Chair Lee's full opening statement as prepared for delivery:
Today, the Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Elections will continue its oversight of federal election law.
32 years ago, the National Voter Registration Act, or the NVRA, was passed with the goal of increasing voter registration, removing bureaucratic barriers, and ensuring states accurately maintain their voter rolls.
Today we will discuss ways to strengthen the original goals of the NVRA.
According to the Election Assistance Commission, today, over 86 percent of the eligible voting population are active registered voters. Contrast that to 1992 – right before the law’s passage – when registration was at 68 percent.
That is a great thing for our democracy.
As a former Secretary of State, I believe it is incumbent on us as policymakers to continuously seek feedback from election officials on the ground about what works, what can be improved, and how changes in technology and resources affect elections administration.
Throughout my time as Florida’s Secretary of State and as a Member of Congress, I have had many of those discussions – including with other secretaries of state and local elections officials.
This hearing will examine opportunities to update the NVRA to strengthen voter confidence in our election laws and improve election administration.
Thoughtful review and modernization of the NVRA will improve elections administration and remove barriers to efficiency.
Currently, the NVRA requires that states conduct a “general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official list of eligible voters."
This ambiguous language has left courts to issue broad rulings about what constitutes general and reasonable.
This ultimately means states are not required, and sometimes not even permitted, to remove ineligible voters due to errors on their registration form, lack of U.S. citizenship, criminal conviction, mental incapacity, or other reasons consistent with their state laws for which a registration may be invalid.
Election officials benefit from clear and unambiguous laws, which both help them to carry out their duties and to ensure voter lists are accurate and up to date.
We have had witnesses testify in this very room about how the NVRA’s language actually prevents election officials from conducting robust list maintenance in the manner they think appropriate.
Examples include the blackout period for list maintenance, and delays in removing voters who have moved to a new jurisdiction.
In some cases, a voter who has moved must request removal and an election official must wait two general election cycles to remove the now ineligible or relocated voter.
We must also recognize that modern technology has made certain provisions of the NVRA obsolete.
While 30 years have passed since the NVRA’s enactment, many of the functions that still need to be performed can now be done more efficiently.
As another example, the NVRA’s language requires states to make voter rolls available for inspection by “photocopying."
As a result, a Court of Appeals has found that the state of Alabama can charge enormous amounts for printing copies of its voter rolls, as opposed to producing and delivering digital copies for a fraction of the cost.
This is another example of how evolving technology has highlighted the need for updating the NVRA to better reflect practical realities of today.
Before concluding, I’d also like to touch on the importance of reviewing and clarifying the NVRA when it comes to confirming a registrant’s citizenship.
The NVRA does not currently require an applicant to prove their citizenship beyond an attestation clause and a signature.
One eye-opening example of this – which generated significant media headlines – is the recent arrest of Ian Roberts, an illegal immigrant who successfully registered to vote in Maryland – twice.
Last week, Chairman Steil and I sent a letter to the Maryland State Board of Elections seeking a detailed assessment of how a non-U.S. citizen was able to register to vote, and that letter was sent in furtherance of protecting the integrity of the franchise.
The Committee will continue to review this case or any case happening across the country.
Let me end with something I think we all can agree on: improving the administration of our elections and ensuring voters' voices remain heard should be central to all of these discussions.
Election officials on the ground need access to the right tools and clear direction to do this.I look forward to further discussing ways to improve our system to bolster election integrity and efficiency across the country.
I thank our witnesses for being here today and I look forward to our conversation.
###
|
|
