Early voting, runoff rules could be altered

By GREG BLUESTEIN

The Associated Press

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Republican lawmakers are considering proposals for next year’s legislative session that would shorten Georgia’s early voting season and make it more difficult for close elections to reach a runoff.

State Rep. Austin Scott said he expects legislators to discuss tightening runoff guidelines in the wake of the surprising showing by Democrat Jim Martin that forced a Dec. 2 showdown with Republican U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss. He also said he was considering whether to draft a measure that would shorten Georgia’s 45-day advance voting period.

Political Insider:

Final post on this site

ELECTION UPDATES:

Dec. 2 runoff voting:

Photos:
• Chambliss, Martin in Atlanta | Voters

Nov. 4 voting:

“Most people think it was stretched out too far,” said Scott, a Tifton Republican who chairs the House committee charged with drafting electoral policy. “Maybe two weeks would be long enough.”

Early voting began this year on Sept. 22 and expanded to more sites a week before the November election. More than 2 million people voted during the period, and some waited in lines as long as eight hours.

Secretary of State Karen Handel, a Republican, said the long lines proved that “voters like the flexibility of having these options” but also said a thorough conversation is needed before deciding whether to revive the policy.

Her predecessor Cathy Cox, a Democrat, has said the popularity was a sign that elections officials should devote more resources toward early voting.

Scott said the six-week advance period could also expose the system to more voter fraud, and he said legislators could limit potential abuse by tightening early voting.

“The two goals of the election are access and integrity,” he said. “And reaching that balance is sometimes easier said than done.”

Republicans could also overhaul election rules that now require a runoff if none of the candidates earn more than 50 percent of the vote.

Scott and a slew of House Republican leaders unsuccessfully proposed lowering the bar to 45 percent last year, and he said the provision could resurface from legislators concerned about the mounting costs of runoffs.

Statewide runoffs have cost tens of thousands of dollars in the past, and the Dec. 2 contest could top $100,000.

“The counties have asked for that 45 percent threshold because of the cost of elections,” Scott said.

Georgia partisans have changed runoff guidelines twice in recent years.

The then-ruling Democrats passed legislation after Republican Paul Coverdell ousted Democratic U.S. Sen. Wyche Fowler in a 1992 runoff that set the threshold for avoiding a general election runoff at 45 percent.

But after Republicans took control of the Legislature in 2004, they changed the law again to require candidates to earn more than 50 percent of the vote to avoid a runoff.

Some claim Georgia’s runoff law was intended to thin black voting strength and prevent African-American candidates who led in primaries from making it to the general election. Black front-runners in the primary won just 50 percent of runoffs when they faced white candidates between 1970 and 1986, according to “Politics in Georgia.”

Democrats signaled they would fight any proposal to change the runoff policy a third time, and party spokesman Martin Matheny urged Republicans to “represent the people’s voice” instead of tinkering with electoral law.

State Rep. Rob Teilhet, D-Smyrna, warned any change could come back to haunt the GOP.

“Every time a party tries to change the election rules to help themselves, it ends up hurting them,” he said. “We don’t need to change the runoff rule just because Saxby couldn’t get half the state to support him.”

Comments

By Juliah

Nov 24, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this

I don't know who the Tifton representative has been speaking with to make such a statement. Every single one of my team members at work voted early. I feel that we need more time and more locations sooner, not less.

I'm an independent voter. I hate to say it, but this does seem like a "sour grapes" ploy by the Republicans based on the fact that early voting helped narrow the margin in the race for Senate, forcing a run-off.

By samiam

Nov 13, 2008 8:29 AM | Link to this

This works well to the Democrat mantra, "vote early, vote often". The issue of voter fraud is so well documented that it is deliberate obfuscation on the liberals part to claim it doesn't exist. Look at Acorn, and who was its champion for so many years. Now that it worked so well to get him into office the cheating will expand.

By Inko

Nov 13, 2008 7:39 AM | Link to this

Most voters in an election make up their minds very early in the process and vote along party lines. They do not need to wait until election day to get all the information about the candidates. They should be allowed to vote early to free up the last day of election for undecideds. It would make the elections more efficient for the citizens.

As for costs, the State should examine the early voting statistics to see when most people are/were willing to vote early and tailor the early voting times to those periods. If that means shortening the period to 30 days but expanding the number of places and times, that's reasonable. But dont just chop it to 2 weeks - thats blatant voter suppression.

By JDS

Nov 12, 2008 5:38 PM | Link to this

"Can't beat 'em Cheat 'em" should be the name of this garbage proposed legislation. I totally oppose less time to vote and a lower thresh hold of 45%. But don't worry, this state is going to have a microscope up its as for voter suppression under a new AG. Bush is gone !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Georgia Voter

Nov 12, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this

Most of the comments above make sense. Since most of the issues aren't fully developed and explored until right before the election, we should shorten the early/advanced voting to 2 weeks prior to election day. This will allow time for most, if not all, the debates to have taken place and for most other news and information sources to put their information out to the voting public.

However, counties should be required to open multiple advanced/early voting sites and make the hours at least the same as the polls (7 am - 7 pm), or offer a combination of hours (e.g. 7 am - 5 pm M, W, F 9am - 9 pm T, Th, Sat).

My problem is that I work an hour from my house and have to be at work at 8:30. If I try to vote at 7a.m. I probably will be late to work. However, I work late on election nights for the Elections Office (from 5:30 until about 10-11 pm) which is NOT in my home/residence county so I'm not able vote after work. I just need a different day (with the same hours) to vote. I expect that shift workers, firefighters, etc may have scheduling problems with voting too.

As far as changing the run-off goes, it makes economic sense to do this. Even though I won't get an extra (small) paycheck for working a run-off election, I'm all for eliminating them when they aren't necessary. If we ever have a true, viable third party, then we may be forced into these expensive run-off elections more and more frequently. I don't think changing it to 45% would benefit the Republicans, and it may (as other posters wrote) actually come back to hurt them. The run-offs should be used only when a vote is within too close of a margin of error to call one way or another without a whole cast of lawyers challenging every different type of ballot cast.

By MikeL

Nov 12, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this

I voted Republican but I like the opportunity that was offered to ALL Georgia citizens to vote. Despite laws that say companies have to give employees 2 hours to vote on election day, not everyone can afford to take the time off. I would like to see more early voting locations opened as well as voting on at least 1 Saturday before the election. Also, more information about absentee balloting should be presented. The officials need to be prepared for next year by requesting these things from the Justice Department WELL in advance of the elections.

By David

Nov 12, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this

Adding more time to vote would be great if it didn't cost the government so much to run these elections. The state is what, $2 Billion in the hole, and we want to increase our spending on elections? No thanks!

By M in Henry

Nov 12, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this

Wow, just wow! This is sad, Republicans of GA...PLEASE get a grip and stop playing dirty politics. Do something useful for this state for a change please! Shame on you.

By Jessica

Nov 12, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this

It is clear that the Republicans in Georgia are far behind times as they have always been. Still wanting to live in antibellum times, move forward and get with the program.

By nrp

Nov 12, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this

Funny - the Republicans weren't worried about early voting leading to fraud (a ridiculous contention anyway) back when most early voters were suburban Republicans.

That said, it does seem like a 45-day period is quite long, just because voters may not be fully informed that far in advance of an election. Ballot questions, local and judicial races, etc. often don't get much attention until right before election day. Even in national races that have gone on for a while, world events can alter people's perceptions as the election draws near.

I'd like to see a 2- or 3-week early voting period with LOTS of resources - many locations, many machines, many professional pollworkers.

[1 2] next

Should the early voting season in Georgia be shorter?
Yes
No

Voter Limit: Once per Hour View Poll Results