In Focus This Week
Close Vote in Kanawha County, WV Leads to Questions
Provisional ballot, registration issues simmer on backburner
By Sean Greene
electionline.org
The last of four counties in West Virginia to hold a referendum this summer on adding casino-style games to racetracks, Kanawha County’s vote was by far the closest – and most controversial.
The unofficial tally after the August 11 vote was 33 votes in favor of adding the table games and after the official canvass the winning margin increased to 343 votes out of a total of just over 46,000 ballots cast.
Grabbing the most attention was the more than 500 early ballots found after not being counted during the initial tally. News reports indicated this was partially due to poll workers in at least ten precincts being unaware of different early-ballot counting rules in place for this special election.
Yet while “found” ballots caused the biggest stir, another election administration issue that receded from the public eye after the 2004 election quietly reemerged – the rules governing the counting of provisional ballots. These ballots are generally issued to voters who show up at a polling place and find their names not on the voter rolls.
According to the Kanawha County clerk’s office, there were 785 provisional ballots cast, of which 398 were counted and 387 were not counted. Those not counted were generally either cast in the wrong precinct or by voters not found on the registration rolls. (No specific breakdown was available providing the number of ballots rejected for each reason.)
Advocates and academics find both of these reasons potentially troubling.
West Virginia state law, like the majority of states, requires provisional ballots to be cast in the correct precinct in order to be potentially counted.
Scott Novakowsi, senior policy analyst at Demos, a non-partisan public policy research and
advocacy organization that focuses on issues including democracy reform, questions the need for such out-of precinct rules, especially in a county-wide referendum. “When you have an election on an issue that is not specific to the precinct, there is no reason an out-of-precinct ballot should not be counted.”
In a previous report, Demos cited a number of reasons provisional votes can be cast in the wrong precinct – being directed to the wrong line in a polling place with multiple precincts or when poorly trained poll workers dispense the ballots to voters who do not need them.
A forthcoming report by the organization will examine provisional ballot issues that emerged during the 2006 election cycle.
In 2004 laws requiring provisional ballots to be cast in the correct precinct to be counted were challenged and rebuffed in at least five states.
And election officials who use precinct-based voting systems have defended this policy.
“Prohibiting precinct-based provisional voting sends the wrong message about the importance of voting for all of the other offices on the ballot. While important decisions are made in Washington and in state capitals, some of the decisions that have the most obvious and compelling effects on people’s daily lives are made down the street at city hall or in the county government building,” testified Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita in front of the U.S. Committee on House Administration in 2005.
Election administrators elsewhere have argued allowing the counting of out-of-precinct provisional ballots could lead to logistical problems as well, including longer lines at the polls and election officials with no idea of how many provisional ballots to have on hand at each polling place.
Some voting experts find the correct-precinct requirement less troubling than the details of voters being rejected for not being on the voter rolls.
Ned Foley, professor at the Moritz College of Law at The Ohio State University, has questions about these voters. “I’d be curious about the number of provisional ballots rejected because voters were ‘unregistered’ and what exactly this means — did they think they were registered? Had they submitted registration forms? What happened to those forms?”
Without direct feedback from the voter, it is difficult to know if there were problems with their registration or if they were actually not registered and never attempted to register.
“One can argue that it is unfair to disqualify a ‘wrong precinct’ vote but it seems more unfair to me to disqualify a provisional ballot of someone whose submitted registration form was somehow never properly processed so that they appear as ‘unregistered’ on the official lists. If their registration form gets lost by government officials, or never arrives from DMV, or was not submitted by a third-party group, the voter is powerless to correct that cause of disenfranchisement,” added Foley.
And while questions over voter registration generally do not make headlines like the debate over electronic voting machines, Foley thinks the rejection of “unregistered” voters is a sleeper issue that could resurface during the 2008 elections.
But back in Kanawha County in August 2007, the table games vote is not over yet. Opponents have filed for a recount which could begin next week.
Election Reform News This Week
- As the second anniversary of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita approaches, state and local leaders in Louisiana purged about 19,000 voters from the rolls because those voters have registered elsewhere since the storms hit. Lawmakers were concerned about the purge. Sen. Charles D. Jones, D-Monroe told The Advocate that the recent action and the removal of another 83,000 voters in December means that about 102,000 names have been removed from voter rolls in recent months. “I would be interested to know whether there has ever been a state or an area where 100,000 people have been purged,” Jones said. “I am just making sure we understand the magnitude of this issue.” However, state election officials said voter purges take place routinely for reasons other than hurricane evacuations. In 2004 about 109,000 names were removed after a check of voter rolls that takes place every other year, said Elections Commissioner Angie LaPlace.
- The Michigan Senate voted this week to move the state’s primary election to January 15. The move, which was not unexpected, could prompt Iowa and New Hampshire to possibly move their caucus and primary elections to December 2007. According to the Detroit Free Press, the 21-17 vote along party lines — with all Republicans in favor, and all Democrats opposed — was a clear sign that a reported bipartisan deal on a presidential primary reached late last week was not yet ready for prime time. “We want Michigan to be early and relevant” in the presidential-nominating process, state Sen. Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek said. “But this is still very much a work in progress.” The House could take up the bill next week.
- A trial resumed this week in a federal courthouse in Georgia that may determine the fate of the state’s controversial voter ID law. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the groups fighting the law want U.S. District Judge Harold L. Murphy to declare the law an unnecessary burden on the right to vote in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The Georgia Supreme Court has already ruled that the photo ID requirement does not violate the state Constitution. As a result, the state is planning to enforce the law for a handful of elections in September. The state is set to begin presenting its case before the end of the week.
- While electronic voting machines have made the process easier for some, a recent story from a local television station in Texas said that e-voting is turning away many older poll workers. Of Fort Bend’s 210 positions 123 of them, almost 60 percent, are vacant, which could lead to problems for the November election. The worst case scenario, County Judge Bob Hebert said, is that without poll workers the Commissioners Court would have to consider consolidating precincts. “It is a little intimidating. It’s a device. It looks like a computer. It is a computer to a certain extent. The paper ballot was just a lot simpler,” said J.R. Perez, Fort Bend County’s elections administrator. As a solution, the county is considering having others set up and break down the machines, a second is still looking for other incentives to attract precinct judges and prevent problems at the polls.
Opinions This Week
National: Election fraud, Holt bill
California: Voting technology, II, III
Florida: Churches as voting sites
Georgia: Voter ID
Mississippi: Election integrity, Voting technology, Election problems
Ohio: Cuyahoga County elections
Tennessee: Election dates
West Virginia: Kanawha County vote, II
Wisconsin: Voter registration database
Job Postings
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 and Voter Registration Manager – Snohomish County, Everett, Wash. The Election and Voter Registration Division is under the direction of the County Auditor, an independently elected official. The County has currently 671,800 residents and is expected to have 385,000 registered voters by November, 2008. In addition, Snohomish County conducts all the elections for some 110 junior taxing districts ranging from cities, towns and school districts to library and drainage districts. The County offices are located in the city of Everett, with a population of 97,500, located 30 minutes north of Seattle on Puget Sound. The Election and Voter Registration Manager will supervise a full-time staff of 11 plus up to 50 additional staff during elections as required. Qualifications: Extensive management experience with an emphasis in elections and/or voter registration, and an in-depth knowledge of election laws, regulations and rules is preferred. In addition, he/she must have prepared and managed annual budgets, have experience in the management of automated information systems and must have proven ability to meet deadlines, lead an experienced staff, and have served in some capacity in the public eye. Salary: $59,979 – $84,757 with an excellent benefit package. Application: For an application, supplemental and position specifications, please see the Snohomish County Web site. Send application and supplemental to: Elections and Voter Registration Division, Snohomish County Auditor’s Department, 3000 Rockefeller Avenue, M/S 505, Everett, Washington, 98201. Telephone: 425-388-3693; or email documents to: betty.scrapper@co.snohomish.wa.us. Deadline: Sept. 7, 2007.