Election Updates

Thad and I wrote a summary report, detailing some of the more interesting observations we made earlier this week while studying the California primary in Southern California. The summary report was published in the recent electionline.org Weekly, available here. Here's a direct link to our report.

In my study of voting by mail last summer (available here), I noted that election jurisdictions which use voting by mail, or which have high levels of absentee balloting, have to establish partnerships with the US Postal Service and other large residential facilities (e.g. nursing homes, colleges and universities) to make sure that the ballots are delivered to the correct individual.

This afternoon, at a student/faculty research colloquium, I presented some of my results on early voting, and an interesting anomaly came up. It highlights the complications of ballot delivery under voting by mail systems.

Under Oregon law, it is illegal to forward a ballot. The US Postal Service is supposed to return the ballot to the election jurisdiction, along with forwarding information (if they have it).

We recognized last summer that this raised one issue: what happens if individual A has moved but has not left a forwarded address? Presumably, the USPS will deliver the ballot, and it is up to individual B to return the ballot to the postal carrier, noting that individual A is no at their residence. That seemed to us at the time to be problematic.

But what about colleges and universities, where students may have been living in dormitories but have since moved off of campus, and where mail is handled not by the US Postal Service, but by private employees?

Just as an example--not based on fact OF COURSE--let's suppose that the mail service at a small liberal arts college did not follow the printed instructions on a ballot, and instead treated the ballot like they did all other student mail. If they had a forwarding address, they placed their own forwarding label (not the USPS "yellow" label) on the envelope with a "please forward" notation.

Are they breaking the law? Is the USPS carrier obligated to note that the ballot should not be forwarded, and if it is forwarded, is the carrier breaking the law?

Here's another example: let's suppose a parent received a ballot addressed to a child who is still an Oregon resident, but is attending college. This parent drops the ballot, along with all other mail, in a big envelope and sends it to his son/daughter. Is this legal?

I think in the first case, the mail service should not be forwarding the ballot, but should return it to the postal carrier with a notation about the new address (if they have it). The reason is that the student has moved to a new address, and that new address may have different offices associated with it.

The second case is more complicated. I think if the child is still living in Oregon, the parent should notify the postal carrier of the new address, for the same reasons noted previously. But if the child is out of state, the parent probably ought to tell the child to register as an absentee voter.

There's a new report out from the GAO on the 2004 presidential election, "Elections: The Nation's Evolving Election System as Reflected in the November 2004 General Election." I've not had a chance to fully digest the 534 page report, but here is their summary of their findings:

In passing HAVA, Congress provided a means for states and local jurisdictions to improve upon several aspects of the election system, but it is too soon to determine the full effect of those changes. For example, 41 states obtained waivers permitted under HAVA until January 1, 2006, to implement a requirement for statewide voter registration lists. States also had discretion in how they implemented HAVA requirements, such as the identification requirements for first-time mail registrants. Some local election jurisdictions described different identification procedures for first-time mail registrants who registered through voter registration drives. Although states differed regarding where voters who cast provisional ballots for federal office must cast those ballots in order for their votes to be counted, provisional voting has helped to facilitate voter participation. HAVA also created the Election Assistance Commission, which has issued best practice guides and voluntary voting system standards and distributed federal funds to states for improving election administration, including purchasing new voting equipment. The results of our survey of local election jurisdictions indicate that larger jurisdictions may be replacing older equipment with technology-based voting methods to a greater extent than small jurisdictions, which continue to use paper ballots extensively and are the majority of jurisdictions. As the elections technology environment evolves, voting system performance management, security, and testing will continue to be important to ensuring the integrity of the overall elections process.

GAO found that states made changes—either as a result of HAVA or on their own—to address some of the challenges identified in the November 2000 election. GAO also found that some challenges continued—such as problems receiving voter registration applications from motor vehicle agencies, addressing voter error issues with absentee voting, recruiting and training a sufficient number of poll workers, and continuing to ensure accurate vote counting. At the same time, new challenges arose in the November 2004 election, such as fraudulent, incomplete, or inaccurate applications received through voter registration drives; larger than expected early voter turnout, resulting in long lines; and counting large numbers of absentee ballots and determining the eligibility of provisional voters in time to meet final vote certification deadlines.

As we have time to digest this massive report, we'll report back as to any interesting findings. A quick skim reveals that there is a lot of data in this report for folks interested in election administration.

There is a story circulating on the news wires on how someone stole balloting materials just before Tuesday's California primary elections in Fresno ... but was caught. Here's the relevant part of the report from the Fresno Bee:

A Sanger man was arrested Tuesday on suspicion of stealing 1,000 blank election ballots, two voting machines and a bag containing other supplies that had been assigned to a poll worker in Fresno.

...

Victor Salazar, Fresno County clerk, said an investigation by Fresno County sheriff's deputies was started when a worker in charge of the election equipment failed to show up Tuesday morning at her polling station at 8234 E. Belmont Ave.

Salazar said the worker, Regina Pico, 19, was trained as an inspector at the polling place and had been given the blank ballots and other equipment for setting up the station.

Pico had stored the property in a garage on East Garrett Avenue in southeast Fresno. She told investigators that when she when she got ready to report to the polling station about 3 a.m. Tuesday, the election equipment was gone.

Salazar said when his office was notified of the missing ballots, they were declared void so they could not be used.

Another inspector was sent to the polling station with replacement ballots and equipment. Salazar estimated the value of the voting machines at $3,500 to $5,000 each.

...

Bored at Borders:
With only 21% voter turnout, what better place to work the polls--Borders on south Lake Ave in Pasadena. This is a new pollsite--hasn't been used in the past, at least not in recent years. This was also my voting location, so after casting my ballot I took some photos and checked out the signage etc. When I arrived there were plenty of patrons in the store, and one only person voting. There was plenty of parking and the necessary signage was posted. I'm interested to find out the reasoning behind the decision by the managment to host a pollsite at their store (this is something us VTPers discussed at lunch today). Though the voting site was located on the second floor of the store, there was an elevator available, as well as parking behind the store at the second floor level (this entrance was right next to the voting setup). It was a nice place to vote really--bookstores are usually relatively quiet.

You're Fired: voting at the pottery studio:
Upon arriving at the community center where I take a pottery class, I discovered that it was a poll location! The specific room that was used was one of the art rooms at the facility—and was easily the smallest room on the premises. I was so surprised to find that the voting booths were set up in this small room, when there are three other much more suitable rooms at the center: a large multi-purpose room and at least one small classroom. I wasn’t able to take photos, but I wish I had. There were 6 or 7 voting ‘booths’ set up in the room, which I estimate measured 8x10 feet. The space also included of course a long table where election workers sat. The voter check-in was located outside the room, outdoors in the front of the center. There was ample parking and handicap accessible (the main entrance is a sloped ramp with safety bars.)

Needing Assistance at the Assistance League
The second poll site I visited in Pasadena was the Assistance League, located on California Blvd and Hudson Ave. This has been my usual polling place in the past. My photos illustrate the lack of signage at the parking lot entrance (which is on a one-way street and somewhat challenging to get to because of it.) The pollworkers were kind enough to let me take photos of the interior of the site—there was plenty of voting booths as well as election workers. I believe this location serves two precincts. On my way out, it was encouraging to hear a comment from a woman (probably in her 60s) on this day of low voter turnout—despite certain obstacles that day (car trouble, doctor’s appointment) she stated she was going to cast her vote whether they wanted it or not!

I've followed Mike and Thad's vacation, er, research trip around California closely. They noted low voter turnout in the Los Angeles area. Their observations are confirmed in newspapers across the state: SJ Mercury News, Modesto Bee, Santa Cruz Sentinel, and the Contra Costa Times. (Most stories also highlight the counting problems that have bedeviled a few jurisdictions.)

Is California's low voter turnout an indication of more widespread voter disaffection and apathy?

Do a quick search on Google News for "low voter turnout", and you'll find out that many states experienced low turnout in recent primary elections. Oregon's turnout last month (in an election conveniently witnessed by the peripatetic Professor Hall) was the lowest since the adoption of voting by mail. Mississippi, Alabama, New Jersey, and North Carolina all reported low turnout.

What does this tell us about the election in November? Which party will be hurt by lower voter turnout? Can energetic campaigns and a national debate over Iraq, taxes, and the deficit draw more citizens to the polls?

There are a series of reports on the Orange County Registrar blogsite of problems with voting machines in Orange County today. Two quick observations based on spending the better part of the day in the OC --- in the city of Brea. We visited eight polling places in Brea, chosen at random, in the northern part of the city. One of the polling places opened late, because polling place workers couldn't figure out how to hook up all of the necessary electrical connections in a day care facility at a public school. But throughout, we saw that perhaps one of of eight voting machines were disabled due to problems with the voter-verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) devices. Luckily, the VVPAT was being deployed for the first time in the OC in a relatively low-turnout primary, and thus having disabled voting devices was not having much impact today in the OC as there just wasn't much stress on the electoral system.

More soon, including photos.

It was a long day ... I was in more than a dozen polling places in two counties, and talked to a lot of polling place workers. But the voters were few and far between, and in many polling places it was just Thad, Morgan, myself --- and polling place workers.

Other than the slim voter turnout, the other highlights included seeing voter reaction to the VVPAT in Orange County, watching the reliability of the VVPAT devices in Orange County, and seeing some procedural confusion at the polls. More on all of these observations in coming days, including a lot of photos!

The State of Mississippi held its first election with Diebold touch screen voting machines today. According to media reports, the election was relatively problem-free. However, even with the state working hard to make things work well, there were several problems. As the Buloxi paper reported:

The process went relatively smoothly, except for a few glitches, officials say.

In Leflore and Jackson counties, early voters had to cast paper ballots because the touch-screen machines were not customized for each individual precinct, said David Blount, spokesman for Secretary of State Eric Clark. The machines were fixed by Tuesday afternoon, he said.

"It was supposed to be set up correctly and tested. For whatever reason, that didn't happen," Blount said. "The safeguard is that every polling place is required to have paper ballots. No voters should be disenfranchised."

Williams voted at the Jackson Avenue precinct in Yazoo City, where poll workers said turnout was high. There were a few instances of the machines kicking out the voter's card, preventing people from voting, said poll worker Geraldine Stewart. Those voters were allowed to cast affidavit ballots, Stewart said.

Of Mississippi's 82 counties, 77 have bought new touch-screen machines that meet standards under the Help America Vote Act, a federal law that requires states to replace outdated election equipment. The old punch card and lever machines in many counties have been replaced by the touch-screen machines made by Diebold.

The five counties that didn't buy the Diebold machines have relatively new voting equipment that's acceptable under HAVA.

The secretary of state's office conducted an extensive education effort for election officials and voters to make the transition to the machines easier. Stewart said poll workers had another run-through Monday night. "It's not as bad as people thought it would be. I think by the November election, people will have the hang of it," Stewart said.

Blount said there were other minor problems statewide, but mostly the kind associated with any election, such as poll workers arriving late or not having the machines ready when the polls opened. He said workers in Madison County didn't have the keys to unlock the new machines.

In Utah, the state will be implementing the Diebold machines later this month, but there the State has provided little to no support to the counties to assist in the transition. According to local election officials, the equipment transition has been almost completely left in the hands of Diebold. It will be interesting to see what the difference is in implementation between a state that works to make things go well--like Mississippi--and a state that is completely vendor-reliant, like Utah.

OK, Starbucks was needed for election observation today because the election here is SO BORING. At 2:00 today, there were polls in Los Angeles County and Orange County that had turnout of 30 voters. A consolidated polling place with two precincts we visited had 40 voters total. There were some interesting occurances at the polls, problems we will write about in a report for electionline.org. However, a couple of interesting issues that arose included a plethora of VVPAT jams in Orange County (every precinct we visited except one had at least one machine down because of a printer jam) and various issues of operations management at the polls.

One interesting conversation we had with poll workers was about the need for electronic poll books. At one poll, the poll workers said that the most inefficicent part of the election process is dealing with the poll books to look up voter registraitons. It was the opinion of these poll workers that an electronic system would faciliate this process and make things work better.

We are off to watch Alpine Recreation Center in Los Angeles close down at 8:00 pm. Mike has seen this poll close in almost every election since the 2001 mayoral primary and we have gone together every time I have been in LA for an election. The polling place is one of the most diverse in Los Angeles--a sizable number of voters speak 6 of the 7 covered languages--and the poll workers there are great to interact with.

Mike and I are traveling around today with Morgan Llewellyn, one of Mike's graduate students, watching the California primary. If the first place that Morgan and I visited today is any indication, there will not be a problem in the primary because NO ONE IS VOTING!
We arrived at the Luther Burbank School in Eagle Rock--a community in LA County between Pasadena and the City of LA--where two precincts are consolidated. In the first 15 minutes of voting there were all of two voters who cast ballots. By contrast, when Mike and I visited the same precinct in the LA City mayoral election in 2005, at least 10 people voted in the same time frame. The polling place was very well signed regarding which precincts were which when you wanted in--they were both color coded and a map was provided--and there were interpreters for Spanish and Tagalog who were wearing name tags. (Humorous note: the name tags stating which language they spoke were in English!)

One interesting issue that we noted, to follow up on yesterday's post, is this: what constitutes educating voters about how to check their ballots. Does having a set of signs that say "Got Dots?" for the County's Ink-a-Vote system constitute educating voters, or should HAVA's Section 301(b) be interpreted as requiring more proactive efforts to educate voters on how to check their ballots for errors?

We are off to watch voting in Brea and Orange County and will blog more later (thanks to T-Mobile Wireless and Starbucks!)

The Washington Post is reporting today that Alameda County will hand-count or central count optical scan ballots in the primary because the County cannot use the Diebold machines that they had purchased previously. The machines no longer meet the state voting system certification requirements. As the story notes:

The county's board of supervisors voted in March to return to paper ballots until the county could replace the 4,000 Diebold Election Systems touchscreen machines. County officials hope to have new machines in time for the November election, but they still are negotiating with several companies.

While some other counties are doing the same, Alameda, which has 82,114 of the state's 6.7 million registered Democrats, is in a jam because it does not have enough optical scanners to count paper ballots at all polling places.

As a result, paper ballots will be trucked to a central location, scanned and counted by volunteers. The final count could be as late as noon Wednesday, Ashley said.

The Diebold electronic voting machines have been criticized by voter groups and computer scientists who say they are vulnerable to fraud. A California group named Voter Action sued 18 counties that use the machines, including Alameda. Seven counties were removed from the lawsuit when they assured a judge they would use paper ballots.

The secretary of state has certified some electronic voting machines, but Alameda's didn't meet state law because they are too old to upgrade and did not produce a required paper record.

Note the bolded text above; voters will a difficult time having their Section 301(A) of HAVA rights met because these voters will not readily have the ability to have ability to have their ballots checked for overvotes and errors. The County can meet the Section 301(B) requirements by

(1) establishing a voter education program specific to that voting system that notifies each voter of the effect of casting multiple votes for an office; and (2) providing the voter with instructions on how to correct the ballot before it is cast and counted (including instructions on how to correct the error through the issuance of a replacement ballot if the voter was otherwise unable to change the ballot or correct any error).

You can decide for yourself if the Alameda County Registrar's website provides the information needed to address this issue before you go to the polls. At the bottom of the County's page on precinct voting is a link to Paper Ballot Instructions. Of course, it isn't the County's fault that the voters are having these problems. It would be interesting to know how the California Secretary of State is supporting Alameda in these voter education efforts since it was the decision of the State that led to Alameda's problem.

There is an interesting short Reuter's article about the Peruvian elections which discribes very briefly the way in which they determine who is likely to win elections without using exit polling.

LIMA, Peru, June 4 (Reuters) - Alan Garcia, who left Peru in economic ruin after his 1985-1990 term as president, was heading for a dramatic comeback as he lead the country's election on Sunday, according to a quick count by Datum pollsters.

With 50 percent of the vote sampled nationwide, Datum said Garcia had 55.4 percent, compared with 44.6 percent for nationalist ex-army commander Ollanta Humala.

The quick count is based on early vote tallies at a sample of polling stations around the country.

Quick counts are based on using only valid votes cast in a sample of precincts in a jurisdiction--a county, state, or nationwide--to determine the likely winner. The IFES ACE project has a nice explanation of the quick count methodology, noting that quick counts are not the same as exit polls, which is a common misperception

As an AP story regarding the Indonesian election explains:

The "Quick Count" system employed by NDI predicts the results of national elections by counting about half a million cast votes from 2,500 selected voting stations. Similar polls by the same organization have accurately predicted results in dozens of elections around the world.

The National Democratic Institute has issued a report The Quick Count and Election Observation. The excerpt from the executive summary explains why quick counts are so valuable.

Political parties and candidates must develop skills to monitor the large variety of processes and institutions surrounding elections, and they must learn to mobilize public support and use complaint mechanisms to seek peaceful remedies for their grievances. Civic organizations and others committed to democratic governance also must engage directly in comprehensive monitoring efforts to help ensure electoral integrity. Elections simply cannot be separated from the broader political context of a country, and efforts to ensure electoral integrity must also be cast widely.

Nonetheless, all election processes come to a critical point on election day—and that is where reliable quick counts play a crucial role. A highly accurate and rapid report on the quality of the voting and counting processes from a random statistical sample of polling stations can serve to reassure political competitors and the citizenry alike that they should have confidence in the elections. Identifying irregularities can lead to timely corrections and proper assessments of their potential impact on electoral outcomes. A highly accurate and rapid projection of electoral results collected and reported from a sample of polling stations can deter fraud, calm tensions and allow those who assume office as a result of the elections to do so based on public confidence in their democratic mandate. On the other hand, systematic, impartial and accurate verification of results and the quality of election-day processes can also reveal widespread irregularities and attempts to hijack elections....

As the authors stress, not every election requires a quick count, at least not in its most comprehensive form. Moreover, quick counts only speak to electionday processes and say nothing in and of themselves about whether pre-election or post-election developments uphold or negate the democratic nature of an election. Quick counts are best understood as a critical element of comprehensive election monitoring, but they are unique in their impact and sometimes essential to determining the warranted degree of confidence in election results. NDI is therefore pleased to offer this handbook as part of a series of resource materials for election monitoring.

Given the concerns that exist today in the United States about election processes and outcomes, such a system may be beneficial for interested groups to study here. It is standard fare internationally and is a different beast than exit polling.


In the future, we'll write more about election monitoring tools like quick counts and the research that now exists regarding the use of these election verification techniques. One resources in the academic literature for interested readers is Chapter 13 of Eric C. Bjornlund's book, "Beyond Free and Fair: Monitoring Elections and Building Democracy"; this chapter is titled "Verifying the Vote Count: Quick Counts, Parallel Tabulations, and Exit Polls in Macedonia and Indonesia" and it discusses the use of quick counts and other verification methods as applied in these cases.

Neal Kelley, the Registrar of Voters in Orange County, sent out an invitation to watch election results live online. For those of you who think transparency in elections is important, checking out the OC's website is time well-spent. They have clearly thought through various ways of using the Internet to allow interested people to watch and learn more about the election. In many ways, Orange County and Los Angeles County are trend setters in this regard.

Here is the message Neal sent on Friday to his email listserv.

http://electionmapping.ocgov.com/OCElectionMapper/Map.aspx

The link to this new service will also be found at our LIVE site on Election Night at www.ocvote.com/live