Friday, November 11, 2005
Election odyssey, first lesson: rules of engagement
Our rules of engagement for election observation are simple: don't obstruct and don't intervene. Upon entering a polling place location, our instructions to observers are to always introduce yourself to the polling place workers, especially the head polling place judge or inspector; explain your purpose and intentions (we are there to observe the process and stay out of the way); ask where is a good location from which to observe; never intervene or get in the way of voters or poll workers; always ask to see materials or to take photographs; and always be polite and thank the poll workers for their help.
The consequence of following these simple rules of engagement? We almost always end up learning an enormous amount of interesting detail about the process, and while in many cases polling place workers are sometimes initially suspicious of our intentions --- they typically end up being very friendly, very helpful, and very informative.
Generally what happens when we follow these rules is that the polling place workers tell us to locate ourselves in some out-of-the way position in the polling place, and also tell us not to disturb the voters. Then, usually if we stay in that position long enough for them to grow comfortable with our presence --- and usually, for a lull to occur in their election-day work --- they will typically initiate a conversation, ask us what we are doing and why we are doing it, and then begin to offer up their experiences and be in a position to answer questions.
Here is one great example of how well our approach to election observation works, from a polling place in Riverside County, located inside the Corona Fundamental Intermediate School, located at the intersection of Main and Grand in Corona. This photo is taken from the entrance to the polling place, showing the inspector and the two workers. While there was a steady stream of voters coming into this location, after I described what I was there to do, the inspector was very willing to answer all of my questions, to honestly discuss the difficulties associated with the particular poll location he was using (more about that in a later essay), and to talk about his experiences as a poll worker and inspector. He let me take this photograph of the interior of their poll site (which is sometimes not an automatic "yes" in Riverside County!). All in all, a very informative and helpful visit for me.
Another excellent example occurred on election night, when I was with two Caltech undergraduate students in Los Angeles County. We were observing the poll closing process at the Alpine Recreation Center, in downtown Los Angeles (in Chinatown). This is a very good place to observe the difficulties associated with the polling place and election administration process, as this polling place serves a highly diverse population --- serving multiple languages, both very young and very elderly voters, and new citizens who are sometimes not familiar with the voting process. And it is also a very busy voting location!
But we have observed the process a number of times in this same location since 2001, and have become known to the polling place workers, especially the head inspector. The fact that we have been neutral and unobtrusive in the past in this location has helped us to establish a high level of trust with the folks staffing this location. That trust has given us fantastic access to the process, for example, as shown here in this photograph. Here are the two Caltech students (at the left end of the table), with the polling place workers at the table, closely observing the initial post-election tally of the cast ballots in this precinct. The poll workers here are counting the number of absentee ballots cast, provisionals, and cast ballots --- and insuring that those numbers are consistent with the numbers from other tally sheets (the number of registered voters who cast ballots, and the numbers from the ballot stubs of ballots that have been handed out to voters). This is a great experience, and a wonderful way to see the nitty-gritty details of election administration first-hand.
However, sometimes we hear that problems have arisen in polling places, caused by improper election observation practices. Unfortunately, we were the victims of improper behavior by another election observation group, who had earlier visited a polling place that we planned on visiting during the evening on November 8. I took a group of Caltech students to this polling place in Pasadena on Tuesday, during the peak evening period of voting. I entered the polling place, introduced myself to the head polling place inspector, gave her my business card, and asked her if it was okay for us to observe the process in their location, one student at a time. She was clearly not happy with this, and told me that they had students from another local college in their precinct earlier in the day, and that they had been somewhat obtrusive in their observation process, including taking photographs without permission of people voting. She also told me that under no conditions could we take any photographs in the polling place, because of the problems that they had experienced earlier in the day with the students from the other local college. It was not a good situation, as the poll workers were clearly upset about the previous student observers and were stressed by our presence there.
This makes me wonder if we need to start thinking seriously about developing and trying to implement some standards or principles for election observers and monitors in the United States. Some really good development of election observation principles has recently been conducted by a variety of international organizations, culminating in the October 27, 2005 release of the "Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation and Code of Conduct for International Election Observers" at the United Nations. It might be a good idea for us to borrow for these principles and standards, for example, the principle of not obstructing the election process:
I'm not certain how we might begin to develop and implement principles and standards like these in the United States, and am open to suggestions from Election Updates readers. But I do think that we should start a discussion about the development of election observation and monitoring standards, principles, and codes of conduct in the United States, as my guess is that we will continue to see an increasing amount of interest in election monitoring in future elections in the U.S., especially in the next federal election cycle just a year from now.
The consequence of following these simple rules of engagement? We almost always end up learning an enormous amount of interesting detail about the process, and while in many cases polling place workers are sometimes initially suspicious of our intentions --- they typically end up being very friendly, very helpful, and very informative.
Generally what happens when we follow these rules is that the polling place workers tell us to locate ourselves in some out-of-the way position in the polling place, and also tell us not to disturb the voters. Then, usually if we stay in that position long enough for them to grow comfortable with our presence --- and usually, for a lull to occur in their election-day work --- they will typically initiate a conversation, ask us what we are doing and why we are doing it, and then begin to offer up their experiences and be in a position to answer questions.
Here is one great example of how well our approach to election observation works, from a polling place in Riverside County, located inside the Corona Fundamental Intermediate School, located at the intersection of Main and Grand in Corona. This photo is taken from the entrance to the polling place, showing the inspector and the two workers. While there was a steady stream of voters coming into this location, after I described what I was there to do, the inspector was very willing to answer all of my questions, to honestly discuss the difficulties associated with the particular poll location he was using (more about that in a later essay), and to talk about his experiences as a poll worker and inspector. He let me take this photograph of the interior of their poll site (which is sometimes not an automatic "yes" in Riverside County!). All in all, a very informative and helpful visit for me.
Another excellent example occurred on election night, when I was with two Caltech undergraduate students in Los Angeles County. We were observing the poll closing process at the Alpine Recreation Center, in downtown Los Angeles (in Chinatown). This is a very good place to observe the difficulties associated with the polling place and election administration process, as this polling place serves a highly diverse population --- serving multiple languages, both very young and very elderly voters, and new citizens who are sometimes not familiar with the voting process. And it is also a very busy voting location!
But we have observed the process a number of times in this same location since 2001, and have become known to the polling place workers, especially the head inspector. The fact that we have been neutral and unobtrusive in the past in this location has helped us to establish a high level of trust with the folks staffing this location. That trust has given us fantastic access to the process, for example, as shown here in this photograph. Here are the two Caltech students (at the left end of the table), with the polling place workers at the table, closely observing the initial post-election tally of the cast ballots in this precinct. The poll workers here are counting the number of absentee ballots cast, provisionals, and cast ballots --- and insuring that those numbers are consistent with the numbers from other tally sheets (the number of registered voters who cast ballots, and the numbers from the ballot stubs of ballots that have been handed out to voters). This is a great experience, and a wonderful way to see the nitty-gritty details of election administration first-hand.
However, sometimes we hear that problems have arisen in polling places, caused by improper election observation practices. Unfortunately, we were the victims of improper behavior by another election observation group, who had earlier visited a polling place that we planned on visiting during the evening on November 8. I took a group of Caltech students to this polling place in Pasadena on Tuesday, during the peak evening period of voting. I entered the polling place, introduced myself to the head polling place inspector, gave her my business card, and asked her if it was okay for us to observe the process in their location, one student at a time. She was clearly not happy with this, and told me that they had students from another local college in their precinct earlier in the day, and that they had been somewhat obtrusive in their observation process, including taking photographs without permission of people voting. She also told me that under no conditions could we take any photographs in the polling place, because of the problems that they had experienced earlier in the day with the students from the other local college. It was not a good situation, as the poll workers were clearly upset about the previous student observers and were stressed by our presence there.
This makes me wonder if we need to start thinking seriously about developing and trying to implement some standards or principles for election observers and monitors in the United States. Some really good development of election observation principles has recently been conducted by a variety of international organizations, culminating in the October 27, 2005 release of the "Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation and Code of Conduct for International Election Observers" at the United Nations. It might be a good idea for us to borrow for these principles and standards, for example, the principle of not obstructing the election process:
Observers must not obstruct any element of the election process ... Observers may bring irregularities, fraud or significant problems to the attention of election officials ... and must do so in a non-obstructive manner. Observers may ask questions of election officials ... as long as observers do not obstruct the election process ... (page 2, "Code of Conduct ...")
I'm not certain how we might begin to develop and implement principles and standards like these in the United States, and am open to suggestions from Election Updates readers. But I do think that we should start a discussion about the development of election observation and monitoring standards, principles, and codes of conduct in the United States, as my guess is that we will continue to see an increasing amount of interest in election monitoring in future elections in the U.S., especially in the next federal election cycle just a year from now.
Voting rights report and database released
A report of a research project on voting rights litigation under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (Section 2), is now available. This project, "The Voting Rights Initiative, Documenting Discrimination, Judicial Findings under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act since 1982", also provides what looks like a useful database of the lawsuit materials associated with Section 2 of the the VRA.
Based upon the information available, this looks like an interesting project with an interesting methodology. Here's the description of their methodology from their website:
It would be interesting to apply such a methodology to other dimensions of election law and litigation, including issues like vote recounts.
Based upon the information available, this looks like an interesting project with an interesting methodology. Here's the description of their methodology from their website:
The Voting Rights Initiative is a faculty-student research collaborative established in January, 2005 at the University of Michigan Law School. Working under the direction of Professor Ellen Katz, a group of more than 100 Michigan law students set out to document the nature and scope of litigation brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act since 1982.
Researchers began by searching the federal court databases on Westlaw and LexisNexis to identify electronically published decisions addressing a Section 2 claim. To develop this list, researchers searched these databases for every federal court decision that cited 42 U.S.C. § 1973 since June 29, 1982, when Section 2 was amended. The resulting list was then narrowed by identifying cases in which plaintiffs had filed an actual claim under Section 2, and removing all decisions that merely reference Section 2 without involving a claim brought under that provision.
Researchers then located on these databases all related decisions and organized them by lawsuit with a single “litigation” title for quick reference. Within each lawsuit, researchers determined which opinion provided the “final word” for the purposes of this project, since many lawsuits included multiple appeals and remands. The final word case in each lawsuit is usually the last case in the lawsuit that assessed liability on the merits and determined whether Section 2 was violated. If there was no such case to analyze, researchers coded as the final word the last published case in the lawsuit making some other determination for or against the plaintiff, including whether to issue a preliminary injunction, whether to order a settlement, what remedy to order, and whether to grant fees. In these latter cases, the contours of the underlying Section 2 claim group and the court’s analysis of it were often difficult to discern as the reported decision was addressing a distinct question. Still, these cases, especially preliminary injunction cases, sometimes included reference to some Senate Factors or other substantive Section 2 criteria, and where possible researchers documented these findings. Even where nothing more than the fact of decision could be discerned from these decisions, researchers included the lawsuit in the overall list of lawsuits to attempt to give as broad a picture as possible of Section 2 litigation.
Researchers reviewed each case within a litigation string and followed a standard checklist (see Data Key located at www.votingreport.org) to catalogue the information discussed and determine the outcome in each lawsuit analyzed. Researchers recorded which of the nine Senate Factors, if any, the reviewing court found to exist, and whether the court ultimately found a violation of Section 2. Researchers also tracked how courts have treated the so-called “Gingles” threshold test (set forth by the Supreme Court in its 1986 opinion Thornburg v. Gingles), the law or practice challenged in each lawsuit, the implicated governing body, the state of origin, the minority groups bringing the claim, the involvement of expert witnesses, and other basic case data such as the judges and lawyers involved with the case.
Each case was read and catalogued by multiple researchers working independently – then by research directors and then checked for consistency by editors. The case reports are available here.
Since the completion of the case reports, searches have been designed and the database used to document and analyze the particular findings in this report. All of case reports and searches to access this data are available here. This site includes lists of cases, organized by lawsuit and by state, that: identify a violation of Section 2; identify such violations in covered jurisdictions; find each of the Senate Factors; challenge specific types of electoral practices; challenge certain governing bodies; and involve particular minority groups.
It would be interesting to apply such a methodology to other dimensions of election law and litigation, including issues like vote recounts.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
An election odyssey
I guess it is a sign of the extent to which we have some dedicated readers, or just maybe there are a lot of other election geeks out there, but I've been getting email today about why we've been so silent here at Election Updates in the past few days. Well, that is because we were "out in the field" on Tuesday (studying the election process in our respective locations), and then recovering from all that hard work on Wednesday.
Some logistical details will help set the stage for what we were up to in Southern California. I personally covered 185 miles on Tuesday, starting at 7:30am and ending near midnight, driving through three counties, and observing the special election process in detail in two counties (Riverside and Los Angeles). I examined a total of eleven poll sites extensively, 6 in Riverside County and 5 in Los Angeles County. Some of my polling observations were done with some of my undergraduate students from Caltech, in Los Angeles County; we ended the evening watching the ballots arrive at the Los Angeles County Registrar/Recorder office in Norwalk, California, where we also saw them being processed and tabulated. We also had veteran observers (graduate students at Caltech) who observed polling place practices in approximately a dozen other poll sites, in both Orange and Los Angeles Counties. So we covered a lot of territory on Tuesday, and we have a lot to report in coming days and weeks.
So I promise shortly to start to provide some observations from the field, both mine and those of our various observers. We took a lot of pictures, collected a lot of data, and of course saw a lot of very interesting things on election day in California.
Some logistical details will help set the stage for what we were up to in Southern California. I personally covered 185 miles on Tuesday, starting at 7:30am and ending near midnight, driving through three counties, and observing the special election process in detail in two counties (Riverside and Los Angeles). I examined a total of eleven poll sites extensively, 6 in Riverside County and 5 in Los Angeles County. Some of my polling observations were done with some of my undergraduate students from Caltech, in Los Angeles County; we ended the evening watching the ballots arrive at the Los Angeles County Registrar/Recorder office in Norwalk, California, where we also saw them being processed and tabulated. We also had veteran observers (graduate students at Caltech) who observed polling place practices in approximately a dozen other poll sites, in both Orange and Los Angeles Counties. So we covered a lot of territory on Tuesday, and we have a lot to report in coming days and weeks.
So I promise shortly to start to provide some observations from the field, both mine and those of our various observers. We took a lot of pictures, collected a lot of data, and of course saw a lot of very interesting things on election day in California.
A Change in Tactics on Election Reform?
California and Ohio were ground zero for efforts to change election laws related to redistricting through referenda and both went down to defeat. Moreover, in Ohio, efforts to expand absentee voting, reform how elections are governed in the state, and make campaign finance reforms all went down to defeat as well.
Groups supporting the redistricting reform were planning to push for similar reforms next year in Florida and Massachusetts, but now are planning only to engage in activities in Florida. According to the Associated Press, these reforms are proving to be difficult to sell to partisans, especially Republicans.
Given how few seats will be competitive in next year's House races, it is not suprising to see why members of both parties like the status quo--it gives guaranteed job security, even for those in the minority.
Groups supporting the redistricting reform were planning to push for similar reforms next year in Florida and Massachusetts, but now are planning only to engage in activities in Florida. According to the Associated Press, these reforms are proving to be difficult to sell to partisans, especially Republicans.
Given how few seats will be competitive in next year's House races, it is not suprising to see why members of both parties like the status quo--it gives guaranteed job security, even for those in the minority.
Monday, November 07, 2005
Election night web reporting from the OC available!
I've received the url for the election night web reporting from the OC: make sure to hot-link this for action tomorrow night, especially the webcam as it is now active!
Watching "election tv" live from the OC?
According to a story in this morning's Los Angeles Times, some important new innovations will be rolled out for tomorrow's special election here in California by Orange County. Here is a snippet from the story this morning:
Note that the ballot tracking system appears very similar to the one that I saw in operation in Buenos Aires just a few weeks ago!
Another description of the new technology to be used in this election by Orange County came through recently in the newsletter that Neal Kelley, the Orange County Registrar of Voters, in his periodic email newsletter:
The actual image that this quote refers to is here.
As best as I could determine, there is no link at this point to the web cam yet at Registrar of Voters website. However I can guarantee that I'll be checking their website tomorrow, as for an election geek like me this is must-watch material from the OC.
All joking aside, the use of web cameras in situations like this is a great idea. I've heard election administrators talk about using web cameras to show election administration operations, especially election-night activities like ballot box opening and ballot tabulation. This is an excellent way to provide another layer of openness and public involvement in the "behind the scenes" parts of the election administration process. It'll be very interesting to see how the OC system works in practice, and to hear more from them (after the election is over) about how effective they think these new practices are, how much they cost, and how difficult they are to implement.
Those linking off the registrar's home page Tuesday will find an array of services: a live Web camera trained on the registrar's delivery warehouse in Santa Ana providing constant image updates; street-level maps showing the locations of polling places with red, yellow and green triangles. Red means that ballots are still at the polling place, yellow means the ballots have left regional collection centers, and green means they have arrived at the registrar's office and are being counted.
...
Other improvements include mobile teams roaming the county with backup voting machines. The office will have three printing stations — in Anaheim, Mission Viejo and Santa Ana — with the ability to print paper ballots matched to individual precincts if the polling places run out.
Note that the ballot tracking system appears very similar to the one that I saw in operation in Buenos Aires just a few weeks ago!
Another description of the new technology to be used in this election by Orange County came through recently in the newsletter that Neal Kelley, the Orange County Registrar of Voters, in his periodic email newsletter:
For the first time in a California election office GPS satellite technology will be used to track teams armed with replacement voting equipment. These Rapid Deployment Teams will be pre-positioned throughout the County with inventories of eSlate voting booths and other supplies. Shown at right our new control center is going through final set-up for Election Day. This command center will monitor all activity throughout the County on November 8th including deployment team dispatch, GPS tracking, live web updates and more.
The actual image that this quote refers to is here.
As best as I could determine, there is no link at this point to the web cam yet at Registrar of Voters website. However I can guarantee that I'll be checking their website tomorrow, as for an election geek like me this is must-watch material from the OC.
All joking aside, the use of web cameras in situations like this is a great idea. I've heard election administrators talk about using web cameras to show election administration operations, especially election-night activities like ballot box opening and ballot tabulation. This is an excellent way to provide another layer of openness and public involvement in the "behind the scenes" parts of the election administration process. It'll be very interesting to see how the OC system works in practice, and to hear more from them (after the election is over) about how effective they think these new practices are, how much they cost, and how difficult they are to implement.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Probably Not What the Georgia Legislature Expected
Sunday's Doonesbury rips the Georgia legislature and governor for passing the photo ID requirement for voting. I doubt the legislature was shooting for the state to be viewed as returning to Jim Crow (Gary Trudeau's words) when they passed the law. Having grown up in Georgia, I can tell you that the state has long prided itself as being the progressive center of the south on race issues (the debate over the state flag excepted), and this type of publicity cannot be what state leaders want.
