Transcript of Roundtable With Wan Kim,
Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division
and Senior Justice Department Officials
on Protecting Voting Rights and Prosecuting Voter Fraud

2:10 PM EST

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Well, good afternoon and welcome to the Civil Rights Division's conference room.  For those of you who have not been here before, this is actually J. Edgar Hoover's old office.  And so you actually need to put the microphones down -- (laughter).

But welcome aboard.  We've had a very, very busy year this year in the Voting Section.  We have filed 17 lawsuits this year.  And all of that was done, obviously, to protect the right to vote.  And that will be culminated in next Tuesday's election across the country for midterm federal elections and for many localities and jurisdictions.  Obviously, there are state and local election cycles as well.

When I mention that number, 17, I think that number is significant.  Because it means that the voting section has been extremely busy.  But it's also relevant because the average number of lawsuits filed by the voting section over the past 20 years or so is about eight to nine.  So they've been extraordinarily productive and aggressive in ensuring that the voting rights of Americans have been preserved.  And that commitment continues on to Election Day.  Right now, the voting section and people in the sections have been working very, very hard to maintain and implement the monitoring program that will come into effect on election day.

One of the things that we have done in the past six years very aggressively is to work hard to ensure that, on Election Day, we dispatch large numbers of federal observers and monitors to the polls in areas where there may be federal voting rights issues, to try to resolve those issues before they become big problems.  And for that reason, we have dispatched a record number, unprecedented numbers of federal observers and monitors to the polls over the past six years, and that commitment will continue on Tuesday.  We expect to dispatch a record number of federal personnel for a midterm election cycle this Tuesday.

Rough numbers, right now, we expect to have more than 800 people to be around the country in about 20 states and many political subdivisions within those states, to try to help voters who may need help very discretely, very much observing and trying to flag problems and resolve those problems with coordinators on the ground from the Civil Rights Division who communicate with the state and local election officials, who actually take charge and obviously an ownership of many of these elections.

That is a very brief overview of what we've done and what we intend to do on Tuesday.  I'm happy to throw it out for questions and I think some of you at least have many.  Sir.

QUESTION:  Why did you feel the need to send a record number this year?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Well, it's not just this year, and I think that's an important point.  We have been sending out record numbers for the past three election cycles.  I mean, 2002, 2004 and 2006.  In 2004, for the Presidential election, which of course has even greater voter turnout, we sent out an all time record.  In 2002, I believe that we hit a record then.  And in 2006, we'll be surpassing the record that I believe we set in 2002.  So it's been a commitment over six years to try to make sure that federal resources are brought to bear on Election Day to try to ameliorate problems before they become big problems.  And at the end of the day, you know, that's what the goal of the Civil Rights Division Voting Section is, is to try to make sure that people have access to the polls in a manner consistent with federal law.  And when we can help out, as we can help out on Election Day, that's what we try to do.

QUESTION:  Where do you get these observers?  And who are they and how are they trained?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Yeah, that's a very good question because there are -- if you noticed, I keep using the terms "observers" and "monitors".  Those are legally significant terms.  Observers are people who have been certified -- I'm sorry.  Observers are people who are supplied by the Office of Personnel Management and they are federal employees, and they may be drawn from any federal agency that you can think of across the scope of the federal government.  They are dispatched to places that are certified for coverage under the Voting Rights Act, okay, and there are certain jurisdictions across the country, many of them in the deep South, that are certified for observer coverage.  And that means that we have the legal authority to send people in there, despite what the local jurisdiction may wish us to do.  Now I say that.  As a legal matter, the jurisdictions are perfectly happy, by and large, to have us come in and help out.  But we have the legal authority to do so, even if they don't want us there.

Now with respect to monitors, monitors are Department of Justice personnel.  And the funding for them comes out of the Department of Justice's budget.  And we send them to places where there was no observer coverage certified, but we worry that there may be some possible voting rights issues.  And so we coordinate with the state and local jurisdiction and they almost always invariably welcome our assistance.  And it is in that voluntary arrangement that we send out Department personnel to act as monitors.  But once on the ground, they pretty much do the same thing.  They're both there to try to be as discrete as possible, as nonconfrontational as possible, but to record, observe and notify federal officials and state officials if there are problems that they see.

QUESTION:  And how are they trained?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  They are trained by Voting Section attorneys in the areas where they are dispatched, usually before the election, usually the day before the election.  But many of these people have done this many times in the past, so often there is a great deal of experience that comes from previous election cycles.  And don't forget, we also have been spending a lot of time monitoring primary elections, earlier elections, so it's not just that they only get to do this on Election Day.

QUESTION:  So the 800 number refers to observers and monitors?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION:  Okay.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Yes.

QUESTION:  And the 17 lawsuits, can you give us kind of a status check on where they are?  I mean, are they --

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Many of them are resolved.  In many of these cases, it is almost invariably the case that before we file a lawsuit in the Civil Rights Division and certainly in the Voting Section, we engage in extensive pre-suit negotiations.  We notify the jurisdiction quietly that we have found a violation of federal law that we believe to exist, and then we negotiate with them.  And so often it is the case that we will be able to file the lawsuit as well as a resolution of that lawsuit on the same day.

And so with many of the 17 lawsuits, they are already resolved, they are on the books, and we are into the compliance period.  With some of the lawsuits, and I can tick a few off the top of my head, they're still in litigation and we'll be litigating them for a while.  I mean, we have a Section 2 lawsuit in Euclid, Ohio, that we're still litigating.  We have a lawsuit that we filed recently against the City of Philadelphia that we are litigating.

The bulk of them, if I'm not mistaken, we have settled.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  Yes.

QUESTION:  And what are they for?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Oh, they're for violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, they're for violations of the NVRA --

QUESTION:  Well, talk for human beings I'm writing for.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Oh, sure.  (Laughter.)

QUESTION:  I mean, what would that mean in terms of problems with the machines, they disallowed someone to vote?  I mean, what was the gist of some of these lawsuits?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  The gist of all the lawsuits are a violation of federal law.  But the four federal laws that we enforce are the Voting Rights Act, which contains a number of provisions pertaining to freedom to be free from discrimination in voting, freedom to be free from voter intimidation, freedom to be free to have someone help you vote.  It's actually a federal requirement that many people are not aware of that you have a federal right to bring an assister with you into the polling place to actually vote with you, in case you are uncomfortable voting alone, so long as that person is not your employer or your union official.  Those are the carve outs.

And so the lawsuit that we brought in Long County, Georgia, for example, earlier this year, which we resolved on the same day that we filed it, alleged that county and local election officials were singling out Hispanic surnamed voters for challenges based on their citizenship and qualification to vote.  So that was discrimination based on race and we brought that lawsuit and we were able to resolve it.

We have also filed lawsuits against certain states for not having the machines required by the Help America Vote Act that would allow people with disabilities to vote independently in the federal elections this year.  We've also brought lawsuits challenging the states' maintenance of their voter registration lists, to make sure that those lists are being created according to the Help America Vote Act.  We've brought additional lawsuits related to the ability of states to make sure that absentee ballots are being mailed for service members abroad, a highly significant issue in a time of war when many of our service members are abroad, as well as to our overseas citizens.

So within the statutes that we have jurisdiction, we have brought cases in almost every single one of them.

QUESTION:  And the 20 states that you're going to be in, is that rotated every election or do you just go to the same 20 states all the time?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  We figure out where the problems are for every election.  Every election is unique and so we determine that, you know, with respect to every single election, be it the primary season or the general election.  We will be issuing a press release that details exactly where we will be going closer to the election date.  And even though we have a pretty good idea of certain states that are definitely going to be covered and certain jurisdictions within those states that are definitely going to be covered, we hold that back until we make our final list together.

QUESTION:  Can we get a sneak preview?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  You can ask to see it for a sneak preview.  I just tell you what the official line is.

QUESTION:  How close to Election Day?  I mean, do you -- do you --

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  I believe the release will go out on Monday, if I'm not mistaken, which is traditionally the case.  We usually release it the day before the elections.

QUESTION:  When are these people actually dispatched?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Obviously, they have to travel there.  And obviously, they have to know where they're traveling.  But that's internal information at this point.  And, you know, they're dispatched -- depending on where they're coming from and where they're going, travel schedules have to vary a little bit.

QUESTION:  If you can't identify the places where they're going, can you give us an idea where the new problems and what kinds of new problems you come up with this time around?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  I've got to say, the new problems are really old problems.  I mean, what we're doing in trying to select places to send federal personnel is identify possible violations of federal voting laws.  And that could be the age-old issues of, you know, is there discrimination?  Are we hearing from minority advocacy groups and groups for the disabled that there are real problems with the voting operation in their jurisdictions?  That's a great source of information for us because, you know, we're obviously not everywhere.  We're all located in Washington, D.C.

Then there are certain cases where we brought lawsuits recently.  And as part of the lawsuit, we have provided that the court ordered that that jurisdiction be certified for observer coverage.  Those are areas, because we've seen recent violations, we may want to make sure that those violations are being remedied consistent with the court orders and consistent with what the law requires.

So the only new wrinkle in this election year are the requirements of the Help America Vote Act with respect to the provision for voting machines that allow disabled voters to vote independently, and some of the other new requirements.  But those are the only new federal requirements that come into play in determining what federal laws might be violated in what jurisdiction and therefore what lists are we compiling.

QUESTION:  Is there any correlation between where you send monitors and the possible closeness of a specific race?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  The closeness of a specific race is an issue because, obviously, you know, we want to enforce the federal laws.  We can't send people everywhere.  So in terms of prioritizing, it is a factor how closely contested the race may be.  Because, obviously, that may be a place where we can do some good.  More good if a person is up by 40 points.  Well, okay, there may be violations but they may be at the margins.  Are our monitors better used elsewhere?

So there is no individual factor that really ranks the highest except for, do we see violations of federal voting laws being a real problem here or possibility here.  But it is a consideration whether the race is expected to be a close one.  Because if we can add some comfort that federal personnel were on the ground and helped monitor elections and helped to solve problems where they were seen, you know, maybe that will add ultimately to the confidence in the outcome of that election.

QUESTION:  And if there is a specific site where you don't anticipate a problem but have reports of problems on Election Day, do you have the ability to move people to those sites?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Not -- not on Election Day, no.  No, I mean, clearly -- as I told you from the 17 lawsuits that we brought this year, our work on Election Day is significant.  Another more significant, probably, chunk of our work is actually following up with investigations and litigation where we experience problems that amount to violations of federal law.

QUESTION:  What's the split between observers and monitors?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  It depends on the course of the year, quite frankly.  Generally speaking, we have slightly more observers than monitors --

QUESTION:  In this case --

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  You know, we won't be releasing those numbers right now, but I would say probably it's going to be roughly two to one, observers to monitors.  In the past, it has been as high as I think 30 to one, observers to monitors.  But we have been doing a great deal to try to get the Department personnel out to augment the observers we get.

QUESTION:  In '04, you sent out 1,090 monitors and observers.  When you say "record numbers," do you mean for a midterm?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Yes, absolutely.  Yes.  I mean, I want to compare apples to apples.  I mean, midterm elections are very different in scope and size than Presidential election years.

QUESTION:  And your predecessor's focus was on voter fraud, which came under a lot of criticism from some traditional civil rights groups, who thought the focus should have been --

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  I don't remember Alex's focus being on voter fraud.  I mean, we do have a criminal division here --

QUESTION:  A department head at the time (inaudible), and there was even a hotline established for people all over the country to call in with allegations (inaudible) problems at the polls.  (Inaudible.)

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Oh, absolutely.  You're combining two things, which is why I'm looking a little bit confused.  First of all, Alex Acosta was my predecessor.  His nice picture is hanging up there, so you can refer to it.

His focus, I do not believe, was voter fraud.  And I say that just because there has always been a divide in the Department as to the Criminal Division working on voter fraud issues and the Civil Rights Division working on voter access issues, and that distinction remains here today.

We do have a hotline.  And that was a hotline that was set up by the Civil Rights Division, if I'm referring to the same one.  I'm not sure if the Criminal Division ever had a hotline.  No.  And the hotline that we set up, and I'm happy to give you that number, you should publicize it, will be available, it will have numerous lines for rollovers so many people can call at the same time, and it will be well manned on election day.  But that is a hotline that we will be using to make sure that calls across the country with respect to voter access issues can be reported.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  We also have a website up now.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Yes, and we also have a website up and that's something that's on -- we can give you that information with respect to a website that you can contact, people can contact across the country to report complaints, as well as a hotline, a toll-free number, a 1-800 number, that will be well staffed here in D.C. on Election Day.

QUESTION:  Is the website new this year?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  I believe that's correct.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  It's a new link on our website.

QUESTION:  I know, but is it new?  Did you do that during an election, having the ability to report complaints via the web?

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  We did that in 2004 as well.

QUESTION:  Are you -- I understand the rationale for the growing number of monitors and observers.  But to other -- some people, the notion that lots and lots more federal folks are going to be on the scene might be viewed as intimidation, regardless of whatever your motive may be.  I wonder if you're concerned, as you talk about record numbers of folks that are going to be watching the polls, if it's going to have that kind of an effect --

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  I sure hope not.  And I sure hope not.  I'll tell you why for two reasons.  One, the provision for creating observers was created in the Voting Rights Act in 1965, and it was created because the assurance that federal personnel could provide in making sure that elections were conducted in a full and fair fashion consistent with federal law.  That's the whole goal and the origin and the genesis of this observation, and we've augmented it over the years with the monitoring provision for sections of -- for parts of the country not certified under the observer coverage provisions of the Voting Rights Act.  But I find it awfully sad if a provision created by the Voting Rights Act could be interpreted as somehow trying to suppress voter turnout.

Secondly, we coordinate very closely with many of the minority groups and the disabled groups across the country in getting people out there.  And it has been uniformly the case that they encourage us to get people in these locations to make sure that voter access is preserved.  I have not heard many allegations, if any, by the civil rights advocacy groups that we deal with that want us to slow it down or narrow or tamp down.

QUESTION:  Couldn't the opposite argument be made?  That, in fact, this is a -- while a larger effort numerically than in past elections, it's still very modest and, in fact, 800 monitors is one for every thousand precincts.  I mean, you've got a very light sprinkling of people.  And is that sufficient in order to guard against the things that you have to be careful of?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  It is always the case that there are two sides to every coin and that argument certainly can be made.  I think that the important thing to recognize is, you know, obviously, state and local officials do a terrific job in running elections across the country.  Obviously, there are about 4,000 political subdivisions where elections are held around the country.  Those 4,000 subdivisions I understand use in excess of one million voting machines on Election Day.

The scope of federal resources brought to bear has to be commensurate with our role in the process.  We have taken unprecedented steps to increase the number of federal observers and monitors and, of course, it's going to be push/pull.  Are we doing too much?  Are we doing too little?  But we think we're striking the balance correctly by bringing an unprecedented number to the table.

QUESTION:  Do these observers have freedom to go from precinct to precinct within a given jurisdiction?  Or are they -- do they sit at the same polling station all day long and --

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  They do both.  They do both.  I mean, they often will go from one to another.  It depends on the jurisdiction, how far the polling places are apart.  In some jurisdictions, the polling places are miles and miles apart; some jurisdictions, they're relatively close.  And it depends on whether we think it may be more effective for them in a particular precinct to stay at one location all day or to circulate.

QUESTION:  If you're sitting in East Los Angeles and you start to hear of problems in South Los Angeles, can you move people down there?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Sure.  That, of course, will happen.  There is a command center that's manned by an experienced Civil Rights Division attorney in all of these locations.  And to the extent that people need to be redispatched within a certain venue, as opposed to flown to another venue, that can happen and it does happen.

QUESTION:  I have just two questions.  One is, can you talk about what you might be doing now as far as monitoring early voting and absentee voting?  And then the other question is, when people call in to this hotline, do you actually try and resolve the issues on Election Day or is it something at this point where you're just collecting information?

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  In the second one, the people who are answering the phones on the hotline, we have a big operation to organize that, will try and resolve problems that can be resolved on Election Day.  And we do that typically by contacting the local election officials, bringing the matter to their attention, discussing it with them, and they tend to be very responsive.  And there are some things that you just cannot address on Election Day.

And I've already forgotten your first question.

QUESTION:  Oh, it was about what you might be doing now as far as monitoring for the early and absentee voting?

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  Oh, the early and absentee voting?  We get -- where we get calls or reports of that, we respond.  And we are in close touch, as Mr. Kim said, with the minority advocacy groups around the country, and looking at newspapers and other sources of information to try and identify places where there are problems.  And then we would, you know, again contact the local election officials.

QUESTION:  And have things emerged yet?

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  Things are in a constant state of emergence.

QUESTION:  There have been a lot of problems, I think, with some electronic voting machines cutting off candidates' names (inaudible)?

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  The operation, the mechanics of the election, typically are entirely within the responsibility of state and local officials.  We have four statutes, we enforce those four statutes.  And where a problem comes up that intersects with one of those four statutes, then we can go in and deal with it.  But we do not have plenary authority over state and local elections.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  And one of the things that I think all of you recognize is that within any jurisdiction, this -- on November 7th, there will be scores of different types of voting machines used across the country to register votes by voters across the country.  Even within a single polling place within a single political subdivision that holds elections, you may find more than one type of voting machine to be used in that polling place.

These decisions, what voting machines get used, how they get employed, how many poll workers there are, how long the polls are open, those are decisions for state and local election officials.  And to the extent that federal laws are implicated -- I mean, obviously, if they're assigning a certain race of voters certain machines or treating people differently based upon categories, we will get involved.

But the issues of, for example, whether there even should be a manually auditable paper trail is one that really is highly decentralized at this point.

QUESTION:  So to kind of follow up on that, it is federal law, right, that there has to be handicap-accessible machines at every polling place; is that accurate?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Under the Help America Vote Act, every polling place should have at least one machine that is capable of being used independently by disabled voters.

QUESTION:  So what do you do a week before the election when there are reports out of Massachusetts or in Connecticut where all these lever machines are being used and there are hundreds of jurisdictions that don't have accessible machines?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  I think it's fair to say that the voting section has been in contact with every state across the country over the past year to measure and ensure compliance with the Help America Vote Act.  Now, the problem with the Help America Vote Act from a logistical standpoint is its requirements only came into effect in 2006 for the vast majority of states.  So our enforcement efforts are geared towards enforcing the law but not making the problem worse.  And obviously forcing -- if we find, for example, tomorrow that there are certain jurisdictions across the country that don't have machines for disabled voters in every single one of its polling places, the question is what can we do between now and Election Day to change that?  If we think we can do something constructive, that is what we'll do.  If we think that we cannot do something constructive and do something that will actually create confusion or a worse situation, then we'll probably try to figure out what better way to enforce the law might exist.

QUESTION:  But what authority, if any, do these observers or monitors have?  Say you have several polling places that don't live up to that standard, what can they do?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  On Election Day, very little.  I mean, if they don't have a machine on Election Day that they should have to help disabled voters cast their votes independently, there is not a whole heck of a lot we can do on Election Day.  But they can certainly record problems, identify them.  And in many instances, observers and monitors have collected information that helps us file affirmative lawsuits in the future.  You know, that's not their primary role; their primary role is to try to help people on Election Day.  But to the extent that they flag issues, that could be something that we follow up with.  Is it a federal law violation?  We'll do that.

QUESTION:  Are they permitted to, say you've got voters here who don't have access to a machine, disabled voting machine, to move them to another precinct?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  No.  No, it would not take place that way.  What they would do is they would call back to the central command center and say, listen, I'm seeing a problem here because there are a lot of voters with disabilities who are showing up.  And maybe it would make sense for the state and local election officials to try to get them moved to a locale where they could vote independently because a machine does exist.

That kind of communication takes place all the time.  They identify problems on the ground.  They are generally advised not to interfere in the problem but try to phone up to the experienced Civil Rights Division attorney, the Civil Rights Division attorney liaisons with the state and local election official.  And that relationship usually, in our experience, works quite well.  I mean, when we identify problems at that level to a responsible state and local election official, they usually take the corrective action.  I mean, they've gone so far as to pull a poll worker from a location when a poll worker was acting inappropriately based upon an observation that one of our monitors made on the ground.

QUESTION:  Do you think Congress was being too optimistic in trying to get the Help America Vote Act --

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  See, my Legislative Affairs person back there is just laughing.  She knows I'm not going to answer this question.  (Laughter.)

QUESTION:  I mean, between this and the statewide databases, I mean, did they ask for too much without enough time or money to get this in place?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Well, I mean, to be fair to the Help America Vote Act in Congress, which passed it overwhelmingly -- I mean, the Help America Vote Act was passed in 2002.  And then funds were appropriated -- I think over $3 billion in funds -- for the states to actually implement its requirements.  And the states were given a deadline of I think it was 2004, but given basically a free pass.  If you file a statement, you could postpone the requirements to 2006.  So there have been several years for states to work to get to compliance.

Now, our review and our litigation under the Help America Vote Act has shown that some states are further along in the process than others.  Some states made many good faith efforts to move forward and get into compliance.  Some states took very few efforts to get along that way after all these years.

So I'm not sure that I would lay the blame anywhere.  But I think it's fair to say that the litigation we brought reflects that many states were not compliant and were not on a real time table for compliance.  And where we find those problems, you know, our job is law enforcement.  We're going to bring the cases or the consent decrees or the memoranda of agreement or whatever it takes to ultimately get states into compliance.

QUESTION:  Is it -- what percentage of the states have taken good faith efforts to come into compliance versus not --

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  I don't want to disclose internal deliberations that may be relevant to future litigation decisions.  I think it's fair to say, though, we filed four lawsuits under the Help America Vote Act.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  Against four states.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Yes, against four states thus far.  And so, you know, that's where we are right now.  And part of this election cycle, by the way, is let's find out how far states are in compliance with the requirements.  And obviously, if states are not in compliance, we'll be not only continuing our campaign of talking to them and trying to provide some assistance technically but also, you know, bringing forth litigation if that's what it takes.

QUESTION:  And what states were those?  Since you've already filed.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Oh, the lawsuits?

QUESTION:  Yes.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  We filed against New York, Maine, Alabama and New Jersey.

QUESTION:  The Criminal Division, I was just wondering.  There have been a lot of allegations about fraudulent registrations, especially in Missouri.  And I'm just curious, is that something that you are investigating at this point?  What kind of investigations might you be conducting as far as fraudulent voter registrations?

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  We don't typically -- it's a general rule that we don't comment on ongoing investigations, particularly criminal investigations.  I will say, as a general matter, that is precisely the area of jurisdiction of the Criminal Division, among other areas of jurisdiction, that it looks at it.  So there are allegations about voter fraud, fraudulent registrations, fraudulent -- you know, intimidation of voters, other factors, ballot box stuffing and things like that, that falls within the purview of an investigation the Criminal Division would do.

QUESTION:  So when you have this list of, you know, how many voter fraud cases have been filed, that includes -- that could be fraudulent intimidation as well as other things?  Or are these all -- there's always this confusion about what's voter fraud versus intimidation.  So do you consider some intimidation to fall under the category of voter fraud?

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  I don't know about those precise statistics.  I mean, I can go back and check on whether or not that's focused purely on voter fraud as opposed to allegations of intimidation.

QUESTION:  Because it says nearly 300 election fraud investigations have been started since the --

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  Right, that sort of category of election fraud within the Criminal Division focuses in on fraudulent registration, ballot box stuffing, things in that category.  Intimidation is a slightly different category.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Let me just make one point here, because it's been echoed in two questions that I've heard.  And now that -- I just want to emphasize, one of the important things you can stress for your readers is that there is a divide within the Department of Justice between what the Civil Rights Division does with elections and what the Criminal Division does during elections.  And that divide is intentional.  It's been here for a long time.  It's been intentional because we don't want to create the appearance that when we have people out there that they are to collect information on voter fraud lawsuits.  We don't want to create the very impression that some of you have been asking questions upon.  And that's why we've taken that kind of pain to divide even within the Department of Justice what we do on the flip side, the balance.

And if I could just make it a little bit more colloquial, everyone agrees that we want to make voting easier and fraud harder.  And we enforce the first side of that and the Criminal Division enforces the second side of that, in a little nutshell.  And so, you know, you would do a lot of service -- I mean, people ask me, what are you worried most about the elections?  And I tell them, what I worry about in every election, that people who are registered to vote get out and vote.

And so the Civil Rights Division really tries to encourage that and aid that process.  And that's why we send the observers and monitors out there.  And it would be a disservice if people believed that we did that for other reasons, unrelated to what the Civil Rights Division's role in this process really is.

QUESTION:  (Inaudible) that special instruction went out to every U.S. Attorney's Office to be on the special lookout for voter fraud.  And also said that every single FBI field office had an agent standing by.  Maybe that's the traditional --

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Is that the Civil Rights Division's release?

QUESTION:  Well, it was the Department's release --

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  It was a joint release.

QUESTION:  -- that covers both Public Integrity and the Civil Rights Division.  It seemed to be at the time, it was a very special emphasis on it that I'm not hearing this time.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Well, you know, again --

QUESTION:  -- trying to draw a distinction --

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  That emphasis is not being placed by me, because it would not be my place to place it.  I'm happy to defer to Criminal Division to see if they want to make a similar emphasis this year?

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  Perhaps a little bit of explanation of our process might be helpful in this context.  Every election -- let me just step back for just a second.  For every election, every United States Attorney's Office has a designated election officer.  And those people are specially designated within the United States Attorney's Office.  They are trained both by the Civil Rights Division and the Criminal Division on issues associated with, among other things, election fraud.  Every year, for every Presidential and midterm election, the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division puts together an initiative so that for every midterm or Presidential election, there are the designated election officials in the United States Attorney's Offices are on duty that day, and there is a control -- central location.  You know, folks within the Public Integrity Section are also on duty that day.  So what you're making reference to is that particular program which is distinct from the Civil Rights Division's program.

Also, the FBI has a parallel, because all of our criminal investigations, if they're done, have an Agency involvement, classically any federal criminal investigation would have that, whether it's a drug investigation or a firearms investigation, or in this case a voting fraud allegation.  The agency that investigates that is the FBI.  And they have a parallel organization also in place with designated agents who are available to address problems that might arise during -- during an election.

It's different than observers and monitors.  Agents are not observers and monitors.  In fact, they don't play any role in that.  Our -- if incidents arise during the course of they day, they may be consulted about those matters and they in turn then have to consult the Public Integrity Section.  But it's a different -- it's sort of a more of a safety net, an opportunity for us to be available to address problems if they do arise.  But it's separate and distinct from the Civil Rights Division's initiative.

QUESTION:  (Inaudible) proactively before Election Day put out the word locally?

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  Yes, as part of this initiative, there are a couple of things that happen.  First, the United States Attorney's Offices, the district election officials make contact with state and local election officials.  And some of these relationships are long lasting and have already been present for some time.

In addition, the United States Attorney's Offices, one of the suggestions that the Public Integrity Section outlines basically when they put this initiative together every year, and there's a big training session in the summertime to get everybody geared up for this -- they put together a proposed press release that some United States Attorney's Offices issue in the run-up to the election, describing some of the procedures that are in place.

QUESTION:  Not to put too fine a point on it, that is the first thing that this release says in terms of what the Department does, responsible for enforcing the federal laws that help prevent and punish fraud.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Absolutely.  That's an accurate statement.  I guess the only thing I disagree with was that my predecessor was focused on preventing voter fraud.  There is a division within the Department, is how that gets done.  That's the only point I'm trying to make.

QUESTION:  Could you talk a little bit about how serious a problem voter fraud is, particularly on Election Day, as opposed to the absentee voter fraud and (inaudible)?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  I will defer to the Criminal Division on that.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  I'm not sure that I can speak to the whole sort of how systemic it is or how widespread it is or other issues like that.  I can tell you that, since 2002, when we started I think it's called the Attorney General's Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative, we've prosecuted about 120, in excess of about 120 -- I think it's referenced in the talking points -- election fraud cases, in which over 80 individuals -- 89 is it? -- 86 individuals have been convicted for voter fraud related offenses.

QUESTION:  And that's out of how many million votes?  I mean, I'm just trying to get a sense of the perspective.  How big a problem is this?  And are these -- how many of those cases are Election Day fraud cases as opposed to absentee?

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  I don't know the answer to those questions.  I mean, we can -- see if we track that kind of information, because we may not be tracking what's an absentee as opposed to more than just anecdotal recollections of the individuals who are associated with the case.

In terms of, you know, comparing it to the millions of votes, you know, I'm not sure that that's a -- that's sort of an accurate comparison.  Yes, there's lots of votes cast every year.  But we've identified what we thought were appropriate cases to prosecute and have brought those cases.

QUESTION:  There's been a substantial amount of attention to concern about voting machine problems, technical computer problems relating to vote counting and so forth.  I would think that it's a heck of a lot tougher to -- for people in your division or the Civil Rights Division to recognize or to be able to identify electronic ballot stuffing as opposed to the traditional paper ballot stuffing, as an example.

Do you have a legion of computer experts, people who understand the workings of those machines and so forth, who are able to determine and watch for instances of voter fraud with the new technologies?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Well, I've got to say, I'm not sure what the Criminal Division has, how many legions they may have.  With respect to the safeguards in place and the state and local election official level, I've talked a great deal with the National Association of Secretaries of State, the National Association of Attorneys General, the National Governors Association, as well as with the commissioners on the Election Assistance Commission that was established by the Help America Vote Act.  And they are the experts on how elections are run and how machines are certified.

And I've got to tell you, they were all pretty firm in their conviction that, regardless of what machine a voter votes on election day, and there will be dozens and dozens of different type of machines across the country that are being used, they have confidence that once the results of those elections are certified, you can bet on those results as being correct, because of the safeguards in place.  There are safeguards at the vendor level, national testing laboratories, at the state level and at the local level with respect to acceptance testing, logic accuracy testing, all these nomenclatures they threw at me, to assure that the voting machines tabulate correctly the results that voters put in on Election Day.

And so it is absolutely the case that the Federal Reserve Bank in New York could be robbed and all the gold bullion could be stolen.  But they say that it's very difficult to do so.  And once -- if it does happen, if there are allegations, you know, I'm sure that the Criminal Division will pick up with investigations as appropriate to determine whether -- whether the facts give rise to that inference.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  Let me just follow up on that.  You know, our cases focus specifically on the facts of those particular individual cases.  So to follow on Wan's example of the Federal Reserve Bank being robbed, we may not know the details of how the Federal Reserve Bank operates.  But to put that case together, we would go and talk to all of the people on the Federal Reserve, we would get the experts in that particular area to assist us in prosecuting the case.

Since we, in the Criminal Division, operate after the fact in terms of some -- there's an allegation of fraud, we then commence an investigation, we would bring together an appropriate team that would include, if it were an election -- an electronic voting machine, we would get the individuals that would be able to identify for us where the root of the problem was, whether it's software code, whether it's interaction with the machine, whether it's some problem with the personnel associated with the machine or something like that.  And as the investigation developed, we would bring the required expertise to bear, like we do in any other investigation.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  I've got to say, I've been talking a lot to Paul DeGregorio, who is the chairman of the EAC, the Election Assistance Commission.  He is very knowledgeable on this issue.  He has basically brought me up to speed on what I know about this issue, because it has been one that's been publicized a lot this year.  He wrote an op ed last week in the McClatchy Newspapers -- am I pronouncing that correctly? -- and it was widely circulated.  I really commend it to you.  It's a very, very nice and succinct and cogent analysis of why the concerns about electronic voting machines in general, or voting machines even more broadly, are really not one to give him a lot of alarm.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  Let's just do two more questions.

QUESTION:  I have just a couple, going back to some of the numbers.  If you could just spit off a couple more for me?  The certified jurisdictions are in how many states?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  You mean for observer coverage?  That's a tricky one, because I'm -- I can show you the map and we can actually get you a copy of the map, how's that?  Because even within the states, it's not all the state; it's only certain counties in the states.  But we have a nice color-coded map.  We'll be happy to give it to you.

QUESTION:  Okay.  But will it be safe, you know, if I'm looking at the jurisdictions and it's one tiny little corner of Louisiana, for example, is it safe to assume that Louisiana is among those 20 states?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Oh, sure -- oh, that we'll be sending people out to?

QUESTION:  Yes.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  No, no.  I mean, obviously, there are a lot more jurisdictions that are certified for observer coverage than we'll be sending people out to.

QUESTION:  So there will be jurisdictions where it's certified that there needs to be an observer but there won't be?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Certified that there can be an observer.

QUESTION:  That there can be an observer?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Yes.  I mean, many of these jurisdictions were established a long time ago, for example.  And again, we can give you a map and it's color coded.  But we do not send out observers in every election cycle to every jurisdiction that is covered.

QUESTION:  That's good to know.  So these certified jurisdictions, do they get updated?  I mean, you said 1965?  They haven't been updated since 1965?

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICIE OFFICIAL:  No, there is no process in the Voting Rights Act, until the recent amendments, for decertification, where the Attorney General does the certification.  There are other jurisdictions that are certified by federal court order.  And those sunset, typically.  In ours, they do so after two federal elections, typically.

QUESTION:  Okay, but the map you're going to give us is just the Voting Rights Act?

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  It's the current.  Well, it has the current court cases.  It may be missing one county, Cochise County, Arizona, and color coded, if it's the map I'm thinking of.  And then the Attorney General certifications.

QUESTION:  So it will be everything that's certified for this election?

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  Except for Cochise County, Arizona.

QUESTION:  Except for Arizona.

And then the four lawsuits, they're ongoing, correct?  We don't have --

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  No.  Only -- they've all been resolved.

QUESTION:  Has there been any kind of sanction against the states or any of the other lawsuits --l

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  Well, when you say "sanction," have we negotiated terms of a consent decree or agreement?

QUESTION:  Well, I mean, there's settlement and then there's a carrot and then there's a stick, right?  I mean, are any of these states getting the stick in terms of not having complied?

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  Well, some people would say that us suing them was the stick.  I guess it depends on how you characterize the stick.

I mean, all the states are under an affirmative obligation to do things pursuant to certain benchmarks.  You know, and if they miss a benchmark, then they may get the proverbial stick.  But in the sense that all of these states have a very clearly drafted agreement in a consent decree form, I think all four of them, as to what they need to do going forward to comply with the requirements of HAVA.

Have we moved to have any of them held in contempt?  Is that what you're asking?

QUESTION:  I guess so.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  Okay, the answer is, no.  The earliest resolution we had for consent decree this year for the four states was probably spring, summer.  Yeah, and so the requirements probably would not have sprung yet.  If they miss a deadline or if they don't do something by a certain time, then obviously we would first go back to the table and try to figure out why and how we can fix the problem.  And usually if that doesn't work after a while, then we will move for contempt.  But that's something we don't like to do.  It means the problem is broken and we can't fix it easily.

QUESTION:  I don't pretend to know very much about this stuff, so pardon me for --

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  Neither do I --

QUESTION:  Well, that's kind of scary.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  I was smiling.  I was smiling.  (Laughter.)

QUESTION:  In New York, it's my understanding that some of the compliance doesn't take effect for another year.  Is that right?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  The time tables for many of the consent decrees that we've negotiated go past this election cycle.  And that is true.  And the time tables are based on what is logistically possible and feasible under the circumstances.  I mean, there is a reason why congress gave states many years to try to implement these requirements.  And for some of these states who have not jumped on early and tried to implement quickly, they're well behind the 8-ball time wise and there are only certain things logistically you can do.

I heard a great example about this a few weeks ago.  Basically there was a case that we brought in San Diego that, when we reached the table with the local election officials, they convinced us that they could not obtain enough paper stock that would actually implement the change that we needed them to make in time for the elections.  Just logistically impossible for them to do so.  There just wasn't this kind of paper stock produced in sufficient numbers for them to do so.

It's one of the reasons why certain names can't be taken off ballots when it gets too close to an election.  It's just logistically impossible to do that.  So at the end of the day, you know, we're trying to gain compliance but we have to do so in a manner that's practical.  You know, we could have ordered, we could have demanded that every state agree to it by Election Day this year.  But if that was not feasible, they would have never signed the agreement.  No court probably would have ordered it, given that it was not practical.

So at the end of the day, we have to enter agreements that will work and that can be enforced.

QUESTION:  And at what point do you bring sanctions or find a state to be incompliant, because if it just keeps -- if a state comes back and says, it's just not feasible, we just can't do it, and --

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Some of those will ring hollow after a while, because other states are doing it.  And if you set a sufficient time table and you know, negotiating ex ante, what that time table will be and they agree to it, that is pretty good basis to believe that they can accomplish it if they work towards it.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  Right.  The Congress did give the states several billion dollars to come into compliance with HAVA.  And there is a separate accounting mechanism that is not under our direct responsibility.  Some of the states may have to write a check for -- have to return the funds.  And there's a complicated formula in HAVA, in the act itself, and the EAC is responsible for that.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIAL:  This is the last question.

QUESTION:  Can you just help with an example or two of a state where you are going to be deploying more monitors because of the closeness of the race?  The senate races in New Jersey, Virginia, Missouri --

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  Well, I mean, there are going to be a lot of close races, or so I hear from you guys.

QUESTION:  -- people are keying on --

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  And we will release the complete list on Monday.  And the bottom line, as you know, we're looking first and foremost for possible violations of federal voting law.  It is a factor as to whether our monitors may help bring some assurance to a close race.  And we will be releasing a complete list of those on Monday.

QUESTION:  Do the jurisdictions already know that they are going to be monitored?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  With some jurisdictions, we've actually contacted them because, obviously, we want to negotiate whether we can send monitors there.  With some jurisdictions, we have the ability to send observers, but we typically give them a call anyway, just out of courtesy, to let them know that a person will be on the ground --

QUESTION:  So, in other words, they're not going to be surprised on Monday that someone is going to show up?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KIM:  They should not be surprised, no.  I mean, you know, at the end of the day, we do try to work cooperatively with our state and local partners.

Happy Halloween.

2:55 P.M.