expanding voter registration for low income ohioans

8/9/2019 Expanding Voter Registration for Low Income Ohioans

1/24


2/24

About Demos

Dmos is a non-partisan public policy research and advocacy organization. Headquartered inNew York City, Dmos works with advocates and policymakers around the country in pursuito our overarching goals: a more equitable economy; a vibrant and inclusive democracy; anempowered public sector that works or the common good; and responsible U.S. engagement in aninterdependent world.

Dmos was ounded in 2000.

Miles S. Rapoport , PresidentTamara Draut , Vice President o Policy & Programs

About the Democracy Program

Te Democracy Program works to strengthen democracy in the United States by reducing

barriers to voter participation and encouraging civic engagement, focusing on barriers

to participation by traditionally disfranchised communities. Demos supports expandeddemocratic participation by conducting research; engaging in pro-voter litigation; providing

information, resources and technical assistance to advocates and policymakers; and advancing a

broad agenda for election reform.

Brenda Wright , Director of the Democracy Program


3/24

About the Author

Lisa Danetz is Senior Counsel in the Democracy Program at Dmos, where or the past ouryears her primary responsibilities have ocused on implementation o Section 7 o the NationalVoter Registration Act. She has worked cooperatively with and also litigated against statesregarding implementation o the National Voter Registration Act, and has engaged in advocacybeore Congress and ederal executive ofces on the issue. Lisa has published and been arequent speaker on voting rights issues, including testimony regarding agency-based voterregistration beore the Senate Rule Committee as well as the Subcommittee on Elections othe Committee on House Administration. Prior to joining Demos, Lisa spent ve years at theNational Voting Rights Institute, several years in the private sector doing civil litigation, and

held judicial clerkships with United States Circuit Judge Ruggero J. Aldisert, Jr., and UnitedStates District Judge Stanley R. Chesler. She received her B.S. rom Yale University and herJ.D. cum laude rom New York University School o Law.

Acknowledgements

Scott Novakowski , Senior Policy Analyst;Al legra Chapman , Counsel;and Susan Gershon , Counsel, provided editing and assistance or this report.


4/24

AmeliA WArren TyAgi, BoArd ChAir

CoFounder & eVP/Coo, The Business TalenT GrouP

miles rApoporT, presidenT

demos

mArk C. AlexAnder

ProFessor oF law, seTon hall uniVersiTy

Ben BinsWAnger

ChieF oPeraTinG oFFiCer, The Case Fou ndaTion

rAj dATe

Chairman & exeCuTiVe direCTor, CamBridGe winTer

mAriA eChAvesTe

CoFounder, nueVa VisTa GrouP

ginA glAnTz

senior adVisor, seiu

Amy hAnAuer

FoundinG exeCuTiVe dir eCTor, PoliCy maTTers ohio

sTephen heinTz

PresidenT, ro CkeFeller BroThers Fu nd

sAng ji

ParTner, whiTe & Case llP

vAn jones

CenTer For ameriCan ProGress

ClArissA mArTinez de CAsTro

direCTor oF immiGraTion & naTional CamPaiGns,

naTional CounCil oF la raza

rev. jAneT mCCune edWArds

PresByTerian mini sTer

Arnie millerFounder, isaaCson miller

john morning

GraPhiC desiGner

Wendy puriefoy

PresidenT, PuB liC eduCaTion neTwork

jAneT shenk

senior ProGram oFFiCer, PanTa rhea Foun daTion

Adele simmons

ViCe Chair, ChiCaGo meTroPolis 2020

dAvid skAggs

pAul sTArr

CoediTor, The ameriCan ProsPeCT

Ben TAylor

Chairman, The ameriCan ProsPeCT

ruTh Wooden

PresidenT, PuB liC aGenda

Demos Board of Trustees

Current Members


5/24

Members, Past & On Leave

presidenT BArACk oBAmA

Tom CAmpBell

ChrisTine Chen

juAn figueroA

roBerT frAnklin

ChArles r. hAlpern

FoundinG Board Chair, emeriTus

sArA horoWiTz

eriC liu

spenCer overTon

roBerT reiCh

lindA TArr-WhelAn

ernesT Tollerson

Aliations are listed or identication purposes only. As with all Dmos publications,the views expressed in this report do not necessarily refect the views o the Dmos Board o Trustees.


6/24


7/24

Table of Con tents

1 Introduction

2 Section 7 of the NVRA

3 Examining Ohios Record on Public Agency Voter Registration

4 Contacting the State

5 Who Was Responsible for Ohios Violation of Federal Law?

7 Ohios Disregard of its Voter Registration Responsibilities

9 Mediation and Settlement

11 The Numbers Show Substantial Improvement

12 Conclusion

13 Endnotes


8/24

1 Ohio Repor t

In t roduct ion

Democracy works as intended when all citizens are able to participate and make their voices heard.While the United States has come a long way in expanding the ranchise over the past 220 years,barriers to participation still exist and these barriers disproportionately aect low-income citizens.In 2008, the registration gap between low-income and high-income citizens was over 19 percentagepoints.1

Signicantly, millions olow-income citizens could be brought into the political process eachyear by proper implementation o an oten-neglected provision o the National Voter RegistrationAct (NVRA), which requires states to provide voter registration services to low-income personsthrough public assistance ofces.2 Ohios experiencethe subject o this reportprovides a case inpoint, and oers valuable lessons both or advocates and or state ofcials seeking to encourage

voter registration and achieve the ull promise o the NVRA.

In the winter o 2005-2006, data analysis and eld investigations showed that Ohio was, and ormany years had been, violating its obligation to provide voter registration services to persons servedby the Ohio Department o Job and Family Services. To rectiy the situation in Ohio, Dmos andits partners at the Lawyers Committee or Civil Rights Under Law and Project Vote, with helprom pro bono law rm Dechert LLP, brought a lawsuit on behal o low-income Ohio citizens

who had not received the required voter registration services.

Ater more than three years o hard-ought litigation, the lawsuit ended with a comprehensivesettlement agreement in November 2009. As a result o the settlement agreement, Ohio hasbegun to see dramatic improvement in its perormance, with 101,604 persons completing voterregistration applications at state public assistance ofces in the rst six months o implementation,or approximately 16,900 per monthan increase o over 950 percent compared to the 1,775registration applications per month produced by these same ofces prior to the lawsuit.3

What ollows is the story o Ohios path toward meaningul implementation o the NVRAsrequirements or voter registration services at state public assistance ofces, and what thisexperience shows about the elements o a successul program.


9/24

Sect ion 7 of the NVRA

Section 7 o the NVRA requires states to provide voter registration services at all public assistanceofces.4 In particular, each public assistance ofce must, at a minimum, do the ollowing:

Distribute a voter registration application and a voter notice orm (sometimes called adeclination orm) with each application, recertication, renewal, or change o address

with respect to the receipt o benets.5

Provide assistance in completing the voter registration orms to the same degree theagency provides assistance in completing its own orms.6

Accept completed voter registration applications and transmit them promptly to theappropriate elections ofcial.

Because it reaches low-income citizens at the government ofces they are most likely to visit, thepublic agency voter registration mandated by the NVRA is especially important in states withsignicant poverty.


10/24

3 Ohio Repor t

Examining Ohios Record

on Publ ic Agency VoterRegistrat ion

Ohio is a state with signicant levels o poverty. In 2006, when Dmos led its lawsuit, the statewas reported to be home to some o the highest rates o poverty and some o the lowest householdincomes in the United States.8 Cleveland had the highest poverty rate among big cities in theUnited States and also had the lowest median household income o any big city in the UnitedStates.9 Cincinnati joined Cleveland on the list o poorest places, at number eight.10 And the

poverty rate in Columbus increased almost 2 percentage points between 2004 and 2005.11

In the winter o 2005-2006, Dmos and its partners began to look into Ohios implementationo Section 7 o the NVRA, and we were disturbed by what we ound. First, the availabledata showed little voter registration activity at the states public assistance ofces and, indeed,suggested that voter registration opportunities likely were not being provided there. Many ofceso the Department o Job and Family Services (DJFS), which administers public assistance inOhio, reported registering extremely ew clients. In ten counties, DJFS ofces did not registera single voter in two years12; DJFS ofces in another 17 counties each collected ewer than ten

voter registrations13; and DJFS ofces in 32 additional counties each submitted ewer than 100registrations14 during the 2003-2004 reporting period. Moreover, the most recent availableCensus data showed an income-based registration gap o 24 percentage points: Only 68 percent oOhioans in households making less than $15,000 a year were registered to vote versus 92 percent oindividuals in households making $75,000 or more.15

Second, on-site visits substantiated the concerns that Ohio was not providing the voter registrationservices required by the NVRA. In the all o 2005, spot-checks at the DJFS ofces in Lorain,Franklin, Delaware, Lake, and Cuyahoga counties revealed that the ofces did not even have voterregistration application orms on site.16 In the early winter, interviewers spoke to 103 people whohad gone to DJFS ofces or transactions covered under the NVRA and only three o those peoplereported being provided a orm that asked whether they wanted to register to vote.17

Interestingly, during this time period, at least one small county in the state showed the greatpotential o eective NVRA Section 7 implementation. In the 2003-2004 period, 1,027 voterregistration applications were collected in Athens County,18 a rural county o approximately 60,000residents in southeast Ohio.19 Because o the leadership o its local county DJFS director, this smallcounty DJFS ofce collected more voter registration application orms than did its counterparts insuch highly populated counties as Franklin, Hamilton, Montgomery, and Summit Counties, eacho which had more than 500,000 residents and exceeded the statewide percentage o persons belowthe poverty line.20 Indeed, these our highly populated counties registered a combined total o just1,686 voters at DJFS ofces during the relevant time period.21


11/24

Contact ing the S tate

To address Ohios clear problems in complying with the public agency voter registration provisionso the NVRA, Dmos and its partners sent a notice letter to the Ohio Secretary o State and theDirector o the Ohio Department o Job and Family Services. A local activist organization sentsimilar letters.22 Such a notice letter is required by the NVRA beore the onset o litigation toprovide a state with the opportunity to cure the problem.

Unortunately, Ohio was not interested in correcting its violation o ederal law. e response senton behal o then-Secretary o State Kenneth Blackwell disclaimed any responsibility to ensurecompliance with the NVRA and asserted that Ohio already had enough registered voters.23 Dmosand its partners made a urther attempt to avoid litigation through a letter oering to meet with theSecretarys ofce to try to address the compliance issues, but received no response.

In late September 2006, Dmos and its partners thereore led a lawsuit against the Secretaryo State and the Director o the Ohio Department o Jobs and Family Services. e lawsuit wason behal o Carrie Harkless and Tameca Mardis, two public assistance recipients who were notoered voter registration when they sought public assistance benets at Ohio DJFS ofces, and on

behal o the Association o Community Organizations or Reorm Now (ACORN), which otenconducted voter registration drives in ront o DJFS ofces because DJFS ofces were ailing toprovide the voter registration services required by ederal law.


12/24

5 Ohio Repor t

Who Was Responsible

for Ohios Violat ion ofFederal Law?

From Dmos perspective, the state ofcials responsibility or the ailed NVRA compliance wasclear-cut. Federal law, through the NVRA, imposes responsibilities upon each statewith respectto voter registration or ederal elections, and thereore state ocials must be held accountable ora ailure o compliance. Dmos lawsuit thereore named as deendants: (1) the Secretary o State,as the chie election ofcer, and (2) the Director o the Ohio Department o Job and Family

Services, as the head o the single state agency, the entity responsible under ederal law or theadministration o ederally unded public assistance in the state.

Both o these Ohio ofcials denied that they had responsibility or ensuring that DJFS ofcesprovide the required voter registration services. Secretary o State Kenneth Blackwell indicatedin court lings that he viewed his NVRA responsibilities as strictly limited to the adoption oadministrative rules detailing the duties o designated agencies and the creation o a trainingprogram or such agenciesembodied in an instruction manual.24 Whether this training waseective or was actually ollowed by DJFS ofces was o no concern to the Secretary o State.

While this response rom then-Secretary o State Kenneth Blackwell may not have been surprising,advocates were disappointed when his successor, Jennier Brunnerwho campaigned or ofce bypledging elections that were ree, air, open and honest25took the same position in court.26

For its part, the Ohio DJFS viewed state law as precluding it rom taking any steps to ensurecounty compliance with the NVRA. us, rom the perspective o both state ofcials who werenamed as deendants, each individual county Department o Job and Family Services was solelyresponsible or its own compliance with Section 7 o the NVRA, and state-level ofcials had norole in ensuring the states compliance. In the view o these ofcials, even blatant disregard o thelaw by DJFS ofces simply was not their problem to x and, i plaintis or any other complainantshad a problem with perormance, they should take it up with individual county ofces.

Although plaintis argued that this interpretation was directly at odds with the language o theNVRA and Congress intent in enacting it,27 the district court initially agreed with the stateofcials, granting a motion to dismiss and essentially saying that aggrieved plaintis needed topursue a compliance action against each county DJFS individually.28

e plaintis appealed. For the NVRA to have the ull intended societal impactthat state publicassistance ofces actually provide voter registration services as requiredthere must be an eectiveaccountability mechanism in the event o compliance problems. I state-level ofcials could notbe held responsible, NVRA enorcement could require, in any particular non-compliant state, theinitiation o dozens o lawsuits against individual ofces to combat statewide non-complianceanearly impossible hurdle or private citizens, or even the Department o Justice, to overcome.


13/24

e U.S. Department o Justice (under the Bush Administration) agreed with the plaintis legalposition, ling an amicus brie supporting them in the U.S. Court o Appeals or the Sixth Circuit.

e Sixth Circuits decision was a victory or the plaintis and or strong enorcement o theNVRA. e Court held that both the Secretary o State and the state DJFS Director were

liable or compliance ailures in Ohio.29

With respect to the Secretary, the Court agreed that theSecretarys responsibilities under the statute were clear:

To determine whether th e Secretar y may be held responsib le

for Ohios NVRA v io lat ions, we need not look fur ther than

the text of the statute. The NVRA requires that each state

designate a State off icer or employee as the chief State

elect ion off ic ia l to be responsib le for coordinat ion of

State responsib i l i t ies under the NVRA. As noted in the

legis lat ive history, th is designated off ic ia l is responsib le for

implement ing the states funct ion under th e bi l l .30

e Court also held that both state and ederal law make the Director accountable or complianceproblems.31 Notably, with respect to ederal law, the court stated:

[T ]he Di rector, as the head of the s ingle state agency

in Ohio responsib le for administer ing publ ic assistance

programs, has the responsib i l i t y to prov ide statewide voter

registrat ion ser v ices.

Federa l regulat ions mandate that the s ingle state agency

for var ious federa l publ ic assistance programs must

distr ibute voter informat ion and registrat ion mater ia ls

as speci f ied in t he NVR A. In Ohio, that s ingle state

agency is th e DJFS. And as a l ready discussed, Ohio

law a lso makes the statewide DJFS, and thus the Director,

responsib le for superv is ing the distr ibut ion of voter

registrat ion mater ia ls by local DJFS off ices.32

e ruling was a unanimous opinion, joined by judges appointed by President George H.W. Bushand President William Jeerson Clinton.


14/24

7 Ohio Repor t

Ohios D isregard of i ts Voter

Registrat ion Responsibi l i t ies

State level problems

Once the case returned to the district court, the discovery process conrmed that neither theSecretary o States ofce nor the state DJFS had exercised oversight or monitored the provision o

voter registration services by county DJFS ofces since the inception o agency-based registrationin 1994. e state DJFS readily admitted it had taken no steps to ensure that county ofces were

providing voter registration services prior to the summer o 2008.33

In addition, the long-timeElections Administrator in the Secretarys ofcewho had been with the Elections Division sinceprior to the passage o the NVRA and who had served a stint as Elections Directortestied thatshe had no knowledge o any particular Elections Division employee who had ever been assignedresponsibility or coordinating or overseeing voter registration at county DJFS ofces.34

To be clear, prior to the lawsuit, the Secretary o States ofce did not entirely ignore Section 7,but its implementation was extraordinarily limited. e Secretarys ofce promulgated a singlemanual or all designated agencies in 1994 and then redistributed it with minor changes onlysporadically ater that time (in 2000 and 2006). And, although county agencies reported voterregistration numbers to the Secretarys ofce periodically, no one looked at the numbers to see whether

voter registration was actually occurring.35 One result, or example, was that no one ever noticedinstances o ridiculously low numbers, as happened with Lorain Countypart o Greater Clevelandand including the 10th largest city in the statewhich reported a total o 9 voter registrationapplications submitted at all its public assistance ofces in the 2005-2006 reporting period.36

County leve l prob lems

e discovery process also uncovered signicant problems with Section 7 implementation at countyDJFS ofces. In act, discovery showed that the problems were widespread in the states most

populous counties as well as others with larger percentages o low-income residents.For example, evidence rom Franklin County, the states capitol, showed a disturbing disregard o

voter registration responsibilities.37 e state DJFS Director Douglas Lumpkin, who served as thedirector o the Franklin County DJFS rom approximately 2006 through 2008, testied underoath that he did not know whether case managers at Franklin County DJFS ofces provided voterregistration services to applicants or public assistance during his tenure, nor did he speak to theNVRA Coordinator or any other employee o the Franklin County DJFS ofce about whetherthe required voter registration services were oered.38 e current Franklin County NVRACoordinator testied that, other than at the time o original implementation in 1995, there were


15/24

no voter registration policies issued prior to February 2008 (more than 18 months ater we sentour notice letter), and that no training on NVRA responsibilities was conducted until May 2008.From January to May 2008,39 the Franklin County DJFS did not generate even a single voterregistration application and, by July 2008, almost two years ater we led suit, the county DJFShad transmitted ewer than ten to the local Board o Elections.40 In that same time period, the

county DJFS had an average SNAP 41 caseload o 131,983 clients per month.42

ere was not much attention paid to voter registration at the Cuyahoga County DJFS either.43e director testied that the Cuyahoga DJFS created a voter registration plan but did not ollowit.44 e county kept voter registration applications on desks in each o its seven ofces ratherthan distribute the voter registration applications with each application, reapplication or change oaddress with respect to benets as required by the NVRA. In response to a question about whethercase managers even discussed voter registration services with clients during ace to ace interviews,the director replied that his general impression is that that happens occasionally but with littlerequency.45 It was thereore perhaps unsurprising that, or 2007-2008, Cuyahoga County reported

only 295 voter registration applications as submitted through public assistance agencies.

46

At the Hamilton County DJFS, many o the demonstrated problems revolved around changeso address.47 Nationwide, low-income individuals are over twice as l ikely to move as those withincomes above the poverty line.48 When a public assistance client changes his or her address or thereceipt o benets, it is particularly important that voter registration services be provided because,even i the client is already registered to vote, the client also will need to change his or her voterregistration address. At the Hamilton County DJFS, clients who reported a change o addressreceived the agencys address change orms rom the receptionist and then dropped the completedorms in a box. ere were no policies to provide voter registration applications with those orms, toinstruct clients to update their voter registration inormation, or to oer any assistance.49

Problems were not limited to large counties. In Ross County, a small county o approximately76,000 people, 16.3% o individuals live below the poverty line.50 At a 2009 summer conerenceor sta o local Boards o Elections, an attendee rom Ross County told the Secretarys sta thatpeople had been arriving at the Board o Elections to register to vote, stating that the county DJFSofce told them to apply at the Board o Electionseven though the NVRA requires the countyDJFS ofce to provide voter registration services itsel.51


16/24

9 Ohio Repor t

Mediat ion and Sett lement

At the conclusion o discovery and with the assistance o a magistrate judge at two mediationsessions, the deendants nally agreed to a settlement that provided meaningul relie to ensureuture compliance with the public assistance registration requirements o the NVRA.52 eSettlement Agreement contains many elements, including important requirements concerningnotice, procedures, training, data collection, reporting, oversight, and additional services:

noTiCe

Notice o Settlement Agreement provided by the state DJFS to all relevant sta,along with explanation o requirements;

proCedures

Designation o a sta person, within both the Secretarys ofce and the state DJFS,with responsibility or the states compliance and implementation o Section 7 o theNVRA;

Integration o the oer o voter registration, the oer o assistance, and a voterregistration application within each agency benets orm;

Modication o the DJFS statewide computer system used by all rontlinecaseworkers or client interviews to incorporate the provision o voter registration,

whether interviews occur in or out o the ofce;

Requirement that DJFS employees assist clients in completing voter registrationmaterials to the same degree as they assist in completing other agency orms;

Inclusion o a voter registration application and Notice o Rights orm53 with on-lineapplications, reapplications, and changes o address, and assistance in completing theorms to the same degree as is provided with regard to completion o other agencyon-line orms;

TrAining

Creation or revision, and distribution, o voter registration materials by the Secretaryincluding a poster announcing the availability o voter registration, the DesignatedAgency Voter Registration Instruction Manual, and PowerPoint training materials;

Maintenance o training materials on state DJFS intranet and Secretarys website;

Implementation o an extensive and regular training program or those employeeswith voter registration responsibilities54;

Maintenance by the Secretarys ofce o a toll ree telephone help line dedicated tovoter registration questions;


17/24

reporTing

Monthly reporting o voter registration applications submitted by each county DJFS;

Automated reporting, by month and by county, o the numbers o (i) notice o rightsinormation documents printed; (ii) voter registration application orms distributedas well as the breakdown o voter registration applications provided in person as aseparate orm, by mail, or attached to other orms; and (iii) total o applications,reapplications, and changes o address;

Quarterly reporting by each county Board o Elections o the number o voter

registration applications originating rom a county DJFS;

Obligation that the Secretarys ofce use data collected pursuant to new procedures inbiennial reporting to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission;

oversighT

Monthly review by the state DJFS o reported data and ollow up with any countyDJFS where there has been an abnormally low number o voter registrations or thedata show other signicant anomalies;

Quarterly review by the Secretarys ofce o the numbers o voter registration

applications reported to have been submitted by county DJFS ofces to local Boardso Elections, and ollow-up in counties where it appears there may be problems;

Institution o a regular review o voter registration services, using the samemechanisms the state DJFS employs to oversee the local administration o theSupplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (ormerly Food Stamps);

Spot checks, investigations and sel-assessments;

Enorcement procedures or compliance ailures;

Remedial action or individuals not given the opportunity to register to vote;

AddiTionAl voTer regisTrATion serviCes To BroAden voTerregisTrATion Among loW-inCome residenTs

Designation o the Department o Veterans Aairs, in its administration o medicalservices and services or homeless veterans, as a voter registration agency55;

Education o inmates about to be discharged and recently released oenders abouttheir voting rights in Ohio and encouragement o voter registration upon release.


18/24

1 Ohio Repor t

The Numbers Show

Substant ia l ImprovementIn the wake o the settlement agreement signed in November 2009, the results have been dramatic.In the rst six months o reporting under the settlementJanuary through May 2010101,604 voterregistration applications were submitted at the county DJFS ofces, averaging 16,900 per month,an improvement o over 950 percent.56 Beore the ling o the lawsuit, by contrast, Ohio wasregistering only 1,775 persons at public assistance ofces each month.

Indeed, our experience with other states suggests that this high level o success can be maintained

over time with proper adherence to the improved procedures called or in the settlement. Innineteen and a hal months since the entry o a preliminary injunction and settlement agreementin a similar lawsuit in Missouri (a state with a smaller public assistance caseload than Ohio), thatstate has averaged over 11,000 voter registration applications rom its public assistance ofces eachmonth.57 We see no reason why Ohio should have a dierent experience.

o ta cc t at t a a ct a w:

In March 2010, lead plainti Carrie Harkless was oered voter registration servicesby the Lorain County DJFS ofce where she receives benets, which allowed her toregister at a new address. is was the very rst time Ms. Harkless was oered voterregistration as required under the NVRA.

Ohios larger county DJFS ofces are now submitting registration applications orsignicant numbers o clients every month. Franklin County, one o Ohios largestand home to the state capital, reported 1,623 registration applications in January,1,931 in February, 2,714 in March, and 2,472 in April. In each month, over a quartero the clients engaging in an in-person NVRA-covered transaction completed a voterregistration application.58

Several counties that had not registered a single voter in the 2003-2004 reportingperiod are now collecting over 100 registration applications each month. Forexample, in January 2010, Medina County, a mid-sized county, produced 126registration applications, representing over 17 percent o its in-person NVRA-coveredtransactions.59

Even smaller counties are registering a signicant percentage o their clients. InApril 2010, 27 clients in Brown County completed a voter registration application,representing 48 percent o the number o clients engaging in an in-person coveredtransaction. Similarly, Belmont County collected registration applications rom 69percent o the 340 clients completing an in-ofce covered transaction in April. 60


19/24

Conclusionree years o negotiation, litigation, and other advocacy resulted in a vastly improved system orproviding voter registration services to Ohios low-income citizens. e Sixth Circuit now hasclaried that state ofcials are responsible or implementation and oversight o voter registrationservices at the states public assistance ofces. Specic sta, at both the state and county levels,have been assigned responsibility or NVRA compliance; new training materials have been createdand trainings are occurring requently; voter registration applications are attached to almost allapplication, reapplication, and change o address orms; there is regular reporting and review o

voter registration inormation and data; a county sel-assessment process and regular review o voter

registration services have been instituted; and remedial action is taken to ensure individuals notgiven the opportunity to register to vote are provided that opportunity.

All in all, it is a comprehensive systemand one that is clearly working or the more than 100,000individuals who have been able to register to vote using the states new procedures since they wereinstituted on January 1, 2010.61 With proper implementation o the public agency provisions o theNVRA, hundreds o thousands o eligible low-income voters in additional states throughout thecountry also could be added to the ranks o registered voters, helping to ulll the NVRAs goal oa ully inclusive and representative democracy.


20/24

3 Ohio Repor t

1. U.S. Census Bureau, Current PopulationSurvey, Voting and Registration in the Electiono November 2008, analysis by Dmos.

2. See 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-5(a).

3. Based on inormation provided under theSettlement Agreement, the monthly averageo voter registration applications submitted tocounty DJFS ofces since the implementationo the Settlement Agreement has been 16,881.Prior to the lawsuit, the monthly average was

1,775. U.S. Election Assistance Commission,e Impact o the National Voter RegistrationAct o 1993 on the Administration o Electionsor Federal Ofce, 2005-2006, available athttp://www.eac.gov/program-areas/research/eavs/national-voter-registration-act-studies.

4. 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-5(a).

5. 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-5(a)(4)(A)(i); 42U.S.C. 1973gg-5(a)(6)(A) & (B).

6. 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-5(a)(4)(A)(ii);42 U.S.C. 1973gg-5(a)(6)(C).

7. 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-5(a)(4)(A)(iii); 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-5(d).

8. Tim Doulin and Sherri Williams,Poverty Figures Grimmer or Ohio, eColumbus Dispatch (August 30, 2006).

9. Bruce H. Webster Jr. and Alemayehu Bishaw, U.S.Census Bureau, Income, Earnings, and PovertyData From the 2005 American Community

Survey, at 18 (issued August 2006), availableat http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/acs-02.pd(last viewed April 29, 2010).

10. Id.

11. Poverty Figures Grimmer or Ohio, supra at 8.

12. Data provided by the State o Ohio in Leagueo Women Voters v. Ohio, No. 05-cv-7309(N.D. Ohio). DJFS ofces in Erie, Guernsey,

Jeerson, Medina, Morgan, Morrow,Muskingum, Ross, Washington and Wyandotcounties ailed to register a single voterduring the 2003-2004 reporting period.

13. Id. DJFS ofces in Ashland, Clermont,Coshocton, Hancock, Hardin, Hocking,

Jackson, Licking, Logan, Lorain, Mercer,Monroe, Perry, Pickaway, Richland, Seneca,

and Union counties each collected ewerthan ten voter registration applicationsduring the 2003-2004 reporting period.

14. Id. DJFS ofces in Adams, Auglaize, Brown,Butler, Champaign, Craword, Fayette, Fulton,Geauga, Harrison, Henry, Holmes, Huron,Lake, Madison, Meigs, Montgomery, Noble,Ottawa, Paulding, Pike, Putnam, Sandusky,Scioto, Shelby, Summit, Vinton, Warren, Wayne,

Williams and Wood counties each submittedewer than 100 voter registration applications

during the 2003-2004 reporting period.

15. U.S. Census Bureau, Current PopulationSurvey, Voting and Registration in the Electiono November 2004, analysis by Dmos.

16. Deposition o Anne Bringman, at 13:16-14:1, 15:6-17:7 (Sept. 24, 2009), in Harklessv. Brunner, No. 06-cv-2284. (N.D. Ohio).

17. Complaint at 28, Harkless v. Brunner, No.06-cv-2284 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 21, 2006).

18. Data provided by State o Ohio in

League o Women Voters v. Ohio, No.05-cv-7309 (N.D. Ohio).

19. U.S. Census Bureau, State and CountyQuickFacts, 2006. 2009 estimatesavailable at http://quickacts.census.gov/qd/states/39/39009.html.

Endnotes


21/24

20. U.S. Census Bureau, State and CountyQuickFacts, 2006. 2009 data available at http://quickacts.census.gov/qd/maps/ohio_map.html.

21. Data provided by the State o Ohioin League o Women Voters v. Ohio,No. 05-cv-7309 (N.D. Ohio).

22. See Letter rom Cynthia Samples and RoslynTalerico, Co-Convenors, Greater ClevelandVoter Coalition, to J. Kenneth Blackwell,Secretary, Ofce o the Ohio Secretary

o State (February 23, 2006) (ComplaintExh. A, in Harkless v. Brunner, No. 06-cv-2284. (N.D. Ohio Sept. 21, 2006)).

23. Letter rom Judy Grady, Director o Electionsand Election Reorm, Ofce o Ohio Secretaryo State, to Letter rom Cynthia Samplesand Roslyn Talerico, Co-Convenors, GreaterCleveland Voter Coalition, copied to NeilSteiner, Partner, Dechert LLP (May 26, 2006)(Complaint Exh. C, in Harkless v. Brunner, No.06-cv-2284. (N.D. Ohio Sept. 21, 2006)).

24. Motion to Dismiss o Deendant J.Kenneth Blackwell, Secretary o State,at 3-4, in Harkless v. Blackwell, No. 06-cv-2284 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 16, 2006).

25. See, e.g., http://www.jennierbrunner.com/index.php/pages/index_new/ about_jennier_brunner/ (last viewed May 18, 2010).

26. Proo Brie o Deendant-Appellee JennierBrunner, Ohio Secretary o State, at 13-34, in

Harkless v. Brunner, Nos. 07-3829, 07-4165 (6thCir. Dec. 31, 2007); Deendant Secretary o StatesMemorandum Contra Plaintis Motion ForReconsideration, at 1, 2, in Harkless v. Brunner,No. 06-cv-2284 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2007).

27. See42 U.S.C. 1973gg-8 (Each state shalldesignate a State ofcer or employee as thechie State election ofcial to be responsibleor coordination o State responsibilities under[the NVRA].); S. REP. NO. 103-6, at 39(1993) ([E]ach state would have to designatea chie state election ofcial responsible orimplementing the states unction under the bill.).

28. Harkless v. Blackwell, 467 F.Supp.2d 754, 764,768-769 (N.D. Ohio 2006), revd sub nom.Harkless v. Brunner, 545 F.3d 445 (6th Cir. 2008)

29. Harkless v. Brunner, 545 F.3d 445 (6th Cir. 2008).

30. Id. at 451 (internal quotationsand citations omitted).

31. Id. at 455-458.

32. Id. at 455-458 (internal quotationsand citations omitted).

33. Answer o Director Lumpkin to PlaintiTameca Mardis First Set o Interrogatories to

Deendant Douglas Lumpkin, at 9, in Harklessv. Brunner, No. 06-cv-2284 (N.D. Ohio July24, 2009) (Answer to Interrogatory #4).

34. Deposition o Patricia A. Wole, at 17:22-18:10, 20:8-20:14, 65:17-66:14, 154:5-157:20,250:6-251:8 (June 26, 2009) in Harkless v.Brunner, No. 06-cv-2284 (N.D. Ohio).

35. Id. at 88:18-25, 89:16-90:6; Deposition oPatricia A. Wole Vol. II, at 237:16-20, 287:19-289:1, 295:4-7 (Sept. 15, 2009) in Harkless

v. Brunner, No. 06-cv-2284 (N.D. Ohio).

36. See U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2006Election Administration and Voting SurveyData Files (Excel Spreadsheet, page juri_02_34,column AD), available at http://www.eac.gov/program-areas/research/doc/eds-2006/data-les-and-survey-chapters (last viewed May 26, 2010).


22/24

5 Ohio Repor t

37. Franklin County is the states second mostpopulous county and 15.1% o individualsthere live below the poverty line, compared to

13.3% statewide. See U.S. Census Bureau, Stateand County QuickFacts, available at http://quickacts.census.gov/qd/states/39/39049.html (last viewed April 29, 2010).

38. Deposition o Douglas Lumpkin (improperlytitled Deposition o Donald Lumpkin), at 21:6-15, 23:20-27:22, 57:5-58:5 (June. 18, 2009) in

Harkless v. Brunner, No. 06-cv-2284 (N.D. Ohio).

39. Deposition o Carmen Duckens, at 13:20-16:13,213:15-214:14 (Sept. 18, 2009) in Harkless v.

Brunner, No. 06-cv-2284 (N.D. Ohio).

40. Id. at 107:5-108:14.

41. SNAP reers to the SupplementalNutrition Assistance Program,ormerly known as Food Stamps.

42. Ohio Department o Job and Family Services,Public Assistance Monthly Statistics Reportor January through May 2008, availableat http://js.ohio.gov/pams/archive.stm.

43. Cuyahoga County has the states largestpopulation and 15.9% o individuals there live inpoverty, compared to 13.3% statewide. See U.S.Census Bureau, State and County QuickFacts,available at http://quickacts.census.gov/qd/states/39/39035.html (last viewed April 29, 2010).

44. Deposition o Joseph Gauntner, at 110:13-112:8 (Sept. 23, 2009) in Harkless v.Brunner, No. 06-cv-2284 (N.D. Ohio).

45. Id. at 35:16-23.

46. U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Dataset or e Impact o the National VoterRegistration Act o 1993 on the Administrationo Elections or Federal Ofce, 2007-2008,available at http://www.eac.gov/program-areas/research/eavs/the-impact-o-the-national-voter-registration-act-on-ederal-elections-2007-2008.

47. Hamilton County is the states third mostpopulous county and 13.6% o individualsthere live below the poverty line, compared

to 13.3% statewide. See U.S. Census Bureau,State and County QuickFacts, available athttp://quickacts.census.gov/qd/states/39/39061.html (last viewed April 29, 2010).

48. Scott Novakowski, Democracy in a MobileAmerica, (Dmos, July 2009), available at http://

www.demos.org/pubs/democracy_mobile.pd.

49. Deposition o James A. Ashmore, at 38:24-41:19,64:1-5, 76:23-77:2 (Sept. 29, 2009), in Harklessv. Brunner, No. 06-cv-2284 (N.D. Ohio).

50. U.S. Census Bureau, State and CountyQuickFacts, accessed April 29, 2010,available at http://quickacts.census.gov/qd/states/39/39141.html .

51. Deposition o Gretchen Quinn, at 72:8-24 (June 24, 2009), in Harkless v. Brunner,No. 06-cv-2284 (N.D. Ohio).

52. e Settlement Agreement is available athttp://www.demos.org/pubs/Signed%20Final%20Settlement%20Agreement.pd.

53. e Notice o Rights orm contains most o theinormation required to be provided in the ormdescribed by 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-5(a)(6)(B).

54. A statewide training or county DJFS NVRACoordinators will occur annually with quarterlyupdates or the rst two years. In addition,the county DJFS NVRA Coordinators willprovide annual training to county personnelas well as training or new sta within onemonth ater their start date or beore their

rst public contact, whichever occurs rst.

55. is designation becomes eective only uponacceptance o the designation by the Secretaryo the Department o Veterans Aairs.

See42 U.S.C. 1973gg-5(a)(3)(B)(ii).


23/24

56. 2010 data provided by Ohio Department oJobs and Family Services pursuant to settlementagreement in Harkless v. Brunner, No. 06-cv-

02284 (N.D. Ohio). Comparison data romU.S. Election Assistance Commission, eImpact o the National Voter Registration Acto 1993 on the Administration o Elections orFederal Ofce, 2005-2006, available at http://

www.eac.gov/program-areas/research-resources-and-reports/copy_o_docs/the-impact-o-the-national-voter-registration-act-on-ederal-elections-2005-2006/attachment_download/le .

57. Data provided by Missouri Department oSocial Services pursuant to compliance plan in

Association o Community Organizations or ReormNow v. Scott, No. 08-cv-04084 (W.D. Mo.).

58. Data provided by Ohio Department oJobs and Family Services pursuant tosettlement agreement in Harkless v. Brunner,No. 1:06-cv-02284 (N.D. Ohio).

59. Data provided by Ohio Department oJobs and Family Services pursuant tosettlement agreement in Harkless v. Brunner,No. 1:06-cv-02284 (N.D. Ohio).

60. Id.

61. Id.


24/24

ContactneW york

220 Fith Ave., 5th Floor | New York, New York 10001 | 212.633.1405

BosTon

358 Chestnut Hill Avenue, Suite 303 | Brighton,Massachusetts 02135| 617.232.5885

WWW.demos.org

miles rApoporT, presidenT

[email protected]

mediA inquiries:

Tim rusCh,

CommuniCATions direCTor

[email protected]

ConneCT AT demos.org

Research, Commentary & Analysis

Special Initiatives & Events

Ideas & Action Blog

eUpdates

Twitter, Facebook & News Feeds

expanding voter registration for low income ohioans

Documents