Yesterday, Dominion, the manufacturer of one of the two optical scan machines certified for use in New York State, filed suit in federal court to enjoin New York City from awarding a contract to the manufacturer of the other certified machine, ES&S, which narrowly beat Dominion in a city Board of Elections evaluation.
In its memorandum of law, Dominion argues that the Board of Elections ignored procurement laws and procedures and established its own procurement process that did not make clear the criteria for selection. According to the memorandum, ES&S received extra points for optional features that cannot legally be used in New York.
Dominion isn’t the only one suspicious of New York City’s voting machine selection process. Last week, the U.S. Attorney’s office issued subpoenas to several elections commissioners in connection with the machine selection process, and last month one of the lobbyists hired by ES&S to further its bid was indicted on corruption charges.
It is entirely possible that there was no wrongdoing on the part of the Board of Elections, but it seems pretty clear that there could have been more transparency in the process, and, as we’ve written before, the Board could have – and still should – make its contract with either manufacturer contingent on configurations that prevent unnecessary disenfranchisement by overvoting.
As we blogged recently, the Brennan Center, along with a coalition of other voting rights and good government groups, has called upon the State Board of Elections to take steps to prevent the alarmingly high overvote rate seen in other jurisdictions using the optical scan voting machines selected for use in New York.
Our primary objective is to have the Board require the machines’ manufacturers to reconfigure the units to automatically reject overvoted ballots – a function that at least one of the manufacturers says can be customized during configuration. We’d also like voters to receive a clearer error message when there is a problem with their ballots.
The Board of Elections spoke with our coalition last Thursday, and agreed to take the following steps:
Determine whether the reconfiguration of both certified optical scanners to automatically reject overvotes requires a modification to the configuration files or to the source code.
Determine whether recertification is necessary for changing the scanners’ handling of overvotes.
Determine the technical requirements for modifying error messages for both optical scanners.
Determine whether both optical scanners can display an error message when automatically returning an overvoted ballot.
We will follow up with the Board of Elections to learn their findings in these four areas and to continue to work toward what we understand to be a relatively easy change that could save tens of thousands of ballots. The Board will discuss this issue February 18 at a meeting that will be webcast live.
I blogged two weeks ago about the Brennan Center's serious concern that New York's new voting machines (to be used statewide for the first time this year) may cause massive problems. In short, experiences in Florida and Wisconsin strongly suggest that the way the machines are currently configured will lead to significantly higher error rates for voters, meaning potentially tens of thousands of votes being spoiled for no good reason. Well, we've been joined in our concern by virtually every voting rights and good government group in New York that focuses on these issues, including AALDEF, CIDNY, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, NAACP LDF, NYPIRG, New Yorkers for Verified Voting and the Women's City Club of New York. Read the letter from all of these groups to the New York State Board of Elections. It states in relevant part:
New York’s new optical scan machines will treat overvotes in a way that threatens the voting rights of millions of New Yorkers. As you know, unlike most optical scan systems, the ES&S DS200 and ImageCast machines purchased for New York do not automatically return overvoted or otherwise erroneous ballots to the voter for correction. . .
Overvotes are almost always mistakes and the letter and spirit of the [Help America Vote Act] requires that the state do everything it can to prevent inadvertent errors when voters cast their ballot on Election Day.
We strongly urge the Board of Elections to correct this problem immediately. The New York Board of Elections must require that the ES&S DS200 and ImageCast machines automatically return overvoted or otherwise erroneous ballots to the voter for correction.
The good news is that the fix for this potentially huge problem seems relatively simple. The Board of Elections should be able to request this change from the vendors and significantly minimize the risk of overvotes and spoiled ballots. Let's hope they make this happen, soon. We're going to keep the pressure on, and we'll keep you informed.
We talk about promoting
democracy around the world, but neglect the infrastructure of our own
democracy. This is most visible in our antiquated voter registration
system.
Voter registration is the gateway to voting. But our registration
system relies on 19th century practices, and, leaves millions of
eligible voters out of the political process. Recent Census reports show that 30% of eligible Americans aren't registered to vote. Most major democracies do far better; a recent Brennan Center study
of voter registration systems around the world shows that Canada,
France, Germany, and Great Britain each register well over 90% of their
eligible citizens.
Voter apathy does not explain our low registration rates. In the
2008 elections, 2 to 3 million eligible Americans attempted to vote,
but were thwarted by voter registration problems; an additional 9
million were unable to register because of registration deadlines or
residency rules, Professor Stephen Ansolabehere of Harvard and MIT testified before the Senate Rules Committee this year. Voter protection hotlines consistently say voter registration is the problem would-be voters report most often. And election officials report that registration problems are the number one reason that provisional ballots are not counted.
So why do we lag so far behind other countries in voter
registration? Unlike other major democracies, the United States places
the onus of voter registration on individual citizens. Plus, our system
is based principally on paper forms, which compounds the problem. Every
voter, every time they move, must fill out new forms which must then be
delivered to appropriate election officials, deciphered, processed, and
entered into a database; the forms typically arrive together in huge
volumes, right before an election. This system is ripe for error,
duplication, and waste; worse, the system ends up disenfranchising
millions of eligible voters.
It doesn't have to be this way. Our study of twenty voter
registration systems around the world -- the most comprehensive such
study to date -- finds that in nearly every democracy surveyed,
government helps assure that every eligible citizen is registered to
vote. Only four countries other than the United States -- the Bahamas,
Belize, Burundi, and Mexico -- place the burden of voter registration
on individual citizens.
Other democracies use a variety of methods to register voters, but
the most common method -- and one which is readily adoptable here -- is
by compiling lists of unregistered eligible citizens from other
government lists. Canada, which has a decentralized federal system
similar to ours, automatically adds every 18-year-old and other
citizens to its voter rolls using information from other government
agencies. And, it continually updates voter records with data from
other government agencies, a practice followed in several other
countries. To insure government mistakes don't prevent any one from
voting, Canada has a procedure for citizens to register or update
registrations on Election Day. Less than 7% of Canadians are
unregistered, in contrast with 30% of Americans, and the vast majority
of the records on the Canadian voter rolls -- unlike ours -- are
accurate and up-to-date.
This common-sense approach -- automatic registration, permanent
registration through electronic updates, and an Election Day list
correction procedure -- would add 50 to 65 million eligible voters to
the registration rolls here; it would also save taxpayers money and
ensure our voter rolls are more accurate and less susceptible to fraud
and manipulation. Canada and Australia both substantially reduced their
election costs when they modernized their voter rolls -- and, they
recouped their low transition costs almost immediately.
Can this be achieved in the United States? Absolutely -- and it
wouldn't even take that long. States already have the necessary
infrastructure -- centralized voter registration databases and
government agency lists
capable of electronically sharing information. With a minor upgrade to
our registration system, states can use reliable and accurate
information in other government databases to automatically add eligible
citizens to the voter lists and keep their information current.
That is how many other countries build their voter rolls, and it is
also largely how the U.S. Selective Service System creates its list.
Fail-safe procedures before and on Election Day will ensure that any
government mistakes are caught and corrected.
There is the political will to do this: election officials and political actors of all stripes support voter registration modernization. In the June 25th issue of The Washington Post,
the chief lawyers of both the Obama and McCain campaigns editorialized
in favor of modernizing the registration system -- a reform that
addresses the concerns of both major parties. The Senate Rules
Committee, chaired by Senator Chuck Schumer, has already held a hearing
on the problems with the voter registration system. Now is the time for
Congress to take the next step to solve those problems and make voter
registration modernization a priority this year.
Yesterday, Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner released to Governor Ted Strickland and the Ohio General Assembly a "blueprint for enhancing Ohio's elections." This blueprint (click here to download) is the culmination of work that began immediately after the 2008 election, when Secretary Brunner convened the first Ohio Elections Summit, which I chaired. The bipartisan Ohio Association of Election Officials has expressed support for Secretary Brunner's proposal, and I'm hopeful that it will move the ball closer toward important improvements in Ohio election administration and law.
The December Elections Summit called by Secretary Brunner, in addition to a later conference in March, brought together voters, non-partisan and partisan election experts, election officials and state legislators, of both political parties. These events were deliberative and substantive. As I've blogged before, I would very much like to see more Secretaries of State follow Jennifer Brunner's lead and adopt similar processes in their states.
Looks like Minnesota's senate race isn't the only one that's going to keep us waiting for a winner: it'll probably be at least another two weeks before anyone knows who won yesterday's closely watched special election in New York's 20th Congressional district.
As the New York Timesreports, after yesterday's balloting, a "mere 65 votes" separate the two candidates vying to fill the Congressional seat vacated by New York's newest Senator, Kristen Gillibrand. Given that razor-thin margin, it may not be possible to declare a winner until all the absentee ballots are counted—and that may not happen until after April 13th.
In December, Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner called together some of the country's leading election experts and voting rights advocates, as well as a bipartisan group of state legislators and election officials, to review the 2008 election and offer suggestions for reforming the state's election policy. She asked me to Chair this summit and to prepare a report summarizing the views of those who participated, providing relevant background and data where needed. She called this the "first step" in a process to solicit the views of Ohio voters and experts as she developed her reform agenda.
Jackson Pollock? Perhaps Brice Marden? Afraid not. Unfortunately, those frenetic abstract gestures to the right were made by a Minnesota voter on a ballot rather than a canvas (click image to see ballot).
The Senate contest between Al Franken (D) and Norm Coleman (R) is still undecided, as the recount has now stretched well into holiday shopping season (the widget posted below should provide the most up-to-date tally). Interestingly, a number of media outlets have posted features on their sites that allow anyone to examine all the contested ballots. The first time I scrolled through the Star Tribunes' version, "Ballot Challenge," one thing quickly became clear: usability, the ease at which voters are able to correctly navigate and mark a ballot, appeared to be a significant issue for some voters. As a result, there's a chance their vote won't count in a race that could very well be decided by a handful of votes.
This morning, I turned to Dana Chisnell, a researcher who studies "how people interact with technology specializing in design for older adults, ballot usability, and plain language," for insight as to why some of these challenged ballots have been miss marked, mangled, and must now go before a canvassing board to be interpreted. The analysis below is by no means exhaustive, but merely a sampling of her genius. For more on her work, click here to read her postings on the Usability Professional's Association blog.
The ballots we discussed can be found on the Minnesota Public Radios feature, here. Click on the ballots to see them larger.
0 comments | Permalink