electionline Weekly

Options

February 25, 2010

February 25, 2010

In Focus This Week

State lawmakers’ MOVE voting legislation
Numerous states work to comply with federal military and overseas voting act

By Matthew Morse

Lawmakers across the country have been working hard in recent weeks to pass legislation to reform states’ military and overseas voting practices to comply with the federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act.

Due to significant variations, many states face unique challenges in implementing the federal requirements based upon the degree of centralization as well as existing laws and regulations.

Two such states, Georgia and Virginia, have already grappled with interpreting and implementing the federal act that goes into effect in November.

In Georgia, recently appointed Secretary of State Brian Kemp (R) and Rep. John Meadows (R-District 5) undertook the effort. Bill HB 1073, was approved by the House Committee on Governmental Affairs last week.

Discussing the difficulty of interpreting MOVE’s requirements side-by-side with laws and procedures, Kemp said, ““Our office worked closely with U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss and leaders in the Georgia Legislature to ensure that HB 1073 conforms to requirements in the federal MOVE Act, and provides the greatest ballot access possible for Georgia’s military and overseas voters.

“We have also worked closely with Georgia’s county elections officials to explain the new requirements and initiate the necessary training on the new procedures.”

In Virginia, the effort started as a package of election reform bills. On the Senate side, those bills have been rolled into SB 55, sponsored by Sen. Stephen Martin (R- District 11) and Sen. Robert Hurt (R- District 19). SB 55 was approved 39 to 1. On the House side, HB 1235 was sponsored by Del. Richard Anderson (R- Woodbridge) and unanimously approved. At press time, HB 1235 has advanced through Senate committee.

As part of its compliance with the MOVE Act for federal elections, the Georgia and Virginia bills require military and overseas absentee ballots to be mailed at least 45 days in advance and for blank ballots to be sent electronically upon request.

The federal act also requires electronic transmission of voter registration and ballot requests, an online tracking system for absentee ballots, expedited mail service for voted ballots, online portals for voting information and access to the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot (FWAB), elimination of notary requirements and several other changes, such as elimination of restrictions on paper sizes and types.

Numerous states are using MOVE Act implementation as an opportunity to consider other ways to improve the system for military and overseas voters. One easy way to do this is by extending the MOVE Act’s protections for time to vote and electronic transmission beyond federal elections to state and local elections as well. One example, Michigan HB 5279, allows military and overseas voters to vote in Michigan elections under certain circumstances even if that voter is not otherwise qualified to vote in the state or locality.

Lawmakers are also providing additional safety nets for military and overseas voters. For example, some states are allowing the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot to count as a ballot request and/or voter registration form in addition to a voted ballot.

Va. SB 55/HB 1235 and Ga. HB 1073 also allow voters to use the FWAB for state and local offices, whereas until now it was only accepted in federal contests.

Virginia and Georgia are far from alone in their efforts. Many other states, including those with large military populations, have begun working on legislation that would help with MOVE compliance. All told, approximately 25 states have 86 active pieces of legislation to address this issue. Many other states have inactive carryover legislation or are still too early in their legislative calendars to begin work on the issue.

States have been active in military and overseas voting for months, including prior to the MOVE Act’s passage. The majority of the work began around January 4th of this year, however, when many state legislatures reconvened.

Because part of the MOVE Act requires changes by the November election, states with short legislative sessions like Virginia, Florida, and Georgia are especially under pressure to changes laws before the legislature adjourns for the year.

This comes roughly a year after the Pew Center on the States published its No Time to Vote report, which found that 25 states and District of Columbia do not provide enough time for overseas military personnel to vote. Even states like Virginia that were found to give enough time to vote are required to make some changes as a result of the MOVE Act, which will serve to further enfranchise these groups of voters.

Similarly, states are improving their election information technology to keep pace with changes to state law and regulations. Virginia already provides data on polling places, ballot and candidate lists, and election official contact information to all voters using an embeddable gadget (note: gadget uses data from the 2009 election and is for demonstration purposes only) through its participation in the Voting Information Project.

Soon, military and overseas voters will be able to use a similar gadget to self-populate an FWAB with candidate information. This will save staff time, serve voters well, and streamline the process of implementing MOVE Act requirements to provide such tools.

Election News This Week

Once again the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has rejected Georgia’s system of identifying voters who might not be U.S. citizens. In the February 22 letter from DOJ, Civil Rights Division head Thomas Perez wrote, “[A second] review indicates that the state has not provided any additional information or arguments related to the original voter registration verification program to which an objection was interposed, to support its request that the objection to the original program should be withdrawn.” According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, in the letter, Perez reminds Secretary of State Brian Kemp that the state may not enforce its new voter verification law without DOJ approval. Kemp spokesman Matt Carrothers said the law has not been enforced, since – under the rules of the Voting Rights Act – it can’t go into effect without Justice Department approval. Or a federal court fight. Carrothers said the secretary was waiting for the DOJ decision on voter verification. With that decision in, Kemp has decided to take the voter verification issue to court. “The state of Georgia will no longer watch the Obama Justice Department play politics with our election processes and protections,” Kemp said in a press release.

  •   The state of Alaska has settled a lawsuit brought by Yup’ik-speaking elders and tribal councils demanding that the Division of Elections provide ballots and voter assistance in Yup’ik. According to the Anchorage Daily News, the agreement calls for Yup’ik language translations of election information to be posted on the state Web site and sent to Bethel-area village councils. The arguments for and against ballot measures will go to villages 30 days before election day. The Native American Rights Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit in 2007 against the state and the city of Bethel. Lawyers for the elders argued election officials were violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by failing to provide Yup’ik speaking voters with ballots and other paperwork they needed to understand what they were voting on.  “I have said all along that all we wanted was to be able to understand what we are voting for. Now that will happen, and I am very, very happy,” Billy McCann, a plaintiff in the case said in a press release…that was translated from Yup’ik to English.
  •   The Tennessee Supreme Court will not be chiming in on a pending county elections administrator class-action lawsuit filed last year after Republicans attempted to oust some Democratic appointees. The Supreme Court had been asked to decide on two questions that would have determined the outcome of the lawsuits. In the filing the Supreme Court states that it “declines to accept the questions of law because the answers require additional facts that are not available to the court.” The two questions, in essence, were: a) does the post of administrator of elections qualify as an office or public trust whereby no political or religious test shall be used as qualification; and b) is an administrator of elections a county employee or a state employee. “In my opinion the Supreme Court doesn’t want to get involved,” Hawkins County elections administrator Patricia Lumpkins told the Times-News. “If they had answered those two questions, that would have determined how the lawsuit was going to go. The main question is, do we (elections administrators) make policy? We don’t.” Thirteen Tennessee elections administrators filed a class-action federal lawsuit claiming their constitutional rights have been violated by the GOP members of their respective county election commissions. The trial date is tentatively set for July 5, 2011.
  •   Questions arose this week as to whether or not Maryland has enough money in the budget to conduct upcoming elections in September and November. The issue came up during a recent Board of Public Works meeting in which the board approved a seven-year, $43 million information technology project that would support the state’s existing touch-screen voting system. According to the Maryland Reporter, Comptroller Peter Franchot opposed the contract because there was not enough money in the budget for it. Gov. Martin O’Malley cut election funding in his fiscal 2011 spending plan. Lawmakers will likely have to approve a budget addition during the session that will pay for election costs, including part of the new contract. Legislative analysts have pegged the boost at around $1.6 million.

Opinions This Week

Alabama: Voter ID, II, III

California: VoteSafe Initiative

Florida:  Uniform voting, II; Paper trail; Vote-by-mail

Massachusetts: Electronic voting

Mississippi: Early voting; Voter ID

Nevada: Election dates, II

New Jersey: Election fatigue

Texas: Election process; Vote fraud

Vermont: Instant-runoff voting, II

Washington: Vote-by-mail, II; Election workers

 

**some sites require registration

< >
In Focus This Week

Previous Weeklies

Feb 18

2010

Feb 11

2010

Feb 4

2010

Jan 28

2010

Jan 21

2010

Jan 14

2010

Jan 7

2010
Browse All Weeklies