Legislation, court rulings, and the Twenty-Fourth Amendment bars the requirement of poll taxes to vote. On the other hand, there might be other quasi-poll taxes out there all the same. Though the matter doesn't seem to effect my area in particular, there was quite a few reports about long lines at the polls earlier this month.
Toss in those who have to spend time on Election Day and so forth to deal with mix-ups and the like, and we are talking about a decent amount of time here. And, time is money, money that affects different people differently. Such a violation in spirit of the bar against poll taxes and the rules in place to uphold an equal and effective right to vote is just one more reason to be concerned about our current electoral system.
Useful, if underreported, hearings were held in Ohio to deal with such questions. In Ohio, where there just might be a recount after all (and Ohio Democrats got off their butts and challenged the lack of one statewide standard for provisional ballots, which was a major problem cited by Bush v. Gore), had many reports of long lines and other problems, which unsurprisingly was especially prevalent in economically poorer areas.
Likewise, when you have poor areas, you often have areas with heavy non-white populations. Though Republicans made gains in the Hispanic community, this still is primarily a Democratic voting bloc, and evidence was shown that they were crudely targeted by some seedy operatives for just that reason. This makes people suspicious of the intentions of the Republican Ohio Secretary of State, yet another reason why we need neutral electoral monitors. The Fifteenth Amendment is specifically concerned about black voting rights, but equal voting rights cross racial lines. Thus, all should worry about testimonials such as this:
I was told that the standard was to have one voting machine per 100 registered voters. Precinct A had 750 registered voters. Precinct G had 690. There should have been 14 voting machines at this site. There were only 6, three per precinct, less than 50 percent of the standard. This caused an enormous bottleneck among voters who had to wait a very, very long time to vote, many of them giving up in frustration and leaving.
To repeat, this is just not about who won. The Civil Rights Movement was not just some sort of get out the vote campaign by the Democratic party. It is about the integrity of the system that is at the heart of our political system. The same can be said about the results so far by those who investigated the vote in Florida. As suggested by the comments to Kevin Drum's latest post on the subject, (1) even though there doesn't seem to be proof of wrongdoing, there surely is clear evidence of voters legitimately questioning the integrity of the system and (2) this is a problem, even though the disputed numbers would probably not change the final results (though, we might be talking some significant numbers here all the same).
So, yes, some who are concerned about this issue have an additional agenda -- they fear that the election was robbed. Some just couldn't believe the result was fairly achieved (hey, I can relate). Again, this only underlines the problem: if a significant number of people don't trust a system, the fact some make exaggerated claims is largely irrevelant. The system is still in doubt, still is faulty, and lacks the proper degree of redundant safeguards that exist in matters rather less important. [A disputed football play is at times easier to review than election results.]
The system is especially problematic when the margin of victory in paper thin, which was the case in several races this year. If no system established by human beings can be without problems, it must at least have a level of trust that quite arguably just does not (or should not, if one is honest about how many actually are worrying about this) exist now. Given the system at issue, this is all rather troubling.