Most of yesterday's canvassing board meeting was spent "interpreting voter intent" on several dozen ballots. Click here for a photo essay of some of the frightening "voter intent" determinations made yesterday, or keep reading for more background.
One of the hilarious claims made by the professional vote counters is that "Washington is a voter intent state"
Election laws give deference to voter intent where it can be determined over following instructions on how to mark a ballot.Sounds wonderful, but only if the folks who are divining "voter intent" can actually determine the voter's intent. Otherwise, "voter intent state" is just an Orwellian name for "canvassing board preference state"
I stood over Dean Logan's shoulder yesterday and took photographs of the canvassing board's "deference to voter intent". Conclusion: the determination of voter intent is little more than a series of arbitrary and inconsistent decisions that is ripe for manipulation and abuse. No surprise that in the biggest display of democracy the Democrats have seen, a good chunk of the margin of victory was determined by the capricious "voter intent" decisions of the three members of an urban political machine sitting on the canvassing board.
Click here for a photo essay of the arbitrary and ridiculous "voter intent" determinations made by the King County Canvassing Board on November 10, 2005. And then let's talk about how we can change from being a "canvassing board preference state" into a legitimate voter intent state.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 11, 2005 12:14 PM | Email ThisOn a side note, I don't know if you ever get over to "HA" anymore, but Goldy really appears to be obsessed with you. Rarely, have you made note of Goldy's comments on "SP." I am not sure that he even opines on anything anymore, without somehow bringing you into the picture.
Maybe he is secretly in love with you.. ;)
An X by itself in an oval, is a vote for that item, however when both ovals are filled in, and an X is placed over one oval, that means the voter was trying to cross off that choice.
So, using that logic, if a voter placed only X's in the ovals, what they are really saying is they do NOT want that choice and by default are really choosing the other oval, which is not marked.
Posted by: Todd H on November 11, 2005 01:07 PMStefan, keep up the good fight. In Snohomish County, there are a few races where the difference is 100 votes or less. It is obvious that our voting systems and processes need to be as clean as possible so that ANY time a race gets that close, we know that the result is "true and accurate".
King County has spoiled that for all, and because that county has the ability to override the rest of the state, it needs to be the cleanest.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 11, 2005 01:17 PMI DO NOT WANT ANYONE TOUCHING MY BALLOT WITH A PEN IN THEIR HAND PERIOD!
Posted by: GS on November 11, 2005 01:31 PM/sarc
Overvote is more than one vote for a position (both Irons and Sims marked on the ballot).
Undervote is no vote for a position (no vote marked).
Overvote--more than one selection for a race or issue.
Undervote--no selection for a race or issue.
The solution is real simple:
If the voter cannot follow the instructions. That selection is not counted.
None of this "voter intent" crap.
Posted by: JCM on November 11, 2005 01:34 PM
Frankly, if some people can't decipher the instructions, they're not smart enough to vote, and I don't want important decisions made by them. If they can't puzzle it out, at least get a friend to tell them how to do it, and if they don't have friends, I don't want them deciding issues either.
One citizen, one vote, sure, but there has to be more criteria than a heartbeat. (Simplistic, and highly controversial, I know.)
If you can't fill out the ballot, ask the nice poll judges to help you, as long as you were a resident for at least 30 days. :)
For a look at the future of King County, please review all the fun the Frogs are experiencing over in Europe, since they are so enlightened and "tolerant."
Posted by: Danny on November 11, 2005 01:50 PMCorrect if procedure is followed, neither an undervote or overvote is counted.
How friggin' hard is it to completely fill in one and only one circle for each office or measure? If you make a mistake make an X through the mistake and fill in the correct one.
Looking at the photos of some of those ballots, you really have to wonder at the level of intelligence involved.
Posted by: JCM on November 11, 2005 02:03 PMIf you don't like the way things are done, try passing a law that requires ballots to be filled out properly to be counted. But for now, the law requires the canvassing board to determine voter intent. While I might disagree on particular decisions, I don't see any evidence that they are making their decisions in a partisan manner.
Posted by: wayne on November 11, 2005 02:16 PMThere is no consistency from ballot to ballot.
It would be much less of an issue if the judgements were consistant. The judgements made tilt in favor of democrats and leftist issues.
Posted by: JCM on November 11, 2005 02:23 PMHow likely is it that a voter begins his ballot (and in some cases completes his ballot) in one type of ink then goes back and messes it up in another color of ink? It looks like someone purposely tagged these ballots by adding marks in the blank ovals - in order to have the voters original intent changed in the canvassing process....
Posted by: Deborah on November 11, 2005 02:41 PMPeople who vote independently don't necessarily follow patterns. Look at last November. In King county, Kerry led overwhelmingly. So did other Democrats. All other issues on the ballot probably followed along Democratic lines - except that they also voted for Dino, the one break in the "pattern".
Maybe you can divine the intent if the ballot is marked cleanly, but not filled in well enough for the machine to read. In all other cases, your impressions or subliminal intents should not be substitued for what the voter actually marked.
One big selling point on an absentee ballot is that the voter has lots of time to study the issues and mark their ballot. They also have lots of time to make sure it is clean and correct.
If they can't get it right even then, tough. It's not up to election workers to get your ballot right - it is up to you. Election workers should only have to count your ballot right.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 11, 2005 02:50 PMTaking you last point first, I don't see any tilt in favor of "democrats and leftist issues." I see several times when votes in favor of I-912 and I-330 were counted. Please remember that these samples were selected by Stefan also, so it would be easy enough to pick only ones that were in favor of Sims and against 912 for instance, and I don't see that he has done that. I also don't see him making a case that the errors were consistently favoring one side or the other.
As to your first argument, you missed my point. If you can't see the whole ballot, you can't tell if the board's decision is inconsistent. For example, let's say you have two ballots and for I-330 on both of them one bubble is empty and the other has an "X". If you only look at that race, there is no way the board could interpret these differently. However, if you look at the whole ballot, you could have different decisions without being inconsistent. If one voter marks one bubble with an x and leaves the other blank throughout the whole ballot, it seems pretty obvious to me the voter intended to indicate his choices with an "X". On the other hand, if the other ballot has properly filled in bubbles for every other race and the only "x" appears in the section with no bubble filled in, I would not consider that an indication of voter intent.
My point is that you can't judge the consistency of the board's decisions without seeing the whole ballot. Showing only a small section could be misleading.
Posted by: wayne on November 11, 2005 03:02 PMI'll post the full original photographs when I can so you can see for yourself that these decisions were not generally justified by a clear and consistent pattern on the ballot.
I'd like to abolish this voter intent farce altogether. In the interim, I would insist that all ballots where intent is adjudicated by the canvassing board be photographed and made available online along with the roll call of the canvassing boards' vote on each determination.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on November 11, 2005 03:22 PMThe on screen voting will eliminate this though, won't it???????
Posted by: sgmmac on November 11, 2005 03:54 PMSo keep doing what you are doing, there never seems to be a lack of liberal waste and misconceptions to report on.
By the way where is Gregoire these days! Has anyone seen her on TV, or in the news? Not that I care to see her, but she must be in sheer hiding, and especially in the rest of the state that she seems to be screwing at every turn!
Posted by: GS on November 11, 2005 04:02 PMSee my earlier posts. Thank you so much for taking those pictures. I have privately been arguing for the last eight months or so, to anyone who would listen, that we need legislation to not just authorize the taking pictures of canvass board decisions, BUT REQUIRE it.
Hopefully, I am no longer alone.
G.
How would the abolishment be implemented ? Is this a job for Tim Eyman ? I don't see the Democrat controlled legislature moving on this one at all, since their perception is that it favors them. In reality, this would require a citizen's initiative. I'd like to see this occur and if it starts now, it can be on the ballot in 2006. That would be a safeguard against voter fraud - perpetrated by elected officials.
Posted by: KS on November 11, 2005 04:05 PMVoting, tabulation, etc. should never be a subjective process. There should be no human input whatsoever beyond the initial marks of the voter. If by some chance a ballot is munched by a machine in counting, marks could be transferred on to a new ballot, but only exactly as they appear.
This could be handled on a per issue/ per candidate basis, or on a whole ballot basis. Frankly, if it were up to me, I would throw out all ballots that were inconclusive in any race, unless they were simply undervotes where the voter declined to make any marks at all. Voting is not hard, but subsidizing inept voting does not solve the problem, or make the voting process more secure or more accurate.
I like the idea that we are moving to electronic machine voting, simply because we won't have to see this bullsh_t voter intent intepretation circus any more.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 11, 2005 04:06 PMAs you might recall, I did a statistical analysis of ballot enhancement for the 2004 recount of the governor race. It showed a bias toward Gregoire which indicated either a bias by the Canvassing Board or that Greqoire voters tended to screw up their ballots more than Rossi voters (or both).
Speaking of clarity again, some of the decisions in 2004 were 2 to 1 votes. How can anyone say that voter intent was clear if there was disagreement over what the voter intended?
Posted by: Bob Edelman on November 11, 2005 04:09 PMKeep in mind what Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said on December 11, 2000 during the oral arguments in Bush v. Gore, "Well, why isn't the standard the one that voters are instructed to follow, for goodness sakes? I mean, it couldn't be clearer. I mean, why don't we go to that standard?"
Voter intent should be counted if, and only if, the voter intended and attempted to perform the actions that would have marked the ballot properly. If an oval is rather faded because an election official neglected to replace a pen that was running a bit dry, that should not be deemed the fault of the voter. If an oval is 98% filled in but there's a tiny spec of blank space, it's like the voter tried to fill it in all the way but didn't quite succeed. But if an oval simply has an "X" or a check mark, it's clear the voter wasn't trying to fill in, in the manner required and thus the vote should not count.
It should be noted that a few years ago, in a local race in the city of Rockford (IL), this sort of issue came up. The city used paper ballots and voters were instructed to put an "X" in the proper box for their candidate. If ballots where a box had a "checkmark" in them would have been counted, the winning candidate would have been defeated. But the rules were quite clear: a proper vote is an "X". A checkmark is not a proper vote.
BTW, I found it very interesting that many of the ballots shown had some ovals marked with "X"'s in addition to the filled-in circles. IMHO, for a variety of reasons, such ballots should have been thrown out entirely. To me, it seems very likely that the "X"'s and ovals were marked by different people. Does anyone else get that impression?
One of the historical requirements for ballots (made complicated by the need to support write-ins, but still generally applicable) is that two ballots voting for the same candidates should be indistinguishable from one another. Stray marks and overvotes are forbidden, and are justification for throwing out an entire ballot for ALL races thereon (incidentally, I happen to think that different races should be on different pieces of paper; this would avoid the complications posed by write-ins).
Posted by: supercat on November 11, 2005 04:39 PMIt would be more work. I also like the idea of telling people that their vote didn't count because they didn't fill it out properly. I bet they would learn fast. Maybe some of our main stream media guys need to publish some pictures of ballots from canvassing boards.....
We also need a new space under each candidate's name for "None of the Above." I know Nevada has one, but I remember reading that ovals were filled in for candidates when voters didn't vote at all, claiming because the rest of the ballot was all on party, the voter intent was clear.
I also remember reading that a vote for Christine Rossi was counted for Chris Gregoire. I think it was the Evergreen Freedom Foundation Report, which was very detailed.
The Republicans dropped this voter intent stuff from their lawsuit last year, but it clearly determined the election.
Posted by: sgmmac on November 11, 2005 05:15 PMVoter intent? There is no way of discerning voter intent from any of these photos. It's absurd that they would even try!
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on November 11, 2005 06:06 PMI'd word it as "NO CANDIDATE SELECTED", but I think such a thing should be included on all ballots. Further, optical-scan machines should reject all invalid ballots, period; if someone messes up, they should get a new ballot. Thus, if a race has "No Candidate Selected" in addition to a candidate marking, that would constitute very strong evidence that someone tampered with the ballot after it was cast.
Posted by: supercat on November 11, 2005 06:22 PMThere are sound reasons why this is not possible (more generally, it should be impossible for anyone--including a voter--to prove how a particular person voted except when a result is essentially unanimous). The way write-in ballots are handled messes with this somewhat, but the proper solution is to fix that, perhaps by using separate sheets of paper for different races.
In case you're curious why it's a bad thing for voters to be able to prove how they voted, let me offer you two reasons (not, by any stretch, the only two): (1) Hey starboard, I'd really hate for your kneecaps to get broken, but if you vote for Mr. Goode and give me a receipt, that might not happen; (2) Hey starboard, I'll give you $100 if you go in there and vote for Mr. Goode. Note that under a proper anonymous-ballot system, #2 is still possible BUT starboard would have the option to vote for Mr. Otherguy and say he voted for Mr. Goode, and unless Mr. Otherguy won nearly unanimously nobody would be the wiser.
Posted by: supercat on November 11, 2005 06:27 PMPrior to 2005, the regulations permitting enhancement (i.e., modification) or duplication to reflect voter intent were based on statutory construction of RCW 29.54.050 in Knowles v Holly, 82 Wn.2d 694. This statute was revised and subsequently superceded by RCW 29A.60.040, which, in pertinent part provides: “Those parts of a ballot are invalid and no votes may be counted for those issues or offices where … that issue or office is not marked with sufficient definiteness to determine the voter's choice or intention”. It can be inferred from this that if the voter’s choice is marked improperly but the intention is clear then that part of a ballot should not be rejected.
The 2005 Legislature enacted RCW 29A.60.125, which codified duplication to reflect voter intent and prohibited the past practice of modifying the original ballot. The statute provides in part: “If inspection of the ballot reveals a physically damaged ballot or ballot that may be otherwise unreadable or uncountable by the tabulating system, the county auditor may refer the ballot to the county canvassing board or duplicate the ballot if so authorized by the county canvassing board. The voter’s original ballot may not be altered. A ballot may be duplicated only if the intent of the voter’s marks on the ballot is clear and the electronic voting equipment might not otherwise properly tally the ballot to reflect the intent of the voter. Ballots must be duplicated by teams of two or more people working together”
From the examples shown, and some of the ones we saw last year, I think there needs to be more definition of how to actually determine voter intent. As I pointed out earlier, there were several ballot items in Snohomish County that were within only 100 votes or so. I sure wouldn't be comfortable in these close races with the level of subjectivity shown by King County.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 11, 2005 10:02 PMUnfortunately, it is almost impossible to avoid judging voter intent. No matter how strict the standards, there will always be questions of how to interpret a misplaced dot or whatever. You could just say that the machine's judgment is final; that eliminates bias but doesn't necessarily result in a better decision. For that matter, two machines might read ballots slightly differently. Personally I could go with either system, but you should recognize that neither is perfect.
Electronic voting systems that provide clear feedback solve this problem, but of course they have other problems, and it will be a long time before they are secure enough for absentee voters.
And yes, many voters clearly are stupid. Much as we'd all like to imagine that those idiots are from the other party -- sometimes I think this is the premise of SoundPolitics -- I don't think any party (or county) has a monopoly on stupidity.
Posted by: Bruce on November 11, 2005 10:17 PMShe was on the news the night of teh rock slide on I-90 in the days leading up to the election. She was talking about how "The rock slide problem was something that would be addressed by the tax package passed by the legislature..."
In other words, she was basically campaigning against I-912, without coming right out and saying so.
Posted by: Chad on November 11, 2005 10:49 PMMark, I agree with your concern. One would hope that the voter filled out the ballot one day with one pen, then changed their mind and the next day corrected the ballot with a different pen. Seeing all the pens in the hands of the canvassing board gives one doubt, however.
Bob Edelman, thank you for posting the applicable RCW. There are several problems with what the canvassing board is trying to do. First, they have no standards by which they make their decisions. It appears that they make up a standard as they go along, and it changes from ballot to ballot. That lack of standard violates the 14th amendment to the US Constitution, and was affirmed in Bush v. Gore. Second, the statute states, " The voter’s original ballot may not be altered." It appears to me that by writing on the ballot, circling candidate's names or otherwise marking up the ballot by the canvassing committee violates RCW 29A.60.125. A reasonable person could argue that the code prohibits enhancing the ballot so that it could be read by a machine, but on it's face it means that the ballot shall not be touched by pen other than by the voter. Naturally, KC's department of fraud thinks that it's OK to write on a ballot. From there it's easy to imagine that they may have marked up other ballots as well. Let's let the courts decide what "The voter’s original ballot may not be altered." means. In my opinion it means, "The voter’s original ballot may not be altered." This means no green pen, no red pen, no circles, no marks, period. End of discussion.
As long as determining "voter intent" is within the law, KC should find a way to count those votes without making marks on the ballots so there is accountability.
The department of elections should come up with standards for "determining voter intent." Those standards would then get tested in court to determine exactly the intent of the RCW. Red marks, green marks, blue marks, black marks...But I digress.
Until then we will have partisans making decisions for voters that may not represent their intent. For all their protests, the liberals should remember the words of their currently favorite member of SCOTUS, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor:
"Well, why isn't the standard the one that voters are instructed to follow, for goodness sakes? I mean, it couldn't be clearer. I mean, why don't we go to that standard?"
Conference here for gays, lesbians
Seattle will host about 200 gay and lesbian policymakers from throughout the U.S. and overseas at a conference Nov. 17-20 on human rights for gays and related issues.
Gov. Christine Gregoire will deliver the keynote address at the Gay & Lesbian Leadership Conference, with other speakers including two gay members of Congress, Reps. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.
Delegates will discuss ways to advance gay rights around the globe, repeal laws that criminalize same-sex relations and consider a new program that encourages closeted leaders to be open about their sexual orientation.
The conference, at the Sheraton Seattle Hotel and Towers, is open only to registered delegates, though an awards dinner Nov. 19 is open to the public, at $100 a ticket.
Posted by: Organization Man on November 12, 2005 08:06 AMHere’s what I propose:
1. Standards for duplication of absentee ballots to reflect voter intent should be uniform throughout the state. Federal law requires: “Each State shall adopt uniform and nondiscriminatory standards that define what constitutes a vote and what will be counted as a vote for each category of voting system used in the State.” See 42 USC 15481(a)(6). Uniform statewide procedures are the responsibility of the Sam Reed but he has abdicated responsibility to the counties. WAC 434-261-100 gives each county auditor the responsibility for developing procedures for ballot duplication (i.e., creation of ballots reflecting voter intent) and WAC 434-261-070 allows the canvassing board to override decisions made to whatever standards are established by those standards. This violates the federal code and also results in equal protection violations when some counties duplicate under more stringent procedures than others and when the canvassing board does not use consistent criteria in its decisions. There must be uniform statewide procedures and Reed should issue those procedures.
2. The following could be implemented in King County and might serve as a standard:
a. A cursory inspection of ballots would be made when removed from their security envelopes. This would be for the purpose of rejecting ballots with identifying information, obvious damage, and multiple ballots folded together.
b. Each batch of mail ballots would be run through an AccuVote machine that has been programmed to bypass accumulating totals. This would check the ballots for machine acceptability only. Ambiguous situations such as a mixture of filled in ovals and extraneous marks would normally not result in rejection, just as they would not with a poll ballot. This should greatly reduce the number of subjective decisions that might be made.
c. Rejected ballots would be inspected for duplication. The most common would probably be
i. Proper correction of a vote by crossing it out. This would appear as an over vote to the optical reader and would be rejected so that a corrected ballot could be produced.
ii. Improper correction of a vote by attempted erasure. If the erasure were unsuccessful then the ballot would be rejected for having an over vote.
iii. Consistent use of check marks, cross marks, circles, etc. instead of filling in ovals. The ballot would be rejected as if it were blank.
iv. Use of ink that is not recognized by the machines optical reader. This again would appear to be a blank ballot.
d. Incorrect write-in votes would be processed the same as poll ballots. Write-ins would be manually counted if the race were sufficiently close.
3. If canvassing boards choose to delegate duplication decisions to election personnel then election personnel decisions on clarity of voter intent should not be overridden unless they are failing to follow guidelines.
Essentially what I understand you to say is that over votes, blank ballots, incorrect write-ins and duplicated ballots are rejected, and the subjective element of canvassing boards in determining "voter intent" eliminated?
I see nothing wrong with outright elimination of canvassing board authority entirely especially in regard to so called voter intent. Anyone who cannot fill out a ballot and do so properly lacks an intent that is worth determining.
AMEN Brotha!!!
Posted by: Danny on November 12, 2005 03:45 PMNo ballots from the precinct that I worked at, a very busy walk in voting precinct, ended up being sent to Dean Logan's canvassing board for their voter determination.
Therefore, this whole conversation and these ballots in question were cast by people who voted with absentee ballots that were rejected, and were sent to the Dean Logan canvassing board for their illegal markup and determination.
If a ballot in your voting place is rejected when you put it in an accuvote machine, it is rejected you are given it back to correct, if you cannot correct it, you are given a new ballot. Dean Logan's canvassing board will NEVER have an opportunity to touch or remark your ballot!
If you mess up in a polling place, you can always ask for a new ballot. Poll workers are instructed to give you a new ballot. Do it if you mark a ballot wrong!
So if you do not want your ballot decided by Dean Logan and his canvassing board, you have a few clear choices:
Cancel your absentee voting, and go to a polling place in your area where the accuvote machine will decide your ballot and provide you with an immediate assurance of your choices.
Put the Dean Logan Canvassing board out of business, cancel your absentee voting today. It is easy and fun to go to a polling place where your vote is really counted.
Posted by: GS on November 12, 2005 06:18 PMYou are correct. Absentee voting opens you up to "Voter intent" decisions...where Poll voting does not!
I'd like to compare the voting dynamics from previous years to this year in counties that have recently gone to All Mail Voting. I have a feeling we will see a huge change in initiative support and rejection than what was the norm before the change...
This explains some of the questions I've had since the election.....
The counties that have gone to All Absentee/Mail voting can send any number of ballots (thousands) to their canvassing boards for voter intent and they can sway an election result...and no one will know! The only way to determine if fraud was committed would be to examine the original ballots and the duplicates (If a duplicate was made..)
That last little announcement probably cost Irons his shot and made the rest of the republican party look like fools... Also Vance talks way too much.. Say the Republican party is doing this because the system in King County is flawed... PERIOD end of story. No more comments. Take a lesson from Keyshawn Johnson!!! In regards to Terrell Owens, Keyshawn says NOT MY PROBLEM.
Posted by: What the Republicans should be doing on November 13, 2005 03:16 PMThese people are absolute morons. How long has fill in the blank tabulation been around? 25/30 years? My god. These people are a joke. If you can not follow the directions and you screw up as bad as this, then you vote doesn't count. THEY screwed up. Tough sh*t!!
I would like to say that if children in Seattle schools do this on their tests then they are flunking. But then again you can't flunk in Seattle schools, cause "we're all winners and we are all special".
So lets here it...RTFD!, RTFD!, RTFD!
Posted by: Dengle on November 13, 2005 09:39 PMAccording to WAC 434-261-070 Manual inspection of ballots., a manual inspection of all mailed ballots is required, to determine that they don't contain extraneous markings that might confuse the tabulating machine. Further, the rules allow the canvassing board may delegate the authority for routine processing to the county auditor, so that only ballots where voter intent is difficult to determine get forwarded to the canvassing board.
Therefore, as GS and Deborah have warned, Dean Logan and his staff pretty much have carte blanche for processing all absentee ballots however they see fit. The canvassing board has totally booted it's responsibilities to an unelected bureaucrat appointed by the County Executive. My God!
Posted by: huckleberry on November 15, 2005 10:12 AM