I'm inherently reluctant to respond to a problem with "there oughta be a law". And I'm particularly reluctant to advance solutions imposed from above by the federal government. But I'm also not normally quick to invoke "states rights". The feds, in keeping with the Bill of Rights and our heritage of individual liberties, are sometimes the appropriate and final guarantor when something's gone awry.
So with that as background, consider the current ballot access mess. Ballots are being printed, mailed out to absentee voters, and there are still questions about who should and should not be on those ballots. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=5&u=/ap/20041014/ap_o
n_el_pr/overseas_vote_lawsuit)
For me, voting is a fundamental individual liberty which ought to be zealously protected by the feds (and certainly the states as well!). The 2000 election exposed some practices where states were failing to equally protect that fundamental right. So it was appropriate that the feds should attempt to correct where the states had failed. One can argue the extent to which HAVA achieved that aim, but the fundamental urge behind it was sound.
It is clear to me that some states are failing their voters by having ballot access processes which are so convoluted, so prone to lawsuits, and with such late deadlines. It is time for the feds to step in and enforce some minimal standards. It is absolutely incredible to me that I can look at a well-researched and current site like Ballot Access (http://www.ballot-access.org/2004/electoral.html) and, with only 19 days until the election, Nader's status is still uncertain in five states. I don't care if you like Nader or hate him. This degree of brinksmanship damages the process.
But of course, as ever, I could be wrong.