Real Election Reform

[glatt]

Former President Jimmy Carter is sounding the alarm about Florida. He thinks it's just as bad, if not worse than, it was in 2000. As someone who has observed over 50 elections in foreign countries, he is an expert in this sort of thing. From an editorial in the Washington Post:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Carter

Still Seeking a Fair Florida Vote

By Jimmy Carter

Monday, September 27, 2004; Page A19


After the debacle in Florida four years ago, former president Gerald Ford and I were asked to lead a blue-ribbon commission to recommend changes in the American electoral process. After months of concerted effort by a dedicated and bipartisan group of experts, we presented unanimous recommendations to the president and Congress. The government responded with the Help America Vote Act of October 2002. Unfortunately, however, many of the act's key provisions have not been implemented because of inadequate funding or political disputes.

The disturbing fact is that a repetition of the problems of 2000 now seems likely, even as many other nations are conducting elections that are internationally certified to be transparent, honest and fair.

The Carter Center has monitored more than 50 elections, all of them held under contentious, troubled or dangerous conditions. When I describe these activities, either in the United States or in foreign forums, the almost inevitable questions are: "Why don't you observe the election in Florida?" and "How do you explain the serious problems with elections there?"

The answer to the first question is that we can monitor only about five elections each year, and meeting crucial needs in other nations is our top priority. (Our most recent ones were in Venezuela and Indonesia, and the next will be in Mozambique.) A partial answer to the other question is that some basic international requirements for a fair election are missing in Florida.

The most significant of these requirements are:

• A nonpartisan electoral commission or a trusted and nonpartisan official who will be responsible for organizing and conducting the electoral process before, during and after the actual voting takes place. Although rarely perfect in their objectivity, such top administrators are at least subject to public scrutiny and responsible for the integrity of their decisions. Florida voting officials have proved to be highly partisan, brazenly violating a basic need for an unbiased and universally trusted authority to manage all elements of the electoral process.

• Uniformity in voting procedures, so that all citizens, regardless of their social or financial status, have equal assurance that their votes are cast in the same way and will be tabulated with equal accuracy. Modern technology is already in use that makes electronic voting possible, with accurate and almost immediate tabulation and with paper ballot printouts so all voters can have confidence in the integrity of the process. There is no reason these proven techniques, used overseas and in some U.S. states, could not be used in Florida.

It was obvious that in 2000 these basic standards were not met in Florida, and there are disturbing signs that once again, as we prepare for a presidential election, some of the state's leading officials hold strong political biases that prevent necessary reforms.

Four years ago, the top election official, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, was also the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney state campaign committee. The same strong bias has become evident in her successor, Glenda Hood, who was a highly partisan elector for George W. Bush in 2000. Several thousand ballots of African Americans were thrown out on technicalities in 2000, and a fumbling attempt has been made recently to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons.

The top election official has also played a leading role in qualifying Ralph Nader as a candidate, knowing that two-thirds of his votes in the previous election came at the expense of Al Gore. She ordered Nader's name be included on absentee ballots even before the state Supreme Court ruled on the controversial issue.

Florida's governor, Jeb Bush, naturally a strong supporter of his brother, has taken no steps to correct these departures from principles of fair and equal treatment or to prevent them in the future.

It is unconscionable to perpetuate fraudulent or biased electoral practices in any nation. It is especially objectionable among us Americans, who have prided ourselves on setting a global example for pure democracy. With reforms unlikely at this late stage of the election, perhaps the only recourse will be to focus maximum public scrutiny on the suspicious process in Florida.

Former president Carter is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta.



© 2004 The Washington Post Company

I know that "To the victor go the spoils" but some posts should be civil servant posts, not politically appointed ones. Any positions having to do with the election process should be as non-politicized as possible. It's amazing, but unfortunately not surprising, to me that the Republican election officials are trying to influence the outcome of the election by selectively disqualifying voters.

[Cyber Wolf]

Several thousand ballots of African Americans were thrown out on technicalities in 2000, and a fumbling attempt has been made recently to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons.

I'm going to pick at this one of several points made in the article. What I want to know is what's the number of White votes that were thrown out for whatever reason in the 2K election? Or Asian? And how exactly did they know which chad-ballot came from an African American or Hispanic? Is there a place where you indicate your race on the ballot? Do they assume all the ballots from XYZ polling station are, say, African American votes because the neighborhood has a large number of African Americans? Are the poll workers marking the ballots as they come in? I'm only seeing one side of the coin here.

[Happy Monkey]

It is based on statistical percentages of race in the districts under contention, I expect.

The 2004 felon list has more exact statistics, of course.

[Cyber Wolf]

I suppose that makes sense as far as statistics can be relied on. What about the number of statisical White votes that were thrown out for any reason?

[Radar]

Actually in 2000, felons were excluded, and non-felons with the same last name as felons.

When you commit a crime, you're still a citizen. Not only do I believe ex-felons should be able to vote, I believe they should be able to carry guns and have 100% of their rights restored to them. I think they should setup voting booths in prisons.

[glatt]

Florida state law says that former Florida felons can be purged from the voting rolls. Former felons who moved to Florida from other states (where they committed the felony) can't be purged. But Florida improperly purged both kinds of former felons before the 2000 election. The alleged margin of victory in Florida in 2000 was a couple hundred votes, but the number of improperly purged voters was in the tens of thousands. The former felons vote for Democrats something like 80-90% of the time. The improper and illegal purging of those tens of thousands of legitimate voters caused Bush to win the presidency.

This time around, they tried to purge another 48,000 voters, and refused to release the list to outsiders to check its accuracy. A lawsuit brought by CNN in the summer caused a judge to release the list to the public, against the Republican election officials' wishes. In fact, the Republicans fought in court to keep the list secret. I'm not sure where things stand now, but I think that CNN etc. have been scrutinizing the list to find errors in it so they can be fixed. At least it's in good hands. I don't know if there is time to fix any mistakes though.

Meanwhile, many of the improperly purged voters from the 2000 election still have not been put back on the list, so they still can't vote. There is all sorts of red tape that puts the burden of proof on them to show that they were mistakenly removed from the list. How many John Smiths are out there? If your name is John Smith, and another John Smith committed a felony in Florida, you lost your right to vote, and you have to go to court to get it back. Most people don't have the energy or resources to fight to get it back. The burden should be on the government to remove a name, not on the citizen to put the name back on.

The Florida Republicans are a bunch of evil, dirty SOBs who don't care about democracy. They use dirty tricks to hold on to power when the majority clearly supports the opposing party.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The Florida Republicans are a bunch of evil, dirty SOBs who don't care about democracy. They use dirty tricks to hold on to power when the majority clearly supports the opposing party.

glatt, you should really try to indicate what is fact and what is your own opinion.

Oh,..wait,...that is fact,........nevermind.

[glatt]

My only hope for Florida is that they got rid of the butterfly ballots, so they won't have that problem again this time. That problem accounted for tens of thousands of votes not being counted for Gore. The Republicans aren't to blame for that problem, but it certainly helped them. If Florida is as close this election as it was last election, the absence of butterfly ballots alone should mean Kerry will win.

Of course, the wildcard for this election is the electronic voting machines. Diebold is run by a staunch Republican who donated the maximum to the Bush campaign. I hope the reports that the machines are easily hacked are wrong. I grew up in a little Maine town with paper ballots. They were fool proof. Call me a luddite, but paper ballots appeal to me a lot.