|
|
Effect
of House Bill 3
House Bill 3, enacted
January 31, 2006, and effective May 1 and June 1, 2006, rewrote major
aspects of Ohio election law. Its proponents say it will reduce
fraudulent voting, citing four instances of fraudulent voter
registrations in 2004 (though no documented instances of actual
fraudulent voting). Opponents warn that it will suppress voter
registration and voting by under-represented populations, will cause
confusion for poll workers and voters, and is already causing
confusion for Boards of Elections and registration drives.
While it is extremely difficult
to get clear interpretations of the new law, some the changes it will
impose include:
Restrictions on petitions
Limiting access to the ballot is
one way of disenfranchising voting.
-
HB
3 requires that write-in candidates file at least 62 days before
Election Day. Since absentee ballots are not ready until 35 days
before Election Day, and ballots do not have to be prepared with a
write-in candidate’s name printed on them, it is hard to see any
justification for this, other than to discourage write-in
candidates.
-
Ex-felons
may not circulate petitions.
-
Circulators
of petitions must be registered Ohio voters.
-
There
can only be one proposal on a petition.
-
Voters
with disabilities may have to use an "attorney in fact" to
sign a petition.
Restrictions on registration
HB 3 identification requirements
for registering are stricter than those required for the Help
America Vote Act (HAVA). But the really serious restrictions are
being placed on those individuals who help people become registered
to vote.
-
If
the registrar is being paid, even if registration is a minor part of
the job, that person must go online, register with the Secretary of
State, complete an online training program and complete and return
an affirmation form. The registrar must fill in name, address and
employer on each registration form he or she assists with, and must
return the completed registration forms personally (in person or by
mail) directly to a county Board of Elections or to the Secretary of
State. Registrars are not allowed to return the completed
forms to an organization for checking and forwarding to the proper
officials. Overlooking any of these requirements can result in
criminal penalties.
-
Unpaid
volunteer registrars do not take the training or sign registration
forms, but the direct delivery may still apply.
-
Employees
of designated agencies are exempted from these requirements.
-
Ex-felons
are forbidden to be registrars.
-
Appropriately,
all completed registrations must be sent to a Board of Elections or
the Secretary of State within 10 days of completion or before the
registration deadline, whichever is earlier.
Restrictions on voting
Voters will find it much more
likely that they will vote a provisional ballot instead of a regular
ballot in 2006. A regular ballot is automatically a valid ballot and
will be counted; a provisional ballot is counted only after the
voter’s eligibility has been validated.
-
All
voters must produce an identification document before they are
allowed to vote. If proper ID is not shown, the voter must vote a
provisional ballot.
-
Any
voter who has changed their name and not filed a change of name must
vote provisionally, even if they are still in the same precinct and
in the poll book.
-
Any
voter may be challenged by a poll worker for a number of reasons and
may be given only a provisional ballot.
-
The
use of satellite offices of the Board of Elections for absentee
voting is severely restricted.
-
Boards
are restricted in their ability to provide "ballots on demand,"
even if needed on Election Day.
-
"Harassment"
of voters is prohibited, but is not defined.
-
Ballots
cast in a precinct other than the voter’s home precinct will be
considered as voted in the wrong "jurisdiction," and will
not be counted, even though the NVRA considers "jurisdiction"
to refer to the county, not the precinct.
-
Greatly
increased requirements for using provisional ballots will slow the
voting process and will increase the administrative burden on poll
workers and Boards of Elections.
-
Voters
with disabilities may be forced to obtain an "attorney in fact"
instead of using the assistance and adaptive devices that are
available.
Restrictions on
recounts/challenges
If anyone suspects that something
was done improperly in the conduct of an election, House Bill 3 will
make it more difficult to get a hearing.
-
If
a losing candidate requests a recount, the amount of the required
deposit has been increased from $10 per precinct to $50 per
precinct.
-
The
requirement that a random sample of ballots be hand counted to check
the accuracy of the voting equipment has been reinterpreted to allow
the sample to not be truly random.
-
The
requirement that the voter verified paper audit trail be used has
been removed or weakened.
-
The
law forbids contesting a federal election in state court; the
challenge may only be raised in federal court, which is more
difficult, more expensive and slower.
Missing provisions.
Many provisions that are needed
in order to have fair and efficient elections were not addressed in
HB 3 and are still missing from the election laws.
-
There
is insufficient support for Boards of Elections and poll workers
including materials, available expertise, training and back-up. One
or two hours is insufficient to train poll workers. One and a half
days of training is provided twice a year for selected Board
personnel. But this is clearly insufficient training for complex
laws and procedures.
-
Providing
voters with information is more important than ever with these new
rules and procedures. Yet it is impossible to get clear answers from
the state’s chief election officer about how to interpret these
new rules. This leaves voters in jeopardy of being disenfranchised
or accidentally doing something illegal.
-
There
is no requirement for a random hand count to assure voters,
candidates, and the media that the vote count is accurate.
-
Strict
deadlines were enacted for completing any recounts and finalizing
the official vote count, but there is no clear explanation of the
proper procedures to follow to achieve a correct count before those
deadlines.
-
There
is no clear requirement to use the voter verified paper audit trail
in a recount.
-
There
are no safeguards against improper deletions from the voter
registration database.
-
There
are no guidelines for providing voting accessibility for persons
with disabilities.
-
There
are insufficient or no security features and checks for voting
equipment, supplies and procedures.
-
There
is no enforcement process for improving Board procedures. |