The White House Can Do More to Expand Voting Access

One year ago today, President Biden issued an executive order directing federal agencies to conduct effective voter registration. Given the onslaught of attacks on voting rights across the country, this executive order on Promoting Access to Voting was imperative, and is an unprecedented opportunity for the federal government to provide meaningful opportunities to register to vote and expand access to the ballot for millions of Americans.

Although we applauded President Biden for issuing this voting executive order, this does not replace the need for federal legislation to protect the right to vote. We urge Congress to cement the legacy of the Voting Rights Act and guard the rights of all Americans by passing the John Lewis Freedom to Vote Act. This federal legislation would restore the protections of the Voting Rights Act.

The voting executive order is unprecedented because it encourages federal agencies and states to embrace the original intent of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), which contemplates that the federal government should provide voter registration services. Regrettably, before 2021 this provision of the NVRA, which was specifically designed to engage the federal government, has been largely untapped. The NVRA permits federal and nongovernmental offices to be designated as additional voter registration agencies. Biden’s executive order strongly encourages implementation of this underused provision.

The good news is that since the voting executive order was issued, a number of federal agencies have made firm public commitments to increase access to voting information and expand voter registration opportunities, including:

The General Services Administration committed to ensuring that gov is a user-friendly and accessible portal for Americans, including those with disabilities and language assistance needs, to find the information they need to register and vote. This will allow agencies across the federal government to link to vote.gov and encourage Americans to participate in the electoral process
The Indian Health Service committed to offering its patients assistance with voter registration.
The Department of Justice committed to providing information about voting to individuals in federal custody and facilitating voting to those who are eligible.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services committed to creating a connection to voter registration services for consumers using HealthCare.gov.

While we are very encouraged by this progress, we implore the federal government to do more. There are many additional federal programs where following the NVRA model for providing voter registration services would be easy and effective. For example, robust voter registration services should be provided by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services at all naturalization ceremonies, and an opportunity to register to vote should be incorporated into the Free Application for Federal Student Aid administrated by the Department of Education. Newly naturalized citizens and younger people like college students are both underrepresented in our electorate, and incorporating voter registration services into these programs would provide great opportunities to address this underrepresentation.

It is not just federal agencies that need to act. Despite the strong commitment to fulfill the intent of the NVRA illustrated by the administration’s executive order, to date, no state agency has taken advantage of the provision which would allow any federal agency to become a voter registration agency under the NVRA within their state. There have not been any requests from states to federal agencies to become NVRA voter registration agencies, even though both the Small Business Administration and the Department of Interior have made public commitments that they would accept such requests. We implore state election officials to immediately take advantage of the opportunity this executive order would present.

In issuing the executive order, the administration demonstrated its strong commitment to ensuring unfettered access to the ballot. Now, the order must be implemented expansively and comprehensively.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Trump's Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic

The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power. Trump’s Attempted Funding Freeze? Blocked Immediately A week into his second administration, Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching...

Documents Reveal Confusion and Lack of Training in Texas Execution

As Texas seeks to execute Carl Buntion today and Melissa Lucio next week, it is worth reflecting on the grave and irreversible failures that occurred when the state executed Quintin Jones on May 19, 2021. For the first time in its history — and in violation of a federal court’s directive and the Texas Administrative Code — Texas excluded the media from witnessing the state’s execution of Quintin Jones. In the months that followed, Texas executed two additional people without providing any assurance that the underlying dysfunction causing errors at Mr. Jones’ execution were addressed. This is particularly concerning given that Texas has executed far more people than any other state and has botched numerous executions. The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press have a right to observe executions. Media access to executions is a critical form of public oversight as the government exerts its power to end a human life. Consistent with Texas policy, two reporters travelled t...

The Supreme Court Declined a Protestors' Rights Case. Here's What You Need to Know.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, Mckesson v. Doe , that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence. Across the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means. What Happened in Mckesson v. Doe? The case, Mckesson v. Doe , was brought by a police officer against DeRay Mckesson , a prominent civil rights activi...

Search This Blog