On April 1, the House Committee on Administration's Subcommittee on Elections held a hearing on state-level implementation of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), in particular a provision that was designed to enable low-income Americans to register to vote more readily. According to testimony by witnesses at the hearing, many states are not offering voter registration at public assistance agencies and are failing to live up to the promise of the NVRA to provide more equal access to the opportunity to vote. In 1993, the U.S. Congress passed the NVRA — also known as the "Motor Voter Act" — in order "to enhance voting opportunities for every American." The law is well known for mandating that voter registration be made available when people apply for or renew their drivers' licenses. Section 7 of the act requires that voter registration applications be made available at all state agencies offering public assistance programs including Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and Medicaid, and at state offices providing services to persons with disabilities.

Michael Slater, Deputy Director of Project Vote, a nonprofit organization that promotes voter registration and voting to Americans historically underrepresented in the electorate, testified at the hearing on Project Vote's recent evaluation of Section 7 implementation. According to Project Vote's extensive analysis, Slater testified,

Voter registration at public assistance agencies has plummeted from 2.6 million in 1995-1996 to just 550,000 in 2005-2006, a 79 percent decrease. This decline cannot be explained by a decline in public assistance caseloads, the rate of citizenship among applicants, or registration rates of low-income individuals….the evidence points overwhelmingly to chronic and pervasive non-compliance by states.

Lisa J. Danetz of Demos, a nonpartisan public policy center focused on expanding democratic participation, affirmed Slater's testimony that registration is not being offered at public agencies in many states. In her testimony, Danetz reflected on the possible causes of the breakdown at the state agencies, saying, "This is not necessarily because of a deliberate effort to defy the law; it may just be that a lack of consistent oversight and training combined with high level of staff turnover at agencies has caused the issue to fall off the radar screen in many places."

According to the law, the Justice Department (DOJ) is responsible for enforcing the NVRA. Despite evidence of widespread noncompliance, however, the DOJ has only brought one lawsuit against a state for failure to implement Section 7 of the NVRA. In 2002, DOJ sued the state of Tennessee for not offering registrations as required by law. Danetz testified that as a result of the court order that followed, Tennessee implemented changes that led to a significant increase in voter registration at public agencies. The number of registrations at these locations nearly quadrupled. At the hearing, Subcommittee Chair Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) noted that the committee planned to send an inquiry to DOJ on the matter of Section 7 enforcement.

Two witnesses at the April 1 hearing testified on the challenges and benefits of implementing Section 7 at the state level. Their statements supported the claim by voting rights advocates that better state enforcement of Section 7 could have enormous impact on the number of citizens registered to vote. North Carolina's Chief Deputy Director of the State Board of Elections, Johnnie McLean, outlined North Carolina's efforts to improve voter registration at public assistance agencies. North Carolina instituted a program to reform its Section 7 implementation efforts after discovering that registrations at these locations had fallen by nearly 75 percent, despite increases in welfare rolls during that time.

McLean was asked by Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) why she believes state agencies are neglecting their Section 7 duties. McLean responded, "Many state employees probably do not realize that it's a federal mandate."

The Civic Engagement Project Manager for the Michigan Department of Human Services, Catherine Truss, also testified on Michigan's efforts to comply with Section 7. Truss testified that the state of Michigan sees real value in ensuring that public agencies offer voter registrations, saying,

We believe that feeling as if your vote does not count or that your opinion does not matter is a significant barrier to self-sufficiency… Compliance with the National Voter Registration Act is not just another federal mandate; it is a key component for families to act on their own behalf and become part of the public debate.

A senior policy analyst from the Heritage Foundation, David B. Muhlhausen, countered the assertions by the other witnesses that states are neglecting to implement Section 7. Referencing forthcoming data, Muhlhausen argued that two explanations better account for the decline in Section 7 registrations: one, that "voter registration drives by community mobilization organizations replaced the need for welfare recipients to register at public assistances offices," and two, "that welfare reform caused the decline in registrations."

Recent research by Project Vote and Demos — documented in their report Unequal Access: Neglecting the National Voter Registration Act — contradicts Muhlhausen's explanations. In regard to Muhlhausen's claim that demand for voter registration by low-income Americans has been met by mobilization organizations, the report finds that millions of low-income Americans remain unregistered in spite of the registration efforts of nonprofits and other organizations. In 2006, 13 million, or 40 percent, of voting-age citizens earning under $25,000 were unregistered. The Unequal Access report also addresses Muhlhausen's second argument that declines in state welfare caseloads led to the decrease in Section 7 registrations. The report asserts that although figures vary by state, the trend of decreasing caseloads generally reversed itself in the first years of this decade. For example, more adults are receiving assistance under the Food Stamps Program than in the 1990s.