Adam Liptak of the NY Times writes today that "In trying to fix problems that arose in the 2000 presidential election, Congress may have created an impediment to a quick resolution in 2004 and set the stage for major election lawsuits."
The story includes this great graphic titled "How the states handle provisional ballots." Indiana is included as one of 27 states and D.C. where "provisional ballots must be cast in the voter's precinct to be counted."
More from the story:
The provisional ballots are at the top of many election lawyers' lists of potential problems for Nov. 2. The lists also include recounts, flaws in voting technology, absentee ballots, fraud, intimidation and terrorism.Posted by Marcia Oddi at October 27, 2004 08:18 PMThe court battles about provisional ballots have largely focused on whether voters have to appear at the right polling place. After federal appeals court rulings on Saturday and Tuesday, the courts are for the time being unanimous in saying that local officials may enforce such a requirement. But that is only one issue.
"I guarantee you there will be litigation if there is a state that is critical to winning the Electoral College and the margin of victory in that state is less than the number of provisional ballots cast in that state," Professor Foley said. "The legal theories are available." * * *
After research, election officials will make one of several determinations. State officials may have purged voters from the rolls in error. Voters may be registered under a slightly different name. Voters may have failed to fill out their registration forms completely, by failing to check a box affirming they are citizens, for example. Election officials may not have signed the provisional ballot forms, as required in some states. Voters may have presented unacceptable identification when they registered or when they voted.
Some of these issues were created by the new federal law, which was meant to make voting more reliable.
New voters who registered by mail after Jan. 1, 2003, must present identification. They could have done so when they registered, by noting a driver's license number or partial Social Security number, which is checked against state records, or by submitting a copy of a paycheck, utility bill or similar document. If they failed to do that, they must show similar identification when they vote.
State officials may decide that the initial identification was inadequate, and then people may appear at the polls without identification.
The law also requires people voting provisionally to sign affirmations of eligibility "before an election official." Some states require those officials to sign as witnesses, but those signatures may be missing.
Getting to the bottom of all these questions requires work, and the answers will often be ambiguous. The counting could take time. Colorado, for instance, allows 12 days.
And if election officials in various counties in a state employ different standards in answering these questions, the problem quickly starts to look like the one confronted by the Supreme Court in 2000, when different Florida counties used different standards to discern voters' intentions.