In Focus This Week
Editor’s Note: Due to the Thanksgiving holiday, electionlineWeekly will not publish next week Thursday, November 26. It will return on Thursday, December 3.
EAC releases UOCAVA and Election Day Survey reports and data
Data quality is improved and more timely than in the past
By Paul Gronke
Earlier this month, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) released the final two data products from its biennial data collection effort — the 2008 UOCAVA and Election Day Survey reports (full disclosure: I worked as a subcontractor on these reports).
This closes out for the year the major data reporting and analysis process the agency is required to complete, updating Congress and the public on the performance of the states and territories in registering voters, delivering and counting ballots from military and overseas voters, and in administering federal elections in 2008.
The survey highlights a few ongoing flashpoints of political conflict and these animated much of the back and forth between the commissioners, Shelly Anderson of the EAC, who presented the findings at the November 5 public meeting, and Toby Moore of RTI, the chief contractor on the project.
For instance, the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) of the Department of Defense, in its survey of military voters, found substantially different levels of participation than in the EAC survey.
According to Moore, FVAP and the EAC are really measuring two different things — voter participation in a survey, and ballots transmitted and returned by the states — and comparing the two is quite complicated. A long discussion ensued at the meeting about the ongoing difficulty of tracking UOCAVA ballots in the states, and whether the EAC could assist the states in the process in the future.
The commissioners were also quite interested in the number of provisional ballots cast, and rejected, in the states — why, they asked, do some states, like Alaska, California, or Arizona have a relatively high rate of provisional ballot usage? Is this due to state laws? Does it indicate something about the way elections are conducted in these states? One commissioner speculated that the lack of a major increase in provisional rates since 2006 was perhaps due to the rapid growth in early voting.
But for a data geek like me, easily the major takeaways from this year’s reports are two-fold.
First, the data quality is substantially improved. In a report that I authored for the Pew Center on the States, the Data for Democracy Compendium, we showed that response rates across the states varied enormously, but for some major areas, such as UOCAVA or provisional ballots, were far too low.
The agency has made significant strides, particularly for UOCAVA, where the response rates on most items now exceeds 90 percent. We hope to reproduce our compendium analysis in the next six months, and I think we’ll show improvement throughout the survey.
Along with higher quality data came a much more rapid and transparent data release. This means that outside stakeholders — activists, advocates, and even academics like me — can quickly analyze the data, answer questions, and raise new issues.
Any reader of Professor Rick Hasen’s popular “Election Law” listserv saw this play out in real time in the week following the release. Ned Foley of the Moritz College of Law at The Ohio State University raised issues about the level of absentee ballots accepted and rejected in different states, while Bev Harris of Black Box Voting weighed in with broader worries about voting by mail in Oregon and Washington, and how these states report turnout in the EAC reports.
Nate Persily of the Brennan Center at New York University responded, comparing the way that some states report their turnout to the EAC, and how these figures differ from those collected by scholars.
The EAC might view all of these postings as problematic, because they could be read as criticisms of the quality of the data collection. A more positive spin is that a large number of stakeholders are not only reading the EAC reports, but are also pushing beyond the boundaries of the reports and conducting their own analyses using the data.
The EAC often endures criticism from states burdened with responding to the survey. But if states see that the results of these reports, and perhaps more importantly the data that emerge from them, can help them improve the way they administer elections, perhaps the critics will turn into supporters.
Election News This Week
Pierce County, Wash. will remain the only county in the Evergreen State that will send its voters to polling places for the 2010 election. The county council approved a measure that sets aside $150,000 of the auditor’s budget to maintain poll voting next year. The provision also prohibits the auditor from decreasing the number of polling places from the current 56. But according to The News Tribune, the council did not restore the $150,000 that County Executive Pat McCarthy recently removed from the auditor’s 2010 budget to pay for poll voting. However, current Auditor Jan Shabro won’t be left to figure out where to come up with the money. That task will fall to Julie Anderson who defeated Shabro in last month’s election. “I’m surprised that the County Council, which has been very supportive of poll voting, has basically de-funded poll voting,” Anderson said. Anderson criticized the council for unveiling the provision late Tuesday following a meeting recess and shortly before the budget was approved. And she expressed surprise the council can “prescribe how an executive office directly elected by the people will run elections.”
Dallas County, Texas commissioners want to know why potentially thousands of cards notifying voters of changes to their polling locations didn’t reach them before the election. According to WFAA, the county intended to mail almost 340,000 cards informing voters of a different polling location for the election that was held two weeks ago, but not all of cards arrived in time. The elections department combined precinct voting locations to save money and wanted to send out cards notifying voters of the change a week before election day. Elections Administrator Bruce Sherbet told the station that the local printer didn’t start the job until six days after it was notified. “It should take no more than a couple of days, three days at the most, 36 hours,” he said. “The printer didn’t have enough paper.” In fact, Accurate Forms and Supplies told the county it was having trouble locating enough paper. Commissioner John Wiley Price said the company also told him it lost the disc with voters’ data. “These folks got jacked and I’m trying to find out what the hell happened,” Price said. Sherbert has vowed to correct the mailing problems to ensure that this does not happen again.
Parties involved in a chancery court lawsuit involving the Putnam County Election Commission have agreed to delay any legal action — at least until the Tennessee Supreme Court rules on the issue at the heart of the case. Putnam County Election Commission Chair Terry Herrin told the News Herald this week that the parties had filed an agreed order, effectively putting the suit on hold until a ruling is made at the Tennessee Supreme Court level. One of the key questions the court must answer is if an administrator of elections is a county or state employee, the basis of the suit filed by the commission earlier this year and the determining factor in who might ultimately have to foot the legal bill in a related federal case. “We feel the Supreme Court of Tennessee will probably hear this before the first of the year,” Herrin said. “At that point, we’ll all decide where (this is) going, depending on what happens.”
It happens every year and this year, the winner is Monroe County, Pa. for one of the oddest ways to break an elections tie. The county was faced with three ties for election inspectors and so it had to turn to that most sacred of election tools…the ping pong ball. The balls — numbered one through 18 — were drawn out of a red and green basket, with the candidate who drew the highest number declared the winner.
Research and Report Summaries
electionline provides brief summaries of recent research and reports in the field of election administration. Please e-mail links to research to sgreene@pewtrusts.org.
The Rapid Growth of Permanent Mail Ballot Registration in California and its Impact – Mark DiCamillo, The Field Poll, November 2009: DiCamiollo examines the fast growth of permanent absentee voting in California – from approximately two percent of registered voters in 2000 to 32 percent in 2008. Turnout rates of vote-by-mail voters have been significantly higher than overall turnout in 2006 and 2008. Additionally, the research found demographic differences between California’s permanent mail ballot registrants and other registered voters in the 2008 presidential election, including:
- Nearly 30 percent of permanent mail ballot registrants lived in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area compared to just 10 percent in Los Angeles County. Nearly the opposite is true of other registered voters with 17 percent living in the Bay Area and 32 percent in Los Angeles County.
- Permanent mail ballot registrants were significantly older – 58 percent age fifty or older – than other registrants, 58 percent of whom were under age fifty.
- Permanent mail ballot registrants included a larger proportion of white non-Hispanic voters, 74 percent, than other voters, 61 percent.
- Permanent mail ballot registrants included more Republicans, 38 percent, than other voters, with 27 percent registered Republicans.
Public Opinion and Election Law Controversies Past and Present – Nathaniel Persily and Stephen Ansolabehere, November 17, 2009: In a national survey, public opinion on contemporary and classic election law controversies is assessed, including topics such as photo ID laws and election-day registration, literacy tests and poll taxes. Findings include:
- Require that all people show that they can read in order to vote: 55% approve; 44% disapprove
- Require that all people show photo ID when they vote: 84% approve, 14% disapprove
- Require that all voters pay a $5 fee: 3% approve; 95% disapprove
- Allow people to register on Election Day if they can prove their residency and citizenship: 62% approve; 37% disapprove
”Post-Racial” America? Not Yet – NAACP Legal Defense Fund, November 2009: This report examines the “post-racial” argument made in NAMUDNO, the recent constitutional challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and contrasts this argument with the record of ongoing voting discrimination considered by Congress when Section 5 was renewed in 2006. Additionally, with President Obama’s victory, the report finds race still relevant in American elections with exit polls showing that a record 95 percent of African Americans, 67 percent of Latinos, and 62 percent of Asian Americans voted for President Obama nationally, compared to only 43 percent of white voters.
Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy – Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., December 2009, 8(4): The most recent issue of the Election Law Journal is now available.
Opinions This Week
California: Poll workers; Instant-runoff voting
Connecticut: International comparisons
Florida: Local election cycles
Massachusetts: Election workers
Minnesota: Instant-runoff voting
Mississippi: Vote count; Voter ID
New York: New voting system, II; Student voting
North Carolina: Instant-runoff voting; Lessons from election 2009
Ohio: Election reform, II; Vote fraud allegations
Texas: Spanish-speaking voters
Washington: Vote count, II, III; Vote-by-mail, II, III
**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
Executive Director/Election Commission, City of Cambridge, MA — seeking experienced manager to oversee day-to-day dept administration of Election Commission. Reports to City Manager and Board of Election Commissioners, responsible for all aspects of federal, state, and municipal elections, voter registration & city census. Experience in project management, staff supervision, & budgeting required. Familiarity with election laws and the City of Cambridge desirable. $61,266-$73,265 + excellent benefits. Detailed job description available on www.cambridgema.gov (click on JOBS). Please email your resume and cover letter by 5pm on 11/24/09 to employment@cambridgema.gov.We are an AA/EEO Employer.