This week, the Public Interest Law Foundation filed two federal lawsuits. minnesota and wisconsin Repeal special exemptions from the federal Election Transparency Act in these states.
Congress decided 30 years ago that transparency was an essential element of any election infrastructure. That’s why, National Voter Registration ActThe group, commonly referred to as “Automotive Voters,” deemed all records of who is and isn’t eligible to vote to be public records in all but six states. These records include voter rolls, removal records for individuals found to be not U.S. citizens, and many other important records that often reveal errors by election officials. (Related: David Bossie: Trump is outsmarting Team Biden at every turn)
Transparency in election administration allows citizens to understand the activities of officials who grant and revoke voting rights. Publishing the list maintenance process increases trust and confidence in the electoral process. Transparency allows the public to know when election officials make mistakes. It would also allow voters who were improperly removed from the rolls to know why.
Six states are exempt from transparency requirements: New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Wyoming, North Dakota, and Idaho.
It is a fundamental principle of our federal system that all states should be treated equally, especially when it comes to how elections are conducted. If some states had to abide by federal law and others could ignore it, the states would not have joined the Union.
So why are these six states offering same-day voter registration or not even registering to vote 31 years ago?
Currently, states with same-day registration do not benefit from the transparency exemption. To make matters worse, everything about election administration has changed since 1993. Exempting states from federal transparency obligations based on their 1993 situation is no longer consistent or proportionate to their current situation in 2024.
There is a reason why I used the words congruent and proportional. The Supreme Court held that Congress must act when important principles of federalism are violated. You can’t treat states unequally unless you have a very good reason, and the reason from 1993 is that he shouldn’t count in 2024.
Both the Minnesota and Wisconsin lawsuits seek records under the National Voter Registration Act’s public information provisions. These states will argue that they do not have to follow federal law to release public records. That’s the problem, not the defense.
The Supreme Court is Shelby County vs. Holder He argued that laws that disrupt equal treatment by states can go too far. In Shelby, the court ruled that the federal system is premised on the states enjoying equal sovereignty. If Congress treats one state differently from another, particularly with respect to election law obligations, the different treatment must be “reasonable in light of the current circumstances.”
Providing same-day voter registration in 1993 should not have been a reason to exempt the voter list maintenance process from transparency. In states with same-day voter registration, voting privileges are still routinely granted and removed through the voter registration and voter list maintenance process. Congress’s intent to make this process transparent applied equally to all states, including those with same-day registration.
The world has changed since 1993. In 2024, 20 states and the District of Columbia will offer same-day voter registration. But only 13 of those states and D.C. are subject to the election transparency requirements of the National Voter Registration Act.
The crux of the issue is that states should be treated equally under the law, and these arbitrary exemptions violate federal law.
America could use a little more transparency and trust in its election administration right now.
J. Christian Adams is a current member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, a former attorney in the Justice Department’s Ballot Division, and chairman of the Board of Directors of the Public Interest Law Foundation.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
All content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan news distribution service, is available free of charge to legitimate news publishers with large audiences. All republished articles must include our logo, reporter byline, and DCNF affiliation. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
