6th Circuit Allows Law Upholding Integrity of Elections in Ohio to Remain in Effect

Today, the 6th Circuit reversed a district court decision that had struck down Ohio's reduction in its early voting period from 35 days to 29 days, still a very long period:

The left-wing groups bringing the challenge claimed that Ohio was violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and violating the Constitution when it reduced its early voting period from 35 to 29 days. The change was part of Ohio’s attempt to reduce the chaos that had led to voter fraud in the 2008 election. At least two people had pled guilty to voting in Ohio illegally because they resided elsewhere.

The Sixth Circuit rejected the attack as a far-reaching application of the Voting Rights Act that would result in judges “micromanaging” state election rules, in the name of unfounded claims of discrimination. 

The court wisely recognized that the challengers and the district court had created a rule that was remarkable and unrealistic (emphasis added):

Ohio is a national leader when it comes to early voting opportunities. The state election regulation at issue allows early in-person voting for 29 days before Election Day. This is really quite generous. The law is facially neutral; it offers early voting to everyone. The Constitution does not require any opportunities for early voting and as many as thirteen states offer just one day for voting: Election Day. Moreover, the subject regulation is the product of a bipartisan recommendation, as amended pursuant to a subsequent litigation settlement. It is the product of collaborative processes, not unilateral overreaching by the political party that happened to be in power. Yet, plaintiffs complain that allowance of 29 days of early voting does not suffice under federal law. They insist that Ohio’s prior accommodation—35 days of early voting, which also created a six-day “Golden Week” opportunity for same-day registration and voting—established a federal floor that Ohio may add to but never subtract from. This is an astonishing proposition.  

Nearly a third of the states offer no early voting. Adopting plaintiffs’ theory of disenfranchisement would create a “one-way ratchet” that would discourage states from ever increasing early voting opportunities, lest they be prohibited by federal courts from later modifying their election procedures in response to changing circumstances. Further, while the challenged regulation may slightly diminish the convenience of registration and voting, it applies even-handedly to all voters, and, despite the change, Ohio continues to provide generous, reasonable, and accessible voting options to all Ohioans. The issue is not whether some voter somewhere would benefit from six additional days of early voting or from the opportunity to register and vote at the same time. Rather, the issue is whether the challenged law results in a cognizable injury under the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act. We conclude that it does not.

We will discuss this important decision more in the coming weeks, but it is refreshing to see a court properly applying constitutional standards and the Voting Rights Act and recognizing the realities that states face in administering and protecting their elections, instead of buying the extra-legal narrative presented by liberal advocacy organizations.

Clinton Reiterates Support for Unrealistic and Dangerous Election "Reforms"

While the media focused on Bernie Sanders' endorsement of Hillary Clinton yesterday, Hillary made a speech following Sen. Sanders' endorsement that contained calls for liberal election and campaign finance "reform."  This is a familiar refrain from the Democrats this year, but Hillary's speech had some new points.  The "reforms" are in line with the draft of the "most progressive platform in the history of party" released by the Democrats earlier this week.

Hillary's "Reform" - Everyone has to disclose all donors
Campaign finance reform is a subject to which liberals and Democrats criticize the current laws while exploiting loopholes in the system they claim to deride.  The campaign finance laws are already so complicated that national campaigns with full-time staff, attorneys, accountants, and compliance personnel struggle to comply.  Requiring the disclosure of additional donors would not only violate those donors' constitutional rights but also pose immense practical challenges for campaigns and non-profits.

Hillary's "Reform" - Automatic voter registration for everyone when they turn 18
Hillary's proposal goes far beyond the mandatory voter registration systems that are being implemented in several states across the country.  Those systems are dangerous enough, but Hillary's proposal goes beyond registering people who interact with the DMV to automatically registering everyone when they turn 18.  While she did not go into details, her proposal appears to be mandatory, universal voter registration, not the systems currently being implemented that at least have underused opt-out mechanisms.

Hillary's "Reform" - 20 days of in-person voting in every state
This is where Hillary's speech covered some new ground.  Universal donor disclosure and universal mandatory registration are frequently discussed by today's radically liberal Democrat leaders.  20 days of in-person early voting would be an enormous expense and procedural hassle for the states that would have to implement it, and very few states already have such a long period of early voting in place (including none of Hillary's "home" states of Arkansas, Illinois, and New York).  Early voting does not increase turnout, can actually harm voters, and increases the risk of voter fraud.

Hillary's "Reform" - No one waits more than 30 minutes to cast a ballot
Short lines at the polls are a good goal, one that was a focus of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration and for which hard-working local election officials strive, but the federal government cannot simply dictate that no person must wait more than 30 minutes to cast a ballot.  Local election officials allocate scarce resources and personnel based on expected turnout, but they can not perfectly anticipate the innumerable things that could go wrong on election day, causing people to wait a long time to vote.  Long lines at the polling place are unfortunate and all local election officials should, and do, strive to shorten them, but Hillary ignores all the considerations and efforts of those officials when she unrealistically declares that no one should wait more than 30 minutes to vote.

The Modern Day Election Mafia in Ohio

Ohio is no stranger to vote fraud. There have been several issues over the past few years that illustrate a substantial need for election reforms in the crucial swing state. But, despite steps taken by the Ohio legislature and Secretary of State John Husted to ensure a fair election, the left continues to sink millions of dollars into blocking and undoing as much of the common sense legislation as possible. It is not out of fear for citizens but rather fear of losing the White House.

Just last month, Rebecca Hammond was charged with filing thirty-five fictional voter registration applications. An election in Lorain was invalidated because voter fraud made the difference in the outcome. Aliens are voting in Ohio elections. In 2008, Obama campaign volunteers such as Amy Little and Yolanda Hippensteele committed criminal voter fraud when they illegally voted in Ohio even though they lived elsewhere. And who can forget Cincinnati election official Meloweese Richardson who boasted she voted six times for President Obama and was treated as a hero by Ohio Democrats when she was released from jail?

Criminal voter fraud in Ohio helps Democrats win elections, and Democrats know it. That’s why they are pouring millions into overturning election integrity laws in the federal courts. The laws enacted in Ohio were specifically designed to stop election gangsters like Little, Hippensteele and Richardson.

Without winning Ohio, the Left cannot retain power over the executive branch in November. That’s why Democrats are fighting so hard in court to strike these election reforms down. That’s why they’ve brought so many lawsuits, to undo the efforts of Secretary Husted and the Ohio legislature to stop the gangsters.

While both the legislature and the Secretary Husted have been working diligently to ensure a fair and honest election in 2016, the steps they have taken to rectify the problem have been met with lawsuit after lawsuit from those who seek to yet again, steal the election.

Here's how it works. Democrats and their pals in law schools and at legacy news outlets roll an endless loop tape that “voter fraud is a myth.” When Democrats are convicted of voter fraud in a key swing state, it goes right down the memory hole. When government officials pass laws to remedy the problem, Democrats and their deep pocketed allies go to federal court to overturn the laws, claiming they discriminate against minorities.

The institutional Left knows that controlling election process rules is the first step to controlling policy. Conservatives and Republicans usually pay more attention to the policy, and not to the process. Ohio was a rare exception, and some sought to clean up the process. But now federal courts are undoing the cleaning and bringing back the mess just in time for November. 

And, it will likely be a mess. How many more convictions are required to show vote fraud is real? Not only that it is real but it is far more prevalent than most believe. The liberals and Democrats in the state have a plan. It’s the same as last cycle. Maintain the status quo and work behind the scenes to manipulate the election results. In Ohio, we know the issues occur based on those who have been caught. Is there any way to know how many get away with it?

To really turn Ohio into a mess, a third case was filed in April by the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, the Soros-funded DEMOS and the ACLU seeking to stop Ohio Secretary of State Husted from cleaning the voter rolls. Many counties in Ohio had more registered voters than people alive thanks to the shoddy performance of the former Democrat Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. In this new case, the plaintiffs make the preposterous claim that election officials cannot use inactivity when cleaning voting rolls – something federal law obligates them to do.

We recently pointed out the concerns presented by bloated voter rolls in a few blogs regarding the current zombie infestation at the polls in California [Part 1, Part 2]. If the dead returning from the grave to vote is not reason enough to keep state polls current, I doubt anything ever will be. We need integrity in our elections. We must continue to fight for common sense reforms that limit the potential for fraud. Voter ID laws certainly address in-person fraud; however, as Secretary Husted and the Ohio legislature have most certainly figured out given the severity of the issues in their state, many additional reforms are needed to adequately address the issue of election integrity.

Federal Court Upholds NC Reforms to Ensure Election Integrity

As we discussed previously, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina upheld North Carolina's voter ID law in a long opinion that thoroughly considered all of the evidence.  The decision also upheld a number of procedural election changes that North Carolina made to ensure the integrity of its elections.

The court found that each procedural reform was made for a proper purpose and that turnout increased after the reforms were implemented, contrary to the challengers' position that the reforms were an attempt to suppress voters:

The reforms in question included . . . reducing the number of early voting days from 17 to 10 but extending voting hours; eliminating same-day registration and preregistration by 16- and 17-year-olds; and requiring voters to vote in their assigned precincts. . . . 

The claims made by DOJ and the Obama administration’s political allies boiled down to this: all of the reforms were discriminatory, either intentionally or in effect, and would suppress the votes of African-Americans, Hispanics and the young. The judge refused to issue an injunction when the lawsuits were first filed, which left most of the changes in effect for the 2014 election. . . . This wound up severely damaging the plaintiffs’ case, because turnout increased in both the primary and general elections of 2014 — the exact opposite of what the plaintiffs and their experts claimed would happen. . . . As the judge pointed out: “The evidence shows that African Americans have fared better in terms of registration and turnout rates in 2014, after the new law was implemented, than in 2010, when the old provisions were in place.” . . . 

The court also made another important point. The judge said that “the fact that voting can almost always be made easier does not render a State’s failure to do so, or a State’s repeal of a convenience or ‘failsafe,’ unlawful or unconstitutional per se.” With “every relaxation of the rules there is often an attendant trade-off or effect on verification and election integrity. The State demonstrated as much here.”  

The plaintiffs, including the Justice Department, opposed North Carolina’s election system as changed by the 2013 reform law because “they preferred one that they say was even more convenient” than the very liberal system the state already has. Different degrees of “convenience” do not constitute a violation of the law or the Constitution. And the plaintiffs’ claims that North Carolina’s action was the result of “vestiges of historical official discrimination is rebutted by the facts.”

The court's opinion was also a victory for federalism and the ability of states to manage their elections, as provided by the Constitution:

The challengers failed on every front. According to the Court, the challengers inferred racial intent where there was no evidence of such. In fact, North Carolina acted rationally and responsibly in enacting the election changes. Specifically, the legislature relied upon extensive evidence . . . . 

It is important to realize that the court preserved the balance between state and federal power. States have the power under the Constitution to run their own elections. Some powerful interests want that to change. But the Founders intended that such policy decisions be left up to the branch of government closest to the people.

The Founders wisely gave states the power to manage their elections, as the states are more responsive to the needs and desires of their people than the federal government.  States devote a tremendous amount of resources to election administration and make hard decisions about how to ensure the integrity of elections while providing eligible voters the opportunity to vote.  This decision is an important step in protecting states from constant litigation and charges of racism from the left when they make prudent decisions about election administration.

The decision has been appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which has granted expedited review of the case.

Washington Post Agrees that Early Voting Does Not Help Turnout

Even the Washington Post points out that Hillary Clinton’s call today for 20 days of early voting will not help turnout.  As they wrote:

The rationale behind this seems immediately obvious: more time to vote means more voters, and more voters means Democrats do better. Right? 

Well, no. Not so far.

A study released in 2013 found that early voting -- absent other changes -- actually lowered the likelihood of voting. Pew Research wrote about the study, explaining one reason why turnout might drop: the amount of effort by campaigns placed on turning people out to the polls appears to drop, given the reduced urgency.

Data from the United States Election Project shows that there really wasn't a consistent link between changes in early voting percentages (horizontal axis) and changes in overall turnout for the highest contest on the ballot (vertical axis) between the 2010 and 2014 midterms or the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections.

The Post goes on to guess at the reasons for Hillary Clinton to advocate something that does not help and may even hurt turnout.  Their guesses are awful.  However, the fact remains that even the liberal Post admits that early voting does not help, and may hurt, turnout.  

Disappearing Operatives Commit Vote Fraud to Make Vote Fraud Easier

The Brennan Center and other groups focused on supporting the Democrat Party try to very narrowly define vote fraud as in person impersonation.  It is much broader than that.  

Recently we had a post about how officials in Philadelphia were putting votes on the machine before the election.  Today we have a post on how people are cheating to make it easier to cheat, voting early for very long periods. 

Four people are facing felony charges over fraudulent signatures on a 2014 initiative petition that unsuccessfully sought to put an early-voting proposal on the Missouri ballot, [Democrat] Secretary of State Jason Kander said Monday. 

As is often the case the fraudsters seem to be national Democrat operatives, most of which have disappeared and left the area. 

Forgery warrants also were issued for Tracy Renee Jones, Danny Lawrence Williams and Rogell Coker Jr., according to court records. None had publicly listed phone numbers in Missouri, and court   

The measure, backed by Democratic-aligned groups, would have created the longest early voting period in the nation.

The fraud being uncovered is just the tip of the iceberg and the sole person being prosecuted an even smaller subset.

Republican Sen. Will Kraus, who is running for secretary of state in 2016, criticized Kander for not pursuing cases in other counties, pointing to a study paid for by a Republican political consultant that found potential fraud in dozens of counties.

Vote fraud is much more than impersonation and liberal operatives are coming up with new ways to commit it.   

Did John Lewis Admit that Liberals are Lying on Early Voting?

It is the mantra of the left and Democrats that early and expanded absentee voting increases turnout, especially for minorities.  Well, at least publicly that is the mantra.  The reality is Democrats know that this is not true.  Don’t take our word for it; take the word of eight liberal House Democrats including 1960s civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis of Georgia who wrote in a letter to the Government Accounting Office:

Some federal, state, and local governments have attempted to make voting easier by expanding early and absentee voting. Despite these efforts, GAO reported in 2012 that there is limited evidence to show that these interventions increased turnout overall or among groups that historically had lower levels of turnout.

In other words, early voting does not hurt turnout among minorities.  Everyone who has studied the issue knows this but it is very significant that in addition to Lewis a number of leading minority Democrats’ signed this leader such as ranking Oversight and Government Reform Member Elijah Cummings and Rep. Danny Davis who voted against counting the electoral votes in Ohio for President George W. Bush in 2004.  The eight Democrats made this statement on a letter on voting technology to the GAO on March 4 of this year. 

The signers of this letter are among the most partisan members of the House unlike other Democrat early voting opponents such as the Democrat Secretary of State of New Hampshire Bill Gardner. 

This is further proof that the efforts by the left to cry racism and vote suppression in regards to efforts to oppose increased absentee or early voting are, at best, merely a partisan ploy.  Of course, at worse expanded absentee and early voting makes vote fraud easier. 

Regardless, expanding early voting and absentee voting needs to stop as even a 1960s civil rights leader such as Congressman John Lewis admits that early voting does not increase turnout for minorities.  

North Carolina and the Myth of Voter Suppression

Judicial Watch’s Robert Popper has an excellent piece in today’s Wall Street Journal about the ongoing federal litigation challenging several changes to North Carolina’s election laws and how statistics from November’s election dispel the myth the changes suppressed the vote there. As we have seen in other states that have adopted voter integrity measures such as photo ID laws, North Carolina’s changes are proving to have zero impact on minority turnout, despite the hysterical claims made by the NAACP and Eric Holder’s Department of Justice (DOJ). In fact, African-American voter registration and turnout increased for the 2014 election.

Popper explains the various legislative changes at issue. For example, North Carolina moved to eliminate same day voter registration, a contentious policy that increases a state’s risk of Election Day fraud. North Carolina also tweaked its state law to require voters to vote in the precinct in which they are registered, hardly a novel or extreme measure. Another change challenged in the lawsuit is the reduction of days available for early voting from 17 to 10, although counties were required to offer the same number of early voting hours as they did before the changes kicked in. North Carolina also adopted a photo voter ID law in the legislative package although it does not take effect until 2016.

North Carolina was sued in two separate suits in August, 2013 by the NAACP, Common Cause, League of Women Voters and others. Later, a third suit was brought by Holder’s DOJ. (Click here for the pleadings and for other information on the case.) Among the extraordinary claims by DOJ as chronicled by Popper:

One expert in the Justice Department lawsuit claimed that more than 200,000 black voters, along with 700,000 white voters, would be “burdened” in an off-year election. Another expert concluded that particular provisions “will lower turnout overall” and “will have a disparate impact on African-American voters.”

Reality?

Those predictions were not borne out. The 2014 elections were the first test of the impact of North Carolina’s new laws, including a “soft rollout” of its voter-ID requirement—under which poll workers asked voters if they had ID and if not, to acknowledge the new requirement in writing. Board of Elections data showed that the percentage of age-eligible, non-Hispanic black residents who turned out to vote in North Carolina rose to 41.1% in November 2014 from 38.5% in November 2010.

The percentage of black registrants voting increased to 42.2% from 40.3% in the same period, and the black share of votes cast increased to 21.4% from 20.1%. The absolute number of black voters increased 16%, to 628,004 from 539,646.

As Popper notes, this is just “the latest example of allegedly “suppressive” laws that failed to suppress votes.” Plaintiffs and left-wing groups like the Brennan Center continue to cry wolf over these laws but the results are clear: common-sense voter integrity measures simply do not suppress the vote. As the Brennan Center and others continue to lose credibility based on their outrageous claims, they are only getting more desperate and it is showing. While some activist and sympathetic judges may continue to (at least temporarily) stop these laws from being implemented, the truth is finally emerging. Even Rick Hasen and other liberals have begun to question the Chicken Little “Sky is Falling” narrative being spun by plaintiffs in these suits and groups like the Brennan Center.

In Illinois, Democrats Resorting to Multiple Forms of Vote Fraud

Democrats continue to try to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes when it comes to voter fraud. Their most recent tactic: “calibration errors.”

When Illinois State Representative Jim Moynihan – a Republican – went to early vote at his local library, he found he was not able to vote for himself, or any other Republican on the ballot. He would vote for the Republican candidate in a race, and the machine’s screen would move his vote to the Democrat candidate in that same race, including his own. Discussing the situation, Moynihan said:

I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent. You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat.

Moynihan is clearly concerned that citizens might not pay as much attention as he did to the situation, and vote for someone they don’t want to,

Clearly, I am concerned that citizens will be unable to vote for the candidate of their choice, especially if they are in a hurry and do not double check their ballot. I cannot say whether or not this was intentional, but Cook County voters deserve better and should not have their right to vote suppressed.

This continues a trend found in Democrat Governor Quinn's last election when numerous voting machines in predominately African American precincts  in Chicago were programmed to change Green Party candidate Richard Whitney's name (who presumably was siphoning off Democrat votes) to RICH WHITEY.

The deception in Illinois does not stop there, however. President Obama continues to vote in his home state of Illinois, and in 2012 when he went to early vote, he had to show his photo ID. This time around, however, the Illinois legislature took that part of the law away on the second-to-last day of this year's legislative session.

Further, the changes the legislature and Gov. Quinn made to the laws, including expanding polling places for presumed Democrat voters and same-day registration, apply only to this election, which is close and hotly contested.

Also interesting, is that the poll workers in Illinois, when Obama came in to vote, told him to "vote Democrat," which we all are well aware is illegal. Who knows who else the poll workers told to "vote Democrat."

Even in the deep blue state of Illinois, Democrats are afraid they cannot win an election without voter fraud and misleading voters.

Early Voting Should be the Exception, Not the Rule

Early voting and absentee ballots have become more commonplace nowadays, and that might not be a good thing. As John Fund writes in the National Review, a Sun-Sentinel article in Florida – where there is an intense battle for governor – entitled “People Who Vote Before Election Could Decide Outcome of Governor’s Race” ran over the weekend.

As John Fund explains,

In Florida, a third of the electorate will vote by mail, a third will vote early by going to a voting center, and a third will cast their ballots on Election Day. Nationwide, some 2 million people have already voted, even though scheduled debates haven’t even finished in many states. We are seeing an early-voting craze: In 35 states, people can vote early without having to give an excuse for missing Election Day. That’s up from 20 states just over a decade ago. Half the states also allow no-excuse absentee-ballot voting by mail. Oregon, Washington, and Colorado have abolished the traditional polling place; in those states almost everyone votes by mail.

Fund continues to explain that this expansion isn’t just bad election practices, but it might even violate the Constitution,

The notion of Election Day isn’t just a tradition; it’s in the Constitution. Article II, Section 1 states that “Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.” Congress codified this requirement in 1872 by setting a uniform presidential election date.

J. Christian Adams also weighed in on the transition to early voting, and opined that while the government’s butchered response to Ebola has become an important issue in this election, many voices – and votes – will not have a chance to speak to this because they have already spoken.

Adams states,

This is the one of the serious problems with early voting — voters making dumb or uninformed decisions about fast-moving events.  If you voted weeks ago, you voted before the administration’s bungling of the Ebola problem became conventional wisdom. The list of congressional leaders calling for a travel ban continues to grow.  Yet the Obama administration continues to oppose it for some frighteningly outlandish reasons.

While Ebola is a recent epidemic and issue, Adams saw this as an issue way back in February and even then, realized early voting has the potential for problems.  He wrote an article in the Washington Times about eight reasons to stop early voting. Those eight reasons were:

First, early voting produces less-informed voters. After they cast an early ballot, they check out of the national debate. They won’t care about the televised debates, won’t consider options, and won’t fully participate in the political process. […] Second, early voting is extremely expensive. When election officials drag out an election for weeks, that means more poll workers, more broken machines, more salaries, more costs, more everything. […] Third, early voting is a solution in search of a problem. Those who claim America is plagued by long lines on Election Day aren’t being honest. MIT conducted a study of the 2012 presidential election and found that the average wait in line to vote was 14 minutes. […] Fourth, early voting puts more money into politics. Campaigns will be more expensive and complicated. [...] Fifth, fewer election observers means more voter fraud. Election observers in open polls are an essential tool to ensure that the democratic process functions cleanly. […] Sixth, the most toxic part of early voting is that it increases American political polarization. It rewards those who are the most extreme. Early voting is a subsidy to those most stubbornly committed to one party. […] Seventh, early voting doesn’t increase turnout. Studies have shown that states that adopt early voting have no empirical turnout increase. Finally, early voting destroys one of America’s last surviving common cultural experiences — turning out as a single nation on a single day to elect our leaders.

After an examination of the facts, it is clear the early voting should go back to being the exception in voting, not the rule it has become in recent years.

Part 2: Early Voting Regret a True Threat to Informed Elections

In spite of a U.S. District Court ruling in Ohio this summer expanding early voting by three days, the Columbus Dispatch’s analysis shows that longer early voting periods do not result in a higher overall election turnout.

In February however, Independent Senator Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats, said he believes that early voting creates the issue of early voting regret due to poor information access.

At a Senate Rules Committee hearing in February, he told the story of how there was, “a situation in a Maine election recently where we had very early voting. . . . [I]t was a month or more before the election. The dynamics of the election changed in the last several weeks. And we actually had people going into their town offices trying to retrieve their early vote, to change it because of developments in the election.”

King went on to say, “I do think that there's a legitimate issue about how far in advance. Because elections do tend to sometimes come into focus in the last several weeks. And we actually had that experience. I knew people that went to their town office and said, ‘How can I get my vote back? I want to change it,’ and they couldn't.” Senator King then asked the witnesses at the hearing, “[h]ow widespread is it? Is it a national problem or is it extremely localized?”

The truth is, early voting regret is not limited to small town mayoral races, but it extends to presidential elections. As determined by USA Today, Florida voters regretted casting their early ballots in the 2012 Republican primary before seeing the results from other state primaries and watching the candidate debates.

The first presidential debate in the 2012 election occurred on October 3. In post-debate analysis, MSNBC’s Chris Mathews said that, “[Obama] was enduring the debate rather than fighting it. What was Romney doing? He was winning. If he has five more of these nights, forget it.” Joe Scarborough, also of MSNBC, said the debate, “has been a real Emperor has no clothes moment. . . . ”

The key swing states of Ohio and Florida both began early voting on October 2, 2012 before that first important presidential debate. In an op-ed by the St. Petersburg Times, the paper warns its readers about early voting regret saying, “voters who choose to vote early, do so at their own risk. If candidates are going to pull any dirty tricks in a campaign, they often do so in the last couple of weeks before Election Day. No doubt, there are voters who have cast an early ballot and wound up wishing they could get that vote back.” Undoubtedly, the premature early voting period led to voter regret after the debate.

It is difficult to deny the influence of Presidential debates. During the October 6, 1976 debate, President Ford sealed his fate with his notable gaffe about the Soviet Union. Similarly, in October 1980, Ronald Reagan asked the famous question, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” during his debate with Carter. These late-breaking debate highlights can sway even resolved voters.

A study published by the Boston University Political Science Department analyzed the 2012 Presidential race in Colorado, concluding that “instant gratification” mobilizes voters, which impacts a broad range of elections. The study found that, “the presidential campaign visits to swing states . . . were often timed to coincide with the start of the early voting period in order to generate news and excitement so as to inspire the casting of early ballots.”

There is also scholarly support for this premise. An article published in the Election Law Journal finds that early voters in the 2008 California presidential primary election, “did not fully incorporate information about candidate withdrawals and momentum,” and “presumably failed to incorporate other potentially vote relevant pieces of late information.” The article concluded that, “this suggests that convenience voting could have important effects on general election outcomes,” and that it, “may become grounds for individuals to question the legitimacy of an election.”  

Senator King’s concerns are valid. Voter regret is real, and it is a national problem. There are strong arguments that the early voting period should be shortened or eliminated altogether. As in the case of Ohio and Florida, early voters in key swing states cast ballots in the 2012 election without being fully informed. Elections often come to a head right before the election, and these examples show that early voting can cause a distorted result.

This post was written by Phil Demarest.                                                                                                                            

Convenience Voting Yields Poor Turnout

A new report issued by the Center for the Study of the American Electorate (CSAE) last week suggests that the upcoming election season will yield the lowest midterm primary turnout in history. National turnout in 2010 was down 18 percent for states that held statewide primaries for both major parties, reaffirming RNLA’s findings in its PCEA report that early voting has little to no tangible benefits.

The data shows that eleven states in the study had early in-person voting. Eight of these states had lower turnout than in 2010, six of those being record low turnouts. Of the thirteen states that have a no excuse absentee voting policy, eleven had lower turnout than in 2010, all eleven as record low turnouts. Eight states utilize both early voting and no excuse absentee voting. Six of these states had lower turnout than in 2010, all six as low record turnouts.

Similarly, proponents of Election Day registration have also argued that it will increase turnout. Like convenience voting, the statistics do not prove this. On the contrary, the evidence shows Election Day registration states like Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, all had lower turnout in the 2014 election as compared with 2010.

The report concludes that these policies contribute to low voter turnout. “The data in this report shows that the hope of enhancing turnout by making it easier is the wrong way to approach the disengagement problem and, in some cases, is dangerous. Both no-excuse absentee voting and mail voting have been shown in all elections . . . to hurt turnout.”

Furthermore, the report states that low voter turnout is a self-perpetuating challenge that leads to voter apathy. The cohesion formed by political parties is “being lost. High levels of involvement lessen the chances that . . . politics will be dominated by narrow ideology and interest. Low levels make that result probable.”

CSAE provides insight into the solution. The real problems are found in unclear campaign messages, “scurrilous” attack ads, and an uninformed electorate. “Durable revitalization of American democracy will not be solved by procedural quick fixes.” Convenience voting is not even a good Band-Aid for these deep seeded issues. 

Early Voting: Not the Answer to Long Lines

Supporters of expanded early voting seized on the long lines seen in some polling places in the 2012 general election as an opportunity. While supporters of early voting have used multiple policy arguments at different times to favor early voting, including the inaccurate claim that it increases turnout, the long lines proved to be a good opportunity to argue that early voting will help fix that problem. Experience tell us this is not the truth.

The fact is that we know states with high percentages of early voting still had long lines at the polls, some with limited early voting opportunities had very few problems with wait times. As the RNLA’s recent report responding to the PCEA, the President’s election commission, demonstrates, it is management problems, precincts with too many voters assigned to them, registration problems, and other issues that are at the root of long lines. Even with the most liberal and generous amounts of early voting, a majority of voters still choose to vote on Election Day. (It is called Election Day after all.)  Accordingly, election officials need to be able to handle the large volume of voters that will vote on that one day.  

One case study worth mentioning is in Arlington, Virginia, right outside of Washington, DC, with a high number of federal employees who commute to DC or live and work overseas. For obvious reasons these areas have higher than average levels of absentee voting. One Arlington County precinct had over 30% of its votes cast via absentee ballot, yet still had voters waiting in line to vote for over two hours. Similarly, Miami-Dade County had significant early voting opportunities and still had precincts with some of the longest, if not the longest, wait times to vote in the country.

RNLA’s report provide alternatives to relying on early voting, a solution that ignores the systemic problems that caused the lines in the first place. Let’s clean up our voter rolls, speed the check-in process, and better train our local poll workers and we will see that early voting is not necessary to ensure a smooth and pleasant voting experience for Americans.  

Executive Summary of the RNLA Response to the Presidential Commission on Election Administration

The Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) issues this report to offer its perspective on the recent report of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration (PCEA) outlining recommendations to improve election administration in the United States. RNLA agrees with many of the Commission’s recommendations, particularly its identification of deficiencies in our voter registration system as a significant contributor to Election Day problems such as long lines at the polls. The PCEA’s recommendations to reform voter registration are good ones and, if states adopted them, the reforms should greatly improve citizens’ voting experience. RNLA offers other suggestions in addition to adopting many of the PCEA’s recommendations. Taken in tandem, these recommendations will result in a secure and voter-friendly voter registration system that provides alternatives to same-day voter registration while avoiding the management issues which historically attend the combining of two functions on Election Day – voting and registration. RNLA also welcomes most of PCEA’s recommendations to improve polling place management, including leveraging technology through the use of electronic poll books and ID card bar code/magnetic stripe scanners. RNLA also appreciates the PCEA pointing out the need for continued improvements to the voting experience for our military and overseas voters and generally agrees with PCEA’s recommendations in this area. Finally, RNLA agrees that the current voting equipment testing and certification system is inadequate and needs reform. We recommend a move away from the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) certification process in favor of voluntary consensus standards.

While RNLA agrees with a majority of PCEA’s recommendations, we caution against the Commission’s recommendation that states embrace expanded early voting as a solution to the systemic election administration problems identified in its report. The experience from recent elections demonstrates that early voting does not solve the problem of long lines. It is also expensive, distracts from Election Day preparations, and diminishes the importance of Election Day. Most Americans continue to prefer to vote alongside their neighbors and fellow citizens at the polls on Election Day so reform needs to start there. Accordingly, states should instead invest their limited time and resources fixing the problems at the polling place and ensuring a smoother absentee voting process for those who use it out of necessity, not convenience.

Throughout this document, RNLA offers state and local election officials additional suggestions that will improve election administration. This report also outlines additional policy reasons why states should adopt certain PCEA recommendations. In some places RNLA urges states to use caution or establish minimum safeguards when implementing certain reforms, particularly for online voter registration. RNLA’s additional recommendations from those included in the PCEA report include the following:

State and local election officials should do the following to improve the voter registration process:

Ø  Amend their laws so there are fewer restrictions in sharing voter registration, voter history and Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) data with other states to improve the accuracy of the voter rolls and prevent double-voting.

Ø  States unable to participate in multi-state data-sharing agreements should negotiate one-on-one programs to share data with individual states, particularly neighboring states or voting jurisdiction adjacent to their border.

Ø  Adopt intrastate data-sharing, including vital statistics information and work with their DMVs, public assistance agencies and other state agencies to obtain additional data to perform voter registration list maintenance.

Ø  Upgrade statewide voter registration databases and explore public-private partnerships for list maintenance.

Ø  Utilize the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Database to ensure only citizens are able to register and remain on the voter rolls and to prevent the removal of citizens from the voter rolls who may have been mistakenly identified as non-citizens.

Ø  Adopt RNLA’s recommended best practices outlined in this report when implementing online voter registration.

States should do the following to improve Election Day and polling place management:

Ø  Utilize ID card bar code/magnetic stripe scanners with electronic poll books to speed check-in process and improve accuracy of voter history data. 

Ø  Develop technology to display voter photographs on electronic poll books to improve the integrity of the check-in process.

Ø  Engage in public-private partnerships to recruit additional poll workers.

Ø  Utilize technology such as online training to better prepare poll workers for Election Day.

Ø  Manage precinct sizes by timely re-precincting, ensuring a manageable number of voters are assigned to polling places and avoid co-locating polling places when possible.

Recommendations to improve the voting experience for our military and overseas voters:

Ø  Simplify and streamline the registration and absentee voting application process for our overseas and military voters, including the use of the Federal Postcard Application (FPCA) and the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot (FWAB).

Ø  States need to improve their online offerings to our military and overseas voters by placing a higher priority on improving their websites to better explain the voting process to our overseas and military voters.

Ø  Eliminate waiver provision for 45-day ballot mailing deadline to overseas and military voting and require express mail for any ballots mailed late.

Ø  Vigorous enforcement of our federal and state overseas and military voting laws.

Improve the testing and certification procedures for voting equipment:

Ø  Transition from the federal EAC voting equipment certification regimen towards adoption of voluntary consensus standards similar to those used in other manufacturing industries. 

Early Voting Debate Part II: More Spending on Elections?

Following up on the thoughtful piece by Professors Eugene Kontorovich and John McGinnis or early voting, J. Christian Adams writes eight reasons against early voting.  While the professors laid out the case against early voting from a civic duty and traditional angle, Adams goes after early voting by undercutting the very reason its proponents are advocating it.

Seventh, early voting doesn’t increase turnout. Studies have shown that states that adopt early voting have no empirical turnout increase.

Further, most of the problems from the long wait of the 102 year old voter President Obama highlighted in his state of the union last year to the long lines generally happened during early voting. 

Adams also lays out what should be the liberal case against early voting.  While many liberal groups are advocating limiting spending on campaigns, early voting necessitates spending more money.  Instead of gearing most campaigns limited campaign money toward a “Super Bowl” Election Day when everyone is watching, now you have to spend money throughout the playoffs or extended election period. 

Fourth, early voting puts more money into politics. Campaigns will be more expensive and complicated. Leave it to a Washington commission to suggest the nationwide expansion of early voting.

Adams makes a good government argument that most conservatives concerned about government spending and liberals concerned about protecting social programs may find persuasive:

Second, early voting is extremely expensive. When election officials drag out an election for weeks, that means more poll workers, more broken machines, more salaries, more costs, more everything.

Elections are already expensive. Cash-strapped local governments should not have to spend many millions more to run an election for weeks.

Where is the money coming from? 

Adams has many more reasons than these few.  The whole piece is worth reading.  What is most interesting is Adams reasons run the political gamut and should give pause for thought on early voting from all parts of the political spectrum. 

The Early Voting Debate

Professors Eugene Kontorovich and John McGinnis have a very thoughtful article on the subject of early voting. One of their points is as follows:

The integrity of that space is broken when some citizens cast their ballots as early as 46 days before the election, as some states allow. A lot can happen in those 46 days. Early voters are, in essence, asked a different set of questions from later ones; they are voting with a different set of facts. They may cast their ballots without the knowledge that comes from later candidate debates (think of the all-important Kennedy-Nixon debates, which ran from late September 1960 until late October); without further media scrutiny of candidates; or without seeing how they respond to unexpected national or international news events — the proverbial “October surprise.” 

While they cite the 1960 debate a more relevant example happen last year. Anyone remember the first presidential debate? A debate that even MSNBC proclaimed Romney the winner and made the election a race. Here was one tweet from leading election law lawyer Rob Kelner after the debate.

Tonight's debate, and the reaction to it, are a dramatic reminder of why early voting is a disastrous mistake for the country.
— Robert Kelner (@robkelner) October 4, 2012

The professors also argue how it destroys the process and ironically increases the power of emotion over rational thought, negative advertising over deliberate judgment, etc.:

More fundamentally, early voting changes what it means to vote. It is well known that voters can change their minds — polls always go up and down during a campaign season. A single Election Day creates a focal point that gives solemnity and relevance to the state of popular opinion at a particular moment in time; on a single day, we all have to come down on one side or the other. But if the word “election” comes to mean casting votes over a period of months, it will elide the difference between elections and polls. People will be able to vote when the mood strikes them — after seeing an inflammatory ad, for example. Voting then becomes an incoherent summing of how various individuals feel at a series of moments, not how the nation feels at a particular moment. This weakens civic cohesiveness, and it threatens to substitute raw preferences and momentary opinion for rational deliberation. 

Thank you to Professors Eugene Kontorovich and John McGinnis for giving us something to think about.