Early Voting Means Easier Voting

New York State is a national laggard when it comes to voting. The state has one of the worst voter turnout records in the country, not least because the act of voting is cumbersome and uninviting. In November, 53.6 percent of registered voters cast ballots, leaving New York 44th among the 50 states and the District of Columbia for voter participation.

For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.

One fix would be to allow early voting. There are 32 states that give voters a chance to cast their ballots early and in person, some providing polling spots on weekends. Democrats in New York’s Assembly voted this week to give voters as many as 15 days and two weekends before Election Day to cast their ballots in person. The bill would require multiple voting sites in each county. This would reduce long lines, especially in the cities, on Election Day.

All but one Republican voted no. And Senate Republicans are resisting, too. Why? Not, they say, because they want to discourage voting. Their complaint is that early voting would be too expensive for upstate counties. That problem could be addressed by cutting back on the extra hours and adding a little extra state money.

There are other ways that New York’s reluctant legislators could make voting a less frustrating experience. They could make it easier for voters to change parties, which can take longer than a year. They could simplify confusing ballots. They could require the New York City Board of Elections to hire qualified people, not simply political cronies, to run the elections. They could set up a system of public financing to encourage greater competition in most races, which in turn would help attract people to the polls.

Early voting, which Gov. Andrew Cuomo supports, would be a good start. The Senate leader, Dean Skelos, and his fellow Republicans should agree to give voters a break on Election Days.

View the original article here

Legal Battles on Voting May Prove a Critical Issue in Election

In the last few weeks, nearly a dozen decisions in federal and state courts on early voting, provisional ballots and voter identification requirements have driven the rules in conflicting directions, some favoring Republicans demanding that voters show more identification to guard against fraud and others backing Democrats who want to make voting as easy as possible.

The most closely watched cases — in the swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania — will see court arguments again this week, with the Ohio dispute possibly headed for a request for emergency review by the Supreme Court.

In Wisconsin, the home state of the Republican vice-presidential candidate, Representative Paul D. Ryan, the attorney general has just appealed to the State Supreme Court on an emergency basis to review two rulings barring its voter ID law. But even if all such cases are settled before Nov. 6 — there are others in Florida, Iowa and South Carolina — any truly tight race will most likely generate post-election litigation that could delay the final result.

“In any of these states there is the potential for disaster,” said Lawrence Norden of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. “You have close elections and the real possibility that people will say their votes were not counted when they should have been. That’s the nightmare scenario for the day after the election.”

In the 2000 presidential election, a deadlock over ballot design and tallying in parts of Florida led the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, to stop a recount of ballots, which led to George W. Bush defeating Al Gore. Since then, both parties have focused on voting procedures.

The Obama campaign, for example, brought suit in Ohio over its reduction of early voting weekends used more by blacks than other groups.

Republicans have expressed concern over what they call voter integrity. They say they fear that registration drives by liberal and community groups have bloated voter rolls with the dead and the undocumented and have created loose monitoring of who votes and low public confidence in the system. They have instituted voter identification rules, cut back on early voting and sought to purge voter lists by comparing them with others, including those of the Department of Homeland Security.

Judicial Watch, a conservative organization aimed at reducing voter fraud, says it has found that voter rolls last year in 12 states seemed to contain an ineligible number of voting-age residents when compared with 2010 census data. It is suing both Indiana and Ohio for failing to clean up their rolls in keeping with their obligations under the National Voter Registration Act.

Democrats worry about what they call voter suppression. They say that voter fraud is largely a myth and that the goal of the Republican-led laws and lawsuits is to reduce voting by minorities, the poor and the young, who tend to vote more for Democrats.

At the Democratic National Convention in North Carolina on Thursday, Representative John Lewis of Georgia expressed his party’s view on voter-related Republican-led laws when he compared them to poll taxes and literacy tests used to prevent blacks from voting in an earlier era.

“Today, it is unbelievable that there are Republican officials still trying to stop some people from voting,” he said. “They are changing the rules, cutting polling hours and imposing requirements intended to suppress the vote.”

Courts have taken a mixed view of the two sides’ claims. Voter ID laws have been both upheld as fair and struck down as discriminatory. In Pennsylvania, a state judge upheld the voter ID law, and the State Supreme Court will hear appeal arguments on Thursday.

Elsewhere recently, Democrats have won more than they have lost, but appeals are forthcoming. A federal court agreed with the Justice Department that Texas’ voter ID law was discriminatory and also struck down the state’s curtailment of voter registration; in Ohio, early voting has been restored and rules restricting voter registration drives have been struck down. The Ohio case is under appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit under expedited review. Texas will also appeal but not in time to affect this election. A Justice Department challenge to South Carolina’s voter ID law is in federal court.

In Florida, a federal court ruled last month that a year-old state law that reduced the number of early voting days to 8 from 12 could not be enforced in 5 of the 67 counties that are covered under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. But the court suggested that extending the hours of voting over the eight-day period in those five counties would satisfy the federal requirements. Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican, was able to persuade election officials in four of the counties to extend their daily hours, but the supervisor of elections in Monroe County, which includes the Florida Keys, refused, saying that the county would maintain an early voting period of 12 days.

One issue that is likely to lead to lawsuits after Election Day is that of provisional ballots. Under federal law, anyone whose identity or voting precinct is in doubt can ask for a provisional ballot at any polling station and then has a number of days to return with the required documentation to make that vote count.

Lizette Alvarez contributed reporting.

View the original article here

Polls provide insights, not voting predictions (AP)

WASHINGTON – At this point four years ago, national polls taken in the run-up to presidential primaries said to prepare for a general election matchup between Republican Rudy Giuliani and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In 2004, Howard Dean was coasting to the Democratic nomination to face President George W. Bush.

Neither pairing materialized.

As the past has proved, countrywide polls are hardly crystal balls, particularly for primary elections that are won state by state. National surveys give insights into what people are thinking, and why, rather than predicting how they will vote.

State-level polling close to an election can be predictive, but even that is far from precise. Voters always can change their minds and attitudes shift quickly.

So there's no guarantee that Mitt Romney or Ron Paul, who are leading in Iowa polls just days before Tuesday's leadoff Republican presidential caucuses, will win. Also, there's no certainty over whether Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich will remain at the back of the pack.

On top of that, it's hard to find true primary voters to survey because so few people vote. In 2008, a record 120,000 Republicans voted in the Iowa caucuses, but that was only 5 percent of Iowa's adults.

Consider the 2007 primary polls. As Iowa approached, most national polls said Clinton and Giuliani were the front-runners. The final Associated Press-Ipsos poll that year put Clinton solidly ahead of Barack Obama, while on the GOP side, Giuliani held a comfortable edge over the rest of the field.

But Obama won Iowa for the Democrats, as did Mike Huckabee for the Republicans.

The national polling didn't say exactly how people would vote in 2008, and 2011 polling won't reveal who will win in 2012.

But countrywide surveys do provide context and help to explain the shifting results as the primaries roll on.

In the 2008 nomination contests, polls indicated that voters were focused on the war in Iraq and deeply dissatisfied with the Bush presidency and the country's direction. Those themes said more about why Obama and Republican John McCain won their party's nomination than the head-to-head matchups did.

This year, polls have consistently shown two dominant themes in the GOP race:

_A tepid response to the GOP field among Republican voters.

Earlier this month, an AP-GfK poll found that amid Gingrich's rise, Republican dissatisfaction with the lineup of candidates also rose. The wild swings among the anyone-but-Romney crowd have lifted nearly all of the candidates at some point this year, but none has fit the bill exactly.

Republicans don't actively dislike Romney, with 73 percent saying he's a strong leader and 81 percent calling him likable. But his best showing in any poll this year remains around 30 percent, and no other candidate has pulled a strong showing among the remaining 70 percent of the party.

_A deep anger among Republicans toward Obama.

This sentiment has buoyed Romney through the rise and fall of other candidates. Poll after poll reinforces his status as the candidate who runs most competitively with Obama and is seen as the most electable. Republicans sure would like to see Obama voted out of office. In the latest AP-GfK poll, 89 percent of Republicans said he deserved to be voted out, and three-quarters said they expected him to lose.

Later this year, the Republicans' battle for voters and delegates will end and a single Republican nominee will be left standing. But no one should expect today's polling to say who that will be.

___

Jennifer Agiesta is AP's deputy director of polling. She can be reached on Twitter at http://twitter.com/JennAgiesta.

View the original article here

Democrats to pursue protections for voting rights (AP)

WASHINGTON – Democrats said Thursday they are planning a major effort to protect voting rights in the 2012 election after several states passed voter identification laws and restrictions on early voting and same day registration.

Concerned over what they call voter suppression efforts in states, party officials said they were organizing on a number of fronts to overturn some of the measures, educate voters on the types of documents necessary to vote and pursue lawsuits if necessary.

"We have a history of challenging these matters in court if need be. We'll be more than prepared to continue that into the future," said Will Crossley, the Democratic National Committee's counsel and director of voter protection.

Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin have passed laws this year that allow voters without the required photo ID to cast provisional ballots, but the voters must return to a specific location with that ID within a certain time limit for their ballots to count. Efforts to restrict early voting have been approved in Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Party officials contend blacks, Hispanics, senior citizens and the poor are less likely to have required photo IDs and worry that the laws could lead to some voters being disenfranchised if they fail to carry an ID with them. They said early voting among black voters was key to Barack Obama's success in the 2008 election in North Carolina and Florida and could complicate efforts there next year.

"We're aggressively engaged in making sure that we help voters move these obstacles and barriers that are being put in their way that are essentially designed to rig an election when Republicans can't win these elections on the merits," said Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC head.

Republicans said the laws were designed to deal with mounting administrative costs and to eliminate voter fraud, citing the activities of ACORN, a now defunct political advocacy group. Congress cut off ACORN's federal money in 2010 following allegations the group engaged in voter registration fraud and embezzlement.

"Knowing President Obama is facing a steep climb to re-election, Democrats are resorting to scare tactics rather than addressing voter fraud cases," said Kirsten Kukowski, a Republican National Committee spokeswoman.

Democratic officials point to success in Maine, where voters repealed a new state law that required voters to register at least two days before an election, restoring Election Day voter registration. In Ohio, party activists say they have gathered enough signatures to prevent a law reducing the number of days of early voting from taking effect until residents can vote in a referendum next year.

View the original article here

GOP-led states change voting rules ahead of 2012 (AP)

COLUMBUS, Ohio – After years of expanding when and how people can vote, state legislatures now under new Republican control are moving to trim early voting days, beef up identification requirements and put new restrictions on how voters are notified about absentee ballots.

Democrats claim their GOP counterparts are using midterm election wins to enforce changes favorable to Republicans ahead of the 2012 presidential election. They criticize such legislation, saying it could lead to longer lines in Democratic-leaning urban areas and discourage people from voting.

Supporters say bolstering ID rules helps prevent fraud. And at a time when counties face tough budgets, they contend local elections officials don't have the money to keep early voting locations staffed and opened.

The process of changing voting rules may be nonpartisan on the surface but it is seething with politics just below the surface.

"We've had nothing short of a rhetorical firefight for years between the folks who are worried about fraud and folks who are worried about disenfranchisement — a firefight which is pretty much neatly broken down between the two major parties," said Doug Chapin, an election expert at the University of Minnesota.

While states typically adjust voting rules ahead of presidential elections, this year provides an opportunity for new Republican governors and GOP majorities to legislate on election issues.

Put simply, Chapin said: "What's happening in 2011 is just as much about what happened in 2010."

New voting rules recently cleared state legislatures in what have traditionally been presidential battlegrounds, creating partisan rancor.

Plans to reduce the number of days to cast an early ballot cleared the Republican-controlled swing states of Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin. Legislatures in Georgia, Tennessee and West Virginia also lopped off advanced-voting time. North Carolina has a pending proposal. And Maine has done away with a policy that allows people to register at the polls on Election Day before casting ballots.

Each party, when in control, seeks to rewrite the rules to its electoral advantage.

Although the reality may not be so cut and dried, both parties believe a looser voting regimen benefits Democrats because it increases opportunities for Hispanic, black, immigrant and poor people — harder to reach for an Election Day turnout — to vote.

Democratic voters held an edge in early voting during the 2010 elections, despite the unfavorable climate for the party nationally and the eventual Republican gains.

Voters in 32 states and the District of Columbia can cast a ballot in person before Election Day without having to give a reason.

Georgia and Ohio had some of the longest early voting time periods. Georgia had 45 days, while Ohio had 35. The new laws bring the two states closer to the typical timeframe, which is about two weeks before the election.

The move to shrink the early voting window in some states comes as others have pushed to require voters to show a photo ID at the polls.

Five states — Kansas, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas — recently passed strict photo ID laws. At the beginning of the year, just two states — Georgia and Indiana — required that voters must show a photo ID in order to have their vote counted.

Other legislatures are rewriting their state's election laws in other ways.

Florida rolled back its early voting time to one week from two in an overhaul that also makes it more difficult for groups such as the League of Women Voters and the Boy Scouts of America to conduct voter registration drives.

Ohio's top elections chief, a Republican, acknowledged that changes to voting rules have invited an overreaction from each party.

"Both sides of the political spectrum have found it advantageous from a fundraising point of view, from a motivating their base point of view, to call into question the confidence in the election system," Secretary of State Jon Husted said in an interview.

While Ohio's overhaul bans local boards of elections from mailing unsolicited absentee ballot requests to voters, Husted has agreed to have the state send the requests to voters in all counties in 2012.

Ohio's law is not yet in effect, and opponents are working to get a proposed repeal question on the fall 2012 ballot. The legislation ignited debate early this summer on the floors of the state's GOP-controlled General Assembly.

View the original article here