One of the most disappointing problems on election day was hearing from voters who failed to turn their ballot over and vote on races or issues on the back side of the ballot. In each of the polling places I was in, judges were doing as they had been instructed and told voters about the back of the ballot. But I can certainly believe that out of 22,000 voters, some may not have been told, or failed to note that detail among the other things they are told when they receive their ballot.

The ballot itself, at the bottom of the third column, has this “Turn page for more possible races.” The word possible is put there because not all ballots continue to the back side.

In addition, we put a sign near the ballot box warning voters not to deposit their ballot if they feel there is an error on it or that they received the incorrect ballot.

Despite these safeguards, some voters have told me that they were not aware that there were races or issues on the back side of their ballot.

From a statistical point of view, in March 1994, when the last Unit 4 school referendum passed, 4.1% of voters did not vote on the bond referendum and 2.9% did not vote on the rate increase. This year, 3.7% of voters did not vote on the bond referendum. In the April 1993 election the two referenda had fall offs of 3.4% for the bonds and 4.4% for the rate increase. The fall off this year does not appear to be abnormally high, but if any of the 3.7% of voters would have voted on the referendum but didn’t realize it was on the ballot, it is too many and we should look for ways to address it. Of course, like in any race, most of the fall off probably is a result of voters making a choice not to vote on an issue. For example, in the Democratic Primary for Governor, in the first position on the front of the ballot, 6.5% of voters did not cast a vote.

Here are some ideas we have already come up with to make voters more aware of the back side of the ballot.

1. Make the instructions about the back of the ballot larger and perhaps
put them at the top of the ballot as well.
2. Put instructions about the back of the ballot in the polling booth.
3. Put the instructions about the back of the ballot on the privacy cover.
4. Move the location of the warning sign about errors on the ballot from behind
the ballot box (where it was by necessity in the punch card days) and put it
on the front of the ballot box.
5. Continue to tell our judges to warn about the back of the ballot.

Some suggestions are not possible. The software that runs the ballot tabulator cannot be adjusted to reject ballots that are blank on the back side. It can be adjusted to reject some undervotes, but we believe that will infringe on the privacy of the people who decide not to vote on some issues. Going with a longer ballot with all the information on the front is also not feasible as it would require a totally different printer for absentee voting and would raise our expenses for paper and printing. Even if we had a longer ballot this election, all of Champaign Township would have needed a back side of the ballot to hold the five or six referenda to be voted on.

I want to hear suggestions from others in the community. Post them here, write our office, or call us.

One of the major concerns I heard from voters on election day was about privacy. The large paper ballot that we give voters does not come with the traditional ballot envelope that the punch card ballot had. We talked with other counties around the state in trying to arrive at the best way to give the voter some secrecy. The privacy cover we provided was the result of that research. We felt that it afforded the same level of privacy as a privacy folder, but would be easier for voters and judges to handle. It appears from a few comments that I have heard on line, in person, and over the phone, that some people still had concerns.

First, some judges apparently were not offering the privacy cover. We have trained all our judges to offer the cover to every voter. What we have heard from other jurisdictions is that many voters don’t want the cover. It is possible that over the course of the day, as many voters turn down the cover, that some judges became lax in offering them. We will reiterate this in our next election judge class. I am also going to look for a plastic display that would make the privacy cover more obvious to voters. Any other suggestions are welcome.

Second, some voters apparently didn’t like the design and felt that the privacy cover should shield both the front and back of the ballot. I think that the chance of someone viewing an exposed ballot from the underneath side are minuscule. My guess is that the concern stemmed more from the fact that some voters may have had to manipulate their ballot at the ballot box, perhaps turning it over to reveal judge’s initials. We will look into a new cover that can shield both sides of the ballot.

Many voters take a light hearted approach to this issue, not caring who sees their ballot. That is not the position of this office. We want to provide secrecy to every voter and will work to improve this in future elections. Thanks to all who have expressed their concerns.

Election day is over, but the election isn’t. We have two races, the Gifford School District and County Board District 9 where outstanding absentees, grace period voters, and provisional votes could change the outcome of the race.

I would like this post to serve as an opportunity for people to give suggestions to our office and to voice their concerns, complaints, and compliments.

Here are the primary concerns I received as I talked to voters on election day.

First, not all judges were being consistent in offering the privacy shield to voters. We will stress this more in the fall schools.

Second, in every polling place I was at judges were reminding voters about the back of the ballot. Nevertheless, some voters neglected to vote the back side so we need to communicate this better to voters.

We also were hoping to have results come in more quickly. Here are my thoughts on why they took two hours more than I anticipated.

First, we underestimated the time it would take judges to close out their precincts.

Second, the judges were taking their time to make sure that they were doing everything correctly. We should all thank them for taking the time to get it right. In future elections, as they become experienced, things will move faster.

Third, the shortage of judges resulted in it taking more time to process the end of the night ballots and paperwork.

I’ve already thought of lots of ideas to address these concerns. My staff, judges, and the public have already begun chiming in as well. Let me know your ideas and hopefully we can continue to improve things for the fall election.