Newsday reported today that Connecticut officials reviewed their state election code and discovered that, in fact, there is no requirement that requires a voting machine to show a full-face ballot. According to the article:

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said there is nothing in state statutes or regulations that require a voting machine to show a full ballot on the screen.

“It has never appeared in our law,” he said. “There’s no provision in the statutes or regulations that a full-faced ballot be part of voting machines.”

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz said her office started to wonder about the requirement after so few voting machine companies could produce a machine that could show voters the entire election ballot, as well as meet other requirements. Fifty companies initially attended a bidding conference to learn more about the state’s needs. Seven applied and three finally came forward. In the end, none met the final specifications.

Bysiewicz said some of the voting machine vendors asked her office where the full-faced ballot requirement appeared in the state statutes. She said her office had always believed that the requirement existed since the 1930s. “We had, in our office, the precedence of interpreting the statutes that were passed back in the 1930s and we had been asked over the past seven decades about it and our interpretation has always been the same,” she said.

Having spent the last month reading state election codes for the EAC’s vote count and recount project, I can say that the problem in Connecticut is easy to understand. In many states, election laws are very complex, combining statutes dating back 100 years with modern statutes and this blending makes for very difficult interpretations and complex readings of multiple provisions in order to make an interpretation.

For the past few years, the issue of how to make it possible for the millions of Mexican adults who live outside the borders of their country to vote in Mexican elections has been debated. Many ideas were floated for how to facilitate expatriate voting, especially by Mexican adults living in the United States, of which there are now maybe 10 million or more. At some point, Thad and I will take a closer look at this issue and how the Mexican government implemented their expatriate voting program in their current election, as we have been following this for a few years, having examined this question in 2003 and 2004 when the Mexican government first started studying how to implement expatriate voting.

The current program, though, appears to have been a dud. According to recent news media reports, including a story in this morning’s Los Angeles Times, Mexican officials report having received only 17,000 applications for expatriate by-mail voting, with only two days left in their registration effort. Apparently about 10,000 of these applications have come from the United States.

At this point, there seem to be two explanations for this dud. One explanation focuses on the enormous hurdles that Mexican officials imposed for participation in the vote-by-mail effort. As Professor Wayne Cornelius of University of California, San Diego was quoted saying in the LA Times piece, “How many Americans would ever vote if they had to go in person to some government office, obtain an application, fill it out, go to a post office and return it by registered mail?” Professor Cornelius is absolutely correct — as his observations are in line with decades of academic research on the impact of registration requirements on voter participation. So as long as Mexican officials demand that expatriate voters follow such complicated and time-consuming procedures, it is unlikely that many Mexican expatriates will participate in these vote-by-mail efforts.

The other issue here seems to be a lack of publicity, and the inability of those running for office in Mexico to be able to communicate with expatriate voters. Due to a series of decisions made that appear to state that Mexican candidates could not engage in campaign communications with expatriate voters, there has been little systematic effort by those running for office to use the vote-by-mail process. Again, there is much research about the efficacy of get-out-the-vote efforts on voter participation; until the Mexican government does something to allow their candidates to compete for these expatriate votes freely, it is doubtful that the expatriate community will participate widely in Mexican elections.

SATURDAY AFTERNOON UPDATE:

Here are a few additional media reports that I’ve come across regarding the Mexican expatriate voting effort and how sparse the participation rate seems to be:

• Chicago Tribune, “Mexican expatriate voter drive comes up far short” (January 13).
• Fort Worth Star-Telegram, “Ballot Application deadline here for Mexican voters living abroad” (January 14).
• USA Today, “Deadline nears in Mexican election” (January 11).
• Arizona Republic, “Few Mexicans abroad seek absentee ballots” (January 13).

We’ll keep following this evolving story, especially when final numbers emerge about how few Mexican voters abroad appear to be participating in this particular election.

MIT graduate student Tomer Posner has finished his Master’s thesis on lean management principles for election administration, something I wrote about a few months back. The completed thesis, “Application of Lean Management Principles to Election Systems”, is a careful and interesting analysis of how this particular genre of modern business management practices can be applied to election administration. Here is the abstract for Tomer’s thesis:

Lean was first adopted as a management technique for improving results in manufacturing environments. It is based on the 5 principles of identifying the Value to be created, mapping the Value-Stream (incremental addition of value), ensuring process
Flow, orienting the process towards the Pull of the customer and finally eliminating all Waste through a process of continuous improvement. This framework is highly adaptable, and has been applied in recent years to non-manufacturing efforts, such as product development and the retail and service industries.

We explore the application of Lean to voting. Applications can be found in the phases of technology development, production, deployment, poll management and more. By following a structured approach based on Lean, the efforts to advance voting solutions in the US can gain in efficiency, security, privacy and credibility over their current state. These will be adapted to deal with the voting environment, which imposes a unique set of challenges and follows priorities different from normal corporations. Additional Lean elements, such as eliminating irregularities through standardization, improved training and process transparency will be reviewed.

The development and deployment of Brazilian voting system will be presented as an example of how Lean elements can be used in the voting setting. While not intentionally created by the Lean model, the design, deployment and current use of the Brazilian system is highly complimentary to this model.

Finally, we suggest ways in which such an approach can be applied to the U.S. voting system. With a theoretical structure in place, specific improvement efforts can be devised and applied in the field. This study, therefore, is intended as a preliminary effort of identifying a problem and modeling it. It hopes to induce a commitment to Lean which will put in motion a cycle of implementation, elaboration and continuous improvement.

Many readers will find Chapter 3 of Tomer’s thesis of interest, where he provides great detail into the case study of Brazil, and that country’s develop of their voting technology. Tomer shows how the Lean model was applied in the Brazil case in Chapter 3, which is a thorough chapter and well worth reading.

Somewhat intriguingly, the thesis discusses some information from a survey conducted in Brazil in 2005, with some tantalizing details quickly discussed on pages 77-79. Some of the survey questions here parallel ones that Thad and I have worked on in samples of American voters, so it will be fascinating when Tomer published the complete results from this survey to compare some of these evaluations of electronic voting to the evaluations of American voters (see, for example, our report from September 2004 on “American Attitudes About Electronic Voting”).

In the end, for those interested in improving election administration, Tomer’s thesis is a worthwhile read. Don’t be intimidated by the fact that it is a MIT MA thesis — it is highly readable, and quite interesting. We’ve heard folks recently talking about the need for a science of election administration, and for more efforts to understand election administration. Here is a step in that direction!

Congratulations to Tomer on this accomplishment, and on successfully defending his MA thesis. And congratulations to his advisor, Ted Selker, for his encouragement and efforts with Tomer to get this interesting project completed.

Like many people, today I found myself trying to find a two-cent postage stamp, given that somehow the latest postal rate increase slipped by my notice, just after I had purchased a couple dozen stamps last week. So I can’t say that I was terribly happy with the United States Postal Service today, but that was mitigated somewhat when a friend emailed me some information I had never seen before: the USPS “Election Officials’ Mailing Resources” page.

This page of resources is full of interesting material, ranging from what might be the world’s least user-friendly FAQ I’ve ever encountered to the cute little logo that election officials now use on their mailings. Most interesting is the three-step guide (right on the entry page) for how election officials should plan and send election mail: how to plan their use of the mail service, how to correctly address election mail and to keep mailing lists up-to-date, and how to best design election mail.

There are some useful resources here for election officials, coming at a time when they are increasingly using mail services for contacting voters and providing balloting materials to voters through the mail. Putting my election geek hat on for a minute, a productive research project would involve examining the effectiveness of these guidelines and materials. I am not aware that any such studies have been undertaken; the only effort that might have led to such a study was initiated by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) when they issued a call for proposals to study vote-by-mail efforts. Unfortunately, it seems the EAC did not fund that research effort this past fall, but perhaps they might revisit this research issue this year.

But it’s great to see how the USPS is using those extra few cents I’m now spending on every piece of first-class mail!

Just received the following promotional information for Ron Hayduk’s new book on immigrant voting rights. I’ve not had a chance yet to read Hayduk’s new book, but will report on my reactions when my copy arrives.

Democracy For All:
Restoring Immigrant Voting Rights in the U.S.
Ron Hayduk

2005: 256 pp
Hb: 0-415-95072-4: $95.00
Pb: 0-415-95073-2: $24.95

Voting is for citizens only, right?Not exactly. It is not widely known that immigrants, or noncitizens, currently vote in local elections in over a half dozen cities and towns in the U.S.; nor that campaigns to expand the franchise to noncitizens have been launched in at least a dozen other jurisdictions from coast to coast over the past decade. These practices have their roots in another little-known fact: for most of the country’s history-from the founding until the 1920s-noncitizens voted in forty states and federal territories in local, state, and even federal elections, and also held public office such as alderman, coroner, and school board member. Globally, over forty countries on nearly every continent permit voting by noncitizens.
Legal immigrants, or resident aliens, pay taxes, own businesses and homes, send their children to public schools, and can be drafted or serve in the military, yet proposals to grant them voting rights are often met with great resistance. But, in a country where “no taxation without representation” was once a rallying cry for revolution, such a proposition may not, after all, be so outlandish.

Democracy for All examines the politics and practices of noncitizen voting in the United States, chronicling the rise and fall-and re-emergence-of immigrant voting in the U.S. In addition to making the case for noncitizen voting, this book takes a close look at the politics of and actors in recent campaigns that successfully reestablished noncitizen voting, others that failed, and ones that are currently underway. Democracy for All explores the prospects for a truly universal suffrage in America.

_____

About the Author

RON HAYDUK teaches political science at the Borough of Manhattan Community College of the City University of New York. He is the author of Gatekeepers to the Franchise: Shaping Election Administration in New York. Hayduk has worked in government, consults to policy organizations and is co-founder of The Immigrant Voting Project (www.immigrantvoting.org).

_____

Reviews

“Democracy for All is the most thoroughgoing exploration we have of non-citizen voting in the United States, past and present. The issues raised by Hayduk’s book-particularly at a time of high rates of immigration-ought to inform public debate in communities across the nation.”
– Alexander Keyssar, Professor of History and Social Policy, Harvard University, and author of The Right to Vote

“This is an immensely valuable and promising book tackled in a serious and thorough way. It has a chance to speak to a broad national audience in a clear and accessible manner.”
– Jamin Raskin, author of Overruling Democracy

“This passionately argued and thoroughly documented work is the best single study of whether to grant electoral rights to immigrant non-citizens. Hayduk carefully, clearly, and compellingly dissects the past, present, and future of one of our era’s most important civil rights challenges.”
– John Mollenkopf, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, City
University Graduate Center

“Millions of long-term non-citizen residents abide in the United States without any formal representation in its democratic political system. Hayduk provides a thorough, and much-needed brief outlining the history, contemporary status, and arguments for (and against) non-citizen voting in the U.S. An excellent source for an important question in American politics today.”
– Michael Jones-Correa, Department of Government, Cornell University

NASS has released a report detailing how states are doing in complying with the various aspects of HAVA that come due in the next year. All told, 43 states responded to the survey. Among the key findings:

• Forty-one of the 43 respondents will be fully compliant with HAVA’s mandates by the time they hold their first federal elections in 2006. Twenty-four states will be fully compliant with the law by the January 1 deadline.
• Only two of the states said they will not have their statewide voter registration databases in place by the time they hold their 2006 federal elections.
• The seventeen states that will miss the January 1 deadline for having fully compliant voting systems gave the following reasons: (some states gave multiple answers):
• Seven states said they were held up by the RFP process;
• Seven states said contractors/vendors caused the delays;
• Six states said the late release of federal guidelines caused them to miss the deadline;
• Four states blamed state legislatures that were slow to act; and
• One state said it received insufficient federal funds.

States noted similar problems with meeting the voter registration database requirements. It will be interesting to see how effectively these systems work in practice.

According to Newsday, the state of Connecticut has scrapped their ongoing efforts to procure a new voting system that is compliant with HAVA. The article explicitly notes that:

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said his office has contacted the U.S. Department of Justice to make sure it understands Connecticut’s situation and does not penalize the state for the delay. “We’re satisfied that this decision is legally sound,” he said, referring to Bysiewicz’s decision to stop the process. In a letter to state officials, the Department of Justice said it is willing to “work cooperatively with Connecticut” on achieving full compliance with the federal law.

One interesting aspect is that the procurement is being made very difficult because “state law has been interpreted as requiring that any voting machine show the entire ballot for a voter.” The rationale for why a state would require a full-face ballot to be presented to the voter is not clear in any of the academic literature on voting. In fact, Susan King Ross’s article, Disenfranchised by Design, has identified many problems with the current lever machine technology, part of which is associated with the ballot size.

Although we normally focus on election reform issues, this story on podcasting is quite interesting (especially given Mike’s ongoing work podcasting aspects of our election reform blog). Podcasting is becoming popular among candidates and political operatives because it allows them to communicate directly to voters without media filtering. It also allows them to communicate with audiences who do not use traditional media, such as newspapers or network television to garner information.

Given the expanding usage of Ipod’s and other MP3 technologies, use of podcasting is expected to keep growing. As the article notes,

As the medium gains traction among average Americans, podcasting is expected to garner even more momentum among politicians when congressional races begin to heat up next year.

“They’re hot right now,” said Henry Brady, a political science professor at the University of California. “People are doing them because they’re exciting and new and interesting.”

One question will be how effective these podcasts are. There are tens of thousands of podcasts, and getting through to people who do not normally care about politics may be difficult. Instead, podcasts may simply reinforce the biases people already have in politics.

This story came across my email today:

Manama, Jan. 3, (BNA) Bahrain IT Society will organize on January 24 25, the first forum of its kind in the Middle East under the theme of “Bahrain Forum for Electronic Voting”, in cooperation with the United Nations Information Technology Development Program.

The forum will review electronic voting and election- related application technologies and discuss experiences of some establishments and countries in the field for common benefits. The electronic voting system is one of the modern technological systems applied in advanced countries, mainly in elections for being easy and speedy, Director of Elections and Referendum, Shaikha Muneera bint Abdulla Al Khalifa, said in a press conference held in Manama on Tuesday. ” This system mainly serves those, who for any reason, cannot go to polls on time as their votes will be electronically counted”, she said, adding that the forums is a good opportunity for conferees to exchange viewpoints and be familiar with Bahrain’s experience which used electronic voting at a narrow scale in its previous parliamentary and municipal elections. On his part the Deputy Chairman of Bahrain IT Society, Adnan Mahmoud, said a world elite, specialized in computer applications and legal and administrative matters relating to elections, will take part in the forum as key speakers along with More than 150 Representatives of Bahrain and GCC establishments and societies who are also expected to attend.

The Los Angeles Times has an article today–which quotes Mike–about the uncertainty that surrounds voting systems as states enter the final stretch of meeting the HAVA requirements for accessible voting technologies. The article notes that,

In some places, voters are facing their third balloting system in five years.

In California, counties have lurched from one voting system to another as the state has written and rewritten standards. Several counties are scrambling to redo their June election plans after the state’s top elections official raised new questions last month about an electronic voting machine in use for years.

Miami officials talk of scrapping their 3-year-old electronic machines, while Mercer County, Pa., officials want to keep theirs but were ordered by state authorities to take them out of service after glitches during the 2004 presidential election.

“It pretty much left the county up a tree,” said Tom Rookey, elections chief of the Steel Belt county on the Ohio border.

In Connecticut, the secretary of state is tussling with the federal government over how quickly the state must replace its decades-old lever-style voting machines with electronic machines.

Indiana’s largest county has sued the company that sold it electronic voting machines. Across the border in Ohio, the same company has sued the state.

“It’s been crazy,” said San Diego County Registrar of Voters Mikel Haas, who said he is returning to paper ballots because the state refused to recertify more than 10,000 electronic machines the county bought two years ago. “Everyone is in uncharted territory here.”

The Times notes that the 2004 election had fewer problems than occurred in 2000, but there is still a need to develop a meaningful mechanism for regulating all voting technologies, but especially electronic voting machines.