[Peace-discuss] Fwd: USA/Africa: Fair Elections?

[Alfred Kagan]

>To: akagan at uiuc.edu
>Subject: USA/Africa: Fair Elections?
>From: africafocus at igc.org
>Sender: World Wide Web Owner <www at africafocus.org>
>Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 07:24:54 -0700
>
>
>USA/Africa: Fair Elections?
>
>AfricaFocus Bulletin
>Oct 26, 2004 (041026)
>(Reposted from sources cited below)
>
>Editor's Note
>
>A team of African and other international observers monitoring the
>U.S. presidential election issued their first pre-election report
>last week. The report by Fair Election International (FEI),
>entitled "Election Readiness: It Is Never Too Late for
>Transparency," called attention to the need for reforms, including
>nonpartisan administration of elections and reducing the
>disproportionate disenfranchisement of minority and poor voters.
>
>In 2000, over 4.6 million potential U.S. voters were blocked from
>voting by laws that deny prisoners and ex-felons the right to vote.
>Over 800,000 of them were in the contested state of Florida. These
>disenfranchisement laws, which vary from state to state and which
>have been made more stringent in recent decades, have a
>discriminatory and politically significant effect on African
>Americans and other minorities.
>
>The FEI pre-election observer team visited five states: Arizona,
>Florida, Georgia, Missouri, and Ohio. Another delegation will
>revisit Florida, Missouri, and Ohio on election day, November 2.
>
>The pre-election team included experienced electoral experts from
>Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, England, Ghana, India,
>Ireland, Mexico, Nicaragua, the Philippines, South Africa,
>Thailand, Wales, and Zambia. The five African observers were
>Denis Kadima, the executive director of the Electoral Institute of
>Southern Africa; Kwesi Addae, the founder of Pollwatch Africa in
>Ghana; Elijah Rubvuta, who directs the Foundation for Democratic
>Process in Zambia; and both Chief Electoral Officer Advocate Pansy
>Tlakula and Chairperson Dr. Brigalia Bam from the Independent
>Electoral Commission in South Africa.
>
>This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains brief excerpts from the FEI
>report, with a particular focus on the issue of disenfranchisement,
>and a brief excerpt on the same topic from the extensive packet of
>background information available on the FEI website, at
>http://www.fairelection.us/documents/preelection.htm
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++end editor's note+++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Fair Election International Pre-Election Report
>
>October 2004
>
>Election Readiness: It Is Never Too Late for Transparency
>
>Fair Election International (FEI) is a project of Global Exchange,
>an international human rights organization dedicated to promoting
>social, economic and environmental justice by building
>people-to-people ties around the world. For more information about
>FEI or to download a free copy of this report, please visit
>http://www.fairelection.us. For media inquiries, please contact
>Jason Mark at (415) 558.9490 or jason at globalexchange.org.
>
>Introduction
>
>In recent years, international support for electoral fairness has
>increasingly been expressed through election observation
>reciprocity and the sharing of democratic innovation.
>
>This spirit of solidarity inspires the Fair Election International
>observation of the 2004 General Election in the United States.
>
>This report is the result of an independent, non-governmental
>pre-election observation of the U.S. electoral process, conducted
>in September 2004 by a 20-person delegation of civic leaders,
>parliamentarians, diplomats, lawyers, electoral officials, academic
>specialists, journalists and veteran election monitors from 15
>countries on all five continents.
>
>The observers have worked for decades to make electoral systems in
>their own and many other countries more fair, open and responsive.
>The delegation was invited by the U.S. non-governmental
>organization, Global Exchange, with the aim of contributing to the
>ongoing efforts to increase confidence in the U.S. electoral
>process.
>
>Democracy has no single blueprint; it is borne of the unique
>history and experience of the many countries where it is nurtured.
>Nonetheless, the world's democracies share many of the same
>challenges. All democracies grapple with how to ensure that every
>vote counts, that voting technology is effective, and that
>political contests occur on a level playing field. By recognizing
>the similar obstacles that all democracies face, and by sharing the
>democratic innovations and advances occurring around the world, the
>delegation seeks to bring to light the best practices that may
>benefit the U.S. political system.
>
>While the Pre-Election observation investigated a range of
>electoral issues, the delegation closely examined three particular
>subjects that appear to be feeding controversy and undermining
>public confidence in the upcoming American elections:
>
>* The potential for disproportionate disenfranchisement of minority
>and poor voters;
>
>* The security of millions of votes recorded on computer voting
>machines; and
>
>* The consequences of corporate and personal wealth in political
>contests.
>
>The Pre-Election observers arrived in Washington, D.C. on September
>13, 2004 meeting with government officials, policy analysts,
>advocacy organizations, and academics to get an overview of
>electoral issues in the U.S. Delegates then split into five groups
>to conduct investigations in Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Missouri,
>and Ohio. In those states, delegates met with Secretaries of State
>and county election officials, talked with community organizations,
>observed voter registration drives, and held town hall meetings to
>gain as complete a picture of U.S. democracy as possible.
>
>State Selection
>
>* In Arizona the team focused primarily on the question of money in
>politics. Arizona is only one of two states with publicly financed
>campaigns.
>
>* Florida was chosen because it was the site of the most widely
>publicized irregularities that contributed to the constitutional
>crisis of 2000.
>
>* Georgia was selected because it is one of only two states the
>other being Maryland that will vote uniformly on paperless Direct
>Recording Electronic (DRE) ballots. In 2000 there were also reports
>of disenfranchisement of minority voters in Georgia.
>
>* Missouri also experienced serious troubles on Election Day 2000,
>as thousands of eligible St. Louis voters were unable to vote due
>to being incorrectly placed on inactive voter lists. A Consent
>Decree has attempted to remedy those problems.
>
>* Ohio was chosen because it is widely considered one of the most
>hotly contested swing states, with a diverse urban and rural
>population and allegations of partisan manipulation of voting
>procedures. The introduction of a new generation of voting machines
>has been largely abandoned due to controversy over their
>reliability. During the observation, the delegation heard from many
>citizens whose faith in U.S. electoral processes remains shaken by
>the events of 2000. The delegation also observed the activities of
>a healthy and engaged civil society that is working out flaws in
>the system and promoting reforms designed to enhance transparency
>and confidence.
>
>Time for Transparency
>
>Many concerned citizens have asked what a report issued two weeks
>before the election can do to help electoral fairness. Aside from
>discussing recommendations that point to long term reform that
>frequently require legislation for their implementation, what can
>be done?
>
>The answer is clear: It is never too late for transparency and fair
>play.
>
>The delegation recommends the following for the immediate-term:
>
>* Elections officials at all levels can open the electoral process
>to non-partisan observers from the United States, as well as their
>far less numerous overseas counterparts, to oversee all aspects of
>the election and tabulation processes. Such scrutiny cannot resolve
>all of the concerns raised in this report, but it will go a long
>way toward rebuilding the confidence necessary to legitimize the
>election in the eyes of reasonable doubters. Further, election
>officials can pledge to deal with all Election Day and post
>electoral disputes with the utmost evenhandedness, employing the
>principle that their decisions should promote the greatest
>inclusion possible.
>
>Key medium and long-term recommendations found in this report
>include:
>
>* Eliminate partisan administration of the electoral apparatus and
>move toward non-partisan electoral management. In the United
>States, most top election administrators are party members and
>elected officials, which can engender the perception of a conflict
>of interest. This practice is not consistent with international
>standards.
>
>Moreover, the confidence of the electorate is enhanced when
>independent oversight holds sway.
>
>* Modify or replace Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) machines to
>provide all voting equipment with a voter verified, re-countable,
>paper record. If such verification is not available, arrangements
>for independent auditing should be put in place.
>
>* Restore the franchise to ex-felons; the inclusion of exfelons as
>full voting citizens is practiced in most of the United States and
>in most democracies around the world. This would require action by
>state authorities in Florida and seven other states. We recommend
>automatic restoration following release or parole.
>
>* Adopt public campaign financing to help level the political
>playing field, avoid perceptions of corruption and raise voter
>confidence. Internationally, one of the most effective methods for
>regulating campaign finance is to limit expenditures; however
>Supreme Court rulings have effectively closed this option in the
>United States. Public finance models currently exist in the states
>of Arizona and Maine.
>
>The pre-election report that follows contains two major sections:
>
>* A report on election readiness across the five states as well as
>recommendations for short and longer-term reform.
>
>* Five state reports including findings and recommendations for
>short and longer-term reform.
>
>Based on the experiences of this delegation, a second team of
>observers will return to Florida, Missouri and Ohio for Election
>Day, November 2, 2004.
>
>...
>
>1.3 The Franchise
>
>Although practices and restrictions vary, many countries extend the
>franchise to legal residents or taxpayers, particularly at the
>local level. The franchise in the Unites States is generally
>restrictive, limiting citizens' voting as more a privilege than a
>right.
>
>Voter Registration and Registration Lists:
>
>In the United States, voter registration is managed at the county
>and municipal level, with registration rules varying widely.
>Registration problems were responsible for half of the 4.6 million
>votes lost in the 2000 election. Most of those voters lost their
>franchise due to erroneous voter rolls and/or purging of voters'
>names from registration databases. By January 1, 2004, HAVA
>required states to implement centralized, nondiscriminatory and
>computerized voter registration lists linked with other state
>agency databases, specifically the motor vehicle authority data. In
>addition, the new HAVA-compliant database must allow local election
>officials immediate access to the lists and state assistance with
>expeditious data entry. However, 41 states sought and were granted
>a statutory waiver until 2006, making it likely that many of the
>problems that arose in 2000 will be repeated. Many of the systems
>the delegation observed create a series of hurdles for voters, and
>put the responsibility for ensuring registration on the voter
>rather than the state.
>
>Felon Disenfranchisement:
>
>In all but two states (Maine and Vermont), laws have been enacted
>that prohibit convicted felons from voting during their
>incarceration. A majority of states restore former felons' rights
>after they have served their sentence or following release from
>parole. However, the delegation was informed by civil society and
>prison advocacy groups that ex-felons are often not informed by
>authorities that their voting rights should be restored upon
>completion of their sentence.
>
>Eight states permanently deny ex-offenders the right to vote. An
>estimated 4.7 million people are currently disenfranchised and this
>number continues to increase following the trend toward tougher
>sentencing in the United States. These laws affect African
>Americans at a rate seven times the national average and affect 1.4
>million, or 13 percent, of the African American male population. At
>current incarceration rates, 40 percent of the next generation of
>African American men in the eight states that permanently deny the
>ballot to felons may become disenfranchised. Latinos are also
>disproportionately affected by felon disenfranchisement laws
>(precise data is difficult to ascertain; the Bureau of Justice
>Statistics does not report separate conviction data for this
>population).
>
>Impacts on Low-Income and Minority Populations:
>
>Minority and low-income sectors of the population are
>disproportionately disenfranchised. The reasons for this are
>complicated and hotly debated the facts about voting patterns are
>not. By and large, minority groups are less likely to vote. In
>municipalities throughout the country, registration information is
>updated by mail to the last known address. Statistically,
>low-income and minority populations tend to move more often than do
>other sectors of society, and are less likely to receive
>notification of changes to their voting status or precinct changes.
>Minority rights' and voter advocacy groups have found themselves
>responsible for much of the voter education within minority
>communities. These groups report that cooperation and partnership
>in this task with voting officials has not always been forthcoming
>or easy. The delegation also heard a range of additional concerns
>from representatives of minority groups, from bureaucratic delays
>in the processing of voter registration to voter intimidation and
>intentional partisan disenfranchisement.
>
>...
>
>2.3 The Franchise
>
>Recommendation Regarding the Disenfranchisement of Exfelons:
>
>Many countries restrict the voting rights of serious offenders
>while they are serving their sentence. The delegation's concerns
>center on the permanent disenfranchisement of former felons, a
>practice that falls outside of international or even U.S. norms and
>is an unreasonable restriction that creates subcategories of
>citizenship in the United States. In most states, it is assumed
>that ex-offenders have paid their debt to society, and that
>rehabilitated, they will lead productive lives in society.
>Ex-felons are expected to contribute to society as gainfully
>employed citizens, pay taxes and raise families, but their
>disenfranchisement gives them no say in how those tax dollars are
>spent, who sits on their children's school board, or who represents
>their interests in government. The delegation strongly recommends
>that those states that permanently disenfranchise felons - Florida,
>Virginia, Nebraska, Mississippi, Kentucky, Iowa, Arizona and
>Alabama - amend their laws and practices to restore full
>citizenship rights to ex-offenders. In addition, in those states
>where voting rights of ex-felons can be restored upon release,
>authorities should disseminate clear and precise materials in a
>variety of media informing ex-felons of their restored rights.
>
>*************************************************************
>
>Felon Disfranchisement Policies in the United States and Other
>Democracies
>
>by Laleh Ispahani
>
>http://www.fairelection.us/documents/Prepart42.pdf
>
>["Democracy Denied," a longer background paper on
>disenfranchisement, is available at:
>http://www.fairelection.us/documents/Prepart41.pdf]
>
>United States facts and impacts
>
>Media coverage of the United States' policy of felon
>disfranchisement has been widespread in the last two presidential
>election years. The coverage usually involves the idiosyncratic
>nature of these laws which vary from state to state; their impact on 
>minority political participation; and speculation as to which
>political party would benefit if these voting laws were
>liberalized. Absent from the policy debates is an assessment of how
>the United States stacks up against other democracies on this
>issue.
>
>Nearly five million citizens with present or past felony
>convictions are disfranchised due to what the Department of Justice
>calls "a national crazy-quilt of disqualification[] [laws] and
>restoration procedures." Only two states permit incarcerated felons
>to vote, while 48 states and the District of Columbia prohibit
>incarcerated felons from voting. Thirty-five states also deny the
>vote to those on parole, and 31 restrict those on probation as
>well. Seven states deny the right to vote to all felons who have
>completed their sentences, and seven others disfranchise certain
>categories of ex-felons and/or permit application for restoration
>of voting rights depending on the offense after a waiting period.
>These application procedures are often cumbersome, lengthy, and
>inaccessible to many ex-felons.
>
>The impact on minority electoral participation is nothing less than
>startling: African American men are disfranchised at a rate seven
>times the national average. At current rates of incarceration,
>three in ten of the next generation of black men can expect to be
>disfranchised at some point in their lives. In the six states that
>automatically and indefinitely disfranchise first-time felons, as
>many as 40% of black men may permanently lose their right to vote.
>And because these states do not distinguish between types of
>felonies or length of sentence, an 18-year old convicted in
>Virginia of a one-time drug sale who successfully completes a
>court-ordered treatment program, and is never rearrested again,
>permanently loses voting rights unless a gubernatorial pardon is
>obtained.
>
>United States versus other democracies' policies
>
>But how do we compare with our fellow democracies? The United
>States has the dubious distinction of being the sole democracy to
>indefinitely bar so many from voting. This proud democracy entered
>the 21st century with the world's highest imprisonment rate and,
>possibly, its most restrictive disfranchisement laws.
>
>Many non-U.S. democratic nations permit prisoners to vote.
>Prisoners may vote in countries including the Czech Republic,
>Denmark, France, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Netherlands, Norway, Peru,
>Poland, Romania, Sweden and Zimbabwe, according to research by the
>NGO Penal Reform International. Indeed, German law affirmatively
>requires the government to facilitate inmate voting, excluding from
>voting only those prisoners convicted of electoral crimes or crimes
>such as treason that undermine the "democratic order" and those
>whose court-imposed sentence expressly includes disfranchisement.
>(Permitting an inmate to vote in New Mexico, by contrast, earns you
>a misdemeanor.) Some countries have more tailored bans on prisoner
>voting. Austria's ban, for example, affects only those prisoners
>sentenced to more than one year of incarceration.
>
>A few non-U.S. democracies do restrict the vote to ex-prisoners but
>generally only for short periods of time after the conclusion of
>prison terms. For example, Finland and New Zealand prohibit post-
>sentence voting for a few years but only for those convicted of
>buying or selling votes or of corrupt practices. And some countries
>condition post-sentence disfranchisement on the seriousness of the
>crime or the length of the sentence. Others, including Germany,
>only disfranchise for serious, legislatively enumerated offenses
>that must be assessed directly by the sentencing judge but in no
>case may disfranchisement last more than 5 years.
>
>United States disfranchisement policies and international norms
>
>Though untested, American disfranchisement policies likely
>contravene international human rights which guarantee the right to
>vote. The right is affirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human
>Rights and codified in Article 25 of the International Covenant on
>Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The United States ratified the
>Covenant, accepting its provisions as binding on both federal and
>state governments, as the "supreme law of the land". United States
>disfranchisement policies similarly likely also violate
>international law which outlines basic principles for electoral
>democracy including the right of citizens to vote. Article 25 "lies
>at the core of democratic government based on the consent of the
>people" according to the U.N. Human Rights Committee which reviews
>conformity to the ICCPR, and restrictions on the right to vote
>should only be based on grounds that are "objective and
>reasonable." The Committee, acknowledging the existence of criminal
>disfranchisement laws, has stated that "[i]f conviction for an
>offence is the basis for suspending the right to vote, the period
>of such suspension should be proportionate to the offence and the
>sentence," and has consistently disapproved, and tried to limit the
>reach, of criminal disfranchisement laws that it has reviewed.
>
>The racially disproportionate impact of the United States'
>disfranchisement laws is also inconsistent with the principles of
>non-discrimination in the ICCPR and in the Convention on the
>Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) ratified
>by the United States in 1994. Article 25 of the ICCPR specifically
>enjoins racial discrimination with regard to electoral rights. CERD
>also requires states parties to guarantee, without distinction as
>to race, color or national or ethnic origin, "[p]olitical rights,
>in particular the right to participate in elections - to vote and
>to stand for election -on the basis of universal and equal
>suffrage..."
>
>...
>
>
>*************************************************************
>AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
>providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with
>a particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
>Bulletin is edited by William Minter.
>
>AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus at igc.org. Please
>write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
>or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
>reposted material, please contact directly the original source
>mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see
>http://www.africafocus.org
>
>************************************************************


-- 


Al Kagan
African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of Library Administration
Africana Unit, Room 328
University of Illinois Library
1408 W. Gregory Drive
Urbana, IL 61801, USA

tel. 217-333-6519
fax. 217-333-2214
e-mail. akagan at uiuc.edu