QUICK LINKS

MICHIGAN WORKSHOP CONNECTS VOTING RIGHTS ADVOCATES AND LEADERS
On July 24, Advancement Project hosted Voter Registration and Verification 101, a one-day voter protection workshop held at the Wayne State University Law School in the heart of Detroit. The workshop was an engaging afternoon of strategy sharing and network building. Young advocacy organizations, experienced local leaders, and seasoned and new election officials gathered in Motor City to address registration practices collectively, to learn about new tools that will help ensure all eligible voters make it onto the rolls, and to develop and reinforce relationships with other voter advocacy organizations and local election officials.

Michigan ACORN Director David Lagstein opened the event with an overview of the voter registration climate, his recommendations for overcoming common hurdles to effective registration, and ACORN’s experiences incorporating verification as a part of the everyday business of voter registration. Throughout the morning, audience members and Advancement Project attorneys delved into the nuts and bolts of voter registration and verification procedures.

“The overarching lesson of the voter registration portion of the workshop,” reported Advancement Project Staff Attorney Alaina Beverly, “was that advocates should use what they referred to as the ‘honey method.’ In other words, instead of looking at election administrators as the enemy, meet with them early and often, demonstrate your commitment to quality control, complete applications, gather information about the processing of applications, and emphasize your desire to have ongoing and open communication as the election process proceeds.”

Advancement Project Senior Attorney Estelle Rogers guided the audience through recommended verification practices, emphasizing the ways in which groups can work with officials to access the state voter registration file (Qualified Voter File) or purchase the file to confirm that registration applicants are making it on to the rolls.

In the afternoon, Kristi Dougen of the Michigan Bureau of Elections, Gina Avery and Rachel Jones of the Detroit city clerk’s office, and Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett offered the audience advice on working with their offices to conduct successful registrations. Jamie Nelson of the advocacy group MOSES attended the workshop to get pointers for her organization, which aims to register 5,000 young adults (18-29 years old) in the Wayne County area. Nelson remarked that the election officials provided valuable insight to the program: “The workshop was helpful to MOSES, particularly hearing the Detroit and Wayne County clerks’ views on how best to organize and submit registration forms to their respective offices. It also gave our organization an opportunity to forge partnerships with other organizations, like Black Youth Vote and the Detroit Parent Network, who are just starting their registration efforts in Detroit. We are meeting with them this week to develop a collaborative program.”

SEIU Michigan State Council Director Ray Plowden, who attended the workshop both to hear SEIU Director Faith Culbreath’s remarks and show his support for the other voter advocacy organizations, was pleased with the event. “Voting rights is the heart and soul of our democracy. It is good that we are engaging early in the election season. We need to get more power players in the room, make a team, and move voting rights forward.”

Note: MOSES is a congregation-centered, faith-based community organization reflecting the religious, racial, and ethnic diversity of Metropolitan Detroit.

MARYLAND INTRODUCES EARLY VOTING WITH NEW TECHNOLOGY
This year, for the first time, Maryland voters will be able to cast their ballots before Election Day. Any individual registered to vote in the state of Maryland is eligible to vote early. There will be at least one early voting polling place in every jurisdiction for the primary and general elections, while large jurisdictions like Baltimore County, Prince Georges County, and Baltimore City will have three early voting polling places.

Maryland voting is also more automated; The State Board of Elections will use new electronic poll books that it says will instantly update voters’ records when they vote. Voter registration and voting activity is now stored on touch screen computers at poll sites. For instance, if a voter casts her ballot early and later returns to her polling place to vote, the computer will show that she already voted.

Primary Election Day is Tuesday, September 12. For the primary, early voting polling places will be open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Tuesday, September 5 through Saturday, September 9. For more information about early voting times and locations for the upcoming primary and general elections, go to: http://www.elections.state.md.us/citizens/Early_Voting.html

Advancement Project is reviewing the early voting site locations and their preparations to ensure that the sites will be accessible to voters and that no one will be erroneously disenfranchised with the introduction of this new technology.

MEET OUR LOCAL VOTER PROTECTION ADVOCATES

• Deborah Barksdale, Ohio Voter Protection Advocate: In 2004, Deborah Barksdale served as the Franklin County coordinator of the Ohio Voter Protection Coalition. Barksdale, a former Communications Workers of America officer, brings extensive union leadership experience to Advancement Project as well as established working relationships with Ohio community and labor groups. An executive board member of the A. Philip Randolph Institute and treasurer of the Franklin County chapter, Barksdale is a seasoned activist who is always willing to fight for racial equality and economic justice.
• Helen Butler, Georgia Voter Protection Advocate: Helen joins Advancement Project as local advocate while serving concurrently as the executive director of the Peoples' Agenda, an advocacy organization composed of representatives from human rights, civil rights, environmental, labor, peace, and justice groups in the Southeast. In the 2004 election cycle, Butler directed a strategic, nonpartisan 527 grassroots initiative in the 12th Congressional District with Voices for Working Families. She also served as 5th Congressional District coordinator for the NAACP Voter Fund and as state coordinator for the NAACP Voter Empowerment Program in 2001 and 2002. A native of Madison, Ga., Butler is a certified Issue Campaign Organizer who serves on the board of directors for Women’s Actions for New Directions and the Georgia Help America Vote Act Advisory Committee.
• Alvaro F. Fernandez, Florida Voter Protection Advocate: Alvaro Fernandez is the southeast region director of the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project. Fernandez launched the Latino Vote Project in the state of Florida, and in 2004 he spearheaded efforts to register 20,000 new voters in his region. He is also president of the Cuban-American Commission for Family Rights, which fights restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba, and volunteer director of Miami Beach Second Thursdays, a monthly celebration of the arts. Alvaro founded the arts organization while serving as vice chair of the City of Miami Beach Cultural Arts Council.
• Rosa W. Goldberg, Pennsylvania Voter Protection Advocate: In 2006, Rosa Goldberg helped to organize Protect Our Vote, a statewide campaign that successfully defeated House Bill 1318, which would have denied people with felony convictions on probation and parole the right to vote and created restrictive identification requirements. A novice at biking and electoral politics, in 2004 Goldberg co-founded Bike for Democracy, a cross-country bike project to register, educate, and mobilize new and young voters. In the same year, she coordinated a successful voter registration and voting rights education program in the Philadelphia jails. A graduate of Oberlin College, Goldberg was a student organizer with a strong interest in redistributing institutional power. She is currently pursuing a career in Public Health Nursing with the goal of developing and implementing public health policy that prevents disenfranchisement and makes both voting and health care accessible to all.
• Denise Lieberman, Missouri Voter Protection Advocate: Denise Lieberman, a civil rights lawyer, brings a wealth of voting rights advocacy experience to Advancement Project. As the legal director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri from 1997-2005, she litigated several significant voting rights cases and supervised voter protection outreach and advocacy efforts. An organizer of the 2004 Missouri Voter Protection Coalition, Lieberman also served as coordinator of the 2004 Missouri Voter Protection Legal Command Center. Denise currently teaches courses on constitutional law and civil rights at Washington University in St. Louis, serves as co-chair of the Individual Rights and Responsibilities Committee of the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis, and is a founding member of the new Stetin Center for Law and Social Change.
• Jamiel Martin, Michigan Voter Protection Advocate: A dedicated voter protection and voting rights advocate, Jamiel Martin has extensive experience with voter registration and get out the vote activities in Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. In 2004, Martin coordinated field work with Voting Is Power. Recently, he engaged in the One United Michigan effort to defeat an anti-affirmative action measure on the November election ballot.

TESTIMONY HIGHLIGHTS BURDENS OF FLORIDA LAW ON HISTORICALLY DISENFRANCHISED CITIZENS: Witnesses Take the Stand in Pivotal Third-Party Voting Case
On July 25 and 26, a federal district court in Miami, Fla., heard testimony in League of Women Voters v. Cobb in support of plaintiffs’ motion to block enforcement of Florida’s restrictions on third-party voter registration. The new law, which went into effect on January 1, 2006, imposes Draconian fines and detailed reporting requirements on all organizations that register voters—unless they happen to be Florida’s political parties, which are entirely exempt from the new rules. Advancement Project serves as counsel along with the Brennan Center and two private law firms.

During the hearing, representatives from the plaintiffs, the League of Women Voters, People Acting for Community Together (PACT), AFSCME Local 79, the Florida AFL-CIO, the SEIU Florida Health Care Union, and Marilyn Wills, a member of the Tallahassee League of Women Voters, presented compelling testimony that Florida’s new law has forced them to shut down or significantly scale back their voter registration activities. They further testified that as a result of the new law, Florida’s low-income, minority, disabled, and other marginalized citizens who rely on nonpartisan voter registration groups to help them overcome barriers to voter registration have been, and will continue to be, disenfranchised.

The testimony of Aaron Dorfman, executive director of PACT, revealed the harmful effects of the new law on Floridians’ right to vote. PACT is an umbrella organization of churches and synagogues in Miami-Dade County, which has 100,000 members who are predominantly low-income and minority. In years past, PACT had helped its members to register to vote in order to increase its leverage with local elected officials. For example, when PACT undertook a campaign to increase the bus fleet in Miami-Dade County, city officials initially ignored PACT’s requests, because, as one official remarked, many of PACT’s members were not registered voters. In response to this comment, PACT renewed its efforts to register its members, and consequently, the city joined PACT’s efforts to increase the city’s bus fleet.

Dorfman testified that due to the new law, PACT suspended its voter registration efforts, leaving many low-income and minority citizens without needed assistance in registering to vote. Representatives from the other plaintiffs echoed Dorfman’s testimony and made it clear that Florida’s new law has virtually shut down nonpartisan voter registration in Florida this year and in turn will result in fewer voter registrations among historically disenfranchised populations.

During closing arguments, counsel for plaintiffs argued that the new law has unlawfully burdened their constitutional rights to engage in political speech in registering voters and their right to equal protection by exempting political parties from its reach. When the court pointedly asked counsel for the secretary of state to explain why political parties are not subject to the new law, counsel could offer no persuasive rationale.

Plaintiffs anticipate that the court will rule on the motion in upcoming weeks.

The news media has been critical of the Florida restrictions. Below is recent coverage on the issue:

• “Voting Law Hearing Begins,” South Florida Sun-Sentinel, July 26, 2006
• “Nonprofits Registering Voters Face New Restrictions,” OMB Watch, June 13, 2006
• “Groups’ Lawsuit Says Florida Law Hobbles Voter Registration,” Bradenton Herald, July 27, 2006
• “Angry about Voting Law: Fines May Discourage Registration,” The News Herald, August 6, 2006
• “Judge Raises Questions about New Voter Registration Law,” Associated Press, August 3, 2006

PREPARING TO CROSS THE BRIDGE OF DEMOCRACY: TALKING POINTS FOR A NATIONAL DISCUSSION ON A BETTER DEMOCRACY
Having achieved the essential victory of Voting Rights Act reauthorization, our nation is at a critical moment in history. Much like the brave men and women standing on the Edmund Pettus bridge, embracing their fate, America has an opportunity to make the most of this moment and cross “the bridge” to a more robust and just democracy.

We can improve our Democracy at every level—federal, state, local, and individual–by addressing the following concerns: the proliferation of voter identification and so-called anti-fraud measures; voter registration regulations that limit the ability of third-party groups to bring vulnerable voters into the fold of democracy; efforts to curb civic engagement; Draconian felon disfranchisement laws in 48 states; a prevailing sense of insecurity about the right of communities of color to participate in the political process; and Department of Justice’s (DOJ) failure to enforce federal voting rights protections.

CUYAHOGA COUNTY REPORT ON MAY 2006 ELECTION ADMINISTRATION PROBLEMS
The Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Board of Elections created an independent election review panel to address widespread election administration problems encountered during the May 2006 primary. On July 21, 2006, the panel released its final report, which identifies deficiencies in the Cuyahoga County primary election process (including problems with pre-election preparation, conduct during the election, and counting ballots after the election); examines the causes for each of the identified problems; and outlines a series of recommendations for moving toward an “error-free” election process.

The report points out numerous issues surrounding the 2006 primary election in Ohio, including non-functioning electronic voting machines, voter list errors, long lines in several precincts, exceptionally high levels of poll worker absences (and errors), misprinted ballots that omitted certain races, precincts that lacked essential supplies, and optical scanning machines that failed to accurately count ballots. The report details the panel’s findings that Cuyahoga County demonstrated several serious flaws in election preparation, which contributed to problems cited in the report. For example, interviews with election officials revealed that the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections unquestioningly accepted inaccurate claims from Diebold Management Information Systems (DMIS) about machine performance, technological training, complaint resolution procedures, and a large-scale election simulation, which led to machine malfunctions and voter list errors.

Finally, the report includes suggestions from the panel on how to correct these problems in Cuyahoga County. Although several of the suggestions are location-specific, most could be widely implemented, such as: instituting a comprehensive reform of poll worker positions, training, support systems, and staffing policies; running a large-scale election simulation in advance of the election; and creating a more robust method for entering, tracking, and maintaining election records.

The Cuyahoga County report is a useful resource for voter protection efforts around the country because it is a model for how to investigate, analyze, and develop proposed solutions for dysfunctional election administration systems that are, unfortunately, far too common. It is also a model for the type of local review that advocates should encourage their election boards to undertake.