Real Battle To Take Place After the Election

Over the past two months, voter rights advocates in Colorado and Michigan have targeted cases of illegal voter purging, or the removal of voters from the rolls outside of the bounds of federal law. In October, these states became the site of a key legal battle, in which the Advancement Project and other organizations intervened to halt the illegal purges of as much as 30,000 voters in Colorado and even greater numbers in Michigan. 

These coalitions have also sent out cadres of election protection volunteers today to ensure the purges do not infringe on the right to vote and to receive provisional ballots.

The Colorado-based coalition, led by the Advancement Project and included plaintiffs the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and Colorado Common Cause, brought a motion by a U.S. District Court Judge John Khane ordering Secretary of State Mike Coffman to cease the purges for the 2008 election.  These purges were occurring as late as October 31st, despite the fact the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) prohibits purging within 90 days of the election for the majority of circumstances.

According to Advancement Project attorney Jessie Allen, in addition to removing voters outside of the allotted time frame of 90 days, the Secretary of State also violated the NVRA by removing voters based on returned mail. These newly-registered citizens were removed from the rolls based on returned new voter registration cards, but voters must be kept on the rolls regardless of the bounced mail. Address issues have also been critical this election season due to the massive foreclosure crisis, which has disrupted people’s mail and registration addresses.

Kane’s motion not only halted the purges at the 11th hour, but also means that all previously-purged voters will be granted provisional ballots (as is normal policy) and, as Allen explains, “extra protection.” Normally, provisional ballots receive scrutiny and can be removed by the County upon “clear and convincing” evidence of ineligibility, but thanks to the suit, the plaintiff’s attorneys will also be allowed to examine any denials by the County of these ballots.

Allen cautions, “What was really resolved was how voters will be treated in this election, but this is still a potentially live suit,” and what will take place post-elections is particularly important.

A similar suit was filed by the Advancement Project, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and others in Michigan in October, resulting again in Federal Judge intervention blocking the illegal purges of tens of thousands of voters. Many of these purges similarly occurred based on address issues.

“This is a major victory for Michigan voters and the integrity of our democratic process,” said Meredith Bell-Platts, staff counsel with the ACLU Voting Rights Project. “Today’s decision brings us one step closer to restoring confidence in a electoral system that has been poisoned by illegal disfranchisement policies. As a result of the judge’s decision, fewer Michigan voters will be illegally purged and wrongly disfranchised – and that’s good for everyone”

The Brenner Institute for Justice released a report on voter purging in late September as well, detailing numerous other state-based problems – including the purging of over 700 voters in one county in Georgia based on erroneous criminal information. The report claims that numerous factors – including “secret and inconsistent” methods, the massive errors in data used to purge (including errors in the data matching identifications to registration or regarding criminal records), as well as the need for auditing – all necessitate massive reforms in the process of removing voters from the rolls.

“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.”