How a patchwork of flawed and inconsistent voting systems ... -voting_report.pdfprosperity characterized by greater opportunity. Founded in 1999, Demos’ work combines research with

How a patchwork of flawed and inconsistentvoting systems could deprive millions of

Americans of the right to vote

AZ

CA

GA

IL

IA

LA

MD

NV

NM

NY

OH

PA

SD

TX

VA

Felony convictions: incarcer-ation, probation and parole;limited restoration

Felony convictions: incarcer-ation and parole; automaticrestoration

Felony convictions: incarcera-tion, parole and probation;automatic restoration

Felony convictions: incarcera-tion and parole; automaticrestoration

Felony convictions: incarcera-tion, parole and probation;limited restoration.

Felony convictions: incarcera-tion, parole and probation;automatic restoration withrestrictions

Felony or theft convictions:incarceration, parole and pro-bation; limited restoration

Felony convictions: incarcera-tion, parole and probation;limited restoration

Felony convictions: incarcera-tion, parole and probation;automatic restoration withrestrictions


Felony convictions: incarcera-tion; automatic restoration

Felony convictions: incarcera-tion; automatic restoration


Felony convictions: incarcera-tion, parole and probation;automatic restoration.

Felony convictions: incarcera-tion, parole and probation;limited restoration

C - Statewide voter registra-tion system not yet integratedwith court system

F - FCD sources not central-ized; purge lists sent only tocounties; data updated twiceannually

C - Statewide voter registra-tion system not yet integratedwith court system

F - FCD sources not central-ized; purge lists sent only tocounties

C - No FCD statute; FCDsources not centralized; purgelists sent to state then counties

B - FCD sources centralized;purge lists sent to state thencounties; courts notify whenconvictions overturned

F - Unclear laws; error pronevoter registration databaseand unreliable FCD

F - No FCD statute; multipleFCD sources; sources not cen-tralized; purge lists sent onlyto counties

A - FCD sources linked directlyto county/state registrationdatabase; real time updates

F - FCD sources not central-ized; courts send purge listssent to state/local electionagency at their discretion

D - FCD sources not central-ized; purge lists sent only tocounties

A - System eliminates datamanagement

A - No FCD statute; centralizedFCD sources linked to HAVAcompliant county/state registra-tion database; real time updates

B - No FCD statute; central-ized FCD sources; purge listssent to state then counties

B - Centralized FCD sources;purge lists sent to state thencounties

C - No criteria mandated;counties reported using reli-able criteria; check twice

D -No criteria mandated; 1county reported using morereliable criteria than other;only check once


D - No criteria mandated;counties reported using unre-liable criteria; check once

D - No criteria mandated


F -No criteria mandated;counties reported using unre-liable criteria

F - No criteria mandated;counties reported using unre-liable criteria; check once

B - No criteria mandated;counties reported using reli-able criteria; check once

D - No criteria mandated; 1county reported using more reli-able criteria than other; checkonce at officials’ discretion

D - No criteria mandated; 1county reported using morereliable criteria than other;check once

N/A

B - No criteria mandated;counties reported using reli-able criteria; check twice

D - No criteria mandated; nei-ther county reported usingspecific criteria; cannot con-firm if county double-checks


C - No statute; one countyreported giving pre-removalnotice

D - No statute; one countyreported giving post-removalnotice

B - Statutory pre-removalnotice; two counties reportedgiving same

F - No statutory or reportednotice

D - No notice statute; onecounty reported giving post-removal notice

B - Statutory pre-removalnotice; two counties reportedgiving same

C - No notice statute; onecounty reported giving pre-removal notice



A - Statutory pre-removalnotice; same reported by twocounties who also give rein-statement information

F - No statutory or reportednotice

N/A

D - No notice statute; onecounty reported giving post-removal notice

C - No notice statute; pre-removal notice reported byone county

B - Statutory pre-removalnotice; one county confirmed;other reported giving post-removal notice

FCD = Felony Conviction Data

When disfranchised/howrestored?

How are purge lists compiled?

How is match performed? Notice of removal given?States

STATE REPORT CARDSRating States On Each Purge Issue Area Examined In The Report

Purged!How a patchwork of flawed and inconsistent voting systems could deprivemillions of Americans of the right to vote

Published October 2004

THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION is the nation’s premier guardian of liberty, working dailyin courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and freedoms

guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

DEMOS is a public policy organization that seeks to strengthen US democracy and to seek a broadly sharedprosperity characterized by greater opportunity. Founded in 1999, Demos’ work combines research withadvocacy — melding the commitment to ideas of a think tank with the organizing strategies of an advoca-cy group.

RIGHT TO VOTE is a coalition of eight national civil rights and public interest organizations - the AmericanCivil Liberties Union, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Demos, the Mexican AmericanLegal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, theNAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the People for the American Way Foundation and TheSentencing Project. These groups came together in 2002 to work collaboratively to end felony disfran-chisement through research, public education, voter registration and litigation. The Campaign seeks tobroaden discussion of the issue and promote re-enfranchisement nationwide, and supports work in fivetarget states, Alabama, Florida, Maryland, New York and Texas. The Campaign’s partners in these statesare Alabama Alliance to Restore the Vote, Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, the Maryland Voting RightsRestoration Coalition, New York Unlock the Block Campaign and the Texas Unlock Your Vote Campaign.For further information, please visit www.righttotvote.org.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report was written by Laleh Ispahani, Voting Rights Fellow at the ACLU with Nick Williams, PolicyAnalyst at Demos and with support from RTV and RTV partners. The statements made are the responsi-bility of the ACLU and Demos.

The ACLU and Demos gratefully acknowledge the generous support for their felony disfranchisementwork provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Tides Foundation (with funds from theFord Foundation, JEHT Foundation, Open Society Institute, and the Sandler Family SupportingFoundation).

PURGED!

A Vo t i n g R i g h t s R e p o r t

Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Issue I: Purge List Compilation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Federal Felony Conviction Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Out-Of-State Felony Conviction Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

In-State Felony Conviction Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Issue II: Notification Of Persons Matched . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Good Practice For States That Disfranchise Incarcerated Felons Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Good Practice For States That Disfranchise Incarcerated Felons, Felony Parolees And/Or Probationers . . . . . . .8

Bad Practice: States That Use Few Matching Criteria And Do Not Double-Check Matches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Issue III: Criteria Used To Determine Matches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Good Practice: States That Statutorily Mandate Pre-removal Notice And Opportunity To Contest Purges . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Less Acceptable Practice: States That Report Providing Non-statutory Pre-removal Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Bad Practice: States That Report Providing Non-statutory Notice After Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Worst Practice: States That Provide No Notice At All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

State Purge Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

PURGED!

INTRODUCTION

The flawed purges of people with felonyconvictions from Florida’s voter rolls dur-

ing the 2000 and 2004 elections are now wellknown. In 2000, thousands of legal voters werepurged from Florida’s voter rolls. One list sentto Florida officials erroneously included thenames of 8,000 Florida residents who had com-mitted misdemeanors – not felonies – in Texas.In 2004, despite Florida’s sizable Hispanicpopulation, the state’s purge list contained only61 Hispanic surnames, and also mistakenlyincluded thousands who had had their votingrights restored. After these and other errorswere publicized, the state withdrew its felonpurge list. But under Florida law, county elec-tion officials may still purge voters based ontheir own, locally generated lists.

While Florida’s purges of felons from voterrolls in 2000 have received national attention,little is known about the procedures other statesuse. To shed some light on these procedures,we surveyed the purge processes of 15 states.The states have a wide variety of disfranchise-ment laws. All except Maine and Vermont pro-hibit incarcerated felons from voting. Thirty-five states restrict those on parole, 31 of themalso restrict those on probation, and seven denythe right to vote to all felons who have com-pleted their sentences. In seven other states,described here as “mixed status” states, a per-son can permanently lose the right to votebased on criminal history, type of offense, orwhen the offense occurred. The result: Nearly

5 million American citizens, two percent of thevoting-age population, have lost the fundamen-tal right to participate in our political process.

African-American men make up one and a halfmillion of this number, 13 percent of blackmen. This is a rate 7 times the national average.Worse, three in ten of the next generation ofblack men can expect to be disfranchised atsome point in their lives.

Given the variations in state disfranchisementpolicies, we selected states in each of the cate-gories above.1

This survey reflects our research of state lawas supplemented by conversations with repre-sentatives from each state’s chief electionsagency and two county election agencies.Through our research and conversations, wesought to answer the following questions: (1)how does the state compile its felon purgelist?, (2) how do the state’s elections officials“match” people with felony convictionsagainst individuals listed on their voter regis-tration list before purging them from therolls?, and (3) does the state notify the indi-viduals deemed “matched” that they will beor have been purged?

1


Purged!How a patchwork of flawed and inconsistent voting

systems could deprive millions of Americans of the right to vote

We surveyed Arizona, California, Georgia,Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada,New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,South Dakota, Texas and Virginia.

Our key findings reflect that states, even thosewith identical disfranchisement policies, con-duct their purges with great unevenness:

Purge List Compilation – One-quarter of thestates surveyed compile their purge lists with-out reference to any legislative standards what-ever, while half the states surveyed do so usingonly an individual’s name and address.

Criteria Used to Determine Matches – Nostate surveyed has codified any specific or min-imum set of criteria for its officials to use inensuring that an individual with a felony con-viction is the same individual being purgedfrom the voter rolls.

Notification of Persons Matched – Two-thirdsof the states surveyed do not require electionsofficials to notify voters when they purge themfrom the voter rolls, denying these voters anopportunity to contest erroneous purges.

Our examination was limited to purge struc-tures and procedures, because the actual purgelists – unlike Florida’s 2004 purge list, whichultimately became available to the public –were not available to us. Still, we were able toidentify myriad structural and procedural flawssuch as the lack of standardized or sufficientfelony conviction data and inadequate match-ing and notification procedures – issues thatalso contributed to Florida’s flawed 2000 and2004 purges.

In each issue area, some states stood out asemploying better and others worse practicesthan their counterparts. We highlight thesepractices hoping to spur legislative thinkingabout reform of state purge processes, particu-larly in light of the federal Help America VoteAct of 2002 (HAVA) which requires states toestablish official, uniform and nondiscrimina-tory statewide computerized voter registrationlists that are centralized and interactive by

January 2006.2 We offer recommendationsaimed at correcting the deficiencies in the poli-cies examined, and show that purges can beconducted in ways that both maximally protectvoters and minimally burden purge administra-tors.

Our history of purging felons from the voterrolls is a shameful one. Purges were first insti-tuted immediately after African Americanswere granted the franchise.

After the 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870,forbidding states from depriving citizens of thevote because of race, color, or previous condi-tion of servitude, many states deliberatelyadopted purge policies and revised their crimi-nal disfranchisement laws so as to prohibit manyblacks from voting. It is sad that even in thetwenty-first century minorities are fighting forthe right to vote. The act of voting, of having avoice in one’s own government, is one ofAmerica’s founding principles. The NationalVoter Registration Act of 1993 recognized asmuch in its preamble: “The right of the citizensof the United States to vote is a fundamentalright…discriminatory and unfair registrationlaws and procedures can have a direct and dam-aging effect on voter participation in electionsfor Federal office and disproportionately harmvoter participation by various groups, includingracial minorities.”3 Unfair and unjust disfran-chisement of citizens should not be tolerated andby no means should it be law.

2

PURGED!

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In all three issue areas examined, we foundinconsistent practices both across and withinstates, even in states with identical disfran-chisement laws. We offer detailed recommen-dations for remedying these inconsistencies inthe last section of this report, and attachdetailed state-by-state purge fact sheets to theend of this report.4

Issue I: Purge List Compilation

Findings: Purge lists are vulnerable to inaccu-racy given the manner in which they are com-piled. Generally, they are drawn from informa-tion provided by a variety of sources at differ-ent times. One-quarter of the states surveyedhave no legislation that specifies the type offelony conviction data in-state source agenciesmust convey, while half of the states surveyedonly require in-state source agencies to conveyan individual’s name and address, a high riskproposition where an individual has moved andmatching is done on name alone. Only onestate election agency required notice of over-turned in-state felony convictions. No state leg-islated the type of felony conviction datarequired from other states about its residents,or required other states to send notices of over-turned felony convictions.

Recommendations: To reduce the burden onelections administrators, whose resources arealready stretched, and in turn, promote greaterrespect for voter rights, we advocate streamlin-ing list compilation. This can be partly accom-plished through each state’s HAVA complianceprocess by requiring coordination and connec-tion between relevant state agencies. It alsoinvolves codifying and standardizing thefelony conviction data that source agencies andother states provide; requiring source agenciesto provide felony conviction data simultane-

ously and frequently; and including notifica-tion of overturned felony convictions fromstate to state and within states.

Issue II: Criteria Used to DetermineMatches

Findings: Not a single state surveyed has codi-fied any specific or minimum set of criteria thatmust be used by officials in ensuring that a per-son with a felony conviction is the same personbeing purged from the voter rolls. Accordingly,states, and in many cases, the counties withinthem, use quantitatively and qualitatively differ-ent information. Use of inconsistent matchingcriteria has the deleterious effect of treating sim-ilarly situated voters unequally.

Recommendations: In compliance with theHAVA requirement that states develop match-ing criteria, to provide clear guidance to offi-cials conducting the matches, and to equallyprotect all voters, states should adopt statutesthat specify and standardize matching criteria.These statutes should prescribe the use ofnumerous matching criteria, require exactmatches of felony conviction and voter regis-tration data, and require that matches be dou-ble-checked at state and county levels.Matching criteria should include first name,middle name, last name, gender, maiden name,alias, date of birth, place of birth and driver’slicense number if any.

Issue III: Notification of PersonsMatched

Findings: Only four of the 15 states surveyedaddress this issue of due process by statute. Ofthe 11 others, five reported providing varyingtypes of notice and an opportunity to contestthe purge; four reported notifying people onlyafter they have been purged, and two reportedproviding no notice at all.

3


Recommendations: All states should adopt leg-islation that requires state officials to send a firstnotice by certified, forwardable mail; follow upby telephone where possible; accept replies inwriting or in person; include a stamped,addressed envelope for replies, and allow a min-imum of 30 days for a reply. Where no responseis received to the first notice, a second noticeshould be mailed that permits another 14 daysfor a response and includes state-specific infor-mation regarding reinstatement of the right tovote and/or re-register. Purges should be com-pleted by 90 days preceding an election.

4

PURGED!

ISSUE I: PURGE LIST COMPILATION

States compile their purge lists by collatinginformation from a number of differentsources. All states receive felony convictiondata from (a) United States attorneys, concern-ing their residents’ commission of federalfelonies; (b) other states’ chief elections agen-cies, concerning their residents’ commission offelonies in other states; and (c) in-state agen-cies, concerning their residents’ commission offelonies in state.

With the exception of Pennsylvania, in severalstates surveyed, in-state felony conviction datais provided by multiple agencies, including judi-cial and law enforcement agencies, to the elec-tions agency compiling the purge list. Moreover,in many states, different agencies provide felonyconviction data at different times.

The sources of felony conviction data, theircontent, and the degree of synchronicitybetween them give us a sense of the lists’ accu-racy and efficacy.

We highlight South Dakota and New Mexico,because their procedures are most streamlined,as exemplary of good practices, and Maryland,whose procedures seem almost haphazard, asexemplifying bad practices.

a. Federal felony conviction data

All states’ chief election agencies receivenotices of their residents’ convictions in feder-al district courts, pursuant to the National VoterRegistration Act (NVRA).5 The NVRArequires United States attorneys to give writtennotice of federal felony convictions to chiefstate elections officials.6 The notices must con-tain a person’s name, age and residence, date ofentry of the judgment, a description of theoffenses of which the individual was convict-

ed, and the sentence imposed.7 The nature ofthe information that United States attorneyssend state elections officials is critical in help-ing them identify ineligible voters, and whilethe NVRA at least provides a uniform standard,federal courts might also send these agenciesadditional available data such as a state driver’slicense number. The NVRA also requires fed-eral courts to notify state election officialswhen federal felony convictions are over-turned.8

b. Out-of-state felony convictiondata

State chief election agencies also receivefelony conviction data from other states inwhich their residents have been convicted offelonies. We were unable to locate state statutesthat, like NVRA provisions, specify the infor-mation one state must send to another whenproviding such notice. Without such uniformstandards, states may not send the best avail-able data, making it difficult for receivingstates to accurately identify ineligible voters.We were similarly unable to locate statutesconcerning state-to-state notification of over-turned felony convictions. Because differentstates disqualify individuals for differentcrimes, out-of-state conviction data shouldalways include the description of the crimecommitted.9

c. In-state felony conviction data

Variations in practice in the collection of in-state conviction data are great. For example,eight states compile their purge lists at the statelevel, six do so at the county level, and onestate has no purge list. Some states’ criminaljustice and judicial agencies are more connect-ed to their boards of election than those ofother states. Some states have statewide, cen-tralized voter registration databases, while oth-

5


ers do not. Louisiana aside, no state surveyedstatutorily mandates in-state notification ofoverturned felony convictions. And in onlytwo states does the department of correctionsnotify the board of elections when an individ-ual’s sentence is complete. Rather than furtherbelaboring these intricacies here, we proceeddirectly to examples of good and bad prac-tices. (Detailed information on individualstate purge practices may be found in theaddendum to this report.)

i. Good practice: centralized databases,applicable to all states

South Dakota, which disfranchises incarcerat-ed felons and felony parolees, is far along in itsHAVA compliance,10 and we recommend repli-cation of its system.11 The state uses a systemthat is centralized at the state level, receives in-state felony conviction data from a singlesource (its courts), and updates information in“real time”. One drawback, however, is theabsence of legislative standards concerning thenature of the felony conviction data the state’scourts must convey to the agency compilingthe list (such as the NVRA provision that regu-lates what type of federal felony convictiondata United States attorneys must providestates’ chief election agencies).

South Dakota has a computerized statewideregistration database, which is HAVA compli-ant and is connected to the state’s UnifiedJudicial System, a computerized database ofall state courts (UJS). This database has

records of all persons who have passedthrough the state’s criminal justice systemsince 1989. United States attorneys and thechief state election agencies of other statesboth report felony convictions to the secre-tary of state’s office. The information is thensent to the board of elections for the countywhere the person was last registered. For in-state convictions, there is a single source ofinformation, the UJS. UJS court clerks alsosend felony conviction data to the electionsdivision of the secretary of state’s office. Theinformation is then forwarded to the board ofelections for the county where the person waslast registered. Though we were unable tofind a statute prescribing the nature of the dataUJS court clerks must convey, multiple elec-tions officials reported receiving a relativelyextensive and nearly standardized set of datathat includes gender and birthplace.12

Furthermore, all information is updated in “realtime,” which effectively precludes purgesbased on outdated information.

New Mexico, which disfranchises prisoners,parolees and probationers, also employs com-mendable compilation practices. NewMexico has a centralized system that isadministered at the county level.13 Because itis centralized, simultaneously updated, andrequires standardized felony conviction data,New Mexico’s compilation process is morestreamlined that most of the others sur-veyed.14 Unlike South Dakota, New Mexicostatutorily requires its in-state sources offelony conviction data to provide specific anduniform data. New Mexico law requires thatcourts submit felony conviction data thatincludes a person’s full name, age, gender,marital status, birthplace, birth date, socialsecurity number, date of conviction and lastknown address.15 Each county’s courts andelection boards are electronically connected.Each county is also electronically connectedto the statewide voter registration database.

6

PURGED!

South Dakota election officials reportedreceiving a relatively extensive and nearlystandardized set of data that includes genderand birth place. Furthermore, all information isupdated in “real time,” which effectively pre-cludes purges based on outdated information.

These connections allow felony convictiondata to be updated in real time.16

ii. Good practice: an interim solution for statesthat disfranchise only incarcerated felons

Although limited in applicability and ashort-term solution, Pennsylvania’s absenteeballot statute is nonetheless a significantimprovement on the procedures in place inthe states surveyed with analogous disfran-chisement policies. Applicable only to statesthat, like Pennsylvania, disfranchise incar-cerated felons,17 the Pennsylvania statute isalso only a temporary ‘fix’ for the perioduntil states have instituted their HAVA-man-dated centralized voter registration systems,including state-specific purge procedures.Realistically, however, since only nine stateshave not requested waivers of compliance, itwill take most states well beyond the 2006deadline to comply with HAVA and toinclude the state-specific safeguards we rec-ommend in this report.18 A Pennsylvania-style law may be a good interim measure forstates that disfranchise incarcerated felonsonly.

Pennsylvania does not purge felons from itsvoter list. Instead, the state employs aninnovative and administratively simple pro-cedure to keep incarcerated felons from vot-ing: Under Pennsylvania law, absentee bal-lots are not sent to those mailing requestsfor them from prison addresses.19 Illinoisand Ohio are the other states surveyed herethat, like Pennsylvania, disfranchise prison-ers only. We suggest that Illinois and Ohioenact similar absentee ballot statutes andabandon their purge lists, thereby reducingthe administrative burdens of managingthese lists and decreasing the likelihood oferrors. Concomitantly, these states wouldalso dispense with having to re-registerthese voters.

iii. Bad practice: complex disqualificationschemes in “mixed status states”

List compilation in Maryland is onerous not leastbecause of the state’s convoluted disfranchisementlaw.20 State officials receive in-state felony convic-tion data from the state’s Judicial InformationSystem (JIS) and courts.21 Officials must sortthrough the data and separate the names of per-sons convicted of infamous crimes and non-infa-mous crimes, because only the former crimes ren-der an individual ineligible to vote.22 Officials alsohave to parse through misdemeanor and felonyconviction data because some misdemeanors alsodisqualify individuals from voting in Maryland.

Moreover, Maryland does not use a centralizeddatabase and data is updated “about once amonth.” (Even with a statewide criminal justicedatabase, Maryland’s complicated disfranchise-ment law would make accurate purging difficult.)

In addition, Maryland law only requires itssources of felony conviction data to send an indi-vidual’s name and address to compiling agencies.Enactment of a uniform law requiring courts totransmit first name, middle name, last name,alias, maiden name, date of birth, place of birth,gender, date of conviction, type of crime, and dri-ver’s license number if any, would alleviate bur-dens for both state and local election officials.

Thus, the state’s complex disfranchisementlaw, in addition to its lack of a centralized data-base, use of insufficient standardized felonyconviction data, and infrequent updates of thatdata, make list compilation an unwieldy task.One local election official in MontgomeryCounty admitted as much when she describedthe system as “kind of disorganized.”

7


Concomitantly, these states would also dispensewith having to re-register these voters.

ISSUE II: CRITERIA USED TODETERMINE MATCHES

In removing individuals with felony convictionsfrom the voter rolls, we found that none of thestates surveyed has codified any specific or min-imum set of criteria for elections officials to useto ensure that an individual with a felony con-viction is the same individual being purged fromthe voter rolls.23 The practical implications ofthis is that these states, and in many cases thecounties within each of them, conduct purgesusing quantitatively and qualitatively differentinformation. This in turn means certain statesand counties better safeguard voters againstbeing improperly purged than other states andcounties. Apart from Pennsylvania, then, whichdoes not engage in felon purging, no state sur-veyed afforded adequate protection to voters itpurged. Based on oral accounts of proceduresfollowed, however, South Dakota appears to useprocedures that – if codified – may be adequateto verify matches.24

a. Good practice for states that disfranchiseincarcerated felons only

Until states complete their implementation ofHAVA-mandated statewide computerizedvoter registration databases, which whenmodified to include specific matching criteriawill render matching a simpler task,Pennsylvania provides the best system for

states like it that disfranchise incarceratedfelons only. There, no matching is conductedbecause the state never purges felons from itsvoter list, instead simply denying absenteeballots to prisoners. Of the 15 states surveyed,Illinois and Ohio, which like Pennsylvania,disfranchise prisoners only, could, by enact-ing similar absentee ballot statutes, abandontheir purge lists, thereby reducing the admin-istrative burdens of managing these lists andpreventing erroneous purges of eligible vot-ers.25 They would concomitantly dispense withhaving to re-register them.26

b. Good practice for states that disfranchise incar-cerated felons, felony parolees and/or probationers

The procedures followed by South Dakota, ifcodified, could serve as a solution for statesthat also disfranchise felony parolees and/orprobationers and cannot therefore rely on thePennsylvania model. Though South Dakotahas not enacted statutes mandating either aspecific or minimum set of criteria officialsmust use to perform matches, reports fromcounty officials indicate that, when conduct-ing matches, state and county officials use agreater number of criteria than most statessurveyed and double-check matches at stateand county levels.27

Both state and county officials reported thatupon receiving felony conviction data fromthe state’s Unified Judicial System, the firststep in performing a match was for stateofficials to check the following ten pieces offelony conviction data against the statewideregistration database: first name, middlename, last name, social security number,date of birth, gender, place of birth, date ofconviction, age, and address.28 Though nostatute specifies what matching criteria offi-cials must use, or requires all 10 items to

8

PURGED!

In removing individuals with felony convictionsfrom the voter rolls, we found that none of thestates surveyed has codified any specific orminimum set of criteria for elections officials touse to ensure that an individual with a felonyconviction is the same individual being purgedfrom the voter rolls.

match, a state elections official reported thatonly if an individual appears in thestatewide database and is a clear match isthe information sent to the appropriate coun-ty official responsible for making the finaldetermination before removing the personfrom the county’s “master” registration list(which contains more pieces of informationthan the statewide registration database). Ifthe person does not appear in the statewideregistration list, the information is not for-warded to the county and is usually discard-ed. When there is any doubt or a need foradditional corroborating information, offi-cials telephone the Department of Justice orthe court that issued the judgment beforesending the names to the county boards ofelection where the person is registered.

Once county officials confirm the match,they then remove the person from countyregistration records. This means that thematch is effectively checked twice, first atthe state and then at the county level, wherethe more replete master lists reside. Thecounty board of elections also notifies thesecretary of state that the individual hasbeen removed from the county file andshould be flagged in the statewide registra-tion database.29

c. Bad practice: States that use few match-ing criteria and do not double-checkmatches

Counties in Maryland and Nevada reportusing among the least extensive data in con-ducting matches and do not double-checkmatches at state and county levels. OneFrederick County, Maryland official report-ed that she had only ever seen matches con-ducted using name and date of birth.Admitting that “the system [was] disorgan-ized,” Maryland’s Montgomery Countyelection director advised us that

Montgomery County matched name, date ofbirth and address.30 Additionally, Marylandconducts matches at only the county level.In Nevada, Clark County matched usingonly name and date of birth, while WashoeCounty used name, date of birth and some-times address. A Clark County officialreported that she might find a match whereeven name and date of birth did not matchexactly. Like Maryland, Nevada also con-ducts matches at only the county level.31

ISSUE III: NOTIFICATION OFPERSONS MATCHED

The states surveyed are also inconsistent con-cerning notification of those they purge fromtheir voter rolls. Only four of the 15 states sur-veyed— Georgia, Louisiana, New York andVirginia — address this important issue of dueprocess by statute. Of the 11 others, five —Arizona, Maryland, New Mexico, Nevada andTexas — report nevertheless providing varyingtypes of notice and an opportunity to contest thepurge. Four states — California, Iowa, SouthDakota and Virginia — report notifying peopleafter they have been purged, and two states,Illinois and Ohio, provide no notice at all.

a. Good practice: States that statutorily man-date pre-removal notice and opportunity to con-test purges

Only four states — Georgia, New York,Louisiana and Virginia — statutorily requiretheir elections officials to notify people to bepurged prior to the disfranchisement. The pre-

9


When conducting matches, South Dakota stateand county officials use a greater number ofcriteria than most states surveyed and double-check matches at state and county levels.

scribed notice is not always meaningful, how-ever. Louisiana’s statute, for example, requiresindividuals to appear before the Board ofElections within 21 days of the date of the post-mark on the notice. Georgia’s statute providesfor even less time, 14 days. Individuals mayhave moved, and even forwarded notices maynot reach them in time to allow them to contesterroneous purges.

New York’s statutory notification process is thebest though it, too, has serious shortcomings.The county board of elections first mails a for-wardable letter to the individual to be purged tothat individual’s last known address stating thathis/her name will be removed from the voterregistration rolls if he or she fails to respond inperson or in writing within 14 days. The mail-ing includes a postage-paid card that asks theperson to list the reasons why he or she shouldnot be removed. By allowing the person torespond in writing as opposed to in person, aswell as including a postage-paid return state-ment, New York’s election officials make theprocess slightly less onerous for people whomay have been erroneously removed.

If the individual fails to respond, New Yorkofficials mail another notice advising of theright to re-register or apply to a court for rein-statement, whichever is appropriate. Sendingindividuals who have lost their right to vote asecond notice, and one containing informationregarding reinstatement, is a unique and goodpractice for other states to adopt.

Still, the New York statute’s provision of 14days to respond is little time for individuals toreceive and prepare to contest an erroneous

removal, particularly where people havemoved and the letter is forwarded to the newaddress. Nor is regular mail, as provided in thestatute, adequate for this type of notification.Notices must be sent by certified, forwardablemail to ensure that the correct person receivesthem. Officials might also telephone individu-als when contact information is available, inorder to ensure that notices were received.

To best protect voting rights, we suggest thatcourts, departments of corrections and relatedagencies notify people convicted of felonies oftheir right to vote at every possible point in theprocess. At the very first point in time that anindividual becomes ineligible to vote —when a defendant is being sentenced to prisonor probation, where applicable, for a felonycrime — the judge should advise defendantsthat they will lose the right to vote and whenand how they may regain the right. Whenparoled, the parole board or parole officersshould be required to advise parolees if theyare, or when they will be, eligible to vote orregister. In states where individuals can votewhile on probation, the sentencing court orprobation officers should inform probationersthat they can vote. These notifications will goa long way toward dispelling the now well-documented confusion surrounding ex-felons’ eligibility to vote.32

b. Less acceptable practice: States that reportproviding non-statutory pre-removal notice

Officials in Arizona, Maryland, Nevada, NewMexico and Texas report that, though not man-dated by statute, they also notify individualsand permit them the opportunity to respondprior to purging their names from the voterrolls. Absent a mandatory, prescribed notifica-tion process, notification is discretionary,inconsistently conducted and there is no legalrecourse for persons wrongly removed fromvoter registration lists. For example, Maryland

10

PURGED!

Only four of the 15 states surveyed— Georgia,Louisiana, New York and Virginia — addressthis important issue of due process by statute.

officials reported that some counties allow twoweeks for a response but others longer. InTexas, the Program Director of the VoterRegistration Department told us that local reg-istrars mail notices advising individuals thattheir registrations are in jeopardy; these mail-ings include a questionnaire asking whether theindividual has ever served time, and allow upto 30 days for individuals to respond. But thispractice could only be confirmed by one of twocounties we contacted. In Arizona, a PimaCounty elections official stated that beforeremoving anyone from the registration list,the county sends two letters of notification,but officials in Maricopa County could notconfirm this. Absent a statute delineating areasonable time for a reply, followed by tele-phone calls and an additional notice wherenecessary, such practices are discretionaryand provide voters little real protection.

c. Bad practice: States that report providingnon-statutory notice after removal

Though these states do not address notifica-tion by statute, officials in California, Iowa,South Dakota and Virginia reported a practiceof notifying individuals they purge from theregistration lists after the fact. In Iowa’s LinnCounty, an election official reported mailingnotices to the last known addresses of thosepurged, advising us that individuals purgedcould later correct any mistakes. In Virginia,an election official in Fairfax County told usthat the county mails a letter to the personpurged explaining the reason therefor.Elections officials in two California countiesreported following different procedures whenindividuals are purged: San FranciscoCounty’s Election Supervisor reported takingno action as doing so would increase theoffice’s workload, while Los AngelesCounty’s assistant county recorder told us thatoffice mails a letter to the individual’s lastknown address after purging the individual.

The letter also advises individuals that if theybelieve they were wrongly removed, theyshould contact the registrar’s office immedi-ately. South Dakota county election officials,like California’s, reported contradictory notifi-cation practices: Pennington County’s electionsupervisor reported notifying individuals whentheir registration had been cancelled, but anelection official in Minnehaha County scoffedat the idea asking, “Why would we do such athing?” States with inconsistent notificationpractices illustrate the problems inherent inleaving this issue to the discretion of countyofficials.

Because these states reported notifying indi-viduals only after they are removed, they placethe entire burden of contesting and re-register-ing on those erroneously purged, in whatevertime remains before the next election, if any.As a result, individuals so notified may notknow that they have been erroneously purgeduntil they go to the polls to cast a ballot.

d. Worst practice: States that provide nonotice at all

Illinois and Ohio neither address notificationby statute, nor did officials report any infor-mal practice of notifying individuals purgedfrom voter registration lists. Without affirma-tive action by state and/or county officials toalert individuals that they will be removedfrom the voter registration records, the possi-bility of error increases dramatically andaffords the voter no protection against inad-vertent disfranchisement.

11


RECOMMENDATIONS

Issue I: Purge List Compilation

Purge lists are vulnerable to inaccuracybecause they are compiled by collating felonyconviction data from United States attorneys,other states’ chief election agencies, and in-state agencies.

• Given this fact, the mechanics of list com-pilation must be streamlined as much aspossible through fast and full compliancewith HAVA’s requirement that states estab-lish official, uniform and nondiscriminatorystatewide computerized voter registrationlists that are centralized and interactive.

• These centralized systems must beenhanced to account for state-specificinformation, including state law, thataffects purges.

• These centralized systems must involve ahigh degree of coordination of felony con-viction data among courts, departments ofcorrections, boards of elections, depart-ments of motor vehicles and other relevantagencies.

• These centralized systems must includetwo-way communication between depart-ments of corrections and boards of elec-tions so that departments of correctionsnotify boards of elections when individualswith felony convictions become eligible tovote again.

• In those “mixed status” states with wait-ing periods, the date of an individual’srelease must be conveyed to the board ofelections with instructions that the indi-vidual appear eligible on the rolls in theapplicable number of years.

• In permanent disfranchisement states,communications must be three-way, amongthe board of elections, department of cor-rections, and the agency that has theauthority to restore the right to vote.

In many states, the various sources of felonyconviction data provide it to the compilingagency at different times. This problem is mag-nified where there is no central repository offelony conviction data.

• Information from the different sources offelony conviction data must reach the com-piling agency at the same time, and beupdated in real time, so that purges can bebased on the most recent information.

While federal law requires United Statesattorneys to provide specific, standardizedinformation concerning individuals convictedof federal crimes, one-quarter of the statessurveyed do not require their source agenciesto provide any specific or uniform felony con-viction data, and half the states surveyedrequire only name and address.

• States must require their sources of felonyconviction data to provide the compilingagency standardized felony convictiondata.

• Departments of corrections, courts andboards of elections should collectivelydevelop sets of standards that include firstname, middle name, last name, maidenname, alias, date of birth, place of birth,gender, date of conviction, type of crime,and driver’s license number if any. Thiswill facilitate the matching process andwill eliminate many common errors.

With respect to out-of-state felony convictiondata, no state required standardized felony con-viction data of other states.

12

PURGED!

• Without uniform standards, sending statesmay not send the best available felony con-viction data, which in turn makes it harderfor receiving states to differentiate eligiblefrom ineligible voters.

• States should require the same felonyconviction data as for in-state felony con-victions. (See recommendation above.)

• Because state disfranchisement laws differ,out-of-state conviction data should include adescription of the crime in question.

• When a person completes his or her sen-tence or has his or her rights restored, thestate election agency originally notified ofthe conviction should be notified that theperson is eligible again.

In 14 of 15 states surveyed, we did not findstate law provisions, like NVRA Section1973gg-6(g)(4), requiring notification of over-turned felony convictions both from state tostate and within states.

• States should adopt statutes that, likeNVRA, require state-to-state, and in-state,notification of overturned felony convic-tions. In both cases, courts would berequired to notify the relevant board ofelections of overturned convictions. Whenthis occurs, the individual should not haveto re-register.

Issue II: Criteria Used in Matching

None of the states surveyed has codified anyspecific or minimum set of criteria that must beused by officials in ensuring that a person witha felony conviction is the same person beingpurged from the voter rolls.

• Statutes that specify and standardizematching criteria are essential to provide

clear guidance to officials conducting thematches and to equally protect similarlysituated voters.

• Officials must be trained to strictly adhereto these criteria, given our finding that evenin states with standardized criteria, officialsexercising their discretion erroneouslypurged voters, by using less than all avail-able criteria for matching purposes.

States, and counties within them in many cases,conduct purges using quantitatively and qualita-tively different information, better safeguardingsome voters against improper purges than others.

• Matching criteria should be numerousincluding first name, middle name, lastname, alias, maiden name, date of birth,place of birth, gender, date of conviction,type of crime, and driver’s license numberif any.

• Matches should be double-checked atstate and county levels.

• An exact match of felony conviction dataand voter registration data should berequired. Absent an exact match, we rec-ommend seeking corroboration from courtsor law enforcement agencies or by contact-ing the alleged felon, but in no eventremoving that individual’s name from thevoter registration list.

Issue III: Notification of Persons Matched

Only four of the 15 states surveyed addressnotification by statute. Even New York’sstatute, the best of those surveyed, was defi-cient in the short time it allowed for a response.

• All the states surveyed should enactstatutes that require state elections officialsto:

13


STEP 1: Send a first notice by certified,forwardable mail advising the addresseethat his or her registration is in jeopardybecause that individual’s voter registrationdata has been matched with the data of anindividual with a felony conviction. Includea stamped, addressed envelope for repliesand state that replies will be accepted inwriting or in person.

STEP 2: Follow up by telephone where possible.

STEP 3: Allow a minimum of 30 days for areply, as the individual may have moved or betraveling.

STEP 4: If no response is received to the firstnotice, send a second notice stating that theindividual’s name is being removed from therolls in two weeks unless he or she respondsto this notice. Include information regardingreinstatement of the right to vote and/or re-register.

STEP 5: Check the most current informationbefore purging voters.

STEP 6: Complete purges by 90 days beforean election.

To dispel the now well-documented confusionsurrounding ex-felons’ eligibility to vote, peo-ple convicted of felonies should be advised oftheir right to vote at every possible point:

• When a defendant is being sentenced toprison or probation, where applicable, for afelony crime, the judge should advise thedefendant that he/she will lose the right andwhen and how he/she may regain the right.

• When paroling an individual, the paroleboard or parole officers should be requiredto advise parolees if they are, or when theywill be, eligible to register or vote.

• In states where individuals can vote on pro-bation, the sentencing court or probation offi-cers should inform probationers that they canvote or register to vote.

To better protect voters who have had theirrights restored or were erroneously purgedfrom the voter lists, elections officials shouldkeep a permanent record of all personsremoved, preferably in a computerized data-base, including the date and reason for ineligi-bility and the date and reason a notice of ineli-gibility was sent. Under HAVA, persons whosenames do not appear on voter registration listsare allowed to cast provisional ballots. Whenelection officials check their active voter regis-tration files, they should also check files thatcontain the names of voters whose rights weresuspended due to a felony conviction.

14

PURGED!

15


ARIZONA PURGE SUMMARYThe law Rights of individuals convicted of felonies aresuspended while they are incarcerated, on pro-bation, or on parole.1 There is no automaticrestoration for persons convicted of more thanone felony; you must wait two years beforeapplying for civil rights restoration to the judgewho discharged you at the end of the term ofprobation.2

Number disfranchised (2000): 147,340Disfranchisement rate3: 4.06%

Sources of felony conviction dataU.S. attorneys, election agencies of otherstates, clerks of superior courts, electors whenreporting on signed jury questionnaires.

Federal and out-of-state convictionsU.S. attorneys report federal convictions to thesecretary of state’s office. Other states’ electionagencies also report felony convictions to thesecretary of state. This information is then sentto the county recorder where the person wasregistered to vote.

In-state convictionsArizona state law requires clerks of superiorcourts to send final conviction notices to thecounty recorders where the individual was con-victed, but state election officials also reportedreceiving in-state felony conviction data fromclerks of superior courts.

What information is sent? Courts are statutorily required to sendname, date of birth, place of birth,

social security number if available,address, and usual place of residence.4

Frequency of updatesThere are no statutory requirements; offi-cial notice from courts is “after the fact.”5

Who performs the matching?A state election official reported that the stateperforms the match and could not say whetherthe counties do any follow-up. An electionofficial in Pima County indicated that thecounty performs a match before removal, butthis could not be verified in Maricopa County.The state may check the person’s voter regis-tration against its computerized statewide reg-istration database, but state officials did notreport this.6

What is a match? There is no strict set of matching criteria. PimaCounty reported matching information on thevoter registration form with the informationfrom the courts, including the name, last 4 dig-its of the social security number or driver’slicense number, and the mother’s maiden name.State election officials did not indicate whatthey considered to be a match.

Notification of removal Arizona has no statutory requirement to informvoters that their names are being taken off thevoter list, or that they have already beenremoved. Pima County officials advised us thatthey send two notices. If there is no response,the person is placed on the inactive list.

1 Arizona Constitution, art. VII, § 2a. Arizona Revised Statutes, § 16-101. 2 Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-909-912. 3 Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disfranchised in 2000.4 Arizona Revised Statutes § 16-126(c). 5 Arizona Revised Statutes § 16-165(9)(c).6 Arizona did not request a waiver to postpone implementation of the HAVA-required, statewide voter registrationdatabase. At the time this survey was conducted, the database was not integrated into the court system.

16

PURGED!

CALIFORNIA PURGE SUMMARYThe lawRights are suspended for felony convictionswhen the individual is incarcerated or onparole.1 Felony probationers may vote. Theright to vote is automatically restored uponcompletion of sentence, but one must reregister.


Sources of felony conviction dataU.S. attorneys, election agencies of otherstates, clerks of superior courts.

Federal and out-of-state convictionsU.S. attorneys report federal convictions to thesecretary of state’s office. Election agencies ofother states also report felony convictions tothe secretary of state. Information from the sec-retary of state is then sent to the county regis-trar where the person last resided.

In-state convictionsClerks of superior courts send final convictionnotices directly to the registrar for the countywhere the individual was convicted.

What information is sent?Courts are statutorily required to send name, address and date of birth.3

Frequency of updatesTwice yearly (April 1, September 1).

Who performs the matching? The appropriate county registrar’s office.

What is a match? There is no strict set of matching criteria. SanFrancisco and Los Angeles counties reported

matching different information. Los AngelesCounty reported matching more informationthan San Francisco County, including name,date of birth and place of birth. Los AngelesCounty also indicated that a person’s namewould not be removed without an exact match.San Francisco was less stringent in its matchingand said it only required an exact match ofname and address.

Notification of removal California has no statutory requirement toinform voters that their names are being takenoff the voter list, or that they have alreadybeen removed. An election official in SanFrancisco County said that the county did nothave the time or resources to inform everyvoter each time someone was taken off thecounty voter registration list. However, inLos Angeles County, an election official saidthat the county sends a letter of notification tothe person’s last known address stating thatthe person has been removed from the regis-tration rolls. The letter also states that if theperson believes he or she was wronglyremoved, the individual should contact theregistrar’s office immediately. The person’sname is not removed from the voter registra-tion list but is flagged with the word “can-celed” and the reason for removal. LosAngeles County indicated that this was doneto allow for a person who might not be on theregistration list to cast a provisional ballot. Itis unclear whether this is a state mandate or acounty practice.

1 California Constitution, art. II. California Code § 2201(c). 2 Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disenfranchised in 2000.3 California Code § 2212.

17


GEORGIA PURGE SUMMARYThe law Rights are suspended for individuals convictedof felonies when incarcerated, on parole or onprobation.1 The right to vote is automaticallyrestored upon completion of sentence, but onemust re-register.

Number disfranchised (2000): 286, 277Disfranchisement rate2: 4.86%

Sources of felony conviction dataU.S. attorneys, state election agencies of otherstates, clerks of superior courts, law enforce-ment agencies.

Federal and out-of-state convictionsU.S. attorneys send final conviction notices tothe secretary of state’s offices. Election agen-cies of other states also report felony convic-tions to the secretary of state. The informationis then forwarded to the registrar for the coun-ty where the person was last registered.3

In- state convictionsClerks of superior courts send certificates offelony convictions to the secretary of state’selection division. This information is then for-warded to the county registrar where the per-son was last registered to vote. Additionalinformation may be obtained from lawenforcement agencies such as sheriffs’ depart-ments.

What information is sent?Courts are statutorily required to send name, address and age.4

Frequency of updates Monthly. (Court clerks must send lists

by the tenth of every month to the sec-retary of state).

Who performs the matching?County registrars.

What is a match?There is no strict set of matching criteria.Counties reported matching first, middle andlast name, date of birth, and social securitynumber (if available) with information on thevoter registration form. If the name is not anexact match, and all other information lines up,they usually consider it a match. A FultonCounty election official admitted inadvertentlyremoving eligible persons after only matchingthe person’s name and address; for example, afather and son who share the same name andaddress. Part of her explanation as to why shesometimes overlooks important indicators isthat she gets “so many notices.”

Notification of removal Georgia has a statutorily required pre-removalnotification. If there is a match, the electionofficial has two months (60 days) to send out aforwardable notice to the voter indicating thathis or her name will be removed from the reg-istration list. The voter then has 14 days to dis-pute the charge. If the voter does not respond,the file is marked, “Deleted – Felon.” In FultonCounty, the deleted files are archived every twoyears; in Dekalb County they are archivedevery five years.

1 Georgia Constitution, art. II § 1. Georgia Code § 21-2-216(b).2 Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disenfranchised in 2000.3 Georgia has a statewide voter registration database in place, a ten-year-old mainframe system that was not con-nected to the courts or criminal justice agencies at the time this survey was conducted. 4 Georgia Code § 21-2-231(a).

18

PURGED!

ILLINOIS PURGE SUMMARYThe law The rights of convicted felons are suspendedwhen they are incarcerated or on parole. Theright to vote is automatically restored upon com-pletion of sentence, but one must reregister.1


Sources of felony conviction dataU.S. attorneys, state election agencies of otherstates, circuit court clerks.

Federal and out-of-state convictions U.S. attorneys report federal convictions to thesecretary of state’s office. Election agencies ofother states also report felony convictions tothe secretary of state. The information is thensent to the county clerk’s office where the per-son last resided.

In-state convictionsCounty circuit courts send notices of final judg-ments for individuals convicted of felonies (withorders of incarceration) directly to the countyclerk’s office where the person was convicted.

What information is sent?Courts are statutorily required to send name and last known residence.3

Frequency of updates Monthly.

Who performs the matching?County clerk’s office.

What is a match?There is no strict set of matching criteria. If useof the first name, last name and date of birthdoes not produce a match, officials look at theaddress or driver’s license number. An electionofficial in Cook County indicated that they donot purge if they cannot narrow it down to asingle individual.

Notification of removal There are no statutory requirements to informvoters that their names are being taken off thevoter list, or that they have already beenremoved. Once the county clerk has identified amatch, the clerk immediately removes the indi-vidual’s name from the voter file. There were noreports from state or county election officialsthat persons removed from voter rolls for felonyconviction received any notification.

1 Illinois Compiled Statutes § 730-5-5-5(d). Illinois Compiled Statutes § 10-5-3-5.2 Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disenfranchised in 2000.3 Illinois Compiled Statutes § 10-5/6-61.

19


IOWA PURGE SUMMARYThe law Rights are suspended for conviction of “infa-mous crime” while incarcerated, on parole oron probation.1 There is no automatic restora-tion. Persons convicted must apply for clemen-cy from the Governor.2


Sources of felony conviction dataU.S. attorneys, election agencies of otherstates, district court clerks.

Federal and out-of-state convictions U.S. attorneys report federal convictions to thestate registrar. Election agencies of other statesalso report felony convictions to the state regis-trar. The information is then sent to the countycommissioner of registration for the countywhere the person last resided.

In-state convictionsDistrict court clerks send notices of final judg-ments for individuals convicted of infamouscrimes to the state registrar. This information isthen sent to the county commissioners of regis-tration where the person last resided. Iowa is inthe process of procuring a statewide voter regis-tration database from private vendors.

What information is sent?There is no statutory requirement; it may include name, date of birth and social security number.


Who performs the matching?The state registrar performs an initial match onthe state registration list. When there is a “pos-sible match, the state directs the counties toremove the individuals. County election offi-cials in Polk and Linn Counties also reportedperforming a match.

What is a match?Iowa has no strict set of matching criteria. APolk County official said the registrar double-checks name, social security number and dateof birth two or three times. A Linn County offi-cial said the county checks the name and dateof birth. Iowa’s HAVA bill does not directlyaddress matching felons and voters, thoughthere is a provision directing the state registrarto prescribe “access protocols for adding,changing, or deleting information from thestate voter registration file.”

Notification of removal There is no statutory requirement, but an elec-tion official in Linn County said a notice ismailed to the last known address to advise theindividual he or she has been removed. Thiscould not be confirmed in Polk County.

1 Iowa Code § 903.1(1)(b)(2). Iowa’s disfranchisement law has not significantly changed since 1857.2 Iowa Code § 48a.6.3 Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disfranchised in 2000.

20

PURGED!

LOUISIANA PURGE SUMMARYThe law Rights are suspended for felony convictionswhen a person is incarcerated, on parole or onprobation. Rights may be reinstated after com-pletion of sentence, including parole or proba-tion. The registrant must appear in person andprovide documentation from the appropriatecorrections official that he or she is no longerunder an order of imprisonment.1


Sources of felony conviction dataU.S. attorneys, election agencies of otherstates, clerks of state courts, the Department ofPublic Safety and Corrections (DPSC), sheriffsand district attorneys.

Federal and out-of-state convictions U.S. attorneys report federal convictions to theelections division of the secretary of state.Election agencies of other states also reportfelony convictions to the elections division ofthe secretary of state. The information is thensent to the parish registrar in the county wherethe person was last registered.

In-state convictionsClerks of court must send certified copies offinal judgments to the secretary of state, elec-tions division, and to the parish registrar wherethe individual was convicted. In addition, theDPSC sends a supplemental report for all thosein custody or supervision whose name did notappear in a previous notice from the courts.Clerks of courts also send notices when con-victions are overturned to the elections divisionof the secretary of state’s office.

What information is sent?Both the DPSC and court clerks arestatutorily required to send the name,

alias, date of birth, sex and address ofeach person convicted of a felonywhere there is an order of imprison-ment. Sheriffs and district attorneysalso provide supplemental informationsuch as the date of birth, driver’s licensenumber, address, or mother’s maidenname.3

Frequency of updates Courts send monthly updates. DPSC sends quarterly updates.

Who performs the matching?The election division of the secretary of state’soffice first verifies that the individual is regis-tered in Louisiana against the elections and reg-istration information network (ERIN).4 Whenthere is a “possible match,” the state sends theinformation to the parish registrar who thenmatches the information again.

What is a match?There is no codified set of matching criteria forofficials to follow, but an election official at thesecretary of state’s office reported that the statefirst matches the last name and the first two let-ters of the first name against ERIN. An electionofficial at the Jefferson Parish Registrar report-ed matching the person’s full name (includingany aliases), date of birth, address and some-times gender. An election official at the OrleansParish Registrar’s office corroborated this andadded that they sometimes match the socialsecurity number as well. Matches are notrequired to be exact but need to be “closeenough.”

Notification of removal Louisiana statutorily requires parish registrarsto notify registrants that their names will beremoved and provide them with an opportunityto contest removal. Once there is a match, the

Continued On Next Page

21


registrar sends a notice indicating that the reg-istrar has information that the person was con-victed of a felony and is under an order ofimprisonment. The notice also states that theindividual must appear in person at the office ofthe registrar within 21 days of the date thenotice was mailed to show cause why his or herregistration should not be suspended. If thevoter does not do so, the registration is deletedfrom the statewide registration list. The per-son’s name is also crossed out of any duplicateregistration rolls and initialed by the personwho crossed it out. The original application isplaced in a suspended file, dated and flaggedwith the reason for suspension (in this case, afelony conviction) as well as an indication thatthe person was notified. The files are kept in aseparate file of suspended voters for a period oftwo years.

1 Louisiana Constitution, Art. I, § 10. 2 Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disfranchised in 2000.3 Louisiana Revised Statutes § 18-171(a)-(c)4 At the time of this survey ERIN was not connected to DPSC or the courts. The lack of synchronization was mentionedin Louisiana’s final HAVA state plan.

Continued From Previous Page

22

PURGED!

MARYLAND PURGE SUMMARYThe lawThe rights of an individual who has been con-victed of a “theft or other infamous crime” aresuspended while the person is incarcerated, onparole or on probation. Automatic restorationis granted for first time non-violent offendersonly. The duration of disfranchisement for allothers depends on the number of convictionsand on whether the individual is convicted ofa crime of violence.1

Number disfranchised (2000)2: 128,836 Disfranchisement rate3: 3.31%

Sources of felony conviction dataU.S. attorneys, election agencies of otherstates, the Judicial Information System, clerksof state courts.

Federal and out-of-state convictions U.S. attorneys report federal convictions to theelections division of the secretary of state’soffice. Election agencies of other states alsoreport felony convictions to the state registrar.The information is then sent to the local regis-trar for the person’s last place of residence.

In-state convictionsThe secretary of state reported receivingfelony conviction data from the JudicialInformation System. The Maryland state codealso requires that the clerks of circuit courtsfor each county and the administrative clerkfor each district court provide information forall those convicted to the secretary of state.4

After removing individuals convicted of “non-infamous” crimes and ensuring that individu-als’ names, addresses and dates of birth arecontained in the reports, the secretary of statesends the reports to the local registrars wherethe person last resided. A Montgomery Countyelection supervisor noted that the system was“pretty disorganized.”

What information is sent?Maryland requires name and address tobe sent. State election officials indicat-ed the reports “typically” includename, address and date of birth.5

Frequency of updates There is no statutory requirement. Thesecretary of state reported receivinginformation “about once a month.”

Who performs the matching?The state performs an initial check (a) to seeif the name or address is missing and (b) todetermine if the crime committed disqualifiesthe individual, under Maryland law, from vot-ing, but it does not perform a specific match.It then forwards the information to the coun-ty registrar to be matched against the voterrolls.

What is a match?There is no codified set of matching criteriafor officials to follow. A Montgomery Countyelection official indicated that his staff usual-ly stops at the name and address of the person,but if there are duplicates they may check dateof birth. A Frederick County election officialindicated that his staff had only ever seen thename and date of birth, which they thenmatched.

Notification of removal Maryland has no statutory requirement. TheMontgomery County election official reportedsending letters to individuals before they areremoved. The letters state that individualshave two weeks to contest the planned purge.If an individual contests removal, he or shemust contact the election board and showcause why his or her voting rights should notbe suspended. If the individual does not con-test the purge, or fails to show cause why his


23


1 Maryland Constitution, art. I, Elective Franchise, § 4 and Maryland Election Code § 3-102(b)-(c). 2 The law was changed in 2002, affecting the number of disfranchised.3 Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disfranchised. Maryland’s legal change affected the disfranchisementrate. 4 It is unclear which system they actually use or if they receive information from both sources.5 Maryland Election Code § 3-505(a)(3).

or her registration should not be suspended,the local registrar has the authority to removethe individual’s name from the voter file.


24

PURGED!

NEVADA PURGE SUMMARYThe lawRights are suspended for felony convictionswhen the individual is incarcerated, on paroleor on probation. Automatic restoration is grant-ed only to first-time, non-violent felons. Others“may petition the court in which the person wasconvicted for an order granting restoration ofhis or her civil rights.”1

Number disfranchised (2000)2: 66,390Disfranchisement rate3: 4.78%

Sources of felony conviction dataU.S. attorneys, election agencies of otherstates, local law enforcement agencies, jurycommissioners.

Federal and out-of-state convictions U.S. attorneys report federal convictions to theelections division of the secretary of state’soffice. Election agencies of other states alsoreport felony convictions to the secretary of state.The information is then sent to the county regis-trar for the county where the person last resided.

In-state convictionsNevada’s Administrative Code states that countyregistrars may receive information from the secre-tary of state or the “Central Repository for NevadaRecords of Criminal History” regarding the con-viction of any person of a felony.”4 WashoeCounty reported obtaining information from locallaw enforcement agencies and jury commission-ers. Clark County reported receiving informationfrom the Metropolitan Police Department.

What information is sent?Nevada has no statutory requirement;“typically” the information includesname, address and date of birth.

Frequency of updates Unspecified. Clark County reported receiving information once a month.

Who performs the matching?County clerks perform the matching.

What is a match?There is no codified set of matching criteria forofficials to follow. Each county follows its ownprocedure. Washoe County matches by name,date of birth, and sometimes address as well,believing date of birth to be most important.Clark County matches mainly by name and dateof birth and noted many people have the samenames, including middle initial. They also admitthat even matching a name, an alias, date of birthand address could be a problem if the person hasa twin. A match may be found where even nameand date of birth do not match exactly. On occa-sion, officials query the police department foradditional information such as aliases.

Notification of removal There is no statutory requirement, but WashoeCounty advised us that a letter is sent to the per-son advising that his or her registration is goingto be cancelled because of a felony conviction.The person can call and contest removal. Theredoes not appear to be a formal process fordoing so. Clark County also reported sendingnotices advising individuals that they would beremoved, along with a brochure about rightsrestoration. The person can call to contest ero-nious removal and Clark County will take theirinformation and try to sort out the matter withthe police department. There does not seem tobe a formal process. Rather, it’s a matter of thecounty official, the voter, and the police deter-mining whether the person is or is not the per-son convicted of a felony.

1 Nevada Revised Statutes § 213.155(1)-(2).2 The law was changed in 2003, affecting the number of disfranchised.3 Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disfranchised.4 Nevada Administrative Code § 293.414(2).

25


NEW MEXICO PURGE SUMMARYThe law Rights are suspended for felony convictions whena person is incarcerated, on parole or on proba-tion. In March 2001, New Mexico adopted a billrepealing the state’s lifetime ban on voting forindividuals convicted of a felony.1 To reregister,the individual must bring documentation that allterms of his or her sentence have been fulfilled.

Number disfranchised (2000)2: 78,406Disfranchisement rate3: 6.21%

Sources of felony conviction dataU.S. attorneys, election agencies of other states,clerks of state courts.

Federal and out-of-state convictions U.S. attorneys report federal convictions to theelections division of the secretary of state’s office.Election agencies of other states also report felonyconvictions to the secretary of state. The informa-tion is then sent to the registrar in the countywhere the person was last registered.

In-state convictionsClerks of courts electronically send relevant infor-mation to the county registrar in the county wherethe conviction occurred. When county registrarsflag a person to be removed at the county level, thename is automatically flagged in the state system.

What information is sent?Courts are statutorily required to includename, age, sex, marital status, birthplace,birthdate, social security number (if any),date of conviction and address.4

Frequency of updates Lists are updated daily in real time (for

31 of 33 counties). The court clerks’,registrars’ and statewide voter registra-tion databases are linked.

Who performs the matching?County registrars.

What is a match?There are no minimum criteria for what consti-tutes a match. Courts are required to send ninepieces of information. New Mexico’s voter regis-tration application requires all registrants toinclude their full nine-digit social security num-bers. Officials use this to look up existing regis-trants to see if a person is a qualified voter as wellas to verify that an individual on the purge list isthe same person on the registration list. ASanta FeCounty election official pointed out, however,that more than one person may have the samesocial security number and therefore, it wasextremely important to look at the other informa-tion provided as well.

Notification of removal New Mexico has no statutory requirement, butSanta Fe and Bernalillo Counties reported sendinga certified letter to matched voters. The letter citesthe name, date of conviction, and the case numberof the person. The letter states that the person canno longer vote in New Mexico due to a felony con-viction. The letter also indicates state laws onrestoration of rights for people with felony convic-tions and what documentation is required to restorethose rights. The files are flagged as “felony con-viction,” but are not removed from the voter regis-tration list. New Mexico state law also requirescourts to notify the county where the person wasregistered when he or she is again eligible to vote.When re-registering these individuals must showthat they have completed their sentence.

1 New Mexico Constitution, Art. 7, § 1. 2 The law was changed in 2001, affecting the number of disfranchised.3 Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disfranchised. New Mexico law changed in 2000, affecting the state’s dis-franchisement rate.4 New Mexico Statutes § 1-4-27.1.

26

PURGED!

NEW YORK PURGE SUMMARYThe lawRights are suspended for persons convicted ofa felony and sentenced to incarceration, or onparole. Felony probationers may vote.Incarceration includes parole but not proba-tion. After an individual has served his or hersentence, the right to vote is automaticallyrestored.1


Sources of felony conviction dataU.S. attorneys, election agencies of otherstates, clerks of state courts.

Federal and out-of-state convictions U.S. attorneys report federal convictions tothe state board of elections. State electionagencies of other states also report felonyconvictions to the state board of elections.The information is then sent to the countyboard of elections for the county where theperson last resided.

In-state convictionsCourts send lists to county boards of electionsfor the counties where the person was con-victed, or the state board of elections, at theirdiscretion. If the person was not living in thecounty of conviction, the county board mustthen send the information to the county wherethe person last resided.

What information is sent?Courts are statutorily required to sendname, address and date of birth.3

Frequency of updates By statute, at least quarterly, thoughstate and county officials indicatedthat updates were received much morefrequently.

Who performs the matching?County boards of elections.

What is a match?There is no strict set of matching criteria andmatches rest in the discretion of the auditor.The New York City Board of Electionsadvised that if the name, date of birth andaddress are the same, it is considered a match.Erie County advised us that no one wasremoved without 100 percent verifiability ofname, date of birth, sex, and last knownaddress. If there is a discrepancy between thevoter registration list and the information pro-vided by the courts, the Erie County boardsends a letter to the person at the last knownaddress inquiring as to his or her identity. Ifa telephone number is provided, it may alsotry to contact the person that way. After send-ing the letter, if it does not hear anything backbut the discrepancy remains, it will notremove the person from the list. The NewYork City Board of Elections RegistrationSupervisor would not reveal her office’s fact-checking process.

Notification of removal Counties are statutorily required to send apre-removal notice. If there is a match, a for-wardable letter is sent to the address wherethe person was last registered, advising thathe or she will be removed from the registra-tion rolls. The letter indicates that the personmay appear before the board or send a writtenstatement explaining why he or she shouldnot be removed from the list. The letter alsoincludes a postage-paid card that asks the per-son to list the reasons why he or she shouldnot be removed. If the person does notrespond within 14 days, his or her name isremoved. If the person’s response does notsatisfy the board, it will send another noticeadvising that the name has been removed.The notice advises the individual of the right


27


1 New York Consolidated Laws § 5-106.2 Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disfranchised in 2000.3 New York Consolidated Laws § 5-708.4 New York Consolidated Laws § 5-402

to re-register or to apply to a court of law forreinstatement, whichever is appropriate. If theperson does not prove that he or she has theright to vote in New York within 14 days, heor she must reregister.4


28

PURGED!

OHIO PURGE SUMMARYThe lawRights are suspended for persons convicted ofa felony and sentenced to incarceration. Felonyprobationers and parolees may vote. After theindividual has served his or her sentence, theright to vote is automatically restored.1


Sources of felony conviction dataU.S. attorneys, election agencies of otherstates, clerks of courts.

Federal and out-of-state convictions U.S. attorneys report federal convictions to theelections division of the secretary of state’soffice. Election agencies of other states alsoreport felony convictions to the secretary ofstate. The information is then sent to the boardof elections for the county where the person lastresided.

In-state convictionsClerks of courts of common pleas file lists ofpersons who have been convicted of felonieswith the board of elections in the county inwhich the conviction occurred.

What information is sent?Courts are statutorily required toinclude name and address. One countyelection official reported that the datamay also include the social securitynumber and date of birth.3


Who performs the matching?County boards of election.

What is a match?There is no strict set of matching criteria butcounty election officials reported using thename, address, social security number, and usu-ally the date of birth.

Notification of removal Ohio has no statutory requirement. Upon find-ing a match, a voter’s registration is cancelled.According to Wayne County, the board doesnot send a notice to voters. The Wayne Countyofficial thought but was not certain that voterswere informed of the loss of voting rights whenthey were incarcerated.

1 Ohio Revised Code § 19-2961.01.2 Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disfranchised in 2000.3 Ohio Revised Code § 19-3503.18

29


PENNSYLVANIA PURGE SUMMARYThe lawOnly those incarcerated are unable to vote.Voting rights are automatically restored uponrelease.


Sources of felony conviction dataU.S. attorneys, election agencies of otherstates.

Federal and out-of-state convictions Nothing is done with the information from fed-eral and out-of-state convictions becausePennsylvania does not purge individuals incar-cerated from its voter registration lists.

In-state convictionsPennsylvania does not purge individuals incar-cerated from its voter registration lists andtherefore the state does not collect lists of thoseincarcerated. Rather, the state prohibits incar-cerated felons from voting by denying applica-tions for absentee ballots mailed from prisonaddresses.2

What information is sent?N/A

Frequency of updatesN/A

Who performs the matching?N/A

What is a match?

N/A

Notification of removal N/A

1 Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disfranchised. 2 25 PA Cons. Stat. § 3146.1

30

PURGED!

SOUTH DAKOTA PURGE SUMMARYThe law Rights are suspended if an individual isunder a sentence of imprisonment. Rightsare automatically restored thereafter, but theperson must reregister and may be asked toshow proof that his or her sentence wascompleted.1

Number disfranchised (2000)2: 2,727Disfranchisement rate: 0.50%

Sources of felony conviction dataU.S. Attorneys, election agencies of otherstates, Unified Judicial System (UJS).3

Federal and out-of-state convictions U.S. attorneys report federal convictions to theelections division of the secretary of state’soffice. Election agencies of other states alsoreport felony convictions to the secretary ofstate. The information is then sent to the coun-ty board of elections where the person was lastregistered.

In-state convictionsThe clerks of the UJS courts send informationto the secretary of state. The information is thensent to the county boards of elections where theperson was registered.

What information is sent?South Dakota has no statutory matchingrequirements but reported matching tenpieces of information: first, middle andlast name, address, social security num-ber, age, date of birth, gender, birth-place and date of conviction.

Frequency of updatesRolls are updated in “real time.”

Who performs the matching?The secretary of state’s elections division andthe county boards of election.

What is a match?There are no statutory criteria for electionofficials to follow. However, the informationthat county and state officials receive is farmore replete than in most other states. Stateelection officials first fill in any informationthat may be missing or unclear. This is oftendone by telephoning the court where the per-son was convicted. The person’s name andother information is then checked against thecomputerized statewide registration databasethat is HAVA compliant and is connected tothe UJS computerized database. If the personis registered or appears to be registered, theinformation is sent to the appropriate countyboard of elections. Once the county board ofelections receives the information, the countyverifies it to make sure there is a match. Anelection official in Pennington County advisedthat they look at the name (first, middle, last),social security number, date of birth, gender,place of birth, date of conviction, age andaddress to verify that the person should beremoved. If the information matches, the per-son is removed and the county board notifiesthe secretary of state that the person has beenremoved from the county list. The file is thenflagged in the statewide registration databaseas that of a felon. The file is not removed butmade inactive.

Notification of removal There is no statutory requirement. An electionofficial in Pennington County said that thecounty sends a notice after the person hasbeen removed from the list. A MinnehahaCounty official said that they did not do so andasked, “Why would we do such a thing?”

1 South Dakota Constitution art. VII, § 2. South Dakota Codified Laws § 12-4-1.1.2 Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disfranchised. 3 South Dakota’s Constitution provides for a centralized court structure, the Unified Justice System.

31


TEXAS PURGE SUMMARYThe law The rights of people convicted of felonies aresuspended while the person is incarcerated, onparole or on probation. The right to vote isautomatically restored upon completion of thesentence.1


Sources of felony conviction dataU.S. attorneys, election agencies of otherstates, the Department of Public Safety(DPS).

Federal and out-of-state convictions U.S. attorneys report federal convictions tothe elections division of the secretary ofstate’s office. Election agencies of otherstates also report felony convictions to thesecretary of state. The information is thensent to the registrar in the county where theperson last resided.

In-state convictionsThe DPS prepares abstracts of final judg-ments and files them with the secretary ofstate. The secretary in turn files the informa-tion with the appropriate county registrar ofvoters.3

What information is sent?Texas has no statutory requirement.The secretary of state indicated thatDPS sends the person’s name, driver’slicense number, and date of birth.

Frequency of updatesWeekly (for both the DPS and the sec-retary of state).

Who performs the matching?While the secretary of state maintains thatmatches conducted at the state level are used toindicate “possible felons,” it is unclear what thecounties check, or whether they verify theinformation at all. Dallas County reported fol-lowing instructions from the secretary of state“to the letter.” Harris County said it simplyreceives notice that someone in the county is afelon and then removes that person from thevoter rolls. Neither county reported performingany sort of match.

What is a match?Texas has no specific criteria for officials todetermine a match. The secretary of statematches name, driver’s license number anddate of birth.

Notification of removal There is no statutory requirement. One stateelection official indicated that the local regis-trar sends a notice to the registrant informinghim or her that the registration is in jeopardyand allowing an opportunity to contest it beforeremoving the person’s name from the voter file.The notice informs the registrant that he or shehas 30 days to contest and provides a form,which may be submitted either in person or bymail. If the registrant fails to act within 30 days,the local registrar removes the individual fromthe voter file. A Harris County election officialconfirmed that the County sends a letter thatincludes questions pertaining to the person’scurrent eligibility status.

1 Texas Statutes § 11.002(4).2 Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disfranchised.3 Texas Statutes § 16.003

32

PURGED!

VIRGINIA PURGE SUMMARYThe law The rights of people convicted of felonies aresuspended while they are incarcerated, on paroleor on probation. Virginia permanently disfran-chises those with felony convictions. Individualswishing to regain their rights must wait fiveyears after the completion of their sentences andpetition the circuit court of the county of convic-tion, or in which they presently reside.1


Sources of felony conviction dataU.S. attorneys, election agencies of otherstates, and Central Criminal Records Exchange(CCRE).3

Federal and out-of-state convictions U.S. attorneys report federal convictions to thestate board of elections. Election agencies ofother states also report felony convictions tothe state board of elections. The information isthen sent to the county registrar where the per-son last resided.

In-state convictionsThe state board of elections receives the list offelonies from the CCRE electronically. Thestate board then sends the information to coun-ty registrars in the county where the person lastresided.

What information is sent?Courts are statutorily required to sendname, address, county, city, social secu-rity number, date of birth, and date ofconviction.4


Who performs the matching?State officials indicated that matching is doneat both the state and county levels, but it wasdifficult to determine the extent to whichmatching occurs at the state level. For exam-ple, we do not know if the state simply veri-fies that an individual is registered in a par-ticular county or does something more.

What is a match?The Prince William County registrar report-ed using social security number, date ofbirth, and address to determine a match.Another county election official wasunwilling to share what she considered amatch.

Notification of removal Counties are statutorily required to sendnotices. The registrar must publish thenames of the voters to be removed and pro-vide actual notice by mail to the last knownaddress of the voter. This notice mustinclude “when the registrar, at his officeduring regular office hours, will hear testi-mony produced for or against the right ofthe persons named in the notice to beretained on the registration records.” At thehearing, the registrar “shall determine if theregistered voter named in the notice is qual-ified to vote.” Voters who fail to appear todefend their right will have their registra-tion cancelled by the registrar.

1 Virginia Constitution, Art. II, § 1. 2 Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disfranchised.3 Central Criminal Records Exchange (CCRE) is a collection of information from law enforcement agencies and finaldispositions from clerks of courts. The State Board of Elections has access to the Non-Criminal Justice Interface(NCJI).4 Code of Virginia § 24.2-409.

33


34

PURGED!

1 We chose Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa,Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, New York,Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia. Ofthese states, Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania prohibitincarcerated felons from voting; California, New Yorkand South Dakota also prohibit felony parolees; Georgia,Louisiana, New Mexico and Texas also restrict proba-tioners; Arizona, Maryland, and Nevada are mixed statusstates, and Iowa and Virginia permanently disfranchisefelons.

2 Title III, Sec. 303(a) (1-5). While HAVA does addresspurges, HAVA voter registration databases will notentirely remedy purge list compilation, matching andnotification problems. First, HAVA only sets out gen-eral guidelines for purges. Second, given the varia-tions in state disfranchisement law, each state willneed to build into its HAVA database state-specificprocedures. We also note that 41 states are behindschedule.

3 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973gg (a) (1), (3).

4 We exclude Pennsylvania from these recommendationsbecause that state has no purge list.

5 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973gg-6(g). The NVRA covers all thestates in this survey.

6 Id. The NVRA grants the states considerable latitude inthe routine and systematic methods by which they mayensure the accuracy of their voter registration lists byremoving the names of those who are no longer eligible.As will become evident, states approach the rather tech-nical and detailed problems of list maintenance quite dif-ferently.

7 Id. This provision continues: “(3) On request of thechief State election official of a State or other State offi-cial with responsibility for determining the effect that aconviction may have on an offender’s qualification tovote, the United States attorney shall provide suchadditional information as the United States attorneymay have concerning the offender and the offense ofwhich the offender was convicted... (5) The chief Stateelection official shall notify the voter registration offi-cials of the local jurisdiction in which an offenderresides of the information received.” 42 U.S.C.Sec.1973gg-6(g) (3), (5).

8 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973gg-6(g) (4).

9 Information from federal courts and other states iseventually sent from the chief state election officials tothe local election agency responsible for removing con-victed felons from the lists. In some states, the chief

state election officials first verify that these individualsare registered in the statewide list, while others immedi-ately forward the information to the county where theindividual last resided.

10 Title III, Sec. 303 (a) (1-4) requires that each stateimplement a single, centralized computerized statewidevoter registration list that is coordinated with other in-state agency felony conviction data.

11 The other states, like South Dakota, that also disfran-chise incarcerated felons and felony parolees areCalifornia, Colorado, Connecticut and New York.

12 The state officials also report receiving social securitynumbers. Given data mining and identity theft concernswe do not advocate collection of this data. All informationcollected should be used only for matching, and must bestrictly safeguarded.

13 The other 15 states that also disfranchise prisoners,parolees and/or probationers and automatically restorethe right to vote when sentences have been served areAlaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Kansas,Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina,Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, West Virginia,and Wisconsin.

14 As of July 2004, this system was operational in 31ofNew Mexico’s 33 counties.

15 Again, we do not advocate collection of social securitynumbers.

16 While centralized county-administered voter regis-tration databases like New Mexico’s may provide morelocal control if an individual is erroneously purged, cen-tralized state-administered voter registration databas-es like South Dakota likely allow for greater accounta-bility from a specific agency in the event of a problem.For instance, if a particular county in New Mexico isreceiving inaccurate information from the courts orsystematically purging eligible voters, the problem maybe more difficult to detect at the local level. If problem-atic purges occur in South Dakota, the state can bemore easily audited and the errors more easily fixed.Conversely, placing authority for the maintenance ofsuch a centralized database in the hands of a few stateofficials could be used to facilitate large purges of eli-gible voters.

17 The District of Columbia and nine other states also dis-franchise only incarcerated felons. The nine states areHawaii, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana,New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon and Utah.

18 The nine states are Arizona, Alaska, Georgia, Hawaii,Kentucky, Minnesota, South Carolina, South Dakota andWest Virginia.

ENDNOTES

35


19 25 PA Cons. Stat. § 3146.1. Though the Pennsylvaniamodel may leave the state vulnerable to the possibility ofidentity theft, we found no reported instances of it.

20 Maryland election law disqualifies from voting personsconvicted of theft or other “infamous crime” unless: (a)the individual has been pardoned, (b) in connection witha first conviction, has completed the court-ordered sen-tence imposed for the conviction, including probation,parole, community service, restitutions, and fines, or (c)in connection with a subsequent conviction, has complet-ed the court-ordered sentence imposed for the convic-tion, including probation, parole, community service,restitutions, and fines, and at least 3 years have elapsedsince the completion of the court-ordered sentenceimposed for the conviction, including probation, parole,community service, restitutions, and fines; (d) is underguardianship or disability; (e) has been convicted of buy-ing or selling votes; (f) has committed a second or sub-sequent crime of violence. Maryland Constitution, Art. I,Elective Franchise, Section 4; Maryland Election Code,Election Article, Section 3-102(b)-(c).

21 JIS administers data processing systems, collects andanalyzes statistics, and maintains computer hardwareand software for the judiciary. JIS also helps state andlocal judicial agencies meet their data processing andinformation technology needs. From judicial data files,JIS provides information to judicial, criminal justice, andlaw enforcement agencies. JIS has been cited as difficultto use and prone to security breaches. School LibraryAssociation, 2003 (http://www.ibillio.org/slanews/con-ferences/sla2003/programs/Commercial_Public_Records.pdf); Government Computer News,2001(http://www.gcn.com/state/7_9/news/16732-1.html).

22 According to the Maryland Board of Elections’ website,“infamous crime” is any felony or crime involving an ele-ment of deceit, fraud, or corruption. The court-imposedsentence includes probation, parole, community service,restitutions and fines.” The site then provides a defini-tion of “Infamous Crimes” and directs those interestedto contact the attorney general’s office to ascertain thecurrent list of infamous crimes. Curiously, while theboard of elections includes “theft” as an infamous crime,state criminal statutes define theft below $500 as a mis-demeanor, and theft above $500 as a felony. Thoughstate board of elections officials advise us that they onlyconsider theft in excess of $500 to be a disqualifyingcrime, the definition of “infamous crimes” embraces yetother misdemeanors.

23 Pennsylvania aside, of course, since that state has nopurge list.

24 Legislation of matching criteria is vital but so is educa-tion of officials that they must adhere to it. In Georgia,despite the existence of legislation that sources of felony

conviction data provide several pieces of data, a FultonCounty official conducting matches admitted only usingindividuals’ name and address and thus erroneouslypurging a man with the same name and address as hisson who had been convicted of a felony but had neverregistered to vote. Thus, name and address are by them-selves insufficient matching criteria. Furthermore,unless mandated by statute, and educated about it, offi-cials conducting matches may in their discretion use lessthan all available data, leading to erroneous purges.Election officials in other states also expressed havingproblems matching when using few pieces of informa-tion, citing, for example, the probability that datawere entered incorrectly, transposed in some way orthat the address had likely changed.

25 The other states that only disfranchise incarceratedfelons are Hawaii, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan,Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon andUtah, and the District of Columbia.

26 Though the Pennsylvania model may leave the statevulnerable to the possibility of identity theft, we found noreported instances of it.

27 Only two other states surveyed double-checked match-es, Louisiana and Virginia.

28 An official in the state’s largest county, MinnehahaCounty, told us that five pieces of information, ratherthan ten, were matched: social security number, date ofbirth, first name, middle name, and last name. Even useof these five data points constitute better practice thanthat in most states. However, though state officialsreport matching social security numbers, we do notadvocate use of this data. We also reiterate that all infor-mation collected should be used only for matching, andmust be strictly safeguarded.

29 Flagging rather than deleting protects voters mistak-enly taken off voter registration lists. If at the polls a per-son learns that he or she is not on the voter registrationlist, that person is allowed to vote by provisional ballot.When the provisional ballot is checked, because thename was not removed from the database, elections offi-cials will be able to more easily trace and determine theaccuracy of the purge.

30 Counties in Arizona, California and Virginia also report-ed using discrepant matching criteria: In Arizona,Maricopa County reported having no purge list, whilePima County reported using the last four digits of thesocial security number or driver’s license number andparent’s name. In California, Los Angeles County offi-cials reported using name, date and place of birth whileSan Francisco County matched name, date of birth andaddress. In Virginia, a Fairfax County official would nottell us what information the county used to determine amatch, while a Prince William County official advised us

that county used date of birth, address and social secu-rity number.

31 Of the states surveyed, only Louisiana, South Dakotaand Virginia reported matching both at state and countylevels. Arizona and Texas county officials may or may notdouble check matches, at their discretion. The otherstates surveyed matched only at the county level(California, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico,New York, and Ohio. This list excludes Pennsylvaniabecause that state has no purge list.).

32 Studies in New York by the Brennan Center for Justice,in Minnesota by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil RightsUnder Law, and in Idaho by the Idaho Statesman alluncovered widespread confusion among state and localcounty agencies about restoration of voting rights.

36

PURGED!

37


National Office125 Broad Street, 18th Fl.New York, NY 10004-2400

(212) 549-2500www.aclu.org

Documents

How a patchwork of flawed and inconsistent voting systems ... -voting_report.pdfprosperity characterized by greater opportunity. Founded in 1999, Demos’ work combines research with