Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Let's not keep the nation waiting

Rocky Mountain News

Published August 17, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

This November in election booths around the state, voters will have no more than 15 minutes to make up their minds on the next president, U.S. senator, a host of ballot initiatives and various legislative races - not to mention local issues and contests.

But will the vote-counters keep the same urgency in mind?

Voters who choose to hoof it to polling stations will have received their sample ballots, perused their options, and generally decided before stepping up and making their marks.

But will county clerks be prepared to deliver results in a timely manner - say, before Nov. 4 becomes Nov. 5?

And as Colorado is shaping up to be a key swing state - with John McCain and Barack Obama locked in a close battle - can our election officials ensure that the rest of the nation will be watching, but not waiting?

Unfortunately, the answer to these questions appears to be no. America may have to wait on Colorado until the wee hours of Wednesday morning - at the earliest.

We don't think that's acceptable. If the issue of speed can't be fixed by November, it certainly needs to be addressed next year.

Accuracy is, of course, paramount in tabulating votes. Denver Election Division spokesman Alton Dillard confirmed that November voting will see a "much higher premium on accuracy than speed," and added that the public should get out of the "10 p.m. mind- set" as "those days are over."

Since the storied 2000 vote in Florida, he explained, laws and ballot security measures call for an extra-careful count. Granted, the Denver elections system has gotten a shot in the arm since the November 2006 vote, when it took nine days for the city to tabulate all ballots. Even so, it took six hours to release Tuesday's primary results with just 59,380 ballots cast.

And Denver wasn't alone: In fact, it edged out Jefferson County on the speed of returns. For that matter, Rocky reporters noted that results tended to lag across the state, a bewildering phenomenon considering how small that day's turnout was (many of the votes had arrived days earlier by mail).

What is equally worrisome, Denver elections director Michael Scarpello told us that a lengthier ballot in November will extend the time needed to get everything through the central office scanners. But he defended the process - close the polls, break down the polling station, have the supervisor bring ballot boxes to one of 11 satellite locations throughout the city, then wait for a truck to haul them back to the central office, where they undergo stringent processing - as the most efficient option. Particularly, he argued, given the "change in the whole atmosphere of elections," as critics and snafus have driven much of the country away from electronic voting and back to paper ballots.

Scarpello said staff increases won't produce "significant gains" in November processing time, so he and his staff are looking into faster delivery options from the satellite stations. Some boxes of ballots Tuesday didn't even make it to headquarters until 10 p.m.

And the 1 a.m. Wednesday finish should be considered "about the minimum time you're ever going to find," said Scarpello.

Uh, oh. The last thing Colorado wants is a presidential election marred by sloppy tabulations. But it will be frustrating, maddening and embarrassing if the state can't report its totals before the nation goes to bed.

If Colorado ends up a national laggard in calling this fall's crucial election, it will be essential for local officials and state lawmakers to dedicate themselves to finding long-term solutions to speed up the process.

Comments

  • August 17, 2008

    8:01 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    peterpi writes:

    This is my personal observation and opinion only.
    I've been an election judge in Denver since 1988. Back in the old days (before 2005), we would turn in our results cartridge from the electronic voting machines, be back home before 8pm, and have Denver report its results by 10:30pm.
    But, thanks to what I consider to be hysteria by some folks, Denver will now rely on paper ballots. The total vote count in Denver in 2004 was 280,000. That's a lot of paper ballots. Ideally, the paper ballot supporters insist, hand-counting is the only reliable method. But, by a miracle of common sense, machine counters will be allowed to be used. But even with machine counters, 280,000 ballots is a lot of ballots to count. And, people make mistakes in filling out ballots, some ballots may be difficult for the machines to read, paper can get jammed, etc. But of course, none of that gets mentioned by the Rocky. They assume that the Denver Elections Division is run by a bunch of slackards.
    I know! Maybe we can get Vincent Carroll and John Temple to come down and do the counting by hand. All 280,000, to show the Elections staff how fast they can get the job done.
    One last thing, it's always PC to flatter the voters, but I can tell you that while some show up with ID ready, ready to vote, with a "crib sheet" pre-marked, a substantial number of voters wander into the voting booth, not having a clue how they want to vote, and reading the darn ballot while tohers are waiting. And, no, we can't tell voters what we think of the "chicken deplucking amendment" or whether we think Candidate Adam or Candidate Eve is the better candidate.
    Strange, these same floks who are so suspicious of electronic voting trust the computer when they board airplanes, trust the computers to manage their bank accounts, trust the computewrs to handle their stock trades, trust the computers in their cars, but somehow all computers suddenly become corrupt and unreliable when it comes to voting machines. And their trust in paper is laughable. "Stuffing the ballot box" was a phrase coined long before Alan Turing even dreamed up the concept of an electronic computing device.

  • August 18, 2008

    3:22 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Shadow writes:

    A where soes it say in the Constitution or on any law book that there is a time frame that a voter has while making up his or her mind in the voter booth. I was under the impression that the voter booth is like a confessional. That there is no time limit. Voting is a first come first serve deal. If a CITIZEN does not take their responsibility and right to vote seriously that is thier fault. But if a voter wants to diligently reread the proposals and initiatives on the ballet and make an informed decision that is thier RIGHT.

    All this poopooing thta the poor clerks have to stay untill the last ballot is counted is a copout. If they do not want to spend their time counting votes well maybe then they should not have taken the job in the first place.

    To cave into pressure from outside influences in order to get a speedy count or make it home in time to watch Letterman/Leno is pathetic.

    As I understand Colorado law on voteing mail in bal;lots are not even counted unless the vote is close. So then whats the worry of tabulating votes cast in person. Other then it might mean doing the job the either voluntered for or were hired to do.

  • August 18, 2008

    11:22 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    peterpi writes:

    Shadow, can the election commission force a slow voter to hurry up or stop voting? I don't think so. But I've always been told a voter has 10 minutes. People should show up prepared. The ballot choices will be set by mid-September, both initiatives and candidates. That's 6 weeks to figure things out if you vote on Election Day itself. If you want to take your sweet time poring over every word and every candidate, request a sample ballot, or ask for a mail-in ballot, and you can study to your heart's content. But it's unfair to other voters to do so in a voting booth, especially if you show up at a busy time.
    As far as "poo-poohing", I wasn't talking about the "poor clerks", I was poo-poohing the fact that the Rocky wants instant results so they can put the paper to bed early. It ain't going to happen. Of course, the clerks will stay, or rotate in shifts until the ballots are counted. But the news media will have to wait.

  • August 18, 2008

    2:45 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    peterpi writes:

    I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm saying no one ever complained about the results of Denver's voting machines. Those machines weren't responsible for the 2006 mess, the voter check-in software was. I'm also saying paper ballot elections have been rigged from the moment people created paper ballots.
    Between paper ballots, HAVA regulations, provisional ballots, etc., the Rocky's desire for instant results is misplaced.