Blog
Voting Technology
By John Travis – 03/22/12
Crossposted at ReformNY.
Although both sides have declared victory, the race to replace State Senator Carl Krueger remains too close to call. The preliminary results released by the Board of Elections show David Storobin with a 143 vote lead over Lew Fidler. While several news outlets have focused on the 757 absentee ballots which remain to be counted, recent anomalies with New York's voting machines show that in a very close contest, only a hand count can ensure that the right contestant has won.
Just last month, the results of an upstate City Council race declared to have been won by challenger Augustine Beyer by a single vote were overturned after a full hand recount revealed a two-vote discrepancy that tilted the race in incumbent Richard Slisz’s favor. The voting machine was unable to read one improperly marked ballot where the voting oval had been circled rather than filled in. The hand inspection was enough for election officials to determine that the voter's intent had been to vote for Mr. Slisz. Perhaps more troubling however, was the second ballot with a vote for Mr. Slisz’s that was never scanned or registered by the machine at all.
Furthermore, the results from a Daily News investigation into the exceptionally high overvote rates the Brennan Center uncovered in the South Bronx indicate that these voting machines are far from infallible. The Daily News found that one of the machines used to scan ballots in the South Bronx made errors in reading nearly 70 percent of ballots during the September 2010 primary.
In our report analyzing overvote rates in New York, we listed one of the precincts in Mr. Kruger’s district — AD 46, ED 051— as having Brooklyn’s 8th highest overvote rate in 2010. Many other precincts in this senate district did not provide any data at all, but given the demographics of the district, it seems likely that there were other precincts with high overvote rates both in 2010 and 2012. In some of those cases, voter intent may be clear to the human eye, but not a machine.
Unfortunately, New York City does not publish the number overvotes — as is done in Rockland County— making it virtually impossible for anyone outside the Board of Elections to identify areas where voting machines have registered high rates of uncounted votes.
A provision adopted by the City Board of Elections requires a hand recount of paper ballots in contests where the margin of victory is less than 10 votes or half a percent of the total votes cast. Given the newness of these machines and recent history, even a margin slightly higher may warrant a careful hand recount to ensure that the actual winner is declared the victor. If a recount does happen, look for totals (and maybe even the declared winner) to change.
Tags: Democracy, NY Reform, Voting Rights & Elections, Ballot & Election Material Design, Voting Technology
By John Travis – 12/07/11
Cross-posted at Reform NY.
The Brennan Center released a report this week detailing the tens of thousands of votes that were lost in New York because voting machines read their choices as “overvotes” – the invalid selections of more than the allowable number of candidates. Instead of returning the ballot, as is done in many other jurisdictions, the ballots were retained and the machine displayed a screen message using complex election jargon that gave voters misleading cues about their options. In the 2010 election, this confusing message led to as many as 20,000 lost votes in the governor’s contest alone and as many as 60,000 lost votes across all contests. The New York Times, Daily News, WNYC, and Politico have all done a great job covering the story.
The Brennan Center and others warned state election officialsabout the potential problems that would arise due to this confusing message. Represented by the Brennan Center, the NAACP New York State Conference, the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, Families United for Racial and Economic Equality, and several individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the New York State and New York City Boards of Elections in June of 2010 over the discriminatory impact on minority voters.
Our new study confirms that people of color were disproportionately likely to lose their vote. One percent of black and Hispanic voters in New York City did not have their votes for governor counted. In two predominantly Hispanic election districts in the South Bronx, nearly 40% of all votes were not counted in 2010; despite our repeated requests for an investigation into the overvotes in the South Bronx, we are not aware that one has been conducted. Our report also details problems with ballot design, finding that voters were more likely to cast an overvote in a race where candidates for the same office were displayed across two rows of the ballot (such as in the governor’s contest and in Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s U.S. Senate contest).We estimate that if no revisions are made to the overvote message, over 100,000 votes in New York could be lost in the 2012 election, when turnout will be much higher.
Fortunately, as detailed in the report, the State Board of Elections has agreed to adopt a better overvote warning in time for the 2012 election. But more steps can and should be taken to prevent lost votes. Election officials should make election results available by precinct; those results should report the number of overvotes in each contest on the ballot. When problems are discovered, election officials should be empowered required to investigate the reasons for high overvote rates. Ballots should be treated as public records to allow members of the public and voting experts to determine if ballots were in fact overvoted or simply recorded as overvotes because of a machine error. And states should reexamine their ballot design requirements and provide election administration officials with the guidance and flexibility they need to create voter-friendly ballots.
The recommendations are not specific to New York and can serve as models for jurisdictions across the nation to ensure that votes are counted as they were intended to be cast. The new report is available through the Brennan Center’s website.
Tags: Democracy, NY Reform, Voting Rights & Elections, Ballot & Election Material Design, Voting Technology
By Andrew Goldston – 09/16/11
Late last week we were happy to announce a big win for New York's minor parties and all of New York's voters, as we settled our lawsuit on behalf of three of New York's minor parties against the state Board of Elections. The lawsuit challenged a discriminatory vote-counting practice called "double voting."
Essentially, when a candidate ran for two different party lines for the same office, some voters were choosing to "double vote": that is, mark in the paper ballot with multiple votes for the same candidate on the different party lines. Under the old practice, New York's new voting machines accepted such ballots, counted these ballots as having a single vote for the candidate on the major party line (e.g. Democrat or Republican), and ignored the voter's attempt to vote on the minor party line as well. Now, voters will be notified of the problem and given opportunities to make sure their vote counts for the party of their choice.
Sam Roberts at the New York Times City Room reported:
Under a consent decree signed approved Thursday by Judge Jed S. Rakoff of United States District Court in Manhattan, the board agreed to reprogram voting machines before the 2012 general election to prevent people from voting more than once for the same candidate.
“They have to put a very bold message on the screen that says basically: ‘You voted incorrectly. Your candidate preference is clear, but your party preference is not,’ ” said Daniel Cantor, executive director of the Working Families Party. “Then you get to press a button and get your ballot back so you can fix it. Our view is that voters who mean to vote for us will want it to count.”
The improvements that will come from this settlement will help improve elections for all New Yorkers.
Tags: Democracy, Voting Rights & Elections, Ballot & Election Material Design, Voting Technology
By Lawrence Norden – 04/04/11
Last Thursday morning, I had the opportunity to testify in Congress before a hearing of the Committee on House Administration on the 2010 elections. While a lot went right from the perspective of voting rights and election administration, 2010 provided plenty of examples of how even now, a decade after “hanging chad” became a household term and states all over the country began purchasing new, modern voting machines, we are still struggling to bring the way we run our elections into the 21st century.
In particular, the 2010 elections showed the continuing and critical need to (1) modernize our country's voter registration system and (2) create an accessible, national database and reporting system to track voting system malfunctions.
Modernizing the Nation's Antiquated Registration System
The 2010 election demonstrated, yet again, that our voter registration system needs an upgrade. Developed in the early 19th century and still based largely on paper, the current system in most of the country is costly, inefficient and unreliable. The system overwhelms election officials with burdensome and needless paperwork, and it prevents many American citizens from exercising their right to vote.
At least three data points from the 2010 election point to the continuing need to modernize the country’s voter registration system:
- Election Protection, the nation’s largest nonpartisan voter protection effort, said voter registration issues were their #1 most reported problem in 2010. 24% of their voter hotline’s call volume had to do with voter registration problems.
- Election officials, too, voiced commonly heard frustrations. In the coming months, the Brennan Center will release an analysis of post-election reports from election officials across the United States. Our preliminary research reveals that officials experienced the same yearly headaches with the current paper-based voter registration system, from inaccurate registrations to a last minute flood of registration forms.
- The 2010 election saw dramatically lower voter registration rates compared to the last midterm election. Almost every jurisdiction with available data showed dramatic drops in new voter registrations.
The solution is voter registration modernization, which offers opportunities to make registering to vote easier, faster, more reliable, and more secure, all while saving election officials’ time and taxpayers’ money.
The key components of a fully modernized voter registration system are:
- Automated Registration. Under an automated registration system, states automatically register eligible, consenting citizens, including newly eligible citizens, when they interact with government agencies like the Department of Motor Vehicles.
- Permanent or Portable Registration. Under permanent registration, once a voter is on a state's voter rolls, they will remain registered and able to vote at the polling place associated with their address so long as they continue to reside in that state. Permanent registration can be accomplished by automatic registration record updates and procedures allowing voters to update their records before and on Election Day.
- Election Day Correction. Under an Election Day correction process, citizens can correct errors and omissions on the voter rolls before and on Election Day.
- Online Registration. Online registration provides another critical safeguard to ensure accurate voter rolls.
A Brennan Center report on steps some states have already taken towards modernization found three main benefits:
- Increased Registration Rates. Registration rates at DMVs doubled in Washington and Kansas, and increased seven-fold in South Dakota after the states automated the voter registration system at DMVs.
- More Accurate and Secure Rolls. A 2009 survey of incomplete and incorrect registrations in Maricopa County, Arizona found that electronic voter registrations up to five times less error-prone than their paper-based counterparts.
- Substantial Savings to Taxpayers. Upgrades to the voter registration system are surprisingly inexpensive to implement, ranging from no additional cost to several hundred thousand dollars. These small initial investments yield enormous annual savings.
- Online and automated DMV registrations saved Maricopa County, Arizona over $450,000 in 2008. The county spends 33¢ to manually process an electronic application, and an average of 3¢ using a partially automated review process, compared to 83¢ for a paper registration form.
- Delaware’s paperless voter registration at DMVs saves election officials more than $200,000 every year on personnel costs, over and above the savings they reaped by partially automating the process in the mid-1990s.
Creating a National Database to Reduce Voting System Malfunctions
When it comes to system failures voting machines are different from cars, appliances, and many other products in at least one important respect: for the vast majority of voting systems in use today, (1) manufacturers are not required to report malfunctions to any government agency, and (2) there is no agency that either investigates such alleged failures or alerts election officials and the general public to possible problems (let alone requires voting system manufacturers to fix such problems).
Too often in the past this has meant that voting systems fail in a particular county in one election, and then again later under similar circumstances, in another locale and election. These repeated failures disenfranchise voters and damage public confidence in the electoral system.
For a 2010 report, the Brennan Center closely studied fourteen cases of voting machine failures. Most of the election officials we interviewed in connection with these case studies claimed to have had no prior warning of the problems that were eventually identified, and yet in most cases, the vendors were (or should have been) aware of the problems – often because the same problem had been reported to them earlier by another election official.
The solution is a national database of voting system problems.
Given the nature and importance of voting systems to our democracy, we need a new national system to ensure that voting system defects are caught early, disclosed immediately, and corrected quickly and comprehensively. The system must include four key elements to work effectively:
- A Publicly Available, Searchable, Centralized Database. Election officials, in particular, would benefit from a publicly available, searchable online database that includes official as well as voter-reported data regarding voting system failures and vulnerabilities
- Vendor Reporting Requirements. Vendors must be required to notify the appropriate government agency of any known and suspected voting system failures and vulnerabilities, and other reported problems, including customer complaints and warranty claims.
- A Federal Agency with Investigatory Powers. The best way to ensure that vendors address potential problems in a timely manner is to empower the appropriate government agency to investigate all voting system failures and vulnerabilities listed on the database.
- Enforcement Mechanisms. The appropriate government agency must have the power to levy civil penalties on vendors who fail to meet the reporting requirement or to remedy failures or vulnerabilities with their voting systems.
We should applaud election officials for their successful efforts in 2010. Under serious budget constraints and vast changes, they oversaw another successful national election. Modernizing our antiquated registration system and establish a national database of voting machine problems would significantly ease the burden we place on them, and make it easier to ensure that every eligible voter is able to vote and have their vote accurately counted.
Tags: Democracy, Voting Rights & Elections, Election Day Issues, Voter Registration Modernization, Voting Technology
By ReformNY – 10/01/10
Lawrence Norden—ReformNY Editor in Chief and Senior Counsel at the Brennan Center—testified yesterday before the New York State Senate Standing Committee on Elections on the introduction of optical scan voting machines in the 2010 primary election. His testimony focused on three areas where the Brennan Center sees room to improve administration of the new optical scan machines, and where both local boards and the State legislature can take concrete steps to improve the use of these machines going forward: (1) ensuring that poll worker training focuses on allowing voters to vote and vote privately, regardless of problems with the machines; (2) improving ballot design so that New Yorkers can easily read and complete their ballots; and (3) adopting policies for using machines to ensure that votes are counted as they were intended to be cast.
To read Mr. Norden’s full testimony, click here.
Cross-posted from ReformNY
Tags: Democracy, NY Reform, Voting Rights & Elections, Voting Technology
By ReformNY – 07/08/10
In the past week, editorial boards, public officials, and computer scientists have joined the Brennan Center in calling on the New York City and State Boards of Elections to refrain from using an unnecessarily confusing procedure for the handling of overvoted ballots that is likely to disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters.
A panel of leading computer scientists wrote to the Boards of Elections yesterday to emphasize that “[t]he most obvious solution to this problem is to set the voting machines to reject overvoted ballots… Because no software would be modified, testing of the change can be expected to be simple, straightforward and efficient, and to take no more than a day.” City Councilmember Margaret Chin also wrote to the State Board yesterday, asking for an explanation as to why they have “refused to implement this simple fix.”
Writing in another letter to the Boards of Elections today, chief election officials in jurisdictions across the country endorsed the automatic rejection of overvoted ballots, noting that this “better administrative practice…should not lead to long lines or confusion at polling places. To the contrary, by automatically rejecting overvotes, voters are immediately taken out of the voting line, provided with a new ballot, and given the opportunity to ensure that their intended choices are accurately recorded.”
In a July 5th editorial, the New York Times called New York's current procedure “needlessly complicated.” This week, the Daily News demanded that this “dangerous glitch…must be fixed now,” and the Journal News concurred, saying that “it would be unacceptable to have even one vote go unaccounted.”
To read what others are saying about New York’s overvote procedure and to join the chorus of voices calling on the City and State Boards of Elections to implement an easy fix to the problem, click here.
Originally posted at ReformNY
Tags: Democracy, NY Reform, Voting Rights & Elections, Voting Technology
By Christopher Ponoroff – 05/14/10
Just six months ago the District of Columbia authorized same-day registration and other measures to create a more voter-friendly electoral system for D.C. residents. This was a commendable step in itself. But what’s just as impressive is the way the District Council refused to rest on its laurels, asking the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics to prepare a study on the feasibility of adopting automatic voter registration. Two weeks ago, the Board submitted its findings.
When it comes to the need for further reform, the Board does not mince words: “The current paper-based, voter-initiated voter registration system in the District and elsewhere in the nation is cumbersome, inefficient and rife with opportunities for error. It is estimated that as many as 10 percent of voter registration records throughout the nation contain an erroneous name, address or birth date.” And while getting the right information onto voter rolls is an ongoing struggle, “outdated voter records generally remain active for many years.”
As the Brennan Center and others have noted, the voter registration systems used in our states and localities to collect and process voter data have only begun applying modern technology to the task. Statewide database systems now help election officials to manage the information they have. But to keep that information complete and up-to-date, they are largely forced to rely on the same haphazard methods used for over a hundred years.
Recognizing that the tools for developing a fully modernizing system are ready at hand, the D.C. Board recommends putting them to work. The Board recommends that that the District’s DMVs, social service offices, schools, and other agencies send information from their databases to election officials, who would use the data to build and update registration files for eligible residents. If officials require additional information to complete a person’s registration—for example, an affirmation of citizenship—the individual would have the opportunity to provide it any time up to and including Election Day. The use of digitized signatures would eliminate the need for paper forms while also providing officials an easier way to verify poll books and petitions. Non-citizens inadvertently placed on the rolls would not be penalized, and citizens who didn’t wish to register would have the opportunity to opt out.
It’s an admirable plan, consistent with many of the Brennan Center’s recommendations. It is also consistent with trends across the country. In Utah a bipartisan Governor’s Commission recently recommended similar measures, and the Ohio Legislature is currently considering a plan to introduce automatic registration from DMV offices, public service agencies, and schools. Meanwhile a growing number of states have begun taking other steps toward reform, introducing online registration and paperless motor voter systems. As a forthcoming Brennan Center study illustrates, their experiences have been overwhelmingly positive, demonstrating that modernization is feasible, efficient, and highly cost-effective.
By heeding the Board of Elections’ recommendations, D.C. officials have the opportunity to demonstrate national leadership on this issue, and we urge them to do so. Our 19th century approach to registration will only continue to fall behind our increasingly mobile society. Voters deserve better, and modernization’s growing track record is showing just how much better we can do.
Tags: Democracy, Voting Rights & Elections, Voter Registration Modernization, Voting Technology
By ReformNY – 04/20/10
We've blogged before about serious concerns the Brennan Center and other New York voting rights groups had about policies adopted by the State Board for New York's new electronic voting machines, which will be used statewide for the first time this September. After extensive research, we have concluded that these policies violate New York State law and should have been precleared with the Department of Justice, pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This apparently was not done. We have alerted the Department of Justice, and the New York State and City Boards to our findings. A copy of the letter detailing our findings, and a press release can be found here and here.
Originally posted at ReformNY.
Tags: Democracy, NY Reform, Voting Rights & Elections, Ballot & Election Material Design, Voting Technology
Page 1 of 4 pages 1 2 3 > Last »
Permalink