washingtonpost.com  > Nation > National Security

Election Day Anti-Terrorism Plans Draw Criticism

Democrats Fear Efforts Could Keep Minority Voters Away

By Spencer S. Hsu and Jo Becker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 6, 2004; Page A12

A push by the 50 states to coordinate anti-terrorism activities before Election Day is drawing warnings from Democrats, civil rights groups and election officials, who say excessive measures could suppress turnout among urban and minority voters.

They contend that an elevated national threat warning -- and any actions in response -- could scare away voters, intentionally or not, especially in cities, which tend to vote Democratic. Voting rights advocates worry that fear of terrorism could lead to federal agents and local police being posted at polling places, a tactic that has historically been used in some places to intimidate minority citizens.

Such generalized threats "could have the consequence of discouraging people that may otherwise be motivated to vote," said Jeff Fischer, senior adviser to IFES, a Washington-based organization that promotes democratic elections.

"There is a fine line that public officials must walk," weighing the specifics of the threat, communicating openly with voters and reacting judiciously, he said.

Citing the March 11 bombings in Madrid before elections in Spain, Department of Homeland Security officials have warned that terrorists might try a similar assault here before the Nov. 2 elections. In recent weeks there has been a focus on Election Day, although the government has said it has no intelligence about the timing, status or target of a possible attack.

State and federal officials issued a security planning bulletin last week urging governors, state homeland security advisers and election officials to coordinate preparations and contingency plans. The document advised officials to think through how they would handle threat information, secure or change polling places and ballot-counting centers, guard members of the electoral college, and communicate to the public.

In interviews, the bulletin's authors said they were aware of the political minefield surrounding the issue. But they said that if there were an attack and elections and homeland security officials were unprepared, the consequences could be more disruptive.

"There is no doubt that the threat that is posed nationwide prior to the election here in this country is very real," said Bryan Sierra, spokesman for the Justice Department. "We have an absolute responsibility to provide that information to state and local governments, who are charged with protecting their citizens."

Sensitivity over the political fallout of the warnings is especially high because of the narrow partisan divide in the country and bitter memories of the 2000 presidential race, which turned on tiny vote margins in some states and partly on decisions made by Florida election officials.

Analysts say that regardless of intent, terrorism warnings have shaped voter attitudes, an influence that could grow if the warnings are extended to polling sites. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, said people who oppose President Bush "see a clear pattern to scare the electorate," while his supporters see "an administration vigilantly protecting the country." As for undecided or swing voters, "raising the public's anxiety level helps the candidacy of George Bush, because at the moment the polls suggest the public feels it's safer to have George Bush as president," she said.

Critics of the warnings point to Minnesota Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer's effort to raise terrorism awareness as an example of how election security measures could chill turnout. Kiffmeyer (R) gave local election officials fliers that warned voters to watch for unattended packages, vehicles "riding low on springs" and "homicide bombers."

Bombers may have a "shaved head or short hair," "smell of unusual herbal/flower water or perfume," wear baggy clothes or appear to be whispering to themselves, the flier warned.

Several local election officials were outraged over what they saw as an attempt to discourage voting with excessively dire warnings and stereotyping descriptions that could single out voters from specific religious, racial or ethnic groups for harassment. They refused to distribute the fliers.

Kiffmeyer said the language of the bulletin was taken from Minnesota's homeland security agency, which developed it with federal guidance. "What if something happens? I don't want to say, 'I didn't want to scare people, so I didn't pass out this information,' " Kiffmeyer said. "And do people really think this isn't on the minds of the public when they saw what happened in Madrid and in Russia?"

CONTINUED    1 2    Next >

© 2004 The Washington Post Company