FairVote Feed: Universal Voter Registration

Remembering Bob Edgar

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:31:15 -0700

When my husband, Rob Richie, shared the news of the death of Common Cause president Bob Edgar with me this morning I felt a rush of shock and sadness. I met Bob in the fall of 1982 at an event in Media, Pennsylvania – when I was 18 and in my first semester at Swarthmore College. A number of us were active on campus on a range of issues and we found in Bob an eloquent and tenacious representative in Congress.

I soon began to volunteer in his district office, amidst tough fights on abortion rights and middle-east policy and later worked on his bid for the US Senate in 1986. During that campaign I had the honor to hear him speak truth to power many times a day for months on end. In between events and appearances he would educate me about immigration legislation and weapons systems and the complexities of government.

Over the ensuing 25 years I had the pleasure of hearing Bob speak in larger settings, at gatherings of Quakers and activists and political consultants. His message was always grounded deeply in his faith and in his passion for change.

During his tenure as president of Common Cause, our paths crossed again, this time as colleagues in the struggle to improve the very core of democracy. The issues he championed—including campaign finance reform, the filibuster and FairVote priorities like a national popular vote for president, universal voter registration and redistricting reform -- are all grounded in the profound understanding that every voice in a democracy is vital to its strength. Kathay Feng of California Common Cause today wrote that “one of the things Bob tried to teach all of us was to remember the humanity of each and every person.”

Bob Edgar’s lived his life as if in direct response to this admonition from Quaker founder George Fox in 1656:

“Be patterns, be examples in all countries, places, islands, nations wherever you come; that your carriage and life may preach among all sorts of people, and to them; then you will come to walk cheerfully over the world, answering that of God in everyone; whereby in them you may be a blessing, and make the witness of God in them to bless you.”

His tireless advocacy for peace, justice and democracy has opened many hearts and minds.

New Commitment to Our Most Basic Right

Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:52:25 -0800

In a speech at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library on December 11, Attorney General Eric Holder told listeners, “no force in our history has been more powerful than the continued expansion of what’s been called the lifeblood of our representative democracy, the cornerstone of our system of government, and the “most basic” right of American citizenship: the right to vote.”

He’s absolutely right in underscoring the centrality of the right to vote in a representative democracy. One of our clearest challenges, though, is a lack of an affirmative right to vote in the Constitution. Grounded in our belief that everyone should have the right to vote in free and fair elections regardless of who they are or where they live, FairVote has launched Promote Our Vote. Promote Our Vote seeks 100% voter participation through a combination of a national call for enshrining an affirmative right to vote in the U.S. Constitution and state and local commitments to protecting and promoting participation -- see our model resolution that we propose cities adopt.

Amending the Constitution to include an affirmative right to vote is important because it makes fixing our electoral system easier. The long lines and incorrectly administered provisional ballots of the November 6 election are examples of problems that could be more easily remedied if the fundamental right to vote was protected affirmatively in the Constitution. FairVote is currently working on a Right to Vote Amendment that would give Congress the authority to protect the individual right to vote and oversee voting policies and procedures to ensure that elections are fair, accurate and efficient.

FairVote was pleased to see one specific call to action in Attorney General Holder’s speech: the modernization of voter registration so that eligible voters are automatically added to the voter rolls. This is a vision that FairVote led the democracy community in touting a decade ago in the wake of the troubled 2000 election. Attorney General Holder called for creation of “a system of automatic, portable registration … in which government officials use existing databases, with appropriate privacy protections, to automatically register every eligible voter in America and enable their registration to move when they do.” Complete and accurate voter rolls are essential to the integrity of the electoral process and the legitimacy of results, and automatic, portable voter registration would ensure that eligible voters have access to the polls.

One disappointment in Holder’s speech is his suggestion that “fair redistricting” can promote “fair and effective representation for all” while not being “abused to protect incumbents and undercut electoral competition.” Independent redistricting commissions can only achieve these objectives if accompanied by multi-seat district systems with fair voting forms of proportional representation, as detailed in FairVote’s reports linked from our interactive map at FairVoting.US.

Attorney General Holder has observed that, “too many citizens have reason to fear that their right to vote, their access to the ballot – and their ability to have their votes counted – is under threat.” We can combat this threat, though, through reform of the systemic problems that plague our electoral process. Ultimately, we need to think and act nationally; but now is the time for all of us to get involved in that effort in our cities and states.

From the Mouth of the President to the Ears of the People: We Have to Fix That

Thu, 08 Nov 2012 08:40:17 -0800

As was expected, problems at the polls abounded on November 6, nationwide. While glitches were reported across the country, voter-rights watchers paid particular attention to the swing states, where obstacles to ballot access in the form of registration ambiguities, voting-day misinformation, voter suppression tactics, and long, exhausting (and cold!) lines had potential to lower turnout and affect outcomes.

Long lines drew particular attention, with some people waiting in line to vote many hours after the polls had officially closed, from voting after midnight in Montana down to lines of more than five hours in Orlando, Palm Beach County, Miami-Dade and Hernando County in Florida. President Barack Obama in his acceptance speech Tuesday night, thanked people for waiting in those lines --- and then added, “By the way, we have to fix that.”

The president is right. And the difficulties faced by voters on election day do not end with long lines. Many voters in Pinellas County (FL) received robocalls on Election Day from their county elections officials informing them wrongly that polling stations would be open “tomorrow." Colorado and Pennsylvania voters complained of voter machines that automatically switched votes from the voter’s choice. Ohio and Pennsylvania voters were among many who reported registration issues; an inordinate number of provisional ballots being handed out to voters whose names did not appear on registration rolls. Plenty of people never received their requested absentee ballots.

Even with these troubles, voter turnout is likely to be comparable to 2008– just over 60% of the eligible population when all the ballots are counted. Turnout was higher in swing states than the rest of the nation– about 8%, according to FairVote projections – but it wasn’t so high as to catch election officials by surprise..

There are a variety of actions we can take to ease ballot access and increase voter turnout, but the most obvious one is to remove obstacles to civic involvement that consistently deter and deny voters from the most basic form of civic engagement in American democracy. Voters are just playing by the rules; we should make sure those rules are fair and make elections equal for everyone. Some argue that increasing the number of available polling stations or invigorating voter education efforts are far too expensive, but we should never run democracy on the cheap.

To right this wrong, thereby increasing voter turnout and ensuring enfranchisement for eligible voters, we don’t have to wait for Congress to “fix that.” Change can begin at the local level. If campuses, cities and states take the initiative to pass local resolutions affirming their commitment to a constitutional right to vote, with the promise to promote and protect voter rights and participation locally, we can begin to take on the current barriers voters face on Election Day – and do more to draw new voters to the polls for all elections. Built on the notion that citizens have a responsibility to participate and the government has a reciprocal responsibility to ease participation, local resolutions deepen the tie between government and its citizens.

FairVote's Promote Our Vote project offers the tools needed to create and pass 'right to vote' resolutions. We identified the need to take action by “thinking globally and acting locally” on campuses and in communities across the nation to protect this right. We agree with the president that “we have to fix that” – and that it’s time for all of us to do our share. Read through our sample local resolutions and use our toolkit for action at PromoteOurVote.org.

New Report Highlights Our Primary Turnout Problem

Fri, 05 Oct 2012 07:44:51 -0700

Curtis Gans of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate has issued his latest report on voter turnout in the United States. There are those who disagree with Gans on some of the finer points of his methodology and on his analyses of proposed electoral reforms, but there's no question that Gans has made a valuable contribution to our discourse and understanding of voter participation for decades. His latest report is no exception.

Looking at turnout in primary elections, both this year and over time, points to one of the particularly disturbing realities of participation in the United States. Although turnout has generally increased or stayed constant in general elections for president and Congress, it has plunged in elections that have an immense impact on our representation in government and in policy decisions. Gans has fingered the problem of sinking turnout in primary elections for years, and this report shows how fewer than one in five voting-age Americans participated in a statewide primary this year -- despite a number of highly competitive primaries in the Republican presidential race in its early months and despite several significant primaries for U.S. Senate and other offices that will shape Congress in the years to come.

This is consistent with FairVote's findings on turnout in city elections. Turnout in elections for mayor in major cities today is remarkably low. Last November, San Francisco pundits were concerned that turnout in its mayoral race has been only 42.5% of registered voters. We took a look at turnout in the last election for mayor in our 22 largest population cities and discovered that San Francisco's turnout in fact led the pack. Having Rahm Emmanuel contesting for an open seat in Chicago still left nearly 60% of registered voters on the sideline, for example. Six cities had had more than 85% of registered voters skip the race - including single digit turnout in San Antonio and El Paso.

Such low turnout is disturbing for another reason: it is not equal across traditional definitions of class. While turnout disparities based on income and education level are significant in our federal elections, they can be simply shocking in local races. As one specific example, the city of Greenbelt, Maryland in 2011 moved its city elections to November and expanded its number of seats as a means to try to boost turnout and expand opportunities for racial minorities to win on a previously all-white city council. While racial minorities ended up being elected, turnout among registered voters ranged from 20% in some precincts to just 2% another. Our exit survey this summer in a Takoma Park city election found that of the 15% of registered voters who came to the polls, 56% had graduate or professional degrees - as opposed to only 14% of residents of the ward.

As a reformer, I like to look to solutions. There's clearly a broader problem of disengagement, cynicism and lack of awareness that goes beyond any single fix or, in fact, any single set of change to voting rules (short of the unlikely step of compulsory voting for such low profile elections). Voting is a communitarian act, and if people don't feel connected to their community or to groups within it involved in elections, they are unlikely to participate. There are, however, some obvious changes to consider. I'll provide three examples of many possible steps:

Consolidate election dates:If local elections were generally held on one day within a state and if statewide primaries for congressional offices were hold on one day around the nation (the first Tuesday in June, for example), there would be more publicity and voter awareness.
Voter education and better preparation:We typically run democracy on the cheap in the United States, but some states pay to mail out guides to voters about what's on their ballot and information about the mechanics of voting. That speaks to the value of acting as if we expect participation, rather than be surprised by it. Doing so means making sure every eligible voter is registered to vote through sensible uses of our databases and perhaps a unique national identifier. It means having a thread of learning about government and elections that runs through K-12 schools so no one leaves our schools unprepared to participate. And once people go to the polls, they should have an orderly and efficient experience.
Reduce the importance of primaries by expanding voter choice:One of the biggest problems of low-turnout in primaries is that they are often decisive for who wins the general election. Most of our legislative elections take place in districts that lean toward one party - not primarily because of redistricting, but because of the underlying partisan landscape of the country. That means the primary winner of the majority party can walk into office. But even in competitive races, it's rare that anyone but one of the major party nominees will win, with the "lesser of two evils" being a familiar refrain.

We could do much more to accommodate and encourage voter choice in the United States. We should replace plurality voting with majority voting systems like instant runoff voting and should replace winner-take-all legislative elections with "fair voting" forms of proportional representation that provide ongoing choice both between and among parties in the general election. Our new report on congressional elections demonstrates the impact of fair voting in a particularly powerful way, showing how every voter would be likely to have meaningful choices in every election while ending up with balanced representation of their district's left, middle and right - a change we can do by statute and grounded in our own electoral traditions.

Such changes and the broader goal of encouraging participation will take a national commitment to voter participation that has been lacking -- particularly in non-November elections like primaries and city elections. We've had enoujgh attention to the problem to know that it's time to take action.

Remember Young People in Maryland's April Primary

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 08:20:17 -0800

In 2010, I had a chance to cast my first vote. It was a memorable moment, a rite of passage into one of adulthood's most important roles: being a full citizen in our democracy. Unfortunately, as a nation we fail to embrace this moment in the same manner we celebrate graduating from high school or even getting a driver's license.

The result is that barely half of eligible voters under 25 are even registered to vote, and their rates of participation are far lower than older Americans. Non-voting can become habitual. In a comparative analysis of 25 democracies, political scientist Mark Franklin found that non-voting by potential first-time voters is the single biggest factor for international declines in voter turnout.

Maryland's April 3rd primary provides the latest opportunity to welcome newly eligible voters into the electorate. But if Virginia is an indication of how state governments and parties will treat this opportunity, we're in trouble. They not only weren't welcoming young people -- they actively made it difficult.

Before Virginia's deadline for voter registration, I called the state Board of Elections and the state Democratic and Republican Parties. All told me that no one under the age of 18 could vote in the primary, and insisted that there were no exceptions -- some with smug certainty that would have cowed all but the most persistent young person.

But they were wrong. Further calls to local election officials in Alexandria and Charlottesville verified that any Virginia citizen who is 17-years-old and will be 18 at the next general election can register to vote and participate in the primary or subsequent special election.

Seventeen-year-old primary voting is allowed in 19 states, including Maryland. It's a sensible practice welcoming first-time voters by allowing them to influence who will be on the general election ballot. But if you're not told the right information, you're not going to participate. Election officials should be far more careful in what they tell people about their laws.

Eligible voters in Maryland, including 17-year-olds, have until March 13 to register to vote for their April 3rd primaries -- with choices not only for the presidential nomination, but for Congress and local offices. Indeed, in Maryland, any citizen of at least 16-years-old can register -- and automatically be added to the active voter rolls upon reaching voting age.

All of us should do more to welcome young people into the electorate. Parents could make their child's first vote a special occasion. More of our schools could make sure young people become registered and introduced to the powers and responsibilities of offices up for election. Our DMV's could do more to help young people register.

At the very least, elections and party officials should get their facts straight. Failing to familiarize themselves with voter registration and voter eligibility rules jeopardizes the future civic engagement of a whole generation of young Americans.

Today's young people will be tomorrow's leaders. They will be running for office, running civic associations and political parties. And they should be voters. The health of self-government depends on engagement of all of us. Let's be sure to make it as special as it truly is -- starting on April 3rd in Maryland.

Let’s Get Voter Registration Right – and Make it Universal

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:12:28 -0800

This blogpost first appeared on the blog of the American Constitution Society.

This November's presidential election will present a stark choice between President Barack Obama and a Republican challenger, and voter turnout analysts predict a decline in voter turnout from our 62 percent turnout of eligible voters in 2008.

Voter motivation is one reason why American turnout lags behind that of many nations. Most Americans experience limited choice and a relatively low chance of electing strongly favored candidates. For example, in 2010 only one in four eligible voters elected a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives (what we call "the Representation Index"). In contrast, in Denmark's last elections, nearly five in six eligible voters elected representatives to its national legislature from an array of choices, voter turnout was more than 85 percent, and its system of proportional representation led to more than 95 percent of voters electing their preferred choice.

Our broken voter registration system is a more direct barrier to participation. In fact, if every single registered voter participated this November, we still would trail many nations in turnout. According to a new study by the Pew Center on the States Election Initiatives, of some 220 million eligible American votes, more than 50 million aren't registered to vote. Another 24 million voter registrations have serious data problems that could block or interfere with voting.

It won't take rocket science to ensure that every eligible voter is registered to vote and that all ineligible voters are not. What we need is a national commitment to take on the challenge, some start-up resources and smart use of existing databases. Other countries continue to modernize their systems, with international norms for voter registration rates typically well above 90 percent of eligible voters.

Two nations provide recent examples of how it can be done. Chile last month adopted a law designed to register all eligible voters automatically. In its last presidential election in 2010, nearly a third of Chile's 12 million voting-age citizens weren't registered. With the new law, more than 4.5 million voters, mostly young adults, will be added to the voter rolls.

Egypt provides another example. After decades of authoritarian rule, the "Arab Spring" movement took hold in Egypt, leading to a new election, for which the interim government established a universal voter registration system. Every Egyptian who was at least 16 years old was entered into a national voter database based on addresses on their required national identification card. Voters who are at least 18 years or older need only show their national identification card at the polls in order to vote.

American citizens do not have a national ID card and are not voting in the wake of a revolution, yet Chile and Egypt provide a general roadmap for action. All Americans should automatically obtain a kind of"democracy passport" at no cost upon becoming citizens. That "passport" need not be a physical piece of paper, of course, but rather an indication of a national commitment to ensure and protect equal access to suffrage. Lifetime voter registration would require a unique identifier for the specific purpose of participating in U.S. elections. The passport metaphor would go hand-in-hand with establishing innovative civic education programs designed to prepare all Americans to be active, informed voters - establishing that preparation for political participation is as important as preparation for economic contributions.

Even without a national policy to secure full and accurate voting roles, states are making major advances. As the Pew Center on the States' David Becker explained when releasing their new report, "antiquated, paper-based systems are plagued with errors and inefficiencies." Fortunately, however, "[p]roven solutions and technology are already in place in many government offices and the private sector, and states can use them to improve the accuracy, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of their systems. State leaders from across the country and from both parties are pioneering these solutions."

Seeing how some states are making these improvements and how nations like Chile and Egypt haves soared past the United States in terms of both the access and integrity of their voter registration systems is a sobering reminder that the status quo is unacceptable. Without what ultimately should be a nationally coherent system of universal voter registration, we cannot ensure two basic goals of a fully representative democracy: that no ineligible vote should be cast, and that every eligible voter should have secure access to voting. It's time to make a national commitment to voting in the United States; doing so must include modernizing voter registration.

FairVote analysis in national news

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:20:53 -0800

On February 12th, FairVote executive director Rob Richie was a guest on CSPAN television's Washington Journal, aired live around the nation. That day he also had the first and final letters in the New York Times' "Invitation to Dialogue" series on voting reform. FairVote staff and interns have been publishing many articles in 2012.

Rob Richie on CSPAN

New York Times "Invitation to Dialogue"

Fair voting op-eds in St. Louis Post-Dispatch & Austin American-Statesman

FairVote blogs on Huffington Post & Oped News

Learning a Lesson from Egypt’s Universal Voter Registration

Wed, 07 Dec 2011 13:28:06 -0800

Egypt’s first parliamentary election since the ousting of Hosni Mubarak began in certain parts of the country on November 28 and will continue into early next year. The vote is to ultimately fill the 498 seats of the People’s Assembly, the lower house of the legislature, through a combination of proportional representation and winner-take-all runoff elections.

Egypt is experiencing high turnout for a nation that is undergoing such turmoil. One reason is the sentiment that under Mubarak’s rule, voters were denied a political voice. Thus, voters now feel that they have the freedom to express themselves at the polls. Turnout rates were also bolstered by proportional representation, which encourages voters everywhere to vote and helps voters to elect candidates of choice.

There’s another reason for this high turnout, a reason with direct relevance to elections in the United States. Unlike the United States, where as many as three in ten eligible voters are not registered to vote, Egypt this year established a system of universal voter registration. Each citizen has a national identification card. Every individual age 16 years old or older is entered into a national database based on the address on his or her national identification card. That database is used as the national register for voters. Voters who are at least 18 years or older need only show their national identification card at the polls in order to vote.

The effect of this change, approved by Egypt’s Higher Election Committee prior to this year’s election, was not only to grant easier access to those voters in Egypt, but also to those Egyptian voters living abroad. In this current election, all eligible Egyptian expatriates are allowed to vote if there is a polling place established in their respective embassy or consulate. All those Egyptian expatriates who had a national identification card or a passport issued prior to September 27, 2011 are able to vote in this current election. With the ease of registering using only a national identification or passport, hundreds of thousands of Egyptian expatriates registered to vote online prior to the November election.

True, American citizens are not voting next year in the wake of a revolution; yet, there are lessons to be gleaned from the Egyptian experience that are instructive for U.S. elections. Our elections would benefit from a type of “democracy passport” that all Americans would automatically obtain upon becoming citizens. That “passport” need not be a physical piece of paper, but rather a unique identifier that every American citizen would receive for the specific purpose of participating in our democracy.

That kind of universal voter registration system would make it much more likely for us to uphold the goal that votes are only cast by those who are eligible to vote and that voting is not denied to people who are eligible to vote. Our current flawed system neither upholds election integrity nor voter access. Indicative of this flawed system is the fact that millions of Americans have active registrations in more than one jurisdiction, while tens of millions of eligible voters are not even registered to vote.

In contrast, the type of universal registration system created through the use of a “democracy passport” places the burden of registering voters on the government, not on voters themselves. It also modernizes the registration process by eliminating errors inherent in paper registration and creates a standardized system of registration in every state.

Though the details of administering this type of system still need to be developed, it is well within reach, given the realities of modern database technology and systems already in place to give out social security numbers. Seeing brand-new democracies like Egypt soar past the United States in terms of both the access and integrity of its voter registration system is a sobering reminder that the status quo is unacceptable.

Why Settle? A Review of the Conference on “Creating the Voting Rights Act of 2012”

Fri, 04 Nov 2011 08:36:53 -0700

Why Tuesday? held its 2012 election campaign kickoff event on November 7th. The organization, which is famous for travelling the country asking political leaders why America votes on Tuesdays, hosted a program entitled “Creating the Voting Rights Act of 2012.” Why Tuesday? will have every 2012 presidential candidate explain what they would do to improve voter turnout in the United States.

The conference had four panelists who addressed current voting barriers, possible solutions to those barriers, and how voters, particularly young voters, can take action in urging political elites to get serious about electoral reform efforts that combat poor voter participation. The speakers were: Meghan McCain, daughter of 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain; Why Tuesday? Executive Director, Jacob Soboroff; Mimi Marziani, Counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice; and David Becker, Director of the Pew Center on the States Election Initiatives. The moderator was Why Tuesday? Board member Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute.

Mimi Marziani of the Brennan Center began by explaining that state legislatures have severely targeted voting rights today. To date, there are 21 new laws in 14 different states that have decreased the ease of voting. The Brennan Center’s report found that restrictions on acceptable forms of identification at the polls and reduced periods of early voting will likely affect up to five million students, racial minorities, poor, disabled and elderly Americans.

In Texas, for example, a law was recently passed declaring college or university IDs to be invalid forms of identification on Election Day. However, Texas does allow handgun licenses as an acceptable ID. Looking at the statistics provided by the Brennan Center, we find that African American students make up 17% of the university population in Texas. But only 7.5% of African Americans in the state of Texas have handgun licenses. This law puts students, especially those who are studying out-of-state, at a potential disadvantage in successfully casting their ballot on Election Day.

In Florida, a civics teacher who was helping her students register to vote (doing something FairVote has backed strongly in making use of the state’s new law-- one passed with bipartisan support- allowing 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to “pre-register” to vote) now faces thousands of dollars in fines because she was not in compliance with Florida’s new election law. Florida’s new law on voter registration makes it harder for third party organizations to aid eligible citizens in registering to vote.

Those in favor of these restricting election laws say it is voter fraud that has driven them to make these changes. But opponents of these laws, like Norm Ornstein, explained that the claims being made about voter fraud at the polls is virtually non-existent.

Whether these new laws now seen as suppressing voter turnout are the product of political motives, or whether they are guided by a desire to protect the right that so many Americans hold dear, it is clear that modernizing voter registration is a better way to safeguard the right to vote. One out of every nine Americans moves each year, and that amount is double among young people. We live in a technologically advanced society, yet the question still remains, why are voter registration procedures still functioning within the confines of the 19th and 20th centuries?

The United States is just about the only major democracy that puts the burden of voter registration on the voters. If voter registration information is shared between states, updated by the states, managed online, and is operated on an opt-out basis rather than an opt-in basis, it would take away that burden put on voters. It would also reduce problems that arise when election officials receive waves of new forms due to a mobile society right before the deadline, and would eliminate the struggle of trying to read illegible handwriting on paper applications.

Solutions such as the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) and state-run automatic registration when eligible citizens turn 18 years old will help alleviate some of the costs of voting. There are many brilliant ideas on how to fix our voting system that have surfaced from both electoral reform organizations and unaffiliated voters alike. But with a country in the midst of a debt crisis and an economy slow to bounce back, it is hard to get political leaders to see the importance in reforming the current electoral system. The ability to choose the few people who are tasked with making decisions on behalf of the many is important, and that selection process should not be looked at as insignificant by those leaders themselves.

Here’s how FairVote suggests you can get involved!

-If you are a student or know a student, have them take advantage of any poll worker opportunities in your community
- Voice your views on the importance of voter participation by using email, or through free social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter
- Have discussions with those you know about why you are a voter, how meaningful it is to participate in choosing who represents and speaks for you in government
- Be ready to work for structural reforms to our electoral process. When we are in a position to cast meaningful votes in contested elections, we can expect voter turnout to rise.
-Show appreciation for your ability to vote by going to the polls on Election Day!

Stay tuned for FairVote doing a lot more to make it easier to get involved in these activities.

Voter Fraud: Let's Modernize Voter Registration First

Fri, 07 Oct 2011 07:52:36 -0700

The Heritage Foundation held a conference on October 6 entitled, “The Constitution and the Right to Vote: Protecting Against Voter Fraud.” Expert panelists discussed issues regarding voter fraud in the U.S. and the increasing need for voter ID laws.

John Fund, author and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, began his speech by talking about the latest municipal election in Albuquerque, New Mexico on October 4. Albuquerque adopted a law requiring voters to show identification at their polling locations. Reported by KRQE News 13, Albuquerque voters showed up in high numbers to vote on Tuesday. Mr. Fund made the point that any beliefs about voter turnout being depressed as a result of voter ID laws are non-other than “dubious,” citing Albuquerque’s successful election as an example despite its voter ID law.

Fund is right that having voter ID laws don't prevent relatively high turnout, as was also true in states like Indiana and Georgia that had voter ID during the 2008 presidential elections. But KRQE News 13 was pointing out the reason voter turnout was so high was because Mayor R.J. Berry’s bond package was on the ballot. The plan to spend $25-million on a new sports complex during economic times where every dollar counts was not something that resonated well with many voters.

In addition to this anomaly in voter turnout, Albuquerque’s voter ID law was passed in 2005. The immediate effects of a law like this would be much harder to see six years after its implementation. It also doesn't change the fact that certain eligible voters may not have voted due to the law.

Turning to questions about voter fraud, Hans von Spakovsky, a Senior Legal Fellow for The Heritage Foundation’s Legal and Judicial Studies, used Wake County (NC) as an example of a location where three people voted twice in a recent election. What was not said about the three people, was information regarding their lack of knowledge concerning voting procedures. After telling a poll worker on Election Day that they had already voted once under North Carolina’s rules for early voting, they cast a second ballot to “make sure their vote counted.” In a county where 440,000 votes were cast in the 2008 presidential elections, three people violating the law in such an apparently non-malicious way is obviously not many.

This is not to dismiss in the least the importance of maintaining fair elections, but in the case of voter ID laws, having photo identification in this instance would not have kept these people from voting twice. It would have confirmed they were the person they said they were, matching the voter’s appearance with the picture on the card and providing an in-state address, doing nothing to provide a solution for what was a lack of voter education.

It is safe to say that the U.S. electoral system has its flaws. It is also clear that the Heritage Foundation favors voter identification laws as a way to reform the often inaccurate registration rolls. States do not have an effective method of sharing information across state borders to account for the abundance of mobility within the country and election boards increasingly go without the manpower necessary to run tip top elections. But, America already has the lowest turnout rates in comparison to other modernized democracies, and state governments already require voters to jump through many hoops in order to register and vote. If a voter ID law is to be pursued anyway, safeguards need to be built in that it doesn’t lead to eligible voters being denied their right to vote.

Other advocacy organizations have provided their own solutions to fixing inaccurate voter rolls. The Brennan Center believes one way to fix voter registration is to make it permanent, preventing voters from being taken off registration lists even if they move. The Pew Center on the States has already produced a program called the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), where the responsibility of updating and getting voters on registration rolls will be left up to the states.

FairVote is open to many suggestions that will modernize voter registration in our support for full and accurate voter rolls. We are particularly interested in the idea of a national system grounded in every eligible voter automatically and efficiently receiving a "Democracy Passport." This would be a unique national government identifier that would systematically register every eligible citizen and update voter registration rolls.

FairVote also supports the establishment of a federal standard that all states must meet to make sure eligible citizens are registered to vote. Still, it will be left up to the voters to decide whether they will accept the solutions state governments believe will solve this problem, and it is the voters who will determine if they think it is right for them to take on the extra burdens of problems that are institutional in nature, an institution that is in dire need of reform.