[EL] Boston Globe gets NVRA story and headline wrong

[Doug Hess]

The headline and lede paragraph (copied below) of the Boston Globe article
on the NVRA settlement gets the facts wrong and, in so doing, simply
furthers Sen. Brown's story of events.

"Massachusetts is the only state that has agreed to send mass mailings to
register welfare recipients to vote, following a series of state lawsuits
brought by the liberal group Demos, which is chaired by the daughter of
Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren."
Somewhere on the second page of the story (second page of the online
version) the text even provides the information that shows this paragraph
is incorrect. You would have to parse the history of these lawsuits in a
very certain way to see the MA case as something other than part of an
ongoing nationwide and longstanding effort to enforce the NVRA in a variety
of settings and ways. To do so is a pretty silly stretch in my mind and
unfair to the facts.

The fact is at least one other state was required to do a mailing (albeit
in 1995 or 96) as remedial action for NVRA violations (as mentioned in the
article; there may have been similar requirements in other states in
suits I wasn't involved in, but I don't know). I helped design the MI
settlement and we chose the mailing because we knew it could be an
effective way to reach the LARGE class of voters who had their NVRA rights
violated--much more effective than simply requiring on-going attempts to
comply in the future (see below for why) or establish a 800 number or run
PSAs (which, while not bad, are not all that effective).

More importantly, SEVERAL states have been using mailings to try to improve
their NVRA programs and make up for past faults. And they have been doing
so for some time now. Although these states were not sued, due to their
cooperation with the advocates or maybe DOJ, no state was improving its
NVRA work and most were completely out of compliance until groups of
advocates started pushing them. Finally, most states have been asked in
remedy to do more than the law requires in all NVRA settlements, including
those suits filed by the DOJ and by private plaintiffs in the 1990s, in the
first decade of this century, and in this decade.

It is important to note that there are strong reasons for asking states to
"go beyond" the NVRA after violations. Specifically, if states did not have
to pay a "penalty" two things would happen: first, there would be no
disincentive to ignore the law in the future. Indeed, many states that were
under agreements failed to implement the NVRA once the agreements expired.

Second, the people who's rights were violated would not be . People who
receive benefits from SNAP (aka the Food Stamp Progam), WIC, etc. often
receive benefits for a short period of time (contrary to what people
believe). Thus, many people who were not offered their NVRA rights in these
agencies will not be back again. A mailing is a good way to reach them or a
similar class of people. These very reasonable principles guide the
settlement decisions.

So, the MA settlement is not unusual. And if it is an effective remedy for
past violations, it is a civil rights success story, not some scandal. The
NVRA is federal law and has been for nearly 20 years. The scandal is that
it went so poorly implemented for so long and that it is STILL being poorly
implemented in many states.

Again: the MA settlement is not unusual.

This statement is also likely wrong:

"Other states have settled Demos’s lawsuits by agreeing to less costly
steps, such as better training for welfare officials or upgraded computer
systems."

What is less costly?  The other settelments were plenty costly. I haven't
worked on these settlements since 2010, but I helped design them in the
1990s and we revised those strategies for settelements that I was involved
with between 2008 and 2010. Based on those years of experience, and in
providing states with technical assistance to try to prevent NVRA
litigation being needed, I would want to see some numbers before agreeing
that the MA mailing was more expensive than other settlements. Of course
you can compare the costly component of one settlement to the cheaper
component of another settlement. But that's not logical.

Besides the cost of the mailing is in DIRECT proportion to the number of
people that were not offered their rights under the NVRA. If anything, the
mailing was probably too small as the state was out of compliance for
looooooooong time.

Again, the settlements in some states had pretty big price tags on them.
Why? Because states resisted a fairly clear cut federal law, there were
lots of violations, and fixing systems does cost money. Certainly mailing
is cheaper than calling those people or going to their homes and offering
them the in person voter registration services the NVRA required the state
to give and if failed.

In short, the article fails to discuss the enormity of the problem or place
this in historical context. It edits history to suit the juicy headline one
camp in the election wants and plays off the (racially charged) emotions
people have when they hear the word "welfare."

One last time: several states have used large mailings to correct for NVRA
errors or improve their system. States are SUPPOSED to help people register
affirmatively, according to the NVRA. Until we move to a better,
cheaper and more equitable voter registration system, it will cost money to
help people register.

Douglas R. Hess, PhD
Washington, DC
202-955-5869
douglasrhess at gmail.com

>
>   Two on Mass. Voter Registration Controversy<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=38372>
> Posted on August 10, 2012 7:33 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=38372> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The *Boston Globe* offers Brown criticizes voter mailings<http://articles.boston.com/2012-08-09/news/33101267_1_voter-registration-motor-voter-law-welfare-recipients>and Only
> Mass. sent out voter registrations after lawsuit<http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/08/10/massachusetts_the_only_state_that_agreed_to_send_mass_mailings_in_the_wake_of_lawsuits/>
> .
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120813/263e98f2/attachment.html>