Business Practice Group Report

Business Practice Group Report

The following is an executive summary of a surveys conducted by the Business Practice Group (BPG), testimonials of Clerk and Recorder’s experiences during the election and actual statistics captured during the 2014 General Election from the state-wide voter registration system (SCORE). The survey’s objective was to gather information about the 2014 GeneralElection.It was sent to all county clerk offices. Survey responses were submitted from 44counties. The respondents include13Tier 1 (large, at least 25,000 active voters),10Tier 2 (medium, 10,000 to 25,000 active voters), and 21Tier 3 (small, less than 10,000 active voters) counties. The designations of three tiers, as defined in Title 1, established the requirements for the number of voter service and polling centers each county must open during a general election.See appendix A fora map of the counties who respondedand appendix B forsurvey results.Add info about signature discrepancy survey and Rice University.

Highlights from the 2014 election

The 2014 General Election was the first partisan November Election held under the new election model. There were accomplishments that deserve celebration and some items that present areas for improvement.

The new election model allowed for all active voters to receive a ballotby mail and in person voting with an opportunity to register to vote or make an address change on Election Day. In previous partisan elections, those who missed the registration cut-off or did not correct their address prior to going to the polling place were required tovote a provisional ballot. As a result of the change in model, there was an improvement in voter turnout and a substantial reduction in provisional ballots issued from previous general elections. While many states’ turnout number declined, Colorado’s improved and was the fourth highestin the nation.

A new application was develop and delivered on time by the Secretary of State’s office called “WebSCORE”. This application was created to help streamline in-person voting at VSPC locations by simplifying the work of the election judge. It was successful in cutting down the transaction time to process a voter and reducingthe length and complexity of election judge training.Technical issueswith this application were encountered on Election Day. Approximately 75,000 out 100,000 in person votes were cast on Election Day and when the system went down periodically, lines that formedmoved in an orderly fashion and the amount of provisional ballots cast was minimal. The prevention of technical issues related to checking voter eligibility in voter service and polling centers is an area needing improvement that the state is currently reviewing.a success was realized with the implementation of county developed contingency plans and the issuance of provisional ballots when necessary. review this section after tech report has been completed

Methods used to vote (mail and in-person):

Colorado voters overwhelmingly continue to utilize mail ballots. Nearly 2 million voters cast their vote using their mail ballot and either mailing it back or dropping it off. In the survey responses, of the mail ballot voters in Tier I counties, 67% dropped off while 33% mailed the ballots back. In Tier II counties, 56% dropped off while 44% mailed the ballots back. In Tier III counties, 48% dropped off while 52% mailed the ballots back.

Drop boxes are a popular choice for mail ballot voters and twenty-four hour drop boxes remain very popular. The BPG recommends a change in rule to remove the requirement that 24 hour boxes are monitored by camera. The United States Postal Service mail boxes are not monitored by camera and the incoming signature verification process on the mail ballots is what is relied on for validating the eligibility of the votes received. The cost of networking a camera and storage of the footage makes the installation of 24 hour boxes cost prohibitive in many medium and small counties and limits the number of boxes in some large counties.

The in-person voters totalled 101,060 in number (not including provisional voters) and 83,481 of them came on the last two days of voting. 5% of our participating voters chose an in-person method.

Voter Service and Polling Center days and hours

The new election model set forth a formula, according to active voter population, for the number of voter service and polling centers required and the number of days these sites were required to be open. Counties reported the activity at VSPCs the first 11 to 12 days was very slow. Only 17% of the in-person voting took place prior to election week. 83% of the in-person voters used a service center on the Monday prior to Election Day and on Election Day to cast their votes. See appendix___ for county and state-widedate by date in person voting. The formulas for VSPCs should be reviewed and modified to account for lower turnout the first two weeks of voting. The Saturday requirements are of special note for low early turnout, only 417 in-person voters voted on October 25th and 1856 in-person voters voted on November 1st.Many counties incurred additional overtime costs with these weekend day openings that could be saved with an adjustment to the formula.

Tier 1 counties reported challenges with locating larger facilities and keeping staff busy at their Voter Service and Polling Centers. Difficulty was encountered securing facilities for two full weeks. Often a location that was available for two weeks was too small for Election Day voter turnout. During the first two weeks of voting, many counties reported challenges keeping staff at the VSPC locations busy and sharp. Week one, October 20 to October 25, early voting turnout was especially slow. Voter turnout for tier 1 counties was 4292 voters with 81 VSPCs required for this time period. Saturday voting for tier 1 counties was 403 voters for 81 required VSPCs. State wide 417 voters voted on the first Saturday. Tier 2 and tier 3 counties were only required to have one VSPC open during the two week period leading up to Election Day.

Many counties opened more service centers than were required by statute and that will continue, as they meet the needs of their communities. Many chose to open additional VSPCs on the Monday before Election Day. Opening the centers on Monday allowed for counties to essentially test all the VSPCs ahead of time.

The BPG recommends adjusting the formula to require fewer service centers to be open during the first week of voting and eliminate the first Saturday requirement.

Registrations

In previous General elections registration ended 29 days before the election for new voters, however, address changes for already registered voters were allowed through Election Day using either emergency registrations at the clerk’s office or providing a provisional ballot at the polling place. In the 2014 General Election, 60,161 people used registration updating services provided by the clerks in the last 29 days and 8,886 voters registered and were issued an in-person ballot during the 29 days before the election.

Info will be added about impact and party registration for same day voter registration.

In another change brought about by the new election model, the state began utilizing the National Change of Address (NCOA) data from the postal service. Success was realized in list maintenance. Many counties reported that undeliverable rates decreased. In the 2013 Coordinated Election the undeliverable rate was approximately 10%. In the 2014 General Election the undeliverable rate was approximately 4%. This decrease indicates that our voter registration lists are cleaner, but more work can be done in the area of list maintenance through improvements in the NCOA and Electronic Registration Information Center project (ERIC) data.TheColorado Department of Revenue (CDOR) Motor Voter program can also be improved to with additional automation. Undeliverable addresses were compared against CDOR driver’s license data and 28% of those addresses potentially would have been updated to a more current address if address changes were automated between CDOR and SCORE.The BPG is hopeful that the software upgrade planned will significantly increase the success of this 1993 program. The process for the transfer of information from CDOR to the SOS in an electronic format needs to be improved to provide more efficient data and better serve the public.

ProvisionalBallots:

Under the new election model, provisional ballots were decreased by 98%.This means that in the previous model we required many otherwise eligible voters to use provisional ballots, but with the model change, those eligible voters were given an opportunity to register or change their address without having to delay the counting of their ballot. The number of rejected provisional ballots stayed consistent. The ineligible voters who attempt to vote are still being properly managed through the provisional process. Provisional ballots numbers could have been reduced even further if the technical issues had not arisen with WebSCORE on Election Day. 387 accepted provisional ballots out of 981 total provisional ballots cast state-wide were due to the loss of connectivity or the inability to verify a voter’s eligibility as a result of the SCORE disruption.See appendix_ for a breakdown of provisional ballots state-wide from 2010-2014.

As a result of this new model, the reduction in provisional ballots was a large cost savings for the counties and provided easier access for voters to vote a regular ballot. Post-election staff time was greatly reduced because the process to update and register voters during the voting process was much more efficient and effective. The average cost to issue and process provisional ballots is about $10 per ballot.

Election Judges

The new model provided for a substantial reduction in election judges required with the elimination of traditional polling places. However, the laws surrounding recruitment of election judges needs to be updated to reflect the change in technology surrounding facilitating in-person voting and the verification and counting of ballots. The recruitment and selection process outlined in law to complement a system used 20 years ago does not complement our current system. Some counties reported difficulty in using the caucus referrals and procuring judges that could accommodate extended training, extended work schedules (2 to 4 weeks long) and meet the increased technical skills required.

The BPG would recommend that the Clerk and Recorders, Secretary of State and political parties work together to update election judge statutes.

Suggestions have been made that state and local governments should close to free up network resources, voting locations and to provide skilled labor to the elections offices and voting centers.

Costs

Many items identified are resulting in cost reductions in the conduct of our elections. For instance lessening the number of provisional votes saves an estimated $10 per vote in materials and labor of processing. Reducing the number of undeliverable ballots also saves in materials, postage and labor. An average of xxx per ballot The BPG would like to put together a more comprehensive cost comparison after the Secretary of State’s reimbursement forms for the 2014 General are complete.

Signature Verification

Signature verification continues to prove to be a good safeguard against fraud. In a recent survey conducted by the Association, the counties responding reported that signature cures (those sent a letter stating there was an issue with the voter’s signature) resulted in over 42% of the ballots in being counted. The Clerks work with their DA offices and while the law requires us to refer all 58% of the uncured signature discrepancies, there are usually only a few cases where ill intentions seem to be involved. Once again, following the General of 2014, there are only a few cases reported so far that qualify for review of malicious activity by the District Attorney.

There is also a process for insufficient ID. Of the ballots initially rejected for ID issues, 17% were cured. For the 83% of ID required mail ballots that did not return one, they remain uncounted.

The survey in included as appendix __ and map of the counties is included as appendix __

Technical Applications

The new in-person voting application, WebSCORE, was develop by the Secretary of State’s office. The application was created to help streamline in-person voting at VSPC locations by simplifying the work of the election judge. It was successful in cutting down the transaction time to process a voter and reducing the length and complexity of election judge training. Technical issues with this application were encountered on Election Day and Secretary of State’s office has hired a third party to investigate the root cause of these issues. At this point, the Secretary of State so far knows that some issues were caused by the network going down, transferring traffic to the secondary site and then disruption of authentication across the two nodes[sr1].

As reported by the counties on Election Day, the On-line Voter Registration application went down intermittently throughout the day as well as the WebSCORE application.The full SCORE application (citrix based connection) remained steady except for the few minutes around 2:00 p.m. when the Secretary of State’s office attempted to ‘reset’ the database in hopes all applications returning to normal behaviour.

The statewide Election Night Reporting (ENR) application also experienced issues for periods of time during Election night as tight races were being watched closely resulting in frustration on the part of our public wishing to get state-wide information. SOE, the vendor who provides this service to the Secretary of State, and their software had issues not just in Colorado but across the nation. SOE is on a completely separate infrastructure and is not associated with the technical issues experienced in the actual voting system application. The BPG recommends a separate root cause investigation for the reporting system as well.

Two positive notes comes from this experience include, the SCORE helpdesk communications to counties and management by counties, through previously established plans, of continued voting during the time of lost connectivity. Some counties offered everyone mail ballots during this disruption, which could be issued by the still accessible full SCORE application, while most counties had voters choose to wait until the VSPC application came back up or voted provisionally.

Areas improved, identified as needed in the 2013 report

Section to be added

Recommendations from BPG

This section is still being drafted and will include the following

Motor Voter registration updates automatically transferred to

VSPC days & hours

VSPC communications in the field

Election Judge recruitment and selection

Consider the improvements by Tier

Technical

Communications to all locations and Election Judge leads were tough in larger counties. Suggestions of the VSPC module itself housing a messaging tool or utilizing mass text communications would be a favourable improvement in the future.

Password management between systems was brought up from a number of counties as being cumbersome and difficult. A suggestion was also made about making the sandbox or test environment a completely different color to prevent counties from accidently working in the test environment when they should be using the live SCORE application.

Legislative Recommendations

This section is being drafted

Included are:

Appendix A- Maps of survey respondents

Appendix B- VSPC Survey results

Appendix C- Vote by method report

Appendix D- New registration and changes of address statistics

Appendix E- Provisional ballot report

Appendix F- Signature discrepancy survey results

Page 1 of 6

[sr1]Trevor needs to check this and the next section!