HAVA or HAVA not?

In the wake of the disconcerting 2000 presidential contest in Florida, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002.

HAVA is intended “to provide funds to States to replace punch card voting systems, to establish the Election Assistance Commission to assist in the administration of Federal elections and to otherwise provide assistance with the administration of certain Federal election laws.” But at this writing, the new Election Assistance Commission Standards Board, which is charged with producing new guidelines, has held only one hearing.

The law requires that most punch-card and lever-type machines be replaced in time for the 2004 general election and that all punch-card and lever-type machines be replaced by the time the first elections are held after Jan. 1, 2006. Federal funding will cover a substantial portion of the cost.

The law’s most controversial element is that it encourages states to screen voter-registration lists without imposing controls on how this is done.

In 2000, Florida Secretary of State Kathryn Harris — who was also George Bush’s Florida campaign manager and is now a congressional representative — contracted with a private company to purge registration lists of convicted felons (who are ineligible to vote in that state). The method used was extremely inaccurate, yet neither the state nor the company tried to verify the accuracy of the resulting list. A post-election study by Harvard University established that 90-95 percent of those denied their right to vote under this system — as many as 55,000 people — were not felons. The majority of those excluded were black voters. Ninety percent of black voters pulled the lever for Gore in the Florida race, and Harvard estimated that the purge cost Al Gore 22,000 votes — in an election that was decided by less than 550.

HAVA actually requires states to create the electronic databases that make such screening possible and empowers the states to screen their lists.

Johnnie McLean, deputy director of the N.C. State Board of Elections, told Xpress that North Carolina won’t undertake such screening because state law already stipulates how felons’ voting rights are to be revoked and verified on a case-by-case basis.

— Cecil Bothwell

SHARE
About Cecil Bothwell
A writer for Mountain Xpress since three years before there WAS an MX--back in the days of GreenLine. Former managing editor of the paper, founding editor of the Warren Wilson College environmental journal, Heartstone, member of the national editorial board of the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, publisher of Brave Ulysses Books, radio host of "Blows Against the Empire" on WPVM-LP 103.5 FM, co-author of the best selling guide Finding your way in Asheville. Lives with three cats, macs and cacti. His other car is a canoe. Paints, plays music and for the past five years has been researching and soon to publish a critical biography--Billy Graham: Prince of War:

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.