From the Dispatch

Election Reforms to Drive Turnout

Christian Smith-Socaris — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:45:23 -0500

As part of our Shared Multi-State Agenda, the Progressive States Network is working with legislators, advocates and leading experts to promote election reforms that drive voter turnout in states across the country - just in time for the coming 2010 and 2012 election years. Through coordinated, strategic support, PSN and our allies will be working to introduce and advance election reform policies that increase voter turnout in as many states possible, providing model legislation, policy analysis, messaging and more - all of which has been gathered and will be constantly updated on our Shared Agenda Election Reform webpage. Legislators and advocates can contact us about participating and supporting Election Reform campaigns through our website or by emailing electionreform@progressivestates.org.

Election reforms are a crucial tool in building increased support for the broader progressive policy agenda. One of the largest impediments to real progressive reform is that our election system often excludes voters – non-white, less-educated, and less wealthy individuals – who are the most supportive of progressive policy changes. Expanding electoral participation to include a larger, more diverse set of voters will increase support for the host of progressive reforms that are supported by the substantial majority of the population whose voices are not always heard at the ballot box. Working state by state to remove barriers to voting and increase participation in the political process will be a fundamental determinant of how successful progressives will be in achieving the broader reforms we are working toward.

Table of Contents:

- Summary of Election Reform Policies to Drive Turnout and Why They Matter

- Messaging Election Reforms to Drive Turnout

- Building Election Reform Campaigns

- PSN Support in Your States

Summary of Election Reform Policies to Drive Turnout and Why They Matter

Voters should be given every opportunity to participate in our elections and be apart of a system that assures every voice is heard and every vote is meaningful. As part of our Shared Multi-State Agenda, the Progressive States Network is working to promote three election reforms that further these goals in states across the country: National Popular Vote, Vote by Mail and National Voter Registration Act Compliance. Each addresses a different layer of our electoral bureaucracy - the presidential election process, the options for casting a ballot, and the process of registering voters.

Why These Policies Matter: The last two election cycles have seen progressives win impressive victories across the country. However, these gains remain tenuous in many areas, and progressives must be prepared for history to repeat itself and bring a challenging election in 2010, especially at the state level. Adding to the urgency is the fact that the results of the next election will determine who controls redistricting in each state. Given this state of affairs, measures that can help bolster turnout will be crucial to maintain the enthusiasm voters demonstrated in 2008, which will likely be a prerequisite for continued success nationally and in the states. Each of the three reforms in our election agenda have been embraced by voters and elected officials in several states.

National Popular Vote (NPV): NPV is a state-based movement to guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). To achieve this result the plan uses two constitutional powers explicitly granted to the states by our Founders - the power to apportion Electoral College electors and the power to enter into interstate compacts. Under the bill all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).
Vote by Mail: Vote by mail is a system by which any voter can choose to receive a mail-in ballot for an indefinite period of time. In this way, it is an expansion of absentee voting by allowing every voter to participate without having to give an "excuse," and allowing voters to permanently vote by mail. Importantly, under this system, voters maintain a choice to vote at a polling place on election day.
National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) Compliance: Under the federal "motor voter" law, states are required to provide the opportunity to register, and assistance in doing so, at departments of motor vehicles and public assistance agencies. Over time, states have largely fallen out of compliance with this requirement with respect to public assistance agencies. State legislators can help reverse this trend by bringing oversight to bear on the NVRA compliance practices of public assistance agencies, and where possible passing legislation to mandate best practices for NVRA compliance.

Bill Summaries: Vote By Mail Bill Summary National Popular Vote Bill Summary NVRA Compliance Bill Summary	Model Legislation: Vote By Mail Model Legislation National Popular Vote Model Legislation National Voter Registration Act Compliance Model Legislation

Messaging Election Reforms to Drive Turnout

Election reforms are an essential aspect of achieving the fundamental progressive goal of an inclusive society where every person is able to participate in shaping their community into the place they want it to be. Without broad and unhindered access to electoral participation, minorities, the poor and other groups that lack political power in proportion to their numbers will continue to be marginalized in our society. For these reasons, progressives can speak strongly in favor of voting reforms as a important tool in achieving a just society, and as policies central to achieving the range of our shared goals including health care reform, fair tax policy, and living wages for all workers.

National Popular Vote: NPV garners the support of greater than two-thirds of voters in the 30+ states where it has been polled. The bill has now passed in five states (Maryland, New Jersey, Hawaii, Illinois and, most recently, Washington) with a total of 61 electoral votes, almost a quarter of the total needed for NPV to go into effect. Voters typically support NPV at about 75%, including healthy majorities of Republican voters. Polls in individual states show consistent support as well, with voters supporting it in a range from 68% to 81%. The following messages help address some of the myths and misunderstandings about the consequences of NPV:

The Winner Should Win: Emphasize the primary reasons why NPV has such broad support - because every vote should count equally, and the candidate with the most votes should win the election. These are the principles that we respect for our local, state and congressional elections and they should hold for the Presidential election as well.
Making Every State a Battleground State Will Increase Turnout: Average turnout in the 15 most competitive Presidential states was 6% higher than in the rest of the states for the 2008 general election, so NPV will help expand turnout.
NPV is a Civil Rights Issue: Civil rights has drifted out of the national dialogue as the battlegrounds have shifted away from states with high percentages of minority voters. For example, just 21% of African Americans and 18% of Latinos live in the twelve closest battleground states from 2004. NPV assures that all groups and their issues get equal attention. This is why the NAACP and African-American and Latino legislator organizations support NPV.
NPV Helps Small and Rural States: Despite myths otherwise, by leveling the playing field, NPV forces candidates to concentrate on all constituencies, states and populations, rather than disproportionately spending time in a few larger winner-take-all mega-states. In addition, because 12 of the 13 small states are spectators, they actually constitute the most ignored groups of states.
NPV Avoids Disputed Close Presidential Elections: Because a very close result is more likely among a smaller group of voters, the possibility of a Florida 2000 style electoral meltdown is much less likely under NPV. Put another way, because the margin of victory nationwide is much larger than it is in individual states, NPV elections are less susceptible to problems than essentially 50 state races.

Vote by Mail: Vote by Mail is now an option in five states (California, Colorado, Montana, Hawaii, and New Jersey) and has been increasingly popular with voters. California and Colorado have seen the greatest usage with almost a third of California voters voting by mail in November 2008, and an astounding 71% of Colorado voters doing so. Key arguments in favor include:

Vote by Mail Helps Increase Turnout: For many voters going to the polling place on election day is difficult, either for work or family reasons. Vote by Mail is the obvious, low-cost solution for giving such voters the flexibility they need to participate in our elections. Allowing voters the option to vote by mail for every election gives them a flexible path to the ballot box, without which they might not participate.
Vote by Mail Gives Voters a Choice: In the 21st century, we have the ability to give all voters a choice in how they cast their ballots. There are many voters who can make it to the polls, but who prefer to vote by mail either for convenience or because they like having time to fill out their ballots in the comfort of their home. However, under current practice in some states the mail ballot option requires voters to have one of a few narrow reasons (an “excuse”) for not voting at the polls; and in all but five states, voters must reapply for a mail ballot every election.
Vote by Mail Reduces Election Day Chaos and Costs: Vote by mail also helps make sure that no one is prevented from voting on election day by long lines. Colorado residents reaped this benefit in the last presidential election with a smooth election that contrasted sharply with the previous election without vote by mail. In that election some Denver voters waited in lines that lasted half a day or more.

National Voter Registration Act Compliance: NVRA compliance has been re-implemented by public assistance agencies in five states (North Carolina, Michigan, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Missouri). The messages to expand these successes include:

NVRA Compliance Increases Registration: The reward has been substantial, and in some cases dramatic, increases in voter registrations obtained. Missouri has obtained the most impressive turn-around, with a 2600% increase in registrations collected from public assistance agencies after reforms were implemented.
NVRA Compliance Assures Equal Opportunities to Register: The National Voter Registration Act was enacted with the understanding that opportunities to register to vote must be equally available to all. But racial and socio-economic gaps in the electorate will persist so long as public assistance agencies fail to offer voter registration to their low-income clients. Such individuals, who are less likely to own a motor vehicle, must have a chance to register to vote at public assistance offices as others do at departments of motor vehicles.
NVRA Compliance Addresses Racial and Economic Disparities in Registration: Recent U.S. Census data confirms the racial, ethnic and class bias of the electorate: 73.5 percent of non-Hispanic whites were registered to vote in 2008, as compared to 69.7 percent of blacks, 59.4 percent of Latinos, and 55.9 percent of Asian Americans. Only 65 percent of adult citizens in households making less than $25,000 a year were registered to vote in 2008, as compared to 85 percent of those in households making $100,000. Effective voter registration programs at public assistance agencies are powerful tools for reducing these disparities and bringing more voices into the democratic process.

Building Election Reform Campaigns

Progressive States Network is working with a range of allied organizations so state leaders can tap resources from those groups to help them in their legislative work. We will be working with those allies to strengthen communication between legislators and organizational allies across the states working on our priority election reforms, while providing other technical support as needed during policy campaigns.

Allied national groups are working on every aspect of our election reform agenda. Key organizations are listed below along with critical resources for waging a campaign.

National Popular Vote:

Polling: State NPV Polling
Key Support Organizations: National Popular Vote, Inc., FairVote, Common Cause
People of Color Organizations: NPV is endorsed by the NAACP, National Black Caucus of State Legislators, and National Latino Congreso.
Explaining NPV and Interstate Compacts: National Popular Vote Factsheet and Understanding Interstate Compacts. See also the book-length Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote
See Responses to Myths about the National Popular Vote Plan
NPV and Racial Inequality: See FairVote's Presidential Election Inequality: The Electoral College in the 21st Century, an in-depth analysis of how our current system undermines our principles, marginalizes certain voters, and distorts public policy. See PSN's NPV- A Voter Turnout and Civil Rights Issue.
Progressive Case for NPV: National Popular Vote Advancing Across the States - PSN Dispatch outlining the progressive case for a national popular vote.

Vote by Mail:

Key Support Organizations: Vote by Mail Project, Common Cause and labor unions including SEIU and AFSCME are strong supports of VBM.
How Vote by Mail Works: Common Cause has this primer, What We Know About Vote by Mail Elections and How to Conduct Them Well; see also Importance of Universal Absentee Voting.
Progressive Case for Vote by Mail: See this PSN Dispatch - Permanent Vote by Mail Option Approved in First State East of Mississippi

NVRA Compliance:

Key Support Organizations: Demos and Project Vote
NVRA Compliance at Public Assistance Agencies: NVRA Compliance Factsheet - One page overview; Unequal Access: Neglecting the NVRA 1995-2007 - In-depth analysis of the failure of most states to maintain compliance with NVRA.
Movement Towards NVRA Compliance: Toward an Equal Electorate: Five States' Gains Under the NVRA - Overview of remarkable success of states that have re-implemented NVRA requirements at their public assistance agencies.

PSN Support in Your States

PSN has already begun working with legislators and advocates to provide support for them as they introduce election reforms legislation around the country. We'd like to work with many more!

Our policy staff are also available to answer questions and supply information not on the website. Legislators and advocates can contact us about supporting Election Reform campaigns through our website or by emailing electionreform@progressivestates.org.

As bills are introduced and sessions begin, PSN will provide ongoing resources and updates on election reform legislation, as well as help coordinate strategy and information sharing with our partners among sponsors and advocates.

Bipartisan Committee Forms to Push for Voter Registration Modernization

Christian Smith-Socaris — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:17:42 -0400

Perhaps signaling a new phase in efforts to modernize the country's antiquated voter registration systems, a new group of unlikely bedfellows has come together to help win support for an overhaul that would put government in charge of proactively registering voters, and allowing voter registrations to be portable within states. Spearheaded by two former general counsels of presidential campaigns, Trevor Potter (McCain 2000 & 2008) and Marc Elias (John Kerry 2004), the Committee to Modernize Voter Registration (CMVR) plans to promote registration modernization and be a resource for those on Capitol Hill.

Both Mr. Potter and Mr. Elias say that their experiences dealing directly with voting systems throughout the country have led them to support fundamental change. As Mr. Potter expressed the impetus for bringing the group together, “Throughout our campaign work, we saw firsthand the inefficiency and needless expense in our paper-based registration system. ... Both parties recognize that having a 19th Century voter registration system for the 21st Century is not where we want to be."

Joining Mr. Potter and Mr. Elias are a roster of distinguished former elected officials and election experts, including Democrats Sen. Tom Daschle and Rep. Harold Ford Jr. and Republicans Sen. John Danforth and Rep. Susan Molinari. The group also includes leaders of the Pew Center on the States, the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute. Coinciding with the press conference announcing the new group, Pew released a new issue brief on voter registration modernization, and gave a commitment to help states modernize their registration systems.

CMVR is not putting forth a specific proposal for how to modernize the system, but they believe that,

"the best way to modernize the voter registration system would be to use existing databases to automatically register voters... Additionally, the Committee is advocating for a system that will allow a registration to be portable so that voters are not forced to re-register when they move within a state, and will include a fail-safe mechanism for any Election Day problems. The Committee advocates a commonsense, technologically-based approach to solving many of these problems. For instance, by using existing government databases to automatically register voters, they assert, states and local governments could save scarce financial and staff resources that would otherwise be spent shuffling, entering and reviewing reams of paper registration forms. "

This is also the approach that the Brennan Center for Justice, Progressive States Network, other election reform advocacy organizations and a number of academic election experts have advanced since last winter. After the election in November many commentators and election observers noted that many of the problems people were encountering at the polls, and the allegations of fraud that were being made by conservatives, could be resolved if we had a modern voter registration system. When research examining how many people were prevented from voting in 2008 due to these problems indicated that is was 4 million voters, the momentum for change continued to grow. We are excited about the groundswell of support this issue is garnering as it indicates that pressure for change will now be coming from both sides of the aisle.

Resources:
Committee to Modernize Voter Registration
Partisan Rivals Unite to Modernize Voter Registration System (Press Release)
Pew Center on the States - Bringing Elections into the 21st Century: Voter Registration Modernization
Brennan Center for Justice - Voter Registration Modernization
Progressive States Network - Voter Registration Modernization

Path Breaking Voter Registration Modernization Bill is Vetoed by Minnesota Governor Pawlenty

Christian Smith-Socaris — Thu, 28 May 2009 11:18:24 -0400

Minnesota legislators passed a landmark voter registration modernization bill recently that would, absent a veto, have registered or updated the registration of voters automatically when they applied for a driver's license, learner's permit or ID card. It would also use information in motor vehicle and corrections databases to verify and maintain voter rolls. This legislation, sponsored by Rep. Steve Simon and Sen. John Marty, would have made Minnesota the first state in the nation to proactively register voters, and made it among the most advanced in maintaining clean, accurate voter rolls. The bill was designed to build on the state's already first-in-the-nation portability bill, which requires automatic updates to voter registrations based on changes of address.

However, Governor Pawlenty vetoed this historic legislation last week, citing his belief that "registering the [sic] vote should be a voluntary, intentional act." His two sentence veto message was a pretty sad fig leaf on his basically saying "no thanks" to any more Minnesotans at the polls. The governor didn't stop there when it came to saying no to model practices in election administration. He also vetoed the two other pieces of election legislation that were sent to his desk.

Felon Re-enfranchisement: S 763 by Sen. Mee Moua and Rep. Bobby Champion, would have put in place some very basic notice requirements on correctional facilities and probation officers related to informing people under their control when they have their civil rights restored. The governor offered another myopic take on fundamental rights when he wrote that "citizens should bear some responsibility for being informed about their own situations and rights," again arguing that barriers to voting are good for Minnesota.

Omnibus Legislation: This legislative session Minnesota conducted a statewide election recount to determine the winner of its US Senate race under intense scrutiny. Partly in response to lessons learned from that experience and also addressing some long-recognized shortcomings, the legislature passed S 1331, by Sen. Katie Sieben and Rep. Ryan Winkler, to:

Consolidate absentee voting at the county level and refine procedures, a longtime goal of overtaxed local elections officials.
Move the mailing of absentee ballots to 60 days before an election to help prevent slow delivery from resulting in lost votes.
Replace signature matching with a unique identification number to verify voters.
Provide an online voter registration look-up feature for voters to confirm their registration through the Sec. of State's website.
Moving the state primary from September to August.

In his typically casual way of disposing with important legislation the governor vetoed the bill because it lacked bipartisan support, and he prefers the primary date to remain in September. No mention was made of the many other important provisions listed above.

Sec. of State Mark Ritchie, the prime mover on Minnesota elections policy, believes his state "can and must always strive to make [its election system] more secure and cost-effective,” continuously improving what is widely considered to be the best election system in the nation. Rep. Simon, who shepherded the voter registration bill through the legislature, and many of his colleagues have been consistently working to "make voting as easy and accessible as possible." While the governor can delay their ability to do so with his vetoes, their record of accomplishment suggests that they will continue to make the case for common sense improvements, which will be adopted sooner or later.

Resources:
Minnesota Voter Registration Modernization Bill
Brennan Center for Justice - Voter Registration Modernization
Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights - Voter Registration Modernization
Progressive States Network - Voter Registration Modernization

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

Voter Registration: Steps States Can Take to Help Voters Register and Keep Them Registered

Christian Smith-Socaris — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:35:00 -0400

Maintaining accurate voter rolls and ensuring that all eligible voters who register to vote actually make it onto voting rolls are two of the most important functions of election administration. If an eligible voter cannot vote because his name doesn't appear on the voter roll used in an election, the problem will not be addressed by the federal guarantee of a provisional ballot. Such a ballot cannot register a person to vote, it can only preserve a ballot in the case the voter rolls at the precinct are mistaken or the voter needs to return with identification. If a voter is not registered because they were removed from the rolls, or even due to election official error processing their registration, his or her vote will not be counted.

There are many ways that states can ensure that voters who have made a good faith effort to register, such as individuals who have registered but have been purged from the rolls or those who have moved and may not be aware that they need to re-register, are not disenfranchised. One method â€“ Election Day Registration â€“ has already been examined in a previous Dispatch. Today's Dispatch examines some of the reasons why those who have registered or have attempted to register may not be allowed to cast a regular ballot on election day and steps states can take to ameliorate this problem.

More Resources

Voter Purging

Made famous in Florida during the 2000 presidential election, voter purging is the process of removing large numbers of people from the list of registered voters. In Florida this was done purportedly to remove persons who had lost their voting rights due to a felony conviction. But the manner in which it was done resulted in the removal of thousand of eligible voters from the rolls, most of whom were African-American. The disenfranchisement of so many voters for seemingly partisan gain caused an uproar that brought voter purges to the nation's attention.

More recently, purges in the form of forced re-registration for all non-active voters have been proposed in Mississippi and Washington as a way to "clean up the voter rolls." Less extreme but more prevalent are instances where voters are removed from the rolls either because mail sent to their residence was returned as undeliverable or the election administrators were unable to match the voter's personal information with some government database, and that mismatch was used as evidence that the information in the voter rolls was incorrect. Florida has passed a law that automatically rejects registration applications when the voter's information cannot be matched with a state or federal database. While the law was initially enjoined by the courts, that decision has recently been reversed on appeal. In all of these instances, there are alternative list maintenance procedures which would keep the voter rolls up to date and avoid the potential of disenfranchising eligible voters.

Statewide Rolls Create Threats and Opportunities to Voter Registration: The threat of large-scale purges has grown with the advent of the statewide voter databases that were mandated by the federal Help America Vote Act. Previously, most states had a distributed system of voter rolls with a separate list for each election jurisdiction, usually for each county. However, while centralized lists pose the risk of purging voters in larger numbers, especially when other government databases which contain inaccuracies are used to "verify" the information in the voter rolls, they also open up opportunities for election officials to automatically update voter information and maintain voters' registrations as they move or other personal information changes. But as with other forms of list maintenance, proper controls and safeguards are essential to prevent erroneous information from corrupting the rolls and leading to the inadvertent disenfranchisement of voters.

The Brennan Center for Justice has lead the way on this issue, both by bringing instances of unjustified purges to the public attention, detailing how poorly conducted purges can lead to the disenfranchisement of eligible voters, and litigating in states that have purged eligible voters. Project Vote has drafted model legislation regarding list maintenance that should serve as a starting point for legislators interested in making sure the voter rolls in their state are accurate and complete without removing eligible voters.

More Resources

National Voter Registration Act Compliance

Under the 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. The law, commonly known as the "motor voter" law, is a model of the proactive steps that government can take to foster electoral participation, especially among demographic groups that have historically been underrepresented in the voting population, such as racial and ethnic minorities, the economically disadvantaged, and less educated individuals. However, early success increasing the number of people registering to vote has subsided significantly as compliance has become more lax. The U.S. House of Representatives recently held a hearing on the issue where witnesses outlined compliance problems and a lack of enforcement on the part of the Department of Justice.

Some States Have Prioritized NVRA Compliance and Achieved Striking Results: While nationally NVRA compliance has dropped off sharply, some states have reinvigorated their efforts to comply with the law and as a result have seen major upswings in the number of voters that are being registered at public agencies, especially public assistance agencies. Working in collaboration with Demos and Project Vote, the North Carolina Board of Elections has implemented a compliance plan that has increased average monthly registrations from 484 in the years 2004 through 2006 to 2529 in 2007. Iowa and Oregon have also made a concerted effort to improve compliance.

Public assistance agencies have seen the most significant compliance problems and they also provide the best opportunities to register voters whose voices have traditionally been underrepresented in the electorate. Project Vote has composed a basic five part strategy that will help election officials achieve compliance at these agencies:

Know the NVRA's public agency registration requirements (NVRA Section 7).
Communicate frequently with agency managers and staff.
Provide training and support to agency personnel.
Monitor registrations from public assistance agencies.
Review agency registration performance and act on your findings.

Project Vote has also drafted model legislation in collaboration with Demos that outlines more specifically the steps needed to get a state in compliance with the federal law.

The promise of the National Voter Registration Act to ensure that government takes proactive steps to register traditionally underrepresented voters is still unfulfilled in most states. But, with a very small outlay of resources and a bit of interest and leadership, compliance with the federal law is easily obtainable. Therefore, ensuring compliance should be a priority for all legislators interested in increasing electoral participation in their state.

More Resources

Re-registration

The implementation of statewide voter databases has opened up an unprecedented opportunity for election officials to be proactive in maintaining voters' registrations through changes in residence -- the most prevalent reason why voters are removed from the voter rolls. Most jurisdictions de-register voters either when the voter has a change of address as reported by the United States Postal Service or because non-forwarding mail sent to the voter was returned as undeliverable. With proper safeguards for insuring that either event actually resulted from a change of residence for voting purposes, election officials are now able to use a variety of state databases and even commercial databases to update a voter's registration instead of merely removing them from the rolls.

A Comprehensive Approach will Yield the Best Results: Being proactive means officials must try as hard to maintain registrations as they do to register people to begin with and to de-registering them when they become ineligible. It also means integrating information from as many sources as possible so that every opportunity to update and verify information across multiple data sources is taken. This is an important goal not just because it will help increase participation generally and remove burdens on the voter to re-register, but also because those who move most frequently â€“ the young and low-income individuals â€“ are most likely to be politically and electorally disengaged. Therefore, diligent re-registration can be an important aspect of achieving the progressive goal of making the electorate accurately reflect the population as a whole. This goal is a means to the important end of making sure all people have their needs and concerns addressed by those chosen to represent us.

States Begin Implementing Automatic Re-registration: While no state is currently taking full advantage of the resources at their disposal to maintain registrations when voters move, Minnesota took an important first step this year when they passed HB 1546, sponsored by Rep. Steve Simon, a law to establish automatic re-registration for all voters who move anywhere within the state. Now, when a voter changes their residential address with the United States Postal Service, instead of merely de-registering a voter the election official notifies the jurisdiction into which the voter moved and has them added to the voter rolls at their new place of residence. Oregon has enacted similar legislation. These steps will help thousands of voters maintain their registrations, but they currently lack best practices safeguards that would ensure that voters maintain control of where they are registered and that would require verification of an address change from more than one source. See Project Votes' model list maintenance legislation for best practices in this regard.

More Resources