MEMORANDUM

TO: NEW JERSEY LAW REVISION COMMISSION

FROM: STAFF

DATED: JANUARY 7, 2001

RE: STATEWIDE CENTRALIZED REGISTRATION

The one area of agreement among the many bodies considering and recommending election law reform is the need for statewide voter registration systems. A typical sentiment is this conclusion of the Constitution Project – Forum on Election Reform, August 2001, based at Georgetown University’s Public Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.:

All states should develop statewide electronic registration databases, as now exist in some states. Accuracy of registration information should be maintained through integration or improved communication between voter registration and other databases, such as motor vehicle department records. A state’s database should be available electronically at polling places on election day for timely resolution of registration questions. Any process to remove ineligible voters from registration lists should be non-partisan, be in compliance with voting laws, provide notice to voters they have been removed from the rolls, and afford them an opportunity to correct erroneous information. General programs to purge lists should be completed sufficiently in advance of election day to allow individuals to correct erroneous information.

(p. v.)

Divergent opinions exist about specifics of implementation. For example, registration records can be made more precise by use of an identifying number unique to each registrant. Seven states require a full Social Security number. However the Privacy Act of 1974 prohibits states from requiring one unless they had done so before January of 1975. Two states require the last four digits; 17 request full numbers; three ask for the last four numbers. The Federal Election Commission views the combination of a person’s name, birthdate and last four Social Security digits as an optimum personal identifier.

Presently 27 states have computerized systems for storing voter registration data; however not all are truly centralized and not all are online. Michigan is a prime example of a successful system.


Michigan

Michigan’s statewide system, the Qualified Voter File (QVF) became law in 1994 and began operating in 1998. Michigan employs a distributed database. Every transaction automatically goes to the server in Lansing, and the local units replicate daily and pull data from the server. More than 400 communities are connected to the QVF server through the Internet (including the State’s 83 county clerks who function as a QVF source for 1,200 smaller cities and townships).

When Michigan switched to QVF it found more than 600,000 duplicate registrations on the voter rolls. It now claims that there are no duplications. The driver and voter files are tied so closely that changing an address in one file automatically changes the other. The two greatest benefits of the statewide database are uniformity (voters are registered by the same standards in all jurisdictions) and its accuracy. The QVF assists local election officials with petition and candidate tracking, keeping an electronic election calendar, and absent voter processing. See attached: The Michigan Qualified Voter File: A Brief Introduction.

The Commission asked staff to determine how Michigan divides requirements of its statewide registration system between statutes and regulations. Michigan has no regulations. According to Tim Hansen, Director of QVF, all the regulating that needs to be set out is in the statutes. See attached: Michigan Elections Law 168.509o-168.509r.

Florida

In May 2001, Florida passed the most sweeping election reform in the country, The Florida Election Reform Act of 200l. It provides for development of a statewide voter registration database by the Department of State, and appropriates $2 million for its creation. The database will contain information from all election supervisors in the state and will be accessed through an Internet web site. The Department is given authority to contract with the Florida Association of Court Clerks to develop and operate the database and associated Internet web site. State and local governmental agencies must provide information to both the Department of State and the supervisors of elections at no charge (unless the cost is significant). The database will be updated on a daily basis to determine if a registered voter is ineligible to vote. The supervisor of elections will conduct administration of the database at the local level. See attached: Florida Statutes 98.0977-98.0979.

During 2001, 27 states introduced legislation concerning voter registration. Voting in America: Final Report of the National Conference of State Legislatures Elections Reform Task Force cites several dealing with statewide registration systems. For each of the states profiled below, state law and practices are divided into “existing” and “proposed.”


Alabama

Existing. Alabama has a statewide voter registration file that is mainframe based. Counties enter data directly by utilizing software that connects them to the file or by transferring data to the statewide file by means of CD-ROM or tape.

Proposed. Pending bill calls for change to a PC system allowing greater flexibility than the mainframe. All 67 counties should be linked through the statewide voter file required under state law. (Only about 60 are connected now.) Registrars favor changing the current 10 days cut-off registration period to 20 days before the election.

Colorado

Existing. Colorado’s new voter registration system is in preliminary stages of implementation in several counties under the guidance of the Election Division. The system will allow counties to download information straight to the Secretary of State’s office. It runs in a Windows-based environment, increasing speed, efficiency and ease of use. State law provides for periodic purge of the voter rolls in each county. The Department of State works with the Department of Revenue to create a smooth and automatic transfer of voter registration applications from the Department of Motor Vehicles to the County Clerks.

Proposed. The Election Division is making preparations for a new system that will allow easier interaction between the counties and the Secretary of State.

Georgia

Existing. Georgia’s centralized system began in 1995. It runs database matches to eliminate duplicate registrations or those with inactive social security numbers. Each month, the Secretary of State notifies counties of new convicted felons so that the counties can remove the names from the list. Since July 1, 2001, the Secretary of State has been responsible for deleting deceased voters from the voter lists; earlier the counties handled this.

Proposed. The Secretary of State wants to move voter registration from the mainframe system to a server-based system, which would allow the integration of voter registration with current technology and faster connections to the counties. The Secretary of State also proposes combining voter registration and driver’s license information into a single database. Georgia may pursue resources which create an online voter registration system that could also be supported by an IVR phone system.

Indiana

Existing. The election division periodically carries out a statewide duplicate elimination program in which counties submit their registration records in magnetic format. The records are merged and possible duplicate registrations are identified. Those identified are asked via a mailing to clarify their registration status. Indiana statute authorizes the State to run the merged voter registration database against the National Change of Address information to identify possible duplicates, but this has not proved successful. Counties may routinely remove people from the registration rolls upon proof of death and upon proof of conviction and incarceration.

Proposed. The State approved a statewide voter registration database to improve communication between the Bureau of Motor Vehicles and other public assistance agencies and local registration officials. This system should be more efficient in eliminating duplicate registrations.

ELECTIONS – MEMORANDUM JANUARY 7, 2002 – PAGE 4

/election/electionM010702.doc