pp on voter rights. we head towards november's presidential election. the latest poll results at you'll hear from peter hart and neil newhouse. this is just under an hour. >> we certainly live in interesting times. the economy, the election, the reform, and the fundamental role of government are all dominating our national stage as we head into november. this morning, we will hear from two respected veteran pollsters to share their insights into what americans think about our country now, how it is change, and what it means for all of us as we head into 2012 elections and beyond.

because i have such important things to say, we're going to keep them an extra 15 minutes. do not rush out to your committee sessions. they will all be starting 15 minutes later. peter hart is one of the leading analysts in the u.s. since 1971, he has been chairman at research associates. the national journal added him to their list of national leaders who helped shape government policy, and characterizing him as probably the foremost washington pollster of the democratic party and the centrist candidate. neil newhouse is a co-founder of public opinion strategies. he is the leading republican -- you were still leading republican polling company in the country.

he wasn't pollster of the year -- political consultants 0 he was named pollster of the year by political consultants. he is working to get mitt romney in the white house. please welcome peter hart and neil newhouse. [applause] ♪ >> good morning. i am peter hart and i am delighted to be here with neil. we both agree it is unfair that we have to borrow her.

we will be talking about the 20 took the election and doing back-and-forth. last night, i had an operation. i will tell you, i saw three pen front of the pearly gates. it was newt gingrinch and neil newhouse. neil looked at the two, a little uncertain. newt gingrinch, a door number one. he goes behind door number one. there is a barking dog, sitting there and growling and barking. a voice comes over the loudspeaker and says, newt gingrinch, you have sinned.

he will spend all of your life with this growling dog. a voice comes over the loudspeaker and says, door number two. what does he see? cyclops, slobbering and the ruldrooling. senator, you have sinned. he will spend the rest of your days with the cyclops. neil is looking a little uncertain at this moment. neil newhouse, door number three. he opens the door and there is penelope cruz. the voice comes over the speaker and says, penelope cruz, you have sinned.

[laughter] [applause] oh, man, it is great to be with neil even though he is working with mitt romney. what i thought i would do is talk about where we are in america and what is happening. i do the nbc poll. i have been doing it for 23 years. neil and i have a great honor of doing it four years ago. let me go into the slight. let me begin with where we are in terms of the nation. elections are about the mood and where we are and what it is about. the first thing that you need to know is how the country feels about it self.

essentially, only 30% of americans believe things are heading in the right direction. 60% say we are on the wrong track. as an incumbent, that sets the tone. the tone for president obama will be a challenging tone. it will be more challenging by the fact that america's optimism about where we are economically indeed says this is a country full of challenges. i will talk about thethat more later. there is a change of where we are in the world. it has to do -- our trust in institutions has dropped dramatically. it used to be we trusted most institutions. today, outside of our military and outside fire man, policemen, those kinds of things, our test

has dropped. it is not make any difference whether it is the media or congress of the state legislatures, everything in the financial fields were down to 9% in the area of confidence. the other thing that is important to understand is our sense of where we are in the world. all of these things have changed. we asked this question about 17 years ago. looking a generation ahead, which country do you think will be the leading economic power? 54% said the u.s.. 2% said china. today, it is 40% saying each of them. the change of our security of where we are at is tremendous. finally, we asked the question -- how many of you are better off than your parents were? hand sup.

up.ands how many of you believe your children will be better off than you are? in any respect, that sense that we will not be handed up the concorde for the first time in 13 generations gives you a sense that if you are an incumbent and your an incumbent president of the united states, these are hard times to run in. the second thing to understand -- we have everything working except their remote. chance we could move to the next screen? there we go. economic competence. they do and economic confidence question.

thank you. we have done it over the course of the last 55 years. essentially, when a president is above 85 in terms of confidence -- we're not talking about 85% -- of their chances of re- election are excellent. when it is below 85, it means that we are still reassessing times that are difficult. if you could switch, you can see the difficulty facing jimmy carter. next slide please. take a look at ronald reagan. he was above 85 the whole way. he won re-election easily. look at bush 41. on at the end did he get to 85 too late in the campaign. what happened after that in the next campaign, look at bill clinton -- next chart please.

thank you. he went above the line in 1992 and 1996. he won re-election easily. look at bush 43. he won a narrow election, but economic confidence was up. here is what barack obama faces in 2012. those numbers are well below 85. they are at 73 right now. will confidence built in the next four months? will it be enough? will it help? we talk about that, i am asking you to look at the macro and not the michael situation in terms of where we are as a country -- micro situation in terms of where we are as a country. let the talk about what you all know about. this is the campaign that we have and what is out there. if the american public has a letter and -- lever and they

could pull that lever to get rid of a member of congress, 54% said they would pull it. both obama and romney are running a negative campaign or neither, 75% said that if the least 1 candidate was running a negative campaign. 34% say both of them. this is what the american people are saying, feeling, and reacting to. neil has tremendous stats. next slide please. when we asked them in an open

ending question -- by the way, a every time i mention nbc poll -- the bigger the words, the more deeply said. "fix the economy." "focus on important issues." "be honest." "smaller government." the public is calling for someone to give them a sense of where we can go from all of this. all we have is a lot of slimed going back and forth. that is republican and democrat and it is exactly the opposite of what the american public wants. let me talk about where we are. next slide please.

in our latest nbc journal poll, the interesting thing is what counts are the subgroups. the president has a huge advantage with women. he is losing the male folks slightly. the midwest is absolutely key. it could be wisconsin or ohio or missouri. we have the president ahead. independent is a critical block. romney is ahead. if i can look at one group and what is going to happen, it is a women for obama.

this election has a long way to run. anyone who tells you we know how it will turn out, do not believe them. the fact of the matter is, everything that we know about the elections, everything says it is going to be excessively close. it will come down to the wire. all of these things say where we are. next slide, please. it tells us about america. this election is not about the country as a whole. it is about 12 states. in fact, if you look at whether it is illinois or georgia, and neither of those states count. one is a red and one is blue. you go in 38 states and know how exactly it will turn out. it is the swing states that make the difference. if you look at the states, in every element we can see, essentially obama is doing better in the swing states ann

romney is at this stage of the game. -- than romney at this stage of the game. in terms of how obama is handling the economy, romney is doing better in those states. they have made their cases in the swing states. that is it is. next slide, please. elections are about one thing -- voters. voters that decide to go to the polls account. the measurement that we used four years ago is the one that we use today. how much enthusiasm and interest do you have? if you are a nine or a tent on the scale, and we know that he will turn out. -- ten on the scale, we know that you will turn out.

at this stage in the game, the republicans have a six. advantage, 74-68. that is a huge turnaround one way or another. for democrats, the question of two groups -- will they turn out? first, will people under the age of 30 father to turn out? at this stage, there at 5-0 in interest. you could turn off the lights in any number of states whether it be colorado or nevada or virginia or any of those states. the democrats are down in terms of in tuesday as them. next slide.

-- enthusiasm. next slide. it is a vote that comes from a feeling. we asked people in their own words of what they think of a barack obama. a lot of human qualities come out. "for the people." "honest." "good job." "health reform." he has a very rounded out profile and one that is positive. on the negative side of things, the economy is overwhelming. then you get the sense of disappointment in terms of incompetent, too much spending, obamacare, liberal socialist.

the complaints are all on the professional side. a lot of the good parts are the personal side. next slide. i do a lot of focus groups. i care about focus groups because it is a great way to find out what people are thinking. one of the questions i love to ask people is something that relates to their lives in a personal way. let us take these three candidates. let's suppose they were in the fifth grade. what do you think it would have been like as fifth graders? i put of various types of people. push the next button, please. i have the nerd, the respected, the loner, the teacher's pat, the bully, the storm athlete, the know it all.

i asked who they thought it gingrich would be. push the button. "know it all." who was mitt romney? "rich privilege kid." for obama, "teacher's pet." let us suppose you can go to the ball game with either barack obama or mitt romney. 9 out of 12 said obama. why? he would be fun. with mitty'd go romney. why? he has the limo, he would buy

the beer, the hot dogs, and the soda. at the end of the day, it really comes down to how i look at the people and how i feel about them. this is a challenge facing mitt romney. he is in his own way is only known on religion, occupation, and they know his wealth. there is no personal element to him. he is a businessman. he is a conservative. he represents a change. some people say he will fix the economy or against obamacare. go to the negative side. next slide. all of these things give you a sense of where people are coming from.

favors the rich, bad policy, women issues, flip slapper, a big business, untrustworthy. there is this sense that he has not figured out how to make that connection on the personal level. next slide. where it all leads to - essentially on the personal level when we asked for a comparison on easygoing and cares about people on and compassionate, huge obama lead. when it comes to the professional elements, you would expect obama to have an advantage. he has a major advantage in foreign policy. the same with a slight advantage in terms of knowledgeable and commander in chief. turn to the other side. when it comes to the question of improving the economy are

changing business, indeed romney has the advantage. you get the dynamics that this election and where it is coming from. what i would tell you if we could flip to the next slide -- esseially i simply say to you, look, or the past 30 days, this is the person who has made more self inflicted errors then you can imagine. his inability to release his taxes, his wealth, the olympics, bain, all of those things. we have 90 more days to go. a lot is out there. i want to conclude was something i feel very strongly and personal about.

it is a series feeling about where we are in the country. 10 days ago, like you who is watching the olympics spectacular opening ceremony. watching that athletes walking around the track was a feeling that all americans -- the joy, that humanity, and the pride in the positive energy that those ceremonies gave us. i returned and i looked to juxtapose it to the presidential campaign. all of that adds, the super pacs, the candidates, essentially it is anything but the most important and powerful office in the world. of the olympics lifted our spirits, expectations, and possibilities. the campaign is only the

opposite. each of us, every citizen must take personal responsibility the campaigns are run in our name which we were or can contribute to. 2012 is going to be the most expensive campaign and the most negative campaign in the history of mankind. we look at this series issues that senator durban raised and the headlines from spain to greece and afghanistan. the strife abroad and at home is more significant and more important than the campaign the american people are receiving. with the help of pollsters, you, and the politicians have figured out how to win and election. now the key is really to figure out how to knit a nation together and find a compromise

and solve our major domestic issues right in front of us. to me, that is a message of 2012. thank you. [applause] >> let's might start with a story -- let me start with a story in the definition of a pollster. i live in virginia, but from kansas are originally. alexandria, virginia is the capital of political consultants. my wife is a reformed political operative and a stay at home mom.

jargonized a meeting one day. she is introducing herself -- she held a meeting monday. she was introducing herself around. so when astor, what does your husband do? he is a pollster. she paused for a second before asking, how nice. you must get chairs for free. people seem to think you need to be short and balding to be a pollster these days. i will go through some of our data. i went to make sure that i did not replicate anything that peter was doing. i want to touch on -- next

slide. this is off the record. [laughter] as i left the boston yesterday, we're talking. next slide. the nominee will be -- next slide. one of these four people. it could be one of these four. or it could be one of these three.

all on the list. i am not sure to break any news, unfortunately. the vp will be one of those names. here is what is important -- voters do not know mitt romney very well. once he gets to the convention, it will be a balance -- he will balance. if you look at these numbers, usually an incumbent gets a 7 point balance in terms of boating preference. the good news for us is that the challenger gets more because voters did not know the challenger very well. more important for governor

romney is that it is the image of the challenger that really changes the convention. the challenger goes to the convention at an average of a favorable or unfavorable score. what you are seeing right now at the polls is what will happen in november -- you could not be more wrong. it is august. they will take another look at these candidates. that will happen pretty soon. second, obama's challenge in this election is his record. he started off his campaign with positive advertising and gave

that up and started running negative ads against romney. i do not think you can move numbers in a presidential race using positive advertising, especially if you are the incumbent president. look of the job numbers. voters have come to the decision about president obama. but voters are undecided about health, but they want a change. what they are undecided about is mitt romney. that is why barack obama is attacking romney. just as peter had his favorite questions and focus groups, i have mine. here are the questions we asked

-- if you could describe barack obama as an animal, what would he be? jeb bush still gives me trouble for the focus groups we did for him. this is an interesting exercise. here is what voters had to say. first, he is a deer in the headlights. he does not say much. he is confused. he is a lack of a creature, but he makes you wonder what is there -- likable creature, but he makes you wonder what is there. he is a turtle, slow movement.

he is an, he has delivered nothing -- ass, he has not delivered nothing. that resentment -- finally, a butterfly. what this indicates is a real disappointment with president obama. they voted for real change in 2008 and they did not get it. they are still hopeful, but they did not get the change there looking for. there is the sense that they voted for a transformation leader in barack obama, and what they have now is a politician that is really no different. it is buyer's remorse.

iowa feel like they put him in office over hillary clinton because of the caucuses. there is even more buyer's remorse. ronald reagan ran across the jimmy carter in 1980. what he asked was, are you better off than four years ago that? the question we should be asked now is, did not expect to be better off now? do not expect things would be different and better now? it plays on the expectations and the concern of the disappointment that americans feel. if this was a basketball

bracket, 47% is a precarious position. as you know, this is an election in iowa, north carolina, ohio -- the job approval numbers are under water. here is the key. it is not where he is in terms of -- two things -- it is where he is in the intensity of his approval. that drives turned out against him. look at these numbers from a year ago.

president obama is much worse off a year ago that he is now. bit momentume has a little even though these numbers are pretty negative. the other part is the challenges that obama has is that you cannot think of many ads that he has run talking about how great economy is doing even though he has alluded to it a couple of times by saying the private sector is doing fine. he cannot run the economy. if he told americans we have turned the corner, who would believe him? there is a sense of frustration with that debt. he does not have the policies to turn the country around. americans are less optimistic about this than there were a few months ago. he is trying to make this a contest in himself -- contrast

the chin himself and romney. cbs times a couple of weeks ago. americans were asked if barack obama is reelected, d a think his policies will improve your own financial situation, -- do you think his policies will improve your own financial situation? if mitt romney iit is almost asf they are saying, i like this guy. i respect him. the first african american president. you have to respect his accomplishments, but his policies have failed. it is not that he has failed, but his policies are not making anything better. he has run out of ideas. for others, it is like he has thrown in the towel.

that is the frustration that they feel. that is his talent. our challenge is a significant one. for romney, it is more about definition, who he is. 20% of americans say they need to know him. 9% of americans are undecided in this race right now. another 3% and 4% say he can change their mind. they are open to persuasion. voters want to know more about running. when you look at these numbers, the most important problem facing the country 57% say it is the economy and jobs. which candidate can do better, mitt romney by 10 points. on taxes by 4. are we leading? no.

barack obama is likable and trustworthy. likability does not put jobs in ohio. likability will not help a family balance their over all budget. but there is a sense that obama relates more to average people. that is the challenge that we face in the campaign. the fourth thing you need to know, if you live in carolina, florida, the target states, you know this. this is campaign spending like you have never seen before. this'll be a level that is unprecedented. let me show you a few statistics. first of all, the estimated broadcast advertising for the presidential campaign, presidential want $1 billion. cable ad, $200 million.

if you live in texas, you will not see a single ad. if you live in ohio, good luck to you. this amount of money spent so far. $455 million in ohio. 64 million in florida. 91 million in the florida. 167 ads per day in cleveland. they are being pounded by advertising, day and night. if you think you're getting more of it and have before, the reason is because you are. there is more spent in july 2012 charlotte, north carolina then in october 2008.

this is unprecedented. i think it will get worse. finally, make sure you understand there is a path to victory in electoral college. first of all, romney will start with the mccain states. he starts where he left off. there are simply states out there that we will not be competitive in. we will lose those states. it comes down to 14 different states where the election will play out. there is one road map, one path that is easy to explain. it is called the 3-2-1 plan. indiana is less competitive.

no one is on air in the presidential campaign. north carolina, we have a narrow lead. virginia is ground zero in the upcoming election. virginia, ohio, and florida. ohio and florida are the next two states. again, that are on the bubble in terms of how competitive their states will be. if you look at nothing else, if when candidate went ohio or florida and virginia, that would raise the boat. if you win all three of those, the campaign is over. everything from iowa to wisconsin, etc.. my favorite one is ohio because remorse. buyer's there are reluctant to reelect a guy.

that is one plan to get to 3-2- 1. it is an easy way to explain the states that will be key. here are a couple of key takeaways. first, but we capture in our purpose groups is debt. i thought the economy would be different. i thought it would be better. i thought we would be further along. many americans have doubts whether obama can do the job. second, it is not which candidate can fix the economy over all, but which candidate can fix my economy. who will help me balance my budget? it is the sense that running cares about middle class americans that will really

resonate. romney cares about middle class americans that will really resonate. it is that better or worse in electing someone new. when people go to the polls, and they will be asking themselves that question. finally, can i vote already? if you are in the target states, americans want the election to happen immediately. they want to stop the negative ads. we can play this out. the debates will be important. the conventions will be important. advertising may still be negative, but the issue will be debated. that will be worth it.

those of four questions voters will have at the end. before we open it up to questions, i have this baseball signed, "to peter hart. this is not from barack obama. from mitt romney." [laughter] [applause] it says i throw a good curveball. [laughter] >> thank you. we have some questions on the screen in front of us. we will tackle the is and go from there. what is the most sought after group in election?

white, suburban women who are independent are key in this election. both campaigns are fighting like crazy for them. and a northern virginia, ohio, but it is white, suburban women. >> i totalyl agree. -- i totally agree. they will look up the social and cultural policies other republicans. it agreement -- brings them back to the democratic side. they care about that education and environmental issues. the democrats have that in with

them. >> if you take a look, we have done a lot of research for wal- mart moms. it is all online and available. if you can understand how these women talk about issues, it goes a long way from how you talk about issues. it is enlightening staff. when these women top of the upcoming election, did not talk about in terms of themselves, but their kids. they are trying to make life better for their children. one woman in one of the focus group started donating blood on a regular basis in order to help make ends meet for their family. go on line and look for those focus groups and the wal-mart moms. >> next thing we were asked and we heard a lot about was a political gridlock.

will the public send a message? one of the things we have done in the nbc wall street journal poll is that we get as many votes for a third-party candidate at this stage of the perot. rosross everything in the numbers i have talked about is that the american public is one match away from revolution. if you do not believe how upset and disgusted the american public is, you are not listening. we go to focus groups. we talk to people.

every single element says to them, i cannot stand with you are doing. i cannot stand the way that you are doing it. given all of that, i have to tell you that see this frustration. will it generate itself in 2012 with 90 days to go? i do not believe it will, but i do believe that -- think of all the work -- i think the potential for an independent, third party, something that breaks the mold is there. we are in a transitional age and transformational page at this stage of the game. if you think the arab spring is over there and no place else, it takes so little today to be able to organize. all i can tell you is we

understand and see where the public is is at. >> he went through the political environment stuff earlier on. putting it into some context, this is the longest time of sustained pessimism since we started pullinollinh. -- polling. many say america is on the wrong track. there could be another change in election this fall. america is saying that they will keep voting people out until they get it right. >> it is interesting. it was lovely for neil to give me this ball.

it is unbelievable. from my point of view looking at it as an analyst, rob makes a lot of sense. the double down in budget areas. this is a person who has been the standard for the democrats. he will be good in the debate. he is smart. he knows everything. the one thing that i will tell neil as he put down his 11 different people, the one thing we know is that one person choice on one day. bob jeter, our good friend and former republican pollster, knew it was going to be john danford. in the end, it turned around and

it was dan quayle. whatever you know, whatever you think, mitt romney, one ch oice, one time. >> keep in mind, our predictions are good for today only. we have 90 days to go. this'll be an extraordinary election cycle. i agree with peter in the type of issues that will be debated. this'll be a big election over big issues and not little issues. americans will be decided which candidate they feel can better address the future of the economy and bring the economy back along. the next 90 days will be exciting. would you rather have the election next week or 90 days from now? i am loving every day it.

i am anxious to see what will happen 90 days from now. i do not want to rush it. i think the debate will be educational for america. it will shine a light on these two candidate. americans will make the right choice. >> i want to congratulate you on csl. i did a focus group yesterday and neil will do one with several republicans. the seriousness of what you come to these proceedings and the convention is impressive. it is that which the american public would love to be able to see. i congratulate you. we will be back for a fifth time. they told us until we get it right, they will continue to have us back. thank you. >> thank you. [applause]

♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> next, a heritage foundation forum on state voter i.d. law. then a discussion on economic segregation on the impact on american cities. >> tomorrow on "washington journal" he examines the rise of hate groups in the u.s. and joshua talks about "the 18- day running mate."

>> i had no idea about the experiences of many of the people who were my predecessors our diplomats in berlin. despite all of the time i spent in germany, but did not spend a lot of time about what it would have been like to be a correspondent in the 1920's and 1930's. how would you have operated? what would you have noticed or not notice? how would you have acted? >> sunday on c-span "q&a." >> now the heritage foundation look at fairness and voter i.d. of laws. we will also hear from the president and founder of true the vote. this is an hour and 15 minutes.

>> good afternoon. my name is todd gaziano. i am the director of the center for legal and judicial studies at the heritage foundation. welcome to our discussion. the heritage foundation is a very pleased to be able to co- sponsor today's discussion was such a distinguished panel with true the vote. i will introduce its founder and president, and i will let her introduced the speakers she has assembled. i will come back to the podium to pose a question or two and recognize audience members. we want to welcome those of you here in our auditorium, but those of you watching on the internet and those from c-span and cbs who are also watching

today's event. the topic up-to-date's discussion is of significant concern to all of us. i might or might not interject a few thoughts later, but i am appointed by the house of representatives to be a commission on the u.s. commission on civil rights. it is a special duty of the commission on civil rights to examine voting rights as a special charge in our statute. we canainly agree witthat do a better job improving elections in the u.s. i will give a brief introduction catherine engelbrecht catherine, who is the founder and president of true the vote. prior to 2009, she had a low national profile. she was primarily known as a mom

and wife and business owner. in 2009, she did something admirable. in houston, texas, she started the first of two non-partisan organizations to increase citizen involvement in the election. catherine engelbrecht is our -- true the vote is our co- sponsor today. recently, it has been listed one of the 50 politicos to watch. the important work of a mother, wife, and business owner to be recognized. it is an organization in sheet created in houston.

it filled an important need. and incurred citizens to be more active and helping ensure -- it encouraged citizens to be more active. those a year in politics know there is a desperate need -- approachmprehensive for fair elections. true the vote provides state specific training to help citizens fill the role to help in election integrity. she can talk about your own organization and the needs better than i can. i wish that her organization and others like it continue to

flourish. with that, why do not take over at the podium? >> thank you. thank you heritage for the great privilege to co-sponsor this event and. today we will hear from their distinguish speakers on the subject of integrity. but why? why this panel? why are you here? you have heard it said from todd, but i want to take a step back and tell you what i am here. i was a wife and mom -- frankly i still am, but my role has changed. in 2009, a very small group of us in houston

heard that there was a need for people to work at the polls. what happened was what ultimately said true the vote into motion. on that day, we saw everything from confusion about the very process by which we have to count our votes all the way through to what can only be described as election fraud. we saw people who would come in and did not show any form of identification whatsoever and be allowed to vote. in texas, you have to show something. in some of the 50 states, you do not have to show anything. in texas, you do. people coming in with multiple registration cards.

the voter approaches the table, presents a registration card, and it has been told that that registration card has already been voted. they present another one and they are told they can vote. we saw people come in and be told that their vote had already been cast by mail-in. that would have a blank look like, i did not vote mail-in. we also saw people who would come in and prepare to vote only to open the book and see that their name had already been signed but it was not their signature. when you see things like that -- let me preface it by saying in the majority of places, we had great experiences, experiences that make you proud to be an american, like you were really contributing. there were enough of us that have such similar stories that

we recognized, this might be something we need to take a closer look at. it made you wonder, if this is what is happening when people are watching, what happens when no one shows up? that is an all too common problem that i came to understand much better. we have about half the number of necessary poll volunteers across the country. it is a big problem because our system was always built around the expectation that citizens would be involved. when we advocate our duty, leave the field, there is a void. the boy has got to be filled with something. we grew into an organization that looks at all the ways in which citizens can get involved in the process and we set about trying to build a process that would support that engagement.

how name scott added to the voter registries, looking at the registry itself, collecting data all along the way so that when the state legislative sessions came back in, if there was need for election reform, at least there was data to support it. you had empirical evidence you could point to and say, these things really did happen. it begins to clear some of the fog of the conversation. we started out with the intention of working locally and hoping one day that maybe this would catch on nationally. i guess it is just a sign of the times we live in. things happen very quickly. flash forward, here we are, active in 35 states. supporting hundreds of citizen- led election integrity organizations, many of which contacted us after seeing

similar things in their states, in some cases much worse. and they wanted to be part of the problem. if you're sick of forwarding e- mails to one another and being outraged about this or that, true the vote is an opportunity to actually make a difference. if our growth continues, we believe we might mobilize up to 1 million new volunteers up to the election process between now and 2012. that is what brings me here. my desire to true the vote, to know with certainty that our votes counted and are counted. when you feel that, all of the politics, all of the narratives, all the posturing, when you talk to average american voters, they are concerned. that is why true the vote has become a national movement in such a short period of time.

there is a consensus that we must put our elections first. we must be able to depend upon the accuracy of those elections because the leaders go on to lead our country. that is why these leaders are here. i suspect that is why you're here. something is not quite right. and we know it. in the last 10 years, there have been prosecutions or convictions in 46 states on counts of election fraud. margins of victory are tightening, also made -- often major elections are decided by only a few hundred votes. local elections are affected, but the process does affect national elections. in 2008, we saw an incumbent lose to a challenger by a margin of roughly 300 votes only to later learned that more than 300 votes had been illegally cast by felons. the outcome of that election

gave the senate a democrat supermajority that allowed passage of historic fleet controversial legislation like the affordable health care act. had election laws not been broken, would that have happened? elections have consequences and we continue to see the erosion of process. the insufficiency of face guards. i just yesterday in kentucky, there was a lot of news coverage about a new drugs for votes scandal. people were being paid in drugs for the sale of their vote. reports out of new york, new mexico, virginia, florida, wisconsin, indiana, all reporting different types of election fraud subverting the processed in different ways but all with the same alarming implications. in april of this year, pew

research center released a report that estimated 13% of our nation's voter registry is inaccurate. over 2 million dead voters on the rolls and hundreds of counties with more than 100% of their eligible population registered to vote. that is not good. according to a rocket -- a recent rasmussen poll, 64% of americans think voter fraud is a problem. something we should address. we are watching states trying to rectify the problem, restore integrity to the elections, meeting with outrageous levels of resistance in many cases from the federal government. state governments are being sued by our federal government because states are following federal law. the root of many federal cases is the issue of voter identification. 70% of americans agree that

photo identification makes sense. they want it. somehow, there is a disconnect between what people want and what some politicians want, what some special interests seem to want. somehow, the will of these groups who pretend to speak for the people have effectively muzzled their voice. we are here to discuss what is working and what isn't working. there is a problem with election integrity. it does not stem from a lack of ingenuity or a lack of resources or a lack of importance. much of it stems from the reluctance to have tough conversations in a political environment that is less concerned about supporting the sanctity of american elections than they are about advancing a

self-serving agenda. there are leaders who are stepping up and speaking out because if they do not, then the very cornerstone of our republic is at risk. a confident, engaged electorate leads to a united america. that is what everyone on this panel and i dare say everyone in this room wants. we want the united states. we want to be in agreement on issues of the election integrity. we do not want a divided state. that is the path down which we are heading. with us today are some of the leaders who have faced the breakdown of the system and are choosing to speak out, to take action in their states, and to protect liberty itself. we are pleased to be joined by our distinguished panelists. i will introduce each one and each one will take the podium and share with you their own comments. the first gentleman i would like

to introduce is kris kobach, secretary of state in kansas. he has been a strong advocate of requiring voter i.d. at the polls and has led the way in overall improvement of our electoral process by developing a legislative program that includes provisions for security in mail-in ballots, laws requiring proof of citizenship while registering to vote, and requiring voter identification. his secure and fair elections process has seen great success in kansas. our next speaker will be scott gessler, secretary of state of colorado. he is fighting for election integrity in his state, consistently firing -- filing open records requests and checking names against the voter data base in an effort to improve the veracity of the database.

prior to being secretary of state, he served on a bipartisan election boards and commissions including the election reform commission that has made many recommendations to the general assembly following the 2008 election. he has talked election law and has been widely recognized for his work. as secretary of state, it is his responsibility to protect the sanctity of colorado's elections. it is a task he takes seriously. our third speaker will be attorney general alan wilson. he realizes that voter fraud is a problem not only in his home state of south carolina but across the united states. in his state, he fought to prevent criminals and the occurrence of voter fraud. he found that of 953 ballots cast by voters who were listed as dead, 73% of those ballots

were cast after those people died. that is amazing. our last speaker, artur davis of alabama. a former member of the democratic party, he served in the house of representatives from 2003-2008, representing the seventh district of alabama. he has been known to be a fighter in the house, never afraid to challenge the left or the right. he has been a vocal advocate for voter i.d., demanding that identification be required at the polls. i am confident that each of these panelists will bring to you a unique perspective of what we're seeing on the front lines in the states. without further ado, i will turn over the podium to secretary of state kris kobach. [applause] >> thank you, catherine and

thank you all for being here and think you to the heritage foundation for hosting this even. when i was sworn in as the secretary of state in kansas, my objective was to set about drafting the strongest anti- voter fraud law possible in any state and to get it enacted and implemented as quickly as possible. we secured -- we succeeded in doing that. it was signed by the governor in april of 2011. most of the provisions took effect on january 1, 2012. as catherine mentioned, the safe and fair elections act combined three things. we are the first state to have photo identification at the polls, criminal protection for mail-in ballots. you have to have a signature verification before the mail-in ballot is sent out. and you have to have either a photocopy of a qualifying id or a full kansas driver's license

number with the application coming in. thirdly, kansas requires proof of citizenship at the time new registered voters register to vote. the information presented to the state legislator showed -- to the state legislature was pretty compelling. we had credible cases of voter fraud between 1997 and 2010. that number is up to 235 if you count the 2010 election. we now have some early results from what the state achieved in its first six months. we have had lots of local elections. a total of 53 county and local elections since all went into effect. i will share with you some of the statistics we have seen already. i will throw a lot of numbers at you in a coherent way. the heritage foundation just

recently issued a study of some of those results. if you are not able to copy these down, there are copies of the report outside the auditorium. 53 elections. just over 68,000 people voted. pretty huge sample size. bigger than any survey. 68,000 votes cast, of the 68,000 votes cast, 84 people showed up at the polls without a photo id. we have access to the driver's license data base. it turns out the vast majority of those people actually had a driver's license. they either forgot to bring it or chose not to bring it to make a political statement. if you look at that number, that is approximately 0.1%. all those people were given provisional ballots and they have either six or nine days to

bring in a qualifying photo id to the county election office and to move their ballot from the provisional pile to the shelved and punched pile to make sure their vote is counted current 39 of them decided to do that, roughly half. the others saw the margins in the election and fought their vote would not make a difference so they did not want to do that. those numbers are pretty compelling. that is the beginning. additional numbers debunked prominent myths that critics of photo id laws are propagating. the first is that large percentages of the american public lack a photo id. most of us, going about our daily lives, no that is not true. most of us are hard-pressed to think of one person who lacks a photo id. at any rate, there are some

groups who make outrageous claims, like the brennans center and nyu, claiming 11% of the american public lack a photo id. they're sticking with the old numbers rather than getting better numbers. the percentage of people who came in for the free non-driver idea that kansas makes available is astonishingly small. between january and may, only 32 people in the state out of a population of registered voters of 1.7 million, only 32 have come in and sign a form that lists all the acceptable forms of id and says, i do not have any of these forms of id. that is .002%. there is a second myth.

photo id laws will have a racially-disproportion that impact on some races. this has been propagated by none other than the obama justice department. the numbers from kansas do not reflect that. the people who of come in and asked for a free id reflect the percentage of the various racial groups in the state of kansas. in addition, there is another falsehood. another false statement being propagated by people who oppose these laws. they claim that a photo id requirement only solves one form of voter fraud, up voter impersonation. i come to the polls impersonating you and try to cast a ballot. that is true. it also stops many other forms. three types of voter fraud that it prevents. one is voter impersonation. we had a case of that in kansas.

i am sure it happens many times we do not know about, but i will not go into that. it also stops fraudulent voter identities. there were many conditions in a state like nevada. people register these false identities and many people said, they're probably not going to use -- probably not going to vote with those identities. maybe, maybe not. voter i.d. prevents voting with that fictitious identity. you have to have a photo i.d. that matches the fictitious identity in order to vote. it prevents -- voter i.d. prevents that from materializing on election day. a third crime that voter i.d. prevents the -- prevents is double voting. this is extremely common in united states.

they move from one state to the other and do not cancel the ould jurisdiction. a lot of people try to get away with voting in both states. it is much easier to prosecute with voter i.d. laws. people say, somebody else voted my identity in my old state. that was not me. with a photo identity, you prevent the assertion that it was someone else who voted. there are multiple forms of voter fraud that voter i.d. laws prevent. time is short so i will wrap up my comments. i will share more examples in the q&a. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. my name is scott gessler, secretary of state in the state of colorado. many people are familiar with a

lot of the things that affect voter integrity. bloated and inaccurate voter rolls. a very loose honor system when it comes to voting in this country, both in registration and voting as well. oftentimes, there is no photo i.d. required. over time, we have seen the increased use of mail ballots. it increases a common avenue for voter fraud. what underlies a lot of this and causes the challenge is what i call a culture of see no evil, hear no evil. this argument is propagated by some of the same people who see massive corruption when it comes to a campaign finance system. they see massive corruption in the ballot initiative process. when it comes to calling our hearts become in purer with malice. -- impure with malice.

the see no evil, hear no evil culture results in a few problems we have. you see a real politicization of some of the avenues many -- maintaining vote integrity. some are being accused of terrible things and drawing examples from problems in american history. almost always with no evidence whatsoever. you see that level of politicization. you also see from this culture is reflected in state election systems. more often than not, states have inadequate systems when it comes to the detection and prevention of voter fraud and error as well. although there are many protections in place, there are real glaring deficiencies, and entered the elite in the collection of the data to

provide -- particularly in the collection of the data needed to provide. one person who testified in denver, colorado, identified a nursing home where 14 people who had voted had died in the past or moved away just in that one area. i was embarrassed because that happened two years ago. this woman was a friend of mine. she knew i was running and that was the first i had ever heard of it. she instead reported to it -- reported it to our local clerk and reporter, who did nothing. actually, she did something, which was accused of people who made those reports of acting and doing terrible things, suppressing votes, things like that. the lack of a detection system

lax collection of information. part of the thing that causes this is a policy infrastructure that the people who support that culture have developed over time. very well-financed, asserted in its arguments. willing to produce what i think is evidence of very quality. the good news is there are some real opportunities and dynamics. first and foremost, the see no evil, hear no evil culture does not have much support in the country. we all want to believe that everyone is of good faith and willing to do the right thing. americans intuitively understand that elections are hard, complicated human endeavors. in any human endeavor, there is a small proportion of people who will, when tempted, do the wrong thing. political power as gained through the elections is a temptation. that helps people to do bad

things. americans intuitively understand that. this predominant culture is built on a foundation of sand, so to speak. i think three things are going on. those who focus on election integrity are beginning to build a policy infrastructure to bring those ideas for for improvement. true the vote is a great example. there is still a huge imbalance today, but it is beginning to change. the second thing we are seeing are really good policy breakthroughs. secretary kobach has some great evidence. what we're seeing in the photo id debate, kansas is one, in vienna, ga. -- indiana,

georgia, they have instituted photo id laws. it has increased confidence in elections. sometimes it is correlated to increase voter turnout. and a whole lot of good things. that shows that some of the hysteria is silly. there is a third opportunity and that is the opportunity for administrative complexity. unlike kansas, certain states like colorado do not have the potential for broad-sweeping legislative changes. nonetheless, elections are difficult and complex. there are plenty of opportunities to make improvements. i would like in elections to software. when software is released, there are bugs in the software. vulnerabilities like vulnerabilities in our elections. sometimes they are released and no one ever touches them and

nothing goes wrong. sometimes you run across a bug and you will have problems. you will have to shut down your computer or you will have some type of inconvenience. you know there is a problem but it still allows you to accomplish your task. then there are bugs that wipe out your system and you lose all of your data. those are the types of vulnerabilities we have in our election system. there are lots of ways to improve but it requires getting at the nuts and bolts. we have examples in colorado. you are seeing the citizenship debate where we are identifying problems and making changes to address those within the administrative machinery. overall, i am hopeful that this culture of see no evil, hear no evil, will give way to a sensible culture where we want people to do the right things and we know that mostly happens.

we also have to be prepared to address vulnerabilities in our system, new bugs and the old ones that we have seen happen repeatedly in american history. thank you very much. [applause] >> when i was new to the practice of law, an older member of the bar pulled me aside and said allen, the best way to be successful in litigation is to follow this rule. if you have bad facts, pund the law, if you had bad facts, lb. -- if you have bad law, found the facts. if you have bad facts and belloc, pound the desk. i have seen people attack the messenger and not the message. when you hear that implication of photo id requirements will take us back to the jim crow era

or a time in the civil rights movement, i find it insulting for those who actually lived through that time. when you hear people say that there is an intent to suppress minority voters or that this is a solution in search of a problem, i find that disconcerting. you talk about having a solution in search of a problem, i thought about that on the plane this morning. i said hello to the pilot. if the pilot had said to me, based on my observations, i have a suspicious belief that this plane might crash based on the instrument panel reeves, i could tell you that i would want that pilot to have every tool and take as much time as he needed to prevent if a plane from crashing -- to prevent the plane from crashing. what we have here is data, evidence across the country that shows our methods of managing

elections, controlling data, are antiquated. for someone to come in and dilute the voting pool for fraud is very prevalent. i want to give our government the ability to combat that. it is difficult to prove a negative. if alan wilson goes in and uses a fraudulent voter card and i leave the polling place, you cannot go back in time and prove the negative. it is very difficult to catch someone in the act. i hear countless stories of people who witnessed that. i also see falls on the other side, while they may be good people, i see them of manipulating fax and twisting data to come to conclusions. last year, it was determined that there are 70 people in south carolina registered to

vote but do not have a voter registration card. a lot of people would be affected by having to get a photo id. in our state, there were 239,000 south carolinian who had a voter card but no photo id. the justice apartment made a determination that 10% of that number were non-white. 8.4% of that number were white. a 1.6% disparity of how people could be negatively affected. they said in their refusal to clear the voter i.d. lot that minorities are 20% more likely to be disenfranchised or have their vote suppressed. they came up with the 20% number because the number 10 is 20% higher than 8.4. a twisting of facts. data companies using data from people who are of voting age, not likely or eligible or

registered. they use inflated data to get a predetermined outcome. when you look at the 239,000 people in south carolina, we found out that 92,000 of that 239,000 do not even live in south carolina anymore. they are now citizens in another state. 37,000 of them are deceased and had not been taking off the voting rolls. 950 chose to vote in elections after they were deceased. that may have been dead voters, voting fraud, or it could have been an error by the poll watchers. we are looking at those numbers. the opportunity for fraud exists. you look at statistics. georgia, our sister state, in 2007, they implemented the photo id law. in 2004, from 2004-2008,

minority participation went up. people say that was because we had a special election, our first african-american president. let's go to 2010. minority participation went up 44%. hispanic his nation went up 66%. caucasian voters went up 11%. it went up across the board but statistically higher with minority groups. in no court case has some one been able to prove or show that there is actually someone who has been disenfranchise or had their right to vote suppressed. in south carolina law, you do not hear this talk about a lot, but if you show up without a photo id, it could be because you are 100 years old or sick or whatever reason, you can still vote. you can vote that day by signing an affidavit. there is one last thought that i want to leave with.

i was speaking to a group of african-american leaders in my community about this particular topic. i got to tell them something they did not know. there is a case out there called -- involving kinston, north carolina. in this community, 65% of the registered voters are african- americans. they voted overwhelmingly to go from a partisan-designated race to a non-partisan-designated race. the justice the far refused to clear them. when i was speaking to the folks in that community, i told them that i never tried to attack someone's internal thoughts or intentions but i am not above using their words or actions against them. i put out a letter that the justice department sent to the people there. their reasons for denial were as follows -- "the elimination of

party affiliation will reduce the ability of blacks to elect candidates of choice. it will eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to get elected to office." one member in the room said, so we are too stupid to take our own candidates. i said, if this does not offend anyone else, it certainly offends me. when voter fraud exists, it dilutes everyone's vote. not one race or one group. that is what we're doing everything we can in south carolina to ensure the integrity of the vella box. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, ladies and gentlemen. i am glad to be here today. delighted to be at heritage. those of you watching this on line and most of you in the audience knows i did this. one young lady in front is holding up a car that tells me

how much time we have left and it tells me when to stop. i will make a promise to her that when you hold up the stop sign, i will smile. that is how we played today. let me begin. i want to start by showing you something. something that is kind of at the core of what we're talking about today. perhaps you cannot see it so well if you are watching this on the internet. most of you in the audience can see it. this is a virginia driver's license. also known as a state-issued photo id. it is very small. pretty innocuous-looking, except for the ugly face on it. it has actually been sanded

around the edges so on like the notes i have in front of me, you cannot even cut your hand inadvertently. it is a very tiny little thing that will fit in a breast pocket. it will fit in a wallet. you can carry it next to your pager or blackberry. it is not a billy club. if you look at it, that is clear. it is not a fire hose. i live in virginia now but i come from the state of alabama. i used to represent birmingham, alabama in the united states congress. i know a little something about fire hoses. it is not this. it is not some kind of a weapon, a club that southern sheriffs used to use to keep people from voting or participating.

it is a tiny, little photo id. this tiny, little thing i am holding up in my hand tends to do very weird things to people. it tends to create some very interesting political arguments. several months ago, two very prominent leaders of civil rights organizations in the united states were so riled up by this tiny little thing called a photo i.d. that they went to the united nations and they went to a very particular place in the united nations called the human rights commission. while i am not an expert on united nations terminology, they basically filed a complaint against us and the basis of the complaint was the incredibly devastating potential to suppress this little thing i am holding up. i will not even get into the

fact that cuba sits on the human rights commission and they would not know a free election if it walked in and bid them. -- and bit them. china sits on the human rights commission. they have many great virtues and are sometimes a partner of ours, but in china, unless you are one of a small group of private citizens that do get to cast votes, china has never had a free election in many histories of dynasties and centuries. they may us look like a rookie as old as that civilization is. they have never had a free election. saudi arabia sits on the human rights commission. saudi arabia occasionally experienced -- a spur mess with voting. but if you are a woman, you are not part of the experiment. you get my point.

not the group i would expect to judge our integrity when it comes to elections. attorney general wilson touched on this. you know the argument on the other side. frankly, the most powerful argument is to have voter i.d., it would have the effect of diminishing for dissipation. it will have the effect of crushing the ability of all kinds of people who wish to vote. they are talking candidly about the men and women who are citizens. can we dial the clock back four years ago when some of us had no gray hair and some of us had more hair? four years ago, we were told about the young people in this country. we were told that there were so fired up and so enthusiastic and so energized. we were told they were led to believe in a way that they had never been led to believe

before. four years later, we are told that those same motivated go- getters cannot be bothered with getting an id. four years ago, we were told about the seniors who were in who had never missed an election. they were so motivated to get involved in politics right now. now we are told that those same people who were so fired up and ready to go and so motivated and cared so much about their country, now we are told that they're so fragile and so weak and marginalize and isolated that they do not have an id and cannot be bothered to get one. you take my point. reasonable people can differ about almost anything -- everything in american life

today, including this issue. reasonable people should not disagree on one point. we have had our share of suppression, particularly in the american south. there is no question about that. but this is not suppression. this is a simple, little device that we use all the time. when i leave here, i have to hightail it to the airport because i have to speak in salt lake city tomorrow. i will not get on the plane if i happen to leave this year. most buildings in washington d.c., including the department of justice that has filed lawsuits trying to stop states from in limiting voter i.d. laws, if i were to decide i want to go by the department of justice and try to get a meeting with anybody there, i could not get in without this. finally, we have our friends in

the news media. i love the definition of objectivity with journalists. objectivity to a journalist means exactly the opposite of whoever i am interviewing. i did an interview with a news organization about this very issue. they asked me what they thought were some pretty tough questions. when i went to the news organization to do the interview, the first thing that was sitting on top of an ominous-looking security guard was a sign that said, "photo i.d. required. no exceptions." which is more than most states, who would have made a number of exceptions. so i am glad to be here. i am glad to talk about this issue. this is something democrats and republicans ought to care about. something conservatives and liberals ought to care about. something americans ought to embrace.

the notion of voter integrity. thank you all. [applause] >> thank you very much. our director of lectures and seminars told me that i could exercise my discretion and extend the session. i will let c-span and other viewers know that i am going to exercise that. i'm going to ask the first question and thank all of the panelists for their great remarks. i will draw on a little bit of each of what you have said. i think it is great that secretary kobach said he is building an empirical data base. in his state, the laws allow that. secretary gessler mentioned that. he referred to a see no evil, hear no legal problem.

i would think it is worse than that. in some news outlets, it is report no evil. but it is worse. it is to propagate a falsehood, to emphatically denied that there is a problem. my colleague and i have had discussions with other people. when you bring up instances of fraud, they say, that is not in this state. you bring up instances in that state and they say, that is not in the last two years. elections are only held every two years. the problem is that there is unfortunately a great number of americans, particularly the poor, who have come to believe this falsehood. that gives me great pain because it signifies to me that we need to do an even bigger effort to

try to dispel the myth, whether it is intentionally propagated by those who think it is justified because they want to stop what they think is a bad practice of insuring voter integrity. the one thing i do want ask you all to comment on it is the data, the proof of the pudding is in the voting. you mentioned other reasons to suspect that getting a free voter i.d. is not a problem. in the 2008-2010, it was experimented another way. you could compare states with voter i.d. laws and those without. what the statistics show is that the states with voter i.d. had a higher increase in minority votes than the states

without. again, the important statistic is not that the percentage of minority votes increased in that state, because it increased in almost every state in 2008 with enthusiasm for president obama. but that the minority rate increase more in states with voter i.d.. they could trust the results of the election. some have speculated that is the reason for that. it was more worth it to them to go to the polls. i think the same result proved true in 2010. am i right? am i wrong? where can i go to help publicize that data it is available? -- if it is available? does someone want to help me

out? >> it is a challenge. when i was talking about the policy infrastructure, you look at what organizations that are out there that are organizing on a nationwide basis. a number -- the number of those organizations was pretty limited. heritage is one. what winds up happening and we both his faith in the secretary of state conferences, oftentimes, one of us will call someone us -- someone else and ask about the experience and we weave into our analysis or communications. there is a real hole as far as voter integrity organizations that are doing the rigorous collection and analysis of that data. there are all kinds of things out there. you do not have to look far to find evidence of how voter integrity increases confidence

in the election and increases turnout. >> as more states adopt photo id laws, some of those states, like kansas, are not having to deal with the free clearance because we are not a section 5 state. you have more data being assembled. many of those laws are being blocked by the abolish justice department. kansas is added to the mix. we will have the big general election in november, which will give us a lot of information. tennessee is moving forward with theirs. rhode island may be. a number of states from all over the country. secretary of state offices are collecting that information. some are putting it out there more aggressively than others.

there is a lot of information and it is all showing that the claims made by the critics of these laws are not valid. >> let me make one legal point that needs to be made. if you tune out everything we say today, please remember this little nugget. the supreme court has addressed the issue of photo id. they did it as recently as four years ago in 2008. the guy who wrote the opinion was john paul stevens, who is one of the great liberal icons to serve on the u.s. supreme court in the last 30-some years. a liberal justice wrote an opinion upholding voter i.d. laws in indiana and he made the point that, because of the state's legitimate interest in combating voter fraud and the state's legitimate interest in verifying people as it does in

many aspects of life -- verification is not a strange thing in our civil life. justice stevens recognized that because it was not a strange thing in civil life, there was not a burden to apply it in voting. there was a presidential campaign going on when that happened. candidly, this is not a partisan yvette. do not take this as a partisan comment. it is a factual comment. i do not remember the then- senator obama even issuing a press release criticizing the ruling. i do not remember the dnc, i think howard dean was the chairman. i do not remember the dnc issuing a released even criticizing that ruling. i know that some people are thinking, indiana is not a

voting rights act-covered state. a different standard applies in the south. the voting rights act was crafted to give the federal government extra enforcement tools in a region where discrimination used to be a part of life from the time you got up to the time you went to bed. from the time you were born to the time you were buried. that used to be the stuff that we live in. today, in vienna has fewer black elected officials -- indiana has fewer black elected officials that south carolina. fewer black officials voting in terms of the number who are turning out at the elections. you were african americans are registered to vote in indiana. if your concern is we want to make sure african-americans have a full chance to participate, would it not the odd to say

that indiana has fell to a weaker standard? one final point -- this is about a very simple question. should we. two rules of law in this country? should we have one rule law for kansas and colorado and another rule all law for south carolina, virginia, and alabama? i submit that we do not. >> thank you very much. some say that justice stevens came to his view on the inherit -- by the way, the supreme court recognized the inherent problem of voter fraud. the supreme court states that it is lawfully allowed to be recognized. i am going to show you my id here. i have it. i will now recognize those from our audience. please wait for the microphone so viewers on tv and the

internet can hear. this is the first one i have seen. identify yourself, please. >> my name is sarah. i am a voting rights advocate. i really care about american voters. i am happy to have this opportunity. every time that an american registered to vote, you have to check a box that says, i am eligible, over 18, and a citizen. they send that to the secretary of state who decides to put them on the role. this has been the system for many years and is working. my question to you is, you want to take this much further. you are talking about proof of citizenship. in order to register in your state, you have to show a birth certificate, a passport, or your naturalization papers. does and you -- is anyone

carrying one of those documents right now? i am carrying a driver's license, but i do not walk around with my birth certificate, which would make it difficult for me to register in your state. what do you say to those voters? >> thank you for the question. first of all, we have a lot of evidence. you simply fill out a card and check a box and sign on the line and that was the end of it. no one asked you to verify anything. county clerks, when they had suspicion that a person was not a u.s. citizen, they could do nothing. they had to register the person. let me give you one anecdote and i will disagree with your statement that it is a burden. the anecdote comes from right across the state line. kansas city is divided by the kansas and missouri state line. the election that best illustrates this was the

democratic primary. the commission was held by democrats and whoever won the primary would probably win the seat. rizzo and broyster were the last two names. approximately 50 somali nationals walked into the polling place, one at a time, with the same translator who instructed them to vote for rizzo. this happened all day long. all sorts of witnesses saw this. at the end of the day, rizzo won by one vote. that election caused great consternation in the missouri legislature and i could go into the legal rambling about that, but those people who registered illegally were non-citizens and they probably through that election. i am not saying that rizzo organized it, but somebody did.

in counties, there was a hall- forming tissue in southwest kansas where there had to be a referendum to allow the particular type of operation. the county clerk testified that people who were non-citizens according to her belief were registered to vote. does it cause a great burden? i would say no. there are actually 12 different documents that kansas law allows you to use to prove your citizenship. after the real idea was passed by congress in 2005, most states were required to segment the driver's license list into citizens and non-citizens. the reason you do that is because of non-citizen to our license had to expire when their stay in the united states expired. you now have aliens in the driver's license database and

citizens. the states are now requiring people who renewed their drivers' licenses to provide proof of citizenship, usually a birth certificate. in kansas, they are collecting the pdf image of the birth certificate as they renew their drivers license. it is actually easy. when they turned 16, they got their driver's license and the birth certificate is on file. we're simply having that image transfer so the person will not have to bring in their birth certificate. if the person is not in the group that already has their birth certificate scan, it is allowed to be sent in at a different time. you can register and have your mom back home take a picture of the birth certificate with a self of -- a cell phone, text it to you, and you can text it to the secretary of state's office.

we made sure it was very convenient for people to prove their citizenship. >> i would like to address that. the system works. that assumes our hearts are pure. the system does not work and we have plenty of evidence of that in the state of colorado. we have had over 430 people who have either voluntarily asked to be withdrawn from the voter rolls because they were non- citizens or they attempted to register and they checked the i am not a citizen box but were nonetheless registered. the argument is that 430 does not matter. there was a statewide election won by about 90 votes in the state of colorado. in 2002, the congressman won by 121 bv -- 121 votes.

on top of that, we recently looked at immigration holes in our jails. -- we found currently the number is 185 people also on voter registration rolls. we have to confirm that. that is a pretty high likelihood there is a problem with those people. we compare our database against voter registration database. within the last several years we have identified 5000 people when they get a driver's license or non-citizens. i understand some of those people may become citizens. i cannot believe all of them have become citizens and the light of the real world examples we have and other states. most of the time the system works for the vast majority of people because they are honest and know what is going on. there is always a small

percentage where fraud will occur. the system is not working. >> that was a great answer. i just want to add, certainly reasonable people can differ on what kind of procedures states can use for citizenship. i admire hearing the details about how far kansas and colorado have gone to try to make it easy. federal law requires -- prohibits non citizens from voting. i submit it is not responsible for states and forcing the federal law to do nothing. next question, please. try to make sure it is a real question and as brief as possible. >> hello. i am a citizen of this country.

i have several questions wrapped into one. why have all of these laws come up so quickly over the last year and not before 2011? how come they did not crop up when george bush was elected by only a few thousand votes in florida? how can citizens trust voter i.d. laws proposed by conservative legislatures are not using politics to discriminate -- to disenfranchise voters who typically vote progressive or democratic. it is not just the voter i.d. laws that have cropped up over the last year. conservative legislators have lamented early voting days which has increased voter participation which has nothing to do with voter i.d. laws? >> another great and challenging question. >> i will swing first. thank you for being here. the voter i.d. law was actually

attempted to be passed in february 2009 the first time. it said two years to get it to where it can even be said for preclearance. it would have been attended earlier but there was great interest and the indiana case that actually was sent to the supreme court the year below that. the georgia law was challenged multiple times at the district court and court of appeals in georgia. those are all done during the bush and administration. voter i.d. laws preexists president obama. when i was meeting with a group of african-american leaders, that was something i was asked. what is the hurry? there was no hurry because we have been trying for two years to do it. our law was finally passed this last may. we quickly moved to implement a law over one year ago. the justice department i believe we did a full length of time to

deny us preclearance. we went through the process of getting to hear. our interest and trying to move quickly has nothing to do with who is an elected officer who is running at what time. ours is based on a fear from numerous citizens in south carolina -- have eyewitness accounts of voter fraud being in many cases. understand these laws have been passed before this administration. this is not something we just thought up a couple of months ago. >> one of the gentlemen on this panel comes from kansas. kansas is a republican a democrat wrote a book called "what is wrong with kansas?" i do not profess to be an expert on kansas politics, but i do not exactly think republicans need to suppress votes to win elections in kansas. they have been winning them

under all circumstances no matter what. it is not a hot battleground state. if that sounds like a somewhat flippant. to you, it is an important point. there is a myth that the only states passing these laws are closely divided states where the election -- whether it is obama or romney may come down to just a few votes here or there, you have a better chance of getting kansas city getting in the world series than you do seeing a presidential ad in kansas this year. the second point, the young lady made a point that you do hear a lot which is are these just right wing republicans passing these laws? rhode island passed a voter ideologue. here is what you have to know about rhode island. -- rhode island passed a voter i.d. law.

do you know what the cut over the top? they have the audacity to come out and testify in public they were tired of seeing voter fraud in their legislative districts. they were tired of having to sit down every election and said, i know because i am not the machine can that there will be x number of fraudulent votes over here. i have to figure out not just a strategy to get votes, i have to figure out how to offset fraudulent votes. those were not republicans in rhode island. there is a phone booth full of those. those are african-american democratic legislators. those people deserve credit because everyone of them has been told by the democratic party, do not come looking for us for help when you have a primary.

the other final point that i would make is, repetition matters and panels like this, i want to repeat his point. law passedoter i.d. in 2004. the only supreme court cases in the and oppose a lot. indiana is a typical republican state that happen to go nearly four barack obama four years ago. in 2004 it easily went for bush. it passed a lot of because they were concerned that kerry carried indiana, but they thought it was a problem in some counties in indiana. we cannot lose sight of one important thing. the issue is whether it is an unreasonable burden to produce photo id. we might debate the public policy all we want, but when

courts are looking at these issues, that is the only thing the courts are looking at is an unreasonable burden. the reason we keep talking about the ubiquity of drivers' licenses, the fact that ideas, and is not because we are trying to make the debaters. , but we are trying to say how can that be a burden to ask people to do something they do all of the time? how can it be a burden to ask people to do something they do all of the time. >> regarding the passage of the act in kansas. two thirds of the democrats in the house voted for the bill. three-quarters of the democrats and the kansas senate voted for the bill. it was not a republican bill or a democrat bill. this is an american idea. it is an idea of all people who care about the integrity of the system. one final point, it is true that

in 2011 there was an unprecedented number of states -- more than half a dozen states reject adopted some form of photo id law or something else. -- adopted some form of photo id law or something else. i think the reason you saw so many states in 2011 is this issue really did not reach the public consciousness until after the 2008 election cycle when there was so much focus on acorn. that one group was all over the news media. people started hearing about it. in 2009 additional reports came out, state legislators are really responsive than members of congress are to what people are thinking about. >> everybody is more responsive

and members of congress. >> and there you are. state legislators started hearing this. they got the idea i think this is an important issue. it was elevated to the national consciousness in the 2008-2009 period. that is why you saw them being interested in passing these laws in 2011. >> thank you. i know one of our panelists have to leave to go to the airport with their photo id. please join me in thanking all the panelists for their presentation. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the platform committee to meet saturday in detroit to discuss the draft platform and vote on a final version to

present in charlotte, north carolina. live coverage begins at 9:30 eastern on c-span. >> i do not envy the drowsy harmony of the republican party. they squelched debate, we welcome it. they deny differences, we welcome them. they are uniform we are united. [applause] the choices this year and not just between two different personalities or between two political parties. they are between two different visions of the future. two fundamentally different ways of governing. their government of pessimism, fears, and limits or hours of hope, confidence and growth. [applause]

>> c-span has aired every minute of every convention since 1984. watch the convention is live on c-span started monday august 27. >> state voter i.d. laws were also the focus of a panel discussion at the naacp convention in houston. you will hear from naacp president and ceo and then a panel of civil rights advocates. this event is from early july. it is about one hour and a half. [applause] >> this is a teaching session. we understand what the battle is. it enables us to engage more. would you repeat after me, we are seeing an attack on voting

rights. an attack on progressive tax policies. an attack on public education. attack on labor rights. an attack on the principles of equal protection. under the law. and the attack on the principle of equal justice in the criminal justice system. and vicious attacks on white, black, latino, and progressive leaders from the president to the attorney general all the way down. we have seen that before, we are seeing it again. we fought against the before, and we must fight against it now.

1870. say it with me. 1870. 142 years ago. these matters were settled with the 15th amendment. why is this nation trying to undo what was settled 142 years ago? 1965. 47 years ago the voting rights act settled. 47 years later we are having to fight all over again. 1968 richard nixon lunches the southern strategy.

44 years ago, and here we go again. we fought 10. we will fight now. we won and then. we will win now. i wanted to set that up because it is important that we understand what our president and ceo as he was speaking trying to rid us in history. we must understand the battles we have fought, the personalities that fought that, the tactics they used to when and how those tactics that we must use are still being -- are still very applicable today. leading us now in this fight in the 21st century that in many ways looks like the fight of the 19th century is not other than benjamin todd.

>> every member of the naacp has to have the president of the follow. rev. barbara is one of mine. i will follow him anywhere. she is one of the great leader is at the naacp. [applause] -- leaders at the naacp. i just want to be clear because we have a great panel and i want to get to them. two things. the first is that the game changed in 2011. we must understand it. prior to 2000 we had ambushed the gore and it became voter --

we had bush v. gore. in 2011 we saw the most massive assault through the passage of state laws we have seen and at 100 years. we should not expected -- we should teach a because every time the vote expands it is followed by this suppression effort. now it has changed again. voter registration, gotv, protect the vote and protect our voting rights. and so we must be on the battlefield not every two years and every four years but every year. the last time -- the playbook after the passing of the voting rights act was illegal voter

suppression. the lesson from 2000 is when you break the law to suppress the vote it gets really messy. this time they have reached back beyond that to the playbook from after the civil war which was to use the law to suppress the vote. let's understand that was a battle that lasted for 40 years. we have to understand we are at least in a 40 year or this time. people on the other side know their history. they know where they got the playbooks from. we are wise to understand our history, too. what that means is that we will every year be going up and fighting both to expand the vote and to protect the vote, every single year. the second thing we have to understand is that the so- called disenfranchisement laws have been our greatest failure as a movement when it comes to the old jim crow era voting

laws. we got rid of the poll tax and a grandfather clause and all of that. the literacy tests. we did not get rid of the disenfranchisement because we forgot what they were about. this time we are being very clear that this -- we have to get rid of these. when you read the law, right after the passage of the 15th amendment where they stated clearly they were anticipating the black vote would expand over their objections. new york actually rejected the 15th amendment. they said we are pushing through this bill to offset the expansion. very clear. it or not doing this to keep >> felons from voting, they were doing it to keep black people from voting.

virginia in its jim crow constitutional convention, the delegates of the constitution advocating for the es felon disenfranchisement to be stuck in there where it remains today. because of this plan, the darkie will be eliminated as a factor of our politics. this said they will preserve white supremacy as the order of the day in every county in the state. we can no longer afford to forget our own history. we are bound to forget it if we do. we cannot afford to repeat this history. we are too far down the path of almost repeating it right now. please give your full attention to this panel. this is about what we have to do this fall. what we have to do every year. we are back in a 40-year war for

our voting rights. we will win this time just like last time. thank you and god bless. [applause] >> by now everybody knows the president as helping us raise of more freedom fighters. his son was born on july 4. what is the birthday today? you got to know your history. the 14th amendment, today as we sit in here that guarantees if you are born or naturalized, equal protection under the law. i want them to take their hands off of my equal protection. the 15th amendment says, nobody can deny -- i am using this

language because there is a reason it did not say denied the right. it said deny it or abridge -- that means to cut off access. no one can deny or a bridge my right to vote. at this time we have our panelists. i will introduce them all a one time. they're going to take a six or seven minutes slice out of a particular area. then we should take questions. if you have questions please write them down. we will be taking them up and it will come to the podium. the editor in chief of think progress. he is here with us today. let's give him a big hand. he holds a doctorate from georgetown law center. and then we have brendan

mitchell. a recent honor graduates of westport high school where he was the president of the national honor society and acted on the debate team and the thespian society. he has been an active member of the naacp since the age of 9 and currently serves as president of the florida state youth and college division. let's give him a big hand. [applause] then we will have mr. bryan rowland. perry view -- prairie view, from brooklyn, new york. a master's of community development. he has served his community through a numerous affiliations including the prairie view credit union, vice president of

the chamber of commerce. he will come and share with us and his own way the power of organizing for the vote. kimba smith will be focusing on disenchant -- this enfranchisement. she went to hampton university. it is important that we know this sister was sentenced to 25 years and served six years in federal prison. she regained her freedom after president clinton granted her clemency. but give her -- [applause] her case grew support from across the nation to reverse the disturbing trend in recidivism.

particularly with an emphasis on men and women transitioning from prison and those who find themselves entangled in the criminal justice system. dennis also was incarcerated for five years and eight months. rather than being overcome by success or failure, he studied and learned and has decided to help other people now have a second chance. we give him a hand today. [applause] mrs. barbara arwine, she is

executive director for lawyers committee for civil rights under the law since 1989. she is known worldwide for her renowned contributions to critical justice issues including the passage of a landmark civil rights act of 1991. let's give her a big hand. [applause] our panelists will proceed in the order and on the topic they have been given. after they each complete their time, then we will receive questions from the audience. >> thank you very much. i am honored to be here and be part of the panel. i think it is fitting that we are here in houston, tx for this presentation. this is a state that recently passed one of the most egregious of voter i.d. laws and the

entire country. it is a law where if you have a state issued student i.d., that is not valid. if you have a state -- if you are a state employee and it issued a photo and -- a photo id from the state for employment, that is also not valid. if you get a gun license, that is acceptable. you can see how this conception of voter i.d. in this state is clearly being used for partisan purposes and to try to change the power as some of the previous speakers have explained better than i can. this is also a city that is home to one of the most pernicious of voter suppression organizations, an organization called true the vote that really pioneered the tactic of

flooding voters sites with poll watchers who are really not there to watch but to try to intimidate, harass, and do as much as they can to prevent the people they do not want to vote from voting. it now recently announced a new initiative where they are going to go and sue a whole variety of states for not purging their voter roles like the were trying to do in florida. we are really at the center of the storm here in houston, texas. what i want to talk about is the messaging war around this issue. you listen to president jealous and the other speakers and you think yourself, this makes perfect sense. this is rooted in the constitution. this is about a fundamental right. why is this going on? we know why there are people pushing to suppress the votes of

other people, but why are they achieving success? one of the reasons is to this. they have won the messaging war. nobody will come out and tell you that i support voter i.d. or voter write laws because i want to suppress votes. they will say we are concerned about voter fraud. we're trying to preserve the right to vote and the integrity of the vote. even though there is no evidence this is a problem, out of 749 million votes in the last decade or so, they have identified 13 credible cases of in person voter fraud. this is not a real problem. they have convinced people this is a problem. there is a recent poll of found 70% of amens