You asked for information on the federal law that prohibits payments for registering to vote or voting. You want to know whether the law's legislative history or case law addresses the things that constitute a payment, specifically whether paid time off to vote is such a payment.

A federal court decision and the U.S. Department of Justice interpretation of the prohibition hold that giving a person sufficient paid time off from work to allow him to go to the polls and cast a ballot does not violate the statute. Federal law prohibits anyone from knowingly or willfully paying or offering to pay or accepting payment for registering to vote or voting (42 USC § 1973i(c)). It applies to primaries and elections that have candidates on the ballot for the office of president, vice president, presidential elector, or member of Congress, whether or not the violation alleges payment related to a candidate for one of those particular offices. It includes criminal penalties for violations.

Congress included the provision as part of the original Voting Rights Act of 1965 (§ 11(c) of P.L. 89-110). To effectively extend voting rights to all citizens, enforce the 15^th Amendment, and end voter discrimination, the law included a “comprehensive clean elections section” to “protect the integrity of the vote cast by any citizen” (1965 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 2471). While the historical notes and legislative reports of that law and its later amendments discuss the rationale for banning interference with voter registration or voting through coercion and intimidation, they do not identify the specific benefits or types of payments that Congress intended to make unlawful.

Many court cases have dealt with vote buying, but only one includes discussion of the distinction between facilitating and enticing a person's voting. The 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals includes dicta in a case involving voter registration that describes a benefit the court does not consider to be a violation.

Craig Donsanto of the U.S. Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section of the Election Crimes Branch cites the Lewin case when describing the department's general interpretation of the vote-buying statute. He says the law was intended to bar a payment to a voter to stimulate his participation in the process. But it is lawful to give something of value, such as a ride to the polls or paid time off, to someone who is planning to vote. Donsanto raised the issue of some collective bargaining agreements he is aware of that allow a union member to get a day off other than Election Day if he can prove that he voted. Donsanto says that such paid time off that is more than a person reasonably needs to vote might be considered a payment for voting, but such a case has not been decided and the department takes no position on the matter.

MMJ:ro