New Mexico

We know that youth turnout is very difficult to actually count because so many states (I'm talking about you Kansas and Oklahoma) don't parse data based on little things like age or gender or any identifying information other than who voted for which candidate. I guess we should be grateful, right?

Sadly, we have to use exit polling to understand how these young people voted in so many states. Exit polling is traditionally unreliable because they disproportionately survey older voters and as we know young voters are difficult to both find and contact (what with that darn modern technology and all...).

Battleground states have more accurate data because everyone needs to know every little tiny vote. Also states with more sophisticated election boards or Secretaries of State tend to have data available for people like us who want to take a closer look without having to deal with a partisan infrastructure for data. Not very independent...

What I've been looking at this week is comparing states that have active youth outreach vs. states that don't and how the turnout differed.

Montana has had Forward Montana working on the ground since before the 2006 election. They are active every month of every year, not just in the lead up to an election.

This year Montana had a 22% turnout in the exits that went for Obama 61/37. In 2004 it was 21% of the vote share but they went for Bush 52/43.

New Mexico which just recently had a youth org start up and rocked it this year. According to Karlo at CIRCLE

"New Mexico's youth turnout rate is consistently below the national average despite a large increase in turnout from 2000 to 2004. Like Indiana, young New Mexicans preferred Bush over Kerry."

But in the exits (which... again give a very conservative estimate of youth turnout) 71% of 18-29 year olds went for Obama in New Mexico. Contrast that with 17% share in 2004 that went for Bush 50/49. That is a substantial difference.

According to CIRCLE’s estimation

"using aggregated counts of votes from each of these states ... (including NM), youth turnout in the heavily campaigned states was especially strong at 59%, compared with 47% for all other states combined."

Kansas ... bless their hearts... have no youth outreach at all. But this year had a very strong Students for Barack Obama chapter at the University of Kansas and a few other areas of the state. They had a dramatic change of heart since 2004.

Kansas had exits showing 51/47 for Obama with also a 19% share. 2004 Exits show a 17% share with 55/44 for Bush over Kerry. That is a 7% change of heart for a party and a 2% increase in share. And that's a conservative estimation...

Oklahoma, by contrast, had no outreach to young voters outside of traditional Young Democrats chapters. Oklahoma was the only state in the country to have more young voters vote republican in their Primaries than democrats.

Exits show that in 2008 - 60% of 18-29 year olds went for McCain in Oklahoma and there was no increase in the share from 2004 to 2008. In 2004, however, they went 62% for Bush over Kerry... so there IS that.

My guess, is that the dramatic turnout we've seen nationally only calculated to a 2% increase in youth enthusiasm for Obama in 2008 than for Kerry in 2004. That's also with a very competitive US Senate race where the democrat was a Young Elected Official.

I've said it before, I'll say it again... if you build it... they will come. We have 4 examples of all kinds of youth outreach here. 2+ year plan, 1-2 year plan, electoral only college outreach, and no outreach with results that show the results. In Montana and New Mexico they nearly flip-flopped in GOP to Democratic support - and in Kansas there was a 7% increase in democratic participation. Oklahoma saw.... nothing.

If we begin to not merely develop a 50 state strategy but develop a 50 state youth strategy then I think we can start to see the kinds of results coming out of Montana and New Mexico in states even like Kansas and Oklahoma.

Bumped. Thanks to Project Vote for two great and relevant diaries while I'm away for the holiday. --Mike

The United States saw dramatic increases in voting from traditionally underrepresented groups, including minorities and young voters, according to a new analysis released this week by Project Vote. If borne out by systematic analysis of the voter rolls, this change in the electorate is evidence of the power of successful voter registration drives and an indication of the strong inclination of voters to participate in the process when candidates address their issues.

Countering the conventional wisdom that the voting population on November 4 did not change as dramatically as predicted, the analysis, The Demographics of Voters in America’s 2008 General Election: A Preliminary Assessment, demonstrates that African-Americans, Latinos, and young voters cast millions more ballots in 2008 than in 2004.

“The analysis estimated that about 5.8 million more minorities voted in this year's presidential election than in 2004, while nearly 1.2 million fewer whites went to the polls,” wrote Greg Gordon of McClatchy Newspapers. “The figures appear to reflect the success of Project Vote and other liberal voter registration groups in registering millions of young, poor, elderly and minority Americans to vote in recent election cycles.”

According to the analysis, African-Americans cast nearly three million more ballots nationwide in 2008 than in 2004—an increase of 21 percent. The total votes cast by Latinos went up by 16 percent—more than 1.5 million—and young Americans aged 18-29 cast 1.8 million more votes, a nine percent increase. That the overall totals did not increase significantly compared to 2004 was in part due to a decrease in voting by white voters.

In addition to presenting an analysis of ballots cast from the United States as a whole, the memo by Project Vote consultant and Ph.D. candidate Jody Herman and Barnard College political science professor Lorraine Minnite examines several key states in detail, including Colorado, Florida, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

The Project Vote data is preliminary, and does not speak to “turnout,” which is traditionally a measure of the percentage of the voting-eligible population that shows up to vote. Project Vote expects to release a full report on turnout in the 2008 election in 2009 when government survey data on the voting-eligible population comes available. Yet, this preliminary analysis indicates that a significant shift occurred this year.

“There is no doubt that this surge in voting by Americans of color and young people had a powerful impact on the outcome of the election,” said Michael Slater, executive director of Project Vote, in a press release issued today.

“Separate opinion polls and election results themselves indicate that an overwhelming majority of African-Americans and Latinos backed Obama,” according to Gordon.

“Thus, the appearance of an African-American presidential candidate with a sympathetic message may have prompted the nation's minorities to vote at levels approaching white voters -- if final state vote counts do not upend Project Vote's figures,” wrote AlterNet's Steve Rosenfeld last week. “Its findings also suggest the U.S. electorate is not an inflexible assembly of voting constituencies, but has segments that are mobilized -- or demobilized -- depending on the year, candidate and message,”

In an email exchange with Rosenfeld, Frank Sharry, executive director of pro-immigration reform group, America's Voice, said “neither the turnout increase among Latinos -- nor the swing in support to Democrats -- were surprising.”

“Telling people you don't like them and don't want them is not a winning electoral strategy,” wrote Sharry. “But that is what the Republican Party has been saying to immigrants, Latino immigrants in particular, for the past four years. No surprise, then, that record numbers of Latinos turned out in 2008 and that the swing away from Republicans to Democrats among Latino immigrants in particular was dramatic.”

Word is leaking out about more attempts to suppress the student vote, this time in Colorado and New Mexico, two battleground states that went for Bush in 2004 and look to be swinging blue this year:

Washington - Colorado Democrats accused a Republican county clerk Wednesday of falsely informing Colorado College that students from outside the state could not register to vote if their parents claimed them as a dependent on their tax returns.

At a news conference in Colorado Springs, Democrats also criticized Robert Balink, the El Paso County clerk and recorder, who was a delegate to the Republican National Convention, for taking other steps they said would dampen voting by college students, who are expected to heavily favor Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

"When election officials spread false information about who is eligible to vote and remove, not add, polling places, we need to be concerned that eligible voters will be denied their right to vote," said Pat Waak, chairwoman of the Colorado Democratic Party.

Sujatha from the Student PIRGs did a little ninja work on this. Check out what she found:

Sujatha Jahagirdar, program director of the Student Public Interest Research Group's New Voters Project in Washington, said she encountered similar problems when she posed as a college freshman last week and called registrar's offices in Greenville County, S.C., home to Furman University, and York County, S.C., where Winthrop University is located.

Jahagirdar said a Greenville official asked if her parents listed her as a dependent, and when she replied in the affirmative, told her: "You should vote where your parents live." She said a York County representative asked if she was in town for school, and when she said yes, stated flatly: "You can't vote here."

This election is going to be won on the ground, and it's really a matter of whether or not the voter registration advantage Obama is building - particularly among young and first time voters - can hold up attempts to suppress the vote by Republicans, either through outright disenfranchisement, or by subtle discouragements such as long lines caused by a lack of polling places. If you encounter this in your neighborhood, remember to get in touch with the people at Student Voting Rights.

Cross-posted at Project Vote's blog, Voting Matters

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns and Nathan Henderson-James

We spend a lot of time in these news updates showing how charges of voter fraud are used to discredit voter participation efforts and prime the pump for voter suppression efforts, such as the passage of voter ID bills, pushing for proof of citizenship, engaging in draconian voter purge efforts, and imposing sever restrictions on voter registration drives. We have also spent a lot of time carefully delineating the politics behind these efforts, starting with our March 2007 report The Politics Of Voter Fraud and continuing on in these diaries to name but two venues.

What is striking about how the process of disenfranchisement and voter suppression works is how much it relies upon the media to repeat and amplify the breathless and hyperbolic accusations of so-called voter fraud against voter registration drives. If journalists were to spend any time at all investigating the sensational claims - often made by people with a direct partisan interest in the outcome of an election - they would find that the accusations are mostly taken out of context, are limited to a few instances, and have never, ever, been proven to have resulted in any fraudulent vote being cast.

Sadly, the history of this issue shows that it has been bereft of this kind of basic journalism, even through the 2006 mid-term elections. This is important because haphazard reporting of partisan claims of voter fraud without checking the facts is how the media helps these voter suppression efforts. These stories not only deter potential voters from getting on the rolls, but, as noted above, inspire bad election reforms aimed at disenfranchising voters, particularly those that are currently underrepresented in the electorate.

A prime example of this kind of lazy journalism in recent weeks comes from Las Vegas where local reporters simply repeated accusations of fraud made by the Clark County clerk against ACORN without even bothering to contact ACORN to see how their drive was being managed.

The group's registration drive has reached one million voters nationwide [Full disclosure – it is run under a Joint Effort Agreement with Project Vote. –ed.] and, according to one article, election officials see “rampant fraud” in the 2,000 – 3,000 cards submitted by the group each week in Las Vegas. This week, the Associated Press reported that the state set up a “voter fraud task force” to look for “election irregularities and instances of questionable voter registration and intimidation,” directly citing issues with voter registration drives. Neither of these Nevada reports provided the facts of voter fraud, what it is and how it relates to the voter registration process. Most importantly, neither reports cite real examples of the intentional casting of an illegal ballot – the real definition of voter fraud – in the state.

However, it may be that the hard work Project Vote and others – including the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, DEMOS, and the Advancement Project - have engaged in over the past few years debunking the voter fraud myth is beginning to change the way journalists approach these stories.

This week, several publications broke this trend by debunking recent Virginia GOP allegations of widespread voter fraud as a result of massive voter registration drives that primarily target youth, low income and minority communities – constituencies that have a long history of being underrepresented on the voting rolls and in the voting booth.

Since the beginning of the year, an unprecedented 147,000 people - “almost half under the age of 25” - registered to vote in Virginia, according to Monday's Washington Post lead editorial. Pointing to a recent incident where three members of the Community Voting Project were arrested for falsifying voter registration cards, Republican Party chairman, Del. Jeffrey Frederick of Prince William County claims widespread voter fraud is a hidden agenda in voter registration drives.

Remarkably, however, this time the press decided to investigate this inflammatory accusation. This charge is “utterly baseless” and is “unsupported by election officials, police or prosecutors,” the Post notes in the editorial. In fact, the Post described the accusation as an exercise in “fear mongering” by Frederick, amplified by his allegations that citizens who register with these drives are also vulnerable to identity theft, a claim that amounts to nothing more than “a classic attempt to suppress votes,” the Post editorialized.

Bob Bauer, at his Web site, www.MoreSoftMoneyHardLaw.com, takes the critique one step further, looking at both the accusations and the Post’s coverage. “And the Post omits mention of another feature of Fredericks' suppression gambit,” wrote the election law attorney. “He also called for an 'investigation,' well understanding that his words would creep into the press on his remarks and filter out into the electorate.”

In a prime example of the kind of journalism that should happen as a matter of course when these kinds of serious allegations are made, a Virginia reporter for the Danville Register & Bee reached out to local registrars to get a real idea of the voter registration process and how unlikely it is to lead to voter fraud.

“'It's not easy to falsely register somebody,' said Pittsylvania County Registrar Jenny Saunders, who explained that in addition to the registrar going over the application for obvious errors (like missed questions), there's a statewide database all applications are checked against.”

Partisans out for political gain perpetuate fear about the integrity of the election system, something that the media often picks up unfiltered. “In fact,” the Post wrote, “it is groundless accusations and cynical fear-mongering such as Mr. Frederick's that are injecting the real venom, and the true threat, into the elections.

Below are some important facts to consider when writing (or reading) reports on voter registration fraud:

Voter Registration Drives Rev up in Presidential Election Years

The fact that young people and minorities are expanding the voting rolls this year does not indicate that something is awry with voter registration drives. Indeed, most large-scale drives target those populations least represented in the electorate. Further, in high interest election years, especially presidential, more people are motivated to help register voters or get registered themselves. Stories about so-called voter fraud should be evaluated in terms of the number of cards thought to be fraudulent versus the total number of cards the registration drive is gathering. In Virginia, a handful of fake cards were found in a drive that could register more than 30,000 people.

Voter Registration Fraud Does Not Lead to Voter Fraud

“We have the checks and balances...to makes sure the wrong person doesn't get registered and the right person does,” said Va. election official, Saunders in the Register & Bee.

Further, professionally-run drives expect almost a third of all applications to be duplicates or incomplete, no matter how well-trained the canvasser or volunteers are. This does not mean they are all illegal. However, the registrar is required to ensure all applications contain accurate information “including whether the applicant is a citizen, their Social Security number, date of birth, full name, valid residence, whether they've been convicted of a felony, or whether they have been determined mentally incapable...If any of that is left off...the application is denied,” according to the Register & Bee. Note: Not all states require Social Security number information to be filled out on a voter registration card. For more information on your state's requirements on registering to vote, visit ProjectVote.org.

Allegations of Voter Fraud are Often Motivated By Partisan Gain

“If you're not winning at the ballot box, try your chances in the registrar's office, or in court,” the Virginia Pilot editorialized. “[That's] [h]ardly democratic.”

Following the success of voter registration drives that have increased registration among low income, minority and young people, almost all claims of rampant voter fraud have come from Republican leaders, despite lack of substantiation of a real problem. The most vicious and corrupt efforts made were part of what has become the US AttorneyGate scandal that subsequently exposed the widespread politicization of the Department of Justice and led to the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. All of that unraveled because former US Attorney David Iglesias refused to make false accusations of voter fraud against ACORN’s 2004 voter registration drive in New Mexico.

The fact is between 2002 and 2005 – when the Department of Justice carried out the most intensive investigation of voter fraud in US history – only 24 people were convicted of illegal voting nationwide. However, partisans still made public allegations and the press, in many instances, ran these claims with out real evidence. Armed with these published anecdotes and buoyed by manufactured public outcry about the possibility of their votes being canceled out by illegal voters, legislators fought to pass laws that disenfranchise certain classes of voters. As a result, states like Indiana and Georgia have implemented some of the most draconian voter ID laws despite the lack of any evidence of actual voter fraud.

Reporters practicing ethical and rigorous journalism should recognize that merely using the “rhetorical hand grenade” of voter fraud - without an explanation of how voter registration and elections are administered or an investigation into the evidence of voter fraud - is the real threat to democracy.

Quick Links:

Minnite, Lorraine. “The Politics of Voter Fraud. ”Project Vote. March 2007.

Voter Registration Guides and Surveys [By State]. Project Vote

In Other News:

A voting penalty after the penalty – Birmingham Press-RegisterAnnette McWashington Pruitt watched her 18-year-old son graduate from high school this May. She proudly tells people that he is going into the Navy, following in the footsteps of his older brother (who is serving in Iraq) and his grandfather (who was in the Air Force).

Voting Rules Create Land of Disenchantment: Advocacy groups are battling New Mexico's strict voter registration laws as election looms – Miller-McCune
Jo Ann Gutierrez-Bejar remembers volunteering for the annual voter registration drive in Albuquerque, N.M. She remembers the camaraderie as the group of usually 30 to 40 volunteers headed out in the morning, clipboards in hand, to knock on doors and register new voters.

Denogean: 97-year-old voter can't prove she's a citizen: On deathbed, father told her to vote Democratic – The Tucson Press
Shirley Freeda Preiss of Surprise is one ticked-off little old lady. And who can blame her? The 97-year-old retired schoolteacher and onetime traveling showgirl has voted in every presidential election since 1932 when she cast a ballot for Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But thanks to the state's voter identification requirements, it's looking unlikely that she'll be able to vote in the upcoming presidential election.

Watch your (official) language - Stateline.org
Missouri, a key presidential swing state and home to one of the most hotly contested gubernatorial races, will test what some see as voters’ attitudes toward immigrants this November with a ballot measure to make English the only language of state government.

Bumped. --Mike

Cross-posted at Project Vote's blog, Voting Matters

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns

Reports and exits polls this entire political season have built a narrative of tremendous, even record-breaking voter participation, pushing us to believe that voter turnout in November will exceed all expectations.

Maybe.

The dirty secret of elections in America is that getting on the rolls, casting a ballot, and having that ballot counted is a complicated system adjudicated and carried out by more than 3,000 counties and towns and regulated by a complex mix of state and federal laws. In order for the expected record-shattering turnout to occur in November, all aspects of the system, from registration procedures to polling place systems to ballot counting procedures all need to work properly. However, those with an interest in suppressing turnout may disrupt the process at any one of those points. The biggest impact comes by preventing people from making it onto the voting rolls in the first place since no one can cast a ballot without being registered.

Unsurprisingly, politicians with partisan interests at heart are pushing states to raise barriers to the democratic process by enforcing laws that restrict voter registration drives and violate the Voting Rights Act. These election-related policies have disproportionately negative impact on young people and minorities – two groups that have historically suffered underrepresentation in the electorate. However, in an encouraging move aimed at lowering these kinds of barriers, the Massachusetts Senate passed a bill that would help enfranchise all voters on Election Day.

Restrictions on Voter Registration Drives
During presidential election years, efforts to register more citizens increase dramatically. However, several states impose various restrictions on voter registration drives, which in turn has a disproportionate impact upon youth and people with disabilities – two communities that commonly register to vote through such drives, according to Ben Adler of the Politico.

The swing state of New Mexico is under the most scrutiny for their drive policy and has recently been sued for unconstitutionally hindering the right to collect voter registrations under a 2005 election reform law.

“The activists contend that because the law creates criminal penalties for failing to meet its requirements – which even supporters acknowledge are stringent – it discourages groups from collecting registrations,” Adler wrote. New Mexico's excessively short 48 hour time frame to turn in a completed application and subsequent misdemeanor charge if the collector is late has reportedly stopped students who “'simply want to get out on campus and register their friends to vote.'” The Federal government recognizes the challenges imposed by short time lines: Under the National Voter Registration Act, state agencies are provided 10 days to turn in new applications.

Violations of the Voting Rights Act
Other voting rights issues that have recently been battled involve violations of the Voting Rights Act.
The U.S. Justice Department recently announced an agreement to protect Latino voters in New Jersey after a complaint was filed involving discrimination in the voting process. Puerto Rican voters in the Penns Grove borough had complained they were subject to racial comments and hostility as well as disproportionately asked for voter ID and turned away at the polls. It was the third lawsuit of this nature this year. The suit also alleged that Spanish-speaking voters were not provided Spanish-language election materials or enough aid from bilingual poll workers, also requirements of the Act. The agreement must still be approved by the court, the Justice Department press release said.

“The right to vote is a fundamental guarantee for all American citizens,” said U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Christopher Christie. “The Division is committed to vigorously enforcing federal civil rights laws during the important election year and commends the county and borough for promptly and constructively resolving the matter.”

Asian voters in Massachusetts were not as successful in getting the state to provide fully sufficient bilingual ballots, according to a column by Adrian Walker of the Boston Globe. Advocates recently attempted to meet with Secretary of State William Galvin to gain his support for a proposed law requiring ballots be translated into Chinese and Vietnamese. The bill passed the Boston City Council earlier this year, but still requires legislative approval in order to ensure elderly Asian residents with limited English skills are not denied the right to vote in November.

“Voting is as American as apple pie,” said Boston City Councilor Sam Yoon. “This is something everyone should want to protect.”

However, Galvin - who the legislature looks to when considering election law - denied the group, as he has for the last year, according to Walker.

Despite swelling interest and rising registration rates among youth and minorities, there are significant and persistent barriers to their increased participation. The identification of these barriers should serve as a wake-up call in each state, pushing them to take steps to address the barriers and equip themselves to handle the influx of new voters this coming Election Day.

Voter Registration Surge and Election Day Chaos
An example of this swelling interest can be seen in one county in Florida where minority voters are beginning to balance their share of the electorate. This year alone in Lee County, Florida, black and Latino voters have increased by as much as 22 percent – more than double the increase among white voters, according to local publication, Fort Meyers News-Press.

“The increase in minority voter registration gives voice to people who haven't always been represented at the table,” the News-Press editorialized. “Whether it's the presence of a nontraditional candidate, the pressing economic conditions, or the war in Iraq, anything that inspires citizens to participate in the political process is beneficial.”

The unprecedented surge of voters expected to turn out in November could pose a major challenge for states, according to Stateline.org. The online news site, run by the Pew Research Center, raised concerns about poor ballot design and even last minute voter registration drives that could swamp understaffed offices, making it more difficult for voters to get on the rolls, let alone cast a ballot.

“People know it's going to be a historically high turnout. Whether they can do anything about it is another question,” said Dan Seligson of electionline.org, a Pew Center on the States project that provides analysis on election reform.

Smart Election Reform
While other states scramble to figure out how to accommodate the influx of voters and advocates ensure voting rights are protected, one state is pushing one of the most effective measures to expand access to democracy for all American citizens – Election Day Registration. On Tuesday, the Massachusetts Senate passed a bill that would allow voters to register and vote on Election Day. The bill, SB 2807 is currently in the House Ways and Means committee. If passed, Massachusetts would join the ranks of eight other EDR states, which have average turnout rates that exceed non-EDR states by as much as 12 percent. Three other states are considering EDR bills: New Jersey, New York and Ohio. To view these bills, visit www.ElectionLegislation.org.

At The Washington Post, Chris Cillizza takes a look at the new top ten swing states. This idea of a "swing state" is a little dated, especially since the Democrats adopted the "50 State Strategy" and saw positive results in 2006. But at the end of the day, even if we do compete in all states, a few will be more competitive than others, and it is inevitable that these states will receive an inordinate amount of attention from the media, the campaigns, and 527 organizations looking to influence the outcome.

That said, here are your new swing states. Learn them well.

This looks somewhat familiar. Remember this from November 2004? These are the states where John Kerry would have won the election if only voters under 30 had cast their ballots:

I can't prove any direct connection or major demographic shift in these states at this point, but it definitely bears more looking into. It's also nice to see some states with active youth organizing making the list of "new" swing states (Colorado, Virginia, New Mexico).

One of my gigs this year is as an At-Large Delegate to the DNC Youth Council. This year, the youth council is working to increase the number of young people attending the Democratic Convention as delegates.

To that end, we're going to be holding some conference calls in the coming months to help young people navigate the delegate election process. Later this week we'll hold the first of these calls, this time describing the delegate selection process for New Mexico.

If you are in New Mexico and are interested in learning how to become a delegate to the Democratic Convention (which is shaping up to be the convention of the century for political junkies), be sure to call in. Here's the info from DNC Youth Council President (and himself a super delegate), Jason Rae:

Our first call will take place on Wednesday, March 19th at 6:00PM EST (4:00PM MST) focusing on the delegate selection process for New Mexico. We will be joined on the call by Josh Geise, Interim Executive Director of the New Mexico Democratic Party. The call is open to any and all individuals in learning how to be either a Congressional District, PLEO, or At-Large delegate to the Democratic National Convention from New Mexico. In addition to the specific training, we will be sure to provide information on how to get more involved with the State Party and other youth organizations. (If you or your organization have specific information you would like to have mentioned, please email me and let me know as soon as possible.)

The call-in number for the call is 866-810-8093 and the code is 822-976-6817. The call will begin promptly at 4:00PM MST on Wednesday.