both sides. .. >> the justice department, under or old system, had responsibility for reviewing all those changes and either granting preclearance, denying preclearance or, as it did in many cases, requesting more information, right? and so i think that the preclearance requirement to

section five was a pretty effective check on minority vote dilution in these places. it did impose some burdens on state and roque government. i wouldn't -- local government. i wouldn't deny that. but they were modest burdens, certainly in comparison to the burden of actually martialing the expert evidence necessary to bring or to defend against a voting rights lawsuit. so i do think that something important was lost by the elimination, effectively, of preclearance spending, and i may disagree on that point. but i do think we agree that that's, for better or for worse, the main work that the section five preclearance requirement was doing before shelby county. >> and i think what's interesting is the burden of proof almost always is on the plaintiff in an election case. so i think in most of the

countries that we work around the world, the person filing the complaint has to prove the claim by the standard of evidence. and as we've all known, how does that plaintiff get access to the evidence they need to prove their case, and in an election situation the timeline can be so short, that it can be really difficult to gather that evidence. and so there's an interesting election issue here in regards to how a plaintiff can actually prove their case and move it to the next level. and as a litigator, brendan, i wonder how long did it take to bring the shelby county legislation? you didn't have 48 hours. >> yeah, we did not have 48 hours. [laughter] there was a facial challenge to the act though, so this was not a challenge to a particular practice in shelby county, you know, which is what you would find if someone were challenging a new voting restriction or something like that. so it was brought by the county against the attorney general.

and so, you know, the goal was to declare section 4b or section 5 unconstitutional. we filed the complaint in 2010, april of 2010, and it was decided in june of last year, 2013. so that took us three years. and, you know, it was expensive. this was not -- and, but section two cases are actually even more expensive. >> yeah. >> they're very fact-intensive, and professor that damagey's absolutely right about that. as was pointed out, that's the norm in our legal system and many legal systems. the plaintiff has to prove their case. and so when we were looking at section five, not only was it a prior restraint on the change and practice, but it was also, it put the burden of proof on the jurisdiction to prove it wasn't discriminatory which was a huge change. and so that's, i would argue, as difficult if not more difficult than a plaintiff having to prove their case kind of after the fact. to proving that you're not

discriminating is difficult, you know? you can do it with statistics, you can do it with testimony from legislators, you can do it by kind of taking a results-oriented approach. but in the end, if you don't prove your case, you can't change your law. and, actually, a representative of the state of florida in a preclearance case that had to do with early voting and some other, some other changes a couple of years ago, and that burden of proof was a huge issue in trying to convince the court that the change should be precleared. it was a cutback in early voting hours, but, you know, early voting days, rather, but the same number of hours ended up being provided. so the question was, well, okay, does this discriminate or does it not discriminate? so there are a lot of different ways of proving that. as the jurisdiction, having to prove a negative was very difficult. some would say it was intentionally set up that way, right? but i think that would have been a particular instance in which addressing it after the fact

would actually have shed more light, and we would have probably ended up in a better place than trying to address that before the -- >> great, thank you. i think we're, we want to get to a point where we can have questions from the audience, and we'll turn to that now. i would just like to say that i think this discussion's interesting because as we discussed, the voting rights that are enshrined in our constitution are being twined by the courts. i think bush v. gore from 2000 pushed a lot of this, these issues to the forefront. it's interesting to see where we've come. are we better, are we worse? i don't know. one thing to consider as election administrators, a lot of the machines and a lot of the reform that took place or a lot of the machines that were purchased, voting machined, are now 14 years old. >> yeah. >> so what's going to happen, and you'll see this when you go and do observation, you'll see old machines, different machines, it's very interesting. but it is unique that the courts

are trying trying to be the refe with all these different jurisdictions. with that, i want to thank the panel for their remarks, and i want to open up the floor to questions. [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible] actually, we -- [inaudible] as to what is the language of section five and section four, what is the substance therein, what changes are introduced into the law by way of section five and section four? what has been removed? existed previously, legislation of section four and five. so if you'll kindly tell us what is the language and what is the

substance? what is the motive of section four and five? >> uh-huh, great. let me -- i'll try to repeat the question. and for the next, for the future questions, if you could just identify who you are and then, so we all know who's asking the question, i'd appreciate it. the question is, what's the specific language of sections four and five? and how has litigation changed that? >> yeah, sure. so section four created the formula, and that's all -- there's a bunch of other stuff in section four as well that pertain to literacy tests and things like that which are kind of not germane to this, but section 4b basically created a formula whereby jurisdictions that were singled out would be subject to additional restraints. so section 4 said any jurisdiction in which voter turnout was below a certain threshold in particular

elections, 1964, '68 and then eventually 1972 would fall within formula. that was, it's generally the way that it worked. and so what that did was you would have an agency of the united states government go and take a look at the statistics and say these particular jurisdictions fall within what congress said the formula would cover. then for those jurisdictions there's the additional, there's additional willinglation of their -- regulation of their local elections whereas normally there would not be otherwise. so section five was one of the things that happens by virtue of falling within that formula, that coverage under section four. there are other ones as well. having observers, so election on servers deployed to local jurisdictions, that was another thing. and there's a couple of others. but, basically, the consequences come later. but section four was targeted

just at who was going to be subject to those additional consequences. section five is actually the provision that created the restraint on changes in election procedures and said, you local jurisdictions, if you're covered, you can't change anything until we say so and set up the criteria for determining whether the change could be made or not. >> and i think section four -- and maybe we can discuss it a little bit further -- it was based on historical practice. like who historically had, you know, i don't know if, professor -- >> yeah. >> i think who historically had discriminated. >> yeah. >> and once you determined you met that equation, then the other sections applied to you. and that's what was kicked out by this case. >> and so to very briefly sum up, section five required certain covered states to obtain

advanced permission from the federal government before changing their voting rules. section four prescribed which states had to go through this process. and originally when the voting rights act was enacted in 1965, it was exclusively southern states. those were the states with the worst problems when it came to the disenfranchisement of african-americans, states like mississippi, alabama, south carolina, georgia. they had the lowest rate of african-american registration and participation, and so the formula was designed to capture the states with the worst problems of voting discrimination in 1965. >> great. yes. >> thank you. i'm from indonesia.

you say that election in the u.s. is decentralized. means that every state have their own regulations. so if some voters live in virginia, at the voting day they must travel to california. my question is, first, do they allowed to use their vote at the voting day going to the polling station? and if they are allowed, what kind of ballot paper do they have to punch? is virginia a ballot paper or california a ballot paper? thank you. >> great. thank you for the question. the question is, if someone travels to another state during election day, can they vote at the other state, and if so, what kind of a provisional ballot would they use or what not? >> so if someone is going to

talk your example on vacation or business trip from virginia to california, they're still residents of the state of virginia, they are citizens of that state under our constitution, and, therefore, would have to vote a virginia ballot, the state in which they reside which is going to be very different from the ballot that someone in california would see. so if you're going to be away from your jurisdiction on election day, what you would typically do if you want to vote is cast an absentee ballot before the election. every state allows people to request an absentee ballot that is typically sent through the mail and returned through the mail, so that is how you would vote if you were someone from virginia who was going on a trip

to california and was, therefore, going to be away from your home on election day. >> and i want to add to that that in a lot of the litigation now if there are recounts or challengings to an election in the -- challenges to an election in the united states, many times the question of absentee ballots and if they're legitimate voters and what not, this is where a lot of the litigation happens is looking at these absentee ballots. as you can imagine. >> any other? yes. >> my name is -- [inaudible] i come from cameroon. i am the electoral board member. in my country we organized democratic elections since 1960, but up to the present we are

facing general contestation of elections. candidates who they didn't get the elect of voters they were expecting would like the whole process to be nullified, so we have allotted for this at the supreme court of our country. government and the electoral body develop important investment. we have a biometric system. we tried to decentralize our system both for local elections, senate elections, house of representatives elections and presidential elections. but the regulation is uniform because we have a united country, not a federal country,

not a federal -- the federal level, state level, no. our country is a united one. but my question is this: how does the american system develop the confidence of voters on one side and political parties and their candidates on the other side? because it describes many, many, many differences between states of the american federation. despite these differences, the general information we have from outside and when we can, we watch tv, is that the american people have confidence in their electoral system. how does this system do to build such a huge and permanent

confidence? thank you. >> you know, that's a very important -- the question is, um, how is there such trust in the u.s. system when it's so diversified, how do the courts and the election administration participate together to build trust both of the candidates and the voters. i hope i've got that right. and i, i'll just, i'll turn this over to the panel, but very quickly, the largest way to increase trust is to win by a large margin. i think also the courts -- our system, the legal system also is diversified. and so the courts play a huge role. but with that, if we could turn it over -- i don't know, brendan, do you want to try to go first? >> yeah, i mean, honestly, it's a long history of doing the right thing. we've got a couple hundred years of history here of, you know, folks respecting the rule of law and knowing who the final authority on whatever the particular question is at hand. and respecting that and abiding by it. you don't have, you know, if a

court decision comes down after an election, bush v. gore, you don't have -- you might have a lot of complaints about the results, but you don't have a lot of people, you don't have anybody defying it, for instance, okay? so i think that's the most important aspect of, you know, instilling confidence in our elections. even if you disagree with the result, the state of mind here is that people approach these questions in good faith and that things work themselves out in the end. so you don't presume, we don't presume bad faith on people's parts in this country generally when it comes to these things. >> yeah. >> and so if you see anomalies, you first assume it's a mistake, only later deal with the consequences if it's not. i think that's generally the baseline view that we have. how did we develop that? it's an excellent question, but, you know, all i can say is that we have a very long history of presuming good faith and abiding by the decisions of the final

decision makers on whatever that particular question is at hand. >> let me emphasize, there have not always been historically such great confidence in the integrity of the u.s. election system. if you go back a hundred years, boy, we had a lot of problems in our system. ballot stuffing, bribery of voters, practices like this, these were not uncommon around that area late 19th, early 20th century. and sometimes later in certain places, most notoriously chicago. even if you just go back a little over a decade, there was actually a survey, a cross-national survey that was conducted shortly after the 2000 election which found that among

democratic countries, the level of confidence among u.s. voters in the integrity of the previous election was extremely low. i mean, you know, on par with -- i don't want to single out any country -- [laughter] but countries that are generally not considered to be democratic at all. now, i do think that confidence in our election system has rebounded considerably since then. it's part of history. let me suggest it is also, i think, at least in part the fact that there's at least some division of authority which chad referred to. yes, we have partisan state officials, but this decentralization, right, while it has disadvantages, has an advantage as well. it makes it more difficult for

any one party to capture elections say in all of our 88 counties in my state of ohio. we also have divided authority in the sense that courts, state courts and federal courts are looking over the shoulders of legislatures and election officials. to my view, this is a very salutary thing, that we have courts that are acting as a sort of backstop, stopping partisan manipulation at least where it goes too far. >> great. thank you very much. this is going to be the time to conclude the panel. thank you very much for your attention. i think this is a unique panel in that it really does illustrate how diverse our jurisdictions are and how we've tried to -- this country has tried to deal with some of these

difficult questions in regards to the diversification of our electoral processes. so it was very good. thank you very much to the panel for your time. >> thank you. >> i always have just a very quick housekeeping to do. the first, i wanted to say that the first breakout session, which is about voter id, starts at 11:00, and it will be in the dupont ballroom on the second floor. the second breakout session, which is on measuring public opinion, that also is at 11:00, and that's in rooms 3016 and 3017 on the third floor. and then at 1:30 the breakout session is what is trending, assessing the future of social media in elections is in room 3016 and 3017 on the third floor as well, that starts at 1:30. and then finally, the breakout session also that's at 1:30 is point/counterpoint, the role of candidate debates in political discourse, again, in the dupont ballroom on the second floor. so with that, thank you very much for your time and, please,

join me in thanking our panelists. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> and we'll be back for the next panel on the international foundation for electoral systems, a discussion about free speech, political action committees and the future of campaign finance reform. that's going to be live scheduled for 2:35 p.m. eastern time. and then live at 4:00 they'll be wrapping up with a round table discussion on how the americans with disabilities act and an international treaty on persons with disabilities have expanded political rights. and then tonight at 8:30 eastern, author and reporter glenn greenwald, he was in canada recently giving a talk about government surveillance programs in light of the recent shootings in ottawa. we'll have his remarks tonight, 8:30 eastern. >> throughout campaign 2014 c-span has brought you more than

130 candidate debates from across the country in races that will determine control of the next congress. and this tuesday night watch c-span's live election night coverage to see who wins, who loses and which party will control the house and senate. our coverage begins at 8 p.m. eastern with results and analysis. you'll also see candidate victory and concession speeches in some of the most closely-watched senate races across the country throughout the night and into the morning. we want to hear from you your calls, facebook comes and tweets. campaign 2014 election night coverage on c-span. >> and c-span2 will be live shortly for a briefing on an epa settlement on greenhouse gas requirements. that's scheduled for 10:30 a.m. eastern time, about six minutes from now. as soon as that briefing begins, we'll bring you back here to the podium. but before that, we'll consider the voting habits of millennials and how they may be casting their ballots in tomorrow's midterm elections.

>> host: joining us from new york this morning, the polling director for harvard instituteoi of politics, here to talk about a new poll about millennials. john, what's the takeaway from this poll?ta >> guest: well, thanks for having me, greta, i appreciate the opportunity. the takeaway is for the first time in arguably decade, young voters are up for grabs on tomorrow's midterm elections.m when we polled, we conduct a poll every semester twice a year since 2000, greta. this is the 26th edition of the survey. it was completed on october 9ths we talked to 2,000 millennials around the country based ond to census populations, etc., we found that by a margin of 51-47%, the most likely millennials tend to lean republican for the midterm election tomorrow. however, when we talk to all millennials, those who will be voting, those who probably won't be voting, they preferredbe democrats. so for tomorrow it's really a

question of which ones vote and, therefore, which way they'll lean heading into the elections tomorrow. >> host: is this a different trend that you're seeing? and if so, why? what's going on? see >> guest: well, yes, greta, it's actually kind of back to what i would consider the norm. you know, a lot of news has been made, obviously, since 2008 in terms of the importance that the millennial vote had and a part of an obama coalition that helped elect and then reelect him in 2008 and 2012. but when you look back to when our survey began in 2000, we found that among millennial voters -- well, in this caseat young voters between the ages of 18-29 -- they preferred democrats in the 2000 election by only two points. they preferred democrats in the 2002 midterm by only two points before we saw john query in-- kerry win a significant number of this vote. and then we all know what obama did after that. so what we found was it was ait

combination of two wars, katrina, a very kind of -- a bush administration that did not have a lot of approval among young people that led to theprov hardening of the democratic vote for obama in those years, and now i think we're just reporting back to the norm. in fact, when you look back at the youth vote over the course of the last 30 years, we've seen swings, you know, during the clinton years, etc., but for the most part it's been about plus or minus five points in most of these elections over the last 30 years. really very much a swing vote, a swing constituency in americants politics. >> host: is it, though, that this is just what all voters do? they sort of swing back, including millennials? or is this about president obama? because from your poll 43% of his job performance, these millennials, and 53% disapprove. >> guest: right. well, i think a couple points. the first point is that young americans are also americans.

they look like the electorate ao a whole.ther they're no longer the outliersye they once were. in 2008 by about two-thirds, 36% -- 66%, i think, of all people under the age of 30 voted for obama.of 3 and going all the way back to the iowa caucuses, etc. so young voters, without question, were outliers during the earliest days in the campaign administration, 2008. and now what we're seeing is they look like the rest of america generally. and what i would say is, yes, you're right. while approval ratings for obama among 18-29-year-olds is near one of our historic lows at 43%, he still has almost twice the number who approve of his job than republicans in congress which is at 23% and democrats in congress at 35%.s so, yes, they're disappointed with obama and democrats, yes, but they're even more disappointed with republicans id most everything associated with

washington these days. >> host: so is that what makes them up for grabs? >> guest: yes. you know, here's the lesson that we've seen time and time again, you know, they're not -- they may be apathetic about voting, but they're not apathetic about the country. they feel like washington, d.c. isn't listening. when we ask folks, you know, whose fault is it in terms of the gridlock in washington,e as d.c., among young people 56% say it's everybody's fault. so what they're really doing is trying to send a message that, you know, survey after survey after survey we see patterns of trust in washington institutions whether it's the presidency, the government, even the supreme court, the military, they go down a couple of points every single year. young people don't believe washington is working for them, and what i predict is we'll have more people in this country volunteer in a significant way in community service this year than actually vote on election day tomorrow.actu >> host: yeah. let's talk about those numbers a little bit more.

but first, let me give you the phone numbers. we're talking about this new harvard institute of politics poll looking at millennials and how they may vote tomorrow, so we've divided the lines liked th this, ages 18-29, 202-585-3880, and all others dial in at 202-585-3881. john, let's talk about how motivated millennials are to get out and vote. from your poll, 42% of republicans likely to participate, 30% of democrats likely to participate. what's behind these numbersesomi numbersesome -- numbers? >> guest: well, what we've seen is compared to 2010 approximately the same number oa young people say they will definitely vote. so in 2010 the exit polls and census-based information that a our colleagues at tufts university and circle organize indicates and analyze was about one in four young people participated, about 24%.

our poll indicated that 27% said they definitely would vote. this election, four years later, we see 26% of our young people 2 say they'll definitely vote, so we're looking at turnout numberv about the same levels that theyn were in 2010. but then when we look at those who say they're definitely going to vote, you see republicans are significantly more likely to say they'll participate than democrats, specifically romney a voters from 2012 are more enthusiastic about this election than obama voters from 2012.ic e so there are certainly indications that republicans are the more excited, more enthusiastic, more likely to participate. but i caution you, this is a national survey.rtic it includes millennials, as i said, 18-29, 2,000 of them, and we're looking at a large scale national mood and point of view, not necessarily focused on individual races and individual districts. >> host: okay. so of those that say they're going to turn out, this 42% of

republicans and 30% of democrats, how does that compare to back in -- [inaudible] >> guest: young people felt really ownership or empowerment in that campaign, and what i think you saw was we had extraordinarily high turnout relative to other elections, but that was a combination of several different, several years. so, for example, greta, we started the survey in 2000. in 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008, we saw four consecutive elections with turnouts increasing a couple of points or so compared

toon the previous elections befe that. so it really was the beginning kind of the political awakeninga of this generation post-9/11. i think nerve had a lot to do -- i think 9/11 had a lot to do with it, and the way in which i the obama campaign going back to the earliest stage of 2007, actually, it really empowered people, it gave them a stake in the process, a stake in the campaign, and it worked terrifically. it was an important part of hist constituency. those people haven't really participated since then. that's one part. then you have other people who, frankly, wanted to vote because they want to change the country and arguably they're very disappointed right now. not necessarily, as i said, inth

obama per se, but obama as well as democrats and republicans in congress. and that's what we see from this survey and other research thatny we do.d pu young people care deeply about this country. every single day in america there are hundreds of thousands of people engaging in acts of community service, in public affairs and using social media e to raise their hands to say they want to participate, and i think too many of them feel ignored t and, therefore, sitting out of politics and instead volunteering through community service and other kinds of activities. ty of the president as they could. that was their main deal. that is whether congress has been so partisan. nothing has gotten done.

i think people need to >> caller: nothing has gotten done, and i think people need to remember what we came out oft. when we had george w. bush for a president. the economy has come a long ways in a positive direction without any help from the republicans. thank you. >> host: okay.id y john, did you ask, did you dig a little bit deeper with these millennials about what's goingm? on with them? and specifically the economy? >> guest: well, yes. we found that well over kind of three out of four young people say, you know, the economy isvo key to kind ofti figuring out wo they plan on voting for. so the economy on that measure,u i think 77% indicated that was very important in terms of deciding who they would support on the election tomorrow. also we've continued now for 26 surveys to ask an open-ended question. you knowst, we ask young peoplet what theirhi biggest issue was, and 31%, nearly a third of all

those responses when we analyzed them, indicated that, you know,m issues associated with thethe economy. and that's a lesson here. when we think about the youth vote today, more than half of people who are part of youth vote, 18-29-year-olds, weren't of age in 2008 when obama was elected. i think it's 56, 54-56% weren't of age in 2008 which means that they came of age politically not from the kind of, the, you know, the feeling of empowerment around obama in 2007, 2008, but instead came of age during they great recession.in and that's impacted them greatly in terms of difficulty to find a job, difficulty to think about ways to pay for college or education, and also they've seen the impact across communities or around america about what the recession has brought in terms of, you know, parents, friends, neighbors, etc., you know, changing their lifestyle or

potentially even kind of losing opportunities whether it's vacations, homes and other kinds of opportunities. so we have to put that into the overall historical context that it's not just about 2008. was 2008 was a long time ago, especially in the life of a millennial. >> host: okay, all right. dave in springfield, you're next. >> caller: yes, i agree with bob there, he's kind of hit the nail on the head that we have to adjust the facts instead of what does -- you know, a lot of these people, they're not, they'rewe n distorting the truth. we need to get to the truth. and obama is not, he is notaccu responsible for many things that have happened that he's been accused of. and here in the state of florida we hav e a governor that has been distorting the truth, and we need somebody to step up and get can the truth out to the peoplet and is one thing i want to talk about is marijuana.

i'm very supportive of marijuana. we need to get it cause a national issue -- as a national issue. our country was -- >> we're going to leave this. you can find it on c-span.org if you like. to the department of justice. >> of the environmental protection agency, and we are here to announce a historic settlement under the clean air act, a settlement that i believe will send an unmistakeable message to automakers around the world that they must comply with u.s. law, that they must be forthcoming with the epa about critical certification requirements and that the united states d. of justice will never -- department of justice will never rest in our determination to protect american consumers. we are announcing today that the united states has filed a complaint in federal district court alleging that hyundai motor america, kia motors america and related entities violated the clean air act by selling roughly 1.2 million cars

throughout the united states based on inaccurate representations of the vehicles' performance and emissions. for context, beginning in 2012 hyundai and kia, like all the other light-duty car makers, had to meet certain greenhouse gas emission limits. these emissions correlate with the fuel efficiency of a vehicle because, in essence, the more fuel efficient your car happens to be in miles per gallon, the less greenhouse gases that it emits. the clean air act requires car manufacturers to test representative vehicles in order to insure that they meet emission standards. now, these manufacturers then must apply to the epa for what is called a certificate of conformity. through this process car companies provide assurances to the epa that any car like the test vehicle will also meet the necessary emissions standards. in our complaint we maintain that hyundai and kia

misrepresented to the epa a key vehicle characteristic known as the road load force of each of six car models when it applied for certificates for those vehicles. because they used inaccurately low numbers to demonstrate compliance we missions standards -- with emissions day and conducting tests in ways that did not reflect good judgment, hyundai and kia calculated higher fuel economy and lower greenhouse gas emissions than these vehicles actually have. the companies then reported the lower greenhouse gas emission numbers to the epa in their applications. they claimed more ght emission credits than they were entitled to, and they countered these inaccurate fuel economy statistics -- touted them to consumers. because of misrepresentations of the road load force, we allege that hyundai and kia vehicles in question are uncertified, and each uncertified vehicle that was sold constitutes a separate

violation of the clean air act. because this important law fundamentally depends on accurate testing and reporting by carmakers. any company that misrepresents the performance of their test vehicles risks harming human health and the environment either by causing more pollution than the law allows or as happened in this case, by claiming greenhouse gas emissions credits that they did not earn to the tube of roughly -- to tune of roughly 4.75 million metric tons. without this enforcement action, hyundai or kia could have used or sold those credits later on. now, violations like this also compromise key safeguards that preserve fair and open competition in the marketplace by putting other carmakers at a competitive disadvantage. companies that comply with the law may spend more to achieve emission characteristics than those that misrepresent the performance of their vehicles. they may see their sales

affected by the claims of other companies regarding, for example, better fuel economy. and more importantly, all consumers, all consumers have the right to know that the cars that they buy actually have the characteristics that are represented to the epa. a basic compact that hyundai and kia flagrantly violate inside this case. violated in this case. under the historic settlement that we announced today, hyundai and kia will remedy their conduct by doing three things. first, they will pay a civil penalty of $100 million, the largest civil penalty ever secured under the clean air act. this will send a strong message that cheating is not profitable and that any company that violates the law will be held to account. second, hyundai and kia will forfeit the greenhouse gas credits that the companies wrongly claimed based on their inaccurate reporting. our settlement will require them to relinquish 4.75 million

metric tons worth of credits which could be valued at hundreds of millions of dollars. and finally, hyundai and kia will be required to implement rigorous new procedures including training and enhanced audit testing of their vehicles to prevent this violation from ever happening again. now, this unprecedented resolution underscores the justice department's firm commitment to safeguarding american consumers, insuring fairness in every marketplace and in protecting the environment and relentlessly pursuing companies that make misrepresentations and violate the law. we are pleased to be joined in this action by the california air resources board. this announcement illustrates that this type of conduct, quite simply, will not be tolerated. and the justice department and our partners will never rest or waver in our determination to take action against anyone who engages in such activities. whenever and wherever they are

uncovered. i'd like to thank everyone who made this resolution possible, particularly ben fishero, karen and jason of the environmental and natural resources, environmental and natural resource division's environmental enforcement section. at this time, i'd like to introduce gina mccarthy who will provide additional details on today's announcement. gina? >> first of all, let's lower the microphone a little bit. hello, everybody. first of all, let me thank attorney general holder for having us here today and for his partnership on today's announcement as well as, of course, i want to thank acting assistant ag hirsh for all of his work and all the team at doj. and i also want to thank cynthia giles who's here. she is the head of epa's enforcement office. i want to recognize phil brooks, who's done tremendous work here. he runs our air enforcement

division. i also want to congratulate janet mccabe and chris and the whole team at epa more working so hard to make good on our rules that epa so creative and, i think, so effectively worked with this community to put in place. so thanks, everybody, for this. first of all, the light-duty vehicle rule was, and let me remind everybody, it was the first time epa actually acted to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. we acted under the clean air act. and we were addressing vehicle emissions because it is essential to our commitment to fight climate change. and this case and this settlement actual delivers on the commitment of that rulemaking, because when we hold companies accountable to accurate testing and through honest reporting, we can insure that the real emissions reductions that we attemptedded

to achieve -- attempted to achieve and expected to achieve are actually delivered for the american public. because when we hold them accountable, we actually make good on our promise to consumers that they know what they're buying and they're going to get the emission reductions and the clean vehicles that they're intending to purchase. now, under president obama's lineup epa and d.o.t.'s historic greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards are cutting carbon pollution that fuels our changing climate, and they're also saving families money at the pump. and we know that fuel efficiency cells, there is -- sells, there is no question about it. we know it's the number one factor that consumers think about when they're going to buy a car. in and the auto industry has come back from the brink becausr designing, manufacturing and selling more fuel efficient and cleaner cars that consumers actually want to purchase.

since 2009 the auto industry added more than 250,000 jobs, and today more cars are being made on american assembly lines than have been made since the past 12 years. now, we also know that when you misstate fuel economy -- fuel efficiency on the stickers, these labels of a car, it means that we're not delivering the health benefits or the climate protections that are promised by the law. what we are doing is making that car more attractive to consumers than it would otherwise be. that tilts the market in favor of those who don't play by the rules to those, and it disadvantages those that actually do play by rules. and cha's simply -- that's simply not fair, and it's also not legal. by enforcing our laws to protect our health, we also protect consumers, and we promote a vibrant economy. now, to understand today's

actions, you have to understand a little bit about how our fuel efficiency program works, because our program uses greenhouse gas emission credits, we call them, as the attorney general explained. that's really our currency for our legal compliance. because the program is a fleet-wide averaging program. and each credit in that program is worth one metric opportunity of greenhouse gas emissions. so when auto companies go above and beyond an efficiency standard, they can earn credits. but if they fail to meet those standards, they have to use those credits to balance the ledger. and that's why companies buy and sell credits to make sure they're in compliance. so if a company fails to pull their weight, if it undercuts the integrity, it will undercut the integrity of the program, and we don't get the emission reductions the law guarantees. here's what -- that's what to the's case is all about -- today's case is all about. hyundai and kia violated the

clean air act by overstating fuel efficiency in over one million cars and suvs that they sold. by doing so, they actually claimed 4.75 million credits that they did not rightfully earn, which means 4.75 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions would have been unaccounted for if we had not caught this and taken swift action. so here's how this settlement closes the gap. hyundai and kia will pay a civil penalty of $100 million and will invest millions more to prevent future violations. and they're also forfeiting more than $200 million worth of these credits that they did not earn and they now can no longer sell or use. now, we take these violations in this case very seriously, as this is the largest penalty we've ever assessed under the clean air act. why is it so serious? because it's a reflection of the

large, unfair market advantage that hyundai and kia captured by overstating their fuel economy ratings. now, the clean air act grants epa the authority as well as the responsibility to regulate harmful carbon pollution that fuels climate change. while we are very committed to writing smart rules that are reasonable and affordable and achieve the kind of carbon pollution reductions we need, we are also equally diligent in making sure we're implementing and enforcing those laws so that the reductions we need to protect public health and our economy are actually protected and delivered. not just, i think, for vehicle fuel efficiency, but we can do this for many other sectors including the power sector. so for anybody out there who may be wondering if epa can successfully reduce carbon pollution by regulating under the clean air act, you can stop

worrying. we can and, indeed, we are. with that, attorney general, i'm happy to take questions with you. and, again, thank you. >> 1.2 million cars will be on the road the next 10 or 15 years, what does this do about their noncertified emissions noncompliance? >> the, to be clear, the cars do not violate the emission limits, but they were improperly certified because incorrect information was provided to the epa. so that meant that effectively there was no valid certification of those cars. since then the companies have corrected their data, have corrected the fuel economy figures as well as the greenhouse gas emission figures. they're paying $100 million civil penalty, giving up $200 million worth of credits and also fixing their system going forward so this won't happen again. >> but this doesn't address the

cars themselves. >> the cars will remain on the road, but the cars were not over the actual emission limits. they were misrepresented as having better fuel economy and lower emissions than they had in? why no rebates for consumers? are you happy with hyundai's rebate program? >> as you point out, they have a rebate program that's been in effect the last couple years that is resulting in several hundreds of millions of dollars going from the companies to the consumers. in addition, consumers have brought multiple class actions against the company that are currently pending. so through those two forms, we expect the consumers to get robust relief. >> there are three other companies at least, including ford motor company, that have had to restate mileage in much the same way as hyundai and key california where do your enforcement actions stand with those companies, please? >> i don't think i'm in a position to give you the exact status of all of those, but i think it's important to remember that this settlement is about epa having a robust audit process so that if you look at

this, we identified this misstatement of the fuel economy very early in the model year that we were first regulating under this light-duty vehicle role. and we actually had the company go out and the company restated those fuel economy standards the way we believe they should have been before the end of 2012. so this is about doing good auditing to the doing good enforcement to looking closely, and what you see here, this is by far the most egregious case that we have identified. this has to do with a number of models where 1.2 million vehicles were sold, and those are model years fiscal year 2012 and 2013. and they actually varied in terms of their misstatement of fuel economy by between one and six miles per gallon. so we have caught other discrepancies.

but those screb says have not been systemic in nature, they've not resulted from the way in which the companies have done their testing systemically, and they have not been anywhere near the egregiousness of what we're talking about today. >> this morning acknowledged the settlement, but they suggested that these misrepresentations were not actually intentional and that epa regulations tripped them up and were confusing and involving. and i'm wondering, you used words here like flagrantly, so it sounds like the justice department alleges these companies deliberately skirted their obligations and intentionally misrepresented. is that the allegation or is that -- are you not -- >> i think we are alleging that they overstated fuel economy, but the most important thing is in addition to the 300 million they're paying in a combination of both retiring those credits and not achieving the money that they represent and also in the direct fine, this is also about

them changing the way they actually do their business internally in both of these companies. because we believe that the way in which they did their testing was systemically flawed. >> so was it willful misconduct? >> it was systemically flawed, and it was done in a way that would have made it inconsistent with the way that they should be doing fuel economy, inconsistent with normal engineering practices and inconsistent with how any other company has been doing this. >> so i think -- >> my point is that i am not claiming who had knowledge at what point in time, but that the program wasn't set up as it should be, and as a result of that, it ended up with fuel economy standards that could not have allowed those vehicles to be certified. >> does that mean you're ruling out any criminal charges against anybody at hyundai as a result of this? >> the settlement today deals entirely with civil liability,

and we have nothing in this settlement dealing with criminal liability, nor can we comment on any ongoing or prospective criminal law enforcement. but let me point out a little more specifically what kinds of problems we're talking about here. one was the use of not the average data from the tests, but the best data. two was testing the cars at the temperature where their fuel economy is best. three, using the wrong tire sizes. and, four, testing them with a tailwind but then not turning around in the other direction and testing them with a headwind. so i think that speaks to the kinds of problems that we saw with hyundai and kia that resulted in the mismeasure lt. >> just a follow-up, general holder, you already have announced a $1.2 billion fine against toyota, you've relaxed charges against about 30 auto suppliers around the world, you're investigating gm according to the company and that cad that, do you think

there are system you can problems in the auto industry in terms of playing by the rules? >> i'm not sure i'd go that far, to say there are systemic problems, but there are issues that we have certainly identified, and i think that what we have shown in the actions that you have mentioned is a willingness on the part of the justice department and our partners to aggressively look at that industry, but other industries as well. and where we find violations of the law, we will go after them. >> can you update us on the status of the gm investigation as well as that qada in -- >> i don't want to comment on those. >> in addition to his, have you found nhtsa to be an effective agency at catching these safety flaws this time? >> yeah. i mean, i think that, you know, the regulatory scheme that we have in place is a sound one. the fact that we have made these discoveries and held these companies accountable means that the american people are safer, that consumers are protected.

and, you know, we have, i think, the mechanisms in place to detect the the issues that we have resolved. but i think it also points out that the companies have to make sure that they have within themselves a culture of compliance, and that's one of the things that i think grows from these kinds of announcements. >> mr. attorney general, can i ask a question on a different subject? it was disclosed over the weekend that a decision was made to restrict the air space over ferguson, missouri, during the protests. was the justice department involved in any way with that decision, and begin your comments about inhibiting news coverage, what's your i view of that? >> i'm not aware that have the justice department -- that the justice department was involved in that request, and frankly, don't know an awful lot about what the nature of the request was and how it impacted news coverage and helicopters and things of that nature. what i will say is transparency, i think, is always a good thing. and the american people need to

understand, you know, what happened, for instance, or what was happening, is happening in ferguson. and anything that would artificially inhibit the ability of news gatherers to do what they do is something that i think needs to be avoided. >> mr. attorney general, over the summer president obama said you should not prejudge the investigation in ferguson, and last week you said there would be wholesale change. did you bejudge the investigation before it concludes, sir? >> i haven't prejudged anything. i'm aware of the investigation that we have ongoing. i think the comments i made are consistent with the briefings that i have received, but we'll reveal, you know, in a more fulsome way what changes we think need to be made at the conclusion of the investigation. >> the faa was complicit in certain targeted flight restrictions targeted in the sense if you were a news helicopter, you couldn't come in, if you were on approach to an airport, then you're okay, is

that action able by the justice department? >> i don't know. i'm not sure. again, i said i don't know all the facts of, you know, what the nature of the request was, what the, what kind of interaction there was between the faa and the requesters. >> tomorrow's election day. is there anything you guys will be doing at the justice department looking specifically across the map, any red flags you're seeing with early voting, anything that causes concern? >> well, we will be sending, as we usually do, monitors all around the country to make sure that the american people have access to the ballot box. we'll be releasing, i think, a list later on today of the jurisdictions to which we will be sending monitors, and we will be very mindful of any anomalies that are reported. [inaudible conversations] >> i ask about how you know that the numbers that the car companies used were in error? do you do your own independent tests, or do you just audit

their numbers? >> we do selective and random auditing. the challenge here was that there is a reliance on car companies themselves providing us data on certain characteristickics of the company so that when we do those audits and testing, we do can it consistently across each model year that we are actually certifying. in this case, we selectively audited this, but we went upstream, and we took a look at what the companies were doing, and we identified that the companies' internal testing that provide ares characteristics which were critical for us to then repeat those tests were being done in a way that we felt was significantly tilting the scale to overstate fuel efficiency in ways that were systemic and unlike any other car company. ..

>> on the number of vehicles, november 2012 hyundai said it supplies a 900,000 vehicles. today you were saying 1.2 million. are you saying the overstatement continued be on the date of -- >> it was 2012 and 2013. so if you remember model years 2013 come out in 2012. so when they restated they corrected the figures i believe for the model years already. and this identifies both those model years as part of the settlement. and in addition to make these

systemic, they're spending about 15 a additional, so this is about a $350 million settlement. i'm just making the internal changes and also significantly increased and more robust auditing for us in future years so we can make sure this is actually going well. >> is that any evidence other audio -- auto companies lost sales? do you think the rival should be compensated as result of these overstatements? >> that'that's not something tht within the scope of this agreement. we are actually here to enforce the companies and their behavi behavior. >> thank you, thank you. thank you for coming. >> [inaudible conversations] spent we return now to the international foundation for electoral systems conference for a session on recent trends in voter id requirement. >> served on several campaigns including 2008 national voter protection council.

and tonight you meet right we have the manager of the election law reform initiative at the heritage foundation. he is an authority on a wide range of issues including civic rights, civil justice, the first amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform. and as a manager of the think tank election law reform initiative, he is studied and written on campaign finance restrictions, devastation of elections, voter fraud and, of course, voter id. and he is very well represented on a number of radio and tv outlets including prolific author of number of commentaries ending nationwide media. so thank you very much for accepting to be part of this panel. and set up we're having had to in order to maximize the amount of exchange between the audience and the panelists, ask them kindly restrict themselves to 10

maximum minutes of introductory marks and state the case and what they think the issues are, id in the u.s. and then will open up for questions and answers. so with these a few words i'm handing over to hans von spakovsky as agreed between the panelists that he would start first. the floor is yours. >> staffan, thank you very much, and welcome to the united states. we are glad to have you here. staffan give introduction of me as a lawyer and writer about these topics but i want you to understand also that i come at this from a practical standpoi standpoint. because i actually have been an election administrator down at the local level. i was on a county registration and election board in the state of georgia where we were responsible for voter registration and running the

polls on election day, the largest county in the state. i recently left another county electoral board in the state of virginia comic in fairfax county was thinking of you may be going to observe tomorrow. in fairfax county also is the largest county in the state of virginia. so i have a lot of practical experience in what it's like to register individuals to vote and running a polling place on election day, and the most important counting the votes at the end of the day once all the ballots have been cast. now, you may be a little confused by this whole debate about voter id. as staffan said, we are one of the only western democracies that does a uniformly require a photo id when you go vote. now, part of that is because of the fact that we have, as i'm sure you have embraced in a very

decentralized election system. there is no federal agency at the national level that runs elections in this country, including federal elections which we are about to have tomorrow. those are all run down at the local level, usually why county government. in some states given by towns, townships, town governments. currently we have about 31 states, out of 50, that requires some form of id when you vote. about half of those states require a photo id. now, in every state that requires a photo id, the law has also been passed that will provide a free photo id to anyone who doesn't already have one. opponents of this will say, well, there's no voter fraud in

the united states and, therefore, we really don't need this kind of an honor system. well, two years ago i published a book with my co-author in which we go through case after case after case of voter fraud. in the last month we've had individuals indicted for voter fraud in this country in mississippi, ma where the fraud actually change the results of a mayor's race, in connecticut where a state legislator was indicted on 19 counts of voter fraud. we had a case just recently in tennessee where a woman was indicted for buying votes, which, of course, is illegal in this country. and just yesterday "the associated press" reports on a man in the state of new mexico who showed up to vote and was told that he had already voted. someone had shown up three days

prior and had cast a ballot in his name. now, when they went back and checked, according to the story, the signature of the prior voter did not match the signature on file with the government. new mexico is one of the states that does not have an id requirement. the u.s. supreme court which as you is of highest court in the united states upheld requiring a photo id in 2008, six years ago, and the justices said when they upheld that opinion that unfortunately the u.s. has a long history of voter fraud that's been documented by historians and journalists. opponents will say to you that this is something that is unneeded, and also that is intended to suppress the vote of certain voters, particularly

minority voters. we know that is not true also for this reason. the voter id laws in number of states has now been in place for many years. two of the states with the strictest of id laws come the stage or a government issued photo id are george in indiana. their loss have been in place since the 2008 presidential election. so we now have three federal elections with experience looking at turnout in those states. unlike what opponents will say to you, and the story they've been repeating for years, turnout did not go down in those states. in fact, georgia which has a large african-american, black population, it's about 30%, had a huge increase in the turnout of black and hispanic voters in 2008. also in 2010 when there was, when barack obama was not on the

ballot. end in 2012, our last presidential election, according to the united states census bureau, the census bureau does a survey of voters after every election. and they also serve a non-voters, people who did not vote. they are census shows that black voters actually voted at a higher rate than white voters in the state of georgia with its voter id laws in place. indiana, which has a photo id law that's been in place since 2008, that's the law the u.s. supreme court upheld. according to the u.s. census bureau in the 2012 election, black voters outvoted white voters by more than 10 percentage points. so this idea that this is the most depressing people's rights to vote is simply not the case and the data shows that.

in fact i think president obama actually agrees with it. he gave an interview about a week ago in which he said, talking about voter id and other laws, that most of these laws are not preventing the overwhelming majority of folks who don't vote from voting. most people do have an id. most people -- most able to have a driver's license. most people can get to the polls. in fact, president obama said that the reason people don't vote is basically at the. that's what is preventing people from getting out and voting. it's not these laws. now, the american people actually agree with that. there have been numerous polls done on this particular issue, and the overwhelming majority of americans think that requiring an id is a commonsense requirement. and that polling by the way crosses all racial, ethnic and party lines. so a majority of democrats, a

majority of republicans and the majority of independent voters, majority of whites, majority of the spends the majority of blacks all think voter id is a commonsense reform. now, that is not the only reform that is needed to improve the integrity of the election process, but that's a we're here to talk about today. one of the other problems were discovered in which a number of states are trying to solve that problem is the fact that it's very easy for someone who is not a united states citizen to register and vote in our elections. now, that is against the law. under federal law that is a felony. so a number of states, however, have found non-citizens registered in boating has passed laws. kansas is one from arizona is in the the, georgia is a good. they have passed laws that require that when you registered to vote you have to provide proof of united states

citizenship. all of these laws have been attacked in the courts. however, the opposition has lost the majority of those cases. with only a few exceptions, all of the cases filed in state courts, all of the cases filed in federal court trying to stop for example, of voter id laws have failed. and the reason is the courts have found that they are neither discriminatory nor unconstitutional. the proof of citizenship requirement, the importance of that, the importance of that was brought out just a week ago. a week ago several professors released a study where they looked at comprehensive congressional survey data, and they estimate that in the 2008 election, 6.4% of noncitizens in the united states voted illegally in that election.

now from a demographic standpoint, the voting of noncitizens breaks down 80-20. in other words, about 80% vote for the democratic party, about 20% vote for the republican party. the professors in this study estimate that noncitizens voting illegally may have made the difference in a number of close elections in 2008. one of them being a united states senate race in the state of minnesota. in minnesota, the democratic challenger was finally declared the winner against the republican incumbent by 312 votes out of 2.9 million votes cast in the state. end of noncitizens may have voted in that election to have

changed the outcome. was that significant? that was a very significant vote. why? because that democratic senator who was elected provided the 60th vote in the united states senate which passed obamacare. you know, the large health program pushed by the president and has been very controversial. so the fraud in the election may have made quite a difference for every american in the country. the point is that all of these new, relatively new requirements although some have been around for many years, all are intended send increase and improve the integrity of the election process. and the evidence all shows it does not prevent people from being able to vote and getting to the polls. this is an important issue, but again i will end by saying that

i've spoken to many groups of elections officials from around the world. i was on the federal election commission for two years, which is a federal agency that regulates the financing of federal campaigns. and, frankly, they were always a bit, before officials we would talk to were always a bit mystified by the argument going on here over these kind of very commonsense election reforms. and i think 10 years from now, once these measures have been in place for many years, people will look back on these arguments and sit there and say, why in the world was there even any argument about this kind of a reform? think it. >> thank you very much for your comments and your information you should.

>> thank you very much, staffan and i will join my colleagues in thanking all of you for being here. it is a pleasure to be speaking to people from around the world, and in particular talking about trying to demystify exactly why this issue has become so controversial here. because i completely agree with my colleague, many of you are probably wondering what the fight is about. and part of that traces back to a very different system that we happier than that which you enjoy in some of the countries where you are from. like my colleague, i have both started the issue of particular election administration requirements, and also this isn't just an academic exercise. i've also been a lawyer on the ground working with nonprofit organizations, working with campaigns in order to help real eligible people vote. so i, too, come out of this record practical perspective. and i think i share with my colleague a little bit of

concern that this issue has become extremely controversial. as you heard in this mornings ms programs it is one of the most controversial issues in american politics today in terms of the rules of the election. when there are other problems that, in fact, made impact far more voters, the way that the american system, to call it the american system, is already oversimplifying your the way that each state conducts its own different voter registration process almost certainly impacts more voters, more regularly than the particular rules about voter identification. but i think there's a reason. i think there are several reasons why this issue has become so very, very controversial. one has to do with a fight, a vigorous fight over the extent to which majorities basic

election rules that burden some minorities. when it comes to, and i'll explain this end of it, when it comes to requirements to show particular forms of identification at the polls. hans von spakovsky is absolutely. most americans have absolute no problem presenting that documentation, and so it is unsurprisingly most americans support roles showing that documentation. on the other hand, some americans have a great deal of difficulty showing that documentation, and the fight here is over the extent to which most of us can make the rules harder for some of us. and that is a fight that resonates with our history, and they think is a great deal of vigor behind it today. this is also something of a tension between viewing and voting as a mass process, or

viewing voting as an individual right. those are also to very -- they are two sides of the same coin, elections and volvo, but i think you different perspectives in the american they quite often and that makes find some of the controversies, a different approach to whether we're doing elections for most of us are doing elections for each eligible voter. and i think the third reason this is so controversial is because it's a fight on which perhaps a proxy fight over the extent to which burdens on some are either justified or unjustified i pressing need. that is, and extent to which we are willing to allow the government to make rules where the justification may not support the restrictions at hand. and i think those who disagree with some of the rules that some

of our states have put in place question the justification as much as anything else. so as a background you heard yesterday from fat hall among others with eligibility requirements year. not every person is eligible to vote. again, this very state-by-state even for federal elections and that's something that is also unusual. but in those states you have to be over 18 years old, you have to be as hans von spakovsky mentioned, in most elections a citizen. you have to of legal residence in the jurisdiction, and you have cannot be disenfranchised by a conviction. you heard yesterday some of the limitations on that. and because of his allegedly requirement, it's important that we know that individuals who present themselves to vote on who they say they are. because we determined whether

they are eligible or not, and it's important we know that they are who they purport to be. and i think there is wide, if not universal agreement, that states have to have some way to make sure that voters are who they say they are. the controversy in the u.s. is not over whether states to have to have somewhere to make sure that voters are who they say they are. that is, the controversy is not over a fight between everybody has to show one particular identification card, or no safeguard at all. the fight is over the means by which states can require that people show that they are who they say they are. and that is a vigorous fight indeed. as mr. von spakovsky mentioned, every state sets its own rules on this differently. there is no overriding federal standard, even for federal elections. most states give a fairly wide

menu of ways in which a voter may arrive at the polls and show that he or she is who he or she purport to be. but some say that an eligible voter may not cast a valid ballot if he or she does not have a particular type of government issued id card with a fairly narrow set. and that, those relatively few states is where the bulk of the controversy is, is where most passion is where almost all of the controversy is. why do we have this controversy? i think as i mentioned before it's this restriction is put in place by what some believe is not a sufficiently good reason. if the procedure for prevent identity were very easy for every voter, this wouldn't be a controversy. and if the procedure for prevent identity were easy for most voters, difficult for some

voters, but were in response to an enormously pressing problem, that is, if the need for urgent and sufficiently severe to burden the rights of a few, we probably would have a controversy but nowhere near the level where it's at today. i think the controversy arises because the procedure is easy for most, hard for some, and at least there's a perception that the burden is not sufficiently justified by a pressing need. and that characterizes not just fights over i.t. but i think the reason that this battle has been pitched is because of a concern of that sort of regulation, ones that impose burdens on a few without sufficient justification across the electoral system. and as you heard this morning and yesterday, part of the reason that the concern is because our system has been not

unique but also not common feature where those whose stand for election make the rules for elections. and so there's a concern that they will be making the rules and opposing burdens not by -- by happenstance and not by random. i will talk a little bit and then i will stop talking, about the two halves of the croatians, that it can be hard for some and that that burden may be unjustified and here's where going to give her some with mr. von spakovsky. and i recognize that the notion that one may have to present a certain form of government issued id in this room in particular will seem unusual that that amounts to any sort of a burden. because in most other countries that's commonplace. and as mr. von spakovsky mentioned, we are one of the only western democracies where this is a controversy, in part because we are one of the only western democracies with as a

decentralized system as we have and one of the only democracies where we put the bulk of the onus on voters rather than on affirmative government outreach. what do we mean by that? we don't have really any universal government identification system. we don't have a national identification that is a primitive layout bound to every resident, and every resident has not given an id. we don't have a national registry. we don't have a system where the government seeks to provide documentation to every citizen, and whether or -- we don't have a system where they get very important benefit like a national health care system, which would naturally encourage every american to seek this national id. in many other countries you have in some cases a smaller population, but also national

systems where the government is far more actively involved in the lives of its citizens and also each eligible voter. and you have to understand the fight by understanding that is not the system we have. indeed, be if we had such a system you would probably see less controversy over the voter id requirement issue in elections. most americans end up through private initiatives having the sort of identification they need in a few states that require a particular car, but many, a small percentage but a large number built. in one recent piece of piece of litigation, the s. but with several hundred thousand eligible american citizens in one state did not currently present the sort of identification that they would need in order to vote. and in america if you don't have an id, it can be quite difficult

to get an id. i have a. it's easy for me to show it. it's easy for me to renew it. that if you aren't already in the system it can be quite difficult to get. even when the identification card itself is free, we require substantial underlying documentation. and that is often tough. and once again we don't have national burden registries to we don't have national institutions like that. and so some people are born off of the government agreed. and it noted to get back on the government grid can be quite expensive, quite a bureaucratic hassle, and quite difficult. some people have underlying documentation that does not reflect the current name either because they have gotten married or because there was an air originally. and getting the appropriate kind of identification can require a court process, which is as you

might expect quite cumbersome. as a result, we know and have been reliable studies that show this, that the burdens of every star to rule on identification show one of several cards falls disproportionately on those of lower socioeconomic status. so they disproportionately burden the poor, disproportionately burden both the very young and the elderly, and they disproportionately burden racial and ethnic minorities. mr. von spakovsky mentioned that it's not clear that these laws have an impact because you can look at turnout in elections and see that the turnout hasn't fluctuated much a lease in several states has gone up, particularly on racial minorities. that's true i don't think turnout is the right measure. and one easy process proves this. if we had a law that said if you

did not vote in 2012, you may not vote, period. turnout this year would not be much effective. most of the voters who would come to the polls in 2014 will have voted in 2012, wrote to let uncontroversial, no impact on turnout. but instantly 80 million americans would've lost the franchise. these laws are about those who have chosen to vote in the past but they're also about those who were eligible to vote. and may choose to exercise that right in the future. even if turnout were the right measure, mr. von spakovsky has presented to the elections with states that have had id rules for some time, georgia and indiana, and both of those states have the unusual feature of the presidential election that was contested with a minority candidate at the top of the ticket that in some ways

drove turnout far more than what you would expect. the bottom line is there's very little, even if turnout with the right measure, there's very little that we can know about the impact of laws like this by looking at turnout, carried. the right way i can test is to ask voters to conduct surveys. do you have the id that you would need? would you faced difficult in getting the id that you need? and those surveys reliably show and repeatedly show that a small percentage of a large number of individuals don't have and would face difficulty getting the id that they need. one note and then i will wrap up. on the other side of the ledger. so there's a burden for some, but not for many. is there a pressing need to exact that burden? the united states has a low grade problem of voter fraud. and mr. von spakovsky is right

in that it exists. i think he exaggerates responsible observers don't claim that there is no voter fraud in the u.s. there is, and you heard yesterday, doug mentioned, local elections most of all, most usually a local election is where you're going to find this low grade level of voter fraud, includes buying votes, includes postal ballots, includes odd -- fraud by officials. and these are serious problems. but they are not problems that required a particular id card at the polls can possibly fix. many of the instances that mr. von spakovsky mentioned earlier in mississippi, in connecticut, in tennessee, involves fraud but not any sort of fraud that a rule requiring id at the polls could possibly fix. he did mention one case from

yesterday. eyesight, too. i'm not surprised he brought it up, from new mexico of an individual who went to the polls and found somebody else that had apparently voted in his name, and that is the sort of fraud is some sort of identity verification could fix. i've looked for as many examples of this as i could find, allegations, since the year 2000. and in those 14 years, i am now, thanks to yesterday's institute, 35 incidents in 14 years. that's at the same time that 1 billion ballots have been cast in america. it happens, but it's a very, very rare. and already more voters in indiana and georgia alone, the states that mr. von spakovsky mentioned, have attempted to cast a ballot and been unable to do so because they did not torture the proper id or did not

procure the proper id in time. already more voters in those two states have been unable to cast a valid ballot in all of the instances of this type of fraud that we know of going back 14 years. how do we resolve this problem? i think there are many ways to verify that someone is who they say they are. while accommodating those who cannot easily procure a particular type of photo id card. and that's really what this fight is about, whether there are a commendation for a few or whether or not accommodations for the few who may have trouble meeting the standard that the majority has imposed that are relatively easy for many. the outcome as policy that i think is uncertain. the outcome is a legal matter is uncertain but the courts are still weighing in. each state's law is slightly different so the courts are

still waiting in state by state on whether these laws are lawful or not, whether they are constitutional or not. and i think we will have to wait for summer years yet before we arrived -- several years yet before we arrive at a consensus. once we arrive at a consensus i agree with mr. von spakovsky we will think back and wonder what this fight was about but i'm not sure the consensus is going to be on the most restrictive laws that we have currently. >> thank you, professor levitt, for your presentation. i think we've had two very, very good presentations that have been clearly articulating their views and their data supporting their respective views on it. and they think they're very eager to hear your take on the debate in the u.s. and see how we can learn from each other. a couple of housekeeping issues before they embark upon that. these stitch her name and your affiliation when you ask a question. -- please state your name. we have colleagues with

microphones since this is being broadcast live so it is being captured probably. we do have your headsets for translation. we have channel seven english, eight arabic, nine french, 11 spanish. with about 25 minutes for q&a. so please raise your hand if you have a question and we will take it from there. so why don't we start with the gentleman in the front. no, elliott -- >> thank you very much. it's very interesting presentation indeed, for us. we come from the poll, both of us -- nepal. we have our own history and we have our own system, and i am slightly confused.

whether u.s. democracy, we have to learn and follow, or we have to give some reason to proper system here for tomorrow, i don't know what we should do. but then we have a little role for id voters in the polling centers so they can be identified by the name and sickly -- [inaudible] which is having, i mean, voters having, could help. and we would have part the federal law is passed by the country and each state has some sort of unique identification for everything including this body. that is what we would have part in and we're doing the same

thing for nepal. and these are some the things of the reason of mind, and i was thinking that somebody voted for somebody else and what -- if the voters to vote for somebody else, then do we have some sort of finality to the person you identified as voted for somebody else? and then what is the finale and all that? and sometime i get confused, particularly because i think the democracy -- [inaudible] and you live free, like 50 states have the own systems, most of them have id, some of them do not have anything. and the questions is about that, yes. if we think back to nepal in a

previous election in 2008, we didn't have id. we had very big bulky electoral roll and a lot of voters might have voted for somebody else, and so we introduced voter id and biometric system of electoral roll, and then this time around in 2013 we have a very good turnout from 61 to 80%, and each boat had been given identification id card. and those who are in the electoral roll, and that has been most difference because in order of our elections, some of the party has -- [inaudible] because there are other identification systems. this time rent and the psychic elections we had a good elections of course and some of the parties got the opportunity

to come and the first one in the 2008 election starting to be -- [inaudible] so i think voter id, there should be id and a should be proper system for providing the opportunity to exercise important rights of individual citizens. that's what we can understand that. but we want to take something from u.s. we like to try this and -- [inaudible] if we're going to have in our country. so do we let them decide on their own, what they would like to do? that is a democracy, where we should have one system that has to become should be limited without the democracy? that's what i have confusion and i would like to get something from you. thank you very much. >> maybe we can take one more

question and then we can let the panelists answered. so in the middle. that's fine. [speaking french] >> translator: ott defoe the electoral council of haiti. thank you for the presentation that were very clear. i should like to ask one question regarding they need to have photo id card. if i understood the presentation appropriate, the american system is based on trust, on a system of trust. and so you say that according to research the rate of fraud has increased. and i'd like to quote mr. von spakovsky who spoke about a study that has just been published last week where it was demonstrated that in this state of minnesota, the fraud was what

made the difference, the result of the election. so my question is, do you not think that if we are not able to agree on a very neat of having a voter id card to vote, one, he says is going to go, do you not think this will have an influence one day on presidential elections in the united states? thank you very much. >> thanks very much, and i think, hans, did you want to start? >> the first question, part of your question was about what's the punishment what we call election crimes. as you know and is related to the second part of your question, we have a federal system here. so we have both a federal government and state government. and under state law and under federal law, election fraud is a crime. depending on what you do it may

be a felony, which means that you could go to prison for more than a year, or it could be a misdemeanor which is a more minor crime. the problem isn't that there aren't sufficient punishment. there are. the problem is that prosecutors don't tend to prosecute many of these cases. some prosecutors do, but for many prosecutors, election fraud is a low priority. because they are faced with very serious crimes, murder, rape, armed robbery. and election crime after an election is over doesn't seem like a very serious crime. also i found many prosecutors, particularly on the local level, they don't like these cases because they are going to make one or the other political parties mad if they pursue them. and i give you a good example of this. we talk about noncitizen voting.

when i was at the u.s. justice department were i worked for four years, the justice department prosecuted a number of people who were not u.s. citizens who had illegally voted in elections, and that's a federal crime. i don't believe this administration has prosecuted a single noncitizen and, in fact, i know because i was there. three years ago in fairfax county, virginia, where i am on the election board we discovered almost 300 people who were not u.s. citizens who would registered to vote, and about half of them had voted in prior election we sent information about that the u.s. justice department so they could prosecute. they did nothing about it. >> the second question was about the case in minnesota, and could

it not have revocation in the presidential election. so just for the audience. >> well, in fact, something i didn't get to say which was that in the study about noncitizen voting, the professors concluded that another race, which may have affected the u.s. presidential race, is that in north carolina, north carolina was a state that barack obama won in 2008 by only 14,000 votes. a very small number of votes. northcutt i think has about 6 million registered voters. he won by 14,000 votes. according to the calculations of these professors, that's well within the margin of non-citizens who may have voted in the state. and only a week ago, two weeks ago, election officials in north carolina discovered that individuals who are in the united states illegally to have

gotten an amnesty to the president's deferred action program, they found, i think almost 200 of them registered to vote in the state. so that is clearly an issue. >> and if i can just respond for just one moment. and actually on both questions. the study to which mr. von spakovsky keeps referring has been i think with a lot of justice, heavily heavily criticized. i hate to do this because it would be nice if every time somebody said the professor found, if i just agreed and nod their head. i'm a professor. i like that ruled quite a bit. but the study has been heavily criticized for its data and its methodology. and i think with very good reason. the authors extrapolated based

on a response of five individuals on a survey that massive numbers of noncitizens were voting. and for those of you who may be wondering, five people, how could you do that? it really was five people. those sorts of conclusions when you blow them up nationwide look rather large, but i don't think that that's a study that actually proves what it set out to prove. there may well be a problem and their me will be some noncitizens were voting. the question for me is always, is the policy that stops that going to create a bigger problem than it solves? so if in an effort to stop a few hundred noncitizens from voting, we stopped several thousand, or tens of thousands, eligible

citizens from voting, that's actually doing more harm to the integrity of the election than fixing it. that is, this very single election in minnesota yes was decided by a few hundred votes, but if eligible, legitimate voters have been prevented and casting their ballots by a law that secure the elections more broadly, that, too, would've changed the result of the election and that would've been seen as widely unfair. the calculation here is no different from any other public policy, which is the benefits should exceed the costs, or else it's not worth doing. and i think part of this comes down to how restrictive are the measures to get at the scale of the problem. this comes back to the first gentleman's point. there are many alternatives to having one or two or three or four particular government issued id cards. and with the alternatives is

having the government affirmatively supply id to every citizen. if that were the case, as i mentioned before, i don't think we would have this controversy. it's much harder to do in a country the size and scale of the united states, but that's one option. a biometric solution. if you happen to have an id, show that id. if you don't, we will take your picture. we will have you signed an extra affidavit. they will be some extra security. that is the means of testing your identity without excluding those who don't have a particular card. and i think the are many other options besides. the fight again is not about one id system or trust alone. the fight is about the range of policy options that may increase security without excluding eligible voters. i think that's really the crux of the problem. >> thank you very much. some more questions?

let me see if there is some of the women who want to ask questions you as well. it's been very dominated by men on all the panels today. i see there is one late in the back that is willing to participate. well,. >> hello. vivian, elections candidate. i believe a system should be built to accommodate the majority's. the photo id doesn't, i'm not bothered by that, but a good system would have for lack of a better term off ramps to accommodate those who don't fall into. i was wondering if you could tell us what some of those measures are to accommodate those who don't fall within the majority? and mr. von spakovsky, if you can say why you feel they are sufficient, and professor levitt, why you feel they are not. >> sure. like i said every state that's passed a photo id law has also provided that anyone who doesn't already have one can get one for

free. and what's interesting about that is that the huge numbers of people predicted by opponents that don't have an id have proven to be completely wrong over the years. and i'll give you an example of that. i have handed out a copy of the paper that i did looking at the state of georgia. and in addition to showing turnout, it also shows the number of the three ids issued. and the numbers every year were like 51 hundredths of 1% of the number of registered voters to a tiny number of people that should voters august the our have an id. compare that to the prediction of those who oppose the law that they would literally be hundreds of thousands of people without an id. second, one of the reasons i don't take a lot of the claims seriously about people not

having an id, not being able to get an id is because of also handed out a copy of an article that he wrote where i did this. i actually went and looked up the names of the witnesses that were presented in the lawsuit filed against a voter id law back eight years ago. these were all people who swore under oath in court that they didn't have an id but most importantly they wouldn't be able to get one of the free ids. it would just be too difficult. well, the court upheld the law. he became effective. so what i did is i went and i got the names of all these people who swore they would never be able to vote. and i check their voting records. since the lawsuit. and i found that all of them have been voting in election after election in states. now, every state also provides what's called a provisional ballot. so if you show up at the polling

place and you don't have your id, many states say that they will give you, for example, five days to come back to the election office with an id, and your vote will count. some states have gone as far as to allow another offramp to a photo id requirement. there are some states will have an affidavit that you can fill out where to other voters, for example, can swear that they know you and that you are a resident of the state, and then you get to vote. but my point is these laws have been in place now for many years and it just hasn't been a problem for people being able to get an id. >> sort of. so from indiana, from the very same state that mr. von

spakovsky mentioned, there have been thousands of provisional ballots cast by people who went to the polls and did not have a proper id. that were not counted. many of which were cast by individuals who had been casting ballots for decades. we can't, due to secrecy laws in the state, in every state is different in this respect, know for sure who those people are. only the government in the state knows. but you would have to believe that none of those people were actually eligible to believe that these sorts of laws has not had an impact. provisional ballots are a useful failsafe. but as mr. von spakovsky mentioned most of the states that have the most restrictive laws require that you show an identification in order for those ballots to count. so it's a useful placebo on

election day, but for someone who does not actually have the id in question, it doesn't actually know good to cast this ballot that will be thrown in the trash, rather than count it. it is true that states allow you to get the id cards themselves for free, but the underlying documentation is not in can be burdensome. there are very few humans i am aware of who in emerge from the womb with papers in hand to pursue -- to prove their identity. and we do not have a national birth registry in this country. some people have government issued birth certificates, some do not. you often need one of those government issued birth certificates to get an identification card. in many states you need an identification card to get the birth certificate. and so people are trapped in a

bureaucratic catch-22. they cannot get the documentation they need because they need documentation to get the documentation they need because they need documentation. you can see the loop. those people after show up to vote because they know that they can't and they are not in the figures that mr. von spakovsky is talking about. there's one other offramp that i'm actually quite troubled by. many of the states that put in place these most restrictive laws for people coming to the polls actually have quite liberal, quite permissive absentee laws. and the argument is made that we don't have to worry about the requirements to recent particular identification at the polls because these individuals normally the elderly, often have permission can't begin there is state-by-state, to cast a postal ballot instead. that is, by raising the burdens of going to the polls, the

solution is to encourage these same people who cannot go to the polls to vote in absentee ballot, which is how some of the very people that mr. von spakovsky is talking about have actually cast votes in elections. the problem with that is that i believe that there's widespread agreement, i would be surprised if mr. von spakovsky thought differently, that post about system from the absentee ballot system is where there are actually large concerns about fraud. if you're going to steal an election, doing so using postal ballots is actually far more efficient and far more effective than doing so in person. and so the most broad offramp is actually stealing a group of voters directly to the system where we have the most trouble. and that's part of what disturbs me actually in terms of protecting the integrity of the vote. >> can i just say i certainly agree with that, there's a lot of fraud in absentee ballot

process for postal, postal ballot. but that's what a number of states have passed voter id laws that require you to show a photo id, not only for in person voting, but also for absentee ballot the chances, for example, has done the. alabama has done that. some other states also. that, in fact, is -- those states who only require a photo id for in person voting need to extend the requirement to postal ballots. >> so with this back and forth from the panelists, i want to conclude this session and then thank them for their participation, and also george for being so active. and i think we can give them a hand for a job well done. [applause] >> and i think it displays nicely that we're sort of struggling with two different principles here when it comes to the access to the ballot and the

integrity of all the election results. ..