HLS Professors Criticize Current Voting Process

A panel of four legal experts spoke at the Harvard Law School yesterday about the aftermath of the Florida election debacle and their approaches to solving the problems of minority voter disenfranchisement.

Under the moderation of Lani Guinier, a Harvard Law professor with a special interest in voting law, the panel discussed the problems that occurred in Florida during November's presidential election as well as the broader problems of alienation among minority voters on the national political level.

The panelists discussed the need for creative policy solutions that extend beyond merely replacing faulty macherinery.

"I think that the primary question is, 'How do we return democracy to the people,'" Guinier said.

"People are focusing on the wrong questions," said Heather Gerkin, assistant professor at Harvard Law School with a focus in election law. "They are considering incremental changes involving ballots and machinery and not talking about the issues of race."

Christopher Edley, Harvard Law professor and head of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' investigation into the Florida election, highlighted the abuses found by the commission.

The list included butterfly ballots that confused elder voters, last-minute relocations of ballot sites, sites without proper language assistance, voter restrictions which accidentally turned away non-felons as well as felons and ballot spoilage rates that were as high as 13 percent for some counties.

"In Florida, so many people dipping their toes in the voting process for possibly the first time found that it is not always a pleasant process," Edley said.

The panelists saw the failure of the Democratic Party in Florida to engage the African-American voters as an example of the party's failure nationwide to properly represent minority communities. Edley spoke of the Democratic Party's fear of "racializing" issues.

"The Democratic Party is afraid that by focusing on issues of race, they will alienate mainstream swing voters," Edley said.

The panalists criticized the majority of Democratic congressmen, repeatedly referring to them as "quivering wimps".

"Their natural instinctual response is going to be superficial," Edley said of Democratic congressmen. "They don't have deep wells of intellectual capital."

In the case of the Florida election, this meant that both Democratic and Republican politicians limited the focus of debate to the failure of voting machines. Issues of race were not confronted by politicians of either party.

"I worry that politicians are not inclined towards genuine reform," Guinier said.

The panelists suggested solutions for amending the voting process. Edley suggested same-day voter registration, performance standards in the voting process and resources allocated for education.

Penda Hair, co-director of the Advancement Project and the attorney involved with NAACP v. Katherine Harris, focused on the need for grassroots efforts to accomplish what litigation cannot.

"If energy comes at all to this issue, it will come from grassroots organizations," Hair said. "We are hoping that there will be some grassroots efforts around the Katherine Harris case because the law suit by itself will not solve the problem.

Despite the speakers' attempts to find possible solutions, some audience members said they felt discouraged by the current political atmosphere.

"There didn't seem to be much hope," said second-year Harvard Law student Yvonne M. Anderson after the talk. "What I see among the professors is as much frustration as the students are feeling."