The image “http://www.votetrustusa.org/images/votetrust-small2.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

 

The nation's clearinghouse for election audit information!
State and Local Election Integrity Organizations
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Wisconsin
VoteTrustUSA does not speak on behalf of any of the listed organizations.
: mosShowVIMenu( $params ); break; } ?>

   
Around the States

Minnesota: A Recount to Count On PDF Print Email
By Mark Halvoson, Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota   
December 22, 2008
This editorial appeared in the Pioneer Press and is reposted with permission.

As nonpartisan election integrity advocates with front-row seats at the U.S. Senate recount, we believe Minnesotans can be confident the process has been methodical and fair. The intense scrutiny given to each step of the process and to each vote in the Senate recount has provided an incredible civics lesson for Minnesotans and the nation.

Hundreds of Minnesotans have volunteered as nonpartisan observers in at least one of four statewide manual counts — the 2006 and 2008 post-election audits, the 2008 judicial primary recount and, now, the U.S. Senate recount. These efforts were organized by Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota in partnership with the League of Women Voters Minnesota and Common Cause Minnesota.

Our volunteers who were trained to be impartial observers signed a code of conduct and completed observation surveys. According to one observer, "After my first day I felt proud that our process was so transparent in Minnesota and confident that our election could not be stolen by one party or another because we had such a good recount process."

Here's what we've learned:

Our current election laws effectively prevented the chaos that could have clouded the process.

Minnesota's election process is characterized by transparency and openness. The most recent example is the live online streaming of the canvassing board's review of the challenged ballots.

In addition, thousands of citizens were involved in the recount as election judges, partisan challengers or nonpartisan observers, and several Web sites posted thousands of challenged ballots.

To enhance transparency, two of us from Citizens for Election Integrity witnessed the search for the missing ballots in the Minneapolis elections warehouse. Early on, one of the party representatives pulled me aside and whispered, "I want you to keep an eye on them," as he pointed to the other party representatives. I responded, "Actually, we are keeping an eye on all of you."

The people, procedures and technology comprising this system are a model because they minimize problems that historically have undermined election integrity and voter confidence.

Minnesota's reputation for electoral integrity begins with its choice of voting technology: voter-marked paper ballots counted by optical-scan machines. This voting technology is considered one of the most accurate.

But when elections are close, all systems need an independent check to verify the results. That is why Minnesota has an automatic manual recount law that kicks in whenever the margin of victory is below 0.5 percent.

A manual recount is the best way to be confident in the accuracy of the results in such a close race.

A meaningful recount is possible because the paper ballots provide a physical record of each voter's intent and enable a way to independently verify the machine tally.

Although some have argued that a machine recount would have been cheaper and quicker than a hand count, it would not have been as accurate in determining voter intent.

Vote totals typically rise whenever there is a hand recount of a machine tally, as we've seen in this recount. This is because some voters mis-mark their ballots — for example, by circling an oval instead of filling it in — in such a way that optical scanners cannot detect their intent.

While the Minnesota election process is solid overall, we can learn from this unprecedented scrutiny how to make the process better.

A number of reforms have been discussed, including streamlining the absentee ballot process, early voting and improving election-judge trainings. We support the call for Secretary of State Mark Ritchie to create a commission to hold public meetings to review Minnesota's election laws and identify ways to make a good system better.

A manual recount is required not because we distrust the election system, but because we care enough about this important process to be as certain as possible of the outcome. What we learn will help improve our protocols, increase the accuracy of our elections, improve voter confidence and strengthen our democracy.

A guiding principle of our organization from day one is that every vote that is properly cast must be counted.

Mark Halvorson is founder and director of Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota.
Comment on This Article
You must login to leave comments...


Other Visitors Comments
There are no comments currently....
< Prev   Next >
State Resources
Election Law @ Moritz
Electionline
National Conference of State Legislatures
Verified Voting
Model Legislation
: mosShowVIMenu( $params ); break; } ?>
State Pages
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Guam
Puerto Rico
: mosShowVIMenu( $params ); break; } ?>