Subject: Re: message from Pam Karlan re: inverse Wellstone problem
From: "Graeme Orr" <g.orr@mailbox.gu.edu.au>
Date: 10/30/2002, 5:43 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu

Pam's poem reminds why JE Carter is a Peace, not Literature, Laureate. :)

Re absentee voters dying, aren't there other values than the purity of having one polling day? The 'purity' is already modified by closing the rolls well out from polling day - and no-one suggests we 'cleanse' the rolls of those on death's door (ie the right to vote isn't dependent on guaranteeing a future under the new legislature). And the purity is modified by accommodating pre-polling itself. Pre-pollers vote unaware of any late breaking political events, ie under an informational disbenefit (am i inventing this jargon?!) Yet the pre-poller has no right to 'recall' her vote. In those circs, nullifying their franchise is more than disrespectful (imagine the insensitivity of confirming death with a relative). By all means restrict pre-polling to legitimate reasons: distance, absence, illness - but note we don't screen a right to pre-polling based on imminent mortality! Death a week prior to, or after, the declaration, or during the count, is arbitrary.

ps - a state rep in Queensland was pushing a bill to allow pre-NOMINATION votes. Hundreds of people are disenfranchised because they are travelling in parts of the world without consulates or reliable post. The bill would permit them to just list a preferred party (or declared candidate), and take the risk they did not nominate. Are there US precedents?