The Administration of Voter Registration: Expanding the Electorate Across and Within the States [1st ed.] 9783030480585, 9783030480592

Citation preview

The Administration of Voter Registration Expanding the Electorate Across and Within the States

Thessalia Merivaki

Elections, Voting, Technology

Series Editor Kathleen Hale Department of Political Science Auburn University Auburn, AL, USA

This series examines the relationships between people, electoral processes and technologies, and democracy. Elections are a fundamental aspect of a free and democratic society and, at their core, they involve a citizenry making selections for who will represent them. This series examines the ways in which citizens select their candidates—the voting technologies used, the rules of the game that govern the process—and considers how changes in processes and technologies affect the voter and the democratic process.

More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14965

Thessalia Merivaki

The Administration of Voter Registration Expanding the Electorate Across and Within the States

Thessalia Merivaki Department of Political Science & Public Administration Mississippi State University Mississippi State, MS, USA

Elections, Voting, Technology ISBN 978-3-030-48058-5 ISBN 978-3-030-48059-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48059-2 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover credit: © John Rawsterne/patternhead.com This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Series Editor’s Foreword

In The Administration of Voter Registration: Expanding the Electorate Across and Within the States, Thessalia Merivaki illustrates the central importance of the choices that states make in implementing the voter registration practices that are elemental to every American election. Merivaki’s thorough study goes beyond a discussion of the sometimes idiosyncratic differences in voter registration practices across states and takes a deep dive into practices that create opportunities for inconsistent and, in some cases, failed administration. Her timely research helps us understand when and why implementation fails, and the consequences of failure for participation across the electorate. And our understanding of the details and intricacies of implementing state legislative policy prescriptions has never been more important. As The Administration of Voter Registration is going to print, every detail of America’s election system is under historic, unprecedented stress well beyond the pressures of a presidential election year. An international pandemic has delayed scheduled primary elections in the name of public health, not to mention a dearth of poll workers and viable poll locations. The Democratic Party cancelled its national nominating convention and instead organized a four-day virtual one. In some states, governors and legislators clashed about whether to proceed with scheduled in-person voting or to permit widespread voting by mail. Election officials were whipsawed by multiple directives to hold elections, issue mail ballots, or cancel altogether. v

vi

SERIES EDITOR’S FOREWORD

As many rescheduled primaries opened across the states in late May and early June, the nation was rocked with civil protests prompted by police actions that killed an unarmed black man. Curfews were imposed in major cities all across the country, compounding state shelter-in-place orders and creating confusion about voting periods that extended after curfew. Media speculation continues about whether the presidential election will be able to go forward in November 2020. A national initiative to move all states to vote by mail remains stalled in Congress, not least because of the need to rely on voter registration data points such as signature verification in order to ensure accuracy. However, change is on the horizon—perhaps toward voting by mail, perhaps toward additional nationalization of other voter registration practices. The National Voter Registration Act would seem to set a level playing field, but Merivaki’s careful research demonstrates that inequities persist and impose particular burdens. The Administration of Voter Registration shows us that the details of administration matter, now more than ever. Summer 2020

Kathleen Hale

Praise For The Administration of Voter Registration

“In The Administration of Voter Registration, Merivaki unpacks one of the most contentious aspects of the American election system, addressing processes, rules, behavior, and results in great detail. This is a must-read for students and scholars, advocates, reporters, and policy makers interested in truly understanding the nuance behind this aspect of elections.” —Mitchell Brown, Professor, Auburn University, USA “Registering to vote is, as Merivaki points out, a ‘highly complex and error-prone’ process. Merivaki skillfully navigates multiple layers and levels of government—and data—to provide a clearer portrait of the strengths and weaknesses of the system. Policymakers should take her research seriously when generating ideas to improve elections all over the United States. She demonstrates a vast knowledge of the voter registration system in the United States and chooses examples to analyze carefully. Scholars, policymakers, and election officials alike can learn important details about the registration process from her careful analysis. Merivaki is a rising star in the study of Election Science and in the study of voter registration more generally. She has made an important contribution to maintaining and increasing Americans’ right to cast a ballot. She clearly shows that not just the rules about voter registration matter, but also how election officials administer those rules.” —Martha Kropf, Professor, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA vii

viii

PRAISE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF VOTER REGISTRATION

“With original data and fresh insights, Merivaki offers academics—and more importantly, practitioners and election administrators—a framework of collaborative governance to help us better understand the uneven dynamics and lack of uniformity in voter registration efforts across the American states. Due to institutional barriers and a lack of federal oversight the past two decades, many eligible citizens are not registered to vote, raising serious questions about the access and equity of the franchise in the United States. Merivaki makes a convincing case that though states have adopted multiple reforms to register voters—including online voter registration, automatic voter registration, and even Election Day registration—without partnerships with non-governmental actors, many states (and local jurisdictions) are unable to keep pace with the demands of registering eligible voters. Scholars, policy advocates, and election administrations all will benefit from Merivaki’s timely research.” —Daniel A. Smith, Professor & Chair, University of Florida, USA

Contents

1

2

Election Reform and Voter Registration 1.1 Can Dead Cats Register to Vote? 1.2 The Success and Challenges of Voter Registration Reforms 1.3 Beyond NVRA Compliance: A Collaborative Governance Framework for the Administration of Voter Registration 1.4 The Dense Infrastructure of Voter Registration in the United States: Who Is Accountable, and Who Is Left Out? 1.5 The Administrative Response to the Institutional Supply of Voter Registration 1.6 Outline of Chapters References Gaps in Voter Registration: Ongoing Pressures to Expand the Electorate 2.1 How Many Should Be Registered to Vote? 2.2 Why Don’t Americans Register to Vote? 2.3 How Many Americans Can We Register to Vote? The Voter Registration Gap 2.4 The Voter Registration Gap Up Close: Uncovering the Variation at the Local Level

1 1 5

8

13 15 20 22

27 28 30 37 44 ix

x

CONTENTS

2.5

Voter Registration Gaps Exist, but Which Factors Explain It? References 3

4

5

Federal and State Legislative Responses to Voter Registration 3.1 An Institutional Response to Demands for Voter Registration 3.2 Institutional Supply of Voter Registration I: Before the NVRA 3.3 Institutional Supply of Voter Registration II: NVRA 3.4 Institutional Supply III: HAVA and Voter Registration Modernization 3.5 Institutional Supply and the Demand for Voter Registration 3.6 Does the Supply Meet the Demand? References How Are Americans Registering to Vote? Beyond the Institutional Supply 4.1 More Access to Voter Registration, More Complexity 4.2 The Administration of Voter Registration Across the States: The Key Dynamics 4.2.1 States Are Assumed to Comply, Until There Is Evidence That They Don’t 4.2.2 When to Register to Vote 4.2.3 New or Existing Voters? 4.3 How Are Americans Registering to Vote Across the States? 4.4 What About the Zeroes? 4.5 What the State-Level Analysis Does Not Show References The Impact of Local-Level Factors on Voter Registration Success 5.1 Taking a Closer Look at Voter Registration Validity 5.2 Federal and State Guidance on Processing Voter Registrations

47 48

51 52 53 57 62 70 74 74

77 77 80 80 82 84 87 94 98 102

105 105 107

CONTENTS

The Role of Local Election Officials in Validating Voter Registrations 5.4 Voter Registration Activity in Florida’s 2018 Election Cycle 5.5 Explaining Voter Registration Validity Rates Across Time 5.6 How Voter Registration Success Can Narrow Registration Gaps, and What the County- Level Data Do Not Show References

xi

5.3

6

7

Registered, But Not Quite: Processing Pending and Incomplete Registrations 6.1 When a Registration Application Is not Processed at Valid 6.2 Defining Rejected and Pending Voter Registrations 6.3 Processing Voter Registrations in Florida 6.4 Why Are Registrants Placed “On Hold”? 6.5 Who Is More Likely to Be Left Out and Why? 6.6 Being Left Out, and Registration Success 6.7 Appendix References Opportunities and Challenges for Voter Registration Reform 7.1 The Administration of Voter Registration from a Critical Lens 7.2 Voter Registration Rates Are Dynamic and Vary Dramatically Across States and Election Years 7.3 Gaps in Voter Registration Do not Necessarily Narrow the More Reforms States Adopt 7.4 It Is—Also—About How Voter Registration Is Administered 7.5 Data Are Not Perfect, and Here Is Why 7.6 When States Report Their Data, We Need to Take a Look

111 113 118

125 126

129 130 132 135 140 146 151 154 156

157 157 159 160 161 162 163

xii

CONTENTS

7.7 What Is a “Rejected” Registration? 7.8 Research on Voter Registration Success Is Essential References Index

163 164 165 167

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2 Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.4 Fig. 2.5 Fig. 3.1 Fig. 4.1 Fig. 4.2 Fig. 4.3a Fig. 4.3b Fig. 4.4 Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2 Fig. 5.3

Reported registration, Citizen Voting-Age population, 1992–2016 Shifts in the voter registration gap between 2008 and 2016 Shifts in the voter registration gap between 2014 and 2016 Voter registration gap in Florida, 2008–2012 Voter registration gap in Florida, 2012–2014 Number of states and voter registration reforms post-NVRA Voter registration submission rates/CVAP in 2012 and 2016 Rates of new voter registrations across the states in 2016 Percentage of voter registration submissions in 2016 cycle: mail, in-person, and Motor Voter applications Percentage of voter registration submissions in 2016 cycle: registration drives and State and Public agencies Online voter registration submissions and new voter registrations Rates of new and valid voter registrations in Florida, January–December 2018 Voter registration submission rates by method in Florida, January–December 2018 Voter registration submission rates in Lafayette and Miami-Dade Counties, January–December 2018

34 42 43 46 47 67 84 86 89 90 93 114 115 117

xiii

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 5.4 Fig. 5.5

Fig. 6.1a Fig. 6.1b Fig. 6.2 Fig. 6.3

Rates of new and valid voter registrations in Florida’s 67 counties March and September 2018 Marginal effects for proportion of new and valid registrations in Florida’s 67 Counties, January–December 2018 (Note: Times fixed-effects model) Flow of incomplete/denied registrations in Polk County January 1–December 31, 2016 Flow of incomplete/denied registrations in Pinellas County January 1–October18, 2016 Percent change in odds of missing/incorrect identification number (SSN/DL) Percent change in odds of being marked as ineligible: known felon Pinellas County

119

123 139 140 148 151

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4

Reasons for not registering to vote, 1980 Reported reasons for not registering to vote, CPS, 2004–2012 The voter registration gap across the states Institutional supply of voter registration across the states Institutional supply and the demand for voter registration across the states, 2008–2012 Voter registration deadlines by available method of registration Association between method of registration and new voter registrations State and local non-reporting, voter registration statistics: 2008–2016 presidential and midterm election cycles “On hold” voter registrations in Polk and Pinellas Counties January 1–October 18, 2016 Reasons to mark voter registration applications as “incomplete” and “denied” Reasons to deny registration for applicants at least 16 and 17 years old Demographics and partisan registration of “on hold” applicants in Polk and Pinellas Counties, January 1–October 18, 2016

32 35 40 64 72 83 92 96 138 143 145

155

xv

CHAPTER 1

Election Reform and Voter Registration

Abstract If voter registration reforms do not have a uniform impact on turnout, then why would they have a uniform impact on voter registration? And is variation in voter registration across and within the states driven by institutional design, electoral factors, administrative factors, or a combination of all? In this chapter, I provide a framework of collaborative governance, which relaxes expectations of uniform compliance with federal laws, and recognizes the interactions between governmental and non-governmental actors who are engaged with registering eligible Americans to vote. I argue that the adoption of voter registration reforms creates robust challenges for the administration of elections, which cannot be evaluated solely by aggregate indicators of voter registration and turnout. Aggregate indicators are valuable in observing patterns across and within the states but offer limited insight as to the local-level challenges that voters and election administrators face in order to produce an accurate and reliable list of registered voters. Keywords Voter registration · NVRA · HAVA · Collaborative governance

1.1

Can Dead Cats Register to Vote?

On April 1, 2016, Julie Duncan, a resident of Seminole County in Florida, received a letter in the mail from the Voter Participation Center (VPC), a nonprofit voting rights group, addressed to “Gracey Duncan” and © The Author(s) 2021 T. Merivaki, The Administration of Voter Registration, Elections, Voting, Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48059-2_1

1

2

T. MERIVAKI

encouraging Gracey to register to vote. This letter was only one of the many letters the VPC sent to targeted individuals whom it identified as underrepresented and traditionally excluded from the electoral process, such as youth, single women, blacks, and Latinos. The problem with this letter was that “Gracey Duncan” was not a person, but a cat, and a dead one. Concerned citizens contacted their local elections officials after receiving similar letters addressed to their deceased family members. The VPC received a lot of criticism for undermining the electoral system and the voters’ confidence in the accuracy of voter registration efforts by non-governmental groups. The academic community, on the other hand, directed the blame to the Florida legislature for not doing enough to ensure that eligible citizens are registered to vote and for leaving “the responsibility of getting people to vote to nonprofits.”1 In effect, the VPC’s mission is to target unregistered citizens particularly among the “rising American electorate,” namely “people of color and unmarried women” in Florida and other states with high rates of unregistered Americans, and encourage them to register to vote. In June of 2018, anticipating similar voter registration outreach efforts by advocacy groups, local election officials in Florida utilized local news outlets to caution voters about receiving “potentially confusing mailings,” and encouraged them to confirm their voter registration status prior to responding to voter registration requests suggesting that they might not be registered voters. Whereas the VPC’s efforts were presented as misleading and casting “doubt on the mailers’ legitimacy,” the advocacy group argued that “there needs to be a more sustained effort to make sure every citizen has the ability to register and the ability to vote.”2 Encouraging dead cats to register to vote, or arguably misleading registered voters by suggesting that they are not registered to vote, has brought forth an ongoing discussion about how active a role should the federal and/or state governments take in registering eligible Americans to vote. Are states not doing enough to grow the number of registered 1 Caputo, Mark. April 1, 2016. “Dead Cat at Heart of Florida Election Controversy.” Politico. Available at: https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2016/04/dead-catat-heart-of-florida-election-controversy-033013. 2 Tyler, Roxy. June 22, 2018. “Duval County Voters Warned of Misleading Election Mailing.” News4Jax.com. Available at: https://www.news4jax.com/news/florida/duvalcounty/duval-county-voters-warned-of-election-mailing-scam.

1

ELECTION REFORM AND VOTER REGISTRATION

3

voters? And how is the arguably lack of active effort by the state picked up by advocacy groups such as the VPS or other actors interested in assisting eligible Americans to vote? The argument for comprehensive voter registration reform reflects the conviction that voter registration remains a barrier to electoral participation, especially among underrepresented segments of the electorate. State restrictions on voter registration, as well as the lack of federal safeguards assisting eligible Americans to register to vote, constitute arguably two of the main causes of low voter participation in the United States (Rosenstone and Wolfinger 1978; Hanmer 2009; Leighley and Nagler 2014). Scholars often characterize the U.S. electoral system as passive and voluntary, with the responsibility to vote falling entirely on the individual voter (Alvarez and Hall 2009; Hanmer 2009). What is more, election laws are left largely to the states under the United States Constitution. States have enjoyed considerable discretion with respect to administering elections, allowing for varying administrative practices across and within states (Hale et al. 2015). The federal government has occasionally intervened, aiming to increase the American electorate’s access to the voting booth. Over the past decades, Congress passed two significant laws expanding the right—and access—of citizens to register to vote: the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002. The purpose of the NVRA was to increase citizen participation in federal elections, by mandating the states to implement federal “procedures” that would essentially increase the size of the eligible-to-vote electorate.3 After the 2000 presidential election, which brought to the surface many inconsistencies with voter registration practices and maintenance of eligible voter lists across and within the states, Congress once more intervened with the passage of HAVA, requiring states to create a centralized database of registered voters, while following the NVRA’s requirements regarding accessible voter registration and regular maintenance of voter lists.4 While these laws mandated that states completely reform how they offer voter registration, in reality they created multiple institutional and administrative structures,

3 The National Voter Registration Act of 1993. Available at: http://www.eac.gov/ass ets/1/workflow_staging/Page/27.PDF. 4 The Help America Vote Act of 2002. Available at: http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/wor kflow_staging/Page/41.PDF.

4

T. MERIVAKI

since they did not alter important dynamics in how and when eligible Americans can register to vote depending on where they reside. Voter registration is necessary for a U.S. citizen to cast her vote in all states except North Dakota. Aside from federal laws such as the NVRA and HAVA, states have experimented with reforms to modernize the voter registration process. At least 36 states and the District of Columbia have adopted Online Voter Registration (OVR) as an alternative to paper-based voter registration, which is error prone and does not guarantee that an eligible American will enter the voter rolls (Merivaki 2019; Ansolabehere and Hersh 2014). OVR is touted as a bipartisan voter registration reform, as it promises to reduce financial and administrative costs on elections officials while increasing convenience to prospective voters. More and more states are adopting or amending election policies to expand access to the ballot box by allowing the youth to register to vote. Pre-registration of young voters has proliferated since Hawaii and Florida first adopted the reform in the 1970s (McDonald and Thornburg 2010). Other states eliminated the two steps in the electoral process by adopting Election Day/Same Day Registration (EDR/SDR), which encourages prospective voters to show up to the polls and register to vote at the same time. California, Connecticut, Oregon, and Vermont led the nation by adopting Automatic Voter Registration (AVR) between 2015 and 2016, with more states following in 2018 and 2019. AVR promises to eliminate arguably the most significant burden to participation, namely voter registration, by adding Americans into the voter rolls the moment they become eligible to vote and receive a valid identification at a Department of Motor Vehicles office or when they apply for government benefits; it will be left up to the individual voter to opt out from the voter registration rolls if she wishes. The turn toward more expansive and less burdensome processes of voter registration indicates that states are taking an active role to expand “the eligible to vote electorate,” which is what the NVRA intended to do. These reforms resulted from ongoing pressures by voters, public officials, advocacy groups, as well as voters to further minimize the costs of electoral participation. Advocates of election reform encourage state legislatures to modernize voter registration by adopting OVR, EDR/SDR,

1

ELECTION REFORM AND VOTER REGISTRATION

5

as well as AVR, so that “every eligible voter is permanently registered.”5 Supporters of AVR, such as Vermont’s Governor Peter Shumlin, argue that Automatic Voter Registration is a “commonsense policy” that removes “unnecessary barriers” in the political process.6 Evidence from Oregon and California strongly suggests that AVR has a tangible impact on voter registration rates, especially among the youth.7

1.2 The Success and Challenges of Voter Registration Reforms Researchers of political behavior find that increasing access to voter registration has a moderate to positive impact on turnout (Knack 1995; Martinez and Hill 1999; Hanmer 2009; Burden et al. 2014). The positive impact on voter registration, however, is often assumed. While voter registration rates across the states have increased since the Federal Assistance Commission’s (FEC) first report to Congress in 1995, research suggests that challenges remain regardless of how much states increase access (Hess and Novakowski 2008; Hess et al. 2016; Merivaki and Smith 2020). Problems with successfully registering to vote exist even among the most innovative states, such as California, where thousands of voters were incorrectly registered in 2018 due to administrative issues.8 Prior to the 2018 election, Georgia’s election administrators placed thousands of new voter registration applications on hold, which prevented them from casting a valid vote on Election Day.9 Persistent issues with properly implementing the NVRA, but also new election reforms may reflect 5 “Voter Modernization in the States.” Brennan Center for Justice. Available at: http:// www.brennancenter.org/analysis/voter-registration-modernization-states. 6 Levine, Richard B. 2016. “Why Doesn’t Every State Have Automatic Voter Registration?” Mother Jones. Available at: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/05/aut omatic-voter-registration-gaining-steam. 7 McElwee, Sean, Brian Schaffner and Jesse Rhodes. 2017. “Automatic Voter Registration in Oregon.” Demos. Available at: https://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/public ations/AVR%20in%20Oregon%20FINAL.pdf. 8 Anderson, Bryan. September 5, 2018. “California DMV Mishandled Thousands of Voter Registrations.” Available at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/ capitol-alert/article217891745.html. 9 Birnbaum, Emily. October 10, 2018. “53K Voter Registration Applications on Hold in GEORGIA: Report.” Available at: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/41083953k-georgia-voter-registration-applications-on-hold-in-kemps-office-report.

6

T. MERIVAKI

institutional design problems, since the adoption of new reforms adds more complexity to the existing framework created by the NVRA. For instance, OVR becomes an additional method of voter registration next to in-person, mail, and registration via third-party organizations. AVR effectively modernizes “Motor Voter” registration, in that driver’s license applicants’ information is automatically transmitted to election officials for processing. States who adopted EDR but who are also covered by the NVRA maintain different voter registration procedures for prospective registrants who register to vote weeks before Election Day than on Election Day. The recent turn toward OVR and AVR strongly indicates that voter registration should be broadly accessible and convenient. Even states who had not modernized voter registration since the NVRA, such as New Jersey, moved to adopt AVR in 2018 in order to “serve as a national leader and standard-bearer for robust democratic inclusion.”10 Like New Jersey, most of the states who adopt these reforms are covered by the NVRA. What is more, non-EDR/SDR states still retain restrictive voter registration deadlines, requiring prospective voters to register to vote as far as 30 days before Election Day. Does the adoption of OVR, EDR/SDR, and/or AVR suggest that the federally mandated NVRA is not enough in facilitating access to voter registration? And how does voter registration modernization coexist with a paper-based structure of election administration? Could these reforms create administrative challenges because they conflict with the structures created by the NVRA and state voter registration deadlines? And how can these challenges affect prospective voters who attempt to register to vote? Variation in voter registration rates across the states can be explained by institutional and electoral factors, such as whether the state has adopted EDR relative to requiring that prospective voters register to vote 30 days prior to an election, or whether states are not fully implementing federal and state election laws. In addition, voter registration rates are lower during midterm elections compared to presidential elections, which is usually explained due to lack of voter enthusiasm, particularly in non-battleground states. 10 Weill-Greenberg, Elizabeth. April 17, 2018. “Governor Murphy Signs AVR into Law, a Move Hailed by Civil Rights Leaders.” New Jersey Institute for Social Justice. Available at: https://www.njisj.org/governor_murphy_signs_avr_into_law_a_move_hailed_ by_civil_rights_leaders.

1

ELECTION REFORM AND VOTER REGISTRATION

7

The success of voter registration reforms has mostly been evaluated in the context of turnout, finding either modest or non-uniform impact (Knack 1995; Martinez and Hill 1999; Brians and Grofman 2001; Highton 2004; Brown and Wedeking 2006; Hanmer 2009; Burden et al. 2014). If voter registration reforms do not have a uniform impact on turnout (Hanmer 2009), then why would they have a uniform impact on voter registration? And is variation in voter registration across and within the states driven by institutional design, electoral factors, administrative factors, or a combination of all? These are the key questions that I address in this book. I argue that the adoption of voter registration reforms creates robust challenges for the administration of elections, which cannot be evaluated solely by aggregate indicators of voter registration and turnout. Aggregate indicators are valuable in observing patterns across and within the states but offer limited insight as to the local-level challenges that voters and election administrators face in order to produce an accurate and reliable list of registered voters. If eligible voter registrants are erroneously removed, or never make it to the voter rolls for example, they will not be able to cast a valid ballot (Merivaki and Smith 2020). As the examples of California and Georgia demonstrate, these dynamics of voter registration have important implications about whether eligible voters have equal access in the electoral process. The proliferation of election reforms at both the federal and state levels has undoubtedly increased access and made voter registration convenient, although not in a uniform manner, across the states. It is certainly easier to register to vote now than it was 30 years ago. However, there are reasons to question how voter registration reforms impact voter registration itself, because one still needs to apply to register to vote, which involves a series of steps in verifying an application before reaching the “registered voter” status. Indicatively, a voter who attempts to register to vote online has higher chances of successfully entering the voter rolls than a voter who attempts to register to vote at a public assistance office, or through a voter registration drive. A voter who applies to register to vote on Election Day has also higher chances of becoming a registered voter than a voter who submits an application on the voter registration deadline date. Submitting a form online may have higher chances to be successfully processed than a form completed by hand, because the latter might include errors, or may be incomplete (Merivaki and Mann 2019). And the process of submitting a form online in one state may differ from that of another state.

8

T. MERIVAKI

At the same time, states and local jurisdictions are required by federal law to conduct voter list maintenance so as to remove ineligible voters from the lists of registered voters, as well as update existing voters’ information. States have faced enormous pressures to “clean” their voter rolls, with concerns about aggressive purges, which can negatively impact a state’s voter registration rates, and most importantly disenfranchise eligible voters. In that respect, access to voter registration revolves around three dimensions: (a) who has access as a new voter, (b) who does not as an ineligible voter, and (c) how voters utilize the options available within their state and place of residence? Very importantly, how do these institutional structures impact the administration of voter registration at the local level, and how do election officials respond to the fluctuations in voter registration requests from voters, agencies, as well as advocacy groups?

1.3 Beyond NVRA Compliance: A Collaborative Governance Framework for the Administration of Voter Registration States are traditionally described as laboratories of democracy, in that they experiment with policies, the outcomes of which differ depending on the state’s institutional, electoral, and socio-demographic context. Voter registration is no exception, as some states had already been experimenting with voter registration reforms years before the federal government intervened with the adoption of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 (Knack 1995). The positive impact of voter registration at local motor vehicle offices, in combination with the assumption that nearly every American holds a driver’s license or engages in frequent transactions with their Department of Motor Vehicles, strongly suggested that a uniform “Motor Voter” registration policy would be a proper solution to increase access to voter registration. Voter registration, therefore, cannot be discussed without referencing the NVRA, because it set the institutional foundations for the administration of voter registration across the states. The goal of the Act was

1

ELECTION REFORM AND VOTER REGISTRATION

9

to “establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office.”11 As with any federal law, the expectation was that uniform structures will effect positive outcomes insofar as registering eligible Americans to vote. The adoption and implementation of the NVRA, however, created complications given the variation in rules and procedures across the states in regard to regulating voter registration. Researchers consistently find problems with compliance over key provisions of the Act and cite non-compliance as the key factor explaining the failure of the NVRA to reach its goal (Hess and Novakowski 2008; Hess et al. 2016). Litigation over implementing key provisions of the NVRA is ongoing, despite that the law is effectively in place since 1996 (Merivaki and Smith 2020). Scholars of policy implementation argue that implementation is not necessarily a matter of success or failure (Stewart et al. 2008), with some suggesting instead that the focus should be on the actual impact, or the policy’s “ultimate target” (Montjoy and O’Tool 1979, 465). This is especially relevant when studying whether federal mandates are uniformly implemented, given the difficulty in interpreting the intention and purpose of federal and state laws, which are often unclear. What is more, non-compliance may be unavoidable, as implementation depends on many federal, state, and local factors (Montjoy and O’Tool 1979; Sabatier 1986; Hale and Slaton 2008). At a structural level, lack of systematic oversight affects state and local compliance. As Hedge and Scicchitano (1994, 137) argue, in the absence of oversight or enforcement, states do not comply with federal regulations. In fact, “interstate variations support the notion that federal regulatory politics play out on a state-by-state basis,” which weakens the ability of the federal government to regulate the states by applying strict uniform standards. Under the necessity to ensure state compliance and the constraint of ongoing state and local pressures, the federal government’s oversight authority has decentralized to accommodate the states. This transformation, McCubbins et al. (1987) explain, is a necessary tradeoff, as monitoring and enforcement are costly for the federal government. What the federal government, however, can do is entrust the adoption of administrative procedures to any regulatory agency, in order to impose 11 Sec. 1973gg of the NVRA. Available at: https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-42-pub lic-health-and-welfare-chapter-20-elective-franchise-subchapter-i-h-national-voter#anchor_ 1973gg.

10

T. MERIVAKI

greater uniformity across agencies and to raise the minimum standards to which an agency much adhere (McCubbins et al. 1987, 256). In his book “Reluctant Partners,” Stoker (1991, 18) argues that problems arise due to the diffuse authority over implementation. Instead, the focus of implementation should shift toward a diffuse institutional framework where the federal policies should aim to gain the cooperation of reluctant partners. Through the cooperation “among numerous centers of authority” involved in implementation, the federal government can produce effective policy outcomes. In the context of election law, where the authority of oversight is not institutionally clear, ensuring cooperation becomes especially problematic. It is rather unrealistic, therefore, to conceptualize the implementation of election reforms in terms of success or failure, given the hyperfederalized nature of election administration. It should not be a surprise that policies are unevenly implemented or that states often do not fully comply with federal policies. The federal government adopts legislation, mandating that states will implement; federal laws often require that the states amend their state constitutions to comply with the new federal law; then, states have to communicate the new guidelines to a decentralized structure of election administrators, who are expected to comply, and thus ensuring that the federal law will be successfully implemented. In reality, election reforms are not only difficult to implement, but also many unintended administrative issues are created as a result of state and local implementation efforts. To what extent then are these problems created due to lack of clarity, administrative capacity, unwillingness to implement, or all the above? Some states were exempt from the NVRA either because they have no voter registration or because they had implemented election reforms such as Election Day/Same Day Registration. What is more, the federal government extended the implementation date at least two years after the Act was passed. This leniency at the federal level, namely allowing states to implement the reforms and comply with regulations at different speeds, recognizes that states are not institutionally capable of implementing federal laws at the same time. There is often a disconnection between the intention of the federal government and the reality of implementation at the state level when it comes to policy outcomes. In this case, with the passage of the NVRA, the federal government expected an increase in voter registration through full implementation of the federal law. Yet, how much of an increase is

1

ELECTION REFORM AND VOTER REGISTRATION

11

considered a “success” is not clear. States are often scrutinized based on the extent of their compliance with some of the NVRA provisions. For instance, lagging voter registration rates is often considered an indication that a given state has not fully implemented the NVRA (Tokaji 2008). From the moment the NVRA was signed into law, the federal government received pushback from the states with respect to implementation. In fact, states implemented the NVRA at different times, because some states were better prepared than others, while many had to restructure their whole election administration system (Crocker 2013; Hanmer 2009; Martinez and Hill 1999). This highlights that federal mandates cannot be implemented as “immediately” as perhaps desired. Adding to the unrealistic expectation of uniform compliance, the NVRA did not allow states to implement some federal policies and disregard others; partial implementation of federal policy, in other words, is not an option. The unrealistic expectation of uniformity also applies to popular voter registration reforms, such as OVR and EDR/SDR. As Hanmer (2009) explains, the adoption of EDR/SDR has positively impacted voter participation, but not in a uniform manner, controlling for the states’ socioeconomic and electoral characteristics. As far as OVR is concerned, not every OVR state has experienced the same boost in voter registration rates, although over time the proportion of Americans who register online increases. However, both in the case of EDR/SDR and OVR, and in the case of other state voter registration reforms, such as youth pre-registration and AVR, outcomes vary often due to challenges with properly implementing the reforms, particularly because they exist within the infrastructure of the NVRA. It is not entirely clear why some states do not fully implement federal policies, or why some states have adopted their own policy reforms, while still being covered by the NVRA. It is also not clear how states are catering to the voter registration needs within their jurisdiction, irrespective of the existence or absence of federal and state regulation. If the “target” of both the NVRA and these reforms is to expand the American electorate through an increase in voter registration rates, then how can lagging voter registration rates across states and localities be explained even among the states who lead with adopting such reforms? Because of the ongoing, multi-directional interaction among legislators, election officials, agencies, and voters, the principal-agent model of accountability and representation seems too rigid. Instead, a framework of

12

T. MERIVAKI

collaborative governance, which recognizes that policy adoption, implementation, and reform involves a “continuous dynamic process governed by the relevant stakeholders” (Bingham 2010, 300), is more appropriate. Since its adoption in 1993, the “NVRA remains a fundamental component of federal voter registration policy and has not undergone many significant revisions.”12 Yet, many states have taken notable steps to modernize how voter registration is offered. These reforms are adopted and implemented in the context of, rather than outside of, the NVRA framework. The manner with which state and federal laws interact at an administrative level is, therefore, an important factor in understanding how Americans register to vote within their respective jurisdictions, as well as across the states. In addition, the Act allows for continuous interactions with governmental and non-governmental actors to offer voter registration. This has created challenges and opportunities for building community capacity (Milward and Provan 2006) at the state and local levels, considering that eligible U.S. citizens receive access to voter registration mainly within their communities. A dynamic approach to the study of voter registration extends beyond estimates of voter registration rates across and within the states and delves into the institutional and administrative factors that condition how Americans can access elections. In this context, the adoption of reforms and their impact on voter registration is narrow in scope, as it fails to recognize the nuances in the administration of voter registration, such as processing new registrants or removing ineligible voters, all within a non-uniform structure which assumes uniform outcomes (Hanmer 2009).

12 Congressional Research Service. January 23, 2019. “Federal Role in Voter Registration: The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and Subsequent Developments.” Available at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45030.pdf.

1

ELECTION REFORM AND VOTER REGISTRATION

13

1.4 The Dense Infrastructure of Voter Registration in the United States: Who Is Accountable, and Who Is Left Out? Within an institutional structure where voter registration is neither uniform nor automatic,13 federal and state laws regulating voter registration have created a dense infrastructure of voter registration, which incentivizes—and often relies on—voluntary groups to facilitate the process of electoral participation, starting with voter registration. This infrastructure also requires governmental and non-governmental service providers (or agencies), such as public assistance or disability offices, and local motor vehicle offices—among others—to additionally offer voter registration. The incentives for these service providers are minimal, especially when they are not directly accountable for non-implementing federal and state election statutes. Local election officials might also have little motivation or resources to encourage voter registration, particularly when they are required to conduct voter outreach activities, such as visiting local high schools or conducting voter registration outreach (Merivaki and Suttman-Lea 2019; Mann and Bryant 2020). What is more, overseeing elections is not the sole responsibility of state administrators, which creates additional challenges in implementation, as well as monitoring local jurisdictions. Election administration scholars note that as states modernize how elections are run, the expectations on all service providers, both governmental and non-governmental, state and local, increase and so do the responsibilities the state places upon them (Hale et al. 2015). Bingham (2010, 302) argues that “the breadth and range of possibilities for public participation are evolving rapidly with advances on interactive online tools for engagement and involvement.” The loose structure of election administration allows for civic groups to be innovative to promote electoral participation in a substantive manner. The most recent example is Vote.org’s initiative to partner with pop culture celebrities, like Taylor Swift. A few days before most states’ deadlines to register

13 In this sentence, automatic refers to eliminating the barrier of voter registration altogether. Although many states have adopted Automatic Voter Registration, voters are still required to engage in a transaction with public agencies such as the Department of Motor Vehicles, which is why AVR is more accurately described as Automatic Motor Voter (Adona and Gronke 2018).

14

T. MERIVAKI

to vote were taking place, she encouraged her followers to register to vote, promoting the Vote.org website. Vote.org argues that within a 72-hour window, 364,000 applications were submitted through their website.14 While this was celebrated as a successful initiative increasing voter registration especially among the youth, it left out the story about what happens when prospective voters hit the “I wish to register to vote” button. Not every attempt will result in a valid voter registration, because some voters will need to take more steps than others, depending on where they live (Merivaki and Mann 2019). Consider two eligible citizens who were “activated” by Taylor Swift’s social media post and decided to register to vote. Voter A from California will click that button, fill in her information, and will be directed to her state’s election website, where she can fill, sign, and submit her application form online. Voter B from Mississippi will click that button, fill his information, will be directed to his state’s election website, where he can download a PDF of the application, fill it, print it, sign it, and mail or deliver it in-person to his county election office. In California, voters can register to vote on Election Day, whereas in Mississippi, they need to register to vote 29 days before the election. So, assuming that by clicking on Vote.org’s button Voters A and B intend to participate in the 2018 election, it is clear that the process is easier for Voter A than B. The process is also easier for a county election official in California compared to Mississippi, because the latter will have to receive the application, and manually process it, whereas in California, the transmission is automatic. So, voters and administrators face obstacles, which are often created by these institutional structures created by federal and state laws. According to Adona and Gronke (2018, 9), “enthusiasm about voting is far more in the control of candidates and campaigns than election officials, whose responsibility is a maximally and equitably accessible votercentric election system, within appropriate constraints placed by security.” This applies to voter registration: local election officials are constrained in how actively they can encourage voter registration, due to the nature of their workload, as well as budgetary limitations. Mailing voter registration applications to eligible voters, or information about how to register to vote online, for instance, would be considered an “active” effort to encourage voter registration. In the absence of this, advocacy groups such

14 Phone interview with Vote.Org on October 15, 2018.

1

ELECTION REFORM AND VOTER REGISTRATION

15

as the VPC, or Vote.org, and others, step in by directly targeting individuals who have been identified as “eligible but non-registered” based on often erroneous commercial records. Further research from Pew suggests that election officials “are relegated to reacting to incoming information from voters and third-party organizations, if it comes to them at all.15 Additionally, much of it is presented with inaccuracies and in a concentrated period right before an election, when they are responsible for all other aspects of election administration.” Because the voter registration process remains heavily paper-based, entering new voter registration information and updating voter records are error prone (Merivaki 2019; Merivaki and Conner 2018; Ansolabehere and Hersh 2014). As a result, eligible voters might have their voter registration application invalidated depending on when and how they attempt to register to vote. In this complex structure of election administration, who is held accountable when eligible voters are not able to participate in the electoral process because they did not successfully register to vote? Or, because they have been erroneously removed from the voter rolls? And what does it mean for the health of the democratic process when a considerable block of eligible-to-vote Americans does not register to vote not because they do not want to, but because of institutional and administrative factors?

1.5 The Administrative Response to the Institutional Supply of Voter Registration How is voter registration supplied and administered across the states, when the institutional and administrative context varies significantly, even when it is assumed not to vary, as is in the case of the NVRA? Adding this layer to the study of voter registration relaxes the expectation of uniform compliance with federal laws and instead focuses on the intention of voter registration reform, namely expanding the American electorate. This approach also necessitates a discussion about the demand for voter registration across states and localities. Is the supply of voter registration responsive to state and local demands for voter registration?

15 The Pew Center on the States. February 2012. “Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence that America’s Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade.” Available at: https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pew upgradingvoterregistrationpdf.pdf.

16

T. MERIVAKI

Improving access to voter registration remains a key theme in election reform, as every election cycle showcases. Either in terms of technological breakdowns in the states’ online database structures, or the efforts by groups to register underrepresented Americans to vote by resorting to “misleading” approaches, it is clear that gaps in voter registration exist, and there are more pronounced across local jurisdictions. Due to the central role that the NVRA plays in the process of registering to vote, researchers connect the rates of registered voters across the states primarily with the success of the NVRA. In effect, as the Federal Election Assistance Commission (FEC) demonstrates, the national rates of registered voters increased significantly since the passage of the NVRA. Scholars note, however, that even before the passage of the NVRA states were innovating with voter registration reforms, such as Election Day/Same Day Registration, Pre-Registration, and Motor Voter Registration, based on which the NVRA was created (Hanmer 2009). After the adoption of the NVRA, these reforms proliferated across the states, with Pre-Registration being the most common reform, and many further innovated with OVR and very recently with AVR. This gradual state-initiated activity in the post-NVRA era indicates a more engaged commitment to increase the registered electorate, which is not necessarily related to complying with the NVRA. The fact that states innovated earlier than others, and states adopted and implemented reforms at different times, may suggest that the existence of the NVRA may not be enough to address the demand for voter registration within a particular state, hence the need for that state to reach the desirable policy goal with the adoption of additional reforms. This implies that there is a positive relationship between the demand for and the institutional supply of voter registration across the states. The adoption of additional voter registration reforms at the state level, such as EDR/SDR, OVR, Pre-Registration, and AVR, adds more administrative layers and often blurs the lines between election administration and compliance with federal and state election laws. When evaluating the increase of voter registration rates solely in the context of the NVRA, therefore, we are neglecting the fact that the procedure of registering to vote involves a multitude of institutional structures which depend on administrative practices that vary not only across the states, but also within them. These structures condition both the accessibility and accuracy of voter registration, especially insofar as adding new voter registrants and removing ineligible registrants from the voter registration rolls.

1

ELECTION REFORM AND VOTER REGISTRATION

17

Instead of discussing policy implementation success or failure, I discuss the differential administration of voter registration in the context of all the aforementioned rules and administrative procedures, with the key variable being the policy outcome, namely voter registration success, and the extent to which electoral jurisdictions are responding. The institutional supply of voter registration constitutes the first layer in explaining the variation in the voter registration gap s across the states and across time. It also provides the first piece of evidence that states have responded differently to the ongoing demand for voter registration, both in terms of institutional structures and also with respect to time. Some states have adopted every reform available in the voter registration toolbox, while others have not. Moving beyond the existence or absence of voter registration reforms at the federal and state levels, another important parameter is the creation of certain administrative requirements with respect to providing voter registration, resulting from the demand to register eligible Americans to vote. The uneven administration of federal policies and state election reforms cannot be explained without identifying all the actors involved in implementing policy. For example, the literature of policy implementation consistently suggests that the federal and state governments often “outsource” to private groups for various reasons, including cost-efficiency, citizen trust, and outcome success (Salamon 1987). The inclusion of various actors in public policy immediately creates implementation networks, therefore making policy success a matter of how effectively such networks function (McGuire and Agranoff 2011; Provan and Kenis 2008). From a normative stand point, the creation and activity of these voluntary “associations,” as de Tocqueville argued, are vital in a democratic system and should “stand in lieu of those powerful private individuals whom the equality of conditions has swept away.”16 For instance, an important aspect of voter registration after the passage of the NVRA is that private and nonprofit groups are authorized to assist eligible citizens with the voter registration process, and transmit registration applications to state and/or local election officials on the voter’s behalf. More

16 Alexis de Tocqueville, Book II Chapter 5, “Of the Use which Americans Make of Public Associations in Civil Life”. Available at: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/ DETOC/ch2_05.htm.

18

T. MERIVAKI

specifically, Section 7B of the NVRA mandates that states designate nongovernmental agencies and offices to conduct voter registration activities. These agencies vary from public agencies such as public libraries and postal offices, as well as advocacy groups such as the League of Women Voters, other nonprofit private organizations but also political parties and partisan groups (LeRoux 2011, 565). In addition to the inclusion of many state agencies and non-governmental groups into voter registration, the backbone of the NVRA was the inclusion of motor vehicle offices into the interaction between prospective voters and the process of voter registration. As the “dead cat” story indicates, however, these voluntary associations are often viewed critically by legislators, voters, as well as local officials, despite that their goal is the same, namely expanding the registered-to-vote electorate. As the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) biannual reports to Congress show, the number of voter registration providers proliferated under the NVRA, which essentially widened the network of opportunities to register to vote.17 Under the conviction that lack of access to voter registration constitutes a barrier to participation, the federal government responded with providing access through services that are more frequently utilized by the majority of Americans, particularly those with limited resources. While states that adopted the NVRA offer these services at the federally mandated locations, such as motor vehicle offices, public libraries, and state agencies, among others, there exists significant discretion at the state level on how actively voter registration is offered. In addition, states vary significantly in their preferred method of registration, despite the assumed convenience of registering to vote when receiving one’s driver’s license. The differential voter registration activity at the state and local level with respect to how eligible Americans are registering to vote stems primarily from the institutional framework provided by the existence of federal and state laws. It is also indicative of the administrative effort placed by all the voter registration providers to register citizens to vote, and thus narrow any gaps in voter registration. The number of voter registrations is processed on a daily basis by election administrators, the tasks of whom are outlined vaguely by the NVRA. 17 Federal Election Commission. “The Study of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 on the Administration of Federal Elections.” Available at: https://www.fec.gov/ about/reports-about-fec/agency-operations/impact-national-voter-registration-act-1993administration-federal-elections-html/.

1

ELECTION REFORM AND VOTER REGISTRATION

19

States have, thus, assumed the responsibility of defining key terms, such as valid voter registrations, duplicate registrations, or complete registrations. As a result, the rates with which potential registrants are successfully entering the voter rolls vary across the states and across time. Clarifying the relationship between the overall administrative supply of voter registration, which includes voters that update their voter information, voters submitting duplicate voter registration forms, voters submitting invalid applications, and new voter registrations should shed more light on how this differential administratively activity impacts any gaps in voter registration, irrespective of the institutional framework. The influx of prospective voter registrations by the various agencies additionally varies at the local level. Voter registration rates by method collected at the state level constitute an aggregate measure of the differential activity of voter registration. In fact, however, it masks notable variance across smaller electoral jurisdictions, the control of which is placed under a local election administrator, rather than the state’s Chief Elections Officer (Hale et al. 2015). The administrative supply of voter registration, therefore, involves the activity of these providers at the smaller jurisdiction level, which is a more realistic depiction of how prospective voters are registering to vote and what impact this administrative supply has on the voter registration gap within that jurisdiction. Focusing at the local level allows us to consider other contextual factors, such as the differential activity of voter registration depending on the closeness of an election, while at the same time holding constant the institutional factors that otherwise vary. Despite the efforts toward convenient, accessible, and accurate voter registration, registering to vote is procedurally complex. The NVRA requires states to offer the option to register to vote through various methods and at various agencies, on paper or online, as early as 30 days prior to a General Election. Among the NVRA-covered states, voters register to vote at their local motor vehicle office, or at public assistance offices, or send their voter registration application in the mail. In NVRAexempt states, voters have the option to register to vote the day they turn out to vote or they can visit their local election office but cannot submit a voter registration application by mail. Some voter registration applications are accepted as valid, some denied as invalid, and some remain incomplete. What is more, human or technological errors may leave registered

20

T. MERIVAKI

Americans out of the voter rolls, as the recent cases in California and Georgia demonstrate.18 The process of registering to vote, therefore, is a multifaceted one and extends beyond the discussion of state compliance with the NVRA. Given that many actors are tasked with registering eligible Americans to vote, the administrative burden to increase the registered electorate practically falls in the hands of election administrators, who are directly responsible for providing governmental services, in this case voter registration. Throughout this book, I maintain that there is a more dynamic relationship between the administration of voter registration and gaps in voter registration, with the expectation being that administrators respond to local demands for voter registration and administer voter registration regardless of the institutional rules imposed at the federal and state levels.

1.6

Outline of Chapters

This chapter lays the theoretical foundation of this book, by outlining the parameters which explain the variation in the administration of voter registration across and within the states, and thus demonstrating the need to move beyond the discussion of state compliance with the NVRA and the adoption of state voter registration reforms. In Chapter 2, I explore the differential rates of voter registration across the states and across elections, and introduce the voter registration gap, a measure which aims to demonstrate how the need to expand the registered-to-vote electorate across the states persists among election cycles. To further demonstrate that ongoing demands for voter registration extend beyond the state level, I demonstrate how voter registration fluctuates at the local level by analyzing the rates of new and removed voter registrations across Florida’s 67 counties. This approach aims to showcase that gaps in voter registration entail an administrative dimension that is overlooked when the unit of analysis is the state, and when the only estimate used is a state’s voter registration rates. 18 Medina, Jennifer. June 6, 2018. “Thousands of Voters Were Left Off Primary Day Rolls in Los Angeles.” The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/ 2018/06/06/us/politics/los-angeles-voters.html. Shavin, Naomi. November 3, 2014. “40,000 Voter Registrations Have Gone Missing in Georgia, and They’re Probably Lost Forever.” The New Republic. Available at: https://newrepublic.com/article/120097/40000-missing-voters-georgia-are-unl ikely-regain-their-ballot.

1

ELECTION REFORM AND VOTER REGISTRATION

21

Chapter 3 presents a detailed review of the institutional responses insofar as increasing access to voter registration, from the pre-NVRA period to the post-NVRA period. I demonstrate the differential supply of voter registration at the state level, in anticipation, in response, or regardless of the need for federal regulation, as it was the case for the states that innovated with voter registration reforms decades before the NVRA was passed. Minnesota, Maine, and Wisconsin, for instance, were the first adopters of Election Day/Same Day Registration in the 1970s, while the first two also utilized Motor Voter years before it became federal law (Hanmer 2009). The proliferation of voter registration reforms took place several years after the NVRA and most notably after the passage of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002, which mandated that states modernize their voter registration databases and probably facilitated the adoption of reforms such as Online Voter Registration (OVR). I then interrogate the expectation that these reforms respond to fluctuations in the voter registration gap across the states, given the assumption that it is the intention of these laws to increase the registered electorate. In Chapter 4, I provide the structural framework of voter registration as created by the NVRA and address the complexities with evaluating voter registration across the states, given the dense network of voter registration providers, the activity of which differs extensively at the state and local level, as well as over time. I discuss the difficulties with comparing how voter registration is supplied through these providers across the states mainly due to data availability and reliability issues. I then assess the relationship between the administrative supply of voter registration and the voter registration gap, as an indication that the demand for voter registration is conditioned by the differential supply of voter registration at the administrative level. Chapter 5 provides a more detailed examination of the administration of voter registration by using Florida as a case study. I demonstrate the differential activity of voter registration providers on the supply for voter registration at the local level, and the impact of the electoral context, such as the closeness of Election Day on conditioning the success of voter registration, under the expectation that successful voter registration will result in narrowing gaps in voter registration. I do that by empirically assessing the institutional, electoral, and seasonal factors that impact the success rates of voter registration applications during the 2018 election cycle in the state of Florida. I utilize monthly voter registration data from

22

T. MERIVAKI

Florida’s Election Division and demonstrate that there is a strong relationship between the timing of voter registration and the overall likelihood of rejected voter registration rejections across Florida’s counties. Chapter 6 investigates a series of more nuanced issues with the administration of voter registration when, such as the reasons for rejecting voter registration application forms. By utilizing individual voter registration data from Polk and Pinellas Counties between January 1 and October 18, 2016, I examine the complexities with processing voter registration forms within the state of Florida. I assess the discrepancies between counties with respect to processing voter registration application forms, given the expectations that election administrators are following rules mandated by the state and federal government. I find persistent challenges in the process of applying to register to vote among youth and minorities, which may not be solved in time to vote, even when they register to vote months before Florida’s voter registration. As a result, eligible prospective voters are left out. Finally, Chapter 7 offers a summary of the most significant points I aim to make in this book and discusses the implications of studying the administration of voter registration comprehensively on the overall study of voter registration. This work, I argue, allows researchers to uncover additional issues with how states and localities are expected to function in order to increase the registered electorate within their jurisdiction and how they perform. Understanding how voter registration applications are processed and how election administrators make decisions when processing these forms is an important component in the discussion about compliance with the NVRA and/or the efficient administration of voter registration. There is little that we know about why voter registration applications are rejected as invalid, other than the general guideline that they are not “complete.” This is potentially an area where state and localities vary significantly in how rules are applied, irrespective of the criteria mandated by the NVRA and other state voter registration laws.

References Adona, N., & Gronke, P. (2018). Understanding the Voter Experience: The Public’s View of Election Administration and Reform (pp. 1–33). Democracy Fund Research Report.

1

ELECTION REFORM AND VOTER REGISTRATION

23

Alvarez, M. R., & Hall, T. E. (2009). Resolving Voter Registration Problems: Making Registration Easier, Less Costly and More Accurate (pp. 1–19). CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project. Ansolabehere, S., & Hersh, E. (2014). Voter Registration: The Process and Quality of Lists. In B. C. Burden & C. Stewart III (Eds.), The Measure of American Elections (pp. 61–90). New York: Cambridge University Press. Bingham, L. B. (2010). The Next Generation of Administrative Law: Building the Legal Infrastructure for Collaborative Governance. Wisconsin Law Review, 297, 298–299. Brians, C. L., & Grofman, B. (2001). Election Day Registration’s Effect on U.S. Voter Turnout. Social Science Quarterly, 82, 170–183. Brown, R. D., & Wedeking, J. (2006). People Who Have Their Tickets But Do Not Use Them: “Motor Voter,” Registration, and Turnout Revisited. American Politics Research, 34(4), 479–504. Burden, B. C., Canon, D. T., Mayer, K. R., & Moynihan, D. P. (2014). Election Laws, Mobilization, and Turnout: The Unanticipated Consequences of Election Reform. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 95–109. Crocker, R. (2013). The National Voter Registration Act of 1993: History, Implementation, and Effects (pp. 1–36). Congressional Research Service. Hale, K., & Slaton, C. D. (2008). Building Capacity in Election Administration: Local Responses to Complexity and Interdependence. Public Administration Review, 68, 839–849. Hale, K., Montjoy, R., & Brown, M. (2015). Administering Elections: How American Elections Work. Springer. Hanmer, M. J. (2009). Discount Voting; Voter Registration Reforms and Their Effects. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hedge, D. M., & Scicchitano, M. J. (1994). Regulating Space and Time: The Case of Regulatory Federalism. The Journal of Politics, 56, 134–153. Hess, D. R., Hanmer, M. J., & Nickerson, D. W. (2016). Encouraging Local Compliance with Federal Civil Rights Laws: Field Experiments with the National Voter Registration Act. Public Administration Review, 76, 165–174. Hess, D. R., & Novakowski, S. (2008). Neglecting the National Voter Registration Act, 1995–2007 (pp. 1–21). Washington, DC: A Joint Publication of Project Vote and Demos. Highton, B. (2004). Voter Registration and Turnout in the United States. Perspectives on Politics, 2(3), 507–515. Knack, S. (1995). Does ‘Motor Voter’ Work? Evidence from State-Level Data. The Journal of Politics, 57, 796–811. Leighley, J., & Nagler, J. (2014). Absentee Ballot Regimes: Easing Costs or Adding a Step? In M. Alvarez & B. Grofman (Eds.), Election Administration in the United States (pp. 144–156). New York: Cambridge University Press.

24

T. MERIVAKI

LeRoux, K. (2011). Examining Implementation of the National Voter Registration Act by Nonprofit Organizations: An Institutional Explanation. Policy Studies Journal, 39, 565–589. Mann, C. B., & Bryant, L. A. (2020). If You Ask, They Will Come (To Register and Vote): Field Experiments with State Election Agencies on Encouraging Voter Registration. Electoral Studies, 63, 102021. Martinez, M. D., & Hill, D. (1999). Did Motor Voter Work? American Politics Quarterly, 27, 296–315. McCubbins, M. D., Noll, R. G., & Weingast, B. R. (1987). Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 3, 243–277. McDonald, M. P., & Thornburg, M. (2010). Registering the Youth Through Voter Preregistration. NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 13, 551– 572. McGuire, M., & Agranoff, R. (2011). The Limitations of Public Management Networks. Public Administration, 89(2), 265–284. Merivaki, T. (2019). Access Denied? Investigating Voter Registration Rejections in Florida. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 19(1), 53–82. Merivaki, T., & Conner, S. (2018). Managing Voter Registration Lists the Hybrid Way: The Case of Mississippi. Working Paper Presented at Election Sciences, Research and Administration Meeting. Merivaki, T., & Mann, C. (2019). Beyoncé-Taylor Swift Effect? Impact of Online Voter Registration on Voting. Working Paper presented at 2019 APSA Meeting. Merivaki, T., & Smith, D. A. (2020). Challenges in Voter Registration. In M. Brown, K. Hale, & B. A. King (Eds.), The Future of Election Administration (pp. 59–82). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Merivaki, T., & Suttman-Lea, M. (2019). Measuring Voter Engagement in Election Administration: How Much Do States Ask from Local Election Officials? Working Paper Presented at Election Sciences, Research and Administration Meeting. Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2006). A Manager’s Guide to Choosing and Using Collaborative Networks (Vol. 8, pp. 1–31). Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government. Montjoy, R. S., & O’Toole, L. J. (1979). Toward a Theory of Policy Implementation: An Organizational Perspective. Public Administration Review, 39, 465–476. Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252. Rosenstone, S. J., & Wolfinger, R. E. (1978). The Effect of Registration Laws on Voter Turnout. American Political Science Review, 72, 22–45.

1

ELECTION REFORM AND VOTER REGISTRATION

25

Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: A Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6, 21–48. Salamon, L. M. (1987). Of Market Failure, Voluntary Failure, and Third-Party Government: Toward a Theory of Government-nonprofit Relations in The Modern Welfare State. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 16, 29–49. Stewart, J., Jr., Hedge, D. M., & Lester, J. P. (2008). Public Policy: An Evolutionary Approach. Nelson Education. Stoker, R. P. 1991. Reluctant Partners: Implementing Federal Policy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Tokaji, D. P. (2008). Voter Registration and Election Reform. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 17, 453–506.

CHAPTER 2

Gaps in Voter Registration: Ongoing Pressures to Expand the Electorate

Abstract This chapter aims to identify the dynamics that explain variation in voter registration rates across states and time, and move beyond an explanation about properly implementing federal laws, such as the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). I introduce an aggregate measure of voter registration, namely the voter registration gap, and demonstrate how it fluctuates between federal elections, at both the state and local levels. I argue that fluctuations within a 2-year window, rather than a 4-year window, can more accurately depict how gaps in registration narrow or grow, indicating that the administration of voter registration is a significant factor to account when explaining persistent challenges with growing the registered to vote electorate. Keywords Voter registration gap · NVRA · HAVA · Federal Election Commission

© The Author(s) 2021 T. Merivaki, The Administration of Voter Registration, Elections, Voting, Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48059-2_2

27

28

T. MERIVAKI

2.1

How Many Should Be Registered to Vote?

Voting rights scholars have extensively documented the efforts to improve the voting experience, starting with accessible voter registration (Crocker 2013; Piven et al. 2009; Piven and Cloward 2000). Limited opportunities to register to vote, particularly among underrepresented Americans, reinforced the conviction that access to the electoral process is restricted due to the requirement of voter registration and varies dramatically across the states. Supporters of voter registration reform, including U.S. legislators, advocated for the adoption of uniform procedures, such as a federal voter registration postcard or Election Day Registration. Responding to a declining turnout, as well as to concerns about the accessibility of the voter registration process, Congress adopted the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) in 1993. The NVRA liberalized access to voter registration by offering the option to register to vote in several governmental and non-governmental agencies across the states and relaxed onerous state restrictions with regard to the activity of third-party, non-governmental groups and their capacity to conduct registration drives.1 It also prohibited states from removing registered voters from voter registration lists for failure to vote, which added another safeguard for voters who register to vote but do not consistently participate in elections. The passage of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002 further reinforced some of the NVRA provisions, especially the accurate and efficient maintenance of voter registration records. More Americans are registered to vote today than they were before the NVRA was adopted, strongly suggesting the success of the federal law in making voter registration accessible. Yet, millions still report not being registered to vote for reasons other than lack of interest in elections, such as lack of awareness of how to register to vote. Such reports, in combination with fluctuations in voter registration rates across states and across elections raise questions about whether federal interventions do not reach their full potential. Scholarly research documents that not all states have a good compliance record with federal mandates, even if they had experience with 1 In their book, “Keeping Down the Black Vote,” Piven et al. (2009) document the limited access several groups had to resources with respect to conducting voter registration drives. The NVRA, mandating that states designate voter registration agencies, allowed for such groups access to resources, but also somewhat ensured that election officials would process voter registration forms submitted by such groups.

2

GAPS IN VOTER REGISTRATION: ONGOING PRESSURES …

29

implementing several of its provisions or had adopted additional voter registration reforms. Specifically, the Department of Justice and civil rights organizations have litigated against states and localities for not efficiently facilitating voter registration in public assistance and disability offices (Hess and Novakowski 2008; Rogers 2009; Mortellaro and Kanter Cohen 2014), motor vehicle offices (Naifeh 2015), as well as for inefficient voter list maintenance practices.2 Since HAVA went into effect, the Department of Justice has also been involved in litigation against states and localities for violating Section 8 of the NVRA, which explicitly forbids the removal of eligible voters due to failure to vote in a federal election. HAVA and the NVRA intersect in this area, because the NVRA outlines the parameters for the removal of voters, whereas HAVA mandates the modernization of voter list management, which would increase coordination between the localities and the state with respect to updating voter records, and therefore facilitate compliance with the NVRA. Given the existence of two significant federal laws regulating how voter registration is offered and how voter records are maintained, are there persistent challenges in the process of voter registration process than can explain the variation in voter registration rates across the states? And if such challenges exist, what do fluctuations in the rates of registered voters over time imply for the success of federal and state reforms? Is lack of implementation a sufficient explanation for lagging voter registration rates? Or are there aspects in the voter registration process that potentially reforms cannot solve? This chapter presents an overview of the main challenges Americans are experiencing insofar as accessing the electoral process, particularly in the context of voter registration. I argue that despite the overall increase in the number of registered voters nationwide since the NVRA was adopted, persistent gaps remain that cannot be solely explained by electoral dynamics, such as the difference between presidential and midterm elections. Voter registration rates in fact fluctuate dramatically across states and across time, but most notably within the states. Aggregate measures of voter registration are, therefore, not telling us the whole story as to why these gaps remain, which sets the stage for a critical review of how federal

2 The United States Department of Justice, “Cases Raising Claims Under the National Voter Registration Act.” Available at: https://www.justice.gov/crt/cases-raising-claimsunder-national-voter-registration-act.

30

T. MERIVAKI

and state reforms are facilitating access to, but also narrow these persistent gaps over time. Demonstrating that voter registration gaps remain, are more notable in some localities and states than others, extends beyond the discussion about state-level implementation of federal law, such as the NVRA, and necessitates a discussion about what role election administrators play in responding to fluctuating demands for voter registration, regardless of the state’s institutional framework.

2.2

Why Don’t Americans Register to Vote?

The requirement to register to vote prior to participating in an election adds by default an additional hurdle to the electoral process. It suggests that not all Americans are eligible to become voters, and that in order to vote, they must follow certain procedures to prove their eligibility. Piven et al. (2009, 99) document that throughout the history of voter registration in the United States, expanding the electorate broadly, and specifically among African American voters, was not a priority for various groups and legislators, who wanted to “make voting more difficult for certain groups.” Voting rights scholars show that the increase in the black electorate in the nineteenth century created opportunities and challenges for state legislatures, many of whom implemented restrictions to voter registration that predominantly disenfranchised African Americans (Piven et al. 2009; Keyssar 2000; Kousser 1999; Scher 2010; Berman 2015). The adoption of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in 1965 eliminated discriminatory practices such as poll taxes and literacy tests, as well as legislation that would disproportionately deny voting eligibility among African Americans and other racial minorities (McDonald 1989). The federal government placed significant weight on the states to incorporate the NVRA into their election codes, and uniformly implement its provisions. For some states this transition was smoother than others, as they already had experience with motor voter and mail voter registrations. According to the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) first report to Congress, most states had implemented all provisions of the NVRA, with a few delaying the implementation of agency-based registration and the voter list maintenance provisions. States also opted to structure the management of voter registration lists in different ways, with states like Arkansas, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri and Nevada leaving voter list maintenance to the individual counties. Despite the uniformity of the NVRA the response from the states varied.

2

GAPS IN VOTER REGISTRATION: ONGOING PRESSURES …

31

Even though the VRA eliminated these practices, the racial disparities between African Americans and whites in voter registration and participation, especially in southern states like Mississippi, highlighted that the VRA was not enough in lowering institutional barriers at the state level, especially because of the challenge in minimizing discretion in local administrative practices. In 1984, for example, Mississippi’s voter registration rate was “the highest in the nation,” with overall 92.2% of registered voters. However, “only 54% of the state’s black and 79% of its white ageeligible population were actually on the voter rolls” (McDonald 1989, 1253). Piven et al. (2009, 101) argue that in many southern states, including Mississippi, “whites received assistance to filling out the forms, while blacks were disqualified for signing their names on the wrong line.” Disparities in voter registration, while more pronounced among racial minorities, extended beyond race. According to the Census Bureau, voter registration rates decreased by more than 10 percentage points among the low-educated as well as unemployed Americans between 1968 and 1980. The proportion of Americans claiming to be registered to vote dropped in every socio-demographic category during this period, which scholars argue to be a result of a decline in the efforts political parties and unions were placing in registering eligible Americans to vote (Piven and Cloward 2000, 127). The apparent inequalities insofar as accessing the American electoral system hit a nerve among advocacy groups that mobilized aggressively to register minorities to vote. Piven et al. (2009, 109) found that during the 1984 presidential election groups conducted extensive voter registration drives and managed to increase black voter registration rates, narrowing the gap between black and white voter registration to “3.3 points- again, the biggest change since 1964.” Gaps in voter registration were more visible when comparing across geographical regions. As Piven and Cloward (2000, 127) demonstrate, the decrease in voter registration rates among African Americans in the North and West were more dramatic than in the South between 1962 and 1980, which poses interesting questions as to the approach state legislatures took towards voter registration outside the South. While a detailed history of voter registration is beyond the scope of this chapter, it is important to note that low voter registration rates among eligible Americans and low voter turnout remain the key indicators of the need for voter registration reform at the federal and state levels. Comparing voter registration rates across different regions, for example,

32

T. MERIVAKI

often uncovers differences in how eligible Americans access voter registration (Piven and Cloward 2000). In addition, research into the implementation of the NVRA finds that gaps between the number of Americans who receive services from governmental and non-governmental offices result in lack of voter registration. That is because eligible citizens receive services but are not offered the option to do register to vote, rather than opting not to register to vote when asked (Hess and Novakowski 2008; Naifeh 2015; Hess et al. 2016). Lack of proper implementation can result in depressed voter registration rates. The number of Americans registering to vote in every state, and through various agencies relative to how many Americans are eligible to register, therefore, often drives the question of what the states are not doing well insofar as implementing the NVRA. According to the Current Population Survey (CPS) Voting Supplement in 1980, about 5.6% of Americans responded that they were not registered because the hours or the place of registration was not convenient (Table 2.1). Including the admittedly broad category of “other reason unable to register,” approximately 29% of Americans attributed lack of voter registration to factors that are directly related to the process of voter registration. Of course, the fact that over 50% of Americans felt that they were not interested in participating in the voting process is concerning, although it is not clear whether lack of interest in this context Table 2.1 Reasons for not registering to vote, 1980

1980 election year Moved Illness/disability Hours or Place inconvenient Other reason unable to register Did not prefer any of the candidates Not interested Other reason Reason not reported Total

Number of respondents

Percentage

3437 1529 1902

10.04 4.47 5.56

2876

8.40

3162

9.24

14,381 6628 306 34,221

42.02 19.37 0.89 100

Current Population Survey Voting Supplement, reported reason for not registering to vote, 1980

2

GAPS IN VOTER REGISTRATION: ONGOING PRESSURES …

33

stems from lack of access to voter registration, lack of awareness about elections, or conscious disinterest in voter participation. The American public strongly supported voter registration reform in the early 1990s. In 1993, the Americans Talk Issues Foundation conducted a national survey asking Americans if they support making “voter registration easier by the Motor Voter plan where you register to vote at the same time you get your driver’s license,” with 70% of respondents supporting the reform. In effect, the NVRA is often equated with “Motor Voter,” because it constituted the most expansive approach to registering eligible Americans to vote when they apply for a driver’s license at local motor vehicle offices. According to the FEC, the inclusion of motor vehicle offices in the NVRA was practical and expected to be the least challenging for the states to implement, since a strong majority of Americans have a driver’s license or a state license which they receive from a motor vehicle office, and when the NVRA was considered in Congress, 26 states reported having a “Motor Voter” registration option before the adoption of the Act. That said, low voter registration rates even among the states who had experience registering their citizens to vote at local DMVs suggested challenges with properly implementing the reform, or that registering to vote entailed structural challenges not covered by Motor Voter. A look at the offered options in Table 2.1 seems to suggest that this is the case, particularly when considering that approximately 15% of Americans who responded to the CPS survey in 1980 volunteered that issues such as residency requirements and illness or disability deterred them from registering to vote. Since the passage of the NVRA, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and later the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) report that the registered electorate has been overall increasing, yet with many fluctuations depending on the election cycle. In 2014, the EAC reported that only 8% of the Voting-Age Population was not registered to vote, which is a decrease of approximately 18% since the FEC’s first report to Congress in 1996.3 Over time, the Citizen Voting-Age registered population underwent much fluctuation, with an average reported registration 3 “The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 on the Administration of Federal Elections.” Available at: https://www.fec.gov/about/reports-about-fec/age ncy-operations/impact-national-voter-registration-act-1993-administration-federal-electi ons-html/.

34

T. MERIVAKI

rate of 69%. According to the biennial Current Population Surveys (CPS), voter registration rates among Americans of voting age (CVAP) ranged from 75% in 1992 to 64.6% in 2014. It is possible that this variation in voter registration rates across the states reflects differences in mobilization by parties and activists or low voter interest, particularly between midterm and presidential elections. As Fig. 2.1 shows, the rates of voter registration in midterm elections are systematically lower than in presidential elections. While the electoral context is important when discussing about voter participation in elections, it is less clear why voter registration would so dramatically drop between midterm and presidential elections. Did Americans cancel their voter registration, or were removed due to death, felony conviction, or another disenfranchising reason? Or did states adopt more restrictive voter registration laws after a presidential election? Researchers find that gaps in voter registration rates and turnout across the states are not only explained by institutional factors, but also administrative. Rosenstone and Wolfinger’s (1978) work on the impact of state registration laws on turnout in 1978 suggests that early voter registration deadlines

Fig. 2.1 Reported registration, Citizen Voting-Age population, 1992–2016

2

GAPS IN VOTER REGISTRATION: ONGOING PRESSURES …

35

and the number of hours local election offices are open to the public were the biggest factors deterring eligible Americans to vote, especially in the South. Their work highlights both the institutional and administrative dimensions of voter registration that can meaningfully restrict the voters’ access to the ballot box. According to the Current Population Surveys, 71.2% of the eligible Americans who were surveyed in November 2012 reported that they were registered to vote, compared to 15.4% who reported that they were not. Among those who reported not voting, 13.4% reported having issues with voter registration. As Table 2.2 demonstrates, prospective voters continue to face problems with registration that involve factors not necessarily related to the NVRA. Voter registration deadlines and residence requirements are imposed by the states, not the federal government. This suggests that the impact of the NVRA on voter registration is conditioned by the states’ regulatory framework and not solely on electoral dynamics and in fact persist since 1980. Analyzing the reasons why eligible Americans are not registered to vote since the CPS asked this question in 1980 offers important insights into the structural challenges to voter registration, and how much they impact prospective voters since the NVRA was adopted. Unfortunately, the CPS did not ask this question until the 2004 election. I compare, therefore, the 2004 and 2012 CPS responses to this question in Table 2.2. Across Table 2.2 Reported reasons for not registering to vote, CPS, 2004–2012

Did not meet registration deadlines Did not know where or how to register Did not meet residency requirements/did not live here long enough Permanent illness or disability Difficulty with English Not interested in the election or not involved in politics My vote would not make a difference Not eligible to vote Other reason

2004

2008

2012

2004–2012

16.21 4.6 3.68

13.86 3.84 3.51

13.43 4.57 3.14

−2.78 −0.03 −0.54

5.37 0.98 42.1

5.38 1.35 42.04

4.95 1.34 43.87

−0.42 0.36 1.77

3.89 5.31 17.86

4.49 6.95 18.59

4.92 6.68 17.1

1.03 1.37 −0.76

Current Population Survey Voting Supplement, reported reason for not registering to vote, 2004– 2012

36

T. MERIVAKI

three presidential elections, it appears that the same issues impact Americans when it comes to registering to vote, with a small decrease in the responses over voter registration deadlines. It is important to note that the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed in 2002 and was placed into effect in the 2004 federal election. Perhaps this change can be attributed to more efficient voter list maintenance, per HAVA’s requirement that states maintain statewide voter registration lists and therefore minimize the costs of registering to vote close to a state’s voter registration book closing deadlines. This possibility can be seriously questioned, especially after several reports that states had not yet fully complied with statewide voter registration lists by 2004. As Shambon (2004, 432) documents, only a few states had statewide voter registration databases in place by the time HAVA went into effect, while many had either difficulty in integrating local voter registration lists to a statewide database or were receiving reluctant responses by local jurisdictions who “believe that their individual systems are better than their state’s.” In addition, a possible explanation for the decrease in responses regarding registration deadlines between 2004 and 2012 is that states relaxed their voter registration closing book deadlines, by allowing eligible citizens to register to vote as late as on Election Day. According to Leighly and Nagler (2009, 93), in 2008 38 states had voter registration closing dates that ranged between 25 and 30 days. This number decreased from 42 states in 2004, so there seems to be a slight change in closing dates, especially with states adopting EDR after 2004. This is the case with Iowa, which adopted EDR in 2007, yet eligible voters still have the option to register to vote 11 days prior to an upcoming election. Montana is another example, as it adopted EDR in 2005, but also requires that eligible voters register to vote 29 days before Election Day.4 Still, if these factors ease the burden of voter registration, how do we explain such large deviations from one election cycle to the next?

4 “Voter Registration Deadlines.” Vote.org. Available at: http://www.longdistancevoter. org/voter_registration_deadlines#.VqEUpfkrJQJ.

2

2.3

GAPS IN VOTER REGISTRATION: ONGOING PRESSURES …

37

How Many Americans Can We Register to Vote? The Voter Registration Gap

The NVRA and HAVA mandated uniformity in the electoral process, by making registering to vote accessible and improving how voter records are managed once voters have successfully registered to vote. In response to, or in anticipation of these blanket interventions, states took further steps to “innovate” with voter registration reforms, either in order to avoid federal oversight, or to supplement it. For instance, Maine, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, for instance, had been using Motor Voter Registration since the 1970s (Hanmer 2009). States have experimented with improving the voter registration experience, by adopting Election Day/Same Day Registration (EDR/SDR), youth pre-registration, Online Voter Registration (OVR), and Automatic Voter Registration (AVR). Since 2015, modernizing voter registration has been at the forefront of state election reform, with more and more states adopting OVR, and a few adopting AVR. More and more states are engaging in data-sharing partnerships, such as the Interstate Crosscheck Program and the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) to further improve the accuracy of voter lists, especially when dealing with voters who move across state borders and often fail to update their voter registration status (Merivaki and Smith 2020). It is reasonable to expect that the proliferation of state election reforms post-NVRA indicates that the demand to improve the voter registration process remains, and that states are responding. But these responses have not been equally expansive, suggesting that some states are more committed to increasing access to the eligible-to-vote electorate than others. For instance, aside from the NVRA states who adopted EDR, states have not amended their voter registration deadlines to offer voters more opportunities to register to vote as Election Day approaches. What is more, some states adopt a combination of reforms, while others do not, or repeal existing laws (Merivaki and Smith 2020). Yet, the pattern is that more and more states are taking steps to improve the voter registration experience. The increase in institutional interventions at the state level should then be associated with higher rates of registered voters over time. In other words, states with voter registration reforms should have the lowest gaps in voter registration compared to those who do not. If voter registration reforms aim to increase voter registration rates, why do gaps in voter registration remain, and how do they fluctuate

38

T. MERIVAKI

across jurisdictions and across election years? Very importantly, what do they mean insofar as the success of the NVRA and/or state voter registration reforms to increase the registered-to-vote electorate? Existing gaps in voter registration among states that have adopted reforms, as well as those that have not, raise questions about how states are integrating the newly adopted reforms into a process that is administratively shaped by the NVRA. The notable fluctuation at the national level seriously underscores most of the variation that takes place at the state level, which “has received less acknowledgment than it deserves” (Burden 2014, 49). While nationwide voter registration rates are useful, they are too abstract and provide us with little information on why gaps in voter registration may persist across the states. If all American citizens of voting age were registered voters, then there would be no gaps in voter registration. Any gaps, therefore, can suggest that the need for access to voter registration is more pronounced in some states than others. Of course, some eligible Americans simply do not want to be registered voters, and therefore expecting no voter registration gaps in absolute terms might be an unrealistic goal. That said, it is also unrealistic to interpret that states with the highest rates of nonregistered-to-vote eligible citizen population, such as Wyoming (54% in 2016), wished not to register to vote.5 The most straightforward way to demonstrate the existence of voter registration gaps is by estimating the non-registered electorate from the total of the eligible citizen population. As per the NVRA, states are required to track and disclose how many citizens are registered to vote over time. What is more, the EAC’s Election Administration and Voting Surveys (EAVS) also request these estimates from the states after every federal election. To estimate the denominator, namely the number of Americans who can be potential voters, scholars have utilized three separate measures. The most traditional measure is the Voting-Age Population (VAP), based on which the FEC used to estimate voter registration rates, and which many states use as a denominator when reporting NVRA statistics. VAP estimates are consistent and available since 1992. However, as McDonald and Popkin’s (2001, 963) influential work on measuring 5 Wyoming NVRA statistics: http://soswy.state.wy.us/Elections/Docs/VRStats/201 6VR_stats.pdf. Wyoming CVAP 2016: https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2016/comm/ citizen_voting_age_population/cb16-tps18_wyoming.html.

2

GAPS IN VOTER REGISTRATION: ONGOING PRESSURES …

39

the voting eligible population demonstrates, “the VAP includes people who are ineligible to vote, such as noncitizens, felons, and the mentally incompetent, and fails to include those living overseas but otherwise eligible.” The “McDonald indicator,” or other words the Voter Eligible Population (VEP) estimate, “has become the standard measure employed by scholars studying elections” (Burden 2014, 49). The VEP measure narrows the universe of eligible citizens, by removing any ineligible population, such as felons (McDonald and Popkin 2001). An alternative measure that is provided by the Census and reported by the EAC is the Citizen Voting-Age Population (CVAP), or the “rounded estimate of the total Number of United States citizens 18 years of age or older,” for a population within a particular geographic area, such as state, county, or precinct.6 The VEP and CVAP measures, therefore, provide more accurate estimates of the eligible voting population than the VAP.7 The only limitation of the VEP is that it is only available at the state level and not the local level, whereas the CVAP is available at both and state and local levels. A standard estimate of the voter registration gap would take the following form: 0< 1- [Voter Registration Gap= Registered Voters/VEP]