Category Archives: voter registration

9th Circuit affirms limits on AZ proof of citizenship laws

Justin here. A 9th Circuit panel is out with 156 pages’ worth of opinion in Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, the latest in the battles revolving around Arizona’s laws requiring documentary proof of citizenship to vote.  There’s (obviously) quite a lot going on in an opinion this size, but it’s a pretty clear win for plaintiffs across the board, affirming most of the trial court’s May 2024 decision.  To distill:

  • Voters using the federal voter registration form have to be registered for federal elections when they swear to their citizenship even without additional documentary proof (that’s Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona).  The panel here held that’s true for voters voting by mail and voters voting for President as well.
  • Voters using the state voter registration form have a legal right, subject for the moment to a SCOTUS stay, to be registered for federal elections when they swear to their citizenship even without additional documentary proof (that’s a consent decree in LULAC v. Reagan, which today’s panel held valid – but on this point the decision is still subject to a SCOTUS stay).  If voters (using the state or federal forms) submit documentary proof or have their citizenship confirmed through a check of DMV systems, those voters have to be registered for state elections too.
  • Voters using the state voter registration form have to be registered for federal elections when they swear to their residency even without additional documentary proof.
  • Naturalized citizens can’t be singled out (distinct from natural-born citizens) for citizenship checks using the SAVE database, because such a screen would not be uniform.
  • Arizona can’t conduct systematic list maintenance to remove records of alleged noncitizens within the NVRA’s “pencils-down period” 90 days before an election (but can conduct such maintenance outside of the 90-day period).
  • Voters who provide documentary proof of their citizenship can’t be disenfranchised if they don’t check a box on the state form affirming their citizenship (this is due to the Civil Rights Act’s materiality provision, and full disclosure – I submitted an amicus brief on this point)
  • Voters can’t be disenfranchised based on their birthplace or their failure to list a birthplace (also under the materiality provision, with the same amicus brief caveat)

And the court remanded for the district court to reconsider the issue of whether the proof-of-citizenship laws were passed with discriminatory intent.

UPDATE: Foolishly forgot the obvious tie-in: the opinion should make for an even more interesting discussion at Rick’s March 4 SDP conversation w/ Adrian Fontes, Walter Olson, and Nina Perales…

Share this:

“Georgia Republicans advance a plan to leave a bipartisan voter data group, despite warnings”

AP:

For years, Republicans echoing President Donald Trump’s false claims that the 2020 presidential election was ridden with voter fraud have pushed for states to leave a bipartisan group that lets officials share data to keep voter rolls accurate. Nine have, but none since October 2023.

A new bill advanced Tuesday by House Republicans in a Georgia committee could make Georgia the 10th.

Twenty-four states and Washington, D.C., are currently members of the Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC, which Republicans have questioned over its funding and motives. Officials use state and federal data from the group to identify and remove from voting rolls people who have died, moved to other states or registered somewhere else.

Rep. Martin Momtahan, the Dallas Republican who introduced the bill, said states leaving the group, including many that border Georgia, have made the data and its network “totally ineffective.”

But Georgia Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger has credited the system for helping him maintain accurate voter data, which officials say provides more robust information than states can gather on their own.

“ERIC is, in my opinion, the most secure and efficient mass voter list maintenance tool that is available,” Blake Evans, who works for Raffensperger and is the chair of ERIC’s executive committee, said during a Tuesday hearing on the bill.

Share this:

Weiser and Garber: “The SAVE Act Would Undermine Voter Registration for all Americans”

The following is a guest post from Wendy Weiser & Andrew Garber:

Last month, congressional Republicans pledged to fast-track the SAVE Act (H.R. 22), a bill that would require all Americans to provide a birth certificate, passport, or one of a few other citizenship documents every time they register or re-register to vote. If enacted, the bill would devastate voter registration while disenfranchising tens of millions of eligible American citizens.   

More than 21 million American citizens don’t have documentary proof of citizenship readily available, according to previously-published survey data. But the SAVE Act would likely adversely affect many, many more Americans than these data suggest. Many might not have noticed how broadly the bill could apply; its show-your-papers requirement is not just limited to new registrations but rather applies to every “application to register to vote,” which may not exclude re-registrations and changes of address. Tens of millions of Americans register or re-register between every federal election.

The SAVE Act Would Upend Most Methods of Voter Registration

What is more, the bill would obliterate or upend longstanding and popular methods of voter registration – including registration by mail, voter registration drives, online voter registration, and automatic voter registration. This would apply to all voters, regardless of whether they have the required documentation.

Here is the relevant bill text:

  • Section 2(b)(3) mandates that states “shall not accept and process an application to register to vote . . . unless the applicant presents documentary proof of United States citizenship with the application.” Sections 2(c)(4) and 2(e)(1)(B) make clear that this requirement applies to registration at DMVs and voter registration agencies.
  • Section 2(f)(3) similarly provides that states “may not register an individual to vote . . . unless at the time the individual applies to register to vote, the individual provides documentary proof of United States citizenship.”
  • Section 2(a) defines “documentary proof of United States citizenship” but is silent on whether photocopies or electronic records of those documents would comply. For reasons cited below, there is a significant risk that they would not be accepted.
  • For people registering to vote using the national mail voter registration form, section 2(d)(4) expressly requires them to present documentary proof of citizenship “in person to the office of the appropriate election official.” That must be done “not later than the deadline provided by State law for the receipt of a completed voter registration application for the election.” In other words, every individual registering by mail would be required to show up in person at an election official’s office with satisfactory documents before the registration deadline.
  • Section 2(j)(3) creates criminal penalties for election officials who register “an applicant to vote in an election for Federal office who fails to present documentary proof of United States citizenship.” This would undoubtedly deter election officials from adopting a flexible or liberal reading of the documentation requirements (including whether to accept a registration or re-registration from someone who has not produced the documents in person or whether to allow alternative methods of proving citizenship under section 2(f) beyond the “documentary proof” required by this provision).

Taken together, these provisions would upend or undermine almost every method of voter registration. They would functionally eliminate mail registration by requiring mail registrants to produce citizenship documents in person to an election official before the registration deadline.  They would also abolish many or all voter registration drives and online voter registration systems – which are typically treated like mail registration. And they would severely hamper automatic voter registration, as many of those transactions don’t occur in person while someone has citizenship documents with them. Address changes could be significantly impacted, too: instead of your registration automatically updating when, for instance, you change your driver’s license address online, you might have to bring your passport or birth certificate to an election agency office to update your voter registration.

Nothing we have found in the SAVE Act addresses these concerns. The bill consistently cuts in favor of in-person registration at a select few places for your registration to count. And that would likely be the case every time you need to update your registration.

The SAVE Act’s Documentation Requirement Could Exclude Tens of Millions of Americans

Beyond the impact on voter registration methods, the SAVE Act would exclude millions of eligible American citizens who do not have ready access to the documentation it requires. According to a survey conducted by the Brennan Center and several partners, more than 9 percent of American voting-age citizens, or 21.3 million people, don’t have a passport, birth certificate, or naturalization papers readily available. Voters of color (11% of whom lacked access to citizenship documents as compared to 8% of white Americans), voters who change their names (most notably, married women), and lower income voters would be most significantly affected.

In addition, as our colleagues Owen Bacskai and Eliza Sweren-Becker catalogued, proof of citizenship requirements in Arizona and Kansas blocked tens of thousands of citizens from registering. Kansas’s show-your-papers policy was struck down as unconstitutional, and recently prompted criticism even from Kansas’s Republican secretary of state. Those state policies are generally less onerous than the SAVE ACT. (In Arizona, for instance, most voters do not have to produce citizenship documents because the state accepts driver’s license numbers from most voters as proof of citizenship—something that would not be allowed under the SAVE Act.)

Contrary to what some have suggested, the SAVE Act does not contain a meaningful failsafe provision that would allow those without physical documentation to register. While the bill includes a provision (Section 2(f)) requiring states to establish a failsafe process for those without citizenship documents to demonstrate their citizenship through “other evidence” and swear an affidavit, that option is vague and severely undercut by the provision (Section 2(j)(3)) making it a crime for election officials to register any applicant who does not “present documentary proof of United States citizenship.” Many election officials would be wary of risking criminal prosecution for running afoul of this provision.

In short, the potential disenfranchising consequences of the SAVE Act are substantial.

Share this:

“GOP laws aimed at very rare noncitizen voting could hit eligible voters”

WaPo:

In the months before last year’s election, Alabama removed valid voters from the rolls after wrongly tagging them as noncitizens. Tennessee’s secretary of state told 14,000 voters they had to prove their citizenship. And officials debatedwhetherhundreds of thousands of Arizonans could vote in state races after they discovered they were missing citizenship documentation.

More episodes like those are likely to lie ahead throughout the country.

Republicans in Congress and state legislatures are charging forward with plans to require Americans to prove they are citizens as they say they seek to crack down on noncitizen voting — an almost nonexistent problem.

Voting by noncitizens is already illegal in all state and federal elections, and requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship could make it harder for millions of legitimate voters to cast ballots. Driver’s licenses and other state IDs can be used only for people who provided proof of citizenship to get those IDs, so some people will need to track down other documents.

Many people do not have ready access to birth certificates or passports, including women who changed their names when they got married, rural residents who live far from government offices where birth records are kept, and people who lost documents in fires or floods….

Noncitizen voting is extremely rare, with academic studies finding just a handful of examples out of tens of millions of ballots cast over many years.

This year, laws took effect in Louisiana and New Hampshire requiring people to provide proof of citizenship when they register to vote. The laws are modeled on one in Arizona, where officials continue to struggle with administering a measure voters approved 20 years ago.

The Wyoming House last month passed a bill requiring proof of citizenship, and lawmakers in 13 other states have introduced similar legislation, according to the nonpartisan Voting Rights Lab. Republicans control the legislatures and governor’s office in eight of those states, boosting the legislation’s prospects.

Critics warn that longtime voters — including those who ardently support Trump — could find it harder to vote as more measures are passed and they discover they can’t track down their birth certificate or other documents proving their citizenship….

Share this:

February 13 Safeguarding Democracy Project Webinar: “Finding Common Ground on Modernizing Voter Registration”

Very much looking forward to moderating this online event on February 13 at 12:15 pm PT. Free registration required.

Christina Adkins, Director of Elections, Texas Secretary of State’s Office, 
Judd Choate, Director of Elections in Colorado, and 
Charles H. Stewart III, MIT.R
ichard L. Hasen, moderator (Director, Safeguarding Democracy Project, UCLA)
Share this:

Will Mitch McConnell Save America from the SAVE Act?

Votebeat:

Lane, one of four congressional staff members on the panel, said the SAVE Act will be a priority for the House this time. He acknowledged a push to consider what a voter identification requirement would look like and potentially revisit at least parts of other voting laws. Among them is a provision in the National Voter Registration Act that requires states to stop systematic cleaning of voter rolls 90 days before a federal election, a sticking point in ongoing litigation against Virginia.

It is far less clear what legislation might be able to draw the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster in the Senate, where Republicans have 53 seats. Tiffany Ge, the majority staff director for the Senate Rules Committee, chaired by Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., stressed during the panel that federalism is fundamental to election administration, and said it’s important for states and localities to have the flexibility to do things in ways that make sense for them.

During the last Congress, McConnell was an original co-sponsor of Senate legislation that would have let states include a requirement on mail voter registration forms that applicants provide proof of citizenship, though the bill didn’t pass. That could suggest a legislative route he, at least, might support.

Speaking from the audience, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, raised several concerns about the SAVE Act, pointing out that not everyone has documents showing proof of citizenship, and said he objected to the part of the legislation that establishes criminal penalties for an election administrator who registers someone lacking the documentation. “They’re doing their best out there,” he said.

Arizona is currently the only state enforcing a requirement for voters to provide documented proof of citizenship. Other states, including New Hampshire and Louisiana, have now passed legislation requiring it, and several state legislatures are considering it or intend to do so, including in Texas and Michigan. Arizona voters who don’t provide it cannot vote in state and local elections….

Share this:

“Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office taking over voter registration fraud investigation in Lancaster County”

WGAL:

The Lancaster County District Attorney’s Office provided the following breakdown of ballots that were reviewed.

  • Detectives from the Lancaster County District Attorney’s Office reviewed 1,203 applications.
  • Applications were provided by the Lancaster County Voter Registration Office.
  • 367 applications were verified.
  • 383 applications were found to contain fraud.
  • 453 applications were unable to be verified and are suspected to be fraudulent.

According to investigators, indicators of fraud included:

  • Incorrect or non-existent addresses.
  • False personal identification information.
  • False names.
  • Incorrect Social Security information.
  • In other cases, applications contained accurate voter identification information, but the application was determined to be forged.
Share this:

Announcing the Winter/Spring Lineup of Safeguarding Democracy Project Events

We’ve got a great lineup of in person, online, and hybrid events!

Alternate text   Tuesday, January 28 
Fair Elections and Voting Rights: What’s Ahead in the Next Four Years? Image   

Register for the webinar here. In-person registration here. Lunch will be provided.
Tuesday, January 28, 12:15pm-1:15pm PT Room 1327 at UCLA Law and online
Amy Gardner, The Washington Post, Pamela Karlan, Stanford Law School, and Stephen Richer, former Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona. Moderated by Richard L. Hasen (Director, Safeguarding Democracy Project)   

Thursday, February 13 
Finding Common Ground on Modernizing Voter Registration Image   

Register for the webinar here.
Thursday, February 13, 12:15pm-1:15pm PT, Webinar
Christina Adkins, Director of Elections, Texas Secretary of State’s Office, Judd Choate, Director of Elections in Colorado, and Charles H. Stewart III, MIT. Richard L. Hasen, moderator (Director, Safeguarding Democracy Project, UCLA)   

Tuesday, March 4 
What do Documentary Proof of Citizenship Requirements for Voter Registration Accomplish? Image   

Register for the webinar here. In-person registration here. Lunch will be provided.Tuesday, March 4, 12:15pm-1:15pm PT at UCLA Law School Room 1327 and online
Adrian Fontes, Arizona Secretary of State, Walter Olson, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, and Nina Perales, Vice President of Litigation, MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) Richard L. Hasen, moderator (Director, Safeguarding Democracy Project, UCLA)   

Monday, March 31 
Combatting False Election Information: Lessons from 2024 and a Look to the Future 
Image   

Register for the webinar here.
Monday, March 31, 12:15pm-1:15pm PT, Webinar
Alice Marwick, Director of Research, Data & Society, UNC Chapel Hill, Kate Starbird, University of Washington, and Joshua Tucker, NYU. Richard L. Hasen, moderator (Director, Safeguarding Democracy Project, UCLA)   

Thursday, April 10
 Partisan Primaries, Polarization, and the Risks of Extremism
 Image   

Register for the webinar here.Thursday, April 10, 12:15pm-1:15pm PT, Webinar
Julia Azari, Marquette University, Ned Foley, Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law, Seth Masket, Denver University, and Rick Pildes, NYU Law School  Richard L. Hasen, moderator (Director, Safeguarding Democracy Project, UCLA)   
Share this:

“Watchdog group seeks investigation into RFK Jr. for voting from a ‘sham’ address”

AP:

New York election officials are being urged to investigate whether Robert F. Kennedy Jr. committed voter fraud by casting his November ballot from a discredited address, as the former independent presidential candidate seeks Senate confirmation for a top public health role in the Trump administration.

Accountable.US, a progressive watchdog group, this week asked the state Division of Election Law Enforcement to determine whether Kennedy committed any felony by using an address in New York City’s well-to-do suburbs to vote by mail in the last election.

A state judge last summer knocked Kennedy off the presidential ballot in New York after finding the rented bedroom in Katonah he claimed as his residence was a “sham” address. The judge said evidence showed the scion of the famed Democratic political dynasty actually resided in California, where he has a home with his wife, “Curb Your Enthusiasm” actor Cheryl Hines.

Share this:

“History, Tradition, and Voter Registration”

Josh Douglas has posted this draft on SSRN (forthcoming, Wisconsin Law Review). Here is the abstract:

History and tradition are dominating the current Supreme Court, which has invoked history and tradition to curtail some rights, such as abortion, while using it to elevate other rights, such the right to bear arms. Might history and tradition also support expanded rights even if doing so will result in a ruling that seems contrary to the majority’s preferred ideological outcome? Current disputes over voter registration restrictions will pose that very question. Many states have recently implemented onerous rules on voter registration, especially targeting third-party voter registration organizations. As this Article shows, the Court should strike down these rules under a faithful interpretation of the history and tradition of voter registration.

The Article first discusses the ways in which some states have imposed restrictive registration rules and made it harder for organizations to help voters register. States have enacted citizenship requirements on who may register voters, tight delivery deadlines for completed registration forms, speech mandates for third-party organizations, compensation restrictions for individuals engaged in voter registration, and rules on what voters must present to register to vote.

The Article then turns to the history of voter registration, drawing upon primary sources such as archival newspaper records to show that there is a rich history of voter registration drives that date to the beginning of voter registration. There are three significant periods of expanded voter registration through third-party organizations, including during the women’s suffrage movement, the Civil Rights movement, and in the 1990s after Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act. Interested parties and organizations have engaged in voter registration activities for almost as long as there have been registration lists.

The Article then evaluates how courts should use this history and tradition. Specifically, because history and tradition support robust third-party voter registration activities, the Court should invalidate new voter registration restrictions as violating organizations’ and voters’ rights. If voter registration is considered a deeply rooted aspect of the election process, then so is the practice of third parties conducting voter registration drives and helping others register to vote.

History and tradition are now the primary focus of arguments at the Court. To win, litigants must explain why history and tradition support their contentions. On voter registration, history and tradition demonstrate that eligible voters could easily place their names on the voter list and that organizations could assist in those efforts without hindrance. The Court should invoke this history and tradition to strike down restrictions on voter registration.

Share this:

“Donald Trump Announces Plan to Change Elections”

Sort of.  The Newsweek headline should really read “Donald Trump Announces Policy Goals” for elections, since all of what he’s proposing would require legislation: “We’re gonna do things that have been really needed for a long time,” he said. “And we are gonna look at elections. We want to have paper ballots, one day voting, voter ID, and proof of citizenship.”

Share this:

“‘Bunch of bull.’  NC voters furious to learn candidates want to disqualify them.”

There’s a challenge to the eligibility of 60,000 voters in the NC Supreme Court race decided by just a few hundred votes.  Among the challenged voters: the incumbent justice’s parents

Any mass challenge to voter registration is going to involve some mistakes.  (That’s why real safeguards for mass list maintenance are so important at any point in the calendar, and why hurried and high-stakes post-election procedures are significantly more problematic than procedures before the 90-day NVRA cutoff, with time to address the errors.)

This Carolina Public Press piece interviews some of the people on the challenge list in the NC Supreme Court race, with a welcome reminder that there are real people behind the big numbers.

More real people here from the Asheville Watchdog and here from Popular Information.

Share this: