PAGENO="0001"
THE VOTER REGISTRATION ACT AND
RELATED LEGISLATION
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H~R 8053
TO AMEND TITLE 13, UNITED STATES CODE, TO ESTABLISH
WITHIN THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS A VOTER REGISTRA-
TION ADMINISTRATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADMINISTER-
ING A VOTER REGISTRATION PROGRAM THROUGH THE
POSTAL SERVICE
JUNE 27, 28; JULY 19, 25, 1973
0
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
20-695 WASHINGTON : 1978
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $2.80
Stock Number 5270-02031
PAGENO="0002"
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
Ninety-third Congress
WAYNE L. HATS, Ohio, C1~airman
FRANK THOMPSON, Ja., New Jersey
JOHN H. DENT, Pennsylvania
LUCIEN N. NEDZI, Michigan
JOHN BRADEMAS, Indiana
KENNETH J. GRAY, Illinois
AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, California
TOM S. GETTYS, South Carolina
BERTRAM L. PODELL, New York
FRANK ANNUNZIO, Illinois
JOSEPH M. GAYDOS, Pennsylvania
ED JONES, Tennessee
ROBERT H. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
EDWARD I. KOCH, New York
DAWSON MATHIS, Georgia
KENNETH J. GRAY, Illinois
ED JONES, Tennessee
ROBERT H. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
DAWSON MATHIS, Georgia
WILLIAM L. DICKINSON, Alabama
SAMUEL L. DEVINE, Ohio
JAMES C. CLEVELAND, New Hampshire
JAMES HARVEY, Michigan
ORVAL HANSEN, Idaho
PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois
JOHN WARE, Pennsylvania
BILL FRENZEL, Minnesota
CHARLES E. WIGGINS, California
JAMES P. HASTINGS, New York
HAROLD V. FROEHLICH, Wisconsin
JoHN T. WALKER, Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
JOHN H. DENT, Pennsylvania, Chairman
JAMES HARVEY, Michigan
JOHN WARE, Pennsyl~an1a
BILL FRENZEL, Minnesota
RICHARD OLESZEwSKI, Cterh
(ii)
PAGENO="0003"
00N TENTS
Hearings held on- Page
June27 1
June28 29
July 19 125
July25 315
Statement of-
Allen, Hon. James B., a U.S. Senatorfrom the State of Aiabama - - - 125
Benitez, Hon. Jaime, Resident Commissioner, Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico 26
Biemiller, Andrew J., director, Department of Legislation, AFL-CIO,
accompanied by Kenneth A. Meiklejohn, legislative representative,
AFL-CIO 29
Butler, Hon. M. Caldwell, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia, accompanied by Mrs. Joan S. Mahan, executive
director, State board of elections, Richmond, Va 315
Carison, Richard J., director, election systems project, National
Municipal League, New York, N.Y 176
Clayman, Jacob, Industrial Union: Department, AFL-CIO, Wash-
ington, D.C., accompanied by Philip J. Daugherty and Marvin
Caplan 46
Dent, Hon. John H., a Representative in Congress from the State of
Pennsylvania, and chairman, Subcommittee on Elections, opening
statement
Dowd, James F. III, deputy secretary of state, Jefferson City, Mo.,
accompanied by Buddy Kay, State representative, St. Louis,
Missouri 162
Erdahl, Hon. Arlen, Secretary of State, Minneapolis, Minnesota 70
Fierro, Manuel D., president/executive director, RAZA Association
of Spanish Surnamed Americans 118
Fraser, Hon. Donald M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota 62
Halpin, Walter, county clerk, Union County, New Jersey 349
Levine, Daniel B., Associate Director for Demographic Fields, Bureau
of the Census 103
McGee, Hon. Gale W., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming - 1
i\lekel, Edward G., Esq., Duden & Galbially, Philadelphia, Pa 356
Pratt, Lewis, supervisor of voting machines, chairman, of unified
election laws committee, Union County, N.J 352
Rangel, Hon. Charles B., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York 94
Roe, Charlotte, executive director, Frontlash, New York, N. Y 133
Shull, Leon, national director, Americans for Democratic Action,
Washington, D.C 111
Smolka, Dr. Richard G., director, Institute of Election Administra-
tion, American University, Washington, D.C 300
Squires, Paul, Associate Director: of Data Processing and Collection,
Bureau of Census 103
Whitaker, Ridley, executive director, the Student Vote, Trenton,
N.J 330
Wood, C. C., chief counsel to the Secretary of State of Louisiana,
Baton Rouge, La., accompanied by Robert L. Hughes and Wade 0.
Martin, III, counsels to the Elections Committee of the Associa-
tion of Secretaries of State 42
PAGENO="0004"
IV
Additional statements submitted for the record by-
Bafalis, Hon. L. A. (Skip), a Representative in Congress from the Page
State of Florida 363
Beirne, Joseph A., president, Communications Workers of America - - 390
Benitez, Hon. Jaime, resident commissioner, Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico 26
Birmingham, W. Dudley, town clerk of Wetherfield, Conn 405
Blackburn, Hon. Benjamin B., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia 365
Cartwright, Robert F., on behalf of the National Student Lobby 408
Cenarussa, Pete T., Secretary of State, Boise, Idaho 413
Chishohn, Hon. Shirley, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New York 366
Clayman, Jacob, administrative director, Industrial Union Depart-
ment, AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C 49
Colton, Stanton B., registrar of voters, Clark County, Nev 404
Crane, Hon. Philip M., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois 368
Derwinski, Hon. Edward J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois 370
Dowd, James F., III, deputy secretary of State, Jefferson City, Mo_ - - 169
Erdahl, Hon. Arlen, Secretary of State, Minneapolis, I~YIinn 70
Eshleman, Hon. Edwin D., a Representative in Congress from the
Stateof Pennsylvania 371
Fraser, Hon. Donald lvi., a Representative in Congress from the State
of ~vIinnesota 62
Green, Hon. Wffljam J., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Pennsylvania 372
Harrington, Hon. Michael J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts 376
Harvey, Hon. James, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan 378
Rangel, Hon. Charles B., a Representative in Congress from the State
ofNewYork
Richman, Martin F., chairman, the Association of the Bar of the city
of New York
Robinson, Hon. Kenneth J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia 381
Roe, Charlotte, executive director, Frontlash, NewYork, N.Y 135
Roy, Hon. William R., a Representative in Congress from the State of
Kansas 381
Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr., a State Representative, 10th District,
Milwaukee County, Wis 393
Smolka, Dr. Richard G., director, Institute of Election Administra-
tion, American University, Washington, D.C 300
Thompson, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey 382
Treen, Hon. David C., a Representative in Congress from the State of
Louisiana 383
United States Industrial Council 405
Wendland, Arthur, chief clerk, New Jersey Association of Election
~0~rds, Union County, N.J 351
Work, Blanche M., president, Florida State Association of Supervisors
of Elections, Inc 387
PAGENO="0005"
V
Statistical tables submitted by-
Canada: Office of the Chief Electoral Officer; "Cost of preparing the Page
lists of electors at the 1968 generalelection" 288
Gallup Poll: Percentage of unregistered adults, nationally and by key
groups, December 7, 1969 154
Great Britain: Percentage of Eligible Electors Registered 293
Missouri "Voter turnout in 1972" by Deputy Secretary of State of
Missouri 170
Republican National Committee:
Registration by State, 1972 32
Registration and turnout by State, 1964 30
Voter Registration Statistics, 1968 33
Voter turnout by State, 1972 34
Secretary of State of Idaho, compilation of 1972 general election. - - - 415
Secretaries of State Poll; "Response to Federal Postcard Registra-
tion" 155
U.S. Bureau of the Census:
Nationwide Student Voting Patterns, 1972 411
Percentage of Persons Registered and Voting in General Elec-
tions of Puerto Rico, 1920-72 28
Puerto Rican Voting Age Population Estimate, 1960-72 29
Spanish surnamed/Spanish-speaking population by State 120
Survey, "Why people were not registering to Vote" 1972 - - 129
U.S. Department of Commerce:
Reason not registered and not voting, for persons 18 years old
and over, 1972 108
Reported registration and voter participation rates, by age and
race, 1972
Reported registration rates by region and race; 1972, 1970, 1968,
and 1966 54
Reported voter participation rates, by region and race; 1972,
1970, 1968, and 1966 53
Reported voting and registration of the population of voting
age, by age and sex; 1972 55
Illustrations-
Map with location of campuses sampled in Nationwide Student
Voting Patterns 412
Voter registration card sample 63
PAGENO="0006"
PAGENO="0007"
THE VOTER REGISTRATION ACT AND RELATED
LEGISLATION
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 1973.
HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES,
*SuBC0MMIrrsE ON ELECTIONS OF THE
COMMIT2EE ON HousE ADMINI5mATI0N,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant~ to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room 2261,
Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John H. Dent (subcommittee
chairman) presiding.
Present: Representatives Dent (chairman of the subcommittee),
Hays (chairman of the full committee), Jones, Mollohan, Mathis,
Harvey, Ware, and Frenzel.
Also present: John C-. Blair, assistant to the staff director; Eric
Honick, clerk, and Miss Barbara Giaimo, assistant clerk, Subcommit-
tee on Elections; Ralph Smith, minority counsel, Committee on House
Administration.
OPENING STATEMEN~ OF CHAIRMAN DENT
Mr. DENT. The committee will come to order.
This is the first of what may be a series of hearings on legislation
dealing with election reform. Today we will confine ourselves to the
so-called postcard registration act.~ We are very fortunate this morning
to have the Senate sponsor. It is with a great deal of pleasure that
I now ask Senator McGee to come to the table. We are very happy to
have you. I apologize for being late but I had a very curious radio
announcer on the phone who insisted on learning everything about
America in 10 minutes.
STATEMENT OP HON. GALE W. McGEE, A U.S. SENATOR PROM THE
STATE OP WYOMING
Senator MCGEE. We never knock any chance for a little exposure
on the air.
Mr. HARVEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all I join in welcoming Senator
McGee to our hearing this morning. We have read your hearings over
in the Senate. We welcome you here. We are delighted to have you.
It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that we are going to hold
hearings today and tomorrow, and then hopefully resume holding
hearings again after the July 4th recess, is that correct?
Mr. DENT. Yes. We hope to be able to give all of the interested par-
ties an opportunity to present their views, because I think this is a
(1)
PAGENO="0008"
2
very major step in the direction of election reform, and it ought to
be aired as much as possible, to get all of the views. We are very
happy to be able to get your views very well. We planned it a long
time ago because we have read all of the discussions in the Senate and
we are happy to have you here this morning.
Senator MCGEE. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members
of the committee. It is unusual to find so many committee members,
for a Senator to find so many. We often show up with only the chair-
man and the ranking minority member present, so this is a refreshing
experience in itself.
I wonder if by way of procedure that I might introduce my very
stuffy prepared statement for the record, and speak informally, rather
than be confined by it.
Mr. DENT. Without objection the statement will be submitted for
the record. I think the committee would rather enjoy that kind of a
presentation anyway. It gives us an opportunity really to get back
and ask questions.
Senator MCGEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am interested in your
committee's concern and your intention of pressing further with addi-
tional hearings. We have had a lot of hearings on this between the two
bodies. We have had two sets of hearings in 2 years now, 1971 and 1973
in the Senate. You had a series over here in the House in the earlier
period. We have had a total on the record of 85 witnesses, some 19 or
20 of those from State and local organizations, others from groups
interested, one side or the other, in various kinds of election reforms.
What has brought this all together is our collective concern, for right
reasons, about the rather questionable track record in American elec-
tions in terms of the percentage of our eligible people agewise who
vote or who don't manage to vote, for one reason or another.
Of course, the greatest mystery in it all is trying to analyze motiva-
tion or the lack of it. I think we would all be the first to admit that
there are several millions of us who would never vote if you dragged
the voting booth in beside their TV set. They will never vote, and no
one would pretend, in this bill or any other bill that you are consider-
ing, unless you imposed a penitentiary sentence or something for the
failure to vote, that you could drag them all to the polls. But there is
a gap there that is very serious nonetheless. A gap that is demon-
strated in our own history. In the 19th century, when we had no regis-
tration requirements for voting, we had a much higher percentage of
eligible voter participation than we have today. That suggests some-
thing. Political scientists tell us that in the 19th century, registration
laws were enacted to prevent some people from voting.
Today, however, that is neither here nor there, for steadily in the
20th century the percentage of total eligibles has tended to decline. A
stark circumstance as any is our comparison with other governments
that we often associate ourselves with, that is the governments in the
free world~ the western democracies~ however we want to describe
them, whether we are talking about the Canadians, or the British, or
the Belgians~ or the French, or the Germans. Their percentage of citi-
zen turnout for elections is measurably higher than ours all the time.
That has to say one of two things to us, it seems to me. One is either
that they are better citizens than the American people are, they are
PAGENO="0009"
3
more conscientious and thus they work harder at getting out the vote,
or that there may be something in our system that increases the num-
ber of problems that would tend to dissuade or discourage or more
somebody not to bother to vote. I would be the first to reject the first
suggestion. Our people are all very much alike and our citizens are all
good citizens.
I think we find some part of the explanation in the obstacles to reg-
istration, in order to become eligible for voting. Remembering now
that last November, in a momentous election in our country, particu-
larly in its landslide proportions, while 77 or 78 million Americans
voted, 62 million Americans of age did not vote. That is a startling,
that is a frightening number, and that would mean that our President
was selected by a measurable minority of a citizenship that does not
reflect well on citizen participation in the process that we hold up to
the rest of the world as the finest that there is. Yet we urge other coun-
tries to emulate us.
Studies have been made of our November elections, one by George
Gallup, a selective study made by the League of Women Voters, one
made by the National Municipal League. I cite the three collectively.
All suggest that perhaps the largest single factor restraining the voters
from actually registering and voting in the last election was the
variables among the States, between the States, and in the cities, mak-
ing it difficult to vote.
For example, three-fourths of the States have no provisions for
staying open evenings or Saturdays for registration purposes in non-
election months. Thirty-eight percent of the States have no addi-
tional registration hours during election periods. Another difficulty in
getting registered is the absence of multiple registration sites in many
localities. It is this kind of thing that we believe may hold a partial
explanation of the problem of getting more people to register and to
vote.
This bill was submitted with the simple and, I hope, humble thought
that it would make a contribution toward closing some of this gap. It
makes no pretenses at closing it all. What the bill we passed in the
Senate would do would permit registration by postcard at least every
other year, every 2 years. The Bureau of the Census, already revved up
with the equipment for doing so and the know-how, would mail the
postcards blanket to all residences in the United States.
In addition, postcards would be available in post offices much as in-
come tax forms you can obtain in many places. You may get several
income tax forms, and you keep several copies as I do. I make enough
mistakes that I need a half dozen copies of them to finally come out
with one that I will stand on, but the idea is to get them out so that
everybody knows that he has an opportunity to register. The postcard
would have the relevant information identifying the individual, where
his residence is, and would sign it as one signs his income tax, as his
personal affidavit that this indeed is as represented. The specified pen-
alty for misrepresentation on it being listed on the card, a $10,000 fine,
5 years in prison.
The cards would be mailed 45 days before the next election, and no
less than 30 days. This would apply to Federal elections only, that is
the House and Senate and the Office of President of the United States.
PAGENO="0010"
4
The bill would further provide that the costs of processing the cards
for the Federal rolls would be borne by a grant in the program. Any
States that chose to pursue this further, that is translate this system
into its State elections, would receive some minimal assistance costwise.
Roughly that assistance provides for assistance up to one-third of the
card processing costs, because of the need for transforming some of the
mechanics in a State system, including computers, and that sort of
thing.
That is the general essence of the particular proposal. Now I want
to address myself to two aspects of the measure, that are not always
understood.
One is that the postcard registration system does not automatically
give a person the right to vote. It does not vote him. He is not voting
by postcard. We have had a lot of letters from people who say they
didn't want anybody to be trusted with voting by postcard. Well, the
fact that we do vote by mail even now in very large numbers is an
irrelevancy at this point.
The State procedures, the State laws, the State scrutiny that obtains
now on the part of official registrars in each State, whatever those
may be, would still be those that would validate or disqualify an appli-
cant by postcard. There is nothing new that is introduced on that
score.
The suggestion is sometimes made that under the present system
you have eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation. In the interrogations we
have had with election officials we find there is virtually no cross-ref-
erence or validation of the eyeball system that does not take place
with postcards. That is, if you registered and we sent our individuals
to test this in the various States and do their registering eyeball to
eyeball, there is no effort to call up somebody else or to say who do
you know in town or anything else, as long as you were there you gave
him your name and said this was your address. The process of check-
ing came at the polls by pollwatchers or anyone else who sought to
challenge.
What I am simply trying to suggest there is not a new ingredient
that might tempt individuals to take advantage of the post card system.
The second aspect of this that is often raised has to do with the
understandable first impulse to believe that the postcard system would
lend itself to temptations of one fraud or another, because you are
doing it by mail. The income tax parallel is not totally parallel to this,
but it does suggest that this sort of thing is workable.
The other is that the inducements through the penalties to operate
with restraint, and the severity of those restraints, would be a second
limiting factor.
The third is that the total check still rests with the local registrars.
They are the ones who have to validate the lists.
What this does is simply to make it possible for individuals who
couldn't take the time off work to get down to city hall or to the county
clerk's office, or wouldn't take the time, whatever it was, but would vote
if it was easier to register, it makes it possible for them to do so.
The question of what happens in a college town like my town of
Laramie, where the State university is, suppose you get the kids all
aroused and won't they gang up in your town and get the local legisla-
PAGENO="0011"
5
tors, or the Member of Congress or whatever it may be. This is a
common suggestion that has been forwarded by some, and some have
talked to me personally about it. The same simple rules would obtain.
Everybody is jittery about the younger generation these days for one
reason or another, but the postcard system would not affect the voting
pattern, in college towns in terms of block voting by college students.
If anything, the chance to register by postcard would, well, as some
student~s have told us, incline them to prefer to register then at home,
because they can now register without having to go back to their home
base. But if there was a great drive on in Laramie, in order to achieve
some reform that they could get the kids mobilized on, they would still
have to validate a residence, under the penalties of the law, and they
would be judged by the registrar the same as they are right now, even
with the uncertainties of whether~they are residents on the campus or
they have to claim residence back in their home area. That is an issue
that is neither here nor there in this particular proposal.
That is the essence of the bill. One other factor that I didn't mention
that I ought to just touch in passing is the cost factor. In the creation
of this National Voter Registration Administration within the Bureau
of the Census, we can't say with certainty what the cost is, for obvious
reasons. We make no pretense about preciseness in that cost. All we
can say is that the intimations of those who are playing the scare
game that it is going to cost $100 million, $300 million, $700 million, is
the ultimate of the ridiculous. By making a liberal allowance on the
cost per postcard, we have had a run through from the Bureau and
from other groups that are professionally involved in the registration
processes, and the official professional estimates range from roughly
$15 million for a postcard registration program up to as high as $30 to
$35 million.
We would have no way of knowing how many would be added to
the registration rolls this way. Our feeling is, in the light of the record
until now, we have to get caught trying. We believe that this is an
effective, reasonable, and measurable addition to the efforts that are
now made to persuade people or~ to get people to register.
This puts the burden of it, I think, where it more properly belongs,
although we don't ~o quite as far as the Europeans do, which explains
their higher participation. The onus of registering is on the Govern-
ment, not on the individual in those European Governments that I
cited and pointed up the differences. Ours is on the individual. This
would tend to simplify that individual process in at least qualifying
as a registrant.
Two Senators on our side who have cosponsored S. 352 make an
interesting point about the bill. They are both conservative Republi-
cans in the Senate. They both had direct experience in problems with
the registration process. One is Henry Beilmon from Oklahoma, and
the other is Bill Brock from Tennessee. They are both militant on this
bill; that is, in favor of it.
As they pointed out, they come from generally Democratic States,
and they have stacks and stacks of complaints of problems of getting
registered when you had a one-party dominace generally in the State's
history. It has begun to change in both places now, as they hasten to
point out, but it was easier to register a Democrat in Oklahoma, or
PAGENO="0012"
6
register a Democrat with a friendly registrar in Tennessee, than it was
to register a Republican in many of their areas. Their point is that it
ought to be neither way for either party, and in their judgment the
post-card registration device breaks a considerable bit of the strangle-
hold of any kind of partisan flavor that might otherwise be lent to the
registration process. That is the reason they are very strong in their
personal activities, in assistance with the perfecting of this legislation.
On the other hand, Senator Bentsen from Texas, who is a moderate
Democrat, is a devoted supporter of the bill. Texas has had post-card
registration for 30 years. The important thing about that is that they
not only register by post card. They clip coupons out of the Dallas
Morning News or any place else they can get it. They pick it up off
a stack in a shopping center and register. We had the former registrar
of the State of Texas as one of our witnesses this last time, who testified
they had traceable incidence of fraud of any appreciable dimension
under that system.
As he pointed out and stressed, fraud was not a factor in registra-
tion. Any fraud in elections, as we have known through history, have
generally occurred at the ballot box, where the box has been stuffed,
stolen, seized, hidden, delayed, or whatever it was, and usually by
fraudulent officials, not by fraudulent voters, and so there is a tendency
for the constituent to translate an image of fraudulent elections into
any process that makes it possible for people to vote.
I indicate the testimony from those three Senators of different per-
siiasions to suggest that they see in this some chances of measurable
reform. The president of the Board of Elections from the city of
New York testified to the effect that whatever else, not only did he not
see a chance for fraud. He saw a chance for eliminating fraud with
S. 352, and he also saw a chance for saving money in this operation.
The saving of money arose from the specific efforts of the city of
New York to take the registration machinery out to the people, to get
them registered, in this last election in 1972. They discovered the cost
per new registrant was $8 a registrant. They would look upon this
with great favor as a saving as well in terms of their present cost, to
go after unregistered voters.
That is about all I would say informally here. I will do my best to
try to answer questions, or confess my ignorance if I don't know the
answer.
Mr. DENT. Senator, I think you have expressed how most of us feel
about increasing opportunities for registration, and removing as many
roadblocks as we can to registration. It is true years ago, registering
laws were created to keep people from registering rather than to en-
courage them to register. Of course, our voting record over the years
has gone steadily down since 1896. It has gone down every Presidential
election since then outside of some particular year when there was a
landslide beca.use of some economic condition; it has always been lower
than the last one. It doesn't speak well for the citizenry as a whole.
As you said before though, this is also true. No matter how easy
you make it to register, nothing on God's Earth is going to drive some
people to the polls; as long as we open our hunting season for the fall
election and our fishing season for the spring election, we do very well
PAGENO="0013"
getting a lot of voters out into the woods. It is true we have to do
something.
There are some questions in the minds Of many of our Members who
have talked to me personally about the one point* that appears to be
the most spoken of, that of the safety or the sanctity of the registra-
tion, will it open up means of fraud. For instance; someone asked me
the other day would they be able to register from a general delivery
address in a community, if you receive your mail as general delivery.
Would you be able to use that, or would you have to use a residence Of
some kind. Is there any restriction on where you could register from?
Senator MCGEE. In my judgment, you would have to use whatever
that State that he claims as his State requires as validation for. his
residence.
Mr. DENT. Isn't it in that particular area of registration. that the
drawbacks creep into it? In the local registration. laws~ in the local
registration provisions, for instance, our State might not even be able
to validate a registration that comes in under our law by mail, because
it demands the personal contact.
We used to allow county commissioners to go around to the registrars
with a pocketful of cards and sign them. That is no longer allowed.
You have to present yourself before a sitting registrar at some point
which is advertised in the county; In no other way can yOU register
except going to the center, the courthouse, and going to the registra.-
tion office. You can't do it by card.
In fact, that has become unlawful in the State, so we would have
to change our law in Pennsylvania to conform to it. How many other
States would have to do that?
Senator MCGEE. I am not sure that that would be the case, because
under the Voting Rights Act of 1970, which applies to the Office of
the President of the United States, the process of registering to vote
does guarantee the minimums, whatever the other requirement there.
It does produce the problem of~ dual voting list, but you have those
now.
Mr. DENT. Senator, we are clearly in a proper field if we restrict or
don't restrict but make it possible for national elections affecting Con-
gress, the Presidency, using the~ postcard system, however, making it
available to States if they want to adopt it for their own elections.
Therefore we would not have any question in any State, because
we can I believe write law affecting the manner in which Federal elec-
tions are carried on, but I doubt if we would be able to write a law
that would, in my own opinion, impose postcard registration as a must
upon the 50 States of the Union. We would be able to do it if we were
talking about registering insofar as Federal offices are concerned. Then
if the State wants to adopt it for their own local elections, and so forth,
in State elections they would be permitted, but I doubt, personally
that is my opinion of it, that we would have to be very careful in
drafting a law trying to impose it upon States as their own type of
legislation.
Senator MCGEE. This makes~ no pretensions of evading any State
procedures that are now operable. While there were some more eager
ones on the committee who thought they even ought to start telling peo-
pie how to do those things, we were very careful not to intrude in those
areas. Those belong to the States, and the peculiar aspects of the prob-
PAGENO="0014"
8
lems in those States. There is a difference between rural and urban
States, or big and small States and all this kind of thing. Those would
be variables that would be left unaffected by this.
Mr. DENT. You said that the onus for registration ought to be on the
government, and not upon the people.
Senator MCGEE. I suggested that was the difference between the
European track record and ours.
Mr. DENT. The track record of voting shows it in European coun-
tries too.
Senator McGr~. There is a variable there, but they register people
automatically when they get their social security card. They are auto-
matically registered, or when they have a draft card. They have a
number of ways but it goes through a process where you are register-
ing people anyway as something in the governmental process. Then
they become automatically registered, so that they are entitled to vote
in a national election.
Mr. DENT. I thank you very kindly, Senator. We have with us the
chairman of the House Administration Committee, who has long been
an advocate and a sponsor of legislation in the field of voting. I am
sure that he has some observations he would like to make.
Senator MCGEE. It is always good to see Wayne.
Mr. H~rs. Thank you, Senator. It is good to have you here. I only
have two questions really. I apologize for being late, but I was speak-
ing to the Political Action Committee of the American Dental Asso-
ciation along with my Republican counterpart, Bob Michel, chairman
of the Republican Campaign Committee, and they kept us longer than
we anticipated.
There are two things that I am interested in. I have skimmed over
your statement since I came in. One is in Ohio, for example, in the
rural counties, many of them do not have registration at all, and there
is really no need to have it, because we have an election board at the
precinct composed of three Democrats and three Republicans and
they know everybody who walks in that door and you simply sign the
poll book with your address. If you are qualified, and you probably
would be challenged if none of them knew you, then you get a ballot.
What about this? Does this force registration in a situation like that?
Senator MCGEE. No. It would mean that they would probably get
some postcards in the mail through this mass mailing from the Bureau
of the Census, but that would be a minimal thing. It doesn't require
anything. Nothing compells you to use the postcard or to mail it back.
We have some of that same situation in Wyoming. We have another as-
pect of it that you probably don't have. That is we have rural areas
where a rancher has to go 100 miles to register, because of the size of
the county and the sparse population, but there again everybody
knows everybody, so you don't have that problem. This doesn't intrude
on that at all. Anybody who already does more than this, as in North
Dakota, where they register as they vote, why it doesn't interfere with
that at all.
Mr. H~s. Somewhere else in your statement I noticed you made a
comparison, in which you say, "Voters in Canada, England and Ger-
many for instance have been participating in their elections at a rate
well above 75 percent", but they do have registration there?
PAGENO="0015"
9
Senator MCGEE. Yes.
Mr. HAYS. So you are not implying that registration here or there
is the reason for the variance, are you?
Senator MCGEE. That the procedure in registration is the suspect.
There the registration is often automatic with let's say a draft card
or with a social security number, or in England with their medical
registration. Whatever the process is, even at the time of the census,
in one of the countries, this involves, as long as you are validated
as a person, registration, so they do register, but it is the process of
registration that is taken on by the Government as its responsibility,
rather than left to the voter as his.
Mr. HAYS. Do you know specifiëally how they register in England,
for example?
Senator MCGEE. I can't testify to it, no.
Mr. HAYS. It is my impression that they have to go somewhere and
register just as they do in this country. The point I am trying to make,
and it isn't all that important, but 1 am just questioning whether there
is any real valid reason to point out that voters participate in England
more than they do here, and then try to connect it up somehow or
other with registration. I am not sure that there is any connection.
Senator MCGEE. It is my understanding that in the British system
you do register by going someplace when you are going there for
some other reason, that is there~ are many things that the British
Government registers people for. They are more regimented, social-
ized, than we are in some ways, but they register them in connection
with other processes of identification in a government program.
The point remains that if there isn't an explanation like that, then
it has to be that they may be better citizens than we are, and I reject
that, but this is a variable that is constant in everyone of those coun-
tries, that the burden of initiating the registration of all eligible citi-
zens rests with the Government. That would seem to make us suspect
on the registration process as the differentiating factor there.
Mr. HAYS. Senator, in my home county we have two cities that have
registrations, required in cities of 15,000 or over, and the rest of the
county doesn't. Yet we voted mOre than 80 percent of the people in
the last election, and we have a consistent rate of about 80 percent,
because we go to the trouble of getting them registered and getting
them out to vote. I am not sure in my own mind that this postcard
system is going to encourage people to vote any more or not. I am not
against the idea per se, but I am just toying with how do you get a
better system that is still fool proof. I am curious to know what you
would think about some identification means, for example, a driver's
license.
You can walk into a local bailk, and if you can produce a driver's
license which shows you are a resident there, they will cash a sizable
cheek for you. What about just showing a driver's license, and if there
is a question about it saying "This is evidence that I live m this
precinct and therefore I want t vote." It would be less cumbersome.
Senator MCGEE. Right.
Mr. HAYS. One of the things I have objection to, here comes another
Federal commission populated with goodness knows how many bu-
reaucrats doing heaven knows what but not much, you can bet on that.
PAGENO="0016"
10
The driver's license thing might get completely away from it. Have
you thought about that~
Senator MCGEE. Yes, we have given a great deal of thought to that.
The committee made a recommendation in its own deliberations that
some form of validation, with the postcard rather than without it,
would be. very much in order. They wanted to leave that to the admin-
istration's three-man board. We don't envisage another bureaucracy.
We are all suspicious of these booming bureaucracies that tend to much-
room through their own investiveness rather than through need. This is
carefully honed to what already exists in the Bureau of the Census in
terms of mechanism and know-how. It would simply be implemented
as a mailing device in a mail room except for the bill's appeals device,
in case there was an appeal from a State for assistance, because of
something that went wrong. That is always there, but it is there under
present law in other elements of our Government.
The driver's license per se, or the social security number per Se,
would be other possibilities. We recommended that each of those be
considered as validating evidence on the card itself, that is when a
person returned his postcard. We thought that the precise definition of
that ought to be left to the voter registration administration when it
comes into being, in order to assess that one. We didn't want to write
all the rules for them. We wanted to get the process going. It would be
another possibility and a very real one. It is one that the Europeans
have used.
We have some objection in this country to overdoing that sort of
thing. People are suspicious of getting registered for everything under
the sun you know, and they don't like a central government doing all of
this. That is why we tried to be careful to keep this channeled into the
States, back to the States. Applicants mail their cards only to the State,
not to the Federal Government.
Mr. Hi~rs. With the present high state of efficiency of the U.S. Postal
Service I would like to stay as far away from them as I can. That is
why I was thinking of alternative measures. Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man. I have constituents waiting but I will be back shortly.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Harvey.
Mr. HARVEY. Thank you. We certainly welcome you here this morn-
ing, Senator McGee. You have been a leader in this effort over in the
Senate. I am sure all of us on the committee here have followed your
efforts over there, read your hearings with a great deal of interest.
I must say, however, that I start out these hearings with the thought
in mind, and maybe I will have a. different idea later on, that postcard
registration may be a very useful tool in some areas of the country,
such as Wyoming, where you stated the case where a rancher might
have to drive 100 miles in order to register, but nevertheless that it
could be other than a useful tool and perhaps a very loose way of
registering people in metropolitan areas such as Chicago, Detroit, New
~Tork, or other cities in the country. At any rate, I sat down and wrote
a letter to the 174 officials in my district, county, city, and village clerks
who had the responsibility for registering people, and they were in
what I consider urba.n areas of over 100,000 and in rural areas a.s well,
and asked them what they thought.
PAGENO="0017"
11
I sent them a copy of your bill and a copy of your Senate report
together with the minority views. lthough I have not heard from all
of them so far, enough time has not elapsed, I have heard from quite
a substantial number, and the overwhelming reply thus far has been in
opposition to this form of registration. I am not sure whether it is
because they don't understand it or whether they do understand it,
but at any rate the response so far seems to regard it as a very loose
way of registering people.
Their conclusion would appear to be that it is not too much to ask
for a person once in their lifetime or at some time to come in and show
themselves in person.
I read your hearings in this regard, and I saw only one county official
who had been called before your committee. I wonder if you had made
any survey of other county officials or State officials across the country,
to learn the opinion of these people who do bear the responsibility for
this?
Senator MCGEE. We have done : several things on that. First, in my
State this would not be of any particular incidence except in the rare
cases of the distance problem. It wouldn't be a particularly fetching
system for registration, because our participation was very high any-
way. In a low population area there is a tendency to get a higher par-
ticipation, so it is less an inducement out our way.
In terms of our measure of the opinions of others involved directly
in registration, to begin with, we generally found, including my own
section of the State in Wyoming,~ an opposition to this procedure, but
their concern mostly was that they feared the sudden avalanche, bulk
of checking and double checking that would suddenly descend upon
them. They felt that it might become chaos at that particular time.
There were some who thought, as you suggest, that if the citizen
didn't have the gumption to go wherever you have to go in order to
register, he shouldn't vote anyway. Nevertheless, we have had a total
now of 19 witnesses, in the various sets of hearings, that were at the
city or State level of the registration process.
I was on my way to New Orleans to meet with I guess it was the
First National Convention of Sečretaries of State and was hung up in
an airplane that landed at Charlotte, N.C., where I spent the night,
and thus couldn't continue to appear, but my staff was there. It was
a most rewarding experience for the reason that these are experts
who contributed a great deal of know-how to ironing out some of the
wrinkles, and they were divided on it.
Mr. HARVEY. If I can interrupt you right there, the one observation
that seems to predominate in the replies I am getting is that these are
people who really don't care about registering, the ones who aren't
voting, or care about voting, and postcards aren't going to get them to
vote either.
Senator MCGEE. Well, for some reason we are spending now almost
$300 million a year to try to persuade people to register. The League
of Women Voters, labor unions, business groups, everybody is spend-
ing a lot of money to get out the vote. That means get people to regis-
ter. For some reason you are still dragging them in. You have a vari-
able in incentive to vote, but as in the testimony of the gal up in Bos-
ton, who went down to register, she was a good desiring citizen, wanted
20-695-73-------2
PAGENO="0018"
12
to participate, and the sign said "Coffee Break, Back in 30 Minutes."
Well, she took time off from her job to do that and she couldn't wait
for that time so she went back a second time. That time it was just a
little after 5 and she tried four times.
Mr. }IAi~v~. That is the unusual instance. In Michigan the replies
I am getting point out that our registration booths are open in the
evenings, they are open on Saturdays, and mobile offices have been set
up in shopping centers to facilitate registration.
Let me just go on and take up the State of Texas that you men-
tioned, because Texas does have postcard registration, and they have
coupon registration. Yet, if the facts that I have are correct, Texas
has the most dismal record of voting of any of the States. It ranked
only 44th among all the States in 1960. In 1964, it was 45th, with 44
percent. In 1968, it was 48th with 48 percent, and in 1972, it was only
45 percent. Yet, in Texas, you can just clip a coupon out of the news-
paper and mail it in.
Senator MCGEE. As Senator Bentson would tell you about his State
of Texas, that was reflective of the fact that Texas still had a poll
tax.
Mr. HARVEY. Yes, but that was struck down in 1965.
Senator MCGEE. That is right, but I thought you cited me 1960.
Mr. HARVEY. I did, but also 1968 and 1972.
Senator MCGEE. Since then, they have had the 1 year re-registra-
tion-ever-v year a re-registration requirement.
Mr. HARVEY. But that was ended in 1971.
Senator MCGEE. That is right.
Mr. HARVEY. In 1972, they only had 45 percent voting.
Senator MCGEE. 1972 will always remain a mystery for us. We think
there was a very large stay-at-home vote in most States. That is, they
were voting by not voting, because they didn't want either one of the
candidates, but I don't know whether that is going to stand up in
history. We have to speculate.
Mr. HARVEY. I read your hearings with such interest. Let's look
for a minute at North Dakota. North Dakota is another State that
has no registration requirements at all.
Senator MCGEE. That is right. They register when they vote.
Mr. HARVEY. Yet South Dakota has had a better record of voting
than North Dakota has had-only a shade I will admit, just a frac-
tion-but nevertheless how can you possibly justify that?
Senator MCGEE. In the North Dakota case, you have others. It is
a rural area in which you have other factors that wouldn't necessarily
suggest that the postcard is going to change that. The postcard ad-
dresses itself to the urban mass mostly of America. That was the focus
of the League of Women Voters followup study. Crowlie, how many
cities was that-2,000? I have forgotten. They followed through in
communities in nearly half of the States to find out why the nonvoters
did not vote in 1972, when we had this very heavy fall-off of voters. The
largest incidence that they found explaining it was the difficulties in
getting registered, particularly from suburbia, due to the presence in
three-fourths of the States of no weekend or evening open hours for
registration except at election time.
PAGENO="0019"
13
The Gallup Poll study in 1969 showed that the heaviest single rea-
son for nonparticipation was explained by registration obstacles. Even
the Bureau of the Census study earlier had shown that at least 10 to
12 million would use that as their accounting reason for it. The Na-
tional Municipal League, in its study since 1972, suggested that as a
factor of enough dimension to try tO address, at least in this way, to it.
This would mean that out of the 62 million who didn't vote, the
postcard approach might only get 15 million, 10 million, 20 million,
less than a third, but is that worth it? My inclination is yes-this
moves us that much closer to a higher incidence of participation.
Mr. HARVEY. I am not really impressed by your differentiation be-
tween North Dakota and South Dakota. Having been in both States,
they impress me as being very similar in nature.
Senator MCGEE. Wyoming has a higher percentage without post-
cards than North Dakota, but it is North Dakota, South Dakota,
Wyoming, and our area that is not the problem. The problem and the
incidence of nonvoter participation is in the large urban areas, and
in some of the southern areas where you have the diversity of proce-
dures for registration in a national election. That is where the real
obstacle is. This might contribute to North Dakota. It isn't doing
anything to get in the way of North Dakota. That is the point.
Mr. HARVEY. I only have one other observation. You also mentioned
the Western European countries, but isn't it true that Great Britain,
for example-in determining their base, their eligible voters-does
not include in the base various groups such as prisoners, mentally ill,
aliens, various groups that are all included by Dr. Gallup in this coun-
try here, so we are really not talking about the same percentages I
don't believe. I would agree with our chairman, Mr. Hays, from my
observation. I don't believe there are more people in those countries
who vote than there are in this country. I think you have got different
statistics, and different elections.
Senator MCGEE. I would respectfully modify that by suggesting
that the difference is so considerable that if you allowed for all of the
exception groups-because they are just statistics and bodies-that it
wouldn't affect the spread in eligibles to vote by more than 2 or 3 or
4 percent, that those are present in ours too, but it is not a measurable
number that would be disqualified.
Mr. HARVEY. We thank you again for being here with us this
morning.
Senator MCGEE. Thank you for your questions.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Jones.
Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions, Sena-
tor McGee, but I have listened very interestingly to your comments. I
share with you and what Senator Brock has said from Tennessee-be-
cause I am from Tennessee-about the difficulty in getting many peo-
ple registered to vote. I have had this problem in my district. Through-
out the State, we have had this same difficulty with many people who
are employed in plants that get off at a certain time in the afternoon,
and the office will be closed when they arrive to register. Then on Sat-
urdays, the offices are always clOsed. We have had a lot of difficulty.
I am not sure that the postcard registration idea is practical or good,
and I share with our chairman: the idea that I am not interested in
PAGENO="0020"
14
another bureaucracy being established, but I would like to see some
way to get our people registered in order to vote. That is all, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Mr. Ware.
Mr. WTARE. Thank you for being with us this morning, Senator Mc-
Gee. A number of questions arise in my mind.
Senator MCGEE. I just got back from Pittsburgh, I hasten to add.
I checked things out there.
Mr. DENT. You can come clean from Pittsburgh now.
Mr. WAm~. Naturally this is the first stage of our study on this prob-
lem, so we probably are not as well versed as you, and other questions
will undoutedly arise later. One comment I would make with respect
to the decline in voting in 1972 election. I believe statistics substantiate
the fact that despite the interest of many of us, (as a former member
of the Pennsylvania Senate I initiated legislation a good many years
ago to permit 18-year-olds to vote) the voting record of the 18-year-
olds and 20-year-olds was very disappointing in the first year that they
had the opportunity to do so. About 25 percent of them voted, and that
affects the total voting percentage in the 1972 election.
I would hope that despite any disenchantment with the two Presi-
dential candidates, that many of our voters were interested in those of
us who are in the U.S. Congress.
I think you have indicated, or someone at least, that about 90 per-
cent of those who register do vote in Presidential elections.
Senator MCGEE. Close to 90. It is 89 point something, in general.
Mr. WA~. The information available to inc is that Connecticut
approached the 90 percent with 86 percent, but other areas, including
the District of Columbia, the percentage was as low as 54 percent, so
that raises a question in my mind as to whether mandatory registra-
tion really produced a voter turnout.
As the former junior committeeman, block captain and area chair-
man, I realize that even when you make a personal call in the evening
to a home, where presumably t.he husband and wife and the adult
members of the family might be home, you encounter people who will
not register. I don't think any of the reasons are ever bona fide, but
that is their decision to make.
Even when you register them and you go to them on election day,
you provide transportation to the polls, provide babysitters and so
forth, there are still people who are registered who will not vote. I
can't foresee (we would only be able to find out by trying), that post-
card registration is going to make any difference for those individuals.
I suppose some of the difference between voter turnout in European
countries, for example, which have been referred to, can be not neces-
sarily calling them better citizens, because I don't like to think that
the people of this coimtry are not good citizens or responsible people,
but I wonder if they have not, for example, in Germany had experi-
ence with forms of government that have proven to be tremendously
disappointing, and feel a greater need to participate in elections.
While we may have our differences and our disappointments in this
country, I think we would all subscribe to the fact that our government
at national and local levels has generally been representative of the
PAGENO="0021"
15
people. I am sure none of us here would want to subscribe to the fact
that we might overthrow the Government in our land.
I believe that our men overseas in the military are given the privi-
lege of registering by mail and yet depending on the election my in-
formation indicates that a minimum figure of 19 percent voted in some
instances, and a maximum of 51 peráent. I don't know how you account
for that, but I would be glad to have your comments on it.
Senator MCGEE. In the overseas group you find always the highest
incidence of nonparticipation. The further they seem to be removed
from where the center of attention is in an election time always takes
a heavy toll. It has in all elections no matter what the system was, and
I would guess, without being able to validate that with some recent
study that we might have done, that the explanation lies somewhere
there.
Likewise in the professional military, I have had many of them say
to me, "I have never voted" or "I voted this year for the first time in
my life," this kind of thing. I think it is wrong. I think they ought to
vote also. I think they ought to b,e responsible, especially them, be-
cause they have a special role in the system, but you get a great deal
of that.
I would associate it with the kind of isolation from ongoing events
in our elections, when you are stationed particularly out of the country,
as perhaps a key explanation there. In our own Government, there is
no question but that those who do get registered are more inclined to
vote than those who continue to pass it by and they don't bother to
go in there and register and vote, but that is a fallacious statistic in
only one way. That is, if they register of course they have a better
chance to vote because they couldn't vote if they weren't registered.
Nonetheless, it is the registration process which is the key here that we
think ought to be pressed and tried, to see if we can't raise that inci-
dence. There would be no guarantee. It can't close the gap but we think
it would make a significant contribution, if it brought in only 10 or 12
million new registrants.
On the youth vote, the 18-year-bids, that was a revelation to all of
us. In some cases they emulated their seniors. We have some groups of
seniors that had a fairly low participatory record, but before the 18-
year-old vote, the lowest participating age group in this country was
21 to 28. That was still the lowest. That was a factor also that prob-
ably was translated into the 18-year-old. The 18-year-old was new this
time, and it may take him a few years to get into the main stream of
the voting process. We can't explain all that. The political scientists
will wrestle with that one for many years I am sure. It was a dis-
appointing turnout to say the least.
Mr. WARE. Your comment may be perfectly valid but I still think
it was a major factor in the decline of the percentage who voted in
the 1972 election. 1-lave you or your colleagues in the past given any
thought to some requirements in Federal elections as to facilitating
voter registration by other means? I am mindful, of course, of the
fact that my own congressional district, the courthouses are open on
Saturdays. They are open evenings during the voter registration period
preceding elections. There are traveling registrars who visit shop-
ping centers, who come to communities.
PAGENO="0022"
16
In my home community they visit, and also visit adjoining areas
within a 5-mile distance of my home community, so that with today's
mobile population, it really is not a hardship to register.
Senator MCGEE. In some areas.
Mr. WARE. I am speaking of my congressional district. The point I
am leading up to whether you have thought of Federal registration
which would require that type of registration ease or availability
nationwide. Again speaking of my experience, it has proven success-
ful in my congressional district.
Senator MCGEE. Yes. We had a little bit of testimony on that from
New York. The one difference that they stressed there was that the
cost factor of that kind of registration was very considerable, and that
if an equivalent could be achieved this other way would be a minuscule
cost factor in contrast. That was but one professional bit of testimony
we had from the experience of sending out the registrars to round up
the voters in New York. That is the most I can submit now.
Mr. WARE. Yes. Of course my experience is that whenever I go to
New York everything costs considerably more than in my congres-
sional district.
Senator MCGEE. Except the postcard. It still costs the same in New
York as in Pennsylvania.
Mr. WARE. I think we might have a problem with the census, for
example, in reaching all the voters. In one area in my congressional
district in the 1970 census, this is the extreme case-there are other
areas that had the same experience-missed 3,000 of the population.
If you read the census figures you find they are not very accurate.
Senator MCGEE. They missed some in our State too. It made it
appear that we had lost some population. That became a very sensitive
issue for a while until people began to look at the environment out
there and found that maybe it wasn't so bad that they lost population.
That is true. They do goof on some of those but that is the kind of
thing that I guess you never could absolutely guard against, but it
would still probably be the lowest cost factor approach in a massive
way with an existing mechanism that is already perfected. The tech-
nioue is as close as mortals can perfect those things.
Mr. WARE. Congressman Dent and I are very well aware of the loss
of people in the census in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania because
as a result of that partially we lost two congressional seats.
Senator MCGEE. We are in the enviable position in Wyoming. We
have only one. We are still ahead of the game.
Mr. DENT. We will join you soon. We lost 10 in 30 years.
Mr. WARE. That is all I have at th~ point. Thank you. Senator.
Mr. DENT. Thank von, ~`fr. Ware. I hope you do not mind the ordeal.
Senator MCGEE. Not only that. It is flattering. In the first place you
have the committee here. and then they have questions that are right
to the point.
Mr. DENT. We have almost as big a crowd as over at Mr. Dean's
appearance.
Mr. WARE. May I remind the Senator we are not here to harass him
or anything.
Senator MCGEE. This is helpful and constructive to me.
Mr. DENT. We are not doubting your word. Mr. Mollohan.
PAGENO="0023"
17
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am very pleasec~ you are here this morning. I heard
many complimentary things about ~ou down through the years, but I
am particularly pleased to have this opportunity.
Senator MCGEE. Maybe I should have stayed away while I was
ahead.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, not at all. You get better with time and Imowl-
edge and age.
Senator, the thing that all of us I think are interested in is as simple,
cheap, and easy a process for registration which will basically en-
courage a. percentage increase in the percentage of voting as we can
possiiny achieve. I was interested in four basic facts which came to
light out of your extensive hearings. What is the percentage today
of those who are 18 and over and eligible to be registered who are ac-
tually registered. Do you have that kind of figure in your mind?
Senator MCGEE. That one is new enough. I don't think I have it.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is basic to some other things that I wanted to
ask you about. Then let me jump to the only other area of interest I
have at the moment. Again we are iooking for the simplest, easiest, and
cheapest way to accomplish this purpose. Why would it not be the
North Dakota process, which is cOmpletely new to me. I had never
heard of it before until you brought it up a while ago? This is a process
whereby a person who has basically the qualifications and eligibility to
be registered and to vote, all he has to do and all he need do is present
himself at the voting place, present those basic credentials that are
necessary to establish his eligibility. Tha.t is done in 3 or 4 minutes.
Then lie goes on to the next step, which is voting. This seems to me the
most simple thing I have heard of at any point in time, far simpler
tha.n what we have in West Virginia.
Senator MCGEE. That is what both Senators from North Dakota
argued. The objections that we got to that were these. We opened that
up as one of the options also. The objections we got were from regis-
trars in the city areas, the urban areas, where they could see that be-
coming a very congesting process, that finally would swamp them on
election day. That was their misgiving about it. I-low much that would
result I couldn't testify.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. That isn't a valid misgiving, because there you pro-
vide enough personnel that this can be accomplished.
Senator MCGEE. That is right.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. If that is the Only objection that is a very shallow
objection.
Senator MCGEE. The other element they suggested to us that they
thought they had misgivings about it was in being able to, in cases
where they wanted enough tlime to check back to validate a registrant,
they felt 1~hat that time would not' be available then. That is an under-
standable misgiving in a city that let's say has had experience. I want
to be sure nobody is here from New Jersey, but as they have had in the
New Jersey election. Therefore it is a misgiving that we can probably
appreciate even though it wouldn't stand up if put to the test. That is
why we didn't want to buck that one with that suggestion or that
recommendation. ,,.
Mr. M0LLOHAN. Even the validity of that could very easily be chal-
lenged, because if all voting situations and procedures are similar to
PAGENO="0024"
18
ours in West Virginia, and I suspect they are similar, in any event they
have this sort of a requirement in this, and that is that the election
officials may challenge any ballot which they have reason to feel would
be an invalid or improper one. Then it can be determined at a later
date whether or not that vote should be counted. This could be very
easily-
Senator MCGEE. If they had enough voting stations and enough per-
sonnel, theoretically you could face that problem I would think readily.
They felt that it would take so much more of that that they just shied
away from that approach.
Mr. M0LL0HAN. It would only be a modest number who would come
in there for this kind of registration, assuming you are going to have
a permanent registration list. If I go in at the primary election in
May and accomplish my registration by this process, then when I go
in in November to vote, I need not go through this again. I think this
would only be 2 percent, 3 percent, 5 percent possibly of those who
really present themseves.
Senator MCGEE. They had visions of a high percentage and we
couldn't say it won't be that, but I agree with you that their fears are
probably running away with the reality there, but that is the tendency
of any change. I guess people see the worst things that might happen
under it rather than a lower profile.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I can see some problems with enough for it or
against it at this point in time, but I can see problems with postcard
registration but actually I can see only a very minimum problem with
the North Dakota process. These two things you have mentioned are
just easily disposed of with a reasonable amount of logic, staffing, and
what-not.
Senator MCGEE. Yes. It may be that the ultimate answer still should
lie in Federal elections, in a Federal registration process, something
like social security, or whatever it is. The moment automatically that
you go on the rolls as an 18-year-old person, you have no other dis-
qualifying attributes, you ought automatically to be registered. This is
something that ought to be seriously looked at because that would
clearly expedite the whole process, if you believe that everybody ought
to have the right to vote.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Has it not been presented to you, and what is your
response to it, that this is laying on or putting on another layer of
Federal responsibility or Federal involvement in what we have tradi-
tionally looked upon as being a local responsibility ~
Senator MCGEE. Yes, indeed. We ventured into that very cautiously
because we all share the same concerns on that. However, after
the Voting Rights Act of 1970 in which we could set up Federal
requirements for the election of the President of the Ijnited States.
Given the mobility of the population which encountered the variables
that disqualified some citizens from voting as they moved from State to
State, because of the differentials, it seemed that in the case of Federal
offices, the Congress could write law effecting voting in the States.
So postcard registration would be valid, and the bill still protects the
local registration procedures, for local office, for validating those who
are legitimate voters, and that sort of thing. We were inclined to tread
very softly in the area that involved local traditions of that sort.
PAGENO="0025"
19
Mr. MOLLOHAN. You know I loOk upon anything that we can do
which will divorce the student from exercising his right of franchise
and voting at the place he is going to school rather than his established
home. I look upon anything which would discourage that and send
him back to his home residency to vote as being good. It would appear
to me that this North Dakota process might be a very real asset in that
regard to encourage this. He need only go home 1. day for a few hours,
register and vote, and go on back to school. I know you have evalu-
ated the North Dakota situation. I will not beat it to death. I know you
have validated the one you are advocating here this morning. If you
had your choice to implement one or the other, knowing all the pros
and cons of each, which would you Select?
Senator MCGEE. If I had my choice, as a pragmatist, you have got
to get 51 votes in the Senate and 219 in the House or whatever the
actual numbers are, I would think it would be more difficult to sell
the North Dakota process at this stage in our sophistication in elec-
tions, and our traditions locally, and all. It would be more difficult to
sell that than the simple postcard registration.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. But in the implementation of the registration and
voting process, the North Dakota one would be far simpler, wouldn't
it?
Senator MCGEE. I think if it reached its ideal application, and if
I could run it, in other words, if we didn't have all these other prob-
lems to contend with, yes; it would be the ultimate, either that or an
automatic registration when you became 18 years of age. I would think
that would be the ultimate.
Mr. MOLLOIIAN. Thank you.
Mr. MATHIS. Senator, may I apOlogize on behalf of Chairman Dent
who was called to make a quorum in the Education and Labor Com-
mittee. Mr. Frenzel.
Mr. FRENZEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator, for
coming here today. It is getting to be a long period, but you are being
very helpful to us. I think most of us have had the opportunity to
review the proceedings of your committee and the debate on the Sen-
ate floor.
I would like to follow up on a question of Congressman Harvey's.
That is, that while there seemed to be a good deal of testimony with
respect to the concept of postcard registration, I find that in your
witness list before your committee this year there was only one county
official, although there were lots of other people present. In looking
through the list in 1972 I didn't find any county or municipal people
who have to administer the situation. I am wondering did your staff
or did somebody else survey these groups of people? Is there some
information that isn't apparent to us on the record?
Senator MCGEE. The staff inter~iewed a great many in various parts
of the country. I mentioned the participation of the staff because I
was hung up down in North Carolina with the National Convention
of Secretaries of State. An attempt to pick brains, to find out from
those who are in the process how we might do the whole thing better,
whether it was postcards or something else, and this was a background
effort to try to acquire a sense of perspective on it, and what the prob-
lems would be. That was prefatory to then taking the experience of
PAGENO="0026"
20
those who had been involved or those who were concerned about in-
creasing registration in great drives of registration and that sort of
thing. We tried to put them all together.
Mr. FRENZEL. The reason I asked the question is that my State has
recently passed a postcard registration bill, and I have received com-
munications from every municipal clerk in my district indicating that
the plan is an abomination and that it is unworkable, and strangely
enough it is very similar to your bill.
Senator MCGEE. Sir, I had no hand in it but I will be delighted to
take the credit for it.
Mr. FRENZEL. I noticed that the Executive Committee of the Na-
tional Association of Secretaries of State passed a~ resolution very
critical of the bill. Noting the lack of State and local election officials
participating in the hearings of your committee, I have tried to per-
suade our chairman to get a maximum of the people who actually have
to put the program into operation and make sure it works before this
committee, so that we can perhaps fill what may be a void in the record
at this point.
Senator, the other thing that seems to have developed, at least in
perusal of the record, is that your investigations were confined or
your testimony was confined strictly to the principle of postcard reg-
istration-rather than the best way to get the most people registered
and voting. In light of anticipated costs, which is another matter we
ought to get into, I am questioning whether this is the best of all of the
alternatives to develop maximum participation, which I think is the
goal of all of us.
Again may I ask, was there any effort to look into mobile registrars
and State support of evening registration and that sort of thing?
Senator MCGEE. We looked into it only for background purposes.
Our jurisdiction ultimately did not go that far. We weren't trying to
seize the ball from somebody else, but we were advised that such a
process, on a much broader scale, I mean looking at the ultimate proc-
ess, would be a matter of years yet. This was their feeling because of
the long time we have been dragging our feet until now, that here we
had some input that would not be a irrevocable long-term commitment,
that could easily be adjusted without overturning the Constitution, up-
rooting the Republic, and that sort of thing, but that in the very short
run and right now, it would make a significant contribution, and leav-
ing it still open without having to undo things to reach an ultimate
if indeed there is an ultimate. We all have our own theories about it.
i\Ir. FREXZEL. The reason I ask the question, we make frequent ref-
erence to other countries, Europe and Canada particularly. Canada
has a particularly effective program using the mobile registration, face-
to-face registration, which turns out to be cheaper per registered voter
than some of the estimates, not of the estimate that you gave here to-
day, than some of the estimates given for postcard registration. That,
coupled with the fact that there are allegations that a post-card system
might be counterproductive, I think would lead this committee, which
has broader jurisdiction, and incidentally we have been accused of
invading other jurisdictions on this particular issue~
Senator MCGEE. That is an occupational hazard in both Houses.
PAGENO="0027"
21
Mr. FRENZEL. For instance, it is indicated or it has been alleged that
postcard registration would be counterproductive from the standpoint
of causing local registrars to divert their energies elsewhere, to say
that the Federal effort, which would be federally funded under your
bill, was all they were going to do. The checking of the post cards
against the regular records would use up local funds so that they
wouldn't be willing to do the other things that they are normally doing
to insure high registration, and there is a~ long list of such complaints
which I don't want to go into today, but I guess I think it is a good
thing that this committee has a little broader jurisdiction.
One of the statements that you made in your earlier testimony was
that there isn't any validation today, and that therefore this system
was no more susceptible to fraud than many of the present systems.
Senator MCGEE. That there is nO validation that wouldn't be pres-
ent here. In other words, it doesn~t introduce a new factor of nonvah-
dation that isn't already present.
Mr. FRENZEL. Let me ask you about this problem. If one registers
by post card and votes by absentee, he or she never shows up before
any official, State or Federal. With postcard registration, there would
be nothing to prevent my 14-year-old daughter, would there, from
sending in a postcard registration and an absentee ballot?
Senator MCGEE. Tha.t is right,~ provided that she was willing to
take the rap. or that her old man didn't get stuck for the rap if she
did that, but that is really the point of it again. There is no real
incentive for fraud at the registration level, as the records have shown.
Frauds have not generally occurred at the registration level. They have
occurred at the ballot level.
Mr. FRENZEL. Exception. Virginia, as you recall, had an absentee
ballot law which they have now repealed, I guess, and found that they
got in certain instances more votes in absentee than people who lived
in the particular voting precinct. I think that we have just begun
to put the absentee ballot program for President into a position where,
for instance, the people in my district can begin to use it. I come from
a mobile suburban kind of district, and a sizable percentage of the
voters in my district rely on the absentee ballot.
It seems that postcard registration may call into question a number
of our absentee provisions, and we may get into the Virginia experi-
ence again. I suppose any system has these possibilities.
Senator MCGEE. I wouldn't think that the post-card system would
necessarily int.rude on the absentee one. I would think right now,
particularly with people overseas, you probably have many cases
where they both register and vote absentee. Thus they are never seen,
but they can validate their personal locality at least. That is always
validatable by the locals who are familiar with the case. I am sure
there would be some slippage somewhere. Our system is so massive
anyway that you will have slippage.
Mr. FRENZEL. If I can go on sOmewhat on that same point, there is
a provision in here, and I can't find it at the moment, about States
being able to reject this system if they stay on their own no-registra-
tion system.
Senator McGi~. That was simply to clarify a question that was
raised by North Dakota. Did this mean that this would change their
PAGENO="0028"
22
process if you had a postcard system? It was simply to specify that
that wasn't the case.
Mr. FRENZEL. I guess that is understood, and I guess it is what I
call the North Dakota exemption, but a number of States including my
own do not have registration in some areas and we do have registration
in others. As I interpret the language of the bill, which I can't find at
the moment, my entire State would have to have registration because
we are partially on registration now, and that would mean the people
who didn't have to register before now have to register. This is one of
those counterproductive elements.
Senator MCGEE. It wouldn't under this system.
Mr. FRENZEL. It would not?
Senator MCGEE. No. All this does is permit registration this way. It
doesn't require it.
Mr. FRENZEL. Then you wouldn't object to a clarifying amendment
in that section of the law that indicates it is not just full State juris-
dictions. It is the voting precinct itself can be exemped.
Senator MCGEE. Yes, and there is nothing that requires that you
register by post card anywhere. This is simply like again filling out
the coupon in Texas. It is another way you can register, if you chose
to use it.
Mr. FRENZEL. Thank you very much. The other suggestions you
made was this. You indicated that Federal officials were not butting
into the local scene, and you quoted Senator Brock as saying something
about there would be no partisan stranglehold on elections.
Senator MCGEE. Less, I think he said, there would be less partisan
stranglehold.
Mr. FRENZEL. I am glad you cleared that up.
Senator MCGEE. In fairness to him, I think it was less. You can't
tell about those factors.
Mr. FRENZEL. I am one of those who likes local strangleholds better
than Federal strangleholds. I look at section 440(b) of the bill, which
says, "Whenever a Federal election is held, the administration may, on
the request of any State official," and this goes pretty deep. The State
official definition, I guess, goes down to the precinct judge, "may offer
such assistance as the administration and the State official agree." It
seems to me that that sort of opens up all kinds of possibilities for
cabals between local officials and the Federal Government.
Then there is the other section which gives the Federal Government
the authority to go in and give assistance in particular areas, where a
local official says he is having trouble.
Senator MCGEE. That is manpower. For example, any area that
thought they would be congested by the first impact of something like
this, would get manpower assistance.
Mr. FRENZEL. If I were a Republican in the voter registration ad-
ministration, wouldn't I find all the registration problems in Repub-
lican districts and put a lot of manpower in there?
Senator MCGEE. I would think that that wouldn't be incited by this.
You might do that, but I think this isn't what is introducing that kind
of participation. We all like to get our kinds registered when we can,
but I don't think there is anything here that invites that.
That clause was put in the bill only as a safeguard for the State, not
as an entry for the Federal Govern1nent. It is a safeguard for the
PAGENO="0029"
23
State, in the event that they had real misgivings about whether this
would get out of their hand. They would get legal assistance, but it
would have to be at their petition. it was a covering addition there,
in the event of efforts of fraud.
Mr. FRENZEL. Right. We will get later testimony I think that will
give us an idea how many of these State officials there are. Again I
wonder if you would object to a provision that would allow Federal
assistance (interference) as a result of a court order?
Senator MCGEE. I would haveto think about that a bit.
Mr. FRENZEL. Let's think about it. There is no reason to hurry it, but
I would like to have some good reason for the Federal Government
to be in there, rather than a mischievous reason.
Senator MCGEE. I would think that the Federal Government
couldn't get in there for any reason unless it was invited in by the
State authorities. If the State officials want them in there, they would
probably find some other way to do it anyway, if they are going to
play that kind of hanky-panky. They already do it now, and we are
trying not to inject a new element.
Mr. FRENZEL. The final question that gets us out of the bill and back
into the philosophical, I guess, is this. You quoted a lot of surveys
indicating that this thing will develop a good many more voters, and
one of them that you quoted was the League of Women Voters survey
which I have unfortunately only seen synopsis of. I guess that is the
most recent other than some Gallups that are referenced in your
testimony. I notice that most of the surveys are pre-1960, and perhaps
give us less of a clue than what we might want to have about today's
conditions.
The League of Women Voters survey quotes very heavily the other
kinds of things that keep people from registering, other than the
registration barriers. When they asked people they said, "Too big
a line at the machines," "not a registration problem," "don't like the
system," "not a registration problem" "I don't believe in voting," "I
didn't like the candidate," et cetera, et cetera.
You remember it mentioned earlier the idea of the counterproduc-
tivity of this thing. If we go to this kind of registration, do we dis-
courage the face-to-face registratiOn efforts that many groups like the
league now engages in, which are the most effective? You go around
to somebody's store and say, "It is your duty to register" and there
is a certain amount of social pressure when this nice lady calls on you
to register whether you want to or not. Do we then cause a recession
from the field by those private registration efforts, which are now
operating?
Senator MCGEE. Isn't the measńre whether you get them registered
or not? This does not put anybody out of business under present pro-
cedures of registration. I would assume that if this does indeed turn
up the new registrants in large numbers, that it should produce some
saving of money in the kinds of drives that are now undertaken to
register people with a low incidence of turnout and a high incidence
of cost.
I would suppose that that would be expected, and I would submit
that one of the saving factors, if it indeed does produce the new
registrants.
PAGENO="0030"
24
Mr. FRENZEL. The other figures quoted frequently is that 90 per-
cent of voters who are registered vote. In 1972, with registration bars
I guess at an all time minimum, since we began registering, it looks
like to me like we had 73 percent of registered voters, voting, which is
about a quarter who didn't bother to vote, which is a little disturbing.
Senator MCGEE. Yes.
Mr. FRENZEL. It again leads me to want to be in the face-to-face
business. Just an after-thought here. Based on the Los Angeles ex-
perience of their postcard purges and so on, their problems of han-
dling the bucket loads of mail and their problems with the Postal
Service wouldn't it be better to send the registration cards out sooner
than you have suggested ~
Senator McGr~. It might be. The cards would be available at all
times in post offices and public places like an income tax type of
thing, and the other option being there for registration.
Mr. FRENZEL. Sure, but for instance, in my town, if we do a post-
card registration and mail it to everybody, they send them back, we
will have to compare that against the lists we presently have. That
will be one check. Then we will probably want to compare the new
ones against some kind of address system, and maybe even spotcheck,
to see if the people are there. It seems to me that 45 days is a scant
time to put this situation hi.
Senator MCGEE. It would largely be a manpower thing to begin with.
Once the system is going, this becomes cumulative, and I would think
would tend to reduce that kind of volume, that kind of pressure, once
you get the system rolling, but again there conceivably could be a man-
power problem in some areas.
That is the reason for the inclusion of the proviso for manpower
assistance, simply to do the handwork of processing cards, if any area
requests it. It may be they could handle it themselves. In fact most of
them seem to think they could.
Mr. FRENZEL. Of course that takes us back into the cost factor.
You don't have any estimate on the amount of manpower that would
be required~
Senator MCGEE. You can't possibly until it is implemented, but you
can make a reasonable and educated guess, a projection, and counting
the conceivable manpower types of things, that is what one of the
factors was in accounting for the higher estimate that we had for those
who ran it through the computers, of $30 million. The other estimates
were a little more modest than that. The scare figures of $100 million,
$200 million and that sort of thing all were addressed to doing the
ultimate. most costly single thing with every single postcard that was
ever mailed out, sending it by registered maiL sending it back special
delivery and all this kind of thing and then back and forth. Most of
them would not be utilized. It is a mailing factor rather than a cost
factor of any large dimension.
Mr. FRENZEL. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. WARE. Will you yield ~
Mr. F1u~NzEL. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WARE. Thank you.
One other thought crossed my mind for a moment, and probably
you have faced this. Let's assume that I am not registered to vote and
I register via postcard. Therefore I am eligible to vote in the 1974
PAGENO="0031"
25~
congressional election. I arrive at the polling place. Would I have a
special line on the voting machine or a special ballot, or would I go to
a separate booth? How do you administer or prevent me from not
only voting for the congressional candidates but voting for all?
Senator MCGEE. If any voter would go in he would have to report
to the officials there, however, the State processes those. They have
two voting lists in some places now. You have a dual voting list be-
cause of the Voting Bights Act. You have those entitled to vote for
President, and then a State list at the present time, and it would sim-
ply be the same dual listing.
Mr. FRENZEL. Thank you very much, Senator. I appreciate your being
here.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Mathis.
Mr. MAThS. Thank you, Mr. Dent.
Senator, again I apologize for keeping you here so long.
Senator MCGEE. Don't apologize for that. I enjoy being here.
Mr. MATHIS. You have been here almost 2 hours. In the colloquy with
Mr. Frenzel, talking about the precincts in Minnesota, you said as I
understood it that this was not a required provision, that the precincts
in Minnesota accept postcard registration. Did I understand that
correctly?
Senator MCGEE. Not accept the registration, that they had to register
by postcard. The postcards would be mailed there. If a postcard was
mailed in they would have to accept that as an application for registra-
tion, as a legitimate application, but it didn't mean that that would
substitute for any other way they wanted to register if they chose that
instead of applying by postcard.
Mr. MATHIS. You probably mentioned this earlier in your testimony
but what form of registration system do you use in Wyoming?
Senator MCGEE. We go to the county clerk. We have had difficulty
getting mobile registrars. We have it in one or two of the towns now,
depen~ing on which party was in control each time. We had some com-
plications in door-to-door registration. That happened to both parties,
but generally they show up at the county clerk and register.
Mr. MATmS. If I as a congressional candidate in 1974 wanted to en-
ter into a big voter registration drive prior to the time of my primary,
might I obtain from the administration a large number of postcards
that I could have my workers deliver to various doors in the com-
munity?
Senator MCGEE. You wouldn't even have to do that. Go down to the
post office and pick them up like yáu can with an income tax form. You
can give an income tax return to anybody. That would have no factor
in it. If you wanted to load these postcards with names on gravestones
and that sort of thing, in order to try to load the rolls, you are subject
to the same checks that go on right now when that process is indulged
in. Your local registrars and your challengers at the polls would be
the same.
Mr. MAThS. One other thing that Mr. Frenzel touched on there very
briefly too. I believe in your prepared statement on the second page you
mentioned that 9 out of 10 registered Americans are voting.
Senator MCGEE. That is a very~ rough figure. The figure breakdown
varies a little bit from time to time. One of the latest was 86.2 percent
of registered.
PAGENO="0032"
26
Mr. MATHIS. 86.2. Was that for the 1972 Presidential election?
Senator MCGEE. That was 1968.
Mr. FRENZEL. Will you yield?
Mr. MATHIS. Certainly.
Mr. FBENZEL. Mr. Chairman, I am looking at an exhibit out of the
Congressional Record that comes from U.S. Census. It was figures
introduced into your committee by some Democratic voting group, I
have forgotten who they were. They showed 89.4 percent of registered
voters turned out in 1968. In checking the mathematics it seems to be
a Democrat adding machine. Really it is closer to 82 percent when you
add them up.
Senator MCGEE. I haven't caught that. I am in favor of it.
Mr. FRENZEL. You take all the NA's and factored them out, which
is a marvelous way to add. In the record in the Senate during your
debate, somebody put in the 1972 figures from census. Our computa-
tions, which we think are reasonably accurate, show 73 percent in
1972, 82 percent in 1968 a.nd 73 percent in 1973. Thank you.
Mr. MATHIS. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator MCGEE. Thank you.
Mr. DENT. Thank you, Senator. The penalty of being considered an
expert always puts you into the position of giving us the job of prov-
ing you are not.
Senator MCGEE. And the penalty of being not an expert is the
penalty of learning, which is my reward this morning.
Mr. DENT. I assure you you have been very helpful to the com-
mittee. Of course we were very anxious to have you since I think you
have been identified with this very closely and over a long period of
time than most any of us have been. I am sure the committee will give
very serious consideration to your answer and to the questions that
were put to you. We hope to get some action very shortly on the matter.
Senator MCGEE. Thank you very much. I do appreciate the courtesy
of all members of the committee. Thank you.
Mr. DENT. The next witness is the Honorable Jaime Benitez, the
Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, who has a very peculiar re-
quest to make, one that is always made by the Resident Commissioner
on every piece of legislation. Commissioner, we are happy to have you,
as you know.
STATEMENT OP HOI~. FAIME BENITEZ, RESIDENT COMMISSIONER
PROM PUERTO RICO
Mr. BENITEZ. My name is Jaime Benitez. I will summarize.
Mr. DENT. We will make all of your testimony part of the record at
this point.
[The prepared statement follows:]
TESTIMONY OFFERED BY THE RESIDENT COMMISSIONER FROM PUERTO Rico,
JAIME BENITEZ
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee On behalf of the people and
of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, I wish to tender an
amendment to this bill. It involves the deletion of "the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico" from the definition of "State" in the proposed legislation.
The amendment does not deal with the merits of the bill itself, but with the
demerits of making it extensive to Puerto Rico. None of the evils that the pro-
posed legislation aims to correct prevails in Puerto Rico. Many unnecessary
PAGENO="0033"
27
confusions and perplexities would be inflicted upon our electoral process if the
amendment is not adopted.
No one challenges or wishes to jeopardize, the extraordinary success and effi-
caciousness of the Puerto Rican electoral process. For, notwithstanding minor
deficiencies we are presently endeavoring to correct, that process is exemplary
throughout the hemisphere. Yet the inclusion of Puerto Rico in the law would do
just that.
In the majority report accompanying the findings of the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service, the Senator, Mr. McGee states:
"5. 352 is designed to contribute to the correcting of the dismal voter turn-
out in American elections for the p~tst 50 years. The Committee majority is
convinced that voter registration requirements for the most part have become
obstacle courses which prevent large numbers of Americans from exercising
their franchise.
The bill seeks elimination of those obstacles.
As we shall immediately document, none of these difficulties prevail in Puerto
Rico. Under the title J'ustiflciation, the report states further that:
"Nowhere in the free world is voter participation at a lower level than
it is in the United States. Voters in Canada, England, and `Germany, for in-
stance have been participating in their elections at a rate well above 75 per
cent; while in the United States, the trend of participation has steadily
declined since the adoption of voter registration laws.
"In the United States the highest rate of participation in the twentieth
century was in 1960 when 64 per cent of all Americans of voting age voted.
In 1966, the percentage dropped to 60.6 per cent. In 1973, the percentage of
participation by voting-age Americans had dropped to a shocking 55 per
cent."
The Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress has informed
my office that Puerto Rico has the highest registration percentage anywhere un-
der the American flag, 05.61% for 1972. The Census Bureau has advised the
Congressional Research Service that the voting-age population of Puerto Rico
for 1972 was 1,627,000. By election time, 1,555,504 or 95.61% were registered.
Only three states came anywhere close to this high percentage; Maine with
92.4%, South Dakota with 90.4%, and Utah with 90.1%
In contrast with the above high percentages in Puerto Rico, registration in
the United States averaged only 67.4%, fully 28% below registration in Puerto
Rico. It is understandable that there should be a high concern with that low
correlation between voting age and voting participation.
If we move now to the election itself we find that 1,308,050 citizens voted in
the 1072 elections. This means that 84.14% of those registered voted, and that
80.4% of the total population 18 years and over exercised their suffrage. This is
a voting record higher than that prevailing in any State of the Union and fully
25% higher than the average for mainland United States.
Justly proud of these achievements our House of Representatives on May 20,
1973. approved a Resolution requesting the exclusion of Puerto Rico from the
scope of this bill. The House Resolution lists two basic reasons for that exclu-
sion. First, "if said bill is approved in the aforesaid form, the bill would create
in effect two systems of voters registration: one for the election of one sole official,
the Resident Commissioner, and another, for all other elective posts. This would
bring about unnecessary difficulties in the Puerto Rican electoral process; would
produce a great confusion and would destroy the already directed purpose of
carrying out in Puerto Rico an electoral reform which responds to the Puerto
Rican political realities."
It seems disproportionate indeed that two registration systems should exist
side by side in Puerto Rico: one concerning the election of over 900 officials and
another to safeguard that of a single Resident Commissioner.
Mr. (Thoirman. I am not noted for my modesty. But I must object to such
imnecessary and burdensome distinction attaching to the office I presently
discharge.
The second consideration is that under the circumstances, I quote "the inter-
vention in Puerto Rico of a federal voters registration process is incompatible
with the autonomic spirit of the present political relationship between Puerto
Rico and the United States." Likewise, the Commission on Electoral Reform
recently appointed by the Governor of Puerto Rico, pursuant to Commonwealth
legislation and including representation from all parties, joins in this request.
20-095-73----3
PAGENO="0034"
28
A complete overhauling of electoral laws, including registration, constitutes one
of the major commitments of the present Government of Puerto Rico. In all like-
lihood, this commitment will be fulfilled during the current quatrenium. The
Commission charged with the revision of all our legislation and instructed to
submit recommendations, is integrated by members from all political parties,
and is already at work.
The high level of citizens' participation in elections in Puerto Rico is due,
more than to anything else, to a deep overall conviction that elections are mean-
ingful; that elections and education provide the best possible avenues to social
change; and that there exists a direct and palpable correlation between what
happens at the polls and what happens later in terms of social amelioration or
deterioration.
One of the advantages of a small, clearly defined, face-to-face, integrated com-
munity, and one which compensates for very many other disadvantages, lies in
the high visibility of public achievements and of public failures. Assessments and
evaluations by the citizenry of the impact of government upon the social fabric
is a daily reality in Puerto Rico. The electoral process has become a simple
and effective way of passing judgment and of effecting accountability.
We do not try to simplify and routinize elections or registrations in order for
them not to interfere with other activities or distractions of our daily life.
On the contrary we want them to interfere and to take precedence over all other
activities. With us election day is, indeed, a holy day. It is a festivity but it is
also a sacred duty. We hold that election day is the most important day in
the life of a democracy. We try to have all public and social activities during
that day converge on the priority accorded that outstanding occasion which
our society appreciates comes only once every four years.
I take no position concerning how a system of registration or of voting,
wherein the elector could take care of the process staying at home, signing a
card, or punching a button, would work on the mainland. In Puerto Rico such
a process might undermine our basic approaches, attitudes, safeguards, and
effectiveness. For it might affect adversely our basic understanding of the mean-
ing, value and dramatic consequences inherent in universal suffrage. In any
case our system is achieving already the very same goals set for this bill. In-
cluding Puerto Rico in its scope would complicate, rather than improve, our
political process. We respectfully submit that under these circumstances this
bill should not be made extensive to Puerto Rico.
PAGENO="0035"
29
ESTADO LIBRE AsocIADo DE PUERTO RICO-JUNTA ESTATAL DE ELEccI0NE'
INFORME OFICIAL SOBRE LAS ELECCIONES GENERALES
De 7 de Noviernbre de 1972
PRIMERA EDIOION
Walter Buso, superintendente General de Elecciones Interino
INFORMACION DEL POR CIENTO DE ELECTORES QUÉ NO VOTARON EN LAS ELECCIONES GENERALES
EFECTUADAS EN PUERTO RICO
[Registered votesj
Porciento
Alto Inseritos Votaron No Votarort
1920 268,643 240,431 7.72
1924 326, 093 253, 520 22. 26
1928 321, 113 256, 335 20. 18
1932 452,738 383,722 15.25
1936 764, 602 549, 500 28. 14
1940 714, 960 568, 851 20. 44
1944 719,759 591,978 17.26
1948 873,085 638,687 26.85
1952 883, 219 664, 947 24. 72
1956 873, 842 701, 738 19.70
1960 931, 034 796, 429 15.33
1964 1, 002, 000 839, 678 16. 20
1968 1, 176, 895 922, 822 21. 50
1972 1,555,504 1,308,950 15.86
PUERTO RICO-1972 ELECTION
1972
1968
1964
1960
Voting age population, census bureau estimate
Percent of voting age population registered to vote
Age
1, 627, 000
95. 61
18+
1, 334, 000 1, 207, 000 1, 062, 000
82.22 83.02 87. 67
21+
Note: 95.61 percent of VAP registered; 84.14 percent of those registered voted 95.61 X (84.14)=80.4 percent. 80.4 per-
cent of voting age population voted.
PAGENO="0036"
30
cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc
cc cc-cc cc cc cc cc cc~ cc - ~ c~ - - cc
cc
cc cc ~cc cccc) NJ cc)N- cc cc ccccj N- N- Cc)~
cc :~ ~
< ~- NJ N-NJ Cc) NJ ccc cc ~ cc cc cc N-
H H
>~
~ ~cc~N-W
~ c~~,~r-cc c~c,cc-~cJ
cc N-cc cc cc ~ N-cc cccc cc cc `N-cc cc N- cccc
C/)
:HHHE :
E
PAGENO="0037"
Missouri 1_ 2,696,000 _ 1,817,879 878, 121 32.6 510, 809 D
Montana 399,000 327,477 82.07 71,523 278,628 48,849 120,372 30.2 51,214D
Nebraska 877, 000 584, 154 292, 846 33. 4 30, 460 ~
Puerto Rico 1, 207, 000 1, 002, 000 83.02
Nevada 244,000 163,475 67.00 80,525 135,433 28,042 108,567 44.5 523,245
New Hampshire 396, 000 365, 224 92.23 30, 776 286, 202 79, 022 109, 798 27. 7 78, 086
New Jersey 4, 147, 000 3, 253, 603 78.46 893, 397 2, 846, 770 406, 833 1, 300, 230 31.4 903, 828
New Mexico 514,000 413,696 80.49 100,304 328,645 85,051 185,355 36.1 61, 177
New York 11,330,000 8,443,430 74.52 2,886, 570 7, 166, 015 1,277,415 4, 163, 985 36.8 2,669, 597
North Carolina 1 2, 753, 000 1, 424, 983 1, 328, 017 48. 2 175, 295
North Dakota 1 358, 000 258, 389 99, 611 27.8 41, 577
Ohio 1 5, 960, 000 3, 969, 196 1, 990, 804 33.4 1, 027, 466
Oklahoma 1,493,000 1,311,864 87.87 181,136 932,499 379,365 560,501 37.5 107,169
Oregon 1,130,000 932,461 82.52 197,539 786,305 146,156 343,695 30.4 218,238
Pennsylvania 7, 080, 000 5, 728, 359 80.91 1, 351, 641 4, 822, 490 905, 869 2, 257, 510 31.9 1, 457, 097
Rhode Island 568,000 472,659 83.71 95,341 390,078 82,581 177,922 31.3 240,848
South Carolina 1, 380, 000 772, 572 55.98 607, 428 524,756 247, 816 855, 244 62.0 93, 348
South Dakota 404, 000 369, 782 91.53 34, 218 293, 118 76, 664 110, 882 27.4 32, 902
Tennessee 2,239,000 1,628,825 72.75 610, 175 1,144,046 484,779 1,094,954 48.9 126,082
Texas 3 5, 922, 000 3 3, 338, 718 356.33 2, 583, 282 2, 626, 811 711, 907 3, 295, 189 55. 6 704, 619
Utah 522,000 448,463 85.91 73,537 401,413 47,050 120,587 23.1 37,843
Vermont 240, 000 209, 225 87. 18 30, 775 163, 089 46, 136 76, 911 32.0 53, 185
Virginia 2, 541, 000 1,305, 383 51.37 1 235, 617 1, 042, 267 263, 116 1, 498, 733 59.0 76, 704
Washington 1759 000 1 582 046 89 94 176 954 1 258 374 323 672 500 626 28 5 309 333
West Virginia 1 053 000 1 055 429 `+2 429 792 040 263 389 260 960 24 8 284 184
Wisconsin1 2 391 000 1 691 815 699 185 29 2 411 929
Wyoming 195,000 142,716 52,284 26.8 ~18,720
rotal 113, 930, 000 70, 641, 128 43, 288, 872 38. 0 15, 948, 884
1 Indicates States which do not have statewide registration or equivalent, or do not publish statewide 4 Excess of registered voters over potential voters. This may be due to the presence on the registra-
registration data. tion books of names of persons no longer eligible to vote.
2 Official estimate. 5 Presidential plurality not submitted for the record.
3 Polltax receipts sold plus exemption certificates issued. .
Source: Republican National Committee.
PAGENO="0038"
32
TABLE 3.-REGISTRATION BY STATE, 1972
Alabama 1, 763, 845 1
Alaska 24,581 43,076 81,303 184,960 1
Arizona 362, 196 455, 985 43, 631 861, 812 1
Arkansas 1, 010, 396 /
California 3, 840, 620 5, 864, 745 760, 850 10, 466, 215 1
Colorado 343, 193 413, 539 462, 859 1, 219, 591 1
Connecticut 420, 210 554, 111 533, 282 1, 507, 603
Delaware 102, 351 120, 770 69, 597 293, 078 1
District of Columbia 39, 598 233, 101 32, 373 305, 072 1
Florida 974, 999 2, 394, 604 117, 855 3, 4b7, 458 1
Georgia 2,131,188 1
Hawaii 46, 890 171, 374 119, 573 337, 837 1
Idaho 397,019 I
Illinois 6,215,331 I
Indiana 3,018,578 /
iowa 219,360 250,871 269,675 739,906 (
Kansas 1,065,730 1
Kentucky 475,764 946, 169 32,642 1,454,575 I
Louisiana 49,815 1,711,826 23,249 1,784,890 I
Maine 1615,546 I
Maryland 483,623 1,260,477 71,684 1,815,784 I
Massachusetts 3,099,877 I
Michigan 4,762,764
Minnesota 2
Mississippi 1,030,000 I
lVlissouri
Montana 386,867
Nebraska 401,409 370,993 34,865 807,267
Nevada 80, 199 133, 278 17, 568 231, 045
New Hampshire 177, 054 129, 365 143, 295 449, 714 I
New Jersey 3,672,606
New Mexico 151, 203 321, 513 32, 716 505, 432 I
NewYork 9,207,363 I
North Carolina 541, 916 1, 729, 436 86, 293 2, 357, 645
North Dakota `
Ohio 4,627,740
Oklahoma 287, 003 942, 188 17, 966 1, 247, 157
Oregon 473,907 673,710 50,059 1,197,676 I
Pennsylvania 2, 697, 694 2, 993, 092 181, 116 5, 871, 902
Rhode Island 531,847
South Carolina 1, 033, 688
South Dakota 195, 737 158, 816 37,703 392, 256
Tennessee 1,990,026
Texas 3,872,462
Utah 621,014
Vermont 273, 056
Virginia 2,107,367
Washington 1,974,849
West Virginia 359, 016 686, 620 16, 883 1, 062, 519
Wisconsin I
Wyoming 63,099 55,552 20,285 138,936
Total 12, 811, 437 22, 615, 211 3, 257, 682 94, 093, 489
Puerto Rico 1, 555, 504
I No statewide registration.
NA-Not avail able.
Source: Republican National Committee.
Percent
Type of
registra-
State Republican Democrat Other Total tion
registered of
voting age
population
77.6
74.5
69.6
77. 1
75.1
78.3
71.6
79.0
59. 0
68.3
68.7
63.6
82. 9
82.4
86.0
38. 8
69. 2
65. 9
76.3
92.4
67.6
77.6
81. 1
NA
73.4
NA
84. 1
79. 0
66.4
86. 3
73. 1
79. 5
72. 1
68. 1
NA
64. 4
68.8
79.8
72.0
79.0
60.6
90.4
73.4
50. 4
90. 1
88.4
66. 0
83.3
89.9
NA
61.5
67.4
95.61
PAGENO="0039"
33
1958 VOTER REGISTRATI ON STATISTICS-ACTUAL TURNOUT
1968
voting age
State population
Total
registration
Percent of
voting age
population
registered
Actual
turnout
Percent
turnout of
registered
voters
Percent
turnout of
voting age
population
Alabama 2, 037, 000 1, 389, 198 65. 20 1, 044, 177 75. 2 51. 3
Alaska' 151,000 NA 83,035 NA 55.0
Arizona 1,003,000 614,718 61.29 486,936 79.2 49.5
Arkansas 1, 188, 000 845, 759 11. 19 609, 590 72. 1 51. 3
California 12, 052, 000 8, 587, 673 91. 21 7, 251, 587 84. 4 60. 2
Colorado 1, 211, 000 966, 700 79. 88 806, 983 83. 5 66. 6
Connecticut 1, 813, 000 1, 341, 519 73. 99 1, 256, 232 93.6 69. 3
Delaware 306, 000 246, 915 81. 34 214, 367 86. 1 70. 1
District of Columbia 515, 000 201, 937 39. 21 170, 578 84. 5 33. 1
Florida 3, 924, 000 2, 765, 316 70.47 2, 187, 805 79.~1 55. 8
Georgia 2, 834, 000 1, 850, 000 55. 25 1, 250, 100 67.6 44. 1
Hawaii 421, 000 274, 104 65. 11 236, 218 86. 2 56. 1
Idaho 708, 000 366, 532 51. 77 291, 183 79. 4 41. 1
Illinois 6, 580, 000 5, 676, 131 86. 26 4, 619, 749 81. 4 70. 2
Indiana 2, 946, 000 2, 653, 219 90. 06 2, 123, 597 80. 0 72. 1
Iowa' 1,653,000 NA 1,167,931 NA 70.7
Kansas' 1,339,000 NA _ 872,783 NA 65.2
Kentucky 2,062,000 1,471,343 7.136 1,055,893 71.8 51.2
Louisiana 2, 032, 000 1, 449, 231 7. 132 1, 097, 550 75. 7 54. 0
Maine 596, 000 509, 888 8. 555 392, 936 77. 1 65. 9
Maryland 2, 168, 000 1, 595, 779 7. 361 1, 235, 039 77. 4 57.0
Massachusetts 3, 379, 000 2, 591, 051 7. 668 2, 331, 752 80. 0 69. 0
Michigan 4, 853, 000 3, 950, 000 8. 139 3, 306, 250 83. 7 68. 1
Minnesota' 2,097,000 NA L 1,588,510 NA 75.8
Mississippi 2 1, 308, 000 775, 000 5. 925 654, 509 84. 5 50. 0
Missouri ` 2, 770, 000 NA 1, 809, 502 NA 65. 3
Montana 412,000 331,078 8.036 274,404 82.9 66.6
Nebraska 891,000 637,719 7.157 536,851 84.2 60.3
Nevada 285,000 188,811 6.625 154,218 81.7 54.1
New Hampshire 418, 000 378, 660 9. 059 297, 190 78. 5 71. 1
New Jersey 4, 402, 000 3, 319, 752 7. 541 2, 875, 395 86. 6 65. 3
New Mexico 562, 000 445, 304 7. 924 327, 281 73. 5 58. 2
New York 11,773,000. 8,113,216 6.891 6,691,690 85.8 59.1
North Carolina 2, 919, 000 1, 858, 987 6. 369 1, 587, 493 85. 4 54. 4
North Dakota' 370, 000 NA 247, 882 NA 67.0
Ohio 6, 235, 000 3, 907, 000 3, 959, 698 101. 3 63. 5
Oklahoma 1, 546, 000 1, 163, 328 75. 25 943, 086 81. 1 61. 0
Oregon 1,193,000 971,851 81.46 819,622 84.3 68.7
Pennsylvania 7, 234, 000 5, 599, 364 77. 40 4, 747, 928 84. 8 65. 6
Rhode Island 561, 000 471, 112 83. 98 384, 938 81. 7 68. 6
South Carolina 1, 455, 000 853, 014 58. 63 666, 978 78. 2 45. 8
South Dakota 408, 000 348, 254 85. 36 281,264 80. 8 68. 9
Tennessee 2, 361, 000 1, 840, 077 77. 94 1, 248, 617 67. 9 52.9
Texas 6, 289, 000 4, 073, 576 64.77 3, 079, 406 75. 6 49. 0
Utah 2 562, 000 475, 000 84. 52 422, 568 89. 0 75. 2
Vermont 244, 000 208, 221 85. 34 161, 403 77. 5 66. 1
Virginia 2, 690, 000 1, 510,592, 56. 16 1, 359, 928 90.0 50.6
Washington 1, 838, 000 1, 649, 734 89. 76 1, 304, 281 79. 1 71. 0
West Virginia 1, 073, 000 993, 024 92. 55 754, 206 76. 0 70.3
Wisconsin 2 2, 484, 000 2, 425, 000 97. 62 1, 691, 538 69. 8 68. 1
Wyoming 202, 000 142, 739 70. 66 127, 205 89. 1 - 63. 0
Total 120,363,000 82,029,426 73,359,762 80.8 60.8
States which have no statewide registration, or where registration is not required.
Approximate figures, furnished by Secretary of State.
Ohio does not require total registration, therefore the voter turnout figure exceeds the registration figure. Figure not
included in total percentage.
NA-Not available.
Source: Republican National Committee.
PAGENO="0040"
34
TABLE 5-1972 VOTER TURNOUT BY STATE
Percent vot
ing of-
Total
Rank State turnout
Registered
voters
Voting age
population
Registered
Voting age
population
26 Alabama 1, 006, 093 1, 763, 845 2, 274, 000 57. 0 44. 2
51 Alaska 95, 219 148, 960 200, 000 63. 9 47. 6
32 Arizona 653,505 861,812 1,239,000 75.8 52.7
33 Arkansas 651, 320 1, 010, 396 1, 310, 000 64. 5 49. 7
1 California 8, 367, 862 10, 466, 215 13, 945, 000 80. 0 60. 0
27 Colorado 953, 878 1, 219, 591 1, 558, 000 78. 2 61. 2
18 Connecticut 1, 384, 277 1, 507, 603 2, 106, 000 91. 8 65. 7
46 Delaware 235, 516 293, 078 371, 000 80. 4 63. 5
49 District ef Columbia 163, 421 305, 072 518, 000 53. 6 31. 5
9 Florida 2, 583, 283 3, 487, 458 5, 105, 000 74. 1 50. 6
22 Georgia 1, 171, 019 2, 131, 188 3, 104, 000 54.9 37. 7
45 Hawaii 270, 274 337, 837 531, 000 80. 0 50. 9
42 Idaho 310, 379 397, 019 479, 000 78. 2 64. 8
3 Illinois 4, 723, 326 6, 215, 331 7, 542, 000 76. 0 62. 6
11 Indiana 2, 125, 529 3, 018,578 3, 509, 000 70.4 60. 6
20 Iowa 1, 225, 944 739, 906 1, 909, 000 (1) 64. 2
29 Kansas 916,095 1,065,730 1,541,000 86.0 59.4
23 Kentucky 1,067,499 1,454,575 2,206,000 73.4 48.4
24 Louisiana 1,051,491 1,784,890 2,339,000 58.9 45.0
37 Maine 417, 042 615, 546 666, 000 67. 8 62. 6
19 Maryland 1, 353, 812 1, 815, 784 2,688, 000 74. 6 50. 4
10 Massachusetts 2,458,756 3,099,877 3,955,000 79.~3 62.2
6 Michigan 3, 489, 727 4, 762, 764 5, 874, 000 73. 3 59. 4
14 Minnesota 1, 741,652 (1) 2, 560, 000 (1) 68. 0
34 Mississippi 645, 963 1, 030, 000 1, 403, 000 62. 7 46. 0
13 Missouri 1, 852, 589 (1) 3, 266, 000 (1) 56. 7
41 Montana 317,603 386, 867 460,000 82. 1 69. 0
35 Nebraska 576,289 807,267 1,022,000 71.4 56.4
48 Nevada 181,766 231,045 348,000 78.7 52.2
40 New Hampshire 334, 055 449, 714 521, 000 74. 3 64. 1
8 New Jersey 2, 997, 229 3,672,606 5, 025, 000 81. 6 59. 6
39 New Mexico 385, 931 505, 432 636, 000 76. 4 60. 7
2 New York 7, 161, 830 9, 207, 363 12, 773, 000 77. 8 56. 1
15 North Carnlina 1, 518,612 2, 357,645 3, 463, 000 64. 4 43. 9
44 North Dakota 280, 514 (1) 402, 000 (1) 69. 8
5 Ohio 4, 094, 787 4,627, 740 7, 185, 000 88. 5 57. 0
25 Oklahoma 1, 029, 900 1, 247, 157 1, 812, 000 82.6 56. 8
28 Oregon 927, 946 1, 197,676 1, 500, 000 77. 5 61. 9
4 Pennsylvania 4, 592, 105 5, 871, 902 8, 161, 000 78. 2 56. 3
38 Rhode Island 415, 757 531, 847 673, 000 78. 2 61. 8
31 South Carolina 674,690 1, 033,688 1, 706, 000 65. 3 39. 6
43 South Dakota 307, 415 392, 256 434, 000 78. 4 70. 8
21 Tennessee 1, 201, 182 1,990, 026 2, 713, 000 60. 4 44. 3
7 Texas 3, 471, 281 3, 872, 462 7,681, 000 89.6 45. 2
36 Utah 478, 476 621,014 689, 000 77. 0 69. 4
47 Vermont 186, 947 273, 056 309, 000 68. 5 60. 5
17 Virginia 1, 457, 019 2, 107, 367 3, 197, 000 69. 1 45. 6
16 Washington 1, 470, 847 1, 974, 849 2, 371, 000 74. 5 62. 0
30 West Virginia 762, 399 1, 062, 519 1, 182, 000 71. 8 64. 5
12 Wisconsin 1, 852, 890 (1) 2, 955, 000 (1) 62. 7
50 Wyoming 145, 570 138, 936 225, 000 (1) 64. 7
Total 77, 738, 511 94, 093, 489 139, 642, 000 (1) 55. 7
Puerto Rico 1, 308, 950 1, 555, 504 1,627, 000 84. 14 80. 4
I Figures not available.
Source: Republican National Committee. Bureau of the Census.
PAGENO="0041"
35
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CAPITOL
SAN JUAN. PUERTO RICO
I, ENRIQUE Pif~aao LoPEZ, Secretary of he House of Representatives of the Common-
wealth of Puerto Rico, do hereby
CERTIFY:
That the House of Representatives in its sitting of May 29, 1973, approved the following
To request from the Coiigress of the United States of America to exclude the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico from the "Voter Registration Act" (S 352)
STATEMENT OF MOTIVES
WHEREAS: Before the Congress of the United States Senate Bill No. 352 is being processed,
known as "Voter Registration Act", which, upon approval on its original drafting, would
iaclude Puerto Rico within a federal voters registration system for the election of federal
officials, among which is included the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico in the United
States;
WHEREAS: If said bill is approved in the aforesaid form, the effect in Puerto Rico would be
that there will be two systems of voters registration; one for the election of one sole of-
ficial, the Resident Commissioner, and anŕther, for all other elective posts. This would
bring about unnecessary difficulties in the. Puerto Rican electoral process; would produce
a great confusion and would destroy the already directed purpos~ of carrying out in Puerto
Rico an electoral reform which responds to the Puerto Rican political realities;
WHEREAS: The intervention in Puerto Rico of a federal voters registration process is incom-
patible with the autonomic spirit of the pgesent political relationship between Puerto Rico
and the United States;
Therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico:
Section 1.-It is hereby requested from the Congress of the United States of America,
both, from the Senate and from the House of Representatives, that the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico be excluded as jurisdiction wherein it may apply, the "Voter Registration Act"
(S. 352), now under itS consideration.
Section 2.-Copy of this Resolution, duly translatated into the English language, shall be
transmitted by the Secretary of this House of Representatives to the Senate, and to the House of
Representatives of the United States, to each Senator, and to each Representative of the Congress
of the United States, to the Governor of Puertoflico, and to the Resident Commisioner of Puerto
Rico in the United States.
AND IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I issue these presents to which I set my hands
and affix the seal of the House of Representatives at the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, at the Capitol building, San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 29th day~~May one
thousand nine hundred and seventy three.
HO~epre tativea
PAGENO="0042"
36
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., June 4, 1973.
Hon. JOHN H. DENT,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Elections, House Committee on Administration,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR CHAIRMAN DENT: I am pleased to convey to your Subcommittee the text
of a resolution unanimously passed by the Commission on Electoral Reform of
Puerto Rico, opposing that the Commonwealth be included under the provisionS
of Senate bill number S. 352, the Voter Registration Act. This bill is presently
under your consideration.
The Commission on Electoral Reform, which was created by a local legisla-
tive Resolution signed into law by the Governor of Puerto Rico on January 30,
1973, represents an effort to harmonize the points of view of our three political
parties, to establish a joint program of much needed electoral reform in the
island.
This group is deeply interested in 5. 352, and would like to be informed of
the dates of coming public hearings, should you decide to hold them in the near
future. I will be glad to pass this information to them.
My sincere thanks for your cooperation on this matter.
With warm regards.
Cordially,
JAIME BENITEZ.
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, COMMISSION OF ELECTORAL REFORM
RESOLUTION
Whereas Section 4 of Article VI of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, reads as follows: "Everything concerning the electoral process and
the registration of voters, as well as everything concerning political parties and
candidates, will be provided for by law ;"
Whereas Senate Joint Resolution No. 3, signed on January 30, 1973 by the Hon-
orable Governor of Puerto Rico created the Commission on Electoral Reform;
Whereas the mission and function of the Commission is to prepare a plan em-
bracing the public policy of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, concerning the
carrying out of electoral reform in Puerto Rico, and to submit legislative pro-
posals to achieve that end;
Whereas the Commission is composed of five members, three of them recom-
mended by the three political parties advocating Commonwealth, statehood and
Independence, respectively, as a final political status;
Whereas the Senate of the United States of America passed Senate bill num-
ber 5. 352, which will be known as the Voter Registration Act, establishing a
program for the registration of voters through the postal system;
Whereas this bill includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in the applica-
tion of its provisions, by including the delegates to the Congress within the
definition of a Federal Position, the Resident Commissioner being the delegate
of Puerto Rico before the Congress of the United States of America; therefore,
belt
Resolved unanimously by the Commission on Electoral Reform, of the Common-
wealth of Puerto Rico;
First, That the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico should be excluded from the
provisions of the United States Senate bill number 5. 352, known as the Voter
Registration Act:
Second, That this Resolution be informed to the Honorable Governor of Puerto
Rico, the Honorable Legislative Assembly, and the Honorable Resident
Commissioner;
Third, That an amendment to the bill be requested, so as to:
1. Eliminate the phrase "the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico", from clause (2)
of Section 401 of Title 13 of the Federal Code.
2. To add to the phrase "the Delegate to the Congress", of clause (3) of Section
401, of Title 13 of the Federal Code, the following: "except the Resident Corn-
missioner to the United States representing the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico."
MILTON F. R1~A,
President.
PAGENO="0043"
37
CERTIFICATION
I certify that the preceding Resolution was passed by unanimous vote by the
members of the Commission on Electoral Reform, in the executive session of
May 23, 1973.
FERNAc~DO PicO,
&3cretary.
Mr. BENITEZ. Thank you, sir. I may add that I have provided the
statistics for the United States as well as for Puerto Rico concerning
registration and elections for 1972, 1968, and 1964. It is to a large
extent upon the strength of these statistics that we submit on behalf
of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico an amend-
ment consisting of the deletion of "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico"
from the definition of "Stat~." This amendment does not deal with the
merits of the bill itself, but~ with the demerits of making it extensive
to Puerto Rico. None of the evils that the proposed legislation aims to
correct prevails in Puerto Rico. Many unnecessary confusions and per-
plexities would be inflicted upon bur electoral process if this amend-
ment is not adopted.
The arguments in favor of the bill have been presented by Senator
McGee. They appear also in the committee report submitted to the
Senate and I need not read them. The bill is an effort to rectify the low
voter participation in the United States as contrasted with other demo-
ciatic nations throughout the world.
The situation as far as Puerto Rico is concerned is the following:
Puerto Rico has the highest rate of registration anywhere under the
American flag, 95.6 percent for 1972; is also has the highest voter
turnout among the voting age pOpulation, 80.4 percent; and a very
high votei' participation among those registered to vote-85 percent.
The tables I have provided list the figures for each one of the States,
and we have added the figures as certified by the Board of Elections in
Puerto Rico and by the Census Bureau for Puerto Rico. I have also in-
cluded with my testimony a resolution of the House of Representatives
of Puerto Rico of March 29, 1973, requesting the exclusion of Puerto
Rico from the bill. The House resolution lists two basic reasons. First,
that if said bill is approved in the aforesaid form, the bill would create
in effect two systems of voter registration, one for the election of one
sing]e official, the Resident Commissioner, and another for all other
elective posts. This would create unnecessary difficulties and confusions
in the electoral process, and would create great confusion.
It seems disproportionate indeed that two regi~tration systems
should exist side by side in Puerto Rico, one concerning the election
of over 900 officials, and another ~o safeguard that of a single Resident
Commissioner.
Mr. Chairman, I am not noted for my modesty, but I really think it
is stretching the point to create a situation where .the office which I
presently discharge should be endowed with this burdensome distinc-
tion of having a registration system all to itself.
The second consideration is, of course, that this law, presented in the
form in which it is, and having served an inconsequential relationship
to the electoral process in PuertO Rico, would undoubtedly create con-
fusion and would affect the basic autonomy of the Puerto Rican elec-
toral process.
PAGENO="0044"
38
I would just like to add one explanation for the high percentage of
voter participation in Puerto Rico, which is higher not only than that
of my State in the Union. but also than that of most places in Europe
and in Latin America. This is due primarily to a deep, overall convic-
tion in Puerto Rico. that elections are meaningful, that elections and
education provide the best possible avenues to social change, and that
there exists a direct and palpable correlation between what happens at
the polls and what happens later in terms of social amelioration or
deterioration.
One of the advantages of a small, clearly defined, face-to-face, in-
tegrated community, and one which compensates for very many other
disadvantages, lies in the high visibility of public achievements and of
public failures. Assessments and evaluations by the citizenry of the
impact of government upon the social fabric is a daily reality in Puerto
Rico. The electoral process has become a simple and effective way of
passing judgment and of effecting accountability.
In the last three elections in Puerto Rico we have had changes of
government determined by the electorate. We do not try to simplify
and routinize elections or registrations in order for them not to inter-
fere with other activities or distractions of our daily life. On the con-
trary we want them to interfere and to take precedence over all other
activities. With us, election day is, indeed, a holy day. It is a festivity
but it is also a sacred duty. WTe hold that election day is the most im-
portant day in the life of a democracy. And the people of Puerto Rico
do practice this. We try to have all public and social activities during
that day converge on the priority accorded that outstanding occasion
which our society appreciates comes only once every 4 years.
I take no position concerning how a system of registration or of
voting, wherein the elector could take care of the process staying at
home, signing a card, or punching a button, would work on the main-
land. In Puerto Rico such a process might undermine our basic ap-
proaches, attitudes, safeguards, and effectiveness concerning the
dignity, the solemnity, the importance of the electoral process. In our
cases the system is already achieving the very same goals which this
bill endeavors to achieve. Including Puerto Rico in its scope would
complicate, rather than improve, our political process. In consequence
we respectfully submit that Puerto Rico be excluded from the scope
of the bill.
Mr. DENT. Thank you very kindly, Commissioner. I am sure that the
committee recognizes that there are differences to be considered when
we consider the legislation for the mainland and for Puerto Rico. I
have no questions. I have discussed it with you and will talk to you
more about it when the opportunity presents itself when we are listen-
ing to debate on the floor. There may be questions by the committee.
Mr. Chairman, do you have any questions?
Mr. H~s. No, Mr. Chairman. The only thing I would say, Mr.
Commissioner, I sympathize with your position, and I am sure that if
a bill is reported out by the committee, that your special problem will
be taken care of. I think if you have this high a percentage of registra-
tion, you don't need any other stimulation or complication. I agree
with you that setting up that kind of machinery for one office to be
elected every 4 years would be probably like the old saying goes: the
higher the game would be more than the candle is worth.
PAGENO="0045"
39
Mr. DENT. Gilding the lily. Thank you, Mr. Hays. Mr. Harvey.
Mr. HARVEY. Thank you.
Mr. Commissioner, I appreciate your being here today and the
tremendous record that you have i Puerto Rico. I only had one ques-
tion. I noted that in your statistics that you included that in 1972
when the 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds were permitted to vote, that you
achieved a 95.6-percent registration, which was greater than in 1968,
1964, or 1960.
Mr. BENITEZ. That is right.
Mr. HARVEY. Before the 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds were permitted to
vote. I didn't know if you cared to comment on that or not. They are
astounding figures.
Mr. BENITEZ. Yes. The reason for this is that in 1972 there was a
much greater motivation to register and to vote than there was in
1968. There were a number of issues that were very clear. Lots of
people, by Puerto Rican standards, had abstained from voting in 1968,
assuming it was a sure thing that the Popular Democratic Party would
win easily. The other is that there had been splits in the parties and
disgust with the candidates, and so only 79 percent of those of voting
age actually did vote. In these last elections, however, there was a great
deal of distress over the previous administration. There is now
throughout Puerto Rico a profound feeling that elections are mean-
ingful. There were clear-cut issues involved, and the people not only
voted, but voted right.
Mr. 1-hARvEY. We congratulate you in any event for stimulating the
interest that you did. Thank you.
Mr. BENITEZ. Thank you, sir.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Mathis.
Mr. MATHIS. Mr. Commissioner, thank you very much for your tes-
timony. I think we all appreciate your problem and I am prepared to
tell you today that I will support your amendment if you will support
a similar amendment removing Georgia.
Mr. DENT. Let's make a deal in the back room. Thank you, Mr.
Mathis. Mr. Ware.
Mr. WA1u. Mr. Commissioner, I join with all of my colleagues in
complimenting you and your people, and I have but one question.
How do your voters register at the present time?
Mr. BENITEZ. We have regular registering forms. Once you regis-
ter you are permanently registered unless you die or are canceled out
for not voting in the previous election, and four times a year there is a
Sunday that is taken for the purpose of registering. When a person
registers in Puerto Rico it is a great event, and elections themselves are
a great event. There is motivation. The parties participate, and there
are always very heavy turnouts. We attribute value to the practice, to
the ceremony, to the act itself, and there is of course a person-to-person
canvass. The parties are active, and everybody wants to get the vote
out and to prepare for it through registration. It is in the interest of
the persons who are concerned. In our case this makes even the some-
what cumbersome registration forms that we have effective and sig-
nificant. .
Mr. WARE~. -Do you have to go to selected locations to register?
PAGENO="0046"
40
Mr. BENI~z. Yes, one has to go to selected locations to register, but
we establish a very, very large number of them. In Puerto Rico, there
are 15.000 voting polls so that for every 10 persons there is one place
where people can vote or gather, and then again this takes the signifi-
cance of gathering of neighbors and of members of the community, and
both registrations and elections are great occasions for Puerto Rico.
Mr. WARE. Thank you very much.
Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Ware. Mr. Frenzel.
Mr. FRENZEL. Thank you, 1~fr. Chairman.
Mr. Commissioner, I find your testimony scary. Little red flags are
going up. If postcard registration is a good thing for the country, why
isn't it just as much a good thing for a high-registration jurisdiction as
it is for a low-registration jurisdiction? If it is good, shouldn't it be
good for all of us. maybe in approximately the same percentage; and
if it is horrible for you. then is it horrible for all the rest of us? I am
really concerned. They took out North Dakota because the two Sena-
tors didn't want to be in. Now you want to be out. What are the rest of
us going to left with?
Mr. BENITEZ. The only thing I can do is remember my political sci-
ence course, and quote Aristotle to say that justice is the equality in
situations, and disequality in different situations. To apply to Puerto
Rico a method which we don't need, and which would go contrary to
our practices, our norms, and our established values, would be a great
injustice.
Mr. FRENZEL. Excuse me, though. just a minute. Wouldn't that
apply to any jurisdiction? They have got some norms and established
values and practices, too.
Mr. BENITEZ. That is something you will have to judge.
Mr. FRENZEL. Why the difference?
Mr. BENITEZ. The difference is that you have a problem. We don't
have a problem.
Mr. FRENZEL. Let me ask you to define your nonproblem. You say
you have 95 percent of your eligible voters registered. Do you use the
same definition of eligibility as is used elsewhere in the country?
Mr. BENITEZ. Yes, we do. The eligible in our case are persons 18
years old with some residence.
Mr. FRENZEL. For instance, in this country, as I understand it, eligi-
ble voters as the Census Bureau counts them, counts a lot of people
who really aren't eligible, and who could never been expected to vote,
aliens, people who are sick, old people, idiots.
Mr. DENT. Don't bar them.
Mr. FRENZEL. There are people who are judged mentally incapable
and they are not allowed to he registered. I guess the country has a
certain number of these. Are you counting those, too?
Mr. BENnTz. Yes.
Mr. FRENZEL. Or have, you a different way of counting?
Mr. BENITEZ. Everything has been counted. This percentage has
been made against the total population. They are the Bureau of the
Census figures for those who are 18 years old or over, and so you have
here that. in Puerto Rico in 1972, the population 18 years old or more
is 1,627.000. and that the number of persons who were registered was
1 ~555M00. It' might be that you have some duplications in this register
because if you move or die. perhaps there are some errors involved,
PAGENO="0047"
41
but the test is the number that voted. You can waive the registration
for a moment and just match the total population against the total
votes, and you find that 1,308,000 voted, so if the census figures are
correct, and certainly the votes are there, you find a total of over 80
percent of the people voting in Puerto Rico of voting age. This means
18 years or over.
Mr. FRENZEL. I think we may be coming closer to reality here when
you take that particular figure. Have you had trouble with the census
like the rest of us have? We are told that the census missed 7 percent
of the people last time around. Do they do a good job in Puerto Rico?
Mr. BENITEZ. Yes, they do a good job in Puerto Rico, basically, be-
cause in our case, you have a very small island, a very compact popula-
tion, and what is to a large extent a face-to-face society. But in the
voting itself, to have 1,300,000 persons out of a total population of
2,700,000 voting is a tremendous number.
Mr. FRENZEL. I would agree. The other thing, the final thought,
wou'd be if indeed Puerto Rico does a much better job than the rest
of the country, or maybe if North Dakota is better than the rest of
the country, maybe we ought to give them a fixed amount of dollars
to improve participation. Given a fixed amount of dollars, maybe we
ought to hire you and throw out the postcard system or hire somebody
else, but I guess that goes into the system of alternatives. Certainly
we are very interested because you have a fine record. I yield to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WARE. I sort of have the sense at the moment that maybe the
rest of the country should have election day as a national holiday.
Mr. BENITEZ. I would think so. This happens almost everywhere
in the world, that the day of election is the most important day in
the political world. I am oftentimes shocked when I see that in the
rest of the United States, registration is taken so casually. With us, at
least, it is one day when the whole community is attentive to that par-
ticular reality.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DENT. Yes, Mr. Hays.
Mr. HAYS. What day of the week do you hold elections?
Mr. BENITEZ. We hold it the same time as the United States, the
Tuesday after the first Monday of November.
Mr. HARVEY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRENZEL. I am all through.
Mr. HARVEY. Just one observation. In the Northern States, weather
is also a factor, which I take it, it is not in Puerto Rico.
Mr. BENTTEZ. That is correct.
Mr. HARVEY. But if we in November get snow or if we get inclement
weather, it will control to a considerable extent the number of people
who vote. I would suggest since we are considering making it a holi-
day, that we might also consider weather as a factor.
Mr. MATInS. Could I ask one question?
Mr. DENT. Yes~ Mr. Mathis.
Mr. MATInS. Senator McGee in earlier testimony before the com-
mittee indicated that the high voter turnout in European countries
and in Canada came about because the onus was on the Government,
as it were, for registration. In Puerto Rico, do you feel that each citi-
PAGENO="0048"
42
zen takes it as a personal responsibility rather than a governmental
responsibility?
Mr. BENrruz. Yes, it is taken as a personal responsibility by the
citizenry, and it is taken as a decisive responsibility by the parties.
There is also a general climate of awareness of what is it that voting
has done in Puerto Rico, at least in the last 30 years, and we are quite
proud of that. People know that there is significance in the develop-
ment of their vote and in who runs the Government.
Mr. MATrns. Thank you.
Mr. DENT. Thank you very kindly.
Mr. BENITEZ. Thank you, sir.
Mr. DENT. The next witness is Mr. C. C. Wood, chief counsel to the
secretary of state of Louisiana; with Wade 0. Martin III and Robert
L. Hughes, counsels to the Elections Committee of the Association of
Secretaries of State. Is Mr. Martin aboard with you today?
STATEMENT OF C. C. WOOD, CHIEF COUNSEL TO THE SECRETARY OF
STATE OF LOUISIANA, BATON ROUGE, LA.; ROBERT L. HUGHES
AND WADE 0. MARTIN III, COUNSELS TO THE ELECTIONS COM-
MITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF SECRETARIES OF STATE
Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, I think Counsel WTood will reflect the
idea of the association and uphold the position. If Mr. Hughes and I
can add anything, we will be glad to do it.
Mr. DENT. He will present the position of the association.
Mr. MARTIN. Yes.
Mr. DENT. You may join the witness at the table in case any of the
members decide to ask you questions.
Mr. WooD. Mr. Chairman, I suppose it is in order to say at the out-
set that Mr. Martin has presented a written statement, copies of which
have been filed. The statement I am about to make on his behalf we
would like to have included in the record.
Mr. DENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WT00D. This is the statement I am to make in Mr. Martin's
behalf. [Reading:]
It is difficult to reduce to a ten-minute presentation the manifold objections
to Senate Bill 352. We see this bill as a deadly serious threat to the American
citizen's right to the free vote.
Let me say that I am representing here Secretary of State Wade 0. Martin,
Jr., of Louisiana. His testimony is based on his own nearly 30 years' service
as chief election official of the State of Louisiana, and his close association with
all phases of the election process, including authorship of numerous election-
related laws and methods. He also appears here as Chairman of both the Regular
Elections Committee and the Special Elections Committee of the National Associa-
tion of Secretaries of State. Because of his inability to be here today while par-
ticipating in governmental affairs in Louisiana, I am acting, in turn, as hs
spokesman.
Now- I give you the list of the NASS group's objections to Senate Bill 352:
I. The bill is obviously unconstitutional.
II. It could not but create chaos, by annoying and confusing millions of pres-
ently properly registered voters.
III. The bill is a virtual invitation to a sharp increase in fraud-in both the
registration and voting processes.
IV. It would probably result in the loss to many states of millions of dollars
they have invested in their present efficient registration and voting equipment.
PAGENO="0049"
43
V. It would cause millions of Americans to lose confidence in our entire election
process, and decrease, rather than increase, the number of votes cast in nationwide
elections.
VI. It would necessitate maintenance of at least two sets of voter registra-
tion records-one for state and local candidates or issues, and a second for
Federal matters. This would require greatly increasing-possibly doubling-
the present state registrars' personnel-resulting in additional millions of dollars
of taxpayers' expense.
VII. It would place in a serious legal jeopardy the present smooth and efficient
process of electing the President and Vice President of our nation.
Now let me take up these items individually.
I. The Federal Constitution plainly defines the selection of Presidential elec-
tors as a state function. In view of this, I cannot comprehend members of the
U.S. Senate and House of Representatives proposing a Federal law to regulate
this function. It violates principles of the State-Federal relationship as adopted
in our Federal Constitution, and demonstrates fundamental disrespect for that
system.
II. It is inconsistent to adopt a method which, though it might make voting
easier for a relatively small number, would certainly be impractical and incon-
venient for millions of citizens already duly registered. To require these people
to register again every two years, and on occasion even more often than that,
seems a deliberate attempt to complicate and impede the present efficient system.
Many states have adopted permanent registration procedures, which experience
proves induce more persons to register to vote. Since S.B. 352 would scrap such
modern systems, and require inconvenient and expensive registration, it is only
reasonable to expect that many citizens would be annoyed by this to the point
that they might not bother to register and vote at all, thus becoming disenfran-
chised. Others not yet registered might also judge the cumbersome post card
method to be "too much trouble," and they would be disenfranchised in advance.
III. The langauge of the bill implies that registration post cards will tend to
discourage fraud. To the contrary, in our opinion, the whole proposal is wide
open to fraudulent practice, for it removes the necessity for the personal appear-
ance of an applicant for registration before a state or Federal officer, as is now
required.
How- are the post cards' validity to be proved? Is the identity of the regis-
trants to be established by experts in handwriting or signatures? Will regis-
tration officials go out into the field and personally verify the applicant's
address? Or should prospective voters be required to appear before a person
authorized to administer oaths attesting the validity of their post card registra-
tion? And what about the possibility of so-called "pranksters" getting in their
quota of fraudulent post card registrations?
IV. My own State of Louisiana and many others have made heavy investment
in computer equipment predicated on permanent voter registration. All this
expensive equipment would be useless under the system required by S.B. 352
which directs that new and different cards be sent voting registrars at least
every two years, and, additionally, that each time a special election is called
for Federal officers or state Presidential electors, new post cards shall be used.
This cannot but result in widespread duplication of effort, for voting machines
can be easily adjusted to enable voters to cast vallots for Federal officers, while
prohibiting their vote for state or local candidates or issues. Those states unable,
or unwilling, to provide funds necessary to adjust their machines for these dual
elections would have only two alternatives: the purchase of additional machines,
so that Federal elections could be held on some and state elections on others;
or by-passing machines altogether, and returning to use of undesirable paper
ballots for Federal offices.
\T* As I have said, the difficulties and annoyances that would be imposed by
this bill would almost certainly result in fewer re-registrations by veteran
voters, and original registrations by prospective new voters. Also, it would
make it extremely difficult, and in many cases impossible, for a voter to cast
an absentee ballot. Therefore, SB. 352 would tend to decrease, rather than
increase, the present number of votes cast.
VI. Maintenance of at least two sets of voter registration records as this bill
woiild require, could not but be an additional financial burden on the states. The
states in our opinion should not be obligated to increase their present costs of
20-095-73------4
PAGENO="0050"
44
holding elections by greatly enlarging the personnel of their registrars' offices.
And certainly the taxpayers, who must ultimately pay for this, would disapprove.
VII. Should this bill `actually be enacted into Federal law, it would place
the election of the President of the United States in serious legal jeopardy,
especially in view of Article II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution, which gives to the
states, and to the states only, the duty to establish the method of selecting Presi-
dential electors.
Any election of Presidential electors not conducted in compliance with the
method established by an individual state's Legislature, could be set aside as
violative of both that state's laws and the Federal Constitution. We submit
that, at least with respect to Presidential electors, the only legitimate Federal
involvement would have to address itself to the protection of some right founded
on the Constitution-just as was done in the enactment of the 1970 amendments
to the Voting Rights Act, and to the original act itself.
Some might argue that it is not the intent of S.B. 352 to require the individual's
registration under state law and this Federal one, to allow him to vote for both
state and Federal officials. But a law is not interpreted as to its intent, but
by the language of the law itself, unless its language is vague or ambiguous,
which in this case does not apply. Subsection A, Section 404 is so written that
individuals who wish to register to vote in Federal elections, for all candidates
without restriction, must employ post card registration.
To summarize, this redundant registration burden on millions of American
citizens who are already fully qualified to vote, cannot but result in confusion,
discouragement and general disenchantment with `our nation's entire election
process.
We think it would be wholly unreasonable to expect registrars of voters to
conduct registrations timely, accurately and efficiently, and with due regard to
fraud-prevention, under S.B. 352.
Consider what their duties would be: they would be obliged to receive, screen
and record, as well as re-register, every voter in the nation-all within a pre-
scribed period for mailing and processing the registration post cards. In our
judgment, even if millions of dollars were available for the recruitment and
training of sufficient personnel, such a herculean task would still be virtually
impossibe to accomplish.
Please understand that we are fully aware of one system of "by mail" voting
that is workable. I refer to military voting by mail. But this type voting is con-
ducted under a totally different environment. Members of our armed services
are granted the privilege of being certified by a superior officer, or other person
to administer oaths, following which they may vote by mail or absentee ballot.
Because of its certification requirement, this system is virtually fraud-proof.
Furthermore, this system was conceived and put into action as a special priv-
ilege for those who by the very nature of their service, deserve special considera-
tion. But it is inconceivable that such a device would be considered for use by
ordinary voters-if only for the reason that its safeguard against fraud would
be totally absent.
To conclude, after our careful study of S.B. 352, with full consideration given
all its features, it is the fervent hope of those I represent that this bill will be
defeated by the House of Representatives. Or, in the unfortunate event that it
might be adopted by the House, they can then only fervently pray that it will
be vetoed by the President.
Thank you for giving the National Association of Secretaries of State the op-
portunity to present to you their considered and sincere estimate of S.B. 352.
Mr. DENT. Thank you very kindly. The only point that I would
make is the testimony of the Senate sponsor, Senator McGee. time
and again during the questioning this morning stated that this ~vould
not supersede a State system, nor would it be imposed upon a State.
It would be voluntary, and the. mailing of cards would be just an-
other additional method by which a person could get registered for
Federal elections.
Mr. WOOD. I heard the Senator's testimony in that respect.
Mr. DENT. I thought you did. You disagree with that position?
PAGENO="0051"
45
Mr. WOOD. I am afraid I do. I ani afraid this is not just a matter of
do this if you like. As a matter of fact, the bill says:
The Postal Service shall distribute the registration forms to registrants at
`east once every 2 years, not earlier than 45 days nor later than 30 days prior to
the close of registration for the next Federal election in each State.
When you take the thing as a whole, it seems pretty clear that this
is not just one of these do-it-if-yOu-like things. I think we have to
recognize when we are talking about, oh, this just affects registration,
it doesn't have anything to do with the qualifications for voting, well,
registration is a qualification for voting in many States. In most States,
I understand some of them don't have any registration procedures,
but I really don't know very much about that, but I respectfully dis-
agree with the Senator. I will put it that way.
Mr. DENT. Of course, you do call attention to the fact that some-
where along the line there would have to be some method of selecting
or determining how many aren't registered or have been purged for
some reason or another, rather than mailing out 140 to 150 million cards
every 2 years. Now if many of the persons who are already registered
re-registered, I wonder what kind of a situation that would make in a
registrar's office when they come back in. I am just thinking of the
physical problem.
Mr. WOOD. It would have to be an overwhelming physical problem.
It would have to be an overwhelming personnel problem. In our
State-I don't know very much about any of the others-it would be
almost a physical impossibility for the present personnel, with present
funds and appropriations available, to process two systems. I think
Mr. Frenzel asked a question a while ago that I would like to lend some
emphasis to. He said, suppose his 14-year-old daughter sent in one of
these postcards. Well, suppose she did? It seems to me that that pretty
well puts the peanut in the shell., Suppose she did? I don't know-to
me that is the most compelling observation I have heard this morning,
because I don't know any reason~ in the world why she couldn't. The
Senator said well, it is just like an income tax return. I know that Mr.
Frenzel's 14-year-old daughter can go to the post office or the Internal
Revenue Office and get an income tax return. Personally, I think it is
apples and oranges. I don't think they can be equated at all.
In the first place, the filing of a Federal income tax return is a com-
pulsory thing, and it is a criminal offense to fail to do it.
Mr. DENT. It is awful hard to get her father to get one.
Mr. WOOD. That may be. I will let you speak for Mr. Frenzel in that
connection, but I was much impressed with his question. Suppose his
14-year-old daughter sent in one of these things. Well, suppose she did.
I don't find any safeguard in here about it. You say, well, she com-
mitted a criminal offense. Now who is going to prosecute his 14-year-
old daughter?
Mr. DENT. The bells have rung for a quorum call, but before leaving,
would you like to come back?
Mr. WooD. No; I am finished. I would answer the chairman's ques-
tion by saying we intend to come back and listen to the other testimony.
Mr. DENT. The only point I want to get an answer to before we come
back is why your State is one of the lowest in the country on the num-
ber of registered voters out of the eligible voters?
PAGENO="0052"
46
Mr. WOOD. I am not a statistician, Mr. Chairman, and I don't have
any theories about that. I understand that it is among the lowest, but
this is a matter, I suppose, of lack of interest. I would suggest to you
that sending postcards is not going to stimulate this interest. People
are either interested in the election process or they aren't. If you served
them scotch and water at the polls, some of them wouldn't go.
Mr. DENT. Maybe we will get into just what kind of a registration
system you employ to see how it compares with some of the systems
in our State. I am not too proud of mine, which is only 56 percent.
Mr. WOOD. We have what we call a personal registration system.
Mr. DENT. So do we.
Mr. WOOD. You have a precinct registrant. When you originally
register, you affix your signature to that card. You are probably fa-
miliar with this.
Mr. DENT. We have the same thing.
Mr. WOOD. Every time you vote, you sign this card so it can be com-
pared with your signature.
Mr. DENT. Some people argue the point that because of that kind of
a system it is the reason for having such a low registration among our
total population. It is based upon that difficulty that they claim in
registering but I don't know that this is the answer.
Mr. 1\TOOD. I would just like to make this quick observation in that
connection. That is, to get overwhelming numbers is not an end in
itself. You have got to prevent fraud, too, because overwhelming num-
bers-well, for all we know, this is not the answer at all, just to have
overwhelming numbers and drop all the safeguards against fraud. I
don't believe that is a valid end.
Mr. MArms. Mr. Chairman, might I move we adjourn until 1 :15?
Mr. DENT. Motion is made to adjourn until 1:15. All in favor show
their consent by saying "Yea." Those yeas have it. It is so ordered.
AFTERNOON SESSION
Mr. DENT. The House is in what you might call an upset condition.
It just took the vote on the veto and the supplemental and there will
be another vote up on a new supplemental bill which is being
described now in the House. We got word that the President has
intimated he is going to veto the continuing resolution, so it looks like
the House will have to work over the weekend. I will try to take as
many witnesses as I can. I am sure that the minority will not mind
since the witnesses have come here from some distance, in some cases,
and I certainly don't want to take away from you the opportunity to
make the record. Mr. Wood was on this morning. I have no further
questions for him, so I think we ought to take Mr. Clayman, at this
point, of the Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO. I am glad to
see you again. Sorry about having the delay.
STATEMENT OF J~ACOB CLAYMAN, INDUSTRIAL UNION DEPART~
MENT, AFL-CIO, WASHINGTON, D.C., ACCOMPANIED BY PHILIP
3. DAUGHERTY AND MARVIN CAPLAN
Mr. CLAYMAN. Thank you very much. I think I will summarize our
statement and read portions of it.
PAGENO="0053"
47
We say in our testimony that we do not know of any measure before
this Congress which is so interwoven with the basic day-to-day mean-
ing of democracy as are S. 352 and H.R. 8053. Stripped of all the
political verbiage and oratory, the essence of democracy is the partici-
pation of the greatest number of citizens in the process of decision-
making.
I suspect this sounds like a pretentious statement but it really isn't.
We are inclined to feel that it is not so wild a dream either. Every-
body that I know of at least pays lipservice, and sometimes more, to the
concept that we ought to get every citizen possible to register and vote,
and yet in practicality that isn't the way it works.
I am relying upon my Ohio experience simply because it is closer
to me, and I want to recite a bit of my Ohio experience to indicate that,
essentially we can't expect too much reform in this area from the States
themselves. Ohio, incidentally, in my judgment and in my knowledge,
is not the most liberal State in the area of registration, but neither
is it the most conservative. The likelihood is that it is fairly repre-
sentative..
That is why this experience that I want to relate, some of it past,
some of it current, may have some relevancy.
First, years ago, when some of us in that State were trying to reform
registration laws and election laws~ which were archaic then and still
remain archaic, I recall a conversation with a then State senator whom
I guess was, if I am not mistaken, and I must ask Congressman Hays,
was an associate, a colleague of Congressman Hays during that
period, when we were trying to reform our State legislation in this
area.
He made the point that Government had the responsibility to make
registration and voting available, but it didn't have the responsibility
to make it easy; and it didn't have the responsibility to really encour-
age registration and voting, and that really represents the nub of the
issue that we are concerned with here today. Shall Government en-
courage, shall it enlist, shall it spur ordinary citizens to register and
vote, or shall it just simply make the process available?
That conversation that I recited to you took place about 25 years
ago, as I said, and we have not, in~ that State, to this day created any
serious reform of registration apparatus since.
For example, the boards of elections are open from 9 to 4:30 or 5,
5 days a week, not even open on Saturday, obviously not on Sunday, one
place in the city to register. For example, Cleveland or Columbus or
Cincinnati, and this is true in many other cities across the country, but
I am using my own experience as the touchstone, because I think it is
normality in this country.
The chap who has the drive and the special urge to get down into
the heart of the city between 9:30 Or 9:45 and 4:30 or 5 Monday, Tues-
day, Wednesday, `Thursday, or Friday, he makes it. Now then, the
no~rmal citizen d~oesn't have this kind of drive and often even the time.
Consider the ordinary worker. Let's take the city of Cleveland, the
steelworker who works in the mill all day. He just simply can't get
there, literally an impossibility.
In Ohio, still to this day, a~id it was 25 years ago, the board of elec-
tions, which is composed of two Republicans and two Democrats in a
given community, have the authority, not the mandate-legal man-
PAGENO="0054"
48
date-to open area booths 1 or 2 days before an election, and there are
situations in Ohio, many of them, where the two disagree. The Demo-
crats said yea, the Republicans said nay, and then it goes to th~~ Sec-
retary of State, and the Secretary of State, in my time and in my rec-
ollection, and still to this day, makes the decision based upon what he
conceives to be the interests of his own party. This is understandable
and factual.
Let me give you a specific incident to indicate how ephemeral it is
that we rely upon States to do this job in the main. Here is a case in
point.
In 1966, in Cincinnati, a registration program was devised by the
League of Women Voters, the NAACP, church organizations, and
labor organizations and they called it Operation Rev Up the Board of
Elections, and this is particularly odd in Ohio, and exceedingly odd
for Cincinnati, were convinced that the best thing to do was to have
precinct registration on a Sunday when everybody was home. The fact
is that unfortunately on that Sunday in question, they had miserable
weather, a long day of driving rainstorm. Notwithstanding, the regis-
tration results were better than normal, under the most unfavorable
conditions. The mere fact that they had voting booths out in the pre-
cincts, registration booths, and it was on a Sunday, they got a result
better than normal, in spite of the weather. As I say in my testimony,
wha.t effect did this result have on State legislation to reform the law?
The party then in power at the earliest possible date thereafter passed
a law which prohibited any registration on Sundays. Apparently the
ler~islature didn't look kindly on success of this nature.
Now let me go quickly to the current situation in Ohio, and it is
symptomatic. That is why I recite it. There is a bill in their legislature
which provides door-to-door registration. There is nothing so alien
about that idea, making voter registration permanent, extending reg-
istration until 10 days before election day. permitting elderly and
permanently disabled to register by mail, permitting the board of
elections to establish perma.nent branch offices, which they do not have
now.
That passed the house 57 to 40, on a pure party vote ~basis. It went
to the senate and is now in the appropriate senate committee in Ohio,
and my advice is, and I am afraid my advice is exact, that it is stalled
and will be effectively killed again in the committee, on a purely party
basis.
I make the point that this is normality in many of the States of the
Tjnion, and that we cannot rely upon the States. short of maybe several
decades, to seriously change this pattern which is essentially restric-
tive, and essentially-forgive me for saying it because I think it is
true-essentially registers a fear of full, voter participation.
My faith a.nd hope has been enormously buoyed by the fact that the
U.S. Senate did not look upon this issue as a partisan issue. Republi-
cans and Democrats joined in approval of S. 352, even to the extent of
devoting a tenacious and persistent filibuster, and that is no small
achievement in the Senate, as all of you know.
I am going to bounce over these statistics tha.t you have had recited
to you many times over, but I trust they will be included in the record,
Mr. Chairman.
PAGENO="0055"
49
Mr. DENT. Without objection.
Mr. CLAYMAN. All of us know the statistics in terms of other coun-
tries, both in registration and particularly in voting. Recently Richard
Scammon who is a recognized authority on Democratic voting proc-
esses and director of the Election Research Center in `Washington
made the observation:
I think the function of registering voters ought to become automatic, as it is
done by our Canadian friends and our British friends. Do not put the onus of
finding the voting place or the registration booth on the individual citizen. Just
do it automatically, the way you mail out his taxes.
Of course the business of sending in a card, registering by mail, is
not automatic, but it at least is a way station ultimately to that road.
There is another point I want to make, and I think itis important
that normally isn't made. I am referring to where we indicate that our
voting habits, our registration habits in the United States depreciate
the role of the disadvantaged in our society, and here are some of the
vital statistics. Only 66 percent of the Nation's black citizens were
registered in 1968 while the figure was 76 percent for the white popu-
lation. Only 53 percent of those in families with incomes of less than
$3,000 were registered in 1968, while 82 percent of those in families
with incomes between $10,000 and $15,000 were registered.
Only 69 percent of the Nation's manual workers were registered to
vote while 83 percent of the Nation's white-collar workers were reg-
istered, and so it goes.
We believe that registration by post card is at least a sound, whole-
some, rational, workable system of starting reform of our registration
laws, and all the figures that you have seen and I have seen indicate
that once people are registered they are more likely to vote.
I don't know whether the process is psychological or what. I don't'
pretend to know all the reasons why, but I know the fact, that is if you
can get them to register, a climate develops which makes that voter
more inclined to vote than otherwise.
In our judgment this bill in question is a modest one, and has prac-
ticality and obviously democratic principles and precepts on its side,
and we trust that this committee will vote favorably on the bill in
question.
That, Mr. Chairman, represents our formal presentation.
[The statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF JACOB CLAYMAN, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, INDIJSTRIAL UNION
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO
My name is Jacob Clayman. I am Administrative Director of the Industrial
Union Department of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations. Affiliated with the Industrial Union Department are 61
international unions with membership in excess of six million. Our organization
is deeply interested in standardizing and modernizing registration and voting
laws and has been for many years.
I do not know of any measure befOre this Congress which is so interwoven~
with the basic day-to-day meaning of democracy as are S. 352 and H.R. 8053.
Stripped of all the political verbiage and oratory, the essence of democracy is
the participation of the greatest number of citizens in the process of decision
making.
Well, how are we doing in this area? Let me recite an incident from my own
experience which, I believe, presents the central issue. Years ago, along with
others, I was involved in an earnest effort to induce the Ohio legislature to re-
PAGENO="0056"
50
form an archaic registration law which was exceedingly restrictive. I recall a
discussion with an intelligent conservative state senator who made the point that
the duty of government was merely to make available the opportunity to register
and vote to the citizens of Ohio but that it was not the duty of the state to en-
courage registration and voting.
And therein lies the heart of the basic issue presented in 5. 352. Shall govern-
ment merely make the opportunity to register and vote physically available or
shall government actively and aggressively encourage and assist its citizens to
participate in the democratic process?
The conversation I described above took place approximately 25 years ago. The
situation has not materially changed in Ohio since. Boards of elections offices are
still open from 9 to 4:30 or 5:00; five days a week. This is the only place where a
citizen may register during the average year. Every two years there may or may
not be, depending on the whim of the local boards of elections, registration in
local areas. Ohio county boards of elections are composed of two members from
each party, designated by the party. If they are in agreement, they may permit
the localized registration that I have just described. If they are not in agree-
ment, and this happens, the Secretary of State makes the final decision. His
decision is almost uniformly made on the basis of his party politics.
I have said that nothing much has changed for the better in Ohio in the area
of voter registration. There is an interesting case in point of recent vintage. In
1966 in Cincinnati, Ohio, a registration program was devised by the League of
Women Voters, the NAACP, church organizations and labor unions which they
called Operation REVIJP. The board of elections was induced to permit one day
of precinct registration to take place on a Sunday. Unfortunately, the Sunday in
question produced miserable weather, a day-long rainstorm. Notwithstanding,
registration results were far better than normal.
What effect did this result have on state legislation to reform the law? The
then party in power at the earliest possible date thereafter passed a law which
prohibited any registration on Sundays! Apparently the legislature didn't look
kindly on successes of this nature.
Now, let me give you a more current picture of the Ohio situation (which is
accurately symptomatic of the problem among the states), which demonstrates
what is now a truism-that most of the states will not reform themselves in the
field of voter registration. For example, H.B. 337 in the Ohio legislature provides
for: Door-to-door registration, making voter registration permanent, extending
registration until ten days before election day, permitting elderly and perma-
nently disabled to register by mail, and, permitting Board of Elections to estab-
lish permanent branch offices.
Now, these requirements are entirely reasonable and rational, achievable,
doable and so the bill passed the Ohio House 57 to 40 on a straight party vote
(the Democrats were in the majority) but it is stalled and effectively killed in a
Ohio Senate Committee, again by a straight party determination (the Republi-
cans were in the majority).
The obvious point this Ohio experience makes to us is that we cannot rely upon
the states to modernize the registration procedure on their own. We must look
to the U.S. Congress to do this because federal elections are Congress' business.
My faith and hope has been enormously buoyed by the fact that the U.S. Senate
did not look upon this issue as a partisan one. Republicans and Democrats joined
in approval of 5. 352, even to the extent of defeating a tenacious filibuster.
And now to some of the statistics. We have just come through a political cam-
paign in which approximately 77 million Americans voted. This may sound like
a lot numerically but this figure represents only about 55% of all those who were
eligible to vote. It was the lowest turnout in a Presidential year since 1948 when
52% of all eligible citizens went to the polls. Of the 139 million eligible to vote in
the 1972 election, early reports suggest that about 100 million were registered.
Nearly 40 million did not register at all. Of the 100 million who did, about 24
million-nearly 25%-did not go to the voting booths. If these estimates are all
accurate, this means that 62 million Americans did not vote.
This is even more alarming when you compare this record with that of other
democracies in recent years. For example, in Germany in 1969, 86.7% of those
eligible voted; in Canada, in 1968. 75.7% of those eligible voted; in Great Britain
in 1970. 72% of those eligible voted; and in Norway in 1969, 82.5% of those eli-
gible voted.
European and American political scientists believe that the much higher voter
participation abroad and in Canada is in major part attributable to the ease
of registration. For example, a Gallup Poll found in 1969 that "it was not a lack
PAGENO="0057"
51
of interest, but rather the residency and other qualifications that proved to be
the largest barrier to widen voter participation in our nation." Richard Scam-
mon, a leading authority on democratic voting processes and Director of the
Election Research Center in Washington, recently observed: "I think the func-
tion of registering voters ought to become automatic, as it is done by our Cana-
dian friends and our British friends. Do not put the onus of finding the voting
place or the registration booth on the individual citizen. Just do it automatically,
the way you mail out his taxes."
In state after state, we see the chaos and complexity and confusion in our
present registration system. Wherever we look, we find that registration is an
obstacle course for the voter instead of the easy path to the polls it ought to be.
The defects in the present system are not confined to any state or geographic
region. I am sure the Committee is aware of the problems of early closing dead-
lines, unfair registration requirements, inaccessible registration offices and a
host of other burdens put upon the citizen when he attempts to register. To repeat,
we take the position that the government not only has the legal obligation to
provide facilities and machinery for registering and voting, but also the moral
obligation of enthusiastically encouraging our citizens to register and vote. We
feel that too often our laws discourage, not encourage, voter participation. It is
our contention that in states where you have good registration laws, the citizens
will more likely respond on Election Day.
While, generally speaking, over the years only six out of ten adult Americans
vote, nine out of ten of those who are registered vote. According to preliminary
census data, 87% of those registering to vote in 1972 went to the polls and voted
on Election Day. A comparison of the voter turnout in states where you have good
registration laws, and those who don't, point out the same fact. For example:
in Georgia, which had a restrictive residency requirement and closed down its
registration 50 days before Election Day, had only a 37.8% voter turnout,
whereas in Utah, which has a more liberal residency requirement and keeps
its registration open to a few days before election, had a 69.4% voter turnout
in the 1972 election. Obviously, once Americans register, they do exercise their
voting rights. Also, we find most alarming that the burden of our complex and
capriciOus registration system weighs especially heavy on disadvantaged groups
in our society.
Only 66% of the nation's black citizens were registered in 1968 while the
figure was 76% for the white population.
Only 53% of those in families with incomes of less than $3,000 were registered
in 1968, while 82% of those in families with incomes between $10,000 and $15,000
were registered.
Only 69% of the nation's manual workers were registered to vote while 83% of
the nation's white collar workers were registered.
The preliminary census data for 1972 indicate that essentially the same pattern
was followed last November with two additional groups at a serious disadvan-
tage: 18 to 21 year olds of whom only about 40% went to the polls and Mexican-
Americans, of whom only about 30% voted.
Clearly, on the basis of statistics like these, the burden of our present registra-
tion system falls most heavily on the poor, the black, the less educated, the
blue-collar worker, the young, and the Spanish-speaking.
We believe the key to an effective election law is a simple method of national
registration-the registration process: as provided by Senate Bill 352, as intro-
duce by Senator McGee. This registration process would establish with the Bu-
reau of Census a system allowing voters to register to vote in federal elections
by complying with the following procedure:
Postcard registration forms would be delivered through the mails to each
postal address, preaddressed for mailing to the appropriate state or local regis-
tration office; and .
By filling out and mailing this simple form back to the state official, a citizen
would thus be registered.
One of the main objections to this postcard registration has been the opponent s
claim that registration by mail might lead to fraud and ineligible electors being
placed on the polls. This argument does not seem to prevail when you consider
the facts. For example, in the state of North Dakota, there is no registration
whatsoever. You simply go up and ask for your ballot and sign a book. It is
your affidavit that you are legitimate. To my knowledge, there has been no vote
fraud ease ever to come out of North Dakota. The same could be pointed out in
the state of Texas where Texans for many years have been able to register by
clipping a coupon from a newspaper, completing the form and mailing it to the
PAGENO="0058"
52
county clerk. There is no evidence indicating that Texas has experienced an
increase in fraudulent registration.
Finally, we are hopeful that this national voter registration proposal will be-
come law. It is our opinion, as I have indicated before, that left to individual
state actions, the comprehensive reform we need will never happen. Registration
is a national problem and it demands a national solution. It would be our opinion
that if you provide an easy and simple method for the citizens of this country
to become registered, they will respond both to registering and to exercising their
constitutional right: to vote on Election Day.
It is our hope that this is a result devoutly wished for by all good citizens
in all political parties.
Mr. MA'rrns. Thank you, Mr. Clayman, for your very fine testi-
mony. Do any of the members have any questions? Mr. Ware.
Mr. WARE. Nothing at this time.
Mr. MATI-Ils. Mr. Frenzel.
Mr. FRENZEL. I have a couple of questions.
I thank the witness for his important contribution to our delibera-
tions. I am a little confused by some of the material which you
skipped over. At the top of page you indicate that about 25 percent
of those people who register didn't go to the voting booths, and that
fits the figures that I think are reasonably correct. Then somewhere
later on you are talking about 13 percent of those who registered did
not vote. Which do you mean?
Mr. CLAYMAN. Which page are we on?
Mr. FRENZEL. The top of page 4 is the first statement.
Mr. CLAYMAN. Yes, I see that.
Mr. FRENZEL. Then in the second paragraph. on page 5 is the second
statement.
Mr. CLAYMAN. The figure that I would judge to be most accurate
would be the one on page 5, which indicates according to the pre-
liminary census 87 percent of those registered to vote in 1972 went
to the polls. I cannot authenticate those figures, but I assume that they
are about as correct as anything that we can put our finger on.
The statement on page 4 appears to be somewhat contradictory, and
I appreciate your pointing it out to me, and I would like to have the
opportunity to present some additional written testimony for the
record on that.
Mr. FRENZEL. I think we would appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I would indicate that the figures that were put into
the record in the Senate debate on April 10 indicate about 73 percent
of those registered actually voted, but if we can get clarification-
Mr. Cr~r~N. Yes, I would like to clarify this because you throw
even another figure in that seems to make this picture even more con-
fusing than I have made it. We will do that.
Mr. FRENZEL. I seek to clarify rather than confuse, and I will be
glad to share my material with you.
Mr. MATrns. If the gentleman will yield on that point, I think I
might see where this discrepancy occurs. I believe what Mr. Clayman
is saying is that 25 percent of the total registered Americans did not
go to the polls in 1972, whereas on page 5 he is saying that 87 percent
of those who registered to vote in 1972 did go to the polls.
Mr. FimNZEL. Great. Then we should know the source of that figure.
You are saying that those who actually registered within that calendar
year-
Mr. MATHIS. That is the way I read the testimony.
PAGENO="0059"
53
Mr. FRENZEL. If we can have the documentation.
Mr. CLAYMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think it does need clarification,
and we shall be happy to submit that.
[The information was subsequently filed for the record:]
U.S. Department of Commerce-Social and Economic Statistics Administration-
Bureau of the Census
VOTER PARTICIPATION IN NOVEMBER 1972- (ADVANCE STATISTICS)
CURRENT POPULATION REPORTS-POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Young adults who were eligible to vote for the first time in 1972 did not
exercise their franchise as many had expected in the election of November 1972.
Among the 11.0 million persons 18 to 20 years old who were old enough to vote
for President for the first time, only some 48 percent reported that they voted.
Among those 21 to 24 years old, 51 percent reported that they voted. In con-
trast, among those 25 years of age or Over, 66 percent cast their ballots in the
election. The highest voter participation rate was reported by persons 45 to 64
years old, as 71 percent of the persons in this age group reported that they
voted. These estimates are advance figures for the civilian noninstitutional popu-
lation from the November 1972 Current Population Survey conducted by the
Bureau of the Census.'
Participation in the election varied not only by age, but also by sex and race.
A smaller proportion of women than of men were reported as having voted-
62 percent for women versus 64 percent for men. The proportion ofvoters was
higher for the white population of voting age than for the Negro population of
voting age. About 65 percent of the whites, and 52 percent of Negroes, reported
that they voted in the November 1972 election About :38 percent of persons of
Spanish origin reported that they voted.2 Overall voter participation rates in
the election of November 1972 were about 5 percentage points lower than in
the November 1968 Presidential election.
The survey results show that 98.5 million persons, or 72 percent of those
eligible on the basis of age, were reported as registered to vote. Of those regis-
tered, 87 percent reported that they voted. The proportion of persons of voting
age who were not registered was highest for persons in the youngest age groups,
those 18 to 24 years old. Among persons of this age, 41 percent reported that
they were not registered.
1 The civilian noninstitutional population in the United States as of November 1, 1972,
was 136,203,000. The resident population including Armed Forces in each State and the
District of Columbia and inmates of institutions was 139,642,000, as published in Current
Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 479.
2 Persons of Spanish origin may be of any race but most are classified as white.
TABLE A-REPORTED VOTER PARTICIPATION RATES,~ BY REGION AND RACE: NOVEMBER 1972, 1970, 1968, AND
:1966
[Civilian noninstitutional populationj
Region, race, and origin
Percent of the
popu
t
lation of voting age wh
hat they voted
o reported
1972
1970
1968
1966
United States:
All races
63.0
54.6
67.8
55.4
White
64. 5
56. 0
69. 1
1
Negro
Spanish origin
52.1
37. 5
43.5
NA
57.6
NA
41.8
NA
North and West:
All races
66. 4
59. 0
71. 0
60. 9
White
67. 5
59. 8
71. 8
Negro
56. 6
51. 4
64. 8
61. 8
South:
52.
All races
55. 4
44. 7
60. 1
White
57. 0
46.4
61. 9
Negro
47. 8
.
36. 8
51. 6
32. 9
NA-Not available.
PAGENO="0060"
54
TABLE B--REPORTED REGISTRATION RATES, BY REGION AND RACE: NOVEMBER 1972, 1970, 1968, AND 1966
[Civilian noninstitutional populationj
Percent of the pop
Region, race, and origin 1972
ulation of voting age
they were registered
who report
ed that
1970
1968
1966
United States:
All races 72. 3 68. 1 74. 3 70. 3
White 73. 4 69. 1 75. 4 71. 7
Negro 65. 5 60. 8 66. 2 60. 2
Spanish origin 44. 4 NA NA NA
North and West:
All races 73. 9 70. 0 76. 5 73. 8
White 74. 9 70. 8 77. 2 74. 6
Negro 67. 0 64. 5 71. 8 68. 8
South:
All races 68. 7 63. 8 69. 2 62. 2
White 69. 8 65. 1 70. 8 64. 3
Negro 64. 0 57. 5 61. 6 52. 9
NA-Not available.
Approximately 73 percent of the white population of voting age reported that
they registered, as compared with 66 percent of the Negro population and 44
percent of the persons of Spanish origin. Of these registered persons, about 88
percent of the whites and 80 percent of the Negroes reported that they voted. The
percent of registered persons of Spanish origin who voted is estimated at around
84 percent. Because of small sample size, the estimates of voting rates among reg-
istered persons of Spanish origin may vary by plus or minus 5 percentage points
and, therefore, may not differ from the rates for the other groups.
Among persons 18 to 24 years old in November 1972, 52 percent of whites and
35 percent of Negroes, reported that they voted; also 61 percent of whites and 48
percent of Negroes reported that they were registered.
TABLE C-REPORTED REGISTRATION AND VOTER PARTICIPATION RATES, BY AGE AND RACE:
NOVEMBER 1972
ICivilian noninstitutional populationj
Age and race
Percent
reported
registered
Percent
reported
voted
All races
18 to 24 yearsold
25 years old and over
White
72.3
58.9
75.3
73.4
60.6
63.0
49.6
65.9
64.5
51.9
18 to 24 years old
25 years old and over
Negro
18 to 24 yearsold
2syearsoldandover
Spanish
76.1
65.5
~
70.5
Ł~r~
67.2
52.1
34.7
57.1
37.5
Statistics presented in this report are based on answers to a series of questions
asked of a sample of persons of voting age 2 weeks after the elections of Novem-
ber 7. The questions were designed to provide information on voting behavior of
the various segments of the population of voting age.
Official counts of the number of votes cast in the 1972 elections are not yet
available for comparison with the figures from the Current Population Survey.
However, previous Current Population Survey estimates of the number of
persons voting have been somewhat higher than the official counts. This type
of difference has also been noted in other surveys of voting behavior in which
people are asked to report on whether they had voted. Despite this limitation,
which may introduce some unknown biases in the results, the data presented
in this report can be regarded as providing useful measures of differences in
voting behavior among classes of the population. A detailed discussion of factors
which may account for differences between figures from the CPS and official
PAGENO="0061"
Cl,
w
-a
C-,
-4
C,,
-4
-I
C
-J C) CO ~ 0)0) N) N)
H°°
!
-4
cx~
rn
C
-4
0
-4
C,
3
0
C,
= C,,
~
~- 0>
<-1
~C)
m
-~ -~-0~
5.
- -a
- 0
C
-~ 0
5. 0
= -a
0
-4
C,
>
C)
m
>
0
CO
rn
><
N) CO N)N)~O~Co I 01
PAGENO="0062"
56
TABLE 1.-REPORTED VOTING AND REGISTRATION OF THE POPULATION OF VOTING AGE
AND SEX: NOVEMBER 1972-Continued
[Numbers in thousands; civilian noninstitutional population]
Age and sex All persons
Reported tha
t they were registered
Reported not
registered
Total
Voted Did
not vote 1
Female 100.0
71. 6
62.0
9. 6
28.4
18 to 20 yrs 100.0
21 to 24 yrs 100. 0
25 to 29 yrs 100. 0
30 to 34 yrs 100.0
35 to 44 yrs 100.0
45 to 54 yrs 100.0
55 to 64 yrs 100. 0
65 to 74 yrs 100.0
75 yrs and over 100.0
58. 3
60. 3
66. 2
70. 8
75.1
78. 9
79. 4
75. 1
64.9
48. 8
51. 7
58.0
61.7
66.7
69.9
69. 2
64. 3
49. 1
9. 5
8. 6
8. 2
9. 0
8.5
8.9
10. 2
10. 8
15. 8
41. 7
39. 7
33. 8
29. 2
24.9
21. 1
20. 6
24. 9
35. 1
Includes persons who were recorded as "do not know' and "not reported" on voting.
2 Includes persons who were recorded as "do not know" and "not reported" on registration.
Mr. FRENZEL. Then, Mr. Chairman, if I might continue, I notice you
stated Georgia, and Utah, and indicated that you took the highest and
the lowest turnout States, and indicated that one was bad because it
had restrictive residency requirement, and one was good because it has
a more liberal residency requirement, and I feel that is a very effective
demonstration, but the registration requirements may be only a part of
the picture.
Texas, as we discussed a little earlier, has a system similar to post
card registration. You clip it out of the newspaper. It is the same as
we are talking about here, and Texas has the 44th worst participation
record of all of the States.
Earlier this morning we talked about North Dakota and South Da-
kota, North Dakota being the ultimate in liberal registration opera-
tions because it has none in fact, and South Dakota having some, and
the bill's sponsor over in Wyoming having some, and yet both of those
participating better than North Dakota.
I think the point you are making may be a valid one, but I think it
is being sort of overdemonstrated by the figures you have presented.
Mr. CLAYMAN. In the main I accept your observation that the point
is valid. You may be able to reach out and find a situation which may
demonstrate a somewhat different result, but as you look down the roll
of States, there is almost in every situation a direct relationship be-
tween ease of registration and the size of the vote.
Mr. FRENZEL. I guess I am waiting for somebody to show me that
and to explain the Texas situation and explain the North Dakota
situation.
Mr. CLAYMAN. Here we have in North Dakota-
Mr. FInNzEL. Let me explain it a different way. In Southern States
during the mid-sixties all sorts of barriers to registration fell, poll
taxes, literacy test, and so forth, and despite that I don't find enormous
increases in participation. Therefore, I am wondering whether regis-
tration is the key to participation. It is one of them, and I certainly
don't deny that.
Mr. CLAYMAN. I don't have the statistics at hand. I am sure they are
available, but I think you will discover that in the South there has
been a percentage increase of pa.rticipation in the election process, and
the greater ease of registration in our judgment is one of the answers.
PAGENO="0063"
57
Also in the South, I must not profess to be an expert on that pare of
the world, you have got to remember that what has been done there is
a relatively recent and new idea, new phenomenon, and it may take a
decade or so before finally the new laws, or relatively new laws, become
fully operative. I would say that the results so far are very satisfying,
although they are not phenomenal, because in some of the Southern
States you still have a smaller percentage of the electorate voting than
in some of the Northern States, but there are all kinds of reasons, cul-
tural, historical, and what-not, and so I would laud the results of
change in the electoral system, the election systems in the South.
Mr. MATm5. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. FRENZEL. Sure.
Mr. MATms. In line with that statement, Mr. Clayman, in spite of
all the multiplicity of reasons that you give that say may have caused
low voter participation in the South, the ability of any citizen in any
one of the Southern States to register and vote has not been a part
of this reason for not voting, has it?
Mr. CLAYMAN. Oh, yes. I know this is not an easy problem to tackle
and explain. You see, the voting system and the registration system
was part of the barrier to voter participation.
Mr. MATHIS. It was?
Mr. CLAYMAN. Sure, and there aie other barriers, as I suspect you
would know. Barriers are implicit fears, they were, a whole history of
repression of one form or another, subtle and overt, and when you take
all of this package together, we got very little voter participation on
the part of a proportion of the population of the South.
Now then, the removal of some of the barriers, both psychological
and also mechanical, and I would not ignore the mechanical barriers,
the elimination of both of these in part has opened up somewhat the
whole election process in the South as I see it.
Mr. MATHIS. My question was though the barrier of not being
allowed to register and to vote no~ longer exists. That is what I am
asking you. Is that a part now of why we have low voter turnout in
parts of the South and in my State Of Georgia.
Mr. CLAYMAN. Oh, no. I am saying insofar-if I understand you-
as we have modernized some of the mechanics of registration and vot-
ing, and insofar as there have been some psychological changes in the
South, we have built up a larger electorate than theretofore.
Mr. MATrn5. I understand that, but you still have not answered my
question.
Mr. CLAYMAN. I am sorry.
Mr. MATHI5. Which is today-let me see if I can phrase this in such
a way that I am sure we can have a mutual understanding-there are
no laws on the books in any one of the Southern States that fall under
the jurisdiction of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, the Voting Rights
Act of 1965, in which a citizen may be denied the right to register and
vote, is that correct?
Mr. CLAYMAN. That is right.
Mr. MATHIS. Thank you.
Mr. FRENZEL. Over in the Senate testimony there was a statement
by Mr. Scammon, whom you have, quoted today, indicating that while
registration was being liberalized in the Northern States between 1960
and 1972, turnout of registered voters dropped by 10 to 15 percent,
depending on the State. Can you explain that?
PAGENO="0064"
58
Mr. CLAYMAN. I don't recall that Scammon analysis.
Mr. FRENZEL. I will try it a different way. It is the same question.
In the Post of January 28 this year there was reference to a TJni-
versity of Michigan study on voting. Their survey showed that last
fall 44 percent of those with family incomes between $8,000 and
$15,000 did not vote compared to a similar survey in 1960 showing 26
percent did. What I am getting at is that people are not voting today
at least whose economic class or area class voted before. We want to
get those people to vote. Nobody has shown yet, and we may have
other testimony, how postcards are going to get them to vote. Can you
tell us why they aren't voting, and further expand as to how a post-
card is going to lure them to the polls?
Mr. CLAYMAN. They are not voting for a variety of reasons, and
they go far beyond registration, but registration is one of them.
Mr. Fiu~NzEL. Remember you have got a declining participation at
the time you got an easing of registration.
Mr. CLAYMAN. I am not prepared to say that registration has become
that much easier in the North or the South, and I am simply indicating
that registration is one of the obstacles. I think it is a big one but it is
one of the obstacles. There are all kinds of other obstacles.
Mr. FRENZEL. That leads me to another question. You have had a lot
of experience in registration. Have you run registration drives, and so
on?
Mr. CLAYMAN. I have had some experience of that nature, yes, in the
past.
Mr. FRENZEL. Have you actually physically registered people?
Mr. CLAYMAN. Have I physically registered? No.
Mr. FRENZEL. Have you been involved at that level?
Mr. CLAY~rAx. You see, the physical registration in Ohio, where I
had my State experience, there it is not done by individuals or depu-
tized people.. It is done by the board of elections.
Mr. FRENZEL. I wasn't trying to establish noncredibility. What I was
trying to say is with your experience as someone active in registration,
do you find other ways that encourage people to register and vote that
the committee might consider, or do you feel that postcard is the one
best first way?
Mr. CLAYMAN. There are other ways, of course. The Canadian~ have
been apparently very successful with door-to-door registration. The
English do very much the same as I understand it. Some countries
automatically, as Senator McGee explained this morning, automati-
cally, just the business of reaching a certain age you immediately be-
come registered. Frankly, I would prefer that.
Whether door-to-door registration is better than postcard is very
difficult to know, but that isn't our choice. The Senate has acted. This
is the bill that will go or won't go. It is here before us in a very prac-
tical way. Searching for alternatives at this stage of the game may be
the road to a failure to pass this legislation, and this is one device. I
am sure it will make it easier for the parties to work, because they will
be going around encouraging people to do the job of sending in a card
and collecting the card, both parties. I am sure it will encourage other
organizations that have some political interests to do the same. I think
it will seriously jack up the results of registration in the United States,
PAGENO="0065"
59~
and if this comes to pass, then I think in a meaningful way it will be
reflected in more peop]e voting on election day. I think it is as simple
and direct and uncomplicated as that.
I must say, and I don't mean to be. political because I don't think the
Senate was political on this issue, I discovered too many evidences in
the States, and it is North and South, that parties and individuals are
acting on the basis of their judgment of how the new voters are likely
to vote, for them or against them, and it is as practical and as factual
and indeed as small as that. This is the reality of our political action
out in the States. This is why we are saying that this Congress at least
in terms of Federal elections shOuld assume the responsibility of
getting the most people registered and therefore in our judgment the
most people voting. I must say again that in all my work in this area,
in the one State, really people don't disagree with what I have said in
my analysis. The problem is one of fudging up the issue so we do next
to nothing. I am rambling now, but I am talking to you in a sincere
fashion based on my own experience.
Mr. FRENZEL. Your editorial is well received. I wouldn't have asked
you if I didn't want to hear what you said.
Your union does a good deal of registration activity.
Mr. CLAYMAN. The Industrial Union Department is the central body
of the industrial unions. We don't have a political action department.
We work through COPE.
Mr. FRENZEL. Do you have any idea what COPE spends nationally
registering people?
Mr. CLAYMAN. I don't have the exact figure, but it wouldn't surprise
me in an election year that it might be $1.5 million or so.
Mr. FRENZEL. Would you feel that you could recede from those
efforts if this thing was in operation, or would you still feel the need
toseeit?
Mr. CLAYMAN. My judgment is that political parties, both on the
State and the local and national levels, as well as chamber of commerce
and the Association of Manufacturers and COPE, would continue the
process of educating and urging people in one form or another to see
to it that they are registered. I don't think the parties will recede from
this kind of activity.
The activities of the parties and other interested political organiza-
tions will be more successful because it will be much easier to get
people registered.
Mr. FRENZEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
Mr. MATHIS. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DENT. I don't have many questions to ask, but an observation.
One of the problems that we face, Mr. Clayman, is that we know that
if we accept this legislation now and put it through and have it signed,
that if it does not do the job, it will take many years to get it changed.
That is one of the bad things about making a decision on such an
important issue without some experience, and that is why we had a
representative from the State of Minnesota to see how they are getting
along and what they anticipate.
There is a way that we ought to have controlled a long time ago,
Federal elections on the registration part of it. It was suggested that
20-695-73------5
PAGENO="0066"
60
we had no power to do it because it was on a State level. It is strictly
a national situation. The easiest and most efficient way to get i'egistra-
tions on the books in my humble opinion is instead of having the census
taken every 10 years you take it maybe every 5, which is almost neces-
sary anyway because of the one-man, one-vote rule can become all out
of line in a 10-year period, and the census takers register everybody
who is counted in the census. They know the address, the person, ages,
affiliations, party affiliations. Write it on a card and all they do is drop
it in. There isn't one cent of extra expense. You have a vast body of
census takers all over the country. For Federal purposes I believe it
would be ideal, because the question of opening the registration books
like we do in our State so many days before, and then closing them so
many days before, that is a physical problem. That is why they have
to do it that way, up until recently you know there were no computers
used in our registration of voters. It was all handwork with lirn~ted
help, because they don't carry four or five extra clerks in the registra-
tion office that has a flash of activity for a very short period, but one
of the faults in this legislation, as I see it, is this mandate to mail out
130 million to 150 million automatically, or to send out for every eligi-
ble voter regardless of the fact that 80 percent of them or 60 percent
of them in some cases, 40 percent or 50 percent are already registered
on permanent registration rolls.
Somehow or other we have got to figure out, a way that we will be
reaching that number of voters who are new voters coming into the
place, the kind of movement change that you may have on a percentage
basis, and give consideration for the millions of voters who are already
registered and have been for years and years, and are still on the books,
this is going to be a tremendous load. Someone said that if our mail
service doesn't improve a little between now and when we start this,
if we do, that you will probably have to send them out 2 years before
the election, and by that time it would be antiquated and they would
have to get new rolls started.
There is a lot of merit in this postal registration, but if the States
don't take it and use it jointly with the Federal elections, it is going to
be a failure, because the States will have to somehow dovetail their
registration drives, their registration activities, into the so-called Fed-
eral postal registration law. If they don't do that, I think it is going
to get to be an awfully expensive procedure, a cumbersome procedure,
and create a great deal of work for in some instances a very small num-
ber of voters connected with the situation.
We have now almost a static congressional district insofar as num-
bers of bodies are counted. We could do many things with that kind
of an operation. In the old days when maybe one district had 900,000,
like Danny Fascell's and another district had 60,000, it was hard to get
any kind of legislation that would be equitable all over the country.
I still think some thought should be given before we put a permanent
law on the books, and create a bureaucracy to run it. It isn't a law is
good or bad. It continues the law on the books.
It is the size of the bureaucracy that depends upon it. If we build
it up big enough, you will never take it off~ even if the darn thing
PAGENO="0067"
61
works negatively and it doesn't do you any good at all. That is what
worries me, because I think that we have to go very, very slow and
get as much information as we can. The Texas plan works but it
isn't anywhere near the type of plan this is. The North Dakota plan
is supposed to be working but it is automatic. I prefer the North
Dakota plan myself with some kind of identification, your social se-
curity card or your own registration: card. You go into a different pre-
cinct, but you can't do it unless you get States to concur in our feelings,
don't you think?
Mr. CLAYMAN. One quick response, and I appreciate much your
views. We have been for how long now that Congress hasn't moved
on this enoromously vital issue.
Mr. DENT. That is right. We moved last year, Mr. Clayman, under
pressure from people who said it was a matter of life or death. We have
got to get this reform through. Now, good God, the thing that needs
reform more than anything else in the world is the reformer.
Mr. CLAYMAN. But Congressman, this bill in our judgment is a
sound step forward to generalize, and it is doable, politically doable.
That is the problem.
I was impressed with what SenatOr McGee had to say this morning.
Why don't we go to some other system that maybe in the long run
will be better. It is the sort of thing that you are emphasizing. I
understand, but in the long run all of us are dead, and we have got
to do something quickly while there is a mood for change.
Mr. DENT. Then why don't we do it on a sampling basis, not as a
permanent structure. I cannot honestly say, and we have looked at
it, we have been reading and talking about it in our subcommittee,
I can't honestly say that I would be able to guarantee that this would
work as you want it to and as I want it to, but I say that it ought
to be tried, but can't we try it in such a manner that we don't create
that monster that keeps it rolling, because I can see not three men
operating this. I can see thousands of workers in this field. I don't
care what anybody says. You are going to be dealing with 140 million
registered voters.
Mr. WARE. Will the chairman yield, just to be certain that the
record is clear. I believe Mr. Clayrnan has some material he wants to
submit, and without objection we should keep the record open.
Mr. DENT. We will go over and vote and come right back. We will
come back to you if you want us to.
Mr. CLAYMAN. It is your prerogative.
Mr. DENT. We will take a 10-minute recess.
[Recess.]
AITER RECESS
Mr. DENT. The next witness is the Honorable Donald M. Fraser, a
distinguished Member of the Congress from the State of Minnesota.
We are very happy to have our colleague with us, and inasmuch as they
have already played around with this idea of post card registration in
Minnesota as well as some other refinements, we are very fortunate in
having Don with us today to give us a briefing on his situation up there.
PAGENO="0068"
62
STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD M. FRASER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. FRASER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee.
I would like to submit my statement for the record.
Mr. DENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[The statement follows:]
TEsTDI0NY o~' HoN. DONALD M. FRASER, MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to know your committee is examining the issue of
voter registration. I think we must make it easier to vote in the United States.
I am convinced that the difficult registration procedures limits the turnout on elec-
tion day. Among the world's democracies the United States has the worst record
of voter participation in elections. This country is the only one that puts the
burden of registering on the citizen instead of on the government. We must
remedy this situation.
I know there have been bills introduced in the House-I am not prepared to
talk about them but I want to thank you for the opportunity to report on the
voter registration reform law passed recently by the Minnesota State Legislature.
The law will take effect on October 1, 1973 and will make registration much easier
and more convenient by establishing postcard registration, election day regis-
tration and a statewide uniform system.
Concern about fraud or easy voting can be answered by the experience in
North Dakota and rural Minnesota, where no pre.registration is required. No
significant fraud has been found. Voter turnouts of 80% are recorded in coun-
ties with no registration but goes down to 62% in counties requiring voters to
register. Most fraud which does exist has involved collusion with election offi-
cials rather than multiple voting by individuals. The present system affords little
protection against the determined voter who is willing to travel from one munici-
pality to another. There is currently no cross checking between municipalities.
I would like to tell you the highlights of the new law. A chain of command is
established from the Secretary of State to the County Auditor to the Municipal
Clerk. The Secretary of State sets up uniform regulations and forms, and can
handle administrative appeals before legal action becomes necessary. He is also
charged with insuring that automatic data processing systems used for regis-
tration are compatible. A permanent system of registration by the county is
established. The County Auditor will be the chief registrar and chief custodian
of registration records in each county. He will keep countywide alphabetical
files. Precinct files and current precinct lists are required. Lists must be available
at a reasonable cost of reproduction for purposes related either to elections or
law enforcement so that election violations can be prosecuted and registration
can be verified. Cross-county checking will be greatly facifitated and available in
all areas of the state so that duplicate registrations within a county will auto-
matically be exposed.
Most of the registration work itself can be delegated to the municipal clerk.
Postcard registration with vertification by mail will be available up to 20
days before each election in present registration areas. Postcards can be circu-
lated by mail or by volunteers and must be stocked in public places. A non-
forwardable receipt will be mailed to each registrant advising him of his polling
place and the failure of delivery of any receipt will trigger a challenge to the
registration. The law allows rural areas without pre-registration to continue
without pre-registrations, but requires officials to establish permanent registra-
tion records-thereby establishing statewide permanent registration without in-
convenience to rural voters.
The penalty for fraudulent registration is a felony-up to 5 years in prison
and/or a $5,000 fine.
All areas of the state will have election day registration for anyone who can
prove residence in the precinct by a valid drivers license or through a witness
who is already registered in that precinct and who will swear that be knows that
the registrant lives in the precinct. The Secretary of State is empowered to specify
PAGENO="0069"
63
other acceptable proofs of residence. An additional election judge will be hired
to handle election day registration.
Registration card sample:
VOTERS REGISTRATION CARD
(Please print or type)
Address :_
Street or Route No.
(do not use P.O. Box)
City (or Township) County Zip
Hale Female Birthdate:
Social Security Number, if available
Telephone number, if available:_~~_______~.~.,
I~Iost Recent Prior Residence:_ __..~.___
Street or Route No.
City or Township Zip
Host Recent Prior Registration:~_~_~___
Street or Route No.
City or Township Zip
I certify that the above facts are correct and I understand that giv-
ing false information to procure a registrationis a felony punish-
able by not more than 5 years imprisonment and a fine of not more
than $5,000 or both.
Signature of Voter
No registration is faulty if it contain~ the voters name, address, prior residence,
prior registration (if any) and signature.
Change of residence information gained from the registration card is passed to
the County Auditor of the voter's last registration and the voter's name is deleted
from the registration lists.
Officials are to report deaths, marriages, divorces and guardianships monthly
to the County Auditor. The officials must also report the names of all persons who
have had their civil rights restored. Files must be purged annually to remove
anyOne who has failed to vOte for four years. The original registration file kept,
by the County Auditor will be an alphabetical file; the duplicate file kept by the
delegated office will be kept by precinct, known as the precinct list. On the 80th
day before the election the County Auditor will deliver to the council of the
Date:
Name:
Last
First Middle Initia'.
PAGENO="0070"
64
municipalities current copies of the precinct list. Paper lists can be purchased
by any registered voter.
An appropriation of $200,000 for the biennium was allocated to defray local
costs.
I think the new Minnesota law is workable and very much needed.
A copy of the bill and other materials are attached for your consideration.
Thank you.
Mr. Fr~snn. I am delighted that we have our secretary of state with
us today. He will be able to provide the committee with more detailed
information about the Minnesota law than I can, but let me just sum-
m~rize some of the provisions of that law that will take effect in Octo-
ber. It provides a single statewide uniform system of registration
using the post-card concept.
As I understand the law, and I have read it, there is no provision
for mailing the pQst card out. It would become available and could be
duplicated as I understand it by the parties and by nonpartisan civic
groups such as the League of Women Voters, and upon sendmg the
post card in, it becomes the source of registration information.
We have one other feature in this bill, and that is the possibility
of registering on election day. That can be accomplished by producing
~ driver's license or by producing somebody who lives in the precinct
who can swear that the prospective voter is known to him to be a resi-
dent of the precinct, or any other system of proof that may be author-
ized.
I would just like to say this, Mr. Chairman. I think the Minnesota
system is a good one, and has some features in it that I would expect
over time will be adopted by an increasing number of States as it is
proven to be workable, but what it doesn't do, and what is provided
for in the Federal legislation, is the mailing out of the postcards.
Let me make a point here, if I may? One of the difficulties, I think,
with requiring parties to take around post cards is the question of
where the post card gets returned. If you have got post cards that are
marked to be returned to the county auditor of one county and some-
how those cards fall into another county group's hands and they are
distributed or used, then you are going to begin to get some substan-
tial confusion.
One of the values of the Federal bill, which is before the commit-
tee. is that it would make sure that through mailing, the card that
fell into the voters' hand was properly marked with respect to the
correct return address. Assuming the Federal Government does its
job well, it would have the proper return on the post card so that the
amount of confusion would be minimal.
I think that is a fairly important feature of the Federal law. Other
than that, it might be enough to simply provide for a post-card sys-
tem. but let parties and other groups distribute them, but the value of
mailing is that it goes to the right house with the right return address,
arid will minimize the difficulties.
Mr. Chairman, I come here really to endorse what we have done
in our State, but with the hope that our State action will be comple-
mented by the Federal action. If the Federal bill passes, it will tie in
very nicely to what we have done in the State. We have got the ma-
chinery, but we don't have the moneyS the funds, or the me~hanisrns to
PAGENO="0071"
65
put it out through the mail. This i~ what the Federal bill would pro-
vide. I would certainly hope that the committee could give strong con-
sideration to some form of the bill that is presently pending before
the committee that has been passed by the other bo~Iy. I will be glad
to try to answer any questions that the committee might have, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. DENT. Do you see any virtue to the suggestion that we do not just
mail out boxes of cards all over the~ place equal to the number of regis-
tered voters, because that is exactly what the bill calls for in essence.
I think somewhere along the line we must work out something to give
credit to millions of voters who are registered already, permanently
so in States. I don't understand that.
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, if I may say, one of the difficulties is
that in every household, even though you may think that they are
registered because they voted in the last election or they are thought
to be registered for some other reason, there may well turn out to be
somebody else in that household who now is an eligible voter. It may
be a young person in the family who has turned 18. It might be some-
body who has come to live with the family. There is no good way of
knowing in advance that there is nobody in the household, there is no
way of knowing in advance that everybody in the household is already
registered. I can't think of any device that would enable you with
confidence to separate out certain households and say these people are
registered. You don't need to send them anything, but those over here
you do need to.
Mr. DENT. Even in taking the census they worked out some kind of
a block occupancy ratio, and they didn't get anywhere near. In fact,
the city of Philadelphia still contends that they lose a Member of the
Congress because of the fact that in certain areas of the town they
didn't count the living bodies but took sort of a square area ratio as to
how many should be there, and in the particular districts they did
that, they were, of course, more :densely populated by far than what
they gave credit to on their returns, and I think that that is what is
going to happen with this thing. They will say, well, in this precinct
so many hundred voters are registered and we will send so many hun-
dred cards in there. I may not be~ able to picture it at this moment, and
I hope I can a little better than I am at this time, but I find we can get
a pretty good guide if we start using our registrations on these census,
as we suggested in 1960, that when the census was being taken, that we
register each eligible voter at that time. They know the precincts, and
they mail them right into that particular registration office, and we
would have had a more nearly perfect count on all of the eligible voters
within the area. They have never done that, and here the money is
being spent. The workers are there. We may have to tie this into
something like a census at some time or other.
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, one of the difficulties with using the
census~
Mr. DENT. Not solely.
Mr. FRASER. It is an idea worth using, but the statistics show that,
in a given year, 20 percent of the people change residence.
Mr. DENT. There is no question about that.
Mr. FRASER. And if anybody has tried, as we all have tried, to keep
up mailing lists, you know the enormous rate of turnover.
PAGENO="0072"
66
Mr. DE~. Impossible.
Mr. FRASER. Even with a 5-year census, 2 years later there is a poten-
tial of up to 40 percent no longer being at their old address. I say po-
tential because some of the 20 percent are from year to year the same
people, but even so, it would very quickly become out of date. The
problem is, as long as people have to, in a sense, be registered at their
correct address, and this is the key, unless you make it easy for them to
be registered, we must be one of the most mobile populations in the
world. Unless we make it easy through a repetitive device, we are going
to continue to have the 35 to 40 percent unregistered.
Mr. DENT. That is why I like the other portion of your election law
in Minnesota. As long as you have an identification that is reliable,
walk into the polling place, and you take an affidavit that what you are
saying is the truth and you are liable and you are subject to a fine and
arrest. and maybe imprisoned for it, but a postcard registration can al-
low multiple voting. It can allow floaters. There is nothing in the world
can stop a person if he so desires to take and mail into five different
precincts from his home address. The precinct, if it checks back, can
call up, "Yes, he lives there," and the first precinct calls, "Yes, he lives
there," but there is no cooperation between the first, second, third and
fourth precincts in a city as to who is on their rolls. They don't check
back with each other and say, "Do you have a Fraser on your roll in
the fifth. I have got one here." They will all be at the same address.
Sooner or later he will get caught but it took about 40 years to catch up
with the tombstones.
Mr. FRASER. I don't think that is related to the question of postcard
registration.
Mr. DENT. Why not?
Mr. FRASER. Because if a community now maintains its files only
precinct by precinct, and doesn't do it either countywide or municipal-
wide-
Mr. DENT. It does countywide, but in the county's files they are also
by page andbook, precinct by precinct. That is the only way they can
have any rhyme or reason.
Mr. FRASER. In our State we maintain the files in two ways. One is
on a precinct level, and then there is a master list right now at the
municipal level. If I remember, I think it is alphabetical for the whole
city. We maintain that, but we expand it at the county level. What is
provided in our State law and is also provided in these Federal bills,
is provision for computerizing these lists, so that if all the names go in
alphabetically into a computer list, as it will in our State, and as pro-
vided for in the Federal law-there are grants for computer systems-
at least within a county you can eliminate duplication.
In our State we have never had a means of detecting duplicate vot-
ing between municipalities, because of the municipal system. You can
be in the central city and go out and register in three or four munici-
palities or townships. Under our system it goes to a county level and
that will no longer be possible because within the total county there
will be one uniform computerized list that will prevent people from
multiple voting.
Mr. DENT. But you yourself say there is a 20-percent change within
a year.
PAGENO="0073"
67
Mr. FRASER. That is right.
Mr. DENT. To a computer it would be 20 percent in error before the
year is over, and how could you cross-check on a situation like that?
Mr. FRASER. As Mr. Erdahi, because he will be in charge of the
whole system, but it will be continuously updated and the parties
will get-
Mr. DENT. With all of these expenses, won't it be predictable that
if you get 10 percent, they won't vote. We have a purge list. If you
don't vote in 2 years, you are automatically purged. They don't write
and tell you you are purged. You don't know about it and you may
go and try to vote after 2 years and you have been purged, so we
go get the list, political organizations, and so we go into the same
grind every year, because there are always 25,000 or 30,000 thrown off
every year. We have found people that have been carried in and got-
ten them registered for 20 years on every 2-year basis, and they have
never voted yet. This is not uncommon. It is just that way. They just
won't vote, and of course a long time ago, they figured that the workers
in the mines would like to go hunting, so our election day, the primary
is always on the first day of trout season, and the general is always on
the first day of deer season-so we have a beautiful setup in our State.
You could always count on about 60 percent as our average vote, and
it will be when this is over. That is my prediction, although we have to
give it a try maybe, but I don't see it helping. The only way you can
do it is like in Australia. If you don't vote, they fine you, and if you
don't vote twice, they put you in jail. If you don't vote three times,
they send you out of the country. They do, and that is true, all but
sending you out of the country. Mr.: Ware.
Mr. WARE. I, too, want to thank our colleague for appearing today.
I share some of the same concerns that Chairman Dent does. I don't
believe you were present earlier when I indicated that I have had
considerable experience in endeavoring to get people to register, having
been a junior block captain, committeeman, and area chairman. I
think without reservation I can say the most discouraging part of my
experience in that line has been the people who have either refused to
register or, having registerd, thy won't vote, and that is something you
know I cannot understand in our system, but possibly that is my
fault.
I am interested in your registration on election day, and I think the
post card system, too, presents some problems, at least in my congres-
sional district, in that I am told-I have seven colleges and uni-
versities-that the student, many of whom are commuters to other
congressional districts in the city of Philadelphia where there are four
congressional districts, vote at the situs of the college and also their
home residence. : .
If you use drivers' licenses, fOr example, and here again this is
hearsay, but the number of Delaware State tags on motor vehicles in
my district leads me to believe there is some substance to it. In a por-
tion of the district which borders on a portion of the State of Dela-
ware, there is no income tax, or rather sales tax, in the State of Dela-
ware, with the result-many residents of the district are employed
in the State of Delaware-using their business address, they purchase
motor vehicles in the State of Delaware, register them in the State of
PAGENO="0074"
68
Delaware, and secure drivers' licenses from the State of Delaware, in
order to avoid the 6-percent sales tax in the Commonwealth of Penn-
sylvania. I suppose that would afford an opportunity to vote twice in
an election. once in the State of Delaware and once in the State of
Pennsylvania.
I suspect it is proper to add I don't know how you would stop
that sort of thing when people are determined, other than the pos-
sible use of computers and interchange of printouts in the several
States. Since my district also borders the State of Maryland, there is
a similar problem there because the sales tax is less than that in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I understand that occurs in
other areas where border States are involved. While we like our
system and think it is the best form of government, I suppose there
is no way to counteract those who would seek to subvert it in some
fashion or other.
Your testimony, I suppose, suffers from the fact that you really
haven't operated under this system up to date, and I think we are
fortunate that your State has made this move. It may be a guide for
the future. I don't think I have any specific questions. You have been
very patient listening to my comments. You may have some responses.
Mr. FRASER. I found them interesting, but the thought that occurred
to me was the difficulties you describe, which I am sure exist, must
exist today. That is if somebody wants to register in two separate
States, there is no means now of preventing that from happening,
so that adding these means of registering I don't think adds to the
problem. and may offer some solutions if we do get to a computerized
system, but I don't want to overstate that, because an exchange of
statewide computer lists may be just too formidable an undertaking.
Mr. WA~. Forgive me for interrupting, but it seemed to me that
by mailing a card to "John Smith" in the State of Delaware, and a
card to "John Smith" in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, may be
somewhat encouraging to him to register twice. At least as far as
I Imow no one is approaching these people, or it would be a rarity
that their office or place of business, whether Hercules, ChrysIer~ or
General Motors, to register in that State.
Another thing I should have mentioned is this. As you know, we
were recently reapportioned. My district includes areas heretofore not
where others were discontinued. In my second newsletter for this
year, I still am not able to get from local postmasters the number of
people in that post office who belong in my district or Congressman
Williams' or Congressman Coughlin's or Congressman Biester's or
Congressman Eshleman's or Congressman Johnson's.
Because of the desire to approach closely the one-man-one-vote
rule, Coatesville, Pa., RF.D. route or any other route is not based upon
the congressional district. It is selected for other reasons. We have
had as many discrepancies as 4,500. so that makes me wonder whether
you can mail post cards and have the correct return address. I don't
believe you could. Apparently as of this moment I think you would
have a substantial margin of error.
Mr. FRASER. I would make the point though that I share your con-
cern about post offices not making these divisions within their routes,
but normally registration does not follow congressional district lines.
PAGENO="0075"
69
It would be either municipal or county. My impression is. although it
must vary from place to place. that postal routes there isn't so much
difficulty in identifying which routes fall into which county or
municipality.
Mr. WARE. I should have gone further to say that a portion of the
local political subdivision may be in another congressional district and
another portion in my congressional district.
Mr. FRASER. That is right, but that has no relevance to vote registra-
tion. They don't need to know which congressional district for pur-
poses of voter registration.
Mr. WARE. Yes, I think you are correct.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Frenzel.
Mr. FRENZEL. It is a pleasure to greet my colleague from Minnesota.
In your statement, Don, you indicated that if we passed the bill be-
fore us, that it would be compatible to Minnesota law, but as I read the
Minnesota act, which becomes effective August 1, I believe-
Mr. FRASER. October, I think.
Mr. FRENZEL. There would be some things that would have to be
changed. I think some of the times are different. The Minnesota law
specifically prescribes the postcard which has to be sent out. In the
Federal act the Voter Registration Administration prescribes what
will go on the card and prescribes certain rules. Obviously accommo-
dations would have to be made. Even in a State where the system
has already been set up, I think the inspiration for the Minnesota law
was this Kennedy-McQee-Stevens,~ et cetera, proposal. I think we have
a little trouble putting it into operation.
Mr. FRASER. There obviously has to be some reconciliation but the
concepts are the same. I don't think the times present any problem.
My understanding is that we have not altered the 20-day provision for
preregistration.
Mr. FRENZEL. Right. The Federal law says you will send them out
45 days.
Mr. FRASER. Yes, and return within 30.
Mr. FRENZEL. Minnesota closes its registration under this law 20
days prior. That isn't near enough time.
Mr. FRASER. The Federal law is you mail them out not less than 45
days ahead, and they are to be returned not later than 30 days before
the election, which would mean that under the Federal law they would
be returned 10 days earlier than they would need to be returned under
State law, so in that sense it is not incompatible.
Mr. FRENZEL. It doesn't fit very~well either.
Mr. FRASER. If they are returned within the Federal period they
come within the permissible period of registration under State law.
That was the only point I made.
Mr. FRENZEL. But of course the effective date of this act-
Mr. FRASER. The Federal law?
Mr. FRENZEL. Yes. I don't find an effective date and I suppose there
is some pending. Our State may be readier than others. I wonder
whether some of the others would be able to make the changes quickly?
Mr. FRASER. If you do work on this bill I would think you would
want to look at the question of effective date. I would also suggest you
look at the term caucus, characterizing one of the Federal elections
PAGENO="0076"
70
that would precipitate a mailing. Normally in most States you should
not need to send registration forms in advance of party caucuses, be-
cause being a registered voter is not normally a requirement to partici-
pate in a caucus. I am not really trying to settle this. I just think it
is something you should look at when you come to mark up this bill
and I would think you would want to look at the effective date, and I
would think also to introduce a modicum of additional flexibility so
that you could contour with State systems that do essentially carry
out or permit this kind of a system, because a number of States, if
they accept this system, will still perhaps want to retain their own time
periods, and so I would make these sort of minimal, but I would expand
it in relation to State law.
Mr. FRENZEL. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, I am through.
Mr. DENT. Thank you very kindly, Don.
Mr. FRASER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DENT. The next witness, and I apologize to Mr. Erdahl, we are
glad to have you, Mr. Secretary. I am sure you know why we tried to
keep you deliberately to the end until we could see what the pros and
cons were, and then ask you some questions as to what you think.
You have the baby to play with right now. We are happy to have you.
STATEMENT OF ARLEN ERDAHL, MINNESOTA SECRETARY OP
STATE
* Mr. ERDARL. Thank you. It is really a pleasure to be here today and
talk about our experiences in Minnesota that we have had and maybe
some experiences that we haven't had, because the new postcard law
becomes effective on August 1, and some other operable dates are later
on in the session.'
Also it is a real pleasure to be here with my good friend Bill Frenzel.
Mr. Frenzel `and I were sworn into the State Legislature in Minnesota
on the same day. It is good to be with you and also Congressman Fraser
who also has had the distinction of being a part of the Minnesota
Legislature.
I have a prepared statement. I will just submit that for the record,
and if I could speak extemporaneously, perhaps it is a bit easier for all
of us.
Mr. DENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[The statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF ARLEN ERDAHL, MINNESOTA SECRETARY OF STATE
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Arlen Erdabi, and I am
secretary of state for the State of Minnesota. In this capacity I serve as the
stat&s chief election official. It is from this perspective, along with four terms
in our state legislature, that I welcome this opportunity to share some observa-
tions with you.
It is apparent that there is a resurgence of interest within the congress
and state legislatures pertaining to the field of elections. Two of the main ones
are disclosure of campaign expenditures and changes in voter registration. This
emphasis was evident during the recent legislative session in Minnesota.
One of the main bills passed was Chapter 676, Laws of Minnesota 1973. This
makes sweeping changes in both the procedures and administration of election
registration laws. I hope that our experience might prove helpful to you as you
deal with this basic facet of a self-governing society, voting.
PAGENO="0077"
71
We in Minnesota pride ourselves on a citizenry active in the election process
and a voting system unencumbered by unnecessary restrictions and requirements.
The goal of the legislature, others and myself who worked with them, was to
continue the integrity of an election. system that has been remarkably fraud
free-and at the same time further extend and open the registration and voting
process.
The law ultimately passed, Chapter 676, does some of these things, but I feel
it was too hastily drafted and acted upon. Other alternatives could have been
considered. The new law becomes effective August 1, 1973.
At the present time, prior voter registration is a requisite for voting in munici-
palities over 10,000 population, communities within 15 miles of our first-class
cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth, and in any other municipality where
the governing body may so ordain. Minnesota does not have party registration.
In other parts of the state, no prior registration is needed in order for an eligible
citizen to vote. The various city clerk~ function as commissioners of election
and their administrative powers, along, with the dual registration system, does
make for some inconsistencies.
The new law designates the Secretary of State as the commissioner of elec-
tions and shifts the local administration from the municipal clerks to the county
auditors. It provides for statewide registration by post card, election day regis-
tration, and a requirement that local units supply lists of registered voters upon
requestat cost to anyone wanting this information.
Perhaps the most controversial facet of the act is election day registration. I
personally have grave reservations about potential fraud and confused conges-
tion in the urban areas where we already have long lines at the polls. For these
reasons, I opposed this feature in committee and unsuccessfully urged the Gov-
ernor to veto the bill.
Guidelines for the post cards as to information required on them Is in the act,
along with the authority for the Secretary of State to promulgate rules and
regulations regarding them and the implementation of the entire act. My staff
and I are now working on this.
The post cards will be in addition to registration at county and municipal
offices. New registration will not be required for those already registered. These
forms will be widely distributed and if they are identical, we tentatively plan
to let them be reprOduced by the political parties and concerned citizen groups
such as the League of Women Voters.
Information on the registration post cards in addition to the usual name, ad-
dress and date of birth, includes social security number, telephone number, and
last previous address.
The cost of this new system is difficult to accurately estimate, but the legisla-
ture appropriated $200,000 to be used to reimburse local levels of government
for their costs. With additional staffing in at least some of our 87 counties, more
paid judges on election day to take c~ire of election day registration (the same
election judge may not register a voter and receive his ballot), and other admin-
istrative and recordkeeping costs, the actual figure could well be twice the
funds appropriated. Minnesota had about 1,700,000 voters in the last election.
The priorities of my office in administering this and other election laws is to
strive for a uniform and consistent operation statewide; make registration and
voting as simple and available as possible; and at the same time insure its hon-
esty and integrity.
I trust that these are also your goals, and my present thinking would urge the
congress .to allow registration and voting to continue to be administered by the
several states. This should be combined with standards to extend and open the
registration and election process. Incentives of federal costsharing, as embodied
in several measures before you, seem a logical manner in which to accomplish
this.
Mr. ERDAIIL. I will limit at least my initial responses to chapter 676,
which is a law which makes rather sweeping changes in the Minnesota
election laws, perhaps the most dramatic changes that have happened
for a long time. It provides for, among other things, postcard registra-
tion, and at the present time, sir, we are working in my office on the
rules and regulations that names the Secretary of State as the commis-
PAGENO="0078"
72
sioner of elections, and we are working on rules and regulations deal-
ing with not oniy the postcards but also all facets of the bill.
The postcard system in a sense is not really new or novel to i\'Jinne-
sota because we have a rather progressive or maybe one could call it
a liberal policy as far as absentee voting, and also absentee registra-
tions, so people have been able, in the past, in Minnesota, and under our
present law, to register by mail, though it is more of a cumbersome
process. It involves the notary signature and this type of thing that is
commonly done, but postcards, which are prescribed by my office, and
a sample of them or a guideline is provided for in the chapter, I think
as Congressman Fraser indicated and as he included in his testimony,
and these will be distributed rather widely. We are not really finaliz-
ing this, but our interpretation is that, perhaps not only can the official
cards be used that will be distributed through the county auditors
who, under this act, become the local administrators of the election,
while in the past it has been done by the city municipal clerks. It can
be reproduced by them, I also think the law is broad enough to say it
can be reproduced by anybody, in other words, any group, or a polit-
ical party. A political action group such as the League of Women
Voters could reproduce these lists. The Senate author told me he will
see every person in his district receives a copy because he will canvass
the district and give it to them personally.
At the present. time the registration law, I think, in Minnesota is a.
progressive one. WTe utilize deputies widely. Various groups-again. I
mention the League of Women Voters as an example-establish deputy
points at shopping centers and other key places, and people are regis-
tered. It is a permanent registra.tion.
Our present law is not by party. If one has voted within 4 years your
name automatically stays on the list. If you fail t.o vote you are purged
from the list.
Moving to another area, as far as the postcards are concerned, I
think they will be very widely distributed. I think one of our require-
ments will be they have to be identical to the ones that are the official
copy, so that they can be utilized for the files, and so forth.
At the present time there is a cutoff of 20 days before an election,
where registration is cut off. This pertains to the areas of the State
where there is present registration required, which basically are cities
over 10,000 population; any municipality within 15 miles of a city of
first class which in Minnesota are St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Duluth,
and any municipality whereby local ordinance they may so ordain. We
have a hodge-podge of prior registration required. In the area of the
State which I come from, a rural area, you really don't register. You
go in and are enrolled or just go in and vote on the theory that every-
body knows you. This perhaps would be somewhat like the North
Dakota law.
I, incidentally, support the postcard registration feature, at least
as one looking at it down the distance with a little apprehension,
though I do not support the concept of having a new Federal bureauc-
racy set up. I think if individual States want to, so to speak, make
registration easier, and I think this in my mind seems to be the intent
of this committee, they should do several things: (1) To make the
PAGENO="0079"
73
franchise more available to any eligible citizen; (2) to keep it simple
and uncumbered, and (3) to maintain the integrity and sanctity of
what is perhaps most important to our type of representative democ-
racy; namely, voting.
I sense as I have listened to the interesting testimony, the frustrating
part-and I suppose as one who has survived a few elections as all of
you have I share it with you-are those who are apathetic. Working
with a segment of the population who, by their lack of activity show
they really don't care, and to try to motivate them is a very difficult
thing. Maybe the post cards, while not a motivating device, it is a little
device to make it easier for them. I think the motivating is perhaps
more important.
Mr. WARE. If you will excuse the interruption.
Mr. ERDAHL. Yes, sir; I don't consider it an interruption.
Mr. WARE. We might have door prizes put on the card.
Mr. ERDAIIL. That was not considered in Minnesota though perhaps
it may be at the next session of the legislature. The one part of the bill
I found rather strong exception to and testified against it in committee
and, in fact urged the Governor~ to veto the bill for that reason, he
didn't take my good advice, inëidentally, is the procedure or the
device-
Mr. DENT. You should have come to Washington. They do it before
they get in the door.
Mr. Eiin&IIL. I understand. Anyway, for election day registration it
seems to me that one of the purposes for registration is to insure the
integrity of the system. If you have election day registration without
some very sophisticated computerized system to check on it, it really
becomes rather meaningless.
The new law provides that the registration will still cut out 20 days
before the election, and the post card registration, incidentally-I want
to make very clear-is not to replace the present system but rather to
supplant it. In other words, there still will be registration by the
county auditors. There still will be registration points, I am sure, by
deputies. There still will be registration drives by the political parties,
League of Women Voters, and so forth. This is to supplant that, but
after the 20 days, if one has not registered, he can still come in, or this
person can still come in on registration day and register and vote.
My information really is perhaps not so much from the fraud that
will or could result, because mine really has been remarkably fraud
free. Incidentally we had maybe one of the closest elections in the coun-
try several years ago when Goyernor Rolvaag defeated the then Gov-
ernor Andersen by 91 votes in a statewide contest. Obviously this was
a recount, but to my knowledge, and Congressman Fraser was more
active in politics than I was at that time, there was no hint even of
any fraudulent voting. There may have been some honest mistakes
made, transposition of numbers and so forth. However, as far as I
know there was no indication, of fraud. We rather pride ourselves.
Maybe we are not too bright but at least we are honest up in Minne-
sota.
Mr. FRASER. For a year after it was said the difference between the
Swedish and Norwegians was 91 votes.
PAGENO="0080"
74
Mr. ERDAHL. A point well taken, sir. Anyway this does permit elec-
tion-day registration, so while I don't really fear the fraud I do have
apprehensions about the congestion and the confusion that is bound to
result especially in the metropolitan areas, because we already have
voting precincts where there are long lines.
The State of Minnesota has approximately 3,800 voting precincts,
and you can divide that up with our population, which is about 3.78
million. It is about one precinct to every thousand people, and some
of the metropolitan areas are considerably more and the rural areas
considerably less. So, I see this as a discouragement in some areas to
voting because as people come down to vote there is a long line, and the
same judge cannot register a person as he takes his ballots. We have
to have more judges involved. I think this is a real danger of the elec-
tion-day registration. The people that were supporting this really
countered that argument on my part saying we will make an effort
ahead of time to see as candidates and political parties and interested
citizen groups that we do distribute these post cards to see that these
lines don't occur and the congestionwon't happen.
I don't know if Congressman Fraser mentioned this but one of the
things that I think is a reasonable safeguard in the postcard regis-
tration system as provided for in Minnesota is to have that once the
county auditors receive the post card, that there is a return address on
it and he acknowledges this by return address mail, and then if this
comes back address unknown or whatever the Post Office Department
stamps on the envelope this then becomes a contested registrant and
he will have to move his residency as he comes in to ~~ote.
Mr. DENT. Will you wait for us. We are going over to vote.
[Short recess.]
Mr. FRENZEL. The subcommittee will come to order.
Mr. Ware, do you have any questions you wish to address to the
witness?
Mr. WARE. No. I yield to you.
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Secretary, when the bill was passed in the Minne-
sota Legislature. did county and municipal officials testify, and can
you tell us something about their testimony?
Mr. ERDAHL. Yes, Mr. Chairman, they did testify. To my knowledge,
no municipal officials-these would be the people who really are ad-
ministering the present law-were in accord with the election day
re~istration feature. I think this is the part that they were most appre-
hensive about. I don't think they got in as I recollect, and I did attend
many of the committee hearings, I don't recall they got so much in-
volved in the post card registration other than the fact that they were
concerned about having a uniform system rather than the one like in
Texas, where you send in a coupon or the bottom of a grocery bag or
something. That here at least would be a uniform system just for filing
purposes.
The other thing, if I might expand on a bit. that brings up another
point that we will be dealing with administratively because the legis-
lature didn't include it in the bill because I think it was too hastily
proposed, voted on, and passed. was the fact there is a dual signature
required. In other words, the signature is to be held by the county
PAGENO="0081"
75~
auditors, and another signature is to be at the precinct so a judge can
check a registrant as he comes in, while the card only provides for one.
What we will do very likely is devise a card that can be perforated or a
dual compartment card so there can be two signatures retained.
Mr. FRENZEL. Thank you.
You talked about election day registration. How did the municipal
officials feel about the post card part?
Mr. EI~DAHL. Probably not quite so apprehensive, though I think
hero they felt mechanically a couple of things concerned them. One
would be-and this concerned me and other members and other people
who testified-when the new cards contain additional information
that is not on the present registration card. In other words, in most of
Minnesota the municipalities and large cities, we already have people
who are registered to vote. These people will not have to register again
under the new law, but the old cards do not contain some of the infor-
mation that at least the people who were the proponents of this bill
were very interested in; namely, a telephone number, a last previous
address, and a driver's license. Probably the one they are most con-
cerned about for political contact is a telephone number.
The other thing that concerned them, and I think this is a legitimate
problem that this committee should be aware of too, and probably
even more so under the proposed McGee bill, would be that many peo-
ple who are already registered, and with the publicity that, jeepers.
I'm not registered; I have got to send in my card-they would be
flooded with cards which really they didn't need and that the people
didn't need to send in.
I think this would happen in Minnesota, and we are hoping we can
deal with it. I think it would even happen more extensively under a
proposal such as the McGee bill where everyone was sent a card, and
you and I, who get stuff in the mail, either we throw it away or file it
or send it in if it doesn't cost anything. This they see as a legitimate
administrative problem of waiting for the list, cards that either are
dual cards, and the other problem that comes to mind, Bill, would be
that cards would not be accurately completed. In other words, they
would leave some information out, and the person then would have to
be contacted or the local official would have to contact this person and
say. "You didn't put in your age, date of birth, or address," or some-
thing like that.
Mr. FRENZEL. On the cost, as 1 understand it, Minneapolis appro-
priated $200,000, of which you get $100,000?
Mr. E1mAIiL. No, $200,000 was appropriated to the Secretary of
State to reimburse counties for their costs. Again it is very hard to
ascertain just what this actual cost might be, because we haven't had
the experience with it.
The largest county in Minnesota is Hennepin County, where Minne-
apolis is located, and the county auditor from that county estimates
that they could spend $100,000 to $125,000 of this to set up a registra-
tion system, and to provide for~ the judges who will be needed at the
precincts, because the law provides that, and I think 1 mentioned this
before, that on election day the person who accepts your registration
20-695-73-------G
PAGENO="0082"
76
cannot also be the judge who accepts your ballot, so you will have to
have additional staff persons to put on.
As you well know, Bill, in Minnesota, there are 87 counties, and so
the actual cost I estimate probably to be double the amount that the
legislature appropriated. For the State of Minnesota, with about 3.7
or 3.8 million people, it could well cost $500,000.
Mr. FRENZEL. If you have 3,000 precincts and you have got to pay
election clerks $25 a day-
Mr. ERDAHL. Almost 4,000 precincts-3,800.
Mr. FRENZEL. Of course that doesn't relate again to post cards. Let's
get back: If you have to have the costs of handling these cards, which
is a specific registration adventure, and because the reimbursement in
the case of your State is less than the cost of handling these cards, does
that mean that the municipal county clerks or officials might say, "We
are not going to do some other things that we have been doing to main-
tain registrations"?
Is this going to discourage the tradition that we have of putting
registrars into the high schools, of opening our registration stations
at night, of sending them into the nursing homes, of putting them out
in shopping centers with the League of Women Voters?
Mr. ERDAHL. I would hope not, Mr. Frenzel. I think that these ac-
tivities will still continue. For example, last time, because of a ques-
tion of law, there were attorney general rulings required wherein
librarians could be deputized who were previously employed, say, in
the city of St. Paul. We really had a rather accessible and-as you
have indicated-I think an open system of making registration avail-
able. In many, many other places, I think the people who testified
from the union were from Ohio, and I think I heard the man say in
Cincinnati there was one place you had to go. In Minnesota, there are
literally thousands of places where people can go register. I hope that
will continue, but that the post card would be really a supplement to
that, to the people who do find it difficult to get to one of these places,
that they can register by mail.
Mr. FRENZEL. If you had your preference, what would you say is
the best way to stimulate registration and, well, ultimately we are look-
ing for the greatest voter participation?
Mr. ERDAUL. Two main avenues; maybe I could be more specific
on this. One is to try to make the registration system and the voting
system as open and as available as possible, by various methods.
The second, I suppose, is for the political parties to be progressive
and responsive, and field attractive candidates because I think people
are attracted to politics by the type of candidates rather than by the
method or the system.
Mr. FRENZEL. As long as Minnesota is going to be involved in this
thingS would you recommend that the Federal Government restrain
its activities until they see how it works someplace?
Mr. ERDATIL. I would think that would be a reasonable alternative,
because here, at least, we have some willing guinea pigs who are going
to be doing this very thing that is probably the fundamental concept
of the McGee bill, and even though, as I have told the Governor and
some of the people in the legislature, that I testified against the bill,
PAGENO="0083"
77~
urged him to veto it, my staff and I are going to do the best we can
to see that it is administered properly.
Mr. FRENZEL. You weren't testifying against the postcard part?
Mr. E1mAHL. No.
Mr. FRENZEL. You supported that?
Mr. ERDAHL. Yes.
Mr. FRENZEL. Do you have an estimate of the anticipated impact.
of this system? Was there testimony before committees, or has your
office estimated or did anyone estimate the increase in eligible regis-
tered, in the registration of eligible voters through this system?
Mr. ERDAIIL. As I recall, some of the figures that were presented
to the legislature were the same as Senator McGee and the people
that earlier came from the Federal figures I think, that tended to
show a much higher percentage of people who were registered actually
voted. Whether those are accurate figures or statistics one could ques-
tion because I suppose there is the whole question of motivation. Just
because you register someone, even if done automatically, doesn't mean
he is going to vote. I think it is very hard to ascertain that.
Also, in Minnesota we pride ourselves, as you well know, with being
an active State politically. In recent elections, we ranged near or at
the top of voter turnout. In the last election, it was 70 percent or so.
We have been consitent in our voter participation.
Mr. FRENZEL. Do you believe, or was there testimony before the
legislature, that this system will increase voter participation?
Mr. ERDAHL. I think that was the incentive in passing it; yes.
Mr. FRENZEL. Do you think it will happen?
Mr. ERDAI-IL. I think there will probably be some increase, but it
probably will not be as great as some of the advocates claim, because
I think our system has been open, that the registration where it takes
place in the State is a simple process. There are many places persons
can register. We, in a sense, as I mentioned, already have had a mail
registration that is rather simple and easy, so I think that just because
you get people, and maybe you could canvass and get people to register,
I think it is going to be another question to get them to vote.
If I might make another point on a bill that did not pass-it really
was, in a sense, kind of a tag-along or companion to this-there was
a bill to change our present law, where it is prohibited to haul people
to the polls.
An attempt was made to change that. That bill did not pass the
legislature. I think people thought once you have got people to regis-
ter, and then you hauled them tO the polls, you would probably get
them to vote. I didn't agree with that bill, either.
Mr. FRENZEL. It did not pass?
Mr. ERDAHL. It did not pass.
Mr. FRENZEL. Are there further~questions?
[No response.]
Mr. FRENZEL. Secretary Erdahl, thank you very much for appearing.
We especially thank you for your patience through the day when we
were visited by many interruptions. I am sorry that you were the last
one and had to wait around, but we greatly appreciate your testi-
mony and found it most helpful.
PAGENO="0084"
78
Mr. ERDAHL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to have
been with you today. Really, I am also appreciative of the diligence
that I have observed among you and your colleagues.
Mr. FRENZEL. Thank you.
Before adjourning, we will call on Mr. Mathis. Do you have any
questions?
Mr. MATInS. I move we now adjourn.
Mr. F1u~Nzia~. Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene
at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, June 28, 19'r3.]
PAGENO="0085"
THE VOTER REGISTRATION ACT AND RELATED
LEGISLATION
THURSDAY, JUNE 28, 1973
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION,
Wa8hington, D.C~
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:30 a.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dawson Mathis
presiding.
Present: Representatives Mathis, Gray, Mollohan, Harvey, Ware,
and Frenzel.
Also present: John G. Blair, assistant to the staff director; Eric
Honick, clerk, and Miss Barbara Giaimo, assistant clerk, Subcommit-
tee on Elections; Ralph Smith, minority counsel, Committee on House
Administration.
Mr. M~riiis. The committee will come to order.
1;\Te began receiving testimony yesterday on the bill, H.R. 8053, the
Voter Registration Act. We are privileged this morning to have with
us Andrew J. Biemiller, who is the legislative director of the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor and ClO. We will be glad to hear from you
at this time.
STATEMENT OP ANDREW 3. BIEMILLER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OP LEGISLATION, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CON-
GRESS OP INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, ACCOMPANIED BY KEN-
NETH A. MEIKLE~OHN, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AFL-
do
Mr. BIEMILLER. We are delighted to be before the committee this
morning.
I am accompanied by Kenneth A. Meiklejohn, legislative representa-
tive, AFL-CIO, and I request that he be permitted to join me in my
statement.
My name is Andrew J. Biemiller. I am director of the Legislative
Department of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of
Industrial Organizations. I appreciate the opportunity to appear be-
fore this committee.
The labor movement has always been deeply interested in stand-
ardizing and modernizing registration and voting laws. Time after
time AFL-CIO conventions by resolution and the AFL-CIO Execu-
tive Council in public statements of policy, have urged revision of
(79)
PAGENO="0086"
so
election laws and the adoption of Federal standards for same. While
recent years have seen considerable improvement in the situation, reg-
istration and voting requirements still present obstacles to the exercise
of the right to vote in many States.
We view such obstacles as both unfair and undemocratic. Too often
they have been deliberately designed to circumscribe rather than ex-
pand the voting opportunities of American citizens. Even recent de-
velopments, like the 18-year-old vote constitutional amendment and
the Supreme Court's decision outlawing durational residence require-
ments for registration and voting (Di~nn v. Blumstei'rt, 92 S. Ct. 995,
Mar. 21, 1972) which actually encourage voter participation, tend only
to highlight the situation in all too many States where obstacles to
voting still produce a disadvantaged electorate.
Let us concede that all too many Americans, through apathy alone,
are dropouts from democracy. Perhaps they wouldn't cast a ballot even
if the voting booth were carted into their homes.
But there are millions who would vote but don't because they are, in
effect, locked out of the voting booth by voting laws as obsolete as the
12-hour day. Indeed, many voting laws still on the books were written
in that unlamented era and should have been revised decades ago.
Some figures shed light on the problems of registration and voting
in America and suggest that there is indeed far more than apathy
limiting participation of our citizens in the electoral process.
In 1968, 116 million Americans were over 21 years of age and eligi-
ble to vote in the Presidential election that year. Approximately 40
percent of these-some 47 million eligible citizens-did not vote; 27
million were not even registered. In 1972 the situation was even more
shocking. In that year the eligible electorate was composed of 139.6
million persons 18 years of age and older. Of these, 44.6 percent-62
million persons-_did not vote; 40 million eligible individuals were not
registered. In 1968 election experts have estimated some 10 million of
those who were not registered could have, but did not register. In 1972,
some 17 million of the unregistered could have registered, but failed to
do so due largely to the same conditions that served as obstacles to
registration in 1968. This is, of course, the result of many factors, but
the principal ones were the difficulty of meeting the various State resi-
dency requirements and absence during periods for registration, rela-
tive inaccessibility of places of registration for many people, and lim-
ited periods of time for registration-a very effective barrier for many
working people.
It is a shocking fact that in 1968 there were 20 million persons-in
1972, the number was even higher, some 22 million-who would have
registered but were prevented from registering by arbitrary and re-
strictive residency requirements and by other voting laws designed to
inhibit rather than encourage use of the franchise. No one can ac-
curately guess how many would have registered and voted if the bar-
riers to doing so had not existed, but it is reasonable to assume millions
would have, and many of those who did would have been members of
our unions.
In our viewS guessing at numbers is unimportant. What is im-
portant, we feel, is the prevention of any eligible citizen from voting
by an unfair law or regulation in any election.
PAGENO="0087"
81
Obviously in recent years there has been progress toward more
rational and more equitable election laws. The Voting Bights Act of
1~65, extended for 5 more years in 1970, has brought about a dramatic
increase in voting participation by black and other minority group
Americans, and it has eased residency requirements for voting in
Presidential elections. The United States Supreme Court's decision in
the Du~vm case has also helped tremendously in opening up registra-
tion and voting to more people.
Extension of the franchise to 18-year-olds by reason of adoption
of the 26th amendment made possible the addition of large numbers
to the voting rolls, even though the pattern of registration and voting
of young people does not seem thus far to differ substantially from
that of their elders. Some States have also made sincere, if belated,
efforts to clear away some of the barriers that have stood between
citizens and the voting booth for years.
But still, the laws of many States and localities continue to stifle
voter participation. It is time, we believe, to wipe the books clean and
to cease playing around piecemeal with our election laws. It is time
to enact national registration and voting standards.
Such national registration and voting standards are, we believe, in-
cluded in S. 352, recently passed by the Senate after defeat of an effort
to kill the bill by a filibuster in the Senate.
That bill is now before this subcOmmittee, as are a number of similar
bills introduced by Members of the House, including H.R. 6278, intro-
duced by Representative Frank Thompson of New Jersey; H.R. 6700,
introduced by Representative Phillip Burton of California, and
H.R. 8053, introduced by Representative John Dent of Pennsylvania,
the chairman of this subcommittee, and other Members of the House
of Representatives.
H.R. 8053 is identical with S. 352. We strongly urge that S. 352 be
promptly reported with the committee's approval.
S. 352, as passed by the Senate, would establish a national system
of voter registration for Presidential, senatorial, and congressional
elections, administered by a Voter Registration Administration in the
Bureau of the Census. Post card registration forms would be delivered
through the mail to every postal address in the country preaddressed
for mailing when filled out, to the appropriate State or local registra-
tion officials. The bill establishes~ a 30-day residency requirement for
voting in all Federal elections and would provide financial induce-
ments to the States to adopt the post card registration system and
the proposed 30-day residency requirements for voting in State and
local elections, as well as Federal elections. Strong fraud prevention
provisions are included in the bill to work with local election officials
in preventing and punishing fraud in registration and voting.
The McGee-Dent bill, while providing Federal machinery to en-
courage and assist voter registration is designed, as we see it, to build
upon and improve the State and local registration and voting laws.
Substantial changes in the direction of facilitating voter registration
and lifting unreasonable and arbitrary restrictions on the right to
vote have been made in the laws of many States in the last 2 years.
While the Congress by constitutional amendment and the courts by
their decisions have given great encouragement to this development,
PAGENO="0088"
82
the work the States have done themselves along these lines should not
go unnoticed. The bill expressly recognizes these developments, and
rightly so. This is the right approach, we believe, and you are to be
congratulated for adopting such an approach.
The bill includes provisions to guarantee that the residency require-
ment for registration shall be no longer than 30 days prior to voting
in Federal elections and to encourage adoption of residency require-
ments no longer than 30 days for voting in State and local elections.
Extending a residency requirement of no more than 30 days to
congressional elections, and providing financial assistance to States
which bring their laws into line with Federal residency requirements
would make sure that the franchise is broadened for many who still
are denied the vote by arbitrary State restrictions on registration. We
believe provisions along these lines are of great importance and should
be included in the bill.
It has been argued that the mail voter registration provided for in
S. 352 may result in substantial amounts of fraud in registration
and voting. It should be pointed out. however, that S. 352 does not
relax State laws to prevent fraud but on the contrary adds substantial
protection against fraud. For example, local election offices must
send a non-forwardable registration voter verification for all regis-
trants by mail. If the return address does not exist or no such person
attempting to register resides at the address given, the verification
form would be returned to the local election officials for investigation.
The Voter Registration Administration would be authorized to pro-
vide assistance to State and local officials in fraud investigations, and
the Attorney General would be authorized to bring civil actions to
enjoin fraudulent registration and other illegal acts: Thus, to the sanc-
tions provided for under local law the Voter Registration Act would
lend the additional assistance of Federal penalties and enforcement.
The adoption of the 26th Amendment providing the right to vote
for persons 18 years of age or older has apparently given rise to fear
on the part of some persons that registration by mail might result
in a large volume of registrations by college students desiring to vote in
their college towns. In this respect, however, S. 352, the proposed
Voter Registration Act, does not change existing law. Insofar as the
qualification of college students to vote in the communities where they
go to collegerather than at home is concerned, this depends on State
law and S. 352 would not change such laws. The 1972 election, when
students for the first time had the benefit of the 18-year-old vote re-
sulted in no extraordinary numbers of registrants among college
students despite the fact that vigorous attempts were made by several
groups representing both political parties, and other organizations to
obtain large numbers of registrations by college students.
As a matter of fact, postcard registration should make it easier for
college students to register and vote hack home rather than where they
go to college. The inaccessibility of the county clerk's office which
inhibits registration by young people, as well as older people, will
be replaced by the nearby post box. This should encourage registra-
tion at home rather than in the college community.
Another area where voting restrictions should be scrutinized is that
of absentee registration and voting. LTncler the Voting Rights Act
PAGENO="0089"
83
of 1970, applications for absentee ballots in Presidential elections
must be accepted up to 7 days before the election, and ballots must be
accepted up to the time the poils clOse. In 1970 nine States had more
restrictive deadlines for absentee ballot requests, ranging from 8 to
30 days before the election. Eleven States provided that absentee
ballots must be received the day before the election. In this area, too,
some improvements have been made, but we still have the problem of
different standards applying in Federal elections, on the one hand,
and State and local elections on the other. We think uniform standards
are needed not only for registration practices and residency require-
ments, but also for absentee registration and voting.
We also feel there is a need to improve current administrative prac-
tices, particularly in recordkeeping and the printing of election data.
Cumbersome ledger books have been replaced by magnetic tapes in
many areas and States, allowing records to be kept current through
vital statistical data provided by various agencies. On the basis of
the data in the computer files, official lists of registered voters can
be made readily available to local election officials, and with less ex-
pense and a higher degree of accuracy.
Such standardized and centralized computer systems have facili-
tated the later closing dates for registration which, as we have urged
above, should be provided for and, we believe, have substantially
reduced the opportunities for illegal and fraudulent practices in reg-
istration and voting. Data processing can be the watchdog to prevent
the legally unqualified from voting.
Where laws encourage voter participation, make registration easy
and permit registration close to election day, registration and voter
participation can be increased substantially. Where laws inhibit voter
participation, make registration inconvenient, and shut off registra-
tion long before election day_as many do-registration and voter
participation tend to be low.
We believe it is essential for the Congress to initiate now a truly
serious national effort to establish standards that make registration
and voting easy in all elections. The AFL-CIO believes that in our
democracy all citizens should have the opportunity and should, in
fact, take part in selection of the public officials who make the decisions
that affect their lives. This process of selection is performed in the
voting booth. Citizens of every State should have equal and easy access
to the voting booth.
It is the right of vote that most distinguishes democracy from dic-
tatorship. Whatever limits it blurs this most important distinction.
Mr. MATHIS. Thank you for a very he]pful statement.
Are there any questions from the committee?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I notice you projected a figure here of 139,600,000
that were eligible for registration, but that 40 million did not register,
which would suggest that there were 99,600~000 registered.
What percentage of that 99,600,000 voted last year if you have these
additional figures?
Mr. BIEMILLER. Percentage of registered voters who voted.
197~, 87.5 percent of all registered voters.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do you mean 87.5 percent of those who were regis-
tered to vote did vote?
PAGENO="0090"
84
Mr. BIEMILLER. That is right.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is a startling and highly satisfactory voting
record.
Mr. BIE~rILL~n. In the previous election in 1968, 91.2 percent voted
of those registered.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I did not expect a figure like that at all.
Yesterday in some testimony which was presented here to us it was
indicated that in Texas we have the postcard, even coupon registra-
tion law, where anybody may send in a postcard and register, or even
clip a. coupon out of the newspapers and register. But also there were
only 44 percent of those who were registered who actually voted there.
Is that a correct figure?
Mr. BIEMILLER. I have those figures here somewhere also.
Texas. 45 percent.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Here is a State where you have the easiest and most
successful-that isn't quite true either because I understand North
Dakota has a law whereby you may go in and register at the very pre-
cise time that you are going to vote in North Dakota.
Mr. BIEMILr~ER. Mr. Mollohan, forgive me. I must correct that state-
ment. I gave you the figure of eligible voters who voted in Texas. That
is potentially eligible voters, the percentage of those over 18 who par-
ticipated. There is no figure in the column that I have available as to
the percentage of registered voters. There are about 12 States-
Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is all right. That is even a better figure for my
purpose. trying to get a more clear picture of this. What is the per-
centage of those who are eligible to vote but did not register or did
not vote nationally in the 1972 election?
Mr. BIEMILLER. 55 percent of those eligible to vote or register.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. That would tend to suggest that you have a better
voting percentage of those who are eligible to register and to vote
where you then have the customary and varied, but firmly established
in our local communities and States, registration process rather than
this somewhat new-
Mr. BlE~n1LER. While Texas, in our opinion, has liberalized its reg-
istration laws considerably, particularly by allowing post card regis-
tration, they still have one very bad restriction: You cannot register
after January 31 in a Presidential year.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is within about 90 days of their primary
though.
ML BIEMILLER. Yes, but they don't open it up again.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. This would tend to suggest to me that the nonpost
card/noncoupon process are actually more productive of the percent-
ages at the voting place than that where it is very simple and easy to
register and become eligible to vote.
Mr. BIEMILLER. These States vary considerably. For example, one
of the highest registrations consistently over the years is in the State of
Idaho where you can register up until the Saturday night before elec-
tion and where furthermore deputized registrars can go house to
house and register people.
Now. in the last election Idaho had about 65 percent registered,
which is 10 above the national average. Furthermore, the turnout in
PAGENO="0091"
85
Idaho has always also been very Eigh of those who were eligible to
vote-that is, who were registered; ~8 percent.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Now yesterday also, in our testimony which was
presented to the committee-and the reason I am repeating this, I
look upon you as a very fine source of information on this. I know
that you and those who are associated with you have done a very
exhaustive and extensive study of this question so I am really asking
for your reaction to testimony which we have had previously.
I don't think any of us would expect two States to be any more simi-
lar than North and South Dakota. Now, North Dakota has a very easy
process of becoming eligible to vote.
Mr. BIEMILI~R. They have no registration.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. They do have registration, but it is a sort of regis-
ter-and-vote situation.
Mr. BIEMILLER. You just walk in.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. On election day you go in and if you are not regis-
tered, you present justification for being eligible. If you are not regis-
tered you can become registered and can move on 10 seconds later and
automatically vote.
That is North Dakota. In South Dakota they have the old tradi-
tional processes of prior registration. As I understand it, as it was sug-
gested to us yesterday, the voting percentages are almost identical. I
think possibly one point variation.
Mr. BIEMILLER. South Dakota is just about one point ahead of
North Dakota.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. South Dakota has the old traditional process of
registration.
All of this suggests that the post card process is not going to be of
any assistance whatsoever. I say "suggest" it. I am just wondering if
you can't make things too easy. I know in 1968 in my campaign I felt
it was necessary for me to have some awareness of where the voting
patterns were.
What percentage and what age groups that were eligible to vote
really voted and I found in the 21 to 25 range there was a very, very
low percentage of those who actually voted. You had to get up to the
35- or 40-year range. These things are very interesting but I wonder
if we are not sometimes trying to take on the burden ourselves of
something initially citizens ought to take upon themselves. They don't
want somebody to do these things for them.
We have talked about Texas in relation to nationwide, and the
North Dakota and South Dakota processes. These suggest that the
post card and the ease of registration is not the answer.
Mr. BIEMILLER. I repeat, in North Dakota they have no registration
except, as you say, you automatically register by saying "I am coming
to vote." That is all you have to do. That is true, by the way, in some
rural areas of Wisconsin. also: there is no registration. You just go in
and vote. That is all that happens.~
North Dakota. until 1951. did have a system of registration roughly
comparable to other States. When they dropped it, their percentage of
voters went up considerably since that time.
Mr. MOLLOT-TAN. The geography and the distribution of nopulation
in South Dakota and North Dakota. isn't this-I ask von this question
from a lack of information-isn't this pretty much identical ~
PAGENO="0092"
86
Mr. BIEMILu~R. Fairly comparable. There is a heavier Germanic ele-
ment in North Dakota than in South Dakota. Both have large Scandi-
navian groups and so on.
Mr. MoI4I4o~AN. I have the concern that you are expressing here
today and that is, trying to encourage a greater percentage of our peo-
ple to exercise the right of franchise and vote at the poiis. We are
trying to make it easy for them and encourage them in every way.
But it seems to me the easiest way in the world for a person to become
eligible to vote who really wanted to vote, regardless of whether he was
there 30 or 60 days, the criteria of eligibility is something to be deter-
mined later down the road somewhere, but it seems the easiest way for
a person who is really eligible to vote but had not registered-that is,
he had all the requirements-the easiest way would be for him to go
m on election day and present himself, identify himself, register and
move on to voting immediately. This would be even easier than the
prior use of the post card, or any other process.
If we were to look toward that which would satisfy our purpose and
our desires, would you look upon the North Dakota process as being
more desirable than the post card, or would you look upon the post
card as being more desirable and why would you choose one over the
other ~
Mr. BIE~iILLER. I think in populous areas-
Mr. MOLLOHAN. You can't make that distinction. We are talking
about a national registration program here. We can't make that
distinction.
Mr. BIEMILLER. I want to make a point there where you would run
into opposition to the North Dakota system. In populous areas people
believe they want the registration rolls available and available for
checking.
Let me talk about the city I obviously know best, Milwaukee. There
the polling lists are put in several places in every precinct. The precinct
list is put on a telephone pole so that anyone may go and check that
list. Furthermore, that list has been previously checked by the police
force, going house to house and finding out whether the people still
live there.
In addition to this situation, Milwuakee has a partial kind of post
card registration. If you have moved from the last location in which
you voted, all you have to do is send a post card to the election commis-
sion and say, "I moved from Brown Street to Black Street." That is all
you have to do, put the address on it and your signature.
The first time I ran for the legislature I had a tough fight and won
it, but we produced over 3,500 such cards out of a total electorate of
about 17,000. That is electorate that voted. I don't say all of those 3,500
voted, but we did produce that much. The population of the district
then was about 48,000. There were 3,500 people we picked up on this
postcard registration system.
I am willing to admit I think you can make a strong case for the
North Dakota system, but. I have a feeling that in some areas the Re-
publicans would object to it on the grounds they think there is a better
Democratic machine than there is a Republican machine. In some areas
I think the Democrats would object to it because they are fearful. I
don't share the fear, I hasten to add.
PAGENO="0093"
87
Mr. MOLLOHAN. This is a' valid point and I think what we are all
looking for is o~ood and wholesome across-the-board cooperation and
acceptance on t~ie part of everyone at all levels, State, county, and local,
as well as Federal, but what we are talking about primarily in this leg-
islation is the Federal election process, the Congress and the Presi-
dential race.
It wouldn't make any difference as far as our legislative process is
concerned here, whether this which we are developing and talking
about today was acceptable to them or not. What we are doing is es-
tablishing a process for Federal registration and it need not' apply-
although we are building in some incentives, some encouragements
here, to cause local authorities to accept it, but still this isn't mandatory
It is mandatory that this registration method be accepted for the pur-
poses of voting in Federal elections, so I don't think that this point that
you have made has validity. It is interesting and I think it is im-
portant, but in the making of the,: final decision as to which course we
will pursue and which way we will go in establishing a registration
process for Federal elections, this is a point of no moment.
Mr. Chairman, that is all.
Thank you very much.
Mr. MATHIS. Mr. Harvey?
Mr. HARVEY. Mr. Biemiller, yesterday a representative of Puerto
:Rico was in here asking that that,' country be excused from the act and
stating the fact that they have had accomplished tremendous results
in getting people registered and to the polls, so much so that in the last
election they had 95 and some tenths percent of all their population
vote and they did so not by postcards, but by making election day a na-
tional holiday. A very festive occasion, when everybody felt they had
the duty to vote.
My question to you is, would you favor this?
Mr. BIEMILLER. This reference, of course, was to the last election,
where they had one of the most,' spirited fights for Governor and for
the legislature that ever took place in that State.
I can see a good reason why Puerto Rico would like to be exempted.
They don't vote for President. They have exactly one elective office
in the entire island who would `be affected. That is not the situation
in most States where you have a number of Congressmen and a Sena-
tor as well as a presidential vote. I think you must recognize Puerto
Rico has this peculiar problem.' You certainly don't have it in Michi-
gan. You have 19 Congressmen. You are covering a great many people
who are affected by this situation in that many districts, as well as
electing a Senator.
Mr. HARVEY. I still did not get the answer to the question. Would
you favor making election day a, national holiday?
Mr. BIEMILLER. We are very skeptical. Unless you change the elec-
tion day to a Monday. We have a feeling that in many States if you
had a Tuesday election holiday-and, remember, in many States this
comes in the hunting season, when it is just opening. You might find
a tremendous amount of people who would take the weekend, Monday
and Tuesday, to go hunting and would not vote. We are skeptical on
this.
PAGENO="0094"
88
The Senate yesterday voted to make election day a holiday. They
put a rider on a bill that was dealing with some other aspects of the
election machinery.
Mr. HARVEY. Was this in committee?
Mr. BIEMILLER. No, on the floor; 67 to 29 is my recollection. Don't
hold me to those figures, but I think that is what it was.
Mr. HAnv~. The mail that I am getting from my county clerks,
city clerks, village clerks, and the people charged with the duty of
registering people and to whom I sent a copy of S. 352, together with
a report of the Senate, and so forth, is thus far overwhelmingly op-
posed to it and most of them fear the dual registration that is likely to
come out of it.
Do you see any way to overcome this dual registration?
Mr. BIEMILLER. I would assume that what would happen, if the
Federal registration system was put into effect, that the States would
conform their registration system because I agree that the appearance
of dual registration lists could be a very awkward situation and I
think you will find in most States they would accept the Federal regis-
tration as a registration for State and local officers as well. That is, the
Federal form.
Now, remember that Federal form is handled by the clerk, as you
say. That is what worries them at the moment. You would have both a
list under State law and under Federal. But it goes to him and doesn't
come back here to Washington.
Mr. HARVEY. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MATHIS. Mr. Ware?
Mr. WARE. I think we should note there are factors which make
some of our percentages of registration of voters inaccurate and that
is to the degree that you have certain religious groups who oppose
voting; you have other religious groups where the females do not
vote and then, of course, we have restrictions with regard to mental
capacity, et cetera.
Mr. BIEMILLER. I agree, of course. Everyone knows we have that.
But this thing is checked constantly against the records that are there
and this is what we would expect to be continued. I don't see where
your point is taken.
For example, you talk about people who don't want to vote because
of religious holidays. I remember vividly one time when I was in the
Wisconsin Legislature I suddenly woke up to the fact that our spring
election, which covers a lot of local offices, was falling on a Jewish
holiday and, believe it or not, in 24 hours I got a bill passed making
that a new proviso for obtaining an absentee ballot so they could vote
in advance. There are ways this can be handled.
Mr. WAm~. I am speaking about religious groups who, because of a
matter of religion, do not vote and do not register. It does not have to
be a religious holiday.
Mr. BIEMILLER. That isn't a very large number.
Mr. WARE. No; but I am suggesting there are factors which make
these figures inaccurate and our objective-
Mr. BIEMu~LER. A very small margin of that. A handful of Amish
here and there, and so on.
PAGENO="0095"
89
Mr. WAiu~. In the Pennsylvania 16th District that is a substantial
factor.
Mr. BIERMILLER. I agree, whether you have national registration,
local registration, or any other thing, those folks aren't going to vote.
You may be right; there is a district here and there, but I am talk-
ing about nationally it is not a great problem.
As far as women are concerned, that is just their own feeling.
Actually, the worst turnout among older people is women over 75.
There you get a very poor turnout, relatively speaking. If my memory
serves me right, in almost every age category when these things are
broken down there is a larger percentage of eligible men voting than
there is women. Sometimes it gets awfully close; it will be an in-
finitesimal variation.
Mr. WARE. I didn't intend to prolong this. I was merely pointing
out you cannot take a percentage of a population of certain age groups
and say we ought to get 100 percent of that, as much as we would
like to.
I notice your comment with regard to the vote in Puerto Rico and
the fact that they are really oniy ~oting for one candidate.
Mr. BIEMILLER. National.
Mr. WARE. The same thing is true in six of our States on those elec-
tion years when only a Federal election is being held for the U.S.
House of Representatives, since six States-
Mr. BIEMILLER. And if there is no Senator up in that given election.
Mr. WARE. That is correct.
In those cases the turnout is far below that of Puerto Rico. So there
apparently is another factor involved in Puerto Rico.
I assumed yesterday that a national holiday had some bearing on it.
I don't know whether that is true or not.
Mr. BIEMILLER. There are other~ folks you know who-along that
line, the national holiday line-are arguing that we ought to put the
elections on Sunday because this is how the Europeans get their big
turnout. They vote on Sundays in Europe. Not everywhere in Europe,
but in many parts of Europe they vote on Sunday. France votes on
Sunday, for example. Again I am not sure you could sell that idea.
Mr. WARE. It would probably be simpler to sell a holiday on a differ-
ent date other than Sunday or even Saturday.
That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MATHIS. Mr. Frenzel?
Mr. FRENZEL. In your testimony you indicated that in 1972, 40 mil-
lion eligible individuals were not registered. Do you get that data
from the Department of Commerce?
Mr. BIEMILLER. The Census Bureau in the Department of Com-
merce.
Mr. FRENZEL. In the next paragraph, you say 20 million persons,
and in 1972 the number was even higher; 22 million would have reg-
istered but were prevented by arbitrary and restrictive residency
requirements.
Can you tell me where that figure comes from?
Mr. MEIKLLTOHN. That comes from the same source, Mr. Congress-
man.
PAGENO="0096"
90
Mr. ERENZEL. Do you have a particular publication or sheet of paper
to which you can refer? The reason I was asking is, I have a 1968
statement from the Department of Commerce and I can see where the
27 million fi~ure comes from, 26,942,000, but when I look at their quiz
which says, `Why didn't you register?" I find those who said they
were unable to register, at 13.4 percent, which seems to be closer to 5
million the way I do mathematics, which is crude, of course-slightly
over 5 million.
I am wondering where that 20 million and 22 million figure came
from.
Mr. MEIKLEJOHN. We will check that.
Mr. BIEMILLER. We will check our records and give you the actual
citation.
Mr. FRENZEL. I presume also the Department will have that survey
which they quadrennially produce after the election, which says how
many people thought they were unable to register and how many didn't
for other reasons.
I do note in 1968 that they indicated that those who weren't inter-
ested amounted to more than half of those who did not register. I pre-
sume there is no anticipation that post-card registration is going to
pick up any of them.
Mr. MEIKLE~rOHN. There are a lot of factors affecting the matter of
interest, and among those factors is the difficulty of registration. Vari-
ous impediments to it, the inaccessibility of registration places, time
of registration, and so on. These all have a great deal to do with the
matter of interest.
Mr. FRENZEL. Fine, but in the 1972 election, of course, the residence
shouldn't have been much of a qualification for Presidential election
registration, should it have been?
Mr. MEIKLEJOHN. Residence?
Mr. FRENZEL. Yes. Because we were on a national 30-day residence
rule. If you couldn't make that in the new jurisdiction, you had the
option of voting absentee in your old jurisdiction.
Mr. MEIKLEJOHN. I wasn't citing time as much as I was accessibility
of registration places, and so on. You still had to go down to the court-
house to register in most places. You didn't have the registrar going
out to the prospective voter and registering him as you do in some
places. Most of the time he had to go to the courthouse, and often he
had to go to the courthouse only during the time when he was at work.
Those people do not have the overwhelming interest that would make
them take time off to go down to register. That is how the factor of
interest gets involved in some of these other data.
Mr. FRENZEL. We were talking yesterday about the ways to excite
interest in registration, and some of them were these things you are
raising today. The face-to-face registration. In my State, we sent reg-
istrars into the high schools to pick up the newly enfranchised voters;
we have people moving through shopping centers; we have night
registration, and so on. In each case, of those suggestions, there is the
face-to-face confrontation, meeting the voter, acquainting him with his
duties of citizenship, and I was asking some of the witnesses yester-
day whether these. aren't better ways to insure an ultimately~ larger
voter participation than the post-card method. I didn't ask this idly.
PAGENO="0097"
91
Since we hav,e.a lot of criticism ~f the post-card system, and since
it overlays some State systems. and the criticism seems to come from
the States, municipalities, and counties that have to do it, are there
better ways to insure broad registration, and more importantly, are
there 1)etter ways which will ultimately assure better voter participa-
tion, particularly for a.given amount of money? You people are sup-
posed to be experts in registration techniques, so I would like to have
your opinion on this.
Mr. BIEMILLER. Our electoral people think that the most feasible
immediate improvement would come through the post-card registra-
tion system. There are other systems we would prefer, but I haven't yet
found anybody in the Congress interested.
For example, last fall I was visiting my son who is on the faculty of
the University of Toronto. They were about to have a municipal elec-
tion. As I am sitting in his home visiting with him, the registrar comes
to the home. The official registrar. Not a deputized person. They do
this for every election in Canada. They send their registrars around
for a Provincial election.
Mr. FRENZEL. . I understand they have 98 percent registration in
Canada. I further understand it costs-if we were to use the same
process at the same cost, and I don't know if we could-$100 million
in the United States to do that. We have had estimates .for post-card
registration that run up. to and even above $100 million.
Would we not be better advised to invest our registration money in
face-to-face registration?
Mr. BIEMILLER. Yes, but your problem is, in part, that you would
have to work through a State syste.m. You are thinking then in terms
of the subsidy type of thing we have in here being made greater for
that sort of thing. Actually, our estimate is about $40 million on the
p st-card registration, not $100 million. I am not at all sure you could
do the other one for $100 million. I don't know. We will be glad to
get our experts'..opinion on this and get it to you. Obviously, if we
could, get the Canadian system, we .would be. the happiest people in
the world. It solves everything. ~
As you say, for. all practical purposes, it is 100. percent. The 98 per-
cent means there's a few people. they never did find at home or who
had moved since they registered.
Mr. FRENZEL. They have their same problems in their figures we do.
Our figures contain aliens and non compos mentis types. There is no
100 percent. `I agree.with you, .1 like that particular system.
Mr. BIEMILLER. I may say. I was impressed when I saw this happen-
ing.~. My son tells me they. do it before every..election regardless of
what `the election, is; whether municipal, Provincial, or. Federal.
Mr. `MATins. `Thank you, Mr. Frenzel.
Mr. Biemiller, I have heard yesterday and today, this subcommittee
has heard from several different', witnesses and invajiably it seems we
have gotten different figures reported tons on what the total percent-
age of eligible voters actually was,in 1972. 1 wonder if you would share
`~ ith the committee again those figures that you--
Mr~ BIEMILLER.rI didn't get, the end of your statement.
Mr. MATHIS. Th& percentage Of actual votersirho ~were eligible who
participated in the Presidential election in 1972.
20-095-73-----7
PAGENO="0098"
92
Mr. BIEMILLER. The figure that we have from the Census-you are
talking about those who were eligible to vote regardless of registration?
Mr. M~rrns. Yes, the percentage of eligible voters who participated
in the election.
Mr. BIEMILLER. These are Bureau of the Census figures. There were
139,642,000 eligible to vote, and 77,684,000 voted-55.6 percent.
Mr. MATIIIS. What was the turnout of registered voters, percentage-
wise?
Mr. BIEMILLER. That I do have. The percentage of registered voters
that voted I gave earlier; 87.5 percent of all registered voters.
Mr. FRENZEL. We discussed that figure yesterday. Those are 1968
figures.
Mr. BIE~rILn~R. These are 1972 figures; 87.5 percent is what we have
from the Census Bureau.
Mr. FRENZEL. It is 73 percent. You can't add NA's in there where
you don't have registration.
Mr. BIEMILLER. There is one State that has no registration at all
and a few others that in the rural areas have no registration.
Before you came in we had a little colloquy on that.
Mr. FRENZEL. You have no registration and a lot of votes and you
pour that in and it raises the percentage of registered voters actually
voting, but it also occurred in a number of other States. So we are
actually figuring 73 percent and you are showing 87. It is a minor in-
accuracy, but it is an inaccuracy.
Mr. BIEMILLER. These are Census figures we are giving you.
Mr. FRENZEL. Not the 87 percent. You added that up.
Mr. BIEMILLER. As we said earlier, we. are very happy and will
produce in a statement to the committee our basis for our figures.
Mr. MATHIS. This is the point I was trying to make, that we have
received a number of figures being the actual percentage of registered
voters who participated in the 1972 election, but I would call to your
attention from the committee hearings in the Senate on page 29 of
that transcript they have a column listed as turnout of registered vot-
ers by percent in the 1972 Presidential election and the highest total
that we see on this chart is 88.5 percent, which was the State of Massa-
chusetts, and it goes down much beyond that, even to my State of
Georgia where the percentage was 48.8, and I think if we average out
those percentages, it is far less than the 87.5 percent figure that you
have used.
One other question that came to my mind, knowing of the total com-
mitment that you have, Mr. Biemiller, and that the Labor movement
has in this country to registration and full participation on behalf of
all our citizens, has a contract ever been negotiated by all the unions,
the jurisdiction of AFL-CIO, that would provide for a holiday for
workers to go and register and to vote?
Mr. BIEMU2LER. I am not aware of any such.
Mr. MATrn5. I wonder why that has not been done?
Mr. BIEMILLER. Because they generally want their own holidays off
and most of our contracts carry anywhere from 9 to IS holidays.
Mr. M~rms. One more for the purpose of participating in this
democratic process-
PAGENO="0099"
93~
Mr. BIEMILLER. You have got to get management to consent, don't
forget, on a thing like that. Just beëause we want it doesn't mean we
~re going to get it.
Mr. MATTIT5. You have been pretty successful in getting some other
things and something that I hope management would be interested in
too, would be this process of democracy and I think it is sornethmg that
might be considered by union leadership in the future.
Mr. HARVEY. Mr. Chairman, I have one other question.
Mr. Biemiller, when Senator McGee was here yesterday, he stated
*to us that in his judgment the post-card registration system was satis-
factory for the urban areas of the :country, but it was unsatisfactory
for the rura.l areas of the country. I questioned this at the time because
it appeared to me that just the reverse was true; that in his State of
Wyoming, for example, where a rancher might have to drive 100 miles
to register, the post-card registration would be much better. Neverthe-
less, lie stood on his statement and said that he felt it was effective
in the urban areas but ineffective in the rural areas.
Having in mind that the Supreme Court recently ruled on the Hatch
Act and ruled it to be unconstitutional, as I was reading section 404
(b), it appears that there is considerable discretion vested in the Fed-
eral Government and in the employees of the Federal Government,.
where they shall render this aid tO State and local officials upon their
request.
~Iy question to you is, does it bother you that we are turning over
somewhat of a political decision to Department of the Census em-
ployees to determine what areas in the country shall receive this aid
and whether they be urban areas or rural areas? Would you care to
comment on that?
Mr. BIEMILLER. In the first place, I don't regard registration as polit-
ical in the sense that it is going to necessarily elect anybody. I mean
registration simply means you are eligible to vote. It doesn't say you
can go beyond that.
If you talk about these other areas, as I read that they can only do
it at the request of a State official. They are not going to superimpose
themselves on the State system.
Mr. HARVEY. Certainly you would agree if they decided to do it only
in the urban areas, in most of the cities of the United States, that would
be a political decision. The practical facts of life are the votes for one'
party come from the urban areas and the votes for the other party
come from out-State areas. In some areas of the country, at least. There
are patterns to all this is what I am trying to say so these become very
political decisions and my question to you is whether this bothered
youatall?
Mr. BIE1~rILLER. I don't see it as,~ a practical problem. I would assume
no State would come in with~a request for just part of the State. It is
on the request of the State official, not on the request of Cook County
or Wayne County, or any such thing as that.
Mr. HARVEY. Do you feel it ought to be administered in that fash-
ion, that it ought to be administered on the basis of either the entire
St'ite or no portion of that State ~
Mr. BIEMILLER. That is the way I read the law and I think that is the
~vay it should be.
PAGENO="0100"
94
I was a little taken aback, Congressman, by what you said Senator
McGee said here. I wasn't here so I don't know about the discussion,
but I would agree with you that I think the postcard registration is
valuable in many rural areas as well as in metropolitan areas.
Mr. HARVEY. He was quite firm yesterday on that point.
Mr. BIEMILLER. He has never raised that with me and I have had
many discussions with the Senator on this bill, both formal and
informal.
Mr. HARVEY. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MATHIS. Mr. Biemiller, thank yonvery much for a very fine and
helpful presentation to the committee. We appreciate very much your
coming. as well as the presence of Mr. Meiklejohn.
Mr. BIEMILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate being
here.
Mr. MATHIS. Our next witness this morning is our friend and col-
league from New York, -the Honorable Charles Rangel, who I believe
would be an advocate of the bill before us.
STATEMENT OP -HON. CHARLES- B. RANGEL,: A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS PROMI THE STATE OP NEW YQRK
- Mr. R.ANGEL. Thank you for this opportunity.
My office has prepared what they believe to be a scholarly presenta-
tion of the facts. I would ask permission at this time to have the entire
statement entered into-the record a-nd I would like to speak to my per-
sonal feelings about this- as it relates to my district and the city of
New York.
Mr. l\1ATHIS. Without objection, the statement will be made a. part
* -Of the record and we will be glad to hear from you.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL, - MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Elections
- of the Committee on House Administration, I am-pleased to be able to have the
opportunity to come before this Subcommittee to voice my enthusiastic support
for HR. 8053, a - bill that is of compelling importance to the American demo-
cratic and political -processes.
At this point-in time in the American experience, we enjoy the reputation of a
--people involved in-the process of a thriving participatory democracy. But the rate
- of -participation of the American electorate in recent elections shows that this
is merely an illusion.
Nationally in -1960, 64 percent of those eligible to vote in that exciting Presi-
- dential- election actually voted. In. 1968, another election that. was closely con-
:-tested, the figure dropped to 60.6 -percent. -In- last- November's Presidential elec-
tion, the figure plummeted to a dismal 55 percent.
Local elections across the country-are far worse. On June 4th,-three weeks ago,
- just 29 percent of-the eligible voters-went to- tha polls in my home city of New
York to-cast their vote for the Democratic Party's candidate for Mayor. Recently
9.1--percent of the eligible voters turned out for local elections in Dallas, Texas.
In Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, there was a 4.4 percent turnout. When we look
to our neighbors in Europe, the illusion becomes all the more clear. Countries such
-as Germany, Denmark and England consistently achieve 80 percent voter turn-
out and occasionally approach the 90th percentile.
It is quite evident from these depressing statistics that the great majority of
- - Americans -are not participating in our electoral process.- -The pivotal question
is why. The very obvious answer is voter registration.
PAGENO="0101"
The general but very steady decline in voter participation in the U.S. is paral-.
bled by the advent of a system to register voters.. In 1876, more than 8 out of
every 10 eligible Americans voted. It was at this point that the states began
adopting complex registration systems. The fear of corruption and the mass
imniigrations to the country were the primary stimulants for the enactment of
these laws designed solely to keep jeoplé out of the system and away from
participation in the democratic process.
In the major elections since 1876 and the arrival of voter registration, partici-
pation in Federal elections has dropped over 30 percent. Conversely, the state
of North Dakota has experienced a 14 percent rise in voter turnout ever since
they abolished registration in 1951.
A widely held but extremely shortsighted view is that most Americans do not
register and vote because they are disinterested and generally lazy. This is simply
not true.
In 1960, Stanley Kelley, Jr. and associates at Princeton University analyzed
the rates of registration in 104 of the nation's largest cities. The study concluded
that "registration requirements are a more effective deterrent to voting than
anything that normally operates to deter citizens from voting once they have
registered."
Idaho, which keeps its registration rolls open until the Saturday night before
the election, had approximately 90 percent of its eligible citizens registered to,
vote in the last election. This is extremely significant when we consider that 80
percent of persons who register-do vote.
On the other end of the scale is the state of Mississippi. In last November's
election, the registration rolls were closed shut by early July. Come election
day, barely half of the state's eligible citizens were registered.
Mr. Chairman, from my own experiences in New York City. and from what I
have heard. and read about in other parts of our country, individual states and
localities are simply not equipped or able to conduct voter registration in a fair,
open and progressive manner. Whether state election officers are underfinanced
or understaffed or are suffering from simple laziness, citizens all across the
country are being denied a fair opportunity to participate in the workings of
our democracy.
A 1972 study by the National League of Women Voters found that "Millions
of American citizens fail to vote not because they are disinterested but because
they are disenfranchised by the present election system." Three-quarters of our
election jurisdictions have no Saturday or evening registration in non-election
months. Nearly half have no additional registration hours during the pre-
election period. Many jurisdictions across the country have only one location
for registration.
Distinguished election officials such as David Dinkins of New York City
and H. A. Boucher in Alaska, academicians such as Penn Kimball of Columbia
University and various organizations such as the National Urban League, Front-
lash and the AFL-CIO all fully comprehend the depressing realization that our
system of voter registration is leading us, ultimately, into the mire that is
Watergate and an electorate that simply does not care.
President Kennedy's 1963 Commission on Registration and Voter Participa-
tion starkly concluded that "Restrictive legal and administrative procedures
for registration and voting are a major reason for low participation."
Mr. Chairman, I would not have painted this bleak picture if I did not believe
that there is an effective and reasonable tonic for the disease. For in HR. 8053
lies the medicine to cure the ailing patient. There is no doubt in my mind but
that this proposal to establish a system of postcard voter registration for Fed-.
eral &ections will bring non-voters into our participatory process. By offering
financial incentives to the States to adopt the postcard system for State and
local elections. I believe that there n-ill no longer be a 4 percent voter turnout
in Oklahoma City and a 29 percent turnout in New York. HR. 8053 will also
greatly strengthen efforts to prevent the occurrence of fraud and corruption.
IThon the nassa~e of I-JR. 8053, no longer will the farmer have to travel hun-
dreds of miles to the courthouse to register. No longer will an inner-city
resident need to board two buses or the subway for the tiring and expensive
trek downtow-n.
Long linOs and short hours at the courthouse will no longer stifle participation.
Imp~srng threatening and often discrim natin~ election officials w ill no longer
PAGENO="0102"
96
be able to step on the constitutional right of every American to register and vote.
Rather than citizens having to seek out the registrar, the postcard will allow
the registrar to seek out and find the citizen.
HR. 8053 represents the greatest ideals and goals that our nation was
founded upon-an equal and fair chance for every citizen to participate in the
making of our future.
Mr. Chairman, there are those who maintain that H.R. 8053 will not have a
significant effect on registration and voting. Soon after the enactment of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, the registration of Black Mississippians zoomed from
6.7 percent to 59.8 percent. The registration of Mississippi's eligible White popu-
lation jumped over 20 percent. Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and other States also
experienced similar increased registration and participation after Federal inter-
vention to liberalize the registration laws of these States.
It is my belief that the bill before us today can have just as great an effect
on voter participation nationwide, if only we in the House will enact it.
There is one important but usually overlooked reason why HR. 8053 should
be approved in Congress and signed by the President. The political parties, can-
didates and civic organizations that expend so much time, money, and effort
attempting to register individuals should be dedicating themselves to voter edu-
cation drives and raising the standard of political dialogue. By enacting these
vigorous new registration procedures, we can see to it that this will be possible.
It is essential that we, in this hearing room today, fully comprehend the reason
why a small minority of our colleagues in the Senate attempted to filibuster the
legislation before us into extermination. The primary reason was not that they
felt that the program would induce voter fraud and corruption or cost an exces-
sive amount of money. The opposition to 5. 352 and H.R. 8053 is essentially
motivated by fear-a fear of change in the status-quo or possibly a change in the
result of the next election campaign if every citizen is afforded a fair oppor-
tunity to register and vote.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that Congress learned its lesson well during the Viet-
nam years. We cannot afford to act or fail to act out of fear. We must always
proceed with caution, but also with decisiveness. We must act carefully hut with
courage.
During the great civil rights effOrts down South in the 1960's, thousands upon
thousands of young Americans worked and struggled and put their lives on the
line in the cause of freedom and a better democracy. Many of these Americans
worked in voter registration drives. In a letter home, one young civil rights
worker wrote. "The voter registration progam, despite its shortcomings, is a
beautiful thing to watch. . . . The voter registration classes are slightly tense,
but what is more present is hope, positiveness."
By passing H.R. 8053, we, in the 03rd Congress, can restore hope and positive-
ness to the American spirit. We can move towards our 200th anniversary know-
ing full well that we have the opportunity of putting real meaning into the
words, "We, the people."
Mr. RANGEL. I suppose this subcommittee has received enough sta-
tistical data to show there is a very close relationship between the
method in which people are registered and their turnout and par-
ticipation in primary and general elections.
I represent what had been a very poor district before reapportion-
ment and now a middle-income area has been attached to this district.
It is almost tragic that I can determine voter turnout, not by totally
ethnic lines, but by the degrees of poverty that exist in my district.
What relationship does this have to registration? It is a close re-
lationship between poverty and lack of educational opportunities.
We have a system in the city of New York where we send out so-
called employees of the board of elections once a month to go into the
various communities in order to register. Year round, however, one
could go to the central board of elections in order to register. I can't
tell von where that board of elections is actually located in the city
of New York because it is so difficult to get there that one might sus-
PAGENO="0103"
pect it was placed in this location to cause people to be diverted from
getting to where it is located. It is right off of the Hudson River. You
have to take two or three subways to get to it. It is almost an impossible
task for a New Yorker even to find it.
Now, when we get to our so-called decentralized registration, what
do we have?
Part-time employees of the board of elections who are hired for the
specific purpose who, generally speaking, are unemployable because
the salaries are so low-the top salary for this type of thing on an an-
nual basis would come to $6,000, but they are only working on a
seasonal basis-that is, for the .2 or 3 weeks that we have an open
registration.
We have tried to bring the registrations outside of just the school
system, placed in the firehouses and yet the people who came to at-
tempt to register are faced with this person who has no political
knowledge asking all of these personal questions, many times having
to stand in this line 3, 4 and 5 hours merely to register and participate.
The result has been on the very local level it has become possible
for the district leaders to actually personally identify that very small
number of registered voters that can make or break any election and
the majority .of the people not participating in that election because
of the effort it takes in order to register people. That is, to wait until
the board comes to your community, to try to get time off from your
job in order to register there, or to try to find this God-forsaken place
for the centralized registration.
I have had long and serious discussions with the commissioner of
registration, the commissioner of the board of elections in the city of
New York, David Dinkins. He has testified before Senator McGee's
committee. I do hope he has the.~ opportunity to testify before your
committee. Basically in the city of New York we recognize we have
reached the point where a handful of politicians should not be able to
control the outcome of any given local election merely because they
can identify that very small number of people who are not only regis-
tered, but the people who turn out 80 percent of the time to participate
in each and every election.
We have rules in our State books which say if you don't vote within
a 2-year period you are dropped. Many people are not even notified
they are dropped from the voter: registration lists.
It seems to me that the legislation this committee is studying is some-
thing that is absolutely necessary in our urban communities. I have no
personal experience to the problems that some people may face in the
rural areas, but it certainly makes it easier for someone to participate.
I can't think of any issue that is more important to me than to get the
maximum number of people to be able to participate in our political
process. I think that this allows one the opportunity to give vent to his
feelings, to show how he is concerned about local issues. I think if we
looked at our statistical data we would be able to find "Show me the
community that relaxes registration and I show you a community that
has started to participate in not only primary elections but general
elections."
It seems even as we start baking at Presidential elections we see
now a steady decrease in the percentage of people who are eligible to
PAGENO="0104"
98
vote but a~é not participating because they have not climbed that first
hurdle, whichis registration.
I think the postcard registration is an ideal method. I have intro-
duced legislation that would complement this, but I am ready to
accept any relaxation or any entry by the Federal Government to make
the job easier for the citizen to participate in the election. It just seems
to me there should not be a Federal building located in any community
in these United States where one could not come forward and register.
When one goes to the Veterans' Administration, it seems to me that
registration should be made available. The social security office. So
that there would be a general feeling that this country wants people
to participate rather than provide the hurdle for them to have to jump
over in order to decide whether or not they can participate.
I will be pleased to attempt to answer any question, but I speak not
only for my own office and my own constituents, but as the result of
hearings that I have held myself in the city of New York. Most all
of the elected officials think the time has come, especially in the city of
New York, that if the Federal Government doesn't give assistance we
are going to have to change our ways to get maximum participation in
the electoral process.
Mr. MAThS. Congressman, thank you for a very eloquent and very
articulate statement relating to the problems that you have in New
~i'ork City.
I wonder if von have available the percentage of eligible voters
who voted and did not vote in the last election in New York City?
Are. those figures available?
Mr. RAXGEL. We have it broken down. Only this morning I met.
with a gentleman who represents a computer firm, and they go to the
ho~ird Of elections and get the names of registered people. which makes
it easy for me as a Congressman to relate to those people that politi-
cally can get me back into office.
I was really disappointed to find out tha.t only 30 percent of those
people who are eligible. to vote within my congressional district are
actively participating. This is my overall congressional district.
You move over to the more sophisticated part of my district and
you will find 80 percent of the eligible voters registered and over 80
percent of that number actually participating in every election.
In other words, we are now, in the city of Ne~v York, able to dis-
cover on a computer who is participating and who is not, and we have
h~ad local elections where only 9 perceimt of the eligible voters have
participated and made the difference as to who will be sent to the State
legislature and who will not be sent to the State legislature.
We find a. very close relationship between poverty-not being regis-
tered, and not participating in any local or national elections. Yet.
we have found with every effort we have made to bring that registra-
tion system closer to the voter, we find in that given community a
higher partlcipation in general elections and certainly in the primary
election.
We have tried mobile registration. That is, just to have vehicles on
the street, stopping people in the street,. asking them to take time to
fill out the fo mu We had hoped rn other legislation that is b~f ore oui
New York Legislature, that we can take the bd~ird Of elections per-
PAGENO="0105"
99
sonnel out of one Qffice a~rc1 have them knocking on doors, and ihstead
of just getting paid for sitting in an empty schoolroom, perli'tps tlie~
could get paid on the b~sis of the numbci of people they ha~ e i egis
tered, similar to the census.
Of course, we had a bad count there, but here you would have some-
body eligible to vote, is able to particp~te, and is able to feel the are
part of tile ~yst~m.
Mr. HARVEY. I am not sure that 1 understood you. l~id you say you
did use mobile officcs or you w anted to ~
Mr. RANGEL. We cUd use it. W~ ~vere able to get special permission
to send vehicks into the sti eet using cii d t'rbles
Mr H ~iu L~ Did th'rt not mci ease 1 egisti ~ttion?
Mr. RANGEL. There is no question.
~ Point is in e'~ ei~ cfioit w e h'ui e m'rde in the city of New York
we have been able not only to see the increase in registration, but the
increase, which is more important, in particip~tion.
I `im 1 ist s'rying it r drop in the bucket for me to st'rnd on the
sti cet-and this is w ncr e w e h~i e to rise our politiciai s-bec tuse our
iob is not just m~hing the mrchineiy `t~ aihble but getting thu pO1T
~icians out to educ'Lte the ~ oters ts to the import'ince of being
registered.
Yes, Congressman Harvey, when we were able to not only use the
school but to use the firehouses, with the volunteer firemen off duty who
c uric to `issist us, we saw an increase in registi `ition When w e wcre
able to hi mg the mobile units out, we saw `in mci ease in registr ation,
md in cm I t i ~gist~ `ition effort, w e w crc `ible to h'r~ e card tables out
with an official from the bo~rrd of elections monitoring the registration.
Mr. HARVEY. Of course, none of our districts ~tre the same. I think
no district is similar to New YoEk, but we use those methods in my
area, in Michigan. We use the fire stations; we use mobile offices; we
keep `ill oi our offices onen `ii'teihours in the ci ening The~ `ire open on
`t S'tturd'iy befor e the election, they are open during hour s w hen
people can get out and register, and we have none of the long hnes
where people `ne waiting, or delayed in registering
It is made very simple for them.
Mr. RANGEL. That is not simple, Congressman, for someone to have
to m'tke `my effort to p'rrtrcipate
It just seems to inc if a person is over 18, it should be presumptive
th it he is `ible to particip'tte in this Goi ernment We should not h'u e
to ask people to wait in line.
The privilege should be given to them; there shouldn't be oppor-
tunity for them just to fill out the `tpphcation Ceitainly w lien someone
w `ints to participate to defend this Government ag'unst our enemies
it is made very easy for them. The President sends them the greetings,
`mci they knon they `ire eligible for the dr'mft
It seems to nrc if we can identify those to participate in a war, we
should be able to identify those oi~er 18 to participate in a peace.
~[ know that various communities make it easier than others. I am
s'm~ ing it should not inst be `i privilege, it should be `tright and if we
can just say, when you are over:18, you should be eligible-unless the
U.S. Government can find reasons why this person should not
partiipate.
PAGENO="0106"
100
So that, yes, we have done a lot of exciting things in the city of
New York to increase the registration. We haven't made a dent in the
eligible voters in the poor communities. Not a dent. There are many
people in the city of New York who don't want us to make a dent be-
cause they ca.n control what they know and the majority of the people
that are eligible are not participating.
Mr. MATHIS., Are you suggesting the political machine is in control
in the city of New York now that controls the election process-
Mr. RANGEL. No, if that was so, I would not be here today. The
machine has broken down in the city of New York. But there are
people at the local level that because there are merely a handful of
people that participate in one given election district, that they don't
even have to deal with the rest of the people in that given community,
so we still have pockets of almost controlled voters because that is the
known as opposed to what we would like to see, and that is the un-
known, the people who haven't their names on the books.
I think in communities where the machine is still in existence-and
I am not against machines, I think that machines are good if they
function properly, for the benefit of all the people, but we should have
at least that machine servicing all of the people rather than the hand-
ful they can identify because of the difficulty there is in getting people.
to register.
Mr. MA~rms. What you are saying is, you don't have a citywide prob-
lem in New York; you have problems in pockets in New York.
Mr. RANGEL. The pockets that I was talking about is where certain
local politicians are able to identify the known registered voters. so
that in campaigns it is only an appeal to him rather than an appeal to
the general community.
The problem we have in New York generally is that we have a very,
very low registration compared to the eligible voters.
You will be able to see clearly and distinctly where you have the
affluent, where many of them pa'rticipa.te merely by absentee ballot,
and they participate because it is not embarrassing for them to fill out
the papers and to have the interview and to take the test or whatever
is necessary to vote.
I am saying as we find more and more people, poor people, coming
to the city of New York, many of them just don't want to be em-
barrassed by a lot of questions; they work hard, they are tired; they
don't want to stand in line. If they are going shopping, they don't want
to be stopped by a politician asking them to fill out papers. They have
problems with creditors and they just can't tell one guy from the next
and people just don't like to sign lots of papers and go through the
hassle which we find government requiring people to do.
These people understand the issues and would participate if we
could just make it easier for them to join the system.
Mr. HARVEY. I have no further questions.
Mr. M~rnis. Mr. Ware?
Mr. WA1u~. I have no questions. We appreciate your being here, Mr.
Rangel.
Mr. M~i'rns. Mr. Frenzel?
Mr. FRENZEL. Congressman, thank you for your testimony.
First, I ought to make a shore editorial where I would say when I
heard this committee was going to take up this bill, had I been obliged
PAGENO="0107"
101
to write a' statement, I would have written exactly, the one you have
written, or something very close to it. However, having: been exposed
to some of these numbers, I have great question on what we thought
was conventional wisdom in the area of voter registration and actual
vote and voter registration potential. .
You indicated there was a great correlation between voter turno~t
and registration barriers and indeed, I. think there has been and sti~i
is, but in light of the figures we have' seen, it doesn't seem to `be any-
where near the most significant factor.
You have indicated there is a correlation between. income and regis-
tration in voting and I would agree that there is, but it seems to be
becoming less and less significant. You indicated North Dakota has
experienced a 14 percent rise in voter turnout since they abolished
voter registration and you will be jnterested to know we have beaten'
North Dakota to death here over the last couple of days, analyzed it.
up and down and sideways and one of the things that came to our at-
tention is, since 1960 their voter, turnout in percent of eligible voters
has declined every election since 1960.
Mr. R~ NGEL. Normally when the quality of candidates declines, the
participation of the electorate declines as well.
We have had that in local and sometimes in statewide elections. You
have to. give the voter something to come out for.
Mr. FRENZEL. I am not going to agree that the quality of our candi-
dates has beeii declining since 1960. I think we have had some good
ones. I guess I would agree that people have been less interested .in
some of our candidates each year, but I think that is probably the point
I am trying to make, that where registration barriers have fallen, pri-
marily in the South, we have seen modest increases in registration and
voting.
At the same time, we have seen,' according to the Washington Post,
national decline by 9 percentage points since 1960 a.nd the decline
has been in the large Northern States where fewer barriers occur. So I
guess we are chasing here I think `a bigger animal than we started out
to pursue. ,, `
Mr. RANGEL. I would like to say.'this~ in trying to see `how an increase
in' registration really increases participation; we have seen in the
loca.l elections that when we have the national election that the local
figure that is running, we can use him to gage as to how many more
people. We have a steady increase in people participating where we
have had voter registration drives. This is unusual, because normally
it is the top of the ticket, just because of the location on our ballot
which is on a machine, it is the top of the t.icket that gets the attention
and, as the voter goes down the machine, he starts losing interest.
We have found the reverse to," be true. So therefore, in compiling
our statistics, we would have to show what happened with all of the
candidates. We have' found locai candidates running for party ot~ce,
which is nonvalid. just a district~ leader within the Democratic Party,
running ahead of the person that is running for President of the
TTnited States within the Democratic primary. So that' our statistical
data is sometimes'misleading because there are other facton; that cause
a decline in participation in a national election, but that factor was
not indicated as relates to local elections.
PAGENO="0108"
102
The tragic thing is when you can find just a handful of people de-
termining who is going to sit on your city council or in your State
legislative bodies, it means that government has not provided a way
for these people to participate. We are trying in the city of New York,
but this legislation would enable us to do a much better job and I just
hope that other communities could benefit from it so that they can get
behind this bill and support it so that becomes law.
Mr. FRENZEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairmafi.
Thank you, Charlie.
Mr~ MATHTS. Thank you.
One final question: Has an effort been made in the New York Legis-
lature to change the registration process in New York City?
Mr. RANGEL. No. The answer to that question is "No." This has not
been because New York City has not been a prime mover in each and
every legislative session with a package to bring about, first, drastic
reform, and then in many cases just minor reform. It is tragic and un-
fortunate that historically our legislative bodies have been controlled
by the noncity interests. These communities can more readily identify
their voters.
This was the factor that I was relating to earlier, they know what
they got, they do not want to change the status quo. WTe have never
been able to influence our State legislature to make the changes that
we need in the city of New York. even though we received support
from the other five major cities. WTe have just never been able to get
the votes.
Mr. MATT{IS. Election officials in New York City you think want to
maintain the status quo?
Mr. RANGEL. No, sir.
You see, we have a State legislature that controls what we are able
to do in the city of New York. We have to get special permission from
the State legislature in order to change our electoral process. The city
of New York does not want to maintain the status quo. They have
been the advocate of legislative registration reform. They have not
been successful because our State legislative bodies are controlled p0-
liticafly and historically by the noncity representatives. So we have
never been successful, even when I was a member of that august body,
in bringing about the changes that the cities have been begging for.
Mr. MATHIS. How would the prospect of a national holiday for elec-
tions affect the voter turnout, do you think, in your district?
Mr RANGEL. For the election as opposed to the registration-
Mr. MAThS. Let's take them both; how would a holiday for regis-
tration affect it?
Mr. RANGEL. I just do not know. I think if someone finds they have
a holiday, there may be a tendency to take off and enjoy it, rather
than to stand in line and to vote.
I do believe that compensatory time or anvthing that we can do
to make certain that the people do not lose money as a result of voting,
but New York being what it is, I do not know whether you need a
full clay to get your vote in.
Mr. ~L~TTiIs. From what your mayor had said, I thought every day
was a holiday in New York City anyway.
Mr. RANGEL. It is when you are away from it.
PAGENO="0109"
103
Mr. MATHIS. Thank you very much for a very fine statement. If
there are no further questions, we do appreciate your coming,
Congressman.
Mr. RANGEL. Thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. MATHIS. Our next witness is Mr. Paul R. Squires,the Associate
Director of Data Processing and Coflection.
Mr. Squires, the committee would be delighted to heai' from you
at this time, sir.
STATEMENT OF PAUL SQUIRES, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF DATA
PROCESSING AND COLLECTION, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, ACCO3~I-
PANIED BY DANIEL B. LEVINE, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR DEM-
OGRAPHIC FIELDS, BUREAU OP THE CENSUS
Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, I li~tve with me, Mr~ Daniel B. Levine,
Associate Director for Demographic Fields.
Mr. MATIIIS. We welcome you, top, Mr. Levine, before the committee.
Mr. SQUIRES. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to ap-
pear before this committee to speak on the pending legislation~ 5. 352,
which would establish a Voter Registrati on Administration within
the Bureau of the Census. I shall try to be brief and avoid repeating
at length the statements and discussions at the hearings before the
Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee. I will concentrate
on the bill's impact on the Census Bureau.
I wish to make clear that our objections to this bill are essentially
technical. We do not speak of the need for such action-we hold no
view nor are we influenced by any political judgment that this legis-
lation would benefit one party more than another. From what little
we have learned in our own surveys about where people live and
why people do not vote or register to vote, there is no clear evidence
that the location or characteristics of people weigh as heavily on the
reasons for nonregistration as other factors, including lack of interest.
It would seem that further research is necessary to determine the
causes for nonregistration. This would appear to be the kind of matter
which an independent bipartisan Federal elections commission, such
as I understand would be established under Senate Joint Resolution
110, could study and reporton.
We oppose enactment of S. 352. The bill would establish a function
we consider improper for the Census Bureau, it appears to provide no
policy authority for the Bureau over the activities of the new aclminis-
tration, it contains vague and impractical administrative provisions,
and it seems to conflict with other provisions of title 13.
The Bureau of the Census, as you know, is a general purpose statisti-
cal gathering agency, charged with collecting data on many diverse
subjects from many sources. It issues objective and unbiased reports
on the statistics it gathers. This role is expressed in title 13, United
States Code. Historically, we have performed only this role since our
establishment.
Our success is dependent on our reputation for confidentiality, ac-
curacy, and objectivity. We have the confidence of the public that our
activities are proper and our reports are unbiased. We extend every
necessary effort to maintain this confidence. Placing the Voter Regis-
tration Administration or any other administrative or regulatory
PAGENO="0110"
104
function within the Bureau of the Census, we believe, will impair and
compromise this record. Without the credibility we have worked so
hard to achieve, we cannot expect to obtain public cooperation and
publish accurate statistics.
In short, we endorse the view of Senator Fong, that this bill "would
politicize the Bureau of the Census, which up to now has been one of
the most respected statistical-gathering agencies in the world, free
from partisan politics" (Senate Report No. 93-91, part 2, March 29,
1973).
Section 402 of this bill, which establishes the Voter Registration
Administration, provides that the President shall appoint, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate, an administrator and two
associate administrators for terms of 4 years each, and that the
administrator shall be the chief executive officer of the administra-
tion (402.b). The bill nowhere provides that this officer will be re-
sponsible to the Director of the Bureau of the Census. who is also ap-
pointed by the President. The Census Bureau would have all the re-
sponsihilitv for the activities of this administration, and no clear pol-
icy authority whatever over it.
The administrator would be a Presidential appointee, with a fixed
term of office. We see no way the Census Director could exercise effec-
tive supervisory control. The administration would, in effect, be oper-
ating as an independent agency. If this is what is desired by the Con-
gress, it seems to us that the agency should be set up that way, rather
than have, the Bureau of the Census nominally involved.
The bill is vague and, in our view, imuractical. Section 403 provides
for "assistance to State officials concerning voter registration by mail
and election problems generally" (403.3). That covers the entire elec-
toral process, going well beyond the registration of voters. Section 404
provides that the administration may, upon the request of any State of-
ficiaL furnish such assistance as the administration and the State
official may agree upon to assist State officials in the registration of in-
dividuals applying to register in that State under the provisions of this
chapter (404.b). Essentially, we feel that guidelines are lacking as to
the intent of the Congress in establishing boundaries for the functions
of the proposed administration.
I might note one point that has not been mentioned before. A "State"
is defined by the legislation to include Puerto Rico and two of the U.S.
territories, Guam and the Virgin Islands. From our experience in con-
ducting censuses in these areas, we are very much aware of their sensi-
tivities with regard to the Federal role and.presence. We have no doubt
that the enactment of this legislation would raise legal and other issues,
just as it would with the States, with respect to local prerogatives. This
would be especially true in Puerto Rico, which has a unique and com-
plex legal relationship to the United States.
Under section 406~ forms would be provided in ample quantities for
delivery*.to all postal addresses, for public.,distribution at any post of-
fice, substation, contract station, or rural or star route, and to military
installations.. Just about anyone . could pick up this form and use it,
whether under age, not a citizen, or otherwise unqualified. We cannot
conceive of. a detection system which would discover all such impro-
prieties let ~ilone `i pattern of fr'~ud, in time to `iffect the outcome of a
close election. . . *.. . .. . . . . . . .. . . .
PAGENO="0111"
105
On the other side, of the ledger, people are going to receive or walk
into the post office and find, not a simple post card, but a rather formi-
dable form with much printed matter on it
In' order to carry out the purposes of S. 352, a very complicated sys-
tem would' be required. There is no way we can estimate the cost of
the bill as it now reads. Estimates of $50 million, $100 million, and $200
million are all within the realm of possibility, and there is little basis
foi deciding which is closer
Finally, we turn to title 13 itself, which this bill would amend by
inserting a new chapter 2 after chapter 1. Virtually all of the cen-
suses and surveys, and related activities performed by the Bureau of
the Census, are now conducted in accordance with stringent protec-
tions for individirtl privacy that are contained in title 13 The infor
mation provided by `individuals on the voter registration form would
not be subject to such confidential treatment. The completed forms
could be seen by any number of State officials-the bill defines "State
offici'ils" as including officials of lesser jurisdictions in the State-by
officials of the Voter Registration Administration, and by the Attor
ney General Indeed, the bill contains no limitations on who could see
the forms or how they might be used. `
The only s'ifeguard is in section 403, which provides that publica
tions based on completed forms shall not disclose any information
which permits the identification of individual voters. However, the
bill contemplates that a good deal of information will come and go
here and there and' be made available to all kinds of persons for pur-
poses other than statistical publications.
Some of this information is identical to information the Bureau
collects in the course of its regular work, but which is protected from
disclosure by the very law this bill would amend. Section 9 of title 13
is the general protection provision covering all other chapters. It pro-
vides that: " `
Neither the Secretary, nor any other officer or employee of the Department of
Commerce or bureau or agency thereof, may, except as provided in Section 8
of this title-
(1) use the information furnished,' under the provisions of this title for any
other purposes for which it is supplied; or
(2) make any publication whereby the data furnished by any particular
establishment or individual under this title can be identified; or
(3) permit any one other than sworn officers and employees of the Depart-
ment or bureau or agency thereof to `examine the individual reports. (Section 9,
Chapter 1, title 13). "
However, under this bill, we will receive information about individ-
uals from State or local officials who think fraud may have occurred.
We are supposed to use this infOrmation to prepare and issue reports
on findings of fraud, to ask the Attorney General to bring civil actions,
and to assist the States on election `problems generally.
* We can conceive of no quicker way to' destroy the credibility of the
Bureau of the Census and its statistics than for the, public to gain the
impression that information furnished to us under title 13 has been
used foi nonstatistical and reguhtory purposes It is in this area that
we fear the reputation of the Bureau of the Census for preserving
confidentiality can be endangered.
In short, title 13 now provides safeguards to protect the individual
privacy of persons about whom we possess information. This has been
PAGENO="0112"
106
the law for many years; indeed, ~hen a respondent keeps a copy of
his census return, even that copy is immune from legal process. Accord-
ingly~ the provisions of this bill do not, in our judgment, belong in title
13: they threaten the privacy of information ~e ~re sworn to uphold,
and the Bureau's credibility for gathering and protecting inforthation,
which is universally i~ecognized.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, this bill assiguis an irnprop~r mission
to the Bureau of the Census; it provides nO clear authority to the
Bureau to control the activities of the Voter Registration Adthinistra-
tion; it establishes investigativ~ and regulatory functions with which
we are unfamiliar and which are incompatible with respect to sthtisti-
cal work; it calls for procedures which we see a~ iinpr~ctical; it in-
v~olves large but unknown expenditures to obtain unfdreseeable resuits,
and it poses sharp potential conflicts with existing provisions of title
13 that protect individuals from the disclosure of information they
provide tous in confidence.
Mr, Levin~ and I will be happy to attempt to respond to any ques-
tions the committee may have.
Mr. MATm5. Thank you for a very informative statethent.
Mr. Ware, you have qu~stions?
Mr. WTARE. I would only thank Mr. Squires and his colleagues for
being here this morning and tohighlight, what seems to me, is a very
serious deficieflcy in this bill. Not that I question the ability of the
Bureau to assume some of these duties, but I would completely agree
with you that this would only serve to diminish the confidentiality
which we are uiow ascribingto the Census Bureau, and I think would
ultimately permit citizens to raise questions as to its integrity.
It seems to me if ~ve are to have this type of legislation we have to
have suitable amendments in S. 352.
Thank you again.
Mr. MATHIS. Mr. Frenzel?
Mr. FREXZEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Squires.
I have beë~i interested in your t~stintony, tOo, the privacy-of-in-
formation aspect It seems to me that is important, more impoitmt I
guess, is the thought that everybody who does not have to carry out the
duties that would be imposed under this bill seems to be violently in
favor, and all of thdse who are charged with some duties under this
bill seem to feel it is horribly unmanageable.
You talk about the Bureau's credibility ovOr the years. I guess that
has come intO some question from time to time. I agree with you it
would be nice if we could restOre that rCphtation to its previous high
degiee.
I recall that during the previous administration one of the gentle-
ińen in coni~nand down there, whose good words hate been spread on
our record, a chap by the name of Scamnion, was accused of-not b~
me but by others-of maiii~iulating data in defense of the
administration.
Now I notice that Senator Proxnnre has made the same kind of
allegations about your operation.
Mr. SQIrn~E's. I think he has expressed a čoncern.
Mr. FRENZEL. Pardon me?
PAGENO="0113"
107
Mi SQInPFS I think lie h'~s expiessed a concern with it
Mr. FREXZEL. Not an allegation?
Mr. SQUIRES. I do not thilik so.
Mr. .FRENZEL. Simply a concern., And you would like to be above
allegations and above concern and you feel that if you did not have
this particular duty yöti wOttlcl be?
Mr. SQUIRES. Right.
Mi I r~ NZFJ And you would conduct `~ oui opeiations in such a way
tli it it w 0111(1 lestoiL 01 m'i'nt'n~i the puhlie C( nfidence?
Mr. SQUIRES. I prefer.the word "mainthin," yes, sir.
Mr. FRENZEL. You do iidt ~vant to commelit, necessarily, on the
W 01 kings of the bill simply as it i elates to youi duties ~
Mi~. SQUIRES. I think it would be presumptUous to go beyond the
relationship to the Bureau.
Mr. FRENZEL. One of your complaints, hOwever, ivas that you were
supposed to assist generally in registration by mail and other election
problems Th~~t l'inguage, of cours~, I guess makes you expert in alec
tion law `ind I pi esume that is something ~ ou w ould like to resist
Mr. SQUIRES. Well, we are not so expert. It wOtild pose new diffi-
culties for us We `tie not in that kind of business
Mr. FRENZEL. OK.
I have a question on section 405 (c) `of the bill which Senator McGee
answered in a way that did not enlighten me yesterday. I ivdndere'd if
any of this expertise we are seeking to crown you with would enable
you to aiis~ver. ,
The thing that disturbs me is that this bill would sčemtO say that
all voteis c~n vote in `dl elections once they hold one of these post
`card registration cards. Of coUrse many States haire State laws that
say in certain primaries only Republicans may vdté atid in `certain pri-
maries only Democtats may vote. The Senator indicated that that is
the way he wanted to keep it. Yet that is not what the bill says.
I wonder if you have au opinion on that.
Mr. `SQUIRES. In reading this, it seemed to me that the intent of the
Congress would have to be determined on this section because I do
not know wh'tt this section means Only tne hearings by the t~ o
Houses would bring forth the intent.
Mr. Fti~ZEL. If you go back into section 401, you get the possi-
bility of havitig us Republicans take over DemOcratic caucuses as long
`is we h'tve a registr'ttion card, because an election is defined to include
caucuses. But you do not know what the bill means in that respect?
Mr. SQun~s. No.
I think in fairn'ess, `there ~re several sections here which we do not
fully understand. If the legislation were adopted, of course, one would
have to go back to the testimony and the hearings and the report to
attenipt `tO dčtëi'mine the tttie irttent~of the Congress.
Mr. FRENZEL. Is it fair to categorize your testimony by saying that
you are not necessarily taking a position on whether post card regis-
tration is good or bad; ~OU ärë Sa~iflg that this `bill as it applies to `your
department is inappropriate?
Mr. SQuiRES. That is correct.
Mr FRENZEL Thank you
For the 1968 election, you published figures followed up by a survey
asking people why they did not vote or why those who-why you did
2o-o95-7:~-----s
PAGENO="0114"
108
not register, I guess. You took the 26.9 million-odd who did not
register and asked them questions and developed a survey. I under-
stand that you are going to, or have made such a survey.
Mr. SQUIRES. That is correct.
Mr. FIui~wzEL. Can you reveal to us today what those figures were?
Mr. SQUIRES. ~vIr. Levine will speak to that point, sir.
Mr. LEVINE. Which specific figures would you like,sir?
Mr. FRENZEL. I believe last year you had the following categories;
not a citizen, residence requirement not satisfied, not interested, dislike
politics, unable to register, which is the key figure for us, other rea-
sons, and person did not know or did not report.
If you are prepared to give us those percentages, plus the total num-
ber of unregistered, but otherwise eligible, voters, it would help the
committee.
Mr. LEVINE. I do have some preliminary figures from that survey,
sir.
Mr. M~rrns. Do you have those available in print form?
Mr. LEVINE. We have some statistics available in print form, Mr.
Chairman. A preliminary report of our 1972 survey was issued by the
Department in December of last year.
Mr. FRENZEL. We have those, but they do not include what I am
asking.
Mr. LEVINE. The statistics which I was about togive are preliminary
statistics which we have just obtained in fact, and we will have the
report available for publication, we hope, by September of this year.
Mr. MATHIS. Is there a possibility that this committee might receive
those figures prior to that time?
Mr. LEVINE. I certainly think it is possible, sir. I would be glad to
check into it and make them available.
TABLE 1.-REASON NOT REGISTERED AND NOT VOTING, FOR PERSONS 18 YEARS OLD AND OVER:
NOVEMBER 1972
(Numbers in thousands. Civilian noninstitutional populationi
Number not
Reason not registered registered Percent
Total reported not registered 1 33, 242 100. 0
Not a citizen 3, 530 10. 6
Residence requirement not satisfied 1, 988 6. 0
Not interested 14, 256 42. 9
Dislikes politics 2, 513 7. 6
Unable to register 4, 203 12. 6
OtherreasonS 4,977 15.0
Do not know and not reported 1, 775 5. 3
Number
registered
Reason not voted but not voting Percent
Total reported registered butnot voting 12, 714 100. 0
Notintereofed 1,898 14.9
Dislikes politics 1, 511 11.
Unable to go to polls 4, 419 34. 8
Machines not working, lines too long 269 2. 1
Out of town or away from home 1, 464 11. 5
Other reasons 1, 567 12. 3
Do not know and not reported 1,586 12. 5
1 This figure excludes 4,481,000 persons for whom registration was not known or not reported.
PAGENO="0115"
109
Mr. MATHIS. Please proceed.
Mr. FRENZEL. Can you read-
Mr. LEVINE. The percentages, if they are acceptable.
Mr. FRENZEL. Yes.
Mr. LEVINE. The 1972 figures show that approximately 11 percent
of those not registered did not register because they were. aliens, ap-
proximately C percent did not register because of residence require-
ments, 43 percent indicated that they were not interested, approx~-
mately 8 percent indicated they disliked politics in general, 13 percent
indicated they were unable to register, and 15 percent gave a miscel-
lany of reasons which we categorized as other.
Mr. FRENZEL. Thank you. Was the total figure estimated to be about
40 million?
Mr. LEVINE. The number who were not registered?
Mr. FRENZEL. Not registered, but otherwise thought to be over 18
but not registered.
Mr. LEVINE. Of the 136.2 million persons who were of age 18-plus,
approximately 37.723 million were reported as not registered.
Mr. FRENZEL. Thank you very much.
Mr. MAThS. Did you say of the 136.2 million who were 18 and over?
Mr. LEVINE. That is right.
Mr. MATHIS. Repeat those figures, if you will.
Mr. LEVINE. The population of :voting age according to the Census
Bureau as of the time of the November election was 136.203 million.
Mr. MATHIS. We had figures earlier that were printed as part of the
Senate. hearing that indicated we had 139.642 million eligible, voters.
Mr. LEVINE. The difference between those two figures, Mr. Chair-
man, is that I am reporting the figures of the civilian-noninstitutional
population. I am excluding the Armed Forces and people nonresident
in the United States, American citizens overseas.
Our surveys which we conducted here in the United States cover
only the civilian noninstitutional population. That is the difference
between the two figures.
Mr. MATHIS. I see. Thank you~ very much, Mr. Levine.
Mr. Squires, thank you very much for appearing before the subcom-
mittee.
* Mr. FRENZEL. May I ask another question?
Mr. MATHIS. One more time.
Mr. FRENZEL. What kind of a survey was this? Is this a statistical
sample, and could you describe the sample?
Mr. LEVINE. We feel it is a statistical sample, sir. This is conducted
as part of an ongoing sample survey which the Census Bureau con-
ducts monthly, called the Monthly Population Survey, a national
survey of some 50,000 households throughout the United States, which
has as its basic objective providing the employment and * unemploy-
ment statistics which we collect each month and which are published
by the Department of Labor.
From time to time we add questions to this national survey.
In November of 1972 the questions on voting and registration were
added to that survey. **
Mr. FRENZEL. Fifty thousand sample?
Mr. LEVINE. Fifty thousand household sample ~throughout the
United States.
PAGENO="0116"
110
Mr. FRENZEL. Blow did you pick the household?
Mr. LEVINE. The households are picked by the application of sta-
tistical techniques, rai~dom pi~obahility techniques. It is a fairly long
explanation.
Mr. FRENZEL. Fine. What kind of response of the 50,000?
Mr. LEVINE. From the 50,000 households~ on the average we get ap-
proximately a 96 percent, 95 to 97 percent response rate month after
month. The little variation depends on the summertime, you have a
little less esponse because it is more difficult to find people at home.
Mr. FRENZEL. Is this a face-to-face sample?
Mr. LEVINE. This is a personal interview. We also use the telephone
to some e~teńt in this survey.
Mr. FRENZEL. Is it fair to say that the results of that questionnaire
are very similar to the ones that you got in 1968?
Mr. LEVINE. They are very similar. The same sample survey was
used in 1968. This sample survey has been conducted by the Bureau
since 194~.
Mr. MAtrils. I am interested in one other thing. In the not4nter-
ested category which you say was roughly 43 percent in these pre-
liminary figures, were these people not interested in voting because
they had to stand in line or because they had to travel 100 miles, as
Senator McGee indicated in his testimony yesterday, or were they
just not intere~ted in politics?
Were you able~ or did you try to make that kind of distinction?
Mr. Lr~vi~t~. It i~ very difficult to get specific with all of the respond-
e~~s ~vho ~tiisWër the question.
Basically, the category, as we defined it, was "not interested" or
"jii~t hëver ~Ot around to it."
We try tt~ train Our interviewers to take the answers as given in
response to the question:
W~h~t was the main reason you were not registered to vote?
And place them into these categories. It is very difficuit~ of course,
to know exactly the degree to which a respondent is intimidated or
feels to aivv exteht they have some other reason they do not want to
nive yOi~. But these seem to be broad categories into which the answers
fell on a fairly standard basis.
Mr. MATTTIS. You think then that ~eneraI1y this 43 percent figure
might be construed to indicate apathy on the part of these people
more than-~---
Mr. LEvINE. It is expressed as apathy. that is the best I can answer.
I ëa~not tell you whnt the `motivations are. We have not done a very
exhmistive `study. There are other groups who have done more cx-
hansti\~e ~tudies ~uch as Sui~vey Research Center in Michigan and
other piaccs.
We have not ~tme `into p'rObin~ very deeply. it is very difficult in
thi~ area. ~there peopie feel a public pressure.'the idea that they should
indicate a~ reason for not participating in this process.
Mr. MAt~-rT~. Tit would be sa~fe `to ~av you think it would tend to
`iodicate a~~at'h~:biIt w6iiid not necessarily demonstrate it?
Mr. LEVINE. Yes, I think that is the best way of putting it, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. MA~rt~is. ~FhaTnk ~ou very much.
PAGENO="0117"
111
Are we all through?
Thank you, Mr. Squires and Mr.: Levine, for appearing before the
committee. Your testimony has been: very helpful.
Our next witness is Mr. Whitaker, executive director, TI~e Student
\ ote, Trenton, N.J. Is he here? Apparently he is not.
Maybe Mr. Whitaker has been delayed.
Mr. Shull, we will be delighted to hear from you at this time.
Mr. Skull, do you have prepared copies of your statement there?
Mr. SHULL. Yes.
Shall I proceed, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. MATHIS. Please do.
STATEMENT OP LEON SHULL, N~.TIONAL DIRECTOR, 4MERICAI'IS
FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. SHrILL. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would like
Lo thank you for the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee
on the subject of voter registration. My name is Leon Shull and I am
the national director of Americans for Democratic Action, a national
volunteer organization.
In 6 days our Nation will celebrate its 197th birthday. Despite its
various problems, many Americans presently view their country rather
uncritically. And there is much to be said for a Nation which con-
hnues to be guided successfully by a document two centuries old, a
document which is still the world's best blueprint in the application of
representative government. But recurring problems and crises have
pointed lip shortcomings in our own application, and ~t is difficult to
believe that today anyone would simply ignore these shortcomings.
Nevertheless, both an overly critical and an uncritical attitude reduce
the number of people who participate in the electoral process. In the
overly critical view political participation is considered as necessarily
either dirty or futile, while the,: uncritical lack motivation. In both
instances, the ri~:hts and responsibilities of citizens are abdicated.
Many within Government resent and feel threatened by those who
criticize their performance, and willingly allow them to fall by the
political wayside, and those citizens whom apathy and lack of motiva-
tion keep silent are cited then as a supportive "silent majority."
But democracy is a dynamic, ongoing process which, to remain via-
ble, requires constant citizen input. A strong Constitution and high
hopes are not enough. Democracy is, at its very least, a periodic proc-
e~s warranting an individual's participation each election day. And
yet in recent years, on the first Tuesday after the first `Monday of No-
vember, an ever-increasing percentage of Americans remains outside
the political system. In a nation such as ours which prides itself on the
consent of the governed, this diminishing participation is both fright
cuing and dangerous.
In the 18 Presidential elections `before 1900, voter ParticiPati9n
maintained an average level of 73.8 percent. In `the 19 Presidential
elections since 1900, which would be both during and after the intro-
duction of voter registration, only 59.7 percent of all eligible voters
have been going to the polls. In 1960, the best voter tur~iout since 1908,
64 percent of those eligible went to the polls Eight ye~rs l'iter, only
PAGENO="0118"
112
60.6 percent voted. And just this last year, only 55.5 percent of the
eligible electorate cast their ballots.
It is not inconceivable that in the Presidential election of our bi-
centennial year, and for the third time in this century, less than half
of the potential will vote. Assuming a close two-way race, not to men-
tion the possibility of third or fourth party candidates, the next Presi-
dent of the United States could be the choice of only one-quarter of
all U.S. citizens eligible to vote. Yet whether the President is the
choice of 51 percent or 25 percent of the people, he or she still will
govern 100 percent of the people.
All the patriotic pontification a bicentennial can muster cannot make
this statistic consistent with our self-image as the world's foremost
democracy. It appears clear that in the absence of remedial legislation,
the United States may well join the dozen States and the District of
Columbia with turnouts of less than 50 percent in the last national
election.
It is only when one considers that 80 to 90 percent of those registered
do regularly vote, that one realizes the limiting effect of registration
requirements. And yet many people, including many distinguished
Members of the House and Senate, consider our uneven and inequitable
registration procedures to be a kind of moral obstacle course, and its
completion to be proof that a citizen is deserving of the right to vote.
In fact, registration discriminates against men and women who must
work from 9 to 5, 5 days a week, precisely the time when most election
boards are open. It discriminates against the sick and the elderly who
find it difficult to travel to the polls. It discriminates against the poor
who still must pay a poll tax of sorts in transportation costs. It dis-
criminates against the poorly educated who don't know where or when
to register in person and are too proud to inquire. And it discriminates
against those most alienated from society, to whom personal registra-
tion means a confrontation with authority, which they fear and wish
to avoid. The registration system is filled with obstacles of one kind or
another. More basically, the entire premise of such obstacles is con-
stitutionally unfounded. It is based on the concept of the vote as a
privilege to be earned rather than a right which is guaranteed. It is
easy for those in government, confronted with statistics of low voter
participation, to shake their heads over the apathy of the American
people, but, in fact, it is the Government's obligation to insure that
every American really has the right to vote.
The most glaring and unjust effect of the present registration sys-
tem is its denial of voting to those for whom registration, for what-
ever reason, is an insurmountable obstacle. Registration, as it is pres-
ently conceived and executed, also serves to limit voting by those dis-
affected people who can but won't register except under the easiest of
circumstances. We must face the hard fact that we are living in a time
of apathy and resentment, rooted in an unprecedented cynicism about
our Government and its institutions.
The trend in American history has been to expand the franchise, to
include not just a privileged and powerful elite but as many elements
of American society as possible. Throughout history, there have, been
those who would have limited voting to white males of property. But
such an attitude represents neither the promise nor the performance
PAGENO="0119"
113
of America. We have eliminated eligibility distinctions on the basis of
sex, race, station, and age. And so it would appear both inconsistent
and indefensible to maintain techniáal procedures winch discriminate
against anyone who qualifies.
In six of the last 12 constitutional amendments, we established
higher standards for the United States, in terms of a broader iran-
chise. It is now up to the Government to expedite registration proce-
dures so that those ideals can become a reality.
ADA supports the concept of post card registration as embodied in
Congressman Dent's legislation. We feel it is the most effective way to
increase registration and thus participation in Federal elections.
Hopefully, the incentives included in this bill also will help to increase
participation in both State and local elections. We hope that this com-
mittee will report favorably on H.R. 8053, a bill already passed by the
Senate.
ADA also finds much that is praiseworthy in Congressman Burton's
legislation, H.R. 6700. It is not limited to post card registration and
thus allows States to use Federal money in whatever registration ef-
fort they feel would be most effective. But the voluntary aspect o~ this
legislation concerns us. Local election officials-whether for political
reasons or simply from apathy-often as not are themselves serious
obstacles to registration, rather than expediting agents. It is hard to
imagine these local officials actively seeking, using, or cooperating with
the use of Federal funds to remedy voter registration problems when,
according to a 1972 League of Women Voters survey, 75 percent of
those officials did not perceive any: registration problems in their own
communities. It is difficult enough to make some of these officials fully
utilize their present prerogatives fOr expanding voter registration. For
this reason, ADA feels the Burton legislation should be used as a sup-
plement to post-card registration.
During Senate hearings on post-card registration, Senator 1-liram
Fong, the lone opposition on the committee, stressed the high cost of
such a program. In his opinion, registration is not a major obstacle to
voting. He cited North Dakota, which does not use registration, and
where 30.1 percent of the people nevertheless did not vote in the 1972
Presidential election. But 69.9 percent of the North Dakota eligibles
did vote, almost 15 percent above the national average and the second
best record in the Nation. It seenis to ADA that the cost of this pro-
gram would not be too great if it raised the national average even 10
percent.
It is our hope at ADA that, in this time of national crisis, the Con-
gress of the United States can unite behind a bill that will bring new
meaning to the American system, and electoral power to millions of
disenfranchised Americans.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MATHTS. Thank you very much, Mr. Shull.
Mr. Frenzel, any questions?
Mr. FRENZEL. I have a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Shull.
I note that you are again perpetuating the statistic that Mr. Bie-
miller and his colleagues yesterday gave us, that 80 to 90 percent of
those registered do vote.
PAGENO="0120"
114
I think the census people have established that ~gi~re at 73 percent in
1972. I merely wanted to pomt that out.
In the Burton bill you are talking about the same as the Kennedy-
Stevens bill in the Senate?
Mr. S HFLL. I think that is right, sir.
Mr. FRENZEL. Is it identical or similar?
Mr. SmJLL. I do not know tha~ it is actually identical. It is prob-
ably similar.
Mr. FIIENZEL. As I understand it, you like i)oth bills.
Mr. SHLTLL. ~es~ sir.
Mr FRENZEL. And that you think the very best bill would be an
amalgamation of the two.
Mi~ Si~v ii Yes I think so We ~ ould like to see the postc'trd leg
istration applied and we also think that as the Federal Government
does in other programs, there is now reason why we should not give
additional help to State and local communities in this area.
Mr. FRENZEL. Over in the Senate, the American Civil Liberties
Union testified, and I am quoting the Senate record here:
We entertain serious doubts that any Federal registration system could achieve
its principal goal of facilitating wider voter participation. For essentially the
same reasons. we doubt whether the proposed system could accomplish the tradi-
tional purposes of registration, namely, prevention of fraud and double voting.
Obviously you do not agree wit-h the ACLTJ position. Do you have
evidence that this bill would increase voter turnout and do you have
some suggestions of how we are going to prevent possibilities of fraud?
Mr. STHTLL. WTell, sir, I. of course, have no proof that this would
actually increase registration. except that I think it stands to reason
that whenever it is-and I think there is proof of this-whenever
there is a possibility of making it easier for people to register, more
of them do.
Mr. FRENZEL. Could I interrupt there a minute?
Mr. SHIJLL. Yes. sir.
Mr. FJrENZEL. 1Ve have had testimony that indicates that. over the
last o or 6 vea~s. poll taxes have fallen and other kinds of registra-
lion barriers have fallen. there have been unprecedented efforts to
raise registration. Yet overall voting participation has fallen during
this whole process and it has fallen faster in those areas where regis-
tration is most liberal. I guess that is what is confusing us.
The rationale of the ProPone1~ts of this bill seems to be based on
conditions that existedl either in 1~J6O or prior, and that is c1i~turbing
to me because I would like to be friendly to the concept.
Mr. Snur)L. Sure. I appreciate what von are saying and I do not
think-there are any immutable truths on nil sides of this.
Let me tell von that in my own experience in politics. whieh is rela-
tively extensive, practical politics before I came to Washington some
years ago. I worked in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia mostly, but
throughout the State. We were constantly faced wit-h the problem of
registration there. Now we did not dlo what is being suggested here.
The on1y point I want to make is that whenever we were able to
convince our local registration board-and believe me it was hard~ be
they Democrats or Republicans: the resistance was, you know, frankly,
was absurd. This was not a party thing at all. But wherever we con-
PAGENO="0121"
115
vinced them to do something `~bout n~tl ing it e'~siei for people to
register, it worked. We did things like getting them to take registrars
to factory plant's, where there are large groups' of people, to shopping
centers, and so forth.
All I can say to you, sir, is that ieople did register in greater imm-
hers under those conditions. I would assume, and I would devoutly
pray `that' if `this was ~stablished, post-card registration, in fact it
would become ~ civ e'~sy foi people to legisier, th~tt they would
register.
On your other point, in terms of fraud, needless to say, we are
second to no one in our distaste for that, and it does happen. My belief
that fraud is essentially lirevented: in the political system, at least
in the areas that I knew, which is of' a large city with strong political
organizations often in effect, is really prevented by the adversary
system. In. other words, I thiilk it' is the duty of the political Parties,
political organizations, perhaps' like my own, the League of Women
Voters, but primarily the pOlitical parties, to watch for fraud and: I
believe they can, in fact, stop it in this day and age by doing: so.
Now the people who would register under this system, their names
would' be published, again going `back to' my ow~ii experience, they
were published' there as they are in many other places I know, by
election district. They are made publicly available and anybody can
examine these names to see if these people are entitled, and challenges
are open, and' it would still be open as I' understand: it under State law
to this.
I think fraud can be stopped by vigorous political system which
would have at least two vigorous"m'ajor political' parties.' I am really
not worried a:bbut that. When' one' party is so weak'that it cannot pre-'
vent fraüd-this may sound almOst cynical; I do not mean it that
way-it really does not matter. I had that experience.
Mr. FRENZEL. Working' in large~ cities; I do not suppose you saw a
lot of Republican registrars; did'you'?
Mr. SiruI~i~. The city I was' active in was a: Republican city. We had
the unique experience, not so uni4ue, I guess, of observing th'at Demo-
crats, in some instances, shall I say, were owned by the Republicans.
It was'~ust as blatant as'that.
Well, some' years went on and' Philadelphia became a Democratic
city in terms of its voting pattern, and the same' Democrats in some
instances, I say in Sothe, were owning the same Republicans in sonic
instances. Thatis a bad system.
Lord knows, I assure `you I do: not favor it. What I' am saying is,
when these parties are really strong and viable, they do stop fraud.
and I' observed that personally, myself. I think that is what we need,
a strong political system that will prevent fraud.
Mr. FRENZEL. I have the sa:me feeling you do, that fraud is not the
strongest probleth' here. I See Other problems here that it seems to rue
`ii e f~r mnoi e difficult th'in the fr'tud protection, but we cannot ignore
t Lec'tuse it is raised const'rntly by county and other officials who `ire
going fb be chatg'ed' with th~ administration of this'thing.
I have `a further question.
Mr. MATms. I thought you might have.
PAGENO="0122"
116
Mr. FRENZEL. I was wondering if you heard the question I addressed
to the Bureau of Census and previously to Senator McGee with re-
spect to registration and cross-party voting. I am wondering if you
can give us your interpretation of section 405 (c) of the law.
Mr. SHULL. In terms of cross-party voting?
Mr. FRENZEL. Well, it says, let me read it to you:
Possession of a registration notification shall be prima facie evidence that the
individual is a qualified and registered elector entitled to vote in any such
election. The presentation of the form shall not be required to cast this ballot.
Earlier on we talked about. registration notification delivered before
an election, It just. seems to me that it does not cont~mplate any distinc-
tions, and one of my criticisms of it is that the bill lays very heavily
on existing State systems which are very different and they are dif-
ferent because the people want them that way.
I think this is one of the things that the ACLU was getting at. In
my State everybody believes everybody should vote in everybody's
primary. We have just loads of fun doing that.
Out in Oregon they have another system and that is their business,
I think.
It seems to me this bill gets things a little bit fuzzed up and tries to
impose a Federal principle which would be in agreement with the way
we do things in my State but out of whack with the way they do things
in the majority of States.
Mr. SHULL. Well, I may say, sir, that this is a. subject on which I
have spent a little time thinking about, to be honest with you not neces-
sarily in connection with this bill.
I myself think that Democrats should choose Democratic candidates
and Republicans Republican candidates, and other third or fourth
parties should choose their candidates. I am bothered by what I think
happened in 1972, in some of the Democratic primaries. I think specif-
ically Wisconsin where, as I am told, I have nOt personally observed
it, it is remarkably easy for anybody to vote in any primary and where
perhaps you have members of one party going into another party and
distorting the result to the detriment I think of the political system.
I would like to see, and I guess this-I assume this could be left to
the parties, I would like to see them strengthen that in some way, so
that only people who are committed to that party in the primary is-I
am not bothered by the Minnesota system as I understand it, as a
matter of fact. As I understand it, members of the parties there go into
their caucuses, they commit themselves, that they are in fact members
of the party, where they are going to vote, which I think is different
than Wisconsin and Michigan.
Mr. FRENZEL. Sure, one out of 100 goes into caucuses. That is getting
us off the track.
What concerns me is imposing a national will on various State sys-
tems. It would not affect my State. The Democratic Party is the second
largest party in my State, the Republicans are the third, and the
Independents like the ability to go into either primary and make their
choice when there is some action in somebody's primary. It stimulates
us to have a little action. But that is not, I think, the way the bill reads.
I am concerned about it.
PAGENO="0123"
117
Mr. SHULL. I do think that-I guess I am mostly concerned with
ivhat happens in the Presidential elečtion, and that is a Federal matter
and it may be that the Federal Government has a right to set that
particular standard, as perhaps it has no other. Of course it is one that
is so 1mportant to us that perhaps we should have Federal standards
there.
I guess I stand on my own position, which is that it would not
bother me to see strengthened the idea that Democrats choose Demo-
cratic candidates and Republicans choose Republican candidates.
Independents are different.
I think that gets us into a little more fuzzy area. I am not so
bothered by that. I have not quite thought it through, to be honest
with you. But I think maybe there~ is some real virtue in saying those
People should be permitted to go where they want since they are not
committed to some party.
Mr. FRENZEL. I thank you, and I thank you for all of your testi-
mony and note that we were pleased to have testimony of your new
leader, my colleague Don Fraser, yesterday.
Mr. SIIULL. Yes, sir. Thank you.
He told me lie was here and enjoy~ed being here.
Mr. MATHIS. One question I would ask relative to your testimony,
where you have a pretty severe criticisni of our registration laws in
general. saying they are discriminatory against people who work
from 9 to 5, sick and elderly, the poor who. pay a poil tax of sorts in
transportation costs, on and on.
Are these obstacles also existing on election day when the people
must go to vote? Do we not face the same kind of problem?
Mr. SI-lULL. Yes, sir.
Mr. MATms. How far would you be willing to remove these?
Mr. SHULL. I am not in favor of postcard voting. We are in favor
of absentee ballot voting when the voter is not able for some good
reason, physical or distance, to be able to vote. I am not in favor of
postcard voting.
I guess the difference here, sir, is that the pressure, the buildup for
a vote on Election Day is very much greater than on a registration
-day. I personally engaged in registration campaigns in Philadelphia.
It is pretty hard to get people excited about it, as a matter of fact.
The faithful, the party worker, wants to get all his party people
Tegistered, understandably, of course. He perhaps gets a little excited
about it, tries to get people out. Maybe this is deplorable, but we have
to live with what we have. I think we should make it as easy as pos-
sible. So I do not think they are quite comparable, though I under-
stand your point. I do not deny some validity there.
Mr. MATrns. But you would not be willing to go so far as to have
voting by mail other than in the direct cases where absentee ballots
are justified?
Mr. SHULL. No, sir.
Mr. MATHIS. Thank you very much for your very fine testimony.
It has been the custom of this committee in the past, Mr. Frenzel,
and without objection today, we will proceed until the first quorum
call of the House.
PAGENO="0124"
118
Our final witness is~ Mr. Manuel Fierro, who represents the Raza
Association of Spanish Surnamed Americans in Washington.
We would be delighted to hear from you at this time, sir.
STATEMENT OP MANUEL B. PIERRO, PRESIDENT/EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, RAZA ASSOCIATION OP SPANISH SURNAMED AMER-
ICANS
Mr. FIERRO. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name
is Manuel D. Fierro. I am the president and executive director of
Raza. Association of Spanish Surnamed Americans (RASSA), a
national. nonpartisan citizens lobby for and of the Spanish speaking.
On behalf of our board of trustees which consists of 26 rnembers~
representing 17 States. I want to thank you for the opportunity to
appear before this committee which has already heard testimony from
many distinguished peole with unquestioned expertise in the field
of voter registration and the election process generally. May I state
from the outset that I do not profess to be such an expert but that
there are some things that RASSA believes to be fundamental and
about which there can be no compromise.
Traditionally, as Spanish-speaking people, we have found that we
are still an invisible people-invisible in a land where we are indig-
enous, for before this country existed as a national body, we had
our own nationaJ character, our own unique culture, and a fluid lan-
guage. Within a century of this ëountry coming into its own, we have
been reduced through conquest into a landless, disenfranchised, and
economically deprived people.
For years, national legislation. poiitical issues, and major decisions
have been determined largely in ignorance of the unique needs of this
country's 14 million Spanish-speaking population. Today, we hope
to provide you with some valuable insight into some of these needs
and the barriers that prevent many of our people from becoming
involved in the electoral process also.
Previous testimony has accurately documented that nowhere in
the free world is voter registration at a lower level than it is in the
United States. Many are the reasons cited for such a poor performance.
Among those are:
Residency requirements;
Complex registration procedures;
Inconvenient registration hours;
Distant and inconvenient places of registration;
Complicated voting procedures;
Positioning candidates names on the ballot et cetera:
Lack of motivation;
Feelings of powerlessness; and
Lack of bilingual registration forms and information.
The extent to which Americans have failed to register is startling.
The extent to which they have failed to vote is even more startling.
Yet~ the bitter irony-and far more startling to us-is that those who
need the political process the most in our country are those who are
PAGENO="0125"
119
victimized~by the elaborate scheineto deny equalaccess to the electoral
process.
In a democratic society, no right is more fundamental than the right
of every citizen to `vote. That right carries with it the right~.of equal
access. It is this right of equal access that we take .issue with. Inas-
much as the Voter Registration Act eliminates spme of `the.harriers to
effective and meaningful participation of our citizens in. the. electoral
process; inasmuch as S. 352 and I-LR. 8053 address themselves to re-
`form as a means to facilitate and' increase voter registration nation-
wide; and inasmuch as the provisions contained in the Voter Regis-
tration Act manifest good intentions, they are inadequate in meeting
the needs of the Spanish speaking-the second largest minority in the
country. Spanish speaking have also experienced the same' barriers
to registration as hasbeen mentioned. But they have also been severely
handicapped by the language disabilities. The language* barrier con-
tinues to be one of the primary causes preventing many Spanish-
speaking people from exercising their right to vote. It is for this
reason, Mr. Chairman and members of th~ committee, that we appear
before you today. To urge you to consider adding new language to
S. 352 andH.R.8053. ,,
Section `405 (d) of jhe act, provides that' "Registration"forrns may be
p1 ep'u ed in ~ language other than English"
We are, proposing that this section be amended to read: Section
405 (d) -Registration forms shall be prepared.in a language other. than
English `for each State in which t1~e administration ~has determined,
from the best and most current data~:available, at least `five percentum
(5%) or 50,000 of the residents of. that S ,~whic1yerjs.1es~, do not
speak or understand the English language with. reasonable facility.
Such -State~ shall `be certified as a b~~ingual-State.
(e) In each certified bilingual State bthngu~d registration forms
shall be. provided, in the dominant.Janguage and in English.
(f) In. each certified bilingual State., all instructions, notices, and
accompanying-materials shall also be prepared in.the language, other
than "English.
(g) In any State which is not a certified bilingual `State,. registra-
tion forms may be provided in a language other than English.
This additional language can have a significant impact upon the vast
number of persons residing in the United States. `Though tl~e Spanish
spe'dung account for the m~t~ority of non English speaking persons in
America, other minorities `Lre concentrated in v'irious regions through
out the country who will also. benefit-the Chinese speaking in Cali-
fornia, wttive Americans in Continental United States and in Alaska,
and the' French-speaking persons in Maine and i~ Louisiana.
The movement to respond tO the urgent. n~ds of the non-English-
speaking minorities in America has made significant gains in the past
few years. In 1967, Congress enacted the Bilingual Education Act
which provided for the establishment of bilingual-bicul,tural educa-
tion programs. Congress finally realiz~d that America is a multilin-
gual, multicultural society and, that this cultural diversity, rather than
being some disability is a national asset that should be developed to
PAGENO="0126"
120
the fullest extent possible. The recently enacted Education Amend-
ments of 1972 affirmed Congress' commitment to promoting bilingual-
ism. These acts were a recognition of the fact that the severe English
language disability common to many people in America, makes it im-
possible for them to receive an adequate education without some type
o,f compensatory program.
Let me make one other comment in conclusion. There is an urgent
need for administrative reform of our present electoral system. Citi-
zens must no longer be forced to earn the privilege to vote, but rather,
must be insured the right to vote. We are hopeful that this committee
will act in our country's best interest and maintain the momentum gen-
erated by previous accomplishments in the area of bilingual reform.
The inclusion of this additional language will be another significant.
step forward in our Nation's struggle to secure equal justice for all.
Thank you very much.
[Attachment to statement follows:]
Spanish surnamed/Spanish-speaking population
~:housan ds
Alabama 2
Alaska 1
Arizona
Arkansas 1
California 3, 001
Colorado 272
Connecticut 94
Delaware 5
Florida 502
Georgia 8
Hawaii
Idaho 7
Illinois 687
Indiana 75
Iowa 18
Kansas 50
Kentucky 6
Louisiana 51
Maine 2
Maryland 38
Massachusetts 88
Michigan 135
Minnesota 29
Mississippi 5
Missouri 34
Montana 2
Thousands
Nebraska 29
Nevada 7
New Hampshire 2
New Jersey 464
New Mexico 387
New York 2, 423
North Carolina 8~
North Dakota 1
Ohio 73
Oklahoma 8
Oregon 22
Pennsylvania 128
Puerto Rico 2, 800-
Rhode Island 11
South Carolina 7
South Dakota 2
Tennessee 6
Texas 2, 481
lJtah 41
Vermont 2
Virginia 38
Washington 79
Washington, D.C 37
West Virginia 1
Wisconsin 65
Wyoming 8
NOTE-Actual Census figures were over 2 million less than projections by Spanish-
speaking experts. Reasons cited for these lower census figures are the inability of the Census
Bureau to accurately determine the number of migrant and seasonal farmworkers. and the
failure of the mail and telephone procedures used by the Census Bureau to take into account
that many Spanish-speaking people would be unable to understand or reply to mail instruc-
tions or be too poor to have telephones.
Mr. MATms. Thank you very much, Mr. Fierro, for a very fine and
informative statement.
Mr. Frenzel, do you have any questions?
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Fierro for his testimony.
I think it is a fine piece of work. I think his suggested amendment j5:
certainly meritorious.
PAGENO="0127"
121
Mr. FIERR0. Thank you.
Mr. FRENZEL. And an improvement on the bill.
I am wondering, Mr. Fierro, and I have asked this of others because
of a concern I have: Given a fixed amount of Federal dollars to in-
crease voting participation in the United States, is post card registra-
tion the best buy?
Mr. FIERRO. I think it supplements what is being done in the States
at the present time. I think in our communities across the country we
have had a lot of difficulty, as I pointed out, in some of the concerns
dealing with the election offices.
All those points that I pointed out have been a problem to us. I
think this provides another vehicle, supplements that effort at the.
State level to increase the registration of the people.
Mr. FRENZEL. One of the criticisms of post card registration that
has been raised here is that if the registration within a municipality
or county is obliged to go to the post card system and if those costs
are paid largely by the Federal Government, that the local people will
say, "We are now discharging our duties because we are doing what
the Federal Government tells us we have to do and we do not need to
be so concerned about mobile registration, face-to-face registration,.
traveling deputy registrars, school registration, late hours," et cetera.
Do you see that as a problem with this bill?
Mr. FIERRO. I really do not see that as a problem. I think there will
always be criticisms whenever you extend a privilege, not a privi-.
lege,-
Mr. FRENZEL. A right.
Mr. FIERR0. But whenever you broaden the franchise to exercise this
right, this is thething that I have noted.
The opponents have mentioned periodically, the fraud, involving
additional work, additional time. Here we are attempting to broaden
the franchise to exercise the right to vote, and people oppose that. I
cannot see how in anyone's mind we should put as many barriers as
possible in exercising this right.
The progress that has been made should continue in eliminating
these barriers that have existed : which have prevented people from
exercising that right.
Mr. FRENZEL. In the area where Spanish-surnamed Americans are
in considerable density, are there registration clerks who speak Span-
ish, usually?
Mr. FIERR0. In our study which we made, we did not find very many.
There are some in density areas such as in southern Texas. There are
some in the communities that have a significant population. But in
many cases there are not any.
Mr. FRENZEL. Would it be a good idea for the Federal Government
to increase some money in Spanish-speaking election courses?
Mr. FIERRO. Yes; I certainly think so. I think in the training and
development and so forth.
In many States-I lived in Kansas myself prior to coming here.
There had never been a Spanish-speaking registrar at all. There are
60,000 to 80,000 Spanish-speaking people there.
PAGENO="0128"
122
By the same. token, we requested some Sp~nish-speaking or. bilin-
gual people. We had an awful lot of trouble in getting access to one.
Finally we had to go to the St.ate level and make an . issue of it
before we were able to get a registrar deputized to do that. .But various
election commissioners were very receptive to the idea, because in
those neighborhoods thousands of people had never been reached by
the League of Women Voters, by other political-interest groups.
Many of the Democratic Party and Republican people in voter regis-
tration drives were not reaching our people. It seemed there was al-
most a neglect of really involving them, that it really did not matter
whethe~ they registered or not. We had registration booths on the
malls and.what have you. but not in our communities. That is where
we need the voter registration booths, again on a .nonpartisan basis
where this is taken c.are of on a nonpartisan basis.
Too many times in our communities our people feel when someone
comes to register them. to vote that they have to give somethipg in
return. I think that in itself is a negative factor. .1 think this nation-
wide registration postcard form wpuld. alleviate some of that.
Mr. FREXZEL. I thank.you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. .MATmS. Thank you. Mr. Frenzel.
Would not this attitude of negativeness on the.part of these people
you are talking about, where you go in .with a mobile registration
thing, can that not be overcome through. a process of political educa-
tion, which I assume you are involved in, to educate-
Mr. FIERR0. Beg your pardon?
Mr. MATHIS. To educate the people they do not owe anything in
return for being registered except the obligation to participate in the
process?
Mr. FIERR0..Right; I agree.
Again, you have to.understand the history of our people..
In many of the rural communities, mgny of the urban communities,
because of this disenfranchisement, the lack of motivation, thefl feeling
of powerlessness on their part, not being represented in many cases,
because of the struggle to obtain, some dignity, and the problems they
have encountered, there is some apathy in our communities which
exists. When we look in Congress, we see six congressmen who are
Spanish speaking. We see. 40 staff people on the Hill that are Spanish
surnamed. When we look at our communities locally, statewide, where
we have a significant number of Spanish-speaking people and we do
not see Spanish speaking represented on those bodies, it stands to
reason that our input is not going to be very significant.
By the same token, the communities at the local level, where they
do not have t.hat representation, they are not going to go to it, simply
because, again, of the isolation.
What .1 am saying is that when they come into the community to
register people or seek them out, there is a fear of doing that, because
they think "What does he want from me? He has always used me."
The political machinery has always used the Spanish-speaking
people only on Election Day. Here is where he looks. They are here
PAGENO="0129"
123
again, they want my name, I do not get anything in return. So when
he signs, there is a fear that "I owe something."
One final question: What has been the experience you have had in
Texa.s where there is obviously a fairly large community of Spanish-
speaking Americans? You have always had, in essence, post card
registration. What has been the experience that you have had there?
Mr. FlEiino. In getting them to register?
Mr. MATHIS. Yes.
Mr. FIERJiO. Our experiences in the Valley in discussing that with
other individuals have been very good because there has been a lot of
politicization in southern Texas, a lot of involvement in areas like
Corpus Christi and those larger industrial areas.
The union individuals have assisted very greatly because a lot of
people are involved in those industrial complexes, like Corpus Christi,
Houston, and so forth.
Then in southern Texas, because of the political activity of young
people and middle-aged people, there is a lot of registration, but again
we have to understand, in southern~ Texas a lot of those folks are not
there when it comes time to vote in some cases. They are traveling.
That is one question I never addressed myself to: What do we do
about our mobile population? When we are talking about southern
Texas, sonic of the congressional districts vary from 75 percent to
36 percent in some areas, they are not being adequately reached at
all. Because of the lack of the bilingualness, the information is not
available.
A lot of our people, the older folks-not so much the younger peo-
ple, but the older people-are not bilingual. They are monolingual
and their primary language is Spanish. That is what we find pri-
marily in southern Texas, in the border towns which are greatly
affected.
Mr. MATHIS. I think we can assure you that your proposed amend-
ment will receive consideration at the proper time by the committee.
Mr. FIERnO. Thank you very much.
Mr. MATHIS. Mr. Frenzel, if you have no other questions of the
witness-
Mr. FRENZEL. No questions.
Mr. MATHIS. We thank you very much for appearing.
Mr. FRENZEL. Thank you.
Mr. MATHIS. IVithout objection, the testimony of Mr. Whitaker, if
he does arrive, will be accepted as part of the committee record and,
without objection, the committee will stand in recess.
Mr. FRENZEL. I object.
Mr. MATHIS. Your objection is heard.
Mr. FRENZEL. We were given some material by the committee. The
front page of it says registration by mail, and fraud. The last page of
it relates to application of post card registration to students. I had
hoped that Mr. Whitaker could have testified as to some of the state-
ments here. I would like to know where the material in this statement
came from.
Does the Chairman know who put that on our desk?
2O-6O~-73-----9
PAGENO="0130"
124
Mr. MATHIS. This is a synopsis that was compiled by the staff, I
understand.
Mr. FRENZEL. Can the staff tell us where that last page came from?
Mr. MATrns. Mr. Frenzel, I am advised that the staff obtained this
material from the Senate staff and they are going to check and let
you know where these figures actually came from.
Mr. FRENZEL. If this sort of thing appears in any of our records,
it should be identified. It looks to me like sort of a sales brochure on
the subject and we really should-if it appears anywhere, it should
be identified, and there should be a chance to discuss it.
Mr. MATHIS. I concur.
Mr. FRENZEL. I withdraw my objection.
Mr. MATHIS. Without objection, the subcommittee will stand in re-
cess, subject to the call of the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 12 :15 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, subject to
call.]
PAGENO="0131"
THE VOTER REGISTRATION ACT AND RELATED
LEGISLATION
THURSDAY, JuLY 19, 1973
HousE OF, REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE,: ON ELECTIONS OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION,
Wa$hington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 9 :30 a.rn., in
room 2257, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John H. Dent
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Dent, Mathis, Jones, Mollohan, Ware,
Dickinson, and Fren.zel.
Also present: John G. Blair, assistant to the staff director; Eric
Honick, clerk, Miss Barbara G-iaimo, assistant clerk, Subcommittee on
Elections; and Ralph Smith, mindrity counsel, Committee on House
Administration.
Mr. DENT. The hearing will come to order.
We have with us a very distinguished witness this morning and I
know that he, like the rest of us, has quite a few duties to perform
before lunchtime, and we will get the hearing started. Other members
are on the way. I have a markup session in my office this morning, so I
intend to turn the hearing chairmanship over to Mr. Mathis, who has
been very closely associated with this legislation. Senator, would you
please come up and take the witness stand? On behalf of the commit-
tee and Congress, I welcome you to this hearing. I know you have
long been interested in election reforms and. election Jaws and it is a
real pleasure and privilege to have~ you here this morning as a witness.
STATEMENT OP HON. NAMES B. ALLEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF~ ALABAMA
Senator ALLEN., Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
deeply appreciate the opportunity to appear before this distinguished
committee in opposition to S. 352, generally referred to as. the "Post-
card' Registration Act." It is also referred to, facetiously. perhaps, as
the "Tombstone Registration Act." This Jast designation suggests. a
possibility for registering names on tombstones and thus, invokes the
imagery' of potential fOr fraud under' a system of: post card registra-
tion. So, facetiously or not,. the designation has some merit at least to'
the extent that, it calls attention tO one of the most important reasons
underlying opposition to the bill.
(125).
PAGENO="0132"
126
Mr. Chairman, I submit that the last thing this country needs at
this time is a law which would facilitate the registration of persons not
qualified to vote and who may not even exist. That is exactly what this
bill does. There is an urgent need to restore public confidence and
trust in the electoral process. We will not move in that direction by
enacting laws which undermine State safeguards against fraudulent
registrations and voting.
Furthermore, the proposal would involve in politics a very reluctant
Bureau of the Census by way of correcting and analyzing information
concerning elections and election results and in selling such analyses
to parties throughout the Nation who may wish to exercise out-of-state
influence on State and local elections. The Federal bureaucracy does
not need such a power. It ought not to have such a power. It is not
necessary to draw a picture to demonstrate the potential for abuses
in the distribution of information of this nature. The Bureau of the
Census should not be involved in politics and, in my judgment, the
American people do not want it involved in politics.
Then there is the question of cost. The initial cost of the program
has been variously estimated from $50 million to $100 million and this,
of course~ is only the beginning. How can Members of Congress justify
to the people an additional increase in the deficit of the National Gov-
ernment to finance an impractical and dangerous undertaking?
In addition, there are serious objections to the bill on constitutional
grounds. The Constitution vests the power to fix qualifications for
voting in the States. As for Members of Congress, the Constitution
provides that they shall be elected by the people of the several States
who possess the qualifications required to vote for members in the most
numerous branch of such State's legislature. No one will question that
a "live" body is the first requisite to honest voting. No one will ques-
tion that the States have the power to prescribe that a live body present
itself to registration officials for the purpose of identification and a
determinatioi~ of qualifications prior to registration and voting. Con-
gress can no more abolish State requirements for personal registrations
than it can abolish the requirement of registration altogether.
This bill would make electors for President and Vice President Fed-
eral officials. Up until now, it has never been seriously contended that
the Constitution vested the power in Congress to determine the manner
of choosing or fixing the qualifications of voters who are to choose
presidential electors. In fact, both the Constitution and the Supreme
Court decisions recognize electors as State officers and not Federal of-
ficials. Again, the faith of the people in our governmental processes
depends upon faith in the law of the Constitution and in elected rep-
resentatives scrupulously to adhere to that law. If enough people want
to change the method of choosing electors, let it be done by constitu-
tional amendment-not by statute.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is seriously flawed in each of the particulars
I have mentioned. It does not strengthen the integrity of the electoral
process-instead it opens the process to grave potential for fraud.
It is not conducive to the retrenchment of Federal powers-it in-
creases them. It does not inhibit the proliferation of the Federal
bureaucracy-it adds another bureaucracy within a bureaucracy. It
PAGENO="0133"
127
does not comport with the overridi~ig necessity to reduce Federal defi-
cits and spending. It is not consistent with nor can it be squared with
the Constitution of the United States. These are reasons enough to
reject the proposal. However, there are other compelling reasons for
its rejection.
Mr~ Chairman, this bill is erroneously prethised on the idea that
separate State voter registration laws are designed .to discourage per-
sons otherwise qualified from registering to vote. Nothing could be
further from the truth. Any student of politics in the United States
knows full well that State voter registration laws are desiguied to help
ple\Telut fraudulent voting. In fact, State-enacted Corrupt Practices
Acts represent a" past reaction to widespread corruption in elections.
Yet, evaluation of the testimnony~ presented by witnesses before the
Senate Committee on Post' Office and Civil Service, ,reveals consider-
able confusion on this point. In an effort to suppress fears of,fraudu-
lent' registrations, no recognition was given at all to the fact that
absentee' voting was and remains a source of potential fraud that, re-
quires vei y sti ict regulations And registration is the flu st and neces
sary step to absentee voting. I don't have to tell anyone* here about
the potential for fraud in casting absentee ballots by persons other
than those entitled to vote by absentee ballot. The, potential for fraud
would be `infinitely greater were we to permit absentee, registrations.
This bill eliminates the requirement for personal registration and
thus both absentee registrations ," and absentee voting would be per-
mitted. Obviously, unless one is' blind to the potential ,for fraud in
casting absentee ballots, he must see that the potential for fraud is
vastly enhanced by laws which authorize absentee registrations.
Again we must emphasize that State laws regulating casting of. ab-
sentee ballots and State laws regulating the registration procedures
serve but a single purpose which `is the protection. of the integrity of
the votes cast by duly qualified ," voters. This bill seeks to undermine
those protections and to subvert the purpose of State laws.
An aspect of `this. problem not adequately covered in the Senate
hearings relates' to the importance of maintaining an up~to~date list
of qualified voters as a means of further protecting the vote of honest
voters. It is essential that lists of qualified voters be `purged periodi-
cally of the names of persons who have moved from' the jurisdiction,
who have passed away, who have been committed to institutions for
the insane, and those who may have become disqualified by reason of
conviction of . a felony. These names must. be removed from lists. of
qualified voters if we are to deny to the unscrirnulons. an opportu-
nity to cast votes in the names of suc'h persons. This bill, if enacted,
would accomplish the opposite result.. .
T5ndeu the provisions of the bill lists of ~ oters will be o'~ ci burdened
with deadwood. Names submitted by post card must be listed up. to
30 days prior to an elec.tion. ," Obviously, Boards of Registrars or
other public officials with responsib:ility for registering qualified
voters' cannot' check out and validate the names and addresses on the
post c~tuds with which they will be inundated Yet if post card `upph
cants are not listed as qualified voters-even when serious doubts
exist-the registration officials' may be hauled into court under the
burden of a presumption of wrongdoing until proven innocent.
PAGENO="0134"
128
After an election, there remains the near impossible task of purging
the lists of fictitious names and names of persons not qualified. Even
under normal conditions, the extreme mobility of the population makes
it difficult in most areas of the Nation to keep voter lists purged of
deadwood. Registration officials do not need the added burden of
purging their lists of fraudulent registrants. Yet, I repeat, a clean
list of qualified voters is essential to clean elections. Absentee registra-
tions would contribute to the opposite result.
Mr. Chairman, I have dwelt at some length on the potential for
fraud in this bill primarily because one can easily get the impression
that some proponents of the bill had never heard of stolen elections
or of stuffed ballot boxes, or casting votes in the name of fictitious
persons or persons deceased. Sometimes I wonder if remarks made to
discount possibilities of fraudulent voting under a system of absentee
registrations are not made with tongue in cheek.
Be that as it may, let me turn now to another erroneous assumption
underlying this bill. It is assumed that an increase in the number of
persons registered to vote will automatically increase the percentage
of eligible voters who participate in elections. The trouble with this
assumption is that it is not supported by facts. S
As I pointed out in debate on the Senate floor, the great State of
Texas has experimented with post card registration as well as regis-
tration by filling out and mailing newspaper coupons or by letter or
form Of notice to local registrars indicating a desire to vote. Ac-
cording to 1970 census figures, 62.3 percent of voting age Texans
were registered to vote. Compare that figure with the State of Utah
where, without registrations by post card, newspaper coupon, or letter,
98.4 percent Of the voting age population is registered to vote.
Mr. Chairman, let us consider for a moment, with 98.4 percent of
the voting age population in Utah already registered to vote, this
law would require that there be mass distribution of these post cards
to every mail box and every postal address in the State of Utah, even
though they have just 1.6 percent of the persons of voting age who
have not registered. They would send hundreds of thousands of post
cards out to get that 1.6 percent of the people. That would certainly
be an overkill in the highest degree, to put the Government to the
expense of sending out those post cards. I am not trying to di~aw any
definitive conclusions from these statistics. I am merely trying to
demonstrate that there are effective ways to increase voter registra-
tions other than by Congress flying in the face of the Constitution and
abolishing State requirements for registration in person.
Mr. Chairman, I can't recall a time in recent history when it was
easier to register and vote. But-the ease and simplicity of registration
procedures appear to have no positive effect on the number of persons
who choose to vote. Census Bureau testimony before this committee
supports this conclusion.
On June 28 of this year, representatives of the U.S. Census Bureau
testified before this subcommittee in opposition to this bill. During the
testimony, Deputy Census Director Robert Hagan revealed prelimi-
nary findings of a Census Bureau survey taken last November. The sur-
PAGENO="0135"
1~~'
IL
vey asked persons why they were not registered to vote in the 1972
election. The result of that survey is as follows:
Percent
Not a U.S. citizen 10. 6
Residence requirements not satisfied 6. 0
Not interested 42. 9
Disliked politics 7. 6
Unable to register 12. 6
Other 15.0
Don't know 5. 3
Six percent of the respondents listed lack of legal residency despite
the fact on March 21 of last year, the Supreme Court struck down all
State durational residency requirements in excess of 30 days in Presi-
dential elections. Better than 50 percent were not registered either be-
cause they were not interested or disliked politics.
These figures indicate that apathy and political alienation contribute
more to low registration than inconvenient registration procedures.
In any event, the figures do not justify nullification of State laws
which require registration in person.
There is one additional point I would like to emphasize. This bill,
although designed to regulate Federal elections, has for its purpose
regulation of both State and Federal elections. if the States become
subject to the provisions of this bill, they will be confronted with a
dilemma. They will be required either to mOdify or repeal laws gov-
erning voter registration and eleCtion procedures to conform to re-
quirements of this bill or else they must establish a dual system of
registration and voting in State and Federal elections. Of course,
there is a third alternative.
State registration and election Officials may simply throw up. their
hands in disgust and let the system go to pot. And why not? Here we
are up to o~ir necks in considering proposed legislation to help restore
the faith of the people in the integrity of our electoral processes, and
Congress is asked to enact a law-in defiance of specific provisions of
the Constitution-which would deny to the States the right to protect
the integrity of their votes by prescribing a system of absentee regis-
tration by post card.
But, one may ask, why would Congress do such a thing? I suggest
that one reason is that the bill cannot be said to have been adequately
considered in the Senate by reason of bypassing the jurisdiction of
the major committees which should have considered the bill.
I respectfully urge members of this subcommittee carefully to con-
sider the compelling minority views expressed by the distinguished
Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Fong, as the basis for his recommendation
and mine that this bill be rejected. I also commend to your considera-
tion two excellent editorials on this subject from the Birmingham
News, and. a column by the distinguished member of yOur committee
from Alabama, Mr. Dickinson, and a James Jackson Kilpatrick col-
umn, all of which speak with clarity and persuasion against this bill.
I request that these materials he included as a part of my testimony.
in conclusion, I cannot believe that there is any substantial senti-
ment by the people of this Nation to enact legislation which would in
any way put in jeopardy the integrity of our electoral processes. This
bill would. do just that. Should this bill be enacted, it cannot but create
PAGENO="0136"
130
g1ave doubts concerning the ability of the people to protect their votes
against cancellations or dilution by fraudulent practices made possible
under its provisions.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I respectfully urge
that the bill be rejected.
Mr. DENT. Thank you, Senator. I must say that your logic is very
compelling and very clearly demonstrates a background understand-
ing of the whole problem of registration.
I am sure the committee will benefit from your very wise counsel. I
have been informed that my subcommittee has gathered in the meet-
ing room and I will turn the meeting over to Congressman Mathis
at this time. I know you will be in the very kind, gentle hands of the
distinguished members of this committee, especially the distingui~hed
Member from your great State of Alabama, Mr. Dickinson.
Senator ALLEN. Thank you.
Mr. MATHIS. Senator, I join with the chairman in commending yoU
for your very fine statement. I wonder if you had any consideration
from the election officials in Alabama as to what their thinking was
on how they would be able to execute the provisions of this law when
you considered this bill in the Senate.
Senator. Ar~u~N. Yes. sir; we did. Our registration officials there very
strongly opposed this bill, as expressed in letters that I received from
Alabama. I might say also that I received letters from Florida from
the registrars there~ As a matter of fact, there in the Senate, as far
as I was able to. ascertain, there was no testimony adduced, none re-
ferred to on the Senate floor in the debate that extended for over ~O
days, off and on, that indicated that a single local registration official
endorsed the provisions of this bill.
Mr. MATHIS. Do you think that might be because they were unwill-
ing to accept the additional responsibilities of executing the law that
might add a burden to their job?
Senator ALLEN. No, I don't think it. was so much that. I think they
felt that the registration procedures are.adequate to take care of any-
body that wants to register. As the chairman knows, the effect of the
existing law today is that all it takes to register-there is no educa-
tional requirement, that has been knocked out-all it takes is for a
person to go before the Board of Registrars, present his person or his
body there, and show that he or she isiS years of age. That is all it
takes to register. It is easy enough to register. That is the easiest thing
in the world to do. Why should we broadcast.~ by the millions, post
cards through the mails when they would be available under terms of
the bill at Federal offices and offices of State and local officials. The
boards of registrars point out it would create chaos in their procedure
They would not be able to check these people out. They would have to
keep two lists. A person going in to vote, having qualified under the
post card registration law to vote in a Federal election-you could nOt
set up two different machines, they would have to vote on the same
machine-so you would have the election officials telling the person
who registered under the post card law, you can vote just on the Fed-
eral offices here, but don't you touch this lever here having to do with
the Governor's race, or the sheriff's race, or the mayor's race. You can-
not vote there. You are just a second-class citizen, actually, if you
PAGENO="0137"
131
have registered tinder the post card ~egistration. We would prefer to
have everybody qualified to vote in all elections, not limit them just to
I~'ederal elections.
Mr. MATm5. Mr. Dickinson.
Mr. DICKINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator, I would like to commend you on your comprehensive, and,
I think, very penetrating statement. I agree with the thoughts ex-
pressed here, and I think you have performed a yeoman service to our
committee as well as to the people of the country.
I have a couple of questions I would like to ask, though. This bill
or a similar bill was handled in the Senate. What was its fate?
Senator ALLEN. It has had two fates, actually. The proposal in the
last Congress had a motion to table the bill made and carried. It was
not until this Congress that another effort was made. The bill went to
the Post Office and Civil Service COmmittee, the chairman of which is
my distinguished friend, the Senator from `Wyoming, Mr. McGee, who,
by coincidence 1 am sure, is the author of the bill in the Senate.
The rules of the Senate would certainly indicate that the bill should
have gone to the Rules Committee rather than to the Post Office Com-
mittee. One might be led to b.elieve that the whole idea of sending these
cards to every postal address was put in there to give the Post Office
Committee some semblance of jurisdiction. It was discussed for quite
some time-more than a. month-on the Senate floor. Two efforts were
made to invoke cloture that were unsuccessful. On the third effort, the
cloture petition did carry, and on final passage it was voted with some
37 votes against it, I believe, in the Senate.
Mr. DICKINSON. Senator, one of the principal objections I have-I
have several to this bill-but you touched on one which is the most
important, and that is the potential for fraud here.
Senator ALLEN. Yes, very definitely.
Mr. DICKINSON. I agree with you that the proponents of the bill
probably have never heard of anybody stealing an election or of any
election irregularities, but I would submit that they are not unique to
Alabama even though we, in our State, have known of this on occasion.
Under the proposal, what would be the effect, as you understand it, of
purging the list and how often would these registnitions be offered,
and as you view it in talking with the election officials there, what
would be the effect, as far as officials are concerned, in policing these
registrations ?
Senator ALLEN. Of course, there is no provision in the bill as far as
I know- for purging the lists. That would still be left up to the local
officials.
Under the terms of the bill, they have to have this broadcast of
these post cards throughout the country to every postal address at
least once every 2 years. There, is nothing to prevent them having
them at other times.
As I pointed out on the Senate floor, you could bring the Census
Bureau very much into politics by allowing the Administrator of this
agency, which would be under the Census Bureau-by the way, they
are very much opposed to it-it would allow them to broadcast these
post cards right before a special election or any time they wanted to.
If they wanted a registration drive in a closely contested district,
PAGENO="0138"
132
some 5 percent difference between the parties, they could have a special
broadcasting of these post cards throughout a district.
If there was a heavily populated district of one party, and they
wanted to increase registrations for that party, they could send these
cards there and ignore other areas on special broadcast.
Mr. DIcKINsoN. You are saying if they wanted to be politically
motivated, they could selectively mail cards in a particular ward or
district or part of the State.
Senator Ani~Ex. Yes, and that would be in addition to the once every
2-year minimum mailing. There is nothing to prevent special broad-
cast of material.
Mr. DIcKINsoN. There is one thing that occurs to me and I am
wondering if you perceive this as a danger, under the heading of "dirty
tricks," if a person should get hold of a bunch of cards and fill them
out in real people's names but transfer these people to some other dis-
trict where they really did not live, and just mailed them in, without
the voter himself being aware that somebody has transferred him to
someplace else and when he goes down to vote without his knowledge,
he finds he is not registered there. He has been registered someplace
else. He is not sure where he is registered in the city or another county.
Could this be possible under this post card registration?
Senator ALLEN. There might be a possibility of that. Certainly there
are possibilities of many fraudulent practices that could be permitted.
Just dumping bushels of these cards on the desks of the, registrars
would cause chaos enough. I might say as I conceive sending out these
post cards, you would probably have to.have a double type card, with
two folds of cards. Senator Fong figured out that it would take around
.240 million cards to have a complete broadcast of these materials.
Figuring on just 100 million on this required sending out of materials,
if you had a hundred million, figuring 25 of these double cards to the
inch would.be 300 to the foot, this. 100 million would make 600 stacks
of cards each as tall as the Washington Monument that would be put
into th~ Postal Service to get these cards throughout the country, when
the bill provides .that all Federal offices and city and State offices have
them available. You can rest assured that most every do-good agency
would have a bale or two of them to have signed up. So there would
not be any need of sending them out through the postal system.
I might say that the bill makes the postman more or less a registra-
tion official because it provides that the postal service shall send to
every post office address a "sufficient" number of these cards. It does
not say a. sufficient number for what. Sufficient number to paper the
fellow's room or to furnish him with scratch pads for the year? The
postman is required to deliver to every mail address a sufficient number
of these cards. It makes him, I assume, inquire at every postal address
how many people are registered and how many cards they need. It
puts quite a burden on an already overburdened postal service.
Mr. DIcKINsoN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MATrn5. Mr. Mollohan.
Mr. MOLLOHAX. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MATm5. Mr. Ware .
Mr. W~iu~. I have no questions. . .
~vIr. MATm5. Mr. Frenzel. . . .
PAGENO="0139"
133
Mr. FRENZEL. I merely wanted to thank the Senator for his testi-
mony. We have to balance the possibility of increasing participation
against some of the negatives. I think you have done a good job in
pointing some of the negatives out. Thank you.
Senator ALLEN. Thank you.
Mr. MATInS. Thank you again for appearing before the committee
and sharing with us your thoughts' and opinions on this legislation.
Senator ALLEN. Thank you, sir.
Mr. MATInS. Our next witness is Charlotte Roe, executive director,
Frontlash, New York, N.Y.
We are delighted to hear from you, Miss Roe.
STATEMENT OP CHARLOTTE ROE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FRONT-
LASH, NEW YORK, N.Y.
Miss ROE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me here.
Mr. WARE. If I could interrupt, since our witness has appeared pre-
viously before the Senate committee, I am inquiring whether you have
new material to add. I am doing that only in the interest of time.
Miss ROE. Yes, I do have some new comments to make.
Mr. MATms. Very well, you may proceed..
Miss ROE. Mr. Chairman, I am' grateful for the opportunity to ap-
pear before the committee to comment on FI.R. 8053, the Voter Reg-
istration' Act, and on the problems which this legislation, seeks to
correct. "
I have submitted for the record a written statement describing the
kinds of `obstacles encountered by groups like ours when we seek to
bring those unrepresented into the electoral process: remote registra-
tion facilities, inconvenient hours, difficult forms and procedures, un-
cooperative election officials who use their power' arbitrarily to dis-
courage certain groups of citizens from registering. Such conditions
discriminate against the have-nots and have-littles in our society and
make it a burden for all but the highly motivated `few to get on the
registration rolls. `This' I would submit is what happened with the
youth vote in the 1972 elections. ,: Among that massive group of newly
enfranchised young voters aged 18 to 21, we find that those who had
a college education, those who came from families with higher incomes
tended on the whole to register without too much difficulty because
they had the motivation to overcome these kinds of obstacles. Those
who are working for a living, and those who did not share these ad-
vantages tended to have a much harder time in getting on the regis-
tration rolls.
The voter registration system' we have in this country is archaic, it
is unfair, and inefficient. I don't see a valid excuse put forth for it to
continue in the present day and age. H.R. 8053, the Voter Registra-
tion Act, would give us an alternative by providing easy access to
registration for voting to millions of Americans who are now outside
the democratic process. I think the main features of this bill which
would be helpful are that a simple post card form would go to every
household. It would do away with the requirement for inperson regis-
tration, which we find is the biggest barrier to expanding the voter
registration rolls. "
PAGENO="0140"
134
Those forms could, as it has been pointed out, be picked up by civic
groups and distributed in those neighborhoods where people do not
a~ easily respond by mail, and it would provide an easy, universal
system of absentee registration for shut-ins and students.
Most important, I feel it would place the responsibility for insur-
ing maximum enrollment where it belongs, on the Federal Govern-
m~nt, for Federal elections. There are many arguments thathave been
put forth against the bill. I myself have found them rather uncon-
vinfing.
We hear very often the argument that the post card registration
system would open the door for widespread fraud and voter abuse.
The fact remains that fraud does not occur at the point of registration.
Fraud actually occurs when a bogus voter casts his ballot. I want to
point out further that the fraudulent voter, the person who can move
around from voting district to voting district, or fly from State to
State, or go around taking names off tombstones in order to commit
fraudulent acts~ is the highly motivated voter. He is not the kind of
person who is now left off the registration rolls and left out of the
electoral process. So I do not find that the incidence of fraud would
be significantly expanded by this kind of a bill. In fact, the present
system does not to my knowledge have strong safeguards against
fraud. This hill would make it a criminal penalty to commit fraud in
elections and thereby would add further insurance against the misuse
Of voting. As Senator McGee pointed out in the Senate hearings and
on the floor of the Senate, the real fraud is that the present system
keeps millions from participating in the electoral process.
A second argument that is made frequently by some spokesmen of
the administration is that the legislation would involve the Bureau of
the Census in partisan politics because it would make the Bureau re-
sponsible for administering the postcard system as well as gathering
further statistics on registration and voting and by expanding voter
registratiOn. It is said you inevitably benefit one party over another
in certain districts and in certain States. Now we know that through-
out the past century every expansion of voting rights has been blocked
by certain politicians out of the fear that the newcomers would not he
voting their way. I would submit. gentlemen, that this fear is at the
basis of that kind of argument. It is part of the same problem. I think
it is time we stopped playing political football with voter registration
and say that those who are unregistered have a right to make their
voiee he~ rd whatever the outcome. It' seems to me that is what democ-
racy is all about.
Another argument is that greater ease of registration won't neces-
sarily boost voting participation. We need a study of the root causes
Of voter apathy, it is said~ instead of this kind of a bill.
This reminds me of the position taken by certain weli-meaning~
often liberal intellectuals, on the problem of crime. It is said that we
cannot do anything about the massive crime problem in the Tjnitecl
States until we solve the root causes which we know are things like
poverty~ slum conditions, miserable conditions, and social alien ation~
the same kind of causes that often lead people to not he motivated
enough to get into the electoral process. But the fact remains that 40
million Americans did not vote and could not vote in the. past Presi-
PAGENO="0141"
135
dential election for the sithple reason that they were not registered to
vote, they did not get past that first hurdle.
It seems to me it is not their apathy we have to worry so much about,
it is the apathy of public officials. who allow that kind of condition tç
continue when we know we could do a lot better at this game. It seems
to me that a system of universal registration would free many public
and private resources to do something about the underlying problem
of voter apathy, would allow us to do something serious about the prob-
1cm of producing a more aware and informed electorate and would
allow us to create the kinds of pressures that would make political
candidates speak to voters' needs. But we first have to do something
about that first hurdle of registration because whatever else we do and
talk about, unless that is solved, people won't get to vote.
The argument is made also by some Secretaries of State that legis-
lation covering only Federal elections would cause confusion at a
State level by requiring things like dual voting lists, and other admin-
istrative headaches.
I can sympathize with that argument. But I think we have to look
at the experience of 18 year olds in the 1972 elections. When that was
first enacted it would have meant the same kind of problem-dual vot-
ing lists-until the 18-year-old vote was made something that would
be a requirement for State and local elections as well.
I think this problem created strong pressures for States to adopt
laws that would bring their own systems into line and create more uni-
form standards for all elections which I think is a desirable condition.
Finally, the argument is made by some spokesmen in the adminis-
tration and their supporters that the costs are too high. The estimates
I have heard for the costs of this bill, gentlemen, I think are fairly
modest compared to the kind Of money and manpower that was ex-
pended by some people in the same administration to subvert the demo-
cratic process, as we have seen in the hearings about Watergate.
If you want to subvert the democratic process I think you have tO
pay for it and some people. were willing to pay for it. If you want to
improve the democratic process you have to be willing to pay for it as
well.
In the long run, I feel, however, that a post card registration sys-
tem, if universally adopted could end up costing less than the kind
of wasteful, erratic, hodge-podge of State laws and procedures that
we now have. So in summary, I think that the Voter Registration
Act will. not be a panacea for all the problems of registration and
voting in this country, but it will make voter registr~tion easier, it
will make it more a public responsibility, which I think is wise, and
it will make the Government more truly reflective of the voice of the
people. I think it deserves our strong support. Thank you.
Mr. MATInS. Thank you for your statement, which will be made a
part of the committee record without your objection.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CI-JARLOTTE ROE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FRONTLASH
The 1972 elections clearly demonstrated the need for a comprehensive reform
of the nation's voter registration system. Voting participation dropped to a bare
5~ percent of the potential electorate-the lowest turnout since 1948. The number
of non-voters increased from 44 million in 1908 to 62 million in 1972.
PAGENO="0142"
136
Despite widespread disenchantment with the choices posed in the Presidential
election, voter apathy or "turnoff" is not the main cause for this poor showing.
The majority of Americans who register tend to vote in national elections.
Bureau of the Census studies show that even among 18 to 21 year olds, the age
group with the lowest record of voting participation, 83 percent of those registered
cast their ballots in 1972.
The major obstacle to broadening the base of political participation is the
thicket of complicated, archaic, and restrictive laws and procedures for voter
registration. The United States is the only free Western nation which puts the
burden of voter enrollment on the individual rather than on the government.
The system of volitional, personal registration has produced the lowest election
turnouts among Western democracies. Only two-thirds of our voting age popula-
tion normally participates in Presidential elections. But in Canada, Great Britain,
and the Scandinavian countries where universal voter enrollment is a public
responsibility, the average for voting participation in national elections is at
least 20 percentage points higher.
In too many areas, the task of registering to vote is frustrating and unneces-
sarily difficult for ordinary citizens. In a great many communities voter enroll-
ment is conducted at remote locations at hours which are inconvenient to work-
ing people, parents of young children* and full-time students. A national survey
conducted by the League of Women Voters Education Fund in 1972 found that
75 percent of our citizens have no weekend or evening registration facilities avail-
able to them in the months outside of election campaigns. Thirty-eight percent
have no access to registration facilities during non-working hours, even in the
period immediately preceding an election.
The registration books are often closed long before interest in the elections
reaches a peak or information about registration procedures has reached the
bulk of unregistered voters. Only a handful of states make the maximum use
of deputy registrars to bring the opportunities for registration to the work
places and the communities where voting participation is low. Long and obscure
registration forms, crowded registration offices, confusing or non-existent pro-
edures for absentee registration, and the lack of bilingual facilities are other
factors which often discourage potential voters from exercising their franchise.
Moreover, most states leave a great amount of discretion to local officials in
determining the rules and mechanisms by which voter registration is carried
out. These officials can sometimes exercise their power in a way which obstructs
rather than assists the right to vote.
Field reports from Frontlash, a non-partisan voter registration and voter ed-
ucation organization, document the kinds of obstacles encountered by civic
groups which are working to broaden the opportunities for participation in the
democratic process.
New Jersey Frontlash reports that 60 percent of its activities in 1972 were
concentrated on seeking to liberalize procedures for registration and persuading
local election authorities to appoint deputy registrars, a procedure which is per-
missible under state law but only use a few counties. Voters in lower-in-
come neighborhoods, it was found, are frequently bypassed when the programs
for mobile registration are implemented. In Camden, a city with a large, under-
registered black and Puerto Rican population, the dates and sites of mobile reg-
istration were not announced in advance by the election commission. Volunteers
had to search for the garage where the mobile van was stored, then follow it
with a car and mimeograph machine, running off leaflets to inform residents
where the registration van would be stationed. Similar situations were reported
in Champaign County, Illinois.
In New Bedford. voter registration is conducted at the Town Hall during week-
day hours which exclude most working people. Massachusetts election law pro-
vides for two days during the year when the election commission is required to
accept petitions for special sessions of neighborhood registration, but the rules
are not published and are frequently followed erratically. The city has a large
population of Portuguese-speaking citizens who are under-represented at the
polls, yet no translating assistance was provided at the town hail. Some clerks
reportedly made derisive remarks about young and minority citizens who applied
to register.
At Prairie View A & M, a predominantly black college in East Texas. the ma-
jority of eligible student voters were effectively disfranchised in 1972. Local of-
ficials required young voters to fill out lengthy questionnaires for registration
PAGENO="0143"
137
and subjected them to intensive interrogation, asking them to prove they would
remain as permanent residents of the community-standards which were not
applied to other classes of voters. At the beginning of 1072 a Prairie View student
filed suit in the U.S. District Court contending that he and 1,500 other students
should be allowed to vote in the community. In October the District Judge ruled
in his favor but denied the class action, saying that it would be too late to reg-
ister all the students in time for the election.
In the hundreds of small towns in New I-Iampshire, there are no set rules for
when and where registration can be conducted, and practically no provisions for
mobile registration. The process of voter enrollment is dependant upon the per-
sonal inclinations of the town clerk. He arbitrarily decides how to register people,
usually permitting an hour a week in his home. He can demand birth certificates
to discourage newcomers or, if he wishes to be helpful, he can decide to visit
neighbors' homes to seek out new voters. Given this helter-skelter system, the
organization of a coordinated voter registration drive in rural areas is greatly
stymied.
In Cleveland, Ohio, the Board of Elections has traditionally allowed only one
day before every election when voters could register outside the county court-
house. When Frontlash representatives first requested an expanded number of
days for precinct registration, the Board Chairman categorically said it was not
legally permitted. The election law did in fact provide for ten days of out-of-
office registration and after months of : petitioning, negotiating, and mounting
public pressure, the request was finally granted shortly before the 1972 elections
deadline.
The examples of arbitrary and restrictive application of voting laws could be
multiplied. The state laws themselves can also be an instrument to curtail the
opportunities for registration. In New York, for example, the State Assembly
recently passed a bill requiring that out-of-office registration be conducted only
by full-time employees of the Board of Elections. The new legislation would
make it impossible for volunteer registrars to carry on the kind of enrollment
drives which have resulted in the enlistment of hundreds of thousands of new
voters in New York City alone during the past year.
These kinds of barriers keep millions of Americans from expressing their will
atthe polls. They discriminate against those who work for a living, who cannot
easily afford to take time off from their job or travel long distances to register.
They make it hard to enroll the less-educated and the young, who are more tran-
sient and more likely to be intimidated by complex registration procedures.
These institutional obstacles deepen the class bias in our electoral system. Blue-
collar workers register to vote at about one-half the rate of the professional,
managerial groups; and in the 1972 elections, about 80 percent of college students
were registered in comparison with only 55 percent of the less-privileged non-
college youth.
To correct these inequities, the federal government must assume the responsi-
bility of insuring that every American of voting age is able to register with as
little inconvenience as possible.
The Voter Registration Act (H.R. 8053) would go a long way toward meeting
the goal of full and free electoral participation. It would establish a simple proc-
ess of registration by mail for Federal elections. Postcard registration forms
wOuld be delivered to every household by the U.S. Postal Service prior to general
elections; the forms would be available for public distribution throughout the
year, and printed in languages other than English where such assistance is re-
quired. Financial incentives would be provided to encourage states to adopt the
postcard registration system for state and local elections. Strict penalties would
be used to guard against fraud.
The Voter Registration Act would not be a cure-all for low participation.
Additional reforms would still be needed to clear the path to the voting booth.
Among these would be: legislation to make election day a half-day national
holiday; a requirement that voter registration lists be used for electoral pur-
poses only and not for tax assessment or jury duty; and a 30-day limit on regis-
tration deadlines.
But the enactment of a national system of post card registration, by eliminat-
ing the cumbersome requirements of personal registration, would do more than
any single step to expand voting rights for all Americans and to reverse the
dismal record of low voter turnout which has marred U.S. elections for the past
fifty years. In our view it should be supported by all those who believe in the
value and potentialities of democracy.
PAGENO="0144"
138
Mr. MATHIS. Mr. Holloha.n, do you have any questions?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes; I do have, Mr. Chairman.
Miss Roe, 1 think the thrust of what you said is that you are very
interested and committed to any method, regardless of what that
method might be, as long as it is legal, of course, which would make
it easier and simpler and more attractive, possibly, to people every-
where to register and looking toward a greater nunTher of our people
exercismg their right or privilege or their responsibility of actually
voting.
So regardless of what kind of a method we would adopt, if it were
as easy as you suggest post cards would be, or any other method, you
would be sympathetic to that, would you?
Miss ROE. It if helps expand democracy and improve democracy
in this country I am for it.
Mr. MOILOHAN. There are two classic illustrations. One not at all
dissimilar from the one we are suggesting here in this legislation. I
am sure you are familiar with the Texas law which, according to
information presented to us here in previous sessions, now only car-
ries forward the post card registration concept but goes a step farther
and prints in newspapers coupons and things of this sort which may
be utilized and mailed for the purpose of accomplishing a registra-
tion act.
What we are looking for is not just registration, we are looking
for actual voting, but voting is based primarily on a person to be regis-
tered and eligible. But the results of the voting process in Texas were
somewhat disenchanting insofar as expecting this registration method
to assure that there would be a greater and higher percentage of
those who had previously voted. As I remember it the actual percent-
age of those voting in Texas was much, much lower than the national
average. Then we even had a more classic illustration before us, the
comparisons between South Dakota and North Dakota. I am sure you
are familiar with that. You have been a student of this and I am quite
confident you have studied this and you have some really important
comments to make about it as a result of those studies.
In one of those States we continue to have the so-called conventional
type of registration requirement. But in the other all one need do is
present himself at the poiis on election day, present that information
which may be necessary to identify himself as a legally qualified and
eligible voter. He registers and then he votes simultaneously.
As I recall the testimony, which was given 2 weeks ago and I might
very well be in error. there was very little, if any, difference whatever
in the percentage of voting in North Dakota. as opposed to South
Dakota.
Do you have any comments on this?
MiSS ROE. Yes; I do. First on the Texas system, I don't think that
the. Texas system is exactly comparable to the Voter Registration Act
which is now under consideration.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. In what way is it dissimilar?
Miss ROE. It is dissimilar because, first of all, the post card forms in
Texas are available in newspapers. They are not distributed to every
household, however. They are not universally available.
Mr. MOLLOHAX. Are you sure of this point?
PAGENO="0145"
139
Miss ROE. I am sure of it because I have engaged in voter registra-
tion campaigns in Texas
Mr. MOLLOHAN. In other words, you are saying under the Texas reg-
istration law the only availability you have beyond presenting yourself
to the proper registration official is by clipping a coupon from the
newspapers.
Miss ROE. No; there are other methods, sir. One of the methods is
that during the past year in order to expand registration, because Texas
had one of the lowest voting partiOipation levels of my State-it was
the last State to get rid of the poil tax, and I will give you another
additional reason why you had such a miserable record of voter turn-
out-in order to do something about their problem, election officials
began mailing these post card forms to those who had been previously
registered. It did not get to the people who were chronically unregis-
tered.
Mr. M0LL0I-IAN. You say they have mailed post card registration?
Miss ROE. To those who had been previously registered.
Mr. MOLLOIJAN. But not to every single household or resident.
Miss ROE. No. This is what the lill I support would do, because
I think it would go many steps further. The major reason that Texas
voting participation has been so low, after the poll tax was elimi-
nated, has been that until the past year you had to register by Jan-
uary 31 in order to be eligible to vote in November. This provision
in Texas election law, it was proved in arguments before the District
Federal Court and the Supreme Court where this was finally knocked
down, was a major contributor to low participation, because people
who had little education, people who were not politically sophisti-
cated, as only a minority of peOple in this country are active and
eagerly reading everything about politics, would not become. aware
of an election campaign until a: few months before when they had
lost their chance to register to vote. This provision was knocked out.
But it takes some time before that massive group of citizens which
has been excluded by such a procedure becomes aware of their oppor-
tunities for registration.
When you go around registering people to vote in Texas now you
will find that many people think that this provision is still in effect.
There were 1 million more citizens added to the voting rolls in the
past year, for the 1972 election, since this provision was knocked out.
That I would submit is an example of how by easing voter registra-
tion laws you do boost voting participation.
Mr. M0LL0T-JAN. Wrhat comments would you have with respect to
the ease of registration?
Miss ROE. I have one other~ example in my written testimony,
which is that you still have elečtion officials in some parts of Texas
actively discouraging certain groups of voters from registering. The
Prairie View A. & M. example was the one I gave in my testimony.
There students were effectively prevented from registering in the
community in which they lived.: This also was proved to be illegal by
a Federal District Court but not as a class action because it did not
come up until October.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. When were these decisions rendered?
Miss ROE. That was rendered in October 1972, right before the
election.
2O-69~-73------iO
PAGENO="0146"
140
Mr. MOLLOI-IAX. What impact if any did it have on the registration
there?
Miss ROE. It only affected the one plaintiff, the student who brought
the case. He did not win his case as a class action.
Mr. MOLLOT-TAN. Let us go a step further and talk for a moment
about North and South Dakota because it seems to me we are all
looking for a simplification of the registration process and anything
that is more simple than the post card would be more attractive gen-
erally to those who are advocating this kind of legislation. In North
or South Dakota we have an immediate registration and immediate
follow-on of voting. What would be your comments to this?
Miss ROE. North Dakota is a State in which there is no registra-
tion required. It is one of the States in which there is a fairly high
turnout compared to other States.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Wait a minute, you have the sheet there, what is
the comparison between North and South Dakota, which I looked upon
as being pretty identical.
Miss ROE. Their percentage turnout, as you said, is about equal.
North Dakota had a 67-percent turnout in 1968, South Dakota had a
68-percent voter turnout. Both States have a fairly easy registration
system. But in North Dakota by comparison, you register by in effect
appearing at the polls. You do not have a prior registration.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. All you have to do is want to vote and there are no
prohibitions of time or any element of circumstance. If you are avail-
able to vote you are available to register, as I see it. So it looks to me
this is the most simple of all suggestions I have heard. But still it does
not enhance the voting percentages.
Miss ROE. it does enhance them considerably over Alabama which
had a 51-percent turnout.
Mr. M0LL0HAN. You are going to a noncomparable situation. When-
ever we are making an evaluation of circumstances we have to look at
a more or less identical circumstance. There is a great deal of difference
between Alabama and North Dakota. Also~ North Dakota and New
York City. But there is very, very little difference between North
Dakota and South Dakota as I understand it geographically, popula-
tion-wise, peon~e's inclinations, attitudes and what not.
Miss ROE. That is right.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Why would we not be more realistic if we were
making comparisons between these two comparables rather than going
out and picking up an extreme illustration where there is a noncom-
parabilit-y and so many different areas. Why can't we contain ourselves
with just North and South Dakota? This gives to both of us some-
thin~ we did iook at and put out teeth into.
Miss ROE. I think the answer is that first of all the McGee bill, or
S. 352, which is now before this committee does not propose no
reg~strat~ on.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am not in the slightest interested in what these
bills contain at t-he moment. I am interested in your comment-s in dis-
cussing the lack of disparity between the conventional registration
process, the effectiveness or end results of it, in North Dakota as op-
posed to South Dakota when you have a much more easy method of
registering and voting than you would have with the post card or
coupon process.
PAGENO="0147"
141
Miss ROE. I am not sure this is easier.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. How can you say that?
Miss ROE. By going to households it will alert people to the need to
register, as you do in South Dakota, you inform people about the
elections. I am not convinced that a no registration system is in fact
easier. It has not been shown to me.
Mr. M0LL0nAN. In West Virginia in my campaign last year, I was
very much interested in getting as many people to the polls as I can
because I think this serves my selfish advantage. If I can get a high
percentage of people, who are registered and vote I am in a far better
position as far as the end results than if a low percentage turned out.
In the last 2 days of campaign, I ran 12 what you may characterize
as nonpolitical radio spots over every one of the radio stations in my
district urging people to vote and there was no urging for them to go
out and vote for me. But that they go vote, period. So I am interested
in a greater percentage of voting, too.
I associate myself very definitely with you in this goal. But on the
other hand, you have the North and South Dakota thing where all you
have to do is say I want to vote and walk in, but in one of them you
have to have a preregistration eligibility and have in the final analysis
the same percentage of actual voting accomplished.
Miss ROE. We have a difference of opinion on the logic that is
involved here.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I don't think there is a difference of opinion. I want
to know what yQu think.
Miss ROE. In my view the important comparison to make is between
those States that have very difficult registration systems and those
that have the easiest ones. You are making a comparison between two
States which have fairly easy ones.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. North and South Dakota are a very easy comparison.
Miss ROE. I do not accept your opinion that the North Dakota situ-
ation is the most advantageous, you see. To make that comparison I
would have to accept it.
Mr. M0LL0HAN. You would rather compare Alabama to North
Dakota.
Miss Ron. Or New York City.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Wait a minute. You feel t.hat New York City's
voting situation and problems are directly comparable to North
Dakota's, is that what you are saying?
Miss Ron. Yes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Then I have nO other questions, Mr. Chairman. I
am done.
Mr. MATins. Mr. Ware.
Mr. WARE. Miss Roe, have you gone personally door to door to
register people to vote?
Miss Ron. Have I gone door to door?
Mr. `WARE. Yes; to register voters?
Miss Ron. No; I have accompanied groups. We don't have door to
door registration in New York where I am a registered voter. I have
accompanied people to do this in~ States which allow such a system.
Mr. WARE. I did want to refer to the fact that I have done this as
a block worker and a junior committee man and a committee man over
PAGENO="0148"
142
a period of a number of years, and I think my ~nost discouraging and
disappointing experience in my role was the number of people who
did not want to register no matter how easy you make it for them.
I note in your comment about the level of intelligence and so forth,
and again disappointingly, the largest percentage of those that would
not register in my experience were teachers, who presumably are intel-
ligent and trained to teach others.
Another interesting experience as the result of that experience was
that those who you finally convinced should register and that this was
an important part of our process, those you finally talked into regis-
tering-and I might say I never made the slightest reference to the
need or desire to register in one party or another, but registered people
of all parties and no parties and independents-but those who were
the most difficult to register I found also were those who were most
unlikely to show up at the polls. Then I would point out that there is
another factor that is very important in the percentage of turnout on
election day. For example, in my home precinct for President Eisen-
hower, when he was first a candidate, 98 percent of the people voted.
No other candidate has received that percentage of vote. When you
make comparisons you have to look at the candidate and the whole
field of candidates, and you will find that candidates on the same
election day, on the same ballot, do not receive the same percentage
vote.
Miss ROE. I think that the example you give of teachers not want-
ing to register to vote might be something that would occur in certain
areas, but I think it is the exception rather than the rule.
Mr. WARE. That is why I wanted to ask you about your experience.
You say you think it is the exception. I can tell you that is my experi-
ence. I would be interested in why you think there would be a reason
for that.
Miss ROE. My reason is just the statistics. I am looking for example
at a chart that the U.S. Bureau of Census did in 1968, showing voting
participation or registration according to the educational level. As we
know, voter registration and voting goes up the higher the educational
level and the higher the income level.
Of those who had only an elementary school education, 48 percent
were registered. Of those who had a college education, 86 percent on
the average were registered.
Mr. WARE. I was not questioning that. I would say that it is cer-
tainly my experience with one group who are allegedly educated-and
in my State you have to have more than elementary or more than a
high school education to get a certificate to teach, and I am speaking
not only of teachers in the public school system but in private school
systems and in colleges and universities. So what I am saying is that
while I am not questioning your statistics, I say there are exceptions
to them.
Miss RoE.~ I have run into individual teachers going door to door in
New York City to try to get people out to vote who~ would say they
would not do it because of a particular election. In my experience it
was the exception. I had a harder time drawing people out to vote
in low-income neighborhoods. First of all the highest percentage were
not registered. Second, when you try to get them registered they are
PAGENO="0149"
143
sometimes afraid that you will use the names for the wrong purpose.
There are many reasons why voting participation is low. However, I
think we have to look at the experience of other democratic countries,
other western European countries, where thereis a system of universal
registration in effect, where the Government does take responsibility
for making sure every citizen gets on the voting rolls and where voting
participation is something like an average of 20 percentage points
lugher than we have. I don't think that is an accident. I don't think it
is an accident that the States having the most difficult systems of regis-
tration happen to be lowest on the list of voting participation levels. I
think these things are related arid are connected. I think the bill we
are considering would correct these kinds of problems to a certain
extent.
Mr. WARE. I would have to say my own experience is.different from
what you think.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MATm5. Thank you, Mr. Ware.
Mr. Frenzel.
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Miss Roe, can you tell us what Frontlash is, who represents it, how
many are represented in it, who finances it, and so on. I don't know
anything about your organization.
Miss ROE. I would be very happy to, sir.
Frontlash is an Organization that was created by the U.S. Youth
Council, which is a confederation of about 26 national youth and
student organizations, in 1968. It is devoted to trying to expand voting
awareness among young people arid to engage young people in non-
partisan voter registration campaigns to reach other people of all ages
who have been excluded from the electoral process. We hold educa-
tional meetings to interest young people iri political issues, as well as
engage in door-to-door voter registration campaigns in the States that
allow it prior to national elections and local elections.
Mr. FRENZEL. Do you charge dues to your members?
Miss ROE. It is not a membership organization. It is an organization
of volunteers. We have about 30 groups active in that many States at
the present time, and many more groups covering about 100 cities
active in 1972 elections. We are financed by contributions from private
foundations, from labor unions, for the most part, from some student
organizations, from individuals and by fundraising events on a com-
munity level, like car raffles and things of that sort.
Mr. FRENZEL. Do you have an annual budget?
Miss ROE. We had an annual budget in the past elections of
$150,000. Our local groups do fundraising of their own to finance local
campaigns. We had about 25,000 volunteers, we estimate, active in the
1972 elections doing voter registration and helping to turn out voters
after they were registered and informing them of the issues.
Mr. FRENZEL. Of the $150,000 is most of that from foundations or
labor unions or what?
MiSS ROE. Over half is from trade unions. Most of the other con-
tributions are gotten from individual direct mail campaigns and from
people who contribute to local projects.
Mr~ FRENzEL.IThank you verymuch.
PAGENO="0150"
144
You have indicated in your testimony that you have had difficulty ill
areas where you have been active in breaking through the bureau-
cratic, redtane and barriers, to get people registered.
One of th~ things that concerns me about Senator McGee's bill is
that it interposes another bureaucratic level, and specifically in two
sections,. one of which allows any local election officials to call in the
Feds. I think we have 150,000 election precincts in this country so we
have at least a million election officials. Does it not strike you that a
student group somewhere, or a foreign-language-speaking group,
might be prohibited or might have their registration delayed by hav-
ing the local guy, who would not think it proper for this group to be
registered or for some of them to be registered, called in the Feds and
ask them to go through their assistance or investigatory process.
Wouldn't that be a form of harassment and slowdown of registra-
tion?
Miss ROE. First of all it would be hard for me to envision that situa-
tion. It seems to me what this bill would do is remove from
the decisionmaking powers of the local election official the ability to
say whether or not a person should be registered simply because he
has an inclination to do it or not.
It does away with the requirement for in-person registration. Any-
body who wants to vouch that they are a qualified person to become
a registered voter will be able to fill out a form and submit it and
become added to the registration rolls. Second, I would say that to
my knowledge the existence of Federal registrars who have been sent
into States to help facilitate registration has never been an obstacle,
has never been a bureaucratic barrier in the way of people being added
to the rolls. In fact, in the experience we can look at, during the time
when the 1965 Voting Rights Act was put into effect and Federal
registrars could be called into Southern States and counties in those
States which were denying people the right to vote, in every case that
I can think of the existence of Federal registrars was a help and not
a hindrance.
Mr. :FREXZEL. I would agree in many cases it would be. I would be
nervous in some cases it might not be. Specifically in 407(b) (1).
Whenever a State official-remember we have a million of them-de-
termines that there is a patternof fraudulent registration on the part
of individuals or groups to register who are not qualified electors, that
official can request the Attorney General to bring action, and the At-
torney General can bring civil action to enjoin this kind of registra-
tion. It seems to me you might find yourself in the same box you found
yourself in at Prairie View A. & M. where you have a court case that
delays the possibility of registration and ultimately disenfranchises
the person.
I suppose that takes a dim view- of the Federal bureaucracy that this
bill attempts to create, and maybe of local officials and maybe of the
Justice Department. But if what you say is true of existing bureauc-
racies that are handling the job, maybe this just doubles the burden.
Miss ROE. This is political theory, of course, but I would think that
would not be the case. The reasoii being that the local official who as I
have pointed out in many cases has been able to stand in the way of
expanding registration is someone who is not as accountable to an elec-
PAGENO="0151"
145
torate as I would feel a Federal official would be; that is, he can say in
Prairie View, if all these black students would get on the rolls it would
upset the applecart and we would have a different kind of electorate.
The Federal official it seems to me is more under the public eye, has
got to be more accountable to an electorate that includes all kinds of
people and not just a narrow base as in a small town.
Mr. FRENZEL. You are talking about appointees of appointees. They
are not accountable to anybody.
Miss ROE. Yes. But at the point where they are going to call it fraud
and come into a community to investigate it they will be under a lot
of scrutiny. They will be under a lot of public scrutiny. You don't just
cry fraud without having something to back it up.
Mr. FRENZEL. It doesn't make you a bit nervous having a bureaucrat
trying to register.the disadvantaged?
Miss ROE. I think it could be misused but I think we have a lot of
tools to assure ourselves against that kind of misuse if we know how
to employ them. In the Prairie View case I pointed to, it was not the
Federal court case that was holding up registration. The Federal court
case in fact, just the existence of that case was putting pressure on the
local officials .to let one, two, three, four, five st.udents register a little
bit at a time. The fact that there was that delay did not mean that
they were doing less. In fact, they were doing more because they knew
that this case was becoming something that had more national atten-
tion focused on it. .
Mr. FRENZEL. Thank . you. In your written statement you point out
that voter participation dropped significantly from the 1968 election
to the 1972 election I guess p'irt of th'it was to be expected, beciuse
of the enfranchisement of new voters Perhaps it is comparable to
what. happened when women's suffrage occurred. All of the people
who were newly enfranchised did not take advantage of that franchise.
You also. point out that the foreign countries' voter participation is
considerably higher but you don't point out that the trend there is
about the same as the United States, and that is down in terms of voter
turnout. The other thing, since we are comparing other countries,
I wonder why we don't look to the north where Canada does what
I have been told is pretty good voter registration but they do it in a
different way and a way that I am told is cheaper per capita than many
of the estimates on the post card registration.
Miss ROE. I see. I agree with you that Canada has a very good sys-
tem. I think if we had a political climate in which we could get that
kind of a bill passed, which in my view is even more far reaching-
the kind of reform that would establish a Ca.nadian type system-I
would be behind it. If we had a bill before the committee, I would
support t.hat kind of system.
I would guess it would be a little more costly-in fact a lot more
costly-possibly, than the bill we are considering, because what Can-
ada does is employ bipartisan teams of registrars who go door to
door and themselves do up a canvass.
Mr. FRENZEL. That is right. : .
MisS ROE. They don't have an existing system like the U.S. Postal
Service distributing the cards. They follow up and get people on the
rolls, and post them on telephone poles so people can see if they are
PAGENO="0152"
146
on the rolls or not and add their names. This, in my view, is a very
good kind of system.
Mr. FRENZEL. In my view, it is a good kind of system.
Miss ROE. It results in 98 percent registration. If we had that kmd
of reform before us, I would be for it. The McGee bill goes about
three-quarters of the way.
Mr. FRENZEL. There have been various estimates of the cost of this
system, which range from $30 million to $500 million. I am told the
cost of the Canadian system is something like 62 cents per capita.
Translated to 200 million people, that is well within estimates for
post card registration. Given a fixed amount of dollars to insure max~-
mum registration and participation, why are we messing around with
post card registration? Why don't we go first class?
Miss ROE. Simply because I do not think you would have in the
Congress the potential votes to erect such a system at this time. This,
to my view-the bill we are now considering-is a very modest reform.
It uses a. ver simple system. It does not go to the full extent of actually
having the Government go out and canvass every person and get-them
on the rolls. It goes three-quarters of the way.
* We had a couple of bills in the Senate that proposed the same kind
of things-Senator Kennedy's was one of them-and I think it was
determined there would not have been the support for such a bill
at this time.
Mr. FRENZEL. Senator Kennedy did not happen to be the chairman
of the committee in which the bill was being heard.
Miss ROE. There were other reasons, I think, for it being dropped.
Mr. FRENZEL. Your paper points out some specific. problems. You
are talking about no evening registration at times other than election
time. YOU are talking about no evening or weekend registration im-
mediately before an election. You and I have discussed the roving
registrars. You have discussed the foreign language proble.m. All of
these are problems that. can be attacked directly and specifically. So
I am wondering why we are shooting the big shotgun out at the goose
thnt is flying 2 miles overhead.
Miss ROE. It seems to me if you like the Canadian system, anybody
who supports that system would support this bill as a measure toward
th~t kind of a goal. .. * -
M~. FREXZEL. Exception.
Miss ROE. We talk about the lack of evening registration and the
lack of registration of people who work during the day and can't get
to- it-those problems would be done away with if you did not have
to have in-person registration. -
The. existence of these post cards. where groups such as ours could
distribute them on a door-to-door basis, would set up an automatic
system of deputy registrars in States that don't have that kind of
systems. `That-, to m~ view, would be a giant improvement over what
we now have.
Mr. FRENZEL. Again, all I say is that with a given amount of money
you ought to do the right job. . You also ought to know how much it
costs. You ought to have an idea. of what the system is going to do
for you. both the pluses and the -minuses-the expanded registration
versus the fraud possibilities. versus the counterproductive possibili-
PAGENO="0153"
147
ties WTe h't~ e he'iid some of them fiom the local election people, `uid
we will hear more. I guess I think it is a little reckless to. say that
somebody might get registered by this system and therefore it is a
good system. It seems to me we ought to look for a system that is
the best one we can produce, and not just say since this one is before
us, this is it. folks-hurrav!
Miss ROEI I would submit that I think this is the best reform we
can get at: the present time. I think it has got many advantages for
us which I have enumerated in the testimony.
Mr. FRENZEL. Let me ask a last question. In your experience, most
people register pretty close to election day, do they not? I think you
responded to one of Mr. Mollohan's questions by saying that people
have to get excited. In Texas, they are not going to register early.
It doesn't make any difference whether you have a weekend .registra-
tioń in January, the bulk of the registration occurs in the last 90 days.
It occurs by reason of candidates' people going around and getting
people excited and transmitting their enthusiasm to potential regis-
trants . who then register. Are .we reducing this? Is it true that the `time
frame is reduced and most actual ,. registration is done by candidates'
people or parties? `~ ` : ` .
Miss ROE. I don't believe that most actual registration is done by the
candidates because ca.ndidates are interested in registering those peo.-
ple who they think are going to gŕ their way definitely, as they have
been able to determine. I think the election interest generated by a
good campaign, which I don't feel we had in the 1972 elections, is a
major contributing factor to voter interest and turnout. There is no
question about it. I would agree with you that the time span for regis-
tering makes sense when it is close to an election. and I think the fact
that the bill provides for distribution of post cards, 45 to 30 days prior
to the election, is a good framework to do that.
Mr. FRENZEL. We discussed that with the Senator when he was here
whether the U.S. Postal Service would get the things out and whether
the people would understand them and get them back in, and whether
the handling that would be done, because many. people who were al-
ready registered would be reregistered and those cards would have to
be checked out, and so on, whether this thing would not actually get
snailed lip with the time iestraints th~t tre in this bill
Miss RoE. I do not see the prospects for a major snarlup. I think
one advantage we have is tha.t we do not have to wait until the U.S.
Postal Service itself would distribut.e the cards.
Groups that are interested in expanding voter registration in a ~iven
community, the League of Women's Voters for example, would now
have a free hand for themselves `to become deputy registrars in every
State of the Union for distributing these post cards any place they
wanted to and have people to be added to the rolls for Federal e1ec-
tions. They could do that befoi~e primaries, they could do it before
local and State elections as well.:'
* Mr. FRENZEL. Itmakes everyone a deputy registrar?
Miss ROE. Yes. . *: *
* Mr. . FRENZEL. And you could tuck these cards in the "WeTcome
Wagon" box?
PAGENO="0154"
148
Miss ROE. That is right. You would not have to go through a lot of
redtape to have people deputized. I think this would be a big contrib-
uting factor to higher turnout.
Mr. FREXZEL. Thank you~ Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MATmS. Thank you, Mr. Frenzel.
Mr. Jones.
Mr. JONES. I have no questions.
Mr. MOLLOnAX. I agree with what you said, Miss Roe, that the
desire to register being in that point of time when there is the greatest
amount of interest in the election itself and the results of that election,
and accepting that this develops as the campaign goes forward and
coming about by reason of the activity of the candidates and the par-
ties and those others who were interested in the candidates, why would
we not be better off to declare and to pass legislation which would
make it possible for a person to register and to vote at that point of
most extreme heightened interest which would be the election day
it.self.
At this point in time there can be no frustration of not being regis-
tered and not being eligible. In other words, I wish I had registered
45 days during the time frame I was eligible to do so. I don't have
to do it. I can go from work and register and vote. I need not be
bothered in the evening. I need not take time from work to register.
I need not fill out a post card. I need not do anything but exercise
the right of voting. Why would not you and your organization and
everyone eI~e-and I am asking you *a very sincere question-why
would you not urge the adoption of the Dakota law nationally, rather
than thi~, which regardless of what you have said, and accepting what
you have *said as being completely factual, but in considering that
also, the Texas law has not been as effective and productive as we
would like it to he-why would you not go for this more simple proc-
ess, a process which requires nothing except a desire to vote on. elec-
tion day.
Miss ROE. My reason is simple. I do not think the Dakota system is
the best because first of all the whole United States is not a rural
nation. . . .
Mr. MOLL0I-IAN. Wait a minute. because I have to understand you
if I am to accept your premise. You told me a while ago that there
was complete comparability between New York and the Dakotas.
Miss ROE. No. I said that the oiie was an easy system and New York
was a very difficult system.
Mr. MOLLOIIAN. No, you didn't say that. I asked you if there was
comparability and you said yes. .
Miss ROE. I was comparing an easy and difficult system as Alabama
to North Dakota or New York to South Dakota.
Mr. M0LLOIIAx. You were saying that the voting factors in those
two areas were comparable.
Miss ROE. I am sorry, you misunderstood me, Congressman. I was
saying that the reason I am not for that kind of system is because first
of all it does not provide safeguards against fraud. More importantly,
I think . there is a value to having the voting list compiled before the
election.
Mr. M0LLOHAN. Why doesn't it provide safeguards? `What safe-
guards against fraud are a part of the post card or coupon register-
PAGENO="0155"
149,
ing system that are not a part of that registering system on election
day when you have to go in and confront the responsible person, you
have to present the evidence necessary to establish your residency and
eligibility? What greater amount of protection from fraud would
you expect than that?
Miss Ron. For the simple reason that if an election official believes
that there is some kind of pattern Or a danger of a pattern develop-
ing in a certain area of people registering in a way that is not proper,
he can check that. He has 30 days to check it when the cards come in.
Under the North Dakota system you cannot.
Could I ask you a question?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. We have the right of challenge of. a vote by the
election officials.. In fact, my daughter voted last year in time election
and her vote was challenged by my State, because they did not feel
she had been there in the near time period sufficient to establish her
eligibility. There is that challenge process here which is far better
than the judgment of one individual.
Miss ROE. I have been a poli watcher and I have seen the, challenge
process a.t the polls. . ,
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I have been exposed to it for 40 years.
Miss Ron It can result in `t big snarlup if you leave all to the possi
bilities of having to challenge this at the poils. You have not let me
`mnsw er youi question, though The major and most important reason
w hy I think the compiling of voting lists prior to an election is ~ alu
able is because it allows the political parties and allows civic groups
that. are doing nonpartisan get out the vote work as well to get ačcess
to tho~e lists, to contact voters, to inform them about the issues `md
then encourage them to come out on ~`election day. Nobody who has testi-
fied for this bill, in favor of an easier system of voter registration, has
said that job won't have to be done.
The reason we want to m'mke an e'msier system of voter iegistr'ition
m reidity in this country is precisely bec'iuse it will free groups, both
political and nonp'ntms'mn, th'it `ire interested in helping voters turn
out on an informed b'msis to de~ ote their time `mud energy to th~~t iob,
w Inch is `in important job Unless you h'u e voting lists compiled in
time you are not able to do that as effectively. You have to do `a blind
c'invas~
Mr MoLLOII~N I am one of those people who feel that m'mybe the
p1 op'mg'mndizrng goe~ on to too qieat `in extent `md I `mm not necess'muiy
interested in providing an additiohal audience for that purpose. I am
one of those people who think that today with the modern media which
we hai e in the news dissemin'mtion areas of the press, ~ adio, tele~ ision,
and whatnot, there is an adequate awareness presented' to' all of the
American people in all walks of life as to what the issues are.
We .do not have to expose them unnecessarily to particular interest
groups in order to assure that we have equity and fairness iii our
registration laws and your eligibility, to vote patterns.
Miss Ror We do have `i difference on that bec'muse I thu k whatevei
the media does, and sometimes it distorts-
Mi MOLLOHAN You ire suggesting a more or less professional job
of prop'mg'mndizing individuals and voteis I can understand your posi
tion but I `mm not symp'mthetic to it
PAGENO="0156"
150
Miss ROE. You will have to define what you mean by propaganda.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am not using propaganda in an uncomplimentary
sense. Not at aTi. I wouldn't want you to think that.
MiSS ROE. There is no substitute in my view for personal contact.
The media does not do that. job. That is why the media does not. regis-
ter people to vote. I think personal contact and personal contact alone
is the best tool for informing people about issues and alerting them to
things that affect them as individuals and helping to get them to vote.
Mr. FRENZEL. If I can interrupt, this bifl takes us away from the
personal contact and puts registration in the hands of the impersonal
mail system.
Miss ROE. You earlier, agreed with me that one of the best features
*of thiS bill is that it opens up the doors for people who want to do
that job They want to go dooi to dooi `~nd help people to register
Mr. FRENZEL. That is one of the features, I agreed.
Miss ROE. It allows them to do that without any redtape and that is
~ hy I sunpol t it
Mr. MOLLOHAN. If we want greater numbers of pepple eligible to
vote, it would seem to me there is no more simple way than that ~t the
greatest point of time of interest in an electjon day. If we can estab-
lish a plogr'lrn of iegistr'mtion `md ~ otmg `mt th'mt point in time then
it seems to me we would be doin~ the ~ob of getting the greatest rum
ber voting-maybe not registered-but voting that could possibly he
expected or accomplished. Again the results will move it. You have to
go to motivation, interest.
Miss ROE. Cail you answer why North Dakota doesn't prove that?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. How is that?
Miss R.o~ Can you answer why North. Dakota doesn't prove your
point?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am not saying it does or doesn't. I am going to
the fact that it takes more than a right or an eligibility to vote to
actually accomplish the act of voting. There has to be a motivation
and an interest in the election proces~ and in the results of the election
to cause a person to go to the polls. I don't think lie is eligible to regis-
ter at any point in time and doesn't register. He knows and everybody
knows in this country that you have to reaister before you are eligible
to vote. The two are one and the same. They are together. They are
separate actiOns in all States except one, but they are in large part
identical one to the other. . .
Mr. MATHIS. Mr. Ware. . . . . .
Mr. WTARE. Where did you serve as a 1)011 watcher?
Miss ROE. In New York City where I live.
Mr. WARE. Where did. you accompany the others who sought to
have people register?
Miss ROE. In Texas andNew .Jersey and in.Michigan.
Mr. WARE. Thank you.
Mr. MATHIS. Miss Roe, I would like to follow up very briefly be-
cause we do have other witnesses who .are waiting to be heard by the
committee, the line of questioning Mr. Moliohan was pursuing and
that is comparability. We have to compare the facts we have based on
this and come to some conclusion on what we are going to do with the
legislation. Is t.here any other legislation that uses the process of
PAGENO="0157"
151
post card registration for voting? You mentioned other nations and
the high percentage of turnout they have. Is there any other nation
that you know of that uses the post card process?
Miss ROE. No, there is not to my knowledge. But the system in Great
Britain I think is somewhat comparable. Unlike Canada the people
are not directly added to the rolls but are sent through the mails appli-
cations which they can use. They are given many open doors for getting
on the registration roll.
The Federal Government actively pursues registration but not to the
extent that Canada does of actually doing the door-to-door canvass to
register people in person. They have a higher percentage turnout
than we do. I think it was something like 75' percent in the past elec-
tion or past general elections.
Mr. MATHIS. Looking at American voting habits, provisions and
what-have-you in this country, the closest thing that we do have to
come near this legislation with is the process in Texas. I did not under-
stand the reasons why you explained the percentage of turnOut was so
low. Could yOU briefly state that again?
Miss ROE. Surely. Texas has one of the lowest voter turnouts of any
State because until this past election to be registered to vote you had to
get your~elf on the rolls by January 31 priOr to a November election.
Not only that but you had annual registration in effect. You had to
register every year by January 31 in order to be able to vote in Novem-
ber. This put a huge damper on the amount of citizens, the proportion
of citizens who had any idea they could get into the electoral process.
Mr. MATins. I don't understand what that has to do with the turn-
out of registered voters.
Miss ROE. When you effectively disenfranchise that large a group of
citizens it takes time to involve them. It is not an automatic process
when the doors are open. First of all, most citizens don't even find out
about the `reforms. They don't know they can register right before an
election. Also they have had a habit instilled in them of nonparticipa-
tion. When women's suffrage was enacted, it wasn't overnight that you
had the majority of women registering and voting.
Mr. MATinS. 1-low long has that process been in effect?
Miss RoE. As I pointed out, the second reason why Texas is not com-
parable is that this system would not do what the present bill would
do. It does not distribute to every household a post card form for peo-
ple to register. That is very different from what the bill would do
that we are now considering.
Mr. MATins. How long has this process `been in effect in Texas to
register by mail?
Miss ROE. I am not sure.
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr.' Chairman, didn't you ask her why those who
registered did not vote in great proportion? If registration is so diffi-
cult as you pOint out, shouldn't the ones who are registered be highly
motivated and the vote 100 percent? `
Mr. MATHIS. I have asked that questiOn and' `the gentleman from
West Virginia has had that question and neither of us received a re-
sponse so I don't think it would be well to pursueit.
Mr. FRENZEL. I don't believe she understood it.
Mr. MATHIS. Why, in your Opinion, is the turnout of registered
voters in Texas so low?
PAGENO="0158"
152
Miss ROE. Do you know what the percentages are?
Mr. MATHIS. We have 45.1. No, we don't have those figures. Do you
have those figures?
With regard to the explanation for the percentage being essentially
the same in North and South Dakota where you have the different
registration process, I wonder what you think about that?
Miss ROE. I don't think that is a comparison between a hard system
and an easy system. To my view it is a comparison between two fairly
easy systems of registration. North Dakota, to my view, is not the most
ideal system for registration because simply by doing away with the
requirement for registration you don't thereby alert people as you do
by having a canvass, by having post cards sent out to people 30 days
prior to an election.
You help alert them that an election is coming. This doesn't happen
in North Dakota. It is a fairly easy system, but you don't have that
additional incentive and additional information being sent out to peo-
ple. I think this is an advantage in the present bill.
Mr. MATHIS. If it is a fairly easy system-how could it possibly be
any easier than walking in on election day and saying, "I want to
vote."
In South Dakota we understand in many cases the voter registration
laws there are similar to the laws in most other States. You have to
appear in person within a. period of time well prior to the election. I
still have not received the answer I am looking for.
Miss ROE. You can usually get deputies to register people in South
Dakota and that makes it much easier. I think it is an advantage. I
see t.here is disagreement on that, but I think there is an advantage to
having a registration process prior to an election for two reasons.
First of all, it alerts people about the election; it reminds them.
Every reminder is a help.
Second, it helps draw up a voting list so those groups trying to
turn out voters on election day can boost the turnout and stimulate
voter interest and they have a basis for doing that in a rational way.
Mr. MATHIS. You said there were about 40 million people in the
last election who did not turn out.
Miss ROE. Who were not registered. There were more people who
didn't turn out to vote.
Mr. MATI-ITs. Of those not registered, about 40 million people. The
Census Bureau has furnished statistics, telling us of those people
who were not registered to vote in the last election, of them, 12.6
percent were unable to regist.er. Of the 40 million people you say did
not part.icipate that 12 percent would be somewhere around 5 million
or less. WTe are told that if the law was enacted the cost would be
about $50 million. That would be about $10 per person. That seems
to me to be pretty expensive.
Miss ROE. I was dealing with facts. The number of people who
weren't registered who would have been eligible, to register. The Cen-
sus Bureau was dealing with subjective responses to a survey. That
was a different kind of thing.
Mr. MAThS. You don't have that kind of confidence in the Census
Bureau?
PAGENO="0159"
153,
Miss ROE. That is not the question, it is just that the survey meas-
ured a different kind of thing. People were asked, what is the major
reason you didn't vote in the election and most of those who said "I
didn't like the candidates" or "I didn't vote for certain reasons" also
were not registered to vote.
Mr. MAThs. Those were the people they were doing the survey for,
to determine why they were not registered to vote. \\Thy do you not
accept that survey ~
Miss ROE. I am not saying I do Or don't accept it. I accept certain
things in it, but there are other surveys we have-for example, the
Gallup poll taken after the 1968 elections, which showed that the
majority of people who didn't vote didn't do so because either they
wouldn't have qualified under the residency rules then in effect or they
simply had difficulty getting time~ off from their work to register,
and so forth. That kind of poll contradicts the Census Bureau survey.
Mr. MATI-lIs. I wonder if you have a copy of that Gallup poll you
might make available.
Miss ROE. It is not with me, but I can send it to you.
[The information follows:]
[From the Gallup Poll, Dec. 7, 1969]
REGISTRATION LAWS BOON TO REPUBLICANS
CHANGES COULD HELP DEMOCRATS
(By Dr. George Gallup, Chairman, American Institute of Public Opinion)
PRINCETON, N.J., DEC. 6.-One out of every four adults in the United States is
not registered as a voter, a Gallup Poll survey reveals.
In numbers this represents an estimated 29 million potential voters who are
disenfranchised because they are unable to meet residence requirements imposed
by the various states, or because they have not taken the initiative to see that
their names are placed in the registration books.
State laws which insist upon a period of residence, even to participate in
national elections, are largely responsible for the low voter turnout in these
elections-in fact, the lowest of any major democracy in the world.
ONLY 6 IN 1O~ VOTED IN 1968
In the 1968 presidential election only, 61.4 per cent of the population of voting
age went to the polls to vote for presidential candidates. In the off-year congres-
sional elections of 1966, only 46.3 per cent cast their ballots for congressional
candidates.
Unless some action is taken in the cOming months to change residence require-
ments, and to induce more citizens to register, it is probable that fewer than one-
half of the nation's potential voters will decide the political direction of the
nation in next year's congressional elections.
DEMOCRATS AT DISADVANTAGE
Democrats suffer more than do Republicans from low voter registration. When
a sample of the 29 million non-registered voters is examined, twice as many are
found to have Democratic leanings as Republican.
How low registration affects the Democrats adversely is revealed by a study
of two groups, both predominantly Democratic in their voting behavior.
Young adults, those 21 to 30 years of age, embrace the highest percentage of
non-registered citizens. Twice as many in this group are unregistered as is true
of the whole- adult population. Unfortunately for the Democrats, persons in this
age group have consistently favored Democratic over Republican candidates in
recent years.
PAGENO="0160"
154
MOBILITY A FACTOR ~
Gallup studies have shown that it is not lack of interest which keeps persons
in this age group from registering so much as residence requirements of the van-
otis states. As a group, young adults are highly mobile. In fact, one survey re-
vealed that 4 in 10 had moved their place of residence within a period of 12
months.
In 32 of the 50 states one year of residence is required before one can register
and vote. In 15 states the requirement is 6 months; in two, 3 months. One state,
Mississippi, has a requirement of 2 years.
The importance of mobility as a deterrent to registration is dramatically re-
vealed in the figures for home owners versus renters, who change their place of
residence frequently. Of all home owners, only 16 per cent do not have their
names registered. Among renters the comparable figure is 44 per cent.
3,127 ADuLTS INTERVIEWED
A total of 3,127 adults were interviewed in person during the period Oct. 17-
Nov. 3 and were asked this question:
Is your name now recorded in the registration book of the precinct or election
district where you now live?
The following table shows the percentage of adults not registered, nationally
and by key groups:
Unregistered adults
Percent
National 25
LIen 24
Women 26
21-29 years old 50
30-49 years old 24
50 and over 12
Own home 16
Rent 44
The above figures represent the most accurate registration figures for the
nation. While some states try to keep lists up to date, the difficulty of removing
the names of those who move, or die, is enormous.
It should be pointed out that in four states, voting laws permit those under.
21 to vote. In Georgia and Kentucky the age is 18; Alaska, 19; and in Hawaii, 20.
These small segments of the population are not covered in the above figures.
In some communities, registration is not required. In the present survey a
total of 2.3 per cent of adults, or an estimated 2.7 million, said they were not
required to register in the precinct or election district where they live. This
percentage has been included in the total registration figure of 75 percent.
GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBIITY
Most democracies place the burden of keeping registration lists up to date on
the government and not on the individual. In Great Britain, for example, the
government goes to the people. Registration officers in each district have the
responsibility of canvassing each household to see that all eligible voters are
listed. Names are thenpublished for each district.
Mr. MA'rrns. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, may I make a request before the next
witness comes up?
* Mr. MATrnS. Certainly.
Mr. FREXZEL. I have taken a mail survey of all of the secretaries
of state.. I have not completed it. I have received about 30 replies so
far. I expect to have the survey completed by the time the committee
next meets and I would ask unanimous consent that when complete I
may publish in the committee record the responses of the various sec-
retaries of state together with a recapitulation thereof.
Mr. MATrns. Without objection, that will be received.
PAGENO="0161"
155
[The information follows:]
SECRETARY OF STATE POLL COMPILED BY CONGRESSMAN BILL FRENZEL
A poll was taken of the Secretaries of : State of the 50 states in an effort to
determine the amount of support for a federal postcard registration system. A
questionnaire similar to the one in Appendix A was sent to each of the 50
Secretaries of State. Included in the questionnaire was a cover letter explaining
the purpose of the poll and an outline of the postcard registration bill (S. 352).
Each Secretary was asked to describe any experience his or her state has had
with coupon or mail registration now or in the past, and to choose between the
following four alternatives:
1.. I feel that a system of federal postcard registration is a better alternative
than our current state system.
2. I prefer our current registration system to the proposed federal postcard
system.
3. I feel that at a given cost other alternatives (such as mobile registration)
may be better than the postcard system.
4. Any of the above systems would be acéeptable.
The following chart indicates how the Secretaries of State responded.
RESULT OF SECRETARY OF STATE POLL TO FEDERAL POSTCARD REGISTRATION
Response-
State Received No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. ~
Alabama X X
Alaska
Arizona X X
Arkansas
California X X
Colorado X X X
Connecticut
Dalaware X X X
Florida X X
Georgia X X
Hawaii X X
Idaho X X
Illinois X x
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas x
Kentucky
Louisiana X >(
Maine x
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota x
Mississippi X X
Missouri X x
Montana x
Nebraska x
Nevada X x
New Hampshire x
Newiersey x
NewMexico X
NewYork
North Carolina X X
North Dakota x
Ohio X x
Oklahoma X X
Oregen X X
Pennsylvania X X
Rhode Island X X X
Sooth Carelina -
South Dakota X X
Tennessee x _~ x -
Texas -
Utah x x
Vermont x -
Virginia x
Washington X X X
West*Virginia -
Wisconsin x
Wyoming x
Total 38 3 29 7 3
20-605-73-----il
PAGENO="0162"
156
As the above chart indicates, a total of 36 Secretaries of State responded. This
is a response rate of 72%, an extremely high percentage for this type of
questionnaire. Out of the 36 responses, only two Secretaries felt that a system
of federal postcard registration is a better alternative than their current state
system. Twenty-eight stated that they preferred their current registration sys-
~eiń to the proposed federal postcard system and seven felt that at a given cost
other alternatives may or will be better than the postcard system. Three Secre-
taries thought any of the alternatives were acceptable or were neutral. The
total number of responses is 40, which is greater than the number who replied,
36. This is due to the manner in which the questionnaire was constructed; it
was possible for a Secretary to check both alternatives 2 and 3. Four Secretaries
Qf State did just that, which accounts for the discrepancy.
From the data cited above, it is quite clear that a vast majority of the people
who will have to help administer the postcard registration system do not believe
it will work as effectively as the present system. Only two of the Secretaries or
about 6% of those who responded expressed support for the bill. If the
officials who will be administering the bill express an almost unanimous lack of
~onfidence in it, it is difficult to see how the plan can be made to work. Judging
from the vehemence of their response, Congress should not expect these officials
to make a whole-hearted effort to implement this program. Certainly, Congress
should be reluctant to pass legislation which has such strong opposition among
those who will be charged with the responsibility for administering it.
The Secretaries of State of the states of Pennsylvania and South Dakota sup-
ported the idea of federal postcard registration. The Secretary of State of
Pennsylvania stated that, "I whole heartedly endorse and support S. 352. Once
Congress takes this action most States will follow." The Secretary of State o~
South Dakota said that, `Stringent rules and regulations of voter registration
have disenfranchised many qualified electors. Because of our mobile population
we need uniformity and understanding between states with state control."
The Secretaries of State of Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida,
Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois. Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wash-
ington and Wyoming all prefer their current registration system to the proposed
federal post card system. The Secretaries of State of Colorado, Connecticut, Dela-
ware, Nevada, RhOde Island, Tennessee and Washington felt that at a .given
cost other alternatives (such as mobile registration) may be better than the post-
card system. The Secretaries of State of Georgia, Utah and Wisconsin expressed
no preference or thought that any of the systems would be acceptable.
A major objection to the postcard registration system was that it would not
increase voter registration and participation. The Secretaries of State of Dela-
ware, Idaho, Nebraska, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Washington
thought that postcard registration would do little or nothing to increase voter
participation, although the Secretary of State of Hawaii thought that S. 352
would "increase voter registration and voter turnout in states that presently have
strict registration requirements and make it inconvenient for their residents to
register." On the other band, the Secretary of State of Nebraska, in commenting
on the prospects for a National Voter Registration Administration stated:
Looking down the road ten years I do not believe that one hundred thirty
five million dollars spent every three years would increase over one or two
iercent the national percentage of turnout of voters. Even if we got everyone
registered in the United States, or nearly everyone, your bill still does not
provide any means for "beating the voter over the head and getting him to
the polling place." Here in Nebraska I believe we have given a maximum
effort for registration and yet oniy five out of every eight of the registered
voters went to the polls.
Other Secretaries also thought that their state is presently doing a good job.
Our state has a high percentage of our estimated voting age population
registered and this will become even higher with the cut-off date before elec-
tions now extended by ten days. We have provisions for registration by mail,
appointment of as many deputy registrars as necessary per county and all
notaries public may serve as deputy registrars. Federal post card registra-
~on would only serve to increase the problems without significantly affecting
the number registered. (Montana)
PAGENO="0163"
157
The Secretary of State of Washington felt that federally funded `postcard
registration might dry up state and local funds for registration drives.
It is unlikely to expect, however,: that state legislatures and county offi-
cials would he willing to continue programs of their own to encourage and
facilitate registration in the face of an overwhelming federal program such
as the one proposed in S. 352. 5
Secretaries of State such as those from Oklahoma and Idaho worried about
dual registration systems and their possible effects on voter participation.
Oklahomans who register to vote under our present system may continue
to be registered5 and eligible to vote simply by casting a vote once during
any four-yeai~ period. These voters undoubtedly would be confused by re-
ceiving a registration application every two years and probably would exe-
cute the form, thus resulting in a dual registration. On the other hand,
voters not registered in person under Oklahoma law, but registering for
federal elections under the provisions of 5. 352, would doubtlessly be fius-
trated to learn that they could vote for President, U.S. Senator and U.S.
Representative, but not for Governor, State Representative, State Senator,
County Sheriff, Mayor or any other state or local office.
At least one Secretary of State thought that postcard registration would even
be counterproductive. S
Out of a possible 351,003 persons of voting age we had registered 293,078
as of November 1, 1972 or 83.49%. Of these 293,078 we had 241,512 cast their
ballots on election day or 82.40%. If S. 352 should become law I feel sure
that this percentage would decline. (Delaware)
Most Secretaries seemed to think that factors other than registration ob-
stacles were to blame for low voter turnout.
We urge you to assist us in putting into proper perspective the real cancer
in our electoral processes. The true sickness is apathy-the failure of persons
who are registered to exercise their right to vote. We submit that simply
registering more people by "lottery" tactics does nothing to improve the
problem. Only after we have attained a continuing turnout of 80-90% of our
registered voters should we attempt to go out and pull people out of the
* woodwork to simply fill up space on the registration books. In North Carolina
* our priority project is to increase voter participation first, then design pro-
grams to flush out other prospective voters.
Another important objection to postcard registration was the difficulty in
administering the system. Several Secretaries of State felt that postcard regis-
tration would be administratively unworkable.
Administratively, the proposed post card registration of voters for federal
elections is completely unworkable. States could not properly process these
cases in the given time frame prior to the election and therefore would be
unable to produce accurate lists of qualified voters for use at the polls on
election day. Duplication would be extremely difficult to properly correct
* within the state and impossible to ascertain from state to state in such an
* extremely short time. (Virginia)
.1 am of the opinion that your bill would be a duplication of effort, would
result in dual registration and voting systems, would require additional per-
sonnel on the local level, and certainly result in added cost to the taxpayers.
(Florida) S S
At least one Secretary of State thought that postcard registration would place
an excessive burden on his staff and would result in a volume of mail of tidal
wave proportions.
During fiscal 1973 . . . 31.27% of our registered voters' records were
changed in some manner. To magnify this many changes by the herculean
task of checking post card registrations for validity, duplication, legibility,
etc., and return a notification to that group of people who registered by post
card would create chaos and it would be impossible to hire enough temporary
employees to accomplish this. (Delaware)
Many of the postcards might be illegible and incomplete.
My first concern is whether we could get correct information from the
applicants and to follow up quickly enough otherwise. Our deputy registrars
are instructed to fill in the applications for the applicants. Even with these
trained personnel, we still get a tremendous amount of applications for
which the applicants have to be tracked down and the information corrected.
(Hawaii) S
PAGENO="0164"
158
We have consistently observed, when an applicant is asked to respond with
certain information on those applications, that between twenty and twenty-
five percent of the applications received are incomplete or inaccurately
prepared by the applicant. In those instances, an additional contact, either
by mail or phone must be made with the service voter to complete the
necessary information. (Washington)
Another problem is that of accidental re-registration.
If registration post cards are distributed to every household, persons
already on the registry lists will re-register, thus requiring a crash pro-
gram of checking thousands of registrations trying to sort out duplications.
People don't always follow instructions, sometimes signing their names in
full and sometimes using names by which they are usually called or initials.
If two identical names turn up froni the same address, is it father and son
or has the same person registered twice? When county clerks are inundated
with thousands of post card registrations 30 days before an election, the
problems of preparing valid registry lists are obvious. (Wyoming)
There is also a problem peculiar to rural districts. Leading experts on voter
registration have indicated that his problem can occur in many states.
In. research I recently ran, if this system should be adopted the R.D. 2
route of Milisboro, Delaware, would cover parts of 7 election districts, 3
representative districts, 3 senatorial districts and 3 councilmanic districts.
This would not enable the people who administer elections to assign this
registrant to the proper district where he should cast his ballot. This would
create quite a problem and would be terribly expensive to contact each
person registered by mail in order to assign him to the proper election
district. At the present time our mobile registrars and our in-district regis-
trars have maps available and a registrant points out his place of residence
on said map thereby enabling the registrars to assign him to the proper
district.
Postcard registration would also represent a duplication of effort and might
force many states to abandon their present registration systems.
The various county clerks and election commisioners in Nebraska now
have their ow-n filing systems for registration of voters. These filing sys-
tems are based on the available space in the office or the physical arrange-
inents of their folders and file cabinets. The registration forms in Nebraska,
while they contain the same iniormation, are printed on various sizes of
forms to fit their particular filing system. If the counties were to go to a
post card registration they would all be required to establish new filing
systems.
There would also be administrative hassles between the state and local, and
federal governments.
Under local jurisdiction, local officials would know and could easily in-
vestigate and find out who resides at a certain address. The questioning
of a voter's residence could be resolved immediately with the local investi-
gation. Under federal jurisdiction, a residential inquiry, paper work, etc.
could take a month or more thus possibly denying or permitting one to
vote w-hose residence remains in question. (Illinois)
A third major objection w-as the increased opportunities for fraud under a
system of post card registration. The Secretaries of State of Delaware, Hawaii,
Idaho, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Wyoming were espe-
cially concerned al)out this possibility.
S. 352 purl)O1tedly has built-in safeguards to prevent voter fraud. How-
ever, I submit that neither fraud prevention safeguards nor the availability
of federal tax monies can, by themselves, insure the sanctity of a post card
registration system which totally relies on unverified information. (Idaho)
The bill in question did not have any provisions with definite proposals
to control and prevent fraudu~ent registration, and many problems could
be created if this program is enacted into law w-ithout any controls specifi-
cally integrated within. (Hawaii)
There are several ways in which this bill makes fraud in federal elections much
more likely.
The potential for fraud in voting is abysmal. Voter registration forms
would be mailed to every address in Oklahoma prior to elections each hi-
ennium. There are no protective devices to prevent fraudulent registrations.
PAGENO="0165"
159
The availability of registration forms would make it easy for a single
individual to register an innumerable number of times with little chance
of detection, simply by making multiple applications to various election
boards. Moreover, Section 405(c) effectively makes a person eligible to vote
whether or not he had registered, since no proof of such registration is
required to vote. While the measure provides stringent penalties for fraud,
there are no means whatsoever to detect fraud.
There is some doubt as to whether or not anyone can be prosecuted under
this law.
I question the ability of government to prosecute anyone for fraudulent
information which has been supplied on a postcard due to the fact that
the signature of the new registrant was not witnessed by either a notary
public, employee of a local canvassing board or a member of the general
public. (Rhode Island)
S. 352 removes even the most minimal safeguards against fraud.
In our opinion 5. 352 eliminated the most vital safeguard of all and
that is proof of identification and proof of residence. In order to register
in our State a person must present to our registrars the above two (2)
proofs. This does not create a hardship on anyone except those persons who
are trying to fraudulently register. (Delaware)
It is also impossible to check these registrations to find out if they are genuine.
Proponents of the Senate measure say post card registration can be
checked and authenticated by state registration officials, but if it's too much
trouble for a person to appear once before a registry official to sign the
oath of qualification to get his name on a permanent registry list, how
then can anyone sincerely believe that election officials can authenticate
thousands of registrations that come to them through the mail. Practically
speaking it's impossible. (Wyoming)
A fourth major objection was that postcard registration would represent an
unwarranted intrusion by the federal government into areas reserved to the
states and would result in dual registration systems.
I am opposed to S. 352, the McGee bill, It is an unwarranted and com-
pletely unnecessary intrusion by the Federal Congress and a Federal agency
into an area of state responsibility. The intrusion is not necessary since
Ohio and most other states of the Union recognize their responsibility in this
area. Ohio's General Assembly shows evidence that it will respond to Ohio's
needs by passing legislation wl1ich has been proposed to facilitate voter
registration.
State governments are not sitting on their hands in this important area,
and my conversations with other Secretaries of State in the various states
leads me to believe that there is great sentiment for action and improvement
on the state level. Can there be a valid reason, therefore, for Federal intrusion
into a state's area of responsibility and for a Federal regulation which must
lie applied only to Federal elections and not to state and local elections? I
think not.
I think that government should be kept as close to the people as possible
and the local Supervisor of Elections office is the proper place for the regis-
tration and elections processes. (Florida)
My view is that the idea of the Federal government getting into the area
of mandating registration procedures for states is a mistake in any form.
This is a responsibility of the states. The method which S. 352 proposes
for registration of voters, in my judgment, represents the worst type of
lecislation that could be enacted in connection with the registration process.
(Rhode Island)
There was a good deal of concern about possible disruptions of the local proc-
asses of registration.
If enacted, S. 352 would establish a voter registration program for federal
elections. Such a program would, in all probability, force the state to scrap
its recently imulemented card registration system, and adopt federal regis-
tration procedures for all Title 34, Idaho Code, elections. The alternative
would 1)0 to maintain separate registration lists. special ballots, and special
absent ballot voting procedures for federal voting. An unnecessary major
revampinc of our stato election code would ensue.
Several of the Secretaries thought~ that the poor quality of the pnstal service
would make implementation of postcard registration almost impossible.
PAGENO="0166"
160
Until some action is taken to unravel the confusion in the postal service,
I do not favor this type of voter registration. Certainly, the money problem
incentive is appealing and needed and the intent of the proposed legislation
is admirable; but we have had numerous problems with the postal service
especially in mailing absent voter ballots. The confusion that we and the
county clerks go through on election day because of the mail situation is
unbelieveable. (New Mexico)
Concern was also expressed about the high cost of postcard registration.
I do not want to seem cynical, but I feel strongly about the following
statement: if the one hundred thirty five million dollars were used in some
way to lower federal income tax and the burden of tax on the population
was reduced I suspect more voters would go to the polls. (Nebraska)
Why set up another huge federal program costing millions which will
create alternate problems, confusion and opportunity for fraud? If thousands
of faceless signatures are to replace sworn oaths before registry officials,
why have registration at all? Why not instead have any person offering to
vote on election day sign an affidavit that he is entitled to vote in that
jurisdiction? (Wyoming)
There were several miscellaneous concerns and complaints. Several Secretaries
thought that the states were already doing a good job and that little could be
done to increase voter turnout.
Here in the State of Nebraska we have passed laws assisting registration and
voters in every way possible. We have stopped just short of imposing criminal
sanction for failure to cast a ballot. I am not convinced that our efforts should
totally be directed toward more voter registration. For example, here in Nebraska
we have approximately eight hundred fifty thousand voters registered. However,
our turnout on election day at the polls, including absentee and disabled was
slightly over five hundred thousand so you see more than one third of our
registered voters did not get to the polls. In fact, nearly half. I do not see much
point in getting more voters on the registration rolls when those who are regis~
tered did not care to cast a ballot.
Here in Nebraska we have a voter registration deadline of ten days before the
election-not thirty. We provide for registration with the absentee and disabled
ballot. Our absentee and disabled ballots are ready for distribution thirty five
days before the election. We have provided hundreds of additional places of
registration.
In Nebraska during the last week of registration, the various registration
officials maintain office hours each evening in addition to the regular hours. We
have ruled that the students can register within their home town or college town.
We have substantially liberalized the disabled voter situation. For example, the
ballots can be removed from the polling place and taken to a wheelchair patient
parked outside of the polling place. We provide that any other voter can attest
to the disability of a person applying for a disabled ballot. Our law provides for
transportation of disabled voters to the polling place. We also have special laws
to help the blind and paraplegic voters in that they may be assisted in the voting
booth by a member of the immediate family.
Now, the net result of all of this legislation to help voters cast ballots and to
register: A lower percentage of turnout of voters at the polls. So you see, all of
these state laws that were designed to assist voters and to ease the registration
problems had a net result of fewer people going to the polls. Therefore, I am
not convinced that we should spend one hundred thirty-five million dollars every
three years to help other governmental subdivisions attempt to register more
people. In Nebraska w-e have gone about as far as we can go.
Several Secretaries had experienced difficulties with the Federal Assistance
postcard registration system.
We have problems with the post card forms for servicemen and women
and dependents, such as incomplete information received too late to obtain
the rest in time to complete registration and receiving forms too late.
(Montana)
Some of the Secretaries seemed to feel that the local officials concur with their
opinion of postcard registration.
Most of the election officials throughout the State, to whom I have spoken
on this problem, are opposed to the postcard registration inasmuch as it may
open the practice of fraudulent and duplicate registrations. We all feel that
the system works very well in Colorado and are strongly opposed to the
method of postcard registration.
PAGENO="0167"
161
Issue was taker~ with some of the arguments proponents of postcard registra-
`tion use to support their case.
We must take specific exception to one statistic repeated several times
during, the. Senate debate on 5. 352. The proponents asserted that "9 out of
10 register.ed Americans voted" (5. 7044), basing this statement on figures
from the Freedom to Vote Task Force Report, where the number of votes
cast in all fifty states plus the District of Columbia was compared to the
number of voter registrations in the forty states plus the District of Columbia
which have statewide voter registration. Based on the voter turnout figures
cited by Senator Kennedy jil the Congressional Record (S. 7030), in the 40
states which have registration, 73%, of the voters turned out in the 1972
presidential election. (Washington)
There were several suggestions for alternative strategies. Among them:
With the registration substantially, above the national average-and on a
permanent registration basis-I would again strongly recommend to the
Federal Government and the states the consideration of our.deputy registrar
system in Oregon, avoiding the limited number of Post Offices and oppor-
tunity for fraud on a postcard system.
Finally, the Secretary of State of Minnesota stated, "Minnesota has instituted
a post card registration system. Hopefully, the Congress will study and review
outs and similar systems before adopting a like plan nation-wide."
There were several interesting comments from other state and local officials.
Local Deiware officials made several insightful remarks about S. 352 and HR.
8053.
These Bills seem to be based upon good intentions, in that they purport
to make it easier for a citizen to register to vote. With that intention we all
agree, but we are opposed to their method-"Postcard Registration". This
system has been suggested several times for Delaware, and it has always
been discarded as being too conducive to fraud.
The two most important factors' in Voter Registration are 1) proof of
identity and 2) proof of residence. Once a voter has satisfied these two
simple requirements under Delaware law, said voter is then eligible for
registration and then will be registered. It is provided in the Delaware law
that t.he applicant for registration can be challenged on either or both of
the grounds mentioned above. This protection is insured, to some degree, by
the fact that Delaware law requires that the two registration officers be
from different political parties. In addition, on in-district registration days,
the political parties may have a person in the registration room act as a
challenger. Said challenger may challenge the applicant on either or both,
of time above mentioned grounds. All of these safeguards will be lost in a
"Postcard Registration" system.
The thing that concerns me the' most in connection with the proposed
legislation, more than the fact tlmat the postcard registration system would
promote "tombstone" registrations, multiple registrations by the same indh
viduals, and the mountainous problems of trying to decipher thousands or
millions of handwritten postcards,' is the fact that another citizen, by a
postcard, may effectively disenfranchise me. This could easily be accom-
plished by another citizen filling out a postcard form which would have the
effect of changing my residence, changing my name, changing my party
affiliation, or even indicating that I have moved out of the state and wish to
be dropped from the voter polls. It is possible that I would become aware of
this fact only when I went to the polls to vote. By then, it would be too late.
My right to vote and your right tO vote, I assume, are precious aspects of
liberty and freedom. I do not want `someone else taking this right away from
me.
The Attorney General of the State of Wisconsin had several pertinent com-
ments.
There is little in the way of convincing evidence to justify the conclusion
that passage of this particular bill would, in fact, achieve its purported ob-
jective, which is an increase in voter participation. For example, in states
where no preregistration is required or where voting coupons have been
used in the past, voter participation percentages for federal elections do not
differ significantly from those of other states.
Since the postcard registration `~ bill does not make the use of postcards
mandatory for state and local elections, the bill would lead to the need to
PAGENO="0168"
162
maintain dual registration lists at the local level. One list would have to be
maintained for postcard registered individuals eligible to vote only in fed-
eral elections and the other for those who registered in person and were,
therefore, eligible for all elections. Localities would be forced to provide two
sets of ballots or voting machines on election day.
Furthermore, the bill raises the likelihood of numerous postcard regis-
trant.s facing frustration on election day upon discovery that they were
ineligible to vote in any but a federal election. The possibility for confusion
would seem to be especially likely in cases of voters seeking to record a
change of address who might be tempted to use the postcard as a convenient
means o~ registering again.
Finally, the Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections states:
We are of the opinion that Senate Bill 352 or similar legislation, hR. 4846
would result in dual registration and voting systems; would require addi-
tional voting equipment, additional personnel and office space on the local
level and would certainly be a tremendous cost to the taxpayers who are
already overburdened with taxes from the national through the local level.
We believe if this bill becomes a law it would encourage the most co-
lossal election fraud in the history of this country. Any person could register
anyone else under the provisions of this bill; could register under a different
name in every precinct of the county; could produce the registration of people
who do not even exist. and there would be no way for the Supervisor of
Elections to determine if the registrations were legal or fraudulent.
Registration does not appear to be the cause of the low percentage of voter
turnout. For the 1972 primary elections in Florida, 2,982,076 voters were
registered and qualified to vote. Only 22 percent of this number voted in the
First Primary and 18 percent in the Second Primary. In the November Gen-
eral Elections with a registration of 3,487,458 voters, only 73 percent went to
the polls-the lowest percentage since 1948.
We, as Supervisors of Elections, believe a more appropriate step would be
an in-depth study to find out why those who are registered do no vote-why
the apathy?
Mr. MATIIIS. Our next witness is the Honorable James F. Dowd III,
Deputy Secretary of State, the State of Missouri.
Mr. Dowd, we. will be glad to hear from you at this time.
STATEMENT OP NAMES P. DOWD iii, DEPUTY SECRETARY OP STATE,
~EPPERSON CITY, MO., ACCOMPANIED BY BUDDY KAY, STATE
REPRESENTATIVE, ST. LOUIS, MO.
Mr. IDowD. Good morning~ Mr. Chairman and members of the com-
mittee. I am Jim Dowd, the Deputy Secretary of State of Missouri,
appointed to that position by Secretary of State James C. Kirkpatrick,
the Missouri Chief Election Official.
With me this morning is State Representative Buddy Kay of St.
Louis, Mo., who is tile chairman of Missouri's Election Laws Study
Commission, and has offered to consult with the committee should
you have any questions.
Mr. FIiEXZEL. Mr. Chairman, may we have the distinguished repre-
sentative join the assistant secretary?
Mr. MAT1IIs. \\e would be honored.
Mr. DOWD. Our Puilose in being here, Mr. Chairman, is to suggest
some. positive, constructive improvements in H.R. 8053. I'm here to
talk about the mechanics of registration from the Missouri viewpoint.
Missouri is unique in many ways, including the manner in which
it conducts its elections. We have counties with registration, and some
without; we have counties with registration by mail, and others which
do not provide for mail registration.
PAGENO="0169"
163
In th~ most recent session of our General Assembly a bill was passed
with strong support from both parties which extended voter registra-
tion, with registration by mail throughout the State. It has not yet
been signed into law by Governor Bond, but we hope it will be
shortly.
I'd like to suggest to the committee that this bill, as presently
drafted, will not achieve the ends of its sponsors but that it could with
some basic changes, mostly designed to make it functionally compati-
ble withh existing State systems.
* To make these suggestions, we must first look at what we feel what
is wrong with the bill. In our opinion:
(1) The presunWtion upon which it is based is incorrect.
(2) The time frame is unnecessarily short.
(2.a) Inadequate time to determine qualifications.
* (3) Post cards have built-in problems of legibility and incomplete-
ness.
* (4) The bill opens the door to the possibility of fraud and,
(5) It will require the maintenance of dual registration systems.
1. Inaccurate Presumption: Our experience suggests that it is not
registration which has impeded voter turnout. In the registration
counties of Missouri, 74 percent of the eligible voters were registered
for last year's election. Although only 80 percent of those registered
* turned out, the percentage of eligible voters that were registered
* exceeded the percentage of those voters who turned out in the non-
registration counties, where 72 percent of the eligible voters cast a
ballot.
I suggest that the close correlation between the percentage of vOters
registeiecl in Missouri in our registration counties, and the actual turn-
out fri our non-registration counties-a variance of less than 2 per-
cent-suggests that a 72 percent voter turnout might have been the
maximum that we could hope to achieve, even with a change in our
~egistrahon iroceclures.
Now. in saying this, I might mention I don't consider myself one of
those liberal intellectuals. A table is included in my prepared state-
ment and I invite you to draw your own conclusions of the data I have
presented there. I might suggest too that the Missouri situation, with
iegistration counties sprinkled throughout the State, Preselits a simi-
larity ~itli the North Dakota and South Dakota situation.
Mr. Down. Based on our experience, I-li.R. 8053 is unworkable as
it is presently drafted for the following reasons:
The time is too short.
All the permanent registration systems in use in the country today
depend entirely on the fact that voters may register throughout the
year. No system of prior registration of which we are aware con-
templates that all the registrations would be made within 60 days
Prior to the election.
We know of no policy reason why the bill should preclude the post
office from dis~iihutm~ the ie~istr'ition c'irds prior to 4~ ~ before
the closinc~ of recristrat.ion. Certainly we concur with Mr. David Din-
~nns~ president of the Board of Elections of New York City~ who testi-
fied before the Senate and su~gested that the distribution should take
place in January preceding the election so as to provide sufficient time
to process the cards.
PAGENO="0170"
164
There is insufficient time to determine the qualifications of voters~
Utilization of a nationwide mail registration system is likely to
prompt a change in habits on the. part of our county clerks.
They will feel obliged to check more closely into the qualification
of registrants. This will, of course, take some time, substantially more
t.me than is permitted by this bill. Their guard will be up because
this bill will not only permit people to register without having to go
before a registrar, but also to vote without having been seen by an
election official. A 12-year-old felon from Illinois could register in
Missouri and, if he lies about his qualifications, vote absentee ballot
the rest of his life-unless the registrar is permitted sufficient time
to check his qualifications.
A basic premise of t.his bill is that all the determinations that need
to be made by a registrar can be made within 30 days, that being
the average closing period for registration throughout the country.
But if hundreds, or thousands, or tens of thousands of post cards are~
received on the 31st day prior to the election. it will not be possible
for a. registrar to make the determinations necessary to fulfill his oath
of office.
Some cards will not be able to be processed.
The ~1issouri experience with mail registration may be helpful to
this committee. Even if our cards are complete, some are still unable
to be processed.
A good example is the voter who completes his card properly listing
as his voting address "Canton, Mo." or "Rural Route 1, Harrisonville,.
Mo." In each case, the registrar is unable to assign the voter to a
precinct.
The county clerk in Cass County is not helped with the address
"Rural Route 1, Harrisonville." R~ural Route I passes through five
different electioii districts. It is impossible for that voter to be assigned
to a precinct unless more information can be gathered.
Fortunately, our county clerks are a persistent group. First, they try
to call the voter. They frequently find, however, that his household is.
one of the 17 percent of Missouri households that does not have a
phone or which has an unlisted number.
He tries to write the registrant soliciting further information, but
a reply is all too seldom forthcoming. Registered mail does not work
because the voter refuses to accept it, thinking it is a service of
process.
But finally the day comes when the county clerk spots the registrant
and his wife walking down the street, passing the court house, and
calls them into his office. He points to a large map of the county on
his wall and asks the voter to point to the location of his house. The
husband points to one spot, the wife to another.
My point here is that these problems, with our limited mail registra-~
tion system, occur too frequently to encourage us that a nationwide
post card registration system will be a success.
The difference between a mail voter registration system and paying
taxes, buying automobile licenses and the many other governmental
duties that we perform by mail is that we must somehow tell the
registrar exactly where we live in the county in terms of voting
precincts.
PAGENO="0171"
165
I have not yet completed my stud~ of addresses in Missouri, but I
estimate at this time that possibly as many as one-quarter of Missouri's
115 counties do not have any residences identified with the street
address. They either have rural routes or the voters pick up their mail
at a central post offic~ location.
1-LR. 8053 provides an opportunity ior widesprea~d fraud.
We are not aware of any situation~in Missouri where mail registra-
tion has been used for fraudulent ends. But the concern of Missouri,
and that of other States, is not just proving fraud and prosecuting
the offender after it has occurred.
It is the avoidance of the possibility of fraud in elections which is
of paramount interest to the States, and I suggest that this bill, by
making such an abrupt change in the manner in which voters will
register, will open the door to fraud in a manner which has not been
experienced heretofore by the various States.
The bill will require the maintenance of dual registration systems,
as well as dual ballots.
If I accurately read the thoughts of legislative leaders in Missouri,
we will not rise to the "bait" of having the Federal Government pay
130 percent of our registration system, and will not adopt the Federal
system as our own.
Since we will have a dual registration system, we will also have the
problems that come with it. The first problem will be the necessity
for dual ballots, with an introduction of a new "short Federal ballot"
for voters who have registered only by sending in the post card.
The second problem will be explaining to the voters who have only
registered for the Federal election~ why they are not able to vote in
State elections.
The net effect of this bill will be to open wide the doors of registra-
tion for Missourians who want to vote for their 14 Federal officers,
while slamming it shut on their right to vote for their 15,000 State,
county, and municipal officials. This bill does not make it simpler for
people to vote; rather, it disenfranchises them insofar as it will keep
them from voting for their Governor, county prosecutor, and city
alderman. Observed in that light, this bill becomes a fraud, a sham
upon the public.
Our first recomm~ndation is that H.R. 8053 not be given favorable
approval by this committee. The bill, in its present form, should not be
permitted to pass.
If the committee is of the opinion that it must report out a bill, then
we suggest that it must be a modified version of 11.11.. 8053.
We suggest that 1-I.R. 8053 be amended in the following ways:
Eliminate the 45-day requirement.
We suggest the post cards be distributed at least 3 months prior
to close of registration and preferably 6 months. This might provide
sufficient time for registration officials to process the cards after they
have been received. If the time is found to be too far in advance, it
could be shortened at a later date. We suggest that this would be a
wiser legislative move than enacting the bill in its present form, only
to find out that 45 days is too short a time period to process the cards.
The bill should be amended to exempt States with mail registration
systems.
PAGENO="0172"
166
Missouri, like some other States, provides for registration by mail.
The imposition of another mail registration system upon those States
can only cause confusion. If they are doing the job which the bill
ivould require them to do, why impose it on them?
I suggest that an exemption be extended to any State which permits
voters to register by mail if the State permits registration for any rea-
son and requires that notaries provide their services regarding regis-
~ration without charge to the voter.
I might point out that Missouri does not fit the exclusion I have just
described, insofar as absentee registration is only available to the sick,
disabled. or those absent from the county. We do feel that the cate-
gories of those eligible to register by mail could be expanded, and are
willing to "go that extra mile" if it would avoid dual registration
system. We are of the opinion that the notarization of the registration
form provides a valuable safeguard and helps to "insure the purity of
the ballot box" while not being unduly restrictive. (Other suggested
changes are included in my full statement.)
But even with those changes, the bill will not solve the problem of
registered voters who don't exercise their right to vote and will still
result in a dual system in some States. I return to my first suggestion
that the committee not take favorable action on this bill.
Given the climate for change and given the incentive for positive
State action by bills such as H.R. 8053, it is my firm opinion that the
States will respond quickly-within the next few years-to provide
registration procedures which will meet the intentions of the sponsors
of H.R. 8053 and S. 352.
I thank you for your attention and I would be pleased to answer any
questions you might have.
Mr. MATins. Mr. Dowd, thank you for a very informative and en-
lightening statement.
Mr. JONES. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Dowd
for appearing here. He does have in my opinion a very worthwhile
statement.
Mr. WARE. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Dowd.
Let us assume that the proposed bill or an amended version of it
would become law. Would the State of Missouri seek to follow the law
in order to get the funds that are provided under the bill or for any
other reason?
Mr. DowD. If the bill required dual registration, my answer would
be no, sir. We are not interested in being bought. There is a little more
to it than that. Our system in Missouri, our present mail registration
system requires that the voter first make an application in writing to
the registrar. He must apply in writing so we have an address, a re-
turn address frequently'; we have some kind of communique in writing
which helps us identify the voter to start with. The registrar sends out
the forms to the voter. He executes them. 1-le must have them notarized
and returns them.
Now, notarization has not been found to be a problem in Missouri.
The office of the secretary of State mails out some 75 notary coinn'iis-
sions each day so we have plenty of notaries and with a reqirement
that they provide their services free of charge for notarization of
these registration forms.
PAGENO="0173"
167
We don't think that would be a problem, but we think that both of
these provide a safeguard for our system which we find valuable and
would not want to give that up for the system envisioned by this bill.
Some legislative leaders have mentioned to me that if the bill is
adopted in its present form and if it imposes a~ dual system on Missouri,
they would probably support a move to eliminate registrations for
Federal election. That is not cutting off their nose to save their face.
That reflects their opinion of this bill, and their opinion is that it is
not going to prevent fraud and since it is not going to prevent fraud,
why waste Missourians' tax dollars, albeit Federal money?
Let's just do away with registration for Federal elections. That
would possibly be one result which may come out of the adoption of
this bill.
Mr. WARE. Follow the North Dakota system, in other words?
Mr. DOWD. Yes, sir. Which we have at the present time in many of
our counties.
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Dowd, thank you for your testimony. I must say
it is exceedingly blunt and exceedingly forceful.
Representative Kay, would you verify Mr. Dowd's statement about
the feeling within the legislature that you would go your own way?
Mr. KAY. I would concur with that opinion; yes.
Mr. FRENZEL. That would be prevalent in both parties?
Mr. KAY. Correct.
Mr. FRENZEL. Thank you very much.
Mr. Dowd, you gave us a couple of examples of the difficulties you
would find in registration, one being the difficulty of establishing th~
actual status of the voters' residence. Can you give us some other exam-
ples of how registration drives can get snarled?
Mr. DOWD. Several come to mind. We are going to have a great deal
of confusion by virtue of the fact that we have just extended voter
registration to some 66 counties in Missouri which have never before
had it. The secretary of state will be telling people throughtout th~
State that you must now register.
If at the same time we are promoting this a postcard arrives that
says "Fill this out and you are going to be registered," they are going
to send it in and those folks are going to be mad as hornets when they
can't vote for the secretary of state in the next election or for their
mayor, their Governor or county officials. That is one kind of con-
fusion we see.
Another example in States whiCh have had registration for some pe-
nod of time-this may not seem possible, but this is the kind of situ-
ation that States like Missouri, States like North Dakota, will find
themselves in if this bill is imposed.
Cailaway County in mid-Missouri, it is a rural farming com-
munity-adopted registration under our local option plan, which
provides for registration by mail in certain situations in 168. Its first
election under registration was held in 1970. The county clerk expected
that some people would present themselves at the polls and not be
registered. They just knew that: was going to happen. That was the
first election under registration.
What they hadn't anticipated was people appearing at the póll~
throughout the county wanting: to vote, not on the books, but saying
PAGENO="0174"
168
that they were registered. They said, C~~Te did register. We followed
the county clerk's instructions."
This caused some concern. So later in the afternoon the county clerk
assembled these people from across the county in his office and it turned
out that the reason for the confusion was Winston Churchill. I might
back up here just a moment.
The county seat of Callaway County is Fulton, Missouri, and in
Fulton is Westminster College, a small liberal arts college for men.
In 1945, Winston Churchill made his famous Iron Curtain speech at
`Westminster College and several years ago, as a memorial to this man,
St. Mary Alderman Barry. a church in London, bombed out during the
war, was transplanted, stone by stone and erected on the campus. It is
a beautiful church and in the basement is a museum to dedicate the
honor of this great man. Because of the number of dignitaries coming
into Fulton this particular fall of 1970, all the people of Callaway
County were invited to attend this ceremony.
This was at their only college level educational institution in the
county. People from all over the county turned up; there were many
foreign visitors there. It was a big day in Callaway County. As the
people walked into the grounds of the college, there was a great big
book on a table there and over the book wasa sign which said, "Register
here."
This was several months before the election, but guess how many
people signed the book and considered themselves registered.
Now, those are the kind of problems we are going to have in rural
counties and I submit there may be other stories that could arise in
situation where confusion could arise when registration is imposed for
the first time.
Mr. FRENZEL. What happens when I am registered in my district or
precinct as William E. Frenzel and maybe I sign my card with W.E.,
or W. Eldridge, or Bill Frenzel? The clerk doesn't know whether I am
me or a newly enfranchised son or a no-good uncle living there because
lie can't get a job. `What does the clerk do in that instance?
Mr. DOWD. He is going to tie up the election line for 15 minutes until
he figures it out.
Mr. FRENZEL. I have an unlisted number.
Mr. DOWD. I thought when you presented yourself on election
day-
Mr. FRENZEL. No, I sent in my card. He is looking at my card and
looking at my permanent. registration record and I am not in the phone
book. Then what does he do, take a bus out to my house?
Mr. DOWD. Consult the business directory or the reverse listings and
see if lie can find you there. but your ~oint. is well taken.
Our office, because of corporate filings and security regulations we
concern ourselves with on the State level is a volume mailer and we
know what happens when 50,000 pieces of mail come in in a 30-day
time span because we have some filings like that.
Even when these forms are filled out by corporations, which you
would think would have a higher level of legibility and be more likely
to be full and complete than forms required to be filled out by the
public at large, ~ve find a great many examples of the kind of problem
you just described. They are incomplete, the corporation, the Acme
PAGENO="0175"
169
Land Development Corp. will turn in its report and call itself "Acme
Land Devi. Inc." Well, that is a different corporate name. You would
think they know their own name, but they don't. And people who
register under "William Frenzel," or "W. E. Frenzel," or "Bill
Frenzel," are the people who are going to louse up this whole system.
Mr. FRENZEL. With that I quit.
Mr. MATI-TIS. Mr. Kay, have you any comments you would like to
make?
Mr. KAY. I concur with all the t1~iIigs Mr. Dowd stated.
The only thing I might add is before I cameup here I checked with
the large metropolitan districts in St. Louis comprising 54 or 55 per-
cent of the voters in the entire State. It is the opinion of the president
of the Board of Election Commissioners in St. Louis., St. Louis County
and Kansas City, that if this wOuld ever go into effect they would
have to go back to a system that has been outmoded for some time
and that is paper ballots, because there is no way they could take an
electronic voting device like the election machines used on election day
and go out and have people come in where they only vote partially for
a. group of Federal candidates, or, have another machine to vote for the
State or local candidates. There, would be a lot of confusion in the
opinion of these gentlemen.
Mr. MATrnS. Thank you, Mr. Kay and Mr. Dowd, for appearing
this morning. I am sure your testimony will be very helpful to the
committee.
[Mr. Dowd's statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF JAMES F. DowD III, DEPUTY SEcRETARY OF STATE
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is
James F. Dowd III. I am the Deputy Secretary of State of Missouri, appointed
to that position by Secretary of State James C. Kirkpatrick.
Secretary Kirkpatrick is Missouri's Chief Election Official. In his nine years
in office, he has lead the fight to modernize and simplify Missouri's election
]aws. He also is Vice President and President-Elect of the National Association
of Secretarys of States.
Secretary Kirkpatrick is out of the country this month, and has asked me
to appear on his behalf. Because he had already left when your invitation to
testify arrived, the remarks I offer ,,` here today are my own. While he has not
seen these specific remarks, we have discussed them. Our feelings are harmonious,
and these remarks are intended to convey the sentiments of Secretary Kirk-
patrick regarding 5. 352 and N.H. 8053, as well as my own.
I want to preface my remarks this morning by stating that Secretary Kirk-
patrick heartily endorses the testimony offered to this committee by C. C. Wood
on behalf of the Honorable Wade Martin, Jr., Secretary of State of Louisiana.
We urge your careful consideration of the constitutional arguments raised in
that testimony. Secretary Kirkpatrick also endorses the testimony of the Honor-
able Arlen. Erdahl, Secretary of State of Minnesota, and endorses Secretary
Erdahl's position that the procedures for conducting elections and registering
voters best be left to the states.
Let me start this morning by stating my complete accord with the intentions
of the sponsors of this bill and the sponsors of 5. 352. Increasing the participation
of voters in our electoral system is certainly a worthwhile goal. The record in
this country stands in shabby contrast to that of Canada and the nations of
Western Europe, and certainly improving that turnout is a desired goal.
*We are concerned, however, that this bill will not achieve the ends of its
sponsors, and will, in fact, decrease voter participation in our elections.
Missouri is unique in many ways, including the manner in which it conducts
its elections.
PAGENO="0176"
170
We have 115 counties. Prior to last November's election, we had 34 counties
with county-wide registration and 9 cities of over 10,000 which had registration.
Registration was manclatorily imposed on cities of over 10,000, and on the coun-
ties in the St. Louis and Kansas City metropolitan areas. The other 30 adopted
it voluntarily under our "local option" registration plan. At last November's
election, 7 more counties adopted the local option plan.
Those counties operating under the local option plan provides limited registra-
tion by mail. The county clerk is to provide registration forms to any voter who
applies in writing, indicating that he is unable to register because of illness, dis-
ability, or absence from the county. Upon receipt of the application (which may
be as informal as a one sentence letter), the county clerk mails registration forms
to the voter. The registration form is relatively simple to complete, but must be
signed by a notary before being returned.
74 of Missouri's counties have no voter registration. I live in one of these
coun~es, and am not now registered to vote. My polling place is located hi my
next door neighbor's kitchen.
Our experience suggests to us that it is not registration that has impedeçl.
voter turnout. In the registration counties of Missouri, 74% of the eligible voters
w-ere registered for last year's election. Although only 80% of those registered
tursied out, the percentage of eligible voters that was registered exceeded the
percentage of those voters who turned out in those non-registration counties,
where 72% of the eligible voters cast a ballot. While we are concerned about the
26% who failed to register in the registration counties, we suggest that the more
basic question is why didn't 28% of my neighbors in the non-registration coun-
ties, with no advanced requirement to comply with, cast a ballot.
1972 VOTER TURNOUT IN MISSOURI
Number
Percent
34 registration counties:
Eligible to register 2,264,644
Registered 1,671,778
Voted 1,312,926
Total registered
72 nonregistered counties:
Eligible to vote 513, 018
Voted 371,737
100
74
58
100
72
Further, the fact that the percentage of our voters turning out in our registra-~
tion counties was less than that in our non-registration counties does not suggest
that our registration procedures are too severe. To the contrary. I call the com~
mittee's attention to the fact that there was a higher percentage of voters regis~
tered in our registration counties than actually turned out to vote in our non-
registration counties. If all of the registered voters had voted, there would have
been a higher percentage turn out in our registration counties than in our non-
registration counties. Obviously, it was not registration which kept these people -
away from the polls.
I also suggest to the committee that the close correlation between the percent-
age of voters registered in Missouri in our registration counties, and the actual
turn out in our non-registration counties (a variance of less than 2%), suggests
that a 72% turn out might be the maximum that we could hope to achieve, with
or without any change in our registration procedures. I suggest that the changes*
that will have to take place will be in the American educational system-that
being the best prospect that I see to influence potential voters with the importance~
of exercising their right to vote.
Based on our experience, HR 8053 is unworkable as it is presently drafted for
the following reasons:
A. THE TIME IS TOO SHORT
All the permanent registration systems in use in the country today depend
entirely on the fact that voters may register throughout the year. We realize,
of course, that many states have closed periods, and that there is always a last
minute rush for voter registration, as there is for anything else. However, ~o
PAGENO="0177"
171~
system of prior registration of which we are aware contemplates that all the
registrations would be made within 60 days prior to the election. Certainly our
present election machinery is not geared to handle this, but that will be the
effect of HR 8053.
We know of no policy reason why the bill should preclude the post office from
distribution of the registration cards prior to 45 days before the closing of regis-
tration. Certainly we concur with Mr. David Dinkins, President of the Board of
Elections of New York City, who suggested that the distribution should take
place in January preceding the election, so as to provide sufficient time to process
the cards. Even if we were to use electronic data processing, we in Missouri are
at an absolute loss as to how we could locate enough keypunch operators to
process this incoming flood of registration forms.
B. THERE IS INSUFFICIENT TIME TO DETERMINE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF VOTERS
The determination of voter qualifications by many of our registrars today is a
perfunctory matter. It is unlikely that I will be asked "are you a citizen of the
United States" when I register to vote, although obviously I am not qualified to
vote unless I am. Utilization of a mail system, however, is likely to prompt a
change in habits on the part of our county clerks and boards of election com-
missioners.
I submit that they will feel obliged to check more closely into the qualification
of registrants, especially of those who are not known to him. This will, of course,
take some time, substantially more time than is permitted by this bill. Their guard
will be up because this bill will not only permit people to register without having
gone before a registrar, but also to vote without having been seen by an election
official. A twelve year old felon from Illinois could register in Missouri, and if
he lies about his qualifications, vote absentee ballots the rest of his life-unless
the registrar is permitted sufficient time to check his qualifications.
A basic premise of this bill is that all the determinations that need to be made
by a registrar can be made within 30 days, that being the average closing period
for registration throughout the country. The Supreme Court in Dunn v. Blumstein
used a similiar premise. That premise is based, however, on year-round registra-
tion. It is because of year-round registration that the registrar can make the
necessary determinations regarding the last registrant who walks in 31 days
before the election. But if hundreds, or thousands, or tens of thousands of post
cards are received on the 31st day prior to the election, it will not be possible
for a registrar to make the determinations necessary to fulfill his oath of office.
I also suggest to this committee that the registrar will not issue a certificate of
registration until he has made the necessary determination and that, especially in
the first year under a bill such as this, the cautious checking which will take
place by the registrar means that many of the post cards will not even be
touched, much less processed, by election day.
C. SOME CARDS WILL NOT, BE ABLE TO BE PROOE5SED
The Missouri experience with mail registration may be helpful to this com-
mittee. We have found that almost all of the post cards submitted are legible,
but suggest that the requirement that the document be notarized is probably
the principal reason for this. Even with a notary, we find that some cards are in-
complete or not otherwise able to be processed.
A good example is the voter who completes his card properly, listing as his
voting address "Canton, Missouri" or "Rural Route 1, Harrisonville, Missouri".
In each case, the registrar is unable to a~sigii the voter to a precinct.
Canton, Missouri has two wards, and unless the county clerk knows whether
John Doe lives on the east side of town or the west side of town, he is unable
to process that card. The county clerk in Cass County is similarly perplexed with
the address "Rural Route 1, Harrisonville". Rural Route 1 passes through five
different election districts. It is impossible for that voter to be assigned to a
precinct, unless more information can be gathered.
Fortunately, our county clerks are a persistent group. First, they try to call
the voter. They frequently find, however, that his household is one of the 17%
of Missouri households that does not have a phone or which has an unlisted
number. He sometimes tries to write the registrant soliciting further informa-
tion, but a reply is all too seldom forthcoming. Registered mail does not work be-
20-695 0 - 73 - 12
PAGENO="0178"
172
cause the voter refuses to accept it, thinking it a service of process. But finally
the day comes when the county clerk spots the registrant and his wife walking
down the street, passing the court house, and calls them into his office. He points
to a large map of the county on his wall, and asks the voter to point to the loca-
tion of his house. The husband points to one spot-the wife to another!
My point here is that these problems with a limited mail registration system
have occurred in far too frequent a fashion to encourage us that a nationwide
post card registration system will be a success-especially when all the poet
cards will be received by the registrar within a four week period.
The difference between a mail voter registration system, and paying taxes,
buying automobile licenses and the many other governmental duties that we
perform by mail, is that we must somehow tell the registrar exactly where we
live in the county, in terms of voting precincts or townships.
According to the Federal Office of Revenue Sharing 25% of the taxpayers
who filed their 1972 income tax return failed to correctly list the township in
which they resided. Implications of this finding are extremely important for our
purposes. The fact is that the township boundaries are not known to the voters,
much less the boundaries of overlapping schools districts, fire districts, levee
districts, swamp drainage districts, water districts, sewer districts, road districts,
and the many other political subdivisions found throughout the State of Missouri
and the nation. But, unless the voter is able to identify exactly where he lives,
the registration official is not able to properly handle his registration. As a
practical matter, an "eyeball to eyeball" confrontation with the registrar is
just not the easiest way to sign up a voter, it is frequently the only way.
It has been suggested to us that the post office could solve this problem by
having the postman carry maps as they distribute the post cards, and enter the
necessary data on the card for the voter. That is an excellent suggestion and, in
my opinion, the only way in which the system could work. But since it is the
only way and since the system will depend upon this cooperation, we strongly
urge that this cooperation be written into the law.
D. H.R. 8053 PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR WIDESPREAD FRAUD
We are not aware of any situation in Missouri where mail registration has
been used for fraudulent ends. We do know that testimony has been offered to
this committee that other states using mail registration systems have not found
fraud to be a problem. But the concern of Missouri, and that of other states,
is not just proving fraud, and prosecuting the offender after it has occurred.
Rather, the interest of the states is in "preserving the purity of the ballot boxes".
The counties which do not have mail registration are those which are in the
metropolitan St. Louis and Kansas City areas. There has been legislative resist-
ence in the past from these areas regarding mail registration and although our
state system might be expanded to those certain counties sometime in the future,
it is extremely unlikely, in my opinion, that Missouri will accept a mail registra-
tion system such as is provided by HR 8053. We place great weight upon the
notarization of the forms, and the fact that over 75 notary commissions are
mailed out each day from our office suggests that finding a notary is not an insur-
mountable obstacle in our state.
If I accurately read the thoughts of legislative leaders in Missouri, we will not
rise to the "bait" of having the federal government pay 130% of our registration
system, and will not adopt the federal system as our own. For that matter, we
would not accept an offer of payment equaling twice as much as our registration
system today costs us. We feel that the integrity of our system is too important
for us to give up, for the registration system that is provided for in this bill.
It i~ the avoidance of the possibility of fraud which is of paramount interest to
the states, and I suggest that this bill, by making such an abrupt change in the
manner in which voters will register, will open the door to fraud in a manner in
which has not been experienced by the various states. My point in mentioning
this is a simple one-in an attempt to make certain that the integrity of the
system is maintained, county clerks and boards of election commissioners in
Missouri are likely to be twice as careful in processing these mail registration
forms as they were previously. This will necessarily slow down the registration
process, and relates to the point that I mentioned earlier, namely, the time
schedule provided for the distribution of the post cards cannot possibly permit the
election officials to perform their required tasks.
PAGENO="0179"
173
E. THE BILL WILL REQUIRE THE MAINTENANCE OF DUAL REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, AS
WELL AS DUAL BALLOTS
It took Missouri 13 years to adopt Statewide voter registration. A bill providing
for statewide registration was just passed in the most recent legislative session.
It has not been signed into law by Governor Christopher Bond. If it is signed
into law, it will provide for registration by mail in 111 of our 115 counties.
Since we will have a dual registration system, we will also have the problems
that come with it. The first problem will be the necessity for dual ballots, with
an introduction of a new "short federal ballot" for voters who have registered
only by sending in the post card.
This bill does not consider whether existing voting machinery will be capable
of this change. If election machines cannot be programmed to permit the voting
of a short federal ballot, then it is likely that the number of voting machines
in our counties using machines will have to be increased to absorb the number
of people who are registered for federal elections only. This could be a sizeable
number, but no provision is made for the federal government to absorb that cost.
Nor has any provision been made, for that matter, for the printing of federal
ballots which, in rural Missouri, is rather expensive (due to a requirement that
the names be rotated on the ballot in primary elections).
We were advised by local election officials in coun'ties using voting machines
that the machines cannot be set to permit the voting of the short ballot, and that
paper ballots will have to be used. Any substantial increase in voters resulting
from this bill will necessarily result in a substantial increase in paper ballots
being cast at precincts using voting machines. This will not improve the accu-
racy of our election day totals, and certainly will slow down voting procedures.
Almost one-half of Missouri's precincts use voting machines or punch-card devices.
The second problem will be explaining to the voters who have only registered
for the federal election why they are not able to vote in state elections, and,
given the manner in which the voters responded in the past when they have been
turned down at polling places, for whatever reasons. this is likely to produce
numerous heated arguments on the day of the first election operated under this
system.
Since Missouri is not likely to adopt the federal system as its own, the net
effect of H.R. 8053 will be to open wide the doors of registration for Missourians
who want to vote for their 14 federal officers, while slamming it shut on their
right to vote for their 15000 state, county and municipal officers. This bill does
not make it simpler for people to vote, rather, it will disenfranchise them, inso-
far as it will keep them from voting for their Governor, county prosecutor, and
city alderman. Observed in that light, this bill becomes a fraud, a sham upon
the public.
For Missouri, this legislation comes at an extremely inappropriate time. Our
new voter registration bill in Missouri will require us to engage in an extensive
program to encourage Missourians to: register. If at the same time as we are
urging them to take this action, they can pick up a post card at the post office that
will tell them they can register to vote,: by merely mailing it in, we know of many
of them will do only this. Even if the receipt that they receive advises them that
this registration qualifies them for only federal elections, we know some of them
will misunderstand. In effect, we will be having two registration drives in Mis-
souri, and confusion can only be the winner in that race.
We do not suggest, however, that the Missouri situation is sufficient cause for
unfavorable action on this bill. It is our serious and considered suggestion that
confusion will result in every state.
We have no argument with mail registration, assuming adequate safeguards
are provided to protect against fraud. Nor are we opposed to changes in our
election system.
What we do oppose, and do so because it will confuse the voter and result in his
disenfranchisement for state elections, is two registration systems running side
by side.
F. THIS BILL DOES. NOT PROVIDE FOR NECESSARY LEGAL ASSISTANCE
The immediate impact of HR 8053 will be a sharp increase in the number of
lawsuits filed against the county clerks and boards of election commissioners.
This bill does not provide legal assistance for those registrars and, when law-
PAGENO="0180"
174
suits are filed involving mail registration under the terms of this bill, local
prosecutors (who would normally represent the county officers) will undoubtedly
refuse to he of assistance, claiming that the question is a federal one.
Unless the Department of Justice is ready and able to provide legal assistance
to each of our 115 county clerks and boards of election officials, our registration
officials will be on the horns of a very serious dilemma. We know that there will
be lawsuits, and feel the failure to include legal assistance to the registration
officials is a major shortcoming in this bill.
Even if HR 8053 were adequately drafted to take care of these problems, it
would still create an alternative system of registration. This alternative system
can only result in confusion. It is extremely likely that the voter will register
under the state system or the federal system, but not both. The effect of this will
be the disenfranchisement of many voters who will send in their post cards, con-
sidering themselves registered to vote for all elections. They will be extremely
disappointed when they find out they cannot vote.
As a result, our first recommendation is that HR 8053 not be given favorable
action by this committee. This bill in its present form should not be permitted to
pass.
If the committee is of the opinion that it must report out a bill, then we
suggest that it must be a modified version of HR 8053. We suggest that HR 8053
be amended in the following ways:
1. Eliminate the 45 day requirement
We know of no policy reason why the distribution of post card registration
forms should wait until 45 days before the close of registration. We understand
the intention of this provision is to catch the attention of the voter when it is
at its peak, when the newspapers, television and radio are full of advertisements
for political candidates. From an administrative standpoint, this is absolutely
the worst time to distribute forms. Not only is registration normally higher ~
this time, thus imposing additional duties upon registration officials, but the
dumping of all these post cards at this busy time will be an avalanche impossible
to dig out from!
We suggest the post cards be distributed at least three months prior to an
election and preferably 6 months. This would provide sufficient time for registra-
tion officials to process the cards after they have been received. If the time is
found to be too far in advance, it could be shortened at a later date. We suggest
that this would be a wiser legislative move than enacting the bill in its present
form, only to find out that 45 days is too short a time period to process the cards.
We predict that most of the people who fill out the cards ana return them to
registrars will already be registered on a state level. Thus, their registration is,
in effect, a nullity, if we accept Senator McGee's argument that state registration
qualifies one to vote for federal offices. Nonetheless, these cards would have to
be processed and a receipt sent to the registrant advising him of the acceptance
of his registration.
We also predict that most of the individuals who are not today registered will
not complete these forms. Testimony has already been offered here before this
committee about the difficulty in mailing forms to those groups who are typically
associated with non-registration; people with extremely low income, migrant
workers, those citizens without postal addresses, etc.
2. If a time must be imposed, sufficient time for a mail canvass should be
permitted
Kansas City, Missouri conducts a canvass of its voters by utilizing the postal
service; it has proven to be very effective. They prepare cards which list the
registered voters of Kansas City. The cards are processed and handled only by
mailmen. It is the mailman who checks the box to indicate whether Joe Doe
resides at that address. If Joe Doe has moved, the postman indicates the new
address, if any.
The advantage of this system is obvious. The method used for verification
does not permit the registrant to cover up his fraudulent registration. And the
cost is only 5ç~ per voter.
I should mention here that the voters are not stricken from the registration
record until after the Board of Election Commissioners has mailed, by first class
mail, a notification of the pending strike to the voter, and failed to receive a
return response.
PAGENO="0181"
17.5
This method is the only practical method that we are aware of (other than a
door to door canvass) which permits a "double check" on the actual residence of
the voter. It has the advantage of not permitting the voter to himself compound
a fraudulent registration, while at the same time ayoiding the problems of a door
to door canvass. In addition, it is substantially less expensive than a personal
canvass.
The time needed from the date the post card is received, until the registration
receipt is delivered to the registrant, is at least four weeks. This includes process-
ing time, the time needed to prepare the request for the mailman to complete,
allow him a week to perform his function and return the card, and the time
needed after the voter's qualifications have been determined to place his name in
the proper registration books and mail the registration receipt. But this time
period assumes no snafus, no complications, no lost cards, no incomplete cards,
no disqualifications being discovered, and, most importantly, an even work load
over a twelve month period. Any of the above problems, coupled with an un-
trained staff thrown quickly together, is bound to slow down the entire process.
3. The most productive change in the election system would be to require the
Post Office to notify registrars automatically of any change of address
This one simple procedure would enable registrars to send new registration
forms, if necessary, to the voter, or initiate procedures to remove him from the
registration list, if he had moved out of the jurisdiction. Given the mobility of
today's population, the mailman is, as a matter of fact, the one individual most
likely to know who resides where. We suggest tapping this valuable source, and.
making it available on a regular basis. This requirement would, we submit,
whether coupled with this bill or not, be a most important change.
4. The bill should be amended to eaempt States with mail registration systems
Missouri, like some other states, provides for registration by mail. We submit
that the imposition of another mail registration system upon those states can
only cause confusion. If they are doing the job which HR 8053 would require
them to do, why impose this bill upon them.
We suggest that an exemption be extended to any state which permits voters
to register without personally appearing before a registrar by utilizing the mail.
We suggest the exemption be applicable whether or not the state requires that
the registration forms be applied for in writing and whether or not the registra-
tion forms be notarized, if the state permits registration for any reason and re-
quires that notaries provide their services regarding registration without charge.
I might point out that Missouri does not now fit the exclusion I have just
described, insofar as absentee registration is only available to the sick, disabled,
or those absent from the county. We do feel that the categories of those eligible
to register by mail could be expanded, and are willing to "go that extra mile" if it
would avoid a dual registration system. We are of the opinion that the notariza-
tion of the registration form provides a valuable safe-guard and helps to "insure
the purity of the ballot box" while not being unduly restrictive, especially if the
services of notarys were available without charge.
In closing, I would like to make this observation. In reading the testimony
before the Senate Committee on 5 352, Senator McGee seemed quite impressed
with the fact that some states were able to do an adequate job with registration.
I suggest to the committee that there is another conclusion which could be
drawn from this line of testimony. Namely, that the states arc doing the job
in modernizing their election laws. The pace of this change is bound to pick up,
and certainly the threat of HR 8053 will be a spur to such change. Further, the
National Association of Secretarys of State has taken a strong stand on voter
registration and can be expected, I believe, to develop a model registration code
to be suggested for consideration by all states.
Finally, the fact that election officials from throughout the country held their
first national meeting this year in New Orleans, and plan to establish a national
oganization to meet regularly, suggests that an increasing amount of inter-
change will take place between the states about registration and voting.
Given the climate for change and given the incentive for positive state action
by bills such as HR 8053, it is my firm opinion that the states will respond
quickly-within the next few years-to provide registration procedures which
will meet the intentions of the sponsors of HR 8053 and 5 352.
Mr. MAThS. Our next witness is Richard Car~son, director of the
election systems project of the National Municipal League.
PAGENO="0182"
176
STATEMENT OP RICHARD J. CARLSON, DIRECTOR, ELECTIONS SYS-
TEMS PROJECT, NATIONAL MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, NEW YORK, N.Y.
Mr. CARLSON. My name is Richard Carison. I am director of the
election systems project of the National Municipal League, a nonparti-
san, nonprofit citizens organization concerned with effective self-gov-
ernment at the State and local levels.
Since its founding in 1894, the League's program has been based on
the proposition that informed citizens actively participating in pub-
lic affairs in their own communities are the key to good government.
The League promotes its goals through conferences, research re-
ports, a monthly magazine, "The National Civic Review," and the pub-
lication of model laws and systems such as the Model State Constitu-
tion, the Model City Charter and the Model County Charter.
The League's interest in elections goes back to 1920 when it first
published a Model Election System. We subsequently published a
Model Voter Registration System in 1927 and a Model Election Ad-
ministration System in 1930. Both models have undergone various
revisions since then. In 1971 the League began an intensive evalua-
tion of its earlier proposals on election reform under a grant from
the Ford Foundation. This election systems project developed out of
our concern for the consistently poor rate of turnout in American
elections. During the course of the project, we were fortunate in hav-
ing as advisers a distinguished committee of election administrators,
political leaders, civic reformers and others with a long experience
in electoral problems.
The recommendations of the election systems project will be pub-
lished this fall as a model ekction system. The provisions of the model
will cover State administration of elections and the conduct of voter
registration.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to submit a pre-
publication copy of the model to the committee for inclusion in the
record.
Mr. MATInS. Thank you, Mr. Carlson. I was interested in your re-
marks on the process used in Great Britain. I thank you for bringing
this to the attention of the committee. This is the first concrete testi-
mony involving that system that is used. I would like to know if you
have any further facts or statistics that might be made available to the
committee regarding that system?
Mr. CARLSON. We have a more elaborate statement on how this works
which I could make available to the staff which may fill in details I
have left out.
Mr. MATins. I think that would be most helpful.
Mr. CARLSON. We also have a statement on how the Canadian sys-
tem works. We would be happy to give you everything we have.
Mr. WARE. May I suggest the record be kept open for such sub-
mission?
Mr. MATHIS. Without objection, it shall be.
[The information was subsequently filed for the record :1
PAGENO="0183"
177~
PRELIMINARY EDITION `~ LIMITED DISTR]BUTION
MODEL ELECTION SYSTEM
July 1973
NATION&L NUNICIPAL LEAGUE
Ca~1 H. Pforčheiiner Building
47 East 68th Stieet
New York, New York 10021
PAGENO="0184"
178
Table of Contents
Foreword
Introduction
The Uses of a Model: Limits and Possibilities .
1. The Need for Ref orin
2. A Model Election Administration System
3. A Model Voter Registration System
4. Absentee Voting
5. The Consequences of Complexity
6. The Federal Role in the Conduct of Elections
Appendix: Implementing Statute 86
V
1
6
20
39
60
69
79
PAGENO="0185"
179
Forewoi~d
The major objective of the National Municipal League has always been
the establishment of governmental institutions and procedures necessary. as
effective instruments of popular control, Central to the fulfillment of
this objective has been the reform of election systems.
The League first established a committee on electoral reform in 1920.
In 1927 a successor committee on election administration, chaired by the
late Charles E. Merriam of the University of Chicago with Dr. Joseph P.
Harris serving as secretary, launched a comprehensive nationwide study of all
aspects of election administration. Thjs study, sponsored by the Social
Science Research Council, resulted in publication of a comprehensive report
with particular attention given to the need for registration improvement.
Existing systems were then described as "inconvenient to the voter, expensive
in operation and ineffective in preventing fraudulent voting." The report was
published in its entirety by The Brookings Institution and included the "Model
Registration System" and `~Model Election Administration System" proposed by
the NML's committee. These models, published in 1927 and 1930 respectively,
established the agenda of electoral reform for more than a generationand
were influential in providing guidelines for a massive improvement in American
elections, particularly in the elimination of blatant fraud.
Now, almost two generations later,questions involving election adminis-
tration and voter registration have been~ reopened by sweeping changes in voting
rights. The concern of both the federal. judiciary and the Congress with these
matters pointed to the necessity of taking a searching look at current problems
and practices and the reevaluation of earlier NML model proposals.
A grant from The Ford Foundation has made it possible for the NNL to
PAGENO="0186"
180
undertake this new study of American election systems. The early phases of the
study were paralled by a program of the League of Women Voters Education Fund,
also funded by The Ford Foundation, which identified administrative obstacles
to voting and proposals for immediate reforms. The National Municipal League's
study has been directed at the development of legal and practical ways to over-
come these and other obstacles and to furnish positive guidance for an election
system which provides maximum convenience for the voter as well as prevention
of fraudulent practices. A special cotnmittee,including representative groups
which have evidenced particular concern with obstacles to voting, provided
assistance for the joint activities of the LWVEF and the NNL. Two League
presidents have provided leadership for the Election Systems Project. William
W. Scranton, president when the project was launched and an active participant
at all stages of the undertaking, designated Wilson W. Wyatt as chairman of a
special advisory committee on election systems. In November 1972, Mr. Wyatt
was elected League president. He has guided the deliberations of the advisory
committees at six meetings and chaired special sessions on election systems at
the 1971 and 1972 National Conference on Government. He also has worked closely
with the staff in the preparation of the project reports.
The project has been under the general supervision of League assistant
director William J.D. Boyd and under the direction of Richard J. Carlson, who
previously served as research coordinator of the Illinois Constitutional Con-
vet~tion. Major research assistance during the greater part of the project has
been provided by Jeanne Richman, former vice president of the League of Women
Voters of New York State.
The broadly based advisory committee included election administrators,
political leaders, academic experts, civic reformers and others with long
- ij_ -
PAGENO="0187"
181
experience in election problems. This committee has evaluated project studies
and proposals. Special acknowledgement is due Professor Joseph P. Harris whose
earlier studies established the basis for League programs in the~field. He
gave the project the perspective of more than 40 years of intimate involvement
in election problems. Former League President Richard S~ Childs al~o provided
a link with the League's experience in the field prior *to the launching of this
project.
Numerous state and local election officials have participated in the
project in a variety of ways and have furCished invaluable insights into the
practical problems involved in election systems. Members of the project staff
visited 21 states and were greatly assisted by the reactions of election off 1-
cials from 40 states at a special confecence of the National Association of
Secretaries of State co-sponsored by the League in New Orleans in February 1973.
Similarly, participation in the annual conference of the International Institute
of Municipal Clerks, as well as innumerable contacts with local election of f 1-
cials, was extremely valuable. The fact that the percentage of eligible voters
participating in American elections has regularly been much lower than in the
other democracies prompted comparative studies of election systems ir~ six countries
Particular attention was given to the administratioa of the 1972 Canadian elec-
tion. Thus acknowledgment is due to J.-M. Hamel, the Chief Electoral Officer
of Canada, and the officials in other countries who were most generous in their
cooperation With the League's project.
Extensive assistance was provided by a number of special consultants.
Richard Scamnion, Richard G. Smolka, James F. Blumstein, Robert R. Outis, George
Braden and W. Edward Weens, Jr. all made important contributions. The League
is also indebted to researchers who provided assistance in making state-by-
state analyses of election laws.
- `Lii -
PAGENO="0188"
182
As in the case of all major NNL programs, the value of the product is due
in major part to the breadth of participation of individuals with widely vary-
ing experience and points of view. Nodel building thus is a process very.
similar to development of an actual legislative proposal and of necessity
must involve compromises and accommodations in order to relate to l~he infi-
nitely complex governmental and civic climate in late 20th century United States.
While the Election Systems Project studies are in the concluding edi-
torial stage preparatory to publication later in 1973 and the proposed Model
is under final review by the League's committees, the preliminary edition of
the ~g~j is being given limited distribution in response to a large number of
requests from various quarters now engaged in programs of electoral reform.
Williat~ N. Cassella, Jr.
Executive Director
National Municipal League
- iv -
PAGENO="0189"
183
Introduction
Upon completion, the Election Systems Project of the National Municipal
League will include a model state election system covering voter registration
and state administration of elections; a major study of the costs of election
administration; a survey of election technology; and a volume of essays on
major election issues. Although publication of these materials is scheduled
for later in 1973, the League is sharing its preliminary proposals with off i-
cials and civic organizations currently considering election reform. Accord-~
ingly, we are now making available a limited number of advance copies of the
League's Model Election System.
Brief ly, the Model advocates strong state control of election adminis-
tration with state and local governments assuming responsibility for initiating
the registration of all eligible voters through a system of door-to-door canvass-
ing. The cardinal principles embodied in the Model are visibility and account-
ability. Responsibility for the supervision of registration and voting are
fixed in a single officer of state government who would preside over an admin-
istrative structure with authority clearly fixed at all levels. The League
feels that such a system will encourage efficient administration and increased
professionalism among election administrators while opening up greater oppor-
tunities for citizen participation.
We recognize that many local jurisdictions achieve levels of excellence
in the administration of elections. However, many do not, and administrative
competence can vary drastically within a single state. Obviously, it is not
possible to draft a model election system that will suit every state. Nor is
this necessary. Rather, we suggest that each state adapt this model to its own
PAGENO="0190"
184
terminology, local government structure and frequency and timing of elections.
In short, this is an illustrative model designed to implement a specific set
of concepts. An implementing statute which illustrates how the major recom-
mendations of the model system can be put into statutory language is attached
as an appendix.
The National Municipal League hopes this preliminary proposal will con-
tribute to state eCforts to revise and update election practices. We welcome
comments on any aspect of the model system and the accompanying implementing
statute.
Richard J. Carlson, Director
Election Systems Project
National Municipal League
- vi -
PAGENO="0191"
185
THE USES OF A 1~QDEL; L)~4T~TS AN)) POSS1BIL1TIES
"Strictly speaking, the~e can be no such
tiling as a `Model State Constitution'
because there is' no nodel state. ,
~-Trom -the-introduction to the
Model State Constitution
Like a model state constitution a model election system is beyond the
reach of ordinary practice, It is not tailored to the needs of any single
state, yet it may answer some need in ey~ry- state, The League~s models estab-
lish goals, set standards and propose solutions; they' synthesize disparate
proposals for reforn~ and present systems for adapting the innovations of one
state to the needs of another, Within our federal system citizens and civic
organizatJ~ons play a major role as agents for change, The National Municipal
League's Model Election System is addressed to them, as well as to state
legislatures and election officials who are looking for better ways to serve
the electorate, In this cl~ate the League L3 new Model Election ~yst~ is
intended to serve as a catalyst for reform,
Since its founding in 1894 the National Municipal League has prepared~
nodel laws and systems in many' areas o~ governmental concern. The purpose of
these models is to help citizens and governments find practical solutions to
their own problems and to enhance the ~ederal system by strengthening the
structure of state and local governments-. Beyond that, there are certain
fundanjentals of good government that the League continues- to regard as nec-'
essary to the integrity' of representative government, These are visibility
and accountability of public off icials~ open access to information for all
citizens, and convenience to the voter compatible with efficient and economic
admin~stration,
PAGENO="0192"
186
In l92Q an earlier 1~c~del Election Systenj4ncluded p~opogals to make the
ballot safer and more convenient to use. A ~ode1 Voter 1~egistration System
publ~sked in 1927 advocated permanent, personal registration of voters in the
place of periodic registration which then widely prevailed. This report and
later editions widely influenced legislation as many states adopted permanent
registration of voters, following the main recommendations of the Model. A
Model Election Administration System published in 1930 also helped bring about
administrative improvements in many states, The problems and needs of regis-
tration and election adninistrat&on have changed greatly since that time. The
reforms of one era aie not always compatible with. the needs of another. Today,
more Americans are called on to vote on more occasions for more public officials
and on more issues than any other people içi the world. Nationally, we elect
mere then 500,000 public officials each year. Withip a single county, hundreds
of elections, can take place to choose officials for county, town, city and
village posts, and for the school, fire, water, soil conservation and other
districts. In the face of these tasks and a greatly expanded electorate, the
management of elections has remained basically unchanged and the percentage of
participating voters has declined.
Clearly it is tine to review the standards we have developed for dealing
with the electoral problems of the past. In 1971 the National Municipal League,
under a grant from The Ford Foundation, began a comprehensive analysis of legal
obstacles to voting. Publication of a new Model was a key objective of this
Election Systems Project. In preparing it the League has reexamined its recom-
mendations of a generation ago, found some still valid and others deficient in
important respects. The principles underlying earlier models remain constant,
PAGENO="0193"
187
however.
The League now seeks a workable design ~or an electoral system that will
satisfy contemporary needs for electoral justice: uniform treatment under the
law, equal access to the ballot for all eligible voters and equal weight for
each vote. If states fail to meet these standards, they face imposition of
a single national system that may conflict with their varying political cus-
toms and governmental practices. Thus the pressure is great for states to
undertake their own reforms.
While the definition of standards is basic to the development of a model
system, implementing procedures may be embodied in law and practice in a
variety of ways, as the great diversity among the states testifies. Although
these differences have at times aflowed for the dominance of parochial interests,
on balance the sharing of governmental powers has kept the American political
systeindynamic. In fact the major strength of the.federal system lies in the
flexibility the states have to operate within varying conditions. The federal
government must avoid imposing measures that could depress the states' ability
to develop solutions of their, own. At the same time, states must recognize
that they have common tasks to pe~forin. If states default on responsibilities
they may lose the opportunities to solve problems in ways that are compatible
with their own institutions and traditions. The health of. the federal system
depends on preserving a careful balance between the two levels of government.
The Model Election System is designed to help states take the action that
responsible government demands. . .
In defining specific goals for the Electio~i Systems:,Project, the National
Municipal League set some limits on its consideration of the many problems con-
20-695 0 - 73 - 13
PAGENO="0194"
188
fronting voters and election administrators. If the Model ignores issues assoc-
iated with the nominating process and with rules for campaign practices and
financing, itshould*not.be understood as a failure to recognize their impor-
tance. The Election Systems Project is addressed to election practices that
discourage voting; its primary objective is to develop procedures that will
expand the use of the franchise.
The central recommendation of the Model is a shift from personal regis-
tration requirements to a system of state responsibility for initiating voter
registration. However, states will not be able to implement the registra-
tion proposals of the Model effectively nor provide uniform voting oppor-
tunities unless they restructure their systems for administering elections.
The Model therefore includes an Election Administration System as well as
a Voter Registration System.
These models are not offered as prescriptions for uniformity among the
states but rather as guidelines for reform. To the extent possible, the pro-
posals are discussed in the framework of alternatives that states might use to
accomplish their common tasks in a manner best suited to their own customs and
politicalpreferences. It is to be hoped that by eschewing rigidity the Model
will encourage states to consider the substance, if not the exact form of the
major recommendations summarized below.
A Model Election Administration System
(1) To exercise its responsibility for providing uniform registration and voting
opportunities, a state should centralize authority over elections in am
administrative office headed by a single officer of state government.
(2) At a minimum, a state should finance voter registration, training for elec
tion workers, and state-mandated meetings of election personnel.
PAGENO="0195"
189
(3) The state's Chief Electoral Officer should have general authority to
implement the law, establish rules for p~ocedures and supervise the
election system.
(4) Each state should establish an Election Council to provide partisan
balance in the administration of elections.
(5) A single officer at the county level should be answerable to the Chief
Electoral Officer for the local administration of registration and
voting.
(6) A single official should be responsible for the conduct of elections with-
in each.precinct.
A Model Voter Registration System
(1) All voting precincts in each state should be canvassed annually or
binennially to locate eligible voters and to add their names to the
registr~tjon list and to ~en~oye the names of voters who no longer
resi4e at their registered address.
*(2) The statewide canvass should be conducted through door-to-door visitation.
(3) Canvassers should be qualified citizens carefully selected and trained
in their duties.
(4) The statewide canvass should be followed by a short period during
which errors in the registration list may be corrected and the names
o~ vQtex~ oye~lQoked during the canvass may be added,
-`5
PAGENO="0196"
190
CHAPTER ONE
THE NEED FOR REFORM
Introduction
In the 1972 presidential election the legally eligible electorate was the
largest in American history. A constitutional amendment had added 18, 19 and
20-year olds to the electorate, and the United States Supreme Court in a major
decision had invalidated state laws that specified length of residence as a
qualification for voting. Congress, exercising its broad authority to regulate
federal elections, had passed legislation providing expanded absentee voting
and registration opportunities in voting for President. Yet despite these
developments nearly half the adult population failed to vote; it was.the lowest
turnout since 1948.
Some critics concluded that the reforms had made no difference. They
argued that the apathy of individual voters remained the basic obstacle to
voting. The results of the National Municipal League's two~year study of
election administration among the states does~ not support this conclusion.
The federal actions that preceded the 1972 election led to important and long-
needed reforms. Their failure to affect turnout significantly that year sug-
gests that the system needs more than a broadening of the rules governing
voter eligibility. Individual voters do not benefit from national refOrms
until the 50 states and the thousands of local governments that control elec-
tions accommodate their procedure to reflect the changes. Lacking guidance,
the states failed or were unable to implement the changes in a coordinated
manner.
The election of 1972 is evidence of the failure of existing procedures
to register a large percentage of the newly eligible voters and to facilitate
their participation in elections. The major premise of the Model Election
PAGENO="0197"
191
~ presented here is that the problem of non~votjng Ln America is directly
related to he machinery states have created for registering voters and admin-
istering elections. The Model is designed to provide states with guidelines
to restructure their administrative systems so that citizens have greater
access to the electoral process.
The Dimensiçns of Non-'VOt4~
The percentage of voting-age Amerjcans going to the polls in presidential
elections has declined from 63 percent in 1960 to 62 percent in 1964, 61 percent
in 1968 and 56 percent in 1972. I~uring this same period over 80 percent of*
those voters who were registered usually~ voted. The non-voting population is
now larger than the entire electorates of such democracies as France, England,
Canada and Australia. There were 39 million non-voters in 1960, 43 million in
1964, 47 million in 1968, over 61 million in 1972,
The United States has traditionally had the lowest turnout for national
elections among all the democracies. For example, the average turnout for
parliamentary elections in France and Great Britain since World War II has
been 80 percent, in Canada 76 percent, in Austria 95 percent and in West
Germany 86 percent. Taken together these other democracies average nearly
84 percent turnout in national elections, or 24 percentage points above the
comparable figure for American presidential elections and about the same
level of turnout as that among registered voters.
* If the American record of voter turnout in presidential elections is
poor, then participation in elections fo~ other units of government, those
usually considered "closer to the people," must be described as dismal. While
more than one-third of our adults do not Vote in presidential elections, more
PAGENO="0198"
192
than half d? not vote in congressional and state elections and even fewer
participate in local government elections. Indeed, it is not uncommon for
the vote in municipal elections to drop to less than one-fourth of the qual-
ified voters.
It is difficult to reconcile our self-image as the most democratic of
democracies with our relatively poor showing at the polls. The search for an
explanation points to a significant difference between American elections and
those of other democracies. Voting in the United States is a two-step process.
First the voter must travel to a registration office and establish his eligi-
bility. Only then will he be allowed to vote. Virtually every other democ-
racy places the burden for registration on government, and it is a government
agency that has the responsibility for locating voters and entering their
names on the eligible list. Canada conducts systematic house-to-house can-
vasses prior to each election. In England the town clerk is responsible for
registering voters through "house-to-house or other sufficient inquiry." He
compilcs registration lists through an annual mail canvass of all households
supplemented by selective house-to-house canvassing. These systems of government-
initiated registration make voting far more accessible to the citizens than in
the United States.
Development of Registration in the United States
Although the first registration laws were enacted as `early ~s 1800, regis-
tration requirements were not the general practice until after 1860. Early in
American history most people lived in small, closely knit communities or in
rural settlements, and in most areas everyone knew his neighbors. The problem
of identifying eligible voters at the polls was minimal. The quality of American
PAGENO="0199"
193
society changed dramatically after the Civil War with. the growth of large cities
and the beginnings of mass immigration, It was no longer easy to identify one's
neighbors on election day, The population growth hastened the emergence of
machine politics in the bigger cities and the advent of large-scale election
frauds.
As industrial expansion, urbanization and mass immigration changed the
nature of American life, states began to adopt registration laws. Reformers
hoped the requirement of registration would reduce voting frauds and lessen
the influence of urban machines and their: immigrant clienteles. Without the
safeguard of prior regist~atjon, non-residents often appeared at the polls
and successfully demanded the right to vote and "repeaters" were often used
to cagt votes in more than one precinct. When ineligible voters are allowed
to vote, or if individuals cast more than one vote, the legitimacy of the
democratic process is undermined. Registration before an election enables
officials to permit only eligible voters to participate on election day..
Between 1860 and 1880 the older northern,: states began to require registra-
*tion in large cities. From 1880 until 1900 many southern and western states
adopted such laws, and in other parts of,: the country registration was extended
to small cities and, in a few instances,~ to rural areas. While the other
democracies were meeting the electoral problems of industrial society with
government-initiated registration systems, the American states placed the
registration burden on individual voters,
Most of the early registration laws applied only to large cities and
registration was based on the theory that the lists had to be frequently dis-
carded and a new regjstra~jon held in order to purge voters who had died or
PAGENO="0200"
194
changed residence. Such systems were considered to be particularly appro-
priate for highly mobile urbat populations. But dissatisfaction with the great ex-
pense and inconvenience of periodic registration led reformers to advocate
permanent personal registration. Under a permanent system a voter who registers
once remains on the list as long as he continues to reside at the same address.
Registration is conducted in a central location throughout the year and voter
lists are kept current through various purging techniques such as off icial*
death reports, transfers of registration, house-to-house canvass and cancella-
tion of registration for failure to vote. Permanent personal registration
is generally less expensive than periodic registration and more convenient for
the uoter.
Large cities were again the testing ground for this registration reform.
Boston has had permanent personal registration since 1896, Milwaukee since
1911 and Omaha since 1913. Oregon enacted statewide permanent registration in
1915. Permanent personal registration subsequently became a major issue
during the l920s. Local civic groups such as the Bureau of Municipal Research
in Philadelphia, the Citizens' League of Cleveland and the Chicago Bureau of
Public Efficiency included registration reform in their programs. In January
1927 the National Municipal League's Committee on Election Administration
issued the first "Model Voter Registration System" which contained a detailed
set of specifications for a permanent registration system. The central features
of this system remained part of the League program through four revisions, the
latest in 1957. The League of Women Voters of the United States placed perma-
nent registration on its legislative program in 1928 after three years of study.
Permanent personal registration has gradually become the dominant practice
among the states. Every state except North Dakota now provides for some form
- 1Q -
PAGENO="0201"
195
of permanent systen, although in five states registration is not required
statewide.1-
The shift from periodic to permanent systems of personal registration
was an important, if limited, advance Lu making the procedure more convenient
for the voters who, although they still had to make a personal visit to a
registra~jon office, did not need to go back and reregister at regular inter-
vals unless purged. The numbers of voters registered under permanent personal
registration has been higher than under periodic systems and turnout seems to
have increased slightly as a result. However, permanent registration has
been only a modest improvement over earlier systems for two reasons. First,
the purging practices necessary to keep the lists accurate force voters to
reregister frequently, significantly reducing the major advantage of perma-
nent registration. When voters are purged from the lists for failure to vote
every two years or in specified elections, the word "permanent" is hardly an
accurate description of the registration system. Second, voters must still
take the initiative, For reasons discussed below the continuing reliance
on personal regist~~tion has discouraged participation and hts seriously tm-
peded efforts to register voters.
* Petsonal Registration Discourages Participation
Each year millions of eligible voters remain beyond the reach of even
the most ambitious and aggressive registration efforts. In 1968 no more than
70 percent of the voting age population was registered, More than 36 million
adults were unable to vote because they were not registered, In the non-
1. Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin, North Dakota does not
require prior registration,
-ll~
PAGENO="0202"
196
presidential election year of 1970, the percentage slipped below 62, which meant
there were over 45 million unregistered adults.2 In 1972 the registration
percentage again rose to 70, but that still left 42 million voting age Americans
unregistered.
Because personal registration keeps rates low, voter participation is
seriously impeded. A study of participation in 104 of the nation's largest
cities in the 1960 presidential election found that differences in registration
rates explained most of the differences between cities in the number of voters
who participated in that election. Cities with higher rates of registration
had consistently greater turnout rates. The authors concluded that "registra-
tion requirements are a more effective deterrent to voting than anything that
normally operates to deter citIzens from voting once they have registered."3
Another study examined vote: turnout in counties that adopt personal registra-
tion systems. The study included such states as Ohio, Missouri and Pennsylvania
and found that as counties adopt personal registration, participation drops 8
to 12 percent from previous levels.4 Participation among voters who do become
registered.is usually between 80 and 90 percent f or the nation, indicating that
people do vote in national elections once they overcome the obstacle of personal
registration.
2. U.S, Bureau of the Census, Statlstjcal Abstract of the United States
(Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970, 1971).
3, Stanley Kelley, Jr., Richard E. Ayres and William G. Bowen, "Registration
and Voting: Putting First Things First," American Political Science Review
(June 1967), p. 362.
4. Walter Dean Burnham, "A Political Scientist and Voting Rights Litigation:
The Case of the 1966 Texas Registration Statute," Washington University Law
Quarterly (Spring 1971), p. 346.
PAGENO="0203"
197
Efforts to Expand Registration Have Been Ineffective
In most states local officials have broad discretion to provide their
communities with "outreach" registration opportunities through branch offices,
mobile registration units, deputy registrars, and evening and weekend office
hours. This is an important discretionary power because election officials
can control local registration rates by expanding or contracting the range
of opportunitie~ available. Local officials do not always use these powers
in a constructive way, however, often being hampered by staff shortages and
budgetary limitations. In some instances officials limit registration oppor-
tunities, either to protect established political interests or because they
feel that registration and voting should be a rugged test of voter conimitinent.
In either case the result is an unaccepta1~le constriction of voting opportunity.
Much of the effort expended to bring registration opportunities closer
to indjyidual yoturs currently depends on the volunteer activities of civic
and political groups in the community who: staff mobile registration facilities
or serve as deputy registrars. However well-intentioned these efforts may `be,
they often are limited by the goals and capabilities of the sponsoring groups,.
Political parties and candidates are obviously interested only in seeing the
names of their supporters added to the rolls. Many nonpartisan groups direct
registration drives at selected groups such as blacks or college students.
Regardless of sponsorship, outreach efforts or regis~ation drives in-
variably~ have failed to produce sign~ficŕnt increases ba the number of regis-
tn~antni. 8hort-te~m gains are soon i.ost through population mobility. Even
communitywide registration efforts are limited by what Is possible under
exi.sting systems. A recent national study of voter registration drives
13 -
PAGENO="0204"
198
concluded that "there seems to be a limit.,, to what one can accomplish by
methods thai ultimately rely on initiative by the individual..., The data
collected for this volume document a history of limited returns, not commeii-
surate with the effort and money expended to increase the nunbers of eligible
voters within the structure built into the laws of all but one of the fifty
states. (North Dakota),"5 Experience indicates that registration drives are
far more effective in training political volunteers than registering large
numbers of voters.
The Prevention of Fraud
A registration system will be effective ~n deterring fraud only if it
produces a list of eligible voters that is accurate and up-to-date. The prob-
lem has been well-stated by Joseph P. Harris in a pIoneering study of voter
registration in the United States: "The existence of a defective registration,
with. inaccurate or padded lists, constitutes no protection against frauds.
On the contrary, such a registration is an open invitation to fraud."6 Per-
manent personal registration has consIstently failed to measure up to this
fundamental standard.
Candidates for public office who mail campaign literature to registered
voters frequently complain that between 20 and 30 percent of those whose names
appear on official registration lists no longer live at the address indicated.
A 1971 national survey by the League of Women Voters Education Fund in coopera-
tion with the National Municipal League revealed that"approximately 50 percent
of the organizations using registration lists found the lists to be inaccurate,
5. Penn Kimball, The Disconnected (New York: Columbia University Press,
1972, p. 290.
6. Joseph P. Harris, Registration of Voters in the United States
(Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1929). p. 14.
- 14
PAGENO="0205"
199
and in half those cases the inaccuracy was reported to be greater than 10
percent."7
Inaccurate lists are characteristic of permanent personal registration
because of the difficulty inherent in maintaining an effective purging process.
Registrars who must take steps to provide registration opportunities must also
spend as much, and probably more, tine and money striking the names of voters
off the lists. Rigid purging techniques may deny many people the opportunity
to register and vote. But if purging is careless, inaccurate lists may in-
crease opportunities for fraud. Neither result serves the democractic process.
To remedy these problems the Model Voter Registration System set forth
in Chapter Three seeks to combine the registration and purging process into a
single system of door-to-door canvassing closely supervised by state and local
governments. Such a system should increase dramatically the number of regis-
trants in the most efficient and economic manner while ensuring that registra-
tion lists are accurate and up-to-date.
A Leadership Vacuum
Registration reform under the guidelines of the Model will require
strong administrative leadership at the state level. Yet states have rarely
assumed such responsibility for election law, as they have for other state
activities. Instead the responsibility has been shifted to county and munici-
pal governments. An estimated 7,000 governmental units in the United States
today have administrative responsibility for elections. Lacking effective
guidance from the state they are often left to their own devices to interpret
7. League of Women Voters Education Fund, Administrative Obstacles to
V~ti~g~ (Washington, B. C~, 1972), p. 15.
- 15
PAGENO="0206"
200
state laws that are vague and outdatea. in other instances, states try to
provide for all contingencies through detailed laws which require frequent
amendment, often with little or no attempt to integrate the changes into the
existing legal framework. This results in a set of ambiguous and contradictory
provisions for local use. While there are outstanding examples of creative
and effective action by local election administrators, many are unwilling to
resolve ambiguities themselves or even to usa their discretionary powers in a
constructive ways .to expand voting opportunities.Some are understandaily reluc-
tant to be innovators in a system which discourages individual initiative,
while others are prevented from doing en by the rigidities built into the
election code.
The absence of a centralized system of aaminiatratiom also meaps that
the courts are continually being asked to intervene in situations which should
initially be subject to administrative remedies The courts are seldom in a
position to balance administrative requirements with the interests, of. the
parties involved in an electoral dispute. Much current election litigation
could be avoided if the system were flexible enough to deal with problems that
arise and administrators were accountable for their actions. .
Wide Variations in Voting OpportunIty
State failure to supervise the conduct of elections has resulted in.w~de
variations wjthi~n states in citizen opportunities to register and vote. . These
disparities, are most troublesome in the registration process. State laws give
local officials broad discretion to provide branch and mobile facilities, to
deputize registrars and to set hours at a `central office. The scope of the
opportunities depends on local resources and official willingness to serve the
needs of the community. Evidence suggests that many officials do not provide
-16-
PAGENO="0207"
2O1~
the full range of opportunities allowable under law. The national survey by
the League of WQmen Voters Education Eund revealed the following situation:
In 29 percent of the conmunjties where deputy registrars
were allowed, election of fic~als failed to use this method to
reach citizens, While only 10 states expressly forbid evening
and Saturday registration, 77 percent of the communities studied
had no Saturday registration and 75 percent had no evening regis~-
tration in non-'election nontha. Even during.. .the 30 days prior
to the closing of registration, 38 percent of the connunit~es
provided no addi~tjonal hours for registration.
The study also reveals that many~ election officials fail to provide needed
services to assist votets and precinct election officers:
Although the law nay neither ráquire, suggest nor forbId it,
an election of f~cial night provide information to citizens con~
cerning the election, night conduct extensive training programs
for all poll workers and might provide bilingual clerks where
needed. While such initiative would remove many obstacles to voting,
local officials have seldom acted in these areas: only U percent of
the local officials included in this study published a voter in-
formation guide; 28 provided no training for poll workers; and in
approximately 30 percent of the registration places where bilingual
assistance was needed, local officials failed to provide this
seryice,
The study concluded that "Election officials clearly have the power to
make registration and voting procedures easier for citizens, but this
study has found that, by and large, they don't use it.'~8
The isolation of local election administrators has become a serious
liability in the face of recent federal legislation and judicial action.
With. passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the amendments of 1970,
Congress has demonstrated increasing interest in legislating uniform regis-
tration and voting opportunities among tihe states. In the last 10 years the
8. League of Women Voters Education Tund, Administrative Obstacles to
V~ç4~~g~ (Washington, D. C., 1972), pp.7-8.
H 17
PAGENO="0208"
202
United States Supreme Court has altered substantially the ground rules for state
voter qualifications. When Congress mandates changes in absentee voting pro-
cedures for presidential elections or the Supreme Court rules on the validity
of state durational residence qualifications, thousand of local election
officials across the country must- reach for ways to implement the changes with
little guidance from the state level. Too often, the result is confusion and
ineffective implementation.
To overcome such difficulties, the Model Election Administration System
which follows proposes a centralized state system for the conduct of elections
with, responsibility fixed in a single, visible state official - the chief
e1ecto~al officer who hag adequate rule-making power. A single official in
each county or city would be answerable to the chief electoral officer for tb
opeEation of the system. Structural reform of this kind would be an essential
first step in most states in making the voting process convenient and equitable
to the public and efficient and economic to government.
Ref Erences
Richard J. Carison, "Personal Registration Systems Discourage Voter
Participation," National Civic Review ~etembe~ 1971), pp. 597~~6O2~
Democratic National Committee, .~pprt of the Freedom to Vote Tasic
Force (November 1970).
J,-M. Hamel, "Registering Voters in Canada~ A ~esponsibility of the
State," National Civic Review (July 1972), pp. 336-~34O.
Joseph P. Harris, Election Administration in the United Stat~
(Washington, D. C.: The Brookings Institution, 1934),
National Municipal League, Model Election Administration Sy~~
(New York, 1961).
National Municipal League, Model Voter Registration Sy~tem, (New York,
1957).
Office of Federal Elections, United States General Accounting Office,
A Study of E1e~tion Difficulties in Representative Agierican Jurisdictions
(January 1973).
-~l8. -19"
PAGENO="0209"
203
CHAPTEP. TWO
A MODEL ELECTION ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM
Introduction
The conduct of elections in the United States is big business--with no one
at the head of the firm. Few states have established administrative agencies
with importapce ar~d visibility commensurate with the role that elections are
supposed to play in a democratic society. Election administration is an
orphan of state government, underfinanced and relegated to an obscure position
in state government. The periodic nature of elections encourages state and
ldcal officials to trea:t then as part-time concerns; theseofficials are often
chiefly responsible for other major duties. As a result, tiections suffer from
both adn~inistrative and financial neglect
State failcre ~o assume responsibility for implementing election laws has
left thousands of county and city governments to cope with complex and ambigu-
ous codes. The high degree of localism characteristic of e1ec~ion administra-
tion inhibits professionalism and permits widespread variation in voting oppor-
tunities within a single state. It also fosters an insularity in which prob-
lems tend to go unseen except by the bureaucracy that creates them. The Mpdel
Election Administration System recommends a system of centralized state control
over the conduct of registration and voting with enough flexibility for admin-
istrators to adapt stale laws and administrative rules to local conditions.
The Model is built around two principles essential to the sound adminis-
tration of elections:
First, the conduct of elections s1~ould be a separate and distinct respon-
sibility of the state and should be treated as such in the structure of state
government. *;Second, election officials must be accountable to the public they
20-695 0 - 73 - 14
PAGENO="0210"
204
serve. The visibility of an election system is basic to its good management.
Quite sinply, vtiters must be able to understand procedures if elections are
to serve the public. Administrators must be accountable for their actions.
Each state should view proposals for election administration reform in the
light of its own needs and traditions, but the principles underlying the
recommendations of the Model are valid for a11 states.
To exercise its authority for providing uniform registration and votj~pg
opportunities, a state should centralize responsibility over elections
in an administrative office headed b~y a single officer of state governmer~t.
Each, state should establish a separate State Office of Elections headed
by' a Chief Electoral Officer (C.E.O.) who should exercise the broad supervisory
and administrative power necessary to implement state law. The manner of se-
lecting the C.E.O. will be governed by the constitutional and political imper-
atives of each state. In keeping with the integrated executive concept of
the League's Model State Constitution,3' this Model recommends that the Chief
Electoral Officer should be appointed by the governor, subject to the advice
and consent of the SAnate., and be subject to removal. only for cause and afteiz
appropriate hearing procedures. The C.E.O. should serve for a term of five
years or more to encourage his political independence and to give him time to
develop the expertise his office requires. In any case, he should be a full-
time official with no responsibility other than elections.
In most states, an elected or appointed secretary of state has authority
1. Under the Model State Constitution the governor is the only popularly
elected officer of the state and is~ tas effective administrative head, appoint-
ing and removing all. department chiefs.
- 2].
PAGENO="0211"
205
over elections. If the State Office of Elections is to come under the aegis
of the secretary of state, he should be required by law to appoint a special
individual to head it. This would relieve the secretary of the need to divide
his attention between elections and other duties. In any case, the creation
of a separate office for elections is essential to its visibility whether that
office is located with the governor or with some other state official. In
addition, statutory protections are needed to: insulate the administration of
elections from undue partisan pressure from the appointing authority.
It should be recognized that any method of selecting governmental
officials will have political overtones. While elective posts are more directly
subject to such pressure, appointments made by elective officials are not wholly
free of partisan implications. Certainly a partisan tone is apparent among
election officials in many states, a condition frequently accepted as an in-
evJ~table reflection of the party interests at stake in the election. Thus it
is important for a state to distinguish between the methods for selecting its
Chief Electoral Officer, which may vary,: and the attributes of his office,
whi~ch. should be constant. The selection of the Chief Electoral Officer should
not depend on his political views and policies but on his ability to carry out
the responsibilities discussed below and on his expertise in election procedures.
A variety of approaches is available to insulate the state administration
of elections from partisan influence. The visibility' of the Chief Electoral
Officer is perhaps the primary restraint, Longer terms, better funding, and
more emphasis on trained ~taffs would promote the professional standards that
tend to offset purely partisan considerations in administrations. Bipartisan
controls, discussed in a subsequent section, may also be necessary.
- 22 -
PAGENO="0212"
206
Americans tend to have little confidence in the ability of the states to
separate the administration of elections from the heat of campaigns. Few if
any states have yet achieved the attitude prevalent in foreign democracies
that election procedures may be impartially supervised as a government ser-
vice, The widespread practice of giving administrative authority to cumber-
some boards representing multiparty interests reflects a commonly felt need
to guard against abuses of our electoral rights. Admittedly, it may take
years of effective upgrading of election administration before most states
would be willing to reconsider present structures. In the meantime, the nature
of the safeguards a state raises against any abuse or misuse of political
power will vary according to its political tradition.
The Chief Electoral Officer should have general authority to implement
the law, establish procedures and supervise the state election system.
This authority should include the following specific powers:
-- The Chief Electoral Officer should provide written standards and
directions to county administrators for carrying out local respon-
sibilities for registration and voting.
The Chief Electoral Officer should provide rules for compiling and
maintaining voter registration lists. In addjtion, he should set standards
for selecting such personnel as precinct workers and canvassers, and should
provide criteria to be used locally in selecting voting equipment and supplies
The C.E.O. should design the procedures for local election officials to carry
out their duties throughout the year and on election day in processing and
counting the ballots. All rules and regulations should be in writing to pro-
mote their uniform use and application.
- 23 -
PAGENO="0213"
207
State election officials widely agree on the need to upgrade election
procedures by providing more technical guidance to local officials. Differ-
ences of opinion arise over the degree of authority state officials should
have in imposing standards, The Model assumes that effective implementation
of the standards requires a state election office with true executive power.
There is another view, however, that the state could improve local election
administration effectively by providing operating models and advice. Cer-
tainly the existence of guidelines would Improve substantially the conduct
of elections in many states, even where the C.E.O. lacked the necessary power
of enforcement.
-- The state should arrange for periodic conferences of county
administrators.
The Chief Electoral Officer should call a conference, financed'by the
state, of all county and city election administrators at least once a year,
preferably prior to the annual state' registration.' This would give every
administrator access to the same interpretation of state law and rules, and
would also give each an opportunity to explore and resolve any ambiguities or
objections to state'*directjves. Also the' C.E.O. would have the opportunity to
communicate directly `with county officials on congressional legislative action
or on new court decisions, establishing a single statewide interpretation to be
uniformly applied across the state. Finally, the conference wŕuld permit county
and city election administrators to share exp~rientes and learn about new tech-
niques and it would give the C.E.O. greater insight into the workability of
state rules. ~`
In severgi stgtes~ election offi~cials meet Infoamally to exchange inform-
-24-
PAGENO="0214"
208
ation but few states require such conferences. Most states and local election
officials have no continuing opportunity te discuss coon problems. and the
implementation of legal changes. The absence of such formal channels of com-
munication seriously impedes uniform application of state law.
-- The state should develop training programs fo~ election
* personnel at all levels.
State policies are no more effective than the people who execute them.
To promote equality of electoral opportunity for all its citizens a state must
be able to set performance standards for election employees. This can be
accomplished only if a central source lays out all training programs and has
the power to supervise their uniform implementation throughout the state. Thus
all precinct officials should have essentially the same training.
* While the training should be conducted by the county a4ininietratot or
his staff, the state election office should design the prograise and provide
the materials and directions for delivering instruction. because the train~
ing would be a function of the state system, 1,t should be fimanced by the
state,
Few states provide standard training for election workŕrs. Many states
publish instruction manuals, but the quality varies enormously and in few cases
does the statemandate their use. In effect, it is a matter of local option
whether the county election chief carries out training at all. One difficulty
comsonly encountered is that election day workers are often recruited through
the parties on short notice and there is little time to qualify them for the
duties they perform. - 25 -
PAGENO="0215"
209
-- The Chief Electoral Officer should be ~asponsible for providing
voter information.
The C.E.O. should provide and supervise the disssemination of voter
information on the time and places for state elections, procedures for casting
ballots, explanation of state offices and issues, services available to the
voter such as assistance at the polls, absentee voting opportunities, challenge
procedures and an explanation of the function of the precinct workers, the
voter is likely to encounter on election day. Many states carry out one or
more of these services but few have succeeded in providing all the necessary
information in a form that is readily understandable to all voters. Voters
would benefit from the official distribution of such information along with a
sample ballot.
Too often the county election office lacks funds to supply voters with
useful information on local elections. Each. voter in the state is entitled to
the same basic knowledge about local elections, but the information he needs
will vary from locality to locality. The costs of providing it should be shared
by the state and localities, and the state should supervise the development of
information programs. In addition, the C.E.O. should publish and distribute
to each `county maps of all election districts for state and federal office so
that the county administrator can establish precinct boundaries.
-- The Chief `Electoral Officer should report regularly on all
*:matters pertaining to elections.
Regular reporting by the C.E.O. is a key method for establishing the
accountability of his office, Certainly the legislature and"the public are
entitled to an annual report of all election expenditures. Even in a year with
few or no elections, the administrative costs would be of general interest.
- 26 -
PAGENO="0216"
210
On other election matters, a state may wish to provide for longer reporting
intervals. For example, states that hold elections only every second year may
not wish to require annual reports on registration and voting statistics, on
evaluations of canvassing or poll procedures. A state may even determine that
a two-year interval is necessary to give the C.E.O. time to evaluate election
procedures and to make recoinmondtions for legislative change. Under any
circumstances, the Chief Eleczoral Officer should provide reporting forms to
the localities so that he nay depend on comparable information from all areas
in making his own determinations..
-- The Chief Electoral Officer should set budgeting and accounting
standards for election expenditures throughout the state.
Information about current levels of local spending on elections is
hard to come by.2 Few if any states require local offices to report, and in
any event, most of then hive election resppnsibilities as an adjunct to their
own duties and may not separate out all costs. Some city or county election
authorities simply forward bills for their expenses to the local appropriating
body for payment. In other places a budgetary limit forces election officials
to curtail voter services. Arbitrary ceilings on expenditures can have ob-
vious effects on the voter, if for example election offices cannot afford to
stay open evenings or Saturdays.
A study done at the University of North Dakota reports that in 30 of
42 states surveyed local governments are responsible for meeting all election
2, The most current estimates of the costs of registration and voting can
be found in the Natjonal Municipal League study entitled The Cost of American
Elections by Richard G. Snolka. It also provides guidelines for evaluating
election administration expenditures.
- 27 -
PAGENO="0217"
211
expenses. In 12 states costs are shared with local governments. But the most
striking aspect of the North Dakota study was its revelation of widespread
ignorance among the states as to their election costs.3 Most states simply
have no way of showing--or knowing-- how much is spent on elections. With no
basis for comparison states will have a hard time evaluating the fiscal impli-
cations of administrative reform. Thus the power of expenditure review may
be a critically important financial function of the state election office.
Complete state administrative control would include the authority to
budget for all functions of the system and the responsibility to pay for them.
In strict logic, a state thus should assume responsibility for all election
costs, but current realities demand consideration of alternative approaches.
At a minimum, innovations mandated by the state should be financed by the
state, including procedures recommended by the Model for the statewide canvass-
ing system, training programs and the election conference.
A state could finance other election costs initially and charge back to
the counties based on the number of local offices at stake. This reflects the
view that localities should share in the cost of elections at which contests
for local offices are also at stake.4 Alternatively, a state could set a
standard of reimbursement pro~rated according to population, or it could set
subsidy levels for county personnel and equipment utilized in the state election.
Or the state could pay all the costs of certain elections. A general election
once a year could be a state fiscal responsibility, while local or special
3. Charles Groth, Finance of State-wide Elections in North Dakota (1972)
(Grand Forks: University of North Dakota, Bureau of Government Affairs), August
1972.
4. The same logic would also call for greater financial contribution by
the federal government to pay for its share of the cost of federal elections
(see Chapter 6).
- 28 -
PAGENO="0218"
212
elections held at other times might be an entirel~r local expense. These are
some of the ways states and localities could work together to meet their re-
specitve fiscal concerns.
Even if it does not underwrite election costs a state should have a role
in overseeing expenditures by requiring county administrators to submit local
election budgets for review and comment and by requiring them to report their
spending at the end of each year. Budgeting is basically a planning process
and accounting is the procedure through which expenditures are reviewed. The
state should provide standards for budgeting and report forms for accounting
to help localities improve their procedures. Cost information which the state
receives from the counties `would enable it to establish a standard of compara-
bility for spending, which in turn would allow the t~.E.O. to comment construc-
tively on county spending. States may have the means to improve administrative
practices at the state level simply by knowing what various services cost.
-- The Chief Electoral Officer should have the power to investigate
violations of the election law, nonperformance of election duties,
and irregularities in the conduct of elections.
The power of investigation is important to the effectiveness of the
C.E.O.'s administrative authority. His responsibility for overseeing com-
pliance with the election laws and rules of procedure is likely to encourage
accountability on the part of his staff and by county officials. His inves-
tigative role will also tend to increase the visibility of the state office.
as the proper place for citizens to lodge complaints about the workings of
the system. The current anonymity of most election bureaucracies often heightens
a feeliyig of ineffectjyeness among disadvantaged yoters and discourages reform.
29 -
PAGENO="0219"
213
The C.E.O. should therefore establish systematic procedures for receiving and
hearing complaints against any election practice or official, and should make
the availability of these procedures known to the public. The Chief Electoral
Officer has a variety of tools necessary to the investigative task, including
his supervisory authority over county and other election officials and his
responsibility for budget review.
Each state should establish an Election Council to provide partisan
balance in the administration of elections.
A major goal in election administration should be a strong, professional
system that does not dilute the two-party system. The Model presumes that the
Chief Electoral Officer will be a professional administrator, not allied to
partisan interests. However, patterns of partisanship in some states may lead
reformers to regard that presumption with skepticism. The definition of the
C.E.O.'s responsibilities will depend to some degree on each state's ability
to achieve professional administration, but as a general rule his duties should
not include decision making likely to impair his credibility as an impartial
administrator. To. this end the Model recommends that each state establish the
Council as a political adjunct of the State Election Office! It is intended
to provide an institutional check on the C.E.O. in a way familiar to American
political experience.
In some states the administrative and political authority over elections
is vested in a single bipartisan body. Such states are already assured of
~ political balance but they sacrifice the advantages of efficiency and account-
ability ~ssociated with a single responsible administrative officer. Under
this structure it is often impossible for the public or for the election board
-30 -
PAGENO="0220"
214
to distinguish its political from its admini~strati.ve function. The effect of
the Model's proposal for a State Election Office headed by a Chief Electoral H
Of ficer working in tandem with a partisan Election Council is to make these
functions separable.
The Election Council nay be an advisory or a policy-making body. The
goal of the Model is an open, impartial and efficient election system. To pro-
vide for it, a state will need professional organization and centralized admin-
istration. To the extent that the administration may be influenced by partisan
interests, however, its authority must be tempered by opposing interests. The
Election Council as proposed should fortify the C.E.O.'s administrative integrity
in the public view by providing visible assurance that the conflicting political
interests of the state will act as a check on each other. Where public conf i-
dence is high in the ability of the C.E.O. to free himself from partisan domin-
ation, the Council might act as his advisory arm. Where the appointment of the
C.E.O. has uncertain political implications in the public view, the legislature
might want to give the Council final decision-making power in resolving the
questions assigned to it. In either case, the visibility of a bipartisan or
multipartisan board with quasi-judicial functions and the publication of its
recommendations on contested issues would give the state election office polit-
ical balance without eroding its administrative authority.
A state should define the Council's function through the statutory duties
assigned to it. Bipartisan representation in election administration is in-
tended to prevent abuses by any one political interest. Thus, in some juris-
dictons the Council's principal responsibility may be to investigate alleged
fraud and irregularity in the conduct of elections. In that case a state might
- 31 -
PAGENO="0221"
215
want to give the Council power to administer oaths, issue subpoenas, summon
witnesses and compel the production of books, papers, records and other evi-
dence in connection with its inquiry. If warranted, the Council could turn
its findings over to the state attorney general for prosecution. Such states
night choose to require the C.E.O. to file with the Council a list of all com-
plaints received in the state office, empowering the Council to investigate and
act on them. While the unbridled investigatory power of the Council could per-
mit it to harass the administrative authority, both of the above approaches would
~orovide undoubted political checks. In other states the Council's function
could be limited to challenges to nominating petitions, recounts and certifica-
:ion of election results; or it cQuld include other politically sensitive
*:esponsibilities outsf4e the scope of the:Nodel such as supervision of campaign
financing and disclosure laws. Clearly, the duties assigned to the Council would
ary according to the imperatives of a state's political climate. If there
re states where partisanship does not intrude on election administration, the
ouncil might even be unnecessary.
Where adopted the Election Council should represent the major political
oterests. In some states its membership would be limited to representatives
.f the two major parties. In other states where third or fourth parties show
ubstantial strength at the polls it should be reflected in the composition of
~e Council. Its members should be elected at party conventions, or selected
y party chairmen or state party committees. To encourage manageable meetings
he Council should not exceed seven members. They should serve four-year, over-
.apping terms to assure adequate time to develop expertise and to provide
~ontinuity in membership. Opposing partisan interests should have alternating
ower to help give each political interest an effective voice in Council decisions
-32-
I
PAGENO="0222"
216
and at the same time protect against deadlock.
For example, in a two-party state the Council would have five members,
Each party would have two members at all times. Although each would serve a
four-year term, the appointments would be staggered so that each party would
name a new member every two years. The chairman should serve a two-year term
and the position should alternate between the two parties every two years. The
short-term domination of each party might then tend to discourage an abuse of
power by either, since it would be subject to quick retribution.
If a state should decide on a Council with purely advisory power and
entrust ultimate responsibility for implementing its recommendations with the
C.E.O., the composition of the Council becomes slightly less critical anthan
even number of members might be more acceptable. In such states the C.E.O.
should be required to account to the Council and to the governor if he fails
to implement the Council's recommendations on any matter before it. Council
meetings should be gemred to the political calendar and the C.E.O. should have
the power to convene additjonal Council sessions when he deems necessary.
A ~ingle official at the county level should be responsible to the Chief
Electoral Officer fdr the local administration of registration and voting.
The most important member of the election system is the county official
who implements state policies and procedures.5 He holds the key position as the
link between the State Office of Elections and the voter, and is traditionally
5. To avoid confusion the Model refers consistently in this chapter to
"county" officials. The recommendations with respect to this official may be
understood in some states to apply to both county and city election adminis-
trators. The language used in the text reflects the traditional legal role of
the county as the primary administrative arm of the state.
- 33 -
PAGENO="0223"
217
the most accountable member of the system. Precinct workers have few supervisory
functions and the state officials are too distant. The county administrator
registers voters, receives applications for absentee ballots and hears complaints
about irregularities. He has an essential~ role in supplying information to the
voters for local election issues and candidates, and publishing voting hours
and polling locations.
In his capacity as agent of the state, the county administrator must have
some discretion in applying the law and administrative rule to local needs.
He should be primarily responsible for carrying out the state's training pro-
gram, for assuring the presence of adequate staff, equipment and supplies., for
overseeing the preparation of the ballots and the poli facilities, and for
seeing that municipal and precinct performance levels meet state standards.
It is worth commenting that policies governing county procedures and rules
governing county election staffs should be in writing for the convenience of
loca~L employees and for the infôrm~tion of any party organization or voter who
wishes to consult them.
In addition to the duties he performs on behalf of the state, the county
official has important independent functions. These include drawing precinct
lines within state guidelines. State law should set the upper and lower limits
of the number of voters in each precinct and require an adjustment after each
reapportionment to ensure that each precinct is wholly contained within any
larger district. This would ease the county's administrative task in preparing
ballots and voting machines, and in simplifying information the voter needs when
he gets to the polls.
The county administrator should also have power to appoint precinct per-
- ~34 -
PAGENO="0224"
218
sonnel to help him maintain uniform methods of operation throughout his juris-
diction. Since the bipartisan presence is desirable at the polling place (see
below), it seems appropriate for the administrator to make these appointments
from lists submitted to him by the county party organizations. He should,
however, be able to set merit standards and reject party nominees if they do
not meet such standards.
It is at the county level that the greatest need exists to improve stan-
dards of professionalism. Because of the episodic nature of elections, the
county must employ many part-time workers to conduct registration and to per-
form election day duties. The temporary nature of his staff places a real
burden on the county administrator. It is the state's responsibility tb upgrade
local operations by upgrading the county office through professional guidance,
fiscal assistance and training programs.
The most effective way to achieve an integrated chain of command might
be state appointment of county administrators.6 In the case of elections,
however, the responsible individual is now often an elected or appointed
official with other responsibilities. As long as he can achieve efficient
management of registration and voting, and a high level of visibility for
his role as election administrator, the manner of his selection is of second-
ary importance. The primary consideration is that responsibility for the con-
duct of elections is vested in a single individual in each county. Certainly
this objective is compatible with local selection, which may even give more
visibility to the post. In many instances a state can exercise effective
control over local election administration by financing a major portion of the
6. Delaware and North Carolina are two examples of this administrative
structure.
- 35 -
PAGENO="0225"
219
process, such as registration.
On behalf of local selection, it may be argued that the ability of each
county to name its own election office guards against a concentration of polit-
ical power that could result if the C.E.O. were able to name all administrators
from the ranks of his own party. In any event, there is no conflict between
a county official selected or appointed locally but answerable to a state office.
In many, if not most, areas of governmental concern county officials act as
agents of the state, carrying out its policies and laws in such areas as
health, welfare and criminal justice.
A single official at the precinct level should be responsible for the
conduct of elections locally.
Almost inevitably, the weakest link in the election system is at the
precinct level where temporary employees are underpaid and required to work
long hours. It is difficult to recruit people for such duties and even more
difficult to insure their presence at a training program. Nevertheless, the
quality of their performance will depend on the quality of their training.
Under these circumstances, the existence of at least one trained official to
oversee poll operations is essential. The county administration should desig-
nate a single individual in each precinct to supervise election day activities
and be accountable for the conduct of voting.
The supervisory official should be responsible for seeing that precinct
workers identify voters, instruct voters On procedures when necessary, watch
over machines and enforce iegulations against electioneering at the polls. He
should be responsible for supervising the inspection of machines and equipment
before the polls open, for monitoring the closing of the polls, and for count-
-36-
20-695 0 - 73 - 15
PAGENO="0226"
220
ing and recording the vote where that is a local function. He shpuld also
report on irregularities and malfunctions at the polls.
The precinct supervisor would be a temporary employee but, like other elec-
tion officials, he should be barred fron~ holding public or party office.
Many if not most election laws permit local officials to serve in `minor'
capacities such as village trustee, assessor or commissioner of deeds. These
so-called ninor posts normally hold considerable local political significance
and the conflict should be avoided. However, public employees such as teachers
or postal clerks should be able to serve as poll workers if it does not inter-
fere with the performance of-their other duties.
There also appears to be substantial reason for continuing the common
state practice of-requiring precinct personnel to be designated on a bi-
partisan or multipartisan basis, primarily for ensuring that the parties out
of power have a presence at the polls. In most states the bipartisan approach
seems also to have succeeded in establishing public confidence in even-handed
treatment at the polls. The President's Commission on Registration and Voting
Participation (1963) recommended a bipartisan policy at the precinct levels
as an effective deterrent to fraud. Certainly polling places seem to be an
appropr-iate location for represeptation of -the political interests involved
in an election, and the presence of opposing parties tends to discourage
temptation to intimidate voters. It is strongly recommended that bipartisan
representation in election administration not be extended to the clerical
staff of a state or local election office. In addition it should be pointed
out that bipartisan or multipartisan considerations in the recruitment of
election day personnel can coexist with merit selection procedures if the ~srty
-37-
PAGENO="0227"
221
role in recruitment is limited to submitting lists of names to the hiring
authority.
Finally, all poll workers should be clearly identified by function. If
their assignment yaries during the day, their identification labels should
reflect the change. This would help yoters direct questions for information
to the appropriate official and protectthém against the interference of un-
authorized personnel. To prevent unwarranted pressure on the voter, party
representatives should also be clearly identified.
Ref eremces
Office of Federal Elections, United States General Accounting Office,
A Study of Election Difficulties in Representative American Jurisdictions:
Final Report (Washington, D. C.: January1973).
Richard G. Smolka, " The Voting Rights Act: Unfinished Business for 1972,'
National Civic Review (January 1972), pp. 15-19.
- 38 -
PAGENO="0228"
222
CHAPTER THREE
A MODEL VQTER REGISTRATION SYSTEM
Introduction
Current systems of permanent personal registration do not work well for
voters or election administrators. Each year millions of eligible voters go
unregistered despite vigorous and well-intentioned efforts by public officials,
civic groups and political parties. At the same time election officials must
cope with a system that does not permit effective planning or provide the con-
trol necessary for efficient administration.
Under permanent personal registration election officials must provide
opportunities for citizens to register through a single central office open
only during normal business hours or through branch offices, mobile registra-
tion and the use of deputy registrars. In either case the volume of registra-
ti~ons is still dependent on the initiative of individual voters. Administrators
can control the conyenience of registration, but they cannot directly control
the volume of registrations. Officials are usually committed to a fixed range
of facilities which must be staffed and paid f or whether they are used or not.
The most extreme example of this inefficiency comes under systems which require
one or two officials to conduct registration for several days in each voting
precinct prior to an election. This often results in excessively high costs,
since the same level of staffing and facilities is used regardless of the num-
ber of voters to be registered.
Registering voters, however, is only half the story of permanent personal
registration. Once voters are registered, the lists must be updated through
periodic purges. Most states;.remove the names of registrants who fail to
PAGENO="0229"
223
vote at least once in a given period of time, such, as twd or four years.
Registrants are usually notified of the cancellation by mail and given the
opportunity to reregister. The severity of a state's purge law has a direct
bearing on the number of voters to be registered. Frequent purges will result
in more current and accurate lists, but they also increase the volume of reg-
istration and reregistrations that officials must process and nay seriously in-
convenience voters. What the system confers at one point, it often takes
away later.
These problems will persist until the administrative burden of locatir~g
and identifying eligible voters is made a responsibility of state government.
The Model Voter Registration System recommends that states assume this respon-
sibility by conducting an annual statewide canvass of all households to regis-
ter voters. If this canvass is conducted door to door, the names of registrants
who have moved or become ineligible to vote can be purged from the lists at the
same time that new registrations are added. A closely supervised system of
door-to-door canvassing should produce more accurate lists at a lower cost per
registrant than existing systems,~' and ~dministrators should be able to make
more efficient use of their resources. Most importantly, the resulting lists
should contain all but a handful of the eligible voting population. This
chapter outlines the procedures which implement the concept of government-
initiated registration moat effectively. Alternatives are discussed under each
major recommendation. so that states may~ adapt them to their own institutions
and traditions.
1. For a discussion of the cost of various registration techniques see
The Cost of American Electjons~ Richard G. Smolka; (New York: National Municipal
League, 1973).
- 40 -
PAGENO="0230"
224
All voting precincts in the state should be systematically canvassed
every one or two years to register all eligible voters and to remove the
names of voters who no longer reside at their registered address. The
canvass should be conducted through door-to-door visitation.
The most desirable canvassing method is systematic door-to-door visitation
carried out on a statewide basis.2 This represents the most extensive commit-
ment a state can make toward an equitable system of voter registration. Per-
sonal visits by government-supervised canvassers to each household in the state
should produce the most accurate list of eligible voters possible at the lowest
cost per registrant. Door-to-door visitation also allows both registration and
purging during the canvass. Combining these two functions has a distinct ad-
vantage. Since one procedure replaces two, there should be some savings in cost,
particularly since current practices would no longer be necessary. Purging
would also be done more systematically than it is done now in many jurisdictions,
resulting in more accurate lists.
Door-to-door canvassing is a common occurrence in American life. Polit-
ical parties and candidates, of course, rely to a great extent on this tech-
nique. Meter readers for electric and gas utilities make such canvasses on a
regular basis. One-thirdof the states now authorize canvassing for the purpose
of purging registration lists. A simple shift in wording would allow these
states to canvass affirmatively to add the names of qualified voters to the
register. A citywide door-to-door canvass was the practice in San Francisco
50 years ago. Its purpose was to add the names of eligible voters to the list,
not delete the names of registrants who have changed residence. Hawaii and
2. Mail canvassing is discussed on pp. 52-53.
- 41 -
PAGENO="0231"
225
Alaska now permit door-to-door canvassing to enroll eligible voters, and it is
commonly used in Canada and Great Britain. The Model recommends the applica-
tion of a widely used and well-tested technique to the process of locating and
identifying eligible voters.
The canvass should be scheduled to meet the requirements of a state's elec-
tion calendar. In those states in which there is a general election each year,
an annual canvass will be necessary to compile an accurate registration list.
In other states a biennial canvass may be sufficient. The date should fall
during a slack period, such as winter or early spring, when activity is at a
minimum. This period might logically come prior t~ a primary election. The
registration list will be most accurate immediately after the close of the
canvassing period. For this reason a state might decide to hold the canvass
prior to a general election chosen because of its importance to that state.
Whatever the date, it should remain a fixed point on the election calendar so
that the citizens of the state know exactly when to expect it.
Eligible voters contacted during the annual canvass should be required
to provide only basic informationreladng to state voter qualifications
and other information necessary to identify registered voters at the polls.
The information required of prospective registrants should be kept to a
minimum and should be directed specifically toward state voter qualifications
such as age, citizenship and residence. Under some systems of door-to-door
canvassing the information required for registration need not come directly
from the person to be registered but may be supplied by other reliable sources
such as other occupants of the same household, apartment managers or close
- 42 -
PAGENO="0232"
226
neighbors. This technique is referred to as non-personal registration and is
used during the nationwide enumeration that precedes each Canadian federal
election. Canvassers are required to record only the name, occupation and
address of each qualified voter they enumerate. This information often c~mes
from other members of the household. A similar practice under a personal
registration system is allowed in Colorado where a citizen who registers in
person may also register other members of his immediate family.
Under some systems of nail r~gistration not every registrant is required
to sign and fill out the form himself. In Great Britain, where registration
forms are mailed annually to every household throughout the country, the head
of the household is instructed to list every eligible voter living thereby
name and age. Under the Texas mail registration system any member of a' family
can register any other member who is eligible to vote by filling out the pre-
scribed form.
If a personal application by each registrant is not required under a
door-to-door canvass, then a signature on the original application cannot be
obtained and a signature comparison at the polling place is not possible, at
least for first-time voters. This is an important consideration because of the
significance which is often attached to the ability of precinct officials to
compare a signature obtained on election day with the signature on the o'r~Lginal
registration record as a means of preventing impersonation. The signature com-
parison has always been a part of the League's model system of permanent per-
sonal registration. The requirement now exists in 21 states. In nine other
states' the voter must sign the poll book but no formal comparison is required
by law. No signature is required in the other 20 states. The signature
comparison safeguard may be most relevant to the absentee voting process in
-43..
PAGENO="0233"
227,
which ballots are requested by mail, The signature obtained at the time of
registration allows both the application and the ballot to be checked against
the original registration record to ensure that the person registered is the
person voting absentee. The election laws of 32 states provide for some form
of signature comparison in the absentee voting process. In 16 of these states
the signature on the absentee ballot is cŕmpared to that on the original regis-
tration form, and in the other 16 the ballot signature is compared to the one
on the absentee ballot application.
As the Model has repeatedly emphasized, simplicity in procedural require-
ments encourages citizen participation--the simpler the requirements, the greater
the incentive to participate. The need is nowhere greater than in the registra-
tion process. If local conditions al1ow~it, the annual canvass should be con-
ducted on a non-personal basis under appropriate rules determined by the Chief
Electoral Of ficer.3 However, if a signature comparison is considered desirable,
two alternatives are possible under the loor-to-door canvassing system. If a
state~ chooses to require a signature on the original registration record, can-
vassers who are unable to make personal contact with a potential registrant
could leave a signed postpaid registration form at his home with instructions
to complete, sign and mail the form to the registration office.4 A signature
could also be obtained after the canvass by requiring voters to sign the poll
sheet on election day. Although the signature comparison could not be made
at the first election, it could easily be done for succeeding elections.
3. An exception to this recommendation applies to closed primary states.
In such states the Model recommends that a signature be required if declarations
of party affiliation are recorded during the canvass. See p. 49.
4. This procedure is similar to the one suggested for party enrollment
in some closed primary states. See p~ 49.
- 44 -
PAGENO="0234"
228
The utility of the signature test has traditionally been its preventive
value, since actual comparison at the polls is seldom done with any regularity.
The very act of signing one's name in public creates an"instinctive apprehension"
presumed to deter impersonation. This psychological safeguard is possible
without the need to obtain a signature on the original registration record.
A signature comparison in absentee voting is also possible, as is the practice
in some states, between the signature on an application and on the absentee
ballot. If a strict comparison is judged necessary, then a signature could still
be obtained during the annual canvass, although this requirement might dilute
the effectiveness of the canvassing procedure.
The signature comparison requirement should also be considered in the
context of a state's system for processing registration information and produc-
ing precinct lists. Five states now maintain or are in the process of imple-
menting a statewide computer registry.5 It is likely that similar systems
will soon be adopted by other states. Registrations are taken by local off i-
ials and a copy is sent to a central location to be placed on a single state-
wide computerized list. The purpose of the system is to promote standardiza- -
tion of records and procedures, to make purging more effective and to facilitate
the transfer of registrations between local jurisdictions. A major benefit of
this system is its ability to produce an accurate precinct register, in the form
of a computer printout, quickly and economically. The signature comparison
requirement is not fully compatible with a statewide computer registry and pre-
vents full use of its capability. To allow for a complete signature comparison,
the original signed registration form should be kept in a binder in- each voting
5. Alaska, Delaware, Kentucky, South Carolina and Virginia.
- 45 -
PAGENO="0235"
229
precinct. If this is done the full potential of an electronic data processing
system would not be realized.
The variation that exists in state laws governing the signature comparison
suggests that it is not always needed as a safeguard. For'thesereasons the
Model recommends that a signature test be required only when a state carefully
determines that it is necessary to guarantee the integrity of the electoral
process. Each state must take into account all of the considerations mentioned
above in arriving at a system for identifying voters at the polls.
The duration of the annual canvass will depend on the techniques used.
The area to be canvassed should be small enough to be covered by a can
vasser twice within the period of one week.
If a door-to-door technique is used exclusively, it should be feasible
to complete the canvass in approximately 40 days, including time for additions
and corrections.6 If mail canvass is used, this period might be considerably
longer. The San Francisco canvassers of the 1920s made two sweeps of the city
between January and March. The Canadians conduct a door-to-door canvass and
compile a fresh list of eligible voters within a 49-day period in one week.
The remainder of the time is devoted to correcting the lists in a series of
public hearings. In Great Britain the annual mail canvass supplemented with
targeted door-to-door canvassing including time for additions and corrections
takes 2 1/2 months.
With a door-to-door system, each area should be small enough so that a
single canvasser or canvassing team could comfortably cover it twice in one
6, See the model statute in the Appendix for a suggested schedule.
- 46 -
PAGENO="0236"
230
week. A longer period of time might seriously inhibit efforts to hire suff i-
cient number of the temporary personnel likely to be available, such as college
students and housewives. The Canadian experience indicates that an area in-
cluding 250 to 300 eligible voters is about the optimum size for a thorough
door-to-door canvass, although in many instances population shifts increase
the size of some polling divisions to 500 voters. Precincts in which voting
machines are used may be too large to be easily canvassed as a single' unit.
Where possible they should be subdivided for that purpose, although not neces-
sarily for voting..
Door-to-door canvassers should personally visit each household. Unless
satisfied that no qualified voter remains unregistered within a household,
the canvassers should make two visits, once during the day (9 A.M. to 6 P.M.)
and once at night (7 P .M. to 10 P .M,). When canvassers are unable to communi-
cate with anyone in the household from whom they can obtain the required in-
formation, they should leave a card stating the day and th hour they will make
their second visit. The card should also contain their name, address and phone
number. The canvassers should leave a notice for those people whose names they
will add to the registration list stating that they will be so included.
Canvassers should be nominated by the political parties but selectedj~y~
and responsible to the county administrator of elections. They should
be required to attend a comprehensive training session prior to each
canvass.
To insure an impartial registration process canvassers in each precintt
should be named to represent the two major political parties. The county
administrator should make the selection from lists aupplied by the county party
- 47 -
PAGENO="0237"
231
organizations. Each canvasser, however, should be clearly responsible to the
county administrator who should be free to reject or replace anyone nominated
by the parties if he states his objections. Each canvasser should be required
to sign the list of registered voters produced by his efforts. States which
do not use the bipartisan or multipartisari system can easily rely on a single
canvasser.
Regardless of the manner of selection canvassers should be required to
attend training sessions developed by the~ Chief Electoral Officer and super-
vised by the county administrator. They should receive additional compensa-
tion for the time spent in training. They should be required by law to
canvass the entire area to which they are assigped, and should be prohibited
from denying registration to any eligible voter or in any way impeding a voter's
opportunity to register. Canvassers should be paid for each new registration
they make and also for each deletion or áorrection. Since new registrations
may involve considerably more work than deletions, canvassers should be paid
a higher rate for adding names to the list. Compensation should be high enough
to attract a sufficient number of canvassers. They should alma carry appro-
priate identification.
If a state requires
party registration, voters may
enroll in
the party
of their choice
at
the time of the annual canvass or
in a supplementary
mail procedure.
In 22 states party enrollment is a prerequisite for primary voting. In
other states no party affiliation is officially recorded, or party enrollment
is based on primary participation. The canvassing procedures recommended
- 48 -
PAGENO="0238"
232
here are, for the most part, compatible with any direct primary system. Door-
to-door canvassers could obtain a declaration of party affiliation from each
eligible yoter whose name is added to the list. This procedure, however, should
be accompanied by safeguards. Personal contact with each registrant would be
necessary and the declaration should be affirmed by his signature. If it is
deemed impractical or undesirable for canvassers to solicit declarations of
party affiliation, another alternative is available. Canvassers could be re-
quired to leave a party registration form at each household and to notify the
registrant that he may enroll in the political party of his choice by filling
out the form and returning it by mail or in person to the county administrator.
Under a mail system a registrant could simply enroll in the party of his choice
by marking the appropriate section of the mail registration form.
The annual statewide canvass should~ be followed by a short period of
claims and obiections during which errors in the list may be corrected
and the names of voters overlooked during the canvass may be added.
After the annual canvass is completed the county administrator should
prepare a list of all eligible voters. This list should be printed on a
precinct-by-precinct basis with a central list kept in the county office. The
county administrator should see that the lists are readily available to parties,
candidates and the general public so they will have an opportunity to see that
all eligible voters have been included and those ineligible will be challenged
during the period for claims and obj ections. The county administrator should
include instructions for obtaining these lists in the voter information material
that is regularly distributed by his office.
- 49 -
PAGENO="0239"
233
Although most eligible Voters will be added to the rolls through the
canvass, it should be followed by a special period during which those missed
by the canvass can enter claims for inclusion and voters incorrectly listed
can be challenged. This period for claims and objections will provide an
opportunity for the groups wishing to police the registration process to make
sure the final list is as accurate as possible. Eligible voters choosing not
to be on the list could also take action at this time to have their names re-
moved.
After the period for claims and objections the county administrator
should audit the final list by taking a random sample of the names and check-
ing the validity of their regLstration. A representative sample can be easily
drawn. The audit would serve two purposes. First, it would encourage an
honest effort among the canvassers by putting them on notice that their work
is subject to a central check. Second, it would complement the claims and
objections period as insurance that the final list is as accurateas possible.7
A registration system will be effective in preventing fraud only to the
extent that the lists are accurate. A major defect of current systems of per-
sonal registration is that purging techniques cannot keep up with population
7. Existing sources of informationmight also be used to update the list
directly after the canvass or at other times during the year. For example,
resident aliens must register with the federal government each year through
the Post Office. The list might be matched against these records to check
for at least one class of ineligible voters. Similar checks night be made
against the death reports from bureaus of vital statistics or the records of
local utility companies. An updating system based on post Office change of
address forms has been used with great success in Allegheny County (Pittsburgh)
Pennsylvania. The Post Office regularly provides the county with change of
address forms filed by mail patrons. The county then cancels the voter's
registration at his former address and sends him a notice of suspension
form which also allows him to transfer his registration if his new residence
is within the county. Since 1961 an average of 90,000 changes have been
processed each year. Because the changes are filed mostly by families, an
estimated 200,000 potential voters are affected annually.
-50-
PAGENO="0240"
234
mobility. Existing lists invariably contain the names of many people who have
moved. A door-to-door canvass not only will include more of the eligible voting
population but also permits purging registered voters who have moved since the
last canvass. The registration process will not only be more equitable, it
will produce at the least cost the greatest safeguard to honest elections--an
accurate registration list.
Upon completion of the period for claims and objections, the county
administrator should close registration and compile the final roster. The
list should be available at cost, or without charge, to recognized candidates
and political parties. It should not be available to other government agencies
for any non-electoral purpose and present constraints against the use of the
list for commercial purposes should be continued. Although there is no fool-
proof way to prevent commercial interests from obtaining a copy of the list,
such a prohibition would be in keeping with the concept of the electoral pro-
cess as a public activity operated in the public interest.
Canvassers should be deputized to serve as registrars in their precincts
throughout the year.
The mobility of the Mnerican people is so great that addiitional regis-
tration opportunities must be available outside of the annual canvass if an
accurate list is to be maintained. To meet this need canvassers should be
deputzied by the county administrator to serve as registrars in each precinct
until the next statewide canvass. The presence of a registrar in each neigh-
borhood will povide new residents who arrive after the canvass is completed
with a convenient opportunity to add their names to the list, If canvassers
are unable to serve as deputy registrars, the county administrator should name
replacements from nominees submitted by the political parties or from other
sources if a bipartisan system is not used. Neighborhood registrars should
- 51 -
PAGENO="0241"
235
become a familiar feature of the community, making the process an integral
part of local affairs. This familiarity and visibility should greatly
facilitate the success of the annual canvass as well as neighborhood regis-~
tration throughout the year.
Voters who are not registered during the statewide canvass and are
unable to register. in person at other times should be able to register
by mail throughout the year.
Voters who move into a state between canvasses or who are overlooked during
the canvass and are subsequently unable to register in person should be able
to register absentee. There will always be a small category of voters not regis-
tered during the canvass who are unable, because of age, illness or other reason,
to register with local officials in between canvasses. Absentee registration
should be available to these individuals. Under the federal Voti~ig Rights
Act Amendments of 1970 each state is required to provide absentee registration
opportunities to persons qualified to vote for President under the Act. States
should provide general absentee registration to insure that every class of
voters has some opportunity to become enrolled.
Canvassing by Mail
Under certain circumstances mail registration will be a reasonable
alternative to door-to-door canvassing and, in any case, would be an improve-
ment over existing systems. Registration by mail may be an appropriate tech-
nique in rural areas or where the climate or terrain makes a door-to-door can-
vass difficult or uneconomical. On the whole, however, mail registration in-
volves liabilities that would not be part of the door-to-door system set forth
in the Model. .
- 52 -
20-695 0 - 73 - 16
PAGENO="0242"
236
~`Iail canvassing has three major drawbacks. First, used alone it will not
register the eligible voting population as effectively as door-to-door canvass-
ing. Great.Britain is the only jurisdiction that uses both techniques exten-
sively; its annual mailing of registration forms must be followed up by
selective door-to-door canvassing to cover areas where the response rate is
low or to correct improperly filled out forms.
Second, a mail system will require more processing steps than door-to-
door canvassing, thereby increasing both coats and the possibility of adam-
trative error. The distribution and receipt of a mail form is only the beginning
of the administrator's responsibility. Many returned forms will be ineligible,
incorrect or incomplete and this information must be subsequently obtained
from the registrant. Each registration must also be sorted by election district
and precinct at a central office, another administrative step that could be
avoided if a trained canvasser obtained the complete information.
Finally, a mail system would be subject to the same selective use by
interest groups that is characteristic of current systems of personal regis-
tration. The groups that now engage in registration activities would undoubt-
edly distribute mail forms to their constituencies and ensure that they are
filled out and returned. A mail canvass would only be an intermediate step
between individual initiative and full government responsibility for regis-
tration.
Despite these limitations, registration by mail may be useful if corn-
bined with door-to-door canvassing. If a state decides to combine the tech-
niques, specific criteria should be established to determine which one is to
be used in a particular area. Either technique might be used if the registra-
- 53 -
PAGENO="0243"
237~
tion levels achieved are substantially the same. Since the two approaches will
often produce different results, however, safeguards should be enacted to pr'e-
vent officials from choosing on the basis of anticipated political effect,
Expanding Opportunities Under Personal Registration
States which do not implement the recommendations of the Model Voter
Registration System should nevertheless provide maximum personal registration
opportunities. While a number of techniques to accomplish this putpose are
suggested below, these should not be consttued as alternatives to the i~fodel
whose door-to-door canvassing system is intended to replace permanent personal
registration.
(1) Closing Dates. Voters should be able to ~egister as close to elec-
tion day as possible, but in no instance should registration close more than
30 days before an election, Registration ~ closed prior to an election for
administrative purposes, to allow local officials to prepare lists for use
on elecg±on day. However, the period immediately prior to an election is
when voter interest in campaigns is greatest and when unregistered voters are
most likely to enroll. Thus administrative requirements often seriously
restrict registration opportunities. States should make strong efforts to
ensure that registration is open as close to an election as administratively
possible. The burden of new registrations stimulated by the heat of polit-
ical campaigns would be greatly reduced and late closing dates would be made
more feasible if local officials made maximum efforts to register voters
throughout the year. If the outreach techniques suggested below are widely
implemented, registration might be extqnded quite close to election day, per-
haps less than a week, depending upon the size of the jurisdiction and its
administrative capability.
- 54 -
PAGENO="0244"
238
(2) Door-to-Door Canvassir~g. States which~ do not assume responsibility
for door-to-door canvassing should authorize and encourage local officials to
do so. Trained volunteers could be used under a systematic plan developed
locally. Canvassing could be done throughout a locality or limited to areas
characterized by low levels of registration.
(3) Deputy Registrars. State law should allow local officials to depu-
tize any eligible voter to register other eligible voters. The state should
encourage local officials to develop training prograirs for deputy registrars
and to make maximum use of volunteer efforts.
(4) Branch and Mobile Registration~ In many jurisdictions voters must
travel great distances to register at a central location. Such restricted
opportunities are serious obstacles to full participation. States should
allow local officials to establish branch offices throughout their juris-
dictions, utilizing firehouses, libraries and other public offices where
registration could be taken year round. Localities night also deputize an
official in each high school so that young voters could become registered
after their eighteenth birthday. High school registration could be combined
effectively with a program to educate new voters on their democratic rights
and responsibilities.
(5) States Should Not Cancel a Citizen's Registration For Failure To Vote
In Any Period Less Than Four Years. Under the permanent personal registration
systems of some states, individual registrations are cancelled if a registrant
fails to vote every two, or sometimes three years, forcing people who vote
only in presidential elections to reregister every year they plan to vote.
Such requirements are discriminatory and undesirable. Cancellation provisions
- 55 -
PAGENO="0245"
239
for failure to vote should cover four-year periods at the very least. In addition,
each voter whose registration is cancelled should be notified by mail and given
the opportunity to maintain it by notifying the office by nail within a reason-
able period of time.
(6) Absentee Registration. Citizens who are ill, physically disabled
or otherwise unable to register in person should be allowed to register ~iy
mail. States should provide convenient postcard forms that may be returned
postage free.
(7) No Registration. States which do not now require registration in
some areas should continue this practice unless made desirable by local
difficulties with election fraud. The imposition of personal reg~strftion
requirements is a serious burden to individual voters and should be avoided
in small communities that have no such requirements now. States should direct
their reform energies instead to the expansion of registration opportunities
in other *areas or to the consideration of eliminating registration in
communities where it is not needed.
A Note on a Practical Standard of Performance for a Registration System
The Model Voter Regi~tration System incorporates a set of procedures that
should allow state and local governments~ to identify accurately the population
eligible to vote within their jurisdiction. However, the procedures them-
selves are less important than the results they are intended to produce. Any
system of registration should be judged ultimately on the basis of an explicit
standard of performance. The determinafion of that standard should be based
on a number of considerations.
Placing responsibility on state government for initiating registration
is the fundamental recommendation of the Model and the prime standard against
- 56 -
PAGENO="0246"
240
which an existing system must be judged. As the alternatives outlined in the
recommendations suggest, the government can meet this responsibility in a
number of ways. Therefore some additional standard is necessary to evaluate
the various techniques available. The most useful standard is a percentage
of the eligible voters registered.
The percentage of the voting age population registered fluctuates
widely from state to state and from election to election. In 1970, 10 states
recorded more than an 80 percent rate of registration and nine states recorded
65 percent or less. The national average was 61.4 percent. In a presidential
election year such as 1968, when interest in politics is considerably greater
than in non-presidential years, 16 states exceeded the 80 percent mark and
only five states failed to register 63 percent or more of the voting age
population. The national average was 69.2 percent.8
These figures do not represent an acceptable level of results. Our
institutions can be modified to produce a considerably better effort. Recent
constitutional amendments, court decisions and congressional acts have removed
state restrictions on voter qualifications to such an extent that virtually
everyone over 18 can qualify to vote. The major exceptions in most states are
convicted felons who are imprisoned or who have not had their civil rights
restored, persons adjudged mentally unsound and aliens. Data gathered by the
8. In considering official registration figures, in this case the Census
Bureau's Statistical Abstract, it is important to remember that the actual
number of registrants tends to be seriously inflated under a permanent regis-
tration system because of inadequate purging practices. In many U.S. counties
the number of registered voters often exceeds the voting age population. A
1971 report from Illinois, for example, revealed that 21 of the state's 102
counties had registration rates of more than 100 percent. Most of the counties
were in rural central and southern Illinois. "Bib Voter Discrepancies in 21
Counties," Champaign-Urbana Courier, April 23, 1971.
- 57 -
PAGENO="0247"
241
U.S. Bureau of the Census indicate that these legally ineligible groups con-
stitute approximately 4 percent of the voting age population.
A registation system capable of locating the residence of every eligible
voter could conceivably register 96 percent of the voting age population. In
practice,however, even the most efficient system will fall substantially short
of this ideal. There will always be a small number of otherwise qualified
voters with no fixed residence. The physical landscape of our cities is con-
stantly changing as new buildings are constructed and old ones. torn down. With
population movement so fluid, it is highly unlikely that any practical regis-
tration system could keep track of every eligible voter. Much has been made
of the difficulties of canvassing in urban areas. Access to large apartment
buildings sometimes presents a problem; fear of street crime is another. The
other side of the coin is that high-density areas may in some instances make
canvassing easier by reducing the leg work required. Certainly, canvassers
who know the precinct will perform more efficiently in any community, rural or
urban. Whether or not the difficulties or advantages of urban canvassing
balance each other out, the net result of a door-to-door system is virtually
certain to be better than the present system of voluntary registration. An
efficient registration system incorporating the appropriate canvassing methods
should register at least 90 percent of the voting age population at the point
of maximum efficiency.
Under the provisions of the Model efficiency should come immediately
after the canvass. Then the register should be most accurate, since the
canvass represents the peak of governmental effort. This list should equal
or exceed the 90 percent standardS If no further steps are taken to update the
- 58 -
PAGENO="0248"
242
list, population mobility would reduce its accuracy by 10 to 15 percent or
more within 12 months. The efforts of deputy registrars in each precinct
should keep the list around the 90 percent level until the next statewide can-
vass.
References
William G. Andrews, "American Voting Participation," Western Political
Quarterly (December 1966), pp. 639-652.
Angus Campbell, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller and Donald E.
Stokes, The American Voter (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1960).
J.-M. Hamel, "Registering Voters in Canada: A Responsibility of the
State," National Civic Review (July 1972), pp. 336-340.
Joseph P. Harris, "Registration for Voting in San Francisco,"
National Municipal Review (April 1926), pp. 212-218,
V.0. Key, Jr., Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups, Fifth Edition
(New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1964), pp. 597-649.
National Municipal League, Model Voter Registration System, .rev. ed.
(New York: 1957).
Lloyd B. Omdahl, Fraud Free Elections are Possible Without Voter
Registration, Bureau of Government Affairs, University of North Dakota,
(September 1971).
Report of the President's Commission on Registration and Voting
Participation (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963).
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States
(Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970, 1971).
U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population and Housing:
1970, Data-Collection Forms and Procedures (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1971).
Meyer Zitter and Donald E. Starsinic, "Estimates of `Eligible' Voters
in Small Areas: Some First Approximations," American Statistical Association:
Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section 1966 (Washington, D. C.),
pp. 368-378.
- 59 -
PAGENO="0249"
243
CHAPTER FOUR
ABSENTEE VOTING
Introduction
Absentee ballots can determine the outcome of an election and they in-
variably complicate the administrative task far beyond their usual contribu-
tion to the total vote cast. The steps involved in applying for, issuing, cast-
ing, receiving and counting absentee ballots have significant administrative
consequences and raise thorny questions about safeguarding the secrecy of the
ballot and the integrity of the electián result. Some administrators may be
less than eager to provide for liberalabsentee voting procedures because of
administrative problems and high costs. These considerations must be taken
into account. Yet it is inconceivable~ that in a society as mobile as ours,
and in which business and pleasure often take people away from their homes,
provision would not be made for voters who expect to be absent from their
city or county on election day or who are physically unable to vote in person.
Since only a few states record the total number of absentee ballots issued
and cast, it is difficult to determine precisely how many are cast nationally
for any class of elections. The limited evidence available suggests that in
most states no more than 4 or 5 percent of the total vote cast is by absentee
ballot, although in some areas it may be as much as 10 percent or more.,
Absentee voting increased somewhat in 1972, and this should continue to hold
as a result of the twenty-sixth amendment and the federal Voting Rights Act
Amendments of 1970 (VRAA). The enfranchisement of 18- to 20-year-olds for all
elections meant that large numbers of college students used absentee ballots
to yote from their home addresses. The YRA~A mandated national standards that
expanded opportunities to vote absentee in presidential elections, The imposi-
PAGENO="0250"
244
tion of federal requirements left some states with two classes of absentee
voters--one for presidential and one for state elections--making a single set
of standards an increasingly desirable reform~
This chapter does not attempt to provide guidelines for a complete system
of absentee voting. The Model Election System is designed to provide a frame-
work for state administration of registration and voting, while absentee voting
involves detailed questions of administrative procedure that are outside the
scope of the Model. Nevertheless, it would not be complete without some basic
guidelines for increasing the convenience of absentee voting and at least some
mention of the problems involved for both administrators and voters. The limited
recommendations that follow are intended to improve absentee voting opportunities
within the design of the Model.
Absentee voting provisions should apply to both primary and general
elections.
Absentee voting opportunities should be available in all primary and
general elections. The importance of absentee voting in primaries needs to
be emphasized because so many elections are decided in the contest for party
nomination rather than in the general election. Competition between the two
major parties is sharpest and most visible at the level of presidential politics.
It tends to decline, however, with the size of the political unit. Two-party
competition drops steadily as one moves from the national arena to statewide
contests for U.S. senator, governor and other state officials, and continues
to decline in congressional districts and in local government elections. In
addition, selection of the party leadership, and thereby the control of the
pa~ty, i~s determined jn pripiary elections. What this suggests, of course, is
- 61-
PAGENO="0251"
245
that primaries are frequently as important as general electjons and are often
more important. Voting opportunities, therefore, should be as equal as pos-
sible for both kinds of elections.
Absentee voting should be available to any qualified voter who expects
to be away from his county or city on election day or who is ill or
physically disabled.
For presidential elections the VRAA provides that anyone who Is absent
from his county or city for any reason on election day is entitled to vote by
absentee ballot. No state should have more restrictive requirements for eli-
gibility. In addition, states should extend such privileges to anyone other-
wise qualified to vote who is unable to go to the polls because he is aged, ill,
disabled or voluntarily confined to an institution,
There should be no requirement for notarization of the absentee ballot
application or the absentee ballot.
For most voters a requirement that a notary public must certify an absentee
ballot application or the absentee ballot is an unnecessary inconvenience.
Notarization requires the payment, in effect, of a small poll tax and serves
no useful purpose. Furthermore, notaries are usually available only during
working hours and even then few are conveniently close to most voters.
No proof of inability to attend the polls should be required. The ill
and the physically disabled should not be required to obtain a doctor's cer-
tificate in order to secure an absentee ballot. In the few states that require
such proof, it presents an unnecessary impediment and a serious inconvenience
to physically disabled voters. The fee physicians charge for providing such
- 62 -
PAGENO="0252"
246
certificates is another burden for the absent voter.
No special application form should be req~4red to obtain an absentee
ballot.
Some states require that a special application form be filled out by the
prospective absentee voter before a ballot will be sent. This adds an extra
step to the process and expands the minimum time period within which an absentee
ballot can be requested, received and counted. States should accept any written
or personal request for an absentee ballot by any qualified voter.
Applications for absentee ballots should be accepted up to seven days
before an election and absentee ballots should be counted if received ~y
the time the polls close.
The Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970 mandate these requirements in
voting by mail for President. They should apply to all other elections as
well. Unnecessary administrative complications result if a state creates two
classes of absentee voters by establishing one set of deadlines for the appli-
cation and receipt of ballots for federal elections and another for state and
local elections. During the 1972 general election, when the VRAA were in effect
for the first time, some states with two sets of deadlines failed to provide
a special absentee ballot form for President and Vice President only. This
* raised the strong possibility that ballots received after the more restrictive
state deadline would not be counted, even for President and Vice President.
Central counting of absentee ballots,as recommended below, should allow states
to extend more easily the federal deadlines to state and local elections.
- 63 -
PAGENO="0253"
247
~qp~reserve the secrecy of the ballot and to prevent fraud, absentee
ballots should be returned to and counted at the central election office
which issued then rather than distributed to each precinct.
The sane safegurards that attend the counting of regular ballots should
also be applied to absentee ballots. Requiring precinct personnel to count
absentee ballots unnecessarily complicates their workload and may jeopardize
the secrecy of the ballot. For example, if absentee ballots are sent to the
precinct for counting, the number handled may be so few--only one perhaps--and
the handling so informal that it becomes easy to recognize how an individual
voted. The absent voter's choice may also be more susceptible to identification
in precincts where a voting machine is used and the absentee ballots are the
only paper ballots received.
The counting and recording of absentee ballots requires special training
that is difficult to administer to temporary poll workers. The possibility of
error is. compounded when the slow and tedi~ous task is carried out after a long
day at the polls.
To circumvent duplicate voting, the voter who has been mailed an absentee
ballot should be required to turn it in if he later wishes to votein person
at his precinct on election day. If he has already mailed in his absentee
ballot but wishes to vote in person, he should be permitted to do so only by
casting his ballot at the central office where his absentee ballot has been,
or will be, received and counted, so that it may be identified and destroyed.
- 64
PAGENO="0254"
248
Every state should adopt all recommendations made in the Federal Voting
Assistance Act of 1955 as amended.
The Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1955 was passed by Congress to en-
courage absentee voting and registration by members of the armed forces and the
merchant marine, their spouses and dependents. Coverage of the act was extended
in 1968 to include United States citizens temporarily living abroad and their
spouses and dependents. The act recommends that each state accept a prescribed
form, the Federal Post Card Application (FPCA), as an application for an absentee
ballot, and if the applicant is not registered, as a simultaneous application
for registration for all special, primary and general elections. The act pro-
vides that the post card application and voting materials from local election
officials may be sent postage free. The recommendations contained in the act,
however, are not binding on any state. In September 1971 the Department of
Defense reported that 42 states accepted the FPCA as an absentee ballot appli-
cation and an application for registration for members of the armed forces.1
Only 17 states accepted the FPCA from U.S. citizens temporarily living abroad.
Each state should make the provisions recommended by the act an integral part
of its election law.
1. Thirty-three states also accept the FPCA for their spouses and dependents;
48 states accepted the FPCA for members of the merchant marine but only 33 ex-
tend the same privilege to their spouses and dependents. The act also recommends
that registration be waived for persons covered by the act who return to the
United States after the close of registration. Seventeen states have imple-
mented this procedure for members of the armed forces, 12 for members of the
merchant marine and none for civilians temporarily residing abroad. Altogether
the act contains 12 detailed recommendations. In 1971 only three states--Iowa,
Montana and North Dakota--had implemented all 12. The Department of Defense
estimates that only 26.5 percent of the armed forces personnel covered by the
act voted in the 1970 elections. U.S. Department of Defense, The Federal Voting
Assistance Program, Eighth Report, September 1971.
- 65 -
PAGENO="0255"
249
American citizens who reside outside the territorial limits of the
United States and are otherwise qualified to~ote should be able to
register and vote at least in federal elections where they last re
sided in the U.S.
The 1.5 million American citizens residing abroad who are currently dis-
couraged from participating in state and national elections should be extended
the opportunity to vote, at least for national office. These civilians
usually are subject to U.S. tax laws and other obligations of American citizen-
ship and should have a voice in the affairs of the country. In an age when
so many Americans pursue commercial and educational interests overseas it is
unfortunate that most are disfranchised in a majority of states by laws which
in effect require physical presence in the state to vote.2 By failing to de-
fine residency neither the Federal Voting Assistance Act nor the Voting
Rights Act Amendments of 1970 provide a sufficient legal mechanism for enfran-
chising qualified voters living overseas who are not members of the armed forces
or federal employees. The states continue to have exclusive authority to define
what constitutes residence as a qualification for voting~ with the exception
of length of residence. Many states now define residence so as to exclude
* people who do not maintain a home or other evidence of physical presence in the
state. Interpretation of the law can vary considerably within a state. Prior
to the 1972 presidential election some local registrars were accepting absentee
* ballot applications from former residents residing abroad while their colleagues
2. In testimony befcire the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service
on October 12, .1971, the Bi-Partisan Committee on Absentee Voting estimated
that 42 states made it virtually impossible for civilians residing abroad to
vote because of confusing statutes and court decisions, voter verification of
residence forms, the lack of absentee registration opportunities or outright
disqualification of the overseas voter.
- 66
PAGENO="0256"
250
in other parts of the state were refusing to accept them.3
To enfranchise qualified voters residing overseas and eliminate dis-
criminatory interpretations of the law each state should provide a formal pro-
cedure through which these citizens can vote in national elections. States
may also extend this opportunity to include state and local elections if they
consider it desirable. Such procedure should include a definition of residence
to include qualified voters overseas and should be based on the Federal Post
Card Application.
Other Problems
Even if these standards for absentee voting were to be implemented, it
is difficult to see how the voting privilege could be exercised in all election
situations. For example, 11 states and the District of Columbia hold runoff
primaries, and in several of the states the outcome is tantamount to election.
Yet often the interval between the first primary and the runoff is insufficient
to print new ballots, issue new applications to the original list of absentees,
mail out ballots to those who actually apply and receive the ballots for count-
ing by election day. Under these circumstances states should consider allowing
at least a month, and preferably six weeks,-between the primary and the runoff.
States may want to consider sending absentee ballots for the runoff to all those
who are on the request list for the primary or provide an opportunity for voters
who request an absentee ballot for the first election to request one for the
runoff at the same time. Even if a voter has returned to his home precinct
3. Richard Severo, "Americans Overseas Face Denial of Vote Under Law."
The New York Times, September 10, 1972. As this article points out, the situa-
t~on ~ further complAcated by the insistence of a handful of states that over-
seas. yQters also pay state income taxes. "Some voters here," the author writes,
`have sent in applications only to receive state tax forms in the return mail."
- 67 -
PAGENO="0257"
251
between the initial primary and the runoff, a state could safely send him a
ballot for both elections if it also provided for the receipt and counting
of absentee ballots at the central office (see above). Central counting
would then permit the state to conveniently destroy the runoff ballot if the
voter has returned and wishes to cast his ballot in person. In addition,
many localities across the country nominate candidates at caucuses, instead
of at primaries. Absentee voters would obviously be unable to participate
in this kind of electoral choice.
References
National Municipal League, Model Civilian Absentee Voting Law, Fifth
Edition (New York: 1970).
- 68
20-695 0 - 73 - 17
PAGENO="0258"
252
CHAPTER FIVE
THE CONSEQUENCES OF COMPLEXITY
Introduction
The Model Election System is designed to facilitate voting by making
registration a government responsibility and by promoting the efficient con-
duct of election day activities. The changes recommended here should en-
courage greater numbers of citizens to exercise their franchise, but they
cannot insure that they will cast an informed vote. Other elements of the
election system may also affect the quality of individual participation.
Many of these reflect constitutional, historical or political circumstances
which the Model does not address, but which any discussion of electoral re-
form must at least take into account.
The length of the ballot and the number of elections that are held point
to the continuing popularity of the notion that the more decisions the elec-
torate makes the better off it is. There comes a point, however, when it is
legitimate to ask if the length of the ballot complicates the electoral task
beyond the voter's ability to cope with it intelligently and if the frequency
of elections exhausts his civic patience. It is equally appropriate to con-
sider whether electoral practices designed to meet some interest other than
the voter's have an adverse effect on participation. Is the form of the
ballot, for example, calculated to aid the voter or to a~d the candidates and
* parties?
Nowhere in the world is the voting task as complicated as it is in the
United States. While the laws of other democracies restrict elections to
principal policy makers, Americans have always been anxious to expand their
PAGENO="0259"
253
role in the conduct of government. In addition to the hundreds of thousands
of public officials we elect each year, state constitutions and city charters
require the submission of complex questions to the electorate in frequent
referenda. The number of elections in this country reflects cur implicit
faith in the responsiveness of local institutions. The legions of off ice-
holders who present themselves to the electorate each year are also an outgrowth
of the Jacksonian belief in the inherent wisdom of the common man and our deeply
ingrained distrust of formal concentrations of power. Many of our institutions
are designed to keep government functjoüaries at all levels continuously answer-
ahle to the people. This pattern will be difficult to change in spite of its
impracticality as a device for effective government. There is a growing body
of evidence, however, to suggest that our uses of popular control have out-
stripped our ability to make informed electoral decisions.
Length of the Ballot
The number of candidates and issues a voter faces at each election is
determined by political ppliciesunrelated *io.:.tlie cOnduct of elections, but
the consequences of the long ballot present formidable hazards for administra-
tors and voters alike. To deal with scores or sometimes hundreds of choices
some states use extremely long ballots and then allow the voter less than
three minutes to record his decisjons.~ When the voter is confronted with an
overwhelmingly complex choice, however, he may simply abdicate his responsibility
for making independent electoral judgments as indicated in a recent study by
the United States General Accounting Office:
In an Ohio Democratic primary election of May 1972, the ballot
for delegates and alternates to the national convention contained 285
names. Because of the long ballot, the secretary of state directed
that eye~y ju~jsdict1~on use a paper ballot for these candidates, This
- 70 -
PAGENO="0260"
254
ballot permitted the voter to cast a vote for a slate of delegates
pledged to a presidential candidate by making a single X or to vote on
eaclidelegate.individually. The option of individual voting was
virtually ignored. . .. The voters in Ohio, when confronted with this
ballot, chose to cast their ballots for slates committed to a presi-
dential candidate. Even the most well known political leaders failed
to draw a significant number of individual votes)-
The political implications of the long ballot were especially apparent
at a Pennsylvania primary in the spring of 1973 when voters were asked to
choose 39 common pleas judges from a list of 255 candidates. The futility of
the task induced four out of five registered voters to stay away from the polls.
Only one of the candidates on a slate endorsed by the independent "reform"
group survived the election. Experienced party campaigners were able to mark
up far more successes by seeking support in targeted areas for portions of the
list, i.e., by reducing the number of choices for each voter.2
The voter may also lose interest when the ballot demands judgments on
matters beyond the competence of the average citizen. Eleven days after a 1966
election only 8 percent of voters in three New York cities polled by the Citizens
Union could recall the name of a single judicial candidate. No one judge was
named by more than one percent of the voters except for the chief judge of the
Court of Appeals whose election was uncontested and whose name appeared on all
four party lines. In his case a record 4 percent of the voters in Syracuse
recalled his candidacy. Numerous other polls have been conducted to show that
voters can seldom name the minor offices that appear on the ballot, much less
the candidates who seek to fill those posts. Nevertheless, voters continue
1. Office of Federal Elections, United States General Accounting Office,
A Study of Election Difficulties in Representative American Jurisdictions:
Final Report (Washington, D.C.: January 1973) p. vii-8.
2. "Ballot for Judges Fazes Pennsylvania Voters," New York Times,
Nay 21, 1973.
- 71 -
PAGENO="0261"
255
to be asked to select officials to run highway departments, to audit the books
of state and local governments, and to serve as calendar clerks in county
courthouses.
Besides the crowds of candidates who appear on our ballots, legislative
policy or initiative procedures often require voters to decide on a bewilder-
ing number of ballot issues. In 1972 California submitted 22 questions to
referendum, Washington 24 and Rhode Island 15. In November 1970 there were
53 constitutional amendments on the ballot in Louisiana and they were all
defeated. No matter how valiantly a state tries to distribute voter informa-
tion on these issues, many well-intentioned citizens will not have the time
or interest to give to this voting task. Faced with an impossible number of
choices, or impossible kinds of decisions, voters tend to make judgments in
an arbitrary manner, selecting candidates at random or using traditional clues
such as party affiliation. This has the effect of relegating the decision-
making process to party organizations or other powers which control the
nominations. Worse still, it may discourage citizens entirely about the act
of voting.
The long ballot also causm~obvioüs logistical problems on election day.
Voters across the country have had the, common experience of waiting in long
lines in front of polling places as their fellow citizens struggled with huge
ballots inside the booths. A random sampling of hundreds of newspaper reports
after the 1972 elections produced the following anecdotes.
From the Melbourne (Fla.) Times:
"The long wait didn't personally bother me, but it appeared to
upset the elderly citizens and those young voters participating
in the election process for the first time," one woman reported.
* * *
- 72 -
PAGENO="0262"
256
After waiting in line at Precinct 81 for two hours and ten
minutes, he was still number 40 in the line. He became so
annoyed he went to the registration desk and turned in his
registration card.
From The Houston (Texas) Post:
"Many hadn't read the amendments before coming in," said one
election judge. "They got angry if you didn't give them enough
time to decide about then when voting," In one precinct a man who
had minor trouble in a booth was overheard asking, "What do I do
now?" In unison, the long line of voters shouted back: "Vote!"
From the Providence (R.I.) Journal:
They applauded in Exeter when one voter emerged from behind the
curtains after spending 15 minutes making his selection.
In spite of efforts by the state Board of Elections to educate
voters on the numerous referenda questions. poll workers said
it appeared that voters spent a lot of time reading the referenda
questions.
It is fair to conclude that the simpler the ballot the better the voter's
performance will be. As a corollary, the more significant the choices presented
the more incentive the voter will have to participate. Most important, the voter
may focus on the issues more easily when he can identify them clearly on a
ballot limited to major offices.
Ballot Forms and Voting Mechanisms
Since voters may have little or no information about many candidates or
issues on a long ballot, their behavior is often influenced by the ballot arrange-
ment and the voting system in use. There are two major ballot formats used by
the states. The most common is the Indiana or party column ballot, used by 34
states, on which candidates are grouped in columns under a party label. Six-
teen use the Massachusetts or office block ballot which groups the candidates
by the office they seek. The office block ballot encourages individual choices
on each office and this increases the rate of ticket splitting. On the other
hand the Indiana ballot encourages voting by party and creates greater straight
- 73 -
PAGENO="0263"
257
ticket voting.
The argument is often made that the office block ballot is desirable be-
cause it encouragee choices on the basis~ of the qualifications of individual
candidates rather than party allegiance.~ Studies have shown that the office
block format does indeed result in voters splitting their votes more frequently
than with the party column format. However, the effect is not uniform for all
voters. Ballot form seems to make little difference in the proportion of split
or straight ticket voting among highly motivated voters or those who identify
strongly with a political party. The office block ballot has its greatest
impact among poorly motivated voters and those who do not identify strongly with
a party. This ballot form is also associated with higher levels of "roll off"
or the failure of voters to mark their ballots for lesser offices. States that
go from the party column to the office block arrangement not only experience
greater ticket splitting but the total vote for offices listed further down on
the ballot is reduced as well.3 It is unlikely that these effects would occur
if voters could make fewer choices on off ices and issues which they could more
easily understand.
There is evidence to indicate that voting may be discouraged in some elec-
tions by complicated voting mechanisms. A 1968 study at the University of
Michigan indicated, for example, that voting machines tend to inhibit voting
by persons low on the sociological scale. Supporting the findings of two
earlier Michigan studies, the writer fOund that "participation levels in .each
of the four referenda elections were consistently higher in the paper ballot
precincts.... In no election, howeye~, did participation levels in the machine
3. Jack L. Walker, "Ballot Forms and Voter Fatigue: An Analysis of the
Office Block and Party Column Ballots,"Midwest Journal of Political Science
(November 1966), pp. 448-463.
.- 74 -
PAGENO="0264"
258
precincts reach those, in the paper ballot precincts."4
Although in some instances paper ballots may be the simplest for voters,
they are not widely used in this country for several reasons. One important
consideration has been the considerable savings that may be realized with voting
machines and electronic vote counting systems. These systems allow officials
to consolidate precincts and reduce the total number of precinct personnel
used to conduct voting. Equally important are the complications that stem from
ballot length. The handling of paper ballots is both fatiguing and time consuming
to election officials who must count the vote when tht polls close. In addition,
paper ballots are more susceptible to human error and fraud since they are easily
miscounted, mismarked or otherwise spoiled. European countries have been more
successful with their use largely because there is normally only one office in
contest at each election. The generally higher turnout levels in European
countries are attributable to short ballots and less frequent elections as well
as to government-initiated registration systems.
In the last 10 years an increasing number of jurisdictions has adopted
voting systems in which punch card ballots are counted by computer or in which
special optical scanning systems are used to count standard paper ballots.
These systems seem to have arisen from the belief that new technologies can deal
effectively with the complications associated with ballot length, and they do
appear to have solved some administrative problems. However, until ballots are
shortened considerably there is a good chance that American voters will be
confused regardless of the voting system.
4. Norman C. Thomas, "Voting Machines and Voter Participation in Pour
Michigan Constitutional Revision Referenda," Western Political Quarte~i
(September 1968), pp. 409-419.
- 75 -
PAGENO="0265"
259
Another sensitive question relating to the form of the ballot concerns
the rotation of names. This technique is intended to give every candidate an
equal chance to benefit from the preferred first position on the ballot. Rota-
tion of names protects the candidates, under ordinary circumstances, from any
built-in disadvantage based purely on ballot position. However, the effort
to be fair sometimes put the candidate's interest above that of the voter's.
For example, where rotated ballots are employed, the use of sample ballots may
serve to confuse rather than to inform the voter who would ordinarily expect
to see in the voting booth what he has been shown on the sample ballot.
Similarly, the guides that election off iclals or public service groups may wish
to provide would not help voters.
Perhaps of greater significance is the administrative disruption often
caused by rotation of names, particularly if, as in the recent New York primary,
the deadline for resolving challenges to:nominating petitions is very close to
the election date. A recent study of administrative difficulties in seven
cities by the Office of Federal Elections came to the following conclusion
regarding ballot rotation:
In each metropolitan area visited, ballot rotation, where
required by law, posed major difficulties. Printing of the ballot,
preparation of the voting machine and tallying the result, regard-
less of the method of voting used, are made much more complicated
and expensive by name rotation requirements. Preparation of the
ballot for the printers becomes a timely and tedious process. Per-
sonnel must lay out the ballot for each precinct including sometimes
several unique ballots per precinct. Large numbers of printing
proofs must be checked and rechecked and many short and separate
printing runs are required. The margin for error is obviously in-
creased manyfold. Errors result in.candidates not appearing on the
ballots at all in some precincts as well as incorrect tabulations
of results.5
5. Office of Federal Elections, United States General Accounting Office,
A Study of Election Difficulties in Repiesentative American Cities-Prelimin
ary Report (September 15, 1972), p. vii-7.
- 76 -
PAGENO="0266"
260
Election Calendars
The number of elections as well as the number of ballot choices may also
directly affect voter participation. Somewhere in this country an election is
taking place every month of every year. Worse, in many states an individual
voter may be called on to go to the polls five or six times a year. The average
Californian goes to the polls at least three times annually to elect some 50
candidates who directly affect his taxes and everyday welfare. In odd-numbered
years, a suburban New Yorker may go to the polls four times for village, school,
primary and general elections quite apart from special elections that may take
place in special districts or for bond issue referenda. These constant demands
on the voter's attention are almost sure to be attended by a diminuation of his
interest.
In an attempt to insulate local government from the influences of nation-
al politics, many municipal elections have been scheduled in non-presidential
years or at times other than November in a presidential year. The separation
of local and national elections shortens the ballot required for each election
and may help focus public attention on local issues, but these benefits are
not achLeved without some cost. Separate local elections place an additional
financial burden on local governments and, most importantly, voter turnout is
reduced substantially.
Primary elections are particularly prone to calendar change. The party
in control of the legislature may have a special interest in making the primary
as late as possible one year to diminish the opportunities for campaigning by
insurgents; or they may schedule it as early as possible in the year after an
apportionment to permit incumbents the longest possible time to make themselves
- 77 -
PAGENO="0267"
261
known in their new districts. Changing the time of the primary can thus be an
annual legislative exercise. To protect the public against political manipu-
lation of the election calendar, each state should permanently set the time of
its primaries.
The most logical uniform tins to hold primaries is in the late spring.
Each four years, delegates to the national party conventions must be elected
no later than June. To achieve uniformity and reduce the number of elections,
primaries should be geared to a date that would accommodate the election of
delegates to these conventions. Most political contestants argue that an
early primary serves only to increase the difficulty and length of the cam- -
paign. There is a real question, however, whether this argument is directed
primarily to the interests of the voter or to those of the candidate and the
political parties. The conceded difficulties of long campaigns may perhaps
be dealt with through better controls on campaign practices and spending than
on shifting election dates to the confusion of the voter.
References
Richard S. Childs, Civic Victories (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1952).
National Municipal League, Model State Constitution, Sixth Edition
(Revised) (New York, 1968).
Donald G. Zauderer, "Consequences of Ballot Reform: The Ohio Experience,"
National Civic Review (November 1972) pp. 505-507, 520.
- 78 -
PAGENO="0268"
262
CHAPTER SIX
THE FEDERAL ROLE IN THE CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the expansion of federal in-
volvement in the conduct of elections, to consider the proper division of
government responsibility for the conduct of elections, and to suggest how
federal and state governments can cooperate to improve election administration.
The federal government should continue to provide strong leadership in setting
national standards for the expansion of voting opportunities, and incentives
to the states for the improvement of election administration and voter regis-
tration procedures. At the same time the states should be free to meet national
standards by developing procedures compatible with their institutions and trad-
itions, and with the characteristics of the population they serve.
AnlxpandingFederal Role
State authority over elections has developed in the absence of a clear
guarantee of the right to vote in the federal constitution. In the years
before the Civil War states took the initiative for extending the suffrage,
making this country the first major democracy to enfranchise all white male
adults by 1860. Since the Civil War, the federal constitution has become
increasingly specific about protecting voting rights. Eight of the 14 amend-
ments enacted since that time have expanded the suffrage, from the fourteenth
amendment through others prohibiting state restrictions on the right to vote
because of race, sex, failure to pay a poii tax and age.
The impact of these constitutional guarantees has been significantly
advanced by the federal courts. Using the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments,
PAGENO="0269"
263
the U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated such racially discriminatory practices
as the grandfather clause (1915), the white primary (1944) and the poll tax
in state elections (1966). In the early 1960s the Supreme Court began to apply
the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to state laws governing
legislative apportionment and voter qualificati~ons. Its historic series of
legislative districting decisions gave significant new emphasis to the franchise
with the doctrine that equal value must be given to each vote. Then, in a less
noted but just as `revolutionary" series of decisions, the court began to apply
a strjct standard of equal protection review to state laws governing eligibility
to vote. When a state acts to deny the franchise to a group of citizens, the
court ruled it must do more than demonstrate that its laws are reasonably re-
lated to state policy goals, the traditional judicial test. In voter qualif i-
cation cases, states must demonstrate a"compelling interest" in limiting the
franchise and use the least restrictjvedevice available. Applying this
standard the court has invalidated state laws excluding military personnel
from voting, whether or not they could qualify as residents (1965); the poll
tax in state elections (1966); requirements that voters in school board elec-
tions be parents or property owners (1969); and requirements that voters on
bond issues be property owners (1969). In its latest ruling the court in-
validated state laws requiring that citizens be residents for a specifie4 period
of time before becoming eligible to vote (1972).
Through these decisions the Supreme Court has severely limited the license
of the states to restrict the franchise. Moreover, the court, by giving each
vote equal value, has placed an individual's political rights under much the
same constitutional protection as his:civil rights. In effect the court has
- 80 -
PAGENO="0270"
264
established a set of national standards for certain portions of the electoral
process. Congress also influences the conduct of elections in two major ways;
it can protect voting rights in all elections from inequitable infringement
and it can regulate the conduct of federal elections. In 1957 Congress enacted
the first of a series of civil rights laws to eliminate discrimination against
black voters. Congressional efforts to protect voting rights reached a peak
with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which suspended literacy tests and autho-
rized the United States Attorney General to send federal examiners to register
voters in areas covered by the act. Then in the Voting Rights Act Amendments
of 1970 Congress mandated national standards for participation in presidential
elections by eliminating durational residence requirements and establishing
national standards for absentee voting add registration. The 1970 amendments
also included a provision lowering the voting age to 18 in all elections.
Although the Supreme Court subsequently ruled that Congress had no authority
to lower .age qualifications for state and local elections, it upheld the
18-year old starijiard in federal elections and set the stage for adoption of
the twenty-sixth amendment which enfranchised young votersiii all elections.
The amendment was ratified in record time as states rushed to avoid the admin-
istrative hardships of implementing different voter qualifications for federal
and state elections.
The Proper Distribution of AuthorJ~y~
Now that eligibility barriers to voting have been substantially overcome.
reform initiatives at the federal level are beginning to focus on administrative
and procedural obstacles such as registration. In 1972 and 1973 legislation
was introduced in the Congress that would create a national postcard registra-
tion system for federal elections but with financial incentives to states that
accepted it for state elections. A number of other plans has been introduced
- 81 -
PAGENO="0271"
265
to involve the federal government directly in assuming responsibility for the
conduct of voter registration, as well.as proposals to provide states with
grants-in-aid to expand registration oppoi~tun~ti~es,
These proposals reflect an important shift in congressional concepts of
federal responsibility for elections, first eyident in the 1970 Voting Rights
Act Amendments, Until the passage of that act the federal role had been
directed at setting standards and policing state actions that might restrict
individual rights. Thus when Congress amended the Voting Rights Act in 1970,
establishing rules for voting for President, there was great confusion among
the states. To give but one example, federally-fixed deadlines for receiving
absentee ballots for President came into conflict wjth state laws. The new
federal law departed from the traditional approach in which procedures for
voting are left to the states, or more precisely to local officials acting
under state laws. For in spite of its undisputed power to regulate its own
elections the federal government does not conduct elections anywhere.
To a large degree the increasing federal interest in administrative pro-
cedures is a consequence of state inaction. The administration of elections
has long been relegated to a back seat among state priorities and a strong
impetus is needed to encourage serious reform. There is a continuing need for
federal involvement in regulating federal elections and in setting standards
for all elections. There is strong evidence, for example, that the institu-
tions and procedures for reg~,stering voters in many states effecdvely dis-
criminate against large segments of the potential electorate. Federal inter-
vention, moreover, could provide the uniformity that is often the key to equal
voting opportunity. However, there are some difficulties to consider.
- 82 -
PAGENO="0272"
266
Centralization of rule-making power could mean rigi4ity as well as
uniformity if a national system substituted a single approach for the diversity
of current state election practices. Although reform is obviously called for,
a single national system night prevent experimentation and exclude other pos-
sibilities. For example, North Dakota and small communities in several states
have no registration requirements at all, an approach that is quite appropriate
in places with a stable population. A uniform national registration system
should not impose registration in areas where it is not really needed.
A single national system might tend to concentrate on the election of the
President, at the expense of other contests, including congressional as well
as state and local elections. This could have a significant impact in such
areas as state primary elections which go to the heart of the states' widely
varying party systems. Present state distinctions between open and closed
primaries might be hard to maintain under a federal registration system.
Different state schedules for holding primaries would have to be changed to
meet the schedule of the national nominating conventions. Thus there is some
danger that federal election adnini~tratiQn. which would necessarily be geared
to federal contests night neglect state and local electoral interests. In view
of the growing clamor for public action and community control there is a real
need to encourage citizen activity in politics at the state and local level.
States might well be encouraged to overhaul their own systems to stimulate
voter participation in the far more numerous state and local elections. The
prospect of dual bureaucracies at the state and federal levels could cause
great duplication of effort and expenditure as well as voter confusion.
The national and state governments should not be regarded as competitors
for authority but as two levels of government that can complement each other
- 83 -
PAGENO="0273"
267
in efforts to meet the growing demands on both.. The resources of state and
local governments should supplement national action where necessary and relieve
the national government from having to divert its resources and energies to
activities that could be handled as well or better by the other levels.
In spite of the drawbacks to national administration there is a growing
need for reform pressures from the federal government. The strength of the
federal system may lie in the freedom that states have to develop new approac Ins
to solving problems, but electoral reform among the states has been rare.
Several avenues are open to the federal government to improve election admin-
istration without jeopardizing the state administrative role. The federal
government should continue to pursue its traditional role as the protector of
an individual's right to vote. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, extended for an
additional five years in 1970, has been~a dramatically effective vehicle for
increasing black voter registration. Congress should continue to extend the
act and pass other legislation necessary to protect voting rights from un-
constitutional infringement by individuals or governments. The United States
Department of Justice should be encouraged to enforce vigorously the provisions
of the Voting Rights Act and to prosecute violations of other federal voting
rights statutes. Congress can encourage innovative practices by providing
grants-in-aid to states for specified activities:
(1) Implementation of statewide systems of door-to-door or mail
registration under the supervision of a state agency;
(2) Exfansion of personal registration opportunities through increased
registration hours and locations, widespread use of deputy regis-
trars and absentee registration;
(3) The creation of statewide training programs for local election
administrators and precinct personnel;
-84-
20-695 0 - 73 - 18
PAGENO="0274"
268
(4) The establishment of a state assocjation of election administrators
with regularly scheduled conferences;
(5) The design and implementation of electronic data processing programs
or other managenent techniques to modet~iize' `voter rg~istration add
election administration procedures.
The federal government should also promote better communication among
state and local election officials and encourage continuing studies of the
problems of election administration through the Office of Federal Elections
of the United States General Accounting Office. The Office of Federal Elec-
tions was created to monitor the campaign expenditures reports required under
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, but the act also directed the Comp-
troller General to serve "as a national clearinghouse for information in
respect to the administration of elections " and to "enter into contracts for
the purpose of conducting studies of the administration of elections." This
responsibility might prove to be one of the most helpful functions of the
office. There is a critical need for greater exchanges of information among
state and local election administrators and the development of comparative
studies of the problems of conducting elections.
- 85 -
PAGENO="0275"
269
APPENDIX
A MODEL ELECTION SYSTEM;
IMPLEMENTING STATUTE
The Implementing Statute is based an the preferred recommendations of the
Model Election System. Page numbers in parentheses throughout the statute
refer to alternative approaches discussed in the text o~ the Model. Each
state is encouraged to examine these alternatives in the light of its own
institutions and traditions. The Implementing Statute does nOt p~Ovide. sub-
stitute provisions to be used for alternative approaches.
ADMINISTRATION OF ELECTIONS
Section 1. State Department of Elections. In order to ensure uniform
registration and voting opportunities throughout this state, there is hereby
created in the Off ics of the Governor a Department of Elections to supervise
the conduct of elections. (See pp. 21-23.)
Section 2. The Chief Electoral Officer. The Department of Elections
shall be administered by a Chief Electoral Officer who shall b~ appointed by
the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a term of five
years. The Governor, upon notice and after hearing, may remove the Chief
Electoral Officer for cause. In the event of a vacancy in that office, the
Governor shall appoint a successor with the advice and consent: of the Senate
to serve for a term of five years from, the date of appointment. The Chief
Electoral Officer shall hold no party or other public office.
Section 3. Duties of the Chief Electoral Off ic~r.' The Chief Electoral
Officer shall:
a) supervise the compilation of :a state list of registered voters, includ-
ing door~~to-door canvassing of all voting precincts in the state;
PAGENO="0276"
270
b) develop and implement training programs for all election officials in
the state and establish employment standards for all levels of personnel;
c) set statewide standards for polling places and voting times;
d) prepare information for voters on registration and voting procedures
and on statewide candidates and ballot issues;
e) publish and distribute to each county a political calendar, a manual
on challenge procedures, and a map of aU election districts for state and
national office in that county;
f) convene an annual State Election Conference of County Administrators
of Elections to discuss uniform implementation of state election policy;
g) prescribe the forms of ballots and the form and wording on the
ballot of state referendum questions, issues and constitutional amendments;
h) investigate nonperformance of duties or violations of the election
law by election officers or other persons;
i) require such reports from county administrators as he deems necessary;
j) receive nominating petitions for state office and certify as to their
sufficiency;
k) certify all election results;
1) maintain an accounting procedure for all election expenditures in the
state; and
m) prepare and publish biennial reports on the conduct and costs of
registration and voting in the state, including a tabulation of election
returns and such other information and statistics as he may deem appropriate.
(See pp~ 26-~27,)
Section 4, Rule-Making Powers of the Chief Electoral Officer. In carry-
ing out his duties and otherwise to ensure uniform registration and voting
- 87 -
PAGENO="0277"
271
opportunities throughout the state, the Chief Electoral Officer shall issue
such rules and regulations as he deems necessary. All such rules and regula-
tions shall be available to the public, shall be in writing, and shall have
the force and effect of law throughout the state.
Section 5. The State Election Council.
a) There is hereby created a State Election Council. consisting of a
chairman and four members and four alternates.
b) Prior to the first day of January next following the first
gubernatorial election held after the effective date of this statute, each
major state political party shall, under procedures provided for in its
rules, designate two members and two alternates, one of each designated to
serve for four years and one each to serve for two years. (See pp.32-33 for a
discussion of a council representing more than two parties.) Thereafter
members and alternates shall serve for four years beginning the first day of
January following each biennial state election. Nembers and alternates shall
be succeeded upon the expiration of their terms by members and alternates
designated by the political party which named the members and alternates whose
terms expired. Each alternate shall serve in the stead of a designated member
at any meeting of the Council which that member does not attend. In the case
of a vacancy, an alternate shall succeed his designated member for the remain-
der of his term. If the office of an alternate becomes vacant, the major
state political party which named him shall designate a new alternate to serve
for the remainder of his term.
c) After each gubernatorial election the party whose candidate was
elected shall, under procedures provided for in its rules, designate a
chairman to serve for two years. At the end of two years, the oiher major
party shall, under procedures provided for in its rules, designate a
chairman to serve for two years. In the absence of the chairman
- 88 -
PAGENO="0278"
272
at a meeting of the Council a member from the same party shall preside. If the
office of chairman becomes vacant, the party which named him shall name a chair-
man to serve for the remainder of his two-year term.
d) The State Election Council shall meet at least twice during any
year in which a general election is held. One nesting shall be held on the
day following the last day provided by law for challenging candidates who
seek to have their names on the ballot at a primary election for state office
A second meeting shall be held not later than seven days following the general
election. The Council shall also meet at the request of the Chief Electoral
Officer; at the written request of a majority of its members; and at any
other times that the Council at its first meeting may designate as regular
meeting days. Nembers and alternates shall be compensated only for expenses
for attending meetings.
Section 6. Powers and Duties of the State Election Council.
a) It shall be the responsibility of the State Election Council to in-
vestigate fraud and other irregularities in the conduct of elections. (See
pp. 30-33.) The Council may undertake such investigations on its own initia-
tive; at the request of the Chief Electoral Officer; on the complaint of any
candidate, political party, independent nominating committee, or voter; or on
the complaint of any county administrator. The Council shall have the power
to administer oaths and to issue subpoenas for the appearance of witnesses and
the production of books, papers, records and other evidence in connection with
such investigations. The Council shall report its findings to the Attorney
General.
b) The State ~lection Council shall report annually to the Chief Electoral
Officer on its actjv&ties and recommendations.
- 89 -
PAGENO="0279"
273
Section 7. County Administrator of Elections. In each county there
shall be a County Administrator of Elections who shall be responsible to the
Chief Electoral Officer for the proper administration of state laws and policies
concerning registration and voting. (See p. 33 concerning cities.)
Section 8. Duties of the County Administrator of Elections. The County
Administrator shall:
a) compile a list of eligible voters from the canvass established by law
and state administrative rule;
b) procure and distribute supplies required for registration and voting
in the county;
c) prepare and disseminate voter information, including a sample ballot,
as prescribed by the Chief Electoral Officer;
d) draw precinct lines in accordance with state guidelines and distribute
maps to each precinct showing precinct boundaries;
e) appoint canvassers, poll inspectors, and other:.personnel required for
the conduct of registration nnd voting in accordance with standards established
by the Chief Electoral Officer. For each precinct, the County Administrator
shall appoint two poll inspectors and two canvassers of opposing parties, to
be chosen from lists of registered voters submitted by each of the state's
two largest recognized political parties under procedures provided for in
their rOles. A person may serve as both poll inspector and canvasser;
f) designate one canvasser in each precinct as a Precinct Deputy Regis-
trar, and one poll inspector in each precinct as Precinct Supervisor. A
Precinct Supervisor and a Precinct Deputy Registrar shall have completed the
state training program for precinct workers and canvassers, respectively, A
person nay serve as both Precinct Deputy Registrar and Precinct Supervisor;
- 90 -
PAGENO="0280"
274
g) remove for cause any employee under his jur~sdict~on and appoint a
successor;
h) carry out training programs for all county and precinct election
officials as prescribed by the Chief Electoral Officer; and
i) receive and handle complaints referred to him by any voter or precinct
official involving circulation of petitions, challenges to voters, actions of
election officials, or irregularities of any kind in registration and voting.
He shall refer complaints to the Chief Electoral Officer, to the State Election
Council, or to the proper prosecuting authority, as may be appropriate.
Section 9. Duties of the Precinct Supervisor. The Precinct Supervisor
shall be responsible for:
a) the adequacy of poll facilities and supplies;
b) order at the polls;
c) enforcement of regulations against electioneering;
d) proper instruction of voters on voting procedures;
e) requiring all precinct personnel to bear visible identification;
f) prompt reporting to the County Administrator of complaints, challenges,
or irregularities; and
g) authorizing, subject to the approval of the County Administrator, the
use of paper ballots in the event of voting device malfunctions.
Section 10. Financing Elections. The state shall assume the costs of:
a) voter registration;
b) the State Election Conference;
c) administration of the State Department of Elections and any review,
investigation or proceeding conducted by the Chief Electoral Officer;
d) the State Election Council and any investigation or proceeding it may
-91-
PAGENO="0281"
275
conduct;
e) the development and implementation of training programs for county
and local election officials; and
f) the election of state officials.
Section 11. Budget Review. The Chief Electoral Officer shall require
annual budget reports from each County Administrator. The Chief Electoral
Officer shall review county election budgets and make appropriate recommenda-~
tions to the county governing body concerning expenditures for registration,
elections, and administration, including supplies, equipment and personnel.
The Chief Electoral Officer may revise county election expenditures for any
costs assumed by the state pursuant to Section 10.
VOTER REGISTRATION
Section 1. The State Canvass. A state list of registered eligible
voters shall be compiled biennially by a door-to-door canvass conducted in
each precinct in the state. (Or annually. See p. 42.) The door-to-door
canvass shall begin seventy days before the date established for the primary
election for state offices and shall be completed within fifteen days there-
after. In each precinct the canvass shall be conducted by the two canvassers
appointed for that precinct by the County Administrator of Elections.
Section 2. Procedure for Canvassing. Canvassers shall visit each house-
hold in their precinct at least twice, but if on the first visit all eligible
voters in that household either are registered or personally decline to register
and the canvassers so certify, the second visit shall be omitted. One such
visit shall be made between 9 A.M. and 6 P.M. and the other between 7 P.M. and
- 92 -
PAGENO="0282"
276
10 P.N. At each household the canvassers shall leave a "Notice of Registration"
for each resident whose name has been entered on the registration list. Any
member of a household who register~ may register any other eligible voter
resident in that household. If a second visit will be necessary, the can-
vassers shall leave a "Notice of Visit" card stating the day and hour that they
will make a return visit. The card shall include the name, address, and
telephone number of the canvassers. If, on a subsequent visit or visits, the
canvassers are unable to complete the registration of all eligible voters in
that household, the canvassers shall leave a `Registration Information' card
containing the information necessary for personal registration. Upon comple-
tion of the canvass the canvassers shall prepare and certify a list of the
registered voters in the precinct and deliver the list to the County Adminis-
trator of Elections.
Section 3. Notice of Cancellation of Registration. Upon receipt of the
list of registered voters from each precinct, the County Administrator shall
send a "Notice of Cancellation of Registration" to each voter previously
registered whose name does not appear on the new precinct list.
Section 4. Preliminary List. Within fifteen days following completion
of the canvass in a county, the County Administrator of Elections shall prepare
an official Preliminary List of Registered Voters. Copies of this list shall
be available at cost to all legally qualified candidates for office and all
political parties. Any citizen who claims to be an eligible voter may examine
the list at the office of the County Administrator of Elections. No one
shall be permitted to maka an unofficial copy of the list. During a period
of ten days following preparation of the Preliminary List of Registered Voters,
any eligible voter resident in the county may add his name to, delete his name
- 93 -
PAGENO="0283"
277
from, or challenge any name on the Hat. The County Administrator of Elections
shall ensure that a reasonable number of opportunities are available to the
voters of the county to challenge names on: the list. No additions or deletions
of names shall be made after the close of such period of ten days. Within
five days following the close of such period, each County Administrator of
Elections shall forward the corrected Preliminary List of Registered Voters to
the Chief Electoral Officer.
Section 5. The State List of Registered Voters. Not less than twenty
days prior to the date of the primary election, the Chief Electoral Officer
shall certify the corrected Preliminary List of Registered Voters for all
counties as the State List of Registered Voters.
Section 6. Continuing Personal Registration. Eligible voters may
register or reregister at any tine in person at the office of the County Admin-
istrator of Elections or with the Precinót Deputy Registrar of the precinct
in which such voter resides. Each County Administrator of Elections shall
maintain open office hours in his county, sufficient to ensure reasonable
opportunities for personal registration throughout the year.
- 94 -
PAGENO="0284"
278
NATIONAL MUNICIPAL LEAGUE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ELECTION SYSTEMS
Wilson W, Wyatt, Chairman*
President, National Municipal League
Louisville, Kentucky
Theodore H. Berry*
Mayor
Cincinnati, Ohio
Jack G. Blue
County Clerk
Alameda County
Oakland, California
Earl Blumenauer
Member, Oregon State Senate
Portland, Oregon
Mary Bradfute*
Former President, Pennsylvania and
York League of Women Voters
Boca Raton, Florida
Richard S. Childs*
Honorary Chairman, Executive
Committee, National Municipal League
Brooklyn, New York
George H. Gallup, Chairman*
American Institute of Public Opinion
Former President, National Municipal
League
Princeton, New Jersey
Stephen K. Galpin, Nanager*
Community & Government Relations
General Electric Company
New York, New York
Joseph P. Harris
Professor of Political Science Emeritus
Berkeley, California
Donald G. Herzberg
Dean of the Graduate School
Georgetown University
Washington, D. C.
Penn Kimball
Graduate School of Journalism
Columbia University
New York, New York
Charlotte Roe*
Executipe Director
Frontlash~, Inc.
New York, New York
R&chard Scammon, Director
Elections Reseaizch Center
Weshington, D. C~
William W. Scranton*
Foxmer Goyernor of Pennsylvania
Former President, National Municipal League
Scranton, Pennsylvania
New Marjorie R. Spear*
Former President, California League of
Women Voters
San Diego, California
Julia Devis StuaFt~
Former President, League of Women Voters
of the U.S.
Spokane, Washington
Amalia Toro
Office of the Secretary of the State
Hartford, Connecticut
Richard Treadway*
Director, Field Services
U.S. Department of Commerce
Boston, Massachusetts
Gus Tyler, Director*
Politics, Education & Training
International Ladies Garment Workers Union
New York, New York
Pay H. Willians*
Chairman, League of Women Voters Education
Purid-NML Electidn Systems Project
Advisory Committee
Indianapolis, Indiana
PAGENO="0285"
Gino Baroni, Director
Center for Urban Ethnic Affairs
Washington, D. C.
Charles A. Barr
Director of Political and Economic
Education
Standard Oil Company
Chicago, Illinois
Robert L. Bennett, Director
American Indian Law Center
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Lucy Wilson Benson, Chairman*
League of Women Voters Education Fund
and President, League of Women
Voters of the U.S.
Washington, D. C.
Willie Campbell, Chairman
Special Research and Projects
League of Women Voters Education Fund
Washington, D.C.
Benjamin S. Hite
Alhambra, California
Dolores C. Huerto, Vice President
United Farm Organizing Committee
AFL-CIO
Delano, California
Barbara Jordan*
Member, U.S. House of Representatives
Houston, Texas
John Perkins, Assistant Director
Committee on Political Education
AFL-CIO
Washington, D. C.
Matthew A. Reese
Matt Reese & Associates
Washington, D. C.
John Lewis, Executive Director
Voter Education Project, Inc.
Atlanta, Georgia
John Sayre
Republican National Committee
Washington, D. C.
Althea Simmons
NAACP
New York, New York
Ruth L. Sims
Former President, Connecticut League of
Women Voters
Hamden, Connecticut
Anne Wexler
Common Cause
Washington, D. C.
*.Denotes present or former~ member of the National Municipal League Council.
279
In addition to the above, the following individuals provided assistance
to the NNL's Election Systems Project as members of the advisory committee for
the survey of administrative obstacles to voting conducted by the LWVEF:
William J. Pierca~
School of Law
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan
PAGENO="0286"
280
MODEL ELECTION SYST~
ERRATA
P. 40, line 12, delete "annual~
P. 42, line 16, delete "annual"
p. 44, line 12, delete "annual"
p. 46, line 9, delete "annual"
p. 48, line 20, delete "annual"
p. 49, lines 13,16, delete "annual"
PAGENO="0287"
281
[Reprinted from National Civic Review, vol. 61, No. 7, July 1972, pp. 336-3401
REGISTERING VOTERS IN CANADA: A RESPONSIBILiTY OF THE STATE
(By J.-M. Hamel*)
Although both the United States and Canada have federal systems of govern-
ment the control of the franchise is not at the federal level in each case. In the
United States the framers of the constitution were unable to agree on commonly
acceptable standards for a federal franchise and had to defer to state provi-
sions. The result has been a complex tangle of state registration requirements
which tend to confuse and discourage potential electors. This is indicated by the
fact that, while registered voters continue to vote in high numbers, the number
of unregistered voters has been definitely increasing in the past three presi-
dential elections.
In Canada the pattern has been different, although at one time it appeared
that this was not to be the case. The framers of the constitution intended that
the national parliament would have control over the federal franchise, although
existing provincial requirements would be in effect on a temporary basis. The
inclusion of the phrase "until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides"
indicated clearly the intention to establish a general franchise. A number of
factors delayed any change, however, and, with the entry of new provinces into
the federation, Canada appeared to be following the same pattern as the United
States with each province conducting federal elections in accordance with its own
laws. It was not until the passage of the Dominion elections act in 1920 that a
uniform federal franchise with one system of voter registration came about.
Today, Canada does not require personal registration. Compiling and preparing
lists of eligible voters is the direct responsibility of a federal agency which also
bears the total cost. Furthermore a new list is prepared by door-to-door can-
vassing prior to each election.
There is one basic difference and one similarity between the American and
Canadian electoral systems. In the first instance, general elections in Canada
are not held at fixed periods every four years. The Canadian constitution simply
states that the life of a parliament shall not last longer than five years from
the return of the writs for choosing a new parliament, subject to earlier dis-
solution. This has come to mean that the leader of the party in office (the
Prime Minister) usually picks what be considers the most opportune time to
call an election. In the past 10 years, general elections have been~ called in
1962, 1963, 1965 and 1968. 1\Iinority governments were elected in 1962, 1963 and
1965, and the party in power either chose to appeal to the electorate or was
forced by the opposition to call ~in election within a year or two.
Once an election is called the minimum time between announcement and poll-
ing is about 60 days.
The similarity has to do with the division of the country for representation
purposes into constituencies or "electoral districts" resembling American con-
gressional districts. There are 264 of these geographic areas entitled to return
a member to the House of Commons of Canada. In each district a returning
officer is appointed to supervise and conduct federal elections. Overall super-
vision, coordination and direction is the responsibility of the chief electoral
officer who is responsible to Parliament and not to the government of the day.
A Canadian general election officially begins with the issue of the writs. The
writ is an official document sent by the chief electoral officer to each returning
officer ordering him to hold an election on a specific date to select a member of
Parliament. A general election is therefore simply 264 concurrent local elec-
tions. Under the Canada elections act even the head of the government, the
Prime Minister, is only one candidate of his political party in a given electoral
district.
As soon as he has received the writ the returning officer must make the
necessary arrangements for preparing the lists of electors. For these "enumer-
ation purposes" and for the taking of the vote, an electoral district is sub-
divided into small geographical areas, called "polling divisions," as directed
by the chief electoral officer. The average number of electors in each polling
division must be by statute-approximately 250.
*J4~J Ilamel Is the chief electoral officer of Canada.
PAGENO="0288"
282
The lists of electors are prepared according to either the urban or rural
character of the polling division. Urban divisions are generally those in in-
corporated cities or towns having a population of 5,000 or more. All other
polling divisions are rural unless they are directed by the chief electoral
officer to be treated as urban.
For each urban polling division the returning officer appoints two enu-
merators who are generally nominated by the two opposing candidates who
obtained the highest numbers of votes at the preceding federal election in the
electoral district, or by the representatives of such candidates. Enumerators
must be qualified as electors in the electoral district where they are to work.
It is argued that if the enumerators represent the two strongest opposing
parties in the electoral district each will act as an effective check on any in-
clinations the other might have to falsify the list.
On Monday of the seventh week preceding election day, each pair of urban
enumerators must begin to prepare a complete and correct preliminary list
of qualified electors. Every qualified person is entitled to have his name in-
cluded in the list for the polling division in which he is ordinarily resident
on the first day of the enumeration period and to vote at the established polling
station. The basic requirements to qualify as an elector in a Canadian federal
election are to have attained the age of 18 on or before polling day and to be a
Canadian citizen.
The enumerators must visit each dwelling in the polling division and leave a
notice stating that they will include the name of the elector in the preliminary
list. If there is no person at home on their visit they leave a card stating the
date and time they will call again, or failing that, where they can be contacted
by telephone. They have six days to make these visits. On Monday of the sixth
week preceding election day, the urban enumerators deliver or transmit to the
returning officer two sworn copies of the preliminary list they have prepared for
their polling division.
Upon receipt of the preliminary lists the returning officer arranges for print-
ing, which must be completed by Wednesday of the fourth week before election
day. Copies of the lists are provided to each candidate in the electoral district
and to the voters. This enables the voters to ensure that their names have been
correctly included and that the list does not contain the names of ineligible per-
sons. It is this element of personal involvement which seems to lead to greater
voter participation on election day.
All printed copies also contain notices with regard to the sittings for re-
vision, the subscribing of affidavits of objection to certain names being on the
list, the advance poll and the location of polling stations.
For each rural polling division the returning officer selects and appoints one
enumerator. The general rationale for appointing only one is that rural areas
have a much more stable population so that padding lists or deliberately leaving
names off is more easily detected. The revision of the list is the responsibility of
the enumerator.
On Monday of the seventh week preceding election day, each rural enumerator
must begin to prepare a preliminary list of electors either from information
obtained during house-to-house visits or from other available sources. On Mon-
day of the sixth week before polling day, each rural enumerator must transmit
to the returning officer two certified copies of the list. After the lists are printed
they are sent to all officially nominated candidates.
The next stage is the revision of the lists and here the procedure differs
markedly between rural and urban polling divisions. As a first step the urban
polling divisions are regrouped by the returning officer into a series of revisal dis-
tricts, with no more than about 35 polling divisions in one revisal district. The
exact number will vary with circumstances. The returning officer publishes a
notice of revision giving all pertinent information, informs the officially nom-
inated candidates and further informs the public by announcements on television,
radio and in the daily press. The lists are revised by the ex officio revising officer,
who is normally the senior district judge, or by a substitute appointed by that
judge.
Each revising officer holds public sittings for the revision of the urban prelim-
inary lists on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of the third week before elec-
tion day, and, in special cases, on Tuesday of the second week before polling
day. On Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, any unregistered elector who is en-
titled to vote in the revisal district may, without previous notice, apply verbally
PAGENO="0289"
283
to have his name entered on the official list of electors for the polling division
in which he ordinarily resides. This applies also to electors who have moved to
the polling division from another electoral district after the enumeration date.
Sworn written applications by revising agents for registration of electors (elec-
tion officials nominated by candidates and responsible to the returning officer) as
well as all verbal applications for correction of names or particulars on the lists
will be dealt with on the same days.
In addition the revising officer has the power to strike out the name of any
person who is not entitled to vote in his revisal district. The person making the
objection to a listed name must appear on Wednesday or Thursday and subscribe
to an affidavit. The revising officer will then give notice to the person objected to.
The burden of the proof rests on the person making the objection, but the elec-
tor whose entitlement is questioned may appear before the revising officer on the
following Tuesday and give ~evidence as to his qualifications. The revising officer
also has the power to take an elector's name off the preliminary list at his request.
The revising officer will send to the returning officer and to each officially
nominated candidate in the electoral district three copies of the statement of the
changes and additions made in the preliminary list for each urban polling
division.
Each urban polling division list is then closed. For taking the vote the official
list of electors will consist of a copy of the printed preliminary list and the state-
ment of changes and additions. No one whose name does not appear on an official
list will be allowed to vote at the election.
Rural lists, on the other hand, are open. In each rural polling division the enu-
merator acts as the revising officer and he will receive applications to correct
names in, add names to, or delete names from, the preliminary list. These appli-
cations may be made at any time after the posting up of such list until 10 P.M.
on Wednesday of the third week preceding election day.
The enumerator sends nine copies of the statement of changes and additions
to the returning officer who in turn sends one to each candidate in the electoral
district. The preliminary list and the: statement of the changes and additions
constitute the official list of electors.
If the name of a person who is qualified as an elector and residing in a
rural polling division is omitted from the official list he may still vote if he
takes an oath at the polling station that he is duly qualified to vote in that
polling division and second can be vouched for by another elector whose name
properly appears on the official list. This formality involves some inconvenience
and most rural electors find it more satisfactory to be correctly listed.
How complete is this system of voter registration and what is the typical
voter turnout? In the 1968 general election it is estimated that approximately
98 percent of all eligible voters were registered. Statistics indicate that 76 percent
of the eligible voters actually went to the polls. Seventy-five percent voted in
the 1965 election and 79 percent each in 1962 and 1963.
It is of interest to note that nine of the 10 Canadian provinces have adopted
a basic procedure of registration patterned on the federal system. In each
province, except for British Columbia, there is a door-to-door enumeration in
the days immediately following the issue of the writs, followed by a time
set aside for revision and objections. There is a variation in detail in accordance
with the special needs of the provinée but basically the procedure is the same.
The only province which varies in its method of registration of voters is British
Columbia and there they use a continuous electoral roll with a volitional system.
In summary, Canada does not use a system of volitional registration and
permanent lists as found in most American states. The Canadian federal system
calls for lists of electors to be prepared from information gathered by enumera-
tors and revising officers after an election is ordered, and be printed before polling
day. The lists are used for one election only, and are then discarded along with
the information from which they were produced. There is no requirement for the
citizen to appear personally before a designated government official to declare
that he is eligible to vote under state law. He has no worries about automatic
cancellation of his registration if he~ has failed to vote during a specified period
of time. There is no need to maintain a record in the permanent registration file
reflecting whether an individual has voted or not. In Canada the onus for
registering electors is on the state,: which bears the entire cost. Normally, all
an elector has to do to get his name on the list, and therefore to be entitled to
vote, is to answer questions asked by the enumerators.
20-695 O-73----19
PAGENO="0290"
284
The Canadian system provides for up-to-date and accurate lists. In these
days of periodic moves of whole sections of our population, a permanent list
is only as accurate and current as the willingness of registrants to notify offi-
cials of any change in name or address and of the ability of these officials to
update, review and carry out periodic purges of the lists. Under the Canadian
system the lists may be current up to two and one half weeks before the election
and officials are not faced with the continuous problems of updating and policing
the lists.
Finally the administration of the whole electoral process including registration
is under one group of election officials in Canada. Overall direction and control
resides with the chief electoral officer in Ottawa with a returning officer in each
electoral district. This makes for a unified and systematized method of operation.
The main disadvantage of the Canadian system, however, is that it does not
normally allow for any form of absentee voting because the generally acceptable
and accepted safeguard in a form of absentee voting is the signature of the
elector, which is not a requisite at any stage of the registration process under
the Canadian legislation.
In the main the Canadian system has sought to put a minimum of roadblocks
and hurdles in the way of the elector who wishes to exercise his right to vote.
In fact it has done as much as possible through the door-to-door enumeration
process to eliminate any obstacles and ensure that his name is placed on the
official list of electors. Once his name is on the list the freedom to vote or not
to vote remains with the individual.
OFFIcE OF THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER
CANADA
Preparation of Lists of Electors at Canadian Federal Elections
The Statutory provisions regulating the conduct of federal elections in
Canada are to be found in the Canada Elections Act (Chapter 14, First Supple-
ment, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970).
DEFINITIONS OF SOME TERMS
"Electoral district" means a geographic area entitled to return a member
to the House of Commons of Canada. There are at present 264 electoral districts
in Canada.
"By-election" means an election to fill a vacancy in the representation in the
[-louse of Commons during the life of a Parliament.
"Writ" means the statutory instrument ordering the holding of an election
in an electoral district.
"Returning officer" means an election officer appointed for the conduct of the
election in each electoral district. There are therefore 264 federal returning
officers in Canada.
"Polling division" means a geographic area generally served by one polling
station and containing approximately 250 electors. A polling division is either
"urban" or "rural".
- "Urban polling -division" means generally a polling division that is wholly
contained within an incorporated city or town having a population of five thou-
sand or more, or within any other area directed by the Chief Electoral Officer to
be treated as urban.
"Rural polling division" means generally a polling division that is not con-
tained within an incorporated city or town of five thousand population or more.
"Polling station" means premises used for the taking of the vote on election
day.
"Deputy returning officer" means an election officer appointed by the returning
officer for the taking of the vote at each polling station.
"Enumerator" means an election officer, appointed by the returning officer, who
is responsible for the preparation of the preliminary list of electors for a given
polling division. (Urban enumerators are nominated by the two candidates who
PAGENO="0291"
285
received the highest number of votes at the preceding election and act in pairs-
Rural enumerators act singly and are selected as well as appointed by the return-
ing officer.)
`Revisal district" means a sub-division of an electoral district which corn-
I)rises a given number of urban polling divisions (usually around 30) for the
purpose of the revision of the preliminary lists of electors.
"Revising officer" means the election officer responsible for the revision of the
lists of electors in a revisal district. A revising officer is a judge or an elector ap-
pointed by that judge.
"Revising agent" means a person nominated by the two candidates who re-
ceived the highest number of votes at a preceding election and appointed by the
returning officer to assist in the revision of the preliminary lists of electors.
QUALIFIcATIoNs OF ELECTOR5
Every person in Canada is qualified as an elector if he (a) has attained the full
age of eighteen years or will attain such age on or before polling day at an
election, and (b) is a Canadian citizen.
ENTITLEMENT TO VOTE
Every person who is qualified as an elector is entitled to have his name included
in the list of electors for the polling division in which he is ordinarily resident
on the first day of the enumeration period, and to vote at the polling station
established for such polling division.
PREPARATION OF LISTS OF ELECTORS
Shortly after he has received the writ ordering an election in his electoral
district, the returning officer must make the necessary arrangements for the
preparation of the lists of electors. Entirely new lists of electors are prepared
for each election, be it a general or a by-election. For enumeration purposes and
for the taking of the votes, an electoral district is subdivided in smaller geo-
graphical areas, called "polling divisiOns", the boundaries of which are estab-
lished by each returning officer, as directed by the Chief Electoral Officer. The
average numbers of electors in each polling division must be by statute approxi-
mately 250. A list of electors is established for each polling division.
The lists of electors are prepared in one of two different ways, according
to the urban or rural character of the polling division to which such list relates.
Urban polling divisions are generally those comprised in incorporated cities or
towns having a population of 5,000 or, more. All polling divisions not comprised
in such cities or towns are rural, unless they are specially directed by the Chief
Electoral Officer to be treated as urban.
(a) Urban polling divisions
For each urban polling division, the returning officer appoints two enumer-
ators who are generally nominated by the two candidates, representing opposed
political interests, who obtained the highest numbers of votes at the preceding
federal election in the electoral district, or by the representative of such candi-
dates. Enumerators must be qualified as electors in the electoral district where
they are to work
On Monday of the seventh week preceding election day, each pair of urban
enumerators must begin jointly to prepare a complete and correct preliminary
list of the names of all the persons qualified as electors residing in the polling
division for which they have been appointed. For this purpose, they must to-
gether visit each dwelling in their pOlling division and leave at each duly enu-
merated elector's dwelling place a notice stating that they will include the name
of such elector in the preliminary list that they are about to prepare. They have
six days to make these visits. On the Monday following, i.e. Monday of the sixth
week preceding election day, each pair of urban enumerators delivers or trans-
mits to the returning officer two sworn copies of the preliminary list they have
prepared for their polling division.
Upon receipt of the preliminary lists, the returning officer arranges for such
lists to be printed; the printing of the lists must be completed at the latest on
Wednesday of the fourth week before polling day. Copies of such preliminary
PAGENO="0292"
286
lists are provided to each candidate in the electoral district. A copy of the list
is also sent by the returning officer, according to certain rules, to the electors
whose names appear on the list.
The printed copies of the preliminary list for each urban polling division also
contain notices with regard to the sittings for revision, to the subscribing of
affidavits of objection to certain names being on the list, to the advance poll and
to the location of the ordinary polling station at which the electors whose
names appear on such list may cast their votes.
(b) Rural polling divisions
For each rural polling division, the returning officer selects and appoints
one enumerator to prepare the list of electors for such polling division. The
revision of such list is also the responsibility of the rural enumerator who pre-
pared it. On Monday of the seventh week preceding election day, each rural
enumerator must begin to prepare as complete and correct a preliminary list
as possible of the names of the electors entitled to vote in the polling division for
which he has been appointed. This list will be compiled from such information
as the enumerator may be able to secure during a house-to-house visitation, or
from such other sources of information that may be available to him. On Mon-
day of the sixth week before polling day, each rural enumerator must transmit
to the returning officer two certified copies of the preliminary list he prepare~~
for his polling division.
REVISION OF PRINTED PRELIMINARY LISTS
(a) Urban polling divisions
The urban polling divisions of an electoral district are grouped into revisal
districts, for the purpose of revision only, by the returning officer who will
publish a Notice of Revision giving to the electors the pertinent information with
respect to the revision of the lists. The lists of electors for each revisal district
are revised by the ex officio revising officer, who is a judge as defined in section
2(14) of the Act, or by a substitute appointed by that judge.
Each revising officer holds public sittings for the division of the urban pre-
liminary lists on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of the third week before
polling day, and, in special cases, on Tuesday of the second week before polling
day. At the sittings on the said Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, any unregis-
tered elector who is entitled to vote in the revisal district may, without previous
notice, apply verbally to have his name entered on the official list of electors for
the polling division in w-hich he ordinarily resides. Sworn written applications for
registration of electors made by revising agents on their behalf as well as all
verbal applications for correction of names or particulars of electors on the
printed preliminary lists w-ill also be dealt with by the revising officer on the same
days.
In addition, the revising officer has the power to strike out from the preliminary
list the name of any person who is not entitled to vote in his revisal district. This
power, however, is exerciseable only on notice to the person with regard to whose
entitlement objection has been made by an elector who is qualified to vote in one
of the polling divisions in the revisal district. Such an elector must appear before
the revising officer during his sittings on the above-mentioned Wednesday and
Thursday only, and subscribe to an affidavit of objection. The revising officer will
then give notice accordingly to the person objected to. The burden of the proof
rests upon the person making the objection, but the person against whose entitle-
ment the objection is directed may appear before the revising officer on the
Tuesday following, i.e. on the Tuesday of the second week before polling day, and
give evidence as to his qualifications. The revising officer has also the power to
take a name off the preliminary list of electors at the request of the person him-
self who wants his name to be removed from the list.
After the conclusion of his sittings, the revising officer will send to the return-
ing officer and to each candidate in the electoral district three copies of the state-
ment of the changes and additions made in the preliminary list for each urban
polling division comprised in the revised district.
Each list is then closed. For the taking of the votes, the official list of electors
for an urban polling division will consist of a copy of the printed preliminary
list together with a copy of the statement of changes and additions. No one resid-
PAGENO="0293"
287
ing in an urban polling division whose name does not appear on an official list
will be allowed to vote at the election.
(b) Rural polling divi~ions
In each rural polling division, the enumerator acts as the revising officer and
he will receive applications to correct names in, or add names to, or delete names
from, the preliminary list prepared by him. These applications may be made at
any time after the posting up of such list until 10 p.m. on Wednesday of the
third week preceding election day and, on such applications, the enumerator may
make whatever changes are deemed necessary to complete his preliminary list.
Immediately after the Wednesday mentioned above, the enumerator sends
nine copies of such statement to each candidate in the electoral district. A copy
of the preliminary list as posted up by :the enumerator together with a copy of
the statement of changes and additions constitute the official list of electors to
be used for the taking of the votes.
The omission from the official list of the name of a person who is qualified
as an elector and residing in a rural-polling division does not, however, deprive
such persons of his franchise. He may exercise it upon taking at the polling sta-
tion the prescribed oath and upon being, at the same time, vouched for on oath
by an elector whose name is duly on the list for the rural polling division in
which the applicant elector ordinarily resides and in which alone his vote can be
cast.
NEW LI5T PREPARED FOR EACH ELECTION
In Canada, the present system calls for lists of electors to be prepared from
information gathered by enumerators and revising officers after an election is
ordered, and for the printing of such lists before polling day. These lists are used
for that election only, and thereafter discarded along with the information from
which they were produced. This system has been used at each successive election
since the 1930 general election, with the exception of the 1935 general election
when a system of permanent lists of electors, adopted by Parliament in 1934, was
used, only to be repealed in 1938 in favour of substantially the present system.
MAIN FEATURE5 OF THE CANADIAN REGISTRATION 5YSTEM
1. The Canadian system of registration of electors provides for very up-to-
date and accurate lists. In fact, the lists may be as up-to-date as of two and one
half weeks before the date of the election.
2. The system involves mass participation at the very beginning of an election
period and consequently is instrumental in stirring interest not only in the elec-
tion process but in the election generally. This is a particularly important aspect
for Canada beca use elections under the Canadian constitution are not held on
fixed dates nor at fixed intervals.
It is interesting to point out that at the general election of June 25, 1968,
there were in excess of 81,000 ersons who were involved in registering electors
for that election.
3. This manner of registering electors is relatively inexpensive in terms of
total cost as well as in terms of the cost per elector, as may be seen by the table
provi~1ed hereafter.
It is also interesting to note that nearly 70% of the total cost represents the
aggregate of the fees paid to enumerators (81,000), revising officers and revising
agents. The operation being highly decentralized, there is at least one elector
involved in this activity of the election process as a paid official in every village
or hamlet across the land.
4. The onus for registering electors is on the state and the entire cost is also
borne by the statE. Normally, all an elector has to do to get his name on the list,
and therefore to be entitled to vote, is to answer questions asked by the enumera-
tors during their house-to-house visits. Political parties are involved to the ex-
tent that their candidates have to provide lists of enumerators and revising
agents to the returning officers for čleetoral districts comprising urban polling
divisions. They also contribute indirectly to the revision process by contacting
revising agents on behalf of certain electors.
The main disadvantage of the system, however, is that it does not normally
allow for any form of absentee voting because the generally acceptable and ac-
PAGENO="0294"
288
cepted safeguard in a form of absentee voting is the signature of the elector,
which is not a requisite at any stage of the registration process under the
Canadian legislation.
PREREQUISITES TO DNSURE ACCURACY OF REGISTRATION
A number of prerequisites are necessary to ensure that every elector will be
included in the list during the enumeration or revision process.
(a) Polling divisions must be well defined and well described.
(b) Enumerators must be fully briefed on their functions as well as on the
conditions which must be met by persons to be eligible to be on thelists.
(c) Generally speaking, clear directives and books of instructions must be
made available to all persons involved in the process, including judges and their
substitutes who are the final authority as to whether or not a person's name may
be included on the official lists of electors.
APPENDIX I
Cost of preparing the lists of electors at the 1968 General Election
Enumeration:
Preliminary selection of enumerators $38, 550. 00
Urban enumeration 3, 193, 828. 05
Rural enumeration 1, 011, 344. 60
Printing of preliminary lists 2, 090, 128. 40
Addressing the envelopes for the mailing of the preliminary
lists 152, 489. 55
Total 6, 492, 340. 66
Revision:
Printing of notices of revision 32, 378. 95
Substitute revising officers 248, 081. 08
Revising agents 150, 790. 00
Rental of revisal offices 72, 715. 00
Revision of rural preliminary lists 349, 923. 00
Total 853, 888. 03
Miscellaneous: Supplies, etc 133, 000. 00
Grand total 7, 479, 229. 29
Number of electors on the official lists 10, 800, 888
Cost per elector $0. 0880
CANADA
PROVINCIAL ELECTIONS
Nine of the ten Canadian provinces utilize a system of voter registration and
election administration similar to that for federal elections. The exception is
British Columbia, whose system combines some of the features of the Canadian
federal system with some of the characteristic elements of the American system
of personal registration.
Since the registration systems of nine of the provinces are so similar, it would
not be of value to describe each one individually. Instead, a model of the nine
provincial systems will be described along with citations of unusual features of
individual provinces.
The provinces, like the federal government, only elect representatives to a
legislative body. When an election is called, the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council
issues a write of election specifying when the election is to take place to the
PAGENO="0295"
289
Chief Electoral Officer. He is an official~ appointed by the Lieutenant Governor-
in-Council to administer voter registration and election procedures. The Chief
Electoral Officer serves at the discretion of the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council.
The Province of Alberta does not have, a Chief Electoral Officer so the writ is
issued instead to the returning officers, officials in charge of the proceedings on
the electoral district level. The other nine provinces also have returning officers,
but they receive the writ from the Chief Electoral Officer.
Generally, the statutes specify that an election will take place on a particular
day after the issuance of the writ. In other cases, the statutes state that the
election must be held before a certain number of days after the issuance of the
writ pass. The Lieutenant Governor-in-Council then selects the exact date of the
election and states it in the writ. In Alberta, for instance, the election must occur
between the 39th and 49th days after the writ is issued.
The writ may also state the date upOn which the returning officer will sit for
the purpose of receiving nominations. Again, the statute may limit the choice of
nomination days.
Upon receiving the writ, the returning officer, who is also appointed by the
Lieutenant Governor-in-Council and serves at his discretion, divides the election
district into polling subdivisions. Each division must have approximately 250-350
electors. A deputy returning officer is then appointed for each polling subdivision.
His main duty is to supervise the polling place on election day. The returning
officer also appoints enumerators for each polling subdivision. For rural sub-
divisions, ones in towns of 5,000 or less, only one enumerator is required. The
returning officer must select two enumerators for each urban subdivision. Each
of the two leading parties is requested to submit nominations for these positions,
and the returning officer chooses one enumerator from each party. The urban
enumerators are required to work together.
Certain provinces only require one enumerator in urban areas, while others
ask for two in every subdivision. Certain provinces allow the same person to
serve as enumerator for several subdivisions. The enumerators are then given
approximately a week to compile a list of all eligible voters in the district.
Every Canadian citizen and British subject may vote. The minimum voter age
varies from province to province. Most require voters to be 18 years old, while
others still require that they be 21. The potential voter must have also been a
resident of the province for some specified period of time, usually twelve months,
prior to the election day. Two provinces only require six months residency, while
British Columbia voters must have lived in the province for six months and in
Canada for a year. Many of the election statutes also require that the person
be a resident of the polling subdivision on the day that the writ is issued. The
provincial laws are also rather uniform in stating who may not vote. The Chief
Electoral Officer, returning officers, other election officials, judges of certain
courts, inmates in prisons and persons who are "legally restrained by reason of
mental illness," are disqualified from voting. In British Columbia a voter must
have an adequate knowledge of either French or English.
Once the enumerators are appointed, they have approximately one week to
compile a list of all eligible voters in their subdivision. Urban enumerators are
generally required to visit each house in their subdivion to register residents. If
the resdents are not home, the enumerators must leave a card stating that they
have called and the time when they expect to return. The enumerators are re-
quired to make a second attempt to register those not home on the initial visit.
Each visit must be made during a different time of the day. If the enumerators are
unsuccessful after two trips, certain provinces allow them to utilize other sources
of information such as assessment rolls or municipal voter lists. Rural enumera-
tors are not in all provinces required to make house to house visitations. They
may use the other lists cited above as their primary sources of information.
In most of the provinces a new enumeration must be done before every election
no matter what the length of the time interval between elections is. However, at
least two provinces, Manitoba and Newfoundland, allow voter lists to be reused.
In Manitoba the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council may decide that another enum-
eration is not needed, as long as two years have not passed since the last one. The
Newfoundland statute allows a list to he used any time up to twelve months after
its completion. However, the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council, "when he deems it
PAGENO="0296"
290
desirable so to do" may order a list to be reused up to five years after it was
printed.
After the enumerators complete the preliminary list, it must be posted in several
prominent places within the subdivision, and the returning officer must announce
the time and place of revision. The revision is conducted on the district rather
than the subdivision level. Dependent on the province generally, either a specially
appointed revising officer or a local judge presides over the revisal session. At
this time, persons who are qualified to vote who were not included on the original
list may notify the election officials of their eligibility. Also any elector on the list
may challenge the right of someone on the list to vote and request that his name
be struck from the voting rolls. Voters affected by the decisions of the revising
officer may have an appeals hearing before a local magistrate.
Any person whose name is on the list following the revisions and hearings may
vote in the elections, but the provinces differ on the question of whether a person,
who for some reason, was not included, can request a ballot on polling day. In
Quebec, for instance, if a person's name is not on the list, he simply cannot vote.
In most provinces, however, the rural lists and sometimes the urban lists are
open so that a person who is vouched for by an elector on the list and willing to
take an oath may vote even though his name does not appear. In at least one
province, the person desiring to vote who was not included on the list, must appear
before the revising officer and request a certificate authorizing him as a duly
qualified elector.
Qualified voters who will be absent from the polling subdivision on the day
of the election may vote at the advance poll which is generally held about a week
before the actual election in at least one location in each election district. Cer-
tain provinces require an elector who desires to cast a ballot at an advance poll
to obtain a certificate before the final voter list is printed. In other provinces
election clerks simply mark the names of those voting in advance in the poll book.
Several provinces allow electors who cannot for some reason, such as illness,
disability, student status or military service, to attend either the advance poll
or regular election to vote by proxy. The person signs a certificate giving his
voting right to someone else. In Alberta, a person who does not expect to be
present in his polling subdivision on election day, may apply for a certificate
to transfer his vote to another polling place. A student who is entitled to vote
in Alberta, may cast an absentee ballot.
As was mentioned earlier, the only province whose registration procedure
differs radically from the model described above is that of British Columbia.
This province's election officials maintain a permanent list of voters that is con-
tinuously revised until not less than seven days after the issuance of the c~'rit
of election. The rolls are purged by using lists of dead obtained from the Regis-
trar of Vital Statistics. If a person who moves notified the local registrar of his
relocation, the change in his status is recorded.
In the larger cities and more densely populated areas of the province, there is
a permanent Registrar of Voters so that a person can register at his office any
time up to the closing of the lists prior to an election. In the rest of the province,
there is not a separate registrar. Instead, the Government Agent acts as registrar.
After an election is called, the government undertakes a campaign to register
as many qualified electors as possible. The techniques used in these campaigns
have varied in the past. Prior to one election, an enumeration by house-to-house
visitation was undertaken. In 19~6, cards were sent to those who were registered,
while an intensive advertising campaign was used to notify those who did not
receive cards that they must register. Temporary registration centers were
opened in department stores, supermarkets and gasoline stations to make it
easier for those who did not receive cards to register.
After an election takes place, postcards are sent to those registrants who did
not vote. If a card is returned as undeliverable, the registrar has the power to
strike the name from the rolls.
The provincial statute provides for many of the features found in the other
systems. The registrar acts as a court of revision and hearings are allowed to
appeal decisions. Voters who will not be in their electoral district on polling day
may cast their ballot at the advance poll by obtaining the necessary certificate.
Those who will be in the district but not in their polling subdivision may vote
anywhere in the district.
PAGENO="0297"
291
LOCAL ELECTIONS
The statutes covering the formation of local governments vary from province
to province. In some provinces, there is a single act for municipalities of all sizes,
while others have individual acts for each level of local government. Saskatch-
ewan, for instance, has a cities act, a municipal units and counties act, a towns
act and a villages act. Still other provinces grant separate charters to individual
cities.
Generally, an urban government consists of a mayor who is elected at large
and a council whose members are elected at the ward level. In certain provinces
rural area voters only elect the council, and it selects the mayor from among its
members.
Many of the provinces still require voters in municipal elections to own or rent
a minimum amount of taxable property in order to vote. Nonresidents who meet
the property value requirements are generally allowed to vote. A person who has
property of sufficient value in more than one ward usually may vote for councillor
in each one, though he may cast only one ballot for mayor. A person whose taxes
are in arrears is generally denied the right to vote.
The registration systems of several representative provinces will be described.
In Nova Scotia, the applicable statute is the Municipal Franchise Act. To
qualify to vote, a person must be at least 21 years old, a British subject and a
resident of the town or municipality since May 1 preceding the preparation of the
voter's list in case of a town, and March 1 in a municipality. A nonresident who
is 21, a British subject and holds $300 in real property may be registered.
The town or municipality is divided into revisal sections which can either be
part of a polling district or contain several polling districts. The council appoints
three revisers for each section for each revisal year. A revisal year for a munici-
pality is 1955 and every three years following, and for a town, every year. Dur-
ing a revisal year, the revisers formulate a preliminary list by using the last
list prepared either by the municipality or for the provincial or federal elections.
They attempt to eliminate all those whom they believe are no longer entitled to
vote. The lists are then posted and people are allowed to challenge names on the
list. Those who believe they are qualified but whose names do not appear on the
list must present themselves before the: revisers when they sit and request that
their name be added to the list. A relative may appear in place of the person.
A final list which is used in the election is prepared after the sitting of the
revisers.
A town may ignore this process of registration and pass bylaws entitling it to
conduct an enumeration. If it chooses to do so, the council must then appoint a
register of voters, and one or two enumerators for each polling district. The gen-
eral procedure of the provincial and federal elections is then followed. The town
clerk supplies the names of the eligible nonresidents.
In the Province of Ontario, voters in municipal elections must be 21 and
British subjects. They must, in addition, appear as owners or tenants of a mini-
mum amount of property on the last revised assessment list, be the spouse of such
a person, or be a farmer's son, daughter, sister or son's wife. The list of voters is
prepared by the clerks of the town after the assessment roll has been made up
and is revised by the town judge. A person who meets the property requirement
in several wards may vote in all of them. A person who has not paid his taxes
cannot vote.
In Saskatchewan the registration systems of the towns and cities are similar.
Any person who is over 21, a British subject and has resided in the town or city
for five months prior to the first of June may register .with the assessor prior to
the first day of August. On the 10th of October the council meets as a Court of
Revision. The final list, which will be used for the year following or until another
list is made up, is then formulated. As in Ontario, a town or city may pass by-
laws authorizing an enumeration. The registration system in the villages work
differently. All those who are 18 years or older who appear on the last assessment
roll, people who are husbands or wives of the above, and people on the tenants'
list may vote. To be placed on the tenants' list a person must fill out the applicable
form prior to Sqptember 15.
The registration procedures for municipal elections in other provinces vary
slightly from those described above. Manitoba, for instance, does not have a
property requirement and allows a voter whose name does not appear on the list
to be vouchecl for on polling day. The: general procedures followed in local regis-
tration are, however, covered above.
PAGENO="0298"
292
BIBLIOGRAPHY
T. H. Qualter, The Election Process in Canada. McGraw-Hill of Canada, Toronto,
1970.
Report of the Representation Commissioner on Methods of Registration of Elec-
tors and Absentee Voting, 1968. Ottawa.
The Election Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1970, Chap. 142. September 1971.
The Election Act, 1971. Saskatchewan.
Office Consolidation of the Prince Edward Island Election Act, 1963 with Amend-
ments to May 31, 1967.
Elections Act, Revised Statutes of Nova Scotia, 1967, Chap. 83, 1969.
Office Consolidation of the Election Act, 1954, Newfoundland, amended to 19434.
Elections Act Province of New Brunswick 1967.
The Election Act, Manitoba, 1971.
The Election Act, Alberta, 1970.
Revised Statutes of Quebec, 1964
Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1960.
R. MacGregor Dawson, The Government of Canada, Univ. of Toronto Press
1969.
F. F. Schindeler, Responsible Government in Ontario, Univ. of Toronto Press
1969.
John Meisel, The Canadian General Election of 1957, Univ. of Toronto Press,
1962.
GREAT BRITAIN1
VOTER REGISTRATION
Voter registration in Great Britain is the responsibility of local government
authorities under the general supervision of the Home Office.2 In each of the
country's 630 parliamentary constituencies an ulectoral registration officer (in
practice, the town clerk) conducts an annual mail and door-to-door canvass to
revise a permanent list of electors. The electoral registration officers follow the
timetable listed below:
TIMETABLE
Qualifying date-October 10.
Publication of electors lists-November 28.
Claims and objections-November 28 to December 16.
Publication of the register-February 15.
Additions and deletions made by the electoral registration officers during the
revision period and published as the official electoral register on February 15.
Anyone whose name is on the register is entitled to vote in all local and national
elections held through the following February 15, when the next year's register
is published. A citizen's name must appear on the register if he is to vote. A
study published in 1967 showed that for the electoral register in force for the
period 1966-67, 93 per cent of the eligible electorate were registered and living
at the qualifying address when the register came into force on February 16;
89 per cent were registered and living at the qualifying address in August 1966;
and 85 per cent were registered at the end of the life of the register on Febru-
ary 15, 1967. The figures are summarized below.
1 The material on Great Britain Is based on an Interview with David Heaton of the
Home Office.
2 The Home Office supervises elections In England, Wales and Northern Ireland; In
Scotland it is the Scottish Home and Health Department.
The constituencies are allocated as follows: England 511, Scotland 71, Wales 36 and
Northern Ireland 12. The size of the electorate is supposed to be as near as possible to the
electoral quota, which is obtained by dividing the total electorate of each part of the United
Kingdom by the existing number of seats in that part. The quotas for 1965 were: 58,759
for England; 47,745 for Scotland; 56,367 for Wales; and 74,953 for Northern Ireland. The
Boundary Commissions last distributed seats In 1970. Thea. boundaries set up then will be
In effect for the first time In 1974 or 1975 at the next parliamentary election.
Generally constituency boundaries are coterminous with local government boundaries.
Occasionally, however, a Constituency will overlap two or more local governments. In these
instances the Home Office will decide which town clerk becomes the electoral registration
officer. It usually goes to the one with the largest number of electors in his area. This is a
decision of some Import because a substantial fee goes along with the job and It Is therefore
coveted by local officials.
PAGENO="0299"
293
Proportion of eligible electors registered and still at the qualifying address
Percent
When the register came into force-Feb. 16, 1966 93
Halfway through the life of the register-August 1966 89
At the end of the life of the register-Feb. 15, 1967 85
The town clerk, who serves as the electoral registration office for revising the
electoral register and the acting returning officer for administering local and
parliamentary elections, is a major figure in British local government. He is
appointed by the local council and serves as its chief executive officer. As an elec-
toral registration officer lie has an enormOus amount of discretion. The Home Of-
fice does issue general guidelines for town:clerks, but these are advisory only. The
clerk has a statutory responsibility to do all that is "reasonable" to maintain full
registration. In achieving that goal he has broad latitude.
Any British subject, citizen of the Commonwealth, or any Irish citizen living
in Britain, who is at least 18 years of age is entitled to vote where he resides on
the qualifying date (October 10).
Each year in August or September, the electoral registration officer mails or
has delivered a special registration form; to each of the householders in his con-
stituency. In some areas the forms (known as Form A) are sent out for the
first time in late August, in others it is done in the first, second or even the third
week in September. The law does not specify when this must be done. The deci-
sion is up to "the local man" and depends on the nature of his district and the
way in which he wants to distribute the staff time available for this purpose.
The registration officer uses the previous year's register and the local tax rolls
(what the British call "rating records") to develop the list of householders to
whom the initial forms are sent. The rating records contain all the assessable
buildings in the city. When new buildings are constructed or old ones torn down,
that information goes on the rating reëords. The electoral registration officer,
who works in the same building as the rating clerk, uses the rating record to
keep his own records up to date. The form is sent to each household. They do
not, however, contain an individual's name unless this is added by the registra-
tion officer. Rates on buildings are assessed on the basis of households. So even
though the rate on a 150-unit apartment building may be paid by one man-the
owner-the total rate is based on the number of households, probably 150. Using
the same information, the registration officer sends forms to each of the 150
apartments in the building. The basic content of the form has been approved by
Parliament. They are printed centrally by the government stationery office and
each registration officer orders what he needs from this office.
If rio response is made to the Form A by a certain deadline, a brief reminder
is sent out. The deadline is not specified by law but is up to the discretion of the
registration officer. If there is no response to the reminder, a third form is sent
out with another copy of Form A. This third form indicates that failure to fill
out and return Form A will disenfranchise the individual and subject him to a
fine of up to Ł50.
Most of the voter registration in Great Britain is done through the mail canvass.
If it is not successful in achieving a satisfactory level of registration, the regis-
tration officer can supplement it with a door-to-door canvass. However, the Home
Office encourages reliance on the mail canvass because it feels that the door-to-
door techinque is more subject to abuse. The Home Office's instructions to regis-
tration officers state that: . . . the maximum use should be made of Form A in
conducting the canvass. Particular care should be taken to see that it is sent
or delivered to every separate household . . . In all cases the initial delivery of
Form A should be thoroughly and promptly followed up where it is not returned.
Form RPF 32A should be freely used a few days after the qualifying date. This
should be followed a few days later, in those cases where Form A has still not
been returned, by Form RPF 32B inserted in a further copy of Form A.
Door-to-door canvassing is not used much unless the rate of return is quite
low. In some instances the Form A materials are hand delivered. Often the
deliverer will find the householder at home and help him or her fill it out.
The particular mix of mail and door-to-door canvassing is ultimately up to the
local registration officer. If his district consists of middle and upper income
sophisticates and he enjoys a 90 per cent rate of return on the first delivery of
Form A, he probably will engage in very little door-to-door canvassing. However,
PAGENO="0300"
294
if his district is mainly lower class and the rate of return on the first delivery
is below 50 per cent, he will probably do quite a bit of door-to-door canvassing.
The only requirements that the registration officer must meet are that he must
do all that is "reasonable" to get everyone registered and he must have the
preliminary lists published by November 28. How he does it is pretty much his
business. The canvassers are generally known as "the man from the town hall,"
not particularly loved because they are associated with taxation, but not particu-
larly disliked or distrusted. David Heaton says that just about everybody does
some canvassing, but the amount varies widely. The registration officer usually
makes a determined effort to get the people who are missed initially. He plans his
staff operation to insure reasonable coverage of the areas that need coverage.
Whenever there is some doubt, it is usually resolved in favor of the voter. For
example, if a canvasser makes two visits and does not find the people at home, he
has to decide whether they have moved or are simply away for a while. (If he
decides they have moved, be would put them on List C as no longer entitled. See
below.) In practice most canvassers and registration officers would give the
people the benefit of the doubt and leave them on the list. This decision, however,
would obviously depend on the nature of the district. If there is a high rate
of transiency, he might not be so generous. Much just depends on common sense.
It is generally recognized in Britain that the registration process is completely
divorced from partisan politics. For example, although the parties are not pro-
hibited from picking up and distributing Form A to their supporters and would-
be supporters, it is just not done. The system, as loosely structured as it is,
seems to work quite well, probably because there has been an annual register in
Britain since 1872 and the 100-year interval may have been enough time to work
out the bugs. In fact, until 1953 there were two registers a year, one in spring and
one in the fall. The extra register was dropped for reasons of economy.
At some point prior to November 28, when the electors' lists are published, the
registration officer's staff has to gather the previous year's list, the rating records
and the Form A's and divide the residents of the constituency into the three
separate lists. The electors' lists are to be distinguished from the electoral
register which is published on February 15. The electors' lists consist of what
is known as List A, which is simply a list of the register in force. List B includes
*the names of all those residents who are entitled to be added to the register.
List C includes those people who must come off the register: those who have
moved away, died or otherwise become ineligible. In some constituencies the
registration officer has been permitted by the Home Office to use computer facil-
ities to print out a draft register which includes only the names of those per-
sons entitled to vote for the coming year, i.e. a single list. The voters are usually
listed by wards, polling districts and street numbers. This is being done in
more forward looking constituencies. The threepart list is somewhat cumber-
some and will eventually be phased out.
Both the canvass and the publication of the electors' lists are accompanied by
some kind of publicity. The Home Office encourages the local registration officers
to use the local media to stimulate interest in the registration process:
To support the national publicity with local publicity, registration officers
may find it helpful to supply their local press with information about the
dates when forms will be sent out and canvassers will be working in a par-
ticular district, and with details of any ordinary local government elections
in the area for which the new register will be used. This could be followed
later with an indication of the results obtained from the canvass, e.g. what
proportion of forms has been returned within the first week or two. This
"follow-up" publicity may be particularly appropriate in those areas where
the canvass has to be started in the holiday season.
Once the electors' lists are printed, they are placed in public places for review
by the residents of the constituency. These include post offices, libraries, council
offices, sub-post offices and the Citizens' Advice Bureau. This decision is left to
local discretion. The Home Office again tries to stimulate national publicity about
publication of the lists and encourages the registration officers to generate their
own local publicity. The Home Office suggests that they:
supply to the local press information of particu'ar local in~ e.g. the
number and proportion of new entries in the register; an acct~ nt of any
special difficulties in compiling the lists which might help to emphasize the
need to inspect them; the details of any ordinary local government elections
in the area for which the new register will be used.
PAGENO="0301"
2~5
The electors' lists are printed locally. The central government pays one-half
the printing costs with the local government paying the rest. The printer usually
must get the copy 10 days to three weeks prior to November 28 to have them
ready in time. Presumably, the use of computer print outs is somewhat quicker.
Any Form A's which come into the registration officer's office after the lists are
sent to the printer are treated as claims to be handled during the period devoted
to claims and objections.
Between November 28 and December i6 people who are not on the list and
want to be, or people who feel others should not be on the list, can lodge formal
written claims or objections with the registration officer. All claims or objections
must be submitted on the proper printed forms. In practice false forms are dis-
tributed by the political parties. The registration officer can, without a hearing,
dispose of straightforward valid claims, claims and objections which lack sub-
stance, and objections by persons not entitled to object (i.e. people who are not or
cannot be registered on the same list). If claims or objections cannot be handled
in this manner, a hearing must be held before the registration officer. A person
making a claim or objection does not have to appear in person at the hearing, but
it helps his chances if he does. In many instances a claim is made at the instance
of a political party and reveals an inadvertent omission by the registration officer
which he is only too glad to correct. Frivolous objections are seldom made, but
occassionally it does happen. David Heaton mentioned that in one recent instance
someone decided to object to 1,000 Irishmen. Decisions of the registration officer
can be appealed to the courts.
The claims and objections process is essentially an opting in exercise or an
opportunity to get someone else out. It is a chance for a citizen to be included
and at the same time an opportunity for the parties to get people off that they
think should not be on.
The number of claims and objections varies considerably. Generally it is not
much of a burden on the registration officer. In practice a fair proportion of the
objections are objections to the letter "J" appearing next to a person's name,
indicating that he is eligible for jury duty. A doctor or lawyer, for example, who
is exempt from jury service might want to make sure that he is not called. The
law does not prohibit someone from asking his name to be stricken from the list.
This never came up until recently when someone in Scotland wanted to have
his name removed. Mr. Heaton said he doesn't think anyone can be prevented
from removing his name. The law does not require one to be registered, it just
says that anyone who is entitled may be registered.
There is a special form which may be sent to a household which returns a
Form A with insufficient information. David Heaton feels that these forms are
used very little in practice. He thinks that a registration officer receiving an
incomplete form would send a canvasser around to fill in the blanks.
There is no particular deadline for the completion of all the claims and ob-
jections. The registration officer must, however, complete them in time to send
the corrected lists to the printers for publication of the electoral register on
February 15. The registration officer is required by law to supply four free cop-
ies of the register to each local political party agent; two copies to each parlia-
mentary candidate; and one copy to each candidate for local office. The candi-
date.s can also purchase extra copies. If there are any more left over, they can be
purchased by anyone for 5 pence per thousand names. The Home Office's guide-
lines to registration officers note that "Registration officers will need to have re-
gard to these provisions (regarding distribution) when deciding how many cop-
ies of the register to order, but they are under no obligation to order extra copies
in anticipation of demands for sale copies for commercial purposes."
The Home Office exercises general supervision over voter registration and elec-
tion administration. The relationship is advisory. The town clerk is a locally ap-
pointed official and is not subject to removal by the officials in Whitehall. As
David Heaton put it, "If he doesn't like the Home Office's advice, he needn't take
it." His duties are broadly prescribed by law and he is responsible to the courts
for their exercise. Usually the Home Office acts as a clearinghouse for the local
people, handling inquiries and dispensing advice. In some instances the town clerk
will channel questions through the local member of Parliament who forwards
the problem to Heaton's office.
However there are some areas in which the Home Office plays a more direct
role. For example, the local authorities (not the town clerk) are responsible for
PAGENO="0302"
296
size of local polling districts and they draw the boundaries. But any body of 30
qualified electors who are dissatisfied with the arrangements can appeal to the
Home Office. It is also the Home Office that plays the major role in drafting new
legislation and recommending changes in administrative procedures. Heaton says
the secret of their system's success is that the work and the responsibility lie at
the local level with people who know the area. The cost of compiling the annual
register is Ł4 million for the whole country (including Scotland).
VOTING
Election day in Britain falls on a Thursday. Workers are expected to vote on
their way to work or on their way home. The polls are open from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.4
People who expect to be abroad on election day and military personnel may
vote by proxy. Anyone who wants to vote by proxy must obtain the proper form
from the local official. One must indicate on the form the name of the person who
is to be the proxy. When the form is received by the registration officer, he writes
to the person named as proxy and asks if he is willing to be a proxy. The proxy-
to-be writes back and says "yes" and his name goes on a special proxy list.
Anyone you trust can be a proxy for you. Servicemen must vote by proxy be-
cause there is no postal voting for them. The time between the calling and
holding of a parliamentary election is too short to do so (and the politicians are
unwilling to lengthen the time period). Many servicemen do not vote by proxy
because they do not like the idea of having a civilian vote in their place. Heaton
says this is the reason for the low rate of military voting.
In each polling station there is a presiding officer and two or more polling
assistants. Schools or other public buildings are used as polling places. The poll-
ing place personnel are not political partisans and the parties do not play a
formal role in their selection. They are supposed to be volunteers. The rate of
pay is prescribed by the Home Office: Ł10 for the presiding officer and Ł5 for
his assistants. They are paid extra for counting the ballots. The pay is not con-
sidered particularly good for the work involved.5 There is no special training
required by law but the returning officer is responsible for the conduct of his
staff. In Heaton's words, "He carries the can."
Each local registration officer and returning officer (the two clerk) receives
an extra Ł500 for compiling the register and Ł200 for conducting an election.
The entire cost of a parliamentary election is borne by the central government.
The administrative costs (exclusive of candidate support) runs about Ł21/2
million.
Mr. CARLSON. Today I would like to share with you some of our
experiences over the past 2 years that have particular relevance to the
national system of mail registration now being considered by the
committee.
Since 1971 we have had the opportunity to examine closely the
systems of permanent personal registration now used in all but one of
the 50 States, as well as the government-initiated registration systems
of 6 foreign countries. As you imow, in other democracies an agency of
government has responsibility for locating and identifying eligible
voters and then making up the voters list, whereas in this country it is
the responsibility of each individual citizen to track down the local
registrar and enter his or her claim to vote.
The difference between the two approaches is more than philospohi-
cal. It is the difference between registering about 95 percent of the
population eligible to vote, as in Canada and Great Britain, or 65-70
percent, as in the United States. In our case, the percentage translates
The hours for polling were recently extended from 9 to 10 p.m. Heaton says they are
reconsidering the decision since it makes such a long day for the poll staff. They have to
wait until 10 p.m. to count. He has a theory that people will vote in the last hour what-
ever that hour Is.
In parliamentary elections the counting is done centrally by a different staff.
PAGENO="0303"
297
into 42 million unregistered voters in 1972, or about two-thirds of the
people who failed to vote last year.
We concluded very early in the project that registration had to be
initiated by State and local governments in this country if registration
were to be eliminated as an obstacle to voting. Our research revealed
only two practical ways to do this that were compatible with our
political traditions.
First, Government could distribute registration forms through the
mail to each household or, second, it could send people around to can-
vass door to door. After a careful examination of the practical applica-
tion of these two techniques in Canada and Great Britain, and after
an extensive analysis of the cost of voter registration in this country
conducted by Richard Smolka of the Institute for Election Adminis-
tration at the American University, we came to the firm conclusion that
door-to-door canvassing, when properly conducted, is by far the most
effective and economical way to register votes. This is the central rec-
ommendation of the voter registration section of our model election
system.
With those remarks in mind, I would like to comment directly on
H.R. 8053.
Although we agree completely with the intentions behind this bill,
we seriously doubt that in its present form it will be a significant
reform. The reasons for this conclusion relate to the inherent limita-
tions of the mail registration techniques and the current structure of
election administration among thei 50 States.
(1) H.R. 8053 may appear to be an improvement over present prac-
tices, but it will not significantly increase registration levels. This bill
would mandate mail registration for Federal elections to the unfor-
tunate exclusion of more effective methods of registration. Our anal-
ysis of registration practices has shown that door-to-door canvassing is
consistently more successful in registering voters than mail registra-
tion. The experience in Great Britain is illustrative. There the town
clerks in 630 parliamentary constituencies mail registration forms to
every household each year for the purpose of creating an annual list of
eligible voters. Invariably the clerks must supplement this mailing
with door-to-door canvassing because of poor response rates. Another
problem is illegible or incomplete forms which must then be corrected.
In fact, in some areas the clerks may not mail them out initially, but
instead have them delivered by hand, in effect making a door-to-door
canvass. The British experience indicates, at least to us, the limited
returns that could reasonably be expected from a mail registration
effort alone.
We feel that the primary benefit of a mail system will accrue to the
mobile and educated sectors of our society who have the social skills
necessary to make full use of mail registration opportunities. We doubt
that a significant proportion of presently unregistered population-
the poor, minority groups and those with limited educational back~
grounds__will benefit from the system outlined in H.R. 8053. In short,
it mandates a procedure that should not have great impact among
habitually unregistered voters and should not, by itself, significantly
increase registration and voting.
PAGENO="0304"
298
I might also add that a mail system will require more processing
steps than a door-to-door canvassing system, thereby increasing both
costs and the possibility of administrative error. The distribution and
receipt of a mail form is only the beginning of the administrator's
responsibility. Many returned forms will be illegible, incorrect, or
incomplete and this information must be subsequently obtained from
the prospective registrant. Each registration must also be sorted by
election district and precinct at a central office, another administrative
step that could be avoided if a trained canvasser obtained complete
information at the point of contact.
(2) We seriously question whether or not a federally coordinated
registration system could be effectively implemented throughout the
Nation at the present time. I doubt if the drafters of H.R. 8053 fully
anpreciate the problems of administering a national registration
system.
L1~1ough the 50 States are regarded as the units of government with
responsibility for administering elections, few have established agen-
cies at the State level with effective control over the conduct of
elections.
As a practical matter, control now rests with units of local govern-
ment. Even States that have made formal provision for strong State
administration often defer to local officials. Under these circumstances
a national voter registration agency would not only have to deal with
50 State agencies, it would also need to exercise some degree of control
over the more than 7,000 cities, counties and other units of local gov~.
ernment that now conduct Federal elections. We feel that the effort
required at the Federal level to make a national system work is clearly
out of proportion to the limited gains that might be achieved. More-
over, a poorly coordinated program would mean that any additional
registration opportunities created might not be uniformly available to
the public. Indeed, it is possible that administrative confusion would
negate any benefits of the mail system.
(3) H.R. 8053 would allow for a confusing system of dual regis-
tration. A national mail registration system, operative only for Fed-
eral elections, may encourage States to separate registration for State
and local elections from that for Federal elections. The existence of a
dual registration system will add more complexity to the 50 elections
systems that are already the most complicated in the free world.
Voters could register by mail for Federal elections and later find to
their surprise that they are ineligible to vote in State and local
elections.
Election administrators would have to process a large number of
Federal registration forms every 2 years. A majority of the people
returning the forms will already be registered to vote in State and
local elections. Nevertheless, each form will have to be processed locally
and a notification sent to the voter. This seems to be an unnecessary
duplication of effort at the local level.
An even more unfortunate situation may be developing if a State
takes full advantage of H.R. 8053 and accepts Federal post card forms
for registration in State and local elections. It is quite possible that
a State would then abandon other registration techniques and rely
primarily on a federally subsidized mail registration system that pro-
PAGENO="0305"
299,
duces a list that is current only once every 2 years. If some States do
rely only on a mail canvass every 2 years, with limited central regis-
tration in between canvasses, we feel that the registration opportuni-
ties open to a highly mobile society would be even more limited than
they are now.
In conclusion, let me emphasize that my remarks this morning should
not be taken as a general opposition to congressional involvement in the
conduct of elections. Quite the contrary. We feel the Congress has a
positive responsibility to cooperate with the States in creating an
election system that allows citizens the greatest opportunity to par-
ticipate in the making of meaningful decisions at the polls.
We do feel that this responsibility could be most effectively dis-
charged at this point in time by providing States with voluntary
grants-in-aid for the improvement of registration and voting, along the
lines of the bill introduced in time Senate by Senator Kennedy. We feel
that real registration reform can come only as part of a general up-
grading of State election administration, and we also feel that many
States would be quite receptive to the idea of financial assistance from
the Federal Government.
Mr. MATmS. Mr. Jones.
Mr. JoNEs. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions.
I do take this opportunity to thank Mr. Carlson for being here with
ns. I think his statement has been most constructive. We will look fOr-
ward to accepting the other statements he will provide for the record.
Mr. WARE. Which were the six foreign countries, do you recall?
Mr. CARLSON. We went to Canada, Great Britain, West Germany,
Sweden, and Switzerland.
Mr. WARE. I am sure we agree with you. We don't quarrel with the
intent of this legislation.
You obviously have reached the conclusion that door-to-door can-
vassing is far more effective. I think that bears out the experience of
business or any other group that has ever sought to get responses by
direct mail. If you get a 2-percent return in the mail, actually you
are doing well.
Mr. CARLSON. Let me add that we feel, under certain circumstances,
mail registration may be an effective way to register voters, but as a
single preeminent registration technique, we feel it is very inappropri-
ate because it has a selective impact and in all situations it won't be as
effective.
Mr. WARE. That has been my experience. We have found that trav-
eling registrars are far more effective.
There is the concern all of ns share about public apathy. When people
want to vote we should make it easy for them to vote.
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, I must comment that time last two wit-
nesses have just offered what I consider to be devastating testimony.
Mr. Dowcl comes in and like Galileo, he tells us this isn't what we
think it is and now our present witness comes on like Darwin and tells
us we really aren't going to do what we thought we were going to do.
We are totally confounded.
You must be one of those well-meaning liberals Miss Roe was talk-
ing about.
20-095------73------20
PAGENO="0306"
300
You point ~ut it iS a selective system jhat doesn't. aim at the people
and isn't effective among those people who are not registered, who the
proponents of the bill say it is aimed at.
Mr. CARLSOX. That is our judgment.
Mr. FRENZEL. Also, not only will it not do what it says it is going
to do, but in addition it is counterproductive and may disenfranchise
those who are already registered. rllhat is awfully strong medicine.
I thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. MATm5. Thank you, Mr. Carlson. We will look forwardl to your
further statements.
Our next witness is Dr. Richard Smolka, director of the Institute of
Election Administration, American University.
STATEMENT OP DR. RICHARD G. SMOLKA, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE
OP ELECTION ADMINISTRATION, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Dr. SM0LKA. I am not going to make a lengthy statement. You have
the 20-page statement, which is a section-by-section analysis of the
legislation.
Mr. MATI-Ils. That statement will be made a part of the committee
record.
[The statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD G. SMOLKA, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF ELECTION
ADMINISTRATION, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, D.C.
My name is Richard G. Smolka. I am professor of Government at American
University in Washington, D.C., and have been Director of the Institute of Elec-
tion Administration at the University since 1971. 1 am also editor of
ELECTIONeWS, a monthly newsletter for elections officials at all levels of govern-
ment, and author of a column on elections, "the Ballot Box," which is published
weekly in County News, the official publication of the National Association of
Counties.
The Institute of Election Administration was established at American Uni-
versity in March of 1971 to study the entire elections process, to acquaint elec-
tions officials with a variety of methods of administering elections accurately,
economically, and quickly while protecting against fraud and assisting in the
training of election administration personnel.
During the past year, the Institute of Election Administration completed a
study of election difficulties in seven jurisdictions for the Office of Federal Elec-
tions and identified several different types of problems that can plague a local
election office on election day. A major cause of election day breakdowns were
found to be failures in organization, planning and training of election officials.
The conclusions of this particular study and the observations developed by con-
tinued contact with state and local officials have been taken into account in the
statement in the analysis of the possible effects of the proposed legislation before
your committee.
Before commenting directly on this bill, HR-S053, I would like to emphasize
that the concern of the Institute of Election Administration has been with elec-
tions at all levels of government, and not merely federal elections. There are over
521,000 elected public officials in the United States of whom 535 are Voting
members of Congress. Approximately 999 out of every thousand elected repre-
sentatives are state or local officials. Elections are conducted in the United States
almost every week of the year, if not every week, and in some jurisdictions the
process is a continual one. In Los Angeles County, California, for example, over
fifty elections may be in some stage of process at the same time.
We do not have a simple three-tiered system of elections in the United States.
Our system of elections is quite complex. Local officials are not always elected by
persons who have the same qualifications as persons who vote in federal elec-
PAGENO="0307"
301
tions.~ For example, property holders, as ~ opposed to residents, are permitted to
vote in some special purpose districts and resort areas. The Supreme Court has
upheld that arrangement in Salyer Land Co. vs. Tulare Water District during
its most recent session.
In sOme states the voter registration and elections process for municipal elec-
tions is segregated completely from elections for county, state and national
office. To register to vote in the College Park, Maryland, municipal elections one
must register with city officials, but a College Park resident must also register
with the county to be eligible to vote in state and national elections.
V3ter registration has had a mixed history. It was introduced to prevent
wholesale fraud at the ballot box but unfortunately, it has also been used to
prevent persons who wished to vote from doing so.
Registration is intended to protect thO integrity of the ballot by establishing
that the prospective voters is qualified to vote and that the person who offers to
vote is the same person whose name is listed on the registration rolls, thereby
preventing multiple voting or voting by persons who are not qualified.
Every registration procedure must take into account the purposes of registra-
tion and include a mechanism to permit discovery and apprehension of those
persons who wish to abuse the system. At the same time, it must not impose any
arbitrary barriers which hinder citizens or make voting difficult.
It is important to note that most eligible citizens are now registered and
further that they will continue to be registered without any requirement to
re-register. Registration was easier in 1972 than at any time since the practice
was begun. Our country maintains "pernianent registration-which means that
a voter remains on the rolls as long as he votes during a specified time period
and retains his registered name, address, and party affiliation. Changes of name,
address, and party affiliation are usually accomplished by mail, once a person
has been registered. The lists of voters are purged periodically to ensure that
the names of persons no longer living, persons who have moved, and persons no
hmger eligible to vote, such as convicted felons, are removed from the lists. New
registrations are required only from those who become eligible to vote by reason
of age, or by reason of moving to a new jurisdiction.
Other witnesses have testified to the desire for an increased voter registration
mmcl turnout and we share their concern.
The question then is whether HR-8O~3 will help achieve the objective of con-
venient voter registration leading hopefully toward higher voter turnout. In
order to arrive at a conclusion, I have analyzed the bill, section by section.
Section 401. The definitions in this section are extremely broad and raise several
important questions about the scope of this legislation.
"Federal office" is defined to include the office of elector for president and
vice president. "Federal election" is defined to include a caucus for the purpose
of selecting delegates to a national political convention. "State official" is defined
as any individual who conducts or supervises any federal election.
Do these definitions open up a whole new area of possible federal legislation
and activity with respect to the conduct of political parties?
Presidential electors may be nominated by party caucus or party convention
and are not selected by popular vote. Does this definition suggest that Congress
may have the power to legislate with respect to the details of internal party
affairs? May time Voter Registration Administration become involved in the con-
duct of a party caucus or state convention as a result of this definition?
There were 1.73,223 precincts in existence for the 1972 presidential election,
according to the News Election Service which tallies the results for the mass
media on election night. There are seldom fewer than four officials, and some-
times as many as twelve officials, required at each of these precincts. As defined
in ti~l5 legislation, each of the approximately one million precinct election offi-
cials is a "state official" within the meaning of this definition. Such officials are
immediately responsible for determining whether the prospective voter is regis-
tered and whether he will be permitted to vote.
Section 403. This sectiOn which specifies duties and powers states that the
Administration shall establish a voter registration program for all federal elec-
tions. Taken in conjunction w-ith the definitions, it appears that registration may
now be required in geographic areas, such as North Dakota, and parts of Ohio,
Missouri, Iowa, and in party-administered elections which culminate in the selec-
tion of tom ention dele~,ates w here lebisti ition h~md not pies iously been required
PAGENO="0308"
302
This section also empowers the Agency not only to administer the voter registra-
tion program, but also includes phrases which invite it to enter the entire field
of the conduct of elections. Subsection (2) requires that information concern-
ing elections be collected, analyzed and arranged for publication, and subsection
(3) provides that the Administration shall provide assistance to state officials
concerning . . election problems generally. This is far more than a post card
registration proposal. Does it mean that state officials can request assistance
with the coneuct of a municipal election, a school board election, as well as any
subject matter pertaining to elections if such election is being conducted in con-
junction with a federal election?
Section 404. (a) provides that an individual who is eligible to vote under State
law and who is registered to vote under the provisions of this chapter shall be
entitled to vote in federal elections in that state. This language suggests that
"eligible to vote" does not refer to party registration or any other registration,
but merely to general provisions of state law regarding residence, age, mental
statm and non-felon status. If a person is registered to vote in a closed party
state but fails to identify with the party, may he demand to vote under the pro-
visions of this section? A subsequent section (405) states that the possession of
a registration notification form indicating that an individual is entitled to vote
in an election shall be prima fade evidence that the individual is a qualified and
registered elector entitled to vote in any such election.
This language seems to have two effects. First, persons registered to vote under
the provisions of this law SHALL be entitled to participate in party primaries
and party caucuses w-hether or not they declare a party preference. Second, it
may preempt party practices which may include young people who are ineligible
to register under state law, but who may have been permitted to pnrticipate under
party rules.
It is possible that this language might have the effect of opening up party
primaries to persons of opposite political persuasion while at the same time
restricting opportunities to participate to youth.
Section 405 (b) requires that the form provide for the return delivery to the
appropriate state officials. It is not always possible to determine from a mailing
address alone w-ho is the appropriate state official. As an illustration, although a
mailing address may be Takoma Park, Maryland, 10012, the person at that ad-
dress may be living in Prince Georges County or in Montgomery County and fre-
quently does not know which one himself. He may even live in Washington, D.C.
20012. Persons with a mnailing address of Alexandria, Virginia, may live within
the city limits and hence be required to register with city registrars or they may
live outside the limits, in wl1ieh case they must register with Fairfax County.
Persons living in Kansas City, Missouri, may be forced to determine which of
three local election boards is able to register them. There is no doubt that most
people will probably be able to determine who should receive their application,
but I believe that it is an administrative impossibility for the federal govern-
ment to send to each resident in the TJnited States, a registration form with the
correct return address of his appropriate local official.
Although it is frequently assumed that this application will be the size of a
post card, the amount of information which must be written legibly upon the
form requires that in all but a very few situations the form will be more nearly
the size of a page. In addition, there must be some explanation of basic election
information such as a note that failure to register by party affiliation may result
in disenfranchisement for a closed party election. The form must also carry a
statement of the penalties provided by law-. Experience has shown that many
forms are not easily filled out no matter how simple they may appear to the
designee of the form. The better election officers train registrars to fill out forms
accurately and completely and even these have a percentage of error. Given the
time frame provided in this legislation. there will be little opportunity for any-
one u-ho has filled out a form incompletely, inaccurately, or illegibly to remedy
this defect prior to the election in which they wish to vote.
Reapportionment and redistricting have made it essential to determine where
voters actually reside physically, not merely the name of the county or town.
Persons who register with RFD addresses may find that they are not registered if
officials are unable to place the location of the residence because they u-ill be
unable to determine the correct election district and precinct.
Section 405(c) provides that if an election official mails a registration notifi-
cation form to a prospective voter and that form is undeliverable as addressed, it
PAGENO="0309"
303
shall not be forwarded to another address but shall be returned to the State
official mailing the form. Does this in can that the person who completed the form
is not registered? What should a local election official do if such a person shows
up at the polls on election day? Courts have held that when purges are conducted,
the mere fact that mail could not be delivered to an address could not be con-
sidered sufficient evidence to conclude that the voter was not there and that his
name could be removed.
~Scction 405(c) also provides that "possession of a registration notification
form indicating that the individual possessing it is entitled to vote in an election
shall be prima facie evidence that the individual is a qualified and registered
elector entitled to vote," and makes it possible for the possessor of a form to
retain a voting address and district as of the time he registered, regardless of
any subsequent change of address. If a voter registers by post card in Maryland
in January of an election year and receives his form, that card would be prima
fade evidence of his eligibility in November, even though he moved to Virginia
in February of that same year. Apparently, this means that such a voter may
demand to vote at his old address, where he does not live, or at his new address,
where he is not registered, without being subject to challenge of his qualifica-
tions. The language also appears to attach eligibility to the possessor of the card
but makes no reference to identification of the possessor as the person to whom
the card was issued.
~Section 406(c) requires that the postal service distribute the registration
forms to postal addresses and residences at least once every two years, not
earlier than forty-five days nor later than thirty days prior to the close of regis-
tration for the next federal election. By definition, the federal election may be
either the primary or the general election.
Twenty-four states now conduct Congressional primaries in the month of
August or later. If S-343 which passed the Senate becomes law, all states will
conduct Congressional primary elections the first Tuesday in August or later.
This has significant implications for HR-8053.
If the post cards are delivered prior to the primary election, they will be de-
livered in the middle of the summer, in no less than half of the states. Thus, they
will arrive at the residences at the time when fewer people are at home than any
other time of the year. If they are delivered prior to the general election, they
will be mailed during the time the primary election and/or a run-off election is
being conducted.
To require local election officials to conduct two federal elections, or three, if
a run-off is required, and simultaneously to process all the post card registra-
tions is to require something beyond the physical and personnel capacities of
most offices. It is certain to create confusion in the mind of the prospective
registrant about which election he is registering for, the primary or the general.
It undoubtedly will precipitate a deluge of telephone calls at a time whon an elec-
tion office is least equipped to deal with the public. The Supreme Court, in Dunn
vs. Blumstein, recognized the administrative need to close the registration proc-
ess for at least thirty days prior to an election. Although the books may be
formally closed, the post card registration process will, in effect, open the offices
up again.
section 406(d). The Federal Voting Assistance Task Force within the Depart-
ment of Defense has done an outstanding job in the performance of this function
and registration forms have been distributed at military installations for years.
This section appears unnecessary unless it is the intent of this legislation to trans-
fer this function eventually to the Voter Registration Administration.
section 407 requires that each of the approximately one million "state officials"
as defined by this act request federal intervention in the registration process if
they have reason to believe that individuals who are not qualified electors are
attempting to register. Here is a section that offers registrars in college commu-
nities an opportunity to delay registration of students in such communities by
requiring that a federal official check on such applications. Presumably, federal
officials would be able to investigate whether the student had lived with his
parents during the summer, had filed his income tax with an out-of-state ad-
dress, etc. Under 407 (b) (1), presumably, any one of the approximately* one
million state officials may request the Attorney General to bring a civil action
enjoining voter registration drives on college campuses on the grounds that these
develop a "pattern of fraudulent registration."
PAGENO="0310"
304
Senator McGee has stated, "the bill permits full investigation of applicants
and leaves the final determination of who is a qualified elector in the hands of
State or local officials." If this is true, a local government might institute a
policy of verification of each applicant, perhaps by a telephone call, or if that
is not available, by personal visit from a deputy registrar. This process might not
be completed and thousands of applicants might not get registered prior to the
election as intended. Yet the local government would be in complete accord with
the legislation because the post card constitutes an application, not a registration.
The penalties for fraud may be quite stiff but as proponents of the elimination
of the death penalty have long indicated, it is not severity of the penalty but the
probability of its occurrence that is the strdnger deterrent to crime. A post card
registration followed by an absentee ballot would be almost impossible to track
down because the fraudulent voter need never come into contact with the mail-
man, much less a registrar who might remember him. Further, those who might
seek to disrupt the election process would be able to send in hundreds of regis-
trations changing the addresses of persons already registered. This could result
in administrative actions effectively changing the election districts and pre-
cincts of persons already on the rolls. Because the "fraud" would not involve
attempting to vote but removing legitimate voters from their correct address or
from the jurisdiction entirely, there would be little evidence upon which to
proceed against an individual.
There is no doubt that some of this can be clone at the present time. The es-
sential difference is that the volume of mail at present is fairly well known by
election officials and the patterns of mobility in a community are familiar to
regular election officials. Any departure would be detected. Once the volume is
increased greatly and the time period for processing such information com-
pressed, much of the work will of necessity be performed by part time hourly
employees who lack such knowledge or sensitivity to the pattern. Detection of
such an activity would be difficult if not impossible, prior to election day.
Even though a Congressional investigation did find evidence of "irregular and
illegal conduct in the primary run-off election in the Sixth Congressional District
of South Carolina, held on September 12, 1972", I believe that fraud in Con-
gressional elections is relatively infrequent. It is much more common in elec-
tions for local office where a few votes can make a difference. This is one of the
reasons ~vhy local officials who are concerned about the protection against fraud
will be reluctant to adopt the post card registration system for local elections.
Section 408. Registration documents are public documents. Local officials be-
lieve that many persons do not tell the truth with respect to age because of social
considerations, possible economic reasons, or merely because they do not wish to
do so. The language of the bill permits falsehood with respect to age insofar
as the age given is not "for the purposes of establishing eligibility to register and
vote." Apparently, a person of forty-five could claim to be thirty without running
the risk of this provision of the law because the law is concerned only whether
an applicant is eighteen years of age or over. If age is required, it should be ac-
curate and falsification should not be accepted for any reason. Registration lists
are used to select jurors and the representative characteristics of juries includ-
ing representation of various age groups are increasingly called into question.
Several states are seeking means of identification by social security number or
some other alternate method rather than age or date of birth. If the penalties for
giving an incorrect age are severe, some people will choose not to vote rather than
to disclose their age and will not register. Many now decline because voter reg-
istration subjects them to jury duty.
Section 409 offers an inducement to registration officials to eliminate all reg-
istration activity and await the arrival of the post card forms. The financial
assistance prescribed in this legislation is based on the number of federal post
cards processed and not on the number of persons registered in a jurisdiction
within a given time period.
Section 410 specifies that the Voter Registration Administration may exclude
a state from the provisions of this chapter if that state does not require a
qualified applicant to register prior to the date of a federal election. If prior
registration is not `required, does this legislation now establish such prior
registration unless there is ha adnii'nistrative decision to the contrary? Whether
it does so or not, this section provides an incentive for the states to separate
state and local elections from federal elections. There are several political rea-
sons why states may wish to do so. This legislation provides administrative and
financial reasons as well.
PAGENO="0311"
305
A state may choose to maintain its registration process by eliminating the
requirement of prior voter registration for federal elections. Under these cir-
cumstances, only one minor administrative change which entails little expense
would be required. The state would merely add the Congressional contests to
the short ballot already available for new resident voters for President and
permit qualified voters who have not previously registered to cast that ballot..
Thus, there would be no prior federal registration and no need for processing
thousands of post cards. Minnesota is going to permit election day registration
and if it is successful there, other states may well copy the procedure at
least for federal elections.
States may also decide to establish separate polling places for "unregistered.
federal voters" or to permit such voters to register and apply for an absentee
ballot at the same time. All would be~ equally effective in eliminating the re-
quirement for a post card registration process.
None of these changes of procedure for handling federal elections would neces-
sarily affect the state registration and voting process. The state would be able
to maintain all its checks against fraud ,that now exist as a means of.its personal
registration procedure.
A more significant change might also take place. States may decide to sepa-
rate federal from state and local elections by scheduling the latter in . odd
number years as New Jersey and Virginia have done. I believe that this will
happen if Congress legislates on the subject of elections with any frequency.
The elections process is already subject to local charter and state legislation,
state constitutions, and court decisions. If Congress passes detailed legislation
on voter registration and the conduct of federal elections, I believe that the
states may well segregate the federal elections entirely.
In conclusion, I would make the following observations about HR-8053. It
is a major proposal of great potential consequence not only for voter registra-
tion procedures but for the entire conduct of elections at all levels of government.
It may well affect the internal processes of the political parties. It creates a new
agency whose scope and power is very broadly defined and which is empowered
to act in elections generally. It introduces procedures which will have a direct
effect on each of the more than 173,000 polling places in the nation.
My immediate concern is that this bill which attempts to achieve an objective
with which I am in complete accord, has the potential of disrupting the pro-
cedures of almost every election office in the country. Each may be flooded with a
high volume of post card applications in a very brief and inopportune time period.
These applications will by no means consist only of new and unregistered voters.
They will also include duplicate voter registrations, changes of address and
changes of party affiliation. Each must be checked against the current list of
registered voters and each must be assigned to the correct precinct. Changes of
party affiliation may be made only within the time limits provided by state law,
deadlines not known to most voters. Each application must be processed to pro-
duce master lists and precinct polling place lists. Of necessity, much of the work.
will be performed by part-time employees, a factor increasing the probability of
error.
A study which the Institute of Election Administration completed for the
Office of Federal Elections early this, year noted that "hundreds of. small but
separate tasks must be performed correctly and in sequence in order to conduct
a proper election. Each of these tasks, if neglected, or if improperly performed
as scheduled, may lead to a serious election day disorder. In the conduct of an
election, there is no tomorrow."
The potential for election day disorder as a result of the provisions of this bill
is great. Undoubtedly there will be many applications which will contain illegible
names and addresses. The people who sent these applicatio.ns will believe them-
selves to be registered but the election officials will not even know who they are,
much less to which precinct they should be assigned. When they come to the pells,
their names will not be on the roster. This will require checking the master lists
by telephone. It is this process which creates the greatest potential for election
day breakdown.
Marie Garber, Administrator of Elections for Montgomery County, Maryland,
one of the truly outstanding local election officials in the United States, tolda
meeting of Maryland election officials that if her roster is 99.9% correct on elec-
tion day, the office still receives three hundred calls concerning persons who claim
that they are registered but whose names are not on the precinct lists. Each of
PAGENO="0312"
306
these calls demands an immediate response defining the registration status of the
prospective voter. No matter bow accurate the registration lists this is a hectic
process for most large election offices.
It is easy to see that if as few as 1% of the potential voters required election
day clarification of their registration status or the location of their precinct
polling place, three thousand telephone calls could come into the election office
of a jurisdiction approximately the same size as Montgomery County. As tele-
phone lines become tied up and officials and voters are unable to get through to
determine registration status, the breakdown of the process begins. Long wait-
ing lines develop, harassed precinct officials begin to lose their customary good
nature, voters grow impatient, but worse than all that, voters are, in the process,
disenfranchised. This includes not only those for whom the records cannot be
found,~ but also those who are unable to communicate with the election office for
a determination of their status and those who although registered, choose not to
vote rather than wait in long lines brought about by the confusion indicated
above.
A less immediate but no less important consequence of this legislation may be
the total separation of state and local elections from federal elections, thereby
reducing voter turnout at all elections.
Although this legislation will provide some added convenience, it is my opinion
that it will benefit primarily those who are now registered but who move to a
new jurisdiction. I do not believe that it will increase registration and voting in
the United States by any significant amount.
Whether or not Congress acts, we will soon know the effects of post card
registration. Two states, Minnesota and Maryland, have passed post card voter
registration provisions in election legislation this year. After the methods these
states employ in 1974 are observed and analyzed, we will all know a great deal
more about the potential of voter registration by mail than we do now.
Even without a national voter registration administration, I do believe that
there are things which can be done which will contribute to increased registra-
tion and voter turnout. Senator Kennedy has introduced S-472 which would make
it financially possible for local election officials to conduct aggressive personal
registration campaigns which extend out into the community. By placing the
emphasis and the burden on the local officials and by providing them with the
financial means of accomplishing the task, local responsibility is reinforced and
full participation is encouraged.
I also believe that if material directly related to federal elections including
voter registration notices, polling place notices, absentee ballot applications and
other official election business were extended the same postage free status of the
military post card registration and ballot application, much could be accomplished
without the establishment of a Voter Registration Administration. This would
make it financially possible for local governments to mail large volumes of regis-
tration material and for absentee ballots to he processed quickly without delays
or concern for the status of the local budget.
In 1972, more than in previous elections, thousands of absentee ballots were not
counted because they arrived at election offices too late even though they had
been mailed several days before the deadline. If absentee ballots, especially those
directed to election officials were given special treatment to ensure that they
arrive as expeditiously as possible, far fewer votes would be lost.
I thank the Committee for this opportunity of commenting on this legislation
and will be happy to attempt to answer any questions you may have.
Dr. S~IoLKA. There are one or two points that have not yet been
made and I would like to make those in my Preliminary remarks.
The first is that we have in the United States over 521,000 elected
officials. Of those 535 are members of Congress. That means that ap-
proximately 999 out of every 1,000 elecLcd officials in this country are
State and local officials as distinguished from Federal officials. Almost
all the election law in this country is written with respect to these
Stath and local officials and it varies fantastically.
We have an incredibly complex system of elections and registration
for who can register and vote. It is very difficult to design one system
which will apply to each and every situation which occurs.
PAGENO="0313"
307
I make that point just by way o~ introduction. We can go into it
later, S
The other point that I wish to make-in additioir to sh~tring many
of the statements set out by Messrs. Dowd and Carison. is that I do be-
lie~ e there is `~ little `Lmbigmty in this bill `is to precisely what it does
The bill seemsto indicate that a person who signs a card is registered.
However. the testimony by Senator McGee and others in favor of it
sng~ests it is not a registration but an application for registration
which will be processed by the election officials. This raises some opera-
tiona.l questions about the status of a. person who sends in a post c~rd.
Mr. FRENZEL. The bill, as I understand it, says if you qualify under
State law and fill out a postcard you shall be entitled to vote. That is
404(b) (1).
Dr. SMOLTcA. That is right, but it doesn't say where you can vote;
it doesn't say for what offices you can vote; it doesn't say in what
precinct you can vote; it doesn't say in what election district you. can
vote; it doesn't say in what party primary you can vote. That is a very
real question. S
I make reference to this in my testimony. If a person sends a form in
and if this form is not dehver'ible, it comes back to the election office,
but it doesn't say what the status of that person is, or what the election
office is required to do. I
Now, my question is, is this person registered and what should the
local election official do if this person shows up on election day?
Let us assume his address is misspelled or appears to be n~isspelled.
He writes a "t" and the election official thinks it is an "f." He comes
to the polls. He, says, "I sent in my card, and this is where I should
vote."
What do you do with this man ~ Is he registered ~ I don't know
You see this is the whole point I am not certain what the status is
of a person who signs a card and sends it in. . S
I `ilso have been in touch with many State officials and local officials
on this Mr Dowd has testified that Missouri might abolish registra
tion for Federal elections if this bill was passed and my knowledge
of the administrative process of elections would suggest that for most
States this would be the easiest thing they could do administratively
for this reason:
If you passed this bill, it requires rather extensive processing You
h'ive to change your entire registration process to accommodate this
s~ stem, you have to develop a dual registration list and you have to
keep track of everything It also will inconvenience and confuse the
voters.
What a State might do is simply abolish registration for Federal
elections because new voters are now permitted to come to the polls and
vote for President They come to the polling place and they say that
they have been a resident for 30 days or 28 days or some such period
and they are permitted to vote by identification and swearing,, or
t'iking an oath on an affidavit or something All the election officials
would have to do is add the names of the congressional candidates to
that piece of paper and they have their process and they don't have
to worry about any registration at all
20-695-73----21
PAGENO="0314"
308
As far as fraud is conce~ned, the State i~' still protected because it
maintains the integrity of its own State registration system and their
position will simply be, if Congress is not worried about fraud for
congressional elections, then we aren't going to worry about fraud
either, for the congressional election. After all, Congress has districts
of 465,000 people but we are worried about the ward in which there are
perhaps 2,000 people and where, if you can pick up 100 or 150 votes,
it could make a difference.
Mr. WARE. With regard to the 100-percent registrat.iop~ do your
studies give ydu any indication as to what the effect might be upon
participation of voters? Do your studies indicate why people don't
participate in elections?
Dr. S1~roLKA. We have not made studies on the~e precise points. The
best information we have is from the Bureau of the Census because they
conduct this study e~ er~ e1e~tion `~e'ir The testimony I think has mdi
c'tted th'~t of the peopTe w ho don t i egistei `md don t ~ ote, the single
largest reason seems to be for about 50 percent each year 1968, 1970,
1972, the most recent election, abo~ut half of tli~em are not interested.
The ~ ~or th~~t hick of ~nteiest m'i~ lie m'uv~ things It might h'u e
to do with loc'il thinking it i `ight h'u~ e to do with nqtion'il issues
We may change that: interest but at the present time I don't think
th'tt can be ascribed to the registration process There ai e in the neigh-
borhood of 12 to 15 percent of those whO do not register now who indi-
cate that' registratiOn obstacles are the reason.
Mi W ~RD Youi O1)iiUOfl is if ~ on h't~ e 100 percent registvttion ~ on
would still h't\ e pioblems ~
Dr.' SMOLKA. :Yes~ We have `many areas of the country that have
100-percent registration. Mr. ~Ware. North Dakota. has 100-percent
i egisti `ition P'uts of Ohio `md p'nts of Missouri h'mve 100 percent
i egisti `ition The ~ otmg turnout in those `mre'is `iverages about 70 to
75 p?rcent of the vot*in~ age population in Presidential years, and it is
in the neighboihood of 50 to 60 percent in congression'ml election ye'irs
that `tie not presmdenti'tl election ~e'mrs
"Mr. WARE." ~m I correct in assuming you thin1~ there is validity to
the cepsus survey? ., ` ` `: `
Dr. S~ror~KA. Yes, I do.
Mr. WARE. That was questioned earlier. . .. `
Di S1IOLKA The census sur~ es h'is the eiror built into it that was
stated in the beginning Thei e is `in o~ erstatement of registration and
voting of about 7 percent compared to what the national figures are.
But I do believe that fairly `well describes the case.
The questions. are well designed to, distinguish between. obstacles
to ~ oting and between 1ust general apatlm~ or hostility to the political
system. and we do have some: hostility.', , ,, `
Mi~. MATHIS. Have you had access to the Gallup poll referred. to by
Miss Roe in her testimony ~
Dr. SMOLKA. I am not certain which Gallup poll she referred. to but
there h'is been one refeired to that is some years old I don't know
which one she referred to though. , . `
Mr. MATHIS. I believe she said after the 1968,elections. I have not.
seen that poll and I don't believe the members of the subcommitte&
PAGENO="0315"
309
have had the opportunity to study it. I wondered if you might be
familiar with it.
Di SMOLK~ No I am not~ but I w ould point out thtt the Census
Bureau has a sam~le of about 50,000 in its surveys. The Gallup poii
is 1,500. The Census Bureau sur~tey is far more thorough and complete
on this than is the Gallup poil. That is the general operating prin-
cipie. I am not talking about the specifics. I don't know.
Mr. JONES. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank:
Dr. Smolka for being with us today. I think lie has given us a very
worthwhile paper.
Mr. W~~mi. i)o you have any comments or thoughts with regard to
the fraud problem?
Dr. S~roLTc\. Yes, Mr. Ware. I do not believe for congressional elec--
tions fraud is a problem in general. I do think there are instances, andL
I so indic'mte in my testimony on p'ige 13-
Mr. WAuE. I am sorry, I didn't get that far.
Di S~tor i~ `~ [contmuing] It indicates there w~ts `i congression'il in
vestigation and it did find irregular and illegal conduct in the pri-
mary runoff of the Sixth Congressional District in South Carolina
last year.
There were also allegations of fraud in the contest between Mr.
Rooney and Mr. Lowenstein in New York City last year. But in gen-
eral, I do not believe there is a high'in~idence of fraud associated with
congressional elections.
I do believe, however, that fraud is an overall problem. There are
pockets where it is much more prevalent than others, but where it is a
problem, it is in local elections. In elections for sheriff,, in elections for
county commissioner, in elections for judge, perhaps. These kinds, of
elections much more so than congressional.
T1.ie numbers are too great for congressional elections. When you
get elected, you know. you need 75,000 to 100,000-or maybe more
votes. It is hai~d to steal that many. . ... -
Mr. WARE. I have had no experience. . .
Mr. FRENZEL. You are the editor of "Election News." Canyon tell
me what. is the cirenlatio~ of that wonderful newsletter?
Dr. SMOLKA. It goes out to about 350. State and local officials.
Mr. FRENZEL. I presume there is some two-way communication; you
get letters to the editor like every publisher does?
J)r. SMOLKA. Yes . . . ,.
Mr. FRENZEL. Can you judge from that correspondence the response
of local election officials throughout the TJriited States to this particu-
lar bill?
Dr. S~[oLIc.~. The ones that have corresponded with mehave been in
general negative. There are instances offavorable response. For exam~
pie. Marie Garber. who testified i)efore the Senate Committee. testi-
fled in favor of it. She was from Mon~gomerv Countv~ Md... and is one
of the outst'mdino locil election offici'ils She hi e~ in `i suburl~mn
county It is i hi~hl-\ educ'iiecl `md hter9te count~ I think post ei.icl
voter registration will work. in Montgomery County. .
Mr. FRENZEL. I have, an affluent suburban district and it would be
wondeiful in my district but `iccoidmg Ia ~oui te~timnony it ~~oulcln t
help the people who need it.
PAGENO="0316"
310
Dr. SMOLKA. I think that is correct~ I think it would be a matter of
convenience in literate and well-educated and rather sophisticated
communities. In areas where people are not used to filling out forms-
and I would say Washin~ton is one place where we are more used to
filling out forms than anvbther place in the country-
Mr. . \VAm~. May I interrupt to comment that my congressional dis-
trict is primarily a suburban district with affluent people, highly edu-
rated, and so forth, and one of my great, problems is to decipher the
signatures on the mail I receive. .
Dr. SMOLKA. That will and can be a problem, Mr. Ware. What I am
saying is, I think it will be a case of where it can be good and a matter
of convenience. Incideiftally, two States have adopted mail registrar
tion this year-Minnesota. and Maryland. And these two States are in
the process of setting up procedures. My guess is that they will do it
differently. That is the nature of.State legislative and administrative
activity. I think a.fter this experience of establishing a new system in
Maryland-in five counties. or four counties,. and Baltimore City, and
in Minnesota, we will be able to see whether or not some of the things
th'tt we think will li'~ppen will actually happen
I don't think Texas is really a valid instance for judgment on the
possibility of what mail registration can do. I. share Charlotte Roe's
testimony here on that pomt I think that the histot~ in Texas, plus
the- fact that mail regist.ration was coupled with a poli tax, makes
Texas an unfair State for the purposes of testing..
Mr. FRENZEL. I would like, to ask you a kind of unfair question. Your
reputation as an academic expert on elections and election laws is sig
nificant. Can you detail for me how come people like you, Mr. Dowd,
and Mr. Carlson were never called to appear at the Senate hearings
where the bill was sent. out without figuring out whether it would
work or not. Were you invited?
Dr. SMOLKA. No, sir.
Mr. FRENZEL. Did you attempt to testify? Did you indicate that you
were alive and palpitating?
Dr. SMOLKA. With respect to the Senate committee, I did receive
an inquiry from Senator Stevens. Senator Stevens asked me to com-
ment on pending legislation before the committee and I submitted a
five-page written statement to Senator Stevens, and Senator Stevens
indicated that the statement would be put into the record.
That was the extent of my official input into the Senate committee,
but other than that, I was not called to testify. I was here, of course,
covering for the journal-the newsletter-and also was there to learn
what these various people had to say and to try to take their positions
into account.
Mr. FRENZEL. May I infer that you think there are other ways to
improve registration and participation ~that are superior to the. post
card registration? . S ,
Dr. SMOLKA. Yes, sir, that is a fair statement, I think.
Mr. FRENZ~L. Can we go a little further and rely on `some of your
academic research? Are the States doing things-are they improving
their registration statutes? Is there activity put at the State level?
Dr. SMOLKA. Yes, sir; there is a great deal of activity.
PAGENO="0317"
311
Mr. FRENZEL. People who tell us we need this law are frequently
saying that the States are hopelessly moribund; the barriers are
enormous. Despite the passage of the Voting Rights Act, we still can't
get people registered. Is that true?
Dr. SMOLK.A. I would say, as a general rule, it is not true. In specific
instances, it probably is true. In general, what we have is a pattern
of very great State activity in this area. There have been State com-
missions set up to study election laws.
If I can take you back to the 1963 Presidential commission, the 1963
Presidential commission listed a series of recommendations for im-
proving the voting process. Over half of those have been implemented.
Some have been implemented by,: the States, some have been imple-
mented by the courts.
For example, the abolition of durational residence, the 18-year-old
vote, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, and then, in addi-
tion, we have had the poll tax eliminated. The States have adopted
administratively, mobile registration; they have extended deputy
registrars. I would say as a general principle, nowhere in the country
is it harder to register in 1973 than it was in 1963. In fact, it is much,
much easier. Having said that, I would still say that in some areas of
the country it is still difficult to register, and we have not done enough
to make it easy.
Mr. FRENZEL. What should we do?
Dr. S~ioLicA. Here you have a bit of a problem because registration
is only one part of it. We also have to consider the fact that we have
a federal system, and we have these other 521,000 elected officials to be
concerned about.
Mr. FRENZEL. If I may interrupt, that is why Canada, England, and
other countries are not really comparable. They are totally different.
Dr. SMOLKA. In Canada the system of national elections is totally
separated from the system of provincial elections. Registration for
voting in a national election is not registration for voting in provincial
elections.
It is an efficient and economical system but you have to duplicate it
for the local elections.
I am not certain we can develop a unified answer to that question. I
think if you wanted to make it possible for everybody to vote for
President and Congress, as easily as possible, all you would need to
do would be to pass a law saying there would be no prior registration
required. That would impose no, great burden on the States; it would
impose no administrative procedures other than what exist now.
Mr. FRENZEL. In our district,: of 500,000, we would have a million'
votes
Dr. SMOLKA. Possibly, but I don't think so. I don't think this would
be acceptable everywhere and I think there are some problem areas.
I am sure Congressman Rooney and former Congressman Lowenstein
would be quite concerned about' that because they had some difficulty
and this is the problem with blanket legislation. It doesn't deal with
all factual situations. .` `~ `
Mr. FRENZEL. Do you endorse S. 472; the Kennedy-Stevens bill?
Dr. SMOLKA. The Kennedy-Stevens bill has many good features in
it~ I think the idea of the Federal Government starting to pay a little
PAGENO="0318"
312
bit for Federal elections if it is going to impose financial burdens on
the States is a very good sign. Up until now everything the Congress
has done, the local governments have had to pay for and the local
governments don't like that. That is one of the reasons why they don't
register and do the things they should do. They just aren't paying for
them; they can't get the money.
Mr. 1VA1t~. Wouldn't a. problem arise because of the need for return-
ing paper ballots or having dual machines?
Dr. SMOLKA. With all due respect to the election officials in Missouri,
I don't think there would be a need to return to paper ballots. There
~re alternate ways of. doing it. For example, a voting machine can be
set up to permit lockouts-as you do in .a primary election, where you
could permit a person to vote only for Federal office or for the full
ballot.. You can program a machine with no trouble to do t.hat.
With respect to the electronic machines, they. could also be handled
in a similar way. They could be programed. I don't think it would
require a return to paper ballots.
As a matter of administrative practice though, some jurisdictions
have done. just that because they keep paper ballots there when voters
are to be challenged and they don't want that vote to go in a voting
machine. If it does. it mingles with the othel' votes. The voting ma-
chine counts as well as records. They have to have a paper ballot there
so that- a. challenged voter can have a ballot, but itwilJ not be counted
until lat~r...
I am saying it. is not nečessary but this is the way it. is done.
Mr.MA~ms. Wouldn't this depend primarily on the type of voting
machine used by that particular community?
Di ~1iOL ~ No Mi Mathis I don t know of `i smgle ~ oh i2 dci ice
or svste.th now employed which cannot accommodate the dual voting
system. It. requires additional programing which costs a little bit of
money and this is one factor. This is one of the reasons why it might
not he done.
There is no mechanical reason why a voting machine couldn't do it.
Mr. FRENZEL. Dr. Smolka~ I make this statement and hope the. chair-
man might be interested: As I understand it. there exists at this time
ve~ little dati~ ~n; a nationwide basis about election fraud the poten-
tial and actualit.v~f it. Is that. true?
Pr. SiroLwA. Very little: Next to nothing..
Mr. FRENZELIt is also my understanding since the Keating amend-
ment o the campai~n clisclo~iire `md spending limitation 1aw of 1q72,
the GAO has some. responsibility to maintain a kind `of a central elec-
tion information; center.
flr, SMOLKA. I believe the legislation called for a clearinghouse
function;. . .
- Mr. FREXZEL. it- is my furthet' understanding that one Richard (1-.
Sm&ka has apnhied to the GAO to furnish them some assistance in
freud i~o~earch~ i~ that correct?
-Pr. SMOLKA. Yes. sir. it.is.
Mv. FREXZEL. It seems to me this subcommittee would he vitally in-
tei e~ted in hai mug such `m ~tiid go forward it ~eems imprnt'mnt that
i~ e lab~i without `in~ infom m'mtion in this area qncl ~t the apui onn~fe
time, Mr. Chairman-and I note t.he absence of a quorum now-I
PAGENO="0319"
`.3~13
would like `to'.make, `a motion that this* subcommittee. request of the
GAO that.. they proceed to accumulate that information.on voter fraud
as it exists today. and include~ in' it .the `potential..under pending. legis-
-.1ation~ . . . . , .
Mr M `~TUIS At the `~ppropri'Lte time I think that it would be `t very
excellent motion. .. . " .~.
Dr. Smolka, thank you very niuch for your.app~arance~ .. . ..`.:
Dr. Sr~roLIcA. Thank you.
~ Ir M ~THIS Let me call to the `tttention of the members of the sub
comriittee w e hai e a memorandum prepared by the st'tff
Mr. FRENZEt. We, have memorandums and .we.'have had *a rUnning
battle in the subcommittee about what percentage of registered voters
actually ~ ote We have had a number of figures thrown around We
have now `t memorandum from the subcommittee staff saying there is
a potential low range of 73 percent running to a potential high of 95
pei cent
Would you comment? Do the figures mean anything? Are they'real
and where might the responsible observer place that av~rage?
Dr. SMOLKA. I think it would be closer `tO 73 than ~5. I think it
`~s ould be much closer to 73 The base of calculation is the critical fac
tor. If you calculate' the number of registered `vot~s', as the base and
look at the numbers voting you are going to get one figure, but every-
body knows there is a certain percentage of deadwood Nobody knows
how much However, this deadwood is removed by many ways When
a person moves from one jurisdiction to another, many jurisdictions
now require that they list their former address and that they send
it back and that name is taken off the list Many of the well run elec-
tion offices get notices of deaths automatically an~l'temove people when
they get the notice Some iurisdictions have a very low rate of dead-
w ood Others, comparatively higher
I would say this situation has improved greatly and what we ha~ e
here is a situation where the 73 pereent'reprOsent's a' truer, but'not'corri-
pletely true figure.
My estimate would be between 75 and 80 percent. Probably not quite
80, but I would say for the last Presidential election, maybe 76, 77
percent, something like that.
Mr. FRENZEL. I thank you for that because we have no way of weed-
ing through the figures in an intelligent manner and we are glad to
have your experienced estimate.
Dr. SMOLKA. It is not 90 percent.
Mr. FRENZEL. In a State where there is no registration, you auto-
matically assume that every eligible voter is registered, so that is 100
percent and, of co'urse,'comparably speaking, they have a lower turn-
out. If the same people lived in."my State and had to register, a quarter
of them wouldn't be on that list, so we are comparing camels and billy
goats, aren't we?
That average figure doesn't mean anything.
Dr. SMOLKA. The 72 percent `of the people who turn out in nonregis-
tration areas, or 75 percent or whatever it may be, would include
everybody so you have within that a large number of people who
wouldn't register.
Mr. FRENZEL. You have deadwood on that, which is forcing that
percentage down. At any rate, the figures don't mean a heck of a lot.
PAGENO="0320"
314
Dr. SMOLKA. Well, for one thing, if `everybody can vote and you
have a 70 percent `turnout, you know there were approximately 30
percent who could have voted who didn't. You know that.
Mr. Fni~NzEI~. I think it is more interesting to look at new regis-
trations, as a result of actual drives, versus voting turnouts. I under-
stand of the million new registrants they had in Texas, about hal,f of
them voted. That figure seems to be more significant for our delibera-
tions.
Dr. SMOLKA. That would be surprising to me. Generally, from a poli-
tical campaign standpoint, the new registrants are the ones most
likely to vote and you look for a very high voting turnout among new
registrants.
`Mr. M~mis. Does that take into consideration the 18- to 21-year-
olds that were, in fact, registering and voting?
Dr. SMOLKA. Yes, I think it does. As a matter of fact, the State of
Delaware has some excellent statistics on this point and it shows the
18's ~to 21's who registered and this was their first vote, voted about
82 percent.
Mr. MATHIS. Those who registered.
Dr. SMOLKA. Yes. Although it was a lower percentage than the adult
population 21 and over, of those who registered, 82 percent did vote.
Mr. M~rrns. What percentage registered?
.Dr. SMOLKA. In Delaware, I don't have that exact figure but it was
much lower than the total population. It was fairly high though.
Mr. MATHIS. We have had a poor performance in Georgia.
Dr. SMOLKA. There are many factors involved here. The educa-
tional level, the cultural factors. `I agreed with the questioning which
suggested that North Dakota and Alabama were not comparable.
Mr. MATHIS. Thank you, again, Dr. Smolka.
The committee will stand adjourned until Tuesday morning at 9:30.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to
reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, July 24, 1973.]
PAGENO="0321"
VOTER REGISTRATION ACT AND RELATED
LEGISLATION
WEDNESDAY, fULY 25, 1973
HOUSE or REPRES~ENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITJL'EE ON E'LEOTIONS OF THE
CoMMrrrnE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:45 a.m., in room 2253,
Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John H. Dent (chairman of the
subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Dent, Hays (chairman of the full com-
mittee), Mathis, Mollohan and Frenzel.
Also present: John G. Blair, assistant to the staff director; Eric
Honick, clerk; Rick Oleszewski, and Miss Barbara Giaimo, assistant
clerks, Subcommittee on Elections; and Ralph Smith, minority coun-
sel. Committee on House Administration.
Mr. DENT. The necessary number of members being present we will
commence the hearings on H.R; 8053, the Voter Registration Act and
related election legislation.
I am happy to be able to annOunce I have with me this morning the
chairman of the House Administration Committee, Mr. Wayne Hays,
who has been for a long time an interested innovator' in the field of
election reform, having probably put before the committee the first
real reform legislation in many years. He is vitally interested in this
piece of legislation and taking a little time out of his very busy sched~
ule to be with us this morning.
Mr. Hays, do you have any statement?
Mr. HAYS. No thank you.
Dr. DENT. We also have with us Mr. Mathis,acting chairman, when
I am unable to be here, and vitally interested in this legislation.
Congressman Butler, we are happy t'o welcome you before the cOm-
mittee. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OP HON. M. CALDWELL BUTLER, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS'PROM THE STATE OP VIRGINIA'; ACCOMPANIED BY
MRS. JOAN S. MAHAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE BOARD OP
ELECTIONS, RICHMOND, VA.
Mr. BUTLER. I have a prepared statement' and I think will go
through that briefly if I may.
Thank you, Mr Chairman, for this opportunity I do appreciate the
care with which the committee has undertaken to examine this legis-
lation, particularly the extension of these hearings.
(315)
PAGENO="0322"
3,16
Please understand that I do not offer myself as an expert witness.
Prior to my coming to this body, however, I did serve for 10 years in
the Virginia General Assembly, much of it on our committee on
privileges and elections.
During the fall of 1968 we undertook to study Virginia's election
laws and I was a member of a special commission appointed for the
purpose. As a direct result of that.study, we recodified and extensively
revised Virginia election laws including clarification in many areas,
simplification of registration, sharply improved purging procedures
and, most importantly, we instituted a statewide centralized registra-
tion system.
I have asked Mrs. Joan Mahan, secretary of our State board of elec-
tions, to accompanyn-lO today to ai~iswer any questions on our present
Virginia registration procedures and the effect the post card registra-
tion will have upon them.
Of course, this committee will have a broader view than I, but I
would like to share with you some of my reservations about postal
card registration. I have real doubts about whether increased registra-
tion will substantially increase voter participation. I am not fully
satisfied that the failure to register or vOte dOes not most often arise
from voter apathy or, indeed, from lack of a real choice. There are so
many factors'that could contribute to a low votertürnout that I do not
think `we ought lightly to impose a major change such as post card
registration procedures~ without extensive research and substantial
evidence indicating that it will in fact increase voter participation.
As an incident to my airtlysis of the postal card registration pro
posal, I asked a member of my staff to review the various studies which
have been made from time to time of voter, tutnout. As o~f this point,
we are not aware of any study that has recommended Federal post
card registration as a solution to the problem of low voter turnout. I
recognize that this is in `direct contradiction of much of the opinion
evidence that you must have received to date. I challenge proponents of
this legislation to produce `a scientific analysis of votettnrnout which
concludes that postal card registration will solve the problem of low
voter turnout. We submit herewith a bibliography of the studies thus
far called to our attention, and ask that it be filed with the record of
this hearing.
Indeed, prior to the introduction of Senate legislation I find no re-
sponsible suggestion that post card registration would lead to a greater
voter participation or remedy the problem of low voter turnout.
The suggested post card registration procedure, as I understand
it, would be extremely expensive, of doubtful constitutionality, and
an administrative nightmare. That is~why I have Mrs. Mahan here to
discuss that in more detail. It will either impose Federal r~gistration
standards on the States or require an extremely burdensome dual sys-
tem of registration.
There is a substantial trend in the direction `of improved registra-
tion procedures in our States already. In Virginia, for example, one
may register to vote after'30 days of residence. Inasmuch as our elec-
tion laws also provide for re2istration in advance ~ an election, you
can now register to vote the day you arrive in Virginia if you have the
requisite intent to reside there permanently.
PAGENO="0323"
This brings me to the principal reasons why I ask the committee's
attention today. One of the things revealed in our hearings by Vir-
ginia's Election Law Study Commission was extensive fraud in the
use of the absentee or mail ballot in certain parts of our Common-
wealth. In some counties, for example, the number of persons voting
approximated the total number of persons actually residing within
the boundaries of the cOunty.
The principal fraud was, of course, in the use of an absentee ballot.
There were two aspects of this: Voters who had previously left the
county were maintained on the registration list and absentee ballots
applied for and voted in their name and without their knowledge;
and in other instances registered residents were tricked, persuaded, or
bribed to sign applications for absentee ballots or their names were
actually forged on such applications. Absentee ballots were mailed to
a convenient address, completed there illegally and returned by mail.
Specifically what happened in Virginia is more fully set forth in
the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in the
case of the United States against Weston and others, 417 F.2d 191
(1969) upholding the conviction of several persons for conspiracy
committed during the 1966 congressional election.
Incidentally, the defendants included in addition to a deputy sheriff,
a county commissioner of revenue, a notary public, and the secretary
of the board of elections.
These frauds all involved persons who were actually registered. In
one instance 53 absentee ballot applications were witnessed by the same
person, a deputy sheriff, and 54 applications specified that the ballot
was to be mailed to the voter in care of the same deputy. Of the six
witnesses whose testimony was cited by the court of appeals as typi-
cal at least three were illiterate and one was a drunk.
I will not burden you further on the discussion of the absentee voter
fraud of this embarrassing chapter in Virginia's history. If you desire
any further information about this, I suggest you talk to our colleague,.
Bill Wampler, or to the clerk of this body, in whose district they took
place. Neither one of these gentlemen were involved in it. It just
happened to take place. in their district. They can tell you more about
it. It is an embarrassing chapter in our history. It is enough to say
that these were examples of widespread practices which led to a com-
plete overhaul of Virginia's election laws. Fraud in the use of absentee
ballots has been substantially eliminated.
In my judgment the same opportunities for abuse and the. same
invitation to fraud which are apparent in unpoliced absentee voting
would be available under legislation permitting absentee registra-
tion-an extreme example of which is postal ca.rd registration.
We are in the process of reviewing some of these items in our Task
Force on Election Reform Committee appointed by the Republican
Research Committee. As an incident to this proposal I have under-
taken t.o contact appropriate people across the country to receive their
view of this registration. I find that my view of the possibility of
post card . registration bill as an invitation to fraud is widely
supuorted. :
The Election Commission of the City and County of Denver, writ-
ing in opposition to the bill, said in part "~ * * It is difficult to visu-
PAGENO="0324"
318.
alize how fraudulent registrations would be prevented under the pro-
visions of this bill. It would be almost impossible to detect and prevent
fictitious names and addresses being added to the registration rolls.
While it would take a massive collaboration to alter the results of a
Presidential election, a relatively minor deception could have a ma-
terial result on a lesser office * * *"
The International Association of Municipal Clerks stated,
* * * The Municipal Clerks are concerned that implementation of this bill
would promote rather than prevent fraudulent registration.
The Executive Committee of the National Association of Secretaries
of State unanimously opposed S. 352.
The State elections officer of Colorado endorsed the statement. of
the Denver Commission, as did the Colorado State Association of
County Clerks and Recorders.
I have, a letter from the clerk of the city of Monterey Park, Calif.,
pointing out that Los Angeles County in 1969 established a post card
registration by mail system.
Many hundreds of voters in Los Angeles County were disfranchta~d because
their registered cards were lost in the mails or arrived at the registrars office
after the deadline date.
Relevant to the point I made, it is the opinion of the people in Los
Angeles that Senate bill 352 would enhance the opportunity for voter
fraud since the registrant would not be required to appear before an
individual who is a. deputy registrar of voters for the administration
of the oath.
This comes back to the point we hopefully endeavored to make before
that opportunity for fraud is here, it is an invitation for fraud, and
our experience with the absentee voter fraud gives me serious pause
as t.o whether this is what we want to undertake at this time.
I would appreciate the opportunity to have these papers filed in the~
record.
Mr. DENT. It will `be made a part of the record.
[The information follows:]
THE COLORADO STATE AssocIATIoN OF COUNTY CLERK'S AND RECORDERS,
J~~.7y 16. 1.973.
Hon. M. CALDWELL BUTLER,
Chairman Sub-Committee on. Voter Registration, Task Force Election Reform,
Republican Research Committee, Republican. Conference, U.S. House 0
Representatives, Washington, D.C.
Dr~n SIR: The Colorado State Association of County Clerks and Recorders of
the State of Colorado wish to endorse the letter that was written to you today
by the Denver Election Commission. The facts set forth are in conformance with
a discussion that was held at our anriu~l convention held in Cortez, Colorado, on
June 18th, 1973.
Also, at this convention we adopted a Resolution objecting to Senate Bill 352
and asked that all County Clerks contact their legislators objecting to the Bill
and asking for their negative vote.
Anything that you can do to help in the defeat of the Bill and to keep us in-
formed will be appreciated by the Association.
Sincerely,
MARJORIE PAGE,
Secretary-Treasurer.
PAGENO="0325"
31.9
C~TT AND COUNTY OF. DaNvirn,.
ELECTION GOMi~1I55ION
Denver, CoZo~, July 16, 1973.
Hon. M. CALDWE.LL BUTLER, . .~ .
Chairman Sub-Coinnj.jttee oil Voter * Registration, Task Force Election Reform,
Republican. Research. Committee, Republican Conference, ~ House of
Representatives, TWashington,.D.c.
DEAR Sin: A' study of Senate Bill 352, has raised questions regarding possible
fraudulent voter registration and the increased difficulty in maintaining accurate
registration records by those responsible. for the conduct of elections. To conform
to . the principle of "one man-one vote", voter registration must be tied to a
specific residence or domicile and the physical presence of the voter or his' agent
at the time of registration is necessary~' as our population. becomes increasingly
more mobile.
Your attention is respectfully invited, to the following specific comments, re-
ferred by page and line numbers to the bill .as originally prepared for considera-
tion by the United Shtes Senate If there have been amendments to the bill the
specific line or page numbers may not be accurate:
On Page 4, lines 3 thru 7: The Administration shall "collect, analyze, and ar-
range for publication" information concerning elections. This appears to be an
unnecessary duplication of duties already performed by the individual states.
Further, the word "analyze" could be broadly construed to provide for a staff
of analysts who, regardless of intent, would have a strong impact on voters at
future elections. ` . -
On Page 5, lines 1 thru 3: The Administration is granted almost unlimited
powers and duties which could be used `to exert political pressure or influence.
`On Page 5, line 10: We would sugg'est that the word "may" be changed to
"shall" so that the Administra,tion would be required to provide assistance when
requested by a state election official. Similarly, the word "may" on line 12 should
be changed to "shall". The cost of such assistance should be charged to the state.
On Page 5, lines 18 thru 24: It would appear that the Administration would
have to provide a different registration form for each state in order to conform
to that state's registration requirements. Thus, a person temporarily residing out
of his home state might find that the `registration form locally available does
not correspond to his home state requirement.' Line 24 refers to "prevent fraud-
ulent registration". it is difficult to understand how fraudulent registration
could be prevented when it is such a simple matter for a person to register under
a variety of names and in a variety of locations with no practical possibility
of investigating each registration. For instance) there is no practical way to pre-
vent an alien from registering nor to prevent a person under age or otherwise
not qualified to register. While adequate penalties are provided in this bill, it
is almost impossible to detect and prosecute a person using a fictitious name and
address. , ` .
On Page 6, lines 1 thru 4:. This part of the bill requires the local election
official to mail a "registration notification form" to the applicant when such
notification is merely a receipt of the application form with no practical provi
sion for investigahon of eligibilit~ or to asceitaiin whether the individual meets
the regstration requirements. However "possession of a registration notification
form entitles the person to vote regardless of a subsequent change in eligibility
On Page 6, lines 13 thru 15: This section could conceivably require printing of
the form in several languages for some communities.
On Page 8, line 2: We suggest that' you delete the word "such" and on line 3
that ~ou'delete "as it deems appropriate". These minor changes would strengthen
the prevention of fraudulent registration by requiring action of the Administrator
when requested.
On Page 9, lines thru 4: `It would appear that this portion of the bill precludes
the right of local chaleinge once a person has been registered under .the provi-
~ions of this bill
It is difficult to visualize how fraudulent ~registrations could be prevented under
the provisions of this bill It would be alomat impossible to detect and to prevent
fictitious names and addresses from being added to the registration rolls While
It would take a massive cOllaboration to alter the re~nlts or a Presidential dec
PAGENO="0326"
320
tion, a relatively minor deception could have a material effect on a lesser office.
It is our sincere recomemndation that any action on this bill be carefully con-
sidered and that the bill be defeated.
Respectfully Submitted,
JAMES Voss, President.
JAMES T. BAYER, Commissioner.
P. J. SERAFINI, Coniniissioner.
DONALD M. NIcHoLSON, Secretary.
STATE OF COLORADO,
Denver, Cob., July 16, 1973.
Hon. M. CALDWELL BUTLER,
Chairman Sub-Committee on Voter Registration, Task Force Election Reform,
Republican Research Committee, Republican Conference, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, D.C.
`DEAR MR. BUTLER: Having read the analysis herewith submitted by the Presi-
dent, Commissioners and Secretary of the Denver Election Commission, I
heartily and sincerely endorse the recommendations by the aforementioned
officers and I also concur in the defeat of Senate Bill 352 which will be up for
`House Committee hearing shortly.
Respectfully yours,
JAMES L. EITEMILLER,
Elections Officer.
* NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
July 16, 1793.
`Hon. `H. CALDWELL BUTLER,
Chairman, Sub-Committee on Voter Registration, Task Force Election Reform,
Republican Research Committee, Republican Conference, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, D.C~
DEAR, MR. BUTLER: We, the Executive Committee of the National Association
of Secretaries of State at our Executive Committee meeting in April 1973
kinanimously `agreed to defeat Senate `Bill 352 which will be coming up for
House Committee hearing shortly. ,
Respectfully yOUls
BYRoN A ANDERSOi~
President
TUD INTERNATIO\AL Ii~ STITUTE OF MUNICIPAL CLERKS
Pasadena Calif July 16, 1973
ITon~ `H. CALDWELL BUTLER,' .
Chairman, Sub-Conimi~tee on Voter, Registration, Task Force Election Reform,
Repubiwan Research Committee Republican Conference U S Honse of
Representatii~eS, Washington, D.C.
DEAL SIR: On behalf of the Executive Committee of The International Insti-
tute of Municipal Clerks, 1 would like to endorse the contents of the attached
`letter from the Denver Election Commission wjth regard to Senate Bill 352.
The Municipal Clerks are concerned that implementation of this bill would
promote rather than prevent fraudulent voter registration.
Respectfully submitted, `
F. J. SERAFINI,
President.
`CITY OF. MONTEREY PALK,
July 12 1973
Hon. M. CALDWELL BUTLER,
ChaIrman, Sub-Committee on Voter Registration, Task Force Election Reform,
Republican Researc7~ Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Wash-
vngton D C
DEAR CONGRESSMAN BUTLER: As a member of the' Advisory Committee of the
California Legislature Joint Committee for the Revision of the California Elec-
tions Code, I have thoroughly reviewed Senator McGee's bill, S. 352, which
PAGENO="0327"
321
proposes Federal Voter Registration by the Bureau of Census through the Postal
Service
Among my duties as an elected City Clerk I am charged with the responsi
bility of being the Chief Elections Officer of my City as set forth in the Cali
fornia Government Code. I also serve as a Deputy Registrar of Voters for Los
Angeles County. My experience with~ voter registration and election laws has
been quite extensive during the past 10 years. Voters are confused ahd mis-
informed under our present system of, voter registration, even though California
is the leader in this area. This primarily is a result of voter apathy. However,
should S. 352 become law, there would be nothing less than total chaos and
disenfranchisement~n voter registration throughout the Nation, for the following
reasons:
1. In 1969, Los Angeles County established a post card re-registration by mail,
which permitted the voter to change his name his iesidence address his political
affiliation and/or his occupation This tOok place immediately prioi to the 1970
General Municipal Elections in California. Needless to day, many hundreds of
voters in LosAngelescounty were disfranchised because their registration cards
w ere lost in the mails or arrived at the Registiars office aftei the deadline date
due to slow and inefficient handling by the Post Offices. These cards were treated
as junk mail by postal employees This same problem occurred for the 1970
June Primary and November General elections in California.
2. Federal Voter Registration wOuld register voters for Nâtional elections
only-thus voters in California, for instance, would be required to register twice,
so as to be eligible to vote in State, County, Municipal, and District elections, as
well as the Federal elections This would result in having two different indices
to registered voters at the polling place on election day. Also a dual system
would make it difficult for a voter to register and remain registered for all elec-
tions in which they are entitled to vote, therefore resulting in added voter con-
fusion and a lower voter turnout especially in State and local elections which
are held at times other than .a National election..
3 S 352 would enhance the opportunity for voter fraud since the registrant
would not be required to appear before an individual who is a Deputy Registrar
of Voters for the administration of the Oath.
4 S 352 would impose added duties and responsibilities on State and local
election officials at a time when their work load is at its peak in the conduct of
an election and they would not have the proper information available to answer
inquiries
5. The desired results for increased voter registration~ and cOneenience to
the voter related thereto, would not be attained under S. 352, and most especially
so when the Postal Service is involved
Voter registration is an extremely important subject which merits very careful
consideration by election officrnls on all levels of government ~ ho are profes
sionals in the field of elections. Federal (Nationwide) Voter Registration by
mail, as set forth in S. 352, for the purpose of administering a program through
the Postal Service and Bureau of Census. will create more problems than the
bill is intended-to remedy. . :~
I. strongly urge you to oppose S. 352 at the hearing to be held on July 30, 1973.
Defeat of S. 352 would accord election officials on all governmental levels the
opportunity to produce uniform state~ legislation on voter registration, `which
will be in the best interestof everyone. . ` . ..* . .
*Thank you for the-opportunity to- express my comments on S. 352. I hope these
remarks will be considered on your vote
Sincerely
LAURA LEE MOMILLEN C M C
:~itityCTerk of the Uity o~f Monterey Park, Ca~l4f.
Mr. BumnR.' That completes my prejared `statement. Áč I said
before, I do think this is an administrative matter I have my expert
witness with -the iii that regard. "I will be happy to answer `any
question. . . ~- .- - -
Mr DENT Th'rnk you very kindly, Congressman I am sure your
testimony this morning will help the committee in making a very
serious determination on this legislation. "`- . - - `- .` -
PAGENO="0328"
322
The drive for this legislation, of course, comes about because of
the fact there is a demand for some kind of universal criteria for
registration, especially in Federal elections. In other words, the States,
of course, have the right and the duty to write election laws for the
various States. But in the Federal elections there is, as you know, an
almost universal demand for something, whether it be post card regis-
tration or some other means of having a universal rule for the registra-
tion for Federal elections.
The, complaint that is coming before this committee has been that
tthere are so much differences in the various State laws that persons
who happen to move in between an election, Federal election especially,
just don't even bother registering because they find there are so many
details. What they are looking for is some simplified method of
registering so they can vote although they may be in transit or some-
place away from home on election day. I don't think we can apply
the same rule to local elections.
There is one thing that is sure at least: In our history of fraudulent
elections there is usually complicity with the public officials at one
point or another in the fraud. Any kind of law we pass will certainly
not prohibit that kind of fraudulent action I don't think we c'm
r~ally wipe out fraudulent actions and illegal procedures., but we
can make~ I think, an attempt to make it possible for indivdiuals who
want to vote.
It is a peculiar thing, but you will notice while we complain about
the number of voters that stay away from polls, I thipk when the
chairman, Mr. Hays, had. the Austr~lia~i Premier before the committee
he told us the only way they got around to having everybody vote
that could vote was to put on a penalty for not voting That is strong
action. Would you suggest that?
Mr. BUTLER. No. I think a penalty for nonvoting is inappropriate..
I would be reluctant to do that. `
In response to your earlier question about a univei sal registi ation
standard, I don't knqw that it is altogether desirable we have a univer-
sal simple form across the Nation.
I would like to suggest that the States are making real progress
on their own and we have made tremendous pi ogress in Virgini't in
simplify ing our registration procedures We are really the daddy of
them all when it comes to throwing up bstacles *t~. registration. We
used to have the poll tax~ That didn't go voluntarily but it went. We
used to have what we called the blank piece of paper registration. We
had constitutional requirements about the information you had to
give when you registered, and the applicant for registration would be
given a blank piece of paper and be told, "All right, fill this out and
put in all information we need." And if they . didn't complete that
infOrmation, `they weren't allowed to register.
All of that sort of thing is gone in Virginia, and we have cleaned
up the election laws and are improving our registration procedures;
We have a centralized registration process now that is' computerized,
and it is tied to the social security numbers. We have got purging
processes `where we are cleaning, all of this up. We are doing very well
on our'own'in' Virginia. I think all of the States are.
Mr. HAYS. 1\Till the gentleman yield'? ` ` . S
PAGENO="0329"
323
Mr. DENT. Chairman Hays.
Mr. HAYS. I am glad to hear you say that, Mr. Butler, because I
was a resident, not official resident but I lived in Virgina 13 of the
25 years I have been here. When I lived out there it was a constant
hassle on the part of my neighbors to get eligible to vote. As I recall
it you not only had a poll tax but you had to register months and
months before the election, before anybody was thinking about it.
Mr. BUTLER. True.
Mr. I-lAYS. There were just all sorts of obstacles and consequently
there were fewer votes cast in the whole State of Virginia sometimes
than there were in my congressional district.
Mr. BUTLER. Yes, sir.
Mr. HAYS. What do you about registration now? How long before
the election is the last date for registration? Do you have various
places you can register? Tell us a little about the improvements you
have made.
Mr. BUTLER. I think I will let Mrs. Mahan respond to that if I ma
since that is her job. She is secretary of our State board of elections.
I will let her respond to that if she will.
Mrs. MAIJAN. Mr. Chairman, the registration procedure in Virginia.
you can go to a local registrar's office. There is one in every county and
city in the Commonwealth of Virginia. We have 134 different locali-
ties. Virginia has independent cities. Those offices are open in most
cases 5 days a week. They are open three Saturdays before an election,
before the books close, which is 30 days `prior to the election. They
have night hours.
The registrars go to libraries and~~ sit in evening hours and on Satur-
days, in some places firehouses, anft do the same thing. There are some
mobile units in the more populated areas, mainly Fairfax County now.
They do go into the high schools to register the members of the senior
class that would be eligible agewise.
We think we have opened up registration procedures in Virginia,
and I am frankly proud of what we have done.
Mr. HAYS. I am glad to hear it. As I said, when I lived out there I
was appalled. I suppose you might be shocked to know probably half
of the people in Ohio can go vote without registering at all. You sim-
ply walk into a polling place and vote. In a a rural area there are six
people there, and they know everybody who walks through the door
and know whether you belong there or not. We don't have all of'this
hassle to go through. And it is appalling to me who has never been
registered in my life to find this. I understand registration because we
have it in every city over 15,000 in Ohio, but 1 found you had to go
through the shocking procedure we used to have in Virginia. Of course
it was apparent to me in those days the attitude of' State Officials was
to keep as many people from voting `as humanly possible.'
Mrs. MAIIAN. I agree that was true. There still is a little bit of that
left from some officials that have been there for many years. We cer-
tainly are working with those people to try to impress upon them that
everyone does have the right to register and vote in Virginia and they
should serve those people. `~ ` ` ` ` ` "
Mr. HAYS. When you go outsid.e.the election board-headquarters in
the county or city is that widely-advertised ~ ` ` `
20-695-73---22
PAGENO="0330"
324
Mrs. MAHAN. It is required to be advertised at least 10 days in ad-
vance and also be posted at the courthouse or city hail as the case may
be.
Mr. BUTLER. In response to our low voter turnout in Virginia, dur-
ing the same period we didn't have a strong two-party system, and
there wasn't any real competition at the polls in many instances.
Whether you agree whether this is progress or not, there are more
election contests now than in those days.
Mr. HAYS. I regret the Republicans have as many voters in Virginia
as they do. I have to overlay that with my deep feeling that we ought
to have as much voter participation as possible. My ancestors having
come from Virginia-and I know a lot about Virginia history-I feel
when this phase passes the Virginians will become more enlightened
as time goes on.
Mr. BUTLER. That is a risk we have to take.
Mr. DENT. At this point I would like to present for the record the
statistics we have on your State: At this moment-the 1972 election-
3.197,000 eligible voters; actual voters were 45 percent of that, 1;437,-
000. However, you averaged 2,107,000 which is about 66 percent of
your total eligible voter list, and I think that is pretty good percent-
age. Of those that were registered to vote you voted 68.7 percent
which is a little bit better than the average in the country. So evi-
dently you are making some headway in the participation of voters in
the elections.
Mr. BUTLER. In response to that it is going to be better. It takes a
while for people that never voted to get in the habit of voting. It is
the same way with 18-year-olds. We suddenly opened up that group.
I expect that percentage to increase rapidly.
Mr. DENT. Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. DENT. Mr. Frenzel.
Mr. FRENZEL. Thank you very much~ Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your testimony, Congressman Butler a~id Mrs.
Mahan.
I would like to ask Mr. Butler, you indicated the Los Angeles
County problem of their post card survey and purge which prohibited
some people from voting. I simply recall for the other members of the
conimittee that this subcommittee sat in judgment of a contest that
overlapped into that particular county. And one of the bases for the
protests was that a large number of voters had been disenfranchised
through the post card purge or ha4 been confused by the post card
operation. When they presented themselves at the polls, they weren't
able to vote.
The testimOny we had last week from the assistant secretary of
state in Missouri and the gentleman from the National League of
Municipalities indicated their belief that, particularly if we had a
Federal post card system and a State system that was otherwise, quite
possibly under this bill many people would belie~e they were regis-
t~red~ `and when' they presented themselves at the polls they might well
be registered to vote for their Federal offices within their State, which
is likely to be no more than three every fourth year and sometimes
only one, the Congressman~ but they might well be ineligible to vote
PAGENO="0331"
325
for th~ hordes of local officials whose actions affect their daily lives
probably in a far more important manner to them. Is this what you
are driving.at?
Mr. BUTLER. I think, yes, sir. That is a fair statement.
Mr. FRENZEL. Mrs. Mahan, would you comment on that situation
if the Federal post card system is adopted and the State maintains its
own system? The post cards go out, a chap mails back the post card,
he has it in his hand. Some sectiOn says that possession of that post
card gives him an inalienable right to vote. I-Ic walks in to vote.
He votes for Caldwell Butler and the judge says, "Wait, you are not
registered to votein any State elections." Is'that sort of thing possible
do you think?
Mrs. MAHAN. It is possible in Virginia, Congressman. It would
cause great confusion at the polls. It would require us to maintain
.a dual registration system. WTe are very proud of what I think Con-
gressman Butler referred to, what we term our central registration
system. It is an automated recordkeeping system that will be in full
effect for the first time in this November election,, when we will be
having a gubernatorial election. We are one of few States that have
off -year elections. ~. . . .,
This system is based on the use, as far as identification is concerned,
of social security numbers for; identification purposes, name, and
~address. .. . . .
If for instance, in order. to match duplications we have to have the
exact name information in the same format'or our system is no good.
We have put a lot of time, effort, and money into this system. We are
very proud of it and we hope lots of our States will follow ourlead.
Mr. FRENZEL. The people from Missouri, the assistant secretary of
state and chairman of their house committee that deals with elections,
indicated if this bill passed, Missouri~ would not accept the option,
would not take the 30-percent blood money, as they described it, to
change their State system, but would go to a dual system. If you are
SO proud of your system, would you speculate for u~ to what the Co~m-
monwealth of Virginia would d& given that problem? Would yOu keep
your system or take the 30 percent and try to have a unified system?
Mrs. MAHAN. At this time I would say the inclination of the general
assembly would be to operate a dual system.
Mr. .FRENZEL. Do you substantiate that, Mr. Butler?
:Mr. BUTLER. Yes, I would think that would be. I think we can ac-
cept that pretty quickly. This system is working and we doh't want
to mess it up~ `,` , .
We had some dual registration before you might tell about.
Mrs. MAHAN. We cannot req.uire registration in order to implement
this. system. We did it by the local registrars updating their records,
to the best of their ability providing the proper information `that is
now required by our new constitution such as complete name and com-
plete address, so forth. We did come `across thousands and' thousands
of duplications within the same' county or city as well as `within the
ommonw.ealth. It has been very enlightening.
There was no intent' to commit fraud or deceptioi~ of any `kind on
the part of theseS people, but they `moved. They moved around five
times. They were registered in five precincts but the' books had i~ever
PAGENO="0332"
326
been purged. This gives great opportunity to open it to people who~
would misrepresent themselves in Virginia.
We do not have a signature law. Iii other words, you are not requireft
to sign your name when you come to the poils to vote. You are not re~
quired to show any kind of identification whatsoever.
Mr. HAYS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRENZEL. Yes.
Mr. HAYS. Surnose you come in to vote. You say you are not required
to show any identification. Can anyone challenge you.?
Mrs. MAHAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. HAYS. Then what is the procedure to challenge? Do you then
have to provide identification?
Mrs. MAHAN. You sw-ear under oath that you are John Smith and.
live at this address and have lived there within the last 30 days.
Mr. HAYS. In Ohio we have to sign the poil book before we get'the'
ballot.,
Mrs. MAHAN. You do in quite a few States.
Mr. HAYS. This makes it much less likely you are going to vote in
two precincts. You have to sign your name. You have three Republi-
cans and three Democrats on each precinct board, and any one of them
has a right to challenge you and invite you to produée identification.
That is why we have in the rural areas no registration and no fraud.
Mr. FRENZEL. I think that, is a good point, and I would refer to you
sectiOn 405 (c) of the bill which indicates that the possession of a
registratiOn form indicating the individual i~ entitled to vote in the
election should he prima fa~ie evic'ence the individual is a qualffied and
registered elector entitled to vote in any such election. Other language
in other pla~es of the bill.
It seems to me the bill would prphibit your poil watchers from
executing a challenge `if the guy came in with post card in hand. Is
that your' interpretation'?
Mrs. MAHAN. I'would say so, Congressman.
Mr. FRENZEL. I have asked a number of people about this section of
the bill because it has been of great concern to me, and I think various
people have answered it in different ways. I don't know whether this
is vague or that I simply can't understand it. It seems Once a guy has
his card in h'and there is no power On earth that can keep him from
caSting a ballot at least in Federal elections, ei en though he may be
a nonresident, adien or n creature from outer space i~ `an educated n~an.
That is one of `the~ thinEs that seems to `bother me a little ,bit. `Do
you see `my other aclmimstr'itn e difficulties Mrs Mah'mn, in the
execution? *```, `"`
Mrs MAlI ~ Yes Congressman, I do Quite fi `mnkly, as Congress
man Butler mentioned in his present'mtion the nersonal cont'ict between
registrar and applicant' is. most important.. I foresee `all sorts, of prob-
lems with post card registration mainly beciuse of incomplete names,
the n i ting not being legible `md incomplete `mddress
Let me give youan example aboutTwhat.addresses can do.
Post office addresses do not necessarily identify city or county of
the resident, and it is absolutely necessary under the concept of one
man, one vote to have a person registered and ~ oting in his p1 opei
pre.cinct'or congressiOnal district. .1 `` . "` ~, ```
PAGENO="0333"
327
I ~would like to give you an example of an address `problem we. would
have in Virginia in nearby Stafford County. The rural. route 1 and
rural route 2 Stafford, Va., cover both the Seventh and Eighth Con-
gressional Districts. All of the post office boxes are on one side of the
road. There is no way of identifying. The line between the congres-
sional district goes `down the center of the road. There is no way to
identify from a post card which side of the road that particular person
lives on. Box 10 is right next to box 11. It does not necessarily mean
they are on opposite sides of the rOad.
To further complicate this particular situation, these two rural
route numbers are also in different magisterial districts as well as
across different precinct lines. Route 1 is the magisterial district
known as Griffiths Widewater in the Eighth Congressional District of
Virginia. It also crosses into Rock Hill District which is also in the
Eighth District. Route 2 is in the Aquira district in the Seventh Con-
gressional District. It also goes into Rock Hill District which is in `the
Eighth Congressional District. If you notice, Rock Hill District and
Eighth Congressional District has both rural route 1 and rural route
2 which goes into two other districts. This gives a horrendous prob-
lem in identifying where a voter: should be placed.
Mr. FRENZEL. We had the same situation brought up last week by
the man from Missouri.
How about the i'dea of receiving these `applications? We `have a
letter from the secretary of state .`in Wyoming. He says 25 percent of
the written registration forms even when they are filled out under the
eye of the clerk are incomplete in some respects.
Mrs. MAHAN. Correct.
Mr. FRENZEL. If you get a post card back-and remember we are
talking about trying to benefit the disadvantaged, ill iterate, foreign
spea.king, et cetera. If you get a post card back, what kind of trouble
is there going to `be to try to decipher it `to check it against your cur-
rent rolls and to determine whether Caidwell M. Butler is really the
C. M. Butler already registered or whether it is his son just turned
18 or whatever. You are going to have to make phone calls anyway.
Mrs. MAHAN. Yes, especially if they `don't know their birth date,
which is true in a lot of cases. They a~bsolutely do not know the year
or month. Usually they know the month but not the year in which
they were born. All of these kind of things are used for identification
purposes. Also we use a section code. For instance, Shirley Jones is not
a Miss Shirley Jones, it is Mrs. All of these kind of things can take
place.
Mr. FRENZEL. How do'you check them in your registration? The guy
left the office and got a bum card. Do you call him?
Mrs. MAHAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. FRENZEL. I understand 1Z percent of the phones in the Greater
Washington area are unlisted. What `do you do in that case?
Mrs. MAHAN. A letter is written asking ,them to reply `by return
mail with the necessary information he missed. Quite frankly with
the registra.r right there there. is very little inforrn~tiOii missed. For
instance, they have a map of the locality `right there. ` The applicant
is asked to go t.o the i~iap and point out exactly where. he or she. lives,
In that way the registrar can ,:determine what precinct to put that
PAGENO="0334"
328
person in, where he actually lives. He-also is able to asce.rt.aim all of
the necessary information.
Mr. FRENZEL. Is there anything to prevent me, if I am a Democrat
from getting a handful of these cards at the local post office and filling
in the names of all of my Republican friends with different addresses
than they currently have?
Mr. HAYS. Or if you are a. Republican.
Mr. DENT. How come you always wear the white hat.
Mrs. MAHAX. There is nothing to prevent that.
Mr. FRENZEL. You couldn't..
Mrs. MAHAX. I wouldn't know how. Again, I would not. think that.
was an intent to commit fraud but. more of a-
Mr. FRENZEL. Dirty trick?
Mrs. MAHAN. Exactly.
Mr. FRENZEL. The point I am trying to make, and I think I am
reinforcing what you and Congressman Butler have said, is that
when you get au-a from face-to-face re~istrat.ion von are likely to be
on dangerous ground.
Mrs. MAHAX. Yes.
Mr. FRENZEL. There would be. likely fraud possibilities or plain acl~
ministra.tive problems.
Mrs. MAHAX. I agree wit.h you.
J\Ir. FRENZEL. Thank you very much.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Mat.his. -
Mr. MATHIS. Very briefly I would direct a. quest.ion to Mrs. Mahan..
Of the percenta.ge of total voters in Virginia who are not registered~
potential eligible voters not registered, how wOuld you categOrize
these? New to Virginia or low income, or could you put t:hem in a
category? .
Mrs. MAHAN. From general observation, in my opinion I feel that
Virginia may be a little bit unique as fa.r as the census figures are
concerned. IVe do.have the northern Virginia area. which is a; Federal-
impacted area a.s well as what we call the t.idewa.ter area around the
Norfolk Naval Base shipyards. These people that live in these areas
are not necessarily residents of Virginia.. They are residents of other
St.ates. They like to vote where it really counts and means something
t.o them. Consequently I do feel that. the population figures of Virginia
do not necessarily truly represent the residents of Virginia. and there-
fore I think our percentage of registrants probably is a little higher
than maybe in some other States.
Mr. MATHIS. How often do you purge your rolls in Virginia?
Mrs MAHAN. Under the central registration system we will do it
automatically once every 4 years. If someone hasn't voted in a 4-year
cycle, they will be automatically purged or dropped from the rolls. The-
general assembly felt that if a. person didn't vote in a 4-year time-
cycle, he probably was no longer there at that particular residence..
This is one way we purge.
Registrars also have the authority to purge the book a.t. the present
time. In fact, it is their duty. When it comes to their attention people
have moved, they notify those people the should chan~e their regis-
tration to the p'ace of their new residence. That is done by legal
PAGENO="0335"
329
procedure in which the person who is to be purged is given an op-
portunity to present himself to appeal that decision.
Mr. MATHIS. I think in the series of witnesses that have appeared
before this committee we have found philosophical outlooks as to
where the burden for actually registering voters be placed, whether it
should be on the Government to get them to register or whether the
inividual citizen should have the responsibility to go down and reg-
ister and then go vote. If you understand what I mean, do you think
the responsibility should lie on the individual citizen or on the Gov-
ernment?
Mrs. MAHAN. Quite frankly, I think it is the citizen's responsibility
to take an interest in their Government, to take an interest in their
own well-being. I also think it is a right and a privilege in this
country not to vote, as well as it is a right to vote. I don't think people
should be forced.
* Mr. MATmS. Thank you very much.
Mr. DENT. Thank you.
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Frenzel.
Mr. FRENzEL. Last week I asked unanimous consent of the com-
mittee to publish a poll which I had taken of Secretaries of State of
the United States, in which I gave them four questions: Whether
they thought the post card system was a better alternative; whether
they preferred their current system; whether they felt at a given cost
there was another better system; or whether any of the systems would
be acceptable. I asked for unanimo~is consent to put that poll in the
record and I would like to make the same request and put that into
the record of the hearings. But I would like to ask Mrs. Mahan. since
she is here, about the poll.
As a ińatter of fact I had 38 responses, aiid of those, 3 said that
they would prefer the post card registration in the bill; 29 said they
preferred their current registration system, 7 said they thought at a
given cost there were better ways to do it than ~he post card system;
and 3 indicated that any old system would be fine with them.
In your discussions with your peers from other States do you feel
that poll is somewhere near right?
Mrs. MAHA~. Very definitely. I think it probably reflects an accu-
rate opinion of the election officials from the 50 States.
Mr. FRENzEL. Thank you.
Mr. DENT. Without objection your request is granted. I might ob-
serve you have about the same percentage of response we get in regis-
tration. **
Mr.. FRENZEL. Thirty-eight out of fifty. Three-quarters. That is
enough to amend the Constitution.
[The poll will he found on page 155, of this hearing.]
Mr. DENT. Mr. Hays.
Mr. HAYS. You say you have a mechanized system. Is that com-
puterized? .
Mrs. MAHAN. Yes:.
Mr. HAYS. I assume you send out a list to the precincts of ~eople
eligible to vote? ., . . . .
Mrs. MAHAN. That is right. . * . . . .
PAGENO="0336"
330
Mr. HAYS. How far ahead of election?
Mrs. MAHAN.. Those lists of registered voters for each precinct in
alphabetical order must be in the hands of local election officials 10
days prior to the election.
Mr. HAYS. When do you close your books?
Mrs. MAHAN. Thirty days. The timeframe is very restrictive. We
have a lot of work to do in a very short time.
Mr. HAYS. Having had a little experience lately with computers,
I wish you well and hope it doesn't break down.
Mrs. MAHAN. Thank you.
Mr. HAYS. If it does, you may not have a registration list at all.
Mrs. MAHAN. `We took that into consideration, Congressman. `We
have a backup system. I wouldn't recommend any kind of computer-
ized system without manual records-cards that can be sent to the
poll for every registered voter on the list.
Mr. DENT. We have purges every 2 years, which I think is a little
foolish. We find out we purge and repurge the same people. In other
words, they go out and get them after they have been purged and
drag them in to be registered and get a card, and get them registered
illegally. But it is done. Then we find 2 years later they didn't vote
anyway. So we go get them again. You can't just force people to vote.
Mrs. MAHAN. No, you really can't. I think there is a terrible apathy.
I don't really feel, Mr. Chairman, that post card registration is the
answer to low voter turnout. I think there has to be an educational
process of the voters in wanting to come to the polls to vote.
~\ {r. HAYS. Mr. Dent, perhaps you and I should have a little private
conference, because in the two towns in my county where we have reg-
istration we had over 97 percent of the registered voters at the polls.
You see getting them registered is one phase. And then you go back
and get them to the polls. We have found that any technique that
will get them to go register and go through that ritual in the first
place~ you don't need that much techniques to get them to go mark the
ballot.
Mr. DENT. You have a very fine district. We have two lists in most
congressional districts-one you don't get to the polls and one that you
do. He gets 97 percent. I don't.
Mr. HAYS. I was talking about 97 percent of the registered Demo-
crats. I don't bother hauling anybody else around.
Mr. DENT. Let me thank you on behalf of the committee. You have
both been very good witnesses and we appreciate your very frank
exnression of your position.
Mr. BumuR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy.
Mr. DENT. The next witness is Ridley Whitaker, former executive
director of the Student Vote, Inc., `Washington, D.C. We are happy
to have von as a witness.
STATEMENT OF RIDLEY WHITAKER, FORMER EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, THE STUDENT VOTE, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mi'. WHITAKER. Thank you~ Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman~ I have a full statement which I have submitted for
the record. I am going to summarize it.
Mr. DENT. Without objection, it will appear in the record.
PAGENO="0337"
331
Mr. WHITAKER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I wish to
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name
is iRidley Whitaker and I served as executive director of the Student
Vote, a tax-exempt, nonpartisan voter registration foundation.
The Student Vote conducted voter registration in over 35 States dur-
ing `a period of 15 months and received well over $1 million in support
of its activities. Originally, the Student Vote was conceived as an or-
ganization committed to aid in the registration of 25 million young
persons eligible for enfranchisement as a result of the passage of the
26th amendment.
However, `as our activities progressed it became increasingly ap-
parent that there was virtually no way to selectively target students
and working class youth be~ause of the differing voter registration
laws at the State and local level. States varied in their laws allowing
college students to register on campus. Further, in some areas it was
very difficult to secure mobile registration sites in places normally fre-
quented by young people. Thus, we did not confine our activities in
voter registration solely to students and `working class youth. In order
to comply with varying registration procedures and standards, our
activities involved the population as a whole. Judging by our field re-
ports at least one-third of our registrations, were persons over the age
of 30.
Therefore, the recommendations for change, as presented in my testi-
mony today, are based on the Student Vote's experiences with all
aspects of the voter registration process as it affects all segments of the
population.
A major concern of those who are committed to the democratic sys-
tem is the comparatively low electoral participation in even the coun-
try's presidential elections. In 1972 only slightly more than one out of
`two potentially eligible voters cast ballots in the November election.
Among the nonvoters, by far the largest group was composed of men
and women who had failed to register in advance and therefore were
not eligible to vote on election day.
The potential voter must contend with a maze of varying rules and
procedures before he can register~ to vote. In effect, a system which is
supposed to maximize participation in the governance of this Nation
has resulted in restricting the size of the electorate. Among all major
western democracies, the United States has the worst record of exercise
of the franchise, a fact which can be directly correlated to an unj usti-
fiably low percentage of registered voters (see appendix A attached
hereto).~ Of the 82 million Americans registered to vote in 1968, 73 mil-
lion or 89 percent actually voted on election day). In 1972, 82 percent
of all registered persons voted in the Presidential election, but among
all eligible voters only 60 percent cast ballots.
This discouraging downward trend is very disturbing and demands
immediate remedial action. Soon after the election the Student Vote
commissioned Daniel Yankolovich, Inc., to assay our present voter
registration system in the belief that specific problem areas needed to
be clearly defined before appropriate corrective action could be taken
(`see appendix B, explanation of study and methodology). In response
to the conclusions of the Yankolovich study and the Student Vote's
own experiences, I make the following recommendations concerning a
PAGENO="0338"
332
new system of voter registration-one that will simply and efficiently
maximize the numbers of Americans who participate in the electoral
process.
This system should include (1) elimination of voter registration in
25 iiercent of 33 percent of all areas of the country, (2) prepaid reg-
istration post cards mailed to each mailing address in the United
States, (3) prepaid registration post cards mad~ `available at govern-
mental facilities and to community groups interested in voter regis-
tratioii~
Elimination of voter registration in 25 to 33 percent of all areas in
the couiitry.
`The `primary reason for votei~ registration is the prevention of fraud.
In North Dakota and' in parts of other States there. is no requirement
for registratioii and no fraud has resulted. The common' characteris-
tic of lill these locales is that they are rural in character with resultant
low population densities. In `stich a place the chances for fraud on
election day are minimal because the citizens of that area all know
their neighbors aiid hence who is and who i~ not qualified to vote. It
has been estiiiiated that 25 to 33 percent of all counties would fall into
such a category (although the numbers of people involved would be
a somewhat lower percentage).
Prepaid registration post cards mailed to each mailing address in
the Uiiited States.
The great mass of registration could be accomplished in this man-
nei~. The registrant would mail the card to the election official in the
county of his voting residence who would cuter the registrant's name
on the voting rQlls.
Prepaid `registratiou post cards made avai1ab~e at governmental f a-
cilities and to community groups interested in voter registration.
Not everyone actually receives mail that is delivered to a mailing
address. Even when they do, there is a tendency on the part of many
citizens (especially among the poor and minorities) to simply discard
governmental forms. Therefore, by having these forms readily avail-
able at public places, the opportunity for registering to vote is maxi-
mized. The same end is also accomplished by furnishing forms to
voter registration groups. In effect, `members of these groups then
become deputy registrars who can go wherever unregistered voters
are likely to be found.
In considering these procedural reforms, one must also take into
account the cost of such a system and whether or not the likelihood
of fraud would be substantially increased. The specter of exorbitant
cost is not grounded `in fact. The Director of the census has estimated
that. it would only cost the Federal Government $30 million to admin-
ister a system similar to that proposed here.
In comparison, to reach the same results under the present system
would require an additional expenditure of $70 million (using our own
`extremely good cost ratio of 50 cents a registrant as `a guide) by pri-
STate groups, and untold additional expense to local election officials.
Viewed from the point of cost benefit analysis, it is clear that although
the total cost to the Federal Government of a reformed voter regis-
tration system might go up slightly, the cost per new registrant should
go down.
PAGENO="0339"
333
As for fraud, it is dou~btful that ~raud would be widespread imder
~he proposed system if for no other reason than the people are basically
;honest. Even the current system would quickly break down' if tliis~
`were not so. Further, we believe that State laws presently in effect con-
cerning fraud, challenging of voters, and purging of rolls are suf-
~ficient to insure the integrity of the ballot even under the proposedi
system. If, however, it is felt that additional safegtmrds are needed,,
we would suggest two things: ~``
1. Publication of voting rolls.-By making the voting rolls public
information, and by providing them `at no charge to the political
parties, we can facilitate the utilization of the existing safeguards
`~~t~nst rraud Additionally, hi ow ledge of this will `ict as a deteiient
against fraudulent registration iii the first: place. Canada has used such
a system with great Success.
2. Two-part registration postcards.-The applicant would fill out
rand mail both parts of the card, sending it to the appropriate election
official. The election official would add the I'egistrant's name to the
voting rolls and,return one part of the card to the registrant with an
admonition to the postman to "Return to Sender-Do Not Forward.'~
~Thi's would provide the registr~nt with proof that his name had been
`a.ddod to the rolls while' at the same time insuring that the registrant
:a,c ally did live at his claimed residence. `
The Y'tnl olovich Study on Votem Re2sti'itlon, which is presented
in Pflrt in the following pages; provid~s ` valuable insights' intO `the
irohiems associated with the present. syStem of voter registration.
I ~mould `idd here, iepresentm~ `i t i~ exempt nonpartis'tn oig'iniz'i
tion, I `am not speaking directly to' any specific piece of' legislation but
am making general recommendations.
~ know about 71 percent of all eligible voter~ are registered..
Thirty-eight percent of those voted for President and 13 percent did
not. vote for President. Two percent voted for President but not on
the Presidential line.. Eleven percent didn't vote in 1972.
Of the 29 percent `not registered, 12 percent would definitely have
iroted in 1979 if they had been registered. Nine percent probably would
~avo voted in 1972 if they had been registered, and 8 percent were~
`not. interested in voting in 1972. ,: ` , ` . ` `
About 60 `percent of the country's potential electorate actually cast'
their ballots for the President. of the United States. By far the; largest
number of lost votes belonged to. "men and women who could not vote
on election day even if they so desired-as they were not previously
registered according to the htws of'their States and'counties, and there-
foi~. were not. eligible to vote. . .
Mr. DENT. At that point, in this questionnaire did you ask wh~ they
we~en't registeredl? Did anybody put. that questiOn ?
Mr. WHITAKER. Yes. I can go ,: at the study that way or answer the
question.
Mr. DENT. Answer the question.
Mr. WHITAKER. We asked questions whether people felt they weren't
registered because the.y `didit't kn6w about registration times and' p1 aces
or whether the~ were not `idmitted to registr'ition sites when they
went to the registration sites, or `whether the place of registration was
inconvenient or not easily `accessible. WTe covered these kinds of' ques-'
tions in the poll.
PAGENO="0340"
334
The poll included a sample of 3,100 Americans, which is statistically
very identifiable in methodological terms. Normally 1,000 isan average.
We wanted 3,100 there so there was no question of* authority.
Mr~ MATrns. You said 12 percent would have voted.
Mr. WHITAKER. Would definitely have voted. Nine percent would
probably have voted.
Mr. MATHIS. That is of the total who were not registered?
Mr. WHITAKER. That is correct, 29 percent.
Mr. MkriiIs. Twenty-nine percent of the total eligibles?
Mr. WHITAKER. Right.
Mr. MATHIS. What is that in figures?
Mr. WHITAKER. Probably about 30 million people.
If you refer to page 9 of my testimony we have, registered versus
nonregistered eligible voters in a table.
Just to summarize it briefly, we find that only 31 percent of all
registered voters have an education below the eighth grade. But 50
percent of nonregistered voters have an eighth-grade education and
below. Thus nonregistered voters tend to be less educated than reg-
istered voters.
Further, 32 percent of nonregistered voters are under the age of 24.
I want to summarize my testimony because I feel there are questions
the committee may want to ask concerning the methodology of the
study and particular aspects of its results.
One of the clear expectations of the youth vote was its beneficial
effect on the McGovern candidacy. Perhaps one of the most remark-
ably striking conclusions of the study is that there is basically no
difference in ideology, on a national sample. between nonregistered
and registered voters. Of the total registered voters 20 percent con-
sider themselves liberals and 19 percent of the nonregistered consider
themselves liberal.
Fifty-three p~rcent of the registered and 58 percent of the non-
registered consider themselves middle of the road. Twenty-seven per-
cent of the registered voters consider themselves conservative and 23
percent of the nonregistered. Basically there is no difference in the
total eligible electorate versus the registered electorate. If everybody
had been registered and voted in 1972, the outlook of the election would
have been basically the same.
Mr. DENT. If that is true, then what would be the gain, if any. of
registering everybody in the country, 100-percent voter registration,
if the results would be the same?
You take a 3.000-man poll and von take a 1,000-man poii and tell
us what is going to happen in the country. If that is a fact, and it ap-
parentl'v is from your experience and your testimony-
Mr. WHITAKER. Right.
Mr. DENT. Then what would it have availed you if you would have
taken a poll of 31,000, 310,000, 3.100.000?
Mr. WIIITAKER. Absoluteiy nothing.
Your question seems to be in two parts: What would be the advan-
tage of registering everybody to vote and having them voting? I w-as
just talking about the Presidential election, Federal election of the
President. We determined through our study that most people feel
their vote counts most on the local level. So in terms of what would
PAGENO="0341"
335~
be the potential effect of the. electorate increased by approximately
35 million, these might well be a significant influence on local and
State elections. `Also it must be remenThered that the 1972 presidential
election was an unusual one.
Mr. DENT. And had some unusual incidents too.
Mr. WI-ITTAKER. That is correct. It also was not a typical election
year in terms of coalition voting. I don't have to go over that for the
committee.
From our standpoint we are for a' system which allows for full elec-
`toral participation because we believe the American citizen has the
right to vote and the right to vote does not only apply on Federal elec-
tions bit to State and local elections, and school bonding issues, et
cetera. This is where the electoral turnout is low.
Mr. DENT. Would you think there is a greater opportunity for
fraud. At present students at college away from home may vote and
register at that college with a post card registration. Would there
be a~ temptation to register also back home and vote by absentee
`ballot? `
Mr. WHITAKER. I can't speak to that on t'he crisis of my experience.
Mr. DENT. WTould there have to "be a. safeguard if we do pass post
card registration against absentee voting by' the same person? Would
you allow absentee voting with absentee registration ~
Mr. WHITAKER. We have the same system today, Mr. Chairman. I
am not a college student, but. I coPici register where I live in Trenton,
N.J., and I could also register in New York-State. That is no problem.
Mr. DENT. That is true but somewhere along the line you have to
present yourself in person. . " --
Mr. WHITAKER. That is correct. ` ` "
Mr. DENT. You can't stop two registrations. But there is such a mat-
ter as conscience. A person that doesn't register must lack a certain
amount of conscience toward registering. If he does, he would be prone
to accept the w~y out method of double registration and so on. He
dbesn't care.
Mr. WHITAKER. Mr. Chairman. `I take issue with your statement
that people who don't register to vote somehow don't want to register
to vote. There are plenty of situations in this country, and also expe-
riences I have had with the voter registration system across the country,
where there was definite obstruction on the part of local registrars to
increase electoral participation.
Take as an example' what post, card registration would do for the
city of Newark where there is a 50- to 55-percent registration rate.
There is normally only one place to register in Newark. That is city
hall.
`Mr. DENT: I disagree with that kind of `operation. But you must' also
take a position on the rfexas post card registration which has been in
existence for years and t'hey have less voter participation than I have in
my district. ,:
- Mr. WHITAKER. I was interested in the Texas experience- in terms
of our organization down t'here. We found it is the most efficient and
cheapest registration system we encountered, by virtue of the fact it
was basically a coupon registration system. What they have i~ ~a little
different than post card registration. -
PAGENO="0342"
336
We.:~onid basically get anybody to be a. deputy registrar. The-
~potenti~aliEor ~o1untcer work was greatly increased. We established.
:ar~ indigenous ~oter registration group throughout the State, specifi-
cally in Dallas, Houston, and found we could register a voter for~
a cheap tS cents.
Mr. Di~T~ I don~t quarrel with that but where it was what is the
percentage voting of those registered ? It doesn't compare with other-
~arts of the country on the number voting there.
Mr. IVI-uTAKER. There are variables in any election over which the'
~institutionai setup has no control. The relative popularity of the
(candidates whether it is a referendum election and the particular issues
of a specific general election. I am not aware of the specifics of internal
~State politics in Texas.
Mr. DENT. This was a national election I am talking about and it
was contained in the records. I would be glad to send you the testimony.
Mr. WHITAKER. It was a pretty dead national election. I am not.
going to defend the idea we have to somehow prove the post card~
registration bill is going to necessarily increase election participationt
in the country. IVe should concern ourselves with whether or not it
Is going to make it easier for the American citizen to exercise the
franchise, the right to vote. The present voter registration svstem~
throughout the country just doesn't work. There are enough instances-
in the country where local registrars have so much discretionary power
that they can do registration where they want, when they want and they~
can register who they want. That is the basic problem. Post card~
registration although it is not nirvana~ is an improvement. I .wanteft
to give you an example vis-a-vis the Newark experience. There was
normally only one place to register in town, the city hail. It is a $1.40
bus fare, and hour ride from parts of Newark down to city hail. 1Ve-~
applied for mobile registration sites from the commissioner of elec-
tions who is a Republican in a Democratic county in a Democratic city-
becai~se he is appointed by the Governor. I am not just using a-.
Republican as an example because there are plently of Democrats who---
have obstructed voter registration. We applied for mobile registra-
tion sites. IVe got three good ones all summer. Then the board of
elections announced they were going to do deputy registration. Where -
did they do it? In Short Hills, one of the most affluent counties in the
country, not in Newark. This kind of discretionary power by a board
of elections is typical.
Post card registration on the Federal level says OK~ we don't have -
to go to people who serve at the pleasure of local politicians for ap-
proval to register more voters. `We can basically organize ourselves in
terms of volunteer man-hours and go out and do deputy registration.
I submit to you-that most secretaries of States are simply creatures of
their. St-ate political system. Most county election officials are creatures
of their county electorial system. S *.
Mr. DENT. So is democracy.
Mr. WHITAKER. - That is an idea. I am talking about people and~
fun ct-ions. . . -
Mr. DENT. We live in it..
Mr. WT-IITAKER. I agree we live in it.. . .
Mr. DENT. It comes about because there- are elected officials by the
people.
PAGENO="0343"
337:
Mr. WI-IITAKEIi. That is cprrect.
Mi Di ~`i Bid `~s it 1S it hasn t done too b'~d1~ in less th'tn 200 ~ vns
in the face of the history of the worlcL
Mr. WIHTAKER. Mr. Chairman, I am simply trying to improve it.
Mr. DENT. We want to. That is why we are listening to all the voices.
Mr. MAThS. If the chairman would yield. You say the post card
registration bill, which this committee has under consideration, is not
the epitome of what you would like to see. What would you like to see~?
Mr. WmTAKER. No voter registration.
Mr. DENT. How is that?
Mr. WIIITATcER. No voter registration. Automatic registration.
Mr. I)ENT. That would include anybody who walks into a polling
booth?
Mr. WHITAKEE. Yes with a right to challenge. Let me go over what
Americans think. I will tell you what Americans think about the vari-
ous forms of post card registration, the various forms of voter regis-
tration reform.
Mr. DENT. How many are you talking about?
Mr. WHITAKER. I am talking : about a~ verifiable 3100 national
sample, the same kind of thing other national polling organizations
employ.
Mr. DENT. Is anyone in this rooiń in that sample, be touched by this
poll? Did you get a letter or a request to testify on this poii or give
an opinion?
Mr. WI-ITTAKER. Are yOu challeilging the method? Are you saying
the poll is inaccurate?
Mr. DENT. I am a member of the legislature, and I have been for 41
years. I challenge everything. That is how we get to the truth.
Mr. WHITAKER. I don't think the polls have been too wrong lately.
Mr. DENT. I `am not a poll taker., I predicted the last election within
100 percent. I didn't need to ta.kea'poll on that one.
Mr. WITITAKER. I guess we couldargue a;ll day.
Mr. DENT. I am not going to argue but I am saying don't say Ameri-
cans, all. You must say in truth as we have to do; 3,100 Americans
questioned felt this way about it. :Then we will have a better idea `of
what you are talking about. Just to take it as the whole American thing
I disbelieve that. ` " *`
Mr. WI-TITAKER. 3~100 Americans representing a national cross sec-
tion of America. In my case, we interviewed Americans in face-to-face
interviews, not over the telephone.
Mr. DENT. P understand .that~ .~ *` --*``
Mr. WmTAKER. We questioned them in terms of four general' open-
ended areas of voters registration reform~ The first was post card reg-
istration. ` ` -
Mr. DENT. I-low many are for that?. . - . `
Mr. WHITAKER. Fifty-five -percent of registered voters `are for it and~
69 percent of nonregistered voters are for it. We inquire about door-to-
door registration which is basically the Kennedy bill, mobile registra-
tion; 45 percent of registered voters are forit a-nd `50 percent of non-
registered voters are for it.
Mr. FRENZEL. Are these. figu're.s'~iiryour:'testimony'?' -` . ~` -` ,
Mr. WHITAKER. Yes.
Mr. DENT. What page is that?
PAGENO="0344"
338
Mr. WIIITATiER. Fifty-six percent of the nonregistered voters
thought that was a good idea. Automatic registration, which is basic-
ally no registration at all, there is a typographical error on the bottom
there.
Mr. FRENZEL. `On what?
Mr. WHITAKER. On the automatic registration. It should be 40 per-
cent thought it was a good idea, ~2 percent against, 54 percent again of
nonregistered voters thought it was a good idea, so nonregistered
vot.e~s in terms of a national sample of Americans are for, in varying
degrees, these four basic areas of reform of our voter registration sys-
tem. but a general cross section of all Americans registered and non-
registered approved the post card registration plan as it was described
to them. The study did not go into the details of the bills proposed
here and would not necessarily apply t'o the details of the bill proposed
here.
Mr. MATHIS. Mr. Dent.
Mr. DENT. Yes, Mr. Mathis.
Mr. MATrn5. If you could' yield 1 minute let me try to ascertain
the composition of this sample you are quoting here. You interviewed
both registered and nonregistered voters.
Mr. WHITAKER. That is correct.
Mr. MATHIS. What percentage breakdown do you have there?
Mr. IVI-ITTAKEn. About one-third of the sample were nonregistereci.
Mr. MATHIS. Of the 3,100?
Mr. WmTAKER. Right, about 1,000. Appendix B of my testimony ex-
plains the methodology of the study. One of the problems we had with
the stndv was the accuracy of the nonregistered sample. It is a good
thin~ to register and vote, so we wanted to be stire the people who told
us they were registered to vote' were indeed registered. In the appendix
I described how we screened that problem. We checked back' against
re2'istration lists to check the respondents name against local registra-
tion lists. Also Vankebuich did a statistical analysis of the lie factor
in the poll; 8 percent of the sample lied. That 8-percent factor was
scaled into the statistical results.
Mr. MATHIS. So actually of the nonregistered potential eligible vot-
ers. you are talking about 1,033.
Mr. WHITAKER. That is correct.
Mr. MATHIS. You said earlier you were doing a sample of 3,100 to
get away from that.
Mr. WHITAKER. No. We did a sample of 3,100 Americans total; 2,200
of those 3,100 were registered voters, 1,000 were nonregistered.
Mr. MATms. We are primarily interested here in getting to those
people who were not registered.
Mr. WHITAKER. Right.
Mr. MA'rrns. That is the kind of thing we are really interested in
that we would like to mainly have your comments on.
Mr. WHrTAKER. What we did with the nonregistereci voters, once
we had a screen on the nonregistered voters, was to break it down. We
found that' basically 10 percent of noni~egistered voters would not
vote.
Mr. MATHIS. What page is thaV? Is that' page 24?
PAGENO="0345"
339
Mr. WHITAKER. Start with page 22. What we basically did was this.
There definitely are people in the cuntry, probably 13 or 14 million
people who would not vote under any circumstances. They still
wouldn't vote, if they could even pick up a phone.
Mr. DENT. There is a large number.
Mr. WHITAKER. About 10 percent of the electorate. What we did
was break down the registered versus nonregistered voters into basic~
ally potential and disinterested vot~rs. I just described the disinter-
ested. Potential voters were that group of people-21 percent-I de-
scribed earlier who said they definitely or probably would have voted
on election day. We determined the sex, age, education, the income,
and the race of these people. This takes some examination, probably
by your staff, in terms of evaluating your bill.
Mr. DENT. We shall.
Mr. WHITAKER. Then we took potential improvements of the nature
of the electorate, that is if the potential voters were registered to vote,
who would then be voting, and we took the groups under 24 year~
of age. There would be a 6-percent increase in the total electorate
among this group less than high school graduates, 4 percent; incomes
under $7,500, 5 percent; nonwhite, 1 percent. What we found, an in-
teresting thing, is that although there are large pockets of unregis-
tered voters in urban areas, the most unregistered in terms of per-
centages, are in rural areas, so whe:n you take a national sample, you
find it wouldn't make much difference in terms of the outcome of a
national election, or in 1972 at least, if you had everybody voting,
but if you go in and get everybody registered in Newark, you are
registering 4 to 5 t~ 1 Democratic, the same thing in Detroit or St.
Louis.
Mr. DENT. I find this statistic in your testimony very illuminating.
Apparanetly $10,000 is the breakaway point for persons participating
in elections.
Mr. I~VHITAKER. What page are you referring to, sir?
Mr. DENT. I am referring to page 9. It is a very serious matter, ap-
parently 48 percent of the persons earning $7,500 a year are non-
registered.
Mr. WHITAKER. That is correct.
Mr. DENT. I doubt if any kind of a registration act would impel
these people to get to the polls. This is a question of an income prob-
lem, not a question of wanting or not wanting to register. Apparently
most of these people live in an area where a lot of people are regis-
tered. In other words, in every area where there are nonregistered
voters aren't there a lot of registered voters?
Mr. WmTAKER. No, sir. At least that has not been my experience.
Most of your high levels of nonregistration in terms of income are
occurring in your urban areas, which are identifiable as groups of
people or by levels of education or in terms of income.
Mr. DENT. How would registration of any kind help that matter?
Mr. WHITAKER. Post card registration would open up the registra-
tion process in these areas.
Mr. DENT. That is States you are talking about. Is there any system
in any State in the United States that is acceptable?
Mr. WHITAKER. To me?
20-695---73-------23
PAGENO="0346"
340
Mr. FRENZEL. North Dakota. It has no registration.
Mr. WIUTAKER. Yes. North Dakota is not a good national example.
California has a good system, good deputy registration procedures.
Mr. DENT. I think we have about as good as you can get. We have
not only visiting registration going out to every precinct two or three
times a year, and upon call will go to any place where there are two
people to register. We have a floating population of registrars that
costs us a lot of money. It is the kind of a job you ought to have when
you don't want to do much work.
Mr. WHITAKER. It is a lot of work I think. I think it is a very lonely,
very hard job.
Mr. DENT. It is lonely I wifi say that.
Mr. WHrrAKER. A very hard job. Philadelphia has a lot of registra-
tion problems.
Mr. DENT. So you are not going to cure them. You want to make it
easier and I do too, but I also want to make it harder to have fraud.
Mr. WHITAKER. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. I would submit to
you that in the urban areas of this country any fraud that is going to
take place in the electoral process is going to be contrived on the part
of public officials. If we can put registration and the right to vote back
in the hands of the people and take it out of established, entrenched,
urban political machines I think we will increase our voter participa-
tion in the country.
Mr. DENT. Every time I have had it taken out of the hands of so-
called politicians it gets into the hands of worse.
Mr. WHITAKER. Yes, well-
Mr. DENT. I have seen more fraud in reform than I have ever seen
in the ordinary political atmosphere because a true politician, mind
you, is against taxes and for services, a true politician. Remember
that always.
Mr. WHITAKER. I will try to.
Mr. DENT. You may not believe it. You are kind of young, but you
will learn.
Mr. WIIITAILER. But the strictest voter registration laws in a place
like Cook County, Chicago, rwhich I would consider one of the strict-
est areas in the country in terms of citizen participation in the voter
registration process, basically has city operated precinct registration
where there are incidences of local, prosecutable, indictable fraud and
where many indictment have been brought for electoral fraud.
Mr. DENT. I am against that, too.
Mr. WHITAKER. I think the American people are basically honest.
I am not worried about the American people.
Mr. DENT. You are not?
Mr. WHITAKER. No. I am worried about people getting into power
and trying to maintain-
Mr. DENT. Do you think people in high places participate in fraud-
ulent elections?
Mr. WHITAKER. I am not going to answer that question because I
would be slandering somebody.
Mr. DENT. You sound like a witness in Watergate. You know. You
could answer that. That is not an inquisition. You say you don't want
to answer and that is perfectly all right but I want to ask you the
PAGENO="0347"
34~1
question. You sort of indicated the political system and the politi-.
cians as a whole.
Mr. WHITAKER. No, no, not `at all. There `are many local registrars
throughout the country, Dade County, Fla., California, Pittsburgh,
Pa.
Mr. DENT. I am glad you brought that in. That is in my area.
Mr. WHITAKER. Hudson County, N.Y., Dallas, Tex., where there
has `been extreme cooperation and every effort made.
Mr. DENT. With your group?
Mr. WHITAKER. With our group `and wit'h other groups `that work
with us, with the local'ly elected officials to increase and maximize local
voter participation. I am saying under the present voter registration
system there are many areas in the country where there `are large
numbers of unregistered people, where local election officials `are ob-
structing the voter registration process because they `have the power
to obstruct it. You should take the power and discretion to obstruct
out of the hands-
Mr. DENT. You can't.
Mr. WHITAKER. Yes, you can. I think you can.
Mr. DENT. We can only legislate on Federal elections.
Mr. WHITAKER. Take my home State of New Jersey. The fact that
this bill p'assed the Senate has resulted in the introduction of bills
into the State legislature for post card registration. I am not going to
say it will pass, in fact I don't think it will, not in New Jersey, `but `t'he
point I am trying to make is that local election officials in many areas
have the power to o'bstruct the voter registration process, call it dis-
cretionary power. I think that' power should be taken away. One
thing that post card registration does is it makes every American
citizen, in essence, `a potential `deputy registrar.
Earlier `what `was raised here was face-to-face registration, you
need face-to-face registration. I don't know many places where face-to-
face registration really goes on with a local election official, there are
so many deputy registrars in some of t'he States, `mobile `registration
sites, people who are hired per diem to conduct voter registration, that
the actual county registrar very rarely sees face `to face the person
who is registering. Face-to-face registration-
Mr. DENT. Isn't the deputy registrar acting in the place of the
registrar? Isn't he just as much' responsible as the registrar himself?
Mr. WIIITAKER. Yes.
Mr. DENT. Isn~t he an agent of the registrar?
Mr. WHITAKER. Absolutely, `btit he is also an American citizen who
doesn't hold elective or public office. He holds appointive office as dep-
uty registrar for that day.
Mr. DENT. The country is run by appointive officers.
Mr. WHITAKER. Yes, but the impression I have gotten reading some
of the testimony against post card registration is that it would increase
the chances `for fraud. I don't think it would enhance the chances for
fraud. I don't think the average American citizen engages in fraud.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Mathis.
Mr. MATHIS. I `want to agree with one thing that Mr. Whi'taker
has said, in deciding whethe ror not this Congress could preempt the
States, because a lot of us felt prior to 1965 that it could not be done,
PAGENO="0348"
342
but we found that in' fact it could, despite what the clmirman argues
as to its constitutionality.
I do have another meeting,' Mr. Chairman. I want to apo1ogi~e; but
before I leave I want to find out a little bit about this $2 busfare you
mentioned in Newark, N.J., because in addition to being members
of this committee we are Members of the Congress faced with a hor-
rendous possibility of this mass transit system in the city of Washing-
ton. Do people really pay $2?
Mr. WmTAKER. Yes, by transfers they do. They pay 70 cents to get
downtown in Newark.
Mr. DENT. Public or private?
Mr. WHITAKER. Public transportation by transfers.
Mr. FRENZEL. Within the city limits?
Mr. WITITAKER. Yes, within the city limits. What that means is
that if you take a poor family, under $7,500 income, `both members of
the family may be working, wife during the day, husband at night, or
vice versa, they have kids, somebody has to stay with the kids, most
of these people can't get down to city hall to register. If one person
is `prevented from registering to vote something should be done about
it.
Mr. MATHIS. I think we ought `to turn this mass ~transit system
over to the city officials in Newark. We might make it pay its way
than.
Mr. DENT. They are probably losing money with that fare. Mr.
Frenzel.
Mr. FRENZEL. Yes. I do have a series of questions, Mr. Chairman,
`and I ask you indulgence, to start with the testimony of Mr. Whitaker.
1 do want to compliment you on your testimony because you are the
first witness to come before us who has come before us and made some
kind of a background for the statement that you will register more
`people with post card voting. We have had a lot of people who said,
cc\ye think it would be nice and certainly more would register and
`more would vote," but you are the, first one, who has attempted to
document it. I think there are other studies, of course, which tend
to negate some of the points that you have made, but I can congratulate
you on your testimony. You have made the first solid presentation in
favor of post card voting as far as I personally am concerned.
I would like to know something about your organization. You are
a tax-exempt, nonpartisan voter registration foundation. Can you
tell me the principal sources of your income?
Mr. WHITAKER. Surely. We receive money from Carnegie Corp.
in New York-$100,000. We received $125,000 from the Leonard
and Sophie Davis Foundation~ $85,000 from something called the
Voter Registration Fund. We received $100,000 from the New World
Foundation in New York City, $110,000 from' the Field Foundation.
To give you some idea of the cross section of our money-$5,000 from
the Western Conference of Teamsters. We received about $18,000 from
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Workers. Public
contributors were people like C. Douglas Dillon. Republican people
in California made individual contributions, $15 to $25. I made an
attempt to `try and secure monetary support from both sides of the
political spectrum. We have a board of directors which includes people
PAGENO="0349"
343
like Cyrus R.. Vance, former Deputy Secretary of Defense, Adrian,
Dewinci, and William T. Coleman III, former member of the PriceS
Commission, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr., and John Moynihan.
Mr. FRENZEL. Could you estimate in round numbers how many vol-
unteers you. have working?
Mr. WHITAKER. Around 5,000 throughout the country. We had
around 500 paid.
Mr. FRENZEL. You had an operation in my State which was active.
On page 7, where you begin to talk about what is described as the
Yankelovicli survey,, you said, "W~e did this" and ~`we did that." Did
the Yankelovich. professional organization actually make the calls or
did your organization?
Mr. WHITAKER. No telephone calls were made. We paid $51,000 for
this study which is too much money as far as I am concerned. I had to
raise the money. That made it eveii more expensive. The reason it costs
so much, Congressman, is the fact we did not want to do telephone
interviews. We wanted to do face-to-face interviews.
Mr. `FRENZEL. Was it all done by Yankelovich personnel?'
Mr. WHITAKER. It was all done by Yankelovich personnel.
Mr. FRENZEL. When you said "we" you meant your pollsters?
Mr. WITITAKER. Where did I use the word "we"?
Mr. FRENZEL. In your discussion.
Mr. WIIITAKER. I should have made it clear Yankelovich did it.
Mr. FRENzEL. I would like to point out in connection with your
survey on page 7 that after each quadrennial election the Bureau of
Census takes a survey, and that in 1972 the figures-they surveyed.
50,000 nonregistered voters, as they always' do, and. of the nonregis-
t.ered voters that they surveyed, 10.6 percent were not registered be-
cause they weren't citizens, 6 percent had not satisfied the residence
requirement, 42.9 or 43 percent were not interested, 7.6 disliked poli-'
tics, 12.6 claimed they were unable to register, and I guess your `figure
is considerably more than that, `and 15 percent gave other reasons,
5.3 didn't know or didn't report. Now those were the 1972 figures.
They didn't vary more than a couple of percentage point.s from 1968
figures. and I l)eheve from the 1964 figures.
Mr. WIIITAKER. Let me just say one thing. MTe only did naturalized
citizens, and nationally born citizens in our study.
Mr. FRENzEL. But I would think the two polls would tend to give
the reader a different interpretation or different view of the same kind
of picture.
Mr. WITITAKER. I am not necessarily sure about that.
Mr. DENT. What was your figui~e on not interested?
Mr. FRENZEL. Fourty-three percent of the'nonregistered.
Mr. DENT. Your figure is eight.
~`1r. WHITAKER. Did they say,' why they weren't interested?'
Mr. FRENZEL. I don't have t.hńt, but I don't think they did.
Mr. WHITAKER. That is a very. important question.
Mr. FRENz1~r~. I would a.gree that it is. `
Mr. WTHITAKER. Because some people. aren't `interested in register-
ing to vote because it is too difficult to register to vote.
Mr. FRENZEL. There was a question on whether they were unable
or had difficulty voting, and that only picked up 12.6. `The other ques-
PAGENO="0350"
344
tion I have is your survey on page 25 shows the reaction of various
categories, registered and nonregistered voters to a certain plan. One
of the things that bothers me is that the guy we are trying to get at
has been partially identified by the chairman as the low-income guy
and by you as well, but he is also maybe a foreign~language-speak1ng
guy, an illiterate, poorly educated. That is the segment that we are
shooting at. It seems to me that the unregistered voters which con-
tain, I think we would all agree, a high proportion of these people
reply they like postcard registration and like the ability to come in
and vote and register at the same time if it intrigued them, but on
the other two methods, such as no registration at all, that wasn't
terribly interesting to them. I guess my conclusion from looking at
that survey is that a large percentage of those who are unregistered
really don't want anybody bothering them about registration.
Mr. WHITAKER. It depends who bothers them about registration. If
I were testifying here again, talking generally about mobile registra-
tion, that is giving Federal money to get local registration out to the
neighborhood, that would only work if you were somehow able to
organize the community in such a way they had community people
doing the registration. I think one advantage of post cards is that it
allows the community to organize itself in terms of voter registration.
The one fear that I have of post cards is that the mail services tend not
to be very good.
Mr. DENT. That is right.
Mr. WHITAKER. In pockets of low registration, and also the mail
services are suspect in those. areas.
Mr. DENT. Would you yield?
Mr. FRENZEL. Certainly.
Mr. DENT. I would just like to try something on you for size. A new
idea in this whole area was handed to me by a Member of Congress
yesterday in a note requesting the committee to give consideration,
and roughly and briefly this is his idea.. Offhand it is intriguing and
interesting. He says put the voting registration entirely in the hands
of the mailman, carrying in their pockets registration cards. He
knows when everybody moves. He gets the new addresses. He could
change addresses automatically and immediately. It has got one heck
of a strong argument, better than post card registration, and about
$75 million cheaper.
Mr. FEENZEL. To be sure-
Mr. DENT. It is really an intriguing thought.
Mr. FRENZEL. Except that the guys who have the mailbox, who see
the mailman every day, aren't the guys we are trying to get at.
Mr. DENT. Sure you are. These people have mail delivered.
Mr. FRENzEL. Some do but a lot have general delivery addresses or
are drifters.
Mr. DENT. That is all right. Those you would have to get by paid
workers.
Mr. WHITAKER. I would think a. lot of them were general delivery,
not necessarily drifters. They could be long-term citizens.
Mr. DENT. That is right.
Mr. WHITAKER. For inst.ance~ you find a certain amount of nonregis-
tration at the senior citizen level.
PAGENO="0351"
345
Mr. DENT. That is a difficulty that is hard to overcome.
Mr. WHITAKER. But the thing is this. The one thing about post card
that intrigues me is not so much the idea of it being sent out to the
person. That I think will increase the registration levels somewhat.
What intrigues me is the idea that, it allows everybody who wants to
engage in registration to go out and register people.
Mr. DENT. Isn't it the Minnesota plan where they just put it in the
box anyway?
Mr. FRENZEL. We haven't done it, but we want to.
Mr. DENT. Put the blanks anywhere and let the people pick them up
~ind send them in. If we are going to have post card and out-of-sight
registration we might as well make it as available as possible.
Mr. FRENZEL. We will in our next election have voting day registra-
tion too and it is going to be exciting.
Mr. DENT. That will help me.
Mr. FRENZEL. You can walk in and register and vote.
Mr. DENT. That will help me because I have a lot of people whom
I can get to go down and vote, for me once in a while but nobody else.
Mr. FRENZEL. I would like to proceed. I do notice your income scale
~of registered voters is important, but it also indicates that there are a
lot of low-income people who are registered, and that at least of
middle Americans there are a lot who aren't registered. Some of the
other surveys we have shown is that Americans over the past 10 years,
particularly in middle-income ranges, are being turned off at rather
rapid rates, and that due to the lowering of barriers starting with the
1965 court decisions, and. getting up eventually to the 18-year-old
voter, the low-income groups are becoming more registered and more
of them are voting, and the middle-income groups less, I guess.
I would like to go to the testimony of a Mr. Carlson of the Na-
tional Municipal League last week. You may have reviewed it but one
of the points he made to which I subscribe, and you apparently don't,
is this. His association believes that the primary benefit of a mail sys-
tem will accrue to the mobile and educated sectors of our society who
have the social skills necessary to make use of mail registration op-
portunities. "We doubt that a signflicant portion of presently unreg-
istered population poor minority, and so forth, will benefit. In short,
it mandates a procedure that will not have great impact among habit-
ually unregistered voters and would not by itself significantly increase
registration of voting."
We have had a couple of other witnesses who have said it but I
think this guy said it better. That leads to his second conclusion, that
there are better ways to do it. He concludes that face to face, based
on the Canada experience, produces the best results. Would you
comment?
Mr. WHITAIcER. Yes. I would,: think face to face does, but I don't
think it is an end in itself. Last year you will remember Congressman
Rousselot on the Subcommittee on Census and Statistics handling
this legislation last year, not this bill, but this subject. One of his con-
clusions, was cost. One of the things that makes our democracy go is
basically volunteers, volunteer man-hours. In terms of the voter reg-
istration process in States like: New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, the
basic ingredient is unpaid hours. To try and register people by paid,
PAGENO="0352"
346
federally deputi~ed or locally deputized registrars, would b~ ex-
orbitantly expensive.
Mr. FRENZEL. You complained that registrars and deputy registrars
*were in most cases~ not elected. Yet you have endorsed a bill by which
any one of these nonelected election officials, and we are guessing there
are at least 1 million of them, because we have 173-odd thousançl pre-
cincts, can call in another appointee of an appointee of an appointee
from this Federal elections center to come in and interpose new bar-
riers perhaps for the people we are trying to register, and indeed the
Attorney General can file suit to enjoin registration where the local
election official asks him to, and he determines that it is reasonable.
The Federal assistants can be asked to come in and improve or to pre-
vent. It seems to me that you are likely posing another bureaucratic
barrier.
Mr. WHITAKER. First let me go back to the premise of your state-
ment which was that I stated I had a gripe against the fact that most
election officials are not elected. My gripe is not against them per-
sonally, but I recognize that they are, political appointees who are
beholden to the man who has appointed them. This is the nature of
politics. If that man doesn't want new registered voters because they
are an uncertain factor in an election, and this is the way they have
traditionally been seen, they are not going to open up the registration
process. I don't think the right to vote should be abrogated for any
partisan political purpose. ~ly support of post card registration is that
it allows every person of any partisan or political bent to engage in
voter registration.
Let me give you an example in New York State. This is an
incredible situation. The only persons who can conduct out-of-office
registration in New York State are Republicans and Democrats.
Mr. FRENZEL. There is a fairly substantial number of Republicans
and Democrats.
Mr. WHITAKER. Yes, but there is also the conservative party which
elected a U.S. Senator, also the liberal party which. elected a mayor.
Mr. FRnNZEL. There is still a fair spread.
Mr. WHITAKER. There is a fair spread but those persons who are
American citizens cannot conduct registration.
Mr. FRENZEL. Are the Republicans and Democrats not American
citizens?
Mr. WHITAKER. They are. They can conduct. it but liberals and con-
servatives, also American citizens, cannot.
Mr. FRENZEL. It is my understanding of the New York Legislature
that there is a substantial body of Republicans and Democrats who
are also liberals and conservatives. It seems to me if they wanted
registration duties they would have sufficient horsepower within the
assembly to get themselves registration duties.
Mr. WHITAKER. Yes~ but at the local level. which I am t.alkina about,
you have a significant amount of people registered as conservatives and
liberals who cannot register people to vote. What happened to us
going into New York State was that we `could only work with Re-,
publicans and Democrats. not with a specific Puerto Rican party, we
couldn't work with a black party, we couldn't work with any interest
group party which is an offshoot of the political system.
PAGENO="0353"
347
Mr. FRENZEL. Somewhere in your testimony you thought the ultimate
was a no-registration system.
Mr. WHITAKER. That is correct.
Mr. FRENZEL. Then somebody said which system do you like the
best and I suggested North Dakota, which was a no-registration sys-
tem, and you suggested that wasn't any good, and you would prefer
California.
Mr. WHITAKER. No.
Mr. FRENZEL. Did I misunderstand your statement?
Mr. WHITAKER. Yes, you did. You said North Dakota as an exam-
pie of how a no registration system would work. I don't think it is
something I could really in good conscience present as an example
because it is primarily a rural State, and there would have to be chal-
lenging procedures worked out for, urban areas where neighbors don't
know each other but North Dakota which has had really no recorded
instances of fraud, the no voter registration system has worked. I was
posing this as an idea, not something I was testifying on.
~`fr. FRENZEL. North Dakota haS a lower incidence of eligible voters
voting than South Dakota which has standard registration system.
The same is true of Senator McGee's home State which votes more of
its eligible voters than North Dakota does.
Mr. WHITAKER. Congressman, I have never been in North Dakota.
Mr. FRENZEL. It is a great place. You would like it.
Mr. WITITAKER. I have only been in South Dakota once. What I am
concerned with in my testimony today is not setting up a system that
necessarily guarantees this participation. I am interested in setting
up a system which allows anyone who wants to, to participate, and
that. gets down to an individual level.
Mr. FRENZEL. You also have to understand what we are looking for.
We are looking for a system that works, that opens up but doesn't
snarl. We have heard some very persuasive testimony from local offi-
cials that the post card system would create chaos, and general wreck-
age in the election system of this country. We don't want that. `We
have had plenty of testimony that there are other ways to do it. I thin~k
we have got to be pretty careful here. The Senate passes bills on a
mere whim or a concept. Senator McGee told us that we shouldn't be
concerned about the details, we should think of the big picture. But
it is our duty to think about the details. We are likely to disenfran-
chise people at the local level. We are likely to have dual registration
systems in significant numbers of States. We have, got to do it right.
One of the things that I like abOut the Maryland proposal and the
M1nnesota. proposal. is that.it gives us the traditional system that our
federalism ha.s supplied us, whereby we have little laboratories to test
these systems, and see how they. work before we inflict them on every-
body else. I am pleased to see the States testify so we can have an idea
of what does, and doesn't work.. `In the laboratory in North Dakota'
the system has worked, it hasn't had any fraud and apparently every-
body who wanted to vote has voted but it hasn't done a thing for
participation.
Mr. WHITAKER. It depends what the criteria of your expectations
is. What I want of a voter registration system and of an electOral'
system is a situation where anybody who wants to vote in an election
PAGENO="0354"
348
can vote. If they don't want to vote that is their business. I don't think
the present system, on a nationwide basis, provides that system an
exercise of those rights. Again, as I said when I opened my testimony,
I am not taking a specific position on the McGee bill because of my
tax exemption. I can't lobby. Tam for post card registration as it makes
registration more available and takes it out of local control in terms of
administrative discretionary power.
Mr. FRENZEL. I don't mean to be contentious because I told you at
the beginning of my statement I think you are the first guy who has
testified that has made any sense, other than saying, gee, it is a good
idea, I like it, but I do want to bring up these other questions.
I would like to quote to you a Gallup survey which covers 1972
election results, December 1972, Report No. 90. It relates to nonvoters:
Didn't bother to register or prevented by residence requirements, 38
percent; not interested in politics, 28 percent; didn't like the candi-~
dates, 10 percent; sick or disabled, 10 percent; couldn't leave the job,
7 percent; away from home traveling, 7 percent. This is another survey
that falls between yours and-
Mr. WHITAKER. Was that just registered voters? I know Gallup in
that instance did telephone interviews. He didn't do face-to-face
interviewing.
Mr. FRENZEL. This is complete election returns.
Mr. WHITAKER. I remember that poll. I talked to the Gallup or-
ganization. They were telling me they were only doing telephone
polls.
Mr. FRENZEL. These are people who were not registered. We have
reduced those to millions of voters and the assumption that about 40
million voters were eligible but nonregistered in the last election, ac-
cording to the Census Bureau.
Mr. WHITAKER. Nobody in my mind could do a statistically correct
analysis of nonregistered voters if they did it by telephone.
Mr. FRENZEL. One of the problems with post card registration is that
in the income and education group we are talking about people who
don't like mail. They particularly don't like frank mail from the
Government. They think it is a subpena, a bill, another survey from
the Welfare Department, a creditor coming after them. Do you have a
statement on that?
Mr. WHITAKER. I couldn't agree with you more. I think it is a real
problem with the bill. I do think, on the other hand, as I made in my
recommendations, if post cards are made available at community cen-
ters and places frequented by persons normally suspicions of the mail,
then 1 am for nost card registration. I don't think all citizens are
against the frank mail.
Mr. FRENZEL. My last cmestion is this. To preserve your tax-exempt
status. I won't ask you if you like the Kennedy bill, but would you
support the type of legislation that has come to be identified as the
Kennedy-Stevens bili or the Kennedy bill?
Mr. WrnTAicEiu. Yes. If somebody could show me it would work, if
somebody could show me that the money they are supposedly going to
allocate. Federal money. is supposedly going to go back in cities, that
it is not going to turn into street money, going into the pockets of local
politicians, then I would consider supporting the concept. I can tell
PAGENO="0355"
349
you from my own experience I can see problems with that kind of
effort because we had an extremely difficult time controlling our
money, and making sure that it w~as being used for the purposes that
it was prescribed for. In fact when we went into a city we wanted to
be sure it wasn't going to go for a stereo set or a car. This money re-
quires a great deal of control. I am not making asperions about any-
body. I am just relating the facts of life.
Mr. FRENZEL. You don't think in this McGee-type bill the control
you have given the bureaucracy which you have established within
the Bureau of Census, which allows them at the request of any local
election official to go in and start interposing Federal standards and
Federal ideas, you don't think that is the same thing?
Mr. WHITAKER. No. I think basically what the bill is doing is open-
ing up the access to the voter registration process in terms of regis-
tered voters registering nonregistered voters and nonregistered voters
therefore having a right to vote. I don't see it politically feasible to go
say to a county clerk who has been working for 30 years, who is over-
worked, and underpaid, and underfinanced, "Look, you should take on
the additional burdens of administering a huge mobile registration
effort within your district." I don't think that is politically feasible.
Mr. FRENZEL. I thank you for your testimony.
We have a trio who will testify together, Mr. 1-lalpin, the county
clerk of Union County, N.J., Mr. Arthur Wendland, the chief clerk,
Union County, N.J. and Mr. Lewis Pratt, supervisor of voting ma-
chines, Union County, N.J. Gentlemen, will you proceed.
STATEMENT OP WALTER HALPIN, COUNTY CLERK, UNION
COUNTY, N.J.
Mr. HALPIN. My name is Walter Halpin. Although I am the clerk
of Union County, N.J., I am here representing election officials and
treasurers of which I am first vice president. My purpose is to just
spread on the record a resolution that was unanimously passed at
our recent meeting in Jacksonville, Fla.
Mr. FRENZEL. Without objection, the resolution will be made a part
of your testimony.
Mr. HALPIN. Do you want me to read it in the record?
Mr. FRENZEL. No. You may proceed.
[The resolution follows:]
RESOLUTION
The United States Senate has passed legislation entitled the Voter Registra-
tion Act (S. 352) establishing a national voter registration administration and
requiring voter registration through the mail. The legislation currently is being
considered by the House Committee on Administration.
The legislation as passed by the U.S. Senate would:
1. establish new federal agency within the U.S. Bureau of the Census to
administer a voter registration program, collect and analyze information
concerning elections and provide assistance to election officials concerning
registration and election problems;
2. provide registration forms to be sent through the U.S. Mail to be
returned to State, County and Local registrars for processing;
3. authorize funds to cover the costs of the mail registration process.
The rationale for this legislation appears to be based on a premise that regis-
tration is an obstacle to voting. It is estimated that almost 80% of the qualified
PAGENO="0356"
350
voters presently are registered. Legislation would attempt a 100% registration.
The legislation is aimed therefore at a few states although it will affect all states
across the board.
County officials want to commend the authors of this legislation for their
interest and concern in liberalizing voter registration. We share these same
goals. However, we are concerned that the legislation does not meet the real
needs and creates additional problems. We believe emphasis should be placed
on developing minimum standards for registration and conducting elections for
federal, state and local elections. The office of federal elections is conducting
research on voter registration procedures; state experimentation on voter
registration by mail has begun, local initiative in developing alternative methods
of reaching potential voters is inereasin~. Legislation at this point is premature.
In addition to this concern, NACO has specific problems with the legislation
which includes:
1. Potential for disorder, and confusion at the polls is every great;
2. This chaos would cause disenfranchisement of eligible voters;
3. Unnecessary duplication of registration processes for persons already
registered will lead to greatly increased costs;
4. Increased costs can also be foreseen in pre-election preparation and the
election day process itself.
5. Possibilities of fraud are unlimited.
0. The election process is rendered more vulnerable to political mischief.
The National Association of County Recorders and Clerks consists of election
officials from many states. They deliberated these matters at length and urged
NACO to adopt this resolution.
The National Association of Counties urges the Congress to postpone any
further legislative consideration on this measure until current studies authorized
by Congress have been completed and workability demonstrated by the states.
The National Association of Counties offers the full resources of this orga-
nIzation and its .constituent members to assist the Congress in realizng natonal
opportunities for full voter participation.
Copies of this resolution should be made available to the House Committee
on Administration, the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and to
all members of the Congress.
Mr. HALPIN. In the interests of brevity and realizing other witnesses
are anxious to testify for and against this proposal, I would rather
yield an time that I would like to discuss in relation to this proposed
legislation to my colleagues except to say that when I came into the
room I think I was privileged to hear halfway through the testimony
of an election official from Virginia who I seem to he on the same
wavelength with, and have just recently listened to the testimony of
a very qualified representative of a national group whom I respect,
but he has got my head spinning quite literally with these figures he
throws out.
Figures to me don't drive home any point at all. Although my
association, when we chop this bill apart for 2 days in conference,
we don't look upon ourselves as political creatures of the local politi-
cians. We look upon onrselves as all dedicated people, who are either
appointed or elected to office, and are responsible to the constituency
that we represent, and have a dedicated and vested interest in the
rights of every voter within our political subdivision.
As a county clerk, I play no part in the election processes, except
absentee balloting, preparation of the ballot and tabulation of the
vote. My colleagues to my right, and left will go into that sphere
because they are more knowledgeable on.it.
In closing my comments, unless the Chairman has other ques-
tions to ask me, the unique suggestion that Congressman Dent raised
in recent testimony about letting th~ postimm register people, I think
PAGENO="0357"
3~1
that would be a chaoic flop, just lik~ it occurred with the U.S. Depart-
ment of State when they wanted and asked postmasters topro'cess pass-
port applications. That has been proven to be a fiasco. If you talk
about postman, why stop at the postman? Let the `banker be a deputy
registrar or the gasoline station attendant, and we could go on* and
on.
With those few brief comments, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
pass my time to my right to Mr. Wendland who represents the New
Jersey Association of Election Boards.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Do you `have a prepared statement?
Mr. WENDLAND. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have. In the interests of time
and the witness who perhaps would like to testify before the commit-
tee, I brought with me a resolution from our New Jersey State As-
sociation of County Boards, indicating their unanimous opinion of
this particular bill. In addition to that, I have my own personal
testimony that I would like to read, and I will keep it as brief and
as short as possible.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. We will accept the statement of your colleagues
for the record, and proceed with your own statement.
[The information follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARTHUR WENDLAND, CHIEF CLERK, NEW JERSEY
ASSOCIATION OF ELECTION BOARDS
Mr. Chairman, may I extend to you and your Committee my deep appreciation
for inviting me to participate in this Hearing on U.S. Senate Bill 352.
On the Subject of Elections I feel that I have sufficient knowledge after work-
ing in this field for the past fourteen years, the last three as Chief Clerk which
includes record keeping and voter registration.
I would agree that wider registration is needed in various parts of New Jersey
and perhaps other States as well, but I also feel that a greater need for voter
participation is very important as many of our now registered voters do not
bother to vote. I do not think it is becabse of hodgč-podge registration barriersor
obstacles put in the way of eligible voters, as some would say, but of the frustra-
tion of greater political awareness, of the affairs of government. I feel citizen
participation can take place not only iii registering to vote but by demonstrating
their participation at the Polls, if governmental bodies were to adopt a unified
voting system designed to help register eligible voters but to insure widespread
voting participation, perhaps with a nationwide educational program.
While Post Card registration for Federal elections may encourage increased
registration, allow me to emphasize the importance of participation in the voting
process. The proposed change in election procedures between N.J. State's election
laws and Federal election law as Senate Bill 352 allows would inevitably impose
the following:
(a) The enactment of another registration and voting procedure along with
our present State voting procedure.
(b) Duplications of voters names in regards to voters already on the present
registration rolls would occur.
(c) Increase cost in the processing~ of such registration forms by appointment
of more employees fortemporary service.
(d) Additional space requirements.
(e) Establishment of a voter registration post card bureau to make verifica-
tion of such registration forms as to the acceptance or rejection of such registra-
tion and to give proper notification of same to the individual applicant as indi-
cated in Chapter 11, Sec. 405 "Registration Forms" of TJ.S. Senate Bill 352.
After careful consideration of Senate Bill 352, and as Chief Clerk whose duties
are to see that election registration in Union County New Jersey is carried out
with accuracy it is more important that while in progress constant watch be
maintained so that dishonesty in any form be eliminated from any election. I find
the mechanism of Senate Bill 352 would acid confusion and unreasonable burden
on State and local levels of government charged with the responsibility of
elections.
PAGENO="0358"
352
Mr. MOLLOHAN. You may include your statement in. the record as
you have it prepared and then you may go on orally or any way you
choose.
Mr. WENDLAND. You mean to read the resolution of the association?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. No; introduce the resolution into the record and then
you may also introduce your prepared statement as such and we will
accept for the record, and then you may proceed orally as you may
wish. On the other hand, if you prefer to read your prepared state-
ment, please do so.
Mr. WENDLAND. I would prefer to read my prepared personal state-
ment, and enter into the record the resolution of the State association.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Without objection.
Mr. WENDLAND.Thank you.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Wendland. Do you have
anything further you would like to add?
Mr. WENDLAND. No, Mr. Chairman. I don't. My testimony I believe
speaks for itself. I did not want to elaborate on the inevitable proposals
that I had made in my testimony that I thought perhaps would occur,
if such bill were enacted.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Halpin, would you like Mr. Pratt to proceed
now, in order that we may have all of the testimony?
Mr. HALPIN. Yes. Mr. Pratt represents the international association
as chairman of the unified election laws committee.
STATEMENT OP LEWIS PRATT, CHAIRMAN OF UNIFIED ELECTION
LAWS COMMITTEE, UNION COUNTY, I'T.3.
Mr. PRATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would like first to tha.nk you and your committee
for the invitation to appear here today for a hearing on Senate bill 352,
so that my views as a voting machine expert and the views of the uni-
fied election law committee of "IACREOT" may be expressed.
I have been employed by the Union County Board of Elections since
January 2, 1958, and have experience in both the recordkeeping de-
partment and the voting machine department and feel I have a very
good knowledge of elections.
Voting machines are used in most counties in New Jersey and can be
adjusted to enable voters under certain conditions to cast their vote for
Federal office while prohibiting their vote for State and local candi-
dates or issues.
But in order to do this you first must train the board workers on
what level to move. If this lever is not moved properly for each voter
and the person was allowed to vote for all candidates instead of just
Federal ca.ndidates or State and local candidates the whole election
could be challenged and have to be held over again. If this happened
in any of our 50 States just once I doubt that you would get the same
amount of voters out for the second election and also it is a financial
burden to the taxpayer.
The alternatives to this would be:
1. The acquisition of additional voting machines, so that Federal
elections could be held on some and State and local elections on others
on the same day and a.t the same time on separate machines. This would
PAGENO="0359"
353
place `a financial burden on each county, as you would need more ware-
house space, more voting machine mechanics, more board workers,
and I doubt that the vo'ting machine companies could meet the needs
of all counties in the country.
2 Hold Federal elections on different days then the State and local
elections. This would also place a heavy financial burden on each
county. Also in my experience the more election's you have the less
people turn out to vote.
3. Paper ballots. This is a step `backwards, costly, time consuming
and more open to fraud.
New Jersey State election laws now mandate how many voting
machines are to be used in a district. With postcard registration caus-
ing numerous duplication of registrations and the 30-day processing
time, it will be very difficult to know how many voting machines to
have on hand. Unless you keep two separate sets of registrations, one
for Federal elections and one for State and local elections.
As chairman of the Unified Election Law Committee of
"IACREOT," I have spoken to many election officials from many
States whose duties are elections. :This is no longer an easy task. Elec-
tions entails many complex procedures, all within a speciAc time limit
and compliance with the election timetable must be done accurately,
efficiently, so as to prevent fraud.
We feel that Senate bill 352 is inoperable, and will disenfranchise
many voters, open the door to unprecedented fraud, plus impose an
additional and unreasonable financial burden on the State and local
governments.
Senator bill 352, unconstitutional. `The Presidential electors are not
Federal officials, they are State officers. The Constitution of the United
States states, in express terms, that the electors shall be chosen in such
a way as the State legislature may prescribe.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Pratt. Do you have
anythingadditionai you would like to add to your statement?
Mr. Pn~rr. Yes, I would like to add this. I would like to thank the
committee again for taking people who work in the field of elections
into consideration and `allowing us to appear here.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. We appreciate your coming. We can't help but
think you are closer to this and more knowledgeable about it. You are
aware of the pitfalls that may ,,` be apparent. What we are interested
in here `as I know you are also ~`is in developing in the final analysis
a higher percentage of participation in the actual voting process than
we currently or have in the past enjoyed. Your testimony has been very
helpful to us. Congressman Mathis?
Mr. MATHI5. No questions. Thank you very much.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Congressman' Frenzel.
Mr. FRENZEL. Is the city of Newark in Union County?
Mr. Pn~rr. No.
Mr. HALPIN. It is contiguous.:
Mr. FRENZEL. Do you have more than one place of registration in
Union County?
Mr. P1L&Tr. Yes, we do.
Mr. FRENZEL. Do you have any $2 bus rides that are required to get
registered in your area? ,
PAGENO="0360"
354
Mr. P~TT. In Union County you can register at any one of the city
halls. We have 21 municipalities in our county and each city clerk is
a deputy registrar. They have nights for registration for each election.
I also have at my warehouse and the board of elections has them and
each city clerk, 23 places all year long to register, plus before election
we have nights open.
Mr. FRENZETJ. Thank you. All of your testimony seems to be based
on the supposition that if such a bill passes, New Jersey would go to
a dual system just as Missouri indicated that it would, and as Mr.
Butler and Mrs. Mahan indicated Virginia would do. Is this what you
are telling us, that it is likely you will then be on two systems?
Mr. PRATT. You would have to work two systems, unless we had a
State law that would coincide with 352.
Mr. WENDLAND. May I elaborate on that, Congressman.
Mr. FRENZEL. I would be glad to have any of the three of you..
Mr. WENDLAND. I believe that is our intention. The State I believe
then would work on a dual system, primarily because of the facets of
one bill, not as Mr. Pratt indicated conformin.g with New Jersey State
election law. We did this in the past Presidential election, and had
some confusion with the Presidential electors, just to vote for the Pres-
ident and Vice President.
Mr. FRENZEL~ Did you have a different resident requirement.?
* Mr. WENDLAND. At. that time the residency requirement was 30 days.
We have a 40-day registration requirement.
Mr. FRENZEL. So you did run a double system.
Mr. WENDLA~D. A dual system in the last Presidential election, and
we would anticipate doing the same if in fact this particular bill were
to be enacted.
Mr. FRENZEL. I was really trying to get you to speculate as to
whether New Jersey would conform and take the 30 percent of the
costs of handling the State system offered under the bill, or whether
it would hold firm for its own system as other States have indicated.
Perhaps it is unfair to a.sk you to speculate.
Mr. HALPIN. It is in a gray area, Congressman. There is a Senator
from New Jersey who is preparing legislation now. .1 don't think it is
in the hopper yet,.but he is in the press as drafting. legislation that will
blend in with S. 352, to make it applicable in New Jersey, the same
terms and conditions. I don't think he will get many cosponsors though.
Mr. FRENZEL. It says here in section 405 (c) which is one I ask most
witnesses about; it disturbs me: "The possession of a registration noti-
fication indicates the individual is entitled to vote in an election, and
shall be prima facie evidence that the individual is qualified."
The way I would interpret it and maybe I am crazy is that there
would be no challenge allowed under the language. Is that your
interpretation?
Mr. HALPIN. It frightens me, I will tell you. I have enough
problems.
Mr. WENDLAND. As to the validity, Congressman?
Mr. IFRENZEL. Sure. If he walks in and says, "I sent you a card. and
you sent one back to me, here it is, I can vote," and a poll watcher says,
"I know this burn lives on Long Island, not in the State of New
Jersey." As near as I can figure the possession of that card obviates a
valid challenge.
PAGENO="0361"
355
Mr. HALPIN. This is true. That is how I read it.
Mr. WENDLAND. I think what would occur there is the challenge
would occur at the polis, doing two~things. Hold up the line so to speak
perhaps of the election process, due to the fact in the meantime they
are trying to make a decision as to whether or not this one individual
has the right to vote. In the meantime many may become annoyed
with this.
Mr. FRENZEL. The other problem of course is if you are on the dupli-
cate system, the guy holds the registration form and he is convinced
that he can vote in any election but he can't. Next year he can only vote
for a Senator and a Congressman, holding that ticket, and he can't vote
for any of his local offices unless he, has fulfilled some other registration
requirements.
Mr. WENDLAND. We ran into that problem in this past Presidential
where the temporary registration: to vote for the President and Vice
President when persons did register within our country we took two
registrations one as a temporary, one as a permanent, informing such
individual that the temporary registration was only to allow them to
vote for the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates because
they did not meet the State requirements but to assure them they did
not have to reregister thereafter because they are now registered
permanently so we can inse1~t their~ sheets.
Mr. FRENZEL. I presume your legislature has acted to change your
law from 40 to 30.
Mr. WENDLAND. Yes, there is a bill.
Mr. FRENZEL. And you handle the 30-day Presidential guys on
paper?
Mr. WENDLAND. Yes.
Mr. FIIENZEL. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I have no other
questions.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you very much for being with us. We appre-
ciate the information you have given to us. I am sure it will be very
helpful.
Mr. PRATT. May I say one more thing, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Surely.
Mr. PRATT. I haven't heard toO many people talking about the cost
of these programs. I for one am always interested in costs, what it costs
to put a program through. As it stands now, we have a very liberal
registration program in New Jersey, but it gets very expensive, and I
can see this bill here making it go sky high. I don't think we are going
to actually gain that much. It is the taxpayers' money that we use for
this, and I think they should be considered on any program like this.
Thank you
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Costs, Mr. Pratt, are of concern to us. We have had
various projections or estimates, of what the cost may be, with varia-
tions as high as $100 to $150 million, between the low and the high of
those estimates, so we are concerned on this subject too.
Mr FEm~ ZEL Will the chairman yield ~ Thei e was one estimate com
ing out of the Bureau of the Census going as high as $500 million, and
one of the estimates of one of the Sen'tte authorizes was as low as $50
million. :
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I didn't realize there has been that much disparity.
2O-69~-73----24
PAGENO="0362"
356
Mr. FRENZEL. I will state in my State our legislature has appropri-
ated $200,000 to implement a postcard system throughout the State,
and the auditor of Hennepin County, the State's largest county, esti-
mates he can use money himself. If the Congress appropriates like the
Minnesota State Legislature, you better not accept those estimates.
Mr. PRATT. It would almost seem to me if they are going to appro-
priate money for a bill like this, that it could be wisely spent on
voter education of the people who are already registered, because we
have a problem getting them out after they are registered, getting
them out to vote.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. This in the final analysis is our big task. I think
if we could just get 85 or 90 percent of those who are registered now,
that we would be reaching some point of acceptability on the part
of all of us.
Mr. PRATT. I agree with that.
* Mr. MOLLOHAN. There is considerable speculation as to exactly
how many are out there who are not registered to vote, and what
the end result of getting that segment in, if they are reluctant to
register. If we have difficulty in getting them to register then I
think it is reasonable to expect even a greater percentage or a higher
degree of difficulty in getting them to vote than it would be those
who already registered or are already registered. Thank you,
gentlemen.
Our next witness is Mr. Edward G. Mekel, of Philadelphia. I under-
stand, Mr. Mekel, you do not have a prepared statement, so would
you proceed in your own fashion.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD G. MEKEL, ESQ., DUDEN & `GALBIALLY,
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
Mr. MEKEL. Yes, I apologize for not having `a prepared statement,
but I was asked to come simply `a few days `ago and did not have
time to prepare one.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is quite all right.
Mr. MEKEL. My name is Edward Mekel, I am a lawyer in the
city of Philadelphia and from March 1968 to March 1973 I was the
deputy commissioner in charge of voter registration in the city com-
missioner's office of Philadelphia, Pa.
Let me preliminary state generally I am in favor of anything
which will make voter registration easier for the citizen `and easier for
them to participate in elections, provided that there are adequate
safeguards against fraud and `adequate `administrative procedures
established so that those who do in fact register can On election day
vote with facility, ease and without any confusion. Philadelphia has
763 election districts or precincts, has a population `of slightly under
2 million, and a registration enrollment of slightly over 1 million.
We have probably the finest registration program in the United States,
witness as to what the young gentleman from the student vote organi-
zation testified to earlier. I would not be in favor of House bill 8053
but rather be in favor of the bill which is called the Kennedy-Stevens
bill, which would provide grants in funds to the States to improve
voter registration throughout the States.
PAGENO="0363"
357
I would be against House bill 8053 basically for two reasons. First,
I think it opens up the door to fraud, not a tremendous amount of
fraud but nevertheless it does open the door to that. Second, I think
it would create an administrative morass and make it simply unwork-
able and impossible for election officials to administer a postcard mail
registration system.
Let me go back in history to the time before I was active in politics
with the city of Philadelphia, back when I was a very young boy.
Pennsylvania established permanent voter registration back in 1937,
whereby an individual must register in person, and the registration
remains active and on the Tolls as long as the individual does not
vote or change his name, and as long as he votes once very 2 years.
At the same time in 1937 the legislature provided in the registra-
tion act for Philadelphia that individuals could, if they moved from
one address to another address, file what they called a removal card
or a change of address card to be sent in by the mail or hand delivered
whereby the voter would list his old address and his new address and
the registration officials would simply correct their records and take
the voter registration after date out from the district where he for-
merly lived and put it into the district where he has moved to.
This business lasted for 6 years in Philadelphia, and it was vir-
tually abolished by the legislature in 1943 because of numerous prob-
lems that they had with ineligibility. The postcards were not readable,
illegible. There was fraud involved whereby political party workers
in order to get rid of maybe 50 to 60 people in their divisions that
they did not wish to have vote on election day would fill out removal
cards for them, send them into the registration dfficials. At the last
minute the registration officials would act on these and take these
voter registration affidavits out of one address and put them in a district
with another address and lo and behold when the elector showed up to
vote they were not in the binder, `at the proper polling place. They
had been taken out and moved to some other district. There was also
much confusion as to where to put the old and the new address.
Apparently the electors made numerous mistakes in listing the new
address for the old `address and vice versa. In `any event it was
abolished and it no longer is permissible in Philadelphia. I believe
Congressman Dent would state, however, that it is possible for the
rest of Pennsylvania and the `other counties in Pennsylvania.
We have also had numerous prc~blems in Philadelphia in the ab-
sentee registration which already does exist. Certain classes of citizens
presently may register by what we call absentee registrati ~n or by
mail, individuals in the military, civilian employees in the Federal and
State Governments, their spouses and dependents, and other groups,
people who are out of town the entire time that registration is open.
These may all register by mail, provided they are outside the county.
We have had numerous problems with them. They come into our
office not signed, not notarized, giving wrong addresses, not knowing
exactly what address to put d&wn in Philadelphia, simply that they
live in Philadelphia in the Olney section or South Philadelphia or
what have you.
Many' times they have to be ,~sent ba'ck to the voter for correction,
and for signatures and notaries.,'
PAGENO="0364"
358
I have some statistics on this. In 1972 under the new Federal Voting
Rights Act of 1970 we received requests from 722 individuals to reg-
ister by absentee. We sent out 722 affidavits to these prospective elec-
tors, 231 of them were never returned to our office, and 491 were re-
turned. However, about one-third, or about 160, of those had to be
returned to the voter once or twice, for the correction of errors.
Absentee balloting has been a source of numerous complaints not
only in Philadelphia but throughout Pennsylvania. Many times elec-
tions are held up for months and months until challenges to absentee
ballots are ruled upon and the elections certified. In my opinion if
there are problems with the absent.ee balloting system, there would~
also be problems with absentee voting registration system.
Under the Pennsylvania law and the law governing Philadelphia,
registrations must be held at' locations which are, open to the public
and which are publicly announced in advance. They must also permit
watchers from political parties, or anyone may be present to observe
the process of registration. In other words, it is done in an open forum
so to speak.
We have had what we call field registration in Philadelphia. We
have it every year prior to the primary election and prior to the No-
vember election. We have from 4 to 6 weeks field registration. I be-
lieve this year, even though it is a local election year, they are plan-
ning on having 8 weeks of field registration.
Registration places are generally open from 3:30 in the afternoon,
to 9:30 at night and 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Friday. They cover about
30 to 35 places a day in the neigiiborhoods where people live so every-
one has an opportunity to register right in their own neighborhood,
or, in fact, where they work because some of the locations are in the
factory districts.
In my opinion the post card registration system would permit fraud.
It is my belief that when a person registers in person they are less apt
to lie under oath when they are face to face with an official, a regis-
trar acting on b~half of the election board for the city of Philadelphia.
In addition when a person registers in person all the necessary in-
formation concerning his qualifications are obtained at one time, they
are properly transcribed on to the voter registration form, and the'
voter knows right then and there whether or not he is accepted or
rejected, unlike the post card system where a person may fill out a
form and mail it into the registration office and then have to wait sev-
eral days before he is notified whether or not his applications has been
accepted or rejected. . . .~
In Philadelphia if a voter applicant is rejected, he is advised what
steps he may take as far as taking administrative appeal or appeal
to the courts. In my 5 years of experience less than 1 out of 5,000 appli-
cants are rejected.
In a person-to-person registration in Philadelphia where it is held
in public forum the political party workers can't influence the appli-
cant in his registration process. However, it is my belief in a post
card registration system the post cards will obviously be filled out in
a person's home or shop or what have you and naturally could be
vulnerable to all sorts of influence from. political party workers for
PAGENO="0365"
359
whatever reason, but Obviously numerous reasons. And I don't think
that you would get an honest answer from the applicant when he is
influenced by someone else like yOu get when he registers in person.
Naturally when a person registers in person, such as in Philadel-
phia-I have a copy of the voter registration form-additional infor-
mation is obtained other than the person's name and address. In Penn-
sylvania an individual may ask for assistance in voting if they are
blind or physically disabled in some respects. I don't know how this
could be cerifled' by a post card registration system, whereas when a
* person registers in person obviously the registrar can verify that the
individual is in need of assistance in voting, particularly on voting
machines, and can mark the voter that way on his registration
affidavit. 0
* Also we have numerous citizens in Philadelphia who are naturalized
and some proof of naturalization must be noted on the voter regis-
tration affidavit, and I don't think there would be sufficient space on
* the post card for insertion of that necessary information.
I personally am not really convinced that too many people' will go
to the trouble of registering under five or six different names from five
or six different precincts as has been stated by some of the other wit-
nesses. I do, however, think that there is another area of possible fraud
which I would be afraid would occur. That is where people who would
register where they really should not register. In other words, they will
register from `addresses other than from their true homes or true resi-
dences. They will register at the place of employment because it is
convenient for them to vote there. A place of employment may be in
one district where the residence may be in another. They may register
in the city of Philadelphia even though they may live in the suburbs.
I am not being critical of the people from the suburbs because many
of my friends and relatives live in the suburbs of Philadelphia and it
is sort of a fact of life, at least in the Philadelphia area, they take more
interest in Philadelphia elections than they do in their actual local
elections in the suburbs and counties. All they talk about is who is
going to run for mayor or district attorney in Philadelphia and other
offices, and they would much rather `participate in Philadelphia Blec-
tions than in their own. They don't do it because they wouldn't want to
register from a phony ad'dress. ,~ However, there are individuals who
would think nothing `of getting someone to register in this fashion
through the post card system. While this would not create a double vot-
ing situation where people vote more than once-I don't think that
`would really happen very much-it would create a situation `where
people are voting from addresses other than their true addresses.
While this would not have an effect in my opinion on a national or
`Presidential election, it could have an effect on local elections for State
representative, city councilmen, and the like where many of these elec-
tions are decided by less than 100 votes. One was decided last year by
less than five votes.
I also believe that the post card mail registration system simply could
not work in a city the size of Philadelphia. It would create adminis-
trative ch'aos not just for the election officials in the registration divi-
sion but also for the election officials at the polling places on' election
day and for the voters themselves when they show up to vote.
PAGENO="0366"
360
Presently voter registration ends 30 days prior to each primary and
November election in Philadelphia. However, the 30th day before the
November election always falls on Sunday and the 29th day before
election in Pennsylvania will also fall on the new legal holiday of
Columbus Day. Consequently voter registration in Philadelphia and
in Pennsylvania is actually kept open until the 28th day before each
November election.
Tinder Pennsylvania law we are required to print what we call in
Philadelphia street lists. It is a list of all the registered voters in each
particular election district in street order. In other words, we list the
name of the street and then the house number and the name of the
political party affiliation of the registered voters. These are required to
be available for distribution 15 days prior to each election. These serve
a very valid and legitimate purpose against fraud because obviously
from this list a worker can tell who is registered and who is not regis-
tered to vote in their district. And it also acts as a tremendous asset to
all of the political parties, not only the major political parties but in-
dependent political parties, and candidates in conducting their cam-
paigns and their mail campaigns, their door-to-door canvassing in
getting out the vote.
That leaves us with registration closing 28 days prior to the election,
and these lists required to be printed 15 days before the election allows
only 13 days to prepare the list. We switched last year to using a com-
puter system in Philadelphia but that is not the whole answer. The
computer was able to print the original of these lists in a matter of
about 7 days. However, the problem is one not with computers but with
the actual duplication of this list and the actual printing. We are re-
quired to print 100 copies of this list so they have a sufficient number
available for all the political parties and the workers. Only one print-
ing company in the city of Philadelphia bid on the job because it was
simply too big a job to print 100 copies of lists for 1,763 precincts.
I suggested to the legislature last year that they abolish the printing
of the street lists because there was not sufficient time to have them
done. Everyone, and rightfully so, rejected that proposal because they
are simply an important tool against fraud and an important tool to
be used in the campaign.
I have in my own mind at least certain questions I don't know the
answers to which the act provides; section 405 (c). The act states that
if a voter is accepted or rejected by the election officials after he sends
in his postcard registration form he must be notified whether he is
accepted or rejected. If that notice comes back in the mail as unde-
livered, it shall remain with the registration official. How then is a
voter who is accepted and if his notice does come back in the mail as
undeliverable, what hapens to him? Does the acceptance continue? Is
he still allowed to vote? If he is, how would he know about it? Or be-
cause of the fact that the notice was returned to the election officials,
should they then take steps to cancel his registration? Also, what if a
voter is rejected and a notice is returned as undeliverable. How then
will he know he is rejected?
It is my opinion once a voter fills out one of these registartion forms
and mails it into registration officials, they will automatically assume
they are then registered to vote whether or not they get a notice in the
PAGENO="0367"
mail, and they will show up on election day to vote and their affidavit
or registration form will not be at the polling place. It will cause un-
surmountable trouble at the polling place for that individual and for
the election officials and other voters.
In a face-to-face registration the prospective voter knows right then
and there whether his application to register is accepted or rejected as
I stated earlier.
I also have trouble at least in Philadelphia in trying to visualize the
Census Bureau in mailing out postcard registration to the hotels and
boarding homes and nursing homes, housing projects, apartments that
are in Philadelphia. There are simply numerous situations where a
number of people are registered from housing projects and they are
not officially listed with the post office or even with the housing officials.
But they are citizens. That is where they live. Maybe they double up
with relatives or what have you,: and they are entitled to register to
vote. In Philadelphia we do register them.
I mentioned nursing homes. Occasionally the Philadelphia registra-
tion commission officials will go directly to the nursing home for the
benefit of disabled or elderly citizens and register them right at the
nursing homes.
We have statistics in Philadelphia which show over the years that
approximately one-third of all new registrations come in during the
final week of registration, and approximately 15 percent of all new
registration comes in on the last~ day. In other words, there is always
a last-minute rush to get registered to vote. I am afraid if that is true
in the present system, it will continue in a postcard mail registration
system also, with the added problem however that the mails may not
come until a day or 2 days or 3 days after the last day to actually regis-
ter. This will again cause further delays in the preparation of the street
list of voters and assembling the data to be sent out to the polling place
on election day.
In a city the size of Philadelphia it takes 1 week prior to the election
to send out all of the material to the polling places, to lock up the dis-
trict binders which go out to the polling place, and the dis-
trict binder containing the list of registered voters. That is assembled
and locked and delivered. The delivery process is begun 1 week prior
to the election in Philadelphia because we have such a tremendous
problem.
In conclusion, I would simply state that I do not think that House
bill 8053 is the answer to providing more registration and having more
people vote in this country, especially not in Philadelphia.
I would be in favor, as I said previously, of Senator Kennedy's bill
which would provide grants to the States so that the systems of regis-
tration like Philadelphia could be adopted in other cities such as
Newark and the other places where they do not have a mobile form of
registration. I think that would provide a better system of registration
and also prevent any possible fraud from occurring.
I want to thank the committee for giving me this opportunity to
present my views.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. We appreciate your being here with us today and
your contribution has been a real meaningful one, and we are grateful
to you for it.
PAGENO="0368"
362
I think we ought to all know, also, your fellow townsman, Congress-
man Eilberg, has an extremely high interest level in this legislation
and in this question and is responsible for your being here today. We
are very grateful indeed to Congressman Eilberg for making you avail-
able to us.
Congressman Frenzel.
Mr. FRENZEL. You indicate approval of the Kennedy bill. Do you
understand how grants would be made under that bill, because I don't?
It says they won't give more than 10 cents an eligible voter, but it looks
to me like it is some kind of a new exercise in grantsmanship.
I guess I would agree the Kennedy bill is better, but I would like
to have it on some kind of a block grant or stated criteria program.
Mr. MEKEL. I frankly don't understand exactly how it would work
either, Congressman. However, I do know that additional funding
would make it much better for the city of Philadelphia. We already
have, as I say, a tremendous program and we spend every last avail-
able cent that is budgeted to us on the program. With costs going up
we could use additional funds to expand the program we now have.
Mr. FRENZEL. I never saw a city yet that wasn't looking for some
additional funds somewhere.
One of the things I thought was most important about your testi-
mony is that you have corroborated I think in actual experience what
a number of election officials have told us is going to happen under
post card registration. We have postulated, and some of us includin
myself thought they were fanciful postulation, that a person woul
send in post cards with another fellow's name on in order to eliminate
him from the local voting lists. Did I understand your testimony cor-
rectly to say that actually happened in Philadelphia?
Mr. MEKEL. It wasn't a system of registration. It was the individuals
were already registered to vote, and someone would send in a removal
notice saying that the individual had moved to another district. The
registration would not have been canceled but it would have been
taken out of one area of the city and transferred to another area of the
city. And it actually did mess up those individuals' right to vote when
they showed up on election day, yes.
Mr. FRENZEL. Then some of our worst fears would likely be realized
because it would be much easier to do that sort of thing under the post-
card registration?
Mr. MEKEL. Yes, obviously.
Mr. FRENZEL. And you also indicated some of our other fears that
there would be illegible and incomplete registration. Did you find that
widespread too?
Mr. MEKEL. I would not say widespread, but it is certainly a discerni-
ble number of absentee registrations that come in in the mail now from
people who are out of town, out of Philadelphia, overseas or what have
you, that do come in illegible and with important data missing from
the form.
Mr. FRENZEL. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. We appreciate very much your coming. As I said
earlier, we are grateful to Congressman Eilberg for inviting you here.
Do you have anything further to contribute?
Mr. MEKEL. No, Mr. Chairman.
PAGENO="0369"
363
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you very much for being with us.
The committee will adjourn to the call of the Chair.
[Whereupon,at 12:20 p.m. the committee adjourned.]
[Subsequently the following information was supplied for the rec-
ord.]
STATEMENT OF HON. L. A. "SKIP" BAFALIS, MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Mr Chairman I appreciate the kindness Shown by members of the subcomnnt
tee in letting me express my oppOsition to S. 352 now being considered by the
Subcommittee.
Let me say at the outset I share your concern with the apparent lack of in-
terest currently being shown by our nation's electorate. I find deplorable the
fact that less than 55 per cent of our nation's eligible voters bothered to cast
ballots in the 1972 presidential elections.
But I fail to see how passage of S. 352 would correct this unfortunate situa-
tion. According to the Florida Association of Supervisors of Elections, which
opposes this Senate-passed measure, registration does not appear to be the cause
of the low percentage of voter turnout.
In fact, Mrs. Blanche M. Work, elections supervisor for Polk County and presi-
dent of the statewide organization for the 67 county elections officials, notes that
the greater percentage of those eligible to vote who did not register for the 1968
presidential election were either not interested in voting or disliked politics so
much they ignore elections.
So, Mrs. Work suggests, "A more appropriate step would be an in-depth study
to find out why those registered do not vote-Why the apathy, that is the ques-
tion that should lie answered."
However, Mr. Chairman, the opposition of Florida's 67 county elections super-
visors goes beyond the contention registration is not the problem.
They raise the spectre of massive registration and voter fraud.
"The Supervisors of Elections of Florida believe this monstrosity of a bill
would encourage the most collossal election fraud in the history of this country,"
wrote Mrs. Work. "Any person could register anyone else under the provisions of
this bill, could register under a different name in every precinct of the county,
could procure the registration of people who don't even exist and there would
be no way for the supervisors of elections to determine if these registrations were
leg-el or fraudulent."
Mrs. Work raises one more strong objection to S. 352-the tremendous cost
of implementing it.
In Polk County, an area w-ith a 1970 Census population of 227,697, Mrs. Work
estimates the additional cost at more than .~500,000. Polk County is far from the
most populous county in my state representing less than one twenty-eighth of
Florida's 7 million plus residents.
So, you can see the cost to Florida taxpayers would be phenomenal.
* But there is more than just the cost to the states and the counties to be con-
sidered. There is the cost to the Federal government for creating what Mrs. Work
describes as "another huge bureaucracy to handle a matter which is more effi-
ciently handled at the local level."
Mr. Chairman, I subscribe wholeheartedly to the views expressed by Mrs. Work
and her fellow elections supervisors.
We in Florida are proud of our registration system. We operate under a system
whereby an elector's name remain on the registration books permanently, pro-
vided he votes at least once during a two-year period. If not, a renewal card is
sent him by niail and if this card is ~ompieted and returned, either in person or
by mail, his registration is renewed for another two years.
Florida election officials also take pains to make it easy for residents to regis-
ten Courthouse offices are open eight hours a day five days a week year-round.
And for several weeks prior to each election, the hours are extended to eight to
twelve hours a day, six days a week.
* In addition, mobile registration * offices are often set up in shopping centers,
housing projects, colleges and other areas.
Any eligible voter who is a resident of Florida and wishes to register has ample
opportunity to do so. No interference in the name of assistance is needed on the
Federal level.
PAGENO="0370"
364
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to include in the record a resolution
adopted by the Florida Association of Supervisors of Elections, Inc. and the Polk
County Commission-both in opposition to S. 352.
In closing, may I again quote Mrs. Work. "It is our opinion (of Florida's 67
county election officials) that the average person does not appreciate federal
intervention in elections, so let us concern ourselves with making government
and those in government more palatable to the average citizen and thus build a
desire of the citizens to participate in the election of the officials who run our
government."
Thank you for the opportunity to express my opposition to S. 352 and I
urgently request this subcommittee to vote "nay" on this useless piece of
legislation.
FLORIDA STATE ASSOCIATION OF SuPmwlsoRs OF ELECTIONS, INC.
RESOLUTION
Whereas, 5. 352 introduced in the Senate of the United States during the First
session of the 93rd Congress would authorize postcard registration of electors, and
Whereas, Florida has an efficient method of registering electors through duly
elected county supervisors of elections whose offices are conveniently located in
each of the sixty-seven (67) counties of the Sunshine State, and
Whereas, a Federal postcard registration system would constitute a duplica-
tion of effort resulting in a waste of taxpayer moneys, and
Whereas, postcard registrations under such a Federal system would he diffi-
cult of administration because some would be illegible, others incomplete and
others impossible to process for other reasons, and
Whereas, registration under a mailing system without a single personal appear-
ance by an elector for the purpose of taking an oath could lead to widespread
fraud in voter registration, and
Whereas, it has not been shown that postcard registration would increase voter
participation at elections. Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the State Association of Supervisors of Elections after diligent
study and serious consideration does hereby go on record as being opposed to S.
352 and the method of postcard voter registration described therein.
Unanimously adopted in convention assembled at Daytona Beach, Florida,
this 9 day of February, 1973.
BLANCHE WORK,
President.
Attest:
M~nronm CARMICHAEL,
secretary.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, there is now pending in the United States Congress proposed
legislation which, if enacted, would create a voter registration administration for
the purpose of administering a voter registration through the postal service;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Polk County, Florida, upon
considering the effect of said legislation, finds that such a voter registration sys-
tem would create the opportunity for widespread voter registration fraud; and
WHEREAS, the proposed registration system would constitute a duplication
of effort leading to a substantial waste of public monies; and
WHEREAS, it has not been in any way demonstrated that such a system would
increase the rate of voter participation in elections; now' therefore, be it
Resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of Polk County, Florida, in
regular session duly assembled, that this Board publicly expresses its opposition
to the method of post card voter registration proposed by the hereinabove de-
scribed legislation, and declares its opinion that the enactment of such legisla-
tion would be detrimental to the quality of the existing system of voter registra-
tion, and asks that the United States Congress reject said proposed legislation,
and undertake to determine the causes of low levels of participation in elections
on the part of those who are registered under the present system.
Dated this 8th day of May, A.D., 1973.
PAGENO="0371"
365
STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN B. BI4AOKBURN, MEMBER OF CONGRESS
I thank the committee for the opportunity to present my views on the legisla-
tion currently before you, the National Voter Registration Bill.
Let me begin by saying that the objectives of this bill are desirable ones. All
of our citizens should have the opportunity to exercise their right to participate
in this most important and basic tenet of our society.
On the surface, this bill appears to be a simple and direct method of making
sure that all our citizens are afforded this opportunity, but a deeper analysis
shows that there is a potential to cause more problems than it can possibly
correct.
The government's role in determining whether a citizen exercises this right
should be carefully balanced; government should not unduly restrict his right or
exercise the right for him.
This legislation would upset this perilous balance and allow the federal govern-
ment to move into still another area which has traditionally been `a state's
responsibility. Previously, the federal government has become involved in voter
rights only when these rights were being violated by noncompliance with the
due process or equal protection clause's,' of the Constitution. Such was the case
when the Voting Rights Acts of 1965 and 170 were passed. There wa's evidence
at those times that voting rights established by the Constitution were being
violated, and certainly the Congress had the right to investigate this, but even
the proponents of this federal intervention into voter's registration are not argu-
ing that any constitutional right is being violated. This question clearly falls
into the states' jurisdiction and is not the federal government's responsibility.
On the surface, this bill calls for post card registration only for federal elec-
tions and primaries (while strongly "enéouraging" it in state elections), but it is
more complicated than it appears. In federal primaries and elections this bill
allows federal requirements to supersede state registration regulation's, and there
is also no indication as to who has the last say as to the registrant's compliance
with `state law. If a state rules a registrant not a bona fide resident (and, there-
fore, not in compliance with the law), , can the registrant appeal at the federal
level? This problem would raise Constitutional questions.
To stress the scope of federal intervention allowed by this bill, consider the
definition of a federal election as outlined in Section 401(4) of S. 352:
any biennial or quadrennial primary or general election and any special
election held for the purpose of nominating or electing candidates for any Federal
office, including any election held for the purpose of expressing voter preference
for the nomination of individuals for election to the office of President and any
election held for the purpose of selecting delegates to a national political party
nominating convention or to a caucus held for the purpose of selecting delegates
to such a convention."
This definition could do irreparable damage to our present political party
structure. Currently there are 35 states which have no laws governing presi-
dential primaries and, therefore, no `laws governing the participation in the
states' political party conventions to elect delegates to the national presidential
nominating conventions. The rules and regulations have been set by the parties
in the past. This bill allows the voting on party delegates in these states to be
open to any voter registered, with no party membership or responsibilities
required for participation. This process which has so long provided an orderly
and responsible procedure will become an agglomeration of chaotic processes.
Probably the most obvious problem in this legislation concerns the possibilities
of increased fraud. There is no suitable substitute for a person-to-person proce-
(lure in registering voters. This, at least to some degree, assures that an identifi-
able person is registering and not a resident of some local graveyard.
The proponents of this bill argue that the books will be closed 30 days prior
to election day and that this would be sufficient time for the registrants to be
checked out. There is a chance that this could be accomplished in sparsely pop-
ulated communities, but this would not be a pragmatic approach in our larger
cities.
One section which could be very inviting to fraud is Section 405(c)
"(c) A registration notification form advising the applicant of the acceptance
or rejection of his registration shall be completed and mailed by the State official
to the applicant. If any registration notification form is undeliverable as ad-
PAGENO="0372"
366
dressed, it shall not be forwarded to another address but shall be returned to
the State official mailing the form. The possession of a registration notification
form indicating that the individual is entitled to vote in an election shall be
prima facie evidenëe' that the individual is qualified and a registered elector
entitled to vote in any such election but presentation of the form shall not be
required to cast his ballot."
This section could open the door for counterfeiting of notification forms and
could allow fraudulent voters to vote on the strength of possessing a notification.
form.
Even if we decide to take the risks involved and pass this legislation, I am
not convinced that there would be improvement in voter registration significant
to warrant the dangers incurred. There are many reasons why people do not vote.
The Census Bureau has recently stated that of the people who didnot vote in the
presidential elections of 1972, 52 percent gave their reasons for not voting as
either disinterested or disliked politics. Only 13 percent said that they were
unable to register. The Voting Rights Act of 1970 and the Dunn vs. Blumstein
decision (which eliminated residency requirements) have removed . the diffi-
culties in registration. The government has fulfilled its obligation, and it must
not upset the balance by continuing to push for federal intervention into voting
registration.
Even the Census Bureau, which would be responsible for implementing this
program, has testified that they would rather not become involved in voter regis-'
tration. They have stated that the success of their agency is due to public confi-
dence in their record for the unbiased scientific collection and publication of
statistical data. They believe that if the voter registration administration is
i3laced in the Census Bureau, this confidence would be damaged.
Considering the political aspects of the administrations activities, this is cer-
tainly'a valid argument.
Aside from the political problems the Census Bureau could incur, the Bureau
would take on the status of a regulatory agency. They would become involved.
in: (1) assisting State officials in preventing fraudulent registrations; (2) mak-
ing of grants for new voter registration programs: (3) processing and audit-
ing of grant applicatons; and (4) interpreting state voter registration laws.
The Bureau can better accomplish its purposes with the public if it does not
obtain the image of a regulatory agency.
The problems of increased fraud, federal intervention into state processes,
Constitutional questions, no solid proof that registration would substantially
increase, costs (at least $100 million to start), many technical problems, and the
fact that the Census Bureau should not become involved in political or regulatory
activities far outweigh any benefits that could come from this legislation.
I urge this committee to carefully consider the implications of setting up a
national post card registration program.
STATEMENT OF HON. SHIRLEY CHIsH0LM, MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your allowing me the opportunity to submit testi-.
mony on this extremely important subject of voter registration. During the
hearings held before the Committee on PostOffice and Civil Service in the 92nd
Congress, and during those hearings already held before your Subcommittee
this session, the arguments in favor of the "Registration by Mail" Bill have
been widely touted. All of the high-sounding phrases have been used to describe
the effect of post card registration-"a movement toward a, broader-based de-
mocracy ;" "achieving the reality of participatory democracy ;" "ensuring the
vote as a right, not as a privilege ;" etc.
I do not mean to belittle these phrases at all-in fact a national voter regis-
tration system would go a long way toward achieving these lofty goals. But it
is not my desire to fill up the Committee records with any more catchy language.
I really think it is time for us to be direct and lay the facts on the line: the
present voter registration system in the United States discriminates against low-
income citizens. It is my sincere belief that the "Voter' Registation Act," H.R.
8053, would be a significant step toward ending this discrimination
My belief that the present voter registration system is. biased against low-
income groups is not based merely on the countless stories-most of which. no
doubt, are true-of how local election officials have schemed to keep tl~e poor,
PAGENO="0373"
367
especially the poor minority groups, off the voting lists. My assertion is backed
up by various polls taken in recent years. One example is a poll taken by the
Gallup Polling Organization in 1971. In: that year, the Gallup poll stated that
of those people surveyed, 72 per cent were registered to vote. The differences
according to income were significant: 83 per cent of those earning more than
$15,000 a year were registered, while only 65 per cent of those earning between
$5,000 and $6,999 were registered. Of those earning less than $3,000, 53% were
registered.
What can account for the clear difference that inconie makes with regard to
voter registration? I do not think apathy among the poor is any more prevalent
than among the middle and upper classes. I think the cause is that current voter
registration laws are biased-sometimes deliberately, other times unwittingly-
against the daily laborer or the person working in the fields, as opposed to the
employers or white collar workers in general. Studies by: the League of Women
Voters and the Gallup Organization indicate that 83 per cent of the white collar
workers are registered in comparison with only 69 per cent of the manual
workers.
Obstacles such as inaccessible voter registration offices, inconvenient times
during which the offices are open, and obsolete state voting laws are impediments
for every citizen, but they are a particular burden for those people on the bottom
of the income scale. For it is these people who do not always have access to
adequate transportation, who cannot afford to request time off from work to go
to the registration office, or who are mOre easily intimidated by the different-
and very possibly antagonistic_surroundings of a voter registrar's office.
Those obstacles to voter registration are widely believed to be the prime causes
of the extremely low voter turn out in the United States. In the last election,
44 per cent of those eligible, or 68 million Americans, did not vote! When com-
pared to figures for other free societies, our own situation appears very serious.
Compared with our 1972 voter turn out of 55.6 per cent, Canada's recent turn out
was 74 per cent; France's turn out was 82% ; West Germany, 91%; Great Britain.
71%; and Ireland, 75%.
In 1971 the League of Women Voters undertook a comprehensive study to as-
certain just what are the reasons for our low voter turn out. In their report
entitled. "Administrative Obstacles to: voting," they concluded that the typical
difficulties encountered by persons desiring to vote, such as residency require-
ments, inconvenient registration hours, complex procedures, distant places of
registration, etc., definitely reduce every citizen's opportunity to vote. I quote
from this study's concluding comments on registration problems:
". . . the League of Women Voters Education Fund found that the administra-
tive practices of local election officials and therefore citizens' access to the elec-
tion system vary greatly from place to place, that many state election officials
have not established structures and procedures which would insure uniform in-
terpretation and administration of state election codes throughout each state
and that the discretion which most state laws give to local election officials is
often exercised in a manner which impedes rather than enhances the citizen's
right to vote." (League of Women Voters Education Fund, Election Systems
Project, "Administrative Obstacles to Voting," 1972, p. 20.)
And whose right to vote is impeded most often? The right of the poor and
minorities of course. According to the Joint Center for Political Studies, "the
black voter turnout (in 1972). was about 14 percentage points lower than the
national overall turnout this year." Much of this difference can be traced to the
relatively lower percentage of blacks who are registered to vote: 66% of
this country's black population is~ registered, as opposed to 76% of the
white population. This study clearly indicates that millions of minority citizens
do not vote because of the enfranchisement difficulties in our present election
process. It is this state of affairs which necessitates such a major change as
registration by mail. If we are sincere about providing every citizen with his
constitutional guarantee to vote, then it is about time that we make a com-
prehensive change which will permit voters easy access to registration for fed-
eral elections. . .~
I know that in my home state of New York, a major cause of the low voter
turn out-56% of those elibible for the 1972 federal election voted-is the
fact that over 14 of the voting age : population is not registered. Of those who
were registered, approximately 78% voted. As you can see, a more effective
method of registering voters would considerably improve the voter participa-
PAGENO="0374"
368
tion in my home state. New York does have a form of registration by mail, but
it is of the type which makes the voter take the initiative: upon written request
to the local board, the citizen is sent two complicated forms to fill out and'
return. If the burden were transferred to the government-have the government
automatically send simple forms to each voter-I believe that the system would
be greatly improved and considerably more equitable.
Of course New York is by no means the state most in need of the Voter'
Registration Act. Although the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has had an ex-
tremely beneficial effect on registration and voter turn out among minority
groups in the South, much still needs to be done. For example in South Car-
olina only 39.5% of the eligible population voted in 1972; in Mississippi only
46% voted; in Alabama, 44%; in Arkansas, 49%. I realize that there are those
who oppose national post card registration on the grounds that it is an issue
which should be dealt with by the states. My response to that argument is'
simply that every individual has a right to vote, wherever he may live, and if
the states are unwilling to ensure that right, then the Federal Government.
must step in. Someone has to accept this responsibility-if not the states, then
the national government.
If we look closely at the statistics for the 1972 Presidential election, the need
for reform is all too obvious. In that year, sixty-two million Americans over 18
did not vote. Since the President received about 47 million of the 77 million
votes cast, this means that he was elected by approximately 1/3 of the voting-
age population. Under a multiparty system, that might be acceptable, but when'
only two parties are in contention, that figure is appalling.
How much longer can we, in clear conscience, tolerate this facade of democ-
racy. I think this Committee can provide the House of Representatives with
a solution to this problem. During its hearings on voter registration, the Senate
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service found that while 60% of voting-age
Americans vote, of those who are registered 90% vote. These are the type of
figures which make me believe that H.R. 8053 provides a way out of the present
situation where % of the potential voters did not vote for President Nixon in
1972. Let's give all Americans a voice in the government; let's act now on the
Voter Registration Act of 1973.
STATEMENT OF HON. PHILIP M. CRANE, MEMBER om' CONGRESS
Mr. Chairman and distinguished colleagues I appreciate the opportunity to'
submit testimony on the proposal for a national voter registration program.
There are several objections which I could raise to this bill from the stand-
point of practical administrative headaches. I am sure you have already heard
substantial testimony regarding the cost of a registration by mail system
as well as the potential for fraud which would be inherent in such a system..
However, I would rather turn my attention here to a defect of H.R. 8053 which'
perhaps has not heretofore been explored by your subcommittee.
One of the most complicated legal definitions in use today is that of domicile
and residency. In my state for example, a new state Constitution was adopted
by the voters in 1970. Article III, Section 4 of that Constitution mandates the
Illinois General Assembly to legislate a definition of "permanent residence for
voting purposes." So far, the legislature has been unable to write an adequate
definition. In our highly mobile society, where many persons retain more than
one domicile, residency for purposes of taxing, voting, and other duties and
obligations becomes an extremely tenuous and complex concept.
If a national system of voter registration by mail is adopted, the burden of
verifying the identity and residence of voters would almost inevitably fall on
the Voter Registration Administration. During testimony given by representa-
tives of the Justice Department earlier this year before the Senate Post Office
Committee, constitutional problems were raised as to the ability of the Federal
government to determine hon fide residency. The U.S. Supreme Court in Oregon
v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), upheld the authority of Congress to preempt
state residency laws for Presidential elections. However Justice Hugo Black
noted in his opinion that the Constitution "saves for the States the power to
control State and local elections which the Constitution originally reserved to
them and which no subsequent amendment has taken from them." In addition
to other recent opinions, the Courts majority opinion in Dunn v. Blumstein 405-
PAGENO="0375"
369
U.S. 330 (1973), seems to indicate that the State still has the right to determine
who is a bona fide resident.
In my opinion Mr. Chairman, there are many reasons why the states and
localities should retain local control and supervision of the voter registration
process. I recently sought the opinion of the Secretary of State of Illinois on
this bill. I would therefore at this point ask consent of the subcommittee to in-
sert the reply I received from the Honorable Michael J. Howlett at the con-
clusion of my statement. Mr. Howlett~ shares my belief that Federal preemp-
tion of state registration laws at this time is both unnecessary and undesirable.
The question of Federal government intervention in our state election laws
directly affects the delicate American balance of dual federalism. I believe that
if we tip that balance in favor of the central national government at the ex-
pense of the states we will be violating both the letter and spirit of our
Constitution.
Perhaps Mr. Chairman my feelings on this proposal were best summed up by
former Senator J. Caleb Boggs and Senator Hiram Fong in their report on a
similar bill on November 9, 1971:
"Control of voter registration qualifications have traditionally been left to
the states. In the past, the Congress has legislated in the field of voter rights
only when it believed that voting rights were being violated by noncompliance
with the due process or equal protection clause of the Constitution.
"In the absence of consistent and overwhelming evidence that such was the
case, the Congress has refrained from acting in the field of voting rights. It must
be pointed out that the Federal government shares many powers with the states
in this field. However, it has left control of most voting rights entirely up to the
states and even to the political parties. These include regulations on voting
supervision, protection of voters, duties of inspectors and canvassers, publication
of election returns, tallying of election returns and election of delegates to
national political party conventions. "This legislation would inject the Federal
government into an area traditionally left to the states-that of voter registra-
tion. This would be done for what can only be typified as convenience reasons and
not because a constitutional right was being violated. It is our opinion that in
the absence of consistent and overwhelming evidence that constitutional rights
are being violated in the application of voter registration laws and practices
by the States that the Congress should not act in this area." (partial statement-
emphasis mine)
I wish to thank the subcommittee again for its consideration of these remarks.
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE,
Springfield, Ill., June 27, 1973.
Hon. PHILIP M. CRANE,
Member of Congress,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CRANE: In answer to your recent inquiry on federal legislation~
Senate Bill 352 regarding federal voter registration.
In Illinois, the registration of voters is with the county clerks or boards of
election commissioners as the case may be. Therefore, it does not directly affect
the office of Secretary of State. However, from reviewing the proposed federal
legislation, it is noted that the registration is by postal card to be conducted by
the Bureau of Census. It is my feeling that a matter as important as voter
registration should not be conducted on a postal card. It would appear that any
citizen could submit cards on behalf of another individual, thus making a
mockery out of election procedures.
Under local jurisdiction, local officials would know and could easily investigate
and find out who resides at a certain address. The questioning of a voter's
residence could be resolved immediately with the local investigation.
Under federal jurisdiction, a residential inquiry, paper work, etc. could take
a month or more thus possibly denying or permitting one to vote whose residence
remains in question.
Above are just a few of the probabilities, therefore, I feel that registration
should remain under local control.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J. HOWLETT,
Secretary of State.
PAGENO="0376"
370
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity
to submit a statement for the Committee Record on the post card voter registra-
tion proposal, HR. 8053. I would like to direct my remarks in particular to the
potential impact of this bill on Cook County, Illinois w-here my district is
located.
The procedure for voter registration in Cook County is set out in considerable
detail in Article 5. Chapter 46 of the Illinois Revised Statutes. That article
gives primary responsibility for registration of voters to the Clerk of Cook
County. The clerk and deputy clerk of each city, village, and incorporated town
or township within the County of Cook but outside of the City of Chicago are
also designated as deputy registration officers.
In other words, there are many convenient registration offices available to
the citizenry in suburban Cook County. In the Fourth Congressional district
alone, there are more than 45 village offices and nine township offices where
citizens may register to vote until 35 days prior to primary or general elections.
Between 35 days and 28 clays prior to an election, citizens may register at the
main office of the County Clerk in Chicago. Hours of registration are set at
9 A.M. to 5 P.M. Monday through Friday and 9 A.M. until noon on Saturdays. In
addition, the County provides for registration officials to be present in every
precinct polling place in the county on a specified precinct registration day at
least once prior to the general election every two years. Ample public notice
is given at least 20 days prior to the precinct registration day. The precinct reg-
istration day is held not more than 36 nor less than 28 days prior to the November
election. Persons may register on that day at their regular polling place between
the hours of 8 A.M. and 9 P.M. Exceptions to in person registration are made
for members of the TJ.S. Armed Services stationed away from home and for
physically incapacitated citizens.
Mr. Chairman, it is the policy of the State of Illinois to make voter registra-
tion as convenient as possible while continuing to assure accurate registration
lists. Illinois citizens need only register once in order to be eligible to vote in
all subsequent elections. Permanent registration is in effect throughout the
state. To prevent fradulent registration and to purge registration rolls of de-
ceased persons or persons who have moved away, a canvass of the precinct is
conducted prior to every general election by precinct canvassers. These can-
vassers walk door to door in an attempt to verify the residence of each voter.
Persons whose names are erased from the rolls by canvassers have an oppor-
tunity to appeal to the County Clerk, prior to the election, if they feel an error
has been made.
The reason I have described our registration procedure in such detail is
simply to demonstrate that we in Illinois bend every effort to make registration
convenient for our citizens. Some of the testimony which you have heard has
dealt with the question of whether registration is the responsibility of the
individual or of government. I would simply point out that even with a post
card registration system such as proposed in H.R. 8053, the burden is still placed
on the individual citizen to perform the positive act of filling out a form and
mailing it.
* The most serious defect I see in H.R. 8053 is that it would tend to undermine,
rather than promote the registration process in Illinois. The only way to prevent
fradulent registration is to provide a means whereby the identity and residence
of the registrant can be positively verified. It seems to me that H.R. 8053 lacks
the proper safeguards that would adequately identify those persons who apply
for registration by mail.
I also have serious reservations about Section 405 (c) of the bill. Under Illinois
law. the five local judges of election in each precinct polling place are the final
arbiters of who may vote. Two of the judges are from the minority party and
three represent the majority party in that precinct. Once fraudulent votes are
cast, they cannot later be isolated on a voting machine total. If local election
judges are required by Federal law to accept a notification form as prima-fade
evidence of registration then their efforts against fraud will be greatly hampered.
Judges should be permitted to ask for other forms of identification if there is a
challenge to the registrants qualification to vote in that precinct.
Finally Mr. Chairman and distinguished colleagues, I believe that the record
of your hearings on this bill will show that election laws in our several states
are amazingly complex. The registration laws of Illinois and other populous
PAGENO="0377"
371
states vary significantly from a state such as North Dakota where no registration
is required to vote. Election laws have traditionally been the function of state
go\ ernments I believe that states and localities need moie flexibility than this
bill would allow to adequately serve the needs of their respective constituencies.
While it is true that Congress has in recent years moved into the election law
field, we have done so only to insure that voting procedures in the states were
In compliance with the due process or equal protection clauses of the Constitu-
tion. I believe that with the passage of the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965
and with passage of the 1970 Amendments to that Act, the Federal government
has gone about as far as it should go with respect to preemption of state election
laws.
Mr. Chairman I thank the Committee for the opportunity to submit this state-
ment and I ask unanimous consent to include with my statement the following
editorial from the Chicago Tribune of July 24 1973 iegarding this legislation
[From the Chicago Tribune, Tuesday, July 24, 1973]
VOTE FRAUD BY MAIL?
Congress is considering legislation [HR 8053] which would make it possible
for people voting in federal elections to register by mail. The measure is being
championed by the Committee for Congressional Reform as if it were the greatest
thing since the 19th Amendment.
The committee, and the measure's sponsors, contend that the greatest single
cause of our nation's low voter turnouts is the red tape and bother people have
to go thru to register to vote. True, there is red tape and bother, but no more
than there is when one goes to the polling place to vote. In fact, unless one moves
frequently, a single registration is generally good for years.
The committee cites statistics showing how poorly the United States compares
with other nations in voter turnouts, but fails to point out that many other
naions have cumbersome registration procedures as well. The registration by
mail proposal applies to federal elections but not to local ones, which would
complicate things even more.
The primary cause of low turnouts is vote apathy-a disinterest in the out-
come of elections prompted by laziness on the part of some but by a genuine
disgust on the part of many with the scandals, bossism, and fraud that have
corrupted American politics to an unfortunate degree. An effective way to
eliminate the corruption-and the consequent apathy-is to make elections more
honest. Post card voter registration would have an opposite effect.
Voting machines have been no curé-all for vote fraud, as the latest Cook
County vote fraud scandal attests. But they are infinitely preferable to the old
paper ballot system, which made vote fraud child's play.
Similarly, our present registration procedures have not stopped irregularities,
but they certainly provide more protection than would registration by mail.
We shudder to think how easy it would he for crooked precinct workers to mail
fraudulent registration cards in by the sack.
The way to get people to vote is not just to make it easier for them [and
easier for vote fraud as well]. It is tO make them want to vote, and that will
require more than a piece of legislation.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWIN D. ESHLEMAN, MEMBER OF CONGRESS
The e is a bill S 352 in Congress which to my way of Vnnl ing is troublesome
and could cause undue headsehes in the years ahead. It would permit people to
register to vote simply by filling out a post card and sending it in.
Time people w-ho favor this registration procedure claim that it would open up
ouc political process and lead to more people actually voting. They find it dis-
turbing that millions of people who were eligible to vote in last year's national
elections not only didn't vote hut didn't even bother to register. The theory is that
if you made it easy for them to register, they might in turn come out to the polling
place on election day.
Over in the Senate, the supporters of post card registration convinced 57
Senatora that this ~vou1d he a good idea and the Senate voted 57 to 37 to make
Thist card registration a reality.
2O-O95---73---__2~
PAGENO="0378"
372
I happen to think they were dead wrong. This idea, if it becomes law, holds
the potential for untold mischieve within our political system, and more than
likely would lead to more cases of fraud in every, national election than the
courts would hkve time to prosecute.
Why do I find this particular idea so objectionable? First, it is an obvious at-
tempt to inject the Federal Government into the business of running the election
proëess of every State. One of the powers reserved for the States in our Consti~
tution was control of elections. The power was left in State hands for some very
good reasons, `but, most importantly, because the States have courts in which to
prosecute people who break election laws and police system to enforce the laws.
What are we going to do--jam up Federal court dockets with election fraud cases
and create a Federal' police force to watch for registrati'on violations? It all
seems so unnecessary when you figure that the States have done a pretty fair job
for 200 years of watching our elections and prosecuting people who break election
laws.
Second, the post card system would not require a single personal appearance
by a potential voter for purpose of registration. Think what opportunities for
wrongdoing exist in such a system. Anyone with a handful of these post cards
could register all kinds of fictitious names that could then be voted in the next
election.
`Third, this procedure is supposed to apply to only registration for voting in Fed-
eral elections. But anyone can see that either the States adopt it `as their system,
also, or they'll' be stuck with the duplication `and waste of running two entirely
separat~ voter registration systems.
All of this trouble would be caused simply because it would supposedly lead to
more people coming out to vote. But would it? `We are talking about a person
unwilling to stop by the courthouse to register or unwilling to take advantage of
opportunities to register when special teams go out to local areas to sign up voters.
I can't imagine that person would be willing to make the effort to get to the polls.
In fact, the evidence I've seen indicates that easier registration would not lead
to more people voting. It looks as though it would only lead to a greater chance in
areas like Cook County, Illinois that a higher percentage of the votes cast would
turn out to be fraudulent. That's not a step forward for our nation. But rather,
it's a step backward-and a very big one.
STATEMENT OF HoN. WILLIAM J. GREEN, MEMBER OF CoNGREss
Mr. Chairman, In the words of the U. S. Supreme Court:
"No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice
in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens,
we must live. Other rights~ even the most basic. are illusory if the right to
vote is undermined." (Westbury V. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1 (1964)).
President John F. Kennedy's "Commission on Registration and Voting Partic-
ipation" put it as follows:
"~Toting in the United States is the fundamental act~of self government.
It provides the citizen in our free society the right to make a judgment. to
`state a choice, to participate in the running of his government-in the Com-
munity, the State. and the Nation. The ballot box is the medium for the
consent of the governed."
I do not contend that every citizen must vote in order for our democracy to
vote. Our democratic society is built upon freedoms that tell us that the ultimate'
decision to vote must rest with the individual: It is important to emphasize that
the post card registration system would be completely voluntary. The Federal
Government should `not impose its will upon the pub1ic's right to vote in any
way. Tile Government should, however, give the American public the uninhibited
opportunity to register and to vote.
`I believe that the principal cause of nonvoting in this country is cumbersome'
registration laws. Many' Americans seeking to register to vote encounter long
lines or short office hours; th'ey `find that the registration offices are great dis-
tances from their homes; and they often find that registration rolls are closed
week's before an upcoming election.
The Government has the responsibility to invent a uniform system to voter
registration that will allow any citizen to register with ease-without obstacles~
PAGENO="0379"
373
REGISTRATION PROCESSES LAG BEHIND 20TH CENTURY AMERICA
In 1972, only 67.4% of The voting population was registered to vote.1 Over 35
mullion eligible Americans were unregistered. It is clear that registration
processes have not kept pace with the rapid developments of 20th Century
America.
The Report of the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee (No. 93-91,
issued March 27, 1973) declares that:
"5. 352 is designed to contribute to the correcting of the dismal voter
turnout in American elections for the past 50 years . . . voter registration
requirements for the most part have become obstacle courses which *prevent
large numbers of Americans from exercising their franchise. This bill seeks
elimination of those obstacles." (Page 1)
A 1972 study by the League of Women Voters entitled, "Administrative Ob-
stacles to Voting" making this point:
"Regrettably, the present election system has not worked well. It still
bears the mark of forces which oiiginally gave it birth at the turn of the
century: fear of widesperad corruption and fraud at the polls and a desire
to control the voting participation of millions of European immigrants
who threatened the status quo. Although these particular forces have largely
ceased to exist, the system remains saddled with many unnecessarily
restrictive laws and exclusionary, procedures. It has become an adminis-
trative maze in which many of the abuses it was designed to prevent can.
in fact, be more easily hidden and through which the average citizen must
painstakingly grope in order to exercise his fundamental right to the
franchise." 2
The same study further concludes that, "millions of American citizens fall
to vote not because they are disinterested, but because they are disenfranchised
by the present election system." (page 6)
STATES' RIGHT WOULD NOT BE WEAKENED
The post card registration system proposed iii S. 352 wou1d not inhibit the
Constitutional relationship between the Federal Government and the states.
It would not subvert the right of states to conduct elections, nor would it effect
the states' right to determine the qualifications for voters eligibility as it
presently stands.
The Committee Report makes the following statement: "In recommending this
legislation . .. the Committee has taken great care to insure that the preroga-
tives of the states to establish to law general qualification for voting are pre-
served. The determination of who is a qualified elector in any state remnins
the right and responsibility of the state." (page 2)
Congress, of course, can only legislate for Federal elections, but it is my
hope that the states would adopt the post card registration system for all elec-
tions and thereby eliminate the necessity for keeping dual registration lists.
The merits of adopting this legislation on the Federal level certainly apply to the
states and locations as w&l. S. 352 would provide monetary incentives and ad-
ministrative assistance for those states that .desired to convert their registration
process to a post card system.
Let me point out that states close their registration rolls more than 30 days
before an election must keep dual registration lists under existing law. The Voting
Rights Act of 1970 sets a maximum of 30 days for the period which the registra-
tion rolls can close before a presidential election. So, should some decide to keep
their present systems, they would have to find administrative solutions for a dual~
registration and a dual voting process. But these situations are certainly not:
insurmountable..
POST CARD REGISTRATION SHOULD INCREASE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Time use of a post card registration system will increase citizen participation.
Since post cards would be available~ to groups interested in encouraging voter
1 Source: Republican Alrnanac-1973, Political/Research Division, Republican National
Committee, P. 14B.
2 "Administrative Obstacles to Voting." A report of the Election Systems project,
The League of Women Voters Education Fund, 1072, p. 5.
PAGENO="0380"
374
registration, volunteer groups would be able to go door-to-door with the cards, or
pass them out at schools, factories, shopping centers, and other public places.
Rather than having attempt to pursuade persons to register at some central
location at some future point in time, canvassers could answer questions about
registering to vote through the mails, and encourage citizens to fill out the post
card and mail it promptly.
Such activity would be particularly meaningful in the many states which do
not have neighborhood registrars, mobile registrars, or provisions in their laws
for deputy registrars. Permitting interested citizens to participate freely and
easily in the registration process would result, I anticipate, in the enfranchise-
ment of millions of eligible citizens who presently do not take part in our dem-
ocratic process.
EARLY CLO5ING DATE5 PROHIBITED
S. 352 prohibits registration rolls for all federal elections from closing more
than 30 days before an election. This provision should also have a significant
impact on the number of persons who are registered to vote.
Statistics clearly suggest that there is a correlation between the percentage
of persons who are registered and the closing date of the registration rolls in
the states. Furthermore, since interest in an election grows as election day nears,
it is logical to assume that the number of persons registered to vote in states
which now close their registration books 40, 50 or 60 days before an election will
increase remarkably under 5. 352.
NO NEED TO WORRY ABOUT FRAUD
The objection most frequently voiced against this legislation is that post card
registration would increase opportunities for "fraud" in the electoral system.
However, there are severe fines and penalties proposed in the bill which would
serve as a deterrent to false registration. Persons who are found guilty of
giving false information on a post card registration form could receive fines of
up to $10,000 or 5 years imprisonment or both, and these penalties would be in
addition to any existing state sanctions. In addition, since the e~ector's post card
is merely an application for registration, it would still be incumbent upon the
local registrar to determine the validity of that application. At this point, fraud
could easily be prevented by effective screening methods.
As the Senate Committee points out in its report:
"Nothing in S. 352 prevents the County Clerks from investigating the
qualifications of applicants who register by mail. Indeed, under the bill, if
the County Clerk finds the task of registering voters through this process
too difficult, he may ask the National Voter Registration Administration for
assistance. Such assistance can include the ascertainment of the qualifications
of an individual who applies by mail." (page 5)
Furthermore, it has historically been true that most actual fraud has occur-
red on election day rather than in the registration process.
Finally. I believe that the greatest fraud is the exclusion of millions of Amer-
icans from our democratic electoral process under the laws as they exist today.
POLITICAL 5CIENTI5ITS VIEW VOTER REGISTRATION
I would like to offer now for the consideration of the Committee some of the
research done by political scientists in the field of voter behavior. I believe that
this information will further convince you of the necessity of a national voter
registration bill. It is clear from the information that follows that there are
numerous inequities in the registration systems of the different states. The
institution of a post card registration process. together with he 30 day close of
registration requirement, will go a long way towards the assurance that every
American has free and easy access to the exercise of the franchise.
CONVENIENCE A FACTOR IN VOTER REGISTRATION
Political scientists Stanley Icelley. Jr., Richard E. Ayres. and William G.
Bowen have written the definitive study on the topic of voter registration. In
1960, tlese men analyzed registration and voting in 104 of the Nation's largest
cities. Their findings are recorded in an articl~ published in The American
Political Science Review (June 1967), which is entitled, "Registration and
PAGENO="0381"
375
Voting: Putting First Things First." Their research suggests, quite strongly,
that variations in the~ convenience of registering have a "significant impact"
upon the rates of voter registration.
PERSONAL REGISTRATION A KEY FACTOR IN ELECTORAL PARTICIPATION
Kelley, et al. founded their study on the assumption that a rational man's
decision to vote is reached in a manner similar to that which he uses in making
most decisions-that is, if the returns outweigh the costs, he acts; if not, he
abstains. Accepting that basic assumption, it follows that a variation of regis-
tration rates among cities is a result of,: differences among them in the way that
people assess the value of registration, and the attendant costs they perceive
to be associated with the registration process.
Research has shown that there is a marked relationship between personal
registration and electoral participation. Personal registration refers to the
system existing in most counties in this country whereby individuals are
required, by law, to appear in person before designated registration or election
officials, and to declare that they are qualified under state laws governing suf-
frage qualifications.
S. 352 would, of course, eliminate the necessity for a personal appearance
before the county registrar or an appointed representative.
SOCIO-ECONOMIO FAGTORS IMPORTANT
Noted political scientist Anthony Downs has found that personal registration
imposes the costs of access to the polls, at least to some extent, more heavily
on some individuals than on others.3 Though these costs are legally identical,
sociologically they can be sharply differentiated. The League of Women Voters'
Study makes the same observation about conditions in 1972. The report finds that,
"In the case of minorities, the poor, the uneducated and the aged, who
are unable to meet its complicated requirements easily, the System naturally
imposes more heavily than the average mainstream American." (page 8)
For example, the inconvenience of times and places for registration, and the
necessary for expenditure of scarce resources (i.e. loss of income due to taking
time off from work in order to register) place a heavier burden on the lower
socio-economic groups than on others. Variations in the degree of convenience
of the times and places for registration has been found to be statistically sig-
nificant with respect to variations in the rate of voter registration. The National
Voter Registration Bill would eliminate almost all of these "costs" and thereby
the inherent inequities of a personal registration system. The simple mailing of
a post card is an economical and convenient way to register to vote.
These socio-economic factors combined with a number of psychological con-
siderations figure prominently in an explanation of voter turn-out. The most
frequently cited factors effecting voter registration levels appear to be race,
place of residence, education, age, income, marital status, sex, ethnic group
affiliation, occupation, geographic mobility, intensity of partisan preferences,
perceived closeness of the election, interest in the campaign, concern with the
outcome of the election, attitudes withrespect to issues of public policy, attitudes
towards the candidates, and the personal level of political information. Kelley,
et al., cite age, race, and education as the three socio-economic factors having
the most significant impact on registration rates.
It is obvious that there are many factors effecting voter participation. Differ-
ences from place to place in voter registration procedures combine with these
variables to effect significantly the rates of registration. The adoption of a
national voter registration bill will introduce the needed uniformity that would
signal an end to inequities resulting from local registration procedures.
REGISTRATION CLOSELY LINKED TO VOTER TURNOIJT
In the full sample of cities studied by Kelley, 78% of the variation of the
percentage of the population of voting age that actually voted could be accounted
for by variations in the percentage of the population that was registered. It
became apparent to the investigators that registration requirements were a:
"more effective deterrent to voting than anything that normally operates
to deter people once they have registered (in presidential elections)."
(page 3G2).
`Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy, (New York, Harper & Bros.,
PAGENO="0382"
376
They also concluded that:
"Local differences in the turnout for elections are to a large extent related
to local differences in the rates of registration, and these in turn reflect, to
a considerable degree, local differences in the rules governing, and arrange-
ments for handling, the registration of voters." (page 373).
There can be little doubt that the inconvenience of registering to vote in many
places combined with the administrative and legal barriers has caused many
citizens to become nonvoters. This situation is one that should not exist in this
cOuntry. The adoption of a simple post card registration system, and the revised
close of registration deadlines would go a long way towards reversing this
situation.
We cannot be sure that increases in the registration rolls would result in
increased electoral participation. We can only point to history and the work of
distinguished political scientists which clearly indicate that registered persons
tOnd to vote. There is no reason to believe that this trend will be altered with
the imposition of a post card registration system.
VOTER TURNOUT IN RECENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
Tn the presidential election of 1960. 39 million eligible Americans failed to vote;
the number rose to 43 million in 1964, 47 million in 1968; and in 1972 almost 62
million eligible Americans did not Vote for president. Only 55.7% of the eligible
electorate voted for president in 1972. Mr. Nixon's 61% of the popular vote repre-
sents only one-third of the eligible population. The 62 million persons who did
~`ote in 1972 represent more than one quarter of the total population of the IllS.,
and almost 45% of the eligible population. These are sad statistics, particularly
when we compare them with participation in other democracies. It is urgent that
we pass effective legislation to reverse this trend.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF U.S. VOTER PARTICIPATION
Voter participation in the United States has not always been as poor as it is
today. Consistently, throughout the latter half of the 19th Century, voter turnout
in presidential elections was in the range of 70-80% of the eligible population.
Since 1900, however, we have not once reached the level of 70%. It is no accident
that the sharp decline in voter participation coincided exactly with the advent
of voter registration at the beginning of the 20th Century.
Seventy-six per cent of the 94 million Americans who were registered to vote
in the 1972 presidential election (in the 46 states and the District of Columbia
where there is a statewide registration) actually went to the polls on election
day. This seems to be ample proof that increased registration is the key to im-
proving our voter turnout.
The decline of participation in our democratic system should be cause for alarm
to us all. As former Attorney General Ramsey Clark pointed out, "The danger is
that democratic institutions cannot function effectively or respond promptly to
society's needs unless citizens participate in the decisions that affect their daily
lives. A government that `derives its just powers from the consent of the gov-
erned' must be al)le to hear the voice of the people if it is to make orderly, sys-
tematic adjustments to the problems of change. It cannot assume that silence is
consent. Silence may well imply alienation, frustration, and a widening right
between the government and the governed. . . . We can live with decisions made
by a full electorate, but those who did not participate may be unwilling to live
with decisions they had no choice in making."
I strongly urge the Committee to favorably report a National Voter Registra-
tion bill at the earliest possible date.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON. MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your affording me the opportunity to present my
views with regard to problems stemming from present voter registration inade-
quacies.
Complex, multi-step application procedures and administrative error have, at
the least, subjected the individual to considerable delay and, at most, resulted in
his disenfranchisement in Federal, State, and local elections. Residence require-
ments and sparsely-located registration centers with office hours from 9 :00 a.m.
PAGENO="0383"
377
to 5 :00 p.m. pose unnecessary obstacles for the registration of a highly mobile,
working population. The partial result of these administrative and other prob-
lems, including the continued denial of the vote to many black citizens as a result
of locally restrictive registration statutes, has been a very poor participation rate
of 54.5 percent in the November 7 election.
As Federal legislation is the only vehicle to uniformly solve these voting prob-
lems, I wish to add my support to the McGee Act, S. 352. Two charges have been
made in opposition to the provisions of this "Voter Registration Act." The first
contention is that the establishment of such a system would encourage fraud.
On the contrary, fraud has been found to more frequently occur at the ballot
box and not during the registration process. In addition, Section 407 provides for
comprehensive sanctions against such fraud.
Secondly, it is maintained that the Act's provisions would unduly overwork
local election officials. Yet the adoption of simplified registration application pro-
cedures and the establishment of the Voter Registration Administration, coordi-
nating local, State, and Federal efforts, as well as providing economic support,
would expedite and simplify the workload of local officials.
In addition, to further establish minimum standards so as to prevent a repeti-
tion of last November's numerous foul-ups, may I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that
this committee include as amendments to this Act two bills which I have previ-
ously introduced. These may be referred to as the "Voter Information Bill" and
the "Voter Protection Bill," both of which I believe to be proximate to the intent
of the "Voter Registration Act.' Suggested language for the "Voter Information
Bill" and "Voter Protection Bill" are attached to this statement.
Mr. Chairman, it is a sad commentary on popular notions of participatory
democracy that only 50 percent of the national electorate knows the name of
their congressmen. Opportunities for greater citizen contact with governmental
officials not only make for a more informed citizenry more apt to participate in
the electoral process, but would go a long way toward the goal of making govern-
ment more accountable to the public.
The "Voter Information Bill" would require every post office to display infor-
mation on registration requirements and the places, dates, times and methods of
registering and voting at elections held in the area served by the post office.
In addition, the posting of the names and office addresses of U.S. Senators and
Representatives, and representatives to the State legislature would be required.
Finally, necessary information on the availability and cost of Western Union
Public Opinion messages to the President, Vice President, and Members of Con-
gress would be posted. Perhaps seeing a Representatives name and address in
his post office will now spark someone to write a letter or register to participate
in the electoral process when he might otherwise have been silent.
More importantly, Mr. Chairman, may I also submit as an amendment to the
"Voter Registration Act" a bill to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth
Amendment to assure the proper conduct of elections, the "Voter Protection Bill."
Mr. Chairman, last November 7, thousands of registered voters were faced with
the alternatives of disenfranchisement or the necessity of attempting to obtain
a Court order so as to register their votes. This stemmed from incomplete and
incorrect registration roll listing, inoperative voting machines, early closing hours
at the polls, and complex absentee ballot procurement procedures. Simplified
registration procedures provided in the "Voter Registration Act" would prevent
the repeated occurrence of a situation in New York City ivhëre new registrants,
holding voter registration cards, arrived at the polls only to learn that necessary
secondary cards were missing. Albuquerque, New Mexico, residents were simi-
larly subjected to disenfranchisement as they did not receive secondary registra-
tion notifications.
Mr. Chairman, the listing of similar, unnecessary foul-ups goes *on and on.
In addition 120 jammed 01 unworl able voting nv~chine~ suI)Jected Jersey City
New Jersey, residents to hours of delay, forcing them to obtain a court order
extending the voting hours. Machine malfunctions in some Philadelphia wards
cancelled out Democratic Presidential votes cast on a straight party ticket.
The "Voter Protection Bill," which I am offering as an amendment, would
require each polling place to have adequate voting machinery and facilities to
service every voter within fifteen minutes of his arrival at the polling place.
In addition, it would be required that back-up paper ballots and competent re-
pairmen be readily available to function if the machines should fail to correctly
operate.
PAGENO="0384"
378
Early poll closing hours of 4 p m 6 p m or 6 30 p m ba~ e at least incon~ en
ienced, if not prevented working people and commuting suburbanites from exer-
cising their vote. Inclusion of the "Voter Protection Bill" would extend polling
place hours from 6 :00 n.m. to 9 :00 p.m.
Perhaps the absentee ballot application and voting procedures pose the greatest
obstacles and administrative pitfalls for the average voter. The varied and com-
plex procurement procedures for abseiitee ballots have confused many and dis-
couraged many others from voting at all. Increased absentee ballot requests in
urban areas have resulted in large backlogs. Postal delay, in addition, has resulted
in late arrival and the ensuing voiding of ballots cast. The "Voter Protection
Bill" stipulates that absentee ballots, in blank, be made available within one
week of the date of request. Simple, one-step application post cards shall be
placed in every post office. Upon completion by the voter, such a ballot shall be
returnable to a central office or agency in each state which shall proniptly for-
ward the ballot to the appropriate officer and place for counting.
In addition, the Attorney General would be authorized to make grants to elec-
tion boards and officials of States for the purposes of research and training for
their responsibilities under this bill. The Attorney General would also pay to each
State on ~n `~nnual reimbui~ement basis 25 percent of the increased election
operating cost directly resulting from the application of the standards imposed
by this bill.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I say that the "Voter Registration Act" as
amended by the "Voter Information Bill" and the "Voter Protection Bill"
would constitute a major step toward eliminating election day foul-ups. It would
streamline~ the voter registration process and w-ould bring about the advent of a
more highly involved and participatory citizenry.
STATEMENT OF Hox. JAMES HARVE~, MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Mr. Chairman, when it was announced that the Subcommittee on Elections
would be holding hearings on Voter Registration, I felt that it was important to
learn the view-s of clerks in our Nation's townships, cities and counties regarding
this matter.
Any voter registration system used must ultimately be operated by local offi-
cials. They are the ones who must make it work. Their views on this subject, then,
are very significant.
Many of the election clerks in my Congressional District wrote me concerning
Voter Registration by postcard. They believe there are serious disadvantages to
this type of voter registration system.
The following are the views of five clerks in my District which are a good
representation of the views expressed by all those who wrote to me regarding
voter registration by postcard.
CITY OF SAGINAW,
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK,
Michigan, June 25, 1973.
HON. JAMES HARVEY,
Congressman, House of Representatives,
Washington, DXI.
DEAR JIM: Responding to your letter regarding post card registration, I am
heartily in accord with your thinking and most certainly am opposed to this type
of registering voters.
I can foresee many complications in addition to the possibility of fraud.
One that comes immediately to my mind is the form of registration card and
how it would ever fit into our computerized registration process. We use an IBM
card of special design with punched information that is put through the com-
puter. How could we possibly use a postcard in this way?
* I also believe as you do that the supervision and control of elections should be
done at the State and local level. Local clerks are in a much better position to
keep the election process clean-they are close to the Situation and can more
readily spot situationswhich may be fraudulent.
PAGENO="0385"
379
I note the bill will permit cards to be punted in language othei th'rn English
What does the Clerk do if he or she can't interpret the card made out in the
foreign language?
There `tie a number of other things in the bill `ahich I could comment on but
due to the shortness of time, I'll let them pass. I believe you understand my basic
objections
I believe our present system of registering voters is adequate. In addition to
oui regulai office houis e~ ery week day duiing the yeai we ha~ e extended hours
preceding elections, we establish sub-stations throughout the City, we send reg-
istrars direct to the high schools and our two colleges, to all our high-rise apart-
ments for the elderly and upon request of individuals who cannot get out for
some reason or another we send someone to thetr homes One may also register by
mail if done on our forms and have his signature witnessed by a Notary Public
or an official authorized to take oaths. I:see nO need for post-card registration and
I think it leaves the door w ide open foi cheating
Put me down as oppOsed!
Thanks for writing. It's always good to hear from you.
Best wishes always,
(Miss) ELIZABETH A. DONALDSON,
______ City Clerk.
ARTHUR GRAHAM,
Lapeer, Mich., June 26, 1973.
MR. JAMES HARVEY,
Representative 8th Michigan District,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mu. HARVEY: I am writing to voice my opinion on S. 352, known as the
Postcard Registration Bill.
I am definitely opposed to this type' Of legislation. I feel' (know) this law would
make election fraud nearly impossible tt control, especially in large cities or
anywhere there is a large concentration of people.
I also feel this law would waste a `lOt of taxpayer's money in staffing a bureau
to admihister this law and in the time wasted by local clerk's in checking duplica-
tion of registration, etc. I believe elections should be controlled by States and local
government, and as a Township Clerk with fourteen years experience I feel that
everyone has ample opportunity `to register if they really want to.
We have had door-to-door registration here in Oregon Twp. and only a small
number so registered bothered to vote and `those few would undoubtedly have
registered on their own. I hope Mr. `Harvey that you will do your utmost to
defeat this bill, 5. 352.
Thanking you most sincerely,
AItTHUB GRAHAM.
P.S.-Thank you for sending me a copy of Bill, S. 352.
WATERTOWN TOWNSHIP CLERK,
Fostoria, MiChigan, June 23, 1973.
Mr. JAMES HARVEY,
Washington D.C. `
Mr. HARVEY: I appreciate the opportunity to express my opinion as clerk of a
small Township.
The most efficient, economical, and no fraud election has to be handled by the
unit of government closest to the electors, which would be as it is, we know the
people of our Township personally thru different means of contact which is im-
possible for the federal government tO know these people as we do, also, the fed-
eral government has no means of catching one person making false registrations
only through the Election Inspectors, and that too can best be handled at local
level, the Clerks have to have some qualified certificationthat each person Voting
has the authority to do so.
I cannot understand what the Federal Government thinks they would gain
by this method of registration, only to make things more `difficult than they
all ready are. ` `
PAGENO="0386"
380
There is a large percentage of our population that due to the things that have
all ready taken place in our Federal Government have lost confidence and trust,
and some thing at this time in this respect would in my opinion only make mat-
ters worse.
The staff of our postal department has been greatly reduced, due to computers
and other machine processing of mail, and the zip code which was to do so much
for us, which so far has been of no material consequence, I would think that
would be a very poor media for handling voter registration.
We can all see through the various activities of Federal and State government
that they are both working diligently to take the remaining authority away from
our local government, also the public vote, so many of our state proposals espe-
daily, 18-year-old voter, was defeated twice, Day Light Savings time, was twice
defeated, yet it was passed by the State Dept. now they are beginning to see the
effects of the 19-year-old on a state at large, the average elector is confused in
the way government as a whole is being conducted.
I would personally urge you as our representative, 8th district to do what ever
possible you can to keep our elections at the local level, where contact starts at
the beginning and works up, not from the top down.
Sincerely,
FLossIE HOWAY,
Clerk.
ZILWAIJKEE TowNsHIP,
Saginaw, Michigan, June 25, 1973.
Re 5. 352, Voter Registration Act.
Representative JAMES HARVEY,
Rayburn Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR REPREsENTATIVE HARVEY: The matter of Voter Registration by mail was
discussed at length in a workshop at the Saginaw County Court House. This meet-
ing was attended by three of our election board members and myself. We oppose
the registration by mail and advocate registration stay on the local level.
Mr. Van Haaren, Zilwaukee Township Supervisor, also feels the registration
should be kept at local levels. We all feel this bill will cause more problems than
we are already experiencing and any person wanting to vote will take all neces-
sary steps to register and will take an active part in all elections. Those regis-
trations solicited by various measures show little if any voter activity.
On behalf of our Township, I think you for this opportunity to express an
opinion on 5. 352, the Voter Registration Act.
(Mrs.) PATRICIA B. BRANDT.
Zitwankee Township Clerk.
TowNsHIP OF MARATHON,
COUNTY OF LAPEER,
Colninbiaville-Ottel Lake, Mich., June 23, 1973.
Hon JAMES HARVEY,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
HoN. JAMES HARVEY: I received your letter concerning the Voter Registra-
tion Act, S. 352, recently passed by the U.S. Senate. I hope that this letter will
get to you before `the public hearing scheduled for June 27th and 28th. Your let-
ter was delayed a few days due to necessity of sending it to me as Mr. Betke
resiariPcl in May an3 I have been appointed to fill the rest of his term in office.
I believe that this Act will. create considerably more work for the registrator
than the additional registrations that will be picked up. I am also concerned
about the necessity for new hooks to file the registrations in as I do not see
how the new- card can he mailed to each individual and returned unless they
are in an envelone. The present cards have carbon paper in them so the second
copy can he forwarded to the local school. Also a master file must be kept by
the clerk which should also have the signature of the person registering. This
is now possible because the person must appear at the registration place in
person and all cards can be signed at that time. In the case of the older regis-
PAGENO="0387"
381
tration cards that were filed prior to the necessity for master files, these cards
can be taken to the polling place at the time of voting and signed when the per-
son appears o vote.
There is nothing to indicate that the: proposed cards will fit the present books
provided for this purpose. If they do not fit the present books then a duplicate
set of books must be maintained and taken to the polls.
I am also concerned about what happens to the present cards if new sets of
cards are made the official cards. There are as many of these as there are
yo'ters. Does this mean that everyone presently registered must fill `out a new
card in order to become eligible to vote in the next election? If this is true,
then I can see an overwhelming amount of work in the period from 45 days to
30 days prior to the election. I do not feel that very much thought was given
to the little people that have to actually do the registering. As you can see by
the amount of errors in this letter that in a Township of this size we cannot
afford to pay a clerk for full time work. Thi.s job in this Township is an extra
job that must be filled in the time left from my present full time job. I firmly
believe that if this Act is passed that the local units of government will suffer
unduly from the added work.
In conclusion, I would press upon you to do everything in your power to see
that this Act is not passed.
Yours very truly,
DONALD E. WILLIAMS, Sr.,
Marathon Township Glen.
STATEMENT OF HON. J. KENNETH RoBlrcsoN, MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Mr. ROBINSON of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much your re-
ceiving this brief statement in regard to the bill, 5. 352, which is under con-
sideration `by `this distinguished Subcommittee and which provides, among other
things, for voter registration by postcard.
While I respect the intent of this proposal, and support the concept of broader
participation in the elective process, I have to state that, in common with state
and local election officials throughout Virginia, I see a potential for widespread
abuse in the authorization of registration by postcard, rather than `by personal
appearance.
`We should make every effort to simplify the registration process, but, at the
same time, we should undertake to improve, rather than weaken, the integrity
of the elective system.
Over a period of years, Virginia has made significant progress in these re-
s~ects. and I do believe that any dispassionate examination of our present reg-
istration system would reflect an earnest and successful effort to make the fran-
chise `available to every qualified and interested citizen.
Virginia certainly is not unique in this regard, and it is my conviction, Mr.
Chairman, that the strengthening of our representative system of government,
to which we all subscribe, would not be advanced by resort to a postcard regis-
tra'tion system. To the contrary, the potential for fraud would be entirely
unacceptable.
STATFMEaT or Ho~ WILLIAM II Roy MEMBER or CONGRESS
The shocking fact that only 55% of all American citizens eligible to vote
actually cast l)allots in the 1072 general election must not be dismissed with
the catch phrase of "poli'tical apathy.", I believe `this situation stands as mute
testimony Ito the myriad of unnecessarily `complicated registration procedures in
this country which stand between `citizens and exercise of their fundamental
political right of the vote. Passage' of the Voter Registration A'ct, now before
the Subcommittee on Elections, will demonstrate this nation's commitment to
facilitating exercise of the franchise, and I urge my distinguished colleagues to
join me `in `support of this Act.
An aspect. of current registration procedures which I believe evidences an
artificial, and effective, barrier to exercise of the vote is the widespread use of
reEistrthon fomm~ punted only m tIme English lang-u'ige Non English speeking
citizens ha~ e tradition'ifly contubuted much to the progress und vitality of our
PAGENO="0388"
382
country, yet even fair-handed application of present registration procedures
prevents many of these citizens from participating in our political system.
Furthermore, it is the sad truth that language barriers have often been con-
sciously exploited as a method of excluding non-English speaking citizens from
the electoral process.
Proposed gmendments to section 405(d) would provide for hi-lingual registra-
tion forms in areas with certain concentrations of residents who do not speak
or understand the English language with reasonable facility. These amendments
represent a significant step toward the goal of political equality for all American
citizens, by bringing these citizens into the federal election process, and by
encouraging similar reform at both the state and local level.
I believe these amendments to section 405(d) are reasonable means of in-
suring that non-English speaking citizens are not prevented by procedural hurdles
from exercising their right to vote, and I encourage my distinguished colleagues
to accept these amendments.
STATEMExT OF Box. FRAIcK THOMPSON, Jn., MEMBER OF CONGREss
America has always been proud of its democratic institutions and processes.
But in recent years participation in the democratic process has been declining.
In fact, when we look to Europe and see such countries as Germany, Denmark,
and England we find that they consistently achieve 80 percent voter turnout
and occasionally approach 90 percent. By contrast, in the United States Presi-
dential election of 1960 only 64 percent eligible to vote actually (lid so. In 1968,
the figure dropped to 60.6 percent, ~nd in last November's Presidential election
the figure plummeted to a dismal 55 percent.
It is quite evident from these depressing statistics that the great majority of
Americans are not utilizing their most valued and cherished right, the right
of the franchise. The central question is why. The facts point to the difficulty
that exists in many states in registering to vote.
Today, nine out of ten registered Americans vote, but fewer than six out
of the ten voting age Americans vote. Whereas, eighty percent of voting Ameri-
cans voted in 1876. prior to registration laws. By 1924 when most states had
adopted registration laws, only 48 percent of voting age Americans voted. In
short, almost one-third of Americans bad stopped voting in federal elections after
registration came into vogue.
Current registration laws in most states are outmoded and do not ade-
quately serve the needs of our highly mobile population. Some state laws repre-
sent a deliberate effort to disenfranchise those voters who most need entry
into the decision-making process. I am talking about the poor, the minorities,
and the senior citizens who cannot go to a registrar without suffering the
consequences of a possible loss of a whole day's wages, the strange surroundings
of dealing with registration clerks in an unfamiliar language, or the strenuous
demands of long waiting lines or otherwise inaccessible registration offices.
Many state and local registration officials hinder and frustrate the registration
process rather than encourage it. For example, most voter registration offices
are open from 9 :00 AM to 5 :00 PM on weekdays only. The working man or
woman must take time off to register. Frequently a person must travel many
miles to even reach a registrar. Oftentimes, registration is closed for excessively
long periods prior to election day. Pennsylvania closes its election hooks 50
days before an election. California 54 days, and Rhode Island 60 days. Absentee
registration is permitted in only 23 states.
Only 16 states authorize the appointment of deputy registrars. Only. 30 allow
registration on weekends. The frustration which results from such haphazard
and uneven registration laws and conditions is enough to discourage even the
most interested applicant; but for citizens whose knowledge and interest in
political affairs is not substantial, it represents out and out disenfranchisement.
H.R. 6278 would correct this grim situation by introducing a uniform system
of registration for federal elect i'~ns. A conclusion of the (~allup Poll conducted
in December of 1969 states: "It was not a lack of interest, but rather the
residency and other registration qualifications that proved to be the greatest
barrier to wider voter participation in our nation." .
The concept of postcard registration is one that has considerable merit to it.
Registration by mail is the most effective way to increase registration and
thus participation in federal elections. By utilizing the Postal Service as a
PAGENO="0389"
383
means of contacting the qualified applicant and offering him an opportunity
to register to vote by easily filling out a form and returning it to the local
registration office by mail, a system of ease and convenience for the citizen
is created that will dramatically increase the number of registered voters.
The contention that registration by mail will lead to fraud is based on fear
rather than fact. There is nothing in the bill that pre~ eats county clerks from
investigating the qualifications of applicants who register by mail. Indeed, if
the county clerk finds the task of registering voters through this process too
difficult, lie may then ask the National. Voter Registration Administration for
assistance, and the Administration is authorized to lend such assistance. As
Mr. Randall B. Wood, former director of elections for the State of Texas pointed
out, Texas has had a system of registration by mail since 1941 and that the
old bugaboo of fraud simply could not be raised very well because the experience
over these 30 years has generally disproved that registration by mail was
anymore susceptible to fraud than any other registration system.
David Dinkins, President of the Board of Elections in New York City,
testified that "we do not see fi~aud as presenting any problem at all . . . If
anything we can tighten things up a bit."
Under the system of voter registration currently used in the United States
the individual citizen must take the initiative in order to qualify himself as
a voter. The experiences of the citizen as he seeks to register are extremely
important. If the cost in terms of time; energy, or inconvenience is too high the
person may choose not to register and hence not be permitted to vote. Registra-
tion is the first step in the voting process and the most crucial. When people
register they usually vote. In the Presidential election of 1968, 89 percent of
those persons who were registered actually voted. .
Thus, by allowing voters to register by mail we will significantly be increasing
the number of people who vote in our elections. The meaning this presents
to a democracy is profound. Instead of electing Presidents with a voter turnout
of less than 55 percent, we may once again approach the eighty percent turnout
of 1876. We will have returned the word participatory to our democracy. By
passing H.R. 8053, the Congress of the United States can unite behind a bill
that will return electoral. power back to millions of disenfranchised Americans.
We have before us ,a momentous opportunity to elicit the true meaning of the
expression . . . "We the people of the United States." The nation awaits our
response.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID C. TREEN, MEMBEn OF CONGRESS
Mr. Chairman and distinguished colleagues I appreciate this opportunity
to present my views on the proposal for a national system of voter regisi-ration
by mail.
Certainly all of us who are engaged in the profession of politics in Amerca
have a keen interest in upgrading the integrity of our electoral process. We
all want the polling places of our state and our country to be open to all qualified
voters. I can understand the motives of the proponents of this bill insofar as
they stem from a desire to make the registration process as convenient as
possible for the citizen. Their theory is that a registration by mail system will
increase voter participation in elections. I simply want to observe that there
is little evidence to support this theory and a great deal of evidence that a post
card system would make fraudulent registrations easier.
A major point of concern in the consideration of this bill is the ease of access
to registration by the average citizen. One of the arguments used by proponents
of H.R. 8053 is that working people cannot go to registration officers during
normal office hnurs. I would point out that in Louisiana, as in several other states,
our election laws provide for evening registration hours. For example in Jefferson
Parish, which is partially in my Congressional district, public buildings such as
fire stations are often open at night for registration about six weeks prior to
an election. At this point Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask unanimous consent
to insert in the committee record at the conclusion of my statement a letter to me
dated July 13, 1973 from Mr. Sam T. Altobello, the registrar of Jefferson Parish,
Louisiana. Mr. Aitobehlo's letter deals with the Senate version of HR. 8053.
I would further ask leave to include a letter dated July 6, 1973 from the Hon-
orable Wade 0. Martin, the Louisiana Secretary of State.
PAGENO="0390"
384
I think that we would all agree that everyone who desires to register should
have ample opportunity to do so. At the same time, states have an obligation
to insure the honesty of the electoral process. The U.S. Supreme Court decided
last year in Dunn v. Blunistein 405 U.S. 330 (1972) to strike down all state
durational residency requirements beyond those of administrative necessity.
At that time the court inferred that 30 days prior to an election was sufficient
time for local authorities to prepare lists of those eligible to vote. On March 19,
1973 the Court allowed a fifty day cut-off provision in Arizona to stand in the
case of A[artson v. Lewis. The Court's majority opinion in the latter case read
ip part:
"We recognize that a person does not have a federal constitutional right to
*alk up to a voting place on election day and demand a ballot. States do have
valid and sufficient interest in providing for some period of time, prior to an
election, in order to prepare adequate voter records and protect its electoral
processes from possible frauds."
Mr. Chairman. the w-hole point of voter registration is to insure honest elec-
tions. Unless thOse who register can be positively identified prior to the election
there is no point to registration at all. This bill would superimpose on the states
an unworkable system which w-ould only confuse the voters. If under any system
a question of fraud arises, then the primary mission of the election-that of
legitimizing the government-is defeated.
Finally. Mr. Chairman, as far as I can determine no one is really sure just
how much this bill will cost. While the Senate Post Office Committee last year
estimated a cost of 26 million dollars for each year, the Census Bureau testified
that they thought 120 million dollars w-ould be needed for just one quadrennial
presidential election. Also last year the Comptroller General estimated the cost
of a very similar bill offered by Senator McGee (S. 2574-92nd Congress) at
between 191 and 527 million dollars depending on the volume of registrations. In
other words we are flying blind if this bill passes.
Mr. Chairman I thank the Committee for including this statement in the
Committee Record.
REGISTRATION OFFICE,
JEFFERSON PARISH, LA., July 13, 1973.
Hoa. I)AvID C. TImEEN,
House Office Building,
Was/i ington, D.C.
DEAR DAVE: In regards to U.S. Senate Bill (S352) regarding voter registration
by mail I urge you to consider the extra burden and extra bookkeeping this would
encompass particularly on this office with the tremendous population growth
in Jefferson Parish.
Moreover, this also puts an extra burden on the average tax payer because of
the millions of dollars that will have to be spent to fund this program which
will be money down the drain because the State of Louisiana will in all prob-
ability adopt all Federal laws concerning voter registration in the next session.
As you know we are now abiding by Federal laws as handed down by the Supreme
Court.
I am enclosing the elections this Parish has had since June, 1971, the month
and year I took office, also the locations, other than our permanent office, and
hours. This will give you some idea of what I am doing in Jefferson Parish to
encourage voter registration. If this Bill is passed I would probably have to cut
out the extra locations and hours because w-e are now changing precincts through--
out the Parish which takes the better part of our w-ork day other than register-
ing, changing addresses. changing parties, certifications, etc.
Again I urge you to consider the ramification of this Bill as concerns this office
before voting.
Regards,
SAM J. ALTOBELLO,
Registrar of TToters..
PAGENO="0391"
33/5 AIRLINt~ Hwy.
MI~TAIRI5, LOUISIANA 70001
654-7700 EXT. 245 & 270
KENNER CITY HALL
H II H
AECI1L3ISIIOP CIL~PELLE HIGH
ARCiJ13ISIjOp I&UNNEL HIGH
ARCIIBISHOP I3LENK HIGH
IMMACULATA HIGH
JOHN CURTIS HIGH
WEST JEFF. HIGH
L .W. hIGGINS, SR. HIGH
EAST JEFF. & BONNABEL HIGH
GthACE KING HIGH
101 VEIODALK
LAKESIDE SHOPPING CENTER
STUMPFS SHOPPING CENTER
OAKW000 SHOPPING CENTER
CLEARVIEW SHOPPING CENTER
SEPT. 18, 1972
SEPT. 19, 1972
SEPT. 20, 1972
FEB. 19, 1973
FEB. 20, 1973
FEB. 21, 1973
APRIL 1k, 1973
385
J 11' `i 1t* j~' j~. ~-, Df'~1 ~V~.'\ 1~I~T(
2 ~D~LLI ~s~L ~A
RECIISTF~ATION OFFICE
SAM J. ALTOBELLO
(HORN & NIGHT)
(MORN & NIGHT)
(MORN & NIGHT)
(HORNING)
(?.IORNING)
(HORNING)
(MORNING)
(AFTERNOON)
(HORN & AFTERNOON)
(MORNING)
(MoRN & AFTERNOON)
(MORN)
(AFTERNOON)
(ALL DAY) JAN.
(ALL DAY) JAN.
(ALL DAY) JAN.
(ALL DAY) JAN.
523 NEW COURTHOUSE
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70093
367-6611 EXT. 359. 359
DEC. It,
DEC. 5,
DEC. 6,
DEC. 7,
DEC. 8,
DEC. 11,
DEC. 12,
DEC. 13,
DEC. 1~i,
DEC. 15,
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
WESTWEGO CITY HALL
WESTWEGO CITY HALL
WESTWEGO CITY HALL
WESTWEGO CITY HALL
15 ~* 5~ 1973
8 & 9, 1973
10 & 11,1973
15 & 16,1973
& NIGHT HOURS
(DAY)
(DAY)
(MORN & NIGHT)
(NIGHT)
,t'1~.L'L~
.(l(~((j c~~( ~i~C' ~
12 /~
:1 ~
I~, `-,I~.!
~ ~e~-~* (~~`
~0~.~
PAGENO="0392"
TERRYTOWN FIRE CO.
GOULD FIRE STATION
1IAHVEV VOL. FIRE CO.
MAmIERO-ESTELLE FIRE CO.
LIVE OAK MANOR FIRE CO.
AVONDALE VOL. FIRE CO.
CENTRAL FIRE CO.
NARRERO-RAGUSA FIRE CO.
LAFITTE-BARATARIA FIRE CO.
LINCOLJ MIDDLE SCHOOL
GRAND ISLE-CITY HALL
GRAND ISLE-CITY HALL
(NIGHT) JULY 6 &
(NIGHT) JULY 6 &
(NIGHT) JULY 8 &
(NIGHT) JULY 8 &
(NIGHT) JULY 12
(NIGHT) JULY 12
(NIGHT) JULY 14
(NIGHT) JULY 14
(NIGHT) JULY 19
(NIGHT) JULY 21
(MORN & NIGHT) AUG 12
(MORN) AUG. 13
I ~ jZ75.4 /1~C't( ~(~..LLt//~ /L~I ~U7
~ ~(~v ~
ELECTIONS SINCE JUNE, 1971
June 26, 1971, bond_pariShwide-hOSPital and detention home.
Juiy hi. lOll. referendunl to change council members.
September 11. 1971, Ward 7-playground.
November 0. 1971, Governor and parish officials-Ist primary, open nights.
December 18, 1971. Governor and parish officials-2d primary, open nights.
February 1. 1072, Governor and parish officials-general election, open nights.
March 25, 1972, Grand Isle municipal election-ist primary, open nights.
Apri[ 4, 1972. bond-schoOl board.
May 6, 1972, Grande Isle municipal election-2d primary, open nights.
August 19, 1972, congressional, judgeship, school board-ist primary, open
fliElli
September 30, 1972, congressional, judgeship, school board-2d primary, open
nights.
November 7, 1972, Presidential election, open nights.
February 3. 1973. congressional-replace Boggs, open nights.
February 10. 1973. bond-Lafreniere park_Terrytown fire equipment.
March 20, 1073, congressiollal-general election, open nights.
386
..*~ ]`~j~q" tr~1.:~ ~)1~2~ ~
~ ~)U1S `I ~
REGISTRATION OFFICE
SAM J. ALT000LLO
523 NEW COURTHOUSE
ORETNA, LOUISIANA 70053
357.66fl CXT. 355- 359
AIILINE HWY.
tI5TAII1IE, LOUISIANA 70301
s3~71OO EXT. 255 0 273
EAST BANK
EAST END VOL. FIRE DEPT.
FIRE STATION - 3525 JEFF. HWY.
- 343~ CAUSEWAY BLVD.
(616 KAWANEE ST.
- 002 AURORA AVE.
- 520D LAFRENIER ST..
1I\RAIIAN CITY HALL
NEW ERRED CIVIC ORGANIZATION
1300 EIJ~1 ST.
KENNER CITY HALL
3rd DIST. FIRE DEPT. ( LITTLE FARMS)
WEST BANK
(NIGHT)
(NIGHT)
(NIGHT)
(NIQIIT)
(NIGHT)
(NIGHT)
(NIGHT)
(NIGHT)
(NIGHT)
(NIGHT)
JULY 6&7
JULY 6 & 7
JULY 8 & 9
JULY 8 & 9
JULY 12 & 13
JULY 12 & 13
JULY 10 & 15
JULY 14 & 15
JULY 20 & 21
JULY 22 & 23
1971
1971
1971
1971.
1971
197L
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
197:1.
1971
1971
7
7
9
9
& 13
& 13
& 15
& 16
& 20
PAGENO="0393"
387
March 24, 1973, Gretna and Westwego municipal election-lst primary, open
flights.
May 5, 1973, Gretna and Westwego municipal election-2d primary, open
nights.
June 16, 1973, bond-drainage, open nights.
July 28, 1973, bond-drainage.
STATE OF LOUISIANA,
SECRETARY OF STATE,
July 6, 1973.
Hon. DAVID C. TREEN,
Member, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR DAVE: No federal legislation has ever posed a greater and more perilous
threat to Louisiana's (and to the nation's) elections process than that posed by
Senator McGee's Federal Postcard Registration Bill (5. 352) which is presently
being heard in the Elections Sub-Committee of the House Administration
Committee.
This bill would, if enacted, establish a dual voter registration system in the
United States. Our state voter registration system Would `be used in voting for
state and local officers and, in addition, everyone would have to re-register every
two years under the federal system in order to `be eligible to vote for congressmen,
senators, presidential electors, preferential primaries and delegates to national
party conventions.
If this bill should become law, the resulting confusion, delays, mechanical
problems, technical administrative problems, fraud, disenfranchisement, legal
and financial problems, may well result in `the complete collapse of elections in
Louisiana and in the nation.
For example, under S. 352 the Postal Department would mail out federal regis-
tration postcards not earlier than 45 days nor later than 30 days prior to the cut
off date for registration preceding the election. `Statewide, it would cost Louisiana,
in addition to the present costs, $2,000,000 plus for each election in which federal
officers were candidates. These figures only include salary costs for additional
deputy registrars and does not take into account the vast amount of office equip-
ment and supplies, voting machines, mechanics and all the other additional ex-
penses which would result from having to run a dual elections system. It would
not be. legally possible to hire the additional deputy registrars needed without
authorization by the Louisiana Legislature even if it were possible `to find and
train'this many qual'ified'people.
There are so many opportunities and invitations to fraud in this bill that I
doubt that anyone would confidently accept the result of any election of federal
officers. .
* There would be 3 categories of voters-those registered to vote for sta'te and
local offices only; those registered `Eo vote for federal offices only, and those
registered under both systems. The' resulting administrative and mechanical
problems could well cause such confusion and delay a't the voting precin~ts that
most of our citizens would walk away~ in disgust without voting. They would
rightly `blame you and the election officials for having deprived them of the right
to vote `and the confidence which they now have in our elections process will have
been destroyed.
I would be remiss in my responsibility as the state's chief elections officer if
I did not urge you in the strongest, possible manner to do everything in your
power as one of our Representatives in Congress to help prevent this disaster
from occurring. . . `. .
I would `deeply appreciate your comments regarding this `bill and your opinion
as to. its chances of final, passage.
With best personal regards, I `am
Sincerely,
WADE 0. MARTIN, Jr.,
______ Secretary of State.
STATEMENT or BLANCHE M. WORK, ,." PRESIDENT, FLORIDA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
* SUPERVISORS' OF ELECTIONS, INC.
DEAR ML Sii~s: With reference to Senate Bill 352 Federal Postcard Registra-
tion which was passed by the Senate on May 9, 1973, I wish to offer the following
20-095-73--_--_26
PAGENO="0394"
388
comments on behalf of the 67 Supervisors of Elections of the state of Florida in
opposition to this bill or any similar legislation pending action before the Post
Office and Civil Service Committee.
We take pride in the fact that Florida Election Laws have a reputation of being
among the best, if not the best, in the nation. We operate under a permanent reg-
istration system whereby an elector's name remains on the registration books,
provided be votes at least once during a two-year period. If not, a renewal card
is sent to him by mail and if this card is completed and returned to the Supervi-
sor of Elections, either by mail or personally, his registration is renewed for an-
other two-year period.
As you know, in Florida the Secretary of State is the chief elections officer,
however the registration of electors and the elections are conducted by the
Supervisors of Elections who are Constitutional officers and are elected by the
voters for a term of four years.
Registration facilities are made available to the residents of Florida by the
Supervisors of Elections by keeping courthouse offices open eight hours a day,
five days a week, and for several weeks prior to each election the office is
open six days a week and from eight to twelve hours a day. Temporary offices are
established in various municipalities of the counties, at colleges and other areas.
Mobile units are also used at shopping centers, places of industry, migrant hous-
ing projects and many other areas.
Florida also allows registration by mail to:
(a) Members of the armed forces while in active service and their spouses and
dependents;
(b) Members of the merchant marine of the United States and their spouses
and dependents;
(c) Citizens of the United States who are permanent residents of Florida and
are temporarily residing outside the territorial limits of the United States and
the District of Columbia, and their spouses and dependents;
(d) Citizens of United States who are permanent residents off the state and
are temporarily outside the state; and
(e) Residents of the state who are physically unable to register in person.
We are of the opinion that any voter who is a resident of Florida and having
a desire to register certainly has the opportunity to do so. We do not believe there
exists mechanical, physical or legislative barriers to voting in Florida.
We are also of the opinion that Senate Bill 352 or any similar legislation
would be a duplication of effort; would result in dual registration and voting
systems; would require additional personnel and office space on the local level
and would certainly be an added cost to the taxpayers who are already over-
burdened with taxes from the national through the local level.
This bill would result in duplicate registrations, registrations that would be
illegible, incomplete information, registration cards filled out by people other
than the intended voter and lead to wide-spread fraud. In our opinion, this bill
would cause mass confusion in the office of Supervisor of Elections and at the
polling places.
Registration does not appear to be the cause of the low percentage of voter
turnout. For the 1972 primary elections in Florida, 2,982,076 voters were regis-
tered and qualified to vote. Only 22 percent of this number voted in the First
Primary and 18 percent in the Second Primary. In the November General Elec-
tion with a registration of 3,487,458 voters, only 73 percent went to the poiis . .
the lowest percentage since 1948.
We, as Supervisors of Elections, believe a more appropriate step would be an
in-depth study to find out why those who are registered do not vote-why the
apathy? ?? ? This is the question that should be answered! !
A poll by the University of Michigan, whose Institute of Social Research long
since has gained stature and real recognition for the quality of its work, reported
that whereas 62 percent of a nationally representative group of Americans ex-
pressed a "high degree" of trust in their federal officials in the early 1960's, only
37 percent held that view a decade later. When a team of diligent and concerned
scientists reports that a decade-long survey shows a decline of 25 percent in the
confidence of the American people in their federal government, it should cause
all of us to shudder.
This cause of apathy applies not only to Federal Government but to state and
local governments as well, but to a smaller degree. All polls point up to this fact.
PAGENO="0395"
389
Another point which greatly concerns us is the rapid deterioration of the
postal service. This causes many absent voters ballots to be received too late to
be counted. For example, I should like to point out that it quite often requires 10
days for a ballot to be received from a distance of 13 miles, 6 days from a dis-
tance of 8 miles and at times as many as 5 days from one illace in town to an-
other in the same town, not to mention the time required to have them returned
from other parts of the state, other states, and other countries. Voters are com-
plaining that the old "Pony Express" or even walking could get mail delivered
more promptly.
In conclusion, may we say that it is our opinion that the average person does
not appreciate Federal intervention in elections, so let us concern ourselves with
making government and those in government more palatable to the average citi-
zen and thus build a desire of the citizens to participate in the election of the
officials who run our government.
Again, may I say that we are very much opposed to Senate Bill 352 or any
similar legislation.
FLORIDA STATE AssoCIATIoN OF SuPERvIsoRs OF ELECTIoNs, INC.
RESOLUTION
~`~~Thereas, S. 352 introduced in the Senate of the United States during the
First session of the 93rd Congress would authorize postcard registration of
electors, and
Whereas, Florida has an efficient method of registering electors through duly
elected county supervisors of elections whose offices are conveniently located in
each of the sixty-seven (67) counties of the Sunshine State, and
Whereas a Federal postcard registration system would constitute a duplica-
tion of effort resulting in a waste of taxpayer moneys, and
Whereas postcard registrations under such a Federal system would be difficult
of administration because some would be illegible, others incomplete and others
impossible to process for other reasons, and
Whereas registration under a mailing system without a single personal appear-
ance by an elector for the purpose of taking an oath could lead to widespread
fraud in voter registration, and
Whereas it has not been shown that postcard registration would increase voter
participation at elections: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the State Association Of Supervisors of Elections after diligent
study and serious consideration does hereby go on record as being opposed to
5. 352 and the method of postcard voter registration described therein.
Unanimously adopted in convention assembled at Daytona Beach, FlOrida this
9 day of February, 1973.
BLANCHE M. Wonx,
President.
MARJORIE CARMICHAEL,
Secretary.
RESOLUTION
Whereas there is now pending in the United States Congress proposed legisla-
tion which, if enacted, would create a voter registration administration for the
purpose of administering a voter registration through the postal service; and
Whereas the Board of County Commissioners of Polk County, Florida, upon
considering the effect of said legislation, finds that such a voter registration sys-
tem would create the opportunity for widespread voter registration fraud; and
Whereas the proposed registration system would constitute a duplication of
effort leading to a substantial waste of public monies; and
Whereas it has not been in any way demonstrated that such a system would
increase the race of voter participation in elections: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of Polk County, Florida, in
regular session duly assembled, That this Board publicly expresses its opposition
to the method of post card voter registration proposed by the hereinabove de-
scribed legislation, and declares its opinion that the enactment of such legisla-
tion would be detrimental to the quality of the existing system of voter registra-
tion, and asks that the United States Congress reject said proposed legislation,
and undertake to determine the causes of low levels of participation in elections
on the part of those who are registered under the present system.
Dated this 8th day of May, A.D., 1973.
PAGENO="0396"
390
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH A. BEIRNE, PRESIDENT, CoMMUNIcATIoNS WORKERS OF
AMERICA
The Communications Workers of America, which represents more than 550,000
men and women in. collective bargaining, endorses the enactment of progressive
legislation that would enable millions of citizens to register and vote in future
federal elections. CWA has long supported the establishment of a federal law
eliminating the archaic barriers that keep Americans from exercising their
natural birthright, the right to vote. In this connection, we are especially pleased
that S. 352, the voter registration bill passed by the Senate on April 30th of this
year, contained several points embodied in a OWA Resolution adopted at our
Convention in 1970 entitled "Universal Voter Registration."
It is a tragic fact that as our nation approaches its 200th birthday the trend
away from participatory democracy has been declining in recent national elec-
tions. Last November, 62 million potential Americans out of a total potential
electrorate of 139 million failed to vote. This means that only 56% of all the
Americans who could have voted actually cast a ballot last November while 44%
did not participate in this most vital function of a democratic nation. These
statistics are even more appalling when we realize that four years ago in 1968, 47
million potential voters abstained from voting and eight years ago in 1964, 43
million citizens did not participate in choosing their Congressmen, Senators and
President. Thus, during the last eight years, the number of possible voters who
failed to take part in the federal election process has grown by 19 million, or 44%,
from 43 million to 62 million dropouts from democracy.
CWA fully believes that the confusing and often bewildering set of registra-
tion requirements that vary in marked degree from state to state is the chief
obstacle to increased participatory democracy in the United States. The plain fact
is that most Americans do not have the time, patience or energy to undergo the
frustration of unraveling the "redtape" of registration in many states and
communities. Statistics conclusively show, however, that once Americans do
hurdle the registration barrier they participate in the voting process at an
incredibly high rate. While only 55% to 60% of the total number of those who
could have actually cast a ballot in recent elections, 90% of those citizens who
have registered have voted.
In the past, voters have had to overcome such registration obstacles as vary-
ing state residency requirements, inaccessible registration locations and limited
time for registration. The result of the hodge-podge of.voter registration regula-
tions in the varying states is that many blue-collar workers, poor people, members
of ethnic minorities, elderly persons and those with less formal education have
withdrawn from participation in the American political process.
In some instances, registration laws have been devised with the clear intent
of denying blacks the right to vote. In Kemper County, Mississippi, the white
registration rate is nearly 100% while the black rate is 33%. In parishes and
counties in other southern states, similar disparities in registration exist and
have existed for some time.
While we are hopeful that the recent Supreme Court decision (Dunn v. Blum-
stein) outlawing durational residency requirements for registering and voting
will increase participation in federal elections, we believe legislation is needed
to rectify the other inequities tha inhibit involvement in the democratic process.
To this end, we support H.R. 8053 introduced by Rep. rohn Dent (D-Pa.), the
Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Elections. Mr. Dent's legislation is
identical to S. 352, the bill sponsored by Senator Gale McGee (D-Wyo.), Chair-
man. of the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee, which CWA sup-
ported when it was before the other body.
H.R. 8053 would provide for the setting up of a simple postcard system that
would allow a citizen to register and vote by filling out the postcard and mailing
it to his local post office. Such a step would remove many of the problems that
plague potential voters today. Another feature of H.R. 8053 which we support
is the categorical establishment by federal legislation of a uniform 30-day resi-
dency requirement prior to an election. This would assist in removing the vary-
ing state residency requirements that limit voter participation.
Passage of H.R. 8053 would be an important step toward opening up the
frontier of democratic participation to millions of hard-working, tax-paying,
law-abiding American citizens who each day contribute to the well-being and
progress of our country. CWA urges the enactment by the House of Representa-
tives of this significant and potentially far-reaching legislation.
PAGENO="0397"
3~i
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION,
COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION,
Washington, D.C., June 19, 1973.
Hon. Joux H. DENT,
(Yhairman, House General subcommittee on Labor,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAL CONGRESSMAN DENT: Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO
represents more than a half-million members. We have always been very anxious
that our members participate in the Democratic process of elections. Our inter-
est in encouraging people to exercise their rights under the United States Consti-
tution prompts us to ask you for swift and favorable action on S. 352 and the
companion legislation in the House, H.R. 8053.
We do not wish to present our testimony before your committee orally, in order
to help you expedite your hearings. However, we do wish to go on record in sup-
port of H.R. 8053, and I am attaching a copy of a statement on behalf of Service
Employees International Union, AFL-CIO.
I noted with interest an article in the Washington Post of June 6, 1973, which
favors the use of postcards in a referendum to settle the factional differences
surrounding the problem at Wounded Knee, South Dakota. The Administration
has opposed the voter registration bill in~ the U.S., mainly on the grounds of fraud.
It seems that they now have taken a new look at the possibilities for fraud
under the postcard system. In case you missed this article, I am attaching a
copy for your information. I am enclosing a copy of a short statement Senator
Gale McGee made on the floor of the Senate, in regard to this article.
Sincerely,
GEORGE HARDY,
International President.
Enclosures.
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is a labor union with one-
half million members. We support the Voter Registration Act of 1973 (5352),
because its aim is to facilitate the exercise of a constitutionally endowed right-
the right to vote. SEIU has always taken an interest in encouraging working
people to exercise their rights under the U.S. Constitution, because we have
felt that any organization, in a democratic society, should work actively to assure
all people the opportunity to exercise their rights.
Our union members-indeed all working people need this legislation. While
the 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and
the Dunn Vs. Blumstein court decision were giant steps forward in opening the
polls to millions of people, there are millions more who are still disenfranchised
from the electoral process. These mililons of people are mosty workers and,
therefore, of special concern to SEIU. They are the people who would be most
helped by this legislation and are now most hindered by the inequities and
restrictions of existing state voting registration laws and regulations.
Typically, people leave for work between six and eight in the morning and
don't return home until four-thirty to six-thirty at night. Generally, the lunch
l)eriod is too short to do any personal chores, such as registering to vote. Workers
generally cannot take time off during the da~ and thus are frozen out of the
electoral process. While the law in most areas requires that workers be allowed
time to vote, no such requirement exists in regard to registration. Thus many
workers can't vote-not because they do not want to voice their preference in
the electoral process, but rather their work time conflicts with the current
restrictive registration procedures.
This Voter Registration Bill will overcome many of the stringent and unneces-
sary barriers set up in some states. Acáording to the statistics enumerated by the
League of Woman Voters in "Report of the Election System Project," the problem
can be synopsized as follows: Of the 300 communities surveyed, 77 percent had
no Saturday registration, 75 percent had no evening registration, 53 percent of
the registration centers were not clearly identified as such, 54 percent were not
accessible by convenient public transportation, and 24 percent lacked conven-
ient parking. However, just as bad as these problems, are the attitudes of many
municipal registrars. Less than one quarter of the communities felt that any
of these restrictions to registration were problems for the voters. In addition to
workers, other groups in our society: are hampered by the current legislation
PAGENO="0398"
392
procedure such as: the handicapped, the non-drivers, low income people, and
senior citizens. The Voter Registration Bill eliminates the restrictive procedures
of many current registration regulations for federal elections, and offers incen-
tives to those states that wish to improve their registration systems for state and
local elections.
Financial assistance would be available to states under this bill to help states
develop more flexible voting regulations, but these funds would be dispensed on
a voluntary basis only. This financial assistance and any changes in regulations
would be instituted and controlled by the state or local government themselves.
While we desire similar changes to be made in local registration requirements,
we understand Congressional hesitancy in legislating such requirements.
Another area of concern to opponents of the bill has been fraud. Fraud occurs
when a bogus voter casts a ballot. Face-to-face registration does little to deter
the practice as there is no further face-to-face contact after the initial registra-
tion. Experience and practice has shown that there is no increase in fraud with
the introduction of more accessible registration systems. Experiments in Texas,
where registration is completed by clipping a coupon from the newspaper, com-
pleting the form and mailing it to the county clerk; and North Dakota, where
citizens register and vote all in one operation, have experienced no increase in
fraudulent registration. Another deterent against fraud is that this bill calls
for the Attorney General to take action against illegal registrants and provides
for criminal penalties for fraudulent registration.
Voter participation in the United States has been declining-in 1960, 64 per-
cent of the eligible voters went to the polls, compared with about 55 percent
in the 1972 election when 62 million voting age Americans did not vote. Obvi-
ously, if people area't registered, they can't vote, and the first step in getting
people registered to vote is passage of the Voter Registration Act.
[From the Washington Post, June 3, 1973]
WHITE HOUSE ASKS POSTCARD VOTE TO SETTLE TRIBAL STRIFE
(By William Greider)
The White House has suggested that an advisory postcard referendum could
be held among all members of the Oglala Sioux tribe to settle the factional
differences which surrounded the three-month-long occupation of Wounded Knee.
Presidential Counsel Leonard Garment, in a nine-page letter delivered to the
traditional chiefs and headmen of the troubled Indian tribe suggested the refer-
endum as one way to determine whether a majority wants to scrap the tribe's
present form of elected government.
Garment said that the Department of Interior could arrange such a survey of
opimion, but it would be preferable for the tribe to vote in an officially binding
election on their tribal constitution, either called by the tribal council or by
petitions circulated among the Indians.
Two weeks ago, a White House delegation headed by Garment's assistant,
Bradley Patterson, met at the South Dakota reservation with the traditionalist
leaders who have accused the regular tribal government of financial corruption
and oppressive use of the tribal police.
In his response yesterday, Garment asked the chiefs and headmen to respond
in writing to his suggestions before a second meeting is scheduled to continue the
discussion of grievances.
The White House letter also warned the Indians against the possibility of
"other Wounded Knees," a threat invoked by some of the Indians at the nego-
tiating session two weeks ago.
"Instigation of further civil disturbances and violations of local and federal
law," Garment wrote, "will only bring grief to Indian people themselves. Indians
will lose much of the sympathy and support they now enjoy from the adminis-
tration, from the Congress and from the public."
In response to the traditionalist complaints, Garment said a fiscal audit being
made of the Pine Ridge tribal government will be made available for inspection
by all tribal members. Civil rights investigators from the Justice Department,
he said, will also be touring the reservation in a mobile van next week, collecting
evidence on complaints.
PAGENO="0399"
393
Garment said the Justice Department lawyers have investigated 40 complaints
of civil rights violations so far and fOund only four or five involving enough
evidence to justify grand jury action.
The White House counsel noted that he supports Assistant Attorney General
J. Stanley Pottinger's decision to createa special Indian task force in the Justice
Department's civil rights division to deal with the civil rights problems of all
American Indians.
The dispute over the Oglala Sioux tribal government stems from the elected
tribal council created in 1935 when the tribe voted to adopt a new constitution
under the Indian Reorganization Act. The traditional leaders, who are not recog-
nized by the official tribal government, claim that tribal council leaders are both
corrupt and tools of white control by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The tribe could go back to its old traditional form of self-government, if a
majority votes to scrap the constitution. However, the present tribal council,
according to Garment, intends to propose only some amendments to the tribal
constitution. Those changes would most likely be less sweeping than the abolition
proposed by the traditionalists.
Before the confrontation at Wounded Knee, the tribe's dissidents unsuccess-
fully petitioned for a referendum to abolish the present constitution.
The Interior Department ruled that the petitions fell short of the require-
ment-one third of the 9,000 eligible voters.
[From the Congressional Jlecorcl, June 6, 1973]
WHITE HousE ASKS POSTCARD VOTE To SETTLE TRIBAL STRIFE
Mr. MCGEE. Mr. President, it was highly encouraging to me, as sponsor of
5. 352, the postcard voter registration bill passed by the Senate on May 9, to
read in Sunday's newspaper a headline that said in three lines of 36-point type
that "White House Asks Postcard Vote To Settle Tribal Strife."
Mind you, they have asked, not just for postcard registration of eligible,
enrolled members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, but for a postcard vote of tribal
members to determine if they want to change their present form of elected
government.
This proposal by the administration to the traditional chiefs of the Oglala
people demonstrates a new-found faith in the use of the TJ.S. mail to conduct
communications of an official nature. The newspaper account makes it perfectly
clear, I think, that the White House Counsel who has suggested the postcard
vote does not harbor fears of fraud. He apparently is unconcerned that, perhaps,
some ineligible citizens might participate-say some members of the Teton Sioux,
some Cheyenne, or even some Navajo or Seneca. Maybe the counsel to the great
w-hite father realizes that few, if any, of his representatives could tell an Oglalal
from a Teton anymore than they could differentiate between a Cherokee and a
Pawnee eyeball-to-eyeball. At any rate, I welcome the White House interest in
postcard voting.
STATEMENT or F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., STATE REPRE5ENTATIVE,
10TH DISTRICT, MILWAUKEE COUNTY
DEAR CONGRESsMAN DENT: Thank you for your kind invitation to submit
material for inclusion in to the record of your subcommittee's hearings on Post
Card Voter Registration legislation. I deeply regret that the subcommittee's
schedule made it impossible for me to appear personally to testify.
During the 79th session of the Wisconsin Legislature, I served as Chairman
of the Committee on Elections of the Wisconsin Assembly by appointment of then
Speaker and now Congressman Harold Froehlich. During the 80th and 81st
sessions, I served as Ranking Minority Member of the Committee. During 1971
and 1972, I also served as a member of the Governor's Task Force on Voter
Registration and Elections by appointment of Governor Patrick J. Lucey.
Througout that time, both the Committee and Task Force considered various
proposals to establish a so-called universal voter registration or post card regis-
tration system in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin has had some of the most liberal voter registration laws in the
nation. Registration is required only in municipalities of over 5,000 population.
PAGENO="0400"
394
although smaller municipalities may establish registration by local ordinance.
The deadline for registration is 13 days before any election in municipalities
other than the City of Milwaukee and 20 days before the election in the City of
Milwaukee. The earlier date was established for the City of Milwaukee due to
the increased time required to prepare poll lists in a large city. Since the City of
Milwaukee has computerized their poll lists, the extra time is no longer needed
and legislation which I have introduced to place a 13 day deadline in the City of
Milwaukee has been passed by the Assembly and is currently pending in the
State Senate.
In addition, Wisconsin is the only state which permits a non-registered elector
to register and vote after the deadline by appearing in the municipal clerk's
office and executing an affidavit before the clerk and two property owners in
the ward, which permits him to vote at the impending election.
In my opinion, post card registration would be a terrible mistake and would
open the door to wholesale election fraud. By eliminating the requirement in
many states that an elector appear before an election official to register would
greaten the temptation for those desiring to perpetrate fraud to print their own
post cards, execute them in the name of non-existant electors and have persons
appear on election day to vote in the name of the ghost voters. While some of
the perpetrators of fraud may be caught and prosecuted, once an election is held
and the votes are counted, it is nearly impossible to determine which votes were
legally and which votes were fraudulantly cast. As a result, the entire electoral
process suffers. Only one instance of election fraud every few years is necessary
to make the public more cynical of the electoral process which we, as public
officials, seek to protect.
Because Wisconsin is a state in which some citizens are required to register
and some are not, we are able to compare whether registration requirements
result on a lower voter turnout on election day. To my knowledge, there have
been no statistics published which in any way indicate that the percentage of
voter turnout is lower in municipalities with registration than with municipalities
without. Further, there is a direct correlation between the percentage of eligible
voters registered and the percentage of those registered who vote within com-
munities with registration. In my Assembly district, it is estimated that over
90% of the eligible voters are registered and over 90% of those registered vote.
In other Assembly districts in Milwaukee County, the percentage of those eligible
to register who have registered is far lower and the percentage of those registered
who actually vote is also low. In short, it appears that if a person wants to
vote, he will register. If he does not want to vote, he will not register and the
establishment of post card registration will not directly increase voter partici-
pation.
The Governor's Task Force on Voter Registration received extensive testimony
in 1971 on how the post card registration system works in England. In that
country, the government and major political parties participate in the registra-
tion process. Yet voter participation in parliamentary elections is only 55% of
those eligible, which hardly speaks well for the net effect of post card registration
in increasing voter participation.
Further, post card registration would be extremely expensive and difficult
to administer. Because today's society is so mobile, the legislation must either
establish a mechanism for recording changes of address or a complete new
registration must take place for each national, state or local election. The mail-
ing of post cards to each address in the nation, and the computerization of the
returns in order to prepare poll lists would obligate the Federal Government to
a greater expenditure than the authors of this legislation would care to admit.
In Wisconsin, voter registration is permanent, provided that the elector does not
change address and that he votes at least once every four years. Hence, for a
great number of voters, the municipality is put to an expense once in a great
many years. Under post card registration, the expense would be continuing for
each and every voter.
Finally, no matter how efficient the Postal Service is in distributing the post
cards, some addresses will be missed. Following the 1970 Census, numerous com-
plaints were received that not every address received census forms, particularly
in central city areas inhabited by minority groups. Further, census statistics
indicated that an average of only 50% of those who received census forms re-
turned them without a followup by the Census Bureau. It is likely that post card
registration will result in similar statistics of addresses which were missed by
PAGENO="0401"
395
the Postal Service or of voters who failed to return their post cards. Either the
Federal Government will be put to the expense of conducting a follow-up program
or of letting a sizeable number of voters be left off the poll lists.
I sincerely believe that the United States Supreme Court's decision severely
restricting the right of the states `to impose durational residency requirements of
great length will go a long way toward increasing voter participation in the
electoral process. But post card registration, with all its administrative short-
comings, expense of administration, and opportunity for fraud, will not increase
substantially the number of voters who cast ballots on election day.
STATEMENT OF MARTIN F. RICHMAN, CHAIRMAN, THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR
OF THE CITY: OF NEW YORK
THE VOTER REGISTRATION ACT, ANALYSIS, BY THE COMMITTEE ON
FEDERAL LEGISTATION
I. THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The recent constitutional, legislative, and judicial history of the United States
demonstrates a recognition of the axiom that the right to vote is "a fundamental
political right, . . . preservative of all rights." 1
Thus, six of the last twelve amendments to the United States Constitution are
attempts to broaden that right. The Fifteenth Amendment sought to eliminate
racial barriers to voting. The Seventeenth Amendment provided for the direct
election of Senators. The Nineteenth Amendment extended the franchise to
women. The Twenty-Third Amendment permitted residents of the District of
Columbia to vote for President. The Twenty-Fourth Amendment abolished the
poll tax. And the Twenty-Sixth Amendment extended the right to vote to 18-
years-old.
There have been recent congressional efforts to extend the franchise as well. The
Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1955 encouraged local officials to adopt simplified
procedures for absentee balloting. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibited the
abridgment of the right to vote on account of race, limited the use of literary
tests, and, in practical effect, enfranchised millions of black citizens who previ-
ously had never been on the voter rolls. And the Voting Rights Act Amendments
of 1970 attempted to increase the franchise in Presidential elections by limiting
the states' residency and registration requirements.2
The Supreme Court. too. in recent years has broadened the right to vote and
made it more meaningful. Most notably, in Baker v. Uarr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962),
the Supreme Court began a series of: historic decisions declaring the "one man,
one vote" principle. And in Dunn v. Blurnstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972), the Court
struck down as too restrictive Tennessee's 12-month residency requirement for
voter qualification, suggesting (but not holding) that a 30-day period was ample.
But these and similar efforts to increase the franchise has been spectacularly
unsuccessful in broadening actual voter participation. It is a point of serious
concern that the participation of American citizens in the electoral process is
among the lowest of any democratic nation. In the last four Presidential elections,
for example, more than a third of the electorate did not vote.
Most ominously, the statistics reveal an alarming trend: both the number
and percentage of non-voters has increased with each successive election.3 In
1960, 64% of the voting age population voted. In 1964, only 61.8% voted. In 1968,
the percentage declined to 60.6%. And in 1972, it plummeted to 55.6%. Fully
62 million citizens of voting age did not vote in the 1972 Presidential election.4
1Reijnolds v. ~8ims, 377 U.S. 533, 562~ (1064), quoting Yick Wo V. Hopkins, 118 U.S.
356, 370 (1886).
In two 1070 reports of this Committee, we endorsed the Amendments' establish-
ment of nationwide residency standards for Presidential elections. 9 BULLETIN OF REPORTS
OF COMMITTEES OF THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR CONCERNED WITH FEDERAL LEGISLATION
50. 64 (July, 1970).
The statistical data appearing throughout this introduction are taken from the
hearings, report, and debates on S. 352.: See, e.g., CONG REC., Jan. 18, 1973, pp. S. 954
et seq.; Apr. 10, 1973, pp. 5. 7013 et seq.; May 9, 1973, pp. S. 8611 et seq.; S. REP. No.
93-01.
The sharp percentage decline In 1972 was undoubtedly attributable in part to the
addition of the 18-to-2O age group to eligibility and their disappointing turnout at the
polls. This, however, does not diminish the significance of the general downward trend.
PAGENO="0402"
396
Data for the 20th Century as a whole show that these recent statistics are
not aberrational. Since 1900, voter participation in a Presidential election has
not once reached 70%. Eight times it fell below 60%, and twice it fell below
even 50%.
American voter participation thus stands in anomalous contrast to that of
other advanced democratic countries. In 1970, 71% of eligible Britons voted;
74% of the Canadians voted; 77% of Frenchmen voted; and 91% of eligible
citizens in West Germany voted. While strict comparisons should not be made-
since eligibility standards and population mobility vary from country to
country-it is nonetheless clear that Americans exercise the franchise in dis-
appointingly low proportion vis-a-vts citizens of other democracies.
Many blame the apathy of the American electorate, or the apathy of at least
portions of it, for this remarkably poor turnout at the polls. But most who have
studied the question conclude that the morass of frequently onerous registration
porcedures imposed by the states is also responsible for poor voter participation.
Significantly, in the latter half of the 19th Century, prior to the states' ei~act-
ment of registration procedures, voter participation for Presidential elections
typically was 70-80%. In that half century, the voter turnout twice exceeded
80% and only once dropped as low as 70%, a striking contrast to the low
participation of this century. In 1874, when no state had a registration law,
82% of the electorate voted. But by 1924, when every state had passed such a law,
only 48% voted.
Whether registration legislation or voter apathy is the underlying cause of
America's low voter participation, it is clear that the burdensome registration
procedures of the states do act as barriers to voting. For all but the most highly-
motivated voter, these barriers too often make the difference between voting and
not voting.
Most state laws, for example, require a personal appearance for registration.
In rural areas, this means that the prospective voter often must travel significant
distances to register. In the cities, voter registration offices frequently are open
only during working hours. making it difficult for working people to register. In
addition, many localities close registration lists months before the actual election.
For example, New York law, in practical effect, closes registration for local
primaries as of the previous election. And the League of Women Voters found
that nearly a third of the communities it studied closed registration more than
30 days prior to an election. Fewer than half the states permit absentee
registration.
The complexity of registration procedures and forms also frequently obstructs
the prospective voter. Thus, for example. Alabama has a complicated four-page
registration form. And Missouri has six different registration systems for cities,
depending on their size.
Further, many communities have only one, not easily accessible, registration
office except at election time. New York City, for example, has traditionally
permitted registration only at the downtown Board of Election, except for very
limited periods of precinct registration. The League of Women Voters found
that 38% of the communities studied had no stepped-up registration procedures
in the critical 30 days before an election, when interest and motivation are
highest.
The hodge-podge of residency requirements also acts as a significant barrier
to voter participation. The Census Bureau estimates that 20 million Americans
annually move from state to state. Yet many states still require as a precondition
to voting, residence of up to a year. although recent Supreme Court decisions
make the validity of those requirements doubtful.
The burden of all of these registration and residency requirements and pro-
cedures appears to fall most heavily upon the young, who are the most mobile
and therefore the least likely to meet residency requirements; the poor, aged
and handicapped, who find it difficult to reach out-of-the-way registration offices;
and the foreign-speaking, who may not understand complex registration pro-
cedures or forms.
The statistics very dramatically reveal that. once the registration hurdle is
cleared, voting follows almost as a matter of course. Of those who managed to
register in 1972. for example, a full 87% went to the polls. This suggests that
cumbersome registration procedures, rather than apathy, cause our low voter
turnout.
PAGENO="0403"
317
It is, of course, arguable that apathetic voters make no attempts to register,
that the pool of registered voters consequently represents a highly motivated
group of citizens, and that, accordingly, the 87% figure does not in itself
prove that existing registration procedures significantly deter voting. However,
we believe that all potential voters should be given the benefit of the doubt. The
evidence that once a citizen is registered he is likely to vote is sufficiently
persuasive to justify reasonable reforms.
Moreover, even the apathetic voter should be encouraged to come to the polls,
for when he fails to do so, society in general is the loser. That, at least, appears
to be the thinking in most democracies, where the government actively seeks out
citizens for registration.
America appears to be the only major democratic nation that takes a passive
role in registering voters. By way of contrast, in England, for example, voters
not only may register by mail, they are canvassed door-to-door to register as
well. In Canada, too, registration includes a door-to-door canvass, with the result
that 98% of the electorate was registered for the 1908 elections. In the United
States, only 72% of those eligible to vote on the basis of age are registered.
It seems clear, therefore, that there is a pressing need to ease voter registra-
tion procedures in the United States. The broadest practicable exercise of the
franchise is an essenial element in securing that basic prerequisite to the orderly
functioning of the democratic process: "the consent of the governed."
Il. THE REspoNsE OF THE ACT
S. 352, passed by the Senate on May 9, 1973, and now before the House,
is a relatively modest reform designed to make voter registration more con-
venient and accessible. Other recent1y~ proposed but not yet enacted legisla-
tion includes, among other reforms, incorporating voter registration forms into
income tax returns; computerized federal registration and voter lists; mobile
registration units; and door-to-door canvasses. 5. 352 does not go as far as these
other measures.
Briefly, the bill permits citizens to register for federal elections by mailing
a simple postcard form at least 30 days prior to an election. It leaves with the
states the responsibility for maintaining and supervising registration for federal
elections, but establishes a new federal agency to prepare and distribute the
forms and to assist state officials in administering the new registration pro-
cedure. While it does not require that the same procedure be used for state
elections, it offers a financial incentive to the states to revise local registration
procedures and requirements to conform to the new federal law. The combination
of this incentive and the inconveniences of a dual registration system may well
prove irresistible, with the result that most, if not all, states ultimately would
conform to the federal system.
According to some of its sponsors, the bill also is designed to reduce local
residency requirements for federal voting to no more than 30 days, and thus
to make applicable to all federal elections the 30-day residency provision which
the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970 applies only to Presidential elec-
tions. As elaborated below, we are far~ from certain that the bill, in its present
form, achieves this laudable objective.
S. 352 is a meaningful response to the clear need for reform of the nation's
archaic and burdensome registration procedures. It would ease registration for
many citizens and would not be an undue federal intrusion into the states' powers
and duties.
We are not persuaded by the major argument of its opponents: that reg-
istration by mail will lead to widespread election fraud. That argument ap-
pears to be exaggerated. North Dakota, for example, which has no registration
requirement at all, is not noted for election fraud. We recognize that any sim-
plified registration process contains within it the potential for abuse. However,
we regard the bill's administrative procedures and criminal sanctions as a
deterrent to such abuse. In enacting such legislation, the Congress must make a
judgment-which we believe to be a sound one-that the harm caused by some
level of abuse that will inevitably occur despite those procedures and sanctions
will be outweighed by the benefits to the democratic process of substantially
improving the present low voter turnout. In effect, it is worth the risk that some
will vote who are not entitled to, in order to assure that many who are entitled
get a reasonable chance to cast their ballots.
PAGENO="0404"
398
The bill is not a panacea for flaws in the nation's election laws. We welcome
it as the start rather than the finish of electoral reform. Nor is the bill fool-
proof in its technical provisions. Scattered throughout this report are recom-
mendations for improving it-recommendations which we respectfully commend
to the attention of the House of Representatives. Nevertheless, we believe the
basic substantive provisions of the bill are sound. We approve the bill and urge
its enactment.
One key section of the bill-Section 404(a)-is extremely ambiguous and
should be modified before its final enactment. At least some proponents of the
bill apparently intended it not only to simplify registration procedures for federal
elections, but also to reduce residency requirements to 30 days for voting in all
federal elections. The language of the bill, as presently drafted, does not appear
to accomplish the latter aim, and the ambiguity in Section 404(a) may cause
other problems. We recommend that the ambiguity be clarified to assure a uni-
form 30-day residency requirement for all federal elections.
Ill. ANALYSIS OF THE BILL
Registration of voters under the Senate bill would be accomplished in the
following manner:
A new Voter Registration Administration in the Census Bureau would prepare
postcard registration forms for use in connection with all federal elections,
including primaries. These postcard applications would be available in post
offices and other public buildings, and, 45 days before the election or primary,
would be delivered generally by the Postal Service, by agreement with the Ad-
ministration, to all postal addresses and residences in the country. The cards
would have to be returned, no later than 30 days prior to a federal election, to
state or local registrars for processing. State and local officials would be fully
reimbursed by federal funds for the costs of processing the cards. If a state
adopts for its own elections what the bill requires for federal elections, the
federal government would pay the state the cost of such adoption, up to a
maximum of 30% of the amount paid to the state for its costs in connection with
federal elections.
Thus, the bill mandates a new system of registration for federal elections,
provides an incentive for the states to establish a similar registration system
for local elections and establishes a new federal agency for registration. It also
provides penalties for fraudulent interference with the registration process thus
created.
A section-by-section analysis of the bill follows.
section 401-Definitions
This section of the bill, in defining "federal election," specifies that the bill's
provisions apply to federal primaries as well as general elections for Congress and
President. Perhaps the most significant provision of the definitional section is its
inclusion of Presidential primaries, whether such primaries actually select con-
vention delegates or merely express a non-binding Presidential preference. The
definition of "State election" could be clarified by similar express reference to
both primary and general elections, though it seems clearly designed to cover
both.
While it is desirable to make the simplified registration procedure applicable
to primaries, a technical ambiguity (discussed below) in the operational section
of the bill (Section 404) creates the possibility that the bill would have the
effect of requiring the states substantially to amend local laws relating to quali-
fications for participation in such primaries-e.g., whether membership or en-
rollment in the particular party holding the primary is required. At the present
time. the states have diverse laws on this subject. Whether such diversity is or
is not desirable (and we feel it is), it should not be revised en passant in a bill
dealing with other matters. Clearly the Senate did not intend to do so, and this
feature accordingly was not ventilated in debate or hearings. As discussed below,
we recommend clarification of Section 404 of the bil lto avoid this construction,
but no change in the definitions section of the bill would be required.
Sections 402 and 403-T7oter Registration Administration
These sections establish the Voter Registration Administration within the
Bureau of the Census, provide for the appointment of an Administrator and two
Associate Administrators, and define the duties and powers of the Administration.
PAGENO="0405"
399
Section 402 provides that the President, with the consent of the Senate, shall
appoint the Administrator and two Associate Administrators for terms of four
years each. The Associate Administrators may not be adherents of the same
political party.
It may not be desirable to politicize the Census Bureau and a new agency
concerned with voter registration, by means of Presidential appointment, par-
ticularly when the terms of the Administrators can be coterminous with that of
the President. The proviso requiring bipartisan appointments of Associate Ad-
ministrators may compound rather than solve the problem, for there is the
possibility that the two major parties might find it in their interest jointly to
attempt to hinder a minority party, such as Governor Wallace's party, or in-
surgent factions within their own parties.
Alternatives would be to make the appointees non-partisan rather than bi-
partisan, or to eliminate the appointment process entirely and make them
part of the civil service. But these alternatives, too, have problems: If the
administrators were civil servants, they would be more shielded from public
scrutiny than Presidential appointees, and they would not be removable, as
political appointees frequently are, by force of public opinion. Non-partisan
appointments are impossible to mandate; such a provision could permit the
agency to become the captive of one party.
This is an age-old problem inherent in creating many governmental agen-
cies. It is exacerbated here because, as elaborated below, the Administration
has significant powers that could adversely affect the political process if used
in a partisan way. We would recommend, therefore, that the Administration
consist of five or seven members, representing a broad spectrum of political
viewpoints, plus a non-partisan executive director in the tradition of the Comp-
troller General. We would further recommend that the terms of the members
of the Administration overlap, and span the term of the President, to minimize
the risk that a single Chief Executive can dominate the agency by appointments
made during his one or two terms in office.
Section 403 of the bill requires the Voter Registration Administration to
establish and administer the registration program outlined in the bill; to
collect and analyze unspecified election data (but not to disclose data per-
mitting identification of individual voters) ; to report to the President and
Congress after each Presidential election; and to provide assistance to state
officials in connection with voter registration and election problems.
Opponents of the bill were concerned that the Voter Registration Adminis-
tration would constitute too great a federal instrusion into the state election and
registration process. However, once the need for federal efforts to reform re-
gistration procedures is conceded, these provisions of the bill appear to grant to
the Voter Registration Administration no more than the minimum powers
necessary to achieve the needed reforms.
section 404-Qualificatjon,g and procedures
This is the key operational section of the bill, and unfortunately, the section
that creates the greatest difficulties. The critical provision, Section 404(a), reads
as follows:
"Au individual who fulfills the requirements to be a qualified voter under
State law and who is registered to vote under the provisions of this chapter
shall be entitled to vote in Federal elections in that State, except that each
Sate shall provide for the registration or other means of qualification of all
residents of such State who apply, not later than thirty days immediately prior
to any Federal election, for registration or qualification to vote in such eletion."
The first portion of Section 404 (a), which provides that a person who "ful-
fills the requirements to be a qualified: voter under State law and who is registered
to vote [under the registration-by~majl provisions of the bill] . . . shall be entitled
to vote in Federal elections. . ." is relatively unambiguous.
However, the section goes on to provide an exception to the effect that "each
State shall provide for the registration or other means of qualification of all
residents of such State who apply, nOt later than thirty days immediately prior
to any Federal election, for registration or qualification to vote in such election"
(emphasis added). This language surely means that registration books for fed-
eral elections must be kept open until at least 30 days prior to an election.
Accordingly to some of the legislative history, however, this language also is
designed to require the states to reduce residency requirements for all federal
PAGENO="0406"
400
elections, and thereby to make such requirements uniform with the residency
requirement for Presidential elections set forth in the Voting Rights Act Amend-
ments of 1970. Thus, for example, when Senator Kennedy spoke on behalf of the
bill in the Senate, he summarized its provisions, noting that " . . . [T]he bill
establishes a period of 30 days' residence prior to an election as the maximum re-
sidence qualification that may be imposed for voting in Federal elections.
Thus. this provisions of 5. 352 extends. .. [the residence provisions of the Voting
Rights Act Amendments of 1970] to Senate and House elections." CONG. REC.,
Apr. 10, 1973, p. 5. 7024.
One brief passage in the Senate Report also suggests that this was the intent
of the bill. Describing Section 404, the committee report states:
"If an individual fulfills the requirements to be a qualified voter under State
law and registers in accordance with this chapter, he shall be entitled to vote
in Federal elections in that State, except that the state shall provide for registra-
tion of residents who have been residents not later than 30 days before such
Federal election." S. REP. No. 93-91, p. 10 (emphasis added).
It is unlikely, however, that the language of the bill in fact carries the stated
intent to reduce local residency requirements to 30 days. The critical language-
"not later than 30 days immediately prior to any Federal election"-apPears im-
mediately after the words "all residents of such State who apply." Thus the 30-
day language modifies the word "apply," and appears merely to state that an
otherwise qualified (within the meaning of state law) resident who applies
(i. e., registers) no later than 30 days before the election is entitled to vote. It
does not say, as the Senate Report suggests, that everyone who is a resident for 30
days prior to a federal election qualifies to vote in that election.
Significantly, an earlier version of the bill, introduced as S. 2574 in 1971,
very clearly spelled out the intent to limit residency requirements to 30 days.
It provided:
"An individual who is a qualified elector under State law except as to duration
of residency but who is a resident of a State on and after the thirtieth day be-
fore a Federal election, shall be entitled to register and vote in a Federal election
in that State." S. 2574, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., § 404(a) (1971).
And the provisions of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970 which reduced
residency requirements for Presidential elections also are quite explicit to that
effect. See 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa (Supp. 1972).
Consequently, a court construing the present bill is likely to say that if the
Senate had intended to modify residency requirements, it knew bow to do so
explicitly.
Moreover, to construe Section 404 (a) as affecting residency requirements may
also require a construction that would mandate for greater changes in state re-
gistration requirements. To construe the section as affecting residency require-
ments would require an interpretation that the section means that those quali-
fied under state law are eligible to vote "except that . . . all residents [who will
have been residents for 30 days prior to the election]" are eligible to vote. In
other words, the 30-day language would have to be held to modify the word
"residents" rather than the word "apply." But if the words are so interpreted,
the bill would require that all residents are eligible to vote in all "Federal elec-
tions." That, in turn, would nullify state rules which, for example, make only
party adherents eligible to vote in a primary election. Such a result would prob-
ably be undesirable, and, in any event, is probably beyond the intended scope
of the bill.
It appears, in short, that there is significant ambiguity in Section 404 (a)
of the bill; the measure may well not, as at least some Senators apparently
intended, reduce local residency requirements,5 or it may knock out other types
of state qualifications unintentionally. The ambiguity should be clarified before
enactment of the bill into law.
sections 405 and 406_Registration forms
These two sections empower the Administration to prepare appropriate voter
registration forms and provide for their distribution. The forms should "be
The practical effect of a failure to limit residency requirements to 30 days may not be
very great. Recent Supreme Court decisions have held unconstitutional very long local
residency requirements and have suggested that 30 days is the maximum I)erlfliSsible
requirement. (See the discussion, in/re, of the constitutional implications of this bill.)
Thus the courts may well implement the reduced residency requirement even if S. 352
does not.
PAGENO="0407"
401
designed to provide a simple method of registering to vote by mail." The forms,
appropriately, would contain such matter as state law requires and would point
out the penalties for fraudulent use. The bill properly provides that registration
forms may be prepared in a language other than English, thus permitting the Ad-
ministration to ease the burden of registration for million of Spanish-speaking
citizens. Section 405 (c) provides that, after the prospective voter applies and
his application is processed, he will: receive a form notifying him that he is
registered to vote. The bill specifies that possession of such a notification form
shall be prima facie evidence of qualification to vote in a federal election. Pres-
entation of such a form, however, wOuld not be a pre-condition to voting.
Distribution of the forms would be accomplished by contract between the Ad-
ministration and the Postal Service. Forms would be available in post offices,
public buildings, and military installations. In addition, there would be a gen-
eral mailing of forms during a period:45 to 30 days before a federal election.
We are troubled by the wide-ranging discretion vested in the Administration.
For example, while the bill requires general mailings once every two years, it
permits more frequent mailings without limitation and does not require that all
areas of the country be treated equally (or that efforts be concentrated in low
registration areas, for that matter).' Similarly, it permits but does not require
the use of foreign languages. Gaps such as this would permit the Administration
to manipulate the new registration procedure for partisan advantage, e.g., by
more frequent mailings in geographic areas favorable to the party in power.
We believe that the greater the degree of specificity in the law, the less the
chances of partisanship in its administration or of fraud in its implementation.
We urge the House to take a fresh look at these matters and tighten up the bill's
provisions, leaving the AdministratiOn with the least possible amount of discre-
tion. We also urge, as further checks against abuse, provisions requiring that (a)
executed registration cards become matters of public record, available to the
inspection of any citizen; (b) state officials be subjected to federal oversight
in implementing the procedures; and (c) the Administration's decisions be
subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Sections 407 and 408-Penalties for fraudulent use
These provisions permit state officials to take appropriate action under state
law- for fraudulent use of the cards; they permit state officials to engage the
assistance of the Administration to prevent fraud; and they empower the At-
torney General to sue in any federal court, to enjoin fraud or seek other appropri-
ate orders.
In addition, Section 408 makes it a crime, punishable by fine and two-year im-
prisonment, to give false information in connection with a registration of voting,
or to pay or accept payment for registering.
The criminal sanctions apply only to one who "knowingly or willfully" gives
false information. This is a salutory limitation, because of the strong possibility
of casual misstatements by some of the millions who receive the periodic mailings.
We would suggest a further limitation preventing criminal sanctions for non-
material misstatements. The voter :who automatically fills out and returns his
postcard after each mailing, using his own name `and address, should not be sub-
ject to criminal `penalties merely because he fails to state that he is already reg-
istered; in the final analysis, he will `be able to vote only once if the `state author-
ities make elementary `cross-checks `with their existing registration lists.
Furthermore, we believe the bill~s criminal provisions should distinguish be-
tween the isol'ated, individual misstatement, `where modest sanctions would be ap-
propriate; and massive or conspiratorial fraud, whether by political operatives or
governmental officials, where more severe penalties should be invoked.
Section 409-Financial assistance
This section requires the Administration to reimburse state officials for the
costs of processing the new registration forms for Federal elections. Unfortu-
nately, the bill gives no indication `of the total costs that might be involved, nor
does it specify how the Administration is to determine that local cost figures
supplied to it are appropriate.
`In addition, this `section offers to the states an incentive to reform their pro-
cedures for registering voters for state `and local elections: the Administration
is empowered to pay the states for `any `costs of adopting the registration-by-mail
procedures for such elections, up to,' a maximum of 30% of the amount paid to any
state in connection with the new procedure for federal elections.
PAGENO="0408"
402
The 30% figure appears to be an arbitrary one, for it is difficult to know the
extent of any additional costs to the state once the simplified procedure is adopted
for federal elections. Nevertheless, even without this special compensation pro-
vision the bill provides a substantial incentive to the states to conform to the new
practice, since maintenance of two separate registration lists would be an un-
welcome burden on local election officials. The bill's additional monetary incen-
tive hopefully would act as the needed stimulus for any states that would be
prepared to suffer that unwelcome burden.
On the other hand, should a state prefer not to conform its procedures, we do
not regard the burden of a dual system as an objection to the bill. The need for
reform is so great that such a burden becomes acceptable. Moreover, a dual sys-
tem already exists to some extent due to the 30-day requirement of Presidential
elections in the 1970 Amendments.
IV. CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS
A. Registration by mail provisions.
Article 1, Section 4 of the United States Constitution provides as follows:
"The Time, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Repre-
sentatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the
Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to
the Places of chusing Senators."
This provision has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as granting Con-
gress the power ". . . to provide a complete code for congressional elections, not
only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision
of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, count-
ing of votes, duties of inspectors `and canvasers, and making and publication of
election returns; in short, to enact the numerous requirements as to procedure
and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the
fundamental right involved." Smiley v. Hoirn, 285 U.S. 355, 366-61 (1932) (em-
phasis added).
Although Article I speaks only of the election of Senators and Representa-
tives, there would not appear to be a significant constitutional difference with
respect to Presidential elections. As pointed out by Mr. Justice Bl'ack in Oregon v.
Mitchell:
"It cannot be seriously contended `that Congress has less power over the conduct
of presidential elections than it has over congressional elections." 400 U.S. 112,
124 (1970) (separate opinion).
B. Residency and registration provisions prescribing a thirty-day period
As explained above, it is unclear whether the bill, in its present form, reduces
residency requirements. We have recommended revising the bill to clearly include
this feature. We `believe that such a provision is constitutional. We also believe
that the 30-day registration provision is constitutional.
In Oregon v. Mitchell, seven Justices upheld the provisions of the 1970 Voting
Rights Act Amendments reducing the residency requirements in Presidential
elections on the ground that such requirements violated the constitutional right
to travel from one state to another. Mr. Justice Black opined that Congress had
complete authority t'o regulate federal elections under Article I, Section 4 without
the necessity of finding a violation of constitutional right. Mr. Justice Harlan
believed Congress had no power under either Article I, Section 4 or under the
Fourteenth Amendment.6
Although the right to travel from one state to another, as discussed in Oregon
v. Mitchell, would lend support to Congress' authority to prohibit extended
residency or registration requirements for new arrivals in a state ("inter-state
movers"), authority must be found elsewhere to deal with those who move from
one place to another within a state ("intra-state movers"). This authority can be
found in the recent Supreme Court decision of Dunn v. Biumstein, 405 U.S. 330
(1972).
In Blumstein, Tennessee appealed from a decision of a three-judge federal
court holding that Tennessee's durational residency requirement for voting
violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Tennessee
C See 400 11.5. at 147-50. 236-39, 285-92 (view of the majority Justice) 400 U 5. at
134-35 (Mr. Justice Black) ; 400 U.S. at 213-16 (Mr. Justice Harlan).
PAGENO="0409"
403
law required that in order to vote for electors for President and Vice-President of
the United States, and for members of the Tennessee General Assembly and other
local candidates, an individual must have resided in the state for twelve months
and in the county where he attempts to vote for three months.7 Plaintiff had
challenged Tennessee's requirements on the ground that it denied him equal pro-
tection in that the law discriminated between bona fide residents: a state resident
of more than one year may vote but one of less than one year may not. The
Supreme Court, affirming the decision of the district court, held that because
the "benefit withheld by the classification" was the opportunity to vote, Ten-
nessee had to show a "substantial and compelling reason for imposing durational
residence requirements." 8 Although the Court agreed with Tennessee's arguments
that it had an obligation to insure the~ "purity of the `ballot box," the Court held
that Tennessee's requirements were "not the least restrictive means necessary"
and therefore were improper.0
The Court suggested that a 30-days' residency requirement for voting "appears
to be an ample period of time for the State to complete whatever administrative
tasks are necessary to prevent fraud-and a year, or three months, too much. This
was the judgment of Congress in the context of presidential elections." 405 U.S.
at 348.
Although Blumstein was an inter-state mover and the opinion of the Court
does not focus expressly on the problem of the intra.state movers,'0 the reasoning
of the Court should apply as well as to the latter situation. If three months'
residence in the county is an unreasonable requirement for the new state resident,
surely that or a longer periOd would not be permissible for an old state resident
who has merely moved from one county to another. Since the Court's decision
was not grounded solely on the right to interstate travel, as was Oregon v.
Mitchell, there would seem to be no valid reason for distinguishing between the
inter-state mover and the intra-state mover. Assuming the intra-state mover be-
comes a bonn fide resident of the county, he, too, sl1ould be permitted to vote
by the dictates of equal protection.1'
v. CONCLUSION
We believe federal legislation for registration of voters in federal elections is
constitutional and desirable. We approve, with the clarifying and strengthening
changes explained in this report, the enactment of 5. 352.
Respectfully submitted.
COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LEGISLATION,
Martin F. Richman, Chairman, Mark H. Alcott, Stephen E. Banner,
Boris S. Berkovitch, Donald J. Cohn, Elizabeth B. Dubois, Rich-
ard A. Givens, Dan L. Goldwasser, Murray A. Gordon, George J.
Grumbach, Jr., Arthur M. Handler, Elizabeth Head, Charles
Knapp, Arthur H. Kroll, William B. Lawless, Standish F. Medina,
Jr., Robert G. MorvillO, Eugene H. Nickerson, William B. Pennell,
Bruce Rabb, Benno 0. Schmidt, Jr., Thomas J. Schwarz, Beatrice
Shainswit (Hon.), Brenda Soloff.
~ Another provision of the Tennessee Code provided: "If a registered voter in any county
shall have changed his residence to another county or to another wprd, precinct or dis-
trict within the same county, or changed his name by marriage or otherwise, within
ninety (90) days prior to the date of an election, he shall be entitled to vote
in his former ward, precinct or district of registration." See 405 U.S. at 833.
The existence of the quoted provision would perhaps indicate that an intra-state mover
would not be disenfranchised in Tennessee. Nevertheless, the thrust of the Supreme
Court's opinion would be applicable to intra-state movers who are disenfganchised by
provisions in other states. See 405 U.S. at 335 and n. 5.
8 405 U.S. at 335. The Court also held that the compelling state interest test was applic-
able because Tennessee's durational residency requirements impinged upon the right of
Inter-state travel. Ibid.
°Id. at 345, 349, 353. Although Tennessee also argued that it had a right to ensure
that only knowledgable voters would be enrolled, the Court held the argument to be
without merit. id., at 354-60.
`°See note 7, supra. However, the Court did say: "flit is worth noting that during the
period 1947-1970 an average of approximately 3.3% of the total national population moved
interstate each year. An additional 3.2% of the population moved from one county to
another intrastate each year.)" 405 U.S. at 335, n. 5 (emphasis added).
ii See Marston v. Lewis, 41 U.S.L.W. 3498 (Sup. Ct. March 19, 1973), and Burns v.
Fortson, 41 U.S.L.W. 3499 (Sup. Ct. March 19, 1973), applying the Blumenstein ruling to
local elections in upholding 50-day residence requirements. See also Rosario v. Rockefeller,
41 U.S.L.W. (Sup. Ct. March 21, 1973).
20-695--73-----27
PAGENO="0410"
404
STATEMENT OF STANTON B. COLTON, REGISTRAR OF VOTERS, CLARK COUNTY, NEv.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN TOWELL: It is my understanding that there will be a
committee meeting concerning the bill introduced by Senator Gale McGee, S352,
by the House of Representatives on June 27 and 28. Through you I would like
to voice my opposition to the passage of this bill by the I-louse of Representatives.
The intended purpose of the bill is an effort to open up voter registration to
eligible voters to assist them through postcard registration. I would like to
preface the balance of my remarks by first saying that I believe that most of
the people who are directly involved with the State Election processes on a
State level, as well as a National level, are interested in making voter registra-
tion as accessible and easy for the public as humanly possible. The right to
vote provided us by the Constitution of the United States is one that has been
looked upon much to lightly by the voters of this country for too many years,
and the theory behind solving this lethargy is to make registration as easy and
accessible as possible. However, I do not believe that Senator Gale McGee's
bill is the answer to the voters apathy nor do I believe that making registra-
tion by postcard to be the panacea of the problem. As a matter of fact, I believe
that this cure would have side effects worse than the ailment itself. Namely,
opening the door to potential voter frauds on a national scale. Problems have
already been created, to a minor degree, by the passage of the 1971 Voter Rights
Amendments. Since there is no established lines of communications between
States the 1971 Voter Rights Amendments have created the potential of allow-
ing the voter to register by mail, simply by stating that at one time or another
he was a resident of your state, presently living out of the country, or else-
where within the United States, thereby allowing him to contact each State
individually and possibly voting as many as fifty times or more. Senator Gale
McGee's bill carries the problem one step further by creating the potential of
resurrecting the dead as new voters, or, allowing fictitious people or non-resi-
dence of the State to register illegally. The supposed built-in control would
be the establishment Voter Registration Administration within the Bureau
of the Census. This department would be established to assist States in carrying
out postcard registration.
It is my impression that this organization would provide nothing more than
a federal infringement upon the right and obligation of the State and States
acting in unison to protect and police their own registrations. I believe, as argued
by the Secretary of Stat&s Association before the Senate Committee, that the
response of the voter registration and the policing of voter registration is a
State's responsibility and that the fifty States should be provided the whe~e-
withal from the federal government for establishing national voter registration
files that can be commonly controlled by the fifty States. It is further my
understanding that the wheels are already in motion by the fifty States to
establish such a record keeping method, however, there must first be initiated
in each State a common file using some unique identification for each registered
voter than can be easily and readily cross-checked throughout the United States
to avoid duplication registration. Once this is accomplished the necessary safe-
guards will be established to protect the integrity of the ballot, because the in-
tegrity of the ballot is what this nation was founded on. To allow a system
where voter fraud can easily run rapid is to deny the legitimate voter the true
count of his ballot. I personally believe that the bill introduced by Senator
Edw-ard Kennedy and co-sponsored by Senator Alan Bible from the State of
~evada, is more in keeping with the needs of the States in assisting with voter
registration than that on the bill introduced by Senator McGee. The States
already possess the potential of curing any existing voter registration problems
without the creation of another costly federal bureaucracy.
I believe that simply because a person is registered to vote does not mean
that lie will go to the Polls on Election day. I think an analogy can be drawn
and summed up by the old cliche "You can lead a horse to water but you
can~t make him drink". To add to that cliche, I might say, "Why put the feet
in the water and muddy it up".
To give you a few statistics, Clark County had roughly 60% of all its eligible
voters registered to vote in the November General Election. Of all the people
registered to vote less than 80% turned out at the polls and these people w-lio
had registered made more of an effort to do so than simply walking to their
mailbox.
PAGENO="0411"
405
To return to my main concern, the integrity of the ballot, this is my main
opposition to S352. In my reading of the bill it appears that voter fraud, al-
though severely punishable by the bill, would run rapid should the bill pass.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter, I remain,
Sincerely yours,
STANTON B. COLTON,
Registrar of T7oters.
STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES INDUSTRIAL CouNcil.
The United States Industrial Council, formely the Southern States Industrial
Council, is opposed to H.R. 9053 and S. 352, bills which would permit registration
to vote in federal election by filling out and mailing a postcard. Our reasons for
opposing enactment of this legislation are threefold.
One, it would be one more usurpation by the federal government of state pre-
rogatives, and another step toward placing total power in the hands of the federal
bureaucracy in Washingtons. The legislation would circumvent state voter regis-
tration requirements that have been developed to prevent fraud. Furthermore, the
courts see to it that these requirements are resonable and non-discriminatory.
Nothing more is needed.
The idea that every function of government can be performed better by cen-
tralized federal government than by governmental units closer to the people is
a fallacy. It is time that the trend to more and more federal control and regula-
tion should be reversed. Such things as voter registration should be left in the
hands of those who are in direct contact with the people affected and conse-
quently more responsive to them.
Second, the postcard registration system invites abuses of the election process
and widespread fraud. Trying to police the system and prevent wholesale forgery
would be a tremendous problem, probably an insoluble one. Registration by post-
card would encourage special interest groups such as labor unions, welfare rights
organizations. etc. in developing more bloc voting. Our goal in this country should
be to develop a more knowledgeable, electorate, with more people giving thought-
ful consideration to the issues and arriving individually at a rational decision as
to how to cast their ballots. Postcard registration would facilitate the manipu-
lation of power blocs composed of~ those least informed and qualified to vote
intelligently. It would promote mob rule rather than the electoral process in-
tended by the founding fathers of our Republic.
Third, enactment of the postcard registration law would add to the costs of
the federal government at a time when it is urgent that every economy be effected.
One estimate is that instituting the, plan would cost half a billion dollars a year.
The additional costs of monitoring the program and preventing fraud are not
known but undoubtedly would be tremendous.
For the foregoing reasons, the United States Industrial Council, which repre-
sents executives of 3,000 companies, located throughout the country who are con-
cerned with preserving Constitutional government and freedom of the individual,
urges the Subcommittee on Elections to recommend against the enactment of
HR. 8053, S. 352 or any similar legislation.
STATEMENT OF W. DUDLEY BIRMINGHAM, Towx CLERK OF WETHERFIELD, CONN.
My name is W. Dudley Birmingham, Town Clerk of Wetherfield, Connecticut,
and my remarks are made as the Immediate Past President of the International
Institute of Municipal Clerks, and as a Chairman of its Liason Conmmittee.
We welcome this opportunity to testify because we firmly believe that organi-
zations such as ours should speak out on matters of such vital national concern
as the matter before you is certainly in that category. The bill being considered
affects us tremendously in our municipal positions throughout the land as officials
dealing with elections, and more: especially, voter registration in the instant
situation.
S. 352 "The Voter Registration Act", to use its shortened title, is a measure
which is of such magnitude in scope that it become mind-boggling when one con-
PAGENO="0412"
406
templates the mechanics inherent in its implementation. Personally, in reading it,
I wonder if adequate consideration has been given, as to what would transpire
if the measure became law. Regretfully we did not have any information as to
the Public Hearing on this measure by the Senate. We would have taken the same
position then as we take herein.
Congress, more especially the House of Representatives, stands presently at the
well known crossroads, in that the Senate has alread favorably considered the
measure.
We believe that if the House takes the road leading to acceptance and passage
of S. 352, it takes the road fraught with dangers and pitfalls that lie ahead. By
that statement, I would point out to those assembled here today, that it will
open our present election system to a rape that it has never witnessed heretofore
in the history of this nation. It could be the catalyst that might lead to a corn-
plete breakdown of the election of the top officials of this land. Or, worse, it
could result in situations where widespread fraud would "taint" many elections.
Were this to happen in a vote for the top office of the land, it would be disastrous
in effect. We came very close to that point in the election of 1960, and surely that
should never be allowed to happen again.
S. 352 is so wide in latitude and generalities that it is impossible to assess its
value as a nationwide registration act.
At the outset. I am of the opinion n ovoter registration measure should
be placed at all in the Department of Commerce under the Census Bureau. More
appropriately, any Voter Registration Administration should in my estimation
be placed in the Justice Department. That is the agency which is responsible pres-
ently for much of the federally guaranteed voting rights, and any registration
measure adopted by the Congress should continue in that agency. It would cer-
tainly insure proper safeguards to have it under that jurisdiction.
I do not propose to review section by section the drastic deficiencies of S. 352.
I will merely touch on just a few salient points, as there are others here who will
I am certain, enlighten you on other effects that S. 352 would have in the several
states were it to come law.
I would like to call your attention to just one of the requirements of this
measure. If you will evaluate its effects in your own individual state and munic-
ipalities. I think you will begin to visualize one of the nightmares which `the
enactment of this measure will create. Let us look at Section 406 Distribution
of Forms (c) lines 6 to 10, and let me quote, "The Postal Service shall dis-
`tribute the registration forms to postal addresses not earlier than forty-five
days or later than thirty days prior to the close of registration for the next
biennial general Federal election in each political jurisdiction in any state."
Envi~ion if you can. what will transpire under this mandate. A veritable ava-
lanche of registration forms will descend upon municipal and county officials
like a plague of locusts. We court disaster when we contemplate the impos-
sibility of any effort by our municipal officials to segregate those persons who
are already registered voters in their voting districts, from those who are not.
Moreover, bear in mind the timetable of not more than 45. nor less than 30 clays.
It would be absolutely impossible to cope with this in the larger cities, `towns
and counties. Realize too, that all of this would be occurring during the other
regular preparatory work of these officials needed for an election, such as the
issuing of absentee ballots printing of ballots, instruction of officials, et cetera.
Without a doubt this deluge of forms would completely inundate the staffs of
most jurisdictions, and could precipitate a complete breakdown of our election
processes.
In my states, there will be vacancies to be filled in the offices of Represent-
ative and Senator in off year elections, or at special elections, and again this
will mean under the provisions of this proposed measure that use of these post-
cards would undoubtedly be permissible. Perusing the language in Sec. 401,
it would also allow the use of these cards for primaries, and when one starts
to embark in that direction with all of the various pre- and postconvention pri-
maries in these United States, this measure becomes a frightening monster
to officials who deal with the mechanics of elections. I can tell you it simply
will not work. At least it will no't in Connecticut.
While, government does not seem disturbed today with costs, let me point out
that astronomical costs are involved with this proposition. No one has any con-
ception of what ultimate amount would be expended. I feel certain that officials
PAGENO="0413"
407
in the Bureau of the Census and the Post Office Department look askance at
what Congress would propose to do under S. 352, as far as affecting their oper-
ations is concerned.
The foregoing analysis deals only with the enormous administrative chaos that
would result from the use of such a postal card system. It omits any extensive
evaluation of the tremendous potential for fraud that is presented, since this
latter consideration has already been emphasized by many analysts of the pro-
posed System.
Unfortunately, S. 352, however well-intentioned, also overlooks the fact that
in many states, such as Connecticut, state constitutional provisions require that
application for registration as a voter, except for certain specified categories
of applicants, must be made in person. Thus the enactment of S. 352, in states
such as Connecticut, would result in a dual electorate, one group of citizens
being qualified to vote for all elective offices, and the second group of citizens
being qualified to vote only for federal offices. This dual-electorate situation was
averted in `a comparable situation by the ratification of the 2Gth amendment
to our federal constitution. The chaotic consequences of such a dual-electorate
situation on both the nominating and the election process were reviewed by
Connecticut Elections Attorney Amalia Toro at 1971 Connecticut legislative
hearings and are briefly described in the attached article. I respectfully urge
that you avert a recurrence of this p tentially disastrous situation by rejecting
S. 352.
Now you rightly say all I have done is criticize. What do I offer in place of
that criticism.
I firmly believe that the ramifications are so vastly important of any proposal
that would lead to nationwide registration, that Congress cannot simply take
any measure and adopt it per se, at this time. We do not have such a luxury
in existence at the moment. If it does so, with S. 352 as I said at the outset,
we embark on a most perilous venture, a venture that may well imperil the very
integrity of our election process, and one that we as a democratic people would
surely regret.
It is true for a certainty that a matter can be studied to death. In spite
of that danger. I would constrain Congress, or the President, to immediately
proceed with the appointment of an Elections Reform Commission. It is long
overdue! Once established, this commission should set as its primary goal, the
very concept we discuss here today.
Speaking bluntly, the proposed Elections Reform Commission should not have
a series of well known Senators or Congressmen composing its membership.
Rather instead, the commission sho~uld be composed of talented individuals,
state and municipal administrators possessing the practical and legalistic "know-
how" of voter registration, elections, absentee ballots and corrupt practices.
The idea if you will of putting "names" on a commission should be dispensed
with at the outset. We need some hard working people with some basic prac-
ticalities if we are ever to be successful in getting a workable `measure.
The commission should be a far ranging one appropriately staffed. It should
be a continuing one, at least for a number of years. The matters it will review
will take time, especially when one realizes that the fifty states must be evalu-
atei with their present mode of operations. Remember though that we are
dealing with the most basic structure of a democracy-voting. A crash approach
in my estimation is the worst thing we could ever do in this area.
Believe me when I say. it will not be an easy task! With fifty states involved,
I liken it to fifty heirs agreeing to share in an estate wrhere there is no will for the
decedent.
There is no instant solution to the many worrisome and complex problems we
have today in the entire spectrum of elections. However I am confident that such
a committee can bring about long-overdue reforms in our registration and election
systems which will facilitate the acquisition and exercise of voting rights by our
citizens. We must ascertain where among the states there are similarities and
where there are wide dissimilarities whether it he registration, absentee ballots
and so on.
Undoubtedly some states will have to change their voting concepts drastically
with any measure that is proposed and adopted. That is a realization that must
be accepted at the outset. Any concept adopted must be standard for all of the
states so individuals will know when moving from one locale to another in this
nation of ours, that procedures will be substantially the same whether they be in
Connecticut or Hawaii.
PAGENO="0414"
408
Thus, it is my thought that we must have a series of national election laws
covering a number of aspects of that area. Registration, absentee ballots, corrupt
practices, are all viable subjects that ought to be considered among others.
On the municipal level. I pledge my assistance that either I, or the association
I represent can offer to Congress, the President, or agencies of the government.
I earnestly trust that an Elections Reform Commission does become an actu-
ality in the very near future; we would welcome an opportunity to serve.
I implore you however, at this moment in time to reject S. 352, which although
intended to facilitate the acquisition of voting-rights by our citizens, can because
of inherent basic deficiencies, imperil the very existence of our election systems.
Again thank you for allowing us to express some brief thoughts before you, on
this matter of such grave national concern.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. CARTWRIGIIT ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL STT~mENT
LOBBY
As already has been w-itnessed in statistics given in previous testimony. citi-
zenship participation, in regard to voter registration and voter turn-out, is far
too low. In order to shed a little more light on this subject the National Student
Lobby would like to submit into the record research results that our organization
has acquired concerning student community voting patterns in relation to the
rest of the eligible voting public.
The initial student vote research that was undertaken was prepared for the
University of California Student Lobby by Bruce Fuller, Mike Gilson and Linda
Bond. This first research was entitled "California Student Vote 1972-A Brief
Analysis of the Student Vote, January, 1973," and dealt with all of the nine cam-
puses of the University of California, 12 of the 19 campuses of the California
State University and college systems, and seven private universities and colleges
in California.
The material NSL is submitting into the record was prepared as a supplement
to the California Student Vote 1972 as prepared for the University of California
Student Lobby by Bruce Fuller and is entitled "National Student Vote 1972-An
Analysis of the Student Vote Nationwide, March, 1973."
The National Student Vote 1972 results were based on surveys conducted on
information that was obtained from county registrar offices and was matched
with campus housing information to identify precincts which contained 95-100%
student population. The basic research design model that was used in the Cali-
fornia Student Vote 1972 was also applied to the information acquired from the
31 colleges and universities in 21 states geographically distributed throughout
the country.
The highlights of the research are as follows:
In the Fall of 1971 there were 23.7 million people between the ages of 18-24.
27% of the above figure were enrolled in institutions of higher education and
4% in high schools. thus approximately ~ of the youth vote is the student vote.
It was observed that many more students register at their parents' (home)
address than is the situation in California and as is stated in the California Stu-
dent Vote 1972. "a substantial number of students were registered at their par-
ents' home address and not registered in the precincts which we examined.'
Of the 31 colleges and universities surveyed voter turn-out averaged 73.1% of
registered voters.
Further results indicate that students tend to register less but per centage w-ise
have a higher registered voter turn-out in comparison to the general public.
The survey also goes to indicate that administrative barriers have an adverse
effect on the participative levels of eligible voters.
Although there may be other factors contributing to low voter turn-omit, NSL
believes that administrative barriers are still a considerable hinderance in secur-
ing a more politically participative public. Since administrative barrers are basi-
cally laws and policies. NSL believes that government should take the initiative
in alleviating the barriers that are responsible for the direct and indirect disen-
franchisement of eligible voters.
NSL is in support of HR. 8053 and other pursuant legislation that deals with
securing a higher level of democratic participation within our country. The post-
card concept we consider to be a positive step in remedying the problem of low
citizen political motivation but w-e also want to show our support for the idea of
establishing a Voter Registration Administration within the Bureau of the
PAGENO="0415"
409
Census. The Voter Registration Administration would be established to promote
new ways and techniques to increase voter participation, and due to its being
located within the Bureau of the Census this agency would have access to popu-
lation trend statistics which are vital in formulating successful policies and
legislative recommendations in the future. So it would be feasible for Voter
Registration Administration to propose other measures, that would probably be
more successful than other forms of proposed legislation, when current practices
do not prove effective.
NATIONAL STUDENT VOTE 1972
AN ANALYSIS OF THE STUDENT YOTE NATIONWIDE, MARCH 1973
(Prepared as a Supplement to California Student Vote 1972 for the University of
California Student Lobby by Bruce Fuller)
I wish to thank county registrar offices in many states throughout
the country for assisting me in providing the essential data. Thanks
also to go to the many people who responded so favorably to our
California study.
BRUCE FULLER.
PREFACE
In January, 1973 the findings of our comprehensive examination of the student
vote in California were published. The 1972 general election was the first in which
students played an important role at the ballot `box; the University of California
Student Lobby believed that an assessment of how students exercised their newly
found right to vote in that election was of a substantial value. We have been
delighted by the response from many individuals across the country and in the
press to our state-wide study, California Student Vote 1972.
The following is a supplement to the California study. National Student Vote
1972, while less analytical in examining differences between campuses, is more
revealing than the first `study for it `illustrates student voting trends nation-wide.
California did indeed provide a large student population to study; however, we
did not know whether California accurately reflected student voting patterns
throughout `the nation. By applying the research design developed for the Cali-
fornia study we were able to collect a substantial amount of data from which we
have based our findings an'd conclusions on student voting patterns in 1972.
The California study, because it provides a data base `and a thorough explana-
tion of `the student vote, is an essential complement to this study.
BRUCE FULLER, JIareib 1973.
I. BRIEF COMMENTS ON THE RESEARCH DESIGN AND SCOPE
The research methodology u'tilized in" `this nation-wide analysis is basically the
same as that used in the California sEudy. The findings and conclusions were
developed from precinct data and analysis of the campuses sampled. The pre-
cinct information was obtained from county registrar offices and was matched
with campus housing information to identify those precincts which contain 95-
100% student populations. Precinct analysis of student voting pa'tterns did ex-
clude commuting students; at the same time the contribution of students residing
in dormitories `to the sample was substantial. There is an indication that com-
muting students tend to vote more conservatively than resident students. Younger
students, who very often supply the greater proportion of dormitory populations,
tend to vote more conservatively than older student apartment dwellers. There is,
however, evidence that these and other factors tend to be offsetting to the point
that a precinct analysis will yield a highly accurate indication of how students
voted. For a more thorough discussion of the factors which affect how s'tudents
vote and a more detailed presentation of `the research design, see California
Student Vote 1972.
Before discussing the data analyzed and findings, the population dimensions
should be outlined.'
In the fall of 1971 there were over 23.7 million people in the United States be-
tween the ages of eighteen and `twenty-four. For `that same period (October, 1971)
1 All figures cited are from the Census Bureau and the National Center for Educational
Statistics.
PAGENO="0416"
410
there were 8.1 million persons enrolled in higher educational institutions in the
country. Nationwide, roughly 27% of those in the 18-24 age group are enrolled
in a college or university. Roughly another 4% are enrolled in high schools. Thus,
the "student vote" is a component one-third the size of the "youth vote". A little
less than 5% of all Americans between the ages 25-34 are also students. Of the
more than eight million students currently enrolled in higher education, nation-
wide, roughly 80% are enrolled in four-year colleges and universities while about
20% are enrolled in two-year colleges. This is not the case in California where
around two-thirds of all persons enrolled in higher education are attending two-
year colleges. California alone enrolls 15% of all college students in the country.
New York State and Illinois account for about 9.1% and 5.3% of college enroll-
ments, respectively. The median age of students enrolled in two-year colleges
nation-wide is 20 years, while 82% of such students are 24 years old or younger.
Of all first and second year undergraduates in four-year colleges 93% are twenty-
four or younger. Of all first and second year undergraduates in four-year colleges
93% are twenty-four or younger, and the median age is a little over nineteen.
There are two significant points which pertain to the national examination
which did not apply directly to the California study. First, there are a few
states, New York among them, in which students must still register and cast their
ballot in the precinct of their permanent address. This most often means that
in such states students must register in the city in which their parents are lo-
cated-not at their campus residence. No significant amount of precinct data can,
therefore, be analyzed from New York and other such states. Other states and
counties "discourage" registration of students at their campus addresses. How-
ever, the vast majority of states allow students to register at their school
addresses.
Second, a good number of colleges and universities across the country are lo-
cated in far less urban areas than those in California. In examining degrees of
urbanization and registration restrictions for students it was observed that many
more students register at their parents (home) address than is the situation in
California. In rural settings many more students live at home than on or near
campus; registration restrictions further increase the numbers of students who
do not register at a campus address. There is strong reason to believe that stu-
dents who choose to register at home will vote significantly more conservatively
than their campus counterparts.
Excluding the thirty-nine campuses examined in the California study, data util-
ized in analyzing national trends consisted of thirty-one colleges and universities
in twenty-one states (see table). Information concerning voter behavior from
seventy student precincts containing 93,000 student voters was~ analyzed. Large
urban colleges and universities provided the greatest amount of data, for it was
easiest to identify student precincts at large campuses. It should, thus, be noted
that the data collected is not a precisely representative sample. The data does,
however, provide insight into how different schools, in terms of size, geographic
location, and selectivity, revealed differing voting patterns.
IL STUDENT VOTING PATTERNS NATION-WIDE-THE FINDINGS
Based upon the analysis, we estimate that Senator George McGovern received
55% of the student vote for President. This represents a drop-off of three percent
from the estimated 58% of the student vote which the Democratic candidate
received in California. This nation-wide pattern also parallels the evidence in
California that Richard Nixon received a good deal more support (an estimated
45% of the student vote nation-wide), than was expected. Excluding the most
heavily student-populated states of California, New York, and Illinois, it appears
the incumbent president approached garnering 50% of the total student vote
nation-wide.
In local legislative races it appears that a reverse-coattails effect occurred.
On the average local Republican candidates received five-percent less of the stu-
dent vote than did the Republican presidential candidate. There was an appar-
ent willingness, however, to vote for more liberal Republic candidates. Senator
Charles Percy received 65% of the vote at Southern Illinois University, while
Senator Edward Brooke polled 74% of the student vote at the University of
Massachusetts.
Perhaps the most telling finding was that of the thirty-one colleges and univer-
sities examined voter turnout averaged 73.1%. That figure corresponds almost
identically with turnout estimates in California, and indicates that in terms of
PAGENO="0417"
Percent
--
~
~
~
Voter McGov-
University turnout Nixon em
Enroll-
meet
Percent
enroll-
meet,
region
and
State 1
Local legislative
races
Repub- Demo-
lime crat
New England
Yale University (New Haven, Cone.) 98. 5 16. 0 83.6 14. 6 85. 4 8, 600
Southern Connecticut State College (New
Haven, Conn.) 72. 2 25. 3 73. 9 24. 4 75.6 7, 000
University of Maine (Orono, Maine) 40.4 59. 6 11, 000
University of Massachusetts, (Amherst, Mass 80. 1 25. 3 74. 6 2 74~ 2 3 25. 8 20, 000
Northeastern University (Boston, Mass.) 71. 0 29. 3 70. 7 35. 4 64. 6 38, 000
Mideast
Princeton University (Princeton, N.J.) 70. 4 22. 4 77. 3 39. 2 60. 8 3, 600
Southeast
University of Southern Florida (Tampa, Fla.)_ 71. 5 40. 1 59.9 24.7 75. 3 14, 500
University of Florida (Gainesville, Fla.) 63. 8 40. 3 59. 7 22, 000
University of Miami (Coral Gables, Fla.) 71. 2 54. 8 45. 2 43. 3 56. 7 22, 000
Tulane University (New Orleans, La.) 64. 2 50.4 48. 0 20. 8 79. 2 8, 400
Great Lakes
Western Illinois University (Macomb, Ill.) 48. 1 51.9 50. 9 49. 1 10, 000
Northwestern (Evanston, Ill.) 81.6 26.8 73.2 31.9 68.1 19 000
Southern Illinois University (Carbondale, III.) 26. 9 73. 1 27. 8 72. 1 24, 000
~ 465.1 5349
21.7 72.9 25.5 74.5 32,000
34. 5 65. 5 24. 6 75. 4 52, 000
27.9 72. 1 40, 000
34. 3 65.7 000
University of Illinois (Urbana, Ill) 73. 1
Indiana University (Bloomington, nd.) 59. 8
Michigan State University (East Lansing,
Mich.) 76. 0 30. 9 68. 8
University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, Mich.)_ 75. 7 20. 0 79. 8
Western Michigan University (Kalamazoo,
Mich.) 73. 7 30. 0 70. 0 32, 000
University of Akron (Akron, Ohio) 78.0 31. 4 67. 3 19. 3 80. 7 1, 300
Case Western Reserve University (Cleveland,
Ohio) 70.6 25.7 73.8 28.4 61.6 15,000
Plains
University of Minnesota (Minneapolis, Minn.)_ 70. 8 18. 8 80. 0 12. 0 88.0 47, 000
University of Missouri (Columbia, Mo.) 74.4 39.3 60.7 56.5 43.5 23,000
Creighton University (Omaha, Nebr.) 17.9 82.1 21.4 78.6 4,100
Southwest
Arizona State University (Tempe, Ariz.) 47. 7 52. 0 36. 7 63.3 26, 000
University of New Mexico (Albuquerque,
N. Mex.) 73.9 39.7 59.4 29.0 70.4 18,000
University of Texas (Austin, Tex.) 67. 8 29. 7 65. 1 28. 6 71. 4 39, 000
Rocky Mointains
Colorado State University (Fort Collins, Cob.). 71. 4 50. 6 48. 4 28. 1 71. 9 15, 500
University of North Colorado (Greeley, Cob.) 53. 6 46.4 10, 000
University of Montana (Missoula, Mont.) 65. 6 34. 7 63.6 29. 9 70. 1 8, 500
Brigham Young University (Provo, Utah) 79.2 6. 0 71. 2 28. 8 19, 000
°14.8
Far West
Lewis and Clark College (Portland, Oreg.)_. 79. 9 38. 3 61. 0 44. 1 55.9 2, 000
Total (31) 73. 1 35.5 63.4 31.9 67.7 __=_
o State (region) contribution to natinal student enrollment (in percent).
2 Brooke.
° Droney.
Percy.
~ Schmitz.
Note: Precincts, 70; sample, 93,000.
411
eligible voters, students visited the ballot box in equal and, in many cases, in
greater numbers than did the general population.
National findings further confirm the factors which affect student voting pat-
terns examined In the California study. As seen among the University of Califor-
nia campuses, students attending more highly selective universities tended to
vote more liberally. Students at Yale University supported McGovern by a greater
percentage (73.6%) than any other campus examined outside of California.
McGovern received 77.3% of the student vote at Princeton University. Re-
gional factors clearly affected student voting patterns. Of the five major univer-
sities examined in the South (campuses averaging 18,000 enrollment), support
for McGovern averaged 54.7%. In general, however, the larger more urban cam-
puses tended to vote more liberally. Brigham Young University was somewhat of
a standout; students there voted 79.2% for Nixon, 14.8% for American Inde-
pendent Party candidate John Schmitz, and 6.0% for George McGovern.
Table 1.-NATIONWIDE STUDENT VOTING PAUERNS, 1972
6.5
1.5
1.5
3:6
3.6
19.4
2. 5
16.4
2.8
2.8
2.8
1.4
19.0
5. 3
5.3
5.3
5.3
2.2
4.6
4.6
4. 6
4. 4
4.4
8.0
1.9
2.2
8:3
1.3
3.3
1.4
1.4
19.0
1.3
PAGENO="0418"
Table 2 -- Location of Campuses Sampled
PAGENO="0419"
413
STATEMENT OF PETE T. CENABUSSA, SECRETAEY OF STATE, BOISE, IDAHO
DRAB REPRESENTATIvE FRENzEL: I appreciate this opportunity to submit com-
ment regarding 5. 352 the proposal to establish a national Voter Registration
Administration within the Census Bureau.
One of the chief arguments used in support of this measure is that existing
state registration systems serve as an obstacle to voter participation. This is cer-
tainly untrue in Idaho since almost 90% of our voting population is now regis-
tered under a recently instituted semi-permanent card registration system. Exist-
ing registration provisions do not require re-registration unless an elector: (1)
changes residence, (2) changes name,or, (3) fails to vote at least once during an
eight-year period.
If enacted, 5. 352 would establish a voter registration program for federal elec-
tions. Such a program would, in all probability, force the state to scrap its
recently implemented card registration systems, and adopt federal registration
procedures for all Title 34, Idaho Code, elections. The alternative would be to
maintain separate registration lists, special ballots, and special absent ballot vot-
ing procedures for federal voting. An unnecessary major revamping of our state
election code would ensue.
The following language is contained in 5. 352: ". . . an individual who is
eligible to vote under state law and who is registered to vote under the provi-
sions of this chapter shall be entitled to vote in federal elections in that
state This language leads us to conclude that S. 352 would impose an ad-
ditional federal registration burden on those who are currently registered to vote
for such elections under state law. If our interpretation is correct, this additional
federal registration requirement will serve to confuse and disenfranchise voters.
S. 352 purportedly has built-in safeguards to prevent voter fraud. However, I
submit that neither fraud prevention safeguards nor the availability of federal
tax monies can, by themselves, insure the sanctity of a post card registration
system which totally relies on unverified information.
In our judgement, 5. 352 heads in the direction of federal control of election
registration machinery. At worst it could well be disruptive and, therefore, detri-
mental to our open and accessible registration systeni. At best it constitutes need-
less and costly duplication. It leaves many, many questions unanswered and
subject to challenge in the courts. Furthermore, impetus for this legislation occurs
at a time when Idaho is fulfilling its obligation to facilitate the registration of
propective voters.
For the foregoing reasons, I strongly oppose S. 352. The enclosed materials are
respectfully submitted for your consideration.
Sincerely,
PETE T. CENARRUSA,
secretary of state.
Enclosures.
34-402. Qualifications of Electors-Every male or female citizen of the United
States, eighteen (18) years old, who has actually established a bona fide res-
idence in this state and in the county where he or *she offers to vote prior
to the day of election, if registered within the time period provided by law, is a
qualified elector. (History: S.L. 1970, Ch. 140; S.L. 1971, Ch. 192; S.L. 1972, Ch.
392; S.L. 1973, Ch. 304)
34-404. Registration of electors-All electors must register before being able
to vote at any primary, general, special or any other election governed by the
provisions of title 34, Idaho Code. [History: S.L. 1970, Ch. 140; S.L. 1971, Ch. 192;
S. L. 1972, Ch. 197]
In election year 1972, there were several noteworthy achievements which de-
serve mention.
(1) Out of an estimated voting age population of 450,000, approximately 400,-
000 Idahoans registered and therefore were qualified to vote at the general
election.
This represents nearly 90% attainment in registration-truly a significant per-
centage in light of a totally new card registration system which was initiated
in the summer and fall of 1971.
Efforts which facilitated the registration opportunity included:
(a) A blanket mail out for the purpose of re-registering electors registered
under the old law.
PAGENO="0420"
414
(b) A program to register students at time of class registration on col-
lege campuses.
(c) A registration program conducted in the high schools.
(d) The preparation and distribution of registration information (Voter
Guide),
(e) Procedural guidelines prepared for use by precinct registrars.
Tinder Idaho law, registration for the purpose of voting, is available in each
county at a central location (the office of county clerk), and persons may also
register with an official registrar who is appointed and maintains a permanent
registration facility in each election precinct. These provisions of law coupled
with the out reach efforts mentioned previously combined to make registration
readily available to our highly interested and participatory electorate.
Of those 400,000 qualified electors, nearly 320,000 voted at the November 7,
1972, general election. This degree of participation figures out to be 80.1%. That
is, over 80% of those persons registered to vote actually voted-another
tremendous accomplishment considering that voter apathy was prevalent on gen-
eral election day in a vast majority of our sister states.
In preparing for the `72 elections, state and county officials were confronted
with a new set of rules. I refer here to the major election law overhaul which
occurred in 1970. In addition there were amendments made at both the `71 and `72
legislative sessions.
New rules included implementation of the card registration system previously
referred to. This proved to be a gigantic undertaking, the successful execution of
which stands as a very real monument to the skill and expertise of our county
clerks.
The 26th amendment to the constitution was ratified in 1971 and this expanded
the franchise to include a new block of enthusiastic first time voters. This not
only raised a substantial question relating to student residency but also had the
effect of placing additional responsibilities on those charged with the administra-
tion of election laws.
Several months prior to the August primary election, the U.S. Supreme Court
held in a Tennessee case that durational presidency requirements were uncon-
stitutional. This, according to Attorney General Park. had the effect of iiivalidat-
ing Idaho's six month and 30 day residency requirement.
Numerous steps subsequently became necessary to conform residency require-
ments with the Supreme Court ruling. An outgrowth of this decision was to leave
Idaho with a two-day registration cut-off. In other words, a new resident could
arrive in Idaho on the Saturday before election, register, and vote on the follow-
ing Tuesday.
I have with me an outline which explores the history of durationai residency in
Idaho, and I'll come back to this document in a few moments.
Punch card voting systems were in widespread use for the first time during
1972. In total, eight counties utilized such systems and almost one half of all votes
cast in Idaho were done so on a voting device or a lever machine. Punch cards
represent a distinct departure from our traditional paper ballot method of voting.
New manuals of instruction and a complete set of forms applicable to the pimcli
card system were prepared and used for the purpose of implementation.
The foregoing resume is an incomplete description of the many obstacles
which were encountered by election officials in preparing for the `72 elections.
Despite such difficulties both the primary and general elections w-ere conducted
smoothly at the polls. And from a mechanical standpoint very few problems of
consequence developed.
This I believe can be attributed to several factors. (1) The administrative
structure created by the legislature has provided the flexibility necessary to cope
with problems of the magnitude herein described. This structure established
the Secretary of State as a central administrative head. with the activities of
county clerks being co-ordinated in a uniform manner through central direction
provided by the chief election officer. (2) The spirit of cooperation which our
office has enjoyed with election officers. Almost without exception, election officials
functioned as a family and the accuracy and efficiency maintained throughout
1972 reflects this fact.
In short we are at a point in the perfection of our election system where change
for change sake is inappropriate. The outstanding level of participation at the
November 7, 1972, general election indicates that our system is open and easily
accessible, both for registration purposes and voting.
PAGENO="0421"
C) `~ `1~ C)0C) C) C) C) C) ~ Co
O~~$ ~0rC C,
2
C)
-1
0
~ 0 0-)
2
~00 CO C) CO CO CO~ 000) J)-J~Q1 Q
~ -CO ~C) N)~J ~CJ1
~ CO 00 ()) CO 0)0000 CON) CO0~
2
0
C)
0
Co
-i ~I 0C~ 0CD~ ~ ))~OC 00
0
0
CO
~ ~
0) C)~JCJ1Ci10O0O NOCOOC o~roco 000CO~C)-~J~ 00 m
CD ~J~CO~CDC-~ CO CO 00~400Q,Q)~J 00C0-J 00 Q1~ 0)
C)
2
0) -1
00 0) N)00o~JN) c~ NOs-~ N)C) 01~ N) c~i Qi~
~4 CON) CO CONOCO CO ~ 0)00 C71~-JCD~ C) CC CO~ -<
CD o~0)N) ~4N)~ C0 CO C)) CO CO CO CCC) NOCO CO OO~-J C)
-n
C')
-4
-4
00 C0~4-J 0000 -10000 000000000oCo00000000000000
C)
2
3
-C
C)
PAGENO="0422"