Interested in Vote-by-Mail? Two papers on rejected VBM ballots in Florida & Georgia, as referenced in @NYTimes https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/us/vote-by-mail-coronavirus.html are available here:

“Voting by Mail and Ballot Rejection: Lessons from Florida for Elections in the Age of the Coronavirus”

“Voting by Mail in a VENMO World: Assessing Rejected Absentee Ballots in Georgia”

 

Voting by Mail and Ballot Rejection: Lessons from Florida for Elections in the Age of the Coronavirus

Anna Baringer, Michael C. Herron, and Daniel A. Smith, available here.

Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic and its concomitant need for social distancing have increased the attractiveness of voting by mail. This form of voting is nonetheless not a panacea for election administration in the time of a public health crisis, as a widespread move to ballots cast by voting by mail risks exacerbating existing inequities in mail-in ballot rejection rates across voters and jurisdictions. This motivates our examination of the roughly 9.6 million and 8.2 million ballots cast in the 2016 and 2018 general elections in Florida, respectively, including over 2.6 million vote-by-mail (VBM) ballots cast in each. Using a selection model that analyzes all ballots cast and those VBM ballots not counted in Florida in these two elections, we find that younger voters, voters not registered with a major political party, and voters in need of assistance when voting are disproportionately likely to have their VBM ballots not count. We also find disproportionately high rejection rates of mail ballots cast by Hispanic voters, out-of-state voters, and military dependents in the 2018 general election. Lastly, we find significant variation in the rejection rates of VBM ballots cast across Florida’s 67 counties in the 2018 election, suggesting a non-uniformity in the way local election officials verify these ballots. As interest in expanding mail voting swells as a consequence of the novel coronavirus, protecting the rights of all voters to participate in electoral politics requires a characterization of the correlates of VBM ballot rejection with an eye toward considering how disparities in ballot rejection rates might be rectified.

Registering “Returning Citizens” in Florida

The passage of Amendment 4 in Florida in November 2018 was historic. Excluding convicted murderers and sexual offenders, the Voting Restoration Amendment automatically restores the voting rights of citizens with prior felony convictions who served their sentence (including probation, parole, and any fines, fees, or restitution).

Eligible ex-felons were permitted to register to vote starting on January 8, 2019.  Some estimates placed the potential number of ex-felons who might register in the Sunshine State as high as 1.4 million people, or nearly one-tenth of the current registered voters in Florida.  Scholars estimate that as many as one-in-four black men in Florida have been disenfranchised by a law that dates back to the state’s 1868 Florida Constitution.

In January, reporters flocked to the offices of the state’s 67 Supervisors of Elections to interview newly registering voters—including those locked out from the democratic process for decades or who had never experienced the franchise.

According to the Florida Secretary of State, more than 53,000 Floridians registered to vote in January 2019.

Although not all of the new registrants had a felony conviction, was the registration rate in January higher than expected?

Although the number of new registrants in January 2019 exceeded the number from December 2018, the uptick was likely not solely the result of a surge in ex-felons registering to vote.  Indeed, compared to new registrations in previous years, the numbers are not dramatically higher–roughly 49,000 voters registered in January 2018; nearly 38,000 registered in in January 2017; and over 50,000 registered in January 2016. In all cases, the January numbers were greater than the previous December.

Perhaps one reason why we didn’t see a huge surge in new registrations was due to complications in the rollout of Amendment 4. Backers of the measure, including the ACLU of Florida, argue that the measure is self-implementing. But there continues to be confusion over how the verification of returning citizens should occur or how murder or sex offender should be defined. A Senate Criminal Justice Committee legislative hearing in January revealed numerous discrepancies in the verification process.

On a positive note, some returning citizens—most notably Desmond Meade, the charismatic leader of the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition—successfully registered in January.

But others have not been so lucky.

After scouring news reports, we identified 61 individuals in January who self-identified as former felons who were registering to vote.

Some of these returning citizens, though, still have not been placed on the voter rolls.

Drawing on public records, we’ve identified more than 20 of the 61 self-identified returning citizens not on the books as of February 1. It’s possible that some moved out of Florida, died, or reported a nickname to reporters when they registered to vote. There are other possibilities, tragic and ironic, too.

It’s also possible that some applicants had missing information on their registration form. Florida requires an applicant’s name, address of legal residence, date of birth, checking the box affirming that the applicant is a citizen of the United States, and a current and valid Florida driver license number or number from a Florida identification card, or the last four digits of their Social Security number.

For returning citizens to leave required information off a form would be odd, as reporters documented how Supervisors and voting rights advocates oversaw the process. And even if missing information caused a delay in processing the applications, according to the Florida Statutes, “[t]he registration date for a valid initial voter registration application that has been hand delivered is the date that the application is received by a driver license office, a voter registration agency, an armed forces recruitment office, the division, or the office of any supervisor in the state.”

The confusion over allowing returning citizens to register to vote is disconcerting.  Although our sample of self-identified ex-felons is small and non-random, our findings may portend further complications for this historically marginalized population to be able to successfully register to vote.

Why might all this matter? To be eligible to vote in Florida, one must be registered at least 29 days prior to Election Day.  It is possible that some of our returning citizens may have their franchise jeopardized in upcoming local elections.

Let’s hope—with guidance from the state legislature—that our local Supervisors of Elections and the Florida Division of Elections can hammer out a fair process to assure that all returning citizens who register to vote have their applications processed in a timely and proper manner.

Returning citizens and the more than 5 million Floridians who supported Amendment 4 last November are counting on it.

 

This opinion piece was written by my three University of Florida Political Science Junior Fellows, Karla Cejas, Sydney ElDeiry, Max Matheu. They are part of the UF Election Science team lead by Professor Michael McDonald (aka, @electproject) and me.

 

Think your ballot counts in Florida? If legislation passes this session, you may never know…

One in 20 ballots cast by the 56.6k 18-21 year-olds in Florida who voted by mail in the 2018 General Election were rejected as invalid by county Canvassing Boards. This figure is even higher than in previous election years, as I found in my report for ACLU Florida.

I suspect that federal Judge Mark Walker, who ruled prior to the 2018 General Election that Florida voters should have an opportunity to cure their vote-by-mail ballots if they they had a problem with their signature, might be surprised by this figure.

Perhaps I’ll write more about this troubling statistic. Or perhaps not.

It will depend on whether election records in Florida remain open to the public for scrutiny.

Chances are, they may not be.  So much for the “Sunshine State.”

Republican Representative Cyndi Stevenson has introduced HB 218, https://myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=63174, which is similar to Republican Senator Tom Lee’s SB 342, https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2019/00342.*

The bills are a follow-up to a 2018 bill (HB 761) filed by Representative Stevenson, which would have kept voter information secret. That bill passed 10-0 out of committee. There was no public discussion or debate.

Sure, there some privacy issues that may concern some people when voter registration records available to the public.  But open record laws are essential if you want to ensure you haven’t been kicked off the voter rolls or to ensure that that ballot that you cast actually is counted.

Do you know if you were one of the 35k voters in Florida who had his or her ballot rejected (either their Vote-by-Mail or their provisional ballot cast at the polls)?

Sadly if this bill passes, in the future, you may never know.

Public records are essential for scholars to be able to dig down into the weeds to ensure the equal protection of voters.  Our ability to do so in Florida hinges on whether the state legislature decides to follow the self-serving recommendation of our elected Supervisors of Elections to restrict voter records and avoid public scrutiny and accountability.

Don’t be fooled about this bill being an effort to protect voters.  If it passes, it will have exactly the opposite effect. Without transparency, voter disenfranchisement becomes much more of a reality.

Don’t let democracy in the Sunshine State die in darkness.

 

*Note: Corrections for 2019 legislation.

 

If I find time, I might start digging a little deeper into patterns of rejected Vote-by-Mail ballots across Florida’s counties…

since it’s something I’ve written about in my report for the @ACLUFL, and since they lie at the heart of Bill Nelson’s Nelson Complaint in federal court challenging invalidated mail ballots due to mismatched signatures.