The role of the media is crucial. The challenges to voter eligibility are easy to make but hard to disprove after the election. As Justin Levitt noted, voters must be given a "clear experience to a regular ballot" as opposed to being forced to vote provisionally.
In answering a question from a member of the press, Michael Waldman added, "Laws are so prohibitively central in limiting debate- it's hard to imagine a state where more legitimate voters are not excluded than fraudulent voters discovered."
When pressed to give an evaluation of the helpfulness of HAVA legislation, by a representative of a major network, asking if we are better off today than we were in 2000, Michael Waldman made the following observation: HAVA was a step forward. But implementation has created uncertainty and barriers. We do not know the final judgement on HAVA. Problems arise around the uncertainty surrounding voting. The HAVA requirement for a statewide database becomes problematic when implemented by election officials. Chaos is used to disenfranchise and pushback against HAVA's intent to increase voting. This has equated to political misuse.
Wendy Weiser, a Brennan Center attorney at the Democracy Program, added this analysis of the value of the HAVA legislation: Vote suppression is not required by HAVA, or related to it. HAVA is an election reform moment. This moment creates opportunity for mischief. We are seeing a lot of mischief.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
