there was a sense that they really needed to focus on jobs in the economy. that think that is what we're going to see them doing going forward. if they do talk about health care, they're going to have to figure out a way to talk about it that is easily guess double by the public. they have a challenge in 2010. >> president obama made his statement after the court ruling. he started getting into the nitty gritty of what this means. that is hard for people to digest. democrats continued to struggle with a single message on health care. i think there are risks for republicans in diverting their message away from the jobs and economic issues. they will frame health care in terms of the economic debate. once you do that messaging, i do think use are losing people. >> other takeaways from our conversation? >> adobe interesting to see -- if so be interesting to see how long republicans keep talking

about this. they need to do it. do they pivot after that? i would think that they do. they need to know that they are talking about it. it is interesting that he said that the american people should know that if they end up with a republican presidents and a republican controlled congress that it will be is the same. that is interesting. >> thank you for being here today. >> tomorrow, los angeles times

and chicago tribune reporter looks at the implications of a recent supreme court decision. christopher wilson discusses the recent presidential election in mexico amphetamines for the u.s. al jazeera correspondent talks about how our jazeera's english- language news network covers in the u.s. and around the world. >> a discussion on the supreme court decision of the health care law. live coverage begins at 1:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this is the conversation we need to have in this country that nobody is willing to have, ok? what role should the government

played in housing? >> the 2008 financial meltdown and government subsidize home ownership. >> if you want to subsidize housing in this country, and we want to talk about put it on the balance sheet -- balance sheet and make it clear and make it evident and make everybody aware of how much it is costing. when you deliver the subsidies through a public company with private shareholders, and executives who can extract a lot of subsidies for themselves, that is not a very good way of subsidizing homeownership. i think we have seen that, the end of that movie in 2008. >> tonight at 8:00. >> next weekend, had to the

state capital named in honor of thomas jefferson with booktv and american history tv in jefferson city, missouri. also, the provisions list from ancient mesopotamia to the university of missouri's special collection. sunday at 5:00, on american history tv -- >> at one time, a 1967, this was called the bloodiest acres in america. >> the historic missouri state penitentiary. walk back through history in the halls of the missouri state capitol and governors mansion.

next they can come up from jefferson city on c-span2 and 3. >> senate judiciary chairman called deceptive practices in federal elections evil. witnesses included civil-rights advocates disputed the idea of widespread voter fraud while charles grassley questioned the law's constitutionality. this is an hour and a half.

>> in december, i joined others to introduce the bill. in 2007, i joined in several letters -- similar legislation. it was supported by the justice department. i think we have to be doing all we can to protect people's access to the ballot box. the right to vote, to have your vote count, is the foundation -- is a foundational right because it secure is the effectiveness of the other protections. also, you have to be assured that everybody has the right to vote. a gives legitimacy to our government.

iraq -- i am from a state like vermont, where everybody knows everybody, we have never had any indications of a the suppression of voters. but that does not happen everywhere. access for people is ever more important in the aftermath of the citizens united decision by the supreme court. as result of that, corporations, rather than individuals, are wielding more and more influence over our electoral process. yesterday, without a hearing, the supreme court -- and on citizens united -- doubled down on the citizens united. even though the record is fairly clear that the reason the law had been passed was because of

the corrupting influence and the corruption occur in montana because the same corporate contributions. i think those in the courts have opened the floodgates to unaccountable corporate spending. hard-working americans -- >> just because they like to generalize, why can we elect general electric as president? that may not be too far-fetched. like montana, a vermont is a small state, we take our civic duties seriously.

i think the corporate money being spent around the country is a matter of concern, certainly in my state. the court dealt another severe blow to all americans. the country has come a long way in expanding the right to vote. i worry that we forget our history. we should never forget the areas we have overcome as a nation. we even have a member of the house of representatives that nearly died when he tried to vote during that time. he was saved at the last minute.

literacy taxes, grandfather clauses were commonplace. brave americans struggled long and hard to get rid of that. some did pay with their lives for the right to vote. i never want to see this country back track. recently, we have seen restricted voting laws. the recent action of florida's voter rolls is but one example. identification laws, others. since 2001, nearly 1000 voter i.d. is -- only in three states did not he a better idea lot and did not consider voter i.d. legislation last year. one of the states is my own state of vermont. we're seeing laws that make it severely harder for millions of eligible voters to cast ballots.

i am not talking about people who would have been ineligible. these include beyond the voters, african americans -- young voters, african-americans, the elderly. i will submit all of my statement to the record, but i remember the recall election in wisconsin. voters got a robocall. the 2010 midterm elections, it went out to democratic voters in maryland before the polls had closed saying that martin o'malley and president obama had been successful and there was no need to vote.

relax, everything is fine. this is orwellian. it could cost the governor o'malley and the people of maryland. 22 african-american neighborhoods in houston, texas. i think the need for a voter intimidation act is documented, real, and would prohibit any person from purposely misleading voters regarding the qualifications are restrictions. the bill offers new ways to enforce these provisions. it provides a tool for effective

oversight by requiring the attorney general to report to congress allegations of dissemination of false information within 180 days of an election. the first witness will be send your pardon -- senator carden. these are the things we've read about in in our history books. but to see it in recent times, it is evil and ron. -- wrong. >> mr. chairman, to paraphrase justice scalia, frequently, the bill raises a first amendment issue. the potential harm is understood only after careful study.

"but this wolf comes as a wolf." it 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, but maryland county executives complained about campaign literature and statements that were made supposedly by his opponent. he testified that he was " offended" that his opponent displayed signs with what he determined to be false statements. "we are not slaves to democrats ." it is fully protected by the first amendment. 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 attack the supreme court rulings that protect political speech. not that we hear that the same majority that claims to review the constitution plans a hearing this summer on a constitutional amendment that would repeal part of the first amendment protection of political speech. this should deeply trouble all americans. the bill is unconstitutional malady goes beyond this criminalizing "arguably fraudulent information." a's on soundness would create freezing a fact. how can anyone argue, how can anyone know in advance what is "arguably a fraudulent."

proponents of this bill seem not to understand the dangers of having the justice department to inject itself into prosecuting other politicians. again, quoting justice scalia from his same opinion, "nothing is so politically effect is the ability to charge that one's opponent and his associates are crooks, and nothing against the appearance of a lady to such charges as a the justice department investigation, and even better, a prosecution." 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. those claims will force your opponent to spend money on lawyers rather than against you. the press to report the claim of dirty tricks on the eve of the election. the victim will be unable to respond effectively to read -- refute claims. no one condones the violation of criminal law. 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 bills 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 for prosecuted. maryland's excellent -- successfully prosecuted. existing federal law is violated by prohibiting -- 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 is handed down, hopefully thursday. this bill is also notable for what it omits. voter delusion to allowing ineligible voters to vote is a serious constitutional violation. none of the proponents of this bill what to do anything about that. the obama administration first

denied florida access to its database of illegal aliens for nine months. and sued the state for trying to remove ineligible voters, supposedly, to close to the election. florida and other states should be able to use the data base to remove ineligible voters. if we want to go after deceptive statements in federal elections and existing laws, why doesn't this bill criminalize of voting by people illegally or use of the -- voter data base to make sure the registration rolls do not contain such people who are here illegally? why doesn't this bill criminalizes intentionally deceptive statements made by candidates themselves, such as whether or not they are native americans are whether they served in the military when they did not?

this bill is a potential pandora's box that threatens first amendment rights. thank you. >> use have seen firsthand what happened to me don't have the ability to stop these things. i would note that you have a great deal of experience in the maryland legislature and also in the united states senate, and as a former member of this committee. delighted to have you here. >> can i have a statement by senator sessions? >> we will keep the record open until the end of the day. >> thank you very much. it is a pleasure to return to the judiciary committee. i want to thank you and your committee for its leadership on these issues.

the constitutional subcommittee, holding hearings on what is happening at our states better disenfranchising voters and your continued leadership, i look forward to working with you. it looks like i have a little more work to do. we will continue 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. i was proud to be a co-sponsor with senator obama at the time. the bill was reported at of the judiciary committee and a similar bill was passed in the united states house of representatives by a voice vote. let me give a little bit of the history. it has been nearly a century and a half since congress and the states ratified the 15th amendment to the constitution.

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. it gives congress the power to enforce the article by appropriate legislation. african-americans suffer through a 100 years of discrimination at the hands of regulations designed to make it difficult, if not impossible, for african-americans to register to vote. it took congress and the state's nearly another century until we adopted the 24th the amendment of the constitution in 1964 which prohibited poll taxes or any tax on the right to vote. in 1965, congress enacted the voting rights act, which is supposed to prohibit discrimination against voters on the basis of race. it is time for congress to take action to stop the latest reprehensible practice is used

against african-americans, and other minorities, to interfere with their right to vote or the right to vote for the candidate of their choice. these tactics undermined and erode the very democracy and threaten the very integrity of our electoral system. mr. chairman, our record contains numerous examples of deceptive practices. i will not repeat them in detail. the hearing record contained examples, including listing the wrong day, intensely aimed at minority communities, telling republicans to vote on tuesday and democrats to vote on wednesday, warning of recent immigrants not to vote due to the possibility of deportation, warning voters with on paid tickets -- parking tickets not to vote. i woke up on the morning of the

election to see a piece of literature put out by my opponents who claim to be the democrat and endorsed by prominent african-americans, who had endorsed me. 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 on -- but there needs to be limits. i want to bring to your attention deceptive practice that happened since 2008. ohio residents reported receiving misleading automated calls, giving voters incorrect information about the location of their polling place. fliers were distributed in african-american neighborhoods in philadelphia warning that people would unpaid parking tickets could be arrested if they showed up at polls on election days.

students at some universities, including florida state, received text messages saying the election had been postponed for the day. in montgomery county, it issued two releases in correctly warning that students at virginia tech could no longer be claimed as dependents on their parents' tax returns or could this scholarships. -- lose scholarships. in the 2010 elections, at african-american neighborhoods in houston, texas, a group called a black democratic trust of texas distributed fliers that a straight ticket vote for democratic party would not count. as you pointed out, the 2010 elections in maryland where the automated calls were made by the republican candidate, but not identified that way, saying this

was a call from the democratic candidate for governor after barack obama, there is no need to vote because the election had been one. you are correct, that person was prosecuted under state law. prosecuted and the 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 is carefully timed. it gives the department of justice the tools they need to ensure the integrity of our election process and to make it clear the 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 are not. it is important for congress to act. i am proud that attorney

general holders supports this legislation. he believes that it is needed. i would urge the committee to consider this legislation. >> would you agree with me that a first amendment argument is not enough? if you could have deceptive statements protected by the first amendment, and somebody saw -- prescription drugs that had been totally proven to be unsafe, for example. somebody dies from it, they have a first amendment right to say that. >> the chairman is absolutely right. none of the rights of it -- are absolute. they're all out subject to reasonable interpretations.

their speech is not protected under the first amendment. >> thank you very much. i appreciate you being here. we miss you on this committee, but i am proud of your work on the other committees your eye. >> i would ask that my entire statement be made part of the record. >> the committee will hear testimony from -- election law attorney john part. -- john park. >> please come forward and -- i

think you are all on the right place. i apologize for the voice. the allergies or whatever is in the air in washington does not agreed with me as much as vermont. the director of the public policy department, where she focuses on a variety of social justice issues. she received her law degree from the university of texas law school. it is good to have you here. >> 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. the committee is engaged in enforcing the right to a vote of their litigation and advocacy to reach the support of practices and better intimidation. i want to thank you 43 introducing this bill that we have supported. i am happy to respond to any questions.

as previously stated, this is intentionally discriminating with false information with the purpose of influencing the outcome of an elections. as technology becomes this, and it reaches a wider audiences. i want to showcase a couple of ones that have already been mentioned. one here in texas. this does speak to the challenges that we face telling people when to vote, telling them the wrong information on a republican versus a democratic ticket. we have a another flier stating that due to a larger turnouts they must vote on december 5.

republicans and their supporters may vote on november 4. this is a deceptive practice. it is not protected speech. they have documented this type of rise in to such tactics throughout our leadership. this is the largest type of effort. it was out of these factors that we realized a need for such legislation. through our hot line, which is a way in which we received calls about the situation, we have already received calls from half a million people complaining about problems. this includes this that we have mentioned today. my colleague will speak further to the instances we encountered in wisconsin. recently, we will be

releasing a 2012 report on the practices. we do provide recommendations of how to move forward. we discuss insufficiencies of federal and state law. while we agree that there is proper enforcement of voting rights, the proper enforcement can provide this to many forms of intimidation. in particular, some point to section 11b of the voting rights. this section is commonly known as the anti-intimidation provision. it does not have the penalties that are usable for punishment. some states have laws protecting voters. those that have done so it is not clear what type of practices would be criminalize. because this current laws do

not uniformly address variations of these types of tactics, prosecutions are rare. insuring that misinformation is disseminated may often actually be the best remedy, especially when election day is near. it is also the corrective action that are important.ts it to mitigate the confusion experienced by voters as expressed by senator carden earlier. i would like to address the claims of massive voter fraud. actual voter fraud is extremely rare. often it is not intentional. there are international efforts to disenfranchise entire communities. they strongly support this bill. we urge the committee to move

forward in order to pass this law. as we come upon our 50th anniversary in 2013, we hope we will be celebrating the progress the nation has taken to protect the voting rights of all. time to act is now. we urge the committee to fulfil our country's democratic promises of 2011. thank you. every time i see my friend john lewis i cannot help but think that it was not that long ago that he was a young man marching for a right to vote and almost died because he wanted to exercise that right. our next witness is john parker

jr.. . he specialized in government affairs. he received his law degree from yale university. please go ahead. your whole statement will be made part of the record. >> is your microphone on? >> thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning. as i indicated i have concerns about this bill. it raises a serious constitutional question and it is under inclusive. it is not because i except or condone the practices. the first point out of like to make is before congress create new tools for the -- i would

like to make is before congress great new tools, we should make use of the once we have. they are generally underutilized and should be put to use before criminal penalties are created. we are talking about regulating political speech. we know that regulations [inaudible] the bill may have an opinion. it may make this on an unsettled grounds. it may chill the making of even one. it will do so within 90 days of an election. they frequently coincides. during this time anyone he wishes to speak will have to think about whether -- not

whether what they're saying is truthful but whether that statement could expose them to an action. we are talking about false statements. the courts will impose criminal penalties. we can not read anything to an oral arguments. it is going to be an interesting decision one way or another. what you propose to do is give the department of justice and lawyers new tools. when lawyers get tools they put them to use. frequently they try to pound round holes and two squarpegs ie

holes. what do we understand it to be? we also think about whether they should have known. we're going to back up. we are going to back up. somebody makes a statement. this is a statement made negligently. thee also likely to see if right of action is created to compete in tents and from intent to impute knowledge. this has an effect on the opposing campaign.

there are the candidates. deregulated their ability to make statements that were known to be false -- they regulated their ability to make statements that were known to be false. it could be deceiving or misleading to a reasonable person. while there was no private right of action, individuals would have the ads of their opposing candidates to make complaints. this saturdahad a negative affen

the campaign. you are talking about 90 days before an election. that is a sensitive time. that should lend to constitutional concerns. with respect to under inclusion, i noted that the senate does not address fraudulent registration or compromised absentee blots. i encourage the committee to address those. thank you for this opportunity pier. >> you identify testimony with concern in 2007. an article reported that five

years into the bush administration's crackdown, they turned it novidence an organized effort. i put that also in the record. they have received a law degree in masters of social work. as with all of the witnesses, this was a part of the record. please go ahead. >> i'm here to talk about the deceptive practices in a boating and how this bill provides pro- active means -- in voting and

how this bill provides pro- active means against it. it empowers citizens and ordinary people to make decisions. common cause including the election protection have received numerous complaints over the years in our state offices from colorado, wisconsin, pennsylvania. we have been responding to the kind of intimidation and misleading acts that are being discussed this morning. the voter suppression is nothing to be proud dead. there is a gap between rhetoric and reality that can not go unnoticed. what we're focused on today is a real threat to our efforts. they are deceiving voters to suppress turnout. the single most fundamental

right of all americans is to be counted in our democratic process. it is disheartening that today we're here to address a crisis where partisan operatives used lies and deceit to change election outcome. i am here to talk about some deceptive practices that have affected voters. the impact of spreading false of information is very real. there received a call from a voter to has been misused. we do everything in our power to access the correct information so they can vote. but we do not hear from every effective voter. on the eve of the president's election 2008, voters and a

latino community saying that their present had changed in incorrectiand gave the information. they call the media and held an impromptu conference. on election day, his office was inundated by calls from confused and angry voters who wondered how their precincts could have changed so suddenly. earlier this month voters have been discussed receiving robert shiller calls on election day giving them false information -- robocalls on election day giving them false information. they said you do not need to vote on tuesday.

they called immediate correction and let them know what their rights are in order to participate in the election. the time for federal reform is now carried many states do not have statutes -- is now. many states is not have statues that prevent this. the deceptive practices should be addressed formally. i just told you about the colorado clark's immediate corrective action in the wake of deceptive practices must take place as soon as reports come in. this legislation establishes the framework to do just that on or prior to election day. after the election it is simply too late. once enacted, the bill will be more comprehensive than

existing state laws. combating this requires immediate corrective action and a true assessment of the problem that' voters face each and every election. with this we can ensure that the voters have free enterprise. they intend to mislead voters about the process and prevent them from voting. it often goes unaddressed. perpetrators are never caught. it is time to do something about it here and now sell our elections really can be of and , by and for the people. i the for to the questions you may have. >> i appreciate you. i look forward to the question to my tab. >> i appreciate you.

have.may >> i appreciate you. in the son of a printer from vermont. -- inmber my president's the son of a printer from vermont. of a printer from vermont. i remember my parents talking about democracy. i watch that very carefully. let me ask you. you have had a lot of experience in this field. do you have any concern this legislation might have a chilling affect? >> the answer to your question

is no. we have put in place working with your offices of language that would ensure that this is not chilling political speech. it is tailored. the state has a compelling interest in order to protect this fundamental right to vote. by specifically putting an intent standard saying that a person has to prove that there is an intent to provide misleading and false of information and that they knowingly did so, provided there is a timeline by which this type of speech can be limited within a 90 day time frame, and insuring there is a limitation on the type of speech we're regulating which is this, that

is the type of tailoring that is necessary to conform the standards. >> one of the things i always look at is is it necessary? one of the arguments we're hearing against this legislation is that there are plenty of remedies currently available to protect voters from intimidation and deception. i think you would agree with that -- i assume you do not agree with that. >> i do not agree. we have been together eight report. instead of looking at the state laws that are currently in effect, i believe there are only about 10 states that actually have such practices on the books, they are not very

vigorous. not everyone is actually enforcing those laws in a way that is going to ensure that we're protecting people's rights when they do have these type of tactics and lies that are happening. maryland is an anomaly. we are happy there was proper enforcement that a place. that is not the case across the board. we need a uniform law to ensure that we do have this type of enforcement by the fed joke government. >> i looked at some of the letters in spanish targeting latino voters. they said it was a crime for immigrants to vote. i think of my grandparents were immigrants from italy. they were proud american

citizens. this letter did not point out that naturalized citizens but my parents and my grandparents or my wife's parents could vote just as any of the rest of us. is this just one rare example tax do you have others? >> it is not a rare example. we have experienced that in other states as well. we have experienced those in arizona as well. they tell people they would be criminalize or sent to driljailf they have a traffic ticket, that they are in eligible. it is particularly this

discouraging, particularly when we know they're being targeted to certain demographics. the flyer that you spoke about was talking to immigrants. unless i know my history lesson drawn, i believe everyone is an immigrant except for the native american population. i was for a year by slavery so i may not be an immigrant. whatever. it may not be something we need to allow to continue in this country. this is in fact an attempt to undermine a core value that we had, which is the right to vote. >> i have other questions. i have a couple of questions for the record. senator grassley? >> thank you. thanks to all the witnesses. withhave a practice an

political candidates. most of the witnesses today only see positive results that could come from the right of actions. could you describe some in the negative affects a private right of actions and practice under the constitution with a deceptive statements in the context of political campaigning? >> going back to my experience with the alabama judicial inquiry commission, when it the effect of bringing charges against eight candidates -- one of the effect of bringing charges against a candidate judge was the further service. they brought charges against one of the candidates for chief justice in a campaign with respect to certain candidate statements made in advertisements. that affected the court's business and affected his

ability to do his job. as it turned out, the cannons were substantially unconstitutional. it was within the scope of the first amendment. moving to this bill, you are empowering people to file lawsuits to seek to stop speech with which they disagree. that speech may or may not be knowingly false. the lawsuit is available for them to do that. that will have a chilling affect on them. it would give them a tool to nod off opposing campaigns. i think congress should hesitate before it creates this private right of action. >> your testimony mentions many of the practices in the bill seeks to prevent what are already violations of criminal law. one of the few that is not is

endorsement provisions. could you outline how federal law already criminalizes many intimidation practices that have been offered to supposedly justified the log? >> there are several statutes. for section 11b of the voting civil. acts w hichich is in new hampshire the successful prosecution was brought in. in maryland i believe it is under state law. if the department of justice is not want to use the existing remedies that should explain why it has not used in today. >> the bill would prohibit claims that a candidate or

party has endorsed a candidates that has not. can you explain problems with that provision? >> a claim that someone has endorsed a candidate is not always easy to determine whether that is in fact true. endorsements are sometimes subtle. can you endorse by presence? can you claim the support of someone with whom you have spoken privately? the bill would give somebody a tool to say "you are not in fact endorsed by that other person whose support you claim." you are entitled to make truthful statements. you would have to defend the truthfulness of the statement made.

one of the witnesses favors the bill because it favors on "unprotected speech"and would prohibit "the dispersal of arguable fraudulent speech." is arguable fraudulent speech under the first amendment? >> i do not think so. the court seems to disagree with the notion that there is no -- the first amendment does not prohibit all statements that are false much less statements that are arguably fall. >> could you describe theh chilling effect this would create? >> someone who wishes to speak

about any of the subject such in the bill and there are things that you can say that are truthful. some people cannot vote. some non-citizens are entitled to not vote. you have to consider whether your expression of opinion with respect to an unsettled question or simple truth speech with which and upon it may disagree could bring you a lawsuit. you have to weigh the value of that speech. he are making that speech against the possibility that you will be sued. that effect is one to which the supreme court has repeatedly pointed to. >> thank you. i'm going to submit to the record support for the bill for the naacp.

i have to go to the floor. i yield to senator whitehouse. thank you all for being here. we will c hhat more. >> thank you. i wonder if i can ask any of the witnesses to speak for a moment about the procedure known as "voter caging" in the history of that kind of activity and the extent to which this would be addressed by the measure you are describing. >> you can go. >> voter caging is another type

of deceptive intimidation tactic that also has been occurring. >> describe it for us. >> it is essentially a term that is used in marketing. essentially, it is when people or organizations attempt to send materials or documentation to verify people's residency. in fact, information is sent back. and they areir figverified challenged at the voting booth as not being eligible to vote. this is something that has been on the rise that we have encountered their election protection, particularly in the last federal elections, especially in 2008. we encountered a lot of voter caging that was occurring in

michigan and ohio, it challenges that were happening because of the foreclosure crisis. it is sad because we know we are in such a stark economic situation. we are getting better. people are still having challenges in the housing industry. therefore, people are taking advantage and claiming that simply because a person or a family may be initiating a foreclosure proceeding that they fotherefore they are not eligib. that is further from the truth. >> it also signifies that there is student away from school or a soldier. >> exactly. >> it could be any number of reasons. the reason this is pernicious is because of political organizations do it targeting

specific neighborhoods in order to challenge the vote. they choose neighborhoods associated with strong votes for the opposing party. >> that is correct. >> would this bear on the voter caging problem? >> this particular bill? >> yes. >> it would address on some level the challenges to intimidating registration. it does not address as much as we need to be voter caging. that is one area we support other type of legislation that you have introduced. we have supported it in the past. but i wanted to be clear that this does not displease my legislation. quite as it does not. my>> this pldisplace

legislation. >> it does not. >> 0 wanted to see if he would respond to the assertion that federal lot is sufficient as it now exists and to cover much or more of the economy? >> mr. park indicated that it does not criminalize or actually addressed the tactics. neither do other federal statutes. they deal with intimidation. they have not been utilized in the manner that is necessary to get the specific issues regarding flyers. >> is the law an adequate? >> it is inadequate. it is both inadequate and it has not been utilized in order to prosecute these types of claims. the department of justice indicated that this is why they

support this type of legislation. it would enable them to be very directed. >> with regard to state law, any time i look at expanding our existing body of federal law by instinctively tends to ask the question is state law adequate, especially if we are talking about a criminal provision. when you refer to the fact that the state law is not covering it, is it because state laws inadequate?are an adequa >> for the most part they are inadequate. there are not tend dissected bills. there are a number that have types of either fraud or statute in place that could be utilized to prosecute deceptive practices.

they are not being utilized in that manner. there are only a couple that actually have practices on the books. they still are not clear in the definition of what types of practices would be on the bill. it is not requiring the action. >> do you believe if they were to adopt those, is your position that states should be focused on federal elections t? >> you are asking if the states to everything? >> if you had states adopting more robust legislation would

still prefer to have legislation on the books to cover the election involving federal offices? >> yes. we are working on both to try to work in the state to provide more robust statutes in the state legislature but we also believe if necessary on the federal level to have a more uniform requirement. additionally, it is not always the case that they will prosecute. this is something we do rely upon the federal government to do, especially when you have targeted communities, particularly communities of color that may not otherwise be protected by the state and local authorities. >> to do care to respond to the comments regarding the private

right of action -- do you care to respond to the comments regarding the private right of action? >> it is a necessary vehicle in order to protect and ensure that people try to protect it. i think any lot could be of use. it is the justifiable to say that because there's potential for abuse that you should not enact a law or provide a provision that could be so effective in protecting a fundamental right. >> i understand that. you would agree with the fact that we have to look at each bill and try to figure out whether we would be creating as many or more problems as we are solving. >> sure. that is a legitimate question to ask. in this regard, we do not feel that we would be creating more harm than good. in fact, it would be the

complete opposite. we would really be providing a vehicle to deter and stop some of these deceptive tactics. but i see. but time has expired. thank you so much. -- >> i see. my time has a. . thank you so much. >> it is despicable what some people do. to say that the first amendment protect anything but threats does not make any sense whatsoever. no amendment is absolutel. we have anti-pornography laws. i take each support some of these things. do you support anti-

pornography laws? >> ps. yes. >> the first amendment is clearly not absolute. we know that. i believe that of all the amendments. balancing is very important. it is easy to be an absolutist. it is wrong. life is shades of gray in about every area. there are always balancing tasks. some of these practices are just despicable, sending unofficial but looks official letterhead. the date of voting has changed to democrats and republicans. people like this really belong to jail. they are really violating the fabric of our democracy. i just fine and despicable.

one of the things we are -- i just find them despicable. one of the things we are seeing is that people have found ways to interfere with democracy that no one would support. there is a movement to suppress a voting. other groups have done this. there is a 15th amendment. there is a first amendment. my question to mr. park is, you would agree that a specific threats is a verbal. if you vote, i will shoot you. it could be prohibited federal aid. -- federally.

>> i think it could be prohibited under existing law. >> maybe it could. let's say some state does not have that specific situation. i am asking you could the 15th amendment trump be first amendment? it is just speech but speech we have always prohibited in that instance. >> assuming that there was either federal or state law i think you could criminalize that. >> the question is it is not direct. why is this protected? why did not the 15th amendment trump that type of activity as

well decks of a like to hear that from me. -- as well? i would like to hear that from you. >> it has the same effect of prohibiting people from voting, giving them not to vote. there are stringent requirements. >> i understand that. >> it is underutilized. it already provides the possibility of deterring and punishing it. what i understand that. my question to you is whether this law is unconstitutional or violations of the first amendment. you are arguing that it is. >> my argument is that it raises serious constitutional concerns. it may chill protected speech.

we do not know what the supreme court is going to do in the alvarez case. it will speak one way or another and they provide substantial guidance on the ability of congress to punish speech that is not truthful. >> we are not disputing that it was not truthful or dumb maliciously. we're not disputing that the intense -- done maliciously. we're not disputing that the intent was malicious. we are wondering if it would be constitutionally protected. it is not a real distinction. it is not a difference that makes a a difference as my professors used to say. >> this is an important

discussion. let's remember what we are talking about. we're talking about lying. we are talking about intentionally lying to deceive and eligible voter from participating in an election. it is a right to access our democracy. i do not think that this can or should be protected. as you said you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. >> mostly. >> there are limitations. that is the point. false information, lies about our right to vote cannot be protected. we have to do something about it. what is important is doing something about it by requiring this corrective actions of that we have an immediate response and by gathering more information through the reporting requirements. we have been researching and talking with voters through the

year. we need to create a congressional record. >> i would just simply agree with what mrs. flanagan has stated. we believe this is not protected speech. this cannot go unaccounted for or an address. it is particularly pernicious. we are targeting these vulnerable communities. i do not know that there is much else to say other than this has to be addressed. we're talking about protecting the fundamental rights. if we simply state that in order to provide and that we cannot provide this protection because we are worried that summer down the line there may be potential that it may be chilled is

unacceptable. there are limitations on speech. this is false speech. this is false claims. this is a misrepresentation. misinformation. even without alvarez coming in the near future, that case does provide some guidance as to what we're talking about within this bill. we provide that there has to be an intense. the information has to be shown to be materially false. knowingly. that bill is within the guidelines of what we're talking about in alvarez either way those. we do believe this is something that we can look forward with. it would not only protect them but not chill political speech. >> thank you.

we drafted it very carefully. he can always make the arguments against any intentional tort or criminal law with intent. well, you will chill something because some people might do something carelessly. that is why we have intent. if you do not believe intent were, you have to throw out 20's arm of the laws in this country. i think it is such reviews -- 20% of the laws in this country. i think it's a subterfuge. they hide behind an example that would not fit under the intention cause. >> if i could add another briefly. i want to be very clear. the committee has always supported the rights of its freedfreedom of speech. this is not about one amendment over another. we are here because we believe the importance of enforcing all

of these rights. this right is fundamental to the right to vote. >> thank you. i'm going to call on senator coons. i am proud to be a partner in this. >> thank you. i want to thank you for your testimony. i have been presiding for the last hour, and hence my late arrival. i thank you for the great work you have done. i want to thank you for the work you have done with the right to voters as well as to ensure section 5 of the voting rights act. this has resulted in hundreds of thousands of citizens. you made some efforts to recent voter suppression and disturbing ways. i am interested in ways that new

media has been used to suppress voter [inaudible] talk more about the trends and what we should be doing. >> i am happy to. we have addressed some of these issues in our report that we will be releasing. with the new technology, facebook, twitter, something i know very little about, text messaging is going out across the country. we have noticed it is again students, those who are utilizing this type of technology. on the internet we have seen this iraq college campuses giving them false information. because there is an ability to reach these audiences. it is particularly distressing. it is much more difficult to try

to stop some of these types of tactics. we do not have lost that are in place. they are really targeting those communities that are utilizing these types of media. i mentioned facebook and t witter account. we have taken the action to make sure we are doing our best to give the right information of we're finding out about this third election protection enter a new application coming out on smart phones to make sure we have the ability to get information to those who have this. this is something we have encountered. we are trying to address this as best as possible. >> the good old fashioned practices of voter suppression leaflets -- rs or

>> has continued a modern age. it is doubt through the internet and other types of social media. -- it is now through the internet and other types of social media. >> have there been other examples? >> i cannot pull them out through memory. i believe there are other examples. that is just one of them that we wanted particularly to eliminate. weill say that ti think mentioned this. correct information was sent out to make sure they get the right information. that is in the we want to encourage. it is not guaranteed. that is why we have this type of legislation, to mandate that corrective action. >> i understand there has been more aggressive and use of challenges.

they are targeted at raising concerns. can you speak more about that? >> absolutely. there have been tactics across the countries. the deceptive tactic is one of them. we have seen other types of intimidation tactics. people being challenged at the is distressing. targeted at places of color and democratic communities, students. -- immigrant communities, students. they said they would send a million people across the country to be challengers. to specifically challenged people at the polling place as they are beginning to exercise this. what it does is it put in place

of restrictions that a voter will have to jump through in order to vote. under many state laws you have to provide additional state identification once you have been challenged. we do have the help america boat act that does allow people if they do not have the necessary at a vacation allowed to vote -- that indication they are allowed to vote by provisional ballot but it is not guaranteed. these challenges are to create this type of confusion. people are not aware of the types of information they're going to need to have. it traces confusion at the polling place. -- a causes confusion at the polling place. many thought they would have a counted and they no longer are.

this is a very distinct form of a voter suppression. >> the help america vote for a provisional balance, the argument for why that is legitimate are necessary, allegations of widespread fraud. how many boater impersonation fraud are there? is this taxpreaproblem ?u >> it is not massive. it is not widespread. senator schumer indicated even during the bush and ministration they conducted their own investigation over a time frame of five years. they did not find any type of

massive voter impersonation from taking place. what they found was that many people might have had multiple registrations only because they moved or it was unintentional or there were administrative errors that were encountered by election officials. this was not an attempt of immigrants and those who were ineligible to vote to try to commit voter fraud. it is not reasonable considering that anyone if they are undocumented could go to the polling place to subject yourself to potentially be deported. >> thank you for your testimony. we need to be vigorous.

they want to strike very few boater impression fraud. those that can votes are registered to vote. the holders of out to the rest of the world. it ensures everyone has a right will exercise that franchise. thank you for holding the hearing open for a few moments that i could join. >> thank you. it was worth a given your questions. legislation applies no matter who is targeted. and you do this.

i want to thank our witnesses. this goes to the wellspring of our democracy. a thank you. the hearing is adjourned. thank you. y the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> tomorrow, we look at the implications of a recent supreme court decision taking down a ban on corporate money on local elections. christopher wilson discusses the

recent presidential elections in mexico and what it means for the u.s. al jazeera correspondent talks about how the english language news network covers american news in the u.s. and around the world. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern and sees them. >> sopa and pipa are dead. that is pretty clear that the effort undertaken ran into a lot of controversy, a lot of miscommunication. i think those bills are not coming back again this year or any year for that matter. >> prospects for anti-piracy legislation in the next congress and other telecommunications issues, meant a night at 8:00 eastern on c-span