Fights Over HAVA Implementation
By the first federal election in 2006, states and counties throughout the country will have to comply with three of the Help America Vote Act's core mandates. The first is the requirement that statewide registration databases be in place. Up until now, county election officials have maintained voting lists in most states. This is one of the key components of our highly decentralized election system. HAVA's idea is that statewide registration databases will improve accuracy and prevent duplication of names. Implementation of these databases, however, has triggered tension between state and local authorities, as the AP reports here. Some local officials don't want to give up control over their lists.

The second mandate of HAVA, for those states that received money under Title I of HAVA, is the replacement of punch card and lever voting machines. The big question is what to replace them with, something that's been the source of considerable disagreement in Ohio and other states. Some local election officials, particularly those in larger counties, would prefer electronic voting equipment. Others are concerned with the security risks associated with electronic voting and prefer precinct-count optical scan systems.

The third mandate of HAVA is that each polling place must have at least one disability accessible voting unit by 2006. This requirement applies to all state and local entities, whether or not they received Title I money. This likely will require at least one electronic voting unit in each polling place, since those appear to be the only certified systems that are accessible to people with disabilities. There are two "hybrid" voting systems seeking certification, as electionline.org reports here. These systems have an accessible interface like an electronic voting unit, but print out a paper ballot that can be fed into an optical scanner. Some disability rights advocates assert that the "hybrid" system doesn't comply with HAVA because voters with visual or manual dexterity impairments will need assistance -- and thereby be denied privacy -- in taking the ballot from the printer and inserting it in the scanner. Also, election officials will likely be reluctant to move to "hybrid" systems given that they've not been used on any significant scale in any real election.

Where does this leave us? There's a lot of work to be done by 2006, and not much time to do it. The conflicts between state and local election officials, while perhaps inevitable to some extent, certainly won't help. I don't envy the difficult job that election administrators, both state and local, have ahead of them. - posted by Dan Tokaji @ 11:41 PM