While Bush v. Gore demanded uniformity of vote counting rules
intra-state, HAVA's statutes commanded the states to adopt uniform
vote-counting rules, more or less implementing this aspect of Bush v.
Gore.
The expressly "voluntary" "guidance" of the EAC is, regardless of the
policy merits or demerits that have been asserted, an experiment in
uniformity on an interstate or federal level. Because the guidelines
have no legal force except as they are adopted by reference into
various state law codes, the rather enormous constitutional issue that
would be presented if the federal government were to go beyond Bush v.
Gore to command nationwide uniformity in elections is avoided.
One may, or may not, "miss" the EAC, but I think it would be remiss
not to point to the fact that a continuation of the EAC on a voluntary
basis (which increasingly becomes more mandatory as more states
incorporate VVSGs into state codes) is a continuation of an experiment
with radically restructuring federalism in elections, without the
level of discussion and consideration which restructurings like this
properly require.
This consideration will not impact every issue the EAC touched upon,
but it is nevertheless incumbent upon all supporters of the
Constitution not to acquiesce in a revolution in federalism of
elections, sub silentio, but to consider all of the implications
directly and on their merits.
Paul Lehto, J.D.
PS I do realize that, technically speaking, EAC rules only apply to
federal elections but as a practical matter, because no state has yet
seen fit to meaningfully bifurcate major state/federal elections, when
HAVA and/or the EAC have spoken it tends to impact not just federal
elections but state elections as well. (e.g. funding computerized
voting for federal elections has changed state elections approximately
equally.)
On 12/20/10, Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, and anyone who thinks that EAC is only relevant for the
administration of HAVA funds hasn't paid much attention to 85% of what
they've been doing in the past few years. They now have a slew of
programs intended to help election administrators better cope with the
spectre of computerized voting systems, which can do strange things
but hold great promise for efficiency, verifiability, usability,
accessibility, etc. The EAC's voting system certification program is
a good example of a program that had a rocky start but is now getting
better and better all the time (critics say it's slow and expensive...
it sure is, but it's hard to imagine an alternative structure that
would do this work better, faster, cheaper... and nothing is certainly
not a good idea). best, Joe
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Paul Gronke <paul.gronke@gmail.com> wrote:
I've expressed frustrations at times with the EAC, and from a purely
intellectual perspective, wondered whether the agency was designed to
fail. (I remember in a conference at Brooking/AEI a few years ago, we had
a spirited discussion with Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein about the early
years of the Federal Election Commission and how it compared to the EAC.
I still wonder whether the authors of HAVA had failure in mind)
However, I can't echo Rick's sentiments that no one would miss the agency.
American election administration has improved dramatically since 2000,
and Federal requirements for the use of HAVA funds, administered by the
EAC, should receive a lot of credit. Perhaps the agency would not be
missed when HAVA funds run out, but let's not understate the impact of
HAVA and the agency's role in administering and overseeing these funds.
I'd be interested in hearing others' opinions about the Voluntary Voting
Systems Guidelines, but the impression that the VVSG, while slow, has
provided a set of regulatory guidelines and technical specifications that
has helped guide the states when adopting new election technology. It
would surely be missed if the VVSG was no longer updated, and states and
local jurisdictions were once again completely on their own. This seems
particularly important in a period when the election technology industry
is in a state of great uncertainty.
Finally, from my own perch as a political scientist, it would be a
tremendous loss if the Election Administration and Election Day Survey,
which has finally stabilized and is being used to great advantage by
advocates, analysts, and increasingly academics, were to disappear. Yes,
there have been serious bumps in the road in developing and administering
this instrument, but recall prior to the EAC's survey, there was no single
source for information on a wide array of information about the
performance and administration of American elections. I would hate to go
backwards and once again have 50 states and 10,000 jurisdictions reporting
information with different details, using different terms, and with
differing levels of accuracy.
I would hope that Congress would continue to fund this instrument
regardless of what happens to the EAC.
---
Paul Gronke Ph: 503-517-7393
Fax: 734-661-0801
Director, Early Voting Information Center
Professor, Reed College
3203 SE Woodstock Blvd.
Portland OR 97202
EVIC: http://earlyvoting.net
On Dec 17, 2010, at 3:38 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
Will the EAC Disappear?
Could be.
Follow up question: who will notice?
Posted by Rick Hasen at 01:28 PM
Allison Hayward Makes a Campaign Finance Cartoon
Here.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 12:58 PM
---
Paul Gronke Ph: 503-517-7393
Fax: 734-661-0801
Professor, Reed College
Director, Early Voting Information Center 3203 SE Woodstock Blvd.
Portland OR 97202
EVIC: http://earlyvoting.net
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
--
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
ACCURATE Postdoctoral Research Associate
UC Berkeley School of Information
Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy
http://josephhall.org/
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law