nevada

Cross-posted at Project Vote's blog, Voting Matters

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns and Nathan Henderson-James

We spend a lot of time in these news updates showing how charges of voter fraud are used to discredit voter participation efforts and prime the pump for voter suppression efforts, such as the passage of voter ID bills, pushing for proof of citizenship, engaging in draconian voter purge efforts, and imposing sever restrictions on voter registration drives. We have also spent a lot of time carefully delineating the politics behind these efforts, starting with our March 2007 report The Politics Of Voter Fraud and continuing on in these diaries to name but two venues.

What is striking about how the process of disenfranchisement and voter suppression works is how much it relies upon the media to repeat and amplify the breathless and hyperbolic accusations of so-called voter fraud against voter registration drives. If journalists were to spend any time at all investigating the sensational claims - often made by people with a direct partisan interest in the outcome of an election - they would find that the accusations are mostly taken out of context, are limited to a few instances, and have never, ever, been proven to have resulted in any fraudulent vote being cast.

Sadly, the history of this issue shows that it has been bereft of this kind of basic journalism, even through the 2006 mid-term elections. This is important because haphazard reporting of partisan claims of voter fraud without checking the facts is how the media helps these voter suppression efforts. These stories not only deter potential voters from getting on the rolls, but, as noted above, inspire bad election reforms aimed at disenfranchising voters, particularly those that are currently underrepresented in the electorate.

A prime example of this kind of lazy journalism in recent weeks comes from Las Vegas where local reporters simply repeated accusations of fraud made by the Clark County clerk against ACORN without even bothering to contact ACORN to see how their drive was being managed.

The group's registration drive has reached one million voters nationwide [Full disclosure – it is run under a Joint Effort Agreement with Project Vote. –ed.] and, according to one article, election officials see “rampant fraud” in the 2,000 – 3,000 cards submitted by the group each week in Las Vegas. This week, the Associated Press reported that the state set up a “voter fraud task force” to look for “election irregularities and instances of questionable voter registration and intimidation,” directly citing issues with voter registration drives. Neither of these Nevada reports provided the facts of voter fraud, what it is and how it relates to the voter registration process. Most importantly, neither reports cite real examples of the intentional casting of an illegal ballot – the real definition of voter fraud – in the state.

However, it may be that the hard work Project Vote and others – including the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, DEMOS, and the Advancement Project - have engaged in over the past few years debunking the voter fraud myth is beginning to change the way journalists approach these stories.

This week, several publications broke this trend by debunking recent Virginia GOP allegations of widespread voter fraud as a result of massive voter registration drives that primarily target youth, low income and minority communities – constituencies that have a long history of being underrepresented on the voting rolls and in the voting booth.

Since the beginning of the year, an unprecedented 147,000 people - “almost half under the age of 25” - registered to vote in Virginia, according to Monday's Washington Post lead editorial. Pointing to a recent incident where three members of the Community Voting Project were arrested for falsifying voter registration cards, Republican Party chairman, Del. Jeffrey Frederick of Prince William County claims widespread voter fraud is a hidden agenda in voter registration drives.

Remarkably, however, this time the press decided to investigate this inflammatory accusation. This charge is “utterly baseless” and is “unsupported by election officials, police or prosecutors,” the Post notes in the editorial. In fact, the Post described the accusation as an exercise in “fear mongering” by Frederick, amplified by his allegations that citizens who register with these drives are also vulnerable to identity theft, a claim that amounts to nothing more than “a classic attempt to suppress votes,” the Post editorialized.

Bob Bauer, at his Web site, www.MoreSoftMoneyHardLaw.com, takes the critique one step further, looking at both the accusations and the Post’s coverage. “And the Post omits mention of another feature of Fredericks' suppression gambit,” wrote the election law attorney. “He also called for an 'investigation,' well understanding that his words would creep into the press on his remarks and filter out into the electorate.”

In a prime example of the kind of journalism that should happen as a matter of course when these kinds of serious allegations are made, a Virginia reporter for the Danville Register & Bee reached out to local registrars to get a real idea of the voter registration process and how unlikely it is to lead to voter fraud.

“'It's not easy to falsely register somebody,' said Pittsylvania County Registrar Jenny Saunders, who explained that in addition to the registrar going over the application for obvious errors (like missed questions), there's a statewide database all applications are checked against.”

Partisans out for political gain perpetuate fear about the integrity of the election system, something that the media often picks up unfiltered. “In fact,” the Post wrote, “it is groundless accusations and cynical fear-mongering such as Mr. Frederick's that are injecting the real venom, and the true threat, into the elections.

Below are some important facts to consider when writing (or reading) reports on voter registration fraud:

Voter Registration Drives Rev up in Presidential Election Years

The fact that young people and minorities are expanding the voting rolls this year does not indicate that something is awry with voter registration drives. Indeed, most large-scale drives target those populations least represented in the electorate. Further, in high interest election years, especially presidential, more people are motivated to help register voters or get registered themselves. Stories about so-called voter fraud should be evaluated in terms of the number of cards thought to be fraudulent versus the total number of cards the registration drive is gathering. In Virginia, a handful of fake cards were found in a drive that could register more than 30,000 people.

Voter Registration Fraud Does Not Lead to Voter Fraud

“We have the checks and balances...to makes sure the wrong person doesn't get registered and the right person does,” said Va. election official, Saunders in the Register & Bee.

Further, professionally-run drives expect almost a third of all applications to be duplicates or incomplete, no matter how well-trained the canvasser or volunteers are. This does not mean they are all illegal. However, the registrar is required to ensure all applications contain accurate information “including whether the applicant is a citizen, their Social Security number, date of birth, full name, valid residence, whether they've been convicted of a felony, or whether they have been determined mentally incapable...If any of that is left off...the application is denied,” according to the Register & Bee. Note: Not all states require Social Security number information to be filled out on a voter registration card. For more information on your state's requirements on registering to vote, visit ProjectVote.org.

Allegations of Voter Fraud are Often Motivated By Partisan Gain

“If you're not winning at the ballot box, try your chances in the registrar's office, or in court,” the Virginia Pilot editorialized. “[That's] [h]ardly democratic.”

Following the success of voter registration drives that have increased registration among low income, minority and young people, almost all claims of rampant voter fraud have come from Republican leaders, despite lack of substantiation of a real problem. The most vicious and corrupt efforts made were part of what has become the US AttorneyGate scandal that subsequently exposed the widespread politicization of the Department of Justice and led to the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. All of that unraveled because former US Attorney David Iglesias refused to make false accusations of voter fraud against ACORN’s 2004 voter registration drive in New Mexico.

The fact is between 2002 and 2005 – when the Department of Justice carried out the most intensive investigation of voter fraud in US history – only 24 people were convicted of illegal voting nationwide. However, partisans still made public allegations and the press, in many instances, ran these claims with out real evidence. Armed with these published anecdotes and buoyed by manufactured public outcry about the possibility of their votes being canceled out by illegal voters, legislators fought to pass laws that disenfranchise certain classes of voters. As a result, states like Indiana and Georgia have implemented some of the most draconian voter ID laws despite the lack of any evidence of actual voter fraud.

Reporters practicing ethical and rigorous journalism should recognize that merely using the “rhetorical hand grenade” of voter fraud - without an explanation of how voter registration and elections are administered or an investigation into the evidence of voter fraud - is the real threat to democracy.

Quick Links:

Minnite, Lorraine. “The Politics of Voter Fraud. ”Project Vote. March 2007.

Voter Registration Guides and Surveys [By State]. Project Vote

In Other News:

A voting penalty after the penalty – Birmingham Press-RegisterAnnette McWashington Pruitt watched her 18-year-old son graduate from high school this May. She proudly tells people that he is going into the Navy, following in the footsteps of his older brother (who is serving in Iraq) and his grandfather (who was in the Air Force).

Voting Rules Create Land of Disenchantment: Advocacy groups are battling New Mexico's strict voter registration laws as election looms – Miller-McCune
Jo Ann Gutierrez-Bejar remembers volunteering for the annual voter registration drive in Albuquerque, N.M. She remembers the camaraderie as the group of usually 30 to 40 volunteers headed out in the morning, clipboards in hand, to knock on doors and register new voters.

Denogean: 97-year-old voter can't prove she's a citizen: On deathbed, father told her to vote Democratic – The Tucson Press
Shirley Freeda Preiss of Surprise is one ticked-off little old lady. And who can blame her? The 97-year-old retired schoolteacher and onetime traveling showgirl has voted in every presidential election since 1932 when she cast a ballot for Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But thanks to the state's voter identification requirements, it's looking unlikely that she'll be able to vote in the upcoming presidential election.

Watch your (official) language - Stateline.org
Missouri, a key presidential swing state and home to one of the most hotly contested gubernatorial races, will test what some see as voters’ attitudes toward immigrants this November with a ballot measure to make English the only language of state government.

At The Washington Post, Chris Cillizza takes a look at the new top ten swing states. This idea of a "swing state" is a little dated, especially since the Democrats adopted the "50 State Strategy" and saw positive results in 2006. But at the end of the day, even if we do compete in all states, a few will be more competitive than others, and it is inevitable that these states will receive an inordinate amount of attention from the media, the campaigns, and 527 organizations looking to influence the outcome.

That said, here are your new swing states. Learn them well.

This looks somewhat familiar. Remember this from November 2004? These are the states where John Kerry would have won the election if only voters under 30 had cast their ballots:

I can't prove any direct connection or major demographic shift in these states at this point, but it definitely bears more looking into. It's also nice to see some states with active youth organizing making the list of "new" swing states (Colorado, Virginia, New Mexico).

Cross posted from The Washington Independent

In the battle to court young voters in Nevada, Sen. Barack Obama (D–IL) emerged victorious at Saturday’s caucus for the Democratic presidential nomination. But it was not enough for him to overcome Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D–NY) advantage among older voters and women, who carried the New York senator to a 51 percent to 45 percent victory over her rival.

According to polling data from the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), more than 15,000 young voters participated in the Democratic caucus on Jan. 19, a dramatic increase over turnout in 2004, when only 9,000 Nevadans – young and old – took part. Obama won 59 percent to 33 percent among voters aged 18–29, recapturing a solid base of support that seemed shaky after he lost to Clinton among 25–29 year-olds in the New Hampshire primary.

Despite those gains in Nevada turnout, young voters wielded significantly less influence there than in previous contests this year. That proved a detriment to the Obama campaign.

While young voters make up 22 percent of eligible voters in Nevada, CIRCLE estimated they were only 13 percent of caucus-goers on Saturday. This was a sharp decrease from Iowa and New Hampshire, where young voters were 22 percent and 18 percent of the electorate, respectively. In comparison, voters older than 60 made up 36 percent of the electorate on Saturday.

Youth organizers, who spent weeks -- and in the case of the Nevada Young Democrats, months -- in the state educating young voters about the caucus process, were quick to point out a number of mitigating factors that may account for the smaller turnout. Most significantly, they note that attention from the presidential campaigns, which ramped up in the week leading up to the caucus, came too little, too late. Campaigns were on the ground in Iowa and New Hampshire for months, and the candidates themselves visited the states more than 100 times. This was not the case in Nevada, where the leading candidates were all but absent until recently.

The start time of the caucus, which required that participants be in line by noon, may also have played a role in the lower youth turnout. Many young people in Nevada work night shifts. "I talked to a number of young voters who expressed their frustration," said David Hardt, president of the Young Democrats of America, who was in Nevada to observe the caucus. He continued, "The caucus didn't allow anyone who works nights the opportunity to be part of the process."

Youth advocates also noted that organizing students in Nevada can be difficult. Many local colleges and universities are commuter schools, dispersing the youth population and complicating canvassing efforts. Another problem they cited was that the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, one of the largest schools in the state, will not be back in session until Jan 22.

Despite these challenges, the youth organizers interviewed all insisted that young Nevadans made a generational statement in favor of change in their support for Obama. Many asserted that, despite smaller turnout, young voters are still playing a big role.

“It is clear young people are keeping Obama competitive'" said Jane Fleming Kleeb, the executive director of the Young Voter PAC, "they are much more excited by Democrats overall.”

That may be true. Young voters, along with African-Americans, Independents and secular voters, were one of the few demographics to overwhelmingly support Obama over Clinton. They helped the Illinois senator emerge from the Silver State with something of a win -- or at least a tie. Though Clinton captured the popular vote, because of the way the caucuses are weighted, Obama will take 13 delegates to the Democratic Convention, compared to Clinton’s 12. Candidates need 2,208 delegates to secure the nomination.

Kleeb is also right that young voters are supporting the Democratic candidates in greater numbers than the Republicans. The number of young people participating in the Democratic caucus was more than triple that of the GOP caucus. This continued a trend seen in previous states, and is consistent with youth voting trends in national elections since 2004.

According to research by CIRCLE, in the 2004 general election, younger voters chose Sen. John Kerry (D–MA), the Democratic nominee, over President George W. Bush 54–45 percent. In the 2006 midterm, young voters chose Democratic candidates over GOP candidates by the even greater margin, 60–38 percent. More recently, youth participation in the Iowa Democratic caucus was four times as large as that in the Republican caucus; and in New Hampshire Democratic youth turnout was almost double Republican turnout.

Young Nevadans who did participate in the Republican caucus overwhelmingly chose former Gov. Mitt Romney, who captured 50 percent of the GOP youth vote. Romney went on to win the Republican caucus. Rep. Ron Paul (R–TX) came in second, with 15 percent of the youth vote, and 14 percent of the total vote.

Youth support among the Republican candidates remains more divided than on the Democratic side. Young conservative voters in different states have thrown their support behind three different candidates. In Iowa, Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas. captured the youth vote – potentially on a wave of young evangelical support. In New Hampshire, Sen. John McCain (R–AZ) won the youth vote with support from young Independents. Romney has now twice captured young conservative voters -- first in Michigan and now in Nevada.

Overall, young voters continue to play a smaller role in the GOP nominating process than on the Democratic side. Young Republicans made up a smaller share of the Republican electorate than their Democratic peers in all the previous states.

Update: So scratch that and call it a tie? Looks like that while Senator Clinton technically won the state, the way delegates are distributed means that Obama will leave Nevada with 13 delegates to the convention to Clinton's 12. Ari Melber at The Nation has the story.
--------------------------------
So Senator Clinton wins Nevada, and it looks like it's on a wave of turnout from older women. According to CNN's exit polling, women were almost a supermajority, outnumbering men at the caucus by 59 - 41%. And this was most definitely an older caucus. 68% of caucus-goers were over 45 years old.

Obama seems to have recouped his losses among young voters after Hillary edged him out in New Hampshire among 25 - 29 year olds. Obama won young voter 59 - 33%. Unfortunately, it didn't matter. This was the worst turnout so far for youth. Voters under 30 made up only 13% of caucus goers even though they are 22% of the eligible voting population.

Clinton cleaned up amongst almost every single demographic except youth, African Americans and independents. I wonder what % of young women and Latinos went to Clinton . . .

Moderating factors: this was Nevada's first caucus, making a strange and intimidating process even more so, and the candidates didn't lavish nearly as much attention on this state as they did Iowa and New Hampshire. Both of these might have played a role in driving down youth turnout. Since this is the first time Nevada is holding a caucus like this, we won't, unfortunately be able to tell if youth turnout went up or down from previous cycles.

I'll have more as CIRCLE crunches the numbers and youth orgs start reporting out from the caucus. This was a disappointment though to be sure.

Same deal as always. If you're on the ground in Nevada or on your couch watching the results come in, use this thread to share stories, incoming data, etc.

Update: Through my fellowship, I've now got a gig covering the youth vote for the Washington Independent. Here's my story about today's Nevada Caucus.

Many speculate on the democratic value of the caucus system because it requires people to be available at a specific time where in a primary you have all day long to vote. Thus the Iowa Caucus being held in the eventing and the upcoming Nevada primary being held on a Saturday.

A recent post on MyDD explains differences in the two systems and some of the important details for the Nevada Caucus:

A series of "at-large" precincts are scheduled to be held near the Strip properties for workers who are on their shifts Saturday . However, the last I heard, the companies had not agreed to let workers take extended breaks to participate, and since the shift change is at noon, its not clear whether those coming off will be allowed to leave early or those coming on will be allowed to arrive late on Saturday. (With Culinary now backing Obama and Clinton having support among some management executives, such as MGM/Mirage VP for personnel, there may be some interesting behind-the-scenes tussles as this gets worked out in the next 10 days.)"

The Nevada Sagebrush - the University of Nevada Reno school paper asks its students where they will be on caucus day with the fun cartoon to the right. But both the College Republicans and the Young Democrats have worked hard to inform students what the caucus is all about.

Earlier last semester the YD's hosted a mock caucus - the "mockus" to allow students to ask questions and learn more about how the process works.

"Fashioned in the style of an actual caucus, the “mockus” will allow students to experience the process of a caucus, which Miller said she hopes will dismiss any fears or doubts concerning the official process.

Miller said Jill Derby, chairwoman of the Nevada State Democratic Party, and Nevada Assemblyman David Bobzien, D-Reno, will be speaking and helping out at the mockus.

Jason Fromoltz, president of the Young Democrats state chapter, said students can expect more of these events as part of the statewide launched plan, “Wanna Caucus.” NV Sagebrush

Nevada is quickly becoming high noon to break apart the close scores of Clinton and Obama or give a nudge to Edwards who secured union support early on in the state.

But "according to The Washington Post, candidates have hosted 188 Nevada events compared to 379 in South Carolina. Iowa drew 1,823 events and New Hampshire 942, according to the Post.

“We were hoping to get more but you’re always hoping for more,” said Bryan Bedera, state chairman of the Republican Youth Majority. “I’m a bit surprised the Republican candidates haven’t focused more on Nevada.”

I'm surprised too. You'd think with New York New York Rudy would be there most nights trying to talk about September 11th and do a press conference.

But the Nevada caucus is aimed to be a pretty swanky affair. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid predicted that there will be 100,000 caucus goers in Nevada. (compared to just under 350,000 in Iowa) And with a lower average age in Nevada, some think youth turnout may also ride the wave to high numbers here as well.

"With Nevada being a caucus state, that's going to translate into a higher youth turnout in Nevada," [said A'shanti Fayshel Gholar, who lives in Las Vegas and serves as vice president of the Young Democrats of America.]"

I agree. My prediction is youth turnout will continue to increase - and we'll see great numbers in 18-30 year olds across the state. See more inspiring stats on young Nevada voters at CIRCLE (pdf)