Commentary; Posted: 12/4/02

Election judge sees need for reform of system

Robert M. Shaw
Guest Columnist

I was an election judge again on Nov. 5 and something interesting happened this time.

Two judges were stationed by the balloting machine: one to instruct voters how to insert ballots into the machine, the other to receive and insert smaller ballots into a box about 20 inches square with a narrow slit in its top. The small alternate ballots, as you know if you voted, were necessitated by events flowing from Sen. Wellstoneís fatal plane crash.

At the time, my job by the ballot-box was to ask approaching voters to fold those small, white ballots and hand them to me. Then I was to put them into the box ó explaining, if necessary, that Minnesota election law required judges, not voters, to perform this final act in the process.

A man approached me from the voting booth. When he saw the smaller box, which was sitting on a chair about 10 feet from the balloting machine, he began to shout in a very agitated way, pointing to the box. He had a heavy, foreign accent.î

ìWhoís going to count those ballots?î he shouted. I replied that election judges would, after the poll closed. He continued to shout in a very loud voice, making it very clear that he didnít like that small, primitive-looking ballot-box sitting by the big, modern balloting machine.

ìWe donít like it, either,î I said. ìIt was the plane crash just before the election. Thatís why we need a special ballot and a special box. Weíll be counting those ballots until midnight!î I said. My words had little effect.

I was busy (we had 81 percent turnout in our precinct) and lots of people were waiting ó listening, too ó to what was going on. I signalled for the head judge. She came over, took the man aside, and the two talked for five to 10 minutes. Gradually the shouting subsided. The man finally came to my station, handed me his ballot and walked out.

Later the head judge explained the man didnít trust what would happen to all those special ballots when the polls closed. He had said (he made a motion with his hands, as if tearing paper apart) that in his country judges tear up ballots after the polls close. She had patiently explained that our law requires two election judges ó one Republican, one Democrat ó to supervise ballot-counting.

When he learned about this check and balance, the manís suspicion apparently disappeared.

I thought about this later. That man, I say, believed in fair elections, believed in democracy. He had seen corruption, knew how it worked when the polls were closed. He was ready to raise hell in public for what he thought was wrong. He deserves a medal.

How many voters in Florida raised hell at the polls about that stateís medieval system? How many of us, like that man, would raise our voices about corruption or the appearance of it in our democracy?

Florida, as I understand it, allows each county to write and enforce its own election laws. What members of Congress, what senators are willing to turn over the rock and see what goes on in other states? Donít we need, and need very soon, one federal electoral system, one technology?

Iím afraid that in the current loud and confused situation, election-law reform will again fall through the cracks. We Americans have a very short span of attention.

About 60 percent of potential voters in the U.S. did not do so in the recent election. Iím curious: I would like to know a lot more about these non-voters. Are they rich, poor? Minority, majority? Young, old?

Why didnít they vote? What kind of schools graduate students who donít believe in voting?

Serving on a jury, they say, restores oneís faith in our judicial system. Serving as an election judge, I say, helps restore oneís faith in democracy. Try it some time. The system needs you.

Writer Robert M. Shaw is manager emeritus of the Minnesota Newspaper Association and a former employee of the St. Croix Valley Peach and Forest lake Times.

Top of Page