Virginia Tech University Leadership and Social Change Model Review

User Generated

Inqreryyn007

Writing

Virginia Tech University

Description


Synthesis papers assess your overall knowledge of the course concepts. Synthesis Paper #2 covers all content from Modules 6-10. In order to be successful with synthesis papers you must be able to cite your sources using APA format. This includes in-text citations and a reference list. ( 4-5 pages times new roman double spaced)

Directions:

Please answer the following questions:

  1. What are congruence and commitment in the context of the Social Change Model? How do congruence and commitment connect to consciousness of self?
  2. What is diversity? What is inclusion? How are the two concepts similar? How are they different? What are the barriers to diversity and inclusion? How can we use diversity and inclusion in leadership?
  3. What is collaboration? How is it achieved? How does collaboration connect to the three C's from the individual values portion of the Social Change Model (i.e. consciousness of self, congruence & commitment)?
  4. Explain the theory of Servant Leadership and how it can help build a constructive climate.
  5. What is common purpose? How does common purpose connect and relate to collaboration?
  6. Explain Patrick Lencioni's Five Dysfunctions of a Team and Ideal Team Player models and how they both connect to leadership and the Social Change Model.


Unformatted Attachment Preview

Trump claims Florida voters wore disguises, latest in pattern of conspiracy theories John Fritze, USA TODAY Published 6:00 a.m. ET Nov. 15, 2018 | Updated 6:29 p.m. ET Nov. 15, 2018 Subscribe Now WASHINGTON Like most unsubstantiated leveled President Donald Trump, his allegations of fraud (https://offers.usatoday Stay –Connected For Asclaims Low As by $9.99/Month in the high-stakes recount in Florida’s Senate and gubernatorial elections started with a tweet. gps-source=BENB999 Shortly after polls closed on last week's midterm election, the president warned of a “big corruption scandal” in Florida as officials struggled to tally votes in Broward County. Days later, he referenced “massively infected” ballots and accused Democrats of trying to “falsify” his 2016 win in the Sunshine State, without citing evidence. (Photo: Saul Loeb, AFP/Getty Images) Trump went further Wednesday, suggesting that voters were using disguises to cast multiple ballots. “When people get in line that have absolutely no right to vote and they go around in circles," Trump told the Daily Caller in an interview. "Sometimes they go to their car, put on a different hat, put on a different shirt, come in and vote again. Nobody takes anything. It’s really a disgrace what’s going on.” He also suggested there was rampant voter fraud because of what he described as a lax approach to verifying identification. “If you buy a box of cereal – you have a voter ID,” Trump said. The assertions were only the latest conspiracy theory embraced by Trump over the Florida gubernatorial and Senate elections as election officials raced to tally votes (/story/news/politics/2018/11/10/donald-trump-accuses-democrats-trying-steal-florida-elections/1957842002/). The machine recount of some 8 million votes cast in the races ended at 3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time Thursday after a federal judge in Florida declined a request (/story/news/politics/elections/2018/11/15/florida-recount-rick-scott-bill-nelson/2013609002/) by Incumbent Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson and his allies to push the deadline back so more votes could be counted. Nelson is trailing Republican Rick Scott by about 13,000 votes. Experts who study the use of conspiracy theories in politics say the ongoing recounts in Florida have all the preconditions needed to fuel Trump’s decades-old penchant for embracing claims of subterfuge. The outcome is uncertain, the drama is high and the complexity of the issue makes it hard for voters to separate fact from fiction. “It fits the pattern of everything he’s done so far,” said Joseph Uscinski, a political scientist at the University of Miami who has written on the issue. “The underlying message of all of Trump’s conspiracy theories is that the ‘elites’ sold out the interests of the American people.” Trump’s use of conspiracy theories to rile up voters and shift the media’s attention is by now a well-known element of his communications strategy. He gained national prominence by questioning the citizenship of President Barack Obama. During his 2016 campaign he accused Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s father of associating with President John F. Kennedy’s assassin (/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/05/03/trump-bizarrely-links-cruzs-father-jfk-assassincruz-goes-ballistic/83874972/). He flirted with the notion that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in his sleep in early 2016, may have been murdered. All of those claims were baseless. Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump When will Bill Nelson concede in Florida? The characters running Broward and Palm Beach voting will not be able to “find” enough votes, too much spotlight on them now! 101K 11:32 AM - Nov 13, 2018 45.8K people are talking about this After winning the election, Trump explained his second-place finish in the popular vote by claiming millions of illegal ballots were cast for Democrat Hillary Clinton. Trump appointed a commission to investigate voter fraud, which never presented formal findings nor evidence to support his claim. (/story/news/politics/2018/08/04/donald-trumps-widespread-voter-fraud-claim-untrue-election-official/905262002/)Trump disbanded the group in January (/story/news/politics/2018/08/04/donald-trumps-widespread-voter-fraud-claim-untrue-election-official/905262002/). In the run-up to the midterm, Trump said that a caravan of Central Americans inching through Mexico toward the U.S. border included criminals and "unknown Middle Easterners." His administration never backed up the claim. In theorizing about the razor-thin margin in the Florida governor and Senate races, Trump is returning to an issue – and a state – that has befuddled many Americans since the contested 2000 presidential race between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore. The election was decided by the Supreme Court after a recount in Florida. Election officials were once again racing to wrap up a statewide recount amid a flurry of lawsuits filed by candidates from both parties. An email reviewed by the USA TODAY NETWORK showed a Democratic party leader in Florida encouraged volunteers to send altered election forms to voters (/story/news/politics/elections/2018/11/15/florida-recount-democrats-launch-plan-altered-state-form-fix-ballots/2016030002/) in an effort to fix ballot signature problems. Though it’s not clear that any of those requests were accepted, election experts said the revelation is likely to raise new questions about the vote-counting process. More: Email shows Florida Democratic official sought to use altered forms for reaching voters with ballot problems (/story/news/politics/elections/2018/11/15/florida-recount-democrats-launch-plan-altered-state-form-fix-ballots/2016030002/) Initial results put Scott ahead of Nelson in the state’s Senate race and indicated Republican Ron DeSantis had a healthy lead over Democrat Andrew Gillum in the state’s contest for governor. Those margins have shrunk, however, as election officials count outstanding ballots. Trump and other Republicans have zeroed in on Broward County, which has struggled to meet state-imposed deadlines to post up-to-the-hour tallies of the count. They also point to a ruling against Broward County Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes that found she violated state law by destroying ballots too quickly after the 2016 election. “When they call this woman incompetent, they’re wrong,” Trump told The Daily Caller. “She’s very competent but in a bad way.” Though the issues Trump and others have raised have sparked bipartisan concern, there is no evidence Snipes or other officials are tampering with the outcome of the election. Democrats have suggested the problems have more to do with outdated voting machines and underfunded election offices. Experts said the Florida recount is fertile ground for conspiracy theorists. It’s “a perfect situation on which such theories can rest,” said Joanne Miller, a political scientist at the University of Delaware who has studied the issue. High uncertainty and high anxiety, she said, are among the factors that can cause people to believe unsubstantiated claims. “There's also another aspect of elections that makes them ripe for conspiracy theories: The inherent competition surrounding an election, and therefore the stakes of the outcome, are high,” Miller said. “It's more self-esteem protective to believe that an election outcome was due to fraud than to believe, for example, that it was due to the fact that the other party had policy positions that resonated better,” she said. Trump, of course, is not the first president or high-profile figure to hold such theories. Then-first lady Hillary Clinton referred to what she described as a “vast, right-wing conspiracy” to explain the impeachment of her husband, President Bill Clinton, in 1998. President Richard Nixon harbored theories that Washington insiders were out to end his presidency. But Trump is unusual in his embrace of conspiracies and his desire to share them with supporters, experts said. Both the frequency and the extent of the claims Trump makes without offering evidence make him unique in his use of them, they said. Those who have studied the president for years – including before his political debut – note that his approach, even in business, is to keep foes and friends alike off kilter and uncertain of his motives. “He’s a salesman,” said Gwenda Blair, a Trump biographer. “The only way it works is if people keep watching.” Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/15/donald-trump-pushes-conspiracy-theories-floridarecount/1991767002/ (https://adclick.g.doubleclick.net/pcs/click?xai=AKAOjssfdiA_v1u4VHUE_2adLxVETT9fQF093muAWmSAt7yWhwCvdvIQPccVEAvf9-ZgcItKDawz9HQwbdMbRfbyZDCD27FchMdZuG9SkRu2iebcJmmmTcoU0QI5arZqGvHAVfd8rUzwsgdrSO0cp7ETGybkdkGrdQMMScAJKr5NvITc6U5JD9OWqvMLRKBHq-Zw4pHDdXffOosur5StBRde10CUklVW6TAVfJxdBbkbOT7nOMzIn0yi917BUGJaqE9pfB5JJFHor7o-m9qzH5XpDo&sai=AMflYQvmDgDzXd1iBdLbOBYJkfzfFpMNfG9SsSFGSyoX7MIFrvGewgRS79h94eOg4BC8DjLBHZBwGasuT7VQ7Neh6vpCX6C2s9bTl23V7O&sig=Cg0ArKJSzKi5rx2ro7EREAE&urlfix=1&adurl=https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/trackclk/N775824.6441AGANNETTCOMPANYUSATO/B22086655.238044878;dc_trk_aid=435304431;dc_trk_c I'm a former Florida congressman and my vote was rejected over a signature 'mismatch' Patrick Murphy, Opinion contributor Published 4:19 p.m. ET Nov. 9, 2018 | Updated 4:57 p.m. ET Nov. 9, 2018 Voter suppression can happen to anyone, even a former US House member like me. It's against our ideals to sideline people who want their voices heard. The hallmark of every true democracy is fair, free and accurate elections. It's what separates us from the dictatorships and totalitarian regimes of other countries. The American people have faith that when they head to the polls to cast a ballot, that vote will be properly accepted and counted. The state of Florida is no stranger to close elections. We are still ridiculed in political circles for the debacle following the 2000 presidential election in which Al Gore and George W. Bush battled over hanging chads and (Photo: Susan Stocker, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, via AP) butterfly ballots all the way to the Supreme Court (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/00-949). In my very own election to Congress in 2012, it took ballot retabulations and weeks of legal wrangling before I was declared the victor by just over 2,000 votes (https://ballotpedia.org/Patrick_Murphy_(Florida)) — a slim 0.6% margin. And now Florida voters are faced with recounts for three statewide races that are each separated by less than half of a percent — governor (https://floridaelectionwatch.gov/StateOffices/Governor), senator (https://floridaelectionwatch.gov/FederalOffices/USSenator) and closest of all, agriculture commissioner (https://floridaelectionwatch.gov/StateOffices/CommissionerOfAgriculture), in which the margin between the candidates is in the hundredths of a percent. If it wasn't obvious already, it should be crystal clear that every vote counts. Except mine didn't. My absentee ballot was declared invalid over my signature After it became clear that several races were too close to call on Tuesday, I decided to check my absentee ballot status on the Palm Beach County elections website – only to find that my ballot had been rejected because of an "invalid signature" mismatch. I've been a registered voter for over 15 years, and an active Palm Beach County voter for six, and yet that wasn't enough to get my ballot added to the official tally. Voters who get notice in time can sign and return an affidavit (https://dos.myflorida.com/elections/for-voters/voting/vote-by-mail/) that has to be received by 5 p.m. the day before the election. But my vote wasn't actually logged until Election Day, according to the Palm Beach elections website. There is no remedy to my situation after the fact, so unless that's changed by the county canvassing board or a legal challenge (https://www.tampabay.com/floridapolitics/buzz/2018/11/09/bill-nelson-files-lawsuit-challenging-floridas-election-signature-match-law-amid-senate-recount/) filed by Sen. Bill Nelson, the judgment call made by an unelected county employee to reject my vote will stand. More: Make voting easier for everybody, not tougher (/story/opinion/2018/11/06/election-day-make-voting-easier-not-tougher-editorialsdebates/1909802002/) Republicans are rigging elections to win. They're anti-voter and anti-democracy. (/story/opinion/2018/10/25/republicans-suppress-votes-rig-electionsattack-democracy-midterms-column/1722188002/) African-Americans fought, bled and died so we could vote. Shame on us if we don't (/story/opinion/nation-now/2018/11/05/elections-2018-they-foughtbled-and-died-so-we-could-vote-column/1894625002/) I wonder, how many others across the state has this "mismatch" scenario affected without their knowledge? Would the single parent working two jobs or the snowbird heading out of town to see family for the holidays see this notice in time to make the correction? For races being decided in the hundreds of votes out of more than 8 million cast, the decision to summarily reject a validly cast ballot is unfathomable. We must work to reform this system — now. GET THE NEWS Just this week we made great strides in expanding the right to vote in another important way. Nearly 65% (https://floridaelectionwatch.gov/Amendments)of Floridians chose to extend the franchise to ex-felons who have paid their debt to society. It is refreshing that after President Donald Trump tried to suppress the vote with a nonsensical voter fraud commission (https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/trumpfraud-commission), Florida voters from across the political spectrum chose to veer in the opposite direction and encourage more people to participate in the political process. Treat voting as the most sacred right of all But in other ways our system — not just in Florida, but across the nation — continues to actively discourage voting. Polling places are shuttered at college campuses purely for political reasons. Early vote centers are underfunded and understaffed to the point where lines are hours long, snaking around city blocks. And voters are often purged from the rolls for missing an election or having minor errors in the spellings of their names or addresses. This is completely antithetical to the democratic ideals that we, as a nation, have fought for. My vote on Nov. 6 may not end up being counted. But we have too much at stake at this time in our nation's history — from the threat of climate change to the disappearing middle class to the scourge of gun violence — to unfairly push people to the sidelines who want their voices heard. It is imperative that we treat the right to vote as the most sacred right of all. Democrat Patrick Murphy represented Florida's 18th Congressional District from 2013 to 2017. Follow him on Twitter: @PatrickMurphyFL (https://twitter.com/PatrickMurphyFL) You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors (http://usatoday.com/reporters/boc.html) and other writers on the Opinion front page (http://usatoday.com/opinion/), on Twitter @usatodayopinion (https://twitter.com/usatodayopinion) and in our daily Opinion newsletter (https://profile.usatoday.com/newsletters/opinion/). To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com. Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/11/09/florida-rejected-my-vote-signature-mismatch-former-congressmancolumn/1945081002/ https://nyti.ms/3eajXhG Mail Carrier in West Virginia Pleads Guilty to Attempted Election Fraud Five mail-in ballot requests were altered from Democrat to Republican, federal prosecutors in West Virginia said. By Azi Paybarah Published July 9, 2020 Updated July 11, 2020 Talk of election fraud may conjure images of high-tech operations, ones that rely on hacked emails and a network of fake social media accounts. A recent case in West Virginia, however, was decidedly less sophisticated. According to federal prosecutors, it involved just one mail carrier and a little bit of black ink. The mail carrier, Thomas Cooper, 47, of Dry Fork, W.Va., pleaded guilty on Thursday to one count of attempted election fraud and one count of “injury to the mail,” according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of West Virginia. Prosecutors said that Mr. Cooper admitted to altering eight primary ballot request forms with black ink. On five of those forms, the political party was changed from Democrat to Republican, officials said, and they would have resulted in Democratic voters receiving ballots featuring Republican primary candidates. The clerk of Pendleton County spotted the alterations in April and contacted state officials, spurring an investigation, prosecutors said. An investigator with the state attorney general’s office spoke with the voters, who confirmed that their ballot requests had been altered, according to an affidavit filed with the court. Eventually, that investigator and a U.S. postal inspector questioned Mr. Cooper, who, according to the affidavit, held a U.S. Postal Service contract to deliver mail in the three towns where the eight voters reside: Onego, Riverton and Franklin. The alterations looked obvious and affected only a tiny fraction of the state’s more than one million voters. At one point in the interview, Mr. Cooper was asked if he was “just being silly” when he altered the ballot requests. According to the affidavit, he replied, “Yeah” and said that he did it “as a joke.” Efforts to reach Mr. Cooper by phone and email on Thursday night were not successful. He will be sentenced at a later date, according to local news reports. To encourage voters to use mail-in voting during the coronavirus pandemic, absentee ballot applications were mailed to all registered voters in West Virginia in advance of their primary election on June 9. +(,121/,1( Citation: 9 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 277 2004-2005 Provided by: Virginia Tech Libraries Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Mon Apr 3 13:46:01 2017 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: Copyright Information SECURING THE INTEGRITY OF AMERICAN ELECTIONS: THE NEED FOR CHANGE PUBLIUS" I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 278 II. PROVISIONAL VOTING ..................................................... 282 III. IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT ...................................... 287 IV. CITIZENSHIP OF VOTERS .................................................. 292 V. STATEWIDE VOTER REGISTRATION LISTS AND THE NVRA ............................................................... VI. 297 STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 299 * Publius is an attorney who specializes in election issues. The opinions expressed here are the attorney's own and not that of the attorney's employer. Texas Review of Law & Politics Vol. 9 I. INTRODUCTION It is unfortunately true that in the great democracy in which we live, voter fraud has had a long and studied role in our elections. Maintaining the security of our voter registration and voting process, while at the same time protecting the voting rights of individuals and guaranteeing their access to the polls, must be our foremost objective. Unlike what certain advocates in the civil rights community believe, these goals are not mutually exclusive. Every vote that is stolen through fraud disenfranchises a voter who has cast a legitimate ballot in the same way that an individual who is eligible to vote is disenfranchised when he is kept out of a poll or is somehow otherwise prevented from casting a ballot. In other words, violations of criminal election crimes statutes are just as important as violations of federal voting rights statutes and both cause equal damage to our democracy. Most importantly, putting security measures in place-such as requiring identification when voting-does not disenfranchise voters and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. In fact, the most recent election in 2004, with its record turnout and increases in voter registration, shows that such identification requirements have no effect on turnout at all. The other problems encountered in this and prior elections, particularly the large number of fraudulent voter registration forms turned in to election officials by some third-party organizations engaged in voter registration drives, show the need to make further changes in federal and state law that will safeguard our elections and our right to vote.' The stealing of elections happens from the local level, such as in the mayor's race in Miami in 1997, to congressional races, 1. See Employment Policies Institute, The Real ACORN. Anti-Employee, Anti-Union, Big Business (May 2003), available at http://www.EPIonline.org/studies/epi-acorn_052003.pdf (a description of one organization's pattern of turning in false registration forms). See also Robert Patrick, Jury finds Montgomey guilty in vote fraud case, ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, Feb. 10, 2005, at BI (thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms were turned in by an organization called Operation Big Vote); Juliet Williams, Federal investigatorsjoin probe into Milwaukee voting problems, DULUTH NEWS TRIB., Feb. 16, 2005 (city voting records showed that more than 1,200 people voted from invalid addresses); 'Mary Poppins' admits phony voter registrations, STAR TRIBUNE, Feb. 19, 2005; Mark Brunswick, Voter card stash brings guilty plea, STAR TRIBUNE, Dec. 7, 2004, at 8B. No. 2 The Integrity of American Elections 279 such as Lyndon B. Johnson's famed theft of his 1948 U.S. Senate Democratic primary with Ballot Box 13, to the 1960 presidential race with Mayor Daley's long-rumored stuffing of ballots in Chicago on behalf ofJohn Kennedy. Information about some of the better known incidents is documented by Larry Sabato and Glenn Simpson in "Dirty Little Secrets: The Persistence of Corruption in American Politics"'2 and byJohn Fund in "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy."' In 1984, a special federal grand jury in the Northern District of Illinois investigated the 1982 general election in Illinois and concluded that 100,000 fraudulent votes had been cast.4 Its public report provides a textbook guide to how voter fraud is committed. It details false registration, fraudulent use of absentee ballots, vote buying, and altering of the vote count. In that case alone, fifty-eight precinct captains, election judges, poll watchers, and political party workers were convicted in the largest vote fraud case ever prosecuted by the United States Department of Justice.5 The grand jury concluded "that similar fraudulent activities" had occurred prior to 1982.' Most cases of voter fraud are prosecuted by state authorities, but anyone interested in looking at the scope of the problem, which most liberal advocacy groups wrongly insist is almost nonexistent and exaggerated,7 need only look at the many cases 2. LARRYJ. SABATO & GLENN R. SIMPSON, DIRTY LITrLE SECRETS: THE PERSISTENCE OF CORRUPTION IN AMERICAN POLITICS (1996). 3. JOHN FUND, STEALING ELECTIONS: How VOTER FRAUD THREATENS OUR DEMOCRACY (2004). 4. See Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division Special Grand Jury Report, No. 82 GJ 1909, Dec. 14, 1984. What is clear from reading the grand jury report and some of the reported cases on these convictions is that the election officials learned these techniques from their predecessors and that there was a long tradition of these types of practices in Chicago. See also Mark Eissman, U.S. to Probe Primary: Vote Fraud Federal Laws May Have Been Broken, CHI. TRIB., Mar. 11, 1987, at IC. A detailed account of extensive voter fraud in Miami is contained in the Miami-Dade County Grand Jury, Interim Report, Inquiry into Absentee Ballot Voting, Feb. 2, 1998. In 1984, Brooklyn District Attorney Elizabeth Holtzman disclosed the results of another grand jury investigation that found "serious and repeated fraud in primary elections held in Brooklyn" for fourteen years, including the use of fictitious names to create large numbers of voter registration cards that were then used to cast fraudulent votes. Press Release, Brooklyn, New York District Attorney's Office, D.A. Holtzman Announces Grand Jury Report Disclosing Systematic Voting Fraud in Brooklyn (Sept. 5, 1984). 5. Id. 6. Id. 7. See, e.g., Lori Minnite & David Callahan, Securing the Vote: An Analysis of Election Fraud, Demos, 2003, available at http://www.demos-usa.org/pubs/EDR-Securingthe_ Vote.pdf. The problem with this report is that it does not recognize that so many security holes exist in our current voter registration and election process, and that is it very hard Texas Review of Law & Politics Vol. 9 prosecuted under the federal statutes prohibiting various election crimes such as vote buying and providing false information to register and vote, which are violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(c). There are numerous reported cases listed after these statutes in an annotated volume of the United States Code.' While it may be true that most elections are conducted without being affected by voter fraud, the many past (and ongoing) prosecutions make it clear that voter fraud is a continuing problem. The fastest and most uniform way of making needed changes in election administration would be to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 ("HAVA"). 9 HAVA was signed into law by President Bush on October 29, 2002, and was the first statute passed by Congress affecting federal elections since the passage of the National Voter Registration Act in 1993 ("NVRA")."' HAVA's provisions were intended to correct the perceived problems with the conduct of the 2000 presidential election. Organizations involved in election administration such as the National Association of Secretaries of State ("NASS") and the National Association of State Election Directors formed task forces that made various recommendations for reforming the election process. The final bill was full of compromises between Republicans and Democrats (and election officials and civil rights leaders) who did not always agree on what needed to be fixed or how. In some instances the provisions were so controversial that the bill almost died, particularly the identification provisions that were added at the behest of Senator Kit Bond of Missouri. Congress, to detect voter fraud unless a victim or perpetrator bring it to the attention of authorities. In the past, for example, election officials never verified any of the information received on voter registration forms, resulting in an honor system for voter registration. Many studies have shown numerous false names and even animals registered to vote in jurisdictions all over the country. As another example, this study asserts that "vigorous" signature matching is sufficient to prevent voter fraud with balloting by mail. Any criminal prosecutor with experience in handwriting analysis knows that it takes extensive training to do such analysis accurately, something that the election clerks who conduct signature comparisons do not receive. Furthermore, if someone sends in 100 false voter registration forms under different names, but signs each form in their normal signature, a signature comparison of each absentee or mail-in ballot with the original registration card will not result in any detection of the fraud because the signatures will match. 8. See also, e.g., the many election cases under 42 U.S.C. § 241 (2005) (conspiracy against rights). 9. 42 U.S.C. §§ 15301-15545 (2005). 10. See 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg (2005). No. 2 * The Integrity ofAmerican Elections for the first time ever, also appropriated funding for election administration for the states to help them comply with HAVA. Administering elections is probably the oldest unfunded mandate in the history of the federal government since federal elections have always been run by mostly county (and in some states like Michigan) even municipal governments. As of February 9, 2005, however, the new Election Assistance Commission had distributed more than $2.2 billion to the states to help them meet HAVA's requirements." These requirements for federal elections apply to all fifty states, American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Most of them became effective during 2004 election cycle. HAVA presents an interesting contrast between federal and state responsibilities. Federal mandates imposed in Title III require the states to implement certain requirements for federal elections, yet at the same time the statute leaves the "specific choices on the methods of complying with the requirements" to the states.' 2 HAVA created a new federal agency, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission ("EAC"), to oversee the funding to states and to provide guidance on the best methods for states to implement these HAVA requirements. But the EAC's guidance is only voluntary and states can completely disregard it. Obviously fearing a new federal agency would take over election administration through the regulatory process, Congress prohibited the EAC from having "any authority to issue any rule, promulgate any regulation, or take any other action which imposes any requirement on any State or unit of local government.' ' 3 However, the nation's secretaries of state, who are the chief election official in nearly every state, are obviously fearful of Congress amending HAVA to provide the EAC with regulatory authority that would result in a federal takeover of the states' authority to administer elections. NASS 11. Press Release, United States Election Assistance Commission, U.S. Election Assistance Commission Reports to Congress on Election Reform Progress in 2004 (Feb. 9, 2005), available at http://www.eac.gov/news_020905.asp. 12. 42 U.S.C. § 15485 (2005). A copy of the statute and other information on its requirements may be found on the U.S. Department of Justice's website at http://www. usdoj.gov/crt/voting/hava/hava.html. 13. 42 U.S.C. § 15329 (2005). The only exception is for the regulations issued under section 9(a) of the NVRA on the use of the federal mail-in voter registration form. Responsibility for this form was transferred by HAVA from the Federal Election Commission to the EAC. See 42 U.S.C. § 15531 (2005). Texas Review of Law & Politics Vol. 9 recently overwhelmingly passed a resolution4 calling on Congress to dissolve the EAC after the 2006 election. Under Title III of HAVA, states were required by 2004 to implement provisional ballots, identification for new voters who registered by mail, and statewide voter registration lists, although the registration list requirement could be delayed until 2006. Changes were also made in the federal mail-in voter registration form that all states are required to accept by the NVRA. Before discussing what changes should be made to HAVA or state election laws to improve the integrity of our elections and to deter voter fraud, it is important to understand these HAVA mandates and how they were implemented in 2004, as well as the problems that exist in our election process. Although HAVA only applies to federal elections,'5 HAVA's requirements for federal elections are being applied by the states to all elections due to the difficulty and expense of applying separate registration and election procedures to local versus federal elections. II. PROVISIONAL VOTING Section 15482(a) of HAVA requires states to implement provisional balloting. If a voter appears at his polling place to vote and his name is not on the list of registered voters or an election official challenges his eligibility to vote, the voter has to be given a provisional ballot as long as the voter declares that he is registered and eligible to vote in the jurisdiction in which he desires to vote. The provisional ballot is counted if election officials are able to verify that the individual is a registered and eligible voter under applicable state law. 6 The states were required to establish a toll-free telephone number or website where the voter could find out if his vote was counted or the reason it was not. 14. Letter from Meredith Imwalle, Director of Communications, NASS, to Members of Congress (Feb. 6, 2005), availableat http://www.nass.org/EAC%20Position%20Cover %20Ltr.pdf. This is a legitimate concern given the content of some of the new bills introduced in Congress to amend HAVA. See, e.g., S. 17, 109th Cong. § 15 (2005). 15. The preamble to the statute states that it is an Act "[t]o establish the Election Assistance Commission to assist in the administration of Federal elections and to otherwise provide assistance with administration of certain Federal election laws and programs, to establish minimum election administration standards for States ... with responsibility for the administration of Federal elections." Help America Vote Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107252 (codified as 42 U.S.C. §§ 15301 et seq. (2005)) (emphasis added). 16. 42 U.S.C. § 15482 (a). No. 2 The Integrity of American Elections Additionally, under HAVA voters who vote after the statutory time for polls to close due to a court order extending that time must vote by provisional ballot. 7 This is designed to avoid the kinds of problems that occurred in St. Louis in the 2000 election when Democrats convinced a lower court to extend polling hours based on specious claims.' This allowed hundreds of invalid ballots to be cast before the decision was overturned the same evening by a higher court. The invalid ballots cast disappeared into the anonymity of the ballot box before the original court order could be overturned.' 9 As a result, the ballots could not be separated from other ballots and were counted in the election. This HAVA requirement essentially puts a stop to this campaign tactic as evidenced by the very few times it occurred in the November 2004 election. The purpose of HAVA's provisional balloting requirement is to allow an individual to vote who has duly registered as required under state laws but whose name is not on the registered voter list in the voter's precinct due to some type of administrative error. An example is someone who registered to vote when she renewed her driver's license but the state's motor vehicle department did not send her voter registration form to election officials. Contrary to the desires of some, this provision was not meant to void state voter registration deadlines and to institute election day registration or to force states to count the provisional ballots of individuals who did not attempt to actually register to vote, even if they would otherwise be eligible to vote if they had registered. HAVA's provisional balloting requirement was not intended by Congress to preempt the long tradition of precinct-based voting. However, the Democratic Party and its alter ego organizations like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ("ACORN"), the NAACP, People for the American Way, and the League of Women Voters, tried to use 17. 42 U.S.C. § 15482(c) (stating that such provisional ballots must also be "separated and held apart from other provisional ballots" cast at the polling place). 18. It turned out that the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, Robert D. Odum, who supposedly had not been able to vote because of long-lines at polling locations, had been dead since 1999. The Democrats then claimed the plaintiff was actually Robert M. Odum, a staffer for Democrat Congressman William Clay; however, Mr. "M" Odum had voted prior to the filing of the lawsuit. Beverly Lumpkin, Beverly Lumpkin: Halls of Justice (Apr. 20, 2004), at http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93445&page=l. 19. State ex rel. Bush-Cheney 2000, Inc. v. Baker, 34 S.W.3d 410 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). 284 Texas Review of Law & Politics Vol. 9 HAVA to do just that prior to the November 2, 2004 election. 0 They filed numerous lawsuits in battleground states, including Michigan, Ohio, Florida, and Missouri. In these suits, the plaintiffs mistakenly argued that 42 U.S.C. § 15482 of HAVA invalidates state laws and required those states to count the provisional ballots of voters that were cast outside of the precincts where the voters would normally vote. Most of these suits used 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to assert claims under HAVA as well as making claims under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was an obvious effort to institute "precinct-shopping" by using federal law to preempt state law requirements. Federal judges at the district court level issued opinions dismissing the plaintiffs' claims in Florida and Missouri, recognizing from the statutory language and the legislative history that Congress had not intended to override traditional precinct-based voting by the states when it passed HAVA; 21 the plaintiffs won in the district courts in Michigan and Ohio in poorly reasoned decisions that appear to be attempts by the judges to legislate from the bench 2 Fortunately, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision just a week before the election that overruled the Ohio decision, holding that HAVA does not require a state to count a provisional ballot "if it is cast outside the precinct in which the voter resides."2 3 The court did confirm that if a voter declares that he is registered and eligible to vote in the jurisdiction, the state must give him a provisional ballot even if the election official is able to determine that the voter is registered in a different precinct, but the ballot does not have to be counted outside of his assigned precinct. In its opinion, the court summarized succinctly the sound public 20. While these organizations are all independent of each other legally, the positions they assert in election litigation are usually virtually identical. 21. Florida Democratic Party v. Hood, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (N.D. Fla. 2004) (holding that federal law does not invalidate the long-standing requirement in the State of Florida that a voter must vote on election day only at the voter's assigned polling place); Hawkins v. Blunt, No. 04-4177, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21512 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 12, 2004). 22. Bay County Democratic Party v. Land, 347 F. Supp. 2d 404 (E.D. Mich. 2004); Sandusky County Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 339 F. Supp. 2d 975 (N.D. Ohio 2004). 23. Sandusky County Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 386 F.3d 815 (6th Cir. 2004). A full written opinion was issued three days later. Sandusky County Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 2004). Since Michigan is also in the Sixth Circuit, this decision effectively overruled Bay County Democratic Party v. Land, 347 F. Supp. 2d 404 (E.D. Mich. 2004). No. 2 The Integrity of American Elections policy reasons behind the traditional precinct-based voting process of the states: [I]t caps the number of voters attempting to vote in the same place on election day; it allows each precinct ballot to list all of the votes a citizen may cast for all pertinent federal, state, and local elections, referenda, initiatives, and levies; it allows each precinct ballot to list only those votes a citizen may cast, making ballots less confusing; it makes it easier for election officials to monitor votes and prevent election fraud; and it generally puts polling places in closer proximity to voter residences. 4 Unfortunately, despite the lack of statutory language 2 authorizing a private right of action in HAVA ' and the clear legislative history showing Congress's intent to the contrary, the Sixth Circuit also recognized a private right of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, at least with respect to the right to cast a 26 provisional ballot. The court determined that the provisional ballot requirement in 1HAVA is rights-creating language and that individual enforcement under § 1983 is not precluded by the explicit language of HAVA or by a comprehensive 27enforcement enforcement. scheme incompatible with individual The problem with this decision is its failure to recognize that the standards established by HAVA focus on the administration of federal elections by state officials, not the individuals who may benefit from the administration of well-run elections. The provisional ballot requirements of § 15482 are all directed at election officials, not individual voters, and it is a mistake to read private remedies into a statute where Congress is regulating an area of traditional state functions and when the statute itself 8 does not unambiguously provide for such remedies. In fact, Congressional statements at the time of its passage show that Congress did not intend to create a private right of action. Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, one of the chief sponsors of HAVA and a member of the conference committee, lamented that HAVA created no private remedy, 24. Blackwell, 387 F.3d at 569. to 25. See 42 U.S.C. § 15511 (2005). Only the Attorney General is given authority of 15481-15483 §§ U.S.C. 42 violating jurisdiction or state a against bring a civil action HAVA. Id. 26. Blackwell 387 F.3d at 572. 27. Id. at 572-73. 28. See Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 286 n.5 (2002). Texas Review of Law & Politics Vol. 9 stating "[w]hile I would have preferred that we extend [a] private right of action , the House simply would not entertain such an enforcement provision. 2 9 The Sixth Circuit also failed to recognize that Congress had, in fact, crafted a comprehensive enforcement scheme that ensured compliance with federal law while respecting traditional state authority in running elections. While the Attorney General was given the authority to seek enforcement in federal court, the states were required to establish an administrative complaint procedure for voters who met specified standards and provide appropriate remedies for violations. ° Congress designed a comprehensive dual state/federal enforcement scheme that was deferential to the states' traditional role in administering elections while providing for uniform national standards in discrete areas by vesting enforcement authority in the Attorney General. As the Attorney General said in an amicus curiae brief filed in Sandusky: Allowing individual voters to judicially enforce HAVA's requirements would undermine each of these important purposes. Indeed it is implausible to suppose that the same Congress that sought to obtain uniformity, stability, and certainty in voting procedures for federal elections simultaneously intended to consign control over HAVA's interpretation to thousands of federal and state court judges and juries across the country. 1 What is clear from the statute, the legislative history, and these decisions is that the conditions under which a provisional ballot will be counted is a matter that Congress properly left up to the states to determine. Twenty-eight states decided to only count ballots cast in the correct precinct, while seventeen states decided to count provisional ballots cast outside a voter's residential precinct. 2 Neither the courts nor Congress should 29. 148 CONG. REC. S10488-02, S10512 (daily ed. Oct. 16, 2002). The Conference Report confirmed that the enforcement provision only allowed for civil actions filed by the Attorney General. H.R. CONF. REP. No. 107-730, at 76 (2002). 30. 42 U.S.C. § 15512 (2005). 31. "Brief of Amicus Curiae United States at 22-23, Sandusky County Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 386 F.3d 815 (6th Cir. 2004) (No. 04-4265), available at http://www. usdoj.gov/crt/voting/hava/oh-brief.pdf. 32. Electionline.org, The 2004 Election, Dec. 2004, at 5, available at http:// electionline.org/site/docs/pdf/ERIP%20Brief9%20Final.pdf. Other states offer election day registration while North Dakota has no registration, obviating the need for provisional ballots. The Integrity of American Elections No. 2 interfere with the states' prerogative to decide the circumstances under which such ballots will be counted. The provisional balloting process proved successful, with the EAC reporting that one-and-one-half million provisional ballots were cast and over one million were counted. However, the effort to force states to count ballots not cast in the proper precincts will no doubt continue with more lawsuits in the future outside the ambit of the Sixth Circuit's jurisdiction. III. IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT Persons who register to vote by mail for the first time who have not previously voted in a federal election in a state now have to provide a copy of certain specified identification documents when they register or show such identification the first time they vote. The list of acceptable identification under HAVA includes photo identification as well as a utility bill, a bank statement, a paycheck, or a government document that 34 do shows the name and address of the voter. Individuals who ballot.5 provisional a cast can requirement this not comply with An exception to the provision is provided to voters who are entitled to vote under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act36 and the Voting Accessibility for the 3v Elderly and Handicapped Act. These requirements also do not apply to a voter who supplies a driver's license number or the last four digits of his social security number when registering if election officials are able to match the registration with an existing state identification record bearing the same number, name, and date of birth as provided in the registration application. 3 There are two problems with this identification requirement: it applies to only a small percentage of the electorate, one made even smaller by some states' interpretation, and the types of documents that meet the identification requirements are too broad. Under HAVA's statutory language, this identification requirement applies only to an individual who "registered to 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 42 U.S.C. 42 U.S.C. 42 U.S.C. 42 U.S.C. 42 U.S.C. 42 U.S.C. § 15483(b) (2005). §15483(b) (2) (A) (i) (II). §15483(b) (2) (B) (ii). § 1973gg.4 (2005). § 1973ee-1 (b) (2) (B) (ii). §15483(b) (3) (B) (ii). Texas Review of Law & Politics Vol. 9 vote in a jurisdiction by mail." 9 The point of this provision was to require identification from individuals who use the federal mail-in voter registration form that the NVRA requires states to accept since no election official ever sees the individual registrant or does any verification of the registrant's identity. This rationale applies whether the individual actually uses the mail to send back the complete form to election officials or the form is personally delivered in a large batch by some third-party organization that conducted a voter registration drive. In both situations, no verification of any kind is conducted on the identity and actual existence of the applicant. Unfortunately, a number of states such as New Mexico interpreted this provision to apply only to voter registration forms actually received through the mail-if an individual or an organization dropped it off, the identification requirement did not apply. 40 And it was these third-party voter registration drives that resulted in thousands of fraudulent voter registrations in places like Florida and Georgia prior to the November election, showing a clear need to apply such requirements to all registrations using the mail-in form.4' Proving or verifying the voter's identity should also apply across the board to all voters when they register to vote and when they vote at the polling place, not just to new voters. We have had an honor system for too long in most states, with only seventeen states requiring that all voters show identification before voting.42 Furthermore, a photo identification should be required as proof of identity. Anyone who has ever moved into a new house or apartment and received bank statements and other government documents (all of which would satisfy the HAVA requirement) in the mail intended for the former occupants knows how easy it is to obtain such documents. When combined with the huge rise in identity theft, it is obvious that allowing documents without photographs is not an acceptable security 39. 42 U.S.C. §15483(b) (1)(A). 40. Electiononline.org, Election Preview 2004: What's Changed, What Hasn't and Why, Oct. 2004, at 45, available at http://www.electionline.org/site/docs/pdf/2OO4.Election. Preview.Final.Report.Updatel.pdf [hereinafter Election Preview 2004]. 41. Bill Cotterell, FDLE looks into vote fraud; Registration irregularitiesemerge across state, TALLAIIASSEE DEMOCRAT, Oct. 22, 2004, at Al; Carlos Campos, Election 2004: bogus voter forms pop up in Fulton, ATLANTAJOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, Oct. 21, 2004, at Al. 42. Election Preview 2004, supra note 40, at 24. No. 2 The Integrity of American Elections measure for our voter registration and voting process. The federal government has already imposed such a requirement for rail and air travel because of its understanding of these limitations. The same standards should be applied to voting. Contrary to the argument raised by civil rights organizations that such requirements will reduce voter turnout by minority voters,43 there are no valid studies presenting any objective data supporting such claims. The objections are merely anecdotal and based on the unproven perception that minority groups such as African-Americans do not posses identification documents to the same degree as Caucasians (although there are no claims that minorities do not have the same opportunity to obtain such identification from state authorities). Although driver's licenses are not the only form of photo identification available (since many employers and universities now routinely issue photo identification), it is useful to examine the available statistics on driver's licenses. According to an Federal Election Commission ("FEC") report covering the 1995-96 period, "approximately 87% of persons 18 years and older have driver's licenses while an additional 3% or 4% have, in lieu of a driver's license, an identification card issued by the State motor vehicle ",44 agency. More recently, in 2000, the Federal Highway Administration reported that the number of licensed drivers age eighteen and over is 186,797,586. 4' Since the total population of the United States age eighteen and over according to the 2000 Census is 209,128,094, the percentage of the U.S. voting age population with a driver's license is 89.32%.46 Using the FEC's 3% to 4% figure for additional non-driver's license identification cards, approximately 93% to 94% of the voting age population has, at 43. See, e.g., Robert Pear, Rights Groups Say Voter Bill Erects Hurdles, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 7, 2002, at HI. on 44. Fed. Elections Comm'n, The Impact of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 the Administration of Elections for FederalOffice, at 5-6 (1995-96). 45. Fed. Highway Admin., Distribution of Licensed Drivers by Sex and Percentage in Each Age Group and Relation to Population: 2000, tbl. DL-20 (Oct. 2001), availableat http://www. fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hsOO/dl20.htm. Neither the FEC nor the FHA has driver's license statistics by race. DP-1 46. U.S. Census Bureau, Profile of General Demographic Characteristics:2000, tbl. (July 2002), available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/c2kprofOO-us.pdf. If one compares 2003 driver's license statistics to the Census Bureau's 2003 population estimate, the voting age population with a driver's license rises to over 92%. 290 Texas Review of Law & Politics Vol. 9 a minimum, photo identification documents issued by state authorities. claim that identification groups further Advocacy requirements will adversely affect the elderly. However, a surprisingly large number of individuals over the age of sixty-five have driver's licenses. According to the Federal Highway Administration, the number of older Americans who hold 47 is as follows: driver's licenses as a percentage of their age group Licensed Drivers as a Percentage of Age Group Age Lic. Drivers 65-69 90.1% 70-74 85.7% 75-79 81.4% 80-84 73.1% Given these statistics, it is obvious that even elderly Americans have driver's licenses with photo identification in large numbers, without even taking into account the number of passports, employer identification cards, and other such documents. A second objection is that voters will be intimidated by identification requirements and therefore will not vote. The 2004 election certainly does not bear that out. For the first time, voter identification requirements (although limited) were applied nationwide because of HAVA. Yet turnout in the 2004 presidential election was 60.7% of those eligible to vote, the highest turnout since 1968 when 61.9% voted.48 In fact, turnout increased by 6.4%, or nearly seventeen million votes, from the 2000 election, the largest percentage point increase since the 47. Fed. Highway Admin., Distributionof Licensed Drivers by Sex and Percentage in Each Age Group and Relation to Population: 2003 (Oct. 2004), availableat http://www.fhwa.dot. gov/policy/ohim/hs03/pdf/dl20.pdf. 48. Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, Turnout Exceeds Optimistic Predictions: More Than 122 Million Vote, Highest Turnout in 38 Years, Jan. 14, 2005, at 1, available at http://election04.ssrc.org/research/csae 2004_final-report.pdf. No. 2 The Integrity of American Elections 1948 to 1952 election when it increased 10.1%. 4 9 The HAVA identification requirement also did not appear to affect voter registration. The EAC estimated that there were thirteen million new voters, an increase of 8%, while the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate estimated that the number of newly registered voters in 2004 as compared to 2000 was "an increase of nearly three million more than the increase in the eligible population" and an increase of' 5more than six million if "registration rates remained constant.' In other words, even with these new requirements, voter registration and turnout increased substantially. The increase in turnout in the 2004 election despite the imposition of HAVA's nationwide identification requirements is also in accord with the turnout in individual states that imposed identification requirements prior to the passage of HAVA. While there is not space in this article to go into detail, a study by the author of the turnout in presidential elections in four states with large minority populations (Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, and Louisiana) prior to HAVA showed no affect on minority voters from the implementation of state identification 5 requirements by their legislatures. ' By reviewing turnout in presidential elections, the possible effects of such a requirement can be gauged. Since turnout in presidential elections has fluctuated since 1960 in the midst of a general long-term decline, the effects of identification requirements must be analyzed in terms of whether turnout in a particular state has increased or decreased in comparison to the national average increase or decrease in turnout as well as the state's turnout history. In conducting such an analysis, it must also be noted that according to numerous published studies, many other factors may influence turnout, including early voting, state laws on absentee balloting, and local races of interest to voters. In any event, however, an examination of turnout statistics in these four representative states with significant minority populations 49. Id. 50. Press Release, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, U.S. Reports to Congress on Election Reform Progress in 2004, Feb. 9, 2005, available at http://www.civilrights.org/ issues/voting/details.cfm?id=28137; Turnout Exceeds Optimistic Predictions, supra note 48, at 2. 51. GA. CODE ANN. § 21-2-417 (2004); S.C. CODE ANN. § 7-13-710 (Law. Co-op. 2004); VA. CODE ANN. § 24.2-643 (Michie 2002); LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 18:562 (West 2004). Texas Review of Law & Politics Vol. 9 showed no reduction in turnout due to the implementation of identification requirements. Virginia provides just one example. According to the 2000 Census, Virginia's population is 72.3% white and 19.6% black.52 The percentage of the driving age population with driver's licenses in 2000 was 87.5%..5 Virginia passed an identification requirement in 1999 that became effective for the 2000 presidential election. 54 It requires a voter to present a voter registration card, a social security card, a driver's license, or any other photo identification issued by a government agency or employer. If the voter has none of these forms of identification, he can sign an affidavit subject to felony penalties that he is the named registered voter. Yet from the 1996 to the 2000 presidential election, when Virginia's identification requirement became effective, Virginia's turnout increased 5.46 points-from 47.54% to 53%. 5 During that same time period, the national turnout increased 2.22 points from 49.08% to 51.3%. Thus, even after imposing a new identification requirement, Virginia's turnout increased at twice the rate of increase of the national turnout. IV. CITIZENSHIP OF VOTERS Two changes to the national mail-in voter registration form that states are required to accept by section 6 of the NVRA s6 are required by 42 U.S.C. § 15483. Two questions with yes/no check boxes had to be added: "Are you a citizen of the United States of America?" and "Will you be 18 years of age on or before election day?51 7 The form also has to state that "[i]f you checked 'no' in response to either of these questions, do not complete this form."5 8 If the citizenship question is not answered, the registrar "shall notify the applicant of the failure and provide the applicant with an opportunity to complete the form in a timely 52. U.S. Census Bureau, State and County Quick Facts: Virginia, available at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/51000.html (last visited March 26, 2005). 53. U.S. Census Bureau, Licensed Drivers by Sex and Ratio to Population:2000, tbl. DL-1C (Oct. 2001), availableat http://www.flwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs00/dllc.htm. 54. VA. CODE ANN. § 24.2-643 (Mitchie 2002). 55. Information in this paragraph about voter turnout is available on the Election Assistance Commission website at http://www.eac.gov/election-resources.asp?format= none. 56. 42 U.S.C. 1973gg-4(c) (2005). 57. 42 U.S.C. 15483(b) (4) (A) (2005). 58. Id. No. 2 The Integrity of American Elections manner to allow for the completion of the registration form prior to the next election for Federal office (subject to State law)." Despite the clear language in this provision that requires individuals to answer the citizenship question before their voter registration can be accepted by election officials, many states have ignored the law, pressured by groups such as the League of Women Voters and the American Civil Liberties Union, and continue to register individuals who do not answer the citizenship question. For example, on September 7, 2004, Ohio's Secretary of State ordered county election officials to accept voter registration applications "even if the applicants did not checked[sic] the 'yes' boxes." 6° The South Dakota Secretary of State also ordered his county election officials to do the same and the Iowa Attorney General issued an opinion telling his Secretary of State that he could ignore state law to the contrary and accept voter registrations of applicants who did not answer this question. 61 Florida was actually sued to stop the state from complying with this requirement. A number of unions including the AFL-CIO and the AFSCME filed suit prior to the November 2004 election claiming that Florida's refusal to register individuals who did not as answer the citizenship question violated the Voting Rights Act 62 standing. of lack for dismissed was case The law. well as state The addition of this citizenship question to the voter registration form was prompted by Congress's concern over the ability of noncitizens, both legal and illegal, to register to vote without detection. Even the addition of this question, however, still leaves an honor system in place on the issue of the citizenship status of voters. Harris County, Texas has already reported finding at least thirty-five foreign citizens who either applied for or received voter cards in 2004 after checking the box on the application saying they were U.S. citizens and is 59. 42 U.S.C. 15483(b) (4) (A). 60. Directive No. 2004-31, Ohio Secretary of State, Sept. 7, 2004. 61. Letter from Chris Nelson, South Dakota Secretary of State, to County Auditors (Oct. 25, 2004), available at http://www.votelaw.com/blog/blogdocs/Response%20 Letter%20from%20Chris%2ONelson.pdf; Letter from Thomas J. Miller, Iowa Attorney General, to Chester J. Culver, Iowa Secretary of State (Oct. 20, 2004), available at http://www.votelaw.com/blog/blogdocs/AG%200pinion%20-%20Check%20the%20B ox%20%20%2010-20-041.pdf. 62. Diaz v. Hood, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (S.D. Fla. 2004). Texas Review of Law & Politics Vol. 9 investigating another seventy. 63 The presence of noncitizens on our voter rolls is certainly a problem as evidenced by various reported cases where noncitizens were found to be registered and, in some cases, to have voted in elections. However, because of the lack of verification of citizenship status by election officials and the reported refusal of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to cooperate with election officials, it is difficult to know how significant a problem this is. Some examples show the possible extent of the problem. In 1985, the district director of the INS testified before a task force in Illinois that 25,000 to 40,000 illegal and legal aliens in Chicago were registered voters. Before officials in Washington stopped the probe, a random check by the Dallas INS office in 1997 of only 400 registered voters found ten noncitizens. If this percentage (2.5%) had held true for the entire county, it would represent thousands of illegally registered voters. 65 Random checks by the Honolulu city clerk's office in 2000 with the state identification card registry maintained by Hawaii showed over 550 registered voters who had admitted they were not U.S. citizens when applying for a state identification card." In 2002, eight illegal immigrants testified in court that they had registered to vote, and six testified that they had voted in a June 5, 2001 city council and mayoral election in Compton, California. 7 On the federal level, voting by noncitizens was found by the Committee on House Oversight in the Dornan-Sanchez election dispute in California in 1997. After a limited comparison of Orange County voter registration files with INS databases, the Committee found 784 invalid votes due to individuals who had 63. Joe Stinebaker, Loophole letsforeigners illegally vote, HOUS. CHRON., Jan. 16, 2005, at B1. The story estimated that dozens if not hundreds of foreign citizens had been allowed to vote, including a Brazilian woman who voted at least four times and reregistered (and voted) after her first registration was cancelled when she acknowledged on a jury summons that she was not a citizen. A Norwegian was discovered to have voted in a state legislative race decided by only thirty-three votes. 64. Desiree F. Hicks, Foreignerslandingon voter rolls, CHI. TRIB., Oct. 2, 1985, at 4D. 65. Ruth Larson, INS workersforced to halt check of voters, WASH. TIMES, June 4, 1997, at Al; Ruth Larson, Dallas voter-fraud probe taken out of control of INS, WASH. TIMES, June 10, 1997, at A3. It should be noted that such a check would turn up only the names of aliens in the INS system, i.e., lawful aliens who have been issued visas to be in the United States or illegal aliens who have been arrested and released pending further legal proceedings. 66. Scott Ishikawa & Kevin Dayton, Non-U.S. citizens found on voter rolls, THE HONOLULU ADVERTISER, Sept. 6, 2000, at IA. 67. Daren Briscoe, Noncitizens testify they voted in Compton election, L.A. TIMES, Jan. 23, 2002, at B5. No. 2 The Integrity of American Elections registered illegally. 68 The Committee's Report stated that the question of how many aliens were registered and voting in the 46th Congressional District was not resolved by its investigation. The Committee concluded: [T]here is a significant number of aliens who appear within the INS databases and are on the voter registration rolls of Orange County. This fact leads logically to a serious question and a troubling hypothesis: if there is a significant number of "documented aliens," aliens in INS records, on the Orange County voter registration rolls, how many illegal or aliens may be registered to vote in Orange undocumented 69 County? In a report released in 1998, California Secretary of State Bill Jones reported that in just one five-month period from September 1, 1996, to February 1, 1997, the Orange CountyJury Commissioner had 455 potential jurors who had been summoned from the county voter file claim an exemption from 70 jury service because they were not U.S. citizens. Finally, shortly before the 2004 general election, the chairman of the Maryland State Board of Election was quoted as saying he was "shocked" to learn that noncitizens were on the voting rolls. What was most interesting about this story was the refusal of the Citizenship and Immigration Service at the Department of Homeland Security (formerly the INS) to cooperate with the Maryland election board, with a spokesman citing the federal Privacy Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act. 72 The problem with this refusal is that CIS is violating federal law and apparently doing so without repercussions. Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 obligates the INS to respond to such inquiries notwithstanding any other provision of federal law (including the Privacy Act): Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local laws, a Federal, State, or local government entity or 68. COMM. ON HOUSE OVERSIGHT, DISMISSING THE ELECTION CONTEST AGAINST LORETrA SANCHEZ, H.R. Doc. No. 105-416, Feb. 12, 1998, p. 15. Since the winning margin was 979 votes, the election challenge was dismissed. 69. Id. 70. Press Release, California Secretary of State Bill Jones, Press Release and Official Status Report on Orange County Voter Fraud Investigation (Feb. 3, 1998). 71. Robert Redding, Jr., Purgingillegal aliensfrom voter rolls not easy; Maryland thwarted in tries so far, WASH. TIMES, Aug. 23, 2004, at Al. 72. Id. Texas Review of Law & Politics Vol. 9 official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual . . . . The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.73 What is clear from these reports is that the lack of verification of citizenship in the voter registration process is a serious problem that can affect the integrity of our elections, particularly when we have an estimated eight to ten million illegal aliens in the country. a Having an "honor" system with no verification or requirement that voter registration applicants document their citizenship status is unacceptable, as is the refusal of a federal agency to comply with federal law. In November 2004, Arizona voters passed a requirement that individuals registering to vote provide "satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship"; it is a good model for other states to follow, particularly in regard to the list of documents that will satisfy the requirement. 75 Arizona is also covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires all changes affecting voting to be submitted to the Attorney General or a federal district court in the District of Columbia for preclearance. The Attorney General precleared the citizenship proposition without objection on January 24, 2005, indicating that the Department of Justice concluded that this requirement would not have any discriminatory impact on minority voters. 76 73. 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a), (c) (2005). Since you must be a citizen to register and vote'in federal (and all state) elections, verifying citizenship status is obviously "within the jurisdiction" of election officials. 74. Redding, supranote 71. 75. Arizona Proposition 200, available at http://www.azsos.gov/election/2004/info/ PubPamphlet/english/prop200.htm. 76. Howard Fischer, DOJ Voter-approved law not detrimental to minority voting rights, ARIz. DAILY SUN, Jan. 25, 2005; Yvonne Wingett & Robbie Sherwood, Voting provisions get clearance,ARIZ. REPUBLIC,Jan. 25, 2005, at lB. No. 2 The Integrity of American Elections V. STATEWIDE VOTER REGISTRATION LISTS AND THE NVRA HAVA requires states to implement a single, uniform, official, statewide voter interactive computerized centralized, registration list for use in all federal elections. Each state must maintain and administer this database, which must list the name and registration information of every legally registered voter. Specific standards are set out for maintaining the list, including cross-referencing the list with state drivers license records, felony and death records, and federal social security records. These lists were supposed to be implemented by 2004 but the majority of states received a waiver until 2006 from the EAC as allowed under section 15483 (d). 8 The computerized statewide database is intended to solve existing problems with, for the most part, county voter 71 registration lists. Many of these lists are full of duplicate names, individuals who have died, and voters who are no longer eligible because they have moved, not to mention the fraudulent and nonexistent individuals that are registered, such as the 1,200 voters under investigation in Wisconsin because of nonexistent or invalid addresses. A recent study by the Chicago Tribune found 181,000 dead people on voter rolls in six swing states after the November election.80 Unfortunately, the National Voter Registration Act imposed onerous and unreasonable restrictions on the ability of states to purge voters who are ineligible because they have moved and that was not changed by the requirement of HAVA. Before the NVRA, if a jurisdiction received information that a voter had moved, it could send a letter notifying the voter that he would be deleted from the registration roll unless he confirmed that he had not moved. Under NVRA, however, a voter can be dropped only if he confirms in writing to the election officials that he has moved, or if he does not vote in two federal elections after failing to respond to a written notice." NVRA's assumption 77. 42 U.S.C. § 15483(a) (2005). 78. 42 U.S.C. § 15483(d). 79. See Susan Greene & Erin Cox, Election becomes a test of trust, DENV. POST, Oct. 31, 2004, at Al (reporting that 68,000 duplicate names were found on registration rolls prior to the November election). 80. Geoff Dougherty, Dead voters on rolls, other glitchesfound in 6 key states, CHI. TRIB., Dec. 4, 2004, at C13. 7 81. See generally section 8 of the NVRA. 42 U.S.C. § 19 3gg-6 (2005). Texas Review of Law & Politics Vol. 9 that an individual who has moved will receive a written notice sent to him at his new address or will take the time to respond in writing to his former jurisdiction is naive and ignores the huge volume of junk mail most people receive these days (and promptly ignore and throw out). It also does not take into account that the Postal Service will only forward a person's mail to a new address for a limited amount of time. A voter may never receive his notice and thus will not be able to confirm that he has moved and should be dropped from the registration list. These NVRA restrictions have resulted in large numbers of ineligible persons remaining on voter registration lists-increasing the possibility that fraudulent ballots will be cast in their names. There are numerous jurisdictions across the United States (such as Alaska) that have more registered voters than the voting age population, a clear indication that the jurisdiction is not properly maintaining its registration list by purging individuals who have moved or died. 82 A statewide database, while solving the problem of duplicate registrations within a state, will, of course, not be a bar to individuals registering and voting in more than one state. This is a significant problem. In two separate investigations, the Charlotte Observer found as many as 60,000 voters registered in both North Carolina and South Carolina and the New York Daily News found 46,000 voters registered in both New York and Florida, with at least 1,000 voters who cast ballots in both states in at least one election.83 Given that the 2000 presidential election was decided by less than 1,000 votes cast in Florida, these investigations reveal a serious security problem that must be remedied. Interestingly, in these cases these problems were not discovered by election officials running database comparisons-they were found by newspapers using existing 82. As other examples, the City of East St. Louis has 20% more registered voters than it has voting age population. Mike Fitzgerald, Dual registration: a recipe for fraud, BELLEVILLE NEWS-DEMOCRAT, Nov. 28, 2004. Thirty-four of Mississippi's 82 counties have more registered voters than voting age population. Emily Wagster Pettus, Official seeks bid for computerized statewide voter roll, COM. APPEAL, Sept. 1, 2004, at DS4. 83. John Strauss & Mark Nichols, 11,214 on rolls in 2 counties, INDIANAPOLIS STAR, Oct. 28, 2004, at IA; Russ Buettner, City mulls action against two-timing voters, N.Y. DAILY NEWS, Aug. 24, 2004; 60,000 could be on file to vote in both Carolinas,THE STATE, Oct. 25, 2004, at Al; Double Voting Demands State Action, TAMPA TRIB., Aug. 26, 2004, at 10; James Gordon Meek & Lisa L. Colangelo, The News Rocks the Vote: Fla. officials say fraud will be probed, N.Y. DAILY NEWS, Aug. 23, 2004, at 10. No. 2 The Integrity of Ameican Elections database technology. Unfortunately, this is the type of investigation that election officials have shown no interest or initiative in doing on their own. VI. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS While many of the changes made by these new HAVA requirements are an improvement over existing election requirements and administration, they are not sufficient to protect the security of our voter registration and election process. Some of the provisions, such as the identification requirement, do not go far enough. Some groups have already exploited ambiguities in the statutory language of some of the provisions to avoid the statute's mandates. Additionally, some of HAVA's provisions should be clarified to quash the attempts to use litigation that forces substantive election administrative changes on the states that would imperil the integrity of our elections, were not intended by Congress, and intrude on the constitutional prerogative of the states to control "[t]he Times, Places, and Manner" of holding federal elections. 4 As discussed, but for the Sixth Circuit overturning the wrongly decided opinions of two federal district court judges just days before the November 2, 2004 election, HAVA would have been used to force states to implement the same kind of "precinct shopping" for voting that tort lawyers have successfully used in forum85 shopping for favorable venues. In order to fix the problems outlined in this article and improve the security of the voter registration and election process, the Help America Vote Act should be amended. A number of bills have already been introduced in Congress to amend HAVA, but most experts who follow these issues in Washington doubt whether any effort to amend HAVA will succeed. The statute as currently passed was the result of compromise and hard negotiations between the House and Senate and Republicans and Democrats. Both sides fear opening the statute to amendment because of possible changes the other 84. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4, cl. 1. 85. This would have also led to these groups attempting to influence election outcomes by pressuring local election officials to count provisional ballots despite problems with the voter's eligibility, similar to the examination and argument over individual punch card ballots in Florida in 2000, especially given the short time frames after elections that officials have to make determinations and the constant threat of litigation over every decision. Texas Review of Law & Politics Vol. 9 side would also want. For example, most Republicans would like to improve the identification requirements, but most Democrats would like to delete them entirely. The other solution is for states to pass laws amending their election laws, thereby putting in place stricter requirements than those imposed by HAVA, as they are allowed to do by § 15484.6 All of the changes noted below could be implemented by states at the local level through state legislative or regulatory changes or at the federal level by amending HAVA: " " * Require all voters to present photo identification at theirprecinct polling locations and to send copies of such identification when submitting an absentee ballot. Although, as discussed, the claim that minority voters cannot meet such requirements is unsubstantiated, that problem can be easily resolved. For any individual who does not have a driver's license or other photo identification and who needs to obtain one to meet this requirement, states should waive the fee their motor vehicle departments charge for the nondriver's license identification cards they issue. Require an individual who registers by mail to vote in person 8 the first time. A small number of states such as Virginia 1 have such a legal requirement, but all states should implement such a statute. 8 Require all individuals who register to vote through the use of mail-in forms, whether they are mailed back to election officials or hand-delivered y the individual or third-party organizations, to comply with the HAVA or stricter state identification requirements. This requirement should apply to all individuals who do not appear before election officials who verify their identification, particularly large voter registration drives organized by third-party organizations. 86. "The requirements established by this title are minimum requirements and nothing in this title shall be construed to prevent a State from establishing ... requirements that are more strict than the requirements established under this title so long as such State requirements are not inconsistent with the Federal requirements under this title or any law described in section 906 [federal voting rights statutes]." 42 U.S.C. § 15484 (2005). 87. VA. CODE ANN. § 24.2-416.1 (B) (Mitchie 2004). 88. States are specifically allowed to have such a requirement by section 6 of the NVRA. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6 (2005). No. 2 " * • * * The Integrity of American Elections Require all individuals who register to vote to provide documentation establishingthat they are United States citizens, 8 similar to Arizona's Proposition 200. At a minimum, individuals who do not answer the citizenship question that HAVA requires on the federal voter registration form should not be registered unless they confirm that they are U.S. citizens. In addition, all state voter registration forms should be changed to add the same citizenship question that is now on the federal voter registration form. Prohibitany third-parties (other than a voter's family), such as campaign workers, from delivering absentee ballots to voters or voted absentee ballots from voters to election officials. Absentee ballots represent the biggest source of potential voter fraud because they are obtained and voted away from official oversight. Prohibiting third-parties from delivering ballots would prevent alteration of ballots and intimidation of voters or fraud by campaign organizations and other parties. When third-party organizationsrequest large numbers of voter registrationforms for voter registration drives, require all such forms to have individual serial numbers and require election officials to keep track of which forms are assigned to the organizations.This will allow election officials to identify which organization handled voter registration forms that are found to be fraudulent and help in the investigation and prosecution of voter registration fraud. Require all state courts to notify election officials when individuals whose names are drawn from the registration rolls are excused from jury duty because they claim they are not U.S. citizens. Require states to enter into regional agreements to compare their new computerized voter registration lists to find voters who are registered in more than one state. In addition to the changes noted above that could be implemented either by states or at the federal level through changes in HAVA, there are several recommended changes that can only be done at the federal level. HAVA should also be amended to: 89. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 46-140.01 (2005). Texas Review of Law & Politics * Vol. 9 State unequivocally that there is no private right of action under HAVA or any other federal statute such as § 1983. As discussed, HAVA required states to implement comprehensive administrative complaint procedures and it gave enforcement authority to the U.S. Department of Justice.90 The debates in Congress during HAVA's passage make it clear that Congress did not intend to create a private right of action to enforce HAVA. HAVA should be clarified by Congress to make it explicit that the administrative complaint procedures are the exclusive venue for individuals who have complaints about a state's compliance with its provisions. * State unambiguously that the provisional balloting requirements of § 15482 do not require states to count the ballots of individuals who cast votes in any precinct other than the precinct to which they are assigned based on their residence address. Additionally, it should be made clear that individuals who are provided provisional ballots as required under HAVA when they do not present identification either at the time of registration or when they vote cannot have their provisional ballot counted for any federal candidates unless the voter complies with the identification requirement prior to some period of time after the election. * Make clear that if an individual does not answer the citizenship question on the federal voter registrationform mandated by § 15483(b), he cannot be registeredto vote for a federal election. * Require all federal courts to notify state election officials when individuals whose names are drawn from their registrationrolls are excused from jury duty because they claim they are not U.S. citizens. This would be similar to a provision that already exists in section 6 (g) of the NVRA91 that requires all U.S. Attorneys to notify state election officials when they obtain a conviction of an individual for a felony in a federal district court. This is intended to provide election officials with the opportunity to remove a felon from the voting rolls if their state provides such a disqualification. 90. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 15511-15512. 91. 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(g)(1). No. 2 The Integrity of American Elections Amend the NVRA to allow states to purge individuals who have not voted in two federal elections as long as they have been sent a written notice warning them that they will be removed unless they contact election officials within a certain period of time. This would change an unworkable and impractical provision in the NVRA that has single-handedly been responsible for padding voter registration rolls with huge numbers of ineligible voters and preventing states from properly purging their registration lists. It should also be clear in this change that, unlike the current requirements of the NVRA, this notice does not have to be sent out prior to the individual not voting twice; as long as the individual has not voted in two federal elections, the states should be able to remove the voter once they have sent out the written notice and there has been no response from the individual by the deadline. All of these changes would improve the security of our election process and would prevent fraud. They would ensure that every citizen's vote counts and that the value of his vote is not stolen by wrongdoing and sloppy procedures. Even if Congress fails to act by correcting some of the problems in HAVA and the ambiguities caused by unclear language (as well as the problems with the NVRA), there is nothing to stop the states from implementing many of these changes on their own. Under the Constitution, the states retain a great deal of constitutional authority to define the requirements for voting. Despite claims to the contrary, requiring proof of citizenship and identity as well requiring voting in a precinct where a citizen resides does not violate the explicit language, the spirit, or the intent of the Voting Rights Act or other federal voting rights statutes. It was not the intent of Congress to prevent reasonable measures to authenticate the eligibility of voters. Ensuring that elections are fraud free and that all voters are actually eligible to vote is the key to assuring citizens that the election process is legitimate and that election results accurately reflect the will of the voters. The proposed changes discussed here would be important steps in achieving that goal. TESTIMONY Election Integrity Requiring Identification by Voters March 23, 2009 10 min read Hans von Spakovsky Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow Testimony Before the Texas Senate on March 10, 2009 Iappreciate the invitation to be here today to discuss the importance of states such as Texas requiring individuals to authenticate their identity at the polls through photo and other forms of identification. By way of background, I have extensive experience in voting matters, including both the administration of elections and the enforcement of federal voting rights laws. Prior to becoming a Legal Scholar at the Heritage Foundation, I was a member for two years of the Federal Election Commission. I spent four years at the Department of Justice as a career lawyer, including as Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. I also spent five years in Atlanta, Georgia, on the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections, which is responsible for administering elections in the largest county in Georgia, a county that is almost half African-American. I have published extensively on election and voting issues, including on the subject of voter ID. Guaranteeing the integrity of elections requires having security throughout the entire election process, from voter registration to the casting of votes to the counting of ballots at the end of the day when the polls have closed. For example, jurisdictions that use paper ballots seal their ballot boxes when all of the ballots have been deposited, and election officials have step-by-step procedures for securing election ballots and other materials throughout the election process. I doubt any you think that it would be a good idea for a county to allow world wide Internet access to the computer it uses in its election headquarters to tabulate ballots and count votes - we are today a computer-literate generation and you understand that allowing that kind of outside access to the software used for counting votes would imperil the integrity of the election. Requiring voters to authenticate their identity at the polling place is part and parcel of the same kind of security necessary to protect the integrity of elections. Every illegal vote steals the vote of a legitimate voter. Voter ID can prevent: impersonation fraud at the polls; voting under fictitious voter registrations; double voting by individuals registered in more than one state or locality; and voting by illegal aliens. As the Commission on Federal Election Reform headed by President Jimmy Carter and Secretary of State James Baker said in 2005: The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters. Photo identification cards currently are needed to board a plane, enter federal buildings, and cash a check. Voting is equally important. Voter fraud does exist, and criminal penalties imposed after the fact are an insufficient deterrent to protect against it. In the Supreme Court's voter ID case decided last year, the Court said that despite such criminal penalties: It remains true, however, that flagrant example of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation's history by respected historians and journalists, that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years, and that...demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election. The relative rarity of voter fraud prosecutions for impersonation fraud at the polls, as the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals pointed out in the Indiana case, can be explained in part because the fraud cannot be detected without the tools - a voter ID - available to detect it. However, as I pointed out in a paper published by the Heritage Foundation last year, a grand jury in New York released a report in the mid-1980's detailing a widespread voter fraud conspiracy involving impersonation fraud at the polls that operated successfully for 14 years in Brooklyn without detection. That fraud resulted in thousands of fraudulent votes being cast in state and congressional elections and involved not only impersonation of legitimate voters at the polls, but voting under fictitious names that had been successfully registered without detection by local election officials. This fraud could have been easily stopped and detected if New York had required voters to authenticate their identity at the polls. According to the grand jury, the advent of mail-in registration was also a key factor in perpetrating the fraud. In recent elections, thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms have been detected by election officials. But given the minimal to nonexistent screening efforts engaged in by most election jurisdictions, there is no way to know how many others slipped through. In states without identification requirements, election officials have no way to prevent bogus votes from being cast by unscrupulous individuals based on fictitious voter registrations. The problem of possible double voting by someone who is registered in two states is illustrated by one of the Indiana voters who was highlighted by the League of Women Voters in their amicus brief before the Supreme Court in the Indiana case. After an Indiana newspaper interviewed her, it turned out that the problems she encountered voting in Indiana stemmed from her trying to use a Florida driver's license to vote in Indiana. Not only did she have a Florida driver's license, but she was also registered to vote in Florida where she owned a second home. In fact, she had claimed residency in Florida by claiming a homestead exemption on her property taxes, which as you know is normally only available to residents. So the Indiana law worked perfectly as intended to prevent someone who could have illegally voted twice without detection. I don't want to single out Texas, but just like Indiana, New York, and Illinois, Texas has a long and unfortunate history of voter fraud. In the late 1800's, for example, Harrison County was so infamous for its massive election fraud that the phrase "Harrison County Methods" became synonymous with election fraud. From Ballot Box 13 in Lyndon Johnson's 1948 Senate race, to recent reports of voting by illegal aliens in Bexar County, Texas does have individuals who are willing to risk criminal prosecution in order to win elections. I do not claim that there is massive voter fraud in Texas or anywhere else. In fact, as a former election official, I think we do a good job overall in administering our elections. But the potential for abuse exists, and there are many close elections that could turn on a very small number of votes. There are enough incidents of voter fraud to make it very clear that we must take the steps necessary to make it hard to commit. Requiring voter ID is just one such common sense step. Not only does voter ID help prevent fraudulent voting, but where it has been implemented, it has not reduced turnout. There is no evidence that voter ID decreases the turnout of voters or has a disparate impact on minority voters, the poor, or the elderly --the overwhelming majority of Americans have photo ID or can easily obtain one. Numerous studies have borne this out. A study by a University of Missouri professor of turnout in Indiana showed that turnout actually increased by about two percentage points overall in Indiana after the voter ID law went into effect. There was no evidence that counties with higher percentages of minority, poor, elderly or less-educated populations suffered any reduction in voter turnout. In fact, "the only consistent and statistically significant impact of photo ID in Indiana is to increase voter turnout in counties with a greater percentage of Democrats relative to other counties." The Heritage Foundation released a study in September of 2007 that analyzed 2004 election turnout data for all states. It found that voter ID laws do not reduce the turnout of voters, including African-Americans and Hispanics - such voters were just as likely to vote in states with ID as in states where just their name was asked at the polling place. A study by professors at the Universities of Delaware and Nebraska-Lincoln examined data from the 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 elections. At both the aggregate and individual levels, the study found that voter ID laws do not affect turnout including across racial/ethnic/socioeconomic lines. The study concluded that "concerns about voter identification laws affecting turnout are much ado about nothing." In 2007 as part of the MIT/CalTech Voter Project, an MIT professor did an extensive national survey of 36,500 individuals about Election Day practices. The survey found: overwhelming support for photo ID requirements across ethnic and racial lines with "over 70% of Whites, Hispanics and Blacks support[ing] the requirement;" and Only 23 people out of the entire 36,500 person sample said that they were not allowed to vote because of voter ID, although the survey did not indicate whether they were even eligible to vote or used provisional ballots. A similar study by John Lott in 2006 also found no effect on voter turnout, and in fact, found an indication that efforts to reduce voter fraud such as voter ID may have a positive impact on voter turnout. That is certainly true in a case study of voter fraud in Greene County, Alabama that I wrote about recently for the Heritage Foundation. In that county, voter turnout went up after several successful voter fraud prosecutions instilled new confidence in local voters in the integrity of the election process. Recent election results in Georgia and Indiana also confirm that the suppositions that voter ID will hurt minority turnout are incorrect. Turnout in both states went up dramatically in 2008 in both the presidential preference primary and the general election. In Georgia, there was record turnout in the 2008 presidential primary election - over 2 million voters, more than twice as much as in 2004 when the voter photo ID law was not in effect. The number of African-Americans voting in the 2008 primary also doubled from 2004. In fact, there were 100,000 more votes in the Democratic Primary than in the Republican Primary. And the number of individuals who had to vote with a provisional ballot because they had not gotten the free photo ID available from the state was less that 0.01%. In the general election, Georgia, with one of the strictest voter ID laws in the nation, had the largest turnout in its history - more than 4 million voters. Democratic turnout was up an astonishing 6.1 percentage points from the 2004 election. Overall turnout in Georgia went up 6.7 percentage points, the second highest increase of any state in the country. The black share of the statewide vote increased from 25% in 2004 to 30% in 2008. By contrast, the Democratic turnout in the nearby state of Mississippi, also a state with a high percentage of black voters but without a voter ID requirement, increased by only 2.35 percentage points. I should point out that the Georgia voter ID law was upheld in final orders issued by every state and federal court in Georgia that reviewed the law, including most recently by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Just as in Texas, various organizations in Georgia made the specious claims that there were hundreds of thousands of Georgians without photo ID. Yet when the federal district court dismissed all of their claims, the court pointed out that after two years of litigation, none of the plaintiff organizations like the NAACP had been able to produce a single individual or member who did not have a photo ID or could not easily obtain one. The district court judge concluded that this "failure to identify those individuals is particularly acute in light of the Plaintiffs' contention that a large number of Georgia voters lack acceptable Photo ID...the fact that Plaintiffs, in spite of their efforts, have failed to uncover anyone who can attest to the fact that he/she will be prevented from voting provides significant support for a conclusion that the photo ID requirement does not unduly burden the right to vote." In Indiana, which the Supreme Court said has the strictest voter ID law in the country, turnout in the Democratic presidential preference primary in 2008 quadrupled from the 2004 election when the photo ID law was not in effect - in fact, there were 862,000 more votes cast in the Democratic primary than the Republican primary. In the general election in November, the turnout of Democratic voters increased by 8.32 percentage points from 2004, the largest increase in Democratic turnout of any state in the nation. The neighboring state of Illinois, with no photo ID requirement and President Obama's home state, had an increase in Democratic turnout of only 4.4 percentage points - nearly half of Indiana's increase. Just as in the federal case in Georgia, the federal court in Indiana noted the complete inability of the plaintiffs in that case to produce anyone who would not be able to vote because of the photo ID law: Despite apocalyptic assertions of wholesale vote disenfranchisement, Plaintiffs have produced not a single piece of evidence of any identifiable registered voter who would be prevented from...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Running head: LEADERSHIP UNIT REVIEW

Leadership Unit Review
Student's Name
Institutional Affiliation

LEADERSHIP UNIT REVIEW

2

Question 1
The Social Change Model (SCM) consists of seven values (Seven Cs) that support the
social change process. The Seven values in the SCM are broadly classified into the community,
group, and individual clusters. Notably, congruence, commitment, and consciousness of self are
individual values that create positive social change. In the SCM’s context, congruence represents
individual’s behaviors, feelings, and thoughts that feature honesty, authenticity, genuineness, and
consistency. Congruence refers to the consistency of individuals’ actions with their strong
convictions and beliefs. Notably, an individual’s consciousness of self and personal congruence
occurs as interdependent values. In the SCM, the consciousness of self represents individuals’
awareness of their emotions, beliefs, attitudes, and values, which motivations their behaviors and
actions. The value also represents an individuals’ perception of their influence on other people
(Komives & Wagner, 2016). The consciousness of self allows individuals to control their
emotions while thinking and acting. Finally, commitment, in the SCM, represents an
individual’s psychological motivation to serve other people and support teamwork processes.
Commitment indicates intensity and passion for accomplishing both short-term and long term
goals. Individuals should direct commitment to set goals and team activities. Notably, knowledge
of self and commitment are interdependent individual values. In the SCM, commitment adds
value to the knowledge of self. Notably, the absence of commitment lowers the value of
knowledge of self. Similarly, insufficient knowledge of self leads to the misdirection of
commitment.
Question 2
The Social Change Model encourages the implementation of diversity and inclusivity
strategies. The two different concepts revolve around the creation of unity in communities and

LEADERSHIP UNIT REVIEW

3

workplaces...


Anonymous
Very useful material for studying!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags