Anyone know status of Exact Match Voter ID in California?

[diva77]

Is it still in effect the way McPherson was planning to do it? What company has the contract?

What's up with Exact Match Voter ID registration in CA??

[diva77]

1. I was hoping someone here might know - some people holding an event

asked me to find out for them

[nicknameless]

2. Check your PMs (n/t)

[diva77]

4. UPDATE/ A very wise person alerted me to SF Chron. 9.18.06 article

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/18/EDG6PKDS731.DTL&hw=voter+registration&sn=001&sc=1000

EDITORIAL
A vote for fairness
Monday, September 18, 2006

STEALTHILY, quietly -- as though to pretend that nothing was wrong -- the secretary of state's office has adopted emergency regulations for the new statewide voter registration system that caused an uproar in counties across the state.

It would be nice if the secretary of state's office had done so out of outrage that hundreds of thousands of eligible Californians were about to become disenfranchised in the Nov. 7 election. But even if the rationale was that state statutes similar to California's have been getting smacked down in courts across the country, we're relieved that the civic process will go on as it should. Now we just have to make sure it stays that way.

At issue has been many states' interpretation of the 2002 Help America Vote Act. The act made states, not counties, responsible for maintaining a centralized voter-registration database and requires states to collect identifying information about each voter before processing the registration -- a driver's license number, state identification card number, Social Security number, or -- according to a 2003 letter sent from the U.S. Department of Justice to Alabama's secretary of state, an identifying number provided to the voter from the state. Many states, including California, replied by returning registrations if they lacked the government ID -- or if their information wasn't in sync with state records. Voting-rights groups argue that these laws depress turnout and disenfranchise eligible voters, especially those who are lower-income and people of color.

<snip>

[nicknameless]

5. Does this really solve the registration problem?

Here's another excerpt:

Secretary of State Bruce McPherson finally made the right move last month, allowing counties to assign unique numbers. This is more than sensible, seeing as the registrars will still have to pursue voters' government ID numbers and they've had no reports of voter fraud. Now California voters will need to keep the pressure on, in order to make sure that our emergency regulations become permanent.

How does that fix the unreasonable requirement that names, addresses, etc. be an EXACT match?
Last I heard, McPherson wanted to wait until after the Primary debacle to do anything about the registration debacle.

-------

On edit: See post #6 for the most current info I could find.

[emlev]

3. Did you get an answer yet? I'd like to know, too. EOM

[nicknameless]

6. Most recent article I could find:

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1622&Itemid=113

California: Do The Secretary of State's Voter Database Restrictions Violate Federal Law?

By California State Senator Debra Bowen
Press Release
August 02, 2006

Federal Judge Blocks Implementation of Washington Law Nearly Identical To Standards Set By California's Secretary of State

"... the Court finds that plaintiffs have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their argument that RCW 29A.08.107 stands as an obstacle to achieving the purposes and objectives of HAVA , and is therefore preempted by federal law."

Those are the words of U.S. District Judge Ricardo Martinez, who on Tuesday afternoon, issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the implementation of a Washington state law preventing people from registering to vote unless the information on their voter registration form matches a record on file with the Social Security Administration or the state's Department of Licensing.

The case is relevant in California because the California Secretary of State adopted regulations to implement an agreement with the Bush Administration's Justice Department in 2005 that are very similar to the Washington state law the court put on hold yesterday afternoon. It's not known how many Californians may have been prevented from registering or re-registering to vote prior to the June primary or how many are still experiencing problems as they attempt to register in time for the
November election.

"That ruling tells me there's a very good chance the regulations the Secretary of State adopted to implement his agreement with the Bush Administration violate federal law and the state Constitution because of the barriers they put up to prevent eligible Californians from registering to vote," said California State Senator Debra Bowen, the chairwoman of the Senate Elections, Reapportionment & Constitutional Amendments Committee and the Senate Select Committee on the Integrity of Elections. "We'll never know how many people were prevented from voting in the June primary thanks to the Secretary of State's regulations. The general election less than 100 days away, meaning it's time for him to change his regulations to make sure no eligible voter who wants to register is turned away because they're not on some bureaucratic list."

Much more at link

[diva77]

7. in reading the timeline, please help me clarify % disenfranchisement

I interpret timeline as saying that presently, approx. 21% of voters who try to register will be rejected and therefore disenfranchised (or will they be able to vote with provisional ballot on election day?), whereas before twisted HAVA requirements, it used to be 1%? Did I get that right? :dunce:

[nicknameless]

8. Deleted so as not to confuse the issue.

See post #9 for update on this situation.

[nicknameless]

9. Update

Okay, I'm still scratching my head over this, because the sfgate article from the 18th didn't really spell it out.

Apparently, the exact match requirement HAS been eliminated.
Perhaps all the lawsuits nationwide over voter-roll purges inspired McPherson to reverse his restrictions.

Hopefully that puts us back to just a 1% rejection rate.

[JimDandy]

10. The EXACT MATCH

criteria was stipulated under the DOJ's Memorandum of Agreement with CA. Although the agreement doesn't contain the actual term "exact match," the procedures listed in the Terms and Implementation sections of the agreement are meant to produce that result. Those sections are shown below.

The state would have had to get permission from the DOJ to eliminate those procedures. Make a FOIA request for any documents discussing the elimination of the match criteria. You should be able to get that documentation since the agreement also stipulated:

"7. The Secretary agrees to retain any and all records concerning the subject matter of this Agreement during the term of this Agreement."

Terms of Agreement



(c) Each registered voter in the State will be identified through a unique identifier number generated from the voter's California driver's license/California ID number (where the registrant has such number), the last four digits of the voter's federal social security number (where the registrant does not have a driver license or state ID number), or other combination of information designed to produce the same unique identifier each time a person registers to vote (for persons who do not have a driver license, state ID or social security number);

(d) Counties will be required to keep information in their election management systems, which they will upload to CalVoter on a regular basis, concerning, among other things, a registrant's vote history, list maintenance activities, the registrant's unique identifier number and whether that unique identifier has been verified against state driver license/ID number records or federal social security records, whether the registrant is a first-time registrant by mail covered by HAVA's identification requirements and whether those identification requirements have been satisfied;


Implementation of California's Interim HAVA Solution
Proposed Plan v 4.2
October 11, 2005


2. Unique Voter Identification and Elimination of Duplicate Voter Registration Records

To facilitate identification of voters and ensure one person is not registered multiple times, the use of a unique identifier is critical. SOS proposes to implement an array of technical systems, procedures, and regulations to associate a verified unique identifier with every voter in Calvoter and the county VR databases. SB 1016, signed into law October 7, 2005, provides that persons registering to vote in California must provide the identification number information required by Section 303 (a)(5) of HAVA.

The SOS will obtain current identification data from the state Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and apply a combination of technical and procedural steps to determine whether a California Driver's License (CDL) or California Identification Card (CA ID) has been issued to each existing voter in the system. If either can be accurately associated with a voter, the CDL or CA ID number will be entered into the county EMS VR database as the unique identifier for the voter and uploaded to Calvoter.

If it is determined that the existing voter has not been issued a CDL, CA ID or social security number (SSN), a unique identifier will be generated and assigned to the voter. This generated unique identifier will be based upon the name and date of birth of the voter, and will be assigned according to procedures that ensure that the same identifier will be assigned each time the individual registers to vote, without requiring the voter to present the identifier.

For new registrants, the SOS will modify its existing CalValidator system to provide an automated mechanism for counties to verify or obtain a unique identifier for each voter. This system will include a copy of the DMV identification file. Counties will use the system to check individual voter records, or to check groups, or batches, of records, against DMV and SSN records. If a record is not found on the local copy of the DMV files, the system will automatically check the DMV system for a newer record.

For each voter record presented, CalValidator will check the DMV data to verify that the CDL or CA ID, if provided, matches the presented name and date of birth for the registrant.

If no CDL or CA ID is provided, but a partial SSN is, the system will check DMV records to see if the partial SSN, name and date of birth matches a record with an assigned CDL or CA ID, and if so, will return that information to the county elections official for further verification. If no record is found in the DMV files, CalValidator will automatically check the partial SSN, name and date against Social Security Administrator's (SSA) records. If a match is found, this information will be returned to the county elections official, who will use the SSN and date of birth in a specified format to assign a unique identifier to the voter.

If no CDL, CA ID or SSN is provided by the registrant and none can be determined through CalValidator, or if the presented information cannot be verified through CalValidator, the elections official will contact the registrant to attempt to obtain a valid identifier. If it is determined that the voter has not been issued a CDL, CA ID or SSN, a unique identifier will be generated and assigned to the voter.

This generated unique identifier will be based upon the name and date of birth of the voter, and will be assigned according to procedures that ensure that the same identifier will be assigned each time the individual registers to vote, without requiring the voter to present the identifier.

SOS will run processes against the Calvoter database at least weekly to identify potential duplicate voters. These processes will use both the unique identifier, and a rotating group of alternate criteria, to identify potential duplicates, including instances where the voter may have changed his or her name. Counties will be notified automatically of potential duplicate records, and will be required by regulation to research and cancel any duplicate records within 5 business days of notification.

Proposed Technical Solution

SOS currently operates CalValidator, an automated system that allows counties to check the CDL or CA ID presented by registrants against a copy of the DMV files.

SOS will update the copy of the DMV files used by CalValidator with current data. SOS will modify processes to obtain a current copy from DMV at least twice each year.

SOS will modify its existing CalValidator system to automatically check the online DMV system if a matching record for a voter is not found in the local copy of the database.

SOS will modify CalValidator to allow counties to submit a partial SSN for verification where a CDL or CA ID has not been provided. CalValidator will be modified to check the local copy of the DMV records for a match of the partial SSN, date of birth and name of the voter, and to return the CDL or CA ID, if found. SOS will modify CalValidator to send an automatic query to DMV if no match is found on the local copy of the DMV files.

DMV will develop a new transactional interface with CalValidator to accept CDL, CA ID or partial SSN data, along with name and date of birth, and to check this information against its files. If no match is found for a partial SSN in its files, it will automatically generate an online query to the Social Security Administration (SSA), which will compare the partial SSN, name and date of birth against its data. SSA will automatically return the results of this check to DMV, which will automatically return the results to CalValidator.

After an initial period to allow counties to clear duplicate inactive records, SOS will modify the existing Calvoter duplicate check process to provide repeated notifications of duplicate unique identifiers in its VR database until the duplicate is corrected by the appropriate county.
County VR systems will be modified to record and upload to Calvoter whether the registrant's identification has been checked against DMV and SSA records through Calvalidator. Calvoter will be modified to store this information. The databases will include a notation to indicate that this identifier was verified.

SOURCE: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/hava/ca_moa.htm

edited to add FOIA info

[nicknameless]

11. Thanks for the clarification, JimDandy

:thumbsup:

[nicknameless]

12. I should also add though

that the updated info I posted came from Senator Bowen's office.
They had said all along that McPherson could solve the problem unilaterally.

Apparently his decision to do so was made in August.

[diva77]

13. Thanks for info., JimDandy. Is any of this data management being

contracted out to private companies?

I see the following in your post: "Counties will be required to keep information in their election management systems" -- aren't the election management systems the domain of the vendors?

...am not clear on who has privvy to and manages the databases? Also, is CalValidator owned by the state or is it private?