{"id":9362,"date":"2024-10-27T19:31:45","date_gmt":"2024-10-27T19:31:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/?p=9362"},"modified":"2024-10-27T20:07:02","modified_gmt":"2024-10-27T20:07:02","slug":"patchwork-polls-how-state-by-state-voting-technology-may-violate-the-equal-protections-clause","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/patchwork-polls-how-state-by-state-voting-technology-may-violate-the-equal-protections-clause\/","title":{"rendered":"Patchwork Polls: How State-by-State Voting Technology May Violate the Equal Protections Clause"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
https:\/\/pixabay.com\/illustrations\/ballot-ballot-box-american-flag-9015721\/<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Election technology should be fair game for everyone, no matter where they live. When the technology used in one county makes voting smooth and secure, yet the system next door is error-prone or outdated, voters aren’t being treated equally. This goes against the core promise of the Equal Protection Clause<\/a>: the idea that every citizen\u2019s rights should be safeguarded equally. When outdated voting machines, inconsistent ballot-counting procedures, and unreliable security measures are used in certain areas<\/a>, the likelihood of errors skyrockets, turning a democratic right into a game of chance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Take Bush v. Gore<\/em><\/a>, where inconsistent recount standards across Florida\u2019s counties gave some ballots more weight than others, depending purely on which machine counted them. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled<\/a> that this disparity was unconstitutional, underscoring the principle that voting technology should operate evenly to ensure every vote is counted equally. If two voters in the same election face different standards for having their ballots counted, democracy itself is at risk. Florida\u2019s patchwork system turned votes into the equivalent of a lottery: whether you won or lost depended on the machine assigned to your precinct.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The logic behind Bush v. Gore<\/em> extends far beyond the borders of a single state. If it\u2019s unconstitutional for one Florida county to use technology that undercounts ballots compared to another, then it\u2019s equally unfair for one state to use outdated, error-prone systems while another has high-tech, reliable machines. The Court\u2019s reasoning that \u201cequal protection applies as well to the manner of exercise of fundamental rights<\/a>\u201d doesn\u2019t stop at state lines. If voters in one state are subject to a higher risk of errors or even potential security vulnerabilities because of subpar voting tech, it cheapens the power of their vote in comparison to someone across the border with better safeguards. Bush v. Gore<\/em> set a precedent that voting disparities violate the Equal Protection Clause<\/a>, and there\u2019s no reason that principle should stop at state borders\u2014equality in voting is an interstate issue that impacts our national democratic legitimacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The patchwork of outdated machines, inconsistent ballot tracking, and varying security standards between states isn\u2019t just a technological flaw\u2014it\u2019s a ticking time bomb for democracy.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s ruling in Bush v. Gore <\/em>does not lie in isolation. The principle advanced therein has been consistently applied in later cases like Black v. McGuffage<\/em><\/a> and Stewart v. Blackwell<\/em><\/a>, where Illinois and Ohio voters argued that outdated punch-card machines led to error-prone, uncounted votes, disproportionately affecting minority communities. Courts sided with voters, recognizing that when the technology in place varies so widely from one county to another, it threatens the uniformity needed for a fair election. Equality in elections isn\u2019t just about getting to the polling station; it\u2019s about having confidence that the same standards will apply to everyone\u2019s votes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Voting is foundational to democracy, and equal access to secure, effective voting technology should be non-negotiable. No voter should wonder if their ballot might be misread<\/a> because their county can\u2019t afford better machines. While federalism gives states the freedom to manage their elections, it shouldn’t be a free pass to implement subpar technology that undermines voter equality. Standardizing election technology to provide secure, reliable, and uniform systems across jurisdictions isn\u2019t just a legal issue\u2014it\u2019s a moral imperative to uphold the democratic principle that each vote is equally valuable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In an era where trust in elections teeters on the edge, and distrust is fostered by prominent political leaders, ensuring equal access to secure, accurate voting technology has never been more urgent. The patchwork of outdated machines, inconsistent ballot tracking, and varying security standards between states isn\u2019t just a technological flaw\u2014it\u2019s a ticking time bomb for democracy. When voters can\u2019t trust that their ballot will be counted the same way as their neighbors\u2019 across state lines, it fuels doubt, division, and disillusionment in the electoral process itself. To honor the promise of equal protection and restore faith in our elections, it\u2019s time to standardize election technology nationwide. If we fail to do this, we risk eroding the foundation of democracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jacob E. Dowler<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jacob attended UNC-Chapel Hill for college where he majored in Philosophy with minors in Arabic Studies and Environmental Studies. In his free time, he enjoys playing tennis, reading, and spending time with his cat and dog. After law school, he hopes to pursue a career in health law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Election technology should be fair game for everyone, no matter where they live. When the technology used in one county makes voting smooth and secure, yet the system next door is error-prone or outdated, voters aren’t being treated equally. This goes against the core promise of the Equal Protection Clause: the idea that every citizen\u2019s …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":9363,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[579,578,580,577],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9362"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9362"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9362\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9365,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9362\/revisions\/9365"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9363"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9362"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9362"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9362"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}