Voter Registration Modernization

1
Voter Registration Modernization

• David Becker John Lindback
• Project Director, Elections Initiatives Senior
  Officer, Elections Initiatives
• Pew Center on the States Pew Center on the
  States

2
The Pew Charitable Trusts

• The Pew Charitable Trusts is driven by the power
  of knowledge to solve todays most challenging
  problems. Pew applies a rigorous, analytical
  approach to improve public policy, inform the
  public and stimulate civic life. We partner with
  a diverse range of donors, public and private
  organizations and concerned citizens who share
  our commitment to fact-based solutions and
  goal-driven investments to improve society.
•  
• An independent nonprofit, Pew is the sole
  beneficiary of seven individual charitable funds
  established between 1948 and 1979 by two sons and
  two daughters of Sun Oil Company founder Joseph
  N. Pew and his wife, Mary Anderson Pew.

3
(No Transcript)
4
The Pew Center on the States

• Pews Center on the States (PCS) works to advance
  state policies that serve the public interest.
  PCS conducts credible research, brings together
  diverse perspectives and analyzes states
  experiences to determine what works and what does
  not.

• Childhood health
• Corrections and public safety 
• Early education
• Economic competitiveness
• Elections 
• Government performance 

5
Pew Election Initiatives

• Track record of bi-partisan work with officials
• Our process research then recommendations
• Three priority areas
• - Military and Overseas Voting
• - Voting Information Project
• - Voter Registration Modernization

6
Voter Registration Modernization (VRM)

• Bringing Voter Registration into the 21st Century

7
The need for modernization

• Accuracy
• Cost
• Efficiency

8
Accuracy

• The single greatest factor predicting whether
  voters will have a voter registration problem is
  mobility
• Between 2007 and 2008, more than 1 in 8
  Americans moved, with more than 1 in 4 young
  Americans moving
• Individuals who have moved within the previous
  two years are much more likely to encounter
  registration problems
• It is estimated that at least 15 of the records
  in the voter rolls are no longer valid, being
  either duplicates or outdated (people moving, new
  voters, new citizens, deaths)
• Preliminary research appears to show that
  approximately 1 out of 5 records of valid voters
  contain at least one inaccurate piece of data
  (same as Canada, where 20 of list becomes
  outdated annually)
• The system is rife with data entry errors,
  leading to problems at the polls and returned
  mail

9
Cost

• Approximately one-third of local election office
  budgets across the country are devoted to
  building and maintaining voter registration lists
• Forsyth County, Georgia (102,424 voters) spent
  half its 1.4 million budget on the registration
  process in 2008
• Franklin County, Ohio (848,013 voters) spent 1
  million on personnel costs for voter registration
  in 2008
• Los Angeles County, California (4,341,135 voters)
  spent over 13 million on voter registration
  costs in 2008
• Paper-based system requires the printing of
  millions of paper forms
• Must be processed by hand, often by dozens of
  temporary employees
• Inaccurate information leads to returned mail
  and processing costs
• These costs are part of overall 30-35 increase
  in budgets since HAVA

10
Cost
The Oregon experience

• Pew is examining what it costs Oregon taxpayers
  to maintain a list of approximately 2 million
  voters.
• A forthcoming Pew study indicates it costs more
  than 4 per voter to maintain a voter
  registration list in Oregon in 2008. The state
  built its new system for approximately 10
  million.
• Costs are incurred at both the local government
  level (counties) and at the state level.
• The taxpayers are footing the bill at all three
  levels of taxation federal, state and local.

11
Efficiency

• Various studies estimate that only about 70-75
  of eligible voters are captured by the current
  system
• 9 million citizens did not register in 2008
  because of residency rules or registration
  deadlines
• 3 million voters experienced a problem with
  voter registration in 2008 general election
• 2.2 million votes were lost due to voter
  registration problems in the 2008 general
  election
• Nearly half of all provisional ballots which
  went uncounted were rejected due to voters not
  appearing on the rolls

12
Efficiency

• Heavy reliance on political campaigns and
  third-party voter drives
• Crush of registrations received near/at the
  deadline that overwhelm election officials
• Military voters registering from afar
• Military voters were about twice as likely to say
  they couldnt vote because of registration
  problems
• National Voter Registration Act (Motor Voter)
  compliance
• Paper- and mail-based system
• Government-run registration, but unevenly
  implemented
• Voter confusion more than 1 in 4 voters either
  do not know how to change their registration or
  think that the postal service or election office
  automatically updates it
• Almost half of all voters are unaware that they
  can register or update their registration at
  motor vehicles offices

13
Voter Registration Modernizationmeans

• Keeping lists current
• Reducing costs, such ballots returned by USPS
• Minimizing the need for third-party drives
• Helping voters not on polling place lists
• Addressing issues that feed litigation
• Reducing opportunities for fraud

14
Voter Registration Modernization

• Pew will be releasing a report early in 2010
  demonstrating that it is possible, using current
  technology, to implement a voter registration
  system that will be more accurate, more cost
  effective, and more efficient, by
• Automatically putting eligible voters onto the
  voter rolls using data in existing governmental
  databases
• Automatically updating existing voter records
  using new data captured in other databases and
• Providing for a failsafe that will allow
  eligible voters who slip through the cracks or
  have inaccurate data to correct that so they can
  cast a ballot at the polls.

15
Improving Accuracy

• Reduction or near-elimination of duplicate
  registrations
• Instant updating of records with most recent
  information, such as tax records, motor vehicle
  records, other government data
• Substantial reduction in returned mail
• Minimize registration problems at the polls

16
More Cost Effective

• Automated system means fewer staff and resources
  needed to create voter records, once
  infrastructure in place
• Significantly reduced paper or printing costs
• List maintenance costs vastly reduced, as updates
  occur automatically

17
Cost
The Canadian experience

• In 1996, Elections Canada (its federal elections
  agency) built its National Register of Electors
  for 13.3 million CAD for 20 million voters.
  Costs included the price of building computer
  systems, acquisition of computer hardware and
  software and similar costs from provincial data
  sources.
• Today, the permanent register cost approximately
  5 million per year to maintain.
• The permanent register is estimated to have
  saved Canadian taxpayers approximately 130
  million over the six elections following its
  introduction.

18
Cost
Experiences in the States

• Online registration In Maricopa County, AZ, a
  paper registration form costs at least 83 cents
  to process, versus only 3 cents per online
  registration
• By eliminating paper and coordinating with DMV
  better, Delaware was able to reduce labor costs
  by 200,000 annually

19
Increased Efficiency

• Much higher percentage of eligible voters on the
  rolls
• Significantly reduce reliance on outside
  registration groups
• Significantly reduce lost votes
• No more rush at the registration deadline
• More accurate information on location of and
  contact information for military voters,
  streamlining UOCAVA voting
• Over half the states have some sort of failsafe
  for at least some voters
• The NVRA effectively becomes obsolete
• Fewer lawsuits

20
The push for modernization

• Congress is acting US Senate Committee on
  Rules Administration is expected to introduce a
  major bill addressing VRM this session
• Committee on House Administration has considered
  several bills to modernize registration
• Many states have considered or adopted
  legislation to modernize their voter registration
  systems

21

• Pew is committed to addressing the challenges,
  technical and otherwise, in modernizing our
  system, by promoting innovation in the states
• Bringing together technical experts and state
  election officials to address challenges
• Toronto meeting
• Producing research
• Pilots in the states

22

• Pew has convened a VRM design working group, made
  up of state and local election officials
• from 21 states,
• as well as academics and technical experts
• Blueprint for VRM design to be released in the
  first quarter of 2010
• Pilots to follow in multiple states
• Those states in the first wave of pilots will
  receive financial and technical assistance from
  Pew

23

• VRM Design
• A central data warehouse the Electronic
  Registration Information Center (ERIC) where
  states would submit data to be matched, and would
  receive data reports on individuals consistent
  with state policy
• Data sources might include existing voter files,
  motor vehicles data, military data, NCOA data,
  Social Security death records, and widely
  available commercial data
• Reports that could be processed
• Definitely eligible but unregistered voters
• Potentially eligible but unregistered voters
• Voters who died
• Voters who moved

24
Architecture The Big Picture
Data Sources
The Central Service
Subscribers
Reports
A
1
B
2
Matching
Lookups
In basket
Systems
Audit Log
Database
C
3
Files
D
4
Changes/feedback
Transactions
Matching and Memory
Specific Use
25

• David Becker
• Project Director, Election Initiatives
• The Pew Center on the States
• dbecker_at_pewtrusts.org
• John Lindback
• Senior Officer, Election Initiatives
• The Pew Center on the States
• jlindback_at_pewtrusts.org