Oregon

An online voting lobbyist’s misleading testimony ...

By Greg Gordon - McClatchy Washington Bureau

Introducing himself as a former Oregon state elections official, online voting industry lobbyist Donald DeFord vouched authoritatively to a Washington state legislative panel in late January as to the merits of statewide internet voting.

Oregon, he testified, ultimately came to the “same solution” offered by a bill before the Washington state House that would allow everybody to cast their election ballots by email or fax – an option that top cyber security experts warn would expose elections to hackers.

“First in a special congressional election and then statewide, we made our accessible online ballot delivery and return system available to any voter who was not able to use a paper ballot,” DeFord, who previously led Oregon’s program under the federal Help America Vote Act, told the committee.

There was a big problem, however, with the testimony he gave in his current job as a regional sales director for San Diego-based Everyone Counts.

Oregon doesn’t allow voters to send in marked ballots electronically, except for troops and citizens living abroad who have been prevented from mailing their absentee ballots due to an emergency or other extenuating circumstances.

DeFord now says he “misspoke.”

“There was a little bit of confusion about language in there. I probably could have been more clear about it,” he said in phone and email exchanges. “... I did not intend to imply that Oregon has expanded electronic ballot return to all voters.”


Read Full Story

 

Oregon Vote-by-Mail Process Scrutinized by GMO Labelling Supporters

Published at Pew Charitable Trust

The way in which local election officials verify signatures on mail ballots in Oregon, where elections are conducted entirely by mail, and the guidance the state provides to the counties were the subjects of a recent legal challenge.

During the November 2014 election, about 13,000 voters (out of 1.5 million statewide) submitted ballots with signatures that did not match their voter registration cards. These voters were given the opportunity to fix the problem within 14 days after the election. Roughly 8,600 responded, matched their signatures, and had their ballots counted. However, about 4,600 did not return corrected signatures, and their ballots were not counted.

The suit, which was denied by the court, alleged that some of those uncounted ballots were improperly rejected because:

  • Some voters never received notification their signatures did not match.
  • For some voters with disabilities, their signatures had changed or they had used stamps for their signatures.
  • The secretary of state’s office did not confirm that counties consistently applied the instructions for signature verification.
  • The instructions provided to voters did not state that the signatures had to match in order for the ballots to be counted.

Supporters of Proposition 92, which would have mandated the labeling of genetically modified foods, brought the suit. The race went to an automatic recount, and the lawsuit sought to have the rejected ballots considered for counting before the results were certified. The proposition lost by only 812 votes.

Concerns with Oregon’s vote-by-mail

by Sen. Doug Whitsett

Oregon and its people have long prided themselves on their Pioneer Spirit, a willingness to embrace new ideas long before other states decide to do so. And while I applaud that in part, it has also prompted a series of potentially problematic policies that continue to harm the state. Examples include our unique land-use system, which has stunted economic growth throughout rural Oregon for decades. Another example is our unique vote-by-mail system.

Vote-by-mail began with the overwhelming passage of Measure 60 in the 1998 general election. The measure passed with around 69 percent of the vote, and made Oregon the first state in the nation to do its elections exclusively by mail. Prior to that, the concept had been introduced incrementally.

Our history of vote-by-mail began as far back as 1981, when the Legislature approved it under certain conditions for local elections. The practice became widespread among the counties over the following six years.

In 1992, a task force on local government services determined that the state could save money by doing all of its elections in such a manner. Three years later, Oregon was the first state in the union to do a federal primary exclusively by mail.

Early supporters of the concept included groups like the League of Women Voters, the League of Conservation Voters and the Oregon Education Association.

The 2000 election saw Oregon become the first state to do a presidential election by mail. But despite this, it took over a decade for any other state to follow suit.

Washington’s Legislature passed a law in 2011 requiring all of its counties to do vote-by-mail. Local governments had the option of conducting their elections by mail since 1987, and the practice had been allowed for statewide elections since 1993. Colorado became the third state to adopt vote-by-mail in 2013.

All of this begs the question of why this practice hasn’t caught on in more states.

This document produced by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) asks that question, and identifies several issues surrounding vote-by-mail, as well as approaches other states have taken on this matter.

It states that legislators throughout the country introduced 42 bills in 2013-14 related to vote-by-mail. In that period of time, lawmakers in Alaska rejected a proposal to establish vote-by-mail for general elections, and their counterparts in Georgia failed to pass a resolution to study all-mail elections. The document also cites research that determined that “vote by mail in Oregon only affected turnout during special elections.”

Issues identified in the NCSL document include that of “leakage,” which is defined as the circumstances under which ballots are requested and not received, transmitted but not returned for counting or returned for counting but rejected. A lack of chain of custody procedures remains a specific security concern for researchers from the Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project.

One of the best sources for information on problems related to vote-by-mail comes from our own Secretary of State’s office. It maintains this log of prosecuted election law complaint cases related to voting.

Read Full Story