| Citizens for Verifiable Voting | March 11th, 2005 Minutes |
UserPreferences |
DRAFT MINUTES OF MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2005 BOULDER COUNTY ELECTION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Call to Order, Roll Call
The meeting of the Boulder County Election Review Committee was held on March 11, 2005, at 1:00 p.m. in the Boulder County Commissioners’ Hearing Room. The meeting was called to order by Richard Lyons, Chairman, at 1:08 p.m.
The meeting was attended, at roll call, by the following Committee Members: Richard Lyons, Richard Harris, Hillary Hall, David Leeds, Michael Taylor, Jay Harbour and Linda Flack. Also present were Shannon Robinson and Sandy Szewczyk, representing the Republican and Democratic Parties respectively, Linda Salas and Tim Hansford of the Elections Staff, Amy Naccarato representing Drew Durham of Secretary of State and members of the public.
Tom Davidson arrived at 1:15 Paul Tiger arrived at 2.05
2. Approval of Minutes of Two Previous Meetings
Corrections to the minutes of the February 17 meeting were recorded and approved by unanimous vote on a motion made by Mr. Leeds and seconded by Ms. Flack. Minutes of the March 3 meeting were corrected and unanimously approved by members present at that meeting in a motion made by Mr. Harbour and seconded by Ms. Flack.
3. Public Comment
There was no public comment at this time.
4. Continuation of Previous Presentation by Linda Salas Ms. Salas had submitted, to members by e-mail, answers to questions from the Committee for the February 11 meeting. (EXHIBIT 27)
Ms. Salas thanked the Committee for the opportunity to return in order to address the questions prepared for the February 11 meeting.
Addressing the issue of numbers of staff in the Boulder Elections Office compared with other counties, she reported: Boulder 5.5 for 198,951 voters Adams 8 for 183,241 voters Douglas 8 for 129,492 voters Larimer 8 for 182,791 voters Jefferson 13 for 342,956 voters Pueblo 7 for 92,404 voters Weld 4 for 115,224 voters
In answer to a question by Mr. Leeds, Ms. Salas said that she had requested one full time equivalent position, which was denied during the budget session with the Commissioners. Further discussion was held regarding staffing and function of the election office . Discussion moved to voting process. Mr. Harris expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to observe counting in the of Boulder City Council Election mail in ballots. He related a situation in which a ballot was rejected as an overvote because markings were noted in both boxes for one race. He pointed out that if neither box had been marked the ballot would have been auto resolved. In neither case would the vote have been counted, but rejection of the overvote required time for the resolution team to consider it . It was suggested that Ms. Salas work with the Secretary of State to seek approval for overvotes to be auto resolved. Ms. Salas said that she is working with the Secretary of State on several issues. Rules are written for optical scan, which is different from the Ballot Now system It was agreed that there could be situation in which an overvote was made inadvertently and would be thrown out in auto resolve.
Mr. Lyons asked for clarification as to HAVA rules regarding mistakes in voting. His understanding is that voters are to be given a chance to correct mistakes at the polling place or educate them so they know that they have a chance to ask for new ballot. In the first situation, the determination of voter intent is made by a resolution team. In the other the voter makes the intended vote on a new ballot. This was affirmed.
In addressing causes for the lengthy time required for counting, it was pointed out that write-in votes had to be handled manually as well as damaged votes. Write-ins could be handled fairly quickly. A batch with damaged ballots, as well as write-ins, could take up to 3 hours. A batch could not be processed until all ballots were resolved. A batch of 300 ballots with no rejections could be handled in 15 minutes. Tally would require no more than 5 minutes.
Mr. Harbour asked for clarification of “ballot” which could be three pages. A batch of 300 ballots would consist of 900 pages. Mr. Hansford said that in that case a batch would consist of 150 or 200 ballots.
When Mr. McClure of Hart projected that count could be complete in 24 to 28 hours, that was before write-in candidates were identified. Also before the decision to use security envelopes, which added to the time for counting.
Mr. Taylor addressed the number of damaged ballots on Election Day. Mr. Hansford reported that out of 90,000 voted, 13,000, or 13% had damaged contests, averaging two per ballot. Resolving those required a tremendous amount of time. Speaking of supply judges, Ms. Salas said that only 5 were inexperienced. Their assignment was made more difficult when changes came very late from the Secretary of State. This made it necessary for supply judges to inform judges at the precinct of late changes. Salary for election judges has been raised to $150 for the day. Supply judges receive an additional $29 and the person of the opposite party accompanying the judge to deliver ballots receives an additional $4.
Ms. Flack asked about considering Voting Centers. Ms. Salas reported that Hart is working at developing Ballot Now machines that can be used at the precinct level. She wants to speak with the political parties about making that change.
Mr. Davidson asked, “ Knowing what you know now, would you still buy the Hart system?” Ms. Salas replied in the affirmative. It is easy to work with and it meets requirements expressed by the public. It is not designed to be the only portion of the voting system. There was further discussion about the pros and cons of the Hart system.
There were issues having to do with printing, which were delayed to be addressed later by Mr. Howard Harris who was present. .
Mr. Lyons expressed the appreciation of the Committee for the excellent response by Ms. Salas and her staff, Mr. Hansford, Ms. Stahl, and Ms. Wurl. The report was well done.
5. Democrat and Republican Representatives
Shannon Robinson was welcomed as a representative of the Republican Party, who was a lead author of the report, which was entered into record earlier. (EXHIBIT 26) Ms. Robinson presented the Boulder County Republicans’ Boulder 2004 General Election Report, by Boulder County Republican Election Reform Committee, a Committee of volunteers appointed by the Republican Party in December 2004 to study the various issues that arose during the election. Ms. Robinson chaired the Committee. Other members were Vice Chairperson, Troyanne Thigpen, LeMoine Dowd, Barbara Kostanick, David Leeds and Marty Neilson. The goal of the Committee was to provide a report that would lay a foundation for genuine bipartisan dialogue about the issues that arose in this election, to be as neutral as possible and to articulate issues as they saw them and suggest possible solutions. The report was delivered to the Colorado Republican Party, Governor Owens, Mike Norton and Secretary of State Blue Ribbon Panel. It was also provided to Nancy Jo Wurl in the Elections Office. Ten general problem areas and proposed solutions were identified as follows:
Ms. Robinson pointed out that the committee tried to address problems that occurred before, during and after the election, and to identify what caused the delays and what might be done to address the problems. For her review at this time she focused on important issues that could be handled locally. Voter Registration: The report points out that many voters were uninformed about requirements, demonstrated by their showing of out of state addresses and driver’s licenses. These voters received a provisional ballot, then requiring that the election staff research their eligibility. The registration drives held in the community had a tremendous impact on the election office, New registrants had to be entered into record. Also a huge number of registrants lived outside of Boulder County. Those registrations had to be mailed to the county of residence, requiring a lot of valuable staff time.
Secretary of State Election Rule Changes: Many rules were made late in the process causing confusion and delay in voting at the polls and in counting.
Provisional Ballots: Rules state that no voter can be turned away at the polls. Some people were given ballots, who were not registered to vote.
Record numbers of voters for early voting and limited space caused serious problems. The solution for that would be to provide adequate space and equipment for early voting. Absentee ballots were cast by 15.9% of the votes counted. The rule has been changed so that absentee voting is now an option for any eligible voter. This causes concern that using absentee ballots may have potential for fraud. Processing of these ballots is time intensive.
Election Judge selection and training need revision because of the large number of judges required in the precincts, difficulty in recruiting for the long day of voting and providing proper training.
Ms. Robinson emphasized the importance of poll watchers, and that judges should be informed as to their role and rules in that regard. Also watchers should be involved in provisional vote verification.
In interaction with Committee members the issue arose, of keeping voters up to date with changes from the Secretary of State. It was suggested that a volunteer task force of lawyers be recruited to assist the Clerk.
It was acknowledged that voter expectations are high. Voters should be encouraged to vote in person. The importance of early voting was emphasized.
Sandy Szewczyk was introduced as a representative of the Democratic Party. She was a member of the Canvass Board and worked every day during the counting. She stated that everything was done with bipartisan input. The State needs more standardization and guidelines. The election staff was very helpful, but there was much confusion during the counting. “We were doing things we shouldn’t have done, and we should have done things that we didn’t.”
The Democratic Party endorses the Republican Report. They suggest a bipartisan Task Force be created to help prepare for an election.
Mr. Harbour asked Ms. Szewczyk’s impression of Voting Centers. She thinks it is a great idea. In the current system, many people think they know how to function, but it is different now, participants need to understand that.
6. Other Business, Including review of Previously Submittedd Documents, Review of HAVA Issues, and Committee Members’ Comments
Howard Harris, President of Eagle Direct Printing was invited to speak. He made several direct comments:
Mr. Tiger referred to an e-mail he sent to committee members regarding pdf files. There is some confusion about who had what files. He wants to identify which printers printed which files. Mr. Harris said he could identify that, except for one file. Without seeing a number, he cannot trace a ballot. Neal McBurnett offered the information that he has created an Audit Log showing the numbers of all damaged ballots. Analysis could be done with that information. Mr. Harris explained that wants to determine what went wrong to prevent it happening again. He wants to protect the reputation of his company. He reported that he h as sent Hart postscript files to an investigator to look for possible anomaly. Mr. Tiger reported that he has worked with postscript files and has observed that things can shift. A pdf postscript file may not be absolute. Mr. Davidson noted that this is the first he has heard of possible corrupted postscript file and he wants to look into it. Mr. Lyons referred to the charge to the Committee by the Commissioners, and does not believe that it includes the placing of blame or liability for problems involved. Amy Naccarato, of the Secretary of State Office was introduced. She reported that she was hired by the Secretary of State to work with counties to solve election problems. Ms. Naccarato was asked to answer questions regarding the regulations set out in HAVA, particularly those having to do with punch card balloting. She said that punch cards are not specifically denied by HAVA, but that punch cards do not meet other HAVA standards. She also pointed out that in Colorado punch cards are illegal by legislation adopted in January 2005. Mr. Richard Harris stated he believes that could be changed if legislators were aware that there is something better than Florida. Mr. Lyons inquired as to whether the State would be educating voters, prior to voting, about the handling of mistakes made on ballots. She does not know of any jurisdiction that has addressed the issue. There are some standards for educating judges, but not for voters. They are working with legislators to get some rules adopted. Mr. Harbour stated that he had been approached by a person involved with court action last fall, Schuler vs Salas. The informant offered to appear and to make transcripts available to the committee. Mr. Harris moved and Ms. Flack seconded a motion that the Committee thank Mr. Harbour for bringing the issue to our attention, but that we do not need to address it further. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Lyons reported that he had been questioned by a City Council Member as to whether the Committee would like to hear from City officials. Mr. Lyons responded that members of any jurisdiction that had an issue on the ballot was welcome to come and speak to the Committee. Mr. Lyons entered into record a written statement that was read by Professor Alfred Bartlett at a public hearing on February 17, 2005. (EXHIBIT 27) Mr. Lyons asked if there are further questions members have for Mr. McClure of Hart. Mr. Harris asked about specification standards. Is there a reason he is not providing specifications. Chairman Lyons stated that the agenda for next week will include a presentation by Neal McBurnett. There was general agreement by members that Mr. McBurnett should be commended for his patience in waiting to address the Committee.
7. Additional Public Comments
Peter Richards inquired as to when the public may submit comments in writing. Mr. Lyons replied that they will be accepted anytime before April 1. Neal McBurnett offered to get started on getting Audit Log information to the Committee. Mary Everty commented that the Hart system does not handle write-in candidates very well.
8. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m. on unanimous approval of a motion made by Mr. Harbour and seconded by Mr. Leeds.
______________________________ Recording Secretary
Return to ERC Agendas and Minutes
