http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/county/20040310-1315-report.html
Election
2004 > County
SIGNONSANDIEGO
March
10, 2004
County releases polling
report
Correspondence,
written report regarding Touchscreen voting system
used for the first time March 2, 2004 by the County of San Diego.
March
10, 2004
To:
Supervisor Dianne Jacob, Chairwoman
Supervisor
Pam Slater-Price, Vice Chairwoman
Supervisor
Greg Cox
Supervisor
Ron Roberts
Supervisor
Bill Horn
From:
Walter F. Ekard
Chief
Administrative Officer
Attached
please find the initial report on lessons learned with regard to implementation
of the new Touchscreen voting system in the recent
primary election.
The
report covers our initial review of the problems that affected our polling
places most particularly in the early hours after the polls initially opened.
My intention is to provide periodic reports to your Board until we are mutually
satisfied that all issues have been identified and addressed.
Deputy
Chief Administrative Officer Alex Martinez is heading the team that is
reviewing the matter. He will be given whatever
resources are necessary to accomplish the task in an expeditious, yet thorough
way. We have received a number of
e-mails and calls from those communicating with your offices and would urge you
to continue to pass along any additional responses you receive. Our task will
include conferring with poll workers, systems inspectors, troubleshooters and
voters to ensure we have a good basis of information upon which to make
whatever changes or improvements are necessary.
Respectfully,
Walter
F. Ekard
--------------------------------------------------------------------
March
8, 2004
To:
Walter F. Ekard
Chief
Administrative Officer
From:
Alex A. Martinez
Deputy
Chief Administrative Officer
INITIAL REPORT- MARCH 2,
2004 PRIMARY ELECTION
Attached
is the Initial Report on the March 2, 2004 Primary Election. In response to
your direction, a Review Team of senior county managers has been convened to
examine all aspects of the election process. The Initial Report includes an
assessment-to-date of the Primary Election by the Review Team. The report
provides a background on election preparation activities, identifies
preliminary findings, both positive and negative, and offers recommended
remedial actions.
As
you know, many counties throughout California conducted this election on new
electronic systems, and experienced similar difficulties. The United States
Department of Justice, the California Secretary of State, and the California
Department of Justice monitored this election. The California Secretary of
State also conducted "parallel monitoring" of the electronic devices
in certain California counties, including San Diego.
As
a result, the Review Team expects to receive copies of any assessments these
entities might issue in the near future and will incorporate these findings and
recommendati ons in
subsequent reports to you and the Board of Supervisors. We will also utilize
public input in the formation of future recommendations.
I
expect to issue a follow up report in 30 days. Please call me at 619-531-5274
should you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
ALEX
A. MARTINEZ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Report -
March 2, 2004 Election
March 10, 2004
Introduction
This
is the first in a series of reports that will be issued over the next several
months as we conduct a comprehensive examination of the March 2 Primary
Election. The initial report focuses on the events of March 2 based on
information available to date.
This
report has been compiled by a Review Team headed by Deputy Chief Administrative
Officer Alex Martinez. The team consists of senior managers and staff from
various County departments and the Registrar's office including former
Registrar Mikel Haas.
Future
reports will be issued as we receive and analyze information from the following
sources:
1.
Poll workers - We are actively seeking information from poll workers and field
troubleshooters to identify every issue that was encountered at their polling
locations.
2.
Diebold - The equipment manufacturer is undertaking
an extensive technical examination of the cause of the Precinct Command Modules
(PCM) failure to properly boot. This analysis will take approximately two
weeks.
3.
Citizen comments and complaints - To date, 105 comments and complaints both
positive and negative have been received from citizens and poll workers. Each
of these are being investigated and responded to for inclusion in future
reports.
4.
Registrar Canvassing Results - The Registrar's office is conducting the normal
canvassing activity required to certify election results. The canvassing period
concludes 28 days after an election.
5.
Independent Evaluation - The Secretary of State ordered an independent body to
conduct parallel monitoring of the election. The results of that effort will be
provided within the next several weeks.
Election Background
In
September 2001, the Secretary of State took action to decertify the Votomatic voting systems used in San Diego County for more
than two decades. Additionally, as a
result of a lawsuit in California, a Federal judge issued an order in February
2002 requiring counties to replace their pre-scored punch card voting systems
by 2004.
On
April 16, 2002, the Board of Supervisors authorized the issuance of a Request
for Proposals (RFP) to acquire a Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting
system that is integrated, or can be integrated with, an optical scan system.
The Board further directed that the system be touch screen, be a self-contained
or stand-alone system, and have multiple language capabilities, as well as
specially designed audio/voice capabilities for the blind and disabled communities.
On
December 9, 2003, the Board of Supervisors authorized the funding of nearly $31
Million for 10,200 of Diebold's Accu-Vote
TSx model touch screen devices and integrated
absentee ballot system. $28 Million is being provided by State and Federal
funding sources.
On
March 2, 2004, the County of San Diego conducted the largest rollout of an
electronic voting system of any local jurisdiction in the United States. This
included the use of 10,000 touch-screen voting machines, 6,800 poll workers,
and 1,611 polling places. Some 600,000 ballots were cast with over 400,000 cast
at the polls.
Primary
elections are more complex than General elections. There were seven party
choices, and nonpartisan voters were allowed to choose to vote their nonpartisan
ballot or to "cross over" to three additional party ballot choices.
Thirty-three versions of the ballot were provided to each polling place via the
touch screens.
This
election was monitored by several entities including the Office of the California
Secretary of State, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the California
Department of Justice. Any feedback received will be incorporated in future
reports.
Election Preparation
Activities
Since
the decertification of the punch card ballots The Registrar's office has been
on an aggressive schedule to provide a certified voting solution for San Diego
County residents. The Registrar and Diebold expended
significant effort prior to the election programming, testing equipment, and
preparing poll workers and citizens for the electronic voting process.
Recruitment of Poll
Workers
Recruitment
of the needed 6,800 poll workers for 1,611 polling places began in mid-November
of 2003 with the mailing of a recruitment letter to poll workers who had helped
in the past and also to a new group of people who had expressed interest in
helping out at the election. Recruitment efforts continued through the use of
press releases, referrals, and other means all the way up to the day prior to
the election, filling in vacant slots and covering for poll workers who had
dropped out. Because of the move to the new voting system, the Registrar of
Voters recruited 600 more poll workers than in past elections. A new County
employee poll worker program was implemented, and approximately 900 County
staff served in key poll worker positions throughout the day.
Training of Poll Workers
In
prior elections, two poll workers-a Precinct Inspector and Assistant Precinct
Inspector-were trained on the voting equipment, election processes and the
legal aspects of operating the polls. Because of new procedures and
requirements for the touch screen machines, two more positions were added-the
Systems Inspector and the Systems Assistant-who were responsible for the set up
and operation of the machines.
Each
of the more than 3,200 Systems Inspector and Assistant Systems Inspector
received 21/2 hours of hands-on training specifically on setting the equipment
up, creating voter access cards, logging into the card-encoding devices, use of
the touch screens, and closing down the equipment at the end of election day.
The
Precinct Inspector and Assistant Precinct Inspector received two hours of
training on the election processes and the legal aspects of operating the polls
(e.g. provisional
voting, nonpartisan cross-overs, etc.). They also had
an opportunity to try the new equipment, but were not trained on the detailed
operation of the machines.
All
poll workers received a detailed guide and procedural checklist to help them
through the various processes of the day, from set-up in the morning to closing
at the end of the day. Troubleshooting tips were mailed to the Systems
Inspectors the week prior to the election.
To
ensure that the voting equipment was at the polling site in a timely manner,
poll workers were instructed to set up the equipment at their precinct the
night before the election and be at the polling site by 6:30 a.m. If they were
unable to set up the night before, they were told to be at their polling site
by 5:30 a.m. Equipment was issued to the Systems Inspectors during training.
For security reasons, the equipment was kept under seal and could not be
activated until the morning of the election.
Testing of Equipment
The
touch screens and related equipment-both hardware and software-went through
Federal testing at certified Independent Testing Authorities. Subsequently, the California Secretary of
State's technical expert reviewed the equipment and the Secretary of State
approved the touch screen machines for use on November 10, 2003, and
subsequently approved use of the PCM devices on February 21, 2004.
All
10,200 touch screens and 1,700 Precinct Control Modules underwent acceptance
testing at the Registrar of Voters.
Troubleshooter Hotline
and Other Phone Support
The
Registrar of Voters had the following phone support available to answer
questions from the polling places:
.
11 troubleshooter hotline phones. All poll workers
were provided with this phone number.
.
12 direct lines to recruitment staff that had been working with the poll
workers during the weeks and months prior to the election.
.
38 Registrar of Voters phone bank lines that supplemented the
other lines during the peak incident period.
.
10 dispatch phones for communicating with Supervising Troubleshooters.
.
26 Supervising Troubleshooters.
Diebold also had 12 staff at the Registrar's
office to assist with technical support and to address systems questions.
Other
Registrar of Voters staff also stepped in to deal with calls and to give
instructions.
Field Support
The
Registrar of Voters recruited 26 Supervising Troubleshooters, who were
available in the field from 5:30 a.m. until the polls closed on Election Day.
These Supervisors were coordinating and working with approximately 200 Rovers
who were supplied by Diebold, each assigned to
monitor a set of polling places in their designated area. Rovers began making
their rounds at 5:30 a.m. as well.
Outreach/Public
Education
The
Registrar of Voters made a significant effort to educate the public on the use
of the new system. A public education campaign was developed with the help of
the contractor. This included a web site, educational brochures and other
written materials, and an instructional video. Additionally, teams from the
Registrar of Voters demonstrated the equipment at shopping malls and at
community meetings throughout the county during the months preceding the
election. More than 60 demonstrations were conducted, reaching more than 5,000
voters.
Election Day
Each
polling location received four to eight Diebold TSx touch screen voting machines, based on the number of
registered voters, and a Precinct Control Module (PCM). The system used in this
election uses an encoded card to give voters access to their appropriate ballot
on the touch screen machines. These access cards are encoded by the PCM. The
encoded card is then inserted into one of the voting machines to activate the
appropriate ballot for each individual voter.
Early
on election morning poll workers at each polling site removed the PCM from its
sealed case and set it up. At approximately 40% of the sites, poll workers
found that the machine did not display the expected login screen. Some of the
more computer-savvy poll workers were able to maneuver through a series of
screens until they found the specific login screen upon which they had been
trained. Other poll workers did not, as they had only been trained with the
expected screen. Therefore, they were
not able to perform the card-encoding function. Without the ability to encode
the electronic ballot cards at those polls, voters could not vote. There were no back-up paper ballots at the
polling locations. Provisional ballots were also electronic. Therefore, many
poll workers could not open the polls for voting at 7 a.m.
As
a back up for a potential PCM failure, the 26 Supervising Troubleshooters and
200 Rovers were trained to convert one of the TSx
machines into a card encoder. However,
poll workers were not trained on this procedure since it required an additional
level of technical acumen. These poll workers were dependent upon reaching the
troubleshooter hotline to help guide them through any technical problems.
Supervising
Troubleshooters and hotline workers, assisted by Diebold
staff in the Registrar's office, had a list of troubleshooting tips and were
able to identify and fix this problem in minutes. The actual fix was a
four-click process that took less than one minute to execute. Rovers in the
field were able to assist in the resolution of the problem at many polls. At a
few locations, voters actually assisted poll workers in maneuvering through the
start up process to reach the login screen. These citizens did not have access
to the PCM during login nor did they have access to the touchscreen
software.
Many
poll workers, however, were unable to reach help immediately because of the
large number of calls coming in during a very narrow window of time.
At
7 a.m. 64%(1,038 of 1,611) of polling sites were
operational. By 8:00 a.m., 88% (1,419) were open and by 9:00 a.m., 98% (1,580)
were open. Before 10:00 a.m., 21 more polls were open. Nine additional polls
were open after 10 a.m. and the one final poll opened at 11:05 a.m.
Attachment
"A" is a color-coded precinct map depicting the delays experienced at
the polling sites.
Download
the map - PDF document - 525k
As
evidenced by the maps, delayed openings were random and equally distributed
throughout the county.
By
9:00 a.m., the call volume at the troubleshooter hotline had diminished
significantly. The troubleshooting desk then began to contact each polling site
to verify they were open and voting. No other major problems were reported.
There
were reports throughout the day of some touchscreens
not operating. All polling places had a sufficient number of machines to handle
the volume of voters, and there was no impact to voting.
The
polls closed at precisely 8:00 p.m., with no problems reported. Early absentee
ballots were reported at 8:15 p.m. The first ballots began arriving at the
Registrar's office at 8:40 p.m. By 11:30 p.m., all ballots and all equipment
had arrived except two trucks that experienced minor mechanical trouble. These
two trucks arrived by midnight. Shortly thereafter, all equipment was back at
the Registrar's office, accounted for and in its place with all precincts
reporting.
Other California
Counties
Many
counties throughout California conducted this election on new systems,
including optical-scan equipment, as well as electronic touch-screen devices
from Diebold and other manufacturers. Alameda County
utilized the same PCM devices used in San Diego, and experienced similar
difficulties.
Orange
County used electronic voting machines from another manufacturer, and it was
reported that problems from a design issue caused poll workers to issue 7,000
incorrect ballots. San Bernardino County experienced delays with their
electronic system in the memory card download process. As a result, they were
unable to report results until early the following morning.
The
counties of Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Santa Barbara, who
chose to use optical scan technology are being
challenged by a lawsuit on behalf of California voters with vision and manual
dexterity impairments claiming violations of state and federal laws. The suit
demands access to touch screen machines for disabled voters, and challenges the
requirement for voter-verified paper audit trails.
Post-Election Canvass
Activities
Following
Election Day, there are still ballots to be added: absentee ballots turned in
at the polls, provisional ballots to be researched, and write-in votes cast.
Official results of the election cannot be certified until completion of the
official canvass-a mandatory audit of the election that ensures the accuracy of
the results. State law provides 28 days to complete this task, thus recognizing
the complexity and importance of completing the count and audit procedures.
Each and every one of the County's 1,611 precincts, as well as the absentee
ballot system, is audited to account for all ballots. The official canvass
includes a manual recount of paper images of ballots from a minimum of 1% of
the precincts, which must include every contest and ballot measure in the
County to ensure the accuracy of the computerized ballot counting system.
Completion of the official canvass and certification of the final results is
anticipated on or before March 30.
Citizen Comments and
Complaints
Since
the election, approximately 105 people have contacted the Board of Supervisors,
Chief Administrative Office or Registrar of Voters with a range of comments,
complaints, suggestions and combinations thereof.
All
of the communications received are being tracked by the Review Team, and each
one is being reviewed. Staff is also researching any comments made by voters to
the media, to the extent possible.
Some
voters were inconvenienced and several were angry because they were not able to
return to vote. Others remain opposed to any system that does not provide each
voter with a "verifiable paper trail".
Comments
were received from voters and poll workers that contain valuable suggestions
for improvements that will be incorporated into the administration of future
elections. Some comments included praise for the new systems; several
individuals said touch screens were a big improvement, particularly for the
disabled community. A number of senior citizens said they were pleasantly
surprised at how easy the machines were to use.
Attachment
"B" summarizes the comments and findings to date.
Preliminary Findings
Most
aspects of the March 2 election went very well. Voters expressed positive
feedback about the machines to reporters and election officials; there have been
no breaches of security reported, nor any count irregularities, and the results
were delivered in a timely manner. For the first time, visually impaired voters
were able to vote unassisted and the ballot was provided in the three
languages-English, Spanish, and Tagalog-mandated in
San Diego County.
However,
there were problems that must be addressed. Most importantly, there was a
significant and unexpected problem, which resulted in the delayed opening of
573 out of 1,611 polling places. This inconvenienced many voters, some of whom
returned later or went to another polling site, and some who were unable to
return at all to vote. There is no method to accurately measure how many voters
were unable to vote.
Technical
Approximately
40% of the PCM devices failed to "boot-up" to the correct screen when
turned on by the poll workers. Diebold Election
Systems, manufacturer of the voting machines has made a preliminary
determination that the problem experienced with the PCM devices was caused by
an unexpected discharge of the internal battery. This loss of power caused an
unfamiliar screen to come up for poll workers upon start up. Diebold has a team of engineers working to determine the
cause of the battery drain, and expects to issue a report in approximately two
weeks.
The
possibility of this large-scale hardware problem was not anticipated by the
manufacturer. However, it was determined to be a possibility on a smaller scale
and 26 supervising troubleshooters were armed with the remedy, as they were for
other potential issues that might arise.
Technical
support in the field was not consistent in that some precincts received
support, and others never received a visit from their roving support person.
Communication
Means
of communication, both to and from the precincts, was inadequate. Because of
the large number of precincts experiencing problems at the same time, phone
lines to the troubleshooting hotline were overloaded early in the morning.
There were approximately 200 Rovers in the field who were assigned to visit
polls in the early morning hours to assist with equipment set-up. The timing of
these visits allowed some of the Rovers to help the poll workers with this
problem, either prior to 7 a.m., or shortly thereafter. However, in other
cases, the poll workers had to call the troubleshooting hotline, as they did
not have any way of directly contacting Rovers in the field. The lack of
ability to directly and simultaneously provide communication to the polling
sites increased the delay in getting the poll sites open and operating.
In
years past, poll workers were instructed to test their equipment prior to
Election Day and to return faulty equipment for replacement-providing adequate
time to identify and fix problems. Because of added security measures and the
need to seal all equipment until election morning, poll workers were not able
to test the functioning of the equipment in the days prior to the election. The
period for identifying problems and communicating them was reduced to minutes
rather than days.
Many
of the polling places are in buildings that, while good for public access, can
be problematic for communication between the Registrar's office and the poll
workers, and for gaining adequate access to the facility. For example, many
polls are held at churches and schools. In order for the Registrar's staff to
contact poll workers, they have to first contact the church or school office,
which then must get word to the poll workers. Additionally, some poll workers
reported difficulties in coordinating with facilities staff to ensure that the
facilities are unlocked and available for set-up.
Training
Expanded
training is required. Poll workers were trained in the setup and use of the
electronic voting machines and the PCM devices. Additionally, poll workers
received a detailed training manual and procedural checklist to use as a
reference guide throughout the day. The reference guide did not include the fix
to the PCM. A widespread problem with
the PCM devices was considered to be "low probability." Therefore, no
alternative methods for gaining access to the login screen or encoding voter
access cards were given to the poll workers. Using a common triage approach,
only the 26 supervising troubleshooters and support staff at the Registrar of
Voters were trained to handle this PCM problem.
Approximately 400 poll workers are not trained due to the nature of
their clerical duties at the polling place.
Back-Up Plans
Existing
back-up plans were not adequate to handle the widespread difficulties that
resulted in delayed opening of many polling sites. Back-up plans were geared
towards problems at a small percentage of polling places. It was not
contemplated that a widespread number of polling sites would simultaneously face
this failure. In the event of a PCM failure, rovers were supplied with extra PCMs. Additionally 226 troubleshooters were trained to
convert touchscreens to card activators.
Alameda
County experienced the same problem with their PCMs,
but they were able to issue paper Provisional ballots to some voters. Because
the problem was so widespread, they soon ran out of paper ballots and were
forced to turn voters away.
Next Steps
The
Review team is currently interviewing poll workers and troubleshooters to
determine the nature and extent of problems experienced on March 2. As with any
election, minor problems were identified throughout the day, and ongoing
analysis will be performed. The Review Team will also analyze reports received
from external entities, as well as the summary results of the post-election
canvassing activities to determine if there are any other significant issues
that have surfaced. Subsequent reports will be issued as determinations are
made, and as other agencies complete their reports.
The
experience of this election has direct impacts on how the Registrar will
prepare for and conduct future elections. As further analysis and feedback from
pollworkers is received, action plans will be created
to address all of the lessons learned.
The
following actions will be taken prior to the November election:
.
The source of the battery discharge problems will be identified and
corrected by the equipment manufacturer.
.
Communications capacity will be expanded, including but not limited to, the
ability to communicate to all polling places simultaneously; increase call-in
capacity at the troubleshooting hotline; and provide poll worker-to-supervising
trouble shooter communications.
.
Increase technical skill requirements for poll workers.
.
Provide more extensive written troubleshooting instructions, including
scenarios and fixes at each polling site.
.
Enhance and increase training hours for hands-on technical staff.
.
Provide back-up ballot options at all polling sites.
.
Provide instruction to convert backup machine to card encoder to each polling
site.
.
Examine methods for distribution of voting equipment and supplies.
.
Create new criteria for polling places to facilitate improved communications.
.
Implement new timeline requirements for set-up and testing at polling places.
.
Develop check-in system to notify Registrar's office when polling place is
open.
.
Explore regional "early voting" centers.
.
Pursue legislation that would provide for regional election-day "super
voting centers" to improve efficiency and quality of service.
Summary
The
Review Team will be able to create a much more detailed picture in the coming
weeks and months of what went wrong - and what went right - during the March 2,
2004 Presidential Primary election. Information will continue to be gathered to
improve the process for the November general election, and to eliminate the
technical problems that occurred with the roll-out of the County's new touch-screen
voting system.
There
remains much work to do, from improving poll worker training and
communications, to making sure there is an adequate backup system that allows
voters to cast their ballots in case of an equipment problem.
Discussions
will continue with all vital parties in the election process, from voters and
poll workers, to the vendor and outside agencies such as state and federal
elections officials. The Review Team will maintain contact with other counties
to find out how they have dealt with any common problems.
Although
there was an overwhelmingly positive voter reaction to the new system, there
remains an ongoing commitment to swiftly identifying the factors that led to
the delayed poll openings in the March 2 election, and
making sure those problems are behind us.
To
that end, the Review Team will provide regular updates as we approach the
November election. The County's goal is to run the most efficient, secure and
accurate elections that we possibly can for the voters of San Diego County.
Attachment B
Summary of Public
Comments Received
Regarding March 2, 2004
Primary Election
Comment
A
voter said the machine rejected her card and she voted again. She believed she
voted twice.
Response/Resolution
The
poll worker correctly gave the voter a provisional ballot after she claimed
that the machine had rejected her initial ballot. During the canvassing
process, machine counts will be audited. If it is determined that the voters'
initial ballot was included in the vote count then her provisional ballot will
not be added to the vote count.
Comment
A
voter said he found the icon colors & location on the screen confusing and
pressed "cast ballot" by accident, before he was finished voting.
Response/Resolution
A
new version of software should be in place for the November election. It
revises the screen format to ask each voter twice if they are ready to record
their vote - giving all voters a second opportunity to review their vote.
Comment
Some
voters questioned whether there is a verifiable paper trail or ability to
recount ballots in close races.
Response/Resolution
The
County's current system includes the capability of printing an image of every
ballot cast. However, it does not print a receipt for each voter. There is no
system certified for use in California that provides a voter verifiable paper
audit trail. The California Secretary of State will require such a system be
developed and in place by July 2006. The equipment manufacturer, Diebold, will be providing this enhancement by the required
deadline, at no additional cost to the County.
Comment
When
a poll closed, the number of signatures on the voter log exceeded the number of
votes recorded on the machine printouts. Poll workers and voters they spoke to
thought the machines "lost" some votes.
Response/Resolution
Provisional
ballots cast at the poll are not included in the machine printouts, because the
voter's eligibility has to be reviewed and validated by ROV staff. These votes are added to the vote count only
after they have been validated. No votes have been lost.
Comment
Several
voters reported that they needed to vote early & didn't have time to travel
to the ROV office, another poll site or return later to their own poll and thus
were unable to vote.
Response/Resolution
Technical
and physical back-up systems will be in place for the November election.
Comment
Some
poll workers had trouble gaining access to polling locations controlled by
others. Some poll workers had no easily accessible phone. Since many polls are
located in schools, churches and other public buildings, it is sometimes
difficult to gain early morning access. Additionally, phone lines are not
always available in these locations, making communications more difficult.
Polling site criteria will be updated. Additionally, alternative methods for
communicating with the poll workers will be implemented.
Comment
Poll
workers reported problems with the PCMs. Many did not
know how to re-boot the PCMs or move from the Windows
screen that appeared on some. One poll worker said their PCM froze.
Response/Resolution
The
equipment manufacturer will determine the cause of the problem and correct it
for the November election. Their report is expected in approximately two
weeks. Poll workers said they couldn't
contact the Registrar's hotline because it was busy. Poll workers also could not contact Diebold rovers or County troubleshooters.
Response/Resolution
It
has been determined the communication capacity in place on March 2 was
insufficient for the number of calls coming in. It will be enhanced and
improved with emphasis on the ability to communicate with all polling places
simultaneously.
Comment
Many
voters and poll workers suggested that poll workers receive more training on
both the touchscreen equipment and current election
law.
Response/Resolution
Prior
to the November 2004 election, the technical skill requirements for many poll
workers will be increased. More extensive written troubleshooting instructions
will be provided to all polling locations. Technical staff will receive more
training. The ROV will also meet with other counties to address the issue of
how to recruit increasingly larger numbers of poll workers (6,800 in San Diego
County) who are willing and able to handle increasingly complex elections and
election laws.
Comment
Some
voters complained that their sample ballot was different than their actual
ballot.
Response/Resolution
A
combined sample ballot pamphlet (all parties in one booklet) was printed for
this election. An explanation to voters was provided on the front cover of the
pamphlet. This practice is under review.
Comment
Some
voters thought that every voter should have to show identification.
Response/Resolution
A
new federal law required first-time registrants who did not provide
identification with their voter registration affidavit to provide
identification at the polls. Law forbids poll workers from requesting
identification from any other voters at the polls.
Comment
Some
voters said they were given the wrong ballot.
Response/Resolution
We
are investigating each individual complaint. Thus far, in every case, the voter
was given the correct ballot. Many voters did not realize how party
registration determines the ballot a voter is allowed to use and the races they
may vote on.
Comment
Some
voters believed they were unable to vote for races they thought they should be
voting on at their own polling place.
Response/Resolution
In
each case, the voter was mistaken as to the boundaries in the races they
questioned. To date, no voters were allowed to vote on races they shouldn't
have, nor any denied a vote on races they should have voted on.
Comment
Voters
reported being "handed provisional ballots" to vote on when their
polling places could not open. They say they refused to cast provisional
ballots. There were no paper provisional ballots to "hand out" at any
polling place. Provisional ballots were cast on the touch screen machines. If
the polling place was unable to open due to PCM problems, provisionals
could not be cast. If a polling place was open and a voter cast a provisional
vote, they signed a document acknowledging they were casting a provisional
vote.
Comment
Some
voters registered Non-Partisan. They were unhappy they could not vote for
certain candidates.
Response/Resolution
California
ran a modified closed primary. If you registered NP three parties allowed you
to vote for their candidates. The Democrats, Republicans, and American
Independents allowed "cross-over" voting but only in certain races,
not all races.
Comment
Touch
screens were not working at the polling place.
Response/Resolution
We
have contacted each polling site and determined that each location had touch
screens that were up and running throughout the remainder of the day once the
PCM issue was resolved. There were some touch screens that were not in service
at some locations for various reasons but there were sufficient machines
operating in each location to allow voting to continue throughout the day.
Comment
Seals
on the voting equipment could easily be removed and replaced thereby allowing
machines to be tampered with.
Response/Resolution
Special
security seals are used which show when a seal has been tampered with. For example, if a seal is removed and later
replaced, the lettering on the seal would show distortion. There were no
reports of broken seals or tampering on election day.
Comment
Poll
workers were not asked to show their identification when receiving their
equipment.
Response/Resolution
Poll
workers signed a log when receiving equipment. We will re-evaluate the process
to determine if picture identification should be required.
Copyright
2004 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.