The Challenges of Voter List Maintenance After a State Leaves ERIC
The MIT Election Data and Science Lab helps highlight new research and interesting ideas in election science, including through research grants under our ongoing Practice-Oriented Research program.
Our post today comes from Anita Manion and David Kimball, researchers at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, based on their ongoing research funded by this program. The information and opinions expressed in this column represent their own research, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the MIT Election Lab or MIT.
The Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) has been an important tool in helping election officials maintain accurate voter rolls and identify potential illegal ballots. The reach of ERIC grew rapidly, from ten states in 2015 to 31 states in 2022. In recent years, ERIC helped election officials identify millions of movers, and many thousand duplicates and dead voters to be removed from voter rolls.
Identifying Challenges
However, since 2022 nine states have withdrawn from ERIC, and one (Virginia) has rejoined (see the map below). ERIC was formed in 2012 to help election officials grapple with the challenge of keeping voter rolls up to date, which raises the question, what happens when states withdraw from a robust data-sharing program. To answer this question we are conducting interviews with state and local election officials to gain insight into their perspectives on list maintenance with and without participation in a national compact, including perceived benefits, challenges, and tradeoffs. We also ask about whether they were consulted in the decision making process and about the implementation of alternative systems.
So far, we have interviewed 17 election officials in six states, the state level election official in one state, as well as directors from ERIC. At least four of the people have served as officers in their state association of local election officials. Following is a summary of our preliminary findings.
Lack of Communication with LEOs
The most consistent finding is that every local election official (LEO) in every state said they were not consulted regarding the state’s withdrawal from ERIC. They learned of the withdrawal from a press release or the media. Following withdrawal, little to no guidance was provided from the state level to local officials on what systems would replace ERIC in maintaining voter registration rolls. Finally, local officials report little communication from the state about what data-sharing systems the state will use to replace services that ERIC provided.
List Maintenance
In eight of the nine states that left ERIC, local officials, rather than the state, are in charge of list maintenance. In the ninth state, Texas, state and local officials share responsibility for list maintenance. Four of the states that left ERIC (Iowa, Louisiana, Virginia, and West Virginia) have “top-down” voter registration systems, while the other states have “bottom-up” or hybrid systems. When asked what ERIC provided for them, nearly all LEOs talked about cross-state movers. ERIC staff also called cross-state movers “the key one.” The ability to detect out of state deaths and double voting as members of ERIC were also frequently cited. According to LEOs, ERIC provided a common standard, and both a carrot and a stick to elicit uniform reporting.
While there were mixed perspectives on whether voter registration lists are as accurate after leaving ERIC, LEOs consistently expressed that without ERIC it takes more labor and is more of a burden on staff to maintain voter list accuracy. Most election officials indicated that they had to scramble to find data needed for voter list maintenance, especially in identifying people who moved to another state. Local officials report a greater reliance on the state, vendors, or both, for the type of data that ERIC previously provided.
Support for ERIC
Every interviewee who expressed an opinion supported rejoining ERIC; most were emphatically supportive. One LEO declined to express an opinion.
Alternative Data Sharing Agreements
We are compiling a database of alternative data-sharing agreements for states that left ERIC. The most extensive is the Alabama Voter Integrity Database (AVID), which now comprises eleven states, including six that left ERIC. The AVID data-sharing agreements focus on matching voter lists to identify duplicate registrations. The AVID agreements generally do not specify how frequently states will share their voter files with Alabama, states do not pay to participate in AVID, and AVID does not provide technical staff to assist in the difficult task of matching administrative records. Thus, AVID appears to be similar to the defunct Kansas Crosscheck system, which struggled to accurately match voter registration records. Georgia, Kentucky, and Virginia are members of ERIC and AVID, so officials in those states may be best positioned to compare the reach and accuracy of ERIC and AVID. Outside of AVID, officials reported individual data-sharing agreements with other states.
Conclusion
Our preliminary interviews point in a consistent direction. Local election officials were not consulted before their states left ERIC, received little guidance after withdrawal, and now spend more staff time on list maintenance. When it comes to alternatives LEOs report greater dependence on the state and vendors to fill the gap.
The debate over ERIC is continuing with recent attention at the federal level. In a September 2 letter, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin asked Attorney General Todd Blanche to review whether the sharing of state motor vehicle and voter registration data with ERIC and the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) violates the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. Even though there has been no documented data breach involving ERIC, the letter raises concerns that sensitive identifiers are being shared. ERIC and the CEIR dispute any wrongdoing, and the letter does not reflect any criminal charges or legal conclusion. But the letter indicates continued political fights over list maintenance.
Our interviews suggest that leaving ERIC does not end data sharing. Rather, it largely shifts it to interstate agreements and private vendors whose privacy protections, matching methods, and oversight seem to be less clearly specified and less visible to local officials. Whatever the Justice Department decides, federal scrutiny may shape whether more states leave, join, or return to ERIC. As we continue our interviews and build our database of alternative agreements, we aim to provide insight into these systems and the experiences of the local officials who use them.
