The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown

by Richard L. Hasen

The problems uncovered during the debacle of the 2000 presidential election persist, and we can expect far more trouble unless we fix the way we run elections

In 2000, just a few hundred votes out of millions cast in the state of Florida separated Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush from his Democratic opponent, Al Gore. The outcome of the election rested on Florida's 25 electoral votes, and legal wrangling continued for 36 days. Then, abruptly, one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions in U.S. history, Bush v. Gore , cut short the battle. Since the Florida debacle we have witnessed a partisan war over election rules. Election litigation has skyrocketed, and election time brings out inevitable accusations by political partisans of voter fraud and voter suppression. These allegations have shaken public confidence, as campaigns deploy “armies of lawyers” and the partisan press revs up when elections are expected to be close and the stakes are high. Richard L. Hasen, a respected authority on election law, chronicles and analyzes the battles over election rules from 2000 to the present. From a nonpartisan standpoint he explores the rising number of election-related lawsuits and charges of voter fraud as well as the decline of public confidence in fair results. He explains why future election disputes will be worse than previous ones—more acrimonious, more distorted by unsubstantiated allegations, and amplified by social media. No reader will fail to conclude with Hasen that election reform is an urgent priority, one that demands the attention of conscientious citizens and their elected representatives. Also available : The Fraudulent Fraud Squad , an e-excerpt from The Voting Wars
Released February 2012   9780300187489   $1.99

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Law

256 pages, Paperback

First published August 1, 2012

About the author

Richard L. Hasen is Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine. In 2013 he was named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America by the National Law Journal, and his previous books include Voting Wars, Plutocrats United, and The Justice of Contradictions. He lives in Studio City, CA.

Reviews

[Korin: A Crone Running Amok · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Democrats worry that people are disenfranchised &/or frightened away from the poles, the Republicans worry about voter fraud. Examples of each (much, much more of the first & very little of the second).

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

For a political science book, this one doesn't advocate one specific political agenda except for a better a better voting system overall and is easy for people who aren't interested in politics to get into. Someone picking up the book and reads only a few pages will gain the impression that the author, Richard Hasen, may be siding with one political party over another, when in fact, he holds both parties accountable for the state of the American voting system. To convey the status of voting in the United States and how it became what it is, Hasan uses short stories and analysis to show why a given method, idea, or technology is less than ideal. The argument the author is trying to make is this, what we've seen so far in elections, with litigation and accusations of tampering, isn't caused by voter fraud or suppression, but gross incompetence and partisanship.

This was a good book to read, easy to understand and not very preachy for a political science novel.

[Ryan Sloan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a very readable, well-researched, and detailed account of the conflicts we are experiencing in the law and process of administering elections. Hasen frames his treatment around two big ideas: the administration of elections has become increasingly politicized, and the decentralized nature of the electoral process leads to messes. He makes heavy use of "war stories" to provide examples, and this makes it a breeze to read.

First, the politicization of the electoral process: Hasen explains that the politicization of election administration got much worse beginning in the 2000 election, and is getting worse every year. Legal battles over election results are now part of every campaign's bag of tricks (he refers to the "Margin of Litigation.") In most states, elections are administered by partisan officials. These officials often act in ways that are (or are perceived by the other party to be) biased in favor of their party.

Partisanship manifests itself again in the fact that liberals and conservatives are upset about totally different issues. Liberals are typically most worried about laws they believe are suppressing voters, and conservatives are worried about voter fraud. Hasen explains that, first and foremost, each party has been guilty of selectively promoting voter suppression in different forms and at different times (eg: overseas absentee ballots, total recounts vs. partial recounts, etc.). Second, people often focus on the wrong issues (in-person voter fraud, isolated incidents of intimidation, etc.) I appreciated Hasen's honest, even-handed approach on these issues.

On the other side, Hasen describes some issues that deserve more attention than they get. For example, the way absentee ballots are handled, the way recounts are conducted, and the fact that voting equipment is a Wild West of bad design.

Interestingly, the last chapter (titled "Tweeting the Next Meltdown" and written in 2012) proved to be very prescient for the 2016 election. Hasen writes about the risks inherent in social media echo-chambers, which proved to be a big talking point this year.

When it comes to the decentralized nature of elections in the US, Hasen's argument is that there are way too many inconsistent judgement calls in the way elections are administered. Everything from the equipment that is used to how votes are counted is inconsistent. He points to many examples in which poorly-trained (often highly-partisan) administrators make decisions that aren't even internally consistent - much less consistent across county and state lines. Hasen proposes that we depoliticize election administration and turn it into a profession. He suggests establishing non-partisan panels at the federal, state, and local levels to set standards, allocate funds, and enforce regulations. He proposes that, to keep these from becoming partisan messes, they are appointed by the executive and require supermajority approval, and that they serve long terms. This seems like a rational approach, though he admits it's extremely unlikely to happen - state and local governments certainly don't like the idea of ceding power to the feds, and at every level the Democratic and Republican parties both like having the ability to exert partisan control on elections.

For someone who started with only a passing (and admittedly partisan) view of election law, this was a really wonderful introduction.

[Sophie]

Very few people understand the complexity of election administration and how widely competence varies. Hasen distills those issues and the way partisans now weaponize them for political advantage.

I take issue with the Hasen's suggestion that there should be "more power in the hands of the states than localities.” My pushback is within the California context and isn't about retaining power but retaining competence: The Secretary of State's office is much more political than our county (e.g. November 2018 CCROV re: signature cure timeline for unsigned VBM ballots). It also appears the SOS office has little understanding of local election administration. Laws are passed with good intentions and terrible processes (e.g. drop box regulations). What's pitched as innovation is anything but (e.g. Voters Choice Act). That leaves aside the fact that the state does not currently pay its fair share and with a larger role it would need to foot an even larger portion of the bill. I can't see how consolidating power at the state level in California would lead to better results.

I'd welcome more clarity around election code but I would hate to see that benefit at at the expense of our county's ability to run superior elections.

----------

“It remains very hard to overturn even a very close race. But it is easy to cast doubt on the fairness of the electoral process and the legitimacy of the winner.” Pg. 9

“Further, even if the [voter ID] laws had no partisan effect, they still disenfranchise voters for no good reason.” Pg. 88

“What’s really going on with the voting machines? The story should by now be familiar: Hanlon’s razor. Incompetence, not criminality.” Pg. 174

“We need nonpartisan, professionalized election administration at the federal, state, and local levels, with more power in the hands of the states than localities. Neutral election officials, whose allegiance is not to a political party or candidate but to a fair election system, must be the norm. These officials should be professional and technically competent to deal with the difficult task of running a complex election process and everything that it entails: contracting with election vendors; understanding the software and hardware; organizing a large-scale, short-term operation on Election Day; conduction poll worker training; establishing procedures for transparency and competence in counting and recounting votes; providing vital, timely, and clear communication with the public; and much more. Running a smooth election is no easy job, even without a meltdown.” Pg. 197

“Neutral administrators whose allegiance is to the running of free and fair elections, free of fraud and mismanagement, and whose actions are monitored by a bipartisan board of elections, are the best hope to restore faith in the integrity of elections. There should be uniform standards for how to deal with absentee ballots and provisional ballots. Election laws should be updated so that the rules are clear and established in advance.” Pg. 199

[Terry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Unusually readable for a political science book. That's partly because the author tells a lot of very specific "war" stories in the voting wars--many really outrageous, some just ludicrous. The fact that the author is clearly personally engaged in the voting wars also helps--he is often an in-person observer or party to a law suit or author of an amicus brief (he's a law professor). While he is most critical of Republican efforts to suppress the vote, he is also balanced in condemning Democrats when they over-react. And he recognizes partisan bias on both sides of most arguments and events. He's particularly good on the court case in the 2000 election but also has lots of smaller scale stories to tell. He offers sensible reforms but in the end shrugs his shoulders at the futility of hoping for such reforms in the face of hyper-partisanship that produces support for reforms only when they give advantage.

[Jacob]

I finished this book (and this review) two days before the 2012 general election. I click over to the author's blog and see a HuffPost article noting long lines for early voters in Ohio and Florida. The subheading "not an accident" links not to any effective argument for such a partisan manipulative scheme, but instead just incriminating pictures of long lines filled with bored-looking voters. Every side has something legitimate to decry, but, as Hasen argues, often we impute partisan motives to events better attributed to budget cuts or incompetence. I suspect this is one of those instances.

Fascinating anecdotes woven together by an expert in the field. Very readable. Might even make you laugh out loud. And then cry a little.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great book for anyone seeking to understand our broken election system. He closes with several pages of remedies - non-partisan election officials, stronger federal oversight, etc. - only to tell the reader to ignore his solutions because they will never happen. Both parties see an advantage in having partisan officials running elections, and local officials don't want to concede authority to the state, and state officials don't want to concede authority to the feds. We deserve a far better system than we have now.

[Debbi Wellenstein · Rating 4 out of 5]

The real threat to our enfranchisement isn't voter impersonation, or voter suppression; it's rampant incompetence! Voting machines that don't work, officials who have vote totals stored on personal laptops-forgetting to count 18,000 votes-yipes! We need to get our act together fast, lest we face another Florida 2000. Of course, with social media, a super close election could easily spark civil unrest.

[Rob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Does a great job of both detailing the recent history (since 2000) and explaining the underlying legal issues (such as the role that the equal protection clause plays in the legal battles fought over the obstacles to voting that republicans favor). Very well written, has the attention to detail of a book written for academics but the prose of something intended for a general audience. Very much enjoyed this.

[Julie Ihlenfeldt · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book about elections that doesn't have a political agenda. Instead, it is a compendium of electoral incompetence and electoral legal squabbles, large and small. As a Wisconsin resident (and poll worker), the fact that the book begins and ends in Wisconsin (although not in my city) made me cringe. But the author makes clear that my state isn't the only place with problems, and his chapter on Internet voting is eye-opening.

[Nelson Rosario · Rating 5 out of 5]

You don't need to be an election junkie to get the most out of this book, but it can't hurt. America's system of election administration is broken, confusing, archaic, and a colossal mess. This book does an excellent job of explaining why this is so and why it matters. If you are an observer of politics in the US you should read this book. Don't expect a happy ending.

[Elke · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was OK. I did enjoy his discussion of what happened in 2000 with Bush v. Gore, but I didn't agree with his analysis of a lot of things. I don't remember it that well because at times I found him irritating. I did go see him speak about it, and bought it there with higher hopes. This book is inscribed to me: "To Elke, With best wishes. Rick Hasen"

[Andy · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting recounting of the various election issues that have occurred since 2000. The discussion for why the US has failed to address a number, or really any, of the failures of election administration which have become so apparent is very apt.

[Kasia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting and important topic, but I found the book poorly organized and hard to follow.

[Danielle]

Heard this author on NPR's Diane Rehm Show. He was fascinating.

[Nolan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I registered a book at BookCrossing.com!
http://www.BookCrossing.com/journal/12194842

[Steve · Rating 3 out of 5]

Did pretty well what it was supposed to do. Good overview, though overtaken by events.

[Louis · Rating 3 out of 5]

How many of us remember the Florida election debacle during the 2000 presidential election?

Although it may have seemed like an isolated incident, Richard Hasan’s The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown argues that the 2000 election was hardly a one off—it could happen again.

Although both parties are quick to accuse the other of acting in bad faith--the Republicans accuse the Democrats of enabling, if not benefiting from, voter fraud and the Democrats accuse the Republicans of wanting to suppress votes--Hasan argues that the source of most election problems is incompetence rather than fraud or voter suppression.

Nonetheless, when disputes over elections arise election officials consistently make decisions that benefit their own ideology. Hasan also analyzes some other experiments, including a failed experiment with internet voting for absentee voters—it quickly proved to be too vulnerable to hacking.

Well written and well-researched I found this book to be an intriguing study on elections and, as this book makes it clear, there are a lot more complexities and vulnerabilities in the administration of elections than many people might assume.