In Focus This Week
- In Focus This Week
Report: States Seeing Changes to Election Administration as a Result of Partnerships between Election Officials and Academics
Research-based efforts drive improvements in state election systems
By Electionline.org staff
Electionline.org, the nation’s leading source for nonpartisan, non-advocacy research and data on election reform, this week released the first nationwide study of election partnerships between universities and state and local election offices.
“Case Study: Election Partnerships,” the 18th in a series of publications on critical issues in election reform, offers an in-depth look at the purpose and practice of election partnerships as well as the prospects for more pacts around the country.
Relationships between academics and election administrators have existed since Georgia and Kennesaw State University formed a pact in 2002 when the state replaced punch cards with touch-screen voting machines. Since that time, the report notes, other states have sought to form similar partnerships – or, in some cases, have been moved by litigation or political bodies to seek outside assistance to fix election problems.
Once in place, however, both academics and election administrators have reported mutual benefit from having partnerships and states are seeing changes in practices as a result of these partnerships.
“What we have found is that both sides gain from partnerships between universities and election offices,” said Sean Greene, electionline’s project manager for research. “For the election administrators, outside scrutiny by seasoned researchers gives an added level of confidence in their procedures, voting systems or poll worker training. For the academics, their institutions gain prestige, their work gets funded while their research addresses real-world problems that have an immediate impact on society.”
Partnerships are not always without critics, the report noted. Some have questioned the impartiality of state-funded institutions, such as Kennesaw State University, as it evaluates voting systems and software, another state-funded endeavor. And sometimes the partners are themselves critics. University of Connecticut researchers found security flaws with an optical-scan. In Ohio, the Election Integrity Center at Cleveland State University found a number of problems with election administration in Cuyahoga County.
Among the partnerships examined in the report:
- Georgia and Kennesaw State University: When the state opted for a uniform system of electronic voting in 2002, Kennesaw researchers were paid $500,000 by the state to review voting system compliance with election code, to develop a validation program to test voting systems and other purposes. Since then, the relationship has evolved to include a help line for election officials, state acceptance testing of machines after purchase and building and proofing electronic ballots and absentee ballots
- Cuyahoga County, Ohio and Cleveland State University: The Center for Election Integrity was formed in 2005 after a troubled 2004 vote in parts of the state including Cuyahoga County. The Center has and will continue to serve as the county’s public monitor of elections through 2008. It has produced two reports detailing problems observed during the 2006 general election in Cuyahoga County, and will continue to seek to expand its role in Ohio elections.
- Connecticut’s Secretary of State and the University of Connecticut: Researchers at the school were instrumental in the state’s decision to purchase optical-scan voting systems after extensive security testing. Ongoing efforts include refining post-election audits and continuing assessments of voting system software. The Voting Technology Center is funded $250,000 annually
- Boise State University and Ada County, Idaho: Students from the university served as poll workers in the 2006 election, assisting older poll workers in the use of newly-purchased hybrid voting machines. In all, 165 students worked the polls, with a return to service for some for the 2007 vote.
- Baltimore County (and City), Md. and the University of Baltimore: The university’s Schaefer Center for Public Policy developed a poll-worker training program, drawing on modern presentation tools and instruction by professors to educate large numbers of election judges before the 2006 election.
The report is available at http://electionline.org. To request a printed copy, please contact media@electionline.org.
Election Reform News This Week
- A federal lawsuit was filed this week in Alaska on behalf of voters whose primary language is Yup’ik. The lawsuit, filed by the Native American Rights Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska, seeks to mandate oral and written voter assistance to Yup’ik-speaking voters. According to the Anchorage Daily News, the lawsuit says the problem extends beyond providing an official ballot for federal, state and local elections. The lawsuit asserts that officials have failed to translate a host of other written voting materials including advertisements for voter registration, election dates, absentee voting, polling place location and voting machine instructions. Alaska is one of five states fully covered by the minority language provision of the Voting Rights Act.
- There were more comings and goings in elections offices this week. Texas Secretary of State Roger Williams announced his resignation this week. Williams was appointed by Gov. Rick Perry, R, in 2004 and oversaw the somewhat bumpy implementation of the state’s new voter registration database. Perry has yet to announce a successor. The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections decided to offer interim election director Jane Platten the position permanently. Platten joined the elections office in 2004 as head of administrative services. She will be the fourth full-time director since 2000. And there’s a job opening in McKean County, Pa. after the county salary board voted to approve the creation of the position of assistant director of elections, effective immediately.
- Although many of West Virginia’s counties use electronic voting machines, when it comes to hotly contested referendums, most of those counties rely on paper ballots for the ease and cost efficiency. “It would have been so costly to use the machines for just one issue,” Ohio County Election Coordinator Toni Chieffalo told the Herald Dispatch. Chieffalo said it would have cost thousands of dollars just to program electronic voting machines with the recent question about allowing table games. Although counting the votes may take longer, county officials told the newspaper that it’s simpler and cheaper than getting the high-tech machines ready for such a simple, straightforward election with one yes-or-no question.
- And speaking of paper, several Florida counties moved a bit closer to paper ballots this week. In Martin County, Supervisor of Elections Vicki Davis is preparing to purchase 80 new optical-scan voting machines for nearly half a million dollars. The county will kick in $121,275 of that. In Miami-Dade County, a committee of the county commission voted unanimously to accept state money to replace the county’s electronic voting machines with optical-scan machines. The recommendation must still pass the full commission by the end of June. Sarasota County commissioners voted unanimously to replace the counties’ infamous touch-screen machines with an optical-scan system. It will cost the county about $2.5 million to replace the machines and Supervisor of Elections Kathy Dent believes the state will cover about $1 million of that. On Tuesday, the Orange County commission approved the new election budget which included $2 million to replace the county’s DRE machines.
Opinions This Week
National: Holt bill, Vote fraud, II, III
Alabama: Voter registration
Arizona: Election integrity
California: Instant runoff voting
Colorado: Youth vote
Massachusetts: Election-day registration
Missouri: Vote fraud
Mississippi: Open primaries, II
Ohio: Cuyahoga County
Pennsylvania: Vote-by-mail
Tennessee: Vote fraud
Some sites require registration
Job Postings This Week
All job listings must be received by 12 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday for publication in our Thursday newsletter. Job listings are free but may be edited for length. Whenever possible, include Internet information. Please email job postings to mmoretti@electionline.org
Election Supervisor II — Baltimore City. An Election Supervisor II is supervisory work in a local election office. Employees in this classification supervise the work of Election Clerk Supervisor I’s, Election Clerks and other support staff and may have additional administrative responsibilities related to the entire office operation. Qualifications: graduation from an accredited high school or possession of a high school equivalency certificate; four (4) years of experience applying election laws, rules and procedures in a local election office. Salary: $29,607-$44,808. Application: Applications may be obtained by visiting our website at: www.dbm.maryland.gov; by writing to DBM, OPSB, Recruitment & Examination Division, 301 W. Preston Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201; or by calling 410-767-4850, toll-free: 800-705-3493; TTY users call Maryland Relay Service, 800-735-2258. Deadline: July 2.