Election Updates

This just in from the EAC Website.

The full report can be found here (warning--it's over 100 pages, but 80% of that is data tables).

Full disclosure: I worked on this report with Kim Brace of Election Data Services.

Anyone who follows elections knows that non-precinct place balloting modes are growing rapidly in popularity. Many states have relaxed their absentee voting provisions in the last few years, and more are likely to do so prior to the 2008 election.

This makes the issue of signature verification a new and interesting area for election administration. If you have to process tens of thousands of absentee ballots, how do you maintain the integrity of the ballot? How, in short, do you make sure that the right person actually filled out the ballot?

Most jurisdictions with which I am familiar rely on a ballot design that works this way:

1. Part one is the ballot itself, which typically consists of ovals that are filled in and read by an optical scanner.
2. The ballot is placed within a security envelope. In some states, the voter signs the security envelope and this signature is viewable through a windows in the ...
   
3. Outside envelope. This is the actual mailing envelope. In Oregon, you sign this outside envelope, while in Washington State, you sign an inner envelope, and the outer envelope has a special flap that is removed at the elections office, or a special "window" (designed by Pitney Bowes) which is opaque until viewed under a special light.

Ok, now you have the envelopes--how do you check the signature?

Today's talk by Northwest Forensics was a brief version of the longer training they provide to Oregon poll workers. I'm going to skip the details--what struck me most was that the clear gap between what is considered "forensic" signature checks and what has to happen in an elections office, under the crunch of both time and workload.

Some vendors are marketing technological solutions, however. I looked at three at this conference (I hope to post pictures of these machines a bit later).

Cowart Gagnon showed a ballot sorting machine which takes the envelope, captures the signature, and then sorts the envelope into various bins. They told me they have a signature checking facility also, but I couldn't see it at the conference. (The machine actually was manufactured by Tritek Technologies--Cowart Gagnon is the reseller for them).

The second machine is the Vote Remote suite, marketed by Diebold. All we are being shown here is the system for signature checks. The system consists of Windows program that allows the election official to set a verification level (margin of error?) ranging from 0 to 100--the higher you set the level, the closer the match much be or the signature gets flagged (presumably to then be checked by a human). I wonder if jurisdictions will tell us the levels that they set and the 'error' level of the rejected signatures (it is saved somewhere).

Finally, Pitney Bowes has a demo/powerpoint on their ballot tracking system, which has been adopted by three Washington counties. The sales staff told me they are also developing a signature checking system (we heard about such a system at the Caltech VTP Vendor's Conference in March), but it sounds like it's not yet being sold.

The clouds have rolled in over Portland but the sessions continue at the 2007 Pacific NW Elections Conference.

The second day consists of breakout sessions that provide professional training (required?) for elections officials. I attended an interesting talk by Marcia Lausen of the Design for Democracy project (affilated with the American Institute of Graphic Artists).

Marcia primarily focused on ballot design issues and work she has done with Cook County, IL. Examples of their work is available here, University of Chicago press is publishing a book in August, also called Design for Democracy, that looks not only like a very useful guide for elections officials, but an attractive "coffee table" gift for the elections geek in your family.

Overall the presentation was great, but I was a bit disappointed that Marcia didn't seem familiar with other work being done on ballot design and usability issues, including some scholars affiliated with the Voting Technology Project which hosts this blog.

I mentioned during the Q&A that a quick google search on "ballot design research" comes up with these links:

• VTP Ballot Design Research
• Center for American Politics and Citizenship (U Maryland) Research on Voting Technology and Ballot Design
• Usability Professionals Association page on Voting Systems and Ballot Design
  

Labels: Voting technology

Did Doug Lewis of the Election Center just suggest that, if the Holt bill passes, that perhaps the Federal government should conduct their own elections, and states conduct only state and local elections?

Yes, he did. And this was not one of his belly busting jokes. Wow.

Doug also predicted that the Holt bill will pass. Others are telling me that Congress will just talk. Thoughts, dear readers?

ED Note: Doug just backtracked, and said HR811 will pass the House and fail in the Senate.

My next update from the Pac NW Elections conference concerns election "storms"--specifically, the 2004 Washington State governor's race and the infamous 13th congressional district race in Florida.

We saw two panels that dealt with these elections.

• Nick Handy, Washington's State Director of Elections, John Pearson, retired Deputy Dir. of Elections, and Evelyn Arnold, Chelan County Auditor spoke on the first panel.
• Bill Cowles, Orange County FL Supervisor of Elections (and IACREOT President elect) and Kathy Dent, Sarasota County Clerk spoke on the second panel.
  

These panelists had a lot to say, and I won't summarize everything here (I'm hoping to get my hands on some of these powerpoints). Some of the high points were:

• Ballot tracking and reconciliation is key. Every official in both states agreed that careful ballot tracking procedures are the way to avoid challenges.
  
• Document, document, document. The possibility of election recounts and challenges makes it necessary for officials to keep very good records
• And don't document. Don't write anything in email that you don't want to have to explain in open court.

In the end, what struck me is how these panels turned into something like support sessions for these officials. These elections hurt. Local elections officials are not ready for the media spotlight (a lot of conversations in the conference have turned to media relations), and are definitely not ready for activist-driven scrutiny of their procdures--and accusations regarding their professionalism and non-partisanship.

Labels: election administration

I'm sitting in a large ballroom at the Portland Red Lion, located on the Columbia River. It's a beautiful location for a conference, and the attendance reflects this. There are at least 300 attendees, and this may be an underestimate. This is a very positive sign for this region (although having conferences every five years seems a bit infrequent).

The first session included Doug Chapin and Ray Martinez, discussing "Moving forward: HAVA II." Ray talked about "myths and realities" of the post HAVA world. His main point was, for all the current controversy over election administration, that things had improved dramatically since 2000 (he called it a "new paradigm" in election administration). Ray had very positive things to say about the EAC, and placed most of the the blame for the agency's failings on Congress, which, in his opinion, has not provided sufficient funds so that the agency can carry out its mandate, and then turns around and criticizes the agency for these failings. Ray thinks the future is bright for the EAC, and I hope he is correct. (Full disclosure: I am currently working on an EAC project.)

Doug followed with some comments on Pew's Making Elections Work initiative and further comments on HAVA and election administration. His talk dovetailed nicely with Ray's in many respects. Doug described the new "center of gravity" in election administration--resting with state capitols, not local jurisdictions nor in Congress. His most powerful metaphor, I think, was a comparison of 2002 and today. HAVA, Doug said, represented the "end of the beginning" of major election reform; today, we are in the "messy middle." But while messy, Doug sees a period of innovation, reform, and I think ultimately dramatic improvements in election administration.

More later ... onto the Washington gubernatorial race.

This is where I'll be for the next few days. I'll try to post a few items--I think the most interesting events will be these:

Where Do We Go from Here? National Perspective on
HAVA II and the Pew Charitable Trusts
Moderator:
John Lindback, Oregon State Director of Elections
Speakers:
Doug Chapin, Director, Electionline.org
Ray Martinez, Pew Charitable Trusts

“Surviving the Perfect Storm” - What Happened in Washington State
in November 2004 (The Closest Governor’s Race in U.S. History)
Moderator:
Kim Wyman, Thurston County Auditor
Speakers:
Nick Handy, Washington State Director of Elections
John Pearson, Washington State Deputy Director of Elections
(Retired)
Evelyn Arnold, Chelan County Auditor


Signature Verification Procedures
Moderator: Shelly Johnston, Lincoln County Auditor
Speaker: Heather Carlson, Forensic Document Examiner,
Northwest Forensics

Ok, the last one is sort of nerdy, but really important for anyone who studies voting by mail and absentee balloting.

There is a nice article from a recent copy of the International Herald Tribune on the plight of overseas voters. Given the GAOs recent lament about the state of UOCAVA voting, it will be interesting to see what congress does to improve the situation.

Robert Krimmer has a really amazing website and newsletter regarding electronic and internet voting and e-government in civil society. His newest newsletter is online here. I highly recommend giving it a read!

EAC - News Releases

The EAC has new board members for its standards board. This board is charged with reviewing EAC research and giving them the feedback of election officials on the various EAC projects.

I was reading this fascinating story on Cape Verde in Sunday's NY Times, and the first two paragraphs highlighted an issue that I think will become increasingly important for comparative election scholars:

Virtually every aspect of global migration can be seen in this tiny West African nation, where the number of people who have left approaches the number who remain and almost everyone has a close relative in Europe or America.

Migrant money buoys the economy. Migrant votes sway politics.

There are more Cape Verdeans living outside of the country than inside. As the article makes clear, many other countries, primarily poorer nations in Africa, similarly rely on remittances from expatriates for a substantial portion of their national income.

But what does the age of migration mean for the politics of these nations? What does it mean when more than half of your citizens--many of whom have no intention of ever returning==cast their ballots absentee, from locations thousands of miles from their homeland?

Many of the readers here will remember the 2006 presidential election in Mexico. The Mexican government tried to get Mexican citizens living in the US to vote, but Mike Alvarez (among others) described the program as a "bust."

Absentee voting by citizens living abroad is only going to increase, however, and for some nations, may turn out to be decisive.

Sounds like a good dissertation topic ...

The Piece County auditor is proposing to switch to all voting by mail. Interestingly, he's proposing the change because of the county adopted instant run off voting, and the auditor is fearful of handling the voting rush in a presidential election year at the same time they have to implement the new voting system.

Pierce (located just south of King County; Tacoma is the largest city) is one of two holdouts in Washington state. Kittitas C0unty is the other.

Labels: election reform

I just got a letter from the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder:

Dear Voter,

...

Our records indicate you regularily vote absentee/by-mail. If you wish to continue to do so in all future elections, we suggest you complete and return the Application for Permanent Absentee on the reverse side of this letter. Using this application to request PAV status will result in mailing your ballot automatically to you as soon as it is available ... This means you will no longer need to request an absentee ballot prior to each election. A ballot will automatically be mailed to you.

...

The Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk wants to make the voting experience for all voters as convenient as possible

...

Sincerely,

Conny B. McCormack
Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk

Indeed, it just can't get much easier! From an academic perspective, though, I wonder how effective mailings like these are; hopefully we can get some data on how many responses are generated by proactive mailings like these and how many new permanent absentee voters are added to those rolls by such efforts.