Transcript Voter Registration Modernization

Voter Registration
Modernization
David Becker
John Lindback
Project Director, Elections Initiatives
Pew Center on the States
Senior Officer, Elections Initiatives
Pew Center on the States
The Pew Charitable Trusts
The Pew Charitable Trusts is driven by the power of knowledge to
solve today’s most challenging problems. Pew applies a rigorous,
analytical approach to improve public policy, inform the public and
stimulate civic life. We partner with a diverse range of donors, public
and private organizations and concerned citizens who share our
commitment to fact-based solutions and goal-driven investments to
improve society.
An independent nonprofit, Pew is the sole beneficiary of seven
individual charitable funds established between 1948 and 1979 by two
sons and two daughters of Sun Oil Company founder Joseph N. Pew
and his wife, Mary Anderson Pew.
The Pew Center on the States
Pew’s Center on the States (PCS) works to advance state policies that
serve the public interest. PCS conducts credible research, brings
together diverse perspectives and analyzes states’ experiences to
determine what works and what does not.
•Childhood health
•Corrections and public safety
•Early education
•Economic competitiveness
•Elections
•Government performance
Pew Election Initiatives
• Track record of bi-partisan work with officials
• Our process: research then recommendations
• Three priority areas:
- Military and Overseas Voting
- Voting Information Project
- Voter Registration Modernization
Voter Registration Modernization (VRM)
Bringing Voter Registration into the 21st Century
The need for modernization:
1. Accuracy
2. Cost
3. Efficiency
Accuracy
• The single greatest factor predicting whether voters will have a voter registration
problem is mobility
• Between 2007 and 2008, more than 1 in 8 Americans moved, with more than 1 in
4 young Americans moving
• Individuals who have moved within the previous two years are much more likely to
encounter registration problems
• It is estimated that at least 15% of the records in the voter rolls are no longer valid,
being either duplicates or outdated (people moving, new voters, new citizens, deaths)
• Preliminary research appears to show that approximately 1 out of 5 records of valid
voters contain at least one inaccurate piece of data (same as Canada, where 20% of list
becomes outdated annually)
• The system is rife with data entry errors, leading to problems at the polls and returned
mail
Cost
• Approximately one-third of local election office budgets across the country are
devoted to building and maintaining voter registration lists
•Forsyth County, Georgia (102,424 voters) spent half its $1.4 million budget on the
registration process in 2008
•Franklin County, Ohio (848,013 voters) spent $1 million on personnel costs for voter
registration in 2008
•Los Angeles County, California (4,341,135 voters) spent over $13 million on voter
registration costs in 2008
• Paper-based system requires the printing of millions of paper forms
• Must be processed by hand, often by dozens of temporary employees
• Inaccurate information leads to returned mail and processing costs
•These costs are part of overall 30-35% increase in budgets since HAVA
Cost
The Oregon experience…
• Pew is examining what it costs Oregon taxpayers to maintain a list of approximately 2
million voters.
• A forthcoming Pew study indicates it costs more than $4 per voter to maintain a voter
registration list in Oregon in 2008. The state built its new system for approximately $10
million.
• Costs are incurred at both the local government level (counties) and at the state level.
• The taxpayers are footing the bill at all three levels of taxation – federal, state and local.
Efficiency
• Various studies estimate that only about 70-75% of eligible voters are captured
by the current system
• 9 million citizens did not register in 2008 because of residency rules or
registration deadlines
• 3 million voters experienced a problem with voter registration in 2008 general
election
• 2.2 million votes were lost due to voter registration problems in the 2008
general election
• Nearly half of all provisional ballots which went uncounted were rejected due to
voters not appearing on the rolls
Efficiency
•
Heavy reliance on political campaigns and third-party voter drives
•
Crush of registrations received near/at the deadline that overwhelm election
officials
•
Military voters registering from afar
– Military voters were about twice as likely to say they couldn’t vote because of
registration problems
•
National Voter Registration Act (Motor Voter) compliance
– Paper- and mail-based system
– Government-run registration, but unevenly implemented
•
Voter confusion – more than 1 in 4 voters either do not know how to change their
registration or think that the postal service or election office automatically updates
it
– Almost half of all voters are unaware that they can register or update their
registration at motor vehicles offices
Voter Registration Modernization
means
• Keeping lists current
• Reducing costs, such ballots returned by USPS
• Minimizing the need for third-party drives
• Helping voters not on polling place lists
• Addressing issues that feed litigation
• Reducing opportunities for fraud
Voter Registration Modernization
Pew will be releasing a report early in 2010 demonstrating that
it is possible, using current technology, to implement a voter
registration system that will be more accurate, more cost
effective, and more efficient, by:
•
Automatically putting eligible voters onto the voter rolls using data in
existing governmental databases;
•
Automatically updating existing voter records using new data captured in
other databases; and
•
Providing for a “failsafe” that will allow eligible voters who slip through
the cracks or have inaccurate data to correct that so they can cast a ballot at
the polls.
Improving Accuracy
• Reduction or near-elimination of duplicate registrations
• Instant updating of records with most recent information, such as
tax records, motor vehicle records, other government data
• Substantial reduction in returned mail
• Minimize registration problems at the polls
More Cost Effective
• Automated system means fewer staff and resources needed to
create voter records, once infrastructure in place
• Significantly reduced paper or printing costs
• List maintenance costs vastly reduced, as updates occur
automatically
Cost
The Canadian experience…
• In 1996, Elections Canada (its federal elections agency) built its National
Register of Electors for $13.3 million CAD for 20 million voters. Costs
included the price of building computer systems, acquisition of computer
hardware and software and similar costs from provincial data sources.
• Today, the permanent register cost approximately $5 million per year to
maintain.
• The permanent register is estimated to have saved Canadian taxpayers
approximately $130 million over the six elections following its
introduction.
Cost
Experiences in the States
• Online registration – In Maricopa County, AZ, a paper registration form
costs at least 83 cents to process, versus only 3 cents per online
registration
• By eliminating paper and coordinating with DMV better, Delaware was
able to reduce labor costs by $200,000 annually
Increased Efficiency
•
•
•
•
•
Much higher percentage of eligible voters on the rolls
Significantly reduce reliance on outside registration groups
Significantly reduce lost votes
No more rush at the registration deadline
More accurate information on location of and contact information for
military voters, streamlining UOCAVA voting
• Over half the states have some sort of failsafe for at least some voters
• The NVRA effectively becomes obsolete
• Fewer lawsuits
The push for modernization
• Congress is acting – US Senate Committee on Rules &
Administration is expected to introduce a major bill addressing
VRM this session
• Committee on House Administration has considered several
bills to modernize registration
• Many states have considered or adopted legislation to
modernize their voter registration systems
Pew is committed to addressing the challenges,
technical and otherwise, in modernizing our
system, by promoting innovation in the states
• Bringing together technical experts and state election
officials to address challenges
• Toronto meeting
• Producing research
• Pilots in the states
Pew has convened a VRM design working group,
made up of state and local election officials
from 21 states,
as well as academics and technical experts
• Blueprint for VRM design to be released in the first quarter of
2010
• Pilots to follow in multiple states
– Those states in the first wave of pilots will receive financial
and technical assistance from Pew
VRM Design
• A central data warehouse – the Electronic Registration
Information Center (ERIC) – where states would submit data to
be matched, and would receive data reports on individuals
consistent with state policy
– Data sources might include existing voter files, motor
vehicles data, military data, NCOA data, Social Security death
records, and widely available commercial data
– Reports that could be processed:
•Definitely eligible but unregistered voters
•Potentially eligible but unregistered voters
•Voters who died
•Voters who moved
Architecture: The Big Picture
Data
Sources
The Central Service
A
1
2
3
4
Transactions
24
Subscribers
In basket
Audit Log
B
Matching
Database
Changes/feedback
Matching and Memory
C
D
Reports
Lookups
Systems
Files
Specific Use
David Becker
Project Director, Election Initiatives
The Pew Center on the States
[email protected]
John Lindback
Senior Officer, Election Initiatives
The Pew Center on the States
[email protected]