While much attention is appropriately being paid to the problems with electronic voting machines, we must also focus on the many other ways voters were disenfranchised in 2004 and could be again in 2006. In the midst of talk about paper trails and frozen computer screens, have we all forgotten the registration problems, the intimidation tactics, the tossed provisional ballots and the unacceptably long lines that led to so many disenfranchised voters in 2004? If so, we had better remember, because recent analysis shows the states have not done enough to make sure such problems don’t rear their ugly heads again during the 2006 and 2008 elections.

In 2000 and 2004, snafus in the voter registration process led to millions of voters being unable to cast ballots. In America, obstacles exist even for citizens trying to register to vote that are a continual factor in low voter turn-out rates. First, unlike most other countries, the onus is on the citizen, rather than the government, to figure how and where to register. Many in poorer and less-educated communities will not get the information they need to register and register properly. Election administrators may make mistakes in the collection and input of a voter’s information, leading to the rejection of that voter’s registration application or the failure of that voter’s name to appear on the right poll book in the right polling location. With many states having registration deadlines up to 30  days out from the Election Day, many would-be voters will register too late, especially in our society where people move frequently and must re-register every time they do so.

Some states are making it even harder to register, not easier, according to a  recently published study of 10 key states conducted by The Century Foundation, Common Cause and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Most notable is Arizona, where one now has to provide documentary proof of citizenship in order to register. This has already led to thousands of voter registration forms being rejected throughout the state; election administrators readily admit that most of those rejected were citizens who, while perfectly eligible to vote, were simply unable to produce a birth certificate. New restrictions on third party voter registration drives—virtually the only groups that proactively work to register Americans in minority and poor neighborhoods—also threaten to reduce voter participation.

We should also remember the abominable, deceptive practices designed to suppress the vote which took place in 2004. In one notorious incident, a flier, purportedly from the “Milwaukee Black Voters League” was distributed in African-American neighborhoods. It read,  in part:

IF YOU’VE ALREADY VOTED IN ANY ELECTION THIS YEAR YOU CAN’T VOTE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.  IF YOU [OR ANYBODY IN YOUR FAMILY] HAVE EVER BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF ANYTHING, EVEN A TRAFFIC VIOLATION, YOU CAN’T VOTE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION … IF YOU VIOLATE ANY OF THESE LAWS YOU CAN GET TEN YEARS IN PRISON AND YOUR CHILDREN WILL BE TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU.

This was not an isolated case. Throughout the country, fliers and mailers with false information were distributed and misleading phone calls were made. Yet in the study of 10 states, only two states had taken an aggressive step to stop this from happening again. Bills are pending in several states and in the U.S. Senate that would criminalize the dissemination of false information regarding voter eligibility and election procedures and require that administrators ensure that correct information is communicated widely. Yet, they have gone nowhere.

Another intimidation tactic to watch for that was used in 2004—one that has, in truth, been employed for 40 years—was the rampant, partisan pre-election and Election Day challenges to voting eligibility. Political operatives systematically compiled lists based on faulty data to challenge the registration status of thousands of voters prior to Election Day, many of them minorities, and repeatedly threatened to send aggressive challengers to the polls to challenge citizens’ right to vote. Over the years, these challengers would then stand at the polls and assert to the poll worker that certain voters were not eligible to vote, for example because they were not citizens or did not live where they said they did, with little evidence that such allegations were true. Yet, while a few states have laudably taken steps to address this, most of the states studied did not take measures to rein in this deplorable practice, and existing laws are vague enough to be abused again.

Remember the students at  Kenyon College waiting in line past midnight to vote in 2004? Despite the huge problems with long lines and insufficient and inequitably distributed voting machines in 2004, most states continue to have extremely vague and decentralized standards for voting machine distribution, if they have any standards at all. If turnout is high again, unacceptably long lines threaten to disenfranchise voters again.

There is also the highly unfortunate, more recent issue of new voter identification rules. Courts in Georgia and Missouri have blocked strict photo identification requirements because they will discriminatorily disenfranchise many eligible voters and are unconstitutional. Indiana, however, will go forward with a rule that all voters must present government issued photo identification; many other states have also made their voter identification requirements much stricter.

The research shows that the fraud problem that ID proponents claim as the rationale for the rules they advocate is actually miniscule. There is also a plethora of data showing that minorities, the disabled, the elderly, rural voters, the young and the poor are much less likely to have the necessary identification and, thus, are less likely to be able to vote under these strictures.

We now have further evidence that ID rules suppress voter turnout by notable degrees. A study just released by political scientists at  Rutgers University concludes that, compared to states where a voter need only state his or her name, requirements for signature, non-photo identification and photo identification translate into significantly reduced voter turn-outs.

Finally, all of these problems—along with the prospect of machine breakdowns—portend the use of even more provisional ballots than ever. But if you vote using a provisional ballot—a paper ballot, the validity of which is determined after the election—will it be counted? A study by  Electionline.org  found that 500,000 provisional ballots—out of 1.6 million provisional ballots cast—were deemed ineligible and thrown out in the 2004 election Whether a provisional ballot is counted or not is in the hands of individuals examining and making a judgment as to whether it and the voter qualifies under that state’s particular provisional ballot counting rules. 

Concerns about the security and reliability of the voting machines are valid, and the debate over the issue necessary. But while people grow increasingly troubled by the possibility of manipulation of the vote by hacking, they should also be mindful of the possibility of manipulation through many other more tried and true methods.

Tova Andrea Wang is a Democracy Fellow at The Century Foundation.