TASK FORCE FOR THE CONTESTED ELECTION IN THE 46TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: HEARING ON THE MERITS
_______________________________________________________________________________________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE OVERSIGHT
TASK FORCE FOR THE CONTESTED ELECTION IN THE 46TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
____________
Santa Ana, California
April 19, 1997
____________
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE OVERSIGHT
BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
KAY GRANGER, Texas
JOHN L. MICA, Florida
_______________
STACY CARLSON, Staff Director
ROBERT BASKIN, Minority Staff Director
____________________________________________
TASK FORCE FOR THE CONTESTED ELECTION
IN THE 46TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, Chairman
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio
STENNY H. HOYER, Maryland
HEARING ON THE MERITS
CONTESTED ELECTION IN CALIFORNIA'S 46TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Saturday, April 19, 1997
US House of Representatives,
Committee on House Oversight,
Task Force For The Contested Election
in the 46th Congressional District of California,
Santa Ana, CA
The Task Force met, pursuant to call, at 8:40 a.m., in the Board Hearing Room, Hall of Administration, 10 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California, Hon. Vernon Ehlers [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Ehlers, Ney and Hoyer.
Staff Present: Stacy Carlson, Majority Staff Director; Roman Buhler and Dan Crowley, Majority Staff Counsel; John Kelliher, Majority Assistant Counsel; Chris Wright, Majority Professional Staff; Nick Parks and Julie Benevedes, Majority Staff Assistants; Jim Portnoy, Minority Staff.
Mr. Ehlers. I would like to call this meeting to order. This is a hearing of the Special Task Force appointed to investigate the contested election in the 46th District of California.
My name is Vernon Ehlers. I am the Congressman from Grand Rapids, Michigan. On my right is Mr. Robert Ney, Congressman from southeastern Ohio, and on my left, Congressman Hoyer, a longstanding member of Congress from the state of Maryland.
We certainly want to welcome everyone here. I also want to introduce any members of Congress who may be in the audience. We had invited a number of them as guests if they wished to attend. If you are present, make your presence known, and I will introduce you. And if any of you see any members of Congress coming in later in the day, please let me know, and I will introduce them as they arrive.
I also want to thank the people of this district and the people of this county for their tremendous assistance and their good spirit. After spending just a day here--and I do have to tell you I lived in California for 11 years, and my wife is a native of California, so we have spent some time here, but it was mostly in northern California. After spending less than a day here so far and seeing your beautiful city and your wonderful climate, I really wonder why anyone wants to leave here and go to Washington, D.C.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ehlers. But I understand that duty does call. But the hospitality here has been tremendous. The cooperation of the local officials is very much appreciated. This is a magnificent facility. I cannot imagine a better facility for this purpose, and we appreciate everyone's cooperation in helping us set this up.
Just a few comments about the procedure today, since I suspect many of you may never have attended a Congressional hearing. After my initial comments about procedure, there will be opening statements from each of the three members on this panel. We will give our views on the issues before us and the way we hope to proceed.
Then I will go over the rest of the agenda in just a moment. But I think it is very important to recognize that this is what we call a hearing on the merits. Our goal is to find out information, to take testimony about the facts. We are a quasi-judicial body. It is a rather unusual situation to have Congressmen acting in that role. But the process has been set up for a number of years under the Federal Contested Elections Act. It is a rather arcane bit of legislation which is seldom used and generally not understood by very many individuals or attorneys. There are very few specialists, yet we have some specialists with us here who have studied it a lot and worked in it and know it extremely well.
But the purpose of this hearing is simply to determine the facts surrounding the election and cut through all the hearsay, all the charges and counter charges, to simply get at the facts of what actually happened in the election to try to determine who is the rightful winner of the election.
Obviously since we are in Congress, we are members of a party, but we try jointly to keep partisanship at a minimum, and we are acting as best we can in our conscience to be as fair as we can in this entire process.
I would also just mention a word to the media. Because this is an arcane bit of law and sometimes it is misinterpreted even by attorneys or others who take a quick reading and believe that they can offer an interpretation, if any of you have any questions at any time, feel free to contact us because, as I say, it is an unusual bit of legislation, rather arcane and hard to understand. We will try to help you as much as possible to develop your understanding of it.
The agenda for the day will consist first of the opening statements from each of the members. Then we will hear from a panel of government officials, whom we will introduce later, at both the state and the local level, as well as the federal level, who will be here as witnesses in their official capacities, and will try, as best they can, to educate us in the California process of elections and their perceptions of what may or may not have gone right or wrong, and to offer their testimony on the situation that is before us.
We assume that will take most of the morning. Everything is timed, and I will explain the timing light system in a minute for those who are speaking so that they are not taken by surprise when the lights flash or when I cut off their microphone at some point if they do not stop.
But the initial panel will have 15 minutes each and we, as members of Congress, will have five minutes per member after each witness for questioning. We assume that will take most of the morning.
We will then have a lunch break, and I will be available, as I assume other members will, to talk to the media if they have questions, and perhaps if there is time, talk to some of the citizens present and answer their questions.
The afternoon will be presentations by the Contestant, Mr. Dornan, and the Contestee, Ms. Sanchez. They will each have 45 minutes. Mr. Dornan will go first to present his case, and then Congresswoman Sanchez will come forward and make her case. This will be followed by a round of questions from the members of the panel, 10 minutes per member. If time allows, we will have a second round of five minutes per member.
After that, the Contestant, former Congressman Dornan, will make his response to Ms. Sanchez's presentation. That will be followed by Congresswoman Sanchez's response to the presentation by Mr. Dornan, as well as to his response. That will be 30 minutes, followed in each case by a round of five minutes per member for questions.
That will take us very close to 6:00, I suspect.
At the very end, there is something on the agenda called ``Public Comment.'' And I just want to mention that is extremely unusual in Congressional hearings. Normally, we do not take public comment in Congressional hearings. Because we have come some distance and I know there are a number of citizens eager to make comment, I really wanted to include this segment. But as I said, it is normally not done in Congress.
I discussed this with Mr. Hoyer, who had some reservations, and yesterday we worked this out. We will take approximately one half hour of public comment. It will be limited to the heads or spokespersons of the organizations who are outside the building holding demonstrations or counter-demonstrations. We will give them an opportunity to come in for five minutes each and make a succinct presentation of their feelings about the case and any knowledge they might have that might be of assistance to us.
Mr. Hoyer, maybe you would just like to take a moment here and state your concerns about that process, just to get that on the record.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, on the public comment, is that what you wanted me to--
Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
Mr. Hoyer. --because you and I have discussed that.
First of all, let me say from my perspective, the Congress always takes public comment. I know what the Chairman meant, but obviously hearings are for the purposes of taking public comment on policies and issues that confront the Congress.
This is a unique proceeding that the Congress undertakes under a special statute, where effectively it is somewhat analogous to a case; that is, a case between two opposing parties, the Contestant and the Contestee. In this case, the Contestant, Mr. Dornan, and the Contestee, Ms. Sanchez.
It is my belief that this is not--and the statute did not contemplate--a plebiscite, this is not an issue where we are looking for--to see who has more witnesses than the other. Very frankly, in a case one witness may be so compelling that 100 witnesses do not prevail. It is the facts that ultimately will hopefully decide this case.
So that, although the Chairman has agreed to take some public comment from some of the groups, as I understand, this will not be open. From my perspective, representing the minority, we agree with that procedure. This is not a procedure--there are obviously thousands of citizens in the 46th Congressional District and in California and Orange County interested in this issue. But what this Task Force has been charged to do by the House Oversight Committee is to try to garner the facts. We are not rerunning the election. We are trying to determine if that election was in fact won by Loretta Sanchez, or whether or not the facts show that that is in question or is not the fact.
Mr. Chairman, I think that explains my position and I agree with you that the limiting of public testimony is appropriate in this case.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Hoyer.
I want to make it clear if anyone wishes to offer testimony, it does not have to be in the form of speaking here today. The record will remain open on this hearing until April 30. Any member of the audience here, any of those outside the doors, or anyone watching who has information about this case and wishes to make the information known, is free to send us a letter of their testimony, and we will be happy to receive it.
You can also write your testimony down today and simply leave it in one of the boxes we have placed around. It must be signed. We do have to know your name, address, and telephone number in case further questions are necessary.
I have been asked several times already this morning about the process after this hearing. We will take under consideration all the information given us here. In addition, we will be receiving information from both Mr. Dornan and Ms. Sanchez. They are deposing witnesses, taking testimony from others, and presenting their case. It will take several months for them to collect that and for us to digest it all. And at that point, we will simply have to make some evaluations.
Our recommendations go to the Committee on House Oversight and then to the House of Representatives. Our options are first of all simply to dismiss the contest and say there is no contest. Ms. Sanchez was elected the Congresswoman; she remains the Congresswoman. If there is sufficient evidence in the mind of the Task Force, a second option would be to recommend that Mr. Dornan indeed won. That option would go before the House Oversight Committee for a vote and then before the House of Representatives for a vote. A third option is simply to declare it is impossible in any sense of the word to tell who won the election, declare it an open seat, and then the State of California and the County of Orange would hold a second election to determine who the member of Congress representing this District should be. Those are the three options, but we are a long way from reaching any decision. We are simply taking testimony, trying to get at the facts of the case at this point.
Julie, would you start the lights for a minute? For those of you who are witnesses, they have an excellent system here. When you start your testimony, the green light will go on; and one minute before you end your testimony, a yellow light will go on. I asked Julie to set it for a two minute time now, so within a minute, the yellow light will go on. And when your time is up, there will be a flashing red light at the top of that tower over there.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ehlers. Yes?
Mr. Hoyer. Before you get to that, perhaps we ought to resolve one additional procedural question, so the public understands. And I have discussed this with the Chairman and Mr. Ney. Under the rules of the House, the minority can in fact request the Task Force to hold an additional hearing with such witnesses as the minority would suggest be called. So that that is a possible future hearing that might be held at the request of the minority.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Hoyer. That is indeed true. There may well be further hearings, either here or in Washington, and we will definitely give the minority their rights to request witnesses at that time.
Each member, as I mentioned, will be allotted specific time to question the witnesses. We will follow the same light system that everyone else does once we get into receiving testimony. Each witness' presentation is limited to a specific time period, and these are all rules of the House of Representatives, which we must follow. Another rule--I do not expect any outbreaks or demonstrations or clapping or cheering or shouting, but I do want everyone to know that that is not proper and is not permitted in Congressional hearings. Whatever feelings you may have, you can keep them to yourself. I might tolerate laughter at any joke I might tell_
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ehlers. Hey, it worked. But anything beyond that would not be appropriate--no indication of support or opposition to a speaker. The speakers deserve the time to present their case to us.
You notice now the light has reached the flashing red stage? That is the sign to any speaker that he or she would have to stop.
One other comment. All witnesses will be sworn in prior to their testimony. On the panel, I will swear everyone in at the same time. But in the afternoon, all individuals will be sworn in individually.
I believe that takes care of all the details. So we will proceed to opening statements from the members of the panel.
I will proceed with my opening statement which I will try to make rather brief in view of the time I have consumed simply explaining the procedure. After that, Mr. Hoyer will proceed and then Mr. Ney, and we will always follow that order.
We have before us a very serious task, one which is given us by the Constitution of the United States of America. That Constitution states in Article I, Section 5, that each house of the Congress shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members. So unlike a state legislature, the Congress can review elections and has, therefore, passed the Federal Contested Elections Act, which specifies how Congress will oversee its elections in case there is a doubt about the winner.
This is a very serious and a very weighty responsibility that has been placed upon the Congress and been delegated to the members of this Task Force for this particular election. It is one which we take very seriously, and I am pleased that throughout the entire history of the Congress, the members who have been appointed to oversee this responsibility and carry it out have done it with great diligence and have put partisanship aside, except for one notable exception a little more than a decade ago. But over the 200-year history of this republic, it has been carried out honorably and very well with that one exception.
I am determined to again have this hearing be an example of the proper way to proceed. And I take this responsibility as Chairman very seriously. I was told I was picked for this task because I am fair and honest and a person of integrity. That is one of the greatest compliments that anyone can give me or any other elected official. And I will try to live up to that charge and that responsibility and try as much as I can with every fiber of my being to be fair and honorable in performing this function.
I believe the same is true of my colleagues on this Task Force, and even though we have had various differences along the way, we have always operated, up to this point, in good faith.
The issue before us is simply determining which of the charges and allegations that have been made are correct. We are here to determine the facts. It has been charged that there were some illegal voters, individuals who should not have been allowed to register and vote. It has been charged that there were mistakes made in the election, either in the counting of the ballots or in the supervising of the election. In other words, there are allegations of fraud or mistakes. We will try to determine, as best we can, whether or not that occurred.
But it is not simply determining whether or not there was fraud or whether there were mistakes made. It is our task after we do that to determine whether that could have affected the outcome of the election. So we have two barriers to cross. It is not like a normal case, where you simply decide what the facts are. We also have to determine whether these facts could have affected the election. And that is very difficult because we have a secret ballot in this country.
So even once we determine whether there was fraud or illegal votes or mistakes made, we still have to, in some fashion, determine whom those votes were cast for and what impact that has on the election.
And so you can see we have a very difficult task and one that takes a lot of good will and good intentions to determine the result. This double test that we must overcome makes it very difficult, and yet something which we will do and, as I said, we will discharge, to the best of our ability.
My approach as the Chairman is to be thorough, fair, open and honest. I encourage anyone who has information about this issue and wants to call it to our attention to write us and communicate with us so that we can help in this process.
I will now turn to Mr. Hoyer for his opening statement.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I first want to thank Loretta Sanchez, Congresswoman Sanchez, for inviting us to her home to have today's field hearing.
All of us here today are interested in the truth, as you have pointed out, in assuring that the results of the election in the 46th District are accurate. Furthermore, all of us here today, public officials and private citizens, have an interest in increasing voter participation and assuring that all citizens, whether native born or newly naturalized, participate freely in the electoral process.
Ours has always been a nation of immigrants. From the earliest settlers to my father, who came here from Denmark many years ago, to the mothers and fathers of many of my colleagues in the Congress who came from Mexico, Cuba, Japan, Europe, Asia, Africa and the Far East, throughout the four corners of the world.
Today's hearing is not about immigration. It is not about the activities of one group or another group. It is not about each and every aspect of the November 1996 election in Orange County.
The sole concern of the Task Force today is whether or not Contestant Dornan can produce creditable evidence that, if true, would alter the outcome of the election in the 46th Congressional District. Six months into the process, I do not believe that has occurred.
We meet today to consider one of the most serious questions that can come before the House. The people of the 46th District have exercised their most important right and responsibility in their District and in their country, the right to vote and select their representatives.
We now examine their decision only in the most careful, serious and thoughtful manner. The Federal Contested Election Act clearly lays out the procedures the Task Force and parties involved should follow.
I remain, as many of you know, gravely concerned that this Task Force has moved forward and granted subpoena authority to Mr. Dornan in an untimely and inappropriate manner. Only one party at this point, Contestant Dornan, has been authorized under the Committee action to undertake discovery. To that extent, this hearing is premature at best.
To expect either party to respond on the merits, as the statute calls for, prior to them having had the time given to them by the Act to create the written record for us to consider, I think is unreasonable.
Nonetheless, we are here today. I again emphasize that there is only one issue before us--the search for creditable, relevant evidence that would demand an outcome other than the victory of Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez. We are not here today to determine the facts of elections other than the Congressional election. We are not here today to take hearsay as fact. Our focus is to determine whether the result of the Congressional election in the 46th District was proper. Although our task is narrow, it is vitally important.
The issue before us today is one of the most serious of issues that can come before the Congress and before a democratic people. Never before in history has the Congress proceeded to this point in this type of contest.
As I have stated before, I believe that the threshold for proceeding has not been met. Unless this Task Force is presented with and is convinced by creditable evidence that the wrong candidate was certified as the winner by Secretary of State Jones, our job is done.
Investigations into other aspects of this election in Orange County are not the responsibility of this Task Force, and are in fact being undertaken by the responsible authorities in the state of California.
On a final procedural matter, Mr. Chairman, I would like to again indicate that the minority may be requesting an additional day of hearing with witnesses as a result of the information that is adduced today.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to today's testimony. I want to thank all of the officials, federal, state, local, for their cooperation, and thank the citizens of Orange County for their participation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.********** INSERT **********
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Ney.
Mr. Ney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also would like to thank the federal, state and local officials for all their courtesies that they are extending to this Congressional Committee, and also state out front, everybody has a California connection and so do I. I could not leave the state if I did not mention I have relatives in El Monte and Fontana, California. So it is not my first visit to the state, but it is the first visit in an official capacity.
I realize fully, from having served in office myself and having been through elections, as my colleagues have, that in any political election, you have an energetic give and take of public debate and that debate occurs during the election process and sometimes, in cases like this, that debate continues to occur after the process is done. So there is going to be a lot of emotions on both sides of this issue. But we are not here for the emotional part of it. We are here for the factual part of it. And I made the motion in the Committee to come here to California, and for several reasons.
The main reason to do it, beyond the fact I felt too we were invited to be here, but the main reason I think we needed to come here is to gather the facts. I do not think it is untimely, I think it is in a timely manner because there were enough, I believe, statements out there out front alleging voters that were signed up that in fact were done on an improper basis.
But I want to agree with my colleague, Mr. Hoyer, that this is not about immigration. This is about whether voters were legally registered to vote and should have been registered to vote, whether it occurred in Ohio or California or Colorado or New York. That is what this process is about.
So we are here, I am comfortable with the fact that we have come here at this point in time and I am comfortable with the fact of this Committee opening up the ability for people to acquire the facts of the case. It will be fair and impartial. We have maintained that all through the process, in Washington included.
So with that, I just want to again say that we appreciate the courtesies that you have extended to us and we look forward to beginning this process today.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Ney, and I appreciate both of you emphasizing that this does not have any connection with immigrants. My parents are both immigrants. I thoroughly enjoy visiting their homeland and was raised with a deep appreciation for both their land and our land. And that will not be an issue of any sort during these hearings.
We will now proceed to take testimony from the panel of government officials. I ask all of them to rise and raise their right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Ehlers. You may be seated.
Our first panelist is a distinguished individual, the California Secretary of State, Mr. Jones, who began working in the trenches, as I did, serving at the legislative level. He is a former Assemblyman representing Fresno, Central Valley, and I believe you are the first statewide official elected from the Central Valley. My wife will appreciate that since she was born and raised in the Central Valley not too far from where you were born.
As the state's chief election officer, Secretary Jones, I am told, has aggressively implemented significant administrative and legislative reforms to ensure the integrity of California's election system. And we are very pleased that you were willing to take time out of your busy schedule to be with us this morning. We look forward to hearing your testimony, Mr. Jones.
TESTIMONY OF BILL JONES, CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE accompanied by DAVID GRAY, CHIEF, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE; MICHAEL CAPIZZI, ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY; RICHARD ROGERS, INS REGIONAL DIRECTOR and ROSALYN LEVER, ORANGE COUNTY REGISTRAR
TESTIMONY OF BILL JONES
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members.
From the day I was sworn in as Secretary of State, I have pursued an aggressive policy of 100 percent participation by all individuals in the process, and zero tolerance for fraud. The goal of this dual policy, we have worked with individuals from many different businesses, Bank of America and others, to make sure that we have an aggressive outreach program.
In 1996, I joined with many different groups, the California Spanish language media, the Southwest Voter Registration Project and other groups to reach out to under-represented individuals.
Further, we worked with many groups to work with younger people--Rock-the-Vote Program, League of Women Voters, outreach programs, kids voting and others.
All these programs were at the core of our effort for outreach to make sure that everyone could participate.
We also worked hard to make sure that we had an opportunity to have the district court hear our plea for an ability for our office to work with the immigration process last year in southern California to present our information and to encourage people to register to vote.
Prior to the time I was elected, the prior administration oftentimes did not pursue as aggressive policy as we have stated. Oftentimes, we have found that procedures were not in place to make sure that the opportunity to pursue election responsibilities for fraud and oversight were not met. I have tried very hard, as an individual who worked in the area, in the legislature, of criminal justice, to pursue an activity that would have deterrence at the very core of the effort to stop election fraud. We have worked to make sure that our track record in dealing with cases in California revolving around elections are pursued aggressively by our office and hopefully will be pursued to closure with over 300 open cases currently and 140 cases referred to district attorneys.
Like the rest of the United States, California's election system is an honor system. And while I believe the system is essentially fair and sound, as you know, not all people are honest. The heart of the problem is our current system, the honor system must include checks and balances. And as an often-quoted Russian proverb stated, ``trust...but verify.'' And oftentimes our system is long on trust and short on verification.
Consequently, upon taking office in January of 1995, I immediately set to work to do a top to bottom review of the election process, to find out where changes could be made that would improve the system. The implementation of our voter fraud plan has received enthusiastic bipartisan support. We are in the process of setting up a computerized system called CalVoter and two statewide election summit meetings that have been held to find out where the problems are with our current system. We have tried to approach this on a common sense basis and we hope that new changes in the law will improve the situation in California in the years ahead.
Specifically with regard to the 46th Congressional District, we have reviewed in cooperation with the District Attorney Michael Capizzi and Orange County Registrar of Voters Rosalyn Lever, an overall review of the process and the procedures and the complaints in the 46th Congressional District. We have also appreciated the support to this point of Director Richard Rogers from the INS, in reviewing information with regards to the case before us.
We believe that the case as presented, speaking about specifics, are these: In the case of the Hermandad complaint, we had 1160 individuals registered and 721 of those were non-citizens at the time for the Orange County roll as a whole; 442 of these unlawfully voted in Orange County in the 1996 election. In the 46th Congressional District specifically that you are interested in, our estimate is that 490 registrants were in the 46th Congressional District, of which 303 actually voted in the 1996 election.
The number of unlawful votes cast in Orange County is concerning and this is the reason why we have asked, on a broader perspective, for a review, a non-partisan, color-blind, neutral review by INS of the file in Orange County as a whole. We believe that this information is important to answer the question for the people of Orange County as to whether or not the process and the file has integrity. It is important to us to make sure that not just non-citizens are reviewed, but we also work with the correct authorities dealing with vital statistics and other areas to make sure that the file has been clearly covered. We believe we have the ability to make this request based on the concern of the criminal investigation that is ongoing in the 46th and we await INS' reply to this request and we are waiting at the current time for some information from them that this has been completed, so that it can be passed on to us for review before the 1998 election.
It is also important to review and note that your request and your interest with regards to the question of whether there are other problems in the Orange County voter file specifically speak to the question of whether or not this investigation is ongoing and other information will be presented. One of the areas that we raise for your consideration is the fact that last year we made a request of the counties to review the jury notices in cooperation with the summons for jury duty. We have found, based on our information, since September through this particular month of February, that about 85 to 90 of the jury summons returned from individuals in Orange County were returned on the basis that they stated they were non-citizens and therefore could not be considered to serve on a jury.
My point in raising this issue is to speak to the question of the fact that is the investigation through. The answer to that question is no. There are other issues out there that may--and I stress may--impact on the question of whether or not there are additional names in the file that may or may not have voted and may or may not have been registered properly. And this investigation is ongoing and we will provide this information to you as we perceive this coming to us in the next few months.
The citizenship status investigation confirms that, you know, we certainly have more work to do. In a larger sense though, I think it is important to note that as we go through these investigations, our goal is to make sure that people understand the need for the commonality of purpose when it comes to voting. Our goal is to make sure that new citizens are encouraged to participate and I have outlined our program in the past to accomplish that. But most importantly we find that there is a difference in this process between those that have intent to defraud and those that do not. And I think we should encourage everyone to participate, and I would encourage INS, who is in the process of reviewing a procedure by which under new law, they are determining whether an individual should be deported or not based on voting--and I believe this is a law that Congress has passed. We would encourage INS to consider and will recommend to them a good fairness policy when in fact circumstances and a creditable case can be made that an individual was misled by a bounty hunter who unscrupulously used that individual for purposes other than the actual intent of the voter, that this be considered when the deportation case is brought up before INS--because our law in California, for your benefit, is that we are able to prove intent to defraud versus non-intent. And I think that should be a guiding light for the Congress and for your legislation also. And I think INS should take that into consideration in their interpretation.
Again, we want to be tough but we want to be fair and our goal is to make sure that individuals are taken off the roll if they should not be there, but clearly by virtue of being misled are not put in a position that would unfairly prejudice them before INS authorities.
Finally, I want to say that it is important for all of us to know that we work together, as the Chairman stated, as one people. Our goal in California is to continue to move forward as a group and take the strengths of our people, the diversity that we have, the strength of the character and of the promise of California and use that as a group to encourage all of us to register, vote and participate. But under my administration, it is going to be very clear that anyone that is found with an intent to defraud is prosecuted because I happen to believe strongly, as the author of the California Three Strikes You Are Out measure, that deterrence does work and that a clear and precise measure and message that is sent is important to avoid this type of problem that we possibly have seen in Orange County, in the future.
I would hope that as we go through this process, Mr. Chairman, if you have other questions of me or my staff, that you would feel free to ask of us and we look forward to working with you. But I want to stress the basic premise of the argument here is clear, that if an individual is in fact registered to vote in California, that person must in fact have been a citizen at the time of registration. That is clear in the law, it is stated in my statement, and I think that is much at the center and the core of the argument in this particular complaint that you are speaking about for the most of this hearing. And I raise that issue and I refer to my comments, if you in fact have an interest in considering that question.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
********** INSERT **********
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Jones. If you would just remain at the microphone, we will go through the questions that each of the members has for you.
First of all, let me say that I appreciate two parts of your testimony in particular. I appreciate the fact that you have very carefully and thoroughly researched the records and identified 303 voters who voted but who should not have voted because they were not citizens. That is the sort of dispassionate, accurate fact-finding that we need to guide us.
Secondly, I appreciate your emphasis on the purpose of the investigation as not to punish people who might have mistakenly registered to vote when they should not have. The purpose of this panel is not law enforcement. We are deciding a contested election.
Mr. Jones. I understand.
Mr. Ehlers. We will not put people in jail; we simply want to find out what happened.
I myself lived in a foreign country for a year, and I know how easy it is to misunderstand official procedures in a different country.
I do have several questions. Were the voters that you did check registered by one local organization, Hermandad?
Mr. Jones. That is correct.
Mr. Ehlers. And are there other organizations who also did this and have you checked with them or are you checking through their records?
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, we have an ongoing criminal investigation with the Orange County District Attorney and we are reviewing other questions that have been raised in the process of that investigation. But I would respectfully refrain from commenting on that because of the ongoing investigation that we are doing. But we are reviewing all complaints that are brought to us regarding any other organizations also.
Mr. Ehlers. So you will be checking voter registration activities of other groups, in addition to Hermandad?
Mr. Jones. We will be reviewing that process. Much of the work in California, the structure is that the Registrar of Voters does the work at the local level, we have an oversight responsibility and we are working in cooperation with Registrar Lever in that regard. And many of the responsibilities that we can deal with, such as the INS question or the cross-county voting issue, which we are involved with, she does not have the ability to do that, so we share responsibility on some of those items.
But we will be pursuing any questions and we will make that information available to the Committee.
Mr. Ehlers. I appreciate that.
So basically, it sounds to me like your work is very dependent on working with the INS.
Mr. Jones. For this particular section, Mr. Chairman, not dealing with vital statistics obviously, not dealing with double-voting, not dealing with cross-county. Those are all databases that we can review, and have. But there are certain requests, such as the question of non-citizenship, that we rely on cooperation and have had good cooperation with District Superintendent Rogers up to this point. But we look forward to that continued cooperation on the broader request.
Mr. Ehlers. So we can clarify it and get it on the record, what is your request?
Mr. Jones. Currently our request is from the INS to do a--we would send them and have sent them a tape of Orange County--voter tape, and we have asked them to check that against their central database and let us know if we have individuals that on their list of resident aliens that are reflected back on our voter file. And that is the only manner in which we feel we can really verify that question, because we believe that based on the large number we found out of this one particular group, that there is probable cause to believe that we have a broader problem. But we have to answer that question for the people of Orange County, and INS is the only place that we can answer that question at this particular time.
Mr. Ehlers. Are you seeking to review the records of all of Orange County or just the 46th District?
Mr. Jones. We made the request for the Orange County voter file as a whole, to be reviewed by INS. And as you note from the information in my testimony, the fact of the matter is that the Hermandad complaint, the 1160, came from all over Orange County, and in fact even though I gave you the numbers for the 46th and that is where your interest is, my responsibility extends beyond the 46th. And based on the large number we found in this particular complaint, I felt we had, as I say, probable cause because of the criminal investigation to make this request, and we think it is a legitimate question and we think it is a question that the people of Orange County have a right to have an answer to.
Mr. Ehlers. I understand from your testimony, Mr. Rogers has been very helpful with this initial investigation.
Mr. Jones. He has been, and we appreciate his support and his help.
Mr. Ehlers. But now you have gone beyond him and requested help from INS in Washington?
Mr. Jones. That is my understanding.
Mr. Ehlers. Have you received a response to that request?
Mr. Jones. No, we have not, other than some comments I read in the newspaper this morning. We are still waiting and hopefully for a positive response to our request.
Mr. Ehlers. All right. Well I certainly hope you do. I do not see any other way of performing your function on this score, if you do not.
Mr. Jones. This particular universe is difficult to deal with unless we have adequate access and cooperation from the INS.
Mr. Ehlers. Is it possible for you to do this without violating any of the privacy concerns of the citizens involved?
Mr. Jones. Certainly that is a foremost concern of ours. We believe that the Privacy Act has adequate exemption in it for the question of a criminal investigation, which in fact we are involved with. It is not our intent to invade anyone's privacy, but we also believe that we can accomplish this goal of answering the questions for the people of Orange County without invading the privacy. So the answer to your question is yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you.
My time is up, but I appreciate your testimony and your answers and I will turn to Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary, again I want to welcome you and thank you for being here.
Mr. Secretary, you are working with the District Attorney, Mr. Capizzi; you have worked with Ms. Lever and you are working with Mr. Rogers. I presume there are others as well. I take it, Mr. Capizzi is fully cooperating with your office?
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir, he has.
Mr. Hoyer. And yours with his.
Mr. Jones. That is correct.
Mr. Hoyer. And Ms. Lever has fully cooperated with you as well?
Mr. Jones. Yes, she has.
Mr. Hoyer. You certified the election of Ms. Sanchez based upon the figures that were reported.
Mr. Jones. Yes, I did.
Mr. Hoyer. Is it your opinion that those were reported accurately and fairly?
Mr. Jones. I think to the best of my knowledge--and in the process in California, I do not know how it is in other states, but we certify off the list that is provided by the county Registrar of Voters, and I believe that she gave us the best information she had and we certified on that basis.
Mr. Hoyer. And there has obviously been a lot of discussion about that. Do you still hold the opinion that based upon the information she had, the Registrar's office had, that those figures are still accurate--based upon the information she had?
Mr. Jones. Well, there is a short canvass period, we call it, after an election and the Registrars are required to report to us so we can make a decision, and we know you understand that process.
Based on the information she had at the time, I think this certification was accurate. But the fact of the matter is that the issues that we have discussed, as in any case, we are pursuing, and that is additional information.
We are not involved, as you know, Congressman, with the decision that you have to make. We are only involved with the case--at this stage, we are only involved with the case of if in fact we had a fraudulent activity, and that is what we are pursuing.
Mr. Hoyer. I understand that, Mr. Secretary, and as I understand the process, there was no way that Ms. Lever would know about what you are looking at and you are trying to find out and the District Attorney is trying to find out.
Mr. Jones. Well, we have worked with her and we have cooperated. She has helped, and many of the questions that have been raised, she has done an excellent job in doing her very best to answer, with the information she has. But unfortunately, some of the tools, as we have discussed already, are not available any place else other than through INS.
Mr. Hoyer. On the illegal voting_
Mr. Jones. Right.
Mr. Hoyer. I understand that. But based upon the information she has, I appreciate your answer that she has done what she could do and done that well. Is that correct?
Mr. Jones. I believe she has done as good a job as she could possibly do, given the information she had to work with, and I have great confidence in Ms. Lever's integrity.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you, sir.
Now you indicate in your testimony and you referenced in your oral testimony there is--the opinion as to citizenship and registration. Can you tell me, of the 303 voters included in your April 9 letter, have you broken that down as to whether or not any of those 303 were citizens at the time they voted? I know your conclusion is they registered improperly, but is there a breakdown of that list as to whether or not they were citizens at the time they voted?
Mr. Jones. Well, in the testimony of the group that we are talking about, I believe that I have that down as 490 were non-citizens at the time that they registered in the 46th, and 303 unlawfully voted in the 46th.
Mr. Hoyer. I understand that.
Mr. Jones. And your question is, of the 303, were they_
Mr. Hoyer. I want to try to find out and understand this because I think it will ultimately become important. You raise it extensively in your written testimony, did not speak to it as much.
Mr. Jones. Yes.
Mr. Hoyer. Your position, I understand, a reasonable position--I think others differ, but a reasonable position,--if you were not a citizen at the time you registered, then you could not be legally a registered, qualified voter in November.
Mr. Jones. That is correct.
Mr. Hoyer. I understand your position on that.
Mr. Jones. It is not my position. It is, as outlined in my written testimony, stated in Code Section 2101, which establishes the qualification for registering to vote in California, makes it clear, quote, ``A person entitled to register to vote shall be a United States citizen at the time.'' I mean, it says ``shall,'' so I do not think there is any latitude there.
Mr. Hoyer. Given that, Mr. Secretary,--I understand,--is it fair to conclude that you do not have a breakdown then of the 303, as to how many of those were in fact citizens at the time of the vote on November 6th. I know that you have concluded_
Mr. Jones. I see your question, Mr. Congressman.
Mr. Hoyer. Do you know that information?
Mr. Jones. Just one second.
[Pause.]
Mr. Jones. We do not have that breakdown at this time, but we can get that for you. We can work on that.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you very much.
Also, Mr. Secretary, if there is a legal opinion in your office with reference to this issue--I know what you have said on the statute, but if there is an interpretation of either Attorney Generals or your own counsel, could you provide us with a copy of that?
Mr. Jones. We will certainly do that, Congressman.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you. You indicated--we all know that Hermandad is under investigation. Are there other groups under investigation? And you do not have to name them, but are there other groups under investigation?
Mr. Jones. Congressman, I would rather not comment on that at this time. I believe it is--there are discussions--I will leave that to the District Attorney. He can comment on those points. We are working and we made a decision_
Mr. Hoyer. I think he may be more reticent than you are, Mr. Secretary, because he is in a different position.
Mr. Jones. I understand that, Congressman, but let me just be clear. We made a decision on this particular complaint early on, to do a joint investigation on this. And I am not the prosecutor, he is. And so I would not feel comfortable in commenting on that, I will leave that to him if he wishes to comment. Because this is a joint effort that we are involved with and I think I should leave it at that point.
Mr. Hoyer. My time has expired. Do you know--can you give us an estimate of time for the conclusion of your investigation?
Mr. Jones. We are looking, Congressman, that is an excellent question and it is in my comments, but I kept it short because of my time frame. July 31, we are hoping that from our investigation on the voter file itself from our office, we hope to have it resolved by then and the information back. We were told initially from INS that that information that we requested could possibly be back to us and we had asked for it within 30 days. It is our belief from a technical standpoint it can be done and possibly has been done. We do not know that for sure. So there is nothing that would hold our request up that I am aware of, unless it is as stated in the paper this morning, there are other reasons that I am not aware of. But setting that aside, our goal is to have it wrapped up by July 31, Congressman.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you, Mr. Secretary; thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Ney.
Mr. Ney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today.
I have gathered from statements that you have made that the review of the Orange County voter file by Immigration & Naturalization Service seems to be of significant importance, is that correct?
Mr. Jones. Well, it is important to myself, on the premise that based on the large number of non-citizens that were registered in this one complaint, we felt the people of Orange County needed to have the question answered, and we felt that we had probable cause, based on what we had found in this one complaint, to ask the question of INS to take a look at the file. So it is very important, not just to myself, but I believe to the people here in southern California.
Mr. Ney. Do you have any information on the technical feasibility of how long an undertaking like this would take?
Mr. Jones. What I would like to do, if I might, Congressman, is have my chief of my Technology Department, who has had some discussions with INS, comment on that, if I might. Is that all right, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Ehlers. Yes. Mr. Jones. I will have to quickly swear him in. Please raise your right hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. You may proceed.
Mr. Gray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is David Gray, Chief of the Information Technology Division with the California Secretary of State.
Could I ask you to repeat the question, sir?
Mr. Ney. Yes. I wondered if you had any information on the technical feasibility of how long it would take to acquire this information, can it be technically done in conducting your review, how long would it take?
Mr. Gray. It is my understanding from meetings that I have had in L.A. and Washington, D.C. and conversations on the phone that this is technically feasible to perform the analysis or the comparison that we have asked. And the last conversation that I had indicated that that they would be prepared by around April 15 to have the data for us, for our review.
Mr. Ney. I am sorry, conversations with_
Mr. Gray. With INS in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Ney. And it would be April the_
Mr. Gray. Actually the 15th was the last date that was given to us as a date for completion.
Mr. Ney. Have we heard anything since then--have you heard anything, or we? I have not heard that date used before.
Mr. Gray. That was Dr. Young, who is Deputy Commissioner for Information Technology, who indicated that to me in a phone conversation, which occurred on the 10th of April.
Mr. Hoyer. I am sorry, what was the date that was mentioned?
Mr. Ney. April 15.
Mr. Gray. April 15.
Mr. Ney. Now just so that I have got it straight here. I am asking about the technical feasibility of conducting a review of the Orange County voter list. You are saying that you talked to INS on the 10th of April, and they said they could have it done within five days?
Mr. Gray. Actually, they have given us several dates in our conversations and meetings. One of our visits to the L.A. office indicated that their technology infrastructure is very similar to ours and we have done these comparisons on several occasions for cross-county duplicate voting identification, et cetera. And in my meeting in Washington, D.C., we talked about the methodology they would use, the criteria they would use to select the records, the procedures they would use, specifically sending the data back to Mr. Rogers. And they also indicated they had a similar exercise underway for the FBI, to do a comparison of their data against the INS data. So that led me to conclude that it was technically feasible for them to do this comparison for us.
Mr. Ney. And have they then committed to do it, if given they can do it, within that five days?
Mr. Jones. Well, as I stated in my comments, Congressman, Director Rogers has been very supportive. He has implied that he felt--well I will let him comment, but all I can say is yes, they have given us the impression they would do it. But it has--this was at the regional office that we received this information, not in Washington. And what Mr. Gray is speaking about is the discussions he has had with the technical people in Washington on the actual ability to do the work.
Mr. Ney. That just surprised me, because that is a much quicker time frame than I have ever read it can be done. But thank you for that information.
Do you think it can be done without violating the privacy concerns, upholding the privacy concern?
Mr. Jones. Well, Congressman, again, our concern is certainly for privacy of the individuals. We are not asking for any information back from INS other than to let--we sent them information, they will comment on it and send it back.
Mr. Ney. Not to interrupt you, Mr. Secretary, but my time is expired. But I understand you are on the up and up where you are coming from. But I am asking the question, do you think that this can be done without violating the privacy. I guess I am talking technically.
Mr. Jones. I do believe it can. Plus I believe that the exception in the Privacy Act dealing with an ongoing criminal investigation allows us the opportunity to make this request legitimately.
Mr. Ney. Okay. And a final question, are you satisfied with the progress that you have had with INS so far then?
Mr. Jones. So far, again the dates you just heard, so we are just at the point now a few days past what we were told. At this point, yes, but we are a few days past the time we were told that this information would be available. And again, I would reference some comments that I had not heard personally, that I saw in the paper this morning, that raised some doubts whether they felt they would do this or not, and so that is news to me.
Mr. Ney. Thank you.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Ney, the time has expired.
I would just make one quick comment. I am not an attorney, as many members of Congress are I happen to be a scientist, and I have been working on computers since 1957. I can assure you it is technically feasible, as has been said by the Director of the Data Processing Section there. I had heard rumors that someone was saying it was not technologically feasible. I am sure it is and can be done. It is simply a matter of whether it can be done without violating privacy concerns, and I believe that can be done also.
Thank you for your testimony. Thank you both for coming here. We appreciate your comments.
Mr. Ehlers. The next witness is Mr. Capizzi. Did I pronounce that correctly, sir?
Mr. Capizzi. That is fine, sir.
Mr. Ehlers. Capizzi, okay.
He is currently District Attorney of the County of Orange. He has literally risen from the ranks. It is not quite a case of someone starting as a janitor and working up to the top position, but it is close, having progressed since 1965 from Deputy District Attorney through Assistant District Attorney and Chief Assistant District Attorney and now District Attorney.
He has handled cases in the U.S. Supreme Court, has received the "1980 Outstanding Prosecutor" award presented by the California District Attorneys' Association, and is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers.
We are very pleased to have you join us here. Thank you for taking the time to be with us, and we look forward to hearing your testimony. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL R. CAPIZZI
Mr. Capizzi. Thank you, Chairman Ehlers, honorable members of the Contested Election Task Force.
My name is Mike Capizzi and I am the Orange County District Attorney.
At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank you for the kind words about Orange County. I am not unfamiliar with your home state, having been born and raised there. Although it is a great place to grow up, I hasten to add after graduating from law school at the University of Michigan, my wife and I headed west two days later and we have not regretted it once in the 33 years, primarily because of the kind words by which you describe this paradise we call Orange County.
Mr. Ehlers. Can you imagine my wife's dismay after being born and living here for 35 years, joining me and moving back to Michigan?
Mr. Capizzi. I have the ability to appreciate that.
Well, I appreciate the opportunity to address you today.
Although it is unfortunate that the need exists for us to be here, we can be consoled by the knowledge that government in this country really does work. And it works in part because of the people, those gathered here today, as well as the many others who were unable to attend. They can expect a response from the government when issues such as these surface.
The Office of District Attorney in this county has a long history of vigorously investigating and, when appropriate, prosecuting government corruption, including corruption of the voting process.
The sanctity of the voting process cuts to the very heart of democracy in these United States. Our forefathers fought the Revolutionary War to secure the right to have meaningful voice in their government. Years later, the women of this country took to the streets to secure their right to vote and have an equal say in the affairs of state. Citizens of African-American descent were led by Martin Luther King in efforts to share that same voting franchise. Underpinning all of these efforts, of course, was a requirement that the individuals fighting for the right to vote be citizens of this country.
No longer are citizens required to fight for the right, they are not even required to reach the age of 21. Citizens can now register to vote when they reach the age of 18. And the ideal in our system of government is to have all eligible citizens participate in the electoral process by casting an informed vote. By the same token, legitimate voters expect and deserve to know their vote will be given the full weight it deserves and not be diluted by the vote of a person casting a second fraudulent ballot or by the vote of one not entitled to vote, for whatever reason.
All modern doctrines of fairness call for one citizen to have one vote, not more and not less. This one-person-one-vote doctrine is clearly violated when the weight of legitimate voters' ballots is diminished by votes cast by persons without authority to vote. What could more seriously damage the very fabric of our Constitution than allowing disproportionate representation as a result of fraudulent voting? And since we have all sworn to uphold that Constitution, we cannot fail to act in a situation such as presented in this matter.
On October 15, 1996, the Orange County Registrar of Voters wrote to our office advising us of possible violations of the California Elections Code relating to the ineligibility of non-citizens to register to vote. The Registrar's letter was prompted by an individual who was in the process of applying for citizenship through an organization named Hermandad Mexicana Nacional. This person reported to the Registrar that despite the fact that he had not yet completed the citizenship process by taking the oath of allegiance to the United States, he had been encouraged to and had registered to vote.
Approximately two weeks after the November, 1996 election, Mr. Dornan brought to our attention and the attention of the Secretary of State's office information concerning possible illegal voting. At the same time, the Orange County Registrar of Voters brought three more cases to our attention of individuals registered through Hermandad, who told the Registrar they were not citizens of the United States when they registered.
Based on this information, we contacted the Secretary of State, who agreed to join our investigation of registration and voting irregularities in Orange County in the November, 1996 election. As the lead agency, we assigned case agent Ed Contreras to coordinate the efforts of our office and of Secretary of State Jones' office in the criminal investigation.
Based on records from the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Orange County Registrar of Voters, our investigation has thus far determined that approximately 890 non-citizens registered to vote and approximately 547 of those persons voted after being registered through Hermandad.
These numbers include persons who reside both within and without the 46th Congressional District. Our investigation currently is focused on the organization we believe responsible for registering many non-citizens to vote. And the scope of our investigation is quite different from the inquiry being conducted by this Committee, although clearly there are some overlapping aspects.
Our investigation is about possible voter fraud in Orange County. It is not about Mr. Dornan or Ms. Sanchez. In fact, while the scope of this hearing is related to the Congressional District race, we do have a chart here which shows there are multiple other elections that overlap, either wholly or in part, the 46th Congressional District. And so our interest is much broader than the one Congressional District, but all of these other races that during an election cycle could be affected and impacted by illegal voter registration and voter fraud.
Without evidence of wrongdoing, we would not have embarked on this process, and without the additional evidence developed along the way, we would have closed this matter. It is premature to predict exactly where our investigation will lead, but we surely have enough evidence at this juncture to report to you the electoral process has been compromised.
One other thing is important to emphasize. This investigation is not about ethnicity or race or party politics. I believe responsible people from every party, every age group and every race and ethnic group support the vigorous enforcement of laws relating to voting. The right to vote and laws protecting that right are the cornerstone of our system of government. If sufficient admissible evidence is developed to prove individuals violated California election law, we will prosecute those individuals, as is our duty. By the same token, if evidence shows well-intentioned individuals were being misled into registering to vote when they were ineligible to register, it will weigh heavily on our prosecutorial decision. It would be an extremely sad situation if the excitement and enthusiasm of persons legitimately pursuing U.S. citizenship were exploited for illegal purposes by the very persons those applicants were relying on for help.
And lastly, let me add a few thoughts on proposals to reform the registration and voting process.
We support the efforts of the Secretary of State and the Registrar of Voters in attempting to change the election laws. We must tighten the registration process. The necessity of reform is not to dissuade citizens from registering and voting, but to return integrity to the process and restore Americans' faith in the fundamentals of democracy. Citizens must have confidence each vote--each vote--is lawfully cast and their vote will not be diluted or nullified by an unlawful vote.
Do we really need the ability to register to vote by mail? Voter registration cards are signed under penalty of perjury but it has not stopped persons from abusing the privilege. It may be time to return to registration and voting with proof of identity and the qualifications to vote, because of the abuses this investigation has identified. And because of those abuses, I believe it is time to revisit the concept of ``motor voter'' and the resulting potential for voter fraud and corruption of the political process.
We want voluntary compliance with election laws. We do not want investigations and prosecution for violation of voting laws. We are ready and willing to do it when it becomes necessary, but we do not want to be required to do that, if it can be avoided. Voluntary compliance would be encouraged by tightening the voter registration procedures.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the Committee. I will be happy to answer questions, and again hope you will indulge the constraints with which I appear before you today and the fact that we do have an ongoing investigation. And I would have to defer answering any questions calling for details which would compromise that criminal investigation.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Capizzi follows:]
********** INSERT **********
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. I can assure you the panel fully understands the difficulty you face in trying to answer our questions while at the same time maintaining the confidentiality that is necessary during a criminal investigation. Incidentally, I would ask the poster be taken down at this time, so members of the audience can see.
I particularly appreciate your comment that laws regulating the right of citizens to vote form the cornerstone of democracy. I feel very strongly that way myself. I think it is very important for us, number one, to ensure that everyone who has the right to vote is able to vote. That was a problem, as you know, for a good long time in the history of this nation. But secondly, every citizen has a right to know that every other citizen voting is voting legally so that we truly have "one person, one vote" throughout this nation. That should be the goal of everyone in your position and in ours.
I have a question similar to the one I asked Mr. Jones at the beginning. It appears to me from a distance that most of the investigation has focused on Hermandad as the organization that registered citizens--pardon me, registered voters who were not yet legal citizens. Are there other organizations that you believe did the same thing, and are you investigating them, and could you give any estimate of the magnitude of their efforts compared to Hermandad?
Mr. Capizzi. As I mentioned in the prepared remarks, the focus of the investigation is on Hermandad. We will not blind ourselves, however, to other organizations that may have engaged in similar conduct. But the focus at this point is on Hermandad and although that may not be the only--well, that is the focus of the investigation at this point.
Mr. Ehlers. Can you tell us, without violating your restrictions, why were they subjected to the investigation first? Why were they targeted?
Mr. Capizzi. Well, it is following the evidence and following the leads that we have. The initial information, the initial evidence that was developed, led to their doorstep.
Mr. Ehlers. And how many similar organizations are there that run citizenship classes, registration efforts, and so forth?
Mr. Capizzi. I do not have that type of information.
Mr. Ehlers. All right. Another question related to what we were talking about earlier: from your standpoint as a district attorney investigating this, would it be helpful for you to have the INS computer match for Orange County so that you could compare their records in as private a manner as possible with the voter records for the county?
Mr. Capizzi. That is not something that we are pursuing in the course of the criminal investigation.
Mr. Ehlers. No, I am just asking if it would be helpful if that were done.
Mr. Capizzi. Well, it depends on what the result might develop. If it shows that there is additional voter fraud, then we would certainly act on that.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. I have questions too about the registration procedure, but those are probably best left to Ms. Lever when we reach her.
Getting back to the thrust of your final comments about the importance of making certain that everyone has a right to vote and that only those who have a right to vote actually vote, what reforms would you recommend in election law? What should we be looking at down the road?
Mr. Capizzi. Well, I would think that in the registration process, the requirement that a person establish their identity so that we know the person who is registering is the person they claim to be. That is not always possible with mail registration and that coupled with absentee ballots can create a situation that is ripe for potential abuse.
Mr. Ehlers. Fine. I have no other questions at the moment, so I will reserve the balance of my time and turn to Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Capizzi, thank you very much for being with us. I appreciated your testimony. I understand that you are in a position where you can give limited information based upon your investigation.
Mr. Capizzi. Yes.
Mr. Hoyer. Let me ask you, with respect to the Registrar's office, you work closely with Ms. Lever or have been working closely with Ms. Lever on this issue?
Mr. Capizzi. In this and in other issues as well, that is correct.
Mr. Hoyer. And do you have confidence in the operations of Ms. Lever's office?
Mr. Capizzi. Absolutely.
Mr. Hoyer. And based upon your review, obviously relatively extensive review of this election, the figures that have come out of Ms. Lever's office, do you have confidence in those? Obviously, she has done no investigation with respect to the central issue as to whether or not the names on her list were in fact citizens and she would have no way to know that, as you point out in your testimony. But based upon the information she has and the votes that have been cast, do you have confidence in the figures from her office?
Mr. Capizzi. Yes, as far as those figures that have been presented to us.
Mr. Hoyer. So that am I correct that from your perspective, the issue of the counting of the vote is not the problem, the issue is whether or not those who were counted were counted--were able to vote.
Mr. Capizzi. Well, the issue that we are looking at is whether or not there were some people who violated California law in registering to vote and/or voting as well, people who were not entitled to do either.
Mr. Hoyer. Let me ask you something in that context, I asked Secretary Jones as well and he is going to provide the Committee with a legal opinion on that. Do you have a legal memorandum or opinion in your office with reference to the question on registration and voting; i.e., subsequent to registering, the individual becomes a citizen and then votes? Have you dealt with that legal issue?
Mr. Capizzi. It would be my belief that even if they subsequently became eligible to vote, if they weren't properly registered, they would not be entitled to do so. The registration must take place a month before the election_
Mr. Hoyer. It is a 29-day rule?
Mr. Capizzi. Yeah.
Mr. Hoyer. The reason I asked that--and I understand exactly what you meant in your statement, you say ``Citizens can now register to vote when they reach the age of 18.'' Of course, as long as they have reached the age by the time they vote on November 6, they are able to register in California, is that correct? That is the way it is in Maryland, I presume it is that way in California.
Mr. Capizzi. I believe that is correct, yes.
Mr. Hoyer. With respect to the issues you have raised on a general sort of policy standpoint--I do not think that is the focus of this Committee, but our Committee does deal with it, not this Task Force--have there been any instances that you have disclosed at this point in time where the motor voter law was involved in any of the questions that you have got at issue here in the criminal investigation?
Mr. Capizzi. I think that is premature to discuss at this point.
Mr. Hoyer. You do not know that at this point.
Mr. Capizzi. Yes.
Mr. Hoyer. Okay. With respect to the investigation that you are undertaking, your focus is on Hermandad.
Mr. Capizzi. The focus, as I said, is on Hermandad, as an organization, but the broader focus is on voter fraud in Orange County.
Mr. Hoyer. Well, I understand that. And with respect to other organizations, as I understood your answer, you are not focused on other organizations at this time.
Mr. Capizzi. Not to the extent that we are on Hermandad.
Mr. Hoyer. But do I imply that there are other organizations which are the objects of attention?
Mr. Capizzi. At this point, I would be reluctant to delve into that area.
Mr. Hoyer. Okay. I might say I was surprised as I read the material, to read where no indictments have come down or anything of that nature, the search warrant and the affidavits. Is that normal in California, that those pieces of information are available prior to indictments being brought?
Mr. Capizzi. Yes. Typically the affidavit in support of a search warrant is a public record. We sometimes try to prevent that, but the press is somewhat adept at having them released by the courts. And the search warrant is an evidence-gathering device and once that evidence is gathered, depending on how voluminous it may be, it takes some weeks, months to digest it and to follow up with the subsequent investigation before a determination can be made whether any criminal charges should be filed.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you, Mr. Capizzi.
Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Ney.
Mr. Ney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; thank you, Mr. Capizzi.
The Secretary of State--and I just want to get this kind of right out front clear in my mind because it has been mentioned several times now--the Secretary of State went on to say that you must be a citizen to register and you cannot vote if you do not legally register. Now in Ohio also, you can register prior to 18, but as long as on your 18th birthday, the election falls within I think it was a 30-day period.
I just wanted to see, for the record, do you agree with the Secretary of State on his earlier statement that it does not matter. I think the Secretary of State said you cannot be a non-citizen, register to vote and then 30 days later you become the citizen and vote. Do you agree with that? Is that clear or is there a gray area?
Mr. Capizzi. No, I think the statute is clear that you must be a citizen to register to vote.
Mr. Ney. So it is not the same thing as if you have not turned 18 yet?
Mr. Capizzi. No, I think with respect to citizenship, the statute is clear that to register, you must be a citizen.
Mr. Ney. So there is no leeway on that.
Another question I had was--and I probably should have asked this of the Secretary of State, but it is kind of a legal question, I guess. I am looking at a copy of a voter registration form which I would assume, if I were to walk down to the Board of Elections today, I can ask for someone's voter registration form. It is a public document, is that correct?
Mr. Capizzi. I do not believe that that is a public document, to the public generally.
Mr. Ney. I mean I have a blank one, I do not have one filled in--I want to make that clear today.
Mr. Capizzi. Blank ones would be public documents.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ney. Is there anything in an investigatory manner, same question I asked the Secretary of State, that you think would be violating a person's individual rights by INS going through the voter registration tapes of Orange County?
Mr. Capizzi. That is beyond my area of expertise and I respectfully decline to venture a guess on that.
Mr. Ney. I respect that, thank you. The INS analysis of the Orange County voter file, would it be helpful to your investigation of voter fraud to have this completed in the near future?
Mr. Capizzi. Well, it depends on what it shows. We do not know what would develop from that and it probably would not be instructive or productive with respect to the existing instances that we have--that have come to our attention and that we are exploring. To the extent that it might reveal more, then yes, but I do not know what that might reveal.
Mr. Ney. In regards to the raffle, there was an individual who received a raffle lottery ticket from Hermandad upon registering, even though he was not a U.S. citizen. So is that documented that there was a person who--it was a lottery that was conducted, that was not a U.S. citizen and registered? What is the situation_
Mr. Capizzi. Well, that is getting into details of our investigation that I would prefer not to discuss.
Mr. Ney. Thank you. I was basing that on some public information.
Mr. Capizzi. I think there has been newspaper articles to that effect, yes.
Mr. Ney. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. I will reclaim the two minutes I have remaining just to pursue one other aspect.
There has been a lot of discussion here this morning about voting by aliens who, either illegal or legal, were not citizens and yet managed to register and vote. But I do not want to lose sight of the broad picture. And I wonder, are there other types of fraud that you are investigating? For example, in the voting process itself, did people vote twice or were absentee ballots misused in some fashion? These are standard problems in any election, and I am wondering if you are pursuing those and can you give us any information on what the relative magnitude might be compared to other allegations here?
Mr. Capizzi. Those that come to our attention are relatively few, in view of the number of registered voters and the number of those who vote at each election. But we have had instances of that. When they come to our attention, we have pursued those and if the investigation determines there is in fact a violation of law, we have prosecuted that violation.
Mr. Ehlers. All right. So basically you are pursuing all avenues, but it appears at this point that non-citizen voting is the greatest problem in this particular election?
Mr. Capizzi. It predominates by numbers, yes.
Mr. Ehlers. Fine. My time has expired. I thank you very much for your testimony and appreciate your coming.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one follow up question as a result of that?
Mr. Ehlers. I will allow you to use Mr. Ney’s remaining one minute.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you.
Am I correct then that although those types of issues are brought up and they have certainly been discussed on a number of occasions by the Registrar, you are not pursuing an investigation of those types in this instance at this time; is that what I heard you say?
Mr. Capizzi. I do not know what our full inventory of cases that we are investigating might be, but I would assume that there are some instances of that at the current time. We do have other cases involving voter fraud, one of which is pending trial.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you.
Mr. Ehlers. I think it is, a good time to take a brief recess for the members of the Committee and perhaps the audience would like to stretch too. I declare a 10-minute recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Ehlers. The hearing will come to order. We ask everyone to take their seats, and we will proceed with receiving testimony. Our next witness is a career federal employee who served in the United States Navy on an aircraft carrier for several years before joining the INS as a border patrol agent in San Diego. It is Mr. Richard Rogers, who is a 25-year employee of the Los Angeles District of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and currently their District Director. He moved up from being a border patrol agent to being Western Region Acting Regional Administrator, then a staff assistant for the field operations for the Western Region and was finally appointed in 1994 as District Director for the Los Angeles District Office, which has to be one of the busier INS offices.
We have read much about your efforts in the newspaper, and Mr. Rogers, we appreciate your time and thank you for coming here to testify. You may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF RICHARD ROGERS
Mr. Rogers. Honorable Chairman and members of Congress, I appreciate the opportunity. I am Richard Rogers, District Director for the Los Angeles District of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service. As District Director, it is my responsibility to oversee all immigration issues within the seven counties surrounding and including Los Angeles County. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in this hearing and to provide you with specific information of the Los Angeles District's involvement in the pending Orange County District Attorney's investigation into voter fraud during the November, 1996 election.
At the beginning of December, 1996, the Los Angeles District staff had various conversations with representatives of the Orange County District Attorney's office regarding the possibility of non-citizens having voted in the November, 1996 election. Following several of those conversations, the Orange County District Attorney's office filed a formal request with our office on December 6, 1996, requesting INS review a list of approximately 1160 registered Orange County voters against various INS data and paper files. The information provided by the District Attorney's office at that time indicated they had an open criminal investigation relating to possible voter fraud and that they wanted us to check the names on that list against INS databases and paper files to determine if in fact persons referenced in the District Attorney's list were naturalized citizens of the United States at the time of the November election.
Thereafter, INS reviewed the names provided by the District Attorney's office against various INS databases and paper file records to verify whether or not those persons were naturalized citizens or whether the INS possessed no records, either electronic or paper, regarding the persons concerned. INS provided the initial results of its efforts to the District Attorney on January 8, 1997. Our initial response was divided into three categories: naturalized citizens, persons identified in the INS records who have not yet become United States citizens by the date of the November election; and 3, the cases when no responsive INS database records were found. To verify the INS did not possess paper file records concerning persons referenced in the third class of cases, and to ensure ourselves that the relevant information was both comprehensive and correct, INS thereafter made a file-by-file manual check of its paper file records to verify the results of its search. All told, INS physically searched the paper file records of approximately 1034 individuals in connection with the District Attorney's request.
As part of the process leading to the results described above, INS had initially run an electronic check of the voter records that were provided by the District Attorney's office, against two of the databases in which INS ordinarily stores naturalization information. The two databases normally used by INS in this checking for citizenship status and information is the Central Index System and the Naturalization Application Casework, referred to as NACS. In connection with the search the Los Angeles District Office undertook, INS compared the names of the individuals on the list provided by the Orange County District Attorney's office against information contained in CIS and NACS databases. Information from these databases provided us with an initial indication regarding which of the persons on the Orange County voter's list might have been naturalized by the dates in question.
Because name checks do not provide a sufficiently high confidence level to ensure the Privacy Act protections are being afforded and because of the potentially serious consequences of incorrect information in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation, INS carefully cross-checked the data information it had obtained through electronic means against our paper file records contained in the Immigration Service's files. On January 8, 1997, INS provided an update of that information to the District Attorney's office, together with the original list which the District Attorney's office had provided to INS, on which the Service made specific notations regarding the individuals' status as reflected in our files.
Our office has been in ongoing contact with the District Attorney's office and the California Secretary of State's office since that time regarding information contained within INS records. The majority of the information which those offices have requested relates to an organization that assisted us in the naturalization process--Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, by providing assistance to applicants for naturalization. That organization provided various forms of services, such as educational assistance and various forms of testing for local alien populations, as well as space for INS within the local community, from which we could conduct our final interviews of applicants for citizenship. All naturalization interviews and naturalization determinations, of course, are made by INS and not by this or any other outside organization. Once these applicants have successfully passed the interview, they are scheduled for an oath-taking ceremony, which is the final step to become a United States naturalized citizen.
The information which INS provided was necessarily very limited in scope due to our obligations as a federal agency under the Privacy Act and other laws with regard to individual personal data in our records. Accordingly, the only data INS provided in connection with that request concerned the citizenship status of persons of whom INS maintained records and the date of naturalization where applicable.
On March 14, 1997, my office received a request from the California Secretary of State Bill Jones, asking for additional information regarding the status of all registered voters within Orange County. I submitted that request to our INS Headquarters in Los Angeles, and I understand that INS personnel are presently working on that request and have had discussions with Mr. Jones' office in regards to the ability to match those records against information contained within certain INS databases. Questions relating to the particular mechanics of facilitating the Secretary of State's latest request should be addressed to the INS Headquarters personnel, inasmuch as they have been tasked with the responsibility of locating the relevant responsive records and are in the best position to provide accurate information and guidance to this Committee regarding the specific nature of any associated searches. I understand the Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, has advised the Committee staff that the appropriate staff who are reviewing the request will brief you when they reach decisions in the next few weeks.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee's concerns. I would be happy to answer any of your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Rogers follows:]
********** INSERT **********
Mr. Ehlers. Well, thank you for your testimony. There are a number of questions.
I certainly appreciate your cooperation with the local officials. I think that is always excellent for a federal employee to be cooperative with local and state governments, and I appreciate your willingness to cooperate with those who have testified here.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Mr. Ehlers. That is not always the case and as a Congressman, I appreciate your willingness to do that.
Several questions. First, on the comment you made that ``because name checks do not provide a sufficiently high confidence level to ensure that Privacy Act protections are being afforded and because of potentially serious consequences of incorrect information in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation, the INS carefully cross-checked the database information it obtained through electronic means against the paper file records contained in the Immigration Service's files.''
Do you know, were there quite a few discrepancies that were discovered in this process? Were you personally involved in that?
Mr. Rogers. I reviewed all the material that left our office and there was not that many significant discrepancies from the electronic file database to the hard copy, but it often tells dates on which things occurred in the hard copy, that we do not see in the electronic database.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. So you said there were hardly any discrepancies. You checked 1160 records, I believe.
Mr. Rogers. At the time we referred the information to the District Attorney, we had about 45 still pending. Of that, I believe 25 has since been clarified, but because of the data in the electronic database, we did not want to release it.
Mr. Ehlers. All right. So it is really a rather small number.
Mr. Rogers. Yes.
Mr. Ehlers. A quarter of a percent basically.
When there were discrepancies, were the discrepancies things that were wrong in the computer file or in the paper file?
Mr. Rogers. What happens is usually the data in the electronic file does not catch up to the hard copy information for about 60 days. And because of the time period the request occurred from the District Attorney, shortly after the election, about 30 days after the election, that is usually what.
Mr. Ehlers. So these are not errors in the computer file, they are simply delays in data entry, is that correct?
Mr. Rogers. Yes, and pulling the original hard copy file also.
Mr. Ehlers. Well, good, I appreciate that clarification.
I notice--and I was not fully aware of the extent of this until this case came to our attention-- that the INS provides funds for groups to run citizenship classes, not only funds, but colleges. Do you provide grants, or do they get the grants from some other federal agency?
Mr. Rogers. The only grant that I know of is one that we had with the Catholic Charities and it was a $500,000 grant to assist us in evaluating new electronic means of submission of applications. The individuals, the organizations that participate with us, we do not provide money to.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay, I had heard there were grants for those who were teaching citizenship classes. Are you saying that there are no grants or that INS does not provide the grants?
Mr. Rogers. To the best of my knowledge, they are under contract, but we do not pay them.
Mr. Ehlers. I see. All right. We allow them to charge a fee.
Mr. Rogers. In terms of your records, if you ran a check against voting records and there was a name on the voting record list that was not on your records, this would presumably be someone who has been a citizen for some time--in other words, someone who is a citizen by birth, or someone who is illegal and had not registered. Is that a correct assumption, or are there other cases where someone who would be registering to vote would not appear in your records?
Mr. Rogers. There are derivative citizens, born of United States parents outside the United States. They acquire citizenship at birth. Those would not necessarily be in our records because they do not have to register. There are various sections of the law that may occur.
Mr. Ehlers. In terms of the citizenship classes, is it possible that some of the groups running these citizenship classes may have students that are not on your INS list or would they primarily be individuals who are on your list?
Mr. Rogers. Most likely they would be on our lists or in our databases, because it is a requirement that you have to have permanent residence for a specific period of time before applying for citizenship or acquiring citizenship.
Mr. Ehlers. Oh, so everyone in those classes should be on your lists then?
Mr. Rogers. Yes.
Mr. Ehlers. All right, good. As I mentioned earlier, there should be no problem whatsoever in doing the computer match that Mr. Jones has requested between the Orange County records and the INS records, whether here or in Washington. You were kind enough to do the limited check asked for first. Do you see, from your perspective, any technical problems in giving an affirmative answer to Mr. Jones and having the INS perform this test and match the computer records for the entire county?
Mr. Rogers. I would prefer that that question be asked of Headquarters' electronic people. I really do not know. I put Mr. Jones' people in touch with our people in Headquarters. The technicalities, I am sorry, I do not have that expertise.
Mr. Ehlers. So you are not familiar with computer technology?
Mr. Rogers. No.
Mr. Ehlers. You are familiar with the administrative process. Administratively, there would be no problem as long as privacy is protected, correct?
Mr. Rogers. I can do a file-by-file search, and I could do an electronic search name-by-name here--I could do that.
Mr. Ehlers. All right. We will have to deal with Washington. When we get back, we may have to call a witness from Headquarters and ask them that question. Is that correct?
Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. I was heartened by the April 15 date that I was given, although that happens to coincide with income tax day. Perhaps everyone was so busy filing their income tax, they did not have time to complete the INS file.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ehlers. My time has expired. We will turn to Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you very much for being here, Mr. Rogers. You have a tough job, and the folks who work with you and for you have a tough job keeping track of large numbers.
Let me go to your testimony if I can and just ask some brief questions. You indicate that the majority of information which those offices have requested, referring to the District Attorney and the Secretary of State, relate to Hermandad Mexicana Nacional.
What are the other references? If the majority referred to that organization, what are the other references?
Mr. Rogers. Well, we now have a request from the Secretary of State to do the entire voter file, so that was what I meant.
Mr. Hoyer. That was what you were referring to?
Mr. Rogers. Yes.
Mr. Hoyer. Okay. So actually that would now become the majority.
Mr. Rogers. Yes.
Mr. Hoyer. Okay.
Mr. Rogers. On our search.
Mr. Hoyer. Excuse me?
Mr. Rogers. On our search.
Mr. Hoyer. Yes. On the records that you provided, you say ``The only data INS provided in connection with that request concerned 1) the citizenship status of persons; and the date of naturalization where applicable''. Obviously, that would only be applicable if in fact they had been naturalized. That is what you were referring to?
Mr. Rogers. Well, we were referring also to naturalization that took place prior to the election.
Mr. Hoyer. I presume on the list that you provided, it would have been naturalization that occurred at any time or just prior to the election?
Mr. Rogers. One of the information we provided was that if an individual had become a naturalized citizen after the November--the October 25 ceremony that we handled.
Mr. Hoyer. Let me clarify that. If a person had become a citizen on October 26, of the 1160 or 1034 that you responded to, would the information received by either the Secretary of State or the District Attorney reference the date on which they became naturalized citizens?
Mr. Rogers. The list that was provided had specifically the date of October 25. And they had numbers after that date, yes.
Mr. Hoyer. They had numbers, who is they?
Mr. Rogers. We provided them with numbers of citizens that became naturalized after November 25.
Mr. Hoyer. Okay. Did you provide the names of citizens that became naturalized before the 25th?
Mr. Rogers. We provided no names, none whatsoever.
Mr. Hoyer. The names were provide by the Secretary of State.
Mr. Rogers. By the District Attorney's office.
Mr. Hoyer. That is fine. That was 1160. You responded to 1034, correct?
Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hoyer. That you could find.
Mr. Rogers. Right.
Mr. Hoyer. And what I am saying is, on the 1034 to which you responded, the information that--you indicate you provided citizenship status and date of naturalization where applicable.
Mr. Rogers. Right.
Mr. Hoyer. Now I presume ``where applicable'' means that if they were not naturalized, it was not applicable. In other words, what I am saying is if they had been naturalized at any time up to your search of the record, does that information refer to--is that information referred to on your response?
Mr. Rogers. Because the response related to a specific criminal investigation relating to the election of November 6, we provided them with information relating to citizens that were citizens prior to that date.
Mr. Hoyer. Prior to November 6th.
Mr. Rogers. Yes. We had citizens that became citizens after November 6, during the month of November.
Mr. Hoyer. But--of the number that you reviewed?
Mr. Rogers. Right. We have since_
Mr. Hoyer. But you did not reflect that on there because you did not think that was relevant?
Mr. Rogers. No, we reflected it by numbers specifically of those individuals that became citizens after October 25th.
Mr. Hoyer. If I looked at the list, could I tell from all the responses you made to the 1034 when that person or if that person was naturalized?
Mr. Rogers. If you have the list that the District Attorney provided to us, yes, off that list, you could tell that.
Mr. Hoyer. All right. Now if you were unable to confirm, that did not mean, am I correct--I think you already said this--that the individual was not a citizen. It simply meant you could not confirm that.
Mr. Rogers. That is correct. Because on the list, there was indication there was native born United States citizens.
Mr. Hoyer. Or, as you pointed out, were derivative, I think you referred to it, they had been born overseas of U.S. citizen parents.
Mr. Rogers. Right.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Rogers, thank you very much for your testimony, appreciate it.
Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Ney.
Mr. Ney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; Mr. Rogers.
I wanted to follow back up on the Chairman's question when he asked about is it possible that some of the groups receiving money from the INS for citizenship classes may have students who are not on any of the INS lists. So his question centered around are all the names in the groups that provided the classes, are they all on the INS lists. And I think your answer was that most likely all the names are on there.
Now from the ``most likely,'' is that for sure or is it possible, because the words ``most likely'' means, in my opinion, that it is probable that, it is most likely that, but does that mean that for sure all names that were on those citizens classes lists are on the INS lists, or is it possible--let me phrase it that way I guess--that some of the names could be on a list for the citizenship classes and