Washington D.C.

D.C. Automatic Voter Registration and Potential Steps Towards Increasing Accessibility in Voting

Election Law Society · March 6, 2023 ·

By Julian Miller

In July 2022, Charles Allen, Councilmember for Ward 6, introduced a new bill. The bill was introduced as the “Automatic Voter Registration Expansion Amendment Act of 2022.” This builds on Allen’s introduction of the Automatic Voter Registration Amendment Act of 2015, which passed unanimously in 2017 (D.C. Law 21-208). This new bill would change automatic voter registration (AVR) from “front-end” opt-out automatic voter registration to “back-end” opt-out automatic voter registration, and it would add any D.C. voter who interacts with source agencies to a “preapproved for registration list.” This change would allow anyone on the “preapproved for registration list” to register to vote by showing up to vote or voting by mail.

AVR automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they have had an interaction with certain government agencies, most often the Department of Motor Vehicles. As of recently 12 states have included other government agencies in their AVR policies.

AVR grew most rapidly out of the passage of the National Voter Registration Act by Congress in 1993. In doing so, the United States took steps towards making the process of registering to vote easier and more accessible by enacting certain voting registration requirements for offering voting registration opportunities at the state level. As of 2022, according to the National Conference of State Legislature, 22 states and Washington, D.C., have enacted some kind of AVR to increase voter registration.

Front-end opt out AVR allows for an individual at certain government agencies, such as the Department of Motor Vehicles, to register or decline while at the “point of service.” In contrast, back-end opt out AVR, as the name suggests, gives the individual the option to register after “point of service.” Instead, an individual receives a notification that they will be registered to vote after their interaction at the agency. Further, if the individual does not respond to the mail and actively declines registration, the individual is automatically registered.

In general, and also incredibly important when noting the United States history of voter suppression, AVR has proven to be most beneficial for underrepresented and underserved populations in the United States. In D.C., the recently introduced Automatic Voter Registration Expansion Amendment Act of 2022 focuses on the method in which automatic registration occurs. Charles Allen cites to the fact that Back-end opt-out AVR is seen as superior to front-end AVR by election experts.

Proponents of the back-end opt-out AVR argue that it is: 1) more effective, 2) more efficient, and 3) more secure than front-end opt-out AVR. First, concerning effectiveness, by comparing states that employ different AVR systems researchers found that back-end opt-out systems of AVR add more voting-eligible individuals to voter rolls when compared to front-end systems. Proponents argue that the multiple steps that back-end systems employ in order to opt out make it more likely that voting-eligible individuals won’t choose to opt out. Second, the back-end opt-out AVR system is more efficient than the front-end system, as those in charge of carrying out the bulk of this registration process are state officials who have been trained and are paid to do so. Proponents argue that taking this pressure off of an individual makes AVR systems more efficient. Along the same lines, proponents argue that the state is better equipped than an individual, when taking into account language and socio-economic barriers, to know whether an individual is eligible for registration. Proponents argue that this makes United States elections more secure as government agencies have the proper toolbox to decide which individuals are eligible to vote and which are not. Therefore, the onus should be on the state to confirm an individual’s eligibility for registration by using the information they have at their disposal.

Some opposition to AVR in general, and the preferred back-end opt out AVR in particular, is heavily partisan. For instance, those in opposition to AVR feel that its hidden intent is to benefit the Democratic party, based on the idea that individuals who aren’t registered to vote are more likely to vote Democrat. However, a 2022 AVR report by Rachel Funk Fordham found that multiple studies have found that there is no “significant partisan bias” that favors Democrats stemming from state AVR policies. Other opposition to back-end opt-out AVR argues that this could potentially register noncitizens, thereby increasing the likelihood that noncitizens are prosecuted for voter fraud.

If increased registration is what the bill intends to achieve, the empirical data shows that back-end AVR policies increase registration more than front-end policies. For example, a study in 2021 comparing both front-end and back-end AVR policies showed that the latter increased registration by 8.1 percent, as opposed to the former, which increased registration by only 2.9 percent.

The Automatic Voter Registration Expansion Amendment Act introduced in D.C. is a part of a greater effort to introduce voter-friendly legislation, making voting and registration more accessible for constituents in D.C. Most recently, this proposal had a public hearing on September 16, 2022.

Ranked Choice Voting: DC Considers Changing its Ballots

Election Law Society · February 11, 2022 ·

By: Luke Foley

Ranked choice voting could be coming to DC as soon as 2024. On July 14, 2021, At-Large DC Councilmember Christina Henderson introduced the Vote Ownership, Integrity, Choice, and Equity (VOICE) Amendment Act, which proposes to implement ranked choice voting (RCV) in all district elections, including those for Mayor, City Council, U.S. President, and Delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives. Henderson laid out her case for RCV in a July press release:

“The benefits of RCV are just as diverse as the candidates who are empowered to run under this system. Candidates are incentivized to campaign positively to appeal to the supporters of other candidates as a backup preference… races are more dynamic and collegial with genuine policy debates supplanting negative campaign tactics.”

Redistricting in DC: City Council Works to Balance Citizen Concerns and Ward Populations

Election Law Society · October 25, 2021 ·

Washington, DC, like a number of states around the country, is currently beginning its redistricting process in the wake of the 2020 census. Per the Ward Redistricting Amendment Act of 2021, DC’s wards and Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) must be redrawn to reflect the population changes that have occurred since the last census in 2010. To accomplish this goal, the DC City Council has tasked the Council’s Subcommittee on Redistricting with soliciting public input and weighing the different concerns that inevitably accompany the redistricting process. The Subcommittee, chaired by at-large Councilmember Elissa Silverman, held a virtual public hearing on September 29, 2021, where many such concerns were voiced.

Vote by Email? How D.C. Attempts To Overcome Mail Delays for Absentee Ballots

jaboone · November 2, 2020 ·

By Madeline Shay Williams

As the 2020 presidential election quickly approaches, there is widespread concern about voting in the midst of a global pandemic. In an effort to socially distance, many voters will opt to cast their ballot via absentee voting and vote-by-mail. However, delays in mail service and missing absentee ballots have already spelled impending disaster for the presidential election. During the presidential primary in June, the District of Columbia’s Board of Elections allowed voters cast their ballots by email after receiving many complaints from voters who never received their absentee ballots by mail.

Mo’ Money, Less Democracy: Washington D.C.’s Quest for Fair Elections

Election Law Society · April 16, 2018 ·

By: Evan Tucker

“[T]he notion that we have all the democracy that money can buy strays so far from what our democracy is supposed to be.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was clear when queried about Citizens United: large spending in elections by a few eviscerates the essence of democracy. Government in America is “by the People, for the People;” it is not “by the few, for the few.” At the seat of the United States government, District Councilmember David Grosso introduced the “Fair Elections Act of 2017.” Councilmember Grosso aims to “reform campaign financing and to provide for publicly funded political campaigns.” Campaign donations are necessary in electoral politics, for modern-day campaigns are incredibly expensive. For Grosso, though, democracy should not be sold to the highest bidder; that is to say, the largest donor having their preferred candidate elected and in turn having that candidate only responsive to the donor. By introducing his bill, he seeks to establish a balance by “establishing a robust public financing program.”