Reports
ANALYSES OF VOTER DISQUALIFICATION, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO, NOVEMBER 2004
Norman Robbins, Study Leader, nxr@cwru.edu
Greater Cleveland Voter Registration Coalition (GCVRC)
May 9, 2006
Note Revision Data: May 9, 2006
Overview:
In a time when elections are decided by
small margins and when the integrity of the electoral process is often
questioned, avoidable voter disqualification is not acceptable. Quantitative
studies in Cuyahoga County of the 2004 general election, summarized here, help to define some of the
sources of disqualification. Taken in conjunction with other reported data,
these studies lead to conservative estimates of votes that were avoidably
lost or put at risk. Statewide extrapolation indicates that about 42,500 votes
may have been lost and 30,000 put at risk – that is, over 1% of votes in a
Presidential election that was decided by about a 2% margin. We believe that
almost all these errors (on the part of voters, Board of Elections, or voter
registration groups) were unintentional. Several reforms could greatly reduce these flaws in the future. Results
similar to those reported here would be expected in many urbanized counties in
the United States.
Summary of key findings:
(Non-technical summary given in underlined statements)
- In 2004, the registration/change of address
applications of large numbers of voters in Cuyahoga County are projected to
have been lost or put at risk through errors on the part of voters or the Board
of Elections. Based on the findings of our studies of both Board of
Elections (BOE) and voter entry errors in about 9,600 applications for
registration or change of address, we project that nearly 7,000 Cuyahoga
County voters were probably
disqualified and about 12,500 voters were put at varying degrees of risk of
disqualification.
- Large numbers of applications arrived after
the deadline. The applications of another 6,000 voters were lost because
the applications were handed in after the October 4 deadline.
- The BOE list of disqualified applications was
even larger than our projections. About 15,000 names (not including minor
special categories) were on the BOE list of disqualified or "at risk" voters.
This number is greater than the projections of our studies on BOE or voter
error, possibly because our volunteers exercised careful oversight of the voters
we registered. About half of BOE categories of faulty application were totally
disqualifying unless corrected before the election, and the other half
potentially so unless corrected at the time of voting.
- Over 900 provisional ballots may have been
wrongfully rejected because of database problems alone. Between 624 and 938
rejected provisional ballots, mostly classified as "not registered", were
apparently mistakenly purged from the registration lists, or involved other
clerical errors in searching or entering data. Since this error was detected by
only one type of search, which did not detect other voters who reported similar
errors, the true number of provisional ballots wrongfully rejected is likely to
be higher.
- We estimate that 2 out of every 5 provisional
ballots that were rejected should have been accepted as legitimate. If we
combine incorrectly purged provisional votes, projected votes rejected because
of initial registration errors, provisional ballots lost through polling place
misinformation and innocent errors filling out the provisional application, it
appears that over 41% of rejected provisional ballots (or 14% of all
provisional votes) may have been unnecessarily rejected.
- We estimate that simply changing residence
exposes voters to a 6% chance of being disenfranchised. Youth, the poor, and
minorities are disproportionately affected. In fact, with respect to just
provisional ballots, we found a two-fold increase in rejection rate in
predominantly African-American compared to predominantly Caucasian precincts. As
noted in national studies, those Americans who move more frequently are more
likely to be subject to registration errors (and also provisional ballot
rejection). These include youth, those who rent rather than own homes, African
Americans and Hispanics, and the poor. In Cuyahoga County,
we estimate that each move brings about a 6% chance of disenfranchisement
through registration error. The national data on groups that move more
frequently is consistent with our findings of a nearly twofold rate of
provisional ballot rejection in precincts with over 90% black populations
compared to those that are 10% black or less. There is also a clear pattern of
higher provisional ballot rejection rate in predominantly African American
wards of the city of Cleveland.
- Avoidable errors and problems such as we
studied amounted to over half the percent margin of victory in Ohio's
close 2004 Presidential election."Ballpark" extrapolation of our results to
big cities statewide lead to the conclusion that in 2004 about 1.3%
(range 0.9 to 1.6%) of votes (42,500 lost, 30,000 at risk) could have been lost
statewide in a Presidential election decided by a 2.1% difference of votes cast
(and our numbers probably understate the problem).
- Election reforms – itemized here only for illustration — would reduce the disenfranchising errors discussed in this report. The Greater Cleveland Voter Coalition is developing recommendations which will be presented later.