Democracy Blog
07/24/2008
Same Day Registration Delivers Over 300,000 Primary Votes
by Stuart Comstock-Gay
Primary-day registrants numbered 210,039 in Wisconsin and 61,712 in New Hampshire. These figures accounted for 13.8 percent and 7 percent, respectively, of total votes cast there. Montana allows Election Day Registration at the county seat, rather than polling places. Nevertheless, 8,189 voters took advantage of EDR on June 3, despite the limitation. Montana's last-in-the-nation primary, typically coming long after presidential candidates have clinched party nominations, was critical this year in determining the Democratic nominee.
Same Day Registration made its debut in the North Carolina presidential primary on May 8; 22,293 Tar Heel residents took advantage, registering and voting at the state's 'one-stop' early voting sites. The early voting sites were opened for a 16-day period, closing on the Saturday before Election Day.
The evidence from Wisconsin suggests that EDR is particularly beneficial for young people - a highly mobile voting bloc. Voters under 25 years old made up 74,846 of Wisconsin's primary day registrants, accounting for over 35 percent of the total. Age-specific voting data is not available for the other EDR states.
The high rate of SDR usage in the primaries, and heightened public interest in this year's presidential election, suggest an important role for Same Day Registration in the November balloting. States offering EDR historically boast a 10-12 point higher turnout rate than non-EDR states. Watch for voter turnout increases in Iowa and North Carolina, the two newest EDR/SDR states.
More on Election Day / Same Day Registration | More National blogs
07/24/2008
Election Day, the Movie
by Regina Eaton
Katy Chevigny and P.O.V. are encouraging community organizers, educational institutions, and youth organizers to host screenings and discussions in their communities. Visit their website for details.
More on Voter Education | More National blogs
07/22/2008
Demos, other Voting Rights Groups Urge VA Secretary Peake to Encourage Voter Registration at VA Facilities
by Steven Carbó
The national voting rights groups-in conjunction with their grassroots state-based chapters around the country-also sent letters to chief election officials in each state, calling on them to request that the VA agree to the designation of its offices and facilities in their states as voter registration agencies.
The VA has recently taken other steps that restrict voter registration opportunities for America's veterans. On May 5, 2008, the Veterans Health Administration issued Directive 2008-025, prohibiting all voter registration drives at its medical facilities and raising legal barriers to activities by nonpartisan voter registration groups like the League of Women Voters. U.S. Senators Feinstein, Kerry and Akaka, and 20 Secretaries of State have separately called on VA Secretary Peake to rescind the new Directive and help veterans register to vote.
More on Nat'l Voter Registration Act | More National blogs
07/18/2008
Victory for Public Assistance Clients and National NVRA Campaign: Federal Court Orders MO to Offer Voter
by Allegra Chapman
The Order was the latest success in a four-year national campaign to ensure states comply with the NVRA's requirement that states offer voter registration in public assistance agencies. It came on the heels of a July 9 preliminary injunction hearing where Demos, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and Dewey LeBouef LLP presented evidence for the plaintiffs.
More on Nat'l Voter Registration Act | More Missouri blogs
07/10/2008
Illinois Takes Steps Toward Election Day Registration: Study Commission Hears Expert Testimony on EDR
by Regina Eaton
The June 25 discussion primarily focused on the cost of EDR, maintaining the integrity of election results, and the overall management of voter registration on Election Day. The Wisconsin panelists explained how Milwaukee, the largest EDR municipality in the country, and the state of Wisconsin have successfully administered Election Day Registration for 34 years. They also spoke with great pride about being one of the nation's highest voter-turnout states, which they in part attributed to EDR. The Cook County Clerk also voiced support for EDR and eagerness to work with the commission to explore ways for its implementation in Illinois. Demos informed the Commission about states' rising interest in Election Day Registration as a means of increasing voter turnout and bring new people into the process, especially younger citizens. Eaton and the Wisconsin representatives also invited commission members and other interested parties to observe EDR first-hand during Wisconsin's September 9 state primary election. Demos has facilitated similar, well-received sites visits to other Election Day Registration states in the past.
More on Election Day / Same Day Registration | More Illinois blogs
06/20/2008
Attacks on EDR Continue
by Stuart Comstock-Gay
"Same day voter registration presents the single greatest threat to the validity of our elections."While there are many threats to our elections, EDR is not one of them. The statement was part of a press release in which he announced a Pancakes and Politics breakfast meeting where he wanted to talk about critical topics including English as the official language, energy policy and combating voter fraud in Iowa.
It is disappointing that, even though evidence continues to show that EDR does not contribute to voter fraud (the fear of which is largely a political tool anyway), some continue to use EDR as a whipping boy. Fortunately, Iowa has developed a strong and careful implementation for EDR, and we expect the state to be as successful with its EDR implementation as are the rest of the EDR states.
More on Election Day / Same Day Registration | More Iowa blogs
05/29/2008
Adult Education Students and Civic Activism
by Stuart Comstock-Gay
More on Civic Participation | More National blogs
05/10/2008
Why Couldn't Nuns Vote in Indiana?
by Johanna Novales
This story has sparked quite a discussion on the Election Law listserv. The Associated Press reports:
About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow bride of Christ because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph. Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters at Saint Mary's Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.
Members of the listserv criticized the nuns for not getting photo ID or applying for an absentee ballot; in response, Demos' Brenda Wright replied:
Like other people of limited resources, the nuns no doubt did not know that they are no longer permitted to vote in person on election day if they lack one of the few forms of photo ID now required in Indiana; they did not have the necessary ID (even though "everyone" must have photo ID because after all it's needed when flying, or at liquor stores, or to enter courthouses -- and "everyone" engages in those activities, right?); and the pollworker at their polling place did not receive necessary training. They are on the outskirts, to some degree, of normal society.Yet they were fully eligible voters who lost the opportunity to vote. Yes, if they were better educated about voting requirements and the changes that can be imposed whenever a legislative majority chooses; more attuned to the middle-class world in which most of us exist; and in possession of greater or even "normal" material resources, they might not have lost the opportunity to vote. Was it partly "their fault" for not becoming better educated about voting requirements, more attuned to middle-class existence, more materially sophisticated? In some accounts (social Darwinism?), yes. The fact that they did not surmount these obstacles and therefore did not get to cast their votes, however, is a real cost to our democracy. Other fully qualified voters who lack photo IDs undoubtedly stayed home too, but are not featured in news articles. Those lost voters, too, are a cost to the ideal of a fully representative democracy.
According to news accounts, the sisters are in their 80s and 90s. They are similar, no doubt, to the sisters who attend the parish church that I attend in MA. It's not guaranteed to them (or to any of us) that the opportunity to vote in another election will present itself, even if they go out and obtain the necessary ID after this disappointing experience. Again, it's a cost to our democracy -- in my view not an insignificant one -- that they did not overcome the obstacles to voting in this election.
More on Voter ID | More Indiana blogs
05/02/2008
EDR Update
by Stuart Comstock-Gay
Legislatures in both Massachusetts and Hawaii continue to weigh Election Day Registration measures. Demos continues to monitor and support these efforts. The Massachusetts bill would implement EDR for the 2008 and 2010 general elections, after which the Secretary of State would prepare a report recommending EDR's continuation or elimination. The Hawaii EDR bill carries a 2010 implementation date. Election Day Registration proposals have been introduced in 27 states this year--including legislation to limit or eliminate EDR in three states where it is currently offered (Maine, Wisconsin, and Iowa). As previously reported here, West Virginia passes a measure to study and makes recommendations on EDR in advance of the 2009 legislative session.
Meanwhile, Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MI), and Representative Keith Ellison (D-MI), have introduced legislation in Congress to require Election Day Registration for all federal elections. The bill's introduction comes days after the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana voter ID law that seriously impedes the ability of elderly and low-income Americans to vote. Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Jon Tester (D-MT), who represent states that recently enacted Election Day Registration, are also cosponsors of the bill.
Read Demos' Statement in response to the introduction of the Federal EDR Bill.
More on Election Day / Same Day Registration | More National blogs
05/02/2008
Public Assistance Agency Registrations and Same Day Registration Could Be Decisive in North Carolina Primary
by Steven Carbó
North Carolina's May 6th primary election is gearing up to be a pivotal contest in the 2008 presidential race. Two policy reforms that Demos helped enact have added tens of thousands of new voters to the rolls, many of them low-income citizens. These new voters could prove decisive in determining which candidates will be on the presidential ballot in November.
At the prompting of Demos and our partners in the NVRA Implementation Project, North Carolina's State Board of Elections began "re-implementing" voter registration opportunities at public assistance offices early last year, as required under Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. At least 34,400 voter registration applications were subsequently submitted at public assistance offices between February 2007 and February 2008--an average of 2,873 per month. In contrast, the state had logged only 11,607 voter registrations at public assistance offices during the entire preceding two years, an average of only 484 per month. The state's implementation of our recommended best practices has led to an almost six-fold increase in the number of clients registering to vote at public assistance offices.
Same Day Registration (SDR) is also expanding the North Carolina electorate. As of April 30, 2008, 25,000 North Carolinians had registered and voted at the state's in-person early voting sites, open from 19 to three days before each election, as provided for in SDR legislation enacted last year. Above-average turnout is expected among groups of voters who tend to vote at lower rates (i.e., 18-25 year olds, African Americans, the poor and those who have moved in the last six months). A new Demos report, How Same Day Registration Became Law in North Carolina, attributes enactment of SDR in 2007 to new political leadership in the North Carolina General Assembly; the support of influential election officials; and a strong, unified coalition of advocates and organizers.
Arriving at an electorate that is broadly representative of the country has been an enduring challenge for American democracy. Expanded voter registration opportunities at public assistance agencies and in-person early voting sites are broadening the base of North Carolina voters and amplifying their voices in the decisive presidential election this year.
More on Election Day / Same Day Registration | More North Carolina blogs
04/30/2008
Photo ID Ruling is Bad Law and Policy
by Steven Carbó
The Supreme Court's decision this week to uphold one of the nation's most onerous voter identification laws in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board marked a sharp departure from the constitutional tradition of recognizing voting as a fundamental right. The ruling upholds a statute that will burden many of Indiana's eligible voters, especially people of color, the poor and elderly voters-those least likely to have access to photo ID. Plaintiffs' arguments of the dearth of evidence of voter impersonation at the polls--the only type of fraud affected by a photo ID requirement--were generally glossed over. And, as Justice Souter pointed out in his dissent, such impersonation is relatively easy to detect. The ability to uncover such fraud is underscored by the likelihood that it would be perpetrated by large and highly visible entities like political campaigns and parties--an observation for which Souter cited Securing the Vote, An Analysis of Election Fraud, a 2003 Demos report, as authority. Barnard College Professor and Demos Senior Fellow Lorraine Minnite updated her voter fraud study In November 2007.
Looking beyond Crawford's legal implications, the Court's decision clearly did not establish that restrictive photo ID requirements are good policy. Rushing to enact such restrictive new laws would lead to longer lines at the polls, a massive surge in provisional balloting, and greater costs for pollworker training. It would also invite prolonged litigation through as-applied challenges to voter ID laws, a legal avenue left open by the Court.
In response to the Court's opinion, Newsday's Opinion Staff weighed in, declaring that the "decision marks a disturbing about-face for an institution that in the past has been an important defender of voters' rights." Click here to read the entire post.
More on Voter ID | More Indiana blogs
04/30/2008
Lawsuit Filed Against Missouri Agencies for Failure to Offer Voter Registration
by Allegra Chapman
Recent data suggests a serious drop off in Missouri's compliance with the law. Although over 140,000 clients registered to vote in DSS offices in 1995-1996, after the NVRA went into effect, registrations there had fallen to 15,568 by 2005-2006. Such precipitous decline can not be explained by a drop in public assistance activity. While DSS received 238,699 food stamp applications in FY 1995, over 300,000 applications were processed in FY 2006.
The empirical evidence of non-compliance is buttressed by surveys at public assistance offices and client interviews conducted by ACORN. Plaintiffs found that almost no client had been offered voter registration in four of the state's largest cities and counties. Voter registration applications were not even available at three offices. The combined failure of DSS to offer voter registration and of Missouri elections boards to properly supervise voter registration activity resulted in 100,000 eligible, low-income citizens not being added to Missouri's voter rolls.
ACORN and the individual plaintiff seek declaratory relief and preliminary and permanent injunctions, directing that defendants take all necessary measures to remedy past harms, including proper reporting and monitoring.
More on Nat'l Voter Registration Act | More Missouri blogs
04/26/2008
Recent Democracy-Related Audio and Video Highlights
by Johanna Novales
Two recent appearances of note:
Via YouTube, Lorraine Minnite testifying before the House Judiciary Committee about voter suppression.
And secondly: Scott Novakowski speaks on KCPW radio about registering low-income voters in Utah.
More on Election Reform (General) | More National blogs
04/22/2008
Voter Story in Pennsylvania
by Allison Fine
There will be a lot going on in Pennsylvania today with the death match between Obama and Clinton coming down to the wire. A huge turnout and lots of new voters are expected which is always worrisome in large states like PA with lots of different municipalities (the Pittsburgh area has the largest number of unique municipalities in one county, Alleghany, in the country) all with their own machinery and rules. There will be a lot of commentary on who voted for whom, but there is another, smaller story worth watching, and that is what happens to the machinery tomorrow.
The folks at Why Tuesday have been provided a heads up that several Pennsylvania counties are using Sequoia Voting Systems electronic voting machine. These are the same machines that failed dramatically in the New Jersey primary on Super Tuesday in February. The vulnerabilities of these machines have been well publicized by computer science professors Ed Felton and Andrew Appel at Princeton. Appel bought five used Sequoia machines last year at a government auction to explore their guts. Wired Magazine has an account of what Appel learned once he had thoroughly explored the Sequoia machines:
Appel says he opened the machines with a key that came with them, and was able to easily access the machines' motherboards and memory chips to swap them out. But even without the key, a student of his was able to pick the lock in seven seconds. He says that even seals wouldn't thwart a hacker because they're easily counterfeited, and many counties fail to use and track them properly -- as evidenced by recent reports out of Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
But none of this is really news, is it? We've come to expect human error coupled with crummy machines on Election Day. But, here's the real story for tomorrow, Voter Story.
I've been watching voter hotline efforts mature and scale over the past few years. The idea behind Voter Story is that rather than rely on news reports or even blogs about what's happening on Election Day at the polls, voters can call comment using a form on Voter Story (on its website or through its widgets that are freely distributed). Partners groups working to public Voter Story include VoterAction, Committee of Seventy, NAACP Voter Fund and the National Lawyers Committee for Election Protection.
Rob Stuart, the brains behind Voter Story, also told me that he is working with the League of Women Voters of PA to get the word out about Voter Story.
Voter Story is important on two levels. Local voter assistance organizations will be using the data in real time to pinpoint problems across the state and make state officials aware of them as well as help individuals access the ballot. After the election, geeks like me will be able to use the data to get a broader, data-based picture of what the problems areas were across the state.
We can hope that tomorrow's vote runs smoothly across Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, there are systemic reasons why that won't happen. Let's read about the story as it unfolds in real time at Voter Story.
(Originally posted at Personal Democracy Forum)
More on Voting Machines | More Pennsylvania blogs
04/13/2008
Silencing the Poor: The Neglect of the National Voter Registration Act
by Scott Novakowski
As the nation is preparing for the 2008 presidential election, a recent report by Demos and Project Vote -- two non-partisan voting rights organizations -- reveals that states across the nation are failing to register low-income voters in public assistance agencies as required by the National Voter Registration Act. Unequal Access: Neglecting the National Voter Registration Act, 1995-2007 documents the dramatic national decline in voter registration applications from public assistance agencies since initial implementation of the law in 1995. Statistical analysis and field investigations confirm that this drop is largely due to states' failure to comply with the law.
Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) in 1993 to "increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office." Recognizing that unfair and discriminatory registration laws had a detrimental effort on democratic participation, Congress sought to dramatically reduce barriers to voter registration. In addition to the law's well-known "motor voter" provision requiring voter registration to be offered at motor vehicle departments, Section 7 of the NVRA requires states to offer voter registration at all offices providing public assistance benefits. Specifically, offices administering Food Stamps, Medicaid, TANF, and WIC must provide the opportunity to register to all individuals applying for, recertifying, or changing their address with respect to benefits.
Unfortunately registrations from public assistance agencies have declined by 79 percent since initial implementation of the law, from over 2.5 million registrations in 1995-1996 to only 540,000 in 2005-2006. This decline occurred despite the fact that average caseloads for programs such as Food Stamps have increased during this time and 13 million low-income citizens remained unregistered in 2006. Furthermore, recent field investigations and surveys of clients outside public assistance agencies on over a half-dozen states found numerous instances where voter registration was not being offered as required by the NVRA. At the same time, there remains a striking income gap in registration rates between the rich and the poor: In 2006, only 60 percent of citizens in households making less than $25,000 a year were registered to vote compared to 80 percent of those in households making over $100,000.
Fortunately, experience indicates that when state election and public assistance officials take steps to improve their Section 7 voter registration programs, the number of low-income citizens registering to vote in these offices increases dramatically. For example, after working with Demos and our partners, North Carolina's State Board of Elections advised agencies of their responsibilities, identified NVRA coordinators in each agency office, enhanced the training program, and instituted a system for tracking and monitoring agency compliance. As a result, public assistance agencies experienced a five-fold increase in the average number of clients completing voter applications each month -- from 484 to 2,529. Between January and August 2007, the state's agencies registered over 20,000 low-income citizens -- more than these agencies registered in the preceding two years combined. States such as Iowa and Tennessee have also seen tremendous gains in agency registrations after improving their procedures.
State election and public assistance officials are encouraged to follow the lead of North Carolina and Iowa and voluntarily commit to adopting "best practices" in agency registration to bring them into compliance with the law.
For states that refuse to implement the law, litigation is the only option to secure compliance. Demos and our partners are currently involved in litigation against state officials in Ohio over their compliance with the law and four other states -- Arizona, Florida, Missouri, and New Mexico -- have received 90-day notice letters, the first step in the litigation process. In addition to legal actions by private individuals or groups, the NVRA also provides the Department of Justice with authority to enforce the law through litigation. Indeed, the Department of Justice was an active participant in enforcing the law in the early 1990s. More recently, however, the Department has largely ignored violations of the law despite being repeatedly presented with evidence by Demos and other advocates as well as members of Congress.
Members of Congress are in a unique position to encourage improvements in their states and to hold the Department of Justice responsible for its lax enforcement of the law. Demos calls on the Congress to hold oversight hearings on the Department's failure to enforce the law. Oversight hearings held last fall led to the Department making an initial attempt at enforcement. It is essential that Congress continue exercising their oversight role to ensure that the Department actively investigates Section 7 non-compliance and holds states accountable for their failures to implement the law.
Full implementation of the NVRA is a proven and effective way to ensure low-income citizens are able to register to vote. Thirteen years after it was first to be implemented, the time has come to realize the full promise of the National Voter Registration Act.
(Originally posted at The Hill.)
More on Nat'l Voter Registration Act | More National blogs
04/13/2008
Hearing Highlights Mixed Compliance, DoJ Inaction on Public Assistance Voter Registration Requirement
by Steven Carbó
Americans will be presented with far-reaching choices this November as we vote in presidential and congressional races. Sadly, millions of low-income citizens likely won't be participating in those elections for the simple reason that they won't be registered to vote. Many states have in recent years failed to offer voter registration to food stamp, WIC, Medicaid, and TANF applicants and recipients, as required since 1995 under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), Section 7.
Today, the House Elections Subcommittee is convening a hearing to investigate what's gone wrong with NVRA compliance and what can be done to turn things around before November. Demos, Project Vote, and representatives from North Carolina and Michigan will testify. Collectively, they will show how tremendous voter registration increases can be achieved through enlightened state leadership and strong public-private partnerships.
The income gap among the American electorate weighed heavily in Congress when it enacted the NVRA. It directed that voter registration be offered at public assistance offices, as at departments of motor vehicles and through the mails, so that low-income and disabled Americans who are less likely to own cars would not be disadvantaged by a strictly DMV-based system.
At first -- and after a string of unsuccessful legal challenges to the statute -- the agency registration provisions of the law produced results. Millions of new voters were added to the registration rolls in the first few years of NVRA implementation. But over time, changes in state administrations, turnover at state agencies, and lagging enforcement by the Department of Justice took a toll. The number of voter registration applications generated by public assistance agencies has declined by 79 percent since the initial implementation of the law. While more than 2.6 million such applications were recorded in 1995-1996, only 540,000 were reported in 2005-2006. Recent investigations by Demos, Project Vote and other groups in numerous states found local public benefits offices not offering voter registration to agency applicants and clients, the lack of on-site voter registration applications, staff who were entirely unaware of the obligation to offer voter registration, and other failures to follow the law.
These declines can be reversed. Working in partnerships with Demos and its allies, North Carolina has implemented a comprehensive compliance plan that has achieved dramatic results. While the state registered only 11,600 persons at public assistance agencies in a recent two-year period (2005-2006), North Carolina has registered over 34,500 persons from February 2007 to February 2008, the first year of North Carolina's re-implementation program. Iowa witnessed an astounding 3000 percent increase in agency registration after it implemented a similar initiative in 2004. Substantial gains will likely be seen in Michigan after the state Department of Human Services rolls out a new civic engagement program at its public benefits offices.
Even greater voter registration gains might be achieved if recent interest in NVRA enforcement by the Department of Justice proves sincere. After years of near-hibernation, the DOJ issued letters to 13 states last August 2007 inquiring into their compliance with the NVRA's requirements for registration at public assistance agencies. This followed years of studied neglect of the issue by DOJ; evidence of state disregard of the law presented to the Justice Department by Demos and allied organizations in 2004, and raised in a 2005 letter by 30 Members of Congress to then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, was roundly ignored. Recent congressional pressure and controversy over the politicization of the Justice Department may have prompted a change of heart at the DOJ.
The promise of the National Voter Registration Act has not yet been achieved. Millions of low-income Americans have been unable to exercise the most fundamental right and responsibility of citizenship because of states' failure to make voter registration readily available at public benefit agencies. Nevertheless, the strong compliance programs and best practices developed in North Carolina, Iowa and Michigan are encouraging signs of the gains that can be achieved. Given the political will -- or, if needed, the threat of litigation -- other states can follow their lead and help every American access the vote, regardless of income or wealth.
(Originally posted at The Hill on April 1.)
More on Nat'l Voter Registration Act | More National blogs
04/08/2008
Nader Trader Lawsuit Finally Concludes
by Steven Carbó
The Ninth Circuit confirmed an important First Amendment victory for operators and users of political websites, denying California's petition for rehearing en banc in Porter v. Bowen. The order left standing an August 2007 ruling by a three-judge panel that the First Amendment protects so-called "vote-swapping" websites from threats of criminal prosecution by government officials.
The dispute dates back to the 2000 presidential election. Vote-swapping websites--dubbed "Nader-Trader" sites by some--sprang up in the last few weeks of the election cycle as the polls tightened and the impact of third-party voters in closely contested "swing" states became a prominent part of the public debate. The websites, which represented one of the first broad-scale uses of the Internet for political association in a presidential campaign, provided information about the Electoral College and the competitiveness of the major-party races around the country. They also offered a forum in which third-party supporters in swing states could strategize with major-party voters in "safe" states about agreeing to "swap" their votes to avoid handing the election to their least-preferred candidate. The sites were used in particular by many voters who were concerned that a vote for Nader would swing the election to George Bush in a particular state.
Then-California Secretary of State Bill Jones sent letters to some of the website operators, threatening them with criminal prosecution for facilitating what he termed "vote-buying"--even though no money or other economic benefit ever changed hands and the website users were solely engaged in strategizing to reach their political goals. These operators, and others who learned of the letter, promptly disabled their websites out of fear of prosecution. As a result, thousands of voters were denied the opportunity to make contact with like-minded citizens around the country.
Together with the ACLU of Southern California, Demos represented operators of two of the affected websites, as well as two voters who were prevented from using the websites after the shutdown. Download the ruling here.More on New Ideas about Election Reform | More California blogs
03/31/2008
Voting Is Broken. Can The Web Fix It?
by Allison Fine
Voting, in some form or another, is on the minds and screens of Americans everywhere during this election year. As everyone knows it's American Idol season and millions of Americans are voting by phone and text messaging for their favorites. However, in spite of the great interest in and high turnout for the presidential primaries on the Democratic side, the voting system -- the mechanics that should allow for an easy and secure one-person-one-vote process, a system that the government has invested $4 billion since the debacle in 2000 -- continues to be broken. Early registration deadlines and expensive machinery that continues to freeze, lose votes, and confound voters doesn't work well. And in the case of Michigan and Florida, a political party is on the road to intentionally disenfranchising its own voters, a situation complicated by the politics of the death match for delegates between Senators Obama and Clinton, but also, as reported here, the Herculean logistics and costs associated with revoting. At the same time, quietly and efficiently, a quiet revolution in voting is happening in unexpected places.
One of the most exciting efforts is the unfolding Make It Your Own Awards sponsored by The Case Foundation. In 2006, The Case Foundation commissioned a paper by Cynthia Gibson entitled Citizens at the Center. The premise of the paper, which like all good ideas is very simple in retrospect, is that solutions for community problems need to come from local citizens who are supported by local advocacy or service organizations. Based on this idea, The Case Foundation created a grant initiative that would be completely transparent and democratic, two words rarely associated with philanthropy in the past. Here's how Cynthia Gibson describes the Make it Your Own Initiative: "What we were trying to do through Make It Your Own Awards is to make operational two notions. The first, to show what citizen-centered efforts, which are very difficult to define but are taking place all across the country, really look like. The second, to show how philanthropy, which has traditionally operated as a black box, can actually involve 'real people,' the ones who derive significant tax benefit, in their efforts."
Community-based groups submitted online applications aiming to be one of the four $25,000 winners. More than four times the number of applications than the foundation expected were received, 4,641 to be exact. Using an American Idol-like winnowing process, the foundation enlisted 100 experts to narrow the number of applicants to 20 finalists. These finalists each received $10,000. And now the fun part: the public voting (you can vote here) begins and lasts until April 22nd.
Created by HZ Design, this election site is pleasing visually and very easy to use. With a nod to the wisdom of the crowds, the public will "elect" four winners. Each voter will use a unique email address. To safeguard against skewed results, and a flat out popularity contest, the site rotates the position of the finalists on the screen. The votes will be tallied independently by an outside firm, Election America. As Rich D'Amato of the Case Foundation said, "It's fun and not too difficult, but most of all it's involving people in meaningful ways in selecting the winners."
The Make It Your Own Awards are more than a singular event, and more than a charitable one too. They are a harbinger of voting in this country. It's easy to imagine voting portals like this one that have links to additional information on the people running for election or the ballot initiatives. We already have a wonderful example of online voting during this presidential primary season.
Democrats Abroad, a division of the Democratic National Committee, organized online voting for registered members of the Democratic Party as part of the Super Tuesday primaries. Voters also had the option of voting by fax and mail and in person in some places. My friend Jim, a Democrat living abroad, emailed me, "I had to register with Democrats Abroad before they would let me vote. It was all done by email, and I really wasn't too worried about security."
On February 21st, Democrats Abroad released the results of the first global primary for a presidential election. A little more than 23,000 votes were cast overseas and about half of those votes were made online. For instance, of the 662 votes in Japan, 435 were cast online, in Australia 414 votes were cast, 273 were online. This pattern was repeated in every region around the globe. After he voted, Jim emailed me again, "I logged in to the site with a id number and password that had been emailed me. I was required to submit a US address and agree to be a good democrat." He continued, "In the end I could print a copy for my records, which I didn't, but I'm not so worried that my vote won't be counted this particular time."
If the DNC and state party officials were to really consider a revote in Florida and Michigan, voting online is a safe and tested method that can inexpensively scale elections and allow voters to cast ballots wherever they are and whenever they like during the voting period. It's not new or risky or futuristic; if you look carefully it is happening right now, safely and successfully. Given these examples and the proclivity of people, particularly young people, to use their everyday connecting tools to cast ballots, whether it is for their favorite causes, presidential candidates or the male actor with the cutest eyes, the tools are in place to scale online voting inexpensively and securely.
The complaints and concerns about online voting are as of-repeated as they are untrue. What about fraud?, say the naysayers. This red herring pops up over and again and is repeatedly proven not to exist at any meaningful level (for an excellent study on the myth of voter fraud, click here to read, Securing the Vote: An Analysis of Election Fraud by David Callahan and Lorraine Minnite) why would online voting promote fraud any more than the nonexistent fraud that currently exists? In the case of Democrats Abroad, once a voter was identified as registered, they were sent a unique identifying number and passcode. The Case Foundation is appealing to the better nature of voters by using email addresses as identifiers -- and if voters choose to use more than one email address we know from other voting efforts that it will be balanced out by the rest of the crowd who understand the spirit of the effort. But what about hackers? say the nabobs. Almost 18,000 votes disappeared from a Florida Congressional election in 2006 -- almost 5 percent of the vote total in that race (why is it always Florida?) Election machines were left unsecured and unattended overnight in a very close election in Maryland's 4th District in 2006. All of these problems stem from local tampering, unsecured and unreliable machinery (could there be a better analogy for this Bush Administration than $4 billion spent on new election machinery since 2000 and the results are that voters are less confident of voting outcomes!).
Oh, wait, don't forget the fact that not everyone has online access, say the curmudgeons. Well, actually most Americans do have access (see Pew study here) and those who don't in their homes do at work or at public access points like their public library. An older person said to me the other day, "I do my banking online and that's safe, why shouldn't I vote online?" I am not suggesting that voting only happen online (and those without online access at home can go to a library or vote at work also). We should keep mail-in voting as an alternative. Together the system will be much less expensive than the current broken system.
The solution is happening right now at the Case Foundation's website, overseas with Democratic voters and the myriad other online voting efforts that are seamless, and intuitive for so many people. Online voting offers a clear distinction and alternative to the antiquated rules and troublesome and troubling mechanics of on land voting, a system determined to keep as many people out as in. How much more wasted money on machines that don't work do we have endure until the logical answer, that one sitting right there in front of us, is adopted? Whether naysayers, curmudgeons or skeptics like it or not, online voting will be the 21st century version of the increasing popular absentee ballots and mail-in voting.
(Originally posted at Personal Democracy Forum)
More on New Ideas about Election Reform | More National blogs
02/11/2008
Boston, MA and Lincoln Nebraska papers editorialize for EDR
by Stuart Comstock-Gay
Many Massachusetts residents will miss out on a historic presidential primary today because they failed to meet the proper deadline for registration. Such polling place frustrations could be resolved quickly and higher turnout assured if the Massachusetts Legislature chose to adopt election day registration in time for the November general election.On Friday, the Journal Star weighed in.
We have much more to gain if the Legislature approves Election Day registration, mainly greater participation by those who are the future. Nebraskans should embrace this change.And on Sunday, the Sun Chronicle in Attleborough, Massachusetts also weighed in, saying
The Legislature could further improve turnout in November's general election if it adopts [EDR] legislation that has lingered on Beacon Hill for years.... An opportunity to get more people to exercise their most basic right should not be ignored.Both states - and many more - are still considering bills this session.
More on Election Day / Same Day Registration | More National blogs
02/10/2008
NH EDR turnout - 11.7% of total
by Stuart Comstock-Gay
More on Election Day / Same Day Registration | More New Hampshire blogs
01/15/2008
New Hampshire: Turnout matches enthusiasm because of EDR
by Stuart Comstock-Gay
Since I moved to New Hampshire in 1997, I've loved watching EDR in action. Those of us already registered simply pick up our ballots and vote, while a second line at the polls is set up for Election Day registrants. That line usually has a couple of folks in it. But with the high level of excitement this time, there were always a dozen or more people in that line: high school students, college students home for winter break, adults who'd only recently moved into the state, and others who had neglected to register in the past.
One of my daughters wasn't home from college for Christmas break until after the December 28 deadline for pre-registering. This was her first election ever. She's been following the election for months. In another state, she'd have been out of luck. Not in New Hampshire (or the other EDR states). She registered, and voted. Proudly. She reported a group of new voters from St. Paul's school in Concord debating the merits of McCain vs. Obama. All of them first time voters. I'm sure they may have enjoyed discussing the elections even without a vote - but isn't it better to get young people out voting as soon as they're eligible?
The final tally for New Hampshire shows 527,000 ballots cast in the state - far more than the previous record for a presidential primary of 396,385 in 2000. The Secretary of State hasn't yet released data about how many of them were Election Day registrants, but expect big numbers. And that also means a large turnout of young voters. CIRCLE estimates that 43% of eligible NH young voters (ages 18-29) participated in the primaries.
Now imagine if you're a potential voter in a Super-Duper-Tuesday state. Fourteen of those states have already closed voter registration - including New York (deadline was Friday the 11th!), Missouri (Wednesday the 9th), or New Mexico (January 4th - a full month before the vote and only a day after the media storm generated by the Iowa caucus), and Colorado (folks didn't register with a party by December 4 - two months ahead! - are flat out of luck for those party caucuses.) Check out Demos Fellow Allison Fine's excellent piece on this unfortunate truth. (Voter Registration is Already Closed?)
Perhaps the great turnout in NH, and the closing of the doors in other states, will encourage more states to join the EDR bandwagon in 2009. Let's hope so.
More on Election Day / Same Day Registration | More New Hampshire blogs
11/26/2007
A Fallible 'Fail-Safe' In Utah
by Scott Novakowski
According to a recent news report, voters in Utah were illegally denied provisional ballots in the Ogden, Utah, mayoral race, a contest won by 449 votes. The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah has received complaints from voters who were denied provisional ballots and turned away from the polls after their names ended up on a challenge list circulated by the campaign of incumbent Mayor Matthew Godfrey. For his part, Godfrey also claims that some of his supporters were turned away from the polls without being offered a provisional ballot. The ACLU has launched an investigation into the irregularities.
What all this amounts to is a troubling replay of one of the main problems documented in Demos' new report A Fallible 'Fail-Safe': An Analysis of Provisional Balloting Problems in the 2006 Election. Based on an extensive examination of data reported to a national 800-number hotline coordinated by the non-partisan Election Protection Coalition, the report outlines the failings of so-called "fail-safe" provisional ballots in the November 2006 election.
Under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) states must offer "fail-safe" provisional ballots to all individuals who believe they are registered to vote but whose names do not appear on the rolls, who do not meet identification requirements, or whose eligibility is challenged at the polls. Such ballots are counted if election officials subsequently determine that the individual was a legitimate voter under state law.
There is considerable evidence that so-called "fail-safe" ballots did in fact fail many voters in the 2004 election. Although comprehensive data is not yet available, Demos' new report indicates significant failures in 2006 as well. Many voter registration lists in use on Election Day 2006 were riddled with errors, causing voters who believed that they were registered to be left off the rolls at their polling places. Moreover, poll workers and election officials were still often confused about the proper application of provisional ballots two election cycles after the Help America Vote Act went into effect. As recently happened in Utah, eligible voters were denied provisional ballots while other voters eligible to vote by regular ballot were instead issued a less reliable provisional ballot. In other cases, due to unnecessarily stringent state standards for counting provisional ballots, voters cast provisional ballots that were sure to be discounted thereafter.
Problems in the administration of provisional ballots such as those documented in A Fallible 'Fail-Safe' and the recent election in Utah must be corrected before the 2008 election. A Fallible 'Fail-Safe' offers a set of recommendations to accomplish this goal. Ideally, states will adopt Election Day Registration, a truly "fail-safe" reform that will allow all eligible voters to cast a vote - and have that vote counted - on Election Day.
More on Provisional Ballots | More National blogs
11/15/2007
EDR Gets Congressional hearing
by Stuart Comstock-Gay
More on Election Day / Same Day Registration | More National blogs
11/01/2007
The Failures of 'Fail Safe' Voting
by Scott Novakowski
With Virginia's elections for the General Assembly around the corner, recent media reports indicate that problems with the state's new computerized voter registration system could drive many Virginians to cast provisional ballots on Election Day. While appropriate in some circumstances, provisional ballots should be avoided as a cure-all for Election Day problems. Indeed, those voters who think they are casting a "fail-safe" ballot designed to protect their votes may find that they've in fact been given a placebo ballot.
Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002 (HAVA) in response to the problems that plagued the infamous 2000 presidential election. To ensure that no voter is turned away from the polls on Election Day, HAVA requires that all states provide a "fail-safe" provisional ballot to all voters who believe they are registered to vote but whose names do not appear on the rolls at the polling place or who cannot meet federal or state identification requirements. Such ballots are counted if elections officials subsequently determine that the individual was a legitimate voter under state law.
Unfortunately, HAVA's vague language allows states to adopt unnecessarily stringent requirements for validating a provisional ballot. As a result, provisional ballots fell short of their promise in the 2004 election. In fact, of the almost 2 million provisional ballots cast in the 2004 election - presumably by voters who believed they had registered in a timely fashion - over one in three were rejected. The numbers in Virginia were even worse: of the 4,609 provisional ballots cast in 2004, only 728 or 16 percent were counted. The "fail-safe" had failed.
Problems with provisional ballots generally fall into two broad categories: those that prevent eligible voters from casting a provisional ballot and those that make it virtually impossible for a provisional ballot to be counted. A forthcoming report by Demos documents many problems faced by voters attempting to cast provisional ballots in the 2006 election. For example, in jurisdictions across the country, inadequately trained poll workers failed to offer provisional ballots to voters entitled to them while some poll workers required voters who were eligible to vote by regular ballot to instead cast a provisional ballot.
When a voter whose name is not on the voter rolls is provided with a provisional ballot, that ballot can still be rejected for a number of reasons. One of the most indefensible reasons for rejecting a provisional ballot is that the voter cast the ballot in the wrong precinct. In polling places that contain multiple precincts, an error as simple as getting in the wrong line can leave the voter disfranchised. At least 30 states, including Virginia, will reject a provisional ballot cast in the wrong precinct even if the ballot is cast in the correct jurisdiction and the voter is eligible to vote in all races. Despite the best efforts of the voter to take all appropriate steps to register before an election, an out-of-precinct provisional ballot will be automatically rejected in Virginia.
Our new research also found incidents of poll workers failing to instruct voters on how to correctly complete a provisional ballot. For example, several voters were not informed that they needed to sign the provisional ballot envelope. Such an omission would virtually assure rejection of the ballot.
With Virginia's election fast approaching, we are hopeful that poll workers have received proper training on provisional balloting procedures. Voters must be provided with information about how to ensure that their provisional ballot will be counted - including being directed to their correct precinct and being informed of the process for providing elections officials with any additional information they may need to validate a provisional ballot. Provisional ballots are meant as a last resort. Above all, Virginia election officials should work to ensure the highest possible accuracy in the state's voter lists so that provisional ballots are no longer necessary.
More on Provisional Ballots | More Virginia blogs
10/31/2007
Voting Chief Appears Before House Subcommittee
by Scott Novakowski
John Tanner, Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, appeared yesterday at an oversight hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. Demos and others have suggested for some time that the Voting Section has become politicized and that such politicization has resulted in selective enforcement of voting rights laws.
Prior to the oversight hearing, Demos and Project Vote sent a letter to both Rep. Nadler, Chair of the subcommittee, and Rep. Franks, the ranking member, drawing attention to the Voting Section's selective enforcement of the NVRA and, in particular, the Section's underwhelming response to overwhelming evidence of non-compliance with the public assistance provisions of the National Voter Registration Act. Over the years, Demos and its partners have met with Voting Section officials and sent several detailed memos indicating evidence of widespread non-compliance with the public assistance agency aspects of the NVRA but DOJ has largely failed to act in any substantive way. Instead, the Department has pursued policies seeking to force states to remove voters from their voting rolls.
During the hearing, there were a few notable mentions of selective enforcement of the NVRA (although the majority of the hearing focused on Tanner's bizarre comments on the lifespan of minorities and his decision to override career professionals by pre-clearing the Georgia photo ID law). Rep. Wasserman Schultz of Florida asked why a DOJ case filed in Missouri, which accused the state of failing to remove voters from the rolls - a largely ministerial procedure, was such a priority when that case was dismissed with the judge commenting that DOJ had been unable to produce any evidence of voter fraud. Tanner did not have a clear answer.
In addition, Julie Fernandes from the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights criticized the Department for selective enforcement of the NVRA. She questioned the wisdom of DoJ's initiative to force states to purge voters while ignoring widespread evidence that states are failing to provide access to low-income citizens through public assistance voter registration. Unfortunately, time constraints did not allow her to follow-up on her point.
We hope there is follow-up from the subcommittee in the form of (1) additional questions to Mr. Tanner focusing specifically on his Section's efforts to remove voters from the rolls while doing little to ensure access to those rolls by low-income people and (2) possibly another hearing, as was suggested by Judiciary Committee Chair Conyers.
Video of the hearing is available here
More on Nat'l Voter Registration Act | More National blogs
10/31/2007
Sad Goodbye for CT Democracy Stalwart
by Stuart Comstock-Gay
More on Election Reform (General) | More Connecticut blogs
10/12/2007
California misses chance for EDR
by Stuart Comstock-Gay
More on Election Day / Same Day Registration | More California blogs
10/04/2007
New Paper on Voter ID and Black, Latino, and Asian Voters
by Scott Novakowski
This post is the first in what I hope will be a series summarizing and analyzing recent research on issues of voting rights and election reforms.
"Voter ID Requirements and the Disenfranchisements of Latino, Black and Asian Voters" by Matt A. Barreto, Stephen A. Nuno, and Gabriel R. Sanchez is a unique study using exit poll data to examine the impact of voter identification requirements on minority voters. The data set is unique in that it's collected from 4,346 actual voters in California, New Mexico, and Washington as they left the polls in November 2006. The poll was conducted all day long in the traditional exit poll skip pattern and was available in multiple languages. Among other questions, voters were given a list of possible forms of ID and asked which kind they would be able to produce if necessary to vote. In addition to individual forms of ID such as a driver's license, utility bill, and bank statement among others, a category of "license +1" was created to measure how many respondents have a driver's license or state ID card and at least one additional form of ID. According to the authors, this category mirrors some of the more stringent ID requirements being proposed in legislatures across the nation.
Barreto et al. found that, while 88 percent of the total respondents have a driver's license, only 56 percent had a "license +1." For five of the six forms of ID, Latinos, Asians, Blacks, and immigrants were statistically less likely to have access to ID compared to whites and the native born. While Latinos and Blacks were not less likely to have a driver's license, Latinos, Blacks, Asians, and immigrants were all less likely to have a "license +1." Converting the raw findings into percentages indicates reason for concern:
- Asians and Blacks were over 20 percent less likely than whites to have a "license +1." Latinos were 13 percent less likely, and immigrants were 6.5 percent less likely to have a "license +1" than the native born.
- Asians were 24 percent less likely than whites to have access to a bank statement, Blacks 17 percent less likely, Latinos 17 percent less likely, and immigrants 7 percent less likely than the native born to have access to a bank statement.
- Blacks were 20 percent less likely than whites to have access to a utility bill with name and current address, Asians were 18 percent less likely, Latinos 14 percent, and immigrants 10 percent less likely than the native born.
With little empirical evidence of voter fraud to justify stringent voter ID laws, these findings of this paper strongly suggest that the costs exacted by such laws greatly outweigh any potential benefits.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the American Political Science Association Annual Conference and the full paper is available on the APSA website.
More on Voter ID | More National blogs
09/28/2007
Missouri Violating NVRA Requirements for Voter Registration in Public Assistance Offices
by Brenda Wright
Add Missouri to the list of states on formal notice that they are not complying with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). On August 23, 2007, Demos and Project Vote, representing the community group ACORN, sent a letter of intent to sue the Missouri Department of Social Services (DSS) if the Department does not improve its compliance with the National Voter Registration Act's requirements for offering voter registration in public assistance offices.
The letter to Missouri Social Services Director Deborah Scott describes evidence gathered from state records as well as visits to DSS offices and surveys of DSS clients, all of which demonstrate the state's failure to meet its obligations under the NVRA. Missouri registered only 15,568 voters at public assistance agencies in the most recent reporting period of 2005-2006, compared to over 143,000 registrations when the law first went into effect 12 years ago. A report released simultaneously by Project Vote indicates that this nearly 90 percent decline in registrations cannot be explained by commensurate caseload drops or other possible causes. In addition, surveys of clients leaving public assistance offices show that almost no one is being offered the opportunity to register to vote.
The NVRA, commonly known as the "Motor Voter" law for its requirement that states provide voter registration opportunities when residents apply for drivers' licenses, also requires states to offer voter registration during most transactions at public assistance agencies. Congress included this provision in recognition of the fact that citizens with low incomes are among those least likely to have drivers' licenses. States' failure to comply with this aspect of the NVRA therefore frustrates the NVRA's purpose of making voter registration opportunities broadly available to all eligible citizens.
The notice letter asks the state to outline steps it will take to restore the right of low-income citizens to register to vote at the agencies. "In the absence of such a plan, we will have no alternative but to initiate litigation," the letter states. Under the NVRA, litigation may be commenced against a non-complying state 90 days after a notice letter is sent. Demos, Project Vote, and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law sent a similar letter to New Mexico earlier this year, and are currently engaged in litigation against Ohio on the same issue.
More on Nat'l Voter Registration Act | More Missouri blogs
09/28/2007
Department of Justice Pre-clears North Carolina "Same Day Registration"
by Regina Eaton
The U.S. Department of Justice approved North Carolina's newly-enacted Same Day Registration (SDR) statute on August 16, 2007, paving the way for SDR's implementation in municipal elections this month and next. North Carolinians will be able to both register and vote at early voting sites. With DOJ pre-clearance, North Carolina became the largest and perhaps the most diverse state in the nation to allow eligible citizens to register and vote on the same day.
Registered North Carolina voters have been able to cast their ballots at convenient locations across the state for years - places like shopping malls, libraries and most municipal buildings. These convenient early voting sites open two weeks prior to an election and close the Saturday before Election Day. Forty to fifty percent of voters use the early voting sites in some counties. With Same Day Registration, they will now offer instant registration for those who miss the state's pre-registration deadline.
The challenge now is to educate the public. State elections director Gary Bartlett, an ardent supporter of Same Day Registration, has been working with local advocates and legislators to raise public awareness about the new registration opportunities and help North Carolinians use it. Election reform advocates have produced and are distributing a simple palm card to explain the process.
Unfortunately, big changes take time and this is no exception. The News & Observer, Raleigh's largest newspaper, ran an advisory about this week's voter registration deadline that overlooked the enactment of Same Day Registration and its availability at early voting sites. The good news is that 2007 is an off-year election, giving North Carolina some breathing room to work out SDR's bugs and provide its citizens with an easy, safe and reliable way to participate in the decisive 2008 presidential election.
More on Election Day / Same Day Registration | More North Carolina blogs
09/28/2007
Amici Briefs Support Campaign Reform in North Carolina and San Francisco
by Brenda Wright
In August 2007, Demos joined numerous reform organizations in filing amici curiae briefs in two campaign finance cases raising important issues for reducing the influence of money on politics. In Duke v. Leake, the amici brief supports the constitutionality of North Carolina's public financing program for judicial elections, a program that avoids the difficult conflicts posed by campaign fundraising for judicial office and encourages diverse candidates to run. In Committee on Jobs Candidate Advocacy Fund v. Herrera, the amici brief defends the constitutionality of San Francisco's law limiting to $500 any contributions to political committees making independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates for city office. Thanks to the Campaign Legal Center in Washington, D.C. for preparing both briefs, and to attorney David Waggoner in San Francisco for serving as co-counsel in the San Francisco case.
More on Campaign Finance | More National blogs
09/28/2007
Demos Releases New Voter Fraud Report
by Steven Carbó
The specter of voter fraud unfortunately continues to dominate and distort much of the national debate about fair elections. As an antidote to distorted public discussion, Senior Demos Fellow Lorraine C. Minnite has released An Analysis of Voter Fraud in the United States, adapted and updated from Securing the Vote, released in 2003. The voter fraud discussion has taken on new proportions over the past four years, looming over state and federal debates on voter identification and election reform, the performance of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, and dismissals of U.S. Attorneys. Professor Minnite's new report provides a contemporary overview of domestic voter fraud, explores the matrix of state and federal laws governing the issue, and details recent instances of voter fraud in Miami, FL; Orange County, CA; and St. Louis, MO. She plans a forthcoming book on voter fraud in contemporary American elections.
More on Election Integrity | More National blogs
09/28/2007
EAC Hearing: Improving Agency-Based Voter Registration
by Scott Novakowski
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) in September heard testimony about their responsibilities under the NVRA. Demos Senior Policy Analyst Scott Novakowski testified that the EAC should exercise its authority to improve implementation of the NVRA's public assistance agency provisions. Congress delegated the Federal Election Commission (FEC) authority to adopt regulations concerning the national mail-in voter registration form and with respect to their biennial report to Congress on the impact of the NVRA on federal elections. That authority was transferred to the EAC in 2002. Comments were also presented by Jim Dickson, American Association for People with Disabilities; Myrna Perez, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law; Nancy Tate, League of Women Voters; and David Becker, People for the American Way.
Analyses by Demos and our partners in the NVRA Implementation Project have shown that the number of voter registrations application received from state public assistance agencies has dramatically declined since the NVRA went into effect in 1995. NVRA compliance and enforcement could be significantly improved if the EAC took the simple step of including in its biennial congressional report a list of states that failed to report complete voter registration data as required for the EAC's report. State reporting failures have hamstrung NVRA oversight and enforcement for years. Twenty states failed to provide complete data on public assistance registrations in the most recent reporting period (2005-2006). Several provided no data whatsoever. The EAC should also forward its list of non-reporting states to the U.S. Department of Justice, the federal body charged with enforcing the NVRA.
Demos additionally recommended that the EAC use its authority to issue a set of best practices for voter registration in state public assistance agencies. Our work over the past three years suggests that the implementation of model practices can significantly increase the number of voters being registered in public assistance agencies. After working with Demos and its partners to implement such practices, North Carolina's public assistance agencies registered more voters in seven months of 2007 (almost 19,000 registrations) than they did in the previous two years (11,600 registrations) combined. Click here to read an electionline.org report on the hearing.
More on Nat'l Voter Registration Act | More National blogs
09/09/2007
EDR for New Citizens in CA
by Stuart Comstock-Gay
More on Election Day / Same Day Registration | More California blogs
08/29/2007
Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud in EDR states
by Stuart Comstock-Gay
Professor Minnite's review of nearly 4000 news accounts netted one case of voter impersonation at the polls - a 17 year-old New Hampshire high student who shares his father's name cast his father's ballot in the 2004 Republican presidential primary. An aggressive new Justice Department initiative against voter fraud led to prosecutions in only one EDR state - Wisconsin. Of fourteen Milwaukee residents charged with double voting or casting ballots while disfranchised for felony convictions, five resulted in convictions (for felon voting). And early returns from a survey of 252 prosecutorial jurisdictions in the EDR states turned up two fraud investigations in Minnesota. Charges against four of the eleven individuals suspected of committing fraud were dismissed; seven others received warning letters.
Professor Minnite's research and analysis were derived from her forthcoming book on voter fraud in contemporary American elections.
More on Election Day / Same Day Registration | More National blogs
08/27/2007
North Carolina Same Day Registration Gets OK from DOJ: Begins October 9
by Stuart Comstock-Gay
More on Election Day / Same Day Registration | More North Carolina blogs
08/08/2007
Victory for Internet Political Speech
by Brenda Wright
A number of these websites sprang up in the last weeks of the 2000 campaign between George W. Bush and Al Gore. They allowed third-party supporters of Ralph Nader in swing states to strategize with major-party voters in "safe" states about "trading" their votes to avoid handing the election to their least-preferred candidate.
The sites were quickly shut down when Secretary Jones sent letters to operators of the websites threatening to prosecute them for what he called "vote-buying," even though no money or other type of financial benefit changed hands.
Attorneys for the National Voting Rights Institute, now affiliated with Demos, teamed with the ACLU of Southern California to represent website operators Alan Porter (www.voteswap2000.com) and William Cody (www.voterexchange2000.com) and two individual voters, Patrick Kerr and Steven Lewis. The case, originally filed in November 2000, broke new ground in arguing that citizens are entitled to full First Amendment protection when discussing vote-trading strategies to maximize the effectiveness of their votes in national elections. The Ninth Circuit's ruling, issued on August 6, 2007, now establishes that the activities that Secretary Jones attempted to squelch "are at the heart of the liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment" and cannot be prosecuted under vote-buying statutes. The decision will be an important precedent protecting the Internet as a low-cost means of political communication, and assuring the right of website operators and voters to maintain and use such sites in future presidential elections. Demos Senior Counsel Lisa Danetz served as Demos' lead attorney on the case.
More on New Ideas about Election Reform | More California blogs
07/30/2007
Registering Low-Income Citizens To Vote Is "Asinine"?!
by Scott Novakowski
According to Carteret County, North Carolina Commissioner Holt Faircloth, it is. Check out this article that appeared in the Carteret County News-Times highlighting the county's resistance to implementing the public assistance requirements of the 14-year-old National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). Carteret County is one of the few counties in North Carolina that it seems has not yet come into full compliance with the NVRA since re-implementation efforts began in that state a year ago.
Especially troubling is the disdain on the part of Commissioner Faircloth and other members of the County Department of Social Services board for state and federal voter registration laws designed to ensure that all citizens, regardless of income, have an opportunity to participate in the democratic process. The public assistance provision was included in the NVRA because of Congress' recognition that only offering voter registration services at motor vehicle departments would fail to adequately reach many low-income citizens.
As always, Executive Director of the State Board of Elections Gary Bartlett and election technician Rosemary Blizzard masterfully defend the state's efforts to enforce federal election law and allow all citizens access to the ballot box.
For more information on North Carolina's recent gains in NVRA implementation, see the recent Demos report, "Expanding Voter Registration for Low-Income Citizens: How North Carolina is realizing the promise of the National Voter Registration Act."
More on Nat'l Voter Registration Act | More North Carolina blogs
07/23/2007
Same Day Registration in North Carolina Signed
by Stuart Comstock-Gay
More on Election Day / Same Day Registration | More North Carolina blogs
07/05/2007
New Developments in NVRA Implmentation
by Scott Novakowski
Late last week, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission published its 2005-2006 report to Congress on the impact of the National Voter Registration Act in the preceding two years. Section 7 of the NVRA requires state public assistance agencies to offer voter registration opportunities to their applicants and clients. Once again, the EAC's newest figures reveal a troubling decline in the number of voter registration applications coming from public assistance agencies. Our analysis indicates that states registered only half as many public assistance recipients in 2005-2006 as they did in 2003-2004. Since initial implementation of the law in 1995-1996, public assistance voter registrations have decreased nationwide by a staggering 80 percent.
The new report from the EAC further underscores the Department of Justice's failure to enforce Section 7 of the NVRA. Demos and our allies have repeatedly brought evidence of states' non-compliance with Section 7 to the attention of the DOJ. Those attempts have fallen on deaf ears as the DOJ has instead pursued policies to purge voters from the rolls. Click here for the full statement from Demos, Project Vote, and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law on the EAC report and DOJ's failure to enforce Section 7 of the NVRA.
In other NVRA news, on July 4th, Washington Governor Christine Gregoire issued an executive order to better implement the public assistance provisions of the NVRA in her state. Washington has seen its public assistance voter registrations cut in half since the 2003-2004 reporting period. Executive Order 07-04 designates Washington's Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) as a voter registration agency and instructs the department to name a Voter Registration Assistance Officer. We commend Governor Gregoire for taking this important step and look forward to offering our expertise in helping to improve voter registration at DSHS offices. Click here for the full statement from Demos and Project Vote in response to the governor's order.
More on Nat'l Voter Registration Act | More National blogs
06/20/2007
More Provisional Balloting Problems
by Scott Novakowski
Provisional balloting has been attracting some media attention recently. Under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), states are required to provide provisional ballots to voters who claim to be eligible and registered to vote but whose names do not appear on the voter rolls or who do not meet identification requirements. Although intended as a "fail-safe" fix to the problem of bad voter lists that plagued the 2000 election, Demos has released several reports documenting how provisional ballots can sometimes fail eligible voters.
In Jefferson County, Texas, a voter was disfranchised through a combination of inadequate poll worker training and overly stringent standards used for counting provisional ballots. Despite voting at her correct polling place, the voter's provisional ballot was rejected because she "voted in the wrong precinct." It turns out someone (no one knows who) filled in the incorrect precinct number on the voter's provisional ballot envelope. Under Texas law, and that of dozens of other states, provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct are invalidated even if the vote is cast in the correct jurisdiction, or even, as in this case, in the correct polling place.
While provisional ballots are often a small percentage of the total votes cast, they can be decisive, especially in close local elections. Three provisional ballots will remain unopened and uncounted in a Sweetwater, Tennessee referendum in which an issue was decided by a one-vote margin. The three provisional ballots were rejected because they were cast by voters whose names could not be found on the voter registration list. Presumably, these three voters arrived at their polling places believing they were duly registered to vote prior to the election.
Demos is scheduled to release a new report in the coming weeks documenting provisional balloting problems experienced by voters in the November 2006 election.
More on Provisional Ballots | More National blogs
06/20/2007
Making EDR thrive in Montana
by Stuart Comstock-Gay
The Billings Gazette today published an editorial urging the state to take seriously its job of making EDR succeed, by letting voters know how the election day registration works -- "The late registration law wasn't as well publicized before the November 2006 elections as it should have been. There must be more news coverage of late registration. Elections administrators at the county and state levels must work harder to publicize it." They're right. Montana's EDR experience was not nearly as good as that of other states. For the reform to succeed, good preparation and effective education are esse