Here's a related story from today's Muncie Star (Indiana) Interesting about purging voter rolls.


MUNCIE -- An unusually high percentage of the estimated adult population in Muncie and Delaware County is registered to vote.

Inside city limits, that number amounts to 90 percent, compared to 94 percent for the entire county, based on numbers provided by the Delaware County Voter Registration office and the U.S. Census.

So where were these people Tuesday when an estimated 27 percent of registered voters cast ballots in municipal elections in Muncie, Yorktown, Eaton and Gaston?

It is likely that some of them have simply moved away or died without being purged from voter rolls.

In 2004, Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita estimated voter rolls in Indiana were inflated by as much as 20 percent.

Inflated voter registration rolls have been a problem since 1993, when Congress passed the federal National Voter Registration Act, known more commonly as the "motor voter" law, according to Ray Scheele, a Ball State University political science professor.

Motor voter allowed Americans to register to vote at Bureau of Motor Vehicle branches and made it more difficult for counties to purge their registration rolls.

Accordingly, the number of registered voters soared.

"There are some counties that have more people registered than they have voting age population," said Dale Simmons, co-general counsel of the Indiana Election Division.

Voter turnout in Tuesday's Muncie election, was around 27 percent -- as was cumulative turnout figures for all four municipalities. (Daleville and Albany also held town elections Tuesday, but did so without the involvement of county election officials or vote-counting equipment.)

But once again, that number was based in part on the fact that 45,601 people in Muncie -- or 90 percent of the estimated adult population -- was registered to vote.

Simmons said a real registration rate between 70 to 80 percent is more likely, and even that number would require a very civic-minded population.

Based on Simmons' estimations, turnout of registered voters in Muncie might have been somewhere between 30 and 34 percent.

Many academics, Scheele said, have dismissed using any form of voter registration in calculating turnout.

Some use the jurisdiction's total adult population as the common denominator. Under this equation, turnout for Muncie's election was 24 percent.

Others simply compare the turnout in one election to the turnout in the same election four years earlier.

Determining the voter turnout is not the only problem when dealing with inaccurate voter rolls.

Inaccurate voter rolls leave wiggle room for fraud.

In 2003 in Lake County, ballots were cast by voters who were registered at homes that had been demolished for years to make way for the U.S. Steel Yard baseball stadium. That same year a man in Madison County was arrested for submitting fraudulently completed absentee ballot applications.

In 2006 the U.S. Department of Justice sued the state for failing to comply with federal laws governing the maintenance of voter registration rolls, Simmons said.

The state has responded to the problem by implementing two key initiatives, Simmons said.

The first is a database that allows counties to run checks when they receive new voter registrations to make sure those people are not still registered in another county.

Previously, the state obtained voter registration rolls from every county every two years and scanned them for duplicates, Simmons said.

The second initiative involves mailings to verify current addresses.

Under this initiative, the state sends a letter to each person registered to vote in the state, asking them to confirm their address.

If the voter fails to respond or the mail is returned undeliverable, the state must, by federal law, send a second mailing to the questionable address.

If the voter fails to respond again, that voter is designated inactive.

"Once we designate it inactive, they can still vote," Simmons said. "And if they do vote, it goes back to active."

If the inactive voter, however, does not vote within two federal elections, it is up to the county voter registration office to remove that voter from the polls.

The first such mailing went out in 2006.

Results likely won't be seen until next year, the second federal election since 2006.

Simmons said he didn't know when the state would conduct mailings again. The problem, he said, is they are expensive.

The mailing campaign from 2006 cost about $1.8 million, Simmons said.

Delaware County Republican Voter Registration Board member Will Statom refused to discuss the issue of voter registration with The Star Press and his Democrat counterpart, Margie Landers -- also county Democratic Party chairman -- did not return a phone call.

The state health department and Indiana Department of Corrections also provide county voter registration offices with daily lists of recent deaths and the recently incarcerated so those people can be purged, Simmons said.

People serving time in prisons and jails are not allowed to vote, but can vote in Indiana upon their release, Simmons said.

While the state can help provide counties with information on who should be purged, the responsibility of actually removing those people belongs with the counties, Simmons said.

"If the county's not doing their maintenance, what do we do?" Simmons said. "We'll cross that bridge when we get there."

Standley,
I guess you took my words to heart when I said maybe you think I am dumb. After a good part of my life spent overseas I think I know where my ballot came from and how the election rules governed the military. I also know that each state and in some cases local governments also have rules/laws for voting. But as you pointed out in the beginning of your response - there are,in fact, different laws governing differnt circumstances for people overseas, should Americans who travel full time within this country not want or maybe even lobby for a special law/rule that applies to their circumstances? That said... I think, either I did not explain my views or you did not understand what I meant. Here it is again: 1) People should not be discriminated against because of their life style, 2) Thousands of voters are away from home and do not know all the issues or candidates and still vote. 3) Thousands of voters that live in their voting districts have no idea what they are voting for even though they are "home" 100% of the time, yet they vote 4) The idea that this is a non-issue or "digging in your heals to demand your rights" seems to me that you missed the mark. That is exactly how Americans have changed those very laws that may be outdated or laws that discrimate against various sectors of our population, (you are old enough to remember what some of our election laws were prior to the Civil Rights demonstrations of the 60's). It seems to me millions of Americans were denied the right to vote because they did not "follow the rules" of their local election officials. Please don't minimize denying an RVers right to vote by saying it is their choice to travel and have their mail forwarded and it was not the same issue for Americans that were denied because of the color of their skin - discrimination is discrimiation. 5)I have read many of your responses and they are right on the mark (I applaud you for the extra time you take to help others) but when you say because a person does not have a "domicle" they should be denied their right to vote and that they are not playing by the rules - I think it is time to change the rules. Lastly, Thank God that we have a forum to disagree on issues, in some countries one of us would be in Jail (probably me) for expressing our views eventhough they seem very differnt...that is why I am voicing my opinion on this issue... voting is far from a non-issue especially if you are the one being denied. Keep up the great responses Stanley, I have been impressed with your depth and knowledge on so many issues, however not on this issue! I guess before we sell the house and travel full time I will need to revisit this subject and figure out what to do at that point.

I'm deleting a rather long post that I decided against since it is apparent that this is turning into an argument rather than a discussion.

I'll leave it at this:

Until someone can provide an example of RVers being discriminated against, which is different than RVers being required to follow the rules to establish a domicile eligible for voting I'm going to give up on this topic since it is going nowhere.

I agree this topic has had its day in public discussion and we will not agree no matter how long this thread continues. Have a good day and let me be one of the first to all those out there living their dream a very Happy Thanksgiving

Agree, this has run it course - and I from our house to all of you living your dream ---Happy Thanksgiving.

quote:

Originally posted by autoshift:
Anyone been denied?

This weekend in our mail forwarding box from a FL UPS Store mail forwarder, DH received his application for an absentee ballot for 2008. Options were to mail in or request online.

They had a section to write in an alternate address to mail absentee ballot. Also a NOTE: "Any mail returned as undeliverable cancels your ballot request for future elections".

Best part, it also had a box to fill in: "All elections through 2010" for which he's qualified. So he's set for a few years.

Yesterdays local paper had a small piece indicating that the ACLU hss taken the case of three of these TN voters and the case is going to a Fed Court.

Stan, I am sure that you know way more than I do about voting issues. However you have said:

quote:

The only folks in general that have been denied the right to vote are folks that have not been willing to work with the local election officials to reach a reasonable accommodation.

First, how do you know that to be the case? The TN voters have reported to have been removed from the voter registration polls because they used a mail forwarding address. Do you know something about their unwillingness to work with officials that was not reported? At first glance this appears to be similar to the Escapees case, just a smaller number of persons involved.

quote:

You do not have the right to pick any address you choose to vote from or as a legal domicile, each state and possibly smaller entity has laws, regulations and rules that must be met for an address to be acceptable.

Really? Did you say what you meant? So, in your opinion, a full time RVer should not be permitted to register to vote in a community that they consider they home if that community has special rules regarding address? That is an interesting concept.

quote:

So far nobody has come forward with an instance of anyone being denied the right to vote who followed the rules that apply in the place they wished to vote. Until someone does this is really a non-issue.

Which rules? In general, we are guaranteed the right to vote. If a local community denies that right, it is they that are not following the rules. It may be an non-issue for you, but that is not the point. IMO, there is no reason to deny the right to vote to any legal citizen.

Stan, you are the man! You generally bring a lot of wisdom to this forum. What were you thinking?

quote:

What were you thinking?

Exactly what I said last year which is what you quoted.

Show me someone that worked with a registrar and was refused registration and there will be more to say. Until then you are just stirring the pot to try and upset folks and I don't play that game.

Cool. So persons refused the right to vote are guilty until proven innocent?

It is certainly possible that I am "just trying to stir the pot". However, if true, I am not doing it to "upset folks". I am doing it to wake them up.

Maybe you have no "horse in this race", or just don't care. I do.

This whole issue may be meaningless in the long run. However, for now, it is of enough concern that Good Sam, FMCA, ACLU and the Escapees have addressed the matter.

The right to vote is undeniable and a state CANNOT disallow it without good cause. I can't believe a state would refuse to allow one's right if they were presented with a factual situation and asked to find some accommodation for that situation.

You have tried and been disallowed. I would ask for a hearing or go to a higher authority. I suspect you have dealt with grunts who are programmed with a sheet of paper containing a number of stock answers. They try to match an answer with a question and choose the one they think is right.

I have been hearing radio ads from UPS claiming they have a mail service with a valid street address. You might try that route.

hamguy, That won't work in Sioux Falls, SD as they only allow (last time I asked) you to use a residential address as a domicile. They do consider a hotel or RV park as acceptable residential address though.

6 oclock news this AM said a fed. judge had rejected an appeal by FT RVers in TN for voteing rights with only a mail forwarding address.
Nashville ch.4
reporting for escapees

Dr.Kool, Kommissioner of Karaoke

Here is a link to a report on that decision. IMO this is a horrible decision for fulltime RVers that do not use the Escapees address. These are legal US residents that are being denied the right to vote (IMO).

In the future, maybe they should continue using the mail forward service but register to vote with an address like "under the tree in city park" or "under the bridge". IMO, this is an absolutely ridiculous decision, but what do I know,? I believe that every legal citizen should be able to vote.

Some may say that fulltime RVers are not really part of the local community. That may be true, but why are they not allowed to vote in state and federal elections? Members of Escapees are very fortunate. With 9,000 plus members, they were able to get a federal judge to rule in their favor. However, what will eventually happen to the hundreds of thousand of fulltime RVers that do not use the Livingston address?

I realize that this decision affects a very small number of RVers. However, IMO, one RVer that is refused the right to vote it one too many.