9 Comments: Poll Observers

Primary vs. General (4.00 / 1)

Was talking to a field person last night, and we were discussing the difference between Poll Observers being used in the general election, where they can be effective in showing where your weak wards and cities are -- in 2006 observers noted Ward 1 in Keene was having low Dem turnout -- really low -- so the campaigns sent people out to do flush -- knocking on doors etc. It didn't totally mitigate it, but it helped a bit -- they knew turnout was good in other areas and that's where they needed their people.

Additionally, while elections are generally clean in NH the presence of poll checkers in an election can be a good detterent to people attempting to bar Democrats from voting.

Primaries are a little more difficult, because it's not as straightforward -- maybe you ID'd people as strong Obama who weren't, or who have changed their mind -- you can't work in the broad strokes you do in a general election. It's still useful, but as elwood notes, it's hard to say whether that person poll checking might be better spent calling.

All that aside, the praticial issue elwood raises is paramount -- in a general election there's two or three people tops checking polls at a given place. In a primary, it can very quickly get out of control. The best solution would be to reengineer the entire process.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 11:10:21 AM CST

That 2006 low turnout detection (0.00 / 0)

really didn't require observers.

The scanners keep a running count of the number of ballots cast, and - at least in my ward - the poll workers are happy to share that. (Reporters come by every election for it.)

So instead of the long, boring stint behind the poll workers, the party could just send someone out at 1:30 PM (say) and get the count at each ward. Compare to the total last time, see if there's bad compression on any cylinder.

It wouldn't tell you whether the turnout was especially low on the Dem side. But heck, Ward 1? If turnout's running low, flush.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 16:07:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Perhaps (0.00 / 0)

Although I was in Swanzey, and what we learned there was we were doing great.

And the lesson there was really I could do something else -- which I did that afternoon, driving a van to get Ward 1 college students to Wheelock.

I think the diminishing returns as you move from general to primary still hold though...

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 00:04:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Progressive Radio." investigation will happen... something smells" (0.00 / 0)

Looks like the Diebold machines will be checked for chain of custody and for tampering..... Someone wants answers other than Kucinich.

 If we don't do it who will?
Teach a mind, change a nation!

---

by: Granitdamit @ Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 11:16:22 AM CST

Nothing smells. (0.00 / 0)

I think we should always have recounts of a few randomly selected precincts.

But there is NOTHING suspicious about the election results.

And don't hijack diaries.  

---

by: elwood @ Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 11:22:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Poll Checkers (3.20 / 5)

Poll  checkers are authorized by the Chair of the State Party. Each party has the authority to appoint a single checker.

I did not sign a single letter authorizing anyone to that position on primary day.

Anyone who represented themselves as an offical poll checker mislead the moderator and acted in an unethical manner.

If I had known of a plan by any campaign to create such a potential situation I would have sent a letter to every moderator in the state explaining the difference and that I would not authorize anyone to be an offical poll checker in the primary.

I worked very hard to create a level playing field in NH, I would have appreciated the opportunity to have averted this controversy.

I am very disappointed.

Have you written a letter to the editor today? Have you donated today? Have you put up signs? Have you made calls? Have you talked to your neighbors?

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 14:18:56 PM CST

I haven't heard of anyone (4.00 / 2)

misrepresenting themselves, and that didn't happen in my ward.

I suspect that it has been common in the past for poll workers to allow citizen observers to sit behind them, so long as they are not disruptive. But that isn't really allowed by the law, and there's nothing wrong with enforcing the law.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 14:47:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I concur with elwood (0.00 / 0)

I didn't see anyone from the Obama campaign misrepresenting themselves as a challenger.  I did not see any campaign workers behind the table, where you would need such a letter of authorization from the state party.

As citizen observers, we were standing out of the way, in a public space, within earshot of the names as they were read off.

My experience was that members of another campaign were coming in and saying that we were acting as challengers and had no right to be there.  Simply not true.

It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 15:48:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

In my ward (0.00 / 0)

The Obama campaigners - including a friend - started out behind the table and were told to move when another campaign objected.

But no misrepresentation - just informal rules trumped by legal ones.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 16:13:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

in 2004 (4.00 / 1)

The Deaner's in SW NH sent GOTV postcards to folks and asked recipients to give them to the Vis person to save us from making phone calls later. Worked ok... don't remember if it was just in my small town or not.

Hope > Fear




Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 15:31:45 PM CST

Maybe (0.00 / 0)

This same controversy occurred in 2004. When I realized that due to the number of campaigns, we spot checked with some towns to see if they would let all the campaigns have "challengers" (i.e., poll checkers).  There was no standard answer. So, we had a conference call of the campaigns and asked whether candidates wanted to do a lottery, and pick which polls they would have poll checkers, or do it first come first serve, or not have them at all. They all said they didn't want poll checkers (that is my recollection anyway).  On election morning, I got a call from a worker in Nashua for Kerry yelling at me for permitting the Dean people to be poll checkers.  I called the city clerk to find out what was up, who explained to me that the Dean people were doing "observing", not "challenging". Then I had a call from someone for Dean who was upset that their poll checkers were being questioned. I sighed and said, let this day be over soon!  Your town's method in '04 makes so much more sense!  

I'm not sure why campaigns use poll checkers in primaries. You should just assume that your voters haven't voted and fo call or door knock. I've done poll checking; it is difficult to hear everyone, and when it gets busy, you miss voters.  

When I voted in Ward 8 in Manchester last Tuesday, there were poll checkers set up away from the election officials. I guess they were Obama people, because one of our elected officials who was doing viz complained that we were out organized because they had poll checkers and we didn't. I told her we weren't doing it, and not to worry. I don't think anyone got excited about them.  

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 16:29:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

thoughts on challengers and poll checkers (4.00 / 1)

1. I think Elwood is mistaken on point 5. State law does specify that the official challengers have to be placed close enough to see and hear the voter checking in, but does not forbid the placing of others behind the ballot clerks. No one, including the official challengers can be inside the rail (RSA 659:21 allows only election officials, voters and individuals assisting disabled voters behind the rail) .
2. the position which official challengers usually occupy is not supposed to be behind the rail. At page 171 of the hardcover version of the Sec of State Manual (for some reason it doesn't appear to be in the online version)is a diagram of the suggested layout of a polling place in which the ballot clerks sit at tables outside the rail facing voters inside the rail.
3. Anyone can observe elections and count the votes. They do not need a letter from anyone including a party chair. This is a function of the fact that voting is a public act which the public has a right to observe. Shortly before the primary the Attorney General sent a letter to the two parties and to each of the campaigns that specifically informed them of this public right:
   

Campaign workers who go to the polls to monitor who votes and report this information back to the get-out-the~votc operations of the campaigns are "observers,"not "challengers.~' Observers .have the same right as any member of the public to silently observe the election process from the area designated for public observation within the polling place. We encourage Moderators to establish a public observation area within hearing distance of the check-in process, when doing so i$ practical given the character of the room where voting is conducted. Observers may not disrupt the election process. (Page 3).

4. Similarly the Secretary Of States Manual says that:

The public nature of the election process,
however, allows anyone who so desires to monitor people checking in to vote, keeping track on his or her own who has voted, and using this information in any legal manner. (P. 97).

5. Because of space difficulties, a great deal of discretion is given to moderators as to where they will place people who wish to count votes. Some place them behind the ballot counters in the same space generally occupied by official challengers, others set up an area near enough so that they can still perform their function, and yet others find no reasonable way to accommodate them.

6. Prior to the primary the Obama campaign contacted every moderator in the wards in which they sought to count votes.
(in only one ward were they unable to establish contact). Each moderator was asked where they would put people who wished to poll check and if they thought they would be able to hear the voters check in. In wards where the moderators said they couldn't accommodate this , no poll checkers were sent.

7. Each of the poll checkers that were sent by the Obama campaign was instructed that they were not official party challengers, that they did not have the statutorily guaranteed right of access that party challengers have, and that they should go where ever the moderators put them and just try to do their best. In addition each poll checker was sent with a legal observer who received the same instructions. No one misrepresented themselves as an 'official poll checker' (sic). Election officials and the attorney generals office have been widely quoted as confirming this. (It should be noted that there is no such thing as an 'official poll checker', instead the law (RSA 666:4) provides for official challengers, who,  in addition to their statutory right ot challenge, have the same right other citizens have to count votes. The statute makes no reference whatsoever to poll counting, checking or observing.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 20:49:55 PM CST

Thanks for the clarifcation, Paul. (0.00 / 0)

Both the summary that we used in Keene and the Election Manual talk about the "guard rail" as the dividing line without providing much clarity about where that rail is.

In my ward it was something like this:

      \              O1
       \  
        \            PW1
         \          ========================
   O2  \         |
           \        ========================
            \         V1  

The Obama workers were first at position O1, then were told to move to O2.

The \ thing was a velvet rope - the closest thing we had to a "guard rail."

---

by: elwood @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:44:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]