Project Vote

  • January 15, 2010
    Guest Post

    By Estelle Rogers, Director of Advocacy, Project Vote

    Some good news came out of Washington Tuesday.

    Sound unlikely? That's because the news comes from the STATE of Washington, where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals essentially struck down the state's felon disenfranchisement law because it's racially discriminatory and violates the federal Voting Rights Act.

    The case, Farrakhan v. Gregoire, has been in the federal courts since 1996, when the plaintiffs -- all minority citizens who had been convicted of felonies -- sued the state, claiming that the disenfranchisement law discriminated on the basis of race because Washington disproportionately prosecutes and sentences minorities. They produced some compelling social science research to show that disparities in Washington's rates of criminal investigation, vehicle searches, arrest, bail recommendations, and confinement could not be explained by "legitimate" factors, such as the higher rate of minority involvement in criminal activity. Rather, the court concluded, the state's criminal justice system is riddled with racial discrimination at every stage.

    Amazingly, the state didn't dispute the social science evidence, but merely claimed that, even assuming its validity, it is legally insufficient to sustain the plaintiffs' claim under the Voting Rights Act that the felon disenfranchisement law results in the denial of the right to vote on account of race. The court disagreed.

    So now what?

  • November 20, 2009
    The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) has sputtered in removing hurdles to voter registration and the Obama administration and state election officials must renew their efforts to bolster the law, writes Estelle Rogers in an Issue Brief released by ACS.

    Congress passed the NVRA, in part, to increase voter registration and to prod government to encourage voting. When it was enacted, the NVRA was "heralded as a landmark law that would usher in a new era of universal or nearly universal, enfranchisement and political participation," Rogers states in "The National Voter Registration Act: Fifteen Years On."

    But Rogers, the consulting attorney at Project Vote, maintains that while the law has produced some successes, it is hobbled by poor implementation and execution of some its key provisions.

    Rogers writes:

    Without question, the least successful provision of the NVRA is the requirement that social service agencies and offices serving the disabled provide voter registration services similarly to motor vehicle offices. While this requirement was a promising way of reaching out to citizens who didn't interact with DMVs, such as those too impoverished to drive or own cars, the reality has not measured up to the promise. This disappointing track record is due to widespread non-compliance with the mandates of Section 7 and a failure of enforcement by the Department of Justice, particularly in recent years, not with any lack of clarity in the statute itself.

    Section 8 of the NVRA states, "Each state shall insure that any eligible applicant is registered to vote ... and conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters." But Rogers, says that provision has also been hampered by officials.

    "The registration administration provisions of Section 8 are, for the most part, drafted clearly but nevertheless have been widely ignored," she writes. "Significantly increased awareness and enforcement of these provisions is necessary to fulfill the potential of Section 8."

    Federal and state officials' leadership is needed to improve the NVRA, Rogers maintains. The Justice Department, in particular, must "provide much needed guidance and enforcement of sections 7 and 8." And state election officials, she writes, must aggressively approach "their responsibilities under the NVRA." For example, Rogers says that states' top election officials should ensure that election administrators "do not impose unreasonable restrictions on registration drives, and that motor vehicle, disability, and social service agencies consistently fulfill their duties under NVRA."

    Download a pdf version of Rogers' Issue Brief here and for additional analysis of the law, see her ACS guest blog here

  • July 29, 2009
    Guest Post

    By Estelle Rogers, Consulting Attorney, ProjectVote

    The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) has been a disappointment. When the statute was passed in 1993, the civil rights community hailed it as the capstone of the "voting rights revolution" begun by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In a new report from Project Vote, "The National Voter Registration Act at Fifteen," voting rights attorney Estelle Rogers hones in on several of the most important provisions of the NVRA and finds their impact far less dramatic than expected. Despite the promise of the NVRA, voter registration problems were frequently cited as THE ISSUE marring the 2008 election, just as hanging chads were in 2000 and long lines in 2004.

    The NVRA was enacted in response to the shocking statistic that 44 percent of the eligible electorate did not vote in the 1992 presidential election. The legislation's sponsors believed that making it easier to register would eliminate one major barrier to low participation in the future. The primary means Congress chose to increase the number of registered voters was to mandate that registration be offered at places not generally used for that purpose, such as motor vehicle offices and public assistance and disability agencies. Actually, "motor voter" was the original concept. Other agencies were only added later, at the urging of voting rights advocates, who recognized that a broad swath of the American public-particularly low income and minority citizens-does not interact with the DMV at all.