Category Archives: Law: Elections

Swing State Project: Day Begins With Vote Machines Problems.

Lovely. Just lovely.

An astute reader emailed me the link:

Voters report problems with voting machines in Roanoke Co.: News 7 has received calls from several voters in at least four different precincts who say their votes for Tim Kaine were not recorded or took several attempts to go through.

They contend the electronic touch screens repeatedly indicated they were voting for Republican candidate Jerry Kilgore instead of registering their intended vote for his Democratic opponent Tim Kaine.

The questions are 1) is this story accurate; 2) is this a more widespread problem in the state; 3) when are we going to junk these machines?

Ward Connerly's American Civil Rights Coalition has spent more than half a million dollars to get a state constitutional amendment on the ballot here. It's the “Michigan Civil Rights Initiative,” which would ban any affirmative-action consideration of race by the state of Michigan or its units and subdivisions (including my employer, Wayne State University).

Initially, the effort was derailed by a state-court ruling that MCRI — a proposed amendment to the state constitution — was improperly worded. Plaintiffs urged, and the court agreed, that the initiative's proposed ballot presentation obscured what the amendment would really do. The ballot language presented the amendment as one to bar state entities from “discriminating or granting preferential treatment” on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. The Michigan constitution, though, already makes it illegal for the state to “discriminate” on those grounds; the only change made by the proposed amendment is to bar “preferential treatment” — that is, affirmative action. The lower court held that the ballot proposal violated state law because it didn't make that clear. Our (Republican) state attorney general appealed, though, and the appellate court reversed, finding no violation of state law in the proposed wording.

Near as I can tell, most of Connerly's money went to paid petition circulators. In due course, MCRI organizers presented more than 500,000 signatures in support of the proposed initiative to Michigan's Board of State Canvassers; many of them came from (overwhelmingly African-American) Detroit. Finding this a little odd, opponents took a random sample of 500 petition signers, located the 87 of those 500 who lived in Detroit, and found that nearly all had been given to understand that the initiative would support affirmative action. Among the initial petition signers were two Michigan circuit-court judges; they've provided affidavits that the circulators told them that the petitions favored affirmative action, and that — on that basis — after glancing at the title and lengthy caption language, they signed. It appears that circulators routinely made similar statements (along with the statement that the NAACP favored the proposal).

The Board of State Canvassers held its hearing yesterday, and found itself unable to decide what to do. One Republican member of the Board voted to put the measure on the ballot; another abstained from voting, citing her conviction that fraud had taken place, and urged our state legislature to set up a panel to investigate. The two Democratic members of the Board say that the Board itself should subpoena petition circulators and signers to testify. The state attorney general's office, though, responds that the Board hasn't the authority to do that.

So it all goes now to the courts. Last year, an anti-gay marriage initiative failed to get past the Board of State Canvassers, and the courts reinstated it to the ballot. We'll see if they do it again.

Blog for America reports that even Florida's electronic scan machines—supposedly a big step up from the all-electronic ones—fail easily if elections workers want to rig them.

This is a GREAT idea:

Election Day Project – The Seattle University School of Law is sponsoring an Election Day Project. The purpose of this Project is to provide assistance to attorneys, voting rights and community advocates in key presidential electoral states. This assistance will consist of preparing statements from voters who have experienced harassment or intimidation at polling places. Attorneys and advocates can refer voters who have experienced such harassment or intimidation to a toll free number: (866) 896-4033. Law students will be servicing telephone calls from these voters and will assist in the preparation of statements. These statements will then be e-mailed to the referring attorney or advocate for final edits and signatures. These statements can form the basis for seeking temporary restraining orders or as documentation for any hearings conducted by legislative bodies, regulatory agencies, or the United States Commission on Civil Rights.

Please note the following:

1. The toll free number and the service to be provided will be available only on election day, Tuesday, November 2, 2004. The toll free number is (866) 896-4033.

2. The hours of operation are based upon Pacific Standard Time. The toll free telephone lines will be operational from 7:00 a.m. (PST) to 7:00 pm (PST).

3. When referring a voter to the toll free number, (866) 896-4033, the attorneys, voting rights and community advocates should provide the voter with the name, telephone number, and e-mail of the referring attorneys, voting rights and community advocates. Otherwise we will not be able to forward the statement.

4. The law students will not be providing legal advice or voter assistance.

5. If the lines are busy, please keep trying.

6. For further information contact, Visiting Assistant Professor of Law Joaquin G. Avila (206) 398-4117.

Much kudos to Prof. Avila and Seattle law school.