Americans are confused and anxious about trade and globalization. On the one hand, many voters fear for their jobs and living standards, worrying about rising competition from developing nations. On the other hand, many Americans see clear benefits from globalization, believe that the United States must engage in the global economy, and want poorer nations to develop. Trading Up offers a new framework for understanding and responding to this phenomenon — one that balances a commitment to markets and open trade with dramatic efforts to reduce inequities and insecurities.
Election Day Registration (EDR), which allows eligible voters to register and cast a ballot on Election Day, is a reform that reduces the unnecessary disfranchisement of eligible voters that may be caused by arbitrary registration deadlines.
2007 was the first year that the North Carolina General Assembly seriously considered Same Day Registration. SDR bills had been introduced in prior years and attracted legislative support, but never gained sufficient traction. This report recounts North Carolina's road to Same Day Registration from three different perspectives: legislative supporters, elections officials and the advocacy community.
We have analyzed the likely impact on voter turnout should Vermont adopt Election Day Registration (EDR). Under the system proposed in Vermont, eligible voters who miss the current six-day deadline for registering by mail may be able to register to vote on Election Day. The availability of Election Day Registration procedures should give voters who have not previously registered the opportunity to vote. Consistent with existing research on the impact of EDR in the other states that use this process, we find that EDR would likely lead to substantial increases in voter turnout.
Twelve years since the enactment of the NVRA, states across the country have regularly failed to comply with public assistance voter registration requirements.
Election Day Registration (EDR), sometimes called “same day registration” (SDR), allows eligible voters to register and cast a ballot on Election Day. Nine states currently have EDR or SDR laws. Maine, Minnesota and Wisconsin adopted EDR in the 1970s. Idaho, New Hampshire and Wyoming enacted Election Day Registration two decades later. Montana implemented EDR in 2006.
We have analyzed the likely impact on voter turnout should California adopt Election Day Registration (EDR). The availability of EDR procedures should give voters who have not previously registered or need to update their information the opportunity to vote. Consistent with existing research on the impact of Election Day Registration in the other states that use this process, we find that EDR would likely lead to substantial increases in voter turnout. We offer the following voter turnout estimates for California under EDR:
R. Michael Alvarez of the California Institute of Technology and Jonathan Nagler of NYU analyze the likely impact of Election Day Registration on voter turnout in Iowa.
In response to ever-increasing financial pressures, families have come to depend on high-cost credit as a way to bridge the gap between stagnant or decreasing incomes and rising costs. How are families coping with their new burden? To hang on to the American Dream, to be part of the ownership society, homeowners are depleting their home equity to pay off a growing mountain of unsecured debt—a financial strategy fraught with serious consequences.
In the final days of the 2006 campaign, as in any election year, citizen interest is peaking as election news--and debates on the issues--becomes more pervasive in the media. Unfortunately for America's voters, in all but eight states (one of which does not require voter registration) , if you are not already registered to vote in this week's election, it is too late. There are seven states, however, where eligible voters are not hampered by arbitrary deadlines, no matter when they become engaged by an election, and can register to vote on Election Day itself.
Political candidates win elections by generating more votes than their opponents. A vigorous and superior get-out-the-vote campaign is commonly understood to be the key to success. A less recognized but all-too-familiar alternative tactic is to intimidate their opponents supporters and suppress their votes. Voter intimidation and vote suppression campaigns are often mounted in communities of color, where voter participation is more tenuous. Few states have enacted clear and effective prohibitions against these abuses.
Representational Inequality: Bad for Democracy Economic inequality in America has been spiraling out of control in recent decades. The income gap between the rich and the poor in America has steadily increased since the early 20th century and is at its largest in 40 years. Unfortunately, this also translates into political inequality. According to the 2004 U.S. Census, 59 percent of citizens in households making less than $15,000 a year were registered to vote versus 85 percent of those in households making $75,000 or more.
If elections are the foundation of our democracy, then poll workers are the gears and wheels that make the mechanics of democracy function on Election Day. Regrettably, this human factor is often overlooked and under-supported. States squeak by each year with a bare minimum of poll workers who receive inadequate training for an increasingly complex task. Recent surveys, press accounts, and troubled primary elections attest to the problem.
Felony disfranchisement is the practice of denying people with felony convictions the right to vote. The American tradition of states determining their own election laws has led to a national patchwork of policies and practices that result in de jure and de facto denial of the vote based on felony conviction status Currently, most states impose some voting restrictions on people with felony convictions, ranging from a prohibition from voting while incarcerated to a virtual lifetime ban.
A properly functioning democracy encourages all eligible citizens to participate in elections. Our nation's commitment to this goal has resulted in landmark laws to assure that access to voting is available to all, including persons with disabilities and U.S. citizens who may have limited proficiency in English.
The 2000 election will be remembered as a national debacle in which millions of citizens were denied the right to vote and have that vote be properly counted. To remedy the problems of 2000, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). One of HAVA's principal provisions required states to adopt a system of "fail-safe" voting in which a person who goes to the polls, but whose name is not on the voter lists or who cannot produce the necessary identification, is allowed to vote on a provisional ballot.
As a nation, we now face a serious threat to the very nature of our democracy, and the core American belief that wide electoral participation by as many eligible voters as possible is central to our prosperity and success. With salacious and often unfounded allegations of efforts to vote by non-citizens, the deceased, felons and even pets, partisans, fringe organizations, and opinion makers of all kinds have pressed for strict new voter identification requirements. But the facts do not warrant these extreme proposals. All available evidence suggests that voter fraud is exceedingly rare.
A Demos briefing book, with state-and federal-level application, to help elected officials advance new policies that promote electoral participation and provide all Americans with access to a stable, secure middle class.