Setting the Record Straight on Universal Voter Registration Misinformation and Misunderstanding Begin to Frame Debate

by Adam Fogel // Published February 3, 2010

Last month, video of the Wall Street Journal's John Fund discussing universal voter registration made the rounds, stirring up a considerable amount of buzz on the right about the impending federal government takeover of elections. In his remarks, which you can watch in its entirety below, he describes a diabolical plot by liberal Democrats in congress to steal control of elections and register illegal immigrants. He explains the plan as follows:

In January, Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank will propose universal voter registration. What is universal voter registration? It means all of the state laws on elections will be overriden by a federal mandate. The feds will tell the states: 'take everyone on every list of welfare that you have, take everyone on every list of unemployed you have, take everyone on every list of property owners, take everyone on every list of driver's license holders and register them to vote regardless of whether they want to be...'

It should be noted that when Rep. Frank heard these comments, he sent a letter to Mr. Fund explaining that he had no idea what Mr. Fund was talking about.  Mr. Fund has since retracted the claim that Rep. Frank is working on a voter registration bill, but now claims the bill is being pushed by House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers. Mr. Fund has a history of misinforming the public about voting issues, most recently when he peddled the unsubstantiated claim of rampant fraud in the New Jersey gubernatorial election.

Although Mr. Fund has shown some interest in other FairVote reforms like defanging gerrymandering to protect incumbents, his inaccurate and misleading statements about universal voter registration should be addressed by voting rights and reform advocates. First, he claims that a bill to modernize voter registration would be a takeover of elections by the federal government, essentially, overriding all existing state election law. While most other democracies around the world have centralized, impartial national election commissions, the U.S. does not. We rely on state election law to govern elections, with a constitutional mandate giving Congress broad authority to regulate federal elections. It is inaccurate to claim that anyone is advocating for a federal takeover of all elections. It is necessary, however, for Congress to provide guidelines and standards for states to follow that would improve election processes and increase accessibility to voter registration. Like the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2002, a voter registration modernization bill should provide resources for states to modernize their voter registration systems.

The way Mr. Fund describes how the federal government would assist states in improving their registration systems is inaccurate as well. He claims that states would be forced to automatically register "everyone" on "every" government list, including welfare recipients, property owners and people with a driver's license "regardless of whether they want to be." This is simply wrong. Under a modernized voter registration system no one will be forced to register to vote. There always will, and must, be an opportunity for eligible Americans to opt-out of the voter registration process and have their name removed from the voter roll. I would argue that we should create a system that anticipates participation, as opposed to being surprised when voter turnout is high. That means using government databases to automatically register all eligible voters automatically. The system would rightfully exclude ineligible people and would always provide a chance to opt-out. The Brennan Center for Justice has put together some excellent resources on how states could begin using existing databases to improve voter registration rates, without the risk of ineligible people ending up on the rolls.

The rallying cry on both ends of the political spectrum is that the other side is "stealing elections." Some conservatives, including Mr. Fund, claim that voter fraud is rampant, ACORN stole the 2008 election and more hurdles to participation are necessary to ensure fair elections. Some progressives are averse to most policies that are perceived to enhance election security for fear it will keep eligible voters away from the polls. While these two positions appear contradictory, I believe they can be complimentary. If the government took on a more prominent role in the voter registration process, it would decrease (but not eliminate) the need for third-party groups to conduct voter registration on the street. Voter rolls would be more accurate (not less) because they would be created using more reliable sources of data. The last-minute rush of voter registration applications would be a thing of the past, leaving local election officials more time to prepare for the election--increasing both accessibility and security simultaneously.

A bipartisan group of election experts who understand the need for bringing our voter registration system into the 21st century started a group called the Committee to Modernize Voter Registration. They offer some solutions for moving away from our paper-based system to an automatic system where voters remain on the rolls even if they move. Mr. Fund and other critics of modernizing our voter registration system should take a look at these bipartisan proposals, with an eye to finding compromises that will ultimately move our democracy forward.

 

Comments currently closed for Setting the Record Straight on Universal Voter Registration

  • This is a really complex topic but I think "uniform standard for elections across states administered by a non-political, independent arm from each state would be a welcome reform. Why would a sane election planner interested in fairness even consider electronic voting machines without paper records for later auditing? Mr. Fund and other critics of modernizing our voter registration system should take a look at these bipartisan proposals, with an eye to finding compromises that will ultimately move our democracy forward." essentially sums it up. Our democracy demands this.
    Posted by Krankenversicherer, 2012-03-29 04:00:35 (1 year ago)
  • That said, this antiquated electoral system appears to give too much deference to states to regulate the conduct of elections which have national consequences in ways that may be strongly influenced by the politics of a particular state (i.e., Katherine Harris). A uniform standard for elections across states administered by a non-political, independent arm from each state would be a welcome reform. Why would a sane election planner interested in fairness even consider electronic voting machines without paper records for later auditing? Mr. Fund and other critics of modernizing our voter registration system should take a look at these bipartisan proposals, with an eye to finding compromises that will ultimately move our democracy forward." is the important part!
    Posted by Werbeagentur Hannover, 2012-02-03 04:10:55 (1 year ago)
  • That said, this antiquated electoral system appears to give too much deference to states to regulate the conduct of elections which have national consequences in ways that may be strongly influenced by the politics of a particular state (i.e., Katherine Harris). A uniform standard for elections across states administered by a non-political, independent arm from each state would be a welcome reform. Why would a sane election planner interested in fairness even consider electronic voting machines without paper records for later auditing? Mr. Fund and other critics of modernizing our voter registration system should take a look at these bipartisan proposals, with an eye to finding compromises that will ultimately move our democracy forward." is the important part!
    Posted by URL, 2011-12-16 05:31:19 (2 years ago)
  • I think to allow immigrants to vote is the right way for real democracy. we now live in a global village and many people move from continent to continent for various reasons. but even here in europe, not even eu-citizens are allowed to vote if they live in another eu-country (okay there are some minor exceptions). that's a shame... greetings from germany
    Posted by Sabine, 2011-07-11 03:42:34 (2 years ago)
  • Link for additional resource to Committee to Modernize Voter Registration doesn't work well. I am not sure what to think about critics of modernizing USA voter registration system. This can be hard question and serious task for every government. Brennan center for justice is fantastic additional resource and provides information on five categories of government lists that may be used for the purpose of automatically registering eligible citizens to vote: (1) state department of motor vehicles databases; (2) state social service databases; (3) other state lists covering low-income citizens; (4) lists of recipients of state and federal disability benefits; and (5) federal government lists. The lists discussed in this document have some or all of the data elements necessary to register voters; the capacity to share data with other government entities; and, when taken together, the demographic coverage necessary to capture a large proportion of voting-eligible citizens. Thanks for sharing this with us and thanks for all comments. Very good arguments on each side.
    Posted by Thassos , 2011-05-24 04:14:40 (2 years ago)
  • Is it legitimate to target particular organizations right to organize voter drives because of who they register? What if some states decide to check driver's licenses while other do not? Are all homeless/unemployed people (who don't pay income taxes) non-citizens? That said, this antiquated electoral system appears to give too much deference to states to regulate the conduct of elections which have national consequences in ways that may be strongly influenced by the politics of a particular state (i.e., Katherine Harris). A uniform standard for elections across states administered by a non-political, independent arm from each state would be a welcome reform. Why would a sane election planner interested in fairness even consider electronic voting machines without paper records for later auditing? Mr. Fund and other critics of modernizing our voter registration system should take a look at these bipartisan proposals, with an eye to finding compromises that will ultimately move our democracy forward." is the important part!
    Posted by Mörtel, 2011-05-11 08:11:34 (2 years ago)
  • I think moving democracy forward means allow immigrants to vote. I know that's not popular, but these are the hardest working people in our population.
    Posted by Jody Sparks, 2011-01-27 11:09:29 (2 years ago)
  • registration system should take a look at these bipartisan proposals, with an eye to finding compromises that will ultimately move our democracy forward." is the important part!
    Posted by new york divorce attorney, 2010-11-03 11:49:22 (3 years ago)
  • Why the federal government who historically has little or no expertise in conducting elections should be encouraged to provide or impose guidelines and standards on states puzzles me. States have election departments that sometimes do quite well and sometimes do a poor job conducting elections. Presuming that simply because the federal government.
    Posted by san diego carpet cleaning, 2010-11-03 05:37:15 (3 years ago)
  • overwhelming bipartisan support in 2002, a voter registration modernization bill should provide resources for states to modernize their voter registration systems.
    Posted by Divorce Attorney NY, 2010-11-03 05:07:40 (3 years ago)
  • Cloward and Piven Motor Voter considers to be his crowning achievement, a lifetime. The image on the right, the White House file photo shows Cloward (gray suit) and Piven (green coat and blue dress) standing right behind Clinton at the signing ceremony Motor Voter. Rewrite
    Posted by Toledo Attorneys, 2010-11-02 22:59:10 (3 years ago)
  • I think this "A bipartisan group of election experts who understand the need for bringing our voter registration system into the 21st century started a group called the Committee to Modernize Voter Registration. They offer some solutions for moving away from our paper-based system to an automatic system where voters remain on the rolls even if they move. Mr. Fund and other critics of modernizing our voter registration system should take a look at these bipartisan proposals, with an eye to finding compromises that will ultimately move our democracy forward." is the important part!
    Posted by Dolmetschen, 2010-11-02 02:25:07 (3 years ago)
  • Adam Fogel makes a great argument for Federal involvement in guiding elections, while also acknowledging that there is no broad authority to regulate the way state's conduct federal elections. The relevant authority at the federal level is based on the Constitution, Amendments, and US Code here: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html What appears relevant to regulation would be state' s limiting voting rights in a discriminatory way based on race, sex, or failure to pay taxes. Are exclusions based on past prison records legitimate or are they really targeting citizens based on race--forcing some to prove their right to vote and thereby discouraging them from doing so? Is it legitimate to target particular organizations right to organize voter drives because of who they register? What if some states decide to check driver's licenses while other do not? Are all homeless/unemployed people (who don't pay income taxes) non-citizens? That said, this antiquated electoral system appears to give too much deference to states to regulate the conduct of elections which have national consequences in ways that may be strongly influenced by the politics of a particular state (i.e., Katherine Harris). A uniform standard for elections across states administered by a non-political, independent arm from each state would be a welcome reform. Why would a sane election planner interested in fairness even consider electronic voting machines without paper records for later auditing? Is it the right of a state to call into question the legitimacy of a national election because they lack the funds or find themselves unprepared to conduct a proper election? Presidential elections based on the popular vote also seem more fair. If only a handful of states and their particular issues get all of the attention by candidates based on political strategizing, why should the rest of the country bother voting?
    Posted by ben, 2010-02-07 12:43:40 (3 years ago)
  • Why the federal government who historically has little or no expertise in conducting elections should be encouraged to provide or impose guidelines and standards on states puzzles me. States have election departments that sometimes do quite well and sometimes do a poor job conducting elections. Presuming that simply because the federal government imposes one uniform standard for conducting elections means that they will choose a better standard than a given state is already using is assuming something that has no historical foundation. As for misinforming the public, you might wish to review the US Constitution. Article I, Section 8 lays down the powers that Congress is tasked with. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it mention any "broad authority" or mandate for the federal government to regulate or standardize state elections, nor should it. If there are better ways for the states to conduct elections I encourage the Center for Voting and Democracy and the Committee to Modernize Voter Registration to research methods and standards and propose them to the states. If there is a better way to maintain an election system then states (hopefully all of them) will adopt them. Imposing new methods via the federal government can only guarantee that one standard is used, not necessarily a better standard.
    Posted by Thane Eichenauer, 2010-02-03 14:39:26 (3 years ago)