Election TechReports(tm) Newsletter

*Election TechREPORTS^™* InfoSENTRY® Services www.infosentry.com info@infosentry.com Issue 11 September 2002 Privacy Policy FEATURE 1: Elections Happen FEATURE 2: Fees for Voter Registration Data Files FEATURE 3: UK Electoral Commission Reports on Pilots for Voting By Mail, Internet, and Other Electronic Methods
Elections Happen No, it's not a bumper sticker yet. However, that slogan probably ranks up there in excitement with the following amazing, spectacular, breathless headlines and news articles you probably did not see over the past few weeks. Oklahoma Primaries ARE OK on August 27 Oklahoma held its primary on August 27. An early morning line of thunderstorms knocked out power in several precincts in Johnston and Cleveland counties. The precinct workers followed procedures. In some instances they used candles to light the polling places. Voters marked their ballots and placed them in the emergency bins of the optical scan vote tally machines. Power came on well before noon in most precincts. A Cleveland County election official, Paula Roberts, said "They just set up their emergency bins, lit their candles, and went ahead and voted." In another assessment, Renee Weyl was quoted as having said "Everyone seems to be pretty much OK." Oklahoma...OK! Wake County Board of Elections Administers a September 10 Primary On September 10, the primary election in Wake County (NC) went smoothly for the county's 400,000 registered voters. The polls opened on time at 6:30 a.m. The polls closed on time at 7:30 p.m. The results from the 189 precincts, all using optical scan vote tally equipment, came in as usual. At 8:43 p.m. the Board of Elections staff posted the unofficial results on the County website and went home shortly thereafter. A few days later, there was a mandatory recount in one race. The results did not change. Mecklenburg County Board of Elections Administers a September 10 Primary On September 10, the primary election in Mecklenburg County (NC) offered the county's 441,000 registered voters an routine day of voting. The polls opened on time at 6:30 a.m. The polls closed on time at 7:30 p.m. The unique system of regional, roving judges visiting polling places to spot problems worked really well--again. Running a superbly organized effort, the BoE staff collected the data cartridges from the 192 polling places, tallied the results from the DRE machines, and were ready to head home by around 10:00 p.m. One precinct came in a bit late. A few days later, there was a mandatory recount. The results did not change. Oregon's Conducts Statewide Election on September 17 Oregon sandwiched a statewide election between its 2002 primary and the November general election. On September 17, Oregon's counties conducted a statewide election to decide two issues placed on the ballot by the Legislature. That was it. No candidates. Just two issues. County election officials reported not much happened out of the ordinary in the Vote-By-Mail election. The State Elections Division reported a couple of calls from counties with questions during the day and evening. The turnout was 44%. That's right. It was 44%, not 0.44% nor 4.4% in this special election. _____ We simply must fire our headline writer! Those headlines make it all seem so routine. However, none of these stories means that it was all easy. None reflects the months of planning and hard work that went on before the election. None implies that there were no frantic moments somewhere in the lead-up time to the elections. None means that administrative and technological improvements in elections should not or will not occur. None means that some of the technology did not fail to perform somewhere because of vendor over-promises or bad practices. They were just a few of the news stories that did not make cable television or evening national news shows during the past month. These stories were probably not amazing, spectacular, or breathless enough for the people putting out the news. We heard no reports of satellite trucks setting up outside county courthouses to report stories that the elections went smoothly. Unfortunately, too many of media outlets' viewers, readers, and listeners probably did not give much thought to those stories either. The public and the media rightfully expect that elections should be administered fairly and that the technology should work. There undoubtedly were a thousand or so similar stories about managers, election workers, and technology combining to conduct fair and honest elections all across the United States this year. However, few "News Alerts" across the screens, few editorials in newspapers, and few talk radio programs got around to mentioning the exceptional work done by professional election officials and a largely volunteer cadre of dedicated election workers. We are pretty sure there were stories like these in a lot of Florida counties as well. We just wanted to mention a few of these stories here. We are collecting stories about election sites that employ unique and creative "business continuity" and "emergency preparedness" steps like the ones used in Oklahoma. If you have any from past elections or if any pop up in the November General Election, please send them along to us. We want to gather them for a coming White Paper on business continuity and disaster recovery planning in elections offices. Top of page Fees for Voter Registration Data Files There is a great deal of discussion about creating statewide voter registration systems--or at least improving the quality of the nation's voter registration systems. When these files are created, they often fall under state and local public records acts, a fact often overlooked by the legislators that mandate the creation of the files and the elections offices that create and administer them. A question that often arises in association with the provision of voter registration data to groups and individuals who request copies of these files, or subsets of these files, is "What should we charge for the information and the electronic media on which we provide them?" In our needs assessments and requirements analysis for state and local election authorities around the country, we have found a great deal of diversity in the answer to that question. One state charged fees of approximately $10,000 for a full copy of its statewide voter registration file. One state charges the cost of a CD-ROM (about $2.00) for a full copy of its statewide voter registration file. That fee covers the cost of the CD-ROM. One state charges approximately $25.00 for a full copy of its statewide voter registration file. That fee covers the cost of preparing the electronic media. One state prepares a statewide voter registration list periodically and provides free copies to each of the State's official political parties. State law prohibits release of the information to anyone else and for use of voter registration data for "commercial" purposes. One large county places an updated copy of the entire contents of its voter registration file, and subsets by precinct, on the Internet at least monthly for free downloads to everyone. The information provided includes name, address, date of birth, gender, party affiliation, and voting history over several years. Clearly, practices vary widely on what data to provide, how to provide the data, and how much (if anything) to charge for the data. Here are several steps we recommend in answering these questions in your election jurisdiction. Determine if your statewide or county files voter registration files fall under requirements of state and local public records acts...and if those acts require you to provide some or all voter registration data to people who request it. If these files are covered and must be provided upon request or if you simply decide you want to provide the information, determine if you want to charge for the files. Then decide if you want to recover only the actual cost of providing the information, or if you want to attempt to generate revenue. Whatever your decision is, you will need to be able to justify it--particularly if the files are covered under public records acts. If you provide the information to outside groups and individuals, determine which information you provide is "confidential" and cannot be provided under federal, state, or local privacy laws. Examples in some states include restrictions on releasing voter registration data on certain public officials or victims of domestic violence. Also, some states collect Social Security Numbers or telephone numbers on certain registered voters...but restrict release of the information to the public. Under any of these circumstances, test your software periodically to make sure it is not inadvertently releasing restricted information. These tests are particularly needed when you upgrade your existing software or switch to a new software provider. We have seen more that one instance around the country in which confidential or otherwise restricted information found its way to public release. In some instances, it was because of user error. In other situations, it was a result of improperly programmed systems that copied otherwise confidential data to publicly released voter registration files. Top of page UK Electoral Commission Reports on Pilots for Voting By Mail, Internet, and Other Electronic Methods The May 2002 issue of Election TechREPORTS told you about our experience observing alternative voting experiments in Great Britain's 2002 local elections. The Electoral Commission, an independent body set up by Parliament, completed its analysis of those experiments in 20 local jurisdictions, issuing a sweeping report "Modernising Elections: A Strategic Evaluation of the 2002 Electoral Pilot Schemes." The study provides a detailed look at issues such as accessibility, ballot privacy, and voting security associated with each of the voting methods, including voting at kiosks, voting by Internet, and all-postal voting. It is a much too detailed study to even summarize here. However, there are two findings of note. First, the report states that, "Postal voting has undoubtedly proved to be a success in improving voter turnout." Second, the study found that in the pilot jurisdictions, "Technology-based voting has made a good start, but it would be premature to the Government is well on its way to delivering against its commitment to having an 'e-enabled' election sometime after 2006." Third, "...the Commission believes strongly that the future development of voting methods that are more convenient for the electorate will be heavily dependent upon the establishment of a national electronic register." That's all the teaser for here. The report is excellent and the British government and voters have provided a great service to the election community on the potential for using vote by mail and electronic voting technologies. You can download the large .PDF file and other research results at the Commission's home page www.electoralcommission.co.uk . (P.S. Relating back to the story on "Fees for Voter Registration Data Files" the Electoral Commission's web site has the following notice on it at the time of this issue of Election TechREPORTS: "Until now, any company, organisation or person could buy a copy of the register. But the Government has changed the law so that now you have some choice about who can buy details of your name and address." We note that European privacy laws generally are more strict than those in the US. Privacy advocates in the US are likely to try to have European-style restrictions on releasing voters' names, addresses, birthdates, gender identification, racial/ethnic identification, and voting history applied to US voter registration lists. When Federal election reform legislation passes, creating as it will standards and enforcement mechanisms relating to statewide voter registration databases, expect this public records vs. right to privacy issue to emerge soon thereafter.) Top of page Please click here to visit our main election systems consulting page. It has a table of contents for previous newsletter issues. Please visit our main information technology consulting page and our information technology security and recovery page. They contain brief descriptions of some of our previous consulting engagements, including those for election jurisdictions. Please click here to visit our main system security and disaster recovery page. Please contact et@infosentry.com if you would like to get a PDF version or a laser printed copy of this newsletter for distribution in your election office. InfoSENTRY Services, Inc. 2 Hannover Square, Suite 1740 Raleigh, NC 27601 P.O. Box 28048, Raleigh, NC 27611 Phone: 919.838.8570 Glenn Newkirk's e-mail: glenn_newkirk@infosentry.com Copyright 2002, InfoSENTRY® Services, Inc. All fights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination without the express written permission of InfoSENTRY® Services, Inc. is strictly prohibited. InfoSENTRY Services, Inc. publishes Election TechReports monthly, focusing on technology trends and issues in election offices. From time to time, Election TechReports might mention the name of vendors' hardware or software products. However, InfoSENTRY® Services is completely independent from hardware and software vendors. Mentions of vendors' hardware and software products in no way constitutes an endorsement or indication of worthiness for those vendors or products.

InfoSENTRY logo
Election TechREPORTS^™
InfoSENTRY® Services www.infosentry.com info@infosentry.com
Issue 11 September 2002 Privacy Policy

FEATURE 1: Elections Happen
FEATURE 2: Fees for Voter Registration Data Files
FEATURE 3: UK Electoral Commission Reports on Pilots for Voting By Mail, Internet, and Other Electronic Methods

Elections Happen

No, it's not a bumper sticker yet. However, that slogan probably ranks up there in excitement with the following amazing, spectacular, breathless headlines and news articles you probably did not see over the past few weeks.

Oklahoma Primaries ARE OK on August 27

Oklahoma held its primary on August 27. An early morning line of thunderstorms knocked out power in several precincts in Johnston and Cleveland counties. The precinct workers followed procedures. In some instances they used candles to light the polling places. Voters marked their ballots and placed them in the emergency bins of the optical scan vote tally machines. Power came on well before noon in most precincts. A Cleveland County election official, Paula Roberts, said "They just set up their emergency bins, lit their candles, and went ahead and voted." In another assessment, Renee Weyl was quoted as having said "Everyone seems to be pretty much OK." Oklahoma...OK!

Wake County Board of Elections
Administers a September 10 Primary

On September 10, the primary election in Wake County (NC) went smoothly for the county's 400,000 registered voters. The polls opened on time at 6:30 a.m. The polls closed on time at 7:30 p.m. The results from the 189 precincts, all using optical scan vote tally equipment, came in as usual. At 8:43 p.m. the Board of Elections staff posted the unofficial results on the County website and went home shortly thereafter. A few days later, there was a mandatory recount in one race. The results did not change.

Mecklenburg County Board of Elections
Administers a September 10 Primary

On September 10, the primary election in Mecklenburg County (NC) offered the county's 441,000 registered voters an routine day of voting. The polls opened on time at 6:30 a.m. The polls closed on time at 7:30 p.m. The unique system of regional, roving judges visiting polling places to spot problems worked really well--again. Running a superbly organized effort, the BoE staff collected the data cartridges from the 192 polling places, tallied the results from the DRE machines, and were ready to head home by around 10:00 p.m. One precinct came in a bit late. A few days later, there was a mandatory recount. The results did not change.

Oregon's Conducts Statewide Election on September 17

Oregon sandwiched a statewide election between its 2002 primary and the November general election. On September 17, Oregon's counties conducted a statewide election to decide two issues placed on the ballot by the Legislature. That was it. No candidates. Just two issues. County election officials reported not much happened out of the ordinary in the Vote-By-Mail election. The State Elections Division reported a couple of calls from counties with questions during the day and evening. The turnout was 44%. That's right. It was 44%, not 0.44% nor 4.4% in this special election.

_____

We simply must fire our headline writer! Those headlines make it all seem so routine. However, none of these stories means that it was all easy. None reflects the months of planning and hard work that went on before the election. None implies that there were no frantic moments somewhere in the lead-up time to the elections. None means that administrative and technological improvements in elections should not or will not occur. None means that some of the technology did not fail to perform somewhere because of vendor over-promises or bad practices.

They were just a few of the news stories that did not make cable television or evening national news shows during the past month. These stories were probably not amazing, spectacular, or breathless enough for the people putting out the news. We heard no reports of satellite trucks setting up outside county courthouses to report stories that the elections went smoothly. Unfortunately, too many of media outlets' viewers, readers, and listeners probably did not give much thought to those stories either. The public and the media rightfully expect that elections should be administered fairly and that the technology should work.

There undoubtedly were a thousand or so similar stories about managers, election workers, and technology combining to conduct fair and honest elections all across the United States this year. However, few "News Alerts" across the screens, few editorials in newspapers, and few talk radio programs got around to mentioning the exceptional work done by professional election officials and a largely volunteer cadre of dedicated election workers.

We are pretty sure there were stories like these in a lot of Florida counties as well. We just wanted to mention a few of these stories here.

We are collecting stories about election sites that employ unique and creative "business continuity" and "emergency preparedness" steps like the ones used in Oklahoma. If you have any from past elections or if any pop up in the November General Election, please send them along to us. We want to gather them for a coming White Paper on business continuity and disaster recovery planning in elections offices.

Top of page

Fees for Voter Registration Data Files

There is a great deal of discussion about creating statewide voter registration systems--or at least improving the quality of the nation's voter registration systems. When these files are created, they often fall under state and local public records acts, a fact often overlooked by the legislators that mandate the creation of the files and the elections offices that create and administer them.

A question that often arises in association with the provision of voter registration data to groups and individuals who request copies of these files, or subsets of these files, is "What should we charge for the information and the electronic media on which we provide them?"

In our needs assessments and requirements analysis for state and local election authorities around the country, we have found a great deal of diversity in the answer to that question.

One state charged fees of approximately $10,000 for a full copy of its statewide voter registration file.
One state charges the cost of a CD-ROM (about $2.00) for a full copy of its statewide voter registration file. That fee covers the cost of the CD-ROM.
One state charges approximately $25.00 for a full copy of its statewide voter registration file. That fee covers the cost of preparing the electronic media.
One state prepares a statewide voter registration list periodically and provides free copies to each of the State's official political parties. State law prohibits release of the information to anyone else and for use of voter registration data for "commercial" purposes.
One large county places an updated copy of the entire contents of its voter registration file, and subsets by precinct, on the Internet at least monthly for free downloads to everyone. The information provided includes name, address, date of birth, gender, party affiliation, and voting history over several years.

Clearly, practices vary widely on what data to provide, how to provide the data, and how much (if anything) to charge for the data. Here are several steps we recommend in answering these questions in your election jurisdiction.

Determine if your statewide or county files voter registration files fall under requirements of state and local public records acts...and if those acts require you to provide some or all voter registration data to people who request it.
If these files are covered and must be provided upon request or if you simply decide you want to provide the information, determine if you want to charge for the files. Then decide if you want to recover only the actual cost of providing the information, or if you want to attempt to generate revenue. Whatever your decision is, you will need to be able to justify it--particularly if the files are covered under public records acts.
If you provide the information to outside groups and individuals, determine which information you provide is "confidential" and cannot be provided under federal, state, or local privacy laws. Examples in some states include restrictions on releasing voter registration data on certain public officials or victims of domestic violence. Also, some states collect Social Security Numbers or telephone numbers on certain registered voters...but restrict release of the information to the public. Under any of these circumstances, test your software periodically to make sure it is not inadvertently releasing restricted information. These tests are particularly needed when you upgrade your existing software or switch to a new software provider. We have seen more that one instance around the country in which confidential or otherwise restricted information found its way to public release. In some instances, it was because of user error. In other situations, it was a result of improperly programmed systems that copied otherwise confidential data to publicly released voter registration files.

Top of page

UK Electoral Commission Reports on Pilots
for Voting By Mail, Internet, and
Other Electronic Methods

The May 2002 issue of Election TechREPORTS told you about our experience observing alternative voting experiments in Great Britain's 2002 local elections. The Electoral Commission, an independent body set up by Parliament, completed its analysis of those experiments in 20 local jurisdictions, issuing a sweeping report "Modernising Elections: A Strategic Evaluation of the 2002 Electoral Pilot Schemes."

The study provides a detailed look at issues such as accessibility, ballot privacy, and voting security associated with each of the voting methods, including voting at kiosks, voting by Internet, and all-postal voting.

It is a much too detailed study to even summarize here. However, there are two findings of note. First, the report states that, "Postal voting has undoubtedly proved to be a success in improving voter turnout." Second, the study found that in the pilot jurisdictions, "Technology-based voting has made a good start, but it would be premature to the Government is well on its way to delivering against its commitment to having an 'e-enabled' election sometime after 2006." Third, "...the Commission believes strongly that the future development of voting methods that are more convenient for the electorate will be heavily dependent upon the establishment of a national electronic register."

That's all the teaser for here. The report is excellent and the British government and voters have provided a great service to the election community on the potential for using vote by mail and electronic voting technologies. You can download the large .PDF file and other research results at the Commission's home page www.electoralcommission.co.uk .

(P.S. Relating back to the story on "Fees for Voter Registration Data Files" the Electoral Commission's web site has the following notice on it at the time of this issue of Election TechREPORTS: "Until now, any company, organisation or person could buy a copy of the register. But the Government has changed the law so that now you have some choice about who can buy details of your name and address." We note that European privacy laws generally are more strict than those in the US. Privacy advocates in the US are likely to try to have European-style restrictions on releasing voters' names, addresses, birthdates, gender identification, racial/ethnic identification, and voting history applied to US voter registration lists. When Federal election reform legislation passes, creating as it will standards and enforcement mechanisms relating to statewide voter registration databases, expect this public records vs. right to privacy issue to emerge soon thereafter.)

Top of page

Please click here to visit our main election systems consulting page. It has a table of contents for previous newsletter issues.

Please visit our main information technology consulting page and our information technology security and recovery page. They contain brief descriptions of some of our previous consulting engagements, including those for election jurisdictions.

Please click here to visit our main system security and disaster recovery page.

Please contact et@infosentry.com if you would like to get a PDF version or a laser printed copy of this newsletter for distribution in your election office.

InfoSENTRY Services, Inc.
2 Hannover Square, Suite 1740 Raleigh, NC 27601
P.O. Box 28048, Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone: 919.838.8570
Glenn Newkirk's e-mail: glenn_newkirk@infosentry.com

Copyright 2002, InfoSENTRY® Services, Inc. All fights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination without the express written permission of InfoSENTRY® Services, Inc. is strictly prohibited. InfoSENTRY Services, Inc. publishes Election TechReports monthly, focusing on technology trends and issues in election offices. From time to time, Election TechReports might mention the name of vendors' hardware or software products. However, InfoSENTRY® Services is completely independent from hardware and software vendors. Mentions of vendors' hardware and software products in no way constitutes an endorsement or indication of worthiness for those vendors or products.