Author: Erin Georgen

Alabama has announced they will be closing DMVs across the state despite the Voter-ID Law that took affect in 2014. The State plans to close all, but 4 DMVs by March 2015.

Alabama’s Voter-ID Law

Alabama’s Voter-ID laws went into effect on June 13th, 2014. They require Alabama voters to show a valid government issued photo ID at the polls or to mail a copy with an absentee ballot. The first Alabama election following the law’s implementation had the lowest voter turnout in decades, but was still hailed as a success by the laws supporters simply because not enough people showed up to the polls and complained.

In Alabama (and else where), these laws already disproportionately affect:

• The Poor- less likely to have a government issued ID,  less likely to have the financial and travel resources to get one, and less likely to have needed documents to apply for one.
• Minorities- minorities are disproportionately living in poverty everywhere in the US, but it’s an even bigger disparity in the South.
• Woman- more likely to have last names change (making their IDs invalid for voting) and more likely to live in poverty.
• The Elderly- more likely to be poor, less likely to have a drivers license, less likely to be able to travel to get one, less likely to have needed documents to obtain one.
• Young Adults- Less likely to have driver’s license and less likely to have the financial and travel resources to obtain one.

The DMV closures will make it that much more difficult for these demographics to obtain a valid ID which is required to vote in-person or absentee. This is especially true in Alabama’s Black Belt communities which is home to many of our nations poorest counties and statistically more likely to resemble third world nation more than a modern industrialized one.

Alabama’s DMV Closures

The first wave of DMV closures will leave 28 Alabama counties with out a place to get a State ID or Drivers License. They plan to close all, but 4 DMVs by March, 2015.  This would leave 40,000 (average number of Alabamians who use DMVs every year) driving longer distances and potentially experiencing longer wait times. License renewals can be completed online, but families in Alabama’s poor and rural counties have some of the lowest rates of internet or broadband access in the nation.

State officials site budget shortfalls for the DMV closures. In light of the Voter ID laws and the location of the counties that will be without DMVs, it is hard not to conclude that Alabama intends too make it very difficult for poor African Americans to vote.

Less Populated = More Closures

It is easy to argue that these cuts are not racially motivated. As most of the counties losing DMVs in this first wave of closures are rural. However, making it harder for these communities to get an ID that is required to vote, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Even rural living individuals who currently have a valid-ID will find it more difficult to renew once it expires than those who live in more populated areas. This is because they are less likely to have internet or broadband access.

Highest Poverty Rates = More Closures

It also, just so happens that these same counties have the highest Poverty Rates.

More Democratic Leaning = More Closures

Congressional District 7 (Alabama’s only Democratic district in the last election) will see more than half of its Counties without DMVs.

Higher African American Population = More Closures

This is perhaps the most telling map overlay. In the first maps above (population), it appeared that perhaps there was some attempt to ensure that not every county in a particular region was without DMVs because of the way they spotted across some rural expanses. Unfortunately, this appears to just single out counties where the highest percentage of the population is African American. Seven out of eight counties where 65% (and greater) of the population is African American will be left without DMVs. In counties where the majority of the population is white, less than half of the counties will be without DMVs.

This recent report from the Heritage Foundation compiles a list of 275 instances of voter fraud. Only 6 crimes would have been stopped by Voter-ID.

This report was presented as evidence for the need for Voter-ID laws in an article for the Daily Signal, “Nearly 300 Cases, the Extent of Voter Fraud in America.” When taking a closer look at the actual data contained within this report, its hard not to notice that the evidence does not support Voter-ID laws as a solution.

The Data

While the report did contain a lot of relevant information about these 275 instances of voter fraud, it does a poor job of presenting it in a clear and coherent way for critically thinking about these issues. If we, as a country, are going to have any meaningful conversation about voter fraud and how to actually prevent it, we MUST take a long hard look at the data. It is not enough to just list off instances without analyzing the details. In this way, the Daily Signal’s article failed to offer the kind of depth required for any real conclusions to be made.

The Most Obvious Data-

• 275 different instances of voter fraud were included
• 297 different voter fraud related convictions or evidence of voter fraud
  (22 instances included more than one type of conviction)
• 2 of these instances did not involve a person being charge, but an investigation was completed and a new election was ordered as a result
• 2 of these instances was purely investigatory and did not involve charges, a recount, or a holding a new election

Less Obvious Data-

• 573 different individuals were convicted of 609 different voter fraud related charges (many cases involved more than one person)
• 1 instance involved 37 different individuals
• 1 instance involved 63 different individuals

Break Down by Type of Voter Fraud Conviction

191 convictions for False Registrations-

False Registration cases involved everything from putting a false address to vote in a specific election, to intentionally registering in more than one state or district, to registering as multiple different people (identity theft). The bulk of these cases involved eligible voters intentionally registering and voting in more than one state or lying about their place of residence to vote in a particular election. Those that involved registering as multiple people also involved the use of absentee ballots.

• 55 of these convictions were for registering to vote in a district they did not live in.
• 11 more convictions were registered at the wrong address in order to run for office in a particular district. This included a Mayor in California who was mayor for 50 years before caught.
• 51 of these convictions were for registering as multiple people (no information provided about the use of absentee ballots or not). However, most were registration drive employees registering people multiple times, deceased individuals, or persons known to be ineligible to vote in order to boost their registration numbers. Employees of these kind of drives often get bonuses for high registration numbers or have quota’s to meet; it is unclear whether they actually intended to cast fraudulent votes during an election.
• 63 individuals registered and cast absentee ballots for elderly and disabled people.
• 3 individuals in California convinced more than 100 people to sign a petition “to fight breast cancer” when they were actually changing their registered party affiliation to Republican. While disturbing and illegal, a person’s party affiliation does not affect their ballots in any way.
• 1 other individual was also convicted for attempting to change party affiliation of 280 voters.
• 2 individuals were convicted for registering as someone else, but also had fake ID’s to match. In fact, DMV’s facial recognition software was the reason one was caught.
• 2 falsely registered and did use absentee ballots.
• 3 individuals were convicted because they changed their address the day they voted in a new district in Ohio. Ohio requires you be a resident for 30 days before voting.
• 1 individual living and voting under a false identity was caught due to Voter-ID laws.

Voter-ID laws only deter False Registration cases in so far as the individuals registered as someone other than themselves, went in-person to cast the vote, and did not have a fake ID to match. This was only known to be the case in 1 out of 191 convictions for false registration. However, many of these would have been impossible with a single digital record of all registered voters which could identify duplicate registrations, characters from movies, and easily checked against death records.

156 convictions for Buying Votes

Vote buying involves a person paying someone to vote a certain way, but in many of these cases it also involved buying absentee ballots.

Voter-ID laws do not prevent the buying of votes and, ultimately, this is a type of fraud that would be difficult to hinder except through harsh sentencing.

136 convictions for Absentee Ballot Fraud

Absentee Ballot Fraud typically involves forging someone’s absentee ballot. These cases involved forging absentee ballots, stealing them, and registering as someone else (sometimes deceased people). Two of the convictions for Impersonation Fraud at the Polls (listed below) actually involved absentee ballots, so that puts the total for Absentee Ballot related fraud at 138.

Voter-ID laws have zero impact on absentee ballot fraud. Oddly, there have been no suggestions from politicians on how to reduce the instances of fraudulent absentee ballots and most want to expand the use of absentee ballots. Currently, most states use signature verification to check against the signatures on the voters’ registrations, but this is only effective in cases where individuals did not also forge the signature on the registration.

43 convictions for Ineligible Voting

Ineligible Voting involves casting a vote when you are not actually eligible to vote. The bulk of these cases involved disenfranchised felons voting when they were not eligible. Felon voting eligibility differs from state to state and it can get confusing, but to get convicted in this kind of case, evidence must be given that the individual knowingly broke the law. Some of these convictions involved non-citizens voting.

• 26 of these were felons in states where they were not eligible to vote.
• 6 were non-citizens who voted: 1 was the youngest delegate at the 2000 Republican National Convention, 1 voted before gaining citizenship (was caught after gaining citizenship), and 1 used an absentee ballot.
• 2 were non-citizens living under false identities and presumably had false ID’s to match.
• 1 was a city election official convicted for “fraudulent receipt of ballot” and misconduct.
• 1 was convicted for interfering another voter while he/she was voting.
• 1 was a mother who convinced one of her sons to vote for another incarcerate son. she was also convicted of Impersonation at the Polls.
• 8 cases did not provide any details other than their convictions.

Voter-ID laws would not affect the cases involving felons voting when ineligible because they were registered to vote. It also would not have

36 convictions of Ballot Petition Fraud

Ballot Petition Fraud involved forging signatures on petitions when trying to get initiatives on a ballot. It is illegal, but these initiatives would still have to pass the voters to become law.

Voter-ID laws do not stop people from forging signatures in order to get initiatives onto the ballot.

30 convictions for Duplicate Voting

• 7 of these made use of absentee ballots to cast multiple votes.
• 5 voted both in-person and with absentee ballots.
• 2 were convicted of duplicate voting in elections in which they were candidates.
• 4 voted in more than one state, but no details were given as to whether this was in-person or absentee. They were all registered to vote in both locations though.
• 4 others registered and voted in more than one state in-person.
• 2 registered and voted in more than one county.
• 4 tried to cast 2 votes in-person in a single election including a homeless man who registered and voted under the same alias 2x.
• Only 2 of these convictions was for voting under someone else’s identity and no details were provided as to whether this was done in-person or via absentee ballots.

Voter -ID laws do not affect the majority of these cases. All except 2 individuals in these cases voted under their own identity. Those 2 cases did not provide information about whether absentee ballots were used or not.

7 convictions for Impersonation Fraud at the Polls

In-person impersonation fraud is the only type of voter fraud which the Voter-ID laws are capable of affecting. It involves an individual actually going to a polling station and voting under someone else’s identity.

• 5 of these convictions actually involved someone going to the polls in-person and one of those cases turned himself in, claiming he only did it to prove a point.
• 2 other convictions were both elderly widows who cast their deceased spouse’s absentee ballots.

Only 5 of these crimes would have been stopped by Voter-ID laws.

Misc. Voter Fraud

There were 10 other convictions in this report that covered a variety of crimes. Unfortunately, the majority were committed by election officials and poll workers.

• 2 convictions election officials convicted of Neglect/Misconduct (2 different cases)
• 2 convictions for Altering the Vote Count by election officials (2 different cases)
• 2 convictions of Unauthorized Access, neither a poll worker or election official. 1 of these individuals was originally charged with Buying Votes, but he plead down.
• 1 convicted for Voter Intimidation, also not a poll worker or election official.
• 1 conviction for Attempting to Influence the Vote by a Republican campaign manager.
• 1 conviction for Bribery by a County Judge.
• 1 conviction of a poll worker casting Fraudulent Ballots.

Voter-ID laws would not have affected any of these cases. Seven of these cases involved people who have power and authority in the election process.

Editorial Conclusion

The sheer number (609) of voter fraud related crimes is a bit disheartening and it is important to have meaningful discussions about how to deter these kinds of crimes from happening. It is also important to take into consideration the millions upon millions of votes cast during this time frame. While voter fraud is real, the fact is that it is relatively uncommon. In addition, all of these crimes were caught (except 1) because of the security measures that were already in place before Voter-ID laws became a thing. To a certain extent, this should offer some peace of mind.

After reviewing all 275 instances of voter fraud within this report. Only 6 of these crimes would have been prevented under Voter-ID laws. That represents less than 1% of these crimes, but these same laws disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters. At the same time 138 convictions were related to Absentee Ballots, or 23%, and no politicians have put forth any legislation to address it. The largest crime represented in this report was False Registration comprising 31% of the convictions, but this is another area which is difficult to legislate away without disenfranchising law-abiding voters, but he development of electronic voter registration rolls would help. I am not suggesting that we should ignore voter fraud and hope that it goes away, but I am suggesting that we approach it in a rational way. Blindly supporting legislation which disenfranchises thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of elderly, poor, and young voters and does almost nothing to deter actual voter fraud is not a rational approach.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/11/nearly-300-cases-the-extent-of-voter-fraud-in-america/

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/pdf/VoterFraudCases-Merged-3-2.pdf

On June 29th, the Supreme Court side 5-4 with Arizona Voters in a landmark Gerrymandering case, paving the way for more voter-based initiatives to improve the elections processes nation wide.

Gerrymandering happens when a State legislature chooses to redistrict the state to give their own party an advantage in the next election. It only happens every 10 years because it is based on the census and both Democrats and Republicans have been guilty of it.

Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

In 2000, Arizona passed Proposition 106 which took the power to redistrict from the State legislature, delegating it instead to a bipartisan independent commission. The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission is comprised of two democrats, two republicans, and one independent. In 2013, after the 2010 census, the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, had its first opportunity to redraw Arizona’s districts.

Arizona’s District Map

Why this Ruling is Important?

The legality of the voter based proposition and the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was questioned based on the constitution, which affords the  power to create election laws and processes to the “legislature” and not to the voters.

At the time the constitution was written, there was no avenue for voters to create laws besides convincing their legislative representatives. Today, however, voter based initiatives are a fairly common way for voters to participate in the legislative process.

California also has an independent redistricting process which was also created through a voter based initiative. This ruling also places California’s Citizens Redistricting Commission on solid legal ground.

Most importantly, the Supreme Court legally recognized voters as a ‘legislature’ or law making body.  Primarily because the State’s provided legal ways for voters to sponsor initiatives and create laws. This is a notion that likely never occurred to our founding fathers, but which provides an extremely important additional form of check and balance. Voters have the right to make laws or eliminate them. Voters can create laws which actually act to decrease real voter fraud threats without disenfranchising the poor and elderly. Voters can say ‘no’ to Voter ID laws and ‘yes’ to ending districts without voters.

This ruling is empowering.

Four Philadelphia Election Officials are Charged with Voter Fraud

The district Attorney in Philadelphia issued warrants for the arrest of four of its election officials for voter fraud. The individuals are accused of adding 6 ballots to the machine after the 2014 general election closed. It appears that 6 eligible voters may have signed in to vote, but not actually voted. The investigation relieved that the election officials from Philadelphia’s 18th Ward, 1st Division, added the 6 votes after closing to ensure that the number of voters in the sign-in book matched the number of votes cast. If this was the only issue with this case, one might chalk it up to criminal stupidity. Unfortunately, it appears that three of the individuals charged also falsified their qualifications to be election officials at this location. Your see, to be an election official in a particular area, you must live in the area. This men did not live and are not registered to vote in Philadelphia’s 18th Ward, 1st Division.

The Fourth person charged with voter fraud in this case is Sandra Lee who served as the 1st Division’s Judge of Elections is being charge with conspiracy, tampering with records, unsworn falsification, and obstructing justice, among other related charges.

This is not Philadelphia’s first case of election official voter fraud either. In 2014 Election Judge Dianah Gregory was found guilty of tampering with voting machines. This prompted Philadelphia DA Seth Williams to create an Election Fraud Task Force, not only to investigate the claims of voter fraud, but during each election there are a number of individuals tasked with watching polling stations and to respond quickly to any complaint calls on election days.

Election Official Voter Fraud vs Impersonation Voter Fraud

The tragedy of voter fraud is that it is real, but not always in the light that the media or politicians portray it. Election Official Voter Fraud, while rare in the grand scheme of things, is one of the more common types of in-person voter fraud. Impersonation types of voter fraud is where a person either: is not actually eligible to vote and does so anyways, votes multiple times using other peoples’ voter registration, or votes multiple times because they are intentionally registered to vote in multiple locations. Impersonation Voter Fraud, while often portrayed as rampant, has been shown to be quite rare. Recently, a wave of Voter-ID laws have been making their way across the country aimed at making a dent in voter fraud. These types of laws disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters and do absolutely nothing to curb election official voter fraud. Election officials don’t have to show ID to vote because they are supposedly vetted and are responsible for ensuring that other voters follow voting laws.

The election officials are tasked ensuring a fair and just election process by ensuring that polling places are accessible and safe for eligible voters. This position also gives them access to impede or obstruct or tamper with the voting process. Election officials who abuse their position should be prosecuted and it seems that Philadelphia’s DA intends to do just that.

The Pew Charitable Trusts just finished reviewing the online voter registration process in the 20 states that offer it. The report notes cost savings, mobile optimization, and accessibility for those with disabilities or English as their second language. Most importantly, electronic voter registration offers a real advantage for maintaining accurate and up-to-date registered voter rolls, reducing the potential for voter fraud. In addition, and not discussed in the report, accurate voter rolls play an important part in voter turn-out statistics. With the wide spread reports and studies showing millions of people registered to vote in more than one state and millions more registered voters who are actually deceased. It is possible that the US’s record low voter turn-out in recent years is not as low as it appears. Electronic and online voter registration could offer real solutions in the debate over voter fraud.

About Online Voter Registration

In 2002, Arizona began paving the way for online voter registration. Many other states quickly followed suit. As of April 2014 it was available in 20 states and, according to the Brennan Center, seven more states have either passed legislation for or are currently working on implementation of online registration.

Online Voter Registration: Benefits

There are a multitude of benefits of Online Voter Registration including:

Cost Reduction

• States are spending between $0.50 and $2.34 less per online voter registration compared to paper registration.
• Some states offering online voting have not yet been able to realize this savings because the local counties are not yet fully integrated electronically and the online registration is still having to be printed and sent to these counties.
• California reported saving $2 million in 2012 as a result of online registration.
• Implementing the online process cost less than $300,000 in nine of the fourteen states that reported cost with an averaged of $249,000 per state overall.

Increased Accuracy

• States reported improved accuracy with electronic submission because “the staff isn’t trying to decipher handwriting.”
• Online voter registration improves accuracy of the state’s voter rolls by identifying duplicate registrations. This typically occurs when a person moves and registers to vote in their new county without notifying the old county of their move, but it is perceived as voter fraud by many and definitely has that potential.
• Has the potential of offering that same benefit between states once all states have implemented an electronic database of registered voters.
• 6.9 million voters are registered in more than one state.
• Accurate voting rolls also means more accurate understanding of voter turn-out.
• 16 of the 20 states offer real-time connection with DMV for processing registrations.
• Has the potential of improving the process of removing deceased individuals from the voter rolls as well, especially if states also have a centralized electronic system for death records. Again, deceased individuals who are still registered to vote is mostly perceived as voter fraud, but definitely leaves the door open for it and it absolutely does affect the accuracy of voter turn-out statistics.
• According to 1 study, 1.8 million dead persons are still in the voter rolls in the US.

Increased Accessibility

• 9 of the 20 states with online voter registration have mobile accessibility.
• Easier registration for military members stationed away from home and those in rural communities.
• Half of the states offer languages other than English.
• Improves access for persons with disabilities that might affect their ability to register using traditional methods.

Customer and Election Official Satisfaction

• All states cited customer satisfaction and reduced burden on election officials as the main benefits of online voter registration.

Online Voter Registration: Shortfalls

There are some areas for improvement within states utilizing online voter registration. This includes:

State Driver’s License or ID is Required

• All states except Delaware require state driver’s license or ID number for online registration, though Maryland does offer alternative for those citizens covered by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.
• This is despite the fact that some of these states requiring state driver’s license or ID number for online registration only require non-photo identification for voting.
• Get more information about the challenges for voters when requiring state ID’s on our Voter ID page.

Not Fully Integrated with Local Counties

• Not every state has been able to fully integrate electronic registrations with local officials, so they are missing out on the cost savings and/or efficiency available with online voter registration.

Poor Promotion of Online Voter Registration

• Some states noted their own short comings with promotion of electronic voter registration citing only a small percentage of their registrations are occurring online.

Which States Offer Online Voter Registration?

• Arizona
• California
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Delaware
• Georgia
• Illinois
• Indiana
• Kansas
• Louisiana
• Maryland
• Minnesota
• Missouri
  NOTE: It appears that Missouri’s site will prompt desktop users to fill out a printable pdf form and mail their registration application. Where as, mobile, tablet, and touchscreen users are offered online submission.
• Nevada
• New York
  NOTE: It appears New York only offers online registration through the state DMV since the state government’s site only offers pdf forms to fill out and mail. the state’s site doesn’t even list online registration as an option.
• Oregon
• South Carolina
• Utah
• Virginia
• Washington
• Washington D.C.
  Note: D.C. was not a part of the Pew Charitable Trusts report

What States are Expected to have Online Voter Registration Soon?

• Hawaii – Online Registration is expected in 2016 and will offer election day registration at all polling sites by 2018.
• Iowa – Currently you can submit electronic voter registration in-person at the state’s DMV and expected to have online submission in 2016.
• Massachusetts – Currently you can submit electronic voter registration in-person at the state’s DMV and they have passed an online voter registration ballot measure, but it is not yet in effect.
• Oklahoma – In the process of implementing, but no ETA available.
• Nebraska – Currently you can submit electronic voter registration in-person at the state’s DMV and they have passed online registration legislation expected to go into effect in 2017.
• New Mexico – Currently you can submit electronic voter registration in-person at the state’s DMV and is in the process of implementing online registration with no ETA.
• West Virginia – Have passed legislation for online voter registration, but no ETA as of yet.