The Basics of Voter Suppression Tactics: A Brief Report for the 2008 Elections

Numerous issues with vote suppression – often targeting the Democratic base of minority, low-income, and disenfranchised voters – continue to stream into the media; below is a brief reporting on each, so readers may understand what is being discussed as it arises.

Please check out TPR’s other articles for more in-depth reporting on issues regarding voting machines, as well as particular legal battles occurring in Ohio, Georgia and other states.

Some commonly-discussed voter suppression activities in the news:

ROBO-CALLS/PRANKS

Reports have streamed in to voter protection hotlines, state-run election fraud centers, and community-based groups of robo-calls, text-messages and e-mails telling voters that their voting period was suspended until Wednesday or other such information to mislead voters.  

These calls target lists of registered Democrats or demographic groups that tend to vote Democrat – such as people of color or students – to stop them from showing up at the polls. They have a long history of use, and are probably the least complex form – albeit most direct – form of vote suppression.

CNN reported as early as yesterday that voters in Ohio were being told in robo-calls that Republicans vote on Tuesday and Democrats on Wednesday. The news agency also cited “vote-by-phone” instructions in Broward County, Florida.  The Young Democrats of America reported similar tactics targeting college students.

VOTE CAGING

Voter caging, or voter suppression, utilizes a direct mailing tactic, sending 3rd-party fliers which must be returned if the mail is not picked up. This returned mail is used to challenge votes cast by registered citizens – oftentimes at the polls.  The technique, though claimed to be a neutral direct mail method to clean up voting rolls, tends to select out soldiers on active duty, homeless or low-income individuals and college students.

At the end of 2007, Kansas GOP Chair Kris Kobach circulated a “Kansas GOP Year in Review,” claiming that “To date, the Kansas GOP has identified and caged more voters in the last 11 months than the previous two years!”

Caging was a central controversy in the 2004 elections, surfacing in at least five states. Voting rights groups such as the Advancement Project and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights challenged alleged caging efforts in Ohio, and in Philadelphia, Republicans sent direct mail to over 130,0000 voters in the heavily-black, urban region.

In a 2004 report, the BBC reported extensively on an alleged George W. Bush campaign caging list, the existence of which suggested that the campaign might have been planning illegal disruption of African American voting in Jacksonville, Florida. The BBC had obtained a document inadvertently e-mailed to the parody website GeorgeWBush.org, which listed 1,886 voter names and addresses in largely African-American and Democratic areas of Jacksonville.

Greg Palast, the BBC reporter investigating the incident, recently linked the Bush administration’s U.S. Attorney hiring scandal and attempts to protect vote caging, given the role that these legal officials play in determining the eligibility of voters.   In her 2007 testimony before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee regarding the hiring of U.S. Attorneys, former U.S. government lawyer Monica Goodling testified to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee that now-dismissed U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin from Arkansas was potentially involved in vote caging.  

Vote caging was initially exposed in 1986, when the Republican National Committee attempted to have 31,000 voters, most of them black, removed from the rolls in Louisiana when a party mailer was returned. This incident resulted in consent decrees prohibiting the party from engaging in anti-fraud initiatives that target minorities or from conducting mail campaigns to “compile voter challenge lists.”

VOTE CHALLENGING

Vote caging is often intertwined – though not exclusively – with the practice of vote challenging.  In some states, such as Florida, observers – partisan or otherwise – are allowed to go into voting places and question the eligibility of voters, often using voter caging lists or other methods.  Most states also require that the challenger be from the same county.

In certain precincts in North Carolina, anonymous reports have come in of a large number of GOP observers having registered and appeared, giving the impression that they will challenge numerous voters.

Vote challenging is illegal across the board when it specifically targets minority groups in almost all states, and other states such as Wisconsin, the rules have recently been changed to limit challenger intervention in the election process. Wisconsin’s legal shift responds to the issues caused by GOP vote-challengers in 2004, which led to long lines and other disruptions.

The Brenner Center for Justice describes the process in its guide to voting rights, noting that, “Political operatives sometimes challenge voters’ registration at the polls, based on names culled from caging lists or other lists they develop. This often leads to voter intimidation, long lines, and disenfranchisement of eligible voters.”

VOTE PURGING

In 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.  This last month, 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.”