In observance of Black History month, it is fitting to revisit America’s less than stellar record in the ongoing effort to move toward true equality. The key to equality was recognized more than 100 years ago when newly freed African Americans were given the basic rights of citizenship and voting under the 14th and 15th Amendments, though it was not until the 1960s that equality for African Americans and other disadvantaged groups was finally acknowledged on both a legal and cultural scale with the passage of the cornerstone Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. Yet citizens of color continue to be underrepresented in U.S. electorate, and as recently as 2008 have been the target of thinly veiled voter intimidation and suppression efforts.
Several federal voting laws, including the VRA and the National Voter Registration Act, were designed to protect citizens from being intimidated, threatened, or coerced from voting: tactics that, throughout history, have often been aimed at low-income and minority groups. According to a newly released Project Vote legislative brief on voter intimidation and caging, little has changed in terms of voter suppression targets, and tactics that skirt around the law are thriving. Where there were once literacy tests and polls taxes, there are now stealth misinformation tactics and “voter caging”—most commonly by sending non-forwardable mail to targeted populations in order to compile a list of voters to challenge at the polls on the basis of residency.
“Challenge laws are currently on the books in many states, although they were rarely utilized until the relatively recent ascendance of pre-election voter caging operations by Republican state and national entities,” according to 2007 Project Vote report by Teresa James, Caging Democracy: A 50-Year History of Partisan Challenges to Minority Voters. “The state challenge laws are racially neutral, but they can and have been widely used to disenfranchise minority voters.”
Between the 1980s and 1990s, minority voters were specifically targeted by the Republican National Committee in caging and voter intimidation efforts in several states. In 1981, the RNC and the New Jersey Republican Party sent a mass mailing to voters in predominantly African American and Latino neighborhoods, from which a caging list of 45,000 voters were compiled based on returned mail. The RNC attempted to have the listed voters purged before the election. When the request was denied, the RNC announced plans to challenge those voters at the polls instead and used intimidation tactics, including the posting of off-duty law enforcement officials at polls in targeted areas and the placement of posters in heavily African American neighborhoods, warning that violating elections laws is a crime. Subsequently, the Democratic National Committee filed suit in the New Jersey court, contending that the RNC program harassed and intimidated African American and Latino voters, in violation of the VRA. In a settlement to the suit, the RNC entered into a consent decree, in which it agreed to refrain from discriminatory activities in their “ballot security” efforts.
However, the consent decree was modified in 1986 after a Louisiana case was brought forward, involving a caging operation and an RNC memo that said its caging program “’will eliminate at least 60,000 to 80,000 folks from the rolls…If it’s a close race…this could keep the black vote down considerably,’” according to the report. As a result of this case, the consent decree was tightened to require the RNC to obtain approval from the District Court before implementing a ballot security program.
Still, in 1990, the DNC filed suit against the RNC again, alleging it violated the N.J. consent decree by using voter suppression tactics against African American voters in North Carolina. The N.C. Republican Party had mailed misinforming postcards to 125,000-150,000 voters, 97 percent of which were African American. The cards had misinformed recipients for voter eligibility, warning of criminal penalties of voter fraud. While the RNC successfully defended itself against the DNC charges, alleging it was a state operation and therefore did not violate the N.J. consent decree, the Department of Justice stepped in and monitored the elections to ensure voters were not discriminated against.
“Between 2004 and 2006, the Republican National Committee challenged more than 77,000 Americans voters in targeted communities,” the new brief states. Threats of caging persisted just before the 2008 presidential election, when the Republican Party in Montana matched the statewide voter database with the USPS National Change of Address database and filed challenges against 6,000 voters in democratic strongholds, “even though Montana voters who have moved may legally vote in one election at their old precinct.” Similarly, partisan operatives in Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio were allegedly planning to use lists of foreclosure victims to challenge them at the polls. Public backlash, lawsuits, or administrative action prevented such “foreclosure caging.”
According to the new brief, “a few states prohibit the abuse of state challenge laws through caging. Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, for example, issued a 2008 directive that pointed out that the practice of granting a challenge based solely on returned mail violates the National Voter Registration Act. Minnesota, Rhode Island, and California have also passed legislation to prohibit the use of returned mail as grounds for challenging a voter’s eligibility. As part of this encouraging trend towards prohibiting partisan voter caging, an anti-caging bill is currently pending in both houses of Congress.”
“Voter intimidation, groundless challenges, and partisan caging are tactics that should be relics of another era. Yet they persist to an alarming degree,” the brief states. In 2010, as we reflect on a both ugly and triumphant history, it is imperative for our nation’s leaders to set a precedent and truly rid our voting systems of these “unjust anomalies.”
Those of us in the “democracy business” have been heartened in recent years by the increased numbers of young, low-income, and minority citizens who are registering and voting for the first time, or for the first time in a long time. But the Supreme Court may have dealt a blow to the upswing in participation by these groups when it issued its opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
As has been widely reported, the Court overturned a century’s worth of precedent and has now allowed corporations free rein in election spending. How much this will change things we really don’t know. We do know, however, that voter apathy is often the result of a mentality best expressed by “How can my one vote make a difference?” The idea of unlimited millions of dollars from corporate coffers “invested” in swinging an election is daunting to even the most sophisticated voter. It’s easy to understand how any voter, much less a new voter, could conclude that he or she has no chance to make a difference in the face of all those slick corporate ads.
Yesterday, the Senate Rules Committee held an aptly titled hearing “Corporate America vs. The Voter.” The committee heard testimony from a bipartisan witness list of advocates and academics. But, the senators who showed up had a lot to say too. The words used by most of them to describe the Citizens United decision were dramatic; ”corrosive to our democracy,” “tragic error,” ”catastrophic,” and “disastrous.” What was the reason for the grave language? Opening the floodgates of corporate contributions exacerbates an already troubling phenomenon in our country: money buys access. It stands to reason that those who contribute the most have the most influence, and those who would threaten to support a politician’s opponent unless he votes their way may well determine his vote.
Senator Bennett (R-UT) correctly pointed out that the candidate with the most money doesn’t always win the election, and he’s right. The recent governor’s race in New Jersey, in which the incumbent governor and former Goldman Sachs executive outspent his opponent by 2-1 and lost, certainly proved that. But, the threat of retaliation from a corporation that doesn’t like a candidate’s position on global warming, or health insurance reform, or banking regulation might have the predictable effect of making even the most principled public official think twice about taking that courageous vote. And that would have the predictable effect of turning off even the most idealistic voter, who might reasonably conclude–whether it turns out to be true or not–that his vote won’t make a difference.
Unfortunately, the Citizens United decision was, rightly or wrongly, based on the First Amendment to the Constitution. So, only a constitutional amendment would undo the damage entirely—unless, of course, a later court were to reverse this decision, just as this court reversed 100 years of precedent. Congress is just beginning to consider measures short of a constitutional amendment to ameliorate some of its far-reaching implications: legislation to prohibit U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations from participating in elections, for example, or requiring shareholder approval of corporate campaign contributions. But perhaps we have not yet begun to appreciate the most serious impact of Citizens United: the cost to our democracy when the voters believe that the corporations own the elections, and their participation doesn’t matter anymore.
The League of Women Voters Education Fund (LWVEF) and Project Vote are pleased to announce a major new initiative to bring more young people-especially young minorities-into the democratic process, and instill voting habits that will last a lifetime.
A joint-collaboration between our two organizations, the 2010 High School Voter Registration Project will be a nonpartisan high-school voter registration drive in 100 high schools with a high-percentage of minority students in five states: Arizona, California, Florida, Missouri, and Texas. The Project will provide voter registration and education through classroom activities and assemblies, and expects to help 27,000 17- and 18-year olds apply to become registered voters.
Additionally, the Project will serve as a statistically significant experiment to determine the comparative effectiveness of registration strategies. In 50 of the schools the Project will utilize classroom-based voter registration strategies, in 50 schools it will use assemblies, and an additional 100 schools will be chosen as a control group. The resulting analysis will help determine the most effective strategies for engaging high school students and help inform future program activities.
The need to effectively reach out to newly eligible 18-year old citizens is great. In November 2008, despite some increase in participation among younger voters, more than half of all 18-year-old citizens in the United States were still not registered to vote. Overall, Americans under the age of 30 remain severely underrepresented in the electorate, and the disparities in youth voting grow even wider when looking at African-Americans, Latinos, and those with no college experience. These disparities in participation rates suggest that young people need a new mechanism by which they might take their place in the democratic process.
Voter registration is the key, of course, but most youth registration drives target college students, skewing towards the disproportionately White college population and completely missing the 43 percent of Americans with no college experience.
That’s why we believe it is vital to reach America’s future voters while they are still in high school, and that’s why we’ve launching the High School Voter Registration Project.
Research shows that it is possible to create long-term change by encouraging life-long participation from young people: 91 percent of registered voters under the age of 30 cast a ballot in 2008, and data from the Brookings Institute indicates that once a person votes in one election they are 29 percent more likely to vote in the next major election.
By connecting directly with the young citizens who make up the missing members of our national electorate, LWVEF and Project Vote are committed to engaging young citizens to believe not only in the power of their individual vote, but also in the power of our collective democracy. We look forward to keeping you informed on our progress together.
Yesterday, Project Vote released a new case study, Paperless Registration: Innovations in Three States, in which writer Steven Rosenfeld talked to election officials in Kansas, Delaware, and South Dakota to learn how motor vehicle offices in those states successfully implemented technological improvements, making the integration of voter registration services more efficient, more effective, and more economical. In addition to providing valuable lessons for other state DMVs, these innovations could also be important models for improving the way public assistance agencies provide voter registration services around the country.
Since passage of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) in 1993, motor vehicle offices, public assistance agencies, and other state-funded locations have been required to offer voter registration services to their clients. The new report captures the experiences of election officials in these three states to develop paperless voter registration processes that seamlessly integrate with existing electronic data collection systems to transfer application information to election officials. The successes in motor vehicle offices in these states should be a motivating factor for other states to follow suit, and to create similarly seamless upgrades to public assistance agency systems.
Paperless registration has the potential to reach more citizens, to reduce costs associated with paper applications, and to more efficiently and consistently comply with the National Voter Registration Act. In the coming year Project Vote will be working to help state agencies and election officials understand the advantages of paperless registration systems, and we will work to help pass legislation to implement these improvements.
To download Paperless Voter Registration: Innovations in Three States click here.
Although the Help America Vote Act of 2002 provided “fail-safe” provisional voting to prevent the unnecessary disenfranchisement of eligible citizens who show up at the polls to find that they are not on the rolls, there are still thousands of voters whose ballots are not being counted.
Despite HAVA’s mandate, many eligible citizens find themselves voiceless, sometimes for reasons beyond their control. As the first release of Project Vote’s 2010 Issues in Election Administration series, Ensuring that Provisional Ballots are Counted explores the reasons why significant numbers of provisional ballots have not been counted since HAVA’s implementation and offers recommendations for states to follow in order to increase the likelihood that eligible citizens’ voters are ultimately counted.
The rates for counting provisional ballots vary widely from state to state. In 2008, the state of Maine counted 100 percent of provisional ballots, while only 15.7% were counted in Delaware. Nationwide, just 67.3 percent of provisional ballots were counted. Reasons for rejecting a ballot vary as well. Most commonly, ballots are rejected because an individual is not registered or cast the provisional ballot in the incorrect precinct or jurisdiction.
While unregistered status is most often cited as the culprit for rejection of provisional ballots, it does not account for why a person is not on the voter rolls, which may be beyond the voter’s control. A person could be excluded from voter rolls for a number of reasons, including late voter application processing; failure of the board of elections to notify the applicant that additional information is needed to process; or even inappropriate purging from voter rolls.
The variance in state rules for counting provisional ballots also has an impact on counting of provisional ballots. Many states require citizens to cast ballots in the correct precinct, an issue for Americans who move frequently.
“It seems especially absurd that a vote cast for President by an eligible voter would not be counted just because it was cast in the wrong precinct,” the brief suggests, offering a solution of counting provisional ballots at either the county or statewide level. “In the 2006 general election, states allowing broader jurisdiction-wide acceptance of provisional ballots had significantly higher rates of counting provisional ballots: 84.96 percent compared to 71.82 percent in other jurisdictions.”
In the brief, Project Vote provides policy recommendations on improving provisional voting, based on a survey conducted across the country and a review of state law. Ultimately, Project Vote suggests limiting the use of provisional ballots by implementing Election Day Registration. “If an individual meets registration requirements, there is no valid reason why she should not be allowed to register and vote. Ten states currently allow Election Day Registration, or have no voter registration requirements. In fact, in the 2006 election, voter turnout in states that permitted same day registration was 13% higher than in states that did not offer the option.”
Yesterday, the Indiana Supreme Court announced it would hear an appeal in a case challenging Indiana’s photo voter ID law, according to the Indianapolis Star. The law was struck down last September as unconstitutional for unfairly exempting absentee voters from the state’s stringent voter ID requirement.
“The Supreme Court set arguments for March 4 in the case, which pits the League of Women Voters of Indiana against Secretary of State Todd Rokita,” the Star reported.
Last week, the Arizona Legislature introduced a Preregistration bill in the House, bringing it one step closer to allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to preregister to vote. If passed, Arizona would join Florida, Hawaii, North Carolina, and soon, Rhode Island in their efforts to engage youth before they may legally vote.
Passing a preregistration policy in Arizona has been a three-year effort by several election groups and lawmakers, including Project Vote, which worked with lawmakers in providing a model bill prior to the writing of HB 2269. Arizona and voting rights groups hope to improve the state’s unusually low voter registration rates among 18- 29 year olds. Arizona ranks 40th out of all states for youth voter registration, according to a Project Vote report, Representational Bias in the 2008 Electorate . Many hope this law change will stem the tide.
Like most states in the U.S., Arizona faces a significant budget shortfall this year. With many lawmakers expecting the number to reach up to five billion dollars for the 2010 budget, the issue of cost for a preregistration program has naturally been raised. However ,“lawmakers have been surprised at how little it will cost to implement the preregistration bill. That, in addition to its potential to engage young Arizonans in the democratic process, is helping to move this bill along,” said Arizona-based Project Vote election administration coordinator, Bodunrin Banwo. According to a recent Project Vote fact sheet, Expanding the Youth Electorate in Arizona with Preregistration, implementation can cost as little as three cents per card, if administered online, as Arizona law permits.
The next step in the preregistration journey is the Arizona state senate, where observers expect a similar bill to be introduced this week.
A similar measure was recently adopted in Rhode Island, though it was a long time coming. On January 5, legislators overrode Governor Donald Carcieri’s veto of preregistration bill, H 5005/S 85, making Rhode Island the fourth state in the country to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to preregister to vote so that they will automatically be eligible to vote once they turn 18. The 2009 bill was the fourth to be adopted by the state legislature and vetoed by the governor, who claimed such a measure would compromise the integrity of the voter rolls despite widespread support from dozens of civil rights groups as well as the state chief elections official.
“With the good will and strong advocacy provided over the years by FairVote and like-minded reformers-such as the leadership of both houses, Reps. Edwin Pacheco and Christopher Fierro, Sens. Paul Jabour and Rhoda Perry, and Secretary of State A. Ralph Mollis-Rhode Island voters will now have expanded access for its newest voters…,” said Rob Richie, executive director of FairVote, a nonpartisan think tank. “This is a good day for democracy in Rhode Island – and the nation.”
Florida and Hawaii – two states with established preregistration programs that include 16-year-old citizens – have showcased positive and long term effects for thousands of young citizens, according to a recent report by George Mason University associate professor, Michael McDonald. For example, Floridians who preregistered to vote were two percentage points more likely to vote in 2008 than those who registered after they turned 18.
With states like Arizona, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Washington, and, most recently, New Hampshire moving similar legislation in recent legislative sessions, we expect to see preregistration lead youth voter engagement discussions in future election reform debates.
The Virginia General Assembly is busily grinding out bills that will make it considerably more difficult for Virginians to cast ballots that count. In recent years, voter ID laws have cropped up in states across the country, aimed to stymie a source of fraud that simply does not exist, and Virginia is no different. Under current law, if a voter does not or cannot produce appropriate identification at the polls, the voter can simply sign a sworn document attesting his or her identity, then cast a regular ballot. Proposed legislation in both the House of Delegates and the Senate aims to take this option away from Virginia voters and place still more stringent restrictions on the kinds of ID that are accepted.
Senate bill 301 and House bills 341 and 498 all relegate voters who fail to present identification to casting provisional ballots in a state that rejected 72% of all provisional ballots in the 2008 election, according to a 2008 report by the Election Assistance Commission. Furthermore, these bills could require these same voters to supply the electoral board with a copy of their identification on the day after the election in order for their provisional ballots to be counted. The Senate bill removes the commonwealth‘s own voter registration card as an acceptable form of identification, despite the fact that the United States Department of Homeland Security considers these cards as “Documents that Establish Identity.” The two House bills go even further, restricting proof of identification to documents issued by the commonwealth or the United States, which contain the name and photograph of the voter and a valid expiration date. This would prevent countless Virginians from casting regular ballots and place the validity of their provisional ballots in jeopardy.
House bills 341 and 497 would also make it considerably more difficult for people to register to vote, requiring applicants to supply proof of citizenship with their voter registration application. The only documents acceptable to prove citizenship under these bills are copies of a birth certificate, passport, naturalization documents, or Bureau of Indian Affairs card number. Many people do not have ready access to these documents, or the means to reproduce and submit them along with a voter registration application. In addition, these bills would effectively end the ability of organizations to conduct voter registration drives out in the community, where the question must be asked: how many citizens actually carry these documents around with them, let alone a copy machine? While these measures create an obvious burden on potential voters, they also increase the burden on state election agencies, increasing the amount of paperwork they handle and increasing the load on local registrars.
While SB 301 has already died in sub-committee, the House bills are still progressing and have the potential to seriously curtail the voting rights of Virginians. In order for our system of democracy to function properly, it is essential for voters to be able to participate freely and easily in the electoral process. Under the guise of making elections more secure, these bills instead will disenfranchise vast numbers of voters. Legislators in Richmond should work to get more Virginians involved in the process, not to erect barriers between their constituents and the ballot box.
Voter registration is becoming easier and more accessible for voting eligible citizens in several states through the growing trend of online voter registration. This new election reform has the potential to be a cost-effective method of enfranchising more Americans, especially as applied to the electronic transmission of applications through voter registration agencies under the National Voter Registration Act.
“You can register online for selective service, we pay our taxes online,” said Michigan Rep. Lesia Liss, D-Warren in a recent Detroit News report. “So why not make online voter registration a priority as well?”
Liss hopes to add Michigan to the list of states that enacted online voter registration policies in recent years with the introduction of state House Bill 4589. Currently, three states – Arizona, Washington, and Kansas—practice online voter registration. Five more – Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Oregon, and Utah – enacted laws in 2009 that should be implemented this year. And at least one more, California, is expected to implement online voter registration by 2012.
Electronic registration is purportedly cost-effective: in Maricopa County, Arizona, for example, an electronic application reportedly costs about $0.03, compared to $0.83 per paper registration. With only 77 percent of voting eligible Americans registered to vote in 2008, online voter registration may be a welcome reform, particularly for young Americans who are simultaneously the most likely to have Internet access (88%) but least likely to be registered to vote (61%), according to a 2009 Project Vote memo by consultant, Jody Herman.
However, there are some drawbacks to online voter registration. Not everyone has Internet access at home, and the likelihood of a person having access in the home is related to income and education-attainment. Only 39 percent of those with no high school degree report having Internet at home, and just 41 percent of citizens earning $25,000 per year or less have online access. African-American and Latino citizens are also less likely to have Internet access at home (63%). Latinos, in particular, demonstrate low voter registration rates at 12 percentage points behind the voting eligible population in addition to their greater likelihood to lack of Internet access.
“An additional problem is that online voter registration systems that require an online registrant to have an existing signature in a state database—such as in a driver’s license database and/or state voter registration database–will further limit the accessibility of an online voter registration system to disadvantaged groups,” according to Herman.
But where electronic voter registration has the potential to aid in helping to enfranchise underrepresented low-income and minority citizens is at voter registration agencies acting in compliance with the National Voter Registration Act, including Motor Vehicle Divisions and public assistance agencies. Electronic, “paperless” voter registration processes can be developed, which would seamlessly integrate and transfer existing electronic data collection systems to election officials. This way, a citizen may also apply for voter registration status while applying for a driver’s license or filling out paperwork for public assistance benefits by having their information quickly and efficiently submitted in electronic form to elections officials. This could reduce costs, minimize errors, and increase the likelihood that voter registration services mandated under the NVRA are consistently offered to clients.
“The more people who are registered to vote, the more people we can get to vote. That’s really what we want,” Macomb County, Michigan clerk Carmella Sabaugh told the Detroit News. “We want more people to be registered, so they can vote and be represented in government.”
In light of a Washington ruling that struck down the state voting rights restoration procedure for felons as “racially discriminatory,” advocates continue to push Virginia Governor Tim Kaine to use his last days of executive power to overturn the state’s “relic of Virginia’s Jim Crow era.”
The Virginia law – which has resulted in the lifetime disenfranchisement of 300,000 Virginians who have completed their entire criminal sentences and are living and working in the communities – is one of only two permanent disenfranchisement laws in the country. It also has a disproportionate impact on African Americans.
“Although African Americans account for just a fifth of Virginia’s 7.8 million citizens, they are thought to constitute about half of those ineligible to vote,” according to a Washington Post editorial today. “No wonder racist state lawmakers who reviewed the commonwealth’s constitution a century ago lauded the provision and, in the toxic spirit of Jim Crow, elected to keep it.”
“Kaine has the power to consign this relic of Virginia’s Jim Crow era to the dust heap of history, and to take an important stand for civil rights as he prepares to leave office,” wrote Erika Wood, an attorney with the Brennan Center for Justice, in a Richmond Times-Dispatch op-ed today.
The ACLU of Va. also wrote the Roanoke Times, clearing any confusion regarding Virginia’s constitution that leads some to assume the governor must only restore voting rights, one person at a time: “Good people may differ on how to interpret the law, but there is little doubt that the Virginia Constitution treats the governor’s power to restore voting rights differently from other kinds of clemency powers and that it does not carry the same reporting obligation required for relief of fines, pardons and commutations.”
Currently, any individual who wishes to vote must go through a years-long process to prove to the governor that he or she is worthy of having voting rights restored. Though Kaine has “approved the vast majority of petitions by former felons seeking to recover their voting rights, the cumbersome rules mean that in practice only a few thousand such applications are submitted each year,” editorialized the Post. This slow and unnecessary process to restore individual voting rights of released felons, in addition to the law’s disproportionate impact on African American communities speaks volumes: It’s time to stop undercutting democracy and update that oppressive law.
“The right to vote forms the very foundation of our democracy,” wrote Wood. “It is simply too important to just shrug and walk away from it.”