A Post Mortem on the Voting Process

by Tova Andrea Wang

The Century Foundation, November 9, 2006

http://www.tcf.org/print.asp?type=TN&pubid=1436

Some predictions are hard to make, and some are easy. In this case, it was
pretty easy. We knew what the problems might be given what transpired in
2004 and the new laws and procedures that were put into effect this year.
Democracy survived, even thrived in some places yesterday, but when you look
across the country, the problems that occurred were serious. Each one of
them individually led to dozens and sometimes hundreds of eligible voters
losing their right to vote. Collectively, that many disenfranchised
Americans mean we still have a far way to go in making our democracy as
great as it should be.

While voting machine malfunctions received the bulk of the press, the
following are three issues that must be addressed prior to the 2008
presidential election.

Long Lines

In state after state across the nation, we saw reports of people waiting in
line for hours on end because of machine failures, poll workers who didn't
know how to operate the machines, and, most troubling, insufficient numbers
of voting machines. In Tennessee for example, too few machines in one
jurisdiction led to waiting times of FIVE AND A HALF HOURS. This
jurisdiction was predominantly minority. There were too few machines in
jurisdictions in Maryland, too few poll workers in Colorado, and incredible
lines in Georgia, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Utah, and
Massachusetts, where the problem also was predominantly in communities of
color. In all of these places, many voters left without ever casting a
ballot.

This is a virtual denial of voting rights that disproportionately impacts
working people, especially those who must return to their jobs or who have
children to attend to. In the worst case scenario, it can be a violation of
Equal Protection. There must be statewide standards for sufficient and equal
distribution of voting machines.

Identification Problems

As we predicted, there were serious problems with voter identification.
Across the country, poll workers demanded ID from voters who were not
required to show ID and improperly implemented the ID rules, such as by
requiring the ID have a current address when that is not the law. It wasn't
hard to know where this was likely to happen and indeed it did go on in
Georgia, Ohio and Missouri, all states that have had major controversies
over voter identification. In Georgia, many people were improperly asked for
identification; voters were confused and thought the recent court rulings
meant they didn't have to bring any ID at all to cast a regular ballot; and
in at least one polling place there were signs saying "identification
required" when it is possible to vote without one under existing law.

The governor of South Carolina and Representative Chabot of Ohio were both
turned away at the polls for lack of acceptable ID and had to return with
different, multiple forms of identification. How many regular people,
though, can afford to do that? In Ohio, it appears that hundreds of voters
were turned away because poll workers didn't know the rules of what kind of
ID should be accepted. Secretary of State Carnahan of Missouri was herself
improperly asked for photo ID and reported that her office got numerous
complaints of similar incidents throughout the day. There were reports of
improper demands for ID in Maryland, Minnesota, Virginia, Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin.

The bottom line is that voter identification rules don't prevent fraud--they
lead to the fraud of people being turned away at the polls and unable to
cast their totally legitimate ballots. The Help America Vote Act provided a
more than sufficient identification requirement for first time voters, and
states should stick to that plan.

Deceptive Practices

In 2004, we saw a tremendous amount of what are called deceptive
practices--flyers that are distributed and phone calls that are made giving
people false information about voting rights and procedures. These
activities are meant to suppress the vote and thereby depress the vote count
of an opponent. There was not as much of that this year, but it did go on,
and where it happened, there may be serious repercussions.

In Virginia there were numerous reports of voters receiving calls telling
them, falsely, that their polling place had changed, and telling them to go
to the wrong precinct. Some of the calls told voters that since they were
not properly registered, if they voted it would be a crime. In Virginia, a
provisional ballot cast in the wrong precinct--even if that means the voter
went to the wrong sign-in table at the right school gym--is automatically
thrown out. Now that control of the Senate may well be determined by the
outcome of the Virginia senate race, these suppression tactics may become
part of any potential litigation. If the margin of victory is less than the
number of provisional ballots, the provisional ballots of voters who were
misdirected may be a central part of the loser's argument that the vote
count was not valid.

Similarly, in Colorado it was reported that Hispanics were getting phone
calls telling them they were not registered and that they might be arrested
if they voted.

These pernicious acts underscore the need for states to do more to prevent
and punish those who would commit this type of fraud. This means taking
measures to directly criminalize such activity and requiring election
administrators and elected officials to take proactive steps to ensure that
voters are made aware of the deception and provided with the correct
information immediately.

Better Luck Next Time?

It is in the nature of democracy that there should be some imperfections. A
flawless election is unattainable. However, when there are problems in the
system that are abundantly evident, it is incumbent upon those in charge to
fix those problems ahead of time. Let's hope we learn the lessons of 2006
better than we seem to have learned the lessons of 2004.

Tova Andrea Wang is a Democracy Fellow at The Century Foundation.

The Century Foundation conducts public policy research and analyses of
economic, social, and foreign policy issues, including inequality,
retirement security, election reform, media studies, homeland security, and
international affairs. The foundation produces books, reports, and other
publications, convenes task forces, and working groups and operates eight
informational Web sites. With offices in New York City and Washington, D.C.,
The Century Foundation is nonprofit and nonpartisan and was founded in 1919
by Edward A. Filene.

Posted by Miriam V.