BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2433
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Shirley Weber, Chair
AB 2433
(Travis Allen) - As Introduced February 19, 2016
SUBJECT: Voter registration database: interstate exchange of
voter registration information.
SUMMARY: Requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to enter into
agreements to share voter registration information or data with
other states or groups of states in order to improve the
accuracy of voter registration lists, as specified.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the SOS to enter into agreements to share information
or data that is in the possession of the SOS with other states
or groups of states in order to improve the accuracy of the
statewide voter registration database, as required under
existing law, as follows:
a) Requires the SOS to apply for membership with the
Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC).
Requires the SOS, if the membership application is
approved, to execute a membership agreement with ERIC on
behalf of the state.
b) Requires the SOS to execute a memorandum of
AB 2433
Page 2
understanding on behalf of the state to participate in the
Interstate Voter Registration Data Crosscheck Program
(Crosscheck).
2)Requires the SOS to ensure that any confidential information
or data provided by another state to the SOS remains
confidential while in his or her possession.
3)Authorizes the SOS, notwithstanding specified provisions of
existing law or any other law, to provide confidential
information or data to persons or organizations pursuant to an
agreement entered into under the provisions of this bill.
4)Permits the SOS to adopt regulations necessary to implement
the provisions of this bill.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides that a person entitled to register to vote shall be a
United States citizen, a resident of California, not in prison
or on parole for the conviction of a felony, and at least 18
years of age at the time of the next election.
2)Requires a county elections official to cancel the
registration of any person if the mental incompetency of that
person is legally established, as provided.
3)Requires each state, pursuant to the federal Help America Vote
Act of 2002 (HAVA), to implement a single, uniform, official,
centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter
registration list defined, maintained, and administered at the
state level that contains the name and registration
AB 2433
Page 3
information of every legally registered voter in the state and
assigns a unique identifier to each legally registered voter
in the state.
4)Requires certain information on affidavits of voter
registration, such as the name, home address, telephone
number, email address, and party affiliation, to be provided
to, among others, any person for election, scholarly,
journalistic, or political purposes, or for governmental
purposes, as determined by the SOS.
5)Requires an affiant's driver's license number, identification
card number, social security number, and the signature
contained on an affidavit of registration or voter
registration card to be confidential and not be disclosed, as
specified.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose of the Bill: According to the author:
The Presidential Commission on Election Administration
submitted a report in 2014 stating the importance of
accurate voter rolls in state voter registration
systems in order to ensure the utmost integrity and
participation in elections. The report continues to
explain that the decentralized nature of the
administration of American elections may have its most
pronounced and demonstrable effects in the
registration system. Unlike other countries, the
United States does not maintain a list of registered
AB 2433
Page 4
voters at the national level.
Elections in our state are constantly evolving through
online registration, social media, the rise of online
marketing campaigns; we are changing the way in which
our state engages in the democratic process.
Unfortunately, voter registration systems remain
largely based on outdated programs and tools. The
inherent inefficiencies in our system result in
unnecessarily high costs, and make it difficult to
validate voter rolls. For example, 1 in 8 voter
registration records in America contain a serious
error, such as a wrong address or which county a voter
is residing in. In addition, more than 51 million
citizens, or 25 percent, remain unregistered to vote.
The Commission concludes their report referenced above
by recommending that states participate in interstate
coordination programs that empower states to work
together to ensure they are utilizing the most
up-to-date information for the country's voters. This
will ensure the best voter experience, thus further
promoting trust and engagement in the election
process.
California will be joining Alabama, Nevada, Colorado,
Oregon Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, Utah,
Louisiana, Virginia, Maryland, Washington, Minnesota,
Washington D.C., and more in these significant
AB 2433
Page 5
advances to bring our voter registration process into
the modern era.
2)Election Registration Information Center (ERIC): The ERIC
program is a non-profit organization with the sole mission of
assisting states to improve the accuracy of America's voter
rolls and increase access to voter registration for all
eligible citizens. With the assistance of the PEW Charitable
Trust, ERIC was formed in 2013 and is owned, governed, and
funded by the states who choose to join. As of December 2015,
Washington D.C. and 15 states are members of ERIC (Alabama,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Illinois,
Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.).
According to information provided on the ERIC website, the ERIC
data center allows states to securely and safely compare voter
data, thereby improving the accuracy of the voter rolls.
States that choose to participate in ERIC are able to compare
information on eligible voters from official data sources
submitted by the states. Each member state submits at a
minimum its voter registration and motor vehicles department
data. The data includes names, addresses, date of births,
driver's license (DL) or state identification number, and last
four digits of the social security number (SSN). Other
information, such as phone numbers, emails addresses, and
record status, are also submitted as available. Materials
further state that ERIC has safeguards in place that
anonymizes sensitive identifying data by converting it into
indecipherable characters that is unreadable and unusable to
potential hackers, such as "one-way hashing."
These records go through a data-matching exchange that cross
checks the information against lists from other member states
as well as other data sources such as the National Change of
Address data from the United States Postal Service and other
existing government databases, such as death records from the
Social Security Administration. ERIC then reports back to the
AB 2433
Page 6
states where there is a highly confident match indicating a
voter moved or died, or the existence of a duplicate record.
It is unclear, however, exactly how many data points
constitute a match. Once States receive the reports they can
then begin the process under federal and state law to clean up
the voter rolls. Participating states also receive
information on unregistered individuals who are potentially
eligible to vote. This information will allow them to reach
out to those citizens to encourage them to register to vote.
Member states pay annual dues which vary depending on the
population size of the state. Large states usually pay more
than small states.
This bill requires the SOS to enter into agreements to share
information or data that is in the possession of the SOS with
other states or groups of states in order to improve the voter
registration database. Specifically, this bill requires the
SOS to apply for membership to the ERIC program and, if
approved, this bill requires the SOS to execute a membership
agreement with ERIC on behalf of the state. Additionally,
this bill authorizes the SOS, notwithstanding existing law or
any other law, to provide confidential information or data to
persons or organizations if an agreement is entered into to
participate in ERIC.
3)Kansas Interstate Crosscheck Program (Crosscheck): In
addition to applying for membership in the ERIC program, this
bill also explicitly requires the SOS to execute a memorandum
of understanding on behalf of the state to participate in
Crosscheck. The Crosscheck program was launched in December
of 2005 by the Kansas Secretary of State's office. Crosscheck
is a state-to-state matching program that compares a state's
voter list to the lists from other participating states for
the purpose of identifying possible double voting, where a
voter has allegedly cast ballots in multiple states during the
same election, as well as to identify duplicate voting
records. According to Crosscheck's 2014 participation guide,
28 states are currently participating (Alaska, Arizona,
Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois,
AB 2433
Page 7
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Virginia and Washington). Oregon and Florida
recently ended their participation with Crosscheck. According
to media articles, Oregon left Crosscheck because the data
they received was unreliable and they felt joining the ERIC
project would better meet their needs.
Crosscheck is run solely by the Kansas Secretary of State's
office. According to the 2014 participation guide,
participating states are required to provide their voter list
data, which includes names, addresses, date of births, voter
identification number, last four digits of the SSN, date of
registration, and whether or not the person voted in the last
general election. Crosscheck matches a state's voter list
against lists from other participating states and reports are
sent to states indicating "matches" or voters who appear to be
registered to vote in more than one state. Under Crosscheck,
a match is identified when three fields (first name, last
name, and date of birth) are matched. Other information such
as the middle name, name suffix and the last four digits of
the SSN are also included on the report, however, those data
points are not used to indicate a match. Critics contend,
however, that without additional criteria, such as the last
four digits of a voter's SSN being required in order to
generate a match, there are more chances for this approach to
produce data which, if used improperly, could lead states to
remove otherwise valid voters. Crosscheck's guide admits that
the program generates a high number of false positives, many
of which are the result of errors - voters sign the wrong line
in the poll book, election clerks scan the wrong line with a
barcode scanner, or there is confusion over the father/son
voters (Sr. and Jr.).
While there is no direct cost to participate in Crosscheck,
staff time and resources are required to rigorously perform
list maintenance evaluation of the data received from
Crosscheck. Furthermore, the 2014 participant guide states
AB 2433
Page 8
that processing the duplicate registrations and researching
possible double votes requires a commitment of time at state
and local levels and suggests that given the effort required
to process the information accurately, some states may not be
able to commit the resources to process the results in a given
year.
4)Access to Confidential Voter Registration Information:
Current law requires certain information from affidavits of
voter registration, such as the name, home address, telephone
number, email address, and party affiliation, to be provided
to, among others, any person for election, scholarly,
journalistic, or political purposes, or for governmental
purposes, as determined by the SOS. Existing law explicitly
requires an affiant's driver's license number, identification
card number, social security number, and the signature
contained on an affidavit of registration or voter
registration card to be confidential and not be disclosed, as
specified.
This bill changes California's longstanding policy to keep
certain personal identifying voter information confidential.
As mentioned above, this bill requires the SOS to apply for
membership to the ERIC program and to execute a MOU to
participate in the Crosscheck, as specified, and authorizes
the SOS to provide confidential information or data to persons
or organizations if an agreement is entered into to
participate in ERIC and Crosscheck.
The ERIC bylaws require the SOS to provide the following data
fields, if available, for both the voter registration lists
and DMV lists: all name fields, all address fields, DL or
state identification number, last four digits of the SSN, date
of birth, activity dates as defined by the ERIC Board of
Directors, current record status, affirmative documentation of
citizenship, the title/type of affirmative documentation of
citizenship presented, phone number, and email address or
other electronic contact method. Crosscheck requires
participating states to share the following data fields: first
AB 2433
Page 9
name, middle name, last name, suffix name, addresses, date of
births, voter identification number, last four digits of the
SSN, date of registration, and whether or not the person voted
in the last general election.
In order to participate in both programs, the SOS would be
required to share personal identifying information such as a
voter's DL number, SSN, and date of birth, two of which are
currently prohibited by law from being disclosed.
Furthermore, the bill does not contain any requirements for the
SOS to inform a voter that their personal voter registration
information is being shared, nor does the bill require a voter
to consent to their information being shared. The committee
may wish to consider whether this policy change will set a new
precedent that allows a voter's personal information to be
shared without their consent.
5)Protecting Confidential Voter Registration Information:
Despite requests from committee staff, no evidence was shared
with the committee to demonstrate that both ERIC and
Crosscheck have security measures in place to ensure
California voter's personal identifiable information is
protected. According to documents from the ERIC website,
there are three primary components to ERIC's data matching
process: data collection, anonymization, and file transfer.
To ensure sensitive information, such as last four digits of
the SSN and DL number, ERIC provides an anonymization
application to each participating jurisdiction. The
anonymization, also known as "one-way hashing," converts
sensitive identifying data into indecipherable characters that
is unreadable and unusable to potential hackers. Documents
state that to further strengthen the security measures around
the data, all records are sent through the anonymization
process twice - once at the state level, before data is ever
sent to ERIC, and once by ERIC as it receives data. States
are then given account credentials to access a secure file
transfer protocol (sFTP) site where their anonymized files are
uploaded to a state-specific location. ERIC proceeds to run
AB 2433
Page 10
and generate reports that are available for state-specific
download on the same sFTP site. According the ERIC's
membership agreement, participating states are required to
upload voter data every 60 days.
According to Crosscheck's 2014 participant guide, participating
states are required, once a year in January, to upload their
voter registration files, using prescribed formats, to a sFTP
site that is hosted by the state of Arkansas. Once data is
uploaded, the state of Kansas then downloads the files,
deletes everything from the sFTP site, runs the data
comparison, and uploads individual state result files back to
the sFTP site. According to the guide, at each stage of the
process, data files are encrypted and zipped, however no
detailed information is provided as to how that is
accomplished. After data files are uploaded back onto the
sFTP site, participating states download the results and
process the results in accordance with state and federal laws
and regulations. Once that is completed, Kansas deletes all
other states' data.
6)Statewide Voter Registration Database: On October 29, 2002,
President George W. Bush signed HAVA. Enacted partially in
response to the 2000 Presidential election, HAVA was designed
to improve the administration of federal elections. Among
other provisions, HAVA requires every state to implement a
computerized statewide voter registration list maintained at
the state level. This statewide voter registration list will
serve as the official list of eligible voters for any federal
election held within the state.
At the time HAVA was approved, California was already using a
statewide voter registration system, known as Calvoter, which
achieved some of the goals of the voter registration list
required by HAVA. However, Calvoter did not satisfy many of
the requirements in that law, including requirements that the
database be fully interactive and have the capability of
AB 2433
Page 11
storing a complete voter registration history for every voter.
After a number of delays, the VoteCal system has finally been
developed, and as of March of this year, is live in all 58
counties and all deployment waves are complete. Over the next
few months VoteCal will need to complete many more tasks
before it can be certified as the system of record for voter
registration information in California. Tasks and testing
include mock elections, on-going performance testing, and
analyzing and monitoring the data in VoteCal. The current
project schedule provides for certification to occur by June
2016.
The implementation of VoteCal will make much needed improvements
to the administration of elections in California. For
instance, VoteCal will help streamline the voter registration
process, including allowing voters to update their voter
registration records seamlessly when they update their address
with the Department of Motor Vehicles or with the state's
Employment Development Department. VoteCal will also make it
easier and more efficient for elections officials to do "list
maintenance," including identifying and eliminating duplicate
registrations, transferring a voter's record from one county
to another when the voter moves, and canceling the
registrations of individuals who are no longer eligible to
vote.
Moreover, VoteCal will have the capability of storing a complete
voter registration history for every voter. Whenever a voter
reregisters or transfers his or her registration from one
precinct to another the voter's registration history will be
maintained and updated in the state voter registration
database, rather than requiring a voter's prior registration
to be canceled.
7)Voter File Maintenance: A variety of methods are used to
ensure voter registration rolls are accurate and up-to-date
with the goal of maintaining an accurate list to prevent
ineligible people from voting, prevent anyone from voting
AB 2433
Page 12
twice, and to reduce inaccuracies and speed up the voter
check-in process at polling places. States vary on how this
is accomplished, but most generally have processes in place
for removing duplicate records, deceased voters, felons, and
people who have moved. These checks can be conducted with
data from federal agencies, state agencies, and other states.
In California, federal agencies used to verify voter
information include the Social Security Administration, the
United States Post Office and National Change of Address
files. On the state level, voter registration data is
cross-checked with information from Department of Vital
Statistics, Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the Department of
Health Services. On the local level, current law requires the
clerk of the superior court of each county to provide reports
to the county elections officials that list individuals
convicted of felonies and requires county elections officials
to conduct a pre-election residency confirmation procedure by
the 90th day before each statewide primary election, as
specified.
According to a 2014 National Conference of State Legislatures
report, states also cooperate in a variety of ways to ensure
accuracy of voter registration and to prevent duplicate vote
records. For instance, if a new voter in a state fills out a
voter registration form and indicates that he or she was
registered in another state previously, jurisdictions will
typically inform the other state that the voter has moved.
That is the current practice in California. However,
according to the report, in recent years there has also been
an increased focus on interstate database comparisons such as
ERIC and Crosscheck. These allow participating states to
directly compare their data to identify potential duplicate
registrations or inaccuracies. In order to participate in
these programs some states have needed to pass authorizing
legislation while others are able to participate without
legislation.
AB 2433
Page 13
8)Presidential Commission: In 2013, the Presidential Commission
on Election Administration (Commission) was established by
Executive Order with the mission to identify best practices in
election administration and to make recommendations to improve
the voting experience. The Commission submitted a report in
January 2014 entitled, "The American Voting Experience: Report
and Recommendations of the Presidential Commission on Election
Administration." One of the main recommendations reported by
the Commission focused on voter registration, specifically
voter roll accuracy. The report states that voter lists are
essential to the management of elections and accurate lists
can affect the ability of people to vote, of elections offices
to detect problems, and of courts and others monitoring
elections to detect election fraud or irregularities.
Moreover, the report contends that states, counties and local
elections officials face two major challenges - outdated
paper-based registration record keeping systems and a fairly
mobile population. According to the report, while the country
is now much better off with the statewide voter registration
lists mandated by HAVA, prior to HAVA, counties were in charge
of voter registration lists in most states and voters who
moved between counties or states would sometimes appear on two
county registration lists for a considerable time. In an
effort to increase the accuracy of voter rolls, the Commission
report makes the following recommendations with respect to
voter registration: 1) States should adopt online
registration, 2) Interstate exchanges of voter registration
information should be expanded, and, 3) States should
seamlessly integrate voter data acquired through the DMV with
their statewide voter registration lists.
9)Arguments in Opposition: In opposition, the American Civil
Liberties Union of California writes:
AB 2433
Page 14
Crosscheck is used by participating states for voter
list maintenance purposes. Unfortunately, Crosscheck
has the potential to be used to improperly purge
voters, and therefore joining Crosscheck could
disenfranchise thousands of California voters, a
disproportionate number of whom are people of color.
States participating in Crosscheck share data in an
attempt to identify voters who have moved between
participating states or who may be registered or have
voted in multiple states. The standard procedure used
by Crosscheck for identifying such a voter compares
only first name, last name, and date of birth.
Statistical research demonstrates that many
individuals share these data points, which increases
the difficulty of precise list matching procedures.
One example that illustrates the difficulty of relying
upon a match of minimum categories is the purging of
Florida Governor Rick Scott from the voter rolls in
2006 due to a mistaken belief that he was dead.
Another example is Chesterfield County, Virginia,
which found a 17% error rate among active voters on
their matches from Crosscheck.
Additionally, Crosscheck has been shown to
disproportionately match non-white voters. A 2014
report by Al Jazeera found that black voters were 45%
over represented in Crosscheck "matches." Hispanic
(24% overrepresented) and Asian (31% overrepresented)
voters were also disproportionately matched on the
lists of suspected double voters identified by
Crosscheck.
AB 2433
Page 15
10)Double Referral: This bill is double-referred to the
Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
FairVote
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
One individual
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union of California
Analysis Prepared by:Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
AB 2433
Page 16