RuthAlice:

I suppose as author of the piece I should chime in ... 

I didn't misspeak; regular readers of electionline.org are familiar with
the concept of "access vs. integrity" which is my shorthand for the
ongoing debates over voter eligibility which are currently underway in
the states. Generally, I classify the "integrity" camp as those who
argue for imposition of safeguards, like voter identification and
precinct-only provisional voting, intended to protect the integrity of
the process against fraud. The "access" camp generally favors maximum
availability of the franchise to eligible individuals and opposes those
changes as too restrictive and inimical to the individual exercise of
the vote.

Of course I don't suggest that that the "integrity" camp opposes
"access" or vice versa - to be honest, I'm confident that most readers
understand that it's a very nuanced question that is better understood
as one of relative emphasis (or, as my grandmother used to say,
em-PHA-sis). Like I said, it's just shorthand. [I should note, however,
that I'd bet you could find one or more members of this list who *would*
agree that "removing institutional barriers to voting is a bad thing".]

As for what I believe, it's not important - as regular readers know,
since 2001 electionline.org has been a non-profit, non-advocacy
clearinghouse of information on election reform. As such, we don't take
positions. As a colleague once said to me, we don't tell people what to
think - we merely suggest what they might think about. As readers of
this list are well aware, there are already plenty of advocates in the
field. We're there to illuminate the debate, not join it.

Thanks for writing - and I'm glad you could find us courtesy of Rick's
link. Keep reading!

Doug Chapin

P.S. You and everyone else should feel free to call me "Doug". "Chapin"
was my late great-(great?-)uncle.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of RuthAlice
Anderson
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 5:04 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Chapin Article on AZ - EAC conflict

I appreciate the clear explanation of the importance of this
disagreement between state and local government and the implications for
all of us. However, I must object to Chapin's description between the
competing camps on voter registration. In his words, this dispute "would
once again shift the balance of power between those seeking greater
access to voters and those seeking to enhance the integrity of the
election process."

I don't know where Chapin got the idea that making it easier for people
to register to vote demeans the integrity of the process. In fact, the
opposite is true. Seeking to make sure every single eligible voter has a
chance to vote enhances the integrity of the election process. In my
opinion, imposing impediments to voting that maintains the
marginalization of the poor and people of color diminishes the integrity
of our elections and our government.

I certainly hope Chapin merely "misspoke" and that he doesn't really
believe that removing institutional barriers to voting is a bad thing.

RuthAlice




RuthAlice Anderson
Admin & Finance Manager
Western States Center
PO Box 40305
Portland, OR 97240
ph: 503-228-8866 ext. 107
fax: 503-228-1965
e-mail: rutha@wscpdx.org

http://www.westernstatescenter.org