Voter caging

Last updated
Part of the Politics series
Voting
Vote icon.svg
Balloting
Ballots
Candidates and Ballot measures
Collection
Counting
Electoral systems
Plurality and majoritarian systems
Proportional and semi-proportional systems
Mixed-member systems
Voting strategies
Protest votes
Voting patterns and effects
Protest votes
Electoral fraud and prevention
Prevention
A coloured voting box.svg Politicsportal

Voter caging is a colloquial term used in the United States referring to a campaign activity used to remove, or attempt to remove, targeted voters from official lists of registered voters. It occurs when a non-governmental organization, such as a political party or a campaign, sends first-class mail to registered voters, in order to compile a so-called "challenge list" of the names of those whose letters are returned undelivered. The fact that the mail was returned as undeliverable may be seen as either proof, or strong evidence of, the person no longer residing at the address on their voter registration. The challenge list is presented to election officials with the suggestion that the officials should purge these names from the voter registration rolls or to challenge voters' eligibility to vote on the grounds that the voters no longer reside at their registered addresses. [1] [2] : 129 

Contents

The phrase "voter caging" came about as a metaphorical extension of the benign term "caging" that is used in the direct mail industry.

In the United States, official government election offices are required to periodically maintain and update their lists of registered voters. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Fair Fight Action periodically take to the courts to challenge the methods used by official government election offices to maintain their lists. Some list maintenance tactics are prohibited by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Method

Voter caging refers to the practice of sending mail to addresses on the voter rolls, compiling a list of the mail that is returned undelivered, and using that list to challenge voters' registrations and votes on the grounds that the voters on the roll do not legally reside at their registered addresses. [1] [2] : 129 

More concretely, a political party or campaign will send out non-forwardable, first-class mail to voters or particular voters they want to target (often assumed to be a demographic that belongs to the opposing party). It will compile a list of voters for whom mail has been returned as undeliverable. The list is called a caging list. First-class mail marked as non-forwardable has resulted in a rate of return (returned and marked undeliverabl) as high as one return for every fifteen letters sent out. [3] The so-called "caging list" that is the compiled names of all those for whom the envelopes were returned, marked undeliverable, can then be presented by the political party or campaign to election officials, with a request that the election officials should proceed to purge those people from the list of registered voters, or at a minimum, take a second look at whether the voter still resides at the address of registration. Election officials are not required to remove names based on having been presented with a caging list.

When a voter turns out to vote, who has been identified as no longer living at the address on their voter registration, election officials at the polling place may challenge their registration and require them to cast a provisional ballot. If investigation of the provisional ballot demonstrates that the voter has just moved or there is an error in the address and the voter is legally registered, the vote would then be counted. Opponents of this practice say that it is an unreliable method for determining whether a voter is ineligible to vote. [1]

History

1980s

Actions of the Ballot Security Task Force in New Jersey in 1981 are believed to be the first wide-scale use of voter caging as a campaign tactic. The RNC sent letters to predominantly-black neighborhoods in New Jersey in 1981. When 45,000 letters were returned as undeliverable, the RNC compiled a challenge list to remove those voters from the rolls. The RNC additionally sent off-duty law enforcement officials to the polls and hung posters in heavily black neighborhoods warning that violating election laws is a crime. Believing that these tactics violated the Voting Rights Act, the Democratic National Committee took the RNC to federal court. Rather than see the case fully litigated, the RNC entered a consent decree, which prohibited the party from engaging in anti-fraud initiatives that targeted minorities from conducting mail campaigns to "compile voter challenge lists". [4]

In Louisiana in 1986, the RNC tried to have 31,000 voters, mostly black, removed from the rolls when a party mailer was returned. Again, the action was successfully challenged in federal court. [4]

1993 National Voter Registration Act

Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) has been interpreted to prohibit voter caging:

"Pursuant to the NVRA, a voter may not be removed from the voters list unless (1) the voter has requested removal; (2) state law requires removal by reason of criminal conviction or mental capacity; (3) the voter has confirmed in writing that he has moved outside the jurisdiction maintaining the specific voter list, or (4) the voter both (a) has failed to respond to a cancellation notice issued pursuant to the NVRA and (b) has not voted or appeared to vote in the two federal general elections following the date of notice." [5]

2004 elections

BBC journalist Greg Palast obtained an RNC document entitled "State Implementation Template III.doc" that described Republican election operations for caging plans in numerous states. The paragraph in the document pertaining to caging was: [6]

V. Pre Election Day Operations New Registration Mailing
At whatever point registration in the state closes, a first class mailing should be sent to all new registrants as well as purged/inactive voters. This mailing should welcome the recipient to the voter rolls. It is important that a return address is clearly identifiable. Any mail returned as undeliverable for any reason, should be used to generate a list of problematic registrations. Poll watchers should have this list and be prepared to challenge anyone from this list attempting to vote.

Shortly before the 2004 election, Palast also obtained a caging list for Jacksonville, Florida, which contained many blacks and registered Democrats. The list was attached to an email that a Florida Republican Party official was sending to RNC headquarters official Tim Griffin. [6] [7] [8] [9] [2] : 129, 134 

The Republican National Committee also sent letters to minority areas in Cleveland, Ohio. When 35,000 letters were returned as undeliverable, the party employed poll watchers to challenge the voters' right to vote. Civil liberties groups challenged the RNC in a case that went to the Supreme Court, but the RNC was not stopped from challenging the voters. [10]

Similarly, the RNC sent out 130,000 letters to minority areas in mostly-black Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [4]

2008 elections

In December 2007, Kansas Republican Chair Kris Kobach sent an email boasting that "to date, the Kansas GOP has identified and caged more voters in the last 11 months than the previous two years!" [11]

Republicans sent out fundraising mailers to voters in five Florida counties: Duval, Hillsborough, Collier, Miami-Dade and Escambia, with 'do not forward' on the letters. The mailers included inaccurate voter ID numbers and ostensibly confirmed with voters they were registered as Republican. The RNC declined to discuss the mailer with the St. Petersburg Times . A representative denied that the mailing had anything to do with caging. Two top Florida elections officials, both Republicans, faulted the Republican mailing, calling it "confusing" and "unfortunate" because of a potential to undermine voter confidence by making them question the accuracy of their registrations." Some officials expressed concern that the RNC would try to use a caging list derived from the mailers. [12]

In Northern California, reports of voter caging emerged when letters marked 'do not forward' were sent to Democrats with fake voter ID numbers. The description of the letters matched the letters that were sent out in Florida. [13] [14] Many details on the letters were false; for example, the letters referred to a Voter Identification Division, but RNC personnel said they had no such department. The RNC did not return calls from a news organization regarding the letters.

On October 5, 2008, the Republican Lieutenant Governor of Montana, John Bohlinger, accused the Montana Republican Party of vote caging to purge 6,000 voters from three counties that trend Democratic. The purges included decorated war veterans and active duty soldiers. [15]

Terri Lynn Land, the Secretary of State of Michigan, was found to be purging thousands of voters from voting rolls based on Voter ID cards being returned as undeliverable. [16] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took Michigan to court over the purges. Judge Stephen J. Murphy ruled the purge illegal under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and directed Land to reinstate the affected voters. [17]

In the years since the original 1982 consent decree on voter caging, a series of suits and countersuits between the RNC and the DNC as well as civil rights groups and labor unions ensued. The RNC would attempt to have the consent decree lifted and other parties would attempt to have the decree enforced in specific cases in which the plaintiffs would allege the RNC was in violation of the decree. In November 2008, the RNC sought to have the consent decree lifted in the U.S. District Court in Newark (Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee). Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise rejected the effort, and his ruling was upheld by the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals. [18] The Third Circuit ruling found, "It is not in the public interest to vacate the decree." It also stated, "If the RNC does not hope to engage in conduct that would violate the Decree, it is puzzling that the RNC is pursuing vacatur so vigorously notwithstanding the District Court's significant modifications to the Decree." [18] The RNC then petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to hear an appeal of the Third Circuit ruling but the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving the Third Circuit ruling to stand as legally binding. [19]

2016: No new violation established

"On October 26, 2016, the DNC filed a motion asking that the court find the RNC had violated the decree. On November 5, after abbreviated discovery, the district court denied the DNC’s request, ruling that the DNC had not provided sufficient evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and the RNC on ballot-security operations, but will allow the DNC to offer further evidence after the election," according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. [20]

On January 8, 2018, the US District Court for the District of New Jersey declined to extend the consent decree beyond its previous December 1, 2017, expiration date, because, “the DNC did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, a violation of the [1982] Consent Decree before December 1, 2017”. [21] Harvard Law Professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos suggested this decision was at least partially influenced by a general decline in the willingness of courts to intervene in election law issues, as witnessed by several moderately recent decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States, especially in Shelby County v. Holder . [22]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Greg Palast</span> American journalist

Gregory Allyn Palast is an author and a freelance journalist who has often worked for the BBC and The Guardian. His work frequently focuses on corporate malfeasance but he has also worked with labour unions and consumer advocacy groups.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Florida Central Voter File</span>

The Florida Central Voter File was an internal list of legally eligible voters used by the US Florida Department of State Division of Elections to monitor the official voter lists maintained by the 67 county governments in the State of Florida between 1998 and January 1, 2006. The exclusion of eligible voters from the file was a central part of the controversy surrounding the US presidential elections in 2000, which hinged on results in Florida. The 'Florida Central Voter File' was replaced by the Florida Voter Registration System on January 1, 2006, when a new federal law, the Help America Vote Act, came into effect.

During the 2004 United States elections, there was controversy around various aspects of the voting process, including whether voting had been made accessible to all those entitled to vote, whether ineligible voters were registered, whether voters were registered multiple times, and whether the votes cast had been correctly counted.

The National Ballot Security Task Force (BSTF) was founded in 1981 in New Jersey, United States by the Republican National Committee (RNC) to discourage voter turnout among likely Democratic voters in the gubernatorial election.

Nathan Sproul is a Republican strategist and political consultant for numerous election campaigns. Sproul is the managing director of Lincoln Strategy Group, an international political consulting firm based in Arizona. He is a former executive director of the Arizona Republican Party and the Arizona Christian Coalition.

Operation Eagle Eye was a Republican Party voter suppression operation in the 1960s in Arizona to challenge minority voters. In the United States only citizens have ever been able to vote, and in 1964 only literate citizens could vote, so it was legal to ensure that (1) a potential voter was literate, and (2) a potential voter was a United States Citizen. Through the employment of literacy tests, oral demands to interpret the United States Constitution and detailed questions about a potential voter's origins and how long the potential voter had been in the United States, Republican workers would challenge minority voters, especially those with broken English. William Rehnquist, later chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, is said to have been the head of a group of lawyers hoping to challenge voters in minority Democratic precincts. Operation Eagle Eye was a two-year effort, and the laws in Arizona have since made this kind of challenge illegal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elections in Florida</span>

Elections in Florida are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November in even-numbered years, as provided for in Article 6 of the Florida Constitution. For state elections, the Governor of Florida, Lieutenant Governor, and the members of the Florida Cabinet, and members of the Florida Senate are elected every four years; members of the Florida House of Representatives are elected every two years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New York City Board of Elections</span>

The Board of Elections in the City of New York (NYCBOE) conducts New York elections within New York City, United States. It is an administrative body of ten Commissioners, two from each borough upon recommendation by both political parties and then appointed by the New York City Council for a term of four years.

James Bopp Jr. is an American conservative lawyer. He is most known for his work associated with election laws, anti-abortion model legislation, and campaign finance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scott Gessler</span> American politician

Scott Gessler is an American politician and the former Secretary of State of Colorado, having served from 2011 to 2015. He is a former business owner and elections attorney. Gessler is a member of the Republican Party. Gessler is also a veteran of the United States Army.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 Florida Republican presidential primary</span>

The 2012 Florida Republican presidential primary was held on January 31, 2012. Fifty delegates were at stake, none of them RNC delegates; it is unclear whether these delegates will be allocated proportionally or winner-take-all. Originally awarded 99 delegates, the Republican National Committee removed half of Florida's delegates because the state committee moved its Republican primary before March 6; the Republican National Committee rules also set the delegate allocation to be proportional because the contest was held before April 1. It is a closed primary. There were 4,063,853 registered Republican voters as of January 3, 2012.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 United States presidential election in Florida</span>

The 2012 United States presidential election in Florida took place on November 6, as part of the 2012 U.S. presidential election in which all 50 states plus the District of Columbia participated. Florida voters chose 29 electors to represent them in the Electoral College via a popular vote pitting incumbent Democratic President Barack Obama and his running mate, Vice President Joe Biden, against Republican challenger and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and his running mate, U.S. Representative Paul Ryan.

Voter suppression in the United States consists of various legal and illegal efforts to prevent eligible citizens from exercising their right to vote. Such voter suppression efforts vary by state, local government, precinct, and election. Voter suppression has historically been used for racial, economic, gender, age and disability discrimination. After the American Civil War, all African-American men were granted voting rights, but poll taxes or language tests were used to limit and suppress the ability to register or cast a ballot. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 improved voting access. Since the beginning of voter suppression efforts, proponents of these laws have cited concerns over electoral integrity as a justification for various restrictions and requirements, while opponents argue that these constitute bad faith given the lack of voter fraud evidence in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judith Browne Dianis</span>

Judith A. Browne Dianis is an American civil rights attorney. She is the executive director of Advancement Project, a liberal nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wisconsin Elections Commission</span> Wisconsin state commission charged with administering and enforcing election laws

The Wisconsin Elections Commission is a bipartisan regulatory agency of the state of Wisconsin established to administer and enforce election laws in the state. The Wisconsin Elections Commission was established by a 2015 act of the Wisconsin Legislature which also established the Wisconsin Ethics Commission to administer campaign finance, ethics, and lobbying laws. The two commissions began operation on June 30, 2016, replacing the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (GAB), which was abolished.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ronna McDaniel</span> American political strategist (born 1973)

Ronna Romney McDaniel is an American political strategist who served as chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC) from 2017 until her resignation in 2024. A member of the Republican Party and the Romney family, McDaniel was chair of the Michigan Republican Party from 2015 to 2017.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Joe Gruters</span> American politician, Chair of the Florida Republican Party (born 1977)

Joe Gruters was the Chairman of the Florida Republican Party from 2018 to 2022, and is a member of the Florida Senate representing the 22nd District, which consists of Sarasota County and part of Charlotte County. He was previously a member of the Florida House of Representatives. Earlier in his career, Gruters worked on the campaign of U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan as campaign manager and was vice chairman of the Republican Party of Florida and chairman of the Republican Party of Sarasota.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 Michigan elections</span>

This is a list of elections in the US state of Michigan in 2020. The office of the Michigan Secretary of State oversees the election process, including voting and vote counting.

Before Election Day of the 2020 United States presidential election, lawsuits related to the voting process were filed in various states. Many of these lawsuits were related to measures taken by state legislatures and election officials in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election</span>

Following the 2020 United States presidential election and the unsuccessful attempts by Donald Trump and various other Republican officials to overturn it, Republican lawmakers initiated a sweeping effort to make voting laws more restrictive within several states across the country. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, as of October 4, 2021, more than 425 bills that would restrict voting access have been introduced in 49 states—with 33 of these bills enacted across 19 states so far. The bills are largely centered around limiting mail-in voting, strengthening voter ID laws, shortening early voting, eliminating automatic and same-day voter registration, curbing the use of ballot drop boxes, and allowing for increased purging of voter rolls. Republicans in at least eight states have also introduced bills that would give lawmakers greater power over election administration after they were unsuccessful in their attempts to overturn election results in swing states won by Democratic candidate Joe Biden in the 2020 election. The efforts garnered press attention and public outrage from Democrats, and by 2023 Republicans had adopted a more "under the radar" approach to achieve their goals.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Hale, Saranac (March 24, 2021). "Three False Claims About the Federal Voting Rights Bill". Annenberg Public Policy Center.
  2. 1 2 3 "An Investigation into the Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006" (PDF). U.S. Department of Justice. September 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 2, 2020. Retrieved November 10, 2020.
  3. ↑ "Nearly 600,000 Ohio Votes May Be Disenfranchised". August 13, 2008. Archived from the original on November 27, 2008.
  4. 1 2 3 Becker, Jo (October 29, 2004). "GOP Challenging Voter Registrations". The Washington Post . p. A05.
  5. ↑ Brayton, Ed (September 18, 2008). "Lawsuit says Michigan is violating Motor-Voter law". The Michigan Messenger. Archived from the original on January 5, 2009.
  6. 1 2 Johnston, Mark. "Suppressing the Vote" Archived April 29, 2016, at the Wayback Machine , E Pluribus Media, April 14, 2007, accessed November 16, 2008
  7. ↑ "The Caging List: Jacksonville, 2004 Elections". Black Voter Net. October 30, 2004. Archived from the original on February 6, 2008. Retrieved October 6, 2012.
  8. ↑ Palast, Greg. "New Florida Vote Scandal Feared", BBC News, October 24, 2004, accessed November 16, 2008
  9. ↑ "The final days". Arkansas Times . August 24, 2006. Though Griffin, currently finishing a military obligation, spent one year in Little Rock as an assistant U.S. attorney, his political work would likely get more attention — and Democratic opposition — in the Senate confirmation process. He'd likely have to endure some questioning about his role in massive Republican projects in Florida and elsewhere by which Republicans challenged tens of thousands of absentee votes. Coincidentally, many of those challenged votes were concentrated in black precincts.
  10. ↑ "Emails Detail RNC Voter Suppression in Five States" Archived June 10, 2010, at the Wayback Machine , Truthout, accessed November 16, 2008. The caging list was named Exhibit 3.
  11. ↑ Rothschild, Scott (December 27, 2007). "Democrats accuse GOP of vote 'caging'". Lawrence Journal-World. Retrieved November 11, 2017.
  12. ↑ Bousquet, Steve. "Democrats, Florida elections officials criticize GOP mailing", Tampa Bay, September 16, 2008, accessed November 16, 2008
  13. ↑ Aanestad, Christina (October 28, 2008). "Voter Caging in Northern Cali?".
  14. ↑ "County of Lake Registrar of Voting Office" (PDF). October 6, 2008.
  15. ↑ Bohlinger, John (October 5, 2008). "Republicans crossed line with voter purge attempt". Montana Standard.
  16. ↑ Melzer, Eartha Jane (November 13, 2008). "Judge: Michigan voter purge is illegal". The Michigan Messenger. Archived from the original on February 18, 2012. Retrieved November 5, 2008.
  17. ↑ "United States Student Association Foundation v. Land - Order". American Civil Liberties Union. October 13, 2008. Retrieved October 6, 2012.
  18. 1 2 Minick, Courtney (March 13, 2012). "Democratic National Committee v. Republican National Committee March 13, 2012 By". Justia Law Blog. Justia. Retrieved October 17, 2016.
  19. ↑ "Supreme Court Docket No. 12-373: Republican National Committee, et al., Petitioners v. Democratic National Committee, et al". Supreme Court of the United States. April 27, 2012. Retrieved October 17, 2016.
  20. ↑ "DNC v. RNC Consent Decree". Brennan Center for Justice . November 5, 2016.
  21. ↑ Vann R. Newkirk II (January 9, 2018). "The Republican Party Emerges From Decades of Court Supervision". The Atlantic . ISSN   1072-7825. Wikidata   Q98754715.
  22. ↑ "The Dance of Partisanship and Districting" (PDF). Harvard Law & Policy Review . 13: 507–537. 2019. ISSN   1935-2077. Wikidata   Q98755041..

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.