Witnesses:

Robert Pastor, Professor, Emory University; Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer of Canada; Richard Soudriette, President, International Foundation for Election Systems

Mr. Philip Zelikow: We will begin with our first witness, Robert Pastor. Professor Pastor is dual-hatted; he also serves as President Carter�s representative on the Commission when President Carter cannot be present himself. But he now appears before us as the Gertrude White Professor of Political Science at Emory University. As a fellow with the Carter Center and involved in its democracy programs, Professor Pastor has organized the international observation of elections in twenty countries. He has also helped organize the international observation of elections in the United States because he also helps bring foreign observers to the United States and helps them watch our elections. So he has, perhaps, the benefit of sharing some interesting, detached perspectives on what our electoral system looks like to others, as well as seeing what their election systems look like to him. Professor Pastor.

Professor Robert Pastor: It is nice to look up at the mountaintop now. President Ford, fifteen years ago you co-chaired a conference with President Carter on democracy in the Americas. From that we established the council of presidents and prime ministers, which has observed elections all over the world and organized observations in the United States. Much of that observation came home to roost last year. I organized the observation of elections in Mexico and the United States. We had judged that the minimal standard for a good successful election is one in which all of the parties and candidates could accept the process and the results expeditiously. According to that standard, the implausible occurred last year. Mexico had a successful election; we didn�t. That is why we are here.

I ask that my statement, which I submitted for the record�and I will just try to briefly summarize some of the points in there.

The major premise is that in the last three decades there has been a sweep of democratization around the world. Even as we have tried to assist and facilitate this process, there is much that we can also learn from their efforts to apply modern techniques to an old problem of elections. Let me address two questions. First is, how do we compare with the rest of the world? And secondly, what can we draw from that experience that we may want to adapt to our special traditions and history in the United States? Briefly, as you look around the world, there is simply no other system which is as decentralized as that of the United States. Not just federal systems, but, as you have heard, perhaps up to 10,000 jurisdictions. Most other countries in the world organize their national elections at the national level.

Secondly, over the last few decades they have moved towards establishing national election commissions, starting-believe it or not-with the new democracies, Costa Rica and India, in which they established these national election commissions and national election courts as fourth branches of government. Many of these commissions evolved through three stages. The first stage was that they often were extensions of the government and, therefore, were not credible. Second stage, they became bipartisan and stalemated or colluded with each other. And the third and most advanced stage is when they become autonomous, as in the case of Costa Rica, and credible to the population. They conduct elections in a very fair way. As you know from your hearing of the discussion of the Federal Election Commission, we are at the second stage of election commissions.

Thirdly, as compared to virtually all advanced democracies and most of the developing democracies, the U.S. registers one of the lowest percentages of our voting population. We have the weakest and poorest system of identification of voters and registering voters. We also have one of the two lowest levels of voting participation among advanced democracies. Finally, we have a problem of recruiting polling officials, or at least finding those with a pulse, as you heard at the last hearing.

So what have we learned from experiences abroad? I would like to propose four broad ideas for you to think about as you consider drafting the report. The first is clearest: we need to achieve more uniformity. Here, whether you have a balance that favors state or federal, it is clear that the federal system does not necessitate 10,000 different jurisdictions. At the minimal, the first step should be for the states to reach [tape unclear]�on the municipal and county levels, to transfer that authority from the secretary of state�s office, which is, of course, the first stage of an election commission: an extension of government to an autonomous state election commission that is responsible for the conduct of elections and also for statewide registration and for uniformity of standards.

Secondly, you may want to consider establishing a national election commission. It would not be bipartisan; it would aspire to be nonpartisan. It would aspire, like the Fed does, to be above politics and to be responsible for the administration of elections and have a clear and strong voice on democratic and election issues. We are fortunate that Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the chief electoral commissioner of Canada, is here. He can describe for you a model that is very relevant to the United States precisely because provinces are even stronger in Canada than states are in the United States. This Commission would, not only try to aggregate the state registration into a single national registration list, but it also should consider monitoring fairness, inclusiveness, and legality of election laws.

Thirdly, with regard to the goal-it shouldn�t be hard because most countries have figured this out-to combine both our desire for inclusiveness and also our desire to come up with a system that is resistant to fraud. This system would encourage citizens to register and vote, but it would also make sure that only citizens vote and that they only vote once. This system is theoretically very simple but politically difficult, but one which I think you all ought to and [I] hope you all consider, to give citizens a voter citizenship card at the age of eighteen. Indeed, in the last semester of their senior year in high school, all students would be required to take a civic education course that would teach them how to vote, in which they might also be participating and observing or serving as polling officials. That card would automatically come into effect at the age of eighteen.

The final point is on polling officials. If we look at citizenship as a broader civic duty, like serving in the armed forces or serving on jury duty, then perhaps all citizens�and this is done in Mexico and many other countries throughout the world: there is a system of selecting, from an individual precinct, a group of citizens from that precinct to man the polling offices. That, I think, will enhance and give greater pride and greater involvement in the electoral process.

In short, I think there is much to be learned from the rest of the world. I welcome your questions after my colleagues testify. Thank you.

Mr. Zelikow: Our next witness is Jean-Pierre Kingsley. Jean-Pierre Kingsley has been Canada�s chief electoral officer since 1990 and responsible for the management of all federal elections in Canada, including referenda and general elections. He has handed out to the Commission materials which frankly, in quality and presentation, are the envy of any election official in the United States, but we are a small and impoverished country, Mr. Kingsley, and I know you will understand. Thank you for joining us here today.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley: It is a pleasure. Thank you very much. President Ford, members of the Commission, it is a privilege for me to have this opportunity to share with you the Canadian experience at the federal level. I will provide highlights only, obviously. I will answer your questions as they come. It has already been mentioned that we provided to you documentation that elaborates on the role of the chief electoral officer. There is also a report on the thirty-seventh general election and one that was held at the same time as yours, for all intents and purposes. As well as the report that I produced in 1996-recommending how to strengthen the foundation of the electoral system in Canada-which was a series of recommendations, more is available on our website at www.elections.ca, including a compendium of federal and provincial legislation comparison concerning Canada. Canada, of course, is constituted with two levels of government: federal and provincial. I will talk about the federal system; there are provincial ones. The Constitution is silent on who runs elections in Canada, so there is not impediment for us in that respect.

By way of background, federal elections do not occur at a set time in Canada. There are 301 writings, which equate to the same as 301 elections, being held at the same time at the local level. Our system is a first-past-the-post, similar to yours in that respect. But it is based on a Westminster model, which means that the government is formed by the party, usually, that obtains the most seats. Elections are a minimum of 36 days, but they have equated to 36 days in the last two elections. By way, in passing, I should mention that expenditures are limited under our system during the days of the campaign only: for parties, for candidates, and for all others who participate, such as groups usually called third parties.

In 1920 the chief electoral officer became a position in law, and it was a one-person commission that was established by the parliament of Canada. As an officer of parliament, who is appointed by resolution of the House of Commons or a vote in the House of Commons of all of the parties who are there, I am the fifth chief electoral officer, and all of us have been approved or appointed by unanimous resolution although a majority is all that is required of the votes. Removal can only be for cause and can only occur if there is a vote in the House of Commons, as well as in the Senate, in favor of the removal. The chief electoral officer cannot vote at federal elections, although, this is meant to sustain his independence and the perception of his independence as well as the impartiality of his or her decisions.

There is an advisory committee of political parties, which does not exist in law, which I have created that deals with communicating with the parties, all eleven of them, concerning processes and systems as they are developed and listening to their points of view on all aspects concerning elections. There is, in the office, unity and simplicity of direction that provides for uniformity from coast-to-coast-to-coast concerning the electoral process in Canada. The equality of the electors is protected concerning the right to vote and to be a candidate, which are charter rights given to them in 1982.

The chief electoral officer has the statutory authority to spend monies. That is to say, there is no need for Parliament to have voted the monies before they are spent; that is, again, to underline the authority and the independence of the office. In terms of accountability, there are committees in the House of Commons and in the Senate to which I make presentations concerning our budget and the expenditures that are actually incurred. I am also subject to the auditor general, another officer general of Parliament in Canada.

The chief electoral officer may adapt any provision under the statute during the election if there is an emergency or an unforeseen or unusual circumstance or if the chief electoral office figures that there is an error that has occurred and needs to be fixed. Moreover, the chief electoral officer appoints a commissioner who is responsible to investigate all allegations of wrongdoing under the Canada Elections Act and who prosecutes in courts of law without reference to the auditor general or any auditor general of the provinces. In 1997 a national register of electors was created. It contains only tombstone data concerning Canadians: their name, their address, their date of birth, and their gender for all intents and purposes. Updates are provided by other computerized data sources for address changes, mainly, but for additions as well, and for deletions for those who die. Those sources are the income tax system in Canada, the citizenship files (where Canadians agree that we can utilize their data). We also use provincial sources, motor vehicle for example, as well as electoral lists that come from provinces if we can make use of them.

In Canada we have six time zones, but we have staggered the voting hours in such a way that we have effectively reduced that to two: Atlantic Canada and then the rest of Canada. Atlantic Canada votes from 8:30 until 8:30; voting time is 12 hours. And then with a two-hour delay, the rest of Canada votes but with a slight difference for British Columbia, which votes one-half hour later. There are no exit polls, and what we attempt, to vote, is that Canadians have the same knowledge as they enter the polls from coast to coast, without having knowledge about the results in other places. By and large, the system is working.

The count is manual and takes place at every polling place and includes special voting and mail-in ballots-if you wish to call them-which can occur under a whole slew of circumstances, which I will be happy to describe. The results are transmitted by telephone from each deputy returning officer to the returning offices. Then the returning offices enter them into the computer base and they are shared automatically with the media and with our website and posted automatically. After a half an hour after the close of the polls, people have a good idea about what is going on by watching their website and television.

Re-counts are judicial. They are automatic if there is a difference of one vote in a thousand between number one and number two. They occur within four days of the election. The request may be made, as well, if others feel that a re-count should take place, and they must take place very shortly thereafter, in a matter of days. Contestations are separate from re-counts. Re-counts only deal with re-counts; contestations deal with either infractions or irregularities or fraud that could have affected the results. That is a snapshot, Mr. Chairman, of the Canadian electoral system.

Mr. Zelikow: Thank you, Mr. Kingsley. After hearing about your budget process, I understand why your brochures look so good. Richard Soudriette is our next witness. Richard Soudriette has served since 1988 as the president of the International Foundation for Election Systems. It is hard to exaggerate the role IFES has played around the world in helping people develop democracy. This is a non-profit organization that has provided technical assistance, in how to run elections, to officials in more than 120 countries. So, Mr. Soudriette, we are honored that you could join us today.

Mr. Richard Soudriette: Thank you very much. I want to thank you and President Ford and all of the members of the Commission for your service. I think you are helping to focus the attention of the American people on the importance of election administration as an essential element of the democratic process. I also bring greetings from Jim Cannon who was one of the founders of our organization.

Since, through many administrations, the promotion of democracy has been a fundamental principle of U.S. foreign policy, the U.S. has played a key role in helping promote free and fair elections and helping to insure peaceful transitions in a number of countries around the world. And it is for that reason-as an organization that has worked worldwide in partnership with the U.S. Agency for International Development, the State Department and other organizations-we recognize that the United States has a leadership role, not only abroad, but also at home. In fact, one of the questions that we have repeatedly been getting since November is, how can IFES, or how can U.S. organizations working abroad, be going and trying to tell others how they should organize their democracies when you have little problems like hanging chads. Well, the point is that every democracy in the world is faced with the challenge of what can we do to strengthen our processes. So, despite the difficulties of November, I think we should all look upon this as a challenge.

What I would like to focus on today is the importance of election administration as a key to integrity of the process. This is one fundamental point that, I think, we can learn by looking at countries all around the world. Secondly, we can look to countries in terms of establishing voter-friendly systems. And finally, I am going to touch on a couple of specific recommendations.

Election administration, in many respects, has been regarded as the stepchild of the field of public administration. Yet in so many countries we have seen that it has been the key for, not only maintaining credibility and integrity, but it often is the key for avoiding civil war or violent conflict because the elections don�t always turn out quite as peacefully as we like to see. The election just this past weekend in Peru, I think, is a classic example of how dramatic improvements have been made in the Peruvian system; as a result, the Peruvian people went to the polls peacefully. They held a highly contested election, but they were able to get through it. It appears that the results will stand. The winner and the loser have recognized the results, and the whole process has moved forward.

This highlights the importance of election administration. Many countries, as Bob Pastor has mentioned, have a different approach. There generally tends to be more of a centralized approach. There are a few countries, like the United States, that have more focus on the state and local role in terms of the organization of elections. Our organization has always taken the principle that each country has to utilize and adapt the system that best suits the circumstances. In the United States we have had a long-standing tradition of strong local and state participation in the organization of elections. So the bigger question is, regardless of the exact structure that you focus on, the overriding point that must be focused on is the need to develop the field of election administration. In many countries we have seen that this has had such a profound effect.

For example, in Ghana: Ghana was a country that was wracked by all kinds of problems. They had a history of coups and fraudulent elections. Beginning in 1996 the country began to move on the right path; they started focusing attention on the development of an independent and professional election commission. This commission has been responsible for organizing two highly successful elections, the one in 1996 and the one in 2000 that oversaw the first peaceful change in government in that country�s history. I think that it is quite important to focus on the point that by having independent election administrators who were trained with the proper level of resources, they were able to get the job done. I think Ghana is a good example for us to look at.

The other area is in the area of impartiality. As Bob has mentioned, in the many countries around the world in which the Carter Center has worked, as well as IFES, the impartiality of election officials is a key factor. In fact, this was one of the points that we noticed watching the television news, seeing election officials with bumper stickers on their car and seeing other officials, such as secretaries of state, that have perhaps played a higher profile role in the political realm. This is an area that, I think, we need to focus a lot of attention on. The key to integrity and credibility is transparency and impartiality. Here again in the case of Ghana, by establishing an independent commission, which was not allied with one party or another, this has played, I think, a very important role in helping advance democracy in that country.

The other area is voter-friendly elections. We can see that the butterfly ballot was a disaster. In fact, in most of the countries that we work in, this whole issue of ballot design is one that goes hand in hand with voter education. If you start out with a confusing ballot, you are just inviting problems. We have worked with countless countries in trying to develop ballots that were simple. For example, in Nepal in 1991, I observed the parliamentary elections there. They introduced the use of symbols. As a result, they had over 80% participation rate in a country that has a relatively high illiteracy rate. Yet at the same time voters were able to understand their [ballots] and cast them freely because the ballots were designed in such a way, using symbols for the parties, that they were able to freely make their choices.

In terms of election equipment, this is another area where we see in the United States a rush to judgment: that the answer to solving the election problem is to build a better mousetrap, or to build a better voting machine. In reality what we have seen around the world is that there is a tendency for election commissions and countries to want to get the latest technology. They focus on technology, but they forget that the key to good elections is administration and organization and the development of good practices. Voting equipment is merely a tool.

In the United States, I think, before jurisdictions buy new equipment, they should follow the same types of recommendations that we encourage countries to look at. Namely, that it should be voter friendly, that rather than jumping in and making mass expenditures off the bat, that there should be pilot programs; there should be focus groups and testing to see the receptivity. There also needs to be great care that is given to other aspects such as access for persons with disabilities. The area of equipment is one that is often viewed as the magic bullet. But as we have seen in Venezuela in 1993, voting equipment was introduced, and it was disastrous. There was not proper voter education that was done. It just plain didn�t work. There were some state elections in Venezuela that never did get resolved. Later in 1998 Venezuela introduced a new system. At that time they did a much better job of voter education, and that equipment worked quite well. Brazil is another example of a country that has been successfully able to utilize voting equipment.

Just one final area where we can learn is election administrators, regardless, need more tools. In fact, if there is a large challenge, it is that the field itself has a tremendous lack of literature and materials. IFES played a key role in working with the UN and International Idea in developing the ACE Project, that is, the Administration and Cost of Elections. It is the largest body of materials on election administration that has been assembled. We need to develop more types of materials like this. There needs to be more emphasis on the development of literature. The ACE material, for example, played a key role in the development of the task force report in Florida, especially with regard to the area of vote counting. These tools were developed initially for use abroad, but I think our organization has been promoting the idea of developing a similar type of compendium for election officials here in the U.S. that would focus on best practices.

So in conclusion, I think there is a lot that we can learn from abroad. The biggest point of all is just looking at voter participation. When I have seen people standing in line for ten hours trying to vote in the blazing sun in places like Nepal and Nicaragua and then you see Americans who don�t even go out to vote because it is raining, it sends a message. We can learn from what is happening, not only in the area of election administration, but also in voter participation. Again, I commend you all for the work that you are doing and the emphasis that you are helping place on the election process. Thank you very much.

Mr. William Coleman, Jr.: Mr. Pastor, I would like to ask you a question, and I must confess that I am trying to make a point. We spend all of this time talking about reform and changes. I think back and think we looked at Baker v. Carr and the Sims v. Reynolds and one man-one vote, but as a person who was born in Philadelphia, I know that means that the Philadelphia school systems are lousy; the Pittsburgh systems are lousy. The money is going to the suburbs. Or there are a lot of other instances where there are all these changes, and even though they look good, the end result is that there is less democracy and less participation.

So when I looked at page three of your statement saying, �Well, one of the things you have to do is to take some of the authority from the very local community and give it to the state,� I remember as a young person that the lady that was at church and got to be the precinct watcher, or something, that was very important. I also remember that, living in Philadelphia, people like Bill Scranton, who lived in the country, that only because they got active locally as politicians, did we know them. My problem is that you are going to say that you make the changes by reducing the number of people who participate. Won�t that, in the long run, lead to even less participation by the public than if we don�t change the system by cutting down the number of people involved in the process?

Professor Pastor: Well, I think the question really gets to one of the premises of both Bush v. Gore and also of the Commission, which is, how do you insure some level of uniformity within a state? In a lot of states you have devolved from the state authority to the counties and the municipalities to do their elections in very different ways. Frankly, when I brought a group of Mexicans, in 1992, to observe the election in Georgia, we went from county to county. There are 179 counties. We did not visit them all, but we visited enough to know that the system was so different from county to county. I think that is precisely what we witnessed and is what went wrong in Florida.

Mr. Coleman: But that is the system that produced President Carter. He was a small farmer; he got involved locally, and from that and someday, he was beating my boss for president.

Professor Pastor: I think that sometimes this system works. I think that sometimes it doesn�t. I think the same people might disagree on when, but I think the key point of departure, really, is to sustain the federal system of government and also assure some uniformity. It is very important that some state responsibility be, in effect, created that will assure that between the counties and municipalities that there is a single set of standards and a single set of understandings about how to count, a single state registration list. In fact, as we have heard, there is a movement in that direction in a number of states.

Mr. Coleman: But that is so inconsistent with what the founding fathers wanted; they believed just the opposite, that only near the people do you get responsible government. The federal, or national, government should be left to do very few things and go them very well.

Professor Pastor: I think the founding fathers were concerned about the rights of individual states but not for the states to then devolve authority to the counties and municipalities for elections.

Dean Kathleen Sullivan: If I could address this to Mr. Kingsley: one of the many occasions when Americans can admire how things are done in Canada is this idea of a speedy election, speedily counted with paper ballots. I just wondered if we could talk about some of the features of your system that may not be transferable to the American scene. The first is population size. I am interested in knowing what the ratio of election workers, who do the count, to the voting population is? If we heard statistics of 1.4 million poll workers to 100 million voters, we are talking about a 1.5% ratio. Do you have a much higher labor pool, relative to voting population, in Canada; is that how the paper count goes so quickly?

Second, I took a look at the ballot in your materials, and it is admirably simple. It is just a single election. There is not the attachment of the parliamentary election to local and provincial elections, as you pointed out. It is a simple one-shot deal. Is that something that could be transferable to the American system, in contrast to 225 years of experience, that national elections could be held separately from local and state elections?

Third, I wonder if the strength of the party system is greater. I noticed that-unlike British and Australian elections, for example-people do vote for the named candidate and not for the party. But is the strength of party identification, perhaps, so much stronger in the Canadian context than in the American context, not withstanding the existence of eleven nominal parties, is the actual strength of voter-party attachment higher so that voter confusion is less about for whom they wish to vote? I guess I was wondering if you could comment on those three things: the size of the poll worker population relative to voting population, the simplicity of the separate national election, and the relative strength of the parties in Canada, relative to modern American parties. Are those the significant factors that make your system run so well, or is it just that you have a terrific administration with you at the head?

Mr. Kingsley: Well, you pose the question in such a way that it is hard to be humble. The ratio is 150,000 workers for 21 million electors. We have one deputy returning officer and one clerk for each poll; each poll has 350 electors on average, slightly less in some places. They can do the count quite rapidly and in front of the representatives of parties who can raise objections; that is why we have re-counts for other reasons than one in a thousand.

With respect to the simplicity of the election, obviously, that has allowed us to keep the paper ballot. But just off the top of my hand, I calculated at one time, if we had to make four decisions instead of only one-one, two, or three-perhaps we could handle with a manual count. Beyond four, we would have to introduce machines. That would not be a major problem for us to introduce machines, but until we get to that count, it is not economically viable. I am better off with a manual system and a visual count. But it would be easy to do that within the kind of system we have now without changing anything.

Party identification: there are five parties in the House of Commons. From 1988 to 1992, we have changed governments and we have changed the official opposition from one party to another. So, party identification is something that is there but-as a Royal commission in 1992, which studied this matter noted-party identification by the electors in waning as a phenomenon in Canada. I think that is why we are starting to see parties form and parties go. I think that is why we are seeing parties stay but go up and some of them go down in public favor. So, I think that party identification is not as strong as it was in Canada. Now, it may be stronger than in the United States, but on the other hand, from my association with a number of Americans, what I have noted is that everybody is either a Democrat or a Republican in the United States. In Canada people change and they don�t have an identification. You meet someone, they don�t say, �I am a Progressive-Conservative;� that is not the second thing to talk about. Maybe party identification is stronger in the States for all that matters.

Senator Rudy Boschwitz: I don�t need to ask one of my questions about the multiplicity of elections on the same day; that was very interesting to hear. I read, Mr. Pastor, your remarks about your identification. I would like to ask Mr. Kingsley and Mr. Pastor a question: to each one of you, I have asked questions about identifications, and you suggest on page four about a citizenship clause, which is very interesting. I don�t know the practicality of it, but it is certainly very interesting. Could you give us what happens in Canada with respect to identification? What happens elsewhere around the world with respect to identification? How can that be fairly achieved? Does it need to be achieved?

Mr. Kingsley: When the register was built, we did a last door-to-door enumeration. When the national register of electors was built in 1997, when the law allowed it to happen, it replaced door-to-door enumeration, but the basis for it was the last door-to-door enumeration. I guess the simple way of explaining it is that.

Mr. Zelikow: That would, in American vocabulary, [be] a census? So, you would use census data as the previous foundation of your voter list.

Mr. Kingsley: That would be the translation. Basically, in the electoral process, if we are visiting your home, you are who you say you are, but if you are not on the list and you go to vote, we will ask you for identification. The identification is any piece of identification that has your name, address, your signature, and your picture. It can be one piece or two pieces, but it is not something which is specific to elections. It is not something that is transmitted by electoral authorities. It is something like your driver�s license, in Canada, that, under most jurisdictions, would have all of that information on it and that would be acceptable to be determined. The representatives of parties and candidates who are at the polls can still challenge it. You can be challenged about that, and then you either swear an oath or you make an attestation and that will be acceptable to us.

Senator Boschwitz: Do you oversee anything other than national elections? Does this report only deal with the national elections, or does it also deal with local, municipal elections?

Mr. Kingsley: It only deals with national elections; it is my only mandate. It is at the federal level. There are provincial chief electoral officers. Some of them get involved in municipal elections, some of them only partially, and most of them not at all. The level that is holding the election is effectively the level at which the body that runs the election is situated.

Senator Boschwitz: Would Mr. Pastor comment on the citizenship card, and would you both comment on identification in other countries?

Professor Pastor: In every country that I have ever monitored elections, they have had an identification card, either a voter identification card that was explicit-that is most of the cases-or a regular identification card. That would be critical both for registering to vote and for voting on the day. In Mexico, to overcome decades of suspicion, they not only created a voter identification card that had a color photo and a thumbprint and a magnetic stripe and a lot of data on it, which has then come to replace virtually all other means of identification, but they also put the photo from that identification card on the registration list on both the national as well as the precinct registration list so people can see the voter. They feel that was absolutely essential to assure what they consider to be an honest vote. The transition that Mexico made in the last twelve years from a system in which the vast majority of people felt the election was a fraud to one in which all of the parties, not only accepted the results, but even the opposition leader, who asked me to try and organize the observation of elections, said that the Federal Elections Institute had done such a great job that they had reduced the margin of electoral manipulation down to 2%, which was, of course, quite significant. One of the critical ingredients of that was the identification card.

I am fully aware in this country of the controversial nature of something like this. There are people who fear the invasion of privacy or the expansion of government. I think that is an issue that should be addressed. But there is no question that an identification card can be abused like the telephone can be abused, but you don�t outlaw the telephone, you outlaw the abuse of the telephone. Similarly, the identification card cannot only serve to reduce the possibility of multiple voting and fraud, I think that it can have a very positive impact on young people who get this card and attach this to the idea of citizenship and voting and attach this to what their obligations are to be a citizen in this country-one part of that is to vote-as well. So, I see this as, not only a way to avoid something negative, but also a way to encourage greater pride in citizenship as well.

Mr. Soudriette: In virtually every country in the world where we have worked, this whole issue of the integrity of the process has boiled down [to] exactly what you are talking about: it is about being able to verify the register. In fact, our founder, Clifton Wide, used to say that only amateurs steal elections on Election Day. Really, the heart of a good election is if you have a sound, verifiable register.

In the U.S. we have a diverse system. I reside in the Commonwealth of Virginia. This is my voter card. In November we had visitors from over three hundred countries from around the world that came to observe elections. They were just shocked; they couldn�t believe that we didn�t have any form of photo id that was required. I do think the issue of identification is an important one. I know there are a lot of concerns that have been raised about it, especially within certain groups who feel that it is an invasion of privacy and it is an intrusion, but from the standpoint of being able to secure and provide for the integrity of the process, it is not unreasonable to require some form of photo id. On the other hand, our position has always been that this is something that has to be adapted to the conditions in each country. I think, here, we have had, traditionally, an aversion to the idea of an identity card. I think it goes to the point that Secretary Coleman made that maybe there isn�t actually one size that fits all. But I think that if you could try to come up with a set of common standards�if the consensus is to go to a national ID, then fine, but if not, at the very least, I do think a lot more civic public education needs to be done that people understand that identification is not being used to intimidate people or to restrict anybody. On the contrary, it is a valuable tool to help guarantee the integrity of the process.

Senator Boschwitz: I feel that many people don�t vote because they don�t think that their vote counts because they think there is so much hanky-panky going on, so that I, too, am very interested in the integrity of the process. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Zelikow: I have Mr. Cutler and Mr. Edley on my list and now, I think, Mr. Coleman.

Mr. Lloyd Cutler: We have had this very succinct five-minute explanation from Mr. Kingsley of the Canadian system, which is certainly full of interesting and challenging ideas even though they cannot all be adaptable to the U.S. system. But could this panel provide us with a summary of a number of the other Western democratic systems, particularly those that include a federal system, so that we could print them all up as an appendix to our report and make it available to the Congress.

Mr. Zelikow: Let the record reflect that Mr. Soudriette volunteered first, and the Commission gratefully accepts your offer, Mr. Soudriette. Mr. Edley.

Mr. Christopher Edley: I guess I was looking for a little bit [of] additional insight into this issue of registration lists. Putting to one side the somewhat radioactive issue of an id card, state-level or nation-level voter roles, I guess, Bob, could you talk about the pros and cons and the obstacles to moving in that direction?

Professor Pastor: Well, I think we have heard America is one of the most mobile countries in the world. One out of every six Americans moves each year, so we have a problem on registrations because people don�t pay much attention. I think the National Motor Vehicle Act has been very helpful with this regard, but I think that there is a bigger problem. One of the ideas that I proposed on the national identification card, which would be a national citizen card, is that [it], of course, can be registered, not only at your individual precinct or state when one moves, but also tie into a national computer network. I think Richard put it very well. I think the registration list is an important issue in every country in which we have ever observed. When we went down to Guyana, the government was very eager to move ahead with a list and to move ahead with the election. The only reason they couldn�t do it was because they published it the day before, and the former leader who had died five years before was still on the list. So we were able to make a persuasive argument of the need to take another look at that list and redo it.

I think in the United States we have now reached, with computers, a time in which, if the states are given relatively uniform procedures for compiling a statewide list, it should not be that difficult to connect those lists to insure that when people move from one state to the next that they are deleted from one and put onto the other one. That would insure a much healthier and robust list considering the mobility of the American people that we have today.

Mr. Edley: Is there that much variability? Michigan now has a statewide list; I think Oklahoma does. Are they very different? Would you expect that there would be much policy-based or politically-based opposition to the idea of a set of federal standards for the parameters to be included in state lists?

Professor Pastor: I don�t know what the answer is to that question. I think that there are only about a half of a dozen states that have tried to put together statewide lists. I think it, partly, is a technical problem for each state. Obviously, it has to do with their computer capability and the amount of funds they have. But I think that there are strong reasons why the states should do it. That is why six are in front. There would be good reasons why national legislation could provide incentives to the states to try and do it for all of the others. I don�t know whether, of those six states, if there is great variation in the way they do it from state to state. I simply don�t know the answer to that question.

Mr. Kingsley: May I just add one element with respect to cost. To computerize the list, to get a list of electors in Canada, software developed, in Canadian dollars, was approximately $10 million and hardware. It is costing me, or Canadian taxpayers, $5 million a year to maintain the list, again, in Canadian dollars. We have a 20% change in the list each year: 16% of Canadians move; the other 4% are people who die, people who turn eighteen, and new Canadians. So, those are cost estimates that may be useful for determining the feasibility in monetary terms.

Mr. Edley: That is very interesting. Since you have raised that question, I think somebody said a few minutes ago that the total cost of administration here in the U.S. is about $300 million for an election. Does anybody have a guesstimate as to what fraction of that $300 million is related to creation and maintenance of the list?

Mr. Zelikow: I do not know that. Mr. Thomas-to his, perhaps now, shame-has stayed in the room. Mr. Thomas, if you think you may know the answers to either of the two questions that you have just heard, please feel free to volunteer the information.

Mr. Christopher Thomas: The localities pay for one-third of the maintenance of the system. But it cost about $7.5 million to put together, and we are spending about one and a half million a year maintaining it.

Mr. Zelikow: And that is for how many registered voters, sir?

Mr. Thomas: We have 6.8 million registered voters.

Mr. Zelikow: So, they are not exactly comparable, but the numbers are crudely comparable in scale between the Michigan and Canadian costs of list maintenance. I think we have the same vendor, actually. Mr. Edley is that all you had? Mr. Coleman.

Mr. Coleman: Mr. Kingsley, does Canada have anything comparable to the First Amendment? I am wondering how you prevent the results in the East from being announced until the West is closed. And secondly, in your professional judgment or opinion, do you think that in a close election if the results were announced in the East, it might affect the result in the West?

Mr. Kingsley: Well, with respect to the fact that one cannot publicize the results from the East�this is contested under the Charter right now in the courts in Canada-but it has been the law for some time-so, we shall see what will happen with respect to that.

But the alternative is to withhold all the results until all the polls are closed, but it is not forbidden to transmit the results in the area where the vote has taken place. It is transmitting the results to the other time zones that is a problem. So people know how they voted where they have voted, where the polls have closed. So we are not withholding information from those who have voted.

Mr. Coleman: And nobody there calls the other party and tells?

Mr. Kingsley: And the issue is, if it is a phone call, it is not a problem. The issue is if it is rendered public. In the past, Canadians, before we came out with these staggered hours and these staggered voting systems, Canadians in the West were complaining that sometimes the results in the East were known before they had voted and it made their votes seem useless because it was already decided who was going to form the government.

Mr. Coleman: So they felt that it would affect the vote in the West?

Mr. Kingsley: This is how the Westerners were reacting to it. Not all of them, please understand me, but a number of them felt that way. And that is why we dreamed up that scheme. And when I say we, I mean Parliament. This is not something that the chief electoral officer imposes on Canadians; this is the law in Canada.

Mr. Coleman: You mean that just the man who owns newspapers in both the eastern part of Canada and the western part, when he knew what the result was in the East, he didn�t call his newspapers in the West and tell them?

Mr. Kingsley: Well, he could have done that, but we would have had the results out before he printed his papers. CBC holds the newscast: they broadcast in the East what the results are in the East, wait two hours, and then they broadcast everything.

Mr. Zelikow: But the CBC national feed cannot include the Eastern results?

Mr. Kingsley: No, it cannot by law, not only CBC, but all the networks as well.

Mr. Coleman: Don�t have Mr. Murdoch move to your country. Pardon me.

Mr. Zelikow: I hear no other questions from the panel. I appreciate the testimony that we have had, and I turn it over to Mr. Cutler and Mr. Michel to wrap up our proceedings for the day since President Ford has departed.

Congressman Robert Michel: Well, thank you, Phil. I think first of all, we want to thank the folks here at the library for their hospitality and courteous treatment for all of us. I am sure we all appreciate the fact that President Ford took the time, himself, to chair this, the last of our four hearings, just as President Carter began it all a couple of months ago down in Atlanta. Now, I guess it is up to us to retire to our Charlottesville [meeting] in about a month or so and begin deliberating among ourselves as to just what did we hear and how should we translate that into a meaningful report that, hopefully, will be helpful to those legislators charged with the responsibility in the House and the Senate to put together a package of election reforms. Lloyd, I am happy to yield to you to wrap me up.

Mr. Cutler: Well, I think that it is time to run to the airplanes. I would like to thank everybody for coming this distance and taking part in a session in which I certainly learned a lot more than I knew when I came in.

Mr. Zelikow: Thank you very much.