Selected Jurisdictions Reported Challenges Processing Voter Registration Applications and Various Steps They Took to Address Them

In our survey of election officials, all but one of the jurisdictions reported  that they faced challenges receiving and processing voter registration  applications and that they took various steps to address them. Election  officials reported taking steps to address these challenges by hiring extra  staff, among other things. Over the past few years, our work and the work  of others have found that challenges processing voter registration  applications can result in eligible citizens not being registered to vote on  Election Day. Election Officials in Half of the 14 Jurisdictions Reported Challenges Checking Voter Registration Applications for Completeness, Accuracy, or Duplicates

Election officials representing 7 of the 14 jurisdictions also reported that  their staff experienced challenges, to some extent or a great extent,  checking voter registration applications for completeness, accuracy, or  duplicates. Our June 2005 report identified list  maintenance challenges faced by election officials in the 14 jurisdictions  because of problems using felony, death, and other information from  existing data sources to verify the accuracy of voter registration data. In addition, election officials in 12 of  the 14 jurisdictions reported that their jurisdictions offered certain first- time voters—those who had registered by mail after January 1, 2003, but  did not provide a copy of required identification when they applied to  register to vote—the opportunity to cast provisional ballots even if they  were unable to provide identification at the polling place. Local election officials in 8 of the 14 jurisdictions said that they  experienced challenges implementing provisional voting for the November  2004 election. In these jurisdictions, the election officials said that they  viewed provisional voting as a challenge for various reasons, including  some poll workers were not familiar with provisional voting or, in one  jurisdiction representing a large number of precincts, staff reported not  having sufficient time to process provisional ballots. To address these  challenges, the officials reported that they provided additional training to  poll workers and hired additional staff to count provisional ballots within  the time frames allowed. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Our objectives were to describe election officials’ characterization of their  experiences in 14 jurisdictions within 7 states with regard to the  November 2004 election:  (1) managing the voter registration process and  any challenges related to receiving voter registration applications,  checking them for completeness, accuracy, and duplication; and entering  information into voter registration lists; (2) removing voter names from  voter registration lists and ensuring that the names of eligible voters were  not inadvertently removed; and (3) implementing provisional voting and  identification requirements in accordance with HAVA and addressing any  challenges encountered. Consistent with our objectives, our survey focused primarily on (1)  challenges, if any, processing voter registration applications, specifically,  challenges receiving voter registration applications from MVAs, other  NVRA agencies, and voter registration drives sponsored by non- governmental organizations; checking voter registration applications for  completeness, accuracy, and duplicates; and entering voter information  into registration lists or systems; (2) whether voters names were removed  from voter registration lists, reasons why names were removed, and steps  taken to ensure that voters names were not inadvertently removed; and (3)  HAVA’s provisional voting and first-time voter identification requirements,  specifically, the number of provisional ballots cast and counted, including  reasons, if any, why jurisdictions did not count provisional ballots; how  voters were informed about provisional voting and its outcome; and  whether first-time voters who registered by mail were allowed to cast  provisional ballots if they did not provide identification. These challenges occurred due to incomplete applications. Postal Service showed that the voter had  moved to another jurisdiction or felony records identified the voter as  ineligible due to a felony conviction;    sent a letter or postcard to the voter to confirm that the voter wanted  his/her name removed from the voter registration list as requested;    sent a letter to the voter notifying of removal because court records  identified the voter as ineligible due to mental incompetence;    sent a letter to the deceased voter’s next of kin notifying of removal  and asking for confirmation of the voter’s death;    contacted the funeral home to obtain the deceased voter’s identifying  information (such as name, date of birth, and address);    matched information from a newspaper obituary with information from  the state/county vital statistics offices; and    matched the voter’s identifying information (such as name, address,  date of birth, and social security number) contained in the voter  registration list with information received from various sources on  changes of address (i.e., the U.S. No state or local election officials  contacted the MVA office.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO's past work and the work of others has shown that challenges processing voter registration applications and maintaining voter registration lists can result in individuals arriving at polls on Election Day to find they were not listed as registered. GAO surveyed local election officials in 14 jurisdictions in 7 states (AZ, CA, MI, NY, TX, VA, and WI) to obtain their views on managing voter registration for the 2004 election. GAO selected the 7 states considering characteristics relevant to voter registration, such as whether a statewide voter registration list existed prior to the enactment of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002. Locations were selected within each state to represent one small and one large election jurisdiction. This report discusses election officials' characterization of (1) challenges receiving voter registration applications, including checking them for completeness; (2) removing voters' names from voter registration lists and ensuring that names were not inadvertently removed; and (3) implementing HAVA's provisional voting and identification requirements. HAVA, in part, requires that states offer provisional ballots to voters not listed as registered who declare eligibility and first-time voters who registered by mail after January 1, 2003, and could not provide identification. GAO offered election officials the opportunity to verify the accuracy of their responses used to prepare this report.

What GAO Found

Local election officials representing all but 1 of the 14 jurisdictions GAO surveyed after the November 2004 election reported facing some challenges processing voter registration applications and took steps to address them. Processing applications received from voter registration drives sponsored by non-governmental organizations posed a challenge to election officials in 12 of the 14 jurisdictions, while half of the officials reported challenges receiving applications from other external sources, such as motor vehicle agencies. Challenges occurred in processing these applications for reasons such as incomplete or inaccurate information on voter registration applications. Half of the officials reported that their offices faced challenges checking applications for completeness, accuracy, or duplicates, citing, among other things, insufficient staffing to check the applications. Steps taken by election officials to address these and other challenges included hiring additional staff to handle the volume of applications received and contacting applicants to get correct information. All but 1 of the 14 election officials reported that, using various sources of information, they removed names from voter registration lists during 2004 if, for example, voters had moved, were deceased, or were ineligible due to a felony conviction. To help ensure names of eligible voters were not inadvertently removed from voter registration lists, officials reported contacting voters to confirm removal, matched voters' identifying information (such as name and address) with address changes provided by the U.S. Postal Service, and matched voter registration records with felony or death records. GAO reported in June 2005 about problems officials in these same jurisdictions experienced verifying voter information with death or felony information from existing data sources. GAO's survey showed that all 14 election jurisdictions permitted citizens to cast provisional ballots during the November 2004 election. HAVA gives states discretion to implement provisional voting based on state voter eligibility requirements. According to the election officials surveyed, about 423,000 provisional ballots were cast in 13 of the 14 jurisdictions, and 70 percent of those votes were counted. Also, 8 of the 14 jurisdictions reported challenges implementing provisional voting, in part, because some poll workers were not familiar with provisional voting or staff did not have sufficient time to process provisional ballots. To address these challenges, election officials in these jurisdictions said they hired extra staff or provided training to poll workers.