Voting Rights and the 2004 Election
Speech by Wade Henderson - October 28, 2004
Good afternoon. I am Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR). LCCR is the nation's oldest and most diverse coalition of civil and human rights organizations. Founded in 1950 by Arnold Aronson, A. Philip Randolph, and Roy Wilkins, LCCR seeks to further the goal of equality under law through legislative advocacy and public education. LCCR consists of over 185 national organizations representing persons of color, women, children, organized labor, persons with disabilities, the elderly, gays and lesbians, and major religious groups. Today, more than 50 million persons belong to the organizations that form LCCR, and, while the organizations continue to advance their respective individual goals, inherent to their success is their membership in a coalition that unifies and amplifies the voices of those who share a common vision of equal opportunity, justice and mutual respect.
I'd like to begin by thanking the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Parliamentary Assembly for holding this hearing today, and I also want to express my gratitude to the delegates from the OSCE who have come here to monitor next week's election. This election is being characterized by many as the most important one in decades, as the stakes for the future of our country are so incredibly high, and our nation stands far more divided than it has in a long, long time. Senator John Kerry, during one of the recent presidential debates, spoke about the need for a "global test" - and while he may have been speaking to a different issue, he is correct in pointing out that what the United States does ought to be credible in the eyes of the rest of the world. If anything, the act of electing a national leader certainly ought to be done in a way that the rest of the world can see as legitimate, and I believe that the OSCE's role in observing whether this takes place or not is especially valuable.
For many years, LCCR has been actively involved in efforts to ensure the protection of minority voting rights. Many of our member organizations are engaged in voter empowerment and election protection activities, which seek to promote civic participation, as well as litigation and other efforts to prevent the disfranchisement of minority voters. In recent years, and particularly in the wake of the 2000 general election, many voters in the communities that we represent have become increasingly sensitive to the issues of voting rights and access.
Following the chaotic 2000 election, in which an estimated 4 to 6 million Americans were prevented either from voting or from having their votes accurately counted due to problems such as erroneous voter registration rolls and inaccurate voting equipment, the nation quickly realized that significant reforms of our electoral systems were necessary. In less than two years, an unusually short period of time to pass a major piece of legislation, Congress passed and the President signed the "Help America Vote Act" (HAVA).
As with any major piece of legislation, HAVA involved many compromises and was thus a mixed bag, with many civil and voting rights organizations supporting it, and many opposing it. While there are a number of provisions that, if implemented the right way, can make it easier for Americans to cast a ballot and ensure it is counted accurately, improving voter access was not the only priority reflected in the new law. On its way towards passage, HAVA also wound up serving for many as a vehicle to cut down on alleged voter fraud. While there is little hard evidence that voter fraud has been or is a widespread problem in recent elections, a number of provisions were inserted into the bill that actually amount to steps backwards in terms of voter access, such as new ID requirements and other new technicalities that will ultimately keep eligible voters off the registration rolls or from casting ballots. HAVA's implementation was also plagued, after its enactment, by inaction from Congress and the Administration in creating the new Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and in getting the billions of dollars in promised election reform funds out to the states. As a result, it is too soon to tell whether HAVA will be a net positive, or whether the upheaval caused by the provisions of the new law will make the 2000 election seem orderly by comparison.
One thing is certain: we have many reasons to be concerned. I would like to provide an overview of some of the most serious problems that we are already seeing with regard to minority voting rights and fair ballot access.
Some of the problems stem directly from the Help America Vote Act itself, or from the manner in which it has been carried out by the states. One of the most promising aspects of HAVA was its new requirement that voters be given provisional ballots, which can be counted later, in the event that their eligibility to vote is questioned. Yet HAVA also made this new requirement far too vague, leaving the states with too much leeway to implement the new law, including in ways that will still leave far too many voters disenfranchised. For instance, a number of states - including Florida, Ohio and Missouri - have declared that they will not count provisional ballots if a voter mistakenly goes to the wrong polling place and, not appearing on the registration list, is simply given a provisional ballot by a pollworker instead of being sent to the correct location. HAVA also requires states to set up statewide computerized registration databases, which will help to clear up many issues that voters have had with their names not being properly listed in the right places - but most states will not have these databases in place until 2006.
HAVA contains troubling ID requirements, and many states have gone even farther by requiring every voter to present ID before voting. ID requirements sound simple enough, but in practice they will lead to increased discrimination against minority voters, and more administrative burdens on pollworkers, meaning longer lines at polling places next Tuesday. Finally, HAVA also requires voter registration forms to include new check-off boxes so that voters can confirm their citizenship, but many states such as Florida have been using this as a technicality that can be invoked to reject new applications.
It is clear that the delays in federal funding and the establishment of the EAC are also causing significant problems. Voter registration and turnout is unusually high this year because of the importance of this election. Yet election officials in many parts of our country have simply been caught off guard and unable to adequately prepare, and it appears that many voters are going to be disappointed in their attempts to vote, simply because our country has not put forth enough resources to make this election run smoothly. Florida now has early voting, yet not enough early voting locations, and too many voters are now being forced to spend hours in line before giving up in frustration. Given the problems we saw with voter registration rolls in 2000, and the concerns with touch-screen voting equipment, more voters than ever are requesting to vote on absentee ballots. Yet many of these ballots - including an estimated 60,000 in Broward County alone - are not reaching the voters in a timely fashion.
But many of the problems that demand attention between now and Election Day are the same problems, the same old tricks, that have plagued voters for years. Already, we are seeing widespread signs of voter intimidation and suppression efforts in many areas, with the promise of far more to come by next Tuesday.
In Ohio and other states, for instance, the Republican Party is planning to utilize large numbers of so-called "challengers" at polling places, particularly in areas with large minority populations such as Cleveland, who can single out and dispute the eligibil
