Elections Commission
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 City andCounty of San Francisco
Elections Commission
Approved:
Minutes of the Meeting held
City Hall, Room 408
December 17, 2008
1. President Gleason called the meeting to order at 6:08 pm.
2. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Gerard Gleason, Richard P. Matthews, Winnie Yu (arrived at 6:12 pm), Rosabella Safont, Arnold Townsend, Joseph B. Phair, Deputy City Attorney Mollie Lee and Director John Arntz. EXCUSED: Commissioner Malcolm Yeung.
3. Public comment on any issue within the Elections Commission’s general jurisdiction. Brent Turner said that Johnson County, Kansas has joined the open voting consortium and that members had made a public statement regarding open source code election systems. Paul Currier said that he was present to speak on the item regarding the possible prohibition of electronic devices at polling places. Mr. Currier encouraged the Commission to not prohibit free communications with electronic devices.
4. Director’s Report. Director Arntz reported the following: December 2, 2008 the November 4, 2008 Consolidated Presidential Election was officially certified; December 9, 2008 the Board of Supervisors declared the results of the Certification; December 15, 2008 the results were hand-delivered to Sacramento; since November 4, the DoE (Department of Elections) has conducted two more elections: The Tourism Improvement Election (Tuesday, December 16, 2008),The Treasure Island Yerba Buena Citizen’s Advisory Board Election (December 16 and 17, 2008) and a Retirement Board Election is due in January 2009; and comment forms from pollworkers and FEDS (Field Election Deputies) are being reviewed. Last week there was the annual meeting of registrars in Sacramento at which there was discussion of a possible special meeting on the budget sometime in 2009. The DoE is working on a HAVA (Help America Vote Act) grant proposal through the SoS’s (Secretary of State) office and an Elections Assistance Commission Survey on registration issues from the November 4, 2008 election. Most of the DoE’s temporary staff has been released from employment and it is very likely that the remainder will be gone by this Friday. The Mayor’s Office has asked all City Departments to prepare for a 12.5% budget decrease for the next fiscal year budget and to have an additional 12.5% cut contingency plan should more be needed. DoE voting equipment is being inventoried and prepared for storage.
Commissioner Matthews said many IRIS reports demonstrated that pollworkers didn’t have an understanding of how provisional ballots should be handled. He asked the Director what the Department does with this kind of information. Director Arntz said that currently the Department is reviewing all the information from the feedback forms and the IRIS report to make improvements in training and procedures for the future.
President Gleason asked the Director how many of the special elections he mentioned in his Director’s Report are there annually. Director Artnz replied that he doesn’t have an exact number but that the number has been increasing annually because there have been more business district elections. He offered that the number may have been eight in the last year alone. President Gleason asked if these elections were revenue generating and Director Arntz answered that the DoE is reimbursed for the costs and staff time.
Public Comment. Sylvia Johnson commented regarding this topic.
5. Commissioner Reports. President Gleason reported that he received an email from the Mayor’s office requesting that all Commission Presidents attend a special budget meeting at the Mayor’s office tomorrow at 3:00 pm. He will report the information back to the Commission.
5(a) Discussion and possible action regarding final Commission observations, research or investigations needed for evaluation of the November 4, 2008 Consolidated Presidential Election. From the November 19, 2008 meeting regarding observations and evaluation of the Election Plan.
Commissioner Matthews shared some of his written report (which is attached to these minutes) that was forwarded to the Commission. He compared the DRE (Direct Recording Device Equipment) voters from the February 5, June 3, and November 4, 2008 elections. In February, the usage rate was 7 voters per 1000; in June it was 72 per 1000; and in November it was 19 per 1000. The Commissioner suggested that the information given to pollworkers during their training should be examined to determine these changes.
Commissioner Townsend said that although the Commission has a policy of preferring paper ballots, voters can and should vote in any manner they wish.
Commissioners Yu and Safont will report their observations of the IRIS report, looking specifically at pollworker issues, at the next Commission meeting on January 21, 2009.
Commissioner Phair reported that his observation of electioneering during November 4, 2009, and as highlighted in the IRIS report, showed that there were no major systemic problems. Given the number of precincts, the issues on the ballots and the number of people running for office, Commissioner Phair said that in his view, electioneering was handled very well when a problem arose by the FEDs and the police. The Commissioner’s report is attached to these minutes.
President Gleason made comments summarizing a report he submitted.
His Report on Election Evaluation Precinct Openings,
Election Day Ballot Transfers and Provisional Ballots, November 4, 2008
General Election, are attached to the end of these minutes.
Public Comment. Paul Currier said that he used to work for the DoE as a pollworker and that the State Department of Labor advised him that, as a pollworker, he was a “volunteer” and if that is true, then the Director of Elections should change all the manuals that pollworkers use to reflect that information and to advise that they are not covered by the state labor laws. Sylvia Johnson made comments during this part of the meeting. Brent Turner said that paper ballots are desirable but the current equipment should not have been purchased if voters are to be discouraged from using parts of that voting equipment.
6. Old Business
(a) Discussion and possible action regarding the Board of Supervisors
establishment of a Voting Systems Task Force. Report back by Commissioners on discussions with the Board of Supervisors and staff regarding the Task Force.
President Gleason reported that the Board of Supervisors passed the establishment of their Voting Systems Task Force on November 4, 2006. President Gleason spoke with an aide of Supervisor Ammiano on November 23. He learned that the Commission was included in the task force as an ex-officio non-voting member, and the task force was discussed back in the summer with the Director of Elections. The aide said that the Board thought that speaking to the Director of Elections was sufficient as speaking to the Elections Commission. President Gleason reported that the Board has left the status of whether the Elections Commission will be a voting or non-voting member of the task force up to the Elections Commission.
President Gleason said that the driving force for the task force is that there are members of the public who want to have input regarding the voting systems chosen by the City of San Francisco and the focus is on “community standards”. The DoE is looking at function and cost when it seeks a system. The Board of Supervisors has to approve the purchase of any voting system if it costs over $10M. President Gleason said that his recommendation is since the Commission does not have a role in the selection of the voting system chosen by the Director of Elections, that the Elections Commission should weigh in on any decision by the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor’s office regarding the selection of voting equipment.
Commissioner Townsend said that the Elections Commission should maintain its independence and have nothing to do with the Board’s task force. The members of the Elections Commission are not controlled by their appointing authorities, and this was the purpose of establishing the Commission. He said that the Board is trying to control the Elections Commission with this task force, in his opinion. Commissioner Townsend said that “the worse thing that we can have in this City is an activist body dealing with elections”.
Commissioner Matthews said that he has heard rumors from members of the public that the Elections Commission was trying to “scuttle” the Board’s Voting Systems Task Force. The Commissioner said that this was, of course, absurd, and that he agrees with much of Commissioner Townsend’s comments. Commissioner Mathews reminded the Commission that it adopted a policy last summer that the next voting equipment purchased will not be DRE.
Commissioner Phair said that he agrees with Commissioners Townsend and Matthews, and that the Board, without notice to, consultation or involvement with the Elections Commission (which was established by the voters) has decided to go off on its own and develop data and information which it will use for some purpose in the future. That purpose is unknown at present. The Board, which is elected, should not be involved in programs used for election equipment.
Commissioner Matthews said that if the Board was advised by advocates of the Voting Systems Task Force that the Elections Commission had been told about their concerns and had not properly acted on those concerns, it should have raised the question, “well, why not”, and the Board should have asked the Commission that question. The Board could then determine whether the Commission’s reasons were sensible or not.
Commissioner Townsend said that he has no problem with the advocates from the public letting their voices be heard because they are well intentioned. However, what politicians want is to be elected and to be returned to office as frequently as possible. The Commissioner said that this is why the citizens of San Francisco created a body that could not be influenced by politicians. They created the Elections Commission.
Commissioner Safont said that she was upset that the Elections Commission had not been contacted regarding the task force and she agrees with Commissioners Phair, Townsend and Matthews.
Commissioner Yu said it was not in the best interest of the Commission to have a voting position on the Board’s new task force.
Commissioner Phair MOVED and Commissioner Townsend SECONDED that the Elections Commission decline to participate in the Board of Supervisors Voting Systems Task Force.
Public Comment. Sylvia Johnson commented on this subject. Brent Turner said that the Elections Commission should celebrate the fact that members of the public want to participate by participating in the Voting Systems Task Force. Tim Meyer said that he’s been interested and involved in voting equipment software for twenty years, and his opinion is that the proposed task force’s narrow scope is different from that of the Elections Commission.
The roll call vote was UNANIMOUS to accept the MOTION.
(b) Discussion and possible action to propose a prohibition against voters' use of electronic devices at polling places; including possible action to propose changes to state or local law or practices. Report back from Deputy City Attorney on this topic.
Deputy City Attorney Lee reported on her research into whether there is anything in state law that would pre-empt or limit the Elections Commission’s ability to establish local policies or request that the Board of Supervisors enact local legislation regarding the use of cell phones in polling places. The Deputy City Attorney said there is state law regulating conduct of affairs at polling places on election day, however there is nothing specific to the use of cell phones. There is information that, in an election observer report of 2006, the SoS noted that there was increasing usage of cell phones at voting sites, and there might be cause to look further into the issue on a statewide level. However, there has been no action as far as the Deputy City Attorney has observed. The City and County could act to prohibit disturbing use of cell phones at polling sites, and adopting a Commission policy regarding this could be the first step. This would offer a chance to look at the policy’s implementation before going further.
Commissioner Matthews gave an example of a case he witnessed in which a voter was on the phone asking the other party how to vote on each message as the voter called them out. Commissioner Matthew recalled reading a communication from the SoS that this activity constituted electioneering (on the part of the person on the other end of the call).
President Gleason said that in some countries voters take pictures of their completed ballot with their cell phone to prove how they voted to their employer or union.
Commissioner Townsend said that none of these activities are the business of the Elections Commission until there is a complainant. He said he could foresee a voter calling from a polling site telling someone that the line is long and they will be late for childcare pick up, and therefore it would be ridiculous to forbid cell phone usage at polling places. The Commissioner said that the City shouldn’t legislate voter behavior and that if the City let people alone, maybe they’d vote more often.
Deputy City Attorney Lee said that the SoS does have a policy prohibiting the use of cameras in polling places but gives local county election officials the discretion to make exceptions in certain circumstances.
Commissioner Phair reported that he had attended a meeting in which citizens advocated that their poll observers get cameras and use them in polling places to record certain activities (not actual ballot marking) and conditions.
Deputy City Attorney Lee said that an October 20, 2008 communication from the SoS outlines the prohibition of this activity and she will provide a copy to the Commission.
Public Comment. Sylvia Johnson commented on this item.
THIS ITEM WAS TABLED TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR.
7. NEW BUSINESS
(a) Discussion and possible action to approve the Minutes of the November 19, 2008 Elections Commission Meeting. Commissioner Matthews MOVED and Commissioner Townsend SECOND approval of the minutes.
Public Comment. Sylvia Johnson commented on this item.
The Roll Call Vote was UNANIMOUS to approve the minutes.
(b) Discussion and possible action regarding final evaluation of the Election Plan for the November 4, 2008 Consolidated Presidential Election. President Gleason reminded the members that there were additional reports to be heard from Commissioners Safont, Yu and Yeung.
The item was CARRIED OVER to the January 21, 2009 meeting.
(c) Discussion and possible action to authorize a Commissioner to speak with members of the Civil Grand Jury regarding the responses to the 2007-08 Civil Grand Jury Report, “A Year of Five Elections”, and any earlier Civil Grand Jury Reports. President Gleason MOVED and Commissioner Phair SECONDED that Commissioner Richard Matthews be authorized to speak with members of the Civil Grand Jury.
Public Comment. Sylvia Johnson commented on this item.
The Roll Call Vote was UNANIMOUS to authorize Commissioner Matthews to meeting with the Civil Grand Jury.
(d) Discussion and possible action regarding the Elections Commission Secretary position. Elections Commission Secretary Shirley Rodriques announced that she will be retire on January 11, 2009 but will remain at her post until a replacement is selected by the Commission. Commissioner Townsend thanked the Commission Secretary for her years of service to the Commission and to him, especially when he was Commission President. Commissioner Safont congratulated Ms. Rodriques on her years of service, her retirement and said that she enjoyed working with the Secretary. Commissioner Safont offered to help with the recruitment process and asked the Commission Secretary to be available to answer her questions and provide her with assistance. Ms. Rodriques responded that it would be her pleasure to assist the Commissioner.
Deputy City Attorney Lee reminded the Commission of the current budgetary concerns the City is facing and asked the Commission to designate a point person to handle the logistics of replacing the Commission Secretary. The Deputy City Attorney said that she would assist the designee.
Commissioner Matthews thanked the Commission Secretary for her work with the Commission and MOVED that Commissioner Safont be designated the point person on all matters pertaining to the rehiring and eventual funding of the Commission Secretary replacement, working with the Commission President, and Commissioner Phair SECONDED this motion.
President Gleason reminded the Commission that he would be meeting with the Mayor, along with other Commission Presidents regarding the City’s budget tomorrow and will be reporting back to the Commission with the information he learns.
The Roll Call Vote was UNANIMOUS for this Motion.
8. Discussion for items for future agendas. President Gleason said that the final evaluation of the November 4, 2008 Consolidated Presidential Election Plan would be on the next meeting agenda as well as the election of Commission officers for 2009.
ADJOURNMENT at 8:17 pm.
ATTACHMENTS:
Commissioner Gleason’s Report on Election Evaluation
Precinct Openings, Election Day Ballot Transfers and Provisional Ballots
November 4, 2008 General Election
IRIS Report
Review of the Incident Reporting Information System (IRIS) Report can be a useful gauge for the Commission in reviewing Election Day issues and response, however it must be noted that the IRIS Report is a printout of real-time communications involving many urgent and stressful operational situations. It should be acknowledged that misunderstanding of actual events can and do make their way into the IRIS report. The Election Day log for the precinct I was at (2112) on 11/04/08 contains information and omissions of actual situations I was involved with and know about. This is not meant to be a criticism of the Department, but rather a cautionary point regarding use of the IRIS Report for evaluation of the election.
The IRIS Report does give a clear indication of how responsive the Department of Elections is to precinct operation incidents and Election Day concerns of the voting public. Noted throughout the IRIS Report from 11/04/08 are situations where the Department of Elections staff provided exceptional service to both pollworkers at the precincts and the voting public.
In the IRIS Report for Precinct 2112, the 5:55AM call to the Elections Command Center resulted in a table being delivered to the precinct by 6:10AM. The IRIS Report continues with chatter regarding the issue for a time after the situation was resolved, however that is an indication of how well the Department was responsive and concerned with providing support.
Precinct Opening
I reviewed the IRIS Report and there were relatively few incidents of precincts not opening on time. Several calls prior to 7:00AM reported lockouts at precincts, most of which were resolved by themselves or with assistance of the Elections Command Center within minutes of the first phone call. Considering some 540 precincts, there were few calls regarding late precinct openings. However it may be hard to gauge if all precincts were operational at 7:00AM and ready to serve voters. One precinct did have a notation that the precinct opened at 7:20AM (pollworkers had called Election Command at 6:16AM from the precinct [3032], so they were present early enough to have the precinct open at 7:00AM ), and another noted that a voter complained the Insight machine was not operational at 7:15AM [3016] (a precinct which did report a lockout).
Most pollworkers at a precinct that is behind schedule in opening may not pause to call the Elections Command Center to report that fact. The area Field Election Deputy (FED) may be able to make note of the situation if the FED encounters it. A better method of tracking precinct openings after Election Day would be to obtain the time-stamped report of when Insight machines become operational. The Insight machines also report time of first ballot received. It would seem logical that Sequoia could generate the time reports since the time appears on the tape printout and must be part of some audit log.
In past elections, egregiously late opening precinct have been widely reported in the media, so considering the recent high-profile election, the lack of such media reports is a very good indication of few problems with precinct openings.
Mid-Day Ballot Transfers
Overall this task seemed to be handled well in reviewing the IRIS Reports. Some precincts made panic calls requesting a ballot transfer by mid-morning. Pollworkers were instructed to be aware of the Insight LED counter approaching 800-1000. My own precinct [2112] experienced ballot jams at 670 on the LED. Similar ballot jams in the range of LEDs at 700-800 are noted in the IRIS Report. A few of these situations required the precinct inspector to break protocol for the ballot transfer (protocol called for the precinct inspector to be assisted by the FED) in order to keep the Insight operational. Some of these situations must have involved precinct inspectors opening the ballot storage area of the Insight to rearrange the ballots (as happened at my precinct [2112]) or to actually remove ballots to allow more ballots to be accepted.
A few situations resulted in questions or complaints from the voting public:
Precinct 3859 - a voter called SFPD regarding the ballot transfer
Precinct 3332 - a voter complained the Insight would not accept his ballot
Precinct 3331 - a voter complained to the office of the Board of Supervisors regarding ballot jams.
A major concern is that the Sequoia Insight equipment as currently exists, is inadequate to handle ballot capacity for any future General Election in San Francisco -- which in all likelihood will require four ballot cards in many precincts. And not just a high turnout election such as the recent one. Every 2 years, a four card election with a turnout of 250 voters will bring many of the Insight machines past capacity. Unless the City & County of San Francisco and the California Secretary of State are comfortable with mid-day opening of ballot boxes as standard operating procedure, it may be prudent to seek an equipment modification by the vendor.
Provisional Ballots
Spreadsheets attached to this report indicate that the November 4, 2008 Presidential Election generated about the same number of provisional ballots as the February 5, 2008 Presidential Primary, however the overall turnout for the November 4 Election was greater, therefore the percentage of Provisional ballots generated was lower.
November 4, 2008 81% turnout 7.5% of Precinct ballots were Provisional
February 5, 2008 65% turnout 9.5% of Precinct ballots were Provisional
Considering the likelihood that there were an increased number of first-time and infrequent voters this election, the lower percentage of Provisional ballots is remarkable. Much of this may be due to voter registration awareness as well as efforts by DOE and pollworkers to redirect voters to their assigned precinct.
The IRSI Report noted 17 incidents where provisional ballots were inserted in the Insight tabulation machines at precincts which is a major error in precinct operations. It is likely there were other such incidents which were not reported or noticed.
The Provisional Ballot Report from DOE indicates that there were 186 Provisional Ballots that which were not counted due to missing voter signature or address on the Provisional Ballot Envelope, which may be considered pollworker error in part. However, DOE made great efforts to make pollworkers and voters aware of this issue, with increased training and precinct signage. In February 2008, there were 495 such uncounted ballots. While having even one such uncounted ballot is a great tragedy and should not occur, DOE should be recognized for the great improvement made in reducing the number of errors occurring when voters fill out Provisional Ballot Envelopes.
From review of the Provisional Ballot Report, it appears there is a correlation with precincts which generate greater overall numbers of Provisional ballots and increased numbers of errors with Provisional Ballot Envelopes.
Precinct 3036 78 Provisional 7 Envelope Errors
Precinct 3014 74 Provisional 6 Envelope Errors
Precinct 3641 85 Provisional 5 Envelope Errors
Precinct 3614 59 Provisional 5 Envelope Errors
Two precincts generated Provisional ballot numbers that were off the charts. Both were precincts that are wholly within the boundaries of university campuses in San Francisco (University of San Francisco [USF] and San Francisco State University). This might be expected with a highly transient population. But the number of Provisional ballots cast, and more importantly, the high percentage of Provisional ballots cast but determined to be invalid was very high (note at USF 80% of Provisional ballots cast were found to be not valid). For residents at institutions of higher learning, the ignorance regarding voter registration requirements is shameful compared to the general voting public.
Precinct 2151 [USF] 165 Provisional 131 Invalid 79.4%
Precinct 2745 [SFSU] 342 Provisional 188 Invalid 54.9%
As in the February 2008 Primary Election, about 25% of all Provisional ballots in November were found to be invalid and were not counted. The vast majority of these voters are simply not found to be registered to vote when checked against the DOE’s registration database.
Provisional Ballots remain a safeguard to protect a voter’s right to vote. In some cases pollworkers resort to issuing Provisional ballots as the all-purpose cure for any possible situation where a person is not found on the precinct roster, avoiding assistance with redirecting to a neighboring precinct or other possible remedy. In many cases this may be the proper choice so that a voter does not choose to pass up voting.
The public’s understanding of what a Provisional ballot is may be something which needs to be addressed in the future. Right now, there is little information available to the public regarding Provisional ballots other than the right to be able to cast a Provisional ballot. Information regarding how Provisional ballots are determined to be valid and counted, regarding partial counting of ballots, ballots subject to remake process, ability to seek court order to insure the ballot is counted…much of this information is not provided to voters. Not in the Voter Information Pamphlet, Voter Information Kiosks in precincts, and once again I point out that voters are informed they can check status of the provisional ballot 41 days after the election -- which is past the 29-day certification of the election.
Misunderstanding of Provisional ballots by pollworkers could be reduced by better understanding of what a Provisional ballot is. This usually comes with the experience of serving for several elections. To that end, while the student pollworker program has been tremendously successful, we need to be sure the two most important tasks at precincts, the rosters and operation of the Insight machine, are handled by adults. Too many precincts this recent election were staffed with 60% of the crew being high school students. That may be why Provisional ballots are ending up in the Insight machines. Usually the Insight machine is not right next to the precinct roster table -- it is across the room and the precinct inspector is then required to determine where to devote vigilance.
Summary
Errors reported and public complaints appear to be very minimal this election. This indicates another high-quality election conducted by the San Francisco Department of Elections.