VoteWatch follows breaking election news in the key swing states

Image via WikipediaGovernment reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: ProPublica

ProPublica’s VoteWatch

VoteWatch culls breaking news on voting issues from around the web, focusing in particular on key swing states where problems (ranging from voter registration to machine malfunction to alleged fraud or suppression) are anticipated. You can see the latest news below, but if you see a report that we haven’t caught, please let us know.


>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Court: Hundreds of thousands of Ohio vote registrants could be purged from the rolls for typos

Image by Getty Images via DaylifeGovernment reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Brennan Center for Justice

[We, the people apparently have no say in the potential outcome of a large swing state this November 4th. -David Weller]

For Immediate Release

Brennan Center: If Joe the Plumber Was a New Voter, Ohio Ruling Could Block Him from Voting

NEW YORK - We heard a lot last night about Joe the Plumber, but did you know that a recent court ruling last night threatens the ability of thousands like Joe to have their votes counted? According to today's Toledo Blade, he is Joe Wurzelbacher of Shrewsbury Street in Springfield Township in Lucas County, Ohio.

As the Blade notes, many thought Joe was not a registered voter. Turns out there was likely a misspelling in the Lucas County Board of Elections database. From the Blade: "Linda Howe, executive director of the Lucas County Board of Elections, said a Samuel Joseph Worzelbacher, whose address and age match Joe the Plumber's, registered in Lucas County on Sept. 10, 1992. He voted in his first primary on March 4, 2008, registering as a Republican. Ms. Howe said that the name may be misspelled in the database."

Politico's Ben Smith makes the connection that if Joe registered this year, he could be purged from the rolls under a 6th Circuit Court ruling on Tuesday.

That's because on Tuesday, following a lawsuit by the Ohio republican party, the court ordered Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to disclose to local election officials the names of 200,000 new registrants whose names didn't match with state motor vehicle or federal Social Security databases. This list could be used by local election officials and party operatives to prevent these voters from casting ballots that will count. As Secretary Brunner knows and the Brennan Center demonstrated in the brief, almost all mis-matches are the result of typos and administrative errors--like in Joe's case.

The Brennan Center is urging Ohio's election officials to take immediate steps to ensure that a failed match standing alone does not result in a voter being purged from the voter rolls, challenged at the polls, or forced to cast a provisional ballot that may not be counted.

Secretary Brunner is vigorously opposing this ruling and has asked the Supreme Court to block it.

"To save tens of thousands like Joe from disenfranchisement by typo, Ohio election officials need to make clear that no voter will be denied registration, removed from the voter rolls, challenged at the polls or relegated to voting a provisional ballot solely because of a failed computer match, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the voter is not eligible," said Wendy Weiser, Deputy Director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center and author of Making the List, a study of the perils of voter database matching.

The unreliability of the matching process has been repeatedly proved. After Florida implemented new matching rules on September 8th of this year, approximately 15% of all attempted matches failed; upon investigation, the vast majority of these failed matches have since been determined to be the result of typos and similar errors. A detailed audit of failed matches in New York City in September 2004 similarly found that more than 80% of failed matches were caused by errors by election officials in processing voters' applications-almost all the others were caused by immaterial mistakes by voters, like writing their drivers license number in the Social Security field. Across the country, match failure rates have ranged from 15%-30%. In Ohio, there were more than 200,000 failed matches out of 660,000 voter registrations this year.

"Both candidates went out of their way for Joe the Plumber last night. The least Ohio can do is make sure that Joe and people like him are able to vote and have their votes counted," concluded Weiser.

"One purported remedy, voting with a provisional ballot, is no remedy at all. A very high proportion are not counted. Worse, forcing tens of thousands of Ohio voters to cast provisional ballots will create needless chaos at the polling place on Election Day," said Michael Waldman, Executive Director of the Brennan Center.

"Joe the Plummer is not committing voter fraud, and neither are the hundreds of thousands of other voters who would be kicked off by this misguided effort to suppress the vote," said Waldman.

Brennan Center on the web: http://www.brennancenter.org/

30-30-30

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Related articles by Zemanta

• Free 2008 Voter's Self Defense Manuals from Project Vote Smart
• Call Out For Election Protection Wiki Help

Swing states abusing law on verifying voter registrations

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: TPM Muckraker

Double and Triple Checking in Swing States Could Lead to Voters Blocked from Polls

By Kate Klonick - October 10, 2008, 4:01PM

As state officials scramble to rebut claims of voter purging and blocked registrations made in a recent report, they're also revealing their missteps. Officials in two swing states have admitted that they are double -- and sometimes triple -- checking new voter registrations, which could lead to eligible voters voters being turned away from polls.

In North Carolina, one of the states fingered in the New York Times investigation published yesterday, Gary Bartlett, director of the Board of Elections defended his state's handling of new voter registrations, claiming the BOE was verifying both drivers license numbers and social security numbers if new voters provide both on their application.

In Indiana, a swing state that has also had a large uptick in requests to the SSA for voter registration verifications, Matt Tusing, the deputy secretary of state and a Republican, told the Indianapolis Star that Indiana officials have been verifying the Social Security number on every card, as wells as running checks with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, the Department of Correction and death records.

"Some states don't check against all those sources," he told the paper.

In both cases, that's far more verification than is required under federal law, and the superfluous checking of both numbers could lead to eligible vote registrations not being verified -- something that could disproportionately affect Democrats, who have registered in higher numbers this year.

According to the Help America Vote Act of 2002, states must exhaust checks in their own identification databases -- like drivers licenses and ID cards -- before turning to the often unreliable federal database with the Social Security Administration. Yesterday's Times report alleges that states like Colorado have been improperly relying on the SSA to verify voter registrations.

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Presidential candidates focus their times and resources on a handful of states

Presidential candidate John McCain.
Image via Wikipedia
Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise. From: FairVote

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Laura Kirshner, Presidential Election Reform Program
October 9, 2008
(301) 270-4616
lkirshner@fairvote.org

The Swing States of America

Candidates Focus Their Times and Resources on a Handful of States
and Follow Voting Patterns of 2004 Presidential Election

As the presidential campaigns enter their final four weeks, it is clear that, just as in the 2004 presidential campaign, they are focusing their attention solely on a declining number of battleground states. The non-partisan organization FairVote is maintaining a daily tracker of visits to states by the four major party nominees since September 5, the first day after the Republican national convention. This data will be used to follow up FairVote's groundbreaking 2006 report Presidential Election Inequality about our nation's shrinking battleground in presidential elections.

FairVote's executive director Rob Richie commented on FairVote's findings: "What we are seeing is a division of the country into the have's and have-not's when it comes to presidential elections. This division has a stark impact on which eligible American voters participate and on which issues the major parties highlight in the final weeks of our one national election."

The top ten states receiving the most campaign attention are strikingly similar to the top ten states in 2004, while a total of 29 states have not received even a token visit by a candidate. Following is a list of the states receiving the most visits by the major party nominees for president and vice-president.

Most visited
states in 2008 % of visits
1. Michigan--12.4%
2. Ohio--10.3%
3. Pennsylvania--9.3%
4. Colorado--8.3%
5. Virginia--8.3%
6. Missouri--7.2%
7. Florida--6.2%
8. Wisconsin--6.2%
9. New York--5.2%
10. New Mexico--4.1%

Most visited
states in 2004 % of visits
1. Florida--21%
2. Ohio--16%
3. Iowa--13%
4. Wisconsin--11%
5. Pennsylvania--8%
6. Michigan--7%
7. Minnesota--5%
8. Colorado--3%
9. Nevada--2%
10. New Mexico--2%

The seven states appearing on both lists are Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New Mexico and Colorado--all among the nation's dozen closest battlegrounds in 2004 and likely to be so again in 2008. The three states from the 2004 list that are not on this year's list are Iowa, Minnesota and Nevada--all considered battlegrounds. Michigan tops the 2008 list, but recently was abandoned as a target by John McCain's campaign and is unlikely to receive attention in the campaign's final weeks. New York's inclusion in the top 10 this year is solely a byproduct of major international meeting that had nothing to do with efforts by the candidates to tilt the balance in the state. Aside from the New York, the only two new states are Virginia and Missouri.

Perhaps the bigger story is that so many states are not even close to making top-ten lists when it comes to campaign attention. The vast majority of states are "safe" states. The battle for votes in these states never takes place, since candidates take their electoral votes for granted. As a result, these states receive no campaign attention and no visits from candidates. Voters in these states are effectively disenfranchised by their lack of power, and this inequality has serious consequences. The candidates design their campaigns to appeal to voters in battleground states, and they address only those issues that concern those voters. Voters in other states may have drastically different needs and concerns, but a winning campaign strategy prevents candidates from taking up these issues.

For several election cycles, the states considered to be battleground states in a 50-50 elections have been largely the same. Election after election, most voters are still left out of the campaign spotlight while a handful of swing-state voters get all the candidates' attention. The impact of this disparity can be measured by voter participation. In 2004, eligible voters under 30 living in one of the 10 closest battleground states were more than a third more likely to participate than were voters in the rest of the nation.

Swing states also benefit from the massive amounts of money they receive from campaigns. Since the beginning of last year, Barack Obama has spent over $24 million in Pennsylvania, over $14 million in Ohio, and over $16 million in Florida. Similarly, John McCain has spent over $28 million in those three states. The vast majority of states have received less than $1 million in campaign advertisements, with six states receiving nil from Obama and 16 states receiving nothing from McCain. John McCain has spent a measly $180 on campaign advertisements in his home state of Arizona!

FairVote has posted its full candidate trackers at http://www.fairvote.org/president, where visitors also can download a copy of Presidential Elections Inequality. We will continue to collect data on campaign visits up until Election Day to see how the focus of each campaign changes. We expect the number of states receiving campaign visits to shrink even further as the campaigns progress. Just as the candidates are cutting back on their visits to Michigan, we expect them to do the same to free up resources for a steadily shrinking pool of swing states. The only states that will receive the final campaign visits will be the ones split most closely down the middle.

We will issue weekly updates of our candidate tracker, supplemented by data on campaign financing. We also will plan to release an updated version of our Presidential Elections Inequality report soon after the election that will allow us to anticipate what states are likely to be battleground states in 2012 Our report will include a detailed analysis of campaign attention based on visits, spending, and advertisements in each state by each of the two major party campaigns and their independent backers.

For a complete listing of the four major party candidate visits to all 50 states, visit http://fairvote.org/president/?page=2450.

View an HTML version of this press release at http://www.fairvote.org/press

FairVote is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that studies the impact of electoral rules and systems on turnout, representation and electoral competition.


>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Only six states matter in 2008 presidential election

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: National Popular Vote

Only 6 States Matter in 2008 Presidential Election

Newsletter no. 33 October 7, 2008

Despite the fact that Americans are watching the presidential debates in record numbers, only about six closely divided battleground states matter in the 2008 presidential election.

This harsh political reality became clear last week when McCain's Michigan state director Al Ribeiro explained McCain's abrupt cessation of campaigning in Michigan:

"The campaign must decide where it can best utilize its limited resources with the goal of winning nationally."

Although Michigan is seemingly important (with 8 million people and 17 electoral votes) and was receiving an enormous amount of attention from presidential candidates until last week, presidential candidates simply have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, or pay attention to the concerns of states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. As Emmet County Republican Chairman Jack Waldvogel said:

"We feel abandoned, we are disappointed, and we are heartsick to know that we aren't important enough for him to fight for."

Of course, 36 of the 50 states never mattered in the 2008 presidential election. Michigan just discovered the harsh political reality a little later than the 36 other states. As early as spring 2008, the New York Times reported (May 11, 2008) that both major political parties were in agreement that there would be at most 14 battleground states in 2008 (involving only 166 of the 538 electoral votes).

In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in just five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states. The 2008 presidential campaign is now centered on six closely divided battleground states: Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, and New Hampshire.

The reason that three-quarters of the states don't matter in presidential elections stems from the winner-take-all rule. The winner-take-all rule awards all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state. The winner-take-all rule is not in the U.S. Constitution, but simply state law.

The way to fix our broken system of electing the President is to change state law. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). Under the National Popular Vote bill, there would be no red states, no blue states, and no battleground states. Every person's vote, in every state, would be equally important throughout the United States. Every vote would be equal, and every vote would matter.

The National Popular Vote bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President in the Electoral College (270 of 538). When the bill is in effect, all the electoral votes from the states that enacted the bill would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia).

The National Popular Vote bill has already been enacted by states possessing 50 electoral votes. This is almost 20% of the 270 electoral votes necessary to bring the law into effect. The four states are Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey. The bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill is currently endorsed by 1,181 state legislators — 439 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 742 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

The U.S. Constitution gives the states exclusive and plenary control over the manner of awarding of their electoral votes. The winner-take-all rule was not the Founder's choice (having been used by only three states in the nation's first presidential election). Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by district — a reminder that a federal constitutional amendment is not required to change the way the President is elected.

The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, and Sacramento Bee, Common Cause and Fair Vote.

A recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% of Americans support nationwide election of the President. Recent polls in individual states show a similar high level of support: Vermont (75%), Maine (71%), Rhode Island (74%), Arkansas (74%), California (69%), Connecticut (73%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (70%), and Missouri (70%).

The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes former congressmen John Anderson (R–Illinois and later independent presidential candidate), John Buchanan (R–Alabama), Tom Campbell (R–California), and Tom Downey (D–New York), and former Senators Birch Bayh (D–Indiana), David Durenberger (R–Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R–Utah).

Additional information is available in the book Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote (available on-line at our web site or from Amazon).


>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

527 'Secretary of State Project' scoring Democratic victories for Secretary of State in key presidential election swing states

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Center for Public Integrity

ELECTION ’08: Scoring Secretary of State Seats for Dems
By Sarah Laskow | September 08, 2008, 1:50 pm

Plagued by memories of Florida’s Katherine Harris [2000 presidential election] and Ohio’s Ken Blackwell [2004 presidential election], a little-known 527 group helped win secretary of state posts for Democrats in five swing states during the last election cycle. Now the group has its sights on four more.

The Secretary of State Project, which as a 527 non-profit group can exert influence on elections, raised more than $500,000 in 2006 to ensure no right-leaning secretary of state will swing the 2008 presidential election to the GOP, as they did in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. So far the group has scored victories in Nevada, New Mexico, Minnesota, Iowa, and Ohio.

The SoS Project organizers formed the group “to protect our elections from dirty Republican tricks,” according to the group’s website. In many states, secretaries of state oversee voter registration, election rules, voting machines, and recounts. Positioning allies in these slots became a key strategy and a natural starting point.

[...]

[Original article accepts comments]

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ohio establishes same-day registration and voting window, GOP threatens to sue
• Massive Voter Fraud Reported
• Free 2008 Voter's Self Defense Manuals from Project Vote Smart

Survey of Swing State County Clerks, from FairVote

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: FairVote

Survey of Swing State County Clerks

The Democracy SOS Project is aimed to increase transparency in election administration and monitor actions of election officials, starting with Secretaries of State. The following reports are a compilation of the results of surveying county clerks in 10 “swing states” during the 2008 Presidential Election. FairVote staff and interns surveyed nearly every county clerk in Missouri, New Mexico, Colorado and Pennsylvania, as well as election officials in counties with at least 500,000 residents in Ohio, Florida, Minnesota, Michigan, Virginia and Wisconsin. We asked questions designed to shed light on the practices of the county, as well as their interpretation and compliance with state law.

Uniformity in Election Administration:
A 2008 Survey of Swing State County Clerks

• Missouri Edition -- 8/28/08 (PDF)
• Missouri Edition -- Press Release (8/28/08) (PDF)

. >All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear .