On August 12 and 13, the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) convened a useful national meeting on ways to improve the election data that are collected.
I was honored to participate in one of the panels held during the meeting. My panel was moderated by EAC Chairwoman, Christy McCormick, and addressed two questions. First, in addition to academics, the EAC and certain election officials, are there others who are interested in collecting and using good election administration data? Second, how can election officials be assisted with the data collection process so their data can be improved?
My presentation explained how critical election data is to our work at Project Vote. In particular, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) requires that the EAC collect certain data and issue a report to Congress every two years related to the implementation of the NVRA. At Project Vote, we use this election data as part of our on-going effort to evaluate compliance with the NVRA. We know that the data collection done by election officials and the reporting by the EAC are extremely important tools to evaluate the effectiveness of the NVRA in achieving its goals.
The goals of the NVRA are to establish procedures that increase the number of eligible citizens who are registered to vote in federal elections, ensure accurate and current voter registration rolls, and enhance participation of eligible citizens. Per EAC regulations, election officials report a number of data points related to NVRA compliance, including the number of voter registration applications originating from the different NVRA required sources. This includes, among others, the number of voter registration applications originating from public assistance agencies, state disability agencies, and department of motor vehicles.
Aside from the fact that the EAC reporting is invaluable to the work we do at Project Vote, this information is also helpful to election officials. When the NVRA requirements are being adhered to, the number of voter registration applications generated from each of the NVRA required sources tends to go up; and if election officials are making an effort to properly track, collect and report those numbers, they can see the positive impact of their efforts to comply with the NVRA.
But as invaluable as the EAC data can be, during my presentation I also discussed the need for the EAC to improve the processes by which states report NVRA voter registrations numbers.
Currently, there are often huge discrepancies in these numbers. For example, through our work with states on improving NVRA compliance, we often get regular reports of the NVRA voter registration numbers directly from state election officials, most often the numbers of voter registration applications submitted through public assistance agencies. In the 2013-2014, some states reported to Project Vote voter registration application numbers that are significantly higher than the number of voter registration applications they reported to the EAC. The states with discrepancies include a few that have made significant improvements in their NVRA compliance. Unfortunately, the numbers that they reported in the latest EAC report do not reflect their success.
During my presentation, I suggested these discrepancies may occur because the data collection for the reporting to the EAC is often done by local election officials. Most of the data collection for Project Vote, however, is usually done by the chief election official and includes data points collected in the statewide voter registration database. Additional oversight by chief election officials and further use of the statewide voter registration databases would help improve the quality of the data reporting to the EAC.
Another very interesting area in need of improvement that was discussed throughout the meeting was need for election data standardization. Given the wide ranging of jurisdictions that administer elections in America, there are large variations in the ways that data is collected and reported. Much of the discussion was centered around the fact that if election data was better standardized, data could be better evaluated across different jurisdictions and over time. One of the suggestions was to work on creating a standard set of terms that are used by all election officials. The EAC commissioners and many of the participants at the meeting expressed strong enthusiasm to work on this.
But perhaps the most important thing about the meeting is that it showed how effective the EAC can be now that it has commissioners (it went for many years with no commissioner). The EAC is back on track to fulfill its purpose of being a resource to help improve the process of elections in America.
Sarah Brannon is the Director of Project Vote’s Government Agency Voter Registration Program.