Election Reform

McCain, Republicans Looking To Purge Voter Rolls

Adam Doster — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:59:51 -0700

Barack Obama's campaign is busy registering thousands of new voters in hopes of broadening their political base to communities generally underrepresented in electoral politics. Targeting potential Democratic voters is self-serving, sure, but nobody would argue that improving civic engagement is bad for the nation. Meanwhile, John McCain and his fellow Republican operatives would rather disenfranchise new voters, as the Wall Street Journal's Corey Dade and John D. McKinnon report:

As Barack Obama tries to draw hundreds of thousands of new voters to the polls, Republicans are beginning to scrutinize registrants' eligibility as both sides draw a major battle line over voting rights.

Republicans are moving to examine surges in voter registrations in some states. A Republican lawyers group held a national training session on election law over the weekend that included campaign attorneys for Sen. John McCain and other Republican leaders. One session discussed how party operatives can identify and respond to instances of voter fraud.

Republicans are said to be targeting the voter rolls in the battleground states of Virginia and Pennsylvania, despite no evidence of widespread fraud so far. In fact, as the Journal noted, "numerous studies have found fraud and other voting irregularities in past elections to be infrequent and generally not prevalent enough to influence the outcomes of most contests." In its decision to support a Voter ID law in Indiana, the Supreme Court documented the purportedly rampant voter fraud problem by citing an anecdote from 1868 as well as a single example of in-person fraud committed in Washington in 2004.

Thankfully, Obama is prepared for the legal onslaught. General counsel Bob Bauer says the campaign is setting up an "unprecedented" new Voter Protection Program that will work closely with the national party, which has spent three years on efforts to preserve voter rights, building a team of 18 paid staff and 7,000 lawyers.

Durbin, Schakowsky Introduce Bill To Protect Student Voters

Adam Doster — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 09:40:47 -0700

While rarely discussed outside of voting rights circles, the disenfranchisement of college students is a prevalent problem nationwide. There are a variety of obstacles that stand in the way of full student particapation, including unclear residency and identification requirements, lackluster allocation of voting resources, and the risk of provisional or absentee ballots not being counted.

Students are fighting back, however, both by contesting the legality of local election board decisions through litigation and advocating for lasting policy reforms. The Student Association for Voter Empowerment is one such organization doing the latter. With the help of two prominent Illinois Democrats, they've placed a bill in both chambers of Congress that would protect the voting rights of students. From SAVE's press release:

As the forefront organization for youth election protection, SAVE applauds the introduction of the Student Voter Opportunity to Encourage Registration (VOTER) Act of 2008—-a federal bill conceived of, developed by, and championed through our student members. Senator Richard J. Durbin (D-IL), Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Congressman Steven LaTourette (R-OH) have joined in a bipartisan effort to sponsor both house and senate versions of this legislation today. [...]

The Student VOTER Act applies the principles of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (or “Motor Voter Act”) to publicly funded colleges and universities, so that young Americans can gain the opportunity to use schools as voter registration agencies and acclimate more confidently and readily into our nation’s political process.

“The very introduction of this bill is a monumental victory for young voters,” said, Matthew Segal, the executive director of SAVE. “While many congressional members pay lip service to the idea of increasing civic engagement, it is refreshing to see Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Schakowsky and Mr. LaTourette act, and call on our education institutions to be more proactive in getting students signed up and aware of the laws in their various states and districts.”

Hamilton County, IL: A Case Study In Poor Ballot Design

Josh Kalven — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:16:04 -0700

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. The staff member I spoke with said the county switched to a different ballot design several years ago. She sent me an example from a local election in spring 2007. As you can see the design is much better, with a "fill the oval" system and boxes surrounding each group of candidates:

Another interesting tidbit from the report: Cook County, which was once notorious for its baffling ballot designs is now considered a national leader on this issue.

Tribune Covers Popular Vote Movement

Adam Doster — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:57:51 -0700

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.

Trib Editorial Board On Public Financing: "Scrap It"

Adam Doster — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:17:14 -0700

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.

Taxpayers can underwrite presidential elections by checking the box on their tax forms that sends $3 to the election fund, but fewer and fewer do. It's tempting to view this as popular rejection of public financing, but that would be simplistic. Polling suggests that when voters know what it takes to get public money, support shoots above 70%.

Even though he opted out of public financing -- and with good reason, considering he might raise $500 million from mostly small donors -- Barack Obama believes in a robust public financing model, especially at the congressional level. As an Illinois state legislator, he authored a bill to publicly finance his state's judicial elections. In 2006, speaking to the late Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press, he asked why candidates aren't allotted free television time to reduce the costs of campaigning. He's even signed on to Dick Durbin's Fair Elections Act, as well as Sen. Russ Feingold's Presidential Funding Act of 2007 ("legislation John McCain does not support," as he noted in a USA Today op-ed today).

Most Americans agree with Obama. Why can't the Tribune get on board?

Senate Unanimously Passes Ethics Bill

Mose Buchele — Fri, 23 May 2008 09:34:38 -0700

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)

Illinois Voter ID Bill May Resurface

Josh Kalven — Mon, 19 May 2008 07:30:22 -0700

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.

House Committee Rejects Proposed Illinois Voter ID Law

Adam Doster — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:56:13 -0700

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.

Missouri Upping The Voter ID Ante

Adam Doster — Mon, 12 May 2008 08:01:24 -0700

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.

Will The States Fix Our Broken Primary System?

Adam Doster — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:11:46 -0700

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.