For the upcoming elections in 2010 for governor, the U.S. Senate, and House of Representatives will be close. In high probability, party control of the Senate and House hangs in the balance; gubernatorial races will also be critical, with redistricting to begin shortly after the elections. These dynamics set the stage for election time monkey business and attempts at suppression and manipulation of registration and voting rules, especially in close contests where a handful of votes could tip the balance. In other words, the laws and policies governing voting have the potential to change the game. Let us review a number of election laws and policies in the 10 states chosen because they are expected to have close elections. In each state, there are problems with election laws, policies, and practices that could affect enough voters and determine election outcomes. The stakes are high. The tone of the political discussion and the mood of the country around government make our electoral system particularly vulnerable to challenges this year. The negative tenor started with town hall meetings in the Summer and Fall of 2009 around the issue of health care, in which members of Congress and other citizens were shouted down and demoralized. It continued video camera stabilizer through the winter with the burgeoning of the “tea parties,” particularly their more extreme elements. In the following season, it devolved into a situation in which racial and homophobic epithets were directed at members of Congress and threats were made against their lives. And, in the last several months the issue of immigration – and more importantly the role of immigrants and ethnic minorities in our society has been debated in a way that makes clear that we are going through a period of great wariness and antagonism toward some minority groups. This dangerous cocktail has the potential to set up a particularly toxic environment for hotly contested elections, often between candidates with significant ideological differences. How elections are administered, and how the activities of partisan activists are managed, will be crucial in determining whether our elections are fair and impartial. As in previous election cycles, we examine the following critical election issues in key states. ARIZONA Obstacle to Voting: Arizona is the only state that requires proof of citizenship invoter registration. This law has, and was written to have, a disproportionate impact on naturalized citizens seeking to vote; it has already prevented thousands of Arizonans from registering, and acts as a deterrent to the registration of other eligible voters. Arizona has also historically had inadequate outreach to certain language minority communities covered by Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, and gaps in coverage for qualified and trained bi-lingual poll workers. Lack of funding and basic administrative support continues to make the jobs of voting rights outreach workers difficult. There is a persistent need for federal observers to make certain compliance with the Voting Rights Act in some Arizona counties. Arizona permanently disenfranchises persons with more than one felony conviction, but permits those with one felony conviction to vote (though only after completing probation and parole), a distinction which confuses even many elections officials. Arizona’s laws regarding challengers at the polling site are lax, and voters are vulnerable to confusion and disenfranchisement due to dissemination of misinformation about the electoral process; Arizona does not have specific laws targeting such deceptive practices. COLORADO Obstacles to Voting: There are more than 404,000 eligible Hispanic voters in Colorado. With more than 150,000 immigrant citizens, Latinos make up 12.2 percent of Colorado’s electorate. Yet Colorado elections officials do not conduct any formal outreach for immigrant or language minority voters. Colorado also lacks any law directly prohibiting dissemination of deceptive information, leaving the state open to the use of phony flyers as well as online dissemination of misinformation meant to disenfranchise voters. Colorado needs to change the law so that citizens who have completed their prison sentences can vote and needs to strengthen its procedures notifying ex-felons of their voting rights. Also, the voter registration deadline in Colorado falls 29 days before the election, unnecessarily barring some eligible citizens from registering to vote. Although Colorado allows “emergency registration” for some voters who hard money lenders miss the deadline, the policy is not comprehensive. Finally, voting in Colorado may be especially diffcult for military and overseas voters. Colorado has requested a waiver of the recently passed federal requirement that absentee ballots be sent out 45 days in advance to overseas voters who have requested them prior to that time. ILLINOIS Obstacles to Voting: In Illinois, voters who are “challenged” at the polls must show two forms of identification or have another voter testify to their eligibility in order to vote. KENTUCKY Obstacles to Voting: Here, elections will once again be marred by the state’s extremely restrictive felon disenfranchisement rules. Nearly six percent of Kentucky’s population, and roughly 24 percent of its African American population, is disenfranchised under this law. While felons may regain the franchise through a petition to the Governor, that process is clearly inadequate to give ex-felons real access to voting rights. LOUISIANA Obstacles to Voting: Louisiana has had an 88 percent drop in the number of registrations from public assistance agencies since such registration programs became mandatory – from 74,636 registrations in 1995-1996 to only 8,688 registrations in 2007-2008 – one of the steepest drops in the nation. Moreover, laws in Louisiana regarding voter challenges are troublingly unclear. Any voter registered in the state may make a challenge, and once challenged, an individual’s right to vote is left entirely to the judgment of the majority of the election commissioners at the polling place, with little guidance provided to the commissioners regarding how to make such a determination. MICHIGAN
Obstacles to Voting: Until recently, Michigan was involved in a lawsuit over purges to its voter registration data bases in which the state agreed to settle and reform its past practices. During the 2008 election, Michigan was the epicenter of controversy over possible plans to challenge voters whose homes had been foreclosed. Challenges and caging lists remain a potential microdermabrasion machines problem. In addition, the number of voter registration applications reported to have come from Michigan’s public assistance agencies declined 87 percent between 1995-1996 and 2007-2008 – from 79,538 to only 10,542. MISSOURI Obstacles to Voting: In Missouri, voters who do not bring the right ID to the polls on Election Day are barred from voting and not permitted to receive a provisional ballot. Also in Missouri, there may be problems caused by challenge laws, which permit any voter to challenge any other voter on Election Day and leave the final determination of whether the voter may cast their ballot by a regular ballot up to the majority of election judges at the polling place. When Missouri voters cast provisional ballots in the wrong precinct, those ballots are completely disregarded. Missouri’s voter registration deadline falls 27 days prior to the election, efficiently barring some interested citizens from registering and voting. Missouri also does not permit individuals who are on probation or parole for a felony to vote. NEVADA Obstacles to Voting: In place in Nevada is an “exact match” standard on voter registration databases, which may make it harder for some voters to cast their votes. Nevada is another state where issues could arise around immigrant and Latino voters. There are 192,000 eligible Hispanic voters in the state. The Secretary of State has not taken any particularly proactive steps to reach out to these voters. Moreover, even in a state with such large numbers of Latinos, Spanish language voter registration forms are not available on the Secretary of State’s website. In addition, Nevada has had experiences with deceptive practices causing confusion and impeding the vote, and its deceptive practices law is not metal detector as specific as it should be to combat these concerns. Nevada’s challenge law is also insufficient. NORTH CAROLINA Obstacles to Voting: While North Carolina has by far the strongest voter protection laws and policies of the states on the list, there is still room for improvement. The challenge law in North Carolina is too expansive; any registered voter in a county may challenge a voter before the 25th day before an election, and any individual registered to vote in a precinct may challenge any voter at his or her precinct on Election Day. North Carolina does not appear to require that challenges made on Election Day be made in written form or be recorded. Also, voting rights for citizens who have finished a prison sentence are not restored until that individual has completed parole or probation. OHIO Obstacles to tankless water heaters Voting: While leaders in Ohio have taken done well to improve the voting system, there is still room for improvement. Ohio’s very early voter registration deadline – a full 30 days prior to the election – may prevent many interested citizens from participating. Ohio also has ongoing issues regarding database matching, though the Secretary of State has taken major strides to resolve them. Ohio has had problems with deceptive robo-calls and other attempts to prevent individuals from voting by spreading misinformation; Ohio law is not as specific as it should be to battle such practices. Ohio lacks any anti-spam statutes that apply to non-commercial e-mails, which is worrisome because e-mail is a common and rapid method of spreading disinformation. Finally, Ohio continues to throw away provisional ballots that are erroneously cast in the wrong precinct by otherwise eligible voters.