For the past two years states across the country have been passing legislation aimed at ensuring fairer and more effective elections and complying with the federal mandates of the Help America Vote Act of 2002. New York's governor and Legislature, per usual, did nothing. Now, with the presidential election just weeks away, the Legislature finally passed a one-year only, stop-gap measure that pertains just to the issue of complying with the federal law's new voter-identification requirements.

Even in completing that narrow task, the Legislature made a botch of it.

The New York State Board of Elections must now step up to the plate and make sure that there is not chaos, disenfranchisement and litigation on Election Day.

When Congress passed HAVA two years ago, it mandated that the states take certain actions and promised federal funding for elections improvements. This year, states were required to adopt provisional balloting, institute an administrative complaint procedure, appropriate a 5 percent matching fund, and, most controversially, require all first-time voters registering by mail to present identification either when registering or voting. (New York has still not taken action on most of the other required measures, jeopardizing the state's eligibility for federal funds.)

In its last-minute bill, the Legislature merely copied the language of HAVA, saying voters subject to the ID requirement would have to present "a current and valid photo identification" or "a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter." In doing so, it passed up the opportunity to create a wide-ranging, open-ended list of acceptable types of ID a poll worker could accept, a measure that would minimize the potential disenfranchising effects of the new law.

Instead, this vague language leaves it up to the counties to interpret for themselves what types of ID fit within the parameters of the law. Not only could this lead to unnecessary and illegal voter disenfranchisement, it means that the ID requirement could be implemented differently all over the state. This leaves New York wide open for an equal protection-based lawsuit.

There is still time to head off the possibility of chaos. Here are some ideas on what the Board of Elections can do.

Traditionally, poll-worker training has been orchestrated mainly at the local level. At least in this instance, this needs to change. Commendably, the state board has distributed to the counties an expansive list of the types of ID that should be accepted at every polling site in the state. Now it must also ensure that that information is given and explained thoroughly to every poll worker who will be stationed at a poll site.

Some of the ways the board can do this are:

• Make sure that the list of acceptable ID is inserted into all poll-worker manuals throughout the state. In addition, every poll worker should get sample photos of what some of those ID look like;

• Take the lead of the New York City Board of Elections and create video training, distributed to all poll workers, that includes a detailed section on implementing voter-identification requirements;

• Develop a curriculum and oral script to be used by local boards of election in their training sessions for poll workers;

• Distribute to all polling sites a poster listing, in English and all required minority languages, examples of the types of ID poll workers must accept, with sample photos;

• Work closely with good-government and civic organizations across the state to ensure that all voters are educated as to what they should expect when they go the polls.

Fortunately, once New York meets HAVA's requirements, federal funding will be available to undertake these activities.

Two years ago, Congress passed legislation to help prevent a recurrence of the 2000 election meltdown. The New York State Legislature and governor have failed to play their part in making the federal mandates work for New York voters. Now the state Board of Elections has the opportunity to play a pivotal role in determining whether the new law means more confusion and disenfranchisement or improved elections.

Tova Andrea Wang is a program officer and Democracy Fellow at The Century Foundation. This article originally appeared in The Journal News on September 26, 2004.