The National Commission on Election Standards and Reform unanimously resolved, by voice vote, to separate the issues of election reform and campaign finance, now cojoined in proposed legislation on Capitol Hill.

Concerned that linkage of election reform and campaign financing would weaken both, the commission chose separation. “Election reform is the issue we [NACo, the National Association of County Recorders, Election Officials and Clerks and allied associations] should be willing to fall on our swords for,” said R. Doug Lewis, executive director, The Election Center, National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS).

As Congress seems to be speeding the issues through the process, NACo President Jane Hague said timely action was of the essence. She told election commission members that a conference call should be scheduled for Feb. 15-21 to further hammer out recommendations.

The commission met Jan. 31, in Seattle, Wash. The daylong discussions involved an outline of election issues, the four commission subcommittees forming ad hoc groups to discuss draft recommendations and presentations given by federal and state officials.

Election problems, solution outlines
Robert Montjoy, commission member and professor of political science at Auburn University, Ala., presented to the election commission “what I heard officials saying in Washington [D.C.]” as guidelines to garner debate.

Highlights included:

• As to “Allegations that some eligible voters were not permitted to vote,” because their names didn’t appear on voter rolls, applications were received too late or other logistical problems; Montjoy said a possible solution was education of the voting public about methods, requirements and deadlines for registration. There should be “timely feedback” to let the voter know whether he or she is legitimately registered. Interagency cooperation by officials who process voter applications was another possible solution cited by Montjoy.
• Another problem was lack of experience, training or resources at registration and polling places. Possible solutions were additional trained employees, modern equipment, increased funding for poll workers and training from related agencies during peak “pre-election surge” registration periods.
• To fill the poll worker gap, it was suggested that high school seniors could be trained as supplemental workers.
• Businesses should be encouraged to provide “a day with pay” for employees to take off from work and help election officials.
• A uniform national ballot was not the solution to over- and under-counting woes. Better design, identification and assessment of proven or faulty methods, sample ballots mailed in advance and possible advanced testing might improve reliability.
• Voting machine equipment or ballot counting equipment problems could be helped by federal funding for modernization. But some members objected to what they perceived as entanglements with federal involvement and suggested that state grants may be a better, less obtrusive, way to go.
• Other suggestions included requiring uniform equipment throughout a state where specific performance standards are drawn, instituting statewide recount standards and establishing voter education by having posters and continuous-loop videos on display at voting places.
• The commission, in forming a position on mail, telephone and Internet voting, might consider A Report on the Feasibility of Internet Polling, January 2000 by California Secretary of State Bill Jones’ task force.

Other topics were uniform poll closings and possible voluntary restraint by the media so as not to prematurely predict a winner based on exit polls and key precinct closing results.

The state perspective
Marty Stevens, speaker of the Utah House of Representatives and co-chair of the National Conference of State Legislatures task force on elections, read a sampling of proposed statehouse legislation from across the country:

• early voting, perhaps weeks in advance
• prohibition of punch card “butterfly” ballots
• establishment of online voting
• voter certification controlled by the state because of local inconsistencies
• states establishing their own task forces on election law reform, and
• standardization of overseas voting procedures.
  

The federal perspective
U.S. government considerations were presented by Roman Buhler, counsel, U.S. House of Representatives Administration Committee.

Buhler posed many questions:

• Who should pay: The feds, state or local governments?
• What agency should control those funds? It was suggested that an already existing entity like the Federal Elections Commission should do that. However, commission officials were wary about this, fearing compromise of local control.
• Which is preferable: funding with no strings attached in the form of formula grants or funds dispersed based on numbers of voters or other considerations?
• What is the extent of voter fraud in Election 2000?
• Should the federal government take a greater role in overseas absentee balloting, since it has purview anyway?

R. Doug Lewis of NASS reaffirmed that “this is a states’ rights issue where each level of government plays an appropriate role in the process.” Lewis also supported better training and education for poll workers.

NACo Past President Randy Johnson said of federal government standardization that “one size doesn’t fit all” when it comes to the mosaic of American voting districts. Johnson said his county met with success in using second-generation optical scanners for vote tabulation. The scanners are capable of transmitting election results, via antenna, to a central tabulation site.

Attendees set the next meeting for March 2 in Wash., D.C., concurrent with the NACo Legislative Conference, March 2-6.