The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is going to engage in voter registration efforts. In some cases, mass collection of voter forms will be allowed by public housing officials. This raises concerns about voter fraud and other legal issues.
HUD’s voter registration drive comes as part of the “all-of-government” approach described in an executive order from President Joe Biden.
HUD sent guidance for executive directors of more then 3,000 public housing authorities managing about 1.2 million housing units, providing advice on “running a PHA–initiated voter registration drive.”
PHA is the acronym for public housing agency in government parlance.
Federal housing officials also advised the local agencies on how to apply to become a “voter registration agency under the National Voter Registration Act,” and how to set up drop boxes for ballots on the premises.
The HUD guidance to local public housing agencies marks a first in over 25 years when the federal government has affirmed that local tax-funded agencies may participate in voter registration, according the National Low Income Housing Coalition, an advocacy group that promotes affordable housing.
Targeting Government’s Dependents
HUD’s move creates clear ethical problems, as it would with other federal benefits, said Stewart Whitson, legal director for the Foundation for Government Accountability, an ethics watchdog group.
The company has filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act against the Justice Department, seeking records on r how the Biden administration is implementing the president’s executive order.
“Government offices can offer voter registration forms, but voter registration drives are different,” Whitson told The Daily Signal, adding:
Consider public housing, as an example. It is assumed [that]Residents living in public housing might vote Democrat more often than others. … The executive order targets people receiving government benefits who might think their benefits depend on one party in power.
Whitson stated that he also doubts whether the executive branch is legally and constitutionally authorized to intervene in unilateral elections that are state-related matters.
“If the federal agencies comply with the executive order, this is executive branch overreach that would prompt Congress to intervene and states to sue,” he said.
Encouraging Voter Drives
On February 9, four HUD offices sent guidance regarding voter participation to local public-housing agencies. The four HUD offices were the Office of Public and Indian Housing (OPHIH), the Office of Multifamily Housing Programs (OMHP), the Office of Special Needs Programs (OSNP) and the Office of HIV/AIDS Housing.
The Office of Public and Indian Housing’s letter to local public housing agencies says: “If your PHA would like to be considered to be a voter registration agency, you can reach out to state election officials for more information about the rules and laws for your state.”
If a public housing agency isn’t eligible, the letter makes further suggestions.
“If the laws of your state allow,” HUD’s letter says, the local housing agency may consider “accepting completed voter registration application forms and transmitting these forms to the appropriate state election official.”
“If the voter registration laws of your state allow,” the letter adds, the local agency may consider “running a PHA-initiated voter registration drive.”
The letter from HUD goes on to suggest “collaborating with local election administrators to permit the use of PHA space for voter drop boxes and voting sites, including for early voting.”
Although the guidance for local public housing agencies was largely the same across all four HUD offices it did differ slightly.
A Significant Change
Previously, officials at many local public housing agencies said they couldn’t get involved in voter registration because they accept money from the federal government. Biden’s executive order and HUD’s guidance to local authorities mark a significant change, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition.
“For many years, various housing organizations, and specifically public housing agencies (PHAs), indicated that they cannot participate in voter registration because they receive federal funding,” the housing coalition saidIn a press release, it was added:
NLIHC claimed that federal funding was not a barrier when they told them. [Office of Public and Indian Housing]Letter from 1996. These actions by HUD office are the first in 26 years that they have confirmed that HUD and the programs it funds should participate in the election process.
Unscrupulous individuals have found ways to abuse public housing for political ends.
Martin, Kentucky – Ruth Robinson, her husband and her sons were all there. convicted in a voter fraud case2014
Prosecutors allege that the Robinsons intimidated the poor and disabled residents of public housing or Robinson properties into voting for Robinson on absentee ballots during the 2012 election. Prosecutors said that Robinson had filled out some ballots.
Prosecutors determined that the mayor threatened to evict residents from properties she owned if they didn’t vote for her, and that family members offered bribes to others to buy votes.
Robinson was sentenced by a judge 90 monthsAccording to the FBI, in prison after the matter was made a federal case due to federal money.
HUD has no comments
HUD’s Office of Multifamily Housing ProgramsLocal public housing agencies were informed that the following activities are permissible at multifamily, government-assisted properties:
• Permitting the use of community space on an incidental basis to hold meetings, candidate forums, or voter registration, provided that all parties and organizations have access to the facility on an equal basis and are assessed equal rent or use charges.
• Collaborating with local election administrators to permit the use of space for voter drop boxes and voting sites, including for early voting.
HUD didn’t respond to email and phone inquiries from The Daily Signal for this report.
The federal guidance for multifamily public housing stipulates that partisanship isn’t permissible, and prohibits actions that “suggest that benefits are in any way tied to a participant’s voting activity” or give “the appearance that the processes of voter registration or voting are not voluntary processes.”
Hans Von Spakovsky (a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation and parent organization to The Daily Signal) said that although the picture of executive branches agencies being involved with elections raises questions regarding The Hatch Act.
Congress passed the Hatch Act in 1939 after officials in President Franklin Roosevelt’s administration threatened to withhold benefits and loans to those who didn’t vote Democrat.
“If an individual is dealing with government—whether for Social Security, Medicaid, or veterans benefits—when a government clerk tells them to register to vote,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal, “the typical reaction for someone getting government benefits is: ‘I better vote for the party in power, or my benefits will be denied.’”
Do you have a comment about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Be sure to include the article’s URL, headline, and your name.
