Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Top U.S. election official opposes  automatic voter registration

Top U.S. election official opposes  automatic voter registration

Christy McCormick, chairwoman of the Election Assistance Commission, testififying on Capitol Hill in May.

C-SPAN

The chairwoman of the Election Assistance Commission told the nation's state legislators last week that she's opposed to automatic voter registration.

Adding qualified citizens to the rolls whenever they do business with a state agency, unless they choose to opt out, has quickly become a widely accepted component of most democracy reform agendas. Eighteen states will have so-called AVR in place in time for the 2020 election after a surge of acceptance in state legislatures this decade. And the practice would be nationally mandated under HR 1, the comprehensive campaign finance, election and ethics legislation the House passed in March.

But Christy McCormick argues that registering to vote is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment and that "not registering to vote is a choice – we should respect our citizens' choices."


Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California Irvine, published an item about the presentation on his election law blog, saying that the presentation "raised some eyebrows" at the gathering in Nashville of the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The EAC is an advisory commission, created after the disputed 2000 election to help states improve their elections – most recently by distributing money approved by Congress for buying new voting equipment and otherwise enhancing election security.

So McCormack, a Republican who has been chairwoman for four years and was previously a top trial attorney in the voting section of the Justice Department's civil rights division, has no power to shape voter registration policy. Nonetheless, opposition to AVR from one of the top election policy officials in the federal government is notable.

In her presentation to the legislators, McCormack cited a Supreme Court case decided last year, involving a public sector employee who did not join the union because he disagreed with its political positions but was still required to pay dues. The court ruled against the union, saying requiring non-members to pay was forced speech and therefore a violation of the First Amendment.

McCormick also said that automatic voter registration does not necessarily increase turnout and that it would expose more people's voter information to be hacked. "A voter's information belongs to the voter and only to the voter, and he or she – we — should decide how we want our private information to be shared," slides for her presentation said.

In January 2017, McCormick said she did not believe claims of Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign, calling it "deceptive propaganda perpetrated on the American public."

But in an op-ed column in March, McCormick acknowledged that "in the wake of the 2016 presidential election, intelligence officials began to piece together evidence of Russian election interference."

Earlier this year, she and other commissioners pleaded for more money from Congress to help improve security for upcoming elections because of concerns over hacking.

In a statement Wednesday, McCormick said she was "specifically asked by NCSL to provide a counterpoint and share some of the challenges to implementing automatic voter registration." McCormick said she favors so-called automated registration, which often occurs at motor vehicle bureaus, in which people renewing drivers' licenses are invited to register.

"Voters should give prior consent to registering to vote for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, indicating political affiliation, choosing to register in a different state, or declining to register based on religious objection," she said.


Read More

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate
the letters are made up of different colors

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key takeaways

  • The U.S. has no national AI liability law. Instead, a patchwork of state laws has emerged which has resulted in legal protections being dependent on where an individual resides.
  • It’s often unclear who is legally responsible when AI causes harm. This gap leaves many people with no clear path to seek help.
  • In March 2026, the White House and Congress introduced major proposals to establish a federal standard, but there is significant disagreement about whether that standard should prioritize protecting innovation or protecting people harmed by AI systems.

Background: A Patchwork of State Laws

Without a national AI law, states have been filling in the gaps on their own. The result is an uneven landscape where a person’s legal protections depend entirely on which state they live in.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stethoscope, pile of hundred dollar bills and a calculator

A deep dive into America’s healthcare cost crisis, comparing reform to a modern “moonshot.” Explores payment models, rising costs, and lessons from John F. Kennedy’s space race vision to drive systemic change.

IronHeart/Getty Images

The Moonshot America Needs to Solve Its Healthcare Crisis

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy told the nation, “We choose to go to the moon.” It’s often remembered as a moment of national ambition. In reality, the United States was locked in a Cold War with the Soviet Union, and the fear of falling behind in technological dominance made the mission unavoidable.

Today’s space race is driven by a different force. Governments and private companies are investing billions to capture economic advantages, from satellite infrastructure to advanced computing to the next frontier of resource extraction.

Keep ReadingShow less
After the Court's Voting Rights Decision - How to Protect Black-Majority Districts
a large white building with columns with United States Supreme Court Building in the background

After the Court's Voting Rights Decision - How to Protect Black-Majority Districts

The Supreme Court recently ruled that Louisiana violated the Constitution in creating a new Black-majority voting district. This was after a Federal court had ruled that the previous map, by packing Blacks all in one district, diluted their votes, which violated the Voting Rights Act.

The question is what impact the decision in Louisiana v Callais will have on §2 of the Voting Rights Act ... and on the current gerrymander contest to gain safe seats in the House. The conservative majority said that the decision left the Act intact. The liberal minority, in a strong dissent by Justice Kagan, said that the practical impact was to "render §2 all but a dead letter," making it likely that existing Black-majority districts will not remain for long.

Keep ReadingShow less