Guest Column: Voting Reform in Massachusetts

Comments (1)
Wednesday, January 29, 2014

New England has a long, proud history of citizen participation; the town meeting is still alive and well in western Massachusetts, as elsewhere in the Northeast. Given this history of citizen engagement, it may be surprising to realize that some New England states lag behind other parts of the country in encouraging voting.

Nowadays we hear of voter suppression, a current problem in many states. We think of government-issued photo IDs; the obstruction of third-party voter registration drives organized by groups like the League of Women Voters; even of harassment of voters. But states can make it hard for people to vote just by limiting opportunities to register and to vote.

Maine and Vermont are among 27 states with unrestricted absentee voting; in the other New England states, only specific categories of excuses make voters eligible for absentee ballots.

“Early voting” often means in-person voting using an (unrestricted) absentee ballot, as in Vermont and Maine. In Vermont, one can vote within 45 days before a primary or general election or 20 days before a municipal election. In Maine one can vote whenever absentee ballots are available, up to the Thursday before an election. In Massachusetts, the House recently passed a bill which would provide early voting (from the 11th to the 2nd day before voting day), but only in the case of presidential primaries and elections. Last week the Senate approved early voting from the 10th to the second business days before any federal or state primary or election. (These are not absentee ballots, which would still be available only in limited circumstances.) Some weekend hours are mandated; localities may add evening hours.

Both online registration and online verification of one’s registration status are part of the Massachusetts reform. These are intended to improve efficiency and reliability and cut costs, as well as provide convenience to voters. Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Rhode Island already offer online verification of registration. Nationally, 14 states have implemented online registration; in New England, only Connecticut has passed online registration.

The Massachusetts Senate approved same-day registration, as in Maine, New Hampshire and (in limited circumstances) Rhode Island. It also approved the preregistration of 16- and 17-year- olds. In other New England states and currently in Massachusetts, only those who will be 18 by or on Election Day can preregister at 17. The Senate bill would make voting easier and quicker by ending the need for checkout tables at polling places, and easing the conditions under which voters are declared inactive.

Expanded early voting and Election Day registration, as well as increased use of electronic recordkeeping, are objectives of Voter Registration Modernization (VRM) plans. The League of Women Voters’ VRM goals include expanded opportunities for online registration, and permanent and portable statewide voter registration through the use of such a statewide computerized voter registration list. (Under the current system, voters must reregister every time they move to a new city or town within the state.)

Congratulations to the Massachusetts Legislature for the improvements in the two bills! Concerned citizens should urge support for the fuller Senate version of voter reform so that Massachusetts, with its long tradition of local participation in government, can join its neighbors in election and registration reforms, and perhaps even play a leading role.•

Susan Millinger is a member of the Amherst League of Women Voters.

Comments (1)
Post a Comment

We will see. It is now easier to register to vote than ever before. In Springfield everyone lives near a library where the forms can be found. In addition many organizations have people who have been sworn in as registrars. 40% of those eligible to register actually do. 25% of those registered actually showing up to vote is considered a good turnout. We already had absentee voting, which can be done earlier than election day. So it is not really much of a reform.

When I ask people why they do not vote they tell me that it does not matter how they vote anyway. They have a point. In many districts the incumbents are running unopposed. This is due to excessive signature requirements to get one’s name on the ballot. Who ever runs for governor will have to get 10,000 voters to sign his form just to get his name on the ballot.

Then we have the “wasted vote” scenario where in rare cases there are more than2 candidates and the voter picks the one who he feels is the least harmful who is more likely to win, rather than the one he really wants to win. Instance Runoff Voting would solve that. The voter assigns a number indicating preference to each candidate. With each iteration the low scorers are dropped from the next iteration. With computers that would be easy to do.

These are two items that would truly be electoral reform.

Posted by Robert Underwood on 1.31.14 at 8:51



New User/Guest?

Find it Here:
search type:
search in:

« Previous   |   Next »
Print Email RSS feed

In Satoshi We Trust?
Outside the Cage
How solid is the case for organic and cage-free egg production?
Between the Lines: Practically Organic
Does the organic farming movement make perfect the enemy of good?
Scene Here: The Kitchen Garden Farm
From Our Readers
Profiles in Survival
Young business owners in retail-rich Northampton get along by getting along.
The Burning Question
Neighbors of a proposed wood-burning plant in Springfield cry foul air