Transcript 17-803/17-400 Electronic Voting Session 7: Tabulation, Recounts and Contests Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Institute for Software Research International Carnegie Mellon University 17-803/17-400 ELECTRONIC VOTING FALL 2004 COPYRIGHT.

17-803/17-400 Electronic Voting
Session 7:
Tabulation, Recounts and Contests
Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D.
Institute for Software Research International
Carnegie Mellon University
17-803/17-400 ELECTRONIC VOTING
FALL 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Outline
•
•
•
•
Tabulation (tallying)
Determination of the winner (canvass)
Recounts
Challenging the result (election contest)
– Revote?
• Review of news stories
17-803/17-400 ELECTRONIC VOTING
FALL 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Tallying
• Method depends on machine
• Lever
• Punched-card
– Precinct count
– Central count
• Optical scan
– Precinct count
– Central count
• DRE
– Precinct tabulation
– Central tabulation
17-803/17-400 ELECTRONIC VOTING
FALL 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Lever Machines
Canvass
•
•
•
•
The process of assembling verified vote totals
Local
County
State
17-803/17-400 ELECTRONIC VOTING
FALL 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Local Canvass
• “All proceedings at the polling place and at any central counting
location shall be open to the public, but no person, except those
employed and authorized for the purpose, may touch any ballot,
container, envelope, return or equipment.” Wisc. Stat. §5.87
• Canvass procedure. Immediately after the polls close the
inspectors shall proceed to canvass publicly all votes received at
the polling place … The canvass, whether conducted at the
polling place or at a central counting location, shall continue
without adjournment until the canvass is completed and the
return statements are made. Wisc. Stat. §7.51(1)
• Tallying. The election officials shall examine the ballots or record
of votes cast for write-in votes and shall count and tabulate the
write-in votes. Wisc. Stat. §7.58(2) The procedure for tabulating
the votes by the automatic tabulating equipment shall … conform
to the requirements of the automatic tabulating
equipment. Wisc. Stat. §5.87
17-803/17-400 ELECTRONIC VOTING
FALL 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Local Canvass
• Securing the ballots. Where voting machines are used, as soon
as the count is complete and fully recorded, the inspectors shall
seal, close and lock the machine, or remove the record so it
cannot be voted on or tampered with. Wisc. Stat. §7.51(3)(c)
• Announce and report. The tally sheets shall state the total
number of votes cast for each office and for each individual
receiving votes for that office … At least 3 inspectors … and at
least one inspector representing each political party, shall then
certify to the correctness of the statements and tally sheets and
sign their names … When the tally is complete, the inspectors
shall publicly announce the results from the statements. Wisc.
Stat. §7.51(4)(a)
• Returns. The inspectors shall make full and accurate return of
the votes cast for each candidate and proposition … The
inspectors shall immediately deliver all ballots, statements, tally
sheets, lists, and envelopes to the municipal clerk.
Wisc. Stat. §7.51(5)(a)
County Canvass
• Canvassing. Not later than 9 a.m. on the Thursday after each
election the county board of canvassers shall open and publicly
examine the returns. Wisc. Stat. §7.60(2)
• Reporting. Immediately following the canvass, the county clerk
shall deliver or send to the elections board, by 1st class mail, a
certified copy of each statement of the county board of
canvassers for [each office]. … The county clerk shall deliver or
transmit the certified statement to the elections board no later
than … 10 days after [the] election. Wisc Stat. §7.60(5)(a)
• Certificate of election. Immediately after expiration of the time
allowed to file a petition for a recount the county clerk shall issue
a certificate of election to each person who is elected to any
county office. Wisc. Stat. §7.60(6)
17-803/17-400 ELECTRONIC VOTING
FALL 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
State Canvass
• Recording. Upon receipt of the certified statements from the
county clerks, the elections board shall record the election
results by counties and file and carefully preserve the
statements. Wisc. Stat. §7.70(1)(a)
• Whenever it appears upon the face of any statement that an
error has been made in reporting or computing, the elections
board may return it to the county clerk for correction. Wisc. Stat.
§7.70(1)(b)
• Canvassing. The chairperson of the board … shall publicly
canvass the returns and make his or her certifications and
determinations on or before … the first day of December
following a general election. Wisc Stat. §7.70(3)(a)
• Wisconsin 2000 Canvass
17-803/17-400 ELECTRONIC VOTING
FALL 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
What is a Recount?
•
•
•
•
A “recount” is not a “revote”
The voter’s intent must be determined, where possible
Intent is never an issue with DRE machines
Nature of recount depends on the voting system
– Document ballots
• recount with tabulating equipment
• recount manually
– Lever machines
• retotal
– DRE machines
• retotal
• use audit trail
17-803/17-400 ELECTRONIC VOTING
FALL 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Recount Types
• Automatic
– e.g. California requires a manual recount in 1% of precincts
chosen at random by election officials
• Close Election
– e.g. Alabama: recount required if the margin is less than 0.5%
unless opponent waives
– Arizona: margin is less than the smallest of
• 0.1% or
• 200 votes if the total number of votes cast is more than
25,000 in a state office
• 50 votes if the total number of votes cast is 25,000 or less
in a state office
• 50 votes in the case of a member of the legislature
• 10 votes for a city, town, county or subdivision election.
17-803/17-400 ELECTRONIC VOTING
FALL 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Recount Types
• Candidate-Initiated
– Ohio: any candidate declared not elected
– BUT: must pay a fee for each precinct recounted, set by
Elections Board
• Voter-Initiated
– Ohio: Any five voters who voted for the loser may petition for a
recount in a precinct
– BUT: must pay a fee set by Elections Board
17-803/17-400 ELECTRONIC VOTING
FALL 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Recount Procedure
• The board of canvassers shall first compare the poll lists and
determine the number of voting electors. Wisc. Stat. §9.01(1)(b)1
• The board of canvassers shall then examine the absentee ballot
envelopes. Wisc. Stat. §9.01(1)(b)2
• They shall then examine the container or bag containing the
ballots to be certain it has not been tampered with, opened, or
opened and resealed. Any irregularities or possible tampering
with the container or bag shall be noted. Wisc. Stat. §9.01(1)(b)3
• In recounting the votes cast on a voting machine in which the
record of the votes cast is contained in the machine, the board of
canvassers shall make a record of the number of the seal, if any,
the number of the protective counter or other device, if one is
provided, and shall open the recording compartment of the
machine, and without unlocking the machine against voting, shall
recount the votes thereon. If the machine is an electronic voting
machine utilizing a detachable record of votes cast, the record
shall be retabulated. Wisc. Stat. §9.01(1)(b)6
Contested Elections
• Irregularities may occur in an election that cannot be fixed by
recounting, e.g. allowing ineligible people to vote
• An election result can be set aside if it is “contrary to the will of
the electorate.” [Ohio]
• Process is statutory and must be followed strictly.
• Petition: must be signed by at least 25 voters who voted at the
last election for or against the candidate or issue being contested,
or by the defeated candidate.
• Must be filed within 15 days after the results of the election have
been “ascertained and announced by the proper authority” or if
there is a recount within 10 days after the results have been
ascertained and announced.
• Court hears the case without a jury.
17-803/17-400 ELECTRONIC VOTING
FALL 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Contested Elections
• The court shall pronounce judgment as to which candidate was
… elected; … except that in the case of the contest of election of
a member of the general assembly such judgment shall not be
pronounced by the court but a transcript of all testimony taken …
shall be filed with the clerk or executive secretary of the branch of
the legislative body to which the contestee was declared elected,
which shall determine the election and qualification of its own
members. Ohio Rev. Code §3515.14
• The person against whom judgment is rendered in a contest of
election may appeal on questions of law, within twenty days, to
the supreme court; but such appeal shall not supersede the
execution of the judgment of the court. Such appeal takes
precedence over all other causes upon the calendar. Ohio Rev.
Code §3515.15
17-803/17-400 ELECTRONIC VOTING
FALL 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
What About a Revote?
•
•
•
•
Very rare
Irregularity must change the result of the election
It must be impossible to determine who won the election
“If the court or legislative body trying a contested election
determines there were irregularities of sufficient magnitude to
cast doubt on the validity of the initial election, it may order a new
election for the contested office or on the contested question. No.
Rev. Stat. §115.593
• Not clear it’s possible in a Presidential election
– has never happened
• “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors,
and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall
be the same throughout the United States. U.S. Const. Art. II.1.4
• All voters, or just the ones who voted originally?
17-803/17-400 ELECTRONIC VOTING
FALL 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Louisiana Revote, Nov. 13, 2003
• Grant Parish discovered that an election worker double entered
electronic absentee ballot votes in a police jury race.
• The error initially threw the race to incumbent Julius Scott.
• Scott’s opponent, Barney Durand, noticed there were more
absentee votes than there were absentee voters. Durand
challenged the results
• When the absentee votes cast were counted once instead of
twice, the race went to Durand instead of Scott.
• Despite the election officials’ assurance that the revised vote
count was accurate, Scott contested the revised results and a
revote was held.
• Durand won the revote.
17-803/17-400 ELECTRONIC VOTING
FALL 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Q&A
17-803/17-400 ELECTRONIC VOTING
FALL 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS