|
Ohio: HB 3 Would Make It Harder to Vote, Harder to Ensure Accuracy, Harder to Recount |
|
|
|
|
By John Burik, Phil Fry, Susan Truitt, and Pete Johnson, CASE Ohio
|
|
January 30, 2006 |
After being stalled in December, HB3 is back at the top of legislative
agenda in Ohio. The bill is called an "election reform" by some. CASE
Ohio calls it "election regression". The worst features of HB 3 are
still contained in the recent version and include restrictive ID
requirements (Sec. 3505.18), the deletion of the recount as machine
audit (Sec. 3506.20), the establishment of unaffordable recount cost
(Sec. 3515.03), and the prohibition of election contests (Sec. 3515.08).
First, the most recent version of the bill includes the now infamous ID requirement:
Sec. 3505.18. (A)(1) When an elector appears in a polling place to vote
the elector shall announce to the precinct election officials the
elector's full name and current address and provide proof of the
elector's identity in the form of either a current and valid photo
identification or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement,
government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the
name and current address of the elector.
While most Ohio voters will have a photo ID or other identifying
documents, many, many do not, especially the young, old, poor,
homeless, out-of-town college students, and others. HB 3 will
effectively disenfranchise as many as 200,000 legally eligible voters.
The current HB 3 also does away with a mandatory recount as a machine
audit for touch-screen (DRE) machines by removing an entire paragraph.
The state Joint Committee on Ballot Security spent 22 hours in hearings
with national experts, then recommended, 8 to 1, that a Voter Verified
Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) be installed because the technology was easy
to hack. Even though VVPATs are installed the legislature refuses to
use it. That section in the House version passed last spring required the random recount of an issue or office as a machine audit:
Sec. 3506.20. Any county that uses direct recording electronic voting
machines with a voter verified paper audit trail as the primary voting
system for the county and not only for accessibility for individuals
with disabilities under section 3506.19 of the Revised Code, within two
months after the day of each general election in which a county office
or a county question or issue is on the ballot, shall conduct a
complete recount of any one county office or issue voted on at that
election using the voter verified paper audit trail produced by those
machines. The county office or county question or issue to be recounted
shall be selected at random from all of the county offices, questions,
and issues voted upon at that election. A recount conducted under this
section shall be for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of those
machines and shall not change the result of the election as determined
by the official canvass of the election returns for that election.
For what possible reason would we not want to verify results with an
audit? If anything, that audit should be required before the final vote
totals, or what’s known as the “official canvass.”
The current version of HB 3 quintuples the cost of recounts:
Sec. 3515.03. Each application for recount shall separately list each
precinct as to which a recount of the votes therein is requested, and
the person filing an the application shall, at the same time, deposit
with the board of elections fifty dollars....
Do the math: 11,366 precincts X $50 = $568,000!
Finally, the current version of HB 3 prohibits contests of a federal election (under Ohio law):
Sec. 3515.08. The (A) Except as otherwise provided in this division,
the nomination or election of any person to any public office or party
position or the approval or rejection of any issue or question,
submitted to the voters, may be contested by qualified electors of the
state or a political subdivision. The nomination or election of any
person to any federal office,including the office of elector for
president and vice president and the office of member of congress,
shall not be subject to a contest of election conducted under this
chapter. Contests of the nomination or election of any person to any
federal office shall be conducted in accordance with the applicable
provisions of federal law.
Some will counter that challenges are still available under federal law
and that’s true. However, consider the case of Rios v. Blackwell, filed
in November 2004; the case is still pending. Even if a federal decision
comes soon, it does nothing about an election already decided.
CASE Ohio and VoteTrustUSA strongly oppose the passge of HB3.
Comment on This Article
You must login to leave comments...
Other Visitors Comments
There are no comments currently....
|
