A word against same-day voter registration
Greensboro attorney Marshall Hurley eviscerates same-day voter registration in remarks submitted to the U.S. House Committee on House Administration.
North Carolina now allows same-day registration during early voting, and a bill pending in Congress (H.R. 2457) would federalize that process. Hurley, who has extensive experience in election law, says it's not only unnecessary but potentially harmful to election integrity.
I think he's exactly right.
This legislation is premised on the notion that registering to vote 25 days before an election is so difficult that some people are denied their right to participate. Hardly, says Hurley.
The N.C. State Board of Elections Web site lists places where voter registration is available.
"The efforts to ease any and all possible burdens upon registrants is apparent working," Hurley says: "as of the last presidential election, more than 85 percent of the North Carolina voting age population was registered to vote ..."
(As an aside, a friend in High Point recounted her experience the other day. The last time she renewed her driver's license, she was asked if she wanted to register to vote. Not giving much thought to the fact that she already was registered to vote, she said yes. So, at the next election, she found her name on the voter registration roll twice. "After I voted, I could have turned around and voted again," she said. How often does that happen?)
Closing the registration books 25 days before an election, Hurley contends, frees election administrators for other duties as they prepare for Election Day. Among those duties is making sure that every voter is assigned to the correct voting districts and receives the correct version of the ballot on Election Day.
"Same-day registration requires these decisions be made on the fly, and they may or may not be accurate. Those who oppose same-day registration believe that voting for members of congress and state assemblies is important enough to make sure that election officials have the time to make sure that eligible voters vote in the races in which they are entitled to vote and in only those races."
Then there's the matter of acceptable identification. North Carolina allows an applicant to present a current utility bill, fishing license or birth certificate.
None of that would suffice for cashing "a $5 check at the local grocery store," says Hurley.
A birth certificate says nothing about an individual's current residence, but Hurley notes there are stricter guidelines for fishing than for voting: North Carolina's Wildlife Resources Commission requires "anyone exercising the privileges conveyed by the license shall carry a picture identification card and show it to any wildlife enforcement officer upon request."
"Sadly," says Hurley, "North Carolina cares more about properly ascertaining the identity of fishermen than voters. Apparently, North Carolina is more concerned about fraudulent fishing than fraudulent voting."
Hurley, who anticipates an opportunity to present his testimony in person in the next couple of weeks, doesn't expect same-day registration to usher in "massive election fraud."
Rather, it "signals a nonchalant relaxation of orderly standards and a retreat from an unwavering public commitment to complete, reliable and fair election results. This legislation chips away at a proven and reliable election safeguard."
People who care about voting should care 25 days or more before an election. That gives election officials adequate time to make sure the registration is correct and can be properly processed.
Comments (5)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
If someone votes on the same day he registers, isn't his vote a provisional ballot?
Posted on November 12, 2007 7:48 PM
Greensboro attorney Marshall Hurley eviscerates same-day voter registration in remarks submitted to the U.S. House Committee on House Administration.* Doug
While Greensboro Republican Waterboy Lawyer Hurley is busy trying to suppress minority voters as the only Republican tactic left in it's playbook against a Constitutional Republic Democracy for it's citizens. Others have gone to war to make sure that the Republicans will never steal anymore elections by the electronic voting method. When lawyer Hurley says he is for paper ballots again, than the growing revolution might consider him as a honest lawyer..
November 6, 2007
50 States Sued to Block Computerized Vote Counting
Federal Court to be Asked to Delay Primaries
On October 2nd we posted an article in which we announced that the Clean Election Lawsuit was being expanded to all fifty states. We said we were in the process of filing an amended complaint to name all of the nation’s chief election officials as defendants.
We also announced that we were looking for up to three volunteers from each state to become plaintiffs and/or friends of the lawsuit. The response was very strong. We thank each and every one of the 610 people who responded to this call for action.
Plaintiffs from every state brought the suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York and maintain that current election practices, including the widespread use of computerized voting machines, are unconstitutional because they are ripe for fraud and error and effectively hide the physical vote counting process from the public, effectively denying citizens their legally protected Right to cast an effective vote.
The lawsuit seeks an Order from the Court prohibiting the use of all voting machines and to force election officials to instead utilize paper ballots and to count and total all votes by hand, always in full view of the public.
The lawsuit, called the NCEL, National Clean Elections Lawsuit, follows documented vote machine failures during August's Iowa Straw Poll, persisting claims questioning the integrity of the 2004 presidential election, and the official de-certification in August of virtually every major electronic voting system by the California Secretary of State based upon several comprehensive academic studies documenting the systems' significant vulnerabilities to software "hacking" and vote fraud.
Since October 2, 2007, here is what we have accomplished:
We have divided the country into eleven Circuits, matching the geographic boundaries of the eleven federal Circuit Courts. Eleven citizen “Circuit Leaders” were chosen. They interviewed many of the volunteers, coming up with a list of three or four potential plaintiffs from each state. Fifty citizen “State Leaders” were chosen as lead plaintiffs.
Numerous conference calls were held among the state and Circuit leaders and, at times, with all plaintiffs. A draft of the amended complaint was emailed to all potential plaintiffs for their review and comment.
Eventually, the amended complaint was finalized and approved by 150 named plaintiffs. In total, 84 state officers and election officials are named as defendants, many in their private, as well as official capacity.
On November 1st the Amended Summons and Amended Complaint, signed by 150 plaintiffs, were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.
Click here to read the Amended Complaint.
On Saturday, November 3rd, 50 cartons containing the requisite number of sets of legal documents were rushed to the state leaders for service on all defendants. All 50 Governors, all 50 Attorneys General and all 84 chief election officials in the 50 states are currently in the process of being served with the National Clean Election Lawsuit. Those in Alaska, Missouri and a few other states were served yesterday. Many are being served today. By tomorrow evening, service should have been completed.
Press Releases are being distributed regarding this important lawsuit involving the election practices of every state in the Union.
Click here to view the New York press release.
Click here to view the general national press release.
We will post another update once we confirm all defendants in the lawsuit have been served. Reactions by those being served has been interesting to say the least.
Finally, as noted, we intend to file a motion in a few days, asking the Court to delay the 2008 primaries and caucuses until the important constitutional issues raised by this lawsuit are finally determined.
We urge everyone to consider a donation to help finance WTP's National Clean Elections federal lawsuit.
Posted on November 12, 2007 8:35 PM
Roch,
I believe the ballot is provisional, which allows it to be discarded if it's determined that the voter was ineligible or voted in the wrong place. Hurley's point is that same-day registration allows a greater risk of error, i.e., it's more likely the voter will be handed the wrong ballot.
To Connie's comment, I don't see how opposition to same-day registration suppresses minority voting. Voter registration is easily and equally accessible to all. Please review the list of public services offices where voter registration is available. The issue isn't difficulty of registration because the vast majority of voting-age people are registered. The issue is how many people who are registered simply choose not to vote, as we saw last week.
Posted on November 13, 2007 8:42 AM
Doug, you and Hurley are spot on. CMJ is delusional as usual.
John Fund's book is an insightful and alarming look at voter fraud:
Stealing Elections
Posted on November 13, 2007 11:20 AM
Seems like a tempest in a teapot to me. Because the same-day-registration ballots are provisional, the voter's registration will receive the same scrutiny as one who registers before voting. What concern remains? That the voter will be given the wrong ballot. I don't see how what is more likely than for any voter who votes early or absentee, but even if I'm missing the reason for a greater likeyhood of error, it seems as if we're wanting to tell voters who would register same-day, "Because you might be given the wrong ballot, you cannot vote at all."
Am I missing something or is that as lame as it appears?
Posted on November 16, 2007 9:29 AM