[EL] Quick Question About Provisional Voting in California

[timwhite at rockisland.com]

The bigger question for Nov is, What to do about multiple ballots for the same voter? 
Ballots are issued by mail, replacement, provisional, download, online ballot-marking and in-person absentee. 
Ballots are returned by mail, dropbox, internet, early voting, vote center, drop-off and election day pollsite. 
We can only expect many millions of voters will have more than one ballot in play. Each state must establish detailed procedures covering the conceivable contingencies among competing ballots of the same voter, with different sent timestamps, received timestamps, postmarks, dropbox pickups, or voting locations. 

David H lays out benefits of the "last vote counts" idea (below). 
Counting only the voter's last ballot is also an effective failsafe against coercion in remote voting. 
A voter can always override an intimidated ballot with a subsequent submission. 
European examples include Estonian and Swiss internet voting (since discontinued in Switzerland). 
Michigan is reportedly a "count last ballot" state. By contrast, Washington state counts the first ballot received. 

Despite persistent anecdotal reports, evidence-based forums under-discuss coercion/vote-buying in remote voting. 
Why? Reliable data are lacking. Quantifying intimidation immediately snags on obvious and stubborn documentation constraints. 

Two weeks ago my agro-processing day-worker friend told me her latinx co-workers say a local orchardist is telling them he can check how they voted (in VBM Washington state) and fire them if they don't vote for ____. 
My inquiry for details triggered alarmed regret at telling me, but not retraction. It's suddenly "no names, please!" as witnesses evaporate like August rain on a still day. 
Last week I tried to bring it up with her again: This is really not OK. Isn't there some way to go about this to reassure your mates and investigate and stop this abuse? "No way. They are too scared." 
Add one tic under "Anecdotes. " 

Keeping remote voting intimidation under-researched and therefore under-investigated offers a convenient sandpit for burying our helpless ostrich heads against a seemingly unstoppable threat. Other than "last vote counts," we still lack a toolbox for deflecting, limiting, detecting and prosecuting remote-voting coercion. 
Washington voted ballots may be traceable to voters; that's why WA ballots, ballot images and cast vote records are categorically exempt from public disclosure (google WA Courts of Appeal White v Skagit Co and Island Co , and White v Clark Co ). 
WA always counts the orchard worker's first ballot received. No second chances. No workarounds. 
To coerce votes from the vulnerable, an intimidator's threat need only be plausible —not likely . 
I know how I'd vote. My freewill vote is sacred, yeah yeah. But not worth martyrdom, OK? 

"Last vote counts" deprives some would be intimidators of confidence in voter compliance. It won't block all intimidation, but it may eliminate attempts based on inspecting the voter's ballot before casting. 
The sure if crude way to assure "last vote counted" is simply postponing ballot processing until all submitted ballots have arrived. But that creates an untenable administrative crunch adding more days or weeks to the counting. 
So how else to implement "last vote counts"? 
Are there other mitigations for remote-voting coercion? 

Thank you. 
Tim White (yes, the White of the above White v cases) 



From: "D. A. Holtzman" <d at LAvoteFIRE.org> 
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu 
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 3:30:21 PM 
Subject: Re: [EL] Quick Question About Provisional Voting in California 


Do ePollbooks communicate via the Internet or via non-Internet networks only? 
(Network hardware was deployed at polling places in Los Angeles County.) 
Either way, how secure are the networks? 
I’m worried about malware-induced delays or errors in communicating. 


Do ePollbooks count as part of a “voting system?” If yes, and if they communicate via the Internet, the voting system would not be eligible for purchase with Proposition 41 (Voting Modernization Bond Act of 2002) funds in California. 


I still think the cleanest and most transparent way to implement the “last vote counts” idea is to refrain from extracting ballots from return envelopes until 10AM the day after election day (if a complete dataset of who voted at the polls is available and put into service for comparing with the envelopes by then). 


And of course I like the “last vote counts” idea, especially when candidates are dropping out of contests (as in the Democratic presidential primaries) and ballots don’t allow ranked-choice voting. 


- David H. 


On 8/26/2020 1:07 PM, Mary Hill wrote: 





Scott, 



Basically correct. It’s much easier to check if a VBM has been returned in a Vote Center County, as we have ePollbooks, or tech connected to VoteCal where it’s logged once a voter votes. For non-VCA counties, it’s pre-mark on the pollbook if a non-regular VBM voter voted, surrender the VBM ballot, or vote provisionally, since right around E-14 is when non VCA counties need to print their pollbooks for use on Nov 3 rd . 



--- 

Mary Hill [she/her] 

Elections Specialist 

( Office: (650) 655-6246 

📱 Mobile: (650) 722-8100 







Registration & Elections Division 

40 Tower Road, San Mateo 94402 

[ http://www.smcacre.org/ | http://www.smcacre.org/ ] 







Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 21:00:11 -0700 
From: Scott Rafferty < [ mailto:rafferty at gmail.com | rafferty at gmail.com ] > 
To: Douglas Johnson < [ mailto:djohnson at ndcresearch.com | djohnson at ndcresearch.com ] > 
Cc: Election Law Listserv < [ mailto:law-election at uci.edu | law-election at uci.edu ] > 
Subject: Re: [EL] Quick question about provisional voting in California 
Message-ID: < [ mailto:CAOX7yu4njZHcg1TMw9c6vCar59aw00TpMk1puaK=WK=rA5ZUZA at mail.gmail.com | CAOX7yu4njZHcg1TMw9c6vCar59aw00TpMk1puaK=WK=rA5ZUZA at mail.gmail.com ] > 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" 

I haven't read through the entire thread, but beginning in the 2018 primary, SB 286 requires polling sites to issue nonprovisional ballots upon 
surrender or if the poll book verifies that the VBM has not been "returned," since it can be marked to prevent the VBM from being 
subsequently "cast or tabulated." (amended Section 3015) This would appear to be a cancellation of the prior ballot for purposes of 
Section 18 of the VRA, so a person whose ballot was mailed but not yet received would not be double voting. 
I don't think the emergency rules change that. 

Scott Rafferty 
1913 Whitecliff Ct 
Walnut Creek CA 94596 
mobile 202-380-5525 

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list [ mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu | Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu ] [ https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election | https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election ] 




-- 
Simple Instant Runoff Election Ballot
(Ranked Choice Voting)

Candidates you want to vote for, in the order you prefer them: 
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
(...) 

_______________________________________________ 
Law-election mailing list 
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu 
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200827/852991c1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7571 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200827/852991c1/attachment.png>