This past election day (Nov. 3, 09) voters avoided the polls in droves, yet there were the usual procedural problems and occasional confusion in an otherwise lackluster voting day.     
 
Only 25 percent of eligible voters turned out in Montgomery County, but that compared favorably with Philadelphia’s abysmal turnout of 12 percent and the statewide figure of 20 percent.  While the 2005 municipal election also generated a countywide turnout in Montco of 25 percent, that election lacked the high court races that were supposed to drive voter participation this time around.

  Moreover, ballot questions in Cheltenham, Norristown and the Perkiomen Valley might have sparked turnout there but did not. Only some tempers rose in Cheltenham, not the number of voters, over the ballot question, a bill of rights amendment to the town charter.  Cheltenham turnout was about 27 percent, the same rate as the last municipal election in 2005, while Norristown's was about 15 percent, even less than in 2005.   
 
What follows is a run-down of problems we found last election day. Rather than issue a separate report, this article will serve as the report and is, as a result, longer than most of our articles. 

Common election problems that cropped up – again – include faulty procedures around emergency paper ballots and provisional ballots, touchy unauditable, unrecountable electronic vote machines and understaffed polling places.  These, along with a scattering of late openings, difficult to find polling sites (which cry out for a small investment in signage) and some polls that are inaccessible for the disabled – were joined this election by more reports of some over-the-top electioneering, notably in Cheltenham (more below).  
 
While administrative errors may not have affected individual races – although the statewide “recount” for the Superior Court contest is worth noting, as is the Conshohocken mayor’s race (for both, see below), they point to continued weaknesses in the basic infrastructure of our elections.  We got through another election, but if you think of it as a tune-up for 2010 and beyond. when our voting infrastructure will be subject to far greater stress, the chances of significant collapse mount unless the kinds of problems reported below are addressed.  The Network monitored some 100 polls on November 3rd (out of a total of 426 countywide).  
 
Emergency Paper Ballots
 
Emergency ballots were issued during this past election for at least the third time in the last four elections.  We understand, based on an informal report from the Department of Voter Services, that about four precincts issued them this time for a total of some 15 ballots countywide.  (The numbers are estimates.)  At this point, we know the specifics of only one precinct, Cheltenham 4-3.
 
Pennsylvania is under permanent federal court order to issue emergency paper ballots.  If 50 percent or more of the machines in any precinct fail to operate, emergency ballots are to be issued “immediately.”  Moreover, these ballots are to be handled separately from other paper ballots, i.e., provisionals and absentees.  They need to be separately secured since, unlike provisionals, they are to be counted on election night at the polls.  Yet the County Election Board offers no instruction on procedures, other than at the actual moment of an incident.  If a question is asked at trainings, poll workers are told only to call the Election Board.  
 
The result is that many, if not most judges of election, do not even know what an emergency ballot is.  They only receive the green provisionals, which can be used as emergency ballots only if properly marked.  (Separate emergency forms, which were available in Nov. 08, are far less confusing and a wise investment in the democratic process.)  The manual distributed at trainings has two lines on the subject, but the information is wrong, saying that emergency ballots should be provided only if all of the machines - not 50 percent or more - fail to operate.  
 
At Cheltenham 4-3, the issue came to a head when both machines had electrical problems at the start of the day.  The judge called the Election Board and was transferred to the warehouse for technical help.  But the machines continued to sputter and the first voter was in a pique, insisting he could wait no longer.  Despite the fact that the situation mandated emergency ballots, the judge was given no further instructions.  To his credit, he took the initiative and had the voter fill out the provisional ballot and dutifully sealed it.  He sent it in to the Election Board that night, rather than counting it at the poll.  Given that there was only one ballot and he knew the identity of the voter, it was awkward for him to count it.  Bottom line: he got no help from the Election Board and in fact, does not believe that the ballot was ever counted in Norristown.  
 
It’s only one vote, right?  But inadequate training and the lack of clear-cut procedures could be an election disaster waiting to happen.  Unconfirmed reports on recent Montco elections indicate that two hours elapsed prior to the issue of emergency ballots in some cases, a clear violation of the court order (the county has never provided specific time frames).  Impatient voters leave without casting a ballot, as they did in Cheltenham this time and during the 08 primary.  Think presidential election, or even 2010, where the governor’s chair, a U.S. Senate seat and congressional seats are all up for grabs.  Large numbers of voters can be easily disenfranchised in a crowded, chaotic polling place.  
 
And as for the "only one vote" brush-off, the Conshohocken mayor’s race was just decided by - you guessed it - one vote.  And apparently the Election Board ruled that it wasn’t close enough to merit a recount!  (More on that soon.)
 
Provisional Ballots
 
Provisionals have been a perennial concern since we began this work.  Problems are far less in light elections, where mostly core voters turn out.  Still, they are a last resort for potential-voters and there were problems again.  Sometimes judges refuse to issue them; other times they are too generous, offering them willy-nilly rather than calling the Election Board first, which they are instructed to do, to see if a voter is in the central registration data base, even if not in the poll book.  Both occurred on Nov. 3rd.  One bright spot, though, was that there were no reports of county staff telling judges not to give them out since “they won’t be counted anyway.”  A new wrinkle, however, was poll workers other than a judge handling registration issues and not calling the Election Board or offering a provisional when a voter was not in the poll book.  We documented problems with provisionals in the following precincts: Abington 14-2; Bridgeport 1; Upper Merion Belmont 4; Lower Providence 2-2; Lower Providence 1-1; and Collegeville 3.
 
Machine Malfunctions
 
Electrical problems seemed to plague a number of the Sequoia voting machines.  And after 13 years of use, there are still difficulties with the voter interface, especially with the touchpad lights not working, raising legitimate voter questions as to whether their choices are being recorded correctly.  Voters continue to walk away without being prompted adequately to take the last step for recording their vote and press the green button.  Confusion persists with write-ins (one machine continued to show the write-in choice of an earlier voter) and as always, some machines fail to boot-up or print the zero-tape.  Some good news: we found only two precincts where there was a disparity between the numbered list of voters (the total who voted) and the machine count.  This problem, too, is always reduced with a low turnout.  
 
Our log of machine malfunctions includes: Abington 14-2; Upper Merion Belmont 5; Upper Merion King 2; Lower Providence 3-1; Lower Providence 2-2; Abington 1-2; and E. Norriton 2-3.  Vote count disparities were found in Collegeville 1 and Cheltenham 2-2.  We’re waiting on the county’s record of machine problems.
 
One means of fostering trust in the “black box” machines is the posting of the zero-tapes at all precincts, which is mandated in the election code.  While some election judges will allow the review of the zero-tapes if asked, posting them is apparently not done in Montgomery County.  Why?  It’s the law.
 
While not a “malfunction,” the question of what it means for a direct recording electronic vote machine (DRE) like our Sequoias to engage in a “recount” borders on the ethereal or the ridiculous (probably both).  I don’t generally defend the machines, but they can only spit out what’s already inside.  This went beyond the theoretical last week when a candidate for Superior Court forced a statewide recount of the race and Montgomery County was required to comply and perform a recount of sorts, in accordance with the law. (More soon.)  If you think a useful and legitimate recount can be performed in Montgomery County or in one of the 49 other counties in our state with DREs, I have a bridge you might be interested in . . .
 
Electioneering
 
The election code prohibits electioneering within ten feet of the entrance to a polling site, but over-exuberant leafletters straying within ten feet was not uncommon last election day, despite the weak turnout.  Enforcement of this provision is, admittedly, never easy and inevitably imperfect.  Still, voters do have a fundamental right to be free of harassment as they enter the polls.  In one Abington precinct, where the problem persisted for a while, the Constable took matters into his own hands (appropriately) by wielding his measuring stick and marked the boundary for supporters of both parties to abide by.
 
The Cheltenham ballot question provoked some irregularities, including breach of the 10 foot rule and related to the posting of the official question and the “plain English” version (three copies required) on the walls of each polling place.  In two precincts, Cheltenham 2-2 and 5-1, no plain statement was posted, while in others there were less than three, which the question supporters considered a significant concern.  When one Cheltenham 2-2 (Towers at Wyncote) voter reportedly asked for the plain statement, she was told by a poll worker that the reason it was not posted was that it was incomprehensible.  She was then handed the statement - along with a “Vote No” flyer!  The statement was posted hours later.  And a “Vote No” card was later seen pinned to an official sample ballot by the same poll worker.
 
In Norristown there were a number of precincts where neither of the ballot questions were posted.
 
The ballot question requirements do raise the issue of appropriate posting of the sample ballot and all the other required postings at precincts.  For the most part, they are slapped onto walls haphazardly, if there even are enough walls to use.  Sometimes when official posters and notices are set next to partisan signs at the entrance, the whole exercise seems pretty meaningless.  Is there a better way so voters can access this information?
 
Even with the disturbing tendency toward unlawful electioneering, it seems worth mentioning that there were some constructive exchanges outside the polls between supporters and opponents of the Cheltenham question.  That’s what it’s all about.
 
Understaffing and Late Openings
 
Understaffed polls is one of those boring problems with a huge impact.  We counted 18 polls (out of about 100 visited) that were understaffed.  While a few were missing two staffers - even including the assigned high school students - there was practically no impact due to the very low turnout.  The problem is what this forewarns for 2010 and 2012.  When polls are understaffed and poll workers are stressed during heavy elections, poor judgments and outright mistakes are made, literally with many votes at stake. One common result is a late opening by an inexperienced judge struggling to get up to speed.  (Late openings we know of occurred in Lower Providence 3-4, Cheltenham 5-1 and Springfield 2-1.)  Another is a machine operator, in the din of a heavy turnout, running from one machine to another, missing hearing - or not noticing not hearing - the electronic chirps that indicate a cast vote and the need to reset a machine.  An understaffed poll is invariably one vulnerable to costly lapses which can disenfranchise voters in a variety of ways.  
 
To be blunt, the political parties are doing an inadequate job of putting up candidates for judge and inspectors and arranging for the other slots to be filled.  You only need look at the recent list of candidates for precinct election boards ("2009 General Judge of Election and Inspector of Election list") to see that there will be plenty of staffing holes for upcoming elections.  Last-minute appointments typically result in untrained and disoriented workers, who despite good intentions, are often not up to the task.  Staffing the polls should be a non-partisan function.  It is more a burden than a benefit to the parties.  There needs to be clear lines of responsibility and accountability that overcome the vagaries of the current system.  Which party will step up and identify the elephant in the room?    
 
Polling Place Access
 
The lack of well-placed signs indicating an official polling place is an increasing problem across the county.  Examples noted (tip of the iceberg) from the last election:
• Upper Merion King 1 King of Prussia Fire Station: poll around back, but no signs out front;
• Cheltenham 5-3 and 5-4 Cheltenham Elem: no signs out front;
• Cheltenham 1-2 Glenside Fire Station:  no signs in front on busy thoroughfare; easy to miss despite candidate signs across the street;
• Upper Merion Gulph 1 Senior Services Center: long walk from entrance a barrier for seniors;
• Lower Providence 2-3: access ramp difficult to navigate, especially with no lights in the evening.
 
If you know of other problems that occurred at the polls on Nov. 3, please let us know.