Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Why Doing Immigration the “White Way” Is Wrong

A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

Why Doing Immigration the “White Way” Is Wrong

The president is granting refugee status to white South Africans. Meanwhile, he is issuing travel bans, unsure about his duty to uphold due process, fighting birthright citizenship, and backing massive human rights breaches against people of color, including deporting citizens and people authorized to be here.

The administration’s escalating immigration enforcement—marked by “fast-track” deportations or disappearances without due process—signal a dangerous leveling-up of aggressive anti-immigration policies and authoritarian tactics. In the face of the immigration chaos that we are now in, we could—and should—turn our efforts toward making immigration policies less racist, more efficient, and more humane because America’s promise is built on freedom and democracy, not terror. As social scientists, we know that in America, thinking people can and should “just get documented” ignores the very real and large barriers embedded in our systems.

Keep ReadingShow less
Insider trading in Washington, DC

U.S. senators and representatives with access to non-public information are permitted to buy and sell individual stocks. It’s not just unethical; it sends the message that the game is rigged.

Getty Images, Greggory DiSalvo

Insider Trading: If CEOs Can’t Do It, Why Can Congress?

Ivan Boesky. Martha Stewart. Jeffrey Skilling.

Each became infamous for using privileged, non-public information to profit unfairly from the stock market. They were prosecuted. They served time. Because insider trading is a crime that threatens public trust and distorts free markets.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court Changes the Game on Federal Environmental Reviews

A pump jack seen in a southeast New Mexico oilfield.

Getty Images, Daniel A. Leifheit

Supreme Court Changes the Game on Federal Environmental Reviews

Getting federal approval for permits to build bridges, wind farms, highways and other major infrastructure projects has long been a complicated and time-consuming process. Despite growing calls from both parties for Congress and federal agencies to reform that process, there had been few significant revisions – until now.

In one fell swoop, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed a big part of the game.

Keep ReadingShow less