ALVERNO COLLEGE
November 19, 2003
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Good evening. I sincerely appreciate the invitation to be with you this evening to share what the League of Women Voters at the national level is doing regarding its core issues – campaign finance reform and implementation of the Help America Vote Act, better known as HAVA. I also, of course, want to urge each and every one of you to become involved in some way in the political process. I cannot emphasize enough how essential that involvement in the process is to a healthy democracy. That involvement might simply be casting your vote, or it might be much more, but you must be involved at some level in determining the future of your country. Of course, you’ll forgive me if I say that I believe that one of the best ways to be involved is to join the League of Women Voters!

I’m sure it isn’t news to anyone in this audience that the electorate and the country are evenly divided politically and that we face a critical, historic moment in American democracy as we prepare for the 2004 presidential election. Indeed, I would argue that the very mechanisms of American democracy are at risk, mechanisms to finance our elections and mechanisms to organize and carry them out.

MECHANISM FOR COUNTING THE VOTES

There are serious questions about the mechanisms – and I don’t mean just machines – that the nation uses to count the votes that citizens cast on Election Day. If elections aren't close, these mechanisms might not seem to matter. But the nation is closely divided, as we saw in 2000, and this fact increases the likelihood of close elections. It is critical then that we seek improvements in how we run our elections so that American citizens can trust, and will trust, that their votes matter and that they will count.
The League was instrumental in helping to draft and pass the Help America Vote Act of 2002, and we are proud of the role we played. But passing the legislation was only the beginning. Implementation and appropriation of funds promised are essential to its success.

HAVA impacts every part of the voting process, from voting machines to provisional ballots, from voter registration to poll worker training. News coverage has often made it seem as though new machines can solve most voting problems. This simply isn’t true. States must overhaul a wide variety of election procedures in order to bring about true voting reform. Under HAVA, states must meet new federal requirements, including provisional ballots, statewide computerized voter lists, “second chance” voting, and disability access. States will receive federal funds for these purposes and to improve the administration of elections.

The key requirements of states under the legislation are to:

• Make the process as inclusive as possible.
• Reform the voting process at the polling place.
• Develop a statewide, centralized, electronic list of all eligible voters.
• Ensure that ID requirements are fair and nondiscriminatory
• Ensure accessible voting.
• Attract new voters and broaden participation.

We know that we need to work on all of the above. We need to fix the machines. We need to enforce the new provisional ballot system.
On this point, the League has just published a monograph titled, Helping America Vote: A Guide to Implementing the New Federal Provisional Ballot Requirement, a requirement based on the principle that no voter coming to the polls on Election Day will be turned away without being given an opportunity to cast a ballot.

Investigations after the 2000 elections revealed that between 1.5 and 3 million voters were not able to cast a ballot in the 2000 presidential election because of registration problems. That’s one of the reasons that Congress included the provisional ballot requirement. If you would like to see a copy of the monograph, it’s available on our website, lwv.org.

We also need to make sure the voting lists are accurate.

But most of all we need trained, skilled, dedicated poll workers – and we need enough of them. Just to give you one example, in the last primary election in Miami, there were new machines, but the poll workers had not been trained even to turn them on properly. The ramifications for voters and our election system of inadequate numbers and insufficient training of the Election Day workforce – poll workers – are significant.

In terms of numbers, several possible solutions have been identified – from enabling more youth to work at the polls, to treating poll worker recruitment like jury duty. However, in addition to the pros and cons of any given approach, the reality remains that options available to election officials responsible for recruiting poll workers are often constrained by state and local laws. These laws vary widely in terms of requirements and prohibitions, or are silent on issues such as allowing individuals under age 18 or those living outside a voting jurisdiction, to work at the polls. In my home state of Connecticut, for example, we passed a law this year lowering the age of poll worker eligibility from 18 to 16. However, unless active recruitment of this potential pool occurs, then the law will have little real impact.

In terms of training, we need statewide training guides for election officials and poll workers to ensure uniform and nondiscriminatory treatment of voters throughout each state and in each polling place.

ROLE OF MONEY AND SPECIAL INTERESTS

The League is concerned about the running of elections themselves, but there are also serious questions about the role of money and special interests in American politics and how financing of elections impacts the process.

Many believe, rightly or wrongly, that the policies of any elected official reflect the priorities of big donors. The League believes that we need full public financing for all federal elections – for Congress and the Presidency.
Public financing of elections plays an important role in protecting our democratic system of government. It safeguards core democratic principles, especially that of “one person, one vote” and allows for maximum citizen participation in the political process. Public financing allows American citizens to own the presidency, rather than special interests. Ownership of the system also provides an incentive to vote.

The Presidential Election Fund was started in 1976 as an antidote to the special interest funding of presidential campaigns that brought the Watergate scandal. It sought to create a political system that was open and responsive to all citizens – equally. On April 15th, when you completed your federal income tax form, there was a check off box to take $3 of the taxes you’d already paid and put it in the Fund. How many of you in the room checked the box this year? How many of you even realized it was there?

The size of the Presidential Election Fund depends entirely on the number of people who choose to check the box on their tax forms. Without the guarantee of public funds for elections, dollars from special interests will overshadow and outweigh the smaller contributions of the general public.

Publicly financed elections send a message that the system and the presidency belong to each of us and that we citizens must participate.
Public financing is important because it benefits candidates, voters and, most importantly, our democratic system of government. Candidates receive money to help cover their campaign costs and voters are assured that fundraising rules and spending limits are followed. Candidates make fewer promises of special favors because they are less dependent on contributions from special interests and wealthy donors. In the primaries, the system enables candidates who do not have access to large sums of money to be competitive, while qualifying thresholds make sure that public money doesn't go to marginal candidates.

The Presidency of the United States should go to the man or woman best suited to lead America, not to the one who can best raise big money and make big promises to the funders. Public financing helps to ensure that our democracy is more responsive to voters and less subject to the whims of special interests.

It is time to reform the public financing system.

The president has opted out of the 2004 presidential public financing system and declined to stay within the system’s spending ceilings during the primary elections, as he did in the 2000 primary season. He raised more than $101 million in the 2000 primary season and, as of last week, had already raised $100 million, with a stated goal of $200 million for this primary season.

And, two candidates for the Democratic nomination have now decided that they will not participate in the public financing system and may not observe the spending limits that are part of that system, for competitive reasons. And there may be others.

While we wish that all the presidential candidates would stay within the public financing system and run for president on a level playing field, the President’s campaign spending – which could amount to four times the spending ceiling for any candidate who stays within the public financing system – does place any Democrat who chooses to play by the rules of public financing and reasonable spending ceilings at a severe disadvantage.

The President has no opposition in the primary elections, so the $200 million he plans on spending will likely target the Democratic “presumptive nominee.” Some of the Democratic candidates feel that to abide by the $45 million spending ceiling of the public financing system would leave them unable to respond.

The League has joined with several other organizations to urge any candidate who opts out of the public financing system to at least commit to the rules of fair play and stay within the spending ceilings against his or her Democratic opponents – until such time as it becomes apparent which Democrat will win the party’s nomination. Until that time, staying within the spending ceilings would ensure a relatively equal playing field among the Democrats and demonstrate a commitment to the principles of fair play inherent in the presidential public financing system.

This unfortunate dilemma shows that reform of the presidential public financing system must be a top priority for the next Administration. And that is why we, along with other organizations, have called on all the candidates to sign a pledge to commit themselves to “making reform of the presidential public financing system a priority” and embracing public financing as the “most effective means for preserving the integrity of our electoral process, reducing undue special interest influence and creating a fair laying field for qualified candidates.”

To date, Democratic candidates Clark, Dean, Kerry, Kucinich, Lieberman and Mosely Braun have signed the pledge. Sen. Edwards has committed to its principles, but said he does not sign pledges. Rep. Gephardt has declined to sign, and Rev. Sharpton has not yet responded. President Bush’s campaign said that he was “committed to campaign finance reform” and that once his team was in place it would reply more directly.

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)
Let me just also briefly touch on the status of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, better known as McCain-Feingold, which was passed in early 2002. As I’m sure you all know, its constitutionality was immediately challenged and the Supreme Court, in a special session on September 8th, heard 4 hours of arguments in McConnell v. FEC.

The League filed a “friend of the court” brief that dealt specifically with “sham issue” advertisements -- campaign ads that masquerade as issue advocacy -- and asked the Court to uphold the original definition of electioneering communications in the law, which would eliminate "sham issue advertisements.” During the original legislative debate, the League worked to ensure that "issue ads" were subject to the same disclosure and source requirements as were actual campaign advertisements.

The League has truly made a difference broadly on campaign finance reform and will continue to do so. Now, of course, we await the Court’s ruling!

UPDATE ON ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT

The primary system, the role of the media, big money, the divisions in the country - all these things are pushing politics to the extremes as candidates and their campaigns seek energetic volunteers and lots of money.

The League initially adopted a position on Election of the President in 1970 that called for the abolition of the Electoral College and stated our belief that the direct popular vote method for electing the president and vice president is essential to representative government.

Over the past year we’ve been engaged in a review of that position, looking at the issue based on three values:

• Wanting the best possible candidates
• Wanting voters to be as informed as possible
• Wanting optimum participation by voters.

We’ve looked at the parties, primaries and caucuses, the media and the impact of technology on campaigns, voters and democracy. We believe these to be the key areas of presidential selection – other than campaign finance of course.

An election system that takes two years to play out and does not meet the values articulated above is a system that is not serving us well. How that system might be changed is, of course, the subject of discussion and debate and changing the system will require the active engagement of all our citizens. There are some excellent articles in the last issue of our national magazine on the current system, the criticism of that system, and some of the proposed remedies, as well as a list of suggested readings on the subject. You can access those by visiting our website at lwv.org.

CONCLUSION

Let me conclude with one message. It is time for each and every one of you to get involved. Supporting and working for candidates is one way. But our democracy depends as well on non-partisan citizen involvement. As your parents, no, your grandparents are no longer able to be poll workers; will you take their places?

Citizen involvement is the key to making democracy work. And, non-partisan action is essential if we are to avoid polarization. Non-partisan action is one way to be involved if you are concerned about politics being a dirty business. Work for campaign finance reform. Find out about the mechanisms in your communities. Demand information on candidate’s stands on issues and educate yourself on those issues.

Polling data suggests that youth participates a great deal in community affairs, through volunteering at soup kitchens, and similar activities. But it also shows youth not participating in politics.

Non-partisan participation, through being a poll worker for example, is a way to make a transition. Volunteering for candidates and working in a partisan way is not the only way to get involved and make a difference. Get your feet wet.....Give it a try.....Politics is about communities.

And the youth of our nation is the future of our communities. We want those communities to be healthy ones!