"A B S E N T E E V O T I N G
U . S . A ." A N D F R A U D
. . .
Early voting in Chicago: recall "vote early and
often?" - a 21st century twist!
A L L A R O U N D A M E
R I C A . . .
(From
the "electionline.org" website [a non-partisan research project begun
after passage of HAVA])
...Connecticut
Why
to watch:
This year, the Nutmeg State is home to some of the most tightly
contested Congressional races with incumbents from both parties trying
to hang on to their seats in the midst of strong challengers. But there
have been few changes in the way the state votes. The EAC announced
late last year that the lever machines that will be used by the vast
majority of voters are not in compliance with federal law.
Voting machines: Around the
country, eyes are on Connecticut as voters determine the fate of Sen.
Joe Lieberman (D), running as an independent against challenger Ned
Lamont — who defeated him in the August primary — as well as in a
number of House races which could help decide partisan control of
Congress. As the state lurches towards HAVA compliance, voters in only
25 of Connecticut’s 169 towns and cities will cast ballots this year on
federally-compliant optical scan systems. Voters with disabilities will
use vote by phone technology while most will continue to vote on lever
machines. Lever machines, were deemed to have “significant barriers” to
complying with HAVA including high error rates and the absence of a
paper record of votes.
What to watch: Will high
turnout for the Senate election coupled with new voting technology lead
to problems at the polls? Will legal challenges/recounts reveal
problems with out-of-compliance lever voting systems?
FROM THE LWVUS WEBSITE:
http://www.vote411.org/bystate.php
Our
quick survey on Google is below (with a methodology used by others,
so it seems--organizations such as the LWVUS and the "electionline.org"
-- who are well funded. It is amazing to me that these groups
don't have better sources than "About Weston"):
Alabama:
http://www.sos.state.al.us/election/absentee/index.aspx
Alaska:
http://ltgov.state.ak.us/elections/abinfo.php
Arizona:
http://www.azsos.gov/election/VoterInformation.htm
Arkansas:
http://www.votenaturally.org/all_about_voting_absentee.html
California:
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_m.htm
Colorado:
http://www.elections.colorado.gov/DDefault.aspx?tid=547
Connecticut:
http://www.sots.ct.gov/sots/cwp/view.asp?A=3179&QUESTION_ID=392214
District of Columbia:
http://www.dcboee.org/voter_info/absentee_ballot/ab_step1.asp
Delaware:
http://elections.delaware.gov/services/voter/absenteeballot.shtml
Florida:
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/absenteevoting.shtml
Georgia:
http://www.sos.state.ga.us/elections/elections/voter_information/
Hawaii:
http://www.hawaii.gov/elections/voters/voteabsentee.htm
Idaho:
http://www.idahovotes.gov/VoterReg/ABSENTEE.HTM
Illinois:
http://www.elections.il.gov/Downloads/VotingInformation/PDF/absevote.pdf
Indiana:
http://www.in.gov/sos/press/old/101603.pdf
Iowa:
http://www.sos.state.ia.us/elections/voterreg/voterguidefiles/Absentee.html
Kansas:
http://www.kssos.org/elections/elections_registration_voting.html
Kentucky:
http://elect.ky.gov/registrationinfo/absenteeballot.htm
Louisiana:
http://www.sos.louisiana.gov/elections/elect-absentee.htm
Maine:
http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/absent.htm
Maine details-remember, Maine is
a really big state with a really small population and it snows a lot:
Maryland:
http://www.elections.state.md.us/voting/absentee.html
Massachusetts:
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/eleifv/howabs.htm
Michigan:
http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,1607,7-127-1633_8716-21037--,00.html
Minnesota:
http://www.sos.state.mn.us/home/index.asp?page=211
Mississippi: http://www.sos.state.ms.us/elections/VoterRegistrars.asp
Missouri:
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/s_default.asp?id=absentee
Montana:
http://sos.mt.gov/ELB/Voter_Information.asp
Nebraska:
http://www.sos.state.ne.us/elec/absentee_page.html
New Hampshire:
http://www.sos.nh.gov/vote.htm
New Jersey: in a nutshell - http://www.advancementproject.org/reports/NJnutshell13.pdf
http://www.state.nj.us/state/elections/absentee_doe.html
New Mexico:
http://www.sos.state.nm.us/sos-VoterReg.html
New York:
http://www.elections.state.ny.us/Voting.html
Nevada:
http://sos.state.nv.us/elections/voter/absentee.asp
North Carolina:
http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/content.aspx?id=16
North Dakota:
http://www.nd.gov/sos/electvote/voting/voting-absentee.html
Ohio:
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/PublicAffairs/VoterInfoGuide.aspx?Section=16
Oklahoma:
http://www.ok.gov/~elections/absentee.html
Oregon:
http://www.lwvpdx.org/Voter%20Info%20Center/voteinfo.htm
Pennsylvania:
http://www.dos.state.pa.us/voting/cwp/view.asp?a=1193&q=442991&votingNav=%7C
Rhode Island:
http://www.elections.ri.gov/mailvote.htm
South Carolina:http://www.scvotes.org/absentee
http://www.state.sc.us/scsec/absent.htm
South Dakota:
http://www.keloland.com/videoarchive/index.cfm?VideoFile=101306ballot&Id=51697
Tennessee:
http://tennessee.gov/sos/election/bymail.htm
Texas:
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/pamphlets/earlyvote.shtml
Utah:
http://elections.utah.gov/absenteevoting.html
Vermont:
http://vermont-elections.org/elections1/absentee.html
Virginia:
http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Absentee_Voting/Index.html
Washington:
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/register_absentee.aspx
West Virginia:
http://www.wvsos.com/elections/voters/absentee.htm
Wisconsin:
http://elections.state.wi.us/faq_que_list.asp?fid=8&locid=47
Wyoming:
http://soswy.state.wy.us/election/clerks.htm
Board unhappy with vote counting rules
Whidbey News-Times
By Paul Boring
Jan 13 2007
With the dust from the general election settled, the Island County
Canvassing Board met one last time Tuesday to evaluate stringent
state-imposed voter intent guidelines that resulted in the rejection of
a significant number of votes.
Board members pored over survey questions posed by the Secretary of
State to each county canvassing board across the Washington. The goal
is to generate a new voter intent manual to replace the emergency rules
that were put in place right before absentee ballots were mailed last
fall.
“This survey was put forward in response to the experience in the last
election, where counties across the state were not able to count what
appeared to be votes because of the way the rules were written,” Island
County Auditor Suzanne Sinclair said.
“Although the Secretary of State’s Office had good intentions when the
rules were made, and the rules were made because they were required by
the Help America Vote Act, I didn’t think the outcome matched the
intent, and apparently many other counties agreed. It was painful for
all of us to watch and painful for the canvassing board to reject those
votes.”
The canvassing board for the 2006 election was made up of Dave
Jamieson, the Island County Prosecutor’s Office chief deputy, who sat
in for prosecutor Greg Banks; Anne LaCour, chief deputy in the
Auditor’s Office, sitting in for Sinclair; and Mac McDowell, chairman
of the Board of County Commissioners. Banks and Sinclair, on the ballot
in 2006, were able to participate in the Tuesday meeting now that
election results are final.
One area of confusion during the ballot tallying process was the issue
of identifying marks. Wading through the awkward and sometimes
confounding survey language, the group agreed that only ballots with
signatures or initials traceable to the voter should be rejected.
The original directions read, “A ballot is invalid and no votes on that
ballot may be counted if it is found together with another ballot or it
is marked so as to identify the voter.” After a lengthy discussion, the
board members decided the last part of the directions should be
omitted. In situations where voters wrote their initials on the
ballots, the board felt it was meant to verify that the voter had made
a correction.
“Those people are doing everything they can to make sure that their
ballot counts in the face of some uncertainty,” Banks said. “I think
we’re probably getting more in the way of counting valid ballots than
stopping voter fraud. I wonder what we’re gaining by having that
provision.”
In some cases, apparent votes were nullified because the state laws
tied the canvassing board’s hands. On Tuesday, the canvassing board and
elections staff struggled to define how much latitude should be given
to counties.
“At what point is there too much discretion?” Sinclair asked.
To alleviate any confusion, the group suggested changing the directions
and only allowing written instructions that clearly state which
candidate the person is voting for.
“If you make a mark in more than one box, provide clear written
instructions that specify the choice,” Banks said.
Defining a “consistent pattern” proved troublesome. With only multiple
choice options, the survey was not successful in synthesizing all
scenarios.
“Do we allow people to vote and not follow instructions? That’s what
this is about,” McDowell said, adding that he did not agree with the
current definition of a consistent pattern.
In the end, the board took the pragmatic approach and factored in the
certainty of human error, agreeing that any irregular marks made inside
the target area should be counted. For irregular marks made outside the
target area to be counted, they would have to be uniform. Even the
agreed upon definition did not encompass everything the board felt.
Staving off frustration, they chose the most palatable of the three
choices.
“Is there a time limit for this test?” Jamieson quipped.
Accepting an ‘X’ as a proper mark would also necessitate changing the
existing directions, as the ballot instructions state that an ‘X’
should be used to correct a vote.
Arguably the most pertinent question on the survey, the canvassing
board had to decide how much discretionary power the group should be
granted. The members agreed that with the input of all counties, one
uniform standard should be adopted statewide for determining voter
intent, even if that means some canvassing boards would need to change
past practices. However, county canvassing boards should still have the
authority to determine voter intent on circumstances that are not
included in the manual.
“The canvassing board is a creature of local government,” Banks said.
“We have three elected officials and we’re accountable to the voters.
That’s why we’re here. ... I like the idea of maintaining some local
control. We’re the closest thing local voters have to know how their
votes are counted. The more you give away to the state, I think the
more people get distrustful.”
McDowell was candid about his opinion of the current guidelines and the
survey process aimed at correcting any deficiencies.
“This attempt to change things has missed the mark completely,” he
said, adding that ovals should be used on the ballots in place of
rectangles. McDowell’s opinion was that the large box on the ballot
invited marks that were unacceptable under the current rules. “We
should be focused on how to correct the voting problem, not how to fix
the problem that you’re accepting.”
“To base new rules only on this survey would be a mistake,” Banks
added. “They need to study ballot styles and identify ballots that will
reduce these problems.”
From Island
County, WA...
Some votes not counted in election
Whidbey News-Times
By Paul Boring
Dec 23 2006
Think back on how you voted on your paper ballot in November. If you
filled in some boxes and checked others, some of your votes might not
have been counted.
Emergency state rules that were put in place just as the county was
sending out absentee ballots resulted in a significant number of votes
not being counted because of voter intent issues.
Determining the number of individual votes that were not tallied would
require going back over each ballot one by one, said Michele Reagan,
Island County Auditor’s Office voter registration deputy.
“We’d have to go through them ballot by ballot,” Reagan said. “It would
not be an insignificant task.”
More than 1,000 ballots were sent to the Island County Canvassing
Board, which ultimately makes the decision to accept the ballots or
reject them. With the new state rules, it was conceivable that an
entire ballot was accepted, but no votes were counted.
“It could have been that none of the votes on the ballot were counted,”
said Anne LaCour, the Auditor’s Office chief deputy who sat on the
canvassing board. “The ballot wasn’t rejected, it was still processed.”
Mac McDowell, Island County commissioner, and David Jamieson, chief
deputy in the county prosecutor’s office, rounded out the canvassing
board.
McDowell said in the past, before the emergency rules were put in place
by the Secretary of State’s office, the canvassing board was able to
judge based on what they believed was the voter’s intent. This year,
the board members had their hands tied.
Rules require consistent marks
“The rules said everything had to be consistent,” McDowell said.
“That’s easy to follow.”
He added that he hoped other counties were following the new laws as
fervently as the canvassing board in Island County. In tight races like
the Barbara Bailey and Tim Knue showdown, the outcome could have been
swayed by other canvassing boards deviating from the rules.
“Here is my one hope, because a couple of races were close. With the
Bailey and Knue race you had three counties involved,” McDowell said.
“You’re thinking, ‘Gosh, I hope the other counties are doing this the
same way.’ Since they were so close, if everybody’s following the same
rules, it should even out. But if you have one county that tends to be
more conservative or liberal than the other one not following the
rules, that could have swung it one way or another.”
McDowell was disheartened by rejecting votes in which he was certain
the intent was clear.
“In my best heart, I knew this is what the voter meant to do, but with
the new emergency rules, the first time for this election, if it wasn’t
100 percent consistent, we couldn’t count the votes,” he said. “It was
frustrating to the extent that you knew you weren’t counting votes that
you absolutely knew was the voter’s intent. That was the frustrating
part.”
If a voter were to completely fill in every box but one, placing a
check mark or “x” in a lone box, the one vote would not be counted. In
some cases with the double sided ballots, voters might have used check
marks on one side and upon turning over the ballot and reading the
instructions, filled in the box correctly on the second side. If they
did not go back and fill in the checked boxes, those votes were
nullified.
Parts of some ballots uncounted
“Parts of those ballots were not counted because no one knew what the
voter’s intent was,” LaCour said.
Some voters initially placed an “x” or a check mark in the box and then
attempted in vain to fill in the square. Those votes could not be
counted.
“It’s impossible to hide it, so we said, ‘If there’s these four corners
sticking out, that’s an ‘X’.’ And most people didn’t stay completely
within the box,” McDowell said. “We had to throw out all of these votes
where we knew the voter intent. It has to be 100 percent or it’s
considered an illegal vote.”
McDowell advocated three changes for the next election. He suggested
using a small oval in place of the large box, as most Americans are
conditioned by standardized exams and other documents to fill in an
oval and place an “x” or check mark in a box. Any pictorial
instructions used in conjunction with the written prompts should only
show how to correctly fill out the ballot. One picture on the ballot
visually demonstrated how to change a vote by placing an “x” through
the box, which upon a cursory examination could have been taken by the
voter as the proper method to fill out the ballot. Thirdly, McDowell
said the ballot should clearly state that if the document becomes too
“marked up,” writing next to the individual candidate a notation
clearly identifying in words the intent would suffice.
“I think the process will get a whole lot easier if these three things
are implemented,” the commissioner said.
More than 30,000 ballots were counted. Although only a small percentage
went to the canvassing board, the emergency administrative codes still
made for some meetings of unprecedented length.
“There were some marathon sessions,” Reagan said. “We had one session
that went from 1:30 in the afternoon to about 10 o’clock that night.
And they reconvened the following morning at about 9:30 and went until
10 o’clock that night. Then they came in on a Saturday and met from 9
until 4 p.m. Then they met the following Monday from 8 to 4:30.”
The canvassing board has a short respite on Thanksgiving but then came
back for two more meetings. LaCour attributed the extended sessions to
the new rules.
“I think it’s confusing for the voters,” she said, adding that
discerning voter intent was difficult under the stringent guidelines.
Comparing the recent general election to past elections is like
comparing apples to oranges.
“It was a totally different animal last time,” Reagan said of the punch
cards used. “This was the first federal general election that we’ve had
since going to paper ballots. Punch cards had their own issues that you
had to deal with. This is just growing pains getting used to the new
system.”
“And you can’t compare it to the primary. That was a different issue
because you had to mark your party,” LaCour added.
Other reasons ballots rejected
Fifty-six ballots were rejected because of unresolved signature issues,
Reagan said.
“That means either the voter didn’t sign it or that the signature
didn’t match the one that we had on file. Those voters were sent
letters and contacted, but they did not respond.”
Ballots with unresolved signatures by law are required to be passed to
the prosecutor’s office.
“They look to see if it’s just somebody who didn’t get around to doing
it or if it’s actually a case of voter fraud,” Reagan said. Earlier
this year, an Oak Harbor woman was charged with voter fraud for filling
out her daughter’s ballot in a school election.
Thirty-five provisional ballots that were cast in the November election
did not have valid registrations in Island County, the voter
registration deputy said.
“Of those, about half were currently registered in other counties,”
Reagan said. “It was up to that county where the person was registered
whether or not to keep it or reject it.”
Ninety ballots were rejected because of late postmarks. Reagan and
LaCour speculated that some people may have believed that dropping the
ballot in the mail on the last day would suffice. Depending on the last
pickup for the mailbox, that may or may not have been the case.
“Any post office is going to tell you what their last pickup is for the
day,” Reagan said. “They have to post it. If you get it in by their
last pickup of the day, it’s going to be postmarked for that day. If
you don’t, you’re out of luck.”
Some people used their personal mail meters, but the federal postmark
was late. The latter determines the ballot’s validity.
“The reality is, if I have a postage machine, I can put any date I want
on there,” Reagan said. “It just means that we have to go by the one
that’s put on there by the postal service.”
One ballot was rejected because even though it was in the correct
envelope for the general election, the ballot inside was for the
primary. Another ballot received was a Xeroxed copy, which was rejected
for obvious reasons.
“By the time you find that out, you’ve separated the secrecy envelope
from the outer envelope, so you have no way of knowing if that person
already voted using a different ballot or if it’s maybe a spouse’s,”
Reagan said.
Three ballots were rejected because the voters signed the ballot
itself, not the envelope.
“Revised Codes of Washington are very clear about it,” Reagan said. “If
a voter signs a ballot or puts an identifying mark on the ballot, I
can’t count it.”
Next election, the Auditor’s Office should have more time to educate
the public on how to properly fill in the their ballots. With the
emergency rules being implemented at the last minute, personnel worked
feverishly to get the word out, but the tight timeline precluded them
from reaching all voters in time.
“Next time we want to get the word out well before the absentee ballots
are sent,” LaCour said.
Recount Narrows 2nd District Gap;
Courtney's lead over Simmons is slimmer; count continues today
DAY
By Claire Bessette, Katie Warchut, Day Writers
Published on 11/14/2006
You know how these recounts go. A vote or two here, a few there, right?
Try 100 in Lebanon and 39 in Lyme. ... And 31 in Waterford.
The 2nd Congressional District recount, for days the stuff of
incremental changes in the wake of Democrat Joe Courtney's apparent
Election Day win over U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, featured big gains for
both candidates Monday, first by one, then the other.
By late Monday night, Courtney's margin — 166 votes when the day began
— had narrowed considerably, but by how much wasn't exactly clear.
State Republicans put it at around 80 votes. Nine more towns were
scheduled to conduct recounts today.
Early Monday in Lebanon, election officials discovered Courtney had
been mistakenly awarded 100 extra votes last Tuesday when an election
worker misread a voting machine.
Hours later, it was determined that Simmons had been given 39 extra
votes in Lyme. Still later, a Waterford recount begun at 7 p.m. found
that 31 votes had been wrongly added to Courtney's column due to a
transcription error, according to Town Clerk Robert Nye.
“Little old Lyme is gonna be on the news tonight,” said Barbara
Gustafson, a former moderator who attended that town's recount at the
Hamburg Fire House.
Lyme's moderator, Marion Ewankow, said she had read “68” for Simmons
off a voting machine, but that someone had written down “108.” Then, in
a count of provisional ballots — issued when the eligibility of the
voter has not yet been determined — Simmons gained three votes and
Courtney picked up two.
Meanwhile, Courtney was in Washington, D.C., to attend an orientation
session for congressmen-elect.
“Joe is still anxious to get started working for the people of the
Second District,” Courtney's spokesman, Brian Farber, said.
The mandatory recount was launched because the margin was less than
half of 1 percent of the nearly 250,000 ballots cast and fewer than
2,000 votes. Simmons has not yet conceded.
In Montville, Simmons lost eight votes, while Courtney's total was
unchanged.
In one of the town's voting districts, optical-scan machines counted
2,627 ballots Monday, 10 fewer than were counted on Election Day.
Did 10 ballots disappear?
“You know they didn't because they're sealed in a box,” Town Clerk Lisa
J. Terry said. “Everybody's stumped. Everything was perfect Tuesday.”
In Groton Monday, a recanvass of 23 lever machines from the town's
eight voting districts resulted in no changes. But in the recount of
688 absentee ballots — the most Groton has received in a
non-presidential election — Simmons got one additional vote.
Simmons also had a net gain of three votes through provisional ballots.
Groton had 42 provisional ballots, 36 of which were rejected because of
improper identification, or because the voters were not registered to
vote in Groton.
In Norwich, election officials will recount part of their recount today.
In a tedious six-hour process there Monday, Courtney gained 34 votes
and Simmons 33 votes — all of them absentee ballots that either were
not included in the Election Day tallies or were never counted until
Monday.
The changes gave Courtney 4,757 votes and Simmons 4,037, but questions
remained.
About a dozen Democratic and Republican city officials, election
observers from other towns and from the Courtney and Simmons
congressional campaigns watched the recount. All machine counts matched
the Election Day totals, but several problems emerged in the absentee
ballot counts.
The absentee ballots in the four precincts will be recounted at 4:30
today in the city registrar's office on the second floor of City Hall.
In Precinct 10, none of the absentee ballots was included in the
official totals sent to the Secretary of the State's Office. City
election officials said all but one of those ballots were opened and
counted on Election Day, but that the tally was “cut off” a photocopy
of the tally sheet, and thus was never reported to the state. An
unopened envelope discovered Monday had a vote for Simmons.
Simmons should have received 31 absentee ballot votes and Courtney 30
in Precinct 10 last Tuesday.
In Precinct 2A, Simmons gained another absentee ballot vote that was
found unopened Monday.
In Precinct 6, there was a question regarding one vote cast by the new
handicapped phone machines. Courtney gained one vote in that precinct
Monday, but some observers questioned whether that vote was counted
twice, possibly as a handicapped ballot on its own and as an absentee
ballot.
Courtney gained five votes and Simmons gained one vote in Precinct 7,
all in absentee ballots.
Elsewhere, Courtney picked up one vote in Windham and four votes in
Coventry. In Woodstock, Courtney gained a vote. Simmons had a net gain
of two votes in Union and added one vote in Essex. In East Hampton,
Courtney lost two votes overall.
The towns conducting recounts today are: Canterbury, Chester, Deep
River, Haddam, Ledyard, Old Lyme, Salem, Somers and Stonington.
More voters aren't waiting for Election Day
By Bill Nichols, USA TODAY
October 26, 2006
WASHINGTON — State officials report that in-person early voting appears
up before the elections Nov. 7, as campaigns across the nation put new
emphasis on turning out voters before Election Day.
Election officials and voting experts say it's unclear whether the jump
in early voting reflects a high degree of voter enthusiasm or is an
extension of a gradual increase since 1980.
"These kind of growth rates are not unprecedented. ... It does not
surprise me," says Paul Gronke, director of the Early Voting
Information Center at Reed College in Portland, Ore. "Two things are
happening here — voters are learning more about early voting and, over
time, campaigns are learning more about targeting these voters."
Some trends:
•In Tennessee, which has one of the most hotly contested Senate races,
218,385 people voted in the first five days of early voting, which
began Oct. 18. That's compared with 159,520 in the 2002 midterm
election — an increase of 37%.
•In Texas, home to a governor's race and several competitive House
contests, 125,719 voted in the first two days of early voting in the 15
most populous counties. That's compared with 100,834 in 2002 on the
first two days when all 15 counties voted — a 24.7% increase.
•In Nevada, which has a competitive gubernatorial race and an open
House seat, early voting has averaged 14,430 people a day this year —
an 18% increase over a similar period in 2002.
Thirty-five states and the District of Columbia allow some kind of
in-person voting before Election Day — either at a voting machine or by
absentee ballot at county clerk's offices or polling places.
Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri and Virginia, plus the District of
Columbia, require an excuse for in-person absentee voting.
In 2004, about 22% of the vote was cast early, either in person or by
absentee voting by mail, according to Gronke. That jumped from 14% in
the 2000 election, he said.
No early voting totals are available for the last midterm election in
2002, though selected states compiled data. Gronke said the only fair
comparison for this year's early voting would be with other midterm
elections. Voter turnout in general is much higher during presidential
elections.
Many states don't tally early voting until after the election, or don't
have 2002 data for comparison.
Practice 'entrenched'
In Tennessee, state election coordinator Brook Thompson said his
state's jump in early voting probably is due to a combination of
growing familiarity with early voting and the widespread publicity
about the Senate showdown between Democratic Rep. Harold Ford and
Republican Bob Corker.
Since early voting began in Tennessee in 1994, "it's become kind of
entrenched in this state," Thompson said. In 2004, 45% of the state's
total vote was cast early.
"The campaigns are clearly working real hard to get people out to the
polls, too." Thompson said. "And this election has obviously had a lot
of publicity."
Corker spokesman Todd Womack said the campaign, in conjunction with the
state Republican Party, contacted 150,000 voters by phone or in person
to urge them to take advantage of early voting.
"Some of the ways we've reached out to people in the past, such as the
time when you start knocking on doors, has changed because of the early
voting factor," says Chris Devaney, executive director of the Tennessee
GOP. "We've been knocking on doors all summer long."
Other campaigns follow suit. "The parties have become more
sophisticated about identifying their core voters and encouraging them
to vote as early as possible — to essentially lock in their votes in
case something prevented them from voting on Election Day," says John
Fortier, a political analyst at the American Enterprise Institute who
recently published a book about early and absentee voting.
Campaign appeals
•In Northern California, Democratic challenger Jerry McNerney's
campaign hits potential early voters — as well as those who have asked
for absentee ballots — with special messages, spokesman Yoni Cohen
says. "We're not waiting until the last minute to make our appeals,"
Cohen says. McNerney is trying to unseat GOP Rep. Richard Pombo in a
district east of San Francisco. California does not compile
pre-election early voting data.
•In Colorado's gubernatorial race, Democrat Bill Ritter's campaign has
blanketed the state with thousands of leaflets offering information
about early voting. Ritter faces GOP Rep. Bob Beauprez.
Ritter spokesman Evan Dreyer said the campaign has an added incentive
to push early voting because of fears about confusion on Nov. 7. Denver
has switched from a precinct system to using voting centers. "We're
concerned about people showing up at their neighborhood elementary
school, where they've voted for decades ... and then not having the
time to get to their new vote center," Dreyer says.
Colorado also does not compile early voting data from all counties.
•In Florida, Attorney General Charlie Crist's gubernatorial campaign is
one of many to feature early voting information prominently on its
website. "These voters are very important to us," says Crist
spokeswoman Erin Isaac. Crist, a Republican, faces Democrat Rep. Jim
Davis. Florida saw more than 100,000 people vote in the first two days
of in-person early voting this week. The state has no 2002 early voting
figures, as it began the practice in 2004.
Judge blocks ID rule for absentee voters
Don't need ID for
absentee, judge rules in voting suit Judge blocks new state law on
absentee voter ID rules; Blackwell
ordered to notify all of Ohio's election boards
Don't want
to show ID? Vote absentee.
Mark Rollenhagen, Cleveland
Plain Dealer
Friday, October 27, 2006
Columbus - A federal judge
Thursday evening blocked enforcement of new identification requirements
for absentee voters, agreeing that the state's voter ID law is vague,
confusing and unevenly applied by Ohio election boards since early
voting began this month.
"Absentee voters are suffering irreparable harm right now," said U.S.
District Judge Algenon L. Marbley in announcing his decision.
Marbley ordered Secretary of State Ken Blackwell's office to notify the
state's 88 county election boards of the ruling by noon today.
The emergency order will be in effect until Nov. 1 when Marbley will
hold a full hearing that will also address whether the ID requirements
should be suspended at the polls on Nov. 7.
The judge denied a request from Assistant Attorney General Richard N.
Coglianese to appeal the decision to the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of
Appeals before next week's hearing. The secretary of state's office is
not interested in appealing the decision because it is busy running the
election, a spokesman said.
Lawyers for a Cleveland homeless group and a Columbus-based union local
argued during a two-hour hearing Thursday that proper identification
for absentee voters depended on what county a voter was in - and
sometimes even which election board worker they dealt with in their
county. The new Ohio voter ID rules require voters to confirm their
identity by presenting photo ID cards, utility bills or the last four
digits of their Social Security number.
Election boards have differed on what constitutes a "current" utility
bill, which of two numbers listed on driver's licenses is required,
whether military IDs are acceptable since they don't include a current
address and whether a driver's license is OK if it shows an old
address.
Even the secretary of state's office has given conflicting advice, said
Subodh Chandra, one of the lawyers who filed the suit for the Northeast
Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Service Employees International
Union Local 11.
"This defendant can't even get it straight," Chandra told Marbley. "How
can boards of election get it?"
Chicago voter info vulnerable to hackers
MICHAEL TARM, Associated Press Writer
Tue Oct 24, 7:28 AM ET
CHICAGO - The city is investigating a security glitch in its elections
Web site that hackers could have used to swipe
Social Security numbers and the personal information of about 1.3
million voters, officials said.
It wasn't immediately clear if anyone actually stole or misused any of
the information, Chicago Board of Elections spokesman Tom Leach said.
He said the problem had been fixed and a forensic computer expert would
be brought in to examine the site's logs for any signs of illegal
access.
"Obviously, we are very concerned," Leach said Monday. "We have no
reason to believe there was (theft), but we want to be able to assure
people there wasn't."
A watchdog group, the Illinois Ballot Integrity Project, exposed the
vulnerability and alerted officials last week, Leach said.
"This was a very serious vulnerability," project member Peter Zelchenko
said.
A malevolent hacker could have tampered with voter registration data,
such as inactivating certain voters' registration or changing their
polling places in the online database, as well as accessed Social
Security numbers, names, birth dates and addresses, the group said.
The Web site is designed to enable Chicago residents to register to
vote online. It also explains how and where to cast ballots. About 1.3
million former and current registered voters have personal information
on the site, which includes about 780,000 Social Security numbers,
Leach said.
Leach said the site cannot be used to access the city's electronic
vote-counting systems.
"Everyone can be assured there votes will be counted and counted
accurately," he said.
Potential problems loom in U.S. election
voting
By Randall Mikkelsen
October 24, 2006
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Long lines and long counts threaten to mar next
month's U.S. congressional elections as millions of Americans put new
voting machines and rules to the test, election officials and experts
say.
The result could be delays in knowing whether Democrats capture one or
both houses of the U.S. Congress, or whether President George W. Bush's
Republicans keep control.
"In close elections, it may be days and weeks before a winner is known
in a particular race," said Paul DeGregorio, chairman of the U.S.
Election Assistance Commission, created to oversee a 2002 election law
overhaul.
He forecast, however, an improvement over previous elections and said,
"I think voters can trust the system."
The election overhaul was passed after the 2000 vote, in which problems
deciphering paper ballots in Florida helped fuel a five-week recount
fight in which the U.S.
Supreme Court handed the presidency to Bush.
The law mandated electronic voting machines with a "paper trail"
backup, statewide voter registries and opportunities to cast a
"provisional" ballot when a voter's eligibility is in question.
Many of the changes take effect this year, when one-third of voters
will cast their ballots on new electronic machines, whose reliability
in a national election is unproven.
Ohio, where Democratic voters in 2004 complained that long lines in
their neighborhoods kept them from voting, and Pennsylvania are two
states with major races where the voting process will be closely
watched on November 7.
Other states include Maryland, which had problems with its September
primary election, and Georgia and Missouri, where courts threw out new
voter identification requirements and experts see a potential for
disputes.
"We don't know about the security flaws, we don't know about the error
rates," said the Rev. DeForest Soaries, former chairman of the Election
Assistance Commission.
172 MILLION AMERICANS
About 172 million Americans are so far registered to vote; 175 million
registered for the 2004 presidential election, according to the
Election Data Services consulting firm. A smaller share will cast
ballots, in 183,000 voting precincts.
In some states there may be confusion after court battles over new
state identification requirements. Voters whose eligibility is in
dispute can cast provisional ballots, which could add to counting
delays in close races.
Election officials also expect more absentee ballots, which take longer
to count, cast by voters distrustful of the new machines. In Maryland,
for example, the state's Republican governor has encouraged absentee
ballots.
There is also a shortage of trained poll workers.
"There's a rather combustible confluence of events taking place in our
elections right now," said Century Foundation researcher Tova Wang.
"Where we may find ourselves at the end of Election Day is actually
with stacks of paper and long, drawn-out, possibly contentious vote
counting," she said. Any delays could spur concerns over the legitimacy
of the outcome, she added.
The largest U.S. civil rights group, the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People, said it would monitor voting in 10
states.
In a predominantly black neighborhood of Columbus, Ohio, Democrats have
pushed hard to ensure people like Melvin Steward, 72, can vote. Steward
said he stood in the rain for four hours in 2004 trying to vote but
eventually gave up.
"In my district they shorted us on voting booths. It bothered me
because I never missed voting before," Steward said. This time he
applied for an absentee ballot.
"I've already turned my papers in," he said.
Only In Chicago, No;
Rhode Island finds thousands of dead people still carried on voting
rolls.
DAY editorial
Published on 11/14/2006
Remember the old saw about how the Chicago politicians could always
find the votes needed to win an election? Just let the dead vote. And
in Chicago, for many years, a person's demise did not prevent him from
carrying out his civic duties by voting. The parties saw to it.
Imagine, then, the surprise when the Providence Journal, that longtime
chronicler of criminal, unethical and just plain sloppy government in
Rhode Island, revealed that nearly 5,000 dead people were still being
carried on the voting lists of 39 separate towns and cities in the
state.
With egg on his face for the failure of local registrars of voters,
Secretary of the State Matthew A. Brown said it would respond by
ordering a copy of the Social Security Administration's Death Master
File. All the better to figure out who was eligible to vote in Rhode
Island and who, by having passed to another life, was ineligible.
Among the 39 offending communities, 4,991 of the 685,764 registered
voters were dead. This is an average of 7.28 dead voters per 1,000
voters.
For the record, Johnston led the way with the highest percentage of
dead voters, 20.34 per each 1,000 voters, or 451. North Providence was
second with 17.03 per thousand voters. Providence had 920 dead people
still listed as eligible voters, but it's a much bigger community.
We dare say that few states in the country, if examined for similar
flaws, would pass with flying colors, but Rhode Island outdid itself.
Now the question is, how many of these dead voters have been voting all
these years?
A
voter ID as an election safeguard
The Monitor's View
from the October 26, 2006 edition
Think back, but just 10 months before 9/11, the US endured a different
trauma: A knife-edge constitutional crisis over the 2000 presidential
election that hung on a few hundred votes in Florida. Ever since,
states have tried to reform voting systems - with zero tolerance for
fraud or mistakes. But at what cost?
While states have moved quickly to electronic voting as one reform, one
onerous fix has been more requirements for voters to show a valid ID at
the polls. The number of states demanding such identification has
doubled since 2000 to nearly half. And seven states approved rules that
require a photo ID to vote. With most Americans favoring voter IDs,
this trend may go on.
But as the Nov. 7 midterm elections have drawn near, the ID issue has
gone to the courts.
A judge in Georgia overturned that state's ID law for being a form of
poll tax. In Missouri, the state's high court ruled last week that the
$15 cost of obtaining a birth certificate was too much of a burden to
obtain a photo ID for the 3 to 4 percent of voters who don't have one.
Arizona's law went all the way to the US Supreme Court which, while not
ruling on the merits of the case, let the law go ahead for this
election - a signal that it may eventually approve voter IDs.
Obviously, cleaning up the nation's electoral system to prevent another
crisis like the Bush-Gore debacle is not going to be easy. And yet in
many states where a red-blue political split can easily lead to a
disputed election outcome, the need is great to prevent anyone from
violating the process, all the way from voter registration to the final
count.
The people's faith in the election system must be restored. And the
nation that promotes democracy to the world can't allow the kind of
legal eye-scratching that was on display for six weeks in 2000, when it
was uncertain if the US would even have a president-elect come
inauguration day.
The nation is faced with a difficult trade-off: Move toward zero
tolerance of fraud that will help restore voter trust while also
placing a burden, perhaps even a barrier, to a small percentage of
potential voters.
Debate on this issue comes down to two judgments: 1) the extent of
current fraud and whether it will influence elections; and 2) whether
states can reduce the burden of obtaining IDs to encourage all people
to vote.
Governments already charge fees for many legal papers and services,
even to the poor. But voting rights are fundamental enough that an ID
for that purpose should be free of charge. The poorest voters should
not see such a cost as a form of modern-day poll tax.
As for accepting some fraud, the number of proven cases is small, but
the damage to voter confidence from just a few cases can be huge,
enough to keep many people from even voting. In St. Louis, for
instance, hundreds of bogus address changes were discovered this month,
forcing officials to ask voters to bring a polling-place notification
card to the polls. Obviously, that state's high court erred in its
assessment by citing a small risk of fraud. Can the Missouri election
results now be trusted?
Clean elections are paramount, with voter IDs as one needed tool. And
with proper reforms, universal suffrage can also be ensured
ABSENTEE
VOTING
REGULATIONS: MILITARY AND OVERSEAS BALLOTS