Inequality in Election Judging
Every now and then my local election authority sends out a desperate sounding letter seeking volunteers to serve as election judges. It's obvious they can't ever find as many judges as they need. I would consider performing this civic duty; but even though I am a citizen and registered voter in Illinois, state election law simply prohibits me from serving as an election judge.
The problem is that Illinois election law allows only members of the two "leading" political parties to serve as election judges. A leading political party is defined in Section 10-3 of the Election Code as follows:
"'Leading political party' means one of the two political parties whose candidates for governor at the most recent three gubernatorial elections received either the highest or second highest average number of votes."
This is far from a mere inconvenience for election authorities--in my opinion, this is also a very serious constitutional issue. Article III, Section 3 of the Illinois Constitution wisely and directly provides:
"All elections shall be free and equal."During the 2008 Primary Election, having acquired pollwatcher credentials, I visited a random sample of 15 polling places in order to determine to what extent Democratic and Republican election judges were treating equally all three legally established, statewide political parties. Sadly, I, and several others throughout the state, discovered that many of these judges were not treating equally the Green Party, which they were required to do by law.
In many places throughout the state, election judges offered only to voters the option of declaring affiliation with one of the two leading political parties, asking "Democrat or Republican" but failing to indicate equally "Green" as an option. I am told that in Chicago, some voters who specifically requested a Green primary ballot were either given a Democratic ballot, which is printed on green paper, or told that there are no Green Party primary ballots.
Some may be tempted to attribute irregularities such as these to error; however, unknown to most is that the Illinois Green Party actually sent a letter to all local election authorities in the state, in advance of the election, asking each to please ensure that election judges were trained on the need to treat equally all three legally established, statewide political parties. That is not what happened; but it should come as no surprise that when one established political party is denied election judges, elections may not be equal.
The Illinois General Assembly, and any member thereof interested in free and equal elections, should vote to amend the Election Code and allow members of all legally established, statewide political parties to serve as election judges.
7 comments:
Excellent points on what are inconsistencies in Illinois election law. It needs to be corrected.
While legally fitting the definition of a major party, the Greens are no such thing in reality.
Granting election judge status to a party that can't field candidates down the ticket, or in their own committeeman structure, for that matter, would place a burden on the county clerks. You can't open a poll without a judge from either party.
While you idea does point out a technical flaw in the election code, the Green Party has no way of fulfilling this obigation.
"While legally fitting the definition of a human being, the Blacks are no such thing in reality."
"Granting the right to vote to Blacks would place a burden on the county clerks."
Gee, replace Green Party with Black people and you become a raging bigot, Brian McDaniel. I'd suggest you re-think your opinion from a position of everyone being equal under the law regardless of your bigotry.
Republicans and Democrats can't fill all their down-ticket races either, to the tune of more than 60% of GA races unopposed, and the Rs and Ds can't fill election judge positions either. Your logic that the Green Party should continue to be discriminated against based on those two points is dead wrong.
As for inconveniencing the county clerk, too bad. This is America and county clerks are supposed to work for the people and uphold the law, even if allowing blacks to vote might create more work for them.
The system you support is like telling black people they can run for office, but they can't do a darn thing to make sure their votes are counted and ballots issued by serving as election judges.
I had hoped we left that kind of thinking behind 50 years ago, but the Illinois Democratic Party didn't get the memo that discrimination, elitism, and the abuse of their power to oppress political competition is wrong.
From a practical point of view, most precincts can't get all the judges they are allowed to have.
Really want Green people there? Call the local committeman (either/both parties) and volunteer.
Bet you can get as many greens as you want signed on that way.
Pat - It's important to note that you must be a member of the Republican or Democratic Parties to serve as an election judge. If an election judge votes in the Green primary, they are no longer allowed to serve. This has occurred and will continue to occur with these outdated laws. The major problem as I see it, is that we have Democrats and Republicans running Green primary elections. These our own internal nominating contests and they are being handled by parties that do not have our interests in mind. Squideshi described the consequences of such a policy. All established parties should be allowed judges, and independent judges should be allowed as well. Maybe it would make sense to allow independent judges if there are vacancies in the partisan posts, or maybe we should just dedicate some spots to independents. I know several people who would be interesting in serving as an election judge, but are unable to because they do not want to declare as a Democrat or Republican. I also election judges who sign up as a Democrat or Republican, even though they do not associate with these parties, but are then barred from participating in their own party's primary because they want to keep their position as an election judge.
Let's flip the tables: would the Republicans and Democrats on this site feel comfortable with the Greens and Libertarians conducting their primary elections?
Brian McDaniel wrote, "While legally fitting the definition of a major party, the Greens are no such thing in reality."
That may be your opinion; however, it's one with which I disagree. The people, via their elected representatives, have chosen 5% in a Gubernatorial election as the necessary "modicum of support" in order to establish a political party statewide and within every political subdivision therein. The Green Party demonstrated that modicum by more than double. It's dishonest to keep moving the target simply in order to make the facts fit your predetermined conclusion.
Brian McDaniel wrote, "Granting election judge status to a party that can't field candidates down the ticket, or in their own committeeman structure, for that matter, would place a burden on the county clerks. You can't open a poll without a judge from either party."
If a party has a candidate in a race, they should be permitted to have election judges, rather than relying on their opponents to ensure the fairness of the election, which they have already shown that they can not do. There is no reason that a burden need be placed on local election authorities--my argument is that all established parties should be permitted to have election judges--not be required to do so. If this truly is a problem, then this portion of the law can also be changed.
Pat Collins wrote, "Really want Green people there? Call the local committeman (either/both parties) and volunteer."
Greens shouldn't need to be appointed as Democratic or Republican election judges or need to ask these parties to appoint them. Plus, if a Green is appointed as a Democratic or Republican election judge, they can't vote in the Green primary.
Zeleni wrote, "All established parties should be allowed judges, and independent judges should be allowed as well."
I think allowing independent judges is an excellent idea.
Free and equal, gee I wonder if this applies to getting a party on the ballot, couldn't be any different for the Dems and Reps and anyone else could it?
Post a Comment