under a general conceptual agreement with Indiana's validity portion of its election statute.

It has been indicated time and time again that Indiana's law is confusing and extreme.

I will submit for the record a congressional research service examination of the mandatory validity requirements of all States. It is interesting to note that just in this general area, Texas and Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin have provisions, if not identical, virtually identical to Indiana.

It is not unusual to allow voters to feel that there is some reason to believe that the vote they cast will not be tainted by votes of others, and whatever procedure the State adopts, I think it is reasonable that if there is no fraud, no irregularities charged, if there are no petitions under the Federal Contested Elections Act, that the results of the election stand.

That is not the case, however, in Indiana's Eighth. On a straight partisan vote, the gentleman who held the certificate was denied. I think it is almost totally ironic that after all the allegations about the inadequacies of Indiana election law, that after having recounted under the task force's rules, the largest county in the district, Vanderburgh County, that after reexamining over 70,000 votes, that the net shift from election night was five.

I would submit that anywhere in the United States when you change the rules under which the ballots would count as significantly as we have, and you have only a net difference of 5 out of 70,000, and in fact 2 of those are individuals who were not counted election night because their ballots were never pulled out of the gray protection envelopes, simple minor mechanical errors, that all of the trashing of the State of Indiana, of the local officials and of the State official and the partisan venom generated by this election is not only needless, tragically, it was totally unnecessary.

I am glad that we are here in Indiana to hear from those folks who have been involved, because, frankly, based on the way you have been described in Washington, there is an awful lot of curiosity because you folks certainly are different from the way in which you have been pictured, than anywhere else.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be here, and I look forward to hearing from these people who have been accused for a myriad of crimes, not recorded, of course—no fraud, no irregularities.

We are not questioning Indiana law and not questioning the character of anyone who represents Indiana law, but if that is the case, why in the world are we here?

[The following information was subsequently filed for the record:]

removal of ballot stub by election judge. § 15.15.260 --punch - card voting system

ballot. § 16-580 E.

--election judge initials back of ballot and writes voter's number in blank space on ballot.

--comparing precinct identification on the header card against that of the envelope. $ 15.20.680.

:

PAPER BALLOTS

STATE BALLOT AUTHENTICATION PROVISIONS

Kentucky --after voting a paper ballot, a voter removes the numbered stub, hands the stub to an election official, and deposits the voted ballot in the ballot box. § 117.225.

ELECTRONIC VOTING BALLOTS

--ballot cards have two attached perforated stubs on

which is printed the same serial number. § 3-2-4-4(d).
--the top stub is stapled in the package of ballot cards
and is retained by the election officers. And the
second stub has the name of the governmental unit
holding the election printed on it. $3-2-4-4(d).
--the seond stub is removed by the election officer before
the ballot acrd is deposited in the ballot box. § 3-2-4-4
(d).
--the precinct number or designation shall be printed on
the ballot card. $3-2-4-4(d).