Statement
of Shaun
Tucker, African American Outreach Coordinator,
People
For the
American Way, in opposition to H.B. 3
before
the Ohio Senate
Rules Committee
December
6, 2005
Good Afternoon. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the Committee for allowing me to speak to you today. My name is Shaun Tucker, and I am the African American Outreach Coordinator for People For the American Way (PFAW), a national non-partisan, nonprofit organization formed over 20 years ago to promote the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans. Our founders were religious, civic and business leaders who were dedicated to the values of fairness and tolerance. They believed passionately that every American enjoys the same rights and responsibilities in our democratic society, and that every American deserves equal justice, equal opportunity, and equal access to ballot box. I am speaking today on behalf of our 24,000 members in Ohio.
Voter Identification
Even if voter fraud were a significant problem in Ohio, we believe that enacting more onerous voter identification provisions would not be an effective way to address them - and that the implementation of a dynamic and interactive statewide voter registration database, which would allow election officials to immediately verify the eligibility of voters, would go a long way toward alleviating any potential problems.
H.B. 3 has provisions that would relegate
potentially
thousands of registered voters to voting by provisional ballot, which
would put
perfectly valid and legitimate votes at risk of having their votes
tossed
out. For instance, Section 3501.19
outlines
the process by which boards of elections must send to each registered
elector in
a precinct in which an election is to be held a non-forwardable notice
identifying
the date of the election and the voter’s polling place and precinct
location. If the notice is returned to the
board of
elections as undeliverable, the voter’s name will be specially marked
on the
registration list and, at the first election at which the voter appears
to vote
after the notice was returned, s/he will be required to provide
identification
before s/he can vote and will only be permitted to vote by
provisional
ballot. We strongly oppose this
provision.
The fact that a piece of mail is returned does not
provide a
reasonable justification for denying a registered voter the opportunity
to vote
by a regular ballot, especially if the voter shows identification on
Election Day. There are numerous reasons
why a notice may
be returned - for instance, the notice could mistakenly have been
picked up by
a neighbor without the knowledge of the voter, or it could simply have
gotten
lost in the mail. We do not see any
reason why these pre-election notices cannot be treated like the
National
Change of Address notices that election officials typically send to
voters who
are believed to have moved out of their jurisdictions.
The election officials’ records could still
indicate that a notice sent to a particular voter was returned, but
when the
voter appears to vote, s/he can confirm her/his address and vote by regular
ballot. As written, this provision
threatens to
penalize properly registered voters because of their failure to respond
to a
notice that they may never have even received.
Furthermore, this provision threatens to run afoul of federal
law
including the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA and the Equal
Protection
Clause of the Fourteen Amendment.
We also oppose the definition of
jurisdiction in H.B. 3 as the precinct and not the county.
Limiting this definition to precinct
restricts the ability of eligible voters to cast a meaningful ballot. In light of the fact that - via this bill -
each
county will have access to the statewide voter registration database,
we see no
need to define jurisdiction so narrowly.
Presumably, the statewide database would enable election
officials to
verify the registration of voters and determine their proper county and
voting
precinct. In a situation where a
voter is unable to make it to her/his proper precinct before the polls
close,
we see no reason to not at least permit provisional ballots to be cast
and
counted for county, statewide and federal races.
Notification of Restoration of Voting Rights
Voters
in Ohio who have been convicted of a felony cannot vote while they are
incarcerated, but are re-enfranchised and able to participate in the
political
process once they are released from prison.
We applaud Ohio for its dedication to an open franchise and a
spirit of
democracy, but it can do better. Ohioans
who have committed felonies and served time in prison must be engaged
in order to
be rehabilitated. Civic participation is
one of the many ways to begin this process.
Ohio has the structure to allow people with felony convictions
to begin
rehabilitation through political participation, but it could do even
better by
providing registration opportunities and voter educational materials to
people
with felony convictions when they leave prison.
A Prison Reform Advocacy Center (PRAC) survey conducted in
August of
2004 revealed that 21 of Ohio’s 88 county boards of elections
misinformed
callers inquiring about the right to vote, mistakenly telling callers
that
ex-felons could not vote while on probation or parole.
Hence, this legislation should require
county board of elections to provide voter rights restoration
information to felons
both at the time of conviction and sentencing and before their release
from
prison.
Registration Drives
In particular, Section 3503.14 would require any
person who
is employed to register people to vote to sign her/his name on each
voter
registration application gathered and to provide the name of the
person/entity
who has employed her/him to register voters.
We know from experience that this requirement will present a
problem in
people of color, poor, and other underrepresented communities because
of the history
of state-sponsored abuse, harassment and discrimination there. Many people in these communities are
skeptical of - and reluctant to relinquish personal information to -
the government,
and would likely choose not to be involved in voter registration
activities at
all rather than register with the government.
While we are relieved that Section 3503.14 provides that the
failure to
include any of this personal information could not provide the sole
basis for
rejecting a voter registration application, we are concerned that an
overzealous election official might use this provision as justification
to
challenge otherwise properly completed registration applications, which
could
unnecessarily delay the timely processing of applications.
Challengers
Conclusion