Last week it was John Fund; this week it’s the editors of the National Review Online:
The nub of the likely Democratic strategy is the so-called “provisional ballot.” The 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires that any voter whose registration is uncertain, or who is unregistered, can still cast a ballot “provisionally.” Once the polls close, the voter’s name is checked against public records to ensure its eligibility, and then his vote is added to the relevant candidate’s tally. In theory, it is a sensible idea, giving a voter who is the victim of some bureaucratic snafu the chance to vote. But the Democrats hope to turn the intention of the law on its head. Provisional ballots are presumed unlawful unless demonstrated otherwise. Remember: These “provisional” votes wouldn’t have been considered valid in 2000. Many of them surely should be excluded this year, but Democrats will create pressure to count them all no matter what.
As I said last week, my North Carolina county has been using provisional ballots successfully for several years. No one wants to vote a provisional ballot — everyone wants to use a regular ballot and insert it into the tabulator to be certain that it will be counted. A provisional ballot may be rejected; it’s only a last resort.
I don’t see how provisional ballots could be an effective method of fraudulent voting. Filling out a provisional ballot must be done in person, it’s time-consuming and it requires a signature. Where would one get an army of people willing to travel from precinct to precinct on election day, committing felonies and signing their names at each stop?
Provisional ballots are a good thing, but they’re subject to human error and confusion like anything else. Since many jurisdictions will be using them for the first time, there will no doubt be difficulties somewhere. Problems with provisional ballots could of course be critical in an election as close as Florida in 2000, but everything becomes critical in an election like that. The paranoia is unjustified.