On the basic question whether signature verfication is a credible method for maintaining security on mail-in and provisional ballots:
Sam Reed in chat with The Olympian, February 15, 2005
In fact, mail ballots seem to be a pretty secure way of voting because we have more control over the ballot when it gets back to the county courthouse, more so than at a polling place.Chris Vance in chat with The Olympian, March 16, 2005
With mail ballots, the only fallback you have is signature verification, and right now signature verification in this state is a flat-out joke.Having seen the sausage being made, I have to agree with Chris Vance that relying on signature verification for ballot security is a joke.
Signature verification is normally performed by election workers (who in King County are members of the Teamsters Union) hidden from public scrutiny and even concealed from party election observers. It's a rare moment for any of us to see signature verification in practice. Tuesday's meeting of the canvassing board gave us a glimpse when they reviewed a few signatures and did the best that any human could do under the circumstances, which is to make some arbitrary, subjective and questionable determinations. In at least one of the five cases I looked at, they made a wrong determination and incorrectly rejected a voter's ballot. I've posted some examples and I've also included audio clips of the deliberations that accompanied the decisions --
1. Signature on registration record:
Signature on ballot envelope:
Disposition: accepted [audio]
2. Signature on registration record:
Signature on ballot envelope:
Disposition: accepted [audio]
3. Signature on registration record:
Signature on ballot envelope:
Disposition: rejected [audio]
4. Signature on registration record:
Signature on ballot envelope:
Disposition: rejected [audio]
I contacted Ms. Power and she informed me that the signature on the registration form and the ballot are both hers. Like many, if not most, of us, her signature isn't 100% consistent with every signing. Is that a good reason to disenfranchise someone? And does it make sense to rely on signature for a security method when you have to incorporate the realistic assumption that peoples' signatures occasionally vary?
5. Signature on registration record:
Signature on ballot envelope:
Disposition: rejected [audio]
I don't fault the members of the canvassing board for this process that they have inherited. Dan Satterberg and Dow Constantine themselves expressed concerns about the problems that they saw [audio]. I do fault the process of signature verification itself, which is inherently weak and insufficiently precise to provide reasonable security and a legitimate result in a close election.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 30, 2005 11:35 AM | Email ThisSo now I know that when I vote next election, I had better make sure that the signature on my ballot is exactly the same as that on my voter registration.
So now I know that when I vote next election, I had better make sure that the signature on my ballot is exactly the same as that on my voter registration.
Editors of Seattle Times and P-I, hang your heads in shame.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on November 30, 2005 01:29 PMOr how about a suit against KCE for knowingly keeping invalid registrations on the rolls?
Or how about a suit against KCE for invalidating even one vote by counting an illegal one?
Mr. Sharkansky has provided proof enough for this, how much could it cost?
Posted by: HappyGoLucky on November 30, 2005 01:48 PMShouldn't every rejected signature result in an investigation by the prosecutors office? If not, why not? Are the voters contacted after the election about the mismatch?
If both signatures are actually from the same person, how does the board explain to the voter why they were disenfranchised? If the voter did a sloppy job with their signatures, why is this the only reason for rejection? We've seen the pains the board goes to with ballots that are even more sloppily marked - to try to do all they can not to disenfranchise that voter.
Looking at some of the signatures accepted leaves me baffled. Signature verification is way too subjective. Would handwriting experts (that are acredited to testify in court as experts) agree with the decisions made by the board?
With all mail voting, do we need a core staff (at the state level) that are acredited?
As long as people insist on voting by mail another level of security is needed. I would like to see use of a thumbprint on mail ballots. Unfortunately, nobody has developed a reasonably inexpensive system for untrained people to put their thumbprint on ballots. A second choice is to require voters to include a secret PIN on their ballot envelope that is hidden under a security flap.
Does anyone have other ideas on how we could add security?
What is needed is more secure two factor authentication, like we have for everything else in life that is security sensitive. You have an ATM card, and you know the PIN number. Note that we also have a massive fraud problem with credit cards for the same exact reason as the problems with ballots. You have the card, and you know the signature, but it turns out that signatures are far too subjective for authentication in real time. This is why VISA, Mastercard and Amex are always making tweaks to try and fix what we have now, and may have to submit to regulation that forces them to make credit cards more secure. Should we expect anything less from government?
The best way to solve the problem, is to go to all electronic voting where we can both secure and authenticate the process, and at the same time do away with the ambiguity of overvotes and other subjective canvassing board determinations. However, not only would that be a huge cost, it does also introduce the potential for problems.
For now, we should simply do away with mail ballots and use the polling equipment that we have, whether it be optical scanners, electronic voting machines, punch cards, etc. and then phase in new equipment as budgets allow.
Note that in the recent election in Iraq, there sure as hell weren't any mail ballots.
In the security business, we often note that convenience is the reciprocal of security. You can put more locks and alarms on your house, at the expense of making it harder to go in and out on a regular basis. But by the same token, leaving your door unlocked, indeed makes it easier for you to get in and out of your home, but also easier for those with ill intent.
There's an idea for an intiative. Scrap mail balloting. Probably would not pass due to the stupidity of those who leave their houses unlocked too, but it would be a great way to bring awareness to the issue.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 30, 2005 03:15 PMStefan, I am willing to bet that the VAST MAJORITY of the 2,491 absentee ballot voters whose ballots were rejected for signature mismatch in the November 2005 election ACTUALLY VOTED PROPERLY AND SIGNED THEIR OWN BALLOTS!
You should make a public records request to review all 2,491 rejected absentee ballot signature mismatch envelopes, and make or get copies of these.
Then contact the 2,491 disenfranchised voters and tell them what happened and get some to sign affidavits that the attached copy really is the envelope that they signed and mailed in.
WE CAN BLAME DEAN LOGAN FOR DISENFRANCHISING PROBABLY WELL OVER 2,000 LEGITIMATE VOTERS! (I would seriously doubt that even 100 of the rejected absentee ballots are actual forgeries.)
I would note that the total number of signature mismatches in November 2004 general election in King County -- with around 600,000 absentee ballots (versus a little under 400,000 this year) ended up being a little under 1,000 (including the "no signature on file" category where they still couldn't locate anything on those misfiled "Larry Phillips" ballot). I think something like 1,544 minus 566 or something like that.
This year we have 2,491 signature mismatches, plus another 167 signed absentee ballots that were rejected because Dean Logan's office lost the voter registration form with the voter's original signature. This is a total of 2,658 signed absentee envelopes (and I bet 95% of them actually signed by the real voter in question) rejected this year.
The rate of rejection of signed absentee ballots this year is nearly four times the percentage that were rejected last November -- 2.7 times as many rejections with about 2/3 as many ballots.
And last year's signed absentee ballot rejection rate -- even after taking out the 566 misfiled "Larry Phillips" ballots -- was far higher in King County percentage wise than in any other county in the entire state.
Dean Logan and the Democrats do a really screwed up job of processing absentee voters. If the end result last November had been as screwed up as it was this year (let's say 4,000 rejected signed ballots, versus 1,000 rejected signed ballots), Dino Rossi would have been elected Governor by a margin of several hundred voters.
The only reason why Dean Logan and the Democrats did only a half-assed screw-up in November 2004 was because the Governor's race was so close, and the Democrats needed every vote they could get out of King County.
This year, by contrast, there was no such pressure. Ron Sims won by a comfortable margin. So Dean Logan and his gang could just sit on their asses and reject lots and lots of ballots because they felt like it or were too lazy to do anything else.
There is no way of knowing who filled out the ballot and under what circumstances. Given the performance of signature verification no one is sure who signs the envelope.
There is no security.
We assume the intended recipient receives the ballot.
We assume the registered voter to whom the ballot was sent filled out the ballot.
We assume the signature is valid.
We assume the voter is submitting one and only one ballot.
We assume the voter is a legal voter.
There is no security at KCE.
We are told to trust KCE that:
Ballots are secure.
No ballots can be removed.
No ballots can be added.
No ballots can be lost.
Signature verification is apparently a random exercise. On top of that improperly filled out ballots are subjected to the canvassing board "divining" voter intent.
Mail ballot are not, cannot be secured.
Mail ballots are a joke.
Our electoral system is not joke and should not be subjected to a joke which can, has, and will continue to alter the outcome of elections.
Posted by: JCM on November 30, 2005 04:17 PMWhile I like the security issues that you're addressing above, voting is one of those things that you really ought to have to show up for (unless you're overseas military, etc.).
Posted by: YourGovernorCostMillion$ on November 30, 2005 04:21 PMWe don't have that now!
Posted by: GS on November 30, 2005 04:55 PM"A Model to the Nation and to the rest of the world!"
Merry Christmas!
Posted by: Mikey on November 30, 2005 05:10 PMPeople who vary their "signatures" to the extent shown in these examples have no reason to complain when the obvious mismatch results in excluding their ballots.
What amazes me is that "hm m m" was accepted as a valid signature even though it doesn't resemble the signature on file.
The solution is simple, but it won't happen in a state full of people who demand convenience over security: Require voters who cannot go to the polls to go to a notary public to prove their identities. It's not a perfect way to avoid fraud, but it would be better than the guesswork now used when each envelope typically gets a glance. (Even with more than a glance, the outcome is -- as you've shown -- unpredictable.)
WAC 434-261-050 Unsigned oath or mismatched signatures. If a voter neglects to sign the oath on an absentee or provisional ballot envelope, or the signature on the envelope does not match the signature on the voter registration file, the auditor shall notify the voter by phone, as required by RCW 29A.60.165, if the voter has provided the auditor with a phone number. Leaving a message for the voter is not sufficient. If, at least one week prior to the certification of the election, the county auditor still has not been able to contact the voter by phone, the county auditor shall send a first class letter to the voter. If the ballot is received within one week of certification, the county auditor shall both send a letter and telephone the voter. The voter must sign the oath that appeared on the envelope.
Your response to sgmmac answered some of my questions, but I am curious - if all of these procedures are followed and no correction is done regards the signature, what happens next? I assume the ballot is rejected. Is the registration made inactive?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 30, 2005 06:53 PMI had to wonder if that represented the entirety of the conservative vote there.
This is an entirely mail ballot county.
Posted by: dave on November 30, 2005 09:11 PMI should have quoted the statute. It gives a better description of the process. If the procedure is not followed then there are grounds for a civil rights suit.
RCW 29A.60.165
Unsigned absentee or provisional ballots.
(1) If the voter neglects to sign the outside envelope of an absentee or provisional ballot, the auditor shall notify the voter by telephone and advise the voter of the correct procedures for completing the unsigned affidavit. If the auditor is not able to provide the information personally to the voter by telephone, then the voter must be contacted by first class mail and advised of the correct procedures for completing the unsigned affidavit. Leaving a voice mail message for the voter is not to be considered as personally contacting the voter. In order for the ballot to be counted, the voter must either:
(a) Appear in person and sign the envelope no later than the day before the certification of the primary or election; or
(b) Sign a copy of the envelope provided by the auditor, and return it to the auditor no later than the day before the certification of the primary or election.
(2)(a) If the handwriting of the signature on an absentee or provisional ballot envelope is not the same as the handwriting of the signature on the registration file, the auditor shall notify the voter by telephone and advise the voter of the correct procedures for updating his or her signature on the voter registration file. If the auditor is not able to provide the information personally to the voter by telephone, then the voter must be contacted by first class mail and advised of the correct procedures for completing the unsigned affidavit. Leaving a voice mail message for the voter is not to be considered as personally contacting the voter. In order for the ballot to be counted, the voter must either:
(i) Appear in person and sign a new registration form no later than the day before the certification of the primary or election; or
(ii) Sign a copy of the affidavit provided by the auditor and return it to the auditor no later than the day before the certification of the primary or election. If the signature on the copy of the affidavit does not match the signature on file, the voter must appear in person and sign a new registration form no later than the day before the certification of the primary or election in order for the ballot to be counted.
(b) If the signature on an absentee or provisional ballot envelope is not the same as the signature on the registration file because the name is different, the ballot may be counted as long as the handwriting is clearly the same. The auditor shall send the voter a change-of-name form under RCW 29A.08.440 and direct the voter to complete the form.
(c) If the signature on an absentee or provisional ballot envelope is not the same as the signature on the registration file because the voter used initials or a common nickname, the ballot may be counted as long as the surname and handwriting are clearly the same.
(3) A voter may not cure a missing or mismatched signature for purposes of counting the ballot in a recount.
(4) A record must be kept of all ballots with missing and mismatched signatures. The record must contain the date on which the voter was contacted or the notice was mailed, as well as the date on which the voter signed the envelope, a copy of the envelope, a new registration form, or a change-of-name form. That record is a public record under chapter 42.17 RCW and may be disclosed to interested parties on written request.
Posted by: Bob Edelman on November 30, 2005 09:16 PMhttp://www.zug.com/pranks/credit/
Posted by: mcl on November 30, 2005 09:34 PMDean Logan complains about Lori Sotelo submitting 178 voter challenges in error and then withdrawing them. His boss, Ron Sims, complains that Ms. Sotelo has somehow “disenfranchised” these voters (completely false, since the erroneous challenges were withdrawn), and wants Ms. Sotelo prosecuted for perjury!
In truth, Dean Logan and Ron Sims are responsible for making it IMPOSSIBLE for the votes of several hundred absentee voters from EVER being counted. This is because Logan misplaced these folks’ voter registration applications and doesn’t have their signature cards on file. Logan mails all of these people absentee ballots for every election, but their votes NEVER get counted because Logan doesn’t have any signature cards on file to verify the signatures on these ballots.
In the September 20, 2005 primary election, 91 of these absentee voters returned their ballots, but didn’t have their votes counted because Dean Logan misplaced their signature cards (see Line 4h, “No Signature on File"):
http://soundpolitics.com/MailBallotReport2005Primary.pdf
In the November 8, 2005 general election, 167 of these absentee voters returned their ballots, but didn’t have their votes counted because Dean Logan misplaced their signature records (see Line 3c8, “No Signature on File"):
http://www.soundpolitics.com/MailBallotReport2005.pdf
Since only 41.65% of the absentee ballots were returned back to King County Elections in September 2005, and only 64.37% were returned in November 2005, there are probably at least 250 to 300 King County absentee voters whose signature cards have been misfiled by Logan and will NEVER have their votes counted in ANY election.
WHY DID DEAN LOGAN EVEN BOTHER SENDING OUT HUNDREDS OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS TO THESE VOTERS, WHEN HE KNEW THEIR VOTES WOULD NOT BE COUNTED BECAUSE HE HAD LOST THEIR SIGNATURE CARDS?
At the very minimum, Dean Logan could have had the common decency to enclose a personalized letter to each and every one of these misplaced signature card absentee voters, apologizing for losing their signature cards, enclosing a blank voter registration form, and telling them they needed to sign this form and return it, otherwise their votes would not be counted. Along with a free business reply permit return envelope, so that these voters would not have to pay any extra postage to return new voter registration signature forms.
With all the hypocritical partisan blabber that Dean Logan and Ron Sims have made about Ms. Sotelo’s attempts to correct the voter registration rolls, they should have gone the extra mile (literally) to make sure these people were able to have their votes counted.
Dean Logan and Ron Sims could have personally taken three hours every evening after normal working hours and visited all 250 to 300 voters whose signature cards have been misplaced. If each of them could have gotten just six voter signatures a piece each evening(allowing 30 whole minutes per voter – maybe they could have added a campaign spiel as well), then this task could have been accomplished in just four to five weeks, without having to work on Saturday or Sunday.
This idea is not ridiculous. Dean Logan and Ron Sims OWE the public the duty to make sure that all qualified and duly registered voters are eligible to vote AND have their ballots counted. They talk the talk, and they need to walk the walk. In any event, King County taxpayers pay them a LOT of money – $123,404.16 to Dean Logan in 2004 and $160,489.68 to Ron Sims in 2004 – and it is about time they started doing SOMETHING to earn it.
http://lbloom.net/xking04.html
In the alternative, Ron Sims could stop grandstanding with his frivolous requests to have Ms. Sotelo prosecuted for perjury, and do something effective to make sure that disenfranchised voters are allowed to have their ballots counted – FIRE DEAN LOGAN AND HIRE SOMEONE COMPETENT!
Posted by: Richard Pope on November 30, 2005 11:22 PMPI op-ed by Hannah McFarland, a certified document examiner. She argues, more or less, that ballot signatures can be checked, but that the procedures commonly used in this state (and perhaps in Oregon?) are insufficient.
Commenting on her op-ed, I came to a different
conclusion.
"If there are very large numbers of absentee ballots, it is not possible for the clerks who check the signatures on them to do an adequate job of catching forged signatures."
(It might be possible for document examiners to check signatures adequately, at enormous expense.)
At this time, KC elections department exists for the sole purpose of allowing certain people to unfairly and illegally influence local and state elections. They have proved this over and over in their actions and decisions.
Posted by: dl on December 1, 2005 07:49 AMLet's see what he does when it's time to endorse Sam Reed in 2008.
Posted by: jaybo on December 1, 2005 09:16 AMIf, as Dean Logan recently stated, "A citizen's right to vote is a sacred pillar of our democracy,", then I think we should make sure we have a secure system that closes as many loopholes for INDIVIDUAL fraud as possible - BEFORE we dump over into all mail ballots. (I emphasize INDIVIDUAL fraud for those that argue that only ORGANIZED fraud counts as fraud in an election).
Use Oregon's method whereby all ballots must be received by COB on election day. Only overseas ballots would be accepted after election day - to a point.
Since the Chelan court case told us that there is no way to remove illegal ballots from the ballot pool, we must do all we can to make sure illegal ballots don't get into the pool in the first place.
Improve software systems that will automatically flag (for further review and clarification) issues about citizenship, felons, the deceased, and illegal addresses. The system would place a hold on the registration until the elections department resolved the conflict. Can we have a grant for this Mr. Gates? Are there any software systems for signature verification?
Improve the existing system so that an abentee ballot will not be sent to someone that "does not have a signature on file". How many "no signature on file" people are in the system today? What has been done to correct it? Why would we see this appear on any reports in the future?
Be more public on the prosecution of illegal voters - make it heavily known that illegal voting will NOT be tolerated.
Review and change the election laws to remove ambiguity. Look at the full cycle of the laws to remove unintended consequences.
The Chelan trial also stated that the PUBLIC had to keep an eye on the government and clean up the mess ourselves. Unfortunately, the PUBLIC has less access to the data than the government, so for us to do our jod, we must have more timely access to the governments records.
Change the public records laws to require PROMPT response, feet dragging should not be tolerated and the public should not be FORCED to sue the government every single time.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on December 1, 2005 11:44 AMAt the polls, if you messed up your ballot you just went back to the table and got a new one, and started over. With mail-in, you either have to make a trip down to the nearest County Auditor's office (which is rarely convenient), or try your best to "correct" the error on the ballot you were sent - forcing the Canvassing Board to then discern your "intent."
This goes along with the totally ridiculous claim the mail-in voting gives voters "more time" to consider the issues and races. For years we have gotten a sample ballot and voter's pamphlet in the mail, plus the information overload provided by the various campaigns. Now we get a real ballot and a return envelope, instead of just a sample ballot. Not MORE TIME to study the issues than before, just a different way to vote.
And now, no easy way to fix your ballot if you mess it up....
Posted by: Patrick on December 1, 2005 01:34 PMPolling-place ballots give the voter until close-of-polls consider issues and races. How can mail-in ballots give more time than that?
Posted by: supercat on December 1, 2005 07:27 PM