Disenfranchising combat soldiers (updated)

The writer of this New York Post article today (who was voting counsel at the U.S. Justice Department in the Bush administration) may be wrong in assigning base motives to Gov. Paterson, but as far as I can see is correct on the basic facts: Many U.S. service members in combat zones are not going to have the opportunity to cast absentee ballots in the upcoming 23rd Congressional District race in upstate New York. This is particulrarly egregious because Fort Drum is in the district, which means many soldiers are likely registered out of there, and eligible to vote in the election. Furthermore, the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 10th Mountain Devision, deployed out of Fort Drum, is currently stationed in Afghanistan, where it has been taking heavy casualties. I don't know how many of the deployed soldiers want to vote, but I do know it is a genuine scandal that the state and federal governments can't be bothered to make sure they get that opportunity.

This issue came up earlier this year in the close 20th Congressional District race, although in the end there were not enough absentee military ballots to affect the result. There easily could be in the 23rd.

Update: Morgan Hook, a spokesman for the governor, notes that Paterson did sign a law in July that is designed to improve absentee ballot procedures. He also tells me that even if Paterson had set the special election in December, as the Post writer proposed, it wouldn't make any difference, because the law provides a maximum window of 40 days from when the governor issues the proclamation calling the election to when it must be held. I think the deadline for receiving absentees filled out by election day should be extended to another 40 days.  

Comments

[Brian]

I agree: ALL registered voters living abroad need to be given a chance to vote and have it counted. When I was in the Peace Corps, I had my ballot sent to the post office box that I rented in the city near my village. Otherwise, it would've gone to the generic volunteer mailboxes in the Peace Corps house from which I actually received mail ever 6-8 weeks or longer... something which obviously wouldn't have worked with the ballot.

I still don't understand why ballots can't simply sent to soldiers, Peace Corps volunteers and ex-pats via US embassies and consulates abroad.

The only issue I see is that in our decentralized system, electoral processes are run by the states and embassies by the federal govt. Still, there should be a way to make it work.

[Brian]

I'm glad to see the text of the legislation dealt with the situations for ALL overseas voters.

[Bob Conner]

-I don't think it goes far enough.

[Brian]

Bob, you have to bear in mind that adding "another 40 days" (your phrasing) after a regular November election day in addition to the present two weeks means that elections won't be certified until literally days before, and sometimes AFTER, the January 1st swearing in. And that's not even factoring in any potential legal challenges. It's a bad idea for legislators but it's an even worse idea for to be the process to be structured so that the state is systematically without a governor or a city without a mayor.

As I said, I think the appropriate solution would be to get US diplomatic missions involved in both distributing ballots and collecting them to be sent home. Absentees from soldiers abroad, Peace Corps volunteers and other ex-pats can be expedited via the diplomatic pouch system. If done this way, two weeks after Election Day would be more than sufficient.

But this would sure require federal legislation and so that's what you should be calling for.

[Bob Conner]

I would think you could go ahead and certify the vast majority of election results, where there is no way for absentees to be decisive. I certainly don't oppose your ideas for better distribution and collection of ballots, and counting votes of Peace Corps people et al. as well as soldiers.