FairVote Feed: Policy Perspectives

Fuzzy Math: Wrong Way Reforms for Allocating Electoral College Votes

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:20:29 -0700

Ranked Choice Absentee Ballots: Preventing the Disenfranchisement of Military and Overseas Voters

Thu, 21 Jul 2011 07:44:31 -0700

American citizens living abroad, including men and women in uniform, all too often face difficulties in voting in elections at home. When the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE Act) was passed in 2009, it was widely regarded as one of the most comprehensive reforms for military and overseas voters. Enacted to expand the protections of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA), the MOVE Act mandated, among other provisions, that states send timely requested absentee ballots to UOCAVA voters at least 45 days before a federal election.

In the nearly two years since the MOVE Act was passed, many states have made significant changes to their election laws to help guarantee military and overseas voters’ access to the ballot. To comply with the 45-day requirement, some like Minnesota and Vermont have voluntarily moved up the dates of their primary elections. Others like Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina have changed the dates of their primary runoff elections as a result of UOCAVA enforcement lawsuits brought by the Department of Justice.

There is still a long way to go, however, to fully enfranchise the roughly 6.6 million Americans in uniform or residing abroad. A recent report by the Military Voter Protection Project found that only 4.6 percent of the nearly 2 million military voters covered by the study cast an absentee ballot that counted in 2010. And just this week, Senator John Cornyn of Texas sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder to protest what he called the Department of Justice’s “poor track record” of enforcing the MOVE Act’s 45-day requirement for the November 2010 elections.

Military and overseas voters continue to point to tight ballot turnaround times as an obstacle to voting in federal, state, and local elections. The problem is even worse in states where primary and general elections, or first and second elections in traditional runoff systems, are held close together. In those cases, there is often not enough time for election officials to count first-round votes, certify the results, and print and mail absentee ballots, and for military and overseas voters to request their ballots, fill them out, and return them in time to be counted. When their ballots arrive too late—or don’t arrive at all—voters are effectively disenfranchised and excluded from the political process.

Ranked choice absentee ballots (also known as “instant runoff absentee ballots”) provide a legal and practical solution to the ballot transit time issue. Instead of requiring voters to request and return separate ballots for a primary and general election, or each round in a runoff system, voters receive two ballots: a standard absentee ballot for the first election and a ranked choice absentee ballot for the second election. The ranked ballot contains all the candidates from the first election, and voters rank them in order of preference, from first to last. Both ballots are returned before the first election, and the standard ballot is counted as usual. In the event of a runoff election or a general election, the ranked ballot is counted towards the highest ranked candidate who advances to the second round.

Ranked choice absentee ballots are already used successfully for runoff elections in Arkansas, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Springfield, Illinois. Because voters receive and return both ballots at the same time, they don’t have to worry that the short turnaround times between elections will keep them from participating in a general or runoff election. These ballots also do not raise the security and election integrity concerns associated with proposed technological innovations such as ballot submission online or via e-mail or fax.

In addition, ranked choice absentee ballots can help states avoid the burden of changing their election dates. While such changes may help states avoid DOJ lawsuits by providing more time for military and overseas voters to return ballots, they may also have the unintended consequence of reducing turnout among polling place voters. As a forthcoming FairVote report indicates, the greater the time between elections, the greater the dropoff in voter turnout. For example, when Texas increased the gap between election rounds, turnout in runoffs generally dropped significantly.

State-by-state implementation of ranked choice absentee ballots is a crucial step toward effectively enfranchising military and overseas voters, but it is only part of the answer. States enjoy broad discretion in establishing voter registration requirements and ballot return deadlines, and as a result these voters are beset with a confusing patchwork of state and local regulations and processes for voting absentee. UOCAVA and the MOVE Act also do not directly cover state and local elections, even though these elections often have tighter ballot turnaround times than do federal races.

The Uniform Law Commission has sought to remedy these issues by developing the Uniform Military and Overseas Voters Act (UMOVA), a model state bill to extend UOCAVA and MOVE Act protections to all state and local elections. Six states, including Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Utah have passed the act so far, and more have had UMOVA bills introduced in the legislature.

FairVote believes that national, state, and local officials should continue to address ballot-access barriers that military and overseas voters still face today. Ranked choice absentee ballots, along with greater uniformity in absentee voting rules from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, will help make the promises of the MOVE Act real for millions of U.S. citizens.

For more information on the use of ranked choice ballots for military and overseas voters, including a detailed review of legal issues related to the proposal, see the new FairVote Policy Perspective, Legality of the Use of Ranked Choice Absentee Ballots for Military and Overseas Voters.

Legality of the Use of Ranked Choice Absentee Ballots for Military and Overseas Voters

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 12:15:17 -0700

This report analyzes the potential legal issues with the use of ranked choice absentee ballots for military and overseas voters. Ranked choice absentee ballots enable U.S. citizens covered by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA) to cast votes in runoff elections in states where the ballot turnaround time between first and second elections is short. Three states and one municipality have adopted ranked choice absentee ballots for military and overseas voters, including for federal and state primary and general runoff elections in Arkansas and federal and state primaries in South Carolina and Louisiana. The use of ranked choice absentee ballots is unlikely to violate the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of the Constitution, or to disenfranchise absentee voters. In addition, these ballots may help states avoid litigation under UOCAVA.

Top Two Primaries: The Right to Write In in California

Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:19:20 -0700

The “Top Two” primaries enacted by California voters in June 2010 as Proposition 14 has become a popular proposal among many centrists, election reformers, and anyone unhappy with the partisan primary systems in their own states or the two-party system in general.

But at best, the implementation in California has been significantly flawed. At worst, the system itself is not what it’s cracked up to be. Several concerns flagged by FairVote back in an August report on Prop. 14 are now being litigated, and other states contemplating a Top Two system should watch and learn.

One issue is the "ban" on counting write-in votes cast in the November general election between the top two, which due to conflicting laws still on the books threatens to deceive and disenfranchise California voters.

A write-in vote on this ballot would be thrown out, unbeknownst to the voter.

As a policy matter, write-in voting serves as a vital safety valve for those instances where unexpected or late-developing issues arise. For instance, when Rep. Tom DeLay resigned from Congress in summer 2006, it was too late to replace him on the Republican ticket, so a write-in candidate was the only option for the GOP. In 2010, Sen. Lisa Murkowski had a miraculous write-in win in Alaska. After losing to a more conservative Tea Party candidate in the GOP primary, she defied party leadership and in November was elected.

The policy problems by banning write-in votes are compounded by other facets of the Top Two system that make the longstanding role of write-in voting all the more important. Most notably, the June date of the "open" primary leaves five months for revelations, scandal, health problems, and gaffes (remember "macaca" in Virginia in 2006?) to take one or both of the top two candidates out of the running.

Granted, if a candidate agrees to formally withdraw from the race, the third-place June finisher gets promoted to the November ballot. But even then, the substitute candidate will have drawn the primary votes of an entirely separate segment of the population. It's quite possible that the substitute candidate would be of a different party.

In Washington state, this is remedied by allowing the recognized party whose endorsement the dropout candidate had accepted to nominate a replacement. When such vacancies occur in Nebraska, which uses a non-partisan variation of Top Two, they can be filled by candidates who file petitions by September 1 or by write-ins.

In Louisiana, the so-called "cajun primary," a non-partisan version of Top Two, takes place only a few weeks before the general election. Military and absentee voters use instant runoff voting in the primary, and those preferences are then applied to the general election.

Holding the primary and general close together seems the best solution because it would also address other issues with the five-month gap between elections that FairVote listed in its August 2010 report, including the effective silencing of third-party and independent candidates unable to reach to general eleciotn.

The simplest and most likely solution in California would come from the courts. The Democratic legislature has little interest in fixing the statute as it stands-- Prop. 14 would not have made it onto the ballot at all if not for a last-minute deal struck with a Republican legislator whose support was needed to reach the 3/4 majority required to pass the budget.

Legally, the ban on counting write-ins conflicts directly with existing state law and grossly misleads voters. The ongoing litigation, Chamness v. Bowen, involves both the right to write in and the right to run as a write-in candidate. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that states need not allow write-in voting at all, but California has long opted to promote and protect this tradition.

The California Constitution states that "A voter who casts a vote in an election in accordance with the laws of this state shall have that vote counted."

The right to write in under the Elections Code is pretty straightforward. Section 15340 states that each voter is "entitled to write the name of any candidate for any public office...on the ballot of any election" and that such votes shall be counted if certain specifications are met. Section 13212 requires that blank spaces appear in each race on all ballots.

The hastily drafted implementing statute for Prop. 14, however, banned the counting of write-in votes. Section 8606 now states, "A person whose name has been written on the ballot as a write-in candidate at the general election for a voter-nominated office shall not be counted."

The effect is essentially a trapdoor for voters. The general election ballot must include space for write-ins, and nothing on the ballot alerts voters that the blank space is a black hole. Californians' right to write in has become purely symbolic, but nobody told them that.

Plaintiffs in the federal suit, Chamness v. Bowen, are awaiting a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Otis D. Wright on their motion for summary judgment. Last fall, state courts refused to grant an injunction against implementation of Prop. 14; plaintiffs had asked that it be enjoined until the write-in issue and a ballot label problem were fixed. Most court documents can be found here.

Florida: Flashpoint in the Debate about Voter Fraud

Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:52:42 -0700

Florida has joined Texas, Wisconsin, South Carolina, and Indiana among states either passing or seriously considering requiring a government-issued photo ID to be presented whenever any individual votes. Florida's House Bill 1355 and Senate Bill 2086 would: require all voters to present a government issued ID at the polls, mandate the use of provisional ballots if an eligible voter moves to another county, tighten rules on voter registration groups, and shortening the validity of voter signatures on citizen initiatives.

Keeping in mind Florida's persistent issues with elections, the state's desire to improve its elections is admirable. Consider:

The 2000 presidential election came down to the winner of an incredibly close contest in Florida, ultimately officially decided by 537 votes. Every part of the voting process came under intense scrutiny - and generally failed that scrutiny, including confused recount procedures, antiquated "hanging chad " technology and controversies over management of voter rolls, access to voting, ballot designs like the "butterfly ballot" and more.
In 2002, following a $30 million retrofit of Florida voting technology, many of the problems present in the 2000 election continued, while new issues reared their ugly heads. For example, voting machines malfunctioned, polling places were closed or under-staffed, and long polling lines forced many precincts to turn voters away at closing time (despite longer hours to accommodate the surge in turnout).
In 2004, several counties in Florida discovered a computer glitch which had miscounted thousands of absentee ballots by subtracting all votes over 33,000 (a programmed number) from the vote total, resurrecting concerns about the accuracy of electronic voting machines. In addition to equipment flaws, there were widespread allegations of voter fraud including: registration forms containing addresses which didn't exist, forged signatures, and unintentional re-registrations under different partisanship.
In 2006, a US House race hinged on an abnormally high "undervote" in the losing candidate's home base of support in Sarasota, raising questions about ballot design or machine malfunction.
In 2008, polling places in several Florida precincts were overwhelmed by high voter turnout. Combined with confusion about new ID laws (which screened all voters submitting a mis-matched driver's license or social security number), voters spent up to three hours waiting in line to simply exercise their voice.

It's not surprising that Florida voters are ready to combat election fraud and irregularities, but measures need to be accurately targeted and sufficiently controlled to avoid causing new problems and needless disenfranchisement.

Consider voter identification requirements. On the one hand, Viewpoint Florida reports that likely voters in Florida overwhelmingly support requiring presentation of a government issued ID to vote, including 82% of Democrats, 91% of Republicans, and 84% of Independents .

But these poll results aren't necessarily grounded in good information. The press has spotlighted stories of people registering as Disney characters and college students attempting to vote even though already registered in their home district.

But there is no evidence that such practices lead to a significant number of illegal votes being cast - nor evidence that photo ID requirements even address a range of fraudulent voting practices like double voting, dead voters, fake addresses and vote-buying. A Brennan Center study concludes that voter fraud based on impersonation of another person is extremely rare - and already is a federal crime. Even if daring to try it, impersonation seemingly would be easier as an absentee voter, who won't be affected by photo ID requirements.

Balanced against this tenuous connection to a problem is the fact that photo ID requirement might keep thousands of eligible Florida voters from the polls because they don't have a valid government-issued ID and would have trouble getting one. The ACLU of Florida's Danielle Prendergrast argues that "students, racial minorities, and veterans will be the victims of this unneeded tinkering."

Despite not addressing reoccurring election issues such as glitches in voting software, poorly trained poll workers, and long polling lines, an ID requirement in Florida would also have little apparent impact on reducing fraud and could be quite expensive (the plan in Texas is estimated to cost over $2 million). In a state where the total debt is $31 billion and climbing, an ineffective, expensive bill is the last thing Florida needs. When one considers the eminent disenfranchisement that would occur following the passage of this bill, House Bill 1355 and Senate Bill 2086 seem more and more like prescribing an expensive medicine for an illness that doesn't solve the problem, but may just lead to further complications.

Far better would be to step back from an uncalculated "quick fix" and take a measured, nonpartisan approach to how best to uphold the right to vote in Florida. If Florida is willing to commit so much money to voter ID, it should consider how best to meet both goals for voting: protecting the integrity of the vote while ensuring access to voting. We don't have a right to vote in the Constitution, but we should start to act as if we did. Florida voters are too important to do anything less.

California's Proposition 14: Democracy Enhanced or Denied?

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:33:30 -0700

Today, FairVote released its report on the problems and possible solutions with California’s Proposition 14, also known as the “Top Two Primary” system.

On June 8, 2010, the voters of California approved Proposition 14, “The Top Two Primaries Act,” (“the Act”) with 53.7% of the vote. In its own words, the Act’s intention is “to protect and preserve the right of every Californian to vote for the candidate of his or her choice.” All general elections will be won with a majority of the vote, and voters in the primary are generally free to vote for their true first choice with little fear that doing so will help elect their least favored candidate. Many of its backers argued that by giving independent voters more influence in determining which candidates advance to the general election, the Act would result in more moderate politicians and less gridlock in the legislature.

The Act and associated statutes establish a system in which all registered voters can participate in a primary to be held in June and cast one vote for the candidate of their choosing for each office. Instead of separate primary contests according to party affiliation, there will be an “open primary” where all candidates compete against one another. Candidates may choose either to be unaffiliated or to identify with a state-recognized party, and voters can vote for any candidate, regardless of party. In the November general election, voters choose between the two candidates who received the most votes in the primary. No other candidates are permitted on the ballot, nor are write-in candidacies allowed.

While FairVote respects the decision of California voters and applauds the goal of giving voters more choices, more competitive elections and fairer representation than that provided by the system replaced by the Act, we have concerns about several ramifications of the hastily-drafted language of statutes implementing the Act. Several of the Act’s problems are wholly or in part caused by these statutes rather than the language of the Act itself. We recommend that the legislature enact several statutory changes that will not require any further changes to the state constitution, including permitting write-in votes, shortening the time between the primary and general elections, permitting “Partial Party Ballot Endorsement,” and providing fairer means to achieve and maintain recognized party status.

For other states who are crafting their own election reform statutes, FairVote recommends adopting Louisiana’s “Open General Election” system with a conditional runoff, adopting instant runoff voting or choice voting, potentially in an Open General Election , and advancing more than two candidates to the general election and use IRV.

We at FairVote hope that this report will help re-engage Californians and people across the country in the debate about how to design better, more open, and more representative democracies.

California's Proposition 14: Weaknesses and Remedies

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 12:02:31 -0700

On June 8, 2010, the voters of California approved Proposition 14, “The Top Two Primaries Act,” (“the Act”) with 53.7% of the vote. In its own words, the Act’s intention is “to protect and preserve the right of every Californian to vote for the candidate of his or her choice.” All general elections will be won with a majority of the vote, and voters in the primary are generally free to vote for their true first choice with little fear that doing so will help elect their least favored candidate. Many of its backers argued that by giving independent voters more influence in determining which candidates advance to the general election, the Act would result in more moderate politicians and less gridlock in the legislature.

The Act and associated statutes establish a system in which all registered voters can participate in a primary to be held in June and cast one vote for the candidate of their choosing for each office. Instead of separate primary contests according to party affiliation, there will be an “open primary” where all candidates compete against one another. Candidates may choose either to be unaffiliated or to identify with a state-recognized party, and voters can vote for any candidate, regardless of party. In the November general election, voters choose between the two candidates who received the most votes in the primary. No other candidates are permitted on the ballot, nor are write-in candidacies allowed.

While FairVote respects the decision of California voters and applauds the goal of giving voters more choices, more competitive elections and fairer representation than that provided by the system replaced by the Act, we have concerns about several ramifications of the hastily-drafted language of statutes implementing the Act. Several of the Act’s problems are wholly or in part caused by these statutes rather than the language of the Act itself. We recommend that the legislature enact several statutory changes that will not require any further changes to the state constitution. We believe these changes will make the Act more likely to succeed in its intent of providing voters with more choice and better representation. We do not believe they should be controversial. Indeed, several of our recommendations are already part of Washington State’s version of the Top Two law.

After explaining our concerns about the Act and associated statutes, we detail our recommended statutory changes to mitigate the impact of these defects. We also explain more substantial changes involving establishing an “Open General Election” that would require amending the Act in California, but should be considered by states or jurisdictions interested in the open primaries model.

Following the Money: Campaign Donations and Spending in the 2008 Presidential Race

Thu, 03 Feb 2011 12:53:11 -0800

As we’ve shown at FairVote in study after study, the great majority of people and states are ignored during the election for our country’s highest office. In 2008, all 300 of the campaign events with major party candidates for president and vice-president that took place after the Republican National Convention were in just 19 states. From September 24 – two days before the first general election debate – through Election Day on November 4, 99.75% of all advertising spending was in just 18 states.

But in the 2008 election, every state was invested at least in one way – they all had residents who donated to and financed the two major party candidates’ campaigns. However, when it came down to the stretch run, the candidates did not reciprocate this national effort. The remaining 32 states and the District of Columbia that received a combined 0.25% of campaign advertising were left as net exporters, sometimes in massive sums, of campaign money.

The ten biggest net exporters of campaign donations were California, New York, Illinois, Texas, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Maryland, Washington, New Jersey and Connecticut. Their residents were responsible for 59.99% of all donations to the two campaigns. In return, they received a total of 0.06% of campaign advertising spending during the peak campaign season – that is, $1 dollar of advertising spending in their state for every $1,000 they donated.

Meanwhile, the 18 net importers of campaign spending – with Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio leading the way – were showered with almost the entirety of national attention during the peak campaign season. Though they received 99.75% of all advertising over that stretch, they were responsible for only 27.70% of all donations to the major party campaigns. Florida alone received 18.18% of advertising despite being responsible for only 4.91% of donations.

This discrepancy is a clear consequence of the Electoral College winner-take-all system in place in 48 states and the District of Columbia. If the election was decided based on a national popular vote, states could finance in-state campaigning and have activism that stayed within their communities. Instead, states like Massachusetts and Vermont campaign in neighboring New Hampshire, Delaware and New Jersey campaign in Pennsylvania and Maryland and D.C. campaign in Virginia. The only states worth attention in the stretch run are the small group of swing states.

It should come as no surprise then that four of the top 10 net exporting states – Illinois, Maryland, Washington and New Jersey – have passed the National Popular Vote (NPV) interstate compact into law and California has sent it to the governor twice (with Schwarzenegger vetoing it both times). Under the NPV plan, once enough states sign on to represent a majority of the Electoral College (currently 270-538), they will award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the winner of each individual state. This will then determine the winner by the candidate with the most votes nationwide.

For a full listing of campaign donation vs. campaign spending, see the below chart, with net exporters of campaign money in red. (A graphical representation of the state-by-state data can be found here)

State	Total Donations	% of National Donations	Peak Season Candidate Ad $	% of Candidate Ad $
California	$151,127,483	17.76%	$28,288	0.02%
New York	$89,538,628	10.52%	$2,235	0.00%
Illinois	$50,900,675	5.98%	$53,896	0.03%
Texas	$46,327,287	5.44%	$4,641	0.00%
Virginia	$44,845,304	5.27%	$16,634,262	10.34%
District of Columbia	$44,275,246	5.20%	$0	0.00%
Florida	$41,770,516	4.91%	$29,249,985	18.18%
Massachusetts	$36,230,225	4.26%	$20	0.00%
Maryland	$28,723,600	3.37%	$0	0.00%
Washington	$24,666,430	2.90%	$5,062	0.00%
Pennsylvania	$23,929,821	2.81%	$24,903,675	15.48%
New Jersey	$22,756,469	2.67%	$0	0.00%
Colorado	$18,800,854	2.21%	$7,944,875	4.94%
Connecticut	$16,526,530	1.94%	$0	0.00%
Georgia	$16,507,714	1.94%	$177,805	0.11%
Ohio	$15,984,435	1.88%	$16,845,415	10.47%
Arizona	$15,334,618	1.80%	$75,042	0.05%
Michigan	$15,007,118	1.76%	$5,780,198	3.59%
North Carolina	$14,337,669	1.68%	$9,556,598	5.94%
Minnesota	$10,894,627	1.28%	$4,262,784	2.65%
Oregon	$10,155,182	1.19%	$2,754	0.00%
Missouri	$9,997,747	1.17%	$7,970,313	4.95%
Wisconsin	$8,133,046	0.96%	$8,936,200	5.56%
Tennessee	$7,934,886	0.93%	$9,955	0.01%
New Mexico	$6,418,313	0.75%	$3,134,146	1.95%
Indiana	$6,225,848	0.73%	$8,964,817	5.57%
South Carolina	$5,744,471	0.67%	$910	0.00%
Nevada	$5,273,523	0.62%	$7,108,542	4.42%
Hawaii	$5,045,151	0.59%	$0	0.00%
Oklahoma	$4,359,169	0.51%	$4,170	0.00%
Kentucky	$4,338,611	0.51%	$635	0.00%
Alabama	$4,333,420	0.51%	$1,385	0.00%
Louisiana	$4,330,756	0.51%	$2,279	0.00%
New Hampshire	$4,045,877	0.48%	$2,924,839	1.82%
Iowa	$3,649,836	0.43%	$3,713,223	2.31%
Maine	$3,344,447	0.39%	$832,204	0.52%
Kansas	$3,333,235	0.39%	$3,141	0.00%
Utah	$3,287,184	0.39%	$66	0.00%
Vermont	$2,852,896	0.34%	$0	0.00%
Arkansas	$2,446,323	0.29%	$1,897	0.00%
Mississippi	$2,400,625	0.28%	$1,731	0.00%
Rhode Island	$2,343,926	0.28%	$0	0.00%
Montana	$1,882,200	0.22%	$971,040	0.60%
Nebraska	$1,867,197	0.22%	$807	0.00%
Delaware	$1,745,123	0.21%	$0	0.00%
Alaska	$1,611,031	0.19%	$310	0.00%
Idaho	$1,610,072	0.19%	$368	0.00%
Wyoming	$1,488,479	0.17%	$0	0.00%
West Virginia	$1,236,993	0.15%	$733,025	0.46%
South Dakota	$758,626	0.09%	$980	0.00%
North Dakota	$442,998	0.05%	$18,365	0.01%
Total	$851,122,440	100.00%	$160,862,883	100.00%

*Donations statistics from the FEC

*Advertising statistics from CNN

FairVote testifies to Maryland Senate Committee

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:11:52 -0800

Yesterday, the Maryland Senate Education, Health & Environmental Committee held a public hearing on several election bills. FairVote’s Right to Vote Director Adam Fogel testified in favor of two of the bills that are sponsored by Sen. Jamie Raskin (D-20):
- SB 292, which will set a uniform voter registration age of 16
- SB 293, which will establish a permanent absentee ballot list.

Youth preregistration bills have been introduced and debated in the Maryland Legislature for the last three years now, as part of policies designed to encourage voter registration and participation. As Adam Fogel stated in his testimony, “Maryland’s 18 to 24-year-old voter registration rate is below the national average and is in danger of falling further if policies are not enacted now to increase voter registration opportunities for our youth.”

SB 292 was unopposed during the hearing, and notably supported by the County Council at-large candidate Hans Riemer, Ryan O’Donnell from Common Cause Maryland, Fielding Huseth from Maryland PIRG, and by the Maryland League of Women Voters. FairVote is optimistic that the bill will be favorably reported by the Committee and signed by the Governor at the end of the legislative session. If Maryland enacts the bill this year, they’ll join the list of states with 16-year-old registration: Hawaii, Florida, North Carolina, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia.

You can read Adam’s testimony for SB 292 here.

FairVote was also particularly interested in the permanent absentee ballot list proposal as a way to expand access to the polls. As Adam Fogel stressed it in his testimony, SB 293 would ensure that the most vulnerable among us (senior citizens in nursing homes, disabled citizens), as well as students studying out-of-state, and overseas voters, have the chance to cast a ballot in every election without having the burden of submitting an absentee ballot request before every single election. This bill would considerably strengthen Maryland law, according to which citizens do not need any excuse to vote absentee, and we’re hopeful that the Committee will report it favorably.

You can read Adam’s testimony for SB 293 here.

You can watch video of Adam Fogel, Ryan O'Donnell and Hans Riemer testifying below:

Watch the video on YouTube

Parties Must Fix the Primaries

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:00:00 -0700

As the Democratic Party approaches the final stretch of nominating contests, now is a good time to reflect on how we can improve the chaotic presidential primary process. The mad rush to the front of the calendar resulted in states losing convention delegates and the voices of voters being ignored. The Republican Party has recently taken the first step in setting a 2012 calendar that will ensure all states have an opportunity to participate in an organized way. The RNC's rules panel voted 28-12 in favor of the "Ohio Plan," a calendar that puts smaller states at the front of the process and rotates "pods" of larger states in four sections.

FairVote's "Fix the Primaries" campaign has improved the dialogue about how the parties can run fairer, more efficient contests in 2012. Right to Vote Director Adam Fogel and Executive Director Rob Richie have just released a new article in the Policy Perspective series, Delegating Democracy: How the Parties Can Make their Nominating Contests More Democratic, which examines six proposals that would promote democratic values in both parties' presidential nominating contests.

[ Policy Perspective: Delegating Democracy ]
[ Washington Times article on the GOP plan ]
[ www.fixtheprimaries.com ]
[ Presidential Election Reform Program ]