You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #24: Early Returns on Election Reform [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
24. Early Returns on Election Reform


Early Returns on Election Reform

DANIEL P. TOKAJI
Ohio State University - Michael E. Moritz College of Law

Ohio State Public Law Working Paper No. 42
Center for Interdisciplinary Law and Policy Studies Working Paper Series No. 29
George Washington Law Review, Vol. 74, 2005

Abstract:

The United States was fortunate to avoid another protracted post-election fight in 2004. Although the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) promised substantial changes in the way that elections are conducted in the United States, these changes in federal law did not prevent serious problems from occurring in Ohio and other states. The only reason that these problems did not lead to another contested election is because the margin of victory exceeded the margin of litigation. This Article examines how the changes commonly referred to as election reform contributed to the difficulties that emerged in 2004, focusing especially on Ohio's experience with respect to voting equipment, voter registration, provisional voting, ID requirements, challenges to voter eligibility, and polling place operations. The article then considers what should be done to deal with the problems that the 2004 election revealed, drawing five lessons for the future:

(1) while HAVA's changes with respect to voting equipment have had a beneficial effect, there is a continuing need for improvement in those states that have not yet upgraded their technology;

(2) pre-election litigation challenging election administration practices should be brought as far in advance of election day as practicable;

(3) courts should act swiftly in issuing injunctive relief where it is appropriate;

(4) states should prescribe clear rules governing the administration of elections, as far in advance of election day as possible; and

(5) courts should take a skeptical view of election administration rules that are promulgated unilaterally by partisan election officials, as opposed to those enacted by the legislature or by some other bipartisan or nonpartisan body.

Download from here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=801204#PaperDownload
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC