Editorials: Thomas Bates: Why Photo ID Laws Are Not the Answer | Huffington Post

We hear it all the time: How can you be against making voters show a photo ID when they vote? You need an ID to do almost anything in today’s society — buying beer, driving a car, getting on an airplane, going to an R-rated movie — so why shouldn’t you have to show a government-issued photo ID to vote?

It sure sounds like common sense, and it is a sentiment, coupled with the specter of voter fraud, that has driven more than 30 state legislatures this year to consider requiring limited forms of government-issued photo ID at the polls, prompting the Washington Post and New York Times to question why the country is fighting what is essentially a war on voting.

The rub: Strict photo ID laws result in disenfranchisement, unnecessary costs, and unequal treatment of voters and simply are not a proportionate response to any legitimate concerns about potential voter fraud. What may seem like common sense is actually a real barrier for those who want to participate, and a significant expense to all of us.

Editorials: Tennessee needs reliable paper ballots | The Tennessean

Now The Tennessean reports that this session of the state legislature may repeal the never-implemented Tennessee Voter Confidence Act (April 25). It was the fine work of an earlier session to give us this law. It is a reliable system of voting that requires the use of paper ballots for a possible real check on the accuracy of the electronic vote if and when it becomes necessary.

This is quite impossible with the system that Tennessee has been using, which relies totally on electronic voting machines without paper ballots. These machines have been shown in many different places to be subject to large errors or even deliberate manipulation. There is no way to verify an election with these delicate machines.

Editorials: GOP legislatures legalize voting barriers to Democrats | Idaho Mountain Express

Today’s Republicans would never try to reinvent something so crude as the outlawed “poll tax,” which mostly Southern states used, along with literacy tests, well into the 20th century to block voting by blacks, poor whites and Native Americans. Removal of these barriers firmly established every citizen’s right under the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause and the beginning of widespread elections of minorities.

But wait. The modern GOP has come up with a new artifice: voter IDs to prevent citizens’ showing up at the polls to commit fraud, even though voter fraud has never been a significant U.S. problem. The most widespread fraud has been by election officials’ rigging ballots and voting machines and denying voters a chance to exercise their rights by moving polling places unannounced or closing them early.

Editorials: Tonyaa Weathersbee: Politics behind GOP’s voting changes | jacksonville.com

If anyone needs a clue as to why the state’s Republican-dominated Legislature is making proposals that puts early voting in its cross hairs, one place to look might be Time magazine’s Oct. 30, 2008 issue.

In it was a piece titled “How Early Voting Could Cost McCain Florida.” It detailed how early-voting Democrats, many of them energized by the candidacy of Barack Obama, were outnumbering Republicans at early voting sites by more than 20 percentage points.

Editorials: John Nichols: Recount reasonable – just ask a Republican | madison.com

Candidates in close races who find themselves contemplating whether to seek a recount of the ballots — and the resolution of related questions about the quality and character of the initial count — need to have some standard for determining when it is reasonable to make the demand. Certainly, if the difference is a handful of votes, no one would argue with seeking a recount.

But what about when the margin is larger, such as the 7,316-vote difference between Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg and Justice David Prosser in the hotly contested race for state Supreme Court? Was it unreasonable for Kloppenburg to seek a recount?

Not if you ask a Republican.

Editorials: Jay Weiner: Voter ID issue advances at Capitol, but facts continue to get in the way | MinnPost

Jay WeinerA funny thing happened recently to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on its way to nailing an alleged illegal voter. Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) investigative arm found that clerical mistakes are sometimes made and that people can be accused of trying to vote illegally when they actually didn’t.

The investigators, with the aid of Hennepin County elections officials, learned that clerks at the state Department of Vehicle Services can wrongly check off boxes and that workers at voting locations can incorrectly mark a voter roster.

Editorials: Election bills rap democracy: Public short-served by GOP legislation | OrlandoSentinel.com

Time to stop calling the gang running Florida’s government conservative. They’re busy concocting a liberal dose of new regulations that would serve their fortunes first, and Floridians dead last.

It amounts to their ripping apart election laws that have made it easier for Floridians to vote, and replacing them with laws that could stack the deck — election outcomes — in the Republicans’ favor.

Editorials: New York Times: Do You Think It’s Because They Liked Florida’s Election?

House Republicans are seeking to abolish the federal Election Assistance Commission — as if the nation is fully recovered from the hanging-chad nightmare of 2000. The 9-year-old commission was created in bipartisan Congressional resolve to repair the nation’s crazy quilt of tattered election standards and faltering machinery.

The commission was charged with upgrading the mechanics of voting by certifying electoral equipment, channeling needed federal aid and guidance to states, and developing a national mail-in voter registration system. After a slow start, it has made progress as the 2012 elections loom. But there is still a lot more that needs repairing.

Editorials: Jepthah Gathaka  | The management of five elections in one wi……ll be an impossible undertaking in Kenya | Daily Nation

The new Constitution provides that the election of President, MPs and the Senate, the county governor and the county ward representatives be held ‘‘on the second Tuesday in August in every fifth year’’. The management of five elections in one General Election in one day will be a Herculean task for the proposed Independent Elections and Boundaries Commission (IEBC).

This will be against the spirit of the Constitution as provided for in Article 86, for it will be a recipe for chaos. It will be very difficult for voters to cast ballots in five boxes in one session. Even in the so-called developed democracies, managing and participating in five elections is quite difficult.

Editorials: Howard Troxler: Florida Legislature cracks down on … voting? | St. Petersburg Times

Having solved all other problems, the Florida Legislature now turns to the most dangerous threat of all …Voting. No kidding. The 2011 Legislature is considering, and its committees have approved so far, bills that would:

• Cut Florida’s early-voting period (nearly one out of five ballots were cast early in 2010) from two weeks to one.
• Bar anyone who has moved or changed a name, such as newly married women, from updating their information at the polls on Election Day and receiving a regular ballot. They would have to cast “provisional” ballots instead.
• Crack down on, and expand penalties for, groups that try to register new voters — which used to be considered an all-American activity.
• Make it even harder for citizens to change the Florida Constitution by setting an earlier expiration date for petition signatures.

Editorials: Michael C. Barris: Why paper-ballot vote is best for New York | The Observer

In the article headlined “New voting process a step backward” (March 19), the writer queries: “With the technology available, why not use a touch-screen computer? Really, who made this decision?”

I did, along with the other people who showed up at a trade fair graciously hosted by Fredonia Place at 50 Howard St, Fredonia, on Dec. 6, 2006 in cooperation with the Chautauqua County Board of Elections. The fair had been publicized by The OBSERVER on Sunday, Nov. 19, 2006. Everyone who showed up had an opportunity to use the twelve or so different models on exhibit and assess each one with a rating sheet. The Election Commissioners tabulated these results and took them onward to the New York State Board of Elections.

Editorials: Paul Malischke: Election methods need improving | Wisconsin State Journal

Monday’s Wisconsin State Journal editorial, “State needs streamlined count,” calls for a website to fix our vote counting situation. Actually, Wisconsin needs to pay more attention to assuring that the vote count is correct.

Wisconsin falls well short of having a reliable end-to-end system. We need to improve the method of appointing the members of the boards of canvassers, elect county clerks in nonpartisan elections and evaluate whether recounts should always include partial or full hand counts of the ballots.

Editorials: Linda McCulloch: Existing law good for democracy | missoulian.com

On Wednesday, April 13, I proudly joined Gov. Brian Schweitzer as he heated up his branding iron and vetoed House Bill 180, a partisan bill that would have ended Election Day voter registration across Montana.

Hours before the veto was issued, I read a guest opinion in support of HB180. It was written by former Secretary of State Brad Johnson. As I read Johnson’s opposition to Election Day registration, I was reminded of Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry’s infamous 2004 statement, “I was for it before I was against it.”

That’s because Johnson’s office supported the bill that created Election Day registration in 2005, and he touted in the news the beneficial fact that Montana now had a failsafe voter registration system to ensure that any eligible Montana voter could register to vote up until 8 p.m. on Election Day.

Editorials: Lisa Pease: More Twists and Turns in Wisconsin | Consortium News

I’m still mulling over the recent Wisconsin election in general and the actions of Waukesha County’s County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus in particular. She was the one who forgot to record votes that would have made her former boss, Justice David Prosser, the winner in a hotly contested election.

After my first report on this strange set of circumstances, data surfaced to show that the missing city’s data had been reported earlier by the city itself. The numbers Nickolaus reported were an exact match. So it doesn’t look like anyone made up the numbers for the missing town’s results in Brookfield. And then there was the stamp of approval from Democratic Party member Ramona Kitzinger who said the numbers “jived” with what she had been shown.

Editorials: To resolve Wisconsin’s state Supreme Court election, flip a coin | The Washington Post

Wisconsin’s already-fraught politics got even crazier last week when a bitterly contested, high-turnout state Supreme Court election ended in a near tie. Incumbent Justice David Prosser leads challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg by less than 0.5 percent, which means Kloppenburg has the right to a state-funded recount.

We are probably headed toward a long, expensive, law-snarled process — much like Florida in 2000 or the Minnesota Senate election in 2008. This is no way to pick a judge. And any mathematician can tell you a better, fairer and less expensive way: Flip a coin.

Choosing election winners by coin toss when there’s an exact tie is a time-honored tradition in states from Illinois to Alaska; just last Friday, a coin flip settled a school board election in Crawford County, Kan. It’s time to extend that tradition to elections so close that there’s no hope of being sure who “really won.”

Editorials: New Mexico: Partisanship Voting’s Biggest Threat | Albuquerque Journal

Of all the important election-related proposals that were considered in our latest New Mexico legislative session, one stands out. This is the issue of photo voter identification, which generated extreme partisan interest.

Photo voter ID was promoted in the election campaigning by our new Republican governor and also by our new Republican secretary of state, who said in legislative hearings that it was the issue most frequently raised by her supporters. She also claimed that in the Motor Vehicle Department database she had found 117 cases of noncitizens who were registered to vote. But she did not offer evidence showing whether those people had become naturalized and therefore eligible to vote, or whether the names of those in the MVD database just happened to be the same as those of other individuals in the overall voter registration database.

Editorials: South Carolina: Resolve voting machine questions | The Post and Courier

There have been ongoing complaints about supposed problems with the state’s electronic voting machines since last year’s Democratic primary election, and now the local Council of Governments has taken up the drumbeat.

It’s time to resolve the matter. The Legislative Audit Council is the obvious choice to investigate performance and security questions raised about the machines, which are used statewide.

Editorials: The Ugly Politics of Fitzwalkerstan: Wisconsin GOP Official “Finds” Votes to Reverse Defeat of Conservative Justice | The Nation

Suppose the Democratic governor of Illinois had proposed radical changes in how the state operates, and suppose anger over those proposed changes inspired a popular uprising that filled the streets of every city, village and town in the state with protests. Then, suppose there was an election that would decide whether allies of the governor controlled the state’s highest court. Suppose the results of that election showed that an independent candidate who would not be in the governor’s pocket narrowly won that election.

Then, suppose it was announced by a Democratic election official in Chicago that she had found 14,000 votes in a machine-controlled ward that overwhelmingly favored the candidate aligned with the Democratic governor. And suppose the Democratic official who “found” the needed ballots for the candidate favored by the Democratic governor had previously been accused of removing election data from official computers and hiding the information on a personal computer, that the official’s actions had been censured even by fellow Democrats and that she her secretive and erratic activities had been the subject of an official audit demanded by the leadership of the Cook County Board.

Editorials: Penny Venetis: Losing democracy in cyberspace | NorthJersey.com

It has been nothing short of astonishing that, within a few weeks, the brave people of Tunisia and Egypt toppled corrupt dictators who ruled for decades. One of the protesters’ key demands was for democratic elections — the right to choose a government that is responsive to the people’s needs. That is also what protesters in Bahrain, Yemen, Iran, Jordan and Libya are demanding as they call for the dissolution of their autocratic and oppressive governments.

As the protesters know all too well, voting does not mean that one’s vote will be counted. In Egypt’s 2005 elections, Hosni Mubarak was reelected with 88.6 percent of the vote. In 2009, Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was reelected with an 89.6 percent landslide victory. In both cases allegations of fraud and corruption surrounded the elections.

Editorials: The GOP’s Voter ID gambit | The Washington Post

As Republican governors and legislators across the country push forward with ambitious and sometimes controversial budget-cutting agendas, the GOP in many states is also quietly encouraging another controversial measure: Voter ID.

The Associated Press reported this weekend that Republicans are moving forward with such measures – which can require people to show identification or swear an oath of their identity when they vote – in about half of the 50 states. And in many of them, the bills have a better chance of becoming law than in a long time.

Editorials: Is Anyone Watching? | NYTimes.com

Two years ago, the Supreme Court looked over a cliff and decided not to jump. The question was whether a core section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as renewed by Congress in 2006 for another 25 years, was constitutional. A majority opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. strongly suggested that it wasn’t. The section’s provisions “raise serious constitutional questions,” the chief justice said. He suggested that the administrative burdens the law places on the states where black citizens once faced nearly insurmountable obstacles to voting were no longer justified: “Things have changed in the South.”

During the April 2009 argument in the case, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, in particular, appeared exasperated by the failure of Congress to take those changes into account when it renewed the law in the same format as the previous renewal in 1982. An iconic achievement of the civil rights era seemed headed for history’s dustbin, most likely by a vote of 5 to 4, and an anticipatory outcry began to build. But then either the chief justice or Justice Kennedy, or maybe both, blinked.

Editorials: A Common Sense Solution to Defective Voting | Lawrence Norden/The Hill Blog

In a week, millions of Americans will exercise their most important civil right – the right to vote. But as surely as some campaigns will end in a deluge of confetti and others in popped balloons, there will also be problems with vote tallies. Some votes will be counted more than once, some votes will be counted not at all, and some votes will appear as if by magic. This state of affairs is not caused by corruption. It is caused by malfunctioning voting machines. Since 2002, federal, state and local governments have spent billions on electronic voting systems. These systems are complex, consisting of tens of thousands of lines of computer code. And when, as is inevitable, some machines malfunction on the first Tuesday in November, it is election officials who will be asked to explain. They will struggle to cope with these problems while under enormous pressure to produce timely and accurate results. One would think that information about voting machine malfunctions would be just as open as the democracy for which, they are, quite literally the linchpin. Instead, defects or failures in voting machines are treated as secrets. For the most part, voting system manufacturers are under no obligation to publicly report malfunctions to a central authority. Officials in each of the nation’s approximately 4,700 election jurisdictions are left to fend for themselves.

Editorials: Internet Voting, Still in Beta | New York Times

Internet voting is in its infancy, and still far too unreliable, but states are starting to allow it and the trend is accelerating because of a new federal law that requires greater efforts to help military and other overseas voters cast ballots. Men and women in uniform must have a fair opportunity to vote, but allowing online voting in its current state could open elections up to vote theft and other mischief. It is often hard for military voters to get ballots, and because of distance and unreliable mail service, it can be difficult or impossible for them to meet election deadlines. A year ago, the Pew Center on the States found that more than one-third of states do not provide military voters stationed abroad with enough time to vote, or are at high risk of not providing enough time. To address this problem, the new Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act requires states in most cases to get ballots to military and overseas voters well in advance of regularly scheduled federal elections.

Editorials: Tennessee Voters Need Confidence in the Electoral Process | The Tennessean

The Tennessee Voter Confidence Act requires replacement of paperless touchscreen voting machines with optical ballot scanners by November 2010. Optical-scan voting systems read marked paper ballots and tally results, providing a tangible record of the voter's intent. They are now the most widely employed voting systems in the nation, used by 60 percent of voters in other states. The act was adopted nearly unanimously by the Tennessee legislature — by both Democrats and Republicans — and in 2008 enthusiastically signed into law by Gov. Phil Bredesen. But implementation of the law has been ensnared in legalities and technicalities. Tennessee's secretary of state and coordinator of elections have argued that the new law requires scanners be federally certified to 2005 standards, and because no machines have yet been certified to that standard, the law cannot be put into effect in time for 2010 elections.