Lousy Local Conditions III

POLLING SITE PROBLEMS

Another major problem highlighted during the 2000 election was the large number of people who for one reason or another were unable to cast a vote when they arrived at polling stations. For some, it was because their names were not on the voter registration list. According to a study by the organization Demos, “In at least 25 states, inaccurate or purged lists prevented some eligible voters from casting ballots.” For voters in jurisdictions that do not allow for provisional ballots in lieu of voting on the machines, this meant they had no opportunity to vote regardless of whether the error was theirs or that of the election administrators. According to the Caltech/MIT report, “We lost between one-and-a-half and three million votes because of the registration process in 2000. According to the U.S. Census, Current Population Survey, 7.4 percent of the forty million registered voters who did not vote stated that they did not vote because of registration problems.”

Other voters were discouraged because their polling sites were moved, poll workers gave out faulty information, or lines were too long. Again, according to Caltech/MIT, “We lost between 500,000 and 1.2 million votes because of polling place operations. According to the U.S. Census, Current Population Survey, 2.8 percent of the forty million registered voters who did not vote in 2000 stated that they did not vote because of problems with polling place operations such as lines, hours, or locations.” . . .

In New York City, there were still many problems at voting sites, but due to new funding, fewer than in previous years. Among the major problems were poll worker shortages, consolidated—and thus fewer—polling sites, a shortage of voting machines, and machine breakdowns, all leading to inadvertent but wrongful disenfranchisement. The worst problem may have been poorly informed poll workers. Although New Jersey’s complex and decentralized system makes it difficult to assess poll site problems, there clearly were some. By far the most troubling were incidents of outright voter intimidation aimed at minority voters. In the very jurisdiction being monitored by the Department of Justice because of past problems, many Latino voters received a threatening postcard warning them about election laws and claiming that there would be armed monitors at the polls. In addition, county administrators reported problems with poll workers who withheld information about the availability of provisional ballots. When provisional ballots were made available, poll workers failed to give voters instructions on how to cast those ballots. On the positive side, an increase in poll worker pay greatly increased the number of available poll workers. . . .

Cases of outright voter intimidation need to be addressed through federal law enforcement. The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) does an admirable job of trying to monitor elections and pursue violations of the voting rights laws. Yet, intimidation occurred in a federally monitored jurisdiction in New Jersey in 2001. It may well be, therefore, that the federal government needs to bolster its commitment to monitoring elections and pursuing enforcement actions. . . .

(Ronald Hayduk, The 2001 Elections in New York City [pdf 348 KB]. A Century Foundation Report for The National Commission on Federal Election Reform. xiii-xvi, emphasis added.)