The Time for Ballot Reform
"Ultimately, however, it will take a determined push by Congressional leaders
and President Bush, who has shown little interest in the subject, to get an
election reform law signed by year's end.
From The New York Times
Editorial
November 12, 2001
The results of the 2000 presidential
election may never be final in the
minds of some Americans, but the
comprehensive review of Florida's vote by
The Times and other news organizations may put an end to the counting. It
appears that Al Gore might have carried Florida if he had successfully
pursued a statewide manual recount of all 175,010 rejected ballots — a
strategy he never tried. But the United States Supreme Court's decision to
stop a more limited recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court simply
cut off a process that would have wound up confirming George W. Bush's
victory.
One part of the 2000 election story must not be forgotten. Florida
demonstrated that in a close race for the nation's highest office, the margin of
error built into America's neglected voting apparatus could exceed a
candidate's margin of victory. The patchwork electoral system was
particularly hard on minority voters. The review determined that
predominantly black precincts had more than three times as many rejected
votes as white precincts, even after accounting for differences in income,
education and voting technology. This pattern, seen elsewhere in the country,
violates the same equal- protection clause that led the Supreme Court to
terminate Florida's manual recount in the absence of uniform statewide
standards for counting votes.
Congress still has not passed legislation establishing national standards for
voting technologies and procedures and providing funds to put them into
effect. The anniversary of last year's mess may create a renewed sense of
urgency. Congress must act now if voters are to see substantial
improvements by the next presidential race.
Last week the House agreed on a bill that would offer states $400 million to
retire their old punchcard voting systems and an additional $2.25 billion over
three years for new equipment and better voter registration. It fails in some
respects to impose strong enough national standards. A far better bill
establishing clear federal mandates for national elections may soon reach the
Senate floor. Written by Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and
backed by every Democratic member, it may soon gain bipartisan backing.
Senator Christopher Bond, a Missouri Republican, is seeking to add some
anti-fraud proposals in exchange for his support.
Ultimately, however, it will take a determined push by Congressional leaders
and President Bush, who has shown little interest in the subject, to get an
election reform law signed by year's end. The money should then start
flowing immediately. There is no need for further commissions. An avalanche
of studies has already led to a remarkable consensus on remedies. Congress
should now mandate that all states adopt them.
The federal government should require polls that are fully accessible to
people with disabilities, better trained poll workers and computerized
statewide voter registration lists. People whose eligibility is questioned should
be provided with a provisional ballot. States should deploy only voting
equipment that meets the Federal Election Commission's technical standards
and that allows voters to recast a ballot if they have mistakenly failed to
choose a candidate, or have chosen two.
Nobody questions the merits of these measures. What's more, Americans
will have little patience for an ideological quarrel over whether Congress
merely ought to ask, instead of insist, that all votes get properly counted in
the next presidential election.
nytimes.com
Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company |
