Suits over voting procedures echo nation's concern on issue
By Jo Mannies
Post-Dispatch Political Correspondent
08/22/2004
 
Many react to chaos of 2000

As if being a presidential battleground weren't enough, Missouri now finds itself in the national bull's-eye over two suits aimed at changing how the state conducts this fall's election.

One seeks to allow early voting, so Missouri voters could cast ballots within the two weeks before the Nov. 2 election.

The second suit challenges a restriction in the state law governing provisional ballots, cast by people whose names don't appear on the election rolls but claim to be registered.

Although running on independent tracks, both suits are tied by their common pedigree - both were launched by Democrats - and their potential to affect which presidential candidate carries the state and wins the White House.

Missouri isn't the only state facing court action over voting procedures. Similar provisional-ballot suits have been filed in at least two other states, Florida and Nevada, and some experts predict more will follow.

"It's a national issue because the closeness of the 2000 election has caused both parties to focus on every single aspect of the electoral process," said Larry Sabato, head of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

In Missouri, state Republican Party spokesman Paul Sloca blasts both suits as "attacks (on) Missouri's election system" and improper challenges to Republican Matt Blunt's "constitutional authority as secretary of state."

But national Republicans are less combative - largely because the GOP governs several states that already have the early-voting and provisional-ballot laws that Democrats seek in Missouri.

"Our supporters are working hard to ensure Missouri's 11 electoral votes remain in the president's column. The Bush campaign will abide by decisions made in the state," said regional Bush campaign spokesman Danny Diaz.

National Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe, campaigning Friday in St. Louis, linked the suits to the party's aim in Missouri and nationally to avoid a replay of election night in November 2000.

In St. Louis, confusion over voter-registration lists kept hundreds of would-be voters from casting ballots - prompting a post-election investigation by the federal Justice Department and a lawsuit.

McAuliffe asserted that the problems that night in Missouri and several other states primarily affected urban, minority voters. "I want to make sure we do not have the active disenfranchisement of people of color," he said.

Meanwhile, Sabato disputes the notion that early voting and provisional ballots primarily aid Democratic voters. In the case of early voting, in particular, "it favors the better-organized side," he said. And that may vary, depending on the state, Sabato added.

In Missouri, the debate over both suits could affect the contest to elect Blunt's successor - Republican candidate Catherine Hanaway, who agrees with his positions, and Democratic candidate Robin Carnahan, who shares her party's general objectives.

Early voting

At least 29 states already allow early voting, although the procedures vary, says the National Association of Secretaries of State.

St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay and U.S. Rep. William Lacy Clay Jr. contend that Missouri law also allows early voting. They filed suit when Blunt ruled that the state law simply laid out planning procedures for it.

Slay's chief of staff, Jeff Rainford, said their suit is simply seeking to allow voters anywhere in the state to cast a "no-fault absentee ballot" during a specified period before the Nov. 2 election.

Among those challenging the suit is rural Laclede County, where election authorities say early voting would illegally increase their costs, in violation of the state's Hancock Amendment. Rainford argues that their plan would keep costs down.

The first major hearing will be held Thursday before Judge Rich Callahan in Cole County.

Doug Chapin, director of the nonpartisan Election Reform Information Project, calls early voting "a growing phenomenon" that may not increase turnout as much as advocates claim.

"Campaigns like early voting because it enables them to identify supporters early and get them to vote," Chapin said. "They then spend their scarce resources on the 'persuadables'" and undecided voters, who can make the difference in a close contest.

But on the down side, Chapin said, early voting "makes voters unable to respond (at the polls) to late-breaking developments," such as a campaign scandal, a candidate's death, or a terrorist attack.

Provisional ballots

Under the federal Help America Vote Act, all states must allow provisional ballots on Election Day, when a would-be voter's eligibility is immediately in doubt. The vote isn't counted unless the voter later is deemed to be registered.

But the provisional-ballot laws vary widely, prompting suits in Missouri and elsewhere that contend that the state law violates the federal mandate.

At issue in Missouri's suit is the state law's mandate that such ballots be thrown out if a voter ended up casting a ballot in the wrong polling place. The suit's backers say that rule violates federal law and runs counter to the reasons why a person files a provisional ballot to begin with.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Richard E. Dorr ruled against an effort by five Missouri residents, represented by prominent Republican lawyer Thor Hearne, to join the suit on Blunt's behalf.

Among those watching both suits closely are Missouri activists tied to two independent pro-Democratic groups, America Coming Together and MoveOn.org. Both are conducting massive voter-registration and get-out-the-vote efforts in key states, including Missouri. Both expect to help voters take advantage of early voting and provisional ballots whenever possible