Today, April 19, was the last day for the established political parties to fill vacancies in nomination when no candidate was nominated in the primary election. For the first time, no established political party candidate filed to run against me. New political party candidates and independents can file for office in June so it is no guarantee that I’ll be unopposed. Nevertheless, not having an opponent from the opposition parties is gratifying.
I’m sure I could give a host of reasons for the lack of opposition. But first, foremost, and without peer is the great work of the staff in my office. Over nearly 13 years they have provided great service, fair and honest elections, and progressive advances in every area of this office. Every week I have multiple people who approach me and compliment the work of my office. The confidence and support of the public in general is reflected in those compliments and hopefully is reflected in the lack of opposition.
Thanks so much to my staff who has served so well and earned such trust.
I’ve certainly had a rocky relationship with the State Board of Elections. They’ve sued me once (and lost) and now I’m suing them. Beyond that, there have been plenty of other skirmishes and difficulties.
But I’d be remiss if I didn’t throw a big compliment toward them regarding their campaign disclosure software project.
Readers may recall that I’ve expressed an interest in open source programming for government. While most open source advocates are particular to using purely open source software applications, I am open to taking advantage of the benefits of open source programming within programs such as SQL Server and Visual Studio. They key for me is that government holds onto the code and is able to modify that code to meet changing needs.
Now enter the programming department of the State Board of Elections. This month they are getting ready to release the beta version of their new IDIS software. Rather than going to another outside vendor to upgrade the IDIS software, the SBE instead developed the program in house. This will give them the flexibility to more easily make changes in the future as necessitated by new laws or to meet other needs expressed by users.
People who currently use IDIS have often expressed dismay at the product. Their concerns to date have been unmet because there was no ability for the SBE to change the software that had been developed outside their agency. That will now change.
Not insignificant is that this has been done for a reduced price. Nearly a year ago, it was anticipated that the cost in house would be over $350,000. The new budget that will be presented at the SBE meeting on Wednesday this week has that reduced to $60,000. I wouldn’t be surprised to this tick up a bit after the bugs in the beta version are identified. In any case, this cost figures to be reduced from the likely cost from a vendor by a factor of at least ten.
Most important, the code belongs to the government, can be changed as desired, and will have no licensing costs in the future. A great example of how software development in house can be a win-win for everyone.
Looking at the facility costs related to voter registration for election authorities in Oregon and comparing it to Champaign County leaves one wondering.
Here is how I roughly calculated our facility costs for voter registration.
First, I used a cost of $14,76 per square foot which is the rent paid by the Illinois Attorney General for space in the Brookens Administrative Center where our office is.
Second, I measured and determined that there was 1,312 square feet used in some way or another in the voter registration process. Without any proration of the space based on time spent on voter registration I calculated a cost of 16 cents per voter, which would make our county the fifth cheapest in Oregon.
However, if you prorate the space based on time allocated to voter registration activities, the cost drops to 5 cents a voter. That would be the cheapest of any Oregon county except Crook County which reported $173.82 in facility costs amounting to 1 cent per voter.
In my mind, there are two ways to look at this, neither of which Pew adopted.
The first way to examine this it is to question your methods and procedures. Is the methodology really returning accurate data? I’d suggest that it almost certainly is not and that Pew needs to go back to the drawing board on facility costs and probably almost everything else in their survey.
The second way to examine this is to wonder why it costs so much for facilities in these counties. If Champaign County can operate with a facility cost of 5 cents, shouldn’t a county like Marion County be able to lower their 61 cent cost to something more reasonable? Why are the facility costs for voter registration in Washington County 6 times the cost of Champaign County?
With the quality of the Pew report as I’ve seen it so far, I have a lot more faith that the Oregon counties are running with more reasonable costs than reported by Pew. But either way, Pew owes the public and policy makers a closer examination of the data they are reporting.
As I’ve chatted with Oregon election officials about the Pew report on voter registration costs, one thing is clear. The numbers in the Pew for their report were solicited with little guidance and compiled in many instances as estimates.
If you look at the spreadsheet which Pew provided you’ll get an indication of this. First, there are glaring gaps in the submitted data.
For example, 16 of the 36 counties submitted no facility costs. 19 counties submitted no computer costs. 23 counties submitted no County IT costs.
These gaps demonstrate that there were few guidelines for counties to follow. Like many of these counties, I hesitate to answer questions for which I don’t have solid data. It’s always safer to not answer than to provide data that is wrong, especially when I don’t know how the data is going to be used.
Beyond those gaps, it is easy to see that many of the numbers are purely estimates. For example, Marion County’s computer costs turned out to be $30,000 and their County IT costs turned out to be $45,000. A number of other rounded numbers in the report suggest estimating as well.
Then there is the great disparity in costs from one county to another. So for example, on the facility costs we see a high of $2.37 per voter for Clatsop County and a low of $.01 for Crook County. Rather than digging in deeper to these numbers to determine why such a discrepancy would exist, Pew just reported it as is.
Just looking at the County IT costs per voter for the two largest counties reveals shocking discrepancies. Multnomah County’s IT costs per voter is 11 cents. Washington County’s is 58 cents.
Don’t differences of that nature cry out for clarification and review? This isn’t the first time that I’ve found inaccurate data that seems to be accepted only because it supports someone’s agenda.
And my opinion about the accuracy of the data is supported by some of the Oregon officials. Here are a few quotes:
the Pew Center did not provide any guidance or even require any degree of accuracy in their request.
My numbers were all rough estimates.
I was under the impression when I spoke with him by phone regarding this subject, that we did not have to spend a lot of time on this request, that indeed it was just an estimate.
Take the Pew report with a grain of salt. It fails by the most basic of research standards.
As I’ve said, the call in Heather Gerken’s book for more data was a good idea. So good in fact that I’ve really been working to gather data myself and present it to the public. Roadblocks abound.
Not so the voter registration reform folks. There are two problems, both of which point to a serious disinterest in data.
First is inaccurate data as I pointed out in the Pew report, which I intend to delve into even deeper.
Second is the making of unsubstantiated claims with no basis in fact. I pointed to this problem in Gerken’s book. For example, Gerken claimed that election officials were reducing the number of voting machines in precincts that were not supportive of the election officials’ preferred candidates.
The Committee to Modernize Voter Registration is another one with a great interest in making broad sweeping claims but with little interest in data to support it.
Here are some of the claims from their website regarding how citizens will be kept from automatically being added to the voter rolls.
A modern voter registration system will enable election officials to use secure government databases to automatically update voter registration rolls for eligible – and only for eligible – Americans.
Automatic and permanent voter registration offers even more protections against non-citizens being added to the rolls than our current, paper based registration system.
Most of the voters who will be automatically added to the voter registration list come from other databases that contain information about citizenship status based on documentation provided by the voter.
Many Motor Vehicles agencies collect citizenship information and all agencies that administer federal social service programs collect citizenship information.
With such claims one would assume that some work or research was done on this issue. As I’ve noted, two emails and a letter over the course of 6 months went to the Committee seeking the research or data. One of my questions:
Do you have a list available of the states that do not ask about or record citizenship at the time a person receives services at the Driver’s License facility?
What their letter suggests is that they have no intention of answering my questions regarding the automatic registration of noncitizens with their proposal and that they can not provide one single piece of evidence to back up the claims they make on their website that are recapped above.
Do I want modernization? Of course, I work at it every week in this office. But I refuse to let so called proponents of modernization to make spurious claims about their own proposals. If the Committee to Modernize wants to be a serious player in the efforts to modernize voter registration, they ought to excise from their website the host of unsupported claims they make. Let’s bring the facts to the table in this important effort.
Pew responded to my email regarding some problems in their spreadsheet by sending a corrected spreadsheet which does not change the overall numbers as reported. It’s a bit easier to read so I suggest anyone interested in the data ought to look this iteration.
Of course, we still don’t have the source of any of the data in the report from Pew, although I have bits and pieces that I’ve acquired on my own.
There is a concerted effort to undo one of the key reforms of the Help America Vote Act. I’ve written about it a couple times.
First, there is the proposal of Zoe Loefgren which, unwittingly or not, put’s barriers in the way of removing voters from the voter registration rolls.
Second, the American Constitution Society published a paper from Estelle Rogers that claims that any removal of voters from the voter file based on a statewide match as laid out in HAVA was illegal.
Now comes Project Vote, who echoes the legal sentiments of Rogers.
When states remove voters merely on the basis of an interstate database match, they not only risk disenfranchising eligible citizens, they violate the NVRA.
Once again, I see a two pronged approach from the so called reformers. Add more people to the rolls, with little regard to their eligiblity and make it increasingly difficult to remove voters.
The result will be reduced confidence that only eligible people are registered and voting and increased costs as election officials are compelled to carry voters on their rolls who are known to have moved.
We just did the drawing for ballot position among the three established political parties in the November election. Marcia Morrison, an Urbana High School student who was the youngest person to cast a vote in the Primary election pulled the parties out of a hat. The order of parties will be:
New political parties and independents will appear after the established political parties.
Yesterday afternoon, after posting the latest Pew Center report on the costs of voter registration I received the Pew spreadsheet of the costs. Since I mentioned yesterday that they hadn’t been forthcoming in providing the information, I though I ought to get it posted right away.
For the record, I first requested this data on December 28, 2009. I received a “We’re in the process” response on January 8, 2010. I followed up on February 18, 2010. On February 24, 2010 I received another “We’re in the process” response. I don’t know if yesterday’s posting was the prompt for Pew turning over the spreadsheet or if it was mere coincidence.
Of course, like the mistake made on the OCVR we don’t have independent proof of the reliability of what is being presented.
Plenty more on this topic in future days.