A seemingly harmless trend in voter list maintenance is to compare voter lists between states and cancel apparent matches. However, this method not only violates federal law, but has the potential to put thousands of voters at risk of wrongful purging. As a result, one of the first states to launch this trend has taken steps to ensure that voters are not improperly removed from the rolls and perhaps will serve as an example to states that may be putting voters at risk through these interstate compacts.
While there is nothing wrong with states sharing information in an attempt to keep their voter lists up-to-date, some state election officials think that they are justified in immediately removing a voter from their rolls if the computerized interstate database comparison reveals an apparent match with the name and birth date of a voter who has more recently registered out of state. Removal based on such a match without adequate notice to the voter is not only unreliable, it’s also illegal under the National Voter Registration Act.
Under Section 8 of the NVRA, voters can only be removed from voter rolls if they either confirm in writing that they changed their address or fail to respond to a forwardable notice and fail to vote in the next two federal general elections. Since 2007, Project Vote has worked with Fair Elections Legal Network in ensuring compliance with this section of the NVRA and assessing how states use data compiled from interstate compacts, particularly in Kansas. That year, the two groups notified the Kansas secretary of state’s office that its purging practice was problematic because it violated federal law and also posed the significant risk that voters who show as “matches” – because they share the same names and even birth dates – are not necessarily the same person.
According to a comprehensive 2006 Brennan Center report on database matching, typographic errors and other factors make database matches inherently unreliable, especially when the data is matched across fewer fields. The report cites a 2004 New York City trial-run of database matching that was audited to find that up to 20 percent of eligible applicants would have been removed due to data entry errors. The unreliability of database matches was further demonstrated in 2009, “when the Social Security Administration was ordered to pay over 500 million dollars to 80,000 recipients whose benefits had been wrongfully terminated as a result of a federal computerized search for felons who were ineligible for benefits,” according to a new Project Vote report on interstate compacts. “An additional 120,000 had been wrongfully denied benefits.”
“We recognize the state’s interest in maintaining current, accurate lists of voters,” said Brian J. Siebel, Legal Director of FELN in a press release Tuesday. “However, removing voters without the NVRA’s required notification procedure is improper and needs to be prevented. Cleaning up voter rolls is no excuse for mistakenly disenfranchising eligible voters.”
In response, Kansas Secretary of State Ron Thornburg has issued new instructions to Kansas county election officials this month, directing them to follow NVRA notice procedures before removing any voter from the rolls.
“We commend the state of Kansas for taking steps to ensure this does not happen, and we hope other states will follow its example,” said Siebel.