Committee on House Administration Subcommittee on Elections Hearing, "Examining Potential Updates to the NVRA”

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                EXAMINING POTENTIAL UPDATES TO THE NVRA5=======================================================================67                                HEARING89                               BEFORE THE1011                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS1213                                 OF THE1415                   COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION1617                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES1819                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2021                             FIRST SESSION2223                               __________2425                           DECEMBER 10, 20252627                               __________2829      Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration3031[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3233                            www.govinfo.gov34                           www.cha.house.gov35                                __________3637                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE3862-268                  WASHINGTON : 20263940-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4142                   COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION4344                    BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Chairman4546LAUREL LEE, Florida, Vice Chair      JOSEPH MORELLE, New York,47BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia                 Ranking Member48H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama49GREG MURPHY, North Carolina          NORMA TORRES, California50STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma             JULIE JOHNSON, Texas51MARY MILLER, Illinois52MIKE CAREY, Ohio5354                       Mike Platt, Staff Director55                  Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director5657                                 ------5859                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS6061                       LAUREL LEE, Florida, Chair6263BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia            TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama,64GREG MURPHY, North Carolina               Ranking Member65MARY MILLER, Illinois                JULIE JOHNSON, Texas6667                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S6869                              ----------70                                                                   Page7172                           Opening Statements7374Chair Laurel Lee, Representative from the State of Florida.......     175    Prepared statement of Chair Laurel Lee.......................     376Ranking Member Terri A. Sewell, Representative from the State of77  Alabama........................................................     478    Prepared statement of Ranking Member Terri A. Sewell.........     679Prepared statement of Ranking Member of the Committee on House80  Administration Joseph Morelle..................................    558182                               Witnesses8384Mark Braden, of counsel, Baker Hostetler.........................     785    Prepared statement of Mark Braden............................     986Michael Morley, faculty director of the Election Law Center,87  Sheila M. McDevitt Professor of Law............................    1588    Prepared statement of Michael Morley.........................    1789Sophia Lin Lakin, director, Voting Rights Project, American Civil90  Liberties Union................................................    2491    Prepared statement of Sophia Lin Lakin.......................    269293                       Submissions for the Record9495League of Women Voters statement.................................    5196Southern Poverty Law Center written statement....................    729798                          EXAMINING POTENTIAL99                          UPDATES TO THE NVRA100101                              ----------102103                           December 10, 2025104105                 Subcommittee on Elections,106                 Committee on House Administration,107                                  House of Representatives,108                                                   Washington, D.C.109    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:38 p.m., in110room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Laurel Lee111[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.112    Present: Representatives Lee, Miller, Sewell, Morelle, and113Johnson.114    Staff present: Mike Platt, Staff Director; Rachel Collins,115General Counsel; Abby Salter, Deputy General Counsel; Jordan116Wilson, Director of Member Services; Kristen Monterroso,117Director of Operations; Josh Weber, Counsel; Annemarie Cake,118Professional Staff and Deputy Clerk; Jamie Fleet, Minority119Staff Director; Khalil Abboud, Minority Deputy Staff Director;120Nikolas Youngsmith, Minority Elections Counsel; Sarah Nasta,121Minority Senior Advisor and Director of Outreach; and Owen122Reilly, Minority Professional Staff.123124OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAUREL LEE, CHAIR OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE125        ON ELECTIONS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA126127    Chair Lee. The Subcommittee on Elections of the Committee128on House Administration will come to order.129    The title of today's hearing is ``Examining Potential130Updates to the NVRA.''131    I note that a quorum is present. Without objection, the132Chair may declare a recess at any time. Also, without133objection, the hearing record will remain open for five134legislative days so Members may submit any materials they wish135to be included therein.136    Today the Committee on House Administration's Subcommittee137on Elections will continue its oversight of Federal election138law.139    Thirty-two years ago, the National Voter Registration Act,140or the NVRA, was passed with the goal of increasing voter141registration, removing bureaucratic barriers, and ensuring142States accurately maintain their voter rolls. Today we will143discuss ways to strengthen those original goals of the NVRA.144    According to the Election Assistance Commission, today over14586 percent of the eligible voting population are active146registered voters. Contrast that to 1992, right before the147law's passage, when registration was at 68 percent. That is a148great thing for our democracy.149    As a former secretary of state, I believe it is incumbent150on us as policymakers to continuously seek feedback from151elections officials on the ground about what works, what can be152improved, and how changes in technology and resources affect153elections administration.154    Throughout my time as Florida's Secretary of State and as a155Member of Congress, I have had many of those discussions,156including with other secretaries of state and local elections157officials.158    This hearing will examine opportunities to update the NVRA,159to strengthen voter confidence in our election laws, and160improve election administration.161    Thoughtful review and modernization of the NVRA will162improve elections administration and remove barriers to163efficiency.164    Currently, the NVRA requires that States conduct a general165program that makes reasonable efforts to remove the names of166ineligible voters from the official list of eligible voters.167    This ambiguous language has left courts to issue broad168rulings about what constitutes general and reasonable. This169ultimately means States are not required and sometimes not even170permitted to remove ineligible voters due to errors on their171registration form, lack of U.S. citizenship, criminal172conviction, mental incapacity, or other reasons consistent with173their State laws for which a registration may be invalid.174    Election officials benefit from clear and unambiguous laws175which will help them to carry out their duties and to ensure176voter lists are accurate and up-to-date.177    We have had witnesses testify in this very room about how178the NVRA's language actually prevents election officials from179conducting robust list maintenance in the manner they think180appropriate.181    Examples include the blackout period for list maintenance182and delays in removing voters who have moved to a new183jurisdiction. In some cases a voter who has moved must request184removal, and an election official must wait two general185election cycles to remove a now ineligible or relocated voter.186    We must also recognize that modern technology has made187certain provisions of the NVRA obsolete. While 30 years have188passed since the NVRA's enactment, many of the functions that189still need to be performed can now be done more efficiently.190    As another example, the NVRA's language requires States to191make voter rolls available for inspection by photocopying. As a192result, a court of appeals has found that the State of Alabama193can charge enormous amounts for printing copies of its voter194rolls, as opposed to producing and delivering digital copies195for a fraction of that cost.196    This is another example of how evolving technology has197highlighted the need for updating the NVRA to better reflect198the practical realities of today.199    Before concluding, I would also like to touch on the200importance of reviewing and clarifying the NVRA when it comes201to confirming a registrant's citizenship. The NVRA does not202currently require an applicant to prove their citizenship203beyond an attestation clause and a signature.204    One recent example of this which generated significant205media headlines is the recent arrest of Ian Roberts, an illegal206immigrant who successfully registered to vote in Maryland207twice.208    Last week, Chairman Steil and I sent a letter to the209Maryland State Board of elections seeking a detailed assessment210of how a non-U.S. citizen was able to register to vote, and211that letter was sent in furtherance of protecting the integrity212of the franchise.213    The Committee will continue to review this case or any case214happening across the country.215    Let me end with something I think we can all agree on:216Improving the administration of our elections and ensuring217voters' voices remain heard should be central to all of these218discussions. Elections officials on the ground need access to219the right tools and clear direction in order to do this.220    I look forward to further discussing ways to improve our221system to bolster election integrity and efficiency across the222country.223    I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I look224forward to our conversation.225    With that, I yield to Ranking Member Sewell for an opening226statement.227    [The prepared statement of Chair Lee follows:]228229 PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIR OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS230                           LAUREL LEE231232    Today, the Committee on House Administration's Subcommittee233on Elections will continue its oversight of Federal election234law. 32 years ago, the National Voter Registration Act, or the235NVRA, was passed with the goal of increasing voter236registration, removing bureaucratic barriers, and ensuring237States accurately maintain their voter rolls. Today we will238discuss ways to strengthen the original goals of the NVRA. Let239me begin with the great news: According to the Election240Assistance Commission, today, over 86 percent of the eligible241voting population are active registered voters. Contrast that242to 1992--right before the law's passage--when registration was243at 68 percent. That is a great thing for our democracy.244    As a former secretary of state, it is incumbent on us as245policymakers to continuously seek feedback from election246officials on the ground about what works, what can be improved,247and how changes in technology and resources affect elections248administration. Throughout my time as Florida's Secretary of249State and as a Member of Congress, I have had many of those250discussions--including with other secretaries of state.251    My goal with this hearing is to examine ways we can update252the NVRA to strengthen voter confidence in our election laws253and improve election administration. It is my view, and I254believe that of countless other State and local election255officials, that thoughtful review and modernization of the NVRA256will improve elections administration and remove barriers to257efficiency. The NVRA requires that States conduct a ``general258program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of259ineligible voters from the official list of eligible voters.''260This ambiguous language has left courts to issue broad rulings261about what constitutes general and reasonable. This ultimately262means States are not required, and sometimes not even263permitted, to remove ineligible voters due to errors on their264registration form, lack of U.S. citizenship, criminal265conviction, mental incapacity, or other reasons consistent with266State law for which a registration may be invalid.267    Election officials benefit from clear and unambiguous laws,268which both help them to carry out their duties and ensure voter269lists are accurate and up to date. We have had witnesses270testify in this very room about how the NVRA's language271actually prevents election officials from conducting robust272list maintenance in the manner they think appropriate. Examples273include the blackout period for list maintenance, and delays in274removing voters who have moved to a new jurisdiction. In some275cases, a voter who has moved must (1) request removal and (2)276an election official must wait two general election cycles to277remove the now ineligible voter. We must also recognize that278modern technology has made certain provisions of the NVRA279obsolete. While 30 years have passed since the NVRA's280enactment, many of the functions that still need to be281performed can now be done more efficiently.282    As another example, the NVRA's language requires States to283make voter rolls available for inspection by ``photocopying.''284As a result, a Court of Appeals has found that the State of285Alabama can charge enormous amounts for printing copies of its286voter rolls, as opposed to producing and delivering digital287copies for a fraction of the cost. This is one example of how288evolving technology has highlighted the need for updating the289NVRA to better reflect practical realities today.290    Before concluding, I would also like to touch on the291importance of reviewing and the NVRA when it comes to292confirming a registrant's citizenship. The NVRA does not293currently require an applicant to prove their citizenship294beyond an attestation clause and a signature. One eye-opening295example of this--which generated significant media headlines--296is the recent arrest of Ian Roberts, an illegal immigrant who297successfully registered to vote in Maryland--twice. Last week,298Chairman Steil and I sent a letter to the Maryland State Board299of Elections seeking a detailed assessment of how non-U.S.300citizens are able to register to vote, in furtherance of301protecting the integrity of the franchise. The Committee will302continue to investigate cases of this happening across the303country. Let me end with something I think we all can agree on:304improving the administration of our elections and ensuring305voters' voices remain heard should be central to any of these306discussions. Election officials on the ground need access to307the right tools and clear direction to do this. I look forward308to further discussing ways to improve our system to bolster309election integrity and efficiency in our country.310311 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TERRI A. SEWELL, RANKING MEMBER OF312   THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM313                            ALABAMA314315    Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Madam Chair.316    As Ranking Member of the Elections Subcommittee and the317Representative of Alabama's civil rights district, there is318nothing more important to me than ensuring that every eligible319voter can register to vote and cast their ballot without facing320unnecessary barriers. Far too often Americans have to jump321through unnecessary hurdles to try to make their voices heard.322    Ever since the 2020 election, the American people have been323bombarded with misinformation and disinformation about the324integrity of our elections, lied to about the rampant voter325fraud, and misled by false claims that the 2020 election was326stolen.327    To make matters worse, State legislatures have used every328tool in their toolkit at their disposal to enact new barriers329to the ballot box. Just this year, 47 State legislatures330attempted to pass 469 restrictive bills to make it even harder331to vote. Many of these new laws were created to fuel the false332narrative that our elections are not secure.333    Today, we are here to talk about the potential updates to334the National Voter Registration Act, a law passed in 1993 with335the goal to increase voter participation.336    The NVRA is a critical component to our Federal voting337legislation, and it provides vital access and protections to338voters as well as guardrails for election officials to conduct339voter maintenance.340    I believe that proper voter list maintenance is an integral341part of an election administration, but too often we have seen342anti-democratic purges of eligible voters conducted in the name343of valid list maintenance.344    An extremist will stop at nothing to try to convince the345American people that noncitizens and dead people are voting.346For example, in my home State of Alabama, our Secretary of347State proudly proclaimed one day, day one of his348administration, that he was removing Alabama from the349Electronic Voter Registration Information Center, or ERIC, a350nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization of States that351has proven to be one of the most effective tools for helping352election officials maintain accurate rolls.353    Unfortunately, our Secretary of State gave into conspiracy354theories and withdrew Alabama from that organization with no355plans for how he was going to replace that level of voter list356maintenance information.357    To make matters worse, Secretary Allen was sued in the fall358of 2024 after he attempted to conduct an illegal voter purge359program ahead of the 2024 election, one that threatened to deny360thousands of qualified citizens in Alabama their right to vote.361    As we discuss any potential updates to the NVRA, we must362ensure that they are balanced and that we ensure that we363balance protecting access to the variety of voter registration364opportunities and ensuring eligible voters are not purged from365the rolls with proper voter list maintenance.366    We all want cleaner voter rolls, and that requires a367thoughtful and deliberate approach.368    In July, this Committee held a hearing reviewing voter list369maintenance standards, during which one of the Republican370witnesses stated that, quote: ``It has never been easier in the371United States to register to vote as it is today.''372    It is true that it is easier to register to vote today than373it was in 1993 when the NVRA was passed. However, at the same374time, in that hearing we heard from Mary Kay Helling of North375Carolina about just how many barriers she faced in trying to376remain on the voter rolls. Despite being a lawfully registered377voter, Mary Kay told us the story of how long it took her to be378counted to stay on the voter registration rolls.379    I say all this to say that while there are many ways in380which we can update the NVRA, we must first acknowledge the381fact that there is no widespread voter fraud and that the 2020382election was secure and that too many voters still face383barriers to the ballot box.384    In fact, instead of making sure every voter can register to385vote and cast their ballot, the President and this386administration continue to undermine voter confidence in our387elections while attempting to circumvent the Constitution and388erect barriers to voting.389    Voters in Alabama, like everywhere else, continue to face390many barriers to the ballot box than voters in other States,391and that is not democracy at work.392    No one benefits when eligible voters are unlawfully purged393from the rolls. Every effort should be made to ensure before394anyone is deprived of their right to vote that all laws are395followed and that the person being removed is a person who396should be removed.397    I look forward to the hearing today, and I do look forward398to talking about some updates that we can have, like automatic399voter registration and same-day registration in States like400Alabama which will not have it unless we actually mandate it401nationally.402    I want to commend the Chairwoman for having today's hearing403and thank all the witnesses for being here. I welcome your404testimony. Thanks.405    [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Sewell follows:]406407  PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON408                   ELECTIONS TERRI A. SEWELL409410    As Ranking Member of the Elections Subcommittee and the411Representative of Alabama's civil rights district, there is412nothing more important to me than ensuring that every eligible413voter can register to vote and cast their ballot without facing414unnecessary barriers. Far too often Americans have to jump415through unnecessary hurdles to try to make their voices heard.416    Ever since the 2020 election, the American people have been417bombarded with misinformation and disinformation about the418integrity of our elections, lied to about the rampant voter419fraud, and misled by false claims that the 2020 election was420stolen. To make matters worse, State legislatures have used421every tool in their toolkit at their disposal to enact new422barriers to the ballot box. Just this year, 47 State423legislatures attempted to pass 469 restrictive bills to make it424even harder to vote. Many of these new laws were created to425fuel the false narrative that our elections are not secure.426    Today, we are here to talk about the potential updates to427the National Voter Registration Act, a law passed in 1993 with428the goal to increase voter participation. The NVRA is a429critical component to our Federal voting legislation, and it430provides vital access and protections to voters as well as431guardrails for election officials to conduct voter maintenance.432I believe that proper voter list maintenance is an integral433part of an election administration, but too often we have seen434anti democratic purges of eligible voters conducted in the name435of valid list maintenance.436    An extremist will stop at nothing to try to convince the437American people that noncitizens and dead people are voting.438For example, in my home State of Alabama, our Secretary of439State proudly proclaimed one day, day one of his440administration, that he was removing Alabama from the441Electronic Voter Registration Information Center, or ERIC, a442nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization of States that443has proven to be one of the most effective tools for helping444election officials maintain accurate rolls. Unfortunately, our445Secretary of State gave into conspiracy theories and withdrew446Alabama from that organization with no plans for how he was447going to replace that level of voter list maintenance448information. To make matters worse, Secretary Allen was sued in449the fall of 2024 after he attempted to conduct an illegal voter450purge program ahead of the 2024 election, one that threatened451to deny thousands of qualified citizens in Alabama their right452to vote.453    As we discuss any potential updates to the NVRA, we must454ensure that they are balanced and that we ensure that we455balance protecting access to the variety of voter registration456opportunities and ensuring eligible voters are not purged from457the rolls with proper voter list maintenance. We all want458cleaner voter rolls, and that requires a thoughtful and459deliberate approach. In July, this Committee held a hearing460reviewing voter list maintenance standards, during which one of461the Republican witnesses stated that, quote: ``It has never462been easier in the United States to register to vote as it is463today.''464    It is true that it is easier to register to vote today than465it was in 1993 when the NVRA was passed. However, at the same466time, in that hearing we heard from Mary Kay Helling of North467Carolina about just how many barriers she faced in trying to468remain on the voter rolls. Despite being a lawfully registered469voter, Mary Kay told us the story of how long it took her to be470counted to stay on the voter registration rolls. I say all this471to say that while there are many ways in which we can update472the NVRA, we must first acknowledge the fact that there is no473widespread voter fraud and that the 2020 election was secure474and that too many voters still face barriers to the ballot box.475In fact, instead of making sure every voter can register to476vote and cast their ballot, the President and this477administration continue to undermine voter confidence in our478elections while attempting to circumvent the Constitution and479erect barriers to voting. Voters in Alabama, like everywhere480else, continue to face many barriers to the ballot box than481voters in other States, and that is not democracy at work.482    No one benefits when eligible voters are unlawfully purged483from the rolls. Every effort should be made to ensure before484anyone is deprived of their right to vote that all laws are485followed and that the person being removed is a person who486should be removed. I look forward to the hearing today, and I487do look forward to talking about some updates that we can have,488like automatic voter registration and same day registration in489States like Alabama which will not have it unless we actually490mandate it nationally.491492    Chair Lee. Without objection, all other Members' opening493statements will be made part of the hearing record if they are494submitted to the Committee clerk by 5 p.m. today.495    Today we have one witness panel. I will now introduce our496witnesses.497    First, we have Mark Braden, of counsel at Baker and498Hostetler LLP. Then we have Professor Michael Morley, a499professor of law and the faculty director of the Election Law500Center at Florida State University College of Law. Finally, we501have Sophia Lin Lakin, the director of the ACLU's Voting Rights502Projects.503    Each witness will have 5 minutes to provide an opening504statement.505    I now recognize Mr. Braden for the purpose of giving an506opening statement.507508STATEMENTS OF MR. MARK BRADEN, OF COUNSEL, BAKER HOSTETLER; MR.509 MICHAEL MORLEY, FACULTY DIRECTOR OF THE ELECTION LAW CENTER,510  SHEILA M. MCDEVITT PROFESSOR OF LAW; AND SOPHIA LIN LAKIN,511DIRECTOR, VOTING RIGHTS PROJECT, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION512513                    STATEMENT OF MARK BRADEN514515    Mr. Braden. I am looking at this room and I see a couple of516people that I used to work for, Bill Thomas and our rocket517scientist Vern Ehlers.518    I have spent 50 years working on election-related law519questions, and it is certainly a pleasure to be invited to520testify for this Committee on an interest in an area where I521have basically spent my whole professional life on.522    I used to be counsel to the Ohio Elections Commission, the523Secretary of State. I used to work for the RNC. Then I was in524private practice for a long time as outside counsel to this525Committee on election law matters and contests.526    This Committee has always been composed of very serious527individuals. Some of the most prominent individuals in the528history of the Congress have served on this Committee. Many529former Speakers of the House. In fact, most recently, there was530a Republican Speaker who used to be a staff director of this531Committee, Kevin McCarthy.532    This is a very distinguished Committee, and I am very happy533to have the opportunity to be here.534    There was a time when election laws were viewed as an area535of cooperation between the two political parties. If you look536back at history, the most important election changes in my537lifetime was the 1964 Voting Rights Act, which was supported by538a majority of Republicans and a majority of Democrats. It had539Democrat and Republican sponsors.540    All the revisions to that Act received substantial541bipartisan support. HAVA to a large degree had bipartisan542support. We have even had campaign financing regulation, H.R.5435010, that came out of this Committee, that was a bipartisan544bill.545    Unfortunately, the Motor Voter bill was not. It ended up546being passed on a partisan line.547    What I would suggest to you is the value of cooperation548between the two political parties, because as a starting point549that cooperation is vital to the confidence in the process.550    Two, as you have mentioned, there are really basically two551things we are talking about here, which is increasing the level552of voter registration and improving the quality of the553registration lists. I have no dispute with the notion that the554Motor Voter increased the number of people registered to vote.555You have more people registering to vote post-Motor Voter.556    Of course, there is a balance there. What Motor Voter did557was invite into the registration business a whole variety of558locations where it was secondary to their principal purpose. By559definition, by putting voter registration activities in560locations other than county clerks, secretaries of state, and561other election officers, you are going to have people who have562other things to do. Then, when they get to voter registration,563they will have to transmit that to the election authorities.564    Those two present problems. I would say that one can look565at Motor Voter and be comfortable that it has increased the566number of people registered to vote. I am not so sure you can567be sure what its impact is on the actual voter turnout.568    Now, the quality of voter State lists is a mixed bag. Some569States have very high-quality voter lists and some do not. This570Committee needs to continue to be concerned about the quality571of the voter lists because of the changes in our system.572    Our system is much more mail-centric than it used to be.573The mail systems all arise from a central core. The spine of574that process are voter lists. If you have bad voter lists, then575you have bad voting processes. We need to be more concerned576about the quality of voter lists than we might have been in the577past.578    The additional big change has been in the number of people579who live in the country who are resident aliens.580    Now, I personally have no knowledge of any significant581number of nonresident aliens or illegal aliens, resident aliens582or illegal aliens voting. I absolutely have knowledge that583there are many people concerned about this issue. I have no584doubt that it occasionally occurs.585    We need to be concerned about the lists. Whether it is586simply a question of perception or reality, frankly, makes no587difference.588    We need to have an election system with two prime589directives: one, that the winner wins, the person with the most590vote wins; and, two, that rational supporters of the loser591believe the winner won.592    [The prepared statement of Mr. Braden follows:]593594               PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK BRADEN595[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]596597    Chair Lee. Mr. Braden, with that you are out of time.598    Mr. Braden. OK.599    Chair Lee. We will go back to further discussion during600questions.601    I now recognize Professor Morley for the purpose of giving602an opening statement.603604                  STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MORLEY605606    Mr. Morley. Thank you very much. It is an honor to testify607before this Committee, and I would be happy to assist the608Committee's important work however I can.609    A sound electoral system is based on three principles.610    First, all eligible voters must have a reasonable611opportunity to safely cast their ballots and have them counted612without facing substantial burdens.613    Second, the system must ensure accurate results by614minimizing the possibility of mistake, irregularity,615illegality, or fraud.616    Third, the system should bolster public confidence in the617integrity of the election's results.618    The NVRA and HAVA have promoted voter registration by619requiring States to offer a range of convenient ways to620register. They have also enhanced the system's accuracy and621boosted public confidence by requiring election officials to622ensure the accuracy of their voter rolls.623    Over the years, opportunities for further improvement have624become apparent. There are three main types of issues this625Committee could address.626    First, the NVRA allows States to seek only information627which is, quote, ``necessary to determine a voter's eligibility628and administer the election process.'' The NVRA also specifies629registration forms shall require voters to attest under penalty630of perjury that they satisfy the State's eligibility631requirements, including U.S. citizenship.632    Several courts have held that because applicants swear they633are citizens, it is presumptively unnecessary and therefore634illegal for States to require them to submit additional635information concerning their eligibility or citizenship status.636    To be sure, the extent to which noncitizen voting occurs637has been exaggerated in many public debates. When States have638identified potential cases of noncitizens being registered to639vote, they invariably involve a fraction of 1 percent of all640voter registration from the jurisdiction.641    In a Nation with approximately 28 million noncitizen642residents, however, it is reasonable for the public to expect643steps to be taken to ensure noncitizens are not inadvertently644added to the voter registration rolls.645    A noncitizen might be registered, particularly through a646lawful transaction at a motor vehicle agency or other647Government office where voter registration is a potential part648of the process, for a variety of reasons, such as scrivener's649errors, language barriers, errors in automatic voter650registration systems, erroneous assistance, and651misunderstandings. HAVA allows a person to register even if652they lack both a Social Security number and a driver's license.653    Even a few hundred or thousand votes can impact the outcome654of the election, as we from Florida know well as a result of655Bush v. Gore, to say nothing, of course, of State-level races.656    The NVRA's necessity standard seems unnecessarily657stringent. The statute should be amended to instead allow658States to request information reasonably related to confirming659an applicant's eligibility.660    Second, relatedly, the NVRA and HAVA do not currently661appear to contemplate the possibility that voter registration662records will erroneously be added to the database.663    The NVRA currently allows records to be removed only when664circumstances change. A person must ask for their registration665to be canceled, be convicted of a crime or declared666incompetent, move, or die.667    The NVRA does not expressly provide for the removal of668records of people who were ineligible at the outset and should669not have been registered in the first place.670    This Committee should amend the NVRA to allow election671officials to remove ineligible voters, as well as people who672have subsequently registered to vote in another State after673affording them due process through notice and an opportunity to674submit evidence.675    Likewise, when States conduct their NVRA-mandated list676maintenance programs, they should be required to identify677voters who are ineligible on any basis rather than only people678who have died or moved as the NVRA currently requires.679    Finally, the NVRA and HAVA fail to define some key terms.680For example, the NVRA prohibits election officials from681implementing a program to, quote, ``systematically remove the682names of ineligible voters'' during the 90-day so-called quiet683period before a Federal election.684    This Committee could clarify that the term ``removal'' does685not include shifting a voter to the inactive list. A voter who686was recently moved to an inactive list may still vote in an687impending election so long as they confirm their identity,688address citizenship or eligibility, depending on what the689concern is, including at the polling place.690    The Committee could likewise specify that691``systematically'' does not include measures that election692officials take in response to information suggesting that693particular voters might be ineligible.694    I see my time is drawing to an end, so I will simply say695other terms in the statute, such as ``uniform and696nondiscriminatory'' are also undefined, and courts have defined697them in a variety of ways that this Committee could provide698definitions for as well.699    Thank you very much.700    [The prepared statement of Mr. Morley follows:]701702              PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MORLEY703[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]704705    Chair Lee. Thank you, Professor Morley.706    I now recognize Ms. Lakin for the purpose of giving an707opening statement.708709                 STATEMENT OF SOPHIA LIN LAKIN710711    Ms. Lakin. Chairwoman Lee, Ranking Member Sewell, and712Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to713testify today. I am Sophia Lakin, director of the ACLU's Voting714Rights Project.715    The National Voter Registration Act is a landmark piece of716bipartisan legislation. Since Congress enacted it over 30 years717ago it has transformed voter registration in this country for718the better.719    The NVRA makes registration easier for eligible Americans720by requiring registration opportunities via the DMVs, public721assistance agencies, and by mail.722    It has been an extraordinary success. Today more than 50723million Americans register or update their registration through724NVRA-established processes every year.725    As the NVRA expanded access, it also promoted more accurate726voter rolls. In doing so, it struck a careful balance in727creating processes for list maintenance while establishing728critical safeguards to ensure that eligible voters are not729wrongly removed.730    We all want secure, free, and fair elections. That means731both maintaining accurate rolls and ensuring eligible voters732can cast ballots that count.733    One of these central safeguards is requiring States to734complete systematic list maintenance programs no later than 90735days before Federal elections. This prevents last-minute purges736that leave voters little time to discover they have been737removed and get back on the rolls in time to cast a ballot that738will count.739    States have ample tools to keep their rolls accurate, and740they are using them. Elections officials removed more than 21741million voters from the rolls in the last 2 years through742routine, lawful maintenance. At the same time, almost 1 million743voters have received NVRA confirmation notices asking if they744have moved, responded that they hadn't, and were properly745registered and kept on the rolls. The system works.746    Too often officials launch aggressive, sloppy, or poorly747timed purges that sweep in large swaths of eligible voters.748These programs often rely on outdated data, dubious749methodologies, and inflammatory claims about rampant fraud that750does not exist.751    For example, in 2024, just 84 days before the election,752Alabama's Secretary of State announced a purge targeting753alleged noncitizens using a process he admitted would sweep in754naturalized citizens. A Federal court stopped it, and it was755clear right off the bat that well over half of the targeted756voters were eligible citizens. Most of these wrongly targeted757were people of color.758    In Virginia, that same year, the Governor ordered a purge759based on DMV data up to 20 years old, data that failed to760reflect voters' subsequent naturalization. A Federal court761found that many removed were eligible citizens who were never762even informed that they had been purged.763    In Texas in 2019, State officials claimed nearly 100,000764registered voters were noncitizens. Within a week that number765collapsed. In Harris County alone, more than half the flagged766voters were confirmed naturalized citizens, and an audit of the767remaining names found no noncitizens at all.768    A Federal court found that Texas had, quote, ``created a769mess'' meant to, quote, ``intimidate the least powerful among770us.''771    Despite the NVRA's success, the same voices who foment772disinformation and undermine voter confidence seek to undermine773the careful balance the NVRA strikes, whether by erecting new774registration barriers or weakening safeguards that protect775voters from erroneous removal.776    One example is the so-called SAVE Act which would require777every eligible American to show up in person with documents778like a passport just to register to vote. This and any similar779effort could disenfranchise tens of millions of eligible780voters, Republicans and Democrats alike.781    Instead, I urge Congress to return to its bipartisan782tradition of strengthening our voting system by advancing783measures that expand access and improve accuracy, like online,784same-day, and automatic voter registration, all of which have785been proposed in the Freedom to Vote Act, and to provide786election officials with the stable Federal funding they need to787administer elections effectively.788    The integrity of our elections is not threatened by789widespread noncitizen voting, a problem that simply does not790exist. It is threatened by unnecessary aggressive purges that791strike eligible voters from the rolls and by barriers that792prevent eligible Americans from registering in the first place.793    Congress should reject measures that would weaken the794NVRA's protections and instead strengthen the systems that make795our democracy work.796    Thank you. I look forward to your questions.797    [The prepared statement of Ms. Lakin follows:]798799             PREPARED STATEMENT OF SOPHIA LIN LAKIN800[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]801802    Chair Lee. Thank you, Ms. Lakin.803    I will begin our questions today, followed by the Ranking804Member. I now recognize myself for the purpose of questioning805our witnesses.806    Professor Morley, I would like to begin by going back to807you. You touched on something there at the end of your808testimony that related to other terms in the NVRA that you have809observed to be interpreted differently or inconsistently by the810courts. Would you elaborate, please?811    Mr. Morley. Yes. Thank you very much, Chairwoman.812    The NVRA and HAVA in various places require uniform and813nondiscriminatory treatment of voters but have left those two814key terms, ``uniform and nondiscriminatory,'' undefined.815    There have been cases in which election officials have816received information about particular voters suggesting either817they were ineligible or there was some other concern with818regard to a particular group of voters and subjected them to819additional information requests, attempting to confirm their820eligibility, and this was held to violate the ``uniform and821nondiscriminatory'' requirements in HAVA and the NVRA because822certain voters were being asked for information, or certain823voters were being subjected to additional procedures to confirm824their eligibility, rather than all voters, and so they were825enjoined.826    In part, I suggest that the term ``uniform'' specify that827similarly situated voters need to be treated similarly, but828nothing in the statute is meant to preclude election officials829from confirming the eligibility of a particular voter or830particular voters if there is reason to believe that there831might be a concern about their status.832    Likewise, the term ``nondiscriminatory,'' in order to be833given an independent definition, an independent meaning, not834just being redundant, should be defined in terms of the835Constitution's prohibitions on discrimination against various836groups of voters, the 15th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, et837cetera.838    Thank you very much.839    Chair Lee. Thank you, Professor Morley.840    Mr. Braden, I would like to go back to something you841touched on during your testimony as well, and it was the notion842that as mail voting, voting by mail, becomes more and more843common, that the quality and accuracy of lists is all the more844important.845    Would you please elaborate on the points you were making846during that part of your testimony and why in today's date that847the accuracy of those lists is so important?848    Mr. Braden. Well, mail voting is pieces of mail go out to849lists. If the list is not any good, the people being asked to850vote or trying to vote by mail will be bad. It is not more851complicated than that.852    Mail voting is definitely a more dangerous process for the853security of the ballot process than in-person voting, there is854just no question about that, because you do not have the855secrecy of the ballot, you do not have a polling place where856you can be sure there is not undue influence or there is not857coercion. By voting from mail we get rid of those safeguards.858    Then we are dependent upon the U.S. mail. The State of859California sends out million of ballots. What percentage of860first-class mail does not get delivered or does not get861delivered timely?862    I have had a difficult time figuring out what that number863is. I have seen everything from half a percent to 4 percent.864    What does that mean? That means tens of thousands of865ballots in California sent--hopefully to registered voters who866are qualified to vote--will not make an appearance and will not867get counted. That is a big problem.868    There is a reason why almost all the other Western-style869democracies do not use mail voting. They only use mail voting870for absentee. A mail voting system has problems.871    Now, the President of the United States issued an executive872order attempting to ban mail voting. It did not appear to me873why he had authority to do that. I do not believe I can figure874out where that authority is.875    I do think that authority resides here with the Congress876and/or with the State. I am realistic. I do not think you can877politically make that happen, as much as I would like.878    Chair Lee. Thank you, Mr. Braden.879    Professor Morley, back to you. If you would tell us--you880touched on the concept of the blackout period and ways in which881you believe the blackout period could be improved. Would you882specify what you think we could do as Congress to improve the883clarity or process or timing of the blackout period?884    Mr. Morley. Thank you very much.885    One of the issues which I had already raised is clarifying886what does removal mean, right? Congress' original goal was to887prevent a voter from being removed from the list at the very888last minute. They had no notice, they no opportunity to prove889their eligibility to vote.890    One potential issue is, is the current blackout period too891long? Currently, because it is based on each Federal election,892primary elections is treated separate from the general893elections. In every even-numbered year, 180 days of that year894is a blackout period. It is literally illegal for election895officials for half of the year, every Federal election year, to896engage in a program to confirm that their rolls are----897    Chair Lee. Thank you, Professor Morley. I asked you a898question at the end of my 5 minutes. We are out of time.899    At this point, I now recognize Ranking Member Sewell for 5900minutes for the purpose of questioning our witnesses.901    Ms. Sewell. Ms. Lakin, I know that Section 8 of the NVRA902basically gives States a certain number of days to finalize903their voter list maintenance before the primaries and before a904general election. I think it is 90 days.905    You mentioned in your testimony that far too often that906States take advantage of this voter protection by conducting907aggressive voter purges to remove certain groups of citizens908from voting.909    Can you talk to us about the ways in which the NVRA's910protections have been used to stop improper voter purges?911    Ms. Lakin. Yes, absolutely.912    We have, unfortunately, seen overzealous list maintenance913efforts often framed as simple enforcement of existing voter--914of requirements. In practice they rely on outdated data, fraud915methodologies, and bad proxies for eligibility.916    For example, States often use Government databases917indicating that someone is not a citizen, but that data can be918decades old, and critically can fail to reflect someone's919naturalization.920    We have seen this time and time again. Unfortunately, we921have needed to have concrete protections for this. For example,922the 90-day quiet period that you were mentioning ensures that923this type of database systemic list maintenance is not924occurring so close to the election such that voters are not925able to get notice of a problem, that they have been removed,926and then subsequently fix the problem and therefore be able to927vote.928    Ms. Sewell. You know, you have mentioned my State--I did in929my opening remarks as well--the fact that my Secretary of State930conducted a voter purge of lists. It turns out that half of the931voters that were on there were actually eligible voters.932    Can you talk to us a little bit about how the National933Voter Registration Act has protections against that kind of934illegal purging?935    Ms. Lakin. Well, exactly it is the case. You gave the936example of Alabama. I mentioned a similar situation in937Virginia, a similar situation in many other States in my938written testimony.939    Because of this quiet period that is in place, individuals,940organizations, civil rights organizations, the United States941Department of Justice at the time actually went into court to942sue and say, actually, you cannot engage in this kind of943systematic list maintenance during this period of time and it944needs to be halted.945    That was good for voters because, as I mentioned, these946particular flawed, aggressive purges inevitably flagged947eligible voters, sometimes a very substantial number.948    Ms. Sewell. Like in Alabama.949    Ms. Lakin. Absolutely.950    Ms. Sewell. Now, this hearing is about how we can update951the National Voter Registration Act. Can you suggest--I think952that access to the ballot box is critically important. Frankly,953all examples you gave also suggest that what we really should954be focusing on is to make sure that people have access to the955ballot box and not barriers and voter suppression.956    Can you talk a little bit about what kinds of updates you957would do if you were sitting where we are sitting.958    Ms. Lakin. Absolutely. I completely agree. We should be959focused on ensuring that voters are able--eligible voters,960every single one is able to cast a ballot that is counted.961    Instead of focusing on policies that potentially could962disenfranchise millions of voters, we should be focused on963making it easier for Americans to vote with measures like same-964day registration, online voter registration, automatic voter965registration.966    I would also add that Congress should be prioritizing967providing funding for election officials to be able to968administer their elections.969    Ms. Sewell. I could not agree more. We need to definitely970give more funding for election procedures and administration.971    I think that there are eight States that actually have vote972by mail. From what I can tell, Oregon is one of them. They have97384 percent returns of their voting. I know that in this hearing974there has been an indictment against vote by mail, but I was975wondering if you could add your take on this.976    Ms. Lakin. Yes, absolutely. Mail voting has been a critical977form of voting for many, many voters who otherwise it is very,978very difficult for them to be able to cast a ballot, including979voters with disabilities, voters who live in rural areas, and980have been used increasingly by voters of color and the like to981be able to exercise their right to vote.982    We have not seen problems with this in great numbers and983certainly nothing to justify a mass removal of this really984critical tool to vote.985    Ms. Sewell. Absolutely.986    I just think that at the end of the day there are updates987that we can make. Madam Chairwoman, I look forward to working988with you on trying to make sure that we have a balance between989making sure that we are providing access and at the same time990making sure that no one who is ineligible cannot vote.991    Before I yield back, I want to ask for unanimous consent to992enter into the record a statement from the League of Women993Voters, which highlights that the NVRA must maintain its power994to protect voters and facilitate voter registration.995    Chair Lee. Without objection, so ordered.996    [The League of Women Voters statement referred to follows:]997    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]998999    Chair Lee. I now recognize the Representative from1000Illinois, Mrs. Miller, for 5 minutes.1001    Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairwoman Lee and Chairman Steil,1002for convening this hearing on the NVRA, also known as the Motor1003Vehicle Act.1004    As a Member of Congress from a State that has a long1005history of election fraud and irregularities--that would be1006Illinois--I am deeply concerned about the integrity of our1007elections, both in my State and nationally.1008    As we discussed in a previous hearing, States like Illinois1009systematically refuse to establish standards to maintain clean1010voter rolls and prevent noncitizens from voting.1011    As States give driver's licenses and CDLs to noncitizens1012and illegal aliens at record rates, I believe that NVRA's1013safeguards against these noncitizens being registered to vote1014are inadequate and need significant reforms.1015    Congress must act to update the NVRA to account for States1016that refuse to follow the law, and I appreciate the opportunity1017to speak with our witnesses about this critical issue.1018    First, Professor Morley, this past July our full Committee1019held a hearing on how the NVRA can restrict best practices for1020clean voter rolls. In today's hearing, we want to look at which1021parts of the NVRA should be amended to bring greater confidence1022to our elections. The case of Ian Roberts makes this all the1023more pressing.1024    In your opinion, what should be our highest priority in1025fixing Motor Voter?1026    Mr. Morley. Thank you very much, Congresswoman.1027    Specifically with regard to list maintenance, as I1028mentioned before, one of the main reforms that the Committee1029could consider making to the NVRA would be expanding the list1030of criteria that election officials are required to use when1031conducting the federally mandated list maintenance. As of right1032now, they are only required to identify voters who have died1033or, I believe, who have moved.1034    There are a variety of circumstances under which a person1035could be ineligible to vote; particularly they have registered1036somewhere else; they are not a citizen, so should not have been1037put on the list to begin with.1038    The NVRA could be amended in order to require election1039officials during this already mandated list maintenance to1040identify voters who are ineligible for any reason rather than1041just two particular reasons, as the statute is currently1042drafted.1043    One other thing is to improve the quality of information.1044This Committee could consider expanding the databases to which1045election officials are required to interact. This was something1046more on the HAVA end than on the NVRA end. Currently, HAVA1047requires election officials to enter into agreements with their1048State motor vehicle agency in order to exchange data. They also1049require agreements with the Social Security Administration to1050exchange data.1051    There is at least one major source of information, the1052Federal SAVE database, which has citizenship information. The1053State of Florida was actually recently in litigation with the1054Federal Government to try to expand access to that.1055    This Committee could look at the possibility of either1056requiring States to enter into agreements to receive1057information from the SAVE database, or potentially even other1058databases to the extent that there are other agencies that have1059information concerning citizenship that could be shared with1060States.1061    Alternatively, cross-checking against such databases could1062be part of the mandatory list maintenance process that States1063are required to engage in on an ongoing basis.1064    When election officials are updating their databases, they1065are not looking to throw eligible voters off the rolls. To the1066extent this Committee can make better quality information1067available to them, to the extent this Committee could require1068the Government to share citizenship-related data with them,1069that will both help officials remove ineligible voters while1070protecting vulnerable voters, while protecting people from1071erroneously being flagged as potentially ineligible.1072    Mrs. Miller. Thank you. Those are very helpful suggestions.1073    Mr. Braden, when first considered, Motor Voter was written1074to remove barriers and facilitate voter registration. This,1075unfortunately, led some States to remove verification1076requirements for the answers that applicants provided.1077    Just this year, the Maryland State Board of Elections found1078that an illegal immigrant named Ian Roberts successfully1079registered to vote and requested absentee ballots in three1080different elections.1081    Would verification requirements such as documentary proof1082of citizenship have prevented Ian Roberts from illegally1083voting?1084    Mr. Braden. The answer to that is probably yes. It depends1085on the details. We have a variety of technologies available to1086us that we are not using which this Committee could statutorily1087encourage or require.1088    Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much, and I yield back.1089    Chair Lee. Thank you.1090    I now recognize the Ranking Member of the full Committee,1091Mr. Morelle, for 5 minutes.1092    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Madam Chair.1093    Thank the witnesses for being here and for your interest in1094this important subject. It is an important subject.1095    I had an opening statement. I apologize for being delayed1096with other matters. I will just submit that to the record, if I1097might.10981099 PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH MORELLE, RANKING MEMBER OF1100 THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE1101                         FROM NEW YORK1102[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]11031104    Mr. Morelle. I do want to just start. Fundamentally, this1105voting rights legislation which we are talking about, when it1106was signed into law, President Clinton said: ``The principle1107behind the legislation is clear: Voting should be about1108discerning the will of the majority''--and, presumably, of the1109people--``not about testing the administrative capacity of a1110citizen.''1111    It is sort of interesting that the whole notion of this is1112about making sure we make it as easy as possible for citizens1113to be able to discharge their rights to be able to vote. It is1114fundamental to what we do as Americans, fundamental to our1115democracy.1116    I want to continue to send the message that American1117elections are secure. State election officials, local election1118officials, I have not found one Democrat or Republican who is1119not so devoted to the work that they do and recognize the1120serious role that they play in making sure that the democracy1121functions.1122    There is no one who wants people voting fraudulently. I1123will say, the degree to which we look behind every tree and1124behind everything and make assumptions that fraud occurs I find1125somewhat astonishing. I mean, I feel like there is a boogeyman1126everywhere, and the obsession with it, the fascination with1127it--or, if you are more cynical, the darkness behind it--is1128really about limiting access that people might have to vote.1129    I note, for instance, I was recently with a number of1130Members from Oregon where voting by mail has been the case for1131decades. There are no widespread accusations that in Oregon1132elections are not fair. Almost everyone votes by mail. I think1133that is true in the State of Washington. It is true in the1134State of Colorado. It is largely true in the State of Arizona.1135It is all of a sudden they say, oh, we have to be careful, all1136these people are voting fraudulently.1137    No one can ever identify anyone who is. Even when it comes1138to the notion that undocumented folks are voting in massive1139numbers to corrupt elections, it is extraordinary, because you1140cannot find any evidence that it happens.1141    I remember as a kid, say, have you ever seen a pink1142elephant? Say, well, there is no such thing as pink elephants.1143I do not know. Have you ever seen one? Somehow that proves that1144there are pink elephants, the fact that no one has ever seen1145one. It is kind of the same thing.1146    We should just remember that the point of this is to make1147it easy for people to use technology, use the mail.1148    Frankly, we file taxes by mail, that is one of the most1149important things we do, and people verify it. There are a1150hundred things we do by mail where no one has ever suggested we1151should go--could you imagine if we made every single American1152file their taxes in person at a registrar somewhere in our1153local county? No one would even consider it. It would be1154absurd.1155    Having said that, mail is safe. Frankly, some of the1156arguments for doing some of the things that we have talked1157about sound awfully reminiscent of the 1930's and 1940's and11581950's where people were given simple literacy tests before1159they could vote. It turned out it was like reciting word for1160word the United States Constitution or guessing the number of1161jelly beans in a jar, because it was really certain people we1162did not want to vote. I would certainly hope that is not what1163we are doing.1164    I would always join with my colleagues in efforts to make1165sure that we make clear that there is no double voting, that we1166know who is voting, but to the greatest extent possible make1167sure that every single American uses not only their right, but1168their God-given inalienable right to be able to cast a vote.1169    I do have a question. I am sorry I am down to my last1170minute, but I wanted to get that off my chest.1171    I appreciate what you said, Mr. Braden, about your belief1172that there is no Presidential authority to use an executive1173order. I do not want to misquote you. I think that is what you1174said, that you thought it was Congress as well.1175    Mr. Braden. That is correct. I do not believe there is.1176    Mr. Morelle. Yes. Thank you all for your testimony, for1177being here.1178    Ms. Lakin, would you agree with that as well, that it is1179the States and the Congress have the authority, but not the1180President?1181    Ms. Lakin. Yes, absolutely. The Constitution is clear on1182that score. Only Congress and the States can set the rules for1183elections. The President has no role in that.1184    Mr. Morelle. Mr. Morley, would you concur, or do you have a1185different opinion?1186    Mr. Morley. I agree.1187    Mr. Morelle. Yes, thank you.1188    Let me--well, I am running out of time. Five minutes goes1189by so quickly, does not it, Madam Chair? I will follow up with1190our witnesses.1191    Again, very much appreciate you being here and appreciate1192the hearing and all the good work. Thanks so much.1193    I yield back.1194    Chair Lee. Thank you.1195    I now recognize the Representative from Texas, Ms. Johnson,1196for 5 minutes.1197    Ms. Johnson. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.1198    I am so happy that we are having this hearing today. Voting1199is a fundamental and most important right that we have in this1200country.1201    I come from--I hail from the State of Texas and we have had1202our own fair share of challenges in voting. I can see by the1203expressions on your face that you all agree that voting and the1204access to the ballot is particularly difficult in Texas.1205    I want to acknowledge none of us want voter fraud. I do not1206think any Republican or Democrat or anyone in this country1207supports voter fraud. Only those who are eligible to vote1208should be able to vote.1209    Just like my colleague was just saying, there is no1210evidence that there is widespread voter fraud, and that1211certainly has been the case in Texas.1212    I want to reframe this notion of election integrity.1213Election integrity should be about making sure, ensuring that1214every eligible voter has the right to vote, not focusing on1215making sure that people who do not have access to vote vote.1216    It is the reverse of thought. It is the reverse of1217priority. It is making sure that those in rural Texas can get1218access to a ballot box; making sure that those that do not have1219access to transportation can get to the ballot box; making sure1220that those who have disabilities or who are just working can1221get to the ballot box; making sure that young people can get1222registered to vote; that they are not disenfranchised from1223that.1224    Our rules and our system of laws seem to focus more on how1225can we exclude people from participating in the process more so1226than how can we encourage people from participating in the1227process.1228    I was part of the Texas Legislature, and I broke quorum1229over an elections bill. We had a big old fight over election1230integrity. One of the big issues was that Republicans put in1231this bill a provision to make it a felony, equal to kidnapping,1232rape, murder, a felony for driving more than three people to1233the polls. How is that even remotely appropriate?1234    Now, we ultimately got that bill, that provision struck,1235because we had to leave the State for 6 weeks and make a big1236old thing about it.1237    That should have never been in a voting integrity bill. In1238fact, we should have had provisions of how can we make it for1239coworkers to get to the polls? How can we have voting hours?1240How can we have an online national registration? Because we had1241a hearing in this very Committee over voter registration1242purges, roll purges, when people move State to State. There was1243not any meaningful solution to how to address that.1244    I think we should have a national voting registration act,1245where you can register to vote, and that is just good. If you1246are an American citizen you can register to vote in this1247country and you should be able to do it online.1248    If we have the ability to pay our taxes online, if the1249Government can accept--if it is safe enough to accept our1250money, it should be safe enough to accept our vote.1251    I digress. Again, you are right, Mr. Chairman--Mr. Ranking1252Member--time goes by way too fast.1253    I guess my question is to you, Ms. Lakin. I mean, you were1254part of the voter purge case in Texas where our Governor tried1255to kick hundreds of thousands of people wrongfully off the1256poll.1257    What would online voter registration do to enable greater1258participation? Because one of the things I am most concerned1259about is we do not have enough percentage of our country that1260actually votes, because we make it too hard for young people to1261go. If you cannot do it on your phone, and if you are under 25,1262you are incompetent to function outside of that.1263    I mean, what can we do? What is your sense on voter1264registration online? How could that improve our process?1265    Ms. Lakin. Thank you for the question.1266    Online voter registration would expand the opportunity for1267voters to both register to vote in the first instance and1268update their registration. I think that is also critical, just1269giving people more and more opportunities, more touch points to1270be able to get registered.1271    By allowing voters to have that opportunity to also provide1272their updated information and the like, it has the benefit of,1273like the NVRA asks for, also improving list--accurate list1274maintenance, accurate voter rolls, and the like. You get both1275in this type of reform.1276    Ms. Johnson. Thank you so much.1277    Unfortunately, I am out of time. Thank you, Madam Chair.1278    Chair Lee. Thank you.1279    I would like to thank our witnesses for appearing before us1280today. Members of the Committee may have additional questions1281for you, and we ask that you please respond to those questions1282in writing.1283    Without objection, each Member will have five legislative1284days to insert additional material into the record or to revise1285and extend their remarks.1286    [The written statement of the Southern Poverty Law Center1287referred to follows:]1288[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]12891290    Chair Lee. If there is no further business, I thank the1291Members for their participation.1292    Without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.1293    [Whereupon, at 4:33 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]12941295                           [all]