By William Lewis
Four years ago, a few states had formalized the concept of early voting. In this past election, early voting became an integral part of our federal voting system. It has been estimated that at least 30 percent of the electorate voted early this year, usually meaning they cast their votes weeks before the Nov. 4 general election.
Suppose four years from now a majority of registered voters participate in early voting. What effect will this have on the last few weeks of campaigning? As more people vote early, it increases the possibility that events and issues will develop in the closing days of the campaign, which could cause people to want to change their vote.
There are two forms of early voting. One type is when voters go to the polls and cast their votes in person weeks ahead of the November general election. The other type is absentee ballots, sent in to election boards and kept in storage to be counted after the machine voting on Election Day or soon after.
These procedures create a strain on the state and local election boards from the standpoint that these early votes, both machine and paper, have to be secured and safeguarded until election night in November. The reasons behind early voting procedures have been to encourage more citizens to participate in elections, since the number of people showing up at the polls have diminished in recent years. In effect, government wants to make it easier for people to vote, thereby enhancing the democratic system.
We should also have to consider improving and maintaining democratic standards. When voting machines first came into being, one of its main objectives was to eliminate paper ballots, thereby reducing the possibility of election fraud, which at times in past years was widespread, especially when boss−ruled political machines controlled or influenced much of big city elections.
In the national election just concluded, there is a dispute going on in Minnesota regarding the validity of absentee ballots in the race for the U.S. Senate between incumbent Republican Norm Colman and Democratic challenger Al Franken. If this controversy continues, it will eventually involve the U.S. Senate itself and ultimately the courts.
Here in Queens, we see a close, unresolved election for the state Senate between incumbent Frank Padavan (R−Bellerose) and challenger City Councilman James Gennaro (D−Fresh Meadows).
The counting of some 8,000 paper ballots, mostly absentee, has been continuing for weeks. Both sides have been contesting the validity of various paper ballots as the count continues. As these procedures continue, it becomes difficult for legislative bodies involved to organize in terms of leadership and committee assignments until the results are finalized. This election may also wind up in the courts.
Meanwhile, the process is getting more argumentative, with both sides accusing the other of unfair or unethical conduct in challenging the legality of various paper ballots as they are counted. Much of this would not have taken place had most of these absentee ballots been cast in person through voting machines on Election Day.
Next year, the issue of early voting will probably be brought up before the state Legislature. One argument in support of early voting is that one day is no longer adequate to accommodate the electorate. One solution could be not early voting, but two days of voting back to back, possibly on weekends including Saturday and Sunday, or at least two days during the same week. This would give voters extra time to go to the polls in person and help to discourage absentee ballots.
Our voting system needs improvements, but in addition to making voting more accessible, we must also maintain standards.
