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


AMERICAN CONFIDENCE IN ELECTIONS: ENSURING EVERY ELIGIBLE AMERICAN HAS 
  THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE AND FOR THEIR VOTE TO COUNT ACCORDING TO LAW

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS

                                 OF THE

                   COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                              May 24, 2023
                               __________

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


                            www.govinfo.gov
                           www.cha.house.gov
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
54-669                   WASHINGTON : 2024                              
                           

                   COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                    BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Chairman

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia            JOSEPH MORELLE, New York,
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

                                 ------                                

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS

                       LAUREL LEE, Florida, Chair

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia            TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama,
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma                  Ranking Member
ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO, New York         NORMA TORRES, California

                Caleb Hays, Subcommittee Staff Director

                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                           Opening Statements

Chair Laurel Lee, Representative from the State of Florida.......     1
    Prepared statement of Chair Laurel Lee.......................     3
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Elections Terri A. Sewell, 
  Representative from the State of Alabama.......................     3
    Prepared statement of Ranking Member Terri A. Sewell.........     5
Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration Joseph 
  Morelle, Representative from the State of New York.............     6
    Prepared statement of Ranking Member Joseph Morelle..........     8

                               Witnesses

Lisa Dixon, executive director, Lawyers Democracy Fund...........     9
    Prepared statement of Lisa Dixon.............................    12
Thor Hearne, founding partner, True North Law, LLC...............    26
    Prepared statement of Thor Hearne............................    28
Joseph Burns, lawyer, law office of Joseph T. Burns, PLLC........    54
    Prepared statement of Joseph Burns...........................    56
Scot Turner, executive director, Eternal Vigilance Action Inc....    59
    Prepared statement of Scot Turner............................    61
Deuel Ross, Deputy Director of Litigation, NAACP Legal Defense 
  and Educational Fund, Inc......................................   121
    Prepared statement of Deuel Ross.............................   123

                       Submissions for the Record

State of Voting in America report Part I and II..................   155
University of Georgia School of Public and International Affairs 
  survey.........................................................   431

 
AMERICAN CONFIDENCE IN ELECTIONS: ENSURING EVERY ELIGIBLE AMERICAN HAS 
  THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE AND FOR THEIR VOTE TO COUNT ACCORDING TO LAW

                              ----------                              


                              May 24, 2023

                 Subcommittee on Elections,
                 Committee on House Administration,
                                  House of Representatives,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m., in 
room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Laurel Lee 
[chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Lee, Loudermilk, Bice, Steil, 
Sewell, Torres, and Morelle.
    Also present: Representatives Tenney and Roy.
    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, Elections Counsel, 
Assistant Parliamentarian; Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff 
Director; Khalil Abboud, Minority Deputy Staff Director, Chief 
Counsel; Eddie Flaherty, Minority Chief Clerk; and Sarah Nasta, 
Minority Elections Counsel.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAUREL LEE, CHAIRWOMAN OF THE 
 SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA

    Chair Lee. The Subcommittee on Elections 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 to Ranking Member Sewell, Members of the 
Committee, and all of our witnesses for participating in 
today's hearing.
    It is a first principle for our country that every eligible 
voter, every American citizen who wants to vote must have an 
opportunity to cast a ballot within the time and in the manner 
specified by law and, just as importantly, for that ballot to 
count according to law.
    According to our Constitution, the States have the primary 
authority in election administration. They have the 
responsibility to determine election laws and to administer 
Federal elections.
    The role of Congress in elections is secondary: to provide 
oversight and to support the States in their efforts. Our 
hearing today will highlight how voters across the country are 
demanding reforms to ensure that every eligible American voter 
can be confident that they will have access to the ballot box 
and that their ballot will be counted according to established 
law.
    To most Americans, this is not difficult, and it is not 
revolutionary. While some voices may claim that efforts to help 
voters have confidence in our election systems and outcomes 
restrict access to the ballot box, that simply is not what most 
Americans believe, and it is certainly not the work of this 
Committee.
    Most of us agree that our Federal elections in each State 
and territory should be governed by a standard of rules that 
are in place before balloting starts, that are understandable 
to the average voter, and that provide protections to ensure 
all lawful ballots count but no others.
    While there is no one-size-fits-all approach, efforts to 
boost voter confidence and improve voter integrity include 
working to bring trust to our elections by making the process 
easy to understand, bringing transparency through openness for 
election observers, public access to voting machine testing, 
and strong communication with the voting community and helping 
to remedy weaknesses in the system by requiring voter 
identification, strong chain-of-custody requirements for all 
ballots, and continuously updating training for our neighbors 
who volunteer their time as poll workers.
    These sorts of reforms have been implemented in States like 
Georgia, which has seen incredible voter turnout as voters' 
confidence in the system has improved.
    In New York, voters rejected a number of elections-related 
ballot initiatives that would have weakened some protections. 
In several States across the country, legislatures have made 
efforts to modernize their election systems to address voters' 
concerns and ensure the integrity of the process and the 
confidence of the public.
    It is important that we work together because, if voters 
trust our elections systems with tasks like ensuring all voting 
machines are working properly and that there is a sufficient 
number of ballots available, voters are more likely to have 
confidence in our elections and in our election results.
    I look forward to hearing from our key witnesses from 
States across the country as they share successes and provide 
insight into the ways voters in their States are following this 
framework to promote voter confidence.
    As the former chief elections official in Florida, I know 
firsthand the successes that led to our work in the elections 
field and what led to our success in election administration. 
Engaging directly with voters was one of them. Ultimately, when 
voters have confidence that their ballot will be counted, they 
vote. Our role as the Subcommittee on Elections is to examine 
areas of improvement in the election administration process and 
to empower States to make any necessary changes that will 
ensure that every eligible vote counts.
    Thank you, and I yield to Ranking Member Sewell for the 
purpose of making an opening statement.
    [The prepared statement of Chair Lee follows:]

   PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LAUREL LEE, CHAIRWOMAN OF THE 
                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS

    It is a first principle for our country that every eligible 
voter, every American citizen who wants to vote must have an 
opportunity to cast a ballot within the time and in the manner 
specified by law and, just as importantly, for that ballot to 
count according to law.
    According to our Constitution, the States have the primary 
authority in election administration. They have the 
responsibility to determine election laws and to administer 
Federal elections.
    The role of Congress in elections is secondary: to provide 
oversight and to support the States in their efforts. Our 
hearing today will highlight how voters across the country are 
demanding reforms to ensure that every eligible American voter 
can be confident that they will have access to the ballot box 
and that their ballot will be counted according to established 
law.
    To most Americans, this is not difficult, and it is not 
revolutionary. While some voices may claim that efforts to help 
voters have confidence in our election systems and outcomes 
restrict access to the ballot box, that simply is not what most 
Americans believe, and it is certainly not the work of this 
Committee.
    Most of us agree that our Federal elections in each State 
and territory should be governed by a standard of rules that 
are in place before balloting starts, that are understandable 
to the average voter, and that provide protections to ensure 
all lawful ballots count but no others.
    While there is no one-size-fits-all approach, efforts to 
boost voter confidence and improve voter integrity include 
working to bring trust to our elections by making the process 
easy to understand, bringing transparency through openness for 
election observers, public access to voting machine testing, 
and strong communication with the voting community and helping 
to remedy weaknesses in the system by requiring voter 
identification, strong chain-of-custody requirements for all 
ballots, and continuously updating training for our neighbors 
who volunteer their time as poll workers.
    These sorts of reforms have been implemented in States like 
Georgia, which has seen incredible voter turnout as voters' 
confidence in the system has improved.
    In New York, voters rejected a number of elections-related 
ballot initiatives that would have weakened some protections. 
In several States across the country, legislatures have made 
efforts to modernize their election systems to address voters' 
concerns and ensure the integrity of the process and the 
confidence of the public.
    It is important that we work together because, if voters 
trust our elections systems with tasks like ensuring all voting 
machines are working properly and that there is a sufficient 
number of ballots available, voters are more likely to have 
confidence in our elections and in our election results.
    I look forward to hearing from our key witnesses from 
States across the country as they share successes and provide 
insight into the ways voters in their States are following this 
framework to promote voter confidence.
    As the former chief elections official in Florida, I know 
firsthand the successes that led to our work in the elections 
field and what led to our success in election administration. 
Engaging directly with voters was one of them. Ultimately, when 
voters have confidence that their ballot will be counted, they 
vote. Our role as the Subcommittee on Elections is to examine 
areas of improvement in the election administration process and 
to empower States to make any necessary changes that will 
ensure that every eligible vote counts.

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

    Ms. Sewell. Good afternoon.
    Thank you, Chairwoman Lee, for welcoming us today.
    The topic of today's hearing is an important one, ensuring 
that every eligible American has the opportunity to vote.
    For far too long that has not been the reality of our 
electoral process. Since the founding of our country, large 
segments of the American people have been intentionally 
excluded from being eligible to vote and their access to the 
ballot box purposefully curtailed. Enslaved persons, indentured 
servants, Native Americans, and women were all denied the right 
to vote. This is not in the distant past.
    The 19th Amendment, guaranteeing women the right to vote, 
was ratified in 1920.
    The 23d Amendment, allowing residents of the District of 
Columbia, the Capitol of the United States, to vote for 
President and Vice President, was passed in 1961.
    Poll taxes of any sort or taxes to vote were outlawed by 
the 24th Amendment in 1964.
    The voting age was lowered to 18 by the 26th Amendment in 
1971, ensuring that the men and women serving in our military 
are able to participate in electing the leaders who would send 
them into harm's way.
    The Voting Rights Act, a law that addressed systemic 
discrimination and barriers in voting, was enacted in 1965, 
less than 60 years ago. It was amended, expanded, and extended 
by Congress five times--in 1970, in 1975, in 1982, in 1992, and 
2006--because barriers to ensuring every eligible American can 
cast ballots still exist.
    It is also worth noting that every congressional 
reauthorization of the VRA was signed by a Republican 
President.
    Voting rights and ensuring and expanding access to the 
franchise should not be partisan. As we approach the 10th 
anniversary of the Supreme Court's Shelby decision undermining 
the Voting Rights Act, we must recommit ourselves to the ideal 
that every American should have a voice in our democracy. We 
must celebrate increases in voter participation, not respond 
with restrictions on voter access.
    Additionally, overall voting--overall voter turnout numbers 
in and of themselves do not tell the full story. Voter 
disparities by race continue to exist. You need only look below 
the surface to see a more fulsome picture. Many of the voting 
laws passed in the wake of the 2020 election go to the very 
heart of the integrity of our elections, directly targeted 
methods voters of color used in 2020.
    Americans' confidence in election is eroded when their 
leaders falsely claim over and over again that an election was 
rigged or fraudulent. Rather than using lies and falsehoods to 
justify unnecessary voting restrictions, Congress should be 
focused on expanding access to the ballot and ensuring voters 
in every State have access to the franchise.
    The voters of Alabama and every other State should have 
access to every possible venue and avenue for casting a ballot 
and should not have fewer options for voting simply because of 
where they live.
    Ensuring every eligible American can cast a ballot is a 
goal we should all strive for. It is the bedrock of our 
representative democracy. Congress must work to pass pro voter, 
pro democracy legislation and policies, rather than using 
unproven claims of widespread fraud to roll back the access of 
many Americans--that many Americans have fought so hard for, 
many Americans like those in my district and in my hometown of 
Selma, Alabama, where John Lewis and so many others shed 
bridge--shed blood on a bridge in my hometown for the equal 
right of every American to vote.
    I look forward to hearing today's witnesses and the 
discussion to follow. Thank you, Chairwoman Lee.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Sewell follows:]

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

    The topic of today's hearing is an important one, ensuring 
that every eligible American has the opportunity to vote.
    For far too long that has not been the reality of our 
electoral process. Since the founding of our country, large 
segments of the American people have been intentionally 
excluded from being eligible to vote and their access to the 
ballot box purposefully curtailed. Enslaved persons, indentured 
servants, Native Americans, and women were all denied the right 
to vote. This is not in the distant past.
    The 19th Amendment, guaranteeing women the right to vote, 
was ratified in 1920.
    The 23d Amendment, allowing residents of the District of 
Columbia, the Capitol of the United States, to vote for 
President and Vice President, was passed in 1961.
    Poll taxes of any sort or taxes to vote were outlawed by 
the 24th Amendment in 1964.
    The voting age was lowered to 18 by the 26th Amendment in 
1971, ensuring that the men and women serving in our military 
are able to participate in electing the leaders who would send 
them into harm's way.
    The Voting Rights Act, a law that addressed systemic 
discrimination and barriers in voting, was enacted in 1965, 
less than 60 years ago. It was amended, expanded, and extended 
by Congress five times--in 1970, in 1975, in 1982, in 1992, and 
2006--because barriers to ensuring every eligible American can 
cast ballots still exist.
    It is also worth noting that every congressional 
reauthorization of the VRA was signed by a Republican 
President.
    Voting rights and ensuring and expanding access to the 
franchise should not be partisan. As we approach the 10th 
anniversary of the Supreme Court's Shelby decision undermining 
the Voting Rights Act, we must recommit ourselves to the ideal 
that every American should have a voice in our democracy. We 
must celebrate increases in voter participation, not respond 
with restrictions on voter access.
    Additionally, overall voting--overall voter turnout numbers 
in and of themselves do not tell the full story. Voter 
disparities by race continue to exist. You need only look below 
the surface to see a more fulsome picture. Many of the voting 
laws passed in the wake of the 2020 election go to the very 
heart of the integrity of our elections, directly targeted 
methods voters of color used in 2020.
    Americans' confidence in election is eroded when their 
leaders falsely claim over and over again that an election was 
rigged or fraudulent. Rather than using lies and falsehoods to 
justify unnecessary voting restrictions, Congress should be 
focused on expanding access to the ballot and ensuring voters 
in every State have access to the franchise.
    The voters of Alabama and every other State should have 
access to every possible venue and avenue for casting a ballot 
and should not have fewer options for voting simply because of 
where they live.
    Ensuring every eligible American can cast a ballot is a 
goal we should all strive for. It is the bedrock of our 
representative democracy. Congress must work to pass pro voter, 
pro democracy legislation and policies, rather than using 
unproven claims of widespread fraud to roll back the access of 
many Americans--that many Americans have fought so hard for, 
many Americans like those in my district and in my hometown of 
Selma, Alabama, where John Lewis and so many others shed 
bridge--shed blood on a bridge in my hometown for the equal 
right of every American to vote.

    Chair Lee. Thank you, Ranking Member Sewell.
    For today's hearing we will be joined by Representatives 
Nikema Williams, Chip Roy, and Claudia Tenney. They have been 
waived onto the Committee to participate in today's hearing.
    Without objection, all other Members' opening statements 
will be made part 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.]
    Chair Lee. Let the record show the witnesses have answered 
in the affirmative, and you may now be seated.
    I will now introduce our witnesses.
    Our first witness, Ms. Lisa Dixon, serves as the executive 
director of the Lawyers Democracy Fund, a nonpartisan 
organization with a long history of advancing the role of 
ethics, integrity, and legal professionalism in the electoral 
process, including safeguarding the right of eligible voters to 
vote.
    Previously, Ms. Dixon practiced at Holtzman Vogel, where 
she specialized in tax-exempt organizations, campaign finance 
and election law, and lobbying compliance.
    Our next witness, Mr. Thor Hearne, has earned a national 
reputation for his work in complex Federal and State litigation 
and appeals, especially matters involving property rights, 
constitutional law, and elections issues. Hearne is a national 
recognized authority on election law.
    Notably, he was an adviser to the Carter-Baker Commission 
on Federal election reform and has previously testified on 
election law matters before the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and 
the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
    Our next witness, Mr. Joseph Burns, worked for Senator 
DeFrancisco, Chairman of the New York Senate Judiciary 
Committee, for 4 years before serving as Deputy Director of 
Elections Operations at the New York State Board of Elections. 
In that role, Mr. Burns worked with county boards of elections, 
candidates, and party committees. Most importantly, he was 
involved in New York State's historic transition from lever to 
optical scan voting machines.
    Our next witness, former Georgia State Representative Scot 
Turner, is the executive director of the Eternal Vigilance 
Action and served as a representative in the Georgia House of 
Representatives from 2013 to 2021.
    While serving in the Georgia State Legislature, Turner 
focused on the issues of civil asset forfeiture, election 
administration, occupational licensing reform, agriculture, and 
the intersection of technology and public policy.
    Finally, Mr. Deuel Ross is the deputy director of 
litigation at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 
where he uses litigation and advocacy to ensure equal access to 
educational opportunities and the political process for people 
of color.
    We appreciate our witnesses for being here today, and we 
look forward to your testimony.
    Before we begin with your testimony, I would like to 
recognize Ranking Member Morelle, who wishes to make an opening 
statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH MORELLE, RANKING MEMBER OF THE 
 COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
                            NEW YORK

    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Chairman Lee, for yielding time to 
me.
    Thank you to the Ranking Member.
    Today's hearing reminds me of that well-worn Yogi Berra 
quote: It is like deja vu all over again.
    Here we are again discussing the alleged lack of confidence 
in our elections. It is like we are watching a new streaming 
show called ``Election Denial,'' a show where the writers 
include at the outset a ``Previously on Election Denial'' 
segment to discuss the crisis in elections confidence.
    Every week it is the same scene, my Republican colleagues 
and friends crying lack of confidence, which they are squarely 
to blame for creating in the first place.
    Today's hearing is the third in a series entitled, 
``American Confidence in Elections,'' with a fourth scheduled 
next munch--next month, which has been convened to discuss this 
alleged lack of confidence in our elections.
    I for one do not understand the hearing series. The 
American people think many things, but they have not had their 
confidence in our elections shaken. Instead, they believe 
elections are secure.
    All told, this Committee has held six elections-related 
hearings this year, either before the full Committee or this 
Subcommittee. The lack of confidence theme continues to 
permeate my friends' on the majority side's talking points.
    Indeed, the people fomenting this crisis in confidence are, 
first of all, former President Trump and his supporters in 
Congress. In truth, if anything, this, quote, crisis is a 
byproduct of the Republican Party's complicity in former 
President Trump's big lie. Instead of a lack of confidence in 
our elections, the American people are worried about 
backsliding toward autocracy. They are worried that the extreme 
wing of the Republican Party will continue to roll back voting 
rights, impose partisan election administration, and only 
accept electoral results when and if they win. This is not what 
our democracy should look like.
    These concerns are not fanciful. The repetition of lies and 
misinformation about our elections directly led to an 
insurrection on our Capitol and an attempt to stop the 
certification of a free, fair, and secure election. Nonpartisan 
experts agree. The 2020 election was the most secure election 
in U.S. history.
    Every single Republican witness this Congress has answered, 
when asked at the table, as all of our witnesses are, have 
asked that whether Joe Biden won the 2020 Presidential 
election, they have all said yes. The continued failure to 
acknowledge or accept that fact by the majority actually 
undermines voter confidence and perpetuates dangerous behavior 
on the part of vigilante actors and those who seek to mine 
doubt in elections for their own profit.
    We know that the former President and his lawyers filed 
dozens of frivolous lawsuits that were ultimately thrown out of 
court for lack of merit, yet raised millions of dollars from 
donors and supposed legal funds to fight a, quote, stolen 
election, something the former President continues to say at 
rallies, hearing--rallies and public appearances.
    The former President went so far as asking repeatedly the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice 
officials about seizing voting machines premised on the big 
lie, knowing that the Department of Homeland Security lacked 
the legal authority to do so. These actions actually undermine 
confidence in our elections.
    Here we are again. I will keep showing up. I will continue 
to listen for facts. I will continue to ask questions. I won't 
hold my breath for truth in this ``American Confidence in 
Elections'' hearing series. That, my colleagues, is beyond 
troubling.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Morelle follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 
                 ADMINISTRATION JOSEPH MORELLE

    Today's hearing reminds me of that well-worn Yogi Berra 
quote: It is like deja vu all over again.
    Here we are again discussing the alleged lack of confidence 
in our elections. It is like we are watching a new streaming 
show called ``Election Denial,'' a show where the writers 
include at the outset a ``Previously on Election Denial'' 
segment to discuss the crisis in elections confidence.
    Every week it is the same scene, my Republican colleagues 
and friends crying lack of confidence, which they are squarely 
to blame for creating in the first place.
    Today's hearing is the third in a series entitled, 
``American Confidence in Elections,'' with a fourth scheduled 
next munch--next month, which has been convened to discuss this 
alleged lack of confidence in our elections.
    I for one do not understand the hearing series. The 
American people think many things, but they have not had their 
confidence in our elections shaken. Instead, they believe 
elections are secure.
    All told, this Committee has held six elections-related 
hearings this year, either before the full Committee or this 
Subcommittee. The lack of confidence theme continues to 
permeate my friends' on the majority side's talking points.
    Indeed, the people fomenting this crisis in confidence are, 
first of all, former President Trump and hits supporters in 
Congress. In truth, if anything, this, quote, crisis is a 
byproduct of the Republican Party's complicity in former 
President Trump's big lie. Instead of a lack of confidence in 
our elections, the American people are worried about 
backsliding toward autocracy. They are worried that the extreme 
wing of the Republican Party will continue to roll back voting 
rights, impose partisan election administration, and only 
accept electoral results when and if they win. This is not what 
our democracy should look like.
    These concerns are not fanciful. The repetition of lies and 
misinformation about our elections directly led to an 
insurrection on our Capitol and an attempt to stop the 
certification of a free, fair, and secure election. Nonpartisan 
experts agree. The 2020 election was the most secure election 
in U.S. history.
    Every single Republican witness this Congress has answered, 
when asked at the table, as all of our witnesses are, have 
asked that whether Joe Biden won the 2020 Presidential 
election, they have all said yes. The continued failure to 
acknowledge or accept that fact by the majority actually 
undermines voter confidence and perpetuates dangerous behavior 
on the part of vigilante actors and those who seek to mine 
doubt in elections for their own profit.
    We know that the former President and his lawyers filed 
dozens of frivolous lawsuits that were ultimately thrown out of 
court for lack of merit, yet raised millions of dollars from 
donors and supposed legal funds to fight a, quote, stolen 
election, something the former President continues to say at 
rallies, hearing--rallies and public appearances.
    The former President went so far as asking repeatedly the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice 
officials about seizing voting machines premised on the big 
lie, knowing that the Department of Homeland Security lacked 
the legal authority to do so. These actions actually undermine 
confidence in our elections.
    Here we are again. I will keep showing up. I will continue 
to listen for facts. I will continue to ask questions. I won't 
hold my breath for truth in this ``American Confidence in 
Elections'' hearing series. That, my colleagues, is beyond 
troubling.

    Chair Lee. Thank you, Mr. Morelle.
    Back to our witnesses, we appreciate you being here today. 
As a reminder, we have read your written statement. It will 
appear in full in the hearing record.
    Under Committee rule 9, you are to limit your oral 
presentation to a brief summary of your written statement, 
unless I extend this time period in consultation with Ranking 
Member Sewell.
    Please remember to press the button on the microphone in 
front of you so that it is on and the Members can hear you when 
you are speaking.
    When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will 
turn green. After 4 minutes, it will turn yellow. When the 
light turns red, your 5 minutes has expired. We would ask that 
you please wrap up.
    With that, I will now recognize Ms. Dixon for 5 minutes.

STATEMENTS OF LISA DIXON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LAWYERS DEMOCRACY 
   FUND; THOR HEARNE, FOUNDING PARTNER, TRUE NORTH LAW, LLC; 
JOSEPH BURNS, LAWYER, LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH T. BURNS, PLLC; THE 
 HONORABLE SCOT TURNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ETERNAL VIGILANCE 
  ACTION INC.; AND DEUEL ROSS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LITIGATION, 
         NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

                    STATEMENT OF LISA DIXON

    Ms. Dixon. Thank you, Chairwoman Lee, Ranking Member 
Sewell, and Members of the Subcommittee for holding this 
hearing on ensuring that all eligible Americans can vote and be 
confidence that their votes count according to law.
    We are currently facing a crisis of voter confidence. The 
peaceful transfer of power, which is so foundational to our 
system of Government, rests upon voters trusting that their 
votes were counted and that the winner of the election actually 
won, even when the winner is not a voter's preferred candidate.
    Many polls over the past several years have shown a lack of 
confidence among voters, and the statistics are sobering. After 
the 2020 election, nearly 40 percent of voters doubted the 
election results. What is the solution? Restoring voters' trust 
in the election system and election processes at every step so 
that voters know that balloting, vote counting, and election 
results are accurate and that the winner was legitimately 
elected.
    Solutions to our crisis in voter confidence must be geared 
to both the actual integrity of the election and also the 
appearance of integrity of the election. The Constitution 
wisely reserved the power of election administration to the 
States in article I, section 4. Conducting, managing, and 
regulating elections at the local level has many benefits, 
including boosting voter confidence. The vast majority of 
voters still trust that their own ballots were counted. Voter 
confidence decreases the farther away from the voters the 
control of the administration of election lies. That is, voters 
still tend to trust their local election officials, even when 
they do not trust the election results nationwide.
    State legislatures have and should continue to have the 
primary responsibility for setting the administrative rules for 
conducting our elections, with local election officials having 
primary responsibilities for administering elections.
    The American Confidence in Elections Act operates within 
the Federal Government's limited purview to help increase 
Americans' confidence in election processes and outcomes 
without imposing on the State's primary constitutional duty and 
responsibility to establish rules of election administration. 
There are notes in my written testimony on ways the ACE Act 
does this.
    While the work of election administration is complex and 
challenging, it is vitally important because it protects one of 
our most precious constitutional rights. Significantly, the 
American people's confidence in the election process derives 
not only from the controlling laws and procedures but also from 
local election officials' fair, competent, and honest 
implementation of those laws and procedures.
    States should follow six principles to restore voters' 
confidence, helping voters to have confidence that not only--
that only eligible voters are voting and their votes are being 
counted according to the rules governing the elections.
    No. 1, the rules governing the election are established 
well ahead of the election and not changed close to it. This is 
a basic due process requirement, and it allows all stakeholders 
to know what the rules are and assists election administrators 
in running the election smoothly.
    No. 2, the rules governing the election are clear and 
designed to address many different situations and eventualities 
that may occur during the voting process.
    No. 3, the rules governing every aspect of the election 
system help ensure the fairness of the voting process while 
ensuring that eligible voters have an ample opportunity to vote 
and have their votes counted accurately. States have 
strengthened their election systems in the past couple of years 
and their--here are a few examples.
    One popular reform is voter identification. Photo voter ID 
laws consistently show 75 to 85 percent support among the 
general public and majority support across all demographics.
    In the past few years, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Wyoming, 
Montana, and Arkansas have all passed laws to strengthen their 
voters ID laws.
    Similarly, when voters vote outside the polls by absentee 
ballot, they should also have the protections of voters who 
voted at a polling place. Florida and Georgia have taken steps 
to strengthen their absentee ballot verification processes.
    The starting point for citizen trust in elections is 
accurate voter registration rolls. Florida and Mississippi, 
among other States, have recently taken steps to improve their 
list maintenance practices.
    No. 4, the rules and processes are super transparent and 
well-publicized, and election officials educate the voters on 
the rules.
    No. 5, all guidance and regulations regarding, and 
procedures for, running the election are consistent with 
applicable Federal and State statutes and are established 
according to the governing administrative procedural rules.
    No. 6, election officials follow the laws, regulations, 
rules, procedures, and guidance that govern the running of the 
election.
    Giving every eligible voter the opportunity to vote 
requires not only giving them the actual opportunity to vote 
but also giving them the confidence to vote, knowing that their 
vote will be counted according to the law. Baseline 
requirements of due process, transparency, and good election 
administration should be uncontroversial.
    Thank you, and I am happy to take questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Dixon follows:]

                PREPARED STATEMENT OF LISA DIXON

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chair Lee. I now recognize Mr. Hearne for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF THOR HEARNE

    Mr. Hearne. Thank you. Chairwoman Lee and Ranking Member 
Sewell and Members of this Committee, I--oh there we go.
    Thank you, Chairwoman Lee and the Ranking Member Sewell and 
the Members of this Committee.
    I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear and address 
this very important topic. I know we all care deeply about our 
elections.
    How our Nation conducts our elections is really the bedrock 
of our constitutional republic. Without every eligible voter 
having the ability to cast a ballot and access to do so, and 
all citizens having confidence in the conduct and outcome of 
our elections, we would not--we, the people, would cease to 
govern our Nation.
    Just yesterday, my third granddaughter was born here in 
Washington, D.C. That occasion caused me to remind myself that 
we and this generation in the current era have been blessed 
with the opportunity to live in the greatest, most free, and 
most prosperous Nation in human history. This is a heritage 
that we have to steward for future generations. Having fair and 
honest elections is how we do that, how we steward this.
    I have been involved--and I provided the Committee with a 
copy of my resume and bio--that indicates I have been involved 
in election litigation and election law for now more than 30 
years. It has been my experience, and I note that in my bio, 
that I have done so in a bipartisan way. I note particularly 
that the Attorney General of Virginia, Mr. Herring, appointed 
me to defend Virginia's voter ID law in court and in the Fourth 
Circuit. I note also that I had occasion to work with the local 
chapter of the NAACP in the redistricting of St. Louis County 
Council to assure that minority citizens had a right to 
participate equally in that election. I report in the prepared 
statements that I provided the comments that the NAACP counsel 
provided about my work in that regard.
    Now why do I mention that? I was counsel also, national 
election counsel, to President Bush. I am myself a Republican.
    I think that, no matter how partisan our interests are, and 
there is nothing more quintessentially partisan than an 
election, the interest that we have in having a common outcome 
in the process of the election and having confidence in that 
and having equal access to participate in the election rises 
above our partisan interests.
    I think that there should be tremendous ground for us to 
work together to find common ground to not only make sure 
everyone has access to a ballot, that is eligible to cast a 
ballot, but also that everyone has confidence in the conduct of 
the election and that it was fair and conducted according to 
the rule of law.
    In that regard, I had the opportunity to serve with 
President Carter and Secretary of State Jim Baker on the 
Carter-Baker Commission. I brought a copy of that report with 
me today. I mention that because the Carter-Baker report was a 
high watermark of bipartisan election reform. It was an 
opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to come together and 
find some common ground on measures that would restore 
confidence and make sure there is access to the election 
process by all citizens, regardless of their race, heritage, or 
gender.
    That is what we did in the Carter-Baker Commission, and it 
has been reviewed by and relied upon by the U.S. Supreme Court 
in two cases, Marion County, which was the Indiana voter ID 
case. Twice or three times in the Court's opinion they cite the 
Carter-Baker recommendations for a strong bipartisan 
recommendation for how elections should be conducted. Then they 
also provide that there is a reason for, in the most recent 
Brnovich decision, again, the Supreme Court looked to the 
Carter-Baker Commission to try and provide a guide for, in that 
case, measures Arizona took to prevent ballot harvesting. The 
recommendations of the Carter-Baker Commission were ones that 
the Court looked to, that Arizona had adopted.
    I would commend to this Committee's attention and the 
Members of the Committee the Carter-Baker Commission report as 
a good guide for bipartisan election reform.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hearne follows:]

               PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOR HEARNE

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chair Lee. Thank you, Mr. Hearne.
    I now recognize Mr. Burns for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF JOSEPH BURNS

    Mr. Burns. Good afternoon.
    Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today on a 
topic that I believe should concern people of all backgrounds 
and political persuasions, ensuring that Americans have 
confidence in our electoral system.
    As you know, I am a lifelong New Yorker and former 
administrator at the New York State Board of Elections. Since 
leaving the State Board of Elections in 2015, I have had the 
great opportunity to represent candidates, party committees, 
and election commissioners throughout New York State and before 
courts at every level of our State court system.
    New York's elections are administered by bipartisan boards 
of elections in each of New York's 62 counties, plus one New 
York City Board of Elections, which is run by the 10 
commissioners from the five boroughs that comprise the city of 
New York. This is all overseen by a State Board of Elections, 
which is led by four commissioners, two from each of the two 
major political parties.
    A bipartisan guarantee in election administration is 
mandated by article II, section 8, of the New York State 
Constitution. While not perfect, this bipartisan structure in 
my opinion does a great deal to bolster the confidence of New 
Yorkers in their electoral system.
    Since 2019, due to one-party control of State government, 
New Yorkers have seen a number of major changes made to the 
State election law and how elections are administered. Two of 
the most notable changes were the establishment of a single, 
combined Federal and State primary conducted in June and the 
establishment of early voting before all primary, special, and 
general elections.
    What might be more interesting, however, is what has not 
changed and what was rejected by the voters of New York in 
2021. New Yorkers at the 2021 general election had the 
opportunity to vote on three amendments to the State 
Constitution that would, as the amendments' supporters would 
argue, expand voting rights and make it easier for New Yorkers 
to vote.
    Critics of those proposed amendments, like myself, saw them 
as a weakening of the commonsense election integrity safeguards 
that have been enshrined in our State Constitution, in some 
cases for over a century.
    The State Constitution specifically states under what 
narrowly defined circumstances the State legislature may allow 
for absentee voting. One of the defeated 2021 amendments would 
have eliminated this safeguard and enabled the State 
legislature to enact no-fault absentee voting. On election day 
2021, the voters of New York rejected this amendment by over 
300,000 votes.
    Opposition to this amendment did not just come from where 
you would expect--the more rural and conservative parts of 
upstate New York. The amendment was defeated in Albany, 
Rockland, Onondaga, Monroe, and Erie counties, all large urban 
and suburban counties where enrolled Democrats outnumber 
enrolled Republicans.
    By an even greater margin, voters in 2021 rejected a 
constitutional amendment to allow the State legislature to 
enact same-day voter registration. The State Constitution 
states that every citizen has a right to vote, provided that 
they register at least 10 days prior to the election in which 
they will vote. The defeated amendment would have scrapped this 
very sensible election safeguard and allowed the State 
legislature to enact same-day voter registration.
    Like the no-fault absentee voting amendment, this amendment 
was defeated by the voters of New York. Like the no-fault 
absentee voting amendment, the same-day voter registration 
amendment was rejected in red, as well as blue, counties.
    Finally, voters in 2021 rejected an amendment that would 
weaken the anti-gerrymandering provisions of the State 
Constitution. These anti-gerrymandering provisions, which were 
only approved by the voters in 2014, were originally backed by 
leaders of both major political parties and voters of all 
political persuasions.
    When the voters of New York had their say at the 2021 
general election, the amendment was rejected by around 300,000 
votes. New York voters let their voices be heard in 2021 when 
they rejected weakening the State Constitution's election 
integrity protections.
    Maintaining the integrity of our elections and ensuring 
that voters have confidence in our system is not and should not 
be a partisan issue. Citizens deserve an electoral system that 
is free, fair, and honest. The results of the 2021 election in 
New York, I believe, demonstrate that voters across the 
political spectrum desire reasonable, commonsense safeguards to 
protect the integrity of our elections.
    Thank you again for inviting me today, and thank you for 
this great opportunity to speak with you on a topic of such 
great importance to our country.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Burns follows:]

               PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH BURNS

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chair Lee. Thank you, Mr. Burns.
    I now recognize Representative Turner for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF SCOT TURNER

    Mr. Turner. Thank you, Chairwoman Lee, Ranking Member 
Sewell, Members of the Committee.
    The greatest threat to our constitutional republic is 
misinformation and disinformation. This dubious pair will cause 
people to react in anger, cause acts of violence, and motivate 
people to take actions that are a danger to themselves, their 
communities, and the fabric of our Nation. Faith in the results 
of elections is vitally key for the health of our Republic, but 
more and more that faith is shaken by false allegations.
    The 2016 Presidential election was marred by allegations of 
Russian hacking. While evidence showed that the hacking was of 
email servers, by December 2016, half of Democrat voters 
believed that Russians had changed vote tallies in favor of 
Donald Trump. That number would skyrocket to 67 percent by 
November 2017 after a media barrage and many prominent leaders 
calling the Presidency of Donald Trump illegitimate. That same 
poll showed 62 percent of Trump voters believed that millions 
of votes were cast illegally, although there was no widespread 
evidence that this was the case.
    When Stacey Abrams refused to concede the election to Brian 
Kemp in 2018, cite--citing voter suppression, she filed a 
Federal lawsuit that finally concluded this past October. In 
his decision, the judge wrote that Abrams and her group could 
not provide a single instance or direct evidence of a voter who 
was unable to vote, experienced longer wait times, or was 
confused about their voter registration status.
    Abrams' refusal in 2018 is when it became apparent to me as 
a State representative just how damaging misinformation and 
disinformation are to our country because, when Abrams refused 
to concede, there was an immediate tone change among 
Republicans and Democrats who had worked together on elections 
issues in the Georgia General Assembly. What I would describe 
as a general congeniality--collegiality became hyper partisan 
and at times combative. Rhetoric designed to invoke racism, 
outrage, and emotional responses replaced thoughtful debate and 
analysis, and then 2020 came.
    Donald Trump drove a Mack truck down the path that has been 
blazed by Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams before them, but 
they are all on the same path. My written testimony outlines 
how devastating all of these false attacks have been on voter 
confidence in Georgia and, further, why the State had a 
compelling interest to try to reassure all voters with the 
passage of SB 202 and other bills and how opposition to these 
measures are a form of voter suppression in their own right.
    After the disaster of 2020 primary, SB 202 was implemented 
prior to the 2022 midterms. Its real impact, what actually 
happened, was a higher level of voter confidence from all walks 
of life. In fact, a post-election poll by the University of 
Georgia found that 96 percent of African Americans waited in 
line 30 minutes or less to cast their ballot in person. It went 
on to find zero African American respondents to that poll said 
that they had a poor voter experience. Another key takeaway 
from the University of Georgia poll is that 89.7 percent of 
voters felt confident in the election process.
    Hillary Clinton, Stacey Abrams, and Donald Trump, along 
with some members of the media, have all created doubt in the 
election process. In response to their claims, the Georgia 
General Assembly has worked to create a system that makes it 
easier to vote, have results that can audited and verified, 
give voters options for their preferred method of voting, and 
build confidence using voter ID.
    They've made adjustments, including in SB 202, that have 
shortened lines and lowered absentee rejection rates. More 
voters are participating in early voting than ever before and 
taking advantage of all the various voting options Georgia has 
to offer.
    At each step of the way and with every improvement to the 
voting process, the Georgia General Assembly has had critics 
screaming at them that what they are doing is wrong, racist, 
and will hurt communities of various types.
    Just like the claims that Russia hacked the election and 
changed votes or that Abrams lost because of voter suppression 
or that the election was stolen, the data and evidence do not 
back up those claims.
    If you were to ask me what Congress can do to help solve 
these problems, they can start leading by example. Every single 
Member can make a choice today to not engage in over-the-top 
rhetoric to score some political points. Start acting like 
adults. Start working together. When States like Georgia try to 
clean up the mess, get out of their way. Or better yet, stand 
behind them and support what they are trying to do because 
their goals are noble.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Turner follows:]

               PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOT TURNER

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chair Lee. Thank you, Representative Turner.
    I now recognize Mr. Ross for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF DEUEL ROSS

    Mr. Ross. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman Lee, Ranking 
Member Sewell, Chairman Steil, Ranking Member Morelle, and 
Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to 
testify this afternoon.
    This Congress has the opportunity and obligation to 
strengthen our elections by finally making them equally 
accessible to Black voters and other voters of color.
    I am an attorney at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational 
Fund, an organization that was founded over 80 years ago by 
Justice Thurgood Marshall. For 80 years, LDF has fought to 
secure, protect, and advance the voting rights of African 
Americans and other communities of color.
    Next month will mark the 10th anniversary of the Shelby 
County v. Holder ruling in which the Supreme Court gutted the 
heart of the Voting Rights Act. Unfortunately, in the 10 years 
since Shelby County, a false narrative around stolen elections 
and voter fraud has fueled new State efforts to restrict the 
franchise of many vulnerable voters, voters who overcame 
substantial obstacles in the 2020 elections in order for their 
voices to be heard.
    In these times of backlash, Black and Brown Americans are 
facing one of the greatest assaults on our voting rights since 
the Jim Crow era. Today I want to highlight three key elements 
of our current moment.
    First, Black voters continue to face a range of unnecessary 
and discriminatory obstacles that undermine their right to 
vote, from mass challenges and narrowing of voting options to 
closed polling places and voter intimidation through hyper 
criminalization of things like voter assistance laws.
    Black voters continue to often face a perilous pathway to 
the ballot. On top of this, in the most recent election, 
hundreds of thousands of Black Americans voted in districts 
that Federal courts had ruled were illegally drawn to weaken 
their voices and to undermine the ability of voters of color to 
elect candidates of their choice who will represent their 
interests in this very body.
    Many of these obstacles to full participation by Black and 
Brown communities are not accidental. Rather, they are targeted 
with, as courts have said, surgical precision to undermine the 
ways in which voters of color have been able to access the 
ballot. Some States have, unfortunately, taken this path of 
trying to cut access to those options that have allowed voters 
to have record turnout in 2020.
    Second, we are seeing--continuing to see troubling 
disparities in voter turnout by race that have persisted for a 
long time and have only grown in the 10 years since Shelby 
County. Robust overall turnout numbers have masked this 
disturbing trend, especially in places that were previously 
subject to preclearance before 2013.
    In Georgia, for example, disparities between White and 
Black voter turnout both in the 2022 primary and general 
elections were higher than at any point in the last decade.
    Third, courts have unfortunately eroded Federal legal 
protections against voting discrimination. These protections 
are now dangerously thin, just as voters of color and other 
vulnerable voters need them the most.
    Unfortunately, Congress has failed to respond to this 
rollback of our voting rights. This current moment did not just 
emerge from ether or in a vacuum. Rather, we are here because 
these false narratives that have been fueled from a backlash 
again the growing multiracial nature of our democracy. The 
January 6th insurrection, the rash of anti-voter laws across 
States are two manifestations of this backlash.
    Our current moment is a part of a broader historical 
context. This story of our American democracy is one of 
progress, backlash, and retrenchment, at times, by further 
progress, yet often delayed. This context makes it clear why 
Congress must act. Much like the bipartisan Congresses in the 
past, in 1965, in 1970, in 1975, 1982, and 2006, acted to pass 
and renew the protections of the Voting Rights Act, so must 
this Congress act to fulfill its responsibilities under the 
14th and 15th Amendments.
    Pursuant to the Elections Clause, it is Congress that has 
the authority to enact minimum standards that can protect the 
rights of people to access the ballot, to strengthen voters' 
voices in choosing their President and congressional 
Representatives in a way that ensures that it does not depend 
on where you live.
    Policies like same-day registration, robust early voting, 
accessible mail by--vote by mail can address voter turnout 
disparities to allow participation by all Americans.
    Black Americans have always fought to bring America closer 
to its highest ideals. By focusing on their experiences, while 
being mindful of both present in the moment and the historical 
Congress, this Congress has clear guidance in order to fulfill 
its constitutional obligations.
    I look forward to working with you all and answering your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Ross follows:]

                PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEUEL ROSS

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chair Lee. Thank you, Mr. Ross.
    Mr. Loudermilk will begin questions today, followed by the 
Ranking Member. We will then alternate between the parties.
    I now recognize Mr. Loudermilk for the purpose of 
questioning our witnesses.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Well, thank you Madam Chair.
    Thank all the witnesses for being here.
    Mr. Turner, thank you for that very powerful opening 
statement. I think that is the crux of the things that we have 
to deal with, especially in this city. This is the, you may 
say, the Oz, the capital of misinformation and disinformation. 
I think you hit the nail on the head there.
    Something about the misinformation and disinformation that 
you spoke of, we hear a lot about it. It is just not isolated 
to the States. In fact, President Biden, when he referred to SB 
202, the Georgia election law that made it easier to vote and 
harder to cheat, he said that, if I remember correctly, that it 
was Jim Crow 2.0. Even the liberal media or left-leaning media 
here cited that as there was no truth to it whatsoever.
    How was that taken in Georgia? How devastating was that in 
our State?
    Mr. Turner. Well, it obviously had an economic impact in 
Georgia because Major League Baseball, shortly after that and 
at the encouragement of President Biden, removed the All-Star 
Game from Atlanta and moved it to Denver. Thousands of average 
Georgians who were relying on that as an economic opportunity 
lost out as a result of something that ultimately turned out to 
be untrue based upon the data that we see today.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Which, as I mentioned, even the media here 
in Washington, D.C., identified it as being untrue. It had a 
devastating impact.
    Do you think that the election integrity reforms that were 
included in SB 202 helped or hurt voter confidence?
    Mr. Turner. It absolutely has helped. The AJC, the Atlanta 
Journal-Constitution, recently posted a piece about voters 
returning to the polls. We saw a 740,000 voter drop-off in the 
runoff for David Purdue versus Ossoff and Warnock versus Kelly 
Loeffler. Many of those voters had said they'll never vote 
again. As a result of SB 202, about a third of them are coming 
back but not all of them. There is still work to do.
    Mr. Loudermilk. OK. I mean, it sounds like definitely going 
in the right direction.
    Mr. Turner. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Serving with you in the general assembly, I 
appreciate that--I know that you are--you have a lot of 
integrity and honesty and adherence to the Constitution.
    It sounds like SB 202 had no negative effect on voting in 
Georgia and the--like the Democrats said it would.
    Now you said something earlier that I think is very 
important is the economic impact that it had on Georgia and 
especially our new Truist Park with the Atlanta Braves, which 
we are very proud to host the All-Star Game. There were 
businesses, minority-owned businesses, businesses in that area 
that had spent a significant amount of money preparing for the 
All-Star Game coming. I mean, I talked to business owners who 
were out, one of them was out $18,000 because he brought in 
extra food because of the increased business, which no one 
compensated them for once the All-Star Game was removed.
    Considering the incredibly high voter turnout that you've 
mentioned, the positive aspect that Senate Bill 202 had, not 
just on Georgia but confidence in Georgia's election, do you 
think that Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred owes 
Governor Kemp and the Georgia legislature and those small 
businesses in Georgia apology--an apology for moving the 2021 
All-Star Game out of Atlanta?
    Mr. Turner. I do believe they owe the average Georgian an 
apology. Governor Kemp would be a start, but to those business 
owners, frankly. If President Biden wanted to go back and look 
at the data and decide to change his mind, I would encourage 
him to call on Major League Baseball to bring an All-Star Game 
back so that those folks would be made whole. His words right 
now have created economic damage to those folks.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Again, it is misinformation----
    Mr. Turner. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Loudermilk [continuing]. and disinformation with a 
political bias and that is--that is something that is--it is 
going to take time to get over with. I supported what you were 
doing in the legislature because I think it was going in the 
right direction, and we have proved that it did.
    I will just close with this question. How do you think that 
Senate Bill 202 will affect voter turnout in the 2024 
Presidential election?
    Mr. Turner. I think the evidence is trending pretty 
positively in that direction, Congressman.
    The people, the voting experience has been so drastically 
improved, the shorter lines, the additional options for early 
voting. People see it as easier to vote. That UGA poll that I 
mentioned, it said that 74 percent of the average voter in 
Georgia thought that SB 202 did not have a change, and 14.5 
percent said that it actually improved.
    You are touching 90 percent of the folks who have looked at 
SB 202 as a very positive development.
    Mr. Loudermilk. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    My time has expired. I yield back.
    Chair Lee. Thank you.
    I now recognize Ms. Sewell for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    To Mr. Ross, I think that what we have heard reinforces 
what I was saying in my opening comments that sometimes we 
are--my colleagues seem to be inflating the turnout to mean 
that it--somehow the process is fair because of turnout or even 
I know, in Alabama, my secretary of state talked a lot about 
how his registration numbers went up while he was there.
    Can you just clarify why it is that you have to look beyond 
the numbers to actually understand suppressive voter laws?
    Mr. Ross. Thank you, Representative Sewell.
    I think it is really important to not just look at turnout 
on the whole. I think there are a couple of things that are 
important.
    One is that voters can still turn out to vote, even if it 
has been made more difficult for people to vote. If their 
polling places close, it does mean that a person who is poorer 
or may lack access to transportation may have to travel 
further, may have to pay more money in order to access their 
vote. You have made it more difficult for them, even if they 
end up voting.
    I think it is also important to note that it may be in 
places that turnout has gone up, but that racial disparities 
have either increased or stayed similarly the same because of 
these laws that have made it more difficult for African 
Americans and other people to vote. I think it is sort of a 
misnomer----
    Ms. Sewell [continuing]. many people came to vote because 
there was so much at stake in the Georgia election of Senators 
that, despite suppressive voter laws, they came to vote. Is 
that what you are saying?
    Mr. Ross. I think that is absolutely correct, 
Representative Sewell.
    Ms. Sewell. I know that, and you mentioned, that we are 
approaching the 10th anniversary of the Shelby decision.
    How have the Supreme Court decisions in Shelby and Brnovich 
negatively impacted voters and shifted the burden from the 
States to the voters and advocates?
    Mr. Ross. It used to that be, under section 5 of the Voting 
Rights Act and section 4, which the Supreme Court invalidated 
it in 2013, that States with a history of discrimination, 
including most of the South, parts of places like New York and 
California, had to seek permission from the courts before they 
could implement new voting laws.
    Unfortunately, what you've seen in the last 10 years is 
this sort of the floodgates have opened to laws that have made 
it much more difficult for people to vote. There is no check at 
the front end for stopping these discriminatory laws.
    Ms. Sewell. For Federal level, right?
    Mr. Ross. Yes----
    Ms. Sewell. Because there is no Voting Rights Act.
    Mr. Ross. Yes, Your Honor. You know, it is true that----
    Ms. Sewell. In effect.
    Mr. Ross. Exactly. There is Voting Rights Act that only 
allows you to challenge things after the fact. You know, 
sometimes we just simply do not know what the impact of these 
discriminatory restrictions on voting will be until they are 
litigated in court.
    Ms. Sewell. Absolutely.
    There is another section 2 case pending before the Supreme 
Court, the Merrill v. Milligan case from my home State of 
Alabama, which I understand that you argued before the Supreme 
Court.
    I want--I am not asking you to speculate on the outcome. I 
am asking you to talk a little bit about the underlining case 
and how that further erodes, you know, or further shows the 
suppressive nature of some State actions.
    Mr. Ross. Yes. I will talk a little bit about the Milligan 
case, in which my clients challenge Alabama's racially 
discriminatory elect--congressional electoral districts.
    There is a region of Alabama that, Representative Sewell, 
you know very well, called the Black Belt, in which the State 
of Alabama----
    Ms. Sewell. I am so honored to represent them since I grew 
up in the Black Belt, yes.
    Mr. Ross [continuing]. in which the State has essentially 
divided that community into four congressional districts and 
when it is very possible to put into two majority Black 
districts.
    Three judges, two of whom were appointed by President 
Trump, unanimously said that this law violated section 2 of the 
Voting Rights Act. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court stayed that 
ruling. We are awaiting a decision any minute now.
    I mentioned that in my opening that, both in Georgia, in 
Alabama, and Louisiana, Federal courts had said that these kind 
of discriminatory maps had violated the Voting Rights Act, but 
they were stayed because of Supreme Court or other lower court 
actions.
    Ms. Sewell. We have seen a lot of State action around voter 
election laws all across the Nation. I know Alabama switched 
its eligibility from showing--you could show 15 different 
things to show who you are in order to get your ballot to now 
we only have nine. One of them was a validly issued Federal ID 
called a Social Security card. Last time I checked, there was 
no photo on it. Everybody has it.
    I think it is about voter access. Am I right?
    Mr. Ross. I think that is absolutely true, Representative 
Sewell. I think what you've unfortunately seen in some States 
is cutting back on what kind of IDs and things----
    Ms. Sewell. When States go amuck, what do you think should 
happen? More Federal oversight or some Federal oversight?
    Mr. Ross. I think it is really important to have the 
protections of the Voting Rights Act and the protections of 
things like that were in the Freedom to Vote Act.
    Ms. Sewell. Thank you so much.
    I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record two 
reports, each prepared by former chairs of the Subcommittee, 
Marcia Fudge, G.K. Butterfield, documenting the State of voting 
in America and the disparate impact election administration 
policies have on communities of color.
    Thank you.
    Chair Lee. Seeing no objection, so ordered.
    [The reports referred to follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Lee. They will be included as part of the record.
    At this time, I recognize Mrs. Bice for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Thank you for the witnesses for being here today.
    I hail from the great State of Oklahoma. I believe that 
Oklahoma has some of--if not the best voting election laws in 
the entire country. It is safe. It is secure. We find out our 
election results on election night, not days or weeks or even 
months, to my colleague from New York, later.
    I want to share one situation that happened during COVID, 
and that was that our election laws were challenged, and that 
is the absentee ballot process was challenged. A group of 
outside interests decided to sue to remove the notary 
requirement on an absentee ballot. It is the only way that you 
can verify an absentee ballot in Oklahoma.
    Although we thought it was sort of a strange idea that 
someone would think that it was invalid, in fact, the supreme 
court of the State of the Oklahoma ruled that the statute was 
in the wrong title of law and struck down the notary 
requirement. This happened end of April, beginning of May 2020.
    Had the legislature not been in session at that time--we 
are a citizen legislature, and only meet 4 months out of the 
year--we would have found ourselves in a very difficult 
situation because there is no other way to verify an absentee 
ballot in Oklahoma. Anyone can request one. It is no fault. 
Thankfully, we were able to rectify that by allowing 
individuals to send in a photo copy of their voter--I am 
sorry--of their Government-issued ID to verify that they are 
who they say they were. Otherwise, we would have been in a 
situation that many other States were in where our election 
laws were changed under judicial decree, and that is not what 
the Constitution calls for.
    Ms. Dixon, I want to start with you. In your view as the 
executive director of Lawyers Democracy Fund, which State-
implemented election reforms have actually increased voter 
confidence?
    Ms. Dixon. I think there are three main areas where State 
reforms increased voter confidence the most. That is in 
strengthening voter ID protections, improving list maintenance 
procedures, and improving transparency, which includes things 
like prohibiting private funding or private influence in 
election offices and increasing observer access to every part 
of the election process.
    Mrs. Bice. This is--this question is for any of the 
witnesses. Can you talk a little bit about addressing voter 
rolls? Because this seems to be a contentious issue. No one 
wants to address it. My home State's actually, I think, again 
done a great job of trying to clean up the voter rolls. It 
seems like a very difficult discussion in some States, and it 
should not be.
    Does anybody want to talk a little bit about States that 
are doing well and States that are not?
    Mr. Turner.
    Mr. Turner. Thank you.
    Georgia has a challenge in keeping our voter rolls. Our 
election calendar prevents us from cleaning it during most of 
the election year. That is something certainly Secretary 
Raffensperger has expressed that is something Congress can do 
to help Georgia keep a more accurate list. We are completely 
and wholly dependent upon Congress action there.
    Mrs. Bice. For any of the witnesses, which election reform 
laws decrease voter confidence?
    Would you suggest ballot boxes?
    Ms. Dixon. I think laws that create a perception of 
careless handling of ballots, things likes unmonitored drop 
boxes, no restrictions on who can handle an absentee ballot or 
return it for a voter, that kind of creates a perception in the 
public that ballots are just going everywhere. Also, mailing 
ballots to all registered voters without taking steps to clean 
the voter rolls first, as we saw in Nevada and D.C. in 2020.
    Mrs. Bice. I would maybe just share that the absentee 
ballot process in Oklahoma, I learned a lot about chain of 
custody as I oversaw the election board. I realized the 
importance of that because, to your point, making sure that you 
know exactly who has those ballots at any given time through 
the process is incredibly important to build confidence.
    Mr. Hearne.
    Mr. Hearne. I would--I would add and echo what Ms. Dixon 
said.
    The Carter-Baker Commission made a recommendation about 
mail-in balloting and ballot harvesting, which are two things 
that do undermine confidence. They particularly said States 
should adopt a rule that only the voter or voter's immediate 
family member, election officials, or a post office or courier 
service handle the ballot, because when you have ballots that 
are basically just circulating freely within the electorate, no 
one can be certain who actually cast that ballot.
    Ballot drop boxes facilitate ballot harvesting, which, 
again, Arizona took, which the Brnovich case considered 
measures to prevent that. I think those restore confidence to 
try to prevent that kind of ballot harvesting.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you. My time has expired.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Lee. Thank you, Mrs. Bice.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Let me start with you, Ms. Dixon, if I might.
    Did Joe Biden win the 2020 Presidential election?
    Ms. Dixon. Yes.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you.
    Mr. Hearne, did Joe Biden win the 2020 election?
    Mr. Hearne. Yes. Joseph Biden is the President of the 
United States.
    Mr. Morelle. That was not the question I asked. Did he win 
the election in 2020?
    Mr. Hearne. Yes. He is President because----
    Mr. Morelle. Mr. Burns, did Joe Biden win the 2020 
election?
    Mr. Burns. Yes.
    Mr. Morelle. Mr. Turner, did Joe Biden win the 2020 
election?
    Mr. Turner. Yes, and I am confident that he won Georgia 
because of our auditing process.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Ross, did Joe Biden win the 2020 Presidential election?
    Mr. Ross. Yes.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you.
    Let me, if I can--I apologize. I have too many tabs in my 
book.
    The--I want to ask, Mr. Hearne, I think in your testimony, 
you stated that a--that every illegally cast ballot 
disenfranchises a citizen who casts a legal vote. I have been 
listening closely not only to this hearing but each of the ones 
we have had yet this year, and I have not heard any evidence 
that there is widespread fraud which would cost or which would 
have caused disenfranchisement of voters. In fact, I think 
studies have shown actually the opposite.
    Illegally casting a ballot or committing acts of voter 
fraud are already crimes; are they not?
    Mr. Hearne. They are crimes, but they do happen. The--to 
the point, it does not need to be widespread. We have elections 
that are very--that are decided by a very narrow margin, going 
back to the 2000 Bush v. Gore election. Several hundred votes 
could decide who is the President of the United States.
    It need not be a widespread vote fraud scheme. You can have 
any vote fraud that, in many elections that are close, could 
determine the outcome.
    Mr. Morelle. Well, it could. I would submit that, while I 
think, given that there are literally hundreds of millions of 
ballots being cast, that I suspect, since humans are doing it--
we are not perfect--there would be some, but--some that are 
perhaps mishandled.
    Illegally casting a ballot, which is what you were 
referring to, was not just mishandling or a mistake, which you 
could expect, but, actually illegally casting ballots is what 
you were referring to, right?
    Mr. Hearne. That is what the U.S. Supreme Court says, that 
they----
    Mr. Morelle. Yes.
    Mr. Hearne [continuing]. said old-fashioned ballot box 
stuffing is one of the greatest ways that ballots--that 
elections are corrupted. Did the Carter-Baker Commission, with 
mail-in voting and absentee voting, that we need to have 
commonsense, fair protections against that potential for abuse.
    Mr. Morelle. Yes. I appreciate that.
    I would say also that there was no evidence that that 
happened in 2020 despite the numerous claims of the former 
President and--and many supporters of his.
    I want to turn--Mr. Ross, I have heard the phrase ``easy to 
vote, hard to cheat'' many times now. There is a claim that the 
goal of the laws that the majority seeks to pass in Congress 
are for that reason, to make it easier to vote, harder to 
cheat.
    The laws passed, you obviously spent a lot of time 
observing this, but a lot of State legislatures across the 
country have, in the wake of the 2020 election, made changes. 
Have they made it easier to vote?
    Mr. Ross. Often, your Honor----
    Mr. Morelle. Yes, you, Mr. Ross.
    Mr. Ross. Often, Your Honor, they--they have not. What have 
you seen is that, when you see States like Georgia, where Black 
voters are turning out to vote in large numbers on certain 
days, like Sunday; you see cutbacks on particular days in which 
African-Americans are more likely to vote.
    You see things like photo ID laws, which are structured in 
such a way that it is easier for White voters to have certain 
forms of ID. White voters are more likely to have something 
like a gun permit, so the State allows that. Black voters are 
more likely to have something like a student ID, so the State 
does not permit that. I think that we have seen these 
unfortunate backlash.
    Mr. Morelle. Yes. Thank you for that. I--the impact of 
these laws, which you started to mention, does not make it 
easier for all voters to vote; it makes it--I do not even know 
it makes it easier for any voters to vote, but it is certainly 
making it more difficult for many voters to vote. Isn't that 
the case?
    Mr. Ross. That is absolutely right. I have--what you are 
seeing is that it is making it harder for people to vote rather 
than easier in many States.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you.
    I just wanted to make one other point, and I only have a 
few seconds left, but there is another point.
    Ms. Dixon, in your testimony, you said: We are currently 
facing a crisis of voter confidence.
    If seems to me, when the President of the United States 
states over and over, now 4 years later, that the election was 
stolen, absent any information, that that does not bolster 
voter confidence. Would you agree?
    Ms. Dixon. I would agree, yes.
    Mr. Morelle. Yes. Thank you. I am out of time, but I yield 
back. Thank you.
    Chair Lee. Thank you, Mr. Morelle.
    Mr. Loudermilk, for what purpose do you seek recognition?
    Mr. Loudermilk. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to 
enter into the record the University of Georgia School of 
Public and International Affairs survey of the 2022 election 
that was referenced by Mr. Turner in his opening statement.
    Chair Lee. Seeing no objection, it is so ordered. It will 
be included as part of the record.
    [The University of Georgia School of Public and 
International Affairs survey referred to follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chair Lee. I now recognize Mr. Chip Roy for 5 minutes for 
the purpose of questioning our witnesses.
    Mr. Roy. Thank the gentlelady. I appreciate being waived 
onto the committee, and I appreciate the witnesses being here.
    One of the issues we have in the State of Texas--and of 
course we do across the country--is dealing with ensuring that 
it is only citizens of the United States who are voting. It is 
something that we believe needs to be addressed and that we 
have an obligation here in Washington to ensure that States 
have the tools to be able to ensure that States can enforce the 
law in Texas in our case, or any other State, to make sure that 
only American citizens are voting in our elections.
    Ms. Dixon, am I correct that--currently, the Department of 
Homeland Security, they have the authority to share data 
regarding naturalized citizens, but their acting on this 
authority is left to the discretion of the DHS Secretary.
    Does that sound right to you?
    Ms. Dixon. That is my understanding as well.
    Mr. Roy. That, additionally, the Social Security 
Administration cannot share Social Security information with 
States for purposes of election integrity.
    Does that sound correct to you as well?
    Ms. Dixon. I believe so. I am not positive.
    Mr. Roy. I have introduced legislation, the Protection of 
American Voters Act, which would try to fix this situation and 
allow States--in fact--in fact, it would require these agencies 
to work with States to share that information to ensure that 
States can have that information to validate and make sure that 
it is only, in fact, citizens who are voting in Texas.
    It would require DHS to provide that information--without 
fee, by the way--to the States. Inquiring States--if those 
States are inquiring, it would give them that information from 
the SAVE system, and it would require the Social Security 
Administration to provide those inquiring States with Social 
Security information with confidentiality protections, of 
course, that provides for who is a citizen born in the United 
States.
    In your experience, Ms. Dixon, would that facilitate 
States' ability to ensure integrity of the elections and to 
follow through with the position that the vast majority of the 
American people, without exception--it is not even a debatable 
stat--that the vast majority of the American people believe, 
shockingly--I mean, it is going to shock you--that American 
citizens should be the ones who are voting in our elections in 
the United States?
    Do you believe that that would facilitate that?
    Ms. Dixon. I believe so, yes.
    Mr. Roy. Do you believe it is imperative that we, as a 
policy matter, work to ensure that it is American citizens who 
are voting in order to make sure that the integrity of our 
elections is protected?
    Ms. Dixon. Yes.
    Mr. Roy. I will just say, Mr. Hearne, a quick question, 
then, going back to Shelby.
    Now, I was a lawyer on the Senate Judiciary Committee in 
2005 and 2006. As you might expect, that was a rather important 
time for the reconsideration of Voting Rights Act.
    I was there for the many debates--debates among Democrats 
and Republicans in the U.S. Senate, here in the House as well, 
going through the data and the information.
    I was a part--I was one of the lawyers putting together the 
record that the Supreme Court used in terms of looking at the 
data and looking at exactly what formed the Voting Rights Act's 
reauthorization of a formula.
    Just to make sure that the record is clear, for all those 
saying that the Supreme Court got out of its lane to strike 
down section 5 and that they acted imprudently in doing so, 
that, in fact, the formula that was reauthorized in 2006--and I 
just want to make sure Mr. Hearne--just make sure the record's 
clear, that that formula was from 1968, that that formula dated 
back to, you know, approximately 40 years prior at the time, 
now certainly 50-plus years prior, and that using that formula 
means that you are actually taking data and a formula that was 
not at all reflective of current times and what is going on 
with respect to jurisdictions across the United States.
    For example, you would have jurisdictions--there were some 
in Florida, I remember. I do not have the map in front of me, 
but there were jurisdictions that were covered by the formula 
who had far more instances of voting irregularities, concerns, 
and investigations by the Department of Justice than there were 
that were not covered by the--and vice versa--I am sorry. The 
formulas that did not match the actual data.
    Would you, Mr. Hearne, be able to expound on that, the 
extent to which we were using an outdated formula that did not 
reflect the actual reality of what is going on in the United 
States?
    Mr. Hearne. You are absolutely correct, Mr. Roy.
    The formula was what was the heart of the Shelby County 
challenge. I think Chief Justice Roberts did a remarkable job, 
both during the oral argument of that case, as well as in the 
opinion, of outlining how that formula from the early 1960's 
was inapposite to the electoral conduct and the manner in which 
voters participated in elections after--in the current, 
modern----
    Mr. Roy. If I might just add for that, right, in the first 
decade after enactment, the AG objected to 14 percent of 
proposed voting changes. In the last decade before 
reauthorization, the AG objected to 0.16 percent.
    The fact is the court righted a wrong. They fixed an error 
that--that this Congress did for purely political reasons. 
Therefore, it is the better State of the law for having done 
so.
    I yield back.
    Chair Lee. Thank you, Mr. Roy.
    I now recognize Ms. Torres for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Torres. Mr. Ross, several Members of this Committee 
also serve on the Appropriations Committee. This week, House 
Republicans canceled full Committee appropriations markup 
meetings, putting the Federal funding process on hold, period.
    We know that the bills this week--their bills were 
considered as the easy bills, the easiest bills to pass, and 
were crafted to hide the biggest cuts to critical programs that 
serve as a lifeline for many people, and not just in my 
district, but across the U.S.
    We also know that, under the current Republican framework, 
across-the-board cuts to programs, including in education, 
health, public safety, and our election system, would likely 
reach at least 30 percent.
    When the majority release clear topline funding limits--
when they finally do it for each of the Subcommittees, we will 
see the full scope of the damage that they have in store for 
the American people.
    This year, we have heard from several witnesses in this 
Committee about the important--the importance of funding our 
elections or under-funding our elections, the damage that that 
causes.
    How can election funding issues impact communities like the 
one that I represent, hardworking families, voters of color who 
do not live in the top ZIP Codes in America and can have their 
driver, you know, take them to the polls and maybe pay someone 
to stand in line for them?
    Mr. Ross. I think, unfortunately, the fact that Congress 
has under-funded local elections has resulted in things that we 
are seeing, like longer lines in polling stations, you know, 
making it harder for people to do things like register to vote. 
I think it is really important that Congress step up and 
provide funding for local elections to ensure that they are 
fully protected and accessible for everyone.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you.
    The spread of election-related is--and disinformation has 
fueled conspiracy theories that make it difficult for voters to 
receive accurate information about elections and their voting 
options. Conspiracy theories also make it harder for election 
officials to get accurate information to the public. I mean, we 
heard it right here when we talk about the Georgia election.
    You know, if lack of ballots, if missing power cords that 
led to 3-plus hours of wait time, purging over 53,000 voters, 
lack of training for the staff to help them understand the 
guidelines, and a candidate that had a direct conflict of 
interest as a secretary of state running for Governor--if that 
is not, you know, interference and misuse of--of their power, I 
do not know what that is.
    We do know that, on January 6, when insurrectionists 
terrorized the Capitol, which was incited by Donald Trump's 
failure to accept that he lost the election, when we were here 
trying to certify the election, those false allegations of 
widespread voter fraud led to this violent attack on this 
Capitol.
    Mr. Ross, in your testimony, you mentioned that you see the 
current wave of restrictive voting legislation in States as 
related to the January 6th insurrection, a connection that may 
or may not be so apparent.
    Can you explain that to us?
    Mr. Ross. Yes. I think, unfortunately, what you are seeing 
is disinformation being around voter fraud; around, you know, 
stolen elections. I think that is what is fueling these 
election changes, it is what is fueled the January 6 
insurrection, and it has fueled what State legislators are 
responding to, this false narrative around stolen elections or 
voter fraud.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you.
    In this committee, we heard from our colleagues, you know, 
that higher voter turnout numbers in recent elections means 
that restrictive voting laws enacted by so many States are not, 
in fact, restrictive.
    Can you, Mr. Ross, share with us, you know, how you view 
that as a truthful and unbiased statement?
    Mr. Ross. Sure. I see I am running out of time, but I know 
that a number of courts have found that these laws are, in 
fact, discriminatory. In Texas, in Georgia, in North Carolina, 
when voter ID laws were passed, they were struck down by 
Federal courts.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chair Lee. Thank you.
    I now recognize Ms. Claudia Tenney for 5 minutes for the 
purpose of questioning our witnesses.
    Ms. Tenney. Thank you, Chairman Lee.
    Thank you to the Ranking Member Sewell. Great to see you 
today.
    Thank you to all the witnesses.
    Thank you for inviting me to participate.
    As the co-chair and founder of the House Election Integrity 
Caucus, the first of its kind, it is my honor to join you 
today. Confidence in our elections is at an all-time low.
    In weeks leading up to the 2022 midterms, 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 agreeing. Only 26 
percent of voters are very confident their vote will be counted 
when voting with absentee ballots or early voting.
    Importantly, this is not a partisan issue, and you can see 
the divide between upstate New York and New York City. Looking 
to the not so distant past in 2015 and 2016, it was Democrats, 
not Republicans, who were most skeptical of American elections.
    The Election Integrity Caucus, in our Post-Election Autopsy 
Report on the 2022 midterm elections, found that States that 
made pandemic-era election law changes permanent suffered from 
a severe lack of election integrity. For example, in 
California, legislators passed AB 37, making no-excuse 
balloting permanent. This led to delayed results and confusion. 
As a result, up to 16 congressional elections were still 
undecided weeks later after election day.
    Delays like these lead to uncertainty around our election 
process that ultimately undermines the public trust.
    Additionally, in New York, we saw the voters in 2021 reject 
our COVID emergency voting measures, such as automatic no-
excuse absentee voting without the need for a Social Security 
number or even a photo ID. However, the legislature decided to 
overrule the will of the voters in a public referendum and make 
them permanent anyway.
    In these types of bad policies, it makes it close to 
impossible for election officials to weed out fraud. They also 
place an enormous burden on local boards of elections, leading 
to events like my own 2020 congressional race, which tied up 
the courts for months, leaving my constituents without a voice 
in Congress until I was ultimately sworn in in February 2021.
    Voting is one of our most sacred rights as citizens of a 
self-governing constitutional republic. I am honored to be 
joining you here today to discuss how we can restore faith and 
confidence in our elections. Our system is built on the public 
trust that the vote of each voting citizen will be counted, and 
we must assure the American people that we take this trust 
seriously.
    My first question is to my fellow New York friend, New 
Yorker and lawyer and former elections official, Joe Burns. You 
witnessed the defeat of these propositions concerning elections 
in November 2021--and decisively. One proposed change to the 
redistricting process. One would have permitted same-day voter 
registration. The other would have established no-excuse 
absentee voting.
    As of February 2023, New York has over 13,054,876 
registered voters, with almost half of those voters registered 
as Democrats, which means the Democrats have a 2-to-1 advantage 
but overwhelmingly defeated all those initiatives that are 
being promoted by Democrats nationwide. Same-day registration 
and no-excuse absentee voting are two election administration 
processes widely supported by the left and touted as critical 
components to increasing voter turnout.
    In your opinion, why did the voters of New York reject a 
measure that many Democrats support? I know you have specific 
expertise in this field as a former election official.
    Mr. Burns. Yes. Thank you.
    As you said, all three of those proposals that were put 
forward by a Democratic-controlled legislature were defeated in 
2021. Maybe more importantly, certainly statewide, New York is 
a very Democratic State, statewide. f you look at the county-
level data, you see that the--these proposals were defeated, 
and some of them were Democratic counties of the State, was not 
simply the more--was not simply the rural counties and more 
Republican counties.
    I think, when you get down to it, when these proposals were 
put forward to the voters of the State, regardless of party, 
when they had an opportunity to have their voices heard on it--
on these proposals, they decided that they did not want no-
fault absentee voting. They did not want same-day voter 
registration. They wanted to keep the anti-gerrymandering 
provisions in the State Constitution.
    Ms. Tenney. Well, let me ask you, because no-excuse 
absentee voting--or with-excuse absentee voting has been on the 
books for a long time. Has it negatively impacted turnout in 
New York?
    Mr. Burns. It is interesting. If you look at the--if you 
look at the recent history in election results--I will take the 
2022 gubernatorial race and the 2018 gubernatorial race. The--
after the 2018 elections, when you had this expansion of--of 
voting--when you had this expansion of absentee balloting, when 
you had this expansion of early voting, in 2018, you had over 6 
million voters--New Yorkers vote in the gubernatorial election.
    After these expansions took place, such as early voting, in 
the 2022 gubernatorial election, you actually had fewer voters 
turn out--5.90. Even with that----
    Ms. Tenney. Thank you. I think my time has expired. 
Appreciate it.
    Thank you to all the witnesses, and thank you, Mr. Burns.
    Chair Lee. Thank you, Ms. Tenney.
    I will now recognize Chairman Steil for the purpose of 
questioning our witnesses.
    Chairman Steil. Thank you, Chair Lee, for hosting today's 
hearing.
    Thank you to our witnesses for being here.
    America's decentralized election system is essential for 
our democracy. State, county, municipal offices who administer 
elections are best positioned to understand the needs of voters 
in their communities and are vested in the integrity of our 
election process and outcomes.
    As Chairman, I am committing to upholding our Federalist 
approach by equipping States with the tools they need to make 
it easy to vote and hard to cheat. This means ensuring all 
eligible Americans who want to participate have the opportunity 
to cast a ballot and have confidence those ballots will be 
counted according to law.
    It also means ensuring noncitizens are not able to cast 
ballots, which dilutes American citizens' votes. When voters 
are more confident their ballot will count and not be canceled 
out by someone else's ballots, they are more likely to 
participate. We see the data time and time again on that.
    Today, we are focusing on the American Confidence in 
Elections Act's provisions that ensure all eligible Americans 
are able to participate, in particular, while preventing 
foreign interference. While noncitizens are already prohibited 
from voting in Federal elections, some States and territories 
allow noncitizens to vote outside of Federal elections.
    For example, in Washington, D.C., the District of Columbia 
now allows noncitizens to vote. This would include embassy 
staff of countries like Russia and China after living in the 
country for just 30 days.
    I think this is a serious vulnerability to potentially 
nefarious foreign interference in our election and raises some 
pretty serious questions.
    The ACE Act will prevent States--will provide States with 
the necessary tools to prevent noncitizens from voting. We must 
equip States with tools to ensure elections are safe and secure 
while ensuring access for all eligible American voters. It 
should be common sense that only Americans should be able to 
vote in American elections.
    I appreciate our witnesses being here. I want to do two 
sets of questions if I can. If I can start with you, Ms. Dixon. 
I appreciate you being here.
    Rough math, do you know how many people vote in a 
Washington, D.C., election in a Presidential year?
    Ms. Dixon. I actually do not know.
    Chairman Steil. Total rough--rough math, we will go 
300,000. There is eight city council wards in the District of 
Columbia. If you break that down, it is roughly 40,000 votes 
per ward in D.C.
    Do you know how many noncitizens would be eligible or are 
eligible to vote in the District of Columbia following their 
change of law?
    Ms. Dixon. I would imagine it is a substantial number.
    Chairman Steil. It is 50,000. That is actually in your 
testimony: 50,000 noncitizens in Washington, D.C., would be 
eligible to vote, which would clearly be enough if they are 
concentrated in any given ward, which would be rational to 
think, knowing what the--that the embassies are located in a 
tight geographic area.
    Do you know how many would be prevented from voting--that 
would be allowed to vote in the municipal election but then 
being prevented from voting in the Presidential election?
    Ms. Dixon. We just have to trust that they are going to do 
that through proper procedures, but it creates a lot of 
administrative hassles for the election officials.
    Chairman Steil. Does that--does that increase confidence, 
do you think, in American citizens who are voting in the 
Federal elections?
    Ms. Dixon. Probably not.
    Chairman Steil. Let me shift gears slightly to you, if I 
can, Mr. Burns. I appreciate you being here and the work that 
you do on election integrity.
    In December 2021, the New York City Council passed a 
measure that allowed more than 800,000 noncitizens to vote in 
New York City local elections, similar to what Washington, 
D.C., passed, except, in New York, it was challenged and struck 
down by the State supreme court judge citing that the law 
violates the New York Constitution, and now that case is 
currently on appeal.
    Do you support the State supreme court's decision?
    Mr. Burns. I think the State--I think the trial judge--the 
supreme court judge made the correct decision on the noncitizen 
voting law.
    Chairman Steil. If you could do it concisely, how would 
you--how would you note that it violates the New York State 
Constitution?
    Mr. Burns. It is pretty clear to me, and I think it was 
pretty clear to the judge and most other folks who look at this 
that the State Constitution is pretty specific that only 
citizens are entitled to vote, even if it is--even in municipal 
elections, which of course this is--this will apply to.
    Chairman Steil. Let us just run the hypothetical that case 
does not come down in the way that you and I would like, and it 
plays out that noncitizens are going to vote in New York City 
municipal elections. Is there a concern citizens living in the 
five boroughs could vote in Federal elections--noncitizens--
apologize--could vote in the five--in the five boroughs, that 
could vote in Federal elections, and how would you prevent them 
from voting in Federal elections, meaning they are going to be 
on the roll? They could vote in municipal elections if this 
court case got flipped back and the law was allowed to move 
forward. How would you prevent them from then voting in Federal 
elections?
    Mr. Burns. I think it would be certain--it would certainly 
be very difficult, and I would not envy the men and women at 
the New York City Board of Elections or any of the borough 
boards of elections. I suppose they would have to have two 
different sets of lists; one that would be simply for municipal 
elections, one that would be for State and Federal elections.
    It certainly would not be easy to do. I do believe that--I 
do--I am confident that the second department, our intermediate 
appellate court, will find that the law is struck down.
    Chairman Steil. Do--appreciate that. Do you believe that 
noncitizen voting dilutes the votes of U.S. citizens?
    Mr. Burns. Undoubtedly. No question about it.
    Chairman Steil. I appreciate you being here. I appreciate 
your testimony.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Lee. Thank you, Chairman Steil.
    I now recognize myself for the purpose of questioning our 
witnesses.
    I would like to go back to you, Mr. Hearne, and 
specifically the Carter-Baker Commission, your role there and 
some of the recommendations that came to us from that report.
    Could you share with us more about the Commission's 
recommendations specifically as it relates to voter ID and 
voter list maintenance?
    Mr. Hearne. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Yes. My role was an attorney adviser. I worked primarily 
with President Carter, as well as Secretary of State Baker and 
the other Members of the Committee, in formulating and writing 
the report.
    We heard testimony at three different occasions from 
witnesses, expert witnesses, election administrators, trying to 
determine, if you will, recommendations that the Committee 
could make to the States for best practices.
    A number of those--and there was, again, a bipartisan 
consensus on these points of the committee. You have mentioned 
photo ID. That was a big recommendation that the Carter-Baker 
Committee made.
    The point that I think--and I echoed this in some of my 
opening remarks--the point that I think it merits noting is 
that that recommendation was in the Marion County Crawford 
case. The Supreme Court--Supreme Court specifically referred 
back to the Carter-Baker Commission and quoted them and their 
recommendation when they found that Indiana's voter ID law was 
constitutional.
    As to the questions about citizenship, that is also a 
recommendation of the Carter-Baker Commission, that the ID 
affirm that the person who is presenting themselves to cast a 
ballot is, in fact, not just eligible, but eligible and a 
citizen of the United States.
    The other recommendations they made, which are particularly 
timely, are those about ballot harvesting and the prohibition 
on anybody handling ballots or collecting ballots or paying by 
the ballot to collect them and put them in drop boxes. That 
comes straight out of the Carter-Baker Commission. Again, that 
is a bipartisan recommendation.
    Chair Lee. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Hearne. Jimmy Carter, when he testified or did not 
testify, but in speaking with him, he--his first Georgia State 
Senate race who would have a lot of vote fraud in it, and that 
is why he became personally very interested in this. He went to 
one polling place afterwards and found that everybody had voted 
alphabetically when they looked at who voted in what order.
    It was clear that there was a concern about vote fraud of 
people coming in, and particularly with absentee ballots or 
mail-in ballots. The recommendation was that they not have 
that.
    Finally, we have talked about the current accurate voter 
rolls and the recommendation that those be uniform and that 
they be current.
    Chair Lee. Now, Mr. Hearne, on the subject of voter ID, I 
know we had a series of hearings already on elections, and one 
thing that has become apparent from the hearing is that I 
believe there is actually broad consensus on both sides of the 
aisle that some form of ID is appropriate and important.
    Can you share your perspective on different types of ID and 
if certain types of ID you believe are more effective or 
preferable to others in the context of voting?
    Mr. Hearne. The recommendation that Carter-Baker made--and 
it was also what was litigated in the case that I handled for 
the State of Virginia that was upheld by the Fourth Circuit--
was the recommendation or the requirement of Government-issued 
photo ID with a identification of the voter. Again, you have 
measures to make sure, if one individual does not have access 
to that, that it is given to them for free. We have--they found 
in the Virginia case that, following, again, the Carter-Baker 
recommendations, the Commonwealth adopted photo ID requirement.
    Again, you do not have a requirement that a--say, a Social 
Security card with no photo on it would work, or you do not 
have a school ID that does not have a photo, that is not a 
Government-issued school ID. Those kind of IDs are not the ones 
that meet the requirements of the best practices that the 
Carter-Baker Commission recommended.
    Chair Lee. Thank you, Mr. Hearne.
    I would like to thank everyone for participating in today's 
hearing. While we may have--oh. Oh, I did not--you do not 
have--no? All right. Good.
    While we may have some differences in opinion on the best 
path forward, it is clear that both sides of the aisle in this 
Committee have the shared goals of increasing voter 
participation and improving voters' experiences on election 
day.
    I look forward to continuing the discussion on how we can 
boost voter confidence in the electoral process and outcomes, 
and bring forward policy solutions, like the American 
Confidence in Elections Act, to ensure every eligible American 
has the opportunity to cast their ballot and trust that it will 
count.
    Members of the Subcommittee may have additional questions 
for our witnesses, and we ask that you please respond to those 
questions in writing.
    Without objection, each Member will have 5 legislative days 
to insert additional material into the record or to revise or 
extend their remarks.
    If there is no further business, I thank the Members for 
their participation.
    Without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:03 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]