Early Voting

Not so long ago, Americans assembled on one designated day — Election Day — to choose our national leaders.

For those unable to cast votes on Election Day, early voting and absentee ballots are available options. In-person early voting has the advantage of the individual citizen at a polling place after check-in by election officials.

Today, however, early voting periods have been stretched to absurd lengths, with some states beginning their voting for the November election more than a month or more in advance. There is no empirical evidence that early voting increases turnout, but it does have serious downsides, including:

    • Producing less-informed voters. After casting an early ballot, a voter checks out of the national debate regardless of what happens. They won’t care about the televised debates, won’t consider options, and won’t fully participate in the political process. Many voters have occasionally complained to election officials and representatives of a desire to recast their vote because they have changed their mind. In most, if not all states, this is impossible to do with early voting.
    • Increasing election administration and campaign costs. Elections that drag on for weeks require the logistical costs of administering an election, including more poll workers and salaries associated with the voting process.
    • Facilitating double voting and vote fraud. Counties that utilize early voting need to have the necessary technology to ensure simultaneous verification and record of vote history. Early voting allows voters to vote anywhere in the county, not simply in their precinct. The jurisdictions must have the necessary voting equipment, statewide registration system, and electronic poll book system to prevent individuals from voting more than once in the state or county during the early voting period. It is also more difficult for political parties to secure sufficient poll watchers to monitor polling places for an extended early voting period.

ACRU Commentary

News

Kobach Predicts Chaos if Court Order Stands in Kansas Case

DENVER -- Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach contends massive voter confusion will occur if an appeals court doesn't block a lower court's order to register thousands of state residents for November's presidential election. Kobach made the prediction in a document he filed with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The dispute centers on residents who submit voter registration forms at Division of Motor Vehicles offices and don't provide proof of citizenship. A 2011 state law requires newly registering voters to provide proof of citizenship. A preliminary injunction issued May 17 by U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson prohibits election officials from enforcing the proof of citizenship requirement for residents who register at DMV offices. Robinson's order will take effect Tuesday if the Denver-based appeals court doesn't block it by issuing a stay. Kobach requested a stay in the document he filed May 28. Attorneys for the League of Women Voters and American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday opposed Kobach's request. The dispute involves whether about 18,000 residents will be allowed to vote, court filings state. Early voting for the primary election begins July 13.

Virginia Assembly Republicans Sue Governor over Felon Voting

Virginia Republicans on Monday asked the state's highest court to block more than 200,000 felons from voting in November, arguing that Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe abused his power by restoring the voting rights of thousands of convicts who've completed their sentences. In a lawsuit GOP leaders filed in the Virginia Supreme Court, they say McAuliffe violated the separation of powers by effectively suspending the state's ban on voting by felons. They say McAuliffe is ignoring decades of practice, which has made clear that governors can restore voting rights only on a case-by-case basis. "Gov. McAuliffe's executive order defines the plain text of the Constitution, flouts the separation of powers, and has no precedent in the annals of Virginia history. The governor simply may not, with the stroke of the pen, unilaterally suspend and amend the Constitution," their lawyers wrote in the suit. The lawsuit is being brought by House Speaker William Howell and Senate Majority Leader Thomas Norment along with four other Virginia voters. They're asking the justices to prohibit election officials from registering felons and to cancel all such registrations since April 22. As of last week, election officials said nearly 4,000 felons had signed up to vote, media outlets reported.

Federal Judge Upholds North Carolina Voter ID Law

RALEIGH -- A federal judge has upheld North Carolina's voter ID law in a ruling posted Monday evening. U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder issued a 485-page ruling dismissing all claims in the challenge to the state's sweeping 2013 election law overhaul. Schroeder, a George W. Bush appointee, also upheld portions of the 2013 law that reduced the number of days people could vote early, eliminated same-day registration and voting and prohibited people from casting a ballot outside their precinct. The decision comes nearly three months after a trial on the ID portion of the law. Schroeder noted that North Carolina had "become progressive nationally" by permitting absentee voting, early voting for 17 days before the Election Day, a lengthy registration period, out-of-precinct voting on Election Day and a pre-registration program for 16-year-olds. "In 2013, North Carolina retrenched," Schroeder said in his opinion. Ultimately, though, Schroeder said the state had provided "legitimate state interests" in making the changes and the challengers failed to demonstrate that the law was unconstitutional. "This ruling further affirms that requiring a photo ID in order to vote is not only common sense, it's constitutional," Gov. Pat McCrory said in a statement. "Common practices like boarding an airplane and purchasing Sudafed require photo ID, and thankfully a federal court has ensured our citizens will have the same protection for their basic right to vote." In reaching the decision released on Monday, Schroeder conducted a two-part trial that spanned more than 21 days in July and this past January. He considered the testimony of 21 expert witnesses and 112 other witnesses, and more than 25,000 pages that are part of the record.

ACRU Sues Philadelphia over Voter Records

The ACRU is suing Philadelphia over city officials' refusal to open voter registration records for public inspection as required by federal law. In a complaint filed April 4 in U.S. District Court under Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (Motor Voter Law), the ACRU seeks "specific records... to ascertain why Defendants have implausible percentages of active registrants as compared to age-eligible United States citizens who live in Philadelphia." Specifically, the ACRU seeks a court order finding the city in violation of NVRA, and requiring officials to allow inspection of voter registration records and the various means by which the city is supposed to be updating them. The ACRU had requested access to the records in a January letter to city officials. Philadelphia voter rolls have contained an implausible number of registrants over the years with the total registered nearly exceeding the number of eligible citizens in Philadelphia. The ACRU seeks to examine why this is occurring and what can be done to ensure that only eligible citizens are voting in Philadelphia elections

Voter ID Age Dawns in North Carolina

Raleigh -- After years of debate and lawsuits, showing photo identification at the polls is now a fact of life for North Carolina voters. Early voting for the March 15 primary started Thursday across the state, and every voter is being asked for a photo ID, even if they've voted at the same precinct for years and the poll workers know them. "The check-in official is going to be responsible for looking for reasonable resemblance, and the only thing they're looking at is the photo on the ID - does the photo reasonably resemble the person?" said Kim Strach, director of the State Board of Elections.

Ruling May Be Weeks Away in North Carolina Photo Voter ID Case

A federal judge's decision appears to be at least several weeks away in litigation over North Carolina's photo ID mandate for voters, making it likely that the new requirement will begin when early in-person voting begins March 3. Trial ended Monday in multiple lawsuits over the new statute, which is supposed to be implemented for the first time during the March 15 primary. The requirement, first approved by Republican elected officials in 2013 but eased somewhat last summer, makes North Carolina one of more than 30 states with some kind of voter ID requirement now in force. But the U.S. Justice Department, state NAACP and others challenged the requirement in a state with a history of racial discrimination and racially polarized voting. Their lawsuits also challenged other provisions in the 2013 law that in part scaled back early voting and ended same-day registration during the early-vote period. Only voter ID was considered during the six-day trial. The trial judge had refused before the trial to block voter ID from taking effect on schedule. U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder asked both sides to provide additional documentations by Feb. 24. Lawyers who oppose the law pointed in their closing arguments to their expert's report presented last week in court that up to 224,800 registrants lack proper voter ID. The expert also said black voters were more than twice as likely as white voters to lack a qualifying ID and face economic and social obstacles to obtain one. A competing database expert who took the stand Monday as a final defense witness testified that the report had several weaknesses and the number of those lacking ID was inflated. There are more than 6.4 million registered voters in North Carolina.