THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, August 31, 1995 TAG: 9508300014
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A20 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Another View
SOURCE: By JOHN HENRY
LENGTH: Medium: 91 lines
You might think Virginia would want to make voter registration as easy as possible. After all, it ranked a lowly 39th among states in percentage of eligible citizens registered to vote in 1992. Approximately one in every three Virginians who could have been registered were not.
And you might think, therefore, that Virginia - like most states - would have willingly implemented the National Voter Registration Act (``motor voter''), which greatly facilitates registration since it not only provides for registering by mail but also when people obtain or renew their driver's license or seek public assistance.
Although the NVRA took effect in most states only last Jan. 1, it is already producing stunning results, helping to register nearly 5 million Americans in the first half of 1995. Unfortunately, Gov. George F. Allen doesn't want Virginia to be part of this success story.
Instead, Virginia, which must comply with NVRA by next Jan. 1, has been fighting implementation of the law by suing the federal government at taxpayer expense and spreading misinformation about it, as state Attorney General James S. Gilmore III did recently (Aug. 3) when he declared ``the NVRA increases the risk for voting fraud.''
Curiously, while Allen professes concern about the cost of compliance, he's spending Virginia money on a doomed lawsuit contending that the NVRA represents an infringement of states' rights. In the five decisions that U.S. courts have rendered on this issue in connection with NVRA, the states have lost every time.
It is not surprising the courts have upheld the constitutionality of ``motor voter''; while the U.S. Constitution authorizes states to regulate elections, it also stipulates that ``the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.''
Gilmore's contention that ``motor voter'' invites fraud rests on as shaky ground as the state's challenge of the law's constitutionality. Indeed, NVRA should actually reduce opportunities for fraud.
Much more extensive proof of identity and place of residence is required of applicants for driver's licenses, welfare and Medicaid - which are now also opportunities for applying to register to vote - than is demanded of citizens registering to vote at local elections offices.
For example, to obtain a Virginia driver's license, first-time applicants must present two forms of ID (such as a birth certificate or passport); furnish their Social Security number; submit a utility bill, payroll-check stub or bank statement as proof of residency in the state; and have their picture taken. By comparison, those registering at a board-of-election office need furnish only their Social Security number.
The fact that Virginia driver's licenses display the motorist's picture is itself a safeguard against fraud. As Ralph Munro, the Republican secretary of state in Washington state, notes: ``It is unlikely that a person is going to fraudulently apply to register to vote at the DMV and then have their picture taken for their driver's license.''
And if other states' experience is any guide, the mail-in voter registration that NVRA requires states to offer should be no more conducive to voter fraud than registering in person. When Mississippi was considering adopting mail-in registration in the early 1990s, it surveyed the 25 states already using it. The result: ``We could find no evidence of registration fraud,'' reported Dick Molpus, Mississippi's secretary of state. Mississippi's subsequent experience with mail-in has been equally positive, his office says.
Gilmore says he fears that voter fraud will increase because under the NVRA Virginia no longer would be able to rid voting rolls of people who failed to vote in a federal election over a four-year period. The law does forbid purging names of citizens simply because they haven't voted, but that prohibition is essential because people have the right to be registered but not vote if they so choose.
As Becky Cain, president of The League of Women Voters of the United States, observes: ``Even if you don't exercise your right to free speech, you don't lose it. The same principle should hold for voting.''
But NVRA marks the first time that states are required by federal law to maintain accurate and current registration lists. That task should be facilitated by voters' tendency to notify motor-vehicle and public-assistance agencies of address changes more promptly than they do election boards. Moreover, Virginia's computerized statewide list of registered voters enables election officials to practically eliminate duplicate registrations.
Taken altogether, the safeguards contained in the ``motor-voter'' law mean that fraud is a bogus issue. The real fraud is misinformation being spread by the law's opponents, who apparently remain content with 39th place. MEMO: Mr. Henry is a free-lance writer who volunteers for Human SERVE, a
nonprofit organization which promotes ``motor-voter'' registration
nationally.
by CNB