http://www.electionline.org/


electionline Weekly - May 4, 2006
electionline.org

I. In Focus This Week

PRIMARY COVERAGE: Indiana and Ohio

Hoosiers Cast Ballots and Offer Opinions on Primary Day
Sharp divide on voter ID evident in state's most populous county

By Kat Zambon
electionline.org

MARION COUNTY, Ind.- As the polls opened on a dreary Tuesday morning in Indianapolis, many Hoosier voters brought both photo identification and mixed feelings regarding the state's new voter law requiring them to present ID cards before casting ballots.

Opinions ranged from some who declared the new rule a "right-wing conspiracy" to others who praised the state for acting against potential voter fraud. In fact, the rancor expressed by voters on both sides was emblematic of their representatives in the state house, who fought pitched partisan battles over the bill in the legislature and now the courts.

Most of those who expressed an opinion about the bill came down against it and said they were concerned it would keep voters away from the polls.

"I think it's a right-wing conspiracy to defraud black voters of their right to vote," said Charles Gaddy, just after casting his vote. "Other than that, it's okay. If I was a Republican, it would be okay."

Though he said that he was waiting to see how the voter ID requirement worked out statewide, Herman Greenwood, a Democratic precinct committee member in Wayne County, spoke anecdotally about an elderly voter who came to the polls without ID.

"We all know that she lives in this precinct . and should have been allowed to vote . she had ID at home." Greenwood didn't expect that she would return with ID.

Zina Gray, a voter at Heather Hills Elementary School, learned about the voter ID requirement on the radio and through voter education promotions. "I think it's dumb . so many of the elderly people will have a problem getting that ID."

Gray said she was concerned the requirement would disenfranchise voters. "It's not so much that they want to stay away but so many people" don't have ID, she said.

Democratic Party volunteer Carlette Duffy called the voter ID requirement "just another way to poll tax and disenfranchise . getting people out to vote will be the only way to get rid of it."

Others had a different view of the new law, which was passed in April 2005 on party lines and upheld by a federal judge a year later.

"I don't understand what the deal with the ID is," voter Pierrel Foxworth said, adding that he has to show ID when he goes to the military base.

"I think it gets rid of a lot of fraud in the system," said Chris Dean after voting in Wayne. He added that he was "marginally sympathetic at best" to those who wanted to vote but lacked ID since government resources provide for free ID.

"There's a greater cost to the system with potential fraud," he said.

Voter Steven Cox concurred. "In my opinion, they should have been doing it years ago."

Poll workers reported that most voters knew they needed to show ID. "We know everybody but we still make them show their IDs," Caryol Mulford, an election clerk in Warren, said, adding that most voters came to her table with IDs in hand.

In the run-up to the 2006 Indiana primary, Secretary of State Todd Rokita's office spent $1.2 million on a voter education campaign to prepare voters for the state's new voter ID requirement but neither the voter ID requirement nor the education campaign affected Tuesday's turnout. Though Eyewitness News 13 reported that Rokita had a Department of Transportation helicopter ready in case serious problems arose, a midday statement from his office called the primary "typical."

According to The Indianapolis Star, Rokita estimated that statewide turnout of 20-25 percent, similar to that of recent primaries in off-year elections, though Marion County reported less than 14 percent turnout. Bureau of Motor Vehicles and Department of Health offices were open for extended hours on Monday and Tuesday, giving priority to those who needed ID for Election Day. BMV spokesman Greg Cook said 568 state ID's and 98 driver's licenses were issued Monday, a day that their offices are usually closed.

Democrats argued that the primary was not indicative of the voter ID law's impact because of the low turnout. Fran Quigley, executive director of the Indiana branch of the American Civil Liberties Union said the organization received reports of voters who faced difficulty voting because of the ID law but that it will take a few days to determine the scope of the issue.

"Our larger concern is that there were people without the proper identification who simply did not exercise their right to vote," he said.

Little confusion over new technology
Most voters did not report difficulty with the optical-scan machines in Marion County. Mahlon Carlock, an election inspector, said one machine would not accept a ballot but found a way to circumvent the problem. "At the end of the day, they would all get counted one way or another," Carlock said.

After Dorothy Steuerwald filled out her ballot, she tried to put it in the machine but had to darken the ovals more. "It's all new to me . what I got in the mail helped me because I had no idea what was going to happen when I got here," she said.

"It's awful slow . it's kind of a slow process," said Marjorie Gundlach.

Richard Easton said, "I liked it better when they had the old machines" and that the new machines were "more difficult for me." His wife Shirley said the change "doesn't seem very practical" and was concerned that voters with disabilities would have difficulties with the machines, wondering how they could "fill out all those bubbles." Wise also thought that the ovals could be darker so it would be easier for elderly voters and voters with disabilities could see them better.

Becky Roberts said her machine was "slick as a whistle." When asked if she thought other voters may have problems with it, she answered, "Dumb clucks would."

Despite minor issues, "all the sky-is-falling-Chicken-Little arguments never came to fruition," Rokita said. While saying that the problems with ES&S's machines had been fixed before the primary, Rokita filed a complaint against the company for supplying the state with defective machines and services. A hearing on the issue is scheduled for May 8.

Problems, praise for new voting machines in Cuyahoga County
Voters react positively, poll workers frustrated

By Sean Greene
electionline.org

Cuyahoga County, Ohio - County voters along with hundreds of thousands of other Buckeye residents cast their ballots on electronic voting machines for the first time Tuesday. Response from those using the machines was generally positive. Response from those trained to work the polls was tepid. And by the end of the day, reports of voting machine problems from across the county demonstrated the difficulty of making the transition to the new technology.

After years of casting punch-card ballots, made infamous in Florida in 2000 and recently ruled unconstitutional in Ohio, new Diebold AccuVote TSX machines equipped with a voter-verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) were rolled out in the county, home of Cleveland and more than one million registered voters. The county was allocated more than 5,400 machines by the state, with a ratio of one voting machine for every 186 voters. (For more statistics and details on Cuyahoga County voting, click here.)

The May primary seemed almost tranquil compared to the high turnout and long lines witnessed in November 2004. At many times throughout the day, poll workers outnumbered voters at some polling places. Of those registered to vote, approximately 25 percent were expected to go to the polls. (Final turnout numbers are not yet available.)

Voters like machines, some unaware of VVPATs
In Cleveland, voter Kay McCastle was the first to cast a ballot in her precinct and praised the touch-screen voting machines "They were fairly easy. I liked it," she said. McCastle, however, did not examine the VVPAT that offered a paper and ink version of her vote.

Broadview Heights poll worker Tim Klowchik saw similar behavior from voters. "Not too many look at the VVPAT," he said.

One Richmond Heights voter who did look at the VVPAT initially thought it would be a receipt she could take with her. Poll workers clarified that the VVPAT was not a receipt and could not leave the polling place. [NOTE: Ohio State University's Dan Tokaji had his own impressions about Franklin County's machines as well.]

David Stringer, voting in Shaker Heights, did express concerns - not about the machine's performance, but who made them. "I'd rather not have to use Diebold machines - because of their politics."

He did add the machines were "perfectly convenient" and easier to use than punch cards, although he said he too was unaware of the VVPAT.

Judy Gallo of the Greater Cleveland Voter Coalition, a voting rights advocacy group, also noted the lack of attention to the VVPAT and expressed concern.

"I noticed that many voters did not compare their screen vote to the paper trail [behind] the glass. They 'heard' the machine doing something that sounded like printing, but they weren't aware they could lift up the 'flap' on the side of the machine and actually 'see' how their vote was being recorded on the paper trail. So there is much need for more voter education," she said.

More detailed information about issues such as voters' use of VVPATs, voters' experiences with the new voting machines and the voting process in general will be available in the near future as two groups conducted exit polls in Cuyahoga County. One was conducted by the Greater Cleveland Voter Coalition. Another was conducted by the Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners in conjunction with the Election Science Institute.

Problems
While voters were describing the voting system as easy to use and convenient, reports of problems began to emerge soon after polls opened at 6:30 a.m.

At Woodbury Elementary School in Shaker Heights, a poll worker explained how there were delays when the polls opened with only one machine working. It took a technician about a half hour or so after polls opened to fix the other machines, leaving voters waiting and at least one voter who had to leave with the hopes of coming back later to cast a ballot.

As reported by the Cleveland Plain Dealer, one polling place opened up nearly seven hours late due to problems poll workers had in setting up the machines and nearly 2 percent of the county's approximately 1,400 polling places were without functioning machines for up to two hours. Fifty memory cards containing vote totals were also missing, leading the elections board to consider using the VVPATs to get tallies. (The Plain Dealer has a timeline of events; for more coverage, click here.)

Later in the evening, Cleveland city councilman Kevin Conwell stormed into the county elections office as votes were being counted stating that voting machine problems in his ward at Harry E. Davis Elementary School were never resolved and that the board of elections failed to help. Elections board director Michael Vu said he would look into what happened.

Possibly the biggest problem didn't even happen at the polls. Over 17,000 absentee ballots had to be counted by hand due to the absentee ballot counting system, produced by Diebold, not working properly. Officials are still trying to figure out the exact issue - whether it was the system itself or the paper ballots printed by a local company. Vu said that during logic and accuracy testing performed the day before the election, results were not consistent and he decided it would be best to do a hand count.

The hand count of the absentee vote and the missing memory cards have delayed the tallying process, and final results of the election were not known at the time of publication.

Poll workers give mixed reviews
Some poll workers liked the new machines - but the training they received left them less than impressed.

At the Kiwanis Club in Richmond Heights, poll worker James Anderson said, "I like the new voting machines. I like this better [than punch cards]. The process is a lot faster and will be a lot faster when people catch on." In his polling place, one machine broke down and another's contrast was too dark - both quickly fixed by an election day technician. Anderson thought the training process was fairly easy, although felt perhaps there should have been more. He mentioned during his training a number of people left over concerns about not being trained enough.

Newspaper reports indicate that upwards of 20 percent of poll workers did not show up on Tuesday.

In Parma Heights, three poll workers for one precinct voiced displeasure with the training they received. While they said the voters were happy, they were not.

"We were all pretty overwhelmed. The training wasn't well organized. There were too many things to learn in three hours," said poll worker Jan March. Extra training was offered on Sunday before the election, but when all three tried to go, the turnout for the training was much larger than expected and too crowded - in frustration they left.

State Sen. Teresa Fedor, D-Toledo, said she wants more detailed information about poll worker training and has asked the state to audit federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) funds to see where and how the money was spent on training - for poll workers and elections board staff.

"It's not uniform across the state," Fedor said.

In a press release she said, "It is incredibly important that we know where the federal dollars from HAVA were spent. It is obvious that not enough money went towards poll worker training. We knew that this significant change was coming for years and election after election our poll workers and boards of elections staff are not trained properly on the new machines."

Ray Martinez, one of two Democratic commissioners on the four-member Election Assistance Commission, observed elections in both Franklin and Cuyahoga counties and witnessed some of the problems.

"My general impression - growing pains," he said. "What I want to take back to the EAC is that in jurisdictions that make a complete transition from old voting technology to new, that's where we need to emphasize a greater amount of comfort and training for poll workers and voters."

An Ohio Poll Worker's Journal

By Dan Shuey
Special to electionline.org

Editor's note - Former electionline.org intern Dan Shuey served as a roving troubleshooter during Tuesday's Ohio primary. He offered an hour-by-hour journal of his experiences helping to administer the first election in Muskingum County using electronic voting systems (Diebold TSx with voter-verified paper audit trail).

May 1, 2006. 5:00 p.m.

I show up at the County Board of Elections to receive my "rover" training and information. Rovers are traveling troubleshooters, given the task of serving several precinct locations and fixing any problems the poll workers cannot mend themselves. As part of the job, rovers file incident reports every time a poll worker must enter a machine in order to fix paper jams, etc. By 6:30 p.m. we are dismissed, as most of us will be getting up at 4:30 a.m. the next morning.

May 2, 2006. 4:30 a.m.

I wake up, put on my American flag tie and hit the road. My first priority is making sure that my precincts open on time today.

5:30 a.m. One hour until polls open

I arrive at my first of two polling places. This is the most critical time of Election Day. If we set up all of the machines correctly, my job should be easy the rest of the day. Only one poll worker is present so far, and nothing can be done until the rest are present to sign off on the "zero report" (the first printout that confirms no votes have yet been cast on any of the machines). We decide where the voting machines should be placed, remembering that one of the most frequent complaints last year was that voters did not feel they had enough privacy when casting ballots. There is some confusion as to how to set the machines up, but when I read aloud the step-by-step directions provided to us, the poll workers are able to get the zero machine running (The machine that is handicap accessible). Confident that the poll workers will be able to set up the other machines I leave for my next polling place, about five miles away.

6:15 a.m. 15 minutes until polls open

Despite my best attempts at getting lost, I pull into the next polling place before we open at 6:30 a.m. When I walk in, the machines are set up and I am bombarded with coffee, juice, and doughnuts. By 6:30 my stomach is full and our first voter arrives. The voter walks in, and the first poll worker asks the voter their name. The name is found in the registered voter list, and the voter signs their name. The second poll worker then asks the voter which ballot they want; Democrat, Republican, or "Issues-Only." After the voter responds, poll worker two enters their name and address on a sheet corresponding to their party. Poll worker three encodes a voter card, which tells the voting machine exactly which ballot the voter should receive when the voter inserts the card into the machine. This is a change from earlier punch-card systems where each ballot would have to have a different voting machine. After the voter casts their ballot, their vote is printed inside the machine,! they are given their "I voted" sticker and leave.

6:45 a.m. Polls open

The Board of Elections calls to inform me that a poll worker in a precinct downtown is unable to work, and I am needed as a poll worker instead of a rover. A troubleshooter/rover hired by Diebold takes over my original precincts.

7:00 a.m.

The Presiding Judge at my new precinct has been working the same district for 44 years, and the two other women working with her have been there for at least 10. Each of the women is roughly 60 years older than I am and inform me that they have computers but don't use them. They do have a good grasp of the machines, but assure me that my extra training will come in handy. I am assigned as poll worker four: I help the voters with any machine questions, and I am also the much-appreciated worker who hands out stickers.

8:30 a.m.

A man comes into the precinct to vote, and he asks for our help reading the ballot. I suggest we instead use the visually-impaired ballot that reads the candidate and issue information aloud for the voter. The voter thinks this is the best option, and although it takes him a long time to vote, he is able to without any poll worker assistance. This seems much more private and empowering compared to us reading it aloud to him.

10:00 a.m.

Our encoder (used to activate each ballot on the Diebold machine) is giving us problems. Sometimes the voting card will pop out of the voting machine and say voting cancelled. We call in the problem, and switch to our backup encoder. It works, but we compare number of ballots on the machines to the number of people who have voted to make sure that everyone who thinks they have cast their ballot truly has. The numbers match, and we simply switch to the backup encoder. The rest of the day runs smoothly, and we do not have to contact our rover or the Board of Elections again.

7:30 p.m.

The 15-hour ordeal is over. Few problems at my polling places were reported. The only actual incident we called in concerned the encoder and it was quickly dealt with. My final thoughts on the day are positive, and I think the directions supplied with the machines are thorough and protect the security of the ballots well. The only complaints voters had was that they had to tell us which ballot they wanted, which is unavoidable in a primary as they are voting for who represents a certain party in November. Older voters tended to be tentative around the machines, but if they were walked through the process it became apparent that it wasn't as hard as it might look. The ability to change the font size on the screen also appealed to older voters. In the end, the machinery really functioned as it was supposed to, and procedure supplied backup after backup after backup if things did not go as expected. It felt good knowing that I participated in the political process and helped! hundreds of others participate as well.

Plus, everyone loves the sticker guy.

II. Election Reform News This Week

• Tuesday's primary in North Carolina was also the first roll-out for electronic and accessible voting machines in a number of counties. Gary Bartlett, the state's election director, cited "minor glitches" and said he was pleased with the overall performance, The Associated Press reported in a story published in the News-Observer. Wilson County experienced some problems with touch-screen voting systems, particularly with the voter-verified paper audit trail printers, the Wilson Daily reported.

• Alabama became the second state in the country to be sued by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for failing to meet the deadlines of the Help America Vote Act. The Associated Press reported that DOJ could strip some of the $41 million the state has received to upgrade its voter list and voting systems. New York faced a similar action by DOJ earlier this year. Click here for the complaint.

• As the May 23 primary approaches, Arkansas counties have encountered problems with both paper and electronic ballots that threaten to delay both the distribution of absentee ballots and start of in-person early voting on electronic voting systems. The Arkansas Democrat and Gazette detailed absentee ballot printing delays in at least 14 counties, while missing electronic ballots could delay or even cancel an early voting period, the Baxter Bulletin reported.

• Voting system vendor ES&S faces more problems this week for failing to show up at pre-election test in a West Virginia county. (Our April 20 newsletter detailed ES&S troubles in Oregon and Indiana.) Kanawha County Commissioner Kent Carper filed a complaint with West Virginia's secretary of state, the Charleston Daily Mail reported, after ES&S representatives did not show up. The test could not be completed.