The image “http://www.votetrustusa.org/images/votetrust-small2.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

 

The nation's clearinghouse for election audit information!

   

Why Minnesota's Recount Process is a Model for the Country PDF  | Print |  Email
By Mark Halvorson, David Klein, and Pamela Smith   
November 22, 2008
With a celebrity candidate and record-setting expenditures the race to represent Minnesota in the US Senate captured the nation’s attention even before the historically close margin was announced. An automatic, manual recount of the Minnesota U.S. Senate race that began could last until mid-December. As non-partisan, election integrity advocates in Minnesota, we welcome this attention and hope that one of the outcomes will be lessons learned that strengthen our democracy.

One reason for our optimism is that Minnesota’s election system minimizes problems and circumstances that have historically reduced voter confidence. The occurrence of such problems and circumstances in other states plagued the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. The people, procedures, and technology comprising Minnesota’s election system are among the most respected in the nation. Minnesota’s election system has great potential to certify results that accurately reflect the will of the voters and in which voters can have confidence.

Minnesota’s reputation for electoral integrity begins with the state's choice of election technology: a system of voter-marked paper ballots which are read by optical-scan machines. A meaningful recount is possible because the paper ballots provide a permanent record of each voter’s intent. Such a permanent record does not exist in all states; over one third of the states use electronic machines that do not offer voter-verifiable paper records. Many top computer security experts have warned that paperless electronic voting is inherently insecure and does not provide for a real recount.

Minnesota’s election process is characterized by transparency and openness. Citizens can, and do, observe the process. For example, Citizens For Election Integrity Minnesota, The League of Women Voters Minnesota, and Common Cause Minnesota are mobilizing a non-partisan citizen observation of the recount to protect the integrity of the process.

Minnesota independently assesses the accuracy of the election system that uses optical scanners by auditing a random sample of roughly 5% of the ballots immediately after every federal election cycle; 16 states conduct post-election audits, which is the highest number ever, but not high enough. There is no question that every state should include a mandatory process to independently check the accuracy of election results that includes provisions to expand the verification when errors are detected. Moreover, such post-election review processes need to have mechanisms in place to see that the errors are corrected automatically instead of needing to go to a judicial or a legislative body. The audits, along with the 2008 primary election recount, have given Minnesota election officials statewide the experience in manually counting ballots and in determining voter intent necessary for the impending U.S. Senate recount.

Claims of partisan application of the law will inevitably be leveled in these situations. Certainly there is a benefit to laws in Minnesota and elsewhere that prevent our state’s chief election officer from grossly appearing to have a conflict of interest such as overseeing an election while also chairing the state’s committee to elect one of the candidates as was the case in Florida (2000) and Ohio (2004).

The detailed, written procedures of the Minnesota recount law leave little room for discretion or bias in conducting the recount, covering: the ballot chain of custody, ballot counting, and the interpretation of voter intent. The Minnesota recount law requires that 100% of accepted ballots be manually inspected, counted, and tallied.

At the end of the recount, we expect to see a lot of really bored lawyers, election officials, reporters, and citizens who were present for the sorting, stacking, and counting of 2.9 million paper ballots. We expect confirmation that the vast majority of ballots unambiguously reflect a selection of one of the candidates, or no vote at all. We expect a tiny percentage of ballots marked in a way that the optical scanners cannot determine the voter’s intent, which could change the outcome given the miniscule margin. Any programming errors, software glitches or clerical errors in reporting vote totals will be caught and corrected by the manual recount.

Be careful not to yawn and fail to recognize that the effort and detailed care is necessary, even if the outcome doesn’t change – there is no other way to be confident in the results of this race. It is not that a systematic review is required because we distrust the election system. Rather, a systematic review is required because we care enough about this important process to be as certain as possible.

Mark Halvorson is Director of Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota. David Klein is Elections Operations Specialist formerly with the Ohio Secretary of State. Pamela Smith is President of the Verified Voting Foundation.
Comment on This Article
You must login to leave comments...
Other Visitors Comments
You must login to see comments...
< Prev   Next >
2005-06-02 10:55:21Joan Krawitz, Executive DirectorVoteTrustUSA National Leadership Workshop & Strategy Session for e-Voting Reform Leaders
2005-08-21 19:16:37Bo Lipari, New Yorkers for Verified VotingCounty-Level Strategies for Paper Ballot/Optical Scan Adoption
2005-08-29 14:05:12VoteTrustUSAVoteTrustUSA Statement of Principles
2005-09-07 13:46:53Green Institute, Liberty Tree Foundation, and Fairvote Announce Panel on the Crisis of U.S. Election
2005-10-31 00:18:52Marybeth Kuznik, VotePANot Just a Bunch of Little Old Ladies: The Importance of Becoming a Pollworker
2005-11-28 13:51:16Pat Clark, The Center for Civic Participation and Everybody VOTEPennsylvania: Activists work with Allegheny County on Voting Machine Evaluation Process
2005-12-15 10:16:23Media Release from ACORNACORN Defeats Anti-Voter Legal Attacks
2005-12-24 15:44:50Susan Pynchon, Executive Director, Florida Fair Elections CoalitionHoliday Poem for Voter Activists
2005-12-29 15:59:05Joan Krawitz, Executive Director, VoteTrustUSAAction Alert: Say No To Prohibited Software in Voting Machines!
2005-12-30 14:00:11VoteTrustUSAOpen Letter to the Election Assistance Commission
2006-01-12 15:25:45Verified Voting FoundationVerified Voting Announces New President and CEO
2006-01-16 13:53:06Tara Blomquist, NC Coalition for Verified VotingThe Story of North Carolina's Fight for Voter Verified Elections
2006-01-30 17:11:02Kindra MuntzSarasota Alliance for Fair ElectionsFlorida: County Petition Drive For Verifiable Elections
2006-02-23 16:34:58VoteTrustUSAI Count Coalition Announces DC Lobby Days In Support of HR 550
2006-04-25 17:55:50John Gideon, votersUnite.org and VoteTrustUSAFile a HAVA Complaint
2006-04-25 22:26:06Sean Flaherty, Iowans for Voting IntegrityReport on VoteTrustUSA Workshop
2006-05-06 09:46:09Pamela Haengel, President, Voting Integrity Alliance, Tampa BayOne Voice. One Vote. (An Ode to the Struggle)
2006-06-16 00:00:00VoteTrustUSAWatch VoteTrustUSA on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight
2006-07-30 13:50:59Mary Howe KiralyDo Americans Get the Election System We Deserve?
2006-09-23 14:47:19Pollworkers for DemocracyOver 1,400 Sign Up For New "Pollworkers For Democracy" Project In First Week
2006-10-19 18:13:02Pollworkers for Democracy Training
2006-10-25 11:55:01Election Protection CoalitionWatching the Vote 2006
2006-12-18 10:59:19Kindra Muntz, Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections1,000 Rally for Revote in Sarasota County FL-13 Race
2007-11-07 15:10:22Pamela Smith, Verified Voting FoundationElection Audit Summit Brings Together Statisticians, Election Officials, and Advocates