Elephantman raises an interesting point concerning the bruhaha over vote hacking. Since the vauntet theft of the election didn't happen (the Dems won, you see, I predict the complaints over Diebold machines, no paper trail etc, will get rather muted as voting problems return to the neglect they have suffered for years. However, there are still complaints The problem with the complaints is that none are made by actual poll workers, so we have no idea of how to characterize the issues. For example, in my area poll workers are assigned to their own neighborhoods, so too few mean either not enough locals volunteered or some people didn't show up. Or, of course, the election board deliberately shortchanged some areas. Ohio does seem to have some problems, but with every county or even every town having a slightly different system, it's hard to see where the problem really lies.

What is apparent to me is that while the vote hacking controversy is largely paranoia, the problems with election infrastructure and management continue apace. If you look at my early letter you will see that issues came up like voters walking off with the special pens, and uploading the early ballots while the precincts tried to transmit caused the system to crashed. This is not conspiracy, but incompetance. Those mistakes will not be made again. I saw somebody someplace demand that voters not be treated as beta tester, but how could you test run an election with 4000 separate polling places running at once?

My suggesation is that a conference of state election officials determine a best practices list, a model system of whichever technology works best, and then promote it amongst the states. For example, a decent rule of thumb to plan the ratio of registered voters to machines per polling place would give us some standard to work from. The current system, with Dem and repub judges cancelling watching each other, and all judges signing across the flap of ballot envelopes, etc. took about 100 years to refine. With a little luck, we will get machine voting figured out faster.

It sounds worse than it is. I think in my area, challengers and observers are really the same thing and they can be placed in a precinct by the parties or organizations. They have to register beforehand.

If a challenger thinks a voter is not who they claim to be, they speak with the head judge who then consults with the other judges and the voter to determine the status. There are three judges and they must be unanimous to deny the voter (or make them cast a provisional ballot).

It is also illegal to disrupt or impede the voting process, so if the challenger or observer is making baseless challenges or intimidating voters, the judge is with their rights to remove the challenger from the precinct.

One of the reasons something like this might be needed: One of my workers would not ask to see ID or a voter reg. card from the people she knew (neighbors). I don't allow that. You have to present the correct ID or (in TN) fill out a form afirming your identity. No exceptions.

Also, in TN anyone in the polling place legitimately (see Elephantman's list) may issue a challenge, so one voter may challenge another.

The concept of "Official Challengers" seems really creepy and un-democratic (small-d) to me. I don't want any third parties hanging around the polling precinct accusing people of trying to vote fraudulently -- it's intimidating. If there is clear evidence of fraud going on, it should be the poll workers' prerogative to deal with it. If not, then the regular rules should be followed, and anyone who is not able to follow them (lost ID, wrong precinct, whatever) should be allowed to vote provisionally. There is no harm in letting someone vote provisionally, since their eligibility will be checked later on anyway. Conversely, intimidating someone into not voting by accusing them of a crime or telling them they are ineligible is potentially very damaging and certainly not in the spirit of a democracy.

-Jeremy

Nobody needed to tell me that the system of poll challengers technically predates HAVA. But HAVA makes the role of challengers all the more important. HAVA is what has made the role of challengers so important now, because of the new rules on provisional and challenged ballots.

The decision-making as to how and when a provisional ballot is given and when a ballot is challenged won't make a difference in most elections. Because most elections don't need recounts. But the close ones will, and it will turn into important work.

All these warm and fuzzy recollections about the happy circumstances of the 2006 election on the part of the Salon readership really make me laugh. I just wonder how much we'd be hearing about Diebold conspiracies, voter intimidation and election fraud if it had turned out that both houses of Congress had remained in Republican hands, and that Webb and McAskill had both been defeated by 1,000 votes.

As to election "helpers," you're full of it if you think that there is any category of credentialed persons within the polling place who are given the mandate of "helping" voters. What you say, Pennywhistler, is so outlandish as to defy any need to consult the Ohio statues. You really think that any party, or any private interest group, is going to be credentialed so as to be in a polling place in order to interact with voters? Are you nuts? Do all of you Salon readers want Republicans to be credentialed to go into polling places to "help" voters?

If you are in a polling place, you had better be in one of four categories:

1. A poll worker. Under the applicable rules, it is good to have both a Democrat and a Republican 'captain' among the poll workers. Poll workers are there to conduct elections according to the rules. they are not there to chat with the voters. (It is indeed a serious problem that in inner-city America, there are so many jurisdictions and voting precincts that are as much of a one-party system as the Soviet Union was. There are virtually no Republicans to serve in those precincts unless they are recruited from outside. And then, the harassment of Republican poll challengers becomes a serious problem.)

2. A credentialed challenger. Challengers should be able to closely observe the application process, check names, etc. That is their job. They should not speak to voters. They are supposed to make their challenges to poll workers, not voters.

3. A credentialed poll watcher. Poll watchers watch the polls. They can watch voting machines being set up and taken down. They can watch precincts do vote counts. That is all they do. Poll watchers should never be interacting with voters.

4. A voter.