#ICYMI: Illegally Purged Ohio Voters to be Allowed to Vote


In case you missed it: A federal court ordered Ohio Secretary of State John Husted to allow the many thousands of infrequent voters the state has purged from the voter rolls over the last several years to vote in this year’s Presidential Election.

The order protects the voting rights of Ohioans whose voter registrations were cancelled under a controversial program that was recently declared illegal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Earlier this year, the Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute (APRI), the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless (NEOCH), and Ohio voter Larry Harmon, represented by Demos and the ACLU of Ohio, brought a legal challenge to Ohio’s purge of voters under that program, known as the Supplemental Process, which cancelled the registrations of voters who failed to vote for a period of six years—even voters who remained eligible to vote.

“The Supplemental Process has disproportionately removed voters of color from the registration rolls,” said Andre Washington, president of APRI. “The right to vote—a right Americans have fought and died for—simply cannot be treated as a use-it-or-lose-it right.”

Last month, the Sixth Circuit overturned a lower court ruling and declared that Ohio’s Supplemental Process violated a federal law known as the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), which prohibits states from cancelling a voter’s registration merely for failing to vote for a period of time.

“Today’s order is a monumental victory for Ohio voters,” said Stuart Naifeh, senior counsel at Demos. “Even after the Sixth Circuit ruled that Ohio had violated federal law in removing infrequent voters from the rolls, Secretary Husted would have denied thousands of eligible Ohioans the right to vote. We are gratified that the court recognized that broader relief was required to protect the rights of Ohio voters. Now those voters will be able to cast a ballot and have it counted in the upcoming election.”

The appeals court’s decision, issued on September 23, 2016, sent the case back to the lower court to craft a remedy that would halt the Supplemental Process and prevent voters who have been purged from being denied their right to vote. On Wednesday the District Court issued an order that requires the state to allow infrequent voters to cast their ballots this November.

“Just last year, Ohio cancelled the voter registrations of hundreds of thousands of infrequent voters, and we anticipate many of them will come to the polls in November with no idea they have been purged. Yesterday’s order ensures these Ohio voters will be able to exercise their fundamental right to vote,” said Freda Levenson, legal director at the ACLU of Ohio. “We are encouraging voters across the State of Ohio to take the time to cast a provisional ballot if they find that their names are not on the registration rolls when they turn up to vote.”

Under the Court’s order, the State must:

  • Update websites maintained by the Ohio Secretary of State and county boards of elections inform voters who may have been purged under the Supplemental Process that they may be able to vote by provisional ballot and have their ballots counted this November;
  • Provide online and telephonic tools for purged voters to find out the polling location and precinct where they should go vote;
  • Inform purged voters who apply to vote-by-mail that they may cast a provisional ballot at their early voting site or on Election Day; and
  • Treat any provisional ballot cast in-person by a purged voter who has not moved or who has moved within the same county the same as if the voter were still registered.

“The Court’s action is a huge win for housing insecure, homeless, and other traditionally marginalized voters,” said Brian Davis, Executive Director at NEOCH. “Because housing-insecure and homeless voters often face obstacles getting to the polls, these voters are more likely to have been targeted by the Supplemental Process, removed from Ohio’s registration rolls, and denied their right to vote. The order will help ensure that the voices of these often under-represented voters are heard this November.”

The Court’s order applies only to the 2016 Presidential Election. The Court instructed the parties to submit a schedule for additional proceedings on a permanent resolution of the lawsuit after the election.

Florida Motor Vehicle Offices are Violating Federal Voting Rights Law


Citing evidence that Florida residents have been denied the opportunity to register to vote or update their registrations, attorneys from voting rights groups Project Vote and Demos sent a pre-litigation notice letter recently on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Florida, alerting the state that it is violating Section 5 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).

The notice letter calls on Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner, and Terry Rhodes, Executive Director of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV), to take immediate steps to ensure that the Florida DHSMV complies with the voter registration requirements of the NVRA.

Commonly known as the “Motor Voter” law, the NVRA requires most states—including Florida—to provide citizens with a variety of opportunities to register and update their voter registration during interactions with certain government agencies. Section 5 of the NVRA requires that Florida’s DHSMV provide voter registration services whenever an individual applies for, renews, or changes their address on a driver’s license or state-issued identification card, regardless of how that transaction takes place.

“The NVRA includes very specific criteria to ensure that eligible citizens can register and vote, and these requirements are not optional; they apply whether individuals conduct their business with DHSMV in person, online, or by mail,” said Archita Taylor, election counsel for Project Vote. “By ignoring these requirements, DHSMV is denying Floridians their federally-guaranteed rights, and potentially robbing individuals of their votes.”

Today’s letter cites substantial evidence that DHSMV is neglecting its NVRA obligations and violating federal law in two important ways. First, the letter alleges that DHSMV’s “GoRenew” internet portal—which allows individuals to renew their license or state I.D. online—violates the NVRA because it does not offer customers an opportunity to register as required by the NVRA. Second, the letter states that DHSMV is failing to meet its voter registration obligations with respect to change-of-address transactions completed in-person, by mail, and online.

The NVRA requires an “opt-out” system, in which an individual who changes their address through DHSMV will automatically have their voter registration information updated unless they specifically decline the update. None of the DHSMV address change methods comply with this requirement. Indeed, the DHSMV online portal acknowledges that changes of address will not also update an individual’s voter registration, in utter disregard of the NVRA requirement. According to the letter, this obligation ensures voters do not lose their ability to vote when they move.

“Low-income voters tend to move at higher rates than the general population and, thus, need to update their voter registration information with much greater frequency,” said Naila Awan, counsel for Demos. “A comprehensive plan that corrects the state’s change of address procedures will be critical at ensuring that these voters—an already marginalized population—are able to fully participate in the political process.”

According to the letter, the groups are willing to meet with Florida officials to assist in developing a comprehensive plan to address the problems. In the absence of such a plan the groups plan to initiate litigation.

“Given Florida’s history of voter suppression laws, much of which were struck down by a federal judge in 2012 after litigation initiated by the League of Women Voters of Florida, we will remain vigilant and will demand that the State of Florida follow the NVRA,” said Pamela Goodman, President of the LWVF.

ACLU Sues West Virginia Clerk for Refusing to Accept Online Voter Registrations


The American Civil Liberties Union this week recently a West Virginia county clerk for refusing to accept and process online voter registrations.

State law provides for online voter registration, and all other West Virginia counties accept it save for Cabell County, where County Clerk Karen Cole has balked at allowing it.

“Cabell County residents should have the same voter registration options as all other West Virginians, but this one clerk is denying them that opportunity,” said Joseph Cohen, executive director of the ACLU of West Virginia. “As the county’s chief registration authority, Karen Cole is responsible for establishing procedures that ensure full implementation of state and federal voter registration rules. Instead, she is in violation of those rules.”

The online voter registration program mirrors the paper voter registration card that is used throughout the state. A person can only use the online system to register if they already have a West Virginia driver’s license or state identification card, and have their signature on file with the state division of Motor Vehicles or another approved state database. Tens of thousands of West Virginians have already utilized the system in order to register.

The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia/Huntington Division. It cites violations of the federal and state Constitutions.

The complaint is at: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/mullins-v-cole-class-action-complaint

Common Cause Recruiting Thousands for Election Protection Work to Prevent Voter Suppression, Intimidation Tactics


With Election Day just a short time away, Common Cause continues to assist potential voters and recruit and train poll watchers and other volunteers across the nation. The good-government nonpartisan nonprofit organization has already signed up thousands of volunteers—and some are already answering election protection hotlines and monitoring polling places in early voting states.

The volunteers are trained in a nonpartisan manner in order to assist voters and ensure than our elections are secure. As an organizational leader in the national Election Protection effort, Common Cause’s state efforts are coordinated with national and state based partners to protect the right of every American to vote.

The vast majority of Americans will not have any problem registering to vote or casting their ballots on Election Day. But across the nation where problems have occurred in the past, or may occur for the first time in 2016, Common Cause and its more than 100 Election Protection partner organizations are working to educate voters and help safeguard their access to the ballot.

“Protecting the right of every American to vote is essential to the health of our democracy and we will continue to work to help safeguard that right through continuing work with election officials, voter education and outreach, poll monitoring and when necessary through litigation,” said Karen Hobert Flynn, president of Common Cause. “Volunteer poll monitors will be an important check to those who have been encouraged to descend on polling places in our inner cities to stop alleged voting irregularities. Those questioning the integrity of our elections are doing so irresponsibly, without any evidence, and their inflammatory rhetoric is an insult to the dedicated professionals who administer our elections admirably and securely. The best way for voters to counter these desperate conspiracies is to turn out and vote on Election Day.”

Over the past several years, we have seen a disturbing increase in the number and scope of attempts to suppress the votes of tens of thousands of American citizens. Some of these are attempts to deceive or intimidate voters with misinformation conveyed through robocalls or fliers. Many more of these attempts occur at the polls on Election Day, with people and groups using scare tactics and fueling misinformation, and challenging voters at the polls – sometimes illegally.

Throughout October, they will be conducting poll monitor trainings across the country. On election day, groups of trained monitors will be sent to polling places to help voters know their rights and to let them know about the Election Protection hotlines – 866-OUR-VOTE, 888-VE-Y-VOTA and 888-API-VOTE.

State by state, we will be putting trained poll monitors on the ground at polling places, especially in communities with a history of voting problems, where hotly-contested races exacerbate the chance of long lines, and other complications. We’ll also be in states where there may be confusion about voter ID requirements. Poll monitors will provide information, troubleshoot problems, and report bad practices to our teams to resolve them with election officials.

In the lead-up to the election, Common Cause will issue updates on Election Protection efforts that will include teleconferences with election protection experts, attorneys and staff in the states.

Also in the coming days Common Cause will issue two reports on issues expect to have a major impact on the upcoming election. Common Cause’s traditional ‘Swing State Report’ will examine the laws and procedures in battleground states and rate them accordingly. Another report on redistricting will examine the competitiveness of congressional and state legislative districts which reveals a lack of competitiveness (and often even a lack of opposition) for a startling number of districts.

Concerned About Voter Fraud? Info You Can Use


The subject of voter fraud—and whether or not it appears in our election system—has made the rounds in the news, and during the nation’s most recent presidential debate.

Wondering what the truth is?

The Brennan Center, a nonpartisan, nonprofit—recently posted some informative memos regarding the matter.

President Michael Waldman and other experts from the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law — who have studied voter fraud allegations and election issues for more than a decade — recently released the following:

  • Debunking the Voter Fraud Myth. There is no basis to the claims of widespread fraud or rigged election outcomes. Fraud by voters at the polls is vanishingly rare. Every major study, investigation, and court decision has found little evidence of fraud — and substantial evidence of disenfranchisement. Instead, these claims are used to push restrictive laws that block legitimate voters.
  • The Dangers of “Ballot Security” Operations and Voter Intimidation. Every eligible citizen has the right to vote free of intimidation and discrimination — regardless of political affiliation, race, disability, sexual orientation, or gender. Deploying non-official, private actors to challenge voters’ eligibility can lead to illegal intimidation, discrimination, or disruptions, and undermine confidence in our election system. This analysis outlines the threat, explains what is and is not allowed under the law, and highlights what can be done to protect against harmful activity in November.

See more of the Brennan Center’s Election 2016 Controversies resources.

Report: More Secret Money Pouring Into Judicial Races


In an election season that has seen an unprecedented blockade of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, it’s easy to overlook troubling developments for judicial selection at the state court level, where 95 percent of all cases are heard.

In total, 39 states hold elections to choose all or some of their judges. This November, 27 states will hold elections for seats on their highest courts. Early indicators suggest that several of these races will be dominated by special interest spending, a large portion of it secret money from groups that do not disclose their donors, according to an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice of seven supreme court elections and primaries that were completed earlier in 2016. The likely upshot: greater negative campaigning, and voters, litigants, and potentially even judges in the dark about possible conflicts of interest.

Looking forward, the Brennan Center has also identified judicial election battlegrounds to watch this fall — the states where harsh and expensive supreme court races look likely, based on indicators such as spending in primaries, candidate fundraising, and statements by politicians and interest groups. In Washington and North Carolina, for example, interest groups spent six figures on radio and television ad buys during the primaries, while political leaders and interest groups in Kansas and Montana have raised the temperature of these states’ judicial races through public statements and endorsements. In Ohio, one supreme court candidate has already booked $644,000 in TV ads, in what looks poised to be a big-spending race for an open seat.

The Brennan Center is monitoring all state supreme court contests this fall and will be issuing periodic releases and analyses in the lead-up to Election Day. Research and data will be housed on the Brennan Center’s supreme court elections page.

“Special interests know that state supreme courts have tremendous power to shape the legal and policy landscape on everything from civil rights to tort reform, even beyond a state’s borders, and they have been pouring money into these races in recent years,” said Alicia Bannon, Senior Counsel in the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. “Polling shows that 95 percent of the public believes campaign spending influences how judges rule in cases. With the rise of outside spenders that do not disclose their donors, we can’t even identify potential conflicts of interest. This poses a major threat to the integrity of our justice system.”

Troubling Early Trends: Secret Outside Spending & Attack Ads

The Brennan Center reviewed TV ad buys in the seven states that have already held a primary or early general election for their state supreme court this year, and where at least one TV ad was broadcast (AR, ID, NC, OH, TX, WI, WV). These elections suggest several trends to look for in November’s round of judicial contests.

  • Outside Spending Dominated: To date, spending by outside groups has played a larger role in 2016 state supreme court elections than in past years. Candidates were responsible for only 35 percent of television spending in these early elections, compared to 42 percent overall in 2013-14 and 39 percent in 2011-12. All of the outside spending in 2016 to date has come from groups. The Republican State Leadership Committee, which describes its mission as “working to elect down-ballot, state-level Republican officeholders,” was the single largest outside spender, putting at least $2.2 million into races in three states (including television spending in West Virginia and Arkansas and radio advertisements in Wisconsin). While outside groups are distinct from judicial candidates’ campaigns, at least in theory, the separation is not always clear-cut. In February, for example, a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice uploaded b-roll footage of herself onto YouTube, which was then used in television ads by an outside group.
  • Secret Spenders Predominated: Seventy percent of outside television spending came from so-called “dark money” sources, which do not disclose their donors. This dynamic raises particular concerns in judicial races, where dark money can obscure conflicts of interest in cases involving major spenders. Although data is limited, there are indications this reflects a much higher proportion of completely-undisclosed money than is seen in other state races. A recent Brennan Center study of state and local elections in six states found that 12 percent of outside spending in 2014 came from dark money sources. (The study further found that an additional 59 percent of outside spending came from “gray money” sources, entities that disclose donors in a way that makes the original sources of money difficult or impossible to discern. No gray money sources have been identified in any of the 2016 supreme court races.)
  • Groups Went on the Attack: Television ads were also more negative than those seen in recent years. The rise of outside spending was a key factor. So far in 2016, outside groups were responsible for 69 percent of all negative ad spots — reducing the ability of candidates to control the tenor and substance of their own races. Overall, only 49 percent of all ad spots were positive in tone, compared with 79 percent in 2013-14 and 76 percent in 2011-12. What were the attacks about? One-in-four portrayed judges as “soft on crime.” There is growing evidence that these kind of election pressures lead to harsher sentencing in criminal cases.
  • State Spending Records Fell: Of the three states that held contested off-cycle supreme court elections in 2016 (AR, WI, WV), two set state records for television spending (AR, WV). All three had more than $1 million in spending on television ads. Overall, more than $9.5 million was spent on TV in primaries and off-cycle races this year, according to estimates from Kantar Media/CMAG and West Virginia disclosure statements.

States to Watch in 2016

Several states seem likely to attract high-spending interest groups and politicized races this year, based on early spending and fundraising patterns and public statements. Already, candidates have booked TV ads in six states for the fall, totaling $1.1 million, according to a review of TV ad contracts. Additional information about the election landscape can be found on the Brennan Center’s supreme court elections page.

  • Kansas: The state supreme court election this year is already highly charged, as multiple interests have coalesced to support or oppose the ouster of four justices standing for retention (an up-or-down vote where the judge stands unopposed). The state Republican Party, as well as Kansans for Justice and Kansans for Life, are vocally opposing the justices, citing decisions they have made on issues such as the death penalty, abortion, and education funding. On the other side, four former governors (Republicans and Democrats) are campaigning in support of the justices, and Kansans for Fair Courts is also promoting retention efforts. However, loopholes that exempt retention elections from the state’s disclosure laws will make it difficult to discern who is behind any money spent in these races.
  • Montana: Outside interests appear to be marshaling around a Montana supreme court race for an open seat, between law professor Kristen Juras and district court judge Dirk Sandefur. Juras was endorsed by the Montana Chamber of Commerce, and Montana GOP officials and the head of the Montana Petroleum Association hosted a fundraiser for her. On the other side, the Montana Trial Lawyers Association has reportedly amassed more than $110,000 in contributions to its spending arm the Montana Law PAC, although it has not yet endorsed a candidate. Sandefur has booked $121,385 in airtime on broadcast TV, and as of Aug. 27, had raised $414,000. Juras has raised over $140,000, and has not yet booked airtime. In 2014, Montana’s supreme court election set a state record, with $1.5 million in spending, 75 percent of which came from outside groups.
  • North Carolina: This year’s election, in which Justice Robert Edmunds faces challenger Judge Michael Morgan, represents an opportunity to potentially shift the ideological composition of the Court from Republican-affiliated to Democratic-affiliated judges. The state’s primary election on June 7 saw more than half a million dollars in spending according to state disclosures, a majority of it from the North Carolina Chamber of Commerce in support of Justice Edmunds.
  • Ohio: Supreme Court elections in Ohio are typically high-cost; every election since 2000 has seen at least $3 million worth of spending, including a record $11 million in 2000. This year, the Buckeye State has already seen one candidate, Pat DeWine, who will face off against Cynthia Rice in one of two races for an open seat, spend almost $644,000 in ad bookings for the fall. Rice has not yet purchased airtime.
  • Washington: Two controversial supreme court decisions regarding education funding have sparked an effort to replace three sitting high court judges. One 2012 ruling ordered the state to increase school funding, ultimately leading the Court to fine the legislature for its inaction, while a 2015 decision found that charter schools could not receive public funds. In response, the state legislature recently passed a new charter school law. One challenger, Greg Zempel, benefitted from $230,000 in outside spending during his primary, including almost $130,000 from Stand for Children WA PAC, which is funded by charter school supporters, and $100,000 from Judicial Integrity WA, which was co-founded by the former majority leader of the Washington Senate.

Other states to watch include Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana and New Mexico, where supreme court candidates have already booked television ads for the fall, and Michigan, which has seen multi-million dollar races in recent years.

Methodology: Data on TV ad buys for the November elections is based on an analysis of contracts posted on the FCC’s website. Spending totals are current as of 12:30 PM ET on Sept 13, 2016. To analyze primaries and early races, the Brennan Center looked at every state in which at least one television ad was broadcast in 2016 (AR, ID, NC, OH, TX, WI, WV). Spending data came from estimates from Kantar Media/CMAG, with the exception of West Virginia, where we relied on state disclosures. The analysis of ad tone and themes was based on internal coding of ads by the Brennan Center. The analysis of dark money followed the same methodology described in this recent Brennan Center report. For one major spender, the Republican State Leadership Committee, we limited the dark money analysis to the top 20 contributors, as available on opensecrets.org.

Common Cause: Rhetoric Questioning Election Integrity Damages Our Democracy

Editor’s Note: With the last presidential debate in the books, we wanted to share some post-even commentary from Common Cause president Karen Hobert Flynn.


Any candidate who questions the integrity of elections without producing one shred of evidence doesn’t understand how democracy works. Trafficking in rumors and innuendo is an affront to the professionalism of election officials in both parties, raises doubts for candidates seeking office down ballot, and most importantly confuses voters. If a person can’t tell the difference between actual evidence of wrongdoing that should be turned over to authorities, and a forwarded email peddling conspiracy theories, perhaps it’s best to say nothing and allow the professional election administrators who’ve devoted their careers to making sure our elections are fair to do their jobs.

Conspiracy theories weaken our democracy by making people think their votes don’t count. But the same people who question the integrity of elections also refuse to support common sense safeguards, like automatic voter registration, that can strengthen the security of the voting system.

Donald Trump’s escalating rhetoric about voter fraud or tampering at polling places, without any evidence whatsoever, is a danger to our democracy. His calls to supporters to “watch voters in certain places because I’ve heard things,” is intended to intimidate voters and is incendiary and irresponsible. Properly trained poll workers, working through local election boards, or volunteers for large-scale election protection efforts, are two ways citizens can help ensure fair elections by taking the time to get trained and understand how the process works. Thousands of trained volunteers help first time voters, assist voters with disabilities, trouble shoot problems, and work so every eligible voter gets to cast a ballot, regardless of party. That’s a far cry from the rhetoric dominating the media now.

Elected officials from both political parties are right to condemn this reprehensible behavior, and more must stand up against it now. Those same elected officials and their peers must take steps to ensure all polling places are free of intimidation and voters may exercise their right to cast their ballots unmolested.

Election administrators must also take basic steps to ensure voters have alternatives to efficiently cast ballots. Anyone who knows how elections are administered will recognize the nine nonpartisan, common sense solutions we offer below. We invite Mr. Trump, Secretary Clinton, Gov. Johnson, and Jill Stein, and all candidates for U.S. House and Senate, to forcefully reject these irresponsible conspiracy theories or attempts to suppress the vote, endorse the nine nonpartisan back-up steps states can take now to ensure every vote counts, and accept the outcome once a winner is clear.

If, instead, Mr. Trump continues promoting conspiracy theories and urging supporters to be untrained vigilantes who don’t understand the rules that govern polling places, the logical conclusion is that his campaign is more interested in suppressing the vote and causing problems on Election Day than taking simple steps to put in place back-up measures to prevent them.

To every voter we say: you have the power. That power is your vote. Use it. There is so much power in each and every vote that billions of dollars are being spent to influence voters, and in some cases, make people so fearful and cynical they choose not to vote, in which case the people who don’t want you to exercise your power win.  Any voter that encounters any issue at a polling place, during early voting or on Election Day, or if you are told you cannot vote, please call the national nonpartisan Election Protection Hotline at 866-OUR-VOTE.

Common Cause has been working for decades to help election officials keep pace with rapidly changing technology and the best practices associated with election security and efficiency. We’ve seen the system, warts and all, from the inside, and we remain confident in its overall integrity and committed to doing the hard work of helping states continue to improve. It’s easier to point out problems, but it is finding workable solutions and helping implement those that is the mostly unnoticed, hard work of democracy too many people take for granted.

Reminder: Community Discussion on Redistricting TONIGHT


Just as a reminder:  Fair Districts PA is sponsoring a community discussion regarding redistricting at 7 p.m. TONIGHT, at the East Liberty Presbyterian Church located at 116 S. Highland Avenue, Pittsburgh PA 15206.

The subject is “YOUR VOTE SHOULD COUNT:  Why it doesn’t and what you can do about it.”

Our special host will be Franco Harris.

Our speakers will include former Allegheny County Executive Jim Roddey (appearing on video), former Common Cause of Pennsylvania senior adviser Barry Kauffman , and Ellen Doyle from Pennsylvanians for Fair Elections.

Check out our flier for more information.

Common Cause: Millennials Active, But Not Voting – What Gives?


Common Cause recently published a report based on one question: Why is it that Millennials are politically active, but don’t vote?

The report, titled, “Turning In and Turning Out” begins:

In every election, young Americans arguably have more at stake than any other group of citizens, simply because they have longer to live with the choices we all make.

But throughout our history, including in every election since the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18 in 1971, voter turnout among younger Americans has lagged well behind that in every other age group. Worse yet, with just a few exceptions, youth turnout has declined steadily. About half of voters aged 18-24 went to the polls in 1972, the first presidential election under the 26th Amendment; only 38 percent voted in 2012, the most recent presidential year.

The entire piece can be read on the Common Cause website.

Common Cause also put together a list of ways to increase voter registration among younger voters. They included:

  • Every state should have a robust program to pre-register 16- and 17-year-olds so that they are added to the voter rolls automatically on their 18th birthdays.
  • States should provide easy-to-access mechanisms for online voter registration.
  • States should follow the lead of Oregon, California, West Virginia, Vermont, and Connecticut in automatically registering eligible citizens doing business at Department of Motor Vehicle and other state offices.
  • Eligible citizens should be permitted to register and vote on the same day, including on Election Day; that option is now available in over a dozen states, and efforts to extend it continue.



Expert: Election Rigging Theory “Literally Insane”


The national spotlight has been thrust recently on the subject of election integrity. As one presidential candidate expounds on his theory that the election will be rigged in his opponent’s favor, fair elections advocates have said outcry isn’t warranted.

In fact, in an op-ed published in Slate, one fair election expert said that a candidate trying to run away with the election by way of voter fraud would be “literally insane.”

In the piece, even the Keystone State was mentioned.

Here’s an excerpt of what the expert, Rick Hasen, wrote:

The truth is, though, that not only does zero evidence exist that this sort of fraud has taken place on any regular basis, but multiple voting simply cannot happen in any practical sense on a scale to influence a presidential election. To vote five, 10, or 15 times one would have to either register five, 10, or 15 times in different jurisdictions or with false names or go five, 10, or 15 times to polling places claiming to be someone else whose name is on the voter rolls, in the hopes that this person has not already voted and you would not get caught. And to do this on a scale for a presidential election, in a place such as Pennsylvania with millions of voters, you would need to pay tens of thousands of people, all without any way of verifying how they voted. What a stupid way to try to steal an election!

The entire piece can be read on Slate’s website.