Election observers, often called “poll watchers” have been on the job all afternoon at both the Fernan and Ramsey locations. They have just called to update OpenCdA on the results of the school board election.
As of 9:15 pm the Zone 3 results are in:
Incumbent Bill Hemenway has won with 233 votes. Challenger Terri Seymour was very, very close with 191 votes. (That’s a difference of only 42 votes.)
Zone 1 results are still being counted at this moment…stay tuned.
UPDATE: As of 10:20 pm Incumbent Edie Brooks has won relection by a mere 7 votes. Out of the very large total of 642 votes for Zone 1, Edie Brooks had 323 votes and challenger Jim Purtee had 316 votes.
What a close election! Let’s hope there is a recount and a challenge to make sure every voter was indeed from Zone 1.
Our best regards to all.
On the other site, Dan of the county
said:I believe the number of registered voters for the whole district is about 37,000. With five trustee zones the average (if they are relatively equal) number of registered voters per trustee zone would be about 7,400. If so, that would mean the turn out for this particular trustee election would be less than 6%!
Comment by kageman — May 20, 2009 @ 6:10 am
We will never know the effect that last minute news article in the Press had on the election.
I believe the CdA Press hit a new low.
Comment by citizen — May 20, 2009 @ 6:53 am
The conduct of school board elections, including challenges to the results, is spelled out in Idaho Code Title 33, Chapter 4. The most relevant sections are IC 33-403 through IC 33-422.
Comment by Bill — May 20, 2009 @ 7:03 am
“Let’s hope there is a recount and a challenge to make sure every voter was indeed from Zone 1” Really? Wouldn’t that be a waste of tax-payer’s money?
Comment by Pidjomat — May 20, 2009 @ 8:17 am
The results were counted three times. Each time the totals were the same. There is no need for a recount.
There continues a need for the public to be informed. Bottom line from this and from preceding elections is that there is a large dose of apathy out there. That’s not a good thing.
Comment by Dan — May 20, 2009 @ 8:23 am
Whether it be apathy or lethargy the lack of voter turnout is both inexcusable and pathetic.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — May 20, 2009 @ 10:24 am
The poll workers at Ramsey required everyone to point out their home location on a map before they were allowed to vote. There was no map used at the Fernan voting site. Only a SEVEN vote margin for the winner? You bet it should be verified that all the voters actually live in the Zone.
Comment by mary — May 20, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
Well, they had a map at Fernan, but you weren’t required to finger your location on it. Occasionally one of the poll workers would walk back to one of the maps to confirm an address.
I would favor a move away from zone elections. The trustee must live in the zone, but the entire district should be able to vote. That could help ease some of the confusion and lead to higher turnouts.
Comment by Dan — May 20, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
And Dan, I might add it would provide more accountability and taxation with representation.
Comment by Gary Ingram — May 20, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
Voter turnout in Kootenai County, has been dismal for a long time.Why not give KC residents an incentive to vote? Like, knocking $20 off of their property taxes; for voting. 😉
Comment by kageman — May 21, 2009 @ 10:23 am
That would be an interesting “carrot” approach kageman. I’ve not heard of that but I have heard of the opposite approach in at least one country (Austrialia maybe?) where they actually fine people about 10 bucks for each election they don’t vote in. That idea probably wouldn’t go very far here either.
Comment by Dan English — May 21, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
Publish the names of those who voted and what District they claimed to live in. Let the public scrutinize that list.
Comment by Pariah — May 21, 2009 @ 8:52 pm
Of course who votes in an election is public record. I remember when Ron Rankin used to keep a list of who voted in the most recent county election so that if they came to complain about something he could look them up to see if they had voted. I’m pretty sure it was Ron’s opinion that those who had participated in the election process had a little more “rights of access” to the commissioners. He was real clear that it didn’t matter how you had voted, just that you had voted.
Comment by Dan English — May 21, 2009 @ 8:59 pm
Dan, when calculating the turnout for the SD271 trustees, did you use the entire district’s population or merely the population of the given zone(s)? I’m curious because the 6% turnout figure seems embarrassingly low.
Comment by Dan — May 21, 2009 @ 10:26 pm
I didn’t check for exact numbers but I used 37,000 as my best recollection of total registered voters for 271. I divided that by 5 for the number of trustee zones. That comes out to an average of 7,400 registered voters per zone (if they are relatively equal in population) and that’s what I divided the number of votes cast to get my percentages of turnout. To be clear it’s not an official number but if those registered voter numbers are fairly accurate than it’s safe to figure the turnout was in the single digits.
Comment by Dan English — May 21, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
By contrast I think you can get more people than voted in each trustee election for the average school Christmas program not to mention something like a graduation event.
Comment by Dan English — May 21, 2009 @ 11:00 pm
I don’t watch American Idol but happened to stumble across it the other night. It was the final show and it was down to two singers. They said that almost 100 MILLION people had called in to “vote” for their favorite! I guess folks have selective energy for voting. Only a 6% turnout for a group that determines the use of major tax dollars and the quality of our local education is sad.
Dan English–any ideas on how to shake people up and get their attention? Candidates that can sing?
Comment by mary — May 22, 2009 @ 4:36 am
…and dance too?
Seriously though, this seems to be a chronic long-term problem that has no ready answer. For my part, I have tried to make sure people have a number of options of where to vote and how to vote. More information is certainly helpful. But we’ve all seen elections that are well publicized with multiple early voting available and all 71 precincts open on Election Day and candidates who have worked hard and created their own blizzard of flyers, door hangers, and ads and yet all that has resulted in disappointingly low turnouts. I’m thinking particularly of some of our primary elections where we have local, state, and even federal races on the ballot.
Ultimately it’s up to people to participate if they care to and if not, deal with the results.
Comment by Dan English — May 22, 2009 @ 6:52 am
So — serious question — which would you prefer, Dan: Dancing or Singing for your reelection? 😉
Comment by Dan — May 22, 2009 @ 9:02 am
Dan English, thanks for your input.
The question regarding low voter turnout is: “How do you incentavize
more KC residents to go vote”? One answer might be to attach the incentive to their ‘drivers license’,
by either making it mandatory to vote
so they can renew their drivers license or giving a small discount on the D.L.fee, when they vote.
This shouldn’t encroach on democratic
principles, because people still have the choice to vote or not.Given the very low voter turnout,I just think it’s time to give people an incentive to vote.
Comment by kageman — May 22, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
Those are some interesting ideas kageman. And you raise a very engaging philosophical point about people’s motivations for voting and being involved in our representative form of government. Our form of government is a republic and the process we use to get to that representative government is a democracy whose foundation includes free and open elections for all who are qualified to vote.
I’ve also had it argued to me that we already make it too easy for people to vote and that if they don’t care enough to search out the information about who and what issues are on the ballot and when the election is be held, then they really don’t want them voting anyway. That’s a bit too cynical for me but I completely agree that people should put a much higher value and I would even say reverence on their right (and responsibility) to vote. Especially in the shadow of Memorial Day.
Comment by Dan English — May 22, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
I agree with Dan English but think that Kageman has an interesting idea. I know my husband is ridiculously obsessed (in a cute way) with taking back a rented video the next day so he gets the $1. credit. He laughs at himself, but he still wants that credit.
Maybe Kage has a point. $5 bucks off your Driver’s License Renewal for every time you vote?
It would probably work, but as Dan E. says, we shouldn’t have to go there.
Comment by mary — May 22, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
Question for Dan English: Can any govt employer check the voting record of any employee?
Comment by LTR — May 23, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
LTR,
You might want to clarify your question. Do you mean can they check to see if an employee voted or how the employee voted? Or both.
Comment by Bill — May 23, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
Bill,
I want to know if an employer can look at the public record to see whom thier employees voted for?
Comment by LTR — May 23, 2009 @ 7:10 pm
LTR,
Dan English can confirm this, but no. When I worked for the federal government, my employer had no way of knowing when, where, or how I was going to vote. I could and often did vote absentee since it was common for us to be somewhere else on election day. But even if I was home and voted at the designated polling place, my completed ballot did not contain any personal identifiers that would tell anyone who had marked that ballot.
Comment by Bill — May 24, 2009 @ 6:22 am
In Idaho, voting records are public information, however the only elections that we enter into our voter database are primary and general elections. The primary reason is so that we can delete them as registered voters per state code if they haven’t voted in the last four of those elections. However, parties and candidates routinely get that information. To have your voting record not be public record would take an act of the legislature which is very unlikely since they rely on those lists for their own political campaigns.
For other districts, after the appeal period has expired anyone has a right to look at the poll books or other records including who voted but it typically wouldn’t be in a list format.
And to be clear, all that is recorded is that they voted in a primary or general but of course no indication of how they voted. In Idaho you don’t have to even reveal your political party but that particular right is currently at risk of being overturned if the Republican Party prevails in their current federal law suit. As I understand it, if our open primary gets overturned then it would also become a matter of public record as to which party ballot you voted in the primary election. I think many, many Idaho voters will be upset if they are required to reveal political affiliation. That information probably could be used in the wrong way by some employers to get back to the original question.
Comment by Dan English — May 24, 2009 @ 11:26 pm
To reinforce what was said about the fact that your voting history is public record but your actual vote is secret, here is a portion of Article VI of the Idaho Constitution.
“Section 1. Secret ballot guaranteed. All elections by the people must be by ballot. An absolutely secret ballot is hereby guaranteed, and it shall be the duty of the legislature to enact such laws as shall carry this section into effect.”
Comment by Dan English — May 24, 2009 @ 11:45 pm
Bill and Dan English
Thank you for the information.
Comment by LTR — May 25, 2009 @ 6:26 am
I think LTR shares a concern of many citizens in our community. Can the school district find out how their employees voted? Can city hall? How about LCDC?
There are many people who are worried for their jobs, especially right now, and they think there “are ways” for those in power to know. So, Dan English, in your wildest imagination, is there any possible method that anyone could use to find out how an individual voted?
Comment by mary — May 25, 2009 @ 10:38 am
Even if that method is illegal and immoral?
Comment by mary — May 25, 2009 @ 10:41 am
How about this scenario: Everyone votes absentee. Turn in your ballots to the supervisor, who will fill them out properly. Sign the ballot or lose your job. Mail it in.
Comment by Dan — May 25, 2009 @ 10:42 am
Hmmm, interesting possibility, Dan. I’ve heard something related to that for Nursing Homes/Retirement Facilities: Hand out the absentee ballots then staff or “helpers” provided by certain groups (with agendas) will assist the residents in filling out their ballots and will “make sure” they get mailed in.
Comment by mary — May 25, 2009 @ 11:13 am
Dan English, If I go to the polls and fill out a ballot which I put into the locked box, there’s no identifier on the ballot so it can’t ever be traced to me…right? But if I vote absentee, I have to sign my ballot, which is then kept and recorded with my name on it. There must then be a way that someone could (even if they’re not supposed to) look to see how I voted…correct?
Comment by mary — May 25, 2009 @ 11:16 am
Dan and Mary,
For what it’s worth, the crimes most often associated with elections in Idaho are found in Idaho Code Title 18, Chapter 23.
Of course, this is Idaho, so whether the laws would actually be enforced and violations prosecuted is problematic.
Comment by Bill — May 25, 2009 @ 11:25 am
To answer the general question, no there isn’t any way I know of that someone would know how you voted. There are no identifying marks on the ballot to tie it to a person.
As with any system that involves human beings there would always be some way to cheat if someone were devious enough. I believe there are many safeguards in place to minimize that possibility when it comes to voting but I would never say it couldn’t happen. I can say I’m not aware of anything even close to vote cheating in our county.
And as far as the absentee ballots, you don’t sign the ballot or even the ballot envelope. You sign the back of an outside envelope which is checked against your signature on file. Before we start counting, the outside envelope (the ones with peoples signatures) are opened and the inside “voted ballot” envelope is removed and put with all the other voted ballot envelopes. At that point there would be no way to tell which voted ballot envelope went with which signed envelope. Then the actual ballots (which again have no identifying marks) are removed from the voted ballot envelopes which further “mixes up” all the ballots.
Comment by Dan English — May 25, 2009 @ 2:55 pm