Which of the following election reforms is designed to make voting easier?
Stark partisan dividing lines in Congress currently distract from potential areas of common ground in fostering an election system that puts voters first by being fair, accessible, secure, and transparent. These crucial topics include voter registration, voter identification, options to vote before Election Day, clean and accurate voter rolls, and audits. Show
This report outlines a realistic framework for bipartisan election legislation. If implemented, this framework would massively improve election administration and Americans’ voting experience. Federal election legislation, while rare, has a long track record of being bipartisan. For as much attention as members of Congress and the public have paid to how Americans vote, the most recent comprehensive elections bill passed in October 2002. But the urgent need for shoring election infrastructure becomes more obvious with each election. This report authored by a working group of five nonprofit think tanks elevates the election and voting reforms that have gotten lost in the highly partisan federal debate about elections. The working group comprises individuals from five nonprofit think tanks from across the political spectrum: Bipartisan Policy Center, American Enterprise Institute, Issue One, R Street Institute, and Unite America. The data used in this report is sourced from Voting Rights Lab. We came together to publish this report to ensure that important concepts—such as accessible voter registration and accurate voter rolls—are understood to be nonpartisan proposals that will improve elections and not benefit one party more than another. Many of the policy suggestions outlined in this report draw on recommendations made by BPC’s Task Force on Elections, which includes 29 state and local election officials from 20 states devoted to making meaningful improvements to U.S. elections. The report references the task force’s recommendations made in Logical Election Policy, Improving the Voting Experience After 2020, and Bipartisan Principles for Election Audits. The proposals in this report also align with several findings from commissions focused on U.S. democracy, including the Carter-Baker Commission, a 2005 bipartisan group that produced 87 recommendations on federal election reform that was revisited in 2021 through a series of webinars. The recommendations also track the Presidential Commission on Election Administration, a task force led by Bob Bauer and Ben Ginsberg that produced a report with recommendations for state legislative action in 2014. Share
Federal and State Government Roles in ElectionsThe current partisan debate in Congress about elections and voting overshadows the history of successful federal legislation, referenced in Appendix A, when both parties came together to improve and secure the voting experience. The federal government has acted decisively in the past to enhance access, security, and transparency in the election system and to provide funding. Congress can continue to ensure these baseline principles through consistent minimum standards backed by much-needed and regular funding for states to implement them. In March 2020, Congress worked expeditiously to provide $400 million in urgently needed emergency election funds to states at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. This funding ensured the safety and security of the 2020 election. Local and state election officials across the country need federal support now to do their jobs. It is time for Congress to provide this support. States should take the lead on crafting voting systems that build on existing options and meet unique local needs. There are numerous examples of how election modernizations like those recommended here have been effectively and fairly used in blue, red, and battleground states. In 2021, Virginia passed a series of bills expanding early and absentee voting and improving automated voter registration and ushered in a slate of Republican officials in its next election. Importantly, states must have flexibility to implement minimum standards in ways that meet the unique needs of their voters. Funding ElectionsElections in this country are underfunded. That reality led to an influx of private philanthropic funds in 2020. Those funds may not be coming again, and ideally should not be relied upon since funding elections is an inherently governmental responsibility. Regular, annual federal funding is the mechanism to incentivize the adoption of the policy suggestions outlined in this report. Elections are chronically underfunded and, currently, there is no regularized funding for elections at the federal level. Federal mandates often go unfunded, which weakens legitimacy when election officials lack the resources needed to comply with federal law. The U.S. must better fund domestic democratic processes, like elections. This working group believes that annual, federal funding tied to the minimum standards outlined below incentivizes states to implement critical election infrastructure policies, while maintaining the authority of states to administer their own elections. Tying future funding to continued implementation further incentivizes this bipartisan policy package and creates an opportunity for the federal government to contribute to the ongoing cost of elections. Finally, mandating states match federal funding demonstrates continued commitment to election infrastructure. States that meet the federal minimum standards outlined below by 2024 should be eligible for grants accessible through the federal government. The incentive-based legislative framework, outlined below, requires investment at the federal level. For states that meet the federal minimum standards for voter registration, casting a ballot and counting the vote, the federal government should provide access to grants at the state level. A possible formula for determining the amount of funding per state is to consider $10 per vote cast in the previous presidential election distributed over the subsequent four years. For example, if a state had 7 million ballots cast, it would receive $17.5 million each fiscal year for election administration purposes until the next presidential election resets the multiplier. This is only an example of one possibility for the federal government to fund elections. These funding parameters are just a starting point for the discussion on how federal funding can support election administration at the state and local level. There will need to be a balance between the incentive structure necessary to encourage participation with federal budget constraints. Congress is in the best position to balance these factors. States should match a proportion of the funds received through grants and spend grants or document a budget demonstrating a spending plan for the grants within the federal fiscal year. Federal funding incentivizes states to invest in their election processes. The grants from Congress should be matched by states, so that states demonstrate investment in their election infrastructure. This working group does not have a recommendation for the percentage of matching but trusts that Congress can decide on a number. Grants should be spent within the federal fiscal year or accounted for in a budget that demonstrates a spending plan for the grants, to keep accurate and timely records of election spending year over year. A regular, annual investment in elections by Congress demonstrates a commitment to the legitimacy and security of the voting process. Achievable Policy OptionsRather than providing a one-size-fits-all federal mandate, this working group posits that the key to bipartisan compromise is through federal election funding for states that meet the minimum standards proposed in this report. To ensure that feasible federal election reform options do not get lost in the overheated partisan debate occurring in Congress, this working group identifies four key areas to reframe the conversation about federal election reform: voter registration, casting a ballot, counting the vote, and cybersecurity and physical security. Each policy suggestion described below relies on the other suggestions and minimum standards this working group recommends. The purpose of this report is to highlight the synergy of these measures to strengthen our elections and encourage both parties to develop joint proposals in these four key areas. Individual policy recommendations are endorsed by this group as part of a comprehensive package. These four areas each contain suggestions that are supported by either Democrats, Republicans or both at the state or federal level. The working group believes compromise can be achieved by engaging directly with the areas with the potential for bipartisan support. As with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002, careful negotiation and an incentive-based grant structure will be the foundation of any federal election bill that passes through Congress. Reforms in these four key areas should not make a partisan impact and will improve election administration, voter confidence, and democracy in the U.S. Currently, Colorado and Georgia meet all the recommendations detailed in this report. Seven additional states—Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington—meet all except one of our proposed standards. The goal would be for all states to be incentivized to meet all standards through federal grants. This working group proposes minimum federal standards in the following key areas: voter registration, casting a ballot, counting the vote, and cybersecurity and physical security. The individual recommendations suggested in each of these areas should not be taken out of context from the greater policy area. Voter RegistrationDemocrats and Republicans agree that accessible, secure, and reliable voter registration processes are critical to fair elections. The opportunity for voters to register to vote through state and federal agencies, like the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and through online means ensures that election administrators have accurate and up-to-date voter rolls. Timely and regular voter list maintenance enhances public trust by ensuring that only eligible voters receive and cast ballots. This pairing of accessible voter registration and timely voter list maintenance addresses election priorities on both sides of the aisle. The working group endorses the following package of federal policies to advance security and access in voter registration:
Casting a BallotHistorically, the expansion of early voting options and voting by mail has occurred in Republican and Democratic controlled states. Texas and Tennessee were two of the earliest adopters of early in-person voting. California, Oregon, and Colorado were earlier adopters of voting by mail. The expansion of options for voters to cast their ballot is in the interest of both parties. Though our elections are secure, the implementation of a standardized minimum for verifying voter identity requirements could mitigate concerns over fraudulent voting. Pairing voter identification standards with the expansion of voting by mail and early voting options addresses both Republican and Democrat priorities to improve voter turnout and ensure fair ballot casting.
Counting the VoteThe days after an election are especially prone to misinformation as election officials continue to count and process ballots while voters demand results. The problems that occur due to the lack of standardized ballot return dates contribute to mistrust in the election system and delay the reporting of results. High demand for unofficial election results after the close of polls conflicts with the necessity for accurate and secure vote counting procedures, placing election administrators in a tug of war between speed and accuracy. Election administrators work long hours and the lack of uniformity among states, and voters’ lack of knowledge, leads to confusion among voters as to why results are delivered at widely different times across states. By addressing the lack of standardization in states’ post-election timelines and coupling this with an increased timeline for election administrators to process ballots before the election, the release of unofficial election results could become expedited and more secure.
Cybersecurity and Physical SecuritySince the 2016 election, the federal government has begun efforts to support the cybersecurity of state and local election offices. The importance of continued cybersecurity funding and guidance in elections cannot be denied by either party. Additionally, recent threats to the lives of election officials, experienced by Republican and Democratic election officials alike, indicates the need to consider physical security with the same seriousness as cybersecurity. The following suggestions represent a combination of bipartisan cybersecurity and physical security policies that could be implemented to enhance election safety and security across the U.S.:
Georgia and Colorado already meet these election administration standards today. Seven additional states, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington are only missing one of these standards. Three states—Arizona, Florida, and Hawaii—meet every standard except for automated voter registration and a full integration of their election offices with other state and federal agencies covered by the existing NVRA. Eighteen of the 50 states already meet at least 75% of these expectations. The lowest takeup of the standards so far falls in the voter registration bucket, specifically around NVRA-related automation. Only 19 states have implemented some form of automated voter registration. Nearly 70% of states already require some type of voter identification, and nearly 75% offer early voting for at least seven days. There are a few notable states to highlight. Kentucky meets 73% of these standards without having AVR implemented. New York state trails Kentucky, with only 55% of standards met. ConclusionA federal election reform bill that provides funding to states that meet a reasonable set of minimum standards for voter registration, casting a ballot, vote counting, and cybersecurity and physical security could usher in a new, durable era in election administration. To instill national confidence in the fairness and security of our elections, the parties should take the first step to agree on the very basics of the mechanics of voting. Establishing a floor that all voters can understand that is achievable for election officials and respects resource constraints has the potential to significantly secure elections and improve the voting experience for years to come. End Notes:1 Please see Appendix B to view the source for this metric. Appendix A: The Bipartisan History of Federal Voting ReformThe Bipartisan Policy Center has long held that “Congress must look back to move ahead” on federal election reform. The last three major election laws enacted at the federal level offer real lessons on how to move beyond partisan talking points and into meaningful dialogue. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993, and the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) of 1986 all passed Congress with bipartisan support. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 also received bipartisan support in the House and the Senate. HAVA was built on compromise; it maintained state and local control of elections while beginning to carve out space for more robust federal involvement. Each of the bill’s big-ticket policy wins was the result of careful negotiation and relied on an incentive-based grant structure. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Chris Dodd (D-CT) were early supporters of HAVA. This working group adopts a HAVA-inspired grant structure to incentivize adoption of the standards outlined in this report. HAVA established the EAC to assist states with federal elections and provide guidance around election laws and programs; provided funds for states to replace outdated voting systems; and created minimum election administration standards for states and local government responsible for the administration of federal elections. While NVRA passed with less bipartisan support than HAVA, the minimum standards approach effectively implemented voter registration requirements across states. NVRA represents a commitment to accessibility, and prioritizes the needs of voters by providing opportunities to register to vote through state Departments of Motor Vehicles. NVRA arguably does not do enough to provide funding and resources to election offices to ensure compliance with all of the procedures outlined in the law. It also can make it more difficult to keep voter rolls clean in a now-highly mobile society. UOCAVA was approved by a Republican-controlled Senate and a Democrat-controlled House by voice vote, so no record of individual votes was made, but the absence of a roll call vote suggests widespread support across parties for the bill. UOCAVA’s passage demonstrated a commitment to accessibility and the adoption of secure technology to allow certain groups of citizens to register and vote absentee in elections for Federal offices. UOCAVA covers members and families of the U.S. Uniformed Service and merchant marines and U.S. citizens residing outside the U.S.¬¬¬ Appendix B: Methodology and SourcesThis report details a suite of policy options that are achievable at the federal level. To demonstrate the extent to which these policies are already in place at the state level, BPC compiled data from a variety of sources on which states currently meet each of the minimum standards included in this report. This section documents the sources, means of data collection, methodology, and other considerations for the data used for this report. Partisan Composition of State Governments Data on partisan composition of state governments was obtained from Ballotpedia. While data was compiled by BPC on January 6, 2022 (prior to Virginia’s gubernatorial transition), Virginia was considered as having a Republican executive for the purposes of this report. Data on State Compliance with Minimum Standards BPC collected data on state compliance with the minimum standards laid forth in this report from Voting Rights Lab and Verified Voting. Below is a detailed list of where data was obtained for each section of the report. Please contact the authors of this report for the full dataset. Voter RegistrationCasting a BallotCounting the VoteCybersecurity and Physical Security This report includes recommendations on cybersecurity and physical security targeted at the federal government. As we believe the federal government is best suited to take the lead on enhancing election security, we did not include these recommendations in our assessment of state compliance with the report. Download the report Download the one-pager Download the state compliance infographic Support Research Like ThisWith your support, BPC can continue to fund important research like this by combining the best ideas from both parties to promote health, security, and opportunity for all Americans. Donate NowRelated Articles
The California Effect Seen Through Children’s Online Privacy
Building Higher Education Rainy Day Funds
The Congressional Legacy of U.S. Rep. Barber B. Conable (R-NY)Join Our Mailing ListBPC drives principled and politically viable policy solutions through the power of rigorous analysis, painstaking negotiation, and aggressive advocacy. What are some reforms that might increase the voting rate quizlet?Eliminate registration or make it much easier, another possible reform is to make either voting or registration mandatory and fining people who don't do it.
What are the 3 different types of voting systems?Mixed member majoritarian. Single non-transferable vote.
What are the three factors that influence voting?The three cleavage-based voting factors focused on in research are class, gender and religion. Firstly, religion is often a factor which influences one's party choice.
Which of the following is most likely to vote quizlet?People age 65 and older are the most likely to vote, and those between 18 and 24 are the least likely.
|