The Florida Election Debacle: Can It Happen in Missouri?

by Katharine Hickel Barondeau¹ and Terry M. Jarrett²

I. Introduction

The Florida recounts following the November 7, 2000 election, as well as court intervention in St. Louis during the same election, focused uncommon attention on election law and the integrity of the election's outcome. The United States Supreme Court and the Missouri Court of Appeals decided two significant cases based on claims arising from the November 2000 election. More recently, news that the FBI was investigating possible election fraud in St. Louis City,³ names of deceased persons appearing on voter registration applications delivered before St. Louis City's March 6, 2001 mayoral primary,⁴ and questions concerning duplicate voter registrations in St. Louis City⁵ also have focused attention on the integrity of the voting process.

The official election results in Florida produced a 537-vote victory for George W. Bush.⁶ The question arises as to how Missouri's election laws and procedures would fare in a statewide election decided by such a narrow margin. In response to that question and related issues presented by the November 2000 election, Missouri Secretary of State Matt Blunt established a bipartisan commission of election officials from across Missouri (the "Blunt commission") to address problems in the election process and to propose solutions to those problems. As a result, Secretary Blunt proposed a comprehensive package of election law reforms, including statewide standards for counting votes,⁷ an advance voting period,⁸ improved voter education,⁹ clarified standards for voter registration,¹⁰ and strong anti-fraud provisions.¹¹

The purpose of this article is to analyze the requirements established by the two court cases from the November 2000 election and discuss reforms needed to ensure that the voting process in Missouri not only satisfies the constitutional requirements set forth in those cases, but also assures that the problems encountered in Florida will not happen here.

II. Recent Election Cases

The primary cases affecting election outcomes and proposed reforms in Missouri are Bush v. Gore¹² and State ex rel. Bush-Cheney 2000, Inc. v. Baker.¹³ Those cases stand for the proposition that the rights of those lawfully entitled to vote are diluted when courts permit voting by individuals not entitled to vote and the counting of votes not properly cast. Set out below is a summary of the standards required by the two cases.

A. Bush v. Gore

On December 12, 2000, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bush v. Gore, which concluded that the Florida Supreme Court's order to conduct recounts in the November 2000 presidential election violated equal protection principles.¹⁴ Seven justices agreed that a substantial equal protection claim was presented.¹⁵ The Florida Supreme Court, among other directives, ordered a hand recount of 9,000 ballots in Miami-Dade County where no vote was registered for President ("undervotes"), certified recounts in certain counties, and authorized a statewide recount of undervotes.¹⁶ Relating to the recounts, the Florida order also required the intent of the voter to be discerned from the ballots.¹⁷ "Much of the controversy [in the case revolved] around ballot cards designed to be perforated by a stylus" that appeared to have not been perforated sufficiently to be counted by a machine. For example, some ballot cards had a piece of the card – a chad – hanging, while others had an indentation with no separation.¹⁸

In its analysis of the Florida order, the Supreme Court explained that equal protection applies to the manner of exercising the right to vote and a state "may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another."¹⁹ The Supreme Court also pointed out that "the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise."²⁰ Noting that the Florida Supreme Court ordered the intent of the voter to be discerned from the ballots without specifying any additional standards, the Supreme Court found that this recount mechanism did "not satisfy the minimum requirement for non-arbitrary treatment of voters."²¹ For instance, counting teams in Palm Beach County began by not counting completely attached chads, switched to a rule that counted a ballot "if any light could be seen through a chad," switched back to the first rule, and then were ordered by a court to "consider dimpled chads legal."²² The Court concluded that this process did not involve sufficient guarantees of equal treatment to protect the right of suffrage and that equal protection principles required the formulation of uniform rules for determining what is a legal vote.

In addition to the absence of specific standards and uniform rules for counting ballots, the Supreme Court noted other concerns relating to unequal treatment of votes with the Florida order. Those concerns include:

• The Florida order mandated certification of the recount totals from counties that had recounted all of the ballots. Yet, the order authorized recounts of only the undervotes for the remainder of the state. The Court pointed out that counting only undervotes in some counties and both undervotes and overvotes²³ in others was an example of unacceptable, disparate treatment.²⁴

• The Florida order certified a partial recount total in one county and appeared to permit certification of whatever partial recounts were completed by an established deadline. The Supreme Court explained that certifying partial recounts results in unequal treatment of votes and cautioned: "A desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees."²⁵

• Concerned about the counting process, including who would do the counting, the Supreme Court pointed out that county boards had organized ad hoc teams of persons with no training to count votes. Also, the boards had permitted observers during the recounts, but no one was allowed to object. Thus, the Court concluded the Florida order's failure to set forth minimal guidelines for procedures, such as who would count the ballots, also contributed to equal protection problems.²⁶

In consideration of the irregularities and difficulties with the recount process as outlined above, the Supreme Court concluded that the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court could not be conducted in compliance with equal protection.²⁷

B. State ex rel. Bush-Cheney 2000, Inc. v. Baker

The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District in State ex rel. Bush-Cheney 2000, Inc. v. Baker²⁸ addressed the validity of the St. Louis City Circuit Court's Election Day order to extend the hours of voting in the City of St. Louis.²⁹ At approximately 3:00 p.m.,³⁰ William L. (Lacy) Clay's campaign committee, the Missouri State Democratic Committee, and the Gore-Lieberman campaign filed a petition in St. Louis City Circuit Court.³¹ The petition alleged that a registered voter in the city had not been able to vote because of the long lines at the polling places and machine breakdowns that had lasted for several hours.³² The petition also alleged that numerous other voters had not been able to vote due to the board's failure to provide adequate voting equipment and facilities.³³ Less than an hour before the polls were scheduled to close,³⁴ the circuit court issued an order directing the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of St. Louis to extend the voting hours of all polling places in the city until 10:00 p.m. and to keep the board's headquarters open until 11:59 p.m.³⁵ At approximately 7:45 p.m.,³⁶ the Court of Appeals issued a peremptory writ of prohibition concluding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to extend the voting hours established by § 115.407, RSMo 2000, extension of the voting hours would only permit voting by persons not entitled to vote, and extension of the voting hours would do nothing to remedy the problems identified in the petition.³⁷

The Eastern District began its analysis by explaining that, because § 115.407 was not unconstitutional, the circuit court was "obligated to follow . . . the law as written by the legislature."³⁸ Section 115.407 permits the polls to be open until 7:00 p.m. and requires the election judges to permit anyone standing in line at that time to be allowed to vote.³⁹ The Eastern District concluded that the circuit court had no authority to allow persons to vote when they did not come to the polls during the hours established by the legislature.⁴⁰

Although the court issued its opinion about a week before the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, the court cautioned against the disparate treatment of votes similar to that found to violate equal protection in Bush v. Gore. Specifically, the court warned against practices that allowed the weight of lawful votes to be diluted by unlawful votes:

We recognize that in the heat of a closely-contested election campaign, trial judges may be called upon to make difficult decisions with little time for deliberation. Where fundamental rights are at stake, such pressures are magnified. But commendable zeal to protect voting rights must be tempered by the corresponding duty to protect the integrity of the voting process. Courts should not hesitate to vigorously enforce the election laws so that every properly registered voter has the opportunity to vote. But equal vigilance is required to ensure that only those entitled to vote are allowed to cast a ballot. Otherwise, the rights of those lawfully entitled to vote are inevitably diluted.⁴¹

Thus, the court recognized the equal protection problem. The court further explained that the problems associated with not knowing how many ballots were improperly cast could have been avoided by sequestering the ballots of those permitted to vote after the normal closing time, pending a review by the court.⁴² But, because such protections were not in place, the integrity of the 2000 election's outcome in Missouri remains a concern, and the public's confidence in the voting process has been diminished.

III. Election Reform

Following the November 2000 election, public officials and the press focused on the need for election reform. Both major newspapers from Missouri's two largest metropolitan areas called for the Missouri General Assembly to address election reform.⁴³ Legislators introduced comprehensive election reform packages in the Missouri House of Representatives and the Missouri Senate.⁴⁴ Unlike the Florida legislature, which passed a comprehensive election reform bill to respond to the recounting debacle following its presidential election,⁴⁵ the Missouri General Assembly failed to respond to the call for election reform throughout the state. Considering the flagrant irregularities during the November election, a federal investigation, and continuing reports of voter registration fraud, Missouri needs election reform to ensure that election outcomes are accurate and to comply with equal protection requirements.

A. Voting Standards

In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court ruled that counting uncounted ballots without standards violates equal protection. The Supreme Court identified the following standards and procedures that are required to ensure that the counting of ballots does not violate equal protection principles:

• Uniform rules governing the counting of each ballot, such as whether hanging chads or indented punches should be counted with regard to punch card ballots.

• Uniform rules governing counting must be applied to all ballots.        

• A complete recount of the ballots must be used, and partial recounts may not be certified.

• Procedures must be established for the counting process, such as who counts the votes and how objections to counting a ballot are to be managed.

To respond to the issues addressed by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, the Florida legislature enacted the Florida Election Reform Act of 2001 (the "Florida act").⁴⁶ The Florida act deletes statutory language that authorized a counting team to determine the voter's intent.⁴⁷ Rather than allowing election authorities to use varying standards to determine voter intent, the Florida act requires the Department of State to adopt rules for each certified voting system that prescribe what constitutes a clear indication on the ballot that the voter has made a definite choice.⁴⁸

Similar to Florida's laws prior to the Florida Election Reform Act, Missouri's current statutes do not establish uniform rules for counting ballots and require the counting of votes "when the intent of the voter seems clear."⁴⁹ This language is similar to the standard found to be inadequate under equal protection principles in Bush v. Gore.⁵⁰ For example, the Blunt commission pointed out that each local election authority may determine whether a "dimpled" punch counts in a hand count of punch card ballots or whether a circled name counts in a hand count of paper or optical scan ballots.⁵¹ Thus, Missouri's current statutory provisions allow each local election authority to use varying standards and invite the disparate treatment that the Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional.

To comply with the requirements of Bush v. Gore, the bipartisan Blunt commission developed uniform standards for counting ballots. Based on the commission's work, Secretary Blunt has proposed administrative rules establishing uniform standards for counting ballots. Those standards require the detachment of at least two corners of a chad for punch card votes to be counted.⁵² Optically scanned and paper ballots must have a distinguishing mark adjacent to the candidate's name or a circle around the candidate's name to be counted.⁵³

Legislative reform requiring such voting standards remains important, however, to ensure that future elections officials comply with the equal protection principles set out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore so that the right of suffrage is not denied by the dilution of a citizen's vote.⁵⁴

B. Voting Systems

Another issue is whether equal protection is violated when different voting systems are used. The predominant voting systems certified for use in Missouri are the punch card voting systems and the optical scan voting systems.⁵⁵ The computerized punch card voting system was developed in the 1960s to provide a fast and accurate method of tabulating ballots at a central location.⁵⁶ Voters use a stylus to punch out a perforated chad on a computer card ballot to indicate his or her choice. Punch card voting systems received national scrutiny in the wake of the Florida election recounts. This scrutiny revealed a problem in the accuracy of punch card voting systems when voters do not clearly punch out chads, because chads that are not punched out clearly are not picked up by machine counters.⁵⁷

Optical scan voting systems use paper ballots containing the candidates' names and ballot issues. Voters mark the ballots by filling in an oval or other designated space with a pen or pencil. Voted ballots are inserted in an optical scan reader, either at the precinct or at a central location, and tabulated.⁵⁸

In his dissent in Bush v. Gore, Justice Stevens cited statistics that give an error rate of 3.92% for punch card voting systems and an error rate of 1.43% for optical scan voting systems.⁵⁹ Justice Stevens further hinted that using different voting systems, with enormous differences in accuracy, "might run afoul of equal protection."⁶⁰ The equal protection concern is that all voters must be treated equally. The theory is that in jurisdictions using optical scan voting systems, voters are much more likely to have their votes counted than in jurisdictions that use punch card voting systems. Such county-by-county differences in error rates and voting systems have been the focus of several equal protection challenges since Bush v. Gore.⁶¹

The Florida act addresses this equal protection concern by prohibiting punch card voting systems⁶² and requiring optical scan voting systems at a minimum, with computerized touch-screen voting systems permitted.⁶³ The Florida act also requires the use of precinct-based voting technology to allow voters to correct mistakes made while voting.⁶⁴ Furthermore, the Florida act provides Florida's counties with $24 million over the next two years to modernize voting equipment.⁶⁵

Support is growing for states to move toward adopting uniform statewide elections systems. The National Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, recommended that each state establish a uniform benchmark for voting system performance that would require consistent error rates statewide.⁶⁶ The National Conference of State Legislatures' Elections Reform Task Force similarly recommended that states adopt uniform standards for the accuracy of each voting system.⁶⁷ In Missouri, the editorial boards of two major newspapers have also recognized the need for a statewide uniform voting system to ensure that the votes of Missouri citizens count equally.⁶⁸

Missouri law still allows the use of punch card voting systems and optical scan voting systems. Secretary Blunt recommended that Missouri adopt a statewide uniform election system⁶⁹ and supported a grant program of at least $5 million to improve voting systems.⁷⁰ However, the cost of moving toward a statewide uniform election system has been cited as the reason that election reform did not pass in Missouri.⁷¹ In response to the criticism over the proposal's cost, some have pointed out: "It is hard, though, to think of a better way to spend [taxpayer] money than on protecting the integrity of the election system."⁷² To avoid the equal protection problems set out above, Missouri should move toward a uniform voting system throughout the state.

C. Integrity of the Voting Process

As the Missouri Court of Appeals emphasized, "vigilance is required to ensure that only those entitled to vote are allowed to cast a ballot [or] the rights of those lawfully entitled to vote are inevitably diluted."⁷³ The problem in State ex rel. Bush-Cheney 2000, Inc. was that voters arriving at the polls after the 7:00 p.m. closing time were nevertheless allowed to cast ballots. These voted ballots were mixed with all other ballots. Because the improper ballots were included with properly cast ballots, it was impossible after the fact to separate the proper from improper ballots, thus creating the equal protection problem recognized by the Eastern District.

One solution to this problem would be to allow provisional balloting. As the Eastern District noted in State ex rel. Bush-Cheney, 2000, Inc., regardless of the circuit court's order, equal protection and other problems could have been avoided by sequestering the ballots of those who were permitted to vote after the polls should have been closed.⁷⁴ Because the election authority did not sequester those ballots, the illegal votes of those arriving after the polls should have been closed were counted with properly cast votes.

To ensure that all who are eligible are allowed to vote and to prevent those from voting who are not entitled, the Florida act authorized provisional balloting. The National Commission on Federal Election Reform also recommended the adoption of provisional balloting in every state.⁷⁵ Under provisional balloting, the voter is allowed to use a provisional ballot when the voter's name does not appear on the voter registration roll. The provisional ballot is counted if the voter subsequently is found to be properly registered to vote.⁷⁶

Legislation considered by the 2001 Missouri General Assembly similarly would have authorized the election authority to segregate the ballots of voters who are allowed to vote by executing an affidavit until the voter's qualifications are confirmed.⁷⁷ If provisional balloting had been in effect before the November 2000 election, the rights of those lawfully entitled to vote would not have been diluted by the ballots of those not entitled to vote. Legislative reform to allow provisional balloting in Missouri is necessary to preserve the integrity of the election process.

Florida included additional provisions in its election reform package. In provisions addressing voter education, the Florida act requires the Department of State to adopt rules establishing minimum standards for nonpartisan voter education.⁷⁸ The Florida rules must cover voter registration, absentee ballot procedures, polling place procedures, voter rights, distribution of sample ballots, and public service announcements.⁷⁹ After a general election, each supervisor of elections is required to report to the Department of State a description of voter education programs.⁸⁰ The Department of State must use the voter education reports to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and submit a report addressing the effectiveness of voter education efforts to the legislature and the governor.⁸¹

In Missouri, Secretary Blunt proposed several educational measures to assist voters. Those measures include posting improved voting instructions at the polling place,⁸² "multi-lingual voting instructions and sample ballots,"⁸³ a grant program to facilitate youth voting programs,⁸⁴ a curriculum for high schools that covers voting procedures,⁸⁵ and a grant program to improve the voting process.⁸⁶ In addition, Secretary Blunt has proposed administrative rule changes that would require postcard voter registration forms to include a notice that the applicant is not registered to vote unless he or she receives a confirmation notice from the local election authority.⁸⁷ If enacted, these provisions would better educate voters about the voting process in Missouri and serve to restore confidence in the outcomes of elections.

An important program that could improve the voting process is early voting. At least 14 states have enacted some type of early voting program, where voters report to an early voting station before election day.⁸⁸ Early voting allows voters to vote prior to election day both for the convenience of the voter and to avoid long lines on election day. Twenty-six states offer opportunities for persons to vote before election day through early voting programs, voting by mail, or unrestricted absentee voting.⁸⁹ For example, the Florida act authorizes an extended voting period by eliminating the justification requirements for an individual to vote by absentee ballot.⁹⁰

Reports in St. Louis City of long voting lines and equipment problems during the November 2000 election⁹¹ indicate that similar reforms in Missouri might be helpful. For example, Secretary Blunt advocates a period of early voting to remedy the problems associated with processing large numbers of ballots during elections when voter turnout is high.⁹² Legislation from Missouri's 2001 legislative session proposed an advance voting period in general elections of even-numbered years that would begin two weeks before the election and end on the Wednesday before the election.⁹³ In another effort aimed at improving the voting process, Secretary Blunt supports designating the general election day as a national holiday.⁹⁴ The national commission also endorsed this proposal because holding elections on a holiday would increase the availability of poll workers and make voting easier for workers.⁹⁵

The Florida act enacted additional reforms to improve the efficiency and reliability of the voting process. The act mandates minimum training of poll workers and requires the Department of State to create a uniform procedural manual to be used in polling places throughout the state.⁹⁶ The procedural manual must cover proper operation of the voting system, procedures for voters whose names do not appear on the precinct register, security procedures, and the processing of provisional ballots.⁹⁷ In response to confusion regarding the butterfly ballots and to further address equal protection concerns, the Florida act prohibits punch-card ballots entirely⁹⁸ and provides for the development of a standardized ballot design.⁹⁹

In Missouri, Secretary Blunt has recognized the important role of election judges in promoting efficient and reliable voting procedures at the polls. In response to reports that many election authorities have experienced difficulty in finding qualified individuals to serve as election judges, Secretary Blunt has recommended that the Missouri legislature authorize a grant program to increase the compensation of election judges.¹⁰⁰ In addition, Secretary Blunt has urged the legislature to allow election authorities to appoint as election judges individuals who "claim [no] political affiliation" and individuals "from established third parties."¹⁰¹ Currently, election judges must be appointed from the two major political parties.¹⁰² Unambiguous ballot forms also are important to the goal of efficient and reliable voting procedures. To safeguard against the confusion concerning butterfly ballots, Secretary Blunt has advocated using butterfly ballots only when there is no alternative and only after an election authority has obtained approval from the Secretary of State by justifying the need for using a butterfly ballot.¹⁰³

D. Voter Fraud

When considering the vigilance required to ensure that only those entitled to vote are allowed to cast a ballot so that the rights of those lawfully entitled to vote are not diluted,¹⁰⁴ the issue of voter fraud must be addressed. Press reports raised serious allegations of voter fraud during the November 2000 election and the registration period preceding the March 2001 mayoral primary in the City of St. Louis. In November 2000, the court order extending the hours of voting beyond the statutory time limits prompted accusations that there was a concerted effort to allow voting by individuals who were not entitled to vote because they did not arrive at the polls before 7:00 p.m. or were not registered to vote.¹⁰⁵ City election officials in February also reported receiving more than 3,000 suspicious voter registration cards delivered before the registration deadline for the mayoral primary.¹⁰⁶ At least 500 of the cards were determined to be fraudulent, with some including the names of deceased persons and others with forged signatures.¹⁰⁷ Recent reports of duplicate voter registrations in the City of St. Louis have raised additional concerns about voters illegally voting more than once.¹⁰⁸

Florida implemented various anti-fraud provisions. The Florida Secretary of State is required to maintain a voter fraud hotline and provide public education regarding election fraud.¹⁰⁹ The Florida legislature may call for an audit of any county's voting system to evaluate whether the system is properly controlled, "can accurately count votes, [and] provides adequate safeguards against [fraud]."¹¹⁰ Florida law also authorizes the governor to appoint special officers to investigate election fraud.¹¹¹

To defend against voter fraud, Secretary Blunt pushed an ambitious agenda on anti-fraud reform. He recommended authorizing the Secretary of State "to subpoena information and witnesses to thoroughly investigate allegations of election violations."¹¹² Secretary Blunt also advocated authorizing the Missouri Attorney General to prosecute allegations of election irregularity and fraud.¹¹³ Currently, local prosecutors are authorized to prosecute election fraud, which may be problematic, because "[l]ocal officials may be more inclined to look the other way involving problems in their jurisdictions."¹¹⁴ To guard against fraud in the voter registration process, Secretary Blunt supported legislation that would have required the use of a numbering system for voter registration applications so that the applications, upon receipt by an election authority, could be traced to the person who received the application form.¹¹⁵ After the legislature failed to enact the measure, Secretary Blunt proposed an administrative rule requiring such a numbering system on applications that should be in effect by the April 2002 elections.¹¹⁶ Missouri needs strong anti-fraud election reform to avoid a repeat of the problems that occurred in St. Louis during the November 2000 election.

IV. Conclusion

Could a Florida-style election debacle happen in Missouri? Without changes in current law, the answer is yes. The election statutes in Missouri do not specify the standards that would be necessary to conduct a recount in a constitutional manner should Missouri face a close election such as the presidential election in Florida. Moreover, the need for additional election reforms is clearly indicated by the problems St. Louis experienced during the November 2000 election, a continuing federal investigation there, and the number of recent reports alleging voter fraud and ineffective management of the election process. Unlike the Florida legislature, which responded quickly to its election problems by voting overwhelmingly to pass comprehensive election reform measures,¹¹⁷ Missouri's House of Representative delayed floor debate on election reform until the last few hours of the legislative session.¹¹⁸ Consequently, the General Assembly failed to pass even a watered-down version of the elections bill.¹¹⁹ Reforms are necessary to restore the integrity of Missouri's elections, to comply with the equal protection guarantees of the state and federal constitutions, and to prevent a Florida-style election debacle. Comprehensive election reform is needed before the next general election.

Endnotes

¹ Katharine Hickel Barondeau is assistant general counsel for Secretary of State Matt Blunt. She received her J.D., 1994, from the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law. Barondeau is a member of The Missouri Bar and the Cole County Bar Association.

² Terry M. Jarrett is general counsel for Secretary of State Matt Blunt. He received his J.D., 1996, from the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law. Mr. Jarrett is a member of the American Bar Association, The Missouri Bar and the Cole County Bar Association.

³ Jo Mannies, FBI Subpoenas Records From Election Board, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, April 17, 2001, at A1.

⁴ Carolyn Tuft, Voter Registration Fraud Is Alleged, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Feb. 13, 2001, at A1.

⁵ Jo Mannies, 1 In 10 Voters In City Also Is On Rolls Elsewhere, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, April 9, 2001, at A1.

⁶ Florida Department of State Division of Elections, November 7, 2000 General Election Official Results (visited June 18, 2001) http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive.

⁷ Making Every Vote Count: Report of Secretary of State Matt Blunt to the People of Missouri 6-7 (Jan. 29, 2001). http://mosl.sos.state.mo.us/sos-elec/bluntcommission/mevc-report.pdf.

⁸ Id. at 4-5.

⁹ Id. at 14-16.

¹⁰ Id. at 8-9.

¹¹ Id. at 7.

¹² 531 U.S. 98, 121 S. Ct. 525 (2000).

¹³ 34 S.W.3d 410 (Mo. App E.D. 2000).

¹⁴ 121 S. Ct. at 529.

¹⁵ Id. at 550 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).

¹⁶ 121 S. Ct. at 528-29.

¹⁷ Id. at 530.

¹⁸ Id.

¹⁹ Id.

²⁰ Id.

²¹ Id.

²² Id. at 531.

²³ Overvotes refers to ballots that were not counted by the machine because more than one vote was detected.

²⁴ 121 S. Ct at 531.

²⁵ Id. at 531-32.

²⁶ Id. at 532.

²⁷ Id. at 532-33.

²⁸ 34 S.W.3d 410 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000).

²⁹ 34 S.W.3d at 411-12.

³⁰ Fraud Or Disenfranchisement?, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Feb. 12, 2001, at C8.

³¹ State ex rel. Bush-Cheney 2000, Inc., 34 S.W.3d at 411.

³² Id. Apparently, the lead plaintiff in the suit, Robert D. Odom, was named in error. Reports have explained that the intended plaintiff was Robert M. Odom, who actually voted before the hearing concluded. Jo Mannies & Mark Schlinkmann, Democrats Attempted Vote Fraud, Report Says Lawsuit Led To Polls Staying Open Late On Election Day, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Feb. 9, 2001, at D1.

³³ State ex rel. Bush-Cheney 2000, Inc., 34 S.W.3d at 411.

³⁴ Bond Calls For Investigation Of St. Louis Voter Fraud Claims, Daily Capital News, Jefferson City, Mo., Nov. 10, 2000.

³⁵ State ex rel. Bush-Cheney 2000, Inc., 34 S.W.3d at 411-12.

³⁶ Jo Mannies & Mark Schlinkmann, Democrats Attempted Vote Fraud, Report Says Lawsuit Led To Polls Staying Open Late On Election Day, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Feb. 9, 2001, at D1.

³⁷ State ex rel. Bush-Cheney 2000, Inc., 34 S.W.3d at 412.

³⁸ Id.

³⁹ Section 115.407, RSMo 2000.

⁴⁰ State ex rel. Bush-Cheney 2000, Inc., 34 S.W.3d at 412.

⁴¹ Id. at 412-13 (emphasis added).

⁴² Id. at 413 n.6.

⁴³ Reform Elections In Missouri, Kansas City Star, May 1, 2001, at B6; Fraud And Disenfranchisement, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 5, 2001, at C18; and No Time For Gridlock, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 28, 2001, at B6.

⁴⁴ H.C.S.H.B. 247 and S.B. 476, 91st Gen. Assembly, 1st Reg. Sess. (Mo. 2001).

⁴⁵ Phil Long, Gov. Bush Visits To Celebrate Voting Reforms, Miami Herald, May 10, 2001.

⁴⁶ 2001 Fla. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 2001-40 (C.S.S.B. 1118) (West).

⁴⁷ 2001 Fla. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 2001-40 § 102.166 (C.S.S.B. 1118) (West).

⁴⁸ Id.

⁴⁹ Section 115.453, RSMo 2000.

⁵⁰ Bush v. Gore, 121 S. Ct at 530.

⁵¹ Making Every Vote Count: Report of Secretary of State Matt Blunt to the People of Missouri , at 6 (Jan. 29, 2001).

⁵² 26 Mo. Reg. 1828 (2001) (to be codified at 15 CSR 30-9.010).

⁵³ 26 Mo. Reg. 1828 (2001) (to be codified at 15 CSR 30-9.020).

⁵⁴ 121 S.Ct at 530.

⁵⁵ Automated voting systems must be certified by Missouri's Secretary of State prior to use. The certification process is rigorous and voting systems must meet the requirements set out in § 115.225, RSMo 2000.

⁵⁶ Rinker Buck & David Lightman, Wakeup Call For Voting Reform Election 2000: The Recount, Hartford courant, November 19, 2000, at A1.

⁵⁷ Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1195 (11th Cir. 2000) (Carnes, J., dissenting).

⁵⁸ Keith Benman, Numerous Advantages to Optical Scan System, South Bend Tribune, December 5, 2000.

⁵⁹ Bush v. Gore, 121 S. Ct. at 541 n.4 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

⁶⁰ Id. at 541.

⁶¹ William C. Smith, Bush vs. Gore: Evermore, ABA Journal, May, 2001, at 16.

⁶² 2001 Fla. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 2001-40 § 17 (C.S.S.B. 1118) (West).

⁶³ 2001 Fla. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 2001-40 § 101.5603 (C.S.S.B. 1118) (West).

⁶⁴ 2001 Fla. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 2001-40 § 101.5608 (C.S.S.B. 1118) (West).

⁶⁵ 2001 Fla. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 2001-40 § 76 (C.S.S.B. 1118) (West); Gov. Bush Visits To Celebrate Voting Reforms, Miami Herald, May 10, 2001.

⁶⁶ National Commission on Federal Election Reform, To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process 9 (2001). www.reformelections.org.

⁶⁷ National Conference of State Legislatures, Voting In America: Final Report Of The NCSL Elections Reform Task Force, Recommendation 7.1 (2001).

⁶⁸ Election Report Should Bring Reform, Prosecution In Missouri, Kansas City Star, August 12, 2001, at B8; and Uniform Voting System Needed In Missouri, Springfield News-Leader, August 20, 2001.

⁶⁹ Making Every Vote Count: Report of Secretary of State Matt Blunt to the People of Missouri 6 (Jan. 29, 2001).

⁷⁰ S.B. 476, 91st Gen. Assembly, 1st Reg. Sess. § 115.074 (Mo. 2001).

⁷¹ Lawmakers Failed To Enact Even Watered-Down Election Reforms, Jefferson City Post-Tribune, Jefferson City, Mo., May 21, 2001.

⁷² Blunt Moves To Avoid Missouri Voting Fiasco, Kansas City Star, August 16, 2001, at B6.

⁷³ State ex rel. Bush-Cheney 2000, Inc., 34 S.W.2d at 413.

⁷⁴ Id. at 413 n.6.

⁷⁵ National Commission on Federal Election Reform, To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process 6 (2001). www.reformelections.org.

⁷⁶ 2001 Fla. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 2001-40 § 101.048 (C.S.S.B. 1118) (West).

⁷⁷ S.S.S.C.S.S.B. 476, 427 & 62, 91st Gen. Assembly, 1st Reg. Sess. § 115.429 (Mo. 2001).

⁷⁸ 2001 Fla. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 2001-40 § 98.255 (C.S.S.B. 1118) (West).

⁷⁹ Id.

⁸⁰ Id.

⁸¹ Id.

⁸² Making Every Vote Count: Report of Secretary of State Matt Blunt to the People of Missouri 14-15 (Jan. 29, 2001).

⁸³ Id.

⁸⁴ Id.

⁸⁵ Id. at 15-16.

⁸⁶ Id. at 17.

⁸⁷ 26 Mo. Reg. 1825-26 (2001) (to be codified at 15 CSR 30-4.010).

⁸⁸ John Mark Hansen, Early Voting, Unrestricted Absentee Voting, and Voting by Mail, in Task Force Reports to Accompany the Report of the National Commission on Federal Election Reform, To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process (2001). www.reformelections.org.

⁸⁹ Id.

⁹⁰ 2001 Fla. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 2001-40 § 101.657 (C.S.S.B. 1118) (West).

⁹¹ Kit Wagar, St. Louis Officials Investigate Balloting, Election Director: Some Complaints Were Unfounded, Kansas City Star, Nov. 15, 2000, at B1.

⁹² Making Every Vote Count: Report of Secretary of State Matt Blunt to the People of Missouri 4-5 (Jan. 29, 2001).

⁹³ S.S.S.C.S.S.B. 476, 427 & 62, 91st Gen. Assembly, 1st Reg. Sess. § 115.126 (Mo. 2001). The legislation died in conference.

⁹⁴ Making Every Vote Count: Report of Secretary of State Matt Blunt to the People of Missouri 20 (Jan. 29, 2001). www.reformelections.org.

⁹⁵ National Commission on Federal Election Reform, To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process 7 (2001). www.reformelections.org.

⁹⁶ 2001 Fla. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 2001-40 § 102.014 (C.S.S.B. 1118) (West).

⁹⁷ Id.

⁹⁸ 2001 Fla. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 2001-40 § 17 (C.S.S.B. 1118) (West).

⁹⁹ 2001 Fla. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 2001-40 § 101.151 (C.S.S.B. 1118) (West).

¹⁰⁰ Making Every Vote Count: Report of Secretary of State Matt Blunt to the People of Missouri 10-11 (Jan. 29, 2001).

¹⁰¹ Id.

¹⁰² Section 115.081, RSMo 2000.

¹⁰³ Making Every Vote Count: Report of Secretary of State Matt Blunt to the People of Missouri 15 (Jan. 29, 2001).

¹⁰⁴ State ex rel. Bush-Cheney 2000, Inc., 34 S.W.2d at 412-413.

¹⁰⁵ Carolyn Tuft, GOP, Democrats May Seek Investigation Over City Voting, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Nov. 9, 2000, at A11.

¹⁰⁶ Carolyn Tuft, Voter Registration Fraud Is Alleged, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Feb. 13, 2001, at A1.

¹⁰⁷ Id.

¹⁰⁸ Jo Mannies, 1 In 10 Voters In City Also Is On Rolls Elsewhere, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, April 9, 2001, at A1.

¹⁰⁹ Fla. Stat. Ann. § 97.012(12) (West 2001 Supp.).

¹¹⁰ Fla. Stat. Ann. § 101.591 (West 2001 Supp.).

¹¹¹ Fla. Stat. Ann. § 102.091 (West 2000).

¹¹² Making Every Vote Count: Report of Secretary of State Matt Blunt to the People of Missouri 7 (Jan. 29, 2001).

¹¹³ Id.

¹¹⁴ Reform Elections In Missouri, Kansas City Star, May 1, 2001, at B6.

¹¹⁵ S.S.S.C.S.S.B. 476, 427 & 62, 91^st Gen. Assembly, 1^st Reg. Sess. § 115.155 (Mo. 2001).

¹¹⁶ 26 Mo. Reg. 1825-26 (2001) (to be codified at 15 CSR 30-4.010).

¹¹⁷ Senate Bill 1118 passed the Florida House by a vote of 120-0 and the Senate by a vote of 39-1. Governor Signs Historic Election Reform Into Law, State of Florida News release, May 9, 2001.

¹¹⁸ Lawmakers Failed To Enact Even Watered-Down Election Reforms, Post-Tribune, Jefferson City, Mo., May 21, 2001.

¹¹⁹ Id.