Blog
Election Day Issues

Foreclosures Could Cost Votes

By Thaddeus Kromelis – 07/29/08

We don't need more reasons to worry about foreclosure rates. Digby, nonetheless, citing this AP/CBSnews.com story, provides one: the high rate of foreclosures in Ohio and the affect election officials believe it could have on their voting rolls. (Digby cited the voting issue in the context of a 7/26 longer posting on Hans von Spakovsky, "legal disenfranchisement" and "voter fraud.") There's concern that a wave of voters, still registered to their former—foreclosed—address, will show up to the polls on election day. This could lead to a number of pre-election challenges or a whole lot of voters casting provisional ballots in Ohio.

Read the rest of this story ...

Tags: Democracy, Voting Rights & Elections, Allegations of Voter Fraud, Election Day Issues, Voter Lists and Databases, Voter Purges and Challenges, Voter Registration

We Want You…to be a Poll Worker

By Renée Paradis & Theresa J. Lee – 07/03/08

When you work in election reform, often at the end of a panel discussion or a presentation you've just given, you'll look out at a sea of people you've thoroughly disheartened as to the health of the republic, one of whom has just asked you, "But what can I do to make a difference?"  Usually, the answer is frustratingly remote - join an advocacy group, lobby your elected representatives, try to draw attention to the chronically ignored and un-sexy topic of election administration.  But in an election year like this one, the answer can become gratifyingly immediate: Go become a poll worker.  Poll workers are those overworked, undertrained, usually somewhat harried people who check you in at the polls on Election Day and shepherd you through the voting process.  Poll workers usually have to be registered voters in the county they're serving in, and in many states, they must also be registered in one of the two major parties.  It's hard to find qualified, dynamic poll workers, especially given how little most states pay for the day's work, and harder still to adequately train them in election law and procedures.  Poll workers have to wake up at five in the morning to open the polls, stay at the polls late to process ballots, giving up an entire day, and spending a large part of that day being yelled at by disgruntled voters.  But without poll workers nothing in the system works: Even if registration lists were perfectly managed, and voting machines 100% accurate, poorly trained poll workers can lose hundreds of votes in a single precinct. 

In the long term, we need to figure out a way to recruit good poll workers.  Current innovations include having high school students, many of whom would ordinarily be too young to serve as poll workers, staff the polls as part of their civics classes.  We'd like to see other innovations:  states could consider exempting poll workers from jury service for some period of time-surely many of you would rather serve one day than possibly get put on a weeks-long trial.  Another innovation might be offering continuing legal education (CLE) credit for service at the polls.  (Lawyers usually need to take some sort of continuing education classes to maintain their bar license, but often alternative activities such as judging moot courts or writing articles will count for credit as well.)  Like jury service, CLE requirements can be a hassle to fulfill, and working the polls might be a nice alternative.  In the credit framework, colleges and universities could also offer credit for work at the polls, either course credit or towards community service requirements.

But in the short term, anyone interested in electoral reform should consider taking that interest and dynamism and working the polls this fall.  In a national election year, it can often seem like any real affect on the system or the outcome is out of the grasp of just one person, but there is something you can do to make real change now.  Go become a poll worker.

 

Tags: Democracy, Voting Rights & Elections, Election Day Issues

Protecting Votes, One Call at a Time

By Maggie Barron – 05/08/08

How many lawyers does it take to run an Election Protection Hotline? You can come up with your own punchline, but the actual answer is about thirty at a time, in five hour shifts, sitting around a board room table on an otherwise empty floor of a mid-town law firm, fielding hundreds of calls from primary voters in Indiana and North Carolina.

In terms of voting issues, the big story was the group of elderly nuns who had been turned away from the polls because they did not have current photo ID. (So much for the Supreme Court divining that voter ID laws would probably not really impact any voters). Other calls ran the gamut, from questions about polling location to reports of machine malfunctions, from possible voter intimidation to confusion as to whether or not people with felony convictions could vote. One North Carolina woman had been mistakenly registered as a Republican, which meant she could not vote for either of the Democratic candidates. Another called, upset that she had been asked to leave a polling place because she was wearing a t-shirt with her chosen candidate's name on it.

For all these anecdotes, there was a certain type of call, perhaps the most basic, that has stuck with me. Throughout my shift, I answered calls from people who had been registered, had moved, and had never gotten around to changing their address on their voter registration record. For those who had switched counties, this was a considerable problem. In both North Carolina and Indiana, if voters move from one county to another without updating their addresses on the voter registration rolls, they cannot vote. Unless they've moved within the past thirty days, they can't go to their old polling place, and they can't go to their new polling place. They might have been registered once, but not anymore. Sorry.

This struck me as the most mundane, unnecessary reason to be disenfranchised, which might have been why it bothered me so much. And it doesn't just happen in these two states. As our Executive Director Michael Waldman points out in his new book, "in a country where one in six Americans moves in a year, government does not routinely keep such people registered to vote, even if they stay in their own state."

Why do we do it like this? Some might be quick to offer the line that voting is a privilege, the government shouldn't have to hold our hands, voting is the voter's responsibility, etc. etc. Heaven forbid we "spoil" our citizens by making it convenient to vote. True patriots don't need convenience! Or something like that... Maybe some would feel that the voters I spoke to on the phone have rightly learned their lesson and will be better citizens next time. But I certainly didn't feel like delivering the civic scolding.

And yes, in this country it is the voter's responsibility to register, re-register, make it to the polls, and jump through any other hoops on the way to the ballot box. But this does not mean that it would be illegal, wrong, or a waste of time for the government to facilitate registration and re-registration more than it does now.

The solution is fairly simple. People should be able to register on Election Day. Eight states already allow this, and they have found that it boosts turnout by 5-7 percentage points, reduces confusion (and the need for provisional ballots) when people try to vote but can't, and does not lead to any increase in reports of voter fraud or bureaucratic malfunction. Just last week, Senators Feingold and Klobuchar and Rep. Ellison introduced a Federal Election Day Registration Bill, which would allow people to, you guessed it, register on Election Day.

Or, when people change their address through the post office, why can't they also change their voter registration? Will such convenience turn us into a nation of softies and whiners? I doubt it. But it will make our voter rolls a lot more accurate, which is in everyone's interests—those who lie awake at night fearing voter fraud and those who want as many people to vote as possible.

It would not be difficult for the government to help people get, and stay, registered. And look on the bright side. At least that will make fewer lawyers necessary to run an Election Protection Hotline.

Tags: Democracy, Voting Rights & Elections, Election Day Issues

Boosting Voter Confidence Through Audits

By Sec. Jennifer Brunner – 04/23/08

Post-election audits provide a boost to voter confidence in these times of uncertainty about the accuracy and reliability of modern election systems.

This will be especially important as the presidential primary elections season winds down and with what is expected to be a record voter turnout in this fall's general election.

Ohio is developing the use of random post-election audits as a way to ensure accurate vote totals in light of the state's massive study released in December 2007 that showed critical voting system security failures. With the state's tight budget, replacing voting machines before this year's presidential election is a difficult prospect.

Eleven of Ohio's 88 counties are taking part in a pilot program to conduct post-election audits of the state's March 4, 2008 presidential primary election. This program was devised by the secretary of state's office with the advice and suggestions of our Voting Rights Institute Advisory Council.

The county boards of elections who volunteered for the program follow required procedures to randomly select precincts for 7% hand counts, and if discrepancies exist of more than two votes, an additional 3%.

Failure to be within two votes in the additional 3% results in a county-wide hand count. Our office plans to work further with election officials, voting rights advocates and the academic community, including the Brennan Center for Justice, to further develop Ohio's audit procedure for statewide use in the fall.

There is an emerging national consensus that post-election audits are a best practice in elections. This is especially so in light of the new voting machine technology that has been tested by Ohio and other states with findings of security and performance problems and that have resulted in a number of states decertifying or discontinuing their use.

Tags: Democracy, Voting Rights & Elections, Election Day Issues

Voters Capturing the Vote

By Thaddeus Kromelis – 04/22/08

Apparently the kids in my neighborhood are so hopped up for voting they're vandalizing businesses (and riffing on Robert Indiana no less) to encourage voter turnout. Heartening, indeed, unless that's your business they've spray painted I suppose. Whatever your opinion of graffiti, I took a quick picture this morning on my way to work and thought I'd share it.

In a similar vein of web/voting participation, and with the Pennsylvania primary in full swing, thought I'd also take this opportunity to recommend everyone head over to the Polling Place Photo Project when they have a moment.

Hosted by the NY Times, the Polling Place Photo Project (PPPP) is a forum where citizen journalists (read: voters with cameras) can post snapshots of polling locations and ballots. A Zagats of sorts, users are also encouraged to rate the quality of service, report delays and apparently comment on poll workers' wardrobes.

Much like the mixed bag you'd find on youtube, flickr and any other user-generated-content site, PPPP entries predictably run the gambit from the incredibly mundane to the bizarre—cutouts of the biblical fathers watching over voters for instance. Regardless, there are plenty of interesting snapshots to be found, payoff well worth the cost of spending a lunch break on the Internet.

Tags: Democracy, Voting Rights & Elections, Election Day Issues

King’s English-Only

By Myrna Pérez – 04/08/08

Iowa's online voter registration forms can no longer be published in any language other than English. So said a ruling on March 31 from a state district court judge in Polk County ending Iowa's Secretary of State's commendable practice of providing voter registration forms online in four languages in addition to English. The main instigator of the lawsuit was U.S. Representative Steve King (R-IA), the same person who introduced Iowa's English-Only legislation while a state Senator. If you've ever wondered what our members of Congress have been spending their time on lately, the answer is: trolling a state agency's website to find grist for a lawsuit, one to make voting more difficult, no less.

Thirty-one states, in whole or in part, are required under federal law to provide voting materials in the language of specified language minority groups that reach certain numerical thresholds. Iowa is not one of those required states. So the actions its leaders were taking to promote broad political participation were especially meaningful and laudatory—a best practice among states for expanding voting opportunities.

But no more. After the judge issued his ruling, Iowa Secretary of State Michael Mauro removed the voter registration forms in all languages other than English. Ironically, while the Bush Administration's Department of Justice brags about filing more cases since 2001 in support of minority language rights in voting than in the previous 26 years, Rep. King sues Iowa merely for providing some non-English forms on a website.

It is shocking that a member of Congress could justify spending his time on ending a practice that at its best, expands electoral participation to more citizens, at worst, is innocuous. It's certainly not an issue of money. Iowa spent a grand total of $630 on non-English voter registration material. That was in 2006. On the other hand, Rep. King's lawsuit no doubt cost taxpayers, in terms of expenses and government and judicial resources, much, much more. It is hard to argue that this lawsuit in any way served King's constituents. It was simply a mean-spirited and divisive attempt to make it difficult for some eligible citizens to register to vote.

Rep. King had this to say about the lawsuit: "The English language unites us as a state and as a nation. E Pluribis Unum—out of many, we are one—with a common language."

He's wrong. We are a diverse nation. Our citizens have connections to countries all over the world and speak many different languages at home. Despite our differences, the commonality eligible citizens have and should jealously guard is the right to cast a meaningful vote. Even though voting participation in the recent months has hit record highs, electoral participation is far from universal. It is shameful and disappointing that such a well-intentioned and low-cost way of including more people in the democratic process could not be left alone.

Tags: Democracy, Voting Rights & Elections, Election Day Issues, Voter Registration

Double Bubble, LA’s Toil & Trouble

By Justin Levitt – 02/27/08

Three weeks after Super Tuesday, thousands of Los Angeles votes may finally be counted. 

On February 5, I was in Los Angeles, helping with a nonpartisan election protection effort.  We received calls reporting plenty of problems, some familiar, some new.  But early in the day, it was clear that there was a serious issue confronting independent voters.

In California, voters unaffiliated with any party could vote in the primary for the Democratic party or the American Independent party (the Republican primary was open to registered Republicans only).  Theoretically.

Problem one: bad information.  Some pollworkers didn't offer the choice of a partisan primary ballot.  Worse, others did affirmative harm, incorrectly telling unaffiliated voters that they couldn't vote in a partisan primary.

Problem two: bad ballots.  In Los Angeles county, the unaffiliated ballots baffled thousands of voters.  The ballots themselves were just numbers and bubbles, like the answer sheet for a standardized test.  The candidates were listed in a separate booklet, like the test's exam questions.  Democratic candidates, rotating in position from voter to voter, were assigned to bubbles #8-15; American Independent candidates, also rotating, were assigned bubbles #8-10.  So bubbles #8-10 could have been votes for either party.  To tell one from the other, voters were supposed to fill in a different bubble—bubble # 5 or 6—with their party choice. 

The "double bubble" system was sufficiently confusing that about 49,500 voters got it wrong.  Officials are now trying to determine whether they can reliably count some of the ballots: for example, voters who filled in bubbles #11-15 (which should be unambiguous Democratic votes), or voters in precincts where all of the unaffiliated voters who wanted partisan ballots checked in for the same party's primary.  It looks like the Los Angeles county clerk may now try to count both categories.  But that will still leave the many ambiguous ballots uncounted, and can't possibly help the people who were turned away without casting a ballot at all.

In the continuing brouhaha, one element has been left out of the conversation: properly programmed touchscreen systems might have avoided the toil and trouble of both problems.

To be crystal clear: this is not an endorsement of touchscreens over optical scans, or punchcards, or rock-paper-scissors.  There are plenty of concerns with most, if not all, of the existing touchscreen systems.  This is also not a declaration that all paper ballots are flawed: the design that confused thousands of Angelenos could have, and should have, been avoided.

Still, both the pollworker problem and the ballot problem were big issues caused by small lapses in a series of rules.  We've seen both types before, and we'll see them again, and it's useful to keep our own limitations in mind.  Most election procedures are sets of "if, then" instructions: if unaffiliated, then ask about a partisan ballot . . . if partisan ballot, then ask which party.  There are an awful lot of "if, then" rules for people to keep track of on election day.  And one thing computers can be good at is walking people through those rules, step by step. 

Tags: Democracy, Voting Rights & Elections, Election Day Issues, Voting Technology

Mississippi’s “Reform” Failure

By Myrna Pérez – 02/26/08

Hailing from Texas, I've seen my fellow southerners come up with some great ideas—like adding creamy gravy to chicken-fried steak, for instance. But now comes Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann with an election "reform" proposal that has me scratching my head. The Secretary of State's plan includes a lot of things, but the provision that should inspire bipartisan outrage is the section requiring all persons who registered prior October 1, 2008 to reregister. The Secretary is concerned that the voter rolls are bloated and apparently thinks starting from scratch is the way to fix the problem. Talk about the medicine being worse than the disease.

We should strive for accurate rolls. On this, no one disagrees. When voter rolls are accurate, turn-out numbers are more precise, and election misconduct is easier to detect. Problems arise, however, when the quest for accurate rolls eclipses the voter's actual rights. When eligible voters are removed from the rolls, they're silenced unless they're able to correct the problem in time to qualify for the next election. Unfortunately, many voters will not know or understand they have to reregister before it is too late.

The irony is that there is no need for extreme proposals like Secretary Hosemann's. Federal law sets forth a common-sensical approach that strikes a balance between voters' rights and accurate voter rolls. Under the National Voter Registration Act, sometimes referred to as the "NVRA" or "Motor Voter Act," if it appears from information provided by the Postal Service that a registrant should no longer be on the rolls, the officials are supposed to send a forwardable notice asking for a confirmation of the registrant's address. If that registrant does not respond, the registrant remains on the rolls for two federal elections. If the registrant shows up to vote in the interim, she or he can update the necessary information. Only registrants who fail to respond to the address confirmation notice AND miss two federal elections can be removed from the voter rolls.

Under Hosemann's proposal, registrants who vote in any election conducted between November 3, 2008 and December 31, 2009 and meet certain other conditions will be deemed reregistered. Everyone else who registered prior to October 1, 2008 will have to reregister in order to be able to vote in any election after December 31, 2009. The Secretary's proposal will disenfranchise too many voters in the name of minimizing registration roll bloat. The NVRA method is simple and inexpensive. Secretary Hosemann should be ensuring compliance with the NVRA, not putting forth a new proposal that, by design, jeopardizes the voting rights of Mississippians.

Upate, 2/27

Thanks to an amendment offered by Senator David Blount, D-Jackson, the Mississippi Senate passed a revised version of the bill which did not include the provisions requiring all voters to reregister!

Tags: Democracy, Voting Rights & Elections, Election Day Issues, Voter Lists and Databases, Voter Purges and Challenges, Voter Registration