|
|
|||||||||
Home / News / Press Releases
/ Testimony
/ Legislation
/ On the Issues
/ Newsletter
/ Resources /
|
|||||||||
|
|
Testimony Of State Senator Liz Krueger Before The
New York State Board Of Elections Regarding
Implementation Of
The Help
America Vote Act (HAVA) July 10, 2003
Good morning, I am State Senator
Liz Krueger, representing the 26th Senatorial District in
Manhattan. I am here today to address
a number of concerns I have regarding the Draft State Implementation Plan for
the Help America Vote Act. My primary
concern with the draft plan is that it is unnecessarily vague. This is particularly troubling because it
limits the ability of the public to participate in a meaningful way in the
decisionmaking process, and instead leaves most of the key decisions
regarding HAVA implementation to the discretion of the New York State Board
of Elections. This is troubling both
because it violates the spirit of HAVA, and because it creates the appearance
that HAVA will not be implemented through a process of meaningful public
deliberation. I therefore urge the
Task Force to make specific recommendations in the final draft of the State
Implementation Plan, so that a real public review process can occur. I will now discuss some of the areas that
should be addressed in the Draft Plan. One of the major deficiencies in
the draft plan is the lack of details as to how the voting system guidelines
in HAVA will be implemented. The plan
indicates that “the State Board will develop, in consultation with county
election officials, strategies for the purchase and statewide implementation
of new election day voting systems which are HAVA compliant,” but offers no
details beyond this as to what these strategies will be, and indicates no
role for the public in ensuring that the voting systems that are adopted
comply with both the letter and the spirit of HAVA. The Implementation Plan should provide a detailed description
as to how the criteria in HAVA will be implemented in New York State. Among the criteria that should be
specifically outlined in the Implementation Plan are: -
An open, competitive bid process for selection of voting
machines. In order to ensure that all
New Yorkers have access to the best available technology, a single voting
machine should be selected for the entire state, and there should be meaningful
opportunities for public comment during the selection process. -
An explicit statement on the part of the Board of Elections supporting
legislation eliminating the “full face ballot” requirement, which
significantly limits New York State’s options in selecting voting machines. The full face ballot requirement currently
results in confusing and disorganized ballots, and would effectively remove
most state of the art voting technology from consideration by New York State. -
Greater detail as to the criteria for evaluating competing voting
systems compliance with requirements for maximum accessibility for people
with disabilities. The plan should
specify what types of equipment will be required to improve accessibility,
such as human voice audio voting, handheld voting devices, and sip and puff
voting technology. The plan should
also make clear that new voting technology must protect the privacy and
independence of voters with disabilities.
The plan should provide for ongoing participation by the disability
community in the selection and evaluation of new voting technology. Finally, because HAVA does not define
disability, the plan should specifically indicate that the state board will
apply the broader definition of disability included in the New York State
Human Rights Law to determine who is covered by the disability rights
mandates of HAVA. -
A recognition that the diverse language communities of New York State
require expanding language assistance beyond the minimum requirements of the
Voting Rights Act. Furthermore, the
plan should recognize the glaring inadequacies in current services for
language minorities, including consistent problems with the provision of
interpreters at pollsites, mistranslated election materials, and pollworkers
who lack adequate training to assist voters with limited proficiency in
English. -
A clear statement that new voting systems must be capable of producing
a voter-verified paper audit trail, to ensure the maximum possible level of
verifiability of electronic election counts. -
A requirement that all technology considered by the state be subject
to a full review by state and independent experts. Just one breach of computer security could undermine voters’
faith in the democratic electoral process.
In order to protect the integrity of the voting process, the hardware,
software and source code of the state’s voting system must be subject to
independent verification. I am also concerned that the
Draft Plan is not specific enough with regards to how it will minimize the
effects of antidemocratic identification requirements included in HAVA. The board should establish a broad and
exhaustive list of acceptable forms of identification and ensure that all
board officials and election day workers are fully educated regarding these
acceptable forms of identification.
This is particularly important in New York City, where many people do
not have driver’s licenses and other more traditional forms of
identification. The draft plan should also
address flaws in New York State’s current provisional voting system. HAVA provides that voters who feel they
are eligible to vote, but who are not cleared to vote by election officials,
may cast a provisional vote, which will be counted according to procedures
set by the state. Current New York state law governing the counting of
provisional votes is impossibly stringent: provisional votes are counted only
if voters are at their exact polling sites and election districts and
if there are no stray marks on the envelope. The task force should recommend
to the State Legislature that these unduly burdensome requirements be
removed. Current provisional voting standards will disenfranchise many
eligible voters simply because they are voting at the wrong polling site or
election district. It imposes an unnecessary double standard on provisional
voters—many of whom are immigrants or first-time voters who are unfamiliar
with the administrative procedures governing elections. Another issue of concerns is that
the state’s implementation plan makes no mention of testing requirements for
election workers. Statewide uniform testing will be particularly important as
electronic systems replace more traditional machines. Election workers must
demonstrate their proficiency with new voting systems before Election Day, in
order to ensure that workers have gained sufficient knowledge to use the new
voting machines. In addition, the draft
implementation plan mentions a voter bill of rights, but offers little
explanation as to what rights would be included, or what public review
process there would be for the voter bill of rights. Determining the details
of such an important document must be an open process, and the failure to
provide those details in the draft plan once again creates the likelihood that
opportunities for public participation in the drafting of the voter bill of
rights will be severely limited. It is clear that much remains to
be done to ensure that New York State uses the opportunities presented by
HAVA to develop the best voting system possible for the state. I fear that the draft implementation plan
squanders that opportunity, by avoiding many of the issues that must be
addressed in order to improve our election system. I urge the Board to correct these deficiencies immediately so
that there is still an opportunity for the public to have a meaningful role
in this process. If the Board does
not allow for such participation, they will undermine the legitimacy of the
electoral process in the eyes of the voters. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify before you today. |
|||||||
