Experts Discuss Election Reform Law's Successes and Failures to Date
Feature Story by civilrights.org staff - 11/21/2005
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) has served to highlight the need for election reform, but some of its broad provisions have enabled many states to pass discriminatory voter I.D. legislation, said experts participating in a panel discussion held on September 30.The panel, held at the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law (UDC), included representatives from the Lawyers' Committee on Civil Rights, Common Cause, and the Election Protection Commission.
The 2000 Presidential election highlighted serious concerns about the election process in the United States. In response to these concerns, Congress passed HAVA, which provides federal election standards and increased funding for election reform.
However, many voting rights experts believe that HAVA's broad provisions leave states without adequate guidance in some areas. In addition, some states are using its vague language to pass overly restrictive and, in some cases, discriminatory, voter identification laws.
While all the UDC panelists agreed that HAVA has been successful at bringing election reform to the forefront of American consciousness, they also expressed concerns about enforcement of, and funding for, some of HAVA's provisions.
Jonah Goldman of the Lawyers' Committee used the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), a federal clearinghouse agency that is responsible for overseeing administration of federal elections, as an example of this latter point. Goldman said that despite its value, the Commission lacks enforcement power and adequate funding to do its job.
Goldman also noted that HAVA's inclusion of a limited I.D. requirement for first time voters who register by mail has spurred states to enact their own, more restrictive, voter I.D. laws.
Voter I.D. laws, like those recently passed in Indiana, Arizona, and Georgia, require voters to present one of a short list of government-approved forms of identification-- usually photo I.D.s such as drivers' licenses-- before they can vote.
Burdensome I.D. requirements disenfranchise seniors, the poor, people of color, and people with disabilities because these groups are the least likely to have such government- approved forms of ID or be able to obtain them, according to a June 29 statement issued by a number of civil rights groups, including the ACLU, National Congress of American Indians, and the American Association of People with Disabilities
Last month, in a case filed by the NAACP, a federal district court granted an injunction, blocking the enforcement of Georgia's newly enacted voter I.D. law. The U.S. Department of Justice had approved the law on August 26 despite objections from civil rights groups and voting rights experts.
The district court found the law was in violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and said the photo ID requirement "unduly burdens the right of many properly registered Georgia voters to vote, is a poll tax, and has the likely effect of causing many of these voters to forego voting." The ruling was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on October 27.
