[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
VOTING RIGHTS AND ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATION IN ARIZONA
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
OCTOBER 1, 2019
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on the Internet:
http://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-administration
VOTING RIGHTS AND ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATION IN ARIZONA
VOTING RIGHTS AND ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATION IN ARIZONA
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 1, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on the Internet:
http://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-administration
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
38-129 WASHINGTON : 2019
C O N T E N T S
----------
OCTOBER 1, 2019
Page
Voting Rights and Election Administration in Arizona............. 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairwoman Marcia L. Fudge....................................... 1
Prepared statement of Chairwoman Fudge....................... 4
WITNESSES
Hon. Jonathan Nez, President, The Navajo Nation.................. 6
Prepared statement of Hon. Nez............................... 9
Hon. Stephen Roe Lewis, Governor, Gila River Indian Community.... 17
Prepared statement of Hon. Lewis............................. 20
Patricia Ferguson-Bohnee, Professor of Law, Indian Legal Clinic,
Arizona State University....................................... 38
Prepared statement of Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee.................... 41
Hon. Lorena C. Van Assche, Chair, Arizona State Advisory
Committee, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights..................... 50
Prepared statement of Hon. Van Assche........................ 52
Montserrat Arredondo, Table Director, One Arizona................ 59
Prepared statement of Ms. Arredondo.......................... 61
Alex Gulotta, Arizona State Director, All Voting Is Local........ 63
Prepared statement of Mr. Gulotta............................ 65
Darrell L. Hill, Policy Director, ACLU of Arizona................ 70
Prepared statement of Mr. Hill............................... 72
Hon. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, State Senator, State Senate of Arizona 81
Prepared statement of Hon. Ugenti-Rita....................... 83
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
League of Women Voters of Arizona, statement..................... 103
Arizona Advisory Committee, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,
Voting Rights in Arizona Report July 2018, statement........... 108
Patricia Ferguson-Bohnee, Professor of Law, Indian Legal Clinic,
Arizona State University, History of Indian Voting Rights in
Arizona: Overcoming Decades of Voter Suppression, statement.... 126
Arizona Advocacy Foundation, Arizona Shelby Response Project:
Modernizing Elections and Maximizing Voter Participation,
statement...................................................... 172
Patricia Ferguson-Bohnee, Professor of Law, Indian Legal Clinic,
Arizona State University, Native Vote--Election Protection
Project 2016 Election Report, statement........................ 200
Adrian Fontes, Maricopa County Recorder, statement............... 197
VOTING RIGHTS AND ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATION IN ARIZONA
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Elections,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., at
Phoenix College, Bulpitt Auditorium, 1202 W. Thomas Road,
Phoenix, Arizona, Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (Chair of the
Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Fudge, Butterfield, and Aguilar.
Also Present: Representatives Grijalva, Stanton, Gallego,
and Lesko.
Staff Present: Jamie Fleet, Staff Director; Eddie Flaherty,
Chief Clerk; Sean Jones, Legislative Clerk; Daniel Taylor,
General Counsel; Peter Whippy, Communications Director; Veleter
Mazyck, Chief of Staff to Ms. Fudge; Sarah Nasta, Counsel -
Elections; Courtney Parella, Minority Communications Director;
Jesse Roberts, Minority Counsel; and Cole Felder, Minority
General Counsel.
Chairwoman Fudge. The Subcommittee on Elections of the
Committee on House Administration will come to order.
I thank the Members of the Subcommittee, Representatives
Butterfield and Aguilar, colleagues from the House, as well as
our witnesses and those in the audience for being here today.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members have five
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and that
any written statements be made part of the record.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that Members Grijalva, Stanton, and
Lesko be invited to sit on the dais for the Subcommittee
hearing today.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Good morning. My name is Marcia Fudge, and I am the Chair
of the Subcommittee on Elections. I want to begin by thanking
Phoenix College of Maricopa County Community College for their
hospitality and assistance in hosting this field hearing.
I again thank my colleagues, our witnesses, Tribal leaders,
and the people of Arizona for joining us here today. I also
thank my distinguished colleague, Congressman Gallego, for so
warmly welcoming us to his district, and he will be joining us
shortly, as well as my colleagues, Congressmen Stanton,
Grijalva, and Lesko for welcoming us to Arizona as we continue
this important work.
We are here today to examine the state of voting rights and
election administration in Arizona. Since the beginning of the
116th Congress, this Subcommittee has been holding field
hearings across the country convening forums to hear from
voting and election advocates, experts, community leaders,
litigators, and voters about the state of voting rights and the
election administration in their communities.
The right to vote is sacred, and as Members of Congress, we
take our responsibility to protect access to the ballot very
seriously. We have been listening closely and collecting
testimony regarding the wide range of methods of voter
suppression and discrimination being deployed across the
nation. Today, we are here to learn firsthand from Tribal
leaders, voting rights advocates, and litigators about their
experiences exercising the right to vote in the State of
Arizona.
Protecting the right to vote is fundamental to the health
of our democracy. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was intended to
protect the right to vote in every single corner of the United
States. Each of us should be concerned about the erosion of
such a fundamental law.
Prior to 2013, Arizona was one of nine States fully covered
by the preclearance requirements of Sections 4(b) and 5 of the
Voting Rights Act. Voting changes in Arizona had to be
evaluated for their potential discriminatory impact and were
subject to review by the Department of Justice. But since the
Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder, voters in
Arizona have seen numerous changes to voting without evaluation
of their potential to discriminate.
Since 2012, Arizona has closed 320 polling stations in 13
of its 15 counties. Such closures pose access to voting
challenges and may have a disparate impact on communities of
color. The highest count of poll closures took place in
Maricopa County, which is 31 percent Latino, with 117 closures.
During the March 2016 Presidential primary, there were reports
that voters in Maricopa County waited in lines as long as 5
hours to cast their ballot.
Arizona has a history of failing to protect the right to
vote for Native Americans. Although Native Americans gained the
right to vote in 1924, it was not until 1948 that Native
Americans gained the franchise in Arizona. And still, for
years, the Native American community continued to face
discriminatory poll taxes, literacy tests, and other forms of
disenfranchisement in Arizona.
We must ensure all Native Americans and other language
minorities have access to the translated materials and language
assistance they need to cast their vote. In addition, the move
towards vote by mail and the attempt to outlaw ballot
collection raises concerns that Native Americans and others
with limited ability to access a polling location or mail
service will be disenfranchised.
Further, although the Supreme Court held in 2012 that
requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote is
inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act, Arizona
still moved to require proof of citizenship when individuals
registered to vote in State and local elections, although the
Federal voter registration form does not. Native American
voters and other minority communities are less likely to have
the required ID.
These are just a few examples of hurdles faced by Arizona's
voters. It is critical to note that Chief Justice Roberts
himself said, ``voting discrimination still exists, no one
doubts that.'' The Chief Justice argued Congress needs to
present a more up-to-date record of the prevalence of voting
discrimination in order to reinstate the critical protections
of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act.
It is critical we examine the state of voting rights in
America and build a true contemporaneous record of ongoing
discrimination and barriers to voters, and that is why we are
here today. It is clear there is much work to be done.
[The statement of Chairwoman Fudge follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. I will now introduce our witnesses for
our first panel. We have Jonathan Nez, who is the President of
Navajo Nation, and Stephen Roe Lewis, who is the Governor of
Gila River Indian Community.
I thank you both gentlemen for being here. You will see a
lighting system in front of you. When you begin, the light will
be green. You will have five minutes. When you see the light
turn yellow, that means you have one minute remaining. When you
see the red light, that means please try to wrap up as quickly
as possible. Thank you very much.
Mr. Nez, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.
STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE JONATHAN NEZ, PRESIDENT, THE NAVAJO
NATION; AND THE HONORABLE STEPHEN ROE LEWIS, GOVERNOR, GILA
RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JONATHAN NEZ
Mr. Nez. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, and Members of the
Subcommittee. And also, greetings to my friend here, Governor
Lewis, from the Gila River Indian Community. With me in the
audiences are Vice President of the Navajo Nation, Myron Lizer.
And thank you for the opportunity to talk with you today on
this very important topic.
The Navajo Nation covers a large area of northern Arizona,
and many of our people still speak our Navajo, or Din,
language. They live in rural areas of our homeland and travel
many miles for basic services. These three areas are my focus
today, while we can acknowledge there are many more issues we
can talk about today or at future hearings.
Number one, language. Like many older Navajos, I speak both
Navajo and English. I grew up as Navajo being my first
language. Many of our older citizens speak Navajo as their
primary language and are more comfortable talking to others in
the Navajo language.
As I understand it, the Navajo language is covered under
Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. I also understand this
requires that all election material provided in the English
language must also be provided in Navajo.
The Navajo Nation continues to have issues with some of the
counties and the State of Arizona providing sufficient
translation services to Navajo voters in written material, on
radio, and to in-person voters. We are working this out with
the counties in our region, but there is still a lot of ground
to cover.
The point I must make here, so we all understand each
other, the Navajo Nation has always worked with the counties in
our area, and we will continue to do so for the benefit of all
our citizens, including these issues of translation and
understanding of election issues. I do not want anyone to
misunderstand and get the idea that the Navajo Nation and
counties are continually at odds with each other. We all work
for the people of northern Arizona.
Number two, rural living. The Navajo Nation covers 27,000
square miles in three States, just a bit smaller than Ohio,
Madam Chairwoman, your home State. Our capital is in Window
Rock, Arizona, and we have 110 chapters or local government
centers.
When it comes time to vote on the Navajo Nation, in Navajo
State and Federal elections, it is difficult for some of our
membership due to the rural nature of our land. One example of
rural living on the Navajo Nation is public transportation,
which is available in most of the United States. There is no
public transportation that allows for the pickup of individual
citizens at their place of residence. This severely limits the
transportation options for the elderly and disabled citizens.
People are relying on relatives or friends for rides,
especially in the more rural areas. In some parts of the
nation, only 1 in 10 families own a vehicle, which further
limits transportation options.
In addition, if there are Tribal elections on the same day
as the State and Federal elections, an individual may be
required to travel two separate locations in two separate
communities to cast ballots on election day. This can lead to
an individual spending many hours in 1 day driving and waiting
in line to vote. I will cover this issue in a minute.
A related issue to rural living is mailing address. An
individual's post office box location may be in a different
State or county than the individual's residency. A person may
reside in Arizona, but their PO box and chapter house is in New
Mexico, for example, Red Lake Chapter, Arizona, and Crystal
Chapter, New Mexico, or reside in Utah and their PO box in
Arizona, an issue for residents of Navajo Mountain Chapter,
Utah. Some individuals reside in Navajo County, but their PO
box and local chapter house is in Coconino County. The example
is Bird Springs Chapter.
For those here, these locations are not familiar but are an
issue for these living there, because a discrepancy in the
State or county location between an individual's post office
box and their physical residence leads to difficulties for
individual Navajos in registering to vote. If the county cannot
confirm the location of an individual's residence, it will
reject their registration application.
Number three, traveling issues. In 2018, Apache County had
only two early voting locations on the Navajo Nation in the
southern part of the reservation. This resulted in community
members from Teec Nos Pos Chapter located near the Utah border
having to drive a 95-mile, one-way trip to vote early. This is
like driving a two-lane road from Columbus to Cincinnati, less
traffic but just as long. This is in contrast to off-
reservation populations who had early voting locations in
closer proximity to population centers and open for more days
and longer hours. By limiting in-person early voting on the
reservation, it hinders Navajo citizens from exercising the
right to vote in their preferred manner.
In conclusion, an issue related to traveling is that the
county precincts do not align with Navajo political
subdivisions, the chapters, or local government centers, as I
mentioned before. An individual's chapter house may be the
polling location of a precinct, but because of where the
individual lives in the chapter area, they are actually not in
the same precinct that the chapter house is.
For instance, the Cameron Chapter directly north of
Phoenix, about 200 miles, is not located in one precinct but is
divided between several precincts. The residents of Cameron
Chapter may be in the Bodaway-Gap precinct of Coconino County.
If the individual works in Tuba City, the individual would have
to take time off work to vote at his or her chapter house for a
Navajo election and drive to another precinct polling location
in Bodaway-Gap to vote in State elections, for a trip total of
60 miles.
So in summary, there are many other issues we can talk
about, but these three, language, rural area, traveling
conditions are what I focus on today. And I appreciate the time
extended to us for our testimony, and I stand ready for
questions. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Nez follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. President. One
thing I did neglect to tell you, this is being live-streamed,
so at any point, you may be on a camera. So just to forewarn
you, so that you are not like doing something silly when the
camera comes on you.
Mr. Governor, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEPHEN ROE LEWIS
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. [Speaking Akimel
O'otham] I am Governor Stephen Roe Lewis of the Gila River
Indian Community. It is an honor to welcome you to our O'otham,
our traditional lands of the O'otham peoples. And Chairwoman
Fudge, Ranking Member Davis, and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you sincerely for the opportunity to testify on this
important topic regarding voting rights and elections
administration in Arizona.
The Indian Citizenship Act made Tribal members full United
States citizens in 1924. Unfortunately, as we know, Tribal
members across Indian Country are still fighting to secure and
exercise their right to vote.
Across the country, Tribal members living on Indian
reservations face unique voting challenges that individuals
living elsewhere take for granted, and this is no different in
Arizona. The Gila River Indian Community strives to address and
tear down the barriers faced by the community's Tribal members
and is actively involved in initiatives to increase voter
turnout across our great reservation.
The community is comprised of the Akimel O'odham and the
Pee-Posh Tribes, and has over 23,000 enrolled members, with
approximately 12,000 of those members residing on the
reservation. Our reservation is roughly 372,000 acres and
located in south central Arizona in both Maricopa and Pinal
Counties. The reservation is divided into seven political
districts with five of those districts located in Pinal County
and two located in Maricopa County.
A little bit about our history. In 1928, the community's
Tribal members, Peter Porter and Rudolph Johnson, were denied
the right to register to vote in Pinal County for two reasons:
First, because the county did not believe that they resided
within the State of Arizona since they lived on our
reservation; second, because the county believed that as
American Indians, Porter and Johnson remained wards of the
Federal Government and that both they and the rest of American
Indians in Arizona were not entitled to vote in Arizona
elections for State and Federal officers.
Porter and Johnson litigated Pinal County's decision in the
Arizona Supreme Court and lost, unfortunately. The Court agreed
with the county that Porter and Johnson were, quote, ``under
guardianship,'' unquote, of the Federal Government and,
therefore, not entitled to vote.
Tribal members living on reservations in Arizona were
unable to vote until 1948, when the Arizona Supreme Court
overturned its previous decision and recognized Tribal members'
rights to vote in Arizona elections.
In 1948, only two States continued to disenfranchise
voters: New Mexico and Arizona. Tribal members' rights to vote
in Arizona may now be fully recognized under the law, but
Tribal members continue to face barriers to voting. Within
Indian Country, Tribal members are often turned away at the
polls because of voter address issues, which combined with
ineffective election administrators and unreliable precinct
locations, foster voter and Tribal member distrust and
disenfranchise in the voting process.
There are important address issues as well. Under current
Arizona law, all persons voting in person on election day must
provide identification that includes an address in order to
receive a regular ballot. If the identification does not
include the individual's photo, then the individual is burdened
with providing additional documentation. In contrast,
individuals who cast provisional ballots or vote early by mail
or in person do not have to provide identification in order to
receive their ballots.
Our community members generally prefer to vote in person on
election day because voting by mail is difficult due to
unreliable mail service on the reservation and issues related
to their nontraditional addresses. The community's Tribal
identification cards do not include addresses.
Also, individuals living on the Pinal County portion of the
reservation do not have standard county street addresses,
through no fault of their own. Many Tribal members do not even
receive mail at their homes and pay for a United States Post
Office box, which are only open during the week and for limited
hours on Saturdays.
In 2012, voter identification laws were strictly enforced
on the Pinal County portion of the reservation, and many
community voters were turned away from the polls when their
addresses did not match the voter rolls. In very few instances,
voters were offered and allowed to cast provisional ballots
despite not having an address on their Tribal identification
document. The majority of these voters were denied ballots
altogether. In Maricopa County, voters were turned away when
the county ended up changing their voting precincts without
effectively communicating these changes to voters.
Despite improvements, many Tribal members were again turned
away at the polls in the 2016 election. Voter identification
laws in Arizona and nontraditional Tribal addresses problems
remain still a huge barrier for our community's voters, and
unless remedied, the community expects that these problems will
continue in the next election.
We have been trying to remedy this in certain ways. The
community is working at a grassroots level to encourage and
inform community members to participate in elections in
partnership with Get Out the Vote. Our communications and
public affairs office recently worked with GOTV and the
National Congress of American Indians to produce video content
to increase voter turnout among our community. These videos
discuss the historic struggle to vote within Arizona and the
need to increase the number of American Indian voters.
This past August, we hosted the Arizona Native Right to
Vote Day celebration. Voting registration has increased since
the 2016 election, but the community remains committed to
further increasing registration numbers by the community's
estimates. Only 58 percent of the voting age population is
currently registered to vote, and more must be done.
Voting should not be hard to do. The community strives to
carry on the legacy of Peter Porter, Rudolph Johnson, and so
many other Tribal advocates who fought to secure the rights
that American Indians in Arizona have today, including our
veterans. Ira Hayes, one of the flag raisers in Iwo Jima, comes
proudly. He is a native son of the Gila River Indian Community.
And so we know there are Native veterans who have served in the
highest levels across the United States. They fought for, and
they sacrificed for, our right to vote as well.
So with that, thank you for this opportunity to tell the
Gila River Indian Community story on voting history and what we
need to change in the future.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
[The statement of Mr. Lewis follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
Thank you both. We will now take questions from our panel.
Mr. Butterfield, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Fudge. And
thank you to the two witnesses for your testimony today.
When Ms. Fudge became the Chairwoman of this Subcommittee,
she promised that we would take these hearings all across the
country, and she has fulfilled that commitment. And we are here
today in Arizona collecting evidence that will be used in a
very constructive way when we return to Washington. So, thank
you, Chairwoman Fudge.
Thank you to my colleagues who have joined this panel today
and I wish to thank the witnesses as well.
This is a Congressional hearing. As I say in all of these
hearings across the country, this is not a political maneuver.
This is a Congressional hearing. We are collecting evidence as
we travel the country that will be entered into the
Congressional record, and we will use it as Members of Congress
to try to reinstate Section 4, and to enhance and to improve
voter participation across the country and so this is a very
important proceeding here today.
I am probably one of the few people around--no, there are a
few more--who actually remember the enactment of the 1965
Voting Rights Act. It was days after I finished high school,
August 6, 1965. A very powerful law.
The background of it is that after the passage of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, that Act did not include any provision
regarding voting. That was too toxic of an issue to inject into
the civil rights bill, and so after that, Martin Luther King,
Jr., and others, began a new movement in Selma, Alabama, in
January 1965, determined to get a voting rights bill enacted
into law.
So when the bill was finally enacted in August of 1965, it
included some very powerful provisions. The most notable was
Section 2, which gives every aggrieved plaintiff or minority
citizen the right to bring a lawsuit if they feel that some
election system is diluting or affecting their vote. But the
other provision which we are very concerned about is Section 5.
Section 5 covers--or covered, many States throughout the
country. In some States, it only included portions of States. I
believe here in Arizona, it was not involved in the original
1965 Act, but 7 years later, in 1972, the State of Arizona, in
its entirety, was included in the Act for purposes of
preclearance.
The reason for that was not because someone wanted to
punish Arizona, but that meant, before 1972, there was a
history predating 1972 of severe voter discrimination, and so
Arizona was included. So for years and years, Arizona was
required to submit voting changes to the Department of Justice
for preclearance.
But all of that came to a screeching stop on June 25, 2013,
when the Shelby decision was rendered by the Supreme Court. But
what many people do not fully understand is that the Shelby
decision did not invalidate or strike down Section 5; it simply
called on Congress, called on us in Congress to enact a formula
that is a modern-day formula that will enable Section 5 to be
more objectively applied.
So we are collecting evidence, and we are going to present
that evidence in the public record, and hopefully, we can
persuade the Supreme Court to accept a revision of Section 4.
And so thank you for your testimony. It is very valuable.
I was really struck when I read the briefing material today
that, since 2012, in the State of Arizona, 13 of 15 counties
have closed polling places. 320 polling places have closed. If
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act were still in full force and
effect, that would not have happened. Each one of those
closures would have had to have been precleared by the
Department of Justice. The DOJ would have looked at it, and the
burden of proof would have been on the State to prove that
those closures would not have a discriminatory effect. Not
purpose, particularly, but a discriminatory effect.
And so I just want to put that on your mind this morning,
and just thank you for helping us with this fight. We are going
to keep fighting until we can get Section 5 restored. So thank
you very much for your testimonies today.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
Mr. Aguilar, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And just like my
colleague, I want to thank the Chairwoman for bringing this
important hearing to Arizona.
President Nez and Governor Lewis, in your testimony, you
both highlight challenges and barriers that are unique to our
friends in Indian Country. Both of you spoke about the role of
institutional barriers related specifically to access as it
relates to a P.O. box, and the role that residency plays
spanning States or local jurisdictions, and the role that
location election officials play inhibiting voting information
and the potential for a right to vote by mail.
Can you both expand a little bit more on this and the role,
the specific challenges that your communities face related to
the P.O. box and the jurisdictional issues related to receiving
ballot information, and how that affects individuals'
opportunities to vote? President Nez.
Mr. Nez. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Representative
Aguilar, and thank you for the question. You know, the barriers
that we see on the Navajo Nation are many. But one of the
things that we do in our nation is, when there is a day of
elections, it is a day to bring everybody together, to catch up
with family members, to catch up on politics, and it is really
a social event.
You know, when it comes to mailing in ballot provision,
some of our citizens opt not to get mail-in ballots to their
homes or to their boxes. But as was mentioned in the written
testimony, that there may be at times as many as five families
sharing a P.O. box, there is not enough post office boxes in a
community that can take care of many of those citizens. So at
times, you know, there may be some confusion by the Postmaster,
and ballots get lost, or they are not given to the family
member.
And so one of the things that we are advocating for at the
Federal level is a little bit more resources so that we can
have larger post offices on the Navajo Nation.
The other is also about the limited resources on getting
information to our Navajo citizens. We are very rural, and that
is why we are advocating on more broadband capability in rural
Arizona, let's put it that way, that includes Tribes, where we
can get instant information through the internet, and so that
any type of election changes we could get, as well as getting
up-to-date changes in the election law.
Like, for instance, I will give you one example here in the
State of Arizona. Senate Bill 1154 recently passed through the
State legislature changed the elections to the first Tuesday in
August. And so on the Navajo Nation, we had elections, Navajo
elections and county, State, and Federal elections on the same
day.
Now, with the change of the date, you know, if we are
talking about--I think Madam Chairwoman and Representative
Butterfield mentioned voter participation. Navajo elections,
when we vote for Navajo candidates for our own government,
voter participation is about 40-plus percent turnout. So the
reason why we put it the same time as county, State, and
Federal elections, is to get that voter participation up high,
and it did work. It did work.
And now with the changes, we believe that the voter
participation will decline for county, State, and Federal
elections. And that news is new to a lot of our constituents
out on the Navajo Nation. So how do we get that information
out? It is always through PO box or some other type of social
media, but not everybody has internet access.
So those are some concerns that we have. And thank you for
the question, Representative Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate it.
Governor Lewis, briefly.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you. In 2012, a number of our community
members were turned away because of the strict enforcement of
the 2012 voter identification laws. So the community tried to
work with--and this was in Pinal County. And the community
tried to work with Pinal County in a proactive fashion leading
up to the 2016 election. We tried to remedy the voter address
issue so that no community voters would be turned away.
The county revised their poll worker training material
concerning voter identification to address reservation voters
and include Tribal identifications as an acceptable form of
identification. The county also agreed to test an early voting
site for 1 day during the 2016 general election period on the
reservation, providing an opportunity for early voting without
showing identification, and that actually increased some of the
votes in Pinal County from our community members.
But still, despite those improvements, the community had
Pinal County Tribal members located in Pinal County who were
still turned away at the polls and did not vote in the 2016
election.
So voter identification laws in Arizona and nontraditional
Tribal address problems still remain a huge barrier for the
community voters.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
Mrs. Lesko, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you,
both of you, for being here. This is a really good opportunity
to hear the unique problems that you have on your nations, and
so thank you.
I do have a question for either one of you. With these
unique problems that you have, have you worked directly with
the Secretary of State, Katie Hobbs, to try to address these
issues, and has anything been done? Either one of you.
Mr.--President Nez.
Mr. Nez. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Representative
Lesko, and community members. We are working with the Secretary
of State as well as the county recorders that are within the
Navajo Nation. And, you know, at times, we do have to fight
very hard and even to the point where we have to take it into
the courts. And right now, we have settled a case with the
Secretary of State as well as a couple of the counties in the
State of Arizona in terms of their focusing on bringing more
Navajo speakers to the polling sites and, not just during
Election Day, but also the early voting, early voting sites
that get proposed by the counties and even the mobile early
voting sites. And so those are being addressed.
We are working hard, just as I mentioned in my testimony. I
think we have a good working relationship, but at times, we do
have to let them know and remind them of the Voting Rights Act
Section 2 and Section 5, and let them know that we are
concerned that our Navajo speakers on the Navajo Nation are not
being given the opportunity to get their explanation on voting
and voting participation.
Mrs. Lesko. All right.
Mr. Nez. Thank you.
Mrs. Lesko. And the other thing that was brought up
previously was that we have fewer polling locations throughout
the State, and I know that one of the answers given for that is
because we have increased vote by mail so much in the State. So
I am trying to get an idea if you know, either one of you, how
many of your members vote by mail, what percentage? Has it
grown? Because that really is one of the main reasons at least
statewide that we have decreased the number of polling
locations is because, statewide, 75 percent of the voters now
vote by mail. So do either one of you know how many people in
your nations vote by mail?
Mr. Lewis. Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Subcommittee, I
don't have specific numbers, but I know that it is a
significantly smaller percentage that vote by mail. And just to
really draw an important connection that President Nez, my
fellow Tribal leader said, Election Day is important to us. It
is about family. It is about reconnecting. We have--on our
reservation, we sponsor traditional meals at the polling sites,
aside, you know, for our community member voters to come out,
to proudly come out and vote as their right as U.S. citizens
but also members of sovereign nations as well.
It is a tradition. It is an ingrained tradition among our
communities, especially with our elders as well, our veterans.
Sometimes our elders bring their young grandchildren to model
for them that voting is important as well. So, you know we have
a proud history of the voting day being significant across our
community as well.
In regards to proactive solutions with Secretary of State
Hobbs, the community has worked with the Inner-Tribal Council
of Arizona, a consortium of Tribes here in Arizona, where we
actually are happy to have hosted just maybe about 4 months ago
a gathering that Secretary Hobbs came with her staff, Inner-
Tribal Council, county recorders, and Tribal representatives to
work together on this.
So in one room for all day we had those county recorder
representatives from across Arizona, and we brought them
together with those Tribal representatives so that, if there
are any issues, that, you know, they were all of the same mind,
that we have ongoing training for the latest voting laws, you
know, that there would be coordinated, not a Tribe versus a
county, but also to increase contact points between Tribes, and
those county recorders that, as you know, is critical, to make
voting day be as successful as possible.
Mrs. Lesko. Well, I am glad you are working together, and I
just--I know my time is up, but there is also an agency that is
under the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration
called the Election Assistance Commission. And so they are
supposed to help with resources, so possibly they could be a
help as well. Thank you very much for being here.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, and
thank you for your leadership on this Subcommittee and bringing
this attention here to Arizona and to our native people in the
State. It is important that all communities in this very
important discussion about voting access, franchise, and
participation be included. And I very much appreciate that, and
thank you for that.
A couple of ironies--Arizona was one of nine States prior
to the Shelby decision that was required for preclearance on
many issues, even in the upholding of the harvesting issue that
the Supreme--that the Ninth Circuit said. They said if
preclearance would have existed, this legislation and this
effort would not have occurred.
Having said that, I think that historically, there is a
reason why Arizona was included in those nine states, and those
vestiges have not all completely gone, and we all know that.
And hopefully, this will lead to a dispassionate factual
discussion about what needs to be done to make sure that every
eligible voter in this country and in this State has a chance
to vote.
Governor, Mr. President, I want to talk about two things:
Voter ID, and you mentioned that and maybe amplified a little
bit on that, and then also I think, you know, the issue of
access to polling areas. And the other one is the one about
given the distances, given accessibility, given the issues with
mail access, addresses. H.R. 2023 prohibited the gathering of
ballots in communities and particularly--and put stiff fines on
that as an overreach on a non-existing issue of voter fraud.
But I am asking the question because in response to what that
legislation means to particularly areas that you serve and
eligible voters on your Tribal lands and remote areas and how
that affects and does not affect, if you wouldn't mind. Mr.
President.
Mr. Nez. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman and
Representative Grijalva, and again, Members of the Committee.
Let me just give you a perspective, an overview of what Navajo
is looking at, and I think a lot of other Tribes throughout the
country. And I agree with you, Madam Chairwoman, when you say
that the right to vote is sacred.
You know, Navajo Nation and many Tribes across the country
would like to see Congress pass a Native American Voting Rights
Act, and it would address the many concerns that have been
raised today and are being raised today.
Voting issues are based on policies passed at the county
and/or the State level, and it varies from county to county, as
you heard today, and that causes confusion in Indian Country.
The Native American Voting Rights Act would provide much needed
consistency in the administration of voting in Indian Country.
It would honor the government-to-government relationship with
the Federal Government, and I do agree as well too. And if that
is going to take some time, then we do have to advocate to keep
the Voting Rights Act intact, Section 2 and Section 5.
We are coming before a Census count right now, right? That
is no secret. Navajo Nation is doing their very best to count
every Navajo citizen there, but I just want to keep you
informed that a lot of our family members have to leave the
Navajo Nation for other opportunities, whether it is jobs or
university or colleges, and sometimes they get counted
elsewhere. And so we are encouraging our Navajo citizens that
are visitors outside the nation to make sure they get counted
because, you know, when it comes to redistricting, we have an
accurate count so that we can have our representation in the
counties, in the State, as well as in Washington, D.C.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. Lewis. Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Subcommittee,
of course, I think history is crucial to this as well. In 2004,
Arizona voters approved the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizenship
Protection Act, also known as Arizona Proposition 200, which
required voters to present evidence of United States
citizenship prior to voting.
In 2013, elements of Proposition 200 were overturned by the
U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona v. Inner-Tribal Council of
Arizona, Incorporated, in which the Supreme Court struck down
the parts of Proposition 200 that required proof of citizenship
from individuals who use Federal voter registration forms to
vote, but allowed the State to continue to require voters to
show identification at polling places.
So there are still--even though portions of that were
struck down by our high court, there are still barriers. There
are still critical issues that need to be changed, to be
remedied. And on behalf of the Gila River Indian Community, I
think it is time, overdue time to get Federal legislation to
protect the rights to vote on Indian reservations among its
first Americans because we do have a unique relationship. We do
have unique situations on Indian reservations from traditional
addresses to the barriers that are inherent on Indian
reservations, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you so very much.
Mr. Stanton, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Stanton. I want to thank Phoenix College for hosting
this important hearing, to you, Madam Chairwoman and former
Mayor Fudge. Thank you for doing this hearing. During my time
in Congress, I have come to know you as one of the most
passionate and effective voices for the right of every American
to have equal access to the ballot box, and I want to thank you
for having this important hearing here in Arizona.
And to my friend on my left, the Dean of our delegation,
the Chair of Natural Resources Committee, Congressman Grijalva,
thank you for all you do to protect Federal lands, particularly
our Native American lands here in Arizona and around the United
States of America.
And he is not here, so I will say things in absentia about
him. I want to take a quick moment to recognize Congressman
Gallego as well. He is one of the leading sponsors of H.R.
1694, the Native American Voting Rights Act, which I believe
after this hearing, everyone will agree we need to pass in
Congress and send to the President's desk. I am proud to be one
of the original co-sponsors of the bill. In fact, we have five
House members from Arizona who are co-sponsors of the bill. I
am hopeful that our two U.S. Senators will take a look at the
companion bill in the Senate and add their names as co-sponsors
as well.
And I want to thank our two outstanding witnesses, Governor
Lewis, President Nez, two of the finest, most effective leaders
I know. I have had the pleasure of working with Governor Lewis
for many years, especially on the issues of water and water
planning for the State of Arizona. He is a visionary leader.
Forward thinking leadership has meant a lot for Arizona.
President Nez was sworn in in January, just like myself, and I
have had the chance to spend time with him when I visited the
Navajo Nation for a few days just last month. Let me tell
everyone here, you can already see the positive difference he
is making, and there is so much hope for the future. We are
fortunate to have both of you here.
It is no secret that elections in Arizona historically and
still today are a mess. The Nation took notice in March of 2016
when thousands of voters in Maricopa County waited hours, 5 and
6 hours, to vote in the Presidential preference election. I
remember going out to the long lines myself, handing out water
and cookies to those who were willing to wait unacceptable
length of time to do their civic and patriotic duty.
It is still fresh in my mind how election officials were
caught like deer in the headlights. They drastically cut the
number of polling sites, and they thought nobody would notice.
Well, we did notice. We saw firsthand how those cuts
disproportionately hurt lower income and underrepresented
communities. It is an important reminder of why, for decades, a
bipartisan majority of Congress and Presidents of both parties
renewed the Voting Rights Act and why Arizona was a
preclearance State.
I was the Mayor of Phoenix at that time, and the day after
that election, I asked the Department of Justice to investigate
what took place. My letter to the DOJ provided additional
details I don't have time to cover today. So, Madam Chairwoman,
I would like to enter that letter into the record, if I may.
Chairwoman Fudge. No objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Stanton. Thank you so much.
A couple of questions. President Nez, a few weeks ago, I
had a conversation with the Navajo Nation's elections director.
He expressed a great deal of frustration about the level of
assistance that you are getting to conduct fair and open
elections. What kind of support do you need from the State and
county officials for the Navajo Nation community to have better
access to the polls?
Mr. Nez. Thank you for the question. Madam Chairwoman,
Representative Stanton, community members, I did briefly
mention our lawsuit against the State as well as the counties
in providing better assistance to our Navajo-speaking citizens.
That is the first step. We have had a dialogue. Matter of fact,
we had a meeting with Navajo County and Navajo County officials
and with the recorder, and I think more of those types of
meetings will help in clarifying some of the barriers between
the county and the Navajo Nation.
But in terms of actual assistance I think having the State
legislature members come out to Navajo Nation to hold these
types of hearings, just as you are doing today, which is very
crucial to know the ins and outs of Indian Country. And we look
forward to being a host to some of our representatives so that
they know, because a lot of the laws that are being changed for
the State of Arizona go through the legislature, and sometimes
they don't know that it hurts the nation.
And I gave you a good example of that, changing the primary
election date. And now, we worry that voter participation may
decrease because the election is not at the same time as the
Navajo Nation elections. And so that percentage could decrease
and affect our representation in the county, State, and Federal
Government.
Mr. Stanton. I think it is a great point. I will just
finish up with this, by making the point that so many of our
elected officials who may come from urban areas just don't
quite understand the challenges your communities face when it
comes to access to mail. So I think that point deserves a lot
more exploration. I think we are going to do so throughout this
hearing.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gallego has joined us, and so we would like to hear
from the representative of this district.
Mr. Gallego, you are recognized.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you, gentlemen. And thank you, first of
all, to my leaders here, Mr. Butterfield and Ms. Fudge, for
organizing this. And they have been great leaders in the voter
enfranchisement world and have been for quite a while. I am
very honored to have them here in my district. I apologize for
being late. I had to take my son to the dentist, and
apparently, two and a half-year-olds do not like dentists, so
that was a struggle. But I really do appreciate both of you
gentlemen for being here, also for always being leaders within
the Native American community.
You know, I think I remember my days at the Arizona State
House, and I certainly remember when there were approaches and
attempts to stop ballot collection, and one of the things I
kept hearing is the potential for voter fraud. Now, in my
experience, there was never any--there never has been any
proven at all accusation of voter fraud when it comes to
collection of mail-in ballots.
Do you know, either of you gentlemen, if you have any
history or know of any history of collection--or fraud when it
comes to mail-in ballot collection that occurred on your
prospective reservations? We will start with my right. Governor
Lewis.
Mr. Lewis. Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Subcommittee, I
have never heard of any--any sort.
Mr. Gallego. President Nez.
Mr. Nez. Not to my knowledge as well, Representative
Gallego.
Mr. Gallego. And since this ``ballot harvesting'' law has
taken place, have you heard the opposite? Have you heard of
people not being able to actually get their ballots in because
of this law that discourages, you know, active participation of
people trying to actually, you know, have people vote,
especially, as we know, in both the Gila River as well as the
Navajo Nation, the long distances that you have to travel with
not great roads? Have you heard of people basically being
disenfranchised because of this law?
Mr. Lewis. Madam Chairwoman, Representative Gallego, I have
definitely seen the barriers increase for our voters on the
Gila River Indian Community voting at the polls, access to
voting, access to early voting being--at times, feeling that
they are being singled out and discriminated for being Native
Americans living on an Indian reservation.
Mr. Gallego. And, Chairman Nez.
Mr. Nez. I was just going to say--thank you, Representative
Gallego--the language barriers, I mentioned that earlier to the
Subcommittee members, the Navajo language, a lot of those--a
lot of the information, all the information that we receive
from the recorders, even the Secretary of State, they are not
translated into or written in the Navajo language. And so if
someone that is a non-English speaker gets a ballot, and they
don't read what is on the envelope, which states that you have
to sign the envelope before you turn it in, and I think there
are instances where some of our members didn't sign that, and
they were told that it wasn't a legitimate ballot.
And the other is turning in the ballots. When an individual
turns in the ballot, it has to be that individual turning in
the ballot. Sometimes--I talked earlier about transportation
and families helping each other out. Sometimes people don't
necessarily have to go all the way to their county headquarters
or the county seat which, you know, from Kayenta to Holbrook is
three hours, and I don't see grandma taking that three-hour
trip. They might give it to one of their relatives to drop it
off, but then when they do that, it is invalid.
Mr. Gallego. Just a follow-up question, if I remember the
law as written, the first time they try to run it, and the
second time is that only an immediate family member can take a
ballot in, if I remember correctly. Now, in both Navajo and
Gila River tradition, the idea of family is a lot more
expansive than an Anglo family, correct? Could you kind of
explain how this more Anglo-centric point of view of family
basically disenfranchises your communities? We will start with
President Nez.
Mr. Nez. And thank you again for the question,
Representative Gallego, and Subcommittee members. For the
Navajo Nation, I am sure for other Tribes, we have a clan
system where, you know, we have floor plans, and we relate to
each other in that type of kinship there on the Navajo Nation.
So it might not be an immediate family or an extended family,
but somebody could be my brother on the other side of the
Navajo Nation. And so that is something that folks off the
Navajo Nation have a hard time grasping.
Mr. Gallego. Governor Lewis.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you. And extended family is important, is
a bedrock of our community as well. You know, if you were
raised by your aunt or your uncle there, for instance, for all
intents and purposes, in our custom and tradition, they are
your father or your mother as well. Grandparents. And also for
me, my late grandfather, his two sisters were one of our first
poll workers as well, and they made sure that we voted. And
they made sure that what would be my first cousins or my second
cousins, they are all family. And so I think that is important
that we look at our families as expansive. We don't look at
family in a constrictive non-Anglo sense.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you very much.
As we wrap up this session, let me thank you both. If our
next panel would prepare themselves to come up, let me just
make a few closing remarks.
Let me first just apologize to you for the injustices you
have endured in this Nation. I think about history, and I
realize that my ancestors were brought here against their will.
Many people came of their own free will, but you were here. And
I think that it is important for us to understand that as we
talk about the greatness of America, America is great because
of her ability to repair her faults. It is time for us to do
what is right by your nation. It is time for us to make you
feel as if you are the kind of citizens that you always have
been because you were here first. And I think that it is also
important that as we measure ourselves against the rest of the
world, and other nations want to measure up to us, that we have
to set the right example, and we should not in any way ever try
to make it more difficult for people to vote. We should be
encouraging people to vote. It is unconscionable to me that
somebody would have to drive an hour or two or three hours to
cast a ballot. It is un-American.
And with that, I would thank you again, and we will prepare
for our next panel. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Fudge. Let me introduce our second panel. First
we have Patty Ferguson-Bohnee.
Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. Bohnee.
Chairwoman Fudge. Bohnee? All right.
The Director of the Indian Legal Clinic, Faculty Director
of the Indian Legal Program, and Clinical Professor of Law and
the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State
University.
Lorena C. Van Assche.
Ms. Van Assche. Van Assche.
Chairwoman Fudge. Van Assche is a lawyer and the current
Chair of the Arizona State Advisory Committee to the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights.
I am going to give it a shot. Montserrat Arredondo.
Ms. Arredondo. Yes.
Chairwoman Fudge. Is the Table Director at One Arizona, a
coalition of 19 organizations focusing on voter registration
and civic engagement. She began her career in advocacy in 2010
when the infamous ``show me your papers'' bill, S.B. 1070,
passed in Arizona.
Mr. Alex Gulotta is the Arizona State Director of All
Voting is Local where he fights for the right to vote through a
unique combination of community power, of community power
building, data-driven advocacy, and strategic communications.
Prior to that, he served the Access to Justice community for
more than 30 years as an antipoverty advocate.
Darrell Hill.
Mr. Hill. Darrell.
Chairwoman Fudge. Darrell. I am just striking out today.
Darrell Hill is the ACLU of Arizona's Policy Director.
And lastly but not least, Arizona State Senator Michelle
Ugenti-Rita.
Mr. Calvert. You got it.
Chairwoman Fudge. Representing the 23rd District. The
Senator is an Arizona native and was first elected to the
Arizona State Senate in 2018. She previously served in the
Arizona House from 2010.
I welcome you all.
We will begin with Ms. Bohnee.
And you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENTS OF PATRICIA FERGUSON-BOHNEE, PROFESSOR OF LAW,
INDIAN LEGAL CLINIC, ASU LAW SCHOOL; LORENA C. VAN ASSCHE,
ARIZONA STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL
RIGHTS; MONTSERRAT ARREDONDO, ONE ARIZONA; ALEX GULOTTA,
ARIZONA STATE DIRECTOR, ALL VOTING IS LOCAL; DARRELL L. HILL,
POLICY DIRECTOR, ACLU OF ARIZONA; AND MICHELLE UGENTI-RITA,
STATE SENATOR, STATE SENATE OF ARIZONA
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA FERGUSON-BOHNEE
Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Fudge,
and Members of the Subcommittee.
Chairwoman Fudge. Could you move the microphone a little
closer?
Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. Yes, ma'am.
Good morning, Chairwoman Fudge, and Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to speak on this
important issue of voting rights and elections administration.
My name is Patty Ferguson-Bohnee. I am the Director of the
Indian Legal Clinic at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law.
The clinic runs the Native Vote Election Protection Project in
Arizona, a nonpartisan effort to protect Native American voting
rights. As you heard, there is a long history of voter
suppression in Arizona. Things have improved with the Voting
Rights Act. However, Native Americans continue to face
obstacles.
In order to understand Native American voting challenges,
one must recognize the vast differences and experiences,
opportunities, and realities facing on-reservation voters.
Isolating conditions such as language, socioeconomic
disparities, lack of access to transportation, lack of
residential addresses, lack of access to mail, the digital
divide, and distance are just some of the factors that impede
access to the polls and participation in the political process.
Unfortunately, decisionmakers often fail to consider these
factors when adopting new laws or practices that impact the
right to vote. A recent study found that low levels of trust in
Government, lack of information on how and where to register,
long distances to register and to vote, low levels of Internet
access, hostility towards Native Americans, and intimidation
are obstacles to Native American voter participation in
Arizona.
Native Americans do not have equal access to voter
registration. Many voters must travel long distances off-
reservation to register to vote, in some cases 95 miles one
way. Further, in 2016, only one of nine covered jurisdictions
subject to Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act for Native
Americans languages translated voter registration information
in the covered language. And while online voter registration is
possible for off-reservation voters, this option is limited for
on-reservation voters.
First, less than half of the homes on Tribal lands have
reliable broadband access. Second, even if a voter has internet
access, the State does not allow Tribal IDs to be used to
register to vote online. Third, individuals with nontraditional
addresses cannot use the online process to register to vote.
In addition to voter registration barriers, Native
Americans also have unequal access to in-person early voting
opportunities. While every county has in-person early voting
off-reservation, there are limited opportunities for in-person
early voting on-reservation. If offered at all, most in-person
early voting is limited to a few hours on one or two days. In
2016, ten reservations had some form of in-person early voting;
and only five had in-person early voting in 2018.
One of the most egregious examples of lack of access to in-
person early voting involves the Kaibab Paiute Tribe. Kaibab
Paiute residents must travel over 280 miles one way to
participate in early voting. These voters do not have a polling
location on or near the reservation on Election Day. In fact,
Mohave County moved the Tribe's polling location to Colorado
City; and when the Tribe requested a polling location on the
reservation for Election Day voting, it denied it, citing ADA
compliance issues.
Vote by mail is not the solution for Tribal communities.
Lack of access to home mail delivery, public transportation,
vehicles, and language assistance, as well as long distance to
post offices, make it difficult for Native voters to vote by
mail.
In addition, voter ID continues to be a problem for Native
voters. Even when a voter has a valid form of Tribal ID, these
are rejected in each election due to insufficient poll worker
training or because of problems with nonstandard addresses.
Until recently, voters could vote early without showing an ID.
However, in 2019, the State enacted a law, requiring voters to
also show ID if they vote early in person, while voters who
vote early by mail have no such requirement. Not only does this
violate equal protection, it will disproportionately impact
Native voters, specifically Native language speakers who can
only receive language assistance in person.
Prior to Shelby County, covered jurisdictions would have to
consider whether a law would have a negative impact on minority
voters. This is no longer the case. Legislation affecting
voting often appears neutral with the stated goal of preventing
voter fraud. The application of said legislation, however, has
a disparate impact on minority voters. Without Section 5's
protection, there is a new concern that voting laws and
practices will continue to be adopted that suppress the Native
American vote. These concerns include closure of polling
locations, adopting all vote-by-mail elections, and voter ID
laws. Using pretexts such as ADA and voter integrity to
undermine voter rights should not be allowed.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. I
look forward to any questions you have.
[The statement of Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you, Ms. Bohnee.
Ms. Van Assche, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF LORENA C. VAN ASSCHE
Ms. Van Assche. Thank you, Chairwoman Fudge, and thank you
to the community for the opportunity to testify today.
I am the Chair of the Arizona State Advisory Committee the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; and in March 2018, the Arizona
Committee convened a public meeting in Phoenix where we heard
testimony from Government and election officials, advocacy
organizations, election and voting experts, and voter
perspective groups on barriers to voting in the following
areas: Access to polling locations, bifurcated voter
registration system, voter ID law, and restriction on mail-in
ballots, additionally on the impact of the Shelby County v.
Holder decision.
After reviewing the oral and the written testimony, the
Arizona Committee prepared an advisory memorandum that was
submitted to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; and my
testimony today will attempt to summarize the findings that are
found in the advisory committee.
And I will start with first section on access to polling
locations. As Chairwoman Fudge identified in her opening
remarks, in the aftermath of Shelby County v. Holder, Arizona
made--Maricopa County made headlines for the long wait times.
Nearly every county reduced the number of polling locations. In
Maricopa County, officials cut polling locations by 85 percent,
compared to the 2008 presidential preference election, and 70
percent compared to the 2012 presidential preference election.
Election officials who testified justified these closures
due to a decrease in demand, because of an increase in early
voting preference, cost pressures, and less locations willing
to serve as polling locations because of increased liability,
lack of security, lack of compliance with ADA, and insurance
concerns. Some of these election officials testified that the
remedy--to remedy the closure of polling locations, counties
have the discretion to implement a vote center model.
Members of the disability community testified that they
were especially impacted. They said that when they showed up,
the poll workers lacked knowledge on how to operate accessible
voting machines and even failed to turn on the machines. They
testified that the polling locations lacked wheelchair ramps or
elevators and sufficient accessible parking spaces.
We also heard testimony that transportation was a barrier
for our protected voter groups to access the polls, impacted
disabled--the disabled community who often rely on public rides
and, due to the wait times, could simply not wait long enough
to vote and get back on their public rides, as well as the
Native Americans who reside in reservations, as you have heard,
some spanning thousands of square miles and have few or no
polling locations available to them.
We also heard testimony on language access. The committee
heard testimony that poll workers are not adequately trained to
deal with nonnative English speakers. This barrier to voting is
especially problematic for Native American voters who often are
non-native speakers.
The third area is voter ID and bifurcated voter
registration system. As the committee is aware, Arizona has a
dual-registration system that allows individuals to register to
vote with the Federal form for Federal elections only that
requires voters in the State and local elections to meet
additional voter-approved proof of citizenship requirements.
Testimony revealed that Arizona's bifurcated voter
registration system is confusing and may not--and may have
prevented voters from participating in State and local
elections due to the proof of citizenship requirement.
The State's paper voter registration form is different from
the online voter registration form available through
servicearizona.com. The State's paper voter registration form
provides a space for applicants to add a Tribal ID number that
is especially beneficial to our Native Americans citizens but
that is unavailable on the online registration system.
Therefore, Native Americans who choose to register to vote
online face additional challenges when completing their online
form.
The last area that we heard testimony on was the
restriction on mail-in ballots or what is commonly known as the
ballot harvesting law. In March 2016, Arizona passed H.B. 2023
which makes it a felony for individuals to knowingly collect
and turn in another voter's completed ballot, even with the
voter's permission. There are some exceptions that exist for
family members, household members, or caregivers of the voter
as identified within the statute.
This is part of ongoing litigation. Last October, 2018, a
three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld H.B. 2023.
However, in January of this year the Ninth Circuit granted a
full panel review of the small panel ruling. And so that,
again, is part of the ongoing litigation.
Thank you for your time.
[The statement of Ms. Van Assche follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you very much.
Ms. Arredondo, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MONTSERRAT ARREDONDO
Ms. Arredondo. Thank you. Chairwoman Fudge, for having me
here today and everyone on the panel.
Again, my name is Montserrat Arredondo, and I am with One
Arizona. We are a coalition of 20 Federal and 501(c)3
organizations that work to expand voter registration across the
State, and we are looking to close a gap between white voters
and people-of-color voters in the State.
We were founded in 2010 and have been doing voter
registration and civic engagement work for the last 10 years,
starting with the Latino community, because of the S.B. 1070
law, and have expanded to other groups like our Native American
co-panelists here today. You know, I am going to go right into
it.
Empathy towards voting rights for Latinos and First Peoples
has run deep amongst Arizona leaders for decades. As
unauthorized immigrants to Arizona spiked in mid 2000s, cynical
conservative politicians like Joe Arpaio and Russell Pearce
once again discovered they could stoke racial animosity for
political gain.
One of the first policy outgrowths of the movement was a
2004 white supremacy omnibus ballot initiative entitled in
classic old-world fashion as a, ``Taxpayer and Citizenship
Protection Act.'' This measure included a voter ID law at
first--a first of its kind documentary proof of citizenship
requirement for voter registration and new registration on
access to public services for certain noncitizens.
While Arizona has in some, but not all respects, moved
beyond the overheated anti-immigrant atmosphere of that era,
the conservative movement against democracy has only
intensified in recent years.
Since Governor Ducey came into office in 2015, we have seen
a law making it a felony to collect another voter's ballot,
even with that voter's permission, and turning it in to be
counted. An expansion of the Arizona Supreme Court allowed
Ducey to appoint a courier legislator for anti-Government
organizations, the most aggressive local preemption law in the
country, designed to--I'm sorry--progressive policy at the
local level.
A comprehensive deregulation of the State's campaign
finance law attacks on voting rights to use ballot measures
designed in the word of the State GOP chair for the ballot
initiatives to be thorough and out for minor errors regarding
language and paperwork.
Attacks on Arizona's clean election system, a beacon of
light in all the darkness, reoccur every legislative cycle.
Additionally, we have failed to take action as a State to
administratively ease participation like expanding technology
that allows for realtime availability of data and communication
between State agencies like postal services, DMVs, et cetera,
for rapid updates and verification of registrations. This would
also reduce the number of provisional ballots and reduce the
number of rejected early ballots.
The following are some of the solutions outlined from a
report produced by One Arizona, Arizona Advocacy Foundation,
and the Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona.
Extend current voter registration deadlines. Many States
have same-day voter registration insight, only minor increases
in printing costs. Increase types of identification at all
polling locations including student IDs, Tribal ID, and local-
issued identification, possibly a library card; reduce
rejections of early ballot by allowing ballot postmark on or
before Election Day to be counted.
The report continues to outline an action plan to protect
and expand voting rights for all eligible Arizonans and that is
something that has been turned in to the Subcommittee here as
well and we will continue to work in all of our organizations
to protect the right to vote.
Thank you for having me here today.
[The statement of Ms. Arredondo follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gulotta, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF ALEX GULOTTA
Mr. Gulotta. Chairwoman Fudge and members, I am Alex
Gulotta, the Arizona State Director for All Voting is Local, a
collaborative housed at the Leadership Conference Education
Fund. We vote--we fight to protect the right to vote. Thanks
for having me today.
Voting in Arizona is changing. Since 2013, when five
Justices of the Supreme Court ended preclearance in Shelby
County, these changes in election administration have been made
without notice, without transparency, or without analysis of
their racial impact. Here are three examples. You have heard
some about them of how Arizona voters have been harmed.
First, vote by mail. We have talked about ballot
collection. In 2011, the Arizona legislature passed S.B. 1421
that outlawed collection of mail-in ballots by community
groups. Historically these drives were conducted by Latinos,
African Americans, and Native American communities. The bill
was specifically targeted to end these drives, and the US
Department of Justice refused to preclear the bill in 2011.
However, in 2016, after Shelby County, almost an identical
bill was passed, H.B. 2023, the constitutionality of which is
on review currently in the Ninth Circuit. However, Chief Judge
Sidney Thomas said in his dissent in the panel opinion that is
currently on review, quote, ``on review'' H.B. 2023, which
criminalizes most ballot collection serves no purpose aside
from making voting more difficult and keeping more African
American, Hispanic, and Native Americans voters from the polls
than white voters, close quotes.
Two, polling place changes. Nationwide between 2012 and
2018, there were 1688 poll closures in Section 5 jurisdictions,
230 of those were in Arizona. Maricopa went from 671 to 500.
Cochise shrunk from 49 to 17, Cochise County.
Polling place changes cause confusion about where to vote,
and in Arizona that means votes get rejected. In 2016, Maricopa
voters were switched back and forth between vote centers and
assigned polling locations and that made it 40 percent more
likely that a voter would cast an out-of-precinct ballot and
out-of-precinct ballots don't count in Arizona at all.
Quoting Ninth Circuit Judge Thomas again ``this practice
places a discriminatory burden on African Americans, Hispanics,
and Native Americans.''
In addition, post-Shelby, we made drastic changes to
polling place administration without publishing any data on the
racial impact of such changes. We have implemented vote centers
and new technologies that may, in fact, offer benefits to
voters but we have made these changes without doing any
analysis of the potential racial impact and that is what really
needs to happen.
Third, new ID requirements. Arizona recently expanded the
scope of its photo ID--and you have heard a little bit about
this--making it harder to cast an in-person ballot, an early
in-person ballot. For years, if you voted early in person, you
filled out your ballot, you put it in the envelope, and you
signed the outside of the ballot and that was your ID to vote.
But in the spring of 2019, the Arizona legislature passed S.B.
1070, requiring a photo ID for in-person ballot, in addition to
the voter's signature.
Arizona was not required to seek permission for this
because preclearance is gone. Yet this restriction on early
voting creates significant obstacles for Native Americans. In
Arizona, just 26 percent of Native Americans live on a USPS
postal route. To answer Congresswoman Lesko's question, on the
PEVL, our Permanent Early Voting List, 80 percent of the people
on the PEVL are white, 1 percent are Native American.
Access to early in-person voting matters to Native
Americans; but to understand this detriment of this new ID, we
just need to look to Navajo County. Travel times are huge, and
officials provide early in-person voting at community locations
such as at the grocery store and at the Friday flea market.
Voters always have their signature with them. But do they have
their Tribal ID? Now, without it, they will be deprived of
their right to vote in their communities.
In summary, I would like to say that fair and equitable
access to the ballot box is a cornerstone of our democracy. We
must ensure that every voter can fully participate and that the
fundamental right to vote is protected at every level, and that
means a restored and modernized Voting Rights Act.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Gulotta follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
Mr. Hill, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DARRELL L. HILL
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Chairwoman Fudge, and Members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Darrell Hill. I am the Policy Director
for the ACLU of Arizona.
With over 65,000 members, activists, and supporters
statewide, the ACLU of Arizona works across party, racial,
gender, and economic lines to advance the mission of defending
the principles of liberty and equality embodied in our
Constitution.
I am going to skip ahead past H.B. 2023 since we have heard
a lot about that.
During 2019 Arizona legislative session, Arizona saw
renewed attacks on the right to vote including efforts to purge
early voting roles, criminalize paid signature collection, and
to prohibit voters from returning ballots they received in the
mail in person. None of these provisions sought to expand
access to the ballot or increase voter participation. Rather
they represented attempts to make participating in our
democracy more difficult.
Two new laws passed by Arizona legislature and signed by
Governor Ducey, S.B. 1072 and S.B. 1090, placed new voter ID
requirements to early and emergency voting.
Voter ID requirements disproportionately impact minority
voters, senior citizens, voters with disabilities, and others
who do not have photo ID nor the money to obtain ID.
Approximately 11 percent of all voting-eligible adults have no
Government-issued photo identification.
Voter ID laws are often discriminatory and have a
discriminatory impact. Twenty-five percent of black Americans
of voting age lack a driver's license or a state-issued ID
compared to just 8 percent of white Americans.
Voter impersonation fraud, the only type of fraud that ID
requirements would prevent, is virtually nonexistent in Arizona
and across America. Voter ID laws restrict access to the voting
booth by doing nothing to protect against real threats to our
voting systems.
Since Shelby, Arizona has also seen an increase of poll
closures which led to increased barriers to voting. For the
Presidential Preference election in 2016, officials closed--
opened only 60 locations down from 403 in 2008, a nearly 85
percent decline. The results were chaos. Lower income and
minority communities bore the brunt of the impact.
In primarily Anglo communities like Cave Creek, there is
one polling place per 8500 residents. In Phoenix, a majority
minority city where 40.8 percent of its 1.5 million residents
are Hispanic, there is one polling location for every 108,000
residents.
The reduction in polling places across metro Phoenix
created long lines at polling centers across the metropolitan
areas, forcing some voters to wait up to five hours after the
polls closed to cast a ballot.
Arizona voting rights problems are compounded by our
incarceration crisis. Not only does the United States continue
to lead the world in the rates of incarcerated citizens, it is
one of the world's strictest countries in terms of denying
citizens the right to vote due to convictions for crime.
Over 6 million Americans are currently disenfranchised due
to a felony conviction. Arizona has the eighth highest rate of
felony disenfranchisement in the United States. Over 220,000
possible voters, or 4.25 percent of Arizona voting age
population, are ineligible to vote due to a felony conviction.
Arizona's rate of felony disenfranchisement has nearly tripled
over the last 25 years. Over 150,000 of those of eligible
voters in Arizona have completed the full length of their
sentence, probation, or parole.
Arizona utilizes a complicated judicial application process
where persons convicted of two or more felonies must apply have
their voting rights restored at the completion of all terms of
their sentence. The decision of whether to restore a person's
right to vote is left completely to judicial discretion with no
guidance for when a person's rights should be restored. The
process leads to flawed, biased outcomes that conditions a
person's constitutional right to vote on the ability to
persuade judges who have different individualized criteria for
restoring voting rights.
The restoration of voting rights should be automatic when
released from incarceration. States should pass legislation
providing that rights of individuals who are citizens of the
United States to vote in any election shall not be denied or
abridged because of that individual's conviction of a criminal
offense.
In addition, States should no longer use costly
restitution, fines, or fees as barriers to the restoration of
voting rights. These practices criminalize poverty and
exacerbate the racially disparate impact of felon
disenfranchisement. States should eliminate repayment of legal
financial obligations as a condition for rights restoration.
Voting is a fundamental right and a cornerstone of our
democracy. We should strive to make our democracy a beacon to
the world. To do so, we must eliminate practices that
discourage voter participation and leave the effect--and have
the effect of limiting registration rates for communities of
color, low-income Arizonans, and other community.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Hill follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you very much.
Senator, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHELLE UGENTI-RITA
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Wonderful. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairwoman Fudge and Subcommittee on
Elections Members. Thank you for the invitation to address you
this morning.
During my nine years as a State legislator, I have been
actively engaged in improving Arizona election laws. I evaluate
bills based on four criteria: First, does it enhance and
protect the integrity of elections? Second, does it empower
voters? Third, does it enable voter participation? And,
finally, does it improve the maintenance and consistency of the
administration of elections?
To be clear, I do not believe election policy should be a
partisan issue; and I have a strong history of fighting for
these principles that often cut across partisan lines. For
example, in 2012, I championed legislation that required all
candidates to run in the fall of the even year when turnout is
strong, an obvious win-win for everyone.
After the Presidential Preference Election debacle in 2016,
brought up several times this morning, when there was mass
voter confusion and unacceptable wait times to vote, I convened
a special meeting of my Elections Committee to question then-
Secretary of State and the then Maricopa County Recorder, both
fellow Republicans, to understand what happened and who was
responsible. And in 2017, I held the Republican-controlled
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors accountable after learning
they were operating under an outdated intergovernmental
agreement from 1955, allowing the Board to abdicate many of
their important statutory obligations regarding the
administration of elections.
These are just some of the many examples that demonstrate I
am a strong and unwavering nonpartisan advocate of fair and
impartial electoral process.
Arizona is, and has been, on the forefront of efforts to
increase voter turnout and participation, all the while
protecting the process from fraud. Sadly, as the saying goes,
no good deed goes unpunished, resulting in some of those
efforts to increase voter participation, specifically the
enactment of mail-in voting, to be abused by ballot harvesting.
My bill successfully banning the practice of ballot
harvesting which allows third parties to collect or harvest
mail-in ballots of individual voters is a major step forward in
maintaining the ability of Arizonans to participate in the
electoral process via the mail without fear of it being
manipulated.
Many political operatives and activists criticize this
commonsense prohibition, claiming it unduly burdens voters by
making it more difficult to return their mail-in ballot. This
claim is simply not supported by the facts. Arizona's mail-in
system is a voluntary one, whereby voters voluntarily elect to
receive their ballot via mail, fill it out, and return it
within the generous 27-day early voting period. And it is
counterintuitive to think that a voter would sign up to
participate in a process, presumably for its benefits, and in
this case for the convenience of having their ballot mailed to
them, then criticize that very process as burdensome when
mailing it back in the prepaid envelope that accompanied their
ballot.
Again, it is difficult to believe someone who using the
mail to pay bills and send and receive other correspondences
would only struggle when it came to mailing back their ballot
and not struggle with their other mail.
Mailing a ballot back is not the only option available in
Arizona. Arizona allows for many other methods to return a
mail-in ballot. However, opponents of my anti-ballot harvesting
bill continue to argue that the bill burdens voters despite the
fact that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding
the law, they note, and this is important, they note that not a
single voter testified at trial that H.B. 2023 made it
significantly more difficult to vote. In fact, the bill was in
place for the 2016 elections when voter turnout was a roaring
74 percent.
Voting by mail is only one of the many options available in
Arizona. It is easy and convenient to vote in the State of
Arizona. If you are not voting, it is because you have chose
not to.
Arizona should be commended for adhering to its
constitutional responsibility of enacting laws to secure the
purity of elections and guard against abuses that is in our
Constitution, often in the face of unsubstantiated and,
frankly, offensive claims of voter suppression and racial
motivations.
The proponents of ballot harvesting have failed. They have
failed to provide any meaningful evidence, statistical data, or
direct testimony, during the legislative process, as well as
the bench trial, that breaking the chain of command and
entrusting a third party to collect a voter's mail-in ballot is
in the public's best interest.
We are, unfortunately, forced to conclude that only outside
forces and special interest groups have a vested interest in
protecting the practice known as ballot harvesting. We as
legislators cannot allow for the potential of lost ballots,
undue influence, and fraud to taint our electoral system.
Voting is the most direct method to impact Government, and the
process should be protected to ensure voters have confidence in
the system and its outcomes. And I ask you: What is the outcome
of an election worth if nobody believes in it? The risks are
high, and our democracy is only as strong as our fair and open
elections. The solution, painfully simple: Secure our
elections, protect the process from cheating, and enforce our
current laws. My bill banning the practice of ballot harvesting
gets us one step closer to that ultimate goal.
Thank you, Subcommittee Members.
[The statement of Ms. Ugenti-Rita follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
Mr. Butterfield, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
Thank you to the six witnesses for your testimony today. It
is very valuable.
Let me address my questions to the gentlelady from the
Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Bohnee.
How do you pronounce your last name?
Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. Bohnee.
Mr. Butterfield. Bohnee. Bohnee. I got it. Like Bonnie
Watson Coleman, one of our colleagues.
We have talked extensively about the absence of Section 5
and what impact it is having on the right to vote. Let me focus
my remarks and my questions on Section 2.
Before I went to Congress, I was a judge in my State for 15
years. But before that, I was a voting rights attorney back in
the 1980s. So, I know the subject matter quite well. I am not a
legal scholar on it, but I know it quite well. Section 2 is a
very powerful instrument. It is a very expensive instrument,
but it is very powerful.
Have there been any Section 2 cases filed in Arizona in
recent memory?
Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. Yes. Thank you for the question.
I have actually been involved in several Section 2 cases in
the State of Arizona, one after the 2000 redistricting on
behalf of the Navajo Nation. Also, the voter ID litigation that
was brought on behalf of the Navajo Nation and other Native
Americans citizens in the State of Arizona. Currently, we have
litigation ongoing in Federal District Court, dealing with the
lack of access to early voting, voter registration, and
noncompliance with Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act.
So, there is litigation, but Section 2 isn't a viable
replacement to Section 5. It is very expensive and time
consuming.
Mr. Butterfield. Section 5, the burden of proof is on the
jurisdiction----
Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. Right.
Mr. Butterfield [continuing]. To prove absence of
discriminatory impact?
Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. Right.
Mr. Butterfield. And in Section 2, the burden is on the
plaintiff.
Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. That is right. As you have heard, as
you probably know, Tribes have limited resources; and they
shouldn't be shouldered with the burden to bring cases to
ensure that the right to vote is protected.
I just want to give you an example with regards to the last
round of redistricting in the State of Arizona. We have an
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. It was the first
time that the commission consulted an expert to determine
whether or not the maps retrogressed, and it was the first time
that the State of Arizona received preclearance on the first
try.
And for Tribes in the State of Arizona, we have one
majority-minority district; and there is a concern that without
Section 5, that the impact of redistricting on Native Americans
voters will not be considered and potentially lose that
majority-minority Native Americans district.
Mr. Butterfield. Can you give me a ballpark figure about
how much the average Section 2 case, fully litigated, would
cost in the State of Arizona?
Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. Fully litigated.
Mr. Butterfield. Just on the average. I know there are
extremes, but on average.
Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. I mean, I think without revealing any
confidences or anything like that----
Mr. Butterfield. Well over $100,000, much more?
Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. Up to $1 million, because you have to
have experts who testify on your behalf and have, you know,
many resources for these cases.
Mr. Butterfield. Has the Department of Justice initiated
any Section 2 cases in Arizona?
Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. The Department of Justice for the two
decades I have been working in voting litigation in the State
of Arizona has not initiated any cases on behalf of Tribes.
Mr. Butterfield. Let me use my last minute and a half with
you, Mr. Hill. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony today. I
want to talk about restoration of voting rights. Are there any
Arizonans who are convicted felons who have completed their
sentences, completed their obligations to the court, who have
not been allowed to register to vote?
Mr. Hill. Absolutely, Representative Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. These are American citizens, living in
Arizona, who have completed their obligation to the court
system, who are not allowed to vote.
Mr. Hill. Absolutely. A couple of years ago, the ACLU did a
records request to the Maricopa County Superior Court, seeking
information about people who had restored--attempted to restore
their right to vote. What we found was that, I believe, 25
percent of those persons had been denied their restoration due
to owing fines, fees, or some other financial obligation. Of
the people, of those people who were denied the right to vote,
another 25 percent owed no financial obligations.
So, they had fully completed their sentence. They had paid
all their financial obligations. But the court had still denied
their right to vote, and at the time, there was no explanation
for why.
Mr. Butterfield. They are over 18 years of age. They are
American citizens?
Ms. Arredondo. Yes.
Mr. Butterfield. And not allowed to vote?
Ms. Arredondo. Yes.
Mr. Butterfield. In both State and Federal elections, or
just State elections?
Ms. Arredondo. Both State and Federal elections.
Mr. Butterfield. Is there any ongoing litigation currently
to address that?
Ms. Arredondo. Not in Arizona, not that I am aware of.
Mr. Butterfield. Anyone aware of any litigation presently
to address the issue of restoration of voting rights?
Well, thank you so very much for your testimony.
Madam Chairwoman, I will yield back.
Mr. Aguilar. I will recognize myself, Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. May I seek a point of personal privilege,
Madam Chairwoman?
Chairwoman Fudge. Yes.
Mr. Butterfield. I am trying to inquire about the ladies in
the audience wearing red. Is there any significance about that
with your sorority?
Chairwoman Fudge. My sorority sisters, Delta Sigma Theta,
are in the audience.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Aguilar. You can always count on the Chair to bring
some friends.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I am going to ask two questions and if our panelists--
because of the limited time, I do apologize, but if you could
give me a yes-or-no answer. This is based on the prior panel
and also on the testimony that you gave us today.
My first question, Ms. Bohnee, I am going to put you on the
spot first, and we will try this. We will see how this goes.
Does the closure of polling locations have a disparate impact
on minority populations in Arizona?
Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. Yes.
Mr. Aguilar. Ms. Van Assche?
Ms. Van Assche. My testimony is relying on findings in our
advisory memorandum, and we didn't reach a yes-or-no answer on
that. Based on that, I will abstain from answering.
Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate it. Ms. Arredondo?
Ms. Arredondo. I would say yes.
Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Gulotta?
Mr. Gulotta. I would say yes.
Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Hill?
Mr. Hill. I would say yes.
Mr. Aguilar. Senator?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. I think it is important to note that those
who choose the polling locations are the County Board of
Supervisors. So, it is the most relevant question for them. So,
what they choose as polling locations is based on their
information and their due diligence.
Mr. Aguilar. You don't have any opinion on whether that
disproportionately affects minority populations?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. I think the polling locations suffice; but
if more polling locations are needed, then you need to go to
the more appropriate governmental jurisdiction, which is the
county board of supervisors and the Maricopa County Recorder.
Both of those entities are in charge with choosing polling
locations and vote centers.
Mr. Aguilar. Understood.
Ms. Bohnee, do residency challenges and lack of language
assistance have a negative impact on Native Americans
participating in State and local and Federal elections?
Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. Yes. May I add something to that?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes.
Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. So in the State of Arizona--I think
Governor Lewis and President Nez said this, but I just want to
reiterate that Native Americans, most Native Americans, do not
receive mail at their homes, that, in addition to not having
access to transportation or receiving mail at their homes, that
the roads are in poor condition primarily in Indian Country. So
without that access, it becomes a challenge to participate in
any vote by mail.
And I also want to note that in the State of Arizona and
different counties, that people have been defaulted to the
PEVL, so the Permanent Early Voting List. So, if they did not
choose that, sometimes they were defaulted by the county and
they cannot be expected to participate in early voting and then
go to the polls and have to complete a provisional ballot, and
that is contrary to Arizona law, but that is the realities on
the ground.
Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate it.
Ms. Van Assche, I will ask it again. Do residency
challenges and lack of language assistance have a negative
impact on Native Americans participating in State, local, and
Federal elections?
Ms. Van Assche. Yes.
Mr. Aguilar. Ms. Arredondo?
Ms. Arredondo. I would say yes, and I just want to bring
back testimony from President Nez that only one in 10 Native
Tribe members own a vehicle, and there is no public
transportation on Native--on the Navajo reservation, along with
some folks having to travel anywhere from 60 to 90 miles to get
to their polling location. So, I just want to bring that back.
That is a far way to go to vote on Election Day.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you.
Mr. Gulotta?
Mr. Gulotta. I would say yes also, just because there are
many, many people who actually need the ballot translated to be
able to access our franchise. My Lyft driver this morning, her
mother, she was telling me this story about how her mother had
to have her ballot translated to be able to vote. That is what
allows people to access the franchise; and without those kinds
of protections, you know, we really can't have our Native
American community members participating the way we want them
to.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you.
Mr. Hill?
Mr. Hill. I would say yes. When you look at the combination
of poverty in many of the Native American communities, lack of
Internet access to access online voting, online registration
opportunities, coupled with the lack of transportation and
language access issues, it presents a real barrier for Native
American communities to vote in Arizona.
Mr. Aguilar. Senator?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Thank you, sir. No.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you.
I will do this to Mr. Gulotta and Ms. Van Assche based on
your research, as well as the groups that you represent. Some
people are going to say that the polling closures are a
reaction to declining in-person voting. Why would that be right
or wrong?
Mr. Gulotta. It may, in fact, be true. The problem is,
since preclearance, we no longer study the impact of closing
polling locations. And so, we don't know who gets harmed. We do
know from Judge Thomas' dissent in the DNC v. Reagan case, we
do know it significantly statistically increases the use of
out-of-precinct ballots, which means people's voting rights are
denied. Because people are confused, they go to the wrong
place, they are given a ballot that then doesn't get counted,
and that is really a travesty, and we have got to figure out a
way to correct that problem.
So, maybe it is more education. Maybe it is more outreach.
But maybe it is more polling places, and without preclearance,
we don't really know because we don't study these things
anymore.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you.
Ms. Van Assche, quickly.
Ms. Van Assche. And I missed that question, if you can
repeat it.
Mr. Aguilar. Some people are going to say that the polling
closures are a reaction to declining in-person voting. Based on
your research, would that be right or wrong?
Ms. Van Assche. I think the testimony that we got from, at
least, Maricopa County election officials, was that the reason
for the reduction was the decrease in demand and the increase
in early-voting preference, but that was one side of the issue.
I don't think we received testimony on the other side. So, I
don't know that that is--again, it is an elected official.
Though their testimony is valuable, perhaps it is one-sided;
and I don't think that the testimony really supported that
beyond that person's testimony.
Mr. Aguilar. The answer could be we need more data.
Thank you so much.
Thanks, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
Ms. Lesko, you are recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And, Madam Chairwoman, I hope you will remind the audience
not to boo or heckle any witnesses.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Fudge. This is an official Congressional
hearing. We would ask that you would be respectful of all of
our witnesses.
Thank you.
Ms. Lesko. Thank you.
Again, thank you, all of the witnesses for coming here
today; and I especially enjoyed the first panel because I need
to hear firsthand the unique problems that our Native American
members have.
I think most--what I have heard so far is that we need more
polling locations. We can't use a Tribal ID number online. I
don't know if that is still the case. That was in 2018,
correct? Okay. We need to train poll workers better. It
basically brought up about disabled folks and other folks and
that somehow we are automatically putting people on the PEVL
list, the county recorder.
So, I just want to say, most of these problems seem to be,
should be solved at the State or county level, and they should
be, and that is why I encourage everyone to reach out to their
county and State election officials.
And the long lines in 2016 were brought up many times, and
as many of you know, but maybe not my colleagues from out of
the State, that was the voters spoke up loud and clear, and
they ousted that election director and installed a new one.
And on the Federal issue of more post offices, that was
brought up, too, on Native lands. That is a Federal issue, and
that I would like to work on.
I do have questions for Senator Ugenti-Rita. You had
brought up about your bill, H.B. 2023, which bans ballot
harvesting. Why do you think that was necessitated?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Yes, thank you for the question.
While election issues generally and ballot integrity and
specifically have been my primary focus as a legislator, and I
take very seriously the responsibility to ensure the electoral
process has integrity. Voters trust it and want to participate
in it. Therefore, when I heard from constituents about the
issue, I started to do my own due diligence on it and quickly
realized something had to be done.
Frankly, I believe ballot harvesting flies in the face of
fair and impartial elections, and as the Chair of House
Elections Committee at the time; I decided to do something
about it and introduced my bill to ban the practice.
Ms. Lesko. And thank you, Senator Ugenti-Rita.
Do you think this would benefit, the same bill would
benefit other States? Because there was a concern that was
noted in some media reports in California. There is a belief
that about seven Republican seats were flipped because of
ballot harvesting.
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Yes. Thank you. And let's not forget North
Carolina.
But, absolutely, every State that cares about their
elections should follow Arizona's lead.
Ms. Lesko. And thank you.
And I do want to bring up kind of a--maybe I got it wrong,
but most of the President and the Governor of the Indian
Nations said that most of their members like to vote in person,
and that is part of tradition and that type of thing. So, I do
think we need to look at more polling locations in the Indian
Nation or Native American Nation. Then that wouldn't be
affected by your ballot harvesting bill, because that just
deals with early voters, correct?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Correct. My ballot harvesting bill ban
only deals with voting early by mail. So, it only deals with
those ballots that are sent to a voter in the mail. So, if you
chose to vote early, in person, or chose to vote in person day
of, you would not be affected by the ballot harvesting ban.
Ms. Lesko. And thank you.
And there seemed to be some question about what family
members could carry a ballot. And so, I have the bill in front
of me and it says a family member means a person who is related
to the voter by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal
guardianship. So, some of the examples given that like your
grandmother couldn't take it or your uncle, is that inaccurate?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Yes. And also in the litigation, the
plaintiffs did not challenge the definitions of those
exceptions. So, that would lead me to the assumption that they
didn't find those exceptions to be problematic.
Ms. Lesko. Thank you.
And since this law has been in effect for two years--two
cycles, election cycles now, has there been any complaints
filed that you know of?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Excellent. Not only has there not been a
complaint that I am aware of, I am not even aware of others
receiving complaints in the community and, of course, the
district court judge noted that no complaint was made at trial.
No one testified that they were precluded from voting because
of the ban.
Ms. Lesko. Thank you.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
Mr. Gallego, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you.
It is good to see you here, Representative. Senator, is it
now?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Yes. Senator.
Mr. Gallego. All right. I have known you for a long time,
worked with you for a long time. I know you are very passionate
about these issues. What bills are you thinking about
introducing next year when it comes to voting issues, voting
ballots, ballot harvesting, or permanent early voter lists?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Thank you for the question. It is good to
see you. I have known you for a long time now.
I am looking at taking on the topic of the voting manual to
make sure that that goes through a proper vetting process. That
does come with the enforcement of law, so we do need to make
sure that what is included in that manual are things that the
county and other local officials can follow.
Mr. Gallego. Limited time. What about, did you--are you
going to introduce the bill that makes the permanent early
voter list not permanent, like you did last time?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Well, in the--it is called permanent early
voting list, so by definition, it is supposed to be only
permanent if you vote early. But if you want me to introduce
it, I totally will.
Mr. Gallego. So you did introduce--so just to clarify for
the panel and everyone here, last year, you introduced a bill
that said that if you did not vote in how many past elections,
you are going to get picked off the permanent early voting
list. Is that correct?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Yes.
Mr. Gallego. Okay. What were the other restrictions that
came along with that legislation?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. I don't recall. Is there one that you want
to bring up, and I will answer it?
Mr. Gallego. I believe there was something about that they
would be restricted to also not be allowed to drop off their
ballot.
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Oh, okay. Yeah. That is a different bill.
I thought you were talking about the first one. Yes.
Mr. Gallego. Can you describe that bill where you are not
going to be allowed to drop off your ballot at the ballot--at
the polling place?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Yeah, absolutely. I am happy to. So a part
of what--some of the problems Arizona has been experiencing is
very long timeframes to get election results. Timeliness is
important. It is an important part of the electoral process.
And so we need to make sure that the results of elections are
indeed timely. What happens--what happens--what happens is----
Mr. Gallego. So couldn't you actually just--couldn't you
actually subsidize the county----
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. What happens--what happens is----
Mr. Gallego [continuing]. So they could just count ballots
sooner instead of trying to restrict people turning in ballots?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Sir, do you want to listen to the answer?
Mr. Gallego. Yes.
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. I will give it to you.
Mr. Gallego. Good.
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Okay. So what happens is because a lot of
these ballots are dropped off day of, and statutorily, you are
not allowed to verify the signature or open them until after 7
p.m. On election day, they contribute to the delay in the
results. If you were to mail back your ballot, which I think is
what the system is designed to do, it does come with a
prestamped envelope. That would go a long way in reducing----
Mr. Gallego. Great. I am going to reserve my time back.
Mr. Gulotta, is there a better solution than trying to
disfranchise thousands of Americans--Arizonans than this?
Mr. Gulotta. Yes. I mean, we already have a process for
removing people from the voting rolls under the--under the----
Mr. Gallego. Well, let's just get to like the actual
dropping off of ballots. Is there a better process in doing
this than stopping people from dropping off ballots?
Mr. Gulotta. Yeah. We can just start counting them sooner.
We have the right to start counting them sooner. We just
preclude people from counting them sooner.
Mr. Gallego. Yielding back my time.
Representative--Representative, back to your bill on ballot
collection. Did you have Tribal consultation while you were
creating that law?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Yes. Excellent question. The bill was the
result of a legislative stakeholder process, which means that
it was assigned and heard in the appropriate committee and
passed out. It was then debated in committee of the whole, the
entire chamber, and then received the majority of votes needed
to pass out of each chamber and then signed by the Governor
into law.
Mr. Gallego. Okay. And I understand that. I was a State
representative with you. But did you speak to any Tribal
nations, organizations before you passed that law to try to get
their input while you were crafting that legislation?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Right. Well, in committee, it is open to
the public and any other vested stakeholder who wants to come
in and register their either opposition or support of the bill.
Mr. Gallego. Okay. So you understand--why some of us are
concerned that there wasn't Tribal consultation. Will you have
Tribal consultation going forward? Will you actively work with
Tribal organizations before you create these types of
legislation in the future?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. I did by introducing the law and having it
go through the appropriate process.
Mr. Gallego. But you did not do a reach out, a reach-out
program to them or anything?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Yes. I had--I had the bill in committee.
Mr. Gallego. Okay. Representative Ugenti--sorry. Senator
Ugenti, how many Tribes are there--how many federally
recognized Tribes are there in Arizona?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. I don't know that number, sir.
Mr. Gallego. There are 21. You have been a State
representative and a State senator elected I think since 2010,
and you are crafting legislation that affects Native Americans,
but you don't know how many federally recognized Tribes are in
Arizona. This is why you should probably----
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. I will answer that.
Mrs. Lesko. Madam Chairwoman, can you tell the audience not
to interrupt, please?
Mr. Gallego. Please audience, no participation.
So this is why I suggest, if you are going to write up more
legislation, you should probably have active participation and
actually invite Tribes since you yourself do not even know how
many Tribes are in Arizona.
Thank you. I yield back my time.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
Mr. Stanton, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much. Thank you very much,
Madam Chairwoman. I also have a few questions for the Senator.
Thank you for coming earlier here today, and you did have
the opportunity to hear our two outstanding Tribal leaders
testify on their concerns about the impact on Tribal voting
participation as a result of H.B. 2023, the ballot collection
bill.
In your testimony, both written and verbal here today, you
said that you are ``forced to conclude that only outside forces
and special interest groups could oppose H.B. 2023.'' Do you
consider Arizona's Tribal communities ``outside forces'' or,
``special interest groups?''
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. No.
Mr. Stanton. Were you aware of Tribal opposition to your
bill before today?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stanton. Then why would you characterize Tribal
communities as ``special interest groups'' or, ``outside
forces'' in your testimony?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Look, I am going to quote what the Ninth
Circuit District Court of Appeals said when they evaluated this
bill in their decision. The panel held that the district court
did not err in holding that H.B. 2023 violated the First and
14th Amendments because provisions imposed only a minimal
burden on voters and were adequately designed to serve
Arizona's important regulatory interests. The court defined--in
their opinion, referred to those burdens as de minimis, meaning
too trivial or minor to even merit consideration. I support the
bill because there is not enough evidence to suggest that
banning this practice hurts anyone.
Mr. Stanton. After hearing the testimony today of the
Tribal leadership and the impact on their members as a result
of the bill you championed in the legislature, do you consider
that to be, quote, de minimis on--the impact on their Tribal
members?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Yes. I agree with the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeal's decision upholding the District Court. I also
remember hearing, and the prior panelists tell me, that many of
the Native American communities prefer to vote in person. And I
think it was brought up earlier by Congresswoman Debbie Lesko,
and I will reiterate that my bill only deals with mail-in
voters.
Mr. Stanton. Did you or any members of your staff invite
Tribal participation at the hearing before the Elections
Committee that you chaired on H.B. 2023? That is a yes or no
question.
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. It is open to the public.
Mr. Stanton. Senator, your written testimony states that
``it is difficult to believe that someone who uses the mail to
pay their bills and send or receive other correspondence would
only struggle when it came to mailing back their ballot and not
struggle with other mail.''
Before today, were you aware of the unique issues members
of our rural Tribal communities face when it comes to mail?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Yes. Thank you for the question. And I
think I brought this point up earlier in my statement. Why
would you elect to receive something by mail that then became a
problem for you? So if you are going to sign up for something
that presumably is going to offer you a convenience, then it
would make sense that that convenience would last longer than
just receiving the ballot, but it would also be there for you
to return it. Again, this is an elective system in Arizona.
Other States are different, but in Arizona, if you want to
participate in mail-in voting, you have to make the effort to
sign up for it. Nobody forces you.
Mr. Stanton. After hearing--thank you. After hearing from
Governor Lewis and President Nez, do you agree that perhaps
H.B. 2023 is having a uniquely negative impact on our Tribal
communities and that it would be worth revisiting these issues
in the next Arizona legislative session?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Sir, no, I don't. And I would also like to
note that there are very reasonable exceptions in the law. So
it is a very small amount of people that we are talking about
that perhaps would be affected. Remember, these exceptions are
caregiver, household member, and family member. That, coupled
with the fact that I heard that most individuals in the Tribal
community prefer to vote in person or at least perhaps in
person early, I don't think this will have a large effect.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you so much.
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. And again, the courts described it as de
minimis.
Mr. Stanton. I think it is unfortunate and sad that our
Tribal leadership was not reached out to before this bill was
passed in our State legislature. When I think of the last few
minutes, they demonstrate that when important decisions are
made at the State capital that have a direct impact on our
Native American population, too often these citizens are
forgotten. They aren't at the table. And when they voice their
concerns, they are dismissed as, quote, ``outside forces or,
special interest groups.''
It is puzzling and frustrating to me that at a hearing on
an important voting rights issue that could go on for more than
2 hours as the hearing in Arizona legislature did, nobody
thought to ask for the opinions of our Tribal leaders. Nobody
who wanted to push this bill seemed to care. And, my friends,
that is exactly why the Voting Rights Act was so important and
why the Supreme Court's decision was so harmful to so many
Americans, because the rights of our minority are too often
shut out by the interests of the majority.
I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the Native American Voting
Rights Act, and this hearing has shown today why we need it and
has strengthened my resolve to fight for it.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Director Bohnee, I am trying to put a nexus, a Federal
nexus, an important role for Congress, the Voting Rights Act,
obviously, but the trust responsibility that is inherent in the
Constitution with native nations and indigenous people in
general. The relationship for the discussion we are having here
today and that trust responsibility, as you see it.
Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. Yes. Well, I mean, obviously there
have been issues with Tribes in voting, and the U.S. has a
trust responsibility. And I think as Mr. Butterfield asked,
have there been Section 2 enforcement actions taken on behalf
of Tribes in the State of Arizona? No, there haven't. Have
counties failed to comply with Section 203? No, they haven't.
But have there been enforcement actions taken on behalf of
native peoples? No, there haven't.
In Arizona, 5 percent of the population is Native
Americans. They comprise over 27 percent of the land base. Only
18 percent of the land in the State of Arizona is privately
held. So there is going to be a disproportionate impact when
people who live in cities and urban areas are making decisions
and not considering the impacts on our rural communities, who
often don't have access to mail. But also, we have communities
who don't have access to utilities or even running water. And
those are the realities on the reservation.
And so the Federal Government should step in, ensure that
Native Americans have polling locations and access to early
voting and voter registration.
Mr. Grijalva. If nothing else, under the mandate of the
trust responsibility.
Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Gulotta, did I get it right?
Mr. Gulotta. Yes, sir.
Mr. Grijalva. We have heard a lot today about the purity,
to some extent, the integrity of the voting process. You know,
the administration, this administration tried, on the same
issue of voting and integrity had, I think, Chris Kobach or
somebody run a committee for a while that went nowhere, and
then quietly, and thank God, it disappeared into the night. But
the point I am making is that there is a national strategy on
the issue of suppression, whether you want to hear it or not,
and that it targets poor people, people of color, and in the
instance that we are discussing here today, indigenous people
and Tribal lands.
I want to ask you about that, that national, and then we
are talking here in Arizona, where it seems to be that the
underlying agenda in that targeting is keep the power in
certain hands and keep the political policies in a certain
direction. And so let's talk about strategy, not necessarily
the legal one, but the political ramifications of not enforcing
and doing the right thing with the Voting Rights Act in terms
of extending protections of preclearance and trust
responsibility that was added to the agenda. Sir?
Mr. Gulotta. Thank you, Congressman. I think the real issue
here is just the cumulative effect of all of these attacks on
people's voting rights. H.B. 2023 attacks the right to do
ballot collection. S.B. 1072--so we say, you know, you don't
need mail. So then we look at S.B. 1072, but now you need an ID
for early in-person voting. We make it harder to vote in person
early because now we need an ID on top of our signature. We
have made that harder.
We have a bill that tries to criminalize voter registration
that didn't pass the last session. We had a bill that didn't
pass last session that was designed to prevent people from
dropping their ballots off at the polling place. There was a
bill that was going to purge people from our permanent early
voting lists, and it goes on and on and on. And they are part
of a concerted strategy to, in fact, disfranchise people from
voting.
And if you read the dissent in DNC v. Reagan I think you
will get a good understanding of exactly what is happening and
why and that it really is targeted at hurting people of color,
and we should fight back against that. And the biggest weapon
for people of color against this kind of voter suppression is
preclearance, because preclearance shifts the burden of proof
from the voter to the government. And if the government,
whether it is the local--the Secretary of State or whether it
is the local registrar, when they decide to take action, they
have to prove that they are not hurting people. And that makes
a huge, huge difference, and that is why we need to get back to
preclearance.
Mr. Grijalva. Madam Chairwoman, I yield back, and thank you
again for conducting this hearing and having it here in
Arizona.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you so much.
I want to thank you all, but I am going to ask you, so I
will give you a minute to think about it. If there is one thing
that you want us to do when we get back or one action you want
us to take or one thing that you think that we should focus on
from your testimony today, tell us what that one thing is. And
I am going to give you a minute because I want to ask a couple
of questions.
First, let me just make a statement. I think that there is
some confusion about what the Federal Government is responsible
for as it relates to elections. Every person sitting up here is
elected based upon what the Federal Government does, as is the
President of the United States, as is the Senate of the United
States as well.
We have the responsibility to ensure election security and
integrity in any election. We also, especially as you talk
about now and you hear on the news all the time about
interference from other nations, we have those responsibilities
for cybersecurity, for integrity, and for security. As well,
the Federal Government has to ensure that protected classes are
not treated unfairly, and that is why you have heard questions
about how it affects the poor, how it affects people of color,
et cetera. So we do have an overall responsibility for
elections. So don't think it is solely a State issue. It is
not. So I just want to make that clear as we go forward so that
the audience is not confused about our responsibility.
Secondly, and I think, to the Senator, I understand clearly
what you have been saying to me. I am just curious how many
people came to you about the harvesting that it was so
important an issue that you needed to take it to make a law?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Yes. Thank you, ma'am. Generally speaking,
probably maybe a dozen.
Chairwoman Fudge. And what is the size of the State of
Arizona?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. It is--the population?
Chairwoman Fudge. Yes.
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. 6.5 million, but there is no correlation
between the two, if that is what you are trying to----
Chairwoman Fudge. Well, no. That is your decision. My
thinking is that if 12 people come, and you are going to make a
law that affects six-and-a-half million people, I think that
that is a problem, but that is just--I am not asking to debate
it. That is my opinion.
The other thing that I really do want to address, and I am
truly not trying to pick on you, but you just have said some
things that concern me. Let me just say to you that mailing a
bill is not a right. Voting is. You cannot compare those two
things, because voting is a right given to us by the
Constitution--I am not asking you a question--by the
Constitution of the United States. And I can promise you that
if my neighbor wanted me to mail their bill, I could, but I
can't take their ballot. You cannot compare those two things.
Because what I know is there was a time in this Nation
where being a good neighbor meant something. We helped elderly
people. We helped sick people. We helped the people who were
disabled. We helped people. Now what we have done is say, I
can't help you if you have a problem. That is--and I don't see
that harvesting has been a major problem anywhere other than in
North Carolina. It is the only place that I am aware of that it
ever has been a problem. So we continue to find solutions for
problems that don't exist.
So with that, I am going to ask my questions and then
close. The question I asked, if you remember, what is the one
thing you would have us take away from this hearing or the one
thing you would have us do when we get back? We will start with
you, Ms. Bohnee.
Ms. Ferguson-Bohnee. Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe that
we need a framework in place to analyze voting laws as to
whether or not they have a discriminatory impact on Native
American communities. And if that is updating the preclearance
formula, then that is what I think would benefit Indian Country
in Arizona.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
We will just go right down the line.
Ms. Van Assche. I think it has been very clear that our
Native American community has suffered as a result of many of
the challenges we have talked about, and so I would encourage
the Subcommittee to continue dialogue to ensure that the Native
American community has its unique issues addressed.
Ms. Arredondo. I would encourage the Committee to continue
to promote and push for the signature of--the thing that we
have with us all the time, our signature, to be the number one
way that we prove who we are when it comes to voting, not just
for our Native American community, but also for our really
young people who don't have a driver's license yet, have not
gotten an ID, and we learned that just this last week with
National Voter Registration Day.
Mr. Gulotta. I would add along the same vein that I think
that what we have been talking about today doesn't just impact
our Native American partners and community members, but it
impacts our African American community members and our Latino
community members. And what we need, if anything else, is a
coverage formula that still includes Arizona, because what you
have heard today is that we have a serious problem here.
Mr. Hill. There are over 6 million Americans who cannot
vote today walking around our great Nation free, who have jobs,
who are members of society, who cannot vote because of a felony
conviction. We need to place greater pressure on States to
reform their felon disenfranchisement laws and make it a point
that every person who walks freely who is a citizen of this
great country can vote in every election.
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Thank you. I hope the takeaway is that
there is overwhelming support for the ban of this deceptive
practice and to stop meddling in the State of Arizona and
support our laws.
Chairwoman Fudge. Which practice?
Ms. Ugenti-Rita. The ban of prohibiting ballot harvesting.
They overwhelmingly support that law.
Chairwoman Fudge. Thank you.
I thank you all so much for being here. I would just say
that no law is perfect. We know it. We do that every day. Every
Member up here knows that we pass laws. We make them better
when we find out that there is something that needs to be
changed. But I would just suggest that when we err, we should
err on the side of the citizenry. We should err on the side of
the Constitution, and ensure, as the Constitution says, that
every single person in this country has the unabridged,
unfettered right to vote.
Is it difficult to do it the right way? Yes. But I think
that in recent years, we have made it more difficult by making
it more difficult on protected classes of people, the poor,
people of color, I think--minorities. It has become very, very
clear. But I appreciate the fact that all of you are working to
try to make the system better. I just hope that we stop being
so high and mighty that we realize that everybody is not like
we are. Everyone does not have the same benefits we have had.
Those who have been incarcerated, we don't take away their
citizenship when we put them in prison, so we should treat them
like citizens when they come out, and that means that they
should have the right to vote like everyone else in this
country.
I thank you all very, very much. We will take your
testimony and do the best we can to let our colleagues know
what is happening in the State of Arizona.
And with that, this hearing is adjourned. Oh. I can't do
that.
I want to thank the staff, both staffs, for the work that
they have done. Thank you very much, staff.
I want to thank the United States Capitol Police, who are
here to protect us. We thank you all. The Members of the
Committee, the Subcommittee on Elections, the Chairperson of
the full committee, Zoe Lofgren in her absence, this college,
Phoenix College, for hosting us, and everyone else who has had
anything to do with the successful hearing today.
Our staff from the House, from the Clerk's office who is
transcribing all of this today, the people who are live-
streaming it, everyone, thank you all so much.
Without objection, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]