
sacredly held democratic practice of voting. To add insult to
injury, it would do little too nothing to prevent actual
instances of voter fraud. The so-called Federal Election
Integrity Act, would only exacerbate the already existing
problem of voter non-participation by erroneously removing or
discouraging countless eligible voters from the process. We
urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to oppose this ill-
conceived measure and work to defeat it's passage in the U.S.
House of Representatives.
Upon closer examination, H.R. 4844 re-creates new obstacles
in voting akin to a modern day ``poll-tax'' by forcing U.S
citizens to ``pay'' for government approved ID that many of our
most vulnerable citizens do not have or cannot easily obtain to
prove their citizenship such as passports or birth
certificates. The bill attempts to address this problem by
including a weak and ineffective provision to cover the cost of
ID's for voters who cannot afford them. The NAACP strongly
believes that crucial voting rights should never depend on the
tenuous appropriations process. Moreover, citizens would still
be faced with the expense and time involved in getting the
documentation required to obtain ID. As such, while the 1964
Voting Rights Act eliminated our nation's racially
discriminatory poll taxes, H.R. 4844 effectively brings them
back.
To add to our concerns about this misguided bill, we are
convinced that the criterion for establishing proof of
citizenship may be impossible for some of ourcitizens to
establish. Until recently, it was common in certain parts of the
country for people to be born at home without obtaining an official
birth certificate. If H.R. 4844 were to become law, these American
citizens would be completely disenfranchised.
The requirement that all voters present a photo ID before
being able to cast a regular ballot will disproportionately
disenfranchise African Americans and other racial and ethnic
minority Americans, as well as, the elderly, individuals with
disabilities, Americans living in rural areas, Native American
voters, the homeless, and low-income people who are less likely
to have or carry a photo ID.
Supporters of H.R. 4844 erroneously argue that it is
necessary to require photo IDs and proof of citizenship in
order to combat voter fraud, however nationwide evidence
clearly establishes that current anti-fraud laws work.
Moreover, while there is no question that election misconduct
exists, including improper purges of voters, distributing false
information about when and where to vote, stuffing ballot
boxes, and tampering with registration forms, there is no
evidence that the type of fraud that H.R. 4844 purports to
address--voters who misrepresent their identity--is anything
but an anomaly. Quite frankly, it has been clearly documented
that our nation's biggest problems with voter fraud are because
of the illegal activities of election officials and not those
of the American people exercising their constitutional right to
cast an unfettered vote of their own free will and have that
vote counted.
Misguided legislative proposals like the so-called,
``Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006'' represent some of
the greatest threats to fair and equal voting rights
protections today.
In July of this year, Congress passed the historic
reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, ``the Fannie Lou
Hamer, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 protecting the right
to vote for millions of Americans for many years to come. This
important, bi-partisan, victory would be undermined by H.R.
4844, which would disenfranchise many of the very citizens that
the VRA is designed to protect.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this issue
and for your attention to the concerns of the NAACP. We look
forward to working with you to defeat this truly problematic
bill. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me.
Sincerely,
Hilary O. Shelton,
Director.
------
National Urban League,
Washington, DC, September 13, 2006.
Hon. Vernon Ehlers,
Chairman, Committee on House Administration
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,
Ranking Member, Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald:
As President and CEO of the National Urban League, I am writing
to express our strong opposition to H.R. 4844, the ``Federal
Election Integrity Act of 2006.'' H.R. 4844 would require all
voters, beginning with the 2006 general election in less than
eight weeks, to obtain and show proof of citizenship prior to
registering to vote, and obtain and show a photo ID prior to
casting a ballot. H.R. 4844 is being sold as a measure to
reduce voter fraud--in reality, it would encourage
discrimination and prevent many eligible voters from exercising
the most sacred and important civil right they have, the right
to vote.
The National Urban League considers proof-of-citizenship
requirements a 21st century poll tax. No citizen should have to
pay money to register to vote. Proof-of-citizenship
requirements invariably put the burden--including the financial
burden--on U.S. citizens. While it would be great if all
citizens had documents such as a passport or a birth
certificate readily available, the truth is that many do not,
which means that they would have to pay for them in order to
vote.
A birth certificate usually costs $10 to $15. Only 25-27
percent of eligible Americans have passports, which now cost
$97. Naturalization papers, if they must be replaced, cost
$210. H.R. 4844 makes no provision for citizens who lack the
money to pay for these documents, meaning that the right to
vote will likely become ``unaffordable'' for some citizens.
This is why a federal district court recently characterized
Georgia's similar photo ID law as a ``poll tax.''
The National Urban League was a strong advocate and worked
tirelessly to help enact the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and
Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and
Amendments Act of 2006. We believe that the right to vote, and
to have those votes counted, is the most important civil right
of all. Proposals like H.R. 4844, while possibly appealing on
the surface, are one of the greatest threats to fair and equal
voting rights today. We should be focusing on encouraging full
participation of our citizenry, not developing ways to limit
the precious right to vote.
H.R. 4844 takes a misguided approach that will inherently
disenfranchise large numbers of legal voters. Instead of
safeguarding elections, H.R. 4844's requirements would
undermine confidence in the fairness of the outcomes.
H.R. 4844 will disproportionately affect people of color,
the elderly, individuals with disabilities, rural and Native
voters, the homeless, low-income people, and married women.
Proof of citizenship may be impossible for some people to
obtain, and very hard for others. In certain parts of the
country, for example, elderly African Americans and many Native
Americans were born at homeunder the care of midwives, and do
not possess birth certificates. People of color, people with
disabilities, the elderly, young, and people who live in poverty are
among the groups least likely to have documents to prove they are U.S.
citizens.
The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that
between 6-12 percent of voters nationally do not have a
government-issued photo ID. A number of other studies have
documented that certain segments of the population are far less
likely to have a photo ID than other Americans. A University of
Wisconsin study found that nearly 50 percent of African
American and Latino men in Milwaukee do not have a government-
issued photo ID.
Even if they have valid ID, many eligible voters will be
turned away. H.R. 4844 will place an inordinate amount of
discretion in the hands of overworked (and sometimes poorly
trained) poll workers. Deciding whether a voter matches or does
not match the photo in an ID card--which can be many years
old--is a very subjective process and prone to mistakes or
worse. In addition, if an ID card does not contain the voter's
current address, which is true of millions of Americans, he or
she will probably be turned away from the polls. Because H.R.
4844 does not explain how disputes over the validity of ID
should be settled, and because it will keep voters who don't
have a so-called ``valid'' ID from obtaining provisional
ballots, it will enable racial and ethnic discrimination at
polling places.
Our current lows work when properly enforced. Falsely
claiming citizenship and voting fraudulently have long been
federal offenses. Voter ID fraud is a surprisingly rare
problem. There is no evidence that the type of fraud that H.R.
4844 supposedly addresses--voters who misrepresent their
identity--is anything but an anomaly. For example:
In Ohio, a statewide survey found four
instances of ineligible persons voting or attempting to
vote in 2002 and 2004, out of 9,078,728 votes cast--a
rate of 0.00004%.
Despite the invocation of fraud as support
for the new Georgia law, Secretary of State Cathy Cox
stated that in her ten-year tenure, she could not
recall one documented case of voter fraud involving the
impersonation of a registered voter at the polls.
Nationwide, since October 2002, 86
individuals have been convicted of federal crimes
relating to election fraud (including several offenses
not remedied by ID requirements), while 196,139,871
ballots have been cast in federal general elections.
Proof-of-citizenship requirements will only serve to burden
U.S. citizens who want to exercise their right to vote. The
National Urban League therefore strongly urges that you oppose
H.R. 4844. If you have any questions, please contact Stephanie
Jones, Executive Director, National Urban League Policy
Institute.
Sincerely,
Marc H. Morial,
President and CEO, National Urban League.
------
September 13, 2006.
Hon. Vernon Ehlers,
Chairman, House Administration Committee,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,
Ranking Member, House Administration Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald:
On behalf of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational
Fund (MALDEF), the Asian American Justice Center (AAJC), the
National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials
(NALEO) Educational Fund, the League of United Latin American
Citizens (LULAC), the Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA),
the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project (SWVREP),
the William C. Velazquez Institute (WCVI), and the National
Council of La Raza (NCLR), we write to express our strong
opposition to the substitute amendment to the ``Federal
Election Integrity Act of 2006'' (H.R. 4844) sponsored by
Congressman Ehlers. Our organizations have grave concerns that
the proposed legislation would deny the franchise to untold
numbers of U.S. citizens who are otherwise eligible to vote,
and that its burdens would be borne disproportionately by the
poor, the elderly, and racial and ethnic minorities.
H.R. 4844 would require voters to present government-issued
photo identification for which the individual was required to
provide proof of U.S. citizenship in order to receive a ballot
in any election for federal office, beginning in November 2008.
The primary government-issued photo identification that
currently provides proof of citizenship is a U.S. passport, a
costly document that many eligible voters do not possess.
While the cost of citizenship and identification documents
may seem negligible to some, it represents a significant burden
to many Americans. While H.R. 4844 contains a provision that
would require states to provide photo identification at no cost
to ``indigent individuals,'' this does not cure the
disproportionate burden of H.R. 4844 upon many poor, working,
racial and ethnic minority, and elderly voters. Many eligible
voters do not currently possess the documentation required to
prove citizenship to the state agency charged with issuing the
new photo identification and will disproportionately suffer the
costs and burdens of securing this documentation. Further,
securing the required state-issued voter identification card
(which would only be used in voting) presents costs and burdens
in lost wages, travel time, transportation costs, etc., that
also present significant and disproportionate barriers to
registration for many voters.
Given the costs and difficulty of obtaining documents,
legislation mandating these documents to register or to vote
amounts to an impermissible ``poll tax'' by requiring otherwise
qualified voters to essentially pay a fee as a condition of
voting, in violation of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Harper v. Virginia
State Bd. of Elections, noted that voting requirements run
afoul of the Constitution whenever they make ``the affluence of
the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter
qualifications have no relation to wealth.''
Since the implementation of Arizona's proof of citizenship
requirement in 2005, more than 20,000 voter registration
applications have been rejected solely for failure to provide
the necessary proof of citizenship documentation. Many
thousands of eligible voters who went through the trouble of
completing the voter registration form, executing the necessary
oaths under penalty of law, and submitting the form to the
County Recorder were rejected simply because they failed to
attach a document proving their citizenship.
Community-based voter registration drives have been
effectively terminated throughout the state, severely hampering
the ability of new voters to register and participate in
elections. Most volunteer voter registrars cannot carry a
photocopy machine to malls, churches and fairs in order to
photocopy the necessary documents on behalf of eligible voters.
Most voter registration applicants do not, in fact, carry
documentary proof of citizenship while out shopping or
worshiping.
In addition, testimony at a recent federal court hearing on
Arizona's proof of citizenship requirement revealed that it
places significant burdens upon county election officials
because they must attempt to verify citizenship documents and
track down voter registration applicants who are required to
provide more information to the county in order to be added to
the rolls.
H.R. 4844 presents an unacceptable risk of denying the vote
to otherwise eligible voters. At the same time, there is simply
no good evidence that voter fraud by non-citizens constitutes a
genuine or widespread problem--and certainly not on a scale to
justify a response that is so costly, heavy-handed, and
discriminatory in effect. In Arizona, for example, there is not
a single documented case of a non-citizen intentionally and
fraudulently registering to vote. Proof of citizenship
requirements are quite simply a solution in search of a
problem.
H.R. 4844 would impermissibly burden the fundamental right
to vote, the basis of our democratic system. Requiring voters
to purchase documents in order to exercise the franchise is as
much an affront today as it was when the Supreme Court issued
its Harper ruling 40 years ago. On behalf of those Americans
who would disproportionately bear this burden, we urge you to
oppose this damaging proposal. For further information, please
contact Peter Zamora, MALDEF Legislative Attorney.
Sincerely,
Asian American Justice Center.
Hispanic National Bar Association.
League of United Latin American Citizens.
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed
Officials Educational Fund.
National Council of La Raza.
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project.
William C. Velasquez Institute.
------
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights,
Washington, DC, September 13, 2006.
Hon. Vernon Ehlers,
Chairman, Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,
Ranking Member, Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald:
We, the undersigned organizations, write to express our strong
opposition to H.R. 4844, ``Federal Election Integrity Act of
2006.'' H.R. 4844 would require all voters, beginning in 2010,
to obtain and show government-issued photo ID that proves their
citizenship in order to vote. In doing so, H.R. 4844 would
encourage racial and ethnic discrimination at polling places
and prevent many eligible voters across the country from
participating in our democracy, while doing nothing to combat
genuine instances of voter fraud. H.R. 4844 would only serve to
skew election results by removing countless eligible voters
from the process. We urge you to vote against this ill-
conceived measure.
In July of this year, Congress passed the historic
reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, ``The Fannie Lou
Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006,'' protecting the
right to vote for millions of Americans for many years to come.
This important, bi-partisan, victory would be undermined by a
new measure to disenfranchise some of the very citizens that
the VRA is designed to protect.
First, no citizen should have to pay to vote. Many U.S.
citizens either do not have or cannot easily access documents
that prove their citizenship such as a passport or birth
certificate. Attempts to cover the cost of ID for voters who
cannot afford them are not sufficient, as our most cherished
civil right should never depend on annual appropriations
decisions. Moreover, citizens would still be faced with the
expense and time involved in getting the documentation required
to obtain ID. Thus, while the Voting Rights Act eliminated poll
taxes, H.R. 4844 brings them back.
In addition, proof of citizenship may be impossible for
some people to obtain. Until recently, it was common in certain
parts of the country for people to be born at home, without
obtaining an official birth certificate. If H.R. 4844 were to
become law, these American citizens would be completely
disenfranchised.
The requirement that all voters present a photo ID before
being able to cast a regular ballot will disproportionately
disenfranchise people of color, the elderly, individuals with
disabilities, rural and Native voters, the homeless, low-income
people, and married women, who are less likely to carry a photo
ID. Photo ID requirements also build an enormous amount of
discretion into the balloting process, thus creating
opportunities for discrimination at the polls against racial,
ethnic, and language minority voters.
Further, while supporters of H.R. 4844 argue that it is
necessary to require photo IDs and proof of citizenship in
order to combat voter fraud, the evidence clearly establishes
that current anti-fraud laws work. Moreover, while there is no
question that election misconduct exists, including improper
purges of voters, distributing false information about when and
where to vote, stuffing ballot boxes, and tampering with
registration forms, there is no evidence that the type of fraud
that H.R. 4844 purports to address--voters who misrepresent
their identity--is anything but an anomaly.
The right to vote, and to have your vote counted, is the
most important civil right of all. Proposals like H.R. 4844 are
one of the greatest threats to fair and equal voting rights
today. Congress should be in the business of encouraging full
participation of our citizenry, not developing ways to limit
the right to vote.
For these reasons, we strongly urge you to oppose H.R.
4844. If you have any questions, please contact Rob Randhava,
LCCR Counsel, Tanya Clay House of People For the American Way,
or Jonah Goldman of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under
Law.
Sincerely,
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
A. Philip Randolph Institute.
AARP.
ACORN.
Alliance for Retired Americans.
American Association of People with Disabilities.
American Civil Liberties Union.
American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial
Organizations.
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees.
Americans for Democratic Action.
Asian American Justice Center.
Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO.
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
Center for Digital Democracy.
Common Cause.
Consumer Action.
Demos: A Network for Ideas & Action.
Friends Committee on National Legislation.
Hispanic Federation.
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement.
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
League of Women Voters of the United States.
Legal Momentum.
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
National Center for Transgender Equality.
National Congress of American Indians.
National Council of Jewish Women.
National Council of La Raza.
National Education Association.
National Voting Rights Institute.
People For the American Way.
RainbowPUSH Coalition.
Transgender Law Center.
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.
UNITE-HERE.
United Auto Workers.
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and
Society.
United States Student Association.
United Steelworkers.
YWCA USA.
------
Asian American Justice Center,
September 13, 2006.
Hon. Vernon Ehlers,
Chairman, Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,
Ranking Member, Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald:
The Asian American Justice Center, formerly known as the
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, writes to
express our strong opposition to H.R. 4844, the ``Federal
Election Integrity Act of 2006.'' H.R. 4844 would require all
voters, beginning in 2008, to obtain and show government-issued
photo ID that proves their citizenship in order to vote. In
doing so, H.R. 4844 would encourage racial and ethnic
discrimination at polling places and prevent many eligible
voters across the country from participating in our democracy,
while doing nothing to combat genuine instances of voter fraud.
H.R. 4844 would only serve to skew election results by removing
countless eligible voters from the process. We urge you to vote
against this ill-conceived measure.
In July of this year, Congress passed the historic
reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, ``The Rosa Parks,
Fannie Lou Hamer, Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006,'' protecting the
right to vote for millions of Americans for many years to come.
This important, bi-partisan, victory would be undermined by a
new measure to disenfranchise some of the very citizens that
the Voting Rights Act is designed to protect.
First, no citizen should have to pay to vote. Many U.S.
citizens either do not have or cannot easily access documents
that prove their citizenship such as a passport or birth
certificate. Attempts to cover the cost of ID for voters who
cannot afford them are not sufficient, as our most cherished
civil right should never depend on annual appropriations
decisions. Moreover, citizens would still be faced with the
expense and time involved in getting the documentation required
to obtain ID. Thus, while the Voting Rights Act eliminated poll
taxes, H.R. 4844 brings them back.
In addition, proof of citizenship may be impossible for
some people to obtain. Until recently, it was common in certain
parts of the country for people to be born at home, without
obtaining an official birth certificate. If H.R. 4844 were to
become law, these American citizens would be completely
disenfranchised.
The requirement that all voters present a photo ID before
being able to cast a regular ballot will disproportionately
disenfranchise people of color, the elderly, individuals with
disabilities, rural and Native voters, the homeless, low-income
people, and married women, who are less likely to carry a photo
ID. Photo ID requirements also build an enormous amount of
discretion into the balloting process, thus creating
opportunities for discrimination at the polls against racial,
ethnic, and language minority voters. Past elections have
provided some evidence of poll workers using the HAVA ID
provision to discriminate against Asian American voters,
singling only them out for ID requests even when they were not
first-time voters. H.R. 4844 creates even more opportunities
for continued discrimination against Asian American and other
minority voters.
Further, while supporters of H.R. 4844 argue that it is
necessary to require photo IDs and proof of citizenship in
order to combat voter fraud, the evidence clearly establishes
that current anti-fraud laws work. Moreover, while there is no
question that election misconduct exists, including improper
purges of voters, distributing false information about when and
where to vote, stuffing ballot boxes, and tampering with
registration forms, there is no evidence that the type of fraud
that H.R. 4844 purports to address--voters who misrepresent
their identity--is anything but an anomaly.
The right to vote, and to have your vote counted, is the
most important civil right of all. Proposals like H.R. 4844 are
one of the greatest threats to fair and equal voting rights
today. Congress should be in the business of encouraging full
participation of our citizenry, not developing ways to limit
the right to vote.
For these reasons, we strongly urge you to oppose H.R.
4844. If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Terry M. Ao,
Director of Census & Voting Programs,
Asian American Justice Center.
------
Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Washington, DC.
Hon. Vernon Elders,
Chair, Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,
Ranking Member, Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Ehlers and Representative Millender-
McDonald: On behalf of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law, I write in opposition to Representative Henry Hyde's
so-called ``Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006,'' because
it will sacrifice the most fundamental right guaranteed to all
American citizens by our Constitution--the right to vote.
Contrary to its title, the bill will undermine the integrity of
our democratic process by making federal elections less
responsive to the will of eligible American voters. At a time
when our brave men and women are sacrificing their lives to
ensure that Iraqis experience the national pride of a fair
democratic process, patriotic responsibility demands that we
insist on nothing less for our own citizens. H.R. 4844
needlessly requires proof of citizenship when eligible voters
register to vote and photo identification when citizens cast a
ballot. These may seem like innocuous provisions, but in
reality they will create an unprecedented regime of
disenfranchisement targeting our Nation's traditionally
underrepresented voters.
For over forty years, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights Under Law has fought the poisonous specter of
discrimination through litigation, advocacy, and organizing.
Our foundation rests on ensuring that all eligible voters have
the opportunity to cast a meaningful ballot. Our legacy is why
we are committed to opposing unnecessary restrictions that
disenfranchise voters such as Congressman Hyde's bill. In
Georgia and Arizona, the Lawyers' Committee is counsel for
eligible citizens who will be disfranchised by similar, state
initiated, provisions.
Representative Hyde's bill is undemocratic, unfair, and
unconstitutional because it:
Places an unconstitutional burden on the
fundamental right of eligible citizens to participate
equally in the democratic process;
Constitutes a poll tax;
Unfairly removes eligible voters from the
electoral system, primarily from traditionally
disfranchised communities;
Is impossible for states to administer; and
Attempts to address a problem that does not
exist.
As the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia found in Common Cause v. Billups, 406 F,
Supp. 2d 1326 (N.D.Ga. 2005), when considering a Georgia law
requiring ID at the polls, photo identification requirements
unconstitutionally burden the fundamental right to vote of
eligible American citizens. The court found that these
provisions disproportionately affect traditionally
disenfranchised voters, including senior citizens, minority
voters, poor voters, disabled and young voters. Mr. Hyde's bill
goes even further by requiring proof of citizenship when
registering to vote; adding another layer of unnecessary
restrictions on eligible voters.
As the court found in Common Cause v. Billups, requiring
photo identification at the polls amounts to an
unconstitutional poll tax. The Lawyers' Committee fought for
the Twenty Fourth Amendment, which brought to an end a shameful
period in our nation's history by outlawing the poll tax;
resurrecting it, as H.R. 4844 most certainly will do, leads us
down that dark path once again.
Proponents of photo identification provisions at the polls
and proof of citizenship when registering to vote claim that
these draconian constraints are necessary to guard against
identity fraud at the nation's polling places; the truth,
however, tells a far different story. Proponents of ID and
proof of citizenship requirements have been unable to point to
any credible evidence that eligible voter impersonation or non-
citizen voting is anything but an anomaly. In fact, according
to the United States Department of Justice, out of 196,139,871
votes cast since 2002, only 52 voters were convicted of federal
election fraud. Similar studies by the League of Women Voters
of Ohio and by a joint task force of state and federal law
enforcement in Wisconsin, found a similar diminutive number of
ineligible voters. The numbers of non-citizens who attempt to
participate in the system is similarly miniscule. In most
cases, those non-citizens who do end up on the voter
registration rolls found their way onto the list through
misinformation, not malice. This type of fraud plays no role in
influencing the outcome of elections.
Implementing H.R. 4844, however, will certainly have an
impact on the outcome of elections by unnecessarily, unfairly,
and unconstitutionally removing eligible voters from the
process. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, 6-
12 percent of eligible voters do not have the identification
required by Mr. Hyde's bill. The Secretary of State of Georgia
who recently investigated the impact Georgia's proposed ID law
will have on the citizens in her state found that nearly
700,000, about 1 in 7 registered voters, do not have either a
driver's license or non-driver state issued ID. In many states,
obtaining this type of identification is costly and difficult
especially for those who cannot get to often remote issuing
agencies.
While H.R. 4844 is bad for all Americans, it has a
disproportionate impact on traditionally disenfranchised
voters. For example, a University of Wisconsin study found that
in Milwaukee nearly 50 percent of African American and Latino
men did not have government issued photo identification.
Seniors in Georgia are similarly unfairly targeted by these
laws. According to the AARP, 36 percent of voters in Georgia
over the age of 75 do not have government issued photo
identification. The American Association of People With
Disabilities estimates that nearly 4 million disabled Americans
would not be able to cast a ballot under the regime set up by
H.R. 4844. Students and low-income Americans will be similarly
disenfranchised. Native Americans living on tribal lands often
do not have street addresses, and centuries-long cultural
traditions prevent many in Indian Country from having their
picture taken.
While ID requirements will lead to unprecedented national
disenfranchisement, proof of citizenship requirements are even
more unworkable. To date, Arizona is the only state that has
implemented a proof of citizenship requirement for voter
registration and the results are devastating. Maricopa County,
the largest county in the state, routinely rejects 30 percent
of all voter registrations because they lack a proof of
citizenship. In addition to being discriminatory, this lacks
common sense. Americans are not in the habit of carrying proof
of citizenship. In fact, many of us do not even have it.
According to the Bureau of Consular Affairs, only 25-27 percent
of eligible Americans have passports, the most common proof of
United States citizenship. Those who cannot afford the $97 it
costs to obtain a passport must be able to produce a valid,
state issued birth certificate which can cost up to $40. While
Americans may not be able to locate their birth certificates,
many were never issued one. Many older Americans have never
been issued a state birth certificate, particularly African
Americans seniors born in the south. Of course, only
naturalized citizens receive naturalization papers. Replacing
or obtaining any of these documents takes money, time and,
frequently, travel--all of which the constitution does not
envision as prerequisites voting.
In the past decade, we have seen exceedingly close federal
elections. These hotly contested national contests have exposed
the crumbling infrastructure of our electoral system. Americans
are demanding change and there is plenty that needs to be done,
but instead of trying to confuse these feelings with fabricated
flaws in the democratic process, it is Congress's
responsibility to ensure that we have a model system of
choosing our elected officials. We must seriously address the
real problems with how we conduct our elections. Instead,
passing H.R. 4844 will dishonor the Americans of generations
past as well as our heroes of today who have risked their lives
to promote our commitment to a responsive democracy around the
world. Americans deserve your attention on making the system
more dynamic and responsive, not on removing countless eligible
Americans in search of phantoms of fraud.
Sincerely,
Barbara R. Arnwine,
Executive Director.
------
People for the American Way,
August 3, 2006.
House Administration Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than 900,000
members and activists of People For the American Way, we urge
you to stand up for the right of all citizens to fully
participate in our democratic society and oppose measures, such
as Proposition 200 or other proof of citizenship or voter 10
requirements, that seek to erect barriers to the ballot. Our
American democracy is one of inclusion that thrives on the
diversity of our populace and the full participation of its
citizenry. Overly burdensome and unnecessary voter ID and proof
of citizenship requirements are an anathema to this ideal and
only serve to alienate and disenfranchise eligible citizens.
Election Fraud
Fraud takes many forms. While proponents of Proposition 200
and other voter 10 requirements claim to be addressing the
existence of massive ``voter fraud,'' particularly by illegal
immigrants, to date, there are no credible reports of
significant fraud to support the need for such restrictive
proposals. While it is true that the integrity of the electoral
process must be protected, this can only be done by addressing
actual problems that truly serve to undermine voter confidence.
This necessarily includes procedures and actions by individuals
and election administrators that will prevent eligible voters
from participating in the electoral process. Voter intimidation
and harassment of voters at the polls are some of the more
obvious forms of activities that disenfranchise voters and
contribute to fraud in our election process. Other actions such
as election officials removing eligible voters from the
registration rolls, the destruction of voter registration cards
because of registrants' political affiliation, or the mass
challenging of minority voters at the polling places are other
fraudulent activities that must be addressed. Any definition
that is not sufficiently broad to include such activities
prevents decision makers from devising appropriate solutions.
Proof of Citizenship Requirements
Proof of citizenship requirements are unnecessary. Those
registering to vote are already required to take an oath of
citizenship. The extra requirement for providing documents only
creates an additional hurdle for voters.
Unfortunately, proposals to require proof of citizenship
are often a way to disguise racist and anti-immigrant sentiment
and only serve to disenfranchise eligible citizens. This is
because proponents know that proof of citizenship requirements
are impossible for members of some communities to acquire and
very hard for others. For instance, in certain parts of the
country, elderly African Americans and many Native Americans
were born at home, under the care of midwives, and do not
possess birth certificates. People of color, people with
disabilities, elderly people, young people, and low-income
citizens are among the demographic groups least likely to have
documents in their possession to prove citizenship. Furthermore
for victims of natural disasters like hurricane Katrina it may
be impossible to obtain birth certificates or other documents
because they have been destroyed.
Legislation such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the
Help America Vote Act have made it easier for all citizens to
vote, and have resulted in increased voter participation by
Latinos and other minorities. This progress should be continued
and we should not allow retrogressive proposals like
Proposition 200 or others to turn back the progress of these
significant civil rights laws.
Voter Identification Requirements
Restrictive voter ID requirements are similarly unnecessary
and harmful. Like proof of , citizenship requirements, such
voter ID requirements impose a severe burden and are likely to
disenfranchise poor, minority, elderly and young voters, who
are less likely to have photo identification and move more
frequently. The data is clear:
Approximately 6 to 10 percent of the
American electorate does not have any form of state
identification.
African Americans are four to five times
less likely than whites to have photo identification.
Young adults (age 20-29) move almost 6 times
more frequently than adults over 55, and minorities
move 50 percent more frequently, than whites.
In Georgia, it is estimated that nearly 40
percent of seniors lack photo identification.
Instead of addressing unsubstantiated voter fraud, such
restrictive voting measures erect barriers to the ballot and
are likely to be enforced in discriminatory ways against poor
and minority voters to intimidate, misinform, stigmatize, and
ultimately suppress the vote.
Real Solutions
Even if fraud were a problem, there are positive steps that
states can take to lessen the threat of fraud and protect the
integrity of the ballot box without risking disenfranchising
voters, such as implementing statewide voter registration
databases as mandated by HAVA. Additional ``fraud-protection''
measures could include accurate cleansing of voter registration
rolls, verification of voters' unique identifying numbers, in-
person affirmation, signature comparison, and finally, the
vigorous prosecution of any cases of election fraud. These are
real solutions to actual documented problems.
Conclusion
Since the 2000 Presidential Election, our sister
organization, People For the American Way Foundation has been a
leader in the Election Protection Coalition along with its
allies the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights under Law and
the NAACP. Integral to ElectionProtection was the deployment of
thousands of volunteers across the country to serve as poll monitors to
assist voters and document the problems voters faced as they attempted
to exercise their right to vote. The data collected from volunteers and
voters through reports from the field and through the Election
Protection Hotline clearly evidence a need for election officials to
address the real problems created by voter harassment and intimidation,
the lack of machines at low-income and minority poll sites, improperly
trained poll workers and the creation of overly burdensome voter
registration procedures by partisan election officials just to name a
few. These are the real problems that deserve the priority of election
officials. Only then, can we truly maintain the integrity of our
electoral system and protect the right to vote of all eligible
citizens. Voter ID and proof of citizenship proposals are simply forms
of a 21st century poll tax that have no business in our electoral
process. The right to vote is fundamental and Congress should be
focused on ways to open the franchise to all eligible citizens. PFAW
looks forward to working with Congress to protect this right to vote
for all Americans.
Sincerely,
Ralph G. Neas,
President.
Tanya Clay House,
Director, Public Policy.
------
Protect the Right to Vote,
August 2, 2006.
Hon. Vernon Ehlers, Chairman,
Hon. Juanita Millender-McDonald, Ranking Member,
Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald:
We the undersigned organization write to urge the United States
House of Representatives Committee on House Administration to
fully consider the disenfranchising effects of Arizona's
Proposition 200. Already, Proposition 200 has forced election
officials to prevent thousands of voters from being included on
voter registration rolls because they did not produce proof of
citizenship, including many eligible voter registration
applicants. Proposition 200 will also disenfranchise countless
eligible Arizonans during this fall's critical election cycle
by requiring strict voter identification at the polling place.
These restrictive provisions are rationalized by a few
anecdotal stories of ineligible voters casting a ballot;
however, all evidence suggests current state, federal and local
laws have been successful in preventing this deplorable
behavior while protecting the fundamental rights of eligible
citizens.
Unlike the isolated incidents of ineligible people
attempting to vote, the disfranchising effects of proof of
citizenship and restrictive voter identification requirements
will make American elections less secure by unfairly
influencing election results. The bottom line is Proposition
200 is terrible for Arizona; expanding its reach will be
devastating for our country. As a partnership between Arizonans
and national advocates who are dedicated to ensuring that all
eligible citizens have an equal opportunity to participate in
the political process, we write in opposition to the expansion
of Proposition 200. We urge this committee to focus its
attention on safeguarding the opportunity of all eligible
Americans to meaningfully participate in the political process
and not to restrict the rights of our fellow citizens based on
exceedingly rare occurrences of ineligible voters casting a
ballot.
Photo ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements may sound on
the surface like a good idea. There is nothing wrong, in and of
itself, with taking steps to ensure that voters are eligible to
vote and that they are who they claim to be. But the provisions
of Proposition 200 are a misguided approach that inherently
disenfranchises large numbers of legal voters. We call your
attention to a number of reasons why, instead of safeguarding
elections, strict ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements will
ultimately undermine confidence in the fairness of the
outcomes:
Proof-of-Citizenship Requirements: A 21st Century Poll Tax
Citizens should not have to pay a fee to register to vote.
Proof-of- citizenship requirements invariably put the burden--
including the financial burden--on citizens themselves. While
it would be ideal if all U.S. citizens had documents such as a
passport, a birth certificate, or naturalization papers readily
available, the truth is that many do not--which means that many
citizens would have to pay for them.
A birth certificate usually costs $10 to $15. According to
the Department of Bureau of Consular Affairs, only 25-27
percent of eligible Americans have passports, which now cost
$97. Naturalization papers, if they are lost or damaged and
need to be replaced, cost $210. Proof-of-citizenship
requirements generally do not help citizens who don't have the
money to pay for these documents. This means that exercising
the constitutional right to vote can become ``unaffordable''
for many citizens which is completely unacceptable in a
democratic society that relies upon full participation of its
citizenry.
Proof of citizenship may be impossible for some people to
obtain, and very hard for others. In certain parts of the
country, for example, elderly African Americans and many Native
Americans were born at home, under the care of midwives, and do
not possess birth certificates. People of color, people with
disabilities, the elderly, young, and people who live in
poverty are among the groups least likely to have documents to
prove they are U.S. citizens.
Proof-of-citizenship requirements are working--to keep
legal voters from registering. Since Arizona implemented Prop
200, more than 15,000 voter registration applicants have been
rejected in Maricopa County alone for failure to provide proof
of citizenship. In Pima County, sixty percent of new
registrants--all eligible voters--were initially rejected.
Similar proof-of-citizenship requirements, if imposed in other
state or by Congress, would result in eligible voters being
turned away on a nationwide scale.
Current laws work when properly enforced. Falsely claiming
citizenship and voting fraudulently have long been federal
offenses. Proof-of-citizenship requirements will only penalize
U.S. citizens who want to exercise their right to vote.
Voter Fraud: A Surprisingly Rare Problem
There is no question that election misconduct exists,
including improper purges of eligible voters, distributing
false information about when and where to vote, stuffing of
ballot boxes, and tampering with registration forms. But there
is no evidence that the type of fraud cited in support of photo
ID requirements--individual voters who misrepresent their
identity at the polls--is anything but an anomaly.
In Ohio, a statewide survey found four
instances of ineligible persons voting or attempting to
vote in 2002 and 2004, out of 9,078,728 votes cast--a
rate of 0.00004 percent.
Despite the invocation of fraud as support
for the new Georgia law, Secretary if State Cathy Cox
stated that in her ten-year tenure, she could not
recall one documented case of voter fraud involving the
impersonation of a registered voter at the polls.
Nationwide, since October 2002, 86
individuals have been convicted of federal crimes
relating to election fraud (including several offenses
not remedied by ID requirements), while 196,139,871
ballots have been cast in federal general elections.
Voter ID Requirements: Discouraging Voters, Enabling Discrimination
Restrictive voter ID requirements are more likely to
disenfranchise people of color, the elderly, individuals with
disabilities, rural voters, young people, the homeless, low-
income people, frequent movers, married women, and persons in
large households. A recent study by the Georgia Secretary of
State found that nearly 700,000 Georgians--1 in 7 voters--do
not have either a driver's license or non-driver state issued,
ID, and the Department of Transportation estimates that between
6-12 percent of voters nationally do not have government issued
photo ID. A number of other studies have documented that
certain segments of the population are far less likely to have
photo ID than other Americans. A Univ. of Wisconsin study found
that nearly 50% of African American and Latino men in Milwaukee
do not have government-issued photo ID.
Restrictive ID requirements are the equivalent of a poll
tax. This was, in fact, reiterated by the federal district
court during the debate over Georgia's new Photo ID
requirement. By mandating that voters provide photo
identification, most ID laws would require voters to pay for
photo ID, if they don't already have it. Getting the required
forms of ID, such as drivers' licenses and passports, costs
money and time away from work--and transportation is
particularly complicated for voters with disabilities. The same
is true of getting the supporting documents required to obtain
ID. As a result, not all eligible voters in this country can
afford to purchase photo ID, and few legislative proposals
suggest any realistic way to help them out.
Even if they have valid ID, many eligible voters will be
turned away. Voter ID requirements place an inordinate amount
of discretion in the hands of overworked (and usually unpaid
and sometimes poorly trained) poll workers. Deciding whether a
voter matches or does not match the photo in an ID card--which
can often be many years old--is a very subjective process and
easily prone to mistakes or worse. Because many voter ID laws
do not explain how disputes over the validity of an ID card
should be handled, and because they often keep voters who don't
have ``valid'' ID from obtaining provisional ballots, they can
easily open the door to widespread racial and ethnic
discrimination at polling places. Even under the more lenient
requirements of the Help America Vote Act, ID provisions are
often implemented in a discriminatory way. According to the
nation's largest nonpartisan exit poll of Asian Americans,
nearly 70% of Asian voters were asked for ID in states where
110 ID was required.
Voters with valid ID can be turned away for more benign
reasons as well. If an ID card such as a driver's license does
not contain the voter's current address, for example, which is
true of millions of Americans, he or she is likely to be turned
away from the polls. In Wisconsin, 97% of all students do not
have their current address on their photo ID. If an eligible
voter forgets to bring ID, some jurisdictions would keep him or
her from obtaining a provisional ballot (and proving his or her
identity before the ballot is counted). In doing so, they
undermine an important ``safety net'' under the Help America
Vote Act.
Conclusion
As evidenced most recently by our strong and enthusiastic
support of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott
King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of
2006, our organizations believe that the right to vote, and to
have votes accurately counted, is the most important civil
right of all. Rigid and costly voter ID and proof-of-
citizenship requirements, while appealing on the surface,
represent one of the greatest threats to fair and equal voting
rights today. As such, we urge you to join us in strongly
opposing any proposal--such as the Carter-Baker Commission
recommendations, H.R. 4844, or similar measures in the states--
that would in practice amount to a poll tax and erect barriers
to the ballot against lawful voters. We should be in the
business of encouraging full participation of our citizenry and
not developing ways to limit the right to vote.
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any
questions, please contact Linda Brown of the Arizona Advocacy
Network, Jonah Goldman of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights Under Law or Rob Randhava of the Leadership Conference
on Civil Rights.
Sincerely,
National Civil & Voting Rights and Labor Organizations:
ACORN.
Advancement Project.
Alliance for Retired Americans.
American Civil Liberties Union.
American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial
Organizations (AFL-CIO).
Asian American Justice Center.
Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote (APIA Vote).
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
Common Cause.
Demos: A Network for Ideas & Action.
Hispanic Federation.
Japanese American Citizens League (JACL).
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP).
National Council of La Raza.
National Disability Rights Network.
National Education Association.
National Korean American Service & Education Consortium.
National Voting Rights Institute.
People For the American Way.
Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF).
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.
United Church of Christ Justice & Witness Ministries.
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and
Society.
U.S. PIRG.
State/Local Civil & Voting Rights and Labor Organizations:
Aguila Youth Leadership Institute.
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.
Arizona Advocacy Network.
Arizona Consumers Council.
Arizona Hispanic Community Forum.
Arizona Students' Association.
Emigrantes Sin Fronteras.
Interfaith Worker Justice of Arizona.
Intertribal Council of Arizona.
La Union Del Pueblo Entero (LUPE).
League of Women Voters of Greater Tucson.
New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc./NYPIRG.
Project for Arizona's Future.
SEIU Local 5 Arizona.
Somos America/We Are America.
------
Mary G. Wilson,
League of Women Voters of the United States,
July 20, 2006.
Members of the House of Representatives: H.R. 4844, the so-
called ``Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006,'' introduced
by Representative Hyde (R IL), would create new barriers to
voting by eligible citizens by requiring photo identification
at the polling place and documentary proof of citizenship in
the voter registration process. The League of Women Voters
strongly urges you to oppose H.R. 4844.
As an organization that conducts voter registration
throughout the country and that encourages voter participation
by all citizens, the League is deeply concerned that H.R. 4844
would undermine our own activities as well as those of other
organizations and individuals seeking to boost citizen
participation in our nation's democracy.
Voting is the most fundamental expression of citizenship.
The expansion of the franchise to include all Americans
regardless of race, ethnicity or sex is one of the great
successes in the evolution of American democracy. Breaking down
barriers to citizen voter participation--from literacy tests to
the poll tax has been a constant battle for those who believe
that every citizen should be able to exercise their right to
vote.
H.R. 4844 would turn back the clock and erect unnecessary
barriers to voter participation. Many Americans simply do not
have documentary proof of citizenship and photo ID that would
allow them to exercise their right to vote if H.R. 4844 were to
become law. A recent study by the Secretary of State of Georgia
reports that nearly 700,000 of Georgia's registered voters do
not have either a driver's license or a state-issued ID. This
is consistent with national figures from the Department of
Transportation estimating that 6-12 percent of voters
nationally do not have government-issued photo ID.
The costs of obtaining proof of citizenship and photo ID
would discourage voter participation. Some have appropriately
likened such requirements to the poll tax because of the costs
of obtaining a driver's license or passport. Supporting
documents for ID, such as a birth certificate, can also impose
real costs in both time and money.
Photo ID requirements disproportionately affect the
elderly, young people, racial and ethnic minorities, persons
with disabilities and others. A number of studies have shown
that certain segments of the population are far less likely to
have ID than other Americans.
The implementation of ID requirements can cause problems
for eligible voters. In Indiana, veterans were blocked from
voting when poll workers refused to accept their Veterans
Administration medical cards as sufficient ID. In addition, the
process of determining whether a person matches their photo ID
can be very subjective and open to discrimination.
Again, the League of Women Voters urges you to oppose H.R.
4844.
------
Protection and Advocacy, Inc.
Sacramento, CA, July 11, 2006.
Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers, Chairman,
House Administration Committee, Washington, DC.
Hon. Juanita Millender-McDonald, Ranking Member,
House Administration Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers and Hon. Juanita Millender-
McDonald: Protection and Advocacy Inc (PAI) is a non-profit
agency which, since 1978, has been advocating for and
representing the legal and human rights of Californians with
disabilities. PAI is writing in strong opposition to H.R. 4844
for the adverse impact it will bear on this disenfranchised
community.
Just as Congress, through the enactment of the Help America
Vote Act has responded to our nation's demand to remove the
structural inequities to the electoral process, H.R. 4844,
under the guise of electoral reform, will be setting up new
roadblocks for many communities, including individuals with
disabilities, to exercising their most precious and fundamental
constitutional right in our democracy--the right to vote. The
bill's requirement that all eligible voters in the country must
produce proof of citizenship in order to register to vote and a
photo ID in order to cast their ballot may appear innocuous.
But when considered in light of its unsupported premise and the
actual harm it is certain to cause, the bill should be
withdrawn.
H.R. 4844 is predicated on a notion that there is
widespread voter fraud across the country caused by the illegal
participation of persons not eligible to vote. Aside from its
unfortunate racial/cultural insinuations, the bill's foundation
lacks veracity. Its proponents cannot point to either a
government or a reliable privately-generated report or study
establishing the presence of nationwide electoral
irregularities, and particularly the alleged prevalence of
voter fraud by non-citizens, necessitating draconian measures
as those envisioned in H.R. 4844.
H.R. 4844 will also have harmful consequences for
individuals with disabilities. People with disabilities
continue to rank among the most disenfranchised people in our
society. While recently, increasing attention is being paid to
the identification of the socia-economic reasons for this
disenfranchisement, there is a long road ahead for reversing
the course on this systemic problem. And, H.R. 4844 will only
exacerbate this electoral disempowerment.
First, there are the problems of segregation. Because of
their disability and a social system that cannot address their
unique needs in an integrated environment, vast numbers of
individuals with disabilities live in institutions or
restrictive living arrangements. For many individuals with
disabilities, both physical and social isolation is an
unfortunate norm in their daily life. They have little, and
often no, access to general information about even the day-to-
day events that occur in society, let alone the latest
burdensome elections requirements of H.R. 4844. Most will
likely learn about these additional requirements only at a
future election when their request to register to vote is
denied or when they are prevented from casting their ballot at
the polls.
Isolation typically comes at a high cost to these
individuals as they lack both personal resources and the
assistance that could compensate for that deficiency in order
to manage and deal with personal affairs, papers and effects.
For persons living in seclusion, locating and rummaging through
personal files in search of proof of citizenship and a photo
ID, which they have had no occasion to need, is typically not
feasible. Likewise for them, attempting to apply for a lost
birth certificate or a new passport for which they must
navigate through government agencies and procedures, which most
people in society find daunting, is an impossible task. The
lack of accessible transportation options compounds this
problem. The consequence of H.R. 4844 for these and so many
others who face similar barriers will thus be further
alienation from the electoral process.
Added to the difficulties with replacing proof of
citizenship is the cost associated with it. Regrettably, many
people with disabilities still live on wholly inadequate public
assistance programs, particularly supplemental security income
(SSI), which pays for the most basic and lowest standard of
living in our society. In California, SSI recipients struggle
to afford just their ever-increasing housing costs and often
have nothing left for expenses not related to daily necessities
such as the cost of replacing a birth certificate or acquiring
a passport. The same is true for those living in health care
facilities who only receive a very small monthly personal
expense allowance. H.R. 4844 will therefore have a significant
chilling effect as individuals on public assistance cannot, and
will not, sacrifice meeting their daily living needs just to
obtain one or more documents that they have never had to have
in order to exercise their constitutional right to choose their
representatives.
For these reasons, we oppose H.R. 4844 and urge all
interested persons to voice their oppositions to this very
harmful bill.
Sincerely,
Taymour Ravandi, Esq.
------
AARP,
June 27, 2006.
Hon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,
Ranking Member, House Administration Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Millender-McDonald: AARP submits this
letter for the record of your Committee hearing on June 22,
2006, regarding voter ID requirements for elections. AARP has a
longstanding commitment to full citizen participation in the
democratic process at the federal, state and local level, and
for that reason AARP has supported electoral reform at the
federal level--i.e., enactment of the National Voter
Registration Act (NVRA), the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), and reauthorization of
the Voting Rights Act (VRA). AARP also conducts extensive voter
education efforts in each of the 53 U.S. states and territories
in which it has offices.
In addition, AARP attorneys represent U.S. citizens aged
50+ who are in danger of disenfranchisement at the federal or
state level, and AARP has participated in various advisory
capacities to support citizen empowerment through meaningful
opportunity to exercise the franchise.
AARP attorneys are currently serving as one of the counsel
for plaintiffs in lawsuits challenging--burdensome and
unreasonable state laws in Georgia (GA) and Arizona (AZ). These
laws will, in effect, limit rather than expand citizen
participation in the electoral process through unnecessarily
restrictive requirements. In these jurisdictions, state
legislatures or ballot initiatives have sought to enact laws
that have elevated proof requirements for voters to register
(AZ) and to vote in person (GA and AZ). These laws are based on
assertions of a threat of fraud which lack concrete basis in
fact and unfortunately serve to heighten tensions among voters
divided by race, language and ethnicity. These new state laws
and implementing rules will significantly limit opportunities
to register and/or vote. Many persons who are qualified to vote
but do not have ready access to documents--such as birth
certificates, driver's licenses and passports that never have
been deemed necessary in the past may lose the fundamental
right to vote.
AARP is particularly concerned that such rules will prevent
many eligible older voters, voters with disabilities (who may
be unable to obtain the requisite photo or citizenship ID) and
low income voters (who may not be able to afford such ID) from
exercising their right to vote. For example, an estimated
675,000 registered voters in GA have no driver's license,
according to Georgia's Secretary of State. Such laws adversely
affect older voters who (1) no longer drive and do not need
licenses; (2) do not now travel or never did and therefore have
no passport; or (3) are persons without birth certificates
(e.g., Southern blacks or some Native Americans whowere not
allowed in white hospitals that provided documentation). At a time when
democratic elections are being conducted for the first time in many
nations throughout the world, any unnecessary erosion in access to the
ballot in the world's oldest electoral democracy should be
unacceptable. On behalf of older Americans who have largely shaped the
values of our democracy, we urge great care to ensure that the basic
right to vote is not trampled in an effort to address unproven
allegations of voting abuse.
Sincerely,
David P. Sloane,
Senior Managing Director,
Government Relations and Advocacy.
------
Common Cause,
June 26, 2006.
Chairman Vernon Ehlers,
Ranking Member Juanita Millender-McDonald,
House Administration Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives Ehlers and Millender-McDonald: We, the
``undersigned groups, are writing to communicate our opposition
to the bill introduced by Representative Henry Hyde, H.R. 4844,
the ``Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006,'' which would
require a national ID in order to be able to vote.
This bill is a ``solution'' in search of a problem. No
election-fraud research has pointed to a significant problem
vis-a-vis illegal aliens attempting to vote.
However, this bill does include a number of provisions that
will diminish the ability of American citizen to legitimately
participate in the voting process. In states with Election Day
Registration--which enjoy higher than average voter turnout--
this would prove to be an enormous bureaucratic headache, as
clerks and registrars are forced to assess the validity of
citizenship papers, a task for which they are not currently
trained.
The requirement to present a national identification card
when voting turns election workers, the vast majority of whom
are temporary employees or volunteers, into a virtual police
force empowered to bar Americans from exercising their right to
vote. Lines outside polling places would become much longer,
ultimately driving down turnout, as those who cannot devote
several more hours of their day to voting simply will not vote
at all. Additionally, the requirements in this bill would also
abridge the independence of states in setting their own ID
requirements.
There is no federal statute allowing states to demand
voters disclosure their Social Security numbers. Forcing
Americans to get a photo ID (state drivers' licenses are
invariably tied to an SSN) to vote is akin to requiring
Americans disclose their SSN to vote--which would be a clear
violation of Section 7 of the federal Privacy Act of 1974.
If someone or some group is motivated enough to want to
participate illegally in a U.S. election, chances are they will
find a way of getting the necessary documents. Meanwhile,
Americans will struggle to find long-ago issued social security
cards, birth certificates, or even getfingerprinted by the
local DMV under orders from Homeland Security. Let us not forget the 9/
11 hijackers were in this country legally, and had legally obtained
documents.
With a huge number of U.S. citizens already choosing not to
vote, it seems counterproductive to put even more hurdles in
their way. There are better ways to get a handle on the
immigration problem than forcing Americans and state
governments to jump through even more regulatory hoops.
Sincerely,
American Policy Center.
The Multiracial Activist.
Ohio Taxpayers Association & OTA Foundation.
Fairfax County Privacy Council.
Velvet Revolution.
Cyber Privacy Project.
Republican Liberty Caucus.
The Rutherford Institute.
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR).
Concerned Foreign Service Officers.
Common Cause.
www.libertycoalition.net.
www.commoncause.org.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, June 22, 2006.
Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers,
Chairman, House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration, Washington, DC.
Hon. Juanita Millender-McDonald
Ranking Member, House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald:
As Hispanic Members of Congress, we would like to express our
concerns with the hearing entitled, ``You don't need papers to
vote? Non-Citizen Voting and ID Requirements in U.S.
Elections.'' It is regrettable that in selecting this title for
the hearing, two non-related issues are now linked in the
public's mind-- non-citizens and voting fraud, to create
controversy where none exists.
We hold a longstanding opposition to identification
requirements as part of the voting process. For some time now,
we have heard of the need for a photo identification
requirement as a necessary tool to combat fraud. However, there
is no evidence that widespread fraud occurred in any recent
election, in particular any linked to non-citizens voting in
federal elections.
While a photo identification requirement at the polls seems
entirely reasonable, it is important to note that some people
simply do not possess photo identification. For example, in the
Latino community, there are many low-income households in which
no one possesses a car, and certainly not a driver's license,
let alone a passport. There are people in such households who
do not even possess alternatives to photo identification, such
as utility bills or government checks in their name. For such
low-income individuals, the cost of obtaining photo
identification is itself a burden, and such a requirement is
reminiscent of past barriers to voting.
Requiring any form of identification at the polling place
would inevitably create similar barriers and hurdles for racial
and ethnic minority voters and would have a chilling effect on
voter participation. Identification provisions have rightfully
been prohibited because of the disparate impact they have on
minority electoral participation. In addition, it would have a
devastating effect on rural voters, as well as the elderly and
disabled. As responsible policy makers, we need to consider
whether the proposed remedy to a problem will cause greater
harm than good.
Rep. Hyde's legislation, H.R. 4844, goes further than
simply requiring photo identification and seeks to amend the
P.L. 103-31, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), to
make proof of citizenship a federal requirement for voting in
states that require registration. This presents several
problems in that if improperly implemented, a voter ID law
would likely violate other federal voting rights laws such as
the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Help America Vote Act of
2002. In addition, states would have to create new forms and a
new system to capture registrations by mail, otherwise they
would be non-compliant with the law the bill intends to amend,
NVRA. Moreover, it would fail to stop fraud that could occur
via mail-in voting or by the use of absentee ballots.
Currently, federal voter registration forms allow persons
to attest to the fact that they are citizens. If H.R. 4844 were
implemented, the requirements would be akin to imposing a
modern-day poll tax because citizens would now have to pay to
secure documents to prove what they have already confirmed via
attestation, that they are indeed citizens. For persons of
limited means, the prospect of spending $85 for a passport or
time locating a birth certificate could easily discourage them
from voting at all. In the case of naturalized citizens, who
might attempt to register to vote by mail, this requirement
would serve as a deterrent. The certificate of citizenship they
receive from the Department of Homeland Security, which they
would have to submit as proof, says on its face, ``IT IS
PUNISHABLE BY U.S. LAW TO COPY, PRINT, OR PHOTOGRAPH THIS
CERTIFICATE WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY.'' Any naturalized citizen
would be in violation of one law in an attempt to comply with
another. No individual should be put in a position to have to
make that choice.
We urge you to consider the risks inherent in
identification requirements and to oppose this bill.
Sincerely,
Charles A. Gonzalez.
Grace Flores Napolitano.
Ruben Hinojosa.
Joe Baca.
Hilda Solis.
Luis V. Gutierrez.
Raul M. Grijalva.
Linda Sanchez.
------
SEIU,
Washington, DC, June 21, 2006.
Hon. Vernon Ehlers,
Chair, House Administration Committee,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,
Ranking Member, House Administration Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald:
On behalf of the Service Employees International Union's
(SEIU) 1.8 million members, I urge you to oppose the ``Federal
Election and Integrity Act of 2006'' (H.R. 4844) sponsored by
Representative Henry Hyde. This bill overreaches in its
attempts to deal with the surprisingly rare problem of voters
misrepresenting their identity at the polls. H.R. 4844 proposes
extreme solutions that would result in the disenfranchisement
of thousands of voters and will undermine confidence in
election outcomes.
Voter Fraud: A Surprisingly Rare Problem
There is no question that election misconduct exists,
including improper purges of eligible voters, distributing
false information about when and where to vote, stuffing of
ballot boxes, and tampering with registration forms. But there
is no evidence that the type of fraud cited in support of photo
ID requirements--individual voters who misrepresent their
identity at the polls--is anything but an anomaly.
In Ohio, a statewide survey found four
instances of ineligible persons voting or attempting to
vote in 2002 and 2004, out of 9,078,728 votes cast--a
rate of 0.00004 percent.
Despite the invocation of fraud as support
for the new Georgia law, Secretary of State Cathy Cox
stated that in her ten-year tenure, she could not
recall one documented case of voter fraud involving the
impersonation of a registered voter at the polls.
Nationwide, since October 2002, 52
individuals have been convicted of federal crimes
relating to election fraud (including several offenses
not remedied by ID requirements), while 196,139,871
ballots have been cast in federal general elections.
Photo ID Requirements: Discouraging Voters, Enabling Discrimination
Photo ID requirements disproportionately impact people of
color, rural voters, young people, the homeless, low-income
people, the elderly, individuals with disabilities, frequent
movers, and persons in large households. A recent study by the
Georgia Secretary of State found that nearly 700,000
Georgians--1 in 7 voters--do not have either a driver's license
or a non-driver state issued ID and the Department of
Transportation estimates that between 6-12 percent of voters
nationally do not have a government issued photo ID. A
University of Wisconsin study found that nearly 50% of African
American and Latino men in Milwaukee do not have government
issued photo identification.
Requiring photo ID of voters is the equivalent of a poll
tax. By mandating that voters provide photo identification,
H.R. 4844 would require voters to pay for photo ID, if they
don't already have it. Getting photo ID, such as drivers'
licenses and passports, costs money and time. The same is true
of the supporting documents required to obtain photo ID. Not
all eligible voters in this country can afford to purchase such
ID, and H.R. 4844 doesn't suggest helping them out.
Even if they have photo ID, many eligible voters will be
turned away. Photo ID requirements place an inordinate amount
of discretion in the hands of overworked (and usually unpaid)
poll workers. Deciding whether a voter matches or does not
match the photo in an ID card--which can often be many years
old--is a very subjective process and easily prone to mistakes
or worse. Because H.R. 4844 does not explain how disputes over
the validity of an ID card would be handled, and because it
would keep voters who don't have ``valid'' ID from obtaining
provisional ballots, it could easily open the door to
widespread racial and ethnic discrimination at polling places.
Even without H.R. 4844, ID provisions are often implemented in
a discriminatory way. According to the nation's largest
nonpartisan exit poll of Asian Americans, nearly 70% of Asian
voters were asked for ID in states where no ID was required.
Voters with photo ID will likely be turned away for more
benign reasons as well. If an ID card such as a driver's
license does not contain the voter's current address, for
example, which is true of millions of Americans, he or she is
likely to be turned away from the polls. In Wisconsin, 97
percent of all students do not have their current address on
their photo identification. If an eligible voter forgets to
bring identification, H.R. 4844 would keep him or her from
obtaining a provisional ballot and proving his or her identity
on a later date before the ballot is counted. As such, it would
undermine an important ``safety net'' established under the
Help America Vote Act.
Current laws target voting fraud--new proof of citizenship requirements
do not
Proof of citizenship requirements are working--to keep
legal voters from registering. In the first six months of 2005,
as a result of Arizona's Proposition 200, more than 5,000
Arizona citizens had their voter registrations rejected for
failing to provide adequate proof of citizenship.\1\ In Pima
County, 60 percent of new registrants--all eligible voters--
were initially rejected. The similar proof of citizenship
requirement in H.R. 4844 would result in eligible voters being
turned away on a nationwide scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Elvia Diaz and Robbie Sherwood. Prop. 200's Effect Minimal,
Arizona Republic, June 5, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current laws are already extremely tough on noncitizens who
try to vote. Falsely claiming citizenship and voting fraud have
long been federal offenses. In addition, ever since U.S.
immigration laws were reformed in 1996, immigrants who try to
vote are automatically given a one-way ticket out of the
country, with no criminal conviction necessary. Proof of
citizenship requirements will only penalize U.S. citizens who
want to exercise their right to vote.
Americans believe strongly that Election Day provides an
opportunity to actively engage their leaders and voice their
concerns. Risking the foundation of our democracy is too great
a cost to pay when the evidence does not substantiate the
claims the ``Federal Election and Integrity Act of 2006''
purports to fix.
SEIU is available to work with the Committee to address
real reforms that would help improve our elections systems.
Please contact, Stephanie Luongo, with any questions.
Sincerely,
Alison Reardon,
Director of Legislation.
------
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, June 21, 2006.
Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers,
Chairman, Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Ehlers: On behalf of the Democratic Women's
Working Group, we write to bring to your attention an
unintended consequence of various proposals before your
Committee, which are intended to eliminate fraud in Federal
elections.
We strongly favor anti-fraud provisions which ensure the
integrity of Federal elections. It is important, however that
such provisions do not place unnecessary obstacles or undue
burdens on ordinary citizens--particularly women.
Unfortunately, the likely outcome of the various proposals
before your committee would be to unnecessarily obstruct
legitimate participation by women voters in Federal elections.
For example, a woman who, upon marriage, takes the last
name of her husband, would have to produce more documents than
her husband in order to register or reregister to vote. A
married woman who, upon divorce, uses her birth name
thereafter, would potentially have an even greater burden. A
poor woman born in a rural setting outside of a hospital might
never have received a birth certificate. A woman head-of-
household, whose home and records are destroyed by fire, flood,
hurricane, or other disaster, may be unable to produce the
necessary records to register or vote--not because she is not a
citizen--but because of the obstacles these various proposals
put in her way. If that working mother had to choose between
spending available time and resources obtaining documentation
so that her children could attend school, and using the time to
document herself so that she can register or vote, she would be
forced to sacrifice her own fundamental voting right as an
American.
These are not speculative obstacles or situations--they are
real and are repeated year in and year out. While preventing
fraud in elections is a worthy goal which we support, the
Committee must find a way to preclude fraud withoutobstructing
citizens, particularly women, from exercising their Constitutional
rights. Obstructing these rights, in the pursuit of a perfect system of
election administration, harms women as surely as denying women the
right to vote in the first place.
Thank you for taking our views into consideration as your
committee proceeds with this issue.
Sincerely,
Hilda L. Solis,
Chair, Democratic Women's
Working Group.
Lois Capps,
Vice Chair, Democratic
Women's Working Group.
------
MALDEF,
June 21, 2006.
Hon. Vernon Ehlers,
Chairman, House Administration Committee,
Washington, DC.,
Hon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,
Ranking Member, House Administration Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald:
On behalf of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational
Fund (MALDEF), and the Southwest Voter Registration Education
Project (SVREP), we write to express our strong opposition to
the ``Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006'' (H.R. 4844),
sponsored by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL). MALDEF is a national legal
organization dedicated to protecting and promoting the civil
rights of Latinos in the United States, and SVREP educates
Latino communities about the democratic process, the importance
of voter registration, and voter participation. Our
organizations have grave concerns that the proposed legislation
would deny the franchise to untold numbers of American citizens
otherwise eligible to vote, and that its burdens would be borne
disproportionately by the poor, the elderly, and racial and
ethnic minorities.
H.R. 4844 would require, for federal elections beginning in
2006, proof of citizenship from every voter who registers
through the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), who votes
in a state that does not require registration, or who registers
in a state that allows same-day voter registration. The
legislation would also require voters to present photo
identification before receiving a ballot including a
provisional ballot.
Given the cost and difficulty of obtaining citizenship and
identification documents such as passports, birth certificates,
or driver's licenses, legislation mandating these documents to
register or to vote amounts to an impermissible ``poll tax;''
it would require otherwise qualified voters to essentially pay
a fee as a condition of voting, in violation of the Twenty-
Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme
Court, in Harper v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, noted that
voting requirements run afoul of the Constitution whenever they
make ``the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an
electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to
wealth.''
While the cost of citizenship and identification documents
may seem negligible to some, it represents a real burden for
many Americans, Americans who are no less entitled than other
voters to cast a ballot on Election Day. For the poor, elderly,
and for racial and ethnic minorities, H.R. 4844 would erect
significant obstacles to participation in the democratic
process. Naturalized citizens face particular hurdles: a lost
or damaged naturalization certificate costs $210 to replace,
and may require a wait of up to six months for processing by
the Department of Homeland Security.
Requiring voters to purchase documents in order to exercise
the franchise is as much an affront today as it was when the
Supreme Court issued its Harper ruling forty years ago. H.R.
4844 presents an unacceptable risk of denying the vote to
otherwise eligible voters. At the same time, there is simply no
good evidence that voter fraud by non-citizens constitutes a
genuine or widespread problem--and certainly not on a scale to
justify a response that is so costly, heavyhanded, and
discriminatory in effect. In Arizona, where we have filed a
legal challenge to a state ballot initiative requiring certain
forms of identification at the polls, there is not a single
documented case of a non-citizen intentionally and fraudulently
registering to vote.
H.R. 4844 would impermissible burden the fundamental right
to vote, the basis of our democratic system. On behalf of those
Americans who would disproportionately bear this burden, we
urge you not to support this damaging proposal.
Sincerely,
Shaheena Ahmad Simons,
Acting D.C. Regional
Counsel, MALDEF.
Antonio Gonzalez,
President, Southwest Voter
Registration Education
Project.
https://www.congress.gov/109/crpt/hrpt666/CRPT-109hrpt666.pdf