Rational and pluralistic approaches to HAVA implementation: The cases of Georgia and California

Publius: The Journal of Federalism

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 559-577

  Alvarez, R Michael ^a   Hall, Thad E ^b  

^a CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 28444475895     PISSN: 00485950     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/publius/pji043     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. See Kenneth A. Gross, "Constitutional Restrictions on Federal and State Regulation of the Election Process," To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process, ed. Jimmy Carter, Gerald R. Ford, Lloyd N. Cutler, and Robert H. Michel (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2002), pp. 222-235,
2. and Pamela S. Karlan and Daniel R. Ortiz, "Congressional Authority to Regulate Elections," To Assure Pride and Confidence, pp. 235-245, for a complete discussion of the constitutional issues surrounding federal governance of elections.
3. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
4. Georgia's and California's election reform efforts have been evaluated using different criteria. See, e.g., Randall Strahan and Mathew Gunning, "Entrepreneurial Leadership and Election Reform in Georgia, 2001 to 2003," Election Reform: Politics and Policy, ed. Daniel J. Palazzolo and James W. Ceaser (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005), pp. 59-73;
5. Karin McDonald and Bruce Cain, "California: Low-Tech Solutions Meet High-Tech Possibilities," Election Reform, pp. 123-140.
6. Richard B. Schmitt, "Gore's Suit Is a Duel of Experts As Lawyers Contest Every Point," Wall Street Journal, 4 December 2000, p. A26.
7. Thad E. Hall, "Public Participation in Election Management: The Case of Language Minority Voters," American Review of Public Administration 33 (December 2003): 407-422.
8. Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project, "What Is, What Could Be," July 2001; http://www.vote.caltech.edu/Reports/2001report.html (accessed 8 August 2005);
9. Carter et al., To Assure Pride and Confidence, The Constitution Project's Forum on Elections, "Building Consensus for Election Reform," and "Recommendations for Congressional Action"; http://www. constitutionproject.org/eri/ (accessed 8 August 2005).
10. See, for examples in the private sector, Christopher Bartlett, "MNCs: Get Off the Reorganization Merry-Go-Round," Harvard Business Review 61 (February 1983): 138-136;
11. Richard Daft, Organizational Theory and Design (Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing, 1998), pp. 253-258.
12. See, for examples in the public sector, Ronald Moe, Administrative Renewal: Reorganization Commissions in the 20th Century (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2003);
13. Hannah Sistare, Government Reorganization: Strategies and Took to Get It Done (Washington, DC: Center for the Business of Government, 2004).
14. Sistare, Government Reorganization, p. 7.
15. Thomas H. Hammond, "Agenda Control, Organizational Structure, and Bureaucratic Politics," American Journal of Political Science 30 (April 1986): 379-420.
16. Carter et al., To Assure Pride and Confidence.
17. Both authors worked with one of the two commissions mentioned in this article and either participated in these consultations or were apprised of these activities by their colleagues.
18. See, e.g., Martha Derthick, "Preserving Federalism: Congress, the States, and the Supreme Court," Brookings Review 4 (Spring 1986): 32-37.
19. Another factor that might motivate states to move toward standardization and uniformity in voting system use across counties is fear of litigation on equal protection grounds, based on the logic contained in Bush v. Gore (2000) and in other recent court decisions in the states, such as Common Cause v. Jones, 213 F Supp. 2d 1110 (C.C. Gal. 2002).
20. See, e.g., David L. Weimer and Aidan R. Vining, Policy Analysis: Concepts and Cases, 4th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999);
21. John C. Thomas, Public Participation in Public Decisions: New Skills and Strategies for Public Managers (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995);
22. Robert Backoff, Barton Wechsler, and Robert E. Crew Jr., "The Challenge of Strategic Management in Local Government," Public Administration Quarterly 17 (Summer 1993): 127-144.
23. See, e.g., Theodore Lowi, The End of Liberalism: Ideology, Policy, and the Crisis of Public Authority (New York: Norton, 1969);
24. E. E. Schattschneider, The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960);
25. David Truman, The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion (New York: Knopf, 1951).
26. In his discussion of policy and social change, Michael Hayes also identifies conflict and complexity as key issues in decision making. See Michael T. Hayes, The Limits of Policy Change (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2001).
27. ibid., 39-46.
28. Andrews v. Cox, Civil Action File No. 2001CV32490, Superior Court of Fulton County, 2001.
29. American Civil Liberties Union, "ACLU Seeks to Remedy Georgia's 'Fatally Flawed' Voting System," 1 December 2004; http://www.aclu.org/ VotingRights/VotingRights.cfm?ID=7090&c=166 (accessed 8 August 2005).
30. John W. Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd ed. (New York: HarperCollins College, 1995).
31. Georgia Secretary of State, "The 2000 Election: A Wake-Up Call for Reform and Change," January 2001; http://www.sos.state.ga.us/acrobat/ elections/2000_election_report.pdf (accessed 8 August 2005).
32. Charles S. Bullock III and M. V. Hood III, "One Person, No Vote; One Vote; Two Votes: Voting Methods, Ballot Types, and Under-Vote Frequency in the 2000 Presidential Election," Social Science Quarterly 83 (December 2002): 981-993.
33. Weimer and Vining, Policy Analysis, p. 257.
34. Georgia Secretary of State, "Analysis of Undervote Performance of Georgia's Uniform Electronic Voting System," 1 December 2004; http://www.sos.state.ga.us/pressrel/undervoteanalysis.htm (accessed 8 August 2005).
35. See, e.g., Charles Stewart III, "The Reliability of Electronic Voting Machines in Georgia," Voting Technology Project Working Paper, October 2004; http://www.vote.caltech.edu/Reports/georgiastewart.pdf (accessed 8 August 2005), for an analysis of Georgia's residual vote rates.
36. See Arnold Fleischmann and Carol Pierannunzi, Politics in Georgia (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1997), for a discussion of the state's political culture.
37. Common Cause v. Jones.
38. Data on California's demographics can be found from the Census Bureau's QuickFacts; http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html (accessed 8 August 2005);
39. data on Georgia's can be found at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/ states/13000.html (accessed 8 August 2005).
40. See Maura Dolan and Jean Guccione, "The Recall Campaign: Court Dates Approach for Challenges to Recall," Los Angeles Times, 14 August 2003, p. A21, for a summary of the major lawsuits.
41. Seema Mehta, "Secret Vote at Risk, Suit States," Los Angeles Times, 7 May 2004, p. B5.
42. California State Auditor, "Office of the Secretary of State: Clear and Appropriate Direction Is Lacking in Its Implementation of the Federal Help America Vote Act," December 2004; http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2004- 139.pdf (accessed 8 August 2005).
43. Tim Reiterman, "Shelley Reconsidering Voter Registry Plan," Los Angeles Times, 24 December 2004, p. B6.
44. Ibid.