National Voter Registration Act of 1993

Those who opposed this legislation were mostly of the Republican Party, for example this summary below from Bill Graves who was the Secretary of State and Governor of Kansas has his thoughts summarized at the committee hearing: "Mr. ROBERTS. I received yesterday from the Kansas Secretary of State, Mr. Bill Graves, a very fine letter in opposition to this legislation. What Bill says is pretty much what Bob has already outlined in H.R. 2 is, A, unnecessary, unfunded and a federally mandated program foisted on the States, most of which are already having a lot of difficulty keeping their necessary existing programs operating with a very, very limited budget. And secondly, our Secretary of State wanted me to emphasize most States already have or are developing motor voter programs".[7] Although it was not a fifty-fifty split between those who favored and those who opposed this law, it was more of a seventy-thirty split between the two parties at most times. Another important representative that was a witness to these hearing's was Ralph Munro, Secretary of State from the State of Washington and also part of the Republican Party, explained that "it is convenient for the voters, cost-effective and it is secure" coincidently enough, he was a republican that was in favor of this law being passed.[7] Although, the majority of witnesses were in favor of this law being passed, there was a democrat, David D. Orr, Clerk from Cook County, Illinois, who points out that: "it will help citizens register to vote by either mail, getting or renewing your driver license, or at selected government agencies" which goes to show you that both party's have member's who favor the security and low cost outcomes this law may present.[7]

In the 103rd Congress, most of the Republican Party was not in support for this law to be passed. The House floor consideration's were mainly on par with the ideologies of the Democratic party. Although the initial vote turned out to be a 52-36 vote, Democrats needing 60 to proceed to the bill, very few Republican's sided with them and almost 0 Democrats were siding with the Republicans.[8] GOP leaders and those within the Republican Party argue that "the bill would cost states too much to implement, promote new forms of voting fraud and fail to improve turnout".[8] However, when it came down to the second round of voting, "Five Republicans Break Ranks, Keep 'Motor Voter' Moving" which gave the final count a 62-38 vote.[9] Even though the Republican Party member's of the house were completely against this law being passed, the few that voted for it, gave a shining light towards this bill which peaked the interest of sponsors and president Clinton. The initial consideration's to this bill were much different over previous years, but when it came down to the presidential change in power and through many hearings and debates, these few Republican House members gave in and chose their minds to vote against their party.

The house and the senate were controlled by the Democratic Party up until about 1992, but after George W. Bush who represented the Republican Party left office in 1993, Bill Clinton who represented the Democratic Party took over the presidency and the tables turned, giving the Republican Party control over the house and the senate oddly enough. George W. Bush opposed this law as he went with his Republican Party's thoughts and concerns of this bill. But unfortunately, President Clinton signed this act in 1993 and it was made into a law after Bush had left office.[10] Although the republicans rallied for the signing of this bill, their amendments weren't successful, this bill "Rides a Fast Track Through the House" versus its previous failing back in 1992 when the Democrats failed to override the president's veto.[11] Below is a direct quote from the hearings on Jan 26, 1993 that reflects the democratic party's thoughts on the president's final decision in 1993 to move forward with this law: "A key element of reform is removal of the hurdles that discourage participation in the electoral process. I firmly believe that the quality of government would improve if those left out of the system were more active and involved. Thus, I'm glad to see that you have accepted President Clinton's challenge by moving forward with the National Voter Registration Act".[12] Interesting enough, it also look's at why both parties should be involved, maybe not equally, but somewhat on the same page.

In terms of discriminatory issues, those who were in favor of this law argued that: "it was necessary to prevent discriminatory and restrictive procedures that disproportionately affected minorities, the poor, the elderly, and the disabled".[13] However, those who were against this law, argued that: "in most states the voter registration procedures were not burdensome and that many states were moving to more efficient and easier systems all the time; 23 states and the District of Columbia already had a form of motor-voter registration prior to the passage of NVRA".[13] This law is supposed to help eliminate past discriminatory issues that we have seen mainly within the lower income communities or those of different ethnicities and races. When this bill becomes a law, its goal is to promote everyone's right's to vote, eliminating any issues with being able to participate in voting and promoting everyone to exercise their right to do so.

The NVRA requires States to "accept and use" a uniform federal form to register voters for federal elections.[15] The National Mail Voter Registration Form (commonly referred to as the "Federal Form") was developed by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), but an amendment in the Help America Vote Act of 2002 transferred the FEC's responsibilities under the NVRA to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The Federal Form can be used by voter registration applicants as an alternative to State voter registration forms. The Federal Form requires that an applicant say, under penalty of perjury, various matters including that he or she is a citizen.

Between 2004 and 2013, Arizona required voter-registration officials to "reject" any application for registration, including a Federal Form, that was not accompanied by documentary proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate. A group of Arizona residents and a group of nonprofit organizations challenged this Arizona law in federal court. The District Court ruled in favour of the Arizona law. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the state's documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement was disallowed by the federal act.[16] On June 17, 2013, the United States Supreme Court ruled against Arizona in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc. (2013). In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court held that the NVRA's mandate that states "accept and use" the Federal Form disallowed Arizona's documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement.[16]

Section 5 of the Act requires State motor vehicle offices to provide an opportunity for voter registration to anyone at the same time that they apply for a new or renewed driver's license or state identification card, and to require the State to forward the completed application to the appropriate State or local election official.

The Act reduces costs to the State of voter registration by accumulating individual data when applying for a drivers license or receiving social assistance.[17] The "motor voter" nickname came from the idea that most of the NVRA data was accumulated from applicants renewing or obtaining driver's licenses.[17]

Section 7 of the Act requires State agencies that provide public assistance – including those that administer federal assistance programs, such as food stamps, Medicaid, TANF, and WIC, and disability offices – to assist their applicants and clients in registering to vote during the application process.[18] Each applicant for any of these services, renewal of services, or address changes must be provided with a voter registration form as well as assistance in completing the form and forwarding the completed application to the appropriate State or local election official.

The Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) is responsible for administering NVRA for U.S. citizens abroad. FVAP allows eligible citizens to register to vote at 6000 Armed Forces recruitment offices nationwide.

Section 6 of the Act allows voter registration applicants to submit their voter registration forms by mail.[19] It provides that citizens can register to vote by mail using mail-in-forms developed by each State and the Election Assistance Commission.

In 2004, the Nu Mu Lambda chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity held a voter registration drive in DeKalb County, Georgia, from which Georgia Secretary of State Cathy Cox (Dem.) rejected all 63 voter registration applications on the basis that the fraternity did not follow correct procedures, including obtaining specific pre-clearance from the state to conduct their drive. Nu Mu Lambda filed Charles H. Wesley Education Foundation v. Cathy Cox (Wesley v. Cox) on the basis that Georgia's long-standing policy and practice of rejecting mail-in voter registration applications that were submitted in bundles, by persons other than registrars, deputy registrars, or "authorized persons", violated the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act by undermining voter registration drives. A senior U.S. District Judge upheld earlier federal court decisions in the case, which also found private entities have a right, under the federal law, to engage in organized voter registration activity in Georgia at times and locations of their choosing, without the presence or permission of state or local election officials.[20]

Section 8 of the Act sets out requirements for how States maintain voter registration lists for federal elections. The Act deems as timely those valid voter registration applications by eligible applicants submitted to designated state and local officials, or postmarked if submitted by mail, at least 30 days before a federal election. The Act also requires the notification of all applicants of whether their voter registration applications were accepted or rejected.

The Act requires States to keep voter registration lists accurate and current, such as identifying persons who have become ineligible due to having died or moved outside the jurisdiction. At the same time, the Act requires list maintenance programs to incorporate specific safeguards, e.g., they must be uniform, non-discriminatory, in compliance with the Voting Rights Act, and not be undertaken within 90 days of a federal election.

The removal of voters for non-voting or for having moved can only be done after meeting the requirements set out in the Act. Voters can be removed from registration lists when they have been convicted of a disqualifying crime or adjudged mentally incapacitated, where such removals are allowed by state law. The NVRA also provides additional safeguards under which registered voters would be able to vote notwithstanding a change in address in certain circumstances, such as when a voter has move within a district or a precinct will retain the right to vote even if they have not re-registered at their new address.