Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Rauner’s AVR veto reasoning

Posted in:

Illinois

It passed overwhelmingly in the Illinois General Assembly, but Governor Bruce Rauner says the measure allowing you to register to vote through your drivers license isn’t the way to do that.

Rauner vetoed the measure, and said Sunday at the Illinois State Fair the Automatic Voter Registration measure violates federal law, even though the intent is good.

“Right now, the law is if someone interacts with a department and they say they’d like to register, then the process begins,” says Rauner. “This just takes that away and automatically registers people. Unfortunately, it can create a problem because not everyone in Illinois who interacts with state government and receives some government benefits is a citizen.” […]

“I think there are six or seven changes that we would recommend to make it comply with federal election law, and also comply with good practice, so we can encourage voters — everyone who wants to vote and is entitled to vote — to be able to vote very easily,” says Rauner. “But, try to make sure to try to eliminate the risk of inadvertent voter fraud, or inappropriate voting.”

* We’ll look at the proponents’ side of this issue later today (a press conference is scheduled for 10:30), but here is the governor’s veto message from Friday…

Our democracy depends upon free and fair elections and is strengthened by increased voter participation. I strongly support efforts to simplify the voter registration process and remove barriers to voting, while still protecting the integrity of our election system.

Earlier this year, I signed Senate Bill 1529, a bipartisan bill to modernize our election system and expand voting opportunities. The bill allows the use of digital voter signatures; expands online voter registration; enables the State to fund its participation in national Electronic Registration Information Center; extends the ability of military voters and others to vote by mail through Election Day; and enhances criminal penalties for fraudulent voting. I look forward to continuing to work with the General Assembly to modernize our election system and promote voter participation.

Senate Bill 250 would transition Illinois to an automatic voter registration system – one of the first states in the nation. I thank the sponsors and proponents for their commitment to increasing voter participation. Today I return the bill, however, to provide the sponsors and proponents with the opportunity to make some important corrections to protect the integrity of our election system and to comply with federal law. We must also ensure that the State Board of Elections is provided with adequate time and resources to implement the bill’s provisions.

Background

Current law allows citizens to complete a voter registration application at the Secretary of State’s Driver Services Department. The Secretary of State transmits the application to the appropriate local election authority to be processed. This process is subject to both the Illinois Election Code and federal law, including the National Voter Registration Act.

Public Act 98-1171, enacted last year, expanded this system to allow individuals to register to vote whenever they conduct business or interact with the Department of Human Services, Department of Healthcare and Family Services, Department of Employment Security, and Department on Aging. An agency employee notifies the individual whether he or she is registered to vote and offers the individual an opportunity to register or to update his or her registered address. The agency transmits the registration or updated information to the State Board of Elections, which in turn transmits the information to the local election authority. The public act requires the State Board to complete its implementation by July 1, 2016, but that work has not yet been completed.

Senate Bill 250 would change this system by requiring automatic registration. The bill would require each agency to automatically process a voter registration for each individual about whom it has information, whether or not the individual intends to register. The individual is later informed about the automatic registration and given an opportunity to opt-out by contacting the appropriate election authority.

The proponents of the bill intend to remove barriers to voting, which I applaud. But in the haste of amending and passing the bill on the last day of the spring legislative session, they concede that the bill does not plainly and clearly describe the process they envision. For the past several weeks, my Administration has been working closely with the proponents and lawyers for all four legislative caucuses to address the concerns described below. I remain hopeful that these concerns can be addressed and we can together enact a bill that achieves our shared goals.

Voter Integrity and Compliance with Federal Law

We must ensure the integrity of our election system and that it complies with federal law. The National Voter Registration Act imposes certain conditions on voter registrations, including that the applicant must be informed of the voter eligibility requirements, must attest that he or she meets qualifications to vote, and must sign the voter registration application. Federal law provides the individual with an opportunity to decline to register to vote or to transfer his or her information for voter registration purposes without adversely affecting other government services.

Proponents contend that individuals will be informed of the qualifications to vote; that the agencies will check their own records to confirm an individual is a citizen and otherwise eligible to vote before processing the registration; and that the agencies will indicate to the State Board of Elections which identification documents were checked. But that is not how the bill is drafted.

Senate Bill 250 does not require an applicant to attest to meeting the qualifications to vote or to sign the application, as required by federal law. The bill directs the Secretary of State’s Drivers Services Department to automatically register the individual “regardless of whether or not the individual attested to his or her eligibility to register to vote.” The bill relies on the State Board of Elections to screen out individuals who are not eligible to vote, even though the State Board may not have access to that information. In fact, some of the agencies in possession of citizenship-related information are prohibited by federal law from sharing that information with the State Board.

The consequences could be injurious to our election system. We know that non-citizens have registered to vote in Illinois after obtaining a driver’s license and voted in recent elections. Among other documented cases, a citizen of Kenya registered to vote and voted in the 2004 election, and citizens of Peru and the Philippines registered to vote and voted in the 2006 election. Each of these cases of voter fraud was caught by immigration officials, not the State of Illinois.

The bill should be conformed to the system that the proponents describe. Agencies with access to citizenship information should use that information to verify a person’s eligibility before processing the voter registration. That responsibility should not – and legally cannot – fall to the State Board of Elections, as the bill currently provides.

Reliability of State Agency Information

Senate Bill 250 intends for agencies to automatically update voter information based on the agency’s records. This assumes that agency records are accurate, consistent, and reliable.

While we are working to update and consolidate State information systems through the new Department of Innovation and Technology, the State does not have a single dataset for each individual that can be reliably used to verify current information. In fact, the agencies charged with updating voter records could have different name or address information about the same individual, due to no fault of the individual. Residency for unemployment benefits or human services may be different than residency for election purposes. An agency should not automatically change an address without providing the individual with an opportunity to verify that the address is accurate for the purposes of voter registration.

Senate Bill 250 tacitly acknowledges this problem. The bill provides that if a voter’s registered address is mistakenly changed, and the voter appears at the voter precinct for his prior registered address, the voter should have the opportunity to vote at that prior address with a regular (as opposed to provisional) ballot. The bill also provides that the voter should not be disqualified from voting “due to an error relating to an update of registration.” The law should avoid errors in the first place.

Implementation Timeline and Resources

The State Board of Elections has said that the timeline for implementation is aggressive and, to date, no funding has been provided to carry out the work needed. Despite diligent efforts, the State Board is already past-due in implementing the changes required by Public Act 98-1171, which underlie the changes that would be required by Senate Bill 250. We should provide the State Board with the time and resources needed to properly complete the implementation.

Recommended Changes

Senate Bill 250 seeks a worthy but ambitious goal. After the State Board of Elections, Secretary of State, and others raised concerns about how it would be implemented, the sponsors and proponents introduced a series of amendments at the end of May. There remain some unaddressed problems, but for which there are workable solutions. Specifically:

· The Secretary of State should only transit voter registrations for which it has been able to verify citizenship and should indicate which identification documents were checked. As part of REAL ID compliance, this information will be available to the Secretary of State for any person seeking to obtain a REAL ID-compliant license. Proponents indicated that the bill intends for this screening; the bill should make this a clear requirement.
· Other State agencies, other than the Secretary of State, should check voter registrations against their available citizenship records when possible before submitting those registrations to the State Board of Elections. Each of the four State agencies identified in the bill has access to that information. If the agency does not have citizenship-related information for a particular person, the applicant must attest by signature to meeting the qualifications to vote.
· The Secretary of State and each other State agency should notify a potential applicant whether or not he or she is currently registered to vote, based on information provided from a State master voter file, and if so at what address. If the person is already registered to vote at another address, the agency should confirm that the person desires to update his or her address, before automatically processing an errant address change. If the person is not registered to vote, and requests not to be, the State agency should honor that request.
· The bill should define “reliable State government source”, which is a source of information that may be used for completing a voter registration. The bill should set out a process for how other information sources are added to the list of reliable sources, as currently contemplated by the bill.
· The bill should set out a realistic implementation deadline, and we should provide the State Board of Elections and other implementing agencies with adequate resources. We must also recognize that county clerks and other local election authorities will incur costs in implementing this bill. The bill allows e-mail notices to be used for certain purposes; we should examine expanding e-mail use to reduce costs for the State and local election authorities.

Proponents have expressed willingness to make some of these changes, while others remain in discussion. I thank the proponents, sponsors, and legislative staff for continuing to work with my Administration to address these concerns. I hope we can complete this work and pass a bipartisan election bill in the near future.
Until then, I cannot approve Senate Bill 250 in its current form. Therefore, pursuant to Section 9(b) of Article IV of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, I hereby return Senate Bill 250 entitled “AN ACT concerning elections”, with the foregoing objections, vetoed in its entirety.
Sincerely,

Bruce Rauner
GOVERNOR

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Aug 15, 16 @ 9:46 am

Comments

Okay, so normally I would cry bs and scream voter suppression, but honestly after going almost 18months without a budget then getting a weak stop-gap. I just don’t see that we’ve got the juice to even implement this. Honestly, I think we’re doing well if we get any kind of function.

Comment by Honeybear Monday, Aug 15, 16 @ 10:05 am
My experience with voting in Illinois:

To register I had to actually visit a county building. There was no form I could fill out and send in by mail like the state I first voted in.

The county employee stood in front of me and filled out my form and failed to provide me the opportunity to provide my phone number or other contact information.

After registering to vote I moved and filled out a change of address form. Some other election official in some other county went ahead and decided to update my registration and register me to my new address and my new county and I only noticed and thought it was a little odd when I received another voter registration card in the mail.

The state I first voted in was the state I went to college in, and no election official there ever presumed that when my address for mail changed that I wanted to update my voting address from my permanent address and family home without so much as talking to me.

If I had not successfully received my ‘new’ voter registration card I would have had no idea that this had taken place. As a result, I can’t help but wonder how many people are accidentally disenfranchised when they find out a postal address change form has changed the precinct they vote in regardless of whether or not their permanent address has changed.

Comment by Anon Monday, Aug 15, 16 @ 10:06 am
Bruce,

Recently read that they researched voter fraud in Texas. They found 2 instances of it out of tens of millions of votes.

The guy you endorsed for President of the United States of America has had more wives.

Thought you’d like to know.

Love,
Douglas H. Simpson

Comment by Doug Simpson Monday, Aug 15, 16 @ 10:06 am
A well reasoned and fact based message for the veto. The message will be ignored by Democrats who will inevitably attempt to gin up a voter suppression charge.

Comment by phocion Monday, Aug 15, 16 @ 10:18 am
Voter fraud. Typical GOP nonsense. It’s called broaden your base not become more homogeneous and older.

Comment by Jorge Monday, Aug 15, 16 @ 10:21 am
Illinois grants driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. The bill as passed would do nothing to ensure that illegals will not be automatically registered and citizenship fully verified.

Comment by Muscular Monday, Aug 15, 16 @ 10:46 am
“Among other documented cases, a citizen of Kenya registered to vote and voted in the 2004 election”

Hey, wait a minute, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen that birth certificate.

Comment by Juice Monday, Aug 15, 16 @ 11:04 am
” The bill should define “reliable State government source”, which is a source of information that may be used for completing a voter registration. The bill should set out a process for how other information sources are added to the list of reliable sources, as currently contemplated by the bill.
· The bill should set out a realistic implementation deadline, and we should provide the State Board of Elections and other implementing agencies with adequate resources. We must also recognize that county clerks and other local election authorities will incur costs in implementing this bill. The bill allows e-mail notices to be used for certain purposes; we should examine expanding e-mail use to reduce costs for the State and local election authorities.”
—————–

The 2 recommended changes listed above are going to be hard.

The first one appears to be an attempt to codify the process of information accessibility and information movement between different computer systems (both State and local levels). That’s going to take some hard work.

But then that process is likely to inevitability lead into a secondary process, which is the movement of information updates from local units of government into the appropriate state databases.

Folks, this is going to take some time, and a lot of money. And remember, lots of the databases at all levels are what can charitably be called ‘Legacy’ technology. Much of that technology was never designed with providing these types of functionality in mind. They were just designed to be inexpensive stand alone databases.

Re: ODBC (Open DataBase Connectivity) systems, and older databases. There are limitations as to what you can make happen with the older stuff.

Secondly, the ‘resources’ to make this work. As usual, the ‘good government’ types don’t have even the slightest clue as to what this type of work will actually cost. This has the potential to be seriously expensive work.

For those of us who have had to handle this type of work, there’s the old “95-5 percent rule”. Goes like this:

“The initial 95% of the work takes 95% of the time and 95% of the money.
The last 5% of the work takes 95% of the time and 95% of the money.”

IF you have ever had to handle software development projects of any size where you have to have digital interfaces with other systems (not even real-time interfaces), you probably have been there. You know how hard the work is to make it happen on a repetitive basis.

Just remember “healthcare.gov” as an excellent example.

Comment by Judgement Day Monday, Aug 15, 16 @ 11:33 am
Separate from the merits, the process this administration utilizes to determine what the Governor signs and what he vetos is … interesting.

Two weeks ago or so, the Governor signed SB1564 (the so-called “Right of Conscience” bill) which had 61 House Democrats voting “yes” with exactly zero Republicans on the bill … in either Chamber. The bill didn’t really help pro-choicers but did hurt pro-lifers; at least that’s the perception of Republicans in the General Assembly. Whether that is actually true is beside the point, they needed the Governor’s veto, which shouldn’t have been a big ask given the heavy lifting they’ve done for him, right? But Rauner stiffed them. And, to add more curiousness, now the Gov. vetos SB250, which had considerable Republican support.

Methinks someone is absolutely unaccustomed to team sports. At all.

Comment by Deft Wing Monday, Aug 15, 16 @ 11:46 am
A wealthy white man in the GOP truing to opress voter regisration and opportunities cor people to vote? say it aint so!

next he will call everyone collectivists and refer to them as those people….

Comment by Ghost Monday, Aug 15, 16 @ 12:23 pm
So what is this thing Rauner calls “inappropriate voting”? My snark meter went full tilt and malfunctioned. Either it is legal or not, never “inappropriate”.

Comment by Jibba Monday, Aug 15, 16 @ 2:41 pm