The state’s Government Accountability Board determined state residents may not be disqualified from voting if their records show mismatching information, officials announced in a clarification letter released Friday.
The decision found that a mismatch in information was not sufficient grounds to disqualify a voter at the polls or challenge that voter’s eligibility. It was also found that voters registered by unpardoned felons also cannot be disqualified at the polls.
“A mismatch only means that data in two or more systems do not match,” the decision read. “There are many possible reasons why the data in two different systems do not match besides the reason that the voter has changed his or her residence to a location outside the municipality, or is otherwise ineligible to vote.”
In a statement issued Friday, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin praised the GAB’s decision but reserved harsh words for a related lawsuit recently filed by state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, which they said was intended to disenfranchise state Democrats in the upcoming election.
The DPW statement denounced Van Hollen’s case as a “politically motivated lawsuit in collusion with the Republican Party designed to disenfranchise voters and sway the election in favor of” Republican presidential candidate John McCain.
At issue in both the lawsuit and the GAB decision was a provision in the Help America to Vote Act of 2002 called a “HAVA check,” which mandates that election officials match up personal information given by voters at the polls with information in other government databases to ensure an accurate voting list.
Van Hollen’s lawsuit, filed early September, asked the GAB to bring Wisconsin under compliance of the HAVA provision.
DPW communications director Alec Loftus said the lawsuit had a partisan agenda.
“Van Hollen’s lawsuit would disproportionately affect Democrats because it impacts people who have recently registered, who are mainly Democrats,” Loftus said. “The lawsuit was designed to disenfranchise thousands of Democratic voters.”
According to Loftus, up to a million residents statewide would have been challenged at the polls under Van Hollen’s lawsuit, which he said would unfairly affect Democrats because of the large number of newly registered democratic voters.
“It’s very important for every eligible voter to get out there and vote and know they won’t be challenged on Election Day,” Loftus added.
Kevin St. John, a spokesperson for the state Department of Justice, said the DPW’s claims related to Van Hollen’s lawsuit as “totally false.”
“[Our] lawsuit asked the law to be applied in a non-discriminatory manner,” St. John said. “The DPW should have tried reading it first before they issued the press release.”
He continued, saying Loftus had “zero credibility” on the issue.
St. John added the lawsuit simply asked for the HAVA verifications to be performed, as mandated by federal law, on all voters to assist election officials in compiling an accurate voter list.
He also rejected Loftus’ claim that the lawsuit was intended to disenfranchise voters, saying it simply asked for background verification in accordance with federal law.
