are standing up and saying enough, that they're fed up with the same tired establishment incumbents who don't believe anything and they're turning to new leaders, strong conservatives and fighters who will stand up to barack obama, who will stop the spending and turn around the debt. i've spent a lifetime fighting to defend the constitution and defend conservative principles. we have seen conservatives all over the state unite behind this campaign. we were outspent five to one, yet we're in this runoff because tea party leaders and republican women and grassroots conservatives came together. just about every conservative leader in the state has endorsed this campaign, from kelly shackelford to peggy venable, and just about every major conservative leader nationally has endorsed this campaign from sarah palin to sean hannity to rick santorum. if you think the answer to what's happening in washington is to send another go along to get along establishment politician to washington, then you have an easy choice in this race. if you think the answer is to send a strong conservative and a

fighter, then i ask for your support. please come out on july 31st and bring ten of your friends. texans are standing up and i give you my word when we win this race, texas is going to lead the fight to stop the obama gener agenda and to restore the constitution. >> thank you gentlemen for a great debate. we appreciate your coming. thanks, too, to the voters who are here and to my colleagues for taking part in this texas debate. kera and other stations will also be broadcasting a debate between the democrats competing for this u.s. senate seat. you can find details about that at texasdebates.org. don't forget, election day is july 31st. thank you all for joining us.

live now to capitol hill, where the senate judiciary committee is holding a hearing this morning on deceptive practices and voter intimidation in federal elections. the hearing will examine legislation introduced by senator charles schumer that imposes criminal penalties for deceptive and intimidation in voting practices. witnesses include civil rights advocates and election law scholars, and they will look at recent voter i.d. laws passed in the states along with senator ben cardin, democrat from maryland. they will look at barriers to voting and whether the proposed bill is constitutional. live coverage on c-span 3. senator patrick leahy of vermont was in the room a few moments ago. we expect him to start the hearing momentarily.

>> good morning, and thank you

all for being here. we're holding a hearing to consider the deceptive practices and voter intimidation prevention act of 2011. it's intended to protect one of the most fundamental rights americans enjoy, the right to vote. in december i joined senator schumer and others to introduce the bill. actually in 2007, i joined on similar legislation by then senator barack obama. the legislation has the support of the justice department, the attorney general identifies one of the three areas crucial in driving progress to protect all americans and their right to vote. i think we have to be doing all we can to protect people's access to the ballot box. the right to vote and to have your vote count is a fundamental

foundational right, like a first amendment right, because it secures the effectiveness of the other protections. also, you have to be assured everybody had the right to vote to give legitimacy to our government. tough to deny americans access to voting, undermines our democracy. i'm fortunate to be from a state like vermont, where most places you vote are very small areas, everybody knows everybody. we never had any indication of a suppression of voters, but that doesn't happen everywhere. protecting access for people is ever more important in the aftermath of citizens united decision by the supreme court because we now know that as a result of that, corporations rather than individuals are wielding more and more influence over our electoral process.

just yesterday without even a hearing, the supreme court double downed on citizens united by summarily striking down a hundred-year-old montana state law, barring corporate contributions to political campaigns, even though the record is very complete that the reason the law had been passed was because of the corrupting influence and actually the corruption that occurred in montana because of those same corporate contributions. i think that those opened the flood gates on limited unaccountable corporate spending in federal political campaigns now take another step to break down public safeguards against corporate money drowning out the voices of hard-working americans. i'm not one who thinks so. corporations as being a person in that regard. if they were, we could say just because we elected general

eisenhower as president, why can't we elect general electric as president. unfortunately, the way this is going, that may not be too far-fetched. like montana, vermont's a small state. we take our civic duty seriously, cherish our vital role in the democratic process and i think the corporate money we are seeing being spent around the country is a matter of concern certainly in my state and i think the court dealt another severe blow to the right of vermonters and all americans to be heard in public discourse on elections. our country's come a long way in ensureing the right to vote and i worry we forget our history when we never should. we should never forget the areas we have overcome as a nation, pictures of americans beaten by mobs, attacked by dogs, blasted by water hose, trying to

register to vote are seared into our national consciousness. we even have a member of the house of representatives who nearly died when he tried to vote during that time and was saved at the last minute by having his skull crushed by the clubs of the police officers. remember a time of discriminatory practice, poll taxes, literacy taxes, grandfather clauses were common place but brave americans struggled long and hard to get rid of that and some did pay for their -- with their lives for the right to vote. i don't want to see this country backtrack on hard-won progress. recently rather than increasing access, we seem to restrict the voting laws. the recent action to purge florida's voter rolls of legal voters is but one example. identification laws. there are others. according to the national conference of state legislatures, in 2001, nearly a

thousand voter i.d.s have been introduced in 46 states. only three states do not have a voter i.d. law and did not consider voter i.d. legislation last year. one of those states is my own state of vermont. but we're seeing laws that make it significantly harder for millions of eligible voters to cast ballots. i'm not talking about people would have been ineligible otherwise, but eligible voters, millions of them, finding it harder to cast ballots. this includes young voters, african-americans, those earning $35,000 a year or less, and the elderly. so i will put all my statement in the record but i remember the recall election of wisconsin when voters got a robocall telling them if you sign the

recall petition your job is done and you don't need to vote on tuesday. the 2010 midterm elections, robocall went out to 10,000 democratic voters in maryland before the polls had closed saying the democratic governor and president obama had been successful and there was no need to vote. no need to vote. the polls were okay, relax, everything is fine, just watch tv tonight. i mean, this is orwellian in the evilness and it is evil as well as illegal. president obama wasn't on the ballot that year. they were falsely telling voters to stay home and the people of maryland thought the election had been closed. 2010, in african-american neighborhoods in houston, texas, a group circulated flyers saying voters for one democratic candidate would count as a vote for the whole ticket. so i think the need for

deceptive practice and voter intimidation prevention act is documented, is real. the bill would prohibit any person from purposely misleading voters regarding their qualifications or restrictions. the bill offers new ways to enforce these prohibitions. and it provides a tool for effective oversight by requiring the attorney general report to congress any allegations of the dissemination of false information within 180 days of election. i might note the first witness will be senator benjamin cardin. senator cardin, we found it gripping, your story you told of what happened in maryland. i mean, these are the things we read about in history books but to see it in a recent time is evil and wrong. i'll put my full statement on

the record. >> mr. chairman, to paraphrase justice scalia, frequently a bill raises a first amendment issue quote, clad so to speak in sheep's clothing, end of quote. the potential harm is understood only after careful study and then to quote again, but this wolf comes as a wolf. this bill represents a frontal attack on first amendment freedom of speech. the bill before us today was originally proposed by then senator obama. at the 2007 hearing on this bill, a maryland county executive complained about campaign literature and statements that were made supposedly by his opponent. in supporting this bill, he testified that he was quote, unquote, offended and outraged, that his opponent had displayed signs with what he termed a

false statement, quote, we're not slaves to democrats, end of quote. that statement is core political speech, fully protected by the first amendment no matter how much it might offend and outrage politicians. unfortunately, that witness is unable to appear before us today as he is now serving a lengthy sentence in federal prison for engaging in extortion conspiracy. president obama has inaccurately attacked the supreme court rulings that protect core political speech and now we hear that the same majority that claims to revere the constitution plans a hearing this summer on a constitutional amendment that would repeal part of the first amendment protection of political speech and this should deeply trouble all americans. the bill's unconstitutionality goes beyond this criminalizing of what one of today's witnesses refers to as quote, arguably

fraudulent information, end of quote. its structural unsoundness would create not a chilling effect but a freezing effect. how can anyone argue -- how can anyone know in advance what is quote unquote, arguably fraudulent. that effect is there even if the public integrity section of the justice department cannot obtain any convictions. proponents of this bill seem not to understand the dangers of having the justice department inject itself at the behest of politicians into prosecuting other politicians. again, quoting justice scalia from his same opinion, quote, nothing is so politically effective as the ability to charge that one's opponent and his associates are in all

probabilities crooks and nothing so effectively gives an appearance of validity to such charges as a justice department investigation and even better, prosecution, end of quote. even worse is the bill's provisions for private right of action. the bill's proponents erroneously believe that private suits can only be shields and never swords. no intermediary is necessary to file a civil suit against a political opponent on the eve of an election. those claims will force your opponent to spend money on lawyers rather than against you, the press will report the claim of dirty tricks on the eve of election. the victim will be unable to respond effectively to refute claims. once again, the forces pushing for self-censorship would be enormous. no one condones the violation of

criminal law and although one would not know it from the bill's supporters, the kinds of activities that occurred in maryland and elsewhere that are on the bill's findings are already prohibited by federal law. that is, the conclusion of the justice department manual for criminal election prosecutions. those who set up robocalls that jam phone banks were prosecuted. maryland successfully prosecuted the makers of the relax the election won -- is one cause. existing federal law is violated by prohibiting false information on dates of election or polling place locations or false claims of eligibility to vote among other practices that witnesses rightfully decry. the constitutionality of prohibiting various claims of endorsement will have to wait until the supreme court's

decision in alvarez is handed down hopefully thursday. this bill is also notable for what it omits, voter de eshgdila serious constitutional violation. none of the proponents of this bill want to do anything about that. the obama administration first denied florida access to its data base of illegal aliens for nine months, then sued the state for trying to remove ineligible voters supposedly too close to the election. florida and other states should be able to use the data base to remove ineligible voters after the election and to prosecute those who voted illegally. if we want to go after deceptive statements in federal elections and existing laws, why doesn't this bill criminalize voting by people here illegally or use the voter data base to make sure the voter registration rolls do not

contain such people who are here illegally. and why doesn't this bill criminalize intentionally deceptive statements made by candidates themselves such as whether or not they're native americans or whether they served in the military when they did not. this bill is a potential pandora box that threatens first amendment rights. thank you. >> senator cardin, you have seen firsthand what happens when we don't have the ability to stop these things and i would note that you had a great deal of experience both in the maryland legislature but also in the united states senate and as a former member and valued member of this committee. delighted to have you here. please go ahead, sir. >> before he speaks, can i have

a statement by senator sessions -- >> we will keep the record open until the end of the day for any statements by senators. go ahead. >> chairman leahy, thank you very much. senator grassley, senator klobuchar, a pleasure to return to the judiciary committee. senator leahy, i want to thank you and your committee for its leadership on these issues. senator durbin, for helping what is happening in our states, disenfranchising voters. senator grassley, i look forward to working with you. we have a little more work to do but we will continue to try to find ways that we can advance the ability of all americans to be able to cast their votes who are eligible to vote. as the chairman pointed out, this legislation has been previously heard by the judiciary committee in 2007 and i was proud to be a co-sponsor with senator obama at that time

and senator schumer. the bill was reported out of the judiciary committee and a similar bill was passed in the united states house of representatives by a voice vote. let me just give a little bit of the history here. it's been nearly a century and a half since congress and the states ratified the 15th amendment to the constitution in 1870 which states that the right of citizens of the united states to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or any state on account of race or color. the amendment also gives congress the power to enforce the article by appropriate legislation. african-americans suffered through nearly another hundred years of discrimination at the hands of jim crowe laws and regulations designed to make it difficult if not impossible for african-americans to register to vote due to literacy tests, poll taxes and outright harassment and violence. it took congress and the states nearly another century until we adopted the 24th amendment to the constitution in 1964 which

prohibited poll taxes or any tax on the right to vote. in 1965, congress finally enacted the voting rights act which once and for all was supposed to prohibit discrimination against voters on the basis of race or color. it is time for congress to once again take action to stop the latest reprehensible tactics that are being used against african-americans, latinos and other minorities to interfere with the right to vote or their right to vote for the candidate of their choice as protected by the constitution and in the civil rights statutes. these tactics undermine and erode the very democracy and threaten the very integrity of our electoral system. mr. chairman, our 2007 hearing record contains numerous examples of deceptive practices so i will not repeat them in detail today. suffice it to say the hearing record contained examples including listing the wrong day for election, intentionally aimed at minority communities so that they would not show up to

vote, telling republicans to vote on tuesday and democrats to vote on wednesday, warning recent immigrants not to vote due to the possibility of deportation. warning voters with unpaid tickets, parking tickets, not to vote or face prison terms or loss of custody of their children, and as the chairman pointed out in my own election in 2006, i woke up on the morning of election to see a piece of literature put out by my opponent who claimed to be the democrat and endorsed by prominent african-americans who had endorsed me in an effort to confuse the african-american vote. mr. chairman, this is not freedom of speech. this is deceptive practices that have no place in our election system. we know elections are tough, rough businesses, but there needs to be limits and it's important for congress to point out. i want to bring to your attention deceptive practice that have happened since 2008. since the last hearing. in 2008, ohio residents reported receiving misleading automated calls giving voters incorrect

information about their location of their polling place. in the same year, flyers were distributed predominantly in african-american neighborhoods in philadelphia falsely warning that people with outstanding warrants or unpaid parking tickets could be arrested if they showed up at polls on election day. in the same year, messages were sent to users of social media website facebook falsely stating the election had been postponed a day. students at some universities including florida state university received text messages, also saying the election had been postponed for the day. in the same year, a local registrant of elections in montgomery county, virginia issued two releases incorrectly warning that students at virginia tech who registered to vote at their college could no longer be claimed as dependents on their parents' tax returns or could lose scholarships or coverage under their parents' car or health insurance. in the 2010 elections in african-american neighborhoods in houston, texas, a group called black democratic trust of texas distributed flyers falsely

warning that a straight ticket vote for democratic party would not count and that a vote just for a single democratic candidate would count for the entire democratic ticket. as you pointed out, the 2010 elections in maryland where the robocalls were made by the republican candidate but not identified that way, saying this was a call from the democratic candidate for governor and from barack obama. there was no need to vote because the election already had been won. senator grassley, you are correct, that person was prosecuted under state law, not under federal law, prosecuted and a conviction was had. we want to make sure that in federal elections we have the protection that these types of fraudulent, deceptive communications will not be tolerated. this legislation is carefully drafted to comply with the first amendment of the constitution. it's carefully timed as to when the communications and the type of communications and it gives the department of justice the tools they need to ensure the integrity of our election

process and to make it clear that we won't tolerate that type of communication in a federal election which is aimed at disenfranchising minority voters. we thought those days were over but they're not. it's important for congress to act, give the tools to the department of justice they need. i'm proud that attorney general holder supports this legislation. he believes it's needed as a tool so that they can do their jobs on behalf of the american people and i would urge the committee to favorably consider this legislation once again. >> would you agree with me that a first amendment argument is not enough, if you could have deceptive statements protected by first amendment and somebody selling for example prescription drugs that had been proven to be totally unsafe could say well, this has been certified as being very safe for your heart condition, for example, and then

somebody then dies from it, they say well, we got a first amendment right to say that. is that too absurd an example? >> the chairman is absolutely right. the supreme court said on numerous occasions that none of the rights are absolute. they're all subject to reasonable interpretation. we know that there is speech that is not protected under the first amendment. >> thank you. thank you very much, senator cardin. i appreciate you being here. we still miss you on this committee but i'm proud of your work on the other committees you're on. >> i would ask my entire statement be made part of the record. >> of course it will be made part of the record. i've noted, statements by any senators wish to be added will be made part of the record. thank you. >> thank you, senator cardin. >> thank you.

>> i thank tanya house, john park, i don't know if those names have the same name on the back but i think you're in the right place. i'm going to ask each of you to give your statement. your full statement will be made part of the record. apologize for the voice. the allergies or whatever's in the air in washington doesn't agree with me quite as much as in vermont. i seem to be reacting to the pollens but nobody can complain about what a beautiful day it is.

mrs. house is the director of the public policy department at the lawyers committee for civil rights and the law where she focuses on a variety of voting rights and social injustice issues. she received her law degree from the university of texas law school. it's good to have you here. please go ahead. >> thank you. mr. chairman, ranking member grassley and everyone here today, thank you so much for allowing us to be here to talk about protecting the voting rights of all americans. my name is tanya clay house. i am the director of public policy at the lawyers committee for civil rights under law. the lawyers committee is actively engaged in enforcing the right to vote and ensuring the integrity of our elections through litigation, policy and advocacy. we strongly support the deceptive practices and voter intimidation prevention act of 2011. we want to thank particularly senator leahy as well as senator schumer and cardin for reintroducing this bill that we have consistently

supported since its inception in 2005. in the limited time i have i want to focus primarily on why current federal and state laws are insufficient, also the particular importance that the corrective action provisions in senate bill 1994 as well as how this bill addresses actual and documented fraud against voters. during the question and answers i'm happy to respond to any questions regarding the first amendment protections. as previously stated by senator cardin, deceptive practices intentionally disseminate false and misleading information with the express purpose of influencing the outcome of elections. as technology becomes increasingly sophisticated, deceptive practices reach wider audiences including taking the form of such things as flyers, robocalls as well as text messages and even for the internet. i want to showcase here, you have examples of a couple of flyers that have already been -- some have already been mentioned by senator cardin. one in particular here in texas.