http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060305/OPINION01/60303006

Sunday, March 5, 2006

Voting reform must proceed

From the start, state officials have bungled handling a federal mandate to overhaul the election process, yet a lawsuit by the federal government against New York should not further delay the local action needed to implement the law.

The Help America Vote Act was crafted to improve voting dependability throughout the country. But in New York, the situation has been anything but dependable. There has been too much politics and foot-dragging and not enough action.

The Legislature was years behind schedule selecting machines, before finally deciding county election commissioners would have to choose between the optical scan or the Direct Recording Electronic machines.

The state Board of Elections was sued for not including certain groups in its citizen advisory committee. It has yet to establish regulations or to certify specific models of the two types of voting machines the Legislature supports.

Other elements of the voting act, including compiling voter registration lists and determining accessibility issues for disabled voters, have not been completed.

Last week, state election officials said New York would not be able to meet the 2006 deadline to have new voting machines in place. Two days later, the federal government sued to bring the state into compliance.

Regardless of the federal lawsuit’s outcome, it’s expected each county election commissioner will ultimately choose new machines. Although machines have not been certified, vendors have been traveling the state, attending forums to display the two options the state Legislature supports.

Certainly, county commissioners should gather input from residents before this important decision is made. In Dutchess, the election commissioners, Democrat Fran Knapp and Republican David Gamache, cannot agree on anything.

Gamache wanted to wait and have another meeting to coordinate schedules. A spokesman said in light of the federal lawsuit, Gamache is waiting to act.

In Ulster, the county election commissioners will host a public forum also on Tuesday. A vendor will present three machines: two direct recording electronic devises and an optical scan.

Assemblyman Joel Miller, R-Poughkeepsie, was approached by constituents concerned about the process and he organized a forum where people can sample the machines from six vendors and state their preferences. These are opportunities for citizens and elected leaders to discuss this important decision.

Other states offered this outreach years ago, but in New York the Legislature was too busy fighting over minutiae to resolve serious issues.

Machine options could be further limited

Even after the forums, not all the participating vendors may be certified by the state, meaning they may not be eligible for county purchase.

The federal lawsuit filed Wednesday requires the state to submit its plan, within 20 days, about how it will meet the 2006 deadline.

Failure to comply means the state stands to lose the $47 million in federal money that is earmarked for purchasing the new machines. While the fiscal impact may be great, it is hard to believe New Yorkers would be better served by rushing through this critical conversion at this point.

The state is unacceptably behind schedule but the lack of past action should not compromise the integrity of future elections. The courts will be challenged to maintain the integrity of the election process and implement voting act.

This situation is volatile, but the goal remains. New York voters deserve an election process that counts every vote. People should review the machines and the counties must act to meet their responsibilities. Change is inevitable so the more that is achieved now, the more quickly the process can ultimately move forward.

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.