Lisa Danetz is an attorney at the National Voting Rights Institute, an affiliate of Demos, a national, nonpartisan public policy organization.
A democracy is often judged by the level of participation in its elections. In this mid-term election, odds are that in many states turnout will hover below 40 percent.
One of the key factors contributing to low participation is lack of public awareness about voter registration procedures, venues and deadlines—particularly for those who are highly mobile or have lower income. To help address this problem, 13 years ago, a bipartisan Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act to promote registration and turnout by eligible voters.
The NVRA is commonly known as the Motor-Voter law because it requires that states must supply voter registration with drivers’ license applications. To ensure that low-income people also have the opportunity to register to vote, the law also specifically requires that public assistance agencies provide people they serve wtih voter registration services. Because low-income citizens are less likely to own a car and are among the least likely to register to vote at motor vehicle departments, the requirements for providing voter registration at public assistance agencies are crucial in getting them registered to vote.
At the time of its passage, some states implemented the NVRA in a comprehensive fashion while other states opted to expend their energy by aggressively fighting implementation. Thus, Missouri and North Carolina followed the federal law while California, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia and South Carolina fought the law in court. The hostile states lost when federal courts uniformly upheld the law.
A decade later, these battles are being re-fought in less public view. For whatever reason, many states are no longer offering voter registration opportunities at their public assistance offices. And, when made aware of the problem, different states are again reacting differently.
Recently, several voting rights groups have turned their attention to the NVRA. In North Carolina, ACORN staff—in conjunction with the National Voting Rights Institute, Demos, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and Project Vote—conducted surveys of individuals leaving public assistance offices as an initial gauge of compliance. Among those surveyed, not a single respondent reported being offered the opportunity to register. The groups brought the problem to the attention of Gary Bartlett, Executive Director of the State Board of Elections, who gave them access to additional data that confirmed the group’s initial findings.
Mr. Bartlett’s reaction? A comprehensive 10-point improvement plan that he delivered to the groups within two weeks of being informed of the problem. Within two months, a number of the items had already been accomplished.
Contrast that reaction with what has happened in Ohio. In interviews similar to those conducted in North Carolina, virtually no individuals reported being offered the opportunity to register. In spot-checks in six counties, all were failing to comply with the NVRA’s requirements. (Five of the six offices did not have a single voter registration form on hand.) Over a two-year period all of Ohio’s public assistance offices together registered less than one-half of 1 percent of the number of people applying for or seeking recertification of food stamps benefits. In fact, the offices in 10 counties did not register a single person from 2002-2004, and another 17 counties registered fewer than 10 people.
The reaction from Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell? In a letter, the secretary of state essentially said that the state has registered enough people already. His office limited its role in NVRA compliance to providing a toll-free number for offices to self-report when they need more forms. As a result, the groups have sued him, as well as other state officials. His response: "This appears to be yet another frivolous lawsuit."
North Carolina, you could teach Ohio a thing or two.
