Forum Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Forum Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Forum Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Forum Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with: 
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| (WI) 9/08 - State: Requirement for ma... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 9699
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 9:49 pm: | 
|
Brennan Center for Justice - Sept. 8, 2008, by Adam Skaggs
http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives/no_match_dropped_after_4_of_6_judges_ fail/#When:19:02:00Z
“No Match” Dropped After 4 of 6 Judges Fail
When Wisconsin considered preventing voters from casting regular ballots if the state didn't find a "complete match" of the voter's data in the motor vehicle or Social Security database and the voter didn't have acceptable proof of residence at the polls, we warned them it was a bad idea. As we explained, it's bad policy to make a complete "HAVA match" a precondition to voting a regular ballot, because matching voter data fails from 20-30% of the time.
We were right: the initial results from Wisconsin showed a match failure rate of 22%. That is, nearly 1 in 4 voters weren't successfully "matched" with other government data—not because they weren't eligible to vote, but because of typos, missed middle initials, and other minor problems.
Thankfully, Wisconsin heard the message and rejected the proposed matching rule.
The latest news confirms just how right that decision was. As a test, Wisconsin took the voter registration records of the six retired judges who serve on the Government Accountability Board—the body that oversees elections—and ran them through the "HAVA match" process. The result? Four of the six judges didn't match.
As Nat Robinson, director of the GAB's election division, noted, "This is significant because two-thirds of the GAB, made up of long-time voters and well-respected former judges, could have been forced to vote on provisional ballots."
It's hard to imagine anyone arguing with a straight face that, if the integrity of Wisconsin's elections is to be protected, four of the six judges who oversee those elections can't be trusted to vote a regular ballot. But, in effect, that's the message of those who are saying that un-matched voters should have to vote provisional ballots.
It's a good thing—for the judges themselves and for the voters of Wisconsin—that the GAB didn't listen. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 5261
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 3:30 am: |
|
What a great example, with excellent results. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 5262
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 3:31 am: |
|
This article could be cross-posted so it's seen not just in the WI forum. It's really important. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 9714
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 9:08 am: |
|
Yes indeed - it's front-paged and will be going into a lead story today. I have my fingers crossed that we have all the infrastructure in now to let me do daily lead stories. |
|
|
