Today, members of the Minnesota House heard two controversial bills that could cost the state millions and hamper voter access in a state that is renowned for progressive election policy.
Minnesota has long boasted above-average voter turnout, thanks, in part, to a decades-old policy that permits eligible citizens to register and vote on Election Day with a zero-rate of voter fraud. Despite lacking evidence of pervasive voter impersonation issues (as well as lacking available funding), state lawmakers are intent on changing the rules governing Election Day Registration and adding a requirement for all voters to present photographic proof of identity before voting.
In a democracy that can only boast that 71 percent of its citizens are registered and able to exercise their civic duty in any given election, access to the franchise is crucial. For decades, millions of citizens have relied on either voter registration drives or government agencies to help them get on the voter rolls. Today, however, private voter registration drives are under attack, while some states are ignoring their responsibilities to reach unregistered citizens. If community-based drives are prevented from helping Americans get registered, and government agencies won't help them, then who will?
In several states, elected officials and partisan groups are intent on stifling the proven effectiveness of voter registration drives run by private individuals and organizations. Despite the partisan-spun "scandals" that come with third-party voter registration drives, they are undeniably effective in reaching large portions of the population.
"According to the 2008 CPS, nearly 9 million citizens [or 8 percent] reported having registered 'at a voter registration drive,'" wrote Doug Hess and Jody Herman in Project Vote report, Representational Bias in the 2008 Electorate. "This likely seriously undercounts the total impact of voter registration drives, however, as 9.4 million citizens (another 8 percent) reported that they registered 'at a school, hospital, or on campus'-all locations where voter registration drives are often conducted by civic organizations and student groups."
Another 9.7 million registered to vote through mail-in voter registration applications, many of whom presumably received these applications from voter drives or organizations that distributed the forms through the postal or electronic mail.
Voter registration drives are protected as a form of free speech under the First Amendment, as well as provisions under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (which directly protects and encourages community-run voter registration drives as the law's primary purpose is to ensure more citizens are registered to vote). Yet lawmakers and election officials in states like Nevada are looking to regulate and criminalize voter registration drives so thoroughly, that they can create a "chilling effect on community-based voter registration, causing many organizations to curtail or cease their voter registration efforts."
This week, newly elected Republicans took office in several states, many of whom have big plans for the future of voting rights. Unfortunately, as we blogged and reported last month, these changes have little to do with actually assessing and improving state of elections. In fact, many of these officials used anti-immigration and voter fraud fear tactics to win their seats, and now are threatening to restrict access to the ballot via legislation or state ballot before 2012 elections.
(Conservative hostility to democracy is becoming increasingly overt. Project Vote shines a light on the most recent developments that ought to alarm all Americans. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
Minnesota has some of the most progressive voter registration laws in the country, laws like same day registration and vouching, that are designed to maximize turnout and get as many voices as possible heard on Election Day. Some newly elected members of the Minnesota state legislature, however, have recently announced that they intend to repeal those laws as soon as they take office. These laws, they claim, leave the state vulnerable to voter fraud, so vulnerable they apparently must be repealed immediately, despite their obvious benefits.
Like Don Quixote charging at windmills, believing them to be monsters, these state legislators are gearing up to fight imaginary threats. Voter fraud, contrary to the media perception, is incredibly rare. According to a study by the nonpartisan group Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota, only twenty-six people were convicted of voter fraud in Minnesota in 2008, all of them convicted felons who are restricted from voting. In other words, less than nine-ten thousandths of one percent of Minnesota voters (.0009 percent), were convicted of voter fraud in 2008. At the national level, a report by Dr. Lorraine Minnite, director of research at Project Vote and former assistant professor of American and urban politics at Barnard College, found that only 24 people were convicted of voter fraud between 2002 and 2005.
So, these state legislatures are trying to repeal laws that make it easier for all Minnesotans to vote, on the off-chance that repealing those laws might discourage some twenty-odd convicted felons from showing up on Election Day. Certainly, what little voter fraud there is should be prevented, but not at the cost of repealing laws that provide tremendous benefits to legitimate voters. In 2004, the six states with same day registration had turnout rates almost 12 percent above the national average, but the newly elected Minnesota legislators are more worried about the two dozen felons who might be voting illegally, than the thousands of legitimate voters who may be prevented from voting at all if these laws are repealed.
If the state legislatures want to fix elections in this country, if they want to protect the sanctity of the democratic process, they should not be focused on the .00009 percent of ineligible citizens who vote illegally--oftentimes unknowingly--due to criminal convictions. Instead, they should focus on reforming current law to allow non-incarcerated felons to automatically regain their right to vote and the 50-plus percent of eligible voters who did not even cast a ballot on Election Day, finding ways to increase turnout, not lower it.
Anthony Balady is a legal intern at Project Vote and second-year student at William & Mary Law School. Mr. Balady also serves as vice president of William & Mary's Election Law Society and editor-in-chief of its election law blog, State of Elections.
In most states, a citizen may register and vote after establishing four critical points: citizenship, age, residency, and, in some cases, felony conviction. However, at least eight states exceed these basic requirements by also requiring voters to present valid photo ID at the polls on Election Day. Now, with the midterm elections approaching, the necessity, efficiency, and even constitutionality of voter ID laws are being questioned once again.
This week, two states--one with an established (though controversial) voter ID law, and another that expects to officially debut its law in November--are met with questions about the laws' impact on voters.
Schedule conflicts, work commitments, and transportation issues are just a few reasons why some voters don't show up on Election Day. To help remedy this issue, 32 states have enacted Early In-Person (EIP) voting laws, which have been overwhelmingly favored by voters. While this trend is mainly absent in the northeastern United States, Maryland is currently test-driving its new law this week, perhaps creating a precedent for surrounding states.
"It's a little bit of variety for the voters," said Anthony Gutierrez, director of Maryland's Wicomico County Board of Elections in The Daily Times. The "variety" of voting options didn't come easy to the state, which introduced early voting laws not once, but twice over the last few years.
Access to voter registration-the basis of democratic participation-is still limited in the 21st century by overly restrictive, "horse-and-buggy" laws across the country. Despite advances in technology, states struggle with politically charged or neglected election systems when such systems can (and should) simply focus on building a truly representative electorate in modern day America.
Participating in democracy should be a simple exercise for anyone who is a citizen over the age of 18, but as voter registration and turnout stats indicate, it’s not always that easy. On their way to the polls, too many people encounter barriers and obstacles, and too often these impediments are a result of varying, nuanced election administration procedures across the United States. As a new Project Vote report illustrates, examples of many of these election administration dos and don’ts can be found in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Community driven voter registration drives are still the gateway to democracy to millions of Americans. However, after the overall success of voter registration drives in 2008, states have increasingly imposed severe restrictions on voter registration activity. With more than 60 million unregistered Americans missing the opportunity to have a voice in their communities, lawmakers and advocates must recognize the significance of voter registration drives and work to facilitate and improve such practices with the help of effective regulations and modern technology.
Voter registration modernization is a current buzzword in election circles. The idea is that new information tools can make the process cheaper, better, and easier for voters and officials alike. However, at many election forums, this discussion has tended to overlook modernizing the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, the so-called "motor-voter" law.
Hopefully, that is about to change. The NVRA, which is the only federal law requiring states to proactively offer voter registration services, relies on a range of state agencies to help people to register. Overall, it has helped tens of millions of Americans. Yet agencies in many states--particularly public assistance offices-have dropped the ball in recent years. That trend is troubling because millions more Americans would likely register if asked by designated NVRA agencies.
The excuses are not new. Some state agencies do not see voter registration as their job, regardless of the federal mandate. Still others see voter registration as a paper-based process generating too much bureaucratic work.
What is new today is that voter registration services need not follow these antiquated models. Today's paperless information technology and large-scale data management-including practices pioneered in several states at their motor vehicle offices and online-show many cost-efficient, bureaucracy-cutting and more accurate ways to offer registration services. These savings are striking and should resonate in today's tough budget times.
These precedents are detailed in a comprehensive new Project Vote report, Voter Registration Modernization and the NVRA, by Steven Rosenfeld. Several state motor vehicle offices are now using software templates, shared databases, data networks and other tools to overcome hurdles associated with implementing the law. Tasks such as training staff, developing registration materials, offering clients opportunities to register, assisting with applications, sending forms to election offices, and tracking results, have all been transformed and simplified.
As Michigan considers following the dangerous example of Arizona's controversial anti-immigration law, one of the candidates for the state's chief election official is fanning the flames of hysteria in a way that threatens voting rights.
Some progressives overlook that voting by mail does not always help their longtime constituents.
As state and county officials look for ways to streamline elections during tough budgetary times, many jurisdictions are increasingly relying on mail-based voting-and winning praises from progressives for doing so. But the true litmus test for any election reform should be whether it helps expand the franchise to those whose voices are missing in our democracy. What some groups may overlook in their enthusiasm about voting by mail is that it does not always serve underrepresented or vulnerable populations as well as traditional polls.
What do voters really think about dramatic changes already underway?
by Steven Rosenfeld
Today's political chattering class-television barkers, talk radio hotheads, and even 2010's most visible candidates-keep telling Americans how angry and flustered we have become, and that the solution has to do with reeling in a government run amok.
Another big state has taken steps to modernize voter registration at its motor vehicle offices. The Texas Department of Public Safety, which oversees state driver licenses and identification cards, has instituted a new system that simplifies the voter registration process.
A disturbing and growing hysteria over immigration—most evident in Arizona’s horrifyingly oppressive new law—has now spread into election administration legislation in at least one state. On the same day that the Maine Republican Party adopted a blatantly xenophobic Tea Party platform, the Tennessee Senate injected anti-immigrant sentiment into a draconian bill to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
STATE BLOGS
