Department of Motor Vehicles (DMVs) play a crucial role in our elections. This report seeks to raise the level of recognition of the agency’s role – among policymakers, state agency officials, advocates, and the public – to improve their partnerships and the functioning of our democracy.
Since the passage of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA or “motor voter”), state Department of Motor Vehicles (DMVs) have evolved into a bedrock of the modern system of election administration—for voter registration in particular. Since then, their role in our elections has expanded to include multiple types of voter registration, identity verification, and maintenance of accurate voter registration lists. While the current scope of DMV involvement in election administration is relatively unappreciated, raising the level of recognition of the agency’s role – among policymakers, state agency officials, advocates, and the public – is important to improve the functioning of our democracy. This report, Motor Vehicle Departments: Bedrock of American Democracy, serves as a primer and guide for these audiences and other interested parties on the history, parameters and robustness of their current role, and provides a catalogue of everything DMV officials do in election administration.
Unfortunately, the evolution of the DMVs’ role occurred without initial buy-in from DMV administrators or an expansion of resources for DMVs to fulfill their growing role. Rather, in most states, state reliance on DMVs expanded without a commensurate expansion of available funding. Sustained and regular interaction, discussion, and consideration with respect to the scope of DMVs’ role in election administration – among their many other core duties – is happening only now, over a quarter century after passage of the NVRA.
The level of election administration reliance on DMVs is now so great that the public, policymakers, and DMV and election officials should reconceptualize DMVs as integral partners in implementing American democracy. Rather than a non-election entity, DMVs – on an everyday basis – are providing irreplaceable support in delivering aspects of our election systems.
Monday was the start of Absentee Voting week, a voting emphasis week for the Federal Voting Assistance Program, the Department of Defense entity helping uniformed service members, their eligible family members, and overseas voters exercise their right to vote. The week is focused on reminding these voters to pay close attention to their ballot return deadlines.
This week can also serve as a reminder for this unique group of voters to register and request an absentee ballot if they have not already done so, as many of the earliest state/territory registration or request deadlines for the November General Election are this week. For example, Alaska, Arkansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and the Virgin Islands all have important deadlines on October 7th.
For this group, especially for those living outside of the country, organic cues – like campaign fliers, billboards, or local news coverage of an election – to start the absentee process are often missing. And though there are efforts to get key dates, deadlines, and materials into the heads and hands of this community, there are some troubling early findings released last week by the Military Officers Association of America’s (MOAA) Military Family Initiative, a Democracy Fund grantee.
It seems that military spouses may have a larger informational deficit than those directly serving in the military. For example, according to initial findings, which are part of the MOAA MFI survey conducted in partnership with Syracuse University’s Institute for Military and Veteran Families, only 40% of active duty military spouses felt it was easy to obtain voting information. Only 39% considered themselves knowledgeable (i.e. rated their knowledge as good or excellent) about the use of the Federal Post Card Application (FPCA), which is the most critical election form for the military voter community. This is compared to 56% of active duty members who felt they were knowledgeable. We’ve written about the FPCA before on the Democracy Fund blog, this form allows them to designate as military voters, affording them specific protections under federal law, and acts an absentee ballot request.
Additionally, only 41% of active duty spouse respondents consider themselves knowledgeable about key absentee ballot deadlines as compared to 52% of active duty. The survey findings paint a picture where “awareness and understanding of the absentee voting process is associated with the likelihood of voting.” This is telling, because it is a driver of turnout. Only 36% of active duty military spouses shared that they voted in every election, as compared to 57% of active duty members. Spouses’ top reasons for not voting were:
They did not want to vote;
They did not think their vote mattered; and
Did not know how to get an absentee ballot.
The last two reasons should give us pause. We can and must help this community overcome their informational and confidence hurdles. While the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) has experimented in the past with military spouse outreach, more must be done to equip these men and women with resources. Additionally we should look for new ways to address some of the potential attitudinal challenges. This is an area where Democracy Fund and MOAA MFI will continue to look for opportunities. In the short-term, we encourage a diverse group of stakeholders: military spousal groups, associations, and peer networks to consider urgently sharing relevant absentee voting information with this audience. One option is to share MOAA MFI’s absentee voting guide powered and populated with information from FVAP. MOAA’s incredible name recognition in this community provides an added layer of trust if constituents aren’t familiar with the FVAP brand, and over time it is a way to help them become familiar.
While the purpose of Absentee Voting week is to encourage these voters to return their ballots as soon as possible, there are likely too many who haven’t even started their absentee voting journey. There might still be time for them to catch-up this election season, but we must look to make larger scale systems changes in the future so no one, especially the military spouse, is left behind.
Prior to joining the Democracy Fund, Stacey Scholl worked for the Federal Voting Assistance Program as a program analyst and also has experience working in two state election offices—Colorado and Iowa. Both her father and mother served in the United States Air Force.
“Vote-by-mail” is a growing trend in the United States. According to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), more than 33 million voters in the 2016 Presidential Election voted by mail. Voters registered in Oregon, Washington and Colorado already automatically receive their ballot in the mail, and California will join their ranks once they implement legislation that passed in 2016. As vote-by-mail is becoming more widely used, it’s important for elections administrators to educate the public on the process and continue to find ways to improve the voter experience.
One great place to start is a report published by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Democracy Fund grantee, that highlights the ways voting by mail and absentee voting has changed and what voters, legislators, election officials, and the United States Postal Service (USPS) can do to ensure that type of voting remains a viable option for the American electorate.
Another useful resource is the 2014 report (PDF) from the Presidential Commission on Election Administration (PCEA), which includes several recommendations to improve the voting experience for voters.
USPS has played a key role in the development of election administration best practices for the vote by mail process and has instituted some of their own. During the final days of ballot return postal employees sweep processing plants hourly looking for mail pieces bearing the official election material mail logo to ensure that ballots are being processed within their delivery standards. In 2016 they embraced a new tool to communicate with election officials. Electionmail.org was developed by Democracy Fund grantee Democracy Works and provides a channel for administrators to communicate issues directly with postal leadership.
Why does this matter?
We live in an increasingly digital era where most people go online to communicate, pay bills, and transact business. The volume of mail – while still in the billions of mail pieces each year – no longer required the supporting infrastructure that was in place. Because of this, the U.S. Postal Service consolidated its processing plants and streamlined the sorting of mail. All mail now goes through the centralized processing plants, is sorted, and redirected to its destination. This automation allows for election ballot tracking, a PCEA recommendation, but it has also contributed to the delivery standard changes that happened in 2015.
Has this had a significant impact on a voter’s ability to cast an effective ballot? The EAC reports that, in 2016, more than 47% of rejected ballots were due to missing or invalid signatures, and roughly 23% of the rejected ballots were because they were returned after the deadline. Historically there are always some people who miss the deadline to return ballots in time to be counted in a given election, but the EAC data shows that the number of late ballots has decreased since 2012 even though greater numbers of voters are choosing this method of voting and we have longer delivery standards.
If voters fail to get their ballot mailed with enough time for delivery to their election office, many have the option of dropping their ballot off at their polling site. In addition to offering this drop-off option, some states allow for information on the envelope to be used to ensure that the voter did, in fact, mail the ballot before the polls closed on Election Day. Iowa and Indiana have passed legislation allowing for the use of Intelligent Mail Barcode data. In Ohio, the Secretary of State issued a directive that the orange USPS processing marks could also be used—and because of this Cuyahoga County was able to count an additional 73 ballots in the 2016 Presidential Election.
Close elections bring scrutiny, and Virginia is the perfect example of how crucial process is to ensuring and retaining voter participation year after year. In 2017, the state experienced elections with razor-thin margins in vote counts—in one instance the winner was determined by a draw after a tied result. The day after Election Day, election officials in Stafford County picked up 55 ballots at their post office box, and questions were raised about whether the ballots arrived in time, and who exactly was responsible for ensuring they were counted—the voter, the Postal Service, or the jurisdiction.
What have we learned from last year’s election in Virginia?
First, ballot tracking is important and election officials should use it. The state of Virginia recently implemented a statewide election mail tracking system called BallotScout—a project by Democracy Fund grantee TurboVote—as a way for both voters and election officials to determine where the ballots are in the process. Indeed, Virginia Registrar Dave Bjerke from the City of Falls Church posted on social media that a voter called to complain that they had not gotten their ballot. The tracking showed that the mail had been delivered to the voter; and with the Registrar on the line they began to dig through the piles on their desk and subsequently found the missing ballot. The question we should ask regarding the close election in Virginia is: was election mail tracking used to the full extent—and if not, why?
Social media post from Virginia Registrar Dave Bjerke from the City of Falls Church, VA
Second, ballot envelopes should have the official election material mail logo on them so that the voters know it is official information and USPS can recognize it as an important mail piece.
Election mail logo
Third, voters need to have information to make informed decisions. Voters may be prone to procrastination and need to have options the week before Election Day if they fail to get the ballot mailed in time. Data can be used to identify whether ballots have been put into the USPS system. Some jurisdictions make available secure ballot drop off sites, and some allow vote by mail ballots to be turned in at the polls on Election Day.
Eligible voters will greatly improve their ability to “vote by mail” successfully by following these recommendations. At Democracy Fund, we are committed to supporting election officials in their work to run elections and improve the voter experience. For more info on vote by mail best practices, visit the resources page at electionmail.organd the election mail page at USPS.gov.
We are a mere two years out from “Census Day” 2020 — April 1, 2020 — and we need all hands on deck to ensure a fair and accurate census. The census is paramount for a multitude of reasons — the data are used to make critical decisions in distributing over $600 billion annually in federal spending, developing legislation, making business decisions, and for federal, state, and local planning. On a more foundational level, the census is a pillar of our democracy. Census data are used to appropriate seats for the U.S. House and in turn, the Presidential electoral college, and in redistricting to redraw lines. The Census has major implications for our federal elections and voter confidence as it is integral to demonstrating the system is fair and representative. It is also vital to language minority voters and their active and meaningful civic engagement.
While the census strives to get a fair and accurate count of everyone in the country, the reality is that some are missed in census after census. Now, if different communities are missed equally, then the resulting census would still be fair, if not as accurate. Unfortunately, decade after decade we have seen a persistent, disproportionate undercount of certain population groups, including people of color, young children, and renters. Thus, when there is a differential undercount in communities of color, voters of color are further marginalized. Rights are unrecognized and unrealized when people are undercounted in these communities.
Data from the American Community Survey (ACS) are used to make Section 203 determinations under the Voting Rights Act every five years. It dictates which jurisdictions are required to provide language assistance during the voting process. The ACS – an ongoing survey that provides vital socio-economic characteristics on a yearly basis about our nation and its people – allows us to know more about topics including: jobs and occupations, educational attainment, veterans, language ability, and whether people own or rent their homes. While the ACS is conducted separately from the decennial census, an unfair and inaccurate census will negatively skew the ACS. Because the ACS is sent to a sampling of households, the data collected uses a weighting methodology that forces consistency of ACS estimates with official population estimates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin. The population estimates are based on the most recent decennial population results (currently, the 2010 census) updated with annual changes in births, deaths, domestic and international migration.
Since there is a higher risk of an undercount in immigrant and limited English proficient communities, as indicated in the Census Bureau’s own research, language minority communities are more likely to refuse to participate. This lower participation by language minorities could mean missed jurisdictions for Section 203 coverage that should be covered throughout the decade. During the most recent determinations in 2016, a total of 263 political subdivisions nationwide are now covered by Section 203, with a total of 214 political subdivisions in 26 states providing assistance in Spanish, 15 political subdivisions of Alaska providing assistance in an Alaska Native language, 35 political subdivisions in nine states providing assistance in an American Indian language, and 27 political subdivisions in 12 states providing assistance in an Asian language. Inaccurate census data would result in less language assistance across the nation.
Census data are also important for jurisdictions working to comply with their Section 203 obligations. For example, Census data are often one factor taken into consideration in making the determination of the language for written assistance, as well as the languages for oral assistance at the polls. Additionally, jurisdictions can target their language assistance. For example, translated materials and bilingual poll workers can be placed in those polling locations that serve covered language minority voters as opposed to all polling locations. Jurisdictions can look to census data to inform their planning to determine which polling locations should offer language assistance.
Census data are also important for jurisdictions looking to provide voluntary language assistance to their constituents. For example, Fairfax County, VA decided to voluntarily provide language assistance in Korean in addition to their Section 203 obligations under Spanish and Vietnamese. Recognizing that the county has a growing Korean population, the county looked to Census data which indicated that approximately 35,000 of the million or so county residents spoke Korean at home, with about 55 percent of them not speaking English very well, for confirmation that this was a community that had a significant need for language assistance.
Terry Ao Minnis is a Senior Fellow and Consultant at the Democracy Fund where she advises staff on emerging needs and opportunities to improve voting for all—specifically for those who face unique challenges under our current system. Terry currently serves as the Director of the Census and Voting programs for Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), and co-chairs the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights’ Census Task Force. She received her Juris Doctor, cum laude, from American University Washington College of Law and her Bachelor’s degree in economics at the University of Chicago.
Democracy Fund is proud to announce a new grant to the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT). With demonstrated expertise in data privacy and a deep understanding of the unique challenges of election administration, CDT is positioned to be critical bridge builder to help experts and policymakers better communicate, collaborate, and respond to threats to our election system.
Before I describe CDT’s voter registration and campaign data cybersecurity project, I’d like to offer a small window into our thinking about the importance of this line of work and how it supports Democracy Fund’s strategic priorities.
Voter Registration & the Increasing Challenges for Data Security
Increasing access to the Internet, the growing civic tech community, and improved technologies have paved a path for states to modernize voter registration systems. These modernization policies are appealing to many legislators and election experts who view them as a step toward cost-efficiency and an improved voter experience. For the last 15 years, states have been modernizing voter registration systems by offering online voter registration to citizens, facilitating collaboration between election officials and government offices covered under the National Voter Registration Act, and joining state-driven efforts like ERIC to keep voter rolls clean and identify eligible voters. As our systems map shows, these changes to registration systems help make voter lists more accurate, which leads to better election planning, and fewer problems experienced or perceived by voters on Election Day.
From an administrative perspective, modernizing voter registration improves the voter experience by allowing the voter to type in his or her own information into a database and streamlines the transfer of registration data between government agencies and elections departments. Registration data also helps political campaigns better understand the electorate and strategically reach out to potential voters. As these modernization policies are implemented in the states, election officials and other managers of election data have the enormous responsibility of maintaining these digital systems and protecting them from cyber-attacks—all while operating on limited budgets, preserving voting rights, and protecting individual privacy.
Election Integrity, Trust, and the 2016 Election
The tone and tenor of the 2016 presidential campaign raised our concerns about public trust in elections. While it is not unusual for the public to be concerned about possible voting fraud, the allegations from both presidential candidates that the election system was “rigged” or “hacked” in favor of a particular candidate or outcome felt atypical and worrisome. Irresponsible campaign rhetoric may have created (or reinforced pre-existing) misconceptions about the way elections are run. After the election was over and as fears about foreign interference in our elections were mounting, matters were further complicated by the NSA’s apparent documented evidence that the Russian government attempted to infiltrate voter registration systems in several states.
Calling into question the legitimacy of the election outcome without evidence of actual wrongdoing is harmful to the public’s faith in government and undermines our democracy. To reiterate: public concerns about election integrity are not unique to this past election cycle. However, public misconceptions about the way elections work and the real threats of foreign interference make the cybersecurity risks faced by campaigns and election officials even more significant. We must work toward sustainable solutions that give election officials and others the tools needed to protect the voices and votes of the American electorate.
Though difficult, it is not impossible to allay the public’s concerns. The increasing use of technology in election management makes the system more complex than ever before. It requires listeners to understand very technical administrative processes and makes it difficult for the news media to report about. However, election officials play a key role in shaping the public’s understanding of election process, and voters are very likely to listen. For these reasons, it is vital for stakeholders to balance the need to be responsive to public concerns with the needs of under-resourced election departments that could benefit from doable, sustainable best practice recommendations from the cybersecurity and civic tech communities.
Why We Invested
At Democracy Fund, we believe that every eligible American should have an equal opportunity to vote in elections that are free, fair, accessible, and secure. A healthy democracy requires election administrators and other government officials provide voters with confidence in the integrity of election outcomes and assurance that they have a voice in our democracy. Data-driven policies and new technologies can help reduce barriers to voting and improve the efficiency and security of our election system.
Based on analysis captured in our Election Administration & Voting System map, Democracy Fund invests in organizations and projects that are focused on expanding modern and secure voter registration systems; supporting voter-centric practices and tools in election administration to improve the voter experience; and fostering the public’s trust in elections by supporting a system that’s worthy of their trust.
We invested in the Center for Democracy and Technology because technology experts and election professionals need a reliable and trusted cybersecurity resource. With our support, CDT will:
Conduct a 2-year research effort to identify opportunities and challenges with cybersecurity in state election offices and national political campaigns;
Generate a set of best practices for election officials and the public; and
Distribute “campaign data hygiene” recommendations for all political parties.
Convene experts and stakeholders to learn from each other and co-create solutions to election security challenges.
You can learn more about these efforts in CDT’s press release announcing our grant and the project.
Political professionals should be able to keep discussions about campaign strategy internal; election officials should have the tools necessary to combat any type of outside interference; and voters should feel confident that our elections result in legitimate outcomes. We believe Joe Lorenzo Hall and the CDT team will fortify the field with research that deepens our shared understanding, create opportunities for learning and collaboration, and equip election officials and the managers of voter data with the solutions they need to protect voters and encourage participation in future elections.
In 2016, the Democracy Fund participated in the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) in partnership with Reed College. (1) Through this partnership, we sought to gain a better understanding of public opinion about election administration and voting, use the data to inform Democracy Fund’s strategic priorities, and add to the growing body of knowledge in election policy. The Reed/Democracy Fund module, which was administered pre- and post-election, includes several questions, grouped in the following categories:
Voting behavior and the voter experience;
Election administration;
Election integrity, fairness, and trust; and
Policy preferences.
As National Voter Registration Day approaches, I’d like to offer a preview and some initial thoughts about our findings—specifically, those covering certain aspects of the registration process. As I explain below, our findings suggest that voters need ongoing education to understand key aspects of the voter registration process. The data also suggest that election officials are well positioned to provide clear, easy-to-understand information about registration and to continue educating the public about the availability and benefits of online voter registration.
Public perceptions of the voter registration process
States have a long history of requiring registration before a person may vote. However, voters and potential voters might not be completely familiar with, and may even be confused by, certain aspects of the process. Missing the state registration deadline or experiencing a significant life change like a marriage or a move without updating registration can lead to a person being unable to cast a valid ballot.
In our survey, we asked participants about some key aspects of the registration process so that we could better understand and then address potential gaps in voter education. Because it’s available in 35 states and DC, and is a relatively recent change in election policy, we included questions about respondent’s knowledge and use of online voter registration (OVR). (2) We also wanted to know whether people understand when to update their registration and how respondents find out about voter registration deadlines.
1) Knowledge and use of OVR
When asked about whether their states offer OVR, about 51 percent of respondents did not know. Over 17 percent answered incorrectly; of those respondents, 56 percent believed that their state did not offer OVR, and 44 percent believed that the state does offer it. (3) Of the third of respondents who provided the correct answer and had access to OVR, over 60 percent of them had not registered or updated their registration using the state’s online system.
At first glance, these data may be discouraging and reflect the need for stronger efforts to educate voters about the availability and benefits of OVR. There are, however, some caveats to these results that prompt the need for further study:
Many respondents were already registered. Almost 86 percent of CCES respondents answered that they were registered to vote. Though questions of this type are sometimes susceptible to social desirability bias, we assume that CCES respondents answered truthfully, and might not have had the need to use OVR at the time they completed the survey. So, while we encourage states to offer OVR to their citizens, some groups of voters may not use it for several years.
Some respondents prefer the paper form. While 49 percent of respondents answered that they would prefer to use OVR, 35 percent indicated that they preferred a paper form. It is unclear whether those answers reflect a lack of trust in using OVR or were motivated by some other reasons. However, these data make it clear that states should not completely phase out paper—at least, not while a significant number of people prefer paper or lack access to the Internet.
Some respondents may have been registered at DMV. Even though the CCES does not ask about the manner in which respondents registered to vote, we assume that some may have registered through their state department of motor vehicles (DMV). Data from the United States Election Assistance Commission shows that, between 2014 and 2016, election officials received 33 percent of registrations from DMVs, which is the largest single source of registration applications compared to in person (12 percent), by mail (17 percent), online (17 percent), and other sources (15 percent).
2) Updating registration upon moving
Most respondents knew that they need to register or update their registration after a move; however, a significant percentage of people did not. To challenge our respondents on the basics of registration, we presented them with various scenarios that may trigger registration updates, e.g., moves across town, other counties, or other states.
There were varied responses to our scenarios about moving. While most of our respondents understood that a move to another state requires them to change registration, 46 percent of respondents either did not know or said “no” when asked if an across-town move triggers this need. Nearly 30 percent of respondents answered incorrectly when asked about an out-of-county move, and about 23 percent erroneously thought that they did not need to re-register after an out-of-state move.
We do not yet know what role the DMV might play in shaping the public’s understanding of the registration process, and whether DMV interactions may explain the difference in these responses, if at all. Given the large percentage of people who register through DMVs, we look forward to using these CCES findings as a jumping off point for future analysis.
3) Finding voter registration deadlines
When asked about the top three resources that they turn to for voter registration deadlines, about 70 percent of our respondents said that they rely on their county election website; about as many rely on their state’s election website for the same information. Over 60 percent of respondents also use search engines like Google to look up voter registration deadlines—and very likely receive reliable information from the states, thanks to our friends at the Voting Information Project.
In contrast, relatively fewer respondents get information from other sources such as campaigns or friends and family. There may be a chance that some respondents chose these government websites as socially acceptable alternatives to admitting that they rely on other sources for registration information. But if it’s true that voters prefer the county or state website, then election officials have significant influence over how people understand voter registration requirements.
The need for voter education
From this snapshot of our findings, the need for information about key aspects of voter registration is clear. The good news is, state and local election administrators are well positioned to educate voters about these aspects of the voter registration process and to communicate the availability and benefits of OVR. As the data indicates, voters pay attention to information from state and local election officials and would benefit from existing voter outreach and educational services.
However, simply building a website and expecting people to use it is not enough—ongoing voter education is needed to keep voters up to speed with voter registration processes and deadlines. Fortunately, election officials are not alone in this effort. Events like National Voter Registration Day are a wonderful opportunity for election officials, advocates, and community-based groups to engage with voters and potential voters, offer up-to-date information about the registration process, and provide the tools and resources that voters need to complete their registration forms and keep them updated—and well in advance of the next election.
This is the first in a series of blog posts that showcase our findings from the CCES. We look forward to sharing more in the coming months.
This blog was updated February 2018. It was first published in September 2017.
Sources
(1) The Cooperative Congressional Election Study is a survey administered by YouGov that includes Common Content and invites participation from up to 50 academic teams The Reed/Democracy Fund pre-election survey was administered to 1000 respondents, and our post-election survey includes answers from 845 respondents. More information about the CCES and its methodology is available at the Harvard Dataverse, found at: https://cces.gov.harvard.edu/data.
Paul Gronke is the Principal Investigator of the Reed College/Democracy Fund team module. Natalie Adona is the Research Associate for the Democracy Fund’s Elections Program and manages the roll out of these findings, with support from Jack Santucci, the Elections Research Fellow. Please direct any questions about these survey findings to nadona@democracyfund.org.
(3) Data on states with online voter registration as of the 2016 primary elections come from the National Conference of State Legislatures (see source #2).
At this time of year, Americans remember what it means to be a free country, turning our thoughts to the approximately 2.1 million men and women in military uniform who serve to guarantee that freedom. This year is also an election year; many important races and initiatives will be decided on both primary and general election ballots.
June 27-July 5 is Armed Forces Voting Week, an observance that highlights—but in no way limits—the time to draw attention to voting for this group. We help honor our servicemembers when we work steadily to ensure they have timely information presenting clear steps to share in the freedom to vote—no matter where they are.
For this reason, Democracy Fund is proud to announce a new grant to the Military Officers Association of America Military Family Initiative (MMFI) for its Military Voter Education Project, a one-year, non-partisan voter education effort. The goal of the project is simple: Focus attention on valuable resources and information for military voters and their families.
Absentee voters must find and retain voting information months before Election Day—and it is unfortunately easy for voters to miss critical deadlines or directions; this is especially true for members of the military who are serving away from home. Distance affects the type of information they come across and pay attention to. Election administrators and voting advocates must rely on the most recent findings and data on how best to reach military voters with essential information about requesting, receiving, and returning their ballots in time for counting.
The study “Effects of Spouses on Voting in the Active Duty Military Population,” released in 2015 by the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) points to the unique link between marriage and the likelihood that a servicemember will cast a ballot. FVAP is the Department of Defense agency responsible for assisting military and overseas voters. The piece reveals that, in part, “being married lowers the opportunity costs associated with gathering election information. Once one married partner learns about some aspect of the election, sharing those voting resources and information is costless.” This led FVAP to conclude, “If spouses can provide information about … voting assistance resources, a marketing campaign directly targeting spouses of military members could potentially have a positive effect.”
That’s where MMFI can have a specific impact. MMFI holds that “nothing is more important to [our] national defense than the welfare of our military families” and has dialed into the needs of this particular group. The trust MOAA garners in this community, as the largest association of military officers, means it is in a unique position to disseminate information so that it is likely to be seen and retained by many groups, including spouses. MOAA also will work with additional partners to reach the enlisted community with the same level of energy and attention, because there is no division in our armed forces—they are all united in the same mission.
Over the next year, we look forward to seeing military voters and their families connect with distinct marketing aimed at equipping them with voter information. We hope we will see more citizens choose to participate in the election process because they feel empowered to do so.
During the Democratic presidential caucus in Nevada last month, the issue of language assistance in elections came up front and center — and it was not pretty. Fingers pointed in all directions about what actually happened and who was to blame, but what is clear is that there were caucus participants who needed assistance in Spanish to fully understand the process and their options and that they did not receive this essential help. This incident highlights how important language assistance in the political process is and why more must be done to ensure that language needs are being accommodated.
Today in the United States, one in five people speak a language other than English at home, and of that population who are 15 or older 42 percent report having some difficulty with the English language. Despite the increases in the eligible voting populations of Latinos and Asian-Americans in recent decades, according to the Pew Research Center there continues to be a 15-20 percent gap in voting participation rates between those voters and whites. While a variety of factors can contribute to a voter’s inability to participate in the election process, in many communities language barriers are a huge obstacle.The language-minority voting community often faces the same socio-economic disparities and logistical barriers that negatively impact other marginalized voters. They can face hurdles, and at times discrimination, at the polls from poll workers or challengers who are not able to communicate clearly. In the worst cases, there may be false assumptions that language difficulties mean a voter is ineligible to cast a ballot. And the political process can be overly complicated for those who have emigrated from countries with no democratic system, while our voter materials are often written in complex English.
As the 2016 election cycle unfolds, election administrators, civic organizations, and advocates can take steps to help mitigate problems faced by language-minority voters, helping to ensure equal access to the ballot.
First, at a minimum, election officials should make sure they comply with federal protections for language minority voters under the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The federal law requires jurisdictions that meet a certain threshold of eligible language-minority voters to provide language assistance via translated written materials, bilingual poll workers, and publicizing available language assistance. Another provision of the VRA allows voters the opportunity to bring someone of their choosing to assist them in the voting process. Administrators should ensure that their poll workers are aware of this right and are trained in how to assist voters with language needs.
Additionally—and regardless of any federal or state requirement—elections administrators should attempt to recruit bilingual poll workers, identify which polling locations could have a language need, reach out to local and ethnic-community media to help with recruitment, and partner with local and ethnic organizations to review and share nonpartisan election information. A minimal investment in recruitment and targeting can yield big returns for the same cost as hiring monolingual poll workers exclusively. Civic organizations and advocates can help in this effort by working to educate language-minority voters about what rights they have to assistance at the polls and by sharing resources, such as in-language hotlines to call with questions.
It remains to be seen how well language-minority voters will be accommodated during the rest of this year’s election cycle, but the Nevada incident is a reminder that this is an increasingly important issue in elections. We should address language issues head-on to prevent miscommunication and disenfranchisement, and we should work together to make voting for this growing segment the American population as comfortable and easy as it is for everyone else.
This post is co-authored by Stacey Van Zuiden and Adam Ambrogi.
For the thousands of American voters who live abroad or who are in the military stationed away from their homes, the process of casting a ballot can be full of challenges. For those without regular Internet or in a region without routine postal service, where do you tell your U.S.-based Election Official to send the ballot? And can you receive it in time to vote? Do you need a witness to sign your form? Or will your signature be enough?
These challenges, plus many more, contributed to approximately 21,000 rejected absentee ballot requests made using the standard federal form in 2012, according to the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP), which is the Department of Defense program charged with assisting military and overseas voters. It is unclear exactly why these rejections happen, and FVAP is doing additional research, but if the design of the federal form is a factor, there’s something we can do.
With the goal of helping to alleviate confusion or problems for voters, the Democracy Fund recently submitted comments in response to FVAP’s open comment period on the two federal forms used by this community, the FPCA and FWAB.
The Federal Post Card Application (FPCA) is used to both register to vote and request an absentee ballot, and the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot (FWAB) is essentially a back-up ballot most often used when a voter did not receive an official ballot in time to return it. The variance in election rules across 55 states and territories means that FVAP has the ongoing challenge of making the forms straight-forward and user-friendly, but specific enough to accommodate state law. FVAP has made major advancements to help voters use the forms by creating highly successful online tools, but the fact remains that not all voters will have access to the Internet, so the paper forms should be as useful as possible.
We believe that our recommendations could have lasting and long-term benefits for all overseas voters. The following are some of the areas of high priority. (Read our full comments here and here.)
First, clarify that military and overseas voters who request a ballot by email or fax must still provide a current absentee address.
In 2009, Congress enacted the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE Act) requiring these voters have the option to receive their blank ballots electronically, potentially cutting ballot transit time in half. On both FVAP forms there are fields labeled: “Where to send my ballot”/“Where to send my election materials.” Voters could easily assume that an email address or fax number is sufficient for this box. However, most election officials require a foreign or absentee address so they can confirm a voter is away from their home jurisdiction, even if the voter is requesting to receive their ballot electronically. Instead, we recommend this box be labeled: “Absentee address/ Where you reside now.”
Second, keep the affirmation tailored to the voter and don’t make voters “swear” to more than they have to.
Each form also has an affirmation section where the voter must attest to meeting certain eligibility requirements. The affirmations are written broadly to cover variations in election laws across the states. However, as the terms try to cast a broad net, the affirmation length grows and may require a voter to swear to a requirement not applicable in their state on penalty of perjury. And the longer the affirmation paragraph becomes, the less likely voters are to read it. We believe there are three key things a voter should need to affirm: 1) the information is true and accurate to the applicant’s knowledge, 2) they are a U.S. citizen and they meet other state eligibility requirements, and 3) they are not registering to vote or voting in any other U.S. jurisdiction. We can solve the qualifications question by “incorporating by reference” the state-specific requirements.
Third, FVAP and states should do more to reduce unnecessary hurdles for these voters by eliminating witness requirements.
There is an area on the forms for a witness to sign underneath the voter’s signature, but there are only a handful of states that require witness signatures. Unbelievably, in Alabama, absentee voters are required to have two witnesses sign the form. In 2012, less than half of the military and overseas ballots submitted by voters from Alabama were counted in the November General Election.
The MOVE Act banned notary requirements, but witness requirements are an archaic holdover from a time when there were less sophisticated ways to validate a voter’s signature. Today, election officials can more easily compare signatures from DMV files. The Democracy Fund recognizes that the witness lines must stay for now because of these remaining state-based requirements, and we challenge FVAP to talk to these states and the public about the burden this places on voters who are often working with early deadlines to send their forms home.
Fourth, simplify the ballot portion of the FWAB. Voting shouldn’t be overly complicated—the cleaner the design, the better the experience.
We believe there are significant design flaws with the ballot portion of the FWAB. The area where a voter writes the office or issue on which they are voting does not clearly correspond to where the voter writes the name of their preferred candidate or ballot choice. While not quite as bad as Florida’s famous “butterfly ballot,” this format has the potential to produce confusion.
It is worth noting that FWABs are more likely to be rejected than regular state absentee ballots, making up 33.1% of rejected military and overseas ballots even though they are only 7.4% of the total ballots submitted. And while there could be a number of reasons for this, such as whether a voter’s state ballot is returned in time, we believe the design of the FWAB could be adding to the total number of rejections. Because this is a basic usability issue, we recommend FVAP consider incorporating arrows or another design element that makes the form clearer. There are ballot design resources available with guidance on how to make election forms much easier to use.
These are four primary recommendations DF made to FVAP as part of the official comment process. We commend FVAP for both running a meaningful open comment period — where actual engagement was requested. They are required to update the form from time to time — we believe they have a real opportunity here to take several clear steps forward. For some, these changes may seem small, and perhaps inconsequential, but if one imagines the improvement overall for tens of thousands of individuals using these materials to register and request an absentee ballot—every way the forms are improved increases the likelihood that they will have their vote count.
When considering the testimony for the MOVE Act, the Senate heard from Air Force Lt. Col. Joseph DeCaro (in his own capacity). He reflected that service members wanted to vote. The challenge, he indicated, was navigating the complexities of the rules and requirements to receive a ballot. It is with that spirit that we continue to support FVAP’s effort to make voting a little bit easier for Mr. DeCaro and others like him.
Cookies Notice
This website uses cookies to provide you with an improved and personalized experience. By using this site you agree to our use of cookies. Please read our cookies policy for more information on the cookies we use and how to delete or block them.
