Honorable Co-Chairs, Vice Chairs, Commission Members and Honored Guests:

My name is Kenneth Huff, Sr. and I am a member of the Board of Directors of AARP. On behalf of the Association, I thank you for inviting AARP to offer its views regarding important questions related to federal elections reform and federal civil rights protections. Such questions go to the heart of our democracy and involve matters of basic civil rights and principles of law. We are forced to ask ourselves to what extent many of the problems revealed in the last election stem from existing laws themselves or how those laws are implemented. Technology can make the system operate more effectively and efficiently, but how the law is interpreted and implemented has a separate and equally or more important impact.

The right to vote is the most basic of all political rights. The 2000 Presidential election revealed the many inconsistencies that exist in voting systems across the nation at all levels of government. These inconsistencies threaten the integrity of the election process. AARP is not persuaded that these problems result from weak or inadequate legal authority. Rather, we believe they result from a complex mix of misinterpretation of law, inconsistent application of law and regulatory requirements, voter confusion and error, discouraging election administrative process, outmoded data management systems and voting equipment, cultural biases, and finally, improper/inadequate training for election officials, poll workers and voters.

Although not all of the problems and inconsistencies revealed in the recent elections can be addressed within the time constraints of today�s hearing, some major problems resulting from disparate implementation strategies across the states can be highlighted. It is important that fair, bipartisan policy solutions in several areas be devised to complement procedural and technological innovations being proposed at the local, state and federal levels. The principal areas of concern about the voting civil rights protections for AARP fit three general categories:

• Federal Statutory Civil Rights and Accessibility Issues
• Voter Registration Administration
• Poll Site Administration and Balloting Systems

AARP would like to discuss some critical election policy concerns and the federal civil rights laws affected when examining election reform proposals. The major federal statutes governing voting in this country -- the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) -- establish voting rights and registration policy. These statutes do not emphasize the details of registration and voting site. Rather, they authorize activities to produce desired outcomes or curtail practices that clearly produce undesirable outcomes. Technology and administrative rules are therefore merely implementation tools; laws express the intent of policy.

The civil rights problems revealed in the last election and spotlighted by the media revolve around core democratic principles: that every eligible citizen who wants to vote should be able to do so; that they should be able to vote in a non-threatening environment; that they should have reasonable confidence their vote will be counted; and that they should expect the vote counted to accurately reflect their voting preference. Jurisdictions across the country are concerned about these principles - not just Florida. The 2000 election made it evident that voting mechanisms lacked uniform standards and too often failed to keep pace with technology. Further, despite the aforementioned federal laws, registration difficulties and physical or other barriers disproportionately prevented minorities, the frail elderly and persons with disabilities from voting or from having that vote counted.

Some examples of intended and unintended behaviors and practices that discouraged citizens from exercising their voting rights include:

• discrimination in the registration and voting process,
• inconsistent interpretation and application of regulations;
• inaccessible and/or difficult to navigate registration and polling sites and equipment;
• inadequate notification about voting status and local polling sites, and unpublicized or varying hours of operation and access;
• varying guidelines and criteria for mail-in and in-person registration and voting; and,
• differing circumstances under which verification is required to register or vote.

It is critical that voting and registration procedures ensure the integrity of the vote. Procedures should be as user-friendly as possible, especially in a highly mobile society like ours that also seeks to respond to the needs of persons with physical limitations. State reporting requirements under the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act sunset in 1995, although the statute�s voluntary state reporting guidelines remain. Thus, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) can no longer require reporting. Encouraging the adoption of standardized reporting requirements and systems within and across states would make it easier to share information and enable voters to be directed to reasonable, alternative accessible sites. Sadly, the lack of a mandate and the resources to encourage adopting standardized guidelines functions as a barrier for states. The absence of consistent and verifiable data makes it very difficult to measure the location and true extent of continuing problems, such as physical barriers and lack of user-friendly assistive devices.

Therefore, AARP believes Congress, the Administration and States must take steps consistent with relevant civil rights laws to ensure that voting and registration processes are:

Fair (non-discriminatory and equitably interpreted, applied and enforced);

Acceptably uniform (based on reasonably consistent, mandatory guidelines within constitutional limits);

Accessible (such that persons with physical or other limitations are not discouraged from participating); and

Protected against fraud (deliberate manipulation) and preventable mistakes (e.g. design flaws).

The major problems of voting and election reform in this country are often related to limited local and state financial resources. And because systems innovations are likely to be costly for most jurisdictions, AARP believes the federal government has a role to play. The Association believes that federal funding will be essential to implementing any reforms that may result from adoption of standardized guidelines and procedures or even mandated statutory changes. We also believe that any federal funding for voting and election reform should be conditioned upon satisfying specific procedural standards ("best practices")aimed at eliminating registration and election administration practices that suppress voter participation. Issues such as access to and the "climate of" both registration and polling sites are directly related to any usefulness of improved voting technology.

AARP believes that current federal statutes are adequate, and significant election reform can result from adoption of practical, standardized procedures in voter registration and balloting. We further believe that those jurisdictions with the most significant demonstrated problems should receive priority for any funds made available to implement systems and rules changes. AARP recommends that "demonstrated problems" be defined by an objective, non-partisan reform commission rather than by sitting legislators and administrators. Finally, initiatives to reform registration or voting processes must be equitable in their impact on all classes of citizens who are either voters or potential voters. No eligible individual should be made to feel that his or her access to the vote is subject to a different set of standards than others face.

Since the NVRA became effective in 1995, states have been required to allow individuals to register to vote when they apply for a driver�s license or other type of permit and to make registration forms available at a variety of state offices as well as through the mail. Preliminary studies on the law�s impact suggest that registration rates have risen 3 to 13 times higher than in previous years. Where the rise is relatively low, much of the variance can be attributed to some states having been less aggressive in implementing the law. While technology could improve the systems by which information about registration applicants could be shared among various agencies, processed and verified, those benefits are likely to be nullified if the atmosphere discourages or frustrates applicants. Such an atmosphere is often the result of misinformation, lack of information or confusing and inconsistent information. An example is varying the hours and location of registration and polling sites without sufficient advance public notice.

Strong protections against fraud and bias in the area of voter registration can be established by providing education and training for registration workers, and adopting complementary standardized information systems that permit instant verification of registration status from multiple sites. For example, advance issuance of verifiable, protected codes or stickers for old and new registrants could reduce the number of eligible voters being refused the right to vote.

Protections could be further enhanced by issuance of provisional ballots, already permitted by law, that are subject to a standardized verification process when there is legitimate reason to challenge the registration status of a voter. Finally, systems could be instituted that permit voters to verify their registration status along with the location and hours of both central registration sites and potential or assigned polling sites. This innovation could virtually eliminate most human discrimination factors that impede some voters from exercising their franchise rights.

Poll Site Administration and Balloting Systems

Poll site administration should ideally follow the points outlined earlier for registration. With respect to the actual balloting process, the ability of all Americans to express their electoral preference would be enhanced by the following types of improvements: