ACTION ALERT: NM Voting Integrity

Email from Holly Jacobson of New Mexico Voting Integrity passed along by Sonja Elison of NM Democratic Friends:

If you are receiving this email it is because you are part of a group of people within, over 1,000 strong, who have expressed interest in the accuracy and legitimacy of our voting system and ensuring that every vote counts as intended.

The purpose of this email is to clarify and update specific actions that are working towards that goal within New Mexico. These separate but related actions include the recount effort, election reform legislation, and a lawsuit recently filed by New Mexico voters.

It is easy for these actions to be confused with each other because there is much overlap in goals and activity surrounding them. In addition to this, inaccurate statements have been made regarding the status of the individual legal actions (recount and voters’ lawsuit). This email intends to spell out where each effort stands and what can be done to help us move towards our unified goal of more transparent, accurate, and fair elections. We will also use this as an opportunity to share a sample of some of the data analysis that has been done regarding the problems with the November 2004 vote count throughout the state.

1. Re: the Voters’ Lawsuit: A lawsuit was filed on behalf of 8 New Mexico voters on January 14, 2005. The focus and primary purpose of this action is to put in place a permanent injunction against use of the voting machines that have been linked to the most alarming problems in the 2004 general election. For specific examples of some of these problems, click here. 

Named in the case as defendants are the Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron and a handful of county clerks. The plaintiffs are eight voters representing three political parties – 6 democrats, 1 green, and 1 libertarian - across multiple counties throughout the state. Since the filing many of these counties have cleared their machines while others have come up with alternatives for dealing with the upcoming school board elections such as utilizing paper ballots or reserving the machines from the most problematic precincts. Whether the machines have been cleared or not, the lawsuit has enough evidence to prove that there are major problems tied to machine type vs. voter type as well as other problems with the  vote count and procedures that are detrimental to fair and accurate elections in New Mexico.

2. Re: Election Reform efforts being pursued in the state legislature: Currently many bills pertaining to election reform are being circulated throughout the state legislature. At this time, there is no single bill that would protect our vote count by requiring both a voter verified paper ballot AND robust automatic  audit/recount measures. One bill currently being worked on shows promise. If at the point it is introduced, it looks viable and appropriately comprehensive, an email will follow with specific information. 

3. Re: the Recount effort: Despite rumors to the contrary, the recount effort remains alive in the New Mexico Court of Appeals. The fact that the recount remains active continues to shed light on the problems surrounding the control of the voting process as well as the vote count itself. It is important to remember, that the value of the recount has always been about affecting change for future elections, not just finding out what happened to the last one. As there are a variety of vote count problems that include paper ballot issues, even if many of the counties do clear their paperless voting machines there is still much to discover. Again, for more information on what went wrong with the vote count, taken from public data available from the Secretary of State, click here. A small sample of this data also follows below (click to continuation page).

Easy Steps to Voice Your Opinion re; the Transparency and Accuracy of Future Elections in New Mexico:

Contact your state legislators- share data and make it known you care about this issue and expect them to take the lead on ensuring a) voter verified paper ballots. And b) robust automatic audit and recount procedures after every election.

Contact your county clerk – share data and make it known that you care about this issue and expect them to take the lead on these same reforms. To find out the name and contact info of your county clerk, click here.

Become involved. Sign up to become part of a group working towards these goals by joining this listserv. United Voters of New Mexico , Send an email to unitedvoters-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.

Become informed. Check out the following web sites to learn more. www.helpamericarecount.org, www.votersunite.org, www.vvnm.org (Verified Voting New Mexico).  Share this email and information widely.

Keep writing letters to the editor and share a copy the below email address if you can. Your letters have sent a clear message that New Mexico voters take their rights seriously. The Secretary of State was recently quoted in the ABQ journal that she had not received any written complaint surrounding the results of the last election. We know this not to be true. It would be good to let the ABQ journal know your opinion about this. And if you can, send a copy of your letter to the email below.

Contact us at newmexicovoter@yahoo.com

(Click through to continuation page for selected data.)

Scroll down for sample county specific data

DID YOUR VOTE COUNT??

What if the answer depends on where you live or the kind of machine you voted on?

• If you voted on an electronic voting machine on Election Day, was your ballot among the one in twenty where a vote for President wasn’t recorded?

• If you live in San Miguel, Cibola, McKinley, Taos or Mora County were you among the nearly one in eleven voters on Election Day whose vote for President was not counted?

• In predominately Hispanic precincts statewide, 1 out of 16 ballots cast on Election Day did not have a vote for President counted.

• In predominately Hispanic precincts in Bernalillo County, 1 out of every 11 ballots cast on Election Day did not record a vote for President.

• Across the state, 1 in 12 ballots in predominately Native American precincts did not have a vote for President counted.

• Over 2,000 of the votes recorded for President were “phantom” votes that were not associated with anyone’s ballot.
*********************************
Below are additional examples of vote count problems from three counties. The data material is directly from the office of the Secretary of State. Many counties have severe problems with vote data that seems to target Native American and Hispanic precincts but is specifically tied to machine type. This means, that the startling statistical anomalies only occur on specific types of machines in particular precincts.

Key:
UV = Undervote - no vote was recorded but a ballot was cast
PhV= Phantom Vote – There were more votes than ballots cast. The Secretary of State has said there were no phantom votes but the data taken directly from her office and individual counties shows that there were.
ED = Election Day
EV = Early voting
AB = Absentee ballot

SANTA FE COUNTY VOTE DATA
Prepared by Ellen Theisen from Voters Unite! www.votersunite.org

General election, November 2, 2004 including early and absentee voting

Voting Stage	UV	PhV	Bush	Kerry	Ballots
Early Voting (EV)	0.65%	92	28%	71%	22,719
Election Day (ED)	4.62%	0	31%	63%	25,185
Absentee (AB)	2.36%	106	21%	76%	19,878

Note that the high UV on election day is against all reason.

— Advantage is used on election day. It prevents overvotes and warns of undervotes, so its UV rate should be lowest.

— Optech Insight is used in early voting and warns of overvotes, but not undervotes, so its UV rate should be next lowest.

— Optech 4C is used for absentees and has no method of preventing overvotes or warning of undervotes so its UV rate should be highest. In many precincts it is lower than or just as low as the Insight.

Precincts
Odd phenomena in some of the precincts on our list:

Precinct 1
Early – 5 phantom votes
ElectionDay - 6.8% UV with 450 voters; Kerry percentage decreased 4.5%
Absentee – zero UV

Precinct 6
Early – 4/13 phantom votes, phantom votes in many down ticket races as well.
ElectionDay – 14% UV
Absentee – zero UV in pres and every down-ticket race we examined. (14 ballots)

Precinct 47 
Early voting – 10 phantom votes

Precinct 48 
Early voting – 6 phantom votes

Precinct 50 
Early voting – 4 phantom votes;
Absentee – 26% UV

Precinct 51 
Absentee — 79 phantom votes

Precinct 82
Absentee — 19 phantom votes

The pattern shown in the following precincts appears in the majority of the precincts to one extent or another, and appears also in the county totals:

1) Early and Absentee have very small UV percentages.

2) Election Day has a large UV percentage; Kerry's percentage has a significant decrease and Bush's has a significant increase.

Precincts:

Precinct 8
Early Voting – 0.0% UV; Kerry 80%; Bush 20%
ElectionDay – 4.6% UV; Kerry 70.5%; Bush 24%
Absentee ——0.4% UV; Kerry 84.9%; Bush 14%

Precinct 11
Early Voting – 0.6% UV; Kerry 81%; Bush 18%
ElectionDay – 6.4% UV; Kerry 63%; Bush 29%
Absentee ——0.0% UV; Kerry 83%; Bush 16%

Precinct 14
Early Voting – 1.3% UV; Kerry 74%; Bush 25%
ElectionDay – 5.9% UV; Kerry 57%; Bush 36%
Absentee ——0.0% UV; Kerry 71%; Bush 28%

Precinct 20
Early Voting – 0.0% UV; Kerry 83%; Bush 18%
ElectionDay – 4.3% UV; Kerry 74%; Bush 21%
Absentee ——0.0% UV; Kerry 84%; Bush 15%

Precinct 21
Early Voting – 0.0% UV; Kerry 81%; Bush 18%
ElectionDay – 3.9% UV; Kerry 67%; Bush 27%
Absentee ——0.3% UV; Kerry 77%; Bush 21%

Precinct 22
Early Voting – 0.0% UV; Kerry 79%; Bush 21%
ElectionDay – 2.8% UV; Kerry 66%; Bush 29%
Absentee ——0.7% UV; Kerry 89%; Bush 10%

Precinct 23
Early Voting – 0.0% UV; Kerry 83%; Bush 18%
ElectionDay – 2.4% UV; Kerry 74%; Bush 21%
Absentee ——0.3% UV; Kerry 84%; Bush 15%

Precinct 25
Early Voting – 1.7% UV; Kerry 81%; Bush 15%
ElectionDay – 10.1% UV; Kerry 67%; Bush 23%
Absentee ——3.7% UV; Kerry 88%; Bush 8%

Precinct 32
Early Voting – 0.8% UV; Kerry 76%; Bush 22%
ElectionDay – 9.7% UV; Kerry 66%; Bush 24%
Absentee ——0.0% UV; Kerry 89%; Bush 11%

Precinct 42
Early Voting – 0.0% UV; Kerry 86%; Bush 11%
ElectionDay – 6.2% UV; Kerry 66%; Bush 27%
Absentee ——1.0% UV; Kerry 87%; Bush 12%

Note that the UV percentage is paralleled in the down-ticket races, suggested that entire ballots are lost. If ballots are being lost by the Advantage, they are ballots with votes for Kerry -- no doubt about that, since Bush's share increases in EVERY case.
*********************************
DONA ANA COUNTY VOTE DATA
Prepared by Warren Stewart

General election, November 2, 2004 including early and absentee voting

Machine types
EV (Early voting) - Optech Insight
ED (Election Day) - Sequoia AVC Advantage (push button) (push button)
AB (Absentee) - Optech Insight

County Stats
TV (Total Vote) - 2,075 undervotes (3.25%) 258 phantoms (.4%)
EV - 220 undervotes (1.10%) 28 phantoms (0.14%)
ED - 1,603 undervotes (4.48%)
AB - 252 undervotes (3.14%) 230 phantoms (2.86%)

Election Day undervote issues in most counties. 82 out of 106 were above the statewide undervote rate on Election Day. Unusual undervotes in some Early voting precincts (unusual because they were opscan.) Phantom votes in Absentee voting, especially Precinct 106.

Specific Precincts

Precinct 13 - 98% Hispanic - 67 ED undervotes (13.84%) 12 AB phantoms)
Precinct 28 - 75% Hispanic - 35 ED undervotes (11.15%)
Precinct 38 - 75% Hispanic - 43 ED undervotes (9.95%)
Precinct 59 - 60% Anglo - 95 EV undervotes (19.71%)
Precinct 60 - 85% Hispanic - 47 EV undervotes (49.47%), 15 ED undervotes (20.55%)
Precinct 65 (huge precinct) - 75% Hispanic 58 ED undervotes (8.83%)
Precinct 66 - 58% Hispanic - 26 ED undervotes (4.94%)
Precinct 69) Precinct 106 218 AB phantom votes
Precinct 999 (Overseas absentees) 207 ballots cast 0 presidential votes
*******************************************
SANDOVAL COUNTY VOTE DATA
Prepared by Warren Stewart

General election, November 2, 2004 including early and absentee voting

Sandoval uses Sequoia AVC Edge (Touchscreen DRE) for Early Voting Danaher Shouptronic (push button DRE) 1242 for Election Day. Optech 4C (opscan) machines for Early Voting and Absentee Ballots,

10 precincts have over 80% Native American populations - all had high Election Day undervote rates:

Precinct 24 - 277 ED Ballots Cast, 240 Pres Votes, 37 undervotes (13.36%)
Precinct 20 - 166 ED Ballots Cast, 145 Pres Votes, 21 undervotes (12.65%)
Precinct 26 - 190 ED Ballots Cast, 166 Pres Votes, 24 undervotes (12.63%)
Precinct 15 - 523 ED Ballots Cast, 468 Pres Votes, 55 undervotes (10.52%)
Precinct 25 - 632 ED Ballots Cast, 569 Pres Votes, 63 undervotes (9.97%)
Precinct 08 - 191 ED Ballots Cast, 172 Pres Votes, 19 undervotes (9.95%)
Precinct 14 - 141 ED Ballots Cast, 127 Pres Votes, 14 undervotes (9.93%)
Precinct 09 - 311 ED Ballots Cast, 281 Pres Votes, 30 undervotes (9.65%)
Precinct 29 - 216 ED Ballots Cast, 197 Pres Votes, 19 undervotes (8.80%)
Precinct 19 - 178 ED Ballots Cast, 168 Pres Votes, 10 undervotes (5.62%)
For a total of 2,825 ED Ballots Cast, 2533 Pres Votes, 292 undervotes (10.34%)

These same precincts in Early Vote and Absentee combined cast 1,024 Ballots, 1.022 of which recorded a vote for president (and undervote rate of 0.20%)