Online Voter Registration: Reducing Barriers to Democratic Participation

Expanding methods of voter registration has been a hot topic here in Hawaii. Currently, the Office of Elections lists three ways one can register to vote: by mail, in person at the Office of the City or County Clerk for the county in which you reside, or at all Departments of Motor Vehicles. However, Hawaii residents will soon be able to register to vote online, thanks to the passage of HB1755, signed by Governor Abercrombie earlier this month.

In 1993, Hawaii enacted the Motor Voter program, aiming to extend the scope of registration availability by offering a registration form to persons at DMV branches. This did help increase the percentage of Hawaii residents registered to vote, but also created a “deadwood” phenomenon by making it time-consuming and difficult to remove inactive voters from the rolls. According to Ian Lind’s recent article in Honolulu Civil Beat, this could make our voter turnout statistics look bleaker than they truly are. Online voter registration furthers the same goals as the Motor Voter program, while seeming to avoid rules that would skew voter turnout statistics.

It is high time for a law that makes online registration possible. It is often inconvenient to appear in person at a County Clerk’s office or a DMV branch, and mailing in an application requires that the voter own or have easy access to a printer. With the advent of online voter registration, many residents will find it easier to register, hopefully increasing the percentage of eligible adults who turn out at the polls on Election Day. 

Disclaimer: I speak as an individual, NOT on behalf of Common Cause Hawaii. All opinions are my own.

Confidence in the Hawaii County Elections Division Fading

Sixteen days before the Hawaii primary election is set to take place, spectators seem to be losing confidence in the ability of the Hawaii County Elections Division to carry out a fair and uncompromised election. Many of the issues stemmed from the redistricting of Hawaii County that delayed the beginning of processes to determine which ballot each voter should receive and set up accurate polling places. Jamae Kawauchi of the County Clerk’s Office explained that procedures normally beginning in January were pushed back, starting only on May 30. In a recorded press conference in mid-July, Kawauchi assured the public that, despite these hardships, the office was on track to provide adequate services on Election Day.

Now, however, new doubts are surfacing about Hawaii County’s abilities to do this. The office unexpectedly closed on Monday, a sign on the door saying that an audit was the reason for closure. In response, Chief Election Officer Scott Nago, based on Oahu, sent a chiding letter to Kawauchi. The letter can be found at the link above.

What can we learn from this untimely confusion? First, we should make sure that any redistricting is finalized well in advance. While Kawauchi has said that her office did a good job organizing voter rolls on short notice, this working under time pressure should not be required. Let’s make sure that preparation for elections goes according to schedule. Second, it’s possible that more oversight of county elections divisions is necessary. It is unfortunate that Nago’s previous inquiries into Hawaii County’s work went unanswered (as he reports in the letter to Kawauchi), and maybe this is a sign that additional supervision is wise. In order for the democratic process to function effectively, we need election preparation to go smoothly and predictably; for it to be carried out in any other manner is unfair to the constituents.

Update 7/31: Kawauchi cleared up several issues here, saying that previous news articles were incorrect. Inaccuracies were unsurprising, since the media was barred from Kawauchi's original press conference in mid-July. Hawaii County Council Chair Dominic Yagong defended Kawauchi while remaining closed-mouthed about the details of the County Clerk's preparedness.

Update 8/2: Things at the County Clerk's office seem to be under control now. Kawauchi revealed that the closure on July 23 for the "audit" was due to the discovery of four 2010 voters who had been allowed to cast two ballots in a fluke error, and about sixty persons who were registered to vote twice, under the same name in different districts. According to seasoned election personnel, this type of error is not uncommon, and does not represent systemic corruption. All seems well heading into the election next Saturday.

Disclaimer: I speak as an individual, NOT on behalf of Common Cause Hawaii. All opinions are my own.

Proving Your Identity

“State's voter ID law could shut out over half-million citizens”

The voter ID laws sweeping the nation have a clear, targeted impact on voters that is detrimental to a fair democratic process. More than 24 states have existing voter identification laws. One such law in Pennsylvania, the focus of this article, stands to disenfranchise up to 750,000 people in the coming election by requiring a picture ID to vote, a truly staggering number. Voter ID laws have the express purpose of deterring voter fraud, but many have pointed out that the cases of prosecution for voting fraud are dwarfed by the projected number of otherwise legitimate ballots rejected due to inadequate voter identification.

While voter ID laws probably do deter any voter fraud that might exist, the effects of these laws extend far beyond that stated purpose, and end up critically impairing a fair election. Among groups of people who are less likely to have a driver’s license, like the elderly and poor, these laws have a huge potential to selectively disenfranchise large numbers of the most vulnerable voters. This is fundamentally unfair, and is counterproductive in an effort to increase democratic participation.

I do not deny that it is also important to the democratic process to prevent voter fraud. A possible middle ground between the Pennsylvania law requiring photo ID, and no ID requirement at all, is asking for any document with the voter’s name and address, like an electric or telephone bill. This would ensure that the voter is indeed a resident of the area in which she is voting, while stopping short of imposing criteria too steep for many to fulfill. A compromise such as this one would solve both problems, and effectively preserve the ideal of a free election.

Disclaimer: I speak as an individual, NOT on behalf of Common Cause Hawaii. All opinions are my own.

The Transformation of Democracy

I recently had the opportunity to attend a screening of “Patriocracy” at the Laniakea YWCA, a documentary-style film by Brian Malone that seeks to tackle the problem of incivility and polarization in today’s American democracy. While the film presented a good discussion of the role of compromise and cordiality in Washington, I felt that some crucial aspects of the fundamental character of democracy were overlooked.

First, the film itself is predicated on the notion that something about American democracy has changed for the worse. There are vague mentions of how things were “before” (Congressmen lived together and developed camaraderie, compromise was the norm, etc.) – but before what? Before the Internet? Before globalization? These two phenomena have been the driving forces behind the past three decades, which seem to be the years in which the film claims this downward spiral of democracy occurred. It is unfairly and illogically selective to criticize consequences of modernity that one finds unattractive, while embracing the huge benefits this modernity has brought. (For example, Internet access makes it possible for many senators and representatives to live in their home states, forfeiting some camaraderie, while also facilitating populist revolutions in the Middle East. It is a logical fallacy to abhor the Internet for dividing Washington, while lauding it for serving the people in Egypt.)

Second, in arguing that things in Washington are the worst they have ever been with regard to political participation and compromise, the film makes huge generalizations and glosses over really terrible past inequalities in Congress. (A glaring one is the voting restrictions placed on blacks in the South that resulted in a 72-year dry spell from 1901 to 1973 of blacks in Congress representing Southern states.) Is this period a part of the past spirit of compromise to which this film would have us return?

As a solution to this crisis of democracy, the film emphasizes the need for an increase in democratic participation. But if we delve into the real statistics of civilian participation in government, we can see that there was never truly a time when a wholly engaged and informed citizenry existed. Michael Schudson wrote a relevant essay, arguing that while voter turnout may have been higher in the nation’s early history, that higher turnout was facilitated by physical proximity to government and, in fact, the illegality of non-participation. This is not an endorsement for acting in a politically lackadaisical fashion, but rather a reality check for those who would lament a bygone time of democratic action that never existed in the first place.

There are many aspects of how democracy functions today that must change in order to preserve rule by the people: the influence of corporations on elections is far too high, and money controls much more in government than it should. People need to be involved, as the film suggests, but what I tend to see is people already getting involved to promote programs like publicly-funded elections and a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision. There are many ways to help democracy better reflect the people. What we ought to refrain from doing is claiming that there is something fundamentally wrong with the people today that makes us somehow worse than generations past.

We know that much has changed in Washington post-1970, but we tend to forget that this is the main premise of a democracy. There is no reason to fear this particular change, prompted in part by the dawning of the digital age, when we consider that democracy must change with its constituents. Democracy is fundamentally unstable, because people are unstable. While this is frightening, and it is shockingly easy to slip into a pattern of treating the present as a degenerate of the past, we must learn to embrace the new character of democracy, accepting it as a malleable human creation, and doing our best to help it serve the interests of the people.

Disclaimer: I speak as an individual, NOT on behalf of Common Cause Hawaii. All opinions are my own.

Welcome! I'm a Columbia University student working in Hawaii this summer for Common Cause, a non-profit dedicated to removing corporations from democracy, increasing access to elections and voting, and reforming campaign finance laws to provide a fairer government for us all. I hope to document my day-to-day activities here. My responsibilities include writing blog posts, doing policy research, and planning community outreach events. Right now, I am working on an outline for youth outreach conducted at the beach! (That's where the kids hang out these days, right?) I'm excited to see this project through; I love it when I get to develop something from the beginning and execute it to the end. I'll be back with additional updates soon!

Disclaimer: I speak as an individual, NOT on behalf of Common Cause Hawaii. All opinions are my own.