Committee on House Administration Subcommittee on Elections Hearing, "Examining Potential Updates to the NVRA”
2025-12-10
Loading video...
Source: Congress.gov
Summary
No summary available.
Participants
Transcript
M
Ms. Sophia Lakin
The subcommittee on elections of the Committee on House of Administration will come to order. The title of today's hearing is Examining Potential Updates to the NVRA. I note that a quorum is present. Without objection, the chair may declare a recess at any time. Also, without objection, the hearing record will remain open for five legislative days, so members may submit any materials they wish to be included therein. Today, the Committee on House Administration's Subcommittee on Elections will continue its oversight of federal election law. 32 years ago, the National Voter Registration Act, or the NVRA, was passed with the goal of increasing voter registration, removing bureaucratic barriers, and ensuring states accurately maintain their voter rolls. Today, we will discuss ways to strengthen those original goals of the NVRA. According to the Election Assistance Commission, today over 86% of the eligible voting population are active registered voters. Contrast that to 1992, right before the law's passage, when registration was at 68%. That is a great thing for our democracy. As a former Secretary of State, I believe it is incumbent on us as policymakers to continuously seek feedback from elections officials on the ground about what works, what can be improved, and how changes in technology and resources affect elections administration. Throughout my time as Florida's Secretary of State and as a member of Congress, I have had many of those discussions, including with other Secretaries of State and local elections officials. This hearing will examine opportunities to update the NVRA to strengthen voter confidence in our election laws and improve election administration. Thoughtful review and modernization of the NVRA will improve elections administration and remove barriers to efficiency. Currently, the NVRA requires that states conduct a general program that makes reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official list of eligible voters.
M
Ms. Sophia Lakin
This ambiguous language has left courts to issue broad rulings about what constitutes general and reasonable. This ultimately means states are not required, and sometimes not even permitted, to remove ineligible voters due to errors on their registration form, lack of US citizenship, criminal conviction, mental incapacity, or other reasons consistent with their state laws for which a registration may be invalid. Election officials benefit from clear and unambiguous laws, which both help them to carry out their duties and to ensure voter lists are accurate and up to date. We have had witnesses testify in this very room about how the NVRA's language actually prevents election officials from conducting robust list maintenance in the manner they think appropriate. Examples include the blackout period for list maintenance and delays in removing voters who have moved to a new jurisdiction. In some cases, a voter who has moved must request removal and an election official must wait two general election cycles to remove a now ineligible or relocated voter. We must also recognize that modern technology has made certain provisions of the NVRA obsolete. While 30 years have passed since the NVRA's enactment, many of the functions that still need to be performed can now be done more efficiently. As another example, the NVRA's language requires states to make voter rolls available for inspection by photocopying. As a result, a court of appeals has found that the state of Alabama can charge enormous amounts for printing copies of its voter rolls as opposed to producing and delivering digital copies for a fraction of that cost. This is another example of how evolving technology has highlighted the need for updating the NVRA to better reflect the practical realities of today. Before concluding, I'd also like to touch on the importance of reviewing and clarifying the NVRA when it comes to confirming a registrant's citizenship. The NVRA does not currently require an applicant to prove their citizenship beyond an attestation clause and a signature.
M
Ms. Sophia Lakin
One recent example of this, which generated significant media headlines, is the recent arrest of Ian Roberts, an illegal immigrant who successfully registered to vote in Maryland twice. Last week, Chairman Stile and I sent a letter to the Maryland State Board of Elections seeking a detailed assessment of how a non-U.S. citizen was able to register to vote, and that letter was sent in furtherance of protecting the integrity of the franchise. The committee will continue to review this case or any case happening across the country. Let me end with something I think we can all agree on. Improving the administration of our elections and ensuring voters' voices remain heard should be central to all of these discussions. Elections officials on the ground need access to the right tools and clear direction in order to do this. I look forward to further discussion ways to improve our system to bolster election integrity and efficiency across the country. I thank our witnesses for being here today and I look forward to our conversation. With that, I yield to Ranking Member Sewell for an opening statement. Thank you, Madam Chair. As ranking member of the election subcommittee and the representative of Alabama Civil Rights District, there's nothing more important to me than ensuring that every eligible voter can register to vote and cast their ballot without facing unnecessary barriers. But far too often, Americans have to jump through unnecessary hurdles to try to make their voices heard. Ever since the 2020 election, the American people have been bombarded with misinformation, disinformation about the integrity of our elections, lied to about the rampant voter fraud, and misled by false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. To make matters worse, state legislatures have used every tool in their toolkit to dispose at their disposal to enact new barriers to the ballot box. Just this year, 47 state legislatures attempted to pass 469 restrictive bills to make it even harder to vote. Many of these new laws were created to fuel the false narrative that our elections are not secure.
M
Ms. Sophia Lakin
Today we are here to talk about the potential updates to the National Voter Registration Act, a law passed in 1993 with the goal to increase voter participation. The NVRA is a critical component to our federal voting legislation and it provides vital access and protections to voters as well as guardrails for election officials to conduct voter maintenance. I believe that proper voter list maintenance is an integral part of an election administration, but too often we have seen anti-democratic purges of eligible voters conducted in the name of ballot list maintenance.
Sign up for free to see the full transcript
Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.