Progress Illinois

This week, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University's School of Law released a report detailing how "eight years after the 2000 election ... the problems caused by poor ballot design have not been fully and effectively addressed on a national level":

Year in and year out, we see the same mistakes in ballot design, with the same results: tens, and sometimes hundreds, of thousands of voters disenfranchised by confusing ballot design and instructions, sometimes raising serious questions about whether the intended choice of the voters was certified as the winner.

The report incorporates several examples of poor ballot design and offers suggested improvements. One of these case studies features the ballot used in downstate Hamilton County, IL in 2002. Here are the instructions:

And here's the ballot itself (click for full version):

The report explains the problem:

The races at the top of the first and second columns line up exactly. Reading left-to-right, many voters mistakenly marked the arrow to the right of a candidate’s name instead of the arrows to the left. Although the ballot instructions direct voters to complete the arrows to the left of their choices, there are few visual cues on the page. The small amount of space between columns makes it hard for voters to tell which arrow corresponds with the candidate for whom they’d like to vote.

Indeed, you can see how someone intending to vote for Republican comptroller candidate Tom Ramsdell might end up voting for Democratic State Senate candidate Larry Woolard. Or how someone wanting to vote for Blagojevich could instead punch the ballot for Ramsdell. Or how someone trying to vote for Dick Durbin could vote for Jesse White.

And indeed, the Brennan Center found that the number of residual votes for the U.S. senate and governor's races were significantly higher in Hamilton County than elsewhere in the state.

After reading the report, I called the Hamilton County clerk to see if they were still using the problematic ballots.

Continue reading »

Three months after the state legislature and Gov. Rod Blagojevich enacted the National Popular Vote bill in Illinois, the Tribune's Stevenson Swanson examines the growing number of legislatures that support scrapping the Electoral College:

Buoyed by a long presidential primary season that focused attention on states that usually are overlooked in the calculus of winning a nomination, states as far-flung as Massachusetts and Hawaii have passed or are considering legislation that would guarantee that the candidate who got the most votes nationwide would win the White House.

That would have the effect, advocates say, of creating a truly national presidential election campaign.

Four states, including Illinois, have agreed to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote, and similar bills have been introduced in 43 other states. In Massachusetts, the Senate is to debate the measure after it recently received overwhelming support in the House of Representatives.

The piece tries to present both sides of the debate, quoting opponents like the American Enterprise Institute's Walter Berns, who argues the current system helps small states keep their issues in the national spotlight:

"Why should Nevada give up its votes to California?" said Berns, pointing to the proposal to build a radioactive waste storage site at Yucca Mountain, which is widely opposed in Nevada. "That's a state interest that's not likely to survive in the case of a national popular vote. If you ask me where that stuff should go, I'm likely to say, What better place than in the desert?"

But as we pointed out at the time of the bill's passage in Illinois, this argument simply doesn't hold up.

Why? Because 12 of the 13 least populous states are non-competitive in presidential elections; so the Electoral College disadvantages them already. Also important to remember is that the current system ensures that a shrinking number of battleground states play a role at the presidential level, which diminishes the number of issues debated and depresses turnout. Simply put, it's time for the antiquated system to go.

It's called polling, people! In an editorial today, the Tribune uses Barack Obama's decision to turn down public financing as an opportunity to decry campaign finance reform more generally. In making their argument, the editorial board cites the declining number of people who check the box on their 1040 forms as justification that the public financing concept is unpopular:

Obama is the first candidate to reject public campaign funds in a general election since the system began in 1976. But primary candidates have been taking a pass in increasing numbers. And taxpayers are opting out, too: Fewer than 10 percent now check the box on their 1040 form, compared with 28 percent in 1980.

So almost everybody agrees, but almost nobody wants to say it: This complicated, convoluted system is a loser.

Obama says he wants to reform the system. So does McCain. What's the point? Government rules that limit spending on the message don't clean up elections; they just stifle free speech. The best way to fix this system is to scrap it.

This is a line the Tribune has run with before. In an April 16 editorial titled "The Money Game," the board wrote that fewer than 7.5 percent of tax filers last year checked the $3 contribution box on their federal income tax return, down from the 28.7 percent in 1980. But checking a tiny box on our insanely complicated tax forms does not demonstrate a lack of support, as we wrote back in April. So why don't we look at polling numbers instead.

Continue reading »

The Senate unanimously passed ethics reform legislation this morning. The bill prohibits individuals and companies with a state contract exceeding $50,000 from contributing to the campaigns of the lawmakers responsible for the award. The measure was recently amended by a Senate committee to also prohibit nonprofit groups from making contributions to politicians who awarded them state contracts (it had previously prohibited only for-profit businesses). Yesterday, Illinois Issues quoted Sen. Don Harmon (D-Oak Park) saying that the bill was likely to pass the House "if it makes it out of the Senate first."

(H/T: Capitol Fax)

Last week, a House committee rejected an amendment to a bill requiring Illinois voters to present photo identification before casting a ballot. But as the Daily Herald's John Patterson reported on Friday, the bill's Republican sponsor expects the measure to face a vote in the full House this week:

A committee rejected an amendment yesterday, but the general plan is still pending in the full House and [Rep. David] Reis told us he fully intends to have a vote.

The amended version would have let someone without ID cast a vote and it would count so long as the person could show an ID to an election official within 10 days.

Good news coming out of Springfield today. According to the Daily Herald, the House Elections & Campaign Reform Committee rejected a proposed voter ID measure modeled after the recently upheld Indiana law. All five Democrats on the committee stood in opposition.

Rachel Shattuck's opponent in the 49th District, Rep. Tim Schmitz, supported the bill. He argued that "people have to show ID to get into the Capitol, fly and do numerous daily activities." He also suggested that voters can vote absentee as an alternative. Of course, like proponents of voter ID laws elsewhere, he offered no legitimate justification for why such a law was necessary.

Critics of the Indiana voter ID law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court late last month warned that the highly restrictive bill could set a dangerous precedent by giving cover to other fledgling anti-voter campaigns nationwide.

Our neighbors in Missouri are already upping the ante.

Legislators there are expected to support a proposed constitutional amendment that would force potential voters to provide a proof of citizenship to register. While most states require some sort of identification to vote -- generally a utility bill, a paycheck, drivers license, or student/military id card -- the Missouri law would narrow eligible verification materials to an original birth certificate, naturalization papers, or a passport.

Why is such an amendment necessary? Supporters say proof of citizenship measures improve the accuracy of registration rolls, gives voters confidence in the process, and eases growing concerns about illegal voting by undocumented immigrants. But just as in Indiana, the evidence of such fraud is nonexistent. Indeed, The New York Times reported that, between October 2002 to September 2005, the Justice Department indicted only 40 voters for registration fraud or illegal voting, 21 of whom were non-citizens. Missouri lawmakers can't provide any relevant local evidence of voter fraud.

Meanwhile, the negative effects are striking. Robin Carnahan, Missouri's secretary of state, estimated that the law could disenfranchise up to 240,000 already registered voters who would be unable to prove their citizenship. And in a crucial presidential swing state, those voters could tip the scales. According to a January study by Brown University, if voter ID policies had not been in place in 19 states in 2004, turnout would have increased by more than 1.6 million.

The fate of the Missouri bill is still very much up in the air, as it would have to be approved by voters in the state's August gubernatorial primary before the legislature could enact it. But sadly, with the Supreme Court's implicit blessing, the odds are in its favor.

The 2008 presidential primary will likely be remembered for how long it has lasted, so it's easy to forget the intense scramble by state leaders to secure early, influential primary dates. As Stateline.org reports, it's a scenario politicians across the country hope to avoid in 2012:

“Following the frenzied 2008 primary and caucus schedule that began just a few days into the new year, election officials have a strong interest in curbing the impacts of frontloading and restoring order to the process,” said Todd Rokita (R), Indiana secretary of state and president of the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) during a bipartisan gathering at Harvard University here April 29 that brought together party and state leaders to discuss the presidential primary process.

While the controversy surrounding the Michigan and Florida delegations has highlighted the need for reform, the desire to restructure how presidential candidates are chosen is not new. Critics contend that early primaries favor well-funded and well-known candidates and give voters in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire -- which aren't representative of the nation at large, demographically or politically -- disproportionate influence. One such organization is the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), which has been advocating a rotating regional plan for nearly a decade:

Under its proposal, states would be divided into regions — the East, South, Midwest and West — and each of those regions would hold primaries, a month apart, between March and June. New Hampshire and Iowa would still be allowed to go first ...

Stateline also details variations on this plan, some that give more influence to smaller states and others that balance factors like convention delegates and electoral votes. But whichever plan they agree on, advocates of a new calendar must act fast. The Republican National Committee (RNC) requires that GOP delegates approve the changes during the Republican convention, which will be held in the first week of September. State Legislatures would also have to incorporate any reworked federal system into state law.

Those concerned about the effects of the Supreme Court's recent decision to uphold a restrictive voter ID law in Indiana should keep a close eye on tomorrow's Democratic primary. As The Politico's Ben Adler writes, the need to present a valid state ID could depress turnout among key Democratic constituencies. Here are a few stats:

- Common Cause and verifiedvoting.org issued a report on May 1 that found 28 percent of African-American Hoosiers do not have the proper ID to vote.

- The same study found that of voters over 70, slightly less than 20 percent of Indianans lacked the necessary ID. By comparison, a Rock the Vote poll concluded that 19 percent of people under 30 nationally do not have a valid photo identification with their current address.

Julia Vaughn, Indiana policy director for Common Cause, warns that the law could even deter participation among African Americans with proper documentation:

Experts say that beyond the voters who do not meet the requirements, the law could have a further disproportionate impact on African-Americans because of discouragement and uneven enforcement.

Many voters may simply not try to vote, even if their identification is valid. “I think there is a chilling effect of the voter ID law,” said Vaughn. “People don’t want to get hassled when trying to vote.”

The state legislature is under the gun to vote on a constitutional amendment allowing voters to recall public officials. The Senate needs to pass the bill by tomorrow -- then the House must do so by May 4 -- if Illinois voters are to decide on it in November. In light of that deadline, House Speaker Michael Madigan announced today that he will be keeping all State Representatives in session beyond the scheduled adjournment of the House so that they can approve the Senate version of the recall bill. According to Rich Miller at Capitol Fax neither Madigan, nor the sponsor of the House Recall bill, Rep. Jack Franks (D-Woodstock), has any plans to amend the Senate bill. (For more on the recall issue, check out Josh's thoughts here and here.)

But that's not all that's happening in the capitol today ...

Lawmakers from the House and Senate say they've reached a compromise on new ethics legislation that would ban contractors who receive a certain amount of state business from contributing to state officials' political campaigns. Here's some background from the State Journal-Register:

The House passed an ethics bill last year, but it never came up for a vote in the Senate. Two weeks ago, Senate Democrats offered their own version that banned contributions from contractors, but set a higher limit for when the prohibition would take effect.

An announcement on that compromise is expected in Springfield within the hour.

Finally, the Senate has unanimously approved a bill that increases the amount Illinois borrowers can receive in federally subsidized student loans. If signed into law, the measure could offer some relief to students having trouble finding privately financed loans amid the national economic slump. A similar bill has already been approved by the House.