National Civic Summit - Election Day Registration by Dēmos Day
Published on: Mar 3, 2016
Transcripts - National Civic Summit - Election Day Registration by Dēmos Day
Election Day Registration:
a ground-level view
What Local Election Officials Have Learned About Letting
Americans Register and Vote on the Same Day
» Is EDR a burden to administer?
» Does it make elections more expensive?
» Does it cause confusion at the polls?
» Does it encourage fraud?
Maine, Minnesota and Wisconsin adopted the practice of Election Day
Registration (known as EDR) in the early 1970s. After a two-decade
lull in reform activity, Wyoming, New Hampshire and Idaho passed
EDR laws in the early ‘90s.
We are now seeing a third wave of interest in EDR. Montana approved
an EDR law in June 2006. Iowa followed in April 2007. In July 2007,
North Carolina enacted a “same day registration” law which allows reg-
istration and voting at the state’s early voting sites (open from 19 to
three days before an election), though not on Election Day. During the
2007 legislative session 23 states considered EDR or same day registra-
Dēmos’ Survey of Election Officials in
Election Day Registration draws more people into the political pro-
cess. In the 2006 midterm elections, EDR states achieved, on average, a
10 percent edge in voter turnout over other states. In most states, EDR
is likely to increase turnout by about 5 percentage points, research-
ers project. EDR can be particularly effective at raising turnout among
young adults, newly naturalized citizens, people of color, and those
with lower incomes and levels of educational achievement. But while
the benefits are clear and well-documented, opponents claim that they
A Network for Ideas & Action
come at a steep price—in administrative complexity, implementation
cost, and the potential for error or fraud.
To assess the validity of these assertions, Dēmos conducted a telephone survey of lo-
cal election officials in the EDR states of Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire,
Wisconsin and Wyoming. The interviews took place from February through April
2007. (Montana, which first implemented EDR in 2006, was excluded because of its
limited experience.) The jurisdictions ranged widely in median household income
(from $25,000 to $66,000) and population (from under 600 to over 500,000 residents).
We were careful to include areas with substantial college populations, in order to re-
flect concerns about an unusually mobile subset of voters.
Most of the officials surveyed were town, city or county clerks for whom election
administration was often just one of multiple responsibilities. In a few comparatively
large jurisdictions, the respondents were full-time election administrators. In all, 49
officials took part. They were asked a variety of questions concerning the administra-
tion of EDR, its cost, and the integrity of election results. Here is a summary of what
Does EDR Create Unreasonable Burdens for
In non-EDR states, election officials often express opposition to EDR, arguing that it
will make their jobs much more difficult. Based on the survey results, those fears are
rarely borne out by experience. About one-third of the respondents characterized the
workload impact as modest or marginal. The other two-thirds agreed that the impact
was significant, but with very few exceptions they spoke about it in a matter-of-fact
rather than a complaining way.
“Naturally, it’s more difficult,” said the clerk of a small city in Maine.
“It’s not bad—it’s just the way it is,” said the clerk of a comparable-sized community
A number of officials brought up compensating benefits. While EDR creates more
work on Election Day itself, about half the survey respondents suggested that it had
reduced or eliminated the familiar pattern (in non-EDR states) of a pre-deadline surge
of registrations. Twenty-four of the 49 respondents said they had not been experienc-
ing such a surge in their jurisdictions; of these, 19 gave EDR a share of the credit.
How are polling places organized in EDR states?
In 40 of the 49 jurisdictions, EDR voters are directed to a separate line or table to fill
out a registration form and have their identities and eligibility checked. Once they
have completed this process, they join other voters waiting to cast their ballots.
In three rural jurisdictions, EDR voters go directly to the same table with other vot-
ers. “As few as we are, it’s not a problem,” said the deputy clerk of one Idaho county
(pop. roughly 1,000). A few jurisdictions use both arrangements—separate tables in
high-turnout elections and a common table in low-turnout elections.
Is EDR Expensive to Implement?
Most of the respondents described the incremental cost of EDR as minimal. One
Idaho election administrator, whose service predated her state’s adoption of EDR in
1993, said she could not recall any rise in election expenses at the time.
The costs (where cited) were mainly those of training and deploying additional staff—
more poll workers or election judges on Election Day and/or more clerical workers
in the post-election period to add the new names and data to the permanent voter
The deputy clerk of a mid-sized New Hampshire city said that EDR required one or
two extra registrars per polling place (at $15 an hour or $125 a day). The clerk of one
of Maine’s largest jurisdictions put the Election Day price tag at $3,900. “EDR is great,
because procrastinators can still vote,” she added. “It makes elections a little more
expensive, but it’s worth it.”
In a New Hampshire community of 23,000 people, the city clerk estimated the post-
election cost at about $1,700—or 10 hours a week of service over 14 weeks on the part
of a worker earning $12 an hour. In Idaho, the elections administrator of a county
with a population of about 50,000 projected one or two extra persons working full-
time for a week and a half. A Wisconsin official in a municipality of about 70,000
spoke of spending about $5,000 on temporary workers to process EDR registrants
after the November 2006 election.
But the overall effect, a number of respondents indicated, was not to add work or
expense, but merely to shift the cost burden from one time and place to another. As
a result of EDR, the elections manager of a college community in Minnesota said he
ends up spending more money on election judges at the polls, and less money on in-
house staff or temp workers at the office. (At least in his jurisdiction, he added, there
is a net savings in the end, because the election judges are paid $8 to $9 an hour, while
the in-house staff or temp workers earn $11 to $12 an hour.)
Can EDR Be Implemented at The Polls Without
The overwhelming majority of respondents reported no confusion at polling places
because of Election Day Registration—a concern sometimes raised by EDR oppo-
nents. A Minnesota official noted that EDR voters occasionally resent being asked for
identification, especially in small communities “where everybody knows everybody.”
“EDR is great, because procrastinators can still vote.”
-the clerk in one of Maine’s largest counties
Some of the most frequently-asked questions on Election Day involve the documents
required for EDR, an official of a Minnesota city (pop. 85,000) reported. EDR voters
will sometimes complain about being asked to wait in line twice, a Wisconsin official
said. Regular voters, the same official added, may be miffed when they see EDR voters
being funneled into special express lines—a practice followed in a few jurisdictions.
Several officials said that EDR had helped defuse confrontations with voters whose
names turn out to be missing from the registration lists. Without EDR, “we’d have
a lot of unhappy people” at the polls, said the clerk of a New Hampshire town of
Election Day Registration makes things harder for election workers but easier for
voters—that was the overall judgment of a number of respondents. But one Idaho of-
ficial, after initially answering in those terms, corrected herself: In the end, she said,
EDR makes Election Day go more smoothly for both parties—the election workers
are happier because the voters are.
Does EDR Lead to Voter Fraud?
Fraud has been the subject of the most potent criticisms of EDR. In our survey, it was
also the question that elicited the clearest and most reassuring responses. Just one
of 49 respondents suggested a link between EDR and an increased likelihood of vote
fraud. (This official, the clerk of a Wisconsin town of fewer than 9,000 people, was
also unique in expressing emphatic opposition to EDR.)
By contrast, the great majority of respondents rated current fraud-prevention mea-
sures sufficient to protect the integrity of elections. This was the prevailing view in
large and small jurisdictions, and also in college communities, including one Idaho
city where, in 2006, some 5,000 out of a total 26,000 to 27,000 voters used EDR.
An election administrator in a populous Minnesota jurisdiction
has never seen an organized attempt at mass voter fraud in his 22
years on the job.
Asked if they could recall any cases of fraud involving EDR voters, 40 of the 49 of-
ficials in our survey answered with a flat-out “no.” A Maine election worker could not
remember a single case of voter fraud in the state since the introduction of EDR in
1973. Several clerks recalled isolated allegations of voter misconduct involving false
addresses or students at college campuses. It was unclear whether any resulted in
criminal charges or convictions.
Most respondents indicated that they did not see fraud as a serious problem, with or
without regard to EDR. An election administrator in one populous Minnesota juris-
diction said that in 22 years on the job, he had not seen a single attempt to commit
mass voter fraud.
A number of respondents took the position that EDR had actually reduced the risk
of fraud. Several agreed with the deputy town clerk in New Hampshire who said that
her staff could process voter registrations with greater accuracy after Election Day
than in the hectic pre-Election Day period, when the labor was more likely to be per-
formed by temp workers or by in-house staff working overtime.
In the years before EDR, an Idaho official recalled, her office had relied on untrained
staff from another agency to process last-minute registrations, resulting in many er-
rors. EDR, she said, had made it possible to use trained personnel to do this work in a
less pressured atmosphere after Election Day, allowing for much cleaner records.
Opponents have depicted Election Day Registration as an administrative nightmare
and an invitation to fraud. This alarmist picture turns out to bear little relation to the
experience of local election officials in EDR states. The great majority of the officials
we surveyed said they had been able to handle EDR in an efficient and orderly way
without much—if any—added expense. Virtually all expressed confidence in exist-
ing anti-fraud measures, and none could cite even a single clear case of EDR-abetted
fraud. Several pointed to ways in which EDR might actually improve election security
in the long term.
Throughout our national history, Americans have faced legal and procedural barriers
to the exercise of their fundamental democratic rights. Today, as in earlier periods,
many concerned Americans and voting rights advocates are looking for ways to clear
away the obstacles and make it easier for all citizens to vote. EDR has a track record
of doing exactly that. Without producing the problems cited by its critics, EDR in-
creases political participation and holds the promise of creating an electorate that
better reflects the composition of the country as a whole.
Related Resources from Dēmos
Challenges to Fair Elections Series National Voter Registration Act
Voter Intimidation and Vote Suppression Implementing the National Voter
Poll Worker Training Registration Act in Public Assistance
Agencies: A Guide for Election Officials
The Case Against Felony and Human Services Professionals
A Promise Still Unfulfilled: The National
Ballot Access for Language Minority Voter Registration Act Twelve Years
Voters and People with Disabilities Later
Voter ID/Proof of Citizenship Expanding Voter Registration for Low-
Requirements Income Citizens: How North Carolina is
Realizing the Promise of the NVRA
A Fallible ‘Fail-Safe’: An Analysis of
Provisional Balloting Problems in the
www.democracydispatches.org 2006 Election
Continuing Failures in ‘Fail-Safe’ Voting:
Election Day Registration A Preliminary Analysis of Provisional
Election Day Registration in 2007: State Voting Problems (Election 2004)
Legislative Activity Placebo Ballots: Will ‘Fail-Safe’
Anatomy of a Successful Campaign for Provisional Voting Fail? (Election 2004)
EDR in Iowa
Election Day Registration: A Ground- Candidate Briefing Book
Level View (A Survey of Election Clerks) Fulfilling America’s Promise: Ideas to
Election Day Registration: A Study of Expand Opportunity and Revitalize
Voter Fraud Allegations and Findings on Democracy
Voter Roll Security A Dēmos briefing book, with state- and
Same Day Voter Registration in North federal-level application, to help elected
Carolina officials advance new policies that
Election Day Voter Registration in Iowa promote electoral participation.
Voters Win with Election Day
Momentum: Igniting Social Change in
Election Integrity the Connected Age
An Analysis of Voter Fraud in the U.S. Stealing Democracy: The New Politics of
Fusion Voting: An Analysis Voter Suppression
Improving Access to Voting: A Report Conned: How Millions of Americans
on the Technology for Accessible Voting Went to Prison and Lost the Vote
Re-Drawing Lines: A Public Interest
Analysis of California’s 2006
Redistricting Reform Proposals
One to a Customer: The Democratic
Downsides of Dual Office Holding
A NET WOR K FOR IDE AS ACTION
Dēmos: A Network for Ideas Action is a non-partisan public policy research and advocacy organization commit-
ted to building an America that achieves its highest democratic ideals. We believe this requires a democracy that is
robust and inclusive, with high levels of electoral participation and civic engagement; an economy where prosperity
and opportunity are broadly shared and disparity is reduced; and a strong and effective public sector with the capac-
ity to plan for the future and provide for the common good. Founded in 2000, Dēmos’ work combines research with
advocacy—melding the commitment to ideas of a think tank with the organizing strategies of an advocacy group.
As with all Dēmos publications, the views expressed in this briefing paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the
Dēmos Board of Trustees.
Visit www.demos.org or contact:
Regina Eaton, Deputy Director of The Democracy Program | firstname.lastname@example.org | (212) 389-1403
Media inquiries: Timothy Rusch, Communications Director | email@example.com | (212) 389-1407
220 Fifth Avenue, 5th fl., New York, NY 10001
T. (212) 633.1405 F. (212) 633.2015
firstname.lastname@example.org | www.demos.org