Cross-posted at Project Vote’s blog, Voting Matters
Weekly Voting Rights News Update
By Erin Ferns
Monday, a federal court judge sided with a coalition of voting rights groups – including Project Vote – in a decision to permanently block an Ohio law that was “intimidating and impaired voter registration drives.” As electoral law attorney Bob Bauer blogged Tuesday, this is ” a decision affirming that the constitution protects all phases of the voting process.” This court decision highlights an important issue that can either hinder or facilitate the voting rights of historically disenfranchised or underrepresented communities, including minorities, former felons, young people, low income and new citizens.
Although voter registrations drives have long been a feature in American politics, only recently have they reached significant numbers of citizens through groups like Project Vote, which helped register 1.15 million voters before the 2004 presidential election. Since then, “the success of voter registration activities elicited an organized backlash that came in two parts. The first part consisted of exaggerated or inaccurate allegations of voter registration fraud, many of which were uncritically reported by the media,” Project Vote reported in 2006. “The second part was a series of bills, many of which have already passed into law, designed to significantly restrict voter registration drives in a number of states.” Ohio was one of those states.
The challenged regulations “required registration drive workers to register and to undergo training, to list detailed information on each registration form they help with and for every gatherer to turn in forms in person, not through an organizer,” wrote Patrick O’Donnell of the Cleveland Plain Dealer Monday.
“The state had sought the rules, saying they were needed to guard against voter fraud,” the Associated Press reported. Accusations of voter fraud have frequently been used to pass laws that ultimately disenfranchise voters, despite its documented rare occurrence.
While it is appropriate for the state to regulate voter registration drives, unnecessary or overly restrictive laws or regulations on voter registration activities have a chilling effect on organizations’ First Amendment rights, which protect voter registration drives by individuals or organizations as an expression of political speech.
Further, such restrictions have the potential to create an excessive burden on voters who rely on organizations for access to voter registration. More than 1.3 million low income voters, or 11.6 percent of those earning less than $15,000 in annual family income, said they registered through a registration drive, according to Project Vote report, The Politics of Voter Fraud. That is three times the number of low-income voters registered at public assistance agencies, as mandated by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.
“It is clear that despite the intent of NVRA to open registration opportunities to low income Americans, thousands of eligible citizens would be left out of the electoral process were it not for the third party groups who register and encourage them to vote.”
In response to such restrictions, we have outlined some policy recommendations for regulating voter registration drives that protect voter registration activities while addressing concerns over possible irregularities in the process.
We also track the legislation on the state level affecting this and other voting rights issues. You may find this information for 21 states at ElectionLegisation.org (registration required).
Here are some of our suggestions for regulating voter registration drives:
Define Voter Registration Drives: Regulations of voter registration activities are often conflicting. “If states decide to regulate large scale voter registration activities, it is in their best interest to define ‘voter registration drive’ and to do so in a way that exempts some registration activities by individuals.”
Specifically, states should exempt from the definition individuals who help register family members, members of their households, and members of organizations to which they also belong. “This last exemption would allow, for example, members of a congregation to help one another complete voter registration forms.
Registration of Voter Registration Drives: “The only registration requirements that states should impose on registration drives is to (1) name annually an agent or organizer and (2) require the agent to provide his or her contact information.”
This would help facilitate contact between the state and the registration drive in order to address any concerns that arise. This registration, however, should not be confused with application. Acceptance of the registration should be automatic, except where it is found that the agent has engaged in previous misconduct related to elections.
Training: States should require their chief election officials to design and disseminate simple materials to train people involved in voter registration drives, explaining what constitutes a complete application; who is and is not eligible to vote; and the laws and rules that must be followed to help register voters.
Any training should be the responsibility of the voter registration drive, which is best to ensure that the training does not unnecessarily delay the start or continued operation of the drive.
Recording Information: “States should not prohibit voter registration drives from copying or otherwise keeping records of completed applications. These records are critical to ensure the quality of the registration work; to verify whether applicants are being registered; to communicate with applicants who have not been registered; and to facilitate Get-Out-the-Vote activities.
States that have privacy concerns related to Social Security numbers should limit their record keeping prohibition specifically to the number.
Transmittal Time: The NVRA provides for 10 days for state agencies to submit registration applications, except for applications collected within five days of the close of registration, in which case the transmittal period is five days. We recommend that states provide timelines that are no more onerous than those provided for state agencies in the NVRA.
Payment Per registration: “Paying voter registration drive employees per completed application creates, at worst, an incentive for fraud. We recommend that state prohibit voter registration drives from paying its employee in this manner.”
Quick Links
Resources:
Reports:
“Representational Bias in the 2006 Electorate.” Project Vote. Oct. 2007.
“The Politics of Voter Fraud.” Project Vote. March 2007.
“Restricting Voter Registration Drives.” Project Vote. Jan. 2006.
In Other News
“SACRAMENTO–Nearly 50,000 independent voters who tried to cast ballots in last week’s Democratic or American Independent primaries won’t have their presidential votes counted, the top elections official in Los Angeles County said Monday.” Read more of this Associated Press report here.
“SECAUCUS, N.J. (CBS) ― Authorities in New Jersey are investigating an alleged voting scam where residents forked over money for a chance to vote.” Read more of this CBS report here.
Erin Ferns is a Research and Policy Analyst with Project Vote’s Strategic Writing and Research Department (SWORD).
