Does HAVA Solve Voter Purging? Or Does It Lead to Disenfranchisement?

By Sari Gelzer / t r u t h o u t / April 10, 2006
Go to Original.

Behind the popular controversy of Electronic Voting Machines lies a second and equally vexing requirement of The Help America Vote Act (HAVA): the Voter Registration Database. Millions of registered voters could be disenfranchised in this year's coming elections due to improper implementation of voter registration databases. In an attempt to streamline voter registration information, HAVA requires that all states create and maintain a state-wide database.

The provision of a state-wide voter registration database was created in response to the widespread rejection of voters on election day in November 2000. Leading up to the 2000 election, Florida's Secretary of State ordered local counties to "purge" 57,700 voters from the registries who were supposedly ex-cons. More than half who were purged were black, and over 90% were innocent, reported Greg Palast for the Nation.

HAVA was created in 2002, but as it was gradually implemented in various states for the 2004 presidential elections, it became clear that HAVA would not be the immediate antidote to all of the voting system problems that arose in 2000. Once again, in 2004, Ohio experienced attempts by Republicans to purge registered voters from the lists. Leading up to the 2004 presidential elections Republicans filed 35,000 challenges to voters' eligibility and prepared to send 8,000 recruiters to polling places to challenge voters they suspected were not eligible, reported the Washington Post. Republicans justified the purging by noting a census that showed more registered voters than there were age-eligible residents, wrote the Washington Post. But election officials and experts said that the National Voter Registration Act prohibits immediate purging of names unless there is official notification. This discrepancy is most often due to voters who have moved or who have died, rather than voter fraud, commented Kay Maxwell, president of the League of Women Voters to the Washington Post.

Palast and Jessie Jackson compared these purges, which left many at the polls casting provisional ballots, to Jim Crow-era actions. In an article from January 2005 titled "Jim Crow Returns to the Voting Booth," they reported that these mostly eligible voters from African-American dominated districts were purged by the tens of thousands in Ohio, Florida, and elsewhere by "Republican operatives, working from lists prepared by the party." The ability to remove eligibility was based on discrepancies in voter registration that were related to a mere change of address or a name that was similar to that of a felon, say Jackson and Palast. "An analysis of one roster showed that several of those facing challenges were African-American soldiers whose address changed because they were shipped overseas," reported Palast and Jackson.

The deadline for states to create a voter registration database under HAVA passed on January 1st. However, states continue to face setbacks in creating these systems. The process has not only been plagued with administrative setbacks, but has also been criticized in some states for continuing to disenfranchise voters unnecessarily.

HAVA was the proposed solution to illegal voter purging, but since HAVA was signed in 2002, some are still wondering if it was a sincere solution to the problem or if it will continue to impede our democratic rights. The voter registration database has the potential to be a very positive requirement, but it is entirely dependent on how states choose to implement it, says the Brennan Center for Justice in a report titled "Making the List: Database Matching and Verification Processes for Voter Registration."

Nebraska and Oregon are examples of states that wish to "implement voter registration databases for their intended purposes," which the Brennan Center says is intended, "to help clean the registration rolls - and to promote the smooth administration of a process that enables every eligible citizen to vote."

However, Iowa, South Dakota, Texas, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington are all states that adopted database policies that could leave 20 percent of eligible voters incorrectly left off the rolls, said the Brennan Center in a press release. These seven states have decided to implement a policy that will reject applications from citizens if their information does not match the state's Motor Vehicle or Social Security database exactly, says the Brennan Center. This discrepancy can result from a change in maiden name, the use of a common nickname, or from not filling out all the information on a registration form.

Amidst these two extremes of state policy for voter registration, the remaining states have policies that lie along this continuum.

43% of eligible voters will be rejected from being registered in California, reported the Los Angeles Times on March 29th. Voters who are attempting to register for upcoming elections have been rejected because of "computer glitches, misspelling of names, or incomplete information."

With elections around the corner, California counties must rectify the situation by having local election officials take on the burden of contacting voters by phone, reported the Los Angeles Times. Counties are rushing to fix this problem, with elections as early as April 11th in San Diego County to fill the seat of convicted Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

The voting registration database is the most expensive requirement under HAVA legislation. South Dakota and Utah's databases cost less than $1 million, while in Pennsylvania, the system cost over $20 million, reported electiononline.org in a report titled "Election Reform: What's Changed, What Hasn't and Why, 2001-2006".

The companies that have built the databases are familiar names, reports electiononline.org: Diebold, ES&S, Hart InterCivic and IBM. Other companies include Covansys, PCC Technology Group, Aradyme Corp., Accenture, Saber Consulting, MAXIMUS, Quest Information Systems and Unisys.

Nevada recently canceled its $1 million contract for voter registration databases with Convansys Inc., reported the Associated Press. Nevada Secretary of State Dean Heller suspended the contract with Convansys Inc. in February of 2005 due to problems with the system, and the company has since then not created a database that meets federal standards. Heller is requesting that Convansys Inc. pay for a new system that Nevada must install for the upcoming elections.

Colorado terminated a $10 million contract with Accenture LLC in December 2005, leaving the state currently without a sufficient voter registration database, four months behind the HAVA deadline reported the Denver Post. The Secretary of State told the Gazette of Colorado Springs that the contract was canceled over accuracy, but Accenture disagreed with the state's decision. Kansas was another state that cancelled a similar contract with the Bermuda-based Accenture LLC which has built databases in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Wyoming, reported electiononline.org.

Despite a list of disputes over Voter Registration Databases, Rob Richie and Steven Hill believe that voter registration databases can potentially take America "a giant step closer to universal registration," they wrote in an article titled "How to Have Clean and Complete Voter Rolls." It is the responsibility of the government to make 100% voter registration possible, say Richie and Hill.

"The United States in fact is one of the few democracies where the government does not take responsibility for registering its voters, which is why Iraq already has a higher share of its adult citizens registered to vote than the United States," say Richie and Hill.

Palast, a journalist for the Nation who covered much of the election controversy of 2000 and 2004, is weary of HAVA. In 2004, in an article titled "Vanishing Votes," Palast writes, "George W. Bush signed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Hidden behind its apple-pie-and-motherhood name lies a nasty civil rights time bomb." Palast is worried that in the process of creating this voter registration database, similar purges that this database was meant to solve will occur: "HAVA not only blesses such purges, it requires all fifty states to implement a similar search-and-destroy mission against vulnerable voters."

In order to reach the ideal system for voter registration databases around the US, the Brennan Center report contains concrete proposals to help states ensure that all eligible voters are registered. The report recommends that states enact policies that account for database matching errors and will not bar eligible voters from registering due to errors in the matching process. They suggest states clarify their registration forms, to ensure accurate data entry. The Brennan Center also says that states should create "clear, transparent and voter-protective procedures for database maintenance and purging."

-------