Elaine Donnelly
Wednesday, Dec. 27, 2000

In a Nov. 22 article titled "Disenfranchising the Military," Wall Street Journal editorial columnist John Fund reported that in 1999 the office of Defense Secretary William S. Cohen ordered the removal of polling places from DoD facilities. When National Guard and Army Reserve offices prepared to comply, the secretaries of state in 17 states filed protests. The Senate acted quickly to attach language to last year's Defense Appropriations Bill to stop the Pentagon from evicting polling places during the 2000 election. And to prevent a recurrence in the future, House Administration Committee Chairman Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., sponsored legislation to ensure that the voting booths will remain on military bases.

The Clinton-Gore Defense Department, however, actively opposed the Thomas bill, H.R. 5174. Citing a law enacted during the Civil War, DoD General Counsel Douglas Dworkin wrote in an Oct. 10 letter to Rep. Thomas that "Placement of voting sites on military installations in which 'troops or armed men' are likely to come into close contact with voters is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of maintaining separation between the military and politics."

Threatening criminal penalties, Dworkin wrote that "local election officials have been advised to designate a new polling place as soon as possible." Aside from the idea that it is perfectly all right to impose what amounts to a "poll tax" on military voters stationed in remote areas, Dworkin's rationale seems to betray peculiar hostility toward military people, who are assumed to be intimidating to civilian voters.

In a Dec. 17 reply, Reps. Floyd D. Spence and Bob Stump, R-Ariz., respective chairmen of the House Armed Services and Veterans Affairs Committees, joined with Rep.Thomas in disputing Dworkin's contentions:

"We believe that the ability of citizens to vote in elections is a fundamental tenet of democracy and that the act of voting is, at its heart, a non-partisan activity. ... Moreover, H.R. 5174 seeks to facilitate voting in places where suitable alternative non-DoD facilities do not exist – a likely occurrence given that, in some cases, DoD has assigned people to isolated and difficult posts for the purpose of defending the nation. ...

"Allowing and even encouraging people to exercise their right to vote does not involve the military in 'partisan politics' as the General Counsel alleges. In fact, we are surprised that any DoD counsel would make such an argument in view of DoD's active and well-regarded voter assistance program. ... We would like to stress that citizens serving our country in the armed services and their families deserve to vote just like anyone else ... we urge you to reconsider the Department's position on H.R. 5174. "

In a subsequent "Dear Colleague" letter, Chairmen Spence, Stump and Thomas noted that the Pentagon's opposition to the bill "raises fundamental questions about the Administration's commitment to assuring military personnel of their constitutional right to vote. The Department's arguments ... ignore the long history of cooperation between State officials and base commanders who understand that voting is a civic responsibility easily accommodated to military obligations."

H.R. 5174 passed the House on a bipartisan 297-114 vote in October, and Senate Republican leaders were prepared to "hot line" the bill on a "unanimous consent" voice vote during the lame-duck session. Minority Leader Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., reportedly wanted to block the legislation, but his spokeswoman, Ranit Schmelzer, later denied that the senator had put a "hold" on the bill. Schmelzer said that Daschle would not object if it were brought up, but indicated that there could be opposition from Democrat senators whom she could not name. (Washington Times, Dec. 19)

No one expected the Senate to engage in a contentious debate late on the last day before Christmas recess. A motion for unanimous consent to the bill could have been adopted in minutes. If Sen. Daschle or some other Democrat had objected on the record, voters would know whom to hold accountable.

But for unknown reasons, Sen. Lott failed to bring up the bill, and it was allowed to die. Republicans allowed Democrats to escape accountability, so they must share responsibility for the Senate's failure to protect the voting rights of military people serving on domestic military bases. This makes no sense in terms of politics or fair treatment of citizens serving their country in uniform.

Due to Senate inaction, the practice of treating military people like second-class voters will continue beyond the end of the Clinton administration. Spokesmen for several senators promised to raise the issue again next year as part of a more comprehensive reform plan, but the chances for passage will be considerably less in the new, evenly divided Senate.

Military voters and their families, who made a crucial difference in the 2000 presidential election, deserve better. If this is an example of "bipartisanship" in action, we are in for a difficult four years.

Elaine Donnelly is president of the Center for Military Readiness, an independent public policy organization that specializes in military personnel issues. For more information, go to www.cmrlink.org. This article is excerpted from the center's publication, CMR Notes. For a sample copy, call 202-347-5333. Future editions of CMR notes for one year can be obtained by contributing $25 or more to the Center for Military Readiness, P.O. Box 51600, Livonia, Mich. 48151. Contributions are tax-deductible.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Presidential Race 2000