This election's 'hanging chad' is 'migrating ink'

As I finished casting my vote this last election day in San Luis Obispo County, I was surprised to see a number of stray, black marks on my ballot. Turns out, I made these marks. After carefully filling each desired bubble on my ballot, the ink from the felt-tip pens provided at my precinct actually went through to the other side of the ballot. The marks went through so well that they easily could have been seen as viable vote markings, if they aligned with bubbles on the other side of the ballot. On my ballot, two such marks were only a mere quarter inch away from a bubble. Given the importance of this particular election and the many devastating problems experienced in past elections, I was amazed such a problem could be happening again, albeit in a different way. Making matters worse, this problem, as I understand it, was reported even outside the precinct where I voted, and outside the county where I reside.

But this problem had a quick fix: Replace all felt-tip pens with ball-point pens or their equivalent. I implored the election officials present to do so, but their protocol would not allow for immediate action. I then called our County Clerk’s Office in San Luis Obispo and after some relatively minimal effort, I was put in touch with the County Clerk herself. She informed me that she was aware of the problem, that her previous review indicated that the bubbles on one side did not align with the bubbles on the other thereby reducing the possibility of an erroneous count, and that all ballots with stray marks would be counted by hand to ensure accuracy. The County Clerk did not agree with my recommendation to remove the felt-tip pens, assuring me the problem would be addressed in the way described above. As for my particular ballot, the election officials spoiled my initial ballot, and I was permitted to use my regular pen to effectively cast a second ballot without any stray marks.
Hindsight is 20-20, and hindsight is a very important factor in elections as the lessons learned in one election can be applied to those that follow. Let’s first look at what went right. A voter found a problem, the complaint was accepted and reported upstream at the local level, the County Clerk’s Office agreed to report the problem to the Clerk herself, the County Clerk responded to the voter within minutes, and most importantly, she was aware of the problem, had done a previous troubleshoot on its possible effect at the election, concluded no problem should occur, and implemented measures to ensure an accurate count at the end of the line. In short, our County Clerk owned the problem and was not above providing this information to the inquiring public.

As government responsiveness goes, this is one of the best examples I have seen (Indeed, a simple visit to the SLO County Clerk’s Office will reveal one of the most efficient, collegial and public-friendly offices you will ever see, public or private – a role model in my mind for all government to follow).

Yet, we could have done better here. How? By eliminating the problem in the first place. While providing a leaking boat with bigger buckets to dump out encroaching water may keep it afloat, wouldn’t it be better to seal the leaks in the first place? In this election, using a different kind of pen should not have been so difficult. Not only would it have resulted in unblemished ballots, but it would also have saved time and money in reducing the need for hand counting of votes later.

Why were different pens not used? In addition to our County Clerk, we should also look to the California Secretary of State for an answer. And while we’re asking about this, we should also ask why California utilizes inconsistent ballots across county lines, with some counties opting for filling a bubble to vote while others require the connection of two arrows. Shouldn’t these be standardized throughout California to avoid confusion? Of course. Voting occurs on issues and districts that span multiple counties. Any survey expert can discuss the potential for biases that may present where members of one county have to do something different to vote than members of another county.

Finally, we should also ask why the California Secretary of State allowed at least two counties (Santa Clara and Santa Cruz) to drop the write-in line and write-in designation for write-in candidates in the primary election ballots (I have asked her this last question some months ago based on a previous concern, but have yet to receive a response).

In the long and short of it, California should have consistent, clear ballots that require voters to make only one type of mark to vote, with lines and designations provided where lines and designations are called for, and ballot procedures that avoid any possibility of unintentional, stray marks be made on the ballot sheet, whether or not they can be accounted for later. Is that too much to ask?

Dennis Morris is a Pismo Beach resident and Mustang Daily guest columnist.