BARNETT v DUNN (E.D. CA) - 37 - REQUEST for JUDICIAL NOTICE by Pamela Barnett. - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.37.0

8/6/2019 BARNETT v DUNN (E.D. CA) - 37 - REQUEST for JUDICIAL NOTICE by Pamela Barnett. - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.3

1/50

1 Pamela Barnett, Pro se Plaintiff2 1215 22ndSt., Apt. B3 Sacramento, CA, 958164 Telephone: (415)846-71705 [email protected]

FILEDM A Y 2 4 2 0 1 1

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COU~EASTERN DISTRICTOF CALlF~BY--"NOE""'PU;;;-TY cmLEmR"---

789

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THEEASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1011 PAMELA BARNETI,

--x12 Plaintiff, Civil CASE: 10-cv-02216-FCD-DAD(KJM)3 v.1415 DAMON JERRELL DUNN, et at,1617 Defendants.18 x192021

JUDICIAL NOTICE PENDING THE COURTS DECISION IN RE:22 THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST THAT23 THEY DO NOT VERIFY CITIZENSHIP OF CALIFORNIA VOTER AFFIANTS, EAC's24 VOTER REGISTRATION FORM WHICH BREAKS CALIFORNIA ELECTION, HAVA25 AND NVRA LAWS, MEMORANDUM FROM SOS TO ALL CA COUNTY REGISTRARS.26 WHICH SANCTIONS CA ELECTION LAW BREAKING, FBI FINDINGS OF PRIMA27 FACIE EVIDENCE OF VOTER/ELECTION FRAUD DURING THE 2002 ELECTION28 FOR THE 30TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT WHICH INCLUDES NON-CITIZEN AND29 MULTIPLE VOTERS3031 I, Pamela Barnett, declare under penalty of pe~ury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746:

32 1. Declarant I Plaintiff in esse is pro se herein without being an attorney. Based on33 information and belief the Plaintiff asserts the following for judicial notice.3435 SOS ADMITS AGAINST INTEREST THAT THEY AND THE COUNTY36 REGISTRARS DO NOT VERIFY THAT VOTER AFFIANTS (APPLICANTS)37 ARE LEGAL CITIZENS3839 2. After researching the California Secretary of State's procedures for verifying40 voter affiant data, plaintiff confirmed that neither the Secretary of State's office

Judic ia l Notice: S OS Failure to Check V oter C itizenship, E AC V oter A pplication, SO S M em oand FBI Investiga tion , Page 1 of 9
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/50

1 nor an y of the co untry reg is tra rs verify th at the vo te r a ffian t is a lega l U .S . c itizen .2 P la in tiff u se d th e B re nn an C en te r fo r J us tice , Making the List" Database Matching3 and Verification Processes for Voter Registration (Califomia) re po rt p ublis he d in4 2006 fora bas is o f her de te rm ina tion . ( see E xh ibit 1) T he B re nn an In stitu te fo r5 jus tice con ducte d a study o f vo te r reg istra tion databa se im plem enta tion und er the6 new requ irem ents o f He lp A merica V ote A ct. B rennan a lso sent a questionna ire7 to each sta te 's h ead e lec tion o ffic ia l. O n M ay 4, 2011, p la in tiff ve rified her8 conc lus ion w ith a S ecre ta ry o f S ta te O ffice e mp loyee C athy Ingra ham Ke lley.9 S he con firm ed tha t ne ither the coun ty reg istra rs n or the se cre ta ry o f s ta te 's o ffice10 verifies c itize nsh ip o f vo te r a ffian ts (app lican ts). S he sta te d th at the S OS re lied11 on the sworn sta tem ent o f the a ffian t and trea ted the issue of c itizensh ip like a12 "re bu tta ble p re sum ptio n." A fte r sp en din g h un dre ds o f m illio ns o f fe de ra l (U SDOJ13 S ource) and C alifo rn ia s ta te tax do lla rs to bu ild vo te r da tabases to sa fegu ard the14 in te grity o f vo te r reg istra tion s un der H elp Am erica V ote A ct, C alifo rn ia u nder th e15 g uidan ce of D ebra B ow en fa iled to ensure tha t the c itizen sh ip in fo rm ation o n th e16 Cali'fo rn ia D riv ers /Id en tific atio n a nd /o r S o cia l S ec urity re co rd s d ata ba se s w as17 cross-checked w ith the s ta te vo te r da taba se s. A cco rd ing to th e C alifo rn ia sec tio n18 of th e rep ort pag e C A-2, the sta te o f C alifo rn ia on ly verifies Ide ntify ing N um ber,19 firs t nam e. la st n am e. and d ate o f birth . C alifo rn ia do es N OT verify c itizensh ip20 in fo rm a tio n o r p la ce o f birth .21 Directly from report - What fields from the voter registration form WIllthe state22 seek to match to motor vehicle or Social Security records? In dent ify in g number ,23 firs t nam e, las t nam e, and date of birth."24

Jud ic ia l N otice: S OS F ailu re to C he ck V ote r C itizen Sh ip , E AC V oter A pp lica tion , S OS M em oand F BI Investiga tion , P age 2 o f 9


3/50

1 B ow en ig no re s v alu ab le citiz en v erifyin g in fo rm a tio n d ata fie ld s o n th e2 C alifo rn ia D epa rtm en t o f M oto r V eh ic le s. C alifo rn ia DM V does n ot po in te dly ask3 whe the r or no t they are a c itizen (see Exh ibit 2 ), bu t they ask in B lock 3 in the4 Drive r L ic ense Or Ide ntifica tion C ard A pp lica tion "to com ple te th is sec tion on ly if5 you A RE N OT elig ib le fo r a S oc ia l S ecurity N um ber. A n app lican t a ttes ting tha t6 they A RE N OT E LIG IB LE wou ld be ru led out as non-c itizens (because a ll U .S .7 c itizens are e ntitled to a S oc ia l S ecurity N um ber). H ow ever, som e non -citizens8 like P erm anent R es iden t a lien s, rece ive S oc ia l S ecu rity N um bers an d S oc ia l9 S ecurity benefits w ithou t ever be ing a U .S . c itizen . B lock 2 asks fo r "S ta te or10 C ou ntry fo r the 10 num ber." Th is fie ld w ou ld a lso h igh ligh t non -citizens. F ina lly,11 in the upper righ t com er o f the fo rm in the "Fo r DM V Use O nly" box, the DM V12 em ployee writes in an "B D/LP C ode", LP stands fo r "lega l p roo f'. In th is box is13 a lso a sk s fo r th e S ta te /C ou ntry o f id en tifica tio n P rim a ry D oc um e nt.14 Th e C A DMV sta tes on its we bs ite "The issue of iden tifica tio n re lia bility,15 in te grity, a nd c on fid en tia lity is o f p rim c on ce rn to a ll c itiz en s. E lig ib ility fo r16 go ve rnm ent serv ice s, issua nce o f va rious licenses, a ssessm ent o f ta xe s, the righ t17 to v ote , e tc ., a re a ll d ete rm in ed th ro ug h e va lu atio ns b as ed o n id en tific atio n18 d oc um e nts. It is critic al th at id en tific atio n d oc um e nts be a uth en tic ate d a nd19 accura te in iden tifyin g ea ch ind iv id ua l." (see E xh ibit 3) P la in tiff con tin ues to look20 fo r w hat in fo rm atio n fie lds are ava ilable on th e o ther s ta te and fe dera l da ta bases21 the S OS and reg istra rs cou ld use fo r cro ss-checks.22 B owen cou ld have checked these fie lds w ith her da tabase cross-check but23 fa iled to do so.24 B ow en 's v ote r re gistra tio n p ro ce ss a nd d ata ba se c ro ss check fa ils to e lim in ate25 no n-c itizen s from th e vo te r ro lls by no t va lida ting c itizensh ip o f app lica nt N on-26 c itize ns o bta in d riv ers lice nse s a nd s od al se cu rity n um be rs .2728 F urth er, th is is a no th er e xam ple o f th e E le ctio n A ss is ta nc e C omm iss io n's29 fa ilu re to o ve rs ee a nd s afe gu ard th e C alifo rn ia sta te vo te r re gis tra tio n d ata ba se s30 from fraudu len t non -citizen vo te r reg is tra tions . B oth the S ta te o f C alifo rn ia an d

Judic ia l N otice: S OS F ailure to C heck V oter C itizenship, E AC V oter A pplica tio n, S OS M em oand FBI Investigation, Page 3 of 9


4/50

1 th e E AC fa il to pro tec t c itize n su ffrage righ ts by a llow in g access to vo te r2 r eg is tr at io n by non -c it iz ens .34 CA and EAC USE VOTER REGISTRATION FORM THAT BREAKS NVRA AND HAVA5 LAWS BY NOT ASKING VOTER AFFIANT FOR PLACE OF B IRTH OR IF AFF IANT IS6 C URRE NTLY REGISTERED TO VO TE78 A noth er exam ple o f g ross neg ligence or even w orse , th e in ten tion al un derm in ing o f9 one citizen , one vo te , is the s ta te o f C alifo rn ia and the E AC use o f a vo te r reg istra tion10 fo rm tha t breaks the law and encourages non -citizen and m ultip le vo ting . A cco rd ing to11 the N ationa l V ote r Reg is tra tion A ct (N VRA ) 42 US C 1973gg(3) and HA VA the m easu re12 of com plian ce by reg istra tion is the com pe lling sta te in te res t as if an ap plican t w ere a lso13 obta in ing a driver's license in the dom ic ilia ry sta te , an d to wh ich th e N atio na l M ail V ote r14 Re gis tra tion F orm (NMVRF ) fa ils to re qu ire a n app lican t's p lace o f b irth (w hich he lp s15 e le ctio n o ffic ia ls to a sc erta in in fo rma tio n v alid ity in clu din g c itiz en sh ip s ta tu s in k ee pin g16 with the preem pto ry na tu re o f F edera l law) and whethe r the vo te r reg is tran t has17 re gis te re d b efo re a nd if s o - w he re ? (w hic h h elp s e le ctio n o ffic ia ls to e lim in ate e le ctio n18 fra ud th ro ug h d up lica te re gis tra tio ns ). C alifo rn ia S ecre ta ry o f S ta te D ebra B ow en m a ke s19 ava ilab le on her C A SO S webs ite the N MV RF to be used by lega l res iden ts o f C alifo rn ia20 fo r ac tua l vo te r reg is tra tions in a ll cou nties. (see E xh ibit 4 ) A ffian t's s ta te or country o f21 birth in fo rm a tio n is re qu ire d in fo rm a tio n u nd er C alifo rn ia E le ctio n C od e 21 50 ,22 S ubsection 6 and prio r vo te r reg is tra tion in fo rm ation is requ ired u nder C EC 2150,23 S ubsection 10 wh ich sta tes - A prio r re gistra tio n p ortio n in dica tin g w he th er th e a ffia nt24 has been registered at another address, under another nam e, or as prefem ng another25 party. If the affiant has been so registered. he or she shall g ive an additional statem ent26 giving that address, nam e, or party.

Ju dicia l N otice : S OS F ailure to C heck V ote r C itize nsh ip . E AC V ote r A pplica tio n, 50S M em oand FB I Investigation . P age 4 o f 9


5/50

1 Lead ing up to the 2010 C A genera l e lection , the S an Diego C ounty Registrar sen t2 correspondence asking for p lace of birth in fo rm ation to a ffian ts tha t subm itted the3 NMV RF for processing . (see Exh ibit 5 C ounty Reg istra r Le tte r) This has cost S an4 Diego County an unto ld am ount o f m oney to correct a problem tha t the EAC and5 Secre ta ry o f S tate Debra Bowen have caused. Th is has a lso caused6 disen franchisem ent o f a t least S an Diego county vo te rs, has even worse opened up the7 door to non-citizen vote rs , and weakened the vote fo r a ll lega l c itizen vo te rs o f8 C aliforn ia . P la in tiff does not know if any o f the o ther county regis trars a ttem pted to9 correct the problem tha t the EAC and Bowen have caused.

1011 SOS BOWEN ADM ITS IN MEMORANDUM #09173 THAT THE NATIONAL MA IL12 VOTER REGISTRATION FORM BREAKS CALIFORN IA LAW , BUT FA ILS TO13 ADDRESS THAT IT ALSO BREAKS FEDERAL LAW UNDER THE NVRA1415 In SOS M em orandum #09173, SOS Bowen adm its tha t the Nationa l M ail Vo te r16 R egis tration F orm brea ks C alifo rn ia E lection C od e 21 50, S ubse ction 6, w hich re quire s17 applican t to inc lude state or country o f birth , bu t fa ils to address tha t it a lso breaks18 federa l NVRA and HAVA laws. (see Exh ibit 6) Even so, Bowen sanctions its use .19 A ccord ing to the N ationa l Vo te r Reg istra tion Act (N VRA ) 42 US C 1973gg(3) and HA VA20 the m easure of com pliance by reg istra tion is the com pe lling sta te in te res t as if an21 applican t were also obta in ing a drivers license in the dom icilia ry state, and to wh ich the22 N ationa l M ail V ote r Reg is tra tion F orm (NMVRF ) fa ils to requ ire an app licant's p lace o f23 birth (w hic h h elp s e le ctio n o ffic ia ls to a sc erta in in fo rma tio n v alid ity in clu din g c itiz en sh ip24 sta tus in keeping with the preem ptory na tu re o f Federa l law). Bowen a lso fa ils to25 acknowledge tha t the N ationa l Form a lso breaks C Ee, Subsection 10 that requ ires tha t

Jud ic ia l N otice: S OS F ailu re to C he ck V ote r C itize nship , E AC V oter A pp lica tio n, S OS M em oand F BI Investiga tion , P age 5 o f 9


6/50

1 there be a prio r reg istra tion portion indica ting whether the affiant has been regis te red a t2 another address, under another nam e, or as prefe rring another party. If the a ffian t has3 been so reg istered , he or she sha ll g ive an additiona l s ta tem ent g iv ing tha t address,4 nam e, or party.5 SOS o ffic e s ta te s th e fo llo win g:67 A ccepting the N atio nal F orm : E lection O fR cia ls Do N ot N ee d to Dete rm ine Reg is tr an t's8 Cou ntry o r sta te of birth (ifborn in the US.) or country of birth (ifborn o uts id e o f the9 US.)10 T his req uirem en t can b e found in two places:11 E lections C ode section 215 0 (a)(6 ), w hich states in part:12 (a ) T he a ffid av it of r eg is tr at ion shall show:13 (6) The sta te or country o f the a ff ian t's b ir th .14 Elections Code section 2157 which s ta te s in part:15 (a ) S ub je ct to th is c ha pte r, th e a ffid av it o f re gis tra tio n shall be in a16 fo rm presaibed by regulations adopted by Seaetary of S ta te.17 The a ffid a vit s ha lt-18 (C on ta in th e in fo rm atio n p re sc rib ed in S ec tio n 2 15 0.19 H ow eve r, the requirem ent that a person prO vide th is in form ation to register20 to v ote o nly a pp lie s to someone registering to vote using the sta te vo te r21 registration fo rm tha t is de veloped p ursuant to state la w and regu lation.22 S ta te law does not requ ire a person using the N ationa l Form to provide23 a ny add itio nal in form ation b eyo nd w hatis conta in ed on th e nationa l F orm24 in order to register.2526272829

T he re qu ireme nt th at s ta te a nd lo ca l e le ctio ns o f6 cia ls a cc ep t th e N atio na lForm from any person app ly in g to re gis te r to vote can be found in theN atio na l V ote r R eg is tra tio n A ct (NVRA) 42 US.c. Sec. 1973gg-4 (a)w hich reads in part:

Jud ic ia l Notice: S OS F ailu re to C heck V oter C itizensh ip, E AC V oter A pplica tion , S OS M em oand FB I Investiga tion , P age 6 of 9


7/50


8/50

12 1.) Do you live at such-a-suchaddress, and fill in the blank.3 2.) Are you a citizen of the u.s.?4 3.) Are you working on getting your citizenship?56 A ccord ing to Ruth , "A few m ore than 700 of these questionna ires , accord ing to the7 U.S . P osta l S erv ice - were unde live rable , no such person , no such address , no such8 house - and 54 o f those peop le vo ted . II

9 C on tin uin g w ith th e re su lts , M rs . G ard ne r sta te d, "1 ,69 1 qu estio nn aire s w ere re tu rn ed10 by e lecto rs . 93 adm itted 'in writing ' they were no t c itizens. 273 sta ted tha t they were not11 reg iste red to vo te and d id no t live in the 30th A ssem bly d is tric t. O ne wom an who lives in12 P orte rv ille , C A. vo te d tw ice , w hile 69 m ore a dm itted they vo ted m ore tha n once."

13 S umm ariz ing fro m the artic le . M rs . G ard ner sa id , "The bottom line o f a ll these 2,65014 re tu~uestionna ires, 1 ,318 had vo ting irregu la rities. 37% of the dem ocra t vo tes were15 fraudu len t and of the 2,650 votes we can prove tha t 905 were illega l." These resu lts16 and com ple ted questionna ires were g iven to the B akers fie ld F BI o ffice in 2003. Dean17 G ardner con firm ed with m e tha t the F BI to ld h im the re was "ev idence of p rim a fac ie18 vo te r fraud". However. the F BI d id no th ing to try to ove rtu rn the e lec tion . The FB I never19 gave back the research m ateria ls or w ritte n inves tiga tion resu lts to D ea n G ard ner.20 P la in tiff ca lled the B akers fie ld , FB I on A pril 1 , 2011 and requested tha t they send to21 P la in tiff a copy of the ir find ings and a copy of the orig ina l research m ate ria ls . They d id22 not ca ll back and P la in tiff ca lled them aga in M ay 20, 2011. The person who answered23 the phone to ld p la in tiff she was transfe rring m e to an agen t tha t knew of Dean G ardner's24 file . The pe rson who answered confirm ed tha t there was a report and sa id tha t I cou ld25 N OT have a copy of the research or the inves tiga tion find ings , bu t she wou ld check w ith

Judic ia l Notice: SO S Failure to Check V oter C itizenship, EAC Voter App lication, SO S M em oand FBI Investigation, Page 8 of 9


9/50

12131415

judicial Notice: SOS Failure to Check Voter Citizenship, EAC Voter Application, 50S Memoand FBI Investigation, Page 9 of 9

1 her supervisor to m ake sure . P la in tiff to ld her there was a lawsu it aga inst the sta te for2 voter fraud and she needed a file copy.

3 Pla in tiff asks the court to order the FBI to tu rn over a ll m ateria ls to the court as it4 proves tha t vo te r and election fraud in C alifo rn ia is a huge problem and that P la in tiff's5 case dem ands an im media te hearing on the m erits as a statew ide e lection is6 approaching in N ovem ber and P la intiff wou ld be asking fo r a m assive audit of C ali'forn ia7 vo te r registra tion databases as the state of C alifo rn ia is no t pro tecting the civ il rights of8 any of its c itizens when it com es to their righ t to vo te and to fa ir e lections ..

9 3. I do so lem nly decla re under pena lty o f perjury w ith 28 USC 1746 and the laws of the10 State o f C alifo rn ia th is da te M ay 23, 2011 in the C ounty of S acram ento , tha t the facts11 and circum stances described above are true and correct to the best o f m y knowledge.


10/50

EXHIBIT 1


11/50


12/50

California Reg is trat ion Deadline

M , 'W'Th F a'-Sui ...-. . . . .I - - .,.~ .. .... .. , ....c-- -.-I ---H

Forms must be received or postmarked 15 days before an election.T'Databa se Implementa tio n S ta tu sCalifornia currently maintains a bottom-up registration system: forms processed at thecounty level are periodically uploaded to the statewide database.' Anticipating that itwould not be able to meet the January I, 2006, deadline for the creation of aHA VA-compliant system, California entered into a memorandum of understanding with the U.S.Department of Justice ("DOJ MOU") concerning the implementation of the state'sstatewide voter registration system ("CaIVoter'}3Ente rin g Vote r Reg is tra tio n In fo rma tio nWho inputs voter registration information? County boards of registrars generally reviewand enter information from voter registration forms in their jurisdictions into the countysystems.What happens to voter registrationforms submitted at state registration agencies?Forms received by the Secretary of State, the Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV"),or another voter registration agency are sent to the appropriate county registrar for reviewand entry." Ifan application is mistakenly delivered to an inappropriate county registrar,it will be forwarded to the correct county registrar, but the application will only be validfor elections occurring at least 29 days after the application is received.'How are mostforms submitted? California reported that in 2004,59% offonns weresubmitted by mail, 23% were submitted in person to election officials, 8% weresubmitted at the DMV, 6% were submitted at another voter registration agency, and 5%were submitted by other means ,"Vote r R eg is tra tio n F ormThe relevant portions of the voter registration form are included at the end of thissection.7

P ro ce ss in g o f F orms W ith ou t Id en tifying NumbersHow will the state treat an application with an affirmative indication that the applicanthas no valid identifying number? The state will attempt to match the applicant'sinformation (see below); if an appropriate identifying number can be found through thematch process, that number will be applied to the applicant's record. Otherwise, theapplicant will be assigned a unique voter registration number. If the applicant isotherwise eligible, she will be considered registered, but will have to show identificationat the polls. 8

MakinQ the List CA-1


13/50


14/50

Does the applicant have the opportunity to correct a missing or incomplete identifyingnumber, without submitting a new form? Yes. T he applican t m ay correct m issing orin co mplete in form atio n at an y po in t befo re the v oter registra tio n deadlin e.Does the applicant have the opportunity to resolve afailed match, without submitting anew form? Yes. T he applican t m ay subm it in form ation to resolve a fa iled m atch at anyp oin t b efo re th e v ote r re gis tra tio n d ea dlin e.If information on an otherwise timely application is corrected after the voter registrationdeadline, is the correction timely? No.Description of notice and correction process: T he county registrar w ill con tact - byte lephone if possible, and otherw ise by m ail - an applican t w hose iden tifying num ber ism issing, incom plete , or unv erified.V T he applican t m ay correct any errors un til the v oterregistra tio n deadlin e, by subm ittin g v erifiable iden tifyin g n um bers o r a co py o f v alididen tifica tion by m ail or in person . U nder regula tions adopted pursuan t to the D OJMOU, it appears that an applican t w ithout iden tifying num bers that hav e been v erified bythe v oter registra tion deadline m ay still v ote if she applied by m ail and prov idesiden tifica tion at the polls , but that she m ay not vote any ballo t that w ill coun t if she didnot apply by m ail.13

Identification R eq uirem ents at the P olls

What forms of identification areaccepted? A curren t and valid photo ID prov ided by a third party in the ordinary courseof business (including a sta te driv er's license or ID card, passport, em ployee photo IDcard, co mm ercia l establishm en t's pho to ID card, credit o r debit card w ith pho to , m ilitaryphoto ID card, studen t photo ID card, health club photo ID card, insurance plan photo IDcard, o r public ho usin g pho to ID card), o r a curren t utility bill, ban k sta tem en t,gov ernm ent check, gov ernm ent paycheck, or o ther gov ernm ent docum ent that show s thev oter's n am e and address. 14

1 t -t ime v o te r sregistering by mailwi th o ut v e ri fi edidentifying number :

cu rre nt a nd v alid p hoto IDcurrent utility b il l w I n am e , a dd re ssbank s ta te m en t w I n am e , a dd re ssg ov ern me nt ch eck w I n am e, a dd re ssg ov ern me nt p ay ch eck w I n am e, a ddre sso the r g ov 't d oc um en t w I n am e, a dd re ss

Who must provide identification at thepolls? A firs t-tim e v o te r re gis te rin gby m ail w ho se iden tifyin g n um bershave not been verified m ust show IDa t th e p olls .

Forms of 10:

What are the consequences of failing to show identification? The voter m ay cast ap ro v is io n al b all ot. 15 T he ballo t w ill be counted if the signature on the prov isional ballo tm atches the sign ature o n the appropria te v oter registra tio n fo rm .!"Sta tu tes and Regu la tionsCAL. ELEC. CODE 2000 et seq. g en erally co nce rn re gistra tio n o f v ote rs. CAL. ELEC.CODE 2168 directs the Secre tary of Sta te to establish and m ain ta in a statew ide v oter

Making the List CA- 3


15/50


16/50

mail with an unverified identifying number must be entered into the statewide voterregistration system with a notation that she may only vote a regular ballot if she showsidentification before Election Day or at the polls. Neither section acknowledges anypotential conflict with the other.12 CAL. ELEC.CODE 2153.13 CAL.CODEREGs. tit. 2, 20108.37(b), 20108.38 determine who may be entered intothe statewide voter registration system; section 201 08. 18(b) of the same title requires thatthe statewide system be used to determine whether a provisional ballot will be counted.Therefore, a voter who is not entered into the statewide system will not be able to cast aregular ballot, and also will not be able to cast a provisional ballot that will be counted.14Id. 20107lists particular forms of identification that qualify, but while HAVApermits the use of a paycheck with the individual's name and address, the Californiaregulation specifies that the paycheck must be issued by the government. However, thesame regulation also states that "[tjher section shall be liberally construed to permitvoters and new registrants to cast a regular ballot. Any doubt as to the sufficiency ofproof or a document presented shall be resolved in favor of permitting the voter or newregistrant to cast a regular ballot." Id .15Id. 20107(c).16 CAL. ELEC.CODE 1431O(c)(1).

Making the List CA- 5


17/50

~neral Instruction'Who Can Use this ApplicationIfyou are a u.s. citizen who lives or has an addresswithin the United States, you can use the application inthis booklet to:IIRegister to vote in your State,IIReport a change of name to your voteroffice,IIReport a change ofaddress to your voter registrationoffice, or

yo u live outside theno home (legal)military

New .u."'U11"1!H1U";1application as amail-in registrationN0l'1h Dakota does not

How to Find Out If You Are Eligibleto Register to Vote in Your StateEach State has its own laws about who may registervote. Check the information under your State in the StateInstructions.Note: All States require that you be a United Statescitizen by birth or naturalization to register to vote infederal and State elections. Federal law makes it illegal

to falsely claim U.S. citizenship to register to vote in anyfederal, State, or local election.Also Note: You cannot be registered to vote inmorethan one place at a time.

How to Fill Out this ApplicationUse both the Application Instructions and State Instruc-tions to guide you in filling out the application.First, read the Application Instructions. These instruc-tions will give you important information that applies toeveryone using this application.Next, find your State under the State Instructions. Usethese instructions to fill out Boxes 6, 7, and 8. Also referto these instructions for information about voter eligi-bility and any oath required for Box 9.

When to Register to VoteEach State has its own deadline for to vote.Check the deadline for your State on the last page of thisbooklet

How to Submit Your ApplicationMail your application to the address listed under yourState in the State Instructions. Or, deliver thein person to your local voter registration office.The remaining States that accept the national form willaccept copies ofthe application printed from the computerimage on regular paper by the applicant,and mailed in an envelope with the correct postage.

First Time Voters Who RegisterIf you are registering to vote for the first time in yourjurisdiction and are mailing this registration application,you may be required to provide of identification thetime you vote.

ing on the specific vouavoid providing identification at the polls when y(;Ufor the first time by mailing a copy ofan identifica-document "lith this The list ofd):flCitiitle\!ltss included in the State Instruc-

If You Were'in a State Agei1byIf you have been given thisagency or public office, it is yourapplication or not.If you decide to use this application to register tovote, you can fill it out and leave it with the Stateagency or public office.The application besubmitted fo r you. Or, you can take itwith youmail to the address listed under your State in theState Instructions, You also may take it with youto deliver in person tu your local voter registrationoffice.Note: The name and location of the State agencyor public officewhere you received thewill remain confidential, It win not appear yourapplication. Also, if you decide not to use thiscation to register to vote, that decision will remainconfidential. It will not affect the service you receivefrom the agency or office.

1 Hevi sed 101291200 :: 1


18/50


19/50

er RegistrationApplicati.Before completing this , review the General, Application, and S specific instructions.

1 Mr. Mrs . Miss Ms. Middle Name(s) (Circle one)Jr Sr II III IV

Are you a cit izen of the Unite

instructions forrules . priorlo' 1&,)

This space for off ice use only.

Cityffown

State Zip Codeome Address CitylTown

State Zip Code2

You Get Your Mail I f Dif ferent From Above3Telephone Number (optional) ID Number - {SesItem 6 in the Instructions f o r YO l lr statal4

9I have re\)ije~\letnIII lama j meet thesubscribe to any The information Iknowledge under penaltyinformation, I may becitizen) deported from or

NORTH

if you are registering to vote for the first time: ple'aq:,E1(!;teicopies of valid identification documents with this

Please fill out the sections below i f

If you live in a rural area but do not have a street number, or if you have no address, please show on the map where you Wri te in the names of the crossroads (or streets) nearest to where you l ive. Draw an X to show where you live. Use a dot to show any schools, churches, stores, Of other landmarksnear where you live. and write the name ofthe landmark,

II.J

If the applicant is unable to sign. who helped the applicant fill out this application? Give name, address and phone number (phone number optional).

~ - : o ' l ~:: Grocery Stofe I

I'1---------- 0:: Woodchuck Road II Po'" School lJ_ , ~

c r~ampl:I

o jMail this application to the address provided

___


20/50


21/50


22/50


23/50


24/50


25/50

Table of ~ontents Introduction .Executive Summary 11

Background .The new databases 1Duplicate entries and unique identifiers 1Verifying identity of selected voters 2The new process from the voter's perspective 2The limits of databases 4

Findings 7

Four key categories of state policy 7Criteria for matching 8Consequences of a failed match 16Incomplete information 18Opportunity to correct errors 19

Recommendations .Recommendations for match criteria 23Recommendations for addressing failed matches 24Recommendations for addressing forms with incomplete information 24Recommendations for correcting errors 25Other recommendations for databases and the registration process 26Recommendations for databases and continuing list maintenance 28

Methodology 31Scope of State Summaries in Appendix 33Report Glossary 34


26/50


27/50


28/50


29/50


30/50


31/50


32/50

hese additional intervening steps can be used-as HAVA intended-to foster moreefficient election administration, or-contrary to HAVA's intent-to impose additionalhurdles on voter registration. As noted above, most states plan to use the verification andmatching process to try to ensure that the most accurate unique identifying numbers areassociated with each registrant's record, so that the record can be identified should theregistrant move or re-register. And many states also plan to use the verification and match-ing process to provide an alternate means of confirming the identity of first-time voterswho register by mail. In contrast, a handful of states plan to use the matching process asa barrier or screen: only those for whom a successful match can be found may proceedthrough registration. This is a dramatic change from established registration practice, isnot warranted by-indeed, is contrary to--HAVA, and creates significant problems forthe eligible voter.

The limits of databasesUsing the match process as a barrier to registration creates problems for eligible votersbecause of the inherent limitations of databases. All large databases have errors-glitcheslike typos, transposed names, and omitted information. Such errors could prevent alegitimate match for two records that in fact reflect the same individual. Also, databasescompiled at different times and for different purposes record information differently,which makes it even more difficult to find proper matches: "William" may not match"Will" or "Billy"; a maiden name may not match a married name. A sample of theseproblems are outlined in the following table:

The Problem(s) with Matching: Examples of Potential Database Errors

Sourceof Error OnVoter RegistrationForm In DatabaseTypos Pierce Peirceor Pearceor Perceor PierrceTransliteration Mohammad MuhammedMarriage Mary Pierce(nee Owens) Mary Owens or Mrs. Martin PierceNickname SamPierce Samuel PierceTransposedfield Bao Lu Lu BaoDouble names "Mary Ann" (first) "Pierce" (last) "Mary" (first") HAnn" (middle) "Pierce" (last)Hyphenated name "Mary" (first) "Owens-Pierce (last) "Mary" (first") "Owens" (middle) "Pierce" (last)Punctuation al-Amin al Amin

Sourceof Error OnVoter Registration Form In Database(Voter.DMVand/or SSA)Typos 01103/05 02103105or 1/00105or 1/03/05 or 11/03/05Transposedfield 01/03/05 03/01/05 or 05101/03Invented default 01103105 01/01105 (submitted only asJanuary 2005)

Such errors occur quite frequently in large databases, and could create enormous problemsfor new registrants if additional hurdles-or absolute bars-are imposed in the event thestate cannot successfully find a match. A sample run in New York City in late 2004, forexample, foreshadowed the scope of the problem: an audit conducted after attempting to

Making the List


33/50


34/50


35/50

Findings Four key categories of state policyThis report catalogs states' policies and procedures with respect to the new voter registra-tion process under HAVA, paying particular attention to the policy choices that may affectan eligible citizen's voting rights.As a result of HAVA, when a citizen now attempts to register to vote, she must (in moststates) submit her driver's license number or state identification card number, if she hasone; if not, she must submit the last four digits of her Social Security number. (If she hasneither number, the state must assign her a unique identifying number.) Most states thenattempt to match information on the voter registration form-including this "identifyingnumber"-to information in other government databases, including the driver's licensedatabase of the state motor vehicles department or the database maintained by theCommissioner of Social Security.State practices regarding this matching process-and its effect on a citizen's voter registra-tion-vary widely. The survey reveals that there are four primary ways in which these statepractices differ:1. Match criteria: First, states vary in the criteria they use to determine whether the

information on a voter registration form matches information in another govern-ment database. Some states use a fairly flexible standard, to account for typos andother mistakes; other states use a very exacting standard that does not compensate forthese kinds of errors. The more exacting the standard, the more likely that a minorerror prevents an eligible match-decreasing the chance that the state'sdatabase stays clean.

2. Failed match: Second, states vary in the consequences they impose when they areunable to find a match between information on a citizen's application for voteristration and information in another government database. Some states implementthe limited identification procedure required by HAVA for first-time voters who reg-ister by mail; other states place additional burdens on the voter or reject the applica-tion outright. The more burdensome the consequences, the more likely that eligiblecitizens will be barred from the polls because of errors in the process.

3. Incomplete information: Third, states vary in the way in which they treat applica-tions submitted with a missing, illegible, or incomplete identifying number. Somestates check whether the right number can be located in another database, or assigna new unique identifier and then register the applicant; other states immediatelyreject the application. The more rigid the response, the more likely that an eligiblecitizen will not be registered due to a minor and immaterial mistake.

Brennan Center for justice 7


36/50

4 . orrecting errors: Finally, states vary in the opportunities they provide to resolveerrors in the matching process. All states notify the voter when a problem occurs, butthey differ in the form such notice takes and the process by which errors can beresolved. The greater the opportunity for correction, the less likely it isthat errors willremain unresolved and create problems at the polls for eligible voters.

Each of these categories reflects a different opportunity for states to address the errors thatinevitably arise in the registration process, including common errors that have no bearing ona citizen's eligibility to vote. There are many ways in which errors arise: the applicant maymake an honest mistake on the form, transposing a number or omitting a digit; an electionsclerk may make an honest mistake in data entry, such as a typo or a mistake in reading hand-writing; there may be a mistake in other government databases, such as in those maintainedby a state department of motor vehicles or the Social Security Administration; or there mightsimply be a mismatch between two correct sources of information, such as a woman listedwith a maiden name in one database and a married name in another.None of these mistakes mean that the applicant is ineligible to vote, but any of them maykeep eligible citizens from the polls, depending on a state's practices. In general, the moreaccommodating the state's approach in each area, the more likely it is that eligible voterswill retain the opportunity to vote; conversely, the less accommodating the approach, themore likely it is that eligible voters will be barred from the polls.We now discuss the states' intended practices in relation to each category. This followingdiscussion represents a snapshot of state intentions in early 2006; state policies are, inmany cases, still developing as election officials develop experience with the statewidevoter registration databases. 2

1. Criteria for matching: state practicesStates employ different criteria to determine whether information on a voter registrationapplication matches information in another government database. Some states use aflexible match standard, requiring that fields match substantially, but not exactly; forexample, under such a "substantial match" standard, "Michael" would match "Michael,"but might also match "Mike," "Micheal," "M.," or even "Michaela." Some states requireeach character of each Held to be the same: under such an "exact match" standard,"Michael" would match only "Michael," and would not match any of the other variantsabove. Some states' criteria fall in between.The more exacting the match criteria, the greater the likelihood of a "false negative," inwhich a match between two records will not be found when the records in fact belong tothe same person. The possibility for error is exacerbated as the number of compared fields(name, date of birth, erc.) increases, because of the increased opportunity for typos orsimilar mistakes. Conversely, the more flexible the match criteria, the greater the likelihoodof a "false positive," in which two records are deemed to match when they do not belong tothe same person. This effect, however, is mitigated as the number of compared fields (name,8 Making the List

2 Neither Hawai i nor NorthDakota is reflected in thetallies of individual state prac-tices below. Hawaii did notrespond to this survey, and 110relevant policies were reflectedin its state statutes or regula-tions. North Dakota has nosystem of voter atall, and does not collect any ofthe information described inthis report.


37/50


38/50


39/50

8 In Arizona's system, thelast name must have f ivelerrers in common, and thefir st name must have threeletters in common.9 CA, LA , M A, M D, M E,M O, M S, SD , and TX.10 AK, AZ, DE, IL, IN,LA . MA.ME. MN. MS.and WI.IIAK, IL. and IN.12A Z, D E, MN, and WI.D LA, M A, ME, and MS.14 7 stares (G A, H I, K Y,NM, SC, TN, and VA)collect the registrant's fullSocial Security number anddo not ask for a driver'sl icense number or stateidentification cam number.15 CA, CO, FL , lA, {D.M D, M I, M O, M T, NC,NE, NH , N], NY , OR , PA ,R I. S D, TIC, UT, vr; WA.WVandWY.1610\\-a'5 contract with theSoci a l S ecu r it y Adm ini sr ra -t ion indicates that t ile SSAmay only be willing tomatch infurmacion r o r voterregisrrarion through AAMVA,which would render theAAMVA s ta n da rd the defacto n a ti on a l s ta n dar d .17 Indeed, as of january2006, the Social SecurityAdministration reported that28.5% of the first 143,000attempted marches--over40.000 vorers--had beenrejected. This rare=-morethan 1 in 4 voters-mostlikely reflects an enormousnumber of "false negatives."C ur io us ly , AAMVA h asdevised a different matchingprotocol to compare infor-mar ion for the purposes ofissuing driver's licenses thanthe protocol d es cri be d i nthis report, which is usedonly in voter regisn-acion.The AAMVA protocol forissuing driver's licenses ismore f lexible-and lessprone to error-than theprotocol for voterregistration describedabove.

n contrast, 5 of the 15 states use or plan to use hybrid systems that are dangerously closevariants of an overall "exact match" standard. These systems leave a little flexibility toaccount for a limited range of data errors, but only in certain circumstances. Iowa andWashington will seek an exact match of the identifying number, last name, and date ofbirth, but will accept variations of the applicant's first name-they would find example#4 above, but not #2, #3, or #5. Arizona will seek exact matches of the number and dateof birth, and find substantial marches of the names-c-it would find example #4, andmight find example #5, but would not find examples #2 or #3 above. Michigan will seekexact matches of the number, last name, and first initial of the first name, but will findall other substantial matches -it would find examples #1, #3, and #4 above, but notexamples #2 or #5. New York will seek an exact match of the identifying number; for allsuch records, the system will return a code stating whether the name, date of birth, oraddress match exactly (in examples #4 and #5 above, the official would see only a codestating that date of birth matches but name does not). The official then has the discre-tion to determine whether enough fields match to constitute a matching record.Finally, 9 states? use or plan to use an "exact match" standard likely to lead to many "falsenegatives." In these states, certain fields are selected (usually the identifying number, firstname, last name, and date of birth; some states include the applicant's middle initial orcurrent address), and records are deemed to match only if each and every character of eachselected field matches exactly.Using this method, only example #1 above would be returnedas a match; all other examples would be rejected.

Records with Social Security digitsThere is a similar division in how states approach the records of an applicant submittingthe last four digits of her Social Security number-except that even more states plan to usea rigid "exact match" standard. Eleven states'? use or plan to use the same system notedabove that they will use for driver's license or identification card numbers (3 "substantialmatches,"!' 4 hybrid,12 4 "exact matches"13).14Twenty-four sratesl> instead use or plan touse a common "exact match" procedure developed by the Social Security Admininstrationand the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, which is likely to lead tomany "false negatives."16 Under this procedure, an automated system will seek an exactmatch of the applicant's last four SSN digits, first name, last name, month of birth, andyear of birth. A code will then be returned indicating only whether or not an exact matchwas found. Using the examples above, only example #1 would be returned as a match; allothers would be reiected.!?Tennessee and Virginia-both of which collect a full SSN (all nine digits), and do notrequest either a driver's license or state identification card number-use hybrid systemsthat are variants of the "exact match" standard. Tennessee seeks an exact match of theSSN, last name, and date of birth, and a substantial match of the first name. Virginiaseeks an exact match of the SSN and date of birth and a substantial match of name.Tennessee would find examples #1 and #4 above; Virginia would find examples #1, #4,and #5. Neither state would find the others.

Brennan Center for Justice 11


40/50


41/50

Matching Driver's License Numbers



42/50


43/50

18AL, AR , CT , DC, KS, NM,NY, and OH. Because of liti-gation in Connecticut pendingat the time the survey wa s con-ducted, Connecticut materialsin this report reflect only thepractices codified in statestatutes and regulations, anddo not ref lect a surveyresponse.

Matching Social Security Digits

No matchingFour states--Georgia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and South Carolina-do not match or planto match information from new voter registration forms to the motor vehicles or SocialSecurity databases before placing the registrant on the rolls.

UndeterminedFinally, the match criteria for 8 states18-for marching records with either driver's licensenumber or SSN digits-could not be determined for this survey. The determination couldnot be made either because the state in question had not yet decided on its match criteriaor because it did not respond to the survey and had no policy reflected in state law.



44/50


45/50

25Because Oregon conductselections by mai l, it intends tomaintain a dual system distin-guishing valid registrationentries and valid ballots forstate elections and for federalelections.26AI " HI, NM, NY, an d OH.

in federai:es,25 which will be counted if she sUPPI!n identifying number that canbe matched, a statement that she has no such number, or documentary identification.Five states provide that a voter for whom a matching record cannot be found may vote onlya provisional ballot. In Florida, the provisional ballot will be counted if the identifying num-ber is later verified or if the voter submits evidence to the county that the identifYing numbersubmitted on her voter registration form was accurate. Utah and West Virginia will count theprovisional ballot if an election official is able to verify the voter's identity and residence. InVermont, the provisional ballot (for federal races only) will count if administrative error pre-vented a match and the voter is otherwise eligible. North Carolina believesthat the voter willbe able to vote a provisional ballot, but has not yet determined when that ballot will count.Four states-Georgia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and South Carolina-do not match or planto match information from new voter registration forms to the motor vehicles or SocialSecurity databases before placing the registrant on the rolls.Finally, the consequences of a match for 5 states26 could not be determined for thissurvey. The determination could not be made either because the state in question had notyet decided on the relevant consequences or because it did not respond to the survey andhad no policy reflected in state law.Failure to Match Information to Motor Vehicle or SocialSecurity Databases

AlabamalaskaArizonaArkansasCalifornia'ColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict ofColumbia

IllinoisIndianaKansasLouisianaMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontana, NebraskaNew JerseyNew YorkOreqon"Rhode IslandTennesseeVirginiaWisconsin

GeorgiaKentuckyNorth DakotattOklahomaSouth Carolina

FloridaNorth CarolinaOreqon"UtahVermontWest Virginia

IdahoMaineNew HampshireWyoming

IowaMaryland*Pennsylvania*South DakotaTexasWashington

HawaiiNevadaNew MexicoOhio

* Maryland and Pennsylvania voters whose informat ion does not match wi ll be registered if they submitidenti fication before the dose of registrat ion. Pennsylvania has changed this pol icy; see note 20, above.

Pursuant to a new agreement with the Department of Justice, California has changed this policy; seenote 19. above.t Oregon voters whose information does not match will be fully registered to vote in state races.ttNorth Dakota does not register its voters.Brennan Center for Justice 17


46/50


47/50


48/50


49/50


50/50

Documents

BARNETT v DUNN (E.D. CA) - 37 - REQUEST for JUDICIAL NOTICE by Pamela Barnett. - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.37.0