Green Party Watch

In Indiana, Cynthia McKinney is a write-in candidate in 2008. The good news is the names of certified write-in candidates will be posted at voting sites. The rest is rather bleak. Tonight I attended poll worker training and realize just how separate and unequal the concept of “write-in” voting is. First, the only reason write-in voting was discussed at poll worker training was because I kept bringing it up. We were not even instructed how to count write-in votes when the polls close. Also, Indianapolis uses two kinds of voting machines: M100 optical scan machines and iVotronic touch screen machines. The optical scan machines are similar to “scantron” or fill in the bubble tests. They leave a paper trail which is good for election integrity. However, you must mark the bubble next to write-in then write in the name of the candidate for whom you wish to vote. Then, after the polls close, ballots are removed from the ballot box and sorted through to find write-in votes which are supposed to be recorded for certified write-in candidates. The problem is many cities/counties, including Indianapolis with near 1 million people, have historically counted only the amount of write-in votes total, and not the number of votes each certified candidate receives. From the training I received tonight, it looks like that may be the case again this year, at least in Indianapolis.

Furthermore, the reason Indiana uses the iVotronic touch screen machines is that the Help America Vote Act(HAVA) requires that voters with different abilities be provided a confidential voting experience. The touch screen machine can read an audio ballot for those with visual impairments or any problem reading. However, this machine CANNOT accept write-in votes. Therefore, if you cannot fill out the bubble/optical scan ballot, and write the name of your candidate, you must request that poll workers assist you. That essentially destroys any confidential voting experience.

What we have in Indiana is a system that treats some voters differently than others. While a sighted person with the ability to write is able to vote for the candidate of their choice confidentially, someone lacking those abilities may not have the same opportunities under Indiana’s implementation of the law. At the very least I think this is a clear example of how ballot access barriers directly target already disenfranchised portions of the population.

http://www.fec.gov/hava/law_ext.txt

From HAVA(2002)

(3) Accessibility for individuals with disabilities.–The

voting system shall–

(A) be accessible for individuals with disabilities,

including nonvisual accessibility for the blind and

visually impaired, in a manner that provides the same

opportunity for access and participation (including

privacy and independence) as for other voters;

(B) satisfy the requirement of subparagraph (A)

through the use of at least one direct recording

electronic voting system or other voting system equipped

for individuals with disabilities at each polling place;

and

(C) if purchased with funds made available under

title II on or after January 1, 2007, meet the voting

system standards for disability access (as outlined in

this paragraph).

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 7th, 2008 at 9:25 pm and is filed under Grassroots Democracy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.