Government Overreaches Where Voters Can't Reach
 
As our government officials are currently in a tizzy as to where to  come up
with the astronomical sum of money needed to rebuild ravaged areas in 
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, hit by Hurricane Katrina, I might 
suggest doing some pork trimming in the recently passed bills in Congress 
pertaining to transportation, agriculture, and Medicare prescription  entitlements.
While Congress is trimming pork, it might also consider doing  Connecticut a
favor and trim the pork out of "The Help America To Vote Act of  2002." This act
would be more appropriately entitled, "The Help  Connecticut To NOT Vote in
2006 Act." 
 
The bill was a knee jerk reaction to the claims of voter 
"disenfranchisement" in the vitriolic 2000 Presidential election. Ironically,  the bill, which
provided funds to states to make voting more accessible, such as  with the
controversial touch screen machines, which have already been grossly  defective and
very troublesome, and optical scanners. As a result, the feds have  dictated
to the state of Connecticut that it must replace all of its 3,300 lever  style
mechanical machines by November of 2006, four months shy of the original 
deadline. The irony here is that the controversy from the 2000 election came 
from supposedly confused, elderly voters in Florida using paper ballots, despite 
the fact that it was later discovered that many of these gray haired Democrat
 voters were coached as what to say and do, such as acting "dumb as a fox."
Even  if the claims were true, one must wonder, if paper and pencil confuse the
 voters, how are more high-tech alternatives going to be any easier? Much of
the  controversy then was also over blacks claiming that they were not allowed
to  vote, so now in response, yet another federal bureaucracy is created,
namely,  The Federal Election Assistance Commission (Under the Federal Elections 
Commission, or FEC), and this hideous bill is created to make voting more 
accessible for voters with disabilities because blacks supposedly weren't 
allowed to vote. Huh? Sure, you're confused! Me, too! But enjoy it while you  can,
because from confused, you will soon kick it up a notch to furious!
 
First, it is worthy to note that Connecticut's senior, and most liberal 
Democrat US Senator, Chris Dodd, was one of the more vociferous  advocates for
so-called voting reform. Now that this utopian  bubble has burst, I find it
ironic, and not at all coincidental, that  the liberally slanted "mainstream" press
and media suddenly do not even  utter Dodd's name in connection with this
travesty. For Connecticut to  replace all of its 3,300 machines (which most of
our voters still prefer), the  price tag, according to Connecticut Secretary of
State Susan Bysiewicz will be  between $5,000.00 and $10,000.00 each. The feds
have kicked in 33 million  dollars to fund this debacle, 6 million dollars of
which the state has already  spent to create a centralized data base.
Connecticut Attorney General Richard  Blumenthal is investigating the matter, as per
request from Bysiewicz, to see if  there is any kind of an out clause, as
Bysiewicz has expressed concern that the  new system will not be up and running in
time, which could very well impede the  2006 election.
 
So often, people scream about unfunded mandates. Case in point: are the 
funded mandates really any better? The federal government in both instances,  more
often than not, tramples the sovereignty given to the individual states, as 
per the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, and Joe and Mary Taxpayer pay for
it  as well. How does this happen? It shouldn't, at least that is what the US 
Constitution says. Article 2, Section 1 only states that Congress may
determine  the time of choosing electors, and the day the election is to be held. The
15th  Amendment allows blacks to vote. The 19th Amendment allows women to
vote. The  26th Amendment allows 18 years olds to vote, and as I alluded to
earlier, the  10th Amendment states that any function not articulated in The US
Constitution  is a state function. Thus, barring the federal constitutional
exceptions, voting  is primarily a state, not a federal matter.  Such taxpayer
funded  government abuse occurs all the time, for much the same reason that 
somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of all of our federal agencies, and bureaucracies, 
and the various laws, programs, and entitlements that they incessantly produce 
at taxpayer expense happens. This is as much of the same reason as why we are
 increasingly losing more of our liberties, and our government is floundering
and  overburdening us, as the margin by which it spends is increasingly
larger than  by what it takes in (via taxes). See all that you miss, while you are
focusing  on that baseball game, hoping for a win, or that reality TV show,
hoping to see  a glimpse of gratuitous skin? While those erroneously prioritized
activities  have no bearing whatsoever on your daily life, this stuff does,
and  significantly so. Good morning! Sleep well? As with most nightmares, while
they  occur when we are asleep, we tend not to fully realize them until we
wake up.
 
SOS (How's that for an ironic abbreviation?) Bysiewicz said that for 
whatever reason, she was under the impression that the feds only wanted one 
accessible machine in each polling station. (Ah, Susan, dear, now there you 
go...using logic! Tsk, tsk!) Bysiewicz may have misread or misinterpreted her  marching
orders from Moscow, uh...I mean Washington, but in her position, I  could see
myself making the same assumption. Disabled folks are in the minority.  As
affirmative action quotas dictate that the workplace should "reflect the 
diversity of the population," then it should be the same for public  accommodations
where otherwise unreasonable to do so. (Greg Perry wrote a book  about the
radicalization of disability rights in his book, "Disabling  America; The
Unintended Consequences Of The Government's Protection Of The  Handicapped." ) Go
into any public parking lot. Are all the parking spaces  for the disabled? No.
State statutes use a formula to determine an adequate  number. So it should be
with voting machines. Supposedly, disabled people can  often not reach the
levers in the current machines, but not all voters coming  rolling into the polls
in wheelchairs, either. There is a legitimate need  here that needs to be
legitimately addressed, but government does not equalize,  it over placates, much
like how we went from discriminating against blacks in  our history, to
affirmative action quotas, which discriminate against whites.  Both are wrong, and
neither accomplishes anything of worth. Merit takes second  place to color, sex
and race. A neighbor once told me a story in which he once  attended a
wedding in New Jersey. At the establishment in which the reception  was to take
place, a flight of stairs impeded a man in a wheel chair from  attending the
reception on the upper level. With one brief phone call from the  maitre de, four
very large men wearing tuxedos, lifted this man, chair and  all, up the stairs,
and escorted him to his table. The ADA (Americans With  Disabilities Act)
requires that buildings be handicap accessible as of a certain  date. (As a
certain new hotel in Hartford recently learned the hard way.)  Older buildings are
grandfathered from the ADA, unless they are renovated, and  then they must
comply. "Accessible" though, can mean different things. This  facility in New
Jersey was as "accessible" as one with an elevator. (I did not  think to ask my
neighbor what access ability accommodations the rest rooms had.)  One or two
accessible voting machines, or any other number deemed  proportionately
appropriate would be sufficient at polling stations, but with  the federal government,
it's all or nothing. It's kind of like when you throw a  really big party,
and want to have a good time, so you figure the more, the  merrier, but then you
invite your Uncle Cosmo, who in true tradition, gets  drunk and wild, and
makes a spectacle of himself, offends all your guests, and  ruins your party.
What started out as a good idea got carried too far and  everything was ruined.
The federal government is like your Uncle Cosmo.
 
Before the radicalization of disability rights, much like your party, a 
really good idea, carried too far and eventually ruined by your Uncle Cosmo, or 
in this case, the federal government, there already were in place, 
accommodations for the disabled to vote. The disabled could get rides to any  polling
place, simply by calling either the local Republican or Democrat Town 
Committees, or their town or city hall. That practice continues. Once at the  polling
place, someone needing assistance could ask for assistance from the  moderator,
or the moderator's designee, who would go into the booth and  assist the
voter, but obviously, this denies the voter the secrecy of his or her  vote.
Another option is to stay home, and simply vote by absentee ballot, just  like
military personnel, college students, the infirm, or anyone who happens to  be out
of town on Election Day. That way, the secrecy of the ballot is  maintained.
If we are fighting a war, do we blow a whistle and call "time out"  to allow
our military personnel to stop fighting long enough to go home and  vote? Maybe
they would also rather vote in person, than by absentee ballot. OK,  so the
disabled voter is then denied of the privilege to be inconvenienced  to have to
go to the polls, but that voter can still vote. Just like with  the reception
hall in New Jersey, accommodations were made, and there will  always be
someone for whom those accommodations are still not good enough to  satisfy them.
Accommodations for the blind should be more accessible, and I  would think that
obstacle could be easily remedied with a Braille surface,  on either a paper
ballot, or a computer screen, or other kind of machine, but  again, with an
appropriate number of accommodations, not a whole room full of  them on the
taxpayer dime for the handful of disabled voters that come in that  day. How far do
we take this? Our polls are open 6 am-8 pm. What if you work  during those
hours? Election Day always falls on a Tuesday. What if you work on  Tuesdays?
Should we have 24 hour voting, 7 days a week? And what if you are on  vacation
that week? All year, maybe? At what point do we draw the line and say,  "Too
bad, use an absentee ballot." Don't people who work long hours and go on 
vacation have the same rights as someone in a  wheel chair?
 
Just once I would love to see a state stick it's thumb into the eye of  the
federal government over an unconstitutional mandate, funded or unfunded, and 
defiantly exclaim, "NO!'" along with maybe a few other choice phrases. What 
could the feds then do, send in federal troops? Eventually, the matter  would go
before the Supreme Court, which would hopefully rule, and not legislate  in
the dispute. In the very blue, socialist, state of Connecticut however, such 
would certainly never happen, and our motto as "The Constitution State," is a 
sordid farce today. Yes, the disabled have been discriminated against, and
yes,  they do need reasonable laws to protect them and to preserve their rights,
but  as with any bureaucratic, government-driven agenda, a noble task is often
 radicalized, and who wants to say no, or yes with restrictions, to a
disabled  person? Exactly! And that is the problem and why so many capitalize on that
gut  level emotion and radicalize some issues that even many of the disabled 
themselves do not agree with. The other disturbing and yet unanswered
question  is why did the feds move the deadline up by four months, suddenly, and
without  warning? Political correctness and government mandate may very well usurp
the  right of all citizens to vote in the 2006 election. Meanwhile, our 
personal liberties deteriorate as much as our state's sovereignty, and our 
wasteful tax burden grows our oppressive, Big Brother-like, cradle to grave, 
dictating government ever larger, as our wallets  shrink ever thinner. Our 
mechanical voting machines are antiquated, but functional. Above all, they are  ours!
There is little just cause to replace them, and no just cause whatsoever  to
replace all of them, and what kind of voting machines we do have is none  of
the federal government's business. For those who could not reach, the 
government has once again, overreached, to the long term detriment of all,  because
reason and common sense could not and would not be applied to create  reasonable
accommodation for an obstacle that is occasional, if not rare, when a 
disabled citizen experiences (or perceives) physical difficulty in voting. You  can
have my vote right now. In a scene from the movie, "The Godfather," after a
"hit" is made, subsequent to a stop at a bakery enroute,  Clemenza tells his
cohort to "Leave the gun....take the cannolis." To the  Frankenstein that we have
created in the form of our overbearing federal  government, I say, "Leave the
machines....take a hike!"
 
Doug Wrenn