Carnegie Reporter, Vol. 3, No. 2 | Election Reform: Lessons From 2004, page 5

Statewide Voter Databases
Although HAVA requires all states receiving federal funds (and the District of Columbia) to have statewide voter lists in place by January 1, 2006, reformers worry that federal standards may allow too many state-by-state variations that will affect quality and interoperability.

Standards would institute processes aimed at reducing mistakes by voters and voter-registration solicitors in filling out forms, ensuring these forms reach elections offices and are accurately entered into databases, providing protections from fraud, and making online verification available to voters who want to check their status. Standards should also include integration with other databases within and among states, such as state driver’s license bureaus and the criminal justice system, and provide for computers at every polling place linked to the database.

“There should be national guidelines for registration, not a hodge-podge of local and state requirements,” Common Cause stated after the 2004 election.

Election Day Voter Registration
The success of election day registration in helping to increase voter participation has encouraged Common Cause and others to advocate this as a national standard, overriding state laws that often close registration for federal elections weeks before they take place.

Election day registration would especially benefit young voters, who frequently change residences—and thus election jurisdictions and voter precincts—as well as other adults included in the 16 percent of Americans who move each year. It would also benefit historically disenfranchised and low-income individuals, as well as new citizens.

Proponents counter criticisms that this would lead to fraudulent voting by citing the low number of incidents in states with election day registration and observing that it can actually reduce the possibility for fraud, as more registrations are processed in person by election officials.

The Brennan Center has filed suit in federal court in Connecticut to declare that state’s 14-day registration deadline (except to vote only for president) as an unconstitutional disenfranchisement. It seeks to require election day registration as a constitutional right.

Required Voter
Identification and Alternatives
Characterizing current voter identification requirements as an unfair burden on historically disenfranchised voters, reformers such as Common Cause advocate national standards that would make such requirements uniform and less restrictive. “ID requirements should reflect the lives of some voters who move more often, do not drive, or simply do not have the types of ID required in some states,” Common Cause states.

Identification rules should not only be uniform, but should also be posted prominently in every polling place and poll workers should be trained not to turn any eligible voter away.

Voting Rights for Ex-Felons
Supporters of eliminating barriers to voting by ex-felons have long believed that the prospects for Congress to act are virtually nonexistent, and instead are seeking redress in federal court. The Brennan Center, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law are pursuing such a case in federal court to overturn Florida’s lifetime ban.

In the meantime, the ACLU has pushed for Florida officials to streamline the clemency process in Florida to, in effect, accomplish a near-automatic restoration of voting rights after completion of sentence. “Automatic restoration will help people qualify for work and support their families, which benefits Florida as well a former felons by working to lower recidivism rates,” says the ACLU state director.

Nonpartisan Election Officials
Reformers note that controversial decisions in the 2004 election highlighted the great discretion open to election officials and thus the need to eliminate even the appearance of political bias, particularly by top state officials. The two favored proposals are either to prohibit such officials from having a role in campaigns or to require that they are elected in nonpartisan races.

U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2005, to prohibit senior state election officials with authority over federal elections from participating in the political campaign of a candidate running for federal office in their state. “Allowing a state official to oversee a federal election while serving as a campaign official for one of the candidates in that election is a blatant conflict of interest,” Lautenberg stated.

Opponents of National Standards
Not everyone embraces uniform national standards, especially many state and local elections officials who believe these will sharply limit their role. For example, in a task force report in 2001, these officials included recommendations for a stronger federal role and national standards, “but not for a national election system.” They rejected federal prohibitions of specified voting systems and/or requiring uniform poll closing times and recommended greater reliance on voluntary standards, but also called for “stricter enforcement of and harsher penalties for election crimes.”

Further, Congressional leaders have discouraged talk about reopening HAVA for major changes. Brian Lewis, key staffer for the Senate Majority Whip told a meeting of state officials in January, 2005, “We don’t see any time for election reform . . . there was an obscene amount of time spent on passing HAVA [in 2002].”

Funding Problems
Whether they support national standards or not, election experts agree that much more funding is needed and generally look to the federal government for the necessary dollars, beginning with the almost $4 billion authorized by HAVA but not fully appropriated. Only about $1.5 billion has been budgeted by Congress, but much of that has not
yet reached states for various reasons, among them, some states not yet meeting HAVA requirements and others unable to raise matching funds.

State officials continue to press for more federal funding, despite the best efforts of Congressional leaders to discourage them. The Bush administration did not recommend any more funds for HAVA for the current 2005 fiscal year, and Congress complied. “In our view, HAVA is fully funded,” Lewis stated, “The states need to go get their money . . . it’s sitting at the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). Everyone has the funding.”

Increased funding for the EAC itself is a high priority because of its responsibility to develop voting machine standards, new certification processes, and numerous studies that can provide guidance to state and local officials in such areas as poll worker recruitment and training. Supporting federal funding increases is a broadly representative array of nonpartisan organizations, from the Paralyzed Veterans Association to People for the American Way and League of Women Voters.

Bowing to reality, many state and local governments accept that they must themselves come up with their own funding to make up for the lack of federal aid. Even poorly-financed local governments, for example, have increased their election budgets significantly.

Conclusion
While election administrators regard the 2004 election as the disaster that didn’t happen—and a successful step forward—both supporters and critics of the system agree that much needs to be done. Research is already underway to provide new insights in our flawed election system.

However, many needs are already clear and compelling. Meeting them will require determined efforts by our nation’s nonprofit sector, as well as civic, business and political leaders. To do less will only help perpetuate a system that fails to realize our aspirations as the world’s greatest democracy.

Robert B. Rackleff is a consulting writer and elected county commissioner in Tallahassee, Florida. He earlier was a speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter, U.S. Senator Ed Muskie and J. Richard Munro, chairman of Time Inc. He is also a retired Naval Reserve Intelligence Officer. Rackleff earned a bachelor’s and master’s degree and was a doctoral student in U.S. History at Florida State University. He is the author of “Overturning Buckley,” in the Carnegie Reporter (Summer 2000), and a 1972 book, Close to Crisis: Florida’s Environmental Problems.