Countriesly western not to do this. We are protecting the integrity of the boat so that when you vote, your vote will be counted and not diluted by illegal and fraudulent votes. Here is the main problem with voter id. It is not so much that voters are being asked to show identification. Everyone walks around with something on their person that identifies who they are. The problem with voter id in has beentes where it implement it since 2010 is these states have very strict parameters with respect to the type of voter id that is allowable and accepted heard what we found in our research is the types of ids that many of these states are saying is allowable and accepted is the kind of id that is much more difficult for individuals in certain groups to obtain. Africanamericans, other minority groups, the elderly, the students. Even in texas we found they refused to accept a student voter id even though they would accept a license showing you are registered to carry a gun. With voter id is the states are not saying we will accept any kind of documentation that says who you are in an as an individual. They are saying we will only accept certain types of documentation. It is these parameters making it difficult for some individuals to get this id and show it on election id. A point that ons made earlier about voter id and where we are with respect to the states, one of the things that individuals have to understand is in this country we have had a history of trying to expand access to the ballot box, not make it more difficult. What we found in a study in 2011 is that we have for the first time seen several states put into effect or have efforts to try to make it harder for individuals to register to vote. Voter id, include that would roll back early voting times and change parameters with respect to absentee balloting and citizenship. In most of the states where we have seen changes, those are states where the Majority Republican Legislature or the Governors Office is headed i a republican and this is where americans are seeing a disconnect. They are questioning why we are seeing these changes now, and why we are seeing these changes in states that are mostly headed by republicans. This is what is concerning to so many. [inaudible] preclearance requirements under section 4 and 5, it was acceptable even though it used data from 1975 . Or did you feel that those parts of the Voting Rights act needed to be updated . Ms. Austinhillery we felt the way the Voting Rights act was working was working fine, it was catching those states that were trying to implement laws that would have a discriminatory effect. Let me tell you what is happening right now. The Supreme Court literally said to congress, it is your role to do something about this, to fix this. Congress is attempting to do this. A piece of legislation recently introduced called the Voting Rights advancement act, that is trying to look at how do we not only restore protections lost when the Supreme Court of a did section five, but how do we make it such that a piece of legislation that is responsive to the issues that voters are facing now. That is what this piece of legislation does. Thates take into account these problems exist in it in states such as ohio, wisconsin, pennsylvania. Happening unfortunately that partisanship is burying its ugly head, even though the bill is not a bipartisan bill. It has been difficult to even get a hearing. We have reached out great many groups that have worked on this bill have reached out to both sides of the island said, give us a hearing. Unfortunately the response has not been great. There a way to update the Voting Rights act and its preclearance conditions that would make it more useful in todays world . Mr. Spakovsky the problem with this bill is there is no evidence it is needed. The former states that were covered under section five have higher black Voter Registration turnout rates than the rest of the country. Ofy have a higher proportion like elected officials, according to the population, than the rest of the country. There is no showing that the kind of systematic, official, widespread discrimination that section 5 was targeted to stop, that does not exist today. There is so little discrimination. Discrimination in voting is so rare. In five or six years it has only filed four lawsuits under section 2. There simply isnt that kind of widespread discrimination that would require a special provision put in particular jurisdictions under federal receivership. Needed, there is a provision in the voting acrights act called provision 3. If a particular judge can be convinced that a jurisdiction , and they believe that particular jurisdiction needs to be under a preclearance requirement, a judge can order it. That kind of customdesigned preclearance is much more logical and makes much more sense than a blanket provision that would cover many states and jurisdictions because of the sins of perhaps one or two. There is a current preclearance division. The Justice Department hardly ever uses it because it is not needed here it needed. Ms. Austinhillery i beg to differ on a couple points. There is discrimination with respect to voting. We do not have the same type of discrimination we had 50 years ago. Voters are not eating asked to count the number of jelly beans in a jar before they can register to vote. They are not asked to interpret sections of the state constitution before they can register to vote, but they are facing barriers. The Lawyers Committee for civil rights, other organizations have been documenting exactly what kinds of issues voters have been facing since many of these laws have been attempted to put in place. Lawyers Committee Just released a report on the anniversary of the Voting Rights act documenting evidence of what kinds of discrimination voters continue to face. It is simply not true that discrimination does not still exist. It has simply changed in terms of the type, but it still does exist. The problem with section 3 is that section 3 is a provision is utilized after discrimination has already taken place. The beauty of section 5 is a protected voters prior to election day. The thing about voting is it is not something you can get back, unlike other types of civil rights provisions where you can make an individual hole again after the fact, you cannot make a voter whole again once they miss election day. It is like unringing a bell. You get to vote on election day and if you miss that opportunity , it is simply gone. That is the problem with section 3 and that is why it is not enough and that is why we still need protection under section 5. Ylan mui a quick response. Mr. Spakovsky there are not any laws in the United States today that prevent anyone from wanting to register and vote from being able to register and vote. It is that simple. All these claims that there are all these problems the Brennan Center says, because North Carolina provides 10 days of early voting, that is somehow discriminatory. Many states in this country do not provide early voting at all. Center says if you do not provide sameday is somehown, that discriminatory despite the fact there are only a dozen states that do that. Those claims are ridiculous. Discrimination. Theres nothing that prevents people from being able to register and freely vote anywhere in the country. James is calling on the republican line. Good morning to you. Are you there . Good morning to you and thank you for taking my call. For him, he does have a point. They try to make everything a racial issue. Problem is they vote but they have no clue on what they are voting for. , she is notk lady mentioning the fact that they have no clue on the issues. Look at the country as a whole right now and how it is going. If youuld wish to keep them out of the polls we would not be having the problems we are having right now. One more color on the independent line. What are your thoughts this morning caller on the independent line. What are your thoughts this morning . Caller i want to talk about my situation in tennessee. The thing is that the state of tennessee, the State Government passed a voter identification law, and it was where you would have to get a drivers license or any other type of identification. Except i live in wayne county, tennessee, which is along the line,seealabama state and in tennessee we do not have a Drivers License Center. People in this county have to go to Lawrence County on the east side of the county or to Hardin County on the west side of the to those Drivers License Centers to get a driver license. If they had passed this voter identification law where they would provide a Drivers License Center in each of the counties, then i would understand ok, that would not be causing any type of hardship. All these Drivers License Centers are at county seats. The distance to be able to travel 4250 miles to go to these 40 to 50 miles to go to these centers. Nobody has yet went and tried to i guess sue at this point, but there is hardship. Ms. Mui hans . Mr. Spakovsky i will say to the first color, i disagree. We should do everything we can to try to get as many people to vote as possible. We should encourage that. There were two lawsuits filed in tennessee against the voter id law. There was one filed in state court under the state constitution. There was a lawsuit filed in federal court came in claiming it was violating the constitution. In both cases the plaintiffs lost because the courts that requiring an id and there are different forms of id that can be used was. Ot a burden on voting the law was in effect. For the last elections i released a paper not too long ago in which i looked at turnout in tennessee after the voter id law was in effect comparing to turn out before the law was in effect and it was very clear, again, that the id law did not have any effect in depressing turnout or keeping people from the polls. Ms. Austinhillery the problem that the last caller really is that so many voters in these states where they are trying to implement these changes have said that it is difficult for them to individually adhere to some of the new parameters. As he was saying, where you can go to get the correct id may be difficult for some voters. I go back to my earlier point. The problem is not simply in that states are asking for id. It is that the parameters in place for voters to actually get the requisite id and adhere to those new laws have been very difficult. One thing we have to note is this. Many of these laws are still relatively new. In 2016 when we have our next major election, that will be the first time within about 15 of these states many of these new laws will be in effect. When hans talks about the fact that we have not really seen the negative impact from these new full we have not seen the effect of many of these laws because they have not all taken effect yet. 2016 will be quite telling once we see many of these states actually put these laws in place. When ons earlier talked about the fact that the Brennan Center supports and advocates for a provision such as early voting, sameday registration, it is because our studies have found that we have to as a nation meet voters where they live. Voters have said, it is difficult to always vote on election day. People have married of differences in the lives in terms of when they work, how they work, family responsibilities. Aree types of revisions ones that are being advocated because they think it will make it easier for many more people to actually engage in the electoral process. That is what democracy is about. It is about opening it up to as many people as possible. Provisions like sameday registration, early voting those are things meant to ensure as Many Americans as possible can engage in elections. Hans, you mentioned earlier there is disparity in some of the voting laws between states such that some states offer early voting, some states dont, some laws allow sameday registration, some states dont. Here that the issue there is not a standard voting law that applies to all the states, has there been any thought behind thats . Mr. Spakovsky no. We are a federal system, and the state under the constitution and is ruled way congress elections, the states are able to make their own decisions on this. Im not necessarily against early voting or sameday registration. If you want that in your state, the way to do that is through the legislative process. Those are Public Policy decisions on whether you want to do that or not. Instead, folks are going to court and trying to claim it is to scare minority if you do not do that. That is not the case. That is a choice. I should quickly mention, there are a number of studies out i know this is counterintuitive early voting actually may hurt turnout. There was a study done recent the university of wisconsin comparing early voting states with other states and they conclude that early voting hurts turnout and may reduce it by as much as 3 to 4 . That may not sound logical, but the reason is that campaigns spend huge amounts of money in get out the vote efforts right before election day. If they have to spread out that effort over a week, two weeks, three weeks, a month during an during an early voting period, the intensity of it is not as good and it is not as effective. That may be the reason why early voting actually seems to hurt turnout and does why not and and does not help it. Ms. Mui president obama talked about the Voting Rights act in his weekly address pretty present obama 15 years ago this week, president johnson signed a law to change that. Broke downrights act legal barriers that stood between millions of African Americans and their constitutional right to cast a ballot. It was and still is one of the greatest victories in our country must struggle for civil rights. But it did not happen overnight. Countless men and women marched and organized, set in and stood up for our most basic rights. For this they were called agitators and unamerican. They were jailed and they were beaten. Some were even killed. But in the end, they reaffirmed the idea at the very heart of america, that people who love this country can change it. Our country is a better place because of all those heroes did for us. Those heroes, congressman john lewis reminded us in selma this past march, there is still work to be done. 50 years after the Voting Rights act, there are still too many barriers to vote and too many people trying to elect new ones. We have seen laws that roll back early voting, force people to jump through hoops to cast a legitimatelead to voters being improperly purged from the polls. We have seen provisions specifically designed to make it harder for some of our fellow citizens to vote. In a democracy like ours, with a history like ours, that is a disgrace. Celebrate the we 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights act, i am calling on congress to pass new legislation to make sure every american has equal access to the polls. That is why it is important the organizers getting folks registered in their communities. It is wine a matter what party you support, my message to every american is simple. Get out there and vote. Not just every four years, but every chance you get to read elected officials will only heed your voice if you make your voice heard. Ms. Mui that was president obama speaking about the Voting Rights act, its 50th anniversary. He also said this in usa today there are almost no instances of people going to vote in someone elses name. It is not a common crime. He urged states to restore early voting days. I would like to ask you about that. Just how prevalent is voter fraud and what is the evidence this isnt commonplace . Mr. Spakovsky three years ago i wrote a book with john fund about voter fraud cases across the country. We put together a database at the Heritage Foundation, a random sampling of cases from across the country where up to prosecutions and convictions these are not just allegations, cases where people work convicted prosecuted. This is something the Supreme Court said. The u. S. Has a long history of voter fraud and it can make the difference in a close election. Elections in this country all the time, particularly at the local level in county races, sometimes in state legislative races. That is where it can really make a difference. That is why we need basic security. I agree with what the president said about the importance of the Voting Rights act. It was a most important law passed in the last 100 years. Havee also have to security and integrity in our election process. Anng things like requiring id which almost every western democracy does, even mexico, is not keeping people out of the polls. The president also mentioned he claimed that all these people were being purged from voter rolls. That is not the case either. The Justice Department his Justice Department has the ability under the national Voter Registration act to sue statses if the illegally purged voters. They have filed almost no such lawsuits in the last six and a half years. That is not going on. The pew center released a study two years ago in which badly flawedut how our Voter Registration lists are because states are not cleaning them up, they are not taking off people who have died and moved away to the point where they listed millions of people who are dead, who are still on the rolls, millions of people registered in more than one state. Our biggest problem with our voter rolls is states are not doing a good job maintaining them in making sure they are accurate, which is important for people to be able to vote. Ms.