May 14, 2007
Let’s Welcome Our High
School Seniors Into Adulthood -- And On To The Voter Rolls
High School Voter Registration Week Helps Young People to Vote
By Deb Markowitz, Vermont Secretary of State
Educators, civic
leaders and Secretaries of States have been working hard over the past
decade to engage our young people in the political process. And our
hard work is beginning to pay off. During the last election young
people voted in the highest numbers seen since the 1970s when they first won
the right to vote. But there is still a lot of work to do. Despite the
higher turnouts, three out of four young people between the ages of 18 and
24 don’t vote.
Vermont’s young adults
give many reasons for not voting. Some say they don’t know how voting
relates to their lives, often explaining that the candidates and campaigns
don’t speak to their issues. Still others say that they don’t
understand how it all works. But the most common answer is that they
weren’t registered to vote.
Registering to vote is
the most crucial initial step to becoming an involved citizen in our
democracy, but it’s not as easy as just filling out a form. Vermont’s
constitution requires a person to take a "voter’s oath." A
notary public or justice of the peace must give this oath. Students
who forget to register and take the oath prior to leaving the state for
college, the military or employment find themselves unable to vote in the
November election. They cannot simply register and then vote by mail,
as other states would allow. This makes registering our seniors before
they graduate very important.
This year the Secretary
of State’s office has designated the week of May 14th – 21st
High School Voter Registration Week. During this week, we are asking
schools across Vermont to register their high school seniors.
Vermont’s town clerks and Board of Civil Authority members and the League of
Women Voters are helping out by making themselves available to help run the
registration drives and administer the oath to eligible students.
We know that many of
our youth are truly committed to improving our country and re-energizing our
democracy. We also know that the young adults who graduate from our high
schools and colleges today will be the political leaders of the future.
Let’s help them get off to a good start by making sure that they are
registered to vote before they leave school.
For more information
about High School Voter Registration Week or to download Vermont’s voter
registration form visit the Secretary of State’s website
govotevermont.com or call us at
800-439-8683.
###
June 13, 2007
Honoring Vermont’s Centennial Nonprofits
By Deb
Markowitz, Secretary of State
This past week we honored 22 of Vermont’s oldest
nonprofit organizations at our third annual Centennial Nonprofit Awards
ceremony. We established the Centennial Nonprofit Awards to acknowledge
Vermont’s 100 year nonprofits for enriching Vermont’s cultural,
community and economic heritage. It is our hope that this program will
enhance our understanding of how Vermont’s nonprofits have contributed
to our community life during the last hundred years.
Of Vermont’s nearly
8,000 nonprofits there are five that are celebrating their 100th
anniversary this year, and there are nearly 200 others that are over 100
years old. The nonprofits we honored ranged from large health
institutions to churches, small all-volunteer cemetery associations, and
civic organizations. All of these nonprofit organizations
represent the dedication of tens of thousands of individual Vermonters
who have joined together to pursue some larger good.
It is interesting to think back to what the world was like when our
centennial nonprofits were established. In 1907 we had a governor
from Walden, Vermont - Charles J. Bell. His claim to fame was
proclaiming Thursday, November 24, as Thanksgiving Day. Teddy
Roosevelt was president; Oklahoma was just admitted as the 46th state;
and two of the greatest inventions of all times took place in 1907- the
invention of the automatic washer and dryer and Hershey Chocolate
Kisses. The first radio broadcast of a musical
composition was aired and the United Parcel Service (UPS) began
as a bicycle delivery service in Seattle.
In the late 1800s there was a
general exodus from Vermont to states that were experiencing more of the
industrial revolution. But, by 1907 things were going pretty well
in Vermont - primarily due to the rising fortunes of milk.
As farmers produced more they were able
to live a better and less isolated life. Cars were more common and
electricity became more available in rural areas.
During this time of relative prosperity it is not
surprising that the Brown Public Library was established in
Northfield and the Visiting Nurses Associations were established in
White River Junction and Chittenden/Grand Isle County to provide medical
support to growing communities.
Let’s come back to the present. Many of the
challenges facing our communities at the turn of the 20th
century still exist at the turn of the 21st century.
How do we ensure that everyone has the basic necessities of a good life
– a warm home, healthy food, access to medical care, a good education?
How do we support the arts and the institutions that protect and
preserve our history and promote our political way of life? Now,
in 2007 – we see that our nonprofits retain a vital role in our
communities.
While national trends suggest fewer Americans
participate in civic life, we can feel proud that Vermonters volunteer
at higher than average rates. Vermont is also home to the largest number
of charitable nonprofits per capita of any state. Vermonters
clearly value the opportunity to contribute to their communities through
nonprofit organizations. And clearly, the nonprofit sector is an
important contributor to the quality of life in our state.
We know that it takes a lot of work to keep an
organization afloat for even just a few years. I think we can all agree
that it is a remarkable feat to survive as a nonprofit for over 100
years! We salute our Centennial nonprofits whose commitment to their
missions has withstood the challenges of time!
##
Vermonters Lose With Unlimited
Contributions to Political Campaigns
By Deb Markowitz, Vermont Secretary of State
July 13, 2007
Citizen confidence in our political system is the
cornerstone of our democracy. That’s why, as Secretary of State, I
work so hard to instill in Vermonters a faith in our election systems.
And yet, it is an uphill battle. There is nothing worse than
hearing from Vermonters who are cynical about what government will do
for them - because of the sense that special interests can buy the very
people voters elect to promote the public interest. That is why I
was surprised and dismayed by the Governor’s veto of the Campaign
Finance Reform Bill.
Over the past year the Secretary of State’s office
worked closely with the Attorney General's office and legislative
counsel to address the concerns of the United States Supreme Court,
while crafting a bill that would ensure our political system is above
the potentially corrupting influence of large amounts of money.
S.164 was guided by hours of expert testimony and a careful review of
the U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down Vermont's previous
campaign finance law.
The resulting bill would have ensured that our
political system will be responsive to the voices of all Vermonters, not
just to those individuals and interests wealthy enough to finance large
parts of a candidate's campaign. The Campaign Finance Reform Bill
would have refocused our electoral process on the positive and
independent grassroots activities that strengthen our democracy and
inspire confidence in the political process. And, importantly, it
would have closed the loophole in current law that permits the state and
national political parties to pour an unlimited amount of money into
Vermont’s political campaigns, greatly increasing the cost of running
for office in this small state.
Attorney General Bill Sorrell and I believe that,
with the failure to pass a new campaign finance law, we will revert back
to the pre-1997 law, but that position is legally tenuous.
Regardless, what is certain is that the pre-1997 campaign finance
contribution limits are out of date and don't reflect Vermont values.
As long as people still believe that big money
drives politics, we will all lose. Next year, I hope the
legislature will again defy this trend to craft a campaign finance bill
that will honor our healthy, independent, grassroots political
tradition. And I hope that the Governor will step up to the plate
to be a productive part of the discussion. That will be a win for all
Vermonters.
##
U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration
Hearing on S.1487 “The Ballot Integrity Act of 2007”
Wednesday, July 25, 2007 (10:00 AM)
|
Testimony of Hon. Deb Markowitz, Vermont Secretary of State
Past President, National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) |
Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to offer some insights on
S.1487, the Ballot Integrity Act of 2007, introduced by Sen. Dianne
Feinstein.
I am Vermont Secretary of State Deb Markowitz, also
Immediate Past President of the National Association of Secretaries of
State (NASS). NASS represents the majority of our nation’s chief state
election officials, 35 of whom are Secretaries of State. While our
members represent a diverse array of constituencies, they are united in
the belief that federal, state, and local government must work in
partnership to effectively serve our citizens.
It is important to remember that every state
faces different challenges as it seeks to improve the administration of
elections and meet the mandates of existing federal and state laws. As
Secretary of State of Vermont I have not had to grapple with many of the
challenges faced by my colleagues across the country who have had to
replace outdated voting equipment. Vermont is a small and rural state
with fewer than 450,000 registered voters. We run our elections using
paper and pen; and in all but 80 of our jurisdictions we count those
votes by hand. The rest of our communities use optical scan
tabulators. We have a vote-by-phone ballot marking system available in
every polling place to ensure that our elections are accessible to
people with disabilities.
While we are proud of our tradition of
smooth-running elections, we know in Vermont that the success of an
election is as much about the people who administer the election as the
equipment that is used for counting the votes. Indeed, this past
November we found that even hand-counting paper ballots has its risks.
A statewide recount in our race for Auditor brought to light clerical
errors in hand-tabulated vote totals. The result was a change in the
outcome of the race.
My colleagues and I understand that you are
committed to studying election reforms here in the Senate and we know of
several major proposals in the House. The most important question is
whether now is the time for Congress to be amending the Help America
Vote Act of 2002, especially considering the fact
that voting in the presidential primaries will begin in just six months.
As most of you probably know, the 2008
presidential nominating schedule is the most front-loaded in U.S.
history. Twenty-nine states are already on track to vote in January or
February—more than three times the number that did so in 2000—and that
number could grow by at least seven more. Because of this front loading,
in about a dozen states, a separate primary election for state and
federal offices will need to be administered. This is all in addition to
preparing for the presidential, congressional and state elections that
are to be held on November 4, 2008.
As we are getting ready for the 2008 election
cycle, most states are still dealing with outstanding legal and
procedural issues related to the implementation of HAVA. High-profile
legal cases have included challenges to new photo ID laws in Georgia,
Indiana, and Missouri; challenges to voter registration laws in Florida
and Ohio; and a challenge in California regarding the accessibility of
voting equipment for disabled voters. Most of the lawsuits name
Secretaries of State as defendants and require considerable time and
resources to deal with them.
I could go on, but suffice to say, election
officials are facing some major challenges in 2008. Therefore, as you
consider new federal legislation that will impact state and local
governments, we urge you to keep the following principles in mind:
1. Provide reasonable timeframes for
implementation. For all the
reasons mentioned a moment ago, Secretaries of State feel strongly that
we should not be making dramatic changes to our election systems and
processes for 2008. S.1487 includes implementation deadlines that are
more reasonable than those offered in other bills that we have seen, but
the paper trail equipment described in this bill does not exist for all
types of voting systems. My colleagues and I do not want to wind up
trying to meet federal deadlines only to find ourselves forced to
purchase equipment that has not gone through the rigors of testing and
certification.
2. Guarantee full funding for mandates.
To date, the states have still not received
the full amount allocated under HAVA. While Secretaries of State
appreciate recent congressional efforts to appropriate $300 million of
the approximately $800 million still owed for that bill, the shortfall
has forced many states to make painful decisions about how to fund
costly new programs and equipment. We realize it is a challenge to place
a price tag on election reforms that will have long-term impacts,
especially when equipment is not yet available, but funding for the
changes that you seek is critical to the success of any new law.
3. Gather essential input from state and
local officials impacted by legislation.
We commend you and the committee staff for
working hard to reach out to state and local election officials. We
encourage you to continue this practice. Secretaries of State have
valuable input regarding election administration and we hope to be
viewed as a resource when Congress is considering changes to our system.
4. Allow for maximum flexibility and avoid
preemptions of state authority.
Federal legislation should not curtail state innovation and authority
solely for the sake of creating uniform methods among the states. The
legal and historical authority for administering elections exists
primarily with states and localities and consequently, all legislation
should grant states maximum flexibility in determining how to properly
and effectively carry out the law and satisfy federally-dictated
outcomes.
I share this committee’s goals in ensuring
that the nation’s elections are transparent and accurate and that there
is accountability in the system. With this in mind, I have reviewed
S.1487 and make the following specific comments and suggestions based on
my nine years of experience overseeing the elections in Vermont:
-
Independent verification of elections.
While I personally agree
with the goal of having elections that can be independently verified,
I am concerned that the voter verified paper audit trail (VVPAT)
sections of the bill mandates the purchase of new technology that has
not yet been developed, tested or approved for use in any state. This
puts elections administrators in an untenable situation. In addition,
I am concerned that the VVPAT will stifle the development of
innovative approaches to ensuring verifiable votes.
-
Ballot-marking devices should not be
subjected to unnecessary bureaucracy.
Insofar as we are interested in
encouraging the development of paper ballot marking devices that are
accessible to people with disabilities, it makes sense to avoid
creating unnecessary bureaucracy that will discourage innovation.
The mandatory software certification and disclosure requirements of
the bill would apply both to voting machines as well as to ballot
marking devices. Because a ballot marking device can simply be tested
to ensure that it is marking a ballot correctly, and because the voter
is able to verify that their paper ballot was correctly marked before
voting the ballot, there is no reason to require the developers of
such equipment to go through the time and expense of certification and
disclosure. We don’t require the pens we use to mark a ballot to be
certified or placed in escrow (although we test them to make sure they
work before giving them to voters to use on Election Day); it is
similarly unnecessary to certify and escrow electronic ballot marking
devices.
-
Mandatory poll worker training
requirements should be focused on workers who play critical roles.
In Vermont we require that
the chief election official in every polling place complete a
mandatory training before every general election. I would suggest that
it is not realistic to require that every poll worker complete a
training prior to Election Day. Indeed, there are many instances when
election workers are unable to show up on Election Day and a
replacement must be found in the hours before the polls open. That
being said, it is reasonable to require states to include provisions
in their HAVA implementation plans to ensure that all critical poll
worker positions are filled with trained poll workers.
-
Wait time standards should take into
account unforeseen events.
Any standards about fair and equitable
wait times for voters should take into account unique events that are
out of the control of the elections administrators that can result in
long lines such as snowstorms and power outages.
-
Voter registration standards should
clarify rules when there is a failure to match data.
The standards for voter registration
should provide guidance about whether a voter will still have the
right to vote even if the number he or she provided on his or her
voter registration form fails to match with any number listed in the
social security administration or department of motor vehicle data
bases.
-
Voter registration standards should
criminalize intentional destruction of registration forms.
The standards for voter registration
should also make it criminal to intentionally destroy completed voter
registration applications prior to their submission to the proper
authority
-
Voter registration standards should
permit removal of voter from checklist when the voter provides written
notification that they have changed address.
Any change in the law should make it
clear that when a voter notifies the appropriate authority in writing,
that he or she has moved, then no other communication should be
required to remove that voter from the checklist. (For example, a
checkbox on a motor vehicle department change of address form
indicating that the voter has changed his or her address for the
purpose of voting should be sufficient written authority to remove a
voter from the checklist.)
One thing we have learned in Vermont is that
no election system is perfect. However, with careful planning and with
a commitment to transparency and accountability throughout the process,
we can ensure that our elections run smoothly, and that the people in
our state trust the integrity of the process and the legitimacy of the
results. I know you share that goal.
I would like to thank Senator Feinstein and the
rest of the Committee for allowing me to testify before you today. I
appreciate your willingness to hear testimony from a Secretary of State,
and I know that my colleagues around the country would thank you as
well.
##
U.S. House Committee on House Administration
Elections Subcommittee
Tuesday, October 16,
2007 (2:00 PM)
Testimony
by Vermont Secretary of State Deb Markowitz
Good afternoon Chairwoman
Lofgren and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to
speak to you this afternoon about Vermont’s experience with no excuse
early and absentee voting.
I am Vermont Secretary of State Deb Markowitz. I
have served as Vermont’s Secretary of State for nearly a decade, and
during that time we have seen a significant increase in the use of early
and absentee voting. When I was first elected in 1998, approximately
10% of Vermont voters chose to vote by absentee ballot. In contrast,
during this past mid-term election over 20% of our voters voted without
going to the polls.
Vermont is a small and
rural state with fewer than 450,000 registered voters. We run our
elections in our towns, using paper and pen; and in 154 out of 246 towns
we count ballots by hand. The remaining 92 towns use optical scan
tabulators. We have a vote-by-phone ballot marking system available in
every polling place to ensure that our elections are accessible to
people with disabilities.
The principal points I would like to make in this
testimony is that our experience shows that Vermont voters like the
convenience of voting early in person or by mail; our election
administrators like no excuse absentee voting because it reduces lines
on election day; we have had few issues with voter fraud; and there are
steps states can take to help reduce voter error and to deter fraud.
History of
absentee ballot voting in Vermont:
Like many states, Vermont first adopted a law to
permit absentee voting in 1863 to enable Vermonters serving in the Civil
War to vote. Part of the law was struck down by the Vermont courts, but
the use of absentee ballots for federal elections was upheld. In 1919,
the law was expanded to allow soldiers, students attending schools in
other states, and those out of state on work related jobs, the right to
vote in Vermont elections, though absent from Vermont.
By the 1950s the right to vote by absentee ballot
had been extended to all voters who: “by reason of illness, injury,
physical disability, religious principle, or necessary absence from his
town of residence during the hours the polls are open, expects to be
unable to attend in person at the polling place.” And in 1986 the
Vermont General Assembly authorized the use of absentee ballots for
residents of state institutions, such as the Vermont State Hospital and
correctional facilities.
By the 1990s approximately five percent of Vermont
voters voted by absentee ballot. It was not until 1993 that a Vermont
voter could simply request an absentee ballot for convenience. After
this change was implemented the rate of absentee voting rose to
approximately 10%.
In 2000 my office began a public education campaign
to ensure that Vermont’s voters knew about their right to vote by
absentee ballot. The “Vote Early – Vote by Mail: Just Vote!” campaign
was conducted in partnership with our cities and towns, our public
libraries, Vermont’s business community, labor unions, the Vermont
Commission on Women and our community action agencies. Using posters,
flyers, public service announcements, and cable access programs, we
worked to educate voters about their right to choose to vote early or by
mail using the absentee ballot. As a result of these efforts, 19% of
Vermont voters voted by absentee ballot in the 2000 election. In
response to the success of this campaign, the Vermont legislature
decided to change the name of the ballot to “Early or Absentee Ballot”
in order to emphasize that any voter may choose to vote early or by
mail.
In the 2006 election over 20% of Vermont voters
chose to vote by early or absentee ballot.
How it works in Vermont:
Vermont voters may begin
to vote 30 days before the election. Requests for an early voter
absentee ballot can be made at any time until 5:00 p.m. or the closing
of the town clerk's office on the day before the election. The request
can be made at the same time the person registers to vote, so long as
the voter registration application and absentee ballot request are
submitted by 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday before election day.
Any voter or a voter’s
health care worker or family member may make a request for an
early voter absentee ballot by telephone, in
person or in writing, for the ballot to be mailed to the voter. Another
person who is authorized by the voter to act on his or her behalf may
also request an absentee ballot to be mailed to the voter, but this
request must be made in writing, signed by the person who is making the
request. A voter may make one request for a primary and general
election, but will need to make a new request for each new election
cycle.
A voter may pick up a
ballot for him or herself from the town clerk to return by mail, or in
person; or the voter may vote early at the town clerk’s office by
filling out an absentee ballot and leaving it at the clerk’s office for
counting on election day.
On election day,
absentee ballots are delivered to sick or disabled voters by a
bipartisan pair of justices of the peace who will wait while the voter
fills out the ballot, and who will assist the voter on request, and who
will then return the ballot to the polls for counting.
All absentee ballots may
be returned by mail or by hand by the voter or by a person authorized by
the voter. The ballots must be returned to the town clerk’s office prior
to election day, or to the polls on election day. All absentee ballots
that are returned by the close of the polls on election day are counted,
unless the outer envelope is not properly signed, or unless the ballot
is otherwise spoiled.
Our municipal clerks
keep a record of voters who have requested an absentee ballot. This
record includes information about who made the request, the date that
the absentee ballot is mailed to the voter and the date the ballot is
returned. This list is a part of the public record, and is checked by
the political parties on a daily basis leading up to the election. Once
a ballot is received by the town it is considered voted and the voter
may not take it back to vote a new ballot.
Vermont’s election
administrators encourage the use of early and absentee voting because it
reduces lines on election day and helps ease administrative pressures by
spreading the work over the 30 day early voting period. On election day
the voter’s name is checked off the voter registration rolls, the
absentee ballots are opened by bi-partisan pairs of election workers and
are commingled to preserve the privacy of the voter. Before the polls
open for voters, during the slower times during the day, and after the
close of polls at 7:00 p.m., the election workers place the ballot in
the ballot box or feed the ballots into the optical scan machine until
they are all counted. All absentee ballots returned by the close of the
polls on election day are counted.
Preventing Problems:
In Vermont we have
procedures in place that are designed to prevent problems that could
arise from the use of early and absentee voting.
·
Voters who change their
mind. Sometimes early voters
change their mind in the waning days before an election and wish to take
back their returned absentee ballot. Once a ballot is received back it
is considered voted and cannot be returned to the voter or spoiled so
that a voter can vote a new ballot. Any state that permits early voting
must educate the voters about the voter’s responsibility to be sure
about their vote before returning their ballot.
·
Lost ballots. Every
election we have voters who have lost or misplaced an absentee ballot.
Because our local election workers keep complete records of both the
sending and the return of a ballot, a voter who has lost a ballot may
sign a sworn affidavit to that effect, and he or she will be given a new
ballot to vote. In the event that both ballots are returned, the second
ballot received will be considered spoiled. States must have a clear
rule about how it will handle lost ballots.
·
Over-enthusiastic campaign
workers. Campaign workers often
encourage voters to request absentee ballots. We require that when a
request is make through a third party (other than a family member or
health care worker) the request must be in writing signed by the third
party, and include contact information for the person who has made the
request. This ensures that we can identify and hold responsible
individuals who might be abusing the absentee voting system. In the
last election we were able to quickly identify campaigns that were
making requests on behalf of voters without the voter’s permission.
·
Fraud.
Public
education is a critical component of fraud prevention. People must be
told that voting on behalf of another person, even a family member,
violates the law. In addition, to prevent fraud, states should ensure
that ballots are mailed directly to the voter. Only the voter should be
allowed to pick up his or her own ballot in advance of the election.
When election workers deliver ballots to people who are sick or have a
disability they should do so in bipartisan pairs. The record of who has
requested an absentee ballot, when a ballot was mailed and when it was
returned to the town for counting should be made public to encourage the
identification and reporting of possible fraud. Finally, every report
of possible fraud must be investigated and, if fraud is found, there
must be enforcement of the applicable laws.
·
Privacy.
To preserve the privacy of the absentee voter the ballots are separated
from the identifying envelope and commingled with other absentee ballots
before they are placed into the ballot box or fed into the optical scan
machines. This is done by bipartisan pairs of election workers to
ensure privacy and to prevent election workers from changing or
destroying ballots.
·
Election worker training and
public education is important! We
have found that the best way to prevent problems with early and absentee
voting is through voter education and election worker training.
It is important to
remember that every state faces different challenges as it seeks to
improve the administration of elections and meet the mandates of
existing federal and state laws. That being said, I believe our
experience with no excuse absentee voting could be instructive as this
Congress considers whether no excuse early and absentee voting is
appropriate for the rest of the country.
##
| 
