For those interested in looking into this further, Ohio requires names
to be rotated by precinct. For control I know that at least one county
(Mahoning, using DREs) rotated names every ballot for the 2004 GE.
There may have been others.
Clifford Maceda
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Jennifer
A. Steen
Sent: Tuesday, 27 June, 2006 11:18 AM
To: Clifford Jones
Cc: schotlan@law.georgetown.edu; Rick.Hasen@lls.edu;
election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: ballot order and computer touch-screen voting
Jonathan Koppell and I published a piece on name-order effects in JOP v.
66 no. 1, January 2004. We found significant effects in almost all
races, from U.S. Senate down to state committee member, in the 1998
Democratic primary in NYC, where names are rotated by precinct. The
candidate listed first typically got a 3 - 7% boost over his/her tally
when not listed first. In two races the advantage to first position
exceeded the margin of victory. In the piece we speculated that the
cost of name rotation should be much lower in touchscreen voting, but
rotation might run up against state or local laws requiring advance
distribution of a sample ballot that is an exact facsimile of the
election-day ballot. I have no idea whether Georgia has such a
requirement.
--
Jennifer A. Steen
Assistant Professor
Political Science Department
Boston College
jennifer.steen@bc.edu
http://www2.bc.edu/~steenje
Clifford Jones wrote:
I haven't seen a challenge to alphabetical listings, though there
could
have been some. FYI, Florida gives ballot order priority by statute to
the party who won the last Governor's race, Republican the last two,
then lists the other major parties (a defined term in the statute),
then
lists others in the (chronological ) order in which they qualify for
the
ballot, whether by convention or primary. Unlike Georgia, which went
all-DRE, Florida only uses DRE touchscreen systems in a minority of
counties (although representing the majority of voters); the others
use
optical scan ballots which could not be scrambled at will as they are
printed in advance.
Cliff
Clifford A. Jones, J.D., M.Phil., Ph.D.
University of Florida Levin College of Law
Center for Governmental Responsibility
Spessard L. Holland Law Center
230 Bruton-Geer Hall
P.O. Box 117629
Gainesville, FL 32611-7629
Tel. (352) 273-0845 (Direct)
Tel. (352) 273-0835 (Main)
Fax (352) 392-1457
Email: jonesca@law.ufl.edu
Home:
2230 N.W. 24th Avenue
Gainesville, FL 32605
Tel. (352) 367-9992
Fax (352) 367-9456
Roy Schotland <schotlan@law.georgetown.edu> 6/26/2006 4:28:52 PM
Question, on behalf of a Georgian who hopes for a change from their
ballots' strict alphabetic-order listing-- Do you know of any
experience, or views, that may be helpful to her point:
"Now that we vote entirely on computer touch-screens, I see no
reason why each ballot couldn't have a different order."
I have no info about Georgia's general experience with their
alphabetic listing, but do know (from earlier exchanges with other
Georgians) that of their 19 appellate judges, elected statewide, the
four who first went on the bench by election as opposed to by
appointment are named Andrews, Barnes, Bernes, and Blackburn.
--
Roy A. Schotland
Professor
Georgetown U. Law Ctr.
600 New Jersey Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
phone 202/662-9098
fax 662-9680 or -9444
The information contained in this communication is intended for the use of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at +1-212-621-1898 and delete this email. Thank you.