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

'WE have spent a lot of time and American lives and money to secure the right to vote in Afghanistan and Iraq," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters on February 17. "We have to do everything we can to ensure that all voters have a reasonable opportunity to register and cast their vote, without becoming the victims of deceptive practices, fear, or intimidation."

That might sound like an entirely reasonable sentiment, except that Mrs. Clinton did not, in fact, utter those two sentences consecutively. Although she briefly recognized that democracy is on the move around the world, her expression of concern about deceptive practices, fear, and intimidation came at another point in her remarks. And she wasn't talking about obstacles to voting in Afghanistan or Iraq. She was talking about the United States.

Senator Clinton's speech came as she introduced--along with fellow Democratic senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer--legislation called the "Count Every Vote Act of 2005." The bill might best be characterized as the ultimate wish-list of Democrats who believe that rumored voting irregularities in Ohio cost the party the White House in 2004. Although its stated purpose is to "count every vote," its actual effect would be to make it impossible for polling-place officials to determine which votes should be counted and which should not.

Take, for example, a provision requiring states to allow anyone to register to vote on Election Day itself, and then vote, and then "have that vote counted in the same manner as a vote cast by an eligible voter who properly registered during the regular registration period." That would give state officials virtually no time to determine whether an applicant was in fact eligible to vote.

Then there is the provision requiring states to "accept and process a voter registration application for an election for federal office unless there is a material omission or information that specifically affects the eligibility of a voter." The bill specifies that an applicant's failure to provide a Social Security number, a driver's-license number, or any proof of citizenship may not be considered a "material omission," that is, may not be used to judge whether the applicant is eligible to vote. In fact, it is not clear what--other than, say, not knowing one's own name--would constitute a "material omission" under the Clinton standard. In any event, a person who is not registered, who is not a citizen, and who has no identification would be able to show up at a polling place and register and vote.

Another feature liable to abuse is the provision requiring states to allow anyone to cast a provisional ballot anywhere in the state, regardless of where that person may--or may not--be registered to vote. That could allow someone who is not registered to cast provisional ballots at as many poll locations around the state as he could physically visit in a day.

The bill also contains a provision requiring states to allow felons to vote, once they are out of jail and off parole. What Senator Clinton calls "civic participation by ex-offenders" equates the denial of voting rights to felons with the historic denial of voting rights to people on the basis of race and sex. The bill would also require states to enact a sort of felons-outreach program, ordering that each state "shall notify any qualified ex-offender who resides in the state that such qualified ex-offender has the right to vote in an election for federal office."

Beyond the issue of voter eligibility, the bill would also create a federal mandate for the length of lines at polling places. It would require the federal Election Assistance Commission--a body created after the 2000 Florida recount controversy--to issue standards on waiting time permissible for every polling place in a state to ensure "an equal waiting time for all voters in the state." To accomplish that, the bill orders the commission to undertake a study and come up with a formula for line length based on "the voting age population; voter turnout in past elections; the number of voters registered; the number of voters who have registered since the most recent federal election; Census data for the population served by such voting site; the educational levels and socio-economic factors of the population served by such voting site; the needs and numbers of disabled voters and voters with limited English proficiency; [and] the type of voting systems used."

The bill also--in an apparent nod to all those Internet conspiracy buffs who believe that the Diebold Corporation tipped the election to George W. Bush--would make it illegal for a chief executive officer, chief financial officer, chief operating officer, or president of any company that manufactures voting equipment to take part in political activities.

Finally, in what Senator Clinton calls one of the bill's most important provisions, the legislation would require that voting machines produce an "individual voter-verifiable paper record" of each vote.

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.

Nevertheless, there will likely be action on some sort of electionreform bill before the 2006 elections. Not only are there a few other Democratic proposals, there is also a new bill by Republican senators Mitch McConnell and Christopher Bond. While it proposes to clean up state voter rolls cluttered with ineligible voters, it basically has just one key provision, which is to require photo ID for voters at all polling places. Republicans believe that in the days since 9/11, presenting a photo ID has become a routine part of American life; if you have to show a photo ID to get on an airplane, or to get on a bus, or to buy a pack of cigarettes, is it really so burdensome to show one to vote?

Mrs. Clinton and her allies will oppose such a provision with everything they've got, but if they really want to win those "voter verifiable" paper records, they might have to compromise on the issue of identification. Otherwise, there will probably be nothing left of the "Count Every Vote Act of 2005."

COPYRIGHT 2005 National Review, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning