Sen. Hillary Clinton's floor statement on the Need for Voting Reform to Protect our Democracy

U.S. Senate ^ | January 6, 2005 | Hillary Clinton

[remember]

You seem to not fully understand that every single district in the nation is allowed to have both Democrat and Republican input into the number of voting booths and who will man them.

Some districts are so heavily weighted by one party that the other party opts out. Your main point that the system needs to be protected against partisan actions is invalid. Both parties ARE permitted to make major decisions as pointed out above. That both parties don't choose to be involved in every district in no way supports your post.

Both parties have input into the number of voting booths in every district in the nation? Do you have a source for that? From what I've read, the voting machines tend to be allocated at a higher level. For example, the following excerpt of a New York Times article seems to imply that Ohio allocates its machines on a county basis:

In Columbus, Franklin County election officials reduced the number of electronic voting machines assigned to downtown precincts and added them in the suburbs. They used a formula based not on the number of registered voters, but on past turnout in each precinct and on the number of so-called active voters - a smaller universe. By contrast, the state's most populous county, Cuyahoga, allocated machines based on the total number of voters, a move that the county's election director, Michael Vu, said helped stave off even bigger lines. In the Columbus area, the result was that suburban precincts that supported Mr. Bush tended to have more machines per registered voter than center-city precincts that supported Mr. Kerry - 4.6 machines per 1,000 voters in Mr. Bush's 50 strongest precincts, compared with 3.9 in Mr. Kerry's 50 best.

In any case, both parties "having input" does not guarantee a fair election. Senior election officials can have undue influence in the way that they interpret state and federal election law. The following excerpt is from Senator Tom Harkin's website:

“What we saw in Ohio was a concerted effort by an official, the Secretary of State, to try to minimize the ability of Ohioans to cast their vote. The Secretary of State was also the Chairman of the Ohio Bush re-election campaign. For example, in the weeks leading up to the election, the Secretary of State of Ohio tried to argue that thousands should be denied the right to vote because the forms they used to register were printed on the wrong weight of paper. “The Secretary of State also argued that absentee voters who had not received their ballots should not be allowed to vote, another concerted effort to suppress votes.

I have no idea if these charges are valid or whether Democratic election officials committed worse abuses of power. However, there does seem to be agreement that some voters had to wait upwards of five hours to vote. Do you not agree that that is a problem that needs to be fixed?

And from your snotty tone, I shall assume you are a Democrat and a disruptor. Noted.

And from your holier-than-thou tone, I shall assume that you are a right-winger who jumps to conclusions. The fact is, I'm an Independent. So I hope that we can get past our faulty assumptions and stick with the facts.

[Peach]

Your original post assumed I'm a Republican and with your snotty tone, I have no problem assuming what you are either. So don't make assumptions yourself if you don't want others doing the same.

Every voting district in the nation takes input from both parties IF both parties want to provide input. Some districts are so heavily slanted in favor of one party that the other party opts out of even asking for volunteers to man the booths.

For example, my husband is a poll manager in a 75% Republican district. Every single one of his volunteers is Republican, based on conversations with them. Every election cycle, Democrats are invited to give input into the number of machines, number of poll booth workers, etc. In 7 years, not one Democrat has shown up.

[remember]

Your original post assumed I'm a Republican and with your snotty tone, I have no problem assuming what you are either. So don't make assumptions yourself if you don't want others doing the same.

I said "For example, I'll assume that you voted Republican" so as to present an example. I had actually thought about using the phrases "Party A" and "Party B" but decided that would be too confusing.

In any case, if you insist on continuing to use the word "snotty", you need to tell me what exactly I said that you found so snotty. I can only guess that it was my first sentence, "Yes, I'm sure that you and everyone you know would have stood in line for eight hours, if necessary, to do your civic duty". That was in response to your remark that "National elections occur once every four years. If a voter is so uninterested in the process that standing in line for over an hour is just too strenuous, I would argue that we do not need that person's vote". That had struck me as somewhat elitist.

It's possible that our disagreement is simply over time. In another message, I conceded that a one-hour wait at a popular time of day may be unavoidable. However, I think that a wait of upwards of five hours, as was reported at many places in Ohio, indicates a problem that needs to be addressed. Do you not agree about that? If not, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.