[EM] HR811 and Federal paper trail legislation

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 12:23 AM 5/25/2007, Michael Poole wrote:
>Thus, "millions" seems easily supportable, although the question
>remains as to how to make ballots more accessible to these people.

Yes, "millions" is supportable, easily. That is no more than a few 
percent of eligible voters.

However, I don't see providing access as difficult. It requires 
attention and thought, and there might be some political conflicts 
along the way. My own opinion is that voting should be an 
unconditional right of citizens. Frankly, I'd extend it to everyone 
here legally, for some purposes, but that is entirely a different 
story. (Remember No Taxation without Representation?)

I'd include felons, though, again, special accommodation might be 
necessary. We should realize that if the laws are made by the people 
through their representatives, it is relatively legitimate for the 
people to be bound by the laws. If I make laws for *you*, by what 
right do I enforce them upon you? Only the right of force and power. 
Coercion, in a word. Now, even laws passed by a majority can be 
coercive, but there are degrees. If a person has had full opportunity 
to participate in the process by which laws are passed and 
maintained, it is far more legitimate to consider the person bound by 
them than if they had no such opportunity.

I was a chaplain at San Quentin State Prison. Some of these people I 
knew, and knew well, were there for crimes like murder and theft. I 
never heard one of them claim that murder and theft should not be 
illegal. They may have believed that they had special circumstances 
that were not properly considered by the court, and thus that their 
incarceration was unjust, and, in fact, I knew some of their stories 
and they were correct. They had done things that had someone white 
and connected done, the person would have walked. Instead one man I 
have in mind is sitting in prison with an indefinite sentence which 
was already fifteen years, eligible for parole and fully qualified by 
all standards set, and still not getting it. Why? Well, the governor 
of California had decreed that nobody was getting it.... except maybe 
a few. There was legal action pending, but these things take many 
years. Why did the governor do that? Well, remember Willie Horton and 
a Presidential campaign that was lost, perhaps because a man was 
paroled on a candidate's watch as governor who went out and committed a murder?

Never mind that you take a large population of *non*-felons, a 
certain number of them will commit crimes. In the case of the man I'm 
thinking of, his risk of committing another felony is probably well 
below that of the general population.

Now, if felons were voters, there would be more political clout to 
remedy serious injustices. By the way, I don't think that this 
population would at all be against "victim's rights." Most of them 
have been victims, too, they came from very rough environments.

And if a government starts to define too many actions as crimes, the 
pressure grows to change the government. A fairer balance could be expected.

Ahem. Where were we?

Accessibility of voting to eligible voters disabled in some way, 
whether through physical limitations or language.

I only see one truly general solution, and it is one that is 
desirable for many reasons. It already is the solution in many 
places, maybe all. Any citizen should have the right, particularly 
for cause, any of these disabilities being a cause, to name a proxy 
to vote for them. Short of this, there is something almost as 
effective, which already exists and is legal, which is assistance in 
filling out an absentee ballot. From Georgia, for example:

>May I receive assistance with my absentee ballot?
>
>A physically disabled or illiterate voter may receive assistance 
>from another voter in the same county or municipality or from the 
>same category of relatives who can make an application for or 
>deliver an absentee ballot. If the voter is outside of the county or 
>municipality, then a notary public can provide such assistance. Any 
>person who assists another person to vote absentee must complete an 
>oath prescribed by law demonstrating the statutory disability and 
>that the ballot was completed as the voter desired. Other than 
>federal elections, no person may assist more than ten voters in a 
>primary, election, or runoff. A candidate on the ballot, or a 
>relative of a candidate on the ballot, may not offer assistance 
>during the election to any voter who is not related to the candidate.

I find the following to be of interest:
http://www.fvap.gov/pubs/ofwab.pdf

This is a FEDERAL WRITE-IN ABSENTEE BALLOT. Under certain 
circumstances, you can use it in place of any regular ballot by 
writing in the names of the offices and candidates you are voting 
for. A total write-in ballot, with general application, and, subject 
to rules which vary from state to state, totally acceptable. (The 
basic requirement: you must have applied for a regular absentee 
ballot and did not receive it.) These are intended for use by 
military personnel. There is reference on the affirmation 
accompanying the ballot to assistance for those with disabilities, 
but not directly:

"I have voted and sealed this ballot in private and have not allowed 
any person to observe the marking of this ballot, except for those 
authorized to assist voters under state or Federal law and I have not 
been influenced ...."

This should really be understood. Any voting system must accommodate 
paper ballots, and in fairly substantial numbers. So why have two 
vote-counting systems? Why not just have one, that uses paper 
ballots? It's my opinion that the speed and efficiency of counting 
paper ballots can approach that of any voting machine system, with an 
"audit trail" being automatic and inherent. With ballot imaging, 
indeed, done at the proper point, most forms of ballot alteration and 
post-voting manipulation would become impossible to conceal and, in 
addition, correctable.

The write-in ballot is a special case, requiring manual conversion, 
but the regular absentee ballots could be quite the same as regular 
ballots, except that I'd think they would have a distinctive marking 
so that they can't be used for fraudulent purposes by deposit in a ballot box.

(One vote-buying scheme that has apparently been found uses a swap of 
filled-in ballots; the buyer has obtained printed ballots and fills 
one in and gives it to the seller. The seller conceals it on his 
person and takes it into the voting booth, then swaps it for the 
blank ballot and returns this to the buyer as evidence that the 
filled-in ballot was deposited, and observation of the voter outside 
the booth can guarantee that *some* ballot was deposited. Where this 
kind of scheme seems to be a reasonable possibility, there are ways 
to detect and interdict it. However, each complication brings with it 
new opportunities for fraud.)