http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060307/OPINION01/603070303/1014/OPINIONtheithacajournal.com
Mar 7, 2006
There is a well-known rule all newspaper editors learn early
on in their careers — even when you delay the publication date, don't change
the reporter's deadline. It's our industry's acknowledgment of what British
historian C. Northcote Parkinson discovered when he studied the crown's civil
servants:
“Work expands so as to fill the time available for its
completion.”
This well-articulated piece of common sense became know as
Parkinson's Law, and it's a dangerous legal reality New Yorkers should keep in
mind now that state officials are trying to release themselves from a deadline
to have new voting machines in place by this November. That news came last
Monday, when state Board of Election commissioners announced it would be
practically impossible to have new federally mandated machines in place by the
2006 state government and congressional elections. Even though officials
expected it would trigger a federal lawsuit against the state - and the U.S.
Justice Department delivered on that threat Wednesday — commissioners said
they'd rather not “rush” the changeover from the decades-old lever-style
machines.
It's important to keep in mind this rush began more than
five years ago, when hanging chads in Florida stalled the 2000 presidential
election. Congress followed with the Help America Vote Act, designed to
modernize voter registration records and revamp the machines we use to cast our
ballots to insure access and accuracy. Congress offered millions of dollars to
the states to get the job done and set a November 2004 deadline for having the
new systems in place. New York let that deadline pass without any significant
action and got what the feds called a one-time extension to 2006. Faced with
the need to do something before lawmakers went home for the year late last
spring, the Legislature couldn't reach an agreement on what type of machines
the state should use and how to make sure any vote is accurate - so they
punted, sending the dirty work to the state Board of Elections. Facing forth
and long with the clock running out this week, the folks at Elections are
calling in their own kicking team as well.
The dangers here are obvious. Given Albany's inability to
get this done in time to meet its first two deadlines, skeptical citizens might
wonder if anything will get done now that the pressure of the 2006 election has
been lifted. Of course, this federal lawsuit will mean taxpayers get to foot
the bill for both sides to argue in court. Also, it's important to remember
that more than $200 million to make the change in New York is supposed to come
from Washington, so battles with the boys in D.C. could cost New Yorkers a
whole lot of money - including the $49 million earmarked to pay for the new
machines.
What may not seem so obvious is that the solution here comes
with a renewed opportunity. After legislators sent the work to the Board of
Elections last year, lawmakers established an advisory panel to help guide the
change. Elections folks ignored the panel - which includes local Assemblywoman
Barbara Lifton — and issued draft guidelines that swiftly came under fire from
Lifton and others for everything from failing to insure counties have a choice
between machines and not providing for sufficient public testing and paper
trails to problems with language diversity to hacker security issues. Elections
commissioners want the extra time to deal with these issues.
But now, instead of no deadline, the feds are demanding
action in 30 days or all sorts of legal hell will break loose. Good. Hopefully
that pressure will force state lawmakers - the ones who should be tackling this
issue - to get back in the game and direct a clear path toward new machines by
this November's election. Lifton has promised legislation to increase public
access and security verification. Lifton and others have fought to make sure
paper-based optical scanner machines remain an option for counties, which,
under the current law, would have to decide what systems to buy in the end.
Other advocacy groups have insisted that a quilt of different county systems is
a poor idea and the state should have a single system to insure fairness and
lower equipment and training costs. Obviously, long-delayed broad legislative
directives can't push state bureaucrats to set a plan and meet a deadline. With
the Justice Department breathing down their necks like an editor staring at an
empty front page, it's time for legislators to settle the key outstanding
issues and direct state officials to meet specific internal deadlines for
reaching full HAVA compliance as soon as possible.
If lawmakers don't act, and stand by why the Board of
Elections battle Washington for freedom from any deadline, officials will show
once again that the only law that governs Albany is Parkinson's, and we'll all
get to have this same debate when the next deadline hits.
Copyright ©2006 The Ithaca Journal.
All rights reserved.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.