October, 01 2008, 03:35pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Tim Bradley, BerlinRosen Public Affairs, (646) 452-5637
Study Finds States Purging Millions of Voters in Secret, Often Erroneously
Brennan Center Reveals Wild Inconsistencies in Maintenance of Voter Registration Lists
NEW YORK
Today the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law released
one of the first systematic examinations of voter purging, a
practice-often controversial-of removing voters from registration lists
in order to update state registration rolls-click here for report. After a detailed study of the purge practices of 12 states, Voter Purges
reveals that election officials across the country are routinely
striking millions of voters from the rolls through a process that is
shrouded in secrecy, prone to error, and vulnerable to manipulation.
Upon the release of Voter Purges, today the Brennan Center
and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law began filing
public records requests with election officials in 12 states in order
to expose the purges that happened this year.
"Purges can be an important way to ensure that voter rolls are
dependable, accurate and up-to-date," said Myrna Perez, counsel at the
Brennan Center and the author of the report. "Far too frequently,
however, eligible, registered citizens show up to vote and discover
their names have been removed from the voter lists because election
officials are maintaining their voter rolls with little accountability
and wildly varying standards," Myrna Perez stated.
According to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, between 2004
and 2006, thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia reported
purging more than 13 million voters from registration rolls. While the
secret and inconsistent manner in which purges are conducted make it
difficult to know exactly how many voters have been stricken from
voting lists erroneously, Voter Purges finds four problematic
practices with voter purges that continue to threaten voters in 2008:
purges rely on error-ridden lists; voters are purged secretly and
without notice; bad "matching" criteria mean that thousands of eligible
voters will be caught up in purges; and insufficient oversight leaves
voters vulnerable to erroneous or manipulated purges. The report
reveals that purge practices vary dramatically from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction, that there is a lack of consistent protections for
voters, and that there are often opportunities for mischief and
mistakes in the purge process.
"The voter rolls are the gateway to voting, and a citizen typically
cannot cast a vote that will count unless his or her name appears on
the rolls. Purges remove names from the voter rolls, typically
preventing wrongfully purged voters from having their votes counted.
Given the close margins by which elections are won, the number of
people wrongfully purged can make a difference. We should not tolerate
purges that are conducted behind closed doors, without public scrutiny,
and without adequate recourse for affected voters," said Wendy Weiser,
Deputy Director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center.
Voter Purges reviews the state statutes, regulatory
materials, and news reports in 12 diverse states: Florida, Kentucky,
Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin. In five states-Kentucky,
Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, and Washington-the Brennan Center study also
draws on extensive interviews with state and local election officials
charged with the maintenance of voter registration lists.
The list of states in which the Brennan Center and the Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law began filing public records
requests for purge records today includes 12 states. They were chosen
because they had flawed purges or voter registration practices in the
past, they use problematic purge procedures with insufficient
protections for voters, they recently conducted large-scale purges, or
they have specific practices in place that warrant further examination.
"Every year, the Election Protection hotline receives calls from
across the country from eligible voters whose names have been removed
from the voter rolls. We need to take the lid off the secret process of
voter purges so we can remedy any problems we discover and ensure that
they don't recur in the future," said Jonah Goldman, Director of the
National Campaign for Fair Elections at the Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights Under Law, which coordinates the national Election
Protection program.
"Nearly every purge that has come to light has bumped eligible
voters off the rolls. Because purges are done in secret on an ad hoc
basis, the only way to find out what is actually happening and if
eligible voters have been wrongfully purged in droves is through public
records requests," said Wendy Weiser of the Brennan Center.
Several examples of recent purges made public reveal that purge practices are in dire need of improvement:
- In Mississippi earlier this year, a local election official
discovered that another official had wrongly purged 10,000 voters from
her home computer just a week before the presidential primary. - In
Muscogee, Georgia this year, a county official purged 700 people from
the voter lists, supposedly because they were ineligible to vote due to
criminal convictions. The list included people who claimed to have
never even received a parking ticket. - In Louisiana, including
areas hit hard by hurricanes, officials purged approximately 21,000
voters, ostensibly for registering to vote in another state, but did
not provide adequate opportunity to contest the records.
Flawed purges are sometimes caused by erroneous government lists. For
example, even though Hilde Stafford, a Wappingers Falls, New York,
resident, was still alive and voting in 2006, the Social Security
Administration's Death Master File-a database of 77 million deaths
dating back to 1937-lists her date of death as June 15, 1997. Indeed,
from January 2004 to September 2005, the Social Security Administration
had to "resurrect" the records of 23,366 people wrongly added to its
Death Master File.
Another cause of erroneous purges is flawed procedures for
generating purge lists. In the infamous Florida purge of 2000-for which
conservative estimates place the number of wrongfully purged voters
close to 12,000-Florida registrants were purged from the rolls if 80
percent of the letters of their last names were the same as those of
persons with criminal convictions. Those wrongly purged included
Reverend Willie D. Whiting Jr., who, under the matching criteria, was
considered the same person as Willie J. Whiting.
In 2004, Florida planned to remove 48,000 "suspected felons" from
its voter rolls even though many of those identified were in fact
eligible to vote. When the flawed process generated a list of 22,000
African Americans to be purged-and only 61 voters with Hispanic
surnames, in spite of Florida's sizable Hispanic population-it took
pressure from voting rights groups to stop Florida officials from using
the purge list.
Voter Purges contains several recommendations to improve the
transparency, accountability, and accuracy of purges, including notice
to individual voters and the public, strict and uniform criteria for
the development of purge lists, and "fail-safe" provisions to protect
voters from erroneous purges. An overall fix is the establishment of a
system of universal voter registration, with protections for voters
erroneously left out.
"It is essential that we put in place standards for voter purges to
ensure public accountability and protection for voters," said Myrna
Perez of the Brennan Center.
"There really are no effective national standards to govern voter
purges, and the result is a chaotic, whimsical approach to the
maintenance of voter rolls," said Michael Waldman, Executive Director
of the Brennan Center. "The lack of consistent rules and procedures
means that Americans across the country lack basic protections against
erroneous purges. We encourage election officials, legislators,
advocates and concerned members of the public to use this report to
improve voter purge practices and ensure that the rights of eligible
voters are not jeopardized," Waldman concluded.
A full copy of the Brennan Center's analysis of purge practices and
recommendations is available here: www.brennancenter.org/purges. The
Brennan Center's website is www.brennancenter.org.
The website for the Election Protection program is
www.866ourvote.org, and for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law is www.lawyerscommittee.org
The Brennan Center for Justice is a nonpartisan law and policy institute. We strive to uphold the values of democracy. We stand for equal justice and the rule of law. We work to craft and advance reforms that will make American democracy work, for all.
(646) 292-8310LATEST NEWS
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular