On April 10, the House of Representatives passed the H.R. 22, the SAVES Act, which would mandate states to require citizens to provide “documentary proof” of their citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections. The bill passed on a principally party-line vote of 220-208. Four Democrats crossed the aisle to vote for it.
Most Democrats are, predictably, having a meltdown – as they do at the prospect of any time there is any attempt to ensure the franchise is reserved to American citizens.
Here in Orange County, Orange County Registrar of Voters Bob Page decided to weigh in, issuing a public statement the same day the House passed the SAVES Act.
“From purely an election administrative point of view if the SAVE Act becomes law of the United States, the cost of assisting voters who would be required to provide documentary proof of citizenship in person every time they register or update their voter registration could exceed $6 million annually for the County of Orange Registrar of Voters,” the statement begins, before going into the methodology behind the ROV’s estimate. Basically, the ROV is complaining his office will have to spend more money to ensure that in Orange County, only Americans are voting in federal elections.
So what? To our knowledge, the ROV hasn’t complained about successive state laws – passed by our Democrat-controlled state government, that force on county elections officials the very expensive obligation to run a rolling, months-long election process in which they must print and mail a ballot to every voter (regardless of whether the voter wants one). Or complaints about the extra expense of having to collect, process and tabulate ballots that continue arriving until a week after Election Day.
These deliberate decisions by state policymakers to create an elongated, more permissive and more expensive election – which has degraded public trust in the system’s integrity – has met with silence from the ROV’s office.
It is easily within our power to construct a less expensive election system where voters not cast their ballots in a shorter time period and election officials certify results in a more timely manner. Yet we see no “statements” on how this would simplify the administering of elections, and certainly reduce their cost.
The Democrat-controlled state legislature has enacted laws that make it more difficult to challenge suspicious ballots. If an election observer sees an election worker processing ballots on which the signatures do not match, those ballots cannot be challenged. The only recourse is to notify the Registrar and hope they’ll “counsel” that worker. That law weakened protections against fraud, but we do not recall any critical statement from the ROV.
The OC ROV’s press release concludes by asking, “Will Congress appropriate the funds local and state elections officials need to implement the SAVE Act?”
The short answer: most likely, no.
The U.S. Constitution obliges states to hold elections for Congress. It further states Congress to “may at any time by Law make or alter” state laws governing the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives.” It says nothing about making Congress pay for those elections.
Will it cost more money to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote? Yes. And again – so what?
It is certainly valid for Page to be concerned about the costs of complying with the SAVE Act (assuming it becomes law). As a department head, that is only prudent.
And that’s the point: he’s a department head – an administrator, not a policy maker. Policy making is reserved for the elected members of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, because – unlike department heads – they are directly accountable to the voters.
While worded as a mere statement of facts, Page is clearly weighing in on a political policy issue – something from which he should refrain, especially since the Board of Supervisors have taken no official position on the matter.
As an unelected agency head, the Registrar should practice studied neutrality, particularly when it comes to contentious issues that belong in the sphere of politics. If county supervisors ask him for a report on the budgetary and staffing impacts the SAVE Act will have on the Registrar of Voters, that is one thing.
But to depart from past practice and unilaterally wade into this fraught policy and political debate was unwise and injudicious, and engenders mistrust in the impartiality of the office.
