Committee on House Administration Elections Subcommittee Hearing:“Election Observation: Best Practices and Congress’s Role”
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Administration Subcommittee on Elections U.S. House of Representatives
Terri Sewell
These continue to be a concerning pattern from this administration, and I think it's so important that we have a hearing today to talk about why it's so important that we have federal observers and that those observers are actually doing the job that they're sent to do. Let me be very clear. This misuse and abuse of authority by the current administration is nothing more than an attempt to sow discord and distrust in our elections. For the past several days, we have been hearing reports that President plans to deliver a prime-time speech tomorrow that raises allegations about the 2020 election interference. Moreover, it should concern all of us, especially the witnesses here today in this subcommittee hearing, that the Election Assistance Commissioners, members of a bipartisan federal agency who have helped states and local officials acquire funding and certify equipment to run their elections, were summarily removed by this president.
This is why now more than ever we must protect our congressional election observer program. This program is part of our constitutional and legal responsibility, both on this committee and in the full House, to determine the qualifications of members and to oversee our elections. It has a long history of bipartisanship dating back almost a century, with Republicans and Democrat observers deployed in pairs to districts throughout the United States. These observers are congressional staff who have served on a voluntary basis within their official duties. They are strictly instructed into not to interfere with or to attempt to influence the electoral process.
They are not partisan actors in any way, shape, or form. These observers serve as the eyes and ears of the House on the ground in the congressional elections. They are they are encouraged to ask questions and to closely monitor our democratic process. So I'm glad for today's hearing to discuss this vital program. I hope we can continue in the spirit and practice of bipartisanship that has characterized it for decades, and I look forward to working with the chairwoman and all of us in achieving that goal.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. Thank you.
Bryan Steil
I now yield to the chairman of the full committee, Chairman Steil, for an opening statement.
Thank you very much, Chair Lee. Thanks for holding today's subcommittee hearing on election observers. The American people should be confident that our elections are conducted transparently, securely, and according to the law. Election observers or poll watchers play a critical role in ensuring that, and I think that's why we're here today. Observers increase transparency, strengthen accountability, and provide independent oversight throughout the election process.
The Committee on House Administration runs the nonpartisan House Election Observer Program, a program as we know dispatches congressional staff across the country to serve as election observers in congressional races. They play a really critical function of our constitutional responsibility to safeguard federal elections and to judge the elections, returns, and qualifications of our own members as set forth in the Constitution. In the 2024 general election, the Republican majority side sent out over 70 staff to districts across the country to observe elections, and my colleagues on the minority dispatched volunteers to many districts as well. In fact, Representative Miller-Meeks, who serves on the full committee, dispatched a staffer to the city of Milwaukee or the Milwaukee County central count. The same year in 2024, California's 13th Congressional District, the margin of victory was 187 votes or .09%.
Six votes. And while she emerged the winner, her opponent immediately contested the results. And in those types of close races, the factual record matters. And House observers provided continuous and reliable information from the ground so Congress, and in particular this committee, could carry out our constitutional responsibilities. Observers report on election administration procedures, such as ballot tabulation and ballot storage.
They ask thoughtful questions of election officials throughout the election process, and all of this helps build a detailed, independent record in case an election is challenged, as it was in 2020 by the Democrat who would ultimately lose in Iowa. And although the House has run an observer program for many years, Congress's constitutional authority was not always recognized by state and local election authorities. That's why in 2024, Congress passed Representative Carey's legislation, the Confirmation of Congressional Observer Access Act. This statute, I think it's really important, gives explicit observation authority to congressional election observers and reaffirms Congress's constitutional authority in federal elections. With the 2026 midterms just around the corner, this committee would like to invite House staff to participate in the election observer program, serve in districts across the country again.
And it's important to recognize, as has been noted, it's nonpartisan. Staff from both Democrat and Republican offices will be fully trained, equipped, and deployed around the country. And we're grateful to the staff that have previously volunteered and to the staff that is in the process of volunteering and will be deployed in the coming months. This program's a crucial tool for increasing transparency and security in House elections. I appreciate my friend and colleague Representative Lee for holding today's hearing on this important topic, and I yield back and thank our witnesses for being here.
Laurel Lee
I now yield to the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Morelle, for an opening statement.
Joseph Morelle
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you as well to Ranking Member Sewell. Important topic. I appreciate very much the discussion today on neutral, nonpartisan election observers, which are an essential part of our democratic system, as has been mentioned by each of my colleagues. They provide transparency in our elections, which enhances dramatically the necessary public trust that Americans must feel that their elections are fair and that they are secure. They are.
We want to make sure they continue to believe that. Poll watchers and election observers help provide that transparency, often in a voluntary capacity, and they ensure that the electoral process is visible to the American public and that's worthy of the trust our democracy requires to thrive, in particular in an environment where it is too often called into question. Crucially, in the United States, election observers do not favor one party over another. Observers ensure that citizens understand elections are reliable and the results are honest and true. And observers also play an important role in the committee's purposes, indeed for the institutional duties and responsibilities of the Congress.
Constitution vests substantial and broad authority to Congress with respect to federal elections, including the power to hear and decide contests brought to challenge the results of congressional elections. Pursuant to Article 1, Section 5, Clause 1 of the Constitution, each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members, something I suspect many Americans don't know. They may also not know that Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which I think Ms. Lee earlier referenced, the time, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof, but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.
The congressional authority and responsibility to examine the qualification members is an integral part of the biennial organization of this body, and we, both the House and the committee, consistently and regularly exercise our oversight and election adjudication role. Across United States history, more than 610 elections have been contested in the House, an average of more than five per Congress, which I think again Americans would be surprised to know that that had occurred that many times in our nation's history. Each election cycle, the House conducts an election observer program to develop a factual record of election issues that may be relevant in resolving those election contests. Committee by virtue of statutory authority and our House Rule 10 has jurisdiction over contested House elections and manages this election observer program. For almost the entire history of the program, the committee has deployed neutral observers in bipartisan pairs at candidates' request to congressional elections in which we can expect a close margin.
The record developed by House observers is invaluable for the committee in evaluating election contests. Whether the facts of an election contest warrant further investigation by the committee depends in significant measure on the fact-finding conducted by observers in an election contest and the credibility of those claims. And vitally, the impartial and bipartisan nature of the program helps give Americans confidence that should a contested election arise in the House, it will be resolved fairly and honorably without regard for partisan outcomes. I am concerned that this committee disregarded the established precedent 2024, pre-deploying election observers across the country ahead of election day. That is not the precedent, and despite the long-standing norms of the program, committee Republicans sent observers to non-competitive congressional elections in the heart of Atlanta, Detroit, Madison, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia.
And troubling, committee Republicans sent their observers without the traditional Democratic observer pairing. All of these break precedent. This early unilateral deployment not only ignored past precedent and past practice, it contravened an October 2024 joint letter I sent with Chairman Steil to election administrators, which professed that the House election observer process is a quote bipartisan program and which observers are deployed in bipartisan pairs. Sadly, the chair ignored his own observations in that letter by sending people out of bipartisan, not bipartisan pairs, and deployed them at a time. By targeting non-competitive races, Republican deployment ignored the constitutional and legal basis for the House election observer program, the duty to judiciously resolve reasonably contested election outcomes.
And at that time, their departure from the long-established norms suggested an unprecedented attempt to use the program for partisan gain, a fundamental disregard of procedural precedent and an abuse of official House resources that undermines the spirit and integrity of the program. Americans will not stand for a misuse of the official resources for partisan purpose. This November, the committee will once again deploy observers in service to our legal and constitutional duties. I strongly urge the committee's majority not to repeat their 2024 abuse of the election observer program this November. Americans will rightfully view that any departure from this long-established practice with deep suspicion.
With that, I thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
Laurel Lee
Without objection, all other members' opening statements will be made part of the hearing record if they are submitted to the committee clerk by 5:00 PM today. Today we have one witness panel. I will now introduce our witnesses. First, we have Mr. Wesley Wilcox, the supervisor of elections in Marion County, Florida. Next, we have Mr. Lance Reed, the director of the Board of Elections in Summit County, Ohio.
And finally, we have Ms. Paige Whitaker, a legislative attorney at the Congressional Research Service.
Each witness will have five minutes to provide an opening statement. I now recognize Supervisor Wilcox for the purpose of giving an opening statement.
Wesley Wilcox
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Lee, Ranking Member Sewell, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Wesley Wilcox, and I serve as the supervisor of elections for Marion County, Florida. I am also a past president of the Florida Supervisors of Elections Association, and I've spent nearly 40 years in election administration. Over those years, I've watched the role of poll observers evolve dramatically. And from where I sit, one of the biggest changes has been in that program.
I believe it's been a positive change, not just for voters, but for election administrators as well. When I first entered this profession, poll observers, or poll watchers, as the term we use in Florida, were really part of the get-out-the-vote process. They'd sit in a polling place with a voter list, mark off who had voted, and later in the day, the campaigns would then contact supporters who had not yet shown up. Thanks to Florida, all of that changed after the year 2000. You're welcome, America.
One of the biggest lessons was that the election observation works best when it's organized and professional. We established clear rules, credentials, expectations, so poll watchers could do exactly what they're supposed to do: observe the process without interfering with it. Since the year 2020, I've seen something I never really expected. Before 2020, our high-water mark in Marion County was about 50 poll watchers. In 2020, we had just over 200.
In 2022, the number grew to more than 500. And during our last countywide general in 2024, we credentialed more than 1,200 poll watchers. To me, that's not a challenge, that's an opportunity. As election administrators, we publicly advertise dozens of meetings and invite the public to watch. Whether it's a logic and accuracy test or a canvassing board meeting, there's little to no public interest.
Most of us are lucky to have two or three citizens attend, but the majority of our meetings have literally no public attendance. Now, I have over 1,200 citizens who voluntarily signed up because they wanted to understand how elections work. We need to embrace this new interest. I believe this is an opportunity to reach a group of voters that up to this point we've been unable to reach. I believe properly trained poll watchers are our partners in transparency.
When observers understand their role, follow the rules, and work professionally alongside election officials, they help strengthen the public confidence, allowing us to demonstrate the safeguards already built into our election system. We have a perfect opportunity to counter many of the false narratives that abound on the internet, not by arguing with people, but by letting them see the process for themselves.
We can educate people about how elections actually work. We can show how photo and signature IDs are verified in the state of Florida. We can show how provisional ballots are used. We can show how vote-by-mail ballots are processed and safeguarded. Most importantly, by allowing people to see the process for themselves, we can show them how our systems ensure that only eligible citizens cast ballots, that identity is verified, and that secure voter databases help ensure each qualified voter votes only once.
I believe the more people understand how elections are administered, the more confidence they'll have in the process. That's good for voters, it's good for election administrators, and ultimately, it's good for our country. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today on this important topic, and I look forward to your questions.
Laurel Lee
I now recognize Director Reed for the purpose of giving an opening statement.
Lance Reed
Thank you, Chair Lee and Ranking Member Sewell. I want to thank you and the members of this distinguished committee for inviting me to testify today. My name is Lance Reed, and I am the director of the Summit County Board of Elections in the state of Ohio. As an election official for over 13 years, including nearly six years as director, I have witnessed election observers in the many different roles I've been employed by the Summit County Board of Elections. I am before you today to emphasize the important role that all observers play, including congressional election observers authorized under the Confirmation of Congressional Observer Access Act of 2024.
As an election official, transparency in elections is critical, and observers play an important role in that transparency. While COCOA may have only been signed into law roughly two years ago, the Summit County Board of Elections is familiar with the program. Summit County, Ohio, is contained within the 13th Congressional District, and a congressional election observer was appointed by the chair of the Committee on House Administration for the November 5, 2024, general election and was in our office the entirety of election day. Our board had a positive experience with the observer appointed to our office, and while we are unaware of what the observer's opinion was, I hope they had a positive experience as well. Election officials and the public should embrace all observers for the critical role they play in ensuring those entrusted with the sacred task of election administration and the tabulation of the people's voice are doing it to the letter of the law and maintaining the highest integrity.
With that said, I want to thank this committee once again for inviting me and to thank all of you for your service. I'm happy to take any questions you may have, and I do want to appreciate, or thank you for the air conditioning in here.
Paige Whitaker
Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Lee, Ranking Member Sewell, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Paige Whitaker, and I'm a legislative attorney with the Congressional Research Service, CRS. CRS is available to serve all members of Congress, and CRS testimony is provided on an objective, nonpartisan basis. Thank you very much for inviting me to testify today regarding the Confirmation of Congressional Observer Access Act of 2024, its legislative history, and Congress's general constitutional authorities to regulate elections.
Federal elections are primarily administered according to state laws. The Elections Clause of the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 4, provides the states with the initial and the principal authority to administer the times, places, and manner of elections within their jurisdictions. As a result of this decentralized authority, states vary in how they administer congressional elections. At the same time, the Elections Clause provides to Congress the power to make or alter rules regulating congressional elections, which the Supreme Court has described as an override authority.
Under that authority, Congress has enacted federal election laws, such as the Help America Vote Act of 2002. In addition, Article 1, Section 5 further provides that each House of Congress has the express authority to be the final judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its members. The Confirmation of Congressional Observer Access Act, or COCOA, was enacted in 2024. The Act states that it was enacted under Congress's authorities under Article 1, Sections 4 and 5. The Act declares that, regardless of any legislative action, Congress has the power to act pursuant to these constitutional authorities to observe federal elections.
The Act further states that it does not create any new authorities or procedures and instead provides a convenient statutory citation for Congress's existing authority and activity. The crux of the COCOA Act is that it requires states to provide full access to an individual who is a designated congressional election observer to observe all aspects of federal election administration, including, but not limited to, areas where ballots are, and I'm quoting from the statute here, cast, processed, scanned, tabulated, canvassed, recounted, audited, or certified during both pre- and post-election periods. At the same time, the COCOA Act expressly prohibits an election observer from handling ballots and election equipment, from advocating for any issue or candidate, from acting in a way that reduces ballot or voter secrecy, and interfering with a voter casting a ballot, an election administrator fulfilling their duties, or otherwise with the administration of an election. The statute provides that congressional election observers can be removed from their position if a state or local election official has a reasonable basis to believe that an observer has engaged in or is imminently about to engage in intimidation or deceptive practices that are prohibited under federal law, or in the disruption of the voting, tabulating, or the certification of the election. If an election observer is removed, the chair or the ranking member of the applicable committees may dispatch a replacement.
Prior to the passage of the COCOA Act, the House of Representatives had for decades conducted a congressional election observer program dating back to at least the 97th Congress. A committee report accompanying the Act explained that even though Congress's constitutional authority to deploy observers supersedes any state law to the contrary, the lack of a statute for the program had created difficulties for observers in certain states. For example, the report cited an incident during the 2020 House election where, despite both the majority and the minority dispatching observers, state election officials were blocked their admission. The committee report also indicated that state and local election officials requested that Congress enact a statutory citation for the observer program. As stated in the House report, and I'm quoting from the report, the purpose of congressional observation by the House of Representatives is to ensure the candidate seated is the one actually elected by the people in a free, fair, and secure election.
Thank you, and I'd be pleased to answer any of the subcommittee's questions.
Laurel Lee
Thank you to each of you. And I will begin our questions today, followed by the ranking member. I now recognize myself for five minutes for the purpose of questioning our witnesses. Supervisor Wilcox, I will start with you. In your testimony, you mentioned the 2000 election, the very infamous Florida election that really was the catalyst for a lot of thoughtful consideration of our election laws and procedures.
What were some of the key changes that Florida made after the 2000 election to better define the role of election observers and have those practices remained effective over time?
Speaker 11
Thank you, Chairwoman Lee. A couple of items that we instituted after the year 2000, and I heard one of my colleagues here mention HAVA out of 2002, once again, America, you are welcome. One of the things that we did is we instituted credentialing of election workers, that or not election workers, I'm sorry, poll watchers. So we do a credentialing of them, meaning so that the party or the campaigns, candidates, or whoever that submit their names of potential poll watchers, we can actually print out a badge so that when that person does show up out at a polling place, it identifies them accurately as a poll watcher and not an election worker. And so that's one of the programs that I think that has been one of the parts that has been most successful from those changes.
So.
Laurel Lee
You also mentioned something that I thought was so interesting. You contrasted the election observer program with some of the other publicly accessible aspects of elections, like the logic and accuracy testing that aren't very well attended oftentimes by the public, and really, I think, spoke so eloquently to what an opportunity that can be. Would you elaborate for us on why you believe that transparency and confidence is important not only for candidates participating in an election, but for the public's perception and confidence in elections?
Wesley Wilcox
I believe it's it's vitally important to us now because going into this process, you know, when I would go out and speak about election integrity and the safety, security, the accuracy, it's just one person. You know, now I've got a built-in team of 1200 people that when they leave my polling places, they can go back to their sphere of influence and provide that information back to the people that they talk to. And so it it exponentially allows us as an election administrators to spread the good news about the good work that we do. You know, you mention our logic and accuracy, the testing prior to an election, post-election audits. You know, if we could get the general public to to come see some of those things, it would be great.
But now I've got 1200 people last time that signed up that wanted, eagerly wanted to come see what we were doing. So I think it's a great opportunity for us.
Laurel Lee
And Director Reed, Ohio recently updated its election officials manual to include guidance on congressional observers authorized under the COCO Act. How did this update help you as the Summit County Board of Elections Director?
Lance Reed
It helped tremendously because actually when our congressional observer showed up in 2024, it was the day before election day and we had not heard of this. And so it was a surprise when when the observer walked in with with their document. And so we had to check with the Secretary of State to see, you know, was this a was this an actual observer or what the case was. And we were able to, you know, confirm that Congress had passed or certified this part of of an act. So allowed congressional observers to be in the building.
And so yeah, having that having that certified in our election official manual is is extremely helpful.
Laurel Lee
And do you think that more states would benefit from adopting model policies for interacting with and hosting congressional election observers?
Lance Reed
Absolutely. There's no doubt that, you know, that kind of information that can come from the top down to people in our roles, Supervisor Wilcox, myself, you know, when we know that's gone through the state and that we can plan ahead that a congressional election observer may appear, it only helps to have that written out ahead of time for us to understand what the process is.
Speaker 9
Thank you very much. I now recognize the ranking member for five minutes of questions.
Terri Sewell
Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to ask Ms. Whitaker, you know, the title of today's hearing is election observation best practices and Congress's role. I'd like for you to spend a few minutes, if you don't mind, giving us some history about why the Voting Rights Act really did establish sort of the key role and protections for election observers and while they've been eroded over time, it would be really helpful to talk about the vital role that poll monitoring had in VRA.
Paige Whitaker
Thank you, Ranking Member Sewell. The Voting Rights Act was enacted under the 15th Amendment to, as the Supreme Court recently said in a 2021 decision, Brnovich versus Democratic National Committee, to achieve the 15th Amendment's goal of bringing an end to the denial of the right to vote based on race. According to a House report that accompanied the 2006 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, which is the last time Congress reauthorized the law, the federal observer program had played a key role in preventing discrimination and that working with the Department of Justice, the Office of Personnel Management had assigned more than 26,000 observers to 22 states since the law was enacted in 1965. The House report accompanying the 2006 reauthorization also states that observers played a key role in preventing violations of both the 14th and the 15th Amendments and that they did so by informing the Department of Justice of any alleged discriminatory conduct so that the Department of Justice could conduct further investigations.
Terri Sewell
Exactly. And, you know, the interesting part about this is that the congressional federal observing program, the reason why we have COCO, as I understand it, is to give statutory authority to the fact that the program can be readily identifiable by state and local officials. And so the codifying of that has, it seems, to have brought an opportunity to sort of level the playing field and to offer both a bipartisan showing of federal election observers. Is that right?
Paige Whitaker
The act itself does not speak to parties per se. As you know, the Constitution also does not speak to parties.
Terri Sewell
Yeah. But it does say that there are pairs of observers that would go as a part of this program.
Paige Whitaker
Actually, the text of the statute in the COCO Act does not expressly talk about the pairs. The legislative history speaks to that. But the COCO Act does provide that both the chair and the ranking member on both the Committee on House Administration and then the Senate Rules and Administration Committee on the Senate side have the power to designate congressional election observers and then also to replace those observers if they're removed under the process that's provided in the law.
Terri Sewell
Thank you. Thank you. Director Reed, based on your experience in running elections, where would you say the line is between a legitimate election observation and conduct that risks intimidating voters and interfering with or disrupting the work of election officials? What safeguards have you found to be most effective in preventing observers from crossing the lines?
Lance Reed
Thank you. Luckily, we haven't run into any issues along those lines. We've had, and we don't get as many observers as Supervisor Wilcox has mentioned. We maybe get a hundred or so even in a big election. And a lot of those observers are ones we're very familiar with.
They've done it over the years.
So we've had a chance to, um, you know, kind of, I guess help them understand what the process is and that the fact, you know, just like the title is, you're there to observe and then if you do see anything, to say something.
Terri Sewell
I'm kind of running out of time, but I want so I wanted to ask Supervisor Wilcox, um, you testified that properly trained poll watchers can, quote, help strengthen public confidence while allowing election administrators to demonstrate the safeguards already built into the system. And I would agree with you on that. Uh, would you agree that adequate federal support for election administrators can also help strengthen public confidence? I mean, part of the our job, um, and is providing adequate funding for elections and would love to know your thought about whether or not that has been that has held true.
Wesley Wilcox
Uh, thank you, Ranking Member Sewell. Yes, I do believe, uh, the federal government should play a role in the, um, uh, support, fiscal support of elections across the US. If you look at a ballot, the most valuable piece of real estate on a ballot is at the federal level. And therefore, just like with real estate, you know, the the most valuable piece—
Terri Sewell
And and with the top of the ballot becomes what, the bigger purse that needs to be, uh, anteing up, I get you. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
Laurel Lee
I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Loudermilk, for five minutes.
Barry Loudermilk
Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for being here today. Um, in my home state of Georgia, election laws require poll watchers to complete training and establishes clear standards for governing their conduct and observation within polling places. As Congress considers a similar framework for House election observers, input from state and local election officials, I think, will be very essential. Mr. Wilcox, as we prepare to send House election observers to Florida, what would you recommend for House observers to be prepared in advance?
Wesley Wilcox
Thank you, sir, for that the opportunity. Um, I I would recommend that they contact the election authority in that jurisdiction and let the election authority tell them the appropriate thing to do at that authority, because the rules in the state of Georgia probably are not the same rules that we have in the state of Florida. And so being in direct contact with the election administrator as early in the process as possible is extremely important.
Speaker 18
Okay. Thank you. And I've been on this committee for many years and have participated in in, uh, setting up election observers. And Director Reed, can you walk us through Ohio's election observer regulation and procedures?
Lance Reed
Sure. So, um, when observers are appointed, and usually for us it's the state or the county political parties that appoint, could be a candidate or a group of five candidates or a ballot issue committee. Once that those committees have met and put together their list of appointments, that is submitted to our office, uh, depending on the type of observation they're going to do, roughly 11 days before election day, for instance, or 11 days before early voting starts. Uh, that's that's their part of the process. That allows us to then get, um, their credentials so that when they show up, we know that they've been appointed by those specific committees to be there to observe.
Speaker 15
Okay. Have you seen an uptick in the number of observers or interest in the observer program?
Lance Reed
I think there's an uptick in interest, but to be honest, we haven't seen an uptick in actual, um, execution on it yet.
Barry Loudermilk
Okay. Um, and last question, how is your office and others prepared for a new influx of observers should that happen, and how to bring about transparency in the electoral process?
Lance Reed
Yeah, so, um, we're prepared in that especially when, um, we've got before election day, let's use that specifically where the appointment lists have to come come before 11 days before election day. We take that list from the different committees, we compile it all into one list, and then that way we're able to provide that to all of our polling locations. That gives our, what we call precinct election officials, our booth workers, the ability to know who's been appointed.
Joseph Morelle
The distinction between our responsibilities under the Constitution and the responsibilities so that Americans, regardless of who they vote for, they should understand our responsibilities because that's important to the Congressional Election Observer Program is that our responsibility is to make sure that we have administered properly and chosen, if it gets to a contested election, who actually received the most votes. So it's not a partisan issue. It is actually a governmental responsibility of ours, which then speaks to the nature of the observer program, that the people that we will send out to make those observations are doing so in their official capacity without regard to their political distinctions. Is that not right? Would you help with that, help explain to people what the program is for?
Paige Whitaker
I think what I would say just from a constitutional perspective that Congress is fulfilling its duties under the Constitution with the observer program because Congress is given, each House of Congress, excuse me, is given this duty and responsibility to be the ultimate judge.
Joseph Morelle
And the judge, I guess what I'm getting at is our responsibility even as a committee and then ultimately the full House is to look at the election, the questions of being contested and make the judgment on who we believe, without regard to the party affiliation, who actually had the most votes and whose election, whose selection at that point by the committee and by the House more fulfills the wishes of the American people in that district, not to our own political, I guess that's the point I'm trying to make. Would you agree with that? So in other words, if there were a contested election and we had a Democrat majority, we shouldn't just pick the Democrat because we like the Democrat. What our job is here is to choose under the Constitution the person that we believe got the most votes.
Paige Whitaker
Yes. The case law and the text of the Constitution both are focused on who was duly elected.
Joseph Morelle
Right. As opposed to the partisan affiliations of the members who would make the determination.
Paige Whitaker
Yes, it does not speak to party at all. It's who the election, who was rightfully elected and then considered duly elected under the Constitution.
Joseph Morelle
Thank you. I apologize for the badly mangled question, but that was the point I was trying to get to. So thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Julie Johnson
Thank you, Chairwoman Lee. I love saying that, Chairwoman. I think that's a great thing. Ranking Member Sewell, that's, you know, thank you for holding this important hearing and thank you to our witnesses for joining us today and the work that you do to ensure that our elections are safe and secure. You play a critical role in protecting our democracy.
The very foundation of our democracy depends on Americans having the confidence that every lawful vote is counted, every eligible voter can cast a ballot, and that our election process is fair and impartial. While we waved our flags in the honor of America's 250th on July 4th, we must remember that the Declaration of Independence was both a rejection of unchecked power and a celebration of the separation of powers. As the midterm elections approach, I have had folks calling my office every day expressing deep, deep concerns over the Trump administration's continued efforts to dismantle the trust in our electoral systems and undermine the historically bipartisan independent organizations and institutions. In the last two years, we've seen Republicans across this country and here in Congress rewrite election laws, fire federal and local election officials, and redraw maps, dramatically reshaping our electoral processes. In his most recent effort to manipulate independent agencies for political gain, President Trump removed all three remaining members of the nonpartisan independent US Elections Assistance Commission, leaving the agency without sitting commissioners who oversee critical election administration that processes grants to state and local governments to enforce election monitoring and voter certifications.
For the past two decades, the Election Assistance Commission has been guided by bipartisan cooperation and independent expertise free from partisan politics and political influence. This is not about Republicans or Democrats, this is about safeguarding a lasting democracy and ensuring that Congress, the people's house, not the president, oversees how elections are administered and executed. While we are witnessing unprecedented federal overreach into our independent institutions responsible for election operations, Congress must uphold and reaffirm its constitutional commitment to oversee elections, specifically through the constitutionally mandated and historically independent House Election Observer Program. The House Election Observer Program plays a critical role in monitoring congressional elections by identifying close races and maintaining independent nonpartisan records that can be credibly used for investigations when Congress needs to determine election results. However, in 2024, House Republicans directed Republican observers without Democratic counterparts to non-competitive seats across the country to support President Trump's election crackdowns.
The congressional intent of this program is meant to be nonpartisan. Do you all agree with that, that the congressional intent of this program is to be nonpartisan? Thank you for that affirmation. I think that I guess at the end of the day, public trust is paramount and public trust right now is on the edge. It's the most fragile it has been in our electoral system in quite some time.
I think that would you all agree with me that the congressional election observer program could go a long way towards restoring trust as long as it is administered in a bipartisan, fair, and equitable way? Do you all agree with that? Yeah. I do too. And I think it's very important that we look to that.
And that election administrators, if you are watching this hearing around the country, we have, you know, multiple perspectives represented on this table and in this on this dais. And one thing we agree on is that this program is good, it's effective, and it needs to be implemented without disruption and without barrier. And it needs to be implemented in a nonpartisan way so that the trust in our election process by the American people can gain one more step backward back towards where it needs to be because it's broken right now. Trust in the electoral system is broken. Our president is expected to go on national TV tomorrow night to try to overturn and criticize the 2020 election because he lost.
Members of his party come to confirmation hearings and they will not admit that he lost because they're too cowardly. That cannot be. People have to accept the truth. There are winners and losers in elections and we should not be afraid to acknowledge that. And with that, I yield back.
Laurel Lee
I'd like to thank our witnesses for appearing before us today. Members of the committee may have some additional questions for you and we ask that you please respond to those questions in writing. Without objection, each member will have five legislative days to insert additional material into the record or to revise and extend their remarks. If there is no further business, I thank the members for their participation and without objection, the committee stands adjourned.