on smacking down ohio's 'katherine harris'

Ok, so provisional balloting is one of the fronts where the legal war over the election will be fought. As part of the 2002 HAVA legislation (Help America Vote Act), all states were required to provide 'provisional ballots' to people trying to vote, whose names were not listed on the voting rolls. These provisional ballots are then checked by the county election authorities, and if the person is deemed eligible to vote, then the provisional ballot is counted. The intent of this act was to make sure that people are not disenfranchised in case of voter roll error, like what happened in Florida.

So, some states are balking at this, and interpreting the law very narrowly in order to restrict the number of provisional ballots that will be counted. They claim that provisional ballots should only be counted if the person shows up in the correct precinct--if a person is in the wrong precinct, but right municipality, the ballot should not be counted. A cynic would note here, with a fierce tone of voice, that 'we all know that when more people vote, democrats win.' And given the number of new voters, it is expected that many people will show up in the wrong precinct. Interestingly, the Dept of Justice filed a friend of the court brief in Michigan, arguing that Michigan should be free to use the strict interpretation. Go Ashcroft! Protecting our Civil Rights!

Now, this narrow interpretation of HAVA is being challenged in the courts. Here's where it stands in the most contested swing states: Florida, the State Supreme Court ruled that voters must be in the correct precinct. Michigan: provisional ballots cast in nearby precincts, as long as they are in the same municipality/county, must be counted--but only if voters are not directed to the correct precinct. And now Ohio, the judge has ruled that the votes must be counted.


(thanks to chicagoprogressive by way of the DailyKos for the following)

Secretary of state faulted in provisional-ballot case, accused of failing Ohio
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Mark Niquette
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

U.S. District Judge James G. Carr in Toledo also suggested that Blackwell risked denying large numbers of Ohioans the right to vote on Nov. 2 and "apparently seeks to accomplish the same result in Ohio in 2004 that occurred in Florida in 2000."
While an appeals court decides the legal dispute over provisional ballots in Ohio, Carr wants Blackwell to give county election officials alternative instructions for the possible outcomes in the case so no time is lost once there's a ruling.
The judge even offered his own language for those guidelines, saying Blackwell can't be trusted to do so. "I cannot be confident . . . that Blackwell will, indeed, fulfill his obligation to this court, Ohio's election officials, and Ohio's voters," the judge wrote.