Commanders Ban Polling Places on Military Property

Election officials across the country are scrambling to find new polling places after local military commanders informed them they won’t be allowed to use defense facilities as voting sites like in years past.

The commanders took the action after receiving a routine directive from Defense Secretary William Cohen that cites decades-old federal criminal laws requiring strict separation of the military and the election process.

The laws were designed to prevent military interference with voting. Cohen’s order states that “commanders are advised not to allow their installation facilities to be used for polling or voting sites.”

The directive is sent each election year, but this time numerous local commanders whose facilities have been used for years as polling places mentioned it when ordering armories and other facilities off limits for elections.

“We do this every election year,” said Glenn Flood, a Pentagon spokesman. “It’s just that now, the commanders are reading the fine print. They’re seeing that this is something they should probably pay more attention to.”

In Kentucky, Franklin County officials had to find a new polling place for the May 23 state primary after an Army Reserve commander, following the directive, shut down a reserve center that had been used for voting for more than 15 years.

“We were shocked by it,” said Sarah Ball Johnson, assistant director of the Kentucky elections board. “Any time you change a polling site it causes problems and it’s traumatic for the voters.”

There is no official estimate on how many polling places may be affected, since they are controlled by local election officials and military commanders.

But a preliminary survey by the Election Center, a nonpartisan association of state and local election officials, turned up dozens of instances where commanders have notified local officials they can no longer use National Guard armories, reserve facilities and other military installations.

“We have just started to hear from jurisdictions who didn’t know they had a problem until they started to make arrangements for a primary election,” said Doug Lewis, the center’s executive director.

The situation has caused such an uproar that Pentagon officials have begun to backpedal.

Responding to a request from Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a Pentagon lawyer last week issued a memorandum stating that the directive does not cover National Guard installations under state control, unless the guard units are called to active duty.

But the clarifying memo hasn’t been widely circulated. Lewis, who complained to Cohen about the policy last month, had not seen it by Thursday.

Neither had official Pentagon spokesmen who continued to insist this week that the directive covers armories.

“Apparently there’s an ongoing dispute as to whether or not armories are covered,” said Brad King, Minnesota elections director. “The uncertainty is making it difficult for local officials because of the need for planning time.”

Lewis said if the Pentagon exempts armories and reserve facilities from the directive, it would allow most polling places on defense property to stay where they are. He said his survey has found only three states, Hawaii, Alaska and Utah, where voting is conducted on military bases, rather than on guard or reserve facilities.

Flood, the Pentagon spokesman, said defense officials have no idea why local commanders who have allowed voting at military sites in the past are suddenly citing the routine directive to stop it.

Election officials worry the directive will have the unintended consequence of discouraging voting, by military personnel and by civilians confused by the closing of their regular polling places.