Search-prod.lis.state.oh.us



May 2, 2016To: Ohio Senate Civil Justice CommitteeFrom: Adele EisnerRe: Opposition to passage of SB296Senator Bacon and Committee Members: My name is Adele Eisner. Over the past 12 years I have actively participated with a number of non-partisan, local, state and national election reform groups, which seek fair elections for all voters. I stand in strong opposition to the passage of SB296. I do this on both grounds of fundamental values - the fundamental injustice it creates for voters; and on the grounds that SB296's specifics misidentify seemingly real and compelling problems for election boards and for voters, then goes about trying to solve the wrong problems in illogical, inconsistent and self-conflicting ways. This results in a bill that is unjustly punitive to voters - both financially and with too-possible disenfranchisement - for problems that voters do not and did not cause. And a bill where too often the harms that have been and can be suffered are disruptions of hundreds to thousands of voters' lives, which goes unacknowledged, and/or the complete loss of the opportunity to vote, at times, due to incomplete preparations by the boards themselves. I understand the difficulties - for everyone - that may be caused by a late-day emergency or otherwise unforeseen needs to extend voting hours, in order to allow the voting right to every voter who has responsibly pre-planned his or her time and life in order to easily cast a ballot in the hours and in a way previously represented by the boards, but who finds due to unforeseen major traffic jams or weather emergencies affecting many, or because of failures in planning and execution by their board itself, their opportunity thwarted and the need for more time is necessary. Taxpayers/voters are the ones who already pay for elections - from the computers and tables, to the paychecks of policymakers and workers, management to PEOs - to conduct elections in a fair and just manner, and thus deserve nothing less from you, and our other public servants. As a case in point, I refer to SB296 proponent testimony from last week. The Director of the Hamilton County BOE offered support, which she said was to "promote order and fairness." There, she opened the door to discussion of the need for the Hamilton's voting hours extension last November, and "the chaos" that caused. However the only "chaos" this public servant recognized was to how it affected herself and her board workers, not the more than a thousand voters, who when responsibly appearing to vote, were told to wait unreasonably or impossibly long times, or to come back, or to vote provisionally, etc. causing chaos in their lives. In her words to Secretary Husted about the Hamilton Election Day problems, she showed that the board's problems were the direct and proximal cause of the needed hours-extension for voters to cast their ballots. There, the only negligence that might be ascribed could be the absence of the board's busy, but insufficient planning, research and completion before adding new computer technology into practice, and that the main, possibly irreparable, harm experienced was in the chaos and possible disenfranchisement caused to many Hamilton voters. Instead of receiving even an apology from their public servants whom they pay to conduct citizens' elections, under SB296, those victims of the board's insufficiency would be slated to have to pay much, much more just to get their chance to vote. In no American lexicon, is that considered "civil justice". There too, and possibly to emphasize her wishes for such a bill that serves no justice or reasonable public policy, and makes little sense other than when looking at it from a partisan lens, she estimated that such an hours extension costs her board $57,000, an easy enough estimate which almost exactly equals SB296's $22.50 per hour, for her approximate 2600 workers, which voters, in most cases, would have to put forth as a bond before an hours extension is granted under SB296. (The "indigent exception" of course, would, in most cases, be outside the awareness and the financial abilities to have a lawyer file such motions for a person who is truly indigent, thus is useless window dressing to the democratic process. Also invoking it, would exact an even higher cost in time and financial burden just to gain the franchise for the one person who might be aware and able to manage it, thus is allowed to vote after 7:30pm.) $22.50 per hour per worker, also makes no sense, especially while the legislature only considers these poll workers worth approximately $9 an hour for training and for the rest of the 15+ hour day, when the dollars are not being exacted from harmed voters. Ms. Poland also pointed to the last minute trouble for PEOs to make alternate babysitting arrangements as a major reason for such hourly pay discrepancy, which becomes even more nonsensical. With an often estimated approximate 50% or more of the poll worker force being over the age of 65 years, babysitting arrangements would hardly seem a high frequency event among the whole, especially when considering the hours of 8:30pm versus 9:30pm, and not the right after school hours; and when also considering that some such warning and planning for leaving their paid duties well after 7:30pm should have already been made, because of the mandate that poll workers must stay in place to reconcile, balance and close the day's activities, which could have them there until 9:30pm even without a voting hours extension. As stated above, I do understand the difficulties - for everyone - that may be caused by a late-day emergency or otherwise unforeseen circumstance that creates a need to extend voting hours, in order to allow the voting right to every voter who has responsibly pre-planned his or her time and life in order to easily cast a ballot in hours and in a way previously represented by the boards. Voters who have planned to vote after work, but find a weather emergency, or an emergency traffic accident with an hours-long jam preventing many people from getting to the polls on time, are certainly not negligent for not having not planned for the emergency. As Sherry Poland pointed out, most election officials know "stuff happens" in every election. Thus, included in their hiring process for poll workers should be, the warning that just in case, "something does happen" which delays the close of polls, they need to also make alternate plans to get home an hour or two later than expected. Some possible additional, more tailored ways to properly address some of SB296's proponents' mentioned problems and other problems presented by voting hours extensions, could include: ? The need to make poll working more attractive to good workers: ? Allow poll worker shifts - two shifts to avoid the too-long day for many to physically handle or to work into their lives (and could allow parents to work first shift to be home to receive their kids after school.)? Raise poll worker pay minimums and maximums statewide, with additional state allocations being released by the state to the counties, to allow for longer, more quality training hours that is needed, and for greater appreciation of their roles every Election Day. ? Institute a merit-base pay raise program to encourage good, well-trained and experienced poll workers to return. ? The difficulties of a too-late notice about a voting hours extension to allow all polls to stay open as decided:? Establish a cut off time for filing such motions and for proof that such extension holds authentic justice and democratic ideals at the forefront, for example 6:30pm - one that is reasonable and still allows for last minute emergencies, as well as for an established, uniform system of notice to be implemented on time;? Mandate and provide that there be a "hotline" cellular smart phone at each polling location, with one person designated and trained to make sure it's charged and in cellular range; as well as gather the cell phone numbers of every poll worker at each voting location, so that rather than a BOE's making serial "robo-calls" which take time, a "broadcast" system where large groups of text messages can go out simultaneously. ? The need to make sure that any tax-paid BOE that prevents voters from easy access to voting during Election Day due to a system failures, such as poor public education, poor training, computer "glitches", and improper planning does not repeat its errors, by properly identifying its problems to the public, with plans to fix the problems, and accompanied by an apology. SB296, rather than encouraging proper identification of causes of the infrequent needs to extend voting hours, and the harms (some irreparable) faced by voters should there not be an extension, just encourages local boards to be satisfied with "stuff happens," and to support bills such as this one which improperly shifts blame, punishment, including extreme financial burdens to harmed voters. That is not "civil justice." Nor is the extreme, off-point statement by the SB296's sponsor to the press, that voters expect "24/7 Kroger voting" when nothing could be further from the truth. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download