One of the fascinating subplots of this whole election mess that was forgotten as quickly as it surfaced was the 22 magical mystery absentee ballots that were discovered in a King County ballot box towards the end of the manual recount. The canvassing board voted not to count those ballots, so the whole story fell off the radar screen.
Where are they now?
In my Public Disclosure request of King County elections, I asked for a list of the names of the absentee voters in question and the precincts/polling places where the ballots were discovered. Superintendent of Elections Bill Huennekens told me that he could not give me this information as he does not have this information. The ballots were, in his words, "sealed in a box, according to state law". There was no investigation to determine what polling places these ballots came from, how they were placed in the ballot box, why they weren't removed during the first count, or which voters supposedly cast them. The voters, by the way, were NOT credited with voting. The County's position is that "they did not vote".
Astonishing.
I can see only two possibilities:
1) These were legitimately cast ballots that were somehow improperly handled by elections workers, in which case 22 voters were disenfranchsied solely by clerical incompetence.
2) These ballots were illegally stuffed into a ballot box in an attempt to commit fraud.
An investigation should be conducted to determine whether it was (1) or (2). If (1), a further investigation should determine how this happened, who should be held accountable, and even more importantly, how to fix any flaws in the process to prevent this from happening again. Indeed, the disenfranchised voters should be contacted so that they understand why their legitimate votes were not counted. If (2), whoever did this should be fired and prosecuted, and procedures revised to reduce the likelihood that such a fraud could be performed successfully in the future. Furthermore, it would be worth investigating what other frauds the perpetrators might have pulled off successfully this time.
But we'll apparently never know whether it was (1) or (2), nor will we have the confidence that whatever caused this breakdown will be rectified.
David Carson of Redmond, who says he was on the Citizen's Oversight Committee mentioned in an earlier post, wrote this in a comment at that post:
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-electionThe rest of his comment follows in the extended entry.
I was one of the 13 members that served on the King County Citizen's Election Oversight Committee and indeed many of the findings that we reported have gone unresolved. To be fair to Dean Logan (and it's hard because the lack of commitment to get to 100% compliance has really shown his organization to be unprofessional and sometimes inept), but the King County Elections Section was absolutely in shambles prior to his arriving on the scene and I know from personal observation that many things have been improved (and I know that with this election behind us, it’s hard to believe that, but it’s true). The closeness of this election has shown however that it's not good enough to be mediocre or even good, but that absolute perfection in planning, procedure and execution is required for there to be confidence that the elections process is fair and honest.
Certainly 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.
btw, I vote for #2. In light of all that's been unearthed about these people, it's all too likely.
Posted by: Michele on January 9, 2005 11:51 PMP.S.
I know you've heard it before, but thank you again for all of your work to help us have a reasonably honest election. Our prayers are with you.
God Bless!
TRUST US. WE'RE SMART, AND YOU'RE STUPID.
Posted by: South County on January 10, 2005 06:09 AMFrom: A non-Washington resident who came to this story late (i.e. AFTER the election).
It would be helpful to us if you could provide some basic, preliminary information about the procedures King County uses.
The magical 22 votes were described in the article thusly:
-------------------------------
"The board put off a decision on what to do with 22 other newly unearthed ballots. They had sat unsecured in the base units of voting machines already put into storage until they were belatedly discovered weeks after the Nov. 2 election. The 20 absentee and two provisional ballots were in pockets where voters are directed to place provisional and absentee ballots."
-----------------------------------
Does EACH polling place NOT keep a running tally of ballots submitted? I've been an observer in multiple states and EACH precinct was always required to have a SEPARATE tally of: walk-in voters (machine tally), absentees, provisional voters, same day registrants, etc.. Incredibly, they are also required, at day's end, to reconcile those tallies to the number of votes cast in each category.
In this case, such an "audit trail" would have led any given precinct to discover the "missing" absentee and provisional ballots IN REAL TIME, not after all security provisions had lapsed.
Does King County really NOT require such controls?
It would be helpful in following this ongoing saga if you would describe for us what King County's published procedures are (or, are supposed to be) for poll workers. Weren't written instructions provided to poll workers in each precinct. What did they say? In other words, is the problem one of lax procedures? Or were procedures not followed? Or both?
Thanks if you can clarify this.
Jeanne
One of the steps in closing out a polling place is to open up the "black box" to pull out all of the ballots. Various pockets in the box hold different types of materials. The main pocket holds voted ballots, i.e., those ballots that were tallied by the Accuvote machine. In fact, the main pocket divides the ballots into two stacks, those with write-in votes, and those without any write-in votes. The write-in ballots are packaged seperately so they can be hand tallied. (Of course, the non-write-in races on the write-in ballots are tallied normally by the Accuvote machine.)
The side pocket holds all other materials gathered during the day, including hand-delivered absentee ballots (with security envelope and mailer envelope), special ballots (aka provisional ballots, including security envelope and processing form envelope), change of address notification cards, abesentee ballot request cards, and death notification cards. After the polls close, the black box is opened up and all of these materials are collected and packaged up.
Usually, the black box is left unattended in the polling place overnight, and the following morning, the building custodian rolls it into a janitorial closet or storage room. For primary elections, the box is left on-site for the general election to be held in a few weeks. For general elections, the box is left with the custodial staff for a few days, after which it is collected by King County Elections. If the election inspector failed to collect all the absentee ballots from the side pocket, they lie uncounted in the polling place building for days or weeks. Presumably, when the boxes are collected by King County Elections staff, part of their procedure is to double-check that the boxes are empty.
During the training for elections inspector, the county emphasizes the need to search the box
thoroughly, suggesting to me that this type of mistake has happened in the past.
I agree with Stefan that it is important for the public to know which polling place the 22 ballots came from, and which voters those ballots belong to. It might be advisable to replace the inspector for that polling place.
"Does EACH polling place NOT keep a running tally of ballots submitted?"
Yes they do.
Each polling judge has a poll book that voters sign before receiving a ballot. A ballot stub is removed from the ballot and retained by the judge as a kind of receipt. If the voter makes a mistake on his or her ballot, a second ballot is issued, and the poll book is annotated to indicate a spoiled ballot was collected.
At the end of the night, each judge calculates the number of ballots "consumed" by subtracting the final ballot number from the initial ballot. The number of spoiled ballots is subtracted to get the number of regular ballots that were voted from that precinct. Then, all precincts for that polling place are added together. This number should match the total ballots number on the Accuvote machine. If they do not match, then the elections inspector should spend some time trying to reconcile the difference. If it cannot be reconciled, then the unreconciled results are reported, and it is left up to King County Elections to resolve the problem. Undoubtedly every election results is some polling places having unreconciled tallies, usually onesies and twosies, and it is only a major issue when an election is apparently extremely close.
What can go wrong at the polling place? A voter can recive a ballot and then walk out without casting it. A person can steal a ballot from the judge and vote it without it being recorded. A provisional ballot can be issued without tri-folding it, which permits it to be scanned by the Accuvote machine, without proper accountability. Out-of-precinct ballots can be smuggled in and passed through the Accuvote machine.
(Question: Does anyone know if King County's ballots contain barcodes that prevent this.)
(Comment: Absentee ballots arrive in your mailbox with creases in them, which is supposed to prevent ballots from being read by Accuvote machines, though I have never attempted this myself.)
A major source of complication is that Washington State law requires foreign language ballots to be available in precincts where the non-English speaking demographics reach a certain threshold. These ballots are assigned sequential numbers that parallel the English language ballots. To be honest, I never had to issue a non-English ballot, even though they were available in my polling places, so I can't really remember how these were factored in to the poll closing tallies. I can say that I think non-English ballots are an expensive, and dubious complicating of the voting process.
(Question: Does anyone know how many non-English ballots are used in King County?)
Finally, I should say that a relatively new step in the poll closing procedure is to count absentee ballots. There is no base number to compare it to, since these ballots can be out-of-precinct, and nobody knows how many are going to be returned. Still, it makes sense for the pollworkers to report how many were collected.
Hope this answers your question jeanneB.
Are you saying that procedure WAS in place or that it SHOULD BE in place? It would be inexcusable if poll workers were not required to keep a running total of ALL incoming ballots for later comparison with votes tallied.
Seems to me---given that 22 ballots were supposedly left in the machine---there was no matching of tallies to ballots. I mean, if you came up short 22 ballots, wouldn't the "pockets" in the machine be the first place you would look?!
-------------------
Lastly: Is there a source online where one can see the actual procedures King County hands out to poll workers?
Posted by: JeanneB on January 10, 2005 08:02 AMBear in mind that the acceptance of absentee ballots by polling places is just a convenience for the voters. (Should voting be this convenient? Just a thought...) The polling place is filling the same role as the postal service, delivering mail to the elections office. There is really no more need for the poll workers to count how much mail they delivered than there is for the post office to count how many absentee ballots they processed. Still, it is a good idea for the elections workers to count the absentees for appearances sake if for no other reason. We either have faith that election workers will deliver all absentee ballots received, and that King County Elections will faithfully validate and count all valid ballots... or we do not have faith in that. It's a shame if we do not have faith, and this is one voter who is losing faith in King County.
As I said before, these 22 ballots would not be a part of any tally, other than a count of absentee ballots in the box. At the time they are received in the polling place, they do not "belong" to to any precinct or even the polling place where they were dropped off... there is nothing to reconcile.
Does that makes sense?
King County does not publish it's pollworkers procedures online as far as I know.
We will only get superficial election reform from the powers that be, unless we the people demand real reform.
Posted by: jg on January 10, 2005 09:07 AMHaving poll workers count the incoming absentees [and all other vote(r)s] is more than "appearances". Such a procedure provides a couple of protections:
1) A double check at day's end telling poll workers and party observers whether all votes have been tallied, providing an opportunity to correct oversights on the spot.
2) A trail of any discrepancies BY PRECINCT. Later it's obviously easier to investigate a precinct's results rather than trying to research the entire county's combined ballots.
In future ALL absentee ballots dropped off at a polling place should be recorded somehow. Preferably there would be pre-numbered forms with a stub to tear off and give the absentee voter as a receipt. The numbered forms would provide a control total for how many absentee ballots there should be at closing time.
The polls close at 8:00 pm. The goal is to have the polling place work completed by 9:00 pm. Requiring poll workers to make a formal accounting of all absentee ballots turned in at the polling place would be very difficult. Remember, an absentee ballot could originate from any precinct in Washington State, heck,... it could even come from Idaho! In order to verify an absentee ballot, each polling place would need a list of all absentee voters in the state, which currently numbers some 2 million people. Nope, I don't see that happening.
The primary job of polling places is to facilitate regular voting. Extra duties include directing errant voters to their proper voting place and handing out and collecting voter registration forms, change of address forms, absentee status change forms, and death notifications. They also collect absentee ballots to forward to the Elections Office. They are not empowered or equipped to validate absentee ballots.
It would be very difficult for polling place workers to perform add any value to the processing of absentee ballots other than to count them.
Posted by: Huckleberry on January 10, 2005 11:20 AMIs that what you are thinking happens?
I am not saying it couldn't happen. In some polling places, it might happen. But you know, if it is happening, then there is no election law reform you could come up with that would allow you to hold an honest election. Such unscrupulous poll workers would subvert the system no matter what you did.
Maybe what you are saying is that the current crop of poll workers cannot be trusted, and need to be replaced. Am I close to what you are thinking?
Posted by: Huckleberry on January 10, 2005 11:29 AMAnother possibility: election workers either at the polling place or back at the election headquarters could know which precincts overwhelmingly vote D more than R or R more than D and just eliminate some of those ballots without looking at them.......
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on January 10, 2005 11:42 AMYour scenario is simple and safe, but I am still hopeful that it is not typically done.
Where are all the party operatives in all this? I worked three different polling places in King County, and I was visited by a party official exactly once... checking the voter turnout list. Where are all the poll watchers?
Party officials are never present in the polling place after hours. Aren't they allowed to observe the process?
The ballots and other materials get stowed in big duffle bags, and sealed, before they get driven to a collection center. The procedures call for poll workers from opposing parties to accompany the materials to ensure that the materials are not tampered with during the ride to the county collection site. To my knowledge, the parties do not take any action to ensure they are represented... the judges simply declare a party affiliation, and there is no one in the party headquarters verifying their party's interests are truly represented, as far as I can tell.
Are there any partisans out there that can address these questions?
I was focusing on the county's explanation: that these ballots were supposedly found in the pocket of machines weeks later.
By implication, THEY are the ones saying the poll workers screwed up.
If a system were in place whereby the election workers knew how many absentee ballots came in during the day, then the workers would have known how many ballots they expected to have at closing time. If they were short 22 ballots, their first instruction would have been to check the machine pockets before proceeding (Party observers should be able to observe this or check the pockets themselves during "close out"). Thus it would be impossible for management to later claim that ballots "just got left in the pockets".
I agree that precinct workers shouldn't tally absentees. Either don't allow absentees to be dropped at local precincts --- or provide a system whereby the precinct workers simply keep a running count of incoming absentees. Then, at day's end, count the total absentee envelopes and compare that number to the running total. If it doesn't match, start searching. Once verified, record the number in the precinct records, and then ship the absentees--UNopened--to the elections office.
My whole point was to devise a system that minimizes errors and protects workers by detecting mistakes as early in the system as possible. Also, by doing this you remove opportunities for "management" to manipulate the data later.
Posted by: jeanneB on January 10, 2005 02:18 PMOne simple reform on collection of absentee ballots is to not insert them in the black box. The side pockets were not designed to hold hundreds of bulky absentee ballots. Their purpose is to hold a few regular ballots that could not be processed through the Accuvote machine for whatever reason, i.e., a power failure, a "dirty" ballot, etc. The side pockets fill up quickly and get jammed with paper, because you typically take in as many absentee ballots as regular ballots.
Perhaps it is time to equip polling places with a good old fashioned mailbag for absentee voters to drop their ballots into. The poll workers would bear no reposnsibility for the mailbag other than to close it up and include it with the other election materials that get dropped off at the depot.
I am not convinced that the 22 mystery absentee ballots are a critical issue. They still need to go through a validation process. I think a bigger problem is too many people using absentee ballots in general. It is just too easy, and tempting, for a bereaved loved one to "do the right thing" and vote the way Johnny would have wanted, or for identity thieves to "do the wrong thing" by stealing and mailing in ballots.
We have to get the voters and the poll watchers back into the polls.
Posted by: Huckleberry on January 10, 2005 04:06 PM