Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch released the notice letter sent to the Oregon secretary of state on behalf of itself, the Constitution Party of Oregon and an Oregon registered voter, notifying them of evident violations of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993, based on their failure to remove inactive voters from their registration rolls. The notice letter to Oregon serves as a “pre-suit” notice.

The NVRA requires states to “conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove” from the official voter rolls “the names of ineligible voters” who have died or changed residence. Among other things, the NVRA requires registrations to be cancelled when voters fail to respond to address confirmation notices and then fail to vote in the next two general federal elections. In 2018, the Supreme Court confirmed that such removals are mandatory (Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Inst., 138 S. Ct. 1833, 1841-42 (2018))

The letter states:

According to your state’s responses to the EAC’s [federal government’s Election Assistance Commission] survey, 19 Oregon counties reported removing zero voter registrations from November 2020 to November 2022 pursuant to Section 8(d)(1)(B) of the NVRA for failing to respond to a Confirmation Notice and failing to vote in two consecutive general federal elections. Another 10 counties reported just a handful of such removals during the same two-year period.

Furthermore, not a single one of Oregon’s 36 counties reported any data whatsoever to the EAC regarding inactive registrations. Instead, in the relevant column where the data should have been, the survey response for each of Oregon’s counties merely stated, “Data not available.”

Oregon’s non-compliance with the NVRA is further illustrated by the unusually high registration rates observed in several of its counties. Comparing the data your state reported to the EAC regarding the total registrations for each county to the U.S. Census Bureau’s most recent five-year estimates of the numbers of resident citizens over the age of eighteen suggests that eight Oregon counties have more voter registrations than citizens of voting age. Several federal courts have determined that such high registration rates are sufficient grounds for alleging a failure to comply with the NVRA’s requirement to make reasonable efforts to remove voters by reason of death or change of address.

“Dirty election rolls can mean dirty elections,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “With a presidential election less than four months away, it is vital that Oregon get about the business of cleaning its voter registration rolls of ineligible voters to eliminate any cloud of doubt over the legitimacy of its balloting.”

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Judicial Watch is a national leader in voting integrity and voting rights. As part of its work, Judicial Watch assembled a team of highly experienced voting rights attorneys who stopped discriminatory elections in Hawaii, and cleaned up voter rolls in across the country. These similar cases should give Oregon voters hope:

• A hearing recently held challenges a Mississippi election law permitting absentee ballots to be received as late as five business days after Election Day.
• In May 2024, Judicial Watch and the Libertarian Party of California sued California to clean up its voter rolls. The suit asks the court to compel California to make “a reasonable effort to remove the registrations of ineligible registrants from the voter rolls” as required by federal law (Judicial Watch Inc. and the Libertarian Party of CA v. Shirley Weber et al. (No. 2:24-cv-3750))
• In December 2023, Judicial Watch sent three other notice letters to election officials in the District of Columbia, California, and Illinois, notifying them of evident violations of the NVRA, based on their failure to remove inactive voters from their registration rolls. In response, Washington D.C. officially admitted that they had not complied with the NVRA, and promptly removed 65,544 outdated names from the voting rolls, promised to remove 37,962 more, and designated another 73,522 registrations as “inactive.”
• In July 2023 Judicial Watch filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief , supporting the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, which struck down Maine’s policy restricting the use and distribution of the state’s voter registration list (Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Shenna Bellows (No. 23-1361). According to a national study conducted by Judicial Watch in 2020, Maine’s statewide registration rate was 101% of eligible voters.
• Judicial Watch in July 2023 settled a federal election integrity lawsuit on behalf of the Illinois Conservative Union against the state of Illinois, the Illinois State Board of Elections, and its director, which now grants access to the current centralized statewide list of registered voters for the state for the past 15 elections.
• In April 2023, Pennsylvania settled with Judicial Watch and admitted in court filings that it removed 178,258 ineligible registrations in response to communications from Judicial Watch. The settlement commits Pennsylvania and five of its counties to extensive public reporting of statistics regarding their ongoing voter roll clean-up efforts for the next five years.
• In March 2023, Judicial Watch filed a federal lawsuit against the Illinois State Board of Elections and its Executive Director, Bernadette Matthews, over their failure to clean Illinois’ voter rolls and to produce election-related records as required by federal law.
• In March 2023, Colorado agreed to settle a Judicial Watch NVRA lawsuit alleging that Colorado failed to remove ineligible voters from its rolls. The settlement agreement requires Colorado to provide Judicial Watch with the most recent voter roll data for each Colorado county each year for six years.
• In February 2023, Los Angeles County confirmed the removal of 1,207,613 ineligible voters from its rolls since last year, under the terms of a settlement agreement in a federal lawsuit Judicial Watch filed in 2017.
• Judicial Watch settled a federal election integrity lawsuit against New York City after the city removed 441,083 ineligible names from the voter rolls and promised to take reasonable steps going forward to clean its voter registration lists.
• Kentucky also removed hundreds of thousands of old registrations after it entered into a consent decree to end another Judicial Watch lawsuit.
• In February 2022, Judicial Watch settled a voter roll clean-up lawsuit against North Carolina and two of its counties after North Carolina removed over 430,000 inactive registrations from its voter rolls.
• In March 2022, a Maryland court ruled in favor of Judicial Watch’s challenge to the Democratic state legislature’s “extreme” congressional-districts gerrymander.

States are required by federal law to report data concerning their removal programs to the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC). Every few years the EAC publishes this data as part of a report it provides to Congress. The most recent report and accompanying datasets were released in June of this year.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2024-07-26 17:49:00

Last Update: 2024-07-26 18:41:01