Remember those 348 (at least) unverified provisional ballots that were illegally and irretrievably commingled with polling place ballots?
This problem was anticipated months before the election in a report by a King County oversight commitee [see pp. 47 -48]:
FindingsAmong the recommendations :
• Provisional ballots are a necessary, valuable, and complex part of the election process.
• There is currently no way to identify a provisional ballot that has been counted in error at the polling place.
• Some provisional ballots are counted at poll sites in error during each election.
• Some provisional ballots are incorrectly processed during the canvass period.
• With the increased turnout expected in the 2004 presidential election, there will be an increase in the number of provisional ballots cast....
While the correct process requires that provisional ballots should be validated during canvassing before being tabulated and that they should not be counted at polling places, running a ballot through the poll site tabulator is an easy mistake for a voter to make. Poll workers are not always able to watch provisional ballots closely enough to prevent them from being counted.
Consider strategies – such as color coding ballots – so that they can be identified more easily during canvass.That seems like it would have been a no-brainer to implement and a good way to eliminate this problem. For whatever reason, it wasn't adopted.
The only question: is the incompetence genuine or is it designed into the process?
Hat tip: Shawn Newman, who posted this in a comment a few days ago.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 09, 2005 10:13 AM | Email ThisThey're not people who like democracy. They're
people who like fascist states--like Cuba.
You forgot about the two bumper stickers on their car: 'War is Terrorism' and 'Free Tibet'.
That's if they have a car, they probably voted for and are eagerly anticipating the Monorail.
Posted by: Larry on January 9, 2005 10:52 AMRCW 29A.04.610 lists 52 subject areas where the SOS was supposed to adopt rules pursuant to the reoganization of state election laws effective July 2004. The SOS failed to adopt these rules arguing that he was too busy with implementing the new primary.
As one activist e-mailed me, one of the reasons there should be no interuption is becuase it is necessary to run a Logic and Accuracy test EACH TIME use of the electronic scanners commences. By law this is a public process and should be witnessed. When machines are started and stopped many times during two or three weeks they should be L&A tested each new day. Obviously if they stop for a day or two between runs, the totals could be altered before the next start up. This is especially true given KC's own review in May, 2004.
Guess that would be Soundpolitics.com
http://plucrs.blogspot.com/
Reform should logically start at the top, but as we all know, that isn't likely to happen with Dems in power. Therefore, efforts as promoted by SP are steps in the right direction. This isn't just about Rossi and the governorship, it's about being able to trust the system.
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 9, 2005 12:47 PMCertainly there is massive room for improvement in King County Elections, but in this posting I attempt only to touch on what happens at the polling places.
Regarding the reported 22 ballots that were found in the bottom of some voting machines weeks after the election, this is not a sign that workers weren’t thorough enough in making sure they’d grabbed all of them, but rather that these ballots were not legitimately cast ballots. This poses the question why blank ballots were available for anyone (Elections employee or not) who might tamper with the process by planting them there after the election in hopes that they’d be counted? These ballots (each accounted for once all of the materials are returned to Elections headquarters) should be destroyed publicly and in full and open view so that no “extra” ballots can enter the system post-election
On a related subject of provisional ballots, if King County had wanted to ensure that provisional ballots were not cast along with poll ballots, they would have devised some sort of color coding or other system in order to keep those voting with provisionals from placing them in the AccuVote machines improperly which then are immediately tallied. To the same extent, absentee ballots should be yet a different color (at least they’re counted if they’re returned to the polls now before they’re sent back to the Elections department to be verified and counted) and then finally “re-marked” ballots should be yet a third as to absolutely ensure the integrity of the voting process while still adhering to the principle of voter privacy. This assumes that the AccuVote machines are able to read the various colored papers as accurately as the read plain paper ballots.
Lastly, a ballot box guard should be responsible for ensuring that no ballot is placed in the machines that should go through a different process to be verified and tallied.
This does seem like common sense, but remember that we’re talking about government and they’re not particularly prone to using (or having it for that matter) much of it.
David Carson
Redmond, WA
See the entry "Provisional Madness" on 5 Jan for the first-hand reporting on this.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 11, 2005 03:49 PMGod help us. Or if that doesn't work, Kinko's help us!
Posted by: Larry on January 12, 2005 11:14 PM