The recent steps in both houses of Congress demonstrate that there is momentum for electoral reform. The Senate passed a bill on April 11th, in a vote of 99 to 1, that set minimum standards for the conduct of elections nationwide that standardize procedures, state-by-state and county-by-county. The bill allocates more than 3 billion for the upgrading of voting machines and to assist compliance with the federal measures, according to an article in the New York Times. Furthermore, it calls for more accurate, computerized lists of registered voters, which might help prevent registered voters from being turned away at the polls or dead voters from miraculously pulling the lever."

The identification measures in the bill were crafted with special attention to the effects that they might have on black and Latino voters, particularly first-time voters. Rather than calling for strict photo identification standards, the bill allows voters to produce proof other than a driver’s license. Even a utility bill or paycheck stub, which lists the name and address of the voter will suffice. There are also other safeguards to ensure that voters get the opportunity to cast their ballots. People whose names do not appear on rolls would be able to cast provisional ballots, with determination of eligibility made later by precinct authorities.

The bill also mandates that voting facilities be made handicap accessible, particularly for the blind. The bill insists that voters should have the ability to verify their selections before the votes are processed; “second-chance” technology would be an additional safeguard. The Senate’s bill also calls for the creation of a new federal agency to oversee the proper use of technology by voting precincts and also to enforce maximum “error rates” for voting equipment around the country.

Civil rights groups, advocating for the interests of black and Latino voters in particular, are wary of the new identification procedures. The vice president for the National Council of La Raza, a Latino civil rights group, still expressed lingering concern about the identification requirements, arguing “Election officials are likely to apply them in a discriminatory way, asking Latinos for more documentation than they request of other people.” The apprehension that identification requirements might be enforced selectively suggests that the bill still leaves a large measure of discretion to poll workers.
As the House passed a similar bill recently, the two houses of the legislature must work to compromise the two pieces of legislation in the near future. Given the similarity of the bills, and the existence of bipartisan support in both houses, a compromise should be readily reached. Whether the bill goes far enough in guaranteeing the civil right of voting to all who are eligible, remains to be seen in the 2004 election when the entire country will be on alert—not just in Florida, where the election debacle belatedly illuminated the commonality of disenfranchisement.

The frightening possibility that there were forty-nine other Floridas was lurking. Disenfranchisement was a commonplace reality in other states. The disastrous 2000 presidential campaign, with its hanging chads and butterfly ballots, demonstrated that the right to vote still remains contested for people of color in this country. The recount brought to the surface outrageous stories of blacks and Latinos facing police roadblocks and checkpoints on their way to vote. This is reminiscent of past measures—such as literacy tests—which precluded the exercise of voting by many. Just as startling was the knowledge that ballots by blacks were more likely to be discarded or go uncounted as a result of antiquated voting machines.

An examination of 175,000 uncounted Florida ballots, not counted for a variety of reasons, provided a new round of evidence that the votes of people in black communities were undercounted. The Washington Post study estimated that of votes polled in heavily black areas, 13 out of 1,000 had no mark as compared with 6 in 1,000 in predominately white neighborhoods. Also, black precincts had a large percentage of “overvotes,” or instances when a ballot contains more than one mark, invalidating the vote. Overall, the study, which appears on washingtonpost.com, concluded that 136 out of 1,000 ballots in majority black precincts went uncounted, three times higher than the rate for white precincts.

These disparities are largely attributable to differences in technology between voting precincts. In largely white areas, electoral boards are apt to have more funds available to purchase more advanced voting machines. The Post study, completed with collaboration from other media organizations, indicates that newer machines particularly optical scanners- are often more accurate because they offer “second-chance” technology; in other words, if a machine cannot read a vote, it signals the voter to allow for another opportunity. In counties that employed these systems, the disparity between uncounted votes for blacks and whites was cut in half, with errors involving “overvotes” still the most likely culprit.

During the tense weeks that followed the November election and the legal battles over the recount that ensued, Vice President Gore and his legal team failed to trump this issue in their fight to keep the counting up. Despite the initial outrage and the public protests held in Florida towns, many feared that the issue would fall off the map as soon dissent died down.

Back to top