Election Reforms Might Not Prevent Problems
By Dori Berman
WASHINGTON, October 14, 2004 – With Election Day just weeks away, stories of disenfranchised Florida voters in 2000 have Americans wondering if the nightmare that occurred four years ago could repeat itself.
Election reforms mandated by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 are intended to solve some of the problems that instigated the recount debacle in the 2000 presidential election. But some of those reforms will not be implemented in time for the Nov. 2 election, and some may cause even more confusion.
“I think that there will be [problems this year],” said Dan Seligson, editor of electionline.org, a non-partisan Website providing election reform news and analysis. “It looks like it’s going to be an extremely close race. The way the election is run is going to be heavily scrutinized.”
One change that the 2002 law mandated is the replacement of punch-card and lever-voting machines with electronic voting systems. The goal is to make the machines more accessible to people with disabilities and increase accuracy by avoiding hanging chads and other problems that make ballots unreadable.
Approximately 30 percent of voters throughout the country will use electronic machines this year, but Connecticut voters will still use lever machines.
While Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz secured $32.7 million in federal funds available to states to replace voting systems, polling places in the state will not be equipped with the new systems until Election Day 2005.
“We are moving very prudently and cautiously,” Bysiewicz said in a statement after securing the federal funds. “We want to have the benefit of being able to review the experience of other states using electronic systems this Election Day prior to purchasing any new machines for Connecticut voters.”
By Election Day 2005 each polling place throughout the state will have one electronic voting machine purchased with the federal funds. Bysiewicz’s office will then distribute the remaining funds to municipalities on a first-come, first-serve basis. The deadline for compliance with the electronic voting mandate is 2006.
Towns that choose not to immediately replace all of their machines will face the risk that if it is decided that the lever machines need to be replaced, the towns will have to use municipal funds to purchase new machines.
The fact that Connecticut voters will not use electronic machines this year does not necessarily disadvantage them.
“In Connecticut they’ve been having successful elections on lever machines for many years,” Seligson said. “It doesn’t mean that the system is going to break down suddenly this year.” He added that some authorities in Connecticut like the way the lever systems work and have no desire to change something that has not caused problems in the past.
While the voting machines in Connecticut will look familiar, voters will notice other changes when they arrive at their polling locations.
Most notable, perhaps, is the use of provisional ballots. In 2000, poll workers turned away thousands of voters in Florida and elsewhere because their names were not listed on the polling place’s registered voters list. In many cases, the voter had simply gone to the wrong polling location.
This year, those same voters would have the option of casting a provisional ballot. If the voter’s registration can later be verified, the ballot will be counted.
“That’s really a critical protection. No one can be turned away from polls anymore,” Seligson said. “Ironically, some people think it’s the provisional ballots that will cause a 2004 meltdown.”
Different practices in different states complicate the matter of counting provisional ballots. Some states, including Connecticut and Florida, will not count provisional ballots cast in the wrong polling place. Other states plan to count ballots as long as they are cast in the proper county, or even anywhere in the state.
The 2002 voting act included several provisions to combat these problems. First, poll workers are being trained to assist voters in finding the proper voting location. A person’s home address, for example, can tell the poll worker where the voter is registered to cast his or her ballot.
In addition, states are required to compile a statewide uniform voter registration list. Previously, each precinct had a list of registered voters in that precinct. Now poll workers also would have access to a statewide list to establish if people are actually registered to vote, even if they are registered in a different jurisdiction.
Connecticut’s centralized system has been up and running since September 2003, but 34 states still lack uniform statewide lists.
Even with the reforms, if the election is close it may not be decided on Nov. 2.
“If one candidate wins by 8 or 10 percent or more, there won’t be any problems,” Seligson said. With less than three weeks to go, that seems unlikely.
