It's been a while since I've written anything here. I've been struggling with motivation, but I'm trying to work through that. I thought a good place to start would be to recount my experience working as a polling clerk in suburban Georgia.
1. Elections are run mostly by women
I hadn't thought about it much prior to this experience, but in hindsight I believe this is true. Our polling location had ten people working it. Of those ten, seven were women. Thinking back to my previous trips to the polls, most have been staffed by a majority of women. The training course I took prior to election day was ran by four people, three of them women. 75% of the attendees of that course were women.
There are a few cultural reasons that I think can explain this, such as the fact that only 56.8% of women 16 and older are part of the work force compared to 69.2% of men the same ages (numbers from Department of Labor for 2016) or that those who are employed are more likely to be part-time staff than their male counterparts potentially giving them the flexibility to become engaged in election activities. I assume this applies to campaign work as well given most of that work is done by volunteers. Yet, most of the candidates themselves are men. That is changing, and I hope our country continues to disrupt our gender divides. Though, this pandemic has worsened that divide as women have been far more likely to voluntarily leave work in order to care for children stuck at home rather than attending school or to have been employed in industries that have had the most layoffs (source).
Whatever the case may be, we men need to be doing our fair share of the work. Too often we benefit from the labor of women without participating in it. Whether these tasks are associated with household upkeep or managing social opportunities or the election process, we need to step up and do our share of that work.
2. The diversity of my county was very apparent
I live in one of the most racially diverse counties in the state of Georgia. We had 425 people cast ballots on voting machines while 11 people filled out paper provisional ballots. There was a good number of people who came to vote but were in the wrong location and left for the correct one as well.
The diversity of this county was in full display among this group of people. Not merely in racial makeup, but gender and age as well. It was nice to see given narratives I've heard of how certain demographics take voting more seriously. I also appreciated seeing a few people vote for the first time, either by reaching the legal age or after having naturalized.
My understanding is that turnout across the country was up. I hope that trend continues. The heart of democracy is the people's voice. Voting is perhaps the easiest way of having your say in our government, so I hope people continue to engage in it and find others to do the same.
3. Provisional ballots are awkward
I mentioned 11 people at my location cast provisional ballots. Most of these were people that were at the wrong location but preferred to still cast their ballot with us. According to this info sheet from the Georgia Secretary of State, these votes will count as long as the voter is found in the list of registered voters for the qualifying period associated with the election in question, regardless of which precinct the voter is associated with. The exception is if they cast a vote for a position that was not tied to their actual precinct or district and they were not eligible to vote in that race. I'm happy to see this means those ballots would still count for the nation and state wide positions and amendments, which is what most people were concerned with, but may have prevented their voice from being heard in more local races or the U.S. House race.
Aside from concerns on how these ballots are processed, I think more needs to be done in preparing poll officials on what a provisional ballot is and how best to interact with voters concerning them. I was tasked with working the provisional table and was prepared to deal with voters who were upset or concerned they were being asked to go through a process that was different and on paper from the rest of the voters who were using the digital ballots. But that didn't really happen as I don't think the voters understood what a provisional ballot was or that there was a chance their vote may not count. Perhaps I should have been more forthcoming with that information. I did provide a memo from the elections office that made it explicit, but this was given to them after they had completed the paper ballot as instructed in the election's office materials.
Given how many of the voters I dealt with were in the wrong place, I think some of them could have been persuaded to go to their official polling locations instead. There were some that still would have refused given the distance involved (their address not being updated after a move) or due to time concerns (the greatest number of people I dealt with all day was right at the end when it was a concern that they could not make it to their designated polling locations before 7 PM), but how many of the others may not have had their vote count, at least for some races, because they were provided the option to fill out a ballot at our location?
Some of that falls on me, and I'm not happy with myself for allowing that to occur, but I also think myself and those verifying voter registration could have been better prepared for the situation. Our poll manager the night prior made it a point to hope that we didn't have any provisional voters rather than provide us with a plan or instruction. If I work another election like this, I will suggest we actually discuss what needs to be said to these voters. Most of those I handled were simply told they should be somewhere else but could cast a provisional ballot here. There was no mention of the possibility of it not counting or further encouragement to go to their assigned location. That offering of a paper ballot as a simple alternative made it feel awkward for me to then make the case to the voter for them to go to their assigned location. I didn't want to feel like I was giving them conflicting information from what they had just been told. But that isn't an excuse, and I should have set aside my own interest in avoiding conflict and provided them the full information.
I hope that all of the ballots from voters that came to me were counted. I will do better to ensure that is the case should I become involved again.
4. Georgia's liberal allowance of assistance at the voting booth is in a weird place
Georgia allows any voter to be accompanied by someone for the purposes of assisting them with casting their vote. They do not need to provide a reason for why assistance is needed nor does the assistant need to have any credentials or other validation of their ability to provide that assistance. The voter simply lets the poll worker verifying registration know the second person will be assisting and that person confirms with signature they will be doing so.
This is the most practical and accommodating policy. It allows a family member or someone close to the voter to provide the help, which I presume would be more comfortable then to have a stranger with the appropriate certification. It also doesn't create the issue of forcing the legislature to determine what qualifies for allowing assistance and what doesn't, thus avoiding the potential for leaving something off that prevents someone from participating fully.
However, this liberal policy can be used as a loophole for either voting multiple times or forcing someone to vote with your preferences. I witnessed what looked like such a situation. An older gentlemen came in with an older woman and another man. He stated he would be casting his ballot as well as assisting his wife and friend with their ballots. When the trio got to the voting machine there was little to no discussion. The man appeared to make the selection for all three ballots without any input from his companions.
It's possible they had discussed previously how they intended to vote so there wasn't a need for it in the moment, but it made me realize someone could use the policy inauthentically to force their choices onto someone else's ballot. Specifically, I can see abusive men using it to ensure there wives' ballots are cast with their own preferences rather than allowing their wives to have their own say.
I'm not sure how to close the loophole without overburdening the counties, state, and the voters with regulatory requirements that could leave people without the help they need. It is illegal to intimidate or otherwise coerce a voter, but prosecution of this crime would require the victim to bring the crime's attention to the authorities. In the situation of an abusive husband this seems unlikely unless the woman is willing to seek assistance in getting out of the relationship generally. At that point, I don't think it is likely she will want to pursue charges of voter intimidation, though it could be an option.
Thinking about it this way puts a lot of the burden of voter intimidation on the victim. I wonder if there is a better way for us enforce the law without putting so much on victims. I'm having a hard time thinking of ways that don't create issues elsewhere. Could we create and publicize a code word or phrase that people could give when asking to verify the person is assisting them that could alert poll officials that something problematic is occurring? This could work similarly to how some bars use the code “Angela” or “angel shot” to allow a woman to alert the staff they need help. It may be more difficult to publish the code without the possible abuser being made aware of it, most bars post the information in the women's restroom, but seems a plausible means for identifying these situations. It still places a burden on the victim, though.
I'll continue to think about the issue and follow up if I come up with or run across something that might help solve the issue.
5. The results and aftermath
At the time of this going up, states are in the process of completing their counts and certifying the results. The margins are such that any ballots yet to be counted will not have an affect on the outcome and Joe Biden has been declared the winner. I'm pleased with the result, though I had hoped more people would have recognized the dangers Donald Trump presents to our principles and voted against him. Still, the result is the one we needed, and he has lost the election.
Despite that, he and his sycophants are insisting there was fraud throughout the election in various states, but mostly those where the margin between he and Biden was slim. His legal team filed suits in attempt to stop the counting process while his lead was eaten away at by the large number of mail in ballots in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia. At the same time, they were actively encouraging the counting in Arizona to continue where each new release of information on counted votes favored Trump, though not enough to overcome Biden's lead there. They have insisted corruption in the offices handling the election, at both state and county levels, even in places like Georgia where such positions are nearly all held by members of their own party. Our governor, the former Secretary of State, has commented that all allegations of fraud must be taken seriously and uses the language of counting “legal votes” while disqualifying “illegal votes” without commenting on the need for evidence for such allegations and implying there were illegal votes cast, which has not been shown to be the case. The incumbent Republican Senators, who are heading to a runoff race against Democrat opponents, have started attacking the current Secretary of State who is also a Republican (here) and have called for his resignation.
All of this talk of fraud is baseless. There is no evidence for it. The suit in Pennsylvania alleged election watchers were not allowed access to the vote counting process. Once forced to defend the allegation in front of a judge under oath, they admitted they did in fact have such watchers in the appropriate location. If there were improper events occurring throughout voting and counting processes, that information would be coming from these watchers. I have yet to see any of the claims of impropriety come from these individuals or for them to present evidence in support of the allegations.
The reality is those in power and their spokespeople are claiming shenanigans out of wishful thinking. They don't like the results and are pulling at straws trying to find some way for them to not be true and therefore to avoid the consequences of this election. Since there is no reality to the claims, they will not be able to save them from the results. However, these claims are still dangerous in that numerous people who voted in favor of the President, or Perdue or Loeffler or insert candidate who lost, don't want the results to be real either. They'd rather believe something nefarious has occurred, and they are being denied the realization of their political will.
What these people are willing to do to ensure their will is carried out is uncertain. It is irresponsible to continue presenting them with the idea that the election has been stolen to stoke their anger and fear. Yet, that is what the President and major Republican figures and members or the administration are doing in their statements. Because of their conduct I still fear open rebellion in the streets from the President's supporters. I sincerely hope it does not come to that. We'll have to see if it is my hopes or my fears that actually come to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment