Mail Voter

Registration

Programs

Mail Voter

Registration

Programs

Author:

Robert S Montjoy

Director, MPA Program

1224 Haley Center

Auburn University, Alabama 36849

Managed and Edited by:

William C. Kimberling

National Clearinghouse on Election

Administration

Published by:

National Clearinghouse on Election Administration

Federal Election Commission

Washington, D.C. 20463

April 1994
Introduction by the

Clearinghouse

This report is another in the series on Innovations in Election Administration being published

by the FEC's National Clearinghouse on Election

Administration.

The purpose of this series is to acquaint State

and local election officials with innovative election procedures and technologies that have been

successfully implemented by their colleagues

around the country.

Our reports on these innovations do not

necessarily constitute an endorsement by

the Federal Election Commission either of

any specific procedures described or of any

vendors or suppliers that might be listed

within the report. Moreover, the views and

opinions expressed in these reports are

those of the authors and are not necessarily shared by the Federal Election Commission or any division thereof.

We welcome your comments on these reports

as well as any suggestions you may have for additional topics. You may mail these to us at:

The National Clearinghouse on

Election Administration

Federal Election Commission

999 E. Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20463

or else contact us

Toll free 800/424-9530

Direct on 202/219-3670

By FAX on 202/219-8500.

n
Mail Voter

Registration

Programs

Mail registration is an outreach program with

which most jurisdictions are probably familiar because of their experience with military and other

programs of limited application. This report addresses mail registration programs of general

application, those for which any citizen of a jurisdiction may apply. Over half of the states now

have such programs.

The current situation will change because the

National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA)

requires the Federal Election Commission to develop and all registrars to accept a national voter

registration card. States which do not now have

comprehensive mail registration programs will

need to develop procedures to handle the national

registration cards if nothing else. In addition,

states may develop their own mail registration

forms that meet the criteria set for the federal

program. Some may chose to do so in order to

tailor the forms as much as possible to their own

needs. Finally, states that now operate mail registration programs will have to review and probably change their forms in accordance with the

NVRA.

Despite the change brought by the NVRA, it is

still useful to examine the experiences of jurisdictions that have operated their own mail registration programs. The reason is that the act addresses only parts of most mail registration programs. A review of the basic elements will establish this point. The next section of this report provides an overview of a typical mail registration

program. The remainder of the report is divided

into two major sections that address the forms

and procedures of mail registration in greater

detail.

The information reported here is drawn from

interviews with state election officials, review of

mail registration forms and statutes, site visits

to five jurisdictions having mail registration programs, and responses to questionnaires by local

election officials in 99 jurisdictions in 29 states

which have mail registration programs.

A Typical Mail Registration

Program

Mail registration programs should, perhaps,

be called mail application programs since registration does not take place until the application

is received, reviewed, and accepted by the officials charged with voter registration. In this

sense, a mail program is like other registration

outreach programs. It is a means of collecting applications by someone other than registrars and

their staff.

While mail registration programs differ among

themselves, they typically have a number of elements in common. There is a statute which authorizes the program, allocates authority and responsibility, and sets boundaries, some tight,

some broad, on the operation of the program. A

key element is the application form itself, which

is designed to facilitate mailing. Most states print
a form for use throughout the state, and some

large local jurisdictions prepare their own forms,

as well.

For the program to work the forms must be

distributed to prospective applicants. Election

officials often place them in public agencies. In

fact, many agency-based registration programs

use the mail registration form. The forms are also

distributed in registration drives by election officials, political parties, and other groups and individuals. The demand for forms is usually quite

high around election time, and some offices place

loose controls on the distribution of the forms to

limit wastage.

Applications must be returned to the proper

election office in a timely manner. Although the

forms are designed for individual mailing, many

are collected and returned in batches during registration drives. Timing is important because so

much of mail registration takes place just before

an election. Delays during this period could cause

applications to arrive past the cutoff for new registration. The NVRA, and many existing state laws,

address this problem by setting deadlines for

agency transmittal and using the postmark on

mailed applications as the effective date of receipt.

Once the application reaches the election office, the registrar typically checks it for completeness and accuracy and for possible duplication of

existing registrations. Officials try to contact the

applicants to resolve any discrepancies. Checking the forms can place a heavy burden on the

office if the number of omissions or inaccuracies

is high, especially when most of the mail registrations arrive at the busiest time for the staff.

Most offices send a written notice to successful applicants. This notice serves two important

functions. It informs applicants that they have

registered and tells them where to vote; often, it

provides additional information, such as an election calendar for that year. The notice also provides a measure of verification. It is sent nonforwardable. A notice returned to the registrar

as undeliverable is a signal that something is

wrong and a cue for further action. In most cases

the next action would be a fowardable letter.

Once the application is accepted, the new

registrant's name is entered on the roll in the

same manner as an applicant from any other

source. If the person indicates that he or she was

formerly registered in another jurisdiction, the

registration officials send a notice to that jurisdiction. A few states treat mail registrants differently from others by prohibiting absentee voting until the registrant has voted in person once.

While mail registration programs in the United

States follow this basic pattern, they vary considerably in numerous respects. The following

section describes the types of application forms

in use in different programs.
Mail

Registration

Forms

The design of the application form is critical in a

mail registration program because the form must

serve several different functions. The goal is to

collect information necessary for registration and

file maintenance. Yet before it can serve this goal,

the form must convey sufficient information to

enable potential applicants to complete it. The

design of the form to serve these goals is constrained by the requirements of the postal system, the use of the form in the election office, and

the possible use of the form in the polling place.

There are also legal and budgetary constraints.

These topics are discussed in greater detail below.

Information for Applicants

The nature of the information printed on the

application form and the clarity of presentation

is probably more important to mail registration

programs than to any other registration outreach

program. The reason is that applicants may have

to complete the forms without any other source

of information. Other outreach programs involve

personnel—deputy registrars, drivers' license officials, agency staff—who may have training, or,

at least, experience in completing the forms.

While mail registration forms are often used in

other outreach programs as well, they must be

capable of use by individual applicants without

assistance. So it is important to consider both

what is said on the form and how it is said.

The D.C. Form

The District of Columbia Board of Elections

and Ethics got the help of PLAN (Push Literacy

Action Now), an established literacy training and

advocacy group, to redesign its form so that more

users could understand it. The result was a dramatic drop in the number of incomplete or erroneous forms received. For this reason, it will be

useful to examine the D.C. form looking at both

the information provided and the way in which

it is provided. There is, of course, no one best way

to design a registration application, but tracing

through the strategy of this successful design will

reveal useful ideas and techniques. The D.C. form

is displayed in Exhibit 1. The actual form is a bit

larger than is shown here. The larger forms pictured in this report have been reduced in size to

fit the pages.

The top half of Exhibit 1A is devoted entirely

to information for the applicant. At the very top

in large letters and plain language is the title of

the form. To the right is the jurisdiction. This is

a simple example of user-friendly design. It recognizes that the prospective applicant may not

know where to begin the registration process.

Mail registration forms are sometimes available in

offices that contain numerous other forms and it is

helpful for people to be able to quickly identify what

they need.
The design of the form leads the user to additional information in a logical sequence. Reading down the left column the applicant learns that

he or she can use this form to do three things:

register to vote, change name or address, and

declare a party. Each of these functions requires

an explanation, but rather than break the flow

of information, the form places two of the explanations in a box to the right. Continuing down

the column, the reader learns the requirements

he or she must meet to be a registered voter in

the District of Columbia. Immediately following

is a bold-faced offer of help for anyone with questions. Special instruction are provided for hearing-impaired and Spanish speaking applicants.

The lower half of Exhibit 1A displays the part

of the form that the applicant must complete. And

here are found a few detailed instructions on how

to complete the form. It will be helpful to review

a few characteristics of these instructions. First,

they appear as close as possible to the point of

action. For example, the applicant is told to use

a pen and print clearly just before he or she must

start writing. The instructions to fold, seal, and

mail come after the applicant has completed the

form. Second, many of the items are reduced to

choices so that the applicant only has to check

one. Third, the boxes in which the applicant must

print are large enough to contain the information desired in all but extreme cases. Fourth,

there is some redundancy. In Box 8 the applicant

is told again about the need to register in one

party in order to vote in a primary election and

Box 10 restates the qualifications for voting before asking for the applicant's signature. Finally,

there is a warning against false information

printed in bold type immediately below the signature line so that it is clearly associated with

the act of signing.

The other side of the form is displayed in Exhibit IB. (The top half will not appear upside

down after the form is folded for mailing.) The

top portion contains two elements that will vary

considerably by jurisdiction. One is the mailing

address. The District of Columbia is a single jurisdiction with one registration office, so the address can be pre-printed on the form. The other

is the postage-free mark. Many jurisdictions require that the applicant place a stamp on the

form.

The lower half of Exhibit IB represents free

space because all of the required information was

collected on the other side, and the address is

pre-printed on the top half. Instead of leaving this

blank, the designers of the D.C. form chose to do

several things: remind the applicant about critical information items, explain the deadline for

applications and the consequences of missing the

deadline, tell the applicant what to expect as the

next step in the process, and provide a reminder

about the availability of help. None of these information items is necessary, but all are useful

in reducing errors and needless questions about

routine procedures.

The D.C. example provides a overview of information for applicants. From it we can begin to

develop a checklist of useful items:

clear title of form

jurisdiction

uses of form

qualifications for voting

importance of maintaining

current name and address

rules for voting in a primary

how to get assistance

how to get a form in another language

instructions for completing the form

address of the registration office

explanation of deadlines for registering

information on what to expect next.

Many other jurisdictions include similar items

on their mail registration forms. The following

subsections describe a few of the more important

variations and additions.

Address of Registration Office

As noted above, D.C. has only one registration

office, so it is convenient to pre-print the address
on the form. The address is bar-coded to facilitate automatic processing by the post office. Many

local jurisdictions follow this pattern.

On the other hand, many states provide standard forms for use by all of their local registration offices. How does the applicant know where

to send the completed form? There appear to be

two basic answers to this question.

The Oregon application, displayed in Exhibit

2, illustrates one approach. In the top portion of

Exhibit 2A we see the addresses of all of the

county election offices. The applicant must pick

the correct one and copy it in the space provided

on the bottom part of the form. This approach

permits the use of a single form throughout the

state, thereby gaining the efficiency of mass printing. The listing of all local registrars does take

up extra space, thus adding to the size of the form

or requiring smaller print. Yet Oregon manages

to include the addresses of all its county election

offices, and their telephone numbers as well, on a

small card. Exhibit 2 is the actual size of the card.

Some states do not include address information on the form. Iowa is an example. Exhibit 3A

shows a case in which the address of the registrar was added to the card after the original form

was printed. Several states follow this practice.

Language Requirements

Many jurisdictions are required to offer election

materials in multiple languages. The need to print

forms in multiple languages raises several issues.

First is translation. A literal translation from an

English form is not likely to convey the same message in another language. Election officials in multilingual jurisdictions often work with representatives of language groups on the design of registration forms, just as they do on ballots.

Second, election officials must be able to read

the completed application. This is usually not a

significant problem since the responses will consist primarily of proper names of people and

places. On the other hand, registration office staff

may need multiple language capabilities in order to answer questions and to make inquiries

about incomplete or erroneous forms. So it is

important for registrars to have access to multiple language capabilities, preferably on the

office staff as San Francisco does.

Finally, designers of mail registration applications should bear in mind the ways in which the

forms are to be distributed. How will someone

who does not read English obtain an application

in her or his language? The District of Columbia

prints directions in Spanish on its English language form (Exhibit 1A). The State of New York

maintains an automated voice system for ordering forms by telephone, toll free, in English and

Spanish.

Arizona combines English and Spanish on a

single application form consisting of two attached

sheets (Exhibit 4). The top half of the form in

Exhibit 4A contains instructions to the applicant

printed in English with a Spanish note to look

further for Spanish language instruction. The

actual application is below with labels in both

English and Spanish. The back of the first page

(Exhibit 4B) forms the mailer when it is folded.

Attached to this form is a second sheet printed

on paper of lighter stock than the first. The page

pictured in Exhibit 4C is a duplicate of Exhibit A

except that the instructions at the top are in

Spanish. The application at the bottom is a receipt for the voter. On the back (Exhibit 4D) are

more instructions in English and Spanish.

California (Exhibit 5) prints forms in six languages in addition to English. Each of the six is

combined on a form with English. So there is one

English and Chinese, one English and Spanish,

one English and Vietnamese, and so on.

Follow-Up

What happens if an application is lost, misplaced,

or delayed? When such a problem occurs it is desirable to discover it before the applicant arrives

at the polls on election day. In many cases only
the applicant will know that the form has been

submitted. Therefore, only the applicant can initiate action to correct the problem. Application

forms can be designed to facilitate this error correction process.

First, many forms tell the applicant what to

expect and provide a telephone number to call in

case of questions. The D.C. form (Exhibit IB)

provides an example. The applicant is told that

he or she will receive a voter card. If no card is

forthcoming before the election, the applicant can

call the number provided and get information on

how to take corrective action.

Second, some jurisdictions number their forms

and provide the applicant with a numbered receipt. Arizona follows this procedure. Note the

number printed on the left side of the application and the receipt shown in Exhibits 4A and

4C. Until October 1,1993, Nevada also numbered

its forms sequentially so that they could be individually tracked. The applicant was to keep the

numbered stub as a receipt and use it, if necessary, to locate a lost form. The system was rarely

used and was abandoned in the latest revision of

the election code. Other states continue to number forms as described below.

Numbering

Some jurisdictions individually number their

forms either as part of the printing process or

manually after the forms are printed. The California form shown in Exhibit 5A is an example.

The number appears just below the signature in

block 12 and again on the stub at the bottom.

(This exhibit is substantially reduced from the

actual size.) The number becomes the voter's

identification number when the form is turned

in and approved.

Numbering provides a means of monitoring the

outreach system. While registrars cannot directly

observe the activities of individuals or groups conducting registration drives, they can review the

forms that are returned. Forms are issued to outreach personnel in series so that the office has a

record of which forms each group has. Thus the

numbers are an unobtrusive way to identify the

source. We will return to this topic under the discussion of distribution procedures below.

Information Required

by Registrars

The purpose of the application form is to collect information necessary for registrars to determine whether a person is eligible to vote in

that jurisdiction, assign a polling place, record a

choice of party in some states, and keep the

registrant's name and address current. To perform these functions registrars need the same

information from mail applications as from their

regular applications. The specific questions asked

on the forms have been the choices of individual

states, although there is substantial congruence

on the basic items. The NVEA will affect the information requirements, or data elements, in at

least some jurisdictions, although the extent of

the effect is not clear at this time.

The D.C. form (Exhibit 1A) illustrates the basic data elements. Item 1 tells the registrar how

the form is being used. This is an important element because forms can serve multiple purposes

and the NVRA requires that the national mail

registration application be acceptable for change

of address as well as new registrations. The election office staff could, of course, deduce this information by comparing the form with their existing records, but having the applicant indicate

her or his intention saves time and reduces the possibility of misinterpretation.

Item 2 asks for the applicant's name. The interesting additions to the usual fields for last,

first, and middle names are the choice of titles

and suffixes. The former tells how the applicant

wishes to be addressed and provides an indication of gender. The suffix may be helpful in distinguishing among registrants having the same

name.
Items 3 and 4 ask for the resident's address. It

is necessary to capture both the residence address

and the mailing address. Some applicants will

give only the latter if they are simply asked for

an address. Registrars need both. Residence is

critical because where one lives determines where

one can vote. The mailing address is also important, if it is different from residence, because the

election office needs the ability to contact voters

by mail.

The need to distinguish between residence and

mailing addresses is not peculiar to mail registration. It is common to all registration programs.

The need to be very clear about this requirement

on the form is greatest in mail registration because in many cases there will be no one to

prompt the applicant for the additional information. Note the choice of words used here. Instead

of residence and mailing address the form asks

for "Address Where You Live" and "Address

Where You Get Your Mail" on the belief that the

latter concepts are more widely understood than

the former.

The choice of sections—NE NW SE SW—is

a standard part of the address system in

Washington, D.C.

Item 5 asks for date of birth. The need for this

item is obvious from the fact that age is a factor

in determining eligibility for voting. It may be

less obvious outside the election community that

age is also a useful means of distinguishing

among registrants having the same name. In this

respect Item 5 works in tandem with Item 1 to

distinguish between new applicants and existing

applicants of the same name who have moved or

changed names.

Item 6, daytime telephone number, is important for registrars to contact the applicant in case

of mistakes in completing the form. Some forms

ask for a number at which the applicant can be

reached after business hours as well, as will be

seen below. Registration offices frequently work

overtime during the rush of registration activity

just before a major election and may need to contact applicants outside of normal business hours.

In addition, people change jobs frequently so that

an extra number increases the chances of being

able to reach someone.

Item 7, the social security number, is a unique

identifier which is especially useful as an identification number in computer-based system. However, under current federal law jurisdictions cannot require this number unless they were already

doing so before January 1, 1975.

The need for party identification, Item 8, varies

by jurisdiction. Those that have closed primaries

must collect this information as part of the registration process.

Item 9 asks for the applicant's last registration so that the registration office there can be

notified to update its records.

Finally, Item 10 asks for the voter's signature,

specifically attesting to her or his qualifications

to vote, and for the date. An original signature

will be important if the application ever becomes

involved in legal proceedings. Some states require

the original signature at the polling place. Some

others scan the signatures and print them out

on the registration roll for use at the polls. In

either case the form has to be designed to accommodate the specific use.

Except for social security and party identification these items are required by almost all jurisdictions. There are numerous additions and

variations.

The South Carolina form illustrates several of

these. Most interesting is the large space shown

at the top of the form in which applicants are to

draw a map using landmarks, etc., of the area

where they live. Exhibit 6B pictures this section

at its actual size. The primary purpose of the map

is to help registrars locate rural residences in

areas where there are no street numbers. The

route and box numbers used for rural mail are

often of little use in placing voters in districts.

Jim Hendrix from the state election office reported that applicants were able to communicate
much useful information with this device and that

it was an invaluable help to registration officials.

Three of four county offices contacted also considered it useful. The fourth county did not need the

map because it was completely covered by a 911

geographic location system.

Arizona also uses a map (Item 3 in Exhibit 4A).

Although the space provided is much smaller

than in the South Carolina form, officials interviewed there were also pleased with the system.

As noted above, the chief use is in rural areas

that have no means of identifying residence

locations other than route and box numbers.

South Carolina asks for both a home and a

work telephone number (Item lc in Exhibit 6C).

The form goes even further and asks for the number of a neighbor, relative, or friend in the case of

an applicant who has no telephone at home or

work. This form also goes into considerable detail on the qualifications for registration, including a set of questions about both disqualification

because of criminal offense and the restoration

of voting rights.

A number of states collect more identification

information than does D.C. South Carolina asks

for sex, color of hair and eyes, weight, height, race,

occupation, social security number, date and place

of birth, and date and place of naturalization, as

well as naturalization number, for naturalized

citizens (Item 2 of Exhibit 6C). Arizona asks for

the last four digits of the applicant's social security number or an Indian census number (Items

10 and 11 of Exhibit 4A) as an optional entry.

The state is unable to use the entire social security number but finds that the last four digits

are useful in distinguishing among people of the

same name.

Some states currently require that mail applications be witnessed or notarized. Tennessee is

an example (Exhibit 7B). These requirements will

have to change under the NVRA.

Finally, some states use the registration form

to recruit poll workers. See the bottom of Exhibit

6C (South Carolina) for example.

The choice of how much information to collect

involves trade-offs. More information is helpful

to registrars, but detailed information requirements may be discouraging and confusing to potential applicants who may simply not apply at

all or leave the form incomplete. In the latter case

the omitted items may be more important than

those filled in. The District of Columbia has

greatly reduced the follow-up work of its election

staff by simplifying the application form. On the

other hand, the addition of map blocks has proven

very useful in jurisdictions with significant rural

areas not covered by a 911 system.

Such trade-offs are complicated by other constraints on the design and printing of mail

registration forms. These are discussed in the

following section.

Design and Printing

Considerations

Several considerations govern the design and

printing of mail registration forms. Larger blocks

allow applicants to record information more clearly.

An adequately sized signature block is especially

important in jurisdictions that use signature digitization. But large blocks also increase the size of

the form, all other things being equal. By definition the forms must be of a size and shape to travel

through the mail. In addition, they must be suitable for whatever use will be made of them in the

election office. If the resulting record is to be used

frequently, it should be compatible with registration records from other sources in the same file and

it should be printed on heavy enough stock so that

it can hold up to regular use. Where all of the necessary information is transferred to another form

or to a computer and the original record simply

stored for use in contests, etc., these considerations are less important. Similarly, if the record

must be taken to the polling place to provide an

original signature, the form will have to fit the

binders that are used at the polling place or there

must be some provision for incorporating the

portion that contains the signature into the

record that goes to the polling place.

8
The states and some local jurisdictions that

have mail registration have developed different

solutions that meet their particular needs. A few

examples will illustrate the range of options.

The Iowa card (Exhibit 3) is a model of conciseness. Most of the instructions to the voter are

printed on a detachable stub. Even with the stub

attached, the form fits easily into a standard envelope. When the stub is removed, the remainder

becomes a post card ready for mailing. The cards

are printed for the entire state but may be

stamped with the address of the appropriate election office before distribution, as this example illustrates. In this case the applicant has only to

affix a postage stamp.

Kentucky uses a larger card and provides an

envelope for returning it (Exhibit 8).

California (Exhibit 5) and Maryland (Exhibit

9) make different uses of the folding card.

California's card comes in four sections. Folded

it creates a mailer for the election office to send

the card to an applicant. After completing the

registration card at the top the applicant detaches

and mails it, pre-addressed and postage-paid, to

the election office. He or she also detaches but

retains the numbered stub at the bottom as a

receipt. The middle two sections are disposable.

Maryland has a tri-fold card. The bottom section

contains the registration form. It is detachable, just

as the California form is. In this case, however, the

applicant returns the entire card by folding it and

sealing it with the small gummed strip shown at the

top of Exhibit 9A. Note that the middle section is a

detachable notice to the applicant's previous registrar. The registrar who receives this package can simply separate the cards, retain the bottom one as the

registration record, and mail the middle card to the

previous registrar.

Unlike the cards discussed above, the South

Carolina form is printed on regular weight paper.

The top two sections shown in Exhibit 6 are to be

completed by the voter and detached. In this case

the bottom section is an envelope in which the

application is returned to the election office.

Similarly, the New Jersey form (Exhibit 10) is

printed on regular weight paper instead of card

stock. It forms its own envelope when the gummed

flap on the right is folded over and sealed.

As noted above, the weight of the paper and the

design of the form are constrained by the use to

which the form will be put. The Tennessee form

shown in Exhibit 7 illustrates this point. The form

consists of four sheets of paper plus a carbon sheet

between the second and third. Exhibit 7A shows

the first sheet, front and back, which provides instructions to the applicant. The Exhibit 7B shows

the front and back of the second sheet. The front of

the third sheet is identical to that of the second.

Together they make an original and one carbon copy

of the application. The copy is put in a binder and

used at the polling place by counties that do not

have computer based systems. The shape of the

form and the holes along the left edge are designed

to fit the binders that go to the polling places on

election day. The back of the last sheet, shown at

the bottom of Exhibit 7C, provides space for addressing and stamping the package for mailing to

the registration office. The other side, shown at the

top of Exhibit 7C, is a notification to the registrar

of the applicant's former residence.

The Tennessee system represents one solution

to the problem of getting a copy of the voter's signature to the polling place. Make the card fit the

binders. Technology provides an alternate solution

for those jurisdictions which do not require an original signature. That is signature digitization. Still

other jurisdictions require an original signature at

the polls but do not wish to have their mail registration forms constrained by the design of the binders used at the polling places. The Pennsylvania

form shown in Exhibit 11 offers a solution to this

problem. Displayed in the lower right corner of

Exhibit 11A are places for three signatures. The

first two of these, Items 19 and 20, are on peel-off

strips so that the original signature can be removed

and affixed to another card. The last one, Item 21,

records the signature on the card itself, which can

be used to establish the authenticity of the other

signatures should the need arise.
Legal and Budgetary Constraints

The ability of form designers to satisfy multiple goals is often constrained by legal and budgetary considerations. The former comes from

statutory language specifying in detail the contents and appearance of the form. Although legislators clearly have authority to design the

forms, their doing so locks into place features that

were chosen on the basis of the information available at the time. Both changing technology and

experience with the effects of different design features often provide cause for change. The necessity of returning to the legislative body for authorization to make fine adjustments discourages

further development. Many jurisdictions provide

basic statutory direction and allow state, and often local, authorities considerable discretion in

the design of forms.

Budgetary constraints obviously affect choices.

The most obvious example is whether or not the

postage is to be pre-paid. Other design features

affect the cost of programs as well. The cost of

printing is an important part of program cost,

but it is clearly not the only part. The extent of

wastage may vary with different form designs,

and labor costs in the office are certainly related

to the numbers of errors and omissions on applications, which, in turn, are related to form design. Election offices are generally not able to estimate the total costs of their mail registration

programs because they do not break down labor

and other office costs by program.

The cost of printing varies with the type of

form. It is impossible to provide a reliable figure

of cost-per-form for jurisdictions that are considering the adoption of a mail registration program.

The reason is that printing costs vary even for

the same form depending upon the number of

copies ordered and the competition among bidders. In printing, the cost per unit drops significantly with the number of copies ordered because

the set-up costs are spread over the entire run.

This is the reason that many states print a standard form, allowing counties and other local

jurisdictions to tailor them with address stamps,

etc. All other things being equal, the cost should

increase with the complexity of the form (multiple sheets, numbering, color, etc.) and the quality and weight of the paper. It may be useful to

consult with printers as the form is being designed.

10
Mail

Registration

Procedures

Preparing mail registration forms will not alone

serve the function of outreach. The forms have to

be made available to the public. So the method of

distributing applications is an important component of any mail registration program. Then the

completed applications must be returned in a timely

manner. Finally, the applications must be processed

by the election office. This section reports the responses of 99 local election officials from 29 states

regarding their procedures and experiences with

mail registration.

Distribution of Applications

The distribution process begins with the printing of the forms. In about two thirds of the cases

(68%) the state designs and prints the forms. There

are at least two reasons for this practice. First, some

statutes assign authority for the design of the form

to a state election official. Second, the state can

usually achieve substantial economies of scale by

printing all of the forms. As noted above, local election offices can still tailor the standard state forms

by, for example, stamping return addresses and/or

sequential numbers on them.

Other patterns exist, however. In 18 percent

of the cases the forms are designed by the state

but purchase is the responsibility of the local jurisdiction. Sixteen percent of the jurisdictions use

forms that they both designed and purchased.

Furthermore, these categories are not mutually

exclusive. Six percent of the jurisdictions use both

state forms and forms of their own design. In

these cases the localities distribute their own

forms, which are designed for their particular circumstances, but of course they accept the state

form if they receive one.

Most local election offices use multiple means of

getting the mail registration applications to the potential applicants. Public agencies are the most

widely used means of distribution, being cited by

88 percent of the jurisdictions surveyed. This point

is significant given the requirements for agencybased registration in the NVRA. Mail registration

forms can be used in the agency-based programs

under the act. It turns out that the great majority

of jurisdictions which have mail registration programs already use them in public agencies.

Other means of distribution were reported by

about half of the jurisdictions. They were: private groups other than political parties (54%),

deputy registrars (46%), and political parties

(40%). It is important to note that these figures

tell us which means of distribution are used by

the greatest numbers of jurisdictions, not which

ones produce the most applications.

Jurisdictions continue to develop innovative

ways to reach potential applicants. Oregon has a

special mail registration form in the telephone

directory, for example.

Registration drives raise special issues for the

distribution of forms. One is the need to train

the people who will give out the applications.

11
Errors in completing the forms add to the work

load of registrars when the forms are turned in.

Many registrars go over the applications with the

peopFe who will conduct the drive, explaining each

information block and describing common errors.

They also provide information on how to conduct

registration drives, especially the deadlines for

returning applications before elections. Some registrars provide written instructions along with

the application forms.

A second issue is how to control the number of

forms distributed. Experience suggests that organizers often have unrealistic expectations.

About a fourth of the jurisdictions (26%) attempt

to restrict the number of forms distributed in

some way. The goal is not to limit registration

access by any group but to keep some control on

the process to reduce wastage and the likelihood

of abuse. Some other jurisdictions choose not to

limit distribution and still others are prevented

by law from doing so.

Interviews during site visits provide a better

picture of the sort of restrictions that are used.

Emmett Fremaux, Executive Director of the District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics,

argues that mail registration increases the effectiveness of his office because it allows others to

perform the outreach function that would otherwise fall to his staff. Yet he tries impose some

restraint on the number of forms taken by groups

during registration campaigns. Some of the requests for thousands of forms are clearly unrealistic, he says. So he has a policy that restrains

distribution in extreme cases.

His office will automatically give up to 500

forms on request. Groups seeking more than 500

forms at a time must present a plan to justify the

greater number. How many sites will they use?

How will they be staffed? The idea is to talk with

representatives of the group to reach an understanding. He tries to promote the idea of actually getting people registered rather than just

handing out forms. Groups can always get more

forms if they need them.

This example raises two points. First, it is important to have a policy in order to ensure equity

among groups. Second, many groups are new to

registration drives and will base their requests

on enthusiasm rather than experience. Talking

about the plan for the registration drive both provides information to the group and gives the

group the opportunity to explain any unusual

need for forms.

Shelby County (Memphis) Tennessee has a

similar policy. There is a standard limit on the

number of forms issued: 200 for groups, 100 for

individuals. A request for more requires the approval of a commissioner. In addition, one staff

member has responsibility for issuing applications and she records the number of forms taken

in a log (Exhibit 12). She records both the number received by the individual or group and the

number of completed applications returned. The

goal is to replace forms on a one-for-one basis.

The office is not rigid about this policy, especially

in the rush around election time, but having a

procedure conveys the message that registration

is an important act. Again, the purpose is to encourage groups to bring back complete applications

rather than simply handing out forms.

Gorham, Maine, reports an entirely different

approach to distribution. The state provides the

design of the mail registration form to printing

companies in the state. The companies print and

sell the forms to whomever wishes to buy them.

Their customers include political groups, as one

would expect, but also businesses and colleges.

The former put them out for their customers and

the latter give them to their students. This policy

holds for the distribution of mail registration

forms. Citizens can still obtain individual

applications free of charge from their township.

Finally, some jurisdictions number their forms

sequentially and issue them to groups in numbered

lots. This control device has its most direct effect

when the forms are returned because the registrar

can determine which group distributed them. San

Francisco monitors the applications it receives for

12
completeness and timeliness. If, for example, the

forms that were issued to a particular group are

consistently returned past the deadline, the staff

knows whom to contact. Additional training may

be the remedy. This example highlights again the

importance of election offices working with groups

involved in registration drives to improve the

quality of the returned forms. Numbering simply

provides a means of monitoring for results.

Pre-printed numbering also increases the cost

of the form. Some jurisdictions that did number

their forms have discontinued that practice. Nevada and the District of Columbia are examples.

Yet many jurisdictions may consider numbering

as they examine ways to meet the reporting

requirement of the NVEA.

Returning Applications

The applicants who receive the mail registration forms must complete them and return them

to the appropriate election office. An earlier section of this report discussed the importance of

user-friendly applications, both to the applicant

and to the election officials who must deal with

any problems in the applications that reach them.

This section deals with the return of the form to

the election office.

A number of jurisdictions require that the application be notarized or witnessed before it is

returned. Just under half (46%) of the jurisdictions sampled for this report do so. Thus the requirement for witness or notarization is fairly

popular as a safeguard in mail registration. On

the other hand, some officials report that it is

the source of a good bit of confusion during registration drives. Fifty-four percent of the jurisdictions have no such requirement. The NVRA prohibits requirements for "notarization and other

formal authentication," which presumably

includes witnessing.

Mail registration applications are returned in

a variety of ways. Almost all of the offices (98%)

reported receiving them by mail. Nearly as many

(91%) received some forms directly from individuals who returned them in person. A slightly

smaller number (83%) reported receiving forms

through third parties. Yet in many cases this last

method produces the greatest number of applications, especially during registration drives.

Only a few election offices received mail applications through their state election office.

The manner in which an application is returned

may be affected by the features of the form itself.

As noted earlier, many forms have the return address printed or stamped on them. In addition, one

fourth (25%) of the jurisdictions in the sample use

postage-paid cards or envelopes. The other three

fourths require the sender to place a postage stamp

on the application if it is to be returned by mail.

Processing Mail Applications

in the Election Office

When the election offices receives the forms the

registrar or staff normally undertakes some preregistration checks for accuracy and completeness. They then add the name to the registration

list and mail a notice to the applicant. A return

of the notice as undeliverable will trigger followup procedures. Once this step is completed few

jurisdictions treat mail registrants differently

from other registrants. There are special cases,

however. In addition, some jurisdictions undertake general canvasses and/or file searches. While

these activities are not exclusively for mail registrants, some officials feel that the need for them

is heightened by the presence of large numbers

of mail registrants in the file.

The processing of returned forms is the point

at which any problems in mail registration are

most likely to be revealed. Two key values are at

stake here. One is the integrity of the election

process. Some election officials and outside observers worry that mail registration increases the

probability of error or deliberate fraud. The other

is efficiency. Mail registration programs can affect

the nature and flow of work in election offices. The

following account addresses both values.

13
Pre-Registration Reviews

The typical pre-registration review begins with

a check of the application for completeness. If a

critical information item is missing or illegible,

the staff will try to contact the applicant to obtain the necessary information. This can be a

time-consuming process and it is the reason for

requesting telephone numbers on the form. The

ability to reach an applicant by telephone is especially important during the rush before an election. As noted earlier, some forms request home

telephone numbers as well as work numbers.

Election offices usually work overtime during the

pre-election rush and need the ability to contact

applicants after business hours.

Locating the residence of an applicant is essential to placing her or him in the proper electoral

district. Even when the form is filled in completely,

this process is not always easy. The nature of problems tends to vary by the size of the jurisdiction.

Election officials will usually be more familiar with

the addresses in a small jurisdiction than in a large

one so that they are more able to quickly locate a

residence without the aid of a computer. On the

other hand, small jurisdictions tend to be rural and

many rural areas are not covered by street addresses or other geographic indicators. A "911" system provides locations for all residences in a jurisdiction to aid in emergency services, but it also helps

registrars. Many jurisdictions, however, are not

covered by such systems. The diagram spaces on

the South Carolina and Arizona forms are designed

to help in these situations.

In urban jurisdictions a greater proportion of the

residences will have street addresses, but the

greater number of addresses makes it less likely

that individual staff members in the election office

will be familiar with them. The process of looking

up an address on a map can be time consuming,

especially in densely populated areas. San Francisco has precincts that consist of a few city blocks.

There are computer programs available to facilitate this task as well as the job of reassigning precincts when lines change. Tom Wilkey, Executive

Director of the New York State Board of Elections,

cites good locator software as one of two key

elements in a successful mail registration program.

The need to place applicants in districts is not

unique to mail registration, of course. Yet the

volume of activity that can be generated and the

lack of face-to-face contact in mail registration

programs increase the magnitude of the task.

While attempting to place applicants in their

proper districts, registration staff will sometimes

discover that the applicant lives in another jurisdiction. In these cases they simply forward the application to the proper district. Some statutes require the office to keep a log of such transfers, and

it is good practice to do so anyway.

At some point in the process election offices

also check for duplicate registrations. The incidence of duplicates increases during registration

drives. Many citizens cannot remember whether

they are registered or whether their registration

remains valid, especially if they have not voted

recently. Applications are checked against the file

to discover possible duplications and to distinguish them from address changes that are not

indicated as such on the form and from new registrations by persons of the same name. This requirement is the reason for additional personal

identification requests on the application form.

Jurisdictions that require the signature of a witness may check these signatures against those on

file. The survey conducted for this report does not

provide data on how widespread or comprehensive

this practice is. Some jurisdictions volunteered information that they did conduct such checks.

If during these pre-registration checks the office

discovers that an applicant is unqualified, it is a

relatively simple step to reject the application and

notify the applicant of the reason for the rejection,

provided that the application contains a valid mailing address or even a valid telephone number. This

process is simple in comparison to the task of purging a name after it has been added to the file. That

is the reason for distinguishing between pre-registration checks and checks that take place after

registration is accomplished.

14
Verification or Acknowledgment Mailings

The distinction between pre- and post-registration activities is especially important with regard to the initial mailing of a notice after receipt of the application. This notice typically informs the applicant that the office has received

the application and provides information of voting place, etc. Jurisdictions send this notice by

first-class mail marked "DO NOT FORWARD."

A return of the notice as undeliverable notifies

the registration office that something is wrong.

The next step depends on whether the notice

was a pre-registration verification, as the FEC

terms it, or a post-registration acknowledgment.

If the notice was a verification, the staff can simply decline to register the individual and send

another notice so stating, just as they would if

an application were rejected for other reasons.

If, on the other hand, the office first registers the

applicant and then sends an acknowledgment of

that registration, it must follow purging procedures to remove the name from the list. The

NVRA establishes purging procedures which may

be more elaborate than those currently in place

in many jurisdictions. The goal is to prevent erroneous purges and, as a matter of policy, purges

for failure to vote. These provisions do not apply

to pre-registration checks.

If a notice is returned as undeliverable,

whether it is a pre-registration verification or a

post-registration acknowledgment, it should be

followed with a second notice sent by forwardable

mail. The forwardable notice will reach people

who have moved and left a change of address. It

should ask them to contact the registration office and provide a current address. If the second

notice is undeliverable, it can serve as the first

step in purge proceedings where applicants have

already been added to the roll.

The practice of sending a notice, whether verification or acknowledgment, is the instrument most

widely used in mail registrations programs against

erroneous and fraudulent registrations. Craig

Donsanto, Director of the U.S. Justice Department's

Election Crimes Branch, points out that this

system is not foolproof. It relies on the routines of

the post office, which are designed to deliver mail,

not to catch criminals. A first-class letter will be

returned to the sender under certain conditions:

(1) the addressee has notified the post office that

he or she has moved, usually by filing a forwarding

address, (2) the occupant refuses the mail, or (3)

the postal carrier knows that the addressee does

not live there. While these conditions cover most

normal circumstances, they do not cover all possibilities, such as someone receiving mail under

several different names at the same address.

Donsanto recommends supplementing the

mailing of notices with periodic personal canvasses in which representatives of election offices

meet face to face with registrants. This is a regular practice in Great Britain, although for a different purpose. There the election list is reconstructed annually, first by a mail canvass of all

residences and then by personal canvasses of all

residences that have not responded. Donsanto

recommends using a nondiscriminatory sampling

procedure to reduce the cost of his proposed canvass. Although such a canvass would not confirm

every registration, it could have a major deterrent

effect on fraudulent registration.

Tom Wilkey stresses the importance of working with the post office personnel. This is the second of his two keys to a successful mail applications program. The point is to not simply rely on

the organizational routines of the post office, but

to work with postal carriers to explain the goals

of the registration office and to elicit their help.

The purpose is broader than the prevention of

fraud. There are many ways in which post office

personnel can help a mail registration program.

Perhaps the chief one is by being aware of the

deadlines and ensuing time pressures that affect

registration just prior to elections. It is important

that postal carriers recognize mail registration

forms. Wilkey recommends that election officials

take initiative to contact their local post offices, to

explain their needs and constraints, and to learn

of the constraints that affect the postal service.

15
Effects on Office Routines

Mail registration also affects the routines of

the election office. Maryland provides an excellent example because it keeps statewide registration figures by source. It has mail registration and several other outreach programs. From

January, 1991, through July, 1993, in-person registrations averaged only 7 percent of total

monthly registrations while mail registrations

averaged 64 percent. This result supports Emmett

Fremaux's point that mail registration and other

outreach programs take the office staff out of the

business of routine face-to-face registration.

What can the staff do with the extra time? Just

what they are trained to do—apply their specialized knowledge of elections to the applications

they receive from other sources. Ideally, mail registration provides for increased specialization and

efficiency. It allows others to perform the outreach

function, leaving the election professionals free

to process the increased number of applications

and deal with exceptional cases.

Fremaux carries this principle of specialization

into the office during the usual surge in applications before elections. His office regularly hires temporary workers during these periods. One problem

with using temporaries is that they are not trained

in election law and procedures. His answer is to

use them for doing what they know. He hires data

entry specialists. During most of the year his regular staff both reviews applications and enters data

into a computer. During the pre-election surge the

regular staff concentrates on reviewing applications. They solve any problems with the forms before passing them on to the data entry specialists.

These temporary employees concentrate on the

same job they do for other employers—accurate and

efficient data entry. When the surge passes, the

temporaries leave and the regular staff resumes

their former data entry responsibilities.

Mail registration contributes to the surge. Even

though applications are readily available, many potential registrants will not think of filling one out

until an approaching election catches their attention. In addition, much mail registration activity

is generated by parties and other organized groups

in registration drives shortly before an election. So

mail registration programs are likely to heighten

the surge of registration before elections and registrars implementing new mail registration programs

need to be prepared for this development.

Monthly registration figures from the District

of Columbia illustrate this point. Figure 1 compares motor voter registration with all other

sources of registration in D.C. According to officials there, the "other" category consists almost

entirely of mail registrations since there are very

few in-person registrations. (Recall that in Maryland mail registrations outnumbered in-person

registrations by a ratio of almost ten to one.) It is

apparent that the monthly registration rate from

the motor voter program is much more stable

than the mail registration rate. The mail-in program produced 59 percent of the total registrations (101,616 to 71,534), but 79 percent of the

mail-in total came in two surges, March - October of 1990 and March - December of 1992. In

fact, over one fourth of all mail registrations in

the four plus years covered by this chart came in

a single month, October 1992.

These data should not be surprising, except perhaps in the magnitude of the surges. For reasons

noted above, mail registration follows, and may

accentuate, the normal cycle of electoral activity. A

motor voter program such as that practiced by the

District of Columbia operates independently of the

electoral cycle. The point here is that election offices which undertake mail registration programs

should anticipate increased surges before elections,

all other things being equal.

Do mail registration applications also require

more processing time per application? One might

expect so because the form is often completed without the aid of an election official or even a trained

volunteer. The survey asked election officials to

estimate the percentage of mail registration forms

that had various problems. Unfortunately, few officials were able to do so. They were able to tell us

which problems they had, but not the frequency.

16
The most frequently cited problems were incomplete applications (47%) and duplicate applications (34%). These figures are not surprising

given the fact that many mail registration applications are completed independently. The greater

of the two, incomplete or erroneous applications,

may be solved or substantially reduced by creating user-friendly forms, judging by the experience in the District of Columbia. No suggestions

for preventing duplicate forms emerged from this

study, although it is interesting to not that nearly

two thirds of the jurisdictions did not find

duplicates to be a significant problem.

The other two problems were much less widespread. Only 15 percent of the respondents cited

applications arriving past the deadline as a problem. This number seems low in relation to the number of incomplete or erroneous applications. Apparently, most applicants and participants in registration drives understand deadlines and are able to

get the forms to the registration office on time.

Int grity of the Electoral Process

Ten percent of the respondents reported at least

some experience with fraudulent or frivolous applications. These constitute threats to the integrity of the electoral process, though in various ways

and to varying degrees. The frivolous category consists t)f mischief such as people registering their

pets via mail. They probably do not intend to vote

these registrations, but the resulting deadwood

in the file adds to the cost of elections, requires

work by election officials cleaning them out, and

creates an opportunity for someone else to use

the registration for purposes of voting.

Several registrars discussed the problem of

"bounty hunters," people who receive pay from

political parties to register voters. When they are

paid on the basis of the number of completed applications turned in, they are often tempted to

pad the list using names from telephone books

or even fictitious names. These people generally

do not intend to vote the registrations either, but

they do create deadwood in the system.

The parties and the bounty hunters are becoming more sophisticated. In order to discourage

cheating, some parties have started paying on

the basis of new registrations rather than applications turned in. Some bounty hunters, in turn,

are getting multiple people to fill out the fictitious forms so that fewer are submitted in one

hand writing.

Catching these fraudulent applications during

the routine review process depends heavily upon

the alertness of registrars to notice the similar

handwriting on multiple applications or, less frequently, to notice duplications of existing names.

Jurisdictions which require that mail applications be witnessed by a registered voter can also

check the witness's signature against the signature on file. However, many jurisdictions do not

require witnessing, and the NVEA prohibits such

forms of authentication. Finally, as noted above,

the routine verification letter will not necessarily catch them all either. The letter has to be undeliverable for the post office to return it.

It is important to stress that no one interviewed

for this project suspects all bounty hunters of

being dishonest. More importantly, no one felt

that the fraudulent applications submitted were

a direct threat to the elections. The reason is that

these registrations are not voted. The incentive

of the dishonest bounty hunter is presumably

money, not the ability to influence the election.

The immediate problems are an increase in deadwood and extra work for election officials, although deadwood creates the possibility of subsequent abuse by someone else. The practical goal

of the election office is to weed out as many

fraudulent applications as possible so as to keep

the problem under control.

Simply weeding out fraudulent applications

does not, however, produce a deterrent unless

they can be traced back to the perpetrators.

Germaine Wong, San Francisco Registrar of Voters, points out that sequentially numbered application forms are a help in combating fraudulent registrations. Her office issues applications

in numbered batches. As a result they can

17
determine the original distributor of any applications that are later found to be fraudulent. Thus

they are able to investigate problems, warn suspects, and seek prosecution if necessary. Without the ability to identify the distributor her office could only reject improper applications without any further steps to prevent recurrence.

Sometimes the group which receives the applications from the registration office passes them on

to others for use in registration drives. Wong tries

to get such groups to record the numbers of the

applications they give to each subsequent distributor.

West Virginia employs another deterrent. Mail

registrants must cast their first vote in person

and present a valid identification and proof of age.

(If they come to a polling place but do not have

adequate identification, they vote a challenged

ballot.) In subsequent elections they can vote

absentee under the same rules as any other registrant. The stimulus for this requirement was

the allegation of improper mail registrations used

in conjunction with absentee ballots to affect elections. Thus this tactic operates at the point of

voting rather than registration.

This requirement works in conjunction with West

Virginia's absentee voting regulations and its early

voting system. Mail registrants may vote absentee

without first appearing in person if they are physically disabled, confined for health reasons, in military service (or the dependent of someone on military service), or temporarily residing outside the

United States. College students were recently

added to this list. The practical effect of these exceptions is to restrict the first-vote-in-person requirement to people who wish to vote absentee for

reason of being out of the county on election day.

The early voting system allows even these people

to vote in person before the election at the county

clerk's office. Jurisdictions without an early voting

system could use this provision by simply allowing

mail registrants to stop by the registrar's office and

identify themselves before an election.

At least two other states place some special

requirements on people who register by mail.

Nevada has just adopted a system like West

Virginia's. Tennessee does not allow a mail registrant to serve as witness for another mail

registration without first voting in person.

Such systems appear to be relatively simple to

operate. One West Virginia county sticks a red dot

on the registration card to identify mail registrants.

The card goes to the polling place on election day

and the sticker is removed there if the person appears with proper identification. Until then the

person cannot receive an absentee ballot except as

noted above. The system is designed to deter the

fraudulent use of mail registration in conjunction

with absentee ballots while not posing a significant

burden on prospective voters or election officials.

Finally, deterrence is also the idea behind Craig

Donsanto's proposal for an in-person canvass. While

the West Virginia system has mail registrants come

to election officials, this plan would have representatives of election offices go to the applicants. In

most cases it would be impractical to visit all mail

applicants, so Donsanto suggests the use of a

sampling procedure that is uniform and nondiscriminatory. An example would be in-person verification of every nth mail application, where n is

some number, such as 25 or 50, that the registrar would choose in advance and use consistently. Because only a small portion of the mail

applications would be checked, the principal

effect would come through deterrence.

This discussion of safeguards must be kept in

perspective. The great majority of election officials interviewed for this report have not experienced significant attempts at fraud and do not

see it as a current threat to their election systems. Yet fraud is by its nature secretive and there

have been cases of attempts to alter the outcome

of elections. No registration system is immune

to the threat of fraud. This discussion has concentrated on threats that are salient in mail registration systems because the applicant does not

necessarily interact directly with an election

official, deputy registrar, or other public official.

18
Conclusion

Like motor voter and other outreach programs,

mail registration takes the application process

out of the registration office. It is also like these

other programs in that it leaves the final decision over registration to the appropriate election

officials. It is unlike other outreach programs in

that the applicant may well complete and submit the form without encountering any public

official or deputy registrar in the process. As a

result, mail registration changes the nature of

the registrar's job, placing greater emphasis on

follow-up and verification after the application

is received.

Generally, mail registration has proven to be

a popular form of voter outreach. Different versions are in use in 29 states and the District of

Columbia. In the best test case found, the District of Columbia received more applications

through its mail program than through its

combined-form motor voter program.

Mail registration systems are not without problems, however. They tend to surge near election

time and they suffer the same sorts of difficulties

as other outreach programs: incomplete applications, duplicate applications, and late applications.

Frivolous or fraudulent applications have not proven

to be a widespread threat to electoral systems, although the potential is always present and there

have been serious allegations in individual cases.

Jurisdictions designing programs can take

steps to minimize future problems. The design of

the form is critical. Application forms must meet

a number of constraints including the ease with

which would-be voters can use them. Confusing

forms both discourage applicants and create problems for election officials. Enabling legislation

should not specify the form in detail but should

designate some authority to design it within

broadly established limits and to promulgate

rules and regulations for its use.

Procedures and forms must be planned together.

The decision to use sequential numbering as a control

device is an obvious example. Another is the requirement for mail registrants to appear in person

before voting absentee. Such a rule should be

communicated to the applicant on the form.

There are a number of decisions to make because there is no one best way to design a mail

registration system. This report has tried to identify the principal issues involved in the design of

forms and procedures and to report the experiences of state and local election officials with various combinations thereof. Jurisdictions considering the adoption or change of mail registration

systems must now add to their considerations the

requirements of the National Voter Registration

Act of 1993. The National Clearinghouse on Election Administration of the Federal Election Commission has prepared an excellent implementation guide which identifies a number of issues

involved in mail registration as well as other features of the act. Together these two documents

address both the past experience with mail registration and the requirements of the new law.

19

Appendix

Exhibits

and Figure

Exhibit 1A District of Columbia
Exhibit IB District of Columbia
Exhibit 2A Oregon
Exhibit 2B Oregon
Exhibit 3A Iowa
Exhibit 3B Iowa
Exhibit 4A Arizona
Exhibit 4B Arizona
Exhibit 4C Arizona
Exhibit 4D Arizona
Exhibit 5A California
Exhibit 5B California
Exhibit 5C California

Exhibit 6A South Carolina
Exhibit 6B South Carolina
Exhibit 6C South Carolina
Exhibit 6D South Carolina
Exhibit 7A Tennessee
Exhibit 7B Tennessee
Exhibit 7C Tennessee

Exhibit 8A Kentucky
Exhibit 8B Kentucky
Exhibit 9A Maryland
Exhibit 9B Maryland
Exhibit 10A New Jersey
Exhibit 10B New Jersey
Exhibit 11A Pennsylvania
Exhibit 11B Pennsylvania
Exhibit 12 Shelby County, Tennesse

Figure 1 D.C. Registrations

D.C. REGISTRATIONS BY MONTH

MAY 1989 - AUGUST 1993

OR i
For information about other

Innovations in Election Administration

contact

National Clearinghouse on Election Administration

Federal Election Commission

999 E. Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20463

Toll Free 800/424-9530

Direct 202/219-3670

FAX 202/219-8500

Cut Here

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private

Use, $300

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31