EVENTS

Date:	Friday, March 9, 2007
Time:	9:00 AM -- 12:30 PM
Location:	Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

March 2007

Is Our Election System Broken? Can We Fix It?

Panelists at this March 9 AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project conference reviewed the election reform lessons to be learned from the 2006 midterm elections. They discussed the problems that occurred as well as the federal and state reforms to be considered in the near future. A keynote address by Representative Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.) came between the panel discussions.

Panel I: The Lessons from November

The Honorable Gracia Hillman
Election Assistance Commission (EAC)

Elections in this country are undergoing a major transformation, and this will require an adjustment period. The 2000 election debacle prompted a major change in election laws, and the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) placed responsibility on state election officials and the Department of Justice. One positive result from recent election problems has been increased awareness and dialogue about election administration, which could lead to new technology that will enhance elections. Developing new voting technology, securing voter-verified paper records, and streamlining the provisional voting system are all areas in need of reform.

Non-governmental organizations studying this issue are dissatisfied with election reform so far. However, the problem seems to be the lack of quality information and education for both voters and election workers. Voters are frequently overwhelmed or confused by the information put out by election officials. Increased media coverage has perhaps unfairly led common citizens to doubt the integrity of our elections. But overall, the 2006 elections were fairly successful with regard to voting integrity.

The Honorable Todd Rokita
Indiana Secretary of State

Our election system is not broken. The country is obsessed with having perfect elections, which are impossible due to human factors. The standard by which we should judge our elections should be whether they allow all voters across a jurisdiction to exercise their right to vote. The 2006 elections resulted in the most accurate and fair elections that this country has ever seen. Our current process is more transparent than ever before. In Indiana, there has been no evidence that electronic voting machine results have been intentionally manipulated.

Most media coverage has focused on election shortcomings, creating the impression that elections are in crisis. This, in turn, has damaged public confidence that elections conducted using new voting technology are fair and accurate. This concern is unfounded, as we rely on technology in nearly every other aspect of life. At the same time, it is important for people to have the training necessary to keep up with the development of new technology. It would be irresponsible to change HAVA requirements at this time, as this will place undue stress on poll workers and companies that manufacture voting technology.

Rick Hasen
Loyola Law School

There are several standards by which we can judge the success of elections. If we use the "meltdown standard," then the state of elections looks fairly good. If we judge by public confidence in elections, then the outlook is dimmer. Surveys have shown that whether a person thinks their vote will be counted accurately depends on party identification and race--racial minorities and members of the minority party are both less likely to think that their vote will be counted accurately. Judging elections by the standard of administrative competence, the situation is fairly good. As long as election errors are not systematic, election integrity is not threatened.

But recent technological and voter-access developments raise some concerns. The problems in Sarasota County, Florida, and other national voting machine errors raise serious questions about conducting recounts using electronic machines. Voter registration laws are also of concern, as states have been required by HAVA to change their voter databases. The Supreme Court is making important decisions without substantial research into the impact of voter registration laws. On a positive note, the preliminary EAC report says that there is little evidence of voter impersonation fraud. However, the public has clearly lost confidence in new technology. We need to decide if this is reason enough to make wholesale changes in voting technology.

Keynote Address

The Honorable Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.)
U.S. House of Representatives

The 2000 election cast scrutiny on punch-card ballots and precipitated the move to electronic voting machines, which led to the current controversy in Florida's 13th congressional district. The losing candidate, Christine Jennings, alleged that an error in the source code for the voting machines resulted in her defeat; however, experts asserted that the errors did not originate in the computer code. Instead, it is more likely that faulty ballot design resulted in the massive undervote in the 13th district. This situation highlights the need for further study of ballot design and voting machine accessibility rather than just spending money on new technology, as electronic voting machines are very subject to human error on the part of both voters and poll workers. While optical-scan technology is a promising alternative since it provides paper ballots that are counted by computer, optical scan can make it difficult to discern voter intent.

To improve our elections and make them more accurate, we should develop redundant, properly-designed systems and make sure that human factors are taken into account. While these reforms will not result in completely error-free elections, they will reduce the number of errors in the process.

Panel II: What's Brewing for Election Reform?

Doug Chapin
Electionline.org

The problems with elections in 2000 and 2002 raised awareness of issues pertaining to election reform. We are currently in a period of tremendous change; not only are new laws being passed, but twelve new secretaries of state were sworn into office in 2007, the new Congressional majority represents a different environment for election reform, and the advocacy community is becoming more active. The real impetus for change will not be in Washington, but in the states. Change will happen on the ground where elections are carried out. To make responsible choices, we need better access to empirical data, rather than just anecdotal data.

Zachary Goldfarb
Washington Post

The problems that the news media have had in covering election reform stem from the fact that election reform issues are often theoretical. Moreover, since national elections only happen every two years, it is difficult to convince people that election reform is a salient topic when there are so many other stories competing for attention.

Much of the media attention during the 2006 election cycle focused on whether machines were safe from tampering, but it later shifted focus to poll worker training. Other persistent problems from the 2006 election include voting irregularities in Sarasota County and problems with companies that manufacture and test electronic voting machines. The new Democratic majority in Congress has shown more willingness to discuss these issues; however, with other issues demanding attention and with difficulties in securing appropriations, it does not seem likely that meaningful election reform will be passed.

Thomas E. Mann
Brookings Institution

We live in a profoundly partisan and polarized era. The stakes are so high in each election that politicians have been tempted to manipulate the rules of the game to either gain or keep power, and the public believes that election results can easily be tampered with. We should use caution, however, when using public confidence as a barometer for whether to act, as it has less to do with the quality of election administration and more to do with the vote margins of elections and the impact of those elections on party balance. Change will have to come through the broader political environment.

While states oversee their own elections, federal involvement has been increasing. The efforts in Congress to amend HAVA to require voter-verified paper records and establish voter identification requirements will likely not pass because of partisan divisions and the potential for a filibuster. There will be a lot of talk about election reform, but the real changes will happen in the states.

AEI interns Zachary Baron and Lindsey Nielson prepared this summary.