How a patchwork of flawed and inconsistent
voting systems could deprive millions of
Americans of the right to vote

STATE REPORT CARDS
Rating States On Each Purge Issue Area Examined In The Report
States

When disfranchised/how
restored?

How are purge lists
compiled?

AZ

Felony convictions: incarceration, probation and parole;
limited restoration

C - Statewide voter registration system not yet integrated
with court system

C - No criteria mandated;
counties reported using reliable criteria; check twice

C - No statute; one county
reported giving pre-removal
notice

CA

Felony convictions: incarceration and parole; automatic
restoration

F - FCD sources not centralized; purge lists sent only to
counties; data updated twice
annually

D -No criteria mandated; 1
county reported using more
reliable criteria than other;
only check once

D - No statute; one county
reported giving post-removal
notice

GA

Felony convictions: incarceration, parole and probation;
automatic restoration

C - Statewide voter registration system not yet integrated
with court system

C - No criteria mandated;
counties reported using reliable criteria; check twice

B - Statutory pre-removal
notice; two counties reported
giving same

IL

Felony convictions: incarceration and parole; automatic
restoration

F - FCD sources not centralized; purge lists sent only to
counties

D - No criteria mandated;
counties reported using unreliable criteria; check once

F - No statutory or reported
notice

IA

Felony convictions: incarceration, parole and probation;
limited restoration.

C - No FCD statute; FCD
D - No criteria mandated
sources not centralized; purge
lists sent to state then counties

D - No notice statute; one
county reported giving postremoval notice

LA

Felony convictions: incarceration, parole and probation;
automatic restoration with
restrictions

B - FCD sources centralized;
purge lists sent to state then
counties; courts notify when
convictions overturned

C - No criteria mandated;
counties reported using reliable criteria; check twice

B - Statutory pre-removal
notice; two counties reported
giving same

MD

Felony or theft convictions:
incarceration, parole and probation; limited restoration

F - Unclear laws; error prone
voter registration database
and unreliable FCD

F -No criteria mandated;
counties reported using unreliable criteria

C - No notice statute; one
county reported giving preremoval notice

NV

Felony convictions: incarceration, parole and probation;
limited restoration

F - No FCD statute; multiple
FCD sources; sources not centralized; purge lists sent only
to counties

F - No criteria mandated;
counties reported using unreliable criteria; check once

C - No notice statute; one
county reported giving preremoval notice

NM

Felony convictions: incarceration, parole and probation;
automatic restoration with
restrictions

A - FCD sources linked directly B - No criteria mandated;
to county/state registration
counties reported using relidatabase; real time updates
able criteria; check once

C - No notice statute; one
county reported giving preremoval notice

NY

Felony convictions: incarceration and parole; automatic
restoration

F - FCD sources not centralized; courts send purge lists
sent to state/local election
agency at their discretion

D - No criteria mandated; 1
county reported using more reliable criteria than other; check
once at officials’ discretion

A - Statutory pre-removal
notice; same reported by two
counties who also give reinstatement information

Felony convictions: incarceration; automatic restoration

D - FCD sources not centralized; purge lists sent only to
counties

D - No criteria mandated; 1
county reported using more
reliable criteria than other;
check once

F - No statutory or reported
notice

Felony convictions: incarceration; automatic restoration

A - System eliminates data
management

N/A

N/A

SD

Felony convictions: incarceration and parole; automatic
restoration

A - No FCD statute; centralized B - No criteria mandated;
FCD sources linked to HAVA
counties reported using relicompliant county/state registra- able criteria; check twice
tion database; real time updates

D - No notice statute; one
county reported giving postremoval notice

TX

Felony convictions: incarceration, parole and probation;
automatic restoration.

B - No FCD statute; centralized FCD sources; purge lists
sent to state then counties

D - No criteria mandated; neither county reported using
specific criteria; cannot confirm if county double-checks

C - No notice statute; preremoval notice reported by
one county

VA

Felony convictions: incarceration, parole and probation;
limited restoration

B - Centralized FCD sources;
purge lists sent to state then
counties

C - No criteria mandated;
counties reported using reliable criteria; check twice

B - Statutory pre-removal
notice; one county confirmed;
other reported giving postremoval notice

OH
PA

FCD = Felony Conviction Data

How is match
performed?

Notice of removal given?

Purged!
How a patchwork of flawed and inconsistent voting systems could deprive
millions of Americans of the right to vote
Published October 2004
THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION is the nation’s premier guardian of liberty, working daily
in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and freedoms
guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws of the United States.
DEMOS is a public policy organization that seeks to strengthen US democracy and to seek a broadly shared
prosperity characterized by greater opportunity. Founded in 1999, Demos’ work combines research with
advocacy — melding the commitment to ideas of a think tank with the organizing strategies of an advocacy group.
RIGHT TO VOTE is a coalition of eight national civil rights and public interest organizations - the American
Civil Liberties Union, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Demos, the Mexican American
Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the People for the American Way Foundation and The
Sentencing Project. These groups came together in 2002 to work collaboratively to end felony disfranchisement through research, public education, voter registration and litigation. The Campaign seeks to
broaden discussion of the issue and promote re-enfranchisement nationwide, and supports work in five
target states, Alabama, Florida, Maryland, New York and Texas. The Campaign’s partners in these states
are Alabama Alliance to Restore the Vote, Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, the Maryland Voting Rights
Restoration Coalition, New York Unlock the Block Campaign and the Texas Unlock Your Vote Campaign.
For further information, please visit www.righttotvote.org.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was written by Laleh Ispahani, Voting Rights Fellow at the ACLU with Nick Williams, Policy
Analyst at Demos and with support from RTV and RTV partners. The statements made are the responsibility of the ACLU and Demos.
The ACLU and Demos gratefully acknowledge the generous support for their felony disfranchisement
work provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Tides Foundation (with funds from the
Ford Foundation, JEHT Foundation, Open Society Institute, and the Sandler Family Supporting
Foundation).

PURGED!

A Vo t i n g R i g h t s R e p o r t

Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Issue I: Purge List Compilation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Federal Felony Conviction Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Out-Of-State Felony Conviction Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
In-State Felony Conviction Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Issue II: Notification Of Persons Matched . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Good Practice For States That Disfranchise Incarcerated Felons Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Good Practice For States That Disfranchise Incarcerated Felons, Felony Parolees And/Or Probationers . . . . . . .8
Bad Practice: States That Use Few Matching Criteria And Do Not Double-Check Matches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Issue III: Criteria Used To Determine Matches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Good Practice: States That Statutorily Mandate Pre-removal Notice And Opportunity To Contest Purges . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Less Acceptable Practice: States That Report Providing Non-statutory Pre-removal Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Bad Practice: States That Report Providing Non-statutory Notice After Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Worst Practice: States That Provide No Notice At All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
State Purge Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

PURGED!

A Vo t i n g R i g h t s R e p o r t

Purged!
How a patchwork of flawed and inconsistent voting
systems could deprive millions of Americans of the right to vote
5 million American citizens, two percent of the
voting-age population, have lost the fundamental right to participate in our political process.

INTRODUCTION

T

he flawed purges of people with felony
convictions from Florida’s voter rolls during the 2000 and 2004 elections are now well
known. In 2000, thousands of legal voters were
purged from Florida’s voter rolls. One list sent
to Florida officials erroneously included the
names of 8,000 Florida residents who had committed misdemeanors – not felonies – in Texas.
In 2004, despite Florida’s sizable Hispanic
population, the state’s purge list contained only
61 Hispanic surnames, and also mistakenly
included thousands who had had their voting
rights restored. After these and other errors
were publicized, the state withdrew its felon
purge list. But under Florida law, county election officials may still purge voters based on
their own, locally generated lists.

African-American men make up one and a half
million of this number, 13 percent of black
men. This is a rate 7 times the national average.
Worse, three in ten of the next generation of
black men can expect to be disfranchised at
some point in their lives.

We surveyed Arizona, California, Georgia,
Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada,
New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
South Dakota, Texas and Virginia.
Given the variations in state disfranchisement
policies, we selected states in each of the categories above.1

While Florida’s purges of felons from voter
rolls in 2000 have received national attention,
little is known about the procedures other states
use. To shed some light on these procedures,
we surveyed the purge processes of 15 states.
The states have a wide variety of disfranchisement laws. All except Maine and Vermont prohibit incarcerated felons from voting. Thirtyfive states restrict those on parole, 31 of them
also restrict those on probation, and seven deny
the right to vote to all felons who have completed their sentences. In seven other states,
described here as “mixed status” states, a person can permanently lose the right to vote
based on criminal history, type of offense, or
when the offense occurred. The result: Nearly

This survey reflects our research of state law
as supplemented by conversations with representatives from each state’s chief elections
agency and two county election agencies.
Through our research and conversations, we
sought to answer the following questions: (1)
how does the state compile its felon purge
list?, (2) how do the state’s elections officials
“match” people with felony convictions
against individuals listed on their voter registration list before purging them from the
rolls?, and (3) does the state notify the individuals deemed “matched” that they will be
or have been purged?
1

PURGED!
Our key findings reflect that states, even those
with identical disfranchisement policies, conduct their purges with great unevenness:

January 2006.2 We offer recommendations
aimed at correcting the deficiencies in the policies examined, and show that purges can be
conducted in ways that both maximally protect
voters and minimally burden purge administrators.

Purge List Compilation – One-quarter of the
states surveyed compile their purge lists without reference to any legislative standards whatever, while half the states surveyed do so using
only an individual’s name and address.

Our history of purging felons from the voter
rolls is a shameful one. Purges were first instituted immediately after African Americans
were granted the franchise.

Criteria Used to Determine Matches – No
state surveyed has codified any specific or minimum set of criteria for its officials to use in
ensuring that an individual with a felony conviction is the same individual being purged
from the voter rolls.

After the 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870,
forbidding states from depriving citizens of the
vote because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, many states deliberately
adopted purge policies and revised their criminal disfranchisement laws so as to prohibit many
blacks from voting. It is sad that even in the
twenty-first century minorities are fighting for
the right to vote. The act of voting, of having a
voice in one’s own government, is one of
America’s founding principles. The National
Voter Registration Act of 1993 recognized as
much in its preamble: “The right of the citizens
of the United States to vote is a fundamental
right…discriminatory and unfair registration
laws and procedures can have a direct and damaging effect on voter participation in elections
for Federal office and disproportionately harm
voter participation by various groups, including
racial minorities.”3 Unfair and unjust disfranchisement of citizens should not be tolerated and
by no means should it be law.

Notification of Persons Matched – Two-thirds
of the states surveyed do not require elections
officials to notify voters when they purge them
from the voter rolls, denying these voters an
opportunity to contest erroneous purges.
Our examination was limited to purge structures and procedures, because the actual purge
lists – unlike Florida’s 2004 purge list, which
ultimately became available to the public –
were not available to us. Still, we were able to
identify myriad structural and procedural flaws
such as the lack of standardized or sufficient
felony conviction data and inadequate matching and notification procedures – issues that
also contributed to Florida’s flawed 2000 and
2004 purges.
In each issue area, some states stood out as
employing better and others worse practices
than their counterparts. We highlight these
practices hoping to spur legislative thinking
about reform of state purge processes, particularly in light of the federal Help America Vote
Act of 2002 (HAVA) which requires states to
establish official, uniform and nondiscriminatory statewide computerized voter registration
lists that are centralized and interactive by
2

A Vo t i n g R i g h t s R e p o r t
ously and frequently; and including notification of overturned felony convictions from
state to state and within states.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In all three issue areas examined, we found
inconsistent practices both across and within
states, even in states with identical disfranchisement laws. We offer detailed recommendations for remedying these inconsistencies in
the last section of this report, and attach
detailed state-by-state purge fact sheets to the
end of this report.4

Issue II: Criteria Used to Determine
Matches
Findings: Not a single state surveyed has codified any specific or minimum set of criteria that
must be used by officials in ensuring that a person with a felony conviction is the same person
being purged from the voter rolls. Accordingly,
states, and in many cases, the counties within
them, use quantitatively and qualitatively different information. Use of inconsistent matching
criteria has the deleterious effect of treating similarly situated voters unequally.

Issue I: Purge List Compilation
Findings: Purge lists are vulnerable to inaccuracy given the manner in which they are compiled. Generally, they are drawn from information provided by a variety of sources at different times. One-quarter of the states surveyed
have no legislation that specifies the type of
felony conviction data in-state source agencies
must convey, while half of the states surveyed
only require in-state source agencies to convey
an individual’s name and address, a high risk
proposition where an individual has moved and
matching is done on name alone. Only one
state election agency required notice of overturned in-state felony convictions. No state legislated the type of felony conviction data
required from other states about its residents,
or required other states to send notices of overturned felony convictions.

Recommendations: In compliance with the
HAVA requirement that states develop matching criteria, to provide clear guidance to officials conducting the matches, and to equally
protect all voters, states should adopt statutes
that specify and standardize matching criteria.
These statutes should prescribe the use of
numerous matching criteria, require exact
matches of felony conviction and voter registration data, and require that matches be double-checked at state and county levels.
Matching criteria should include first name,
middle name, last name, gender, maiden name,
alias, date of birth, place of birth and driver’s
license number if any.

Recommendations: To reduce the burden on
elections administrators, whose resources are
already stretched, and in turn, promote greater
respect for voter rights, we advocate streamlining list compilation. This can be partly accomplished through each state’s HAVA compliance
process by requiring coordination and connection between relevant state agencies. It also
involves codifying and standardizing the
felony conviction data that source agencies and
other states provide; requiring source agencies
to provide felony conviction data simultane-

Issue III: Notification of Persons
Matched
Findings: Only four of the 15 states surveyed
address this issue of due process by statute. Of
the 11 others, five reported providing varying
types of notice and an opportunity to contest
the purge; four reported notifying people only
after they have been purged, and two reported
providing no notice at all.
3

PURGED!
Recommendations: All states should adopt legislation that requires state officials to send a first
notice by certified, forwardable mail; follow up
by telephone where possible; accept replies in
writing or in person; include a stamped,
addressed envelope for replies, and allow a minimum of 30 days for a reply. Where no response
is received to the first notice, a second notice
should be mailed that permits another 14 days
for a response and includes state-specific information regarding reinstatement of the right to
vote and/or re-register. Purges should be completed by 90 days preceding an election.

4

A Vo t i n g R i g h t s R e p o r t
ed, and the sentence imposed.7 The nature of
the information that United States attorneys
send state elections officials is critical in helping them identify ineligible voters, and while
the NVRA at least provides a uniform standard,
federal courts might also send these agencies
additional available data such as a state driver’s
license number. The NVRA also requires federal courts to notify state election officials
when federal felony convictions are overturned.8

ISSUE I: PURGE LIST COMPILATION
States compile their purge lists by collating
information from a number of different
sources. All states receive felony conviction
data from (a) United States attorneys, concerning their residents’ commission of federal
felonies; (b) other states’ chief elections agencies, concerning their residents’ commission of
felonies in other states; and (c) in-state agencies, concerning their residents’ commission of
felonies in state.

b. Out-of-state felony conviction
data

With the exception of Pennsylvania, in several
states surveyed, in-state felony conviction data
is provided by multiple agencies, including judicial and law enforcement agencies, to the elections agency compiling the purge list. Moreover,
in many states, different agencies provide felony
conviction data at different times.

State chief election agencies also receive
felony conviction data from other states in
which their residents have been convicted of
felonies. We were unable to locate state statutes
that, like NVRA provisions, specify the information one state must send to another when
providing such notice. Without such uniform
standards, states may not send the best available data, making it difficult for receiving
states to accurately identify ineligible voters.
We were similarly unable to locate statutes
concerning state-to-state notification of overturned felony convictions. Because different
states disqualify individuals for different
crimes, out-of-state conviction data should
always include the description of the crime
committed.9

The sources of felony conviction data, their
content, and the degree of synchronicity
between them give us a sense of the lists’ accuracy and efficacy.
We highlight South Dakota and New Mexico,
because their procedures are most streamlined,
as exemplary of good practices, and Maryland,
whose procedures seem almost haphazard, as
exemplifying bad practices.

a. Federal felony conviction data

c. In-state felony conviction data

All states’ chief election agencies receive
notices of their residents’ convictions in federal district courts, pursuant to the National Voter
Registration Act (NVRA).5 The NVRA
requires United States attorneys to give written
notice of federal felony convictions to chief
state elections officials.6 The notices must contain a person’s name, age and residence, date of
entry of the judgment, a description of the
offenses of which the individual was convict-

Variations in practice in the collection of instate conviction data are great. For example,
eight states compile their purge lists at the state
level, six do so at the county level, and one
state has no purge list. Some states’ criminal
justice and judicial agencies are more connected to their boards of election than those of
other states. Some states have statewide, centralized voter registration databases, while oth5

PURGED!
ers do not. Louisiana aside, no state surveyed
statutorily mandates in-state notification of
overturned felony convictions. And in only
two states does the department of corrections
notify the board of elections when an individual’s sentence is complete. Rather than further
belaboring these intricacies here, we proceed
directly to examples of good and bad practices. (Detailed information on individual
state purge practices may be found in the
addendum to this report.)

records of all persons who have passed
through the state’s criminal justice system
since 1989. United States attorneys and the
chief state election agencies of other states
both report felony convictions to the secretary of state’s office. The information is then
sent to the board of elections for the county
where the person was last registered. For instate convictions, there is a single source of
information, the UJS. UJS court clerks also
send felony conviction data to the elections
division of the secretary of state’s office. The
information is then forwarded to the board of
elections for the county where the person was
last registered. Though we were unable to
find a statute prescribing the nature of the data
UJS court clerks must convey, multiple elections officials reported receiving a relatively
extensive and nearly standardized set of data
that includes gender and birthplace.12
Furthermore, all information is updated in “real
time,” which effectively precludes purges
based on outdated information.

South Dakota election officials reported
receiving a relatively extensive and nearly
standardized set of data that includes gender
and birth place. Furthermore, all information is
updated in “real time,” which effectively precludes purges based on outdated information.
i. Good practice: centralized databases,
applicable to all states

New Mexico, which disfranchises prisoners,
parolees and probationers, also employs commendable compilation practices. New
Mexico has a centralized system that is
administered at the county level.13 Because it
is centralized, simultaneously updated, and
requires standardized felony conviction data,
New Mexico’s compilation process is more
streamlined that most of the others surveyed.14 Unlike South Dakota, New Mexico
statutorily requires its in-state sources of
felony conviction data to provide specific and
uniform data. New Mexico law requires that
courts submit felony conviction data that
includes a person’s full name, age, gender,
marital status, birthplace, birth date, social
security number, date of conviction and last
known address.15 Each county’s courts and
election boards are electronically connected.
Each county is also electronically connected
to the statewide voter registration database.

South Dakota, which disfranchises incarcerated felons and felony parolees, is far along in its
HAVA compliance,10 and we recommend replication of its system.11 The state uses a system
that is centralized at the state level, receives instate felony conviction data from a single
source (its courts), and updates information in
“real time”. One drawback, however, is the
absence of legislative standards concerning the
nature of the felony conviction data the state’s
courts must convey to the agency compiling
the list (such as the NVRA provision that regulates what type of federal felony conviction
data United States attorneys must provide
states’ chief election agencies).
South Dakota has a computerized statewide
registration database, which is HAVA compliant and is connected to the state’s Unified
Judicial System, a computerized database of
all state courts (UJS). This database has
6

A Vo t i n g R i g h t s R e p o r t
These connections allow felony conviction
data to be updated in real time.16

iii. Bad practice: complex disqualification
schemes in “mixed status states”

ii. Good practice: an interim solution for states
that disfranchise only incarcerated felons

List compilation in Maryland is onerous not least
because of the state’s convoluted disfranchisement
law.20 State officials receive in-state felony conviction data from the state’s Judicial Information
System (JIS) and courts.21 Officials must sort
through the data and separate the names of persons convicted of infamous crimes and non-infamous crimes, because only the former crimes render an individual ineligible to vote.22 Officials also
have to parse through misdemeanor and felony
conviction data because some misdemeanors also
disqualify individuals from voting in Maryland.

Although limited in applicability and a
short-term solution, Pennsylvania’s absentee
ballot statute is nonetheless a significant
improvement on the procedures in place in
the states surveyed with analogous disfranchisement policies. Applicable only to states
that, like Pennsylvania, disfranchise incarcerated felons,17 the Pennsylvania statute is
also only a temporary ‘fix’ for the period
until states have instituted their HAVA-mandated centralized voter registration systems,
including state-specific purge procedures.
Realistically, however, since only nine states
have not requested waivers of compliance, it
will take most states well beyond the 2006
deadline to comply with HAVA and to
include the state-specific safeguards we recommend in this report.18 A Pennsylvaniastyle law may be a good interim measure for
states that disfranchise incarcerated felons
only.

Concomitantly, these states would also dispense
with having to re-register these voters.
Moreover, Maryland does not use a centralized
database and data is updated “about once a
month.” (Even with a statewide criminal justice
database, Maryland’s complicated disfranchisement law would make accurate purging difficult.)
In addition, Maryland law only requires its
sources of felony conviction data to send an individual’s name and address to compiling agencies.
Enactment of a uniform law requiring courts to
transmit first name, middle name, last name,
alias, maiden name, date of birth, place of birth,
gender, date of conviction, type of crime, and driver’s license number if any, would alleviate burdens for both state and local election officials.

Pennsylvania does not purge felons from its
voter list. Instead, the state employs an
innovative and administratively simple procedure to keep incarcerated felons from voting: Under Pennsylvania law, absentee ballots are not sent to those mailing requests
for them from prison addresses.19 Illinois
and Ohio are the other states surveyed here
that, like Pennsylvania, disfranchise prisoners only. We suggest that Illinois and Ohio
enact similar absentee ballot statutes and
abandon their purge lists, thereby reducing
the administrative burdens of managing
these lists and decreasing the likelihood of
errors. Concomitantly, these states would
also dispense with having to re-register
these voters.

Thus, the state’s complex disfranchisement
law, in addition to its lack of a centralized database, use of insufficient standardized felony
conviction data, and infrequent updates of that
data, make list compilation an unwieldy task.
One local election official in Montgomery
County admitted as much when she described
the system as “kind of disorganized.”
7

PURGED!

ISSUE II: CRITERIA USED
DETERMINE MATCHES

states like it that disfranchise incarcerated
felons only. There, no matching is conducted
because the state never purges felons from its
voter list, instead simply denying absentee
ballots to prisoners. Of the 15 states surveyed,
Illinois and Ohio, which like Pennsylvania,
disfranchise prisoners only, could, by enacting similar absentee ballot statutes, abandon
their purge lists, thereby reducing the administrative burdens of managing these lists and
preventing erroneous purges of eligible voters.25 They would concomitantly dispense with
having to re-register them.26

TO

In removing individuals with felony convictions
from the voter rolls, we found that none of the
states surveyed has codified any specific or minimum set of criteria for elections officials to use
to ensure that an individual with a felony conviction is the same individual being purged from
the voter rolls.23 The practical implications of
this is that these states, and in many cases the
counties within each of them, conduct purges
using quantitatively and qualitatively different
information. This in turn means certain states
and counties better safeguard voters against
being improperly purged than other states and
counties. Apart from Pennsylvania, then, which
does not engage in felon purging, no state surveyed afforded adequate protection to voters it
purged. Based on oral accounts of procedures
followed, however, South Dakota appears to use
procedures that – if codified – may be adequate
to verify matches.24

b. Good practice for states that disfranchise incarcerated felons, felony parolees and/or probationers
The procedures followed by South Dakota, if
codified, could serve as a solution for states
that also disfranchise felony parolees and/or
probationers and cannot therefore rely on the
Pennsylvania model. Though South Dakota
has not enacted statutes mandating either a
specific or minimum set of criteria officials
must use to perform matches, reports from
county officials indicate that, when conducting matches, state and county officials use a
greater number of criteria than most states
surveyed and double-check matches at state
and county levels.27

In removing individuals with felony convictions
from the voter rolls, we found that none of the
states surveyed has codified any specific or
minimum set of criteria for elections officials to
use to ensure that an individual with a felony
conviction is the same individual being purged
from the voter rolls.

Both state and county officials reported that
upon receiving felony conviction data from
the state’s Unified Judicial System, the first
step in performing a match was for state
officials to check the following ten pieces of
felony conviction data against the statewide
registration database: first name, middle
name, last name, social security number,
date of birth, gender, place of birth, date of
conviction, age, and address.28 Though no
statute specifies what matching criteria officials must use, or requires all 10 items to

a. Good practice for states that disfranchise
incarcerated felons only
Until states complete their implementation of
HAVA-mandated statewide computerized
voter registration databases, which when
modified to include specific matching criteria
will render matching a simpler task,
Pennsylvania provides the best system for

8

A Vo t i n g R i g h t s R e p o r t
match, a state elections official reported that
only if an individual appears in the
statewide database and is a clear match is
the information sent to the appropriate county official responsible for making the final
determination before removing the person
from the county’s “master” registration list
(which contains more pieces of information
than the statewide registration database). If
the person does not appear in the statewide
registration list, the information is not forwarded to the county and is usually discarded. When there is any doubt or a need for
additional corroborating information, officials telephone the Department of Justice or
the court that issued the judgment before
sending the names to the county boards of
election where the person is registered.

Montgomery County matched name, date of
birth and address.30 Additionally, Maryland
conducts matches at only the county level.
In Nevada, Clark County matched using
only name and date of birth, while Washoe
County used name, date of birth and sometimes address. A Clark County official
reported that she might find a match where
even name and date of birth did not match
exactly. Like Maryland, Nevada also conducts matches at only the county level.31

Once county officials confirm the match,
they then remove the person from county
registration records. This means that the
match is effectively checked twice, first at
the state and then at the county level, where
the more replete master lists reside. The
county board of elections also notifies the
secretary of state that the individual has
been removed from the county file and
should be flagged in the statewide registration database.29

ISSUE III: NOTIFICATION
PERSONS MATCHED

When conducting matches, South Dakota state
and county officials use a greater number of
criteria than most states surveyed and doublecheck matches at state and county levels.

OF

The states surveyed are also inconsistent concerning notification of those they purge from
their voter rolls. Only four of the 15 states surveyed— Georgia, Louisiana, New York and
Virginia — address this important issue of due
process by statute. Of the 11 others, five —
Arizona, Maryland, New Mexico, Nevada and
Texas — report nevertheless providing varying
types of notice and an opportunity to contest the
purge. Four states — California, Iowa, South
Dakota and Virginia — report notifying people
after they have been purged, and two states,
Illinois and Ohio, provide no notice at all.

c. Bad practice: States that use few matching criteria and do not double-check
matches
Counties in Maryland and Nevada report
using among the least extensive data in conducting matches and do not double-check
matches at state and county levels. One
Frederick County, Maryland official reported that she had only ever seen matches conducted using name and date of birth.
Admitting that “the system [was] disorganized,” Maryland’s Montgomery County
election
director
advised
us
that

a. Good practice: States that statutorily mandate pre-removal notice and opportunity to contest purges
Only four states — Georgia, New York,
Louisiana and Virginia — statutorily require
their elections officials to notify people to be
purged prior to the disfranchisement. The pre9

PURGED!
scribed notice is not always meaningful, however. Louisiana’s statute, for example, requires
individuals to appear before the Board of
Elections within 21 days of the date of the postmark on the notice. Georgia’s statute provides
for even less time, 14 days. Individuals may
have moved, and even forwarded notices may
not reach them in time to allow them to contest
erroneous purges.
Only four of the 15 states surveyed— Georgia,
Louisiana, New York and Virginia — address
this important issue of due process by statute.

New York’s statutory notification process is the
best though it, too, has serious shortcomings.
The county board of elections first mails a forwardable letter to the individual to be purged to
that individual’s last known address stating that
his/her name will be removed from the voter
registration rolls if he or she fails to respond in
person or in writing within 14 days. The mailing includes a postage-paid card that asks the
person to list the reasons why he or she should
not be removed. By allowing the person to
respond in writing as opposed to in person, as
well as including a postage-paid return statement, New York’s election officials make the
process slightly less onerous for people who
may have been erroneously removed.
If the individual fails to respond, New York
officials mail another notice advising of the
right to re-register or apply to a court for reinstatement, whichever is appropriate. Sending
individuals who have lost their right to vote a
second notice, and one containing information
regarding reinstatement, is a unique and good
practice for other states to adopt.
Still, the New York statute’s provision of 14
days to respond is little time for individuals to
receive and prepare to contest an erroneous

removal, particularly where people have
moved and the letter is forwarded to the new
address. Nor is regular mail, as provided in the
statute, adequate for this type of notification.
Notices must be sent by certified, forwardable
mail to ensure that the correct person receives
them. Officials might also telephone individuals when contact information is available, in
order to ensure that notices were received.
To best protect voting rights, we suggest that
courts, departments of corrections and related
agencies notify people convicted of felonies of
their right to vote at every possible point in the
process. At the very first point in time that an
individual becomes ineligible to vote —
when a defendant is being sentenced to prison
or probation, where applicable, for a felony
crime — the judge should advise defendants
that they will lose the right to vote and when
and how they may regain the right. When
paroled, the parole board or parole officers
should be required to advise parolees if they
are, or when they will be, eligible to vote or
register. In states where individuals can vote
while on probation, the sentencing court or
probation officers should inform probationers
that they can vote. These notifications will go
a long way toward dispelling the now welldocumented confusion surrounding exfelons’ eligibility to vote.32
b. Less acceptable practice: States that report
providing non-statutory pre-removal notice
Officials in Arizona, Maryland, Nevada, New
Mexico and Texas report that, though not mandated by statute, they also notify individuals
and permit them the opportunity to respond
prior to purging their names from the voter
rolls. Absent a mandatory, prescribed notification process, notification is discretionary,
inconsistently conducted and there is no legal
recourse for persons wrongly removed from
voter registration lists. For example, Maryland
10

A Vo t i n g R i g h t s R e p o r t
officials reported that some counties allow two
weeks for a response but others longer. In
Texas, the Program Director of the Voter
Registration Department told us that local registrars mail notices advising individuals that
their registrations are in jeopardy; these mailings include a questionnaire asking whether the
individual has ever served time, and allow up
to 30 days for individuals to respond. But this
practice could only be confirmed by one of two
counties we contacted. In Arizona, a Pima
County elections official stated that before
removing anyone from the registration list,
the county sends two letters of notification,
but officials in Maricopa County could not
confirm this. Absent a statute delineating a
reasonable time for a reply, followed by telephone calls and an additional notice where
necessary, such practices are discretionary
and provide voters little real protection.

The letter also advises individuals that if they
believe they were wrongly removed, they
should contact the registrar’s office immediately. South Dakota county election officials,
like California’s, reported contradictory notification practices: Pennington County’s election
supervisor reported notifying individuals when
their registration had been cancelled, but an
election official in Minnehaha County scoffed
at the idea asking, “Why would we do such a
thing?” States with inconsistent notification
practices illustrate the problems inherent in
leaving this issue to the discretion of county
officials.
Because these states reported notifying individuals only after they are removed, they place
the entire burden of contesting and re-registering on those erroneously purged, in whatever
time remains before the next election, if any.
As a result, individuals so notified may not
know that they have been erroneously purged
until they go to the polls to cast a ballot.

c. Bad practice: States that report providing
non-statutory notice after removal
Though these states do not address notification by statute, officials in California, Iowa,
South Dakota and Virginia reported a practice
of notifying individuals they purge from the
registration lists after the fact. In Iowa’s Linn
County, an election official reported mailing
notices to the last known addresses of those
purged, advising us that individuals purged
could later correct any mistakes. In Virginia,
an election official in Fairfax County told us
that the county mails a letter to the person
purged explaining the reason therefor.
Elections officials in two California counties
reported following different procedures when
individuals are purged: San Francisco
County’s Election Supervisor reported taking
no action as doing so would increase the
office’s workload, while Los Angeles
County’s assistant county recorder told us that
office mails a letter to the individual’s last
known address after purging the individual.

d. Worst practice: States that provide no
notice at all
Illinois and Ohio neither address notification
by statute, nor did officials report any informal practice of notifying individuals purged
from voter registration lists. Without affirmative action by state and/or county officials to
alert individuals that they will be removed
from the voter registration records, the possibility of error increases dramatically and
affords the voter no protection against inadvertent disfranchisement.

11

PURGED!
• In permanent disfranchisement states,
communications must be three-way, among
the board of elections, department of corrections, and the agency that has the
authority to restore the right to vote.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Issue I: Purge List Compilation
Purge lists are vulnerable to inaccuracy
because they are compiled by collating felony
conviction data from United States attorneys,
other states’ chief election agencies, and instate agencies.
• Given this fact, the mechanics of list compilation must be streamlined as much as
possible through fast and full compliance
with HAVA’s requirement that states establish official, uniform and nondiscriminatory
statewide computerized voter registration
lists that are centralized and interactive.
• These centralized systems must be
enhanced to account for state-specific
information, including state law, that
affects purges.
• These centralized systems must involve a
high degree of coordination of felony conviction data among courts, departments of
corrections, boards of elections, departments of motor vehicles and other relevant
agencies.

In many states, the various sources of felony
conviction data provide it to the compiling
agency at different times. This problem is magnified where there is no central repository of
felony conviction data.
• Information from the different sources of
felony conviction data must reach the compiling agency at the same time, and be
updated in real time, so that purges can be
based on the most recent information.
While federal law requires United States
attorneys to provide specific, standardized
information concerning individuals convicted
of federal crimes, one-quarter of the states
surveyed do not require their source agencies
to provide any specific or uniform felony conviction data, and half the states surveyed
require only name and address.
• States must require their sources of felony
conviction data to provide the compiling
agency standardized felony conviction
data.

• These centralized systems must include
two-way communication between departments of corrections and boards of elections so that departments of corrections
notify boards of elections when individuals
with felony convictions become eligible to
vote again.
• In those “mixed status” states with waiting periods, the date of an individual’s
release must be conveyed to the board of
elections with instructions that the individual appear eligible on the rolls in the
applicable number of years.

• Departments of corrections, courts and
boards of elections should collectively
develop sets of standards that include first
name, middle name, last name, maiden
name, alias, date of birth, place of birth,
gender, date of conviction, type of crime,
and driver’s license number if any. This
will facilitate the matching process and
will eliminate many common errors.
With respect to out-of-state felony conviction
data, no state required standardized felony conviction data of other states.
12

A Vo t i n g R i g h t s R e p o r t
clear guidance to officials conducting the
matches and to equally protect similarly
situated voters.

• Without uniform standards, sending states
may not send the best available felony conviction data, which in turn makes it harder
for receiving states to differentiate eligible
from ineligible voters.

• Officials must be trained to strictly adhere
to these criteria, given our finding that even
in states with standardized criteria, officials
exercising their discretion erroneously
purged voters, by using less than all available criteria for matching purposes.

• States should require the same felony
conviction data as for in-state felony convictions. (See recommendation above.)
• Because state disfranchisement laws differ,
out-of-state conviction data should include a
description of the crime in question.

States, and counties within them in many cases,
conduct purges using quantitatively and qualitatively different information, better safeguarding
some voters against improper purges than others.

• When a person completes his or her sentence or has his or her rights restored, the
state election agency originally notified of
the conviction should be notified that the
person is eligible again.

• Matching criteria should be numerous
including first name, middle name, last
name, alias, maiden name, date of birth,
place of birth, gender, date of conviction,
type of crime, and driver’s license number
if any.

In 14 of 15 states surveyed, we did not find
state law provisions, like NVRA Section
1973gg-6(g)(4), requiring notification of overturned felony convictions both from state to
state and within states.

• Matches should be double-checked at
state and county levels.
• An exact match of felony conviction data
and voter registration data should be
required. Absent an exact match, we recommend seeking corroboration from courts
or law enforcement agencies or by contacting the alleged felon, but in no event
removing that individual’s name from the
voter registration list.

• States should adopt statutes that, like
NVRA, require state-to-state, and in-state,
notification of overturned felony convictions. In both cases, courts would be
required to notify the relevant board of
elections of overturned convictions. When
this occurs, the individual should not have
to re-register.
Issue II: Criteria Used in Matching

Issue III: Notification of Persons Matched

None of the states surveyed has codified any
specific or minimum set of criteria that must be
used by officials in ensuring that a person with
a felony conviction is the same person being
purged from the voter rolls.

Only four of the 15 states surveyed address
notification by statute. Even New York’s
statute, the best of those surveyed, was deficient in the short time it allowed for a response.
• All the states surveyed should enact
statutes that require state elections officials
to:

• Statutes that specify and standardize
matching criteria are essential to provide
13

PURGED!
STEP 1: Send a first notice by certified,
forwardable mail advising the addressee
that his or her registration is in jeopardy
because that individual’s voter registration
data has been matched with the data of an
individual with a felony conviction. Include
a stamped, addressed envelope for replies
and state that replies will be accepted in
writing or in person.
STEP 2: Follow up by telephone where possible.
STEP 3: Allow a minimum of 30 days for a
reply, as the individual may have moved or be
traveling.
STEP 4: If no response is received to the first
notice, send a second notice stating that the
individual’s name is being removed from the
rolls in two weeks unless he or she responds
to this notice. Include information regarding
reinstatement of the right to vote and/or reregister.

• In states where individuals can vote on probation, the sentencing court or probation officers should inform probationers that they can
vote or register to vote.
To better protect voters who have had their
rights restored or were erroneously purged
from the voter lists, elections officials should
keep a permanent record of all persons
removed, preferably in a computerized database, including the date and reason for ineligibility and the date and reason a notice of ineligibility was sent. Under HAVA, persons whose
names do not appear on voter registration lists
are allowed to cast provisional ballots. When
election officials check their active voter registration files, they should also check files that
contain the names of voters whose rights were
suspended due to a felony conviction.

STEP 5: Check the most current information
before purging voters.
STEP 6: Complete purges by 90 days before
an election.
To dispel the now well-documented confusion
surrounding ex-felons’ eligibility to vote, people convicted of felonies should be advised of
their right to vote at every possible point:
• When a defendant is being sentenced to
prison or probation, where applicable, for a
felony crime, the judge should advise the
defendant that he/she will lose the right and
when and how he/she may regain the right.
• When paroling an individual, the parole
board or parole officers should be required
to advise parolees if they are, or when they
will be, eligible to register or vote.
14

A Vo t i n g R i g h t s R e p o r t
social security number if available,
address, and usual place of residence.4

ARIZONA PURGE SUMMARY

The law
Rights of individuals convicted of felonies are
Frequency of updates
suspended while they are incarcerated, on proThere are no statutory requirements; offibation, or on parole.1 There is no automatic
cial notice from courts is “after the fact.”5
restoration for persons convicted of more than
one felony; you must wait two years before
Who performs the matching?
applying for civil rights restoration to the judge
A state election official reported that the state
who discharged you at the end of the term of
performs the match and could not say whether
probation.2
the counties do any follow-up. An election
official in Pima County indicated that the
Number disfranchised (2000): 147,340
county performs a match before removal, but
Disfranchisement rate3: 4.06%
this could not be verified in Maricopa County.
The state may check the person’s voter regisSources of felony conviction data
tration against its computerized statewide regU.S. attorneys, election agencies of other
istration database, but state officials did not
states, clerks of superior courts, electors when
report this.6
reporting on signed jury questionnaires.
Federal and out-of-state convictions
U.S. attorneys report federal convictions to the
secretary of state’s office. Other states’ election
agencies also report felony convictions to the
secretary of state. This information is then sent
to the county recorder where the person was
registered to vote.
In-state convictions
Arizona state law requires clerks of superior
courts to send final conviction notices to the
county recorders where the individual was convicted, but state election officials also reported
receiving in-state felony conviction data from
clerks of superior courts.
What information is sent?
Courts are statutorily required to send
name, date of birth, place of birth,

What is a match?
There is no strict set of matching criteria. Pima
County reported matching information on the
voter registration form with the information
from the courts, including the name, last 4 digits of the social security number or driver’s
license number, and the mother’s maiden name.
State election officials did not indicate what
they considered to be a match.
Notification of removal
Arizona has no statutory requirement to inform
voters that their names are being taken off the
voter list, or that they have already been
removed. Pima County officials advised us that
they send two notices. If there is no response,
the person is placed on the inactive list.

1

Arizona Constitution, art. VII, § 2a. Arizona Revised Statutes, § 16-101.
Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-909-912.
3
Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disfranchised in 2000.
4
Arizona Revised Statutes § 16-126(c).
5
Arizona Revised Statutes § 16-165(9)(c).
6
Arizona did not request a waiver to postpone implementation of the HAVA-required, statewide voter registration
database. At the time this survey was conducted, the database was not integrated into the court system.
2

15

PURGED!

CALIFORNIA PURGE SUMMARY
The law
Rights are suspended for felony convictions
when the individual is incarcerated or on
parole.1 Felony probationers may vote. The
right to vote is automatically restored upon
completion of sentence, but one must reregister.
Number disfranchised (2000): 288,362
Disfranchisement rate2: 1.16%
Sources of felony conviction data
U.S. attorneys, election agencies of other
states, clerks of superior courts.
Federal and out-of-state convictions
U.S. attorneys report federal convictions to the
secretary of state’s office. Election agencies of
other states also report felony convictions to
the secretary of state. Information from the secretary of state is then sent to the county registrar where the person last resided.
In-state convictions
Clerks of superior courts send final conviction
notices directly to the registrar for the county
where the individual was convicted.
What information is sent?
Courts are statutorily required to send
name, address and date of birth.3
Frequency of updates
Twice yearly (April 1, September 1).

matching different information. Los Angeles
County reported matching more information
than San Francisco County, including name,
date of birth and place of birth. Los Angeles
County also indicated that a person’s name
would not be removed without an exact match.
San Francisco was less stringent in its matching
and said it only required an exact match of
name and address.
Notification of removal
California has no statutory requirement to
inform voters that their names are being taken
off the voter list, or that they have already
been removed. An election official in San
Francisco County said that the county did not
have the time or resources to inform every
voter each time someone was taken off the
county voter registration list. However, in
Los Angeles County, an election official said
that the county sends a letter of notification to
the person’s last known address stating that
the person has been removed from the registration rolls. The letter also states that if the
person believes he or she was wrongly
removed, the individual should contact the
registrar’s office immediately. The person’s
name is not removed from the voter registration list but is flagged with the word “canceled” and the reason for removal. Los
Angeles County indicated that this was done
to allow for a person who might not be on the
registration list to cast a provisional ballot. It
is unclear whether this is a state mandate or a
county practice.

Who performs the matching?
The appropriate county registrar’s office.
What is a match?
There is no strict set of matching criteria. San
Francisco and Los Angeles counties reported
1

California Constitution, art. II. California Code § 2201(c).
Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disenfranchised in 2000.
3
California Code § 2212.
2

16

A Vo t i n g R i g h t s R e p o r t
by the tenth of every month to the secretary of state).

GEORGIA PURGE SUMMARY

The law
Rights are suspended for individuals convicted
Who performs the matching?
of felonies when incarcerated, on parole or on
County registrars.
probation.1 The right to vote is automatically
restored upon completion of sentence, but one
What is a match?
must re-register.
There is no strict set of matching criteria.
Counties reported matching first, middle and
Number disfranchised (2000): 286, 277
last name, date of birth, and social security
Disfranchisement rate2: 4.86%
number (if available) with information on the
voter registration form. If the name is not an
Sources of felony conviction data
exact match, and all other information lines up,
U.S. attorneys, state election agencies of other
they usually consider it a match. A Fulton
states, clerks of superior courts, law enforceCounty election official admitted inadvertently
ment agencies.
removing eligible persons after only matching
the person’s name and address; for example, a
Federal and out-of-state convictions
father and son who share the same name and
U.S. attorneys send final conviction notices to
address. Part of her explanation as to why she
the secretary of state’s offices. Election agensometimes overlooks important indicators is
cies of other states also report felony convicthat she gets “so many notices.”
tions to the secretary of state. The information
is then forwarded to the registrar for the counNotification of removal
ty where the person was last registered.3
Georgia has a statutorily required pre-removal
notification. If there is a match, the election
In- state convictions
official has two months (60 days) to send out a
Clerks of superior courts send certificates of
forwardable notice to the voter indicating that
felony convictions to the secretary of state’s
his or her name will be removed from the regelection division. This information is then foristration list. The voter then has 14 days to diswarded to the county registrar where the perpute the charge. If the voter does not respond,
son was last registered to vote. Additional
the file is marked, “Deleted – Felon.” In Fulton
information may be obtained from law
County, the deleted files are archived every two
enforcement agencies such as sheriffs’ departyears; in Dekalb County they are archived
ments.
every five years.
What information is sent?
Courts are statutorily required to send
name, address and age.4
Frequency of updates
Monthly. (Court clerks must send lists
1

Georgia Constitution, art. II § 1. Georgia Code § 21-2-216(b).
Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disenfranchised in 2000.
3
Georgia has a statewide voter registration database in place, a ten-year-old mainframe system that was not connected to the courts or criminal justice agencies at the time this survey was conducted.
4
Georgia Code § 21-2-231(a).
2

17

PURGED!
What is a match?
There is no strict set of matching criteria. If use
The law
of the first name, last name and date of birth
The rights of convicted felons are suspended
does not produce a match, officials look at the
when they are incarcerated or on parole. The
address or driver’s license number. An election
right to vote is automatically restored upon comofficial in Cook County indicated that they do
pletion of sentence, but one must reregister.1
not purge if they cannot narrow it down to a
single individual.
Number disfranchised (2000): 46,992
Disfranchisement rate2: 0.52%
Notification of removal
There are no statutory requirements to inform
Sources of felony conviction data
voters that their names are being taken off the
U.S. attorneys, state election agencies of other
voter list, or that they have already been
states, circuit court clerks.
removed. Once the county clerk has identified a
match, the clerk immediately removes the indiFederal and out-of-state convictions
vidual’s name from the voter file. There were no
U.S. attorneys report federal convictions to the
reports from state or county election officials
secretary of state’s office. Election agencies of
that persons removed from voter rolls for felony
other states also report felony convictions to
conviction received any notification.
the secretary of state. The information is then
sent to the county clerk’s office where the person last resided.

ILLINOIS PURGE SUMMARY

In-state convictions
County circuit courts send notices of final judgments for individuals convicted of felonies (with
orders of incarceration) directly to the county
clerk’s office where the person was convicted.
What information is sent?
Courts are statutorily required to send
name and last known residence.3
Frequency of updates
Monthly.
Who performs the matching?
County clerk’s office.

1

Illinois Compiled Statutes § 730-5-5-5(d). Illinois Compiled Statutes § 10-5-3-5.
Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disenfranchised in 2000.
3
Illinois Compiled Statutes § 10-5/6-61.
2

18

A Vo t i n g R i g h t s R e p o r t

IOWA PURGE SUMMARY
The law
Rights are suspended for conviction of “infamous crime” while incarcerated, on parole or
on probation.1 There is no automatic restoration. Persons convicted must apply for clemency from the Governor.2
Number disfranchised (2000): 100,631
Disfranchisement rate3: 4.65%
Sources of felony conviction data
U.S. attorneys, election agencies of other
states, district court clerks.

Who performs the matching?
The state registrar performs an initial match on
the state registration list. When there is a “possible match, the state directs the counties to
remove the individuals. County election officials in Polk and Linn Counties also reported
performing a match.
What is a match?
Iowa has no strict set of matching criteria. A
Polk County official said the registrar doublechecks name, social security number and date
of birth two or three times. A Linn County official said the county checks the name and date
of birth. Iowa’s HAVA bill does not directly
address matching felons and voters, though
there is a provision directing the state registrar
to prescribe “access protocols for adding,
changing, or deleting information from the
state voter registration file.”

Federal and out-of-state convictions
U.S. attorneys report federal convictions to the
state registrar. Election agencies of other states
also report felony convictions to the state registrar. The information is then sent to the county
commissioner of registration for the county
Notification of removal
where the person last resided.
There is no statutory requirement, but an election official in Linn County said a notice is
In-state convictions
mailed to the last known address to advise the
District court clerks send notices of final judgindividual he or she has been removed. This
ments for individuals convicted of infamous
could not be confirmed in Polk County.
crimes to the state registrar. This information is
then sent to the county commissioners of registration where the person last resided. Iowa is in
the process of procuring a statewide voter registration database from private vendors.
What information is sent?
There is no statutory requirement; it
may include name, date of birth and
social security number.
Frequency of updates
Monthly.

1

Iowa Code § 903.1(1)(b)(2). Iowa’s disfranchisement law has not significantly changed since 1857.
Iowa Code § 48a.6.
3
Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disfranchised in 2000.
2

19

PURGED!
alias, date of birth, sex and address of
each person convicted of a felony
where there is an order of imprisonment. Sheriffs and district attorneys
also provide supplemental information
such as the date of birth, driver’s license
number, address, or mother’s maiden
name.3

LOUISIANA PURGE SUMMARY
The law
Rights are suspended for felony convictions
when a person is incarcerated, on parole or on
probation. Rights may be reinstated after completion of sentence, including parole or probation. The registrant must appear in person and
provide documentation from the appropriate
corrections official that he or she is no longer
under an order of imprisonment.1

Frequency of updates
Courts send monthly updates. DPSC
sends quarterly updates.

Number disfranchised (2000): 37,684
Disfranchisement rate2: 1.16%

Who performs the matching?
The election division of the secretary of state’s
Sources of felony conviction data
office first verifies that the individual is regisU.S. attorneys, election agencies of other
tered in Louisiana against the elections and regstates, clerks of state courts, the Department of
istration information network (ERIN).4 When
Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC), sheriffs
there is a “possible match,” the state sends the
and district attorneys.
information to the parish registrar who then
matches the information again.
Federal and out-of-state convictions
U.S. attorneys report federal convictions to the
elections division of the secretary of state. What is a match?
Election agencies of other states also report There is no codified set of matching criteria for
felony convictions to the elections division of officials to follow, but an election official at the
the secretary of state. The information is then secretary of state’s office reported that the state
sent to the parish registrar in the county where first matches the last name and the first two letters of the first name against ERIN. An election
the person was last registered.
official at the Jefferson Parish Registrar reported matching the person’s full name (including
In-state convictions
Clerks of court must send certified copies of any aliases), date of birth, address and somefinal judgments to the secretary of state, elec- times gender. An election official at the Orleans
tions division, and to the parish registrar where Parish Registrar’s office corroborated this and
the individual was convicted. In addition, the added that they sometimes match the social
DPSC sends a supplemental report for all those security number as well. Matches are not
in custody or supervision whose name did not required to be exact but need to be “close
appear in a previous notice from the courts. enough.”
Clerks of courts also send notices when convictions are overturned to the elections division Notification of removal
Louisiana statutorily requires parish registrars
of the secretary of state’s office.
to notify registrants that their names will be
removed and provide them with an opportunity
What information is sent?
Both the DPSC and court clerks are to contest removal. Once there is a match, the
statutorily required to send the name,
Continued On Next Page
20

A Vo t i n g R i g h t s R e p o r t
Continued From Previous Page
registrar sends a notice indicating that the registrar has information that the person was convicted of a felony and is under an order of
imprisonment. The notice also states that the
individual must appear in person at the office of
the registrar within 21 days of the date the
notice was mailed to show cause why his or her
registration should not be suspended. If the
voter does not do so, the registration is deleted
from the statewide registration list. The person’s name is also crossed out of any duplicate
registration rolls and initialed by the person
who crossed it out. The original application is
placed in a suspended file, dated and flagged
with the reason for suspension (in this case, a
felony conviction) as well as an indication that
the person was notified. The files are kept in a
separate file of suspended voters for a period of
two years.

1

Louisiana Constitution, Art. I, § 10.
Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disfranchised in 2000.
3
Louisiana Revised Statutes § 18-171(a)-(c)
4
At the time of this survey ERIN was not connected to DPSC or the courts. The lack of synchronization was mentioned
in Louisiana’s final HAVA state plan.
2

21

PURGED!
What information is sent?
Maryland requires name and address to
be sent. State election officials indicated the reports “typically” include
name, address and date of birth.5

MARYLAND PURGE SUMMARY
The law
The rights of an individual who has been convicted of a “theft or other infamous crime” are
suspended while the person is incarcerated, on
parole or on probation. Automatic restoration
is granted for first time non-violent offenders
only. The duration of disfranchisement for all
others depends on the number of convictions
and on whether the individual is convicted of
a crime of violence.1

Frequency of updates
There is no statutory requirement. The
secretary of state reported receiving
information “about once a month.”

Who performs the matching?
The state performs an initial check (a) to see
Number disfranchised (2000)2: 128,836
if the name or address is missing and (b) to
Disfranchisement rate3: 3.31%
determine if the crime committed disqualifies
the individual, under Maryland law, from votSources of felony conviction data
ing, but it does not perform a specific match.
U.S. attorneys, election agencies of other
It then forwards the information to the counstates, the Judicial Information System, clerks
ty registrar to be matched against the voter
of state courts.
rolls.
Federal and out-of-state convictions
U.S. attorneys report federal convictions to the
elections division of the secretary of state’s
office. Election agencies of other states also
report felony convictions to the state registrar.
The information is then sent to the local registrar for the person’s last place of residence.

What is a match?
There is no codified set of matching criteria
for officials to follow. A Montgomery County
election official indicated that his staff usually stops at the name and address of the person,
but if there are duplicates they may check date
of birth. A Frederick County election official
In-state convictions
indicated that his staff had only ever seen the
The secretary of state reported receiving name and date of birth, which they then
felony conviction data from the Judicial matched.
Information System. The Maryland state code
also requires that the clerks of circuit courts Notification of removal
for each county and the administrative clerk Maryland has no statutory requirement. The
for each district court provide information for Montgomery County election official reported
all those convicted to the secretary of state.4 sending letters to individuals before they are
After removing individuals convicted of “non- removed. The letters state that individuals
infamous” crimes and ensuring that individu- have two weeks to contest the planned purge.
als’ names, addresses and dates of birth are If an individual contests removal, he or she
contained in the reports, the secretary of state must contact the election board and show
sends the reports to the local registrars where cause why his or her voting rights should not
the person last resided. A Montgomery County be suspended. If the individual does not conelection supervisor noted that the system was test the purge, or fails to show cause why his
“pretty disorganized.”
Continued On Next Page
22

A Vo t i n g R i g h t s R e p o r t
Continued From Previous Page
or her registration should not be suspended,
the local registrar has the authority to remove
the individual’s name from the voter file.

1

Maryland Constitution, art. I, Elective Franchise, § 4 and Maryland Election Code § 3-102(b)-(c).
The law was changed in 2002, affecting the number of disfranchised.
3
Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disfranchised. Maryland’s legal change affected the disfranchisement
rate.
4
It is unclear which system they actually use or if they receive information from both sources.
5
Maryland Election Code § 3-505(a)(3).
2

23

PURGED!
Frequency of updates
Unspecified. Clark County reported
receiving information once a month.

NEVADA PURGE SUMMARY
The law
Rights are suspended for felony convictions
when the individual is incarcerated, on parole
or on probation. Automatic restoration is granted only to first-time, non-violent felons. Others
“may petition the court in which the person was
convicted for an order granting restoration of
his or her civil rights.”1
Number disfranchised (2000)2: 66,390
Disfranchisement rate3: 4.78%
Sources of felony conviction data
U.S. attorneys, election agencies of other
states, local law enforcement agencies, jury
commissioners.

Who performs the matching?
County clerks perform the matching.
What is a match?
There is no codified set of matching criteria for
officials to follow. Each county follows its own
procedure. Washoe County matches by name,
date of birth, and sometimes address as well,
believing date of birth to be most important.
Clark County matches mainly by name and date
of birth and noted many people have the same
names, including middle initial. They also admit
that even matching a name, an alias, date of birth
and address could be a problem if the person has
a twin. A match may be found where even name
and date of birth do not match exactly. On occasion, officials query the police department for
additional information such as aliases.

Federal and out-of-state convictions
U.S. attorneys report federal convictions to the
elections division of the secretary of state’s
office. Election agencies of other states also
report felony convictions to the secretary of state.
The information is then sent to the county regis- Notification of removal
trar for the county where the person last resided. There is no statutory requirement, but Washoe
County advised us that a letter is sent to the person advising that his or her registration is going
In-state convictions
Nevada’s Administrative Code states that county to be cancelled because of a felony conviction.
registrars may receive information from the secre- The person can call and contest removal. There
tary of state or the “Central Repository for Nevada does not appear to be a formal process for
Records of Criminal History” regarding the con- doing so. Clark County also reported sending
viction of any person of a felony.”4 Washoe notices advising individuals that they would be
County reported obtaining information from local removed, along with a brochure about rights
law enforcement agencies and jury commission- restoration. The person can call to contest eroers. Clark County reported receiving information nious removal and Clark County will take their
information and try to sort out the matter with
from the Metropolitan Police Department.
the police department. There does not seem to
be a formal process. Rather, it’s a matter of the
What information is sent?
Nevada has no statutory requirement; county official, the voter, and the police deter“typically” the information includes mining whether the person is or is not the person convicted of a felony.
name, address and date of birth.
1

Nevada Revised Statutes § 213.155(1)-(2).
The law was changed in 2003, affecting the number of disfranchised.
3
Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disfranchised.
4
Nevada Administrative Code § 293.414(2).
2

24

A Vo t i n g R i g h t s R e p o r t
31 of 33 counties). The court clerks’,
registrars’ and statewide voter registration databases are linked.

NEW MEXICO PURGE SUMMARY
The law
Rights are suspended for felony convictions when
a person is incarcerated, on parole or on probation. In March 2001, New Mexico adopted a bill
repealing the state’s lifetime ban on voting for
individuals convicted of a felony.1 To reregister,
the individual must bring documentation that all
terms of his or her sentence have been fulfilled.
Number disfranchised (2000)2: 78,406
Disfranchisement rate3: 6.21%
Sources of felony conviction data
U.S. attorneys, election agencies of other states,
clerks of state courts.

Who performs the matching?
County registrars.
What is a match?
There are no minimum criteria for what constitutes a match. Courts are required to send nine
pieces of information. New Mexico’s voter registration application requires all registrants to
include their full nine-digit social security numbers. Officials use this to look up existing registrants to see if a person is a qualified voter as well
as to verify that an individual on the purge list is
the same person on the registration list. A Santa Fe
County election official pointed out, however,
that more than one person may have the same
social security number and therefore, it was
extremely important to look at the other information provided as well.

Federal and out-of-state convictions
U.S. attorneys report federal convictions to the
elections division of the secretary of state’s office.
Election agencies of other states also report felony
convictions to the secretary of state. The information is then sent to the registrar in the county
Notification of removal
where the person was last registered.
New Mexico has no statutory requirement, but
Santa Fe and Bernalillo Counties reported sending
In-state convictions
Clerks of courts electronically send relevant infor- a certified letter to matched voters. The letter cites
mation to the county registrar in the county where the name, date of conviction, and the case number
the conviction occurred. When county registrars of the person. The letter states that the person can
flag a person to be removed at the county level, the no longer vote in New Mexico due to a felony conname is automatically flagged in the state system. viction. The letter also indicates state laws on
restoration of rights for people with felony convictions and what documentation is required to restore
What information is sent?
Courts are statutorily required to include those rights. The files are flagged as “felony conname, age, sex, marital status, birthplace, viction,” but are not removed from the voter regisbirthdate, social security number (if any), tration list. New Mexico state law also requires
courts to notify the county where the person was
date of conviction and address.4
registered when he or she is again eligible to vote.
When re-registering these individuals must show
Frequency of updates
Lists are updated daily in real time (for that they have completed their sentence.
1

New Mexico Constitution, Art. 7, § 1.
The law was changed in 2001, affecting the number of disfranchised.
3
Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disfranchised. New Mexico law changed in 2000, affecting the state’s disfranchisement rate.
4
New Mexico Statutes § 1-4-27.1.
2

25

PURGED!

NEW YORK PURGE SUMMARY
The law
Rights are suspended for persons convicted of
a felony and sentenced to incarceration, or on
parole. Felony probationers may vote.
Incarceration includes parole but not probation. After an individual has served his or her
sentence, the right to vote is automatically
restored.1
Number disfranchised (2000): 131,273
Disfranchisement rate2: 0.95%
Sources of felony conviction data
U.S. attorneys, election agencies of other
states, clerks of state courts.
Federal and out-of-state convictions
U.S. attorneys report federal convictions to
the state board of elections. State election
agencies of other states also report felony
convictions to the state board of elections.
The information is then sent to the county
board of elections for the county where the
person last resided.
In-state convictions
Courts send lists to county boards of elections
for the counties where the person was convicted, or the state board of elections, at their
discretion. If the person was not living in the
county of conviction, the county board must
then send the information to the county where
the person last resided.
What information is sent?
Courts are statutorily required to send
name, address and date of birth.3
Frequency of updates
By statute, at least quarterly, though
state and county officials indicated
that updates were received much more
frequently.

Who performs the matching?
County boards of elections.
What is a match?
There is no strict set of matching criteria and
matches rest in the discretion of the auditor.
The New York City Board of Elections
advised that if the name, date of birth and
address are the same, it is considered a match.
Erie County advised us that no one was
removed without 100 percent verifiability of
name, date of birth, sex, and last known
address. If there is a discrepancy between the
voter registration list and the information provided by the courts, the Erie County board
sends a letter to the person at the last known
address inquiring as to his or her identity. If
a telephone number is provided, it may also
try to contact the person that way. After sending the letter, if it does not hear anything back
but the discrepancy remains, it will not
remove the person from the list. The New
York City Board of Elections Registration
Supervisor would not reveal her office’s factchecking process.
Notification of removal
Counties are statutorily required to send a
pre-removal notice. If there is a match, a forwardable letter is sent to the address where
the person was last registered, advising that
he or she will be removed from the registration rolls. The letter indicates that the person
may appear before the board or send a written
statement explaining why he or she should
not be removed from the list. The letter also
includes a postage-paid card that asks the person to list the reasons why he or she should
not be removed. If the person does not
respond within 14 days, his or her name is
removed. If the person’s response does not
satisfy the board, it will send another notice
advising that the name has been removed.
The notice advises the individual of the right
Continued On Next Page
26

A Vo t i n g R i g h t s R e p o r t
Continued From Previous Page
to re-register or to apply to a court of law for
reinstatement, whichever is appropriate. If the
person does not prove that he or she has the
right to vote in New York within 14 days, he
or she must reregister.4

1

New York Consolidated Laws § 5-106.
Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disfranchised in 2000.
3
New York Consolidated Laws § 5-708.
4
New York Consolidated Laws § 5-402
2

27

PURGED!

OHIO PURGE SUMMARY
The law
Rights are suspended for persons convicted of
a felony and sentenced to incarceration. Felony
probationers and parolees may vote. After the
individual has served his or her sentence, the
right to vote is automatically restored.1

Who performs the matching?
County boards of election.
What is a match?
There is no strict set of matching criteria but
county election officials reported using the
name, address, social security number, and usually the date of birth.

Number disfranchised (2000): 47,461
Disfranchisement rate2: 0.56%

Notification of removal
Ohio has no statutory requirement. Upon finding a match, a voter’s registration is cancelled.
Sources of felony conviction data
According to Wayne County, the board does
U.S. attorneys, election agencies of other
not send a notice to voters. The Wayne County
states, clerks of courts.
official thought but was not certain that voters
were informed of the loss of voting rights when
Federal and out-of-state convictions
they were incarcerated.
U.S. attorneys report federal convictions to the
elections division of the secretary of state’s
office. Election agencies of other states also
report felony convictions to the secretary of
state. The information is then sent to the board
of elections for the county where the person last
resided.
In-state convictions
Clerks of courts of common pleas file lists of
persons who have been convicted of felonies
with the board of elections in the county in
which the conviction occurred.
What information is sent?
Courts are statutorily required to
include name and address. One county
election official reported that the data
may also include the social security
number and date of birth.3
Frequency of updates
Monthly.

1

Ohio Revised Code § 19-2961.01.
Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disfranchised in 2000.
3
Ohio Revised Code § 19-3503.18
2

28

A Vo t i n g R i g h t s R e p o r t
Who performs the matching?
N/A

PENNSYLVANIA PURGE SUMMARY

The law
Only those incarcerated are unable to vote.
What is a match?
Voting rights are automatically restored upon
N/A
release.

Notification of removal
N/A

Number disfranchised (2000): 36,847
Disfranchisement rate1: 0.40%
Sources of felony conviction data
U.S. attorneys, election agencies of other
states.
Federal and out-of-state convictions
Nothing is done with the information from federal and out-of-state convictions because
Pennsylvania does not purge individuals incarcerated from its voter registration lists.
In-state convictions
Pennsylvania does not purge individuals incarcerated from its voter registration lists and
therefore the state does not collect lists of those
incarcerated. Rather, the state prohibits incarcerated felons from voting by denying applications for absentee ballots mailed from prison
addresses.2
What information is sent?
N/A
Frequency of updates
N/A

1
2

Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disfranchised.
25 PA Cons. Stat. § 3146.1

29

PURGED!

SOUTH DAKOTA PURGE SUMMARY
The law
Rights are suspended if an individual is
under a sentence of imprisonment. Rights
are automatically restored thereafter, but the
person must reregister and may be asked to
show proof that his or her sentence was
completed.1
Number disfranchised (2000)2: 2,727
Disfranchisement rate: 0.50%
Sources of felony conviction data
U.S. Attorneys, election agencies of other
states, Unified Judicial System (UJS).3
Federal and out-of-state convictions
U.S. attorneys report federal convictions to the
elections division of the secretary of state’s
office. Election agencies of other states also
report felony convictions to the secretary of
state. The information is then sent to the county board of elections where the person was last
registered.
In-state convictions
The clerks of the UJS courts send information
to the secretary of state. The information is then
sent to the county boards of elections where the
person was registered.
What information is sent?
South Dakota has no statutory matching
requirements but reported matching ten
pieces of information: first, middle and
last name, address, social security number, age, date of birth, gender, birthplace and date of conviction.
Frequency of updates
Rolls are updated in “real time.”

Who performs the matching?
The secretary of state’s elections division and
the county boards of election.
What is a match?
There are no statutory criteria for election
officials to follow. However, the information
that county and state officials receive is far
more replete than in most other states. State
election officials first fill in any information
that may be missing or unclear. This is often
done by telephoning the court where the person was convicted. The person’s name and
other information is then checked against the
computerized statewide registration database
that is HAVA compliant and is connected to
the UJS computerized database. If the person
is registered or appears to be registered, the
information is sent to the appropriate county
board of elections. Once the county board of
elections receives the information, the county
verifies it to make sure there is a match. An
election official in Pennington County advised
that they look at the name (first, middle, last),
social security number, date of birth, gender,
place of birth, date of conviction, age and
address to verify that the person should be
removed. If the information matches, the person is removed and the county board notifies
the secretary of state that the person has been
removed from the county list. The file is then
flagged in the statewide registration database
as that of a felon. The file is not removed but
made inactive.
Notification of removal
There is no statutory requirement. An election
official in Pennington County said that the
county sends a notice after the person has
been removed from the list. A Minnehaha
County official said that they did not do so and
asked, “Why would we do such a thing?”

1

South Dakota Constitution art. VII, § 2. South Dakota Codified Laws § 12-4-1.1.
Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disfranchised.
3
South Dakota’s Constitution provides for a centralized court structure, the Unified Justice System.
2

30

A Vo t i n g R i g h t s R e p o r t

TEXAS PURGE SUMMARY
The law
The rights of people convicted of felonies are
suspended while the person is incarcerated, on
parole or on probation. The right to vote is
automatically restored upon completion of the
sentence.1
Number disfranchised (2000): 525,967
Disfranchisement rate2: 3.54%

Who performs the matching?
While the secretary of state maintains that
matches conducted at the state level are used to
indicate “possible felons,” it is unclear what the
counties check, or whether they verify the
information at all. Dallas County reported following instructions from the secretary of state
“to the letter.” Harris County said it simply
receives notice that someone in the county is a
felon and then removes that person from the
voter rolls. Neither county reported performing
any sort of match.

Sources of felony conviction data
U.S. attorneys, election agencies of other
What is a match?
states, the Department of Public Safety
Texas has no specific criteria for officials to
(DPS).
determine a match. The secretary of state
matches name, driver’s license number and
Federal and out-of-state convictions
date of birth.
U.S. attorneys report federal convictions to
the elections division of the secretary of
Notification of removal
state’s office. Election agencies of other
There is no statutory requirement. One state
states also report felony convictions to the
election official indicated that the local regissecretary of state. The information is then
trar sends a notice to the registrant informing
sent to the registrar in the county where the
him or her that the registration is in jeopardy
person last resided.
and allowing an opportunity to contest it before
removing the person’s name from the voter file.
In-state convictions
The notice informs the registrant that he or she
The DPS prepares abstracts of final judghas 30 days to contest and provides a form,
ments and files them with the secretary of
which may be submitted either in person or by
state. The secretary in turn files the informamail. If the registrant fails to act within 30 days,
tion with the appropriate county registrar of
the local registrar removes the individual from
voters.3
the voter file. A Harris County election official
confirmed that the County sends a letter that
What information is sent?
includes questions pertaining to the person’s
Texas has no statutory requirement.
current eligibility status.
The secretary of state indicated that
DPS sends the person’s name, driver’s
license number, and date of birth.
Frequency of updates
Weekly (for both the DPS and the secretary of state).
1 Texas Statutes § 11.002(4).
2 Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disfranchised.
3 Texas Statutes § 16.003

31

PURGED!
Frequency of updates
Monthly.

VIRGINIA PURGE SUMMARY
The law
The rights of people convicted of felonies are
suspended while they are incarcerated, on parole
or on probation. Virginia permanently disfranchises those with felony convictions. Individuals
wishing to regain their rights must wait five
years after the completion of their sentences and
petition the circuit court of the county of conviction, or in which they presently reside.1

Who performs the matching?
State officials indicated that matching is done
at both the state and county levels, but it was
difficult to determine the extent to which
matching occurs at the state level. For example, we do not know if the state simply verifies that an individual is registered in a particular county or does something more.

Number disfranchised (2000): 310,661
Disfranchisement rate2: 5.9%

What is a match?
The Prince William County registrar reported using social security number, date of
Sources of felony conviction data
birth, and address to determine a match.
U.S. attorneys, election agencies of other
Another county election official was
states, and Central Criminal Records Exchange
unwilling to share what she considered a
(CCRE).3
match.

Federal and out-of-state convictions
U.S. attorneys report federal convictions to the
state board of elections. Election agencies of
other states also report felony convictions to
the state board of elections. The information is
then sent to the county registrar where the person last resided.

Notification of removal
Counties are statutorily required to send
notices. The registrar must publish the
names of the voters to be removed and provide actual notice by mail to the last known
address of the voter. This notice must
include “when the registrar, at his office
during regular office hours, will hear testiIn-state convictions
mony produced for or against the right of
The state board of elections receives the list of
the persons named in the notice to be
felonies from the CCRE electronically. The
retained on the registration records.” At the
state board then sends the information to counhearing, the registrar “shall determine if the
ty registrars in the county where the person last
registered voter named in the notice is qualresided.
ified to vote.” Voters who fail to appear to
defend their right will have their registraWhat information is sent?
tion cancelled by the registrar.
Courts are statutorily required to send
name, address, county, city, social security number, date of birth, and date of
conviction.4
1 Virginia Constitution, Art. II, § 1.
2 Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP) disfranchised.
3 Central Criminal Records Exchange (CCRE) is a collection of information from law enforcement agencies and final
dispositions from clerks of courts. The State Board of Elections has access to the Non-Criminal Justice Interface
(NCJI).
4 Code of Virginia § 24.2-409.

32

A Vo t i n g R i g h t s R e p o r t

33

PURGED!

ENDNOTES
1

We chose Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa,
Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, New York,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia. Of
these states, Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania prohibit
incarcerated felons from voting; California, New York
and South Dakota also prohibit felony parolees; Georgia,
Louisiana, New Mexico and Texas also restrict probationers; Arizona, Maryland, and Nevada are mixed status
states, and Iowa and Virginia permanently disfranchise
felons.

2

Title III, Sec. 303(a) (1-5). While HAVA does address
purges, HAVA voter registration databases will not
entirely remedy purge list compilation, matching and
notification problems. First, HAVA only sets out general guidelines for purges. Second, given the variations in state disfranchisement law, each state will
need to build into its HAVA database state-specific
procedures. We also note that 41 states are behind
schedule.

3

42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973gg (a) (1), (3).

4
We exclude Pennsylvania from these recommendations
because that state has no purge list.

state election officials first verify that these individuals
are registered in the statewide list, while others immediately forward the information to the county where the
individual last resided.
10

Title III, Sec. 303 (a) (1-4) requires that each state
implement a single, centralized computerized statewide
voter registration list that is coordinated with other instate agency felony conviction data.
11
The other states, like South Dakota, that also disfranchise incarcerated felons and felony parolees are
California, Colorado, Connecticut and New York.

12

The state officials also report receiving social security
numbers. Given data mining and identity theft concerns
we do not advocate collection of this data. All information
collected should be used only for matching, and must be
strictly safeguarded.

13

The other 15 states that also disfranchise prisoners,
parolees and/or probationers and automatically restore
the right to vote when sentences have been served are
Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Kansas,
Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, West Virginia,
and Wisconsin.

14
5

42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973gg-6(g). The NVRA covers all the
states in this survey.

As of July 2004, this system was operational in 31of
New Mexico’s 33 counties.

15
6

Id. The NVRA grants the states considerable latitude in
the routine and systematic methods by which they may
ensure the accuracy of their voter registration lists by
removing the names of those who are no longer eligible.
As will become evident, states approach the rather technical and detailed problems of list maintenance quite differently.

7

Id. This provision continues: “(3) On request of the
chief State election official of a State or other State official with responsibility for determining the effect that a
conviction may have on an offender’s qualification to
vote, the United States attorney shall provide such
additional information as the United States attorney
may have concerning the offender and the offense of
which the offender was convicted... (5) The chief State
election official shall notify the voter registration officials of the local jurisdiction in which an offender
resides of the information received.” 42 U.S.C.
Sec.1973gg-6(g) (3), (5).

8

42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973gg-6(g) (4).

Again, we do not advocate collection of social security
numbers.

16
While centralized county-administered voter registration databases like New Mexico’s may provide more
local control if an individual is erroneously purged, centralized state-administered voter registration databases like South Dakota likely allow for greater accountability from a specific agency in the event of a problem.
For instance, if a particular county in New Mexico is
receiving inaccurate information from the courts or
systematically purging eligible voters, the problem may
be more difficult to detect at the local level. If problematic purges occur in South Dakota, the state can be
more easily audited and the errors more easily fixed.
Conversely, placing authority for the maintenance of
such a centralized database in the hands of a few state
officials could be used to facilitate large purges of eligible voters.

17
The District of Columbia and nine other states also disfranchise only incarcerated felons. The nine states are
Hawaii, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana,
New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon and Utah.

9

Information from federal courts and other states is
eventually sent from the chief state election officials to
the local election agency responsible for removing convicted felons from the lists. In some states, the chief

18

The nine states are Arizona, Alaska, Georgia, Hawaii,
Kentucky, Minnesota, South Carolina, South Dakota and
West Virginia.

34

A Vo t i n g R i g h t s R e p o r t
19

25 PA Cons. Stat. § 3146.1. Though the Pennsylvania
model may leave the state vulnerable to the possibility of
identity theft, we found no reported instances of it.

20

Maryland election law disqualifies from voting persons
convicted of theft or other “infamous crime” unless: (a)
the individual has been pardoned, (b) in connection with
a first conviction, has completed the court-ordered sentence imposed for the conviction, including probation,
parole, community service, restitutions, and fines, or (c)
in connection with a subsequent conviction, has completed the court-ordered sentence imposed for the conviction, including probation, parole, community service,
restitutions, and fines, and at least 3 years have elapsed
since the completion of the court-ordered sentence
imposed for the conviction, including probation, parole,
community service, restitutions, and fines; (d) is under
guardianship or disability; (e) has been convicted of buying or selling votes; (f) has committed a second or subsequent crime of violence. Maryland Constitution, Art. I,
Elective Franchise, Section 4; Maryland Election Code,
Election Article, Section 3-102(b)-(c).
21
JIS administers data processing systems, collects and
analyzes statistics, and maintains computer hardware
and software for the judiciary. JIS also helps state and
local judicial agencies meet their data processing and
information technology needs. From judicial data files,
JIS provides information to judicial, criminal justice, and
law enforcement agencies. JIS has been cited as difficult
to use and prone to security breaches. School Library
Association, 2003 (http://www.ibillio.org/slanews/conferences/sla2003/programs/Commercial_Public_
Records.pdf);
Government
Computer
News,
2001(http://www.gcn.com/state/7_9/news/167321.html).

22

According to the Maryland Board of Elections’ website,
“infamous crime” is any felony or crime involving an element of deceit, fraud, or corruption. The court-imposed
sentence includes probation, parole, community service,
restitutions and fines.” The site then provides a definition of “Infamous Crimes” and directs those interested
to contact the attorney general’s office to ascertain the
current list of infamous crimes. Curiously, while the
board of elections includes “theft” as an infamous crime,
state criminal statutes define theft below $500 as a misdemeanor, and theft above $500 as a felony. Though
state board of elections officials advise us that they only
consider theft in excess of $500 to be a disqualifying
crime, the definition of “infamous crimes” embraces yet
other misdemeanors.
23

Pennsylvania aside, of course, since that state has no
purge list.
24

Legislation of matching criteria is vital but so is education of officials that they must adhere to it. In Georgia,
despite the existence of legislation that sources of felony

conviction data provide several pieces of data, a Fulton
County official conducting matches admitted only using
individuals’ name and address and thus erroneously
purging a man with the same name and address as his
son who had been convicted of a felony but had never
registered to vote. Thus, name and address are by themselves insufficient matching criteria. Furthermore,
unless mandated by statute, and educated about it, officials conducting matches may in their discretion use less
than all available data, leading to erroneous purges.
Election officials in other states also expressed having
problems matching when using few pieces of information, citing, for example, the probability that data
were entered incorrectly, transposed in some way or
that the address had likely changed.
25

The other states that only disfranchise incarcerated
felons are Hawaii, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon and
Utah, and the District of Columbia.

26

Though the Pennsylvania model may leave the state
vulnerable to the possibility of identity theft, we found no
reported instances of it.
27

Only two other states surveyed double-checked matches, Louisiana and Virginia.

28

An official in the state’s largest county, Minnehaha
County, told us that five pieces of information, rather
than ten, were matched: social security number, date of
birth, first name, middle name, and last name. Even use
of these five data points constitute better practice than
that in most states. However, though state officials
report matching social security numbers, we do not
advocate use of this data. We also reiterate that all information collected should be used only for matching, and
must be strictly safeguarded.
29

Flagging rather than deleting protects voters mistakenly taken off voter registration lists. If at the polls a person learns that he or she is not on the voter registration
list, that person is allowed to vote by provisional ballot.
When the provisional ballot is checked, because the
name was not removed from the database, elections officials will be able to more easily trace and determine the
accuracy of the purge.
30

Counties in Arizona, California and Virginia also reported using discrepant matching criteria: In Arizona,
Maricopa County reported having no purge list, while
Pima County reported using the last four digits of the
social security number or driver’s license number and
parent’s name. In California, Los Angeles County officials reported using name, date and place of birth while
San Francisco County matched name, date of birth and
address. In Virginia, a Fairfax County official would not
tell us what information the county used to determine a
match, while a Prince William County official advised us

35

PURGED!
that county used date of birth, address and social security number.
31

Of the states surveyed, only Louisiana, South Dakota
and Virginia reported matching both at state and county
levels. Arizona and Texas county officials may or may not
double check matches, at their discretion. The other
states surveyed matched only at the county level
(California, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico,
New York, and Ohio. This list excludes Pennsylvania
because that state has no purge list.).

32

Studies in New York by the Brennan Center for Justice,
in Minnesota by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law, and in Idaho by the Idaho Statesman all
uncovered widespread confusion among state and local
county agencies about restoration of voting rights.

36

A Vo t i n g R i g h t s R e p o r t

37

National Office
125 Broad Street, 18th Fl.
New York, NY 10004-2400
(212) 549-2500
www.aclu.org