From the Dispatch

State Policymakers Need to Respond to Growing Clout of Latino Voters Nationwide

Suman Raghunathan — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:19:43 -0500

A recent report from the advocacy group America’s Voice highlighted the growing power of Latino voters in the upcoming 2010 elections. Latino voters played a critical role in 2008 to propel President Obama to victory in several key swing states that previously trended Republican, including Virginia. Latino voter registration and turnout rates have exploded over the past few years: roughly 10 million voted in the 2008 Presidential election alone, a 2.5 million increase from 2004 and 4 million person increase since 2000. Latino voter registration grew by over 54% between 2000 and 2008, and turnout grew 64% over the same time period.

The shifting composition of the electorate nationwide will increasingly affect state legislators and races. This trend is particularly evident in immigrant ‘new destination states’ in the South and Southwest, where growing numbers of immigrant residents are expected to translate into new Congressional districts after the 2010 Census. In response, progressive state leaders can take a few key steps:

Take Action on Immigrant Rights, a Defining Issue for Many Latinos: Immigration was not the number one issue for all Latino voters: like most Americans, the economy remains critical for them. Nevertheless, immigration reform remains important to a broad majority of Latinos as they make voting decisions. According to a May 2009 poll of Latino voters, 82% felt the issue was important to them and their families. Foreign-born Latinos (many of whom still have friends or family members who are documented residents but aren’t yet US citizens or who are undocumented) often feel comprehensive immigration reform and immigration policy is a top issue. State leaders can join State Legislators for Progressive Immigration Policy to promote state policies that support immigrants and add their voices to those of other state legislators calling for comprehensive federal immigration reform.
Address Other Key Concerns of Latino Voters: Latino voters need to see progressive state leaders standing up for other key concerns as well, such as health care. A survey last November found Latino registered voters' top concern was health care reform, with 61% saying the government should ensure that all people have health insurance, even if it means raising taxes. Addressing core issues for working families is also key to cementing support from Latino voters.
Support Latino Voter Participation: State leaders can respond to increased Latino voter engagement by continuing to protect their voting rights. State leaders can encourage this trend by introducing and supporting measures to encourage voting such as vote-by-mail, same-day registration and reforms, as well as strengthening civic engagement overall.
Support State-Level Policies and Programs that Integrate Immigrant Residents: Funding immigrant integration measures such as expanded ESL classes is critical for immigrant residents to fully participate in their community, yet demand continues to far outweigh supply for free or low-cost ESL classes. Waiting lists for ESL programs, which often receive some federal funding, remain long nationwide. English proficiency also translates to better wages for immigrant workers, as they can speak up for their rights at the workplace: one academic study found low-wage workers who moved up one English proficiency level saw a 30% increase in their wages.
Reach Spanish-Dominant Latinos: Foreign-born Latinos who predominantly speak Spanish are emerging as swing voters, and are a sizeable share of the Latino electorate: 40% were born outside the US and are naturalized US citizens. According to the New Democrat Network, the GOP more than doubled its share of the Latino vote from 1996 to 2004 by prioritizing outreach to Spanish-dominant Latinos. Both parties are well aware of this dynamic, and continue to step up their outreach: nearly 70% of 2008 immigration-related Presidential campaign ads were in Spanish.

Raising state voices in support of immigration reform is critical, especially in the wake of Congressional inaction on the issue. Despite repeated promises from White House and Congressional leaders to enact comprehensive immigration reform during President Obama's first year in office, momentum on comprehensive immigration reform has slowed in recent months. Yet the current federal vacuum on immigration reform presents an opportunity for states to craft progressive policies that support immigrant integration, such as English as a Second Language (ESL) classes, and protect the rights of immigrant workers. Meanwhile, efforts continue toward comprehensive immigration reform: in an interview last week with Los Angeles’ Spanish-language newspaper La Opinión, US House of Representatives Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi reiterated her commitment to enacting comprehensive immigration reform this year – a message she notably has not broadcast in the mainstream media. Pelosi noted she recently raised the issue with President Obama, who said he would work with Congress to develop a bill this year.

Resources:
America's Voice - The Power of the Latino Vote in the 2010 Elections: They Tipped Elections in 2008; Where Will They Be in 2010?
Latino Decisions/UNM RWJF Center/impreMedia - Survey of Latino Registered Voters
Progressive States Network - State Legislators for Progressive Immigration Policy
Progressive States Network - State Immigration Policy to Promote National Change

Universal Voter Registration: A New Initiative to Increase Electoral Participation and Reduce Voter Suppression

Christian Smith-Socaris — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:27:53 -0500

The elections of 2008 served as a critical test of the nation's election systems. With changes in voting machines and procedures, coupled with expectations of record voter turnout, election administrators held their breath and hoped their system wouldn't fail.

While the system didn't fail, voters faced serious obstacles in exercising their right to vote. Voter registration ended up being the problem that affected the largest number of voters. Even before the first votes were cast, it was apparent that our voter registration systems were woefully inadequate. While in other nations 90% or more of the eligible voter population is registered to vote, in the United States less than 75% of eligible voters are registered.

We can do better.

The lack of registered voters was not the only aspect of our voter-initiated registration systems that drew notice this year. The right-wing tried to divert blame for faulty registration procedures onto groups working to register low-income and minority voters, particularly promoting attacks on the community group ACORN, instead of recognizing that the problem was in the heavy barriers to people registering to vote in the first place.

Recognizing the significant challenges to voter registration from mismanagement and suppression, and seeking a new level of security for the right to vote, momentum is developing for a comprehensive solution - universal voter registration. As this Dispatch outlines, under a system of universal registration, government would take primary responsibility for registering all voters.

The United States stands apart among advanced democracies for the onerous nature of its current voter registration laws and practices. These laws and practices by nature restrict voter registration and have been easily manipulated by political actors to be even more restrictive than intended. Many election reform advocates, state legislators, and election law scholars believe now is the time to move forward deliberately toward universal registration and in turn cut the Gordian knot of voter suppression and partisan skirmishing that has been wound by the current system. Progressive States Network will be working with advocates to help move forward this new initiative for universal registration in states across the country.

How the Right-wing Used Voter Suppression to Deny the Right to Vote

In an election year where increased turnout was likely to determine the viability of the candidate for president, it was inevitable that the right-wing would engage in a host of voter suppression tactics, as PSN documented leading up to Election Day (see here and here and here).

In order to divert attention from those voter suppression efforts, the right-wing promoted ACORN as the poster child for supposed attempts to register people who are not eligible to vote (despite no evidence of significant illegal voting in this or past elections). While there is no evidence that ACORN intentionally filed false registrations -- in fact, there is significant evidence that they did perform due diligence in flagging potentially problematic registrations and reported employees suspected of wrongdoing to authorities -- it is clear that the right-wing vote suppressors were successful in casting a cloud over ACORN's work, if not to actually undermining their efforts.

What the ACORN incident illustrates, as do the host of right-wing voter suppression schemes that have become perennial accompaniments to our elections, is that voter registration remains a critical battleground upon which parties, candidates, and political operatives contest elections. In a period when solid majorities of voters support progressive reforms such as universal healthcare, paid sick days, increasing in the minimum wage, and making necessary investments in schools and infrastructure without privatization, this battle can only serve to limit progressive electoral gains and therefore movement toward these goals. The most troubling aspect of these suppression schemes is that in many states those who seek to limit registrations are winning. The most popular strategies for reducing registrations are:

Purging voters from the voter rolls directly - Lax oversight and poor implementation, sometimes combined with partisan political intent, have allowed thousands of voters to be erroneously removed from the lists of registered voters.
Onerous voter identification requirements - States use strict "no match, no vote" rules to reject registration applications where the personal information of registrants in error-ridden state and databases cannot be matched exactly with the information provided on voter registration forms.
Challenges and voter caging - Partisans use expansive voter challenge laws (originally designed to disenfranchise black voters) to contest the eligibility of voters, often hundreds or thousands at a time, without any direct evidence that their registrations are invalid.

All of these tactics were used throughout battleground states this year, in many instances generating significant media attention. While media attention of efforts to disenfranchise voters are welcome, most of the coverage centered on false accusations of voter fraud or the potential for fraud being shouted by right-wing forces. The climate of fear and suspicion that conservatives have generated is the source of much support for the strategies of disenfranchisement listed above, as well as others such as proof-of-citizenship laws.

21st Century Registration Practices

While progressive politicians and advocates have been struggling to prevent the disenfranchisement of critical constituencies such as minorities and youth, from the individual voter's perspective what she sees is a system that is difficult to navigate, and given our increasingly mobile society, requires continual upkeep of her registration. While taking the initiative to vote falls on the voter, the population is increasingly disserved by registration systems that in essence ask the voter to petition the government for the opportunity to vote, and to do so once again every time they move, even within the same state. So while the suppression activities that make registration a political battleground in turn make universal voter registration an imperative for progressive activists, for an average voter the story is merely one of a substandard government service resulting from poor policy.

Current voter-initiated registration procedures are also a hassle for election administrators. Instead of spreading voter registration throughout the year, voter-initiated registration causes a flood of new registrations at just the time that election officials are already the busiest -- in the run-up to an election. Further, the elections that are the most demanding to administer -- presidential elections -- are also the ones that generate the most registrations. Universal voter registration would eliminate much of this problem as new registrations and updates would be added much more evenly throughout the election cycle.

Using Voter Databases to Track and Keep Enrolled Registered Voters: The things that make all of these problems solvable are the statewide voter databases that were mandated under the Help America Vote Act. This act requires that each state maintain a database of all registered voters. This means that instead of records being isolated in local jurisdictions, states can build integrated voter registration systems that automatically add voters to the system and track them as they move, thereby maintaining accurate and complete voter rolls.

While our goal is for every eligible voter to be registered automatically throughout the country, there are a variety of steps states can take to get closer to that goal. The most important thing is that states make a commitment to removing registration as a barrier to voting by taking responsibility to register as many voters as possible and keep them registered when they move. Some states are in a position to move boldly in this area with dramatic reforms of their registration practices, and others need to focus on cleaning up the systems they have followed by deliberate, measured steps in expanding the percentage of citizens they register. Whatever the situation of a particular state, there are one or more strategies for achieving universal voter registration that are available to them. Various options are outlined below, beginning with those available to states with significant current deficiencies in their voter registration practices.

Steps Toward Universal Registration

Without taking the plunge to achieve 100% voter registration, there are two main ways for states to grow voter rolls organically at a much higher rate. These steps focus on registering young people and other groups who have consistently been underrepresented in the electorate.

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) Compliance and Expansion: Under the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), states are required to provide citizens with the opportunity to register to vote when they apply for or renew a driver's license, or when they apply, re-certify, renew or change their address at a public or disability assistance agency. Additionally, NVRA requires that at least some other state agencies participate. NVRA compliance is a natural area on which to focus resources in states that are currently failing to register significant numbers of voters at government agencies. Several states that have recently prioritized compliance are seeing the number of NVRA registrations climb fast.

Beyond ensuring compliance, there are also opportunities to expand NVRA that will help states register significantly more voters. There are two basic ways to do this:

Increase the number of government agencies that offer registration - Beyond departments of motor vehicles, and public or disability services agencies, there are literally dozens of government agencies that could be used to register voters, the most pressing being secondary schools and colleges. Departments of taxation, public hospitals, jails, and departments of labor are other likely candidates.
Convert to an opt-out system where voters are registered when they provide personal information to a government agency unless they decline - Currently NVRA requires that states offer agency clients the opportunity to register and assistance doing so if it is requested. However, this opt-in system can be converted to opt-out through a statutory amendment. In an opt-out system every time an NVRA agency requested a clients personal information that information would automatically be used to register the person or update their registration if necessary. The person would have an option to opt-out, either because they were already properly registered, because they are ineligible, or for some other personal reason.

Early Registration: Currently some states allow future voters to register at either 16 or 17-years-of-age. These registrations enter the system as inactive and automatically activate on the voter's 18th birthday (or earlier for the primary if a state allows 17-year-old primary voting). Early registration can also be coupled with voter education that is specifically targeted to future voters as their registrations become active. Other important synergies exist with designating secondary schools as voter registration agencies and requiring voter registration as a requirement for graduation or withdrawal from school. Combined with these two reforms, early registration could bring a state very far along in registering every citizen as they become eligible to vote.

Strategies for Building Universal Registration

In states with good current registration procedures we encourage progressive leaders to show leadership by advancing policies to actively create comprehensive voter rolls that include all eligible voters.

Mining Government Databases: States have numerous databases that house the information needed to register voters including those maintained by departments of motor vehicles, departments of taxation, and social service agencies. Where they provide the necessary eligibility information these databases can be used to construct a nearly complete voter roll or to fill in the holes in the existing rolls. However, it is important that safeguards be in place so that errors in agency databases don't get transferred to the voter rolls.
Enumeration: The most ambitious strategy for constructing the voter rolls is an actual census of eligible voters conducted every year. Like the federal census this would likely begin by doing a mass mailing to every residence in a voting jurisdiction asking that they sign and return voter registration forms for every eligible voter in the household. This would be followed by door-to-door canvases of residences that did not generate a response and attempts to locate voters without mailing addresses such as the homeless. Massachusetts currently uses such a system to construct its jury pool.

Safeguards to keep voters in the system: If complete voter rolls are to be maintained there must be adequate processes for tracking address changes, as well as opportunity to amend a registration or register on election day. Both of these reforms are important on there own, but are essential in attaining universal voter registration.

Permanent Registration: No matter the system used to register voters in the first place, an essential aspect of maintaining complete voter rolls is updating registrations when people move. At a minimum this requires that states give voters an opportunity to update their registration at the polls. More ambitious is actively tracking voters using change of address databases, typically the database maintained by the US Postal Service. Minnesota passed a law instituting such a system last legislative session. It is important to note that voters must not be purged from the rolls at their previous address until it is confirmed that their new address is the one they will be using for voter registration purposes; failure to do so would result in the erroneous removal of many people, most typically college students and deployed members of the military.
Election Day Registration (EDR): The one fail-safe that can ensure that every eligible voter is permitted to cast a ballot is allowing registration at the polls, as is done in a dozen states. And among all discrete election reforms EDR appears to have the largest impact on turnout.

Momentum is Building for Change

Spurred in part by the widespread problems with voter registration that continue to come to light, and that were clearly apparent in the most recent election, many important voices are making a call for universal voter registration.

Leaders among the advocacy and policy development community have identified universal voter registration as an important part of guaranteeing the right of every eligible citizen to vote. Principal advocates include the Brennan Center for Justice which is leading the development of universal registration policies, pushing for a federal mandate and funding, and counseling supporters in the states; FairVote is also taking a leading role with their efforts to promote youth registration and voting, along with other reforms; and Demos has been at the forefront of efforts to improve NVRA compliance, especially at public assistance agencies.
Leading election experts have joined their voices to the chorus with Loyola Professor Rick Hasen, Common Cause Director of Research Tova Wang, and federal Election Assistance Commission Chairwoman Rosemary E. Rodriguez endorsing the idea. It has also received favorable mention from Ohio State Law Professor Dan Tokaji.
Editorial boards are also joining in, with early endorsements from the Boston Globe and the Washington Post.

Among these opinion leaders and among some politicians, including Sen. Hillary Clinton, a consensus is forming that, as expressed by the Senator: "A system of automatic registration, in which the government bears more of the responsibility for assembling accurate and secure lists of eligible voters, is a necessary reform," adding that "All eligible Americans should be able to cast their ballot without barriers, and the registration problems we saw on Tuesday and during the weeks that preceded Election Day make clear that the system needs improvement." Progressives have a specific interest in moving toward such a system in order to bring as many people into the electoral process as possible. But beyond that, building modern, efficient voter registration systems will benefit all voters and is the type of competent governance that forward thinking legislators can provide to move their states, and the nation, forward.

Resources

Progressive States Network - Universal Voter Registration
Brennan Center for Justice - Universal Voter Registration Policy Brief
FairVote - Universal Voter Registration
New America Foundation - Universal Voter Registration
Demos - National Voter Registration Act Compliance
Minnesota Permanent Registration Statute

Ohio’s Week of Same-Day Voting Upheld

Christian Smith-Socaris — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:57:16 -0400

The biggest electoral dust-up this summer in Ohio has been the attempt to overturn Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner’s decision to allow voters to register and vote on the same day during a one week period from September 30th to October 6th. This resulted from an overlap between the beginning of early voting and the end of voter registration, 30 days before the election. The Ohio Republican Party, nervous that progressive groups planned to target get out the vote efforts during same day voting, sued in state court. Their claim was that the practice would violate the state requirement that a person be registered 30 days before an election in order to vote. The ACLU, in concert with a number of voting rights advocates, filed a counter-suit to enforce the Secretary of State’s decision in federal court.

Both the federal judge and the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Secretary of State on Monday. Federal District Judge James Gwin wrote that "[c]andidly, the underlying merits of issues are not even close … With regard to the interpretation of Ohio law, Defendant Brunner obviously determined the issue correctly."

We were curious if any other states had similar, coincidental same-day registration periods. PSN found six that either have overlaps or put no statutory restriction on when a voter can cast an absentee ballot in person. The only swing state in the bunch – Indiana – informs voters on its Secretary of State website that in-person absentee voting begins the day after voter registration ends. Information for the other states is as follows:

Idaho – No limit on the in-person absentee balloting period. Assumedly you can register and vote on the same day from when the ballots are printed and made available until 25 days before the election (Oct. 12).
Kansas – Some counties have absentee balloting 20 days before the election and voter registration ends 15 days before.
Nebraska – Voters can vote and register on the same-day from 35 days before the election to the 2nd Friday before the election (Sept. 30 to Oct 17).
South Dakota – Voter can vote and register on the same-day from six weeks before the election to the 15 days before (Sept. 23 to Oct 20).
Vermont – Voters can vote and register on the same-day from 30 days before the election to the 2nd Friday before the election (Oct. 5 to Oct 28).

Information and forms for voting absentee in all 50 states can be found at LongDistanceVoter.com

Making Voting Easier Assists Record Turnout in Presidential Primaries

PSN — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:43:00 -0400

Interest in the presidential election has been extremely strong throughout the primary season. As a result many states have experienced voter turnout that is significantly higher than past elections. This trend has been especially striking among young voters who have doubled and tripled their rates of participation in many states. Enabling this turnout have been a number of reforms, from early voting to election day registration to mail-in voting procedures that have encouraged wider participation.

These kinds of reforms not only help voters but also help election administrators who must manage the increasing numbers of voters at the polls.

The challenge of administering voters will only grow in the general election, where participation is expected to be even greater than in the primaries. Yet with minor changes, states can have a positive impact on voter participation and facilitate the orderly administration of elections. There are several simple reforms that states can make to their voting and registration procedures that will help ensure that all interested citizens can participate in the coming presidential election. In this Dispatch, we highlight reform-minded voting practices in the states and give examples of minor reforms to election laws that states can use to reap some of the same benefits - increased voter participation and reduced pressure at the polls on election day.

More Resources

Early Voting To Ensure Voters Have a Chance to Get to the Polls

Early voting is used in many states to make voting more convenient and to ensure that all interested voters have a chance to get to the polls.

Texas has a highly proactive early voting program that makes in-person voting conveniently available in places frequented by voters, from stores to recreation centers. In no small part due to the outreach efforts of election officials, voters in Texas cast 1,145,276 in-person early ballots, which accounted for over one quarter of all ballots cast in the presidential primary on March 4. Despite the large percentage of voters that cast an early ballot, interest in the election was so great that individuals still had to wait in lines and deal with other problems on election day. The situation would have been much worse if Texas had not had the foresight to permit early voting.

States can institute limited early voting by allowing voters to cast an absentee ballot at their local election office. Thirty-one states currently allow some form of in-person early voting. The simplest form this takes is in states like Louisiana, where voters are allowed to cast a ballot directly at the Registrar of Voters' office in each parish. Establishing election office, in-person absentee balloting isn't challenging to implement, because it does not require the election board to use additional resources or change procedures. Voters are merely received during normal business hours and allowed to cast an absentee ballot or vote on a machine. No new systems need to be developed or new staff trained to implement this procedure. All that is required is a change in the law and some public outreach to notify voters of their new voting option.

Legislation (Virginia SB 69) implementing in-person early absentee balloting recently passed the Senate in Virginia.

More Resources

Vote by Mail Elections Increase Turnout

Vote by mail elections increase turnout and prove highly popular with voters in states where they are employed. Colorado and California allow permanent no-excuse mail-in voting, which allows voters to choose voting by mail for all subsequent elections. This option is becoming the choice of an increasing number of voters. These states, however, continue to provide precinct-based polling. Oregon and Washington both have vote by mail elections in all or most of their respective states. These systems have been shown to increase voter turnout and receive the support of a large majority of voters who have participated in a vote by mail election.

"No Excuses" Absentee Voting: One of the simpler methods to expand mail-in voting in any state is eliminating the requirement that voters provide a reason when requesting an absentee ballot. Georgia is one of 28 states where any voter may choose to vote using a mail-in absentee ballot, and is another state that experienced record turnout in the presidential primary. While stopping short of permanent absentee voting, these states allow voters who can't or prefer not to come to the polls to apply for a mail-in ballot for the current election. Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia currently put limitations on who can choose to vote by mail-in absentee ballot. Removing these limitations and allowing any registered voter to request a mail-in absentee ballot is an easy way to increase access to the ballot box. Florida provides an excellent example of a simple absentee voting law that allows access for all voters. Indiana and Tennessee both currently have no-excuse absentee legislation moving through their statehouses.

More Resources

Election Day Registration & Reducing Registration Deadlines to Increase Participation

Reducing lengthy registration deadlines can increase the number of voters participating in elections. New Hampshire is one of eight states that allow voters to register at the polls on election day. As a group, these states have a very high rate of voter turnout, and in 2004 the three states with the highest turnout all allowed election-day registration. New Hampshire saw record turnout in this presidential primary and early estimates also indicate that a record number of voters were registered on election day.

Easing restrictive registration deadlines: In 2006, nineteen states had registration deadlines of October 10 or earlier, approximately one month before the November 7 election. Because citizens' attention to an election increases dramatically in the last month before an election, early registration deadlines prevent many people who become interested in voting during this period from participating. However, Iowa, Kansas, and Vermont allow voters to register into the last week of October. Additionally, Colorado, Nebraska, and Utah allow voters to register beyond the normal deadline if they come to a local election office to do so. Many of the earliest deadlines could be changed without adding significant pressure on election officials charged with processing these registrations. Reducing the deadline for those who register in-person is a particularly easy way to make sure engaged citizens have access to the polls. Plus, the effect of this reform is magnified by the fact that people who register soon before an election are more likely to actually vote.

More Resources

Implementing National Popular Vote to Sustain High Levels of Turnout

Beyond election procedures, the most critical source of high turnout are competitive elections where voters know that their votes will matter. Unfortunately, in Presidential elections, the winner-take-all system of our Electoral College and a focus on "swing states" means that candidates neglect non-swing states and many voters don't vote. Implementing a National Popular Vote -- which would give the Presidency to the candidate who garners the most votes nationally, wherever those votes come from -- would force candidates to pay attention to the voters of every state.

Primary Shows How Every Vote Can Count: The current Democratic presidential primary has provided a window into the positive effects a national popular vote for president would have on voter participation. Democratic delegates are allocated in proportion to the popular vote in each state, instead of winner takes all as is the case for virtually every state in the general election. This primary system, which approximates a popular vote election, combined with the closeness of the race, has yielded an election where truly every vote does matter. Candidates are reaching out to small states as well as large states, since the election cannot be won by just piling up large margins in a few big winner-take-all contests. The result has been huge increases in turnout in states that have often been marginalized from the process (for example Hawaii and Washington). Likewise, groups of voters who have not traditionally had a strong role in choosing a president, such as rural voters, are seeing their power amplified in this proportional process.

Using Interstate Compact to Implement National Popular Vote: A national popular presidential election can be implemented by passing an interstate compact among the states with no need to amend the U.S. constitution. Maryland and New Jersey have already adopted the interstate compact, which commits the member states to giving their electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The compact will go into effect when the number of states that have joined constitute a majority of the Electoral College votes. This type of election would refocus the current battle over a handful of states into a true fifty state campaign. The energy, excitement, and high turnout found in the current Democratic primary would likely be the new status quo for presidential elections.

The national popular vote compact is advancing in many legislatures around the country, including recent action in Hawaii, Washington, and Illinois.

More Resources

Conclusion

The 2008 presidential primary has generated more excitement and turnout than any election in a generation. This surge in interest has been accommodated by pro-voter reforms in several states that have helped make sure that all interested citizens have an opportunity to participate. While little time remains until the November election, there are several small but significant changes that states should consider making to their voting laws that would help accommodate the increased numbers of voters this election, while reducing pressure on overcrowded poll site.

More Resources

Election Day Registration

PSN — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:12:00 -0500

One of the biggest challenges in raising voter turnout is address the rate of voter registration. The vast majority of states have registration deadlines weeks before Election Day. The schedule poses problems for busy Americans who simply forget to register or re-register and find themselves unable to vote on Election Day. During the 2000 Presidential election alone, nearly 3 million voters were disenfranchised due to registration problems. Luckily, a simple solution is available: Election Day Registration (EDR).

Any registration problem that may arise can be easily solved by allowing the voter to re-register right at the polling place. EDR also reduces the need for cumbersome provisional ballots, which are currently used when a voter's registration is in question. More importantly, while provisional ballots often go uncounted, Election Day registration provides certainty to citizens that their votes will count.

Lowering Barriers, Increasing Participation

The statistics for voter turnout in 2004 with Election Day Registration are astounding and point to the potential that the system has to be a key reform to renew democracy in America:

74% of Eligible Voters participated in states with Election Day Registration, compared to only 60% in non-EDR states.
Top Four States for Turnout in '04 had EDR -- Minnesota (78%), Wisconsin (75%), Maine (73%), and New Hampshire (71%). The fifth highest state was Oregon -- the universal vote-by-mail state.
Turnout is Higher Even When Controlling for Competitiveness -- "Safe" states with EDR significantly outperformed "safe" states without EDR in terms of voter participation. "Battleground" states with EDR significantly outperformed "battleground" states without EDR in terms of voter participation.

Specifically, Election Day Registration functions to increase turnout among certain segments of the population more likely to encounter registration problems:

People Who Move -- Huge portions of the population move between Presidential elections. In many cases, especially for people who move frequently, updating voter registration is easy to forget. EDR ensures that mobile doesn't have to mean unmobilized.
Young People -- Young voters are a huge beneficiary of EDR in part because they move so often. States with Election Day Registration have noticed large surges in youth voting.
Historically Disenfranchised Voters -- Voters who have faced discrimination historically are still among the most likely to face registration errors, often through no fault of their own.

James Carmichael noted that EDR did not necessarily lead to a large jump in participation in Montana in 2006, when the state adopted the reform for the first time. Anecdotally, evidence suggests that EDR did play a role in higher turnout. But two factors may have contributed to a lack of a particular surge in Montana: 1) the recent adoption of EDR and relatively little activity to take advantage of the reform in voter turnout efforts, and 2) Montana's law does not allow precinct-level registration, which may have caused confusion and added to intimidatingly long lines for voters interested in registering on Election Day.

The surge in voting is a notable benefit of Election Day Registration, but what should be noted is that the reform lacks partisan advantage. According to Demos, "EDR wil help voters, not parties. It is a common misconception that EDR will disproportionally advantage the Democratic Party. EDR benefits all citizens and encourages everyone to be actively involved in the electoral process. Moreover, both Democratic and Republican election officials support EDR." Also worth noting -- Idaho and Wyoming are both EDR states and remain among the most staunchly Republican in the nation. Adoption of EDR in Montana occured in a year when Democrats picked up a U.S. Senate seat, but Republicans gained state legislative seats.

More Resources

Adopting Election Day Registration

Several states already have Election Day Registration laws that can be easily modeled and all evidence is that the laws can be implemented in a very cost-effective manner. Demos analyzed the cost in existing states and found that the cost ranged from $0 to $250 per precinct to implement.

For many places, the Minnesota model that has worked well for years will be an ideal place to start:

Election day registration. (a) An individual who is eligible to vote may register on election day by appearing in person at the polling place for the precinct in which the individual maintains residence, by completing a registration application, making an oath in the form prescribed by the secretary of state and providing proof of residence. An individual may prove residence for purposes of registering by:

(1) presenting a driver's license or Minnesota identification card issued pursuant to section 171.07;

(2) presenting any document approved by the secretary of state as proper identification;

(3) presenting one of the following:

(i) a current valid student identification card from a postsecondary educational institution in Minnesota, if a list of students from that institution has been prepared under section 135A.17 and certified to the county auditor in the manner provided in rules of the secretary of state; or

(ii) a current student fee statement that contains the student's valid address in the precinct together with a picture identification card; or

(4) having a voter who is registered to vote in the precinct, or who is an, employed by and working in a residential facility in the precinct and vouching for a resident in the facility, sign an oath in the presence of the election judge vouching that the voter or employee personally knows that the individual is a resident of the precinct.

The Montana model works a bit differently. Rather than precinct-level registration, Election Day Registrants have to register and vote at their county courthouse. The move was adopted in Montana in order to allow confirmation against the HAVA-required statewide voter file that the EDR voter was not already registered and voting elsewhere in the state.

When faced with Election Day Registration bills, opponents will raise the specter of fraud. Unfortunately for them, there is no evidence that EDR contributes to fraud. In fact, by encouraging greater citizen participation while maintaing strong controls to prevent fraud, EDR can dilute the effects of any fraud that might be perpetrated -- through the radical method of getting more people into the process.

Election Day Registration campaigns are under way in Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, and Vermont.

More Resources