|
|
June 17, 2007 Drafting errors and concerns leads to veto of Bill 27-0051 Gov. John P. deJongh Saturday vetoed Bill 27-0051 which contained several measures related to the V.I. Election Code as the result of “drafting errors and substantive concerns” he has with the legislation. In a transmittal letter to Senate President Usie Richards, deJongh said he wholeheartedly agreed that the Elections Code must be brought into alignment with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) as well as other federal legislation governing or affecting elections, and the practices of the Joint Boards of Elections. The governor was forced to veto the entire legislation as with no spending appropriations contained in the bill, deJongh could not exercise a line-item veto of the objectionable sections. The following are the governor’s objections to the pertinent sections of the legislation: The language used in Section 2(b) of the bill is susceptible to an interpretation that all persons running for elected office in the U.S. Virgin Islands must be affiliated with a political party. This runs afoul of the citizens' right to set their own political course according to their personal views, and, therefore, cannot be sustained. Section (d) of the bill contains both technical and substantive problems. On the technical side, if the proposed language is inserted into the present statute, as amended, 18 V.I.C. § 47(12) would read "…annually prepare and submit the budget directly to the Legislature, independent of the executive budget of the Governor, for the cost of the registration and party enrollment of electors, of primaries and of the expenses of the board, for the ensuing fiscal year…" This language can only result in confusion to the public. In addition, substantively, this measure creates a situation wherein the St. Thomas-St. John and the St. Croix District Boards would submit their own budgets to the Legislature separately, but does not address how the budget for Joint Board of Elections is to be treated. Therefore, the budget of the Joint Board of Election would still be part of the Governor's Executive Budget. This leaves the budgetary process for the Boards of Elections in a very perplexing posture. Section (f)(2) of the bill also contains both technical and substantive problems. On the technical side, this measure only replaces "He" with "The Attorney General or independent counsel" in the second sentence of 18 V.I.C. § 51 as it presently exists. However, "He" also starts the third sentence of 18 V.I.C. § 51. This inconsistency leaves the section in a confusing format. Moreover, on the substantive side, this measure would place the Attorney General and other counsel in the position of being counsel for the Boards of Election on an inconsistent basis and at their whim. The amendment also allows each District Board to have differing counsel. This creates the possibility of the District Boards maintaining inconsistent legal positions on the same issues, which can only lead to confusion for the voters of the Virgin Islands and a very difficult situation when the District Boards meet as the Joint Board of Election. Section (g) of the bill appears to be intended to bring 18 V.I.C. § 99 into alignment with HAVA and the current practice of the Joint Boards of Elections. However, the language proposed in subsection (g)(3) would leave in place an incomplete sentence which does not make sense. Also, in subsection (g)(4), we submit that the Bureau of Motor Vehicles should be expressly added to the new 18 V.I.C. § 99(d)(4), as the Bureau serves as the conduit between the Boards of Election and the Social Security Administration. This amendment is not truly necessary as the listing of the Department of Health in this new subsection is not written to exclude other databases. However, as HAVA explicitly requires that there be information-sharing between election systems and motor vehicle entities, such an amendment would more clearly bring the Virgin Islands Code into conformity with HAVA. This same concern warrants substituting the Bureau of Motor Vehicles in the stead of the Police Department in section (k) of the Bill. Section (o) of the bill is confusing. The effect of this amendment to 18 V.I.C. § 492(h)(2) would be to allow electors in St. Croix to vote for not more than 10 persons to the St. Croix Board of Elections, while in the St. Thomas-St. John District, electors would only be allowed to vote for up to 9 persons to that District Board. There is no rationale for this distinction. In addition, there is additional language in the existing 18 V.I.C. § 492(h)(2) which provides that in the St. Thomas-St. John District, electors may not select more than 8 candidates who are residents of St. Thomas and not more than 2 candidates who are residents of St. John. This language is not amended, which would create confusion as to whether electors in the St. Thomas-St. John District are allowed to select 9 or 10 candidates to that District Board. Sections (r) and (s) of the bill bring the Virgin islands Code into conformity with the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voters Act ("UOCAVA"). However, the amendment and addition to 18 V.I.C. § 663(a) made by Section (s) of the Bill can be read to require persons voting via absentee ballots pursuant to HAVA to execute both the existing and the new oaths, while those otherwise voting via absentee ballots would only execute the existing oath. There is no rationale for this incongruent treatment of absentee voters. Further, this additional burden for those voting absentee under HAVA appears contrary to the purposes of HAVA, one of which is the encouragement of voter participation. Section (t) makes additional changes to bring the Virgin Islands Code into conformity with UOCAVA and HAVA. However, this section of the Bill as drafted also is baffling. Section (t)(1) purports to strike 2 sets of language from 18 V.I.C. § 665(a), in the second sentence of the second paragraph. However, the second set of language proposed to stricken from the second sentence, is actually found in the third sentence of the existing paragraph. In turn, Section (t)(2) of the Bill, which purports to strike language from the third sentence of the same paragraph, actually references language contained in the fourth sentence of the existing paragraph. Therefore, these changes sought to be implemented by Section (t) of the Bill are impossible to make as directed. In addition, Section (t)(3) allows for those in military service and others to request an absentee ballot not earlier than 180 days prior to an election, and also requires the Supervisor of Elections to make absentee ballots available between 90 and 180 days prior to an election. However, these amended provisions set up direct conflicts with other existing election law provisions. For instance, 18 V.I.C. § 232 requires that primary elections be held in September of an election year, and 18 V.I.C. § 231 require general elections to be held in November of that year. It is not possible for absentee ballots for the general election to be issued 90 to 180 days in advance because there are only approximately 60 days between the primary and general elections by virtue of existing law. In addition, nomination petitions for general elections are to be filed within 7 days after the first Tuesday of August of an election year in accordance with 18 V.I.C. § 410. This deadline is within, or right at the cusp of, 90 days of the general election which must be held on first Tuesday after the first Monday in November under 18 V.I.C. § 231. The timelines set in these sections remain unaltered by Bill No. 27-0051, and approval of the language in Section t(3) of the Bill would create an impossible situation for the Elections Boards. Finally, section 2 of the bill would require special elections to be held on Saturdays, as is done with primary elections. A drafting error triggered the governor’s veto of this section. DeJongh urged the Legislature to revisit this legislation and consider modifying its terms so that it is consistent internally and with the existing provisions of the Elections Code. “While it is appropriate to modernize our Elections Code, this must be done in manner that does not create confusion for either the Boards of Election or the public.” DeJongh also encouraged the Senate to ensure that the issues of verification of elections results are conclusively resolved to bolster public confidence and encourage stronger voter turnout at elections. -30-
|
