Voting Rights

WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide. Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Voting Rights Archives page.

Let’s Have a Fair Vote in 2004: A Florida Update

The 2002 presidential elections scared many of us.

Regardless of whom we voted for, many of us felt a sense of dread when we realized that our voting system isn’t perfect –and that our vote could have mistakenly gone to the other guy.

The election mess was a slap in the face. We went from thinking that our voting system was very accurate to knowing that it was in utter disrepair. An overriding question that is hardly talked about: does everyone really want ALL people to be able to vote?

Got to have HAVA

The federal government responded to the election debacle with the Help Americans Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). Despite its somewhat patronizing title, this piece of legislation is supposed to fix the glitches in our voting system; its aim is to prevent the Florida fiasco from ever happening again, in any state.

The bill provides $3.9 billion dollars for election reforms in all 50 states. This money is going towards replacing those passé punch card and lever machines, training poll workers, and creating voter databases.

Although Congress set some voting standards through HAVA, most of the responsibility of election reform falls on the states.

So, if we want to know how the reforms are coming along, we have to pick a state and look at what it is doing.

Florida leads the way

All eyes will be on Florida in the next presidential election, so the state has worked hard to make major changes before November 2004. State officials claim that Florida is leading the way in election reform.

Florida has already reviewed its existing voting system and begun making changes. The state is providing "sensitivity training" to poll workers so that they may better serve disabled voters. They have expanded voter education and spent millions on new voting technology. In addition, the state is working on a statewide database, which will give each voter their own personal identification number. Currently, counties have separate voter databases, so ID numbers overlap among counties. Of course, this overlap causes some serious confusion, so Florida is working to correct the problem right now.

I.D numbers scare some people. Will it cause government to peek into our lives? Will less educated people know enough to register and get an I.D.? Do all political parties really want all the people to show up at the polls or only their own likely voters?

It’s the software’s fault!

Florida also plans on upgrading voting machine software, a change that is expected to save voters time and the state $1 million dollars.

On September 10, 2002, the voting software took so long to boot up, that the polls were not able to open on time. The upgrades should shorten boot up time, and, thus, prep time. The upgrade should save Florida money because they will no longer have to pay overnight security. They used to have to start up machines the night before, and now they can do it the morning of an election.

If you live in Florida

If you are a Floridian, you have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to affect voting reform in your state (well, let’s hope it’s only once this lifetime and that no further reform is needed).

Here’s what you do: go to (www.dos.state.fl.us/hava/index.shtml) and read Florida’s state plan for implementing the Help America Vote Act. The plan will be up for 30 days, between June 13 and July 13, 2003. It is available in English, Creole and Spanish. The PDF file takes some time to download, but it is easy to send an electronic response to the state. Read it and respond! They want your comments.

If you don’t live in Florida

You may want to take a look at the Florida state plan anyway. If you want to voice your opinion about election reform, do so on our Voting Rights online forum.

Posted on: 6/26/2003

Updates on other states

Iowa and Arizona are having different troubles than Florida. These states’ governors have vetoed plans for election reform, deliberately slowing the reform process and the federal funding in order to make a point.

These Democratic governors have left critics shaking their heads. Some don’t understand why their state leader would refuse to implement certain voting reforms.

Here’s why: Some election “reforms" may actually keep people from voting.

Anti-fraud or anti-voter?

Like New York Senators Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano fears that mandatory I.D. checks will keep some voters away. Clinton and Schumer were the only two Senators to vote against the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). They were opposed because HAVA requires people to present identification when registering to vote for the first time. (For more on Clinton’s and Schumer’s votes in the Senate, click here)

Napolitano vetoed Arizona’s election reform bill because it required one more I.D. check at the polling place. Like Clinton and Schumer, Napolitano claims that this will discourage voting, particularly by new citizens and the homeless, who may not carry identification. For many people their driver’s license is their only photo ID. Some who travel to other countries have a passport. But if you live in a big city and don’t have a car, you don’t have a photo ID.

Others think that since you need identification at the bank and video store, why not the polling place? They claim I.D. deters fraud. Some think we should have a national ID card; others worry that the wrong kind of government will use it to record every book we borrow from the library, every purchase we make, every group we join – and take away our freedom to speak and move freely.

Iowa upset

Iowa’s governor vetoed his state’s reform bill as well, but for different reasons; Tom Vilsack (Democrat) opposes shortened voting times.

Provisions in the Iowa bill close election polls early and give people 50 fewer days to request absentee ballots. Many say that less voting time just means fewer voters, not less fraud.

They claim that the poor, the disabled, people who don’t speak English, and others who are already disenfranchised will be even less likely to vote if voting is made more difficult.

Some even say that Republicans are interested in restricting voting for this reason; the disadvantaged often vote Democratic.

Those in favor of restricting poll hours claim that it reduces the possibility of voting fraud. They say that there is still plenty of time to vote, but less time for voting scams.

Computer fix

We can go to the moon; we can instantly communicate with someone across the globe; we can clone animals. So, why can’t we invent some sort of machine that prevents voter fraud by confirming who the individual is, accurately counts votes, and actually makes voting easier?

What is of greater concern to you? Do you favor fraud protections or do you want one more hour to cast your ballot? Let your representatives, especially your Governor, know what you think about limited voter times. [Click here]

Update Posted on: 7/10/2003

click here to go to next section

return to top