Just a first reaction from the survey:
1) Probably most important–it looks like the EAC is going to distribute this to state election directors, and most of the questions are worded “statewide and by county/local jurisdiction.” I wonder who will be actually doing the legwork (and paying the cost) of completing the survey.
2) The EAC is clearer about what they mean by “early voting” than they were in 2004 (from the instructions: Early voting refers to any voting that occurred prior to November 7, 2006, for which there were no eligibilty requirements. For example, the voter did not have to attest that he/she would be absent from the votÎng jurÎsdÎctÎon on the day of the election.”). This will still result in all ballots from Oregon being reported as “at the polls” even though we don’t have polls in this state. All the ballots are “counted” on election day, though.
3) Question 35 is going to be an administrative headache. I suspect that most election jurisdictions are not set up to record the reasons why provisional ballots were rejected, even the EAC is asking for that information.
4) Same point with Question 39. How many jurisdictions record the actual reason that an absentee ballot was rejected? Is this information reported to the state?