VOTER PROTECTION VICTORIES
Voter Protection Victories 2006
The Year in Review
In 2006, the Voter Protection Program team worked tirelessly in states across the country to support our local partners on the ground working to increase voter registration among traditionally disenfranchised populations. As the year draws to a close, we take a moment to celebrate a few of the accomplishments in the field. Key successes are highlighted below by state:
Florida
- Advancement Project, along with the Brennan Center, Kramer Levin Naftalis and Frankel, LLP, and Becker and Poliakoff, challenged the constitutionality of a law passed in 2005 that imposed potentially ruinous fines and burdensome reporting requirements for third party organizations conducting voter registration, causing some to shut down or dramatically curtail their nonpartisan voter registration operations. In the fall of 2006, we successfully enjoined enforcement of the law.
- Advancement Project identified HAVA matching as a systemic problem preventing potentially eligible voters from being added to the rolls. We built a diverse coalition of nonpartisan voter protection groups around this issue, drafted a letter to the secretary of state, and started an education and advocacy campaign in the media, including favorable editorials printed in the Miami Herald, the Orlando Sentinel, and the Tampa Tribune.
Maryland
- Advancement Project identified a systemic problem with the Maryland voter registration process in which voter registration applicants were being classified as “pending” because their name, date of birth and other personal information did not produce an exact match against the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration or Social Security Administration database. Advancement Project urged Maryland to discontinue this practice. Our litigation team reached a settlement agreement with the Maryland State Board of Elections prior to the November election. The board agreed to: mail revised notices to unmatched applicants; amend their website; establish a protocol for manually reviewing unsuccessful matches; ensure adequate supplies of provisional ballots; and issue written public service announcements reminding unmatched applicants to bring identification to the polls on Election Day.
- Advancement Project and Project Vote helped establish the Maryland Election Reform Coalition, an ad-hoc committee of national and state civil rights and progressive organizations, to build a fair and just election administration system that promotes fair democracy in Maryland. The Coalition obtained an opinion letter from the state attorney general to ensure that “no show” election judges could not prevent the polls from opening on time, recruited election judges to monitor and comment upon their experiences to improve future elections, developed a targeted voter protection field program to protect “pending” and other “provisional ballot” voters, and served as official “watchers” on Election Day.
Michigan
- Advancement Project informed the Saginaw clerk of her obligation to accept applications postmarked by the registration deadline, which resulted in an estimated 150 applications being processed that may have otherwise been rejected.
- Advancement Project discovered thousands of voters marked for "Cancellation Countdown" in the Michigan Qualified Voter File for failing to respond to voter participation mailings sent by the secretary of state’s office. We asked the secretary of state to clarify that undelivered mail is not a ground for requiring identification at the polls; shortly before the election, the secretary of state’s office sent out a reminder to all local election officials making this point.
- We also discovered recently that the secretary of state’s office conducted a “quarterly purge” on October 9. These “purges” are now subject to investigation by Advancement Project.
Missouri
- Advancement Project emerged as the primary (and for most of the duration, the only) organization coordinating voter protection work in the state, and we became the primary media and advocacy source for voting rights issues in Missouri during the 2006 election cycle. Our voter protection team successfully resolved 95 percent of the problems encountered on Election Day.
- In partnership with local advocates, Advancement Project settled a claim with the secretary of state concerning the distribution of voter registration cards to third-party voter registration organizations whose requests for cards had been denied in violation of the NVRA. We also ensured that election officials received accurate lists of voters whose status would be made ineligible due to felony status, which resulted in access to the ballot for some ineligible voters who otherwise would be eligible to vote.
- The Board of Election Commissioners for the City of St. Louis agreed to give Advancement Project access to copies of the voter registration applications of 5,000 applicants who submitted applications through ACORN and to whom the board sent an intimidating and potentially unlawful notice. On October 24, 2006, the Board sent a notice to these applicants requesting that they contact the board concerning their application and provide additional information, not required under Missouri law, as a condition of their registration. Advancement Project told the board that the notice may have violated federal election law, and the board agreed to send the applicants a revised notice, advising applicants of their right to vote by regular ballot on Election Day upon completion of their application and presentation of suitable identification to an election judge at the polls. Advancement Project will review the applications, along with Missouri’s voter registration database, to confirm whether these applicants have been added to the voter rolls and, if not, to ensure that ACORN assists them in registering to vote.
Ohio
- Advancement Project presented testimony before the Ohio Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR) opposing proposed voter registration rules that would chill voter registration in Ohio. Advancement Project was one of only two representatives of Ohio’s large voter protection coalition to testify against the new rules, which required compensated voter registration workers to register with the state, take an online training course, and personally return registration forms directly to the secretary of state or a local election office 10–30 days before an election. Although JCARR voted 6-4, along party lines, in favor of the new proposed rules, our local partner Project Vote filed a lawsuit charging that the newly enacted voter registrations provisions violate the 1st and 14th Amendments, Section 2 of the VRA, and the NVRA.
- An early review of the new provisional ballot laws enacted under the massive Ohio election law overhaul, House Bill 3 (H.B.3), revealed that the statute failed to provide procedures for counting provisional ballots in every instance. We sought a directive and/or an administrative opinion from the secretary of state on the procedures election officials should use to count these provisional ballots. The consent decree of an ensuing lawsuit, NEOCH v. Blackwell, incorporated our concerns by providing clear procedures on the counting provisional ballots where voters provide the last four digits of their social security number as identification.
Pennsylvania
- Advancement Project learned of plans by election officials to delay and possibly reject voter registration applications because the applicants’ personal information did not produce an exact match with the motor vehicle or social security database. In one day, nearly 1,400 such applications were identified in Philadelphia. Advancement Project and attorney Ted Lieverman sent a letter to the secretary of state voicing concerns about the matching requirements. The Pennsylvania Voters Coalition sent a follow-up letter, co-signed by African-American and Latino voters, voters with disabilities, and those who were homeless. Pennsylvania Department of State (DOS) issued a statewide alert informing election officials they were not to delay the processing or reject the voter registration applications of applicants whose registration fails to produce a positive identification match.
- The Luzerne County Board of Elections was not processing the voter registration applications of some City of Hazleton Latino voters because the applicants personal data did not produce an exact match with another database. In a letter to the election director, Advancement Project urged the processing of otherwise eligible applicants. Shortly after our letter was sent, the Luzerne County election director reversed his position and decided to process the voter registration applications of otherwise eligible voters who fail to produce an exact database match. He admitted that “dual ethnic surnames” can often be inverted in the subject databases, preventing exact matches.
National and International News Coverage
Advancement Project and our local partners worked extensively to raise public awareness about the problems that plagued local elections and why it is necessary to protect the rights of voters. Coverage appeared in local and national print media as well as international papers in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, to name a few. Voter protection newscasts also aired on broadcast news stations, including key segments leading up to and on Election Day that provided people with information on what to expect at the polls and how to resolve issues they may encounter. Advancement Project staff were also interviewed on radio broadcasts aired nationwide. Highlights of the news coverage include:
On Election Day, Advancement Project’s Pennsylvania advocate had an op-ed published in The Philadelphia Inquirer on the need for more poll-working training and recruitment, citing her own experiences as a poll worker in Philadelphia. Advancement Project was the first group to alert the Detroit Free Press and other Michigan media that poll workers and voters were unable to reach the Detroit Bureau of Elections, either reaching busy signals or answering machines. A week before Election Day, Advancement Project appeared on CNN to talk about the importance of poll-worker training and recruitment.
As we celebrate our most memorable and meaningful voter protection program accomplishments, we also look forward to the New Year with a renewed commitment to protecting the rights of all people to vote. Advancement Project would like to thank our partners on the ground who, without their enthusiastic support, we would not be able to continue this vital work:
Brennan Center, Kramer Levin Naftalis and Frankel, LLP, Becker and Poliakoff, ACORN, Project Vote, SEIU, Maryland League of Women Voters, NAACP, PFAWF, LCCR, AFL-CIO, ACLU, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Mound City Bar Association, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, National Bar Association, MO Protection & Advocacy, Paraquad, Disability Vote Project, Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, United Auto Workers, Missouri Progressive Vote Coalition, Central Reform Congregation, St. John’s Episcopal, American Constitution Society, St. Louis University School of Law, Washington University School of Law, Washington University Arts & Sciences, St. Louis Area Jobs With Justice, People's Weekly World/MO/KS Communist Party, Missourians for Honest Elections, Take Back St. Louis, ADAPT, St. Vincent de Paul Society, Women’s Voices Raised for Justice, Teamsters Local 688, UNITE HERE, Grace Hill Settlement House, Omega House, Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, ABLE Law Firm, Pennsylvania Voters Coalition, Attorney Ted Lieverman, Project Home, Women VotePA of the Women’s Law Project, Congreso, Concilio, PA Citizenship and Immigration Coalition, Detroit Branch of the NAACP, AFSCME, MOSES, Feminist Majority, and Black Youth Vote.
DEFENDING DEMOCRACY
Advancement Project Appeals FL Third Party Registration Case
On December 4, 2006, Advancement Project, along with co-counsel, filed a brief in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, requesting that the court uphold the lower court’s ruling in League of Women Voters v. Cobb.* In August, the lower court barred enforcement of Florida’s restrictive third party registration statute, following a hearing that included compelling testimony from plaintiffs and witnesses about the impact of this law on groups doing on-the-ground voter registration work. The state’s appeal of this injunction included many of the arguments that did not prevail in the District Court. In the responsive brief, we relied heavily on the District Court’s findings, which strongly supported the arguments we made and extensively quoted from our plaintiffs and witnesses.
The state will have the opportunity to file another brief, which is due on December 28, 2006. As this case continues, the injunction remains in place and groups can conduct registration without fear of incurring the staggering fines imposed by the statute.
*For background information on this case, read “Testimony Highlights Burdens of Florida Law on Historically Disenfranchised Citizens,” Democracy in Action, Vol. 1 Issue 2, August 2006 and “Florida Third-Party Voter Registration Case Ends in Victory,” Democracy in Action, Vol 1 Issue 3, September 2006.
ON THE GROUND
The Louisiana Runoff: Win, Lose, or Draw?
The runoff election between William Jefferson (D-New Orleans) and Karen Carter (D-New Orleans) to fill the 2nd Congressional District seat, took place on Saturday, December 9. Jefferson defeated Carter, garnering 57 percent of the vote, while drawing support from African-American voters as well as endorsements from Mayor Ray Nagin and State Senator Derrick Shepherd.
Despite the clear outcome of the election, however, democracy suffered a defeat on December 9 because the low voting turnout suggests growing voter disengagement and frustration with the absentee balloting process.
Louisiana requires absentee voters to navigate a three-step absentee voting process that is unfriendly and cumbersome at best. With the majority of the 382,448 registered voters in District 2 still scattered across the country as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, voters were faced with, in most instances, difficult choices: tackle the absentee process—send a request for an absentee ballot with a displaced voter affidavit to the registrar, wait for the ballot, complete the ballot in all the “right” places, and have it signed by two witnesses or a notary; travel long distances at great cost to vote in person; or remain silent. Which option would you choose?
Voters displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita are forced to overcome both the stumbling blocks of rebuilding and unwieldy, “request, sign/witness, and return” procedures for casting an absentee ballot. Consequently, absentee voting has dropped off dramatically since the spring mayoral elections.
Nine months after Hurricane Katrina, 40 percent of the 297,000 people registered to vote in New Orleans cast a vote in the mayoral race, with more than 11,000 voters voting early at in-state satellite polling places and 13,867 voting by absentee ballot. A little more than a year after the hurricanes, without in-satellite polling places, only 413 voters cast absentee ballots in the September 30 primary. While absentee votes increased to 1,614 in the general election—due, in large part, to the efforts of Black churches and advocacy groups across the country who urged displaced New Orleans citizens to vote—the Orleans Parish count for the December 9 runoff fell once again to 1,034 absentee votes.
The undue burden on displaced Louisiana citizens to exercise their fundamental right to vote is a democratic issue of critical concern for all social justice advocates. Get out the vote, voter engagement, and candidates’ platforms do little good without a process that is accessible to all voters. Advancement Project is exploring ways to ease the absentee balloting process to ensure that the next election will be an indisputable victory for the voters.
MERC Sets Legislative Recommendations for 2007
The Maryland Election Reform Coalition* is reviewing potential legislation that may be presented to the General Assembly to enact in 2007. To date, the coalition is considering recommending reform measures in five major areas:
Election Day Registration
Last year, the General Assembly passed legislation requiring the state administrator and the Office of the Attorney General to conduct a review of implementing Election Day voter registration in Maryland, starting with the 2008 primary elections. Findings and recommendations must be reported to the governor and the General Assembly by December 31, 2006. In anticipation of this report, the coalition is conducting policy analysis and reviewing model legislation on this issue.
Voting Systems—Voter-verified Paper Records
Use of computerized voting systems, known as direct recording electronic (DRE) systems, increased in the past several years. Maryland voters used these machines statewide during the 2006 elections. Coalition members are concerned about the overall security of the DRE system in Maryland and have expressed the need for independent verification systems to ensure the accuracy of electronic voting records and prevent manipulation by outside parties. A voting system that produces voter-verified paper records, allowing a voter to review a printout before casting a final vote, is a method of independent verification of election results that some members are championing. Look for legislation this year that will require the state’s voting system to be capable of producing voter-verified paper records or require the state board lease an optical scan voting system or select and certify a new voting system that would produce a voter-verified paper record for use in subsequent elections.
Voter Registration
Since the November election, Advancement Project has found that previously challenged database matching did lead to the disenfranchisement of perhaps hundreds of eligible voters throughout the state. Prior to the November election, Advancement Project and Project Vote reached a settlement agreement with the Maryland State Board of Elections to protect the voting rights of voter registration applicants who were classified as “pending” because their name, date of birth and other personal information did not produce an exact match against the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration or Social Security Administration database. Nationwide statistics show that efforts at such database matching results in a high percentage of errors that disenfranchise voters through no fault of the applicants.
The Maryland Legislature is likely to consider legislation to prohibit the current its practice of refusing to register applicants whose personal information does not produce an exact database match.
Enfranchising People with Felony Convictions
The re-enfranchisement laws in Maryland are very confusing and keep eligible voters from voting due to misunderstandings of the law. The coalition will monitor all election reform legislative proposals that the Maryland General Assembly considers in the 2007 term and, when requested and needed, the coalition will provide information to members based on the coalition’s expertise in this area, in a manner that will protect persons who are eligible to vote.
Polling Place Management
Advancement Project determined through investigations, numerous news reports, and a report completed by the Maryland ACLU, that there were numerous problems with election judge (poll worker) recruitment, training, and attendance that caused a myriad of problems. The coalition will also monitor legislative proposals to ensure:
- The polls will open on time, even if election judges show up late, or not at all.
- Election judges will be adequately trained to manage poll sites and understand how to use electronic voting machines and e-poll book technologies.
- Ample provisional ballots will be available.
- Election judges will have a standard protocol to follow when emergencies arise.
- Efficient communication is established between county boards and election judges at polling sites.
*The Maryland Election Reform Coalition was formed in 2006, after the September primary. Advancement Project and Project Vote helped to create the coalition, an ad-hoc committee of national and state civil rights and progressive organizations, to build a fair and just election administration system that promotes fair democracy in Maryland.
Uncounted Provisional Ballots in Ohio Raise Concerns
Ohio’s recent recount of the ballots cast in the 15th Congressional District for candidates Deborah Pryce and Mary Jo Kilroy ended when Kilroy conceded after county election officials did not find any discrepancies among the recounted votes. At the onset of the recount in the three counties—Franklin, Madison, and Union—approximately 1,055 votes separated the candidates, a 0.5 percent margin. Among the votes subject to the recount were 2,600 provisional ballots not counted in the November 7 general election.
Kilroy’s counsel, Don McTigue, filed suit in Franklin County Common Pleas Court against the Franklin County Board of Elections requesting that the names of voters who cast these rejected provisional ballots be released. The Franklin Board of Elections refused to release the names, relying on a section of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) that requires election officials to safeguard the personal information in a provisional ballot.
HAVA does not require these names to be kept secret. The law makes provisional ballots available as a “fail-safe measure” to guarantee that all eligible voters who cast a valid ballot would have their vote counted. The names of the voters who cast provisional ballots are critically important for determining whether provisional ballots were lawfully rejected. Public disclosure of the provisional voters’ names should be allowed, for example, to compare these names against the names of voters who were wrongfully purged. Advancement Project sent letters to election officials in six Ohio counties—Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamilton, Lucas, Montgomery, and Summit—and to the Ohio Secretary of State, to request copies of public information in order to conduct a thorough review of the validity of the rejected provisional ballots.
In the interests of promoting a just democracy, provisional ballots cast by eligible voters who were wrongfully purged, should be counted. If this action is taken, HAVA’s provisional ballot requirements, specifically its “fail-safe measure,” will be satisfied.
Ballot Problems Linked to Questionable Results in FL Election
Advancement Project to Investigate Lingering Ballot Design Issues
In a manner eerily reminiscent of the 2000 presidential election in Florida, the 2006 federal election in Florida was plagued with problematic ballot designs, questionable election results, and general cynicism about the accuracy of the voting machines. In Sarasota, 18,000 voters went to the polls but their ballots did not register a vote for any candidate in a highly contested congressional race. Multiple legal challenges to the results of this race are currently being litigated in court. It is unclear whether a confusing ballot design, flawed machines, other errors, or a combination of all of these problems led to such a large number of voters going to the polls but failing to register a vote that was counted in this election. Yet, it is apparent that these are all concerns that need to be addressed to avoid situations similar to the one that occurred in Sarasota.
In 2007, Advancement Project will investigate ballot design issues and advocate with election officials to ensure that ballots are voter friendly. Ballots should be clear, concise, understandable, and easy to navigate so that voters can make their choices and cast their ballots. Sample ballots should be exact replicas of the ballot voters will use at the polls or that will appear on the machines. Additionally, poll workers should view and learn about sample ballots prior to Election Day so they can offer assistance to voters who need help.
MATERIALS YOU CAN USE
“Election Crimes”—EAC Voter Fraud and Voter Intimidation Study
Based largely on the research findings of two consultants, “Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study” was approved for publication by EAC Commissioners on December 7, 2006. The report includes a working definition of election crimes that encompasses “voting fraud” and “voter intimidation.” According to an EAC press release, the report is a step toward a “nationwide, comprehensive study of election crimes based on hard data, with findings to be released to the public by the end of 2007.”
Pew Report Gives Snapshot of Election Highs and Lows
The 15th in a series of policy briefings by electionline.org, “The 2006 Election” is a post-election analysis report that reveals numerous problems in the 2006 election, including lost votes, non-votes, problems accessing voter databases, and malfunctioning voting machines. The report provides “a snapshot of election-day failures, successes, and struggles around the country, setting the stage for the next legislative session in the states as well as for the 110th Congress.”
Brennan Center Survey Shows 13 Million Citizens Lack Proper ID
A recent national survey sponsored by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, “Citizens Without Proof,” reveals that millions of American citizens do not have readily available documentary proof of citizenship. Many more—primarily women—do not have proof of citizenship with their current name. The survey also showed that millions of American citizens do not have government-issued photo identification, such as driver’s license or passport, and that certain groups—elderly, poor, and minorities—are less likely to possess these forms of identification than the general population.
|
