Bullies at the Ballot Box - Demos
Bullies at the Ballot Box - Demos
Bullies at the Ballot Box - Demos
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
eCommend<strong>at</strong>IonS For<br />
addreSSIng CagIng<br />
& Pre-eleCtIon day ChallengeS<br />
Pre-Election Day challenges are rife with opportunities<br />
for mischief th<strong>at</strong> will disenfranchise voters. St<strong>at</strong>es<br />
considering an overhaul to <strong>the</strong>ir pre-Election Day<br />
challenge regimes should require <strong>the</strong> challenger<br />
to maintain <strong>the</strong> burden of proof throughout any<br />
administr<strong>at</strong>ive hearing process and should require <strong>the</strong><br />
challenger to provide documentary evidence supporting<br />
<strong>the</strong> specific grounds for challenge. Such challenges<br />
should be based on first-hand personal knowledge<br />
and be written sworn st<strong>at</strong>ements. Making frivolous<br />
challenges should be a misdemeanor, and a voter<br />
should only be able to challenge <strong>the</strong> rights of ano<strong>the</strong>r<br />
voter registered in <strong>the</strong> same precinct.<br />
Moreover, jurisdictions should consider<br />
requiring “preliminary” reviews of challenges<br />
to determine if a hearing is even required. Most<br />
jurisdictions appear to require autom<strong>at</strong>ic hearings<br />
when challenges are filed with no requirement to<br />
conduct a cursory review of a challenge to determine<br />
if it is with merit before scheduling a hearing. In o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
words, <strong>the</strong> grounds for challenge must be plausible<br />
before a hearing takes place and election officials<br />
should be granted <strong>the</strong> discretion to determine when a<br />
hearing appears warranted.<br />
Jurisdictions should also require challenges<br />
to be filed within a specific period of time before an<br />
election, such as 60 or more days before an election.<br />
This will ensure th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> administr<strong>at</strong>ive burdens of<br />
challenge hearings are not arduous and will lead to <strong>the</strong><br />
orderly administr<strong>at</strong>ion of <strong>the</strong> election. The immedi<strong>at</strong>e<br />
run-up to an election is fertile grounds for deceptive<br />
election practices th<strong>at</strong> aim to confuse voters about <strong>the</strong><br />
time, place, manner, or qualific<strong>at</strong>ions of voting, and<br />
election officials must have <strong>the</strong> resources and capability<br />
to respond to those sorts of activities without being<br />
distracted by str<strong>at</strong>egically timed mass voter challenges.<br />
Finally, voters should be given an opportunity<br />
to appear <strong>at</strong> a hearing before <strong>the</strong>ir registr<strong>at</strong>ion is<br />
cancelled. Voters should also have <strong>the</strong> opportunity to<br />
vote regular or provisional ballots if failure to appear<br />
<strong>at</strong> a hearing results in autom<strong>at</strong>ic cancell<strong>at</strong>ion of<br />
registr<strong>at</strong>ion and an opportunity to cure a challenge<br />
<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> polls. Returned mail should not be considered<br />
prima facie evidence to sustain a challenge.<br />
September 2012 | <strong>Bullies</strong> <strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Ballot</strong> <strong>Box</strong> • 17