How About Starting the Voters' Rights Conversation Before November 3rd?

BE ELECTED
by Meg White

With all the excitement over this year's presidential election, some may be more concerned with who's going to win than who's going to be able to vote. 

My fascination with the voting process extends back about as far as I can remember.  One of my earliest memories is of my dad holding me up to see how the punch card machine worked in a blue-curtained booth.

When I was old enough for elementary school, I was proud to cast my "vote" for president in the a mock election in our cafeteria.  Back then, all it took was spelling a candidate's name correctly on a scrap of notebook paper. 

In college, I gobbled up books like Andrew Gumbel's Steal This Vote while my classmates rolled their eyes, grumbling their way through.

Having been an election judge in two different states, I know how hard it is to explain various voting systems.  I remember my first election judge training meeting in the basement of a library in Boulder, CO.  It took twice as long as it was supposed to because potential poll workers kept asking questions.

You can expect a barrage of concerned reports and editorials in late October bemoaning the state of voters' rights in this country, but there are some wonksters such as myself who have been fretting since late 2000 and before.

An article in The New York Times Monday attempts to start the conversation a little earlier this year.  The article noted a decrease in the number of electronic voting machines due to problems and controversies arising from their use.  However, the article also called attention to  problems with the alternative:

"... paper ballots could reduce lines at polling places, because election officials would not have to set up a limited number of expensive touch-screen machines in each booth. Paper ballots require only a writing surface, and far fewer optical-scan machines are needed to count them.

But poll workers will have to explain the system to new voters and make certain to print and distribute enough paper ballots for each polling place."

So, our paper ballots are printed so confusingly that it's harder to explain them to new voters than it is to explain how to use an electronic voting system?  Apparently so.  The article continues:

"Larry Norden, a lawyer with the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, said he was concerned with the design of this year's ballots. Too often, Mr. Norden said, voters are confused by ballots with instructions written in unclear legal jargon, lists of candidates that span more than one column, boxes that can be checked on either side of a candidate's name, or vague borders that fail to distinguish one electoral contest from another."

Then there's the problem of running out of paper:

"In Baltimore, election officials so underestimated turnout in the 2006 primary that polling places ran out of ballots by midday and voters ended up using random pieces of paper, including campaign literature, as ballots ..."

But supplies aren't the only thing we're short on.  I don't know of a single state that has enough poll workers.  Just after renewing the lease on my Chicago apartment, I received a letter from the Minneapolis Election Board a few weeks ago congratulating me for once again being chosen to serve as an election judge. 

I wrote to inform them that I sadly was unable to perform the duty, due an insurmountable, 400+ mile commute, and wished them the best of luck in finding another qualified candidate to take my place.

As I wrote the apologetic note, I was thinking of the incident in Chicago during the primaries this year.  A shortage of pens caused a lazy poll worker or two to give out the ink-less stylus pens that are used to manipulate the "punch out" voting machines to people using paper ballots.  Voters were told the invisible ink pens would be read by the vote counters, which had to be overridden by poll workers to force the counting of blank ballots.  Just one example of a case where shortages, equipment issues and poll worker incompetence merged to violate voters' rights in a frighteningly stupid way.

I will be tied up with journalistic duties on election day this year and thus be unable to serve as an election judge.  But I urge you to take up the mantle.  There are perks other than the warm, fuzzy feeling you get after a hard day's work of helping your fellow citizens express themselves politically. 

First, it's usually a paying gig.  In some states you can even be compensated for loss of wages from your regular job.  You also get to meet your neighbors.  Also, reports from poll workers are compiled to give an idea of what might need to be changed the next time around.

Finally, thanks to prohibitions on electioneering in polling places, you can get through Nov. 4 without hearing word one about last minute speeches or exit polls.  No t-shirts emblazoned with candidates names, no lawn signs, no last-minute campaigning.  The only stickers you'll see are the innocuous "I voted" ones.  Now that's an expression of true, post-partisan patriotism.

Buried deep at the end of The New York Times article was a problem with voting that no amount of extra ballots, poll workers or writing utensils can fix.  States are chucking voters off the rolls in the name of fraud prevention, but they may be a little over-zealous in some cases:

"The new computerized databases, required by a 2002 federal law, were meant to provide uniformity in how states run elections. By coordinating with other state lists, officials can more easily remove from the rolls people who have died, changed residence or been convicted of felonies, to help reduce fraud. But the purges also occur with little oversight, and errors can be significant.

[Jonah H. Goldman of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law] said his organization was closely watching Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi, because those states have purged hundreds of thousands of voters since 2006."

This, in addition to further restrictions caused by the new Real I.D. Act and recent Supreme Court decisions on voting rights may mean some who try to vote will be turned away this November.

There are more past irregularities and potential meltdowns in our electoral system than can be recounted here.  And voting will never be problem-free.  However, the earlier the conversation starts, the better.

BE ELECTED

Technorati Tags: Be-Elected voters' rights voting machines ballots