[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 


                               


 
                AMERICAN CONFIDENCE IN ELECTIONS: STATE
                   TOOLS TO PROMOTE VOTER CONFIDENCE

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                           COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                             ADMINISTRATION

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             APRIL 27, 2023

                               __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
      
      
      
      
      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
      
      
      
      
      


                             www.govinfo.gov
                           www.cha.house.gov
                           
                           
                          ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 54-572              WASHINGTON : 2024                         
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                   COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                    BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Chairman

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia            JOSEPH MORELLE, New York,
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia              Ranking Member
GREG MURPHY, North Carolina          TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma             NORMA TORRES, California
MIKE CAREY, Ohio                     DEREK KILMER, Washington
ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO, New York
LAUREL LEE, Florida

                     Tim Monahan,  Staff Director 
                 Jamie Fleet,  Minority Staff Director 
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                           Opening Statements

Chairman Bryan Steil, Representative from the State of Wisconsin.     1
    Prepared statement of Chairman Bryan Steil...................     3
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Elections Terri A. Sewell, 
  Representative from the State of Alabama.......................     4
    Prepared statement of Ranking Member Terri A. Sewell.........     6

                               Witnesses

Mac Warner, Secretary of State, West Virginia....................     8
    Prepared statement of Mac Warner.............................    11
Ken Cuccinelli, chairman, Election Transparency Initiative.......    17
    Prepared statement of Ken Cuccinelli.........................    19
Hans von Spakovsky, manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and 
  Senior Legal Fellow, on behalf of the Heritage Foundation......    28
    Prepared statement of Hans von Spakovsky.....................    30
Donald Palmer, commissioner, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.    67
    Prepared statement of Donald Palmer..........................    69
Joseph Paul Gloria, Chief Executive Officer for Operations, 
  Election Center................................................    74
    Prepared statement of Joseph Paul Gloria.....................    77

                       Submission for the Record

Clark County's CTCL grant agreement..............................   102


    AMERICAN CONFIDENCE IN ELECTIONS: STATE TOOLS TO PROMOTE VOTER 
                               CONFIDENCE

                              ----------                              


                             April 27, 2023

                 Committee on House Administration,
                                  House of Representatives,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in 
room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bryan Steil 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Steil, Loudermilk, Murphy, Bice, 
Carey, D'Esposito, Lee, Sewell, Torres, and Kilmer.
    Also present: Representatives Tenney and Sarbanes.
    Staff present: Tim Monahan, Staff Director; Caleb Hays, 
Deputy Staff Director, General Counsel, Acting Parliamentarian; 
Hillary Lassiter, Clerk; Thomas Lane, Elections Counsel & 
Director of Election Coalitions; Alex Deise, Assistant 
Parliamentarian and Counsel; Jordan Wilson, Director of Member 
Services; Khalil Abboud, Minority Deputy Staff Director, Chief 
Counsel; Eddie Flaherty, Minority Chief Clerk; Jamie Fleet, 
Minority Staff Director; Sarah Nasta, Minority Elections 
Counsel; Owen Reilly, Minority Shared Staff; and Sean Wright, 
Minority Senior Elections Counsel.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRYAN STEIL, CHAIRMAN OF THE 
 COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
                           WISCONSIN

    Chairman Steil. All right. The Committee on House 
Administration will come to order.
    I note that a quorum is present.
    Without objection, the chair may declare a recess at any 
time.
    Also, without objection, the meeting record will remain 
open for 5 legislative days so Members may submit any materials 
they wish to be included therein.
    Thank you, Ms. Sewell, Members of the Committee, and 
witnesses for being here today.
    Unfortunately, Ranking Member Morelle is unable to join us 
today due to a loss in his family. I want to offer my sincere 
condolences, and our thoughts are with him and his family 
during this time.
    Today we have Congresswoman Claudia Tenney and Congressman 
John Sarbanes, who will be joining us shortly. They have both 
been waived on the Committee to participate in today's hearing.
    I would like to welcome both of you--I will welcome both of 
them to the Committee when they arrive shortly.
    The remarks have not been updated for the timing of their 
attendance.
    The Constitution reserves power over Federal elections to 
the States, requiring them to set election law and to 
administer Federal elections with Congress in the oversight 
role. Election administration looks different in every State, 
and that is our Federalist approach in action.
    It is critical that all voters understand and trust the 
election process and our outcomes. The empirical data is clear 
that, when voters are more confident, they are more likely to 
participate. That is why we must continue to support States in 
their efforts to build voter confidence and equip them with the 
tools that they need.
    Our hearing today is the first in a series leading up to 
the introduction of the American Confidence in Elections Act, 
or the ACE Act. Unlike the previous majority's For the People 
Act, our ACE Act has been drafted in the open over the course 
of nearly 3 years. I plan to continue to move the ACE Act 
through regular order.
    I was proud to work with former Ranking Member Rodney Davis 
to introduce the ACE Act last Congress. We worked with State 
and local election administrators and stakeholders across the 
country to write this legislation. This important bill is part 
of the House Republican Conference's Commitment to America, as 
we work to deliver a Government that is more accountable.
    Following lessons learned in the 2022 midterm election, we 
are making tweaks to further strengthen the bill. Ultimately, 
this comprehensive legislation will provide States with the 
tools to build voter confidence and enhance election integrity.
    The bill has three main pillars. These include, one, 
providing States with voluntary tools and resources for running 
elections with the highest integrity that voters can have 
confidence in; two, implementing much needed reforms in D.C. to 
clean up years of elections difficulty here and to clearly 
demonstrate the positive effects of strong election integrity 
policies; and, three, protecting free speech.
    Today's hearing will focus on the first and largest section 
of the bill. This section provides States with voluntary tools 
they can implement to bolster voter confidence, while removing 
outdated Federal policies that often get in the way.
    For example, while the U.S. Constitution prohibits 
noncitizens from voting in Federal elections, States need 
better tools to enforce these prohibitions. The bill would 
ensure State and county election officials have access to 
information held only by Federal agencies, like the Social 
Security death list and citizenship status, to keep their voter 
rolls maintained.
    Additionally, the bill helps the Election Assistance 
Commission better focus their work. This will enhance a Federal 
forum to encourage information sharing among States as they 
solve election administration challenges.
    The ACE Act will modernize EAC's testing and certification 
program for elections equipment and ensure not only that 
States, counties, and municipalities have the guidance they 
need to use Federal election grant funds but also that taxpayer 
dollars are being protected.
    It also addresses another key issue that arose during the 
2020 election when private funding of election administration 
was abused to target voters expected to vote for certain 
candidates. Some States have since prohibited localities from 
accepting these dollars.
    It is also appropriate for Congress to review the Federal 
tax benefits of some of these groups, something Rep. Tenney and 
I have been leading along the way.
    Additionally, Congress must also hold accountable the 
executive branch. Every Federal agency has an important role in 
serving the American people. As part of the Biden 
administration's Promoting Access to Voting executive order, 
Federal agencies were directed to go beyond the scope of their 
missions and essentially act as voter registration sites.
    Voter registration's absolutely critical, and we encourage 
every voter to participate. However, that is not necessarily 
the responsibility of Federal agencies but, rather, of 
Secretaries of State and other State and county officials. 
Directing Federal agencies to engage in political activities 
should concern everyone.
    These are just some of the issues we address in the ACE 
Act. This bill is our Federalist approach to equip States with 
key election integrity tools. We are committed to respecting 
our constitutional system and the differences of each State. 
This bill is not a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate but, 
rather, a set of tools to help everyone improve our current 
system.
    Again, I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. 
With their collective decades of experience, I look forward to 
your testimony as we examine the ACE Act.
    Thank you, and I now yield to Ms. Sewell for the purpose of 
making an opening statement.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Steil follows:]

   PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 
                   ADMINISTRATION BRYAN STEIL

    Today we have Congresswoman Claudia Tenney and Congressman 
John Sarbanes, who will be joining us shortly. They have both 
been waived on the Committee to participate in today's hearing.
    I would like to welcome both of you--I will welcome both of 
them to the Committee when they arrive shortly.
    The remarks have not been updated for the timing of their 
attendance.
    The Constitution reserves power over Federal elections to 
the States, requiring them to set election law and to 
administer Federal elections with Congress in the oversight 
role. Election administration looks different in every State, 
and that is our Federalist approach in action.
    It is critical that all voters understand and trust the 
election process and our outcomes. The empirical data is clear 
that, when voters are more confident, they are more likely to 
participate. That is why we must continue to support States in 
their efforts to build voter confidence and equip them with the 
tools that they need.
    Our hearing today is the first in a series leading up to 
the introduction of the American Confidence in Elections Act, 
or the ACE Act. Unlike the previous majority's For the People 
Act, our ACE Act has been drafted in the open over the course 
of nearly 3 years. I plan to continue to move the ACE Act 
through regular order.
    I was proud to work with former Ranking Member Rodney Davis 
to introduce the ACE Act last Congress. We worked with State 
and local election administrators and stakeholders across the 
country to write this legislation. This important bill is part 
of the House Republican Conference's Commitment to America, as 
we work to deliver a Government that is more accountable.
    Following lessons learned in the 2022 midterm election, we 
are making tweaks to further strengthen the bill. Ultimately, 
this comprehensive legislation will provide States with the 
tools to build voter confidence and enhance election integrity.
    The bill has three main pillars. These include, one, 
providing States with voluntary tools and resources for running 
elections with the highest integrity that voters can have 
confidence in; two, implementing much needed reforms in D.C. to 
clean up years of elections difficulty here and to clearly 
demonstrate the positive effects of strong election integrity 
policies; and, three, protecting free speech.
    Today's hearing will focus on the first and largest section 
of the bill. This section provides States with voluntary tools 
they can implement to bolster voter confidence, while removing 
outdated Federal policies that often get in the way.
    For example, while the U.S. Constitution prohibits 
noncitizens from voting in Federal elections, States need 
better tools to enforce these prohibitions. The bill would 
ensure State and county election officials have access to 
information held only by Federal agencies, like the Social 
Security death list and citizenship status, to keep their voter 
rolls maintained.
    Additionally, the bill helps the Election Assistance 
Commission better focus their work. This will enhance a Federal 
forum to encourage information sharing among States as they 
solve election administration challenges.
    The ACE Act will modernize EAC's testing and certification 
program for elections equipment and ensure not only that 
States, counties, and municipalities have the guidance they 
need to use Federal election grant funds but also that taxpayer 
dollars are being protected.
    It also addresses another key issue that arose during the 
2020 election when private funding of election administration 
was abused to target voters expected to vote for certain 
candidates. Some States have since prohibited localities from 
accepting these dollars.
    It is also appropriate for Congress to review the Federal 
tax benefits of some of these groups, something Rep. Tenney and 
I have been leading along the way.
    Additionally, Congress must also hold accountable the 
executive branch. Every Federal agency has an important role in 
serving the American people. As part of the Biden 
administration's Promoting Access to Voting executive order, 
Federal agencies were directed to go beyond the scope of their 
missions and essentially act as voter registration sites.
    Voter registration's absolutely critical, and we encourage 
every voter to participate. However, that is not necessarily 
the responsibility of Federal agencies but, rather, of 
Secretaries of State and other State and county officials. 
Directing Federal agencies to engage in political activities 
should concern everyone.
    These are just some of the issues we address in the ACE 
Act. This bill is our Federalist approach to equip States with 
key election integrity tools. We are committed to respecting 
our constitutional system and the differences of each State. 
This bill is not a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate but, 
rather, a set of tools to help everyone improve our current 
system.
    Again, I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. 
With their collective decades of experience, I look forward to 
your testimony as we examine the ACE Act.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TERRI A. SEWELL, RANKING MEMBER OF 
   THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
                            ALABAMA

    Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As the chair acknowledged, Ranking Member Morelle is unable 
to be here today due to a death in his family. I know we all 
offer him our sincerest condolences.
    Today we are discussing State tools to promote voter 
confidence. To do so, we must acknowledge a truth. Perpetuating 
falsehoods about stolen or insecure elections undermines our 
confidence. Acknowledging and alleging a lack of voter 
confidence or a lack of integrity in the electoral system is a 
false justification to rationalize the enactment of suppressive 
voter laws and procedures such as eliminating ballot box--
ballot drop box, restricting mail-in voting, enacting 
suppressive voter ID laws, and discriminatory voter list 
maintenance practices that result in otherwise eligible voters 
being removed from the rolls.
    Instead, confidence in election means every eligible voter 
feels confident that they can access and cast a ballot, that 
that ballot will be counted, and that that counted--and that it 
was counted as a cast.
    When voters see voting methods their communities have been 
using for decades suddenly being attacked without evidence, it 
does promote--it does not promote voter confidence. Indeed, 
ensuring eligible voters have access to the franchise promotes 
voter confidence.
    One of the most critical tools States have to promote voter 
confidence are well-trained, well-resourced election officials. 
People who administer elections year after year are known in 
their communities and who voters can turn to for accurate 
information.
    However, these trusted public servants have become the 
targets of harassment and threats. A survey of local election 
officials published earlier this year by the Brennan Center for 
Justice found that nearly three in four feel that threats 
against election officials have increased in recent years. 30 
percent say that they have personally been abused, harassed, or 
threatened because of their job.
    The survey also found that, given the rate at which 
officials are leaving the profession, we can expect more than 
one in five local election officials to be serving in their 
first Presidential election in 2024.
    We need to ensure that these officials have the training 
and resources needed to carry out the critical work of 
administering our elections. Our democracy does not function 
without them.
    As we discussed at a Committee hearing last month, election 
officials have worked hard and made significant strides to 
increase transparency in the electoral process and provide 
opportunities for the public to better understand and--
understand what can otherwise be a cumbersome and hard process.
    The Supreme Court has found that voting is a fundamental 
political right because it is preservative of all rights, and 
Congress has broad powers to legislate under the election 
clause. We should be making it easier to vote. As election 
officials, we should be making sure that access to the ballot 
box is easy.
    We also must be truthful. There is no evidence of 
widespread voter fraud in the United States elections. It is 
already hard to cheat. Committing fraud, committing acts of 
fraud, voter fraud, is already against the law.
    Continuing to perpetuate false claims of rigged elections 
undermines voter confidence. Passing laws that restrict voters' 
access to the ballot box undermines voter confidence. Casting 
election officials as a part of a conspiracy to steal an 
election undermines voter confidence.
    Since the founding of our country, large segments of the 
American people have been intentionally excluded from the right 
to vote, and their access to the ballot box has been 
purposefully curtailed. Claiming that higher voter turnout 
numbers mean restrictive voting laws do not have suppressive or 
discriminatory effect while ignoring evidence of significant 
racial turnout gaps, that undermines voter confidence.
    While many minority communities are overwhelmed by barriers 
to casting their vote, it does not make those barriers fair. It 
certainly does not justify or validate their existence.
    This Committee's role in conducting oversight of Federal 
elections is critical. We must work to protect access to the 
ballot box, ensure States and localities have the funding and 
resources they need to conduct free and fair elections, protect 
election workers from harassment and threats.
    I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses, Mr. 
Chair, and the discussion to follow. Thanks.
    [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Sewell follows:]

  PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
                   ELECTIONS TERRI A. SEWELL

    Today we are discussing State tools to promote voter 
confidence. To do so, we must acknowledge a truth. Perpetuating 
falsehoods about stolen or insecure elections undermines our 
confidence. Acknowledging and alleging a lack of voter 
confidence or a lack of integrity in the electoral system is a 
false justification to rationalize the enactment of suppressive 
voter laws and procedures such as eliminating ballot box--
ballot drop box, restricting mail-in voting, enacting 
suppressive voter ID laws, and discriminatory voter list 
maintenance practices that result in otherwise eligible voters 
being removed from the rolls.
    Instead, confidence in election means every eligible voter 
feels confident that they can access and cast a ballot, that 
that ballot will be counted, and that that counted--and that it 
was counted as a cast.
    When voters see voting methods their communities have been 
using for decades suddenly being attacked without evidence, it 
does promote--it does not promote voter confidence. Indeed, 
ensuring eligible voters have access to the franchise promotes 
voter confidence.
    One of the most critical tools States have to promote voter 
confidence are well-trained, well-resourced election officials. 
People who administer elections year after year are known in 
their communities and who voters can turn to for accurate 
information.
    However, these trusted public servants have become the 
targets of harassment and threats. A survey of local election 
officials published earlier this year by the Brennan Center for 
Justice found that nearly three in four feel that threats 
against election officials have increased in recent years. 30 
percent say that they have personally been abused, harassed, or 
threatened because of their job.
    The survey also found that, given the rate at which 
officials are leaving the profession, we can expect more than 
one in five local election officials to be serving in their 
first Presidential election in 2024.
    We need to ensure that these officials have the training 
and resources needed to carry out the critical work of 
administering our elections. Our democracy does not function 
without them.
    As we discussed at a Committee hearing last month, election 
officials have worked hard and made significant strides to 
increase transparency in the electoral process and provide 
opportunities for the public to better understand and--
understand what can otherwise be a cumbersome and hard process.
    The Supreme Court has found that voting is a fundamental 
political right because it is preservative of all rights, and 
Congress has broad powers to legislate under the election 
clause. We should be making it easier to vote. As election 
officials, we should be making sure that access to the ballot 
box is easy.
    We also must be truthful. There is no evidence of 
widespread voter fraud in the United States elections. It is 
already hard to cheat. Committing fraud, committing acts of 
fraud, voter fraud, is already against the law.
    Continuing to perpetuate false claims of rigged elections 
undermines voter confidence. Passing laws that restrict voters' 
access to the ballot box undermines voter confidence. Casting 
election officials as a part of a conspiracy to steal an 
election undermines voter confidence.
    Since the founding of our country, large segments of the 
American people have been intentionally excluded from the right 
to vote, and their access to the ballot box has been 
purposefully curtailed. Claiming that higher voter turnout 
numbers mean restrictive voting laws do not have suppressive or 
discriminatory effect while ignoring evidence of significant 
racial turnout gaps, that undermines voter confidence.
    While many minority communities are overwhelmed by barriers 
to casting their vote, it does not make those barriers fair. It 
certainly does not justify or validate their existence.
    This Committee's role in conducting oversight of Federal 
elections is critical. We must work to protect access to the 
ballot box, ensure States and localities have the funding and 
resources they need to conduct free and fair elections, protect 
election workers from harassment and threats.
    I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses, Mr. 
Chair, and the discussion to follow. Thanks.

    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Ms. Sewell.
    Without objection, all other Members' opening statements 
will be made part of the record hearing--of the hearing record 
if they are submitted to the Committee clerk by 5 p.m. today.
    Pursuant to paragraph (b) of Committee rule 6, the 
witnesses will please stand and raise your right hand.
    [Witnesses sworn.]
    Chairman Steil. Let the record show that the witnesses 
answered in the affirmative and may be seated.
    I will now introduce our witnesses.
    Our first witness, West Virginia Secretary of State Mac 
Warner, is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at 
West Point and spent 23 years in The United States Army, 
deployed to military hotspots around the world, while serving 
on the staff of the United States Army War College.
    Since taking his oath of office in 2017, Secretary Warner's 
been recognized throughout the country for his innovation in 
cybersecurity and election preparation.
    Under Secretary Warner's leadership, West Virginia became 
the first State in the Nation to offer voting by mobile device 
for overseas citizens and military personnel deployed to remote 
areas of the world during election time.
    Our next witness, Mr. Ken Cuccinelli, currently serves as 
the National Chairman for the Election Transparency Initiative.
    Previously, Mr. Cuccinelli served in the Federal 
Government, first as the Acting Director of the United States 
Citizenship and Immigration Services and then as the Acting 
Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
    In addition to practicing law for over 25 years. Mr. 
Cuccinelli served in the Virginia Senate from 2002 to 2010 and 
was Virginia's attorney general from 2010 to 2014.
    Our next witness, Mr. Hans von Spakovsky, is a senior 
fellow in The Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese, III Center for 
Legal and Judicial Studies.
    As the manager of the think tank's election law reform 
initiative, Mr. von Spakovsky studied campaign finance 
restrictions, voter fraud, voter ID, enforcement of Federal 
voting rights laws, administration of elections, and vote 
equipment standards. In 2017, President Donald Trump appointed 
him to the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election 
Integrity.
    Our next witness, Commissioner Don Palmer, was appointed by 
President Donald Trump and confirmed in the U.S. Senate in 2019 
to serve as the United States Election Assistance Commission 
Commissioner.
    During his tenure at the Election Assistance Commission, 
Commissioner Palmer has served as the designated Federal 
officer for the EAC's Technical Guidelines Development 
Committee, which is charged with developing the voluntary 
voting system guidelines which sets standards for voting 
machine testing and certification.
    Commissioner Palmer is the former Secretary of the Virginia 
Board of Elections and served as the Commonwealth's chief 
election official from 2011 to 2014. He also previously served 
as Florida's State election director.
    Finally, Mr. Joseph Gloria began his career in the 
elections in 1992 as a voting machine technician in Dona Ana 
County, New Mexico. It was Dona.
    Mr. Gloria. Yes.
    Chairman Steil. I saw you nod your head. I was confirming 
that.
    In June 2013, Mr. Gloria was named the Registrar of Voters 
for Clark County, Nevada, becoming the top election 
administrator for the Las Vegas metropolitan area. Mr. Gloria 
currently serves as the Chief Executive Officer of Operations 
for the Election Center.
    We appreciate all of our witnesses being here today and 
look forward to your testimony.
    As a reminder, we have read your written statements and 
will appear in full in the hearing record.
    Under Committee rule 9, you are limited to your oral 
presentation to a brief summary of your written statement, 
unless I extend the time period in consultation with Ms. 
Sewell.
    Please remember to press the button on the microphone in 
front of you so that it is on and Members can hear you.
    When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will 
turn green. After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. When 
the red light comes on, your 5 minutes have expired. We ask you 
to please wrap up.
    I will now recognize Secretary Mac Warner for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENTS OF HON. MAC WARNER, SECRETARY OF STATE, WEST 
  VIRGINIA; THE HONORABLE KEN CUCCINELLI, CHAIRMAN, ELECTION 
TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE; HANS VON SPAKOVSKY, MANAGER, ELECTION 
LAW REFORM INITIATIVE AND SENIOR LEGAL FELLOW, ON BEHALF OF THE 
HERITAGE FOUNDATION; THE HONORABLE DONALD PALMER, COMMISSIONER, 
 U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION; AND JOSEPH PAUL GLORIA, 
    CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER FOR OPERATIONS, ELECTION CENTER

               STATEMENT OF HONORABLE MAC WARNER

    Mr. Warner. West Virginians pride ourselves as frontiersmen 
who blaze trails rather than follow paths. Ever since 1775, 
when Captain Hugh Stephenson led his mountaineer militia on the 
Beeline March to Boston to reinforce General George Washington, 
thus creating the U.S. Army, West Virginians have fought for 
independence and security.
    Interestingly, a controversy at the time generated citizen 
petitions seeking fair elections in Appalachia. West Virginia 
has suffered election fraud including John Kennedy buying votes 
and stealing the 1960 Democrat primary from Hubert Humphrey.
    Since my election in 2016, we have been fighting for 
election integrity. The U.S. Constitution states the time, 
place, and manner of elections shall be left to State 
legislatures. Working with our legislature, we have built 
perhaps the best balanced election access with election 
security process in the country. Here are three elements of 
successful elections.
    First, State autonomy. West Virginia does not rely on 
Federal funding for election security. We have permanent State 
funding for equipment, security, and maintenance. Autonomous 
tools that we have include GIS technology to improve elections 
and the voter experience; a ``See Something, Text Something'' 
program to deter fraud and enhance investigations; dispersed 
investigators to reach trouble spots quickly; a fusion office, 
National Guard, and DNR election assistance, and a 
clearinghouse to triage election complaints.
    States have different histories and voting practices. There 
is not and should not be a one-size-fits-all policy for 
election procedures. State autonomy with legislatures making 
the rules is key.
    Second, voter confidence that begins with clean voter rolls 
followed by easy ballot access and corresponding security. 
Working with county clerks, we have removed over 400,000 names 
from West Virginia rolls, approximately 1 of every 4 
registrants. Nothing good comes from bloated, out-of-date 
voting rolls.
    Citizens know their votes will not be diluted by ineligible 
voters or ballots cast outside the law. Voter ID using modern 
equipment and producing results on election night are all 
things that build public confidence. MIT has independently put 
West Virginia near the top of States in voter confidence.
    Third, Federal Government needs to get out of the way and 
let States run their elections. Here are examples. The NVRA 
blackout period for changing voter rolls should be left to the 
States. Waiting four Federal election cycles to remove bad 
registrations is unnecessary. The Federal postcard application 
should require voter ID. UOCAVA voters should be required to 
show proof of citizenship. The post office should freely share 
NCOA and vacant address databases. CISA should provide the SAVE 
database free of charge to States, and the Social Security 
Administration should do likewise for deaths.
    A proper role for the Federal Government is the American 
Confidence in Elections Act. It empowers States without Federal 
overreach.
    How do we restore faith in America's elections? The devious 
misuse of Federal agencies to throw the 2020 election was 
despicable. Fifty-one so-called intelligence experts 
purposefully misled the American people just 2 weeks prior to 
the election by leading people to believe that the Hunter Biden 
laptop was a Russian effort. Instead, it was a disinformation 
campaign. That is a purposeful lie done with the intent to 
throw the Presidential election. The letter was intentionally 
wrong, and the FBI allowed the disinformation operation to 
occur under its watch. The situation was made worse when 
candidate Joe Biden cited the letter to discredit President 
Trump. Biden's campaign knew the letter to be a lie of their 
own making.
    In what may be the most insidious election interference in 
U.S. history, the Biden campaign colluded with members and 
former members of the CIA, DNI, NSA, and FBI to mount a 
disinformation campaign against the American people for 
political purposes.
    Every agency and person who took part in this election 
interference should be excoriated, the participants fired, 
their security clearances revoked, and criminal charges 
initiated where appropriate. That is the way to restore voter 
confidence in America.
    What our own Federal agencies did in the 2022 election was 
not legitimate or fair. Their conduct was worse than anything 
Russia or China did to interfere with our elections. We expect 
disinformation campaigns from those nations, but we do not and 
should not have to anticipate purposeful attacks and 
disinformation from our own Government.
    Other actions to enhance confidence include, first, revisit 
the NVRA. There is no need for DMVs to register people to vote.
    Second, reduce mail-in voting. President Carter warned 
absentee ballots remained the largest source of potential voter 
fraud. When ballots arrive before and after election day, the 
voting occurs away from the watchful eye of trained officials 
from opposing parties and voters lose confidence.
    Third, prioritize enforcement of election laws. DOJ has 
stopped investigating most election violations and placed undue 
emphasis on so-called threats to election officials. This is a 
veiled attempt to silence people speaking out against 
irregularities.
    Fourth, stop using courts to change election processes. 
Lawfare has judges, rather than legislators, making election 
laws. Preelection court actions must be curtailed, and 
postelection courts must prioritize election challenges before 
elections are certified.
    Thank you for giving me this chance to testify.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Warner follows:]

             PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MAC WARNER

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Secretary Warner.
    Mr. Cuccinelli, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                STATEMENT OF HON. KEN CUCCINELLI

    Mr. Cuccinelli. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
inviting me today to discuss what is working and what does not 
work well in our State voting systems.
    As you noted, I previously served as the attorney general 
of Virginia. Prior to that, I was in Virginia's State Senate 
for three terms. One of those elections was a recount. As the 
people of this Committee know, that means litigation. That is 
true in all 50 States. I have been through those situations, as 
well, and also served in the Department of Homeland Security as 
the Acting Deputy Secretary.
    I would like to make a point that is rarely discussed from 
that perspective because the Federal Government does not have 
really any role in the execution of elections. However, we do 
have a role in protecting against foreign interference in 
elections, and I was involved in that role in 2020.
    I would point out a much overlooked fact. We all hear all 
the time about financial diversification. Do not buy one stock; 
buy 20 stocks. Well, security can work similarly. America's 
elections are more secure for having 51 systems than if we had 
one Washington takeover and one system. The danger to an 
opponent of attempting to interfere--and I do not mean media 
interference; I do not mean Facebook ads; I mean actually 
touching machinery--is much, much higher when they do not 
really know which States are going to determine the outcome, 
and they all have different systems.
    It is easier for us to catch them when they attempt to try 
to break into a variety of systems than if we had only one 
system, and we have all seen how effective we are at protecting 
our own systems. We saw this in 2020. We learned that the 
Russians had been in our Government systems for a year and a 
half or more, the civilian side.
    That is a tremendous source of protection of U.S. elections 
against foreign interference. Again, I am not talking 
misinformation here. The interference I am talking about is 
actually touching the systems, the computer systems, adjusting 
outcomes, voter rolls, and so forth. It does not mean that is 
impossible now, but if they can get into one system, they can 
get into one system.
    Of 51, that risks America's democracy less than if they 
could get into one system, and there was only one system. It is 
a very important reason why Washington should never try to 
centralize elections with one federalized system.
    I think that is a unique perspective that I do not hear, 
frankly, mentioned enough. That is still a relevant benefit of 
federalism, perhaps not in a way you are used to thinking of, 
nonetheless.
    With respect to UOCAVA and Motor Voter, I would simply--I 
will shorten my time by emphatically agreeing with the specific 
comments of Secretary Warner, the blackout periods, for 
instance, the Federal Government literally getting in the way 
of States cleaning up their own systems.
    This is used often in the lawfare, you heard the secretary 
reference, as a way to block clean up. Los Angeles County 
recently had to remove 1.2 million--million--bad entries on 
their voter rolls. Those had been stopped for years and years. 
Those are places where fraud and confusion and the reduction of 
confidence can easily hide. The Carter-Baker Commission of 2005 
spoke to some of these problems.
    I would urge this--this Committee and the ACE Act to keep 
the voluntary approach you have to--from the Federal Government 
to States but also to clean up UOCAVA, particularly with 
respect to ID and citizenship and Motor Voter with respect to 
clearing the roll--cleaning the rolls and getting out of 
States' way, frankly, of doing the best job they can.
    Last but not least, it is nice to hear comments about how 
we are all against perpetuating falsehoods. It would have been 
nice to hear that in 2000, 2001, 2004, 2016, 2017, et cetera, 
et cetera, et cetera. It seems those sorts of allegations are 
leveled for pure partisan effect, not to actually clean up our 
elections.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Cuccinelli follows:]

           PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KEN CUCCINELLI
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Mr. Cuccinelli
    Mr. Hans von Spakovsky, you are recognized now for 5 
minutes.

                STATEMENT OF HANS VON SPAKOVSKY

    Mr. von Spakovsky. Mr. Chair, thank you for the invitation 
to be here. Sorry. Thank you for the invitation to be here.
    We have to have both access and security in our elections. 
In contrast to what some mistakenly claim, it is possible to 
provide both. One does not cancel out the other.
    Now, in addition to State laws that require election 
officials to maintain accurate voter rolls, Federal law imposes 
the same requirement. The Help America Vote Act has detailed 
provisions that ensure voter registration records are supposed 
to be accurate. Similarly, the National Voter Registration 
Act--we are coming up on its 30-year anniversary--actually has 
a provision saying, quote, that States have to protect the 
integrity of the electoral process by ensuring the maintenance 
of an accurate and current voter registration roll.
    The problem is States are not, many of them, not doing a 
good job of doing this. They need to be conducting frequent 
comparisons between their statewide voter lists and their 
databases maintained by their Departments of Motor Vehicle, 
their vital records, their corrections departments, their 
revenue department, and their public welfare and assistance 
departments to find address changes, deaths, citizenship 
status, and other factors affecting eligibility.
    They should also be frequently using the U.S. Postal 
Service's National Change of Address system, which, as 
Secretary Warner says, should be free.
    It is entirely a State responsibility, but Federal 
cooperation is required. That includes providing free access to 
Social Security Administration records. That is something 
required by the Help America Vote Act. Since citizenship is 
required to vote in Federal and State elections, with the 
exception of some local actions in a small number of States, 
they should be given unfettered access to DHS databases that 
contain information on aliens within the United States.
    In the same way that the National Voter Registration Act 
requires all U.S. attorneys to provide Federal felony 
conviction information to State election officials, the NVRA 
should be amended to require all Federal courts to provide 
relevant jury information to State election officials. If 
someone is excused from jury duty because they are not a U.S. 
citizen or they no longer live in the State, that information 
should be sent back to election officials because it is from 
election officials that State--Federal courts get their lists 
to begin with.
    The move by some States--I am sorry--some local 
jurisdictions such as the District of Columbia to allow aliens 
to votes in local elections disenfranchises citizens by 
diluting their vote, something we passed the Voting Rights Act 
to prevent.
    By allowing anyone who lives in the Nation's capital for 30 
days to vote in local elections, there is nothing to prevent 
aliens who are here illegally from voting or diplomats from 
foreign embassies, many hostile to the United States, from 
voting in local elections and allowing reporters from their 
propaganda outlets, like Pravda and The People's Daily, from 
voting. That is a recipe for foreign interference.
    The NVRA has been misinterpreted by the courts, and it 
should be clarified that it does not prevent States from 
requiring proof of citizenship to vote. That is no different 
from the fact that the Federal Government requires you to 
provide proof that you are a U.S. citizen or an alien legally 
in this country to get a job, and being able to be employed and 
support your family is just as important as the right to vote.
    Voter ID requirements for photo ID and absentee voting 
should be a requirement in every State. All of the turnout data 
and evidence show this does not suppress anyone's vote. It is a 
basic security measure, no different than similar requirements, 
for example, entering Government buildings like the Department 
of Justice.
    Finally, while both in-depth financial and accounting 
audits are a standard practice in the business world and 
nonprofit world, they are almost nonexistence in public 
elections. For the same reasons that they are ubiquitous in the 
business world at large, audits should be a customary 
requirement for our public elections after elections are over. 
This not only would help guarantee the honesty and 
effectiveness of the election process but would help assure 
public--the public candidates, political parties, and the media 
that they can be confident in the security and integrity of our 
elections.
    We want to ensure that every eligible citizen is able to 
vote and that those votes are not diluted, voided, or stolen 
due to errors, mistakes, fraud, or other problems in the 
election system. Commonsense measures like voter ID, election 
audits, clean voter rolls, secure absentee ballot management, 
and transparency in the entire process will do that.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. von Spakovsky follows:]

            PREPARED STATEMENT OF HANS VON SPAKOVSKY
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 



    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Mr. von Spakovsky.
    Commissioner Palmer, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD PALMER

    Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Chairman Steil, Congresswoman 
Sewell, Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity 
to appear before you today to discuss the extensive work of the 
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, or EAC, as we help State 
officials prepare for the 2024 elections.
    The integrity of U.S. elections, coupled with cybersecurity 
measures, play a crucial role in our national security. This 
important hearing demonstrates your commitment to our Nation's 
elections, and I appreciate your attention.
    The EAC was established by the Help America Vote Act, HAVA. 
Since that time the agency has worked closely with election 
officials by distributing grant funds, certifying voting 
systems, highlighting best practices, collecting data through 
the EAV Survey, and developing numerous clearinghouse products 
and services.
    Elections are administered by the States, and our efforts 
are vital to this endeavor. As such, we are extremely grateful 
for the agency funding and close attention to our work from 
Congress in recent years. Your steadfast support has proven 
instrumental to the Commission and to election administrators 
across the country.
    The EAC is making significant progress toward fulfilling 
its mission to improve the administration of elections. Over 
the past year, the agency continued to administer $955 million 
in HAVA security grants to the States, territories, and the 
District of Columbia.
    With the outstanding work of State and local election 
officials and assistance from the EAC and our trusted Federal 
partners, the 2022 midterm elections were administered 
successfully. We aim to amplify support for the work of 
election officials. We should all give the American people 
public confidence that our elections are safe, secure, 
accessible, and secure. The American people should know that 
the Nation's voting systems have integrity and the votes will 
be counted as cast.
    Most recently, in keeping closely engaged with State and 
local administrators, the EAC has held annual meetings of our 
advisory boards. The Board of Advisors and the Standards Board 
are instrumental in keeping and helping the agency maintain 
various HAVA responsibilities. The Local Leadership Council, 
made up of local election leaders, serves as a source of 
unbiased analysis to the EAC on election administration topics, 
including list maintenance, voting system user practices, 
ballot administration, and other matters. The Board of Advisors 
concluded their meeting just yesterday here in D.C.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for attending and presenting to 
us.
    Standards board met last week in Phoenix, Arizona. At these 
collaborative meetings, the agency shared election security 
information and tools to increase voter confidence. Both forums 
provided us direct feedback from lawmakers, election officials, 
and other experts.
    As part of our ESTEP program, which is the Election 
Supporting Technology Evaluation Program, more States and 
localities will adopt technology to assist with election 
administration. Officials are looking for the EAC for voluntary 
standards and guidance. Congress and the EAC continue to 
analyze the practicality of this program to offer potential 
solutions and efficiencies.
    Introduced in the 117th Congress, the American Confidence 
in Elections, ACE Act, included a provision related to 
voluntary standards for election-supporting technology. The EAC 
would benefit from explicit statutory authorization to include 
several types of election-supporting technology in our ongoing 
work related to cybersecurity.
    The agency's Testing and Certification Division is working 
to launch a field services program to help election officials 
strengthen their overall posture and preparedness regarding 
voting systems.
    In 2022, the Commission also made considerable progress by 
implementing version 2.0 of the VVSG. These new guidelines 
incorporate technology, advancements in cybersecurity, 
accuracy, accessibility, usability, and audibility of the new 
voting machines. With the adoption of 2.0, the EAC is now 
building a bridge from our current strong standards for the 
2024 election to the next generation of voting systems.
    The EAC Clearinghouse Division, made up of former election 
officials and subject-matter experts, help the EAC share these 
practices, information for voters, and other resources to 
election officials.
    To this end, the EAC is continuing work on an online 
clearinghouse network, a collaborative peer-to-peer platform 
where election officials can find resources, connect with 
experts, and colleagues in other jurisdictions across the 
country, and discuss emerging issues.
    A core component of the EAC mission is distributing, 
monitoring, and auditing the use of Federal grants for the 
improvement of Federal elections and security. Federal HAVA 
funds, including the recent appropriation, are a key resource 
for election administrators dealing with 6 ever-growing 
demands.
    As this Committee considers election administration reform 
legislation, the EAC stands ready to serve as a helpful 
resource. I appreciate your work on the ACE Act, and thank you 
for recognizing the EAC's leadership role and the vital 
assistance you provide to election officials.
    Thank you for your support to the EAC and the tireless 
commitment to State and local officials. I would be pleased to 
respond to any questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Palmer follows:]

            PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD PALMER
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Commissioner Palmer.
    Mr. Gloria, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                STATEMENT OF JOSEPH PAUL GLORIA

    Mr. Gloria. Thank you, Chairman Steil, Ranking Member 
Morelle, Subcommittee Ranking Member Sewell, and Members of the 
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about the 
critical issue of voter confidence.
    Confidence in elections is critical to the success of our 
democracy in the United States of America. Election officials 
need support from local, State, and Federal Government to 
ensure they have the funding, training, tools, and equipment 
they need to be successful in an ever increasingly challenging 
environment.
    Today election officials all throughout the country are 
being asked to develop their expertise across an ever-growing 
list of areas, while being under the brightest of microscopes, 
administering elections with zero faults, and all while being 
responsible for the safety of their staff, families, and 
themselves.
    Prior to my retirement in January of this year, I 
supervised elections in Clark County, Nevada, as the appointed 
Registrar of Voters. During my over 30-year career as an 
election official, the most challenging portion of my career 
came during the 2020 and 2022 election cycles.
    In 2020, election officials across the Nation rose to the 
numerous challenges that accompanied administering an election 
during the COVID pandemic. This forced us to quickly adjust our 
services to voters in order to give everyone equal access to 
the process of voting without putting voters in a position to 
expose themselves to the virus.
    Prior to the 2020 general election, the largest number of 
mail ballots counted in Clark County, Nevada, during an 
election was just over 45,000. This number increased tenfold to 
over 450,000 in the 2020 general election.
    Although the pandemic had subsided in 2022, challenges 
stemming from the widespread distribution of false information 
about the election officials and election administration 
continued. A silver lining from the 2020 election cycle is that 
we were able to learn from what we experienced by increasing 
transparency, providing outreach to voters in an effort to 
educate them on our well-addressed proc--well-developed 
processes, many of which were statutorily mandated processes, 
and purchasing equipment to increase the efficiency of our mail 
ballot processing.
    We welcome those questions about our--or concerns about our 
elections to be part of the process. In addition to the 
challenges above caused by the widespread distribution of false 
information about elections, my staff, poll workers, and I 
received threats of physical harm. Messages were received, 
including threats to our safety and vulgar insults, claiming we 
had stolen the election. We even faced armed protesters outside 
of our voting facility, some of whom brandished weapons a short 
distance from our front door and verbally accosted staff 
members as they entered and exited our facility.
    Another challenge we were forced to deal with more than in 
any previous election was the recruitment of poll workers 
during the pandemic. In my new position as the Chief Election 
Officer for Operations with the Election Center, the national 
association of election officials, I work for an organization 
with over a 35-year history of supporting election official 
education, certification, and networking opportunities. As a 
member of the Election Center since 2004, I attribute much of 
my success as an election administrator to the training and 
networking opportunities this organization provided me over the 
years.
    As a leader in the elections community, we work to 
collaborate with several organizations, such as the EAC, CISA, 
National Association of Secretaries of State, National 
Association of State Election Directors, as well as other 
groups in the elections community, to provide information and 
opportunity to election officials to further their 
professionalism in election administration.
    We have begun work to expand opportunities for officials by 
adding classes at our conferences about how local and State 
election officials can develop in-State training programs and 
how to create and sustain their own State associations of and 
for local election administrators. This is incredibly important 
work.
    What is missing in some cases are the resources and 
knowledge on how to build and maintain these State 
organizations. In the past 2 years, we have seen an exodus from 
the profession. In some States, a third or even half of their 
election officials have left the work that they love and have 
dedicated their professional lives to. Election officials are 
exhausted, and many do not feel supported in the difficult work 
that they do. This loss of institutional knowledge intensifies 
the importance of strong training and an educational 
programming.
    The Election Center stands ready to do its part as a leader 
in the community for providing training and networking 
opportunities for all election official members. Election 
administrators want education and training to improve the 
efficiency of their office, to serve the voters in the most 
effective way, but access is not uniformly available due to the 
limitations I have outlined.
    That is why it is so important that local, State, and 
Federal agencies work to provide funding and support for 
election officials across the Nation. Long-term and consistent 
funding needs to be a priority to allow those who wish to 
obtain training in their fields to do so, as well as the 
ability to purchase the tools necessary to efficiently conduct 
elections in all jurisdictions, which will result in increased 
confidence in our voting processes by all voters.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gloria follows:]

            PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH PAUL GLORIA
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Mr. Gloria.
    I will now recognize Mr. Loudermilk for 5 minutes for the 
purpose of questioning our witnesses.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you all for being here today for this very important 
topic.
    First, Mr. von--excuse me. This is a tongue twister for me. 
Spakovsky. How was that?
    Mr. von Spakovsky. That was very good.
    Mr. Loudermilk. All right. Given your experience with 
working with the Department of Justice and Fulton County, 
Georgia, what insights can you give us regarding photo or voter 
ID or Real ID?
    Mr. von Spakovsky. The claims that that suppresses votes 
have been proven to be untrue. I mean, Georgia's law has been 
in place, as you know, since the 2008 Presidential election.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Right.
    Mr. von Spakovsky. They have had record registration, 
record turnout since then.
    Two years ago, the National Bureau of Economic Research 
actually released a study. They looked at 10 years' worth of 
data from 2008 through 2018, comparing States with voter ID to 
States that have no ID of any kind like California and New 
York. Their conclusion was that voter ID has absolutely no 
effect on individuals, including--it does not matter what race 
they are. It does not matter their gender. It does not matter 
what socioeconomic group.
    We know that the public supports this because the polling 
on this is actually quite, quite something. You know, Americans 
disagree on many issues very sharply. The one thing they agree 
on is that it is common sense to require an ID to vote. A 
overwhelming majority of Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, 
Blacks, Whites, Hispanics all think we should--people should 
show an ID to vote.
    The latest election in Georgia proves that once again. 
Georgia was harshly criticized for extending its voter ID 
requirement for in-person voting to absentee balloting.
    Well, I just released a study looking at the turnout of the 
voting-eligible population. That is the most--one of the most 
accurate ways of looking at turnout. Georgia had turnout 6 
percentage points above the national turnout. It had better 
turnout than Delaware, the home State of the President, who 
harshly criticized the bill. It had higher turnout than 
California, the home of Nancy Pelosi, Representative Nancy 
Pelosi, who harshly criticized the bill. It had higher turnout 
than the State of New York, the home State of Chuck Schumer, 
who harshly criticized the bill.
    The idea that voter ID somehow keeps people from voting is 
just not true.
    Mr. Loudermilk. We had--in the last Congress, we had former 
attorney general in here and was talking about this issue, and 
the polls had just come out that showed that 80 percent of 
Americans----
    Mr. von Spakovsky. That is right.
    Mr. Loudermilk [continuing]. supported voter ID.
    I asked him: Do you support that? Do you support the idea 
that 80 percent of Americans think there should be security in 
the elections and that you have to prove who are you and that 
you are eligible to vote?
    He said: Yes, depending on what type of ID.
    What he was getting at is, you know, we should use student 
IDs or some form of utility payment.
    How is that a problem? I mean, is not it important that you 
have some form of verified identification?
    Mr. von Spakovsky. It is. I could produce a utility bill 
using Word on my computer.
    You need a photo ID. The key thing to keep in mind with 
this is that every single State that has put in an ID 
requirement--and that is now the majority of the States--has 
put in a requirement that, if you do not have an ID, you can 
get one for free. It just has proven not to be a problem. Like 
I said, we have got more than a decade's worth of data to show 
that it is not a problem.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Well, and I was part of the Georgia General 
Assembly in the House when we passed the voter ID bill, and it 
was highly supported.
    Let me shift quickly in the 1 minute I have and talk about 
voter rolls and the significant problems we have of voter rolls 
in our Nation. Some States are compliant with section 8 of the 
National Voter Registration Act and conduct routine list 
maintenance. However, others refuse to do that.
    In your opinion, why would a State intentionally refuse to 
perform list maintenance?
    Mr. von Spakovsky. I cannot answer that. I mean, there is 
currently a lawsuit going on in Michigan against the Michigan 
Secretary of State because she refuses to take 27,000 
individuals who are dead off the voter rolls. That was filed by 
the Public Interest Legal Foundation. They verified the 
information themselves, sent it to the Secretary of State. She 
refuses to take them off. You would have to ask her why she is 
not willing to do that.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Well, I see Mr. Cuccinelli was--responded.
    Do you have an answer to that?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Yes, look, I have been an attorney general. 
I have done investigations. I think the reason for it is the 
desire to keep, to build in problems, to have muddy voter rolls 
that can be exploited. That is the only rational explanation, 
and that is unfortunate.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Mrs. Torres is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Chairman.
    Mr. Cuccinelli, it is my understanding that you testified 
before a Federal grand jury on efforts to undermine the 2020 
Presidential election. You also provided testimony to the 
Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the 
United States Capitol. I have a few questions for you, sir.
    In a December 7, 2021, transcribed interview, you discuss 
several instances where some officials related to former 
President Trump and his campaign approached you, asking about 
the ability of the Department of Homeland Security, where you 
serve as Acting Deputy Secretary, to seize voting machines.
    Your response during those conversations was that DHS did 
not have the authority to take such a step. Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Yes, ma'am.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you.
    The final report of the Select Committee to Investigate the 
January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol discusses a 
phone call on December 31st, 2020, where former President Trump 
asked you whether DHS could seize voting machines.
    As discussed in the final report, your response to former 
President Trump was, again, that DHS did not have the authority 
to seize voting machines. Correct?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. That does not sound correct, no.
    Mrs. Torres. OK. I have here the report on page 397 that 
states: At that point, the President called Ken Cuccinelli. 
Donoghue recalled the President saying something along the 
lines of: Ken, the Acting Attorney General is telling me it is 
your job to seize machines.
    Do you recall that?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. No. What I specifically do not recall is 
ever having that conversation by phone. I had one 
conversation--I think that might just be a misunderstanding 
there. I was not present. To the earlier question, one person 
asked me. That was Rudy Giuliani. I think that is well-
established at this point.
    I gave him my answer: No, we do not have that authority.
    I was never pressed on it again. The President asked that 
question of me one time. I answered the same way, and I was not 
pressed on it again.
    Mrs. Torres. My follow-up question to you, you were 
consistent, correct, in your----
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Yes.
    Mrs. Torres [continuing]. response that the Federal 
Government did not have the authority to seize the voting 
machines?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. No, that the Department of Homeland 
Security did not have the authority to seize voting machines, 
given the set of facts as I understood them.
    Mrs. Torres. OK. My correction. The Department of Homeland 
Security, as you were being asked by President Trump, did not 
have the authority to seize those machines.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. That is correct.
    Mrs. Torres. How do you think this looks to the American 
people when the former President and his advisors repeatedly 
express an interest in seizing voting machines, especially 
after being repeatedly advised by senior officials in the 
Department of Justice and at DHS that the Government lacked 
such authority?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Again, you are expanding to the whole 
Government. The FBI has very substantial jurisdictional 
authority. The Department of Homeland Security does not.
    Mrs. Torres. OK. How do you feel about how that looks to 
the general public? What is your opinion?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. I expect to be asked questions. I answered 
those questions. You know, I appreciated the fact that that was 
the end of the discussion as it related to me. There was no 
pressure to do any of that. So----
    Mrs. Torres. I did not ask you that. I asked you what is 
your opinion on how that looks to the general public that you 
were being asked to do something that you knew that the 
Department that you worked for at least did not have the 
authority to do that?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. I had to research the question. I did not 
just know it.
    Mrs. Torres. I understand.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. I do not take offense at being asked a 
question.
    Mrs. Torres. That was not my question.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Well, it was. How do you feel about being 
asked about this? That was----
    Mrs. Torres. No, no, I asked you----
    Mr. Cuccinelli. That was the only exchange that I had----
    Mrs. Torres. How do you think this looks to the general 
public? Do you think that it promotes confidence in our 
elections when the President is being asked of its officials to 
do something that they do not have the authority to do?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Well, he asked the officials: Do you have 
the authority?
    The answer is no. I was never ordered or asked to do that. 
He respected that answer. I think that--so you asked about 
feelings. I feel that the average American would appreciate the 
President respecting that answer.
    Mrs. Torres. When you say the President respected that 
answer, but yet time and time again we heard over television 
the President saying or over the radio the President saying or 
demanding that these machines be seized.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. The usual legal authority for that would be 
within the States if there is a problem. Again, you may cite 
his other comments but----
    Mrs. Torres. My time is up. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman, Mr. Murphy, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you all for coming today. I will just actually 
continue on that line of questioning.
    Mr. Cuccinelli, how do you think the American people would 
feel that the Michigan State Secretary of State would allow 
27,000 dead people to be on a roll?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. I think they would be astonished and for 
the--and the follow up that they could not conceive of a 
legitimate, clean, legal reason to do that.
    Dr. Murphy. I am kind of flabbergasted. I mean, I do not 
know how she says that and, personally, with a straight face.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Mr. Murphy, she is not alone. I mean, Los 
Angeles had to be ordered to take 1.2 million nonvoters off the 
rolls, 1.2 million. This goes on all around the country, 
unfortunately,
    Dr. Murphy. I will just push that further. What intent, 
other than fraud, could there be for wanting to allow such 
things?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. I do not think there is any other intent.
    Dr. Murphy. I mean, help me----
    Mr. Cuccinelli. I think----
    Dr. Murphy [continuing]. out here.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. I think it is----
    Dr. Murphy. Is there something else?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. It is to leave open the opportunity. Short 
of fraud, there is also mere confusion. I believe the left has 
and knows it has and tries to exploit having a litigation 
advantage, because they are just staffed up around the country 
and have been for 20 years, to sue. Prior to you coming in, I 
noted I--one of my races was a recount, and that is litigation. 
The left has a bigger litigation machine by far than the right.
    They--so muddiness and confusion works to their advantage. 
It plays into--it leads into litigation where they deem 
themselves to have an advantage.
    Dr. Murphy. I am just--you know, I would love to think that 
people just want to be fair on both sides and let the issues 
make what they are.
    Somewhat in that same line, Mr. von Spakovsky--Griffith, 
you did better--could you opine as to anybody, why anybody 
would be against voter ID? Why--why--what is the rationale to 
say it is wrong?
    Mr. von Spakovsky. Well, I think some folks have been under 
the mistaken impression that it keeps people from voting. As 
the turnout data has now proven, that is just simply not true. 
Not only that, but the polling shows that people support that 
idea.
    Once you know that, that it does not actually keep people 
from voting, again, I do not know why you would be against it. 
If you are, then you must be against requiring a photo ID for 
the many other----
    Dr. Murphy. To get on a phone, to get your SNAP benefits, 
to get your Medicaid benefits, to, you know, do anything. 
Again, I am just trying to figure out what rationale other than 
wanting wantonly to commit fraud would there be for these 
things? I just----
    Mr. von Spakovsky. I do not know. I am not going to speak 
for folks who are against it. I just do know that the evidence 
on this shows it does not keep people from voting. In fact, I 
think there is some evidence that it actually enhances 
confidence----
    Dr. Murphy. I think it does.
    Mr. von Spakovsky.--and may help increase turnout.
    In Georgia, when the voter ID law was in place for the 
first time in 2008, Presidential election, they had a huge 
increase----
    Dr. Murphy. Yes.
    Mr. von Spakovsky.--in turnout and turnout there in that 
State, they maintained it by race. Huge increase in turnout of 
African-American voters and Hispanic voters.
    Dr. Murphy. There was a 5-percent total increase when it 
was, quote, the ``most restrictive,'' you know, law put forth--
anyway, that is just nonsense.
    Let me just follow up on one other question.
    One means to increase election integrity and boost 
confidence are post-election audits. When we discuss them, we 
refer to actions such as making sure the electrical equipment 
is working, ballots cast were eligible, and qualified voters.
    We are not talking about ballot recounts, where there is 
not comprehensive audits. We are just talking about integrity 
of these things.
    Looking back across the United States, how common do we 
have post-election audits at both the State and local level? I 
mean, is this a common thing? Is it not a common thing?
    Mr. von Spakovsky. In terms of comprehensive audits--not a 
recount; that is not an audit--comprehensive audits, almost no 
one does it. The first State that has put in a requirement----
    Dr. Murphy. Should we be doing it?
    Mr. von Spakovsky. Yes, we should. Texas has passed a law 
requiring audits. Their Secretary of State's office has formed 
a brand-new audit division.
    Right now they are just--because no one's done it, there 
are not any standards for it. I did publish a paper last year 
in which I took the kind of standards that are used in 
financial audits and converted those to the kind of standards 
we ought to have for election audits.
    This should not be a partisan thing.
    Dr. Murphy. Absolutely not. I agree.
    Mr. von Spakovsky. Everyone should--everyone should agree 
that we should have post-election audits that look at the 
entire process, because----
    Dr. Murphy. Right. Let me just get one--I am sorry.
    Mr. von Spakovsky. OK.
    Dr. Murphy. Let me just get one more question in for you.
    Mr. von Spakovsky. Sure.
    Dr. Murphy. President Biden issued an executive order, 
March 2021, supposedly to promote, quote, ``access to voting.'' 
In the order, he directed Federal employees to get involved in 
State elections by meddling in voter registration efforts and 
mail-in ballot and other activities.
    Is this a constitutional authority?
    Mr. von Spakovsky. I did not think he had any authority to 
do that. As Secretary Warner said in a letter, along with a 
number of other Secretaries of State, this basically interfered 
and could cause chaos and confusion.
    Dr. Murphy. All right.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Sewell is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony.
    I want to start by just clearing up a misconception.
    I am a staunch supporter of making sure that we have access 
to voting, and I believe that, when a State picks winners and 
losers based on that photo ID, that it is not fair.
    No one--let me repeat--no one in the movement for voting 
rights ever said that we are against photo ID. Let us be very 
clear.
    What I am against is if my State chooses to have the photo 
ID--accept the photo ID of a hunting license but not a student 
ID. Is that fair? I would say no. I would say that you are 
making it harder for students to vote, and that is not--every 
American should have access to the ballot box.
    I want to just clear up this misconception that somehow we 
do not want photo IDs or any IDs. I think that what we are 
really challenging is the reality that some people do not have 
a driver's license; some people do not travel abroad, so they 
do not have a passport; some people do not hunt; some people do 
not fish.
    When States pick winners and losers based on their policies 
and laws, I think there is a role for the Federal Government to 
play in oversight. When a State like North Dakota decides that 
the only way you can register to vote in that State is that you 
have to have a physical address, and thousands of folks who 
live on Indian Country have P.O. boxes, you are picking winners 
and losers. I think that that is unfair.
    I am very proud of the fact that I carried the seminal 
piece of legislation to fully restore the Voting Rights Act of 
1965. I not only represent Alabama's Seventh congressional 
District--has it in Birmingham, Montgomery, and my hometown of 
Selma, Alabama. I grew up in that town. I am very proud of the 
fact that I get to carry that bill.
    Let me tell you something. Never in a million years did I 
think that, 58 years later, a daughter of Selma would have to 
have a bill to restore the Voting Rights Act. Never. We are 
going backward and not forwards. I have a serious problem with 
that.
    I think that when States go amok there has to be oversight. 
Currently, there is not oversight. Why? The Supreme Court 
struck down Section 4--not the enforceability of it, by the 
way. The enforceability is Federal oversight. That is Section 
5. Section 4 is the formula to determine what States have gone 
amok, have just gone off the rails.
    To assume that States do not have the ability to do that, 
picking winners and losers and the like, I do not--I am not 
sure why someone would object to having a law that allows 
Federal oversight when States are going too far.
    I guess my question to you--and I would like each of you to 
answer this question--is: Do you believe that the Federal 
Government has any role, a role, for oversight over States when 
it comes to voting rights?
    Mr. Warner? Just a simple ``yes'' or ``no.'' Do----
    Mr. Warner. Yes.
    Ms. Sewell [continuing]. you believe in Federal oversight?
    Mr. Warner. Yes.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Preventing discrimination, yes, like 
Section 2.
    Ms. Sewell. Sir?
    Mr. von Spakovsky. Yes. That is what I did at the Justice 
Department, enforcing the Voting Rights Act, the NVRA, and 
UOCAVA. The authorities limit it----
    Ms. Sewell. Just a simple ``yes'' or ``no,'' because I only 
have 41 minutes.
    Mr. Palmer?
    Forty-one seconds. I need to go back to my other hearing.
    Yes or----
    Mr. Palmer. Yes.
    Ms. Sewell [continuing]. no, sir?
    Mr. Palmer. Yes, in an assistance role.
    Ms. Sewell. Mr. Gloria?
    Mr. Gloria. Yes, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Sewell. I think the best thing that we in this 
Committee, especially my Subcommittee that I am so happy to be 
Ranking Member of and really enjoy working with the chair, I 
think that we have to figure out a way to get some Federal 
oversight back in.
    I think it is wrong when States pick winners and losers 
based on what type of ID. I believe in IDs. My dad, who was 
disabled, voted with a perfectly valid ID that every American 
has, a Social Security card, up until 2015 or 2014, when 
Alabama changed that law.
    Now, yes, you can say that you can get that ID for free. 
The reality is, you have to have access to transportation. You 
have to access--the only reason why my dad got one is because I 
knew Secretary of State Merrill. That is unacceptable. You do 
not have to be a Member of Congress to get access to photo ID.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The----
    Ms. Sewell. Thank you for my indulgence.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Carey is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you giving 
me the opportunity to go a little bit out of order here.
    Secretary Warner, it is good to see you.
    Mr. Warner. Thank you.
    Mr. Carey. All the work you have done in Virginia. Your 
family, I am really proud what Mountaineers. It is good to have 
you before the Committee.
    I do want to ask you a couple of questions. First is, we 
have members of the military overseas fighting for our 
freedoms. With that being said, there is no better place to 
focus our attention on, the ability to give our military 
veterans and our servicemembers the right to vote.
    What are the tools that you are using in West Virginia to 
increase military opportunities to vote?
    Mr. Warner. The most prominent is the ability to vote using 
a mobile device. I had trouble--I was in Afghanistan for 5 
years, and I had trouble voting. I went 6 months without being 
able to send or receive mail.
    My sons and daughters, all four, have served in the 
military. Every one of them has had trouble voting.
    My brother's roommate, Shane Kimbrough, was commander of 
SpaceX. How is he supposed to vote on the space station if it 
is not using some sort of mobile device?
    That is why one of the first things I did when I went into 
office, was I said, let us come up with an electronic way to 
transmit and receive ballots. That is what we have done in the 
State of West Virginia. Who better than our military?
    Also, it worked so well in West Virginia that we went to 
voters with certain disabilities and now first responders. We 
actually deployed first responders to the State of Mississippi 
on a hurricane disaster relief within the 6-day period prior to 
an election, so they lost that ability to vote. That is why we 
have championed that.
    We now have a verifiable system to both check the ballot 
that they send; is the ballot received? We are advancing that 
technology in those limited circumstances. I do not advocate 
going mainstream with this. I simply want it for those people 
who otherwise would be disenfranchised.
    Mr. Carey. I appreciate that.
    My next question is going to be to you, Mr. Palmer.
    The security and performance of election equipment used by 
our States and our localities has been under significant 
scrutiny. We have heard concerns from the public about the fact 
that there are components of our election equipment being 
manufactured outside of the United States.
    Is it true that there are certain components of the 
election equipment that are not made in America?
    Mr. Palmer. That is true.
    Mr. Carey. What would it take to re-shore some of the 
election equipment used in the country's elections?
    Mr. Palmer. Sir, that would be a significant endeavor, 
since most of the voting equipment does use sources from 
outside the country. It would probably raise the price of 
election equipment significantly.
    There could be some requirements to assemble in the United 
States. There are other risk management strategies to sort on 
the supply chain. There would be a significant cost to that for 
election equipment on the States.
    Mr. Carey. What countries are these components being 
manufactured?
    Mr. Palmer. They are--you have the Philippines. You have 
Taiwan, where you might have certain components. Even Italy, 
the European Union--you know, European countries, and perhaps 
even China.
    There are states--there are nations out there in the supply 
chain that provide materials that we do not--we simply do not 
manufacture today in mass quantities.
    Mr. Carey. It is safe to say that there could be companies 
that are Chinese that--whether they are manufacturing them or 
whether they have ownership of those companies, that are 
actually Chinese companies?
    Mr. Palmer. Well, Chinese companies are providing 
components and materials to a piece of voting equipment, a 
voting system that is in then manufactured by one of the 
vendors. Yes.
    Mr. Carey. OK. Thank you, Mr. Palmer.
    Mr. Chairman, yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Kilmer is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Thanks, all, for being here.
    As you know, under Federal law, there are disclaimer 
requirements, transparency requirements, when candidates, when 
campaigns run ads on TV, on radio, on satellite. However, on 
the large internet platforms, there are not those sorts of 
requirements. They are not subject to those transparency laws.
    That is concerning, not just from a public's right-to-know 
standpoint, but we know that there are foreign adversaries that 
have tried to influence our elections through the purchase of 
online ads. There was a 2021 declassified assessment by the 
Office of the Director of National Intelligence that pointed to 
Russia's online influence, Iran seeking to create and amplify 
social media content. There has been reports about China doing 
the same thing.
    Earlier this month, I joined with Mike Gallagher, Mike 
Gallagher, my Republican colleague on the Senate side, a bill--
the same bill Amy Klobuchar and Lindsey Graham--a bill called 
the Honest Ads Act. Simply put, it has the same disclosure 
requirements that exist for TV, radio, and satellite and apply 
them to online political advertisement. The goal here is both 
basic transparency but also trying to prevent foreign actors 
from trying to influence our elections.
    Mr. Gloria, I was hoping you could speak a bit about how 
the Election Center views these challenges around transparency 
of online political ads and specifically the extent to which 
the status quo treatment of online political ads has impacted 
trust in our system.
    Mr. Gloria. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
    I want to emphasize that the Election Center focuses on the 
administration of elections, and even as an election official, 
my main focus was in the administration. However, we always 
emphasize transparency.
    I can tell you that, in my experience as an election 
official, we had a similar situation where several clerks and 
the registrars were having trouble educating the general public 
because we had certain groups that would send out voter 
registration material and they did a poor job of qualifying 
their list. As a result, people who were already registered to 
vote were getting registration applications, and the general 
public assumed that it was coming from our office. It created 
quite a bit of trouble.
    We passed legislation in Nevada that required those groups 
to identify their mailers, as to who they were, where they were 
coming from. That created a better situation for us. It 
immediately improved.
    I think that is a very similar situation to what you are 
describing. Transparency is very important. Knowing where 
information is coming from, I think, is vital to protecting 
against mis- and disinformation that severely impacts election 
officials across the country.
    Mr. Kilmer. I also was just hoping to ask you all about 
funding.
    I am from Washington State. My State is second in voting 
accessibility. We had the third-highest turnout in primary 
elections last year.
    I would also note, our State passed same-day voter 
registration, high school pre-registration, restoration of 
voting rights, automatic voter legislation, all on a bipartisan 
basis with a Republican Secretary of State. They have been 
really helpful to helping our constituents participate in the 
process.
    I know Federal funding and resources can help States with 
the execution of free and fair elections and improving voter 
access and cybersecurity, helping to train and, unfortunately, 
more and more, protect poll workers.
    The Brennan Center released a poll that said the lack of 
Federal funding actually hurts election security. Seventy-four 
percent of local election officials say they need their annual 
budget to grow to address election security and administration 
in particular.
    I just hope that each of you could just comment--and I only 
have a minute left--on how your States have used Help America 
Vote Act funding and the importance of those funds. A couple of 
us are on the Appropriations Committee, and I know the 
stability and consistency of that funding is a problem.
    I do not know if you would want to just speak briefly about 
the HAVA funds.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. I cannot speak to the specifics of 
Virginia, but your last comment, the stability--a major concern 
would be, given how deeply bankrupt the Federal Government is, 
that if you start too deeply down that path, you do end up with 
dependency. You know, when the market stops buying your debt 
and you go off the cliff and so many things get--the funding 
will get yanked, you are going to put the election system in a 
position where it is going to be a--it is going to be a major 
victim of that coming Federal Government financial crash that 
there is no way around. I mean, trying to pretend it is not 
going to happen is like avoiding math. That is a real concern.
    It would be a lot like the funding change in our State 
budget in the internet bubble at the end of the 20th century. 
You know, northern Virginia, a lot of that money, and then when 
it went away we had a lot of problems.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you.
    I know I am over time. Thanks, Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Mrs. Bice is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you to the witnesses for being here with us this 
afternoon.
    I want to take a step back to May 2020. I served in the 
Oklahoma State Senate. I actually oversaw the election board in 
my time there. Because of COVID, groups decided to sue the 
State of Oklahoma to remove the notary requirement for absentee 
ballots.
    Their argument was, it was too onerous for an individual to 
try to find a notary to be able to verify the ballot and that 
the particular statute that this was put in was in the wrong 
statute, and so--or wrong title of law, so it did not qualify.
    The lawsuit was heard by the Supreme Court, and the Supreme 
Court ruled, in fact, that it was in the wrong title of law and 
threw out that requirement.
    The State of Oklahoma does not have any other way to verify 
ballots. That happened 7 weeks before a primary election in 
2020. Now, fortunately the State Senate--the State legislature 
was in session, and we were able to remedy that quickly. I have 
concerns about the access discussion, because, had we not been 
able to address that issue, had the legislature not been in 
session, we would have had no way at all to verify absentee 
ballots in the State of Oklahoma.
    I want to address Ms. Sewell's comment about Government-
issued ID. I think we both are on the side of wanting that. In 
Oklahoma, you have to show an ID when you show up at the polls. 
Even as a Member of Congress that has been going to the same 
polling location for 16 years and the poll workers know who I 
am--they get excited to see me when I actually get to go vote 
in person--they still say, ``Congresswoman Bice, would you 
please show us your ID?''
    That being said, I want to make a distinction. A student ID 
is different from a hunting license in that it is not 
Government-issued. A student ID is not Government-issued. There 
is that distinction there, which I think is why there are 
certain laws protecting those IDs.
    I am not suggesting a student ID is invalid. I am saying, 
the law is, especially in Oklahoma, it has to be a Government-
issued ID. It can be a Tribal, it can be Federal, it can be 
State. There is that distinction.
    You also--Ms. Sewell also addressed issues with addresses 
on Tribal lands. I fully appreciate that issue, which is why I 
am actually excited that the ACE Act tries to remedy that by 
requiring the States, the Tribes, and the Postal Service to 
come together to be able to fix what seemingly is a challenge 
with physical addresses, especially, as she mentioned, in the 
State of North Dakota.
    My question is--a couple.
    First of all, Mr. Warner, when you sign your name on a 
document, do you sign your name the same every single time?
    Mr. Warner. No, I do not.
    Mrs. Bice. Mr. Cuccinelli?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. No.
    Mrs. Bice. Mr. von Spakovsky? My apologies for butchering 
that, sir.
    Mr. von Spakovsky. Well, I try to, but signatures all vary.
    Mrs. Bice. Mr. Palmer?
    Mr. Palmer. I try to, but, again, no.
    Mrs. Bice. Mr. Gloria?
    Mr. Gloria. Yes, I do make an attempt to try to keep it 
consistent.
    Mrs. Bice. The question is important, because, Mr. Gloria, 
in the State of Nevada, the only way that you have to verify a 
ballot is through signature verification. Is that correct?
    Mr. Gloria. That is the first level of verification, is to 
check that the signature matches. That is correct.
    Mrs. Bice. How can you have any sort of sense of accuracy 
or confidence in the ability to accept a ballot when almost 
everyone on this panel today--and I would add myself into this 
mix--would tell you that their signatures vary, sometimes 
widely, when they sign a document, especially as we age?
    My voter registration when I was 18 years old is probably 
pretty different than the signature I now have at almost 50.
    How can we have any certainty that these ballots are valid?
    Mr. Gloria. Well, I would say, first off, Congresswoman--
and thank you for the question--we have a database of 
signatures. Any document that comes from the voter, whether 
they are signing in to vote, whether it is an absentee ballot, 
or mail ballot, I should say, or an update of information, we 
store that----
    Mrs. Bice. Can you clarify ``updated information'' for me?
    Mr. Gloria [continuing]. we store that signature in our 
database, and so we have a bank of them.
    Mrs. Bice. Can you clarify ``updated information'' for me?
    Mr. Gloria. Updated information related to their address, 
that would be one example.
    Mrs. Bice. It is solely related to voter--you are not 
collecting signatures from other either entities or private 
business. Is that correct?
    Mr. Gloria. Not private businesses, no, Congresswoman, but 
we do collect them from the Department of Motor Vehicles.
    Mrs. Bice. OK. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much.
    We do have votes at 4 o'clock, so we are keeping it--I am 
going to try to keep everybody at 5.
    Mr. Sarbanes is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for 
the opportunity to waive on to the Committee.
    I want to thank the panelists for being here today.
    As you know, we had a piece of legislation in the last 
Congress called the For the People Act, which was H.R. 1. The 
goal was not to federalize elections across the country; the 
goal was to set some uniform standards that then States and 
local jurisdictions could seek to meet in a variety of ways.
    The idea was to try to make it easier for people to access 
the ballot box, eliminate what has been in many places sort of 
running an obstacle course in order to have their voice heard. 
That was among a variety of reforms that were contained in the 
bill.
    We continue to view strengthening our democracy as an 
absolute priority. We have recently relaunched the Task Force 
on Strengthening Democracy, which brings together members of 
our caucus who view this as a priority. That could be pretty 
much everybody in our caucus, but we have leadership that is on 
the front lines in many places across the country, seeing the 
opportunity for people to cast their vote, have their voice 
heard, diminished, it seems, increasingly with each passing 
day.
    I also want to note that, if you are looking for examples 
of where the elections were fraudulent or there was evidence of 
fraud, the 2020 Presidential election is not the place to look. 
Experts agree--impartial, objective experts agree that that 
election was one of the most free of fraud, an election with 
absolute integrity, in many respects, that we have seen.
    That was corroborated and validated, by the way, through a 
whole series of court decisions which batted away the notion 
that fraud had occurred in that election.
    The evidence is that the incidence of fraud is extremely 
small, when you look at American elections. The bigger problem, 
if you are looking for integrity, is how to protect integrity 
of the voices of the voters and the American people.
    The way you do that is, you make it so that when somebody 
gets up in the morning on the day they have decided to cast 
their vote, whether that be by mail, whether it be at an early 
voting center, whether it is on election day, that they have 
confidence that they can complete that transaction without it 
being an ordeal. That is all we are trying to aspire toward 
here in setting those uniform standards.
    I would like, actually, Mr. Gloria, to ask you, based on 
your experience: Among the reforms that we wanted to see, these 
uniform standards, established at the Federal level to apply to 
elections, by the way, involving United States citizens across 
the country, were universal no-excuse mail-in voting, early 
voting, automatic voter registration, same-day voter 
registration, online voter registration, access to ballot 
dropboxes, and so forth.
    Based on your experience, some 30 years of experience 
administering elections, can you tell us more about how some of 
these policies in Nevada have been implemented?
    Can you tell us about the safeguards in place to ensure 
that both the process was secure and that a voter was given a 
real chance--a real chance--to ensure that their ballot was 
counted if there was any kind of an error?
    Mr. Gloria. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. That 
is a broad area to cover in 40 seconds, so I will start with 
the automatic voter registration.
    It was a collaborative effort with the Secretary of State 
after the law was passed. We worked for a year to develop the 
program to ensure that we would receive secure data from the 
DMV, updated information related to voter registration, so that 
we could use that trusted transaction with a Government entity 
to get them registered to vote.
    Our voter rolls did increase as a result of that activity, 
and it was very successful in the State of Nevada.
    With the mail ballot process, as a result of trying to 
react to the COVID pandemic, which was very tough to deal with, 
the mail process that we had--we had many processes already in 
place where our processes were statutorily mandated and so what 
they added was a cure process. They added some additional time 
to receive that ballot as long as it was postmarked. Those 
efforts were very successful in the State of Nevada.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much.
    The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. D'Esposito is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have a few questions. I will start with, I guess, locally 
first. I guess you could go down the row and anyone--or, 
everyone can answer.
    Here in the Nation's capital, D.C. recently enacted 
noncitizen voting, which would allow staff from Chinese and 
Russian embassies to vote in D.C. elections.
    The first question is, which I think is fairly obvious: 
Does anyone think this is a good idea?
    We will start at the end.
    Mr. Warner. No. It is a terrible idea.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. No. No.
    Mr. von Spakovsky. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Palmer. No.
    Mr. Gloria. I would rather not express an opinion. We are 
not here to endorse anything with the Election Center or, quite 
frankly, as an election official. We administered. We were not 
involved with the policy.
    Mr. D'Esposito. OK. All right.
    I guess the next question would be: Could allowing members 
of the CCP and Russian nationals to vote in our elections--and 
I will speak not only here but in our country's election--be 
viewed--you all have institutional knowledge--as foreign 
interference? I guess that is a basic ``yes'' or ``no.''
    Mr. Warner. Yes.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Absolutely.
    Mr. von Spakovsky. Yes, of course it is foreign 
interference.
    Mr. Palmer. I think it would hurt voter confidence.
    Mr. D'Esposito. I appreciate it. That is really why the 
questions are being asked, because the whole point today is to 
talk about the American confidence in voting. When you have the 
Nation's capital, which is supposed to be what everyone looks 
at, you know, the representation of this great country, and we 
are allowing Russian and Chinese staff from embassies to vote 
in our elections--that is really why the question was asked.
    My next question is to Mr. von Spakovsky. I am going to 
bring it back home to New York.
    In 2022, a law was enacted in New York City that would have 
allowed noncitizen voting in local elections if it had not been 
struck down by a State supreme court justice that same year. 
However, other jurisdictions across the country, like 
Washington, D.C., do allow noncitizens to vote in their local 
elections.
    Noncitizens are prohibited by Federal law from voting in 
Federal elections.
    Obviously, back in New York, we are thankful that the State 
supreme court justice stepped in. It has become a city of no 
rules, as I am sure many of you have seen on the news.
    I am going to ask you: What actions can election officials 
take to ensure that noncitizens who are permitted to vote in 
local elections are not voting in Federal elections?
    Mr. von Spakovsky. Well, in fact, that is the real problem. 
Election officials in every State maintain one list--one list 
of registered voters that are qualified to vote in local 
elections, State elections, and Federal elections.
    The absolute only way I know of that you could prevent 
mistakes from occurring and prevent aliens from voting in those 
other elections that they are not supposed to be voting in is 
to have two entirely separate voter registration lists and two 
entirely separate ballots if you have local elections at the 
same time, on the same day, as State and Federal elections.
    Because, otherwise, there is going to be a lot of confusion 
that exists, for example, on election day, and you are going to 
have bleeding over from local elections into State and Federal. 
I mean, I do not know of any other way to prevent that from 
happening.
    Mr. D'Esposito. I agree with you.
    Mr. Gloria, no disrespect, that is really why the question 
was asked. Because our whole purpose today is to talk about the 
American people's confidence in elections, and I think when we 
are allowing issues like this to take place throughout the 
country, it is quite a slap in the face to anybody's 
confidence.
    Next, Mr. Cuccinelli, I sit as a Member of the Homeland 
Security Committee, and I know during your tenure as part of 
the Department of Homeland Security you served as both Deputy 
Secretary and Principal Deputy and senior official performing 
the duties of the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services.
    Does DHS make its SAVE database available to States to 
verify a voter's citizenship status?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Technically, yes, but it is been made so 
thoroughly cumbersome and expensive that it has proven 
impractical for States to use it. It has only been used twice 
that I know of, and in those two instances it was for small 
samplings of each of those two States.
    Mr. D'Esposito. OK. As far as you know--and, obviously, I 
am not going back in all the time of history, but, as far as 
you know, that database has only been used two instances and 
never during a general election.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Well, I would not characterize it by where 
in the cycle, because they are continually doing cleaning 
efforts----
    Mr. D'Esposito. OK.
    Mr. Cuccinelli [continuing]. or some of them are. 
Nonetheless, it has only been used twice ever, and those States 
did not come back to use it again. Cumbersome and expensive.
    Mr. D'Esposito. OK.
    Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up. I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Lee is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Lee. Mr. Cuccinelli, I would like to pick up on that 
last answer. You mentioned the SAVE database is not in 
widespread use by election officials. It is cumbersome; it is 
expensive.
    Are there tools that Homeland Security has that could be 
useful and accessible to election officials in trying to 
identify citizenship status?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Well, the SAVE database could be used more 
simply if it were allowed to be and structured to be.
    I was at USCIS only 6 months before I moved on to be the 
Acting Deputy Secretary and spent some time paying attention to 
the subject and realized just what a cumbersome effort that it 
took.
    They do everything they can to make it harder, honestly. It 
is bureaucratic, in addition to the structure of the database 
being problematic.
    It has its limitations. We do not keep lists in this 
country of citizens. What the SAVE database includes is people 
who we have had contact with who are not citizens. Obviously, 
if you think of the got-aways at the border, the million-plus 
got-aways at the border under the Biden administration, they 
are not in the SAVE database.
    Ms. Lee. Uh-huh. Thank you.
    To that point, Mr. von Spakovsky--first of all, thank you 
for being here today. I commend your work as the manager of the 
Heritage's election law reform. Both the Election Fraud 
Database and the scorecard have been valuable tools for us in 
our work to promote voter confidence.
    To bring this home for us, if you would, please, go back to 
the subject of what tools can the Federal Government be 
providing to help States have accurate voter registration 
lists? SAVE database? Other tools? What can we be doing to help 
State election officials improve the accuracy of the lists?
    Mr. von Spakovsky. Well, as Secretary Warner said, the 
Social Security's master death index is--as a requirement, 
States ought to be able to use it easily, freely, and 
frequently without being charged by the Federal Government to 
do it.
    The DHS databases need to be, as Ken Cuccinelli said, 
restructured and made easy to use by election officials so that 
they can do that, use that also to check on citizenship status.
    States need to be allowed to require proof of citizenship 
when people register to vote, in exactly the same manner that 
all employers in the country have to fill out the Federal I-9 
form to show that a person they are hiring is, like I said, a 
U.S. citizen or is an alien who is here legally and has a work 
permit.
    I just do not understand why it is OK for the Federal 
Government to require that of employers and people like me when 
I get hired, but supposedly the States should not be able to be 
allowed to do that?
    Any other Federal databases that contain information on 
where people reside and live should also be open to the States 
to use to check their voter registration lists. The whole point 
of this, like I said, is to get clean rolls.
    Now, if I could make one more point. I am constantly 
hearing people saying, oh, well, if you do that, States are 
going to purge all these voters and people are not going to be 
able to vote.
    No State, when they do these database comparisons, 
automatically takes people off the rolls. They use the 
information they get, showing, for example, that someone is not 
a U.S. citizen, and then they engage in an individual 
investigation to make sure that information is accurate.
    Second, when States make a mistake--let us say they 
mistakenly believe that someone has moved to another State and 
they take them off the rolls--the idea that they are not going 
to be able to vote is wrong. Why? Because Congress, when it 
passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002, put in a requirement 
that every State allow provisional balloting.
    That Federal law, which all the States follow, says, if you 
show up at a polling place and your name is not on the list, 
they have mistakenly removed you, if you tell the election 
official, ``I am a registered voter and I am eligible to 
vote,'' they have to give you a ballot. They give you a 
provisional ballot. You complete it. You fill out information 
on--basic information on when you registered. It is set aside, 
and election officials have to investigate it. They have to 
decide whether your vote counts.
    When I was a county election official in Virginia for 3 
years, we would get provisional ballots like that, and if we 
discovered that a mistake was made, the ballot got counted.
    Even in those, I think, rare circumstances where State 
officials make a mistake, folks are still going to be able to 
vote.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. Votes have been called. We are going to try 
to get through two more Members' questions.
    Ms. Tenney is now recognized for 5 minutes or less.
    Ms. Tenney. Thank you, Chairman Steil.
    Thank you, Congressman Morelle, who is kind of my neighbor. 
I surround him with my new district.
    I am happy to say I went from winning by 109 votes to 
nearly 90,000 after what happened in 2020. A big difference in 
our awareness on getting up to speed. Because of that, I 
founded the Election Integrity Caucus in the House, along with 
Mike Garcia, who also had a very narrow win.
    I just wanted to name a couple things.
    Confidence in our elections is very low. In the weeks 
leading up to the 2020 midterm election, Pew Research polling 
found only 22 percent of voters believed the midterms would be 
administered very well, with only 11 percent of Republicans and 
35 percent of Democrats. Only 26 percent of voters are very 
confident that their vote will be counted when voting with 
absentee ballots or early voting. This is not--this is not a 
good look.
    This is definitely not just a Republican or Democrat issue. 
If you go down to New York City, one of my New York City 
colleagues said, ``You have got to do something about election 
integrity in New York City, because the Democratic primaries 
are not fair.'' I will leave the name out of that person for 
now.
    I wanted to first--I do not have a lot of time, but I 
wanted to jump to Mr. von Spakovsky.
    You have done a lot of work with us. Thank you for all of 
your--I think almost all of you have appeared at our election 
integrity forums.
    I just want to--you know, you just mentioned something that 
is really important. Isn't it a lot easier to look at a 
ballot--to determine the validity of a provisional ballot than 
to try to take back a ballot that was improperly placed, 
especially if you put it into a voting machine?
    Mr. von Spakovsky. Well, that is exactly right. If someone 
votes who, for example, it turns out later does not actually 
live where they are registered to vote--they are from another 
State and they falsely registered--you cannot take that ballot 
out of the ballot box.
    For folks who think that does not happen, a judge 
overturned an election in Compton, California, just last year 
based on the fact that half a dozen individuals falsely 
registered to vote in Compton, voted in that election, and they 
overturned a city council election--the election they falsely 
voted in was decided by one vote.
    Ms. Tenney. I agree. I mean, that was our experience. I 
mean, once you put that ballot in the machine, rightly or 
wrongly, there is no taking it back.
    That is why I--you know, the provisional ballot. I would 
rather see us clean up and do list maintenance and clean up our 
ballot rolls.
    I mean, I continue to get an application--you know, a 
ballot--I mean, an election notification request for my son, 
who has not lived in my house for many years and has registered 
somewhere else and has been registered for 7 years. I continue 
to get from New York State, which is one of the worst, I know, 
a ballot--you know, a registration notice, ``You will be voting 
on this day and this location.''
    You know, I know that there is a lot of controversy over, 
say, ERIC and some of these other types of systems. Isn't there 
something we can do maybe to improve ERIC or to come up with 
another system to make sure that we do not have duplication of 
voters when, you know, and--voting in different States?
    I would propose that to you, maybe, Mr. von Spakovsky, and 
maybe Mr. Cuccinelli.
    Mr. von Spakovsky. One of the biggest problems States 
have--look, States can do a lot on their own. The one problem 
they have is finding individuals who are registered in other 
States.
    One of the things that States should start doing, which 
they have not done before--Tennessee, I believe, is actually 
one of the first States to pass a law allowing this--is, in 
addition to Government databases, States should start accessing 
and using commercial databases, like credit agencies.
    Why? Well, it probably does not surprise you that credit 
bureaus have a lot more up-to-date information than Government 
databases, because they are in business to make a profit and 
they try to keep their information accurate. There is a lot of 
information----
    Ms. Tenney. Wouldn't you say--excuse--just to reclaim my 
time. Wouldn't you say there is a liability issue there, you 
know, where they are going to be removed from being able to do 
that or they are not going to get the bid on the job the next 
time?
    Mr. von Spakovsky. Well----
    Ms. Tenney. I mean, at least there is some certification or 
some type of control in place. When it is Government, it is 
never going to end. There is never going to be accountability, 
really.
    Mr. von Spakovsky. No, that is right.
    Ms. Tenney. I do not mean to blame----
    Mr. von Spakovsky.--they can do.
    Ms. Tenney. Yes. I mean, the boards of elections--I mean, 
in my case, we went almost 10 times the number of absentee 
ballots because of the pandemic; a hundred rules changes by 
Governor Cuomo at the time; no new resources. It was a complete 
unfair situation for our boards of elections. Yes, they made 
mistakes, but they also did not have the resources.
    I liken it to the southern border. We do not have enough 
people to deal with the crisis there, and we blame the border 
agents, but they are doing the best job they can. It is just 
like many of these people that serve on the boards of 
elections. They are trying to make this work.
    They cannot even coordinate--or, could not coordinate under 
the H.R. 1 that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats put through last 
cycle. They would not even be able to coordinate with other 
States.
    I think that you are right. I appreciate it.
    Sorry I did not get to the rest of you, but I know time is 
late and votes have been called. Thank you so much for what you 
do for preserving and protecting election integrity, all of you 
on the panel. Thanks for being here.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
    There are about 300 people that have not voted. I think I 
am the last one to do questions. We will do that, and then we 
will wrap it up.
    I now recognize myself for the purpose of asking questions.
    Mr. Gloria, if I can, you stated earlier that the primary 
form of identification used in Nevada is signature verification 
because you do not have voter ID. Is that accurate?
    Mr. Gloria. That is correct.
    Chairman Steil. You have a voter signature matching machine 
that matches voter ID. It is not a completely human process. Is 
that correct?
    Mr. Gloria. It makes the first attempt, yes.
    Chairman Steil. Right. There is a machine that is utilized 
in the first attempt.
    You can dial the percentage match on this machine between a 
100-percent match, which we all know would not work because 
signatures are not 100 percent accurate even if it is the same 
individual, anywhere from zero to 100. You chose 40-percent 
match. Is that accurate?
    Mr. Gloria. No, sir, that is completely incorrect. The 
setting is not a percentage. For whatever reason, the 
manufacturer decided to choose zero to 100, and so a lot of 
people incorrectly assume that it is a percentage.
    There is an exercise that every jurisdiction must go 
through depending on what system they are using to verify 
signatures. It depends on the quality of your signature 
database.
    It requires a 200 DPI signature in order to verify that 
signature. You run tests, and you get to a point where you are 
comfortable that all of the signatures----
    Chairman Steil. ``You're comfortable''----
    Mr. Gloria [continuing]. that that machine verifies----
    Chairman Steil [continuing]. meaning that, in your 
unilateral decision, that that number, not a percentage--thanks 
for the correction--that that number is the right number? Is 
that accurate?
    Mr. Gloria. Well, what I was going to say, Congressman, was 
that, when we--and I should not say--it was not I; it was a 
group of us who verified the information--felt that we had a 
level of integrity in that every single signature that the 
machine verified was, in fact, a match. That is what my----
    Chairman Steil. Understood. The dial was set at 40, not a 
percentage, but a number 40----
    Mr. Gloria. Yes.
    Chairman Steil [continuing]. which ranged from zero to 100. 
That was a human decision.
    I would offer that photo ID is a far better form of 
matching a ballot to the individual.
    Would you agree with that, Mr. Cuccinelli?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Yes, absolutely. We----
    Chairman Steil. Would you agree with that, Mr. Warner?
    Mr. Warner. Yes.
    Mr. Cuccinelli. If I could just add one comment. Signature 
verification is the lowest form of voter identification. It is 
something, but it is barely above zero.
    Chairman Steil. I would sure think so. It would be pretty 
easy to match a signature of any Member of Congress. It is all 
available on Wikipedia for almost every single Member.
    Let me go back to you, Mr. Gloria. During the 2020 election 
cycle, did Clark County accept funding for election 
administration from nongovernment sources?
    Mr. Gloria. Yes, we did.
    Chairman Steil. Do you know how much Clark County received 
from nongovernment sources, roughly?
    Mr. Gloria. I believe it was approximately $2.4 million.
    Chairman Steil. Do you know who that was from?
    Mr. Gloria. That came from CTCL.
    Chairman Steil. CTCL provided $2.39 million to Clark 
County.
    I ask unanimous consent to enter Clark County's CTCL grant 
agreement into the record.
    So ordered.
    [The CTCL grant agreement referred to follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    
    Chairman Steil. Mr. Gloria, which organizations provided--
let me shift. Did you solicit the grant from CTCL?
    Mr. Gloria. We did request it.
    Chairman Steil. In that process, was any of the grant 
funding used to send out mail ballots to all registered voters 
for the November 2020 election?
    Mr. Gloria. Some of the funding was used for that.
    Chairman Steil. Some of the funding was used to send that 
out.
    The Public Interest Legal Fund issued a report that Clark 
County sent out 1,325,000 ballots for the primary election, and 
more than 223,000 of those were mailed to the wrong or outdated 
addresses.
    In the general election, your office sent out 1.277 million 
ballots, and 92,000 of those were returned undeliverable or 
wrong--to wrong--were--I am going to say that again, because I 
think it is important to get in the record. In the general 
election, your office sent out 1,277,000 ballots, and 92,000 of 
those were returned, undeliverable to wrong or outdated 
addresses.
    Did you perform list maintenance, as required under the 
National Voter Registration Act, between 2018 and 2020?
    Mr. Gloria. Yes, Congressman, we sure did.
    Chairman Steil. You did. Do you have confidence--do you 
have confidence that your elections process--do you have 
confidence in the elections process when voter rolls--do you 
have confidence in the voter rolls in Clark County?
    Mr. Gloria. Absolutely, Congressman. I have to tell you 
that there is--it is a bit of unique county, in that it is very 
transient. A lot of people come into Clark County----
    Chairman Steil. Understood.
    Mr. Gloria [continuing]. and give it a shot and then they 
leave. There is a challenge in dealing with that.
    Chairman Steil. It is a challenge. It is one of the things 
that the ACE Act works to assist States in improving cleaning 
their voter rolls, which I think is essential.
    I want to look ahead to the 2024 election with you. Have 
you received additional funding from CTCL for the 2024 
election?
    Mr. Gloria. Congressman, I am no longer the registrar of 
voters in Clark County, Nevada.
    Chairman Steil. OK. I will note that Clark County has 
received another $3 million from CTCL--$1 million to Clark 
County recently and a promise to give another $2 million in 
December of this year.
    Do you know what those funds will be used for?
    Mr. Gloria. I am no longer the registrar of voters there, 
but I believe that my successor has quite a few areas where we 
still need to make improvements to our facility. We----
    Chairman Steil. Understood.
    Mr. Gloria [continuing]. quickly moved to a mail ballot.
    Chairman Steil. While you were in that role, was Clark 
County required to have any kind of membership agreement with 
U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence, a project of CTCL, to 
receive the grant funding?
    Mr. Gloria. Required to? No, I do not believe there was a 
requirement.
    Chairman Steil. Did you choose--did Clark County enter into 
an agreement with CTCL for that purpose? Or the Election----
    Mr. Gloria. We actually applied to be a member of that 
group, and we were accepted, out of several----
    Chairman Steil. Did you----
    Mr. Gloria [continuing]. hundred people that applied.
    Chairman Steil. Did Clark County share any of its election 
data as part of the membership agreement to receive the grant 
funds?
    Mr. Gloria. Election data? I am sorry?
    Chairman Steil. Yes, election data.
    Mr. Gloria. No, we did not.
    Chairman Steil. OK.
    Have you worked in your capacity with Arabella Advisors 
while working with Clark County or otherwise?
    Mr. Gloria. Yes.
    Chairman Steil. Are you aware that one of the major donors 
is a foreign national to Arabella Advisors?
    Mr. Gloria. I was not.
    Chairman Steil. Well, if you knew that one of the major 
donors to Arabella Advisors was a foreign national, would that 
cause you concern?
    Mr. Gloria. If we had known at the time, it would have been 
something that I would have made our commission aware of.
    Chairman Steil. Well, maybe that is something we should 
broadly look into.
    I appreciate everyone being here today, but I want to just 
wrap up, because I want to follow up on this point, especially 
with CTCL, if I can very briefly with you, Mr. Cuccinelli.
    In addition to Clark County, several other locations, 
including in my home State of Wisconsin, received CTCL grants, 
often referred to as ``Zuckerbucks''----
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Right.
    Chairman Steil [continuing]. colloquially.
    Does private funding of elections by groups like CTCL pose 
a threat to the integrity of our elections?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. Both the integrity of and the confidence in 
our elections, absolutely.
    Chairman Steil. Do you believe that the CTCL grants 
influenced the 2020 election?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. They flipped it.
    Chairman Steil. Would anyone else like to comment on 
whether or not the CTCL grants influenced the 2020 election?
    Mr. Warner. I agree wholeheartedly.
    Chairman Steil. You agree wholeheartedly what?
    Mr. Warner. It was used to get out the vote as opposed to 
what they said they were going to do, and that was provide PPE 
due to COVID.
    Chairman Steil. Would anybody else like to comment on that?
    Mr. Gloria. I would strongly disagree.
    Chairman Steil. May the record know you disagree.
    I am going to close on this question.
    Mr. Cuccinelli, I will come to you first.
    Should nongovernment entities that provided funding for 
elections be eligible for tax deductions?
    Mr. Cuccinelli. The answer to that, using the Zuckerbucks 
example, is absolutely not. This was partisan activity in 
outcome.
    Chairman Steil. I am really tight on time. Does anybody 
else want to comment on that?
    No.
    I get very concerned that they are utilizing a tax 
deduction service to engage what I believe is partisan 
politics.
    I am going to wrap it up there. I yield back to myself.
    I now would like to thank our witnesses for appearing 
before us today. It has been very helpful.
    Members of this Committee may have additional questions for 
you, and we ask you to please respond to those questions in 
writing.
    Without objection, each Member shall have 5 legislative 
days to insert additional material into the record or to revise 
and extend their remarks.
    If there is no further business, I thank the Members for 
their participation. I will be jogging down to the floor to 
make it in the vote.
    Without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:18 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]