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. Austinhillery the Brennan Center did a report called the truth about voter fraud. Maintainound and still is that this issue of in person voter fraud which is what these states which have been trying to attack the issue of voter fraud and have been saying voter id would address is really not an issue at all in this country. We, like everyone else, want to ensure that the election system is secure, that the integrity is indeed protected, but the truth is the types of laws that many of these jurisdictions have been trying to implement, such as voter id, dont get at the kind of voter fraud examples that hans talked about in his reports and others have discussed. Little evidence that anyone tries to commit in person voter fraud, which is actually going to a polling place and saying you are someone who you are not. That really does not exist. That is the only kind of voter fraud that the id when even deal with. But we know that that kind of fraud is simply physically nonexistent. We really need to start speaking the truth and be accurate when we are talking about this issue. Hans mentioned earlier the fact that the state has the option to implement new policies such as early voting and sameday registration. We at the Brennan Center think that we have to start thinking not just about what the voting but what can we do to ensure his Many Americans as possible can engage in the electoral process. That is why we support modernizing our election system. Many states around the country are indeed looking at what can we do not only to protect voters from discrimination, but what can we do to ensure that voters have easier access and more accurate access to the polls. Modernization implementation is something that we support, things like automatic registration, online registration, and you see many states are attempting to do that. New lawust passed a ensuring there would be automatic registration throughout the country. California is looking at this. States like delaware have different modernization mechanisms. We have to move this conversation past simply what are we doing to protect discrimination or to protect against discrimination. Alsove to do that but we have two simultaneously try to ensure that we are doing all we to votingand access and looking at modernization mechanisms have to be part and parcel of that. Ms. Mui do you have a stance on modernization . Mr. Spakovsky sure. To the extent we can modernize techniques without causing problems, we should do that. But for example i will tell you one thing some folks have been urging. Some people have been saying we should move to internet voting, people being able to vote from their iphone or whatever because they think that will increase turnout. Paper on theed a enormous danger that would pose because of how inherently insecure the internet is, and yet i think in next years election we have already got [indiscernible] out west to our thinking about holding a primary over the internet. That kind of modernization is not a good idea. This idea that people dont vote because they have problems with thestering or getting to polling places, that is simply not true. All you have to do is look at the u. S. Census survey. The Census Bureau does a survey after federal election where they talk to nonvoters, people who did not vote, and ask them why they did not vote. In those reason surveys of people dont vote is because they dont like the candidates, they are not interested in politics, they dont think it will make a difference in their lives. The number of people who say they did not voter did not register because of some kind of administrative issue is a tiny percentage at the bottom of the survey. If we really want to increase turnout in this country, that is a cultural, political problem that we have to work on. We are not going to solve that through changes in the way we administer or register voters and do things like that. On the phone lines is dan from waterloo, ontario. What do you think of our system . Caller i wanted to call in because i have worked here in elections in the provincial and federal level. Rightsole idea of voting is bizarre to us. Basically you can show up at a poll. We do everything we can. We have voter rules that send out mail cards that encourage you to bring id, but you can show up on poll day at any poll location and just affirmed you are who you are and they will give you a ballot to vote. Is,s what im wondering how can anyone argue in terms of what goes on in the u. S. In good reasonable tos attempt to impose more onerous restrictions on anyones right to vote . Why wouldnt you be working in the opposite direction all the time . Ms. Mui thats pickup one more caller. Our next caller is ralph from new york on the democratic line. Caller thank you for cspan. From upstateker new york and we are making it more difficult to vote, by the fact that we have had the lowest voter turnout in the last midterm election. 1978. since just a very effective having a requirement of voter id is a barrier to voting because i worked the board of elections and we dont have a voter id law in new york state but sometimes voters show up and earlier an hour early. They have that one day and they dont come back. Dependent on the voter id card they are going to accept, if they dont have it, voters are not going to come back because you only have the one day. My last point is we are bringing back a version of poll tax because depending on the state, the pathway to get a voter id card, you might need to have a birth certificate. If you lose your birth certificate, it might cost as much as 35 to have a birth certificate to get that voter id card. The poll tax is coming back and i think the people that support the people that do support voter id cards requirement, they are afraid of diversity because they know america is becoming more diverse and they are afraid of that and they want to keep certain people from voting. I thank you for your time. ,s. Mui ms. Austinhillery your comments. Ms. Austinhillery i have the same question the first caller had, which is why anyone in this would want to do anything to make it harder for individuals to engage in our electoral process. That is one of the questions that we have when we look at congress and ask the question, can we have a hearing, can we have a discussion about the Voting Rights bill that is currently pending in congress. It is nonsensical that anyone, any lawmaker would try to support any kind of mechanism that would make it more difficult for someone to engage in the electoral process. The last caller made a crucial point, and it is something we have focused on as well at the Brennan Center. States that are trying to put some of these requirements in place dealing with voter id specifically are not necessarily making it easy for voters to adhere to these new rules and regulations. It is true that in some of those jurisdictions you do have to have a birth certificate in order to get that requisite id. Jurisdictionsse cost money to get a copy of ones a birth certificate, not something most people have laying around. I go back to the point that states that are trying to implement these kinds of laws need to make it as easy as possible for their voters to adhere to those new regulations. That is simply not what is happening and that is why you have voters challenging the authenticity of these laws and what is behind them because voters are saying, you are putting new parameters in place making it difficult to meet them. Mr. Spakovsky i will talk about one state that answers all these questions. The state of georgias voter id law has been in place since 2008. It has been in place in election after election there. Georgia has a very large africanamerican population, 30 of the state. None of the problems mentioned by some of the callers or nicole, none of those problems have occurred. People have been able to easily vote, turnout of africanamericans in the state has gone up since the voter id law went in place, and getting an id is very easy, it is free, it is not a poll tax. The courts have looked at that and many cases have been filed against voter id laws. The have concluded its not a poll tax. A year or two ago, i did something very interesting. I went back and i dug out the names of the witnesses that the naacp used in their unsuccessful lawsuit against the georgia voter id law. These were all individuals who had sworn in court that they did not have an idea and would not be able to get the free id that the state was offering. I went and i checked their voting records against the secretary of state since the law was found to be fully constitutional, not discriminatory. I went and checked their voting records of people who swore they had been voting in election after election after election. That just shows that this whole idea, people will be unable to vote because of these id laws, just isnt the case and has not happened in the states that have had id laws, now in place for many years. Ms. Mui how was it that georgia was able to pass a voting id law in 2008 before the 2013 Supreme Court decision . Mr. Spakovsky they submitted it for section 5 preclearance and he Justice Department, the evidence that the states submitted showed it would not be discriminatory. That conclusion by the Justice Department turned out to be correct. The law has been in place now for seven years. The first lawsuit was a facial challenge, to challenge the law on its face. They lost. The court said it is not discriminatory. If the Brennan Center or the ofcp or others had evidence individuals have been unable to vote because of that law, they over the past seven years could have filed a second lawsuit, and a challenge were you say this law as it applies to my particular client is discriminatory, that lawsuit has not been filed, that hasnt evidencebecause the throughout the state shows that this does not keep people out of the polls. Ms. Mui ms. Austinhillery, quick comment. Ms. Austinhillery i would contend that georgia is one example that, yes, the federal government did preclear the provisions that georgia eventually implemented. But as i say, the problem with voter id is not necessarily in the concept, it is in how it is implemented. Perhaps in georgia i would contend that georgia is more of an aberration than an example they put for homeowners parameters in place that would not have a discriminatory effect on voters. When we look at other states like texas, North Carolina, wisconsin, these are states in which the ways in which they are trying to implement these laws, they have a strong possibility of having a discriminatory effect. Georgia is one example that we have 50 states. If youre able to tell me that 45 out of 50 states had these laws and they were working beautifully, i might say, you know what, hans, perhaps this is working well. But that is not the case. In the majority of states where they are trying to implement these laws, they are implementing them in such a way that is making it difficult for voters to engage in the electoral process and there is there arece witnesses, individuals who made statements about the experience they have been facing where they are able to document that yes, these new laws are making it harder for them to register to vote and engage in voting. Ms. Mui richard is calling on the republican line. Go ahead. Caller one of our earlier callers from out of country who would go id at all along with folks walking into banks. I have 50,000 in your bank. I would like to withdraw it. Iding elections remember two Senate Elections that were close calls but can be interesting for the entire country. Regarding folks like the brennan , with regard to felons writes restorations, rights intorations, the least i do any election is vote. I go out and work for candidates. I call in to shows like this. Why are we concentrating on the fellowsread by these that they cannot vote when they can do so many other things . Ms. Austinhillery . Ms. Austinhillery the Brennan Center, along with many other organizations, does support the vote restoration right. We think once an individual has paid his or her debt to society, they should have the right to vote restored. With respect to other rights and responsibilities in this country, when an individual has finished their incarceration period, we expect them to get a job and pay taxes and follow laws. Why too shouldnt they be able to exercise their right to vote . Is aboutracy individuals making mistakes, paying for their mistakes as they should, but then being made whole again as citizens and being allowed to engage in our democratic process. That is something we do indeed support. There is legislation in congress right now pending that is bipartisan. Senator ben cardin for maryland and senator rand paul have bills that attempt to do that. We do think that is important. I go back to a point i made earlier. The history of this country is about expanding the democracy. It is not about putting barriers in place and making it difficult for any sector of our population to engage in a democratic process. Every american has a right to have a voice in terms of how our democracy operates, even those who made mistakes previously, along with those who have never made mistakes and everything in between. That is what we should be talking about. Ms. Mui david is next on the democratic line. I dont understand why this is such a difficult decision. If a person cant drive and dont have the drivers license, should have a state id to vote, and that would automatically and then they could look up people if they are illegals are not, or should or should not be voting. It seems like it is too much of , and it shouldon not be hard for anybody to go out and get one of those ids. Ms. Mui hans . Mr. Spakovsky i agree with him. The Wisconsin Voter id law is now in effect because it has been upheld in federal and state court. That brings up something i wanted to mention before. Nicole said a photo id can only prevent impersonation fraud. That is untrue. Government issued photo id, whether a u. S. Passport or military id, drivers license, state id which all states issue, is a way of also preventing people from voting who have falsely registered. And we have all kinds of cases of false registration. They can also prevent people who are in the country illegally from voting. Are many good reasons for doing that and in fact, every single state that has put in a photo id requirement has said, you can also get a free state id card. Even if you dont drive, with a phto oto you can use, for votin. You cannot function in everyday life without a photo id. You need it for everything from buying certain drugs at pharmacies to cashing a check, buying a beer. I had to show my id to get into the cspan studio today. Very small number of individuals in this country who do not have an id, helping them get this id will actually help them to do all kinds of other things that you need it for when you want to function in American Culture and society. Ms. Mui a few comments from twitter. When you make it so easy to walk into a voting booth anywhere, let me walk into a gun store and get my gun is easily. We will turn back to the phone lines. Ben from oregon on the independent line. Im thinking of a couple things. We have vote by mail. As far as i know there have been no instances of voter fraud. Found 250 cases to the math for me. 250 cases and there are 2. 5 how is your time being spent for 1 10 of 1 10 of 1 of voting fraud . On that same note, if the Heritage Foundation is all about getting people registered to and takea turnout people rally up some fans and buses, take people to get their ids, make sure they vote. Hans, another thing, did you vote for george w. Bush . Mr. Spakovsky fortunately, in this country we have a secret ballot so i dont have to tell you who i voted for and that is something we all agree we should maintain. Fraud, absentee ballot which is male in fraud, is one of the worst kinds of voter fraud, one of the ones that occurs often, and in fact, that is why a number of states, kansas is one, alabama is another when they have put in their photo id laws, they have required a photo id not just for in person voting but also for absentee balloting or mailin voting. If you get my book, we cite many cases of people prosecuted for absnentee ballot fraud. Won a herald Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of an election that was overturned because of ive thousand fraudulent absentee ballots. 5000 fraudulent absentee ballots. It was a significant problem in south florida. Majoritynhillery the of laws that states have been trying to implement to deal with this idea of voter fraud dont cover the issue of absentee balloting. What we have found is that where there are issues with ballots, [indiscernible] many of these jurisdictions trying to implement these laws, unlike the state examples that hans gave, are not trying to address absentee balloting. That space to the point that there are other issues and other intentions at hand that states we have an issue with voter fraud, we are trying to protect the integrity of the electoral process that is not really what they are doing because they have not really looked at laws that would help address those where the majority of it ministry to problems exist, and that is with respect to absentee balloting. Ms. Mui a caller on the republican line. Caller hello. Here is my statement. In kansas, the federal voter laws are approved. [indiscernible] by our congress has changed the need for kansas voters. They must show a birth certificate or other item to prove they are citizens. That means about 20,000 people have not been able to vote. They voted but their votes are on hold. Says ofetary of state voter fraud is a very big and that the attorney general did not prosecute any is,r frauds, and the thing the attorney general said it did not get any information from the secretary of state treatment now the secretary of state state. But now the secretary of state has the professional prosecution. Ms. Mui we will leave it there. Hans, your final thoughts. Mr. Spakovsky the situation in kansas is