New Year, New Website

Nonprofit VOTE is kicking off 2014 with a new look! Today we're debuting our redesigned website. The site is simple, clean, easy to navigate, and of course nonpartisan and nonprofit friendly! Although the design may be different, the quality content and helpful resources haven't changed.

Featured on the site is our new online voter engagement resource library. It's the web's most comprehensive collection of voter engagement resources and our filter makes it easier than ever to find what you're looking for. Use it to sort by topic, type, media, or language or browse the entire library.

Take a look! You can still find us at www.nonprofitvote.org.

January 23rd: Making a Voter Engagement Plan

It's January, which means it's time to start making a voter engagement plan! The midterm elections are November 4th, and 35 Senate seats and all 435 seats in the House of Representatives are up for election. At least 21 states will have state-wide ballot measures. Make sure your nonprofit is prepared by joining our January webinar:

Plan Ahead 2014: Build a Voter Engagement Timeline for Your Nonprofit 
Thursday January 23rd at 2:00pm Eastern

The 2014 midterm elections will be here soon, and it's time to start thinking about your nonprofit's plan for registering, educating, and engaging voters. In this webinar we'll discuss when, where, and how to incorporate voter engagement activities into your work. We'll also help you develop and tailor a 2014 voter engagement timeline for your organization.

Featured Presenters: Lindsey Hodel is Nonprofit VOTE's National Field Director and has more than a decade of experience in public policy advocacy, community organizing, and nonprofit civic engagement efforts in the West and nationally. She also founded the Colorado Participation Project, a roundtable of direct service nonprofits engaged in client engagement programs. Julian Johannesen is Director of Research and Training at Nonprofit VOTE where he's worked on a variety of projects including the development and delivery of training to 501(c)(3) nonprofits interested in nonpartisan voter engagement work.
  

Thank You for an Incredible 2013!

Before 2013 comes to a close, we want to a take a brief moment to thank our partners, our supporters, and nonprofits across the country for supporting voting.

2013 was an exciting year for Nonprofit VOTE:

• We debuted brand-new research on the impact of nonprofit voter engagement, including both turnout data and case studies. 
• The second annual National Voter Registration Day was once again endorsed by the National Association of Secretaries of State and embraced by secretaries of state across the country.
• We released the latest report in our America Goes to the Polls series as well as an accompanying report on voter turnout gaps. 
• We concluded another successful run of our annual webinar series, all of which can be watched anytime on our YouTube channel.

There will be plenty for nonprofits to do in 2014. In case you want to get a jump on things, you can register now for our January 23rd webinar on making a voter engagement plan.

Thank you for everything and Happy New Year from Nonprofit VOTE!

The State of Felon Disenfranchisement in 2013

Earlier this year, the Sentencing Project gave an update on felon disenfranchisement in the United States. Currently, 5.85 million Americans are prohibited from voting due to laws that disenfranchise citizens convicted of felony offenses. Only two states--Maine and Vermont--do not restrict the voting rights of anyone with a felony conviction, even while in prison.

However, incarcerated individuals represent a minority of the total disenfranchised population. In fact, 75% of disenfranchised voters live in their communities, either under probation or parole supervision or having completed their sentence. An estimated 2.6 million people are disenfranchised in states that restrict voting rights even after completion of sentence.

Public opinion surveys report that 8 in 10 U.S. residents support voting rights for citizens who have completed their sentence, and nearly two-thirds support voting rights for those on probation or parole. Since 1997, 23 states have modified laws to expand voter eligibility for ex-offenders and as a result an estimated 800,000 citizens regained the right to vote from 1997 to 2010.

Even in states where the voting rights of ex-offenders are restored, myths about ineligibility are often rampant. Know the law in your state and ensure that your organization is sharing current and accurate information with your community.

New Interactive Map from the Census Bureau

Today, the U.S. Census Bureau released Census Explorer, a new interactive map that gives users easier access to neighborhood-level statistics.

The map uses the most current statistics, updated from the 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Topics currently available in Census Explorer include:

• Total population,
• Percent 65 and older,
• Foreign-born population percentage,
• Percent of the population with a high school degree or higher,
• Percent with a bachelor's degree or higher,
• Labor force participation rate,
• Home ownership rate, and
• Median household income.

In addition to these characteristics, more than 40 American Community Survey social, economic and housing topics are now available through the Census Bureau's data tool, American Factfinder. This includes the first release of local statistics for disability, marital history, VA service-connected disability, health insurance coverage, and year of naturalization. Don't wait, start exploring!

New Project Vote Policy Paper: Early Voting

Project Vote's map of early and absentee voting, 2013.

Last month, Project Vote released their latest policy paper, this one on Early Voting. Although voting has traditionally taken place on a single Election Day, in recent years many states have expanded opportunities to vote before Election Day--generally to accommodate voter schedules and in the hopes of increasing turnout. 

Early voting allows voters to cast their ballots in person but at alternative times and locations, in addition to on Election Day at their traditional polling place. It is now in use in 30 states, as well as the District of Columbia. Some states also offer no-excuse absentee voting, allowing voters to fill out and mail or deliver a ballot before Election Day--without having to provide a reason for voting absentee.

In the 2012 election, early voting and absentee voting together accounted for 30% or more of all votes cast in 21 of the states. In Florida, about 50% of ballots were cast early.

Read the policy paper for more information.

What We Learned in 2013

As 2013 ends, it's the perfect time to reflect on what we learned this year.

This summer, Nonprofit VOTE released a two-part report, Can Nonprofits Increase Voting Among Their Clients, Constituents, and Staff? An Evaluation of the Track the Vote Program. While Part I of the report showcases the impact of nonprofit voter engagement on turnout in 2012, Part II tells the story of the nonprofits that talked to their communities about voting. By tracking the contacts nonprofits made with voters, we found:

• Nonprofits were particularly effective at increasing voter turnout among groups that are traditionally underrepresented in the electoral process. Voter turnout of nonprofit voters compared to all registered voters was: 18 points higher for Latino voters, 15 points higher for voters under the age of 30, and 15 points higher for voters with household incomes under $25,000. 
• Disparities in voter turnout by age, income, race, and ethnicity narrowed or disappeared among voters engaged by the nonprofits compared to the large turnout gaps evident among registered voters. 
• The most successful nonprofits made their voter engagement plans early, giving them time to pilot their programs and make adjustments. 
• Staffing is a key consideration. This means not only having a staff lead organizing and planning activities, but also ensuring there is adequate staffing--provided internally or by a partner--to carry out the efforts. 

In addition to our findings, other organizations also reported on new voting insights:

• Turnout in states with Election Day Registration was 12.5 points higher than in states without it. Election Day Registration accounted for approximately 1 in 8 ballots cast on November 6, 2012 in the eight states (and DC) that allowed it at the time. 
• For young people without college experience, the existence of a photo ID law in their state predicted lower turnout in 2012. However, the same report found that same-day registration improved overall youth turnout. 
• Turnout among voters with disabilities was strong, despite difficulties. 30.1 percent of voters with disabilities reported difficulty in voting at a polling place, compared to 8.4% of voters without disabilities. Nevertheless, 15.6 million people with disabilities reported voting in the November 2012 elections, turning out at a rate 5.7 percentage points lower than that of people without disabilities. 
• 75 percent of disenfranchised voters live in their communities, either under probation or parole supervision or having completed their sentence. 5.85 million Americans are prohibited from voting due to laws that disenfranchise citizens convicted of felony offenses. However, since 1997, 23 states have modified felony disenfranchisement provisions to expand voter eligibility. As a result, from 1997 to 2010 an estimated 800,000 citizens have regained the right to vote.

January Webinar: Making a Plan for 2014

Midterm elections are next year and 35 Senate seats will be up for election along with all 435 seats in the House of Representatives. At least 21 states will have state-wide ballot measures. Join our January webinar to ensure your nonprofit is prepared:

Plan Ahead 2014: Build a Voter Engagement Timeline for Your Nonprofit 
Thursday January 23rd at 2:00pm Eastern

The 2014 midterm elections will be here soon, and it's time to start thinking about your nonprofit's plan for registering, educating, and engaging voters. In this webinar we'll discuss when, where, and how to incorporate voter engagement activities into your work. We'll also help you develop and tailor a 2014 voter engagement timeline for your organization.

Featured Presenters: Lindsey Hodel is Nonprofit VOTE's National Field Director and has more than a decade of experience in public policy advocacy, community organizing, and nonprofit civic engagement efforts in the West and nationally. She also founded the Colorado Participation Project, a roundtable of direct service nonprofits engaged in client engagement programs. Julian Johannesen is Director of Research and Training at Nonprofit VOTE where he's worked on a variety of projects including the development and delivery of training to 501(c)(3) nonprofits interested in nonpartisan voter engagement work.
  

The IRS Moves to Limit Political Activity by 501(c)(4) Nonprofits

Election spending by 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations not required to disclose their donors mushroomed from a few million in 2006 to over $250 million in 2012.

On Thanksgiving eve, the IRS and Treasury department released a long awaited proposal to define and restrict the political activity of 501(c)(4) organizations. What are they proposing? Is it needed? How might this affect nonpartisan election activity of the vast majority of nonprofits who are 501(c)(3) charities - social service agencies, churches, civic groups and the like?

What are 501(c)(4) organizations?
501(c)(4)s are granted tax exempt status as nonprofit organizations operated for the promotion of social welfare that are "primarily" engaged in activities that advance the common good and general welfare of the people of the community "for the purpose of bringing about civic betterments and social improvements." It can include advocacy and lobbying related to the organization's exempt purpose. Unlike 501(c)(3) charities, contributions to 501(c)(4)s are not tax deductible. In the past (c)(4)s have been allowed to conduct a limited though not defined amount of political/election activity.

What's the IRS proposing?
See this IRS-Treasury press release for an outline of new rules to restrict partisan election activities aimed at electing or defeating candidates by 501(c)(4)s. They include common definitions of political activity like election intervention within 60 days of the election all the way to proposed restrictions on the ability of 501(c)(4)s to do even nonpartisan get out the vote or voter registration drives. The purpose is to create clear definitions on prohibited political activity to determine who can qualify for and maintain exempt status as a (c)(4) social welfare organization.

Is it needed?
Yes. Specific guidelines and clear definitions of political activity are long overdue to ensure 501(c)(4)s are actually set up primarily to promote social welfare and civic good, not election intervention. Recently, political operatives and millionaires have taken advantage of rules that allow 501(c)(4)s to hide the names of donors to vastly expand spending by 501(c)(4)s who spend almost all their money to support and oppose candidates. It makes a mockery of the "social welfare" purpose of (c)(4)s and undermines democracy.
 
What about proposed restrictions on 501(c)(4)s doing nonpartisan GOTV, voter registration, or even candidate forums?
It's just a proposal. Nonprofit VOTE and many others would defend the right of any entity to conduct nonpartisan political activity as a constitutional right and bedrock to encouraging participation in our democracy. While welcoming the new rules to protect and restore (c)(4)s to their original civic purpose, there's been a strong outcry by the Bright Lines Project, Bolder Advocacy and others in the field to this part of their proposal. 
 
When might new rules go into effect?
There will be a lengthy period of public comment. New rules won't be issued until after the 2014 election.

How does it affect 501(c)(3) nonprofits and charities?
It doesn't. The proposal is only for 501(c)(4)s. However, the debate over rules for 501(c)(4)s could unfortunately make some charities less likely to engage – such as helping people participate in elections, doing voter education, or connecting with candidates on issues on a nonpartisan basis. We would urge the opposite. Our nonpartisan approach and voice is needed more than ever.

To learn more, see these resources:

• Tax Prof Blog: Treasury, IRS Announce 'Crackdown' on Political Campaigning by Crossroads GPS, Other 501(c)(4) Groups
• Bolder Advocacy: Q and A on Proposed IRS Rules for 501(c)(4)s
• Bright Lines Project
• OSU Moritz College of Law: FAQs on 501(c)(4) Social Welfare Organizations

Connecticut Debuts Election Day Registration

Image Source

This month's municipal elections in Connecticut marked the first time voters in the state could register on Election Day. In Connecticut, Election Day Registration is not available at polling places. Instead, each town has a designated Election Day Registration location.

Secretary of State Denise Merrill estimates that between 1,500 and 2,000 people took advantage of Election Day Registration and that it was particularly popular in New Haven. She noted, "This is the first election it's in effect and it did very well; we had no problems."

Secretary Merrill tweeted that turnout was 31% statewide--a high of 77% in Bridgewater and a low of 5.21% in Hartford.

Learn more about the states that allow Election or Same-Day Registration. 

CIRCLE Reports on Youth Turnout in NJ and VA

According to CIRCLE's calculations of exit polls, youth turnout was 26% in Virginia and 18% in New Jersey this year.  Using the same methods, CIRCLE concluded that youth turnout in Virginia was 17% in 2009 and 18% in 1997, and in New Jersey 26% in 1997 and 19% in 2009. This suggests a significant increase in Virginia in 2013 compared to the two most recent gubernatorial races.

These turnout estimates mean that roughly 288,000 young voters cast ballots on November 5th in Virginia, out of the estimated 1.1 million 18-29 year-old citizens who live in that state. In New Jersey, roughly 206,000 young voters cast a ballot out of the estimated 1.2 million 18-29 year old citizens.

CIRCLE Director Peter Levine noted that "Although 18% and 26% are far from satisfactory, these statistics should be put in context," and that "Turnout is always much lower in off-year gubernatorial elections than in presidential years"

Read CIRCLE's full analysis.

* The estimated numbers of young people who voted in the 1997 and 2009 governors’ races were calculated using: (1) the number of ballots cast in each race according to the media, (2) the youth share of those who voted, based on the exit polls conducted by Edison Research for the National Election Pool, and (3) the estimated number of 18-29 year old citizens taken from the Census Current Population Survey, March Demographic File of that year. Edison Research estimates that its exit polls have a margin of error rate of plus or minus three percentage points.

Washington Voters Reject Changes to Initiative Process

This post was written by Aisia Davis, Nonprofit VOTE's Administrative Assistant and a 2L student at New England Law | Boston.

Earlier this month, Washington voters rejected a proposal that would have increased the profitability of the signature gathering business by altering the state's initiative process. Washington is one of 24 states which use an initiative or referendum process that offers citizens the right to make and remake laws, as well as check the decisions of the legislature. If citizens are dissatisfied with a particular law or feel that a new law is needed, they can forward an initiative and place it on the ballot.

Once a path for citizen democracy, ballot measures have increasingly become yet another way for well-funded interests to pursue their agenda. The "money equals 'free' speech" legal theory has prohibited states from limiting the special interest money behind these measures and has created an uneven playing field between issue supporters and opponents. What was once a volunteer driven process that required a high threshold of citizen support has turned into a system where the signatures required to qualify a measure are usually gathered by for-profit companies that contract with ballot measure sponsors.

I-517 proposed significant changes to Washington’s initiative and referendum process, including expanding the rights of paid and volunteer signature gatherers and making it illegal to interfere with an individual gathering signatures. Purporting to protect the First Amendment rights of citizens (or signature gathering firms), the initiative sought to permit signature collection on public sidewalks, store entrances and exits, sport stadiums, convention/exhibition centers, and public fairs. This would have greatly imposed upon the rights of business owners, nonprofits, and government alike to set guidelines about when and where signatures are collected. It would have also proved intrusive to the public as it expanded the types of areas and venues in which signatures could be collected. Lastly, the initiative would have increased the time allotted to collect signatures from 10 to 16 months, an expanded time frame that would also have helped signature-collection companies earn more money.

Voter Engagement Case Studies - Learning From 2012

How do nonprofits carry out voter engagement work? Our report Can Nonprofits Increase Voting Among Their Clients, Constituents, and Staff? Case Studies describes how 16 organizations engaged their communities around the 2012 election.

These organizations were among the 94 nonprofit service providers that tracked their voter contacts with 33,741 individuals last year. They ranged from California to North Carolina and included community health centers, multi-service agencies, and children and family groups, in addition to organizations that serve people with disabilities, ex-offenders, and people currently experiencing homelessness. Through interviews with these organizations, we learned more about the challenges they faced, their successes, and common takeaways.

While Part I of the report showcases the impact of nonprofit voter engagement on turnout, Part II tells the story of the nonprofits doing the work. The case studies describe how organizations approached voter engagement, as well as their specific tactics and strategies. Each one includes an organizational profile, background information, a description of activities, and concludes with lessons learned. We hope that these findings will serve as a guide while incorporating voter engagement into programs and services in 2014 and beyond.

New Reports on Disability and Voter Turnout

The National Council on Disability and the Research Alliance for Accessible Voting have both released new reports on the Experience of Voters with Disabilities in the 2012 Election Cycle and Disability, Voter Turnout, and Voting Difficulties in the 2012 Elections.

They found that 15.6 million people with disabilities reported voting in the November 2012 elections. Their turnout rate was 5.7 percentage points lower than that of people without disabilities, meaning 3 million more voters with disabilities would have participated if they voted at the same rate as people without disabilities. Additionally in 2012,

• 30.1% of voters with disabilities reported difficulty in voting at a polling place, compared to 8.4% of voters without disabilities. 
• Over one-fourth of voters with disabilities voted by mail, compared to one-sixth of people without disabilities. Among people with disabilities who voted by mail, about one-tenth reported difficulties and the need for assistance in filling out or sending the ballot. 
• Almost one-third of voters with disabilities required assistance in voting, most commonly given by election officials or family members. 

The National Council on Disability noted architectural and physical barriers at registration and polling sites, as nearly 40% of respondents encountered physical barriers at their polling places.

The findings from both reports highlight the ongoing challenges voters with disabilities face in casting a ballot. Through advocacy and voter education we can help ensure that all eligible voters--including those with disabilities--can successfully cast a ballot. An easy way to start is by ensuring that our communities are registered: in 2012, the voter registration rate of people with disabilities was 2.3 percentage points lower than that of people without disabilities.

Webinar Materials: Nonprofits Increase Voting

Yesterday's webinar, Nonprofits Increase Voting: Findings from 2012, is now available. Many thanks to Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg of CIRCLE and Isela Gutiérrez-Gunter from Democracy North Carolina for joining us for this discussion.

Watch the presentation on YouTube. If you subscribe to our channel, you'll be notified whenever new content is posted. You can also download the PowerPoint presentation and the audio portion of the presentation, or browse our voter turnout and research resources for more information.

Learn more about the findings in the full report Can Nonprofits Increase Voting Among Their Clients, Constituents, and Staff? An Evaluation of the Track the Vote Program.

Thursday: Nonprofits Increase Voting - Findings from 2012

There's still time to register for Thursday's webinar: 

Nonprofits Increase Voting: Findings from 2012
Thursday October 24th, 2:00-3:00pm Eastern

What happens when nonprofits talk to their constituents about voting? To find out, Nonprofit VOTE and its partners enlisted 94 nonprofit service providers to track their voter contacts with 33,741 individuals in seven states during the 2012 election. Afterward, CIRCLE conducted an independent analysis of voter file data to see how turnout among voters contacted by nonprofits compared to other groups. 

Join us as we discuss the impact nonprofits had on voter turnout and the populations nonprofits reached. In addition to the turnout results, we will cover key takeaways from 27 interviews with participating organizations, including the challenges they faced, their successes, and lessons learned. Don't miss out on this opportunity to find out what happens when nonprofits engage their communities around voting and to learn about strategies that worked to incorporate voter engagement into ongoing programs and services.

Featured Presenters: Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg is the Deputy Director of CIRCLE where she oversees their core research projects and produces resources and reports for various audiences, including peer-reviewed articles, reports, and factsheets. She has a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from Loyola University Chicago. Isela Gutiérrez-Gunter is the Research Associate and Latino Outreach Coordinator at Democracy North Carolina. She has over a decade of experience at advocacy-oriented nonprofits, including work with the ACLU of Washington State and the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition. She has a BA in History from Scripps College and a MSW from UNC-Chapel Hill. George Pillsbury is the founder and Executive Director of Nonprofit VOTE.  

Get Out the Vote Tools for 2013

Currently, 44 states have voter registration lookup tools and 48 have polling place finders. Wouldn't it be great if this (and other) election information was available in one place? You're in luck, it is! Visit our 50 state map to:

• Find Your Poll
• Check Your Voter Registration
• Learn About Voter ID Requirements

You can also access other state-specific voting resources, including contact information for your local elections office, details for voters with special circumstances, and early voting opportunities.

November 5th is less than a month away. Although they may be registered, voters still need to know where to go and what to take with them. Help your community vote by being prepared to answer these and other questions. You can also help registered voters request an absentee ballot.

In many states it's not too late to register! Although National Voter Registration Month is over, many state registration deadlines have not yet passed. Depending on where you live, you might be able to register online or on Election Day itself. Learn more about voting in your state and ensure your community is prepared for the 2013 election cycle.

"Yes, we vote"

By Michael Weekes, President of the Providers' Council. Reprinted from The Provider, the newspaper of the Providers' Council, Summer 2013 issue.  

Nonprofit VOTE, the nation's leading nonpartisan source focused on engaging nonprofits in registering voters and promoting voting through mission-focused activities, has released a seminal report on voting rates for those connected with nonprofits.

The essential question asked also serves as the title of the report: Can Nonprofits Increase Voting Among Their Clients, Constituents and Staff? Based on empirical analysis of service providers in several states by Tufts University's Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), the report concludes the answer is a resounding "Yes."

For those of us who are connected with CareVote, the Providers' Council's decade-long effort to encourage voting among its human service provider network, it was gratifying news affirming our beliefs and assumptions.

The Council, in full disclosure, is represented on the board of Nonprofit VOTE and shares its belief that nonprofits have earned a well-deserved reputation as trusted resources for many in our nation. As indicated by national data, nonprofits play a role in hundreds of millions of lives – employing more than 13.7 million people, with another 62.7 million serving as volunteers and of course the multi-millions receiving services.

The report's research was conducted in relationship to the 2012 national election when close to 100 nonprofit service providers in seven states, as well as one national partner, agreed to engage with Nonprofit VOTE in its Track the Vote project.

In tracking the voting behavior of 33,741 individuals who registered to vote and/or pledged to vote via outreach from these service providers, this select group from Arizona, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina and Ohio – plus the National Association of Community Health Centers – helped to answer important questions. Overall, the data clearly shows the effect of having contact with a nonprofit about voting on increasing the likelihood that individuals will actually vote.

Equally important in a sector that is stretched for resources, it shows the essential elements that help nonprofit service providers integrate voter participation in their work. The qualitative and quantitative analysis framed response to queries related to the audience reached; capacity of service providers to engage; impact of those contacted by nonprofits to vote; what tactics and strategies have efficacy; and what factors contribute to success for service providers.

Among the significant findings were:

• Clients, constituents and staff were "markedly more diverse, lower income and younger than all registered voters in the seven states, made up of populations with a history of lower voter turnout in past elections";
• Nonprofit-contacted voters were nearly twice as likely to be younger voters (under age 30), more than three times more likely to be Latino or black and four times more likely to have incomes under $25,000;
• The turnout rate among nonprofit-influenced voters was at 74 percent – 6 points higher than the rate for all registered voters, including 18 percent higher from Latino and Asian voters, 8 percent higher among whites and 7 percent higher among blacks;
• Nonprofit intervention had the "…biggest impact among turnout of the least likely voters…"

Still, there remains more work to be done, including drilling down to the specific interventions that appeared to have the greatest impact on increasing voter participation, as well as determining if the changes are sustained during the next election cycle and the level of resources that are needed to be effective.

But the report provides the first answers to the fundamental question of can nonprofits make a difference in voter turnout based on personal contact with millions of Americans.

The report summary notes, "The populations reached by nonprofit providers were disproportionately younger, lower income and diverse by race and ethnicity – with a past history of lower voter participation."

Which means, according to Nonprofit VOTE founder George Pillsbury, "When nonprofits talk to the people we serve about voting, they listen and turn out to vote. It means more election impact and a louder voice for our issues and our communities."

We agree with his assessment and hope this work will help us expand the role of nonprofits in advancing democracy in this nation. At its core, is not that the essence of a nonprofit organization's mission-driven purpose?

October Webinar: Nonprofits Increase Voting - Findings from 2012

Nonprofits Increase Voting: Findings from 2012
Thursday October 24th, 2:00-3:00pm Eastern

What happens when nonprofits talk to their constituents about voting? To find out, Nonprofit VOTE and its partners enlisted 94 nonprofit service providers to track their voter contacts with 33,741 individuals in seven states during the 2012 election. Afterward, CIRCLE conducted an independent analysis of voter file data to see how turnout among voters contacted by nonprofits compared to other groups. 

Join us as we discuss the impact nonprofits had on voter turnout and the populations nonprofits reached. In addition to the turnout results, we will cover key takeaways from 27 interviews with participating organizations, including the challenges they faced, their successes, and lessons learned. Don't miss out on this opportunity to find out what happens when nonprofits engage their communities around voting and to learn about strategies that worked to incorporate voter engagement into ongoing programs and services.

Featured Presenters: Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg is the Deputy Director of CIRCLE where she oversees their core research projects and produces resources and reports for various audiences, including peer-reviewed articles, reports, and factsheets. She has a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from Loyola University Chicago. Isela Gutiérrez-Gunter is the Research Associate and Latino Outreach Coordinator at Democracy North Carolina. She has over a decade of experience at advocacy-oriented nonprofits, including work with the ACLU of Washington State and the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition. She has a BA in History from Scripps College and a MSW from UNC-Chapel Hill. George Pillsbury is the founder and Executive Director of Nonprofit VOTE.  

Minnesota Voters Can Now Register Online

Yesterday, the Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State announced voters can now register to vote (or update their information) online and that military and overseas voters will be able to apply online for an absentee ballot at mnvotes.org.

The Secretary of State's office touted the online registration process as a way to "deliver convenience to voters, reduce errors in voter rosters, and deliver significant cost- and time-savings for local election officials." They estimate the time counties require to process an online application will be one-third to one-half of that needed to process a paper application. This will also minimize inaccurate records that stem from processing handwritten paper forms--like illegible handwriting, incomplete applications, and data entry errors.

For military and overseas voters, the online absentee ballot application will not replace paper applications, but will allow these voters the opportunity to forgo printing, scanning forms, and returning forms by mail, fax or email. In the 2012 general election, there were 10,506 absentee ballots successfully cast by military and overseas Minnesota voters.

Minnesota joins 18 other states that have either passed or implemented online registration. According to projections by the Pew Charitable Trusts at least half of the states will employ online registration by 2016.

In Minnesota, more than 35 municipalities will hold elections on November 5 for various city officers, and 113 school districts will hold elections for school board members and/or have ballot questions. Voters can register online until 5 p.m. on October 15, but it is not required, as voters may still register at their polling place on Election Day.