Photo ID: Religious Objectors

SB280 is an interesting photo identification bill, not because of its purpose (bills have been introduced in the past to require photo ID before voting) but rather because of some of the specific language in the bill.

As I've written elsewhere, I am not sure that Alabama needs a photo ID law for voting purposes. As others have noted, we have no reason to believe that there is a compelling need for such a requirement.

However, even if one agrees with the need for such a law, the bill has some strange language regarding people who have a "genuine religious objection" to being photographed. The strange thing isn't that the bill acknowledges that some people do in fact have a genuine religious exception to being photographed. What is strange is that the bill would have these individuals vote by provisional ballot without providing any procedure for actually counting the ballot.

Election law now states that anyone required to present ID and who cannot do so may cast a provisional ballot. However, for the ballot to be counted, the voter must present ID to the Board of Registrars no later than the Friday after election day. If ID is not presented to the Registrars by the deadline, the ballot will not be counted.

Under current law then, the religious objector will be permitted to vote by provisional ballot but, in the end, the ballot will not count.

The bill ought to provide some meaningful option to the religious objector (an uncounted ballot and the wasted time filling out provisional ballot paperwork are not meaningful), otherwise the language in the bill acknowledging their objection serves no useful purpose.

Voter Lists: Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence

HB333, sponsored by Representatives Jimmy Martin and Cam Ward, has cleared a committee in the Alabama House of Representatives and is awaiting floor action. It provides that neither the Secretary of State nor the county Board of Registrars may release a voter's residential address on a voter list if the voter submits an affidavit stating that he or she is a victim of domestic violence or has custody of a minor who has been a victim of domestic violence.

Overall, it's a good bill. Anyone who has been the victim of domestic violence should not have to compromise her personal safety in order to register to vote. Under current law, she has to do just that. State law requires the Secretary of State to sell a voter's information, including the home address of a voter, to anyone who makes application for the data. It also requires the county Boards of Registrars and the Judges of Probate to release that information to political party organizations. It is fair and just to carve out an exception in the law to protect victims of domestic violence.

While the bill is good, it is not the best bill it can be. As I've written elsewhere, I think all registered voters should have the statutory right to prevent election officials from selling information from their voter registration record.

Even if we agree that only narrow exceptions should be made in the law and the privacy of only well-defined categories of voters should be protected, this bill has a few gaps, gaps which could lead to a false sense of security on the part of voters whom the bill seeks to protect.

The bill addresses only those voter lists released by the Secretary of State and county Boards of Registrars. It does not address lists provided by the county Judges of Probate to political parties. It also does not address municipal polls lists which are public record once compiled by the city or town clerk.

In either of these cases, once the list is released, there is no way to control access to the residential information of particular voters.

This bill should be amended to ensure that the addresses of victims of domestic violence are excluded from lists distributed by any election official.

Election Reform Essay

Today, The Birmingham News printed my latest essay about election reform in Alabama.

You can read it here.

Order of Court of Criminal Appeals, State v Worley

I have obtained a copy of the order of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals in which the Court reinstates felony charges against Nancy Worley.

You can read it here.

Court Reinstates Felony Charges against Worley

The Associated Press reports that the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reinstated felony charges today against former Secretary of State Nancy Worley. The charges resulted from an investigation launched by Attorney General Troy King after I submitted a complaint regarding Worley's solicitation of campaign contributions from employees of the Secretary of State's office.

You can read the full complaint here. You can read the order of the Court of Criminal Appeals here.

While some people have suggested that it should not be illegal for elected officials to solicit contributions from the individuals who work for them - or at least not a crime that law enforcement should pursue - the point remains that such solicitation is illegal pursuant to §17-17-5:

It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee to solicit any type of political campaign contributions from other employees who work for the officer or employee in a subordinate capacity.

Additionally, the Montgomery County Grand Jury also found cause for charging Worley with violating §17-17-4, the felony charge reinstated by the Court of Criminal Appeals:

Any person who attempts to use his or her official authority or position for the purpose of influencing the vote or political action of any person shall be guilty, upon conviction, of a Class C felony.

First Semester Round-Up

We are a month into the second semester of 2009, so I thought maybe it was time I made a few comments on the first.

Electronic Absentee Voting

The Alabama Legislature missed a wonderful opportunity to finally provide some voting assistance to Alabamians who are overseas, be they members of the military, military dependents, missionaries or other citizens living in a foreign country. Passage of the bill to allow the Secretary of State to proceed with a system of electronic voting for these individuals was within reach during the regular session of the Legislature. Both the Senate and House of Representatives passed their own versions of the bill. The only hurdle was to reconcile the two. The difference to be resolved: the Senate version included language from Senator Roger Bedford that would have prohibited candidates from transferring money from federal candidate campaign committees to state campaign committees.
Bedford said he thinks that "you should not allow special interest money from Washington to affect state races". However, he did not explain why, if this issue was so important, the ban was not introduced earlier in the session and in the form of its own bill.

Intentional or not, the Bedford language served as a poison pill to kill the electronic voting bill. What is not clear is whether Bedford (and perhaps other members of the Senate) wanted to kill the electronic voting bill or whether other motives were at play. Either way, Alabama lost a prime opportunity to finally assist a vast array of Alabama voters who live and work in foreign countries.

The Supreme Court and the Voting Rights Act

The U.S. Supreme Court took up a challenge to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Specifically at issue was "preclearance", the requirement that covered jurisdictions (such as Alabama) must submit any change in election procedures to the U.S. Department of Justice for review and approval. If the Justice Department does not grant preclearance, a covered jurisdiction cannot implement the change unless it gets approval from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

In the case Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, the Justices did not specifcially address the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act's preclearance requirements. They more narrowly ruled that the utility district has the right to exercise the Act's "bail out" provision and request that it be relieved of preclearance responsibilities. The Act permits covered jurisdictions to "bail out" if they can show they meet certain standards regarding voting rights.

However, the Justices also noted that America in the 21st century is not the America as it existed leading up to passage of the Voting Rights Act. It appears from the language of the Court's opinion that they are interested in seeing 1) how the bail out provision is applied and 2) whether it provides substantive relief for those jurisdictions that no longer practice systemic racial discrimination in the voting process.

The path laid out by the Court seems like a fruitful one to explore. For jurisdictions that have made a concerted effort to hold free and fair elections for all of their citizens, it is only right to commend their progress and relieve them of the preclearance procedures. For those jurisdictions that continue to discriminate by race, it is only right for the Department of Justice to continue its oversight.

Joke the Vote

I took quite a bit of time away from blogging, due to other priorities in life. Now, though, seems like as good a time as any to begin writing again.

First up ... the controversy over the use of the Great Seal of Alabama in north Alabama last week.

In summary, a radio show host mentioned on his show and published on his web site a bogus press release regarding the special Senate District 7 election held this past Tuesday. The press release stated that due to an expected high voter turnout, one candidate's supporters should appear at the polls on Tuesday, June 9th (the actual election day) while the other candidate's supporters should appear at the polls on Wednesday, June 10th.

Much has been said about whether the radio host was intentionally attempting to supress voter turnout and whether or not he violated state law through his misuse of the Great Seal. Some have alleged that the State of Alabama overreacted when Secretary of State Beth Chapman issued an advisory clarifying that the time period for voting had not changed. Further, some believe that the Alabama Attorney General nor the U.S. Department of Justice should investigate, much less prosecute, what may have been a violation of state and federal law, claiming that the bogus release was merely a joke and within the bounds of acceptable satire - and should have been recognized as such by the voting public.

I will leave speculation that the radio host violated state or federal law to others who are better equipped to make that decision. However, as an election administrator, I think the radio host committed a grave error in judgement in fashioning an elections document that included the Great Seal - apparently with the goal of increasing the likelihood that the document would appear authentic.

Election officials strive to ensure that voters are provided the best information possible on election procedures. When there is a gap in knowledge or understanding, problems arise that can affect a person's ability to cast her ballot in a way that is legal and effectively represents her choices.

Elections are an important mechanism in legitimizing the government that sets the rules by which we must all live. They are so important that individuals should think twice before spreading what they contend are just good-humored jokes - at least when they go to such efforts to make it appear that their jokes represent official governmental policy.

A jokester should not be afforded the luxury of posing as a governmental official when his or her actions promote the purposeful distribution of false information that can lead to voter confusion - no matter how obvious the falsity is to the perpetrator and some recipients of the information.