Blog
Allegations of Voter Fraud
By Nhu-Y Ngo – 12/13/10
As many state legislatures prepare to convene in January, lawmakers across the country – especially the newly elected – are preparing to roll back voting rights. For some, voter ID is the top priority, reflected in pre-filed bills this past month. This is puzzling considering the great number of pressing problems facing the states and the fact that there is little evidence the kind of voter fraud targeted by ID laws is a significant issue.
The Brennan Center has researched the impact of voter identification legislation and the frequency of the only type of voter fraud that voter ID bills have the potential to address: the impersonation of registered voters at the polls. Our research has established that impersonation fraud rarely occurs. Indeed, more Americans are struck by lightning each year. But while there is no credible evidence that impersonation fraud occurs, reliable evidence proves that photo ID and proof of citizenship bills erect hurdles that prevent real citizens from voting. The citizens affected are predominantly elderly and indigent voters, and citizens from minority communities.
Still, the legislative fixation on voter ID remains.
Voter ID bills have been pre-filed in Missouri (including a separate bill with a focus on proof of citizenship, which is certainly more onerous), Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Texas. Texas State Representative Debbie Riddle was so eager that she dramatically camped out inside the Capitol to be first in line to file voter ID legislation.
And in states with no current pre-filed voter ID bills, prepare yourself for the upcoming legislative avalanche.
Secretaries of State-elect Matt Schultz (Iowa), Scott Gessler (Colorado), Dianna Duran (New Mexico), and Kris Kobach (Kansas) all made voter ID a big issue in their campaigns. And all have publicly stated that they will lobby their respective legislatures to pass voter ID, and in the case of Secretaries-elect Gessler and Kobach, proof of citizenship requirements for voting as well. According to other media reports, lawmakers in North Carolina, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are set to introduce respective voter ID bills this January.
This focus on voter ID is unfortunate considering how much work is needed to modernize our voter registration system. Experts, legislators and election officials across the country agree that our voter registration system is flawed and outdated. As Brennan Center research has demonstrated, lawmakers and election leaders can improve election integrity and security without compromising the right to vote as they move to modernize their systems. Modernization saves millions of dollars a year, boosts registration rates, and increases the accuracy of the rolls. Because the system is much more accurate and because most voter registrations come in through direct contact with government officials, a modern voter registration system is also much more secure and reduces the opportunities for fraud and abuse – not only at the polls but throughout the system. In other words, those concerned about fraud should follow the lead of pioneering state officials, like those in Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, and Washington, and work to upgrade our ailing voter registration system.
And there is promising news. In this sea of restrictive measures, The Houston Chronicle reports that Houston State Senator Rodney Ellis has pre-filed six bills which make up the "Voter Empowerment Package" (Senate Bills 210 to 216). The package includes measures to 1) designate every statewide Election Day as a state holiday, including primary Election Day; 2) allows eligible residents to register for voting during the early voting period at polling locations as long as the eligible resident provides certain documentation; 3) creates criminal penalties for certain deceptive or disenfranchising practices regarding an election; 4) allows eligible residents to register for voting on Election Day at polling locations as long as the eligible resident provides certain documentation; and 5) authorizes registered voters to vote by mail during the early voting period.
In Montana, a pre-filed bill would establish online voter registration in the state, which has proven incredibly successful in many other states.
In New York, lawmakers announced that they plan to introduce legislation to modernize the voter registration system.
These bills demonstrate the right kind of reform that is needed for our patchwork of state registration systems.
But as long some remain fixated on voter ID, they must be prepared demonstrate the requirements are worth the harms they cause—a tough task given the lack of evidence of fraud, as Colorado Common Cause Executive Director Jenny Flanagan to wrote the Denver Post on November 25. Legislators should also be prepared to carry the financial burdens of implementing voter identifications laws that meet constitutional requirements. For if voter ID is to be implemented, states will have to provide ID cards free of charge to those who cannot afford them, to make sure that those cards are widely available, to undertake mass outreach and public education programs on the new requirements, and to include fail-safes and exceptions for certain categories of voters. This adds up to a lot of money—at a time when state budgets are strained.
State officials have a choice: they can improve election integrity, register more voters, and save money by modernizing their voter registration systems or they can push forward with restrictive voter ID requirements that will stress state budgets and contract the franchise. The common sense answer is rather clear. We certainly hope they choose the former and will be happy to work with them on such important reform.
Tags: Democracy, Voting Rights & Elections, Allegations of Voter Fraud, Election Day Issues, Voter ID, Voter Registration Modernization
By Wendy R. Weiser – 11/02/10
Crossposted from The Hill's Congress Blog.
Voting is our most sacred civic ritual. Polling places are its temples. They should be oases of calm and reason, where voters can register their choices privately, free from the heat of election campaigns. But because of widespread mobilization around efforts to stop voter fraud this year, our “temples of democracy” are under threat of being converted into partisan battlegrounds.
It is important to understand the singularity of these so-called "ballot security" activities. Private citizens, working with political parties or groups, take it upon themselves to enforce the law. In those states that allow direct challenges to voters, citizens not only assume the guise of law enforcement, but that of prosecutors as well.
Compare ballot security drives to other areas of law enforcement. Many believe there is an epidemic of fraud on Wall Street, just as many claim there is massive voter fraud. Yet citizens rely on state and federal governments to enforce the securities laws. They do not post themselves on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, confronting traders each time they sense something wrong. If that were the case, traders involved in legitimate activity would never get their work done.
The same is true with voting. State and local election officials, and federal and state law enforcement personnel, have the legal responsibility to ensure that voting is fair and accurate. It is their job to protect against – and prosecute, if necessary – voter fraud as well as vote suppression. Judging from the extremely low rates of voter fraud in American elections, they do this job quite well. No one argues that these officials should perform their jobs without oversight. Citizen observation and monitoring can be a beneficial safeguard.
But the reality is that ballot security efforts are frequently disruptive to an orderly voting process. Far too often – especially in the emotionally heated environment of a hotly contested election – these efforts go awry, crossing the line into voter intimidation, discrimination, or vote suppression. And even if they don’t result in intimidation, discrimination or suppression, ballot security operations can slow down the voting process, creating long lines and confusion, and depressing turnout. They undermine morale too, creating an atmosphere of mistrust in the very places where Americans come together to participate in the defining act of self-government.
The downsides to ballot security operations are many, and there is little upside. These operations almost never uncover any voter fraud. And for good reason: the kinds of fraud that actually do happen, albeit rarely, cannot be detected at the polls. While “Mickey Mouse” may still be able to submit a registration form, unless he has valid government records or appropriate ID, he cannot vote. In any event, the answer to inaccurate voter rolls is modernizing our voter registration system, not obstructing the vote.
Other advanced democracies do not allow citizens to police fellow voters and challenge them at the polls. Citizens can comment on the voter rolls before Election Day, so that all concerns are resolved beforehand and all citizens can vote in peace. We should show the same respect for American voters.
Our most sacred rite of democracy should not turn into a battleground with citizens confronting and accusing one another at the polls. Those citizens who take the time to vote deserve peace and respect. The last thing voters need is to become unwitting pawns in a partisan struggle.
Tags: Voting Rights & Elections, Allegations of Voter Fraud, Challenges, Caging & Vote Suppression, Election Day Issues
By Lee Rowland – 10/28/10
Election Day should reflect our democracy’s fundamental principle that every eligible voter should be able to cast a ballot that counts. Instead, there is a real threat that partisan election monitors funded by political parties and independent groups will turn polling places into something closer to a political circus on November 2nd.
Political parties, movements like the Tea Party, and corporate elections-related spending have created widespread, well-funded programs that – in the name of ballot security – place hundreds of partisan operatives at polling places. Political poll monitors’ role is to challenge individual voters based on residency, age, or citizenship - and the concern is that the process is largely aimed at voters who do not share those monitors’ political beliefs. As one U.S. District Judge noted with respect to certain challenges lodged in Montana before the 2008 election, “[t]he timing of these challenges is so transparent that it defies common sense to believe the purpose is anything but political chicanery.”[1]
These efforts carry a high risk of discouraging voters from casting valid ballots. No matter how well-intentioned, throngs of partisan monitors clog already-taxed polling places and can create a climate of fear and uncertainty for voters. Even under the best of circumstances, with political operatives jockeying for space in the polls alongside voters, there will be confusion and misapplication of poll monitoring laws. The Brennan Center is very concerned that these targeted poll monitoring operations can and will cross the line into voter suppression.
Unfortunately, these efforts are frequently concentrated in the most vulnerable voting precincts, and thus may disproportionately disenfranchise minority, low-income, and foreclosed voters on Election Day. One federal court in Ohio found that under a challenge operation planned in that state for 2004, only 14 percent of voters in majority-white districts would be subject to voter challenges, while a stunning 97 percent of new voters in predominately African-American polling districts would face such a challenge.[2] Voter challenges based in whole or in part on race violate the federal Voting Rights Act – and we at the Brennan Center will be vigilant this election to monitor challenge operations to ensure they do not disenfranchise voters based on race.
Eligible voters should demand their right to cast a ballot that will count. If you experience intimidation, confusion, or discrimination at the polls, you can call Election Protection’s voter hotline to report any interference with your fundamental right to vote at 1-866-OUR-VOTE or, en español, 1-866-Ve-Y-Vota. Voters may also report problematic conduct to the Voting Section of the United States Department of Justice by calling (800) 253-3931. You can read more about the Brennan Center’s concerns about suppressive voter challenges here and read about current reports of aggressive "ballot security" operations here.
Every American has a right to cast a vote that counts. Poll monitoring efforts based on race, or intended to disenfranchise eligible voters, are flat-out unlawful. A fundamental requirement of our democracy is ensuring that eligible voters are not turned away from the polls. To the extent that “ballot security” operations discourage eligible voters, they fail us all.
[1] Montana Democratic Party v. Eaton, 581 F.Supp.2d 1077, 1081 (D.Mont. 2008).
[2] Spencer v. Blackwell, 347 F.Supp.2d 528, 530 (S.D.Ohio 2004).
Tags: Democracy, Voting Rights & Elections, Allegations of Voter Fraud, Challenges, Caging & Vote Suppression, Election Day Issues
By Wendy R. Weiser – 04/27/10
A minor partisan battle has erupted in Tennessee about the rules for purging the voter rolls.
According to local news reports, earlier this year, local election officials in two counties reviewed their records to identify registered individuals whose initial voter registration applications were "deficient" in some respect. A registration was deemed "deficient" not only if it showed a voter to be ineligible (in fact, there are no reports of ineligible registrants), but also if there was a minor omission on the form, such as the failure to check a box. The result: more than one in five voters in those counties—many of them long-time voters—received letters questioning their registrations.
After a brouhaha involving the family members of a local candidate, it looks like these voters will not be purged after all. But the controversy rages on, shifting from local election offices to the state legislature, both houses of which are considering legislation to prohibit officials from purging a previously-accepted registration based on a minor omission unless there was fraud or a missing signature.
I have previously written about how the federal Voting Rights Act already prohibits state officials from denying individuals the right to register or vote based on minor errors or omission in paperwork. When a registration has already been accepted, officials must also follow the National Voter Registration Act—and the Constitution’s Due Process Clause—before removing the voter’s name from the rolls. In other words, the rule proposed in the pending Tennessee legislation is already required by federal law. (Federal law also likely prohibits purging previously-registered voters from the rolls solely based on the fact that they did not sign their initial voter registration applications.)
While the pending bill may resolve the current voter roll controversy, it leaves the broader problem unaddressed. Tennessee’s "deficient" voter registration problem is a product of two general deficiencies with our current voter registration system: first, the system is based on paper applications, and second, the system relies on individual voters’ initiative to make sure that the voter rolls are complete and accurate. Both of these features are outdated and bound to lead to problems [pdf].
A voter registration system for the twenty-first century would largely do away with paper applications—and all the errors, confusion, and lost information they cause—and would rely on government officials (instead of millions of individuals) to use existing government records to get the voter rolls right. By using reliable information from other government lists to register consenting eligible citizens and to update the rolls, a modern system would largely eliminate the problem of incomplete or inaccurate voter registrations. And by providing fail-safe mechanisms to ensure that every eligible voter can check and correct her registration record up through Election Day, a modern system would largely eliminate the problem of vote denial because of faulty voter roll purges. In other words, Tennessee can have its cake and eat it too—ensuring accurate voter rolls while preventing unwarranted disenfranchisement—and prevent this debate from resurfacing in the future, by modernizing its voter registration system. That is why more and more states are moving in this direction—that, and the millions of dollars of savings each year.
Another benefit of modernizing the voter registration system is that it would remove politics from what should be a purely administrative function. Our current error-laden and discretion-filled voter registration system is far too prone to political battles, with Democrats accusing Republicans of using the system to suppress the vote and Republicans accusing Democrats of using it to promote voter fraud. Tennessee is a case in point: one of the Democratic sponsors of the pending purge legislation apparently blamed partisanship for the recent letters to voters, accusing Republicans of trying to knock Democrats off the rolls. It’s time to take the politics—and the errors—out of the voter registration system and to move into the 21st century. Rather than tinkering around the edges, Tennessee—and the rest of the states—should adopt broader legislation to modernization the registration system.
The Brennan Center sent letters to state and local election officials concerning the purge situation.
The letters are available here:
Letter to Mark Goins, Coordinator for Elections in the Division of Elections of the Tennessee Department of State [pdf]
Letter to Mark Ward, Election Administrator in Benton County [pdf]
Tags: Democracy, Voting Rights & Elections, Allegations of Voter Fraud, Purges, Voter Registration Modernization
By Justin Levitt – 04/26/10
Late last week, John Fund wrote about the demise of a recent Wisconsin elections bill. It was a broad piece of legislation, big enough for virtually anyone to find something to like and something to dislike. Mr. Fund found far more in the latter category. The curious thing is that among his targets was a new cause one would think he’d be championing.
To be sure, much of the thrust of the piece was familiar, including points where we share common ground. For example, as Mr. Fund says, “coercion and chicanery are made much easier by the excessive use of absentee ballots.” No argument there.
The consistently puzzling thing is where this conclusion leads. From critiquing the fraud that absentee ballots may foster, Mr. Fund repeats his support for requiring strict voter ID at the polls. Which, of course, does nothing to address the absentee problem he’s just mentioned.
The other “real evidence” on which Mr. Fund rests his drumbeat for ID makes a similarly unsupported leap. He cites an admittedly problematic 2004 Milwaukee election, with more votes cast than the number of recorded voters; absentee ballots from non-Milwaukee addresses; and voting by ineligible persons with convictions. He also claims that there were improper votes by college students and “possibly” by homeless voters, though his source is a controversial report by a unit of the local police force, disavowed by its chief, and impeccable on the facts but unfortunately hasty in its assessment of law and policy. The report is deeply skeptical about these student and homeless votes not because the facts show substantial fraud, but because the investigators either didn’t like or didn’t understand the governing legal residency standards.
But for purposes of argument, let’s throw all these allegations in the mix, legit or not. And let’s stipulate that the assertions are troublesome. Even with the extra padding, none of this “real evidence” shows a problem that restrictive ID can fix. Go through Mr. Fund’s list of problems again. Does asking John Smith to show a card saying that he’s John Smith solve even one? Not one bit.
If Mr. Fund were a doctor, he’d be prescribing the same magic tonic no matter what your actual symptoms were. Seasonal allergies? Try Fund’s Miracle ID Elixir. Chest pains? Try Fund’s Miracle ID Elixir. Broken ankle? Try Fund’s Miracle ID Elixir.
Even if the ID tonic addressed the underlying symptoms that Mr. Fund cites, its benefits would amount to only half the conversation. If Fund’s Miracle ID Elixir cured your head cold but caused pneumonia, you’d keep the bottle closed. That’s why, in any policy assessment, you need to assess both benefits and costs. In pressing strict ID rules, Mr. Fund mentions only purported benefits. In lambasting election-day registration, he mentions only purported costs. Even once we straighten out the funny math, Mr. Fund is looking at only half of the ledger.
And then the Op-Ed’s disconnect gets truly odd. Though he shifts focus from state to national legislation, it seems that Mr. Fund then attacks the policy portion of the Wisconsin bill that he should, in theory, like best — if he believes what he wrote sentences before.
I’m referring here to the provisions of the bill that would upgrade Wisconsin’s voter registration system, drawing data from reliable sources to keep the rolls complete and up to date. It’s the portion I praised last week, though not without reservations, including a concern that the bill was limited to motor vehicle records.
Since Mr. Fund likes ID rules, and dislikes election-day chaos and duplicate forms, not to mention “infamous registration scandals,” this part of the Wisconsin bill should have gotten two enormous thumbs up. The bill would have taken reliable data from the same people who issue the driver’s licenses Mr. Fund loves. After confirming their eligibility, the citizens in this data stream would have their voter records created or refreshed, which shifts the registration season from the last-minute frenzy Mr. Fund deplores. The more citizens who are registered or updated through data transfer from reliable sources, the fewer paper forms factor in, decreasing the likelihood of the registration scandals we all agree are harmful.
There would be costs, of course, largely in data processing time and energy. But the status quo costs much more. And other states’ experiences with components of modernized voter rolls show that the upgrades more than pay for themselves.
So on the substance of the matter, I can’t understand why Mr. Fund doesn’t like the concept. I hope that I’ve misread his critique, and that his attack on Senator Schumer’s idea occupied the space where he would have praised Wisconsin’s version of the same. Unusual though it may seem, on the virtues of modernization, we should actually agree.
Tags: Democracy, Voting After Criminal Conviction, Voting Rights & Elections, Allegations of Voter Fraud, Voter Registration Modernization
By Maggie Barron – 03/06/09
A voter ID bill died in Mississippi yesterday, not because legislators came to their senses and realized there’s no threat of voter fraud, but because the bill wasn’t restrictive enough.
In a rare turn of events, the voter ID bill was actually killed in committee by three of its most vocal supporters, Republican senators Joey Fillingane, Merle Flowers and Billy Hewes.
Read the rest of this story ...
Tags: Democracy, Voting Rights & Elections, Allegations of Voter Fraud, Voter ID
By Justin Levitt – 01/30/09
For years, too many of our public officials developed a bad habit of jumping to conclusions on insufficient facts. Even after a return to private practice, it seems, that habit is hard to break.
Three weeks ago, Hans von Spakovsky wrote an op-ed about a South Carolina state house race ostensibly marred by fraud. He claimed that the losing candidate, Wallace Scarborough, found more than 300 "illegal votes," more than half again the margin of victory. And he accused the State Election Commission of violating state law, "fail[ing] in its sole responsibility: to protect the security and integrity of the democratic election process."
Read the rest of this story ...
Tags: Democracy, Voting Rights & Elections, Allegations of Voter Fraud, Voter ID
By Adam Skaggs – 10/07/08
The voter registration deadlines of most states have either just passed or will come in the next two weeks, and there has been an unprecedented surge in registrations across the country. For most observers, this is evidence of a renewed public interest in participating in our democracy. Others, unfortunately, see the prospect of higher voter turnout as a threat—and are working to keep voters from registering and voting.
The efforts to suppress voting range from challenging the eligibility of voters whose homes have been foreclosed to scaring college students out of registering where they go to school. And, as we've written previously, efforts are under way in a number of states to use trivial imperfections in paperwork to keep voters off the registration rolls or kick them off when they are successfully registered. One way citizens are blocked from casting ballots that count is through so-called "no match, no vote" policies.
Read the rest of this story ...
Tags: Democracy, Voting Rights & Elections, Allegations of Voter Fraud, No Match, No Vote, Other Voter List Issues, Purges, Voter Registration Drives
Page 2 of 3 pages < 1 2 3 >
Permalink