September 19, 2005

NO CARD, NO VOTE (via Robert Schwartz):

Election Overhaul Is Urged: Politicians should give up voting oversight to nonpartisan pros, a bipartisan panel says. (James Gerstenzang, September 19, 2005, LA Times)

In a report to be presented today to President Bush and congressional leaders, former President Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III are recommending a widespread overhaul of election practices to make it easier for Americans to vote and to guarantee that their votes are counted.

Seeking to overcome the flaws that brought election turmoil to Florida in 2000 and to Ohio last year — and that cast doubt on the outcome nationally — they are calling for election oversight to be removed from politicians and given to nonpartisan election professionals. [...]

After Carter and Baker present the 91-page report to Bush and then to Congress, it will be posted at http://www.american.edu/Carter-Baker . The two men hope that some of their goals can be achieved before the 2008 presidential election.

"The American people are losing confidence in the system, and they want electoral reform," Carter said in a statement accompanying the report. He said the changes the commission had proposed "represent the best path toward modernizing our electoral system."

Baker said he hoped the report would "help transform the sterile debate between Democrats and Republicans on election reform issues and provide the impetus for our federal and state leaders to take action now, when we still have plenty of time before our next presidential election."

Baker played a central role for Bush during the Florida vote recount in 2000, building the Supreme Court case that stopped the tally with Bush leading by 537 votes.

If the states adopt the recommendation that nonpartisan officials run elections, the process would be removed from offices such as that led in 2000 by then-Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, who was at the same time a co-chair of Bush's Florida campaign. [...]

Among the commission's other recommendations:

• Establishment of a "universal voting registration system." States, rather than local jurisdictions, would be responsible for the accuracy of voter lists. State lists should be interchangeable so that "people would need to register only once in their lifetime, and it would be easy to update their registration information when they move."

• A greater role for states in registering potential voters. In addition, states should make it easier for ex-felons who have met their sentencing and parole requirements to register to vote, with the exception of registered sex offenders.

• Implementation of a uniformly accepted photo identification system to ensure that a would-be voter is the person on a voting list. States should establish more offices, including mobile facilities, to make it easier for non-drivers to register and receive photo IDs.

The report reflects the tensions among Democrats, Republicans, civil liberties groups and others interested in the election system. For instance, civil libertarians have expressed concern that a voter registration card could lead to establishment of a national ID card. But the panel contends that discrimination against minorities could be reduced if poll workers were not permitted to apply a variety of standards and were instead required to recognize one card.


Creating a new election bureaucracy would be a mistake, but requiring the presentation of a national identity photo card in order to vote makes good sense.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 19, 2005 6:59 AM
Comments

"Seeking to overcome the flaws that brought election turmoil to Florida in 2000 and to Ohio last year — and that cast doubt on the outcome nationally — "

Where outside of Berkely and Cambridge is there any "doubt" about last year's election?

Posted by: AC at September 19, 2005 11:16 AM

The excerpt, at least, makes no mention of the most screwed up election last year. I don't see where any of their recommendations would correct the problems that lead to that fiasco, either. (For example, how do you "implement[] a uniformly accepted photo identification system" while going to a totally mail-in system? Or, how to you insure that only those legally entitled to vote actually vote, and only vote once?)

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 19, 2005 12:21 PM

Nothing happened in Ohio other than Bush won it. He won it by a wider margin than Kerry won Wisconsin. The MSM doesn't raise a stink about Wisconsin, even though there was illegal activity on the part of the Democrats in Wisconsin.

Posted by: pchuck at September 19, 2005 12:53 PM

Paper backup and ID's are a must. Our local election official, one of the smartest and most honest I've seen, started scanning driver's licenses into the computer to be used to match voters with their ID.

If you don't drive, the state of Florida gives you a driver's license type of ID with your picture on it for identification purposes.

Of course, our small community has no voter fraud and we're all pretty well documented, but even more complex urban communities could make a start on identifying their residents. Not a bad thing in today's world.

Posted by: erp at September 19, 2005 12:54 PM

The inky-finger method is more effective than anything that will come out of this report.

Posted by: flanman at September 19, 2005 12:57 PM

"inky-finger" -- not when you mail in your ballot(s) the month before the election.

Any so-called reform that doesn't address absentee/mail-in ballots is useless. (The best solution is to get rid of them, but that'll never happen, in the reformers rush to make voting "easier".)

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 19, 2005 1:49 PM

AC,
I doubt that the right man was elected, regardless of vote count (if you know what I mean).
"Creating a new election bureaucracy would be a mistake, but a national identity photo card in order to vote makes good sense." Good god,man, you just contradicted yourself.
A national identity card, ehhh?
May I see your papers, please? Could this be the rise of the fourth reich? Achtung, baby!

Posted by: JAG59 at September 19, 2005 4:59 PM

JAG:

Your identity isn't private.

Posted by: oj at September 19, 2005 5:18 PM

SO, they're going to limit the amount of issues and judges on the ballot?

Posted by: Sandy P at September 19, 2005 7:14 PM
« DEAF DEATH LOBBY: | Main | THE ROBERTS STANDARD: »