America has a democracy problem.
The United States fails as a democracy by international standards. Approximately half of eligible U.S. voters cast a ballot in 2016. The U.S. lags behind OECD countries on measures of civic participation: compare 64% of the voting-age population registered to vote in America to 92% in the UK, 93% in Canada, and 94% in Sweden. As a country predicated on principles of freedom, equality, and popular sovereignty, our electoral system hardly functions as a democracy.
There’s an easy solution, a remedy that would make America more comparable with its democratic counterparts: automatic voter registration, or AVR. First implemented in a U.S. state, Oregon, merely five years ago, AVR creates an opt-out rather than an opt-in electoral system. It increases the efficiency and efficacy of voter registration with minimal monetary or bureaucratic cost. And most importantly, AVR can ameliorate our democracy problem.
Automatic Enfranchisement
Imagine an Oregon resident. This man renews his driver’s license in 2017. He walks a short distance to his local Department of Motor Vehicles. As he updates his license, the Oregonian is automatically registered to vote. Three days later, he receives a mailed notification, through which he can opt-out of his registration or join a political party. If he chooses not to respond, he’s automatically registered as “non-affiliated,” and can arrive at the next election ready to cast a ballot (or, in some cases, mail in his ballot from home). No deadlines. No fees. Our Oregon man is now an Oregon voter.
When Oregon implemented AVR in 2016, it was the first U.S. state to do so. Over the past five years, 21 states have adopted similar policies. Most states, like Oregon, allow AVR when state residents attain or renew their driver’s licenses at a government point of service. Sometimes referred to as the “Oregon model,” this system reduces temporal and monetary burdens on citizens who vote.
AVR had immediate effects in Oregon: not only did voter registration rates quadruple, but voter participation increased as well. AVR voters accounted for about 4.7% of the electorate in 2016. There’s also evidence that AVR brings new voters to the polls: even modest approximations estimated a 2-3 percentage point increase in voter turnout in Oregon attributable to AVR. Automatic voter registration undoubtedly increases civic participation.
Additional benefits have since followed. Pairing DMV and voting records has improved the accuracy and currentness of voter data. Cleaner voter rolls, in turn, reduce the use of costly provisional ballots — ballots used only if a discrepancy arises in a voter’s registration status. Further, AVR has increased the financial and racial diversity of the electorate.
AVR has become more necessary over the past eight years. Ever since the 2013 Supreme Court decision Shelby County v. Holder, states and localities have been able to implement restrictive voter access legislation without preemptive federal oversight. Many of these legislative restrictions, including photo ID requirements, supposedly deter fraud; in practice, they also reduce voter participation, especially among urban communities and communities of color. AVR defers fraud in voter registration with improved address accuracy while also increasing voter participation. Further, it would ensure electoral security while counteracting Shelby County’s potentially depressive effects on voter turnout.
Opposition to AVR
Opposition to AVR generally relies on three primary lines of reasoning, the first being First Amendment rights. By this reasoning, opt-out forms, sent and received via mail, are insufficient to ensure that a citizen can decline their registration. If the government should not determine voter behavior, then an opt-out system is invasive and unconstitutional. Several states, such as California, however, have provided opt-out options at the registration agency (the DMV in most states). This has included both a postcard provided on-site and opt-out electronic options as part of any DMV transaction. Either of these systems could mediate freedom of speech concerns while still streamlining voter registration. In fact, 16 states provide each registrant the opportunity to opt out during the agency transaction process, while only two states use mail after the fact.
Another concern is election fraud and privacy. Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, for example, vetoed a voting rights package that included AVR, citing fraud and cost concerns. Fraud remains extremely rare in U.S. elections, however, and there are more obvious reasons to oppose AVR for political ends.
In Oregon, for example, 11% of first-time AVR voters (compared to 6% of non-AVR voters) were people of color. Because voters of color tend to lean Democratic, the argument goes, the impact of AVR skews along partisan lines. Not only does this argument rely on loose correlation, but it fails to embrace the very principles of representative government. This is not a concern about AVR, but about the nature of representative democracy. By advocating against increased civic participation, this argument is one against democracy itself, not against the means of achieving democracy.
Finally, some argue that the percentage of registered voters who vote will decrease. This is a faulty argument because the raw number of voters increases as a result of AVR. Effective democratic representation relies on the latter figure.
Implementation
AVR policies vary in strategy and implementation. Two states, for example, implemented AVR administratively without passing new laws. Nine states are seeking AVR at social service agencies beyond DMV offices alone. Five states have called for public education about AVR.
Each of these solutions undoubtedly improves electoral efficiency, but perhaps given First Amendment concerns and legislative impediments, one system would function best. Administrative implementation would operate fastest and detract from other governmental imperatives the least. Although every state should implement DMV-based registration, expanding AVR to agencies beyond just DMVs would ensure that more citizens, even those without licenses, have equal access. Finally, public education on AVR might mediate concerns about government intervention and ensure informed consent for registration.
Even beyond localities, calls for federal action have entered national conversations. In 2015, Hillary Clinton expressed support for AVR, and Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., introduced the Automatic Voter Registration Act. Such policies at the federal level would best ensure ballot access, and streamline voter systems.
Now is the time to embrace our most effective electoral technologies. America has a democracy problem, but Oregon has pioneered a solution. Our next step? To seize our democratic heritage as we modernize our elections, to reduce costs as we expand access, and to neglect the outdated manual of imperfect elections by implementing automatic voter registration.
Image by Element5 Digital is licensed under the Unsplash License.
