|
They are going after registration systems as a way of holding down the Democratic vote. They want
From SECURING THE INTEGRITY OF AMERICAN ELECTIONS: THE NEED FOR CHANGE Texas Review of Law & Politics, Vol. 9, Issue. 2, p 277 04-01-2005 By Anonymous
In addition to the changes noted above that could be implemented either by states or at the federal level through changes in HAVA, there are several recommended changes that can only be done at the federal level. HAVA should also be amended to:
* State unequivocally that there is no private nght of action under HAVA or any other federal statute such as § 1983. As discussed, HAVA required states to implement comprehensive administrative complaint procedures and it gave enforcement authority to the U.S. Department of Justice.90 The debates in Congress during HAVA's passage make it clear that Congress did not intend to create a private right of action to enforce HAVA. HAVA should be clarified by Congress to make it explicit that the administrative complaint procedures are the exclusive venue for individuals who have complaints about a state's compliance with its provisions.
* State unambiguously that the provisional balloting requirements of § 15482 do not require states to count the ballots of individuals who cast votes in any precinct other than the precinct to which they are assigned based on their residence address. Additionally, it should be made clear that individuals who are provided provisional ballots as required under HAVA when they do not present identification either at the time of registration or when they vote cannot have their provisional ballot counted for any federal candidates unless the voter complies with the identification requirement prior to some period of time after the election.
* Make clear that if an individual does not answer the citizenship question on the federal voter registration form mandated by § 15483(b), he cannot be registered to vote for a federal election.
* Require all federal courts to notify state election officials when individuals whose names are drawn from their registration rolls are excused from jury duty because they claim they are not U.S. citizens. This would be similar to a provision that already exists in section 6(g) of the NVRA91 that requires all U.S. Attorneys to notify state election officials when they obtain a conviction of an individual for a felony in a federal district court. This is intended to provide election officials with the opportunity to remove a felon from the voting rolls if their state provides such a disqualification.
* Amend the NVRA to allow states to purge individuals who have not voted in two federal elections as long as they have been sent a written notice warning them that they will be removed unless they contact election officials within a certain period of time. This would change an unworkable and impractical provision in the NVRA that has single-handedly been responsible for padding voter registration rolls with huge numbers of ineligible voters and preventing states from properly purging their registration lists. It should also be clear in this change that, unlike the current requirements of the NVRA, this notice does not have to be sent out prior to the individual not voting twice; as long as the individual has not voted in two federal elections, the states should be able to remove the voter once they have sent out the written notice and there has been no response from the individual by the deadline.
|