The Administration of Voter Registration

Expanding the Electorate Across and Within the States

Thessalia Merivaki

• Publisher: Palgrave Pivot
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9783030480592
• Topic: Politique et relations internationales
• Subtopic: Politique publique

This book examines the dynamics behind shifts in voter registration rates across the states and adopts a framework of collaborative governance with election administration at its center. The book starts by introducing readers to the "voter registration gap, " an aggregate measure of variance in voter registration, and demonstrates how it fluctuates between federal elections. To explain why this variance exists, the author examines the relationship between federal reforms, such as the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act; and state-level reforms, such as Online Voter Registration. Thessalia Merivaki argues that the weak relationship between the two is not surprising, since it hides dramatic variations in administrative practices at the local level, which take place in shorter intervals than the most frequently used two-year estimates. In closing, she shows that challenges to successfully registering to vote persist, largely because of how, when, and whereeligible citizens have to register.

© The Author(s) 2021

T. MerivakiThe Administration of Voter RegistrationElections, Voting, Technologyhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48059-2_1

Begin Abstract

1. Election Reform and Voter Registration

Thessalia Merivaki¹

(1)

Department of Political Science & Public Administration, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA

Thessalia Merivaki

Email: [email protected]

Abstract

If voter registration reforms do not have a uniform impact on turnout, then why would they have a uniform impact on voter registration? And is variation in voter registration across and within the states driven by institutional design, electoral factors, administrative factors, or a combination of all? In this chapter, I provide a framework of collaborative governance, which relaxes expectations of uniform compliance with federal laws, and recognizes the interactions between governmental and non-governmental actors who are engaged with registering eligible Americans to vote. I argue that the adoption of voter registration reforms creates robust challenges for the administration of elections, which cannot be evaluated solely by aggregate indicators of voter registration and turnout. Aggregate indicators are valuable in observing patterns across and within the states but offer limited insight as to the local-level challenges that voters and election administrators face in order to produce an accurate and reliable list of registered voters.

Keywords

Voter registrationNVRAHAVACollaborative governance

End Abstract

1.1 Can Dead Cats Register to Vote?

On April 1, 2016, Julie Duncan, a resident of Seminole County in Florida, received a letter in the mail from the Voter Participation Center (VPC), a nonprofit voting rights group, addressed to “Gracey Duncan” and encouraging Gracey to register to vote. This letter was only one of the many letters the VPC sent to targeted individuals whom it identified as underrepresented and traditionally excluded from the electoral process, such as youth, single women, blacks, and Latinos. The problem with this letter was that “Gracey Duncan” was not a person, but a cat, and a dead one. Concerned citizens contacted their local elections officials after receiving similar letters addressed to their deceased family members. The VPC received a lot of criticism for undermining the electoral system and the voters’ confidence in the accuracy of voter registration efforts by non-governmental groups.

The academic community, on the other hand, directed the blame to the Florida legislature for not doing enough to ensure that eligible citizens are registered to vote and for leaving “the responsibility of getting people to vote to nonprofits.”¹ In effect, the VPC’s mission is to target unregistered citizens particularly among the “rising American electorate,” namely “people of color and unmarried women” in Florida and other states with high rates of unregistered Americans, and encourage them to register to vote. In June of 2018, anticipating similar voter registration outreach efforts by advocacy groups, local election officials in Florida utilized local news outlets to caution voters about receiving “potentially confusing mailings,” and encouraged them to confirm their voter registration status prior to responding to voter registration requests suggesting that they might not be registered voters. Whereas the VPC’s efforts were presented as misleading and casting “doubt on the mailers’ legitimacy,” the advocacy group argued that “there needs to be a more sustained effort to make sure every citizen has the ability to register and the ability to vote.”²

Encouraging dead cats to register to vote, or arguably misleading registered voters by suggesting that they are not registered to vote, has brought forth an ongoing discussion about how active a role should the federal and/or state governments take in registering eligible Americans to vote. Are states not doing enough to grow the number of registered voters? And how is the arguably lack of active effort by the state picked up by advocacy groups such as the VPS or other actors interested in assisting eligible Americans to vote? The argument for comprehensive voter registration reform reflects the conviction that voter registration remains a barrier to electoral participation, especially among underrepresented segments of the electorate. State restrictions on voter registration, as well as the lack of federal safeguards assisting eligible Americans to register to vote, constitute arguably two of the main causes of low voter participation in the United States (Rosenstone and Wolfinger 1978; Hanmer 2009; Leighley and Nagler 2014).

Scholars often characterize the U.S. electoral system as passive and voluntary, with the responsibility to vote falling entirely on the individual voter (Alvarez and Hall 2009; Hanmer 2009). What is more, election laws are left largely to the states under the United States Constitution. States have enjoyed considerable discretion with respect to administering elections, allowing for varying administrative practices across and within states (Hale et al. 2015). The federal government has occasionally intervened, aiming to increase the American electorate’s access to the voting booth. Over the past decades, Congress passed two significant laws expanding the right—and access—of citizens to register to vote: the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002. The purpose of the NVRA was to increase citizen participation in federal elections, by mandating the states to implement federal “procedures” that would essentially increase the size of the eligible-to-vote electorate.³ After the 2000 presidential election, which brought to the surface many inconsistencies with voter registration practices and maintenance of eligible voter lists across and within the states, Congress once more intervened with the passage of HAVA, requiring states to create a centralized database of registered voters, while following the NVRA’s requirements regarding accessible voter registration and regular maintenance of voter lists.⁴ While these laws mandated that states completely reform how they offer voter registration, in reality they created multiple institutional and administrative structures, since they did not alter important dynamics in how and when eligible Americans can register to vote depending on where they reside.

Voter registration is necessary for a U.S. citizen to cast her vote in all states except North Dakota. Aside from federal laws such as the NVRA and HAVA, states have experimented with reforms to modernize the voter registration process. At least 36 states and the District of Columbia have adopted Online Voter Registration (OVR) as an alternative to paper-based voter registration, which is error prone and does not guarantee that an eligible American will enter the voter rolls (Merivaki 2019; Ansolabehere and Hersh 2014). OVR is touted as a bipartisan voter registration reform, as it promises to reduce financial and administrative costs on elections officials while increasing convenience to prospective voters.

More and more states are adopting or amending election policies to expand access to the ballot box by allowing the youth to register to vote. Pre-registration of young voters has proliferated since Hawaii and Florida first adopted the reform in the 1970s (McDonald and Thornburg 2010). Other states eliminated the two steps in the electoral process by adopting Election Day/Same Day Registration (EDR/SDR), which encourages prospective voters to show up to the polls and register to vote at the same time. California, Connecticut, Oregon, and Vermont led the nation by adopting Automatic Voter Registration (AVR) between 2015 and 2016, with more states following in 2018 and 2019. AVR promises to eliminate arguably the most significant burden to participation, namely voter registration, by adding Americans into the voter rolls the moment they become eligible to vote and receive a valid identification at a Department of Motor Vehicles office or when they apply for government benefits; it will be left up to the individual voter to opt out from the voter registration rolls if she wishes.

The turn toward more expansive and less burdensome processes of voter registration indicates that states are taking an active role to expand “the eligible to vote electorate,” which is what the NVRA intended to do. These reforms resulted from ongoing pressures by voters, public officials, advocacy groups, as well as voters to further minimize the costs of electoral participation. Advocates of election reform encourage state legislatures to modernize voter registration by adopting OVR, EDR/SDR, as well as AVR, so that “every eligible voter is permanently registered.”⁵ Supporters of AVR, such as Vermont’s Governor Peter Shumlin, argue that Automatic Voter Registration is a “commonsense policy” that removes “unnecessary barriers” in the political process.⁶ Evidence from Oregon and California strongly suggests that AVR has a tangible impact on voter registration rates, especially among the youth.⁷

1.2 The Success and Challenges of Voter Registration Reforms

Researchers of political behavior find that increasing access to voter registration has a moderate to positive impact on turnout (Knack 1995; Martinez and Hill 1999; Hanmer 2009; Burden et al. 2014). The positive impact on voter registration, however, is often assumed. While voter registration rates across the states have increased since the Federal Assistance Commission’s (FEC) first report to Congress in 1995, research suggests that challenges remain regardless of how much states increase access (Hess and Novakowski 2008; Hess et al. 2016; Merivaki and Smith 2020).

Problems with successfully registering to vote exist even among the most innovative states, such as California, where thousands of voters were incorrectly registered in 2018 due to administrative issues.⁸ Prior to the 2018 election, Georgia’s election administrators placed thousands of new voter registration applications on hold, which prevented them from casting a valid vote on Election Day.⁹ Persistent issues with properly implementing the NVRA, but also new election reforms may reflect institutional design problems, since the adoption of new reforms adds more complexity to the existing framework created by the NVRA. For instance, OVR becomes an additional method of voter registration next to in-person, mail, and registr...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. Election Reform and Voter Registration
• 2. Gaps in Voter Registration: Ongoing Pressures to Expand the Electorate
• 3. Federal and State Legislative Responses to Voter Registration
• 4. How Are Americans Registering to Vote? Beyond the Institutional Supply
• 5. The Impact of Local-Level Factors on Voter Registration Success
• 6. Registered, But Not Quite: Processing Pending and Incomplete Registrations
• 7. Opportunities and Challenges for Voter Registration Reform
• Back Matter