Exact-Match Verification Scheme has Prevented Tens of Thousands of Eligible Georgians from Registering to Vote, the Majority of Whom are African-American, Latino, and Asian American Citizens

WASHINGTON – The Campaign Legal Center (CLC), filed suit today on behalf of the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP (GA NAACP), Georgia Coalition for the Peoples’ Agenda (GCPA) and Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Atlanta alleging that Georgia’s exact-match voter registration verification scheme violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and denies eligible Georgians of their fundamental right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, concerns Georgia’s voter registration verification process, which requires all of the letters and numbers comprising the applicant’s name, date of birth, driver’s license number or last four digits of the Social Security number to exactly match the same letters and numbers for the applicant in the state’s Department of Drivers Service (DDS) or Social Security Administration (SSA) databases. If even a single letter or number, or a hyphen, space or apostrophe, does not exactly match the database information, and the applicant fails to correct the mismatch in 40 days, the application is automatically rejected and the applicant is not placed on the registration rolls even if they are eligible to vote. For those who attempt to re-register, there is no guarantee that the application will not be cancelled again if the information supplied in the original application was correct and the matching failure was due to a data entry error by the election clerk or when the information was originally entered into the DDS or SSA databases.

Worse, this process is resulting in the cancellation of applications submitted by African American, Latino, and Asian American applicants at rates significantly higher than White applicants. For example, of the approximately 34,874 voter registration applicants whose applications were cancelled between July 2013 and July 15, 2016, with a status reason of “Not Verified,” approximately 22,189 (63.6 percent) identified as Black, 2,752 (7.9 percent) identified as Latino, 1,665 (4.8 percent) identified as Asian-American, and 4,748 (13.6 percent) identified as White.

What makes this process so unpredictable and unduly burdensome for applicants is that even perfect applications can fail the matching process, through no fault of the applicant, because of data entry errors in the creation of the database records, inherent limitations in the matching software and algorithms that are used to compare the data, system glitches, and other problems that applicants have no ability themselves to discern or to correct.

The Social Security Administration’s Office of Inspector General issued a report in June 2009 admitting that the flaws and errors in the SSA’s voter registration verification system were preventing eligible applicants to register to vote. Despite this, Georgia has continued to maintain an error-prone system that disenfranchises thousands of applicants each year.

“We are bringing this suit under the Constitution, and under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language-minority group,” explained Michelle Kanter Cohen, election counsel with Project Vote. “The staggering disproportion in Georgia's rejection rates makes it clear that Georgians of color are being unfairly disenfranchised by this flawed and unfair process.”

“Young people, senior citizens and Georgians who are new to the state are being unnecessarily disenfranchised by Georgia’s voter registration verification process,” said Helen Butler, executive director of the Georgia Coalition for the Peoples’ Agenda, one of the plaintiffs in the action. “While it is gratifying to see young people taking an interest in participating in our democracy, I worry about how this process may discourage them from voting in their first presidential election only to learn that they have been denied the right to vote because of an error-prone and flawed process.”

Stephanie Cho, executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Atlanta, which is also a plaintiff in the case, is concerned that the exact match protocol is making it unnecessarily difficult for Asian American applicants to successfully complete the registration process. “Many Asian Americans have traditional names which may be unfamiliar to election clerks responsible for entering their registration data into the statewide registration system,” she noted.  “Therefore, they may omit a space between an applicant’s first name and middle name, or include a hyphen that the applicant does not use or even transpose a single letter or number.  Failures to match can occur when Asian American applicants use their surname as the first name, which is a common practice for traditional Korean-American applicants. There is no legitimate reason to cancel applications for the failure to match the databases under these circumstances or on such a short timeline when this practice prevents eligible applicants from being able to vote.”

“Georgia is one of the few states that continues to disenfranchise eligible citizens based upon a strict database matching protocol that is not mandated by HAVA or by state law,” said Francys Johnson, president of the GA NAACP, a plaintiff in this matter. “This litigation against Secretary Kemp is part of our ongoing post-Shelby election administration monitoring program in Georgia,” Johnson said. “This case illustrates why the NAACP will mortgage every asset we have to defend the unfettered access to the ballot. It was paid for with the blood, sweat and tears of our ancestors – voting is sacred.”

There is simply no legitimate reason why this flawed process should be allowed to continue to disenfranchise eligible Georgians, particularly when the evidence shows that the process is disproportionately preventing African American, Latino and Asian American applicants from completing the registration process and is denying them their fundamental right to vote.”

To read the full complaint, please click here.

*CLC was joined by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (Lawyers’ Committee), Project Vote, Voting Rights Institute of the Georgetown University School of Law, along with the New York City office of Hughes Hubbard and Reed LLP and Atlanta-based firm of Caplan Cobb LLP, acting as pro bono counsel.

Today’s announcement that prosecutors will not retry former Virginia Governor Bob  McDonnell on corruption charges is extremely disappointing and sends a strong signal that states must adopt strong campaign finance laws to prevent similar quid pro quo schemes from arising in their borders.

Tara Malloy, senior director, appellate litigation & strategy of the Campaign Legal Center, released the following statement:

“It is extremely disappointing that Gov. Bob McDonnell, who clearly abused his office and the public’s confidence, will face absolutely no penalty. Although the Supreme Court held that McDonnell’s prosecution had proceeded under faulty jury instructions, it in no way exonerated the governor or ruled out a retrial. The Department of Justice’s decision to drop the case signals to politicians nationwide that they can engage in pay-to-play politics with impunity and will give comfort to other officeholders currently facing public corruption charges. 

"Now, more than ever, states must make it a priority to protect and preserve the integrity of our democracy by passing strong gift laws and campaign finance laws, both of which are designed to prevent bribery schemes from hatching in the first place.”

CLC Letter Against Rep. Roger Williams (R-TX) Leads to Possible Investigation by the House Ethics Committee

WASHINGTON – Late yesterday, the House Ethics Committee revealed that the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) found “substantial reason to believe” Rep. Roger Williams (R-TX) may have violated House ethics rules. The OCE’s action came in response to a letter filed by the Campaign Legal Center last fall. The Committee indicated it is conducting a review of the potential violation after receiving the referral from OCE this past May.

Rep. Williams, who owns an automobile dealership in Weatherford, Texas, offered an amendment exempting such dealerships from a provision in the surface transportation bill requiring businesses renting automobiles to pull recalled vehicles from their fleets. In a November 2015 letter to the House Ethics Committee and the OCE, the Campaign Legal Center urged a review of Rep. Williams’ decision to offer an amendment that would benefit his own business. CLC’s letter also questioned whether Rep. Williams asked the House Ethics Committee for guidance on his actions as outlined in the House Ethics Manual. 

The OCE, by unanimous bipartisan vote, found that “there is substantial reason to believe that Rep. Williams’ personal financial interest in his auto dealership may be perceived as having influenced his performance of official duties – namely, his decision to offer an amendment to the surface transportation legislation." The OCE report also noted that Rep. Williams refused to cooperate with its investigation.

“As we stated in our letter last November, the House Ethics Manual differentiates between a Representative voting on a bill that affects him or her as a member of a class and a Representative acting as an advocate,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center.  “The Manual explicitly states that prior to undertaking such advocacy implicating a Representative’s financial interest, the Representative should clear it with the Ethics Committee. It remains unclear whether Rep. Williams ever did that.”

The questions about Rep. Williams’ actions were first raised by the Center for Public Integrity which described the amendment being offered just before midnight on November 11. The amendment allowed automobile dealers “to rent or loan out vehicles even if they are subject to safety recalls.  Rental car companies, meanwhile, don’t get the same treatment under the proposed law.”

“Given Rep. Williams’ refusal to cooperate with the OCE inquiry, it is critical for the House Ethics Committee to conduct a full investigation into this matter. It is also important for the Committee to further clarify and strengthen House ethics rules that deal with legislative actions in which the member has a pecuniary interest,” said McGehee. “Current rules and guidance are insufficient to protect against conflicts of interest, and ill-serve members, leaving them vulnerable to questions about their motivations.”

The Committee did not set a timetable for further action.

Read our letter

CLC Files Complaint After Chinese Citizens Helped Make $1.3 Million in Illegal Contributions to Super PAC

Following reports that Chinese citizens helped pump $1.3 million into the super PAC supporting former presidential candidate Jeb Bush, the Campaign Legal Center today filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, calling for a full investigation and enforcement of the law that bans foreign nationals from spending on U.S. elections.

“These facts indicate that Citizens United made it easier for foreign money to flow into U.S. elections through corporations,” said Brendan Fischer, associate counsel for the Campaign Legal Center. “This example also makes clear that disclosure is more important than ever. Because these particular donations were disclosed, journalists were able to uncover the violations. But we can’t be sure how many other foreign nationals have pumped money into our elections through undisclosed donations. Americans not only have the right to know who is influencing elections, but the FEC needs this information in order to enforce the laws protecting the integrity of our democracy.”

Last week, The Intercept reported how a U.S. corporation, American Pacific International Capital, Inc. (APIC), controlled by Chinese citizens living in Singapore, gave $1.3 million to Right to Rise, a Jeb Bush super PAC. The FEC has only allowed foreign-owned U.S. companies to make contributions if the foreign owners or board members are not involved in the decision making process, yet reporting in The Intercept revealed that APIC’s Chinese owners approved the contribution to Right to Rise USA – a clear violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act.   

“Current FEC rules allowing foreign-owned U.S. subsidiaries to spend in our elections, as long as citizens control the contributions, are clearly inadequate to prevent foreign influence,” said Larry Noble, general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center. “Yet the evidence shows that even those lax rules were violated here. The FEC should not only enforce its existing regulations but also take action to address how those rules are insufficient after Citizens United to protect against foreign money coming into U.S. elections.” 

CLC Releases New Report Proposing a Key Solution for Partisan Gerrymandering and Achieving Fair Elections 

WASHINGTON – The Campaign Legal Center, which is litigating the landmark case Whitford v. Gill to end partisan gerrymandering, today released a report, Make Democracy Count: Ending Partisan Gerrymandering. 

The report highlights the impact partisan gerrymandering, or the drawing of electoral district lines to benefit one political party, has on our democracy and suggests a key solution that can be used to ensure fair elections nationwide.

“Partisan gerrymandering is increasingly becoming the political weapon of choice for legislators to maintain power,” said Gerry Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center. “Currently, politicians are allowed to choose their own voters and draw voting maps that are self-serving, at the expense of American voters and our democracy as a whole. The practice is to blame for Americans’ distrust in our government, and a significant reason for the hyper-partisanship and political gridlock we currently see in state and federal politics.”

Make Democracy Count details how partisan gerrymandering creates an unrepresentative and unfair democracy and encourages self-interested politics. The report also showcases the toll this undemocratic practice has on real voters. 

In addition, CLC’s report explains the efficiency gap, a solution for measuring partisan effects put forward in the case, Whitford v. Gill, which went to trial in May before a three-judge Wisconsin district court. In Whitford, 12 Wisconsin voters, represented by CLC and local attorneys, challenged the state’s Assembly map, one of the most extreme partisan gerrymanders in modern American history. A decision in the case is expected soon.

“The Supreme Court has not yet adopted a standard for determining whether a redistricting plan is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, leaving voters with little or no recourse through our judicial system,” said Ruth Greenwood, senior redistricting counsel for the Campaign Legal Center. “If our case is appealed to the Supreme Court, and if the high court embraces the efficiency gap as a test for unlawful gerrymandering, it would go a long way to restoring fair elections and ensuring that every voter is entitled to equal protection under the law and to have their voice heard.” 

Learn more about Whitford v. Gill.