HAVA and the states

Publius: The Journal of Federalism

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 497-514

  Liebschutz, Sarah F ^a   Palazzolo, Daniel J ^b  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 28444450168     PISSN: 00485950     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/publius/pji037     Document Type: Review

References (80)

1. The Help America Vote of 2002, 116 STAT. 1666, Public Law 107-252, 29 October 2002.
2. On this point, see Richard G. Niemi and Paul S. Herrnson, "Beyond the Butterfly: The Complexity of U.S. Ballots," Perspectives on Politics 1 (Spring 2003): 317-326.
3. See also Ann N. Crigler, Marion R. Just, and Edward J. McCaffery, eds., Rethinking the Vote: The Politics and Prospects of American Election Reform (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).
4. For inconsistent ballot designs across localities and states, see Niemi and Herrnson, "Beyond the Butterfly."
5. For effects of the butterfly ballot on voting errors in Palm Beach County, Florida, see Jonathan N. Wand, Kenneth W. Shotts, Jasjeet S. Sekhon, Walter R. Mebane Jr., Michael C. Herron, and Henry E. Brady, "The Butterfly Did It: The Aberrant Vote for Buchanan in Palm Beach County Florida," American Political Science Review 95 (December 2001): 793-810.
6. Several studies have assessed the causes and consequences of voided or residual ballots; see Stephen Ansolabehere and Charles Stewart III, "Residual Votes Attributable to Technology," Journal of Politics 67 (May 2005): 365-389;
7. Henry E. Brady, Justin Buchler, Matt Jarvis, and John McNulty, Counting All the Votes: The Performance of Voting Technology in the United States (Berkeley: Institute of Government, University of California, September 2001); http://ucdata.berkeley.edu/new_web/countingallthevotes.pdf, accessed 25 September 2005.
8. Others have examined the relationship between demographic and socioeconomic factors and the type of voting equipment voters use; see Stephen Knack and Martha Kropf, "Who Uses Inferior Voting Technology," PS: Political Science and Politics 35 (October 2002): 541-548;
9. Stephen Knack and Martha Kropf, "Voided Ballots in the 1996 Presidential Election: A County-Level Analysis," Journal of Politics 65 (August 2003): 881-897;
10. Michael Tomz and Robert P. Van Houweling, "How Does Voting Equipment Affect the Racial Gap in Voided Ballots?" American Journal of Political Science 47 (January 2003): 46-60;
11. Michael R. Alvarez, D. E. Betsy Sinclair, and Catherine H. Wilson, "Counting Ballots and the 2000 Election," Rethinking the Vote: The Politics and Prospects of American Election Reform, ed. Ann N. Crigler, Marion R. Just, and Edward J. McCaffery (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 34-50.
12. A volume of case studies considers the factors that explain the variation of election reforms adopted by the states after the 2000 election; see Daniel J. Palazzolo and James W. Ceaser, eds., Election Reform: Politics and Policy (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005).
13. The literature on policy innovation is broad and deep. For a recent review of this literature, see Frances Stokes and William D. Berry, "Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy Research," Theories of the Policy Process, ed. Paul A. Sabatier (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999), pp. 169-200.
14. The literature on intergovernmental policy implementation is similarly wide-ranging, covering many intergovernmental policy areas and approaches to analyzing the dynamics of implementation. Malcolm Goggin, Ann O'M. Bowman, James P. Lester, and Laurence J. O'Toole Jr. provide a comprehensive review in "Studying the Dynamics of Public Policy Implementation: A Third Generation Approach," Implementation and the Policy Process: Opening Up the Black Box, ed. Dennis J. Palumbo and Donald J. Calista (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1990), pp. 181-198.
15. The mandates contained in HAVA make the pattern of policy innovation essentially vertical. But the standards board and advisory board for the Election Assistance Commission under HAVA, which mainly consist of state and local officials, create the potential for horizontal diffusion of ideas and information across states and localities.
16. The reference to "focusing event" is characteristic of the crisis-induced event that can drive agenda setting. John W. Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd ed. (New York: Longman, Addison-Wesley, 2003), pp. 95-98.
17. Other sources of innovation may be elites, lessons from policies adopted in other states, competition with other states, and internal public pressure emanating from innovations in another state (Berry and Berry, "Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy Research," pp. 171-172).
18. The pattern of policy innovation with respect to election reform after the 2000 election fits a "leader-laggard model," in which one state is the "pioneer" of innovation for all other states (Berry and Berry, "Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy Research,", ibid., 176-177).
19. See Kate Rooney and Tim Story, "Recommendations for Reform," State Legislatures, January 2002; http://www.ncsl.org/programs/pubs/102elctn. htm#reform, accessed 25 September 2005.
20. National Conference of State Legislatures, "States Tackle Election Reform," 24 March 2003; http://www.ncsl.org.
21. Palazzolo and Ceaser, Election Reform: Politics and Policy.
22. Daniel J. Palazzolo, "Election Reform After the 2000 Election," Election Reform: Politics and Policy, ed. Daniel J. Palazzolo and James W. Ceaser (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005), pp. 7-13.
23. Doug Chapin and Daniel J. Palazzolo, "Beyond the End of the Beginning," Election Reform: Politics and Policy, ed. Daniel J. Palazzolo and James W. Ceaser (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005), pp. 225-231.
24. David C. Kimball, "Illinois: Ending the Gridlock," Election Reform: Politics and Policy, ed. Daniel J. Palazzolo and James W. Ceaser (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005), p. 197.
25. Glen S. Krutz, "Arizona: Concerted Effort, Gridlock, and Then Breakthrough," Election Reform: Politics and Policy, ed. Daniel J. Palazzolo and James W. Ceaser (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005), pp. 171-189;
26. Sarah F. Liebschutz, "New York: An Antiquated System Resistant to Change," Election Reform: Politics and Policy, ed. Daniel J. Palazzolo and James W. Ceaser (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005), pp. 205-221.
27. The two leaders differed over the makeup of the task force; Hasten wanted the majority of members on the task force to be Republicans; Gephardt wanted equal representation from both parties.
28. Quoted in James W. Ceaser and Andrew E. Busch, The Perfect Tie (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2001), p. 248.
29. S. 565, Title III, Section 301, 107th Cong., 1st sess., 19 March 2001; http://thomas.loc.gov.
30. Electionline.org, Election Reform 2004: What's Changed, What Hasn't and Why (Washington, DC: electionline.org, 2004), pp. 17-18.
31. The two parties had clashed before over legislation dealing with voter access. The 1993 National Voter Registration Act was delayed by partisan differences for five years until the Democrats took control of the White House and both chambers of Congress in the 1992 elections. "'Motor Voter' Enacted After 5 Years," 1993 CQ Almanac: 103rd Congress, 1st Session (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1994), pp. 199-201.
32. John Kincaid, "The State of U.S. Federalism, 2000-01: Continuity in Crisis," Publius: The Journal of Federalism 31 (Summer 2001): 11.
33. See Election Reform Information Project, What Has Changed, What Hasn't and Why: Election Reform Since November 2000 (Washington, DC: electionline.org, 2001), p. 16.
34. Martha Kropf, "Dogs and Dead People: Incremental Election Reform in Missouri," Election Reform: Politics and Policy, ed. Daniel J. Palazzolo and James W. Ceaser (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005), pp. 157-173.
35. David W. Rohde, Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), chap. 2;
36. John H. Aldrich, Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), chaps. 6 and 7.
37. Mark S. Hurwitz, Roger J. Moiles, and David W. Rohde, "Distributive and Partisan Issues in Agriculture Policy in the 104th House," American Political Science Review 95 (December 2001): 911-922.
38. The term "wake-up call" is in the title of a report on election conditions in Georgia, though the term was commonly used by election officials and legislators to describe the effect of the Florida election crisis in their states. Georgia Secretary of State, The 2000 Election: A Wake-Up Call For Reform and Change, Report to the Governor and Members of the General Assembly, January 2001; http://www.sos.state. ga.us/acrobat/elections/2000_election_report.pdf, accessed 25 September 2005.
39. Donetta Davidson, "Secretary of State Task Force to Review Election Process" (press release from the Department of State, Denver, CO, 21 December 2000); http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/ blue_ribbon/bluerib.pdf.
40. Recent studies of policy innovation find that policy ideas spread across states through professional associations and networks. See Steven Balla, "Interstate Professional Associations and the Diffusion of Policy Innovations," American Politics Research 29 (May 2001): 221-245;
41. Michael Mintrom and Sandra Vergari, "Policy Networks and Innovation Diffusion: The Case of Education Reforms," Journal of Politics 60 (February 1998): 126-148.
42. Interview with Leslie Reynolds, executive director of NASS, 28 July 2004. See also National Association of Secretaries of State, National Association of Secretaries of State Election Reform Resolution, 6 February 2001; http://www.nass.org/pubs/pubs_electionres.html.
43. National Conference of State Legislatures, Voting in America: Final Report of the NCSL Elections Reform Task Force (Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures, August 2001); http:// www.ncsl.org/programs/ press/2001/electref0801.htm, accessed 25 September 2005;
44. National Commission on Election Standards and Reform, Report and Recommendations to Improve America's Voting System (Washington, DC: National Association of Counties, May 2001); http://www.naco.org/Content/ ContentGroups/Publications1/Special/Election_Commission_Report.pdf, accessed 25 September 2005.
45. National Task Force on Election Reform, Election 2000: Review and Recommendations by the Nation's Elections Administrators, July 2001; http://www.electioncenter.org/, accessed 25 September 2005.
46. See Election Reform Information Project, What Has Changed, p. 16.
47. National Commission on Federal Election Reform, To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process: The Final Report of the National Commission on Federal Election Reform (Washington, DC: Century Foundation Press, July 2001).
48. In addition to the various commission reports, investigators from CalTech/MIT conducted a comprehensive study of uncounted ballots. CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project, Voting: What Is, What Could Be, July 2001; http://www.vote.caltech.edu/reports/2001report, accessed 25 September 2005.
49. Interview with anonymous Republican staff person, Committee on House Administration, 28 July 2004. See also statement by Congressman Robert W. Ney (R-OH), chair of the Committee on House Administration, Congressional Record, 107th Congress, 1st sess., p. H9287, 12 December 2001; http:// thomas.loc.gov.
50. Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, pp. 166-168.
51. Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, Ibid., 127-131.
52. Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, Ibid., 180-183.
53. Kingdon concludes that entrepreneurs must persist even when policy windows close, as it can take "years of effort" (p. 205).
54. For a discussion of the roles of entrepreneurs in policy innovation, see Michael Mintrom, "Policy Entrepreneurs and the Diffusion of Innovation," American Journal of Political Science 41 (July 1997): 738-770.
55. Randall Strahan and Mathew Gunning, "Entrepreneurial Leadership and Election Reform in Georgia: 2001-2003," Election Reform: Politics and Policy, ed. Daniel J. Palazzolo and James W. Ceaser (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005), pp. 59-73.
56. The points in this paragraph and the next are based on three interviews with participants in the process. Interview with Congressman Robert Ney, 13 July 2005; interview with anonymous Republican staff person, Committee on House Administration, 28 July 2004; interview with anonymous Democratic staff person, Committee on House Administration, 28 July 2004.
57. A direct order is a technique of intergovernmental regulation where federal regulation of state and local governments takes the form of direct legal orders that must be complied with under penalty of civil or criminal penalties. Other types of regulatory programs are crosscutting requirements, crossover sanctions, and partial preemption. See U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Regulatory Federalism: Policy, Process, Impact and Reform (Washington, DC: ACIR, February 1984).
58. We summarize the major components of HAVA. For complete details see, the Help America Vote Act of 2002.
59. Robert S. Montjoy, "HAVA and the States," Election Reform: Politics and Policy, ed. Daniel J. Palazzolo and James W. Ceaser (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005), p. 17.
60. Sarah F. Liebschutz, Bargaining under Federalism: Contemporary New York (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), p. 11.
61. For elaboration of these strategic alternatives, see Sarah F. Liebschutz, Bargaining under Federalism: Contemporary New York, ibid.
62. Interview with Congressman Ney.
63. See "Make Election Reform a Reality: Fully Fund the 'Help America Vote Act,'" 8 March 2005; http://www.nass.org/electioninfo/electioninfo. html.
64. Electionline.org, Election Preview, October 2004: What's Changed, What Hasn't, and Why? (Washington, DC: electionline.org, October 2004); http://www.electionline.Org/Portals/1/ Publications/Election.preview.2004. report.fmal.update.pdf, accessed 25 September 2005.
65. Alysoun McLaughlin, "Better Late Than Never: New Federal Standards for Voting Equipment in Development," 3 June 2005; http://www.naco.org/ Content/ContentGroups/Miscellaneous1/ Features/Homepage_Features/ New_federal_standards_for_voting_equipment_in_development.htm.
66. Electionline.org, Election Reform 2004, pp. 17-19.
67. Electionline.org, Assorted Rolls: Statewide Voter Registration Databases under HAVA (Washington, DC: electionline.org, March 2005), p. 5; http://www.electionline.Org/Portals/1/Assorted%20Rolls.pdf, accessed 25 September 2005.
68. For definitions of top-down and bottom-up models of statewide registration databases, see electionline.org, Assorted Rolls, p. 3.
69. Electionline.org, Assorted Rolls.
70. Electionline.org, Solution or Problem? Provisional Ballots in 2004 (Washington, DC: electionline.org, March 2005), p. 1; http://www.election.org/ Portals/1/Publications/ERIP10Apr05.pdg, accessed 25 September 2005.
71. Electionline.org, Solution or Problem? p. 6. Six states - Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming - are exempt from provisional voting requirements because they allow voters to register on election day.
72. Electionline.org, Election Preview, 2004, p. 24;
73. Jennie Drage Bowser, "The States Tackle Election Reform Summary of 2003 Legislative Action," 11 May 2004; http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/ elect/taskfc/03billsum.htm.
74. Electionline.org, Election Reform 2004, pp. 25-48.
75. Electionline.org, Solution or Problem? p. 3.
76. Solution or Problem?, Ibid.
77. Solution or Problem?, Ibid., 8. For other disparities within states, see pp. 2, 8.
78. Residual votes can result from "undervotes," i.e., when a voter fails to complete the process of marking a vote for one or more office on the ballot, or an "overvote," i.e., when a voter marks more than one preference for the same office. A residual vote can be either intentional, as in cases where the voter chooses not to vote for a particular office, or unintentional, as in cases where a mistake is made, either as a consequence of faulty equipment or the voter's failure to execute the instructions properly. The residual vote rate is calculated by comparing the number of voters who turned out with the number of ballots cast for an office. For more details on residual votes, see CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project, Voting: What Is, What Could Be, pp. 8-10.
79. Charles Stewart III, "Residual Vote in the 2004 Election," Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project, February 2005; www.vote.caltech.edu/ media/documents/vtp_wp21v2.3.pdf, accessed 25 September 2005.
80. Charles Stewart III, "Residual Vote in the 2004 Election,", Ibid., 8-15.