There have been a couple posts with questions regarding legislation. Over the course of the summer I will address them, generally as they are either signed or vetoed by the Governor. I’m going to begin with three pieces of legislation that recently became law and with which I had some input.

The first was HB 1315. This bill has been signed by the Governor and removes the requirement that voters with a disability who need assistance in voting state whether their disability is permanent. As you can imagine, for many disabled voters this was offensive. For many of our election judges it was uncomfortable. There was no good reason for it to be in the statute. I had been asked about this by members of PACE (Persons Assuming Control of Their Environment) in the past, and had suggested to the legislative committee of the County Clerk’s Association that this requirement be removed. Finally, this year, we were able to move it through the process. It’s a relatively minor piece of legislation but it removes one more insensitive clause in our state statutes.

Another bill which I worked on was HB 23. A provision in this bill allows registered sex offenders to vote at a school on election day. Federal court cases are pretty clear in requiring that any eligible individual be afforded the right to cast a ballot. I spoke with legislators regarding the possibility of allowing registered sex offenders to vote absentee if their polling place is in a school. This was in response to an actual situation we had last November. While my suggestion did not pass, the provision that is included in HB23 will serve the same purpose and ensure that all eligible voters can cast a ballot.

A third piece of legislation, HB 203, passed and was signed by the Governor which expands the times when a person can get a special absentee ballot prior to the election. Currently, if a person is admitted to the hospital in the few days prior to the election, they can have an absentee ballot brought to them. This bill expands that to include admissions to nursing homes and rehabilitation centers. Some county clerks, including me, were hoping to have the bill amended to allow those who have been admitted prior to the fifth day before the election but who remain after the fifth day to have this special absentee ballot. That flaw in the statute will hopefully be addressed in the future.

There are three reasons why a voter might have to produce identification at the polling place.

One, first time voters who register using a mail-in form must present one ID on election day in some cases. Two, inactive voters must present ID in most cases. Three, voters whose qualification to vote has been challenged by an election judge might have to present identification. This might result from information provided by a pollwatcher, the examination of the voter’s signature, or information from the election judge.

Here are the rules regarding first time voters.

In Illinois, prior to the passage of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) in 1993, an individual who wanted to register to vote had to appear in person before a deputy registrar and present two IDS, at least one with a current address. Under NVRA, individuals no longer needed to present ID when they registered and could merely fill out a form on their own, even mailing it in. Over the course of the next decade, people came to realize that this process left some openings for fraud. In some states, people had openly created false registrations just to demonstrate the lack of safeguards in the system.

In response to this, Congress included in the 2002 Help America To Vote Act (HAVA) a provision that first time voters who register through the mail must present some identification, either at the time of registration or at the polling place on election day. When NVRA references a registration “by mail”, it refers to registrations that use the mail-in form but arrive at the election official’s office either by mail, from a third party, or by the individual in person. HAVA was a bipartisan piece of legislation which passed the House of Representatives 357-48 and passed the Senate 92-2.

Unfortunately, the State of Illinois has not yet complied with these provisions in HAVA because they have not yet created a “uniform and nondiscriminatory manner” to require identification from first time voters. Until this happens, we are left with somewhat different interpretations of how this law is to be implemented. In February, 2004 we sought guidance from the State Board of Elections. The legal counsel for the board said that identification presented on election day should have the current address of the voter on it in order to meet the requirements of HAVA. For the March 2004 primary, and the November 2004 general election, we used this guidance in implementing our rules for requiring identification for first time voters.

The identification provisions in HAVA can be met prior to election day in the following ways. A person can submit a copy of their driver’s license or other valid photo ID or a copy of a bank statement or utility bill or government document (for example a document from the University) that shows the name and address of the voter. The requirement can also be met if the person gives their driver’s license number to the election authority who is able to match that driver’s license number, as well as date of birth and name, to the database of driver’s licenses of the Secretary of State.

On election day, similar requirements are in place.

In the November 2004 election, some people questioned the procedures we had in place. The Cook County Clerk was using slightly different requirements for identification. Some people suggested that an address was not required on the identification. Some suggested that if the address on an identification was incorrect, then the ID was not valid. The new general counsel for the State Board of Elections, who had taken the place of the attorney who had advised us in February 2004 had a different opinion.

I was presented at approximately 11:00 a.m on election day with the idea of changing the identification requirements we had established. I decided not to for a number of reasons. First, while the State Board of Elections had not implemented uniform and nondiscriminatory requirements for identification, I had developed those requirements for Champaign County. To change those rules in the middle of election day would clearly have discriminated against the 50% of the voters who had voted by noon that day. Implementing this throughout the 117 precincts in Champaign County would have been impossible to do in a nondiscriminatory way. We had mailed an instructional postcard to each voter who would be subject to those provisions. Once again, changing the rules in the middle of election day would have been discriminatory to those who had voted under the old rules.

It was also striking to me that these rules were open and obvious and were implemented without complaint in March and were part of election judge training in October. No one registered a complaint at that time nor did a single voter out of the 8,000 who were required to present ID register a complaint when they received the postcard from our office.

It is also noteworthy that our office worked to minimize the number of people who had to present ID at the polling place. The Secretary of State’s office were given the name, driver’s license number, and birth date of thousands of our registered voters. Their technology department then cross checked it with their driver’s license database and thus we were able to eliminate thousands of people from the requirement of presenting ID on election day. We were one of just three counties in the state (DuPage and Cook as well) who took advantage of this excellent service made available by the Secretary of State. (It is noteworthy that Champaign County probably has the highest percentage of mail-in registrations.)

Voters may also have to provide identification if they are on the list of inactive voters. Inactive voters are those voters who fail to respond to two non-forwardable mailings and thus we are unable to ascertain that they still live at the address on their registration card. Occasionally, these voters actually do live at the address in question, but for some reason our mailings to them were returned. If they can present valid ID that proves they still live at the address at which they registered they can vote a full ballot.

Voters may also be asked to show ID at the request of the election judge. This can happen because the voter has had their residency challenged by either an election judge, voter, or poll watcher. Sometimes, the signature on the registration does not match that of the voter in which case the election judge may request ID. Election judges should not require identification without some good reason.

Elections require integrity above all other things. While we want to minimize inconveniences, I think that everyone wants to put the integrity of the election at the forefront. The identification requirements in the state and federal statutes seem very reasonable.

Update:
The rules above are taught to all election judges and are included in the election judge manual which is given to all election judges. Of course, election judges serving in a precinct with a higher percentage of first time voters (for example on campus) would be required to ask for ID more times than someone working in a small rural town with little turnover. I do not recall receiving complaints in the past about people being required to show ID in circumstances other than the one above.

I visit polling places on election day and I see a significant percentage of voters who take their ID out and show it to the election judges without ever being asked for it. Some of these voters may have voted in states that require it. Others might be under the impression that it is required in our county. Some election judges will tell the voter that they don’t need to show the ID. Other election judges look at the ID as a means of identifying the person and they let the other election judges know who has presented themselves so that the voting process can start. When election judges look at the ID it might give the impression to the voter that it was required. While I haven’t heard of election judges requiring ID of every person since I’ve been County Clerk, I can’t say that someone might not have done that. However, it would have been contrary to what they were taught in training.

We take disparate treatment of voters seriously. When we hear about it we act to stop it and take steps to prevent it in the future. Any time voters feel they have been asked for ID unnecessarily they should contact our office.

As to the difference between Cook County and Champaign County regarding valid ID, our rules stated that the ID presented must have an address. Cook County did not require an address on the ID. The State Board of Elections did not believe the ID needed to have an address, but that if it did have an address it should match the voter registration address. Because the SBE never created statewide rules, I’m sure there were many other interpretations around the state to this federal statute.

I think an interesting discussion item for the future might be whether ID should be required of all voters. I believe the state of Arizona is implementing such a rule.

April 27th, 2002 was the day of my wedding. I thought I had covered almost all my bases, but I stopped at Schnucks to get a card for the altar boys. As I pulled out of my parking space, with the rain coming down, a driver on the other side of the aisle pulled out and backed into the side of my car. I was tuxless and was supposed to be at the church in 45 minutes.

Every election day is a little like that. You do all you can to prepare for the day, but things happen that just can’t be anticipated. However, we respond to as many of the twists and turns of election day as possible when they happen, and then we try to smooth out those twists in the future. In the end, I think we’ve had very successful elections, even when faced with issues as serious as a fire in a polling place. This post will let people know that we’ve taken the issue of lines at polling places seriously and lay out some of the things we’ve done to alleviate them.

First, we seek input at all times about how to improve the election process. For example, we have a meeting after every election of a citizen’s advisory committee to review what happened at the election and to talk about ways to improve it. We have also sent surveys to election judges soliciting their feedback and suggestions. We have forms available on our counter and on our website for the public to give us suggestions and comments. After the November 2000 election, with all its controversy, we had a meeting at Brookens that included not just the citizen’s advisory committee, but election judges as well as anyone in the public. More than 100 people attended and many ideas and suggestions were made that have been manifested in subsequent elections. Here are some of the ideas that have been developed through that input and through the work of my staff.

We’ve assigned more election judges than ever to polling places. In the November 2004 election we had 663 Election judges working. We had 17 polling places in which we placed 7 judges and 3 polling places where we placed 9 judges. I requested additional money from the County Board for these judges and to their credit they provided it.

We also made a change after the 2000 election in how we deal with extra judges. In that election and previous elections even before I became County Clerk, we asked unassigned judges to be on “standby” status. This involved receiving a small payment of 10 or 15 dollars to be near your phone on election morning prepared to go to a precinct that was short of judges because of a late vacancy. Unfortunately, we had extra judges in November 2000 who did not want to serve as standby judges.

In the following elections we changed that policy. Instead of asking people to wait at home on standby, we agreed to pay them a full election judge wage and have them arrive in our office at 5 a.m. election morning. In November of 2004 we had 10 people agree to be standby judges in our office. We used them in the early morning as additional help to answer the phones. If there was a large polling place that had a late cancellation, we sent an extra judge out immediately. Later, as we saw problems develop in particular precincts, we sent them out to alleviate lines. For example, we sent two additional judges to Cunningham 1 to deal with long lines there. We don’t automatically assign every judge who wants to work because it might result in extra judges serving in precincts where we didn’t need them. Instead, we wait to send them out to precincts as we identify needs. And we were able to address problems that could not have been anticipated prior to election day.

A question was raised about why some people who were willing to be judges may not have been assigned. I will address that in another post.

I believe that we have dramatically improved our election judge training over the years. Training judges, who have a wide range of experience, is challenging. Having well trained election judges is critical in reducing lines.

Our election judge manual has been updated after every election. Not an election goes by in which we don’t receive a suggestion from election judges about the manual. We’ve tried to improve the index, make it easier to find answers to difficult questions, and easier to find answers to the most common questions, especially for new judges.

We also have worked to improve our forms to make them more user friendly. Unfortunately, the legal requirements of these forms make them difficult to simplify. Nevertheless, we have made improvements, and we have another on the way for the March election. We take and receive suggestions from election judges about how to better organize the supplies at the polling place. For example, a few judges suggested alphabet tabs on the signature verification records to speed up the process of finding a voter.

Many of our judges have taken a great step toward reducing lines by setting up the polling place the night before the election. In a busy election, a line can form almost immediately with the first wave of 6 a.m. voters. This can be exacerbated if the judges have not been able to get everything set up in time. By putting up signs and laying out supplies the previous evening the judges are better prepared for the opening of the polling place.

We have worked to improve the layout of polling places. Lines in polling places can be minimized when the polling place is organized better. We work to improve that when we find difficulties. Voters are often the ones to let us know, and sometimes we actually change the polling place layout during election day.

We have also moved a number of polling places to make it easier for judges and voters. A great example was the polling place at Central High School. The room we were given for voting was the vestibule going into the gymnasium. If you’ve been there you can imagine how crowded that could be. (It actually used to have two precincts in the 80′s.) We moved that polling place to the Holy Cross parish center which is more spacious and easier to set up in order to facilitate a smooth running operation.

Maps were added to polling places on campus to help students locate their correct polling place. We also made maps available to campus organizations to inform their members and volunteers.

Our voter guide has been helpful in reducing lines. The voter guide has maps of the precincts and answers questions that would otherwise take the time of the judges.

Our website too has helped reduce lines. The ability to look up your polling place helps reduce the number of people waiting in line at the wrong polling place (and taking the time of judges who need to find the voter’s correct polling place). The ability to get your specific specimen ballot also helps reduce lines by moving people more quickly through the voting process. Tens of thousands of voters have made use of this service and hundreds bring a specimen ballot from our website to the polling place. Many people have told me how they appreciated not being surprised at the polling place by an unfamiliar ballot issue.

The Help America to Vote Act requires that first time voters who register by mail are required to show ID at the polling place (more on this requirement later). Knowing that this could create confusion and delays at polling places, we mailed a card to every voter who was affected by this so they could be prepared before coming to the polls. We also worked with the Secretary of State to compare our voter registration rolls to their records to verify the identities of thousands of these voters prior to election day, obviating the checking of identification on election day.

We have changed our voter ID card to better highlight the polling place. We found that many people were not even aware that their polling place was on their voter ID card. We moved that critical information to the top left portion of the card. Once again, getting people to the correct polling place helps reduce lines.

We are now encouraging our election judges to bring cell phones to the polling place and reimbursing them for their usage. In the past, if there was a problem with a voter that necessitated calling our office, the judge quite often had to go to a phone located away from their station. Now, most of our precincts have at least one cell phone that can be used. When the judges need to contact our office, the judge at the first station, who distributes blank applications, makes the call while still distributing the applications. This allows the voting process to continue without delay for the other voters.

Similarly, we have increased the number of phone lines into our office to handle the influx of calls and to ensure that judges can get through to someone to get a quick answer to their questions.

We have a number of polling places in which two precincts are located. At busy elections, we try to place a greeter at the polling place who can help direct voters to the correct line. We also have signs and maps to assist voters in those instances as well.

We thoroughly test all our equipment before it goes out on election day. We often need every machine we have to keep a precinct running smoothly so it is critical that it is in good working order before it even gets to the polling place.

If history is a guide, this next election will be followed up by additional great ideas from our staff, voters, and election judges that will result in continued improvements to election day.

I’d like to thank those who have posted comments and questions as well as the readers of the blog.

I also want to let everyone know that I will attempt to answer all the questions that have been put out there, including those that have been sprinkled within the comments of various posts. I have many things to cover initially and want to methodically work my way through them. As I do I’ll be able to go through and address other issues. Once I make it through all the issues that have been offered so far, I’ll have another open posting time to give people a chance to ask about other topics of concern.

I really appreciate the opportunity this forum has given me and my office. I also appreciate the positive and respectful nature of the posters here. I think the blog is off to a great start!

I’m going to answer this question and then follow up with an answer to what I perceive as the underlying question, which is why are there lines in some polling places and not at others.

To determine how many polling booths to send to a polling place we start by trying to estimate the voter turnout for that precinct. To do this we consider a number of factors. First, we look at the number of registered voters in the precinct. Second, we examine past voter turnout in that precinct in corresponding elections. Third, we look at the highest voter turnout in any election. Fourth, we look at the growth in the precinct from previous elections. Fifth, we look at what particular factors in that precinct might drive voter turnout up. (For example, a school referendum almost always increases turnout.) Sixth, we look at previous problems or concerns in a precinct that make more booths a wise idea. Seventh, we have to consider the different jurisdictions that vote at the polling place. For example, if a precinct is in three different county board districts it needs at least one polling booth for each of those districts.

After coming up with a reasonable estimate of turnout, we order one booth for every 100 anticipated voters (rounding the figure up), including one accessible polling booth that is available to all voters. We also have some extra booths in our office that we bring to polling places where either our calculations are off, or where other problems have occurred that necessitate more booths. I have posted a chart on our website that shows the ratio of booths to voters in the 117 Champaign County precincts. I have bolded the campus precincts.

Ms. Marshall’s question, which I have received from many other people over the last eight years, probably is more concerned about lines at polling places. After all, no one really cares about how many booths there are if there are no lines at the polling place.

So why the lines?

Let me start by saying that I have rarely seen the number of polling booths be the factor in long lines. I have seen it twice at the “six pack”, City of Champaign 5 and maybe a couple others. It is easy for the casual observer to determine this. Are there long lines of people who have been handed a ballot and are waiting for a booth to open? Or is the line forming prior to the voters reaching the election judges. Other factors, which are less easy to address than the number of polling booths, add much more to the problem of lines.

The experience and ability of the election judges in a precinct is the biggest factor in avoiding lines. The election judges are selected by the political parties, with some input from our office. In selecting those judges, the political parties consider residence in the precinct as well as party loyalty. One of the political parties in particular has sought out attorneys to be election judges, believing that will somehow ensure fairness for their voters.

Unfortunately, the placement of inexperienced attorneys in polling places has added to some of the problems with lines at polling places. Anyone who has served as a judge can tell you that knowing the law is a small part of being a good election judge. Knowing where to find form SBE M_2A is more important to a precinct running smoothly. Experienced judges can respond quickly to 95% of the special circumstances in a precinct. Inexperienced judges often have to refer to their manual or call our office. This takes more time and lengthens lines.

A lack of election judges can cause lines. Our goal is to have at least five judges in every precinct. We try to add two extra judges to some polling places where the number of voters is high. In November, 2004 we had three precincts (one on campus) where we had nine judges. Despite our best efforts, we still often find ourselves short of judges. It is a long day and can be difficult and it is not always easy to find people who are willing to make the sacrifice of their day. This problem happens across the county.

Some judges are just simply faster than others. The most important criteria for a judge is fairness and honesty. The next criteria is that they are thorough and accurate. After meeting those essential criteria, we hope that our judges are able to work quickly but it isn’t always possible. Just as people type at different speeds, people process voters at different speeds. We don’t have a voter processing speed test, and if we did it would still be up to the political parties to replace any given judge. While I am always concerned about lines, I am much more concerned about the integrity of the process. On this point, I think judges in Champaign County do an outstanding job.

There simply are busy times at any polling place. Voters don’t show up at the same rate throughout the day. If you show up at your polling place at 7:30 a.m., you may find a line. It would simply be impossible and impractical to hire as many election judges as it would take to eliminate lines at every polling place at every time of the day.

Sometimes we may not accurately estimate the number of voters going to the precinct. But generally, we have done a good job of making these estimates and the lines that have been formed have been the result of other factors.

Lines at polling places have been the subject of much discussion for many years. In 1992, before I became County Clerk, a Democratic election judge was requiring identification for every voter who showed up at the Skelton Place precinct on campus. In 2000, we had no lines at 6 of the 10 campus precincts. At four of them we had over an hour wait at times. The number of polling booths was an issue in just one of those precincts, and we resolved that by bringing in two additional booths. In November 2004, I believe the problem of lines was virtually eliminated. There were some polling places throughout the county which had up to a half hour wait during their busiest times. We sent extra election judges on election day to some precincts when we saw lines get too long. Only one campus precinct experienced lines that exceeded the norm for polling places throughout the county. I know of at least one other precinct off campus that also had a line exceeding the norm.

We don’t like the lines and we don’t want them. My next post I will tell you some of the innovative ways in which my staff and I have addressed this problem by working with voters and election judges.