Launching the All Things Election Podcast with Special Guest Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft

FIRST APPEARED ON THE BPC BLOG ON FEBRUARY 22, 2018

The Bipartisan Policy today launches the All Things Election podcast to keep you in the know about everything election related. In our first episode, we talk to Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft about voter registration modernization in his state and why complete and accurate voter rolls improve Americans’ voting experience.

Democracy Project director John Fortier and associate director Matthew Weil talk with Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft.

Americans will go to the polls this November for the 116th time in our nation’s history to pick members of Congress. But the general Election Day is only one milestone in a process that is already underway.

Over the next year, the All Things Elections podcast will cover redistricting, primaries, campaign finance, campaign advertising, Election Day processes, and canvassing and certification to name a few. This first podcast in the series is about voter registration modernization, specifically state efforts to build more secure and complete voter rolls, with special guest Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft.

BPC hosts the continuing work of the 2013-2014 Presidential Commission on Election Administration. The Commission made recommendations in many areas, and strongly endorsed data sharing efforts across state lines to improve voter rolls. Since Americans move a lot, states are faced with constant challenges maintaining their lists and identifying new potential voters in their jurisdictions.

The bipartisan, state-run Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) is one such program to help states address these issues. In late 2017 and early 2018, Arizona and Missouri joined the compact. And just today, Florida passed authorizing legislation to become the 24th ERIC member state.

Secretary Jay Ashcroft is in his first term as Missouri Secretary of State. He was in Washington, D.C., last week to participate in the annual meeting of the National Association of Secretaries of State. In speaking with Democracy Project director John Fortier and associate director Matthew Weil, Secretary Ashcroft outlined a few benefits of the ERIC program.

Ashcroft said that ERIC “helps us make sure the people registered in Missouri are actually living in Missouri and they’re not registered in multiple other states…but it also helps us to reach those individuals who maybe have moved into our state…. It gives us the opportunity to identify those people and make a little bit more of a concerted effort to reach out to them and politely say we’d love to help you get registered.”

We encourage our listeners to hear the whole interview with Ashcroft as he explains his motivations for pursuing ERIC membership in his state. And share your thoughts with BPC via Twitter (@BPC_Bipartisan), on Facebook, or by emailing Democracy@bipartisanpolicy.org to let us know which aspects of elections you would like to hear more about.

Listen here

Subscribe: Android | RSS

Remarks on Civility

Illinois Campaign for Political Reform (ICPR) Event: Can Civility be Restored in Politics?

August 16 @ 12:00pm (CT) - 1:30pm (CT)

Columbia College, Ferguson Hall, 600 S Michigan Avenue, Chicago

Prepared remarks for delivery

Thank you for inviting me to be here with you today. Recent events and the daily onslaught of fresh political bickering certainly serve as constant reminders that we have to do better as a country when it comes to resolving our disagreements.

I will admit that when I was asked to sit on this panel I was—at first—a little confused. I know about the political brinksmanship and stalemate that has paralyzed Illinois in recent years, and I have previously participated in an event hosted by the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform focusing on efforts to reform the redistricting process where I was positioned quite literally between the two opposing sides of the debate. But inviting the guy from Washington, DC who grew up in New Jersey and went to school in Philadelphia to speak about restoring civility? That was unexpected!

“But inviting the guy from Washington, DC who grew up in New Jersey and went to school in Philadelphia to speak about restoring civility? That was unexpected!”

Let me talk very briefly about why I think I am here today. I have spent my entire career in Washington, DC. I have worked for a right-leaning public policy think tank. I have been a federal civil servant working on nonpartisan election administration issues, and I was a political appointee in the Obama Administration. Maybe I am rare, but I have friends on the right and left with whom I can agree or disagree about policy without becoming personal and petty.

Today I am the Associate Director of the Democracy Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center. I know what many of you are quietly thinking because I have heard all of the questions and comments before. What does a “bipartisan” think tank do? Do you have any effect or success? Are you really bipartisan? How can you be on both sides of an issue today?

The Bipartisan Policy Center, or BPC, is a nonprofit organization in Washington that combines the best ideas from both parties to promote health, security, and opportunity for all Americans. BPC drives principled and politically viable policy solutions through the power of rigorous analysis, painstaking negotiation, and aggressive advocacy. That’s our mission.

Here’s how explain the work BPC does in my own words. On almost every issue at the federal and state level, there are competing priorities that must be reconciled during the policy development process. Before being enacted, both major political parties often have significant ability to slow or derail the political debate, even when one side has a substantial majority over the other. And the best policy tends to be created by compromising rather than attempting to run rough shod over one’s political opponent. That said, we live in a very polarized political environment. So BPC brings together strong Ds and strong Rs to work on not a middling solution but one that true partisans are willing to sell to their colleagues.

BPC is a relatively large institution that works on issues related to the economy, energy, financial institutions, governance, health, housing, immigration, infrastructure, and national security. My main focuses are on governing institutions and election administration.

Back in 2013 and 2014 BPC convened the Commission on Political Reform, chaired by former Senate Majority Leaders Trent Lott and Tom Daschle, former Senator Olympia Snowe, and former Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman. The commission included other former members, governors, business and religious leaders and more. The 62 unanimous recommendations this group of 29 individuals made were all aimed at ameliorating the causes and consequences of America’s partisan political divide while advocating specific reforms that will improve the political process.

Without reading to you all 62 recommendations, I will note that they fall roughly into three buckets: electoral system reform, congressional reform, and a call to service. And I am happy to shed more light onto the specifics during the question and answer session.

The Bipartisan Policy Center is also in the midst of what we are calling a summer of civility. To quote from some of our former CPR co-chairs, “[w]e are not under any illusion that these problems can be quickly changed, and we are not naively calling for an end to partisanship. We are, however, challenging all Americans to listen to each other more, and to be more open to others’ perspectives. Members of Congress are gathering to sign a Commitment to Civility, pledging to act with respect and collegiality toward one another.” To that end we helped to gather the Freshman class of representatives from both parties to sign a commitment to civility pledge at the U.S. Capitol in June 2017.

Also in 2014, the Bipartisan Policy Center took on the continuing work of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration, which was appointed by President Obama to improve the voting experience. The commission, co-chaired by President Obama’s campaign attorney and Governor Romney’s campaign attorney, took seriously its work looking at bipartisan solutions to America’s voting woes in areas the parties can truly agree.

Finally, the Bipartisan Policy Center hosts a Governor’s Council. BPC initially convened its Governor’s Council in 2011 to bring the pragmatism that most governors bring to governing to Washington. They have issued recommendations related to workforce, higher education, Medicaid, and opioid abuse. We are honored that Linda Lingle, a former governor of Hawaii and most recently the COO of Illinois, remains a member of our council.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the work we do at BPC, and I look forward to the panel’s discussion and questions from the audience.

Why We Need the Election Assistance Commission

FIRST APPEARED ON THE BPC BLOG ON FEBRUARY 9, 2017

On Tuesday, the House Administration Committee considered a bill to eliminate the only federal agency tasked with improving the voting process for all Americans. If this seems like a strange response to an election marked by allegations of voter fraud, voter suppression, and election rigging—from both sides of the political aisle—you’re not wrong.

While there are legitimate concerns about the role of the federal government in elections, eliminating the United States Election Assistance Commission will lead to less secure and more costly elections in the future. And all Americans will lose.

Regularly over the last decade, lawmakers have argued that the EAC intrudes on state and local election administrators who bear the responsibility for actually running American elections, and that it costs too much for the services it provides. But there are real and vital reasons for the EAC to exist.

“Eliminating the United States Election Assistance Commission will lead to less secure and more costly elections in the future. And all Americans will lose.”

The EAC was created in 2002 as part of the Help America Vote Act, which itself was a response to real failures of election administration in the 2000 election. The goal was never to centralize election administration within the federal government, but rather to provide support to state and local administrators on the front lines of the voting experience. Notably, even after one of the closest elections in history, the bill passed with nearly unanimous bipartisan support.

From its creation, the EAC has never had more than 60 employees (including myself from 2008 to 2011), and it currently has half as many. But this small agency was given responsibility for “Motor Voter,” collecting data from states, and—for the first time ever—testing and certifying voting systems to standards. With rigorous research, strong fact-based data, and a comprehensive perspective on voting practices across the country, this agency moves the needle forward on essential improvements that states often resist without a little push.

Here is how Americans lose without an EAC.

First, the backbone of voter registration in this country is the National Voter Registration Act, or the “Motor Voter” law. Before this federal foray into voter registration, states had carte blanche to determine where, when, and how voters could register. This law required a simple registration form to be proactively provided at state departments of motor vehicles and other social service agencies. Instead of passive registration, states were for the first time required to do much more to promote voting to their citizens. The EAC tracks and reports on states’ compliance with these rules.

This new bill would transfer Motor Voter responsibilities back to the Federal Election Commission, which administered these statutes before the EAC existed. The FEC’s mission, despite its broad-sounding name, is narrow: it enforces the Federal Election Campaign Act, regulating money in politics. Many, myself included, believe the FEC has little interest or expertise in voter registration issues, which are outside its core mission. Registration issues represent some of the tallest barriers to voter participation. These issues are too vital to be treated as an agency’s side project.

Second, the EAC collects unique data from every election jurisdiction in this country. The biennial Election Administration and Voting Survey has become the gold standard for researchers and policymakers looking to make sense of election administration across the country and to offer recommendations about how to improve voters’ experience at the polls. The EAC’s data about absentee voting, provisional voting, early voting, and so much more leads to evidence-based policymaking that furthers the goal of efficient, accurate, and professional elections. The legislation before Congress eliminates this data collection and reporting function. Because, no private organization has the capacity to replicate this work, election officials nationwide will once again be flying blind when it comes to how their colleagues operate and ways that they can improve their own systems.

A key function of the EAC is the testing and certification of voting systems to ensure each state’s chosen voting technology will in fact work on election day. Before the EAC, the testing and so-called certification of voting systems was done by a non-governmental organization. While doing yeoman’s work, the teams responsible for this task were underqualified and overwhelmed. Voting standards were out of date and sorely lacking.

The voting system market does not work perfectly today. However, the EAC administers reasonable and consistent voluntary voting system guidelines and is currently two years into a four-year process to dramatically improve those guidelines so that they reflect the needs of voters today. Without national guidelines, which by their very title are voluntary for the states, voting system manufacturers can produce whatever technology makes them the most money. Individual states, acting without a national voting systems certification process, may try to impose their own unique standards on manufacturers. Without getting into whether these state standards would be as rigorous as those the EAC creates, it will drive up costs for voting technology if voting system manufacturers have to build to more than 50 state certification programs. Voters will cover this cost in one way or another.

The EAC’s budget is about $8 million annually. That means that this agency costs each participating voter in 2016 about 6 cents. The EAC ensures the integrity of our elections while performing bipartisan research about innovations for elections in the future. It is every voter’s advocate when it comes to voter registration. And without the EAC, the voting technology market of the future will be an unworkable mess. It is every Americans’ interest to see that the lights are kept on at the EAC.