Jun 29 2005
Discussion Ideas
There are a number of things that I’d like to post about in the next few weeks including new legislation and new voting equipment. However, I think an initial step might be to open up to readers any suggestions of ideas they would like me to examine in this forum. I’ve already seen some comments about campus voting and that will certainly be one idea that we will explore here.
Please post suggestions of issues for me to address. Make them specific and talk about specific examples. It does little good to post a vague question like “Why is it so tough to vote?” I’ll let posters know if a suggestion isn’t specific enough for me to address, so that the poster can follow up with a more specific issue.
I’m looking forward to some interesting discussion topics.
First, I think it would be prudent for you to talk a little about the various reasons why a voter registration is rejected. In talking specifically about the college students, there are many students who say they registered but did not receive a card. Obviously with the college students there are issues that are specific to them as opposed to the general population.
Second, can you discuss the effect provisional voting has on the college students? For example, if a student feels that they registered correctly and the error lies with your office, what can that student do?
Thank you!
Can you describe why some voters get registration cards and others don’t? Many of my students did not receive cards, and had the impression that they were not allowed to vote without them.
Can you describe how you decide how much voting equipment to send to polling places. I have never waited in line to vote in my district — where turnout is very heavy — while students routinely complain of long lines and faulty equipment.
Why are the rules for producing identification so stringently enforced in student precincts, while I have never been asked to produce a single form of identificaiton any time I voted — including when I have absentee voted in the Clerk’s office?
When you recruit election judges, do you actively recruit students? I had many, many students volunteer to be election judges who reported that they were turned away and treated rudely by staff in the Clerk’s office.
Can you tell us whether you rigorously enforced the law regarding the proper reigstration form for *all* voters, or was it just the College Democrats?
And to all those who insist that students shouldn’t get special treatment — you’re right; they shouldn’t. But they shouldn’t be discriminated against either. And if the Clerk’s office enforces laws against students that they don’t enforce against other groups in Champaign County — that’s discrimination. Students live here; they spend money here. They ought to be allowed to vote here.
Oh, and if the Clerk’s office is investing in new voting technology, I would prefer a machine with a paper trail. I would also like a machine *not* manufactured by a major contributor to either of the political parties.
This is funny. Ever since I’ve been involved in politics I’ve heard endless rants about Shelden. Now, all the ranters (with the notable exception of the two people above) seem to not want to rant when Shelden gives them the chance. Maybe he finally figured out a way to keep people from attacking him.
Personally, I do look forward to his responses to anna marshall.
I’m guessing this is the subject of this whole debate?
The mix-up occurred because of an August 2003 law requiring voter registration forms to include a box indicating United States citizenship, Shelden said. The old forms included the citizenship requirement in fine print, he said.
The student organization was using a mixture of forms from Shelden’s office and Motor Voter forms from districts outside Champaign County, said Laura Pizarek, College Democrats voter registration co-chair and senior in applied life sciences.
I can’t imagine that there could be a mix-up in the forms, if they used the forms given to them when the College Democrat students attended the typical deputy registrar training classes typically held by County Clerks’ offices around the state. In these classes, which teach people the valid ways of registering voters and certify people as deputy registrars, they usually give out packets with all of the correct forms and information.
So, did the College Democrats not become Deputy Registrars, not attend these classes, or not utilize the materials given to them by the County Clerk’s Office?
Or did the County Clerk or his employees provide bad forms or information? Did the College Democrats communicate with the County Clerk’s Office in the days prior to their registration drive?
Erin Janulis, College Democrats president and senior in LAS, said members did not realize there was a problem with the old forms because they were considered valid during their registration drives before the last primary election.
In more online research, it appears that you can verify your voter registration on the County Clerk’s website.
This unattributed complaint is just that, unattributed. This complaint has some interesting merits, but it does reinforce that Shelden was working to avoid any fraudulent voting. The reference to a letter from Naomi Jakobsson makes me really scratch my head, was there duplicative requests to accept a political letter as proof of residence?
Although the Illinois State Board of Elections determined Monday that there was no evidence of illegal practices by Shelden’s office, ISG requests that the board continue to review how the treatment of University student voters has differed from that of other members of the Champaign County.
And, when the ISG get involved in a subject, you know that its partisan and the dispute is to just make some politician look bad.
Voter fraud is real, just take a look at East St. Louis. If it’s happening there, it could happen anywhere. Big voter turnout doesn’t enhance an election, if it’s not a CLEAN election.
As for Anna Marshall, here’s the link for 10 ILCS 5/17, the state statute for the Conduct of Elections.
It addresses many of the questions you asked in your comment, including what the law says about the number of voting booths, how voters can be legally challenged by pollwatchers, and requests for affidavit signing in instances where the voter hasn’t supplied enough information.
Pollwatchers may challenge for cause the voting qualifications of a person offering to vote.
Unbelievably enough, the pollwatcher is a position written into law. So is the following:
Sec. 17‑10. (a) Whenever, at any election, in any precinct, any person offering to vote is not personally known to the judges of election to have the qualifications required in this Act, if his vote is challenged by a legal voter at such election, he or she shall make and subscribe an affidavit, in the following form, which shall be retained by the judges of election, and returned by them affixed to the poll books or with the official poll record [...] In addition to such an affidavit, the person so challenged shall provide to the judges of election proof of residence by producing two forms of identification showing the person’s current residence address, provided that such identification may include not more than one piece of mail addressed to the person at his current residence address and postmarked not earlier than 30 days prior to the date of the election, or the person shall procure a witness personally known to the judges of election, and resident in the precinct (or district), or who shall be proved by some legal voter of such precinct or district, known to the judges to be such, who shall take the oath following…
The laws are very clear. If you’re unhappy about pollwatchers, go become a pollwatcher yourself. You can go challenge voters in precincts off-campus.
But, it sounds like several organizations investigated Mr. Shelden, and none found any illegal activities. The law is clear. If Mr. Shelden didn’t interfere with the legal proceedings of the election, he might have been doing HIS job, which is running a clean and fair election.
There are several ways to check your voter status, so the “lack of voter registration card” on Election Day is no excuse. The law prescribes the same proceedings in the case of no card, and it’s the same for ALL voters in Champaign County (and the state).
If the investigations didn’t find Mr. Shelden violating the law, maybe he was just protecting the law by running a CLEAN election.
I’ve done a albeit quick websearch into the situation this evening, and all I see is the typical partisan bickering, which is almost an older tradition than voting itself.
I hope that the Clerk does not hide behind Down State Pundit’s post – citing statutes and patronizingly opining about the clarity of the statutes governing elections – because the answers to my questions *can’t* be found in a statutory code. Everyone who thinks about it for even a minute knows that the law on the books is different than what happens on the ground. (When was the last time you drove 65 mph on an interstate?) What’s at issue is how the Clerk *interprets* those statutes. The Clerk has a great deal of discretion in the way that he implements the law; my questions and those of the poster who preceded me are geared at figuring out how he exercises that discretion.
As for Down State Pundit’s characterization of these questions as “partisan bickering,” I actually think that might be a decent topic for discussion as well. Should the person charged with running our elections and registering voters really be as openly and extremely partisan as Mark Shelden is? (He supported Alan Keyes when many prominent Republicans in this state refused to do so.) *His* partisanship certainly opens him up to these kinds of questions, and it’s his responsibility to reassure those of us who are Democrats and Independents that he is protecting our voting rights as well.
Mr. Shelden also supported John Piland openly…and he managed Congressman Tim Johnson’s campaign in the past.
I hope no one hides behind me. I don’t cast a very big shadow.
I’ve asked a series of questions that Mr. Shelden’s critics can answer. You can read them in my comment above. Also, how were these students registered? When I register to vote or change my registration, I like to use the County Clerk’s Office. Only one person accountable there. When you register through someone, it helps if that person is a Deputy Registrar. Usually the Deputy Registrars carry a card that confirms they’ve been trained. If you’re just filling out a motor voter form from someone, you’re definitely putting more people into the process.
Where did these students fill out their registration forms? Who did they give them to? The standardized forms provide a carbon copy to the new voter. It’s easy to blame the County Clerk, but it seems there are several anti-Shelden participants in this process. Shouldn’t we follow the line of accountability, starting with the volunteer registrars?
How many of the College Democrat volunteers had taken training? Did they even ask for training? If poor communication is part of the problem, that’s a two-way street.
Several College Democrat officers met with employees of the County Clerk’s office, including Mr. Shelden himself, prior to Quad Day 2004. In these meetings the officers were informed that the old forms were still valid. It wasn’t until mid afternoon on Quad Day, after several students had already been registered with these old forms, that Mr. Shelden informed the College Democrat volunteers that the forms were invalid. The miscommunication problem clearly orginiated with the County Clerk’s office.
Downstate Pundit appears to be denigrating the efforts of the College Democrats to register students to vote. He can quibble all he wants, but there is no denying that the 10,000 students registered by the College Dems are the most ever registered by a student organization on campus.