9. Is the Justice Department aware that most jurisdictions require no identification for pre-election registration, and that the requirement for presentation of identification in the bill adds a safeguard not presently used, notwithstanding the argument that identification can be falsified?

10. In view of the fact that no identification is now required and that very few verifications of residence or qualifications are made, is not the statement in the memo that "those bent on corrupting the system *** would be willing to lie on whatever affidavits they are asked to sign," equally applicable to the present system.

11. Has not the bill approved by the House Committee on Administration tightened the protections against fraud by reducing the incentive for adoption of same-day registration at local and municipal elections where fraud is probably a greater problem than in Federal elections, and by other amendments?

12. The memo argues that availability at the poll of a "control" signature allows poll workers to insure that it is the same person voting who previously registered. Under a same-day polling place registration system it is hard to fathom how it might arise that the person registering is not the person voting. 13. The other argument made for having a "control signature" available is to aid in prosecutions of fraud. While this is undoubtedly true, it also curiously indicts the present system by citing that it is election officials who have found a way to use pre-election day registration to fraudulent advantage (comparing lists of registrants with those who appeared at the poll in order to "sign-in" and cast ballots for the no-shows). Thus, not only does pre-registration, in some ways, facilitate fraud, but the use of the signature comparisons is appropriate to criminal prosecution for this specific type of fraud. But there are other ways of committing fraud (e.g., falsely registering a person not otherwise eligible to vote) for which signature comparison is not so helpful. Again, the main point seems to be that it is election officials who are the main culprits, and our attention should be focused on their part in fraud cases.

14. The memo discusses the effect of "abolition of pre-election registration," yet the bill clearly anticipates polling-place registration as complementing, not supplanting, pre-election registration. I believe the bill could be strengthened in this regard, but it is still inaccurate to say the bill will "repeal . . . pre-registration laws."

15. The memo states that it will be easy for a person to wander from polling place to polling place casting ballots. Again, the present system certainly is no better defense against "those bent on corrupting the system" in this way. A person can now register in as many different places as he wishes, under as many names and addresses as he wishes, without much threat of detection. In view of impending floor action on this legislation, your earliest response will be most helpful.

Sincerely,

DON BONKER, Member of Congress.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INDEPENDENT VOTERS OF ILLINOIS

The Independent Voters of Illinois is an unincorporated association in the State of Illinois established in 1944 to engage in political action, to promote voter registration, to endorse candidates of any party who meet the standards of integrity and freedom from machine domination set by IVI, and to present its views on legislative matters concerning electoral and political freedom. It is with this background that IVI submits the following comments with respect to H.R. 5400.

A NATIONAL REGISTRATION STANDARD IS INAPPROPRIATE

IVI believes the attempt to establish a national standard for voter registration overlooks the fact that voting patterns and problems of vote fraud may be substantially different in different parts of the country. What may be a good and enforceable voter registration program in North Dakota may certainly not be appropriate for the heavily impacted precincts of Chicago or New York.

ONSITE REGISTRATION IS SUBJECT TO ABUSE IN URBAN AREAS

From IVI's 33 years in promoting voter registration and electoral participation in Chicago, we have no doubt that a system which would permit citizens to register for and vote in a federal election on the same day would be subject to substantial abuse.

(1) To suggest that control of vote fraud (multiple voting, "ghost voting,” etc.) could be curbed by requiring presentation of a sworn affidavit of residency or only one piece of identification (in addition to an on-site affidavit of voter qualification), has no meaning in the City of Chicago. For years, non-qualified individuals in this City have presented sworn affidavits of physical incapacity, enabling them to receive "assistance" in the voting boots. Moreover, it is well known in Chicago that doctors and others have similarly falsified affidavits concerning the physical incapacity of those who wish to vote absentee. IVI believes that wholesale vote fraud has occurred in this way, for example, in many nursing homes in the Chicago area. And yet, in the past several years of keen prosecution in Chicago, by both the United States Attorney and the States Attorney of Cook County, only a few jail sentences for voter fraud by false affidavits have been imposed.

Therefore, it is certainly not enough that an affidavit or two be required, when it is obvious that many, if not thousands, of Chicago voters will not hesitate to falsify one or both affidavits. Besides being administratively cumbersome for overworked and undereducated election judges, it does nothing to seriously secure the electoral system against individuals who wish to vote where they are not entitled to.

(2) Section 6(b) (2) of H.R. 5400 suggests another opportunity for vote fraud and multiple voting. This Section permits any individuals present at the polling place at closing time to be permitted to proceed to vote. While this is currently the practice in Chicago for individuals who have pre-registered, a system under which individuals may simultaneously register and vote at the polling place, would create a situation for hicago voters where hundreds of precinct workers and mobile voters could be expected to appear at the polling places of swing precincts in hotly contested races at the last minute, and stand in line to be processed.

While this is currently a problem, the necessity of on-site registering would more than double the time currently expended by judges in the after-6 rush and would substantially interfere with the necessity of vote counting immediately upon the closing of the polls. In its long history of poll-closing, IVI has found that the later the vote count extends into the night, the greater the vote fraud which can be expected. To expect even honest election judges to maintain a polling place from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM, then accommodate possibly hundreds of additional voters seeking to register and vote after 6:00 PM and then provide an accurate count of the votes and a secure transportation of that count to central collection areas asks too much. It would require at the very least either extra all-day judges or separate post-6:00 PM counting judges which would increase the personnel cost of every election for a service which is not directly aimed at voter participation, Some (although not excessive) pre-registration is a must. A PERIOD OF AT LEAST 30 DAYS PRIOR TO ELECTION DAY TO CHECK AND "PURGE" FALSE REGISTRATIONS IS NECESSARY

Throughout our 33-year history, the best opportunity IVI members have had to prevent vote fraud has been the statutory "purge" period between the last day of general voter registration (no party declaration required) and the date of a primary or general election. (Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 46 § 6-44.) In any "on-site registration procedure," this crucial opportunity for citizens to check addresses and purge out-of-neighborhood or deceased voters from the voter rolls, and to verify an honest poll list would be lost. In person or post card pre-registration would retain this advantage.

FEDERAL FUNDING IS NOT THE ANSWER TO INCREASED VOTER PARTICIPATION IVI feels that Section 7 of H.R. 5400 would do less to enhance voter participation than to create additional patronage jobs in the City of Chicago. Greater volunteer political activity will be generated by existing party and organization structures promoting attractive candidates, not by hiring more election board employees or keeping better statistics.

IVI believes that the electoral process must be opened up to current non-participants. However, IVI recognizes from its substantial history of electoral action

in the City of Chicago that "reforms" such as those suggested in H.R. 5400 may do substantially more to degrade the public's image of our electoral system than to increase respectful participation.

OFFICE OF CLERK, AUDITOR AND RECORDER

OF SAN BENITO COUNTY, Hollister, Calif., May 2, 1977.

Congressman LEON E. PANETTA,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. PANETTA: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 5400. The proposed bill has a lot of ifs to it and the following are just some of my worries and questions:

1. Precinct Problems:

The training required to make these temporary employees with a huge turnover, and lack of dedicated interest is horrible. I see a lot of problems with regard to being sure that eligible voters are allowed to vote only on those items for which they are eligible and the reverse if we allow them to vote on items they are ineligible to vote on. Being a machine county I could see some obsoleteness of my costly equipment because of the restrictions required only to allow federal offices. Again, if we allow the total ballot to be voted what happens to bond elections where a persons residence is critical, especially if an in-eligible voter is allowed to vote because of being placed in the wrong precinct.

2. Finances:

It is well and good to be paid as the bill states, but the critical cost is in supplies. I would have a tendency to over supply each precinct as I would not be able to estimate the walk in voters. If my machines become obsolete and a paper ballot is necessary the cost could be greater.

3. Will it get more people registered?

I don't see this as a way to go. If a person knows that he need not pre-register it would cause them to become lazy and would or could compound the problem of finances.

As you know the State of California has started an outreach program that as yet has not become full bloomed. San Benito County is a small county of limited tax base and our outreach program has yet to be funded by the State, so we have been doing our bit within the limits of the budget. In the last bi-linqual election we spent some $9,500 extra on Spanish ballots and election supplies. As of right now I have only 82 persons who have requested a Spanish ballot or supplies and as you can see this is in excess of 100 per request. I have had to go to a blanket type election rather than a targeted election because of the great percentage of Spanish surnamed people in order to comply with the V.R.A. as amended in 1975. This further amendment is just another cost that the taxpayer must bear that I believe is not justified.

I know that there are many other problems with this bill, but I hope that they can be over-come. Just to touch on a few :

1. Fraud-what about this can this bill overcome this problem.

2. Voter confidence-why make an effort when you can walk in and vote.

3. How can we overcome the precincting problems?

4. Economics-what about added cost-who pays?

5. How do you figure the supplies necessary if you have a huge walk in vote? 6. Training and education of the public and precinct workers.

I hope this helps you and as you can see I don't like this bill.

Your truly,

DONALD A. LowEs, Clerk/ Auditor/Record.

WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE,

SENATE CHAMBER, Madison, Wis., April 20, 1977.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN: Enclosed you will find an analysis of Wisconsin's Universal Voter Registration Law. While you will hear from witnesses throughout the country, including our Senate Majority Leader, Senator William Bablitch, I should like to have a few moments to supply you with information myself.

As the designer and architect of Wisconsin's voter registration law, I hope that the information I have provided to you will be of some assistance and I hope if you have any questions or comments, you will feel free to contact me directly.

The bill took several years to develop, and I have worked the last half decade to bring it to passage in Wisconsin. I am pleased with the positive results that have been demonstrated by the bill and with the more than 200,000 registrations which occurred on the day of the November, 1976 elections. The positive result it had on the citizenry of our state led me to believe that the Wisconsin model would be well to be the model for adoption for our nation.

I submit this information to you with all due respect and for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Enclosure.

DAVID G. BERGER,

Author of the Wisconsin Universal Voter Registration Law.

WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE,

SENATE CHAMBER,

Madison, Wis., April 20, 1977.

To: Members, House Administration Committee.
From: Michael Budzinski, Legislative Analyst, Wisconsin State Senate.
Subject: Wisconsin's Universal Voter Registration Law.

For your information, the following is a summary of the provisions of Senate Substitute Amendment 2 to 1975 Senate Bill 234, as passed by the Legislature, relating to registration of electors, authored by State Senators Berger and Flynn.

I. POSTCARD REGISTRATION

(s. 6.30(4)) Any eligible elector may register by mailing a pre-postpaid form to the municipal clerk. The form must be verified by two other electors in the ward or aldermanic district. These forms must be made available by the clerks to any elector of the municipality who wish to distribute them. The clerk must also mail a form to any elector who requests one.

(s. 6.32(1), (2), (3)) The clerk must examine postcard registrations for sufficiency. If a form is not in proper order, the clerk must notify the elector within five days and request that he fill out a proper registration. If the clerk receives the form after the registration deadline, he must make a "good-faith" effort to notify the elector and tell him he may register at the polls.

(s. 6.32(4)) If the form is in proper order, the clerk must send a non-forwardable postcard to the registrant and notify him of his ward or aldermanic district and polling place. If the postcard is returned by the post office, the voter's name must be stricken from the list.

II. REGISTRATION AT THE POLLS

The current law requiring no registration in municipalities of 5,000 or less was retained. Electors in these areas still may vote by simply stating their names and addresses (s. 6.27 and 6.29, 1973 Wisconsin Statutes).

(s. 6.55(2)) In areas requiring registration, a person who qualifies as an elector in the ward or aldermanic district and has not registered may register and vote at the polls. In order to do so he must:

1. Sign an affidavit swearing he is eligible to vote.

2. Present proper identification or have his affidavit substantiated by another elector in the ward or aldermanic district.

(s. 6.56) The clerk will check to insure that persons voting at the polls are properly registered and correct the registry list. If a person is properly registered, the clerk must send him a letter notifying him he is registered. If the postcard is returned as undeliverable, the clerk shall notify the district attorney.

(s. 6.55(3)) Electors who claim to be registered but whose names do not appear on the list follow the same procedures as those followed by electors registering at the polls. However, an additional responsibility is placed on the election official to telephone the municipal clerk's staff and ask them to check their records if the voter cannot produce identification or a witness.

III. HIGH SCHOOL REGISTRATION

(s. 6.28(1)) Although s. 6.28 of the Statutes is repealed and recreated, municipal clerks or local governing bodies may still designate any place they wish as registration locations.

(s. 6.28(2)) Public high schools must be used for registration of students and staff. The local clerks must inform their school boards registration is required. The clerk shall appoint, with agreement of the school board, at least one special school registration deputy at each high school. Registration shall take place throughout the school year. Each principal must inform students registration can be made. Students who are 17 but will be eligible to vote in the next election may file for registration and their registrations will become effective when they reach 18.

IV. REVISION OF REGISTRY LISTS

Under previous law, (s. 6.50, 1973 Wisconsin Statutes) every two years, after the November election, the Milwaukee municipal clerk cancelled the registration of anyone who did not vote at the previous general election. He mailed cancellation notices to these voters and they had to apply for reinstatement within 30 days to be retained on the list. Identical procedures existed outside Milwaukee, except the revision could be made at any time but must have been made at least once every four years following the general election and only persons who have not voted in the previous two years were purged.

(s. 6.50) Under this bill, each municipality must revise its registry lists every two years and may revise its lists at any time by mailing an address verification card to voters who have not voted in any election in the past two years. Unlike previous law, registrations are only cancelled if the notice is returned by the post office as undeliverable. There is no burden on the registrant to apply for reinstatement.

Since many thousands of state voters were purged the summer of 1975, under previous law, this section of the bill became effective immediately upon passage. Furthermore, those persons purged in the 120 days preceding the effective date of this act under the old procedures who would not be purged under the new procedures were reinstated on the registry lists.

(s. 6.50 (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), and (9)) The previous methods for purging the registration lists are retained. That is, the clerk shall cancel registrations of deceased voters, upon receipt of reliable information a voter has moved, and on the voter's request. Two new provisions were added. Municipal departments and agencies must notify the clerk if they find someone has moved and the clerk must cancel the registration of voters recorded as living in condemned buildings.

V. CHALLENGING VOTERS

Under previous law, any elector could challenge any other elector's registration by submitting to the clerk an affidavit stating the reasons the voter was not qualified. The clerk then sent the challenged elector notification of the challenge and the challenged elector had to appear before the clerk within a week. If the challenged elector did not appear before the clerk or failed to answer questions or take an oath he was stricken from the registration list. (s. 6.48)

(s. 6.48) Under this bill both the challenged and challenging electors must come before the clerk within a week. If the challenging elector doesn't appear, the challenge is cancelled-not the registration. If the challenged elector does not appear, this does not prejudice his registration.

Instead of the challenged elector being required to answer questions and take an oath to remain registered, the challenging elector must do so. If the challenged elector wishes to contest the charges, he may be placed under oath and questioned.

Under previous law, any elector or elections inspector was allowed to challenge for cause any voter at the polls. A challenged voter had to take an oath and answer specified questions. If he did not do so he was denied the right to vote. If he did so he was allowed to vote. His ballot number was recorded, and his ballot marked (when machines were used a challenged voter voted with an absentee ballot). (s. 6.92, 6.94, and 6.95) This procedure is retained, except that, under previous law, the challenging elector could ask the challenged elector questions. The bill requires that the challenging elector to convince the inspector