Letter to the Editor: Flaws of current ballot counting law have been revealed

(THe following Letter to the Editor has been submitted by Jonathon Struve of Decorah):

"I agree, we ought to clear things up regarding the disputed vote for Iowa House District 55.  We are a republic which has implemented representative democracy as the means of governance.  The razor thin margin of victory in the race in question has exposed a weakness in the integrity of the democratic process in the state of Iowa and the efficacy of current Iowa statutes regarding absentee ballots which are mailed in to the Auditor's office.  Although it is true that some have expressed frustration with elected Auditor Ben Steines of Winneshiek County, the fact is that he did act in accordance with the letter of the law under the direction of the Secretary of State.

However, this election has also made it clear that our law has created a situation where some ballots which could and should be counted based on when they were mailed are tossed out in spite of the fact that it is actually possible to trace the mail date of those ballots with ease without a postmark or the particular type of bar code allowed by state law, which only six counties in this state actually utilize.  It is also a fact that Auditor Steines and other county auditors have warned our legislative officials and the Secretary of State's office of the problem of the USPS not affixing postmarks to all mail and the fact that potentially eligible votes are being tossed out.  And yet, our elected officials and our Secretary of State have not prioritized fixing this problem.  Yes, it is true that ballots now say that 'postmarks are not guaranteed,' but that is simply putting a band aid on an issue that is still resulting in voters being disenfranchised.

When laws are not working as intended, there should be a move to change the law.  Of course, the primary and preferred method to achieve this is to move the legislature to change the law.  Auditor Steines and other auditors have pushed for a change to the law, but it has not gained traction with our lawmakers, and the changes that have been implemented have not solved the problem.  However, this election has exposed the problem because of its close result.  The issue now is how can we act on behalf of those who voted in good faith but had their vote thrown out, in spite of the fact that it is possible to determine that these votes were in fact cast in time?  The answer is that we have a right to petition our government for a redress of grievances.  When eligible votes are not counted NOT because they were actually fraudulent or late, but because the technicalities of the law actually serve to disenfranchise them, then it actually ought to be a concern of all of us who love democracy to consider how we can ensure that we are both getting reliable results that are legitimate AND making sure that every vote counts.

The proper channel for addressing this grievance is through the court system, which is exactly what Kayla Koether is doing. This is the forum where laws are evaluated and challenged.  The judicial branch of government is part of our democratic process because courts can determine the relative justice of a law. Going through the court system is a step towards questioning the law as it stands and how we might make it better in the future. The elected legislature has failed to hear the voice of experts who run and manage elections with integrity like Ben Steines. Now, perhaps, we can at least see how important it is for every vote to count in an election with laws that safeguard the election process but do not unintentionally result in disenfranchising anyone who has the right to vote and casts a ballot in good conscience.  That's not a sign of dictatorship, that at the very heart of democracy – fighting for the voices of all voters who participate in the process.

Finally, I would also note that another flaw in the current law is its application, because in this election, the law was not evenly applied.  If we have a law, then it should be followed and applied consistently. Winneshiek County Auditor Ben Steines did his level best to do what he is asked to do based on the law.  Unfortunately, Fayette County failed in this task, and votes that were similarly situated to the 29 not counted in Winneshiek County WERE counted in Fayette County.  This is the source of frustration for many who were engaged in this election process and the reason why there was pushback directly aimed at our county auditor, rightly or wrongly.  The Secretary of State claimed that once a vote is counted, it can't be uncounted, but this cavalier attitude towards Fayette County's negligence is actually unacceptable, and makes him party to breaking the law and excusing a fraudulent result (which is ironic given that our current Secretary of State has often claimed to be a watchdog for voter fraud).  I wonder what the sanctions are for elected Auditors who don't follow the law.

Whatever the ultimate result of this election or the court's decision, I think this election has shown that we need to revisit our laws regarding the mailing of absentee ballots given the following facts: the USPS does not postmark all mail, not every county is able or willing to use the specific intelligent bar code system outlined in the law which by the account of our auditor is not a very good solution, and all mail actually CAN be traced with relative ease through other methods (it took very little time once the court order came through and the county complied to determine that 29 ballots were sent on time).  It seems to me it is imperative for our representative democracy that we do our best to have laws that reflect the realities we face, and that we move to change the law if it is not working.  What this election has shown is that our current law doesn't work, it's not getting applied evenly, and this faulty law has caused potentially eligible votes to be discarded.  This election has identified the problem.  It is NOW up to us to find a solution.  And, that is the real intent of Kayla Koether's actions, and nothing else.  It is not some insidious move resembling a "dictatorship." It is part of the democratic process of fine tuning our laws regarding our electoral process so that we can make it work as it was intended through the channels available to us.  And, don't worry, I think many of us are now quite passionate about making sure that whoever our representative is makes revising this law a top priority.  I hope it actually is the priority of people from both parties.  The integrity of our republic demands it."