VOTE "NO" ON THE CLOSED RULE
December 11, 2001
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: H.R. 3295/Help America Vote Act of 2001
Dear Representative:
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) strongly urges you to vote in favor of a critical civil rights amendment to be offered by Representatives Menendez (D-NJ), DeLauro (D-CT), and Johnson (D-TX) to strengthen the Help America Vote Act of 2001, H.R. 3295. This bill will be considered in the House tomorrow. Should the amendment fail, we urge you to oppose the bill because it would fail to establish uniform standards for voting technology, meaningfully increase accessibility to the ballot box for the disabled and those with limited English proficiency, ensure access to provisional balloting, and provide adequate purge protections.
This legislation will not accomplish its intended purpose of helping all Americans to vote! In fact, H.R. 3295 reinvests authority in the same administrators who were responsible for the civil rights violations that occurred during the last election. Given states are not complying with existing laws such as the Voting Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, it is difficult to imagine that they will behave differently when the standards imposed are "voluntary" as prescribed in H.R. 3295. According to the Washington Post, one year later, despite the numerous problems identified in the last election, only "a handful of states have enacted far-reaching election overhaul measures and others have tinkered with their election laws. But there has been no wholesale move by the states to change fundamentally the ways they conduct elections."1
During the 2000 presidential election, millions of American citizens were unable to vote due to technical problems, voter intimidation, voter suppression, and voter disenfranchisement. Congress now has a unique opportunity to correct these constitutional problems by passing legislation that will meet the three principal goals of election reform: uniformity, accuracy, and accessibility. Comprehensive election reform should set uniform performance standards for voting equipment, promote accuracy by upgrading technology and allowing voters to correct any balloting errors, and ensure accessibility and convenience for all voters, including language minorities and persons with disabilities. While the Act provides funding to improve the election system, it fails to set adequate guidelines and standards to ensure that states will use the funding to address these issues. Throwing money at a problem does not solve the problem. Congress must provide clear and enforceable standards for the states.
First, H.R. 3295 fails to create uniform national minimum standards for voting machines.
One of the largest problems in the last federal election was the use of voting machines with varying error rates. There were many instances where the machines simply failed to properly record the intent of the voter.
A primary culprit was the now infamous Votomatic punch card voting system. There were countless problems with these machines. According to a report in the New York Times, punch card machines registered no vote for president five times as often as the more costly and reliable optical scanner machines. And the punch card systems were much more prevalent in predominantly minority districts, while optical scanners were used most often in white, affluent districts. Of course, many white voters' votes were also discounted, but faulty voting machinery disproportionately affected African-American voters.
While H.R. 3295 provides funding to buy out punch card voting machines, it includes no standards for the error rates of the machines that would replace them. The bill includes no provision to require that the voting machines purchased by federal funds would alert voters if they appear to be voting for two candidates for one office, or no candidate for an office. Caltech and MIT issued a study in July 2001 indicating that this "overvoting" and "undervoting" resulted in the loss of approximately 6 million votes in the last presidential election. Technology is available to solve this huge problem, but H.R. 3295 does not require states to purchase it.
Second, H.R. 3295 fails to ensure voting access for those with disabilities and limited English proficiency.
One of the greatest challenges disabled voters face are inaccessible buildings and voting machines. According to the General Accounting Office Report on Voters With Disabilities, eighty-four percent of surveyed polling places had a barrier that prevents a person with a disability from voting, and over half were totally inaccessible to those with disabilities. H.R. 3295 addresses this issue by ignoring it. The legislation grants funding to purchase accessible voting equipment, yet requires no standards to ensure that states purchase such equipment.
Similarly, since there are no requirements for states to provide ballots in languages other than English, the bill does little to ensure that all Americans, including those for whom English is their second language, are able to exercise their right to vote.
Third, H.R. 3295 fails to ensure that citizens can receive a provisional ballot.
A provisional ballot allows a voter, at the polling place, to cast a ballot if his or her name does not appear on the registration list. Later, the election officials investigate to determine why the voter's name was not on the list. If the person is eligible to vote, the vote is counted. Provisional balloting is an essential safety net to ensure that those who are properly registered can vote and have their vote counted. Because H.R. 3295 allows the states to adopt an undefined "alternative" to provisional ballots and does not require states to notify claimants when provisional ballots are available upon written affirmation, it offers voters little protection.
Finally, H.R. 3295 weakens purge protections enacted under "Motor Voter Law".
H.R. 3295 takes a step backward in election reform because it would weaken provisions of the National Voter Registration Act ("Motor Voter Law") designed to ensure that eligible voters are not purged from the rolls. "Motor Voter" allows a voter at the polling place to correct erroneous information that would cause the voter to be purged from the rolls, and allows the voter to vote after confirming his or her address in writing. (42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(e)). Without this protection, voters can be purged based on erroneous information that they have moved from their current address. Not only does H.R. 3295 undermine safeguards under Motor Voter that protect against errors in election administration, but it also amends Motor Voter in a way that allows citizens to be purged from the voter registration rolls if they do not vote.
The Menendez, DeLauro, and Johnson Amendment
The Menendez, DeLauro, and Johnson amendment strengthens the Help America Vote Act of 2001 by providing the standards and funds necessary to correct the problems outlined above which threaten the very legitimacy of our democratic government.
We urge you to vote against final passage of this bill unless it includes this critical civil rights amendment sponsored by Rep. Menendez (D-13th NJ), Rep. DeLauro (D-3rd CT), and Rep. Johnson (D-30th TX). Please contact us if you have any questions or comments regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
Laura W. Murphy
Director
LaShawn Y. Warren
Legislative Counsel
ENDNOTES
1 - Dan Balz and Edward Walsh, One year Later, Election Reform Remains Elusive, WASH POST., Nov. 13, 2001, at A3.