Election Integrity in Nebraska - Part 2
Election Integrity - Part Two
Joe Herring
Nebraska has not chosen to abandon paper ballots in favor of electronic voting systems, although we do use machines to scan those ballots, sort them and tabulate the results. Some states use no paper ballots at all, opting for touch-screen or similarly actuated electronic machine voting. Clearly, having no direct, physical proof of a voter’s intent leaves a gap in the evidentiary trail necessary to determine the validity of a disputed result.
The utility and convenience of automating many election processes is unarguable. With each election cycle, the complexities have only grown. In Nebraska, due to our numerous political subdivisions, we have as many as 4,000 different ballot styles to process in our elections, each uniquely tailored to their specific locale. The task is indeed Herculean without the aid of some form of automation.
The days of “punch card” and lever voting machines were ended with the passage of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002. The legislation provided states with funding to replace the sort of machines that created the infamous “hanging chads” so prominent in the Presidential election two years prior.
The act also established the Election Assistance Commission to aid states in the transition and to provide system parameters and certification of machines adopted for use. Other requirements of HAVA included a mandate to offer handicap-accessible voting machines, and the establishment of computerized voter registration records.
In an earlier installment of this Election Integrity series, Nebraska Sunrise News examined the role of Nebraska’s election services vendor, Election Systems & Software (ES&S). We addressed concerns raised by a grassroots voter integrity group, the Nebraska Voter Accuracy Project (NVAP), regarding the contracts between our state and ES&S; we also touched on the ability of our state officials to inspect/test the vendor-provided equipment, and a slate of election reform legislation the Secretary of State has presented to the Unicameral that addresses many of the criticisms raised in the NVAP report. Most of these proposed reforms pre-date the 2020 election.
A major concern cited by NVAP is based on the Heritage Foundation’s “Election Integrity Scorecard.” Foundation researchers ranked each state on a 12 point metric to arrive at their scores for each state. The measures are not weighted equally, as some are considered more impactful than others, but all combine to reflect a snapshot of reliability. NVAP pointed out Nebraska’s ranking in the bottom 10, describing it as indicative of our state being “among the most fraudulent.”
Implementing Voter ID provisions is weighted heavily, third in importance, behind Absentee Ballot Management and Accuracy of Voter Registration Lists. These three metrics alone are responsible for 71% of the total possible score. When asked about Nebraska’s poor ranking (tied for 43rd out of 50 states) Secretary of State Robert Evnen pointed out that the implementation of just one of the measures he has pending before the Unicameral – Voter ID – would raise Nebraska’s rating 33 spots, to #10.
Should the Unicameral pass all his suggested reforms, Nebraska would be vying for a spot in the top five. The metrics applied by Heritage may not translate as closely to increased election integrity as they might have hoped. Georgia holds the #1 rank in Heritage’s score, despite facing numerous, credible allegations of large-scale voter fraud.
Another oft-cited concern among Nebraskans regards the accuracy and maintenance of our Voter Registration Database, more commonly known as the “voter rolls.” Counties or municipalities having more registered voters than actual population attract understandable scrutiny. Media stories on the subject tend to trumpet the raw percentages before examining the cause, if they examine it at all. Nebraska is no different.
ES&S has the Nebraska contract to manage our Voter Registration Database in addition to providing the machines and software used on election day. Under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), states were required to develop a “single, uniform, official, centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter registration list defined, maintained, and administered at the State level.”
Further complicating the process, HAVA also requires "maintenance" of the statewide list be conducted in accordance with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), which contains some rather arcane provisions relating to the removal of voters who have moved or passed away.
NVAP asserts “58,000+ voters were added to registrations in 2020 before the election and then 26,000+ registered voters were removed by ES&S between February and March of 2021, after the election.” (emphasis in the original) They ask, “Who were these people?”
The NVRA of 1993 provides us with the answer. The state routinely cross checks the US Postal Service’s change of address report with our voter registration record to determine if the voter has re-registered at a new location or left the state. In any case, a “Voter Confirmation Card” is sent to the address of record requesting clarification. Sometimes the change of address is not necessarily a change of full time residence (think snowbirds) or the change may only pertain to one member of a household in the event of divorce or children going off to college.
If the card is returned with a satisfactory explanation, the record is updated accordingly, but if the card is not returned at all (most aren’t!) the voter goes into NVRA Inactive Status, which by law precludes their removal from the rolls until they have failed to vote in two consecutive federal elections, which, depending on when the voter in question enters NVRA inactive status, could be up to nearly 12 years.
According to Secretary Evnen, the vast majority of the 26,000 voters about whom NVAP speaks are those who met the two-election threshold in 2020, and were subsequently taken out of the database.
While these inactive voters account for a significant portion of the “above 100%” registration over eligible population number, they aren’t the only ones. The earlier mentioned number of added registrations (58,000+) cited in the NVAP report reflects increased enrollments stemming from voter registration drives, which is far from surprising given the political climate dominant in the year before the last election.
Historically, this number is not unprecedented. Registrations always rise between the primary election and the general in Presidential election years. In 2016, the number of registered voters in Nebraska increased by 45,793 people between the primary and the general elections, while the increase for the 2018 midterms was less than half that amount (19,845).
However, the 2020 election saw that number rebound, then exceed 2016, with 50,394 new registrants.
Many of these new registrants were part of a younger demographic, and even though newly registered, did not vote. Having no triggering event (change of address, re-registration in a different locale) these names remain on the active rolls, combining with the NVRA inactives to push the overall total above 100% in some counties.
The Nebraska Voter Accuracy Project compares the number of people casting ballots in 2020 (55,629) with the increase in eligible voting population (41,850), questioning how this can happen absent fraud. While the gap between these numbers understandably raises eyebrows, their assertion fails to take into account the outsized “get out the vote” efforts of both political parties in that election, which most certainly increased voter turnout above base eligibility numbers. Simply put, more voters already registered decided to vote, a trend mirrored in most states.
The questions raised by the team at the Nebraska Voter Accuracy Project are not to be dismissed lightly. The group has identified areas of vulnerability in our state election processes that cry out for investigation and remedy, a belief shared by our Secretary of State and others in his office.
Many of these vulnerabilities are long-standing and have been the subject of political gamesmanship for decades, and the frustration of Nebraska’s voters is keenly felt. The NVAP believe these vulnerabilities have resulted in demonstrable instances of fraud, and claim to have the data to back up their conclusions.
In continuing coverage, Nebraska Sunrise News will address NVAP’s allegations in detail, presenting their supporting evidence as well as the countervailing data for the reader to review and study for themselves.
Election fraud is an equal opportunity marauder, savaging the rights of Americans regardless of ideology. By examining each vulnerability exhaustively, we intend to provide the reader with a clarity lacking in more hyperbolic coverage.
There is little dispute as to the existence of these vulnerabilities, only whether they were exploited to change the results of our election here in Nebraska. It’s not necessary to prove these vulnerabilities resulted in fraud to agree these are holes in our election security that beg immediate attention.