|
Provisional Ballot Turmoil: More Than 200,000 Votes Could Go Uncounted
New Report Finds Serious Problems Nationwide
|
Placebo Ballots
Will "Fail-safe" Voting Fail?
October 19, 2004
Demos's Ari Weisbard examines the practice of provisional balloting after the implementation of the Help America Vote Act. |
New York, NY - More than 200,000 votes cast on November 2nd could be invalidated due to improperly and illegally applied provisional balloting procedures, according to a new report released today by Demos, a nonpartisan public policy research organization based in New York.
The report, "Placebo Ballots: Will Fail-Safe Voting Fail?" is based on an extensive survey of election officials in 50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey assessed the administration of the new provisional ballot requirements in the upcoming General Election. Responses among states - and within the same state - varied widely, revealing dire information gaps and cause for deep concern.
"This report shows that like patients sent home with a placebo, hundreds of thousands of provisional voters across the country may think they have cast a valid ballot, when in all too many cases they are receiving a false promise," said Miles Rapoport, President of Demos.
Millions of citizens were disenfranchised in the 2000 presidential race by poor election administration and voting restrictions. In response, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) to remove many of the barriers that had blocked the votes of eligible voters on Election Day.
One of HAVA's promises was its so-called "fail-safe" voting provision. According to the law, as of the first primary election in 2004 no registered voter should be turned away from the polls because her name was omitted from the voter roll. She should instead be given a provisional ballot. Similarly, those voters unable to meet HAVA's new identification requirements would also be able to cast a provisional ballot. In both instances, these provisional ballots were to be counted once elections officials determined that they were cast by eligible voters.
In its assessment of these mandates, Demos found a clear cause for alarm. States have distorted the provisional ballot remedy by imposing improper ballot restrictions, including:
- Summarily disfranchising voters without ID
- Penalizing voters who show up at the "wrong" location, without redress
- Limiting provisional ballot choices to candidates for federal office.
"Congress left it to the states to determine how to count these provisional ballots," said Rapoport, "but it looks like many of them may seize upon the fine print of HAVA's fail-safe voting provision to again deny eligible Americans their right to participate in their democracy."
"A number of states have already thrown out tens of thousands of provisional ballots cast in primary elections this year," according to Ari Weisbard, Policy Analyst at Demos and the report's author.
"On November 2, more than one million voters are expected to cast provisional ballots," he says, "but if states stick with their current plans, one-fifth of those could end up in the trash - an amount that will far exceed the projected margin of victory in many of the battleground states."
The report's other key findings include:
- Two states - Minnesota and Idaho - will not offer provisional ballots to newly registered voters without identification; 10 states, including Missouri and Ohio, will automatically invalidate provisional ballots cast by first-time voters without identification;
- 30* states and the District of Columbia will throw-out provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct, despite well-founded confusion about polling place locations;
- Provisional ballots will be invalidated even when voters are selecting candidates for statewide offices, when polling place location is immaterial;
- Seven states will only offer provisional ballots for federal or federal and statewide elections choices - a clear distortion of HAVA that will effectively disfranchise hundreds of thousands of eligible new voters in Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, Vermont and Missouri.
"This should be a wake-up call for our election administrators and the voting public," says Weisbard. "Half a dozen lawsuits challenging state provisional ballot procedures have already been filed, with more certainly to come after November 2."
*Post-Publication Litigation Update:
After the report was published, the Sixth Circuit Court's reversed an Ohio District Court's decision on counting provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct. The number of states in addition to the District of Columbia that will invalidate these ballots is now 31, rather than the 30 cited in the report. Cases and administrative decisions involving procedures in Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Colorado and Florida have not altered the status that is reflected in the report's maps.
Publications
Placebo Ballots
Will "Fail-Safe" Provisional Voting Fail?
October 28, 2004
Demos' Ari Weisbard examines the practice of provisional balloting after the implementation of the Help America Vote Act.
Purged!
Will Eligible Voters Be Purged From Election Rolls?
October 27, 2004
Purged! provides an in-depth analysis of the confusing, disorganized and often partisan process used to "purge" voter rolls and deny eligible Americans the right to vote.
Divided Citizens
How Inequality Undermines Trust in America
May 1, 2004
An exploration of the importance of social trust in U.S. society and troubling ways in which rising economic inequality since the 1970s has helped to decrease trust between Americans.
Democracy Denied
The Racial History and Impact of Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States
February 26, 2004
This brief examines the relationship between criminal justice practices that disproportionately target people of color, and disenfranchisement laws that deprive citizens convicted of felonies of their right to vote.
Punishing at the Polls
The Case Against Disenfranchising Citizens With Felony Convictions
November 24, 2003
Political scientist Alec Ewald sheds new light on the fundamentally undemocratic nature of felony disenfranchisement laws. Tracing the history of these laws from ancient Europe to their racist application in the post Civil War U.S., Ewald concludes that felony disenfranchisement laws are in profound conflict with America's best ideals of fairness and traditions of democracy.
Securing the Vote
An Analysis of Election Fraud
April 14, 2003
An in-depth study of election fraud issues and the policy requirements of the Help America Vote Act.
|
