Full text of the official published hearing record. Extracted from the source document — verify against the official record for citation.
[House Hearing, 119 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] ELECTION OBSERVATION: BEST PRACTICES AND CONGRESS' ROLE ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ July 15, 2026 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] www.govinfo.gov www.cha.house.gov __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 64-241 WASHINGTON : 2026 ======================================================================= COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Chairman LAUREL LEE, Florida, Vice Chair JOSEPH MORELLE, New York, BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia Ranking Member H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama GREG MURPHY, North Carolina NORMA TORRES, California STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma JULIE JOHNSON, Texas MARY MILLER, Illinois MIKE CAREY, Ohio Mike Platt, Staff Director Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director ------ SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS LAUREL LEE, Florida, Chair BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama, GREG MURPHY, North Carolina Ranking Member MARY MILLER, Illinois JULIE JOHNSON, Texas C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Opening Statements Chair Laurel Lee, Representative from the State of Florida....... 1 Prepared statement of Chair Laurel Lee....................... 2 Ranking Member Terri A. Sewell, Representative from the State of Alabama........................................................ 3 Prepared statement of Ranking Member Terri A. Sewell......... 4 Chairman of the Committee on House Administration Bryan Steil, Representative from the State of Wisconsin..................... 5 Prepared statement of Chairman Bryan Steil................... 7 Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on House Administration Joseph Morelle, Representative from the State of New York............. 7 Prepared statement of Ranking Member Joseph Morelle.......... 9 Witnesses Wesley Wilcox, supervisor, Marion County Supervisor of Elections, Ocala, Florida................................................. 11 Prepared statement of Wesley Wilcox.......................... 13 Lance Reed, director, Summit County Board of Elections, Akron, Ohio........................................................... 15 Prepared statement of Lance Reed............................. 16 Paige Whitaker, legislative attorney, Congressional Research Service........................................................ 17 Prepared statement of Paige Whitaker......................... 19 ELECTION OBSERVATION: BEST PRACTICES AND CONGRESS' ROLE ---------- July 15, 2026 Subcommittee on Elections, Committee on House Administration, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Laurel Lee [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding. Present: Representatives Lee, Steil, Loudermilk, Sewell, Morelle, and Johnson. Staff present: Sage Dobbs, Staff Assistant; Michael Platt, Staff Director; Abby Salter, Deputy General Counsel; Libby Sippel, Deputy Director of Member Services; Josh Weber, Counsel; Khalil Abboud, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director; and Nikolas Youngsmith, Minority Elections Counsel. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAUREL LEE, CHAIR OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA Chair Lee. The Subcommittee on Elections of the Committee on House Administration will come to order. I note that a quorum is present. Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any time. Also, without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days so Members may submit any materials they wish to be included therein. Thank you, Ranking Member Sewell, Members of the Committee, and our witnesses for participating in today's hearing. Welcome to the Subcommittee on Elections hearing entitled ``Election Observation: Best Practices and Congress' Role.'' Election observers play an important role in election administration. They provide an independent view of the election process by documenting what they see, asking questions through established procedures, and helping confirm elections are conducted according to law. Congress has a unique and important constitutional responsibility that makes today's hearing especially important. Article I of the Constitution provides that each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own Members. Congress cannot fulfill that responsibility without the ability to observe the Federal election process that determines who serves here. For that reason, the Committee on House Administration has long maintained the Congressional Election Observer Program, and Congress reaffirmed that authority through the Confirmation of Congressional Observer Access Act, or the COCOA Act. Congressional observers are sent to observe, document, and report back to the Committee so Congress has an objective factual record if questions arise during a Federal election. Closed elections are part of our democracy. House races have been decided by only a few hundred votes and sometimes even fewer. In those situations, having an accurate record of the election process is especially important so Congress can faithfully fulfill its constitutional responsibility. Successful election observation program depends on everyone understanding their role. It promotes transparency, gives election officials another set of eyes on the process, and helps candidates and voters better understand how elections are conducted. Together these benefits strengthen public confidence in our elections. That is why professionalism matters. Election officials should establish clear procedures for credentialing observers, defining where they may observe, and maintaining clear channels of communication throughout the election process. Observers should arrive well-trained, understand the laws governing the jurisdiction where they are observing, respect election workers and voters, document what they observe, and raise any concerns through the appropriate channels. Professional election observation depends on preparation, clear expectations, and mutual respect. Today's hearing is an opportunity to learn from our witnesses about best practices that strengthen transparency, support professional election observation, and help Congress fulfill its constitutional responsibilities. I thank our witnesses for joining us today, and I look forward to their testimony. With that, I yield to Ranking Member Sewell for an opening statement. [The prepared statement of Chair Lee follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIR OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS LAUREL LEE Thank you, Ranking Member Sewell, Members of the Committee, and our witnesses for participating in today's hearing. Welcome to the Subcommittee on Elections hearing entitled ``Election Observation: Best Practices and Congress' Role.'' Election observers play an important role in election administration. They provide an independent view of the election process by documenting what they see, asking questions through established procedures, and helping confirm elections are conducted according to law. Congress has a unique and important constitutional responsibility that makes today's hearing especially important. Article I of the Constitution provides that each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own Members. Congress cannot fulfill that responsibility without the ability to observe the Federal election process that determines who serves here. For that reason, the Committee on House Administration has long maintained the Congressional Election Observer Program, and Congress reaffirmed that authority through the Confirmation of Congressional Observer Access Act, or the COCOA Act. Congressional observers are sent to observe, document, and report back to the Committee so Congress has an objective factual record if questions arise during a Federal election. Closed elections are part of our democracy. House races have been decided by only a few hundred votes and sometimes even fewer. In those situations, having an accurate record of the election process is especially important so Congress can faithfully fulfill its constitutional responsibility. Successful election observation program depends on everyone understanding their role. It promotes transparency, gives election officials another set of eyes on the process, and helps candidates and voters better understand how elections are conducted. Together these benefits strengthen public confidence in our elections. That is why professionalism matters. Election officials should establish clear procedures for credentialing observers, defining where they may observe, and maintaining clear channels of communication throughout the election process. Observers should arrive well trained, understand the laws governing the jurisdiction where they are observing, respect election workers and voters, document what they observe, and raise any concerns through the appropriate channels. Professional election observation depends on preparation, clear expectations, and mutual respect. Today's hearing is an opportunity to learn from our witnesses about best practices that strengthen transparency, support professional election observation, and help Congress fulfill its constitutional responsibilities. I thank our witnesses for joining us today, and I look forward to their testimony. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TERRI A. SEWELL, RANKING MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALABAMA Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank our witnesses for gathering today. The focus of today's hearing, Congress' role in election observation, is an incredibly important topic, especially as we quickly approach this year's midterm elections. Our constituents have entrusted us with a solemn duty of ensuring that our Nation's elections are conducted efficiently, securely, and transparently. Federal election observers are consequential to that effort, which is why they have a storied history in this country. The original Voting Rights Act of 1965 empowered the Attorney General to deploy Federal examiners to register Black voters, as well as Federal observers, who had a right to be present at polling stations and to monitor our democratic process as they occurred in real time. These were the VRAs on- the-ground enforcement arms, which guaranteed witnessable proceedings and ensured they complied with established standards. The DOJ dispatched thousands of observers in the decades after the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to protect the security and fairness of our democratic process. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's 2013 Shelby v. Holder decision gutted much of the DOJ's authority to deploy on-the- ground monitors. This ruling is part of a larger trends, as exhibited by the recent Callais decision of this Court, systemically dismantling the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The existence of my district was secured through the VRA. I am proud every day to represent the historic cities of Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, and my hometown of Selma, Alabama. These were hard-fought gains that were secured by those foot soldiers who marched across the bridge in order for all of us to have the right to vote. It is part of why I am proud to lead the House Democrats' efforts to pass the John Robert Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to ensure that every eligible American's right to vote is protected. Election observers are an important part of this conversation. As with other fundamental democratic safeguards, the Trump administration has sought to break longstanding norms surrounding observers and monitors. Since 2025, the Trump DOJ has threatened unprecedented use of legal election monitoring security. It has threatened to deploy observers to Democratically controlled States, taunting baseless claims of misconduct and protectoral violations. States' officials across the board, most recently in Michigan and in other States, had deployed--had asked where the DOJ threatened to deploy observers just a few weeks ago, have described their actions as voter intimidation. These continue to be a concerning pattern from this administration. And I think it is really important that we have a hearing today to talk about why it is so important that we have Federal observers and that those observers are actually doing the job that they are sent to do. Let me be very clear: This misuse and abuse of authority by the current administration is nothing more than an attempt to sow discord and distrust in our elections. For the past several days, we had been hearing reports the President plans to deliver a prime time speech tomorrow that raises allegations about the 2020 election interference. Moreover, it should concern all of us that--especially the witnesses here today on this Subcommittee hearing--that the Election Assistance Commissioners, Members of a bipartisan Federal agency, who have helped State and local officials acquire funding and certify equipment to run their elections, were summarily removed by this President. This is why now more than ever we must protect our Congressional Election Observer Program. This program is part of our constitutional and legal responsibility, both on this Committee and in the full House, to determine the qualifications of Members and to oversee our elections. It has a long history of bipartisanship, dating back almost a century with Republicans and Democrat observers deployed in pairs to districts throughout this United States. These observers are congressional staff who have served on a voluntary basis within their official duties. They are strictly instructed not to interfere with or to attempt to influence the electoral process. They are not partisan actors in any way, shape, or form. These observers serve as the eyes and ears of the House on the ground in the congressional elections. They are encouraged to ask questions and to closely monitor our democratic process. I am glad for today's hearing to discuss this vital program. I hope we can continue in the spirit and practice of bipartisanship that has characterized it for decades. And I look forward to working with the Chairwoman and all of us in achieving that goal. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Sewell follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS TERRI A. SEWELL Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank our witnesses for gathering today. The focus of today's hearing, Congress' role in election observation, is an incredibly important topic, especially as we quickly approach this year's midterm elections. Our constituents have entrusted us with a solemn duty of ensuring that our Nation's elections are conducted efficiently, securely, and transparently. Federal election observers are consequential to that effort, which is why they have a storied history in this country. The original Voting Rights Act of 1965 empowered the Attorney General to deploy Federal examiners to register Black voters, as well as Federal observers, who had a right to be present at polling stations and to monitor our democratic process as they occurred in real time. These were the VRAs on the ground enforcement arms, which guaranteed witnessable proceedings and ensured they complied with established standards. The DOJ dispatched thousands of observers in the decades after the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to protect the security and fairness of our democratic process. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's 2013 Shelby v. Holder decision gutted much of the DOJ's authority to deploy on-the- ground monitors. This ruling is part of a larger trends, as exhibited by the recent Callais decision of this Court, systemically dismantling the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The existence of my district was secured through the VRA. I am proud every day to represent the historic cities of Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, and my hometown of Selma, Alabama. These were hard fought gains that were secured by those foot soldiers who marched across the bridge in order for all of us to have the right to vote. It is part of why I am proud to lead the House Democrats' efforts to pass the John Robert Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to ensure that every eligible American's right to vote is protected. Election observers are an important part of this conversation. As with other fundamental democratic safeguards, the Trump administration has sought to break longstanding norms surrounding observers and monitors. Since 2025, the Trump DOJ has threatened unprecedented use of legal election monitoring security. It has threatened to deploy observers to Democratically controlled States, taunting baseless claims of misconduct and protectoral violations. States' officials across the board, most recently in Michigan and in other States, had deployed--had asked where the DOJ threatened to deploy observers just a few weeks ago, have described their actions as voter intimidation. These continue to be a concerning pattern from this administration. And I think it is really important that we have a hearing today to talk about why it is so important that we have Federal observers and that those observers are actually doing the job that they are sent to do. Let me be very clear: This misuse and abuse of authority by the current administration is nothing more than an attempt to sow discord and distrust in our elections. For the past several days, we had been hearing reports the President plans to deliver a prime time speech tomorrow that raises allegations about the 2020 election interference. Moreover, it should concern all of us that--especially the witnesses here today on this Subcommittee hearing--that the Election Assistance Commissioners, Members of a bipartisan Federal agency, who have helped State and local officials acquire funding and certify equipment to run their elections, were summarily removed by this President. This is why now more than ever we must protect our Congressional Election Observer Program. This program is part of our constitutional and legal responsibility, both on this Committee and in the full House, to determine the qualifications of Members and to oversee our elections. It has a long history of bipartisanship, dating back almost a century with Republicans and Democrat observers deployed in pairs to districts throughout this United States. These observers are congressional staff who have served on a voluntary basis within their official duties. They are strictly instructed not to interfere with or to attempt to influence the electoral process. They are not partisan actors in any way, shape, or form. These observers serve as the eyes and ears of the House on the ground in the congressional elections. They are encouraged to ask questions and to closely monitor our democratic process. I am glad for today's hearing to discuss this vital program. I hope we can continue in the spirit and practice of bipartisanship that has characterized it for decades. And I look forward to working with the Chairwoman and all of us in achieving that goal. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. Thank you. Chair Lee. I now yield to the Chairman of the full Committee, Chairman Steil, for an opening statement. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRYAN STEIL, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM WISCONSIN Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Chair Lee. Thanks for holding today's Subcommittee hearing on election observers. The American people should be confident that our elections are conducted transparently, securely, and according to the law. Election observers or poll watchers play a critical role in ensuring that. I think that is why we are here today. Observers increase transparency, strengthen accountability, and provide independent oversight throughout the election process. The Committee on House Administration runs the nonpartisan House Election Observer Program, a program that, as we know, dispatches congressional staff across the country to serve as election observers in congressional races. They play a really critical function of our constitutional responsibility to safeguard Federal elections and to judge the election returns and qualifications of our own Members, as set forth in the Constitution. In the 2024 general election, the Republican majority side sent out over 70 staff to districts across the country to observe elections. And my colleagues on the minority dispatched volunteers to many districts as well. In fact, Representative Miller-Meeks who serves on the full Committee dispatched a staffer to the city of Milwaukee and the Milwaukee County central count. The same year, in 2024, California's 13th Congressional District, the margin of victory was 187 votes, or 0.09 percent. In 2020, as we remember, election observers were on the ground in Iowa in the Second Congressional District, when our colleague Mariannette Miller-Meeks won that race by six votes. While she emerged the winner, her opponent immediately contested the results. In those types of close races, the factual record matters. And House observers provided continuous and reliable information from the ground. Congress and, in particular, this Committee could carry out our constitutional responsibilities. There is a report on election administration procedures, such as ballot tabulation and ballot storage. They asked questions of election officials throughout the election process. All of this helps build a detailed, independent record in case an election is challenged, as it was in 2020, but a Democrat who would ultimately lose in Iowa. Although the House has run an observer program for many years, Congress' constitutional authority was not always recognized by State and local election authorities. That is why, in 2024, Congress passed Representative Carey's legislation, the confirmation of Congressional Observer Access Act. This statute--I think it is really important--it gives explicit observation authority to congressional election observers and reaffirms Congress' constitutional authority in Federal elections. With the 2026 midterms just around the corner, this Committee would like to invite House staff to participate in the Election Observer Program and serve in districts across the country again. And it is important to recognize--and I think it has been noted--it is nonpartisan. Staff from both Democrat and Republican offices will be fully trained and equipped and deployed around the country. And we are grateful to the staff that have previously volunteered and to the staff that is in the process of volunteering and will be deployed in the coming months. This program is a crucial tool for increasing transparency and security in House elections. I appreciate my friend and colleague, Representative Lee, for holding today's hearing on this important topic. And I yield back. I thank our witnesses for being here. [The prepared statement of Chairman Steil follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION BRYAN STEIL Thank you very much, Chair Lee. Thanks for holding today's Subcommittee hearing on election observers. The American people should be confident that our elections are conducted transparently, securely, and according to the law. Election observers or poll watchers play a critical role in ensuring that. I think that is why we are here today. Observers increase transparency, strengthen accountability, and provide independent oversight throughout the election process. The Committee on House Administration runs the nonpartisan House Election Observer Program, a program that, as we know, dispatches congressional staff across the country to serve as election observers in congressional races. They play a really critical function of our constitutional responsibility to safeguard Federal elections and to judge the election returns and qualifications of our own Members, as set forth in the Constitution. In the 2024 general election, the Republican majority side sent out over 70 staff to districts across the country to observe elections. And my colleagues on the minority dispatched volunteers to many districts as well. In fact, Representative Miller Meeks who serves on the full Committee dispatched a staffer to the city of Milwaukee and the Milwaukee County central count. The same year, in 2024, California's 13th Congressional District, the margin of victory was 187 votes, or 0.09 percent. In 2020, as we remember, election observers were on the ground in Iowa in the Second Congressional District, when our colleague Mariannette Miller Meeks won that race by six votes. While she emerged the winner, her opponent immediately contested the results. In those types of close races, the factual record matters. And House observers provided continuous and reliable information from the ground. Congress and, in particular, this Committee could carry out our constitutional responsibilities. There is a report on election administration procedures, such as ballot tabulation and ballot storage. They asked questions of election officials throughout the election process. All of this helps build a detailed, independent record in case an election is challenged, as it was in 2020, but a Democrat who would ultimately lose in Iowa. Although the House has run an observer program for many years, Congress' constitutional authority was not always recognized by State and local election authorities. That is why, in 2024, Congress passed Representative Carey's legislation, the confirmation of Congressional Observer Access Act. This statute--I think it is really important--it gives explicit observation authority to congressional election observers and reaffirms Congress' constitutional authority in Federal elections. With the 2026 midterms just around the corner, this Committee would like to invite House staff to participate in the Election Observer Program and serve in districts across the country again. And it is important to recognize--and I think it has been noted--it is nonpartisan. Staff from both Democrat and Republican offices will be fully trained and equipped and deployed around the country. And we are grateful to the staff that have previously volunteered and to the staff that is in the process of volunteering and will be deployed in the coming months. This program is a crucial tool for increasing transparency and security in House elections. I appreciate my friend and colleague, Representative Lee, for holding today's hearing on this important topic. And I yield back. I thank our witnesses for being here. Chair Lee. I now yield to the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr. Morelle, for an opening statement. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH MORELLE, RANKING MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you as well the Ranking Member Sewell. An important topic. I appreciate very much the discussion today on neutral nonpartisan election observers, which are an essential part of our democratic system, as has been mentioned by each of my colleagues. They provide transparency in our elections, which enhances dramatically the necessary public trust that Americans must feel that their elections are fair and that they are secure. They are. We want to make sure they continue to believe that. Poll watchers and election observers help provide that transparency, often in a volunteer capacity. And they ensure that the electoral process is visible to the American public. And that is worthy of the trust our democracy requires to thrive and particularly in an environment where it is too often called into question. Crucially, in the United States, election observers do not favor one party over another. Observers ensure that citizens understand elections are reliable and the results are honest and true. And observers also play an important role in the Committee's purposes indeed for the institutional duties and responsibilities of the Congress. Constitution invests substantial and broad authority to Congress with respect to Federal elections, including the power to hear and decide contests brought to challenge the results of congressional elections. Pursuant to Article I, section 5, clause 1, of the Constitution, each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own Members-- something I suspect many Americans do not know. They may also not know that Article I, section 4, clause 1, of the Constitution, which I think Ms. Lee earlier referenced-- the time, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature there, but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations. The congressional authority and responsibility to examine the qualification of Members is an integral part of the biennial organization of this body. And we, both the House and the Committee, consistently and regularly exercise our oversight and election and adjudication role. Across the United States' history, more than 610 elections have been contested in the House, an average of more than 5 per Congress, which I think, again, Americans would be surprised to know that that had occurred that many times in our Nation's history. Each election cycle, the House conducts an Election Observer Program to develop a factual record of election issues that may be relevant in resolving those election contests. The Committee, by virtue of statutory authority and our House Rule X, has jurisdiction over contested House elections and manages this Election Observer Program. For almost the entire history of the program, the Committee has deployed mutual observers in bipartisan pairs that candidates request for congressional elections in which we can expect a close margin. The record developed by House observers is invaluable for the Committee in evaluating election contests. Whether the facts in election contest warrant further investigation by the Committee depends in significant measure on the fact-finding conducting by observers in an election contest and the credibility of those claims. Vitally, the impartial and bipartisan nature of the program helps give Americans confidence that, should a contested election arise in the House, it will be resolved fairly and honorably without regard for partisan outcomes. I am concerned that this Committee disregarded the established precedent in 2024, predeploying election observers across the country ahead of election day; that is not the precedent. Despite the longstanding norms of the program, Committee Republicans sent observers to noncompetitive congressional elections in the heart of Atlanta, Detroit, Madison, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia. Troubling, Committee Republicans sent their observers without the traditional Democratic observer pairing. All of these break precedent. This early unilateral deployment not only ignored past precedent and past practice, it contravened, in October 2024, a joint letter I sent with Chairman Steil to election administrators which professed that the House Election Observer process is a, quote, ``bipartisan program,'' in which observers are deployed in bipartisan pairs. Sadly, the Chair ignored his own observations in that letter by sending people out of bipartisan--and not as bipartisan pairs--and deployed them ahead of time. By targeting noncompetitive races, Republican deployment ignored the constitutional and legal basis for the House Election Observer Program, the duty to judiciously resolve the reasonably contested election outcomes. At that time, their departure from the long-established norms suggested an unprecedented attempt to use the program for partisan gain--a fundamental disregard to procedural precedent and an abuse of official House resources that undermines the spirit and integrity of the program. Americans will not stand for a misuse of the official resources for partisan purposes. This November, the Committee will once again deploy observers in service to our legal and constitutional duties. I strongly urge the Committee's majority not to repeat their 2024 abuse of the Election Observer Program this November. Americans will rightfully view any departure from this long-established practice with deep suspicion. With that, I thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back. [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Morelle follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION JOSEPH MORELLE Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you as well the Ranking Member Sewell. An important topic. I appreciate very much the discussion today on neutral nonpartisan election observers, which are an essential part of our democratic system, as has been mentioned by each of my colleagues. They provide transparency in our elections, which enhances dramatically the necessary public trust that Americans must feel that their elections are fair and that they are secure. They are. We want to make sure they continue to believe that. Poll watchers and election observers help provide that transparency, often in a volunteer capacity. And they ensure that the electoral process is visible to the American public. And that is worthy of the trust our democracy requires to thrive and particularly in an environment where it is too often called into question. Crucially, in the United States, election observers do not favor one party over another. Observers ensure that citizens understand elections are reliable and the results are honest and true. And observers also play an important role in the Committee's purposes indeed for the institutional duties and responsibilities of the Congress. Constitution invests substantial and broad authority to Congress with respect to Federal elections, including the power to hear and decide contests brought to challenge the results of congressional elections. Pursuant to Article I, section 5, clause 1, of the Constitution, each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own Members-- something I suspect many Americans do not know. They may also not know that Article I, section 4, clause 1, of the Constitution, which I think Ms. Lee earlier referenced-- the time, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature there, but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations. The congressional authority and responsibility to examine the qualification of Members is an integral part of the biennial organization of this body. And we, both the House and the Committee, consistently and regularly exercise our oversight and election and adjudication role. Across the United States' history, more than 610 elections have been contested in the House, an average of more than 5 per Congress, which I think, again, Americans would be surprised to know that that had occurred that many times in our Nation's history. Each election cycle, the House conducts an Election Observer Program to develop a factual record of election issues that may be relevant in resolving those election contests. The Committee, by virtue of statutory authority and our House Rule X, has jurisdiction over contested House elections and manages this Election Observer Program. For almost the entire history of the program, the Committee has deployed mutual observers in bipartisan pairs that candidates request for congressional elections in which we can expect a close margin. The record developed by House observers is invaluable for the Committee in evaluating election contests. Whether the facts in election contest warrant further investigation by the Committee depends in significant measure on the fact finding conducting by observers in an election contest and the credibility of those claims. Vitally, the impartial and bipartisan nature of the program helps give Americans confidence that, should a contested election arise in the House, it will be resolved fairly and honorably without regard for partisan outcomes. I am concerned that this Committee disregarded the established precedent in 2024, predeploying election observers across the country ahead of election day; that is not the precedent. Despite the longstanding norms of the program, Committee Republicans sent observers to noncompetitive congressional elections in the heart of Atlanta, Detroit, Madison, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia. Troubling, Committee Republicans sent their observers without the traditional Democratic observer pairing. All of these break precedent. This early unilateral deployment not only ignored past precedent and past practice, it contravened, in October 2024, a joint letter I sent with Chairman Steil to election administrators which professed that the House Election Observer process is a, quote, ``bipartisan program,'' in which observers are deployed in bipartisan pairs. Sadly, the Chair ignored his own observations in that letter by sending people out of bipartisan--and not as bipartisan pairs--and deployed them ahead of time. By targeting noncompetitive races, Republican deployment ignored the constitutional and legal basis for the House Election Observer Program, the duty to judiciously resolve the reasonably contested election outcomes. At that time, their departure from the long established norms suggested an unprecedented attempt to use the program for partisan gain--a fundamental disregard to procedural precedent and an abuse of official House resources that undermines the spirit and integrity of the program. Americans will not stand for a misuse of the official resources for partisan purposes. This November, the Committee will once again deploy observers in service to our legal and constitutional duties. I strongly urge the Committee's majority not to repeat their 2024 abuse of the Election Observer Program this November. Americans will rightfully view any departure from this long established practice with deep suspicion. With that, I thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back. Chair Lee. Without objection, all other Members' opening statements will be made part of the hearing record if they are submitted to the Committee clerk by 5 p.m. today. Today, we have one witness panel. I will now introduce our witnesses. First, we have Mr. Wesley Wilcox, the Supervisor of Elections in Marion County, Florida. Next, we have Mr. Lance Reed, the Director of the Board of Elections in Summit County, Ohio. Finally, we have Ms. Paige Whitaker, a Legislative Attorney at the Congressional Research Service. Each witness will have 5 minutes to provide an opening statement. I now recognize Supervisor Wilcox for the purpose of giving an opening statement. STATEMENTS OF WESLEY WILCOX, SUPERVISOR, MARION COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, OCALA, FLORIDA; LANCE REED, DIRECTOR, SUMMIT COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, AKRON, OHIO; AND PAIGE WHITAKER, LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE STATEMENT OF WESLEY WILCOX Mr. Wilcox. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Lee, Ranking Member Sewell, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Wesley Wilcox, and I serve as the Supervisor of Elections for Marion County, Florida. I am also a past president of the Florida Supervisors of Elections Association, and I have spent nearly 40 years in election administration. Over those years, I have watched role of poll observers evolve dramatically. From where I sit, one of the biggest changes has been in that program. I believe it has been a positive change, not just for voters but for election administrators as well. When I first entered this profession, poll observers or poll watchers, the term we use in Florida, were really part of the get-out-the-vote process. They would sit in the polling place with a voter list, mark off who had voted; and, later in the day, the campaigns would then contact supporters who had not yet shown up. Thanks to Florida, all of that changed after the year 2000. You are welcome, America. One of the biggest lessons was that the election observation works best when it is organized and professional. We established clear rules, credentials, expectations so poll watchers could do exactly what they are supposed to do: observe the process without interfering with it. Since the year 2020, I have seen something I have never really expected. Before 2020, our high-water mark in Marion County was about 50 poll watchers. In 2020, we had just over 200. In 2022, that number grew to more than 500. During our last countywide general in 2024, we credentialed more than 1,200 poll watchers. To me, that is not a challenge; that is an opportunity. As election administrators, we publicly advertise dozens of meetings and invite the public to watch. Whether it is a logic and accuracy test or a canvassing board meeting, there is little to no public interest. Most of us are lucky to have two or three citizens attend. The majority of our meetings have literally no public attendance. Now, I have over 1,200 citizens who voluntarily signed up because they wanted to understand how elections work. We need to embrace this new interest. I believe this is an opportunity to reach a group of voters that, up to this point, we have been unable to reach. I believe properly trained poll watchers are our partners in transparency. When observers understand their role, follow the rules, and work professionally alongside election officials, they help strengthen the public confidence, allowing us to demonstrate the safeguards already built into our election system. We have a perfect opportunity to counter many of the false narratives that are found on the internet--not by arguing with people but by letting them see the process for themselves. We can educate people about how elections actually work. We can show how photo and signature IDs are verified in the State of Florida. We can show how provisional ballots are used. We can show how vote-by-mail ballots are processed and safeguarded. Most importantly, by allowing people to see the process for themselves, we can show them how our systems ensure that only eligible citizens cast ballots, that identity is verified, and that secure voter databases help ensure each qualified voter votes only once. I believe the more people understand how elections are administered, the more confidence they will have in the process. That is good for voters. It is good for election administrators. Ultimately, it is good for our country. Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify today on this important topic, and I look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Wilcox follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF WESLEY WILCOX [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chair Lee. I now recognize Director Reed for the purpose of giving an opening statement. STATEMENT OF LANCE REED Mr. Reed. Thank you, Chair Lee and Ranking Member Sewell. I want to thank you and the Members of this distinguished Committee for inviting me to testify today. My name is Lance Reed, and I am the Director of the Summit County Board of Elections in the State of Ohio. As an election official for over 13 years, including nearly 6 years as director, I have witnessed election observers in the many different roles that had been employed by the Summit County Board of Elections. I am before you today to emphasize the important role that all observers play, including congressional election observers authorized under the Confirmation of Congressional Observer Access Act of 2024. As an election official, transparency in elections is critical, and observers play an important role in that transparency. While COCOA may have only been signed into law roughly 2 years ago, the Summit County Board of Elections is familiar with the program. Summit County, Ohio, is contained within the 13th Congressional District, and a congressional election observer was appointed by the Chair of the Committee on House Administration for the November 5, 2024, general election and was in our office the entirety of election day. Our board had a positive experience with the observer appointed to our office. While we are unaware of what the observers' opinions was, I hope they had a positive experience as well. Election officials and the public should embrace all observers for the critical role they play in ensuring those entrusted with the sacred task of election administration and the tabulation of the people's voice are doing it to the letter of the law and maintaining the highest integrity. With that said, I want to thank this Committee once again for inviting me and to thank all of you for your service. I am happy to take any questions you may have. And I do want to appreciate--thank you for the air conditioning in here. [The prepared statement of Mr. Reed follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF LANCE REED [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chair Lee. I now recognize Ms. Whitaker for the purpose of giving an opening statement. STATEMENT OF PAIGE WHITAKER Ms. Whitaker. Thank you. Good afternoon. Chairwoman Lee, Ranking Member Sewell, and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Paige Whitaker, and I am a Legislative Attorney with the Congress Research Service, CRS. CRS is available to serve all Members of Congress, and CRS testimony is provided on an objective, nonpartisan basis. Thank you very much for inviting me to testify today regarding the Confirmation of Congressional Observer Access Act of 2024, its legislative history, and Congress' general constitutional authorities to regulate elections. Federal elections are primarily administered according to State laws. The Elections Clause of the Constitution in Article I, section 4, provides the States with the initial and the principal authority to administer the times, places, and manner of elections within their jurisdictions. As a result of this decentralized authority, States vary in how they administer congressional elections. At the same time, the Elections Clause provides to Congress the power to make or alter rules regulating congressional elections, which the Supreme Court has described as an override authority. Under that authority, Congress has enacted Federal election laws, such as the Help America Vote Act of 2002. In addition, Article I, section 5, further provides that each House of Congress has the express authority to be the final judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its Members. The Confirmation of Congressional Observer Access Act, or COCOA, was enacted in 2024. The Act states that it was enacted under Congress' authorities under Article I, sections 4 and 5. The Act declares that, regardless of any legislative action, Congress has the power to act pursuant to these constitutional authorities to observe Federal elections. The Act further states that it does not create any new authorities or procedures, and, instead, provides a convenient statutory citation for Congress' existing authority and activity. The crux of the COCOA Act is that it requires States to provide full access to an individual who is a designated congressional election observer to observe all aspects of Federal election administration, including but not limited to areas where ballots are--and I am quoting from the statute here--cast, processed, scanned, tabulated, canvassed, recounted, audited, or certified during both pre-and post- election periods. Ms. Whitaker. At the same time, the COCOA Act expressly prohibits an election observer from handling ballots and election equipment, from advocating for any issue or candidate, from acting in a way that reduces ballot or voter secrecy, and interfering with a voter casting a ballot, an election administrator fulfilling their duties, or otherwise with the administration of an election. The statute provides that congressional election observers can be removed from their position if a State or local election official has a reasonable basis to believe that an observer has engaged in or is imminently about to engage in intimidation or deceptive practices that are prohibited under Federal law, or in the disruption of the voting, tabulating, or the certification of the election. If an election observer is removed, the Chair or the Ranking Member of the applicable Committees may dispatch a replacement. Prior to the passage of the COCOA Act, the House of Representatives had for decades conducted a Congressional Election Observer Program dating back to at least 97th Congress. A Committee report accompanying the Act explained that, even though Congress' constitutional authority to deploy observers supersedes any State law to the contrary, the lack of a statute for the program had created difficulties for observers in certain States. For example, the report cited an incident during the 2020 House election where, despite both the majority and the minority dispatching observers, State election officials blocked their admission. The Committee report also indicated that State and local election officials requested that Congress enact a statutory citation for the Observer Program. As stated in the House report, and I am quoting from the report, the purpose of congressional observation by the House of Representatives is to ensure the candidate seated is the one actually elected by the people in a free, fair, and secure election. Thank you, and I would be pleased to answer any of the Subcommittee's questions. [The prepared statement of Ms. Whitaker follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAIGE WHITAKER [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chair Lee. Thank you to each of you. I will begin our questions today followed by the Ranking Member. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for the purpose of questioning our witnesses. Supervisor Wilcox, I will start with you. In your testimony, you mentioned the 2000 election, the very infamous Florida election that really was the catalyst for a lot of really thoughtful consideration of our election laws and procedures. What were some of the key changes that Florida made after the 2000 election to better define the role of election observers? Have those practices remained effective over time? Mr. Wilcox. Thank you, Chairwoman Lee. A couple of the items that we instituted after the year 2000--I heard one of my colleagues here mention the HAVA out of 2002--once again, America, you are welcome. One of the things that we did is we instituted credentialing of election workers that--or not election workers--I am sorry--poll watchers. We do a credentialing of them, meaning so that the party or the campaigns, candidates, or whoever that submit their names of potential poll watchers, we can actually print out a batch so that, when that person does show up out at the polling place, it identifies them accurately as a poll watcher and not as an election worker. That is one of the programs that I think that has been one of the parts that has been most successful from those changes. So---- Chair Lee. You also mentioned something that I thought was so interesting. You contrasted the Election Observer Program with some of the other publicly accessible aspects of elections, like the logic and accuracy testing, that are not very well-attended oftentimes by the public, and, really, I think spoke so eloquently to what an opportunity that can be. Would you elaborate for us on why you believe that that transparency and confidence is important, not only for candidates participating in an election but for the public's perception and confidence in elections. Mr. Wilcox. I believe it is vitally important to us now because, going into this process, you know, when I would go out and speak about election integrity and the safety, security, the accuracy, it is just one person. You know, now I have got a built-in team of 1,200 people that, when they leave my polling places, they can go back to their sphere of influence and provide that information back to the people that they talk to. It exponentially allows us as election administrators to spread the good news about the good work that we do. You know, you mentioned our logic and accuracy, the testing prior to an election, post-election audits. You know, if we can get the general public to come see some of those things, it would be great. Now I have got 1,200 people last time that signed up, that wanted--eagerly wanted to come see what we were doing. I think it is a great opportunity for us. Chair Lee. Director Reed, Ohio recently updated its election official's manual to include guidance on congressional observers authorized under the COCOA Act. How did this update help you as the Summit Court Board of Elections Director? Mr. Reed. It helped tremendously because, actually, when our congressional observer showed up on 2024, it was the day before election day, and we had not heard of this. It was a surprise when the observer walked in with their document. We had to check with the Secretary of State to see, you know, was this an actual observer or what the case was. We were able to, you know, confirm that Congress had passed their--certified this part of an Act--so allowed congressional observers to be in the building. Yes, having that certified in our election official manual is extremely helpful. Chair Lee. Do you think that more States would benefit from adopting model policies for interacting with and hosting congressional election observers? Mr. Reed. Absolutely. There is no doubt that, you know, that kind of information that can come from the top down to people in our roles, as Supervisor Wilcox, myself, when we know that is gone through the State and that we can plan ahead that a congressional election observer may appear, it only helps to have that to--written out ahead of time for us to understand what the process is. Chair Lee. Thank you very much. I now recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes of questions. Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to ask Ms. Whitaker, you know, the title of today's hearing is ``Election Observation: Best Practices and Congress' Role.'' I would like for you to spend a few minutes, if you do not mind, giving us some history about why the Voting Rights Act really did establish sort of the key role and protections for election observers. While they have been eroded over time, it would be really helpful to talk about the vital role that poll monitoring had in VRA. Ms. Whitaker. Thank you, Ranking Member Sewell. The Voting Rights Act was enacted under the 15th Amendment, too, as the Supreme Court recently said, in a 2021 decision, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, to achieve the 15th Amendment's goal of bringing an end to the denial of the right to vote based on race. According to a House report that accompanied the 2006 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, which is the last time Congress reauthorized the law, the Federal Observer Program had played a key role in preventing discrimination and that, working with the Department of Justice, the Office of Personnel Management had assigned more than 26,000 observers to 22 States since the law was enacted in 1965. The House report accompanying the 2006 reauthorization also states that observers played a key role in preventing violations of both the 14th and the 15th Amendments and that they did so by informing the Department of Justice of any alleged discriminatory conduct so that the Department of Justice could conduct further investigations. Ms. Sewell. Exactly. You know, the interesting part about this is that the Congressional Federal Observer Program, the reason why we have COCOA, as I understand it, is to give statutory authority to the fact that the program can be readily identifiable by State and local officials. The codifying of that has--it seems to have brought an opportunity to sort of level the playing field and to offer both a bipartisan showing of Federal election observers. Is that right. Ms. Whitaker. The Act itself does not speak to parties per se. As you know, the Constitution also does not speak to parties. Ms. Sewell. Yes. It does say that there are pairs of observers that will go as a part of this program. Ms. Whitaker. Actually, the text of the statute in the COCOA Act does not expressly talk about the pairs. The legislative history speaks to that. Ms. Sewell. Yes. Ms. Whitaker. The COCOA Act does provide that both the Chair and the Ranking Member on both the Committee on House Administration and then the Senate rules and administration committee on the Senate side have the power to designate congressional election observers and then also to replace those observers if they are removed under the process that is provided in the law. Ms. Sewell. Thank you. Director Reed, based on your experience in running elections, where would you say the line is between the legitimate election observation and conduct that risks intimidating voters and interfering with or disrupting the work of election officials? What safeguards have you found to be most effective in preventing observers from crossing the lines? Mr. Reed. Thank you. Luckily, we have not run into any issues along those lines. We have had--and we do not get as many observers as Supervisor Wilcox has mentioned. We maybe get 100 or so even in a big election. A lot of those observers are ones we are very familiar with. They have done it over the years. we have had a chance to, you know, kind of, I guess, help them understand what the process is and that fact, you know, just like the title is you are there to observe. Ms. Sewell. Right. Mr. Reed. Then, if you do see anything---- Ms. Sewell. I am kind if running out of time---- Mr. Reed [continuing]. say something. Ms. Sewell [continuing]. so I wanted to ask Supervisor Wilcox, you testified that properly trained poll watchers can, quote, ``help strengthen public confidence while allowing election administrators to demonstrate the safeguards already built into the system.'' I would agree with you on that. Would you agree that adequate Federal support for election administrators can also help strengthen public confidence? I mean, part of our job is providing adequate funding for elections and would love to know your thought about whether or not that has held true. Mr. Wilcox. Thank you, Ranking Member Sewell. Yes, I do believe the Federal Government should play a role in the support--fiscal support of elections across the U.S. if you look at a ballot, the most valuable piece of real estate on a ballot is at the Federal level. Therefore, just like with real estate, you know, the most valuable piece---- Ms. Sewell. Is that because we are at the very top of the ballot. Mr. Wilcox. That is what I was trying to politely say, yes, ma'am. Ms. Sewell. With the top of the ballot becomes what the bigger purse that needs to be ending up. I get you. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Chair Lee. I know recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Loudermilk, for 5 minutes. Mr. Loudermilk. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for being here today. In my home State of Georgia, the election laws require poll watchers to complete training and establishes clear standards for governing their conduct and observation within polling places. As Congress considers a similar framework for House election observers, input from State and local election officials I think will be very essential. Mr. Wilcox, as we prepare to send House election observers to Florida, what would you recommend for House observers to be prepared in advance? Mr. Wilcox. Thank you, sir, for that the opportunity. I would recommend that they contact the election authority in that jurisdiction and let the election authority tell them the proper thing to do at that authority because the rules in the State of Georgia probably are not the same rules that we have in the State of Florida. Being in direct contact with the election administrator as early in the process as possible is extremely important. Mr. Loudermilk. OK. Thank you. I have been on this Committee for many years and have participated in setting up election observers. Director Reed, can you walk us through Ohio's election observer regulation and procedures. Mr. Reed. Sure. When observers are appointed--and usually for us it is the State or the county political parties that appoint--could be a candidate--or a group of five candidates or a ballot issue committee. Once those committees have met and put together their list of appointments, that is submitted to our office. Depending on the type of observation they are going to do, roughly 11 days before election day, for instance, or 11 days before early voting starts, that is their part of the process. That allows us to then get their credentials so that, when they show up, we know that they have been appointed by those specific committees to be there to observe. Mr. Loudermilk. OK. Have you seen an uptick in the number of observers or interest in the Observer Program? Mr. Reed. I think there is an uptick in interest. To be honest, we have not seen an uptick in actual execution on it yet. Mr. Loudermilk. OK. Last question: How is your office and others prepared for a new influx of observers, should that happen, and how to bring about transparency in the electoral process? Mr. Reed. Yes, so we are prepared, and especially when we have got before election day, let us use that specifically, where the appointment list have come before 11 days before election day; we take that list from the different committees. We compile it all into one list, and then that way we are able to provide that to all of our polling locations. That gives our, what we call precinct election officials, our booth workers, the ability to know who is actually allowed to be in their polling place. That way, if they have somebody show up that is not on the list, they can then contact us to confirm, you know, whether they are supposed to be there or not. Mr. Loudermilk. OK. Thank you. I yield back. Chair Lee. I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Chairman Morelle, for 5 minutes. Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Whitaker, thanks for joining us today, as all the witnesses, thank you. You know, the Committee's role in resolving contested House elections is long established and contested elections, as I said in my opening statement, are part and parcel of the organization of each Congress since the Republic began. Can you explain to us why and how a casual observer watching would understand that it is Congress' duty, as opposed to say the courts or the President, the executive branch, to determine member qualifications? Ms. Whitaker. Yes, thank you, Congressman Morelle. As expressly set forth in Article I, section 5, it is the duty of each House of Congress to be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own Members. In a landmark Supreme Court case from 1972, called Roudebush v. Hartke, the Supreme Court said that, in judging congressional elections, Congress' determination of the right to a seat in Congress is a nonjusticiable political question. In other words, it is outside of the review of the Federal courts. The court also said in that case that the judgment of the House or Senate as to who won an election results in an unconditional and final judgment under Article I, section 5. Mr. Morelle. And just to be clear, then, Congress is not in the business of picking winners and losers, though. The use of official congressional resources of taxpayer money to support one party over another is important to our government. Like we have a duty, however, to ensure that the candidate receives the most votes back in their district, their legal eligible ballots, take their rightful seat in the House of Representatives. Is that right? Ms. Whitaker. Yes, the Constitution, the COCOA Act do not speak to political parties at all. As I said earlier, it even provides, the Act itself, that both the Chair and the Ranking Member have the power to appoint these congressional election observers and to replace them if they are removed. Mr. Morelle. Describe for me--or how would you explain the distinction, because I think it is important, why Congress' election contest prerogatives are distinct from any political parties' interest in winning seats. Ms. Whitaker. I have an excerpt from the COCOA Act's legislative history. The House report that accompanied the legislation. It says the following, and I am quoting: While political candidates and parties deploy election observers to advocate for their position in key jurisdictions, official, congressional observation of congressional elections fills another necessary role by allowing for the creation of a usable record in the case of an election contest or seating challenge so that the House of Representatives can accurately and faithfully perform its duty under the Constitution. Mr. Morelle. That actually is really important when you think of the distinction between our responsibilities to the Constitution and the responsibilities--so the Americans, regardless who they vote for, they should understand our responsibilities because that is important. The Congressional Election Observer Program is that our responsibility is to make sure that we have administered properly and chosen, if it gets to a contested election, who actually received the most votes. It is not a partisan issue. It is actually a governmental responsibility, ours, which it then speaks to the nature of the Observer Program that the people that we will send out to make those observations are doing so in their official capacity without regard to their political distinctions. Is that not right? Would that help explain to people what the program is for? Ms. Whitaker. I think what I would say, just from a constitutional perspective, that if Congress is fulfilling its duties under the Constitution with the Observer Program because Congress is given--each House of Congress, excuse me, is given this duty and responsibility to be the ultimate judge. Mr. Morelle. The judge, I guess, what I am getting at is our responsibility, even as a Committee and then ultimately the full House, is to look at the election, the questions of being contested and make the judgment on who we believe, without regard to the party affiliation, who actually had the most votes and whose election, whose selection at that point by the Committee and by the House more fulfills the wishes of the American people in that district, not to our own political--I guess, that is the point I am trying to make. Would you agree with that? In other words, if there were a contested election and we had a Democratic majority, we should not just pick the Democrat because we like the Democrat. What our job is here is to choose, under the Constitution, the person that we believe got the most votes. Ms. Whitaker. Yes, the caselaw and the text of the Constitution both are focused on who was duly elected. Mr. Morelle. Right. As opposed to the partisan affiliations of the Members who would make the determination. Ms. Whitaker. Yes, it does not speak to party at all. Mr. Morelle. Yes. Ms. Whitaker. It is who the election--who was rightfully elected and then considered duly elected under the Constitution. Yes, sir. Mr. Morelle. Thank you. I apologize for the badly mangled question, but that was the point I was trying to get. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chair Lee. I now recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Johnson, for 5 minutes. Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Chairwoman Lee. I love saying that, ``Chairwoman.'' I think that is a great thing. Ranking Member Sewell, that is--you know. Thank you for holding this important hearing. Thank you to our witnesses for joining us today and the work that you do to ensure that our elections are safe and secure. You play a critical role in protecting our democracy. The very foundation of our democracy depends on Americans having the confidence that every lawful vote is counted, every eligible voter can cast a ballot, and that our election process is fair and impartial. While we waved our flags in the honor of America's 250th on July 4th, we must remember that the Declaration of Independence was both a rejection of unchecked power and a celebration of the separation of powers. As the midterm elections approach, I have had folks calling my office every day expressing deep, deep concerns over the Trump administration's continued efforts to dismantle the trust in our electoral systems and undermine the historically bipartisan independent organizations and institutions. In the last 2 years, we have seen Republicans across this country and here in Congress, rewrite election laws, fire Federal local election officials, and redraw maps, dramatically reshaping our electoral processes. In his most recent effort to manipulate independent agencies for political gain, President Trump removed all three remaining members of the nonpartisan, independent U.S. Elections Assistance Commission, leaving the agency without sitting Commissioners who oversee critical election administration that processes grants to State and local governments to enforce election monitoring and voter certifications. For the past two decades, the Election Assistance Commission has been guided by bipartisan cooperation and independent expertise, free from partisan politics or political influence. This is not about Republicans or Democrats. This is about safeguarding a lasting democracy and ensuring that Congress, the people's House, not the President, oversees how elections are administered and executed. While we are witnessing unprecedented Federal overreach into our independent institutions responsible for election operations, Congress must uphold and reaffirm its constitutional commitment to oversee elections, specifically to the constitutionally mandated and historically independent House Election Observer Program. The House Election Observer Program plays a critical role in monitoring congressional elections by identifying close races and maintaining independent, nonpartisan records that can be credibly used for investigations from Congress needs to determine election results. However, in 2024, House Republicans directed Republican observers without Democratic counterparts to noncompetitive seats across the country to support President Trump's election crackdowns. The congressional intent of this program is meant to be nonpartisan. Do you all agree with that, that the congressional intent of this program is to be nonpartisan? [Nonverbal response.] Ms. Johnson. Thank you for that affirmation. I think that--I guess, at the end of the day, public trust is paramount, and public trust right now is on edge. It is the most fragile it has been in our electoral system and in quite some time. I think that the--would you all agree with me that the Congressional Election Observer Program could go a long way toward restoring trust as long as it is administered in a bipartisan, fair, and equitable way? Do you all agree with that. [Nonverbal response.] Ms. Johnson. Yes. I do, too. I think it is very important that we look to that and that election administrators--if you are watching this hearing, around the country, we have, you know, multiple perspectives represented on this table and on this dais. One thing we agree on is that this program is good. It is effective, and it needs to be implemented without disruption and without barrier. It needs to be implemented in a nonpartisan way so that the trust in our election process by the American people can gain one more step back toward where it needs to be. Because it is broken right now. Trust in the electoral system is broken. Our President is expected to go on national TV tomorrow night to try to overturn and criticize the 2020 election because he lost. Members of his party come to confirmation hearings, and they will not admit that he lost because they are too cowardly. That cannot be. People have to accept the truth. There are winners and losers in elections, and we should not be afraid to acknowledge that. With that, I yield back. Chair Lee. I would like to thank our witnesses for appearing before us today. Members of the Committee may have some additional questions for you, and we ask that you please respond to those questions in writing. Without objection, each Member will have 5 legislative days to insert additional material into the record or to revise and extend their remarks. If there is no further business, I thank the Members for their participation. Without objection, the Committee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] [all]