HB 1968 is now law. One of its major provisions is early voting.

In Illinois, prior to this new law , you could cast an absentee ballot prior to election day for reasons such as if you would be out of the county on election day or if you were physically unable to make it to the poll on election day. Early voting is similar to absentee voting, except that you don’t need an “excuse” to vote early.

Proponents of early voting believe that it increases voter turnout and makes it easier for commuters to vote. Opponents believe that the financial costs of early voting outweigh any benefit and that spreading out voting diminishes the community aspect of voting.

I have worked on legislation in the past to try to open up absentee voting for more people. I supported absentee voting for the elderly who may have difficulties standing in line for a half hour. I also supported extending absentee voting to caretakers and pregnant women. Early voting addresses those issues and for that reason I’m looking forward to this.

At the same time, I admit that I miss the community atmosphere that develops around election day. I’m sure many of our election judges will be disappointed when some of the usual faces don’t show up on election day. As an election official, I am statutorily allowed to absentee vote, but I never have because I enjoy going to the polling place on election day.

For our county there will be administrative concerns. For example, as it stands now, our office will have to be open for early voting on holidays and Sundays prior to each election. In 2007, this means we will have to open on Easter Sunday morning! I’ve been told that in some states as many as 20% of voters vote early. If that happens here, the number of early voters would be over three times the number of absentees we have currently. This will require significant staffing to accommodate. Early voting cuts off 5 days prior to the election so that means the weekend prior to the election will be non-stop action updating and printing voter lists and getting them to judges. In the past, we’ve completed that task prior to that weekend so that we can deal with any fires that come up (real or metaphorical).

Now that HB 1968 is law, there is already talk of “clean-up” language to be introduced next year. I’d like to know what you think.

In 2001, we were honored to be one of 27 election jurisdictions in the Country to have an on-site visit from the General Accounting Office, the research arm of Congress. That visit came in the aftermath of the 2000 election. Congress was looking for ways to reform elections and asked the GAO to research what was happening with elections across America. The report they issued is available on the GAO website. (It’s 15MB) You will have a difficult time finding specific citation to Champaign County practices as the report is less concerned about looking for issues in specific jurisdictions and more concerned about overall policies and procedures.

This year, the GAO is doing another round of research, similar to what was done in 2001. Once again, Champaign County has been selected for an on-site visit. The GAO will be here all day on Wednesday and Thursday, collecting information and interviewing staff. It is a great opportunity for our office to participate in a nationwide effort to continue to improve our election process. When their report is available we’ll post the link to it.

Yesterday, the State Board of Elections met and one item on the agenda was the statewide voter registration system. The board agreed to seek a no-bid contract with the Catalyst corporation to develop a system that would be in compliance with state and federal law. This appears to be the end of a long running battle that the Board has engaged in with the Illinois legislature and County Clerks and Election Commisions (local election officials). The battle has caused unnecessary delays in this process and may end up costing taxpayers extra money.

For those who have some interest in government, bureaucracy, and election reform, here is what transpired.

In April 2004, a number of county election officials converged on the State Board of Elections meeting in Chicago. The issue that brought us there was a proposal which the State Board of Elections had proposed with the Secretary of State. That proposal would have set up a system whereby voter registrations within driver’s license facilities would have been done purely electronically (no paper) and would have been transmitted directly to the State Board of Elections, going around the local election officials who are required by law to determine the eligibility of registrants. At no time, prior to this agreement, were the election officials brought into this discussion. Even more distressing, it was conducted with little to no public scrutiny, and sprung on election officials at the last minute.

After that meeting, local election officials laid out what we felt would be the parameters for a statewide voter registration system that would put us in compliance with federal and state laws. We presented the board with legal arguments and practical considerations in support of our proposal.

The essence of our proposal was to modify the current Illinois Data Exchange Application/Voter Information Statewide Application system (IDEA/VISTA) to make it HAVA (Help America Vote Act) compliant. We felt the $4 million investment that had been made in the statewide voter file up to that point should not be scrapped and that it would be cheaper and quicker to use that system as the platform for the HAVA compliant statewide voter file. IDEA/VISTA already compiles all voter registration information from every jurisdiction in the state and makes it available to every jurisdiction in the state. It would need to be modified to check for duplicate registrations and to allow for a way to check signatures.

The SBE disagreed with our proposal. We requested from the board the same information which we had provided them; legal and practical considerations in support of their proposal. None was forthcoming. The SBE, specifically then Chairman John Keith, seemed determined to go ahead with a $18 million system without the input of local election officials.

Local election officials foresaw a disaster. By circumventing local election officials, we felt that voters would be confused and that bureaucratic snarls in Springfield might result in our citizens being denied their right to vote. We also felt the all-electronic registration was illegal and unwise.

We continued our discussions with the State Board of Elections, but to no avail. After months of debate, and realizing that we had hit a brick wall, local election officials went to Springfield in November 2004 and put forward legislation, HB640, which made it clear that registrations were to come first to election authorities and that we are to maintain the database of registered voters. HB640 passed the General Assembly unanimously.

The SBE was not satisfied. Instead of working within the parameters set out by the legislature, they chose instead to continue down the course they had set in April. They asked for an Attorney General opinion. The opinions division of the Attorney General is overworked and people routinely have to wait over half a year for an answer to questions which are put to them. This was essentially a delaying tactic.

In the meantime, the Federal Election Assistance Commission published voluntary guidelines for statewide voter registration systems. Those guidelines were in line with the recommendations made by local election officials.

Still, the State Board of Elections persisted. They contended they could be in compliance with the will of the legislature while eliminating paper records. Once again, they were standing in defiance to the Illinois General Assembly, the Governor, and local election officials. Realizing that stronger language was necessary, local election officials worked with legislators to insert provisions in HB1968 which made it even more clear to the State Board of Elections that registrations were to come to the local election officials alone and that they would not be in purely electronic format. This bill passed the General Assembly in May, 2005 and awaits the Governor’s signature. Most observers, and the State Board of Elections, expect the Governor will sign this within the next few days.

Yesterday, the SBE saw the writing on the wall and gave approval to seek a no bid contract with Catalyst Corporation. Catalyst is the consulting group that developed the IDEA/VISTA voter registration database currently in use in the State of Illinois. The SBE has approved a proposal that essentially mirrors what was proposed by local election officials 16 months ago; modify the current IDEA/VISTA system at substantial savings in money and time. The problem is that because of the delays caused by the defiance of the SBE, specifically then Chairman Keith, there will be no bidding process for this contract. As Board Member David Murray said yesterday, “Every time you do single source bids you get screwed.”

To his credit, Member Murray did an excellent job yesterday in pointing out the problems the board has brought upon itself. Member Bryan Schneider also was excellent in getting assurances from staff that they could be HAVA compliant under the proposal before them and that the proposal before them was the most cost effective available at that time.

The SBE is finally getting it right regarding the statewide voter file. The only difference now between them and the local election officials is that we were right at the right time.

The Governor signed HB 715 this week. This is one of a host of legislative items that passes each year that looks good in a press release but which will have little to no positive impact. Fortunately, there are no negative repercussions for the election process so I have no difficulty with its passage.

The bill requires that every public institution of higher learning (including junior colleges) must mail out a voter registration form whenever they mail out class registration materials. They also must provide this information whenever they conduct in person class registration, which is no longer done at the University of Illinois and which I suspect is disappearing all around the state. They also must post one on their website.

The goal here is certainly laudable, but I suspect that the benefits of this legislation will be substantially less than its cost. The genesis of the bill is the misguided notion that problems with voter turnout are the result of a lack of registration opportunities when the reality is that poor voter turnout is more a reflection of people’s dissatisfaction with the political system or their relative complacency about it.

Our office faces a constant challenge. Marginal gains in voter registration could be made by increasing the number of staff people dedicated solely to doing that. For example, if one staff person was hired full time just to conduct more voter registration events at grocery stores, malls, and other busy locations would the number of people registered increase? Perhaps by a small amount. But the marginal gains continue to diminish as the number of registration opportunities increase. And increased registrations do not necessarily result in more people voting. We try to strike a good balance here by having a community presence at various events, but to not overdo it to the point where our efforts are wasted and where costs don’t justify the benefits.

Our legislature faces this same problem when they mandate the participation of public institutions in registration efforts. Now that higher education is roped in, how about libraries? Perhaps the circuit clerk. Maybe a registration form should be sent out with every tax bill. There are few limits to the number of ways that we can put more voter registration forms into the hands of citizens. What seems to be limited are the number of legislators willing to make changes to our political system that foster a desire to participate.

I also want to take this opportunity to applaud the University of Illinois for their excellent efforts to assist us in registering students. We have provided them with tens of thousands of voter registration forms over the years. More importantly, they have allowed for the permanent presence of two voter registration kiosks in well traveled campus locations. They also send out e-mails notifying students of registration deadlines and pointing them to our website so that they can check their voter registration status on line. If there is another University in this country doing more to facilitate registration I haven’t heard of it.

One of the more controversial days in my eight years as County Clerk was Quad Day 2004 at the University of Illinois. It has been a point of discussion here and in other locations and I’d like to tell the whole story of how events transpired.

I believe that I have an excellent record of promoting student registration, but that record is sometimes obscured by politics. In light of that, I decided in the summer of 2004 to reach out to campus organizations to find out their needs and at the same time let them know the concerns of my office. We had a meeting with representatives of the College Democrats, College Republicans, and Illinois Student Government. I believe that all of us felt the meeting was very positive. At that meeting I provided literally thousands of forms to the College Democrats and let them know that we had plenty more to provide. I do not believe that at any time our willingness to provide forms to the College Democrats in the fall of 2004 was ever questioned.

I have read one comment which suggested that at the meeting I informed the student groups they could use outdated forms for their registration drives. I have no recollection of telling anyone that. It would be in direct contravention to what we did in our office, which was to throw away all the outdated forms the previous year.

The controversy arose when I learned on the morning of Quad Day that the College Democrats were using some of the old registration forms which they had obtained in previous years from another county. I was somewhat distraught over this development, especially since I had given the College Democrats thousands of new forms just days before. I informed them the forms were no longer valid.

Here is the reason why the forms are not valid. Under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, the mail-in voter registration form did not require a box affirming citizenship. However, this changed with passage of the Help America Vote Act of 2002. The relevant portion of that federal law is here:

(4) CONTENTS OF MAIL-IN REGISTRATION FORM.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The mail voter registration form developed under section 6 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg–4) shall include the following:
(i) The question ‘‘Are you a citizen of the United States of America?’’ and boxes for
the applicant to check to indicate whether the applicant is or is not a citizen
of the United States.
(B) INCOMPLETE FORMS.—If an applicant for voter registration fails to answer the question included on the mail voter registration form pursuant to subparagraph (A)(i), the registrar shall notify the applicant of the failure and provide the applicant with an opportunity to complete the form in a timely manner to allow for the completion of the registration form prior to the next election for Federal office (subject to State law).

When I returned to my office and talked to my staff I discovered that we were not enforcing this provision of HAVA in the same way for all registrations. Mail in registrations on old forms were being accepted, but registrations on new forms that lacked the checked box were being rejected. Additionally, the Secretary of State had an affidavit which they attached to their registrations to make them compliant. Those registrations from the Secretary of State which lacked those affidavits were being rejected.

There were many reasons for the confusion, but suffice it to say that I did not do all that I should have done to ensure that all voter registrations were being treated equitably. When I instituted the policy of throwing out old forms, I should have followed up with better communication with my staff and deputy registrars regarding how to deal with old forms. Nevertheless, I stand by my decision to not accept the old NVRA forms and to change our internal office policies to ensure equitable treatment of all voters.

At this point on Quad Day I was well aware that the confusion regarding the old registration forms might lead to voters being disenfranchised. I resolved to do all I could to make sure that did not happen while still making sure that the registrations were compliant with state and federal law. There were 274 registrants who used the old form on Quad Day. I developed an affidavit which we mailed to every registrant who used an old form giving them the opportunity to make an attestation of citizenship. This form was much like the affidavit used by the Secretary of State which was attached to their old forms. The registrant was given four options to complete the form. They could mail it back to our office, fax it back to us, or complete a form on line using a code which was included in the letter we sent them. Despite what some have suggested, no one was ever required to come to our office, although they certainly could have done that if they wanted to.

All but 47 of the 274 registrants completed the affidavit. Others chose to re-register using the voter registration kiosk or a mail in form they could obtain from our website. At least one of the registrants informed us that they were not a citizen. Periodically, I gave a list of these registrants that was marked as to who had completed the affidavit to the College Democrats (at their request) so that they could also follow up with these individuals if they so wished.

This was an unfortunate situation that I believe was resolved with the least amount of trouble for voters. Every voter had sufficient opportunity to fill out the citizenship affidavit. Most took advantage of this opportunity and I don’t believe anyone was disenfranchised because of my decision.