tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 12, 2015 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT
not in our view because of the way you authenticates our cardholder. but that said it is a significant improvement in cars security verses traditional strike only but shipping and can -- chip and pin for attacks when somebody loses a card but in the chip and pin world that is practically impossible although we did jesse an article talked-about new streaming technology coming out of mexico that may make chip and pin cards more vulnerable than men previously suspected. but that said i don't think there is any question we're moving emv there are
millions of these cards provided to consumers. this is something they will get used to having in their wallets but it is not the silver bullet against fraud. we have seen in other countries such as the u.k. when they made the shift from the of magnetic stripe much of the fraud associated previously with card duplication are counterfeiting now move to online fraud. so that is an area that consumers will have to maintain vigilance. we'll have to continue to recommend to pay close attention to your credit card statement and flag suspicious charges. that is one area we expect based on international experience. on the legislative side i am
glad you raised this earlier because it is an area that despite technology vances' we're seeing in the industry there remains a very strong need for baseline security information -- legislation from congress. a bill has been introduced on the senate side and there is the house version that will soon be introduced. we think of that not only to provide a baseline security protection me to require all businesses to hear to raise certain level but a data em preach notification and standard that raises all as opposed to released common denominator approach curve that would reduce consumer protections. we will support a new bill
in illinois a to strengthen their existing data security legislation and also looking at the template for good data security protections that could be considered as a national template. going back to the chip and pin issue is the tale of small businesses. if you read the biggest - - suppressed many retailers will be implementing chip and pin in a bold terminals. if they haven't already if you get into the checkout line more places they're already in their and turning on that functionality. however as mentioned earlier, this will take a while we should not expect suddenly they will be secure
but they should look for those so that will take consumer education to make them understand why chip is a different way to pay with the advance security with the benefits that it brings but they will continue to use magnetic stripe so without october 1 date atm machines are gas stations their terminals are not going to be subject to liability until the end of 2017. so in addition to that you will have many small businesses to simply will make the decision that their liability for fraud is not enough to outweigh that existential cost of a new payment terminals so can win dash consumers will see small mom-and-pop smaller stores that will take magnetic stripe into the foreseeable future for our
point of view. in closing, we do think it is not the silver bullet. so the federal government can lead by a example but that doesn't exclude the need for federal legislation. so we're very happy to be here. thank you for inviting us to speak on this issue and if i put in one quick plug if you are interested in data security issues, we just launched today a new publication called data in security guide to provide a point important analysis and links to articles about can simmer dated issues you can find information at our web site. thank you.
>> but things for inviting me from the american consumer institute 501(c) three educational resource institute and it is a pleasure to be here. i think we have heard a good baseline for the discussion items one to add a few viewpoints that there is a lot of statistics that have been used about how bad things were last year and the year before that like one-third of americans had information compromised another between 40 and 45% of companies said dave breaches in the last year. the importance of this issue cannot be overlooked talking about the need of better security for better protection against data reach san fraud and also
reducing forgery. it is important to think about building confidence between the consumer purchases and credit-card companies. we are a little bit out of sync when we take an incremental step toward adding a the chip and pin believe in the signature in place when after all we could have asking merchants to changeup point of sale terminals that just made the change we're talking about a technology of chip and pin in use over 10 years. all of the major economies use that technology and said he show a reduction of fraud that resulted from that is still we rely on his
signature so it is a 1970's technology so wire redoing that? if we just make incremental step than just put didn't what works today. we had issues with online with multi factors but right now we have the merchants put something in place and to me that this is though why. i melos but some explanation that i am hearing is the major merchants in the u.s. which will soon be put a risk in october, they are potentially facing higher cost. we have consumers potentially at risk because of these data breeches with their information to be
identified. but to me that credit card companies themselves are not taking as much of the risk. what we see is the signature system allows them to take a higher transaction feet a.m. the chip and pin system so a europe there is more competition and in the result is a lower transaction fee if you look at the difference between the signature feet and the chip and pin he dash did show you the measure of power that is what represents. so look back at the major breaches if prints were in place rescissory dash you're only magnetics white system they would hinder the ability that they have monetize the stolen cards and that would have made them less valuable so now we
talk about the breach such as target and it is simple economics if you think about the funding their own business what you want to do is raise the marginal cost did you do that to shift it to a the left to make it less valuable you raise the cost in the end result just like the economics it is as simple as that but we're not moving towards that what we have today is a market failure because if you look at the difference the transaction fee for the signature verses chip and pin, that in itself represents a market power and that market failure that wishes to need for the remedy to address this. thieves will be smarter in the future we will never catch up you will is this something new right now we have something better and
we're not taking that step we are sticking around with the 1970's technology of the signature and that is a shame because it will require the merchants to get another terminal then another one in most of these firms commit 80 percent have one employee or less. many are proprietors we're adding cost instead of imposing the cost of the thieves we do it to the merchant and consumers and i think that is something that needs to change and i will stop right there. thank you. >> we have a couple of issues here but there is one that i want to do get back to that three panelists raise which is the issue of on-line transactions i heard both john and steve angeles, before you mentioned that chip and pin
could be used for online transactions. so could you expand on that? you even mentioned mobile transactions as well? >> it comes back to the point of late to adopters with emv and why are we taking incremental steps? there are commercially viable solutions to except chip and pin over the internet that is one consumer protection. we did see an uptick of the fraud when the u.k. rollout emv. some large businesses could account for that if they put it over 90 percent they come up with their own transaction fund or system but those small businesses could really be disadvantaged if they don't
have a the wherewithal to protect the data did -- the better but there is a solution where they could protect internet transactions today so it comes down to issuing emv in very incremental steps it doesn't make sense here in the u.s. and merchant terminals, because chip and pin is the international standard they also have been in pads but for us they are deploying the terminals were but if they were to program for that that an additional investment in our and to its programming more than hardware. you have to get into that technology q where that employee cost to change that
programming but the challenges that we are facing here that it will be reduced by so much with emv is it a false sense of consumer confidence is the bigger issue. >> there is another consumer argument that consumers would have a tough time remembering a florid digit pin. we all have our atm cards with for a digit pin numbers. does anybody want to talk about that? >> there was a steady a few years ago that consumers on average remember eight pin number so it is hard for me to understand why that would be an obstacle to function.
people do it today i go to a garage door i put a number in every time. this is just day to factor step that i think is crucial i don't think consumers are stupid enough they cannot remember that number. i don't see that as a roadblock. >> i think it is important for us to work together and in particular consumers are bearing some fraud losses in the system but predominantly borne by merchants and issuers probably 90 percent of all those losses that are out there but that information sharing has been key and remade great strides to further that information sharing capacity in the
federal government is doing great things as well. but i don't want to appear too rigid but you brought it up as a static data point if one of the best means of to factor cardholder thought the dictation -- authentication is out there somebody steals my car they could go on line and use it. they don't know the pen that i have in my head. they shouldn't. there are other forms of metrics you can easily list day fingerprinted as a little more difficult than to grab the card but we need to see how biometrics will pan out. there is some of security but it is not a finite with
fingerprints so if you're issuers think there is a better technology into are ready to deploy that i think we would love to work with you for point of sale as well. >> there is a lot here. and i have to say we agree with data protection legislation. window the bill has a strong dash protection standard built into a for enforcement very weak are very much supportive of that sort of thing. quite frankly we have been strong supporters in the house and also the car per bill in the senate that has strong data protection
standards and attempts to raise people love to relatively the same level of protection of data. so if we all got together on some sort of legislation we could all be better off. by complex our industry is willing to work with you and hopefully we can work with merchants and consumers to get across the finish line. the back to the emv card with that shift is trying to do is get at most of the fraud of today which is counterfeit cards. then we deal with a certain segment in a declining area of fraud so what we are facing talking about the major retailer beecher said had nothing to do with chip and pin but because they didn't protect their systems
the back door and had nothing to do with the transaction with the chip and pin but how they store the data was a problem. so to analogizes somehow pin would have prevented those alleviated that impasse is simply a misunderstanding of the situation in fact, i understand some hidden data was compromise was a have the pick and they have the keys to the kingdom so if somebody has it to find you are in a world of trouble. so trying to deal with the majority of fraud with on-line stuff is great we love to see those products come forward but it is part of overall. i am not here to promote any specific technology as the silver bullet but to say on
multi factor technologies. we're looking at a tree not the force to look at the trip -- the tree as the single forest - - forest so i pledge of one to work with you i'd like us to work more closely on this issue. why don't we do that? [laughter] >> i agree. one cpac i appreciate you talking about the other bills proposed. and i think we talk about a data security in this space
bed this panel on cards security we have to really understand the point earlier of economics and fraud. they tend to look for the low hanging fruit and emv and raises their marginal cost and no doubt. and they also start to look at other types of information they can sell. medical information for example, is where those credentials are far more on the dark market and credit card information because they'll understand that credit card credentials have layer upon layer of thank and retailer protections to turn those into merchandise to resell that but things like medical information for tax id fraud is all
information that is a very ripe target for fraudsters. so i don't let this debate over emv and card security because we need to hold up this legislation because all vulnerabilities that businesses and the government have. a good for step is a comprehensive law from congress to say you need to have reasonable data security that is a baseline we can all agree with strong enforcement from the ftc that has done an amazing job with more tools and authority to help many consumers but unfortunately the payment issue is one we are hung up on with
they have done a great job on this with more resources were put into this. is the great resource for consumers as a consumer advocate 1/2 to caution you about flashing your credit card can dent - - credentials on c-span like that. [laughter] >> can i provide a quick personal notes on flashy nor credit card number? my wife to cover card to a local car repair shop to the undisclosed virginia headquartered card was used in the transaction it was a trusted merchant they do a great job. to inspect our cars every year. but one glitch it wasn't the
actual reader but they took a picture of my car with their phone and so the on line and within four hours my information was being used to buy a tv in boca raton florida. my card company called me almost immediately they knew that i lived in virginia so they stop that transaction so that is so sophisticated. you take a write-off of the card. that is a kind of stuff we are dealing with and that is dangerous stuff and we need to work better to work on that to stop it. that is why all these technologies called these need to be put in place there is some instrumentality but has to be incremental.
it will never change or stop. we have to keep working together. >> before this great interaction and discussion. has removed your questions is great we have cooperative's working together but what i heard is most of the panelists have agreed that chip and pin is the better their of protection for credit-card security but there is no fraud moving forward more than shipping and signature. >> i did not say that. >> i said most. [laughter] >> i will allow him to take exception.
i do know he is the exception demos' did agree it was a better layer of protection for consumers. so with that said we will move to questions from all of you. >> i will push back on the in and signature issue is a mature comparing apples to oranges because the penicillin is checked but the signature i would say in my lifetime 99.99% of the time my signature is not checked. at point of sale with a human being they don't check your signature so how can you even compare if they
just check the signature how could it be that much worse than the authentication device because now it is a human being rather than someone who had stolen it? >> you check it while you are standing there. that happens to me. >> [inaudible] >> i would agree somme signatures are worth less they are very easily counterfeited. there is the reason we collect them and that is because we get chargeback transactions if a cardholder calls the bank to say this is fraudulent than we have to show a record we have captured a receipts which we cannot do add a fuel pump which is how we bear the
fraud of lot of times but we maintain records of the signature for the process. signature is easy to counterfeit and there are rules so with the ability that is another rationale. speaking as a consumer advocate i don't think that signature is the message that all. it is simply my signature agreeing to pay my bank back
from what i bought from retailer. so many don't even require a signature at all the fuel purchase a hamburger from mcdonald's with your credit card data require you to sign if below a certain dollar amount so many don't require authentication whatsoever. >> so what we should be asking ourselves is if the pin is better than the signature than why doesn't the industry have any incentive to innovate? it seems like it would be a simple thing to incorporate.
once we figure this out we come up with another way to break it and we always have to be careful on our feet. with the issue is widely get the best thing that we have now in place to know we have to change it again to keep up with what is going on? but sometimes we will get there. many times it is dragging our feet to so we had zero liabilities and bear the cost so they're actually paying for all of this. we are highly motivated to
make consumers hold and we don't spare any expense our effort because honestly they are our lifeblood. so to me we are on a variety of different areas that that is the solution with that liability shift in the october to upgrade the security standards. >> we believe that will address most of the fraud of health care. >> looked at the losses for regulated vs. unregulated. the fraud losses are much less we're talking between one and 23.
>> congratulations on a great forum. from electronic transaction association, i just want to play historian for a second for the benefit of the audience to mention something that i think is hopeful to understand why chip and pin are talked about in the same sentence and steve alluded to this that everywhere in the world and most particularly in an era when the chip was introduced 20 years ago, it came with him and. so you hear chip and pin talk about together. why? why is said implemented it in europe to sit in a cafe so anybody knows that is how
it is done overseas. but it is not done that way in the west but it is telecom reason. when emv was first deployed 20 years ago a europe that was the first implementation of electronic authentication of credit-card transactions where in the u.s. our implementation of electronic authorization was with the magnetic stripe with the technology of cassette tapes that is 40 years old. in europe they don't have that telecom infrastructure that we have in the united states so that transaction doesn't take place on line takes place on the device here in the neck u.s. retirees like your card there is a realtime authorization that takes
place to send of message that the transaction is authorizing in europe they don't have that telecom infrastructure so they could not authorize a on the network so they needed a technology to allow it to be authorized on the device the hand-held or merchant located tarot. it is actually author raised by the terminal in europe that says yes or no so that is deployed because that is the way to authorize the transaction we did without the pin so i thought that history was important. it is not an answer to the question is pitted is great or kind of great.
to still authorize that transaction. >> that is a great point. so that was the case in france. so when the u.k. rules it out with that type of transaction it was an entirely the communication and it was more online days they went to chip and pin so there is historical reference for this type of technology here because they have been rolled out in europe. but historically that is why it is rollout that mean
aspersions deploy terminals because they're expecting to have been part of the transaction but there are many dead and had been pads because they did not need them when does life terminals. but it is very different we are accustomed to do give them into a the waiter and they go about back. so it is very different. >> so in transactions with
those same projections -- protections are a day protected by existing law? >> which of the panelist would like to take that on? >> i apologize. i actually did not hear the first order your question. i am death in this year. -- death in the year. >> if the cell phone and cable transactions are under current banking rules by that the dollar limit if there is a compromise of that system?
are they protected by current law and if so which? into the transactions meet the october 1st deadline? says that is to a variety of laws in the can talk about that offline. it is a financial transaction so that is different method is to do that. so that liability shift that people have different views on that so is day network rule. it is not mandated. >> it depends onhat laws regulate the financial transaction.
so what i will point out is merchants are encouraged with the transactions as far as the emv shift. so they roadmap as they ask merchants to deploy a the specifications with any that are loaded onto the phone. >> whether consumers are using a mobile solution, if you detect fraud the same advice applies there still projected for the credit and debit transactions. so even if it is apple paid with half a dozen and credit cards that doesn't mean you should not check your credit card statements to dispute
potentially fraudulent charges so to the proponents of chip and pin does said only protect against lost and stolen card fraud? where is the steady comparing cost of pavement throughout the entire retailer and processing systems and how can you be so certain? >> so in my opening remarks i mentioned the chip unable cards are a significant step
and it does address much of the fraud that occurs due to counterfeiting to day. >> day you have that data. >> to come up with an issue or steady -- a steady coming up with those provisions and it shows the basis points of fraud is lower than a signature debit overall may be 11 / three total overall. one of the challenges of why we need to work together it is predominantly by a issuers by fraud. the pin debit fraud is on the issue were side the
signature side which is shared, is about 60 / 40 give for take for merchants. and overall whapping it is about 6040. so if you have to drill down into that pen and devon number -- debit number to look back that it tells us how little fraud boss is on an that. >> how can you still understand? where is the data point it is worth the money that it will cost the economy?
because it takes money to implement the terminals and the systems and they are not free. >> most merchants can already have those magnetic stripe industry where 40 percent of those are already that so to upgrade that software to reduce the fraud losses much as you can is absolutely there. now -- no doubt in my mind a lower risk transaction area may be slower adopters. maybe there were not a high adopters of pen because it is fraud in that environment so if it moves into that category then they will have to look at other ways antedate several merchants
have been looking at other technologies. but up his pen is only part of a problem but so is the token to protect the ecosystem to look at the diplomatic second strategy to look at all these factors how can i make the best decision possible? and right now. >> i'm sorry we do have some data we would like to share review with the cost-benefit analysis and again remember remember, the stolen card is a declining part of the problem not a growing part. >> i have been trying to stay out on this one.
[laughter] but he is part of the initiative we have made a preference for a day pin enable the cards and it goes back to what the panelist just said that at the moment it is the most secure but that said we're also actively looking for our own transactions to work with industry to see what is the next generation of enhanced security features? more should be doing now? we are behind the game with our ecosystem regards to emv so we need to catch up and do more on encryption and token is stationed with multi factor authentication with biometrics and things that are out there. we are excited when mastercard as part of the seven announced they will do
a test on biometrics or american express said malta factor authentication and entitlement to this, i know chip and pin is the focus especially with october 1 on line the horizon but take a step back to think that what happens in one year or five years? we don't want to just touch up with where the europeans have been 20 years ago we want to make sure we continue to be the innovators to take the next up. but then i think how we'' the consumer to a understand identity theft and management is the pen and biometrics and nobody should be moving -- choosing passwords any more. such as take a moment to step back.
>> day common interests may be even before re understood is that history tends to repeat itself. as someone as disturbed as elected officials over 30 years, i can attest that if you are around long enough you find out that is very true and there are few better examples of that the other recently renewed fight for the voting rights act into the united states. the story starts not at the passage but the era of reconstruction and the passage of the 13th and 14th and 15th amendment well the 13th displays to give citizenship is of the
15th amendment with the right to vote they immediately then instantly became the majority in some southern states as you can imagine that began to impact a southern way of life. that african-americans held office during the reconstruction era including a united states senator from mississippi or the first african-american elected with the house of
representatives that address the american electorate? newly implemented policy changes as public schools are to institute property taxes directly serve the needs with the african-american and enfranchisement to engage in a determined brutal and violent campaign to suppress the black vote black legislators were killed or threatened or beaten or jail. and who is joined by the kkk or in some cases were klansmen themselves.
they were at gunpoint and crosses were burned and people were beating for not being acquiescent to the demands. as a result the black legislators were silenced to quickly take control of the south so black empowerment was a distant memory but to stand in an operation. the host of other mechanisms that continue to ruth block the black vote for decades for of the african-american and then restore the dignity of life. and it just isn't the desire
but also the deep seated hatred against african-americans and started with a landmark ruling could have been a significant event such as the killing of the emmett till and rosa parks and the little rock nine and the transfer of the airship of dr. martin and luther king from the civil rights movement began. to combat this hatred against african-americans with the jim crow policies and racial segregation to secure federal protection guaranteed by the constitution of. as we know that led congress to pass the civil rights act in 1957 and 1964 the case
several protections to african americans in the context of education and employment and public accommodations. however in the effort to attract bipartisan support both pieces of legislation contained a weekend boating provision to use the al literacy tests and as a result of african americans saw progress they still found their voices were not heard. on sunday march 7th of 1965 bloody sunday promised 600 marchers assembled in selma alabama and led by my colleague and other activists, crossed the bridge over the alabama river and just short of the bridge to a block the troopers and the local police to order them to turn around. when they refused the
explaining a center at that rings today, that conference of, strong and fully enforceable voting rights legislation, all the protections afforded in the civil rights act were done in vain. doctor kings persuasiveness eventually to cold and five days after the march president johnson announced a joint session of congress-- announced to the joint session of congress he would bring them on effective voting rights bill and on march 6, 1965, johnson signed into law the voting rights act held by many as the most effective civil rights law ever enacted. the title, as the most effective civil rights law was rightfully
earned, the voting rights act of 1965, contained extraordinary measures, section five, which required seven states with history of black disenfranchisement two over-- undergo preclearance, which means to submit any future changes in statewide national and local voting law or approval by the federal authorities carried not only was the voting rights act externa, it was effective. by 1968, just three years after the voting rights act became law , black voter registration had increased substantially across the south to 62%. this is a clear indication that the legislation was not only needed, but it worked. nevertheless, i subjecting certain states to additional scrutiny the law was deemed the ultimate upfront two states rights and continued to face political attacks.
despite these attacks, the voting rights act was reauthorize on a bipartisan basis in 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992 and most recently in 2006. since its enactment african-american progress has been there evident. the black community has made voting and voter registration a top priority. in 1994, 1998, when jesse jackson ran for president, his campaign registered thousands of new voters. i worked in a campaign with reverend jackson traveling across this country, didn't get home at 1.46 weeks. i know about the registration that he did and all of those new voters that he brought to the polls. these black registration drives and black campaigns helped to
elect hundreds of new black legislators and local state and congressional races. today, there are 23 members of the congressional black caucus, which i was chair and now continue to serve as a member of the caucus whose primary purpose remains addressing the concerns and advancing the interest of african-american community and who maintain a commitment two ensuring voting rights, increasing voter registration and enhancing voter protection for everyone. of course, we can attribute the voting rights act to the changes in this country that ultimately led to the election of president barack obama, the nation's first black president. as was the cause and the case, during reconstruction with the advent of african-american electoral process came great opposition. in the years that followed the election of president obama we witnessed a resurgence of passage designed to erode
protections that originally started in 2004, in the bush versus gore presidential race turned in 2004, we can remember florida, when there were too few polling places, long lines in a disappointment number of minority voters that were not counted. for short years later president obama won his first historic election, largely based on voter turnout and attracting a new base of minority and young voters. so, in response in 2010, several states began attempting to roll back early voting, eliminate same-day registration, disqualify ballots filed outside of precinct and create new demands for voter id at polling places to discourage and prevent this new base of voters from getting to the polls. fortunately, through the persistent and tireless advocacy
of civil rights organizations, black leadership and efforts of then attorney general eric holder, section five of the voting rights act was invoked and eliminated in implementation of majority of these voting laws heard consequently, in 2012, for the first time in history black voter turnout exceeded white voter turnout by two percentage points and the nation reelected its first black president for a second term. yet again, backlash followed in 2013, the following year the supreme court dealt the voting rights act its heaviest blow. in the case of shelby versus holder, which directly shuts down the section five authority of the voting rights act to read chief justice robert-- john roberts junior running for the majority declared, that because voting rights act work so well assumptions of voting discrimination were no longer valid and the law was no longer
needed. with section five behind them, republican state legislators immediately proceeded with the new round of even more restrictive voting laws two read since the passage of shelby, anyone states have introduced a total of 82 bills that restrict voter access to the polls. for example, states have implemented statutes that limit early voting and registration are require voters to present voter id. vacation. all of these statutes have the same effect as literacy tests, poll taxes in this proportionately limiting african-americans and all minority voters. because of the shelby decision, these statutes are not only illegal, but implemented without any review or approval from the federal government. as a result, in 2014, voters in
22 states staged tougher voting requirements and the most recent midterm election the same election that saw declining minority voter turnout and unless congress acts the 2016 election will be the first in 50 years where voters will not have the full protections of the voting rights act that so many lost their lives to obtain. just as black leaders in the reconstruction era and during the civil rights movement persevered with confronted with opposition, black leaders in congress are continuing to fight, to restore the voting rights act. as i have done every year for the past 20 years, this year i along with nearly 100 of my colleagues traveled to selma, alabama, to commemorate the anniversary of the bloody sunday and the margin selma. this year held special significance because not only was it the 50th anniversary, but it is a time when we are
facing the exact same fight. in history has indeed repeated itself and we find ourselves once again without full protections of our right to vote. currently led, once again by congressman john lewis, ranking member of the judiciary committee and longtime advocate john conyers and members of the congressional black caucus, three pieces of legislation have been introduced to try to resolve this problem. hr 855, known as the voting rights amendment act, hr 2867, the voting rights advancement act and hr 12, the voting empowerment act however, as we look at these bills, we again see history repeating itself. the first bill, the voting rights amendment act was the so-called bipartisan piece of legislation introduced in 2014. yet, similar to the civil rights act, which had weak voting
protections in an effort to obtain this bipartisan support to read the voting rights amendment act faces the same problem. at the time of its drafting, members of the congressional black caucus were not at all happy with this bill. since 2010, we have been struggling against a republican majority, strongly influenced by the most conservative tea party. it has been difficult to get support for progressive legislation of any kind. in particular for voting rights legislation strong enough to overcome the damage done by the shelby case. there for, when then republican majority leader of the house eric cantor promised democrats that if they kept the bill limited and bipartisan than it would come up for a vote, many reluctantly accepted under the philosophy that some voting protection were better than no protection that all. therefore, my colleagues introduced hr 855, which included republican force
compromises such as an exemption for voter id laws and enabling fewer states to be automatically covered under section five provision. despite these major contentions, however, the republicans never kept their word and the legislature was never voted on. fed up with the republicans refusal to keep their word, this year democrats in the congressional black caucus decided to introduce legislation that would fully restore voting rights protection two our communities. what resulted was hr 2867, the voting rights advancement act, hr 2867, restores section five by requiring states with 15 voting violations over the past 25 years or 10 violations if one was statewide to undergo preclearance and submit future election changes for federal approval. this new formula would initially full recover 13 states including
alabama, arkansas, arizona, california, florida, georgia, louisiana, mississippi, new york , north carolina, south carolina, texas and virginia if you read hr 67 is decidedly better than the so-called bipartisan legislation previously mentioned hr 855 which only fully covered for states to read georgia, louisiana, mississippi and texas. the 13 states covered by hr 2867 account for half of the united states population and encompass most of the places where voting discrimination is most prevalent today like florida, north carolina and texas. additionally, this formula includes the southern states that were initially targets by the voting rights act where discrimination against african americans remains eight disquieted problem two read along with diverse like california and new york which
has more recently discriminated against ethnic groups like latinos, asian-americans, reflecting the continuing changing demographic of this country. additionally, hr 2867 does not contain any carveouts for discriminatory voter id laws and also requires states to get preclearance for its specific election changes that often target minority voters today. therefore, states will need to get better-- federal approval for things like new voter id laws and proof of citizenship requirement for voter registration. hr 2867, currently cosponsored by 80 democrats, but unfortunately has not secured one republican vote, no republican support. lastly, it can't rissman lewis has introduced yet another piece of voting rights legislation that if implemented would work to strengthen both of the
previously mentioned bills, hr 12, the voter empowerment act serves as a comprehension proposal two modernize the way we vote. this bill would update our voter registration system, allow online voter registration, require 15 consecutive days of early voting in every state, assist voters with disabilities and ensure the equitable mr. bhushan of voting place resources. our voting system is in much need of technological improvements and they really is no reason why congress has not acted to pass this legislation, but yet again this bill has no republican cosponsors. congress is now in recess. we will be away for the full month of august to read without strong voting rights legislation in place to the right wing conservatives are exercising their extraordinary influence
over the entire congress and the entire country. we are up against mean-spirited states rights conservatives who resent the growing power of minorities in this country. and who are intent on creating laws and policies to curtail a. congress under the leadership of the congressional caucus must do every thing possible to pass and sign into law a credible voting rights bill to protect to the that so we have fought and sacrifice and died for. ladies and gentlemen, this is no small matter. this is not just another ordinary piece of legislation that we are dealing with. we are dealing with the right of the people who demand and deserve justice and equality in this country. just as we saw after the years of reconstruction, without protection at the polls african-americans and other minorities are subject to tactics that will dismantle our voice in this country. while the tactics may no longer be obviously the ku klux klan in
force, they are no less effective. at illuminated the black vote and black legislative power. as history has shown, these tactics are not going to dim, but they have been a decades long attack to ensure certain people are in power. certain voices are heard and certain interests are favored. we are up against the people like the coke brothers and rulings like citizens united which both continue to build financial support to fund right-wing elections and too serve the conservative agenda while the attacks against voting rights are grounded in petty packages like states rights are voter fraud. history demonstrates that at the heart is a desire to prevent african-americans and other minorities from participating in the electoral process. this is unconstitutional. is undemocratic and un-american and i with my colleagues in congress organized civil rights
faith-based religious groups, college students, student rights activists, progressive women's organizations, lawyers will not accept any erosion of our rights. we are prepared to engage in whatever fight is necessary. will not quit until we can restore voting rights protections for all. thank you very much. [applause]. >> thank you congresswoman waters. i think it's time to get our panel involved in this. let me get some brief introductions to our panel. to my left is hans von spakovsy. he is a graduate of mit and vanderbilt and has written for publications ranging from the "wall street journal" to the
"washington post" and he has been nominated for a pulitzer prize. at the department of justice he was counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights and has been a member of the federal elections commission and heritage foundation he is a senior legal fellow manager of the heritage foundation's election reform institute. next to hans is tom sims he received his bachelor from yale university and talk civil rights at the university of southern california. he clerked for judge's at both the united states district court and the knights circuit court of appeals. he has served on the los angeles board of education, the us department of energy equity and excellence commission and he is a commissioner in the commission of hispanic legal rights and responsibilities as one of our coke commissioners with the diversity commission and is
currently president and general counsel of the mexican american legal defense and education fund. finally, we have put on the panel and for medical reasons soledad o'brien was not able to be here today, but we were able -- we are very fortunate to have andrea zopp. andrea received her bachelor's degree in law degree at harvard university and has been a partner in major law firms. she has held executive positions at corporations including sears, sara lee and exxon. until recently, she has been the chief executive officer of the chicago urban league and as you have heard, she is recently announced her candidacy for the united states senate from illinois. so, hans, let me start with you. you have heard an explanation that the voting rights act is somewhat very much needed and in
the two years since shelby county there has been tremendous abuses in the voting rights in the united states to read what is your view? >> i will be the dissenter in the room, which i'm sure will make people unhappy. let me say a couple things. first of all, the voting rights act was the most important piece of legislation passed i think the last century, more important than the civil rights act because the voting rights act finally helped end the segregation and lack of political power and strength of black americans. in 1965, when that law was passed, blacks were registered at a rate of only about 27%. georgia, mississippi, less than 7%. by 2004 election when the year before section five was expired in many parts of southeast covered by section five that
once special provision voter rights act, but-- blacks were registered at higher rates than white voters to everyone here has been talking as if the voting rights act has ended. that is simply not the case. voting rights act has a number of different sections. the most powerful tool against racial discrimination is section number two. is permanent. its nationwide. we also have section 11 be, permanent, nationwide in which the justin the department can go gets anyone who is intimidating voters. what was at issue in the shelby case was one provision of the voting rights act section five. section five was originally supposed to be on emergency provision, only supposed to last five years and it only covered a small number of jurisdictions in the country. , what was the reason for section five? the reason was the justice department would go to court,
they would get a court order against a jurisdiction that was distributed against black voters in the net jurisdiction would basically evade the court decree. so the idea was section five, they would not be able to make changes in their voting laws without getting the permission of the justice department or a three-judge panel in dc. now, the centum, the discrimination that was going on was low voter registration and turnout. so, congress came up with a formula and the formula was if you had less than 50% voter registration or turnout of all voters, not just black voters, in 1964 presidential election and you had had a prior device in place you would be covered. when they renewed section 58 added the 64, 6872 elections, but after that congress never updated the formula and they didn't do it when they were looking at it again.
the reason for it was that if they had looked at it, not a senior state would have been covered with a renewed section five because those systematic widespread official discrimination that was happening with ended. in fact, just a couple of things. black registration and turnout was higher in the covered states than the rest of the country. the-- there were far more black officeholders in the covered states than the rest of the country. the states with the fewest black elected officials, in fact, they listed this in the court case were states that a previously not been covered by section five like illinois and delaware. so, the court was fully justified in saying, history did not stop in 1965. and there was no evidence states like georgia, with were so
different still today from places like massachusetts, that george is needed to be under special protection. the point was that if this coronation occurs, not only can the justice department and private part-- party sue under section two, but they can even get folks under a preclearance regime. something that is not often mentioned is section three of the voting rights act and if you can prove a section in the case and you go to the judge and use a judge, we think that there's-- we have evidence that this jurisdiction will try to evade this court and we think you should put them under a five-year regime where they have to get an okay from you or from the justice department two make a change in a voting rights, the judge can oppose-- that is a much more equitable way of putting in a preclearance requirement based on actual evidence in that jurisdiction
than a blanket covering of all these states. shall be county, by the way, alabama county then filed a student-- superior the county government has never had an objection filed in the entire history of the voting rights act and what initially this and then i will and. now, i know you all caps see this map, but is a map of the united states. this is from the 2013 census reports and assure you this because you all can see these green areas here that cover the southeastern united states, all the states that agreement, georgia georgia, mississippi, all of this places. those are states where the census bureau says black americans outvoted whites by anywhere from up to 6%. so, those are the states where conditions actually are best today and there's been no evidence section five, a new one
needs to be applied and if there is a problem you can sue under section two and get a remedy for mccourt's. to mexico, tom let me turn to you. one of the lines in the majority opinion in shelby is that the voting rights act imposes significant, current burdens. so, it used to be justified by a showing of current needs. in my correct? >> i think the premise that there is some significant burden from preclearance is one that is unproven. what the court majority and shelley county talked about at length was stigma and equal sovereignty and in many ways is the states right case comparing states that were subject to preclearance two others. but, what was not given due attention are number of things. first of all, with respect to the burden of section five preclearance, there was a ready
mechanism used by many jurisdictions and he could been used by shelby county, could have been used by entire states if they could prove that they had complied and not had an objected to change over a period of time and they could bailout. that is what the supreme court in the earlier case, the northwest minnis of all utility district number one case rested its decision upon. there was a ready mechanism used by a number of jurisdictions to get out of the tremendous burden quote unquote a preclearance, but let's talk about what the burdens in these areas may be. hans is correct the main provision of the voting rights act is section two and it does permit the federal government or private litigants-- litigants to challenge practices. there are two problems with section two and the first is often you have to evidence of implementation of the practice to demonstrate the discriminatory effect and that means you have to suffer through
a number of elections with folks deny their vote before you have a chance to realistically go into court and have that change overturned, first. set, everyone in this room as lawyers will understand that section two is a notoriously inefficient way of adjudicating these matters. since 1982, when commerce acted to reauthorize the voting rights act and 1986, when the supreme court upheld what they did in 1982, the operative test for prevailing an exception is quote unquote totality of the circumstances. now, a lawyer in an area of the law can understand what must be involved in satisfying eight totality of the circumstances. there are experts on both sides, hundreds if not thousands of hours of lawyer time on both sides. at great expense and consumption of time before you have an opportunity two overturn what's
maybe clearly discriminatory changes in process. let me give you the quintessential example. while shelby county was being decided that state attested it had two cases that were being adjudicated under section five as well as under section two in at least one of us cases to read when involving redistricting and the other involving a voter id provision made much more to coney and then it had been previously. in those cases, the state of texas chose to bypass the administrative process of preclearance and went to us district court in washington dc. in those cases, there was presented tremendous evidence of not just discriminatory steps, but intentional discrimination, intentional discrimination by the texas legislature two prevent the power of it latino and african-american voters from increasing. the judges concluded that that was very strong evidence of
intentional discrimination. as a result of shelby county, those cases are today two years after shelby county still being litigated with those provisions potentially place. for chile, on redistricting there was a resolution that resulted in new maps being drawn, but those provisions could be in place even though judges have concluded there was intentional discrimination and that is a demonstrable indication of the difference between section two and section five. i will conclude by saying, lawyers in the room-- in addition two being the most effective of civil rights legislation ever enacted, the voting rights act in section five had one of the earliest and most effective alternative dispute resolution mechanisms ever put into federal law because that is how we should seek preclearance, an efficient and timely effective way of resolving disputes around electoral changes.
timeliness is important to prevent us changes from being implement it and having an election occur because once someone's rights vote is denied an election happens you cannot unring that bell and do it again if a judge or judges later decide that what happened was discriminatory toward you have a timely mechanism two resolve the six. efficient because a preclearance involved with the of the change and data two support potential effects of the change to the department of justice. the department of justice in a vast majority of cases would approve the change and it would be implemented. that is a more cost-effective and efficient means of resolving these disputes that section two under the totality of the circumstances. >> tom mentioned that we have a room full of lawyers and most of this room is, but we do have students from the saint real catholic high school where are they?
so, we would like to welcome them into the room as well as-- absolutely. [applause]. >> as well as illinois state representative pamela harris of chicago is also in the room. [applause]. >> andrea, let me ask you, until very recently ceo of the urban league, what impact has the voting right act had his it's still important? uxo, of course, voting rights act has significant impact and we heard some statistics on the increase in the number of people voting in the number of minorities, africa americas, the number of cricket americans in office and i think there are
somethings you can can understand around a couple things i want to touch on. the first is that i want to remind people that this argument around states rights, how the argument was levered against the civil rights laws as well and that has been historically the idea that ballentine states against civil rights and it's important to remember the role the federal government in overcoming that and recognizing that there are some things in the tickler constitutional protection two have to come from the federal government two balance against state rights. so, the other thing is really important is when you go-- it troubles me a bit in the argument that hans made, it's like look the voting rights act worked in african americans are being elected to office and it's kind of the argument around we have it african-american
president, that is great and we are good now. and i think that i did that, okay, it's all good, so we don't need those protections anymore is that false understanding. we are good because we have those protections because we have preclearance and that immediate response two shelby, which was states immediately going, some states like texas, like north carolina immediately pursuing restrictive voter id laws would indicate to you that the protections of the preclearance review were critically important. the other thing you need to remember is that about the voting restrictions that preceded the voting rights act and that the voting rights act recognize particularly that voting is a very local activity and the restrictions of voting is a very local activity.
congressman waters touched on it, but ideas he passed the law, he's a great we will have voting rights, but at a very local level there is a lot of opportunity two restrict voting rights and that is why we put him preclearance two say weed-- forget it and we can change it because we can't get to every single one of the thousand jurisdictions where you could be discriminating, so we will not allow you to change and its that protection we are missing because as was pointed out as we all know as lawyers, particularly those of us who are litigators that litigation takes a long time and while that litigation is happening elections are kerning where people's rights are being limited. >> can i address? >> sure and to quote justice ginsburg says if you have the umbrella in the the rain that's keeping you dry, that is not the time to closure and brought. >> no, but the point is that if
you are going to say that a certain number of states had to be under federal supervision, then you have to provide evidence of current systematic widespread discrimination was justified and that has not been shown. but, let's talk about voter id for a second. it is a myth that this all suddenly occurred after shelby county decision. i remind folks georgia's voter id law was passed in 2005. indiana's voter id law was passed shortly thereafter. now, georgia's law has been in place since the 2008 election. indiana's voter id law has been in place since the 2008 election. they have had election after election after election. the data on georgia, which is a large african-american population, about 30% shows that after the voter id law went in place the turnout of black voters and hispanic voters went
up dramatically and it went up at a higher rate than the turnout of white voters. same thing happen in the 2010 election. in 2008, when indiana's voter id law was in place for the first time and it was in place because their case when all the way to the us supreme court and was upheld by the court to read justice john paul stevens, liberal in the court wrote the majority of the opinion. barack obama won indiana with their photo id law in place. first democrat to win the state i believe since the 1964 election. now, folks have also complained about cutbacks in early voting. first of all, a large number of states to have early voting. is a new phenomenon. on friday, you probably know i think was the last day of the trial in north carolina over the fact that they had changed their
early voting days from 17 to 10 although they are keeping the same number of hours. will, the justice department had trouble in the case. do you know why? because they put experts on more than a year ago when they try to get a temporary restraining order to keep that change from being in place. for the primary elections in 2014, they had experts in place that said if this early voting is in place the turnout of black voters will go down because the expert said, which i find unbelievable that someone from the justice department would say this, because they said quote that black voters were less sophisticated voters" it's less likely to imagine these voters can figure out how to avail themselves of the forms of registering and voting, which i find to be a most patronizing frankly bigoted attitude, so actually happen? the cutback in early voting times was in effect for the may primary in north carolina and
the general election. in the may primary, black turnout went up 30% over the 2010 primary when that change was not there. quite turnout went up only 14%. in the general election, the black share of the vote went from 38 and a half percent in 2010 to 41.1% in the election and in a general election remember the midterm congressional election turnout went down all across the country it went down all across the country for the prior midterm election. one of the only states in the country in which turnout went up was north carolina where these suppose it voting changes had people from voting. all the data from the states, the turnout data as opposed to predictions by experts show voter id does not keep people from voting, early voting--
changes in early voting does not keep people from voting. in fact, and you all can google this, the university of wisconsin, several professors just put out a study on early voting and their conclusion this is kind of counter intuitive, their conclusion is that early voting actually hurts turnout. they concluded that it made a decrease turnout by three to 4% and the reason being, you'll notice, the campaigns spend the majority of their money before election day on get out the vote efforts. if they have to spread that money out over two weeks, three weeks, four week period apparently, it is not as intense or effective and apparently people who normally would go on election day keeps saying, i can vote tomorrow i can but the next day and apparently it is enough to hurt turnout by a small percentage.
that is not me saying this. this is the study by the university of wisconsin professors and a number of other studies say early voting actually made kirk turnout. >> let me respond. the headline i will take from today's that apparently voter id restrictions are measures to increase turnout. [laughter] >> no, i did not say that. just one second. proponents have said-- stomach so, that is my headline. however, i think i would have to say thanks, but no thanks to that, but i want to comment about the double standards used in these discussions. we are always asked to produce current evidence to support the need for prophylactic measures against discrimination and we have 150 years of evidence
amassed in this area and every other to demonstrate the need to keep that umbrella that justice ginsburg talked about in place. but, they never put the burden on themselves to justify why there is a need for a voter id provision for the simple fact is there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in this country in the last 50 years. and if anyone that produce such evidence then there might be a justification for these measures being put in place. that is, of course, absence this other justification that they spark turnout. the lawyers in the room and i the others in the room will understand that when you have data with voter id in place and have no data from what might have occurred with dry populations, new candidates who might have fielded preparations, a new impression by voters,
maybe the election with african-american president might have sparked renate even more. we don't have the data to tell us what it would be like. what we do know is what haunts was going to argue. of course these measures were not put in place to increase turnout. they were put in place to prevent certain people from voting. in fact, they know they do not only prevent those who are engaged in voter fraud because, in fact, that number is almost nonexistent. in fact, who gets prevented from voting have every right to vote and let's talk about burdens of double standards. the burden on the individual who asked obtain an id to vote is in many cases externa. we are talking about people who may lack a birth certificate and whose birth certificate they no longer exists even in the county where they were born. all because the records that county may have been destroyed
by flood or fire and before they were digitized. so, what am i talking about? primarily talking about older voters. who else will have difficulty? look at the state of texas. where to obtain the idea-- id you need there are a huge number of counties that don't have a single place in the entire county where you can go to obtain that-- what you need to vote. i know many of you have been to texas and you know what it means to have to go from the county you are in to a neighboring county or even a county a way to obtain what you need to vote. that is hundreds of miles. let's talk about that burden being placed on folks who have every right to vote. but compared to the burden on this poor states that were required to submit to the department of justice electoral
changes and some projections of what effects might be. to me it's an easy calculation. i am tired of double standards to read if we apply the same standard this would not be a difficult issue at all. >> so, before i turn to andrea and the congresswoman, hans you said you are misquoted, so-- >> i never said that voter id would increase turnout, but the point is that the last eight years upon its heaven saying it will depress turnout. the actual certified election return data from states with voter id-- id shows us that you. if you would like examples of voter fraud, thomas, before you leave to be your address and i will send you a copy of my book which shows cases a prosecution and i believe you said there has been no voter fraud in the last 50 years. >> i have said there has been no significant voter fraud. there's been one or two. >> i will be happy to send you a copy of the publicly released
federal-- i will be happy to send you a copy of the federal grand jury report released by a federal grand jury in chicago, in the mid- 1980s about the largest voter fraud case ever prosecuted by the us department of justice in which the estimate was that a hundred thousand fraudulent ballots had been cast in chicago. it was that case and the many convictions in that case and the observers that the us attorney's office of justice department sent into the next election that a lot of people credit with chicago elected its first black mayor ever. >> let me say two things about that, first of all know hans went to the 1980s to come up with voter fraud.
>> i have many recent evidence. >> to overturn that it has to make current and immediate and also, let me know that illinois now has one of the most expansive opportunities to vote in the country, so the point being then-- and no more recent cases like we had in the 80s so that in light of that case in the 80s illinois chose not to restrict its voter rights, but to enhance them and so the idea, the fallacyacy-- and a, the fallacy-- and this is the point that i think tom was making, the fallacy that because we jump through the hoops you create to vote, we found ways to make sure that people could get registered to vote. we found ways and we did and the people know these stories that many organizations including the
urban league help people jump to the barriers created by legislators to restrict those most-- but. the fact we were successfully able to do that does not mean the discrimination was an intended or didn't occur. it means that-- but, the question is why is the barrier there in the first place? which is what tom was saying carried there is no justification for it and why in a country that is founded on the constitution that we have we would not be pushing everywhere to enhance, not restrict the right to vote is a question that haunts doesn't answer. what he says is, well, it's okay because we restricted it and it didn't matter and the truth is it did matter because minorities and older voters had to jump through hoops that others did not to vote and that is the issue. that's the discrimination, not that they were able to finally
get through account. but that they had to go to railroad that others did not and that is in the core of the discrimination and that's a. >> andrea, i think you made a fair point when he said an example from the 1980s been not be very apt in 2015, so would you and perhaps the congresswoman as part of your remarks address this, one of the points in the shelby decision was that before there is going to be an intrusion on states rights there should be a current fact-finding alternative-- and turn it over to congress to do that, so isn't the ball and congresses court right now and if there is a problem at the moment is it in congress? >> well, i can answer-- but of
course there is a problem in congress right now. so, the answer is a very partisan problem and that's the significant issue. there are three bills you talked about and even the bipartisan bill that the democrats came to difficult, but in the spirit that unfortunately does not exist in congress. we will compromise to get something that we don't think is the best build because it's better than no bill and we will work to improve it over time. even that bill couldn't get called, so the challenge is yes, it is an congresses hands and we hope that over time we will get different elected officials and commerce to address it, but the fact is and this is the problem with undercutting the voting rights act to begin with and the problem with the decision.
clearly there is an issue. >> : added an additional dimension. the problem is we have leadership and commerce that will not even allow the evidence to be heard. you have chairman in the house who refuses to even hold a hearing about the more watered down voting rights act because he personally does not believe there is a reason to have preclearance in place. that is well and good and something for him to take up with his constituents, but in my mind that's not how congress is supposed to work. there should be a hearing scheduled and listen to the evidence and i'm confident we will end up where we end up in 2006 with the last reauthorization, which was bipartisan super majorities in both the house and senate that voted for that reauthorization. >> the first thing i would like to address has been adequately addressed. talking about and reminding hans
that when states eliminates or cause us to have a deep as we have seen we have to work very hard to help people to get that id they need to read we have to travel long distances. with to try to raise money to assist people and seniors in particular. so, i don't know what that study was to read i have not seen the entirety of it, but the study you alluded to does not address the fact that we worked very hard to overcome the fact that these states had lot to say you had to have certain kinds id, not just id, certain kind of id, so that should not be discounted. of course, i did speak to the difficulty we have in congress. it is awesome. it is played out every day in every way by the tea party
activists who are now members of congress. who are in almost control of what they call their conference and that is the republican conference. they threaten the leadership to read as a matter of fact, one of them attempted a coup before we left and for a lot of reasons it did not take place. but, this is what we are confronted with everyday and so i'm not even optimistic that after we go back after the august break that we can get these right wing conservative activists tea party type to be decent and to recognize that shall be needs be fixed. so, if you are wondering why is because of those who don't believe that we have the right to vote and all of this business about, look how blacks outvoted whites-- there are more that
could vote even more. if we were not prohibited from doing it. but strong with that? to mexico hans with regard to some of the issues that were laid out. there was recently a leola survey where they found 31 cases of voter fraud out of a billion. >> well, we have created a database where i work at heritage that is just a sampling, a sampling of cases from across the country that's already up to 250 cases. >> wow what, across the country, 250 cases. >> the point of this is that as a supreme court said and upheld indiana's law voter fraud can make the difference in a close case and there are close elections decided all over this country every day at the local,
state and county level. and the saddest thing about all of this and i outlined this in my book is that often the communities that are the target of this kind of voter fraud are poor black urban communities. i say to cases in my book, one from the 1990s, prosecuted by the us justice department and one from just i think three years ago, prosecuted in new york in which the target of the vote to use were poor black democrats whose votes were stolen and why were they targeted? because one of the people who was convicted, one of the guys in new york said, well, they are the people least likely to complain about it. the saddest thing about what-- one of the other cases in the 1990s in which 11 people were convicted of stealing the vote of african-americans in a
democratic primary, in a democratically controlled county was that when the candidates whose votes had been stolen, these were young african-american democrats who were challenging the incumbents in this very corrupt county government, when they called the naacp asking for their help because they said our election has been stolen, the naacp did not come down to help them. they came down to help the vote stealers, the people who were eventually convicted by the clinton justice department for doing this and my kudos to janet reno who refused to drop the case by meetings in washington with the heads of certain civil rights organizations and wanted them to drop the case. my point here is that this idea that voter idea has been dropped, well, the american people don't agree with people in this room. you can check the polling.
you can check the polling on "washington post" or elsewhere and you will find that the majority of americans, majority of republicans, majority of democrats, majority of independents and a majority of whites, blacks and hispanics all think voter idea-- id is a commonsense reform and you don't have to believe me. i suggest you google it and you will find the polls that show the american people support this >> so, let me ask in a couple of minutes that we have left that we have each of our panelists kind of give their view about what i think has been at spirited debate about this issue. hans gee again, i have to say thanks, but no thanks to the assertion that these protections against voter fraud are to protect poor minority communities who are the victims as hans has asserted. if that is the case, let's allow the communities who are the
victims to decide whether voter id and the burden place primarily on those communities are the solution or whether the vigorous prosecution as you has described is a not unlike deterrent and i think i know if the outcome would be regardless of what the polling data may show. there is a campaign of misinformation and disinformation out in the nation around voter id provision and around the existence of voter fraud. if the polling question was, if there is no indication of a widespread voter fraud, do you think that voters should be burdened by having to obtain an identification that they do not have and in many cases would have to go through great efforts to obtain, i know at the results would be. but there is myth-- misinformation and disinformation that we have to combat. we have to combat the fraud that is the notion of voter fraud. we have to combat the notion that there is such a burden on those poor states by having an
adr mechanism in place that ensures that we can protect against both those serial vote killers, the states and jurisdictions with long history of voter discrimination and the copycat vote killers, the new jurisdiction that use the same old tire electro changes that the others use to suppress the turnout and decrease the growth of the voting power of new minority communities. we have summed into doing this this room about ensuring the folks understand that our choices and effective and timely efficient mechanism of resolve around voting or the totality of the circumstances as her own protection after the fact, after folks have been denied their right to vote in elections that occur. >> so, i would simply say-- i would note couple things.