“Double Bubble Trouble”: Massive voter disenfranchisement in California — and Washington?

Comments

21 responses to ““Double Bubble Trouble”: Massive voter disenfranchisement in California — and Washington?”

1. 

   jon

   February 6, 2008

   Also problems reported by Heath Haussaman in New Mexico:

   The New Mexico Democratic Party caucus may be tainted by three ballot boxes that spent the night in the home of the Rio Arriba County party chair or the homes of other local election officials instead of being reported to the state party.

   Those ballots still haven’t been counted, but they have been retrieved by the state party.

   Several sources told me the ballot boxes spent the night at the home of Rio Arriba County Party Chair Theresa Martinez, whose state-lawmaker husband, Sen. Richard Martinez, endorsed Hillary Clinton. But Richard Martinez told Santa Fe New Mexican reporter Kate Nash that the boxes actually spent the night in the homes of three polling-place managers. He gave Nash no explanation for why the results from those ballots weren’t reported to the state party last night and why they were instead kept overnight in officials’ homes….

   The three ballot boxes from Rio Arriba County and a fourth from Sandoval County account for the 2 percent of precincts that haven’t yet reported results from Tuesday’s caucus. With about 200 votes separating Clinton and Barack Obama, that’s huge. We’re talking about the ballots from half the polling places in Rio Arriba County.

   I want to make sure this point is emphasized: Roughly half the votes from Rio Arriba County spent the night in the privacy of the home or homes of one or more election officials in boxes those officials may have had the ability to open. All the county party chair had to do last night to report the results was make a phone call. That never happened.

   (Thanks to David for posting this on the Facebook Barack Obama discussion board!)

   Reply
2. 

   jon

   February 6, 2008

   And in Arizona, Anne Ryman and Shaun McKinnon report on Super confusion at Arizona polls:

   Super Tuesday turned into super confusion today for many voters participating in Arizona’s presidential primary as frustrating questions arose about party registration, mail-in ballots and polling places….

   Among those forced to cast a provisional ballot art Val Vista Lakes was Todd Wood.

   “I’ve voted at this precinct for the last 13 years and they didn’t have my name registered,” said Wood, 48, a businessman who said he is a registered Republican. “I had to vote on a provisional ballot. I’m a little suspicious about why presidential elections would not parallel state elections….”

   For [Sun City resident Patty] Diliberto, the long lines weren’t her only problem.

   She and her husband had recently moved and had registered their new address in January. When they arrived at the polling location, her husband was able to vote, but Diliberto was told she needed a provisional ballot because her address did not match what was in the books.

   “There were inconsistencies there, and I can vouch for that because I was one of them,” she said.

   Reply
3. 

   jon

   February 6, 2008

   Dan Glaister has covered it in The Guardian.

   The requirement is unique to Los Angeles county, prompting the prospect of a legal challenge. Steve Kauffman, an attorney with the Courage Campaign, is determined to see these votes counted: “If that does not happen, then I think you will see the possibility of legal challenges that may take place.”

   The Courage Campaign is close to the Obama campaign and the Clinton campaign dismissed the suggestion of polling irregularities. Nevertheless, LA city attorney Rocky Delgadillo intervened, urging authorities, “to do everything within their power to ensure that every vote is counted, and to carefully weigh voter intent against this confusing Los Angeles County ballot design….”

   More comically, but perhaps just as seriously, at least two polling stations didn’t open until several hours after the 7am due time. Obviously those in charge had not been watching cable news like the rest of us.

   Also, here’s a mention of the ballot design problem from the San Jose Mercury News the day before the election

   Reply
4. 

   Jeff

   February 6, 2008

   I may not have read enough, but let me summarize my understanding of what happened.

   – In California elections the Democratic party allows voters with no party registration to vote in their primary. The Republican party does not.
   – In most counties there were separate ballots for each party as well as a non-partisan ballot with no presidential candidates.
   – Los Angeles county created a mutant non-partisan/select-a-party ballot where voters could select a party affiliation if they wanted to vote for Democratic candidates.
   – Poll workers were poorly trained regarding the strangeness of this ballot.
   – Independent voters were not aware that they needed to select a party on this ballot and didn’t read the ballot which told them what to do.

   In this scenario I can see how many decline-to-state voters would be confused. What I don’t see is an issue that disenfranchises hundreds of thousands of voters. I think it’s interesting that the Democratic party allows outsiders to participate in their primary, but doesn’t that put the onus on the voter to pay attention?

   The other stories that recount party affiliations being altered are far more interesting to me. I hope that issue gets the focus it deserves.

   The most amazing thing is that Dean Logan (the former head of King County elections) has managed to screw up yet another huge election.

   Reply
5. 

   jon

   February 6, 2008

   The bullet points are accurate, Jeff (and thanks for posting), and I totally agree with your point that it’s also important to look at the people whose party affiliations were altered. However …

   > but doesn’t that put the onus on the voter to pay attention?

   No. Election officials are supposed to help voters be able to vote. Linda from Sonoma County posted about this on Crooks and Liars and Brad’s blog:

   I’m a precinct officer in Sonoma County, CA, which has a very well-run elections system. Thank-you Sonoma County Registrar of Voters!!!

   When a voter walks into your precinct and informs you they are a non-partisan voter, you recite the following to them: “As a non-partisan voter, you must choose one ballot from the following three choices to cast your votes on. Your choices are a Democratic party ballot, an American Independent party ballot , or non-partisan ballot. Do you understand what these choices mean?”

   If they answer “yes,” you ask, “Which ballot do you want?”

   If they answer “no,” you respond: “If you choose to vote on a Democratic party ballot, then you will get to vote for one of the Democratic party’s presidential candidates. If you choose to vote on an American Independent party ballot, then you will get to vote for one of the American Independent party’s presidential candidates. If you choose to vote on a non-partisan ballot, then you will not get to vote for any presidential candidates. Which ballot do you want?”

   If they have more questions, then you hand them one of the voter guides which every precinct has on hand, and that contains information about each party and their candidates.

   It’s just not that difficult, folks. Why on earth did LA county go to the trouble of having a separate ballot for this classification of primary voter?! All that did was to create unnecessary confusion, and to provide greater potential for voter disenfranchisement. Our Secretary of State Debra Bowen needs to step in now and tell LA County that it must count those voters’ votes …

   It doesn’t seem like that happened in general in LA County. As a result, people who were entitled to vote based on the rules of the primary may wind up with their vote not counted. If it happens, that sounds like disenfranchisement to me.

   Reply
6. 

   jon

   February 6, 2008

   Jeff also wrote:

   The most amazing thing is that Dean Logan (the former head of King County elections) has managed to screw up yet another huge election.

   Was he the head of King County elections during the governor’s race that went to a recount? Wow …

   jon

   Reply
7. 

   jon

   February 6, 2008

   And from Kim Alexander of California Voter Federation (and co-winner with voting rights activists David Dill and Avi Rubin of the EFF’s Pioneer Award in 2004):

   “I understand why LA County does is, but I think there is the possibility that some voters will be unwittingly disenfranchised,” though the county has chosen the system because it is more economical and enables them to count ballots faster, Alexander said.

   And she said it could have major implications.

   “It is a big deal in this election because California voters finally have a say in a presidential primary and LA is the state’s largest voting district” encompassing all or parts of 12 Congressional Districts, she said. In California delegates are awarded to the candidates based on how well they do in the popular vote in a congressional district, and “if there is a big undercount, it could change the delegate count.”

   Reply
8. 

   jon

   February 6, 2008

   A good post from nicki in the comments on a Courage Campaign thread:

   As a precinct captain for the Obama campaign in LA, I explained to my voters the ballots and what they needed to do. However, when some voters went to the polls they asked poll workers questions and they were told they didn’t need to fill out the extra bubble as “democratic” some even told them to bubble “independent”. Thinking that the pollworkers had a working knowledge of the system they didn’t “double bubble” and thus their vote was lost. At the Obama campaign we went to great lengths to educate the voters we came in contact with. As a precinct captain you are not allowed to interfere with the pollworkers and therefore cannot always step in to correct misinformation. Clearly there was a great deal of confusion throughout the county. Voter intent should not be disregarded b/c of voter and pollworker confusion. As a precinct captain you do your best to inform the voter, but comprehension of a seemingly unnecessary step was clearly a problem for DTS voters throughout LA.

   Reply
9. 

   jon

   February 6, 2008

   Turns out there might be as many as 2,000,000 ballots that haven’t been counted yet in California.

   WOW!

   Reply
10. 

    jon

    February 7, 2008

    JerDewitt has a diary entry on DailyKos where he estimates the effect of the Double Bubble Trouble:

    Counting all possible “Double Bubble” ballots could lead to a statewide shift to Obama of between 0.5% and 1.0%. In LA County the shift would be between 1.8% and 4%.

    My initial reaction was that he’s put a plausible minimum bar, but may have underestimated it. More thought required.

    And bear in mind that this is only one of the aspects of potential voter disenfranchisment: there are lots of reports of people being given provisional ballots (in LA and across the state), as well as other issues. Early days yet … so it’s great to have some initial numbers.

    Reply
11. 

    jon

    February 7, 2008

    Here’s excerpts from the latest update from Julia Rosen of Courage Campaign on Calitics:

    Today the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors held a hearing. Several people testified including Rick Jacobs and the Registrar of Voters Dean Logan. The good news is that Logan sounded amenable towards counting the votes, but made no specific promises.

    Any Decline-to-State (DTS) voter who failed to mark the extra bubble indicating that they wanted to vote in the Democratic primary has not been counted thus far. There are no guarantees it will happen and so we are continuing to press the issue until every vote possible is counted.

    The Courage Campaign is doing three things right now.

    1. Requesting that the L.A. ROV conduct a count of all DTS votes, precinct by precinct.
    2. Requesting that the L.A. ROV immediately take steps to fix the DTS ballot design flaw for future primary elections
    3. Asking DTS voters across Los Angeles County to hold on to the receipt of their vote (“voting stub”) until further notice.

    If you’re a Los Angeles County Decline-to-State (DTS) voter who attempted to vote on February 5, please visit the Courage Campaign’s page.

    And please help get the word out, online and off!

    Reply
12. 

    jon

    February 7, 2008

    the Washington State ballot suffers from a similar “double bubble” design defect (an unnecessary extra bubble or box to check to get your vote counted). In rural Kitsap County, 33% of early by-mail voters will not have their votes counted; in Pierce County (Tacoma) it’s only 2%. Pierce County’s behavior is exemplary: they’re following up with voters who didn’t check the box. No word yet on whether Kitsap County will have enough funding to do the same … thanks to Mikal for the tip!

    Travis Hay reports in Wenatchee World online that 8-21% of North Central Washington ballots may be invalid: in early results, 8-10% in Douglas County, 10-15% in Okanogan, 21% in Chelan County.

    Evelyn Arnold, Chelan County auditor, said voters who think their ballot may be invalidated can check with the auditor’s office to make sure their vote will count. Arnold said voters can check the county auditor’s Web site to see if their ballot was completely filled out. Those without Internet access can call the auditor’s office and ask if their ballot was complete.

    An incomplete ballot can be completed by a voter at the auditor’s office. Voters have until March 4, which is the day before the votes are certified, to complete an invalid ballot, Arnold said.

    Reply
13. 

    jon

    February 7, 2008

    Statistics on “Double Bubble Trouble”:

    Google News Search: roughly 200, largest cluster 196
    Most diggs: 45 (bradblog), 14 (whytuesday), 9 (huffington post video)

    Reply
14. 

    jon

    February 7, 2008

    A question I posted in a couple of places about Dean Logan’s refusal to do a hand recount:

    Is there some legal reason why his hands are tied?

    He’s in a strange position in this case: if I understand it correctly, he’s charged with carrying out the policies that are requested by the state Democratic party. Would it make a difference if the request came from them?

    jon

    Reply
15. 

    nezua

    February 7, 2008

    thanks for posting this.

    Reply
16. 

    jon

    February 7, 2008

    My pleasure, nezua!

    And Heath Hausamann updates on New Mexico:

    Explaining the situation in Rio Arriba County that I reported on earlier, Colón said site managers at polling places were supposed to count ballots, then call in results to the state party. The managers at the three polling places in Rio Arriba County I reported on earlier, he said, called in only the vote totals for Clinton and Obama, but did not provide totals for the other candidates who appeared on the ballot even though they had already dropped out of the race.

    Realizing later that it had incomplete information, the state party tried to contact the managers, but it was well after midnight, Colón said, and they could not be reached. The party decided not to post those polling places’ results without the totals for all candidates.

    Asked why the managers were allowed to take the ballot boxes home, Colón said many in rural areas across the state were allowed to do that because of the late hour and, in some cases, bad weather. They agreed to deliver the ballot boxes to state party officials this morning.

    To ensure that nothing unethical happened while the ballot boxes were in the manager’s homes, those managers, before leaving the polling places, had to call in the final numbers to the state party in front of other workers. The state party today checked the numbers that were called in against the ballots in the boxes to ensure they matched.

    In all cases, including those in Rio Arriba County, they did match, Colón said.

    Democracy for New Mexico has more.

    Update, 12 a.m.: 17,000 voters were given provisional ballots becuase of major problems with voter rolls for the caucuses: differed from the ones at the county clerks’ offices. Where did the special voter rolls for the election come from? Apparently the voting rolls were subcontracted out to voting machine vendor ES&S! What a fiasco!

    Reply
17. 

    jon

    February 7, 2008

    Richard Hasen has an option piece in the LA Times, including this:

    Paul Drugan, executive assistant with the L.A. County registrar-recorder’s office, told The Times that the instructions were clear and voters were educated about the problem, but he acknowledged that his office foresaw the problem months ago….

    At the very least, the instructions should have been much clearer. There was no reason to use terminology, such as “nonpartisan,” that didn’t match that of the voter registration forms. And something has to be done so that independent-minded voters don’t get confused by the American Independent Party label.

    Poll workers are the first line of defense against ballot mistakes, and they should have been trained to be on the lookout for this problem. If the system is too complicated for poll workers to learn in their 90-minute training, it is too complicated for voters.

    And wow, a mainstream media story, by Don Thompson for Associated Press.

    Reply
18. 

    jon

    February 8, 2008

    Scott Herhold’s Election snafu was obvious and avoidable in the San Jose Mercury News discusses some of the problems in Santa Clara: poll workers had to photocopy 5,700 copies of the ballots, some of them at Kinko’s! One reason why:

    There are 170,452 “decline-to-state” voters in the county, 24 percent of the electorate. Under party rules, those voters are allowed to vote in the Democratic primary but not the Republican contest.

    Before the election, the registrar sent out notices to the 82,000 “decline-to-state” mail-in voters, asking whether they wanted a Democratic ballot. About 21,000, roughly a quarter, eventually said yes.

    That was the fraction the registrar used when predicting what would happen at the polls. Durazo and his staff estimated that only about a quarter of the decline-to-state folks voting Tuesday would ask for Democratic ballots. Moreover, he was expecting that 75 percent of votes would already have been cast by mail. This was like preparing for a party without stocking enough chips and beer.

    As it happened, with a great race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the demand from the decline-to-state voters was much greater than one-fourth. Many of them showed up at the polls Tuesday and asked to trade their non-partisan absentee ballots for Democratic ballots. According to the registrar’s figures, the proportion of true votes by mail, stamped and sent, was actually closer to just 55 percent.

    Interesting. But wait a second: a likely conclusion from this is that most of the mail-in voters also wanted to vote for a presidential candidate, and even after they got notices, a bunch of people didn’t realize they needed to reply to do this. Depending on what pecentage wanted to vote, that could easily mean up to another 20,000 or more voters disenfranchised.

    Kudos to Santa Clara county for following up with mail-in voters on the confusing ballots (as they’re also doing in Pierce County, Washington). Shouldn’t in-person voters get the same treatment?

    And shouldn’t people who live in LA County get the same chance to vote as people in Silicon Valley?

    Reply
19. Liminal states » Blog Archive » Voting rights victories in LA County and Texas!

    February 27, 2008

    […] Victory post yesterday on Courage Campaign’s blog announced Dean Logan’s agreement to count every possible LA County decline-to-state ballot, and followup mail from Rick Jacobs today reiterates: we won! After weeks of bad news, here’s […]

    Reply
20. Liminal states » A wiki, saving democracy?

    September 18, 2008

    […] against Women’s Voices Women’s Vote for misleading robocalls in North Carolina and the Double Bubble Trouble incident in Los Angeles County — where it took almost a month to decide to count 47,000 […]

    Reply
21. 

    Buy acai berry

    May 22, 2009

    Your blog is very interresting for me, i will come back here..

    Reply