| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Michigan Senate Votes to Make Registering and Voting Harder
Release Date: December 7, 2011, 7:00 pm
Three Bills Limit Voter Registration Drives and Make Absentee Voting More Difficult
Washington, DC – Today, the Michigan Senate passed three bills – Senate Bill 751, Senate Bill 754, and Senate Bill 803 – that amend Michigan’s election laws. Promoted as measures to improve Michigan elections, they will only create confusion, erect barriers for voters, and increase burdens and costs on local election officials.
The legislation will discourage voter registration drives by civic and church groups such as the League of Women Voters. The complex process of complying with the law – and the possible fines associated with failing to properly follow each step – is unnecessary and will take resources away from registering voters and threaten volunteer organizations. Additionally, the voter registration training the legislation proposes is vague and this legislation requires an extraordinarily short turnaround for turning in registration forms the one week before the election.
“Legislators are correct that Michigan election law needs to be reformed,” said Robert M. Brandon, President of the Fair Elections Legal Network. “However, these bills will set Michigan voters further back and reduce access to the ballot box. Not only do they create onerous requirements on voter registration groups but they will erect barriers and cause confusion among those that need to vote by absentee ballot.”
While the legislation allows for no-reason absentee voting – a long overdue reform – it also would require a person to present a photo ID in order to register to vote in person as well as to receive an absentee ballot. Absentee ballots could also be automatically challenged if a voter hands in their ballot without presenting photo ID – potentially causing confusion for young voters, college students and those who may be temporarily out of state for work attempting to vote by absentee ballot.
“With turnout hovering around only 44% in Michigan in 2010, legislators should instead focus on legislation that will increase access and make voting more convenient such as allowing online voter registration and Election Day registration and joining 32 other states in allowing early voting,” said Brandon. “These reforms would make voting more convenient and increase participation in Michigan elections.” Legislators should scrap the bills they passed and pursue these positive reforms instead to make voting more convenient.”
1825 K Street NW
Suite 450
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202-331-0114
Fax: 202-331-1663
info@fairelectionsnetwork.com
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:43 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
| If your block club or other group would like information or a speaker on Senate Bill 754 please call Claire McClinton at (810) 813-1852. |
|
|
|
Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:44 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Testimony in Opposition To Michigan SB 754, SB 751, SB 803 Senate Committee on Elections
November 30, 2011
Instead of addressing real problems with Michigan’s election system, these bills address phantom problems that will only serve to create further confusion and needlessly erect barriers to the ballot box. We urge this committee to reject these bills and work on bi-partisan reforms that will ensure all Michigan voters have true access to our most fundamental right, the right to vote.
Michigan’s system of elections is by no means perfect. Problems with voter registration, absentee ballots, confusion over voter identification requirements, deceptive voting practices, aggressive challenges, and voting machine breakdowns, among others, have led to the disenfranchisement of too many eligible voters.
The undersigned voting and civil rights organizations appreciate the opportunity to submit the following testimony in opposition to Senate Bill 754, Senate Bill 751, and Senate Bill 803, bills to amend Michigan’s election law.
Opposition to Senate Bill 754
Senate Bill 754 contains unnecessary requirements that will make it more difficult for Michiganders to participate in the electoral process. The bill’s two provisions, identification requirements for in-person voter registration and the imposition of further restrictions on organizations conducting third party voter registration are a solution in search of a problem.
Restrictions on Voter Registration Drives
While this bill includes a photographic identification requirement for in-person voter registration, which will be discussed below,
the primary purpose of SB 754 appears to be the imposition of new and onerous requirements on third party voter registration drives, drives which have proven indispensable over many years in reaching out to underserved communities and helping millions of low income and minority citizens register to vote. Particularly since the enactment of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), such drives have been recognized in federal law as an essential method for increasing civic participation by making the political process more accessible to the voter. According to the Current Population Survey, in 2008 over nine million citizens self-reported registering through a voter registration drive.
One of the burdens on voter registration drives included in this bill--and in similar legislation that has been proposed recently in other states—is to impose time- consuming and unnecessary paperwork requirements on organizations conducting voter registration (p. 3, l. 3). These organizations might include religious congregations, civic groups, fraternities and sororities, and the League of Women Voters, among others. It is certainly understandable that the state would want an organization to designate a contact person in case election officials should need to communicate with the group. However, this legislation mandates registering with the state on a designated form, providing the name and address of the organization, the names of all officers, the name and address of the organization’s registered agent, further filings should any of this information change, and another form if the organization wishes to “withdraw” from conducting registration (p. 5, l. 7). Such complicated procedures serve no legitimate purpose, but rather sap the scarce resources of many under-resourced groups seeking to fulfill a noble civic purpose by helping voters to register.
The proposed training program for third party registration organizations (p. 3, l. 22) is also troubling, principally due to its vagueness. It requires training to be provided under a plan yet to be developed by the Secretary of State. How often, where, and under what circumstances the training will be offered are not specified. The vagueness of the provision could lead to arbitrary standards being imposed that could undermine the ability of third party registration groups to effectively engage eligible citizens. For example, under the terms of this bill the Secretary of State could develop a plan that requires every organization to send a representative to an in-person training given only on January 10 of each year and only in Lansing
.
Failure to attend the training would disqualify the organization from conducting a voter registration drive in the state. While training for registration agents is not in itself unreasonable, any mandatory program should make training widely and frequently available, and accessible online as well as in person. The object of the training should be to make voter registration drives more reliable and more useful to the public—not to make it harder for them to operate.
SB 754 further provides that the third party voter registration organization is a fiduciary to “the voter registration applicant”—presumably that means an applicant who hands a form to the organization, though the bill does not specify (p. 4, l. 23). The fiduciary’s duty is not spelled out, except to say that the organization ensures that the form is delivered “promptly.” This lack of specificity could lead to an organization being liable for civil damages if it fails to carry out the undefined duties.
Notably, no other entity conducting voter registration seems to owe a similar fiduciary duty under this legislation. Neither designated voter registration agencies (e.g., public assistance or disability services offices), nor any other government entity excluded from the definition of third party organizations in the bill (p. 5, ll. 18-26), owes the applicant a duty to deliver an application promptly, to process it on time, or even to process it at all. In fact, stories of mishandled or lost applications in the very busy 2004 and 2008 election cycles abound. A voter whose application, though timely submitted, was misfiled or lost in the last-minute crush at the Board of Elections simply had no recourse (except a provisional ballot which would not be counted) when she showed up on Election Day expecting to be on the roll. Surely private parties, many of them volunteers, should labor under no more stringent standards than the public servants we employ to accept and process voter registration applications.
The bill also imposes a one-day deadline for an organization to submit any voter registration application it collects within one week of the close of registration (p. 5, l. 1). Many states have tighter than usual deadlines as the registration period nears its end, but one business day is unusually tight (and, according to our research, unique). This deadline would eliminate any meaningful opportunity for an organization to run even the most rudimentary quality control checks on the applications—which would in turn make the job of election administrators that much harder in their most taxing period in the registration cycle. Third party organizations would be submitting applications they had no opportunity even to spot check, and, as a result, errors and omissions that are routinely remedied by the organization, after consulting with the applicant, would now become the responsibility of the election officials to evaluate.
Photographic Identification Requirement for Registration
Finally, in addition to its damaging provisions restricting the ability of third party voter registration drives to operate effectively, SB 754 would impose a photographic identification requirement on anyone who applies in person to register to vote at any government agency (p. 1, l.-p. 2, l. 10). We believe this provision violates the NVRA’s central purpose: to increase voter registration and therefore participation in federal elections by providing increased venues for voter registration and by streamlining the voter registration process itself. The requirement in SB 754 that a photo ID must be provided in conjunction with registration at a designated voter registration agency subverts this intent by putting additional hurdles in the way of, rather than removing barriers from, electoral participation.
The NVRA mandates that those states, like Michigan, that are subject to it must provide voter registration through three different specified methods. The three methods include registration as part of a driver’s license application, mail registration using the form prescribed by the Election Assistance Commission, and registration at a state-designated voter registration agency. 42 USC § 1973gg-2. The latter two methods specifically rely on use of the federal voter registration form or its state-designed equivalent.
The NVRA (and the later-passed Help America Vote Act) are specific about the content of the federal form. See 42 USC § 1973gg-7(b), § 15483(b)(4)(A). Among other things, the NVRA states that the federal form
may require only such identifying information... as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process. [42 USC § 1973gg-7(b)(1)(emphasis added)]
The form also contains each eligibility requirement and an attestation that the applicant meets each requirement, and requires that the applicant sign under penalty of perjury. Congress determined that these elements were sufficient to determine the eligibility of the applicant.
The language of the statute is clear. In fact, in considering the NVRA, Congress expressly rejected a proposed amendment that would have allowed states to require the submission of documentary evidence of an applicant’s eligibility beyond the federal form itself. The only court decision on the subject reiterated that the NVRA prohibits further state requirements in association with the federal form. Charles H. Wesley Educ. Foundation, Inc. v. Cox, 408 F.3d 1349 (11th Cir. 2005). Clearly, the imposition of a photo ID requirement on voter registration using the federal mail-in form is inconsistent with federal voter registration law and policy and should be rejected.
In addition, Congress has granted the Election Assistance Commission the authority to determine what documentation is required for voter registration using the federal form created by the NVRA, and the EAC has rejected such a requirement.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Committee should defeat SB 754 and turn its attention instead to election reforms that encourage voter registration and voting rather than making it harder for citizens to participate in our civic life.
Opposition to Senate Bill 751
We are strongly opposed to the passage of Senate Bill 751, which would needlessly create unprecedented confusion over the registration and absentee voting process in Michigan. Young voters, college students, and mobile citizens such as those serving in the military and their families would particularly bear the brunt of the impact of this bill.
The bill allows for a voter to be removed entirely from the registration list if the Department of State “believes” they have moved out of the state, the voter does not respond within 30 days to a postcard seeking verification of their residency and then does not vote in the next 2 general elections. We believe this would violate Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act, which prohibits states from removing voters from a voter file unless they fail to vote in two consecutive federal elections after failing to respond to mailings specified in the law.
There are many reasons why a voter may temporarily leave the state and get a new drivers license, and these do not necessarily affect their eligibility to vote in Michigan. They could be attending college, caring for an ailing family member, living on a military base with an active duty family member. Yet if their notification postcard gets lost in the mail, or they fail to respond within 30 days, they could be turned away from the polls or have their absentee ballot discarded the next time they attempt to vote.
So long as these residents continue to reside in Michigan for most of the year and do not register in another jurisdiction, they should be legally able to vote without any additional barriers. This bill would make it more difficult for them to vote, at a time when Michigan should be doing everything it can to retain our residents and our talent
.
The bill also says if a voter doesn't vote for 6 consecutive years, and then choose to vote absentee, their ballot is automatically challenged. The law for challenged ballots in Michigan generally allows for a voter’s eligibility to be challenged if someone has “good cause” to believe they are ineligible to vote. How is someone’s decision not to vote for 6 years alone sufficient “good cause” to believe they are not qualified to do so on the 7th or 8th year? We should be doing everything we can to encourage lapsed voters to re-engage in civic life, not erecting further barriers to their participation.
And as you know, with every election there is a great deal confusion at the polling place when voters are challenged at the polls. But even then, when a voter’s eligibility is challenged when they attempt to vote in person, they have clear notice that their ballot is challenged and must be given adequate and accurate information about how to overcome the challenge. There is little in the current proposal to ensure absentee voters would have similar notice and opportunity to respond and overcome the challenge.
Yet the “automatic challenge” for absentee ballots applies also to voters who may be temporarily in another state with every intention of continuing to reside in Michigan, as well as those who choose not to vote for 6 years. It is a provision that yields little in the way of security but promises to create a great deal of confusion and, even worse, the rejection of votes from citizens who should be otherwise eligible to participate in our democracy.
Finally, Senate Bill 751 also extends this automatic challenge to voters who appear in person to hand in their absentee ballot and do not present a photo identification. Even if they sign an affidavit attesting to their identity, under this provision their ballot is still automatically challenged. In addition to the needless confusion and burden this places on otherwise eligible voters, it may also violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, since absentee voters who choose to hand in their ballot in person would have to meet this additional burden, but those mailing their ballot would not.
For these and other reasons, we are strongly opposed to Senate Bill 751. At a time when Michigan lawmakers should be working to support its citizens and ease their access to the electoral process, this reform would do nothing more than needlessly confuse and complicate the voting process.
Opposition to Senate Bill 803
We are opposed to Senate Bill 803, which would deny the right to vote to any citizen and qualified voter who refuses to check a box that affirms and explains their residency status. This new requirement would achieve little in promoting safe and fair elections. It needlessly duplicates an existing provision, since voters are already required to declare their citizenship when they register to vote. In fact, there is a line stating that the applicant certifies, “I am a citizen of the United States” right next to the signature box. It unnecessarily confuses the process and creates an illegal literacy requirement for voting, particularly for citizens who speak English as a second language. Further, if a citizen so much as hesitates before checking the box, it could open them to wrongful harassment and discrimination, in addition to inviting longer lines, questions, and confusion.
This reform will invite all of these complications and more, while having absolutely zero impact on increasing the security of elections.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common Cause is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to restoring the core values of American democracy, reinventing an open, honest and accountable government that serves the public interest, and empowering ordinary people to make their voices heard in the political process. Common Cause is a champion for campaign finance reform, election reform, ethics in government, government accountability, and the media.
Dēmos is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research and advocacy organization that works to strengthen democracy in the United States by reducing barriers to voter participation and encouraging civic engagement.
Fair Elections Legal Network (FELN) is a national, nonpartisan advocacy organization whose overall mission is to remove barriers to registration and voting for traditionally underrepresented constituencies and protect their ability to exercise their right to vote.
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law was established in 1963 as a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization at the request of President John F. Kennedy. Our mission is to involve the private bar in providing legal services to address racial discrimination and to secure, through the rule of law, equal justice under law. For over 48 years, the Lawyers’ Committee has advanced racial equality by increasing educational opportunities, fair employment and business opportunities, community development, open housing, environmental health and justice, criminal justice and meaningful participation in the electoral process.
Michigan Center for Election Law and Administration (a 501(c)3 organization devoted to projects that support transparency and integrity in elections in Michigan. The Center most recently hosted Michigan's first ever "Citizens' Redistricting Competition," providing an opportunity for Michigan citizens to access software and draw their own redistricting maps for the state.)
Project Vote is a national nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that promotes voting in historically underrepresented communities. Project Vote takes a leadership role in nationwide voting rights and election administration issues, working through research, litigation, and advocacy to ensure that our constituencies can register, vote, and cast ballots that count. |
|
|
|
Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:50 pm |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
| 92% of all dead people vote straight democrat. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Tue Jun 12, 2012 6:09 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
DAVID-THE LAST REPORT ON THIS SAID VERY FEW DEAD VOTED AND MOST WERE ALIVE WHEN THEY VOTED ABSENTEE, BUT DIED BEFORE THE ELECTION
MY DIE HARD REPUBLICAN BUDDY- IT IS REPUBLICANS RAISING YOUR TAXES |
|
|
|
Tue Jun 12, 2012 6:28 pm |
|
|
Adam
F L I N T O I D
|
|
|
Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:19 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
ADAM- from your report what is the statistical percentage of these phantom votes?
"Records showing dead people voting absentee are often the result of a "timing issue," in which someone votes absentee and then dies before the election, officials said".
Also"
State audit shows dead people, prisoners cast 1,500 votes
May 16, 2012 |
By Paul Egan
Detroit Free Press Lansing Staff
LANSING -- A state audit showing about 1,500 votes cast by dead people and prisoners during a period of less than three years ignited a debate Tuesday over whether voter fraud is a serious problem in Michigan.
The Secretary of State's Office, which supervises Michigan elections, said every example cited in a new report by Auditor General Thomas McTavish involved clerks accidentally crossing incorrect names off voter lists, and not one example was the result of someone voting using another person's identity
|
|
|
|
Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:24 pm |
|
|
Adam
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
untanglingwebs schreef:
The Secretary of State's Office, which supervises Michigan elections, said every example cited in a new report by Auditor General Thomas McTavish involved clerks accidentally crossing incorrect names off voter lists, and not one example was the result of someone voting using another person's identity
Where does it say that in the report? I guess one way of looking at this is it must have all been "clerical errors" but I don't buy that. |
|
|
|
Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:03 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
State audit shows dead people, prisoners cast 1,500 votes
May 16, 2012
By Paul Egan
Detroit Free Press Lansing Staff
LANSING -- A state audit showing about 1,500 votes cast by dead people and prisoners during a period of less than three years ignited a debate Tuesday over whether voter fraud is a serious problem in Michigan.
The Secretary of State's Office, which supervises Michigan elections, said every example cited in a new report by Auditor General Thomas McTavish involved clerks accidentally crossing incorrect names off voter lists, and not one example was the result of someone voting using another person's identity.
But dead people and prisoners aren't supposed to be on voter lists, and critics say such sloppiness can undermine the system's integrity. They say further outside investigation might be needed to determine whether fraud was a factor in what McTavish found.
And groups that oppose pending legislation to tighten the election system -- such as requiring photo IDs to pick up absentee ballots -- say they don't understand why Secretary of State Ruth Johnson backs the bills when she apparently agrees with them that voter fraud is not an issue.
Democrats often say Republicans' purported efforts to stamp out voter fraud are really attempts to suppress turnout by minorities and low-income people. Republicans say they want to make the system as secure as possible to ensure its integrity.
McTavish looked for evidence of votes cast by dead people and prisoners by comparing voting records on the statewide Qualified Voter File database with a death database kept by the Department of Community Health and a prisoner database kept by the Department of Corrections.
He found 1,375 people listed as dead had voted 1,381 times during the audit period, from Oct. 1, 2008, through June 9, 2011. A total of 1,236 of the recorded votes, or about 90%, were cast by absentee ballots, while 145, or about 10%, were cast in person, according to the audited records.
State law prohibits voting by prisoners, but the comparison to the prisoner database found 48 shown to have voted while locked up, based on matches of names, birthdates and Social Security numbers. Another 65 prisoners were shown to have voted based on matches of names and birth dates, where Social Security information was unavailable.
Only 15% of the prisoner votes were by absentee ballot; the rest were in person, according to the audited records.
In a response to the audit, the Secretary of State said it has taken several steps to improve the system, including promoting use by local clerks of electronic poll books to reduce errors, weekly checks of death records and closer cooperation with corrections officials.
Records showing dead people voting absentee are often the result of a "timing issue," in which someone votes absentee and then dies before the election, officials said.
McTavish called for tighter controls, noting that when dead people or prisoners are on the voter list, it creates the potential for someone else to vote using their identities.
State Rep. Tom McMillin, R-Rochester Hills, chairman of the House Oversight, Reform and Ethics Committee, said he wants to study the report and he may want to ask McTavish to take a closer look at how the mistakes happened.
In general, "I don't buy that there's no voter fraud," McMillin said. "There are certainly opportunities, and I think where there are opportunities, there is someone taking advantage of those opportunities."
Stat Rep. Timothy Bledsoe, D-Grosse Pointe, minority vice chair of the same committee, said instances of voter fraud are so rare in Michigan that lawmakers' efforts would be better expended on finding ways to encourage more people to vote, rather than introducing measures that might discourage legitimate voters.
The group Common Cause in Michigan opposes the bill requiring a photo ID to pick up an absentee ballot -- which has passed the House and is now before the Senate -- because it asked for evidence of voter fraud in Michigan and received nothing, Executive Director Melanie McElroy said.
"It does make me wonder why the Secretary of State is pushing this package of bills when they don't believe fraud is an issue," McElroy said.
State Rep. Pete Lund, R-Shelby Township, chairman of the Redistricting and Elections Committee, said both sides of the voter fraud issue can find evidence in the auditor's report to support their positions. What's most important, he said, isn't whether McTavish found fraud but how fraud can be prevented in the future.
"Sloppy clerks actually can still be detrimental to the process," Lund said. "It raises questions as to integrity."
The Qualified Voter File, created in 1998, is a statewide voter registration database that links the state with 1,500 local government units and is supposed to eliminate duplicate registrations.
The state has about 7.3 million registered voters.
The Bureau of Elections has about 36 employees and had a 2010 budget of $11.3 million.
Contact Paul Egan: 517-372-8660 or pegan@freepress.com
More Details: Audit findings
Michigan Auditor General Thomas McTavish released a performance audit Tuesday of the Bureau of Elections. Among the findings:
• Records showed 1,375 people listed as dead had voted a total of 1,381 times between Oct. 1, 2008, and June 9, 2011.
• Although state law prohibits voting by people who are incarcerated, 113 prisoners cast ballots during the same period.
• Local clerks were unclear about their responsibilities for the statewide voter database, the Qualified Voter File.
• Election officials didn't check campaign finance reports for errors within four days of filing, as required by state law. |
|
|
|
Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:49 pm |
|
|
Adam
F L I N T O I D
|
| I'd like to read the actual report and see the investigation. I'm also curious what was done in regards to the sloppy clerks. I'm not as trusting of the Michigan government. Especially that "free" bridge Snyder was trying to give us. |
|
|
|
Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:49 am |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
