Ballot Initiatives And Pro-Voter Reform

This study seeks to examine the potential for ballot initiative-based, pro-voter voter reform as a means to combat a rising trend in voter suppression and restrictions on access to the ballot.

By Campbell Streator

Today, after the most participatory election in American history, there is renewed hope in American democracy. At the same time, efforts to delegitimize the voting process and restrict the vote highlight the need for continued investment in the future of our democracy. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, more than 361 restrictive voting bills have been introduced in 47 states as of March 24th of this year. That is a 43% increase in restrictive bills since February2021. Five restrictive voting bills have already been signed into law around the country, and an additional 55 of the bills are moving through state legislatures.

While the prospect of federal voting reform through the passage of H.R. 1, the For the People Act, and H.R.4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act Amendment, offers a potential buffer against this wave of restrictive voting legislation, it is worth exploring others. In particular, the possibility that the Supreme Court or a future administration or Congress could gut federal guidelines instituted under either of those bills means that state-level efforts cannot be ignored. Recent election cycles have highlighted the potential of one tool in particular as an exciting and effective method of reform: pro-voter ballot initiatives.  

In 2018 and 2020, ballot initiatives implementing electoral and democratic reform received significant support at the ballot box in states all over the country, and took center stage as a viable alternative to the legislative process. Across both election cycles, voters passed nearly 20 initiative-based reforms, implementing processes that improved voter registration, redistricting, and the way citizens vote. The success of these pro-voter ballot initiatives fits into a broader, decade long run of success for ballot initiatives, and citizen-initiated initiatives in particular. From 2010-2019, citizen-initiated measures passed at the highest rate of any decade since 1900-1909, while passing nearly ten times as many measures over the same period of time.

While some states have used ballot initiatives to roll back previous pro-voter reforms, or pass initiatives that voting rights advocates do not support—most notably by implementing stricter voter ID requirements and amending the language in state constitutions to stress that “only” not “every” US citizen and state resident can vote—the general trend is positive. A brief review of the reforms passed via initiative over the last few years shows that citizen-initiated statues and constitutional amendments have led to the expansion of automatic voter registration, same day voter registration, independent redistricting commissions, the restoration of voting rights for those with felony convictions, and numerous other pro-voter reforms. Many of those reforms were implemented in politically competitive swing states, and ran well ahead of candidates for statewide office.

 An in-depth study of those initiative campaigns reveals some valuable insights about initiative-based reform efforts, as well as keys to a successful campaign. The recent success of ballot initiative-based pro-voter reform, set against the backdrop of increasing efforts to restrict access to the ballot, delegitimize the voting process, and the risk of partisan gerrymandering, also highlights the possibility for future initiative-based reform. By charting how “pro-voter” a state is against the opportunity for initiative-based reform in that state, one can identify the best targets for future initiatives.[1]

Pro-Voter Ballot Initiative Trends and Takeaways:

· Recent, successful ballot initiative campaigns have expanded the same processes that are being targeted in statehouses. Access to absentee/mail-in voting is the main target of most of the restrictive bills studied by the Brennan Center, with voter registration and early voting opportunities also a target. Pro-voter reforms addressing those issues through processes like no-excuse absentee ballots, automatic voter registration, and same day voter registration have been passed via initiative in recent years.

· Many states are trying to make it harder to run a successful ballot initiative campaign. According to the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, 24states—many  of them the same ones working to make voting more difficult—have introduced bills as of March 1, 2021 that would make it harder to get initiatives on the ballot and passed by voters. These bills target two key aspects of the initiative process: increasing the number of signatures required to get an initiative on the ballot and requiring a supermajority to be approved. Other bills would affect the process in related ways, like one in Utah, which prevents initiative campaigns from paying signature collectors by the hour, or one in Florida, which would limit donations to initiatives while they try and make it to the ballot.

· When they make the ballot, pro-voter initiatives usually pass. This is especially true, it seems, of redistricting initiatives. With the exceptions of a 2016 initiative in SouthDakota and 2005 and 2012 initiative efforts in Ohio, research for this study found that almost every pro-voter redistricting related initiative that made ballot in one of the states studied was passed by voters. Pro-voter initiatives, regardless of topic, often run well ahead of any state-wide candidate. This may be related to the fact that many successful campaigns come on the heels of initiatives that failed to make the ballot, which could be resulting in the development of a broad base of support over a number of years.[2] It also seems that pro-voter initiatives that fail to pass once on the ballot are often related to more drastic reforms, like ranked choice voting or the expansion of the right to vote to those younger than eighteen.  

· Ballot initiatives aren’t a perfect tool for circumventing partisanship or entrenched interests. While the success of robust reforms like Colorado’s Amendments Y and Z, Michigan’s Proposition 3, or Florida’s Amendment 4 in 2018 show the potential for ballot initiatives as a means of returning power to the people, the recent history of initiative-based reforms also highlights the challenges. Initiative-based reforms can face serious political and legal challenges even after being passed by voters, while others are prevented from even making the ballot. Furthermore, some reforms, even when passed, can be defanged, like Utah’s Proposition 4 in 2018, or undone entirely, like Missouri’s Amendment 1 in 2018, after the fact by state legislators resistant to change or partisanship in the courts.

· Initiative efforts require significant resources. Getting an initiative on the ballot, let alone passed, requires a significant amount of time, money, and effort. Most campaigns raise millions of dollars to help raise awareness and cover the cost of paying for and verifying signature collection—a practice that is very common. Even Proposition 2 in Michigan which collected enough signatures using only volunteers, raised significant funds to pay for signature verification and raise awareness among voters.

· The pro-voter initiative space appears to have a handful of very committed funders. The Action Now Initiative, an effort with ties to John and Laura Arnold, poured millions of dollars into efforts in multiple states during the 2018 and 2020 election cycles, and other groups like the 1630 Fund and the ACLU have also donated millions. These efforts are supplemented by a handful of national names like Michael Bloomberg and Kathryn Murdoch, among others.

o  Most successful campaigns also seem to garner serious donor support from a high net worth, political donor in the state where the initiative is being pushed.

Keys toSuccessful Ballot Initiative Campaigns

· Addressing the Goldilocks problem: It may seem overly simplistic to say that a successful ballot initiative campaign relies on identifying the right opportunity, in the right state, at the right time, but it is essential. Campaigns that take on the wrong scope often fail. If the focus is too large it may attract the full attention of entrenched interests and inspire a well-funded opposition campaign. If it’s too small, it may seem unimportant to voters or fail to tap into public sentiment. Relatedly, when the timing is right, like when Oregon firefighters and law enforcement organizations looked to increase control over their pensions via initiative after 9-11, initiatives can face far lower opposition than they might when the political climate is less favorable. With that said, it seems that the timing is ripe for further electoral and democratic reform via ballot initiative. They’ve had success in recent years, and the public outcry in response to recent efforts by states to restrict the vote would seem to indicate a broad desire for easier access to the ballot. The challenge of identifying the right reforms to push for in each state remains, and identifying which reforms advocates in those states would support is a key step in building a successful initiative campaign.

 · A well written ballot summary and fiscal note: Many initiative campaign experts believe that “no single factor is more important to the success or failure of a campaign” that the language and title of the initiative. The wording of a ballot initiative, especially the language the voters see on the ballot, is incredibly important and can impact the outcome of an initiative campaign. The job of crafting this language often falls to a state’s Attorney General or State Secretary of State—something both parties have noticed and tried to act on—and their word choice is often contentious, with unhappy campaign supporters or unsympathetic critics bringing challenges to court. As such, picking a state with a friendly Attorney General or StateSecretary of State could help a campaign’s chances. Some states allow proponents to write their own language, and in those cases, “most successful campaigns test alternative ballot language through public opinion polling and focus groups.” The language of fiscal notes, an attachment that outlines the budgetary implications of an initiative and is required in most states, is also important. A note that highlights the added expenditures of an initiative without drawing attention to possible savings doesn’t help an initiative’s chances of passing.

 · Attracting Resources and RaisingAwareness: The success of initiative campaigns is correlated to fundraising, and simply put a successful campaign will likely need to outspend its opponent. Ensuring that a campaign has a fundraising plan and a steady stream of access to donors, allies, and volunteers is essential to its success.  Across the 2018 and 2020 initiatives highlighted in this study, the average citizen-initiated, pro-voter ballot initiative raised just under $9,000,000 and spent just over $8,500,000 over the course of the campaign. While financial support is the most obvious potential need for raising awareness, building alliances with relevant stake holders, including local organizations, grassroots efforts, and individual ambassadors can help reduce or split the financial burden of a campaign. Voters will need to know what they are voting for or against, and while the ballot is the first place many of them will read an initiative, a strong coalition and extensive people power can help build a broad base of support prior to election day.  

 · BalancingSignature Collection and Raising Money: As noted above, a successful campaign is often the more expensive campaign. It’s also true that while exact costs are hard to predict, collecting and verifying enough signatures to make the ballot is a significant hurdle into which most campaigns sink significant resources. This is especially true in larger states, which require more signatures, and states that have stricter rules requiring geographic distribution of signatures, both of which lead to generally higher costs of signature collection. The average cost per signature for the citizen-initiated, pro-voter ballot initiative campaigns highlighted in this study that paid for help across 2018 and 2020 was $6.71, with the overall cost of qualifying for the ballot falling just over $1,900,000. All of that said, if signature collection will eat the majority of the resources a campaign spends making the ballot, the campaign will be in trouble. While there are numerous petition drive management companies that can be hired to help collect signatures, successful campaigns also often inspire large amount of volunteer engagement and tap into mission-aligned organizations and allies that can help get over the hurdle of qualifying for the ballot. A related consideration is to collect significantly more signatures than is legally required, as many are likely to be deemed invalid.

‍

Pro-Voter Ballot Initiative Opportunity Reform Matrix

To create a matrix which can be used to identify opportunities for initiative-based reform, one can chart the cost of voting in a state against the against the opportunity for initiative-based reform in that state, as measured by the types of reform permitted via ballot initiative, the number of initiatives passed in recent years, and the rate of success of those initiatives. Each state is then populated on the matrix as a bubble. The color of each bubble represents the state of redistricting in each state: red represents a single-party, politically controlled process, yellow is for states with advisory or political commissions, as well as states that have passed reforms which can limit abuse in the case of single-party control, and green is for states with an independent redistricting commission. The size of each state’s bubble correlates to the number of ballot initiatives passed since 2013, and the shading represents the percentage of initiatives that have passed in thats same period. The higher the percentage that have passed, the less transparent the bubble.

An examination of the created matrix, seen below, with a focus on the top-right, “high cost of voting and high opportunity for reform quadrant” of the matrix, highlights 13 states, broken into tiers, as the best potential opportunities for initiative-based reform.

Cost of Voting, Redistricting Control, and Ballot Initiative Opportunity Matrix

Tier 1

· Florida: While Florida only allows for initiatives that amend the constitution, the large number of initiatives approved in the state and the high rate with which they pass, may indicate an opportunity for reform. As a state without same day registration or an automatic voter registration process, an initiative modeled on Michigan’s Proposition 3 from 2018 could have a significant impact inFlorida, where, according to Common Cause, there are about 4.5 million people who are eligible to vote but aren’t registered. Florida also falls into the Brennan Center’s highest risk category in their analysis of redistricting in 2021-2022, and while there hasn’t been initiative-based redistricting reform in Florida since a highly contentious set of amendments in 2010, the success of 2018’s Amendment 4 highlights the added opportunity for significant impact through initiative-based reform in Florida.

· Arkansas and Missouri: Finding themselves among the bottom ten states when it comes to cost of voting, and allowing for both statute and amendment related initiatives, Arkansas and Missouri are located in the very top-right part of the “high cost of voting and high opportunity for reform”quadrant of the matrix. Both states have passed a similar number of initiatives since 2013, but Arkansas has passed them at a much higher rate. Missouri, though, has seen a larger number of elections and redistricting related measures hit the ballot recently, so ranking one as a target over the other is difficult. Both are in need of redistricting reform, as well as automatic voter registration, same day voter registration, no excuse absentee voting, and voting rights for those on probation or parole. Additionally, Missouri voters would benefit from the addition of early voting options and the loosening of rules around pre-registration for voters under eighteen. Meanwhile, Arkansas voters would benefit from online voter registration and the implementation of any form of pre-registration.

o  Challenges to recent initiative-based redistricting reform efforts in both Arkansas and Missouri also highlight the difficulties related to such reform in these states, even when the opportunity for impact is high.

Tier 2

· Arizona: Arizona allows for both statute and amendment focused initiatives, and has passed 10 of 14 ballot initiatives since 2013. That, coupled with the fact that Arizona has introduced the third most restrictive voting bills this spring and needs to implement automatic voter registration, same day registration, and pre-registration for those under eighteen, makes Arizona an appealing target for initiative-based reform. Arizona also falls among the strictest states in terms of felony disenfranchisement. Furthermore, while it has been some time, Arizona has used initiatives to implement pro-voter reform in the past, most notably in the creation of an independent redistricting committee.  

· South Dakota: South Dakota falls on the wrong side of the middle of the pack when it comes to the cost of voting, ranking 29th, but allows statute and amendment related initiatives. It has also passed more than a dozen ballot initiatives since 2013. The lack of online registration, same day registration, and automatic voter registration, the latter two of which have been frequently implemented via initiative in recent years, present very tangible and impactful opportunities for reform. South Dakota also has room for reform on felony disenfranchisement, particularly in regards to voting rights for those on probation or parole. Furthermore, while South Dakota has only a single congressional district, its state level redistricting process is politically controlled by a single-party and is in need of reform. There have been repeated efforts to pass redistricting reform in recent years, with amendments failing to make the ballot in 2020 and 2018, and a 2016 amendment that would have created an independent commission failing to pass despite making the ballot. 

· Nevada: Nevada ranks just ahead of South Dakota in ease of voting, also allows statute and amendment related initiatives, and has passed a similar number initiatives since 2013, but has done so at a much higher rate. The state has also seen the recent success of Question 5 in 2018, which implemented automatic voter registration.The reason Nevada falls below South Dakota in this ranking of opportunities for reform is that Nevada already has many of the pro-voter reforms that SouthDakota lacks.  That said, three adjustments to existing programs could lower the cost of voting in Nevada:expanding early voting by starting it sooner, extending voter registration by moving back the deadline, and expanding pre-registration to 16-year-olds.Nevada also needs redistricting reform. A redistricting focused initiative failed to make the ballot in Nevada in 2020, likely due to the challenges of collecting signatures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Tier 3

· Oklahoma: Oklahoma falls among the bottom 20 states in terms of cost of voting and allows for statute and amendment related initiatives, but has passed fewer initiatives at a lower rate than many of the other states in the “high cost of voting and high opportunity for reform” quadrant of the matrix. That said it lacks automatic voter registration, same day registration, and pre-registration, in addition to having a very short early voting period and early voter registration deadlines. Oklahoma also has room for reform on felony disenfranchisement, particularly in regards to voting rights for those on probation or parole. Like Nevada, Oklahoma remains in need of redistricting reform after a redistricting initiative failed to make the ballot during the COVID-19 impacted 2020 election cycle.

· Mississippi: Mississippi has one of the least active ballot initiative processes in the “high cost of voting and high opportunity for reform quadrant of the matrix,” but when initiatives do end up on the ballot, they pass at a relatively high rate—especially in 2020 when all three initiatives on the ballot were passed by voters. Mississippi is also one of the five worst states in terms of cost of voting. While it only allows for amendment related initiatives, the pro-voter reforms that could be implemented in Mississippi have been done via citizen-initiated amendments in other states. The potential reforms include: online voter registration, same day voter registration, automatic voter registration, pre-registration for those under 18, the implementation of early voting, and no excuse absentee voting. Mississippi also falls among the strictest states in terms of felony disenfranchisement, and is in need of redistricting reform. Mississippi falls into the Brennan Center’s second highest-risk category this redistricting cycle, as this round of redistricting could see heated debates over efforts to increase the number of Black-majority legislative districts and to potentially add a second Black-majority congressional district.

· Ohio: Ohio allows for both statute and amendment related initiatives, and has passed the same number of initiatives as Mississippi since 2013, but has done so at a lower rate. That said, Ohio recently passed redistricting reform via initiative in 2018, and most of the pro-voter reforms that could be implemented are among those that have been implemented via initiative in other states in recent years. Those reform include same day registration, automatic voter registration, and pre-registration.

Tier 4

·  Nebraska: Nebraska falls just on the right side of the cost of voting index, ranking 22nd out of 50, but still has room for improvement and has passed initiatives at a high rate in recent years. While Nebraska has passed fewer initiatives than most of the states discussed in the “high cost of voting and high opportunity for reform” quadrant of the matrix, it has passed 8 of 9 initiatives since 2013.Furthermore, two clear opportunities for reform, automatic voter registration and same day voter registration, are reforms that have passed via initiative in other states in recent cycles. Nebraska also falls among the strictest states in terms of felony disenfranchisement, and saw a redistricting related initiative fail to make the ballot in 2020.

· Oregon: In the matrix, Oregon stands out as a state with the lowest cost of voting, a high opportunity for reform, and a red bubble that indicates the need for redistricting reform. An effort to implement redistricting reform in Oregon failed to make the ballot in 2020, likely due to COVID-related challenges.

 · Massachusetts and Illinois: Massachusetts and Illinois both fall among the better states in terms of cost of voting, and have passed fewer initiatives than other states with more active ballot initiative process, but both have redistricting processes that are under single-party control. Unlike Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Oregon, there were no initiative campaigns focused on redistricting in these states in 2020.

[1] While more states have seen initiative-based pro-voter reform in recent years, most often in the form of legislatively referred initiatives, this study is most concerned with states that allow citizen-initiated initiatives, of which there are 26, and will consider only those 26 as states where initiative reform is permitted. Those 26 states include Those states include Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado,Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Maryland (veto referendums only),Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, NewMexico (veto referendums only), North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, SouthDakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Within those 26 states, some allow initiatives to amend the state constitution and institute legislation, while others only allow one or the other, and some only allow veto referendums.

Brown EVC Research Team Conducts Voter Survey

By Tucker Wilke, Imran Dharamsi, & Joanne Liu

Leading up to the2020 Presidential election, Brown University’s chapter of Every Vote Counts conducted a school-wide voter outreach campaign. We reached out to students onInstagram, Facebook, and GroupMe, and were able to encourage over 3000 of our peers to vote. After the election, we decided to task ourselves, the research team, with thinking about the best ways to increase voter turnout at Brown.

We began our work by pulling together a couple different studies detailing outreach messages that have been successful in other settings. These studies definitely helped in informing our approach, but they were generally outdated. We were also aware that every institution, especially Brown, has a distinct culture that makes some voter outreach strategies resonate better at specific institutions. We wanted to dig deeper into the determinants of voting and nonvoting behavior among Brown students, so we conducted our own survey.

Designing the survey ‍

As we planned the survey that we would create through Qualtrics, we decided to ask respondents about both civic and social factors that influenced their voting or non-voting behavior. Both of these play a role in a student’s eventual decision to vote. These included social pressure from friends and family, encouragement from professors, opposition to a candidate/platform, and civic duty, among others. We also designed the survey to collect information from students who didn’t vote. We asked them about a lack of voting in their community/friends circle, apathy toward the candidates, and feeling that their vote was unimportant.  For those who did vote, we asked them to rank several factors’ significance in their decision.

In order to gauge the representation of our survey sample, we collected demographic data on class year, gender, race, and major. Ppl Before sending out the survey, we met with a survey-focused student group for feedback on questions and formatting. They also gave us some tips on how to obtain a demographically representative sample, and in the end we decided that the best way to do this was to get our survey to as many student groups as possible.

Distributing the survey

We had an extensive outreach effort to distribute the survey. Over two months, we sent emails to all sorts of student groups, athletic teams, affinity groups, and academic departments on campus. The main ask of them was simple –send the link to our survey in their email newsletters. We also used social media to get the word out, and were featured on the university-wide daily newsletter multiple times. Our incentive for students to fill in the survey was a $25 Amazon gift card raffle.

One important point to add is that survey results were collected anonymously, and students were assured of that beforehand.

We’re looking forward to being able to survey students again during the next election cycle, hopefully when everything is back to normal and in person.It was difficult to reach people and get them to take the survey online, where there is a degree of separation, but it will be a lot easier in person.  

Results, challenges, ideas for improvement ‍

Despite the online format, we were surprised that we were able to reach 350 students. While our survey struggled to reach nonvoters, respondents were demographically representative of Brown’s population overall, which gave us valuable insight into the reasons Brown students vote. On the other hand, they didn’t provide us enough information to draw conclusions about why some students decided not to vote.

We found that among voters, the most significant factor pushing them toward voting was opposition to a candidate or platform. This was not surprising given the circumstances of the 2020 Presidential election, which suggests that maintaining the high turnout rates seen this past November will be a struggle in future elections. The second most significant was civic duty, which is important for our group to consider in constructing our outreach messaging in the future. Another notable result was that social pressure from friends had more of an impact on the decision to vote than outreach from student groups and social media posts combined. This validates the outreach strategy that EVC used in the fall--people respond more often to messages from those inside their trusted social circle.

We intend to repeat a similar survey in the future, with some changes to address areas where we fell short. Specifically, we want to increase the number of respondents from nonvoters so that we can gain insights about that group.We’d also like to have more qualitative data to analyze, in the form of open responses. We think that a big reason we ran into those limitations this time around is due to the online format of pretty much everything at Brown over the last year. However, once we switch to an in-person survey format, we’re hopeful that we’ll be able to generate even better results. Overall, we have learned a lot about voting behaviors here at Brown throughout the course of this survey.If you want to try something similar at your institution, check out our reference guide!

Ranked Choice Voting, NYC Primaries, And Student Government Elections

By Warren Klein

Ranked Choice Voting recently came to the forefront of American politics following a controversy in the New York City Democratic Mayoral Primary. But before diving into the politics of the system it is important to understand how Ranked Choice Voting works. Different from other ballots, when filling out a Ranked Choice ballot, the ballot gives the voter the opportunity to rank up to 5 candidates. After the ballots are submitted, a series of runoff elections occur until a candidate receives at least 50% of the vote. After each runoff election a candidate is eliminated - the candidate with the least amount of votes - and their votes are redistributed to the next candidate on each of the voters ranked lists. For example, in the context of the New York City Mayoral Democratic Primary, if one were to have ranked Andrew Yang first followed by Eric Adams, after Andrew Yang was eliminated from the race, their vote would then be given to Eric Adams.

So, what exactly happened to create such a fuss surrounding Ranked Choice Voting in New York City? Well, when tallying the votes for the primary, the New York City Board of Elections failed to remove over 135,000 sample ballots that were intended to test the technology for counting the Ranked Choice Voting ballots before the race. As a result, the New York City Board of Elections released inaccurate vote counts, which they later had to retract, confusing the people and reducing confidence in Ranked Choice Voting. 

 Due to human error, the New York City Board of Elections managed to further undermine the legitimacy of voting procedures in the United States and their actions have painted Ranked Choice Voting as a convoluted, anti-democratic process. While the argument can be made that Ranked Choice Voting is both of those things, the New York City Board of Elections should not be the reason that it is dismissed nationally. Ranked Choice Voting is not a new practice and issues surrounding its implementation in New York City are not a reason to end its consideration as an alternative to our current “first past the post” system. It has been successfully used in cities across the nation and was even used in the presidential and other federal elections for the state of Maine.

Champions of Ranked Choice Voting want the candidates to be most representative of the people. In some ways it does provide that as every candidate selected has a majority of the living ballots. Those in favor of Ranked Choice Voting also see it as a remedy for the extreme polarization that has swept over the United States over the last decade. They believe it forces candidates to be more sympathetic to opposing views and moderate their positions. To them, ranked choice voting is the solution to making campaigning less negative and more inclusive, serving to foster issue focused and positive candidate platforms. In Maine’s gubernatorial democratic primary, Mark Eves and Betsy Sweet released a joint video advocating for each other’s policies. It was refreshing to see two candidates competing against one another advocate on each other’s behalf. That approach, catalyzed by Ranked Choice Voting, can be especially powerful in primaries as it incentivizes candidates to appeal to bigger audiences; thus making their platforms more encompassing of the party. Also, during primaries candidates regularly drop out of the race and having the Ranked Choice Ballot can be particularly helpful for early and absentee voters who do not know who will still be in contention by the time their state’s primary occurs. Additionally Ranked Choice Voting promotes the existence of third parties and allows voters to give their support to candidates they truly want in office without worrying about “throwing away their vote.” During the 2016 election, for example, third party candidates carried over 5% of the overall vote. Had there been Ranked Choice Ballots the outcome of the election could have been very different. 

Critics of Ranked Choice Voting are concerned about the exhausted ballot phenomenon. An exhausted ballot occurs when a ballot is eliminated from the voting tally because all of the candidates a voter selected were eliminated from the race. By the ninth tabulation in the New York City Mayoral election, for example, 117,000 ballots were exhausted. It is troubling to some that in the final tally so many ballots are not counted or considered and as a result critics do not see a reason to use the Ranked Choice Voting system if it can fail in its main mission to always provide a majority. 

Additionally, people are afraid that Ranked Choice Voting will exacerbate polarization in the United States as there will be less of a consequence for voting for an extremist candidate.

Finally, opponents of the system see Ranked Choice Voting as an over complicated process that discourages voter turnout. They believe that mobilizing the electorate to vote is difficult enough, and that the educational hurdles related to Ranked Choice Voting will be expensive to overcome and potentially exacerbate disparities between those who are likely to vote and those who are not. Simply put, they argue people who do not vote will be further deterred by the idea of having to learn a new system of voting. 

One way to combat this education critique of Ranked Choice Voting is to promote its use in student elections on college campuses. According to FairVote, over 80 colleges and universities including UC Berkeley, Harvard, Stanford, Yale, and Michigan are already using Ranked Choice Voting in the Student Government elections, and expanding that practice could educate and familiarize young voters with Ranked Choice Voting. Ranked Choice Voting may have the potential to do much good for the American people and we can’t let the mistakes of the NYC board of elections, not issues with Ranked Choice Voting itself, be what influences its future in the United States. Transitioning campus elections nationwide to ranked choice voting will help educate generations of voters, and hopefully it can inspire greater participation by the American public in the voting process more broadly.

Continuing The Momentum: Utilizing Student Government To Increase Civic Engagement

How student government election turnout relates to broader campus civic engagement initiatives.

By Patrick J. Mehler, Cornell Votes

In October of 2020, the president of Cornell’s Student Assembly (SA) approached me with a proposal for both myself and Cornell Votes: manage the SA’s elections. The SA acts as the student side of Cornell’s shared governance system, a side that manages millions of dollars, represents over 15,000 students, and seeks to elevate the concerns of Cornellians to the administration. I agreed to serve as the SA’s new Director of Elections (DOE) and was unanimously confirmed in February of 2021. While much more went into the setup, strategizing, and implementation than can be briefly summarized here, I hope that sharing some of the strategies for voter turnout both encourages other universities to consider investing in student government engagement and consider avenues to do so.

In being confirmed as the new DOE, I not only became one of the youngest students to do so but became the first student who was not already a member of the SA to become Director in decades.This mixture of my outsider perspective, being a sophomore, and, most importantly, helming Cornell Votes allowed me to bring new ideas and strategies to the SA’s elections that bolstered civic engagement throughout Cornell.

Before even beginning to strategize, I reformed our outdated and traditionalistic ElectionsCommittee. Unfortunately, in years past the role of DOE was pushed onto an outgoing senior who would fill the Committee with fellow SA members and other seniors. With senioritis already taking hold, the role was typically completed without serious strategy and riddled with controversies. With intentional effort, I filled the Committee with students from as diverse backgrounds as I could find. Between all four class years, seven out of the eight undergraduate colleges, transfers and first-years, cultural, intellectual, and racial backgrounds, and mixing insiders and outsiders to the SA, the Committee saw an accurate representation of Cornell for the first time in years.

In looking to increase turnout, I first looked towards recruiting students to run for SA. The SA had a serious lack of competition, with under 1/3 of all races even being contested. Between reaching out to student organizations, university offices pertinent to certain races, and direct outreach to student leaders, the Spring 2021 election saw some of the most competitive races in years; twice as many seats and twice as many races were contested in 2021 versus 2020. Accessibility and visibility of the elections became the next issue. By utilizing Cornell Votes’ status throughout campus, Cornell Votes had posters, signs, and chalking for SA elections penetrate the entire campus. Although a ban of these activities was in place due to COVID restrictions, the relationship between Cornell Votes and the Cornell administration allowed us to supersede rules in place for other organizations and promote the elections everywhere. From dining halls and dorms to COVID testing sites, students were able to scan a QR code to vote from anywhere around campus. To further promote visibility of the elections, Cornell Votes also created nonpartisan voter-friendly profiles for all candidates that were shared online hundreds of times.

Debates for the SA’s eighteen positions were previously split into two sessions: one for the presidential and executive vice presidential races and another for all other roles. In hoping to increase voter participation, I split the debates into three with specific focus on the college representatives. The first debate solely encompassed the races for the college reps, following a strict schedule that allowed students from their colleges to come only for their fifteen-minute slot and not waste time watching races they could not vote in. The second debate allowed a stronger focus on the candidates running for special at-large roles, such as students with disabilities, international, and minority students liaisons. The final debate with the presidential and executive vice presidential candidates rounded all them all out. With a new format and intentional splitting up of the events, these three successful debates saw the highest turnout by voters in years.

For generating higher voter turnout, these months’ worth of preparation allowed Cornell Votes and myself to sit back for the most part. With a final reaching out to hundreds of student organizations, multiple campus-wide emails, and reaching tens of thousands of students through social media in the final three days of voting, Cornell’s SA elections successfully concluded. We saw an increase of 33% in voter turnout, twice as many races and seats contested, and over 75% of newly elected members being brand new to student government.

The success of managing these student elections has been exceptionally beneficial to CornellVotes’ efforts in continuing the momentum beyond the national 2020 election. With hard data defending the success of our efforts, Cornell Votes continues to be the central hub of civic engagement at the university and persists in its efforts to involve the whole campus in civic engagement. Our next moves include registering all first-year students during move-in and orientation, working towards an on-campus polling site, and having election day be recognized as a school holiday. All of these goals are soon to become a reality because of our proven dedication to civic engagement at every level, from the President of the United States to the President of the SA.

The full report on Cornell SA’s 2021 Elections can be found here. Please email Patrick via pjm344@cornell.edu for any questions about this post or how to work with your student government!

Patrick J. Mehler is a junior in the New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University with minors in Leadership and Law & Society and concentrations in alternative dispute resolution. He serves as a co-founder of and as the inaugural President of Cornell Votes, as the Director of Elections for the Cornell Student Assembly, and as the Lead Andrew Goodman Foundation Ambassador at Cornell University. Beyond his involvement with civic engagement, Patrick can be found everywhere throughout Cornell’s campus from overseeing all club sports as the Club Sports Council’s President to teaching restorative dispute practices as the Scheinman Conflict Resolution Club’s President, among other roles.

Response To The Events Of January 6th, 2021

EVC's statement in response to the events on January 6th, 2021

Yesterday, we witnessed an unprecedented attack on our democracy. Domestic terrorists attacked the United States Capitol Building, interrupting a joint session of Congress and attempting to prevent lawmakers from carrying out their constitutional duties.

This insurrection was an attempt to overturn a democratic election and prevent the peaceful transfer of power. The actions of these rioters were antithetical to our democracy and not in line with the right to peaceful protest that our nation holds dear. They must be held accountable for their actions, and we condemn the violence that took place, as well as the actions, words, and lack of respect for the democratic process that provoked it. We also commend Congress for doing its job, upholding the will of the people, and certifying the results of the election.  

Yesterday was a dark day in American history, but we must band together and continue to fight for our democracy. Now more than ever, we must strive to ensure that our democracy stands for truth, justice, and the rule of law.  

Early Election Takeaway: Young People Rocked The Vote

Two things are clear, even as we wait on the final results: young people & students rocked the vote, and expanded mail-in ballots (and other pandemic voting responses) should be here to stay.

While we wait on election officials around the national to do their job and count every vote, and it will be months before we have a final sense of nationwide and youth turnout around the country, there are two early things we can take away from this election.

‍

First, that young people and students made their voices heard in record numbers. It will be some time before we know the exact turnout rate among eligible young people nationwide, or on college campuses around the country, but early data from battleground states indicates that turnout could be close to 10 percentage points higher than in 2016. A campus precinct in Florida hit over 100% turnout. In Georgia, where margins are razor thin, youth made up at least 21 percent of the electorate, a number that nearly matches the percentage of eligible young voters in the electorate. At this point, we don’t know the results of the election, but we do know that students and young Americans rocked the vote, despite the added challenges to voting as student or young person amidst the pandemic.

Second, that efforts must be made to make permanent many of the changes that drove the highest nationwide turnout since 1900 possible. While the COVID-19 pandemic was the impetuous for a large increase in access to mail-in and absentee voting for Americans, it’s clear that expanded early and mail-in voting should be here to say. At least 100 million Americans voted early or by mail, and that increase in non-election day voting could have played a role in an election day that ran more smoothly than many might have feared. Reforms like additional early voting, no-excuse absentee ballots, and increased access to ballot return options should be made permanent for all elections.

Voting From Abroad

Americans living abroad now face unprecedented challenges when it comes to voting this November.

By Jeanie Kim

In 1986, Congress enacted the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA). This required states to allow any U.S. citizens living outside the U.S. or any member of the U.S. Uniformed Services and their family members to register and vote absentee in federal elections. After the passage of this legislation, citizens can submit a Federal Post Card Application, which simultaneously registers someone to vote and submits an absentee ballot request. In more recent years, the 2010 MOVE Act also added some expansions to help make sure citizens had enough time to receive and mail back their ballots. 

However, Americans living abroad now face unprecedented challenges when it comes to voting this November. As of July 28th, 2020, the U.S. postal service has stopped accepting shipments to 68 countries due to “lack of transportation or suspension of mail service in that country.” It is unclear how ballots will be mailed to U.S. citizens living in countries who are having problems with international mail. USPS has stated that “election officials should mail absentee ballots at least 45 days prior to the November 3, 2020, General Election. All military absentee ballots mailed by election officials from September 1 through November 30, 2020, will be subject to special handling procedures.” This gives countries and the U.S. limited time to figure out how overseas citizens will vote in November’s general election.

The Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) has partnered with the USPS, Department of State, and Department of Defense to help people with international voting problems during COVID-19. However, there has been no clear response as to what steps they will actually be taking. 

This might not seem like a priority for many Americans, particularly when citizens inside the U.S. are also having many concerns about vote-by-mail. However, according to the Association of Americans Resident Overseas(AARO), if all of the 8.7 million Americans living outside of the U.S. were a state, they would be the 12th most populous state in the country. This puts them right between New Jersey and Virginia. It is hard to imagine that a candidate would not pay attention to the votes coming from a state the size of New Jersey and Virginia.

The lack of interest might be attributed to the fact that Americans abroad are not entitled to a block of delegates in the electoral college. Nevertheless, the popular vote is still extremely important to the U.S. election system. The popular vote represents who the American population wanted to be president. Furthermore, it is rare for an individual to become president without winning the popular vote. 

As election results continue to have increasingly thin-margins, absentee voting has become a decisive factor. President George W. Bush won the presidential election in 2000 after all absentee ballots were counted; overseas military ballots played a key role in his victory. To this day, people dispute the size of President Bush’s victory against Vice President Al Gore. When he was first declared the winner with a 1,784 lead, and by the time votes were recounted, he led by 300 votes. The 2,409 ballots from Americans living abroad that were counted after Election Day helped push President Bush to the victory line. Other examples of candidates who won because of absentee ballots include Senator Webb of Virginia in 2006, Governor Cooper of North Carolina in 2016, and Senator Hassan of New Hampshire in 2016. 

It is possible that absentee ballots could also be the deciding factor in this election, particularly with many Americans voting by mail this year. As the U.S. figures out how to vote by mail on a large scale during a global pandemic, it must also make sure to include citizens overseas in their concerns. Living outside of the country does not make someone any less American. If the U.S. wants to live up to its claim of being a “true democracy”, then the U.S. must find out a way to make sure that all eligible voters are able to participate in this year’s general election. 

Vote From Abroad is a nonpartisan organization that provides help and resources to U.S. citizens voting absentee from other countries. If you are a member of one of the two major parties, the Democrats Abroad and Republicans Overseas also have resources to guide you.

Alternate Voting Systems: Approval Voting

Approval voting may not be the answer, but it highlights that there is a world of alternative voting systems out there for advocates to parse through, debate, and consider.

By Zeke Hertz

The modern, two-party, winner-takes-all electoral system that the United States uses to decide its elections is flawed; this is not a new concept. Political scientists and voters have long stated their complaints with this system and have made vocal their desire for reform. In 2016, for example, citizens of Maine voted for Ranked Choice Voting during a referendum, becoming the first state to implement an alternative voting system in its congressional election. Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is an electoral process which allows voters to rank candidates from most to least preferred, with votes to the least popular candidate being redistributed to second choices until a candidate is elected by a majority. While RCV is an alternative voting system that has gotten the most attention, particularly from advocacy groups like EVC, there are other alternative models that Americans may want to consider when looking for electoral reform.

Approval Voting is a prominent substitute that is floated in place of RCV or the status quo. This electoral system is used by the UN to decide its secretary general and is utilized in small elections around the country. Fargo, North Dakota became the first city to adapt approval voting in 2018, a major victory for advocates of approval voting. Under an approval voting system, voters would be able to select as many candidates as they would like, rather than just one, as the system currently permits. Essentially, the ballot would present voters with a binary choice on each candidate: whether or not they “approve” of them. All votes are weighted equally and, at the end, the candidate with the highest approval wins the race.

There are many benefits of an approval-based election, the most prominent of which is its effect on the two-party system and spoiler candidates. Like RCV, approval aims to eliminate the possibility of a minor party drawing support from a major party and “spoiling” the election. In an approval system, this goal is achieved by permitting voters to select both candidates, allowing them to show their support for a minor party’s platform without risking electoral damage to their preferred major candidate. Approval is also a simpler system to understand than RCV, an important benefit for those unfamiliar with a newly-implemented electoral system, and the results are easier for the average, non-engaged voter to interpret; instead of multiple rounds of runoffs, voters just see one election. Approval-based ballots, because they are so simple, are also significantly less likely to be filled out incorrectly, a serious problem under the current system.

Advocates of RCV see major issues with an approval system, however. One of the biggest issues with approval voting is that it can sometimes produce wonky results. The most pressing concern is that a highly centrist party might receive approval from both sides of the political spectrum and win, resulting in a winner that is the most “approved of” but is few voters' first choice. RCV accounts for voter preference in a way that approval doesn’t, solving this potential problem. The counter to this objection is that approval sacrifices pure majority rule in the name of maximizing some level of satisfaction (this highly centrist result is thus an intentional side effect of the system). Since approval voting has never been used on a national or state level, it is still unknown whether voters would perceive this sacrifice of strong first choice support and the trend towards extreme centrism as fair and democratic.

Other problematic results that can result from approval voting have to do with the way a ballot is filled out. “Bullet votes” describes approval ballots in which a voter only selects one candidate, despite being able to vote for as many as they would like. If too many voters cast a bullet vote, the system dissolves into a two-party, winner-takes-all system, practically nullifying the reform and reverting us to the status quo. There is some evidence that voters may be inclined to cast bullet votes, too. The Independent Party of Oregon held their 2016 primary using an approval system and found that 70% of voters decided to cast a bullet vote. These results suggest that if candidates are very ideologically different, voters may not be willing to utilize their approval powers. Unfortunately, bullet voting is a natural limitation of the approval system. 

 If voters decide to vote for too many candidates, the approval system also runs into a problem of being unable to distinguish the best candidates and amplifying the votes of voters who decided against voting this way. This may happen in a primary, for example, when there are few ideological differences between candidates. In 2016, YouGov conducted an approval-based poll of the Republican primary field and found that nearly 90% of respondents approved of every candidate, proving this is a legitimate concern. This scenario, like bullet voting, is a part of the nature of approval voting and can’t be controlled; RCV, by being a completely different system, doesn’t face these problems. 

Approval voting is not a perfect system and it may not even be any better than Ranked Choice Voting in creating a fairer democracy. The truth is, however, that there is no perfect electoral system and that each proposed reform can be countered with legitimate criticism and concerns. The reality is that the status quo is fundamentally flawed and that many voters are unhappy with how the system is run. Approval voting may not be the answer, but it highlights that there is a world of alternative voting systems out there for advocates to parse through, debate, and consider.

Voting Systems In The U.S. And The 2020 Election

The history of voting shows us the necessity of updating voting systems, especially to protect minority communities and ensure speedy and reliable results. However, recent events demonstrate the importance of slowing down as well.

By Jensen Steady

Los Angeles’ 2020 primary election in March fell apart quickly. Long lines of over three hours were reported by the LA Times, polls were understaffed, and the system was criticized as confusing by many voters. Many polling places were forced to stay open for hours after closing time to accommodate voters that had joined the line before 8pm. 

How did we get here? Voting systems have evolved dramatically over the past few centuries, yet are an often overlooked topic in electoral discussions. To understand the current problem we face with our voting systems, we need to look at the history of voting in the U.S.

Voting in America originated in the form of voice voting in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The process was simple: registered white males were able to cast their ballots by swearing their identity on a Bible and vocally announcing who they would be voting for.

In the second half of the 19th century, paper ballots took over. Only by the late 1800s did the Australian secret ballot make its way to the U.S. The secret ballot was unique for its time because it was a private ballot that voters filled out unburdened by outside influence at the polling place, and the ballots were printed uniformly and distributed by the government rather than an outside organization. 

The modern voting machine was first introduced in the late 1800s, weighed hundreds of pounds, and cost thousands of dollars. Developments in technology later led to the creation of punch cards, which often came with their own host of problems due to the physical nature of punching the paper. 

Today, many polling places use electronic voting machines. These became popular after the 2000 election when confidence in punch card voting was shattered due to the close nature of the election. These polling stations have simplified the process and provide immediate results on the night of Election Day. However, their security has often been called into question with many arguing that they can be easily hacked, either by political parties or foreign enemies.

Although the security of the ballot is vitally important, a more direct problem with electronic voting machines is that they often fail to work. Glitches plague electronic machines, and aren’t helped by poll workers who are often technologically illiterate. In addition election officials in many jurisdictions place polling sites inefficiently which often disadvantages communities of color. Just as we consider foreign interference or fraud to be a serious problem, we should also view the lack of an opportunity to vote due to long lines and election malpractice as equally, if not more disturbing. 

This brings us back to LA County, which had not updated its voting system in over 50 years. Last year, partially thanks to the Voter’s Choice Act, the LA County registrar-recorder and clerk initiated a new program that would update the antiquated system. The new machines use electronic touch screens where voters can make a selection, print a paper ballot, and upon verification from the voter, have it reinserted into the machine to be deposited into a collection box. 

Additionally, the number of polling places were slashed considerably and replaced with around 1,000 so-called “vote centers.” Voters were no longer restricted to their specific polling place, could vote up to two weeks before the election in person at some locations, and had the ability to register same-day at the voting center. 

While many of these changes seem good, the rollout of these new voting machines and the entirely new “vote center” system threw many residents off who expected to be able to vote at their traditional polling place. At the same time, many voting machines were often malfunctioning and held up the lines. In the end, turnout was almost half of its 2016 rate.

Another example can be found in Georgia’s 2020 primary where officials blamed each other after residents were left waiting in hours-long lines. Many Democratic officials claimed Republicans had purposefully tampered with the state’s new voting system rollout, while Republicans argued it was incompetence from the Democrats at the local level in Atlanta that was to blame. Either way, machines did not work and people could not vote.

The history of voting shows us the necessity of updating voting systems, especially to protect minority communities and ensure speedy and reliable results. However, recent events demonstrate the importance of slowing down as well.

To ensure effective and secure voting, there are two major factors that should be taken into consideration. First, systems need to be rigorously tested before they are adopted, especially during a crucial election year such as 2020. Second, these systems need to demonstrate their worth—such as making it easier to vote, lowering wait times, or any other reasonable metric, before they should be considered for implementation. 

There is no reason to change voting systems, even to update an old system, if the change will only have a negative effect on people’s voting experience. In the cases of LA and Atlanta, changing systems only made things worse. If problems continue to occur in the 2020 primary season and in the general election, scrapping these new voting systems, at least until consistency and effectiveness can be proven in tests, may be our only solution.

Partisanship And Vote By Mail

By politicizing voting by mail, certain critics have done the nation a disservice by undermining people’s trust in the voting process. Especially in light of the current pandemic, our civil servants and elected representatives must find ways to maintain the integrity of voting by mail in order to ensure fair – and trusted – elections.

By Warren Klein

Under the backdrop of a threatening pandemic, voting by mail has come to the forefront of American politics as it could provide people access to a ballot without the threat of physical virus exposure. But now, politicians on both sides of the aisle have expressed differing opinions on what they believe to be the true impact of absentee voting on turnout. With claims of high fraud rates, politicians have shifted the narrative surrounding voting by mail and have negated its primary purpose of expanding the United States electorate.

Due to the inherent risk of fraud, all states have taken extensive measures to ensure ballot security. Every voter who casts an absentee ballot is required to provide some form of I.D. verification, whether it be the last four digits of a social security number or a certified signature that exists in states’ voter databases. Additionally, there are intelligent barcodes on all absentee ballot envelopes that function in a variety of ways. They eliminate duplicate ballots and provide voter identification, while also ensuring that ballots are not compromised or subject to fraud by allowing for ballot tracking through the U.S Postal Service. States have also instituted harsh penalties for voter fraud to serve as a deterrent to potential fraudsters. Such security measures have caused the rate absentee ballot fraud to remain at approximately .0000001% over the past two decades. According to a study done in the Voting Rights Project, from 2000 to 2012 there were only 491 cases of fraud, practically all of which would not have been prevented by a required photo I.D. at polling sites.

However, recently, President Trump, along with many members of the Republican party, including RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, have argued that voting by mail undermines U.S. democracy. Among all modes of voting, voting by mail does in fact have the highest rate of fraud on a relative basis. However, absentee ballot fraud volume is small enough that even if all fraudulent ballots from 2000 to 2012 were counted to support solely Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, one of the most contested elections in United States history, no state would have flipped its electoral votes. While critics’ comments that voting by mail increases the risk of voter fraud are technically true, it is important to note that the increase is insignificant as it relates to election outcomes, and that the overall process does not inherently benefit Democrats or Republicans. 

For example, in Florida, where no excuse is needed for an absentee ballot, both Democrats and Republicans alike have benefitted from voting by mail. If anything, Republicans have made use of absentee ballots more effectively in Florida than Democrats, as seen in the 2016 and 2018 elections. In 2016, 28% of voters voted by mail in Florida; 31% of voters voted by mail there in 2018. In both elections, Democrats requested more absentee ballots. However, Republicans had a higher percentage of their ballots accepted and therefore a higher quantity of ballots counted than Democrats. As one Republican campaign veteran stated, “absentee ballots are typically Republicans’ friends in Florida.” Additionally, according to an analysis done by political scientist Charles Stewart at MIT, in the 2020 primary, which had occurred right before the statewide shelter in place, Republicans voted by mail at a much higher percentage than Democrats, with 57% of all Republican votes tallied by mail compared to 41% of Democrats’.

President Trump’s recent negative opinion of voting by mail does not seem to be rooted in facts and  instead appears to stem from his belief that the electoral outcome of the 2020 Wisconsin Primary will repeat itself in subsequent elections that utilize voting by mail. 

In the 2020 Wisconsin primary, Democrats benefited more from voting by mail than their Republican counterparts. Liberal Wisconsin supreme court candidate, Jill Karofsky, performed ten percentage points better than her conservative opponent in votes cast by absentee ballot than votes cast at polls on election day. Such a result prompted Trump to say that mail ballots are fraudulent and part of an unfair, partisan system. He has failed to recognize and understand that Karofsky’s win is an anomaly in terms of one party benefiting disproportionately from voting by mail. In fact, the Wisconsin local GOP chairman, Rohn Bishop, expressed his belief that with sufficient voter education and party mobilization Wisconsin can use voting by mail to help Trump win in 2020 when he said “There is no evidence that mail in voting will lead to massive fraud and abuse. In fact, we might be able to use it to help offset the Democrats’ early voting advantages.” In Wisconsin’s 2016 and 2018 elections, there had been no correlation between voting by mail and a partisan advantage. Additionally, Washington Republican Secretary of State, Kim Whyman, who has overseen Washington state’s voting by mail, said “voting by mail is secure and trustworthy.”

However, despite evidence that voting by mail helps both parties, Republicans have been more skeptical of the process. It appears that Trump’s comments have further driven a wedge into this perception gap. A poll done on April 27th by Associated Press News and the Norc Center for Public Affairs Research found that 46% of Republicans want a no excuse policy in the 2020 election vs. 73% of Democrats. Unfortunately, a process designed to promote voter participation through ease of use and to help more people have a voice has been twisted into a political issue. 

By politicizing voting by mail, certain critics have done the nation a disservice by undermining people’s trust in the voting process. Especially in light of the current pandemic, our civil servants and elected representatives must find ways to maintain the integrity of voting by mail in order to ensure fair – and trusted – elections. In a nation where only 55% of eligible voters participate in national elections, this practice should be celebrated as a way to encourage more to participate in the political process. Voting by mail has no constraints for which party it supports. It is a process that can help ensure that more Americans have a voice in elections and should be treated as such. 

EVC Statement Of Solidarity

The EVC National Student Advisory Board's statement of solidarity regarding the death of George Floyd and systemic racism in the United States.

By EVC National Student Advisory Board

We, like so many around the country, are deeply disturbed and saddened by the senseless killing of George Floyd. We are similarly enraged by the pattern of violence, racism, and oppression againstBlack People in America that led to Floyd’s death and the deaths of too many other individuals. Yet we are heartened and encouraged by the fact that so many people—black and white, young and old—have spoken up and acted out against this injustice over the past few days. It is all of our responsibility to fight for an America that truly delivers equal justice for all. 

Every Vote Counts “seeks to strengthen our democracy for future generations by making sure that every American who is eligible to vote can easily do so—and that every vote counts.” If this mission is to have any meaning at all, it must mean that we understand our democracy is imperfect. It must mean that we recognize that the right to vote has never been equally extended to all people. And it must mean that we support the protest and uplift the voices of those who our democracy has historically excluded and presently fails to adequately include, especially our Black students and peers, as we fight alongside them for a more perfect future.

While protest is important, protest alone cannot make the changes our world so desperately needs.  So, while we recognize the failures of our electoral system and support the protest and action that has drawn attention to this important cause, we also hope those who raise their voice now will raise their voice again at the ballot box. Every Vote Counts chapters and partners will be working hard to make sure every eligible student is able to cast their vote as we all continue to fight for a future we can believe in.

Jumpstarting Our Chapter With Time Off To Vote

How Getting UVM Signed on to EVC's Time Off to Vote Letter Helped Our Chapter Get a Footing on Campus.

By James Tedesco

Starting an EVC chapter has certainly brought unique challenges. On the one hand, breaking the threshold between not existing and having the first semblance of campus presence was difficult. However, it has to be said that these challenges diminish quickly by inviting collaboration with friends from class, attending the meetings of other civic-minded clubs, and setting achievable, non-zero goals. For me, despite having garnered interest from other students in political science courses, I was having trouble converting this willpower potential into a coordinated effort.‍

It was at this juncture that EVC’s Time Off To Vote letter facilitated a concrete objective for our budding chapter at the University of Vermont. Narrowing the scope of EVC’s many overarching goals, it created an outside objective we could clearly focus on. What’s more, gaining our student government’s endorsement of the TOTV letter inherently called us to engage with pre-existing campus organizations, connecting us with their resources and knowledge. At UVM, this looked like sitting down with members from different Student Government Association (SGA) committees and fleshing out how we could present the letter during the next Senate convening. One fringe benefit we experienced from these early meetings was the post-meeting discussions about what our broader campus goals looked like. Originally, I’d believed the gritty work of voter registration was paramount, but after one particular meeting with a member of the Committee on Student Action and Well-Being, I realized we’d probably register more people and curate more engagement by leading with the banner of a novel project. Trying to shake the lackluster bureaucracy of the voter registration process, we talked about packaging it with campus-specific initiatives as simple as individual signatures on the TOTV letter or as challenging as lowering the voting age for municipal elections.

After the bill relating to the letter had been drafted by our Committee on Community and Legislative Affairs and was introduced as new business, I was asked to present before a SGA session. Rather than bounding ahead to introduce the letter, I began by talking about EVC’s goals in the abstract, breaking down the three pillars of registration, reform, and education. Expounding from there, I shared data regarding the tangible impacts other EVC chapters had brought to their campus communities around the country, and finally, concluded by summarizing the impacts we were looking to gain from the SGA’s signature today. After presenting, there was an inquiry period, but everyone in the chamber appeared very receptive to what they’d heard. There was one question which I was having trouble understanding, but by sharing the stage with an SGA member, they were able to fill the gaps between our different understandings. A very reasonable point of clarification, the question had been about whether the TOTV letter was exclusively seeking student approval or also that of university officials. Once understanding that, I emphasized EVC’s role as being student centered, organized, and interested in student-based action.

Through that single session, without contention, we received the sign-off from UVM’s student body representatives while also affording our chapter important visibility and recognition. Because of the cooperation up to and including that Senate session, we’ve certainly spring-boarded ahead, with the future of our chapter looking bright.

The Value Of Peer-To-Peer Engagement

A reflection on our chapter's experience hosting our first peer-to-peer voter registration training workshop.

By Maria Merkle

On February 20th, our Fordham University EVC chapter held our first civic education workshop. In partnership with the school’s office of community engaged learning, we gave an interactive presentation to a group of local high schoolers on basic civics, suffrage, how to vote, and how to set up a voter registration drive in their own community.

In New York, where Fordham is located, while there is a statewide civic education requirement for high schoolers, it only requires a half credit in participation in government. Unfortunately, this is in line with the national standard. Only nine states and the District of Colombia require a full year of formal U.S.government or civics education, and ten states have no requirement. When students do not receive a formal civic education, they feel like they do not know enough about the government to participate in it.

I went to high school in Washington D.C, so I had the unique opportunity to observe the government function right in my backyard. I had easy access to outlets for civic involvement and education that reached beyond the classroom. These opportunities sparked my passion for civic engagement, but whenI arrived to college, I quickly realized that most people did not grow up in environments that fostered the same level of civic participation. When I asked my friends if they planned on voting in the upcoming election, though they were hesitant to admit it, they were not sure if they would vote. Their reason, they just didn’t know enough about the election.

Voting can be a scary process and it is even more so when you don’t know what to expect. When I voted the first time, I spent weeks going through the process of applying for an absentee ballot, waiting to be approved, waiting for my ballot, filling my ballot, and then waiting to see it safely received at my county registrar’s office. It was a long and unfriendly process.Without a foundation of what the process was going to look like, I took it into my own hands and did my own research. For someone less persistent than I am or someone with less free time on their hands to do their own research, the process could easily deter you from voting altogether. 

Education combats the fear that comes with not knowing, but we hoped to do more. The goal of our workshop was not only to educate students on the what, why, and how of voting, thus setting the foundation they need to become informed voters, but also to set the students into action. So, while we covered necessary topics like basic civics, a brief history of suffrage, and the importance and value of voting, we ended our drive by proposing plans for the students to host a voter registration drive at their school. We explained the different ways to register, how they could lead a registration movement at their school, and encouraged them to take advantage of the “Democracy in a Box” program sponsored by one of EVC’s national partners,The Civics Center.

We believe there is something inherently valuable in students taking their civic duties into their own hands. Even for informed voters, voting can be daunting and thankless. It can seem like it is a job for someone who is older and more experienced, and being told how to navigate voting can only can so far in overcoming those feeling.

It is important for young people to see that their voice matters and that it is in fact heard. During a game of myth or fact we discussed common misconceptions about voter turnout and the value of each individual vote, and one thing became clear: students overwhelmingly felt that their votes do not matter. The students highlighted discrepancies in results between the popular vote and the electoral college, as well as concerns that official do not truthfully represent voters as the main factors driving their doubts about the value of their vote. The feeling that our votes do not matter is common among young voters more generally. When institutions work against voters and representatives do not reflect the values of their constituents—especially young voters—voting can be become discouraging.

This is the value of the kind of peer led voter registration drives we encouraged out students to lead and the kind of peer-to-peer civic education programming we were leading. When young people see their peers being civically engaged and can get help from a friend in registering to vote, not only does the process around voting becomes less scary, but also we hope they see the true value of being civically active.

Empowered by their foundation of civic education, and under the guidance of The Civics Center’s student registration drive program, the students at our civic education workshop can become the confident voices of youth voters that inspire other students to become engaged. Hopefully we lit the spark of civic passion in those students so that they feel confident not only in practicing their right to vote, but also encouraging their peers to do the same.

The Dangerous Myth Of Voter Fraud

It is overwhelmingly evident that securing against hypothetical voter fraud is not an interest sufficiently weighty to justify the substantial, quantifiable burden imposed by restrictive voting practices, especially voter ID laws and voter roll purges. It’s time to call out restrictive voting practices for what they are: a dangerous threat to American democracy.

By Jonathan Schwartz

In commemoration of the sixth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision in Shelby County v. Holder, civil rights organizations and Congressional leadership organized a week of action last June to emphasize the need for new voting rights protections at the federal level and encourage Congress to pass the Voting Rights Advancement Act.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights hosted a press conference at which members of Congress, including Speaker Pelosi and Rep. John Lewis, spoke, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the state of voting rights in the U.S, and organizers put on events and rallies all across the country. These efforts are important and inspiring, but with voting rights back in the spotlight, longstanding arguments against these protections have resurfaced with equal force.

When the preclearance requirement, section 5, of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) was gutted in Shelby County, states immediately began passing “election security” measures, such as voter ID laws and massive voter roll purges, which overwhelmingly serve to disenfranchise minority voters. To defend these discriminatory laws, their supporters consistently cite the need to protect against voter fraud and secure the integrity of American elections. At last month’s hearing entitled “Continuing Challenges to the Voting Rights Act Since Shelby County v. Holder,” Republican Congressmen and their witness, Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins, did just that. In attempting to legitimize these ill-conceived claims of voter fraud, Mr. Hawkins drew from two commonly extorted examples: the 2005 Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform and a 2007 Supreme Court decision in Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections. 

Proponents of strict voter ID laws are fond of citing the Carter-Baker Commission’s recommendation to institute ID requirements as an election security measure. But what they are less eager to recall is that the Commission specifically warned against using these requirements as tools of discrimination. 

The Commission’s final report clearly states “To prevent the ID requirement from being a barrier to voting…States should play an affirmative role in reaching out to non-drivers by providing more offices, including mobile ones, to register voters and provide photo IDs free of charge.” Instead of helping voters acquire the necessary ID, many states are preventing them from doing so. And while the report specifically asks states to implement “institutional safeguards” to ensure “the rights of citizens are not abused and that voters will not be disenfranchised because of an ID requirement,” states such as Texas and North Carolina are doing exactly the opposite. 

Just as the purveyors of voting discrimination mischaracterize the Carter-Baker commission, so too do they misconstrue the Court’s ruling in Crawford. In Crawford, Justice Stevens held that a State’s interest in securing its elections against in-person voter fraud is “sufficiently weighty” to justify burdens on the ability to vote. Yet what was argued on assumption and inference at the time Crawford was decided is now a known fact: in-person voter fraud does not exist.

In a compilation of studies on voter fraud in the 21st century, the Brennan Center for Justice repeatedly finds that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in any state or in any election since 2000. A similar study by Justin Levitt, a professor at the Loyola Law School, found only 31 “credible allegation[s] that someone may have pretended to be someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix” between 2000-2014. In contrast, a new Brennan Center study finds that 17 million voters have been purged nationwide since 2016. Even worse, these purges occurred at a 40% higher rate in jurisdictions previously covered under section 5 of the VRA.

In light of these recent studies, it is overwhelmingly evident that securing against hypothetical voter fraud is not an interest sufficiently weighty to justify the substantial, quantifiable burden imposed by restrictive voting practices, especially voter ID laws and voter roll purges. It’s time to call out restrictive voting practices for what they are: a dangerous threat to American democracy.

If we truly wish to defend the integrity of American elections, let’s work to restore voting rights to all Americans, let’s make it easier for eligible citizens to cast their vote, and let’s defend against the legitimate threats to our election security. Congress must work together to pass the Voting Rights Advancement Act as an important first step in this direction – not only do the American people deserve it, our democracy depends on it.

The Case For Automatic Voter Preregistration

Teenagers should be automatically pre-registered to vote when they get their license.

By Holman Pettibone

Automatic voter registration is catching on quickly as politicians from both sides are embracing it as a simple, modern, and effective voting reform. But this pro-voter policy has a  critical flaw: it overlooks the youngest of voters, those who already struggle with the registration process and turn out less than any other demographic.

Since Oregon passed the country’s first automatic voter registration law just four years ago, 15 states—red and blue—have followed suit, turning voter registration into an “opt-out” rather than an “opt-in” process. In practice, automatic registration has been a tremendous success. States have seen a spike in voter registration followed by an increase in turnout. In Oregon, for example, a state that mails ballots to every registered voter, 43% of those automatically enrolled by the new law voted in the 2016 presidential election, adding 100,000 votes and contributing to a record turnout that year. 

Automatic registration streamlines the process, making voter rolls more accurate, easier to clean up, and less costly to manage, according to the Brennan Center. The system is simple: when anyone who is eligible to vote visits a state agency, almost always exclusively the DMV, they are automatically registered unless they decline. 

The problem with automatic registration is that most people get their licenses before they reach voting age and then don’t return to the DMV until they turn 21. This means the policy--meant to blindly increase participation among all demographics--rarely applies to the youngest of eligible voters. 

Interestingly, most states with automatic registration also have “pre-registration” laws, which allow young people to register at 16 or 17. Making preregistration automatic seems obvious: you go to the DMV to get your license at 16, then get preregistered to vote—all in one visit. Once you turn 18, you can vote. But automatic registration and preregistration, perhaps unintentionally, don’t actually overlap in practice.

Right now, automatic registration laws apply to anyone who is “eligible to vote.” This makes sense, of course, since you don’t want a policy that puts ineligible voters on the rolls.  But it’s a registration law, so why not just include everyone who is eligible to register? 

 Automatic preregistration would be an intuitive way to break down logistical barriers to youth voting by letting more people vote as soon as they are old enough. It would have no effect on who can legally vote, it would just fix the blindspot of automatic registration laws while better achieving the policy’s long term goals. 

When I preregistered to vote in California as a 17 year old—just three years ago—the preregistration law was not exactly new, but the process was cumbersome. I used a standard registration form that I had ordered in bulk for a “preregistration drive” at my high school. According to the austere gray document, I had to confirm under penalty of perjury that I would be 18 by election day, else be “fined” or “imprisoned.” In fact, the very first section asked me to check a box confirming I was 18. Under it, in bold red print, it read, “If you checked no, do not complete form.” I crossed it out. 

Of the dozens of juniors and seniors lined up during lunch time, eagerly waiting to take the first step towards participating in their democracy, each asked me about that red print. I had spoken with a state election official, I explained, and we had the right to ignore it. It might seem

Civic Ed And Women's Political Leadership

The 19th amendment is a success worth celebrating, but we need to get to work realizing the dreams of the women who engineered its passage and reform our civic education system to make political leadership more accessible.

By Erin Baranko

This summer, the United States celebrated the 100th anniversary of the passage of the 19th amendment that guarantees women the right to vote. We can and should commemorate the work of the suffragettes, celebrate their legacy, and revel in the progress made by women’s rights activists since that time. Today, women vote at a higher rate than men. They also participate in community groups, volunteer, and donate at higher rates, and value helping others in need more strongly than their male counterparts.

But despite high rates of civic and community engagement, women hold only 23.7% of seats in Congress and 25% of seats in the Senate. The state and city levels are not much better: women hold 27.7% of statewide executive offices, 28.9% of seats in the state legislature, and 20.9% of mayoral positions (rates for women of color are even lower). The result is that women are often not at the table when important decisions are made, effectively marginalizing the opinions and interests of half of the United States population.

So why are women still disproportionately missing from political leadership despite outperforming men in many indicators of civic engagement? It isn’t a lack of knowledge: female students perform just as well, if not better, than male students on civic knowledge tests, and women surpass men in rates of achievement of higher education. And it isn’t a lack of accomplishment: women generally win elections at the same rate as men.

The problem is that women are less likely to run for office in the first place. According to a study by the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE), girls and young women are less likely than men to aspire to careers in politics and need greater encouragement from their party, family, and friends. Even in the current environment where we see several female presidential candidates, men are still significantly more likely to take “concrete steps” to run for office.

The lack of female leadership in government is not mono-causal. It is inextricably linked to issues of racial injustice, a lack of upward social mobility, and a pervasive pattern of sexism in the media, among other factors. But, it’s worth examining how our society might ameliorate this problem through education—particularly, by taking a closer look at the way we teach civic education in schools.  

Much of high school civics curriculum focuses on the basics of American history and structures of government. Essentially, it is “heavy on knowledge but light on building skills and agency for civic engagement.” How can we expect young people to become active participants in political life without providing them the skillset to do so? This inability to translate civic knowledge into action is especially true for young women because characteristics necessary for civic leadership, such as ambition, confidence, and competitiveness, are perceived as traditionally masculine traits.

This leads to what a Rutgers study calls a “leadership skills gap” between young men and women, wherein “girls want to engage, but don’t have or understand the skills needed for government or organizational leadership.” 

Furthermore, only three states (Louisiana, Illinois, and Florida) require women’s history to be taught in public schools. Thus, most girls and young women grow up without exposure to a female narrative of American history and politics. According to Rutgers, this deprives girls and young women of a “’road map’ providing them a path toward leadership.”

The current state of civic education fails potential female leaders. Perhaps by adjusting male-centric, test-based civic education, we can begin to address the lack of diverse leadership in government.  

When the suffragettes demanded the right to vote, they were also clamoring for something larger: political equality—the chance to see candidates who looked like them in public office, to vote for candidates who represent their interests, and if they so choose, to be those candidates themselves. So if we truly want to celebrate the 19th amendment, let’s get to work realizing the dreams of the women who engineered its passage. Let’s reform our civic education system to make it inclusive of students from all identities and backgrounds, provide equal opportunity for civic and political participation, and facilitate true democratic representation.

My Experience With Absentee Voting

I always assumed absentee voting would be simple. In many states it's not, and that's problem.

By Katherine Adelman

I am a resident of Texas, but, like many students, I attend college out of state. I typically do not mind the distance between home and schoolーthat is, I don’t mind the distance as long as it is not voting season. 

I always assumed voting by absentee ballot (or, as it is now officially titled in Texas, early voting by mail) would be simple. Democracy can only survive if citizens are actively engaged, and barriers to voting stifle engagement. So when the first election of my post-high school days came around, I was startled by the inefficiency of my states absentee voter system.

The process to apply for and receive your absentee ballot is simple enough. Through the Texas Secretary of State’s website, one may print out the form, manually fill in the required information, and mail it in to the office of the early voting clerk in one’s county of residence. There is also the option to apply for an application, which will be sent to any address a potential voter enters. The process of returning the application by mail is the same for this option. In my first election cycle as an absentee voter, I opted to apply for a ballot that would be sent to me, merely because it was the first option I happened upon in my research. When my application arrived two weeks later, I mailed it in immediately. Lucky for me, I started the process in February in lieu of a May 2018 election. I was unfamiliar with how lengthy the process could be, and my experience with American bureaucracy up to that point had taught me not to delay the process if it was avoidable. 

Retrospectively, I am glad I started the process so early. Three weeks after I mailed my application, I received a letter saying that my application had been denied due to “missing information.” Enclosed was my application. I scanned the form to look for my error. The only suspect thing I could find was a box, checked, though not colored in completely, identifying which parties primary I would prefer to vote in. I reprinted my document, checked, and double checked, for potential errors, and sent it back to Texas. But another three weeks later, my application was returned to me for a second time. Frustrated by a lack of specification of error and the genuine belief that I had done everything correctly, I again reprinted and submitted my application. The third time was the charm, and I finally received my early vote by mail ballot in just enough time to cast my vote.

My inclination that the process to vote absentee would be easy was only nominally correct. Filling in the form should not have been difficult, and it generally was not hard to print a form, check a few boxes, and ship it offーerrors excluded. Maybe I did provide misinformation or neglect a pesky box, despite what I remember. Or, more likely, my early voting clerk made a mistake and sent my application back to me by accident. But my experience did give me some perspective on the timelines polling places operate on. And that pace is slow. For a voter less dedicated than me, a returned application might have resulted in no correction and resubmission, and subsequently, no vote. For anyone who started the process later than February, three months before the election, time might have expired seeing as Texas requires a voter to register at least one month before an election, and that, coupled with a rejected application, and a ballot that must be mailed two times, could exclude a ballot from consideration.

After all of this, I can only hope my ballot was counted. There are rumors about tossed ballots in various states, and many people have no idea that some ballots are thrown away due to a range of errors from misidentified signatures to late receivals at polling places. 

There are a range of solutions to be explored regarding the improvement process for absentee voting practices. Some states do it better than others, while some remain stuck in the historic times of no internet (ahem, Texas..). If you do not already have an idea of how it looks, I recommend looking into how your state offers absentee voting. Look to see if there is any advocacy centered around improving the system, and see if there is an opportunity to get involved.

Apathetic Or Failed By Civic Education?

When young voters say they have no interest in politics, what they are really saying is that they have never had meaningful exposure to politics.

By Katherine Adelman

To simplify a very complex and long-winded argument: political apathy is not so much of a personal choice as it is a systematic failing on behalf of the American education system. 

When I began to seriously look into politics, and subsequently, the effects of apathy on government inefficiency, I was 14 and dumbfounded by how many people were opting out of voting every election cycle. I was also angry. Not with the US government, but with citizens. I shamed my friends for saying they had “no interest in politics.” I thought them ignorant and ill informed. Some of this reaction was justified—I knew, and still know, many individuals with easy access to information regarding their rights and responsibilities as citizens who choose not to engage with the democratic system. (Specifically, I am thinking of the 47.6% of students at my college who did not vote in the 2016 election. We attend a private liberal arts college, which specializes in economics and public policy, and maintains a general education curriculum that, in many ways, affords students a privileged perspective on civic responsibility.)

With time, I have come to understand how the disillusionment many people feel towards politics comes from a place of miseducation on behalf of the curriculum not required in K-12 schools—robust civic education. The most amount of time any state requires civics be taught in the classroom is one year—a requirement upheld by only ten states. How can this be enough? The answer: it’s not. Many students are graduating high school without knowledge on how to vote, how to be good jurors, or how to engage in the democratic process. One group of students is currently suing the state of Rhode Island for not providing them with the tools to function as responsible citizens (read more here.) 

Such education is important because civic engagement is not just a personal choice we make as citizens of a free nation—democracy depends on it to survive. Beyond this responsibility, it is a fact that the government, whether we love it or hate it, dictates almost every aspect of our lives. The food we eat, the products we purchase, and the way we plan to raise our children, depend on decisions made daily by our government.

This dependence on the system, involuntary and unavoidable, is why I believe the government owes us an education that is comprehensive enough to teach citizens about both their role and their responsibility as citizens. We must be taught why we should care about politics. Abraham Lincoln coined the phrase, “By the people, for the people.” Americans generally understand the second part: the government is certainly for the people. Much of the disillusionment with politics we see today occurs when people think their government does not work in their interest. What both citizens and our government often overlook is the first phrase, by the people. Citizens must be active in a democracy if it is ever going to work for them. But to be active, one must first be taught how to engage critically and meaningfully. Currently, there is no system in place to uphold such a standard.

This is why I have come to believe that when a person says they have no interest in politics, what they are really saying is that they have never had meaningful exposure to politics, even if they don’t understand the nuanced difference themselves.

Supporting Voters With Disabilities

The exclusion of voters with disabilities is not a partisan issue; it is a reflection of American society’s deep-rooted ableism and propensity to overlook historically marginalized groups. Without significant reform that begins now, the 2020 presidential election will continue to be inaccessible to voters with disabilities.

By Erin Baranko

As the US turns its attention from the midterms to the upcoming presidential election, there will be much debate about whether the increase in turnout seen across the country in 2018 will continue into 2020. Efforts to register new voters, especially young people, and limit the effects of voter suppression are at the forefront of this movement. But, there is an often disenfranchised portion of the American electorate that has not garnered enough attention: voters with disabilities. 

There are more than 35 million voting-eligible Americans with disabilities. Yet, in 2016, the voter turnout rate among those with disabilities was 6.3 percent lower than that of voters without disabilities. To make matters worse, voter participation among people with disabilities has gone down over the past two presidential elections-- from 57.3 percent in 2008 to 56.8 percent in 2012 to 55.9 percent in 2016.

Several federal laws, primarily the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), protect the rights of voters with disabilities to cast a private and independent vote. These regulations aim to provide accessible voter registration, polling places, voting systems, and effective communication, and to ensure that voting policies and procedures do not discriminate against people with disabilities.

Yet, enforcement is insufficient. Americans with disabilities have reported being turned away because their polling location lacks a wheelchair accessible ramp, or because the accessible voting machine simply wasn’t powered on, or, astonishingly, because polling workers acted with such disdain that voters were too discouraged or ashamed to assert their right to reasonable accommodations. For example, Kathy Hoell of Nebraska, who uses a powered wheelchair as a result of a brain injury, recalls how poll workers told her that she was not smart enough to cast a ballot. According to an examination of 178 polling places on Election Day in 2016, 60 percent of polling places had one or more impediments outside the voting area and 65 percent had an impediment inside the building. 

Clearly, greater attention is needed to bring states into compliance with federal law. Colorado, in particular, has made significant progress to address such shortcomings. Since 2002, Disability Law Colorado has visited every county in the state to check for accessibility barriers, meet with election clerks, and help bring polling places into compliance with ADA and HAVA standards. Now, each county’s compliance is audited during every election. As a result, Colorado has the second highest turnout rate of voters with disabilities, amounting to nearly 70%.

Other pro-voter legislation can ease the burden on voters with disabilities. Because individuals with disabilities are less likely to drive, and therefore less likely to carry a photo ID, voter ID laws disproportionately affect this group. States should shift away from this restrictive practice in order to encourage voters with disabilities to exercise their fundamental right to democratic participation. Additionally, Automatic voter registration (AVR) is a system in which eligible voters who interact with government agencies are registered to vote unless they choose to opt-out. 

Often, AVR is done through interaction with the Department of Motor Vehicles. However, the “For the People Act,” recently passed through the House, also uses data from education and health care agencies. AVR removes the need for voters to fill out paper forms, a task that is often difficult or impossible for those with disabilities. 

Increased enforcement of federal law and implementation of pro-voter policies are important first steps to providing Americans with disabilities the same ease, privacy, and independence as other voters. Ultimately, the exclusion of voters with disabilities is not a partisan issue; it is a reflection of American society’s deep-rooted ableism and propensity to overlook historically marginalized groups. Without significant reform that begins now, the 2020 presidential election will continue to be inaccessible to voters with disabilities.