Advancement Project: Provisional Ballot Report
Contact:
Sabrina Williams 202/728-9557 or 305/904-3960
Noemi Perez 703/338-3651
Tia Gordon 202/906-0149
STUDY SHOWS THAT OVERUSE OF PROVISIONAL BALLOTS MAY DISENFRANCHISE THOUSANDS OF VOTERS
(September 24, 2008, WASHINGTON DC) — Today, Advancement Project, a leading voter protection organization, released “Provisional Voting: Fail-Safe Voting or Trapdoor to Disenfranchising Voters.” This report explores whether the administration of elections─ specifically in the area of provisional voting─ has improved since the 2000 presidential election, when scores of eligible voters were turned away from the polls because their names did not appear on voter registration rolls, resulting in the disenfranchisement of a significant number of American voters. In particular, the investigation, research, and analysis of provisional voting in the report focus on select counties in Ohio and Florida during the 2006 general elections.
“The goal of this report is to highlight the recurring need to reform provisional balloting implementation and other election administration procedures so that no voter is wrongfully disfranchised in 2008 and future elections,” said Elizabeth Westfall, Voter Protection Program deputy director, Advancement Project.
Key findings of the report show:
1. Flaws in the Voter Registration Process and Voter Registration Records Resulted in the Overuse of Provisional Voting and the Rejection of Ballots Cast by Eligible Voters.
2. Misinterpretation and Misapplication of the “Wrong” Precinct Rule Resulted in the Disenfranchisement of Voters.
3. The Provisional Voting Process Is Fraught with Confusion, Errors, and Misinformation.
4. The Provisional Voting Process Is Not Scrutinized or Transparent, Resulting in Continued Problems.
For example in Ohio, during the November 2006 general election, Ohio voters cast 4,186,206 ballots, 127,758 of which were provisional. Approximately 104,696 of these provisional ballots were counted, and 23,062 (about 18%) were rejected. Over half of the provisional ballots cast (65,239), and 65% of the rejected ballots (15,000), were cast in Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamilton, Lucas, Montgomery, and Summit counties, counties with substantial populations of voters of color. The use of provisional ballots in Ohio, as measured by the percentage of ballots cast, appears to be increasing. In 2004, provisional ballots made up 2.7% of the total ballots cast during the general election. In the 2006 general election, it was up almost a full percentage point, to 3.6%.
In Florida’s 2006 general election, 14,550 provisional ballots were cast, 3,857 (almost 27%) of which were rejected. This trend in Ohio and Florida may portend an increase in the use of provisional ballots in the 2008 general election unless state and local election officials institute measures to combat the overuse of provisional ballots.
“Our investigation reveals that instead of functioning as a fail-safe means of voting, provisional voting often creates a serious risk of disenfranchisement,” continued Westfall. “As the country approaches the second presidential election with a federally mandated provisional balloting system in place, government officials and election administrators should make certain changes and improvements to ensure that provisional ballots are used and are recognized in a manner that achieves their original intent.”
Advancement Project’s report makes several key recommendations to reduce the over-reliance and over-use of provisional ballots in Florida and Ohio.
Reduce the Use of Provisional Voting, in the First Instance, by Eliminating Barriers to Voter Registration.
Eliminate the “Wrong” Precinct Rule.
Improve Poll Worker Training.
Improve the Administration of Provisional Voting on Election Day.
Increase the Scrutiny and Transparency of the Provisional Voting Process.
The report methodology included requesting, and to varying degrees receiving, specific data on the provisional ballots cast in particular jurisdictions, including the names of voters who cast provisional ballots, the reasons such ballots were cast, whether they were counted, and, if not counted, the reasons for their rejection. Advancement Project also requested copies of the provisional ballot envelopes in these jurisdictions, which provided additional details from poll workers and voters as to the circumstances under which individual provisional ballots were cast.
“Some may not be concerned about the misuse of provisional ballots since such ballots comprise only a fraction of the national vote,” concluded Westfall. “But this year, where the presidential and other elections may be determined by a few hundred votes, provisional ballots could prove decisive.”
For a copy of the report visit http://www.advancementproject.org
###
Advancement Project’s core purpose is to develop, encourage, pioneer and widely disseminate innovative ideas and models that inspire and mobilize a broad national racial justice movement so that universal opportunity and a just democracy are achieved.
The organization was founded on the principle that structural racism can be eliminated and a racially just democracy may be attained through multi-racial collective action by organized communities. Advancement Project’s founding team of veteran civil rights lawyers and communications experts have established an organization that informs community organizing with careful legal analysis and strategic communications campaigns. We develop community-based solutions based on the same high quality legal analysis and public education campaigns that produced the landmark civil rights victories of earlier eras.