March 3rd, 2005 ERC DRAFT Minutes

MINUTES OF MEETING OF MARCH 3, 2005 BOULDER COUNTY ELECTION REVIEW COMMITTEE

1. Call to Order, Roll Call

The meeting of the Boulder County Election Review Committee was held on March 3, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in the Longmont Senior Center. The meeting was called to order by Richard Lyons, Chairman, at 6:35 p.m.

The meeting was attended, at roll call, by the following Committee Members: Richard Lyons, Richard Harris, Hillary Hall, Jay Harbour, Linda Flack, Michael Taylor, and Paul Tiger. Also present were members of the public.

David Leeds was excused from the meeting. Tom Davidson arrived at 6:42

2. Approval of Minutes

Consideration of the minutes of the February 17 meeting was tabled, by consensus, until the March 11 regular meeting,

3. Public Hearing and Comments Regarding the 2004 General Election

The Chairman, Mr. Lyons stated that the purpose of this meeting was to hear input from members of the public regarding the 2004 General Election. He opened the hearing by reading the charge from the Boulder County Commissioners to the Boulder County Elections Review Committee. Members of the public were invited to speak.

Joan Foutz and her husband have been election judges in Boulder County for the past 10 years. In 2004 they participated in early voting and in a precinct site on Election Day. On Election Day everything went well because they had 5 experienced judges, and voting was fairly light. They had fewer than 10 provisional ballots. Ms. Foutz commended the election staff on their excellent preparation and support. Problems with early voting had to do primarily with the tremendous turn out of voters and shortage of staff and space to accommodate them.

There were 25 voting booths at the early voting site. Voters had to wait as much as 3 hours. Security envelopes were a problem with ballots. They did not fall neatly into place, and pages could become separated. Ms. Foutz believes that experienced judges should receive higher pay than new judges. When asked about judges’ training, she said it was adequate for experienced judges but new people needed more extensive training.

The training manual was excellent, but some did not study it. She suggested that training might be more effective if done in small discussion groups. Also a video might be effective as a training tool. Many voters were new registrants who were not educated about the voting process. Many were in the wrong precinct and mistakes were made in processing the ballots. Some scratched out the bar code, believing that it jeopardized their privacy. Sample ballots were available, but were not often utilized by voters. Committee members requested that Ms. Foutz and her group generate a list of suggestions to overcome some of the problems they experienced in the voting process. She agreed to do that.

Mr. Foutz summarized their experience as judges. There were more voters than expected. The new system caused delay because they had not been able the “get the bugs out.” This frustrated both voters and judges. He described the special care given to disabled voters who required assistance in voting. He suggested that a check list of requirements for voters be listed at the beginning of the line so that those who did not meet the requirements could be placed in a different line where their problems could be addressed.

Linda Feist stated that there was inadequate publication of this meeting. She reported that 3 different people told her they were not allowed to register to vote because they did not have a driver’s license. She and her husband were election judges in the Primary and the General Election. She felt that the training for the Primary was inadequate. They experienced a lot of trouble with provisional ballots. People did not know where to vote. Ms. Feist suggested that Voting Centers might be a good solution. Asked whether voting booths provided adequate privacy, it seemed not to be an issue.

Roger Jumila was a judge in the Primary Election. He saw the limiting factor, causing lines of voters to wait, was a shortage of voting booths. He described a voting process in Minnesota that was effective in getting the report out early. It involved counting at the precinct site. Mr. Jumila stated that some voters at a crowed precinct chose to go to another precinct to vote because it was moving faster. They learned later that, in this situation, only the vote for president was counted.

Jerilyn Wilson expressed concern that her son in the military in Okinawa had received an absentee ballot in time to vote, he posted it in the military mail, but it has never arrived in Boulder. She is also aware of a military man stationed in North Carolina, who received an absentee ballot, but his voted ballot has not arrived in Boulder. Ms. Salas stated that she worked closely with the postal service to assure that military ballots were sent, but she had no knowledge of the process for mailing them back. Mr. Lyons requested information from the election staff regarding the numbers of ballots that were sent to the military and the number that were returned.

Sally Martin is a Precinct Committee person, she was a resolution team member, an election judge and she has always liked being at the election center when precinct judges came in with their results at the end of the day. She said she had been approached by a student on the CU campus, who worked for Boulder Students Abroad. That student reported that she had trouble getting ballots to students who were studying in remote areas of the world. Ms. Martin believes that the political parties do a good job instructing people how to vote; also those who registered at the county sites were given instructions, but people who were approached and registered in the community were not given instructions. In the precinct where she was a judge half of the voters had voted early, so it was slow on Election Day even though the turn out was huge. At the election center where votes were being counted, the situation was awkward because of the crowded space for counting. The resolution team had no problem identifying voter intent, for the most part. The reason for the rejection of ballots was unclear. In general, Ms. Martin does not feel trust in this system. The counting seemed amorphous. In answer to a question, she said that a 24 to 28 hour wait for returns of election results was not acceptable to voters. They want, at least, a partial report by midnight. She would like to see counting at the precinct site.

Geof Cahoon appeared to expand on the comments he made at the February 17 public hearing. He has had extensive experience with printing, and he questions the importance given, in the Hart presentation, to paper conditioning. He pointed out that in a complicated printing job the condition of paper might be an issue, but that in a simple print job such as ballots, it should not be a limiting factor. He does not blame the paper for problems with the ballots. The level of intolerance for error in the system is unacceptable. Mr. Harris carried on a detailed discussion with Mr. Cahoon regarding the printing of defective ballots.

Ivan Meek is an engineer who has worked with other professionals in the group, Boulder House Party/Boulder Move on. He described a punch card voting system, which they have designed, over several months, which is comparatively simple and inexpensive to produce. He showed graphics of the design and emphasized that it is easy to use and would accommodate counting at the precinct level. Mr. Meek expressed the opinion that the acquisition of sophisticated technology requires a high level of competence, which has not been achieved with the present system. He recommends that it be “scrapped” because it will require constant, effective maintenance and a level of competence which is difficult to achieve with volunteer operators.

A question arose as to whether or not restrictions in the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) disallow punch card systems. Mr. Lyons offered to request that Drew Durham, Director of Colorado HAVA give a session for the Committee on the Act.

Ginny Hayen was a poll watcher. She wanted to thank Linda Salas and for her provision of education of voters and her patients in encouraging them to vote. She said that voting went smoothly in the precinct in which she participated. There was a normal amount of confusion, which could be expected with a 98% voter turn out.

Jim Gillan worked with early voting. He questioned the cost of “scrapping” the electronic system and the cost of replacing it. Mr. Meek answered that the long term cost of support and maintenance of the sophisticated system must be considered. The system he recommends could be produced at a third to a fourth of the cost of the current system. It could be produced for just under $1000, depending of the Braille screen and other concepts that might be included. He emphasized that the design of their system was a nonprofit, grass roots effort. The group raised funds for the design by competent engineers and that it could be ready for the 2006 congressional election.

Mr. Lyons thanked the members of the public for their input and announced that the next meeting of the Committee will be held on March 11 at 1:00 PM in the Houston Room of the Boulder County Clerk Building.

Public comment ended at 8:30

4. Other Business Including Review of Previously Submitted Documents, Future Agendas, Discussion of Report Format and Committee members’ Comments

Agenda for the March 11 meeting will include a short presentation by Neal McBurnett , a review of the report by Ms. Salas in answer to questions submitted for the February 11 meeting and Shannon Robinson who wrote a report on the election process for the Republican Party, along with Ira Feldman, an attorney for the Democratic Party, will be invited to speak. Mr. Durham will be asked to present a written statement regarding HAVA at the March 18 meeting.

Mr. Taylor reminded the Chairman that the Committee’s original plan was to have testimony wrap-up by March 15; he wondered if that is still the goal. Mr. Lyons responded that the discussion of HAVA at the March 18 meeting is the last one scheduled.

Mr. Harris expressed that he has not heard much in the Committee sessions that he had not learned from a telephone conversation with Commissioner Paul Danish before Committee meetings began, and he is concerned about what will be the contents of a report to the Commissioners.

A discussion ensued regarding various aspects of a report. Mr. Davidson, addressing the printing problem, suggested that an expert be contracted to develop an approved vendor list of certified printers whose expertise could be trusted to produce high quality ballots.

It was agreed that the Commissioners must be told that this is a slow system, and the public is not going to be satisfied with a 24 to 28 hour wait for election results.

Mr. Tiger suggested several categories of information that might be covered in a report to Commissioners, among them were procedural issues, training, methods that might prevent some of the problems that occurred in the last election, a consideration of voting centers and systems to accommodate counting at the precinct level. Mr. Lyons wanted to add emphasis on voter education.

Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. by unanimous vote on a motion made by Ms. Hall and seconded by Ms. Flack.

___________________________ Recording Secretary

Return to ERC Agendas and Minutes