The election chaos act of 2005: Hillary Clinton wants to ditch the rules

In the months since the 2004 election, left-wing websites have buzzed with conspiracy theories about Republican manipulation of electronic touch-screen voting machines in Ohio. One Democratic lawsuit (now dropped) suggested that top White House political adviser Karl Rove somehow personally hacked Ohio balloting machines to put President Bush over the top. The proposal would remedy that imagined wrongdoing by requiring touch-screen machines to produce a paper record of each vote. That could be done fairly easily if it were simply an internal printout on a roll of paper, but the bill also requires that the record be "voter verifiable," meaning the voter has to be able to see and approve the record (the bill also specifies what type of paper the receipt could be printed on--quick-fading thermal paper would not be allowed).

How to make a paper record "voter verifiable?" One way would be for the machine to print out a receipt with the voter's name and votes on it. That, of course, would be a gross violation of ballot secrecy and probably lead to an epidemic of vote-selling. So to solve the problem, two of the largest voting-machine makers, Diebold and Sequoia Voting Systems, have designed add-on printers for touch-screen machines, which work this way: The voter touches the names of his chosen candidates displayed on the screen. After he is finished, he presses a button marked "Review." Then the paper receipt--it's on a roll of paper--rolls under a glass screen where the viewer can see it (but not touch it). The voter reviews his votes on the paper record. If it's okay, he presses a button that officially casts the ballot and the receipt is marked final. If there is a problem, he can start the process over again. The original flawed ballot would be marked void.

It's an extremely complex procedure that introduces a number of new chances for machines to malfunction. Most voting-machine experts view this system as far less reliable, and far more expensive, than the paper ballot/optical scan systems in use in many precincts around the country. But for those jurisdictions that have already invested millions of dollars in electronic voting machines, it would probably be the only option if Senator Clinton had her way.

So in the end, the result of all of Senator Clinton's proposed changes--Election Day registration, unlimited provisional voting, no verifiable standards for checking applications, felons' rights, and complex ballot-viewing and -printing procedures--would likely bring a level of chaos to the voting process far beyond anything that existed in 2000 and 2004. And all in the name of reform--and, just possibly, the 2008 presidential campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Chances are most of it won't ever become law in the Republican-controlled House and Senate. Senator Clinton and her allies surely know that, but they have, in the last few months, spent so much time agitating the Democratic base about those rumored irregularities in Ohio that they needed to offer the true believers a plan of action, even if it fails.