From NBC News: “Report sees decline in voting glitches … but vote-by-mail sparks concern”

By Alan Boyle

Photo via Clay Frost / NBCNews.com

The good news about voting technology is that the upgrades put into place since the controversial 2000 presidential election have made ballot tallies twice as accurate as they were — but the bad news is that the rise of early vote-by-mail systems could erode those gains.

That’s the assessment from the Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project, which has been monitoring voting technology and election administration nationwide for nearly a dozen years — ever since the “hanging-chad” debacle of the Bush vs. Gore election. Coming less than three weeks before this year’s Election Day, the project’s latest report includes some recommendations that could improve the election process in as little as two years.

But first, project co-director Charles Stewart III, a political science professor at MIT, wants to celebrate the good news.

“Voter registration is gradually getting better,” he told me. “Voting machines are clearly better. This is a voting-technology feel-good story. We’re getting the voter registration process into the 20th century, if not the 21st century.”

Twelve years ago, the presidential election’s outcome was plunged into doubt due to Florida’s poorly designed butterfly ballot. The controversy sparked a Supreme Court ruling that decided the election, as well as a multimillion-dollar federal program to upgrade voting technology. Back then, the “residual vote” — that is, the discrepancy between votes cast and votes counted — was 2 percent nationwide. That number dropped to 1 percent by 2006, thanks in large part to the replacement of punch-card and lever systems with more reliable systems.

For a while, all-electronic voting systems flourished — but after a series of scandals, election officials have been gravitating toward optical-scan machines and paper ballots, which measure up as the most reliable voting systems that are out there.

Due to these upgrades, Stewart said the possibility of a Florida-style situation “is much lower now than it was 12 years ago.”

Read the full article from NBC News here.

From Pro-Publica: “Everything You’ve Ever Wanted to Know About Voter ID Laws”

July 23, 2012

Voter IDs laws have become a political flashpoint in what’s gearing up to be another close election year. Supporters say the laws — which 30 states have now enacted in some form — are needed to combat voter fraud, while critics see them as a tactic to disenfranchise voters.

We’ve taken a step back to look at the facts behind the laws and break down the issues at the heart of the debate.

So what are these laws?

They are measures intended to ensure that a registered voter is who he says he is and not an impersonator trying to cast a ballot in someone else’s name. The laws, most of which have been passed in the last several years, require that registered voters show ID before they’re allowed to vote. Exactly what they need to show varies. Some states require a government-issued photo, while in others a current utility bill or bank statement is sufficient.

As a registered voter, I thought I always had to supply some form of ID during an election.

Not quite. Per federal law, first-time voters who registered by mail must present a photo ID or copy of a current bill or bank statement. Some states generally advise voters bring some form of photo ID. But prior to the 2006 election, no state ever required a voter to produce a government-issued photo ID as a condition to voting. Indiana in 2006 became the first state to enact a strict photo ID law, a law that was upheld two years later by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Why are these voter ID laws so strongly opposed?

Voting law advocates contend these laws disproportionately affect elderly, minority and low-income groups that tend to vote Democratic. Obtaining photo ID can be costly and burdensome, with even free state ID requiring documents like a birth certificate that can cost up to $25 in some places. According to a study from NYU’s Brennan Center, 11 percent of voting-age citizens lack necessary photo ID while many people in rural areas have trouble accessing ID offices. During closing arguments in a recent case over Texas’s voter ID law, a lawyer for the state brushed aside these obstacles as the “reality to life of choosing to live in that part of Texas.”

Attorney General Eric Holder and others have compared the laws to a poll tax, in which Southern states during the Jim Crow era imposed voting fees, which discouraged the working class and poor, many of whom were minorities, from voting.

Given the sometimes costly steps required to obtain needed documents today, legal scholars argue that photo ID laws create a new “financial barrier to the ballot box.”

Just how well-founded are fears of voter fraud?

There have been only a small number of fraud cases resulting in a conviction. A New York Times analysis from 2007 identified 120 cases filed by the Justice Department over five years. These cases, many of which stemmed from mistakenly filled registration forms or misunderstanding over voter eligibility, resulted in 86 convictions.

There are “very few documented cases,” said UC-Irvine professor and election law specialist Rick Hasen. “When you do see election fraud, it invariably involves election officials taking steps to change election results or it involves absentee ballots which voter ID laws can’t prevent,” he said.

One of the most vocal supporters of strict voter ID laws, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, told the Houston Chronicle earlier this month that his office has prosecuted about 50 cases of voter fraud in recent years. “I know for a fact that voter fraud is real, that it must be stopped, and that voter id is one way to prevent cheating at the ballot box and ensure integrity in the electoral system,” he told the paper. Abbott’s office did not immediately respond to ProPublica’s request for comment.

How many voters might be turned away or dissuaded by the laws, and could they really affect the election?

It’s not clear.

According to the Brennan Center, about 11 percent of U.S. citizens, or roughly 21 million citizens, don’t have government-issued photo ID. This figure doesn’t represent all voters likely to vote, just those eligible to vote.

Read the full article here.

From the Chicago Tribune: “Fewer blacks will vote under Texas voter ID law, witness says”

July 11, 2012

By Drew Singer

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A Texas law requiring voters to show photo identification will lead to fewer African Americans voting, a community leader testified during the third day of a landmark trial on Wednesday.

Rev. Peter Johnson, a Southern civil rights leader who has worked for decades to help black Americans access polls, said the voter ID law passed in 2011 reflects a state still rife with racism.

“The brutality and ugliness of racism exists from the governor’s office down to the mainstream of Texas,” Johnson, who lives in Texas, told the court.

“It’s dishonest and naive to deny this.”

A three-judge panel on the District Court for the District of Columbia will not allow the law to take effect if it finds the state hoped the law would harm minority voters.

Texas lawyers argued the law will prevent fraud and said requiring photo IDs at the polls will not dissuade minority voters any more than other voters.

Supporters of the law want this case to force the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on whether the Voting Rights Act, enacted during the Civil Rights Era to protect minority voters, has outlived its usefulness.

Using a Voting Rights Act power, the federal government in March blocked the law from taking effect. Texas is now asking the court to overturn that decision. The trial is expected to continue through Friday and a decision is expected by late summer.

Under the blocked Texas measure, voters would be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license or passport. Existing Texas law mandates that voters show a voter registration card – which does not have a photo – or an acceptable alternative, such as a driver’s license or a utility bill.

Obtaining a photo ID can be difficult particularly for minorities, federal lawyers said, because of the time and occasional costs necessary.

Read the whole story here.

From the Pioneer Press: “St. Paul wants voter-ID amendment off ballot, files brief in suit”

By Andy Greder
06/19/2012St. Paul has challenged the legality of the constitutional amendment requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls.

In a so-called “friend of the court” amicus brief filed to the Minnesota Supreme Court on Monday, June 18, the city questions the accuracy of the language voters will read if the amendment reaches ballots. It also says Gov. Mark Dayton’s veto of the bill in April should force the Republican-led Legislature to rewrite the question and the amendment’s title.

“The so-called ‘photo ID’ question is not authorized by law and should not be placed on the ballot,” St. Paul City Attorney Sara Grewing said in a statement. “The Minnesota Supreme Court should order that this bill be sent back to the Legislature for a veto override or further legislative clarification.”

The brief, which is for interested groups other than the litigants, is for a lawsuit to keep the proposed amendment off the November ballot. The Supreme Court plans to hear arguments July 17 and expects to rule in time for the ballots to be ready on Nov. 6.

Dayton, in a veto letter on April 9, said he does not have power to prevent this “unwise and unnecessary” amendment from reaching the ballot, but said his veto was because it came to his desk as a bill.

St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman questioned the amendment’s effect on college students, veterans and seniors.

Read the full story here.