The potentially risky practice of interstate voter database matching has expanded to more states in 2010. In itself, the database matching does not violate federal law, though it is a slippery slope with a notoriously unreliable 20 to 30 percent error rate. It is what each state does with the matched records that matters. Will the resulting list of potential matches be used in a way that disenfranchises eligible voters or will it be used as a tool in responsible voter list maintenance that adheres to safeguards written into the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)?
We have learned that some states that participate in interstate matching compacts do not use the data (For example, Iowa, an early champion of interstate voter database matching, no longer uses the data for list maintenance). Other states properly use the information as a trigger to institute the NVRA procedure for purging voters who are believed to have changed addresses: They send a confirmation letter to the voter at the last known address, place the voter on the inactive list if there is no response, and cancel the registration only if the voter does not vote or otherwise use the franchise–such as assigning a ballot initiative or other voter petition–through two federal elections.
However, interstate database matches–in what was known as the South Central Cross-Match group of states–were dangerously based only on the voters’ first and last names and their dates of birth (a “consistent” but not exact match on the middle name, such as “Robert” or “R”, was also considered a match). According to a 2008 report by the National Research Council, without the use of a unique identifier, matches based on a comparison of a first name, last name, date of birth and address are “inherently inferential” and “subject to higher rates of error.”
Even with the use of a unique identifier, a match by itself does not tell election administrators that they have the correct person. Several other sources of error complicate matching. The quality of databases is impaired by multiple variables including illegible handwriting, incomplete or lost forms, and keypunching errors, according to a recent National Research Council report. Without the NVRA safeguards against erroneously cancelling valid voter registrations, interstate voter database matches raise another barrier to fair elections.
The first interstate memorandum of understanding to compare databases was known as the “Midwest Group,” which ran its first interstate comparison in 2006,included Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Minnesota, and South Dakota. In 2007, the South Central Group, formed and was chaired by Kansas. In 2010, the two main groups merged into the Combined Midwest-South-central Crosscheck Group. The current participating states include: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Tennessee.
Mississippi announced recently that it had potentially matched 27,834 voter records with voter records in other states, primarily in Tennessee and Louisiana (12,588 in Tennessee, 10,910 in Louisiana and 4,336 in Arkansas.) Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann announced in a recent Hattiesburg American report that the state will attempt to contact the allegedly matched voters, failing that the state will follow the NVRA notice procedure. If the report is correct, Project Vote commends Mississippi for utilizing potential interstate voter database matches to assist in list maintenance in a way complies with the NVRA. By this procedure, the state can responsibly remove no-longer eligible voters from its voter rolls, while assuring that no eligible Mississippi voter is denied his or her right to vote.