Network Reports Disparities Between Machine Counts and Voter Sign-ins for Most Election Districts in 08; Calls for a Reconciling of Voter Sign-ins with Machine Counts Before Results Are Official

The Election Reform Network is coming forward today with a report that points to dangerous deficiencies in the voting process in Montgomery County. The report uncovers disparities between machine counts and voter attendance for three-quarters of election districts (EDs) in Montgomery County during the 08 general election . 

We performed a comprehensive review of 08 election data by comparing the numbered poll list of voters with the machine counts for 400-plus County EDs. The study identifies discrepancies of up to 47 voters per election district.  A full three-quarters of the districts analyzed had some disparities between the machine count of voters and the numbered poll lists.

Montgomery County has used the Sequoia AVC Advantage vote machine since 1996.  The AVC has been the subject of controversy in New Jersey, when in the 2008 primary, it was discovered the machines miscounted the number of ballots cast.  

Key findings include:

•    Forty-seven out of the 406 EDs studied (12%)  had major disparities between the machine count and the numbered poll lists - of nine or more voters, while eleven EDs (3%) had disparities of 20 or more voters.  
•    Based on the numbered polling lists, Franconia Northeast had a disparity of 47 voters; Whitpain 1 had a disparity of 41 voters; Upper Gwynedd 4 had a disparity of 35 voters; Abington 10-3 had a disparity of 35 voters; and Montgomery 3 had a disparity of 20 voters.
•    304 of the 406 EDs studied (75%) had some disparities between the machine count and the numbered poll lists.
•    Thirty-one of the 304 EDs with disparities between the machine count and the numbered poll lists (10%) had more machine voters than names on the numbered poll list.  The rest, or 90% of the EDs with disparities, had more names on the poll lists than voters recorded in the machine count.  
•    Of the five ED poll books - with actual voter signatures -  reviewed as a check on our poll list data, we found three with poll book signature counts of between 300 and more than 600 fewer signatures than the machine count of voters.  A fourth ED had a disparity of 63 voters.
•    The average disparity found between the machine count and the numbered poll lists was four voters per election district.

“The results of our study should be a wake-up call to the election board and staff that our elections can no longer be administered with faith as a key element,” said Stephen Strahs, cofounder of the Network.  The fact that our current vote machines are unauditable - there is no way to do an independent check of their vote counts - underscores the importance of the ballot reconciliation process.  We need people and procedures that can act as a check against unruly computers or possible foul play.”

Michael Churchill, senior attorney for the Public Interest Law Center in Philadelphia said this about the study: “It is important for the Commissioners to find out why there are such large discrepancies between the number of votes counted  and the number of voters recorded so that voters  can have confidence in the outcome of elections in Montgomery County.  There are too many unanswered questions about why the numbers of voters signed in and the number of votes cast are so different at so many polling places.  In fact,” he concluded, “the county is required to act in such instances.”  Churchill brought a successful suit prior to the 08 general election that resulted in a federal court mandate that emergency paper ballots be offered whenever 50% or more of the vote machines fail to operate in any Pennsylvania polling place.    

“All voters need to know that their votes will be properly counted,” says John Bonifaz, the legal director of Voter Action, a national voting rights and election integrity organization.  “It is critical that Montgomery County conduct a full inquiry to determine what happened here.  And, if these discrepancies are the result of machine error, they raise renewed concerns about the integrity of elections in the counties across Pennsylvania using electronic voting systems

Section CS 3154(b) of the Pennsylvania election code requires that counties compare the records of the number of voters with the number of actual ballots cast prior to the certification of election results.   If in any election district the number of votes for any office exceeds the total number of voters, the county is required to investigate.  And until the matter is resolved, the votes from that election district are to be excluded from the official count.  

However, there is no evidence that the County has ever examined the potential for such discrepancies or worked to either fix the machines or fix the sign-in process.

The Network calls on the County to:

1)    Undertake a full investigation of the disparities uncovered to determine the cause of the problem;

2) Institute a regularized procedure for reconciling voter attendance with machine counts for every election prior to certification of results; and

3) Take every step to ensure that the machine counts and the district election registers are reconciled before next week’s primary election results are certified