Odom V. Hargett: Just Politics Or Something Else?
Posted on July 15, 2009 at 8:42 amIn the latest volley over the Tennessee Voter Confidence Act controversy, House Democratic Leader Gary Odom tells Secretary of State Tre Hargett in a letter that that the TVCA does not require the use of most up to date guidelines for voting machines.
You have stated that the TVCA is very specific in requiring the use of machines that meet 2005 guidelines. This is not the case. TCA 2-20-104(a)(1)(A) says that machines shall be “…certified by the election assistance commission as having met the applicable voluntary voting systems guidelines.” Nowhere does it require the state to specifically follow 2005 voluntary voting systems guidelines.
However, in the above video, Odom is seen offering an amendment to a bill that would remove the requirement that the 2005 standards be followed. So which is it? Does the requirement exist or not?
A small point perhaps but what about the bigger issue? Is this fight, that has been well documented on several blogs, a political game of back and forth, as many things are, or is one side truly with the angels on this one?
Is this just an honest disagreement about the the capacity to carry out the act or is the Secretary of State truly obstructing the act deliberately?
If so, for what purpose?
If Hargett is being disingenuous about the ability to bring the state up to snuff, what is his angle? If he isn’t really concerned about expending money wisely on up-to-date machines, what is he after? What is it election integrity activists are saying here?
Would the Secretary of State really make this big a deal about the implementation if he was trying to aide and abet some sort of voter fraud in 2010? Do Hargett dectractor really believe that is the reasoning behind this? Really?
On the flipside, why does the Secretary of State seem so rigid? Republicans don’t like to be known as money wasters or rule breakers, but let’s face it, it wouldn’t be the first time.
So why can’t this be worked out? Why the insistence that every thing be just so before the SoS fulfills an obligation put on him by the legislature? Right or not, wouldn’t the most expedient thing be just to show a bit of flex and put the issue behind us?
These questions aren’t rhetorical. I’m really asking. What is truly motivating the sides here? What is the true subtext to this? Where is the middle ground?
Is this a legitimate policy difference or is it politics — or is it something worse? Walk me through it.
Comments
6 Responses to “Odom V. Hargett: Just Politics Or Something Else?”
Wow, ACK, do you realize that 20 of your 26 sentences are questions?
And did you realize the title itself is a question?
Are you trying to get a discussion going here? Or are you preparing some kind of essay quiz for newbie policy wonk bloggers?
Or is this all just a stylistic way to commemorate the day after Bastille Day?
Or did you just have a lot of extra question marks left over from lack of use in other links?
Looks to me like Odom is laying the foundation for a future lawsuit to try to overturn close legislative elections in which the Dem loses, in case it becomes necessary after the 2010 election.
And what if it’s a close election and a Republican loses? What then, Hobbs?
What if one of your candidates loses in a close election (like by a hand full a votes)? Are you satisfied with system we have now in which no meaningful recount can take place?
Mr. Hobbs seems to be ignoring completely the motivations for delaying TVCA, especially considering the HAVA funds still available.
It would be nice to see a clear explanation of the differences between 2002 and 2005 certification before a declaration of “outdated” becomes accepted as conventional wisdom. What does “outdated” actually mean?
Will someone please speak to Rep. Gary Moore, a Democrat that passed the original bill and then realized, like the Secretary of State, that some changes needed to be made. He can give you the unbiased answers. I don’t think people want answers because that would settle the issue and what’s fun about that.
I would imagine that Tre has had some legal advice that has led him to the stance taken.