With each day that passes, Colorado inches closer to the 2008 elections. Voters will choose a president and a senator and cast ballots on a host of other offices and issues.
We know it’s an important election. What we don’t know at this point is exactly how those decisions will be made. That needs to be decided, and fast.
The pronouncement Wednesday from Colorado Secretary of State Mike Coffman that he thinks it ought to be an all-paper, but not all-mail, ballot hasn’t done much to move the debate forward. And it’s contrary to what the county clerks, the people who actually run the elections, believe is the best alternative.
The state legislature reconvenes Jan. 9, and lawmakers will have to wade through the arguments and decide what to do. It’s a complicated issue with many moving parts.
The latest chapter began earlier this month when Coffman decertified many of the electronic voting machines in the state, saying they didn’t pass accuracy tests. His decision left 53 counties without at least some usable voting machines.
Coffman is planning to ask the legislature for amendments to the certification process so that he may work with vendors and counties to get more of the electronic systems certified for use in the 2008 primary and general elections.
We think this is a good idea, so long as the specific changes requested are about relaxing procedures and not lowering performance standards. It is critical that Coffman work to have optical scanning systems, which will tally even a paper election, certified and running. He would do well to focus his energy on doing that.
Coffman’s decertification threw clerks, who were relying on the systems, for a loop — and for good reason. What would they use to record and tally votes?
That’s why they called last week for a one-time, statewide mail-in ballot for 2008. Coffman says he has issues with mail-in ballots because of the potential for undue influence. By that he means that one person in a household, over the dining room table, could pressure another to vote a certain way. We’re not persuaded this is a threat big enough to cast aside what is otherwise a reasonable solution.
We’re also not convinced that paper ballots are a panacea. It is, without question, easier to divine voter intent from a fill-in-the-oval ballot, where vote judges can be reasonably sure a voter meant to cast a ballot for a certain candidate by circling his name instead of filling the oval.
But keep in mind the whole reason the country made such a push toward electronic balloting to begin with. That came about because of the controversy from the very close 2000 presidential election. And the major problem with that election went back to the design of a paper ballot in Palm Beach County, Florida. All you need to do is mention the phrase “butterfly ballot” to conjure up exactly what can go wrong, even in an all-paper ballot election.
All of this is to say that state lawmakers need to be judicious in deciding how to proceed so Colorado has a fair and accurate election. We would urge them to carefully listen to the county clerks, the people on the front lines, who have spent years — sometimes even entire careers — figuring out how to expeditiously record and tally votes. Their experience will be invaluable in resolving the vote system problem.
