Ought Six
Membership Revoked
Pa. is vote nightmare waiting to happen
By Debra Erdley
The Pittsburg Tribune-Review
Monday, August 2, 2004
The longest battle in a close contest in this presidential battleground state could be the one that begins after the polls close: the battle to count the ballots.
Unlike the Florida election fiasco of November 2000 that played out in the national press with a few hundred votes and a presidency at stake, Pennsylvania's effort to count votes has been an obscure process.
It plays out in 67 different county seats, places where election contests -- conducted on everything from paper ballots to the most sophisticated electronic systems -- can drag on for weeks and where idiosyncrasy is the rule of the day.
"Anything is possible in a very close election here," said Dan Hayward, executive director of the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee.
"Almost every county is almost like a fiefdom when it comes to elections, be it their machines or anything else," he said.
That became apparent last fall when a pair of candidates in a low-profile state judicial contest became the closest contenders ever in a statewide race. After see-sawing for two months after election day, the Superior Court contest ended with 38 votes -- out of more than 2.2 million ballots cast -- separating the candidates.
No one wants to see a replay of that waiting game under the national spotlight of a presidential election.
"My only wish on election day is for everyone to win or lose by big margins," said attorney Lawrence Tabas, who represented the GOP in the Superior Court election squeaker.
Hayward said Republicans and Democrats alike came away from that election with a healthy respect for all the glitches that can occur in an election and a resolve to monitor elections closely this fall; the process will be complicated by the potential for a large number of military absentee ballots, new provisions involving first-time voters and the addition of provisional ballots given to novice voters who lack valid identification.
During the two months the state court race was in play last fall, party officials learned what Philadelphia attorney Gregory Harvey -- who has been litigating election cases for 40 years -- has known for decades: There's nothing fast or easy about counting the vote in a state with more than a half-dozen different methods of balloting.
Counties have 20 days to certify their vote totals to the state. Some took even longer last fall. Before the count was final, attorneys for the candidates and the party organizations had filed complaints in county, state and federal courts.
In many states there are provisions for automatic recounts when margins fall as low as 0.5 or 1 percentage point. In Pennsylvania, where there are no provisions for a statewide recount, it's up to the candidates to petition one precinct at a time -- a costly and time-consuming prospect in a state with more than 9,000 precincts -- or find an issue the courts will act upon.
Harvey, who represented Democratic party interests, is still litigating one of those complaints in federal court. He filed suit on behalf of a group of handicapped voters when Democrats discovered elderly or disabled voters who were eligible for alternative ballots were given absentee ballots instead. Such individuals are eligible for alternative ballots in precincts that lack handicapped-accessible polling places.
Absentee ballots must arrive at the election bureau by 5 p.m. the Friday before the election, but alternative ballots must be counted as long as they arrive before 8 p.m. on election day.
Harvey said votes that should have been counted as alternatives were discarded along with late absentee ballots. He conceded that if he prevails, the number of votes that would be added to the mix would be small. On the other hand, the last presidential election hinged upon fewer than 1,000 votes in Florida.
Pennsylvania Department of State spokeswoman Allison Hrestak said the alleged irregularities probably heightened awareness about the law. But she was surprised it was an issue. "We have always mentioned alternative ballots in our training," she said.
Tabas said third-party delivery of absentee ballots, another issue in last year's contest, remains a potential problem even though the court ruled in an Allegheny County case that able-bodied voters must mail or hand-deliver their absentee ballots.
"People were still delivering third-party absentee ballots in spring, even though the Supreme Court said it's illegal," Tabas said.
Tabas and Harvey said new regulations establishing identification guidelines and adding provisional ballots also could be the source of problems.
The new regulations are the first phase of the 2002 federal election reform law. They require first-time voters to provide a photo identification at the polls. They also provide for provisional ballots, paper ballots that are distributed to first-time voters who lack valid identification and voters who are not carried on local voter rolls, but insist they are registered.
Hrestak said only 43 percent of the 1,682 provisional ballots issued last spring ultimately were deemed valid and counted.
At least officials had a chance to try out the new regulations in a light primary. Fewer than 2 million of the state's 7.6 million registered voters cast a ballot last spring. In the 2000 presidential election, Pennsylvanians cast about 4.7 million ballots.
Mark Wolosik, director of the Allegheny County Elections Division, predicted there will be more requests for provisional ballots this fall when seldom-seen voters emerge for the presidential election. "The people who vote in the primaries are the super voters who vote in every election. They usually know where they're registered," he said.
-----
Debra Erdley can be reached at derdley@tribweb.com or 412-320-7996.
By Debra Erdley
The Pittsburg Tribune-Review
Monday, August 2, 2004
The longest battle in a close contest in this presidential battleground state could be the one that begins after the polls close: the battle to count the ballots.
Unlike the Florida election fiasco of November 2000 that played out in the national press with a few hundred votes and a presidency at stake, Pennsylvania's effort to count votes has been an obscure process.
It plays out in 67 different county seats, places where election contests -- conducted on everything from paper ballots to the most sophisticated electronic systems -- can drag on for weeks and where idiosyncrasy is the rule of the day.
"Anything is possible in a very close election here," said Dan Hayward, executive director of the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee.
"Almost every county is almost like a fiefdom when it comes to elections, be it their machines or anything else," he said.
That became apparent last fall when a pair of candidates in a low-profile state judicial contest became the closest contenders ever in a statewide race. After see-sawing for two months after election day, the Superior Court contest ended with 38 votes -- out of more than 2.2 million ballots cast -- separating the candidates.
No one wants to see a replay of that waiting game under the national spotlight of a presidential election.
"My only wish on election day is for everyone to win or lose by big margins," said attorney Lawrence Tabas, who represented the GOP in the Superior Court election squeaker.
Hayward said Republicans and Democrats alike came away from that election with a healthy respect for all the glitches that can occur in an election and a resolve to monitor elections closely this fall; the process will be complicated by the potential for a large number of military absentee ballots, new provisions involving first-time voters and the addition of provisional ballots given to novice voters who lack valid identification.
During the two months the state court race was in play last fall, party officials learned what Philadelphia attorney Gregory Harvey -- who has been litigating election cases for 40 years -- has known for decades: There's nothing fast or easy about counting the vote in a state with more than a half-dozen different methods of balloting.
Counties have 20 days to certify their vote totals to the state. Some took even longer last fall. Before the count was final, attorneys for the candidates and the party organizations had filed complaints in county, state and federal courts.
In many states there are provisions for automatic recounts when margins fall as low as 0.5 or 1 percentage point. In Pennsylvania, where there are no provisions for a statewide recount, it's up to the candidates to petition one precinct at a time -- a costly and time-consuming prospect in a state with more than 9,000 precincts -- or find an issue the courts will act upon.
Harvey, who represented Democratic party interests, is still litigating one of those complaints in federal court. He filed suit on behalf of a group of handicapped voters when Democrats discovered elderly or disabled voters who were eligible for alternative ballots were given absentee ballots instead. Such individuals are eligible for alternative ballots in precincts that lack handicapped-accessible polling places.
Absentee ballots must arrive at the election bureau by 5 p.m. the Friday before the election, but alternative ballots must be counted as long as they arrive before 8 p.m. on election day.
Harvey said votes that should have been counted as alternatives were discarded along with late absentee ballots. He conceded that if he prevails, the number of votes that would be added to the mix would be small. On the other hand, the last presidential election hinged upon fewer than 1,000 votes in Florida.
Pennsylvania Department of State spokeswoman Allison Hrestak said the alleged irregularities probably heightened awareness about the law. But she was surprised it was an issue. "We have always mentioned alternative ballots in our training," she said.
Tabas said third-party delivery of absentee ballots, another issue in last year's contest, remains a potential problem even though the court ruled in an Allegheny County case that able-bodied voters must mail or hand-deliver their absentee ballots.
"People were still delivering third-party absentee ballots in spring, even though the Supreme Court said it's illegal," Tabas said.
Tabas and Harvey said new regulations establishing identification guidelines and adding provisional ballots also could be the source of problems.
The new regulations are the first phase of the 2002 federal election reform law. They require first-time voters to provide a photo identification at the polls. They also provide for provisional ballots, paper ballots that are distributed to first-time voters who lack valid identification and voters who are not carried on local voter rolls, but insist they are registered.
Hrestak said only 43 percent of the 1,682 provisional ballots issued last spring ultimately were deemed valid and counted.
At least officials had a chance to try out the new regulations in a light primary. Fewer than 2 million of the state's 7.6 million registered voters cast a ballot last spring. In the 2000 presidential election, Pennsylvanians cast about 4.7 million ballots.
Mark Wolosik, director of the Allegheny County Elections Division, predicted there will be more requests for provisional ballots this fall when seldom-seen voters emerge for the presidential election. "The people who vote in the primaries are the super voters who vote in every election. They usually know where they're registered," he said.
-----
Debra Erdley can be reached at derdley@tribweb.com or 412-320-7996.
