The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 30 (2019)
Copyright © 2019 Shoko Kiyohara. All rights reserved. This work may be used, with thisnotice included, for noncommercial purposes. No copies of this work may be distributed,
electronically or otherwise, in whole or in part, without permission from the author.

Adoption of Online Voter Registration Systems as
the New Trend of US Voter Registration Reform

Shoko KIYOHARA*

INTRODUCTION
Low voter turnout has been always a big concern in both Japan and theUnited States. In the 2017 Japanese general election, voter turnout was
53.68 percent,1 compared to 60.2 percent in the 2016 US presidential
election.2 Voters in the two countries, however, face different registration
conditions. In Japan, when people turn eighteen, they need only submit theircertificates of residence to the local government three months prior to anelection to be automatically added to the voter roll. In the United States,
eligible voters must register to vote, and each state has its own election
laws, with varying residency requirements across states. In the early 1960s,
thirty-eight states required an individual to be resident in the state for at least
one year before being entitled to register to vote.3
In the United States, the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
established a federal guarantee of the right to vote regardless of race, color,
sex, religion, or national origin and abolished discriminatory voting
practices such as literacy tests and poll taxes.4 Although the Voting Rights
Act addresses discriminatory registration and voting procedures, asignificant reason for ongoing low voter turnout is that voters must registerthemselves prior to Election Day. Therefore, to increase voter turnout in the
United States, it is necessary to reform voter registration procedures. In this*Associate Professor, Meiji University

31

32

SHOKO KIYOHARA

regard, the enactment of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 by thefederal government constituted a major electoral reform.5 It allows citizens
to register to vote when they apply for a new or renewed driver’s license at astate’s department of motor vehicles. The National Voter Registration Act
was expected to lower barriers to voter registration, but its effects on voter
turnout have been unclear.6
States have been developing their own measures to facilitate voter
registration. For example, on January 1, 2016, Oregon became the first state
to adopt automatic voter registration for eligible unregistered voters who
visit the DMV to apply for, renew, or replace their Oregon drivers’ licenses.7
Another measure to increase voter turnout is the adoption of Election Day
registration, although this still requires voters to register themselves.8 As of
March 2018, seventeen states and Washington, DC, had adopted Election
Day registration.9
Online voter registration (OVR) is another measure becoming
increasingly popular across the country. It is implemented as asupplementary way for voters to register. Through OVR systems, eligible
voters can complete the registration forms on their state’s designatedwebsite and submit them electronically to election officials. Michael
Hanmer, associate professor of government and politics and specializing inelectoral reform at the University of Maryland, acknowledged in a phoneinterview that OVR can be quite effective in lowering voter registration
barriers for younger people, who do not tend to use postal services forregistration or much else.10 Arizona became the first state to implement
OVR in 2002. As of December 6, 2017, OVR has been adopted in thirtyseven states and Washington, DC, according to the National Conference ofState Legislatures.11
Previous studies have evaluated the implementing of OVR in some states.
Of the several reports on OVR published by the Pew Charitable Trusts, thebest known describes a joint research project by the Washington Institute of
the Study of Ethnicity and Race at the University of Washington, Seattle,
and the Election Administration Research Center at the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley. Published in April 2010, it evaluates OVR systems in
Arizona and Washington. It reveals that OVR systems can reduce election
administration costs and that the accuracy of voter registration databases isenhanced by voters inputting their own personal information.12 Expandingon the information in the report, Tischenko discusses Oregon’s experience of
implementing OVR to evidence the associated cost benefits and possibilities
for reducing errors and barriers to voters’ election participation.13 Bedolla

ADOPTION OF ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION SYSTEMS AS THE NEW TREND OF US VOTER REGISTRATION REFORM

33

also expands on the report by highlighting the case of California and showsthat Latinos used more OVR than Asian-origin naturalized voters in the2012 election; she then suggests what the state could do to make OVR evenmore accessible to eligible voters.14 These journal articles provide only
short-term analysis of the cost benefits or a few case studies of some statesthat have adopted OVR. Meanwhile, from a broader perspective,
Gregorowicz and Hall indicate that OVR has the potential to especially
increase registration and turnout among certain demographic groups, such as
those with the lowest levels of income and education; it can also reduce theadministrative burden associated with paperwork and data entry on local
election officials.15 Another article discusses whether or not OVR is abipartisan issue. In their comprehensive analysis of the adoption by somestate legislatures of OVR, Hicks, McKee, and Smith reveal that there ispotential for divisiveness related to the conditions such as the amount ofpolarization of the chambers among elected members of the Republican
Party, although OVR is widely hailed as a bipartisan reform.16
In this article I consider OVR as a new trend in US voter registration
reform. I discuss the reasons for the growing popularity of OVR in thecontext of voter registration reform rather than focusing on individual casestudies. I address the following questions: (1) why OVR is rapidly being
adopted in many states; (2) whether or not implementing OVR is abipartisan issue; and (3) what role the Presidential Commission on Election
Administration (PCEA) has played in adopting OVR. Generally speaking,electoral reforms are state concerns in the United States. In this article I
highlight that the PCEA endorsed expanding OVR by its recommendations
published in 2014. Drawing on news articles, official reports, and threeinterviews with individuals involved in election administration, I
demonstrate the importance of implementing OVR in the ongoing reform ofvoter registration in the United States. In concluding, I will discuss the
future of OVR, suggesting that it has a vulnerability that may cause statesthat have not yet implemented it to be slow to do so.
I. THE SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS OF ADOPTING OVRThere are various reasons why many states have adopted OVR systems so
rapidly. States have implemented OVR over a period of years since 2002(see table). Some states enacted legislation to introduce OVR services,whereas others have deemed this to be unnecessary. Whether legislation isrequired to establish OVR depends on the laws in each state: if the secretary

34

SHOKO KIYOHARA

Table. US states’ implementation of online voter registration
Year Implemented

State(s)

2002
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015

Arizona
Washington
KansasColorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Oregon, Utah
New York
California, Maryland, Nevada, South Carolina
Minnesota, Virginia
Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri
Alaska, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Vermont,
Washington, DC, West Virginia
Alabama, Iowa, Kentucky, New Mexico,
Florida, Idaho, Ohio, Rohde Island, Tennessee, Wisconsin

2016
2017

*Underlined states did not require legislation to establish OVR.
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, “Online Voter Registration,” December 6,
2017.

of state already has the authority to establish OVR based on existing statues,
then she/he can proceed without new legislation.17
I will begin by explaining statewide voter registration databases. Election
administration in the United States is a matter for states and local
governments. The 2000 presidential election sparked a national debate onelection reform and the role of the federal government in election
administration. The well-known problems with punch-card voting systems
in Florida raised concerns about the use of old voting equipment. After the2000 election, the reform debate focused on improving election
administration and ensuring that all citizens could meaningfully participate
in the electoral process.18 Congress soon enacted the Help America Vote Act(HAVA) of 2002. In addition to supporting states in updating their voting
equipment, it requires them to establish statewide electronic voter
registration databases. Section 303 of HAVA provides that “each State,
acting through the chief State election official, shall implement, in a uniform
and nondiscriminatory manner, a single, uniform, official, centralized,
interactive computerized statewide voter registration list defined,
maintained, and administered at the State level.”19 This replaced theprevious system of county election departments maintaining their own

ADOPTION OF ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION SYSTEMS AS THE NEW TREND OF US VOTER REGISTRATION REFORM

35

separate voter registration lists. HAVA also established the Election
Assistance Commission (EAC) as an independent and bipartisan body
responsible for providing guidance to states on meeting HAVA requirements.
The EAC also “serves as a national clearinghouse of information on election
administration, accredits testing laboratories and certifies voting systems, aswell as audit[ing] the use of HAVA funds.”20 The HAVA authorized nearly$4 billion over three years to improve election administration. Most of thatmoney was provided to states, which used it to improve election
administration, replace punch-card and lever voting machines, and meet
voter registration requirements using modern technology.21
By establishing statewide voter registration databases pursuant to the
HAVA, states were expected to increase the accuracy and completeness ofvoter registration rolls. It required states to set up statewide databases by
January 1, 2004. Most states, however, were unable to meet that deadline.
More than forty states received a waiver allowing them an extra two years tocomplete the task.22 Also, in the databases that have been established, someproblems still persist, resulting in long lines on Election Day and the use ofprovisional ballots.
With paper-based registration, election officers review the paper forms
submitted by voters and input voters’ personal information into theapplicable statewide database. When they put the information into the
database, however, they may make entry errors, since voters’ handwriting
may be hard to decipher at times. By contrast, it is significant that OVR
enables eligible voters to directly electronically input their personal
information into their state’s designated website, thereby shifting toward apaperless registration process. Thus, OVR can reduce the administrative
burden. Voters’ applications are electronically reviewed by election officers,
who no longer need to input information themselves; if confirmed to bevalid, new registrations are added to the voter registration roll.23 According
to the EAC, OVR has a low percentage of invalid registrations.24
Most states allow voters to use OVR systems with their state-issued ID or
driver’s license.25 States differ, however, in their identification requirementsfor voters to be permitted to use OVR. For example, Florida requires votersto submit their Florida-issued state ID or driver’s license, the issued datethereof, and the last four digits of their Social Security number.26 Similarly,
Iowa requires voters to submit their Iowa-issued state ID or driver’s license
and the last five digits of their Social Security number.27
There are significant benefits realized by states implementing OVR. The
first is substantial savings on election administration costs. County and local

36

SHOKO KIYOHARA

election officials spend about one-third of their budgets on voter
registration.28 Implementing OVR gives states cost benefits, such as savingon printing and postage for paper processing. In 2012, California quickly
recouped the initial cost of establishing its OVR system and saved almost $2
million through its implementation.29 In Maricopa County in Arizona, thefirst state to implement OVR, savings of about $0.80 per voter registration
were reported,30 with almost $1.4 million saved by using OVR during thefour-year period from 2008 to 2012.31 The State of Washington, which in2008 became the second state to adopt OVR, has also experienced costsavings by reducing the shipping costs of sending registration forms to thecounties. Every registration through OVR reportedly saves $0.25 comparedwith the cost of paper-based registration. Consequently, in Washington over
60 percent of the cost of implementing OVR ($278,000) has been recoupedby the saving of $176,000.32
The second key administrative and social benefit of implementing OVR isthat it reduces the high potential for error in traditional paper-based systems,
thereby enhancing the accuracy of voter registration records. The quality ofvoter registration records can affect citizens’ ability to vote and the difficultyof detecting fraud committed by local election officers. Citizen mobility canlead to incorrect information in voter registration records, withapproximately 12 percent of US citizens moving house each year. One study
suggests that as many as 8 percent of registration records are invalid or
significantly inaccurate.33 With OVR systems, voters who move can easily
update their recorded address and other relevant personal information,
thereby reducing the number of out-of-date records at polling places.
Inaccurate voter lists have long been a significant problem in the UnitedStates. When a poll worker cannot find the name of a voter attending apolling place, that voter is given a provisional ballot. Provisional ballots,
however, differ from regular ballots: provisional ballots are kept separately
until such time as election officials can determine whether or not theyshould count toward the vote total. States have different laws regarding theuse of provisional ballots, so whether or not these ballots are counted
depends on where voters live and on who runs elections there.34 For
instance, in Ohio, about 20 percent of provisional ballots were discarded in
the 2008 presidential election.35 OVR is expected to reduce errors on voter
registration lists, which are often caused by registrants’ handwriting, so that
accuracy is increased. This should reduce the numbers of provisional ballots
needed.36
The third significant benefit is that OVR is considered secure. As

ADOPTION OF ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION SYSTEMS AS THE NEW TREND OF US VOTER REGISTRATION REFORM

37

mentioned, OVR requires citizens to identify themselves using their stateissued IDs or drivers’ licenses, accompanied in some states by the last few
digits of their Social Security numbers. The National Conference of State
Legislatures identifies three additional security measures that OVR provides.
First, OVR systems often include “captcha” boxes that require registrants to
decode images that a computer cannot decode, thereby preventing hacking
by programmers. Second, data are encrypted and data logs highlight unusual
activity that can be investigated. Third, their multiscreen systems that offer
just one question per screen are harder to hack.37
The traditional paper-based registration system poses the risk of revealing
personal information to unknown individuals representing major parties,
candidates, or third-party organizations. By contrast, OVR can directly
connect voters with their state’s registration system without revealing theirpersonal information to unknown individuals.38 Accordingly, in a 2015
briefing by the Pew Charitable Trusts, seven states reported reduced fraud
risk as a key benefit of implementing OVR, while all states with OVR had
adopted safeguards against cyberattacks and none had experienced asecurity breach.39
The fourth significant benefit of implementing OVR is greater
convenience for voters. On election days, many voters must wait for a longtime to cast their vote at a particular polling place. For instance, in 2012
some voters in Florida had to wait in line for three to four hours,40 whilefour-hour lines were reported at polling places in Virginia and Texas.41 Moreaccurate voter lists reduce delays and congestion at polling places, thus
doing away with such long lines on election days.42
Additionally, to increase voter turnout, it is important to make theregistration process much easier. As Wolfinger and Rosenstone note,allowing registration at any time during the workweek would increase
national turnout, and people living in states where registration offices remain
open beyond normal business hours are more likely to vote.43 In this regard,
OVR can be considered an ideal solution, since it enables voters to register
online at any time. This is far more convenient for voters compared to theirhaving to mail paper forms. Since 2013, several states have either added
mobile capabilities to their OVR system or launched a mobile version.44 Thisdevelopment can further ease the voter registration process. In California,
eligible voters can register or renew their registration by smartphone.
Moreover, California’s OVR service is provided in ten languages, including
Japanese. In the first three months of 2016, over 560,000 Californians used
the OVR website to register to vote or update their registration information.

38

SHOKO KIYOHARA

Notably, over 36 percent of OVR registrations during that period were by
citizens aged between seventeen and twenty-five, demonstrating apreference among younger voters for using the OVR system.45
Recent years have seen significant growth in the number of votersregistering through OVR. In 2012, only 5.3 percent of registrations were
through OVR; in 2014, it constituted 6.5 percent of total registrations; it
accounted for 17.4 percent of total registrations during the 2016 election
cycle. The department of motor vehicles, however, continues to handle thehighest proportion of registrations—(32.7%) for the 2016 presidential
election.46
II.

IS OVR A BIPARTISAN TREND?

Electoral reforms are very controversial in the United States because
partisan interests shape perceptions of the key issues. For example, voter
identification laws, which mostly have a negative impact on racial
minorities, are among the most common ways of influencing election
outcomes.47 Since the 2000 presidential election, concern about voter fraud
has increased; to reduce such fraud, thirty-four states had, by 2016,
established laws requiring voters to present proof of identity at pollingplaces. Individual members of racial minorities are less likely than whites tohave a valid proof of identity, such as a driver’s license. Therefore, somescholars argue that this trend is motivated by partisan strategy: As a generalrule, Republicans support voter ID bills, whereas Democrats oppose them.48
Apart from voter ID issues, OVR is often mentioned by the NCSL andscholars as involving the question of whether it is truly bipartisan. Former
PCEA commissioner and Arizona election official Tammy Patrick hasemphasized that all eligible voters may use OVR, regardless of which party
controls their state, and that OVR has not changed political landscape in any
state that has implemented it. While acknowledging the relevance of thedigital divide, she also has maintained that, in many states, the focus ofconcern has shifted to the divide between urban and rural, rather than thesocioeconomic divide in many states.49 National Conference of State
Legislatures commentator Wendy Underhill asserts that adopting OVR is atrend toward nonpartisanship across states because it appeals to efficiencyminded lawmakers from all: she points out that both Democratic states, such
as Maryland and Washington, and Republican states, such as Arizona andSouth Carolina, have implemented OVR.50 Likewise, Barry Burden, apolitical science professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, states,

ADOPTION OF ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION SYSTEMS AS THE NEW TREND OF US VOTER REGISTRATION REFORM

39“It’s being adopted in red states and blue states. It’s just taking off
everywhere.”51 As explained in the previous section, OVR saves money forstate governments, reduces election fraud and errors, increases the accuracyof statewide databases, and simplifies the registration process for voters.
Thus, OVR can provide certain benefits to both parties, which explains thehigh popularity of OVR across states.
Ohio provides a good example of bipartisan efforts to establish an OVR
system. Ohio state senator Frunk LaRose (R), who sponsored SB 63 to
implement OVR, explained:
The establishment of OVR is a major victory for voter access andefficiency. By modernizing our voter registration system, we aredramatically improving convenience for the average voter while
helping our state and local governments save money and keep accurate
records. We’re also taking an important step to improve the integrity ofthe voter registration process and prevent fraud.
He then emphasized that this was realized by “bipartisan collaboration.”52 In
Ohio, the senate, house, and governorship are Republican controlled. All
thirty-three senators voted for the bill, and only two of ninety-seven
representatives (one Democrat and one Republican) opposed it.53
Consequently, the OVR bill was enacted in 2016 and came into effect onJanuary 1, 2017.
However, achieving bipartisan agreement has not proved so easy in allstates that have implemented OVR. In Wisconsin, the relevant bill was
opposed by Democrats. SB-295 was sponsored by State Senator Devin
LeMahieu (R). It contained a provision that would eliminate special
registration deputies, who were often volunteers trained by a local clerk’s
office to register members of the public to vote (e.g., the League of Women
Voters). Republicans argued that implementing OVR would eliminate theneed for special registration deputies. Although Democrats supported OVR,
they worried that removing the assistance of special registration deputies
would negatively affect seniors, low-income voters, and students.54 With
Republicans controlling both the state senate and house, the bill was passed,
and Governor Scott Walker (R) signed it into law March 16, 2016.
In Florida, the senate and the house were also controlled by Republicans,and the governor was Republican Rick Scott. State Senators Garrett Richter(R) and Jeff Clemens (D) cosponsored SB-228 to implement OVR in Florida
in 2015. Governor Scott and his chief election official, Secretary of State40

SHOKO KIYOHARA

Ken Detzner, strongly opposed the bill because they were concerned about
the possibility of cyberattacks.55 Although the bill was enacted, all opposing
votes in the senate and the house came from Republicans.56 When Governor
Scott signed the bill “with some hesitation,” he expressed his personal
concern about cybersecurity: an issue that Detzner had raised withlawmakers.57
Hicks, McKee, and Smith in 2016 examined the likelihood of partisan
positions affecting the passage of OVR bills in many states, despite aperception in the general population that both parties overwhelmingly accept
OVR. Specifically, they discovered that 94 percent of Democratic legislators
supported online registration reform, compared to 73 percent of Republican
lawmakers.58
As the case of Florida shows, bills to implement OVR are passed in red
states. However as Hicks, McKee, and Smith discovered, Republican
lawmakers still tend to be less supportive of OVR than their Democratic
peers. In particular, Republicans are more likely to raise questions about therisk of fraud through cybersecurity breaches. Texas is another example here.
In 2015, online voter registration bills were dead, although they werecoauthors from both parties. At a House panel, there was deep skepticism
from at least Harris County, the state’s largest, about bringing OVR to
Texas. Rep. Mike Schofield (R) asked, “We don’t think it’s secure enoughfor a driver’s license, but we think it’s secure enough for voting?” Also,
Harris County tax assessor–collector Mike Sullivan (R) was among those
who testified against the bill. He said that the current system of voter
registration worked well and did not need changing and expressed uneaseabout the security of the state software for handling registration.59
At the national congressional level, it is more obvious that Democrats
favor OVR while Republicans are less likely to. Since 2009, more than tenpieces of legislation requiring states to implement OVR have been
submitted to both houses of Congress. Among them, only one bill was
introduced by a Republican congressman: Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)
sponsored H.R.4449, the Responsible Online Voter Empowerment
Registration Act of 2010, which directed the EAC to reimburse each eligible
state for the costs incurred in establishing, if it so chooses, an OVR program
meeting specified requirements.60 John Lewis (D-GA) introduced identicalbills in the House in 2012, 2013, 2015, and 2017. In 2012, H.R.5799, theVoter Empowerment Act of 2012, had 140 cosponsors;61 H.R.12, the Voter
Empowerment Act of 2013, had 179 cosponsors;62 and H.R.12, the Voter
Empowerment Act of 2015, had 187 cosponsors.63 In 2017, H.R.12, theADOPTION OF ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION SYSTEMS AS THE NEW TREND OF US VOTER REGISTRATION REFORM

41

Voter Empowerment Act of 2017, had 186 cosponsors, including House
minority leader Nancy Pelosi; all cosponsors were Democrats. The bill aims
to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require states tomake OVR available, while also reauthorizing support for state and local
governments to ensure voting access for individuals with disabilities.64 In the
Senate, Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) has introduced a companion bill to
Lewis’s four times. The latest version, S. 1437, the Voter Empowerment Act
of 2017, would require each state to accept OVR applications and ensurethat all individuals applying through OVR are registered to vote. It has 14
Democrats cosponsors, and 2 Independents, including Bernie Sanders.65 The
proportion of OVR-related bills introduced and cosponsored by Democrats
in Congress therefore indicates that Democrats favor requiring states toadopt OVR more than Republicans do in the congressional legislation
process.
III. THE ROLE OF THE PCEA
While partisan difficulties in Congress have prevented states from being
mandated to implement OVR, the PCEA, which was established byPresident Obama, played an important role in encouraging OVR
implementation. The PCEA has contributed to expanding OVR in manystates.
Unlike the EAC, which continues to submit annual reports to Congress,
the PCEA was dissolved thirty days after publishing its 112-page report inJanuary 2014. The PCEA’s report made numerous recommendations to stateelection administrators, such as that they improve the maintenance ofpolling places. It also suggested that states should adopt OVR systems
allowing secure and direct data entry by prospective voters through multiple,
state-approved, web-based internet portals.66 Although the PCEA did nothave any specific authority, it seems to have influenced state decisions to
adopt OVR. As of December 6, 2017, thirty-seven states and Washington,
DC, had OVR systems (see table).
As mentioned earlier, the 2012 presidential election was blighted because
long waiting times at some polling places discouraged voter participation.
During his election-night victory speech, President Obama alluded to the
problem when he thanked voters, “whether you voted for the very first timeor waited in line for a long time—by the way, we have to fix that.”67 On
March 28, 2013, he established the PCEA by Executive Order 13639; its
objectives were to identify best election practices and to make

42

SHOKO KIYOHARA

recommendations to promote the efficient administration of elections, so as
to ensure that all eligible voters would have the opportunity to cast theirballots without undue delay.68 The PCEA’s members were chosen on abipartisan basis, and half were distinguished individuals with knowledge ofor experience in the administration of state or local elections. Robert F.
Bauer, Obama’s campaign lawyer, and Benjamin L. Ginsberg, Romney’s
campaign lawyer, were appointed cochairs of the PCEA,69 which raised thecommission’s credibility. Tammy Patrick pointed out that the PCEA’s
members were well respected and that all election officials on thecommission were trusted by other officials and stakeholders. She alsoemphasized the bipartisan and practical nature of the PCEA, with cochairs
who were well-regarded political figures and attorneys. Another important
point raised by Patrick was that the PCEA’s recommendations were
presented with extensive supporting data and research, thereby robustly
demonstrating to states that they could both save money and improve
citizens’ voting experience.70 The panel was free to decide who would attend
its series of hearings, and they heard from academics specializing in data
analysis and election officials at state and local levels, with each hearing
open to comments from the public.71 They even consulted Disney theme
park officials because of their expertise in managing long lines.72
The PCEA played an active role in informing state election officials andpolicymakers to increase the number of states with OVR. PCEA members
testified in both House and Senate hearings and addressed legislators inmany states, such as Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida, to explain the merits ofimplementing OVR.73 Even after the commission’s dissolution, aWashington, DC–based think tank, the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC),
continues the PCEA’s work on implementing its recommendations. Former
member of the commission Tammy Patrick joined the BPC, and allcommissioners advised the BPC during its implementation phase.74
The PCEA’s former cochairs, Bauer and Ginsberg, wrote to the secretaryof state of Ohio Jon Husted to offer information and their expertise on OVR.
In their letter of May 19, 2015, they conveyed their willingness to explain
the benefits of implementing OVR to Ohio election policymakers if theywould consider its introduction.75 The recommendations resonated with Jon
Husted, who considered future improvements in election administration. He
acknowledged that the recommendations vouched for OVR as acommonsense way to improve accuracy, reduce lines, and most important,better serve voters.76 Just over a year later, in June 2016, the bill to establish
OVR in Ohio was passed with strong bipartisan support, and Governor

ADOPTION OF ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION SYSTEMS AS THE NEW TREND OF US VOTER REGISTRATION REFORM

43

Kasich (R) signed SB-63 into law.77
Also, the BPC and the PCEA were especially engaged on the issue of
OVR in Florida throughout the first few months of 2015 through BPC senioradviser Donald Palmer, a former director of elections in both Florida andVirginia. He worked to educate policymakers in the state on the importanceof OVR and worked with local election administration officials to provide
information and expertise on how such a system might be implemented in
Florida specifically.78 County supervisors in Florida, including Republican
election supervisors, used the PCEA report to educate legislators in theirefforts to bring OVR to the state. Brian Corley, a Republican election
supervisor, mentioned that the PCEA report was crucial in their efforts withthis issue and that it led to a bipartisan and overwhelming support of OVR in
Florida.79
Although some doubt if the PCEA recommendations greatly affected
expanding OVR because many states moved to implement OVR prior to the
PCEA recommendations, a bipartisan foundation, Democracy Fund,established by eBay founder and philanthropist Pierre Omidyar, admitted
that bipartisan recommendations and the support of PCEA commissioners
helped double the number of states with OVR in the two years after therecommendations were released and that the PCEA’s bipartisan nature wasan important factor in many states adopting OVR.80 Patrick also suggested
that in states already considering adopting OVR, the PCEA’s
recommendations legitimized its implementation, since they were made by arespected, bipartisan commission.81 Furthermore, Underhill recognized that
the PCEA’s recommendations probably encouraged some states to movetoward implementing OVR, although many states were already considering
OVR around that time.82 Thus, it can be understood that the PCEA’s
recommendations helped more states to adopt OVR.
After the PCEA released its recommendations, the Republican National
Lawyers Association responded with its own report. The RNLA agreed withmost of the PCEA recommendations but made supplemental
recommendations for states planning to implement OVR.83 First, although it
recognized the benefits of implementing OVR, the RNLA highlighted thesusceptibility of OVR systems to fraud; it warned that such fraud would
undermine confidence in the electoral system. Second, it advocated adding
safeguards to protect the integrity of the electoral system from cyberattack
and to ensure that only eligible voters could utilize the OVR system. Third,
it insisted that the information provided by an applicant, such as driver’s
license number, date of birth, or Social Security number, be verified against

44

SHOKO KIYOHARA

information stored in department of motor vehicles databases. Finally, it
insisted that states work to prevent piracy and the hacking of the OVR
portal. The RNLA urged states to consult with the IT authority responsible
for ensuring the integrity of state data and system processes and formonitoring attacks on state computer systems. In this regard, it emphasized
the role of states in maintaining security against cyberattack.84
Overall, the RNLA largely endorsed the PCEA’s recommendations onstates implementing OVR. This is especially important given the extreme
partisan polarization of current US politics, which makes it very difficult toreach bipartisan agreement on issues shaping the voting experience, such as
voter registration reform, mandating of voter IDs, and provisional ballots.
The RNLA’s report suggests it shares the PCEA’s views on the benefits ofadopting OVR, which is evidently considered to differ from other (moredivisive) election reforms such as early voting.
Thus, the PCEA’s recommendations have been widely endorsed by thinktanks, election experts, and the media. Thomas E. Mann and Raffaela
Wakeman of the Brookings Institution applauded the PCEA’s findings as“well-researched, sensible and constructive.”85 Michael Hanmer explained,“The PCEA was highly regarded, and states got signals from the PCEA.”86
Richard L. Hasen, an election expert and law professor at the University ofCalifornia, Irvine, praised its recommendations as “very sensible . . . on
issues for which there’s mostly common ground among Republicans and
Democrats.”87 Finally, Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at
the Brennan Center for Justice, called the PCEA’s recommendations “asignificant step forward.”88
CONCLUSION: THE FUTURE OF OVROVR is a popular measure in US voter registration reform. As the statepioneers of implementing OVR, Arizona and Washington reported several
benefits, such as administrative cost savings and improvement in voter rollaccuracy, which soon came to the attention of other states’ policymakers.
Such benefits are welcomed by both Democrats and Republicans, so
adopting OVR has been widely considered a bipartisan election reform
against the backdrop of extremely polarized American politics. Additionally,
the PCEA’s recommendations encouraged several states to move toward
implementing OVR, since the commission was highly regarded andbipartisan. This policy trend led to the rapid adoption of OVR in states
throughout the United States. There are now only twelve states yet toADOPTION OF ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION SYSTEMS AS THE NEW TREND OF US VOTER REGISTRATION REFORM

45

implement OVR.
So what will happen next? Will congressional bills to mandate states’
adoption of OVR be passed, like the unusual intervention of HAVA overfifteen years ago? There seems to be little prospect of this outcome. Tammy
Patrick suggested to me that passing congressional bills is not reallynecessary because so many states have already moved to implement OVR,
though she acknowledged that many congressional bills on OVR have been
submitted to the Congress in recent years.89 Wendy Underhill’s view was asfollows: “I don’t see any likelihood of that [congressional bills] coming topass here in the next couple of years.” She mentioned that a few bills
relating to OVR had been introduced in Congress but that none have gained
steam.90 Drawing a comparison with Japan, Michael Hanmer noted theimportance of recognizing that the US election system is decentralized andthat each state has the right and authority to manage its own election system.
He added that “states are driving to implement OVR, and eventually allstates will have it.”91 Therefore, while national law requiring all states toadopt OVR seems unlikely, more states will probably join the current trendof implementing OVR in the coming years.
In September 2018, Oklahoma launched an OVR service to voters as thefirst phase. OVR legislation was enacted in 2015, however, it didn’t start tooffer the service immediately because the department of public safety’s
computer system did not meet the legally mandated technical requirements.
Now voters in Oklahoma who have registered to vote may update theirinformation, such as their address and party affiliation, online. Voters will beable to utilize the system in 2020.92 Additionally, in Texas, which has one of
the lowest voter registration rates in the United States and where online
voter registration bills were dead in 2015, Rep. Celia Israel (D) introduced
House Bill 361 to establish an OVR system. She said that she would
continue the fight to create the system because it was embarrassing that somany states had it and Texas didn’t.93
The speed of adopting OVR seems likely to slow, however, due toincreasing concerns over security vulnerability. Since the 2016 presidential
election, more questions have been raised regarding security breaches andhacker attacks on OVR systems. In the summer of the 2016, the Illinois
voter registration system was cyber attacked. Brent Davis, director ofoperations at the Illinois State Board of Elections stated that “the cyberattack exposed a security flaw in one field of Illinois’ OVR application that
could be exploited by a hacker.”94 Sweeney, Yoo, and Zang have shown that
attackers can cheaply obtain voter identity data, such as voter names, dates

46

SHOKO KIYOHARA

of birth, and government-issued numbers, from government offices, data
brokers, and the dark net. By then changing voters’ registered data, such as
their addresses, attackers could prevent the voters they impersonate frombeing able to vote at polling places.95 As more security concerns are raisedby election officers and academics, the remaining twelve states yet to adopt
OVR may become more reluctant to do so. Underhill pointed out that the2016 election brought concerns about election security to the forefront. She
forecast that two or three more states would adopt OVR within a couple ofyears, suggesting that the trend of adoption has slowed.96
There is a wide partisan gap in views on many issues of voter registration
reform, including automatic voter registration and photo ID laws in the
United States.97 Thus far, OVR has generally been a very popular reform
measure in an era of clearly polarized US politics. Such bipartisan support
makes OVR unique among US voter registration reform topics. Although
the serious risk of OVR systems being attacked by hackers has become
evident, it can be seen that the trend toward other states joining will slowly
continue.
NOTES
This research was supported by an individual research grant from theInstitute of Social Sciences, Meiji University (2017–18).
1“The Process of Voter Turnout for the Lower House Elections,” Ministry of Internal
Affairs and Communication, accessed August 30, 2018, http://www.soumu.go.jp/senkyo/
senkyo_s/news/sonota/nendaibetu (in Japanese).
2“2016 November General Election Turnout Rates,” United States Election Project,
accessed August 30, 2018, http://www.electproject.org/2016g.
3Raymond E. Wolfinger and Steven J. Rosenstone, Who Votes? (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1980), 61–63.
4
Bridgett A. King, “Introduction: Why Don’t Americans Vote? The History of theFranchise in the United States,” in Why Don’t Americans Vote? Causes and Consequences,ed. Bridgett A. King and Kathleen Hale (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2016), xxv.
5
Gayle Alberda, “Qualifying to Vote: Voter Registration Requirements,” in Why Don’t
Americans Vote? Causes and Consequences, ed. Bridgett A. King and Kathleen Hale (Santa
Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2016), 13.
6
Matthew J. Sterb, Rethinking American Electoral Democracy, 3rd ed. (NY: Taylor &Francis, 2016), 17.
7“Oregon Motor Voter Act FAQ,” Oregon Secretary of State, accessed August 30, 2018,https://sos.oregon.gov/voting/Pages/motor-voter-faq.aspx.
8
Sterb, Rethinking, 18.
9“Same Day Voter Registration,” National Conference of State Legislatures, accessed
August 30, 2018, http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/same-dayregistration.aspx.

ADOPTION OF ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION SYSTEMS AS THE NEW TREND OF US VOTER REGISTRATION REFORM

47

10
Michael Hanmer, associate professor, University of Maryland, phone interview with theauthor, August 23, 2017 (content confirmed by email on August 27, 2018).
11“Online Voter Registration,” National Conference of State Legislatures, accessed August30, 2018, http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electronic-or-online-voterregistration.aspx.
12
Washington Institute of the Study of Ethnicity and Race and Election Administration
Research Center, “Online Voter Registration (OLVR) Systems in Arizona and Washington:
Evaluating Usage, Public Confidence and Implementation Process,” April 1, 2010, 120–28,
accessed August 30, 2018, http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_
assets/2010/onlinevoterregpdf.
13
Alex G. Tischenko, “Online Voter Registration in Oregon: Towards an Election
Administration Triple Bottom Line,” Stanford Law & Policy Review 21, no. 1 (January 2010):
165–78.
14
Lisa Garcia Bedolla, “Nativity and California Online Voter Registration and Turnout inNovember 2012,” California Journal of Politics and Policy 6, no. 3 (2014): 401–13, accessed
November 23, 2018, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1bs3p2j2.
15
Krysha Gregorowicz and Thad E. Hall, “Digitizing Democracy: Online Voter
Registration,” in Why Don’t Americans Vote? Causes and Consequences, ed. Bridgett A. Kingand Kathleen Hale (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2016), 28.
16
William D. Hicks, Seth C. McKee, and Daniel A. Smith, “A Bipartisan Election Reform?
Explaining Support for Online Voter Registration in the American States,” American Politics
Research 44, no. 6. (2016): 1008–36.
17
Wendy Underhill, director of elections and redistricting, National Conference of State
Legislatures, phone interview with the author, August 23, 2017 (content confirmed by email
on August 27, 2018).
18
Daniel J. Palazzolo, “Election Reform after the 2000 Election,” in Election Reform:
Politics and Policy, ed. Daniel J. Palazzolo and James W. Ceaser (Lanham, MD: Lexington
Books, 2005), 3; Michael R. Alvarez and Thad E. Hall, Electronic Elections: The Perils andPromises of Digital Democracy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008), 5.
19
The full text of HAVA 2002 is available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW107publ252/pdf/PLAW-107publ252.pdf, accessed August 30, 2018.
20“About the US EAC,” US Election Assistance Commission, accessed August 30, 2018,https://www.eac.gov/about-the-useac.
21
Robert S. Montjoy, “HAVA and the States,” in Election Reform: Politics and Policy, ed.
Daniel J. Palazzolo and James W. Ceaser (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005), 20.
22“Election Reform: What’s Changed, What Hasn’t and Why 2000–2006,” electionline.org,
February 2006, 19, accessed August 30, 2018, http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/
uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/election_reform/electionline022006pdf.
23
National Conference of State Legislatures, “Online Voter Registration.”
24“The Election Administration and Voting Survey: 2016 Comprehensive Report,” USElection Assistance Commission, June, 2017, 44, accessed August 30, 2018, https://www.
eac.gov/assets/1/6/2016_EAVS_Comprehensive_Report.pdf.
25
National Conference of State Legislatures, “Online Voter Registration.”
26
See Florida Online Voter Registration website, accessed September 3, 2018, https://registertovoteflorida.gov/en/Registration/Index.
27
See Iowa Electronic Voter Registration, accessed September 3, 2018, https://mymvd.
iowadot.gov/Account/Login?ReturnUrl=/VoterRegistration.
28“The American Voting Experience: Report and Recommendations of the Presidential
Commission on Election Administration,” Presidential Commission on Election
Administration (PCEA), January 2014, 26, accessed August 30, 2018, http://web.mit.edu/

48

SHOKO KIYOHARA

supportthevoter/www/files/2014/01/Amer-Voting-Exper-final-draft-01-09-14-508.pdf.
29“Online Voter Registration: Trends in Development and Implementation,” Pew Charitable
Trusts, May 2015, 4, accessed August 30, 2018, http://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/
assets/2015/05/ovr_2015_brief.pdf.
30
Washington Institute of the Study of Ethnicity and Race and Election Administration
Research Center, “Online Voter Registration,” 93.
31“Understanding Online Voter Registration,” Pew Charitable Trusts, 2014, 2, accessed
August 30, 2018, http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2013/
understandingonlinevoterregistrationpdf.pdf.
32
Washington Institute of the Study of Ethnicity and Race and Election Administration
Research Center, “Online Voter Registration,” 122.
33
PCEA, “American Voting Experience,” 22–23.
34
Martha Kropf and Holly Whisman, “Provisional Votes: An Election Reform to Count
More Votes,” in Changing How America Votes, ed. Todd Donovan (Lanham, MD: Rowman &Littlefield, 2018), 40–45.
35
Ethan Bronner, “Long Lines, Demands for ID and Provisional Ballots Mar Voting forSome,” New York Times, November 6, 2012, accessed August 30, 2018, https://www.nytimes.
com/2012/11/07/us/politics/long-lines-id-demands-and-provisional-ballots-mar-voting.html.
36
PCEA, “American Voting Experience,” 25.
37
National Conference of State Legislatures, “Online Voter Registration.”
38
PCEA, “American Voting Experience,” 25.
39
Pew Charitable Trusts, “Online Voter Registration,” 5.
40
Amanda Terkel, “Florida Early Voting Fiasco: Voters Wait for Hours at Polls as Rick Scott
Refuses to Budge,” Huffpost, November 4, 2012, accessed August 30, 2018, https://www.
huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/04/florida-early-voting_n_2073119.html.
41
Bronner, “Long Lines.”
42
PCEA, “American Voting Experience,” 24–25.
43
Wolfinger and Rosenstone, Who Votes?, 77.
44
Pew Charitable Trusts, “Online Voter Registration,” 2.
45
California Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, “California Youth Fuel Surge in Online Voter
Registration,” March 30, 2016, accessed August 30, 2018, http://admin.cdn.sos.ca.gov/pressreleases/2016/pdf/ap16-053.pdf.
46
US Election Assistance Commission, “The Election Administration and Voting Survey,”41, 42, 50.
47
Hannah Walker, Gabriel Sanchez, Stephen Nun~ o, and Matt Barreto, “Race and the Right
to Vote,” in Changing How America Votes, ed. Todd Donovan (Lanham, MD: Rowman &Littlefield, 2018), 36.
48
Ibid., 27.
49
Tammy Patrick, former PCEA commissioner and election official in Arizona, interview
with the author, August 28, 2017 (content confirmed by email on August 28, 2018).
50
Wendy Underhill, “No Lines Online,” Voter Registration, May 2013, 16, accessed
September 3, 2018, http://www.sos.ms.gov/Policy-Research/Documents/NCSL-No-LinesOnline-May-2013.pdf.
51
Jake Grovum, “Dems, GOP Find Common Ground in Voter Registration Reforms,” USA
Today, May 30, 2014, accessed August 30, 2018, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/
nation/2014/05/30/stateline-democrats-gop-voter-registration-reforms/9760527.
52
LaRose for Secretary of State, “Senator Larose’s Online Voter Registration Bill Signed
into Law,” accessed August 31, 2018, https://franklarose.com/senator-laroses-online-voterregistration-bill-signed-law.
53
See Ohio Legislature, Senate Bill 63, accessed September 1, 2018, https://www.

ADOPTION OF ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION SYSTEMS AS THE NEW TREND OF US VOTER REGISTRATION REFORM

49

legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-votes?id=GA131-SB-63.
54
Matthew DeFour, “Wisconsin Democrats Pull Support of Online Voter Registration,”
Wisconsin State Journal, October 13, 2015, accessed August 31, 2018, http://www.govtech.
com/dc/articles/Wisconsin-Democrats-Pull-Support-of-Online-Voter-Registration.html;“New Information: Senate Approves Online Voter Registration,” WEAU 13 News, February 9,
2016, accessed August 31, 2018, http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/Senate-set-to-voteon-allowing-online-voter-registration-368153021.html; Wisconsin State Legislature, Senate
Bill 295, accessed September 2, 2018, http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/proposals/sb295.
55
Steve Bousquet, “Once Called Too Risky, Florida Online Voter Registration Finally
Arrives,” Tampa Bay Times, October 2, 2017, accessed August 31, 2018, http://www.
tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2017/10/01/once-called-too-risky-florida-online-voterregistration-finally-arrives.
56
Florida Senate, “CS/CS/SB/ 228: Online Voter Application,” accessed August 31, 2018,
http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2015/0228/?Tab=VoteHistory.
57
Jim Turner, “Scott Reluctantly Signs Online Voter Registration Law,” Orland Sentinel,May 15, 2015, accessed August 31, 2018, http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/osap-scott-signs-online-voter-registration-20150515-story.html.
58
William D. Hicks, Seth C. McKee, and Daniel A. Smith, “A Bipartisan Election Reform?
Explaining Support for Online Voter Registration in the American States,” American Politics
Research 44, no. 6. (2016): 1029–30.
59
Patrick Svitek, “Harris County, Texas, Officials Skeptical of Online Voter Sign-Up,”
Texas Tribune, April 28, 2015, accessed January 5, 2019, https://www.texastribune.
org/2015/04/28/harris-co-officials-skeptical-online-voter-sign-/.
60
H.R. 4449 (111th): Responsible Online Voter Empowerment Registration Act of 2010,
accessed August 31, 2018, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr4449/summary.
61
All 140 cosponsors were Democrats. See H.R. 5799 (112th): Voter Empowerment Act of2012, accessed January 10, 2019, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr5799/details.
62
All 179 cosponsors were Democrats. See H.R. 12 (113th): Voter Empowerment Act of2013, accessed January 10, 2019, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr12/details.
63
Altogether, 186 cosponsors were Democrats and 1 was an Independent. See H.R. 12(114th): Voter Empowerment Act of 2015, accessed January 10, 2019, https://www.govtrack.
us/congress/bills/114/hr12/details.
64
H.R. 12 (115th): Voter Empowerment Act of 2017, accessed August 31, 2018, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr12/summary, and https://www.govtrack.us/congress/
bills/115/hr12/details.
65
S. 1437 (115th): Voter Empowerment Act of 2017, accessed August 31, 2018, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s1437, and https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/
s1437/details.
66
PCEA, “American Voting Experience,” 24, 27.
67“Remarks by the President on Election Night,” White House Office of the Press Secretary,
November 7, 2012, accessed August 31, 2018, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/thepress-office/2012/11/07/remarks-president-election-night.
68“Executive Order—Establishment of the Presidential Commission on Election
Administration,” White House Office of the Press Secretary, March 28, 2013, accessed
September 3, 2018, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/03/28/
executive-order-establishment-presidential-commission-election-administr.
69
PCEA, “About the Commission” (archived), accessed August 31, 2018, http://web.mit.
edu/supportthevoter/www/the-commission/.
70
Patrick, interview.
71
Ibid.

50

SHOKO KIYOHARA

72
Kathleen Hennessey, “Bipartisan Presidential Panel Suggests Ways to Improve
Elections,” Los Angeles Times, January 22, 2014, accessed August 31, 2018, http://www.
latimes.com/nation/la-na-voting-recommendations-20140123-story.html.
73
Patrick, interview.
74“Bipartisan Policy Center to Continue to Work of Presidential Commission on Election
Administration,” Bipartisan Policy Center, August 7, 2014, accessed November 25, 2018,https://bipartisanpolicy.org/press-release/bipartisan-policy-center-presidential-commissionelection-administration.
75
Bob Bauer, former chair PCEA, and Ben Ginsberg, former chair PCEA, to Jon Husted,secretary of state of Ohio, May 19, 2015, accessed August 31, 2018, https://bipartisanpolicy.
org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/BPC-PCEA-Husted.pdf.
76“Progress Report on the Presidential Commission on Election Administration: Improving
the Efficiency of Elections, Increasing Access to Voting,” Democracy Fund, September 2016,
11–12, accessed November 25, 2018, https://democracyfund.org/media/uploaded/Progress_
Report_on_the_PCEA_September_2016.pdf.
77
Michael Thorning, “Ohio Adds to List of States with Online Voter Registration,”
Bipartisan Policy Center, June 15, 2016, accessed August 31, 2018, https://bipartisanpolicy.
org/blog/ohio-online-voter-registration.
78
Michael Thorning, “BPC Applauds Florida Governor’s Signing of Online Voter
Registration Legislation,” Bipartisan Policy Center, May 15, 2015, accessed November 25
2018, https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/bpc-applauds-florida-governors-signing-of-onlinevoter-registration-legislation.
79
Democracy Fund, 2016, 11.
80
Ibid., 10.
81
Patrick, interview.
82
Underhill, phone interview.
83“RNLA Response to the Report and Recommendations of the Presidential Commission on
Election Administration,” Republican National Lawyers Association, April 10, 2014, 3,
accessed January 10, 2019, https://www.slideshare.net/briandnewby/national-republicanparty-response-to-the-presidential-commission-on-election-admninistration.
84
Ibid., 14–16.
85
Thomas E. Mann and Raffaela Wakeman, “Some Initial Thoughts on the Report andRecommendations of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration,” Brookings
Institution, January 22, 2014, accessed August 31, 2018, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/
fixgov/2014/01/22/some-initial-thoughts-on-the-report-and-recommendations-of-thepresidential-commission-on-election-administration.
86
Hanmer, phone interview.
87
Hennessey, “Bipartisan Presidential Panel.”
88
Ibid.
89
Patrick, interview.
90
Underhill, phone interview.
91
Hanmer, phone interview.
92
Oklahoma State Election Board, “Online Voter Registration,” accessed December 30,
2018, https://www.ok.gov/elections/Online_Voter_Registration.html.
93Paul Cobler, “Austin Lawmakers Pitches Online Voter Registration—Again,” Austin
American-Statesman, December 24, 2018, accessed December 30, 2018, https://www.
statesman.com/news/20181221/austin-lawmaker-pitches-online-voter-registration---again.
94
Karen Berkowitz, “Russian Hacking of Illinois Voter Registration System Did Not
Compromise Election Results, Experts Say,” Chicago Tribune, October 31, 2017, accessed
August 31, 2018, http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/highland-park/news/ct-hpn-

ADOPTION OF ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION SYSTEMS AS THE NEW TREND OF US VOTER REGISTRATION REFORM

51

election-integrity-forum-tl-1102-20171031-story.html.
95
Latanya Sweeney, Ji Su Yoo, and Jinyan Zang, “Voter Identity Theft: Submitting Changes
to Voter Registrations Online to Disrupt Elections,” Technology Science, September 6, 2017,
accessed August 30, 2018, https://techscience.org/a/2017090601/.
96
Underhill, phone interview.
97“Elections in America: Concerns over security, Divisions over Expanding Access to
Voting,” Pew Research Center, October 29, 2018, accessed December 30, 2018, http://www.
people-press.org/2018/10/29/elections-in-america-concerns-over-security-divisions-overexpanding-access-to-voting/.