The winner is certified, and who knows what has happened? I don't really know how to handle it, except if the FEC handles cases with the expedition to which they have become accustomed, we will all be dead and buried before it ever reaches the attention of the Commission itself.

Mrs. CLUSEN. Having had some experience with the commission myself, I do agree with you on that. I think it is the process for bringing a complaint that is needed; if we could somehow manage to expedite that process.

Mr. FRENZEL. I would prefer not to do it through the intermediate bureaucracy which would be the FEC. I think if there is a sworn complaint it ought to go to the Attorney General, or the Attorney General's representative, the Prosecutor.

Mrs. CLUSEN. You know at one time we had considered in fact suggesting to the committee that this go to the Justice Department, and not to the FEC, but then we decided not to, because the machinery was already in place.

Mr. FRENZEL. But it is different machinery. We don't have any machinery in place for registration.

Mrs. CLUSEN. Right.

Mr. FRENZEL. We discussed that with the FEC when they testified, and they were querying as to whether we would use their regular procedure or set up a different one, and I don't think I could tell how the Committee felt. I know that I personally felt that the registration was separate from the compliance procedures of the campaign law, and I personally feel it would be better separated from the FEC, but if you have any further thoughts on that, I think we would be most interested.

Mrs. CLUSEN. Thank you. I think we would be glad to submit something further on that.

Mr. FRENZEL. With respect to the dual idea, I sense a little ambivalence on your part. I guess you don't want to make it too hard, but we ought to be responsive to those election officials who have almost unanimously suggested that they ought to be allowed to use more than one in their own discretion.

Mrs. CLUSEN. I understand their concerns, and the only thing I think that we want to be sure of is that we don't make the process so complicated or laborious or even expensive in some cases so that people who might be encouraged to register on the spot are in fact discouraged. Providing a separate picture, for instance, on some form, on a credit card or such things which some of the people whom we hope will be encouraged to vote don't, naturally might present some kind of problem.

Mr. FRENZEL. Actually when we asked you to come back here, it was following the testimony of Attorney General Bell.

Mrs. CLUSEN. Yes.

Mr. FRENZEL. And some of the things that we were interested in at that time was to get the benefit of the league's experience as to really how much good this might do in terms of new registrants, to get your idea of whether the fraud control aspects of the bill were satisfactory, and some of those broader themes on which you are uniquely qualified to testify. I wonder if you would comment as to what your expectation is of the increased participation under this bill.

Mrs. CLUSEN. I think it would be very hard to say that it would hit a certain percentage nationally, but I think that we primarily rely upon two things. We submitted along with our testimony a study we did some years ago on the administrative obstacles to voting, which indicates that difficulty in registration is a barrier, a primary barrier.

Mr. FRENZEL. Do you really think this bill will be a primary barrier, based on the experience of the last 16 years?

Mrs. CLUSEN. Yes. I don't think it is a panacea. There are those who claim that this will increase magically the interest of the public in involving themselves in government, but we do believe that it is another necessary step which should be taken in opening up the system.

In my original testimony, for instance, I made reference to a study which was done in 1976 in California, which describes the total probable increases as about 10 percent, and indicates that the closer you get to the actual election day for registration the greater the increase, and of course we also relied heavily upon the examples of the four States where it has been tried.

Mr. FRENZEL. That brings up the question of primaries. There has been some criticism from committee members, notably myself, about excepting primary elections from this bill. I guess my nervousness stems from the fact that there is likely to be a political advantage in that, and for a certain political party, and I wondered about your comment on that.

Mrs. CLUSEN. I am sure that we would have supported this legislation, even if it included primaries. I see no reason for it not to, except that a a first basic step it seems to us legitimate that it didn't. But I don't think it would affect our attitude toward it at all. I think if the commiittee sees fit to add that, it would be all right. One of the problems, of course, would be I think in getting it enacted and operative before the next time that you are faced with this situation if primaries are included.

Mr. FRENZEL. I don't deny that, but I have serious questions about whether it can be operative before the 1978 election anyway, and it seems to me that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and the proposers of this bill are saying "We want to open up general elections but we want to control our own primaries." It seems to me the place where the voter is likely to forget to register until after 30 days prior to an election is the primary election, where there is less publicity, until very shortly before the election, and if the bill has any meaning for putting people into the process, it shuld have special meaning in those 75 or 80 districts where the primary is the general election, and I would be very surprised that your organization wouldn't have jumped on that right away. Do you just want to open the process for some?

Mrs. CLUSEN. No, no, I think we have absolutely no objection to that. I think a part of our thinking for not bringing in this element was the fact that we thought we might be interjecting something else which would stand in the way of this being acceptable to most of the Congress, and simply felt that this would turn out not to be a politically feasible thing to suggest at this time. Certainly we have no objection to it and would support it.

Mr. FRENZEL. If you will pardon the indiscretion of a person who is acting as chairman for the first time, that is a well known attribute of so-called do-gooder organizations. They can be had very easily for a concept without worrying about whether it is uniform, whether it is equitable, and whether the nuts and bolts of the situation are just right. I would simply ask you to consider that. I would like to go on to the effectiveness. Do you think it is possible, given the problems of the biennial sessions and restricted sessions, and the problems of calling special sessions which are possible I think in almost every case, that we could make this effective by 1978?

Mrs. CLUSEN. Part of the answer to that lies in what the Congress does and how fast it does it I think. I would certainly agree with you that it poses some problems, and that Congress really must take action on this very soon now, if we can make a good attempt to have it be operative. This is the kind of thing I think where you have to rely to some extent upon the kind of information you have had from those of the States who handle elections on the scene. I would say that if the Congress takes action very shortly now, it could still be done. If it drags on into the summer, certainly it will become more difficult.

Mr. FRENZEL. I would like to go into the problem of fraud. One of our witnesses suggested that we should take each election day registrant and mail a nonreturnable first class confirmation slip to that registrant, and if it were returned-not a nonreturnable but nonforwardable-if it were returned to the election jurisdiction, that then that would be the basis for further investigation. Forgetting the cost for a minute, which sounds to me to be a little tough, do you think that is a good tactic?

Mrs. CLUSEN. Yes, I do. I have seen this in operation in my own State of Wisconsin, and it is a part of the record now which indicated, of course, that there was little or no instance of fraud, but at least the other thing it does point up is the degree to which election officials are making errors, or where there are clerical errors, and as was the case of Wisconsin, in most cases where the card was returned, it was mistakes on the part of election officials, not those who tried to vote.

I do think that that is a good way of verifying it, and that something of that sort should be included.

Mr. FRENZEL. The trouble with it is that it only tells you if there is a flaw in the system. It usually will not result in a conviction. It will simply be that you can't find Tom Jones, and you can never identify who this person was that voted, if that person is not actually at that address, but it will tell you whether there was any kind of fraudulent voting.

Mrs. CLUSEN. And would it not then prevent that person from ever registering, voting again, if the card had been returned?

Mr. FRENZEL. I doubt it, because most States don't have any way to cross check, and if they do, they are not very good verifiers of signatures, and people sign their names and list their names in many different ways, A. A. Anderson or Arnie Anderson or A. Arnold Anderson, and no computer in the world can compare those. Mrs. CLUSEN. In a sense the same opportunities for that kind of performance exist under the present system.

Mr. FRENZEL. Except that you have local policing groups like our friends have testified here before who will look up the names, if they suspect them, try to ferret them out and complain about them, if they have some time before the election. That is I think the principal difference. Mrs. Clusen, I thank you for your testimony. Yours is the only organization that is continuously active in voter registration in which everybody has a great confidence and great respect, and we appreciate having the availability of your counsel. Speaking for the chairman I think as the bill progresses and as changes are made, we would like to have some reply submitted directly to staff any comments that you have as it progresses. Mrs. CLUSEN. Thank you very much. I appreciate your staying to hear me.

Mrs. FRENZEL. Thank you.

With the greatest reluctance in the world, I guess I am going to have to adjourn this meeting.

[Whereupon, at 1:40 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[The following information was subsequently filed for the record:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNETH M. CURTIS, CHAIRMAN, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL

COMMITTEE

I am pleased as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee to convey my wholehearted support for the Universal Registration Act.

Seldom in my career have I encountered a proposal whose purpose is so straightforward and compelling as that of H.R. 5400. Enactment of this legislation would, quite simply, remove archaic and unjustified registration procedures, and in so doing, enhance the opportunity for all American citizens to participate in federal elections.

The fundamental assumption underlying this bill is that Americans, like their Western European and Canadian counterparts should be encouraged rather than discouraged from participating in the political process. For too long, geographic mobility, physical health, occupation, child rearing responsibilities, and other personal characteristics have prevented many concerned citizens from exercising their franchise. With the passage of H.R. 5400, these factors would become largely irrelevant in determining access to the ballot box. Voting would once again become a universal right rather than a somewhat arbitrary privilege.

No matter how noble its intent, legislation as important and pioneering as H.R. 5400 inevitably produces opposition. I am aware that this bill has its share of detractors, and that these detractors have raised many substantive and thoughtful objections. The bulk of these objections seem to focus on the possibility for increased voter fraud under and election day registration program.

As a former governor of Maine, one of the states which recently adopted a form of election day registration, I feel qualified to offer a few observations about the potential for fraud. In last November's election, Maine instituted a registration system whereby any qualified citizen could register on election day at his or her local election board and then cast a ballot at his or her assigned polling place. Although this plan elicited many of the same fears now being voiced about a national election day registration system, it worked almost flawlessly. Maine's 1976 voter turnout was 65 percent of the eligible electorate, well above the national 53.5 percent turnout rate, and 4 percentage points above the state's turnout rate in the 1972 presidential election. Furthermore, according to Secretary of State Mark Gartley, there have been no reported instances or allegations of fraud since the new system's inception. Maine's positive experience with election day registration is by no means unusual. As your Committee heard last Tuesday, the state of Wisconsin in 1976 implemented an immensely successful election day registration program. The program enabled 210,000 citizens to register on election day, 11.5 percent of ther state's total registration. Turnout in Wisconsin last year surpassed that of the previous presidential election, notwithstanding the slight national decline in voting participation. And, as in Maine, there has not been one documented instance of fraud dsepite a thorough investigation undertaken by a U.S. Attorney. A similar pattern in increased turnout and absence of significant fraud was noted last November in Minnesota, one of the other states to recently adopt an election day registration system.

While the experience of these individual states is reassuring, the national universal registration proposal must ultimately be judged on its own merits. A close examination of the bill's provisions of its own merits. A close examination_of_the bill's provisions suggests that contrary to the claims of some, enactment of H.R. 5400 would acutally decrease the prospects for election fraud. Basically, this is because the act creates a whole new set of anti-fraud penalties and enforcement mechanisms without nullifying or altering any existing anti-fraud programs on the state and local level.

Under the terms of the legislation, for example, fraudulent registration would become a federal felony punishable by up to five years imprisonment and fines of up to $10,000. With the provision for federal penalties, state and local efforts to combat fraud would be strengthened through increased access to the resources of the Justice Department. The importance of such federal assistance should not be underestimated, considering the recent testimony before this committee of a former Philadelphia Assistant District Attorney, Frederick L. Voit, Mr. Voit, it will be recalled, testified that, in Pennsylvania, state law provided investigative and enforce

ment tools far inferior to those available at the federal level."

In establishing these stringent federal enforcement tools, the act does not reduce the power of state or local governments to set rules or procedures for voting. In fact, the act specifically indicates that none of its provisions limit the power of any state to establish the qualifications for voting in contests for federal office. It is also important to note that the act gives states the power to require registrants to prove their identity and residence, either through a form of identification or an affadavit of an already registered voter. Under the provisions of the act, states may also require that each person seeking to register swear to his qualifications under oath, with full knowledge of possible criminal penalties for providing misinformation.

In the area of fraud detection, that act would not alter any existing state or local procedures. For example, established rules requiring the presence of such election day officials as poll watchers and challengers would not be affected by the bill. Furthermore, by providing financial incentives for improving the administration of registration and elections, the act could encourage development of the kind of sophisticated record keeping essential for the discovery of widespread fraud.

Aside from the bill's formal safeguards against voting fraud, there is one additional safeguard which will result from the discussion and debate about the entire registration program. That,quite simply, is public awareness of the fraud issue, and the subsequent media scrutiny of election procedures high public awareness is likely to produce.

INFLUENCE ON TWO-PARTY COMPETITION

In addition to voicing concern about the possiblities for increased fraud, many of those opposed to this bill have implied that it will furnish a political bonanza for the Democratic Party. An easing of registration requirements, it is reasoned, might create a whole new bloc of Democratic voters, since the bulk of chronic non-voters have "Democratic" socio-economic characteristics.

It would be highly disingenuous for me to say that I would be upset if a new group of Democratic supporters were produced by this legislation. My own suspicion, however, is that the strength of the two parties will not be radically altered by the passage of H.R. 5400. In any event, the question of how this bill might affect twoparty competition should not influence an evaluation of its merits. Unless one accepts the elitist premise that structural barriers produce a better electorate, there can be no justification for unnecessarily excluding any eligible voter from the election process. Therefore, instead of analysing the ultimate partisan impact of universal voter registration, both major political parties should welcome the opportunity to recruit new voters.

CONCLUSION

In expanding the pool of potential voters, the Universal Registration Act will force the entire political system, including the two major parties, to be more responsive to public demands. No longer will a political campaign or candidate be able to ignore a significant voting bloc simply because of the bloc's low registration or turnout rate. The special concerns of such groups as the young, minorities, housewives, and the very old are, therefore, likely to receive more consideration than in the past.

A number of other consequences are likely to accompany the passage of H.R. 5400. Voter turnout is likely to increase, state and local election systems are likely to become more efficient and sophisticated, and instances of voter fraud are likely to