Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Tug-of-war continues over cutting names from voter rolls

Voter registration

Judicial Watch is threatening legal action against 19 large counties across five states, claiming the jurisdictions have not followed federal law requiring maintenance of voter registration lists.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Republican politicians and conservative groups are accelerating their push to remove names from voter rolls across the country in what has quickly become a major new partisan battleground ahead of the next election.

Proponents of cleaning up the rolls claim the lists are filled in some places with the names of people who are not eligible to vote because they have moved or died. This creates the opportunity for fraud, they argue. Democrats counter that such "purging" ends up removing many thousands of qualified voters and is a thinly veiled attempt by the GOP to reduce the numbers of potential Democratic voters.

The latest developments came last week when a conservative group, Judicial Watch, sent letters threatening to sue 19 large counties — 11 of them in California — for not following the federal law that outlines how lists are to be maintained.


The letters from Judicial Watch went to counties in five states — California, Colorado, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia — where the number of registered voters exceeds the most recent Census Bureau estimate of the voting age population. These include San Diego and San Francisco counties, Fairfax County in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, the county centered on Charlotte in North Carolina and the county that includes Pittsburgh.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Judicial Watch says its analysis of federal data found 378 counties — almost one out of every eight nationwide — where the number of voters registered exceeds the estimated voting age population.

"Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections and Judicial Watch will insist, in court if necessary, that states follow federal law to clean up their voting rolls," said the group's president, Tom Fitton.

But Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, warns in a posting on the Election Law Blog that comparing the number of registrations to the estimated adult population is "bad science."

First, he argues, the two data sets measure different things. Many members of the military or college students who may be counted for census purposes in the places where they're stationed or going to school, for example, may nonetheless be registered to vote in their hometowns. In addition, the two counts are conducted in different ways. While a firm count of people registered to vote in a jurisdiction can be done at any time, the voting age populations are estimates by the Census Bureau that include a margin of error, and are often several years behind the current voter registration count.

"To be abundantly clear: accurate list maintenance is good hygiene, and beneficial. Inaccurate list maintenance based on flawed measures of problems is medical malpractice," Levitt wrote last week.

Judicial Watch has been successful in suing to force cleanups of voter registration rolls in California, Kentucky and Ohio under the National Voter Registration Act. The 1993 law is more widely known as the Motor Voter Act for its best-known provision, requiring people be given an opportunity to register when they get or renew a driver's license. But it also sets out the method by which names can be removed from voter rolls, requiring election officials to send notices to voters who appear to have moved and have skipped several elections.

Recently, efforts to remove hundreds of thousands of names from the voter registration rolls in Georgia and Ohio have been the subject of legal challenges.

In both states, thousands of those removals were found to be mistaken.

Read More

Half-Baked Alaska

A photo of multiple checked boxes.

Getty Images / Thanakorn Lappattaranan

Half-Baked Alaska

This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.

Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.

Keep ReadingShow less
Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

The United States Supreme Court.

Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ranked Choice Voting May Be a Stepping Stone to Proportional Representation

Someone filling out a ballot.

Getty Images / Hill Street Studios

Ranked Choice Voting May Be a Stepping Stone to Proportional Representation

In the 2024 U.S. election, several states did not pass ballot initiatives to implement Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) despite strong majority support from voters under 65. Still, RCV was defended in Alaska, passed by a landslide in Washington, D.C., and has earned majority support in 31 straight pro-RCV city ballot measures. Still, some critics of RCV argue that it does not enhance and promote democratic principles as much as forms of proportional representation (PR), as commonly used throughout Europe and Latin America.

However, in the U.S. many people have not heard of PR. The question under consideration is whether implementing RCV serves as a stepping stone to PR by building public understanding and support for reforms that move away from winner-take-all systems. Utilizing a nationally representative sample of respondents (N=1000) on the 2022 Cooperative Election Survey (CES), results show that individuals who favor RCV often also know about and back PR. When comparing other types of electoral reforms, RCV uniquely transfers into support for PR, in ways that support for nonpartisan redistricting and the national popular vote do not. These findings can inspire efforts that demonstrate how RCV may facilitate the adoption of PR in the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court
Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Gerrymandering and voting rights under review by Supreme Court again

On Dec. 13, The Fulcrum identified the worst examples of congressional gerrymandering currently in use.

In that news report, David Meyers wrote:

Keep ReadingShow less