Mar 22 2010
More NVRA Nonsense
There is a concerted effort to undo one of the key reforms of the Help America Vote Act. I’ve written about it a couple times.
First, there is the proposal of Zoe Loefgren which, unwittingly or not, put’s barriers in the way of removing voters from the voter registration rolls.
Second, the American Constitution Society published a paper from Estelle Rogers that claims that any removal of voters from the voter file based on a statewide match as laid out in HAVA was illegal.
Now comes Project Vote, who echoes the legal sentiments of Rogers.
When states remove voters merely on the basis of an interstate database match, they not only risk disenfranchising eligible citizens, they violate the NVRA.
Once again, I see a two pronged approach from the so called reformers. Add more people to the rolls, with little regard to their eligiblity and make it increasingly difficult to remove voters.
The result will be reduced confidence that only eligible people are registered and voting and increased costs as election officials are compelled to carry voters on their rolls who are known to have moved.
Oh noes! Mark you and I disagree on this one. I the activist, you the administrator.
In North Carolina, until 2007 citizens voter registrations were blocked if the voters failed to match the databases. While Joe Smith might match perfectly with the DMV database, he might fail to match the social security database.
What your readers might not be aware of, Mark, and correct me if I’m wrong, a voter registration application asks for the last 4 digits of the person’s social security number, not the entire number. This means that some people will have the same last 4 numbers that are submitted to the SS database for matching. In North Carolina, we found that about 20% of records submitted failed to match. With the DMV database it was much lower. The Social Security Dept does not provide a reason for the failure to match either.
In 2007 we changed our law to use matching as an administrative tool, rather than a barrier, since matching databases proved to be faulty. So if a voter fails to match, our BoE assigns them a unique identifying number (mentioned in HAVA) and also flags that voter record to request voter id (as per NC law) for the first time the voter votes. The BoE also tries to contact the voter to give them the opportunity to correct the problem by presenting additional proof of id etc.
Very few states enacted such a “no match no vote” policy.
I believe in keeping accurate voting records but the social security database was not set up with the intent of being used this way, nor is the SS dept accountable to explain the failure to match.
Imagine being a qualified voter, a person with a valid right to register to vote, and because of a database error or a clerical error, you were blocked from registering to vote.
Joyce, the NC law is much like the Illinois law. if there is no match, ID has to be provided the first time they vote.
But that is not the issue here. The issue here is whether a person can be removed in Champaign County if their name shows up in DuPage county, Illinois with the same name, same birthday, and same driver’s license.
what Project vote is suggesting is that I have to write them a letter, have it returned, write them a forwardable letter, move them to inactive status and then keep them on the inactive rolls for two general federal elections. that was certainly not the intent of HAVA.