ERIN NEFF: 'Isolated problem' at the polls should serve as lesson - Opinion

PRINT THIS Popular

Aug. 17, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

ERIN NEFF: 'Isolated problem' at the polls should serve as lesson

ERIN NEFF
MORE COLUMNS

Now that the primary election has passed, all political eyes here are focused on November's general.

But while the presidential contest and some down-ticket congressional and legislative races are grabbing the most news, voters should stop to think about the integrity of their vote.

Most Popular Stories

EDITORIAL: A pre-9/11 approach to terror

EDITORIAL: Terrorism on trial

LETTERS: Public-sector workers are still doing well

LETTERS: Harry Reid: Working hard for all Americans

EDITORIAL: 'That's the ticket!'

LETTERS: A giant octopus threatens rural Nevada

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Barefooted, gun-toting hayseeds?

LETTERS: America should try terrorists in open court

EDITORIAL: Religious freedom

GEOFF SCHUMACHER: UNLV needs new stadium

Last Tuesday, so few Clark County voters participated in the election that it seemed poll workers outnumbered those casting ballots. The low numbers, though, didn't necessarily mean staffers had a handle on things -- even with fewer than 8 percent of voters hitting the polls that day.

One minor example at a Las Vegas precinct should serve as a good lesson as we approach November. This case came to light because the voter affected just happened to be the chairman of the Clark County Democratic Party -- a man who is not known as a shrinking violet.

John Hunt went with his wife and a friend to vote shortly after polls opened Tuesday.

All three Democrats were given cards to insert in the electronic machines. All three began pushing buttons in the non-partisan races for the judiciary. All three somehow initially overlooked the fact that Shelley Berkley didn't pop up on the machine even though the congresswoman faced a primary challenge.

Hunt and Co. also live in a precinct where Berkley's race was the lone Democratic primary.

After they cast ballots, Hunt said, it suddenly dawned on them that none of them voted for Berkley. They looked at their receipts - blue, indicating Democrats. They asked the poll workers and the supervisor.

Since it was before 7:30 a.m., the supervisor opened the lock box where voting cards are inserted after ballots are cast. Twelve cards were inside -- nine Democrats and three Republicans. All 12 had been given non-partisan voting cards. Since the votes were cast, there was no way to go back to let any of the voters participate in the congressional primary.

Hunt called Berkley's office, phoned the registrar of voters and even put in a courtesy call to state GOP Chairperson Sue Lowden to tell her some of her voters may have been affected.

With so much scrutiny about voting machines, few actually focus any attention on the staff manning elections. This is a case of human error that wasn't supposed to happen. "It's not one poll worker, it's two and neither will be poll workers again in the future," said County Registrar Larry Lomax.

While the Hunt case was "an isolated problem," it is evidence that despite training and vetting of election staff, errors occur. "They were very senior citizens," Lomax said, describing the women.

During a primary election, a voter is supposed to be asked twice to verify precinct and party. At the sign-in desk the voter is supposed to receive a card with a sticker indicating party affiliation. Blue is Democrat, yellow Republican and white non-partisan. In this case the poll worker just gave everyone white stickers.

Maybe she was colorblind.

The second poll worker never verified the voter's precinct or party affiliation and simply handed each one a non-partisan card for the machine.

There were no widespread reports of similar errors anywhere statewide Tuesday, according to secretary of state spokesman Robert Walsh. "I guess it comes down to poll worker training and the inevitability of occasional human error," Walsh said.

At my own precinct, I was held at the signature table for a while because the poll worker didn't understand a partially legible stamped instruction that was on the sign-in sheet in the column for my name.

It was the beginning of the word "signature." The second word was smudged.

I'm an inveterate voter -- every primary, every general. So, it didn't think I was being classified inactive or ineligible.

The supervisor eventually approved me and on I went. But I'm someone who's very used to voting and familiar with the electronic machines, too.

Imagine if I were a first-time voter. Might I have confidence to wait out the discrepancy? Might I feel as though I were being unduly questioned or intimidated simply because of some human error?

Voters should consider Tuesday's primary a lesson. You are your best advocate. Take your sample ballot to the polls. If it doesn't match up with the machine, somebody screwed up.

And if you're one of the scores who have registered at a library, grocery store or community event, you really must double-check your registration.

You can do that at the election center on the secretary of state's Web site: www.silverstate08.com.

If you vote on an electronic machine, click the button to print a verifiable receipt. Check your selections, scrolling all the way through all of the pages, to make sure they match up. They should all reflect your vote, and if they don't, you can change it. The printed record also ensures your vote will be counted in the event of some kind of catastrophic power failure or computer meltdown.

In November, there will undoubtedly be long lines to vote. Poll workers will be swamped. Errors will occur. So prepare now to be a defensive voter.

Look out for mistakes by others or you may find the mistake is yours.

Contact Erin Neff at (702) 387-2906, or by e-mail at eneff@reviewjournal.com.

Share & Save

Leave Your Comment	9 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background. Sad Summerlin wrote on August 17, 2008 09:55 PM: Okay Brian, it's a deal... but you need to buy twice as many Carbon Credits as you originally thought... we also didn't realize the amount of extra energy that would be required to print the receipt and create the ink necessary... and with nuclear power now also contributing to global warming (you thats a joke, google it), we are going to need to off-set your paper receipts even further... I am sorry, but maybe we should just not vote at all... the environment would be better off for it... (* if you think the above message was a joke --- you are dead-on ) (* If you think there aren't people out there you really think that way --- you are sorely mistaken **) Brian Kominsky wrote on August 17, 2008 08:53 PM: John F - You are correct. But if every voter creates a paper ballot that he or she can inspect for accuracy before leaving the machine, and a recount is done, at least the recount will be accurate. Sad Summerlin - I promise to inflate my tires and drive to Wal-Mart one less time per week if we can have paper ballots. Or I can just buy one of your cap and trade carbon credits. Sad Summerlin wrote on August 17, 2008 06:49 PM: Nice column, Erin... and scary. John F - You're dead on for this one... I am quite surprised though that this wasn't already happening. So many industries - gaming, telco, power etc - have their code reviewed for accuracy to avoid cheating or malevolent activity, it is shocking to think our election devices don't go through the same scrutiny. Brian K - Paper records for everything would destroy the environment. (That was a veiled attempt at Eco-humor) John F wrote on August 17, 2008 06:20 PM: Mr. Kominsky, The problem is worse than what you state. Just because the paper printout says one thing, it's no guarantee that your vote is being counted correctly. It's a very simple thing to have the computer print one thing while recording another. The software is considered proprietary information and the states buying the machines can't inspect the code. This is a recipe for disaster. Imagine I'm an unscrupulous programmer and I want to guarantee that Thatcher beats Major. The algorithm is astonishingly simple. 1) set MajorCounter = 1 2) is incoming vote = Major? 3) if yes, MajorCounter = MajorCounter + 1 4) is MajorCounter = 10? 5) if no continue and return to step 2 6) if MajorCounter = 10: print PaperCopy change Major vote to Thatcher vote reset MajorCounter to 1 7) return to step 2 Unless you can look at the software code, there is absolutely no way to know with a computerized voting machine whether the vote you cast is being recorded properly. Computerized voting machimes are not to be trusted because we can't trust the people programming them. We need to pass a law requiring voting machine manufacturers to allow election officials to inspect the software code on every individual voting machine. It's the only way to ensure their integrity. Brian Kominsky wrote on August 17, 2008 03:28 PM: Oops. That's "you're welcome." Brian Kominsky wrote on August 17, 2008 03:27 PM: "The printed record also ensures your vote will be counted in the event of some kind of catastrophic power failure or computer meltdown." No, Erin. It does not. Actually, it guarantees nothing. And that's because it is optional. When we first got electronic machines, people complained about no paper record. So, an optional paper record was inserted and now everyone is happy. Notice a problem here? With an "optional" paper record, the paper record is completely inadequate for any type of recount, whether requested by a candidate or due to computer failure. If it were a "mandatory" paper record of each vote, it would be perfectly useful for that purpose. So, what should you be writing about and suggesting to the elections department, and if that fails the assembly? That's right. A MANDATORY PAPER PRINTOUT OF EACH COMPLETED VOTE AFTER IT HAS BEEN CAST. You've welcome. Hit the Road Jack wrote on August 17, 2008 07:43 AM: Jack--I don't always agree with Erin either (like 90+ percent of the time) and have commented on her left-leaning editorials as well in the past, but I found today's story balanced and informative. Let's save the political agenda for another day. As someone who just became a Nevada resident and will vote in this state for the first time in November (as a nonpartisan), this is good information. Based on the results, the "irregularities" didn't seem to hurt too many incumbents (Elizabeth Halverson excluded of course). Come November the polls will be more crowded, but (if I'm not mistaken) it's a general election and there should be one ballot for everyone. The sad thing is that everyone bashes the President with his low approval ratings and the "Candidates with Lifelong Terms" (i.e. Congress), sailed through their primaries virtually unchallenged. The President will be gone come January, and that can can't be kicked around any more. But, for those who sit across the street in the Capitol and have managed to achieve what seemed to be the impossible--a single digit approval rating--will still be around thanks to apathy and low turnout at the polls. So, if you can find time to cast your vote for an American Idol or next Nashville Star, get to the polls Nov. 4. Voting is not just a right, it's a responsibility and the future you save could very well be your own. Errins Grandma wrote on August 17, 2008 07:08 AM: Errin, can I have my blouse back honey? Jack wrote on August 17, 2008 06:53 AM: Well thank you Erin, I must express pleasure and surprise that you were able to write this story without making the Republicans the villans...Oh wait, next week is the piece where you tell us all that these poll workers are all Jim Gibbons fault right?