FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Report of The Century Foundation's Working Group on State Implementation of Election Reform is Released at Annual Meeting of State Secretaries

Monday, July 25, St. Paul, Minnesota—Faced with federal mandates for election reform, New York was the slowest state in the nation to institute procedures to meet the law's requirements and improve the voting process. New York experienced numerous problems during the 2004 election and, due in part to the legislature's failure to act in a timely manner, may face bigger problems in the future. With the deadline fast approaching for states to comply with even more federal mandates, a nonpartisan group of prominent election law scholars and voting reform experts has produced a groundbreaking set of policy recommendations to help state legislators and election officials address problems and improve their voting procedures in time for the 2006 and 2008 federal elections.

Balancing Access and Integrity: The Report of The Century Foundation Working Group on State Implementation of Election Reform was released today at the annual meeting of the National Association of Secretaries of State. Tova Andrea Wang, executive director of the working group, presented details of the report to attendees, many of whom oversee the election process in their states.

The members of the working group are: Tova Andrea Wang, senior program officer and democracy fellow, The Century Foundation (executive director); Norm Ornstein, resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute(AEI); Daniel Tokaji, assistant professor, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University; Guy-Uriel E. Charles, associate professor of law, University of Minnesota Law School; Edward B. Foley, professor of law, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University; Samuel Issacharoff, professor, New York University School of Law; Martha Kropf, assistant professor of political science, University of Missouri, Kansas City; and Roy Schotland, professor of law, Georgetown University Law Center.

"As New York finally gets to work on improving its system by providing accurate and accessible voting machines and a statewide voter registration database, this report is of particular import," said Tova Wang. "A group of some of the most esteemed elections scholars in the country has come up with innovative ways for states to make the voting system fair and accurate, and one voters can have confidence in. Given the sometimes unclear or contentious legal mandates the federal government has established to date, and the latitude the New York implementing legislation allows, we provide a plan for how states can implement the laws in ways that expand access to the polls and ensure voting integrity."

The 2004 election was the first big test of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). Enacted in the wake of the deeply flawed 2000 election, the law was passed in an effort to improve the voting process, ensure ballot integrity, and increase voter access. The working group determined that while HAVA represented an important step forward in improving the country's broken voting process, this election season exposed ambiguities and gaps in that law and its implementation that could result in continued problems with elections-particularly in close contests. The group noted that while the votes in last year's election likely exceeded the "margin of litigation," there were nonetheless troubling developments in states and local districts around the country.

With the view that most election reform must be implemented at the state level, there is little chance of further imminent action from Congress, and with HAVA mandating that many of the reforms be implemented by the end of this year, the working group looked at practical ways to solve the problems that HAVA may have inadvertently created. They have developed realistic approaches and specific steps that states can take in order to fulfill the original intent of the act.

The goal of the group in making these recommendations is to enable states to improve their electoral systems in ways that both ensure accuracy and integrity in the voting process and assure that all eligible voters are able to cast ballots and have their votes counted. After examining the most common problems and looking at best practices in jurisdictions around the country, the group made specific recommendations for improvements in the following areas:

• voter registration
• provisional ballots
• statewide voter registration databases
• felon purges and enfranchisement
• voter identification
• testing and certification of voting systems

The working group also noted that there are powerful arguments both for and against early voting, which is increasingly being embraced by election administrators, voting advocates, and voters. The group cautions states to carefully consider all of the competing arguments and research before proceeding further with early voting systems. In addition, the group also strongly urges the federal government to provide additional funding for election reform activities at the state and local level; and it recommends that all states make sure that rules governing vote recounts are clearly established in time for the next federal election.

"This report, the product of hard and diligent work by a disparate group of election experts, examines in careful detail a series of major ongoing problems in election administration in America, and makes balanced and constructive recommendations with a sharp eye for what is practical and achievable," said Norm Ornstein. "The fact that the 2004 presidential election did not result in a lengthy delay or litigation before its resolution does not mean that the election system has been fixed, or is working smoothly or well. Much work remains to be done before our elections can inspire genuine confidence from voters, scholars, and practitioners alike. This report provides a roadmap for much of that work."

The Century Foundation has been at the forefront of efforts to reform the voting system since the issue achieved national prominence following the 2000 presidential contest. In 2001, the foundation cosponsored the National Commission on Election Reform, cochaired by former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. The final report of that commission served as the model for important measures in the Help America Vote Act.

Highlights of the working group's recommendations are attached. Balancing Access and Integrity: The Report of The Century Foundation Working Group on State Implementation of Election Reform is available online at The Century Foundation's Election Reform Web site at www.reformelections.org and on its main site at www.tcf.org. An executive summary of the recommendations, bios of the working group members, ordering information, and additional information on election reform are also available online. Please contact Christy Hicks at [email protected] or (212) 452-7723 to receive a press copy of the report, or to arrange an interview with a working group member.

Balancing Access and Integrity:
The Report of The Century Foundation Working Group on State Implementation of Election Reform

ISBN: 0-87078-497-8
Price: $14.95

To order, call 1 (800) 552-5450
In Washington, DC (202) 797-6258

HIGHLIGHTS OF MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE REPORT OF
THE CENTURY FOUNDATION WORKING GROUP
ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION OF ELECTION REFORM

Voter Registration

• States need to provide clear rules for what missing or incorrect information will be a basis for disqualification and/or the need to correct or amend a registration form. The report recommends what data should and should not be included.
• In order to ensure all voters are properly registered in time for election day, states should consider a two-tiered system of voter registration by which a voter who registers to vote earlier in the registration process would be guaranteed that administrators will take all steps possible to ensure he or she is properly registered and will be able to vote by regular ballot. Last minute registrants would have fewer guarantees that they will be able to vote by regular and not by provisional ballot.
• In conjunction with this system, states should implement a system by which all voters receive a receipt with a tracking number, allowing the voter and other interested parties to check on registration status through the use of that number and a publicly available registration list.

Provisional Ballots

• If a voter fails to present identification but was required to do so under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the report recommends that election administrators make every effort to verify that voter's eligibility through available databases. If such verification is made, the provisional ballot should be counted.
• In addition, states should give voters who arrive at the polls without required identification up to three days to provide HAVA-specified forms of identification. Whatever procedures the states choose for making this determination, it should be clear and thus not susceptible to post-election manipulation and litigation.
• If a voter appears at any precinct within the county in which the voter resides, the provisional ballot cast by the voter should be counted for all countywide, statewide, and presidential races. If a state chooses to require voters to appear at their assigned precinct, in cases where the same polling site serves more than one precinct (a single school gym containing three precincts, for example), a voter's provisional ballot should count as long as the voter appears at the correct polling site.
• If an administrative error on the state's part is the reason why a timely new registration form did not result in the entry of this voter on the state's official list of registered voters, the voter's provisional ballot should count as a valid vote.

Statewide Voter Registration Databases

• States should take all appropriate measures to protect the privacy rights of voters when constructing and utilizing the statewide voter registration database.
• Databases should be, at a minimum, connected interactively with the Department of Motor Vehicles, courts, Department of Corrections, and the state's Department of Vital Statistics. Optimally, the database should be connected interactively with as many state agencies as possible to ensure the timely and accurate updating of voter information and the most accurate matching and verification of voter registration information.
• When computer verification find records that match some but not all voter information, these "near matches" should be audited for transposed characters, inverted names, or other frequent errors. States should adopt a "substantial match standard" that verifies those applicants who have a significant part of their records verified within state databases.
• States should explore opportunities for interstate compatibility in their database software and communications systems.

Felon Purges

• With respect to ex-felons, best practices require states to make re-enfranchisement automatic or no more burdensome than the process required for any new registrant. As long as the ex-felon completes all necessary steps specified by law, re-enfranchisement should be ministerial (i.e., mandatory), not discretionary.
• States should adopt statutes that specify and standardize matching criteria for purging purposes. These statutes should prescribe the use of numerous matching criteria, require exact matches of felony conviction and voter registration data, and require that matches be double-checked at state and county levels. Matching criteria should include first name, middle name, last name, gender, maiden name, date of birth, place of birth and driver's license number if any.
• Purges should be done year-round, but end 90 days before the election so anyone purged is given due notice and opportunity to contest the state's determination. Any individual to be purged should first be mailed a certified, forward-able notification letter to the last known address. The notification should notify the individual that he or she has a specified time period within which to respond if he or she wishes to contest the state's determination.

Voter Identification

• States should not expand voter identification rules at this time¾for example, by requiring all voters to show identification documentation at the polls¾as there has been insufficient time for a thorough evaluation of relevant information and options relating to such rules. Instead, this report encourages policymakers and policy analysts to explore new approaches that might minimize the scope and extent of policy disagreement on the topic of voter identification and to diffuse some of the intense controversy surrounding this topic.
• States that currently require voters to present photo identification when they vote should make sure that such documentation is widely available at the state's expense, so that the identification requirement does not have the practical effect of operating as a kind of poll tax.
• Whatever particular rules a state adopts regarding required identification at time of registration and voting, states should make sure those rules are straightforward and unambiguous, so that both voters and poll workers easily understand exactly what rules apply.
• Given the special sensitivity of identification requirements, states should pay close attention to whether their rules, both as written and as implemented, are consistent with the basic principle of treating all voters equally. In this regard, states should be wary of adopting identification requirements applicable to voting at polling places that do not apply also to absentee or other forms of at-home or mail-in voting. States that require more stringent forms of identification when voting at polling places than when voting at home may be expected to justify this distinction in Equal Protection litigation under strict scrutiny standard and may be hard pressed to do so.

Testing and Certification of Voting Systems

• States should engage in both federal and state testing and certification procedures.
• All states should require voting systems to meet federal voting system standards, and comply with the state's own testing and certification process and standards. The purpose of the state certification system should be not only to ensure that the systems comply with any additional requirements the state might impose, but to fill in any gaps in the vendor and Independent Testing Authority testing.
• Changes or upgrades to software in electronic systems should be subject to review and certification; penalties for installation of uncertified software or software upgrades should be stiff.

# # #

7/20/05