Back to Session: Legislators Get Homework in Four Election Recommendation Reports
With the 2022 legislative session approaching, the election policy space is rife with opinions on what to do next. This month’s Canvass summarizes four reports from across the political spectrum that make recommendations relating to six election administration policy areas commanding attention during 2020 and 2021: voter registration list maintenance; absentee ballot requests; drop boxes; absentee/mail ballot processing; signature cure processes; and post-election audits.
Strapped for time? Fear not! Read on for “Cliffs Notes” on each report and a comparison of their different policy recommendations. Our summation: There’s more common ground than we expected.
Note: NCSL does not endorse any of the policy recommendations discussed below. Each report includes more recommendations than we address here (The Canvass has a word limit!), and each organization may also have other recommendation reports not addressed here. (See Bookmark This, for one example). If you know of major reports we’ve missed, please let us know.
The Reports In Brief
Improving the Voting Experience After 2020, released on April 6, 2021 by the Bipartisan Policy Center, is based on the center’s Task Force on Elections. It includes recommendations on timing election procedural changes; contingency planning for emergencies; ballot return methods and deadlines; early and in-person voting options; election certification; and how to handle threats against election officials. The center released a separate report on audits in November 2021. NCSL has used those recommendations in the audits section below.
Safeguarding Future Elections: Critical Reforms to Secure Voter Integrity and Rebuild Confidence in American Elections, released in February 2021 by the Honest Elections Project, outlines 11 policy reforms related to increasing voter confidence; absentee/mail voting; voter identification; election result reporting; voter registration and list maintenance; audits and election disputes; emergency rule change authority; and election funding.
Commission on Election Integrity: Best Practices for Making it Easier to Vote and Harder to Cheat, released in 2021 by the Republican State Leadership Committee, provides a series of best practices for states to consider when making policy changes related to voter registration; equipment testing; voter identification; absentee/mail voting; in-person voting; signature verification; election observers and challengers; vote centers; audits; recounts; and election funding. It includes a sampling of statutory citations for the many issues it addresses.
What Happened in American Elections 2020, released in January 2021 by the National Vote at Home Institute, outlines policies aimed at expanding vote-by-mail options. This report covers absentee and mail ballot infrastructure, as well as ballot request and return policies. While this report is more narrowly tailored to absentee/mail voting experiences, it effectively outlines the institute’s policy priorities and provides guidance to states and policymakers interested in absentee and mail voting. This article includes additional items from the organization’s action areas on pages 3-4 of its May 2020 report.
Voter Registration List Maintenance
Voter registration list maintenance is foundational for running good elections. Three of the selected reports address voter registration list maintenance, with the majority urging states to implement regular maintenance, join the Electronic Registration Information Center, also known as ERIC, use USPS national change of address (NCOA) data and use additional data from relevant state agencies. While there’s general agreement on the need to improve list maintenance, for details, check out each report (the Bipartisan Policy Center report is silent on this issue, though the organization may have additional resources on the topic not included here).
|
|
Join ERIC |
Use NCOA Data |
Use Relevant State Agency Data |
Implement Regular Maintenance |
| Bipartisan Policy Center |
Not addressed
|
Not addressed
|
Not addressed
|
Not addressed
|
| Honest Elections Project |
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
| National Vote At Home Institute |
Yes
|
Yes
|
Not addressed
|
Yes
|
| Republican State Leadership Committee |
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Requesting an Absentee Ballot
During the 2020 election, a larger share of the electorate voted by a mail or absentee ballot than ever before, as states waived absentee ballot excuse requirements due to the pandemic. And yet the trend to more absentee/mail voting is not new, as shown in the chart from the MIT Data & Election Science Lab. It shows how the trend toward more absentee/mail voting has been increasing over the last few decades, as more states move to all-mail elections or adopt no-excuse absentee voting. Today, 34 states have no-excuse absentee voting (including five states with all-mail elections), an increase from 22 states in 2000.
Reports from the National Vote at Home Institute, the Republican State Leadership Committee and the Honest Elections Project address no-excuse absentee voting. Each organization acknowledges the likely increase in absentee voting post-2020, broadly agreeing that states with excuse requirements should reconsider the rationale for keeping such requirements in place. The organizations differ, however, on specific aspects of absentee voting, such as the use of secure online ballot request portals, ballot tracking and moves toward all-mail elections.
|
|
Establish No-Excuse Absentee Voting |
Provide Online Request Portals |
Establish Ballot Tracking |
Implement All-Mail Elections |
| Bipartisan Policy Center |
Not addressed
|
Not addressed
|
Not addressed
|
Not addressed
|
| Honest Elections Project |
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Not addressed
|
| National Vote At Home Institute |
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
| Republican State Leadership Committee |
Consider
|
Not addressed
|
Consider
|
Provides considerations for states with all-mail systems (see report for details)
|
Ballot Drop Boxes
With more voters casting ballots outside the polling place in 2020, some states expanded absentee/mail-voting return options to include ballot drop boxes. The Bipartisan Policy Center, Honest Elections Project and National Vote At Home Institute reports all agree that drop boxes offer convenience and an extra layer of security to those voting absentee or by mail. But not all drop boxes are alike; the three organizations offer differing recommendations on issues such as placement and availability. The Republican State Leadership Committee report doesn’t address the issue but may have additional resources mentioning drop boxes.
|
|
Provide Drop Boxes |
Allow 24-Hour Drop Boxes |
Locate Drop Boxes Inside a Government Facility Only |
| Bipartisan Policy Center |
Yes
|
Not addressed
|
Not addressed
|
| Honest Elections Project |
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
| National Vote At Home Institute |
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
| Republican State Leadership Committee |
Not addressed
|
Not addressed
|
Not addressed
|
Absentee/Mail Ballot Processing
Election result reporting times are based on myriad factors, chief among them, absentee ballot processing timelines. In some states, poll workers can prepare ballots for counting before Election Day, making vote tabulation faster when the polls close. The Honest Elections Project and Republican State Leadership Committee and the National Vote At Home Institute agree that ballot processing timelines relate to how swiftly election officials can report election results. The committee asks states to consider appropriate ballot processing times to ensure prompt reporting, while Honest Elections and the National Vote At Home Institute recommend states permit processing (but not counting) to begin before Election Day so results can be reported as quickly after the polls close as possible. The Bipartisan Policy Center report is silent on this issue, though the organization may have additional resources on the topic not included here.
Signature Cure Processes
In most states, when an absentee or mail ballot is returned, bipartisan teams evaluate ballot signatures to confirm a voter’s identity. Every so often, a ballot signature does not match signatures stored by the state. Other times, the ballot signature is missing altogether. Eighteen states have a process for voters to “cure” these mistakes in time for the ballot to be counted. States that do not have a cure process, ballots with missing or mismatched signatures on the envelope are not counted.
A cure process can help prevent legitimate votes from being discarded due to voter mistakes and act as a safeguard against fraud. The Republican State Leadership Committee, which asks states to consider whether a cure process works for them, points out that the voter outreach initiated by a cure process not only assists in updating voter signatures held on record, but also helps identify potentially fraudulent returned ballots. The Honest Elections Project and National Vote At Home Institute encourage the adoption of a statewide, uniform cure process allowing voters to correct ballots within a specified time frame after Election Day.
Post-Election Audits
A post-election audit verifies that the equipment and procedures used to count votes worked properly, and that the election yielded the correct outcome. This is done by comparing a sample of paper ballots or records against the results produced by the voting system. Of the 38 states and D.C. that have statutorily required post-election audits, four use risk-limiting audits, also known as RLAs; and 34 and D.C. use fixed percentage audits. Texas and Kentucky adopted pilot RLAs in 2021, joining Georgia and Indiana in the category of states with statutory RLA pilots.
All four organizations agree that voting systems should produce an auditable trail, made possible by voter-verifiable ballots—paper ballots that can be examined during the post-election process. The organizations, however, differ on audit specifics, such as standards, public observation and type.
|
|
Require Voter-Verifiable Ballots |
Require Post-Election Audits |
Establish Uniform Standards for Audits |
Allow Public Observation |
Implement Risk-Limiting Audits |
| Bipartisan Policy Center |
Yes
|
Yes
|
Not addressed
|
Yes
|
Not addressed
|
| Honest Elections Project |
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
| National Vote At Home Institute |
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Not addressed
|
Yes
|
| Republican State Leadership Committee |
Yes
|
Consider
|
Yes
|
Not addressed
|
Not addressed
|
Additional Resources and a Plug
Among the consensus and differing opinions relating to list maintenance, absentee/mail voting, ballot drop boxes, signature curing and audits, are additional election issues not covered here but outlined in the four reports. This includes voter identification, early in-person voting and the role of poll watchers. You can find NCSL’s full list of election resources here.
Of course, our team will be available through sine die and beyond to answer questions and provide technical assistance. Don’t wait for the bell! If a policy piques your interest—reach out.
Bookmark This: Bipartisan Principles for Election Audits
Election audits have held the spotlight for more than a year now. While nearly everyone agrees that statutorily mandated audits are a key method for confirming and bolstering confidence in election results, policymakers often diverge on the details. Should states use risk-limiting audits or fixed-percentage audits? Should postelection audits take place before or after certification? Who conducts the audit? How are anomalies addressed if identified?
The Bipartisan Policy Center takes up these questions in its new brief, "Bipartisan Principles for Election Audits." These eight principles were unanimously endorsed by the center's Task Force on Elections, which includes 28 state and local election officials from 20 states and both sides of the aisle.
“Audits are nothing new,” according to the brief, “and when the ‘audit’ meets certain basic, bipartisan standards, they are the primary means of increasing confidence in an election’s legitimacy.” To ensure elections are fair and accurate, and to encourage public trust, the center makes the following recommendations—the first of which will be of particular interest to legislators:
-
Audits should occur after every election and be explicitly authorized in state law.
-
Audits should have a thorough, pre-established methodology.
-
Audits should follow established security best practices and be conducted with trusted technology and tools.
-
Election officials must maintain custody of ballots and other election peripherals in accordance with federal and state law and judicial standards for admissible evidence.
-
Audits should be fully funded by state or local public resources.
-
Audits should be transparent and open to the public for observation.
-
Audit results should be clearly communicated to the public after their completion.
-
Audits should take place before results are certified.
A Q&A With California Senator Steve Glazer and Assemblymember Marc Berman
California Senator Steve Glazer (D) has represented the state’s 7th Senate District, which includes most of Contra Costa County in the East Bay region of the San Francisco Bay Area, since 2015. California Assemblymember Marc Berman (D) has represented the state’s 24th House District, which includes parts of Silicon Valley and the San Francisco Peninsula, since 2016.
Tell me about your roles as chairs of the Legislature’s elections committees. Why were you selected and what do you like about the position?
Glazer: I’ve just finished my first year as chair (in the Senate), but I’ve been involved in elections for 40 years, so I have the background and experience to guide the work that we do in this space. Before running for office, I was a staffer and consultant for elected leaders, and I started my own company in 1989 running election campaigns, including ballot measure campaigns. I’ve worked on elections in 25 states, and I ran Jerry Brown’s campaign for governor in 2010.
Berman: I’m very passionate about voting. I don’t care who you vote for, but I want to make it as easy as possible for you to vote. The speaker was aware of my passion, so he put me in as chair when the position opened up in the middle of my first year in the Assembly.
I had asked to be on the committee because of my prior experience as a field organizer on political campaigns and in the voting section of the civil rights division of the Justice Department.
After temporarily moving to all-mail elections during the COVID-19 pandemic, California made that policy permanent this year. Why was that a priority for the Legislature?
Berman: Because it worked! We saw that if you mail a ballot to people, they vote. In 2020, California had the highest turnout in 70 years—there are undoubtedly several reasons why, and one was that we made it easy for people to participate.
Election officials said the process went smoothly, and statewide vote-by-mail makes messaging easier, too, since everybody is voting under the same system. But I do want to emphasize that we still offer in-person voting opportunities for people who prefer or need that.
Glazer: California has allowed voters to vote by mail (no-excuse absentee voting) for a while, even before this legislation. But the COVID-19 pandemic made us look more deeply at ways to ensure strong public participation in our elections. Improving access and participation in elections has always been the governing principle for us in California, as it should be for leaders in our country.
In the 2020 election, nearly 87% of voters used a vote-by-mail ballot. Even in the last recall election, 91% of voters used the mail. Our voter registration of eligible voters is almost 89%—that’s a very positive participation level.
What other election policies or changes are you looking into for the future?
Glazer: Given the recent recall election, we’re looking closely at the recall process. We’re considering whether there should be changes in the criteria for who is subject to being recalled and, since California has one of the lowest signature thresholds and longest circulation periods in America, we need to see if that’s the right level. We had a hearing a few weeks ago and have another one upcoming in December to decide what changes we would like to make.
There’s always a collection of bills that members want considered related to citizen initiatives and disclosure standards for interest groups. A few months ago, the governor signed a bill of mine (SB 686) that creates greater disclosures for LLCs that participate in elections, so we’ll continue to consider law changes that ensure transparency on campaign donors.
Berman: I have two big ones. First, California needs recall reform. We spent almost $300 million on the gubernatorial recall earlier this year; it was disruptive to governing, and at the end of the day, voters affirmed what they said three years ago (by retaining Governor Gavin Newsom).
My second priority is the mis- and disinformation running rampant on social media. It can literally disenfranchise voters through disinformation about the time, place or manner of voting, while manipulated content and deep fakes can make a voter think a candidate or elected official said or did something they never said or did. In 2018, I created a bill (AB 3075) establishing the office of elections cybersecurity—the first in the country—and it gave our counties best practices and served as a go-between for them and the Department of Homeland Security, while also monitoring mis- and disinformation online. But bad actors are constantly finding new ways to inappropriately influence our democracy.
What aspect of California’s elections makes you proudest?
Berman: Becoming a permanent vote-by-mail state. We weren’t the first, but it’s a big deal for Californians. As part of that, we created a ballot tracking system so voters get notifications all along the way. Amazon was doing that a decade ago, so if you can know the status of a book you just bought, you should be able to know that about your ballot, too. The tracking system is mandatory for counties, but voluntary for the voter, and at least a quarter of voters have signed up.
Glazer: That we’ve expanded public access and have maintained high standards of transparency and integrity in every step of our election process.
Any final words for your peers in other states?
Glazer: There has been a dangerous and reckless rhetoric about election fraud, and these unsubstantiated claims undermine a foundational issue of our democracy, which is the conduct of honest elections. I hope that responsible leaders check that need to play politics in the elections space.
Berman: I hope that every state legislator, no matter what state you live in or part of the political spectrum you’re on, that we do everything we can to ensure that our elections are safe, secure and accessible.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
News Worth Noting
NCSL Webinar on 2021 Election Legislation
Elections dominated the news cycle for much of 2021, with states introducing a historic number of bills on the topic. Join NCSL’s elections team for a deep dive into the enactments making headlines across the country. This webinar will cover absentee/mail voting, drop boxes, voter identification and much more.
NCSL 2021 Election Coverage
Republicans flipped the Virginia House of Delegates, voters approved 14 out of 24 ballot measures (though New Yorkers rejected same-day registration and no-excuse absentee voting) and elections ran smoothly—those are the top-line takeaways from the Nov. 2 election.
Stanford Releases Election Security Report
The Stanford Internet Observatory released a report, Zero Trust: How to Secure American Elections When the Losers Won’t Accept They Lost, outlining three security threats to U.S. elections and offering 11 suggestions for improving security and voter confidence. The No. 1 recommendation? Consistent elections funding.
Military and Overseas Citizen Voting Remains Steady
The Federal Voting Assistance Program updated its State of the Military Voter and State of the Overseas Voter data, revealing that electoral participation by both groups remained steady between 2016 and 2020. For a quick review of the program’s findings, check out Electionline’s summary.
2021 Elections GeoSummit
Every year, the National States Geographic Information Council brings together experts in elections and geographic information systems (GIS) at the annual Elections GeoSummit to share findings and collaborate on ways to enhance election systems. This year’s summit is fast approaching on Dec. 9, 1-5 p.m. ET—the event is free, but attendees must register in advance.
Guidance for Retaining Election Officials
Last month, the Canvass addressed the harassment faced by election officials and noted that many election officials plan to retire or leave their positions. Experienced, knowledgeable election officials are integral to running smooth, secure elections, and the Alliance for Securing Democracy’s new report provides recommendations to state and local governments for retaining these workers. Short on time? Read this summary on the MIT Election Lab’s blog.
Improving the EAC’s Grants Administration
The U.S. Government Accountability Office examined how the U.S. Election Assistance Commission shared information during the COVID-19 pandemic and how it administered CARES Act grants. The GAO released its findings in a recent report, recommending that the election commission assess its administration of CARES Act grants to identify lessons learned for future emergencies.
Michigan Senator Defends Election Integrity
Michigan Senator Ed McBroom (R) was featured in an episode of NPR’s “This American Life” for his efforts convince his constituents that the 2020 election results were accurate. The episode includes clips of McBroom at the Upper Peninsula State Fair talking one-on-one with voters. “If you’re trying to overwhelm me with the impracticalities of me one-at-a-time-ing it,” McBroom says with a chuckle to the reporter, “you don’t have to, I’m already aware of that.”
From the NCSL Elections Team
For those who couldn’t attend NCSL’s 2021 Legislative Summit in Tampa, Fla., last month, several sessions were recorded, including two of the election team’s: What Election Policymakers Wish Election Officials Knew—and Vice Versa and The Redistricting Road Map: Where Are We Now?
As you prepare for the 2022 legislative session—or interim period—remember that our team can provide testimony, research, technical assistance and more on an array of election topics (redistricting, citizen initiatives and campaign finance, too, if that’s more your bailiwick).
Please get in touch if there’s anything we can do for you.
—Mandy Zoch, Wendy Underhill and Saige Draeger