The Report : Voting Process

Voting Process (download pdf version)

"The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government."
-Chief Justice Earl Warren, Reynolds v. Sims, 1964

The most vivid memories of Election 2000 are not of the presidential candidates shaking hands on the campaign trail. They are not of the contestants delivering speeches on the stump, nor are they of victory night celebrations. More than anything, the 2000 presidential election will be remembered for its chaotic aftermath-glib lawyers arguing cases in court, angered African Americans protesting alleged disenfranchisement, confused election officials arguing over the validity of a vote based on a dimple on a punch-card ballot. These enduring images are reflective of fundamental questions raised by the election about the way in which votes are counted on (and after) Election Day.

Officially in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by a mere 537 votes, the certified result by Florida's GOP Secretary of State Katherine Harris. In the end, however, a true verifiable Florida vote count may never be established, though many news organizations have tried. One study by The Miami Herald, USA Today, and Knight Ridder of more than 176,000 Florida ballots rejected by counting machines found that the "agonizingly tight 2000 presidential election still ends in a virtual tie," depending "on how you count the ballots."¹ A ten-month investigation involving The New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Associated Press, St. Petersburg Times, and Palm Beach Post was scheduled to be published in mid-September but was delayed after the events of September 11. According to this study, which was published in November 2001, George W. Bush "still would have won Florida and the presidency last year if either of two limited recounts had been completed." The study showed that Bush would have held his lead over Al Gore, "with margins ranging from 225 to 493 votes, depending on the standard."²

Overall, an estimated 2 million of the 100 million votes cast nationwide on Election Day 2000 were never counted for a variety of reasons, from machine malfunction to voter error.³ In an election where a handful of votes in several states, including New Mexico, Florida, and New Hampshire, could have changed the course of history, it is hard to accept that so many voters of a variety of political stripes lost or forfeited their political voice.

Election 2000 has left little doubt as to whether our voting process is in need of reform-the question is how to proceed. The Center for Governmental Studies believes that while efforts to improve the accuracy and accessibility of the voting process are necessary, it is also important to keep in mind that the main goal of any reform effort should be targeted at rejuvenating the public's confidence in our political process. Election 2000 has undermined the confidence of the American people in the way votes are counted and, more importantly, the way the political process works.

Legislation aimed at streamlining registration (such as the Motor Voter Act) or ease of voting (such as absentee ballots) have not had a significant impact on increasing voter participation. Since the 1960 presidential election, voter turnout has declined steadily from 63.1 percent to the 1996 low of 49.1 percent. Turnout rebounded slightly in 2000 to 51.3 percent, but the rate is still extremely disappointing.⁴ The underlying issue is that Americans have lost faith in the process and do not believe their votes matter. The Center on Public Attitudes has shown a decline in the public's trust in the government from 1964 to 1997. Seventy-five percent of people surveyed in its study "Expecting More Say" believed that "the government is pretty much run by a few interests looking out for themselves."⁵

The House Judiciary Committee recently released their report, "How To Make Over One Million Votes Disappear: Electoral Sleight of Hand in the 2000 Presidential Election," and found serious flaws in the election systems of a majority of states. The investigation into the irregularities of Election 2000 "can leave no doubt that serious deficiencies exist in the conduct of elections of virtually every state and that these deficiencies block voters from exercising their constitutionally protected right to vote. What this investigation uncovered was that Florida is just the tip of the iceberg. Lying underneath the water are dozens of states which could find themselves unable to determine the victor of a close election. If any of these states were decisive in a presidential election, our nation could once again find its electoral system thrown into chaos and, in turn, public confidence in democracy would-once again-be seriously undermined."⁶

The thought of another state repeating the chaos in Florida initially sent Congress and state legislatures into reform mode. There are numerous bills in the House and Senate to address different aspects of how elections are run. A select committee in the U.S. House to find ways to combat problems with the fairness and accuracy of elections never got off the ground after talks between Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) collapsed this spring into partisan bickering. As time goes on, the reform momentum has decelerated, and the political climate favoring election reform has also changed, especially in light of the increasing emphasis on domestic security and the war in Afghanistan. Election reform bills have been set aside, and efforts to revive the bills and move them through the legislature are stagnating on Democratic and Republican party lines. Every proposal will have a tangible impact on which party will likely receive more votes, so the battle over reform continues to be politically charged and quite divisive.

The state at the center of the storm, Florida, led the way and tried to save face from the humiliating chaos of November 2000. After hearing authoritative testimony and thirty-five recommendations from a twenty-one-member Elections Task Force, the Florida legislature quickly implemented $32 million in sweeping election reforms in time for the 2002 elections for Governor and other offices. Many of the extensive amendments to the voting process passed by the Florida legislature and signed into law by Governor Jeb Bush (R) on May 9, 2001, can be viewed as models of reform for the nation. Among other things, the Florida law:

• Outlaws the controversial "butterfly" ballot, replacing it with a statewide uniform ballot that, in Governor Bush's words, will be "unambiguous." The infamous "butterfly" listed candidate names on the right and left and contained a column for voters to punch down the middle. According to the Gore campaign, some Florida voters punched Gore, but were unsure how the ballot worked, so they wrote in Gore as well. Those ballots stayed uncounted. A study by the Palm Beach Post found that "new voters did not have a harder time" with the butterfly ballot, but precincts "with high minority and elderly populations" had high rates of error.⁷
• Allows for provisional ballots, permitting a voter to cast a ballot if eligibility is in question.
• Allocates $6 million to Florida counties to conduct poll-worker recruitment and training and voter-education initiatives.
• Requires the state's Secretary of State to devise new rules to determine voter intent, as well as create uniform recount provisions and a statewide voter registration database. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Florida recount could affect at least half the states, where there are no specific standards on recounting contested elections. In some states, recount procedure merely requires a "clear indication of voter intent" and nothing more. The most widely used standard requires two corners of the "chad" to be detached. The strictest standard would throw out a vote if a punch is not completely clean.

Other states have jumped on the election-reform bandwagon with legislation that will help reduce Election Day problems with voting technology, registration, fraud, and vote counting and recounting. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, more than 1,700 election reform bills or studies have been introduced so far this year in legislatures across the country, and more than 250 have been signed into law.⁸. Most bills focus on distinct, yet interrelated facets of the electoral system, including

• Absentee voting;
• Ballot design;
• Modernizing voting equipment;
• Vote count and recount standards;
• Poll worker training and pay;
• Requiring voter identification;
• Alternative voting methods.

Examples of positive steps toward voting reform can be found throughout the United States as state legislatures work to improve their laws and fill in gaps in their statutes. In addition to these bills, numerous commissions, reports, and proposals by organizations across the country have sought generally to improve the way that ballots are both cast and counted. Reports by the Election Center, CalTech and MIT, the National Commission on Federal Election Reform, and the Constitution Project have utilized the best minds in politics, law, and technology, and they have proposed a variety of reforms. Some reports focus very narrowly on singular topics such as the technological advantages of particular balloting machines, while others are more ecumenical and suggest numerous changes that would in theory improve fairness and confidence in the voting process.

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS

The Center for Governmental Studies supports many of the recommendations espoused by various reform reports and commissions, yet our focus in this report is not to push specific suggestions on improving the mechanics of elections. Instead, the Center wishes to raise public awareness of potential benefits and pitfalls of reform efforts, and also encourage policymakers to address specific issues that will boost public confidence in our voting process. This section will briefly discuss five of the most pressing problems that face the voting process and the efforts for reform.

1. Ambiguous election rules and standards for vote counts and recounts. The Florida debacle would have been solved faster had there been consistent, statewide regulations that were less open to legal interpretation for the counting and recounting of ballots from all the state's 4,500 precincts. Trevor Potter, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, assessed the 2000 dispute bluntly when he told the Center's National Symposium on Presidential Selection that "there were some real gaps in the Florida [election] statutes, and the laws that they had in place made this as bad as it was."⁹

Ronald Klain, general counsel to the Gore campaign and a central figure on the Gore recount team in Florida, could not believe that "all 67 counties in Florida were handled differently. [Overvote] ballots ... were counted in some places as votes and not counted in other places as votes. ... You had a plethora of processes ... well-intentioned efforts to make this system work … all wound up with a multiplicity of results."¹⁰ Bush legal advisor George Terwilliger argued that elections administrators and judges were making up the rules as they went along because Florida's "will of the voter" standard for determining what counts as a vote was flawed and open to interpretation.¹¹

2. Poor pay and training for poll workers Elections are undoubtedly a complex enterprise. But as shown by the errors in Florida, many state, county, and federal officials recognize that ensuring every citizen's right to vote has lost out to other more pressing political and economic concerns. During the 2000 election in Florida "we heard an awful lot about long lines at polls. Voter officials being harried, being unable to give people advice because they didn't know the answer," said Potter at the Symposium. "And if you look behind that, you are going to find very dedicated poll officials who are understaffed, underpaid, and in some cases undereducated about the specifics of the law." 12 Most election registrars in Florida last year, according to Potter, had no idea the six-year-old federal Motor Voter Act (which allows voters in 44 states to register while renewing a driver's license) allowed voters to cast a "challenged" ballot (which can be counted later if the voter can prove his or her identity) if they are not on the registration list. "You can't do it," Potter said, "if you have a huge line going out the door and you are feeling under time pressure."¹³

Professor Robert Montjoy of Auburn University stated at the Center's Symposium that "we desperately need to help professionalize and improve the pay and education of this group of dedicated people so that they are able to deal with all problems in the future."¹⁴ Klain tells of how two northern Florida counties, next-door neighbors, both using optical-scan ballots instead of punch cards, provided very different results during the recount battle. "In Gadsden County," Klain told the Symposium, "over 2,000 votes out of 18,000 cast weren't tabulated, about one in eight. In Leon County (which includes Tallahassee), 150 votes out of 103,000 weren't tabulated, about one in 680."¹⁵ What accounts for the difference? According to Klain, a dedicated election administrator in Leon County, Ion Sancho, devoted significant time and energy into putting together voter-education programs and ensuring the proper technology was in place so the contest in his county was as well-run as possible.

Nevertheless, poll workers continue to lag far behind other segments of the democratic system in pay and training. Precincts throughout the country have had trouble recruiting younger officers, so the majority of poll workers remain older, retired citizens with high levels of civic participation. The pay of full-time elections administrators lags far behind workers with similar skills in the private sector, and election administrators make even less in rural counties. Despite the long hours, poll workers in the poorest counties in the country earn $75-$95 on Election Day, often less than minimum wage.¹⁶ In addition, many counties, short of funds, prohibit allowing election workers to travel out of state for training programs, further exacerbating the problem.

3. Technological problems U.S. citizens can generally trust and use ATM machines, the Internet, cell phones, and other devices with relative accuracy and security. But outdated, substandard voting-machine technology can instantly take away their franchise and greatly reduce their confidence in our democratic process. While it is important that citizens and legislators realize that technology is not the only cure for the diseases infecting the voting system today, technological solutions are likely the first, most immediate defense to maintaining the integrity and fairness of elections nationwide.

One study by Congressman Henry Waxman (D-California) of Election 2000 in Detroit showed that the number of invalidated ballots dropped by almost two-thirds after the city, with one of the nation's highest poverty rates, changed from punch-card systems to optical-scan systems (such as inking a circle on a standardized test) that detect errors and allow an immediate re-vote.¹⁷ The study documents how a change to newer technology can affect election results. Punch cards were used in 1996, and Detroit experienced a 3.1 percent error rate in voting. That fell to 1.1 percent with optical scan in 2000.

Maryland's Secretary of State John T. Willis made these observations before the U.S. Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in May: "Despite the size and scope of election activity, and the important consequences for citizens, the infrastructure for the administration of elections lags far behind the support systems for routine personal, commercial, governmental, and social interaction in our nation and respective states. U.S. citizens with a high degree of confidence and satisfaction conduct billions of transactions utilizing modern technology every day. Citizen-voters should have the same level of confidence ... to exercise the most fundamental right-the right to vote."¹⁸

The need to upgrade outdated voting machines is tempered somewhat by the burden on voters to learn to use new, potentially complicated voting machinery. "Voter education certainly came into the full in this election, and that was not something that we really knew about before. The fact that voters simply do not know how to vote in the voting booth … this is something that we are going to have to find a way to do in three minutes or less inside the polling place without calling attention to the fact that the voter doesn't know what he or she is doing. We are going to have to make it so that they do not have to embarrass themselves to participate in this process," said Doug Lewis, executive director of the Election Center.¹⁹ Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) could relate to this on a personal level. He recounted his Election Day experience in a Washington Post article: "There were blinking lights, push buttons, a roll-up page, then more blinking lights…and more roll-ups," he said. Neither he nor his daughter knew how to operate the unfamiliar machine. "I was too embarrassed to ask," Harkin said, and his daughter had to go to an election official for instructions.²⁰

4. Voter Fraud

The American electoral system today, according to University of Virginia professor and director of the Center for Governmental Studies Larry Sabato, is a trade-off. "To the extent that we keep expanding the participation rate and make it easier and easier for people to register and vote," Sabato told the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, "we almost certainly increase the chances for voter fraud."²¹ Finding a balance between these two objectives is essential to maintaining a fair and free democracy.

Fraud was detected in twenty-five of sixty-seven Florida counties in the November 2000 deadlock, as more than 2,000 illegal ballots were cast by Florida residents in Election 2000.²² Poll workers, busy with a hectic turnaround, probably never checked their names against the voter registration rolls.

In Wisconsin, where the Bush-Gore contest was especially close, at least 361 felons voted illegally, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.²³ Irregularities in St. Louis were also egregious by many accounts. Missouri Senator Kit Bond (R) worries that his hometown may become a laughingstock because of voter fraud. The Senator told colleagues at an election reform hearing that "dead people and dogs registered by mail," and about "fake people registering … [and] addresses which are vacant lots."²⁴ The voter rolls were so "clogged with incorrect or fraudulent data" that legal voters are shortchanged. The Missouri Secretary of State also found that one of ten voters registered in St. Louis is also registered elsewhere in the state-about 24,000 people. According to Senator Bond, the most glaring example of St. Louis' broken registration and sloppy voter rolls is the fact that the city has more voters on its voter rolls than the voting age population of the city.²⁵

Florida, Wisconsin, and Missouri are just a few of many states reporting fraud on Election Day. Such activity likely repeated itself in state after state. Sabato's strong suspicion, he told the Senate committee, is that "some degree of vote fraud can be found almost everywhere, and serious outbreaks can and do occur in every region of the country."²⁶

5. Unintended consequences As dialogue over election reform continues, more and more ideas are brought to the table and compromise solutions are often reached. While it is important that this discussion continue and that innovative methods are sought to improve our system, the Center believes it is important to keep in mind that ideas that initially sound good can have harmful unintended consequences. The rush to reform needs to be considered deeply by legislators and policymakers, and quick fixes should not be substitutes for meaningful solutions.

SOLUTIONS

States may find a variety of ways to address these problems. There are numerous proposals and task-force recommendations available and waiting for enactment. The Center for Governmental Studies advocates several attractive, commonsense suggestions that legislators should keep in mind while attempting to confront these problems. In addition, we also recommend a few safeguards that will help citizens and legislators better ensure the fairness and integrity of the voting process.

1. Establish Clear, Unambiguous Rules Before an Election. In 2000, local election officials and lawmakers in Florida could not have imagined such a multi-county recount fight over the state's twenty-five electoral votes. "There wasn't a statewide system for dealing with this," stated Potter. "The laws were written with the assumption that if you had a close election, it was going to be for Sheriff or County Commissioner or something within a single judicial unit."²⁷ To prevent a repeat of the down-to-the-wire 2000 challenge, states should establish clear and unambiguous rules prior to an election so that a recount is essentially put on autopilot in a close, contested election.

With images of election officials holding disputed ballots fresh in his mind, Terwilliger recommended that discretion of judges and officials in recounts be avoided at all costs. "It is fundamentally inconsistent with the privacy and objectivity of voting," Terwilliger told the Symposium, "to entrust anybody, whether it is a judge, a local election official, or Mother Teresa for that matter, to take this thing [a ballot] and hold it up to the light and decide, 'Well I think they intended to vote for Bush.' That is not what elections are supposed to be about. ... We need statewide reasonable standards for what counts as a validly cast vote and what doesn't."²⁸ However, one should keep in mind, as pointed out by Klain, that humans are fallible as a matter of course, and the input of judges is sometimes necessary to make tough calls when an election margin is razor thin. In these cases, one judge would likely make the same ruling as the next if clear rules and regulations were in place.

2. Emphasize Poll-Worker Recruitment and Training States are confronted with a persistent challenge to find and maintain a strong, enthusiastic pool of election workers who will return to election work year after year. The hours remain long (usually a fourteen-hour day), and in addition, the duties of poll workers have increased, as has the complexity of the voting process. It takes time and money to find and train election workers, and most counties are running short of both in the elections process.

Lewis addressed the problem well when he told Congress in May 2001 that "whether you measure by population growth; or by the increasing complexity of laws and rules affecting elections; or by comparisons of functions and staff with other governmental units; or just by the enormity of the task, our elections offices have remained understaffed and under-funded in most of America."²⁹

In Florida this year, the fifth recommendation of the state's Elections Task Force to state leaders was to recruit more qualified poll workers after it was found that many poll workers were on duty for the first time with minimal training. Florida's Collins Center for Public Policy found that one county, Hillsborough, had to hire 1,200 new poll workers just for the 2000 race. According to the report, the average poll worker in that county is sixty-seven years old, receives three hours of training, and works for fifteen to sixteen hours on Election Day.³⁰ Naturally, turnover is becoming increasingly high from election to election, and mistakes are common in Florida and in other states. Voters trust that election officials will be informed and able to answer their questions. In addition, the longer it takes poll workers to close a precinct on election night, the longer it takes to certify an election, whether it be for a county position or for president.

The Center believes there are several ways to expand the pool of qualified workers:

• High school/college students can be enlisted as part of a community service drive. In 1994, Yolo County, California (in the Sacramento area) recruited eighteen-year-old high school seniors who were registered to vote to staff polling places. According to the California State Association of Counties, the project "provides hands-on, real-world experience in the election process to high school seniors; and provides visible role models of high school voter participation for other high school students in the county."³¹ The polling places run by the students in Yolo County ranked among the best run and most efficient in the county.³² One of the provisions in the Help America Vote Act of 2001, introduced in the House in November 2001 and sponsored by House Administration Committee chairman Robert Ney (R-Ohio) and ranking member Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland), "would encourage college and high school students to assist state and local governments in the administration of elections by serving as nonpartisan poll workers."³³
• Recruit state and county employees to work the polls with a paid day off. Assigning state and county workers to polling places would be an effective way to staff the polls. One example of this program took place in Santa Cruz, California, in 1998, a locality that was facing such severe shortages of poll workers that it was considering closing some voting precincts in previous elections. This program allowed county organizations to reassign a number of employees to work for the Elections Department on Election Day. In total, more than sixty workers were either reassigned or took a paid vacation day to work the polls. According to the report issued by the county clerk, the biggest benefit to having county employees is that they "can be relied upon to be efficient and helpful to the voters. … [T]hey are experienced in handling complex legal procedures and dealing with a broad customer base."³⁴ While the costs of paying county workers their regular salary to work the polls is substantial, they are offset to a certain degree by not having to hire as many additional poll workers, and by the guarantee that there will be enough workers available to operate the polls efficiently and professionally.
• Recruit businesses and/or churches to provide poll workers. In 1998, the Board of Election Commissioners in Kansas City, Missouri, began a "Making Voting Popular" campaign that resulted in hundreds of new poll workers at miniscule cost to taxpayers.³⁵ The city asked businesses to give workers a paid day off, when possible, to help run local elections at the precinct level, or to encourage employees to take a paid day off to serve as Election Day workers. Similarly, civic organizations are invited by the city to work the polls, too, and donate their Election Day pay to their civic group or charity. Other counties could do well by following the example of Kansas City.

Once the poll workers have been recruited, the pre-Election Day training should be improved in many localities. Minnesota can be considered a "best practices" model for the nation. The state mandates training for both local election administrators and precinct officials, including a comprehensive set of training manuals and videos customized for county auditors, city clerks, township clerks, school districts, election judges, and poll workers. The state also offers redistricting training and an election-judge trainee program for sixteen and seventeed year olds. Implemented in other states, this program could go a long way to alleviate the problem of recruiting, training and keeping poll workers.

3. Recognize That One Size Does Not Fit All

One important thing to remember is that what works in one state will not always work in another. States are cautioned not to overreact and follow the lead of neighbors without careful study and deliberation. For instance, almost a dozen states want to replace punch cards with more advanced machinery. Yet, experts are divided on the accuracy of newer technology. Voting machines are extremely expensive to replace and require significant capital budgeting when localities may be strapped in an economic downturn. Poorer, rural counties may find it too costly to replace paper ballots or punch cards without funding from the state or federal governments. Moreover, evidence from Election 2000 suggests that the problem is not necessarily the type of voting machine used, but that voters did not know how to use the machines correctly.

Lewis said in the Symposium that most articles written after the election claimed punch cards were primarily responsible for uncounted votes. Lewis revealed, however, that "central-count optical scans had higher voter errors than punch cards."³⁶ It is true that voter intent, says Lewis, can be more easily determined on optical-scan ballots tabulated at a central location. Still, optical scan voting is not a cure-all. The reality, experts say, is much different from the myth of infallibility. Miami-Dade Elections Supervisor David Leahy told the Miami Herald that using the machines does not solve the problem. Optical scan may be "more user-friendly than punch cards, but voters can still make errors in the way they mark their ballots, and the machines will not count those votes."³⁷

Another area where flexibility is required is voter registration. Voter-registration systems are different in every state, and mandated reform to make each system identical is neither financially nor logistically possible. What is important is not that all fifty states have the same system, but that each state has an integrated system. Networking all of its local voter registries into one integrated statewide list will increase the states "efficiency and effectiveness in adding new voters, updating the records, … and deleting outdated or inaccurate records," stated the Common Cause report "Not Making the Grade: An Election Reform Report Card."³⁸ A searchable statewide record (requiring computers at each precinct) will also help states reduce voter fraud while at the same time assure that voters who are registered be allowed to vote. Having this integrated list accessible at each precinct would also allow voters who show up at the wrong location to be more easily redirected.

Also of concern is the possibility that Congress would pass federal mandates that would essentially create a national election code. Once again, it is important to keep in mind that each state has different needs, and solutions are not "one size fits all." However, it does not mean Congress should completely refrain from election reform. Congress has long deferred to the states to administer and regulate elections, but the federal government does have an integral role in ensuring the integrity and accuracy of the voting process. "Voting is a civil right, and the federal government has traditionally taken the lead in ensuring that every eligible voter in every state has the right to cast a ballot and have that vote counted."³⁹ Lawmakers on Capitol Hill will have to balance the need to guide the reform process and provide adequate funding with the historic deference to the states on matters of voting and elections.

4. Work to Combat Voter Fraud

Fortunately, the majority of elections in the United States are conducted with problems few and far between. Lewis believes most elections are fair to the voters and that, in 2000, 98.5 percent of elections went well.⁴⁰ Yet voter fraud and corruption are a persistent cancer that can trace its roots to the founding of the Republic. "Fraud didn't just appear during the 2000 presidential election," Sabato told a Senate committee in May 2001.⁴¹ The sanctity of the democratic process has been stained by numerous examples, including absentee-ballot fraud in Alabama and Philadelphia, phony registrations in California, illegal votes in New Jersey, and stolen votes in Texas.

Potter told the Center's Symposium that he supports "requiring ID at the polls, which is controversial, so that at least people know you are who you say you are."⁴² Terwilliger agrees that a computerized registry would also help overworked elections registrars keep tabs on voter whereabouts. "Widespread fraud in a presidential election would be a national crisis... At least showing identification [should be required] ... (and) if the populace were willing to accept it, we could right now use biometric identification--an iris, a fingerprint, a voice print--to prove that somebody who arrived at the poll ... is who they claim to be." Terwilliger concluded, "There is a political process that we are going to have to go through to decide how much we are willing to [do to] avoid fraud."⁴³

Other recommendations stemming from the Symposium and the Center's research are listed below:

• Photo identification, including a driver's license, is a pragmatic, simple first start to fighting voter fraud.
• Use a number unique to each citizen-a social security number or driver's license number-to be pre-recorded on the voting rolls and then used by precinct workers on Election Day to determine the correct identity of the voter.
• Place a signature on the voting rolls to be compared to the signature on the registration form to make sure there's a match.
• Warnings should also be given or posted in writing to the voters about the penalties for election fraud. The right to vote is diluted every time a fraudulent ballot is counted as real. There is a way to fight voter fraud and keep the privacy and sanctity of every citizen's right to vote.
• In Motor-Voter states, motor vehicle departments should expeditiously forward registration materials to elections officials. States could also cross-reference vehicle and voter registration forms by computer. The Federal Election Commission found that twenty-three of forty-four states subject to the National Voter Registration Act reported problems with the system. "Some of the states reported voters saying they had registered at the DMV, but come Election Day, they were not on the rolls, so there was a breakdown."⁴⁴

It is important that measures be taken to safeguard the right of those eligible to vote while respecting and protecting the honesty and reliability of our electoral process.

5. Caution and Forethought

While each of the reports and associations mentioned throughout should be saluted for recommending necessary changes and challenging citizens and public officials alike to examine the integrity of the voting process, we should again remain cautious of rushing reform efforts and not reflecting on the hazardous unintended consequences of each proposal. The Center for Governmental Studies supports many of the specific suggestions made by the various commissions, but we are also very concerned about the ramifications of some of the more divisive propositions. Below, several hot-button election-reform topics that at first sight may seem like good ideas are discussed. The Center argues that these "solutions" would actually be unlikely to solve our current election woes, or worse, they might create more problems.

• Avoid combining Veterans Day and Election Day into one national holiday- One such example of a proposal with both clearly foreseeable problems, as well as likely unintended consequences, is the appeal to combine Election Day and Veterans Day into one national holiday. Proponents argue that merging the two would increase turnout because citizens with a day off would have fewer obstacles and more time to go to polls. Some would also argue that having elections on Veterans Day would be an ideal way to celebrate the valiant sacrifices that veterans have made to secure our democracy. Many veterans, however, strongly disagree. Former senator, presidential nominee, and decorated WWII veteran Bob Dole wrote, "Under no circumstances should Veterans Day be hijacked for national elections."⁴⁵ Dole argues further that uniting the two days would be offensive because "every two years, the nation's focus on November 11 will be on projections not remembrances, on political conflicts not military conflicts, and on candidates not veterans. Cameras will film the president voting rather than laying a wreath at Arlington Cemetery."⁴⁶

In addition to the loud objections voiced by veteran groups, making Election Day a national holiday would likely have unintended consequences that should be fully examined. First, there is very little indication that this reform would have any substantial impact on voter turnout. In fact, it is very likely that Election Day would evolve into a four-day weekend, with many Americans taking off from work on Monday and leaving town or doing other vacation activities. It is even conceivable that this could lower turnout, especially if people choose to travel on that day.

• Avoid using federal money as incentive for states to enact mandated electoral reform- As mentioned earlier, another proposed measure that is gaining momentum among some legislators is making federal money for election reform available for states that meet federal mandates. This is problematic in the sense that elections are a state-supervised activity, each having its own set of rules and regulations. Mandated solutions therefore should not be "one size fits all." Imposing uniform standards will also curb creativity in the search for innovative solutions. The classic "stick and carrot" method would undermine federalism and impinge on states' sovereignty if the federal government were to establish mandates.
• Avoid moving too quickly to Internet voting- The rapid growth of the Internet and its pervasive use in our everyday lives has given birth to a movement toward using this tool as a means to cast ballots on Election Day. "Internet voting is seen by many as a logical extension of Internet applications in commerce and government," states the Report of the National Workshop on Internet Voting released by The Internet Policy Institute.⁴⁷ Proponents of Internet voting argue that such a system would "in the long run, reduce the costs of elections" as well as "increase voter participation, especially among youths, overseas personnel, and business travelers."⁴⁸ These claims, however, remain largely untested.

There is no indication that instituting Internet voting as a mechanism to increase voter turnout will in actuality boost voter participation. "As past reforms designed to make voting more convenient-simpler registration procedures, voting by mail-have demonstrated, increasing accessibility does not immediately translate to increase voter turnout."⁴⁹

"For Internet voting to become a reality, it must be able to meet the same requirements that current public elections are required to meet-guarantee of ballot secrecy, guarantee of ballot sanctity, and universal availability," said Deborah Phillips, president of the Voting Integrity Project. "One of the principal problems with election integrity today-the large number of unqualified and fraudulently registered names on voter-registration records-would not be addressed by any of the current Internet voting models. In fact, when vote thieves can avoid in-person voting, they can more easily avoid detection and more easily commit fraud."⁵⁰

In addition to addressing the risks of Internet voting, the E-Consumer Confidence Study conducted by Harris Polling and commissioned by the National Consumers League indicated a large percentage of Americans are concerned about security and privacy issues in dealing with the Internet. Fifty-three percent of those surveyed are "very concerned" that their "financial or sensitive information may be stolen during transmission to a website." The lack of confidence in Internet safety is reflected in the high percentage of people surveyed (71 percent) who reported placing between zero and five orders within a twelve-month period. Reasons for not buying anything online within a twelve-month period include "concerned that my personal information may be abused" and "worried that sellers may be fraudulent."⁵¹

This survey indicates that a large number of Americans are apprehensive about transmitting personal information over the Internet. This uncertainty and skepticism regarding privacy and security on the Internet represents the greatest challenge to Internet voting in the immediate future. Voters need to have confidence in the system and in the results of Internet voting before it can become a reality. This is true even if the public's concerns about the Internet are justified, especially as they relate to online voting. It is unlikely that online voting will gain widespread approval or restore any confidence in the electoral system until the security, as well as the perception of that security by the general public, are greatly improved.

It is also important to realize that casting ballots over the Internet would alter the ideals of our democracy. "The act of voting in the United States is more than simply a means by which to elect officers of government; it is a constituent element of representative democracy," states the Report of the National Workshop.⁵² Speaking to the Center for Governmental Studies Symposium, former governor of Massachusetts and one-time Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis said he believes going to the polls on Election Day "is one of the most important, symbolic aspects of American citizenship."⁵³

One could argue that the use of Internet voting will be an inevitable reality of the twenty-first century. One possible way that Internet voting may be explored and tested is through allowing the men and women who serve our country in the armed forces to vote online. In doing so, the election officials and lawmakers-and the broader policy community-will hopefully be able to begin resolving the many issues that confront Internet voting in order to make sound decisions that preserve and enhance the quality of the electoral process.⁵⁴

CONCLUSION

The purpose of the National Symposium on Presidential Selection was to initiate constructive dialogue among political practitioners, academics, lawmakers, and citizens. We firmly encourage states to come up with reasonable, creative, and carefully thought out solutions and implement them in the manner that will yield the most productive results.

The intense media and public scrutiny of election laws that has gone on since the presidential election of 2000 has clearly placed pressure on legislatures to move toward reform. While it is encouraging that some states have implemented changes and modifications, it is frustrating that the reform efforts have generated a great deal of talk but very little action. The most common reaction to the presidential-election dispute has been the formation of task forces and commissions to study how Americans vote and how their votes should be tabulated. However, many states are finding that the issue is broader and more complex, and that solutions are more expensive than they initially thought.

One NCSL elections expert, Tim Storey, stated, "Without federal funding, there will not be broad, across-the-board modernization of voting equipment."⁵⁵ Many election officials are challenging Washington to come up with more funding, particularly since an economic slump has left many states, counties, and cities with lower tax revenue. Florida's Secretary of State Katherine Harris testified to Congress before the Florida reforms were signed into law that "we have the will but not the financial wherewithal [to enact reforms]. Words of encouragement ... will fail to make our system of elections fairer, freer, more accurate, and more accessible."56 The costs of election reform are estimated to be in the billions of dollars. In addition, obtaining political support for changes may be difficult because state legislators may have differing views on how to best balance competing objectives, such as promoting voter participation and ensuring the integrity of the voting process.

In light of the events of September 11, 2001, we have been forced to evaluate the basic tenets and true meaning of our democracy. Fundamental principles of our lives and government have fallen under attack from outside agencies that do not share our conception of individual freedom and free speech. Although our country is currently and rightfully focused on issues of security and stability, both domestic and foreign, we must make sure that election reform does not fall by the wayside.

_______________

Notes

1. Martin Merzer, "'Overvotes' Leaned to Gore," The Miami Herald, May 11, 2001.

2. Dan Keating and Dan Balz, "Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush," The Washington Post, November 12, 2001, p. A1.

3. Thomas Ferraro, "Democrats Seek to Jump-Start U.S. Election Reform," Reuters, May 14, 2001.

4. Federal Election Commission, http://www.fec.gov.

5. In "Expect More to Say: A Study of American Public Attitudes on the Role of the Public in Government Decisions," published by the Center on Policy Attitudes, which evaluates (among other topics) public confidence in their government. When asked "how much do you think you can trust the government in Washington to do what is right?" only 19 percent answered "just about always," 80 percent "only some of the time," and 7 percent "none of the time." For more information, see http://www.policyattitudes.org/pres.html.

6. House Committee on the Judiciary, How to Make Over One Million Votes Disappear: Electoral Sleight of Hand in the 2000 Presidential Election, 107th Cong., 1st sess., August 20, 2001.

7. "Gov. Bush to West Palm Beach to sign Florida's election reform," Associated Press, May 9, 2001.

8. "Voting America: Final Report of the NCSL Elections Reform Task Force," National Conference of State Legislatures, http://www.ncsl.org/programs/press/2001/electref0801.htm#_Toc522011537.

9. Trevor Potter, remarks to the University of Virginia National Symposium Series. March 20, 2001.

10. Ronald Klain, remarks to the University of Virginia National Symposium Series. March 20, 2001.

11. George Terwilliger, remarks to the University of Virginia National Symposium Series. March 20, 2001.

12. Potter.

13. Ibid.

14. Robert Montjoy, remarks to the University of Virginia National Symposium Series. March 20, 2001.

15. Klain.

16. "Voting America: Final Report of the NCSL Elections Reform Task Force."

17. Ellen Nakashima and Dan Keating, "Technology Slashes Detroit Voting Error," The Washington Post, April 5, 2001, p. A15.

18. John T. Willis, remarks to the United States Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. May 3, 2001.

19. Doug Lewis, remarks to the University of Virginia National Symposium Series. March 20, 2001.

20. Matthew Vita and Helen Dewas, "Congress Debates Election Reform," The Washington Post, November 17, 2000, p. A20.

21. Larry J. Sabato, remarks to the United States Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. May 3, 2001.

22. "More than 2,000 Illegal Ballots Cast in Florida," Associated Press, January 22, 2001.

23. Dave Umhoefer and Jessica McBride, "361 Felons Voted Illegally in Milwaukee," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, January 21, 2001, p. A1.

24. Christopher "Kit" Bond. Remarks to the United States Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. May 3, 2001.

25. Ibid.

26. Sabato.

27. Potter.

28. Terwilliger.

29. Doug Lewis, remarks to the United States Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. May 9, 2001.

30. "Revitalizing Democracy in Florida: The Governor's Select Task Force on Election Procedures, Standards and Technology," Collins Center for Public Policy, March 1, 2001.

31. Yolo County, High School Poll Worker. California State Association of Counties, 1995 Challenge Award Winner. http://www.csac.counties.org/services/challenge_awards/chall95.html#winners.

32. The High School Volunteer Program has been used in states such as Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, and Minnesota. In California, several counties have adopted this program, most notably San Bernandino, Sacramento, and Yolo County. According to the SMR Group, these jurisdictions have responded positively to staffing polling places with high school students. For more information, see "Background of Student Poll Worker Program," http://www.thesmrgroup.com/sfhs/background.htm.

33. Help America Vote Act of 2001, 107th Cong., 1st sess., H.R. 3295.

34. Richard Bedal, "Report on Effectiveness of Assigning County Workers to Polling Places," County of Santa Cruz, California, January 26, 1999.

35. For more information on "Making Voting Popular," see: http://www.kceb.org/mvp.htm.

36. Doug Lewis, remarks to the University of Virginia National Symposium Series. March 20, 2001.

37. Martin Merzer, "Optical Scanning Isn't Perfect," The Miami Herald, April 6, 2001.

38. House Committee on the Judiciary, How to Make Over One Million Votes Disappear: Electoral Sleight of Hand in the 2000 Presidential Election, 107th Cong., 1st sess., August 20, 2001.

39. Ibid.

40. Doug Lewis, remarks to the University of Virginia National Symposium Series. March 20, 2001.

41. Sabato.

42. Potter.

43. Terwilliger.

44. "Big Problems with Motor-Voter," Associated Press, June 30, 2001.

45. Robert Dole, "A Day for Undiluted Honor," The Washington Post, August 13, 2001, p. A15.

46. Ibid.

47. "Report of the National Workshop on Internet Voting: Issues and Research Agenda," Internet Policy Institute. March 2001. http://www.internetpolicy.org.

48. Ibid.

49. Ibid.

50. Deborah M. Phillips, "Are We Ready for Internet Voting?" August 12, 1999. http://voting-integrity.org/projects/votingtechnology/internetvoting/ivp_title.shtml.

51. E-Consumer Confidence Study. For more information see Harris Interactive at http://www.nclnet.org/downloads/results.doc.

52. "Report of the National Workshop on Internet Voting: Issues and Research Agenda," Internet Policy Institute. March 2001. http://www.internetpolicy.org.

53. Michael Dukakis, remarks to the University of Virginia National Symposium Series. April 5, 2001.

54. "Report of the National Workshop on Internet Voting: Issues and Research Agenda," Internet Policy Institute. March 2001. http://www.internetpolicy.org.

55. Tim Storey, interview with Bob Beard, May 2001.

56. Katherine Seelye, "Little Change Forecast for Election Process." The New York Times. April 25, 2001.

(c) 2001, University of Virginia Center for Governmental Studies.