Jessica Leval, Research Assistant, AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project

October 1, 2008

Many District of Columbia residents are troubled, though perhaps not surprised, by problems with administration of the recent September primary elections. D.C. primaries usually have a rather limited national impact since the District lacks voting representation in Congress. They are, however, often the most significant contests for local races, as the sizable Democratic advantage in the city means that general elections tend to resemble a mere formality.

I personally take my responsibility as a D.C. voter seriously even in the absence of voting members in Congress, grateful for any degree of representation D.C. residents are afforded. Therefore, I eagerly made my way to the polling place after work on Tuesday, September 9. The experience that awaited me, however, was a truly disheartening one. The numerous procedural errors at the polling place itself as well as the ultimately disputed election outcome due to vote counting discrepancies serve to highlight the potential for large scale administrative problems in the District of Columbia on Election Day in November.

Upon entering the polls, I was asked to state my name and then asked to confirm my address while I could clearly view both pieces of information in my entry on the voter registration list. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) sets forth standards for first time in-person (but mail-registered) voters like me. The District currently requires the minimum under HAVA: that voters present some type of identification in the form of a valid photo ID, a current utility bill, bank statement, or other official document with the voter's name and address. Despite these requirements, the poll worker did not ask me for any identification at all. I was then asked to sign next to my registration listing on the voter registration list. The poll worker looked on attentively and nodded as I completed signing. Given that D.C. law does not require the poll worker to confirm that my signature matches one on file, and that I could have easily read my address off of the registration list, all I really needed to know was my name.

After signing in, another poll worker offered me a choice between casting a paper ballot that would be scanned, or voting on a Direct Recording Electronic (DRE). I opted to use the DRE, since the poll worker told me this would be the only available voting method in the upcoming presidential election. The poll worker stood next to me and watched as I placed my activation card in the one DRE at the polling place and began reading my ballot. Another poll worker stood only about three feet behind me as I cast my ballot. Individuals waiting to vote electronically lined up close behind me awaiting their turns to use the one DRE available in the entire precinct. Furthermore, as the optical scanner for paper ballots was located not far behind the machine I was using, individuals who opted to use paper ballots had to walk directly behind me to cast their ballots. I left the polling place upset by my discouraging voting experience.

The following morning I found that my discouraging experience had been the least of D.C.'s election administration problems. According to The Washington Post, D.C. election officials misread a cartridge in a primary contest for an at-large city council seat between Carol Schwartz and Patrick Mara race, thereby initially counting 1,560 write-in votes instead of what later became a mere 18 votes. Furthermore, the Post reported that, on election night, the initial count from the Board of Elections and Ethics indicated that 9,030 Democratic votes had been cast in the city's Ward 2. That ward's incumbent council member Jack Evans, however, was told by a poll worker that only 5,000 Democratic votes had been cast in Ward 2--4,000 votes fewer than the first round of reported results. By the time the Board released its second round of results later in the evening, the vote total had been lowered to 4,976, and the error was blamed on the same malfunctioning cartridge that fouled up the results in the Schwartz-Mara contest.

Both mishaps resulted in a cloud of controversy surrounding the election. A post-election audit conducted on Thursday, September 18 and 19 in four random precincts confirmed the disputed election results finding minimal errors - mostly resulting from over-votes and ballot illegibility. These findings were finally posted online by the District of Columbia's Board of Ethics and Elections on September 24.

My personal experience highlighted both the need for improvement in poll worker training, to better equip them to enforce election procedures, as well as the potential need to reform the procedures themselves. It is clear, however, that the problems facing election administration officials in the District of Columbia run far deeper than issues merely involving ballot visibility or voter IDs. The D.C. primaries demonstrated that D.C.'s overall readiness to hold presidential elections this coming November is at the moment questionable at best. While it is unlikely that sweeping changes can be made in D.C. before November 4, local officials could learn much for the future from academics including Michael Traugott and Walter Mebane of the University of Michigan, Lonna Rae Atkeson of the University of New Mexico and Barry Burden of the University of Wisconsin, all of whom are currently studying ways to improve the election audit and recount processes. Lessons from this work could do much in furtherance of the ultimate goal of preventing such issues in future elections.

Jessica Leval can be reached at jessica.leval@aei.org.

Viewpoint is an occasional feature analyzing various election reform issues.