{"id":6253,"date":"2006-09-19T12:00:48","date_gmt":"2006-09-19T12:00:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/multiracial.com\/?p=6253"},"modified":"2017-02-14T09:43:27","modified_gmt":"2017-02-14T09:43:27","slug":"h-rept-109-666-federal-election-integrity-act-of-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/2006\/09\/19\/h-rept-109-666-federal-election-integrity-act-of-2006\/","title":{"rendered":"H. Rept. 109-666 &#8211; Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<pre>109th Congress                                                   Report\r\n                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\r\n 2d Session                                                     109-666\r\n\r\n======================================================================\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n                 FEDERAL ELECTION INTEGRITY ACT OF 2006\r\n\r\n                                _______\r\n                                \r\n\r\n September 19, 2006.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on \r\n            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed\r\n\r\n                                _______\r\n                                \r\n\r\n Mr. Ehlers, from the Committee on House Administration, submitted the \r\n                               following\r\n\r\n                              R E P O R T\r\n\r\n                             together with\r\n\r\n                            DISSENTING VIEWS\r\n\r\n                        [To accompany H.R. 4844]\r\n\r\n  The Committee on House Administration, to whom was referred \r\nthe bill (H.R. 4844) to amend the National Voter Registration \r\nAct of 1993 to require any individual who desires to register \r\nor re-register to vote in an election for Federal office to \r\nprovide the appropriate State election official with proof that \r\nthe individual is a citizen of the United States to prevent \r\nfraud in Federal elections, and for other purposes, having \r\nconsidered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments \r\nand recommend that the bill as amended do pass.\r\n  The amendments are as follows:\r\n  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the \r\nfollowing:\r\n\r\nSECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.\r\n\r\n  This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Election Integrity Act of \r\n2006'' .\r\n\r\nSEC. 2. REQUIRING VOTERS TO PROVIDE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION.\r\n\r\n  (a) Requirement to Provide Photo Identification as Condition of \r\nReceiving Ballot.--Section 303(b) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 \r\n(42 U.S.C. 15483(b)) is amended--\r\n          (1) in the heading, by striking ``for Voters Who Register by \r\n        Mail'' and inserting ``for Providing Photo Identification''; \r\n        and\r\n          (2) by striking paragraphs (1) through (3) and inserting the \r\n        following:\r\n          ``(1) Individuals voting in person.--\r\n                  ``(A) Requirement to provide identification.--\r\n                Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except \r\n                as provided in subparagraph (B), the appropriate State \r\n                or local election official may not provide a ballot for \r\n                an election for Federal office to an individual who \r\n                desires to vote in person unless the individual \r\n                presents to the official--\r\n                          ``(i) a government-issued, current, and valid \r\n                        photo identification; or\r\n                          ``(ii) in the case of the regularly scheduled \r\n                        general election for Federal office held in \r\n                        November 2010 and each subsequent election for \r\n                        Federal office, a government-issued, current, \r\n                        and valid photo identification for which the \r\n                        individual was required to provide proof of \r\n                        United States citizenship as a condition for \r\n                        the issuance of the identification.\r\n                  ``(B) Availability of provisional ballot.--If an \r\n                individual does not present the identification required \r\n                under subparagraph (A), the individual shall be \r\n                permitted to cast a provisional ballot with respect to \r\n                the election under section 302(a), except that the \r\n                appropriate State or local election official may not \r\n                make a determination under section 302(a)(4) that the \r\n                individual is eligible under State law to vote in the \r\n                election unless the individual presents the \r\n                identification required under subparagraph (A) to the \r\n                official not later than 48 hours after casting the \r\n                provisional ballot.\r\n          ``(2) Individuals voting other than in person.--\r\n                  ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other \r\n                provision of law and except as provided in subparagraph \r\n                (B), the appropriate State or local election official \r\n                may not accept any ballot for an election for Federal \r\n                office provided by an individual who votes other than \r\n                in person unless the individual submits with the \r\n                ballot--\r\n                          ``(i) a copy of a government-issued, current, \r\n                        and valid photo identification; or\r\n                          ``(ii) in the case of the regularly scheduled \r\n                        general election for Federal office held in \r\n                        November 2010 and each subsequent election for \r\n                        Federal office, a copy of a government-issued, \r\n                        current, and valid photo identification for \r\n                        which the individual was required to provide \r\n                        proof of United States citizenship as a \r\n                        condition for the issuance of the \r\n                        identification.\r\n                  ``(B) Exception for overseas military voters.--\r\n                Subparagraph (A) does not apply with respect to a \r\n                ballot provided by an absent uniformed services voter \r\n                who, by reason of active duty or service, is absent \r\n                from the United States on the date of the election \r\n                involved. In this subparagraph, the term `absent \r\n                uniformed services voter' has the meaning given such \r\n                term in section 107(1) of the Uniformed and Overseas \r\n                Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff--6(1)), \r\n                other than an individual described in section 107(1)(C) \r\n                of such Act.\r\n          ``(3) Specific requirements for identifications.--For \r\n        purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2)--\r\n                  ``(A) an identification is `government-issued' if it \r\n                is issued by the Federal Government or by the \r\n                government of a State; and\r\n                  ``(B) an identification is one for which an \r\n                individual was required to provide proof of United \r\n                States citizenship as a condition for issuance if the \r\n                identification displays an official marking or other \r\n                indication that the individual is a United States \r\n                citizen.''.\r\n  (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 303 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15483) \r\nis amended--\r\n          (1) in the heading, by striking ``for Voters Who Register by \r\n        Mail'' and inserting ``for Providing Photo Identification''; \r\n        and\r\n          (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``subsections \r\n        (a)(5)(A)(i)(II) and (b)(3)(B)(i)(II)'' and inserting \r\n        ``subsection (a)(5)(A)(i)(II)''.\r\n  (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act is amended \r\nby amending the item relating to section 303 to read as follows:\r\n\r\n``Sec. 303. Computerized statewide voter registration list requirements \r\nand requirements for providing photo identification.''.\r\n\r\n  (d) Effective Date.--\r\n          (1) In general.--This section and the amendments made by this \r\n        section shall apply with respect to the regularly scheduled \r\n        general election for Federal office held in November 2008 and \r\n        each subsequent election for Federal office.\r\n          (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 303(d)(2) of such Act (42 \r\n        U.S.C. 15483(d)(2)) is amended to read as follows:\r\n          ``(2) Requirement to provide photo identification.--\r\n        Paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) shall apply with \r\n        respect to the regularly scheduled general election for Federal \r\n        office held in November 2008 and each subsequent election for \r\n        Federal office.''.\r\n\r\nSEC. 3. MAKING PHOTO IDENTIFICATIONS AVAILABLE.\r\n\r\n  (a) Requiring States to Make Identification Available.--Section \r\n303(b) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(b)), as \r\namended by section 2(a)(2), is amended--\r\n          (1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs (5) \r\n        and (6); and\r\n          (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new \r\n        paragraph:\r\n          ``(4) Making photo identifications available.--\r\n                  ``(A) In general.--During fiscal year 2008 and each \r\n                succeeding fiscal year, each State shall establish a \r\n                program to provide photo identifications which may be \r\n                used to meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) \r\n                by individuals who desire to vote in elections held in \r\n                the State but who do not otherwise possess a \r\n                government-issued photo identification.\r\n                  ``(B) Identifications provided at no cost to indigent \r\n                individuals.--If a State charges an individual a fee \r\n                for providing a photo identification under the program \r\n                established under subparagraph (A)--\r\n                          ``(i) the fee charged may not exceed the \r\n                        reasonable cost to the State of providing the \r\n                        identification to the individual; and\r\n                          ``(ii) the State may not charge a fee to any \r\n                        individual who provides an attestation that the \r\n                        individual is unable to afford the fee.\r\n                  ``(C) Identifications not to be used for other \r\n                purposes.--Any photo identification provided under the \r\n                program established under subparagraph (A) may not \r\n                serve as a government-issued photo identification for \r\n                purposes of any program or function of a State or local \r\n                government other than the administration of \r\n                elections.''.\r\n  (b) Payments to States to Cover Costs.--Subtitle D of title II of \r\nsuch Act (42 U.S.C. 15321 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the \r\nfollowing new part:\r\n\r\n``PART 7--PAYMENTS TO COVER COSTS OF PROVIDING PHOTO IDENTIFICATIONS TO \r\n                          INDIGENT INDIVIDUALS\r\n\r\n``SEC. 297. PAYMENTS TO COVER COSTS TO STATES OF PROVIDING PHOTO \r\n                    IDENTIFICATIONS FOR VOTING TO INDIGENT INDIVIDUALS.\r\n\r\n  ``(a) Payments to States.--The Commission shall make payments to \r\nStates to cover the costs incurred in providing photo identifications \r\nunder the program established under section 303(b)(4) to individuals \r\nwho are unable to afford the fee that would otherwise be charged under \r\nthe program.\r\n  ``(b) Amount of Payment.--The amount of the payment made to a State \r\nunder this part for any year shall be equal to the amount of fees which \r\nwould have been collected by the State during the year under the \r\nprogram established under section 303(b)(4) but for the application of \r\nsection 303(b)(4)(B)(ii), as determined on the basis of information \r\nfurnished to the Commission by the State at such time and in such form \r\nas the Commission may require.\r\n\r\n``SEC. 297A. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.\r\n\r\n  ``There are authorized to be appropriated for payments under this \r\npart such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2008 and each \r\nsucceeding fiscal year.''.\r\n  (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act is amended \r\nby adding at the end of the item relating to subtitle D of title II the \r\nfollowing:\r\n\r\n``Part 7--Payments to Cover Costs of Providing Photo Identifications to \r\n                          Indigent Individuals\r\n\r\n``Sec. 297. Payments to cover costs to States of providing photo \r\nidentifications for voting to indigent individuals.\r\n``Sec. 297A. Authorization of appropriations.''.\r\n\r\n  (d) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made by this \r\nsection shall take effect October 1, 2007.\r\n\r\n  Amend the title so as to read:\r\n\r\n      A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to \r\nrequire each individual who desires to vote in an election for \r\nFederal office to provide the appropriate election official \r\nwith a government-issued photo identification, and for other \r\npurposes.\r\n\r\n            H.R. 4844-FEDERAL ELECTION INTEGRITY ACT OF 2006\r\n\r\n\r\n                         Purpose of Legislation\r\n\r\n    The purpose of H.R. 4844, the Federal Election Integrity \r\nAct of 2006 is to protect the franchise and reduce the \r\nopportunities for, and incidence of, vote fraud. Requiring \r\nthose exercising the right to vote to properly identify \r\nthemselves is a basic and necessary step to preserve the \r\nintegrity of the voting process. Presenting photo \r\nidentification when voting provides a simple and effective \r\nmethod for election officials to confirm identity and \r\neligibility. It will deter fraud and reduce the incidence of \r\ndouble voting and voting in the name of another. Most states do \r\nnot currently require a photo identification to vote in federal \r\nelections.\\1\\ The absence of this basic protection in so many \r\nstates leaves our elections susceptible to fraud. H.R. 4844 \r\nseeks to address this problem by requiring all persons casting \r\nballots in elections for Federal office to present a current \r\nand valid government issued photo identification.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n    \\1\\ Only six States, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Hawaii, Louisiana \r\nand South Dakota, require individuals to show photo identification \r\nbefore casting a ballot while 18 other States require a photo or some \r\nother acceptable form of identification to be shown at the polls in all \r\nelections. The remaining 26 states only require an identification to be \r\npresented for first time voters who register by mail. Of the 26 States, \r\nKansas and Pennsylvania require photo and non-photo identification for \r\nall first time voters, not just the ones that had registered by mail. \r\nSee electionline.org, available at http:\/\/www.electionline.org\/\r\nDefault.aspx?tabid=364.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n    Since the enactment of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 \r\n\\2\\ (HAVA) election officials have strived to create an \r\nelection system that expands access for all eligible voters and \r\nprotects the integrity of the ballot. HAVA imposed an \r\nidentification requirement, but limited it to first time voters \r\nwho register by mail. The clear intent of this provision was to \r\nensure that people who did not register in person would at some \r\npoint be obligated to demonstrate, before voting, that they are \r\nin fact a real live human being who is eligible to vote.\\3\\ \r\nThis demonstration could be made by production of any one of a \r\nnumber of different forms of identification or documentation \r\nthat would show who the person was, or production of \r\ninformation that would allow an election official to verify \r\nidentity.\\4\\ Important as it is, this provision still imposes \r\nno identification requirement whatsoever on most voters. Even \r\nmore problematic, some states have interpreted it to not apply \r\nto registrations that are hand delivered instead of being \r\nmailed, thereby continuing to allow votes to be cast by persons \r\nwho have never presented themselves in person or provided any \r\nidentification or documentation necessary to confirm \r\neligibility. Testimony of Dan Bryant in Las Cruces revealed \r\nthis is the practice in New Mexico.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n    \\2\\ Pub. L. No. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666, 42 U.S.C. 15301 to 15545 \r\n(2002).\r\n    \\3\\ During the HAVA debate, Senator Kit Bond famously advised \r\nmembers of a dog that had been on the voter rolls for several years \r\nunder the name Ritzy Mekler. Senator Bond, presented Ritzy Mekler's \r\nvoter registration information to demonstrate how lax registration \r\nrequirements can allow even non-persons to register and vote. See floor \r\nstatement February 26, 2002. a\r\n    \\4\\ Pursuant to section 303(b)(2) of HAVA, only those first-time \r\nvoters registering by mail are required to present one of the following \r\nforms of identification before casting a ballot: (1) current and valid \r\nphoto identification, (2) current utility bill, (3) current bank \r\nstatement, (4) government check, (5) paycheck, (6) other government \r\ndocument that shows the name and address of the vote. Individuals who \r\nregister to vote by mail under section 6 of the National Voter \r\nRegistration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-4) and submit with his or \r\nher registration either a driver's license number or at least the last \r\n4 digits of their social security number are exempt from the \r\nrequirement to provide one of the 6 forms of acceptable HAVA \r\nidentification at the polls. See Section 303(b)(3)(B)(1).\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n    The vast majority of the voting public is already in \r\npossession of the ID that will be required under the \r\nlegislation for the general election in November 2008.\\5\\ For \r\nthe small percentage of the voting public not currently in \r\npossession of the necessary ID, the bill gives them two full \r\nyears to acquire it. It obligates states to set up programs to \r\ndistribute ID's to those who need them, and requires that they \r\nbe given free to those who cannot afford them. Federal funds \r\nare authorized to reimburse states for the cost of distributing \r\nthese free ID's.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n    \\5\\ See ``The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 \r\non the Administration of Elections for Federal Office, 1995-1996,'' \r\nFederal Elections Commission, page 5-6 (stating approximately 87 \r\npercent of persons 18 years and older have acquired a driver's \r\nlicense); see also Report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform \r\nBuilding Confidence in U.S. Elections, September 2005, FN 22 citing a \r\nU.S. Department of Transportation study: ``A comparison of driver's \r\nlicense records and census data for 2003 suggests that about 88 percent \r\nof Americans aged 18 and over have a driver's license, see U.S. \r\nDepartment of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Licensed \r\nTotal Drivers, By Age, 2003, Table DL-22, Oct. 2004, at \r\nwww.fhwa.dot.gov\/policy\/ohim\/hs03\/htm\/dl22.htm, and U.S. Census Bureau, \r\nAnnual Estimates of the Population by Selected Age Groups and Sex for \r\nthe United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2004, (June 2005), \r\navailable at www.census.gov\/popest\/national\/asrh\/NC-EST2004-sa.html.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n    Commencing in 2010 and for all elections thereafter, voters \r\nwill be required to present an ID that they could not have \r\nobtained without proving that they are citizens. The Congress \r\nhas already determined, by its passage of the REAL ID Act of \r\n2005 \\6\\ that States must verify the legal status of applicants \r\nbefore issuing an ID to them. REAL ID compliant identification \r\nwill be required if citizens want to use the ID for any of a \r\nnumber of defined Federal purposes such as boarding an airplane \r\nor entering a government building.\\7\\ The implementation \r\ndeadline for the REAL ID Act is May 11, 2008. H.R. 4844 intends \r\nthat citizens will be able to use their newly acquired REAL \r\nID's to vote in elections beginning 2010. As non-citizens will \r\nbe able to acquire REAL ID's, H.R. 4844 requires the ID contain \r\nsome marking or other indicia that will show the bearer is a \r\ncitizen. Individuals who arrive at the polls without the \r\nrequired identification will be permitted to cast a provisional \r\nballot, which can be counted if the individual presents the \r\nappropriate election official with a qualifying identification \r\nwithin 48 hours.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n    \\6\\ Pub. L. No. 109-13, 49 U.S.C. Section 30301.\r\n    \\7\\ Division B-Real ID Act of 2005, Title II, Section 201 states \r\nREAL IDs are to be used not only for the purpose of operating a motor \r\nvehicle but for ``accessing Federal facilities, boarding federally \r\nregulated commercial aircraft, entering nuclear power plants, and any \r\nother purposes that the Secretary shall determine''.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n    Requiring photo identification for voting has been endorsed \r\nby a high profile bi-partisan election reform Commission. The \r\nCarter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform, in its \r\nreport ``Building Confidence in U.S. Elections'' recommended a \r\nnational standard for voter identification based on the REAL ID \r\ncard or an equivalent for people without a driver's license to \r\nenhance ballot security. The Commission recommendation for a \r\nuniform identification requirement was motivated by a concern \r\nthat differing requirements from state-to-state (or even voter-\r\nto-voter) could impede voting by unequal or discriminatory \r\napplication of varied requirements. The Commission reasoned \r\nthat the use of REAL ID cards for voting purposes could \r\neliminate voting impediments and ensure fair and equal \r\ntreatment to all voters.\r\n    A single, uniform ID requirement will reduce the incidence \r\nof selective or discriminatory application. It will actually \r\nguard against discriminatory practices as those who possess the \r\nID will be able to present it with confidence that it will \r\nprove their identity and eligibility. Civil rights leader \r\nAndrew Young has recognized the empowering nature of such an \r\nID.\\8\\ Former President Jimmy Cater and Former Secretary of \r\nState James Baker also acknowledged the benefits of a uniform \r\nidentification requirement.\\9\\\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n    \\8\\ In his editorial, Young stated in relevant part: ``At the end \r\nof the day, a photo ID is a true weapon against the bondages of \r\npoverty. Anyone driving through a low-income neighborhood sees the \r\nubiquitous check-cashing storefronts, which thrive because other \r\nestablishments, such as supermarkets and banks, won't cash checks \r\nwithout a standard photo ID. Why not enfranchise the 12 percent of \r\nAmericans who don't have drivers' licenses or government-issued photo \r\nIDs?'' Andrew Young, ``Voter IDs Only Part of Elections Solution'', \r\nATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, September 30, 2005 at A15.\r\n    \\9\\ ``Our concern was that the differing requirements from state-\r\nto-state could be a source of discrimination, and so we recommended a \r\nstandard for the entire country, the Real ID card, the standardized \r\ndriver's licenses mandated by federal law last May. With that law, a \r\ndriver's license can double as a voting card. All but three of our 21 \r\ncommission members accepted the proposal, in part because the choice \r\nwas no longer whether to have voter IDs, but rather what kind of IDs \r\nvoters should have.'' See Jimmy Carter and James A. Baker, ``Voting \r\nReform Is in the Cards'', NEW YORK TIMES, at pg. A19\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n    A Federally mandated photo identification requirement \r\nprovides a basic and crucial protection against voter fraud. \r\nDuring hearings conducted by the Committee on House \r\nAdministration, witnesses cited many instances of fraudulent \r\nregistration and voting in our country.\r\n    Daniel A. Bryant, attorney for Otero County, New Mexico, \r\ntestified in Las Cruces New Mexico about a woman named Vada \r\nHart who had not voted for years, only to discover that someone \r\nhad been voting in her name--thereby not only stealing her vote \r\nbut also illegally negating the vote of an eligible \r\ncitizen.\\10\\ Other testimony presented to the Committee \r\nrevealed that a registered voter in New Mexico was not \r\npermitted to cast a ballot in the 2004 elections because \r\nrecords showed that someone had already voted in his place.\\11\\\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n    \\10\\ Mr. Bryant presented a verified statement from Ms. Hart's son \r\nand daughter in-law attesting that she has not voted in any election \r\nsince 1996 due to her physical and mental state. An investigative \r\nhearing on July 22, in Dona Ana Complex revealed that Ms. Hart's voter \r\ncard showed that someone had voted in her name several times since \r\n1996.\r\n    \\11\\ Testimony of Patrick Rogers, Committee on House \r\nAdministration, U.S. House of Representatives, Hearing on Non-Citizen \r\nvoting, June 22, 2006 http\/cha.house.gov\/hearings\/testimony.aspx?TID-\r\n896\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n    Votes cast in the name of deceased individuals across the \r\ncountry in federal and local elections demonstrate the need for \r\na photo identification requirement. In Maryland, computer \r\nscience students at Johns Hopkins University learned through \r\ntheir voter registration database research that Baltimore \r\nCity's voter rolls revealed ``1,500 dead people listed as \r\nactive registered voters. Fifty of those dead people somehow \r\nvoted in the [2004] election.'' After further investigation by \r\nthe Baltimore City Paper, at least 26 of the 50 names reported \r\nwere confirmed ``dead voters''. In Georgia, an audit of its \r\nvoter registration rolls showed that 5,412 votes had been cast \r\nby deceased voters.\\12\\ Another investigation on voting \r\nirregularities administered in Wisconsin by a joint Task Force \r\ncomprised of the U.S. Attorney's Office, Milwaukee Police \r\nDepartment, Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office and the \r\nFederal Bureau of Investigation revealed over 300 accounts of \r\nillegal voting, which included more than 100 votes cast by \r\nindividuals voting twice, individuals using false names and \r\nnames of deceased individuals.\\13\\ Also significant was \r\nevidence of 4,500 more votes cast in the City of Milwaukee than \r\nindividuals recorded as voting.\\14\\ The Milwaukee Journal \r\nSentinel, in reporting the Task Force's findings, indicated \r\nthat photo identification could have prevented some of the \r\nincidents of voter fraud that occurred.\\15\\\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n    \\12\\ ``Even Death Can't Stop Some Voters-Records: Illegally Cast \r\nBallots Are Not Rare.'' THE ATLANTA JOURNAL CONSTITUTION, November 6, \r\n2000.\r\n    \\13\\ Greg J. Borowski ``Inquiry Finds Evidence of Fraud in \r\nElection,'' MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL, May 11, 2005, available at \r\nhttp:\/\/www.wispolitics.com\/1006\/electionfraud.pdf.\r\n    \\14\\ Report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform Building \r\nConfidence in U.S. Elections at pg. 4 (citing Preliminary Findings of \r\nJoint Task Force Investigating Possible Election Fraud. May 10, 2005. \r\nAvailable at http:\/\/www.wispolitics.com\/1006\/electionfraud.pdf.)\r\n    \\15\\ Id.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n    Most recently, evidence of illegal voting was discovered \r\nduring the gubernatorial election and recount that occurred in \r\nthe State of Washington between Christine Gregorie and Dino \r\nRossi. In this case, there were many reports of fraudulent \r\nvotes cast. For example, in King County, Washington, it was \r\nreported that at least eight people who died before the \r\nNovember elections in 2004 had cast ballots on Election Day for \r\nthe Governor's race. Specifically, in the election contest that \r\nensued, the Chelan County Superior Court determined there were \r\na total of 1678 illegal votes cast in the 2004 general \r\nelection.\\16\\ The race was decided by a 133 vote margin. Judge \r\nBridges determined that although the number of illegal votes \r\ncast in this race clearly exceeded the margin of victory, the \r\nresults of the election could not have been set aside.\\17\\\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n    \\16\\ Of the total 1,687 illegal votes cast; 1,401 were cast by \r\nillegal felons, 19 votes were cast by deceased voters, 6 votes were \r\ncast by double voting, and 252 votes were cast by unregistered \r\nvoters.'' See generally, Transcript Of Decision By Chelan County \r\nSuperior Court Judge John Bridges, June 6, 2005.\r\n    \\17\\ From the decision ``The Court concludes further that no matter \r\nthe number of illegal votes, whether they total 1,678, as determined by \r\nthis Court, or 2,820, as argued by petitioners in their closing, this \r\nelection may not be set aside merely because the number of illegal or \r\ninvalid votes exceed the margin of victory, because the election \r\ncontest statute requires the contestant to show that the illegal votes \r\nor misconduct changed the election's result.'' Id.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n    Given the increasing number of non-citizens illegally \r\nresiding in the country, illegal voting by non-citizens is \r\nfurther cause for concern. The non-citizen population in the \r\nUnited States is growing at an unprecedented rate. Census \r\nBureau data shows that the nation's foreign-born or immigrant \r\npopulation (legal and illegal) reached 35 million in March of \r\n2005. The data also indicate that the first half of this decade \r\nhas been the highest five-year period of immigration in \r\nAmerican history. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated 8.7 million \r\nillegal aliens were in the U.S. in 2000. Immigration officials \r\nestimate that the illegal alien population grows by as many as \r\n500,000 every year. These non-citizen population growth rates \r\nincrease the potential for non-citizens to exploit and \r\nmanipulate the outcome of elections.\r\n    In 1996, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant \r\nResponsibility Act was enacted, making it a federal crime for \r\nnon-citizens to vote in any federal election. Enforcement of \r\nthe statute is hampered by the difficulty involved in detecting \r\nviolations. As no proof of citizenship is required prior to \r\nvoting, violations by persons falsely presenting themselves as \r\ncitizens can go unnoticed. Even when evidence of a violation \r\npresents itself, finding the perpetrators and gathering \r\nsufficient evidence to prosecute them is very difficult.\r\n    Despite the law that prohibits it, documented reports of \r\nnon-citizen voting have increased. During the June 22, hearing \r\nbefore this Committee, Dan Stein, President of the Federation \r\nfor American Immigration Reform, presented the following \r\ndocumented cases of illegal voting: (1) In the 2000 election, \r\n``election observers reported that a `sizable number' of votes \r\nmay have been cast by ineligible felons, illegal immigrants, \r\nand non-citizens'' in Florida; (3) In Utah, Legislative Auditor \r\nGeneral John Schaff said in a February 8, 2005 report to the \r\nPresident of the Utah Senate that more than 58,000 illegal \r\nimmigrants had Utah drivers' licenses, nearly 400 of them used \r\ntheir license to register to vote in Utah, and a sampling of \r\nthat group revealed at least 14 actually voted in an election; \r\nand (4) Hawaiian Election officials found 543 Oahu residents \r\nwho were not U.S. citizens had registered to vote. Moreover, an \r\ninvestigation by the Immigration and Naturalization Service \r\ninto alleged fraud in a 1996 Orange County, California \r\ncongressional race revealed that non-citizens were registered \r\nto vote in the 46th Congressional District in the disputed \r\nelection between Republican Robert Dornan and Democrat Loretta \r\nSanchez. The Task Force established by the Committee on House \r\nOversight found clear and convincing evidence that 748 invalid \r\nvotes were cast in that election.\\18\\ Further, state officials \r\nfound that over 300 non-citizens illegally voted in that \r\ncontest. These figures did not exceed the margin of victory, \r\nbut they clearly demonstrate this problem is real and can \r\nimpact the outcome in a close election.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n    \\18\\ U.S. House of Representatives Report 105-416 ``Dismissing the \r\nElection Contest Against Loretta Sanchez'' 105th Congress 2d Session, \r\nFebruary 12, 1998.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n    Patrick Rogers, a New Mexico attorney, proffered compelling \r\nexamples of illegal and fraudulent voting at the Committee's \r\nhearing on June 22, 2006. In support of this testimony, Mr. \r\nRogers presented to the Committee the voter identification card \r\nof a woman holding a green card, who claimed she was pressured \r\nto register while standing in line to receive government \r\nservices. Mr. Rogers also provided the Committee with several \r\ndocumented examples of illegal voting by non-citizens in the \r\nUnited States as follows:\r\n          (1) In Maryland, a 2006 e-mail from a member of the \r\n        Montgomery County Board of Elections in Montgomery \r\n        County, Maryland was made public indicating he was \r\n        going to register people to vote ``regardless of \r\n        status.'' (2) Donna Hope, a non-citizen immigrant from \r\n        Barbados who resides in Philadelphia, was told by a \r\n        representative of the voter registration group ``Voting \r\n        is Power,'' the voter mobilization arm of the Muslim \r\n        American Society, that she could register to vote if \r\n        she has been in the United States at least 7 years. Ms. \r\n        Hope completed the registration form and was added to \r\n        the voting rolls. In November of 2004, Ms. Hope did not \r\n        vote because she was not a citizen, but someone \r\n        illegally cast a ballot in her name. (3) In 1998, \r\n        California Secretary of State Bill Jones referred to \r\n        the INS claims by nearly 450 people called for jury \r\n        duty in Orange County, California who claimed they were \r\n        exempt from jury duty because they were non-citizens. \r\n        The jury duty lists are pulled from driver's license \r\n        and registered voter files.\r\n    The Committee's field briefing in Arizona also revealed \r\naccounts of voter fraud perpetrated by non-citizens. The \r\nHonorable Andrew Thomas, Maricopa County Attorney, advised the \r\nCommittee of indictments of ten individuals who were non-\r\ncitizens who nevertheless registered to vote. His testimony \r\nstates in relevant part:\r\n\r\n    They were charged with filing false documents, a class 6 \r\nfelony. Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell referred these \r\nmatters to the County Attorney's Office after her office \r\nreceived jury questionnaire forms from the county jury \r\ncommissioner. These forms were filled out by potential jurors \r\nwho claimed they were unable to serve on a jury because they \r\nwere not citizens. The county recorder's office found that they \r\nhad claimed to be citizens when they filled out a voter \r\nregistration form. Four of these defendants voted in at least \r\none election. In addition to the ten charged defendants, the \r\nCounty Attorney is reviewing 149 other cases in which non-\r\ncitizens have allegedly illegally registered to vote.\r\n    The county recorder has received inquiries from people \r\nseeking to become U.S. citizens who have been told by \r\nImmigration and Customs Enforcement to obtain a letter from her \r\noffice confirming they have neither registered to vote nor \r\nvoted. To date, a review of these matters has turned up 37 non-\r\ncitizens who have registered to vote. Fifteen of these \r\nindividuals have voted. And these numbers come from a \r\nrelatively small universe of individuals--legal immigrants who \r\nseek to become citizens. These numbers do not tell us how many \r\nillegal immigrants have registered and voted.\r\n\r\n    The United States Department of Justice has also \r\ninvestigated and prosecuted several cases of non-citizen \r\nvoting.\\19\\ In Colorado, U.S. Attorneys convicted an individual \r\nof providing false information concerning U.S. citizenship for \r\nvoter registration purposes.\\20\\ In Alaska, a non-citizen was \r\ncharged and found guilty of voting in the 2000, 2002 and 2004 \r\nelections in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 611.\\21\\ \r\nAdditionally, 15 non-citizens were charged and 10 were \r\nconvicted of voting in Federal elections conducted in counties \r\nlocated in South Florida.\\22\\\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n    \\19\\ Election Fraud Prosecutions &amp; Convictions Ballot Access &amp; \r\nVoting Integrity Initiative, Criminal Division, Public Integrity \r\nDivision, United States Department of Justice, October 2002-September \r\n2005.\r\n    \\20\\ Id., United States v. Shah, Case No. 04-CR-00458.\r\n    \\21\\ Id., United States v. Rogelio Mejorada-Lopez, Case No. 05-CR-\r\n074.\r\n    \\22\\ Id., United States v. McKenzie, Case No. 04-CR-60160; United \r\nStates v. Francois, No. 04-CR-60159; United States v. Exavier, No. 04-\r\nCR-60161; United States v. Lloyd Palmer, No. 04-CR-60159; United States \r\nv. Velrine Palmer, No. 04-CR-60162; United States v. Shivdayal, No. 04-\r\nCR-60164; United States v. Rickman, No. 04-CR-20491; United States v. \r\nKnight, No. 04-CR-20490; United States v. Sweeting, No. 04-CR-20489; \r\nUnited States v. Lubin, No. 04-CR-60163; United States v. Bennett, No. \r\n04-CR-14048; United States v. O'Neil, No. 04-CR-60165; United States v. \r\nTorres-Perez, No. 04-CR-14046; United States v. Phillip, No. 04-CR-\r\n80103; United States v. Bain Knight, No. 04-CR-14047.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n    While these examples demonstrate the need for additional \r\nprotections to ensure only citizens are voting, the facts also \r\nreveal that eligible citizens are able to prove their \r\neligibility and are not dissuaded from voting if required to do \r\nso. States that have implemented an identification requirement \r\nfor voting have experienced positive results. At the \r\nCommittee's field briefing in Arizona, Secretary of State Jan \r\nBrewer discussed the effects of the newly enacted \r\nidentification law known as Proposition 200. Under Proposition \r\n200, all voters are required to present identification at the \r\npolls before casting a ballot and all new voter registration \r\napplications must be accompanied by sufficient proof of \r\ncitizenship. While identification is required in all Arizona \r\njurisdictions, 15 jurisdictions have successfully implemented a \r\nproof of citizenship requirement. Secretary Brewer testified \r\nthat Arizona has experienced a 15.4 percent increase in voter \r\nregistration since the requirements of Proposition 200 went \r\ninto effect. Other studies recently conducted also demonstrate \r\nthat implementation of anti-fraud measures can increase, not \r\ndecrease, voter turnout.\\23\\ Moreover, in more than 100 \r\ndemocracies across the world, voters routinely present photo \r\nIDs in elections without any apprehension of being \r\ndisenfranchised.\\24\\\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n    \\23\\ See generally, John R. Lott, Jr., ``Evidence of Voter Fraud \r\nand the Impact that Regulations to Reduce Fraud Have on Voter \r\nParticipation Rates.'' August 2006, available at http:\/\/ssrn.com\/\r\nabstract=925611.\r\n    \\24\\ Report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, Building \r\nConfidence in U.S. Elections, at pg. 4. See also, FN 5 ``The following \r\ndemocracies constitute some of the nearly 100 countries that utilize a \r\nnational ID system: Belgium, Cost Rica, Germany, India, Italy, the \r\nNetherlands, Portugal, South Africa, and Spain. See Privacy.org, \r\n``dentity Cards: FAQ,'' August 24, 1996, available at http:\/\/\r\nwww.privacy.org\/pi\/activities\/idcard\/idcard--faq.html''.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n    Currently, state and local governments do not have any \r\neffective way to prevent non-citizens from registering to vote \r\nand voting. Section 303(b)(4)(A) of HAVA requires inclusion of \r\na citizenship box on the National Voter Registration Form. When \r\napplying to register to vote, individuals must check the box \r\naffirming their citizenship. The law provides that registration \r\nforms that do not have the box checked should be rejected and \r\nreturned to the individual. However, some states are not \r\nenforcing this requirement. Even in states that do enforce the \r\ncitizenship requirement, it is still done on an honor system \r\nthat relies on the truthful response of the registrant. While \r\nthe present state of the law leaves the system open to abuse, \r\nH.R. 4844's identification and proof of citizenship requirement \r\nwill ensure that only eligible citizens are voting.\r\n    While there may be disputes about the nature and extent of \r\nvoter fraud, there can be no dispute that it occurs. In close \r\nelections, even a small amount of fraud can affect the outcome. \r\nMore importantly, reports of fraud can cause people to lose \r\nconfidence in the integrity of the system and thereby \r\ndiscourage participation. People must be encouraged to vote \r\nwith confidence that their vote will be counted and will not be \r\ncancelled out by an illegal vote.\r\n    Furthermore, the very lack of any photo identification \r\nrequirement in most states makes it difficult to accurately \r\nassess the size of the problem. Persons voting in the name of \r\nanother may do so now without ever having to identify \r\nthemselves, so their criminal acts can be committed without \r\ndetection and with little fear of prosecution.\r\n    Showing proof of identification and citizenship is \r\nwarranted and commonplace in today's society. Individuals are \r\nrequired to have photo identification to engage in routine \r\nactivities such as boarding an airplane, entering a government \r\nbuilding, purchasing cigarettes and cashing a check. Our voting \r\nsystem deserves at least as much protection as these other \r\nactivities. H.R. 4844 offers these identification requirements \r\nto protect the fundamental right to vote, to build confidence \r\nin our voting system, encourage voter participation and ensure \r\nall individuals that when they cast a ballot, their vote will \r\nnot be diluted by an illegal vote.\r\n\r\n                       Summary of the Legislation\r\n\r\n\r\nSection 1.--Short title: ``Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006''\r\n\r\nSection 2.--Requiring voters to provide photo identification\r\n\r\n           Amends section 303(b) of the Help America \r\n        Vote Act of 2002, (HAVA) by requiring voters to show a \r\n        government-issued current and valid photo \r\n        identification before casting a ballot for the 2008 \r\n        general elections for Federal office.\r\n    Currently under HAVA, only first time voters who registered \r\nby mail are required to show one of seven acceptable forms of \r\nidentification prior to voting. Section 2 amends the \r\nidentification provision contained in HAVA by requiring all \r\nvoters to show identification, and making a current and valid \r\ngovernment issued photo identification the only acceptable \r\nform.\r\n           Amends section 303(b) of the Help America \r\n        Vote Act of 2002, (HAVA) by requiring voters to show a \r\n        current and valid photo identification for which the \r\n        individual was required to provide proof of United \r\n        States citizenship as a condition for issuance \r\n        effective for the 2010 general elections for federal \r\n        office and each subsequent Federal election.This \r\nprovision further strengthens ballot security by adding a proof of \r\ncitizenship requirement, and requiring that photo identification \r\ncontain some indicia of citizenship. The REAL ID Act of 2005, (Pub. L. \r\nNo. 109-13) will have to be implemented by States in May 2008. This \r\nprovision allows voters to use the identification they will obtain \r\nthrough the REAL ID process to vote. Voters must show photo \r\nidentification that affirms citizenship before casting a ballot at the \r\npolls for the 2010 federal elections and all subsequent federal \r\nelections. This identification requirement provides election officials \r\nwith a mechanism to protect and secure the franchise of all United \r\nStates citizens against ballots being cast illegally by non-citizens \r\nand other ineligible voters.\r\n           Permits individuals that are unable to \r\n        produce identification at the polls to cast a \r\n        provisional ballot. In order for the provisional ballot \r\n        to count, the voter must present qualifying \r\n        identification to an election official within 48 hours \r\n        of casting their provisional ballot.\r\n    This provision allows individuals who arrive at the polls \r\nwithout the required photo identification the opportunity to \r\nvote by provisional ballot. Presently, HAVA requires that \r\nstates provide individuals with the opportunity to cast a \r\nprovisional ballot if the voter believes he or she is \r\nregistered and eligible to vote in their election district but \r\ntheir name does not appear on the voter rolls. This provision \r\nwill ensure that no voter is disenfranchised or turned away at \r\nthe polls on Election Day for failure to produce the necessary \r\nidentification and allow their vote to count if they present to \r\nthe appropriate election official the identification necessary \r\nto prove eligibility within 48 hours.\r\n           Amends section 303(b) of the Help America \r\n        Vote Act of 2002, (HAVA) by requiring individuals who \r\n        do not vote in person to submit with the ballot for the \r\n        2008 general elections for Federal office a copy of a \r\n        government-issued current, and valid photo \r\n        identification. For the 2010 general elections for \r\n        federal office and each subsequent election for Federal \r\n        office, individuals who do not vote in person must \r\n        submit with the ballot a copy of a government-issued \r\n        current and valid photo identification that affirms \r\n        citizenship.\r\n    This provision extends the same photo identification \r\nrequirements to individuals that vote in person to individuals \r\nthat vote by mail. The current law requires only first time \r\nvoters who registered by mail to provide one of the seven forms \r\nof identification acceptable under HAVA with the ballot. This \r\nprovision will ensure equal treatment to voters whether ballots \r\nare cast in-person or by mail.\r\n           Provides an exemption for overseas military \r\n        voters who qualify as absent uniformed service voters \r\n        that are eligible to cast absentee ballots by reason of \r\n        active duty or service and are absent from the United \r\n        States on Election Day.\r\n    This provision conforms to section 107(1) of the Uniformed \r\nand Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-\r\n6(1)).\r\n\r\nSection 3.--Making photo identification available\r\n\r\n           Requires states to establish a program to \r\n        provide photo identification to individuals in \r\n        accordance with the photo identification requirement \r\n        contained in H.R. 4844. For those individuals who do \r\n        not possess photo identification and cannot afford to \r\n        obtain one, states will provide photo identification to \r\n        them at no cost.\r\n    This provision ensures that all individuals have the \r\nopportunity to obtain the required government issued photo \r\nidentification. First, it requires states to establish a \r\nprogram to provide government-issued photo identification to \r\nall individuals who do not possess photo identification that \r\nsatisfies H.R. 4844. Second, it requires states to provide \r\ngovernment-issued photo identification to all indigent \r\nindividuals who do not possess or have means to obtain \r\nidentification.\r\n           Adds a new section to the Help America Vote \r\n        Act of 2002, (HAVA) that requires the Election \r\n        Assistance Commission to provide funding to cover state \r\n        incurred costs for providing qualifying government-\r\n        issued photo identification to indigent individuals. \r\n        Authorizes federal funds to reimburse states for the \r\n        cost of distributing the identifications.\r\n\r\n               Committee Consideration of the Legislation\r\n\r\n\r\n       INTRODUCTION, REFERRAL, MARKUP, AND VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE\r\n\r\n    On March 2, 2006, Mr. Hyde introduced H.R. 4844, the \r\n``Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006,'' which was referred \r\nto the Committee on House Administration. The Committee on \r\nHouse Administration held a markup of H.R. 4844 on September \r\n14, 2006. Members present: Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Mica, Mr. Doolittle, \r\nMrs. Miller, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr. Brady, and Ms. \r\nLofgren. The Committee favorably reported H.R. 4844 by a record \r\nvote of 4-3, with a quorum being present.\r\n    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of \r\nthe House of Representatives, the following statements are made \r\nconcerning the votes of the Committee on House Administration \r\nin its consideration of the bill, H.R. 4844.\r\n\r\n                       MOTION TO REPORT THE BILL\r\n\r\n    The bill, H.R. 4844, as amended, was ordered favorably \r\nreported by a rollcall vote of 4 yeas to 3 nays (with a quorum \r\nbeing present). The vote was as follows:\r\n\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n        Representatives            Yea       Nay      Present    Representatives      Yea       Nay     Present\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\nMr. Ehlers....................        X   .........  .........  Ms. Millender-     ........        X   .........\r\n                                                                 McDonald.\r\nMr. Ney.......................  ........  .........  .........  Mr. Brady........  ........        X   .........\r\nMr. Mica......................        X   .........  .........  Ms. Lofgren......  ........        X   .........\r\nMr. Doolittle.................        X   .........  .........  .................  ........  ........  .........\r\nMr. Reynolds..................  ........  .........  .........  .................  ........  ........  .........\r\nMrs. Miller...................        X   .........  .........  .................  ........  ........\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n\r\n         VOTE ON EHLERS AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE\r\n\r\n    A rollcall vote was conducted on the Chairman's amendment \r\nin the nature of a substitute. The amendment passed by a \r\nrollcall vote of 4 yeas to 3 nays. The vote was as follows:\r\n\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n        Representatives             Yea       Nay     Present    Representatives      Yea       Nay     Present\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\nMr. Ehlers.....................        X   ........  .........  Ms. Millender-     ........        X   .........\r\n                                                                 McDonald.\r\nMr. Ney........................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Brady........  ........        X   .........\r\nMr. Mica.......................        X   ........  .........  Ms. Lofgren......  ........        X   .........\r\nMr. Doolittle..................        X   ........\r\nMr. Reynolds...................  ........  ........\r\nMrs. Miller....................        X   ........\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n\r\n                       VOTE ON LOFGREN AMENDMENT\r\n\r\n    A rollcall vote was conducted on the following amendment to \r\nthe Chairman's amendment in the nature of a substitute.\r\n    An amendment by Ms. Lofgren, to delay implementation of the \r\nidentification requirements until a study could be completed on \r\nthe anticipated effects of implementation of the program on \r\ncertain populations, was defeated by a rollcall vote of 3 yeas \r\nto 4 nays. The vote was as follows:\r\n\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n        Representatives             Yea       Nay     Present    Representatives      Yea       Nay     Present\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\nMr. Ehlers.....................  ........        X   .........  Ms. Millender-           X   ........  .........\r\n                                                                 McDonald.\r\nMr. Ney........................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Brady........        X   ........  .........\r\nMr. Mica.......................  ........        X   .........  Ms. Lofgren......        X   ........  .........\r\nMr. Doolittle..................  ........        X\r\nMr. Reynolds...................  ........  ........\r\nMrs. Miller....................  ........        X\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n\r\n                  VOTE ON MILLENDER-MCDONALD AMENDMENT\r\n\r\n    A rollcall vote was conducted on the following amendment to \r\nthe Chairman's amendment in the nature of a substitute.\r\n    An amendment by Ms. Millender-McDonald, to set standards \r\nfor provisional ballots, to assess penalties for voter \r\nsuppression, and to implement alternative methods for fraud \r\nprevention, was defeated by a rollcall vote of 3 yeas to 4 \r\nnays. The vote was as follows:\r\n\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n        Representatives             Yea       Nay     Present    Representatives      Yea       Nay     Present\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\nMr. Ehlers.....................  ........        X   .........  Ms. Millender-           X   ........  .........\r\n                                                                 McDonald.\r\nMr. Ney........................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Brady........        X   ........  .........\r\nMr. Mica.......................  ........        X   .........  Ms. Lofgren......        X   ........  .........\r\nMr. Doolittle..................  ........        X\r\nMr. Reynolds...................  ........  ........\r\nMrs. Miller....................  ........        X\r\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n\r\n                      Committee Oversight Findings\r\n\r\n    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) rule XIII of the Rules of \r\nthe House of Representatives, the Committee states that the \r\nfindings and recommendations of the Committee, based on \r\noversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the \r\nHouse of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive \r\nportions of this report.\r\n\r\n                General Performance Goals and Objectives\r\n\r\n    The Committee states, with respect to clause 3(c)(4) of \r\nrule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, that \r\nthe goal and objective of H.R. 4844 is to protect the franchise \r\nand reduce the opportunities for, and incidence of, vote fraud.\r\n\r\n                        Constitutional Authority\r\n\r\n    In compliance with clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII, the \r\nCommittee states that Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. \r\nConstitution grants Congress the authority to make law \r\ngoverning the time, place and manner of holding federal \r\nelections.\r\n\r\n                            Federal Mandates\r\n\r\n    The Committee states, with respect to section 423 of the \r\nCongressional Budget Act of 1974, that the bill obligates \r\nStates to establish a program to make available photo \r\nidentification to individuals, including that it be at no cost \r\nto indigent individuals.\r\n\r\n                        Preemption Clarification\r\n\r\n    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 \r\nrequires the report of any committee on a bill or joint \r\nresolution to include a committee statement on the extent to \r\nwhich the bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state \r\nor local law. The Committee states that the identification \r\nrequirement will apply in all States and preempt laws to the \r\ncontrary.\r\n\r\n         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported\r\n\r\n  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of \r\nthe House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by \r\nthe bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law \r\nproposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new \r\nmatter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is \r\nproposed is shown in roman):\r\n\r\n                     HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 2002\r\n\r\n\r\nSECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.\r\n\r\n  (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Help America \r\nVote Act of 2002''.\r\n  (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act is \r\nas follows:\r\n\r\nSec. 1. Short title; table of contents.\r\n     * * * * * * *\r\n\r\n                          TITLE II--COMMISSION\r\n\r\n     * * * * * * *\r\n\r\n                     Subtitle D--Election Assistance\r\n\r\n                      Part 1--Requirements Payments\r\n\r\nSec. 251. Requirements payments.\r\n     * * * * * * *\r\n\r\n Part 7--Payments to Cover Costs of Providing Photo Identifications to \r\n                          Indigent Individuals\r\n\r\nSec. 297. Payments to cover costs to States of providing photo \r\n          identifications for voting to indigent individuals.\r\nSec. 297A. Authorization of appropriations.\r\n     * * * * * * *\r\n\r\n    TITLE III--UNIFORM AND NONDISCRIMINATORY ELECTION TECHNOLOGY AND \r\n                       ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS\r\n\r\n                        Subtitle A--Requirements\r\n\r\n     * * * * * * *\r\n[Sec. 303. Computerized statewide voter registration list requirements \r\n          and requirements for voters who register by mail.]\r\nSec. 303. Computerized statewide voter registration list requirements \r\n          and requirements for providing photo identification.\r\n\r\n           *       *       *       *       *       *       *\r\n\r\n\r\nTITLE II--COMMISSION\r\n\r\n           *       *       *       *       *       *       *\r\n\r\n\r\nSubtitle D--Election Assistance\r\n\r\n           *       *       *       *       *       *       *\r\n\r\n\r\n PART 7--PAYMENTS TO COVER COSTS OF PROVIDING PHOTO IDENTIFICATIONS TO \r\n                          INDIGENT INDIVIDUALS\r\n\r\nSEC. 297. PAYMENTS TO COVER COSTS TO STATES OF PROVIDING PHOTO \r\n                    IDENTIFICATIONS FOR VOTING TO INDIGENT INDIVIDUALS.\r\n\r\n  (a) Payments to States.--The Commission shall make payments \r\nto States to cover the costs incurred in providing photo \r\nidentifications under the program established under section \r\n303(b)(4) to individuals who are unable to afford the fee that \r\nwould otherwise be charged under the program.\r\n  (b) Amount of Payment.--The amount of the payment made to a \r\nState under this part for any year shall be equal to the amount \r\nof fees which would have been collected by the State during the \r\nyear under the program established under section 303(b)(4) but \r\nfor the application of section 303(b)(4)(B)(ii), as determined \r\non the basis of information furnished to the Commission by the \r\nState at such time and in such form as the Commission may \r\nrequire.\r\n\r\nSEC. 297A. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.\r\n\r\n  There are authorized to be appropriated for payments under \r\nthis part such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2008 \r\nand each succeeding fiscal year.\r\n\r\n   TITLE III--UNIFORM AND NONDISCRIMINATORY ELECTION TECHNOLOGY AND \r\n                      ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS\r\n\r\nSubtitle A--Requirements\r\n\r\n           *       *       *       *       *       *       *\r\n\r\n\r\nSEC. 303. COMPUTERIZED STATEWIDE VOTER REGISTRATION LIST REQUIREMENTS \r\n                    AND REQUIREMENTS [FOR VOTERS WHO REGISTER BY MAIL] \r\n                    FOR PROVIDING PHOTO IDENTIFICATION.\r\n\r\n  (a)  * * *\r\n  (b) Requirements [for Voters Who Register by Mail] for \r\nProviding Photo Identification.--\r\n          [(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 6(c) of the \r\n        National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. \r\n        1973gg-4(c)) and subject to paragraph (3), a State \r\n        shall, in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner, \r\n        require an individual to meet the requirements of \r\n        paragraph (2) if--\r\n                  [(A) the individual registered to vote in a \r\n                jurisdiction by mail; and\r\n                  [(B)(i) the individual has not previously \r\n                voted in an election for Federal office in the \r\n                State; or\r\n                  [(ii) the individual has not previously voted \r\n                in such an election in the jurisdiction and the \r\n                jurisdiction is located in a State that does \r\n                not have a computerized list that complies with \r\n                the requirements of subsection (a).\r\n          [(2) Requirements.--\r\n                  [(A) In general.--An individual meets the \r\n                requirements of this paragraph if the \r\n                individual--\r\n                          [(i) in the case of an individual who \r\n                        votes in person--\r\n                                  [(I) presents to the \r\n                                appropriate State or local \r\n                                election official a current and \r\n                                valid photo identification; or\r\n                                  [(II) presents to the \r\n                                appropriate State or local \r\n                                election official a copy of a \r\n                                current utility bill, bank \r\n                                statement, government check, \r\n                                paycheck, or other government \r\n                                document that shows the name \r\n                                and address of the voter; or\r\n                          [(ii) in the case of an individual \r\n                        who votes by mail, submits with the \r\n                        ballot--\r\n                                  [(I) a copy of a current and \r\n                                valid photo identification; or\r\n                                  [(II) a copy of a current \r\n                                utility bill, bank statement, \r\n                                government check, paycheck, or \r\n                                other government document that \r\n                                shows the name and address of \r\n                                the voter.\r\n                  [(B) Fail-safe voting.--\r\n                          [(i) In person.--An individual who \r\n                        desires to vote in person, but who does \r\n                        not meet the requirements of \r\n                        subparagraph (A)(i), may cast a \r\n                        provisional ballot under section \r\n                        302(a).\r\n                          [(ii) By mail.--An individual who \r\n                        desires to vote by mail but who does \r\n                        not meet the requirements of \r\n                        subparagraph (A)(ii) may cast such a \r\n                        ballot by mail and the ballot shall be \r\n                        counted as a provisional ballot in \r\n                        accordance with section 302(a).\r\n          [(3) Inapplicability.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply \r\n        in the case of a person--\r\n                  [(A) who registers to vote by mail under \r\n                section 6 of the National Voter Registration \r\n                Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-4) and submits as \r\n                part of such registration either--\r\n                          [(i) a copy of a current and valid \r\n                        photo identification; or\r\n                          [(ii) a copy of a current utility \r\n                        bill, bank statement, government check, \r\n                        paycheck, or government document that \r\n                        shows the name and address of the \r\n                        voter;\r\n                  [(B)(i) who registers to vote by mail under \r\n                section 6 of the National Voter Registration \r\n                Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-4) and submits \r\n                with such registration either--\r\n                          [(I) a driver's license number; or\r\n                          [(II) at least the last 4 digits of \r\n                        the individual's social security \r\n                        number; and\r\n                  [(ii) with respect to whom a State or local \r\n                election official matches the information \r\n                submitted under clause (i) with an existing \r\n                State identification record bearing the same \r\n                number, name and date of birth as provided in \r\n                such registration; or\r\n                  [(C) who is--\r\n                          [(i) entitled to vote by absentee \r\n                        ballot under the Uniformed and Overseas \r\n                        Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. \r\n                        1973ff-1 et seq.);\r\n                          [(ii) provided the right to vote \r\n                        otherwise than in person under section \r\n                        3(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Voting \r\n                        Accessibility for the Elderly and \r\n                        Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ee-\r\n                        1(b)(2)(B)(ii)); or\r\n                          [(iii) entitled to vote otherwise \r\n                        than in person under any other Federal \r\n                        law.]\r\n          (1) Individuals voting in person.--\r\n                  (A) Requirement to provide identification.--\r\n                Notwithstanding any other provision of law and \r\n                except as provided in subparagraph (B), the \r\n                appropriate State or local election official \r\n                may not provide a ballot for an election for \r\n                Federal office to an individual who desires to \r\n                vote in person unless the individual presents \r\n                to the official--\r\n                          (i) a government-issued, current, and \r\n                        valid photo identification; or\r\n                          (ii) in the case of the regularly \r\n                        scheduled general election for Federal \r\n                        office held in November 2010 and each \r\n                        subsequent election for Federal office, \r\n                        a government-issued, current, and valid \r\n                        photo identification for which the \r\n                        individual was required to provide \r\n                        proof of United States citizenship as a \r\n                        condition for the issuance of the \r\n                        identification.\r\n                  (B) Availability of provisional ballot.--If \r\n                an individual does not present the \r\n                identification required under subparagraph (A), \r\n                the individual shall be permitted to cast a \r\n                provisional ballot with respect to the election \r\n                under section 302(a), except that the \r\n                appropriate State or local election official \r\n                may not make a determination under section \r\n                302(a)(4) that the individual is eligible under \r\n                State law to vote in the election unless the \r\n                individual presents the identification required \r\n                under subparagraph (A) to the official not \r\n                later than 48 hours after casting the \r\n                provisional ballot.\r\n          (2) Individuals voting other than in person.--\r\n                  (A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other \r\n                provision of law and except as provided in \r\n                subparagraph (B), the appropriate State or \r\n                local election official may not accept any \r\n                ballot for an election for Federal office \r\n                provided by an individual who votes other than \r\n                in person unless the individual submits with \r\n                the ballot--\r\n                          (i) a copy of a government-issued, \r\n                        current, and valid photo \r\n                        identification; or\r\n                          (ii) in the case of the regularly \r\n                        scheduled general election for Federal \r\n                        office held in November 2010 and each \r\n                        subsequent election for Federal office, \r\n                        a copy of a government-issued, current, \r\n                        and valid photo identification for \r\n                        which the individual was required to \r\n                        provide proof of United States \r\n                        citizenship as a condition for the \r\n                        issuance of the identification.\r\n                  (B) Exception for overseas military voters.--\r\n                Subparagraph (A) does not apply with respect to \r\n                a ballot provided by an absent uniformed \r\n                services voter who, by reason of active duty or \r\n                service, is absent from the United States on \r\n                the date of the election involved. In this \r\n                subparagraph, the term ``absent uniformed \r\n                services voter'' has the meaning given such \r\n                term in section 107(1) of the Uniformed and \r\n                Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 \r\n                U.S.C. 1973ff--6(1)), other than an individual \r\n                described in section 107(1)(C) of such Act.\r\n          (3) Specific requirements for identifications.--For \r\n        purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2)--\r\n                  (A) an identification is ``government-\r\n                issued'' if it is issued by the Federal \r\n                Government or by the government of a State; and\r\n                  (B) an identification is one for which an \r\n                individual was required to provide proof of \r\n                United States citizenship as a condition for \r\n                issuance if the identification displays an \r\n                official marking or other indication that the \r\n                individual is a United States citizen.\r\n          (4) Making photo identifications available.--\r\n                  (A) In general.--During fiscal year 2008 and \r\n                each succeeding fiscal year, each State shall \r\n                establish a program to provide photo \r\n                identifications which may be used to meet the \r\n                requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) by \r\n                individuals who desire to vote in elections \r\n                held in the State but who do not otherwise \r\n                possess a government-issued photo \r\n                identification.\r\n                  (B) Identifications provided at no cost to \r\n                indigent individuals.--If a State charges an \r\n                individual a fee for providing a photo \r\n                identification under the program established \r\n                under subparagraph (A)--\r\n                          (i) the fee charged may not exceed \r\n                        the reasonable cost to the State of \r\n                        providing the identification to the \r\n                        individual; and\r\n                          (ii) the State may not charge a fee \r\n                        to any individual who provides an \r\n                        attestation that the individual is \r\n                        unable to afford the fee.\r\n                  (C) Identifications not to be used for other \r\n                purposes.--Any photo identification provided \r\n                under the program established under \r\n                subparagraph (A) may not serve as a government-\r\n                issued photo identification for purposes of any \r\n                program or function of a State or local \r\n                government other than the administration of \r\n                elections.\r\n          [(4)] (5) Contents of mail-in registration form.--\r\n                  (A)  * * *\r\n\r\n           *       *       *       *       *       *       *\r\n\r\n          [(5)] (6) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection \r\n        shall be construed to require a State that was not \r\n        required to comply with a provision of the National \r\n        Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et \r\n        seq.) before the date of the enactment of this Act to \r\n        comply with such a provision after such date.\r\n  (c) Permitted Use of Last 4 Digits of Social Security \r\nNumbers.--The last 4 digits of a social security number \r\ndescribed in [subsections (a)(5)(A)(i)(II) and \r\n(b)(3)(B)(i)(II)] subsection (a)(5)(A)(i)(II) shall not be \r\nconsidered to be a social security number for purposes of \r\nsection 7 of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a note).\r\n  (d) Effective Date.--\r\n          (1)  * * *\r\n          [(2) Requirement for voters who register by mail.--\r\n                  [(A) In general.--Each State and jurisdiction \r\n                shall be required to comply with the \r\n                requirements of subsection (b) on and after \r\n                January 1, 2004, and shall be prepared to \r\n                receive registration materials submitted by \r\n                individuals described in subparagraph (B) on \r\n                and after the date described in such \r\n                subparagraph.\r\n                  [(B) Applicability with respect to \r\n                individuals.--The provisions of subsection (b) \r\n                shall apply to any individual who registers to \r\n                vote on or after January 1, 2003.]\r\n          (2) Requirement to provide photo identification.--\r\n        Paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) shall apply \r\n        with respect to the regularly scheduled general \r\n        election for Federal office held in November 2008 and \r\n        each subsequent election for Federal office.\r\n\r\n           *       *       *       *       *       *       *\r\n\r\n\r\n    MINORITY VIEWS OF RANKING MEMBER JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD OF \r\nCALIFORNIA, REP. ROBERT A. BRADY OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND REP. ZOE LOFGREN \r\n                             OF CALIFORNIA\r\n\r\n                              INTRODUCTION\r\n\r\n    The Committee on House Administration amended and ordered \r\nreported H.R. 4844, the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006, \r\nby a recorded vote of 4-3. The inescapable consequence of \r\nenacting H.R. 4844 will be to decrease the number of citizens \r\nable to vote. Unfortunately the Majority made no effort to \r\ndetermine how many voters will be disenfranchised by this \r\nlegislation. The fact that millions of Americans do not have \r\nthe identification and proof of citizenship that the bill \r\nrequires does not appear to concern the Majority, nor does the \r\nfact that those citizens, who are most likely to lose their \r\nright to vote, are disproportionately the elderly, the disabled \r\nand racial minorities. The Majority has abandoned the \r\nbipartisanship reflected in the previous election legislation \r\nto pursue a partisan agenda. In the view of the Minority, H.R. \r\n4844 will do far more to suppress turnout and intimidate voters \r\nthan to prevent voter fraud, the purported objective of the \r\nMajority. Millions of Americans will be denied their right to \r\nvote because the Majority is rushing this bill to the floor to \r\naddress a problem that is not supported by quantitative or \r\nempirical data to show that real problems exist.\r\n\r\n                   THE REAL FRAUD: VOTER SUPPRESSION\r\n\r\n    What H.R. 4844 does not do is more striking than what it \r\ndoes. For all the concern that the Majority expresses about \r\nprotecting the right to vote, the bill does nothing to stop \r\nvoter suppression or correct the myriad of administrative \r\nproblems that are plaguing our elections and robbing our \r\ncitizens of their right to vote. H.R. 4844, as amended, will do \r\nnothing to stop the intentional forms of voter suppression like \r\nthe instances in 2004 when unsuspecting voters were misinformed \r\nabout the time or place of the election or about the \r\nqualifications for voting. It will not remedy the long lines, \r\nthe misallocated voting equipment or voter registration rules \r\nand election procedures that deny citizens the opportunity to \r\nvote. These are the issues that the Committee should be \r\naddressing.\r\n    Instead the Majority devises a modern day poll tax in the \r\nform of proof of citizenship that will keep eligible citizens \r\nfrom voting. No citizen should have to pay in order to exercise \r\nhis or her Constitutional right to vote. Proof of citizenship \r\nrequirements place on the voter the difficult, time consuming, \r\nand costly burden of obtaining the necessary documentation to \r\nprove citizenship or identity in order to cast a ballot. And \r\nthis burden falls mostly on the elderly, the poor and some \r\nracial minorities. For example, the United States State \r\nDepartment reports that only 23 percent of all Americans \r\npossess a passport and the cost of obtaining one exceeds $100. \r\nA majority of Americans do not currently possess the \r\nidentification required by H.R. 4844, and requiring them to \r\nobtain one imposes an unconstitutional burden on their right to \r\nvote. Some Americans will be unable to acquire the necessary \r\ndocuments at any cost because they lack a birth certificate.\r\n    Instead of making it difficult to vote, our job should be \r\nto promote more broadly civic participation. Instead of \r\nerecting new barriers, we should be devoting our resources to \r\nprosecuting the illegal intimidation tactics that continue to \r\nsurface with each election cycle.\r\n    This legislation will do absolutely nothing to address the \r\nwidespread voter disenfranchisement caused by administrative \r\nincompetence and irrational election rules and procedures. Just \r\ntwo years ago, thousands of voters waited in line for long \r\nhours to cast a ballot because of the misallocation of voting \r\nequipment, or because of the selective interpretation of the \r\nvoting laws for partisan gain.\r\n    No one would disagree with the Majority that voter fraud is \r\nwrong and anyone who breaks the law should be prosecuted to the \r\nfullest extent of the law. Falsely claiming citizenship and \r\nvoting fraud have long been state and federal offenses. And the \r\ncountry has strong laws in place today to address this concern. \r\nFederal law (18 U.S.C. Sec. 611) prohibits non-citizens from \r\nvoting in national elections or from providing false \r\ninformation about citizenship when registering (18 U.S.C. \r\nSec. 911). Both provisions carry prison time and stiff \r\nfinancial penalties. In addition, ever since U.S. immigration \r\nlaws were reformed in 1996, immigrants who try to vote can be \r\ncriminally prosecuted, and after that, are automatically given \r\na one-way ticket out of the country. These laws deter non-\r\ncitizens from registering and voting. That is one reason that \r\nthe Majority was unable to document that illegal voting by non-\r\ncitizens is a problem. Another reason is that non-citizens have \r\nlittle interest in voting and in doing so, exposing themselves \r\nto possible deportation. Burdensome proof of citizenship \r\nrequirements will only penalize U.S. citizens who simply desire \r\nto exercise their Constitutional right to vote.\r\n    H.R. 4844 is a solution in search of a problem, as the \r\ntestimony from our June 2006 hearing attests. The Majority's \r\nown witnesses admitted that the ``need'' for a proof of \r\ncitizenship requirement is not documented by studies or by \r\nempirical data. The question is why the Majority is so willing \r\nto sacrifice the right to vote of millions of Americans to \r\nprevent what even the Majority's own witnesses see are at worst \r\nan occasional and isolated instance of non-citizens voting.\r\n\r\n                               H.R. 4844\r\n\r\n    H.R. 4844, would:\r\n           require an individual to present a \r\n        government issued photo ID in order to cast a ballot \r\n        for the 2008 Federal elections;\r\n           prevent voters from casting a ballot unless \r\n        they offer proof of citizenship in order to vote in \r\n        2010;\r\n           allow for the counting of a provisional \r\n        ballot only if the individual who cast the ballot \r\n        returns to the appropriate election official within 48 \r\n        hours of casting the provisional ballot with the \r\n        required photo ID;\r\n           require anyone other than overseas active \r\n        military personnel to include with their absentee \r\n        ballot a copy of a current and valid government-issued \r\n        photo ID. This has the potential for disenfranchising \r\n        thousands of voters in states like Oregon, which \r\n        conduct all of their elections by mail-in ballots, or \r\n        states that are moving in that direction, like \r\n        Washington state;\r\n           instruct the Election Assistance Commission \r\n        to make payments to the states to cover the cost \r\n        incurred in providing photo ID to certain individuals; \r\n        and\r\n           authorizes appropriations to pay states for \r\n        the cost of providing photo IDs to indigent \r\n        individuals. Citizens who are not indigent would still \r\n        have an out-of-pocket expense, and indigent citizens \r\n        will still need to bear the costs of obtaining proof of \r\n        citizenship to obtain the state-issued photo ID.\r\n\r\n                         DEMOCRATIC ALTERNATIVE\r\n\r\n    Ranking Member Millender-McDonald offered a perfecting \r\namendment in the Committee in the nature of a substitute to \r\nH.R. 4844, which was rejected by the Majority 4-3.\r\n    If adopted, the amendment would have improved voter access \r\nto the polls, prevented election fraud, and supported election \r\nintegrity. The amendment proposed to:\r\n          (1) establish uniform standards for the treatment of \r\n        provisional ballots;\r\n          (2) create uniform standard for treatment of \r\n        provisional ballots cast at incorrect polling places;\r\n          (3) clarify criminal penalties for voter fraud under \r\n        the HAVA;\r\n          (4) codify a Federal Court decision that HAVA \r\n        matching requirements are intended as an administrative \r\n        safeguard, not as a restriction on voter eligibility; \r\n        and\r\n          (5) provide to the states additional fraud prevention \r\n        methods.\r\n    Congresswoman Lofgren offered an amendment that would have \r\nprevented H.R. 4844 from taking effect unless the EAC reports \r\nto Congress on the anticipated impact of the Act on voter \r\nparticipation, and the report concludes that implementation of \r\nH.R. 4844 will not disproportionately affect voter \r\nparticipation by the elderly, disabled and racial minorities. \r\nThis amendment was also rejected 4-3.\r\n    The Federal Elections Commission noted in its 1997 report \r\nto Congress that photo identification entails major expenses, \r\nboth initially and in maintenance. Such a requirement also \r\npresents an undue and potentially discriminatory burden on \r\ncitizens in exercising their basic right to vote.\r\n    Partisan attempts to burden our Nation with troublesome \r\nproof of citizenship requirements are not the direction our \r\nCommittee or the country should be heading. This Committee \r\nshould focus on ensuring that all Americans, who are eligible \r\nto vote, are able to do so without having to wait for many long \r\nhours to cast a ballot. Further, this Committee should be \r\nconcentrating on ways to ensure all Americans that their \r\nballots will be fully accounted for, and their votes will be \r\naccurately counted. The Congress and this Committee should be \r\naddressing the real voter fraud issues, because electoral fraud \r\nperpetrated on Americans: voter intimidation, threats; \r\nmisinformation, and other forms of voter suppression are still \r\ndisenfranchising hundreds of thousands of American citizens \r\ntoday.\r\n\r\n                   CITIZEN GROUPS OPPOSING H.R. 4844\r\n\r\n    To date, we have received testimony and letters from 89 \r\ncitizen groups that vehemently oppose voter ID and proof of \r\ncitizenship requirements to vote. We would like to include the \r\nattached letters of opposition from the following groups:\r\n    A. Philip Randolph Institute.\r\n    ACORN.\r\n    Advancement Project.\r\n    Aguila Youth Leadership Institute.\r\n    Alliance for Retired Americans.\r\n    American Association of People with Disabilities.\r\n    American Association of Retired Persons (AARP).\r\n    American Civil Liberties Union.\r\n    American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.\r\n    American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial \r\nOrganizations (AFL-CIO).\r\n    American Federation of State, County and Municipal \r\nEmployees.\r\n    American Immigration Lawyers Association.\r\n    American Policy Center.\r\n    Americans for Democratic Action.\r\n    Arizona Advocacy Network.\r\n    Arizona Consumers Council.\r\n    Arizona Hispanic Community Forum.\r\n    Arizona Students' Association.\r\n    Asian American Justice Center.\r\n    Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund.\r\n    Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote (APIA Vote).\r\n    Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO.\r\n    Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.\r\n    Center for Digital Democracy.\r\n    Common Cause.\r\n    Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.\r\n    Concerned Foreign Service Officers.\r\n    Congressional Hispanic Caucus.\r\n    Consumer Action.\r\n    Cyber Privacy Project.\r\n    Democratic Women's Working Group.\r\n    Demos: A Network for Ideas &amp; Action.\r\n    Electronic Privacy Information Center.\r\n    Emigrantes Sin Fronteras.\r\n    Fairfax County Privacy Council.\r\n    Friends Committee on National Legislation.\r\n    Hispanic Federation.\r\n    Hispanic National Bar Association.\r\n    Interfaith Worker Justice of Arizona.\r\n    Intertribal Council of Arizona.\r\n    Japanese American Citizens League (JACL).\r\n    La Union Del Pueblo Entero (LUPE).\r\n    Labor Council for Latin American Advancement.\r\n    Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.\r\n    Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.\r\n    League of United Latin American Citizens.\r\n    League of Women Voters of Greater Tucson.\r\n    League of Women Voters of the United States.\r\n    Legal Momentum.\r\n    Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.\r\n    National Association for the Advancement of Colored People \r\n(NAACP).\r\n    National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed \r\nOfficials Educational Fund.\r\n    National Center for Transgender Equality.\r\n    National Congress of American Indians.\r\n    National Council of Jewish Women.\r\n    National Council of La Raza.\r\n    National Disability Rights Network.\r\n    National Education Association.\r\n    National Korean American Service &amp; Education Consortium.\r\n    National Urban League.\r\n    National Voting Rights Institute.\r\n    Navajo Nation.\r\n    New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc.\/NYPIRG.\r\n    Ohio Taxpayers Association &amp; OTA Foundation.\r\n    People for the American Way Foundation.\r\n    Project for Arizona's Future.\r\n    Protection and Advocacy System.\r\n    RainbowPUSH Coalition.\r\n    Republican Liberty Caucus.\r\n    SEIU Local 5 Arizona.\r\n    Service Employees International Union (SEIU).\r\n    Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF).\r\n    Somos America\/We Are America.\r\n    Southwest Voter Registration Education Project.\r\n    The <mark class=\"searchterm-highlight\" data-markjs=\"true\">Multiracial Activist<\/mark>.\r\n    The Rutherford Institute.\r\n    Tohono O'odham Nation.\r\n    Transgender Law Center.\r\n    U.S. PIRG.\r\n    Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.\r\n    United Auto Workers.\r\n    United Church of Christ Justice &amp; Witness Ministries.\r\n    United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and \r\nSociety.\r\n    United States Student Association.\r\n    United Steelworkers.\r\n    UNITE-HERE.\r\n    Velvet Revolution.\r\n    William C. Velasquez Institute.\r\n    YWCA USA.\r\n\r\n                               CONCLUSION\r\n\r\n    The proponents of H.R. 4844 characterize this legislation \r\nmerely as an administrative protection that is simple to \r\nimplement and necessary to prevent fraud. The truth is H.R. \r\n4844 is a draconian measure that will suppress voting and \r\nundermine laws that Congress has passed to assure all citizens \r\nhave a full and equal right to participate. Enacting this law \r\nmeasure will be an affront to all Americans who take pride in \r\nthe progress our country has made in extending the franchise to \r\nall of its citizens and who take offense at the political \r\nmanipulation of our election process.\r\n    Let us not forget, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita forced \r\nnearly 700,000 citizens from the Gulf Coast last year. What \r\nabout the Katrina victims who not only lost houses and jobs, \r\nbut under this bill will lose their right to vote because they \r\nlost the documentation necessary to vote? There will be other \r\nvictims of this ill-conceived legislation including those \r\nbecause of their disability cannot locate the necessary \r\ndocuments or those who were born at home because they were \r\ndenied access to their local hospital or those that are wrongly \r\ndenied by government error, the necessary documentation.\r\n    Democrats along with well intentioned Republicans have \r\nfought for and won the extension of voting rights to eligible \r\nAmericans. During the last century, our country has expanded \r\nthe right to vote to millions of Americans with the passage of \r\nthe 19th amendment giving women the right to vote; the Voting \r\nRights Act of 1965 preventing institutional voter suppression; \r\nthe 26th amendment giving the right to vote to 18 year olds; \r\nthe National Voter Registration Act of 1993; and the Help \r\nAmerica Vote Act of 2002. We will not shirk our responsibility \r\nto defend those gains and we will not let those gains be lost \r\nto undocumented allegations of fraud or to partisan efforts to \r\nsecure a political advantage. The right to vote is too precious \r\nto allow any citizen's vote to be sacrificed to those who would \r\ntreat it carelessly.\r\n\r\n                                   Juanita Millender-McDonald.\r\n                                   Rob A. Brady.\r\n                                   Zoe Lofgren.\r\n\r\n                          MINORITY ATTACHMENTS\r\n\r\n                                                 APIA Vote,\r\n                                Washington, DC, September 15, 2006.\r\nHon. Vernon Ehlers,\r\nChairman, Committee on House Administration,\r\nHouse of Representatives, Washington, DC.\r\nHon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,\r\nRanking Member, Committee on House Administration,\r\nHouse of Representatives, Washington, DC.\r\n    Dear Representatives Ehlers and Millender-McDonald: The \r\nAsian and Pacific Islander American Vote (APIAVote) and the \r\nSouth Asian American Leaders for Tomorrow (SAALT) write to \r\nexpress our grave concerns about the government-issued photo \r\nidentification requirements for voting proposed in H.R. 4844, \r\nthe Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006. If enacted, H.R. \r\n4844 will require every eligible voter to obtain and present \r\ngovernment-issued photo for federal elections in 2008 and \r\nthereafter. H.R. 4844 creates burdensome obstacles to our \r\ndemocratic electoral process and will have a disenfranchising \r\nimpact on the civic participation of eligible Asian Pacific \r\nIslander American (APIA) voters.\r\n    H.R. 4844 will significantly impede the growing trend of \r\nincreased participation by Asian Pacific Islander Americans in \r\nour nation's democracy. Over the past ten years, the number of \r\nAsian Pacific Islander American voters increased from less than \r\none million to 1.98 million, a 118% growth. In 2004 alone, 3.2 \r\nmillion APIAs registered to vote and 85% appeared at the polls \r\non Election Day to cast their ballot and have their ballot \r\ncounted. However, H.R. 4844 imposes administrative barriers \r\nthat would discourage all current eligible voters.\r\n    Furthermore, limited English proficient (LEP) voters may be \r\nless likely to understand the new requirement. Even within \r\njurisdictions with Section 203 coverage under the Voting Rights \r\nAct, this new requirement will take time for APIA LEP voters to \r\nunderstand and comply.\r\n    Proponents of H.R. 4844 claim that the integrity of our \r\ndemocracy is at stake and widespread voter fraud demands the \r\npassage of the drastic proposed measures. However, the United \r\nStates Department of Justice has documented less than 100 \r\nallegations of ballot fraud and far less actual convictions \r\nnationwide. Congress should not respond to these exaggerated \r\nclaims by mandating that every eligible voter obtain and \r\npresent government-issued photo identification, especially when \r\nthere are numerous other measures, such as signature \r\nverification and legally-binding affidavits, that can be \r\nestablished to reinforce fair elections. This misguided piece \r\nof legislation will simply lead to the disenfranchisement of \r\nlimited English proficient voters, immigrant voters, and \r\nminority voters.\r\n    As Congress considers H.R. 4844, we implore to consider \r\nwhether the legislation advances our democracy, promotes civic \r\nengagement, and restores confidence in the electoral process. \r\nIf H.R. 4844 disenfranchises even one eligible voter, which it \r\nwill surely do if enacted, then it is a great disservice to the \r\nprinciples of our society.\r\n                                ------                                \r\n\r\n                               People for the American Way,\r\n                                Washington, DC, September 14, 2006.\r\nHouse of Representatives, Washington, DC.\r\n    Dear Committee Member: On behalf of the more than 900,000 \r\nmembers and activists of People for the American Way, we urge \r\nyou to stand up for the right of all citizens to fully \r\nparticipate in our democratic society and oppose measures, such \r\nas H.R. 4844, or other proof of citizenship or voter ID \r\nrequirements, that seek to erect barriers to the ballot. Our \r\nAmerican democracy is one of inclusion that thrives on the \r\ndiversity of our populace and the full participation of its \r\ncitizenry. Overly burdensome and unnecessary voter ID and proof \r\nof citizenship requirements are an anathema to this ideal and \r\nonly serve to alienate and disenfranchise eligible citizens.\r\n    Election Fraud\r\n    Fraud takes many forms. While proponents of H.R. 4844 and \r\nother voter ID requirements claim to be addressing the \r\nexistence of massive ``voter fraud,'' particularly by illegal \r\nimmigrants; to date, there are no credible reports of \r\nsignificant fraud to support the need for such restrictive \r\nproposals. While it is true that the integrity of the electoral \r\nprocess must be protected, this can only be done by addressing \r\nactual problems that truly serve to undermine voter confidence. \r\nThis necessarily includes procedures and actions by individuals \r\nand election administrators that will prevent eligible voters \r\nfrom participating in the electoral process. Voter intimidation \r\nand harassment of voters at the polls are some of the more \r\nobvious forms of activities that disenfranchise voters and \r\ncontribute to fraud in our election process. Other actions such \r\nas election officials removing eligible voters from the \r\nregistration rolls, the destruction of voter registration cards \r\nbecause of registrants' political affiliation, or the mass \r\nchallenging of minority voters at the polling places are other \r\nfraudulent activities that must be addressed. Any definition \r\nthat is not sufficiently broad to include such activities \r\nprevents decision makers from devising appropriate solutions.\r\n    Proof of Citizenship Requirements\r\n    Proof of citizenship requirements are unnecessary. Those \r\nregistering to vote are already required to take an oath of \r\ncitizenship. The extra requirement for providing documents only \r\ncreates an additional hurdle for voters.\r\n    Unfortunately, proposals to require proof of citizenship \r\nare often a way to disguise racist and anti-immigrant sentiment \r\nand only serve to disenfranchise eligible citizens. This is \r\nbecause proponents know that proof of citizenship requirements \r\nare impossible for members of some communities to acquire and \r\nvery hard for others. For instance, in certain parts of the \r\ncountry, elderly African Americans and many Native Americans \r\nwere born at home, under the care ofelderly African Americans \r\nand many Native Americans were born at home, under the care of \r\nmidwives, and do not possess birth certificates. People of color, \r\npeople with disabilities, elderly people, young people, and low-income \r\ncitizens are among the demographic groups least likely to have \r\ndocuments in their possession to prove citizenship. Furthermore for \r\nvictims of natural disasters like hurricane Katrina, it may be \r\nimpossible to obtain birth certificates or other documents because they \r\nhave been destroyed.\r\n    Legislation such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the \r\nHelp America Vote Act have made it easier for all citizens to \r\nvote, and have resulted in increased voter participation by \r\nLatinos and other minorities. This progress should be continued \r\nand we should not allow retrogressive proposals like \r\nProposition 200 or others to turn back the progress of these \r\nsignificant civil rights laws.\r\n\r\nVoter Identification Requirements\r\n\r\n    Restrictive voter ID requirements are similarly unnecessary \r\nand harmful. Like proof of citizenship requirements, such voter \r\nID requirements impose a severe burden and are likely to \r\ndisenfranchise poor, minority, elderly and young voters, who \r\nare less likely to have photo identification and move more \r\nfrequently. The data is clear:\r\n          Approximately 6 to 10% of the American \r\n        electorate does not have any form of state \r\n        identification.\r\n          African Americans are four to five times less \r\n        likely than whites to have photo identification.\r\n          Young adults (age 20-29) move almost 6 times \r\n        more frequently than adults over 55, and minorities \r\n        move 50% more frequently than whites.\r\n          In Georgia, It is estimated that nearly 40% \r\n        of seniors lack photo identification.\r\n    Instead of addressing unsubstantiated voter fraud, such \r\nrestrictive voting measures erect barriers to the ballot and \r\nare likely to be enforced in discriminatory ways against poor \r\nand minority voters to intimidate, misinform, stigmatize, and \r\nultimately suppress the vote.\r\n\r\nReal Solutions\r\n\r\n    Even if fraud were a problem, there are positive steps that \r\nstates can take to lessen the threat of fraud and protect the \r\nintegrity of the ballot box without risking disenfranchising \r\nvoters, such as implementing statewide voter registration \r\ndatabases as mandated by HA VA. Additional ``fraud-protection'' \r\nmeasures could include accurate cleansing of voter registration \r\nrolls, verification of voters' unique identifying numbers, in-\r\nperson affirmation, signature comparison, and finally, the \r\nvigorous prosecution of any cases of election fraud. These are \r\nreal solutions to actual documented problems.\r\n\r\nConclusion\r\n\r\n    Since the 2000 Presidential Election, our sister \r\norganization, People For the American Way Foundation, has been \r\na leader in the Election Protection Coalition along with its \r\nallies the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights under Law and \r\nthe NAACP. Integral to Election Protection was the deployment \r\nof thousands of volunteers across the country to serve as poll \r\nmonitors to assist voters and document the problems voters \r\nfaced as they attempted to exercise their right to vote. The \r\ndata collected from volunteers and voters through reports from \r\nthe field and through the Election Protection Hotline clearly \r\nevidence a need for election officials to address the real \r\nproblems created by voter harassment and intimidation, the lack \r\nof machines at low-income and minority poll sites, improperly \r\ntrained poll workers and the creation of overly burdensome \r\nvoter registration procedures by partisan election officials, \r\njust to name a few. These are the real problems that deserve \r\nthe priority of election officials. Only then can we truly \r\nmaintain the integrity of our electoral system and protect the \r\nright to vote of all eligible citizens. Voter ID and proof of \r\ncitizenship proposals are simply forms of a 21st century poll \r\ntax that have no business in our electoral process. The right \r\nto vote is fundamental and Congress should be focused on ways \r\nto open the franchise to all eligible citizens. PFAW looks \r\nforward to working with Congress to protect this right to vote \r\nfor all Americans.\r\n            Sincerely,\r\n                                   Ralph G. Neas,\r\n                                           President.\r\n                                   Tanya Clay House,\r\n                                           Director, Public Policy.\r\n                                ------                                \r\n\r\n                             Congress of the United States,\r\n                                Washington, DC, September 14, 2006.\r\nHon. Vernon J. Ehlers,\r\nChairman, House of Representatives,\r\nCommittee on House Administration, Washington, DC.\r\nHon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,\r\nRanking Member, House of Representatives,\r\nCommittee on House Administration, Washington, DC.\r\n    Dear Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald: \r\nAs Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, we write to \r\nexpress our opposition to H.R. 4844, the Federal Election \r\nIntegrity Act of 2006. This legislation, purporting to secure \r\nour electoral system against fraud, is merely a backdoor effort \r\nto intimidate and disenfranchise otherwise eligible voters. As \r\nwe have said before to this committee, it is regrettable that \r\nonce again two unrelated issues--non-citizens and voting \r\nfraud--are linked in the public's mind to create a controversy \r\nwere none exists.\r\n    We hold a longstanding opposition to identification \r\nrequirement as part of the voting process. For some time we \r\nhave heard of the need for a photo identification requirement \r\nas a necessary tool to combat fraud. However, there is no \r\nevidence of widespread fraud in any recent election, in \r\nparticular any linked to non-citizens voting in federal \r\nelections. In those instances when a violation occurred, our \r\njudicial system has responded swiftly.\r\n    While a photo identification requirement at the polls seems \r\nentirely reasonable, it is important to note that some people \r\nsimply do not possess photo identification. For example, in the \r\nLatino community, there are many low-income households in which \r\nno one possesses a car, and certainly not a driver's license, \r\nlet alone a passport. There are people in such households who \r\ndo not even possess alternatives to photo identification, such \r\nas utility bills or government checks in their name. For such \r\nlow-income individuals, the cost of obtaining photo \r\nidentification is itself a burden, and such a requirement is \r\nall too reminiscent of past barriers to voting.\r\n    Requiring any form of identification at the polling place \r\nwould inevitably create similar barriers and hurdles for racial \r\nand ethnic minority voters and would have a chilling effect on \r\nvoter participation. Identification provisions have rightfully \r\nbeen prohibited because of the disparate impact they have on \r\nminority electoral participation. In addition, it would have a \r\ndevastating effect on rural voters, as well as the elderly and \r\ndisabled. As responsible policy makers, we need to consider \r\nwhether the proposed remedy to a problem will cause greater \r\nharm than good. If in our efforts to prevent fraud we impose a \r\nburdensome requirement, then we have not created good policy.\r\n    This legislation, H.R. 4844, goes further than simply \r\nrequiring photo identification and would amend the P.L. 103-31, \r\nthe National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), to make proof-of-\r\ncitizenship a federal requirement for voting in states that \r\nrequire registration. This presents several problems in that if \r\nimproperly implemented, a voter ID law would likely violate \r\nother federal voting rights laws such as the Voting Rights Act \r\nof 1965 and the Help America Vote Act of 2002. In addition, \r\nstates would have to create new forms and a new system to \r\ncapture registrations by mail, otherwise they would be non-\r\ncompliant with the law the bill intends to amend, NVRA. \r\nMoreover, it would fail to stop fraud that could occur via \r\nmail-in voting or by the use of absentee ballots.\r\n    Currently, federal voter registration forms allow persons \r\nto attest to the fact that they are citizens. If H.R. 4844 were \r\nimplemented, the requirements would be akin to imposing a \r\nmodern-day poll tax because citizens would now have to pay to \r\nsecure documents to prove what they have already confirmed via \r\nattestation, that they are indeed citizens. For persons of \r\nlimited means, the prospect of spending $85 for a passport or \r\ntime locating a birth certificate could easily discourage them \r\nfrom voting at all. In the case of naturalized citizens, this \r\nrequirement is problematic in that the Department of Homeland \r\nSecurity makes it punishable by law to ``copy, print, or \r\nphotograph'' a citizenship certificate. Any naturalized citizen \r\nwould be in violation of one law in an attempt to comply with \r\nanother. No individual should have to make that choice.\r\n    The negative consequence of some measures ostensibly \r\ndesigned to combat fraud is the disenfranchisement of \r\nlegitimate voters. Any anti-fraud measure should pass a test \r\nthat asks how much fraud the measure will prevent and how many \r\nlegitimate voters will be prevented from voting. If the latter \r\nnumber is greater than the former, then the measure fails the \r\ntest.\r\n    We urge you to consider the risks inherent in \r\nidentification requirements and to oppose this bill in \r\nparticular.\r\n            Sincerely,\r\n                                   Grace Flores Napolitano,\r\n                                           Chair, Congressional \r\n                                               Hispanic Caucus.\r\n                                   Charles A. Gonzalez,\r\n                                           Chair, CHC Civil Rights Task \r\n                                               Force.\r\n                                ------                                \r\n\r\n             NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.\r\n                                  New York, NY, September 13, 2006.\r\nHon. Vernon Ehlers,\r\nChairman, Committee on House Administration,\r\nHouse of Representatives, Washington, DC.\r\nHon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,\r\nRanking Member, Committee on House Administration,\r\nHouse of Representatives, Washington, DC.\r\n    Dear Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald: \r\nThe NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) strongly \r\nopposes H.R. 4844, the ``Federal Election Integrity Act of \r\n2006.''\r\n    H.R. 4844 would prohibit qualified voters from voting in \r\nelections if they do not have a government-issued form of photo \r\nidentification, which in turn requires individual voters to \r\nfurnish proof of citizenship or a copy (in most states, a \r\ncertified copy) of a document proving citizenship. H.R. 4844 \r\nwill disproportionately affect poor, racial minority, disabled, \r\nhomeless, and elderly voters by erecting a new, costly, \r\nunnecessary, and unjustifiable barrier to voting. We urge you \r\nto vote against this measure.\r\n    We are particularly concerned that the requirements of H.R. \r\n4844 will have a disproportionate effect on low-income Black \r\nvoters. As evidenced by Hurricane Katrina, poor voters impacted \r\nby circumstances outside of their control are often unable to \r\nobtain the documents required for government issued \r\nidentification because they are destroyed or otherwise \r\nunavailable. These same voters should not be denied access to \r\nthe polling place under such circumstances.\r\n    In addition, many of the underlying documents required to \r\nobtain government issued photo identification are unavailable \r\nto poor and elderly minority voters who disproportionately \r\neither (a) did not receive a birth certificate at the time of \r\nbirth or (b) do not have a certified copy of their birth \r\ncertificate at their disposal. Under the provisions of H.R. \r\n4844, these otherwise eligible voters would be disfranchised.\r\n    LDF opposes any measure that attempts to impose a fee in \r\norder to exercise the fundamental right to vote. Persistent \r\nattempts to mask an unconstitutional poll tax by shifting the \r\npayment window from the poll house door to the Department of \r\nMotor Vehicles (when a fee is charged for a state \r\nidentification card), or the Department of Health (when a fee \r\nis charged to obtain a copy of a birth certificate) does not \r\nalter the disproportionately prohibitive nature of such costs \r\nto poor, minority, and elderly voters.\r\n    Finally, the proponents of H.R. 4844 simply have not \r\nproffered sufficient evidence of ``unchecked fraud'' to justify \r\nthe prohibitive impact of H.R. 4844 on eligible voters. Thus, \r\nthere is no need for Congress to remedy a problem that has not \r\nbeen demonstrated to exist in any widespread fashion. Moreover, \r\nas a practical matter, state penalties for fraudulent voting, \r\nas well as the onerous task of identifying and locating a voter \r\nto impersonate, and then casting an illegal ballot without \r\nsuspicion, adequately curtail the number of ineligible persons, \r\nif any, attempting to vote by misrepresenting their identity at \r\nthe polls. Although the government must guard against voter \r\nfraud, electoral integrity is not achieved when eligible voters \r\nare denied access to the core of our democracy: the fundamental \r\nright to vote.\r\n    The right to vote, recognized by the United States Supreme \r\nCourt as the ``civil right of the highest order,'' is \r\npreservative of all other rights. New voting rights challenges, \r\nlike photo identification requirements, threaten to undermine \r\nthe legitimacy of our democracy. The recent Voting Rights Act \r\nrenewal focused on the shared goal of protecting the \r\nfundamental right to vote. Congress should not now enact \r\nlegislation that will have the effect of excluding the same \r\neligible voters the VRA protects.\r\n            Sincerely,\r\n                                          Theodore M. Shaw,\r\n                                    Director-Counsel and President.\r\n    Cc: All House Administration Committee Members.\r\n                                ------                                \r\n\r\n                                             NAACP,\r\n                                         Washington Bureau,\r\n                                Washington, DC, September 13, 2006.\r\nHon. Vernon Ehlers,\r\nChairman, Committee on House Administration,\r\nHouse of Representatives, Washington, DC.\r\nHon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,\r\nRanking Member, Committee on House Administration,\r\nHouse of Representatives, Washington, DC.\r\n    Dear Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald: \r\nOn behalf of the NAACP, our nation's oldest and largest \r\ngrassroots based civil rights organization, I write to express \r\nour strong opposition to H.R. 4844, the misnamed, ``Federal \r\nElection Integrity Act of 2006.'' If implemented, HR. 4844 \r\nwould require all voters to obtain and present a government-\r\nissued photo ID that proves their citizenship in order to vote \r\nbeginning in 2008. We are convinced in doing so, H.R. 4844 \r\nwould facilitate and in some cases even encourage \r\ndiscrimination against racial and ethnic minorities, as well as \r\nthe elderly and the poor at polling places and prevent many \r\neligible voters across the country from participating in our \r\nsacredly held democratic practice of voting. To add insult to \r\ninjury, it would do little too nothing to prevent actual \r\ninstances of voter fraud. The so-called Federal Election \r\nIntegrity Act, would only exacerbate the already existing \r\nproblem of voter non-participation by erroneously removing or \r\ndiscouraging countless eligible voters from the process. We \r\nurge you, in the strongest possible terms, to oppose this ill-\r\nconceived measure and work to defeat it's passage in the U.S. \r\nHouse of Representatives.\r\n    Upon closer examination, H.R. 4844 re-creates new obstacles \r\nin voting akin to a modern day ``poll-tax'' by forcing U.S \r\ncitizens to ``pay'' for government approved ID that many of our \r\nmost vulnerable citizens do not have or cannot easily obtain to \r\nprove their citizenship such as passports or birth \r\ncertificates. The bill attempts to address this problem by \r\nincluding a weak and ineffective provision to cover the cost of \r\nID's for voters who cannot afford them. The NAACP strongly \r\nbelieves that crucial voting rights should never depend on the \r\ntenuous appropriations process. Moreover, citizens would still \r\nbe faced with the expense and time involved in getting the \r\ndocumentation required to obtain ID. As such, while the 1964 \r\nVoting Rights Act eliminated our nation's racially \r\ndiscriminatory poll taxes, H.R. 4844 effectively brings them \r\nback.\r\n    To add to our concerns about this misguided bill, we are \r\nconvinced that the criterion for establishing proof of \r\ncitizenship may be impossible for some of ourcitizens to \r\nestablish. Until recently, it was common in certain parts of the \r\ncountry for people to be born at home without obtaining an official \r\nbirth certificate. If H.R. 4844 were to become law, these American \r\ncitizens would be completely disenfranchised.\r\n    The requirement that all voters present a photo ID before \r\nbeing able to cast a regular ballot will disproportionately \r\ndisenfranchise African Americans and other racial and ethnic \r\nminority Americans, as well as, the elderly, individuals with \r\ndisabilities, Americans living in rural areas, Native American \r\nvoters, the homeless, and low-income people who are less likely \r\nto have or carry a photo ID.\r\n    Supporters of H.R. 4844 erroneously argue that it is \r\nnecessary to require photo IDs and proof of citizenship in \r\norder to combat voter fraud, however nationwide evidence \r\nclearly establishes that current anti-fraud laws work. \r\nMoreover, while there is no question that election misconduct \r\nexists, including improper purges of voters, distributing false \r\ninformation about when and where to vote, stuffing ballot \r\nboxes, and tampering with registration forms, there is no \r\nevidence that the type of fraud that H.R. 4844 purports to \r\naddress--voters who misrepresent their identity--is anything \r\nbut an anomaly. Quite frankly, it has been clearly documented \r\nthat our nation's biggest problems with voter fraud are because \r\nof the illegal activities of election officials and not those \r\nof the American people exercising their constitutional right to \r\ncast an unfettered vote of their own free will and have that \r\nvote counted.\r\n    Misguided legislative proposals like the so-called, \r\n``Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006'' represent some of \r\nthe greatest threats to fair and equal voting rights \r\nprotections today.\r\n    In July of this year, Congress passed the historic \r\nreauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, ``the Fannie Lou \r\nHamer, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act \r\nReauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 protecting the right \r\nto vote for millions of Americans for many years to come. This \r\nimportant, bi-partisan, victory would be undermined by H.R. \r\n4844, which would disenfranchise many of the very citizens that \r\nthe VRA is designed to protect.\r\n    Thank you in advance for your consideration of this issue \r\nand for your attention to the concerns of the NAACP. We look \r\nforward to working with you to defeat this truly problematic \r\nbill. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me.\r\n            Sincerely,\r\n                                         Hilary O. Shelton,\r\n                                                          Director.\r\n                                ------                                \r\n\r\n                                     National Urban League,\r\n                                Washington, DC, September 13, 2006.\r\nHon. Vernon Ehlers,\r\nChairman, Committee on House Administration\r\nHouse of Representatives, Washington, DC.\r\nHon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,\r\nRanking Member, Committee on House Administration,\r\nHouse of Representatives, Washington, DC.\r\n    Dear Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald: \r\nAs President and CEO of the National Urban League, I am writing \r\nto express our strong opposition to H.R. 4844, the ``Federal \r\nElection Integrity Act of 2006.'' H.R. 4844 would require all \r\nvoters, beginning with the 2006 general election in less than \r\neight weeks, to obtain and show proof of citizenship prior to \r\nregistering to vote, and obtain and show a photo ID prior to \r\ncasting a ballot. H.R. 4844 is being sold as a measure to \r\nreduce voter fraud--in reality, it would encourage \r\ndiscrimination and prevent many eligible voters from exercising \r\nthe most sacred and important civil right they have, the right \r\nto vote.\r\n    The National Urban League considers proof-of-citizenship \r\nrequirements a 21st century poll tax. No citizen should have to \r\npay money to register to vote. Proof-of-citizenship \r\nrequirements invariably put the burden--including the financial \r\nburden--on U.S. citizens. While it would be great if all \r\ncitizens had documents such as a passport or a birth \r\ncertificate readily available, the truth is that many do not, \r\nwhich means that they would have to pay for them in order to \r\nvote.\r\n    A birth certificate usually costs $10 to $15. Only 25-27 \r\npercent of eligible Americans have passports, which now cost \r\n$97. Naturalization papers, if they must be replaced, cost \r\n$210. H.R. 4844 makes no provision for citizens who lack the \r\nmoney to pay for these documents, meaning that the right to \r\nvote will likely become ``unaffordable'' for some citizens. \r\nThis is why a federal district court recently characterized \r\nGeorgia's similar photo ID law as a ``poll tax.''\r\n    The National Urban League was a strong advocate and worked \r\ntirelessly to help enact the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and \r\nCoretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and \r\nAmendments Act of 2006. We believe that the right to vote, and \r\nto have those votes counted, is the most important civil right \r\nof all. Proposals like H.R. 4844, while possibly appealing on \r\nthe surface, are one of the greatest threats to fair and equal \r\nvoting rights today. We should be focusing on encouraging full \r\nparticipation of our citizenry, not developing ways to limit \r\nthe precious right to vote.\r\n    H.R. 4844 takes a misguided approach that will inherently \r\ndisenfranchise large numbers of legal voters. Instead of \r\nsafeguarding elections, H.R. 4844's requirements would \r\nundermine confidence in the fairness of the outcomes.\r\n    H.R. 4844 will disproportionately affect people of color, \r\nthe elderly, individuals with disabilities, rural and Native \r\nvoters, the homeless, low-income people, and married women. \r\nProof of citizenship may be impossible for some people to \r\nobtain, and very hard for others. In certain parts of the \r\ncountry, for example, elderly African Americans and many Native \r\nAmericans were born at homeunder the care of midwives, and do \r\nnot possess birth certificates. People of color, people with \r\ndisabilities, the elderly, young, and people who live in poverty are \r\namong the groups least likely to have documents to prove they are U.S. \r\ncitizens.\r\n    The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that \r\nbetween 6-12 percent of voters nationally do not have a \r\ngovernment-issued photo ID. A number of other studies have \r\ndocumented that certain segments of the population are far less \r\nlikely to have a photo ID than other Americans. A University of \r\nWisconsin study found that nearly 50 percent of African \r\nAmerican and Latino men in Milwaukee do not have a government-\r\nissued photo ID.\r\n    Even if they have valid ID, many eligible voters will be \r\nturned away. H.R. 4844 will place an inordinate amount of \r\ndiscretion in the hands of overworked (and sometimes poorly \r\ntrained) poll workers. Deciding whether a voter matches or does \r\nnot match the photo in an ID card--which can be many years \r\nold--is a very subjective process and prone to mistakes or \r\nworse. In addition, if an ID card does not contain the voter's \r\ncurrent address, which is true of millions of Americans, he or \r\nshe will probably be turned away from the polls. Because H.R. \r\n4844 does not explain how disputes over the validity of ID \r\nshould be settled, and because it will keep voters who don't \r\nhave a so-called ``valid'' ID from obtaining provisional \r\nballots, it will enable racial and ethnic discrimination at \r\npolling places.\r\n    Our current lows work when properly enforced. Falsely \r\nclaiming citizenship and voting fraudulently have long been \r\nfederal offenses. Voter ID fraud is a surprisingly rare \r\nproblem. There is no evidence that the type of fraud that H.R. \r\n4844 supposedly addresses--voters who misrepresent their \r\nidentity--is anything but an anomaly. For example:\r\n          In Ohio, a statewide survey found four \r\n        instances of ineligible persons voting or attempting to \r\n        vote in 2002 and 2004, out of 9,078,728 votes cast--a \r\n        rate of 0.00004%.\r\n          Despite the invocation of fraud as support \r\n        for the new Georgia law, Secretary of State Cathy Cox \r\n        stated that in her ten-year tenure, she could not \r\n        recall one documented case of voter fraud involving the \r\n        impersonation of a registered voter at the polls.\r\n          Nationwide, since October 2002, 86 \r\n        individuals have been convicted of federal crimes \r\n        relating to election fraud (including several offenses \r\n        not remedied by ID requirements), while 196,139,871 \r\n        ballots have been cast in federal general elections.\r\n    Proof-of-citizenship requirements will only serve to burden \r\nU.S. citizens who want to exercise their right to vote. The \r\nNational Urban League therefore strongly urges that you oppose \r\nH.R. 4844. If you have any questions, please contact Stephanie \r\nJones, Executive Director, National Urban League Policy \r\nInstitute.\r\n            Sincerely,\r\n                                            Marc H. Morial,\r\n                          President and CEO, National Urban League.\r\n                                ------                                \r\n\r\n                                                September 13, 2006.\r\nHon. Vernon Ehlers,\r\nChairman, House Administration Committee,\r\nWashington, DC.\r\nHon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,\r\nRanking Member, House Administration Committee,\r\nWashington, DC.\r\n    Dear Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald: \r\nOn behalf of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational \r\nFund (MALDEF), the Asian American Justice Center (AAJC), the \r\nNational Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials \r\n(NALEO) Educational Fund, the League of United Latin American \r\nCitizens (LULAC), the Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA), \r\nthe Southwest Voter Registration Education Project (SWVREP), \r\nthe William C. Velazquez Institute (WCVI), and the National \r\nCouncil of La Raza (NCLR), we write to express our strong \r\nopposition to the substitute amendment to the ``Federal \r\nElection Integrity Act of 2006'' (H.R. 4844) sponsored by \r\nCongressman Ehlers. Our organizations have grave concerns that \r\nthe proposed legislation would deny the franchise to untold \r\nnumbers of U.S. citizens who are otherwise eligible to vote, \r\nand that its burdens would be borne disproportionately by the \r\npoor, the elderly, and racial and ethnic minorities.\r\n    H.R. 4844 would require voters to present government-issued \r\nphoto identification for which the individual was required to \r\nprovide proof of U.S. citizenship in order to receive a ballot \r\nin any election for federal office, beginning in November 2008. \r\nThe primary government-issued photo identification that \r\ncurrently provides proof of citizenship is a U.S. passport, a \r\ncostly document that many eligible voters do not possess.\r\n    While the cost of citizenship and identification documents \r\nmay seem negligible to some, it represents a significant burden \r\nto many Americans. While H.R. 4844 contains a provision that \r\nwould require states to provide photo identification at no cost \r\nto ``indigent individuals,'' this does not cure the \r\ndisproportionate burden of H.R. 4844 upon many poor, working, \r\nracial and ethnic minority, and elderly voters. Many eligible \r\nvoters do not currently possess the documentation required to \r\nprove citizenship to the state agency charged with issuing the \r\nnew photo identification and will disproportionately suffer the \r\ncosts and burdens of securing this documentation. Further, \r\nsecuring the required state-issued voter identification card \r\n(which would only be used in voting) presents costs and burdens \r\nin lost wages, travel time, transportation costs, etc., that \r\nalso present significant and disproportionate barriers to \r\nregistration for many voters.\r\n    Given the costs and difficulty of obtaining documents, \r\nlegislation mandating these documents to register or to vote \r\namounts to an impermissible ``poll tax'' by requiring otherwise \r\nqualified voters to essentially pay a fee as a condition of \r\nvoting, in violation of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the U.S. \r\nConstitution. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Harper v. Virginia \r\nState Bd. of Elections, noted that voting requirements run \r\nafoul of the Constitution whenever they make ``the affluence of \r\nthe voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter \r\nqualifications have no relation to wealth.''\r\n    Since the implementation of Arizona's proof of citizenship \r\nrequirement in 2005, more than 20,000 voter registration \r\napplications have been rejected solely for failure to provide \r\nthe necessary proof of citizenship documentation. Many \r\nthousands of eligible voters who went through the trouble of \r\ncompleting the voter registration form, executing the necessary \r\noaths under penalty of law, and submitting the form to the \r\nCounty Recorder were rejected simply because they failed to \r\nattach a document proving their citizenship.\r\n    Community-based voter registration drives have been \r\neffectively terminated throughout the state, severely hampering \r\nthe ability of new voters to register and participate in \r\nelections. Most volunteer voter registrars cannot carry a \r\nphotocopy machine to malls, churches and fairs in order to \r\nphotocopy the necessary documents on behalf of eligible voters. \r\nMost voter registration applicants do not, in fact, carry \r\ndocumentary proof of citizenship while out shopping or \r\nworshiping.\r\n    In addition, testimony at a recent federal court hearing on \r\nArizona's proof of citizenship requirement revealed that it \r\nplaces significant burdens upon county election officials \r\nbecause they must attempt to verify citizenship documents and \r\ntrack down voter registration applicants who are required to \r\nprovide more information to the county in order to be added to \r\nthe rolls.\r\n    H.R. 4844 presents an unacceptable risk of denying the vote \r\nto otherwise eligible voters. At the same time, there is simply \r\nno good evidence that voter fraud by non-citizens constitutes a \r\ngenuine or widespread problem--and certainly not on a scale to \r\njustify a response that is so costly, heavy-handed, and \r\ndiscriminatory in effect. In Arizona, for example, there is not \r\na single documented case of a non-citizen intentionally and \r\nfraudulently registering to vote. Proof of citizenship \r\nrequirements are quite simply a solution in search of a \r\nproblem.\r\n    H.R. 4844 would impermissibly burden the fundamental right \r\nto vote, the basis of our democratic system. Requiring voters \r\nto purchase documents in order to exercise the franchise is as \r\nmuch an affront today as it was when the Supreme Court issued \r\nits Harper ruling 40 years ago. On behalf of those Americans \r\nwho would disproportionately bear this burden, we urge you to \r\noppose this damaging proposal. For further information, please \r\ncontact Peter Zamora, MALDEF Legislative Attorney.\r\n            Sincerely,\r\n    Asian American Justice Center.\r\n    Hispanic National Bar Association.\r\n    League of United Latin American Citizens.\r\n    Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.\r\n    National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed \r\nOfficials Educational Fund.\r\n    National Council of La Raza.\r\n    Southwest Voter Registration Education Project.\r\n    William C. Velasquez Institute.\r\n                                ------                                \r\n\r\n                     Leadership Conference on Civil Rights,\r\n                                Washington, DC, September 13, 2006.\r\nHon. Vernon Ehlers,\r\nChairman, Committee on House Administration,\r\nHouse of Representatives, Washington, DC.\r\nHon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,\r\nRanking Member, Committee on House Administration,\r\nHouse of Representatives, Washington, DC.\r\n    Dear Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald: \r\nWe, the undersigned organizations, write to express our strong \r\nopposition to H.R. 4844, ``Federal Election Integrity Act of \r\n2006.'' H.R. 4844 would require all voters, beginning in 2010, \r\nto obtain and show government-issued photo ID that proves their \r\ncitizenship in order to vote. In doing so, H.R. 4844 would \r\nencourage racial and ethnic discrimination at polling places \r\nand prevent many eligible voters across the country from \r\nparticipating in our democracy, while doing nothing to combat \r\ngenuine instances of voter fraud. H.R. 4844 would only serve to \r\nskew election results by removing countless eligible voters \r\nfrom the process. We urge you to vote against this ill-\r\nconceived measure.\r\n    In July of this year, Congress passed the historic \r\nreauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, ``The Fannie Lou \r\nHamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act \r\nReauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006,'' protecting the \r\nright to vote for millions of Americans for many years to come. \r\nThis important, bi-partisan, victory would be undermined by a \r\nnew measure to disenfranchise some of the very citizens that \r\nthe VRA is designed to protect.\r\n    First, no citizen should have to pay to vote. Many U.S. \r\ncitizens either do not have or cannot easily access documents \r\nthat prove their citizenship such as a passport or birth \r\ncertificate. Attempts to cover the cost of ID for voters who \r\ncannot afford them are not sufficient, as our most cherished \r\ncivil right should never depend on annual appropriations \r\ndecisions. Moreover, citizens would still be faced with the \r\nexpense and time involved in getting the documentation required \r\nto obtain ID. Thus, while the Voting Rights Act eliminated poll \r\ntaxes, H.R. 4844 brings them back.\r\n    In addition, proof of citizenship may be impossible for \r\nsome people to obtain. Until recently, it was common in certain \r\nparts of the country for people to be born at home, without \r\nobtaining an official birth certificate. If H.R. 4844 were to \r\nbecome law, these American citizens would be completely \r\ndisenfranchised.\r\n    The requirement that all voters present a photo ID before \r\nbeing able to cast a regular ballot will disproportionately \r\ndisenfranchise people of color, the elderly, individuals with \r\ndisabilities, rural and Native voters, the homeless, low-income \r\npeople, and married women, who are less likely to carry a photo \r\nID. Photo ID requirements also build an enormous amount of \r\ndiscretion into the balloting process, thus creating \r\nopportunities for discrimination at the polls against racial, \r\nethnic, and language minority voters.\r\n    Further, while supporters of H.R. 4844 argue that it is \r\nnecessary to require photo IDs and proof of citizenship in \r\norder to combat voter fraud, the evidence clearly establishes \r\nthat current anti-fraud laws work. Moreover, while there is no \r\nquestion that election misconduct exists, including improper \r\npurges of voters, distributing false information about when and \r\nwhere to vote, stuffing ballot boxes, and tampering with \r\nregistration forms, there is no evidence that the type of fraud \r\nthat H.R. 4844 purports to address--voters who misrepresent \r\ntheir identity--is anything but an anomaly.\r\n    The right to vote, and to have your vote counted, is the \r\nmost important civil right of all. Proposals like H.R. 4844 are \r\none of the greatest threats to fair and equal voting rights \r\ntoday. Congress should be in the business of encouraging full \r\nparticipation of our citizenry, not developing ways to limit \r\nthe right to vote.\r\n    For these reasons, we strongly urge you to oppose H.R. \r\n4844. If you have any questions, please contact Rob Randhava, \r\nLCCR Counsel, Tanya Clay House of People For the American Way, \r\nor Jonah Goldman of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under \r\nLaw.\r\n            Sincerely,\r\n    Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.\r\n    A. Philip Randolph Institute.\r\n    AARP.\r\n    ACORN.\r\n    Alliance for Retired Americans.\r\n    American Association of People with Disabilities.\r\n    American Civil Liberties Union.\r\n    American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial \r\nOrganizations.\r\n    American Federation of State, County and Municipal \r\nEmployees.\r\n    Americans for Democratic Action.\r\n    Asian American Justice Center.\r\n    Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund.\r\n    Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO.\r\n    Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.\r\n    Center for Digital Democracy.\r\n    Common Cause.\r\n    Consumer Action.\r\n    Demos: A Network for Ideas &amp; Action.\r\n    Friends Committee on National Legislation.\r\n    Hispanic Federation.\r\n    Labor Council for Latin American Advancement.\r\n    Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.\r\n    League of Women Voters of the United States.\r\n    Legal Momentum.\r\n    Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.\r\n    National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.\r\n    National Center for Transgender Equality.\r\n    National Congress of American Indians.\r\n    National Council of Jewish Women.\r\n    National Council of La Raza.\r\n    National Education Association.\r\n    National Voting Rights Institute.\r\n    People For the American Way.\r\n    RainbowPUSH Coalition.\r\n    Transgender Law Center.\r\n    Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.\r\n    UNITE-HERE.\r\n    United Auto Workers.\r\n    United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and \r\nSociety.\r\n    United States Student Association.\r\n    United Steelworkers.\r\n    YWCA USA.\r\n                                ------                                \r\n\r\n                             Asian American Justice Center,\r\n                                                September 13, 2006.\r\nHon. Vernon Ehlers,\r\nChairman, Committee on House Administration,\r\nHouse of Representatives, Washington, DC.\r\nHon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,\r\nRanking Member, Committee on House Administration,\r\nHouse of Representatives, Washington, DC.\r\n    Dear Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald: \r\nThe Asian American Justice Center, formerly known as the \r\nNational Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, writes to \r\nexpress our strong opposition to H.R. 4844, the ``Federal \r\nElection Integrity Act of 2006.'' H.R. 4844 would require all \r\nvoters, beginning in 2008, to obtain and show government-issued \r\nphoto ID that proves their citizenship in order to vote. In \r\ndoing so, H.R. 4844 would encourage racial and ethnic \r\ndiscrimination at polling places and prevent many eligible \r\nvoters across the country from participating in our democracy, \r\nwhile doing nothing to combat genuine instances of voter fraud. \r\nH.R. 4844 would only serve to skew election results by removing \r\ncountless eligible voters from the process. We urge you to vote \r\nagainst this ill-conceived measure.\r\n    In July of this year, Congress passed the historic \r\nreauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, ``The Rosa Parks, \r\nFannie Lou Hamer, Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act \r\nReauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006,'' protecting the \r\nright to vote for millions of Americans for many years to come. \r\nThis important, bi-partisan, victory would be undermined by a \r\nnew measure to disenfranchise some of the very citizens that \r\nthe Voting Rights Act is designed to protect.\r\n    First, no citizen should have to pay to vote. Many U.S. \r\ncitizens either do not have or cannot easily access documents \r\nthat prove their citizenship such as a passport or birth \r\ncertificate. Attempts to cover the cost of ID for voters who \r\ncannot afford them are not sufficient, as our most cherished \r\ncivil right should never depend on annual appropriations \r\ndecisions. Moreover, citizens would still be faced with the \r\nexpense and time involved in getting the documentation required \r\nto obtain ID. Thus, while the Voting Rights Act eliminated poll \r\ntaxes, H.R. 4844 brings them back.\r\n    In addition, proof of citizenship may be impossible for \r\nsome people to obtain. Until recently, it was common in certain \r\nparts of the country for people to be born at home, without \r\nobtaining an official birth certificate. If H.R. 4844 were to \r\nbecome law, these American citizens would be completely \r\ndisenfranchised.\r\n    The requirement that all voters present a photo ID before \r\nbeing able to cast a regular ballot will disproportionately \r\ndisenfranchise people of color, the elderly, individuals with \r\ndisabilities, rural and Native voters, the homeless, low-income \r\npeople, and married women, who are less likely to carry a photo \r\nID. Photo ID requirements also build an enormous amount of \r\ndiscretion into the balloting process, thus creating \r\nopportunities for discrimination at the polls against racial, \r\nethnic, and language minority voters. Past elections have \r\nprovided some evidence of poll workers using the HAVA ID \r\nprovision to discriminate against Asian American voters, \r\nsingling only them out for ID requests even when they were not \r\nfirst-time voters. H.R. 4844 creates even more opportunities \r\nfor continued discrimination against Asian American and other \r\nminority voters.\r\n    Further, while supporters of H.R. 4844 argue that it is \r\nnecessary to require photo IDs and proof of citizenship in \r\norder to combat voter fraud, the evidence clearly establishes \r\nthat current anti-fraud laws work. Moreover, while there is no \r\nquestion that election misconduct exists, including improper \r\npurges of voters, distributing false information about when and \r\nwhere to vote, stuffing ballot boxes, and tampering with \r\nregistration forms, there is no evidence that the type of fraud \r\nthat H.R. 4844 purports to address--voters who misrepresent \r\ntheir identity--is anything but an anomaly.\r\n    The right to vote, and to have your vote counted, is the \r\nmost important civil right of all. Proposals like H.R. 4844 are \r\none of the greatest threats to fair and equal voting rights \r\ntoday. Congress should be in the business of encouraging full \r\nparticipation of our citizenry, not developing ways to limit \r\nthe right to vote.\r\n    For these reasons, we strongly urge you to oppose H.R. \r\n4844. If you have any questions, please contact me.\r\n            Sincerely,\r\n                                       Terry M. Ao,\r\n                      Director of Census &amp; Voting Programs,\r\n                                     Asian American Justice Center.\r\n                                ------                                \r\n\r\n              Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law\r\n                                                    Washington, DC.\r\nHon. Vernon Elders,\r\nChair, Committee on House Administration,\r\nHouse of Representatives, Washington, DC.\r\nHon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,\r\nRanking Member, Committee on House Administration,\r\nHouse of Representatives, Washington, DC.\r\n    Dear Representative Ehlers and Representative Millender-\r\nMcDonald: On behalf of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights \r\nUnder Law, I write in opposition to Representative Henry Hyde's \r\nso-called ``Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006,'' because \r\nit will sacrifice the most fundamental right guaranteed to all \r\nAmerican citizens by our Constitution--the right to vote. \r\nContrary to its title, the bill will undermine the integrity of \r\nour democratic process by making federal elections less \r\nresponsive to the will of eligible American voters. At a time \r\nwhen our brave men and women are sacrificing their lives to \r\nensure that Iraqis experience the national pride of a fair \r\ndemocratic process, patriotic responsibility demands that we \r\ninsist on nothing less for our own citizens. H.R. 4844 \r\nneedlessly requires proof of citizenship when eligible voters \r\nregister to vote and photo identification when citizens cast a \r\nballot. These may seem like innocuous provisions, but in \r\nreality they will create an unprecedented regime of \r\ndisenfranchisement targeting our Nation's traditionally \r\nunderrepresented voters.\r\n    For over forty years, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil \r\nRights Under Law has fought the poisonous specter of \r\ndiscrimination through litigation, advocacy, and organizing. \r\nOur foundation rests on ensuring that all eligible voters have \r\nthe opportunity to cast a meaningful ballot. Our legacy is why \r\nwe are committed to opposing unnecessary restrictions that \r\ndisenfranchise voters such as Congressman Hyde's bill. In \r\nGeorgia and Arizona, the Lawyers' Committee is counsel for \r\neligible citizens who will be disfranchised by similar, state \r\ninitiated, provisions.\r\n    Representative Hyde's bill is undemocratic, unfair, and \r\nunconstitutional because it:\r\n           Places an unconstitutional burden on the \r\n        fundamental right of eligible citizens to participate \r\n        equally in the democratic process;\r\n           Constitutes a poll tax;\r\n           Unfairly removes eligible voters from the \r\n        electoral system, primarily from traditionally \r\n        disfranchised communities;\r\n           Is impossible for states to administer; and\r\n           Attempts to address a problem that does not \r\n        exist.\r\n    As the United States District Court for the Northern \r\nDistrict of Georgia found in Common Cause v. Billups, 406 F, \r\nSupp. 2d 1326 (N.D.Ga. 2005), when considering a Georgia law \r\nrequiring ID at the polls, photo identification requirements \r\nunconstitutionally burden the fundamental right to vote of \r\neligible American citizens. The court found that these \r\nprovisions disproportionately affect traditionally \r\ndisenfranchised voters, including senior citizens, minority \r\nvoters, poor voters, disabled and young voters. Mr. Hyde's bill \r\ngoes even further by requiring proof of citizenship when \r\nregistering to vote; adding another layer of unnecessary \r\nrestrictions on eligible voters.\r\n    As the court found in Common Cause v. Billups, requiring \r\nphoto identification at the polls amounts to an \r\nunconstitutional poll tax. The Lawyers' Committee fought for \r\nthe Twenty Fourth Amendment, which brought to an end a shameful \r\nperiod in our nation's history by outlawing the poll tax; \r\nresurrecting it, as H.R. 4844 most certainly will do, leads us \r\ndown that dark path once again.\r\n    Proponents of photo identification provisions at the polls \r\nand proof of citizenship when registering to vote claim that \r\nthese draconian constraints are necessary to guard against \r\nidentity fraud at the nation's polling places; the truth, \r\nhowever, tells a far different story. Proponents of ID and \r\nproof of citizenship requirements have been unable to point to \r\nany credible evidence that eligible voter impersonation or non-\r\ncitizen voting is anything but an anomaly. In fact, according \r\nto the United States Department of Justice, out of 196,139,871 \r\nvotes cast since 2002, only 52 voters were convicted of federal \r\nelection fraud. Similar studies by the League of Women Voters \r\nof Ohio and by a joint task force of state and federal law \r\nenforcement in Wisconsin, found a similar diminutive number of \r\nineligible voters. The numbers of non-citizens who attempt to \r\nparticipate in the system is similarly miniscule. In most \r\ncases, those non-citizens who do end up on the voter \r\nregistration rolls found their way onto the list through \r\nmisinformation, not malice. This type of fraud plays no role in \r\ninfluencing the outcome of elections.\r\n    Implementing H.R. 4844, however, will certainly have an \r\nimpact on the outcome of elections by unnecessarily, unfairly, \r\nand unconstitutionally removing eligible voters from the \r\nprocess. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, 6-\r\n12 percent of eligible voters do not have the identification \r\nrequired by Mr. Hyde's bill. The Secretary of State of Georgia \r\nwho recently investigated the impact Georgia's proposed ID law \r\nwill have on the citizens in her state found that nearly \r\n700,000, about 1 in 7 registered voters, do not have either a \r\ndriver's license or non-driver state issued ID. In many states, \r\nobtaining this type of identification is costly and difficult \r\nespecially for those who cannot get to often remote issuing \r\nagencies.\r\n    While H.R. 4844 is bad for all Americans, it has a \r\ndisproportionate impact on traditionally disenfranchised \r\nvoters. For example, a University of Wisconsin study found that \r\nin Milwaukee nearly 50 percent of African American and Latino \r\nmen did not have government issued photo identification. \r\nSeniors in Georgia are similarly unfairly targeted by these \r\nlaws. According to the AARP, 36 percent of voters in Georgia \r\nover the age of 75 do not have government issued photo \r\nidentification. The American Association of People With \r\nDisabilities estimates that nearly 4 million disabled Americans \r\nwould not be able to cast a ballot under the regime set up by \r\nH.R. 4844. Students and low-income Americans will be similarly \r\ndisenfranchised. Native Americans living on tribal lands often \r\ndo not have street addresses, and centuries-long cultural \r\ntraditions prevent many in Indian Country from having their \r\npicture taken.\r\n    While ID requirements will lead to unprecedented national \r\ndisenfranchisement, proof of citizenship requirements are even \r\nmore unworkable. To date, Arizona is the only state that has \r\nimplemented a proof of citizenship requirement for voter \r\nregistration and the results are devastating. Maricopa County, \r\nthe largest county in the state, routinely rejects 30 percent \r\nof all voter registrations because they lack a proof of \r\ncitizenship. In addition to being discriminatory, this lacks \r\ncommon sense. Americans are not in the habit of carrying proof \r\nof citizenship. In fact, many of us do not even have it. \r\nAccording to the Bureau of Consular Affairs, only 25-27 percent \r\nof eligible Americans have passports, the most common proof of \r\nUnited States citizenship. Those who cannot afford the $97 it \r\ncosts to obtain a passport must be able to produce a valid, \r\nstate issued birth certificate which can cost up to $40. While \r\nAmericans may not be able to locate their birth certificates, \r\nmany were never issued one. Many older Americans have never \r\nbeen issued a state birth certificate, particularly African \r\nAmericans seniors born in the south. Of course, only \r\nnaturalized citizens receive naturalization papers. Replacing \r\nor obtaining any of these documents takes money, time and, \r\nfrequently, travel--all of which the constitution does not \r\nenvision as prerequisites voting.\r\n    In the past decade, we have seen exceedingly close federal \r\nelections. These hotly contested national contests have exposed \r\nthe crumbling infrastructure of our electoral system. Americans \r\nare demanding change and there is plenty that needs to be done, \r\nbut instead of trying to confuse these feelings with fabricated \r\nflaws in the democratic process, it is Congress's \r\nresponsibility to ensure that we have a model system of \r\nchoosing our elected officials. We must seriously address the \r\nreal problems with how we conduct our elections. Instead, \r\npassing H.R. 4844 will dishonor the Americans of generations \r\npast as well as our heroes of today who have risked their lives \r\nto promote our commitment to a responsive democracy around the \r\nworld. Americans deserve your attention on making the system \r\nmore dynamic and responsive, not on removing countless eligible \r\nAmericans in search of phantoms of fraud.\r\n            Sincerely,\r\n                                        Barbara R. Arnwine,\r\n                                                Executive Director.\r\n                                ------                                \r\n\r\n                               People for the American Way,\r\n                                                    August 3, 2006.\r\nHouse Administration Committee,\r\nWashington, DC.\r\n    Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than 900,000 \r\nmembers and activists of People For the American Way, we urge \r\nyou to stand up for the right of all citizens to fully \r\nparticipate in our democratic society and oppose measures, such \r\nas Proposition 200 or other proof of citizenship or voter 10 \r\nrequirements, that seek to erect barriers to the ballot. Our \r\nAmerican democracy is one of inclusion that thrives on the \r\ndiversity of our populace and the full participation of its \r\ncitizenry. Overly burdensome and unnecessary voter ID and proof \r\nof citizenship requirements are an anathema to this ideal and \r\nonly serve to alienate and disenfranchise eligible citizens.\r\n\r\nElection Fraud\r\n\r\n    Fraud takes many forms. While proponents of Proposition 200 \r\nand other voter 10 requirements claim to be addressing the \r\nexistence of massive ``voter fraud,'' particularly by illegal \r\nimmigrants, to date, there are no credible reports of \r\nsignificant fraud to support the need for such restrictive \r\nproposals. While it is true that the integrity of the electoral \r\nprocess must be protected, this can only be done by addressing \r\nactual problems that truly serve to undermine voter confidence. \r\nThis necessarily includes procedures and actions by individuals \r\nand election administrators that will prevent eligible voters \r\nfrom participating in the electoral process. Voter intimidation \r\nand harassment of voters at the polls are some of the more \r\nobvious forms of activities that disenfranchise voters and \r\ncontribute to fraud in our election process. Other actions such \r\nas election officials removing eligible voters from the \r\nregistration rolls, the destruction of voter registration cards \r\nbecause of registrants' political affiliation, or the mass \r\nchallenging of minority voters at the polling places are other \r\nfraudulent activities that must be addressed. Any definition \r\nthat is not sufficiently broad to include such activities \r\nprevents decision makers from devising appropriate solutions.\r\n\r\nProof of Citizenship Requirements\r\n\r\n    Proof of citizenship requirements are unnecessary. Those \r\nregistering to vote are already required to take an oath of \r\ncitizenship. The extra requirement for providing documents only \r\ncreates an additional hurdle for voters.\r\n    Unfortunately, proposals to require proof of citizenship \r\nare often a way to disguise racist and anti-immigrant sentiment \r\nand only serve to disenfranchise eligible citizens. This is \r\nbecause proponents know that proof of citizenship requirements \r\nare impossible for members of some communities to acquire and \r\nvery hard for others. For instance, in certain parts of the \r\ncountry, elderly African Americans and many Native Americans \r\nwere born at home, under the care of midwives, and do not \r\npossess birth certificates. People of color, people with \r\ndisabilities, elderly people, young people, and low-income \r\ncitizens are among the demographic groups least likely to have \r\ndocuments in their possession to prove citizenship. Furthermore \r\nfor victims of natural disasters like hurricane Katrina it may \r\nbe impossible to obtain birth certificates or other documents \r\nbecause they have been destroyed.\r\n    Legislation such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the \r\nHelp America Vote Act have made it easier for all citizens to \r\nvote, and have resulted in increased voter participation by \r\nLatinos and other minorities. This progress should be continued \r\nand we should not allow retrogressive proposals like \r\nProposition 200 or others to turn back the progress of these \r\nsignificant civil rights laws.\r\n\r\nVoter Identification Requirements\r\n\r\n    Restrictive voter ID requirements are similarly unnecessary \r\nand harmful. Like proof of , citizenship requirements, such \r\nvoter ID requirements impose a severe burden and are likely to \r\ndisenfranchise poor, minority, elderly and young voters, who \r\nare less likely to have photo identification and move more \r\nfrequently. The data is clear:\r\n           Approximately 6 to 10 percent of the \r\n        American electorate does not have any form of state \r\n        identification.\r\n           African Americans are four to five times \r\n        less likely than whites to have photo identification.\r\n           Young adults (age 20-29) move almost 6 times \r\n        more frequently than adults over 55, and minorities \r\n        move 50 percent more frequently, than whites.\r\n           In Georgia, it is estimated that nearly 40 \r\n        percent of seniors lack photo identification.\r\n    Instead of addressing unsubstantiated voter fraud, such \r\nrestrictive voting measures erect barriers to the ballot and \r\nare likely to be enforced in discriminatory ways against poor \r\nand minority voters to intimidate, misinform, stigmatize, and \r\nultimately suppress the vote.\r\n\r\nReal Solutions\r\n\r\n    Even if fraud were a problem, there are positive steps that \r\nstates can take to lessen the threat of fraud and protect the \r\nintegrity of the ballot box without risking disenfranchising \r\nvoters, such as implementing statewide voter registration \r\ndatabases as mandated by HAVA. Additional ``fraud-protection'' \r\nmeasures could include accurate cleansing of voter registration \r\nrolls, verification of voters' unique identifying numbers, in-\r\nperson affirmation, signature comparison, and finally, the \r\nvigorous prosecution of any cases of election fraud. These are \r\nreal solutions to actual documented problems.\r\n\r\nConclusion\r\n\r\n    Since the 2000 Presidential Election, our sister \r\norganization, People For the American Way Foundation has been a \r\nleader in the Election Protection Coalition along with its \r\nallies the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights under Law and \r\nthe NAACP. Integral to ElectionProtection was the deployment of \r\nthousands of volunteers across the country to serve as poll monitors to \r\nassist voters and document the problems voters faced as they attempted \r\nto exercise their right to vote. The data collected from volunteers and \r\nvoters through reports from the field and through the Election \r\nProtection Hotline clearly evidence a need for election officials to \r\naddress the real problems created by voter harassment and intimidation, \r\nthe lack of machines at low-income and minority poll sites, improperly \r\ntrained poll workers and the creation of overly burdensome voter \r\nregistration procedures by partisan election officials just to name a \r\nfew. These are the real problems that deserve the priority of election \r\nofficials. Only then, can we truly maintain the integrity of our \r\nelectoral system and protect the right to vote of all eligible \r\ncitizens. Voter ID and proof of citizenship proposals are simply forms \r\nof a 21st century poll tax that have no business in our electoral \r\nprocess. The right to vote is fundamental and Congress should be \r\nfocused on ways to open the franchise to all eligible citizens. PFAW \r\nlooks forward to working with Congress to protect this right to vote \r\nfor all Americans.\r\n    Sincerely,\r\n                                   Ralph G. Neas,\r\n                                           President.\r\n                                   Tanya Clay House,\r\n                                           Director, Public Policy.\r\n                                ------                                \r\n\r\n                                 Protect the Right to Vote,\r\n                                                    August 2, 2006.\r\nHon. Vernon Ehlers, Chairman,\r\nHon. Juanita Millender-McDonald, Ranking Member,\r\nCommittee on House Administration,\r\nHouse of Representatives, Washington, DC.\r\n    Dear Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald: \r\nWe the undersigned organization write to urge the United States \r\nHouse of Representatives Committee on House Administration to \r\nfully consider the disenfranchising effects of Arizona's \r\nProposition 200. Already, Proposition 200 has forced election \r\nofficials to prevent thousands of voters from being included on \r\nvoter registration rolls because they did not produce proof of \r\ncitizenship, including many eligible voter registration \r\napplicants. Proposition 200 will also disenfranchise countless \r\neligible Arizonans during this fall's critical election cycle \r\nby requiring strict voter identification at the polling place. \r\nThese restrictive provisions are rationalized by a few \r\nanecdotal stories of ineligible voters casting a ballot; \r\nhowever, all evidence suggests current state, federal and local \r\nlaws have been successful in preventing this deplorable \r\nbehavior while protecting the fundamental rights of eligible \r\ncitizens.\r\n    Unlike the isolated incidents of ineligible people \r\nattempting to vote, the disfranchising effects of proof of \r\ncitizenship and restrictive voter identification requirements \r\nwill make American elections less secure by unfairly \r\ninfluencing election results. The bottom line is Proposition \r\n200 is terrible for Arizona; expanding its reach will be \r\ndevastating for our country. As a partnership between Arizonans \r\nand national advocates who are dedicated to ensuring that all \r\neligible citizens have an equal opportunity to participate in \r\nthe political process, we write in opposition to the expansion \r\nof Proposition 200. We urge this committee to focus its \r\nattention on safeguarding the opportunity of all eligible \r\nAmericans to meaningfully participate in the political process \r\nand not to restrict the rights of our fellow citizens based on \r\nexceedingly rare occurrences of ineligible voters casting a \r\nballot.\r\n    Photo ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements may sound on \r\nthe surface like a good idea. There is nothing wrong, in and of \r\nitself, with taking steps to ensure that voters are eligible to \r\nvote and that they are who they claim to be. But the provisions \r\nof Proposition 200 are a misguided approach that inherently \r\ndisenfranchises large numbers of legal voters. We call your \r\nattention to a number of reasons why, instead of safeguarding \r\nelections, strict ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements will \r\nultimately undermine confidence in the fairness of the \r\noutcomes:\r\n\r\nProof-of-Citizenship Requirements: A 21st Century Poll Tax\r\n\r\n    Citizens should not have to pay a fee to register to vote. \r\nProof-of- citizenship requirements invariably put the burden--\r\nincluding the financial burden--on citizens themselves. While \r\nit would be ideal if all U.S. citizens had documents such as a \r\npassport, a birth certificate, or naturalization papers readily \r\navailable, the truth is that many do not--which means that many \r\ncitizens would have to pay for them.\r\n    A birth certificate usually costs $10 to $15. According to \r\nthe Department of Bureau of Consular Affairs, only 25-27 \r\npercent of eligible Americans have passports, which now cost \r\n$97. Naturalization papers, if they are lost or damaged and \r\nneed to be replaced, cost $210. Proof-of-citizenship \r\nrequirements generally do not help citizens who don't have the \r\nmoney to pay for these documents. This means that exercising \r\nthe constitutional right to vote can become ``unaffordable'' \r\nfor many citizens which is completely unacceptable in a \r\ndemocratic society that relies upon full participation of its \r\ncitizenry.\r\n    Proof of citizenship may be impossible for some people to \r\nobtain, and very hard for others. In certain parts of the \r\ncountry, for example, elderly African Americans and many Native \r\nAmericans were born at home, under the care of midwives, and do \r\nnot possess birth certificates. People of color, people with \r\ndisabilities, the elderly, young, and people who live in \r\npoverty are among the groups least likely to have documents to \r\nprove they are U.S. citizens.\r\n    Proof-of-citizenship requirements are working--to keep \r\nlegal voters from registering. Since Arizona implemented Prop \r\n200, more than 15,000 voter registration applicants have been \r\nrejected in Maricopa County alone for failure to provide proof \r\nof citizenship. In Pima County, sixty percent of new \r\nregistrants--all eligible voters--were initially rejected. \r\nSimilar proof-of-citizenship requirements, if imposed in other \r\nstate or by Congress, would result in eligible voters being \r\nturned away on a nationwide scale.\r\n    Current laws work when properly enforced. Falsely claiming \r\ncitizenship and voting fraudulently have long been federal \r\noffenses. Proof-of-citizenship requirements will only penalize \r\nU.S. citizens who want to exercise their right to vote.\r\n\r\nVoter Fraud: A Surprisingly Rare Problem\r\n\r\n    There is no question that election misconduct exists, \r\nincluding improper purges of eligible voters, distributing \r\nfalse information about when and where to vote, stuffing of \r\nballot boxes, and tampering with registration forms. But there \r\nis no evidence that the type of fraud cited in support of photo \r\nID requirements--individual voters who misrepresent their \r\nidentity at the polls--is anything but an anomaly.\r\n           In Ohio, a statewide survey found four \r\n        instances of ineligible persons voting or attempting to \r\n        vote in 2002 and 2004, out of 9,078,728 votes cast--a \r\n        rate of 0.00004 percent.\r\n           Despite the invocation of fraud as support \r\n        for the new Georgia law, Secretary if State Cathy Cox \r\n        stated that in her ten-year tenure, she could not \r\n        recall one documented case of voter fraud involving the \r\n        impersonation of a registered voter at the polls.\r\n           Nationwide, since October 2002, 86 \r\n        individuals have been convicted of federal crimes \r\n        relating to election fraud (including several offenses \r\n        not remedied by ID requirements), while 196,139,871 \r\n        ballots have been cast in federal general elections.\r\n\r\nVoter ID Requirements: Discouraging Voters, Enabling Discrimination\r\n\r\n    Restrictive voter ID requirements are more likely to \r\ndisenfranchise people of color, the elderly, individuals with \r\ndisabilities, rural voters, young people, the homeless, low-\r\nincome people, frequent movers, married women, and persons in \r\nlarge households. A recent study by the Georgia Secretary of \r\nState found that nearly 700,000 Georgians--1 in 7 voters--do \r\nnot have either a driver's license or non-driver state issued, \r\nID, and the Department of Transportation estimates that between \r\n6-12 percent of voters nationally do not have government issued \r\nphoto ID. A number of other studies have documented that \r\ncertain segments of the population are far less likely to have \r\nphoto ID than other Americans. A Univ. of Wisconsin study found \r\nthat nearly 50% of African American and Latino men in Milwaukee \r\ndo not have government-issued photo ID.\r\n    Restrictive ID requirements are the equivalent of a poll \r\ntax. This was, in fact, reiterated by the federal district \r\ncourt during the debate over Georgia's new Photo ID \r\nrequirement. By mandating that voters provide photo \r\nidentification, most ID laws would require voters to pay for \r\nphoto ID, if they don't already have it. Getting the required \r\nforms of ID, such as drivers' licenses and passports, costs \r\nmoney and time away from work--and transportation is \r\nparticularly complicated for voters with disabilities. The same \r\nis true of getting the supporting documents required to obtain \r\nID. As a result, not all eligible voters in this country can \r\nafford to purchase photo ID, and few legislative proposals \r\nsuggest any realistic way to help them out.\r\n    Even if they have valid ID, many eligible voters will be \r\nturned away. Voter ID requirements place an inordinate amount \r\nof discretion in the hands of overworked (and usually unpaid \r\nand sometimes poorly trained) poll workers. Deciding whether a \r\nvoter matches or does not match the photo in an ID card--which \r\ncan often be many years old--is a very subjective process and \r\neasily prone to mistakes or worse. Because many voter ID laws \r\ndo not explain how disputes over the validity of an ID card \r\nshould be handled, and because they often keep voters who don't \r\nhave ``valid'' ID from obtaining provisional ballots, they can \r\neasily open the door to widespread racial and ethnic \r\ndiscrimination at polling places. Even under the more lenient \r\nrequirements of the Help America Vote Act, ID provisions are \r\noften implemented in a discriminatory way. According to the \r\nnation's largest nonpartisan exit poll of Asian Americans, \r\nnearly 70% of Asian voters were asked for ID in states where \r\n110 ID was required.\r\n    Voters with valid ID can be turned away for more benign \r\nreasons as well. If an ID card such as a driver's license does \r\nnot contain the voter's current address, for example, which is \r\ntrue of millions of Americans, he or she is likely to be turned \r\naway from the polls. In Wisconsin, 97% of all students do not \r\nhave their current address on their photo ID. If an eligible \r\nvoter forgets to bring ID, some jurisdictions would keep him or \r\nher from obtaining a provisional ballot (and proving his or her \r\nidentity before the ballot is counted). In doing so, they \r\nundermine an important ``safety net'' under the Help America \r\nVote Act.\r\n\r\nConclusion\r\n\r\n    As evidenced most recently by our strong and enthusiastic \r\nsupport of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott \r\nKing Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of \r\n2006, our organizations believe that the right to vote, and to \r\nhave votes accurately counted, is the most important civil \r\nright of all. Rigid and costly voter ID and proof-of-\r\ncitizenship requirements, while appealing on the surface, \r\nrepresent one of the greatest threats to fair and equal voting \r\nrights today. As such, we urge you to join us in strongly \r\nopposing any proposal--such as the Carter-Baker Commission \r\nrecommendations, H.R. 4844, or similar measures in the states--\r\nthat would in practice amount to a poll tax and erect barriers \r\nto the ballot against lawful voters. We should be in the \r\nbusiness of encouraging full participation of our citizenry and \r\nnot developing ways to limit the right to vote.\r\n    Thank you for your consideration. If you have any \r\nquestions, please contact Linda Brown of the Arizona Advocacy \r\nNetwork, Jonah Goldman of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil \r\nRights Under Law or Rob Randhava of the Leadership Conference \r\non Civil Rights.\r\n            Sincerely,\r\n    National Civil &amp; Voting Rights and Labor Organizations:\r\n    ACORN.\r\n    Advancement Project.\r\n    Alliance for Retired Americans.\r\n    American Civil Liberties Union.\r\n    American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial \r\nOrganizations (AFL-CIO).\r\n    Asian American Justice Center.\r\n    Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund.\r\n    Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote (APIA Vote).\r\n    Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.\r\n    Common Cause.\r\n    Demos: A Network for Ideas &amp; Action.\r\n    Hispanic Federation.\r\n    Japanese American Citizens League (JACL).\r\n    Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.\r\n    Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.\r\n    Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.\r\n    National Association for the Advancement of Colored People \r\n(NAACP).\r\n    National Council of La Raza.\r\n    National Disability Rights Network.\r\n    National Education Association.\r\n    National Korean American Service &amp; Education Consortium.\r\n    National Voting Rights Institute.\r\n    People For the American Way.\r\n    Service Employees International Union (SEIU).\r\n    Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF).\r\n    Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.\r\n    United Church of Christ Justice &amp; Witness Ministries.\r\n    United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and \r\nSociety.\r\n    U.S. PIRG.\r\n    State\/Local Civil &amp; Voting Rights and Labor Organizations:\r\n    Aguila Youth Leadership Institute.\r\n    American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.\r\n    Arizona Advocacy Network.\r\n    Arizona Consumers Council.\r\n    Arizona Hispanic Community Forum.\r\n    Arizona Students' Association.\r\n    Emigrantes Sin Fronteras.\r\n    Interfaith Worker Justice of Arizona.\r\n    Intertribal Council of Arizona.\r\n    La Union Del Pueblo Entero (LUPE).\r\n    League of Women Voters of Greater Tucson.\r\n    New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc.\/NYPIRG.\r\n    Project for Arizona's Future.\r\n    SEIU Local 5 Arizona.\r\n    Somos America\/We Are America.\r\n                                ------                                \r\n\r\n                                    Mary G. Wilson,\r\n               League of Women Voters of the United States,\r\n                                                     July 20, 2006.\r\n    Members of the House of Representatives: H.R. 4844, the so-\r\ncalled ``Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006,'' introduced \r\nby Representative Hyde (R IL), would create new barriers to \r\nvoting by eligible citizens by requiring photo identification \r\nat the polling place and documentary proof of citizenship in \r\nthe voter registration process. The League of Women Voters \r\nstrongly urges you to oppose H.R. 4844.\r\n    As an organization that conducts voter registration \r\nthroughout the country and that encourages voter participation \r\nby all citizens, the League is deeply concerned that H.R. 4844 \r\nwould undermine our own activities as well as those of other \r\norganizations and individuals seeking to boost citizen \r\nparticipation in our nation's democracy.\r\n    Voting is the most fundamental expression of citizenship. \r\nThe expansion of the franchise to include all Americans \r\nregardless of race, ethnicity or sex is one of the great \r\nsuccesses in the evolution of American democracy. Breaking down \r\nbarriers to citizen voter participation--from literacy tests to \r\nthe poll tax has been a constant battle for those who believe \r\nthat every citizen should be able to exercise their right to \r\nvote.\r\n    H.R. 4844 would turn back the clock and erect unnecessary \r\nbarriers to voter participation. Many Americans simply do not \r\nhave documentary proof of citizenship and photo ID that would \r\nallow them to exercise their right to vote if H.R. 4844 were to \r\nbecome law. A recent study by the Secretary of State of Georgia \r\nreports that nearly 700,000 of Georgia's registered voters do \r\nnot have either a driver's license or a state-issued ID. This \r\nis consistent with national figures from the Department of \r\nTransportation estimating that 6-12 percent of voters \r\nnationally do not have government-issued photo ID.\r\n    The costs of obtaining proof of citizenship and photo ID \r\nwould discourage voter participation. Some have appropriately \r\nlikened such requirements to the poll tax because of the costs \r\nof obtaining a driver's license or passport. Supporting \r\ndocuments for ID, such as a birth certificate, can also impose \r\nreal costs in both time and money.\r\n    Photo ID requirements disproportionately affect the \r\nelderly, young people, racial and ethnic minorities, persons \r\nwith disabilities and others. A number of studies have shown \r\nthat certain segments of the population are far less likely to \r\nhave ID than other Americans.\r\n    The implementation of ID requirements can cause problems \r\nfor eligible voters. In Indiana, veterans were blocked from \r\nvoting when poll workers refused to accept their Veterans \r\nAdministration medical cards as sufficient ID. In addition, the \r\nprocess of determining whether a person matches their photo ID \r\ncan be very subjective and open to discrimination.\r\n    Again, the League of Women Voters urges you to oppose H.R. \r\n4844.\r\n                                ------                                \r\n\r\n                              Protection and Advocacy, Inc.\r\n                                     Sacramento, CA, July 11, 2006.\r\nHon. Vernon J. Ehlers, Chairman,\r\nHouse Administration Committee, Washington, DC.\r\nHon. Juanita Millender-McDonald, Ranking Member,\r\nHouse Administration Committee, Washington, DC.\r\n    Dear Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers and Hon. Juanita Millender-\r\nMcDonald: Protection and Advocacy Inc (PAI) is a non-profit \r\nagency which, since 1978, has been advocating for and \r\nrepresenting the legal and human rights of Californians with \r\ndisabilities. PAI is writing in strong opposition to H.R. 4844 \r\nfor the adverse impact it will bear on this disenfranchised \r\ncommunity.\r\n    Just as Congress, through the enactment of the Help America \r\nVote Act has responded to our nation's demand to remove the \r\nstructural inequities to the electoral process, H.R. 4844, \r\nunder the guise of electoral reform, will be setting up new \r\nroadblocks for many communities, including individuals with \r\ndisabilities, to exercising their most precious and fundamental \r\nconstitutional right in our democracy--the right to vote. The \r\nbill's requirement that all eligible voters in the country must \r\nproduce proof of citizenship in order to register to vote and a \r\nphoto ID in order to cast their ballot may appear innocuous. \r\nBut when considered in light of its unsupported premise and the \r\nactual harm it is certain to cause, the bill should be \r\nwithdrawn.\r\n    H.R. 4844 is predicated on a notion that there is \r\nwidespread voter fraud across the country caused by the illegal \r\nparticipation of persons not eligible to vote. Aside from its \r\nunfortunate racial\/cultural insinuations, the bill's foundation \r\nlacks veracity. Its proponents cannot point to either a \r\ngovernment or a reliable privately-generated report or study \r\nestablishing the presence of nationwide electoral \r\nirregularities, and particularly the alleged prevalence of \r\nvoter fraud by non-citizens, necessitating draconian measures \r\nas those envisioned in H.R. 4844.\r\n    H.R. 4844 will also have harmful consequences for \r\nindividuals with disabilities. People with disabilities \r\ncontinue to rank among the most disenfranchised people in our \r\nsociety. While recently, increasing attention is being paid to \r\nthe identification of the socia-economic reasons for this \r\ndisenfranchisement, there is a long road ahead for reversing \r\nthe course on this systemic problem. And, H.R. 4844 will only \r\nexacerbate this electoral disempowerment.\r\n    First, there are the problems of segregation. Because of \r\ntheir disability and a social system that cannot address their \r\nunique needs in an integrated environment, vast numbers of \r\nindividuals with disabilities live in institutions or \r\nrestrictive living arrangements. For many individuals with \r\ndisabilities, both physical and social isolation is an \r\nunfortunate norm in their daily life. They have little, and \r\noften no, access to general information about even the day-to-\r\nday events that occur in society, let alone the latest \r\nburdensome elections requirements of H.R. 4844. Most will \r\nlikely learn about these additional requirements only at a \r\nfuture election when their request to register to vote is \r\ndenied or when they are prevented from casting their ballot at \r\nthe polls.\r\n    Isolation typically comes at a high cost to these \r\nindividuals as they lack both personal resources and the \r\nassistance that could compensate for that deficiency in order \r\nto manage and deal with personal affairs, papers and effects. \r\nFor persons living in seclusion, locating and rummaging through \r\npersonal files in search of proof of citizenship and a photo \r\nID, which they have had no occasion to need, is typically not \r\nfeasible. Likewise for them, attempting to apply for a lost \r\nbirth certificate or a new passport for which they must \r\nnavigate through government agencies and procedures, which most \r\npeople in society find daunting, is an impossible task. The \r\nlack of accessible transportation options compounds this \r\nproblem. The consequence of H.R. 4844 for these and so many \r\nothers who face similar barriers will thus be further \r\nalienation from the electoral process.\r\n    Added to the difficulties with replacing proof of \r\ncitizenship is the cost associated with it. Regrettably, many \r\npeople with disabilities still live on wholly inadequate public \r\nassistance programs, particularly supplemental security income \r\n(SSI), which pays for the most basic and lowest standard of \r\nliving in our society. In California, SSI recipients struggle \r\nto afford just their ever-increasing housing costs and often \r\nhave nothing left for expenses not related to daily necessities \r\nsuch as the cost of replacing a birth certificate or acquiring \r\na passport. The same is true for those living in health care \r\nfacilities who only receive a very small monthly personal \r\nexpense allowance. H.R. 4844 will therefore have a significant \r\nchilling effect as individuals on public assistance cannot, and \r\nwill not, sacrifice meeting their daily living needs just to \r\nobtain one or more documents that they have never had to have \r\nin order to exercise their constitutional right to choose their \r\nrepresentatives.\r\n    For these reasons, we oppose H.R. 4844 and urge all \r\ninterested persons to voice their oppositions to this very \r\nharmful bill.\r\n    Sincerely,\r\n                                      Taymour Ravandi, Esq.\r\n                                ------                                \r\n\r\n                                                      AARP,\r\n                                                     June 27, 2006.\r\nHon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,\r\nRanking Member, House Administration Committee,\r\nHouse of Representatives, Washington, DC.\r\n    Dear Representative Millender-McDonald: AARP submits this \r\nletter for the record of your Committee hearing on June 22, \r\n2006, regarding voter ID requirements for elections. AARP has a \r\nlongstanding commitment to full citizen participation in the \r\ndemocratic process at the federal, state and local level, and \r\nfor that reason AARP has supported electoral reform at the \r\nfederal level--i.e., enactment of the National Voter \r\nRegistration Act (NVRA), the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the \r\nBipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), and reauthorization of \r\nthe Voting Rights Act (VRA). AARP also conducts extensive voter \r\neducation efforts in each of the 53 U.S. states and territories \r\nin which it has offices.\r\n    In addition, AARP attorneys represent U.S. citizens aged \r\n50+ who are in danger of disenfranchisement at the federal or \r\nstate level, and AARP has participated in various advisory \r\ncapacities to support citizen empowerment through meaningful \r\nopportunity to exercise the franchise.\r\n    AARP attorneys are currently serving as one of the counsel \r\nfor plaintiffs in lawsuits challenging--burdensome and \r\nunreasonable state laws in Georgia (GA) and Arizona (AZ). These \r\nlaws will, in effect, limit rather than expand citizen \r\nparticipation in the electoral process through unnecessarily \r\nrestrictive requirements. In these jurisdictions, state \r\nlegislatures or ballot initiatives have sought to enact laws \r\nthat have elevated proof requirements for voters to register \r\n(AZ) and to vote in person (GA and AZ). These laws are based on \r\nassertions of a threat of fraud which lack concrete basis in \r\nfact and unfortunately serve to heighten tensions among voters \r\ndivided by race, language and ethnicity. These new state laws \r\nand implementing rules will significantly limit opportunities \r\nto register and\/or vote. Many persons who are qualified to vote \r\nbut do not have ready access to documents--such as birth \r\ncertificates, driver's licenses and passports that never have \r\nbeen deemed necessary in the past may lose the fundamental \r\nright to vote.\r\n    AARP is particularly concerned that such rules will prevent \r\nmany eligible older voters, voters with disabilities (who may \r\nbe unable to obtain the requisite photo or citizenship ID) and \r\nlow income voters (who may not be able to afford such ID) from \r\nexercising their right to vote. For example, an estimated \r\n675,000 registered voters in GA have no driver's license, \r\naccording to Georgia's Secretary of State. Such laws adversely \r\naffect older voters who (1) no longer drive and do not need \r\nlicenses; (2) do not now travel or never did and therefore have \r\nno passport; or (3) are persons without birth certificates \r\n(e.g., Southern blacks or some Native Americans whowere not \r\nallowed in white hospitals that provided documentation). At a time when \r\ndemocratic elections are being conducted for the first time in many \r\nnations throughout the world, any unnecessary erosion in access to the \r\nballot in the world's oldest electoral democracy should be \r\nunacceptable. On behalf of older Americans who have largely shaped the \r\nvalues of our democracy, we urge great care to ensure that the basic \r\nright to vote is not trampled in an effort to address unproven \r\nallegations of voting abuse.\r\n    Sincerely,\r\n                                   David P. Sloane,\r\n                                  Senior Managing Director,\r\n                                 Government Relations and Advocacy.\r\n                                ------                                \r\n\r\n                                              Common Cause,\r\n                                                     June 26, 2006.\r\nChairman Vernon Ehlers,\r\nRanking Member Juanita Millender-McDonald,\r\nHouse Administration Committee,\r\nWashington, DC.\r\n    Dear Representatives Ehlers and Millender-McDonald: We, the \r\n``undersigned groups, are writing to communicate our opposition \r\nto the bill introduced by Representative Henry Hyde, H.R. 4844, \r\nthe ``Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006,'' which would \r\nrequire a national ID in order to be able to vote.\r\n    This bill is a ``solution'' in search of a problem. No \r\nelection-fraud research has pointed to a significant problem \r\nvis-a-vis illegal aliens attempting to vote.\r\n    However, this bill does include a number of provisions that \r\nwill diminish the ability of American citizen to legitimately \r\nparticipate in the voting process. In states with Election Day \r\nRegistration--which enjoy higher than average voter turnout--\r\nthis would prove to be an enormous bureaucratic headache, as \r\nclerks and registrars are forced to assess the validity of \r\ncitizenship papers, a task for which they are not currently \r\ntrained.\r\n    The requirement to present a national identification card \r\nwhen voting turns election workers, the vast majority of whom \r\nare temporary employees or volunteers, into a virtual police \r\nforce empowered to bar Americans from exercising their right to \r\nvote. Lines outside polling places would become much longer, \r\nultimately driving down turnout, as those who cannot devote \r\nseveral more hours of their day to voting simply will not vote \r\nat all. Additionally, the requirements in this bill would also \r\nabridge the independence of states in setting their own ID \r\nrequirements.\r\n    There is no federal statute allowing states to demand \r\nvoters disclosure their Social Security numbers. Forcing \r\nAmericans to get a photo ID (state drivers' licenses are \r\ninvariably tied to an SSN) to vote is akin to requiring \r\nAmericans disclose their SSN to vote--which would be a clear \r\nviolation of Section 7 of the federal Privacy Act of 1974.\r\n    If someone or some group is motivated enough to want to \r\nparticipate illegally in a U.S. election, chances are they will \r\nfind a way of getting the necessary documents. Meanwhile, \r\nAmericans will struggle to find long-ago issued social security \r\ncards, birth certificates, or even getfingerprinted by the \r\nlocal DMV under orders from Homeland Security. Let us not forget the 9\/\r\n11 hijackers were in this country legally, and had legally obtained \r\ndocuments.\r\n    With a huge number of U.S. citizens already choosing not to \r\nvote, it seems counterproductive to put even more hurdles in \r\ntheir way. There are better ways to get a handle on the \r\nimmigration problem than forcing Americans and state \r\ngovernments to jump through even more regulatory hoops.\r\n            Sincerely,\r\n    American Policy Center.\r\n    The <mark class=\"searchterm-highlight\" data-markjs=\"true\">Multiracial Activist<\/mark>.\r\n    Ohio Taxpayers Association &amp; OTA Foundation.\r\n    Fairfax County Privacy Council.\r\n    Velvet Revolution.\r\n    Cyber Privacy Project.\r\n    Republican Liberty Caucus.\r\n    The Rutherford Institute.\r\n    Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR).\r\n    Concerned Foreign Service Officers.\r\n    Common Cause.\r\n    www.libertycoalition.net.\r\n    www.commoncause.org.\r\n                             Congress of the United States,\r\n                                     Washington, DC, June 22, 2006.\r\nHon. Vernon J. Ehlers,\r\nChairman, House of Representatives,\r\nCommittee on House Administration, Washington, DC.\r\nHon. Juanita Millender-McDonald\r\nRanking Member, House of Representatives,\r\nCommittee on House Administration, Washington, DC.\r\n    Dear Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald: \r\nAs Hispanic Members of Congress, we would like to express our \r\nconcerns with the hearing entitled, ``You don't need papers to \r\nvote? Non-Citizen Voting and ID Requirements in U.S. \r\nElections.'' It is regrettable that in selecting this title for \r\nthe hearing, two non-related issues are now linked in the \r\npublic's mind-- non-citizens and voting fraud, to create \r\ncontroversy where none exists.\r\n    We hold a longstanding opposition to identification \r\nrequirements as part of the voting process. For some time now, \r\nwe have heard of the need for a photo identification \r\nrequirement as a necessary tool to combat fraud. However, there \r\nis no evidence that widespread fraud occurred in any recent \r\nelection, in particular any linked to non-citizens voting in \r\nfederal elections.\r\n    While a photo identification requirement at the polls seems \r\nentirely reasonable, it is important to note that some people \r\nsimply do not possess photo identification. For example, in the \r\nLatino community, there are many low-income households in which \r\nno one possesses a car, and certainly not a driver's license, \r\nlet alone a passport. There are people in such households who \r\ndo not even possess alternatives to photo identification, such \r\nas utility bills or government checks in their name. For such \r\nlow-income individuals, the cost of obtaining photo \r\nidentification is itself a burden, and such a requirement is \r\nreminiscent of past barriers to voting.\r\n    Requiring any form of identification at the polling place \r\nwould inevitably create similar barriers and hurdles for racial \r\nand ethnic minority voters and would have a chilling effect on \r\nvoter participation. Identification provisions have rightfully \r\nbeen prohibited because of the disparate impact they have on \r\nminority electoral participation. In addition, it would have a \r\ndevastating effect on rural voters, as well as the elderly and \r\ndisabled. As responsible policy makers, we need to consider \r\nwhether the proposed remedy to a problem will cause greater \r\nharm than good.\r\n    Rep. Hyde's legislation, H.R. 4844, goes further than \r\nsimply requiring photo identification and seeks to amend the \r\nP.L. 103-31, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), to \r\nmake proof of citizenship a federal requirement for voting in \r\nstates that require registration. This presents several \r\nproblems in that if improperly implemented, a voter ID law \r\nwould likely violate other federal voting rights laws such as \r\nthe Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Help America Vote Act of \r\n2002. In addition, states would have to create new forms and a \r\nnew system to capture registrations by mail, otherwise they \r\nwould be non-compliant with the law the bill intends to amend, \r\nNVRA. Moreover, it would fail to stop fraud that could occur \r\nvia mail-in voting or by the use of absentee ballots.\r\n    Currently, federal voter registration forms allow persons \r\nto attest to the fact that they are citizens. If H.R. 4844 were \r\nimplemented, the requirements would be akin to imposing a \r\nmodern-day poll tax because citizens would now have to pay to \r\nsecure documents to prove what they have already confirmed via \r\nattestation, that they are indeed citizens. For persons of \r\nlimited means, the prospect of spending $85 for a passport or \r\ntime locating a birth certificate could easily discourage them \r\nfrom voting at all. In the case of naturalized citizens, who \r\nmight attempt to register to vote by mail, this requirement \r\nwould serve as a deterrent. The certificate of citizenship they \r\nreceive from the Department of Homeland Security, which they \r\nwould have to submit as proof, says on its face, ``IT IS \r\nPUNISHABLE BY U.S. LAW TO COPY, PRINT, OR PHOTOGRAPH THIS \r\nCERTIFICATE WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY.'' Any naturalized citizen \r\nwould be in violation of one law in an attempt to comply with \r\nanother. No individual should be put in a position to have to \r\nmake that choice.\r\n    We urge you to consider the risks inherent in \r\nidentification requirements and to oppose this bill.\r\n            Sincerely,\r\n                    Charles A. Gonzalez.\r\n                    Grace Flores Napolitano.\r\n                    Ruben Hinojosa.\r\n                    Joe Baca.\r\n                    Hilda Solis.\r\n                    Luis V. Gutierrez.\r\n                    Raul M. Grijalva.\r\n                    Linda Sanchez.\r\n                                ------                                \r\n\r\n                                                      SEIU,\r\n                                     Washington, DC, June 21, 2006.\r\nHon. Vernon Ehlers,\r\nChair, House Administration Committee,\r\nWashington, DC.\r\nHon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,\r\nRanking Member, House Administration Committee,\r\nWashington, DC.\r\n    Dear Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald:\r\n    On behalf of the Service Employees International Union's \r\n(SEIU) 1.8 million members, I urge you to oppose the ``Federal \r\nElection and Integrity Act of 2006'' (H.R. 4844) sponsored by \r\nRepresentative Henry Hyde. This bill overreaches in its \r\nattempts to deal with the surprisingly rare problem of voters \r\nmisrepresenting their identity at the polls. H.R. 4844 proposes \r\nextreme solutions that would result in the disenfranchisement \r\nof thousands of voters and will undermine confidence in \r\nelection outcomes.\r\n\r\nVoter Fraud: A Surprisingly Rare Problem\r\n\r\n    There is no question that election misconduct exists, \r\nincluding improper purges of eligible voters, distributing \r\nfalse information about when and where to vote, stuffing of \r\nballot boxes, and tampering with registration forms. But there \r\nis no evidence that the type of fraud cited in support of photo \r\nID requirements--individual voters who misrepresent their \r\nidentity at the polls--is anything but an anomaly.\r\n           In Ohio, a statewide survey found four \r\n        instances of ineligible persons voting or attempting to \r\n        vote in 2002 and 2004, out of 9,078,728 votes cast--a \r\n        rate of 0.00004 percent.\r\n           Despite the invocation of fraud as support \r\n        for the new Georgia law, Secretary of State Cathy Cox \r\n        stated that in her ten-year tenure, she could not \r\n        recall one documented case of voter fraud involving the \r\n        impersonation of a registered voter at the polls.\r\n           Nationwide, since October 2002, 52 \r\n        individuals have been convicted of federal crimes \r\n        relating to election fraud (including several offenses \r\n        not remedied by ID requirements), while 196,139,871 \r\n        ballots have been cast in federal general elections.\r\n\r\nPhoto ID Requirements: Discouraging Voters, Enabling Discrimination\r\n\r\n    Photo ID requirements disproportionately impact people of \r\ncolor, rural voters, young people, the homeless, low-income \r\npeople, the elderly, individuals with disabilities, frequent \r\nmovers, and persons in large households. A recent study by the \r\nGeorgia Secretary of State found that nearly 700,000 \r\nGeorgians--1 in 7 voters--do not have either a driver's license \r\nor a non-driver state issued ID and the Department of \r\nTransportation estimates that between 6-12 percent of voters \r\nnationally do not have a government issued photo ID. A \r\nUniversity of Wisconsin study found that nearly 50% of African \r\nAmerican and Latino men in Milwaukee do not have government \r\nissued photo identification.\r\n    Requiring photo ID of voters is the equivalent of a poll \r\ntax. By mandating that voters provide photo identification, \r\nH.R. 4844 would require voters to pay for photo ID, if they \r\ndon't already have it. Getting photo ID, such as drivers' \r\nlicenses and passports, costs money and time. The same is true \r\nof the supporting documents required to obtain photo ID. Not \r\nall eligible voters in this country can afford to purchase such \r\nID, and H.R. 4844 doesn't suggest helping them out.\r\n    Even if they have photo ID, many eligible voters will be \r\nturned away. Photo ID requirements place an inordinate amount \r\nof discretion in the hands of overworked (and usually unpaid) \r\npoll workers. Deciding whether a voter matches or does not \r\nmatch the photo in an ID card--which can often be many years \r\nold--is a very subjective process and easily prone to mistakes \r\nor worse. Because H.R. 4844 does not explain how disputes over \r\nthe validity of an ID card would be handled, and because it \r\nwould keep voters who don't have ``valid'' ID from obtaining \r\nprovisional ballots, it could easily open the door to \r\nwidespread racial and ethnic discrimination at polling places. \r\nEven without H.R. 4844, ID provisions are often implemented in \r\na discriminatory way. According to the nation's largest \r\nnonpartisan exit poll of Asian Americans, nearly 70% of Asian \r\nvoters were asked for ID in states where no ID was required.\r\n    Voters with photo ID will likely be turned away for more \r\nbenign reasons as well. If an ID card such as a driver's \r\nlicense does not contain the voter's current address, for \r\nexample, which is true of millions of Americans, he or she is \r\nlikely to be turned away from the polls. In Wisconsin, 97 \r\npercent of all students do not have their current address on \r\ntheir photo identification. If an eligible voter forgets to \r\nbring identification, H.R. 4844 would keep him or her from \r\nobtaining a provisional ballot and proving his or her identity \r\non a later date before the ballot is counted. As such, it would \r\nundermine an important ``safety net'' established under the \r\nHelp America Vote Act.\r\n\r\nCurrent laws target voting fraud--new proof of citizenship requirements \r\n        do not\r\n\r\n    Proof of citizenship requirements are working--to keep \r\nlegal voters from registering. In the first six months of 2005, \r\nas a result of Arizona's Proposition 200, more than 5,000 \r\nArizona citizens had their voter registrations rejected for \r\nfailing to provide adequate proof of citizenship.\\1\\ In Pima \r\nCounty, 60 percent of new registrants--all eligible voters--\r\nwere initially rejected. The similar proof of citizenship \r\nrequirement in H.R. 4844 would result in eligible voters being \r\nturned away on a nationwide scale.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n    \\1\\ Elvia Diaz and Robbie Sherwood. Prop. 200's Effect Minimal, \r\nArizona Republic, June 5, 2005.\r\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n    Current laws are already extremely tough on noncitizens who \r\ntry to vote. Falsely claiming citizenship and voting fraud have \r\nlong been federal offenses. In addition, ever since U.S. \r\nimmigration laws were reformed in 1996, immigrants who try to \r\nvote are automatically given a one-way ticket out of the \r\ncountry, with no criminal conviction necessary. Proof of \r\ncitizenship requirements will only penalize U.S. citizens who \r\nwant to exercise their right to vote.\r\n    Americans believe strongly that Election Day provides an \r\nopportunity to actively engage their leaders and voice their \r\nconcerns. Risking the foundation of our democracy is too great \r\na cost to pay when the evidence does not substantiate the \r\nclaims the ``Federal Election and Integrity Act of 2006'' \r\npurports to fix.\r\n    SEIU is available to work with the Committee to address \r\nreal reforms that would help improve our elections systems. \r\nPlease contact, Stephanie Luongo, with any questions.\r\n            Sincerely,\r\n                                            Alison Reardon,\r\n                                           Director of Legislation.\r\n                                ------                                \r\n\r\n                             Congress of the United States,\r\n                                     Washington, DC, June 21, 2006.\r\nHon. Vernon J. Ehlers,\r\nChairman, Committee on House Administration,\r\nWashington, DC.\r\n    Dear Chairman Ehlers: On behalf of the Democratic Women's \r\nWorking Group, we write to bring to your attention an \r\nunintended consequence of various proposals before your \r\nCommittee, which are intended to eliminate fraud in Federal \r\nelections.\r\n    We strongly favor anti-fraud provisions which ensure the \r\nintegrity of Federal elections. It is important, however that \r\nsuch provisions do not place unnecessary obstacles or undue \r\nburdens on ordinary citizens--particularly women. \r\nUnfortunately, the likely outcome of the various proposals \r\nbefore your committee would be to unnecessarily obstruct \r\nlegitimate participation by women voters in Federal elections.\r\n    For example, a woman who, upon marriage, takes the last \r\nname of her husband, would have to produce more documents than \r\nher husband in order to register or reregister to vote. A \r\nmarried woman who, upon divorce, uses her birth name \r\nthereafter, would potentially have an even greater burden. A \r\npoor woman born in a rural setting outside of a hospital might \r\nnever have received a birth certificate. A woman head-of-\r\nhousehold, whose home and records are destroyed by fire, flood, \r\nhurricane, or other disaster, may be unable to produce the \r\nnecessary records to register or vote--not because she is not a \r\ncitizen--but because of the obstacles these various proposals \r\nput in her way. If that working mother had to choose between \r\nspending available time and resources obtaining documentation \r\nso that her children could attend school, and using the time to \r\ndocument herself so that she can register or vote, she would be \r\nforced to sacrifice her own fundamental voting right as an \r\nAmerican.\r\n    These are not speculative obstacles or situations--they are \r\nreal and are repeated year in and year out. While preventing \r\nfraud in elections is a worthy goal which we support, the \r\nCommittee must find a way to preclude fraud withoutobstructing \r\ncitizens, particularly women, from exercising their Constitutional \r\nrights. Obstructing these rights, in the pursuit of a perfect system of \r\nelection administration, harms women as surely as denying women the \r\nright to vote in the first place.\r\n    Thank you for taking our views into consideration as your \r\ncommittee proceeds with this issue.\r\n            Sincerely,\r\n                                   Hilda L. Solis,\r\n                                           Chair, Democratic Women's \r\n                                               Working Group.\r\n                                   Lois Capps,\r\n                                           Vice Chair, Democratic \r\n                                               Women's Working Group.\r\n                                ------                                \r\n\r\n                                                    MALDEF,\r\n                                                     June 21, 2006.\r\nHon. Vernon Ehlers,\r\nChairman, House Administration Committee,\r\nWashington, DC.,\r\nHon. Juanita Millender-McDonald,\r\nRanking Member, House Administration Committee,\r\nWashington, DC.\r\n    Dear Chairman Ehlers and Ranking Member Millender-McDonald: \r\nOn behalf of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational \r\nFund (MALDEF), and the Southwest Voter Registration Education \r\nProject (SVREP), we write to express our strong opposition to \r\nthe ``Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006'' (H.R. 4844), \r\nsponsored by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL). MALDEF is a national legal \r\norganization dedicated to protecting and promoting the civil \r\nrights of Latinos in the United States, and SVREP educates \r\nLatino communities about the democratic process, the importance \r\nof voter registration, and voter participation. Our \r\norganizations have grave concerns that the proposed legislation \r\nwould deny the franchise to untold numbers of American citizens \r\notherwise eligible to vote, and that its burdens would be borne \r\ndisproportionately by the poor, the elderly, and racial and \r\nethnic minorities.\r\n    H.R. 4844 would require, for federal elections beginning in \r\n2006, proof of citizenship from every voter who registers \r\nthrough the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), who votes \r\nin a state that does not require registration, or who registers \r\nin a state that allows same-day voter registration. The \r\nlegislation would also require voters to present photo \r\nidentification before receiving a ballot including a \r\nprovisional ballot.\r\n    Given the cost and difficulty of obtaining citizenship and \r\nidentification documents such as passports, birth certificates, \r\nor driver's licenses, legislation mandating these documents to \r\nregister or to vote amounts to an impermissible ``poll tax;'' \r\nit would require otherwise qualified voters to essentially pay \r\na fee as a condition of voting, in violation of the Twenty-\r\nFourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme \r\nCourt, in Harper v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, noted that \r\nvoting requirements run afoul of the Constitution whenever they \r\nmake ``the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an \r\nelectoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to \r\nwealth.''\r\n    While the cost of citizenship and identification documents \r\nmay seem negligible to some, it represents a real burden for \r\nmany Americans, Americans who are no less entitled than other \r\nvoters to cast a ballot on Election Day. For the poor, elderly, \r\nand for racial and ethnic minorities, H.R. 4844 would erect \r\nsignificant obstacles to participation in the democratic \r\nprocess. Naturalized citizens face particular hurdles: a lost \r\nor damaged naturalization certificate costs $210 to replace, \r\nand may require a wait of up to six months for processing by \r\nthe Department of Homeland Security.\r\n    Requiring voters to purchase documents in order to exercise \r\nthe franchise is as much an affront today as it was when the \r\nSupreme Court issued its Harper ruling forty years ago. H.R. \r\n4844 presents an unacceptable risk of denying the vote to \r\notherwise eligible voters. At the same time, there is simply no \r\ngood evidence that voter fraud by non-citizens constitutes a \r\ngenuine or widespread problem--and certainly not on a scale to \r\njustify a response that is so costly, heavyhanded, and \r\ndiscriminatory in effect. In Arizona, where we have filed a \r\nlegal challenge to a state ballot initiative requiring certain \r\nforms of identification at the polls, there is not a single \r\ndocumented case of a non-citizen intentionally and fraudulently \r\nregistering to vote.\r\n    H.R. 4844 would impermissible burden the fundamental right \r\nto vote, the basis of our democratic system. On behalf of those \r\nAmericans who would disproportionately bear this burden, we \r\nurge you not to support this damaging proposal.\r\n            Sincerely,\r\n                                   Shaheena Ahmad Simons,\r\n                                           Acting D.C. Regional \r\n                                               Counsel, MALDEF.\r\n                                   Antonio Gonzalez,\r\n                                           President, Southwest Voter \r\n                                               Registration Education \r\n                                               Project.<\/pre>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/109\/crpt\/hrpt666\/CRPT-109hrpt666.pdf\">https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/109\/crpt\/hrpt666\/CRPT-109hrpt666.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>109th Congress Report HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 109-666 ====================================================================== FEDERAL ELECTION INTEGRITY ACT OF 2006 _______ September 19, 2006.&#8211;Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and&#46;&#46;&#46;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4181,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":true,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[72,57],"tags":[116,118],"class_list":["post-6253","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hearings-u-s-house-of-representatives","category-legislation","tag-hearings","tag-legislation"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p89tuq-1CR","jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Government-Congress.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6253","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6253"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6253\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6255,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6253\/revisions\/6255"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4181"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6253"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6253"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6253"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}