former secretary of state, but i can't think of what is absolutely necessary that the eac do that is necessary for these states to have successful, fair and accurate elections this fall. so i ask each one of you that question. >> i believe secretary reed from washington. >> todd, really in terms of the way that we conduct the election, there isn't anything that we need out of the eac per se. but the problem articulated by a few state this is morning during a discussion was that they have money sitting there that has already been authorized to go to the states but has not been released because they don't have commissioners there. they have equipment sitting in offices ready to be operated but the certification that has gone through in the process has not been released by the office. so we had quite a discussion

this morning, and one thing that national association of state election directors came up with is a letter to the acting director saying that he can take this action, and in talking to peter shellstock this morning, peter said that he thought that was true as well. those are the two things we need. we need the money that is supposedly already going to the states and release of the equipment so we could go ahead and eyes it this fall. >> i appreciate it, sam. sam was known, when i was secretary of state as the "but" secretary of state. this is good, but -- appreciate your leadership, sam. let me take that back. i hate to be the person from the

federal government saying let me see if i can help here. but let me help with that. >> we were in the a quandary of getting commissioner appointed temporarily, it ended up supporting the letter to go to the acting director but yeah, it really would help if we could get some push from the -- >> in your opinion, are these defunct decisions or decisions that have already been made? or what kind of decisions would we need to make that we would need commissioners to do? >> what we need to do is just push the organization to start getting some of this out, and -- is peter still here? peter, do you have any clearer articulation of this that you would raise right now? >> on these two points -- >> peter, could i ask you to come up to the microphone, because of the cameras and identify yourself?

>> is this working? >> yeah. >> i'm peter, on the two points that secretary reed raised. the certifications of an individual voting system are issued by the executive director of the agency they do not require a vote by the commission, and similarly, the release of funds to the states from the funding does not require action by the commission. those are non-discretionary grants. >> so secretary reed, decisions, these decisions don't require a lot of discussion? correct? it's 1s or 0s? stamped yes or no basically? i'm oversimplifying it, but there's a process already in place. check off the boxes. if everything's okay, the certification is issue and/or the money's issued. is that a fair assessment of it? >> absolutely. >> then we need to push to have that done. you're exactly right. i don't think we need commissioners necessarily, and i

will take that as a task to help. >> secretary from georgia. >> thank you for being here, congressman pup said a couple of things earlier that i really pishted. number one, empowering the states when it comes to a lot of what we're doing. i think most everybody, or all the secretaries are in agreement on that. also, that in the elections process, that we all are human. we're dealing with a lot of humans ourselves. especially in georgia. where we do have a state-wide system, but we have 159 county offices that are returning the elections and sending absentee ballots out, and myself like secretary miller and others, concerning military and overseas ballots, i think, it seems like sometimes that i can certainly understand when states are not in compliance while there are people that are upset about that, i would be, too, but it's concerning to me that when you have a state that has a ballot here or a ballot there, not to mean that, i think we would all

agree that every single ballot needs to be counted and we fight for that every day, but it seems like we're persecuted for one or two ballots because of human errors, sometimes, just like states that may not be in compliance at all, and i would just urge you and ask your thoughts as you give oversight to the fec, the eac, and certainly -- >> doj. >> to the justice department. but any ways you can help influence to make them realize that, you know, we want a working relationship as we do these things, and we're also subject, as you know, to what the legislature's pass in our states as we go through the process that we would certainly appreciate that at the state level. >> absolutely, sir. i will advocate for it. if you ever hear that i'm not, don't be bashful about letting me know. i try not to forget where i came from and want to go back to. yes, sir.

>> jason gant in colorado. i know that the federal is battling with issues every day and that the federal government is a lot of times out of whack compared to what some of the states are doing, but with that note, with the help america vote act of 2002 and getting things ready for '03 and '04, those machines we've had for disabled folks, the ballot box, those systems are pushing at least ten elections after this fall, this summer, and there's going to be a pro where some of those systems are going to start failing which is then going to require states to either use leftover help america vote act funds, or for now the states to be funding the federal mandate. so i'm very cautious of where the federal government is. but i want to start thinking about when these machines start to fail, what is going to be the plan if we need to start today

discussions whether we need to be planning on changing some of those requirements or if the federal government is going to say, well, states, you're not gow to have to pay for that? >> excellent question. i wondered when the day was going to come back in 2003, 2004. we thought -- that this day would come at some point where those machines that we were scrapping over and thought were -- and were the new and the best technology, and were doing such a good job, and working out the bugs, and would now be obsolete. and i think in indiana they have several more years of life left, but, you know, i don't pass that observation on any further than that. as far as any other states go. i think if -- you heard me advocate here for a half an hour about state's rights and federalism and how we're human.

i think if the states were caught flat-footed or even negligent in 2000 it was how little attention we ourselves, states, paid to the election process and how much little money we put in, and i think since 2000, you should be directing your energy, at least in significant part, to your state legislature because the days the states could get off in not investing in their process, i think are over. that's the straightest, most honest answer i can give you. maybe it's completely wrong. maybe there's going to be a bipartisan group of congressmen and women who come out tomorrow and say, you know what, we like the changes that we made with the help america vote act. we like the access that the machinery is giving, and we decided we're going to fund it for the states and block grant it.

i wish we'd block grant medicaid in some of the states, an education budget, but maybe tomorrow they'll come out and say that, completely unbeknownst to me. but i would say as you being a secretary of state, you should get your state acclimated to the fact that they have got to put a lot more money in the election process. if out the other side of your mouth you're going to say federal government, stay out of our election process. i think that's a two-way street there. that should have generated some discussion and pushback. where's my robin carnahan when i need her? where'd she go? >> congressman rokita, one of the issues that we have worked on very diligently and i think

you worked on when you were secretary of state, which was the passage of the move act, which is about making sure that the overseas ballots are mailed out on time and that our military men and women have a way to transit them in time so that they can vote. can you give us an update on nag may be out there that, would advance that cause even futter? >> nothing's come through the committee that i know about and perhaps it should on the other hand, i think, the move act is moving and it's working. maybe you could tell me if it's not. but i think it's a pretty successful project and so, you know, i like to leave well enough alone and let it continue working. i see my good friend delbert hoseman from mississippi here, if he hasn't offered yet, or if he hasn't tried, i suspect it you should go to him and see about getting a new secretary of state delegation to the middle east, just to see, our troops i know they're coming home, but

delbert led a delegation of secretary of states to the middle east to see the voting process in 2008. and we got from that, you see the move act come into play from there. and the secretaries of state were very instrumental in that entire process. and i don't like to see our men and women at war. i don't like to see them not safe, but if they're going to be doing their job for us, we need to be doing our job for them, and the secretaries of state being on the ground there in 2008 was just excellent mater l material. excellent experience so that we could continue serving them. >> are there any other questions for congressman rokita? well, we thank you very much for taking your time, and for helping --

and moreover, i think we all very much appreciate someone who understands what we're going through and how the interrelationship with the federal government in making sure that you're there to help us advocate as well, and i hope we will take you up on your offer to work towards some alternative solutions to some of the problems that we've discussed. >> i do thank you for that. i would like to work with you. in all honesty, i have already self-identified and agreed to take on one task here today and we'll get to work on it and i would like to be back again to report. >> great. thank you very much, congressman rokita. >> again, my name is ross

miller, savannah secretary of state. i have the privilege of introducing our next speaker, thomas e. perez who works for the civil rights division at the department of justice. obviously, much of the discussion this past conference has centered around the move act. it's an issue for which many secretaries of state are extremely proud of our organization's efforts to advance overseas ballot, men and women in the military able to cast ballots in a timely manner. some of the discussion has focused on the interaction with the department of justice, who is responsible for some enforcement of those statutes. mr. perez previously served as secretary of maryland's department of labor licensing and regulations which protects consumers through the enforcement of consumer rights laws. he's spent his entire career in public service as a county council member and president, is career attorney and federal

prosecutor with the d.o.j. civil rights division. aag perez addressed this group last winter. we're delighted he has accepted our inhave a gati invitation to group, and we have asked him to talk about the enforcement problems for 2012 and section 203 language, minority changes, the nvra. and move waivers. please join me in welcoming assistant attorney general tom perez. >> thanks for having me. good afternoon. it's great to be back here, i was here friday talking about and with the election directors and it was a very productive session. i look forward to this as well. i remember our meeting a year ago and that was also very productive and i want to thank you at the outset for all of

your hard work. we all have a shared interest and i know we take that responsibility to ensure the right to vote very seriously, whether it's in the move act context, whether it's in the nvra context, every voting context we take that very seriously, and we have that shared interest in protecting our voting rights. i had the good fortune last month of traveling to austin with the attorney general where he delivered a speech on the importance of voting rights. in particular, we talked about the 1965 voting rights and it got me in the spirit of taking a look at that once began and when president johnson passed that law, he said and i quote, the vote is the most powerful interest ever -- devised by mankind for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men and women because they are different from other men and women. the act passed by a vote of

328-74 in the house and 79-18 in the senate. fast forward 41 years and when congress reauthorized the act, it did so again in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion. congressman jim sensenbrenner a republican led the effort in the judiciary committee. when the debate turned to the reauthorization of section 5, you know is a linchpin of the law, the house voted to reauthorize section 5 390 93. the senate vote was 93-0. so it was a reminder to me that voting rights and i think civil rights are a bit large has a proud bipartisan history in america. everyone in this room has a shared interest in ensuring that those who quite literally gave their lives to ensure the right to vote did not do so in vain. i'd like to take some time to talk about what we're up to, because our voting section is

busy as ever. two deputies are here. meredith dell platts and richard dell chaim. we have two core substantive objectives that animate our work.chaim. we have two core substantive objectives that animate our worchaim. we have two core substantive objectives that animate our worhaim. we have two core substantive objectives that animate our work. we are pursuing a voting program that seeks to ensure access to the democratic participation for all legally qualified voters and we have a program that ensures the opportunity to participate in the democratic process, free from discrimination. we're in the middle of the wiz biziest busiest periods in our life, and i would like to talk about all of the areas that you mentioned. let me begin with our work in the section 5 area. as you know, section 5 is one of

the linchpins of voting rights act and it applies to all or part of our 16 states. the redistricting push comes to us for review under these preclearance standards. we did a lot of work getting ready for this moment. last year we published updated substantive guidance. in the federal register and later on we published a final rule revising procedures for the administration of section 5. the procedures hadn't been revised in about 15 years or so. i think the last revision was 1987. so that guide was very important as part of our outreach work, and then when the census data started rolling out in february and then again in april, we got to work because we began receiving the redistricting plans, and we will during the course of this roughly 18-month bulge in our work, we will receive about 2,700 redirecting plans, and by way

of example, last month we received more redistricting plans than any month actually in our history. so we've gotten about 1,300 so far. so we're roughly halfway there. and we have a lot of work to do. i passed out for your information a chart marked appendix a. the reason it's appendix a, this was something we filed in connection with a texas litigation, a summary of our work in the section 5 area. and actually there's been some updates since then, and what i wanted to do very briefly is just give you a sense of what we have been up to. we have received roughly 30 or so -- a little over 30 statewide redistricting plans, and we have -- if you look at this appendix, and i will update it in a moment. we have actually pre-cleared or consented in litigation just 29 state wide plans. the only two state wide redistricting plans that we have opposed are the texas

congressional and the texas state house of representatives. congressional and the texas house of representatives. so if you look at appendix a, you'll see a few that say pending. california is no longer pending, precleared that. you'll see a pending on south dakota, that's no longer pending, we precleared that. and you'll see michigan is pending and that's no longer pending because that was also precleared. let me give you an example of what we have been doing. our process again is to be sure we give a comprehensive and independent review to all these plans. and louisiana is a good example of the approach that we have taken because we not only have waited for the plans to come in to do the review but before that, we have done a remarkable amount of outreach to explain the process. in the case of louisiana, i actually traveled down there at the suggestion and invitation of

a bipartisan group of lawmakers and i addressed a bicameral session in the house and the senate. i did so because of term limits there's been a lot of transitions. a decade ago, two thirds of the member, house and senate, roughly, had already gone through a redistricting cycle. this time around, two-thirds were going through their first redistricting cycle. it was important to explain firsthand what the process was and i think we'll have a very, very useful discourse during my visit there. and this was the first redistricting in louisiana ever where all of the litigation has been cleared. i mentioned contested litigation involving the texas plans, that trial in the section 5 matter ended last week, closing arguments are tomorrow. there was litigation in the section 2 proceeding that went up to the supreme court.

we participated as an amicus in that particular case. we continue to be involved in both the section 5 and section 2 matters. we also have other judicial preclearance cases in matters and we have lodged a number of objections in a number of counties. we're obviously involved in a number of section 5 matters arising out of recently enacted state laws relating to voter identification requirements, voter registration requirements, and changes to early vote prog se procedures. last month we interjected -- last week texas filed a judicial action seeking preclearance of their voter identification law. florida has adopted a number of changes to its electoral process and filed an action for judicial preclearance of those change. and both the texas voter id and the there the matter remain ongoing. can't give you detail on our

review of those matters, but i can assure you that in this an every submission our investigation will be fair and fact based. states covered in section 5, as you know, bear the burden of showing that the proposed changes are not discriminatory. and as the attorney general as emphasize and the facts that i just shown you bear out, where they mediate this, we will preclaire the changes. another part of our work is affecting the constitutionality of section 5. as our experience recent and in years past demonstrates, section 5 continues to play a vital role in upholding equal opportunity and equal franchise to stop discriminatory voting changes from going into effect, whether it's at the state wide level, a county level or a city level. there are some that counter that

section 5 is major inclusive. however those jurisdictions with a clean record of nondiscrimination has an opportunity to bailout from section 5 coverage. our bailout practice has expanded in the aftermath of the 2009 northwest austin decision. in the past fiscal year, more bailouts were granted than in the previous seven years combined, and i expect this activity will continue. let me turn very briefly to our section 5 work because section 5 is a critical component of our enforcement efforts, as well. and release of our census redistricting data in the new american community survey data always spurs our investigative work each decade under section 2. we're reviewing the data from the various jurisdictions across the country, considering whether the methods of electing governmental bodies dilutes minority voting strength under the thornburgh versus jingles framework. we have opened up roughly 100 section 2 investigations in the past year.

usually the cases involve challenges to at-large methods of election and the usual remedy that we seek, although not in every case, is the election using single member districts. one of the most recent of these cases to be resolved came in august when the second circuit dismissed an appeal from the settlement of a case in port chester. let me turn, because i know there are a lot of questions about our language minority provisions. several sections of the voting rights act provides protection to members of minority groups to ensure that they will be able to participate equally with english speaking people. the minority provisions of the voting rights act by developing investigations across the country that concern limited english proficient, hispanic, asian, native american, and native alaskan voters. we have brought a number of cases under the language minority provisions of the

voting rights act in recent years, and the work has quite literally stretched from coast to coast. the most immediate case was in alameda, california. we've also done work in indian country, shannon county, south dakota, we have done work in new mexico for voters who are speaking native american languages. recently we worked in metropolitan cleveland as well as lorraine county, ohio, for voters who are spanish-speaking puerto rican voters. the census bureau as you know released their new determinations of language minority coverage of section 203 of the voting rights act. when i met with the election directors and with you a year ago, one of the very strong messages you delivered was to try and get those determinations out as early as possible so that jurisdictions can have the time to prepare. and we heard you. and i hope we have given you the rec question is it time that you need to get the job done because

i know it's an important job. i know there are transitions. i was a local elected official. i remember in my county, the year i ran for office was the first year they were subject to the bilingual ballot provision and there was undeniably a lot of transition involved in that effort. so we heard you and we worked very close with the census bureau to make sure this was done in a timely fashion. as you probably know, there are now 19.2 million voting age citizens from language minority groups that reside in coverage jurisdictions compared to 13.4 in the previous determination. roughly 42%, almost 43% increase and we sent letters to the coverage jurisdictions and we are doing additional outreach to all of the new by covered jurisdictions. if you have any questions about those issues, i welcome that discussion. and we have a cadre of very seasoned attorneys who are very,

very happy to work collaborative with you. let me talk briefly about the nvra because the enforcement of the requirements of the nvra also remains a very important priority for you, for us and for all of us in this room. because as you know, states covered by the nvra must follow its requirements to make voter registration available to applicants that all driver's license agencies, at public says tans offices, disability offices, and through the mail. and we have for the first time, i believe, in our section's history last year, may have been late 2010, early 2011, we put out guidance on our website that discusses all of the requirements of the nvra. we heard a lot of feedback from election directors, secretaries of state, and other external stakeholders that it woulg would be useful to have a guidance document that can serve as a how-to document for everybody on

compliance. as we figure out how to focus our resource wes pay a lot of attention to the eac data. the eac's nvra report is very, very helpful in enabling us to figure out where we should indeed focus our initial investigative efforts. in the last year the department brought its first two lawsuits under section 7 in seven years. and as you know, section 7 requires that voter renlg administration materials be made availability at, among other places, state offices providing public assistance or disability services. one of the lawsuits involves rhode island and the other involves louisiana. in the louisiana case, i want to discuss the results because the results have indeed been remarkable. more voters were registered in the first month after the