A political chess match
Thursday's editorial barely scratched the surface of the complex and troubling battle being waged over out-of-precinct ballots in North Carolina. What's happening now resembles a chess match, with the opponents taking turns attacking and defending. Is it headed for a checkmate, or stalemate?
Here's a brief summary:
Guilford County commissioner candidate Trudy Wade led John Parks by a few dozen votes for the second at-large seat after the initial tally in November. State superintendent candidate Bill Fletcher trailed June Atkinson by a small margin. Wade and Fletcher are Republicans; Parks and Atkinson are Democrats.
Provisional ballots were counted the week after the election. These are ballots given to voters whose names weren't on the rolls when they showed up at polling places. Election officials review them later and determine whether they should be allowed. Some of the voters are properly registered, some not. Nearly 1,300 provisional ballots were counted in Guilford County, and they pushed Parks ahead of Wade. Statewide, they increased Atkinson's edge over Fletcher.
The State Board of Elections certified those results, but Fletcher and Wade filed suit, contending that out-of-precinct provisional ballots should not have been counted. There were 441 challenged in Guilford County, more than 11,000 across the state. Those numbers exceed the margins of defeat for Wade and Fletcher.
Last week, the N.C. Supreme Court issued this ruling in favor of Wade and Fletcher. Now what? The case has been sent to Superior Court for a remedial order, probably to throw out the contested ballots and recount the results, or hold a new election.
Wade apparently prefers a new election. My guess is that she and her attorney don't think throwing out 441 ballots (many of which probably don't contain a vote for her or Parks) will reverse her defeat. She's 242 votes behind, and the math doesn't look good for her.
But not so fast. Now the General Assembly is getting into the act. Sen. Dan Clodfelter, D-Mecklenburg, chairman of the Senate Judicial Committee, said he'll file a bill to clarify the law, which Democrats say the Supreme Court (officially nonpartisan but majority Republicans) misread. The bill will say out-of-precinct ballots should be counted - retroactively to last November.
Will that be the final move in the chess match? I don't think so. Fletcher and Wade could file a new lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Clodfelter's bill (if it passes). The Supreme Court reserved judgment on the constitutional question in last week's ruling. It could put the Legislature in check if it weighs in again.
Checkmate? Maybe not. What about an appeal to U.S. court contending that voters have a right under federal law to vote outside their precincts?
This could take all kinds of twists and turns and consume many more months. In the meantime, who wins the contested elections?
Stalemate!
Comments (5)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I say dump the provisional ballot scheme.
It's caused nothing but confusion, and aided fraud in many elections. Most of the current uproar over election results have come from the provisional ballot issue.
Posted on February 11, 2005 10:40 AM
One might contend that we've never held an election before from all this brew-haa-haa.
Posted on February 11, 2005 4:47 PM
I think the provisional ballots should definately be counted. Sometime it can be very confusing where the correct place is for someone to vote. Polling places sometimes change and these changes are sometimes not publicized very well. For example, where I vote in Charlotte used to be a polling place for just my precinct, but now two precincts vote there. I think the provisional ballot is a reasonable way to keep people who may have missed a change from driving around all day trying to find the right place to vote. And since these votes are later checked to see if they are valid, it is probably harder to commit fraud than if you vote without a provisional ballot since in NC they don't require that you show ID when you vote.
Posted on February 11, 2005 4:57 PM
I was required to show my ID at my precinct this year for the first time, Andrew.
Posted on February 11, 2005 10:41 PM
What I find interesting is how the practice of early voting is so different. Under this system, we were permitted to go to any polling location to vote. This would seem to subvert the precinct-based rationale for managing elections. I do not think, however, it is an unreasonable expectation to have to go to the correct precinct and to show proof of identification. It is not that difficult to know the right place to go. Perhaps those for whom this task is too difficult or complex may not be sufficiently prepared to vote intelligently. It was difficult for me to know the real legal issues from reading the press accounts on this matter because the relevant portions of the state Constitution and state law were not quoted or paraphrased.
Posted on February 11, 2005 10:55 PM