Why Massachusetts lags in election reform

THE POLITICAL PERCH
WHY MASSACHUSETTS LAGS IN ELECTION REFORM

Despite its’ liberal reputation, Massachusetts lags behind many other states in implementing proven reforms that would make our elections more accessible and reliable. For example, Massachusetts is one of the 15 remaining states that do not have early voting or absentee ballots available to all requesters. As well, Massachusetts is one of the 24 states that do not audit election equipment after elections are held. Post-election audits ensure that voting machines have correctly counted all ballots. It’s a fairly simple and low cost procedure which could be mostly funded by the National America Vote Act.

Massachusetts continues to lag behind the growing list of 17 states that now offer online voter registration and we are not one of the 18 states that allow youth to pre-register to vote. Moreover, 11 states have Election Day registration (EDR) including Maine and New Hampshire. EDR has been shown to increase voting by an average 10%.

Pre-registration for 16 year-olds is another critical reform opportunity for Massachusetts as young people are the least likely demographic to register and vote. Studies show that there was a 15% gap in the 2008 voting between people 18 and 24 versus people older than 24. As well, studies show that voting behavior is habit-forming. Young voters are much more likely to keep voting in the future. Again, the procedure need not be complicated or burdensome. For example, we could allow young folks to pre-register at 16 when they first sign up for their driver’s license and then they would be all ready to vote when they turn 18.

Online registration is another great opportunity to encourage voting. Online registration look-up allows a prospective voter to easily see whether and where they are registered in advance of an upcoming election. In Arizona, registration rates rose by 9.5% with online registration and the processing costs went from 83 cents per form to 3 cents. Massachusetts is one of only 9 states that does not allow for online voter registration look-up.

Early voting is another huge missed opportunity for the Massachusetts Legislature to enhance voting and support our democracy. Busy schedules, work, child care, and many other obstacles often restrict voter participation in elections. Early voting laws could allow citizens to vote up to 2 weeks before Election Day and voters could cast ballots in person at supervised locations just like on Election Day. In 2012, 32 states utilized early voting and 33-40% of voters nationwide voted early when the option was available in 2012.

In light of the above, it is disappointing that the Massachusetts Legislature continues to drag its’ feet in passing effective laws which would modernize our voter access and registration laws and procedures. Instead of being the cradle of democracy Massachusetts is a laggard in encouraging and enhancing voter participation in our elections.

Last November the Massachusetts House passed the Election Reform Act (H 3722) which included some provisions for online registration and early voting. However, this bill failed to include other critical reforms such as pre-registration for teens, post-election audits, broader early voting and Election Day registration. The debate now moves to the Senate, where hopefully it will be further strengthened by amendment to provide election reform the voters of Massachusetts deserve and should demand. After all we are talking about voting here, an essential right to a well-functioning democracy. An active and informed electorate is the best protection we have for our democracy. Election reform is essential to broadening and strengthening the voice of the people and protecting the average citizen from governmental neglect and to counter the powerful forces of special interests, associations and lobbyists who too often have too much of the ear of our elected representatives.

Why would the Massachusetts House fail to pass legislation which would make Massachusetts a leader in election reform instead of a laggard? House Bill 3722 does provide for some early voting but it is limited to Presidential years and even then it does not provide for voting on the weekend immediately prior to Election Day. As well, H 3722 weakly mandates only one polling location per municipality, regardless of size. Furthermore, H 3722 merely calls for a study committee on early voting, fraud and turnout and which is due on 2017. The same for election audits that are relegated to a study as well. Election audit requirements actually passed in the last session of the House – so why study it now?

Here is where the realities of Massachusetts politics enters the picture and perhaps provides some explanation why significant election reform is so far failing to pass through the legislative process. For example, and unfortunately, the influential Massachusetts Association of Town Clerks testified against election reforms at legislative hearings citing additional costs and logistical hurdles. State Rep. Mike Moran, former co-chair of the Joint Committee on Election Laws has stated that such opposition from town and city clerks “informs” his opposition to reforms. This begs the question – do teenagers, everyday working folks, senior citizens who cannot always make it to the polls on a single given day, single moms who have to juggle work and child care, but who do not have associations or paid lobbyists representing their interests, inform Rep. Moran’s legislative thinking? Does the fact that election reforms have clearly proven to increase voting and expand the electorate inform Rep. Moran’s views?

Who is in charge here; the town and city clerks or the Massachusetts Legislature? It may be logistically inconvenient for municipal clerks to implement election reforms but voting rights are arguably the most important civil rights we have as they are the gateway rights to many other citizen rights, protections and political power which provide effective constitutional counter-weight to the special interests and powerful lobbyists who are not necessarily looking out for the average citizen.

The Massachusetts Legislature should be acting forcefully on behalf of the citizens to ensure and enhance voter participation and access to the voting booth irrespective of the objections of municipal clerks or anyone else. Legislative representatives are the only lobbyists many average folks have on Beacon Hill and our representatives should at least join, if not lead, the growing number of states in election reform and not be too easily “informed” by administrative objections from those whom they are supposed to be monitoring and supervising on behalf of the people.

Another possible reason legislators are not more aggressive in supporting election reform is their own self-interest in being re-elected. Many elected officials have become complacently used to and familiar with the limited turnout of essentially the same groups of voters. Election reform would create a larger turnout of unfamiliar voters who have not participated actively in the past. This would mean elected officials would have to pay attention to and campaign for the votes of many new voters and many new interests – upsetting the established organizational comfort of managing campaigns addressed to what is often a minority of the potential voters. The smaller the voter turnout the easier to campaign and win elections and less headaches actually representing an increasingly diverse Massachusetts electorate.

Limiting hours and opportunities for new voters to exercise their franchise is a good way to discourage young voters, those who have to work long hours every day, have long commutes into Boston with little time to be back in time to vote, who have transportation challenges even getting to polls and who, in the modern world, simply have a lot going on most days. Limiting voting to a one day event greatly increases the chances these and many other folks such as single moms juggling a very complex life, struggling small business owners who have to work on a given single election day or the increasing number of people providing daily care to elders might not or will not be able to vote – thus essentially disenfranchising those populations most in need of effective representation.

Co-coordinating, organizing and catering to focused sections of the electorate while ignoring election reform and the rights and needs of the rest of the population may lead to many years of comfortable legislative incumbency – but at the expense of the vital and responsive democracy Massachusetts citizens have a right to and deserve. But this need not be so. 2014 is a major election year and there is still plenty of time for the Massachusetts Legislature to enact real election reform that will avoid the unacceptably long lines and wait times we saw in the 2012 elections and more importantly support and encourage a much broader turnout of voters representing our diverse and vibrant population. A population of everyday individual real people – not special interests, associations, corporations, lobbyists or the well-connected.

Kevin McCarthy is an attorney residing at 155 Fairoaks Lane, Cohasset, MA and can be reached at: mccart9@gmail.com.

POLITICAL PERCH: Why Massachusetts lags in election reform http://shar.es/9LfYb via @sharethis