Greater Cleveland Voter Coalition Offers Testimoney to US Elections Assistance Commission on Provisional Balloting Experiences in Ohio in November, 2004 Problems With Provisional Ballots in Ohio and Possible Reforms

by Greater Cleveland Voter Coalition

Problems With Provisional Ballots in Ohio and Possible Reforms
(Prepared Feb. 22, 2005 by The Greater Cleveland Voter Coalition for United States Elections Assistance Commission Hearings Feb. 23, 2005 in Columbus, Ohio

The Greater Cleveland Voter Coalition, a nonpartisan coalition of 55 organizations and over 700 individual volunteers, engaged in extensive voter registration, education and GOTV efforts from March 2003 through November 2004.The Coalition is continuing these efforts as well as working with others on some election reforms, the need for which became obvious during the course of the November 2004 elections. Based on our experiences in that election, and our research, we offer the following testimony to the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission. Our testimony states each problem experienced by Ohio voters, and then presents some possible solutionswhich we urge the Commission to consider.

Overview: While the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) mandated a method by which voters who arrived at the polling place but whose names were not on the rolls, could vote a provisional ballot, nevertheless, a number of problems arose with provisional ballotingin Ohio that must be resolved if HAVA’s intent to protect voters’ rights is to be realized.

Overall: About one third (8,600) of the approximately 25,000 provisional ballots cast in Cuyahoga County in the November 2004 election were rejected. At least 40% of the rejections were inappropriate or due to avoidable voter errors, according to recent studies done within the county.If the same percentage applied to the 35,000 provisional ballots rejected statewide, then 40% of these, or 14,000 voters would have been unnecessarily disenfranchised. Our proposed solutions aim to greatly reduce these problems.

Problem 1: Some duly registered voters were told their names were not on the rolls and they had to vote a provisional ballot. Many of these ballots were then rejected.

There were at least three defined sources of this problem, and the solutions are different:

1. Studies in Cuyahoga County projected that about 2700 new registration applications submitted to the Board of Elections were never entered on the rolls. Some voters affected by this error will mistakenly assume they are registered, and their provisional ballot will be rejected.

Solutions:

a) BOE provides some form of receipt on receiving an application from voter or registration group (see also next item), so that timely submission can be proven.

b)At a point in time sufficiently before the registration deadline, BOE supplies all fully registered voters with prominent notification that they are registered (e.g. repeat large-size flyer to all registered voters, searchable internet list of all registered voters) AND it conducts intensive public outreach to everyone to check their registration status and re-register if necessary before the deadline.

2. Studies in Cuyahoga County showed that about 950 legitimate voters had been on the rolls in August or later and yet were apparently purged for no clear reason by November 2, 2004.

Possible Solution: Since BOE’s often purge their registration lists once a month, they must use computer programs to cross-check their lists of voters to be sure that none have been dropped inadvertently.

3. Studies in Cuyahoga County projected that about 825 rejected provisional ballots may have been rejected because of BOE errors in transcribing information from the original application. Possible Solution: After the election, when BOE is checking provisional ballots to see if the voter is in fact registered and before rejection, such voters’ ballots should be checked against the original registration card, not against the BOE’s electronic data base, to correct any entry errors or omissions that may have occurred.

Problem 2: Rejection of ballots if voters do not vote in the correct precinct for their address.

(This is per a ruling by SOS Kenneth Blackwell shortly before the Nov. 2004 Elections.)

Possible Solutions: Consider a voter to be voting in the proper location if they are in the right county for all candidates and issues affecting that county or a larger geographic area (state or federal). In other words, make the county the smallest “jurisdiction” for purposes of voting on all issues and candidates at the county, state or federal level. Such voters, if not in the correct precinct polling location, would not be eligible to vote on candidates or issues affecting a smaller geographic jurisdiction. (e.g. voters who reside in Cleveland could not vote on a school levy for the public schools in another city school district other than Cleveland.) The Ohio and National League of Women Voters also support such a position. This definition of “jurisdiction” should be mandated at least for federal offices by recommendation of the EAC and by federal legislation, so that there are uniform standards. At present, there is unequal voter protection because of state-to-state variation in definition of “jurisdiction” in determining rejection of provisional ballots.

If this change in federal definition of “jurisdiction” is not made, the EAC must consider another study in Cuyahoga County 2004 that found that 1201 provisional ballots were rejected for being cast in the “wrong precinct” when the voters were actually at the correct polling place. These voters must have received incorrect information from the poll workers. Other voters claimed they had been directed to the “wrong precinct” by poll workers.Furthermore, the precinct locator on the Cuyahoga County BOE website contained occasional erroneous information as to correct voting precinct.

Other Solutions:

1) poll workers must be better trained to help voters find correct polling location;

2) such information should be stored in computers, available by a telephone call to the BOE to a sufficient number of special lines set up for that purpose, and via ‘master’ countywide maps located at various convenient public locations throughout the county,such as public libraries, BMV’sand the BOE itself;

3) Cases in which voters are in the correct polling place but wrong precinct should be decided in favor of the voter, and the provisional ballot accepted (with deletion of any votes for inappropriate local races or issues).

4) Cases in which the BOE web-based poll locator gives the voter or poll worker incorrect information should be decided in favor of the provisional ballot voter (with deletion of any votes for inappropriate local races or issues)

Problem 3: Late rulings by SOS office on provisional ballots --too late for either proper poll worker training or adequate voter education. The late ruling by SOS Blackwell caused mass confusion among both poll workers and the voting public, causing number of voters to be disenfranchised.

Possible Solution: Set a workable cut-off deadline for any changes in voting rules. Allow sufficient time for BOE’s to train poll workers and to educate voters. (The SOS and /or the U.S. EAC should consult BOE directors as to their recommendations for what constitutes a ‘sufficient’ time frame.)

Uniform federal standards would also help. Again, we assume this would require passage of federal legislation by Congress.

Problem 4: Some voters who voted provisional ballots were not given a phone to call by the poll workers to find out if their ballot was counted, and if not, why not. Many such voters didn’t knowthey could get this and didn’t know to ask for it.

Possible Solutions:

1) Have a tear-off attached to the provisional ballot envelope with the phone number to call, when to call and what to ask for. Train all poll workers to give voter the tear-off. Widely publicize the voters’ right to such a phone number. Encourage Boards of. Elections and voter advocacy groups to do same.

2) Have voter supply phone number on provisional application, and require BOE to send automatic phone messages to all rejected provisional voters, supplying them with information on how they might be able to restore their vote, if they have a legitimate claim to do so.

Problem 5:

Provisional Ballot rejected because of voter omission (on the provisional application form) of signature, date of birth, or other required identifying information. About 540 Cuyahoga County voters’ provisional ballots were rejected on this basis, even though alert poll workers could have prevented them.

Solutions:

1). Accompany provisional application form with graphic, low-literacy sensitive flyer explaining most common errors in completing application.

2). Make poll workers responsible for voter omissions (Train poll workers to check applications carefully:warn and then discharge worker if over say 2 provisional ballots OK’d by this worker contains omissions).

3) Alert voters and allow them to correct omitted information so their provisional ballot is not rejected.

Prepared By: Judy Gallo and Norman Robbins, Executive Committee Members Greater Cleveland Voter Coalition, February 22, 2005