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.
challenges, rules governing <strong>the</strong> challenge process<br />
should be very clear and procedural safeguards should<br />
be in place.<br />
As a general recommend<strong>at</strong>ion, challenges<br />
should not be allowed on Election Day. If <strong>the</strong>y are,<br />
<strong>the</strong>n ideally, only elections officials should have<br />
<strong>the</strong> authority to challenge a voter’s eligibility. Any<br />
challenge should be in writing and include <strong>the</strong> basis for<br />
<strong>the</strong> challenge and <strong>the</strong> facts supporting <strong>the</strong> challenge.<br />
St<strong>at</strong>es should also require some documentary evidence<br />
supporting <strong>the</strong> challenge as well. At minimum, <strong>the</strong>re<br />
should be a standard requiring <strong>the</strong> challenger to<br />
have personal knowledge of <strong>the</strong> facts upon which <strong>the</strong><br />
challenge is being made. Properly implemented, this<br />
requirement would prevent wholesale voter challenges<br />
based on specul<strong>at</strong>ion or possibly incorrect lists. A<br />
challenger should have to sign an o<strong>at</strong>h under penalty<br />
of perjury, which will deter frivolous or ill-intentioned<br />
efforts. The grounds for challenge should be limited to<br />
citizenship, residency, identity, and age. There should<br />
be a penalty for filing a frivolous challenge.<br />
Procedurally, <strong>the</strong> burden of proof must be<br />
on <strong>the</strong> challenger to show by clear and convincing<br />
evidence th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> person challenged is ineligible to vote.<br />
The benefit of <strong>the</strong> doubt must go to <strong>the</strong> duly registered<br />
voter. This is very important – it should be <strong>the</strong> person<br />
doing <strong>the</strong> challenging who must prove th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> voter<br />
is ineligible, not <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r way around. The challenged<br />
voter should be able to vote a regular ballot if she<br />
answers <strong>the</strong> poll workers questions regarding eligibility<br />
or signs an affidavit affirming her eligibility. Returned<br />
mail should not be considered prima facie evidence to<br />
sustain a challenge. Provisional ballots should not be<br />
deemed an adequ<strong>at</strong>e substitute for casting a regular<br />
ballot if a challenge is not supported by personal<br />
knowledge, evidence, and a process th<strong>at</strong> provides full<br />
protection to duly registered voters.<br />
St<strong>at</strong>es should adopt laws th<strong>at</strong> protect voters<br />
from inappropri<strong>at</strong>e behavior by poll w<strong>at</strong>chers. Poll<br />
w<strong>at</strong>chers should be prohibited from communic<strong>at</strong>ing<br />
with voters. They should not be allowed to videotape<br />
or photograph voters. The privacy of voters should<br />
be protected by prohibiting poll w<strong>at</strong>chers from<br />
w<strong>at</strong>ching voters vote. Under no circumstance should<br />
a poll w<strong>at</strong>cher be able to observe a voter’s ballot. Poll<br />
w<strong>at</strong>chers should not impede <strong>the</strong> voting process or<br />
interfere or communic<strong>at</strong>e with or observe any voter<br />
casting a ballot. Because rules around poll w<strong>at</strong>chers do<br />
not afford enough protections against inappropri<strong>at</strong>e<br />
behavior, only eligible voters in <strong>the</strong> same precinct<br />
should be able to serve as poll w<strong>at</strong>chers in th<strong>at</strong> district.<br />
Whe<strong>the</strong>r individuals are design<strong>at</strong>ed as<br />
challengers, poll w<strong>at</strong>chers, or poll observers, elections<br />
officials should have st<strong>at</strong>utory authority to eject anyone<br />
interfering with <strong>the</strong> orderly conduct of elections.<br />
September 2012 | <strong>Bullies</strong> <strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Ballot</strong> <strong>Box</strong> • 27