- LDF’s analysis of the amended Secure Elections Act (S. 2593)
- LDF submitted a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration with analysis of the Secure Elections Act
- LDF’s analysis of the Secure Elections Act (S. 2261)
July 19, 2017: LDF President Harvey Tettlebaum was quoted on the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity in The New York Times:
“We are disappointed with those who choose to condemn the commission even before it has met and certainly before its work product is known,” the president of one conservative advocacy group active on election issues, Harvey Tettlebaum of the Lawyers Democracy Fund, said in an email this week. And conservatives say there is now so much concern about the integrity of elections that the public demands more safeguards against fraud.
October 17, 2016: LDF Board Member Joanne Young published an op-ed about the importance of procedures to protect both election integrity and voter confidence in the outcome of elections:
[T]he Left remains obstinate. Indeed, for the past year, Democrats have filed endless lawsuits against voter-integrity laws and complained that measures to improve election security will burden or disenfranchise voters.
Here’s the truth. In the aftermath of the infamous 2000 election, a blue-ribbon commission was created. It was chaired by former Democratic president Jimmy Carter and former Republican secretary of state James Baker. The commission recommended a simple, serviceable, and straightforward solution: require voters to present a voter ID before they can vote.
And yet, the Left fights measures like this every step of the way. It will tell you it’s oppressive to get an ID — even though the Supreme Court has ruled that a trip to an election office or the DMV does not place an undue burden on voters. Indeed, the Left opposes any real effort to keep the rolls accurate, even simply to remove the names of non-citizens, dead people, and those who have moved and registered in another state. . . . Inaccurate voter rolls also exponentially increase the potential for fraud.
August 3, 2016: Last Friday, the 4th Circuit issued a decision in NAACP v. McCrory, the challenge to North Carolina’s voter ID law and other election reforms. LDF filed an amicus brief in NAACP v. McCrory, which was the only brief to defend the law against the court’s argument that it was enacted with a racially discriminatory intent.
[A graphic] purports to show the great success of Oregon Motor Voter program and claims that automatically-registered voters had good turnout numbers in the May 2016 Oregon primary election. But it is based on several fundamental errors. And it entirely omits the turnout result for 84% of all Automatic registrants–the non-affiliated voters, of whom only 6% turned out to vote in the primary election (compared with 23% of traditionally-registered non-affiliated voters).
The graph seems to say that a higher percentage of Automatic registrants turned out that Traditional registrants. But, in fact, the overall turnout of the Automatic registrants was 18.7%. The overall turnout of all registrants together was 53.7%. That means that the turnout of the Traditional registrants was in excess of 53.7%.
July 25, 2016: The Illinois legislature passed a mandatory voter registration bill, which is now under consideration by the governor. In addition to all the problems normally associated with mandatory voter registration, the proposal in Illinois is opposed by the State Board of Elections and would place a financial and logistical burden on a state that is facing a budget crisis. Learn more about SB0250 by clicking here. Learn more about the problems with mandatory voter registration in Illinois: Illinois Mandatory Voter Registration Talking Points.
May 16, 2016: Oregon’s closed primary is Tuesday, May 17, and many voters added to the state’s voter registration rolls through its new mandatory voter registration program will be disenfranchised in the primary.
LDF Board Member Joanne Young explains the problem: Oregon’s Mandatory Voting Law Backfires, Could Lead To Primary Disenfranchisement.
Even the mainstream press recognized the issue, though it is generally in favor of mandatory voter registration: Oregon automatic voter registration a success, with a hitch.
As of April 30, 76% of voters registered through Oregon’s new automatic voter registration system had not declared a party affiliation. Unless they registered a party affiliation by April 26, they will not be able to vote in Oregon’s closed presidential primary on May 17.
April 25, 2016: Judge Schroeder of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina issued a 479-page decision dismissing all challenges to North Carolina’s changes in voting laws: voter ID, elimination of same-day registration, shortening of the early voting period, elimination of pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds, and requiring voters to vote in their assigned precincts.
April 7, 2016: LDF Board Member Joanne Young published an op-ed about the DMV’s mishandling of voter registration data and the risks of expanding the DMV’s role through automatic voter registration: The DMV Has a Terrible Track Record of Handling Voter Registration.
February 8, 2016: LDF Board Member Joanne Young writes an op-ed in the Daily Caller – “How Hard Would It Be to Steal the New Hampshire Primary?”