Abusive Voter Purge Program Exposed in Michigan

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 3, 2009

Contact:      
Jan BenDor, State Coordinator, 734-484-1744, [email protected] [3]
Phil Shepard, Report Editor, 517-332-0761, [email protected] [4]

The complete report is available at: http://www.MichiganElectionReformAlliance.Org/2006MIVoterPurge.pdf [5]

Michigan Election Reform Alliance Reports Investigation of State Voter Purge

 A recently completed state program to cancel Michigan voter registrations was flawed and may have violated state law and the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).  Unprecedented in Michigan, the program was poorly planned, mismanaged, often hidden from local clerks, mostly invisible to the media, and unaccountable to the public.

The Michigan Election Reform Alliance.Org (MERA) reached these conclusions after investigating the program for more than two years.  MERA is a nonprofit and non-partisan organization dedicated to strengthening the integrity of Michigan elections.  With the aim of purging invalid voter registrations, the program was conducted by the Michigan Bureau of Elections from July 2006 until June 2009. 

The program was the first voter list maintenance to be centrally administered in Michigan. It began when the Bureau sent more than 7 million Michigan voters a purportedly “educational” postcard.  When the U.S. Post Office returned cards and indicated a wrong address, the voters’ registrations were marked for possible cancellation.  “By using ‘educational’ postcards, the Bureau effectively masked the fact that the postcards were part of a voter list purge,” concluded the report.

MERA’s investigation revealed that the state program was very likely a response to partisan political pressure from the Voting Rights Section of the Bush administration’s Department of Justice. The MERA report concludes that “under pressure from the Department of Justice, Michigan’s state-level election officials chose by mounting the program to participate in a partisan attempt to manipulate the election system with minimal regard for voters’ rights or the responsibilities of local clerks.”

In the end, the program was expensive, with limited effectiveness and a significant error rate.  The $2 million cost was ten times higher per tagged record than previous efforts conducted in targeted jurisdictions with the cooperation of local clerks.  The program tagged 230,000 registrations for possible cancellation. 122,598 were finally cancelled in June 2009.  Of those, the report estimates that about 2,611 (2.1%) were cancelled erroneously.  The program’s cost was $16.31 per tagged record, as compared to $1.58 per tagged record in the earlier targeted approach.

The program conformed to NVRA requirements to give voters notice and observe a grace period before finally cancelling registrations.  But it failed to treat voters uniformly and it did not keep adequate records.  Both are required by the NVRA.  The program also flaunted Michigan laws that give local clerks responsibility for voter list maintenance.

The report makes several recommendations.

To avoid costly purges, the report suggests a “dynamic” registration process that ties voter records to other governmental record-keeping activities.  Voter registrations would be automatically added or updated when other milestones in life are reached, such as high school and college registration, employment changes, auto and driver’s license renewals, registration for health care, or death certificates.

To improve government accountability, the Michigan Secretary of State should:

    * Publish pertinent policies on voter list maintenance
    * Educate voters on  keeping their registration current
    * Announce all major list maintenance programs in advance and publish detailed results after completion
    * Provide a database with multilingual instructions for voters to check for errors and correct them

Although it is unknown whether any election outcomes were affected by the state program, the investigation shows that Michigan’s election system is vulnerable to partisan manipulation.  “The primary importance of the Michigan program,” the report concludes, “lies not in the very modest improvement in list accuracy that it may have accomplished, but rather in the examples it presents of what not to do and what practices to avoid . . . , if voting rights are to be respected and honored.”

 ####

Court Orders Halt to Illegal Michigan Purging

Source: The Advancement Project [6]

UNITED STATES STUDENT ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION v. LAND

Download the Court Order [7]

Judge Rules Michigan Voter Purge Program Violates Federal Law

October 14, 2008

In a major victory for voting rights, a judge yesterday ruled that Michigan's voter removal program violates federal law and ordered the state to stop illegally purging voters from the rolls. The decision comes in a lawsuit filed last month by Advancement Project, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Michigan, and the law firm of Pepper Hamilton LLP.

"We are gratified that the judge ordered the state of Michigan to halt its unlawful purge program," said Bradley Heard, senior attorney with Advancement Project. "This decision protects thousands of Michigan residents' voting rights from being infringed upon during this important and historic presidential election, and beyond. It is now up to the state of Michigan to afford these voters the protections that federal law requires."

Judge Stephen J. Murphy of the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that one of Michigan's voter removal programs violates the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). In question was a Michigan state law requiring local clerks to nullify the registrations of newly-registered voters whenever their original voter identification cards are returned by the post office as undeliverable. Detroit elections officials report that nearly 30,000 voters per year in that city alone are removed from the rolls as a result of this state election law. The NVRA permits voters to remain on the voter rolls for at least two federal elections after voter registration cards are returned.

TERRI LYNN LAND, Michigan Secretary of State;
CHRISTOPHER M. THOMAS, Michigan Director of Elections; and
FRANCES MCMULLAN, City Clerk for the City of Ypsilanti, Michigan,
in their official capacities,
Defendants.

Judge Murphy ordered that state to "immediately discontinue their practice of cancelling or rejecting a voter's registration based upon the return of the voter's original voter identification card as undeliverable."

The plaintiffs in the case are the United States Student Association (USSA) and the ACLU of Michigan. The parties have asked the federal court to schedule a hearing as soon as possible and to enter an immediate temporary injunction barring further purges under these programs.

Attorneys in this case are Heard of Advancement Project; Bell-Platts and Neil Bradley of the ACLU Voting Rights Project; Moss and Michael Steinberg of the ACLU of Michigan; and Matthew J. Lund, Mary K. Deon and Deborah Kovsky of Pepper Hamilton LLP.

---

From the Order:

'WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendants Michigan Secretary of State and the Michigan Director of Elections:

(1) Immediately discontinue their practice of cancelling or rejecting a voter's registration based upon the return of the voter's original voter identification card as undeliverable;

(2) Remove the "rejected" marking in the QVF from the registrations of all voters whose original voter IDs have been returned as undeliverable since January 1, 2006 until the present, unless rejection was warranted for some other lawful reason;

(3) Make no other designation, including but not limited to "cancelled," in these voters' registration records in the QVF or elsewhere, that will prevent their ballots from being counted if they appear at the polls and give whatever further proof of Michigan residence is required or permitted under applicable state and federal law; unless such a designation is warranted by written notice from the voter or for some reason other than change of residence;

(4) Preserve and not destroy until after December 31, 2009, any and all records relating to maintenance of Michigan's voter registration files that have, since January 1, 2006, resulted in the cancellation of the registration of voters who have applied for out of state driver’s licenses, or the cancellation or rejection of voters’ registrations based upon the return of original voter identification cards ; and

(5) Give no order, direction, or encouragement that any other government official or any other person engage in activity hereby prohibited to them.

It is further ORDERED that the defendants Michigan Secretary of State, the Michigan Director of Elections, and the Ypsilanti City Clerk file an answer to the complaint in this action no later than fourteen days from the date of this Order.

SO ORDERED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge

---

CASE DOCUMENTS
Source: ACLU [8]

News 
Advancement Project And ACLU Sue Michigan Secretary Of State Over Unlawful Voter Purging [9] (9/18/2008)

Legal Documents 
United States Student Association Foundation v. Land - Order [10] (10/13/2008)

United States Student Association Foundation v. Land - Complaint [11] (9/17/2008)

United States Student Association Foundation v. Land - Ex Parte Motion [12] 9/17/2008)

United States Student Association Foundation v. Land - Motion for Preliminary Injunction [13] (9/17/2008)

United States Student Association Foundation v. Land - Request For Expedited Consideration [14] (9/17/2008)

Michigan

Michigan Voter Registration Database Report:
State Regulations and Procedures Implementing HAVA Voter Registration Requirements

Attached is the Michigan Voter Registration Information as set forth in Making the List, Database Matching and Verification Processes for Voter Registration as published by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University on March 24, 2006. This document contains available information about voter regtistration current as of the date of publication.

Federal law now requires, as of January 1, 2006, that states create and maintain statewide databases to serve as the central source of voter registration information. Citizens’ ability to get on the rolls (and thus their ability to vote and have their votes counted) will now depend on the policies and procedures governing the use of these databases in the voter registration process. Evidence demonstrates that poor policy and procedure choices could result in the unwarranted disenfranchisement of millions of eligible citizens attempting to register to vote. The new statewide databases, and their role in the voter registration process, are poorly understood, but extremely consequential.

This report, issued just as the state databases begin to come online, presents the first comprehensive catalog of the widely varying state database practices governing how (and in some cases, whether) individuals seeking to register will be placed on the voter rolls.

The report covers the state’s voter registration process, from the application form up through Election Day - including the intake of registration forms, the manner in which information from the forms may be matched to other government lists, the consequences of the match process, and any opportunity to correct errors. Each variation at each step of the process has tangible consequences for voters seeking to register and vote in 2006 and beyond.

IMPORTANT: Because of the possibility that voter information may differ from database to database (abbreviations, street designations, etc.) or because of data entry errors, valid voter registration data may be rejected. Individual voters are urged to contact their county clerk or local election board to determine that they are properly registered. Many such election authorities maintain online services for this purpose, other will require a telephone call or perhaps a written inquiry to determine the voter's eligibility.

As an addendum to this state report, a fill-in form for voter registration is presented which can be completed, printed and sent to the appropriate registratrar of voters (generally the county Clerk or local election board). The proper form of submission and location is included on the registration form.

Attachment	Size
Michigan.pdf [15]	491.57 KB