On May 1 the Election Reform Network headed to the Montgomery County Board of Commissioners meeting in Norristown to report on what we saw at the polls on Primary Day, April 22. We did not paint a pretty picture. See the Morning Call story.

There were late poll openings, understaffed polls, long lines and delays, machines not operating, election judges failing to follow procedures and other problems. One glaring set of mishaps occurred at Cheltenham 4-1 at the school administration building, where both machines were down from the start and there were lines of 150- 200 voters and major delays. If you missed it, click here for The Times-Chronicle article.

Fortunately, those sorts of issues did not arise in all precincts. We monitored about 40 polls (about ten percent of the county), however, and found that almost half had significant problems - a conservative estimate. The most flagrant and disturbing ones involved voter registration, especially the large volume of disparities between the party affiliation recorded on the registration rolls and the affiliation that voters themselves claimed. In one Abington precinct, poll watcher Lynn Jaeger reported 18 registration problems, most of them involving party affiliation. In Norristown, things were so bad at one poll that watcher David Heitler-Klevans got drafted on-the-spot to be a poll worker in order to relieve the confusion. Although he was too busy throughout the day to take down many names, he counted at least 15 voters with registration problems who were turned away, many of them asking for and being refused a provisional ballot.

According to observers at the polls, county election board staff were instructing election judges not to provide provisional ballots in cases where voters were registered but with a disputed party affiliation. In fact, this is a clear violation of the Pennsylvania Election Code. Apparently, the county is now denying it gave those instructions, saying that potential voters who "insisted" were allowed provisional ballots - still a violation of election law. What is beyond dispute, though, is that election judges, with or without orders from the county, were denying people their right to vote by provisional ballot.

Commissioner and County Election Board Chair Joe Hoeffel promised a full report from the Department of Voter Services. The Election Reform Network will be providing its written report, recommendations and questions to the County shortly. Stay tuned.

This was, of course, no ordinary primary election, not when 62 percent of Democrats turned out. Even more amazing is that in all likelihood, the figure would have been higher if party affiliation indicated on the rolls had not rendered many ineligible. Here's where things get murky. Some folks who have never voted in a primary - who may not even know what a primary is - were all set to vote on April 16. They simply didn't realize that to vote in a party primary, you have to be registered as aligned with that party. So even if they were regular voters, they would not have been eligible to vote in the Democratic primary in PA unless they were registered as Democrats. (The problem seems to have surfaced only on the Democratic side, perhaps because that was where all the voter enthusiasm was.) But others claimed to be life-long Democrats who would never have registered as anything else. Many of these people also were not allowed to vote due to "wrong" party affiliation, and they were at least as angry and frustrated as the first group. How does all this get sorted out? What mistakes were made and how were they made? And most importantly, how do they get corrected so that the November election is not plagued by comparable problems?

Clearly, people make mistakes. Many voters may not have known or forgot how they were registered, even some of those loyal Democrats. There also is no doubt that election board staff and election judges at the polls need to learn their jobs, finally. Some of them are great, but there needs to be far more consistency. Quality training would help.

But systems also may make mistakes - as in computerized voter registration systems. Pennsylvania's Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors (SURE) registration system has a healthy track record of them. SURE is administered by the Office of Secretary of State under a multi-million-dollar contract with the Accenture Corporation. In a legislative hearing last summer, Secretary of State Pedro Cortes acknowledged significant problems. Testimony at a hearing last month indicated that existing weaknesses would not be resolved for the November election. Is there a connection here?

The good news is that much can be learned from the Primary Day 08 experience. It's time for big changes in the administration of elections - and not just on the county level. Let's hope that the message is sinking in.