[Pages S10488-S10516]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 2002--CONFERENCE REPORT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 3295,
which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Conference report to accompany (H.R. 3295), a bill to
establish a program to provide funds to States to replace
punchcard voting systems, to establish the Election
Assistance Commission to assist in the administration of
Federal elections and to otherwise provide assistance with
the administration of certain Federal election laws and
programs, to establish minimum election administration
standards for States and units of local government with
responsibility for the administration of Federal elections,
and for other purposes.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent the conference report be considered
as read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, there will now be 20 minutes of debate on
the conference report.
Mr. DODD. I presume that time is equally divided between Senator
McConnell and myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. DODD. We spoke at some length yesterday, and my colleague from
Missouri was very involved. I am prepared to reserve my time until
Senator Bond and Senator McConnell have time to talk about this report.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today with a sense of relief and
satisfaction that we have come to the end of this marathon to do
something I believe everybody in this body and in the other body
believe is vitally important. We need to change the system to make it
easier to vote and tougher to cheat. I begin by offering my sincere
thanks and congratulations to Senator Dodd, to Senator McConnell on our
side, for their great work, to our good friends on the House side,
Chairman Ney and Congressman Hoyer. We have gotten to know them much
better over the last months as we have worked together. This has been
truly an heroic effort.
The 2000 election opened the eyes of many Americans to the flaws and
failures of our election machinery, our voting systems, and even how we
determine what a vote is.
We learned of hanging chads and inactive lists. We discovered our
military's votes were mishandled and lost. We learned of legal voters
turned away, while dead voters cast ballots. We discovered that many
people voted twice, while too many weren't even counted once.
This final compromise bill--and it is a compromise in the truest
sense of the word--tries to address each of the fundamental problems we
have discovered.
For starters, this bill provides $3.9 billion in funding over the
next 5 years to help States and localities improve and update their
voting systems. In addition to providing this financial help, we also
provide specific minimum requirements for the voting systems so that we
can be assured that the machinery meets minimum error rates and that
voters are given the opportunity to correct any errors that they have
made prior to their vote being cast.
This bill also provides funding to help ensure the disabled have
access to the polling place and that the voting system is fully
accessible to those with disabilities. A very special thanks to the
Senator from Connecticut for this unwavering commitment to those goals.
We also create a new Election Administration Commission to be a
clearinghouse for the latest technologies and improvements, as well as
the agency who will be responsible for funneling the federal funds to
States and localities. This reflects a great deal of effort by the
distinguished Senator from Kentucky.
Then the bill attempts to address one of my key concerns, and that of
course is the issue of vote fraud.
Now, I like dogs and I have respect for the dearly departed, but I do
not think we should allow them to vote. Protecting the integrity of the
ballot box is important to all Americans, but especially to Missouri
because of our State's sad history of widespread vote fraud. This
legislation recognizes that illegal votes dilute the value of legally
cast votes--a kind of disenfranchisement no less serious than not being
able to cast a ballot.
If your vote is canceled by the vote of a dog or a dead person, it is
as if you did not have a right to vote. Much has been said about this.
We have even heard from some colleagues in groups that vote fraud does
not really exist. We have been told by professors and other learned
folks in ivory towers that vote fraud really only exists in movies.
Well, gang, come down out of your ivory towers. We can explain it to
you. We know better.
In just the past month we learned of voter scams in Pennsylvania, and
now we are learning of an ongoing FBI investigation in South Dakota
where the media reports:

Every vote counts--unless ballots are being cast by people
who don't exist, are dead, or who don't even live in South
Dakota. A major case involving those voter fraud issues has
been under investigation by the FBI for the past month.

If vote fraud is happening in South Dakota, it could be happening
everywhere. In fact, in a report just released, which reviewed voter
file information across State lines, nearly 700,000 people were
registered in more than one State and over 3,000 double-voted in the
2000 election. That is 3,000 vote fraud penalties, felonies, waiting to
be prosecuted. I hope local, State, and Federal officials involved will
aggressively pursue these crimes.
But, as I have said numerous times since I began this quest with
Senators Dodd and McConnell many months ago, I believe that an election
reform bill must have two goals--make it easier to vote but tougher to
cheat.
Lets discuss for a moment a few of our registered voters: Barnabas
Miller of California, Parker Carroll of North Carolina, Packie Lamont
of Washington, D.C., Cocoa Fernandez of Florida, Holly Briscoe of
Maryland, Maria Princess Salas of Texas and Ritzy Mekler of Missouri.
They are a new breed of American voter. Barnabas and Cocoa are
poodles. Parker is a Labrador. Maria Princess is a Chihuahua, Holly is
a Jack Russell Terrier, and Ritzy is a Springer-Spaniel.
So has our voting system really gone to the dogs? And what can we do
about it? This final bill takes this issue

[[Page S10489]]

square on, and I am very pleased that this final agreement retains and
strengthens the anti-vote fraud provisions we spend so much time
fighting to include:
New voters who choose to register by mail must provide proof of
identity at some point in the process, whether at initial registration,
when they vote in person or by mail. Among the kinds of acceptable
forms of identification: utility bill, government check, bank
statement, or drivers license--no dog licenses, please. In lieu of the
individual providing proof of identity, States may also electronically
verify an individual's identity against existing State databases. This
should go a long way toward solving the fraud occuring in South Dakota.
States will be required to maintain a statewide voter registration
list.
Mail-in registration cards will now require applicants specifically
to affirm their American citizenship.
The bill makes it a Federal crime to conspire to commit voter fraud.
Those behind illegal vote fraud activities will be subject to
penalties, not just the poor operatives who signed the fraudulent
applications.
Voters who do not appear on a registration list must be allowed to
cast a provisional ballot. Voters without proper identification are
also allowed to vote provisionally, but no provisional ballot will be
counted until it is properly verified as a legal vote under state law.
If a poll is held open beyond the time provided by State law, votes
cast after that time would be provisional and held separately.
Finally, voters will be required to include either their driver's
license number or the last four digits of their social security number
on their voter registration form. Again, this reform will also help in
uncovering the fraud that is occuring in South Dakota.
I believe that these meaningful reforms will go a long way to helping
states clean up voter rolls, and thus clean-up elections.
Will Rogers once said, ``I love a dog. He does nothing for political
reasons.'' Our election laws should keep it that way.
Mr. President, the Help America Vote Act contains many important
provisions that will improve the equipment voters use to cast ballots
at the polls. It also will take major steps to prevent fraud, which
disenfranchises voters by cancelling the votes of legal voters with
illegal votes. This bill follows in the path of the Voting Rights Act,
the National Voter Registration Act and other Federal voting statutes
the enhance the voting rights of all Americans and protect the exercise
of their franchise. These important provisions deserve further review
so their meaning and the intent of Congress in including the provisions
in the bill is clearly understood.
By passage of this legislation, Congress has made a statement that
vote fraud exists in this country. The many reported cases and
incidents of registration and vote fraud revealed in testimony before
Congress, in our debates and in the press make it imperative that we
implement such standards that are clearly within the Constitutional
power and prerogatives of Congress.
A principle concern of Congress addressed in this bill is the abuse
of mail registration cards, created by Congress as part of the National
Voter Registration Act, for the purpose of committing vote fraud. The
creation by Congress of the mail registration cards opened an new
avenue for vote fraud in many States. NVRA requires States and
localities to accept registration cards through the mail while limiting
the ability of states and localities to authenticate or verify the
registrations. Accordingly, the mail-in registration cards have become
a means of unscrupulous individuals to register the names of deceased,
ineligible or simply non-existent people to vote.
In my home State of Missouri, there is abundant evidence of these
cards being used for the purpose of getting phony names, the names of
the deceased and even the names of pets on voter rolls. Someone even
registered the deceased mother of the prosecuting attorney of the City
of St. Louis. Names have been registered to drop-houses, businesses,
union halls, Mail-box Etc. and vacant lots. From there the people
behind the fraud can request an absentee ballot in the name of the
voter or attempt to go to the polls and cast a vote under the assumed
name.
Congress agreed that while the mail-in cards have made registration
more accessible, the policy has also created increased opportunities
for fraud. To address this, we created an identification requirement
for first-time voters who register by mail. The security of the
registration and voting process is of paramount concern to Congress and
the identification provision and the fraud provisions in this bill are
necessary to guarantee the integrity of our public elections and to
protect the vote of individual citizens from being devalued by fraud.
Every false registration and every fraudulent ballot cast harms the
system by cancelling votes cast by legitimate voters. It undermines the
confidence of the public that their vote counts and therefore
undermines public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process.
Under this new Federal requirement, those who choose to register by
mail will have to show identification before the first time they vote
in that jurisdiction. If the voter is registering to vote in a State
that has a statewide voter registration system complying with the
requirements of this bill, the voter will have to show identification
before the first time they vote in that state. The voter has to show
identification at some point between the time they register and the
time they vote. To comply with the identification requirement, the
voter can include a copy of the identification with their registration
card, a copy of the identification can be included with an absentee
ballot or it can be shown when the voter goes to the polling place. The
option of the voter to vote absentee or to vote at the polls is not
limited but the objective of Congress is fulfilled by voters who
register by mail verifying the identify of the voter at some point
before they cast their first vote.
It must be noted, that in drafting the bill, the authors of the
Senate bill conducted extensive research. It was the conclusion of the
authors based on the research that it is in the capacity of the chief
state election official and the overwhelming majority of election
jurisdictions to track the names of those who register by mail. With
that information, the election jurisdictions will have accurate and
ample information to determine which voters will be required under the
terms of this statute to present identification at the polls. It has
been argued that there is likely to be confusion at the polls because
states will not have the information as to first time voters. This
concern was carefully weighed by the bill's authors and the conferees
and it was agreed that the evidence does not support the assertion.
Regarding the numerous criticisms of this section: this provision
will not result in voters being denied the right to vote. Voters who do
not have the identification required will be given the opportunity to
cast a fail safe ballot. Voters who are at the polls will cast a
provisional ballot and those who vote by mail will have their ballots
subject to additional review to determine validity of the registration.
This provision does not single out those who register by mail in an
improper manner, rather it builds on the existing structure Congress
created in the National Voter Registration Act. When creating mail
registration, Congress recognized the potential for fraud and
authorized states to require mail registrants to vote in person the
first time they vote. The approach proved to be inadequate so in this
bill we took additional steps. The approach we took, however, was
already paved in the passage of the National Voter Registration Act.
This provision is not discriminatory; the documents required for
identification are widely available. The Department of Transportation
statistics report that more than 90 percent of Americans of voting age
have a drivers license. But to be certain no one will be negatively
impacted, the conferees included carefully crafted and balanced
identification requirements. The required pieces of identification
include items widely available to all citizens, including the disabled,
the poor, new citizens, students and minorities.
For example, positive identification is required to apply and receive
food stamps. When applying for food stamps, the required identification
is

[[Page S10490]]

very similar to that required in this bill, including a driver's
license or some other identification that allows the state to verify
the identify of the applicant for the purpose of preventing fraud.
Provision and verification of an existing social security number is
required before a person can qualify for Federal temporary assistance.
The steps taken in this bill are in line with the steps taken by the
Federal Government to prevent fraud in welfare assistance. Surely clean
elections, accurate results and faith in the election process is as an
important of an objective as preventing welfare fraud. The conferees
also agree that the provision is something that can be readily complied
with by the disabled. As we know, many of the disabled are in the work
environment, therefore will be in possession of a paycheck or tax
return or other government document bearing the name and address of the
voter. As stated, Federal benefits require an identification. For those
who use state or federal services, they again will have identification
or another government document related to the provision of the service.
Again, great steps have been taken to ensure that all Americans can
comply with this provision.

The aged, disabled, the poor and members of minority groups are most
often the target of fraudulent registration and absentee ballot fraud
schemes that take advantage of the lack of security in the system,
their ability to register to vote and cast a ballot will be enhanced
most by this legislation.
The identification requirements do not run afoul of the Voting Rights
Act. In fact, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Ralph Boyd in
a letter to the Senate stated that the identification provision does
not violate the Voting Rights Act. The identification requirement gives
the voter choices as to where and at what point in the process to
produce identification. The ability of the states to apply this
provision in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner is limited by giving
the choice to the voter. Furthermore, Congress explicitly provided that
the identification requirements are to be administered in a uniform and
nondiscriminatory manner. Election officials must ask all people for
identification when the legislation calls for it.
The first time voter ID requirements for those who register by mail
are obviously not discriminatory since they apply to all voters
regardless of race, color or ethnic origin and must be applied in a
uniform and nondiscriminatory manner.
It must be noted that one form of identification required is a
current valid photo identification. It is the intent of the conferees
that this identification be issued by a government entity or a
legitimate recognized employer. The conferees agree that the
identification should not be that of a party organization, a political
organization, a club or a retail establishment. The conferees intend
that the photo identification be something that is extremely difficult
to falsify or procure under false pretenses.
Congress intends the Help America Vote Act to work along side the
National Voter Registration Act. However, the identification provision,
section 303(b) Requirements for Voters Who Register By Mail, may be
read by some courts or other parties to require action or conduct
prohibited by NVRA.
It is the intent of Congress that voters who register by mail show
identification. If a court reads this obligation to conflict with any
other statute, it is the intent of Congress that section 303(b) of the
Help America Vote Act control in such a situation. Congressional intent
is reflected by the presence of section 906, which clearly states that
this section will be controlling.
The conferees recognize that many States have taken steps to address
fraud. A number of those steps may go beyond that set in this bill. It
is the agreement of the conferees that this bill in no way limits the
ability of the states from taking steps beyond those required in this
bill. For instance, several States require those who register by mail
to vote in person the first time they vote. This bill does not limit a
State from taking this additional step to address fraud. Each of the
steps taken in this bill to address fraud shall be considered to be a
minimum standard.
This legislation sets an additional Federal mandate. All people
registering to vote for a Federal election will be required to provide
a driver's license number or the last four digits of their social
security number on the registration card when they register to vote. If
an applicant has neither, the registrant should indicate so and the
State will provide a number at the time the application is processed.
No registration can be processed unless this information is included.
The authors of this bill found that voter rolls across the country
are inaccurate or in very poor order, the condition in many
jurisdictions, particularly the large jurisdictions, are in a state of
crisis. Voter lists are swollen with the names of people who are no
longer eligible to vote in that jurisdiction, are deceased or are
disqualified from voting for another reason. It has been found that
650,000 in this country are registered in more than one State. As of
October of 2002, 60,000 people were registered in Florida and at least
one other state. In St. Louis County, some 30,000 people were
registered to vote in the county and at least one other county in the
State.
The conferees agree that a unique identification number attributed to
each registered voter will be an extremely useful tool for State and
local election officials in managing and maintaining clean and accurate
voter lists. It is the agreement of the conferees that election
officials must have such a tool. The conferees want the number to be
truly unique and something election officials can use to determine on a
periodic basis if a voter is still eligible to vote in that
jurisdiction. The social security number and driver's license number
are issued by government entities and are truly unique to the voter.
They are the most unique numbers available, that is why the conferees
require the voter to give the number.
Again, it is the intent of the conferees to impose a new Federal
mandate for voter registration.
Under this bill, the use of the full social security number is not
required, a partial social security number is required. That
requirement does not conflict with the terms of the Federal privacy
act. The privacy act states that people cannot be required to give
their social security number except for limited purposes. Registering
to vote is not one of the exceptions. But the privacy act protection is
limited to the full social security number, there.

The conferees do not want this requirement to conflict with the
privacy act, therefore, language was included in the bill to clarify
the privacy act with regard to the partial social security number. The
bill clarifies that the partial social security number is not covered
by the privacy act, so asking for four digits will not conflict in any
way.
Finally, It is important to note that states that utilize full social
security numbers for voter registration applicants can continue to do
so after passage of this legislation. This new registration requirement
is a minimum standard. If a state requires applicants to provide more
information--such as their entire nine-digit social security number--
this legislation will not override that state requirement.
Section three of the legislation is known as the minimum standards
section. It includes minimum standards for federal election to be
adopted by the states. The first of the mandates concerns the voting
system, which includes the type of voting machine or method used by a
jurisdiction. This section will require the voting system to meet
minimum standards. However, the legislation does not seek to ban the
use of a particular type of system and it does not instruct a
jurisdiction as to what type of system to use. The intent of the bill
is to improve the system used; it is not the intent of the legislation
to prohibit a jurisdiction from using any type of system or to ban a
voting system.
Under this minimum standard, the voting system in every jurisdiction
will have three requirements. First, the voter has to be permitted to
verify the votes they cast. This requirement gives the voter the
opportunity to review the ballot after it is filled out and before it
is cast so that the voter himself can determine if he made a mistake in
filling out the ballot. The second requirement

[[Page S10491]]

gives the voter the right to a replacement ballot. The intent of this
provision follows on the verification provisions; if a voter finds that
he has made a mistake he can ask a poll worker for a replacement ballot
for the voter to fill out and cast. The first ballot, of course, will
be invalidated by the poll workers. This provision also applies to
mail-in voting and absentee voting. It does not require a state or
jurisdiction to do anything other than provide a voter the opportunity
to get a replacement ballot. It is incumbent upon the voter to do so
before any deadline for submitting the absentee or mail ballot.
The next voting machine related requirement has to do with over
votes, voters who cast more than one vote in a single race and spoil
their ballot. Certain voting technologies, such as the DRE, precinct-
based opti-scan and lever machines, notify the voter that they have
voted more than once in a single race. If the technology can notify the
voter, this section requires that it is employed and voters be
notified. There are certain technologies that do not notify the voters
of overvoters, such as paper ballots, central count systems, punch-card
systems and absentee ballots. To satisfy the requirement, jurisdictions
that use this system will be required to have in place a voter
education system to inform the voter of the consequences of overvoting
and the remedies that are available should they overvote. This is a
compromise and it is consistent with the clear intent of the authors of
this bill not to eliminate any type of voting system and allow
jurisdictions to choose the system that is best for that jurisdiction.
The legislation also requires every jurisdiction in every State to
offer voters who claim to be registered in a jurisdiction but do not
appear on the voter rolls for that jurisdiction the right to cast a
provisional ballot. If the voter provides the required information and
attests to their belief of being properly registered, the voter will be
given a provisional ballot. No voter will be turned away from the polls
because of a mistake or oversight at the administrative level.
There are several points I want to make as to how the provisional
vote is to operate. I also want to clarify the intent of the authors as
to the extent and limit of the right conferred on the voter by this
section.
The provisional ballot will be extended to those who arrive at the
polls to find that their name does not appear on the register of
voters. The statute states that the poll worker shall inform the voter
of the right to vote by provisional ballot. That right, however, is
extended to those who believe that they are registered to vote and are
registered to vote in that particular jurisdiction.
It is not the intent of the authors of this bill to extend the right
to vote by provisional ballot to everyone who shows up at the polls and
is not registered or for those who are not eligible to vote in the
election. The intent is to provide protection to those who in fact
registered but do not appear on the register because of an
administrative mistake or oversight.
Before one can get a provisional ballot, the voter must sign an
affidavit attesting to the fact that he believes he registered to vote
in that jurisdiction and that he is eligible to vote in that election.
So in addition to the registration question, the voter must also state
that he is not disqualified from voting in the election, such a reason
may include felony status or the voter has already cast an absentee
vote in the race.
Once the voter turns over his ballot, it will not be tabulated until
the information provided by the voter as to his registration status is
verified. In verifying the information about the voter, the language of
the statute states that the information provided shall be transmitted
to a state or local election official for verification of the
information. This language reflects the intent of the authors of the
bill that the registration and eligibility of the voter be verified by
an election official before the ballot is counted. It is also the
intent of the authors that the verification be done by someone other
than the poll workers and that the ballot be segregated from other
ballots until that information is verified. The authors went to lengths
to ensure that the ballot is not simply counted once cast, rather a
review of the information is to be conducted on the status of the
voter.
Furthermore, ballots will be counted according to state law. If it is
determined that the voter is registered in a neighboring jurisdiction
and state law requires the voter to vote in the jurisdiction in which
he is registered, meaning the vote was not cast in accordance with
State law, the vote will not count. It was contemplated by the authors
of the statute that under such circumstances, the vote will not count.
It is not the intent of the authors to overturn State laws regarding
registration or state laws regarding the jurisdiction in which a ballot
must be cast to be counted.

Additionally, it is inevitable that voters will mistakenly arrive at
the wrong polling place. If it is determined by the poll workers that
the voter is registered but has been assigned to a different polling
place, it is the intent of the authors of this bill that the poll
worker can direct the voter to the correct polling place. In most
States, the law is specific on the polling place where the voter is to
cast his ballot. Again, this bill upholds state law on that subject.
The legislation also speaks to efforts, through litigation or
otherwise, to extend polling hours beyond those set by law. Under this
bill, those who vote in an election as a result of an order extending
polling hours, they will be required to cast a provisional ballot. This
section only covers those who vote as a result of the order, it does
not cover those who are in line before the polls close but cast their
ballot after the closing time.
Those who vote as a result of the order will cast a provisional
ballot and the ballots are to be held separately from other provisional
ballots cast in that race.
As we have seen before in elections, lower courts have issued orders
to extend polling hours only to have their order overturned later in
the day. But prior to passage of this bill, once ballots are cast, we
have no way of retrieving those ballots and candidates will be credited
with votes that should never have been cast. With the method required
by this legislation, the ballots of those voting based on the order
will be segregated and identifiable. If the order is overturned, the
parties involved in the election and perhaps the courts can then
determine how to reconcile those ballots. It only seems fair that if
the order is overturned and a higher court decides that the polling
hours should not have been extended, then the ballots cast as a result
of that order should not count for or against any of the candidates.
The legislation also requires states to set up a computerized,
statewide voter registration system to maintain the names of all
registered, eligible voters. It has been discovered that in states
across the country, registration lists contains the names of people who
have left the jurisdiction, who are not eligible to vote because of
their status as a felon, who are deceased or who are not eligible to
vote in that jurisdiction for any number of reasons.
As I prepared to draft this legislation, I reviewed the voting lists
in two jurisdictions in my State, St. Louis City and St. Louis County.
In the city, I found that one in ten voters were also registered
somewhere else in the State and at the time of the November 2000
election, there were more registered voters than there were city
residents of voting age. In St. Louis County, I found nearly 35,000
people who were registered somewhere else in the State. It was not
unusual to find people who were registered four times in the state.
It is well documented that registration lists around the country as
in disarray; they are bloated and contain the names of thousands of
people that no longer belong on the list. In part, this is because we
live in an increasingly mobile society. It is also because congress
made it more difficult for localities to maintain clean lists when
Motor Voter was passed.
Under this law, States will be required to maintain a State system
and therefore the central database of information containing the names
of all registered voters in the state.
In most States, registration will be maintained for the first time on
a statewide basis rather than jurisdiction by jurisdiction. This will
not affect the obligation on the States to

[[Page S10492]]

conduct list maintenance according to the provisions of the National
Voter Registration Act. First, for those States who are exempt from
motor voter, this will not affect that exemption and it will not affect
the way they maintain their voter lists. All other States must comply
with NVRA maintenance provisions. This legislation does not limit the
circumstances under which States can remove names from voter lists. The
notice provisions must still be complied with, although they have been
altered by the terms of this legislation.
The requirement for a state-wide registration system will enhance the
integrity of our election process, making it easier for citizens to
vote and have their ballots counted, while clearing ineligible and
false registrations from the voter rolls.
The Help America Vote Act also includes two new crimes directed at
those who commit vote fraud. This should be taken as further evidence
of the extent of the concern of the conferees and Congress at large
about voter fraud and the lengths that should be gone to stop voter
fraud. One section in particular section, 905(a), requires additional
clarification.
This section is as well intended to work with NVRA. Under NVRA,
people who use the mail registration card for the purpose of committing
vote fraud are subject to a criminal penalty. The reading of NVRA
appears to limit that to the person who actually commits the act,
whether it be sign the false card, mail the false card or turn it in to
the election officials. Section 905(a) of the Help America Vote Act, is
intended to extend that reach of the statute to cover those who
organize the fraudulent use of mail registration cards or who conspire
with others to use the mail registration cards to commit vote fraud.
Therefore, it is clear it is the intent of Congress to extend the reach
of the law to get the conspirators and the ring leaders in committing
vote fraud.
Mr. President, I close expressing my sincere appreciation to the
staff. On Senator Dodd's staff: Shawn Maher, Kennie Gill, and Ronnie
Gillespie. On Senator McConnell's staff: Brian Lewis, Leon Sequeira,
and Chris Moore. On the staff of Congressman Ney: Paul Vinovich, Chet
Kalis, Roman Buhler, Matt Peterson, Pat Leahy. On Congressman Hoyer's
staff: Keith Abouchar, Lennie Shambon, and Bill Cable.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank Senator Dodd for that statement
which clearly reflects the intent of the authors of the bill on these
important sections. If the Senator would yield, I would like to ask him
some questions regarding various sections of this bill.
This conference report has a section on alternative language
accessibility of voting systems, but the bill does not expand the
language accessibility beyond what is already required under the Voting
Rights Act. Is that the understanding of the conferees on alternate
language accessibility?
Mr. BOND. That is correct. The Voting Rights Act requires certain
voting materials to be available to the language groups delineated in
the Voting Rights Act statute. The language in the bill simply States
that the statute should be enforced. It is the intent of the authors to
display our belief that enforcement of the Voting Rights Act is
important but it is not the intent of the authors to expand that right.
Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator would yield, I have a few more
questions.
This bill makes significant changes in the voter registration process
for Federal elections. These changes are designed to clean up our
Nation's voter registration lists and reduce fraudulent registrations
and voting. Congress has a compelling interest in protecting the
integrity of the Federal election process. This legislation will
further that interest by helping to ensure accurate voter rolls, which
is the first step in ensuring fair elections. The senior Senator from
Missouri was a conferee on this bill and he has seen many instances of
duplicate voter registrations and voter fraud in his State. I would
like to ask the Senator from Missouri if his understanding of the
function and purpose of these new provisions is consistent with my
understanding and the intent of the conferees on this conference
report.
The conference report on H.R. 3295 requires that individuals who
register to vote on or after January 1, 2004, for Federal elections
must provide their driver's license number on the registration form. If
the individual has not been issued a valid driver's license number,
then that individual must provide the last four digits of his or her
social security number on the registration form. In the unlikely event
that an individual has neither been issued a driver's license number,
nor a social security number, the State shall issue that individual a
random registration number.
The State will then verify the registration information provided by
the individual with information in the State's department of motor
vehicle database. The State's department of motor vehicle database will
be also be cross-checked against Social Security Administration
records. It is important to note that States that utilize full social
security numbers for voter registration applicants can continue to do
so after passage of this legislation. This new registration requirement
is a minimum standard. If a State requires applicants to provide more
information--such as their entire nine-digit social security number--
this legislation will not override that State requirement.
Furthermore, the new computerized statewide registration systems that
we require States to implement will also help safeguard voter
registration lists against fraud. A State's use of a statewide voter
registration list will not, however, override State registration
requirements. Thus, even though a voter's registration information has
been entered into the statewide list that does not mean a voter will
never have to re-register if that voter moves to a different
jurisdiction within the State. The intent of the conferees is to
provide a centralized list of registered voters to help guard against
fraud. The intent is not to create one-time registration for voters and
force States to let individuals vote from locations other than the
precinct in which the voter is registered.
I ask the Senator from Missouri if my explanation of these provisions
reflects the intent of the conferees on this legislation?
Mr. BOND. I agree with the Senator from Kentucky. His understanding
of these new voter registration provisions is correct. These provisions
were designed to create more accurate voter lists and help ensure the
integrity of elections. Recent studies have found that there are more
than 720,000 people registered in more than one State. Duplicate
registrations provide the opportunity for unscrupulous people to commit
fraud and undermine honest elections by, in effect, invalidating
legally cast ballots.
Voter fraud can occur in many ways: submitting registration forms in
the name of deceased or fictitious people is one of the most common.
But some folks even fill out registration cards in the name of their
pet. In my home State of Missouri and in several other States and
localities across the country, we have seen serious documented cases of
fraudulent voter registrations. I have spoken many times of the fraud
in St. Louis in the 2000 election and this is an ongoing and indeed, a
nationwide, problem. Just last week, we learned that the FBI is
investigating widespread voter fraud in South Dakota and Pennsylvania.
Based on the extensive documentation we have seen, there can be no
doubt that voter fraud is a serious and real problem in Federal
elections. The use of driver's license numbers and full or partial
social security numbers will help elections officials to verify the
identity and eligibility of individuals and reduce fraudulent voter
registrations from being added to our voter rolls.
I should also note that these provisions apply to all registrants for
Federal elections regardless of the registrant's race, color or ethnic
origin. It is not a burdensome or discriminatory requirement in any
way. In fact, several States already require individuals to provide
this type of information on voter registration applications. Some
States require even more information from applicants, such as their
full nine-digit social security number. We have seen that States that
require additional identifying information from registrants have
substantially fewer

[[Page S10493]]

duplicate and fraudulent registrations on their voter rolls.

So, again, I agree with the Senator of Kentucky and am pleased to
report the conferees agreed that voter fraud is a serious problem and
included these provisions to help reduce that fraud and clean up the
Nation's voter rolls.
Mr. McCONNELL. I would also like to ask my fellow conferee, the
Senator from Missouri, about another voter registration provision in
this legislation. It is my understanding that some voter registration
applications currently in use are ambiguous with regard to questions
about an applicant's citizenship status. Because of these ambiguous
questions and instructions for answering the questions, the conferees
concluded that registration forms should provide additional guidance to
registration applicants and election officials who process voter
registrations.
This legislation requires that voter registration applications
contain a question asking whether the applicant is a U.S. citizen and
boxes for the applicant to answer the question by checking ``yes'' or
``no.'' If neither box is checked, the election official must return
the application to the individual with instructions to complete the
form. In effect, we have created a second-chance registration
opportunity. The individual's registration application cannot be
processed and the individual cannot be registered unless the
citizenship question is answered--and answered affirmatively. The
registration form shall also inform the applicant of this procedure I
have just described.
Mr. BOND. The Senator from Kentucky has accurately described the
intent and effect of this provision. I would also add, as I am sure the
Senator from Kentucky recalls, we learned that many jurisdictions in
this country have experienced continual confusion over citizenship
questions on registration forms. Some jurisdictions simply discard
registration applications or do not process the application when an
individual does not answer the citizenship question. Other
jurisdictions register individuals even though the individual did not
answer the citizenship question. Both of these scenarios threaten the
integrity of Federal elections. By requiring that incomplete
registration cards be returned to applicants, we help ensure that those
who innocently overlooked part of the registration form will be
provided a second opportunity to complete it.
As previously Stated, Congress has a compelling interest in
protecting the integrity of the Federal election process. The conferees
on H.R. 3295 believe that through this additional instruction about the
citizenship question, both voter registration applicants and elections
officials will take the appropriate actions to ensure those who are
entitled to register are actually registered. Through this
clarification and requirement that individuals affirmatively declare
their U.S. citizenship, we help ensure that only eligible voters vote
in Federal elections.
Mr. McCONNELL. I would also like to ask the senior Senator from
Missouri about language in section 301 of the conference report.
Section 301(a)(1), regarding Voting System Standards, says a voting
system shall permit a voter to verify in a private and independent
manner the votes selected. Section 301(a)(1) also says a voting system
shall provide a voter an opportunity in a private and independent
manner to change his or her ballot before the ballot is cast and
counted.
Am I correct that the conferees included the language ``in a private
and independent manner'' to ensure that individuals can verify and
change their votes free from intimidation or coercion from poll
workers, election officials or others?
Mr. BOND. The Senator from Kentucky is correct. The language ``in a
private and independent manner'' was added to the Voting System
Standards requirements to underscore the conferees' belief that voters
should not be harassed or intimidated at the polling place. Section
301(a)(1)(C) of the conference report also emphasizes that the privacy
of the voter and confidentiality of the ballot is paramount. If a voter
chooses to review his ballot and or make changes to his ballot, he
should be able to do so free from the interference of others.
Mr. McCONNELL. I have a couple of more questions for the Senator from
Missouri. The Conference Report on H.R. 3295 contains a new requirement
that voters in Federal elections have the opportunity to cast a
provisional ballot in cases where that person's name does not appear on
the list of eligible voters at a polling site and the voter declares
that he or she is properly registered to vote at that polling site. I
would like to ask the senior Senator from Missouri about the
provisional ballot requirement.
Am I correct that this legislation does not require a State or
locality to count a provisional ballot cast by an individual who is not
properly registered in the jurisdiction where the individual attempts
to vote? And furthermore, this legislation does not require a State or
locality to permit a voter who is not registered in a jurisdiction to
vote from that jurisdiction?
And am I also correct that a provisional ballot will be provided to a
voter if a poll worker or other individual, pursuant to State law,
challenges a voter's eligibility to cast a ballot?
Mr. BOND. I agree completely with the Senator's description of this
provision. Congress has said only that voters in Federal elections
should be given a provisional ballot if they claim to be registered in
a particular jurisdiction and that jurisdiction does not have the
voter's name on the list of registered voters. The voter's ballot will
be counted only if it is subsequently determined that the voter was in
fact properly registered and eligible to vote in that jurisdiction.
In other words, the provisional ballot will be counted only if it is
determined that the voter was properly registered, but the voter's name
was erroneously absent from the list of registered voters. This
provision is in no way intended to require any State or locality to
allow voters to vote from any place other than the polling site where
the voter is registered.
Further, as the Senator from Kentucky correctly pointed out, if State
law permits the challenge of provisional voters by someone other than
election officials, this legislation does not prevent that particular
State practice.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the distinguished Senator from Missouri for
his insightful answers to my questions and for his tireless work on
this conference report. I urge my colleagues to vote for the conference
report.
Today is a monumental day for the United States Senate. After 22
months of hard work, we are finally ready to vote, and hopefully
overwhelmingly approve, election reform legislation. The House-Senate
conference committee has presented this body with an outstanding piece
of legislation.
This conference report will usher in tremendous improvements to the
elections process across this country and the Federal Government will
share the costs. Through the establishment of an independent bipartisan
commission, States will receive the best objective information on
improving election systems.
The conference report will ensure that those who are legally
registered and eligible to vote are able to do so, and do so only once.
The new requirements for the creation of statewide voter registration
databases, voter registration and mail-in registrants voting for the
first times are the core of the new protections against fraudulent
registration and fraudulent voting.
I thank the State and local organizations that have been there with
us from the beginning and a special thank you to Doug Lewis from the
Election Center. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the Record a list of those organizations whose expertise and support
was invaluable throughout the process.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. McCONNELL. Once again I would like to thank and congratulate
Senators' Dodd and Bond and Congressmen Ney and Hoyer and the rest of
the election reform conferees.
I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this historic
conference report.
In my remarks yesterday I thanked the various staff members on both
sides of the aisle for their outstanding work.
Also I ask unanimous consent an editorial in today's Wall Street
Journal

[[Page S10494]]

called ``Dead Men Voting'' about the scandal unfolding in South Dakota
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 16, 2002]

Voter Fraud Wanders Off the Reservation

(By John H. Fund)

Today the Senate will approve and send to President Bush a
landmark bill that will upgrade voting machines and begin to
curb the voter fraud that is creeping into too many close
elections. It can't come soon enough. Last week, a massive
vote-fraud scandal broke out in a Senate race in Tom
Daschel's home state of South Dakota that could determine
control of that body.
The FBI and state authorities are investigating hundreds of
possible cases of voter registration and absentee ballot
fraud. Attorney General Mark Barnett, a Republican, says the
probe centers on or near Indian reservations. ``All of those
counties are being flooded with new voters, ``says Adele
Enright, the Democratic auditor of Dewey County. ``We just
got a huge envelope of 350 absentee ballot applications
postmarked from the Sioux Falls office of the Democratic
Party.''
Steve Aberle, the Dewey County state's attorney, says, many
of the applications are in the same handwriting. At least one
voter, Richard Maxon, says his signature was forged. Mr.
Aberle, a Democrat with relatives in the Cheyenne River
Tribe, says many Native Americans have wanted little to do
with ``the white man's government.'' But this year many
tribal elections have been scheduled for Nov. 5, the same day
as the critical election for Democrat Tim Johnson's Senate
seat. A Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee memo last
month noted that the ``party has been working closely with
the Native population to register voters and Senator Johnson
has set up campaign offices on every reservation.''
More and more counties are uncovering fraud. Rapid City
officials are investigating two brothers who may have forged
registrations. Denise Red Horse of Ziebach County died Sept.
3 in a car crash. But both Ziebach and Dewey counties found
separate absentee-ballot applications from her dated Sept. 21
in bundles of applications mailed from Democratic
headquarters. Maka Duta, who worked for the Democratic Party
collecting registrations in Ziebach, bought a county history
book that contains many local names. Some are turning up in
the pile of new registrations. At least nine absentee ballot
requests have been returned by the post office. Mable Romero
says she receive a registration card for her three-year-old
granddaughter, Ashley. Some voters claim to have been offered
cash to register to vote. In both Dewey and Ziebach counties,
the number of registered voters easily exceeds the number of
residents over 18 counted by the 2000 census.
Renee Dross, an election clerk for Shannon County, says her
office has received some 1,100 new voter registrations in a
county with only 10,000 people. ``Many were clearly signed by
the same person,'' she says. Some registrants actually live
in neighboring Nebraska. As in most states, South Dakotans
are on an ``honor system'' and don't show photo ID to
register or vote. Only the unprecedented flood of
applications raised any suspicions.
State Democrats told the Christian Science Monitor they
expect 10,000 new votes from the Indian reservations this
year. In 1996, Sen. Johnson won by only 8,600 votes. Russell
LaFountain, the director of Native Vote 2008, says his
organizers are encouraging ``strong absentee balloting.''
Pine Ridge Reservation residents told me that 11 workers are
being paid $14 an hour to contact voters. The statewide
Indian voter project is run by Brian Drapeaux and Rich
Gordon, two former staffers for Sen. Daschle. Democratic
officials say they've fired Ms. Duta and claim they were the
first to bring the fraud to light. Ms. Enright, the Dewey
County auditor, says that claim isn't true and is ``pure
spin.''
Voter fraud isn't unknown on reservations. Democrats have
often given out free tickets to Election Day picnics for
voters on the Pine Ridge Reservation, where 63% of people
live below the poverty level. In 1998, that prompted U.S.
Attorney Karen Schreier, a Democrat, and Attorney General
Barnett, a Republican, to write an unusual joint letter to
county auditors noting that ``simply offering to provide''
food or gifts ``in exchange for showing up to vote is clearly
against the law.'' Amazingly, Kate Looby, the Democratic
candidate for secretary of state this year, has criticized
laws barring the holding of picnics for those who vote. She
also wants to drop restrictions on absentee voting.
Making voting easy is desirable, but only if legitimate
voters don't have their civil right cancelled out by those
who shouldn't vote. In 1980, only about 5% of voters
nationwide cast absentee or early ballots. Now nearly 20% do.
``Absentee voting is the preferred choice of those who commit
voter fraud,'' says Larry Sabato, a professor at the
University of Virginia. He suggests media outlets set up
``campaign corruption hotlines'' and begin taking voter fraud
seriously. The Miami Herald won a Pulitzer Prize in 1998
after its stories on how 56 absentee-ballot ``vote brokers''
forged ballots in a Miami election. The sitting mayor was
removed from office.
In Texas, Democrat state Rep. Debra Danburg, who chairs the
state House elections panel, has tried without success to
reform absentee-ballot laws that are so loose she says they
make ``elderly voters a target group for fraud.'' Eric
Mountain of the Dallas County district attorney's office says
some campaigns have paid vote brokers $10 to $15 a ballot.
Many seniors are visited at home and persuaded to have
someone mark an absentee ballot for them. Others have
absentee ballots stolen from their mailboxes.
The law Congress is passing addresses some of the problems
the federal government created with the 1994 Motor Voter Law.
Let's hope the latest scandal in South Dakota--uncovered only
due to incredibly sloppy cheating--prompts states to examine
their own absentee-ballot laws so they will stop being
treated as an engraved invitation to fraud.
____

Exhibit 1

Thank you to the following organizations for their
significant contributions and steadfast support:
Election Center;
National Association of Secretaries of State;
National Association of Counties;
National Conference of State Legislatures;
National Association of State Election Directors; and
National Association of County Recorders, Election
Officials and Clerks.

challenge ballots

Ms. COLLINS. Maine has same day registration so a voter can register
at the polls or at a public office nearby and vote on the same day. If
someone challenges the voter's right on that day, the ballot is marked
as a challenged ballot. If a voter goes to the polls to vote and does
not have identification or does not appear on the voting rolls, the
presiding election official will challenge the voter, and his or her
ballot will be treated as a challenged vote. The presiding election
official keeps a list of voters challenged and the reason why they were
challenged. After the time for voting expires, the presiding election
official seals the list. The challenged votes are counted on election
day. In the even of a recount, and if the challenged ballots could make
a difference in the outcome of the election, the ballots and list are
examined by the appropriate authority. The distinguished Chairman and
Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules have done excellent
work crafting the important bill before us. I would ask them whether,
then, Maine's system complies with this Election Reform Act?
Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator from Maine for her excellent question
and for her steadfast support for election reform efforts. Let me
assure her that Maine's system does comply with the Election Reform
Act. Senator McConnell, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Rules
Committee, do you agree?
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the distinguished Chairman, and I also thank
Senator Collins for her excellent question and for her steadfast
support for election reform efforts. Let me also assure her that I
agree with Senator Dodd that Maine's system does comply with the
Election Reform Act.
Ms. COLLINS. I want to thank the Senior Senator from Connecticut and
the Senior Senator from Kentucky for their assistance and congratulate
them on the impending passage of this bill.

ELECTION REFORM REIMBURSEMENT

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I have a question about the impact of
provisions of this bill for the Ranking Member of the Rules Committee,
the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell and the Senator from Missouri,
Mr. Bond, who has been involved in the conference committee that
reconciled the House and Senate versions of H.R. 3295.
I understand that this bill does allow localities that have upgraded
voting equipment in the past two years to be reimbursed retroactively,
and I support this decision. We ought to reward, rather than penalize,
those States and localities that have aggressively moved ahead since
November 2000 to improve the processes and procedures for voting and
elections.
In Sections 261-263, having to do with payments to States and units
of local government to assure accessibility for individuals with
disabilities, however, it is not clear whether the payments made may be
made retroactively, and this concerns me. I expect that this was the
intent. This is important, however, because in Virginia, and, I believe
in several other States such as North Carolina and Rhode Island, the
State Board of Elections and the localities

[[Page S10495]]

have made a concerted effort to improve polling place accessibility
over the past two years. And I believe that for this November's
elections Virginia will be very close to 100 percent of all polling
places being 100 percent accessible. I would hate to have to tell my
State and local officials that because they have stepped up to the
plate and already made these polling places accessible over the past
two years that they are ineligible to receive payment for the
improvements they have made. So, I ask the Senators from Kentucky and
Missouri if they can assure me that States such as Virginia, which have
made polling place accessibility improvements during the past 24
months, are eligible for payment from the Secretary of Health and Human
Services for their costs of making polling places accessible for
individuals with disabilities that were incurred during that 24-month
period?
Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator from Virginia is correct. States are
eligible for reimbursement from the Secretary of Health and Human
Services for costs incurred during the 24 months prior to the enactment
of this bill of making polling places accessible to individuals with
disabilities.
Mr. BOND. I agree with the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the
conference report to the ``Help American Vote Act of 2002.''
First of all, I'd like to thank Chairman Dodd and Senator McConnell,
for their leadership and extraordinary efforts that have led us to
final consideration of this legislation today. Also, I'd like to note
that arriving at this point has not been easy for the members of the
Conference, nor for their staffs, and I appreciate the hard work by
everyone that led to this compromise.
That being said, I would be remiss if I failed to mention my concern
about the impact that enactment of this legislation could have on
States and localities, most of whom are experiencing extreme budget
shortfalls. I raised this issue when we first debated this legislation
in the Senate and I am disappointed that it has not been addressed in
the conference report.
Title III of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 includes a series of
new uniform and nondiscriminatory requirements for election technology
and administration. These requirements include voter verification of
votes cast, a paper record for auditability and recounts, and
accessibility for invividuals with disabilities. If enacted, these
requirements would apply to each voting system used in an election for
Federal office. There is no question that these provisions have far-
reaching consequences.
Mr. President, I appreciate the intent underlying this legislation,
which is that the system must be uniform in nature across the entire
country, if it is to be successful in accomplishing the goal of
election reform.
I also appreciate the Conference Committee's stated desire that the
program be fully funded. That being said, I must ask my colleagues the
difficult question: What if it isn't fully funded? We must consider the
consequences if a future Congress fails to provide adequate funding for
this legislation.
Mr. President, I stated my objections to the unfunded mandates in
this conference report back in February when we first considered this
legislation. Today, I am once again stating my strong objection to even
the mere possibility that the burden of funding these mandates might
fall upon the States.
Having expressed this concern, I also want to mention that this
conference report makes several necessary and important changes to our
current system of voting, which is burdened with problems ranging from
claims of voter fraud to a lack of accessible voting devices for many
disabled Americans. This conference report also includes an important
Hatch-Leahy Internet voting study that will lay the groundwork for
integrating new technology into the political process.
As Americans, we have the right to participate in the greatest
democracy in the world, and most will agree that the act of voting is
the bedrock of our democratic society. Americans take pride in the role
they play in shaping issues and determining their leaders, and yet, we
see that voter participation in recent years has decreased among people
of every age, race, and gender. I find these statistics both
disappointing and tragic because, as Thomas Jefferson stated, ``that
government is the strongest of which every man himself feels a part.''
Why is voter turnout so low? Of the 21.3 million people who
registered but did not vote in the 1996 election, more than one in five
reported that they did not vote because they could not take time off of
work or school or because they were too busy. Can technological
advances, like the Internet, increase participation in the electoral
process by making voter registration easier or by simplifying the
method of voting itself? As the elected representatives of the people,
we should consider every option available that might help involve more
of our country's citizens in America's democratic process. Federal,
State and local governments are duty bound to encourage all eligible
Americans to exercise their right to vote.
In the past, attempts have been made to increase voter registration
and turnout. Unfortunately, these attempts have met with limited
success. The Motor Voter Act of 1993, for example, attempted to
increase voter participation by permitting the registration of voters
in conjunction with the issuance of driver's licenses. According to
recent U.S. Census Bureau reports, 28 percent of the 19.5 million
people who have registered to vote since 1995 have done so at their
local Department of Motor Vehicles. Notwithstanding this simplified
voter registration procedure, voter participation continues to decline.
Although registering to vote at the DMV generally is more convenient
than other methods of registration, a substantial portion of registered
voters nevertheless continue to fail to register to vote and fail to go
to the polls on election day.
Voting via the Internet has been suggested as one possible solution
to the problem. The Internet has revolutionized the way people
communicate and conduct business by permitting millions of people to
access the world instantaneously, at the click of a mouse. The Internet
has already increased voter awareness on issues of public policy as
well as on candidates and their views. In the future, the Internet may
very well increase voter registration and participation, and thereby
strengthen our country's electoral process.
Mr. President, as many of us have seen in the recent past, more and
more States are looking at ways to utilize the Internet in the
political process. Proposals include online voter registration, online
access to voter information, and online voting. State and local
officials around the country are anxious to use the Internet to foster
civic action. I think that this is a positive step. In fact, today many
States already allow for portions of the voter registration process to
be completed online. For example, the Arizona State Democratic Party
allowed online voting in the 2000 presidential primary and nearly
36,000 Arizona Democrats took advantage of this opportunity. We can
anticipate that this trend toward online voting will continue.

Real questions remain, however, as to the feasibility of securely
using the Internet for these functions. How can we be sure that the
person who registers to vote online is whom he or she claims to be? How
can we ensure that an Internet voting process is free from fraud? How
much will this technology cost? There are also important sociological
and political questions to consider. For example, will options like
online registration and voting increase political participation? Can
the Internet be equitably used in the political process?
We must be carefully evalate the issues that will arise as the civic
privilege of voting meets with technological advances. The original
study I proposed would have created a special commission to conduct the
study, which would have comprised of various experts ranging from First
Amendment and election law experts to technical experts on the Internet
and cyber-security. While this type of Commission in not part of this
final conference report, it is my hope that the Commission will
nonetheless call upon advisors with special expertise in these areas.
Proponents of ``electronic voting'' (so-called e-voting'') contend
that there are numerous advantages to the

[[Page S10496]]

emerging ``cyber'' political participation, including the immediate
disclosure of campaign contributions, an increase in the number of
grassroots volunteers, and the creation of a more accessible forum for
political advertising.
Skeptics assert, to the contrary, that e-voting would only serve to
decrease ``real'' electoral participation, place personal privacy at
risk, and pave the way for election fraud. The late Senator Sam Ervin
opposed simplifying voter registration and voting, stating that he did
not ``believe [in] making is easy for apathetic, lazy people'' to vote.
As we seek to ensure equal access to the voting place and integrity
of the voting process, it would be irresponsible for us to ignore the
potential effects, both good and bad, that new technology may have on
the political process. As I stand before you today, Mr. President, I do
not know whether online voter registration and e-voting will halt the
decline in voter participation. I do not know whether online voting
registration and e-voting even is wise. I firmly believe, however, that
these issues deserve serious examination as we seek to ensure that our
democratic republic engages as many citizens as is possible. I am
pleased that the Hatch-Leahy provision will enable the study of
forward-looking measures that will ensure our ability to properly
integrate new technology in the political process.
In closing, Mr. President, I reiterate my concern that this
Conference Report is an unfunded mandate on already overburdened
states. However, I must look past that serious concern, and vote for
this conference report because of the important changes it makes to our
current system.
No American who has exercised the right to vote should ever have to
wonder if his or her properly cast vote will be counted. We must
preserve the integrity of the voting process and I, again, commend the
efforts of those who worked this compromise. Further, I believe that
the Hatch-Leahy Internet voting study is an important step forward in
ensuring the legitimacy of the voting process, and serves as a major
enhancement to the conference report.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this measure.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to commend the Senate for
passing the Help America Vote Act of 2002 today. This landmark
legislation will help the Nation avoid another debacle like the one
that occurred during the Presidential election in November of 2000. In
that election, thousands of ballots in Florida and in my home State of
Illinois went uncounted for a variety of reasons. In fact, over 120,000
voters in Cook County and thousands more throughout the rest of the
State did their civic duty and cast a vote during the last Federal
election, only to have their ballots discounted because of problems
with machinery and inaccuracies on the rolls of registered voters. This
is unacceptable in the United States of America, where we take pride in
our freedom to cast a vote for our leaders.
With the Help America Vote Act of 2002, Congress has finally agreed
on a bipartisan solution to these problems. The conference report
contains several items to improve the administration of elections for
Federal office. First, it requires that voting systems meet certain
minimum requirements, including notifying voters of overvotes, allowing
voters the opportunity to correct their ballots, and having a manual
audit capacity. The voting system must give disabled voters the ability
to vote ``in a manner that provides the same opportunity for access and
participation, including privacy and independence, as for other
voters.'' In addition, voting systems must operate under a maximum
error rate as currently established by the Federal Election Commission.
These national requirements for voting systems should significantly
improve the ability of all voters to cast ballots that accurately
reflect their intentions.
Next, the legislation provides a fail-safe mechanism for voting on
election day. It requires that all states allow voters to cast a
provisional ballot at their chosen polling place if the voter's name
isn't on the list of eligible voters, or an election official, for
whatever reason, declares a voter ineligible. Included in the right to
vote provisionally is the right to have one's eligibility to vote
promptly verified by the State and then to have one's ballot counted in
that election, according to State law. Finally, provisional voters have
the right to know whether their vote was in fact counted, and if not,
why it wasn't. These measures seem dictated by common sense and
fairness. Yet, many States, including Illinois, do not guarantee voters
such rights today.
To secure the rights afforded by this legislation, the Department of
Justice can ask the Federal courts to act. In addition, States are
required to establish an administrative procedure open to any person
who believes a violation of any of the requirements has occurred, is
occurring or will occur. States are free to add additional safeguards
to protect these rights and are encouraged to provide the most
effective remedy available to enforce them.
Another key component of this legislation is the requirement that
States implement an up-to-date, computerized, interactive, statewide
list of all registered voters that is accessible to election officials
in every jurisdiction. This list is intended to help keep voter rolls
current and accurate and to reduce, if not eliminate, confusion about a
voter's registration and identification when a voter arrives at the
polling place. This section also provides safeguards to preserve the
confidentiality of voter identification information and to protect
against improper purging of names from the list. Make no mistake: In
order to remove a voter's name from the list of registered voters, for
any reason, election officials must comply with all of the preexisting
requirements of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. This act
doesn't change that.
To further the study and improvement of voting and the conduct of
elections nationwide, the legislation creates an Election Assistance
Commission, which will serve as a central clearinghouse on election
administration issues. Advised by State and local officials, this
commission will, among other things, provide for the testing and
certification of voting systems. Ultimately, the commission should
identify and report to Congress on continuing problems with election
administration and potential solutions.
To facilitate voting by Americans living abroad, particularly those
serving their country in the Armed Forces, the Act enhances the
provision of election information, extends the duration of an
application for an absentee ballot, and requires states to accept early
submissions of ballots by such voters.
Finally, the conference report authorizes $3.9 billion in Federal
funding over the next few years to replace antiquated voting systems,
to educate voters on procedures and on their rights, to train election
officials, poll workers and volunteers, to improve polling place
accessibility for individuals with disabilities, to promote research on
voting technology, and to otherwise comply with the requirements of the
act. Of this amount, $650 million is to be made available on an
expedited basis, in part for the immediate replacement of punchcard
voting systems, the bane of the 2000 Presidential election. This should
be particularly helpful for Illinois, where the overwhelming majority
of voters still vote by means of this troublesome technology. In fact,
Illinois will be eligible for up to $45 million of this early money.
The bulk of funds - $3 billion over the next 3 years - is authorized
specifically to help States meet the requirements set forth in this
act. Illinois stands to receive up to $155 million under this section.
When these sums are appropriated, states will at long last have the
resources to provide citizens with the best means available to exercise
their right to vote.
Still, this legislation is not without its shortcomings. These
include new limitations on the way first-time and newly registering
voters are permitted to identify themselves, which could create
obstacles for some groups; the lack of an explicit, strong federal
remedy through which voters can individually vindicate the rights
granted them in this legislation; and the absence of a guarantee that
the funds authorized by this legislation will actually be appropriated
by Congress and the President. Thus, Congress has an ongoing
responsibility to provide the funds called for in this Act and to
monitor the implementation of its provisions over the next several
years.

[[Page S10497]]

Nonetheless, on balance, this legislation embodies a good faith,
bipartisan attempt to ensure that every eligible vote in an election
for Federal office is accurately cast and counted and I support its
worthy goals.
Mr. KENNEDY. The ``Help America Vote Act'' is timely and important
bipartisan legislation to strengthen our Nation's election system and I
urge the Senate to approve it.
The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy. As Chief
Justice Earl Warren said in 1964: ``The right to vote freely for the
candidate of one's choice is the essence of a democratic society, and
any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative
government.''
Over the past century and a half, a number of constitutional
amendments and major laws have been acted to expand and help protect
this fundamental right, including the 15th Amendment in 1870
prohibiting voting discrimination because of race; the 19th Amendment
in 1920 prohibiting voting discrimination because of gender; the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 outlawing racially discriminatory voting practices;
the 26th Amendment in 1971 lowering the voting age to 18; the Voting
Rights Act Amendments of 1982 which expanded the protections against
racial discrimination in the Voting Rights Act; and, the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993--the ``Motor Voter'' law--which simplified
voter registration procedures.
Now, the passage of the ``Help America Vote Act'' will add another
important chapter to our continuing efforts to protect and strengthen
the right to vote.
The 2000 election taught the entire nation a valuable lesson. We
learned that every vote does matter--but that every vote is not always
counted. Too often and in too many communities across the nation,
individuals who went to the polls on election day were denied the right
to vote or did not have their votes counted. The reasons varied--such
as confusing ballots, outdated or malfunctioning equipment,
inadequately trained poll workers, and the lack of access for the
disabled. But the outcome was the same--the voices of well over one
million Americans were not heard. The legislation before us today will
help to ensure that this unacceptable result does not happen again.

The bill includes three core components. It establishes uniform
requirements for voting systems, provisional voting, and computerized
voter registration lists, which all States must meet in Federal
elections. It creates a new four-member, bi-partisan, independent
Federal agency--the Election Administration Commission--to provide
guidance to the States, conduct studies and issue reports on Federal
election issues, and administer a new Federal grant program. Third, it
authorizes $3.9 billion in grants over the next three years to assist
States and localities in meeting the new requirements, modernizing
their voting systems, and making polling places accessible to the
disabled.
These are all important and needed reforms and I strongly support
them. Their effectiveness will depend on the participation of all
levels of government, including adequate appropriations by Congress,
and vigorous implementation of the reforms at the State and local
level.
At the same time, however, I have serious concerns that some
provisions of this legislation create new Federal requirements that
could make it more difficult for certain groups, particularly racial
and ethnic minorities, the poor, the elderly, and people with
disabilities to register and to exercise their right to vote.

The bill requires first time-voters who register by mail to provide
specific forms of identification. It requires the invalidation of a
registration when a voter inadvertently forgets to check off a
duplicative ``citizenship box.'' It requires that, when registering to
vote, voters must either provide their driver's license number, or, if
they lack one, the last four digits of their Social Security number. We
all have a strong interest in preventing voter fraud, but these
requirements may not be an effective way to verify voter identity and,
at the same time, they are very likely to create unnecessary barriers
for voters.
Congress, the new Election Administration Commission created by the
bill, and the Department of Justice must be vigilant in ensuring that
these provisions do not restrict voting by certain groups and that they
are enforced in a ``uniform and nondiscriminatory manner,'' as the
legislation requires. We know the potential harsh impact of these
provisions on those groups who have historically been denied full
participation in elections, and we must do all we can to prevent any
such impact. To implement the bill in good faith, Congress and the Bush
Administration should see that individuals who respect these basic
voting rights concerns are named to the new Commission.
With proper support and enforcement, the ``Help America Vote Act''
can significantly increase political participation for every American.
We all share the great goal of protecting the most fundamental of all
rights in our democracy--the right to vote.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it has been nearly 2 years since the
presidential election left many Americans disenfranchised. In that
time, this country has faced other tremendous crises, and perhaps the
fervor with which people supported election reform two years ago has
waned somewhat. But I believe that after all we have faced as a
country, it is even more important that we preserve and improve the
integrity of our democracy by ensuring that every eligible voter who
wants to vote is able to vote.
We can be thankful that we are past the days of poll taxes, literacy
tests, and other discriminatory practices that kept voters away from
the polls. But if there is even an inadvertent flaw in the design or
administration of our voting systems that prevents Americans from
having their votes counted, it is our utmost responsibility to ensure
that we remedy the situation.
There is simply no excuse for the most technologically savvy Nation
in the world to be using voting equipment that is 30 years old. And it
is disturbing, to say the least, that much of the oldest and least
reliable equipment is found in the poorest counties across the country.
Often, people of color make up the majority of the population in those
counties. None of us should ever again be in the position of having to
explain to urban, minority voters why a portion of their votes didn't
get counted, while their white suburban neighbors, using better
equipment, could rest assured that there were no voting irregularities
in their precincts that would have caused their votes to be discarded.
If we can't promise all of our citizens that their votes will count
equally, then all of the past work this Nation has done to guarantee
the right to vote to women, people of color and the poor will have been
squandered.
I have some serious concerns about a number of provisions in this
legislation. But, because I believe we must use every tool available to
us to uphold our citizens' right to vote, I have decided to support
this conference report. On balance, I believe this bill will enable
more people to exercise their fundamental right to vote by setting
uniform, minimum standards for Federal elections, by providing voters
with a chance to check for and correct ballot errors, and by providing
for provisional ballots. These provisions, along with funding to
replace outmoded voting systems, provide substantial improvements to
the current system.
Unfortunately, the compromise has significant shortcomings that my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle insisted upon, ostensibly to
reduce voter fraud, but which may make registration and voting
difficult for first-time voters. The bill's requirement that first-time
voters who register by mail provide specified forms of identification
at the polls may disenfranchise a large number of voters, especially
people with disabilities, racial and ethnic minorities, students, and
the poor, who are far less likely to have photo identification than
other voters.
I am also concerned about new language that will invalidate an
individual's registration if the person registering forgets to check
off a box declaring that he or she is a U.S. citizen. Because voters
already must affirm their citizenship when they sign the registration
form, it is unnecessary to require that this box be checked for
registration. Many elderly voters, visually impaired voters and voters
with low levels of literacy may inadvertently fail to check the box and
will, as

[[Page S10498]]

a result, disproportionately be kept off the registration rolls. This
legislation is supposed to be an effort to make voting easier for
qualified voters, and this provision adds an unnecessary, complicating
step.
This bill also requires that, in order to register, voters provide a
driver's license number or the last four digits of their Social
Security number, and those numbers must be verified. This provision
directly conflicts with the protections of the National Voter
Registration Act, which prohibit the use of a driver's license or
Social Security number to authenticate a voter's registration. Although
I understand the desire to reduce instances of voter fraud, I believe
these provisions are overly burdensome and unfair to many voters. This
provision also has serious privacy implications.
I hope that the problems with the conference report are fixed in the
very near future, and I would strongly support efforts to rectify these
disenfranchising provisions before the next election. However, as a
whole, this bill solves more election-related problems than it creates.
If it is properly implemented by state elections agencies, Congress's
intent to improve the voting system will be satisfied. This is an
important piece of legislation that must be enacted now if we are to
have any improvements in place before the next national election.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to urge my colleagues to
support the conference report to H.R. 3295, the ``Help America Vote Act
of 2002.'' I congratulate the conferees on their dedicated and
persistent effort in reaching a compromise agreement on this issue. I
believe that this historic legislation will play a major role in
correcting many of the problems that the country suffered during the
Year 2000 elections.
In my judgment, this legislation is inextricably linked with the
campaign finance reform bill that became law earlier this year. Both of
these pieces of legislation are aimed at the heart of any successful
democracy: restoring the voters' trust in their government. The new
campaign finance reform law is intended to reduce the influences of
special interests by eliminating the large flow of unregulated soft
money. This election reform legislation is designed to assure voters
that votes will be counted accurately, and that legally registered
voters will not be disenfranchised. I am especially proud that this
legislation will ensure for the first time in history that voters who
are blind or visually-impaired will be able to cast a vote privately
and confidentially.
However, I would urge my colleagues not to treat this legislation as
the conclusion of our work on the issue of election reform. The
Congress must ensure that this legislation is implemented fairly and
effectively. I know that concerns have been raised about the
identification requirements for first-time voters who have registered
by mail. While I applaud the goal of eliminating instances of fraud, it
is important that these provisions be implemented equitably to prevent
the disenfranchisement of minority or disabled voters.
In addition, I also would like to make a few recommendations
regarding the implementation of this legislation. As the states develop
their plans for meeting the new federal voting requirements and
receiving grant funding, I would urge them to solicit advice on
solutions to address the needs of disabled voters and others who have
historically faced impediments at polling places. I also urge the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to consult closely with the
Election Assistance Commission on the grant program to help states
making polling places accessible to disabled voters. The applications
for grant funding and reports on the uses of these funds may be helpful
to the Commission as it studies accessibility-related issues and
develops voluntary voting system guidelines. It is also important to
emphasize that concerns have been raised about the legislation's
enforcement provisions. I appreciate that the Department of Justice has
a role in bringing civil actions against states that are not in
compliance with the mandatory requirements. We will have to be diligent
in ensuring that these enforcement provisions are implemented.
On this historic day, I look forward to passage of this significant
piece of legislation. As the recent events in Florida show, our voters
still face major challenges in getting their votes counted at the
polling place. This legislation will present solutions to these
problems and reassure the American public that the best system of
government ever created continues to function in its 226th year.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the right to vote is one of the fundamental
components of our Republic. It is the central means by which the
American people can influence the direction of government, and thereby
the future of the nation. But, as we saw in the 2000 Presidential
election, just casting one's ballot is not the end of the process.
Votes must be verified and counted, and done so quickly and accurately
so that the American people have confidence in our elections.
Preserving the integrity of our voting system is critical to preserving
our representative form of government.
Over the years, I have watched as the percentage of eligible voters
who actually take the time to go to the polls and cast votes has
declined. I find it beyond disappointing that American citizens would
fail to exercise this precious right--in fact, this important
responsibility. Yet, I well understand how the spectacle of last year's
elections and the irregularities that were widely reported can
exacerbate a common misconception that one's vote does not count, a
belief that has permitted far too many minds in our nation. The federal
government can do more to reignite a passion for citizen participation,
and we must do so if we are to ensure that our Constitutional form of
government will survive for future generations.
This bill establishes grant programs that will provide states with
the resources to replace outdated voting machines and train poll
workers. It establishes minimum federal voting standards for states,
but leaves responsibility for election administration at the local
level.
The bill includes a number of safeguards designed to improve voter
access, including provisional ballot requirements, being able to
correct improperly marked ballots, and funding for equipment to allow a
disabled voter to cast a private vote without assistance. In an effort
to avoid a repeat of the Florida debacle of 2000, this bill mandates
that states create uniform standards for counting ballots.
I congratulate the members of the conference committee for their
efforts to bring this bill to conclusion. I support this reform because
it is an important first step in restoring confidence in our election
process.
<bullet> Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I want to show my support for the
election reform proposal that will shortly be approved. There are a
litany of provisions too numerous to outline that are extremely
positive steps toward ironing out very serious problems in our current
voting system. My thanks go out to Senators McConnell and Dodd, their
counterparts in the House, and all of the other conferees who fought
long and hard during the last few months to help ensure the
electorates' right to vote.
Secondly, and with much more remorse, I believe that many of the
shortcomings that our men and women in the military face as potential
overseas voters have not been fully addressed in the underlying
conference proposal. I have stood in this body many times since the
2000 election and have pushed for election reforms that would show
those who defend our way of life that their vote will not be cast-off
for technicalities through no fault of their own. Of course, I would be
remiss if I failed to mention that some focus was paid to military
voters in this bill. I am pleased that early submission will no longer
be grounds for refusal of registration or absentee ballots. The focus
on requiring the Department of Defense to have more support for Voting
Assistance Officers and emphasis on including postmarks on all ballots
mailed is also favorably noted. However, the House has thrown up
roadblocks to other important overseas voter measures, while the Senate
as an institution has continued to show leadership in this effort. I
hope that we will continue to do so in the future.
That being said, it is time now to look ahead. My support for the
election reform bill will not sway my feelings that there are still
many egregious errors in the process of overseas military

[[Page S10499]]

voting. I promise to continue the fight and protect the rights of those
men and women who would give their lives for the country that they
dearly love. The underlying election reform bill is a step in the right
direction, and I hope that congress can continue to follow that
path.<bullet>
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased that today Congress
addressed the debacle that occurred to diminish democracy during our
last Presidential election in Florida and other States. Access to the
polls is a fundamental right; it is essential to our democracy. The
2000 elections raised to the national stage problems that have been all
too common and all too familiar to many voters around the country.
Systems of administering elections are in many places flawed,
arbitrary, and discriminatory. I believe it is appropriate, even
necessary, for Congress to impose high voter participation standards on
States while providing the resources to meet those standards.
The Help America Vote Act contains a number of important reforms of
America's elections. The conference report authorizes funds to States
to reform their election systems. It sets uniform, minimum standards
for Federal elections. It will ensure the accuracy of state voter
registration databases. It requires provisional balloting so registered
voters are not turned away from polling places. And it will help ensure
that disabled voters may cast their ballots independently and
privately. The legislation is an important step forward, and I support
it.
However, I have reservations about provisions which have the
potential, if not monitored and implemented carefully, to make voter
registration more onerous for some voters. In particular, provisions
that require voters to register using a driver's license number or
Social Security number could cause problems. While the act would
require States to assign voters a number if they do not have either of
these forms of identification, I worry that some States may abuse this
provision to make it harder for certain citizens, particularly new
citizens and low income voters, to become registered.
One technical clarification I want to make about that provision: In
Minnesota we have same day voter registration. It is my understanding
that this act would require the State to issue a voter ID number to a
nonregistered voter who seeks to register on the day of the election,
if the voter has a Social Security number or driver's license but does
not have either number physically with him or her at the polling place
on election day.
The act requires new voters to check a box on the voter registration
form to indicate they are a citizen. Since new voters are already
required to attest that they are citizens on voter registration forms
under current law, this seems to be a needless, redundant requirement
which puts a hurdle, however small, in the way of new voters especially
new citizens. These provisions are probably unnecessary.
Finally, this legislation will only be fully effective if Congress
and the administration step up the plate to fund it. I will urge my
colleagues to fully fund this program.
On balance, this bill is a step forward. I hope reality lives up to
its promise.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I want to express my views on the Help
America Vote Act of 2002.
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 has many strong provisions that
will improve our Federal election system. This legislation requires
that election districts across the nation provide provisional voting
and post sample ballots and other voter information. It allows voters
the opportunity to verify and change their vote before casting their
vote. The act implements a statewide voter registration system to help
reduce fraud and ensures that individuals are not wrongly refused the
right to vote. It authorizes $3.9 billion in Federal funding to help
states improve voting systems, make the polls more accessible to the
disabled, train poll workers, and educate the electorate.
Despite these positive provisions, however, I cannot vote for this
bill because the voting rights of New Yorkers will be negatively
affected by this legislation.
For many years, the State of New York has had provisional voting and
what is called signature verification. In the 1980s, New York City put
in place a digitized signature verification system. When a New Yorker
registers to vote, his or her signature is scanned into a computer and
placed in the election board's files. Then on election day, the voter
signs the book of registered voters in that election district. If the
signatures do not match, the poll worker has the right to prevent the
voter from casting a ballot on the machine, but the voter is permitted
to cast a provisional ballot. The board of elections later determines
whether the provisional ballot is valid and should therefore be
counted.
Because of New York State's system, there is no need for a voter to
present a form of identification at the poll. In fact, the poll worker
manual in New York explicitly states that poll workers cannot ask
prospective voters for identification. This system was implemented in
New York City and across the State of New York more than a decade ago.
This system has worked in New York and should be a model for the
Nation.
Unfortunately, the Help America Vote Act would reduce the rights of
New Yorkers who are first-time voters in a federal election by
requiring them to present a valid photo identification, utility bill,
bank statement or government identification that verifies the name and
address of the voter. If a first-time voter filled out a registration
form and included either her driver's license number or the last four
digits of her Social Security number, then she would not have to
present a form of identification to a poll worker before voting. While
this may serve as a step in the right direction for other States, this
is a new restriction for New York.
This provision will repress voter participation among those New
Yorkers who are in fact eligible to vote. Moreover, it will
disproportionately affect ethnic and racial minorities, recently
naturalized American citizens, language minorities, the poor, the
homeless, the millions of eligible New York voters who do not have a
driver's license, and those individuals who otherwise would have
exercised their right to vote without these new provisions.
Many civil rights groups who oppose this legislation have compared
these provisions to poll taxes and literacy tests that were used to
repress voter participation in the past. I do not believe this is an
unfair analog because I believe this bill may indeed reduce voter
participation. When voter participation numbers hover at 50 percent, I
believe that we should make every effort to increase voter
participation, not reduce it.
I know this bill will pass the Senate today and will shortly become
law, no matter what I do. But despite the many provisions in the bill
that may increase voter participation in some states across the country
who do not currently have provisional voting, I cannot support this
legislation because it will negatively affect the rights of voters in
the state that I am proud to represent--the State of New York.
New York is a state with 19 million people and 11 million voters; a
state that is home to the world's cultural and financial capitals. It
is the gateway for millions of people from different countries and
ethnicities. New York represents one of the best things about our
country--it's diversity. In America, the birthplace of modern
democracy, we should do all we can to ensure that the right of every
voter is not unduly hindered unnecessarily. Unfortunately, I believe
the provisions in the Help America Vote Act will do just that.
I applaud the work of Senator Dodd, as chairman of the Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration, for all of his work on the bill,
and the other members of the election reform conference committee. I
also want to give a special thanks to the Rules Committee staff of
Senator Dodd, especially Kennie Gill and Veronica Gillespie, who have
worked from the first inception of the Senate's election reform bill to
the final words in this election reform conference report. I know many
members of the conference committee and their staffs have done their
best to produce legislation that will try to improve our federal
election system.
I am also proud to have worked with Senator Dodd on a provision
included in the conference report that calls

[[Page S10500]]

upon the new Election Assistance Commission to study and report to
Congress on the extent of residual votes. These are over votes, under
votes, or ``spoiled'' votes that are created when a voter,
unintentionally, makes a mistake in casting her ballot, either because
she doesn't understand the ballot or the voting machinery I have fought
hard to support the voting rights of the disenfranchised voter. But I
cannot in good conscience, representing the State of New York, support
legislation I believe will hurt the voting rights of New Yorkers. I
will continue, however, to do all I can to ensure that our Federal
election system and our democracy will be as strong as possible.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, Federal election reform is long
overdue.
Two years ago, the election system's collapse became a public shame
in my State. A lot of high-minded debate about the need to reform the
system immediately followed the election, but since then this
legislation has moved at a snail's pace.
Only now, three weeks before the next election, are we poised to send
a reform bill to the President to upgrade voting equipment, require
provisional balloting and improve election administration. It's a shame
that it has taken so long to remedy such a serious failure. A failure
which cast into doubt the winner of the most important elected office
in the world.
As a result of the delays, these desperately needed improvements will
come too late for the upcoming election. That's unfortunate, because in
spite of the positive reforms made at the state level in Florida, some
precincts experienced problems during the August primary election that
might have been avoided, or at least mitigated, under the federal
reforms.
Similar problems could occur again and the failures are not likely to
be isolated to Florida when the general election is held in November.
Our goal now must be to implement the changes in time for the 2004
elections.
Unfortunately, the administration has already chosen to slow down the
reform process by rejecting a $600 million appropriation passed by
Congress earlier this year in anticipation of final passage of the
authorizing legislation.
The administration unforgivably failed to accept the funds and the
money must now be appropriated again. That process could take precious
months that would otherwise be used by the States to prepare for the
2004 elections.
There's no excuse for the administration's failure to accept
Congress' down payment, especially after promising to support these
reforms.
I hope President Bush will reaffirm his support for election reform
by asking Congress to include the full $3.8 billion authorized by this
bill in the next continuing resolution or, at the latest, as part of a
supplemental appropriation early next year. We shouldn't hesitate
another day to send this money to the States so that they have every
minute possible to prepare for 2004.
A strong election system requires top-notch equipment, informed and
able poll workers, a provisional voting system and outstanding voter
education programs. But it also requires sensible registration and
voting procedures that prevent fraud without disenfranchising voters.
Despite my support for this legislation, I am concerned that the
bill's anti-fraud provisions may unfairly burden minority, elderly and
disabled voters. Eliminating voting fraud is absolutely essential, but
the mechanisms used to prevent fraud should not be so complicated, or
intrusive, that they discourage or prevent voting by qualified people
who may not, as a consequence of their lifestyle, have the specific
documentation required by this bill.
I support modifying these provisions to allow potential registrants
or voters to use additional documentation to prove their identity or to
attest, under penalty of perjury, that they are in fact who they say
there are. I understand that the conference committee would not approve
such a change and I do not believe the entire bill should be
sacrificed.
In light of this problem, I intend to follow closely this
legislation's implementation with a specific eye on how the anti-fraud
provisions work in practice. If the photo identification requirements
and registration procedures set out by this legislation cause more harm
than good I will support their repeal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. McCONNELL. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky controls 1 minute 30
seconds.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator from Missouri for his solid work.
Disenfranchised by this bill are dogs such as Gidget--Salish's Potomac
Fervour--pictured here in front of the Capitol. A solid Republican,
Gidget will nevertheless never know the joy of participating in the
election process. I am advised she could have been a fine voter--with a
vigorous appetite for punchcards and aptitude for touch-screens. These
skills will now have to be channeled into canine agility trials,
instead of the election process. I congratulate the Senator from
Missouri for that. That is one of the many fine results of this
outstanding piece of legislation which, regretfully, is one of the few
pieces of legislation the second session of the 107 Congress has
passed.
We will have passed only 2 of our 13 appropriations bills. We have no
budget and no terrorism reinsurance bill. It has really been a dismal
record. But we do have something to be thankful for today, which is
that we are about to pass an extraordinarily important piece of
legislation on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. This is, indeed, the
way the Senate should work.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Who yields time? The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in my remarks yesterday I commended my
colleagues who have been involved in this. I want to do so again,
Senator McConnell and Senator Bond.
I also commended my new found friend from the House, Bob Ney, who did
a remarkable job as the Chairman of the House Administration Committee.
Steny Hoyer has been involved in these issues for a long time, and I
have known him for a long time. I will not take the time today, as I
did yesterday, to thank him as profusely--but it is deeply felt. We
would not have arrived here without a lot of people working very hard
on this. I thank all of them, the leadership here and others who
brought us to this particular point.
I mentioned yesterday the juxtaposition of the events that unfolded
on November 7, 2000, and the events as they are unfolding today on
October 16, 2002. When you consider the scenes that dominated the news
media for days and days after the November 7 elections, with bulging
eyeballs glaring and butterfly ballots and hanging chads and people
bellowing at each other and outside auditors at registrars of voters
offices in Florida, here we are today in the relative calm of this
institution, about to adopt, I hope overwhelmingly, legislation that
addresses many of the concerns that were raised as a result of the
events in Florida.
But they were not just in Florida, as I said. There were other States
as well, and it has been going on for some time. So this is an
important day, one that will not demand or receive the kind of
attention, obviously, that the events that provoked it did, almost 2
years ago shy 3 weeks in November-December of the year 2000.
So it is an important landmark. We are breaking new ground. This is
the first time in more than 200 years that the Federal Government is
going to take a very protective involvement in the conduct of
elections. The Constitution insisted that both States and the Federal
Government be involved in the election process in this country, but we
have only been involved marginally at best. In the 1965 Voting Rights
Act, of course, we prohibited certain activities in the States such as
poll taxes and literacy tests. But over 213 years have gone by since we
have had a proactive involvement in terms of what also must be done.
This legislation lays that out and asserts new rights.
As I said before, this is truly the first civil rights act of the
21st century, insisting that all people who show up to vote will have a
chance to do so, if only provisionally. My colleagues have had fun
talking about dogs who may have voted. There were human beings who

[[Page S10501]]

were not allowed to vote, between 4 million and 6 million of them in
the last election. While it is humorous to talk about the dogs who may
have voted, it is not very funny to talk about the people who showed up
and didn't and were denied the opportunity to do so.
This legislation, we hope, is going to solve at least part of that
problem beginning in the year 2004, where every person who shows up to
cast a ballot in every precinct in America is going to be allowed to
cast a ballot and never again be asked to step out of line and go home.
That ballot will be cast provisionally where there is a debate about
whether or not they have a right to do so, but the right to cast a
ballot is never again going to be denied to a person who shows up--the
right to cast a ballot in America.
That is not an insignificant achievement. We also said for those who
are blind and disabled, some 20 million who never showed up the last
time to vote because they have not been able to cast a ballot
independently and privately, those days are over with. Henceforth,
beginning in 2006 or before, if the States can get it done earlier,
people are going to be allowed to cast a ballot privately and
independently. The idea in this country that you could use Braille and
have sidewalks accessible to the handicapped, but ballots in America
were not--the only State in the country that has made a difference in
that is the State represented by the present Presiding Officer, the
State of Rhode Island. As a result of your former secretary of state,
who himself suffers from a disability as a result of having been
injured, he understood it and went out and did it. The other States are
now going to do it in this country.
There are new rights here: The right to look at your ballot, correct
your ballot before it is finally cast. I know these are radical ideas,
but these are important provisions. No longer will you have to leave a
voting place wondering whether you might have voted twice--two people
for the same office, as happened in butterfly ballots in Florida. You
are going to be able to go back and check your ballot before it is
actually cast. So those rights in here are important.
Statewide voter registration will be facilitated for the first time.
If you move within a State--say from Lexington to Frankfurt, or if you
move from Hartford to Bridgeport, or if you move from some county in
Missouri to another, you are not going to have to register again if you
are in the same State and the State has statewide voter registration.
Statewide voter registration will do an awful lot to relieve a lot of
burdens on voters as they move. And many people do in this country. We
are a mobile society today.
We also include provisions which Senator Bond insisted on in terms of
responsibility. We are going to make sure we do our best to see to it
that people who register to vote are who they say they are, so we don't
have people registering fictitious people and casting ballots for them.
To Senator Bond's credit, we worked very hard on that.
There will be for the first time a permanent Federal Election
Assistance Commission, so we don't have to wait for another disaster in
some State and then occupy the time and attention of this institution
responding to it. On an ongoing basis, it will be a place where the
States, counties, municipalities, and the Federal Government can work
together when it comes to election issues.
Of the $3.9 billion, 95 percent of the improvements will be borne by
the Federal Government because we are requiring it to be done. I don't
believe in unfunded mandates. I wanted 100 percent. We had to
compromise at 95. We are now going to participate and support our
States and localities in making the changes they need to make in order
to make our system work that much better.
I am thankful to all of our colleagues for their support and help
during the debate yesterday, I inserted a number of letters into the
Record which expressed support for this conference report. Today I ask
unanimous consent to include in the Record letters which express
concerns about specific provisions of this legislation, including
letters from the National Council of La Raza, the League of Women
Voters, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference
on Civil Rights, and People for the American Way.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
Record, as follows:

National Council of La Raza,
Washington, DC, October 9, 2002.

NCLR Urges Congress to Vote NO on the ``Help America Vote Act'' (H.R.
3295)

Dear Member of Congress: The National Council of La Raza
(NCLR), the largest national Latino civil rights
organization, opposes the ``Help America Vote Act'' (H.R.
3295), because it will disproportionately affect Latino
voters, suppresses voter registration and turnout, and in
some instances will roll back civil rights laws.
Furthermore, we note with concern the continuing
uncertainty of the appropriations process, which means that
no one, including the authors of the compromise bill, can
guarantee funding sufficient to implement the bill.
NCLR is an umbrella organization with over 280 local
affiliated community-based organizations and a broader
network of 33,000 individual associate members. In addition
to providing capacity-building assistance to our affiliates
and essential information to our individual associates, NCLR
serves as a voice for all Hispanic subgroups in all regions
of the country.
NCLR urges you to join us in opposing the ``Help America
Vote Act'' (H.R. 3295) because the ``compromise'' bill:
Requires first-time voters who register by mail to provide
specific forms of identification at the polls. This provision
will have a discriminatory impact on a large number of
voters, especially people with disabilities, racial and
ethnic minorities, students, the elderly, and the poor, who
are substantially less likely to have photo identification
than other voters. Additionally, having states implement this
requirement prior to the 2004 presidential election, without
the statewide list in place, is a dangerous experiment that
runs the risk of creating additional chaos at the polls.
Contains weak enforcement provisions. Voters who are denied
their right to vote because of this law cannot turn to the
federal courts for a remedy. Rather, disenfranchised voters
must either wait for the Department of Justice to take action
or ask the same state election system that disenfranchised
them to determine that there is a violation and provide a
remedy for the problem.
Contains new language that will require any registration to
be invalidated if the person registering forgets to check off
boxes declaring that he or she is a U.S. citizen. Because
voters already must affirm their citizenship when they sign
the registration form, it is unnecessary to require that this
box be checked for registration. Many elderly and low-income
voters, as well as voters with low levels of literacy, who
find filling out forms difficult, may inadvertently make the
mistake of failing to check the box and will, as a result,
disproportionately be kept off the registration rolls; and
Contains an intrusive, error-prone requirement that voters
provide a driver's license Number or, in the event they do
not have one, the last four digits of their Social Security
number. Election officials must independently verify the
number before registering someone, and any individual who has
either number but fails to provide it will not be registered.
This provision directly conflicts with the protections of the
National Voter Registration Act, which prohibits the use of a
driver's license or Social Security Number to authenticate a
voter's registration.
For almost two years NCLR worked diligently with both
Republicans and Democrats in the House and in the Senate on
election reform legislation, to address the need for good
election reform legislation. Today we oppose this bill
because the Latino community cannot accept a bill that does
more harm than good, and urge you to vote against it. Please
be advised that NCLR will recommend that votes related to
this bill and final passage be included in the National
Hispanic Leadership Agenda Scorecard.
Sincerely,
Raul Yzaguirre,
President.
____

The League of Women Voters,

Washington, DC, October 9, 2002.

Election Reform Legislation in U.S. Congress--League Cautions:
Legislation Is a Gamble, Implementation Key

Washington, DC.--``The compromise election reform
legislation being considered this week by the U.S. Congress
makes important reforms in the voting process but erects new
bureaucratic hurdles for voters,'' stated Kay J. Maxwell,
president of the league of Women Voters of the United States.
``The Help America Vote bill is a tradeoff, providing
stronger protections in our voting systems while taking away
safeguards in voter registration.''
``There are many good things in this bill, but it also
undermines existing voter protections,'' Maxwell noted. ``On
the positive side, lawmakers are creating new federal
standards and providing the states with funds to buy new
voting machines that work, to better train and recruit poll
workers, to create statewide voter registration databases,
and put provisional balloting systems in place,'' said
Maxwell.

[[Page S10502]]

``But the League cannot overlook the fact that this bill
places voter protections at risk by cutting back existing
federal standards for voter registration. It weakens and
undercuts several of the hard-fought voter protections
established in current law,'' Maxwell stated. ``We are also
concerned that the discriminatory identification provision in
this legislation will erect barriers to voting. The
identification requirements place additional burdens on poll
workers and may create a mess at the polls in 2004,''
cautioned Maxwell.
``This bill is a gamble,'' said Maxwell, ``and
implementation will be the key in determining whether it
succeeds or fails. We hope that states take seriously the
larger role they now have in administering federal elections.
They must step up to their constitutional responsibility to
run elections effectively,'' stated Maxwell. ``The League at
the national, state and local levels will work closely with
state and local election officials and citizens across this
country to ensure that all the provisions of this bill are
carried out to enfranchise rather than disenfranchise
voters,'' concluded Maxwell.
____

American Civil Liberties Union,

Washington National Office,

Washington, DC, October 9, 2002.
Re H.R. 3295/Help America Vote Act.

Dear Member of Congress: The American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) urges you to oppose the conference report on HR 3295,
Help America Vote Act, because the agreement contains
provisions that would lead to discrimination and ultimately
result in disenfranchising many voters. This legislative cure
to the severe voting rights problems seen in the 2000
Presidential election could be even worse than the disease.
In many respects, the conference report rolls back many of
the voting rights victories achieved over the past three
decades through the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the
National Voting Registration Act of 1993. Instead of making
sure that the voting process is as inclusive as possible,
this agreement would exclude people, negatively impacting the
elderly, the disabled, racial and ethnic minorities,
students, and the poor. Not only would this bill make it more
difficult to vote, it would make it more difficult to
register to vote.
While the conference report purports to address the voting
problems apparent during the 2000 Presidential election, its
solutions are illusory. For example, the legislation
establishes minimum standards for the performance of voting
machinery, but provides an exemption for punch card machines,
the most controversial and problematic technology used during
the 2000 presidential election, for over-vote notification.
Although this legislation requires election officials to
permit voters whose name does not appear on the voter
registration list to cast a provisional ballot, it gives
complete discretion to the state to decide when and if
provisional ballots will be counted, even in federal
elections. As we have seen in the past, these ballots can
determine the outcome of an election.
This election reform legislation is the only major piece of
civil rights legislation the Senate and House have taken up
in the 107th Congress. We urge you to carefully consider the
negative implications associated with the provisions that
will undermine critical advances the United States has made
in voting rights. While this legislation would authorize much
needed funding to states and local governments to improve
their election systems, it simultaneously imposes
requirements that will effectively suppress voter
participation. New machines are meaningless if policies are
enacted that prevent people from voting on them.
Outlined below are two problematic provisions contained
within the conference report that threaten to exacerbate the
very problems that the legislation is intended to correct, to
ensure that every citizen eligible to vote can vote. They are
the driver's license and social security number requirement
to register to vote and the photo identification requirement
to vote.

driver's license and social security required to register to vote

The conference report imposes additional requirements in
order for citizens to register to vote. Under this
legislation, the voter would be required to provide a
driver's license number or, in the event they do not have
one, the last four digits of their social security number.
Any voter who has either number but does not provide it--even
for privacy reasons--would not be registered.
When the voter provides either their driver's license
number or the last four digits of their social security
number, the state must verify the accuracy of the data
provided. This includes checking data against state motor
vehicle and Social Security Administration (SSA) databases,
to verify the voter's name, date of birth and social security
number. But, there are many reasons why the data provided by
an eligible voter may not match the data in a motor vehicle
or SSA database, even though it is the same person. For
example, women may have married or divorced without changing
their name in the SSA database. Many Latinos use both their
mother and father's surname, or both their father's and
spouse's surnames, which SSA may list incorrectly--resulting
in a false ``no-match.'' A simple juxtaposition of a number
could result in a ``no-match,'' whether due to the fault of
the applicant, or an SSA employee who enters the number into
the database incorrectly. This could result in either purging
or the invalidation of a voter's registration application.
Also, this conference report would remove social security
number disclosure (last four digits) from the protection of
the Privacy Act of 1974, which makes it unlawful for local,
state or federal agencies to deny someone a right provided by
law for refusing to disclose their social security number.
Congress did not limit the protection in Sec 7(a) of the
Privacy Act to parts of the social security number. All nine
digits of the social security number are part of the ``social
security account number'' and are therefore protected. It was
the use of the social security number for identification
purposes that Congress was restricting. There can be no doubt
that the requirement that voters disclose the last four
digits of their social security in order to register to vote
is an attempt to use the numbers as an identifier. If
Congress intended to protect only five (5) of the nine (9)
digits it would have written legislation that explicitly did
so. Permitting a state to require parts of the social
security account number creates an exception that would
frustrate the intent of Congress. Furthermore, it is
incorrect to suggest that by merely requiring a voter to
disclose the last four digits of their social security number
that their privacy is somehow protected.
In addition, forced disclosure of social security numbers
threatens a citizens' privacy and could lead to identity
fraud, where imposters armed with a person's name and social
security number can raid back accounts, establish fraudulent
credit cards and even ruin a voter's credit. The Social
Security Administration Office of Inspector General has
registered a 500 percent increase in allegations of Social
Security fraud in the past several years--from 11,000 in 1998
to 65,000 in fiscal year 2001.

photo identification required to vote

The second major setback in the conference report is the
photo identification requirement. As with the other methods
of disenfranchisement in American history, such as literacy
tests and poll taxes, the photo identification requirement
would present barriers to voting and have a chilling effect
on voter participation. There are voters who simply do not
have identification and requiring them to purchase photo
identification would be tantamount to requiring them to pay a
poll tax. As a disproportionate number of racial and ethnic
minority voters, the homeless, as well as voters with
disabilities and certain religious objectors, do not have
photo identification nor the financial means to acquire it,
the burden of this requirement would fall disproportionately
and unfairly upon them, perhaps even violating the Voting
Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973.
Further, the limited alternatives to photo identification
provided in the bill--including a government check or
government document, utility bill, or bank statement that
shows the name and address of the voter--place the poor in no
better position. Certain populations of battered women and
homeless people, for example, cannot produce any of the
required documents, because they often do not live in a house
or apartment and if they do, the utility bills are not in
their name, they do not have a bank account, and they may not
receive a government check. American citizens should not be
denied their constitutional right to vote because they do not
have these documents, particularly when there are other
alternatives to these requirements such as attestation or
signature clauses which are currently used effectively by
many states to prevent fraud.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has consistently raised
objections to imposing photo identification as a prerequisite
for voting because such requirements are likely to have a
disproportionately adverse impact on black voters and will
lessen their political participation opportunities. In 1994,
DOJ found that African-American persons in Louisiana were
four to five times less likely than white persons to have
driver's licenses or other picture identification cards. In
addition, the Federal Elections Commission noted in its 1997
report to Congress that photo identification entails major
expenses, both initially and in maintenance, and presents an
undue and potentially discriminatory burden on citizens in
exercising their basic right to vote.
Effective federal legislation should not erect new
obstacles or weaken existing voting rights laws. Eliminating
these discriminatory provisions is the most certain and
complete way to guarantee that all states meet the
requirements outlined by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore,
121 S. Ct. 525 (2000). Voters should not have to resort to
the courts to ensure compliance with the ``one person-one
vote'' rule.
We recognize that reform of our nation's electoral systems
is critical. But it cannot be done in a manner that unduly
prevents legitimate voters from exercising their
constitutional right to vote. For the reasons indicated
above, we urge you to vote ``no'' on final passage and will
score a vote in favor of this legislation as a vote against
voting rights. If you have questions, please contact ACLU
Legislative Counsel LaShawn Warren.
Sincerely,
Laura W. Murphy,
Director.
LaShawn Y. Warren,
Legislative Counsel.

[[Page S10503]]

____
Leadership Conference on

Civil Rights,

Washington, DC, October 9, 2002.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the Leadership Conference on
Civil Rights, nation's oldest, largest and most diverse civil
rights coalition, we write to provide our assessment of the
final conference report on H.R. 3295, the ``Help America Vote
Act of 2002.'' In a number of significant respects, the
House-Senate election reform agreement is an important step
forward in improving election procedures and administration
throughout the nation. However, we do have several remaining
concerns about the report language that prevent us from being
able to endorse the final package.
Given the fact the millions of American citizens were
denied their basic right to cast a vote and to have that vote
counted in the 2000 election, the enactment of meaningful
election reform has been the Leadership Conference's highest
legislative priority. We greatly appreciate the efforts of
Sens. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Charles
Schumer (D-NY) as well as Reps. Bob Ney (R-OH), Steny Hoyer
(D-MD), John Conyers (D-MI), Charlie Gonzalez (D-TX) and
others to reach a bipartisan agreement on comprehensive
election reform. Among its beneficial provisions, the
conference agreement will:
Set uniform, minimum standards for federal elections
nationwide, including providing voters with a chance to check
for and correct ballot errors;
Ensure accuracy of state voter registration databases by
implementing uniform, statewide computerized lists;
Provide provisional ballots, which allow voters who are
erroneously left off the voter registration lists to vote and
be counted once eligibility can be verified;
Help eliminate outmoded punch-card and lever voting
systems, and upgrade voting systems and equipment in every
state; and
Provide funding to ensure that voters with disabilities are
able to cast ballots privately and independently.
The conference report language, however, does contain
several troubling provisions:
First, the report contains a requirement that all persons
seeking to register must provide the state with a drivers
license number or, in the event they do not have one, the
last four digits of their social security number. Any person
who has either number but does not provide it--even for
privacy reasons--will not be registered. Once a voter
provides either number, the state must verify the accuracy of
the data provided by checking it against state motor vehicle
or Social Security Administration (SSA) databases. This
system set out by the conference report is both cumbersome
and prone to error. There are many legitimate reasons why the
data provided by an eligible voter may not match the data in
a motor vehicle or SSA database. For example, a woman may
marry or divorce without updating her last name in the
database; many Latinos use two last names, which the SSA may
list incorrectly; some Asians list their last name first; and
in entering their date of birth, some people enter the date
followed by the month, the opposite of U.S. customs. Even a
simpler juxtaposition of a number could result in a ``no-
match.''
Second, amendments that have been made to the ID
requirement fail to reduce its disenfranchising impact upon
first-time voters. While the conference report includes minor
improvements, these provisions fall far short of reducing the
disproportionate negative impact of the ID provision.
In order to reduce its harmful impact on first-time voters,
the ID requirement should have been linked to the requirement
that a state have a computerized voter list in place.
Instead, while the compromise bill requires mail-in
registrants to meet the ID requirements in the 2004 election-
cycle, it gives states a waiver until 2006 to create the
statewide computerized lists. As a result, voters in states
without state-wide lists will have to comply with the ID
provision anytime they move within the state. Thus, the
burden of the ID requirement will fall more heavily on
renters, who change residences more often than homeowners,
and who generally have lower incomes.
Third, the conference report would invalidate the
registration of any voter who does not check off a new box on
the registration form declaring that he or she is a U.S.
citizen. Many elderly voters and voters with low levels of
literacy, who find filling out forms difficult, will be
likely to inadvertently fail to check the boxes and will, as
a result, disproportionately be kept off the registration
rolls.
Provisional ballots will not solve the above problems. Even
if a voter is allowed to file a provisional ballot, it will
not be counted because he or she was never ``properly''
registered, due to these onerous registration and
verification requirements.
We hope you will keep the above issues in mind when
deciding how you will vote on the conference report to H.R.
3295. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
Rob Randhava, LCCR Policy Analyst, at 202/466-6058 or Nancy
Zirkin, LCCR Deputy Director/Director of Public Policy. Thank
you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Dr. Dorothy I. Height,
Chairperson.
Wade Henderson,
Executive Director.
____

People For the American Way,

Washington, DC, October 10, 2002.
Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the 600,000 members
and supporters of People For the American Way (PFAW), we are
writing to express our views on the conference report to HR
3295, the Help America Vote Act.
We are pleased by many of the bill's provisions, which we
believe will significantly improve our nation's election
system. The legislation will allow registered individuals to
cast provisional ballots even if their names are mistakenly
excluded from voter registration lists at their polling
places. It will require states to develop centralized,
statewide voter registration list to ensure the accuracy of
their voter registration records. It will also require states
to provide at least one voting machine per polling place that
is accessible to the disabled, and ensure that their voting
machines allow voters to verify and correct their votes
before casting them. Finally, the legislation authorizes $3.8
billion in critically needed funds to fix antiquated voting
systems and to meet the minimum standards set forth in the
bill.
At the same time, we are concerned by other provisions that
may erect new barriers to voting. These provisions include
the identification requirements for first time voters who
register by mail and the provision (added by the conference
committee) that allows election officials to return voter
registration forms as incomplete if the ``citizenship box''
is left blank by the voter.
Since the effectiveness of this legislation depends on
uniform and non-discriminatory enforcement, PFAW will be
vigilant in our efforts to educate the public about new
requirements and will monitor the application of these
provisions in the states. We will be advocating for full
funding of programs authorized by the bill in order to ensure
that the bill does not contain empty promises. Concurrently,
we will begin to identify areas where we can strengthen the
progress made by this bill, and work with our allies on
legislation to correct deficiencies.
Finally, through PFAW Foundation's election protection
program, now operating in six states, we will intensify
efforts to educate voters to ensure that individuals know and
understand their new rights and responsibilities. People For
the American Way Foundation will also take other action as
appropriate to protect voters' rights.
Sincerely,
Ralph G. Neas,
President.
Stephenie Foster,
Director of Public Policy.

Mr. DODD. The concerns of these groups are reflected in three of the
provisions of the conference report: (1) the first-time mail
registration requirements of section 303(b); (2) the requirement that
the drivers license, or last 4 digits of the voter's Social Security
number, be provided on the registration form under section 303(a)(5);
and (3) the citizenship check-off box requirements of section
303(b)(4). I intend to address each of these issues in turn.
Let me state from the start that each of these groups was
significantly involved in the development of the original Dodd-Conyers
legislation, and all continued to provide valuable input and comments
as we worked to develop a bipartisan compromise in the Senate last
December and then perfect that compromise in conference with the House
this summer and fall. Many of these same groups expressed reservations
at the time about the Senate compromise and withheld support for the
bill when it passed the Senate. Each of these organizations played a
pivotal role in the formation of this legislation and I continue to
personally value their perspective and input.
Let me state for the record, that as the principal Senate author of
this conference report, it has consistently been my goal and position
that this legislation be uniform and nondiscriminatory in both intent
and result without regard to color or class, gender or age, disability
or native language, party or precinct. While I understand the
collective, and individual, concerns of these organizations, the
ultimate test of this legislation will be in its implementation by the
States and I am confident that a fair reading of its provisions will
produce the desired result. With that, let me offer my perspective on
several issues raised by these organizations.
First, with regard to the anti-fraud provisions, I share the concern
that the hearings and studies by numerous organizations, including the
Senate Rules Committee, over the past two years did not unearth any
evidence of widespread voter fraud. However, even the anecdotal
evidence of dogs and deceased persons registering, and perhaps even
voting, and registration lists with duplicate names in several
different jurisdictions illustrate the frailties of current
registration procedures. While I continue to believe that the most
effective anti-fraud provision in the Senate-passed bill, and in this
conference

[[Page S10504]]

report, remains the requirement that States establish a centralized
computerized registration list, I also recognize that but for the
provision of section 303(b) affecting first-time voters who register by
mail, this legislation and all the good it contains would not have made
it this far.
While I appreciate the sensitivities of these organizations to the
potential that the first-time mail registrant voter requirement of
section 303(b) will fall disproportionately on minorities and low
income individuals, I am not convinced that the sound interpretation of
this legislation will ultimately result in the disenfranchisement of
such voters. In order to better establish empirical data on the
prevalence of such fraud, the conference report directs the new
Commission to make periodic studies and reports, with recommendations
to Congress, on nationwide statistics on voter fraud and methods of
identifying, deterring and investigating such fraud.
More importantly, the Commission is directed to conduct a special
study, to be completed within 18 months of the effective date of the
first-time voter provision, on the impact such requirement has on these
voters and voter registration in general. The Commission is directed to
also study the additional requirement that new registrants provide the
last four digits of their Social Security number at registration if
they do not have a valid drivers license number. If the results of
these studies indicate either a lack of empirical evidence that
widespread voter fraud exists, or that these new anti-fraud provisions
are disenfranchising voters, particularly minority and low-income
voters, Congress will be in a position to modify or repeal these
provisions.
In the meantime, changes made to the conference report will work to
mitigate, and perhaps even obviate, the need for States to implement
the first-time mail registrant voter requirement.
To make clear that Congress intends that the first-time voter
provision of section 303(b) must not result in a disparate impact on
minority voters, the conferees agreed to add language to this section
to require that it be implemented in a uniform and nondiscriminatory
manner. The conference report also contains a new notice provision,
section 303(b)(4)(iv), which requires that the NVRA registration form
contain a statement informing the applicant that if they register by
mail, appropriate information must be included in order to avoid the
additional identification requirements upon voting for the first time.
As in the Senate-passed bill, if any voter is challenged as not being
eligible to vote, including for reasons that he or she is a first-time
mail registrant voter without proper identification, such voter is
entitled to vote by provisional ballot, and that ballot is counted
according to State law.
As I stated yesterday, nothing in this bill establishes a Federal
definition of when a voter is registered or how a vote is counted. If a
challenged voter submits a provisional ballot, the State may still
determine that the voter is eligible to vote and so count that ballot,
notwithstanding that the first-time mail registrant voter did not
provide additional identification required under section 303(b).
Whether a provisional ballot is counted or not depends solely on State
law, and the conferees clarified this by adding language in section
302(a)(4) stating that a voter's eligibility to vote is determined
under State law.
More importantly, however, is the combination of the existing
language in the Senate-passed bill (offered by Senator Wyden) and the
provision, modified from the Senate-passed bill, which requires new
registrants to provide a drivers license number upon registration, or
the last 4 digits of their Social Security number if they do not have a
drivers license number.
The Wyden amendment included in the Senate-passed bill, and retained
without modification in the conference report, provides a means by
which first-time mail registrant voters can avoid the additional
verification requirements of section 303(b) altogether. At the choice
of the individual, under section 303(b)(3), a first-time mail
registrant voter can opt to submit their drivers license number, or at
least the last 4 digits of their Social Security number, on the mail-in
voter registration form in order for the State to match the information
against a State database, such as the motor vehicle authority database.
If such information matches, the additional identification requirements
of section 303(b)(1) do not apply to that individual.
Under the new requirements added in conference as section 303(a)(5),
effective in 2004 (unless waived until 2006), all new applicants must
provide at the time of registration, a valid drivers license number, or
if the individual does not have such, the last 4 digits of their Social
Security number (or if they have neither, the State shall assign them a
unique identifying number). States must then attempt to match such
information, thereby satisfying the provisions of section 303(b)(3)
which renders the first-time mail applicant provisions of section
303(b)(1) inapplicable. By operation of section 303(a)(5) added in
conference, in conjunction with the existing language of the Senate-
passed bill (as added by Senator Wyden) in section 303(b)(3), the
first-time voter identification requirement is obviated and essentially
rendered moot, thereby avoiding the potential disenfranchisement of
minority voters.
Secondly, with respect to the provisions of section 303(a)(5) which
require verification of voter registration information, it is important
to remember that nothing in this conference report establishes a
Federal definition, or standard, for when a voter is duly registered.
That authority continues to reside solely with State and local election
officials pursuant to State law. Nor does this conference report
require States to enact legislation changing voter eligibility
requirements to conform to the Act. As I pointed out yesterday,
Chairman Ney, the principal author of this conference report on behalf
of the House, stated last week that this bill provides for basic
requirements that States shall meet, but leaves to the discretion of
the States how they meet those requirements in order to tailor
solutions to their own unique problems. This section is not an
exception to that rule.
Section 303(a)(5) is a modification to provisions added to the Senate
bill during floor debate which authorized States to request a voter's 9
digit Social Security number. Concerns had been expressed, which I
shared, that even allowing States the discretion to require the full
Social Security number potentially ran afoul of Privacy Act
protections. While this provision goes further than I would have
wished, it is simply not an accurate reading of this section to
conclude that a lack of a match--or a ``no-match'' will result in the
invalidation of a voter's registration application or the purging of
the voter's name.
First, with respect to purging, this provision applies only
prospectively to new applicants and as such cannot be used to purge
names of existing voters from the rolls. More importantly, however, the
language of the conference report, and the Statement of Managers on
this point specifically, make it abundantly clear that any purging of
names must conform to existing NVRA requirements. There is no provision
in the current NVRA which would authorize purging for lack of a match
of either a drivers license number or the last 4 digits of a Social
Security number.
As for the argument that this provision will result in the
invalidation of a voter's application, that conclusion is simply not
supported by a reading of all the relevant provisions. Effective in
2004 (or 2006 if a waiver of section 303(a) is requested by the State),
this section prohibits States from accepting or processing a voter
registration application unless it contains the voter's drivers license
number. However, there is no similar prohibition on local election
officials who presumably will continue to have the authority to process
voter applications until the State implements the centralized
computerized registration list and becomes responsible for maintaining
the official list of eligible voters under section 303(a)(1).
In the meantime, if an applicant has not been issued a current and
valid drivers license, then the applicant must provide the last 4
digits of his or her Social Security number. If the applicant has
neither number, the State shall issue the individual a number which
becomes the voter's unique identifier (as required for the centralized
computerize registration list). The chief state election official must
also

[[Page S10505]]

enter into agreements with the State motor vehicle authority and the
Commissioner of Social Security in order to match information supplied
by the voter with these databases.
However, nothing in this section prohibits a State from accepting or
processing an application with incomplete or inaccurate information.
Section 303(a)(5)(A)(iii) specifically reserves to the States the
determination as to whether the information supplied by the voter is
sufficient to meet the disclosure requirements of this provision. So,
for example, if a voter transposes his or her Social Security number,
or provides less than a full drivers license number, the State can
nonetheless determine that such information is sufficient to meet the
verification requirements, in accordance with State law. Consequently,
a State may establish what information is sufficient for verification,
preserving the sole authority of the State to determine eligibility
requirements for voters. Furthermore, nothing in this conference report
requires a State to enact any specific legislation for determining
eligibility to vote.
Moreover, nothing in this section prohibits a State from registering
an applicant once the verification process takes place, notwithstanding
that the applicant provided inaccurate or incomplete information at the
time of registration (as anticipated by section 303(a)(5)(A)(iii)) or
that the matching process did not verify the information. The provision
requires only that a verification process be established but it does
not define when an applicant is a duly registered voter. Again, this
conference report does not establish Federal registration eligibility
requirements those are found only in the U.S. Constitution. Section
303(a)(5)(A)(iii) makes it clear that State law is the ultimate
determinant of whether the information supplied under this section is
sufficient for determining if an applicant is duly registered under
State law.

Finally, with respect to the issue of the citizenship check-off box
on the voter application form under section 303(b)(4), the Senate-
passed bill contained the requirement that the NVRA registration form
include two new questions and a check-off box for voters to mark to
indicate their answers to questions regarding age and citizenship
eligibility. The conference agreement added a new provision in section
303(b)(4)(B) which requires that if a voter does not check-off the
citizenship box, the appropriate election official must notify the
applicant of the omission and provide the applicant an opportunity to
complete the form in time for processing to be completed to allow the
voter to participate in the next Federal election.
It is simply inaccurate to state that any registration application is
required to be invalidated under this section if an applicant forgets
to check-off the citizenship box. Nothing in this provision makes the
completion of the check-off box a condition of Federal eligibility. The
conference report does not establish Federal eligibility requirements
for voting. NVRA only requires that an applicant sign the registration
form attesting to his or her eligibility, including citizenship. The
check-off box is a tool for registrars to use to verify citizenship,
but nothing in the conference report requires a check-off or
invalidates the form if the box is left blank.
In fact, this provision will ensure that if a voter did not check-off
the citizenship box, his or her registration form cannot be discarded
as invalid on its face. Ultimately, the registrar determines whether or
not the voter has met the citizenship requirement notwithstanding
whether or not the box is checked. A signed attestation as to
citizenship eligibility is still sufficient under NVRA. Jurisdictions
that currently use citizenship check-off boxes may continue to process
such information pursuant to State law, but in fact will not be able to
invalidate a form based on the lack of a check-off without notification
to the voter first.
With respect to each of these three issues, it is important to note
that each of these provisions will likely require some adjustment to
the NVRA registration form. The new Election Assistance Commission
specifically does not have rulemaking authority with the exception of
the authority permitted, and currently exercised by the Federal
Election Commission, under section 9(a) of the NVRA (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-
7(a)) to prescribe such regulations necessary to develop the mail
registration form used in Federal elections. Consequently, it is
anticipated that the new Commission will be required to revise the
current NVRA registration form in order to effectuate the requirements
under this Act, including: notice requirements for first-time voters
under section 303(b)(4)(iv); the collection of a drivers license number
or last 4 digits of a Social Security number under sections 303(a)(5)
and 303(b)(3); and the age and citizenship check-off boxes under
section 303(b)(4), in addition to any other changes in the Federal
registration application form that the Commission views as necessary to
implement this Act. This exercise will afford interested parties an
opportunity to ensure that these requirements do not result in the
disenfranchisement of applicant voters.
As a final observation, let me state that while the enforcement
provisions of the Senate-passed bill included tough preclearance-type
reviews of grant applications by the Department of Justice, the
conference report contains an important new administrative grievance
procedure intended to provide voters, and others aggrieved by violation
of the requirements of this Act, a timely and convenient means of
redressing alleged violations. Each State that receives funds under
Title I must establish a state-based administrative procedure for
reviewing alleged grievances under Title III of this Act. If the State
does not render a decision within 90 days of receiving a complaint, the
proceeding is moved to an alternative dispute resolution process which
must resolved the issue within 60 days.
While I would have preferred that we extend the private right of
action afforded private parties under NVRA, the House simply would not
entertain such an enforcement provisions. Nor would they accept Federal
judicial review of any adverse decision by a State administrative body.
However, the state-based administrative procedure must meet basic due
process requirements and afford an aggrieved party a hearing on the
record if they so choose.
It is important to note that this state-based administrative
proceeding is in addition to any other rights the aggrieved has and is
limited only to the adjudication of violations of the requirements
under Title III of this Act. This enforcement scheme in no ways
replaces or alters the adjudication provisions of any other civil
rights or voting rights law.
As with all provisions of this legislation, the proof is in the
implementation of these requirements by the States. But nothing in this
conference report requires States or localities to change any voter
eligibility requirements nor does this Act in any way infringe upon the
sole authority of State and local election officials to determine who
is a duly registered voter. I agree that it will require diligence and
education of State and local election officials to ensure that these
provisions do not serve to disenfranchise voters and I stand ready to
monitor actions by the States to ensure that they do not undermine the
purposes of this Act: to make it easier to vote, but harder to defraud
the system.
Mr. President, the conference report that we are about to adopt is a
true compromise. It is a melding of the House-passed and Senate-passed
bills. While there was much in common in the legislation that passed
each House, there were significant differences also. I commend my House
counterparts, Chairman Bob Ney and Congressman Steny Hoyer, for their
willingness to spend countless hours and several long nights to hammer
out the differences in these two approaches in order to reach the
conference report we present to the Senate for adoption today.
On at least one occasion, Chairman Ney, Congressman Hoyer and I,
along with our staff, worked literally around the clock for twelve
hours in order to reach consensus, with the final agreement being
reached long after the midnight hour. Such effort is just one
indication of the level of commitment that the House conferees
demonstrated in reaching a consensus on this historic legislation, and
I thank them for their dedication to seeing this process through to a
satisfactory conclusion. The American people owe them a debt

[[Page S10506]]

of gratitude for their efforts to ensure that henceforth, in Federal
elections, every eligible voter will be able to vote and have their
vote counted.
The original House and Senate bills addressed the problems that came
to light in the November 2000 presidential election in similar ways.
While the Senate bill set out minimum requirements of the States to
meet over the next four years, and funded those requirements at 100
percent of costs, the House bill used Federal funds as an incentive to
encourage States to take preferred action, either by following Federal
standards or by adopting standards of their own. Both bills however,
preserved the traditional authority of State and local election
officials to determine the specific means of meeting those requirements
or standards. Both bills also preserved the authority of State and
local election officials to be the sole determinants of whether an
applicant is a duly registered voter. And both bills preserved the
authority of State law to determine when a vote has been cast and
whether a vote, once cast, will ultimately be counted.
My counterpart in the House, Chairman Ney, said it best last week
during the House debate on the conference report, and I agree with his
assessment. Let me quote Chairman Ney:

One size fits all solutions do not work and only lead to
inefficiencies. States and locales must retain the power and
the flexibility to tailor solutions to their own unique
problems. This legislation will pose certain basic
requirements that all jurisdictions will have to meet, but
they will retain the flexibility to meet the requirements in
the most effective manner.

That is the hallmark of this legislation, it requires that States and
localities meet basic requirements in the type of voting system they
use in Federal elections, in the offering of provisional ballots, in
the creation of a centralized computerized registration list and the
collection of data for that list, and in the verification of
identification for new registrants. But in the implementation of these
requirements, the sole determination is left to the State as to what
type of voting system a jurisdiction chooses to use, and whether a
provisional ballot is ultimately counted pursuant to State law, and
whether an individual registrant is determined under State law to be
duly registered and entered into the centralized registration list.

I am gratified that the conferees agreed to include in this
conference report what this Senator believes are the most important
provisions of the Senate bill: the requirements for voting system
standards, provisional balloting, and the creation of statewide
computerized registration lists. The conference report retains the core
requirements and language of the Senate-passed bill, most of which were
contained in the original bill reported by the Senate Rules Committee
just fourteen months ago in August of 2001 as S. 565. These
requirements were the fundamental elements of the Senate-passed bill
and are an equally integral component of the conference report. These
provisions include required standards that all voting systems used in
Federal elections must meet; the offering of provisional ballots so
that no voter is ever turned away from the polls again; and the
creation of an official centralized computerized registration list to
include the names of all eligible voters and procedures for ensuring
the accuracy of that list, as well as provisions for verifying the
identity of certain new registrants.
Title III of the conference report contains the three basic
requirements for voting system standards and administrative procedures
to be used in Federal elections.
Section 301 establishes six standards that all voting systems used in
Federal elections after January 1, 2006 must meet:
(1) While maintaining voter privacy and ballot confidentiality,
permit voters to verify their selections on the ballot, notify voters
of over-votes, and permit voters to change their votes and correct any
errors before casting the ballot. The conference report retains the
provisions of section 101 of the Senate-passed bill that created an
alternative means of notifying voters of over-votes for jurisdictions
using paper ballots, punch card, or central-count voting systems
(including absentee and mail-in ballots). Such jurisdictions may
instead use voter education and instruction programs for notification
of over-votes only. However, all voting systems, including these paper
ballot systems, must provide voters with so-called ``second-chance''
voting, i.e., the ability to verify the voter's selection and the
ability to correct or change the ballot prior to it being cast. The
conference report also clarifies that this requirement cannot be used
to render a paper ballot invalid or unable to be modified in order to
meet the requirements.
Notification to the voter of an over-vote is essential because it
provides an eligible voter a ``second chance'' opportunity to correct
his or her ballot before it is cast and tabulated. Any such
notification must be accomplished in a private and independent manner.
With regard to the notification, it is the voting system itself, or the
educational document, and not a poll worker or election official, which
notifies the voter of an over-vote. The sanctity of a private ballot is
so fundamental to our system of elections, that the language of this
compromise contains a specific requirement that any notification under
this section preserve the privacy of the voter and the confidentiality
of the ballot. The Caltech-MIT study noted that secrecy and anonymity
of the ballot provide important checks on coercion and fraud in the
form of widespread vote buying.

Paper ballot systems include those systems where the individual votes
a paper ballot that is tabulated by hand. Central count systems include
mail-in absentee ballots and mail-in balloting, such as that used
extensively in Oregon and Washington state, and other states where a
paper ballot is voted and then sent off to a central location to be
tabulated by an optical scanning or punch card system. A mail-in ballot
or mail-in absentee ballot is treated as a paper ballot for purposes of
notification of an over-vote under section 301 of the conference
report, as is a ballot counted on a central count voting system.
However, if an individual votes in person on a central count system, as
is used in some states that allow early voting or in-person absentee
voting, for that voter, such system is required to actually notify the
voter of the over-vote.
As for the other types of voting systems, namely lever machines,
precinct-based optical scanning systems, and direct recording
electronic systems, or DREs, the voting system itself must meet the
standard. Specifically, the functionality of the voting system shall
permit the voter to verify the votes selected, provide the voter with
an opportunity to change or correct the ballot before it is cast or
tabulated, and actually notify the voter if he or she casts more than
one vote for a single-candidate office.
The conference report recognizes the inherent differences between
paper ballot systems and mechanical or electronic voting systems. The
conferees retained the reasonable balance struck in the Senate-passed
bill between ensuring that no voting system is eliminated as long as
the requirement that all voters have the opportunity to verify their
ballot and a ``second-chance'' to correct any error on the ballot or
change the ballot, before it is cast and counted. Although this
compromise provides an alternative method of notifying voters of over-
votes for punch card and paper ballot systems, nothing in this
legislation precludes jurisdictions from going beyond what is required,
so long as such methods are not inconsistent with the Federal
requirements under Title III or any law described in section 906 of
Title IX of this Act.
The conference report is silent on the issue of notification to the
voter of an under-vote and neither requires nor prohibits such
notification. However, the Election Assistance Commission is charged
with studying the feasibility of notifying voters of under-votes.
(2) Each voting system must produce a permanent paper record for the
voting system that can be manually audited. Such record must be
available as an official record for recounts, however, there is no
intent to mandate that the paper record serve as the official record.
Whether this record becomes the official record is left to the
discretion of the States. As the Chairman of the Rules Committee, let
me advise my colleagues of the importance of this feature in the
unlikely event that a petition of election contest is filed with the
Senate. Often, in order to resolve such contests, the Rules Committee
must have access to an audit

[[Page S10507]]

trail in order to determine which candidate received the most votes.
This standard will ensure that the Senate and the House will have
access to reliable records in the case of election contests.
(3) Consistent with the Senate-passed provision, each voting system
must provide to individuals with disabilities, including the blind and
visually impaired, the same accessibility to voting as other voters.
Jurisdictions may meet this standard through the use of at least one
DRE, or other properly equipped voting system, at each polling place.
However, any system purchased on or after January 1, 2007, if purchased
with Federal funds made available under Title II of the Act, must meet
the accessibility standard.
The accessibility standard for individuals with disabilities is
perhaps one of the most important provisions of this legislation. Ten
million blind voters did not vote in the 2000 elections in part because
they cannot read the ballots used in their jurisdiction. With 21st
century technology, this is simply unacceptable.
The Senate Rules Committee received a great deal of disturbing
testimony regarding the disenfranchisement of Americans with
disabilities. Mr. James Dickson, Vice President of the American
Association of People with Disabilities, testified that our nation has
a `` . . . crisis of access to the polling places.'' Twenty-one million
Americans with disabilities did not vote in the last election--the
single largest demographic groups of non-voters.
To statutorily address this ``crisis of access,'' the conference
report contains the provisions of the Senate-passed bill requiring that
by the Federal elections of 2006, all voting systems must be accessible
for individuals with disabilities, including nonvisual accessibility
for the blind and visually impaired. Most importantly, that
accommodation must be provided in a manner that provides the same
opportunity for access and participation, including privacy and
independence, as for other voters. Accessibility is required for
individuals with all disabilities, not just physical disabilities.
In order to assist the States and localities in meeting this standard
by 2006, the conference report retains the Senate-passed provision that
allows jurisdictions to satisfy this standard through the use of at
least one direct recording electronic (DRE) voting system, or any other
voting system that is equipped to accommodate individuals with
disabilities, in every polling place. It must be noted, moreover, that
the compromise does not require that a jurisdiction purchase a DRE to
meet the accessibility requirement since jurisdictions may also choose
to modify existing systems to meet the needs of the disabled voter.
A DRE used to meet the accessibility standard under this requirement
is not intended to be used solely by individuals with disabilities.
Obviously, any eligible voter should have access to such a machine, and
in fact, may find voting on such a system to be preferable to other
systems used in that polling place. Nothing in this conference report
is intended to suggest that because each polling place must have an
accessible machine, that machine is for the exclusive use of
individuals with disabilities, nor that such machine, or individuals
who use such system, should be separated from other voters. Such
treatment would be contrary to the requirement in section 301(a)(3)(A)
that such individuals be given the same opportunity for access and
participation (including privacy and independence).
In addition, the Caltech-MIT study suggests that DREs have the
potential to allow for more flexible user interface to accommodate
multiple language ballots. Consequently, such DRE voting systems can
also be used to meet the accessibility requirements for language
minorities under the Voting Rights Act, and this conference report, as
well.
It has been suggested that this may be a wasteful requirement for
jurisdictions that have no known disabled voters. Let me make clear
that the purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the disabled
have an equal opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted,
just as all other non-disabled Americans, with privacy and
independence. It is simply not acceptable that individuals with
disabilities should have to hide in their homes and not participate
with other Americans on election day simply because no one knows that
they exist. It is equally unacceptable to suggest that individuals with
disabilities must come forward and declare their disability in order to
participate in democracy through the polling place.
(4) Each voting system must provide alternative language
accessibility as required by law. This is a slight modification to the
Senate-passed bill in order to make clear that the alternative language
requirements must conform to existing Voting Rights Act requirements.
The Voting Rights Act mandates that covered jurisdictions must
provide translated voting materials, such as bilingual ballots, voter
registration forms, voting instructions, other voting materials, oral
translation services and interpreters to ensure accessibility to the
right to cast a vote and have that vote counted. Nothing in this Act
overturns or undermines the Voting Rights Act.
The alternative language accessibility standard follows the
procedures for determining when a language minority (e.g., only the
four general groups currently recognized by VRA: Asian Americans,
people of Spanish heritage, Native Americans and native Alaskans) must
be accommodated under section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. This
conference report leaves in place the numerical triggers under the
Voting Rights Act, which require states and political subdivisions that
meet the triggers of non-English speaking citizens of voting age to
provide language assistance services at the polls for American voters.
On July 26, 2002, the Department of Justice released new jurisdictions
and languages covered under the language assistance provisions of the
Voting Rights Act based on Census 2000 figures.
The conference report provides safeguards to ensure an equal
opportunity for all eligible language minorities to cast a vote and
have that vote counted. This is accomplished with uniform and
nondiscriminatory requirements that ensure alternative language
accessibility to voting systems, provisional balloting, and inclusion
as a registered voter in the statewide voter registration lists. In
addition, this compromise provides for the Election Assistance
Commission to study and make recommendations as to whether the voting
systems are, in fact, capable of accommodating all voters with a
limited proficiency in the English language.
(5) Each voting system must comply with an ``out-of-the-box'' error
rate standard as established in section 3.2.1 of the Federal voting
system standards issued by the Federal Election Commission and in
effect on the date of enactment. While the specific error rate will not
change, it is anticipated that over time, should technology provide for
an improved error rate, Congress will amend this provision to reflect
changing technology. Neither the conference report, nor the Senate-
passed bill, establishes performance error rates, or residual error
rates, for particular types of voting systems, as recommended by the
Carter-Ford Commission. However, the conference report does require
that the new Commission study the best methods for establishing voting
system performance benchmarks, expressed as a percentage of residual
vote in the Federal contest at the top of the ballot. If such
benchmarks can be established with reliability, a future Congress may
decide to add a performance benchmark, or performance error rate, to
the voting system standards.
Finally, (6) the conference report contains an additional standard,
taken from the House-passed bill, requiring each State to adopt uniform
standards defining what constitutes a vote and what will be counted as
a vote for each certified voting system. This provision is an
improvement over the Senate bill and will ensure that voters using
similar machines will have their votes counted in a uniform and
nondiscriminatory manner within a State.
Under this additional standard, States must define what constitutes a
``legal'' vote on a specific voting system with a companion definition
of when that ``legal'' vote will be counted on that specific voting
system. These two state-based definitions will provide another
incremental step toward ensuring that votes are cast and counted

[[Page S10508]]

in a uniform, non-discriminatory manner and should help ensure against
a repeat of the 4-6 million votes that were cast but not counted in the
2000 general election according to the Caltech-MIT study. Such state-
based definitions will erase the inconsistent standards, practices, or
procedures within states and localities that have diluted votes cast in
certain communities. Now, no matter where the voter lives and votes,
that voter will have an equal opportunity to cast his or her vote and
an equal opportunity to have his or her vote counted.
The effective date for the voting system standards remains for any
Federal election held in a jurisdiction after January 1, 2006. It is
important to note, that with regard to effective dates, the actual date
on which the standards under the voting system requirement must be
implemented will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction depending upon
when the first Federal election occurs in 2006. A federal election
includes a general, primary, special, or runoff election for federal
office.
Section 302 establishes the second requirement that all States and
jurisdictions must meet beginning for Federal elections after January
1, 2004: the requirement that jurisdictions provide for provisional
voting for any voter who is challenged as ineligible but who attests,
in writing, that they are registered and eligible to vote. This
provision ensures that never again can a voter who appears at the polls
in order to vote and desires to vote can be turned away, for any
reason. The conference report follows the Senate bill in laying out the
steps that such provisional balloting must follow.

First, any voter who declares that they are registered to vote in a
Federal election in a jurisdiction but are not on the official list of
registered voters or are otherwise alleged to be ineligible, must be
offered and permitted to cast a provisional ballot. Any challenge to
the voter's eligibility qualifies the voter for a provisional ballot,
including, but not limited to:
The voter's name does not appear on the official registration list;
or
The voter's name, or other registration information, appears
inaccurately on the registration list; or
The voter does not meet the requirements of section 303(a) because
there is a question about, or they cannot provide, the number on their
drivers license or the last 4-digits of their Social Security number,
or the State/jurisdiction refuses to assign a unique identifier number
that the voter could use for voter registration purposes; or
A voter is a first time voter who registered by mail and does not
meet the requirements of section 303(b) because they do not have any of
the specified identification, such as a photo-ID, utility bill, bank
statement, paycheck or other government document required to be shown
under this Act; or
There are questions about the voter's eligibility to vote, even if
their name appears on the official registration list; or
The voter believes he or she has registered within the States'
registration deadline but their names does not appear on the official
registration list; or
The voter has recently moved but his or her name does not appear on
the official registration list; or
There are questions about the voters' eligibility to vote based upon
section 303(c) that requires if polling hours are extended as a result
of a court order, any ballot cast in a federal election during that
extension be provisional and be held separately from other provisional
ballots; or
There are questions about the voters' eligibility to vote based upon
reassignment pursuant to state re-districting laws; or for any other
reason.

Any and all of the above voters may, under the conference report,
cast a provisional ballot. Not only must the State provide access to
the provisional ballot, but the State or local election official has a
legal obligation under this Act to provide notice to each individual
voter, who has had his or her ability to cast a regular ballot
questioned, that they may cast a provisional ballot in that Federal
election at that polling place.
To receive and cast a provisional ballot, all the individual must do
is execute a written affirmation that he or she is a registered voter
in that jurisdiction and is eligible to vote in that election. If an
individual is motivated enough to go to the polls and sign an
affidavit, under perjury of law, that he or she is eligible to vote in
that election, then the state or local election official shall protect
that individual's right to cast a provisional ballot. That right is so
fundamental, as is evidenced by its widespread use across this Nation,
that we must ensure that it is offered to all Americans, not in an
identical process, but in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner.
Once executed, the affidavit is handed over to the appropriate
election official who must promptly verify the information and issue a
provisional ballot. It is important to note that in some jurisdictions,
the verification of voter eligibility will take place prior to the
issuance of a ballot based upon the information in the written
affidavit. In other jurisdictions, the ballot will be issued and then
laid aside for verification later. Both procedures are equally valid
under this compromise, which provides flexibility to states to meet the
needs of their communities in slightly differing ways. States that
offer same-day registration procedures similarly meet the requirements
of section 302 provided the individual attests, in writing, to their
eligibility and the State otherwise determines, pursuant to State law,
that the voter is eligible to vote.
Any provisional ballot must be promptly verified and counted if the
individual is eligible under State law to vote in the jurisdiction.
Nothing in this conference report establishes a rule for when a
provisional ballot is counted or not counted. Once a provisional ballot
is cast, it is within the sole authority of the State or local election
official to determine whether or not that ballot should be counted,
according to State law. Consequently, even if a voter does not meet the
new Federal requirements for first-time voters to verify their
identity, or for new registrants to provide their drivers license
number, or the last four digits of their Social Security number, if
that voter otherwise meets the requirements as set out in State law for
eligibility, the State shall count that ballot pursuant to State law.
Finally, at the time that the voter casts a provisional ballot, the
appropriate State or local election official shall give the individual
written notice of how that voter can ascertain whether or not his or
her ballot was counted through a free access system (such as a web site
or toll-free telephone number). This is a particularly important
provision as it ensures that a provisional voter will be able to cure
any registration defect in time to become a regular voter in the next
election. This provision, combined with the requirement in section 303
for establishing a centralized computerized registration list, will
ensure that no eligible voter will be denied the right to vote and that
State and local election officials will have access to accurate and up-
to-date voting records.
All States must meet this requirement on provisional ballots for
Federal elections in order to comply with this Act. However, those
States which are described in section 4(b) of the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and are currently exempt from the
provisions of the NVRA or those States that permit same-day
registration or require no registration may meet the requirements for
provisional balloting through their current registration systems.
The Caltech-MIT report estimates that the aggressive use of
provisional ballots could cut the lost votes due to registration
problems in half. The Carter-Ford Commission recommended going even
farther than this legislation in less time, recommending state-wide
voter registration. The Commission noted, ``No American qualified to
vote anywhere in her or his State should be turned away from a polling
place in that State.'' While the conference report does not require
state-wide registration, nothing in the conference report prohibits, or
is intended to discourage, States from enacting such a provision.

In addition to the provisions requiring provisional balloting,
section 302 also contains the requirement in the Senate-passed bill
that a sample ballot and other voter information be posted at polling
places on election day. In order to ensure that voters are aware of the
provisional balloting process,

[[Page S10509]]

the registration and voting requirements for first-time voters who
register by mail, including the option of providing a drivers license
number or at least the last four digits of a Social Security number,
along with other new state standards, practices and procedures, such
notice and information are required to be posted at polling places on
election day. In this information age, the expectation is that targeted
state education programs will compliment any required posted
information to best educate the voters and train poll workers,
volunteers, and election officials
Finally, the conference report contains a modified version of the
requirement that, if polling hours are extended as a result of a court
order, any ballot cast in a Federal election during that extension be
by provisional ballot. The Senate-passed bill could have been read to
apply to any voter who votes after the polls close, and not just voters
who vote pursuant to a court or other order. Consequently, the
conference report clarifies that only voters who vote pursuant to such
order vote by provisional ballot and such provisional ballots shall be
held separately from other provisional ballots.
Section 303 of the conference report includes the provisions of the
Senate-passed bill requiring that all States establish a centralized
computerized registration list of all eligible voters. This requirement
is the single greatest deterrent to election fraud, whether by
unscrupulous poll workers or officials, voters, or outside individuals
and organizations. The ability to capture every eligible voter in one
centrally managed database with requirements for privacy and security
of the information will help ensure the integrity of registration lists
and ensure both the accuracy and authenticity of those lists.
The Carter-Ford Commission explicitly recommended that every state
adopt a system of statewide voter registration. The Caltech-MIT report
similarly recommended the development of better databases with a
numerical identifier for each voter. The Constitution Project also
called for the development of a state-wide computerized voter
registration system that can be routinely updated and is accessible at
polling places on election day.
The conference report contains much of the Senate-passed language on
this provision with important additions to highlight the official,
centrally managed nature of this list. Once implemented in 2004 (or
2006 if the State seeks a waiver for good cause), voters should never
again have to be turned away from the polls because their name was not
updated on the list. Never again should poll workers have to wait hours
to get through a central phone line in order to verify a voter's
registration. And once such a list is in place, every first-time mail
registrant voter should be able to verify their identity through the
matching of a drivers license number or at least the last 4 digits of a
Social Security number.
The conference report retains the Senate-passed provisions of section
303(a)(2) regarding list maintenance of the computerized list. Those
provisions provide that any name that is removed from the list must be
removed in accordance with provision of the National Voter Registration
Act (NVRA), the so-called ``Motor-Voter'' law. This requirement will
ensure that voters cannot be purged from the list unless they have not
responded to a notice mailed by the appropriate election official and
then have not voted in the subsequent two Federal general elections.
Moreover, this provision ensures that voters who appear at the polls
during this period and wish to vote will be allowed to as provided for
in section 8(3) of the Motor-Voter law (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6).
As a practical matter, once the computerized list has been developed
and implemented, list maintenance will be almost automatic. While many
of us have read of allegations of massive duplicate registrations, the
fact is that even though alleged duplicate names appear on more than
one jurisdiction's list, the vast majority of voters only live in one
place and only vote in one place. In a highly mobile society likes
ours, voters move constantly. And while voters may remember to change
their mailing address with the post office, with utility companies, and
with the bank and credit card companies, they may not even think about
changing their address with the local election official until it comes
time to vote. At the end of the day, this conference report ensures
that mobile voters are not disenfranchised.
The conference report also added a new minimum standard for ensuring
the accuracy of the centralized computerized registration list. That
provision, section 303(a)(4), was drawn from a provision contained in
the House-passed measure, but with an important clarification.
Consistent with section 303(a)(2), this provision parallels language in
the NVRA that requires States to make a reasonable effort to remove
registrants who are ineligible to vote, consistent with the provisions
of NVRA, specifically the requirement that such voters fail to respond
to a notice and then fail to vote in the subsequent two general Federal
elections. Further, no voter may be removed from the list solely by
reason of a failure to vote. As is stated in the Statement of Managers,
this provision is completely consistent with NVRA.
Section 303(a)(5) of the conference report is a new provision that is
a modification to provisions added to the Senate bill during floor
debate that authorized States to request a voter's 9 digit Social
Security number. Effective in 2004 (or 2006 if a waiver of section
303(a) is requested by the State), this section prohibits States from
accepting or processing a voter registration application unless it
contains the voter's drivers license number. However, there is no
similar prohibition on local election officials who presumably will
continue to have the authority to process voter applications until the
State implements the centralized computerized registration list and
becomes responsible for maintaining the official list of eligible
voters under section 303(a)(1).
In the meantime, if an applicant has not been issued a current and
valid drivers license, then the applicant must provide the last 4
digits of his or her Social Security number. If the applicant has
neither number, the State shall issue the individual a number that
becomes the voter's unique identifier (as required for the centralized
computerize registration list). The chief state election official must
also enter into agreements with the State motor vehicle authority and
the Commissioner of Social Security in order to match information
supplied by the voter with these databases.
However, nothing in this section prohibits a State from accepting or
processing an application with incomplete or inaccurate information.
Section 303(a)(5)(A)(iii) specifically reserves to the States the
determination as to whether the information supplied by the voter is
sufficient to meet the disclosure requirements of this provision. So,
for example, if a voter transposes his or her Social Security number,
or provides less than a full drivers license number, the State can
nonetheless determine that such information is sufficient to meet the
verification requirements based on whatever information they already
possess, in accordance with State law. Consequently, a State may
establish what information is sufficient for verification, preserving
the sole authority of the State to determine eligibility requirements
for voters. Furthermore, nothing in this conference report requires a
State to enact any specific legislation for determining eligibility to
vote. In fact, State motor vehicle records are generally accurate and
current and State and local election officials should affirmatively use
these records to correct or complete the information wherever possible.
Moreover, nothing in this section prohibits a State from registering
an applicant once the verification process takes place, notwithstanding
that the applicant provided inaccurate or incomplete information at the
time of registration (as anticipated by section 303(a)(5)(A)(iii)) or
that the matching process did not verify the information. The provision
requires only that a verification process be established but it does
not define when an applicant is a duly registered voter. Again, this
conference report does not establish Federal registration eligibility
requirements those are found only in the U.S. Constitution. Section
303(a)(5)(A)(iii) makes it clear that State law is the ultimate
determinant of whether the information supplied under this section is
sufficient for determining if an applicant is duly registered under
State law.

[[Page S10510]]

The conference report also retains the provision championed by
Senator Bond which will require that voters who register by mail must
provide additional verification of their identity the first time that
they appear to vote in person or by absentee ballot. To make clear that
Congress intends that the first-time voter provision of section 303(b)
must not result in a disparate impact on minority voters, the conferees
agreed to add language to this section to require that it be
implemented in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner. The conference
report also contains a new notice provision, section 303(b)(4)(iv),
which requires that the NVRA registration form contain a statement
informing the applicant that if they register by mail, appropriate
information must be included in order to avoid the additional
identification requirements upon voting for the first time. As in the
Senate-passed bill, if any voter is challenged as not being eligible to
vote, including for reasons that he or she is a first-time mail
registrant voter without proper identification, such voter is entitled
to vote by provisional ballot, and that ballot is counted according to
State law.
In the case of an individual who registers by mail, the first time
the individual goes to vote in person in a jurisdiction, he or she must
present to the appropriate election official one of the following
pieces of identification: a current valid photo-ID; or a copy of any of
the following documents: a current utility bill; a bank statement; a
government check; a paycheck; or another government document with the
voter's name and address. This compromise does not specify any
particular type of acceptable photo identification. It is clear,
however, that a driver's license, a photo-ID issued by the a DMV, a
student ID, or a work ID that has a photograph of the individual would
be sufficient. Additionally, states may continue to define its own form
of acceptable photo-ID so long as such definitions are inclusive and
not have the unintended consequences of targeting the persons with
disabilities, poor, elderly, students, racial and ethnic minorities and
otherwise legitimate voters.
The conference report also preserves the existing exemptions under
the NVRA law under section 1973gg-4(c)(2) of title 42 in the
implementation of this compromise. A state may not by law require a
person to vote in-person if that first-time voter is: (1) entitled to
vote by absentee ballot under section 1973ff-1 of title 42 of the
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act; (2) provided the
right to vote otherwise than in-person under section 1973ee-
1(b)(2)(b)(ii) and 1973ee-3(b)(2)(b)(ii) of the Voting Accessibility
for the Elderly and Handicapped act; and (3) entitled to vote otherwise
than in-person under any other federal law. These exemptions have the
practical affect of preserving existing laws that provide the long-
standing practice of states permitting eligible uniform service and
overseas voters to continue to vote by absentee ballot without this
first-time voters requirement attaching. Similarly, these exemptions
have the practical affect of preserving the rights of persons with
disabilities not to be required to show-up in-person to vote or to be
required to provide copies of photo-IDs or documents by mail.
As I stated yesterday, nothing in this bill establishes a Federal
definition of when a voter is registered or how a vote is counted. If a
challenged voter submits a provisional ballot, the State may still
determine that the voter is eligible to vote and so count that ballot,
notwithstanding that the first-time mail registrant voter did not
provide additional identification required under section 303(b).
Whether a provisional ballot is counted or not depends solely on State
law, and the conferees clarified this by adding language in section
302(a)(4) stating that a voter's eligibility to vote is determined
under State law.
More importantly, however, is the combination of the existing
language in the Senate-passed bill (offered by Senator Wyden) and the
provision, modified from the Senate-passed bill, which requires new
registrants to provide a drivers license number upon registration, or
the last 4 digits of their Social Security number if they do not have a
drivers license number.
The Wyden amendment included in the Senate-passed bill, and retained
without modification in the conference report, provides a means by
which first-time mail registrant voters can avoid the additional
verification requirements of section 303(b) altogether. At the choice
of the individual, under section 303(b)(3), a first-time mail
registrant voter can opt to submit their drivers license number, or at
least the last 4 digits of their Social Security number, on the mail-in
voter registration form in order for the State to match the information
against a State database, such as the motor vehicle authority database.
If such information matches, the additional identification requirements
of section 303(b)(1) do not apply to that individual.
Under the new requirements added in conference as section 303(a)(5),
effective in 2004 (unless waived until 2006), all new applicants must
provide at the time of registration, a valid drivers license number, or
if the individual does not have such, the last 4 digits of their Social
Security number (or if they have neither, the State shall assign them a
unique identifying number). States must then attempt to match such
information, thereby satisfying the provisions of section 303(b)(3)
which renders the first-time mail applicant provisions of section
303(b)(1) inapplicable. By operation of section 303(a)(5) added in
conference, in conjunction with the existing language of the Senate-
passed bill (as added by Senator Wyden) in section 303(b)(3), the
first-time voter identification requirement is obviated and essentially
rendered moot, thereby avoiding the potential disenfranchisement of
minority voters.
The conference report also retains the Senate-passed provision that
adds questions and check-off boxes to the NVRA registration form
regarding age and citizenship. Under section 303(b)(4), the Senate-
passed bill contained the requirement that the NVRA registration form
include two new questions and a check-off box for voters to mark to
indicate their answers to questions regarding age and citizenship
eligibility. The Senate-passed bill was silent as to the result of an
unmarked box and left to States to determine whether such an omission
was a fatal defect in the registration form.
In order to clarify that States may not just summarily discard such
incomplete forms, the conferees agreed to include language requiring
that the registrar notify the voter of an incomplete form. Such notice
must be provided in time for the registration application to be
completed and processed prior to the next Federal election. However,
nothing in this provision requires that the application be invalidated
under this section if an applicant forgets to check-off the citizenship
box. Nor does anything in this provision make the completion of the
check-off box a condition of Federal eligibility. The conference report
does not establish Federal eligibility requirements for voting. NVRA
only requires that an applicant sign the registration form attesting to
his or her eligibility, including citizenship. The check-off box is a
tool for registrars to use to verify citizenship, but nothing in the
conference report requires the check-off to be complete to process the
registration form or invalidates the form if the box is left blank.
In fact, this provision will ensure that if a voter did not check-off
the citizenship box, his or her registration form cannot be discarded
as invalid on its face. Ultimately, the registrar determines whether or
not the voter has met the citizenship requirement notwithstanding
whether or not the box is checked. A signed attestation as to
citizenship eligibility is still sufficient under NVRA. Jurisdictions
that currently use citizenship check-off boxes may continue to process
such information pursuant to State law, but in fact will not be able to
invalidate a form based on the lack of a check-off without notification
to the voter first.
This compromise provides state and local election officials with the
necessary additional tools to make the ultimate decision regarding
eligibility of voters to register to vote, eligibility of the voter to
cast a regular vote and the eligibility of vote to be counted. Nothing
in this compromise usurps the state or local election official's sole
authority to make the final determination with respect to whether or
not an applicant is duly registered, whether the voter can cast a
regular vote, or whether that vote is duly counted.

[[Page S10511]]

In the case of any missing information on a mail-in registration
form, the election official may process it as he or she determines is
appropriate under State law. That applies equally to the requirement
for the citizenship check-off box, the requirement to provide one's
drivers license number or the last 4 digit of the Social Security
number, or any other provision of this Act. This means that State law
governs whether the form is returned, whether and how the voter is
contacted regarding the omission or whether the form is discarded.
Current law under the NVRA does not require that voters be registered--
only that the voter be given the opportunity to register through a
wider variety of State and local offices, including the DMV (thus the
title, ``Motor-Voter"). Current law under the NVRA does not supercede
the sole authority of State and local election officials to determine
whether or not an applicant is duly registered. Similarly, this
compromise does not supercede state law with respect to registration.
After this law is enacted, there will still be no Federal law that
overrides state law and preempts the field with respect to voter
registration.
Again, as with almost every aspect of this compromise, state
implementation of the individual provisions of this compromise is key
and will determine if the franchise is preserved and protected for all
eligible American voters and if the integrity and security of the
elections system is protected from corruption. Once again almost all
the civil rights organizations and civil liberties coalitions, but
particularly our language minority communities, raised legitimate
concerns about the potential discriminatory solution to the check-off
questions. At the end of the day, it will be the State and local
election officials who will interpret what the omission on a
citizenship box and an age box mean with respect to registration,
consistent with State law, standards, practices or procedures. These
State laws must implement all of these requirements in a uniform and
nondiscriminatory manner. There is no cover of law under this
compromise for any State or locality to establish a standard, practice
or procedure that permits the check-off boxes to act as anti-
registration vehicles by voiding otherwise legal registrations under
state law.
In implementing these requirements, the States will have to rely on
voluntary guidelines and voluntary guidance issued by the new Federal
Election Assistance Commission. While the conference report includes
the House prohibition on rule making authority for the new Commission,
the conferees included an important modification to this language.
Section 209 provides an exception to the no rule making authority to
the extent permitted under section 9(a) of NVRA (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-
7(a)).

With respect to the provisions of the requirements affecting
notification to first-time mail registrant voters, the submission of a
drivers license number or the last 4 digits of a Social Security
number, or the change in the citizenship check-off box, some adjustment
to the NVRA registration form will be necessary. The exception provided
to the no rule making authority would allow the new Commission to
proscribe such regulations necessary to develop the mail registration
form used in Federal elections.
Consequently, it is anticipated that the new Commission will be
required to revise the current NVRA registration form in order to
effectuate the requirements under this Act, including: notice
requirements for first-time voters under section 303(b)(4)(iv); the
collection of a drivers license number or last 4 digits of a Social
Security number under sections 303(a)(5) and 303(b)(3); and the age and
citizenship check-off boxes under section 303(b)(4), in addition to any
other changes in the Federal registration application form that the
Commission views as necessary to implement this Act. This exercise will
afford interested parties an opportunity to ensure that these
requirements do not result in the disenfranchisement of applicant
voters.
With regard to effective dates, the conference report continues to
harmonize the effective date of the computerized registration list with
the 2004 effective date for provisional balloting. However, since it
was widely acknowledged that some States may have legitimate difficulty
in implementing the statewide registration list by January 1, 2004, a
certification of good cause will be sufficient to request a waiver of
the effective date until January 1, 2006. This waiver recognizes the
administrative burden of the provision on both States and voters and so
provides adequate time for jurisdictions to come into compliance and
educate voters. This compromise also establishes a uniform effective
date of January 1, 2003 for first-time voter registration subject to
the first-time voter provision. This assures that all eligible voters,
regardless of where they live or vote, will know that if they register
to vote after that date, they will have to meet the new requirements
for first-time mail-registrant voters.
Finally, the conference report strikes a middle ground between the
House-passed and Senate-passed bills with regard to how funds will be
directed to the States to meet the requirements and fund other election
reform initiatives. The conference report provides initial funds by
means of a combination of targeted buy-outs of punch cards and lever
systems, as well as a formula grant program, with a guaranteed $5
million payment per each State. The requirements payments are similarly
disbursed through a formula based on the relative voting age population
of the State, with a minimum guaranteed payment of one-half of one
percent per fiscal year.
Borrowing from the Senate-passed bill, in order to receive
requirements payments, States must first submit a State plan outlining
how they will spend such funds to meet the requirements of Title III
and otherwise meet the requirements of the Act. Such a plan is
developed by a committee headed by the chief state election official,
with community input and public review for a 30 day comment period.
Once the plan is submitted to the Commission, it is published in the
Federal Register and a State must wait 45 days after submitting the
initial plan before it can apply for a requirements payment.
While the enforcement provisions of the Senate-passed bill included
tough pre-clearance reviews of grant applications by the Department of
Justice, the conference report contains an important new administrative
grievance procedure intended to provide voters, and others aggrieved by
violation of the requirements of this Act, a timely and convenient
means of redressing alleged violations. Each State that receives funds
under Title I must establish a state-based administrative procedure for
reviewing alleged grievances under Title III of this Act. Such
procedure must allow for a party to request a hearing on the record and
if the State does not render a decision within 90 days of receiving a
complaint, the proceeding is moved to an alternative dispute resolution
process that must resolve the issue within 60 days.
Voters have the legal right to turn to their State to seek a remedy
if their right to register or vote or have their vote counted has been
violated. Aggrieved persons have a legal right to file the complaint
and are entitled to a hearing on the record. If the State determines
that there is a violation, then the State is required to order a
remedy. If the State does not make a final determination within 90 days
of the date that the complaint is filed, then the complainant may seek
to initiate the alternative dispute resolution procedures (ADR). Under
the enforcement provisions of this compromise, the State shall create a
procedure to use ADR if they fail to meet the 90 day deadline for
resolution of the complaint. The ADR procedure is an important
guarantee within the state complaint process. However, the ADR
procedure shall not be implemented to supplant any administrative
judicial review which States already provide under State law.
The complaint procedures, set up under this conference report, are in
addition to, and are not intended to override or preempt, the
procedures by which a State guarantees judicial review of state
administrative procedures. The determination made by the State under
this conference report shall be subject to the existing State laws
which may, or may not, allow for judicial review of administrative
decision making. Furthermore, this conference report is not intended to
in any way limit or prohibit a state from creating, if they do not
already have one,

[[Page S10512]]

a provision to allow state courts to review the administrative
decisions made in accordance with this bill.
Most importantly, this conference report preserves and protects
existing voting rights laws, which provide for enforcement by private
individuals who have either been denied the right to vote or had that
right infringed. The conference report is designed to protect the
enforcement provisions of many laws, including the Voting Rights Act
and the National Voter Registration Act. Therefore, nothing in this
legislation limits the enforcement measures or avenues of redress
available to persons under those critical civil rights laws enumerated
in Section 906 of Title IX of this Act.
While I would have preferred that we extend the private right of
action afforded private parties under the NVRA, the House simply would
not entertain such an enforcement provisions. Nor would they accept
Federal judicial review of any adverse decision by a State
administrative body. However, the state-based administrative procedure
must meet basic due process requirements, including a hearing on the
record if the aggrieved individual so chooses.
It is important to note that this state-based administrative
proceeding is in addition to any other rights the aggrieved has and is
limited only to the adjudication of violations of the requirements
under Title III of this Act. This enforcement scheme in no ways
replaces or alters the adjudication or enforcement provisions of any
other civil rights or voting rights law.
As with all provisions of this legislation, the proof is in the
implementation of these requirements by the States. But nothing in this
conference report requires States or localities to change any voter
eligibility requirements nor does this Act in any way infringe upon the
sole authority of State and local election officials to determine who
is a duly registered voter. It will require diligence and education of
State and local election officials to ensure that these provisions do
not serve to disenfranchise voters undermine the purposes of this Act:
to make it easier to vote, but harder to defraud the system.
As is the case with any historic legislation that goes to the core of
our democracy, a number of organizations participated in this effort.
Yesterday, I recognized the efforts of over 60 staff members who
participated in this effort. As is often the case when trying to
develop a comprehensive list, there is a danger that someone's name
will be inadvertently omitted. Unfortunately, that did occur and I
would be remiss in not recognizing the significant efforts of Stuart
Gottlieb of my staff. In addition to staff, I want to list the numerous
organizations that have assisted in the development of this
legislation. While not every organization supported every provision in
this measure, each organization provided us with thoughtful input and
suggestions and were of considerable help in the formation of this
legislation over. The list of organizations that have provided
invaluable assistance to this effort over the last 23 months is almost
too lengthy to include here. But it is important to note the breadth
and depth of the input that went into crafting this historic
legislation. At the risk of again inadvertently leaving someone out, I
want to recognize and thank the following organizations which have
provided their expertise to this effort:

American Association for People With Disabilities.
American Association of Retired Persons (AARP).
American Civil Liberties Union.
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees.
American Foundation for the Blind.
American Institute of Graphic Arts.
Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Brennan Center for Justice.
Center for Constitutional Rights.
Common Cause.
Commission on Civil Rights.
Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project.
Constitution Project.
Disability Rights Education Defense Fund, Inc.
Election Center.
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America.
Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
League of Women Voters.
Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund.
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People(
NAACP) Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc.
National Association of Counties.
National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed
Officials (NALEO) Education Fund.
National Association of Protection & Advocacy Systems.
National Association of Secretaries of State.
National Association of State Election Directors.
National Coalition on Black Civic Participation.
National Commission on Federal Election Reform (Carter-Ford
Commission).
National Congress of American Indians.
National Conference of State Legislatures.
National Council of La Raza.
National Federation of the Blind.
National Puerto Rican Coalition, Inc.
Paralyzed Veterans of America.
People for the American Way.
Public Citizen.
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
United Cerebral Palsy Associations.
United States Public Interest Research Group.

On balance, this is a good bill. It is an historic bill. It is
landmark legislation. Members of the House of Representatives referred
to this legislation last week as the first civil rights bill of the
21st century. It is worthy of such a title and I am honored to have
been able to be a part of the effort to bring this important
legislation to pass. In the view of this Senator, at the end of this
historic process, the Congress will have made a lasting contribution to
the continued health and stability of this democracy for the people, by
the people and of the people. I urge my colleagues to vote for the
conference report.
I ask unanimous consent that a series of editorials from Greensboro,
as well as from Sarasota, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal,
Hartford Courant, New Haven Register, and others be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Hartford Courant, Oct. 16, 2002]

Score One for Sen. Dodd

Congress' accomplishments have been few and far between
over the past year. But count as one of them the imminent
passage of bipartisan election reform legislation that chief
sponsor Sen. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut calls ``the
first civil rights act of the 21st century.''
Mr. Dodd is proud of this measure, and rightly so.
It addresses many of the procedural and technological flaws
that cast a cloud over the 2000 presidential election in
Florida and other states. Badly designed ballots that
confused voters, punch-card ballots that were difficult to
count, eligible voters who were turned away from the polls
and other problems disenfranchised many voters in Florida and
elsewhere.
Congress promised to act quickly to address the
irregularities, but Senate and House versions ran aground in
the conference committee for months.
But earlier this month, after intense negotiations between
House and Senate conferees of both parties, Mr. Dodd
announced agreement on a bill that is expected to pass and be
signed by President Bush, Senate action is scheduled today.
Here, in part, is what the legislation will do:
The federal government is authorized to spend $3.8 billion
over the next three years to help states replace and renovate
voting equipment, train poll workers, educate voters, upgrade
voter lists and make polling places more accessible to the
disabled. Connecticut will be able to tap some of that money,
perhaps to complete its statewide voter registration list and
to buy new equipment if state officials decide to replace the
ancient mechanical voting machines.
A voter who does not appear on a registration list cannot
be turned away from the polls, but must be allowed to cast a
provisional ballot. The ballot would be counted if election
officials later confirmed that the voter was eligible.
Voters must be given a chance to correct any errors on
their ballots before they are finally cast.
States will be required to develop uniform standards for
counting ballots so that procedures don't vary from county to
county or precinct to precinct.
Anyone registering to vote after January 2004 must provide
a driver's license number or the last four digits of his or
her Social Security number for verification.
Some Democrats were uncomfortable with the identification
requirements, saying they would discourage first-time voters,
the poor and immigrants. Requiring ID's to cut down

[[Page S10513]]

on fraud is sensible, however. Some Republicans were opposed
to Washington interfering in local elections. But clearly,
minimum statewide standards are needed. This is an acceptable
compromise.
____

[From the Washington Post, Oct. 10, 2002]

Fixing Democracy's Machinery

As recently as a month ago, hope of fixing serious flaws in
the nation's creaky voting system appeared doomed on Capitol
Hill. House and Senate negotiators, stalled over some
seemingly modest sticking points, appeared to have lost their
stamina for repairing glitches that have kept thousands of
Americans from exercising their right to participate in the
political process. Election reform was poised to become one
more casualty of the partisan gridlock that has stymied this
Congress for much of the year. But last month's chaotic
Florida primary was a bracing reminder that the nation's
damaged election system poses a continuing threat to our form
of democracy. It was, fortunately, the spark that ignited
renewed fervor for election reform and the event that
galvanized congressional negotiators to produce a compromise
bill the president has said he will sign.
If the bill is enacted this week, as House and Senate
leaders anticipate, the 2004 presidential election could be a
far cry from the 2000 Florida debacle. The days of antiquated
punch-card voting machines, voter registration roll confusion
and botched elections may be numbered. The bill adopted by
the House and Senate negotiators would, for the first time,
impose minimum federal standards meant to guarantee the basic
quality of elections; allow voters to check their ballots and
correct errors; improve polling place access for the
disabled; discourage fraud by requiring new voters to provide
a driver's license number or the last four digits of their
Social Security number and, if they apply by mail, a current
photo ID card or utility bill; and require states to have a
computerized, statewide voter registration database to
prevent a person from voting in multiple jurisdictions. To
help states upgrade their voting machinery and train poll
workers, the bill calls for $3.9 billion in federal money
over three years--$1 billion of which congressional leaders
believe can be appropriated during the current fiscal year to
jump-start the reform effort.
While the election reform bill is every bill the
``historic'' federal response to Election Day flaws that
sponsors claim it to be, it would not supplant the functions
of state and local election officials. Their roles would
remain essential. The legislation would, however,
substantially fund the new requirements imposed on the
states, with the federal government shouldering 95 percent of
the costs. That the final measure has drawn bipartisan
congressional backing is testimony to the broad support
across the nation for revamping America's election system.
____

[From the New York Times, Oct. 8, 2002]

Upgrading the Way We Vote

Congress now seems on the verge, at long last, of passing
meaningful legislation to improve the reliability of American
elections.
The House and Senate had earlier passed bills addressing
the flaws in voting equipment and procedures that were so
manifest in the 2000 presidential vote. The sense of urgency,
however, seemed to erode as negotiators sought to reconcile
the two measures. Democrats had second thoughts about signing
on to anti-fraud provisions, while Republicans had qualms
about expanding the federal government's role in running
elections. Then last month, Florida's chaotic Congressional
primaries provided a fresh reminder of the price of inaction.
Last week the conferees struck a deal that the full Congress
is expected to approve within days and that President Bush is
expected to sign into law. The legislation calls for a big
infusion of federal resources into the administration of
elections--$3.9 billion over three years. Until Congress
actually appropriates the money, however, this amounts to
little more than a promise--one on which Mr. Bush and the
Congressional leadership are obliged to deliver.
The funds will enable states to upgrade their equipment,
train poll workers and otherwise improve how elections are
administered. The legislation also imposes federal standards,
starting in 2004. States must offer ``provisional balloting''
for voters whose eligibility is questioned at the polls, and
a means of allowing voters who have made mistakes in casting
their ballots a chance to rectify them. States must also
ensure access to disabled voters, establish uniform vote-
counting standards and create computerized registration
lists.
The legislation requires first-time voters who register by
mail to verify their identity when they vote. Some argue that
this imposes too onerous a burden on minority voters. We
disagree, although the Justice Department will have to be
vigilant to ensure that this anti-fraud provision is not
abused. The final draft of the legislation should also spell
out that this provision will not take effect until the full
$3.9 billion is appropriated.
More might have been done to nationalize election
procedures, but in the context of America's federalism, this
legislation is a sound accomplishment.
____

[From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 7, 2002]

Cleaning Up Elections

One of the most underreported stories in recent American
politics has been the growth in election fraud. We'd even say
that the politicians have been far ahead of the press corps
on this problem, perhaps because their futures depend on
honest vote counting.
Two useful cases in point are now coming out of Washington,
of all unlikely places. One is the election reform bill that
finally looks ready to emerge from House-Senate conference.
The other is Attorney General John Ashcroft's effort this
week to mobilize his department to counter fraud from now
through this Election Day of November 5.
Mr. Ashcroft has summoned assistant U.S. attorneys from
around the country to a day-long seminar tomorrow to focus on
elections crimes. There are plenty of anti-vote fraud laws on
the books, but rarely if ever are allegations of fraud
investigated, much less prosecuted. Mr. Ashcroft has invited
three assistant U.S. attorneys with experience in election
crimes--from the ripe climates of Kentucky, Alabama and New
York--to share their lessons and case studies.
The Chihuahuas of the Beltway press corps will be inclined
to treat this as little more than political public relations.
But that's why they miss so many stories, including the
outbreak of voting fraud in places like Philadelphia, San
Francisco and St. Louis. In the latter, the dead and pets
cast ballots in 2000; only last year the voter rolls in St.
Louis included 13,000 more names than the U.S. Census lists
as the total number of adults over age 18. In New York City
earlier this year, the name of a candidate for lieutenant
governor was discovered to have voted twice in a previous
election. He dropped out after the New York Post broke the
story.
It's helpful for Mr. Ashcroft to draw public attention to
this before Election Day, both to mobilize his own department
and perhaps to deter those looking to commit fraud. He's
asking each of his U.S. Attorneys to meet with state election
and law enforcement officials in the next month, says a
recent internal memo, to find ways to ``work together to
deter electoral corruption and bring violators to justice.''
The election reform bill compromise also includes much-
needed attention to ballot integrity. The heart of the bill
is of course aimed at avoiding another Florida butterfly-
ballot fiasco, by sending $3.9 billion to the states to
upgrade their voting equipment and train poll workers, as if
the job were all that difficult.
But the best provisions are those aimed at cleaning up
voter lists. Beginning this January 1, new voters who
register by mail will have to provide a photo ID or another
document, such as a utility bill, that shows a name and
address. States will also have to maintain a statewide voter
registration list. And voters who do not appear on a
registration list will be able to cast a provisional ballot,
to be counted only if its data can be later verified.
Our own view is that if a citizen is too lazy to register
before an election, he's disqualified himself from voting.
But these reforms will at least address some of the problems
created by the disastrous ``motor voter law'' of 1994 that
was supposed to increase voter turnout; instead it created
many more opportunities for cheating.
The people who pushed motor voter are also the same folks
now raising public doubts about the anti-fraud provisions of
this election reform. They are liberal lobbies who like to
shout about the ``possible disenfranchisement of voters,'' as
Kay Maxwell of the increasingly ideological League of Women
Voters put it to the Los Angeles Times. This is a subtle
race-card play, suggesting that the U.S. in 2002 resembles
Birmingham, Alabama circa 1956.
Even in the contested Florida election of 2000, the black
share of the total vote was a record high, which is hard to
square with allegations of voter intimidation. Connecticut
Senator Chris Dodd and other Democrats deserve credit for
overruling their staffs and the liberal lobbies to cut a
reform deal with Republicans.
With American politics now closely divided, many elections
are bound to be close and the temptation on both sides will
be to shout fraud whenever they lose. That's all the more
reason to attempt to deter fraud before Election Day.
____

[From Newsday, Oct. 8, 2002]

Enact Balloting Reforms But Only If Money's Attached

In resuscitating a bill to reform the nation's voting
procedures, House and Senate negotiators have crafted a solid
approach to reduce the likelihood of future voting fiascoes
like those that roiled the 2000 presidential election, whose
results were unclear for more than a month.
Congress dawdled too long for its reform to have any impact
Nov. 5. But the next presidential race is just two years
away, so lawmakers should pass the bill--but only if the
money to fund it is assured. The bill sets minimum federal
standards for voting, including error rates, and authorizes
$3.9 billion to help states cover the cost of compliance.
Without that money, reform would be a sham; change would come
slowly, if at all.
That would be a shame as the bill strikes a pretty good
balance between autonomy and accountability. Washington would
monitor performance and offer guidance on equipment
procedural changes, but its recommendations would not have
the force of law. State and local officials would have wide
discretion on how to meet the standards, for instance, in
choosing types of voting machines. The Justice Department
could

[[Page S10514]]

sue to enforce the new standards. But election reform
wouldn't be micromanaged from Washington.
Election-reform bills passed the House and Senate months
ago, but the effort to reconcile the two versions ran
aground. Republicans sought safeguards against fraud;
Democrats wanted to make sure that new identification
requirements would not disenfranchise voters.
Under the current agreement, people registering to vote
would have to provide a driver's license number or Social
Security number. First-time voters who register by mail would
have to present one of those documents to poll workers before
casting their ballots.
Civil rights advocates worry that poor or minority voters
would be deterred by those requirements and by poll workers
who might not apply them fairly and consistently. Those
concerns are important and should be closely monitored. But
they should not derail reform.
Voting is too fundamental to democracy for the nation not
to get it right.
____

[From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Oct. 10, 2002]

Voting for Progress: Congressional Negotiators Agree on Election Reform

If the 2000 presidential election in Florida weren't enough
of a debacle, the problems experienced in the same state's
primary election last month made the point anew:
If American democracy is to retain any respect, Congress
had better help the states improve the way they hold
elections. After months of wrangling, Congress has risen to
the challenge, although controversy may still sink the
effort.
After House and Senate negotiators reached agreement last
week, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat,
correctly observed that it ``will help America move beyond
the days of hanging chads, butterfly ballots and illegal
purges of qualified voters.'' Some $3.9 billion in federal
money would be provided to the states over three years for
upgrading voting equipment, training poll workers and setting
up a computerized voter database.
But so much for the mechanics of voting, the principal
concern of Democrats. What about the Republican fear of voter
fraud? This might be called the historic Tammany Hall
problem, immortalized by the line ``Vote early and often.''
The Republicans had a point, whatever their political
motives. Just as it is important to make sure votes are
counted properly, it is also crucial to the integrity of the
system to make sure that those voting are entitled to do so.
But civil rights groups and the League of Women Voters of
America object to any provision that would require checking
the IDs of voters; they say such requirements would unfairly
discourage minorities and elderly people from voting. It is
an understandable concern, but it has been overblown.
The compromise legislation is hardly onerous. Beginning
Jan. 1, new voters who registered by mail would be required
to provide a current photo ID or another document such as a
utility bill with name and address. Eventually, voters would
have to supply part of a driver's license number or Social
Security number (or be assigned a number if they didn't have
one). If questions arose about a person's eligibility to
vote, he or she would receive a provisional ballot that would
be counted if the registration were later verified.
In a sign that the agreement is not as bad as advertised,
the Congressional Black Caucus endorsed it. Former presidents
Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, who are honorary co-chairs of
the National Commission on Federal Election Reform, said the
bill ``represents a delicate balance of shared
responsibilities between levels of government.'' They're
right--and the House and Senate should approve what their
negotiators have worked out.
There is a local footnote to the federal debate: When the
Post-Gazette suggested recently that some sort of voter ID
was not a bad idea for Pennsylvania, a couple of Democratic
legislators objected strongly. As this development in
Washington illustrates, once again the commonwealth is behind
the curve.
____

[From the Baltimore Sun, Oct. 15, 2002]

Getting Over It

Angry and embarrassed over the election debacle of 2000,
the newly chosen Congress vowed to make reforming the
antiquated, 50-state patchwork system its first order of
business. Now, it appears the election reform bill will be
among the last items enacted as the 107th Congress stumbles
to a messy close.
A final vote of the Senate tomorrow and the expected
signature of President Bush will establish federal standards
intended to ensure that eligible voters will never again be
turned away from the polls or have their votes voided because
of confusing ballots. The reforms come too late to apply to
this year's congressional elections, and may not have been
approved at all but for the botched Florida primary last
month that kick-started a stalled legislative drive.
Much of the delay centered on a dispute over a requirement
that first-time voters who register by mail show one of
several forms of identification at the polls. Republican
senators, in particular, insisted on an ID requirement to
fight voter fraud.
Civil rights groups complained such a requirement would
impose a barrier to voting for low-income Americans who don't
have drivers licenses or other common forms of
identification. At a minimum, they argued, the request for
such papers would be used as a way to harass or discourage
voters.
Rep. Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, a leading Democratic
negotiator on the bill, won House approval for a version of
the measure without an ID requirement. But he faced a Senate
that had voted 99-1 to include one. He and the vast majority
of his colleagues, including the Congressional Black Caucus,
decided to accept the provision rather than let the bill die.
That was the right choice. The legislation directs $3.9
billion in aid to the states to replace outdated punch-card
and lever voting machines and to train poll workers. Among
its innovative features is a $5 million program to recruit
college students to serve as poll workers and take over tasks
now often being performed by elderly party volunteers.
Safeguards were also included: Voters without
identification or whose eligibility is otherwise challenged
would be allowed to cast provisional ballots so that no one
who turns up at the polls is turned away.
The most scandalous aspect of our voting process is neither
fraud nor errors but the failure of half or more of all
eligible voters to even bother to cast ballots.
Congress cannot mandate civic enthusiasm. But it can help
increase confidence in the election process by doing away
with a system that routinely lets thousands of votes from
those who do bother to show up go uncounted.
Activists in both parties as well as voter and civil rights
advocates should work together to implement the new
procedures as quickly as possible and correct any flaws.
It is long past time to get over it.
____

[From the News and Record, Oct. 12, 2002]

Nearly Two Years Later, Voting System Is Reformed

Until last week, reform of the nation's voting process was
as dead as an uncounted hanging chad. National outrage over
Florida's voting debacle in the 2000 presidential election
had been high-pitched, but Congress lost interest. Florida's
botched primary last month--equipment failure, human error--
put reform back on the radar screen. Congress passed
bipartisan legislation last week that authorizes $3.9 billion
over the next three years to help states buy new voting
equipment, computerize registered voter lists and train poll
workers.
The bill also requires new voters who register by mail to
provide personal identification, such as a driver's license
or Social Security number, when they arrive at the polls. The
proviso prevents election fraud.
The bill also requires ``provisional voting,'' meaning a
voter who goes to the polls and whose registration cannot be
validated is allowed to vote. If election officials later
verify the voter's registration, the vote counts. North
Carolina commendably adopted ``provisional voting'' years
ago.
The legislation carefully pays constitutional obeisance to
states' rights. States, not the federal government, will
determine what constitutes a legal vote. That raises the
specter of Florida's recount of hanging chads. Yet Florida,
and other states, will supposedly have improved voting
machines and better trained poll workers before the 2004
presidential election when the reforms become operative.
The bill enjoys bipartisan support but not without prior
hassles. Republicans feared voter fraud and insisted on
identification for new voters who register by mail. Fair
enough. Democrats sought to expand the franchise with
``provisional voting'' and registering by mail. They, too,
got their wish.
President Bush, whose brother, Jeb, is governor of Florida
and has been tarnished by his state's flawed voting system,
is eager to avoid a messy repeat performance. The president
is expected to sign the authorization bill and, ultimately,
the appropriations bill that funds it.
It has taken a dawdling Congress two years after the
embarrassing 2000 presidential election to adopt voting
reforms. If it had failed to do so, voters' rights would have
been egregiously undermined.
____

[From the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Oct. 12, 2002]

Federal Election Reform, Finally; Florida's Problems Helped Congress
Resolve Differences

Federal election reform appears to be a reality at last.
The nation can thank South Florida, whose recently bungled
primary inspired Congress to resolve stubborn differences
over a voting bill and push it toward final passage.
The federal breakthrough comes too late for Florida, but
it's welcome nonetheless. Once it gains expected final
approval, the measure will address the kind of fundamental
election problems that savaged the 2000 presidential contest
and--despite state reforms enacted in 2001--bit Florida again
in the September primary. That federal reform took so long is
really a shame--but then, so are botched elections. The Bush/
Gore battle of 2000 taught Americans how frustrating the act
of voting can be when rules vary from state to state, county
to county and chad to chad.
As time passed, however, Congress' zeal to reform the mess
devolved into partisan quibbling. Though both the House and
Senate

[[Page S10515]]

passed election bills, the chambers lacked the resolve to
work out their differences; the bills lay comatose for months
and by summer were presumed dead.
Then came the September primary: Florida's newfangled
machines and revised procedures brought on precisely what
they were designed to avoid--angry voters, disputed ballot
and official confusion.
Congress took note, resuscitated the election bills and
finally worked out a deal. It was announced last Friday in a
ceremony long on self-congratulation and short on details.
Here are some of the key points:
The legislation would authorize nearly $4 billion to help
states modernize voting machines, educate voters, train poll
workers and improve the administration of elections.
(Separate appropriations bills are needed to actually come up
with the cash.)
It would set more uniform election standards in machines,
counting, and other related procedures, and set up a
commission to lead this effort.
It would modernize the lists of registered voters; require
voters to have the opportunity to correct their ballots if
they err; and allow provisional votes for people whose
eligibility is questioned.
It would require certain anti-fraud measures; encourage
better access for overseas and military voters; and contain
criminal penalties for people who provide false information
in registering or voting. People who conspire to deprive
voters of fair elections also would face criminal sanctions.
Florida already has initiated many of these reforms, but
the troubled September primary proved that implementation
requires lots of time and training. Congress should bear this
in mind and funds its legislation accordingly, lest Florida-
style embarrassments pop up nationwide.
Some civil rights groups oppose certain identification
requirements in the legislation, but these measures are
needed to discourage fraud--a crime that injures every
voter's right to be counted.
Uniformity in election procedures, and money to achieve it,
are the key benefits of the federal legislation. Without
consistency from state to state and precinct to precinct,
it's difficult to guarantee that voters receive equal
protection--the concept on which the Supreme Court leaned for
its controversial ruling deciding the 2000 standoff.
As the court wrote with notable understatement, ``The
problem of equal protection in election processes generally
presents many complexities.''
This legislation could simplify many of those complexities.
It deserves final approval and full funding. Now.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues how much I appreciate
their patience on this. This has been a very long and arduous effort to
get to this point. This is not a perfect piece of legislation, but I
think it advances considerably the role the United States ought to be
playing as a Federal Government in the conduct of elections. The world
looks and watches us. We are not shy about lecturing people about
democracy. When we have error rates as we do and millions of people
turned away at the polls, it is long overdue that we correct the
system. This bill goes a long way in doing that. It is a proud day. It
ought to be for all of us here who responded to the challenge that was
asked of us as a result of the elections of 2000.
I commend my colleagues in the other body, and the leadership there
and the leadership here, for allowing us to reach this point.
I urge the adoption of this conference report.
I ask for the yeas and nays on the conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have a number of Senators who are stuck
on a train. As a result of that, we are going to start the vote now and
give ample opportunity for them to get here to vote. It is terribly
unusual that we extend the vote, but we will this one time. I ask for
the regular order on the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference
report. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call
the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Torricelli) is necessarly absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the
Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm),
the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), and the Senator from
Alabama (Mr. Sessions) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 2, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 238 Leg.]

YEAS--92

Akaka
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--2

Clinton
Schumer

NOT VOTING--6

Allard
Enzi
Gramm
Hutchinson
Sessions
Torricelli
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their overwhelming
support for this legislation. As I said earlier, it has been a long
journey to bring us to this juncture.
We never claimed perfection in this bill. It is a compromise,
obviously. We think it advances the cause of enfranchising people. I
mentioned earlier people who talked about dogs who may have voted. I
find a certain amount of humor in that and a degree of seriousness, if
that is the case. When we end up with 4 million to 6 million human
beings who could not vote, I hope we will spend a lot of time talking
about this legislation, making sure people show up to vote who are
alive and well.
I thank my colleagues for their backing of this legislation. I look
forward to, I hope, a Presidential signature on this legislation, and
then doing the hard work of implementing the provisions of this bill.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DODD. I yield.
Mr. REID. I say to the Senator, I can remember his managing the bill.
It was very tough. He did a wonderful job of moving this most
contentious legislation through the Senate.
He was able to develop bipartisan support for it in committee and on
the floor. There were many who felt we could never get this bill out of
conference, but the Senator from Connecticut was persistent,
unyielding, and we now have a bill.
I hope people understand what a sea change this is going to be for
voting in America. In Nevada, we need this legislation. The Secretary
of State--who, by the way, is a Republican--was one of the first
supporters of this legislation and developed a friendship with the
Senator from Connecticut as a result of this legislation. It is that
way all over the country. I only hope in the months and years to come,
we understand how important this is and put our money where our mouths
are. We have now authorized this most important legislation and have to
fund it.
This is groundbreaking, but I repeat, we have to put our money where
our mouth is so we can implement this legislation. I hope we do that.
If we do that, it is going to make elections fair, and it will make
people feel good about their votes counting.

[[Page S10516]]

None of this would have happened but for the doggedness of the
Senator from Connecticut. He simply would not give up when many said it
could not be done.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I noted earlier the support of House Members
who did a tremendous job in getting a bill done. I talked about Bob Ney
and Steny Hoyer. Obviously, bills do not get done just because they get
done in the Senate. They can only finally get to the President's desk
if the other body also acts, and without the leadership of Bob Ney of
Ohio and Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the Chair and ranking Members of the
House Administration Committee, we never would have had a negotiation
to produce this product.
So I want to extend my appreciation to them and to John Conyers, who
was my coarchitect of this bill going back now a year and a half ago,
who wanted to be available in Washington this morning, but he got
delayed on a flight and could not be present for this final vote. When
I first announced this bill, I stood in the room with two people. One
was John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO. The other one was John Conyers, the
dean of the Congressional Black Caucus in the House. John Conyers was a
tremendous supporter of this effort all the way through. I am very
grateful to him, again grateful to Steny Hoyer, Bob Ney, and a whole
host of people who made this possible: The NAACP, the AFL-CIO,
disability groups across the country, the National Association of
Secretaries of State. There is a long list of organizations that
rallied behind this effort, and without their support we would not have
been able to arrive at this moment.
So I thank all of those who were involved in this. I thank my
colleague from Nevada for his very kind and generous comments.

____________________