Montgomery County's official report on the 2008 general election was issued last week, and it raised about as many questions as it provided answers.  While it presented some useful base-line data on voter turnout, registrations processed, emergency paper ballots, provisional ballots, and machine problems, a fuller picture is needed.  Stating that that there were "few complaints" about the conduct of the election and "controversies were at a minimum," the report offered a decidedly upbeat perspective on election day operations, which voters should not take at face-value. 

It is true that there were no major controversies and overall, things seemed to have gone well.  But pose a different scenario involving contests with razor-thin margins and the plot line could change drastically.  Election day and post-election preparations and procedures need to better address "worst-case" scenarios in which races are tight and emotions high - especially with the continued use of voting technology that allows no independent audits or recounts and with no quality control from one precinct to the next in the processing of voters. The Election Board must ensure, for example, that decisions on provisional ballots are open to observation in keeping with the law.  Far more information is needed in the interest of transparency and the potential for a candid assessment of the need for systemic improvements. 

Still, the Montco report is a plus; it differed from those of the recent past by limiting the self-congratulatory tone and sticking to the facts, as the county sees them.  We hope that it will be a departure point for constructive discussions with county officials in the near future.    

The need, however, for a more complete picture of election day operations is clear.  There was, for example, no narrative on machine breakdowns or problems explaining impact or significance accompanying a listing of 23 separate incidents.  The section on poll workers gave no indication of any understaffed polls or problems with untrained or overly-challenged workers, which the Election Reform Network documented in its March report.  One prominent problem was that of poll workers requiring - unlawfully - identification for all voters. Significant delays were reported at only three precincts, with no indication of actual wait-times.  Emergency ballots were issued at two precincts for a combined total of forty-two, although no information was provided on the specific circumstances involved and whether the federal court order for emergency paper ballots in Pennsylvania was followed.  A total of 675 provisional ballots were issued, while two-thirds of them - far higher than the statewide average - were ultimately rejected.  In addition, there was no response to the Election Reform Network documentation that provisional ballots were too often denied voters and that county staff in some cases ordered judges of election not to issue provisionals for voters not found in the registration data base.  The county also failed to respond to reports that a significant number of write-in votes were left uncertified. 

There was also no mention of the problem of "fleeing voters" - those failing to push the "cast vote" button - and any disparities between the number of voters per precinct on signature lists and machine counts.  We noted in our report that "fleeing voters" continue to be a significant problem, even after twelve years with the Sequoia machines.  The fact is that thousands of votes may be lost in high turnout elections as a result.  The Election Reform Network is calling for a comprehensive study of the problem. 

Other figures cited in the Montco report include turnout at a healthy seventy-three percent and registrations processed of more than sixty-seven thousand since August.  Over twenty-seven thousand voters applied for absentee ballots.