Opinion ID: 2607238
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Payment for voting

Text: Contestants argue that this case is analogous to United States v. Garcia, 719 F.2d 99 (5th Cir.1983), where the court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(c) prohibits not only paying a voter in cash, but also offering any item of value, such as a welfare food voucher, in exchange for a vote. [8] Id. at 101-02. The State and Borough argue that Garcia and similar cases [9] are inapposite. They argue that programs with the primary goal of assisting voters in reaching the polls have long been upheld against challenges that such assistance constitutes a payment to vote. In United States v. Lewin, 467 F.2d 1132, 1136 (7th Cir.1972), the court classified providing transportation to the polls as assistance rendered by civic groups to prospective voters, rather than payment, and held that § 1973i(c) does not proscribe efforts by civic groups or employers to encourage people to register. The United States Department of Justice appears to agree with this analysis. [T]he concept of payment does not reach things such as rides to the polls or time off from work which are given to make it easier for those who have decided to vote to cast their ballots. Such facilitation payments are to be distinguished from gifts made personally to prospective voters for the specific purpose of stimulating or influencing the more fundamental decision to participate in an election. Craig C. Donsanto, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses 18 (5th ed. 1988). The distinction between facilitative programs and gift programs seems based in part on historical factors which preceded the passage of most voting rights legislation. See Day-Brite Lighting v. State of Missouri, 342 U.S. 421, 424-25, 72 S.Ct. 405, 407-08, 96 L.Ed. 469 (1952) (upholding state law requiring employer to allow employees four hours of paid leave on election day in order to vote); 111 Cong.Rec.S. 8986 (daily ed. April 29, 1965) (Section 1973i(c) does not prohibit the practice that has been recognized and has been accepted by both political parties and all organizations with respect to helping to transport people who do not have means of transportation to the polls in order to cast their ballots). See also Parsley v. Cassady, 300 Ky. 603, 189 S.W.2d 947, 948 (1945) (upholding candidates' contribution of cars and trucks to assist in voter transportation as reasonable due to bad roads and wartime exigencies); Watkins v. Holbrook, 311 Ky. 236, 223 S.W.2d 903, 903-04 (1949) (upholding disbursement of money to provide for transport to polls to get out the vote). Perhaps more importantly, this distinction reflects the difficulty in balancing the need to minimize undue pecuniary influence in elections with the desire to encourage and facilitate maximum political participation. The State and Borough argue that the transportation program is a valid balancing of these two factors, while Contestants argue that the program is an invalid form of vote solicitation. The North Slope Borough comprises 89,000 square miles and is inhabited by 5,760 people. The majority of these people are regularly involved in subsistence activities. The Borough's limited road system makes it difficult for residents in remote areas to reach voting facilities. In some cases, snowmobile or all-terrain vehicles are the only available modes of transportation. Fuel is especially expensive in the Borough, and because many residents do not participate fully in the cash economy, a fuel expenditure may be still more costly. The Borough argues that many individuals who would like to vote will be deterred by the limited access to roads and the cost of transportation in the Borough. Thus, a transportation assistance program would clearly facilitate voting in the Borough. However, the Borough argues, the sorts of transportation programs already permitted in many other states, in which volunteers car-pool or bus voters to voting stations, would not be feasible in the Borough because of the limited road access and the distances involved. The Borough claims its program is more feasible and much cheaper because it allows individual voters to provide their own transportation to the polls and then be reimbursed for the cost of fuel used by the voter to reach the polls. When the Borough began developing this program, Special Counsel to the Mayor contacted the Election Crimes Branch of the United States Department of Justice to ascertain whether the program might violate 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(c). The Borough described its proposed program as follows: [t]he plan is to offer up to 10 gallons of gasoline to each voter who requests it. The gasoline will help cover these individuals' travel costs between town and their hunting, fishing, whaling or other sites. Each voter will swear or affirm to their need for the fuel to cover transportation costs on the application for fuel. The Borough explained that the assistance would not be payment because (1) the Borough's sole purpose was to facilitate voters reaching the polls or the registrar's office; (2) the transportation norms in the contiguous United States do not apply because of the lack of roads; (3) the large amount of off-road travel in the region removes many citizens from access to registrars and voting polls; and (4) the lack of telephones or other methods of communication with subsistence or other sites located outside of Borough communities makes offering a ride to the polls impractical. The Election Crimes Branch responded with an informal opinion stating that the outreach program as described in your letter in our opinion is clearly lawful under 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(c). The Election Crimes Branch stated that its understanding was that the offer would be made only to individual Native Americans [10] who are on active hunting status  or who are otherwise located in extremely remote areas of the North Slope Borough. Its response further stated that [w]e assume for the purposes of this letter that these offers of gasoline will be made in a completely politically neutral manner; that they will not be connected in any way with specific candidates or political organizations; that they will be available to all individual Native Americans whose physical location satisfies the eligibility criteria describe[d] in your letter; ... and that the gas provided will not exceed that needed to transport the individual in question from his or her hunting camp to the nearest registration or polling site. Its response concluded, [i]n sum, the gasoline offer describe[d] in your letter, and as amplified by the assumptions summarized above, is functionally similar to an offer of [a] ride to the polls in jurisdictions that have roads and geographically concise populations. Contestants argue that the Borough conducted the program directly contrary to the advice and warnings of the Election Crimes Branch by allowing participation by voters who did not meet the criteria set forth in the response, and by allowing many people to claim more gas than they actually used, resulting in a net pecuniary gain. Although Contestants presented no evidence that any particular voter actually received more fuel than necessary to reach the polls, they presented evidence that this was the likely result of the Borough's program. The 847 vouchers put into evidence by Contestants reveal that fewer than ten voters signed for less than ten gallons of gasoline. Contestants provided evidence suggesting that most Borough residents lived in communities no farther than twelve miles from the polls and thus lived too close to the polls to require ten gallons of gasoline for transportation on election day. Contestants also provided evidence that there may have been little significant subsistence activity on November 8 and further, that the Borough might not have taken adequate steps to ensure that voters did not receive more fuel than was necessary for transportation to the polls. Thus, construing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, we hold that a factfinder could conclude that the Borough's program paid voters to vote. See Clabaugh v. Bottcher, 545 P.2d 172, 175 n. 5 (Alaska 1976) (in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party).