A Constitutional Voting Amendment - Because 16 hour waits are UNACCEPTABLE

[Timebound]

With the 2004 election just behind us, many people around the country are worried about the integrity of our election systems. Are they fair? Did the process work? Depends on who you ask. Whether you're talking about ten-hour waits to vote in Ohio, or dead people voting in Washington state, we can all agree on one thing: IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Me and a few others are going to try and start a grassroots movement to get voting laws changed in this country. We need your help. We want to know what YOU think would make voting better.

And we plan to march straight to Congress with this. But we can't do it without you and your input.

Voting is NOT a states' rights issue. A federal election should require FEDERAL standards. When voting laws in North Carolina are not the same as voting laws in Kansas, and when voting for the same national race (such as a Presidental election), this is obviously a problem. Those ten hour lines in Ohio (and elsewhere) could have been solved by allowing early voting (somes states have it, some don't).

These problems will not get better on their own.

The epic Left VS Right battle continues on in Congress today, and it is unlikely that without sufficient prodding by the public that they will ever stop bickering and settle down to try to fix things.

If for just a few minutes, both Democrats and Republicans can agree, and raise their voices to Congress together, there would be no stopping us.

So we are working on a few important issues to both parties to try to come to a solution.

This is where we need YOUR help. Here are some basic guidelines we've come up with so far speaking to various Democrats and Republicans (and so far, we've kept them in the same room for a while and no one's been trying to kill each other over the Washington Governor's race...yet *shiver*)

I'm posting here because I want YOUR opinions. I want your suggestions/critisims on these guidelines so that we can better satisfy what all people want.

I own the domain votefraud.us, and it is going to go live in about a week. This is going to be our mission, to protect the intregity of the voting system.

(Please keep the Republican/Bush bashing soft, at least on this particular thread. I just want to know what YOU think would be necessary for a voting amendment.)

In full disclosure, this will be discussed on FR as well.

Here are the guidelines we've (somewhat) agreed on so far:

1- Without a state-issued picture ID, I cannot rent a four dollar video from Blockbuster. I can, however, vote for the future of the country with just a signature. A signature alone is NOT sufficent enough to cast a vote in a national election. A state-issued picture ID should be REQUIRED, as well as a voter's registration card (and correct address). This is NOT an outrageous request. This can go a long way to ensure that fraudulent votes are not cast, as well as ensuring that people vote only one time.

On Edit: Most things in this country cannot be done without your driver's liscense or state-issued picture ID. You can't rent a movie, and in most places you cannot write a check without verifying you are who you say you are. This is THE issue for the right. We are going to have to compromise on it somewhat. I personally would not feel threatened to have to take twenty seconds to show my driver's liscense when I vote.

Remember, there are several reports in Ohio of Dems showing up only to find out someone already voted in their name. A poll worker's quick glance at a driver's license could have prevented this.


2- We would not wait in line to get a Driver's License for sixteen hours. Therefore, we should not have to wait sixteen hours to vote. Early voting needs to be implemented in every single state, and we also need to make sure that there is sufficent equiment for everyone to vote in a timely manner.

3- Just as we would not accept most banking transactions without a paper receipt, we should not accept electronic voting without a receipt. We need to be able to ensure that a vote was counted the way it was cast. The obvious danger here is that a party could 'buy out' the election, paying a hacker (or insider) to sway an election one way or the other. (Both Dem's and Republican's have sizeable pocketbooks, need I remind you)

4- When votes are tabulated at the end of the election day, we need equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans doing the counting. Campaign officials STAY OUT, volunteers only. This way, the opportunity of one party 'stealing/stacking the votes' decreases dramatically because there will be the opposition breathing down their necks as they count.

5- If you are involved as a high ranking official of a campaign, stay OUT of the official voting process. If you are in such a position (such as Secretary of State), then STEP ASIDE. Whether you are biased or not, it can be considered a problem to the integrity of the process and will be cause for question later on. (slander, ect.)

6- Two days after the election is over, an equal number of representatives from each party's campaign should be allowed to go back and audit votes down the the county level if requested. If county XYZ has high Democratic registration but high Republican voting (or persay, we find a month later two hundred ballots stuffed in a drawer somewhere), then the campaigns have the right to go back and audit. If nothing else, this will help ease people's fears and will go a long way to making sure that individual counties keep good records that are open to scrutiny.

7- If you are denied the ability to vote for whatever reason, there will be a log for you to sign at the poll. You will recieve a receipt that designates a place, date, and time to show up at the local Government Center (much like court). Ballots will be on hand, and as a voter you will be entitled to a review of your right to vote. Having an appointment such as this can solve many problems. Those who have recently moved or whatnot can get simple misunderstandings cleared up, and will then be provided with a ballot and can vote. The log and receipt that you will recieve will ensure that only people who show up to a polling place on November 2nd (or earlier, if voting early) will be entitled to these 'hearings'. This will help relieve a lot of 'voter disenfranchisement'. This date must be set before the certification of election results in the state.

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates

Many of these points not only protect the right to vote, but prevent the 'slander' that could occur afterwards. Peole would have more confidence that the voting process was upheld with integrity.

All right guys, this is where YOU GUYS can come in! We CAN do this, we can make sure that all future elections can be free and fair, and we won't have to worry about them as much.

Critisims, suggestions (or if you would be interested in helping out with the website when it goes live), post away! If you have suggestion that's not listed here, post it!

Democracy at its finest, guys. We can do it!

"Integrity is one of several paths. It distinguishes itself from the others because it is the right path... And the only one upon which you will never get lost." -M.H. McKee


I would appreciate it if someone would keep this thread bumped (or better yet, nominate it for the frontpage). We REALLY need to discuss this issue.

(And please forgive the spelling errors, I have been awake for 31 hours straight.)

Also added on Edit: Remember, debate these. Tell me what you think should be added, and/or what you don't like about the suggestions (I know the ID thing is a raw button, but one we're going to have to tackle to get anything done).

Or, you can do nothing, and wait for it all to happen again in 2008...

[aquart]

1. So you favor national picture identity cards?

Because we don't want to rely on local standards of identification, do we? I vote with my signature. Signatures are individual. There is no reason the same person can't provide a different local picture ID at several locations, is there? Or do you plan to rely on computers? <pause to laugh> Will the location have pictures on file to match the picture IDs being presented?

I'm not in favor of any amendment that would be cobbled together by this Congress.

And I'm NOT in favor of identity cards.

[Timebound]

2. A Driver's License or State-Issued Picture ID...

...is required for most things in this country. (You can't open an account at Blockbuster or Hollywood Video to rent a video without one. You just about can't write a check without showing your liscense/state ID.) If I can't rent a video without my liscense, I personally don't think it is outrageous to show a picture ID to get to vote. If we are going to get any support from the right at all, this is something we may have to consider.

In Ohio there were various reports of Dem voters showing up to vote, just to find out that someone had already cast a ballot in their name. A driver's liscense or state ID could have prevented that.

[liberal N proud]

3. I am not in favor of Natl. ID cards either, but voter registration

should be automatic when you get your drivers license and if you do not have a drivers license, then you can still register at the board of elections where they would give you a card indicating where you vote.
This crap of cutting voter registration off 1.5 months before the election is ridiculous also, you should be able to register with in 24 hours.

The big thing that needs to be fixed in this country is the counting of the votes.
I am in favor of a system where electronic machines are used to vote with a printed receipt, that says you voted for XXXX (NOT secret code). The receipt then would be put into a sealed ballot box. The electronic count can be reported to the media at the end of the day but not considered official.
Votes only become official when the paper receipts match the electronic count that would come 2-3 days later.
That is the only way we can insure a fair and safe election.

[Timebound]

4. That is a GREAT idea!

And something I never EVEN thought of! Thanks liberalnproud!

[RC]

5. North Dakota uses scanners.

We vote on a paper ballot, a card really, then put it in the scanner. While they had a half dozen voting booth set up, they also had several tables. No waiting for a machine. One could use someone else's back as a surface to rest your ballot when voting. I saw one person use a wall.
There was only one scanner and it took only seconds for the voter to put his ballot into the machine. It did not matter which side was up or which end was first.
Things went smooth and fast once past the registers.

The touch screen machines may be a cool way to vote, but even if it spits out a piece of paper you put in a locked box, how many people will take the time to really proof read it?

The best way is for people to fill out the paper ballot itself.

Other countries use paper only, hand counting millions of ballots and can have the result totals in a few hours. Why can't the United States?

[liberal N proud]

8. I lived in Missouri for years and they too used the paper card

You filled in the oval and it was scanned.
The thought I had was that there would be a check and a balance to the system. If people cared enough they would look at the receipt, but you are correct not everyone would check it.
There could be a problem with the scanner system too, the optical system used to read the ballot could be tampered with easily.

[Pacifist Patriot]

11. I don't believe we need 30 days, but realisitically we do need

more than 24 hours in order to ensure the poll books are accurate at the precincts. I think 7 days is a reasonable compromise which enables later registration but allows for the board of elections to properly prepare for election day. There is actually a lot of work that goes into prepping the polling places. Early voting right up until the day before election day screwed up the poll books and allowed for some people to double vote. Consequently, early voting will be stopped for 48 hours before election day next time in our county.

[Igel]

19. I'm against a national ID card, but you should have to show some ID.

I was working polls in Rochester, 2 precincts in one room. A husband and wife wanted to vote. They were registered. They were naturalized Russians, and spoke bad English. The poll worker at their precinct didn't understand their last name properly, and had them sign in the wrong places. I overheard the Russians say their name and the pollworker "repeat" the wrong name back to them; I went over to check. The signatures didn't look anything like the signatures in the poll book, I found their names. The dem poll workers didn't want to challenge the "dem" voters; the repub poll workers were off helping somebody else find his correct precinct. The Russians were actually registered repub.

If I hadn't stepped out of bounds (I wasn't authorized to look at the poll book in that precinct), a dem couple that showed up hours later would have found somebody had already voted in their name, and been prohibited from voting. They asked why there were crossed-out signatures where they were to sign.

Routinely asking for ID would stop that sort of problem. Challenging would have worked, but it was considered "ungentlemanly."

[markus]

6. How's this?

1) No election or electoral site for federal office may be closed until every legally entitled voter has been permitted to cast their ballot.

2) Every jurisdiction in which federal officers are up for election must provide a proportionaly number of voting places and voting booths/ballot boxes amont each of its electoral subdivisions, based on the voter turnout in the last previous federal election.

3) Any jusrisdiction which fails to meet sections One (1) or Three (3) shall re-open voting on each week day following the federal election date, in the same location at which insufficient opportunity was presented, until all persons in that jurisdiction or location who wish to vote have done so, up to 10 days prior to the certificaiton of ballots in that state or jurisduction.

3) No certification of results for a federal election will be accepted from any of the states will be accepted by any branch of the federal government until every ballot has been publicly reviewed and, if found valid by equal number of persons of every party represented on that ballot, counted.

4) Electronic or other volitile form of ballot not susceptible to an individual recount will be valid for the election of federal officers.

[PaganPreacher]

15. Is "how's this?" a rhetorical question?

1. A law that keeps elections open until "every legally entitled voter has been permited to cast his ballot" would keep the electoral system in limbo for weeks, or months. An individual voter's challenge could paralyze the entire nation (think about that for a second....)

2. Unconstitutional (Article II) for Presidential elections. Also unconstitutional under Amendment X.

3. "All persons who wish to vote" (your language) is not the same as "all legally entitled voters." You have just allowed persons ineligible to vote to stop the process for 10 days. This paragraph also conflicts with your paragraph 1, by setting a 10 day deadline (para 1 states "until every legally entitled voter has been permitted," which could be weeks or months, as you have written it.)

3 (your second use of "3"): Unconstitutional under Article II. Congress must accept the electors, if they are selected "in such a manner as the state legislatures thereof shall appoint."

4. You may want to avoid using "volatile" forms of ballots. As Inigo Montoya said, "I do not think that word means what you think it means."



"Volatile" means, 1) evaporating readily at room temperature, 2) fickle, 3) explosive. None of those things are good for ballots, at least from a safety standpoint. Your statement, "electronic or other forms of volatile ballot... will be valid" is an antithesis to the idea of accountability.


Wyoming's new "volatile ballots" created unforseen problems on Election Day.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[Hugin]

21. Oooo... Ahhhh....

Not so sure I like those "volatile ballots" Pagan Preacher.

Sign me up for everything else tho... ;)

[PaganPreacher]

23. Maybe we could vote at night.....

Volatile ballots would paint a pretty picture on the night sky!



The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[markus]

25. Well taken

I meant volatile in the sense of volatile memory (RAM).

If that's not in the dictionary yet, it will be.

[Igel]

22. I'm not sure what you mean in (2),

but I'm fairly sure that most BOEs try to distribute voting machines based on the last one or two (comparable) elections. Specifying "federal" election is a recipe for disaster: we have no federal elections; and voter turnout on non-presidential-election years is usually in the toilet.

I guess it's possible for each state to buy the machines and dole them out proportionately, but I don't know of any that does. But that's certainly not a federal-level issue. Esp. since there are so many local elections that don't coincide with those for electors or congress-folk.

[markus]

26. OK

1) Stet. Three keeps this from going on forever. We could quible about whether "permitted" allows disruptors to cause problems. The intent was that anyway who was turned away by long lines or other causes would be entitled to cast their ballot.

2) I don't see what's wrong with this. This is a constitutional amendment. It likely shouldn't dictate electoral practices for state and local office, just lead the way.

3) Yes, it should say "legally entitled voter".

4) As I said before briefly, volatile in the sense that RAM is considered volatile memory. Term of part of the computer industry and probably too narrow a definition for general use. Strike "volatile".

[qwghlmian]

7. When you say

"Voting is NOT a states' rights issue. A federal election should require FEDERAL standards." - you are aware, of course, that no one in the US votes for President directly. According to the United States Constitution, voters do not elect the President. States do. Thus, it is a states' rights issue.

You would have to repeal quite a bit of the Constitution in addition to amending it in order to be able to dictate to the states how they should run their elections.

[nmoliver]

9. Abolish electronic voting

I don't think we should compromise on the issue of electronic voting. I think paper-only ballots are the only way to allow the possibility of fair elections. Any machines is riggable and does not provide DIRECT evidence of the intent of the voter - only circumstantial evidence. When a machine intervenes, it may or may not translate the intent of the voter into a vote. Paper receipts, paper trails are NOT ENOUGH. The Republicans will do whatever it takes to sabotage, undermine and STALL a recount. If they stall it long enough, the machine tallies become the official tally. The Supreme Court has been proved to back them on killing recounts.

RECOUNTS ARE NOT ENOUGH. The paper record must be the PRIMARY, OFFICIAL RECORD of the vote.

Machines are the breeding ground of Republican vote fraud. They will find a way.

Paper voting can allow for fraud, too, but not on the large scale that a central tabulator can. Paper vote fraud is local and not difficult to spot. It happens precinct by precinct, not state by state.

[livvy]

10. Have you visited this site or been in contact with

anyone there? They are working on the same thing, and trying to formulate a petition that would be presented to Congress. If you haven't been in contact with them, it might be an idea. There is power in numbers, and a central front might be effective.

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/

[Pacifist Patriot]

12. Here are some of the things on my wish list:

Random Thoughts here....

1. Early Voting beginning on October 1 and ending the Saturday before Election Day.

2. Election Day is a federal holiday.

3. Polls are open on Election Day from 6:00 AM until 9:00 PM.

4. No touchscreen technology whatsoever, receipt or no receipt.

5. Visible light optical scanned ballots in which the software is held in public trust for inspection by non-partisan independent auditors.

6. Automatic random handcount of a local contest, a state contest and in the general election, the presidential contest in 5% of precincts verifying the tabulations of the optical scan machines. Which races will be audited at the local and state level is determined by a drawing AFTER results are initially tabulated.

7. Voter registration forms simplified and registration open until 7 days prior to Election Day.

8. Candidates prohibited from issuing concession or victory speeches until vote certification.

I'm sure I'll think of more, but I have a whiney 19 month old on my lap.

[PaganPreacher]

13. Wow! You really want to cut the guts out of the Constitution!

1. Article II of the Constitution gives the authority to select presidential Electors to the states.

Your proposals numbered 1,3,4,5,6, and 7 are all unconstitutional.

2. Amendment I to the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."

Your proposal number 8 is unconstitutional.

3. #2 is a great idea. Congress has the authority to declare the first Tuesday of November as a Federal holiday. Contact your Senators and Representatives and suggest it!

I will, too.


The US Constitution
It's not just a good idea, it's the law.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[Pacifist Patriot]

18. Sorry, I wasn't addressing the Constitution.

I should have been more clear. This is my "wish list" for elections period. The only thing I see needed in the Constitution is a guaranteed right to vote in affirmative language rather than the negative language in the document today. Everything else is legislation or simply administrative decisions. My apologies for the confusion. I do realize the thread was about the Constitution, but I was a bit distracted as I was responding.

[Kansas Wyatt]

14. Election reform should be added to that....

Politicians, both Dems & Pugs, are bought and paid for by corporations and the wealthy. Every citizen is suppose to be represented equally, yet corporations and the wealthy are the ones who get to influence our elected representatives the most. Why? Because it is impossible for candidates to raise enough money without being paid for by the wealthy and corporations.

No wealthy citizen should have anymore influence on our government, than any other citizen. Corporations should not have any influence in our Government at all, since the Government is suppose to be by the people and for the people. It is not suppose to be by corporations and 2% of the people, and for the same.

The present day system of campaigns has removed a Government by the people and for the people. It is nothing, but big business and marketing voters. And, if that money spent does not deliver the goods, another system has been set up as an insurance policy to make sure, that the candidate most friendly to the wealthy and corporations allegedly beats the odds.

[d.l.Green]

16. After reading all the great ideas and observations...

I don't have much to add. But I don't think we're going to get very far trying to get rid of the electronic voting machines. Individual receipts to verify that a vote was counted correctly and recorded on paper are impractical and would make a recount a nightmare. A rolling receipt that would also record a computer log- and correctable, if wrong, with poll watcher assistance- would at least help the viability of a more accurate recount. Also recounts should not be defined as such and should be part of the voting procedure, not an afterthought or forced issue- maybe called the "verifying count".

I believe also that a signature matched to the roll books is enough. You have one signature to one signature- how much more accurate can it get? When you register, you sign, and there's a file and image of that signature. If there's a dispute where someone believes someone voted using someone else's signature, a provisional ballot could be allotted to a court day as suggested above. I don't know what could be done about the disputed vote though.

Even though this seems to be against the Constitution, making it a Constitutional right to vote would most likely allow for certain standards to allow equal access across the country. The states would retain control as specified but they would be bound by certain minimum standards as they are now- only expanded.

[Igel]

20. I still want poll workers to require an ID card.

See my response to post 1, I think it was.

Poll workers don't like challenging voters: if you don't "challenge" them all (by requiring IDs), you're going to selectively challenge them based at least partially on party affiliation, race, ethnicity, or because you don't like their haircut.

[Ms. Toad]

27. ID cards, as well as literacy tests, poll taxes

and other similar things have historically been used to prevent "undesirables" from voting. That is the reason that an ID is not required. It and the other things I mentioned were imposed as unconstitutional barriers to (primarily non-whites) exercising their constitutional right to vote.

The other things mentioned for which IDs are required are privileges, not rights (renting a movie, writing a check). It is permissible to deny privileges if the recipient does not agree to the terms and conditions that go with the privilege. Generally, it is not permissible to deny a constitutional right on that basis.

Although it would probably not disenfranchise the same individuals, there are identifiable groups of individuals in this country that would be disenfranchised if an ID card were required. I believe some religious orders reject ID cards because of the photographic image required on them (Amish, for example). My understanding is that some Muslim women are foregoing driver's licenses (and ID cards) because of the institution of local requirements that their photograph be unveiled (I apologize if that is not the correct term). Although these individuals may vote rarely, it is still their right and they should not be forced to violate their religious beliefs in order to do so.

Other groups that might be disenfranchised: Non-drivers who choose not to get a state ID card. A state ID card is an accommodation to non-drivers - not a requirement. I also suspect a large percentage of the homeless population - and perhaps urban poor who do not need a drivers' license for transportation - do not have driver's licenses.

From a purely hypothetical perspective, if I were intent on committing voting fraud I would check the polling lists outside the polling places for historical voting pattern. I didn't notice if they were there this year, but Ohio has posted these lists in previous years, It's a fairly easy task to find someone who hasn't voted in the last few elections for the purpose of pretending to be that person. Particularly in urban areas, the body switch would not be likely to be noticed, and if the target is carefully selected no repeat voter would be likely to show up to expose the fraud. An organized group doing this could probably cast quite a few extra votes in this manner.

I don't know what the solution to this scenario of deliberate fraud is. (The previously mentioned accidental switch could have been prevented without an ID by asking the voters to write their names on a piece of paper, if the spoken name was too difficult to decipher.) But I do know that implementing an ID requirement is likely to face strong and legitimate civil rights opposition - particularly among groups it was used to disenfranchise in the past.

[tngledwebb]

17. Long lines and long waits to vote should be unacceptable in the USA.

It is embarrassing and scandalous that after 200+ years we do not have efficient, fair and honest elections, where the MAJORITY decides who will be President.

The reason has nothing to do with the electoral college, the Constitution, or states rights etc, and everything to do with the unbridled power of the military industrial complex ( including the subsidiaries, MSM and Wall Street) and the fascistic 'leaders' it has placed in power, most obviously in the last two stolen presidential races.

Good ideas about reform will be futile until that thorny little issue is understood, addressed and resolved.

[suston96]

24. Kill the machines!

As long as you have machines there will be fraud because the machines are operated by only a handful of people.

In Canada they had an election with 14 million voters casting paper ballots which were all hand counted within 4 hours of the polls closing.

I am sick of hearing that we need machines!

The counting of the votes should be televised in real time and the counting should also be publicly witnessed with totals presented to the public before they are turned in to election centrals.

I am sick of hearing....

Oh, I already said that.

[Bill Bored]

28. I posted on your thread on the Voting Issues Forum. And kick! nt