The meeting of the u. S. Commission on civil rights comes 18order at 10 a. M. On august 2017. The meeting takes place at the Commission Headquarters at 1331, pennsylvania Avenue Northwest washington dc. I am sure captain lehman, and thesheriff next to the are vice chair, and the other commissioners. I believe we have on the telephone, i would like for you to confirm as they say your me, [indiscernible] [laughter] are you present . I am here. I see that the reporter is present. The meeting now comes to order. Is there a motion to approve the agenda for the business meeting . Yes. Is there a second . Yes. Perfect. I have a few amendments to start us off, i would like to remove the discussion on the lgbt employment worked, they have requested additional time to review the report. I think the staff for finalizing the report which will put on our agenda next meeting. Second i would like an amendment entitled that the u. S. Commission on civil rights condemns the administrations military ban on transgender individuals. Thei would also amend whoosal of someone requested to speak to the commission on that report. I would like to amend the agenda to at a statement that has been circulated regarding the dhs policy. Thank you. Madam chair, i would like to add two items, one on the statement of the reversal of the department of justice position nvra to add ahe vote on administrative proposal that i had shared with the other commissioners. Thank you. I would like to add a statement on charlottesville. Thank you any other proposed amendments . Thank you there are no further amendment, let us approve the agenda as amended. Aye. L those in favor say all those opposed . The motion passes unanimously. First we will discuss and vote on a discovery plan and briefing date and location for a Financial Year 2018 commission on Voting Rights. Second. Thank you. We will now have a discussion on the motion. Amendments. My proposed amendments are to the discovery plan and outline adding we will now be discussing adding language to the Civil Rights Act voterstates that requiring assistance due to blindness can a inability to read or write may be given assistance by a person of the voters choice. To the discovery plan, i have proposed the following changes, adding subsection e the number 1 and rereading subsections. Subsections with state participation by doj in claims under section 208 of the nvra, with one subsection identifying the united versus brussels county in the Southern District of texas 2006, alleging that the county failed to ensure that voters who were disabled or blind or illiterate were able to have assistance of their choice. Adding to be before litigation, to 3a, people with disabilities in the 2016 president ial election in the first sentence. To the outline, i suppose the following changes. First after the chapter two section heading titled examining trends in minority language minority litigation, and second, in subsection voter turnout and registration, adding and persons with disabilities. After limited englishlanguage proficiency in the first sentence in the first bullet. Third and the second sub bullet of the same section, adding section 208 after sections two and 203. In chapter three, section having titled review of statements of interest, objection letters, add claims under section 208. You have a second for these amendment . Second. But thank you. Any other points for discussion . Yes madam chair, i have two . My proposed amendments are to the outline, the first one is under chapter two, under state actions after the shelby decision. In the state actions after the shelby decision, several bullets down, it does about Voter Registration and voting by mail. I would simply like to add voting registration to make it clear that we are also looking at changes to voting registration processes, as you know there have been several states who have made it much more difficult to register, and i suspect that there might be problems there. , insecond change is under the same section, just to add, a bullet, that talks about examples of impacts to students of color from not accepting university issued ids, and the closure of polling site such as that university. I am not trying to expand it to issues aroundhe student voted that are not covered by the Voting Rights act, but simply the intersection where it is that minority students are especially being targeted. I think that would be covered by the Voting Rights act. Thank you. Will have any other proposed amendments to the constitution . Metal chair, i would like to thank the commissioners further flexibility with respect to the ioposed date of this briefing have some International Travel which will keep me away from our we arelly complicated focused on summary second but i think the commissioners for that accommodation. I believe we may be getting into trouble with a two ambitious project here, that when we passed the requirement that the discovery plan be put ward be for the commission before the commission, we had a plan that was more detailed than this but on a small scale projects. I would like in the future for us to get back to a more focused question then we have here but i think the staff has done a good job with what to do with this i will be in favor of it. We appreciate the caution and also the history about how we got here, thank you. Click ok ok. Chair i will call the question and take a roll call vote. [roll call] the motion passes unanimously. Now, we will discuss and vote on the briefing dates and locations for our team weather briefings in fiscal year 2018. I move that we hold the School Discipline briefing on december a few in washington dc. And the hate crimes briefing on may 11. Again here in washington dc. Any second . I will second. Thank you. Any dissensions . Hearing none. I will take a roll call vote. [roll call] go . The motion passes unanimously. We will now consider the amended business items beginning with the statement on chalice veil. I will turn it over to my colleague who will read the statements so that we know what it is we are voting on. Thank you. The u. S. Commission on civil rights, statement on charlottesville. The u. S. Commission on civil rights expresses its profound dismay over the violence and deadly events in charlottesville, virginia between august 11 and august 13, 2017 motivated by racial and religious intolerance. We join the nation in mourning the death of 32yearold heather heyer, who, along with many other injured people, was a victim of terrorism motivated by a white supremacist ideology. She lives now in our National Memory as a martyr for racial. Nd religious injustice we also mourn the death of state trooper h. Jay cullen and burkey bates berke bates. Who both died in a tragic Helicopter Crash after they were dispatched to monitor the violence in trouble itself. As americans, we are committed to the right to assemble peacefully but we condemn religious hatred, and segments and violence. Incitement incitement and violence. The events in charlottesville stand as another tragic and painful reminder that an ideology of racial and religious intolerance can lead in and is and to irretrievable acts of violence, death, and suffering. Mr. Adegbile as a nation, we have marched through legally sanctioned lavery, secession, reconstruction, kkk terror, internment of japanese citizens jim crow, and the civil , rights era, in pursuit of equality. Progress has come only as a result of the courage of individuals, not all of whom are remembered as they should be. And with the resolve of our leaders and the people alike to stand for the role of law equal , protection and Human Dignity. We urge the United States, department of justice, the federal bureau of investigation and appropriate , virginia Law Enforcement officials, to bring any and all people responsible for the killing of ms. Heyer to justice, and urge authorities to use all available resources to investigate the other apparent crimes including hate crimes committed in charlottesville last weekend. In this anniversary year of the United States civil rights commission, we must grapple with the violence in charlottesville as a reminder that the nations work to ensure that quality is both urgent and ongoing. White supremacy and religious a dishonor to the National Commitment that we have forged over time, they demean america and americans and violence in the name of these ideologies must be met swiftly and forcefully, with condemnation and unwavering and a unified response. Everykathryn said american deserves to live confident in the expectation that his and her equal dignity will be respected and receive protection from government agencies. Last weeks violence, driven by racial animus degrades our nation and merits swift, aggressive and comprehensive federal ones. In america, we live in the role of law. The rule of law. And the law must prevail in charlottesville, virginia as in any the or town faced with miller violence. Faced with similar violence. Sadly, we know that no law will bring back the fallen but we live by symbols and ms. Heather heyer stands eighth a symbol that our nation must not depart from the fight for Human Dignity and equality. In the words of her neighbor, she lived her life like a path and it was one of justice. On behalf of the commission, we urge the nation to rededicate itself to walk that path. Thank you. Let us go to the floor for discussion. We did not have a motion. We are supposed to have a motion first. Would you like to have a vote . I will move we adopt the statement. But i also have an amendment climate not be the right person i move we adopt the amendment. Do we have a second . Is there any discussion. I have an amendment, and move that we add to the second paragraph, at the very end, the following sentence. Though we support peaceful protest, and note that most of the counterdemonstrators were peaceful, we condemn violence by anyone, including violence by socalled antifa demonstrators. That is what they call themselves. They do not call themselves that. They have been called antifascists. Mr. Adegbile can you read the statement again . Sure. This is a sentence that would go at the end of the second paragraph. Though we support peaceful protest, and note that most of the counterdemonstrators were peaceful, we condemn violence by anyone, including violence by socalled antifa demonstrators. Mr. Adegbile is this contemplated to make more clear what the statement, in fact, already captures by suggesting that the rule of law be applied . I think that the statement does not make it clear that there were protesters who were not among the nazis, or the kkk who we all condemn. Of course, but we are coming at it from the opposite direction and they were also violent. Commissioner . Go ahead. While i certainly understand the motivation of the event violence,ndment, that by these right wing groups i wouldbe equated like to express my sentiments regarding the statement as a whole. And i willecessary statement but i do not find it sufficient. If we were to put anything else in this statement is to be a strong statement about the lack of leadership, courage, and moral authority of the president of the United States in a with this situation. Be a situation where the president of the united date said that there are very fine people on both sides. There are no there he fine people who are nazis, people in the vanguard movement, people who train every day to provoke a race war and try to do that tried to do that in charlottesville. There cannot be a place for a president to do anything other than to, not just condemn what happened, but to put the full force of the office as president and the executive branch to not just prosecute those that became violent, because violence is their ideology, but also to dig them out, root and branch, as we have had other president s and attorney generals do before in our history. This is really where i think the statement could be augmented, but i would prefer to have a unanimous statement from the commission, i do not support two that i do not support commissioner harriet amendment commissionerse amendment to this. We know what happened, we know how it happened people came armed and ready to do violence and battle because that is part of who they are. There are no very fine nazis. There are no very fine there are only people who are dedicated to relitigate a moral cause that was defeated more than 70 years ago by the blood and treasure of this country and many other countries throughout the world. So i say that i support the statement as income i will not support any changes to it but i would point out that we as the commission, should take to task this president who has failed abysmally in providing a clear direction and leadership and moral center for this nation in hateituation where hate, became the moderate motivator. It was not intolerance, make no mistake about this, this is an ideology of hatred for people of color, toward lgbts, towards the jewish community. This was not religious intolerance. These were people who chanted specific slogans aimed at members of the jewish faith. Slogans aimed at people of the lgbt community. So you know, this is a good statement and i commend my fellow commissioners for putting it together. But i have to say that it could have gone so much further. And given the fact that we have a bar now that has been set by people such as senator bob corker and Mitch Mcconnell that have Strong Language condemning and questioning the leadership of this president , i just wish we could do the same. Vice chair . Commissioner herriot, i understand your statement and i understand a little bit about writing. I am at a loss to understand why the first sentence in that paragraph does not generally cover your concern. It says as americans, we are committed to the right to assemble peaceably but we condemn racial, ethnic and religious hatred, incitement and violence. Granted, it is a general statement but i do not see why it doesnt cover your concern. You know, we all write differently, and if i were writing this treatment i would not read it the same way, just as you probably would not, but consider again please why that for statement would not first statement would not cover it. I would think that is because when in context, the statement as written makes it very clear that we are condemning one side. And although i do not think it is appropriate to condemn both sides, because there were a lot of demonstrators, counterdemonstrators there who were simply making the point that they should make which is that they will not stand for not these and kkk members and their views. They will not stand for nazis , kkk members and their views, but there were also some people on that side who were in fact violent and i think that this is important to point out. The statement does not do so. Ms. Narasaki . I would oppose the amended language. First of all, i feel that it is covered in the fourth paragraph where it says we urge authorities to use all available resources to investigate other apparent crimes, including any federal or state hate crimes committed. Second of all, i feel very strongly that there is a lack of moral equivalency here. So i have a problem, because i feel that somehow it is excusing the people who caused the violence to begin with. I lack evidence, actually that there were significant numbers of counterdemonstrators who were in fact as violent as those who were in fact in citing violence in citing the violence to citingh in inciting the violence to begin with. So, i just oppose that. Sorry. This is an important moment for the nation and for this commission. Mr. Adegbile and, i welcome the careful thoughts and thinking of all of the commissioners, many of whom have given input into this statement that we are trying to negotiate to a sure that we can, to the full extent possible, speak with a unified voice at a time when it seems that the circumstances in the country could reasonably have the expectation that they United States commission on civil rights, to the full extent possible, would speak with one clarion voice. I think that this statement does not condone violence in any way. Of any kind. And i think that is apparent from the language that we have negotiated and is on the page. I share commissioner narasakis concern that we be careful not to create false equivalencies. It is one thing not to condone violence. And i think the best and highest traditions of the fight for civil rights in this country have been a disciplined use of nonviolent in the face of extraordinary hate and violence. And i think that the marchers went to charlottesville in the context of that history. There are some circumstances where protests resulted in violence but i do not read anything in this statement as written, to condone that violence. I think it is important to address the needs and on that basis i will not support the amendment. I also want to be clear. I was raised in the nonviolent civil rights tradition. And i strongly oppose violence and is strongly believe in nonviolent civil rights protest. Where it is necessary. I think the statement is an eloquent, strong, powerful statement of opposition to violence, opposition to a racist ideology and a return to the nations darkest past. I also oppose any language that would water down the sentiment that i think is in the statement as crafted and also that captures opposition to violence of all types. I would like to say it is not the intention of this language ofwater down the sentiments the statement as a whole, however it very much is the intent of the proposed amendment, i intend to make it clear that there was indeed violence by people against the i have to call them the nazis and kkk. Both need to be condemned. Go ahead. Am sitting here in disbelief that this last whoement, that the people down peacefulmow protesters should find any equivalency from the u. S. Commission on civil rights with regard to by passing blame on people, on groups or organizations that were out there peacefully protesting, whether some got carried away or not, the intent and their motivation and their ideology is not motivated by hatred, is not motivated by violence, and it does terrible justice to the heyer and herher friendly and her family to consider this amendment. Commissionerthe kirsanow would consider the statement as it has been drafted. I think its a good statement but if their support for this is conditioned on that amendment, i will have no hesitation in starting to offer amendments of my own. Chair lhamon commissioner, we have a packed agenda today, so i will move us to a vote and note that commissioner kirsanow hasnt taken a position and we shouldnt be speculating on what his position is. The motion as amended is to vote on the statement with the sentence that commissioner herriot has proposed. Im going to call for a role although it on that motion roll call vote on that motion now. Commissioner adegbile how do you vote . Nay. Chair lhamon commissioner heriot . I vote yes and just want to comment that New York Times reporter Cheryl Stolberg reporting from charlottesville says, i saw clubwielding antifa beating white nationalists being led out of the park. Chair lhamon commissioner kirsanow, how do you vote . Yes. Chair lhamon commissioner kladney . Yes. Chair lhamon commissioner narasaki . I vote no, given the fact that we had the discussion last night about whether one should trust everything thats written in the press. This is kladney again. I apologize. I voted the wrong way. I voted no. Chair lhamon you voted no . Okay. Thank you. I thought we were voting on the statement. I apologize. Chair lhamon thank you. Commissioner yaki. No. Chair lhamon commissioner goodson. No. Chair lhamon and i vote no. Chair lhamon and i vote no. The motion fails. Do we want to move to reconsider the statement . I would like to move the statement as proposed. Thats still a pending motion. Thats the way roberts rules work. The statement . Its still a pending motion. You dont have to remove it. Fair enough. Perhaps we should proceed to the vote on the motion that has been moved. Chair lhamon commissioner adegbile, how do you vote . Aye. Chair lhamon commissioner heriot. I vote yes. Commissioner kirsanow. Yes. Chair lhamon commissioner kladney. Yes. Chair lhamon commissioner narasaki. Yes. Chair lhamon commissioner goodson. Yes. Chair lhamon and i vote yes. The motion passes unanimously. We will now consider a statement on civil Asset Forfeiture. This is our tradition. I will read the statement so we know what we are voting on. Its titled the u. S. Commission on civil rights disapproves of the department of justice civil asset foritture policy. The u. S. Commission on civil rights strongly disagrees with the department of justices recent decision to expand federal participation in the practice of civil Asset Forfeiture. Civil Asset Forfeiture is defined as the taking of property by Law Enforcement without a criminal conviction, was sharply curtailed by the department in 2015. Efforts to limit the practice have bipartisan support. As Justice Clarence thomas recently noted, this system where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use, has led to egregious and well chronicled abuses. Congressman jim conyers similarly stated it has become increasingly apparent that the procedures in federal law governing civil forgitture are inadequate and unfair. With respect to the concerns about access to justice, congressman Jim Sensenbrenner said civil forfeiture cases make a mockery of the constitution. A recent analysis of nevada forfeitures shows most seizures of property in that state last year for assets worth less than 1,000 and seizures were concentrated in areas where residents were mostly people of color and poverty is high. The high cost of challenging a seizure means theres no practical way to contest a seizure of such assets. In total, nevada residents forfeited nearly 2 million in cash and property in 2016. As in other states, Law Enforcement keeps a portion of this money, which creates an inherent conflict of interest. Public trust in the police is dangerously undermined when police are perceived to be acting primarily in their own financial interests rather than the interest of public safety. The department of justices decision to expand federal participation in Asset Forfeitures means conflicts of interest will be more widespread. Although the department has included new notice procedures and has promised monitoring in this new policy directive scaling up, rather than scaling back on this practice means more innocent americans will lose their property. As congressman sensenbrunner put it, forfeiture laws put lawabiding citizens at risk for unwanted seizures and the doj proposal to expand programs supporting such laws will only make the problem worse. The commission has recently investigated similar conflicts of interest, raising serious civil rights and access to justice concerns. In our investigation of municipal fines and fees, the results of which the commission plans to report in september 2017, the commission examined conflicts of interest at the municipal level when courts seek first to collect money rather than administer justice. Testimony the commission received indicated that civil Asset Forfeiture creates similar problems, leading to innocent persons losing their property or recovering it only after prolonged legal struggles and undermining public trust in government. Two of the commissions advisory committees in michigan and tennessee have taken up the topic for review because of civil rights concerns. Civil Asset Forfeiture has repeatedly been shown to have racially disproportionate outcomes with a greater effect on people of color. As Justice Thomas has noted, forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings. Chair kathryn e. Lhamon stated every american should have equal access to justice in this country. The department of justice should be ensuring the Fair Administration of justice, not engaging in practices that put this justice in question. The Commission Urges the department of justice to heed the many concerns raised about civil Asset Forfeiture and limit justice, and the practice. End the practice. Well now discuss the statement. Is there any discussion . I have a friendly amendment to change the reference to jim conyers to john conyers. I support the amendment and suspect the congressman would as well. [laughter] chair lhamon thank you. The motion to approve the statement regarding civil Asset Forfeiture . So moved. Chair lhamon is there a second . I second. Chair lhamon commissioner adegbile. Aye. Commissioner heriot. Aye. Commissioner kirsanow. Yes. Chair lhamon commissioner yaki. Aye. Chair lhamon vice chair goodson. Yes. Chair lhamon and i vote yes. The motion passes unanimous. Madam chair, i would like to revise my vote to an abstain. Chair lhamon i thought you were ruining your street credibility. [laughter] okay. So correcting our record, the motion passes, one abstention, all others in favor. We will now consider the statement on im sorry . Never mind. Chair lhamon now well consider the statement on the transgender military ban. Again, i will first read the statement so we know what were voting on. The title is the u. S. Commission on civil rights condemns the announced military ban on transgendered individuals. The u. S. Commission on civil rights strongly urges the president to reconsider his position as expressed on july 26, 2017 that the United States government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the u. S. Military. The Commission Urges this administration to recommit to the full protection of civil rights for all persons in our country. Thousands of transgender troops currently serve in the u. S. Military and thousands more have served and given their lives for the country throughout our history. These military men and women honor our country and defend all of its citizens with their service. As a group of retired military officers pointed out, the ban, if implemented, would cause significant disruptions, deprive the military of missioncritical talent, and compromise the integrity of transgender troops who would be forced to live a lie, as well as nontransgender peers, who would be forced to choose between reporting their comrades or disobeying policy. Ironically, 69 years previously on the very same day in 1948, president harry s. Truman issued an executive order to desegregate the u. S. Military. President truman then correctly recognized that the nations military strength and efficacy depend on equal treatment of its troops. He saw that integration, notwithstanding predictable resistance to the change was not only possible but essential to living up to the american promise of equal treatment of all persons. Retrenchment, seven decades later, egregiously fails to learn from our past. The president s mere announcement of a ban on Transgender Military Service harms all americans by sending a message that fosters and encourages prejudice, inconsistent with our Core National values. If implemented, the ban would further harm americans and weaken our defense by enshrining unequal treatment of americans based on rank stereotype. Chair kathryn e. Lhamon stated, animus has no place in any aspect of american life. All americans deserve our governments respect and protection, not affirmative harm from the government itself. The u. S. Commission on civil rights calls on the United States to satisfy the civil rights protections that are the responsibility and obligation of the federal government. We will now discuss the statement. Any discussion . Hearing none, do i have a motion to approve the statement regarding the military ban on transgender individuals . So moved. Chair lhamon is there a second . Commissioner adegbile how do you vote . Aye. I have a question. Do we know for certain whether or not there is actually an order on this, or was it just the president s attempt to distract people during the healthcare debate by tweeting it out there without informing anyone in the joint chiefs or any of the heads of the Armed Services . Chair lhamon what we know is that the president has made the statement through tweet, and that that statement persists, that the statement our statement itself determines that the statement was announced and then notes the ways the announcement itself are harmful and the way that, if implemented, the ban would be harmful. Im just wondering because its just that any president can believe that he can change the policy by tweet, not following the chain of command or the unanimous opinion of his of the members of his military, but i was just wondering, thanks. Chair lhamon thank you. Well proceed with the vote. Commissioner adegbile, how do you vote. Still aye. Chair lhamon commissioner heriot. Sorry, i missed the discussion part. What i would say is tweet is not a policy statement, so this is premature. Im going to vote no. Chair lhamon commissioner kirsanow. No. Chair lhamon commissioner kladney. Yes. Chair lhamon commissioner narasaki. Yes. Chair lhamon commissioner yaki. I agree with commissioner heriot but im going to vote yes. Chair lhamon vice chair goodson. Yes. Chair lhamon and i vote yes. The motion passes. Two commissioners voted no. All others were in favor. We will now consider the statement on the national Voting Rights act. Commissioner na rasaki will read the statement. Thank you, madam chair. This is raising a concern about a shift by the department of justice over policy thats been in place for 20 years through both democratic and republican administrations and through several cases. It reads the u. S. Commission on civil rights raises concern about reversal of department of justice position on key Voting Rights case. The u. S. Commission on civil rights expresses serious concern with the department of justices recent change of position in houston versus a. Philip randolph institute, an ohio Voting Rights case scheduled to be argued before the Supreme Court during the upcoming october term. Section 8 of the nvra, National Voting registration act, prescribes rules for when state photo registration Maintenance Programs may remove voters from voter rules and explicitly prohibits the removal of an eligible voter because of a persons failure to vote. Since 1994, the department has argued the nvra prohibited states from using a voters failure to vote for a specified period as grounds to send an address verification notice. Under programs like ohios, if the voter failed to respond to the notice and failed to vote for an additional period of time, the voter would be removed from the voter roll. Although no facts or case law have changed, the department has now reversed its position citing the change in administrations as the only basis for doing so. This stance opens the door to more aggressive and inaccurate purging of voter rolls, which can lead to widespread voter disenfranchisement and suppression of lowincome communities and communities of color. In september 2016, a federal Appeals Court blocked the ohio program for violating section 8. A federal judge allowed purged voters who still lived in the same county to vote provisionally. The state of ohio has acknowledged that over 7500 voters cast votes in the 2016 president ial election that would have otherwise been purged from the voting rolls. This case marks the second highprofile Voting Rights case where the department has reversed or withdrawn its position from earlier. The commission will continue to monitor the action of the administration as part of its previously announced twoyear assessment of federal civil Rights Enforcement which will conclude in fiscal year 2019. Chair kathryn e. Lhamon states the right to vote is fundamental in our american democracy. The commission will continue to uphold its 60year mandate to protect that right and remains vigilant in ensuring the department of justice fulfills its own mandate of enforcing federal civil rights statutes. Chair lhamon thank you. Now open for discussion on that statement. Is there a second . Theres been no motion yet. Hearing none, is there a motion to approve the statement . I so move. Is there a second . Second. Chair lhamon commissioner adegbile, how do you vote . Aye. Chair lhamon i called for discussion and heard none. Discussions are supposed to go after the motion. The motion is what makes it possible to conduct the discussion. Thats what roberts rules of order say. Chair lhamon do you have discussion youd like to begin . Yes, two things. First, im going to oppose chair lhamon i think your microphone may not be on. Here we go. Im going to oppose this for two reasons. First is, it states that although no facts or case law have changed, and that is inaccurate, when litigation first began, ohios board of elections would monitor the voting rolls, and if there was an inactivity in the voter rolls for two years, a post card would be sent out asking for confirmation of the persons residency status, and that post card would not inform the person of the consequences of failure to respond or what that person can do in terms of becoming eligible to vote in whatever new jurisdiction that person was in. After litigation has begun, the board of elections changed that to now inform the voters of the consequences of what would happen. If they did not return the prepaid postcard or vote or register, they would be purged from the rolls four years thereafter, so that was changed. They still do not tell the voter what they can do in terms of conforming with the eligibility requirements in a new jurisdiction, but then that begs the question, how can one state tell a voter how to conform to the requirements of another state . So theres been a change. The second one is that maintaining accurate voter rolls is, in fact, essential. Any vote that shouldnt be had cancels out a vote that legitimately should be had, and this is an effort to maintain the integrity of the voting roll in terms of whos eligible to vote in a given jurisdiction. There have been a number of studies including the Election Integrity project that shows that there are 3. 5 million more people on the voting rolls than there are live adults in the United States. San diego county by itself you live there, dont you . Has over 800,000 more people on its rolls than are live adults. And that has consequences, because we all remember that in 2000 president ial election in florida, 538 votes decided that election. Washington gubernatorial election, i think 300 votes out of 2. 8 million cast here to decide the attorney general, 162 votes out of millions cast. So each vote is very important, so im going to oppose it for those two reasons, mainly because of the inaccuracy. Chair lhamon commissioner narasaki. The change that you note was acknowledged by the federal court, who noted as i do that that is not actually the issue at hand. What the notice says is irrelevant to the policy and the policy is focused on whether its sufficient to remove people otherwise eligible to vote from the rolls simply by mailing anything to them once. And this is the challenge because the reason why the department of justice has taken this position since it objected to it when georgia tried to do it in 1994, is because theres a concern, particularly for poor minority communities who have poor mail service, that this will disproportionately be a problem for them. Immigrant families also tend to live in multifamily households and nontraditional residences, and mail delivery is simply ineffective. And the fact, i would think you would be concerned that the fact that 7500 people who would have been struck showed up to vote and would have been told you cant vote would be more of a concern than the fact that there are dead people on the rolls who clearly arent trying to vote. Thats not so clear. The fact there are dead people on the rolls or other people on the rolls may be registered in multiple jurisdictions, theres copious evidence that hundreds of thousands of people are registered in multiple jurisdictions and evidence of people who admitted they voted in multiple jurisdictions, in addition to which the posture of this particular case was in the injunctive stage, in other words, we are not talking about the merit stage. This change could well have a dispositive impact on the nature of this litigation. That is why i say number 1, its inaccurate. And number 2, it would be at best premature. Commissioner, i agree that, obviously, its important to try to keep the rolls clean, but there is not evidence there is widespread double voting by people who are double registered and has been widely reported, although weve already established one cannot necessarily trust the press even members of the president s family are double registered, and i dont think anyone is accusing them of trying to vote twice. Thats why, in our recent nvra report on section 7, we supported automatic Voter Registration and Data Management technology, because that will be a better way to clean the rolls and the department of justice has been very clear on how states can better maintain their rolls. The real criminal is the fact that states are underfunding Voter Administration and underfunding the ability to upgrade their systems. Thats the real problem here. They shouldnt be doing it in a way that causes people who are otherwise eligible to vote who then cant vote when they show up. Just one last point in counter to that. Regardless of whether or not the president s family is double registered, double registration presents a profound problem. Its a problem that has been exploited. There have been a number of individuals and studies that have shown that people do vote in multiple jurisdictions, and one of those votes is unlawful. One of those votes cancels out the vote of somebody else, so thats significant. In addition to that, in this particular case, its not as if there was some draconian purge. The manner in which this happens is a prepaid post card is sent to individuals after two years of voting inactivity simply saying, please confirm that you are a resident of this state or words to that effect. Then there are several mechanisms by which the person can, in fact, satisfy the request. One is by return of that prepaid postcard within the next four years, or voting in the next four years or registering to voting in the next four years. Nonetheless, what happened in this case is there was a change in the facts, and i would say that its premature to make a judgment on that until the Supreme Court, in fact, weighs in. Chair lhamon commissioner narasaki. Commissioner, you must lead a charmed life if you have never had mail go missing in your life. I know i have had several occasions where the mail and the post office has simply not delivered. In addition, there are stories of real people here. Again, i dont know what you call massive purge, but having that many people, 7500 eligible voters show up who would have otherwise been purged, i think is a problem. So i just find it very troubling that the concern is more about dead people than about live people who are trying to vote. Chair lhamon any further discussion . This is commissioner yaki. I would just like to note that the question of the 538 people in florida could also have been mitigated by the fact had florida not purged thousands of people who actually were registered to vote and were mistakenly struck off the rolls, so it goes both ways, commissioner. Chair lhamon okay. Calling the vote. Commissioner adegbile. How do you vote . Aye. Chair lhamon commissioner heriot. I vote no. Chair lhamon commissioner kladney. Yes. Chair lhamon commissioner narasaki. Yes. Chair lhamon commissioner yaki. Aye. Chair lhamon goodson. Yes. Chair lhamon and i vote yes. The motion passes. Two commissioners oppose. All others were in favor. We are four minutes before our scheduled speakers at 11 00 a. M. , so we will recess until 11 00 a. M. And return to our speakers and hear about the history of Voting Rights in this country. Coming up this weekend on American History tv on cspan3, tonight at 10 00 p. M. Eastern on reel america, the 1944 u. S. Office of war film why we fight the battle of china. Three fax must never be forgotten. Is landhistory, china and china is people. On sunday at 11 30 a. M. Eastern, medical economy professor and author Robert Wright on Alexander Hamiltons views of the national debt. Hamilton advised the creation of an antigenic energetic government which did one thing well with as little money as possible. That one thing was to protect americans lives, property and liberty, firm threats foreign and domestic. Then, new jersey residents and activists discussed the 1957 new work rebellion. There were reports of the sniper fire, you may reach us at area code 202 7488001 for republicans; 202 7488000 for democrats and 202 7488002 for independents you may send us a tweet at cspanwj on twitter and join in on the conversation on facebook at facebook. Com cspan on facebook snipers were ever found. No evidence of gun shells, other than the police gun shells, no footprints, no fingerprints, yet, 26 peoplend were killed, one policeman, one fireman, and the rest of their residents all abided by the Police Officers that were operating. This weekend, only on cspan3. Cspan where history unfolds daily. In 1979 since then was created as a Public Service by americas cable and Television Companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. Next, nasa officials hold a safetyg to discuss the issues concerning mondays total Solar Eclipse and later, its acting administrator talks about nasas 2018 budget request and plans for future missions for space. After that that it question of earthlike planets in our solar system. As the United States prepares for its first Solar Eclipse in 100 years, here on cspan were going to hold the next best will spend the next few hours hearing from nasa officials about the eclipse and other issues of the space program. Washington journal will be live