If Utahns have the right to keep their voter registration information private, political parties and candidates should not be allowed to violate that trust.
Two Utah lawmakers, Sen. Jake Anderegg, R-Lehi, and Rep. Craig Hall, R-West Valley, have pitched yet-to-be-filed legislation that would carve out such an exception to the voter privacy bill lawmakers passed two years ago. The effort is supported by the chairmen of both the Republican and Democratic parties, who say the privacy option has created black holes in their parties. Nearly 14% of registered voters have opted to keep their information private. The parties don’t know who those people are or whether they have registered with a party.
This could cause problems if those people show up to a party caucus and cannot be found on the rolls, party leaders say. Also, this makes it hard for parties to inform people about issues, thus leading to an ignorant electorate.
The first argument may have some validity, but the second one is farcical in the information age. Parties have plenty of opportunities to make their platforms known or to communicate information. If voters are opting to guard their privacy, it likely is for other reasons that deserve respect.
If voters are opting to guard their privacy, it likely is for other reasons that deserve respect.
Perhaps they wish to be free from incessant telephone calls regarding issues or seeking donations. This is the age of big data in politics. With enough voter information, candidates and parties can target fliers, direct mail pieces, robocalls and social media posts to individuals, creating an echo chamber of sorts, designed to arouse passions and secure votes.
Utah’s parties may not be guilty of all these things, but the perception that this might happen may be swaying some voters.
Privacy also may have a nobler side relevant to the strength of a democracy. If enough voters opted to keep their information private, candidates would have to resort to messages with broader appeal in the hopes of reaching wider audiences. That sort of campaigning would lead to better governance, as both candidates and voters would be forced to broaden their views. Micro-targeted campaigns, on the other hand, aim to constantly tell specific voters exactly what they want to hear. No one is forced to examine a bias or consider another point of view.
At an interim legislative committee meeting last summer, one lawmaker suggested most voters probably think their registration information already is private. Voting, after all, is considered sacrosanct, with each voter entering the booth, or voting space, alone with his or her conscience.
The truth is quite different. Registration information traditionally has been public. In the days before big data, it was difficult to exploit this in any meaningful way, other than looking up information one voter at a time. Few people complained. Today, however, a person’s birthdate alone could be exploited for reasons good or bad.
One other factor complicates matters. Lawmakers last year passed a law that lets candidates keep their home addresses private. It hardly seems fair, then, to not grant voters the same privilege.
Lawmakers may regret that they decided to let voters protect their private information. But for the 14% or so who have opted to take advantage of that promise, it would be wrong to renege now for political purposes.
Correction: A previous version incorrectly stated Sen. Jake Anderegg, R-Lehi, and Rep. Craig Hall, R-West Valley, are sponsoring legislation that would change Utah’s voter privacy law. The two lawmakers have pitched the change, but the legislation has not yet been filed.