I just returned from voting in person in the Coeur d’Alene School Election. My polling place was Woodland Middle School.
After the poll workers carefully checked my photo ID and they were going through the poll book to find my name, I saw what looked like the words “Absentee Ballot Received” had been stamped in red ink in some elector signature blocks. I don’t recall seeing that before, but it would be a positive measure to minimize the chances of someone voting absentee and then being able to also vote in person at his polling place.
I was asked for my photo identification when I voted today. Thanks, Mr. Brannon. The demeanor of the polling place was much more professional than in past elections. I attribute this to the leadership skills of our new County Clerk, Cliff Hayes. Today’s tongue in cheek question is: Will DeeDee Beard be brought in to count the Canadian votes or will Carrie Phillips handle this task?
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — March 8, 2011 @ 9:23 am
I received a phone call from a reader expressing some concern about the ballots being on a pad. The caller was concerned that someone could remove an unmarked ballot, photocopy it, mark multiple ballots, return to the polling place, and deposit multiple marked ballots.
While that is possible, there are safeguards that make that far less likely.
First, as 2C3I said, I too found poll workers to be far more attentive to their duties.
Second, when the ballot box is opened, the ballot count has to equal the valid elector sign-in’s in the poll book. Also, the ballots deposited plus the ballots remaining unissued/unused must equal the total number of ballots delivered to the polling place.
Third, when I deposited my folded ballot, the poll worker was standing right at the box and could easily have seen if I had deposited more than one ballot. This has not always been the case in the past.
Fourth, the process between identification verification and marked ballot deposit was closely observed by at least four people. If I had received my umarked ballot and tried to leave with it before marking and depositing it, I have no doubt I would have been stopped. Likewise, even if I had been able to leave with an unmarked ballot, duplicate it and mark multiple ballots, and then return with it, I would have to have signed in again. Going directly to the voting booth or ballot depository box would have been easily observed and stopped.
It all goes back to the first point: The poll workers appeared to be far better prepared and far more alert to the duties at this election than at some previous ones.
Comment by Bill — March 8, 2011 @ 9:43 am
What exactly happens when the count of ballots from the box doesn’t match up to the count of people who voted at the polling place?
Comment by Dan — March 8, 2011 @ 10:25 am
I also voted today. It appeared that the poll workers were better prepared than in the past. I hope the weather doesn’t provide an excuse for some to not vote.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — March 8, 2011 @ 11:45 am
Dan,
I don’t know. I suppose the first step would be to examine the poll book and physically count the signatures rather than relying exclusively on the sequence number. Next, or maybe at the same time, would be to count the remaining unmarked ballots and reconcile that count with the number of unmarked ballots delivered to the polling place and the number of ballots cast. One thing that shouldn’t happen is that the ballots from each precinct should not be commingled until after all precincts’ counts have been verified correct.
There is (or was in the November 3, 2009 election) a form titled ELECTION RECORD and POLL BOOK. If I could post it here, you could easily see how the paper ballots are supposed to be accounted for after the polls have closed but before the ballots leave each polling place.
Comment by Bill — March 8, 2011 @ 11:52 am
Cumulative early returns show about 60% yes and 40% no on override levys. Of the nearly 3000 yea votes, 2500 want the additional levy, too.
Comment by Gary Ingram — March 8, 2011 @ 9:33 pm
Saw this in the comments section on the news article on the levies passing in the CDA Press blog. If these numbers are correct, we have other issues to concern ourselves with as far as anything in cda elections;
“For such an important issue, it is a shame that voter turnout was only 28.4% of registered voters. This means that option 1 passed with 18.32% of registered voters and option 2 passed with 15.69% of registered voters (remember you couldn’t even vote for option 2 unless you voted yes on option 1). I guess the people who didn’t want these levies to pass had more important things to do than vote.”
Apathy; a crooked politician’s favorite noun.
Comment by Will Penny — March 9, 2011 @ 8:46 am
The low turnout makes me wonder if further election consolidation would help the turnout. There was only one reason to go to the polls yesterday. If there were other elections on the ballot, would there be a greater turnout?
Comment by Dan — March 9, 2011 @ 9:26 am
I’ve heard from several people who are unhappy with the wording on yesterday’s ballot; they think it was confusing and possibly unfair. The concern is that people who voted No on the first question were instructed to stop there and not vote at all on the second question.
That’s not something I was prepared for when I went to vote, and I’ve never encountered that type of instruction about a ballot before, so I can understand the puzzlement of those who have contacted me.
Anyone else think that was a bit strange?
Comment by mary — March 9, 2011 @ 12:46 pm
Here is a link to the ballot (sample) from yesterday’s School District 271 levy election.
I believe the wording of the ballot is the responsibility of the school district trustees and administrators and the school district’s attorney.
I can understand people having some questions. If they voted “No” on Option 1 but instead of stopping there, they also voted on Option 2, would the vote on Option 2 be counted?
Comment by Bill — March 9, 2011 @ 2:28 pm
I remember a few years ago, ok, MORE than a few year ago when I was a youngin, in the small town that I grew up in, there was wording on a ballot that stated; “Please vote yes if you disagree with —–” whatever the issue was. I do not remember the issue but I do remember the ruckus it created. I do remember it was a bill that was questionable so the powers that be decided to insure it being a slam dunk with creative wording.
With that said, were the absence of votes on option two counted as a “NO VOTE” OR, did they only counting the yes’s?
Comment by concerned citizen — March 9, 2011 @ 7:32 pm
concerned citizen,
That’s a good question for the Elections Office. An absence of either a YES or NO vote on Option 2 should not have been counted as either. Similarly, a NO vote on Option 1 should have resulted in neither a YES nor a NO vote on Option 2 being counted at all.
Comment by Bill — March 9, 2011 @ 7:47 pm
Bill,
My question is, was this a creative tactic to insure an “overwhelming” yes for option two? Since those that were stopped at #1 if voting no would also result in an automatic no on #2 and counted as such OR would those unmarked no’s not be counted and just the yes’s along with the yes’s or no’s form those that could pass go and collect $200 for voting yes on #1.
YES it was that confusing. COULD, COULD this be a tactic as I describes above?
Comment by concerned citizen — March 9, 2011 @ 8:19 pm
concerned citizen,
I don’t know the intent of the people who wrote the ballot wording, and that is what your first question asks. It’s a good question and a fair one.
As I understand the rest of your comment, the Elections Office should be able to tell you how it handled and counted ballots whose elector voted NO on Option 1 but then voted either YES or NO on Option 2. My opinion of the ballot instructions as an elector who voted is that if voting NO on Option 1 lawfully prohibited an elector from voting either YES or NO on Option 2, then a NO vote on Option 1 should have resulted in neither a YES nor a NO vote on Option 2 being counted.
On the other hand, if an elector who voted NO on Option 1 was not lawfully barred from voting on Option 2, then an elector who voted NO on Option 1 and either YES or NO on Option 2 should have his voted counted. If this happened, if an elector who voted NO on Option 1 went ahead and voted either YES or NO on Option 2, and if that elector’s vote was counted, then those electors who followed the ballot instruction to not vote on Option 2 if they voted NO on Option 1 probably have a legitimate complaint. If the ballot instruction caused electors to reasonably believe they could not cast a vote on Option 2 when, in fact, they could have, those electors have a legitimate complaint with the people who composed and approved the ballot wording.
Comment by Bill — March 10, 2011 @ 7:56 am
concerned citizen,
I just read today’s Press article headlined When one vote counts as two.
The news/views/skewspaper article quotes Bauman saying “Our intent always was if a no vote was cast on Option 1, it would also be no on Option 2.” In my opinion, the way I read that is the school district imputed a NO vote on Option 2 if the elector voted NO on Option 1 and left Option 2 unmarked. But what if the elector voted NO on Option 1 and voted YES on Option 2? Did electors have to vote YES on Option 2 to ensure their NO on Option 1 would not be counted as a NO on Option 2? That seems to be what she’s saying.
It sounds to me as if the School District 271 Board of Trustees, the school district’s administrators, and the school district’s attorney messed up. I would also like to know who the “elections office attorney” was who approved the wording. That would have to be someone in McHugh’s office, probably Civil Division, I believe.
Here is a link to the March 9 press release from the School District.
It also sounds to me as if the Kootenai County Elections Office handled it properly.
Comment by Bill — March 10, 2011 @ 8:30 am
The news/views/skewspaper article says
What those “school officials” were asking [Kootenai County Clerk Cliff] Hayes to do was to change the result of the election. They wanted him to change the number of NO votes counted on Option 2.
Hayes was absolutely right to refuse. Had he agreed to change the result, he could have been accused of violating Idaho Code 18-2309.
It is beyond me to understand how anyone can think it is proper to ask election officials to infer the existence of an “X” on a ballot where no mark was made by the voter.
If what the “school officials” were asking Hayes to do was legal, why didn’t they simply tell him to use his #2 pencil and put an “X” in the NO box on each ballot where Option 2 had been unmarked by the voter? The answer to that is obvious. We don’t want election officials deciding how a voter would have voted if he had voted.
Now I wonder if this kind of nonsense happened in past elections. In past elections, did County Clerk personnel mark ballots where the voter had made no choices in a particular race or on a particular issue?
Comment by Bill — March 10, 2011 @ 12:04 pm