Brandon Twp.- Jacqulyn Murray doesn’t think it’s anyone else’s business whether someone casts a ballot.
She was surprised to learn that through a letter sent by a political consulting firm, some of Murray’s neighbors now know if she and other residents of Dunwoodie Court voted in August and November 2004. These same neighbors will likely be informed by another letter in the future whether the residents voted last week.
‘It doesn’t matter to me who votes and who doesn’t,? says Murray. ‘It’s their option. It bothers me that my name was on a letter sent to my neighbor.?
The letter, from Practical Political Consulting in East Lansing, is addressed ‘Dear registered voter? and asks the question, ‘What if your neighbors knew whether you voted?? The letter goes on to say that PPC is taking a new approach and sending the mailing to the addressee and other neighbors to publicize who does and does not vote. It goes on to list 12 neighboring addresses, the 18 individuals at those homes, and shows whether they voted in the August and November 2004 elections. A blank space is left open for August 2006, and the letter notes the consultant’s intention to send an updated chart so that ‘You and your neighbors will all know who voted and who did not.?
Jacqulyn Murray is not the only one bothered by the letter.
Township Clerk Jeannie McCreery said she has received complaints about the letters from residents on other roads in the township and she has communicated with several other clerks throughout the county who are also receiving calls from angry citizens.
‘I think the letter is slimy,? says McCreery.
However, she acknowledges that it is perfectly legal.
‘It’s a matter of public record,? she explains. ‘If it was secret who voted, how does the public know it was a legitimate voter? They just don’t know who you voted for. But if you voted a ballot, the people have a right to know. They have a right to know they’re legitimate voters and that the system is working.?
Mark Grebner, president of PPC, sent the letters as part of a study called etov IV. The letter revealing whether neighbors voted is one of four different letters sent to 80,000 people throughout the state. One version of the letter reminds people to vote and tells them of the importance of voting, Grebner says. A second version tells them there is a study being done concerning voting and that PPC will be looking at their voting records. The third version is the one Murray’s name appeared on. The fourth version prints out the voting records of the members of the household it was sent to.
‘We’re trying different methods of getting people to vote and encouraging them to vote,? says Grebner. ‘We’re seeing if we can change the way people think about voting. I want it to be a public event and see if it changes the number of people who vote.?
Grebner says he compares the groups to whom he sends different letters and also compares those groups with people he sends nothing to. With this particular study, he is expecting funding from Yale University. In a previous similar study, Grebner says the letter showing which neighbors voted and which didn’t was effective in causing more people to vote.
He denies the suggestion that his tactic may be an invasion of privacy, because he says whether people vote is not a secret, but public record.
‘The whole point is to upset people because there are people who do not vote because they believe no one will ever know,? he said. ‘People talk about voting, but don’t actually vote.?
Murray sees what PPC is doing as trying to shame people into voting, but Grebner says shame is too strong a word.
‘Shame would make you quit your job or drive you out of town,? says Grebner. ‘Shame is your neighbors seeing a police car in your driveway because they’re bringing your 16-year-old daughter home. This is more like embarrassment. For example, your recycling bin is left full at the curb because you didn’t properly sort it. Your neighbors see it and see that you’re an idiot. It might cause your neighbors to ridicule you.?
McCreery says she understands the intent and the frustration with a small percentage of voters making decisions for all, but is upset with the idea of embarrassing people and with information that she notes may not be accurate or a situation that is not understood.
‘You don’t know if they didn’t vote because they had a death in family, or they’re new to the community, or they’re sick,? says McCreery. ‘They are taking the little information they have and embarassing people. They don’t need to do this to people. It’s tacky. Find a better way.?