Commission on civil rights issued a statement condemning last weekends violence in trouble its it proposed amendment to that statement condemning violence by counterprotesters was also supposed but voted down. This is one hour. On thelieve we have telephone, but i would like you commissioner. Are you present . Yes, i am. Thank you. I am having button trouble already. A quorum of the commissioners is present. The Court Reporter is present. The meeting now comes to order. We are here to propose the agenda for the meeting. I am going to ask for amendments. First, i would like to remove the discussion and vote on lgbtq employment report. Some commissioners have asked for additional time to review the report. Second, i would like to amend to add considerations for a statement entitled the u. S. Commission on civil rights condemns the administrations the lee terry ban on transgender individuals. I would like to also add a statement from. There any other part most are there any other proposed amendments . [indiscernible] madam chair, i would like to add two items. One, a statement on the reversal from the department of justice on the National Voting on the on thed to add a vote Administrative Instruction that i proposed and shared with the other commissioners. I would like to add a statement on charlottesville on behalf of the commission which has been circulated to the commissioners. Any other post amendments . There are no further amendments. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed . Any abstentions . The motion passes unanimously. First, we will discuss and vote on a discovery plan, outlined, briefing date and location for 2018 commission on Voting Rights. Now, we will have a discussion on the motion. I will start with a few amendments. My proposed amendments are to the discovery plan and outline adding ingots to specify that the report should look at section 208 of the Voting Rights act that states voters requiring assistance because of blindness, disability, or inability to read or write, may be given assistance by a person of the voters choice. Also, adding subsection d two number one. And the lettering the subs subsequent sections. That section with state participation by doj in claims under section 208 with one subsection identifying the United States versus brussels county, Southern District of texas, 2006 alleging that the votersfailed to allow with disability to have assistance of their choice. To 3a people with disabilities come up before with in the president ial election. To the outline, the following changes are proposed. After the chapter to section add examine trends in section 208. Disability access litigation. Second, voter turnout and registration. Adding and persons with disabilities. Third, in the second sub bullet of the same section, adding section 208. , ad claimsee under section 208 after the first two sub bullets. Do i have a second for these amendments . Second. Thank you. Any other points for discussion. Yes, madam chair, i have two. My proposed amendments are to the outline. The first one is under chapter two, under state actions after the shelby decision. Actions undertate , where it decision talks about automatic Voter Registration. I would simply like to add voting registration to make it clear that we are also looking at changes to Voter Registration processes. As you know, there have been several states that have made it much more difficult to register. I suspect that there may be problems there. , insecond change is under the same section, just to add a examplesat talks about of impasse to students of color i am notpting trying to expand it to cover all of the issues around student voting which are not covered by the Voting Rights act but simply where it istion that minority students are being targeted. Thank you. Are there any other proposed amendments for discussion . Madam chair i would like to thank the commissioners for their flexibility with respect of thisroposed date briefing. I have some International Travel that will keep me away from the originally contemplated date. I think we are now focused on february 2. I just wanted to thank the commissioners for that accommodation. Thank you. Any other discussion . I think again we may be getting into trouble with a too ambitious project here. That when we pass the requirement that the discovery plan be put before the commission, we had in mind something that was a bit more elaborate and detailed than this but on a smaller scaled project. I would like him in the future, for us to get back to a more focused question than what we have here. But i think the staff has done a good job with this so i will vote in favor of it. I appreciate the caution and the history about how we got here. Thank you. I will call the question and take a roll call vote. [roll call] the motion passes unanimously. And vote on discuss the briefing dates and locations in our two other briefings fiscal year 2018. I move we hold the School Discipline meeting on december 8 here in washington. And the hate crimes reefing on may 11. And the hate crimes briefing on may 11. Any discussions . Hearing none. I will take a roll call vote. [roll call] the motion passes unanimously. The amendedconsider business items beginning with the statement on charlottesville. I will turn it over to my colleague who will read the statements we know what we are voting on. Thank you. Commission on civil rights statement on charlottesville. The u. S. Commission on civil rights expresses its profound dismay over the violence and deadly events in charlottesville, virginia between august 11 and august 13, 2017 motivated by racial and religious intolerance. We join the nation in mourning the death of 32yearold heather heyer, who, along with many other injured people, was a victim of domestic terrorism motivated by a white supremacist ideology. She lives now in our National Memory as a martyr for racial and religious injustice. We also mourn the deaths of state trooper h. Jay cullen and crew berke bates. They also died in a tragic Helicopter Crash after they were just asked dispatched to monitor the violence in trouble itself. As americans, we are committed to the right to assemble peacefully but we condemn religious hatred, incitements, and violence. The events in charlottesville stand as another tragic and painful reminder that an ideology of racial and religious intolerance can lead, in an instance, to irretrievable acts of violence, death, and suffering. Nation, we have marched through legally sanctioned slavery, secession, civil war, terror,uction, kkk internment of japanese citizens, jim crow, and the civil rights era, in pursuit of equality. Progress has come only as a result of the courage of individuals, not all of whom are remembered as they should be. And with the resolve of our leaders and the people alike to stand for the rule of law, equal protection and human dignity. The United States, department of justice, the federal bureau of investigation, and appropriate virginia Law Enforcement officials, to bring any and all people responsible yer toe killing of ms. He justice. We urge the investigation of all other apparent crimes committed in charlottesville last weekend. Year of60th anniversary the United States civil rights commission, we all must grapple with the violence in charlottesville as a bracing wereder that the nations two in short equality is urgent and ongoing. White supremacy and religious is theynce is that demean america and americans. Name ofence in the these ideologies must be met swiftly and forcibly with condemnation and unwavering and unified response. Said therine e lehman every american deserves to live confident in the expectation that his and her equal dignity will be respected and receive protection from government. Gencies last weeks violence, driven by racial animus, degrades our nation and merits swift and comprehensive federal response. In america, we live by the rule of law. In law must prevail charlottesville, virginia. As in any city or town faced with similar violence. Sadly, we know that no law will bring back the fallen. We live by symbols and ms. Heather heyer stands as a symbol that our nation must not depart from the fight for human dignity. Her neighbor,f she lived her life like a path and it was one of justice. On behalf of the commission, we urge the nation to rededicate itself to walk that path. Thank you. Let us go to the floor for discussion. We did not have a motion. I have an amendment. I move that we adopt the statement. I move an amendment. That we add to the second paragraph, at the very end, the following sentence though we support peaceful protest, and note that most of the counterdemonstrators were byceful, we condemn violence anyone, including violence by socalled demonstrators. Antifascists they have been called that. This is a sentence that would go at the end of the second paragraph. Though we support peaceful protest, and note that most of the counterdemonstrators were peaceful, we condemn violence by anyone, including violence by fa demonstrators. Is this contemplated to make ,ore clear what the statement in fact, already captures by suggesting that the rule of law be applied . I think that the statement does not make it clear that there were protesters who were kkkamong the nazis, or the who we all condemn. But were coming at it from the opposite direction and were also violent. Understandcertainly motivation of the event i would like to express my sentiments regarding the statement as a whole. To supportecessary the statement, but i do not find it sufficient. If we were to put anything else in this statement, it should be a strong statement about the courage, andrship, moral authority of the president of the United States in dealing with this situation. A situation be where the president of the United States says that they are very fine people on both sides. There are no find people that are nazis, people in the vanguard movement. People who train every day to provoke a race war and try to do that. In charlottesville. Place for a be a president to do anything other than to, not just condemn what happened, but to put the full force of the office as president and the executive branch to prosecute those that came those that became violent. Violence is there ideology. Out, rooto dig them and branch, as we have had other president s and attorney generals do before in our history. This is really where i think the , but icould be would prefer to have a unanimous commission a unanimous statement from the commission. But i do not support the amendment to this that was if that is thee price of come on not going to pay it. We know how this happened. The way these people came, armed and ready to do violence and battle, because that is part of who they are. There are no very fine nazis. There are only people who are relitigate a moral cause that was defeated more than 70 years ago by the blood and treasure of this country and many other countries throughout the world. So, i would say that i will ipport the statement as is, will not support any changes to it. But i would point out that we as the commission should take to task the president who has providing aally in clear direction in leadership and moral center for this nation in the situation where kate became thehere hate motivator. This is not intolerance. Ideology of hatred towards people of color, towards lgbts, towards the jewish community. This was not religious intolerance. These are people that chanted slogans aimed at members of the jewish faith. Slogans aimed at people of the lgbt community. This was a good statement. I commend my fellow commissioners for putting it together. But i have to say that it could have gotten so much further. And given the fact that we have byar that has been set people such as senator bob corker and Mitch Mcconnell that has Strong Language condemning and questioning the leadership of this president , i just wish we could do the same. Vice chair . Commissioner herriot, i understand your statement and i erstand a little about why i am at a loss to understand why the first part of that paragraph does not generally cover your concern. It says as americans, we are committed to the right to assemble peaceably but we condemn ethnic and religious in violence. Ement, granted, that is a general statement, but i do not see why it doesnt cover your concern. We all write differently. I would not right at the same way, just as you probably wouldnt, but consider again, please, why that for statement would not cover it. I would think that is because when in context, the statement as written makes it very clear that we are condemning one side. Although i do not think it is appropriate to condemn both sides, because there were a lot of demonstrators, counterdemonstrators that were making the point that they should make which was that they are not going to stand for nazis and their views. There were some people on that side who were in fact violent. And i think that is important to point out. And the statement does not do so. I would oppose the amended language. First of all, i feel that it is covered in the fourth paragraph where it says we urge of authorities to use all available resources to investigate other apparent crimes including any federal or state hate crimes committed. Second of all, i feel very strongly that there is a lack of moral equivalency here. So, i have a problem because i excusing somehow it is thepeople who caused violence to begin with. Actually thate there were significant numbers of counterdemonstrators who were those who violent as were in fact in citing violence to begin with. So, i just oppose that. Sorry. An important moment for the nation and for this commission. Welcome the careful thoughts and thinking of all of the commissioners, many of whom have given input into this statement that we are trying to negotiate to a sure that we can, to the full extent possible, speak with a unified voice at a time when it seems that the circumstances in the country would reasonably have the expectation that they United States commission on civil rights, to the full extent possible, would speak with one clarion voice. I think that this statement does not condone violence in any way. Of any kind. And i think that is apparent from the language that we have negotiated and is on the page. I share the concern that we be falsel not to create equivalencies. It is one thing not to condone violence. And i think the best and highest editions of the fight for civil rights in this country has been a disciplined use of nonviolence in the face of extraordinary hate and violence. And i think that the marchers went to charlottesville in the that history. There are some circumstances where protests resulted in violence but i do not read anything in this statement as written to condone that violence. And i think it is adequate to address the needs. And on that basis, i will not support the amendment. I also want to be clear that i was raised in the nonviolent civil rights tradition. And i strongly oppose violence and feel strongly about nonviolent civil rights protest. I think the statement is an eloquent, strong, powerful statement of opposition to a racist opposition to ideology and a return to the nations darkest past. I also oppose any language that would water down the sentiment that i think is in the statement as crafted and also that captures opposition to violence of all types. I would like to say that it was not the intention of the language to water down the sentiments in the statement as a whole. It is the intent of the proposed amendment, my intent, to make it clear that there was indeed theence by people against kkk. And that needs to be condemned. Peaceful protesters should any comfort in equivalency from the u. S. Commission on regard to s with their actions passing blame on people, on groups or were out ons that there peacefully protesting, away orsome got carried not, the intent and their their ideology is hatred, is not y otivated by violence, and it oes terrible justice to the consider her family to this amendment. I would hope the commissioner he commissioner kirsanow would consider the statement drafted. I think its a good statement but if their support for this is amendment, in that ill have no hesitation in starting to offer amendments of my own. We r lhamon commissioner, have a packed agenda today, so i will move us to a vote and note hat commissioner kirsanow hasnt taken a position and we shouldnt be speculating on what his position is. As amended is to vote statement with the he rriot that dmigzer has proposed. Im going to call for a role call. Youissioner adegbile how do vote. Nay. Chair lhamon commissioner heriot . I vote yes and just want to comment that New York Times stolberg cheryl reporting from charlottesville clubwielding antifa beating white of onalists being led out the park. Chair lhamon commissioner vote . W, how do you yes. Chair lhamon commissioner kladney . Yes. Na r lhamon commissioner rasaki . I vote no, given the fact that we had the discussion last whether one should trust everything thats written press. This is kladney again. I apologize. Voted the wrong way. I voted no. Chair lhamon you voted no . Okay. You. I thought we were voting on the statement. I apologize. Chair lhamon thank you. Yaki. Sioner no. Commissioner goodson. No. Chair lhamon and i vote no. Motion fails. We want to move to reconsider statement . I would like to move the statement as proposed. Thats still a pending motion. Thats the way roberts rules work. Its still a pending motion. You dont have to remove it. Fair enough. To the we should proceed vote on the motion that has been moved. Chair lhamon commissioner vote . , how do you aye. Chair lhamon commissioner heriot. Yes xhichlt commissioner kirsanow. Yes. Chair lhamon commissioner kladney. Yes. Na r lhamon commissioner rasaki. Yes. Hair lhamon commissioner goodson. Yes. Chair lhamon and i vote yes. It passes unanimously. On asset vote forfeiture. Its titled the u. S. Commission disapproves of the department of justice civil asset foritture of policy. U. S. Commission on civil rights strongly disagrees with department of justices recent decision to expand ederal participation in the practice of civil Asset Forfeiture. Civil asset foritture is defined of property by Law Enforcement without a criminal conviction, was sharply curtailed by the department in 2015. Efforts to limit the practice support. Isan as Justice Clarence thomas recently noted, this system can seize property with limited judicial oversight nd retainment for their own use, has led to egregious and abuses. Nicled congressman jim coniers become y stated it has increasingly apparent that the law dures in federal forgitture are unfair a recent analysis of most forfeitures shows seizures of property in that state last year for assets worth 1,000 and seizures whereoncentrated in areas residents were mostly people of color and poverty is high. A high cost of challenging seizure means theres no practical way to contest a seizure of such assets. Total, nevada residents orfeited nearly 2 million in cash and property in 2016. As in other states, law a portion of eps this money, which creates an interest. Flict of public trust in the police is angerously undermined when police are perceived to be acting primarily in their own inancial interests rather than the interest of public safety. The department of justices federal to expand participation in Asset Forfeitures means conflicts of will be more widespread. Although the department has included new notice procedures monitoring in d this new policy directive scaling up, rather than scaling practice means more innocent americans will lose their property. Sensenbrunner put it, forfeiture laws put citizens at ding risk for unwanted seizures and such laws porting will only make the problem much worse. The commission has recently conflicts d similar of interest, raising serious to l rights and access justice concerns. In our investigation of municipal fines and fees, the esults of which the commission plans to report in september 2017, the commission examined onflicts of interest at the municipal level when courts seek first to collect money rather justice. Ister testimony the commission received indicated that civil forfeiture creates similar problems, leading to innocent citizens losing their property it only after prolonged legal struggles and undermining public trust in government. Two of the commissions advisory committees in michigan and tennessee have taken up the for review because of civil rights concerns. Forfeiture has repeatedly been shown to have acially disproportionate outcomes with a greater effect on people of color. As Justice Thomas has noted, frequentlyoperations target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings. Chair kathryn e. Lhamon stated every american should have equal to justice in this country. The department of justice should be ensuring the fair justice, not n of engaging in practices that put this justice in question. The ommission urges department of justice to heed raised about rns civil Asset Forfeiture and limit better for justice and the practice. Well now discuss the statement. Any discussion . I have a friendly amendment to change the reference to jim john coniers. I support the amendment and would ashe congressman well. [laughter] chair lhamon thank you. The motion to approve the regarding civil Asset Forfeiture . So moved. Chair lhamon is there a second . Second. Chair lhamon commissioner adegbile. Aye. Heriot. Sioner aye. Commissioner kirsanow. Yes. Chair lhamon commissioner yaki. Aye. Chair lhamon vice chair goodson. Yes. Chair lhamon and i vote yes. Passes unanimous. Madam chair, id like to abstain. Ote to an chair lhamon i thought you were street credibility. Okay. So correcting our record, the passes, one abstention, all others in favor. Statementconsider the on im sorry . Never mind. Chair lhamon now well consider the statement on the transgender military ban. I will first read the statement so we know what were voting on. The title is the u. S. Commission condemns the s announced military ban on transgendered individuals. On civil ommission rights strongly urges the president to reconsider his osition as expressed on july 26, 2017 that, quote, the United States government will not transgender ow individuals to serve in any capacity in the u. S. Military, quote. The Commission Urges this administration to recommit to of civil rotection rights for all persons in our country. Transgender troops currently serve in the u. S. Military and thousands more have given their lives for the country throughout our history. Women ilitary men and honor our country and defend all of its citizens with their service. Group of retired military officers pointed out, the ban, would if implemented, cause significant disruptions, deprive the military of issioncritical talent, and compromise the integrity of transgender troops who would be lie, as well as nontransgender peers, who would be forced to choose between comrades or ir disobeying policy. Ironically, 69 years previously very same day in 1948, issuednt harry s. Truman an executive order to desegregate the u. S. Military. Truman then correctly recognized that the nations military strength and efficacy on equal treatment of its troops. Integration, notwithstanding predictable resistance to the change was not possible but essential to living up to the american promise of equal treatment of persons. Retrenchment, seven decades egregiously fails to learn from our past. The president s mere nnouncement of a ban on Transgender Military Service harms all americans by sending a fosters and encourages prejudice, with our Core National values. If implemented, the ban would further harm americans and our defense by enshrining unequal treatment of americans stereotype. Chair kathryn e. Lhamon stated, any s has no place in aspect of american life. All americans deserve our governments respect and affirmative harm from the government itself. Civil. Commission on rights calls on the United States to satisfy the civil rights protections that are the obligation of and the federal government. We will now discuss the statement. Any discussion . Motion none, do i have a to approve the statement regarding the military ban on transgender individuals . So moved. Is there a second . Commissioner adegbile how do you vote . Aye. Question. Do we know for certain whether r not there is actually an order on this, or was it just to president s attempt distract people during the healthcare debate by tweeting it informing ithout anyone in the joint chiefs or ny of the heads of the Armed Services . Chair lhamon what we know is that the president has made the and ment through tweet, that that statement persists, our the statement statement itself determines that he statement was announced and then notes the ways the announcement itself are harmful the way that, if mplemented, the ban would be harmful. Wondering because its just that any president can that he can change the not following , or the n of command unanimous opinion of his of of his military, but i was just wondering, thanks. Chair lhamon thank you. Well proceed with the vote. Commissioner adegbile, how do you vote. Still aye. Chair lhamon commissioner heriot. Missed the discussion. What i would say is tweet is not going tostatement, im vote no. Hair lhamon commissioner kirsanow. No. Chair lhamon commissioner kladney. Yes. Chair lhamon commissioner na rasaki. Yes. Commissioner yaki. I agree with commissioner heriot but im going to vote yes. Chair hamon vice goodson. Yes. Chair lhamon and i vote yes. The motion passes. Two commissioners voted no. All others were in favor. Well consider the statement on act. Ational Voting Rights readssioner na rasaki will the statement. Thank you, madam chair. This is raising a concern about the department of justice over policy thats been in place for 20 years through democratic and republican administrations and through cases. It reads the u. S. Commission on civil rights raises Concern Department of of justice position on key Voting Rights case. The u. S. Commission on civil serious concern with the department of justices of position in housted versus a. Philip andolph institute, an ohio Voting Rights case scheduled to be argued before the supreme upcoming ng the october term. Section 8 of the nvra, National Registration act, prescribes rules for when state Voter Registration programs may remove voters from voter rules and prohibits the removal of an a gible voter because of persons failure to vote. Since 1994, the department has nvra prohibited states from using a voters ailure to vote for a specified period as grounds to send an address verification notice. Programs like ohios, if the voter failed to respond to the notice and failed to vote period of tional time, the voter would be removed from the voter roll. Facts or case law have changed, the department has citingersed its position the change in administrations as the only basis for doing so. Opens the door to more aggressive and inaccurate urging of voter rolls, which can lead to widespread voter disenfranchisement and uppression of lowincome communities and communities of color. In september 2016, a federal blocked the ohio 8. Ogram for violating section a federal judge allowed purged voters who still lived in the vote ounty to provisionally. The state of ohio has 7500 wledged that over voters cast votes in the 2016 wouldential election that have otherwise been purged from the voting rolls. This case marks the second highprofile Voting Rights case where the department has reversed or withdrawn its from earlier. The commission will continue to of the the Action Administration as part of its previously announced twoyear assessment of federal civil will enforcement which conclude in fiscal year 2019. States hryn e. Lhamon the right to vote is fundamental in our american democracy. Commission will continue to uphold its 60year mandate to rotect that right and remains vigilant in ensuring the department of justice fulfills enforcing ndate of federal civil rights statutes. Chair lhamon thank you. Open for discussion on that statement. Is there a second . Motion yet. O motion none, is there a to approve the statement. I so move. Is there a second . Second. Chair lhamon commissioner adegbile, how do you vote . Aye. Chair lhamon i called for discussion and heard none. Are supposed to go after the motion. The motion is what makes it possible to conduct the discussion. Thats what roberts rules of order say. Chair lhamon do you have to begin . Youd like yes, two things. First, im going to oppose chair lhamon i think your on. Rophone may not be here we go. Im going to oppose this for two reasons. That is, it states although though facts or case law have changed, and that is when litigation first began, ohios board of would monitor the voting rolls, and if there was inactivity in the voter rolls for two years, a post card would be sent out asking for confirmation of the persons status, and that post card would not inform the person failure nsequences of to respond or what that person can do in terms of becoming to vote in whatever new in. Isdiction that person was after litigation has begun, the board of elections changed that now inform the voters of the consequences of what would happen. They would not vote or register, they would be rolls four years thereafter, so that was changed. They still do not tell the voter what they can do in terms of conforming with the eligibility requirements in a new begsdiction, but then that the question, how can one state tell a voter how to conform to the requirements of another state . So theres been a change. The second one is that maintaining accurate voter rolls essential. Any vote that shouldnt be had ancels out a vote that legitimately should be had, and this is an effort to maintain the integrity of the voting roll whos eligible to vote in a given jurisdiction. There have been a number of tudies including the Election Integrity project that shows that there are 3. 5 million more on the voting rolls than here are live adults in the United States. San diego county by itself you live there, dont you . Over 800,000 more people n its rolls than are live adults. And that has consequences, ecause we all remember that in 2000 president ial election in lorida, 538 votes decided that election. Washington gubernatorial election, i think 300 votes out 2. 8 million cast here to decide the attorney general, 162 votes out of millions cast. Vote is very important, so im going to oppose it for hose three reasons, mainly inaccuracy. He chair lhamon commissioner na rasaki. Mention was you noted by the federal court, who noted as i do that that is not the issue at hand. What it says is relevant to the policy and the policy is focused to hether its sufficient remove people otherwise eligible byvote from the rolls simply mailing anything to them once. This is the challenge the se the reason why department of justice has taken this position, subjected to it when georgia tried to do it in is because theres a concern, particularly for poor who have ommunities poor mail service, that this will disproportionately be a them. For immigrant families also tend to live in multifamily households nontraditional residences, and mail delivery is simply ineffective. The fact, i would think you that the factrned that 7500 people who would have been struck showed up to vote you ould have been told cant vote would be more of a theren than the fact that are dead people on the rolls who vote. Y arent trying to thats not so clear. The fact there are dead people on he rolls or other people the rolls may be registered in ultiple jurisdictions, theres copious evidence that hundreds of thousands of people are registered in multiple jurisdictions and evidence of admitted they voted in multiple jurisdictions, in addition to which the posture of case was in the injunctive stage, in other words, we are not talking about the merit stage. Changed it could well have a dispositive impact on the litigation. Number 1, its inaccurate. Number 2, it would be at best premature. Agree that, er, i obviously, its important to try to keep the rolls clean, but there ot evidence is widespread double voting by double registered and has been widely reported, although weve already one cannot necessarily trust the press even members of the family are double registered, and i dont think anyone is accusing them of vote twice. Nvra s why, in our recent report on section 7, we supported automatic Voter Registration and Data Management technology, because that will be the rolls y to clean and the department of justice on how very clear states can better maintain their rolls. The real criminal is the fact hat states are underfunding Voter Administration and underfunding the ability to systems. Ir thats the real problem here. They shouldnt be doing it in a that causes people who are otherwise eligible to vote who then cant vote when they show up. Just one last point in counter to that. Regardless of whether or not the president s family is double registered, double registration presents a profound problem. Its a problem that has been exploited. There have been a number of individuals and studies that that people do vote in multiple jurisdictions, and votes is unlawful. One of those votes cancels out the vote of somebody else, so significant. In addition to that, in this particular case, its not as if purge. As some dra conian the manner in which this happens is sent aid post card to individuals after two years of voting inactivity simply confirm that you are a resident of this state or words to that effect. Hen there are several mechanisms by which the person satisfy the request. One is by return of that prepaid ostcard within the next four years, or voting in the next our years or registering to voting in the next four years. Nonetheless, what happened in case is there was a change in the facts, and i would say that its premature to make a that until the supreme court, in fact, weighs in. Commissioner narasaki. Commissioner, you must lead a charmed life if you have never ad mail go missing in your life. I know i have had several occasions where the mail and the post office has simply not delivered. In addition, there are stories of real people here. Again, i dont know what you purge, but having that many people, 7500 eligible who would have otherwise been purged, i think is a problem. It very troubling about e concern is more dead people than about live people who are trying to vote. Further mon any discussion . This is commissioner yaki. Just like to note that the question of the 538 people n florida could also have been mitigated by the fact had florida not purged thousands of eople who actually were registered to vote and were mistakenly struck off the rolls, ways, oes both commissioner. Chair lhamon okay. Calling the vote. Commissioner adegbile. How do you vote . Aye. Chair lhamon commissioner heriot. Vote no. Chair lhamon commissioner kladney. Yes. Hair lhamon commissioner narasaki. Yes. Chair lhamon commissioner yaki. Aye. Chair lhamon goodson. Yes. Chair lhamon and i vote yes. The motion passes. Two commissioners oppose. All others were in favor. E are four minutes before our scheduled speakers at 11 00 a. M. , so we will recess until a. M. When we return to our speakers and hear about the history of Voting Rights in this country. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Sit ncicap. Org] after that vote, the u. S. Civil rights heard team from Voting Rights scholars voting istory of the rights act of 1965. The events leading up to the passage and reauthorization of the legislation. This is