I was at a meeting in Austin this weekend for a series of Pew initiatives, and the costs of elections remained a regular point of discussion. Thus, this story from Walton, GA caught my eye. The Board of Elections apparently told the County commissioners that they could produce a faster count, but only at the cost of paying to have staff “sequestered” to start counting absentee ballots before the polls close.
This is a point I’ve raised many times before–it is possible to have a speedier count and have no-excuse absentee ballots, but it requires a jurisdiction to begin processing those ballots as they arrive, and not wait until election day (or election night). Save such procedures (and costs), a slower count is unavoidable.
The losing candidate in California’s 11th congressional district is charging that mishandled vote by mail ballots caused him to lose the race.
The challenge partially turns on the rules governing witness challenges to signature verification. The losing candidate claims that campaign volunteers should have been able to challenge signatures.
Two registrars, including Steve Weir of Contra Costa, who has previously served as head of the county clerk’s association, respond that challenges are only valid if a) voters have falsified their identities or b) staff are not following proper procedures.
Full story in the Lodi News-Sentinel.
This month’s Canvass on election counts, including quotes from yours truly!
This story in the Corvallis Gazette Times caught my eye. State Sen. Frank Morse wants to ban third party delivery of ballots.
This time in Ashland, OR:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2010/11/late_surge_of_ashland_votes_tu.html
The lesson? Never count your votes until the votes are counted. And “early” early voters are very likely to be very different from “late” early voters.
We knew it would not take long for a candidate to claim a final surge missed by early voters.
New poll out from Gallup. Implication: the rest of the campaign out West is all about young voters.
