On December 7, 2006, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) released its much-anticipated report on voter fraud and voter intimidation, entitled “Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study.� While it was thought that the EAC’s study of voter fraud and vote suppression might be a useful tool in advancing positive election policies in the future, the results of this “initial review� were disappointing, if not downright troubling.

For instance, as evidence of the EAC’s dysfunction on this issue, the final report released by the EAC creates an awkward, vague and unworkable definition for “election crimes,â€? unnecessarily excluding many fraudulent or disenfranchising acts from the definition, including activities that resulted in voter suppression in the last several election cycles. The report also excludes key data from its analysis, such as large databases created by the nonpartisan Election Protection Coalition. Additionally, the timing and circumstances of the release of this report raise serious questions about the EAC’s motives, and whether the EAC has left its tradition of bipartisanship behind to become just another cog in Washington’s environment of virulent partisanship.

The EAC’s failure to lead on this issue is particularly troubling given the fact that the consultants hired to perform this study apparently reached radically different conclusions than those the EAC now espouses. While the EAC now claims that there is “no consensus” on the existence or pervasiveness of voter fraud, in a leaked earlier draft of this report, the bipartisan consultants concluded that “there is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud, or at least much less than claimed.” The EAC has refused to explain this contradiction, refuses to release reports produced by the consultants, and appears to be denying the consultants the opportunity to explain their findings publicly.

Given the EAC’s behavior relating to this report, the agency is rapidly losing any credibility it had established as an impartial voice. The EAC is already operating with a partisan imbalance (with two Republican commissioners to one Democrat, and a Republican General Counsel as well). Furthermore, the President appears poised to nominate (and recess-appoint, if necessary) a GOP political operative with no election administration experience to the commission. It is no wonder that nonpartisan election experts have expressed concern over the direction of the EAC, with Loyola Law Professor Rick Hasen recently stating on his Election Law Blog that “Politics appears to be creeping in to decisions of the EAC’s advisory board, and there’s real concern about the EAC’s vote fraud report.â€?

Notwithstanding these failings, some important conclusions can be reached, even from this watered-down report. There is a strong consensus that voter impersonation fraud does not exist in any systemic way, if at all. But even the EAC’s assertion that there is “no consensus� about the existence of such fraud is reason enough to resist enacting laws, such as restrictive voter ID laws, that impose additional burdens on voters. If the EAC is to regain any of its lost credibility, it should urge a moratorium on all legislation predicated on the existence of voter fraud pending what they term an upcoming “comprehensive, nationwide look� at such fraud.

This entry was posted on Monday, January 1st, 2007 at 10:33 am and is filed under Politics, Campaign .