Partial transcript of Election Protection Hearing in Miami on 3 Feb 2005

eomer

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Feb-06-05 10:04 AM
Original message

Partial transcript of Election Protection Hearing in Miami on 3 Feb 2005

Election Protection held a hearing last Thursday, 3 Feb 2005, in Miami. I made an audio tape and am working on a transcript. I still have a good bit left to transcribe but want to give you what I have so far:

Moderator Jorge Mursuli (People for the American Way): Good evening. I'd like to thank all of you for being here this evening and just sort of like to start by saying that we may not get the attention� election reform issues may not get the attention that we got before the election but it certainly doesn�t make it any less important� and so we�re very, very grateful for those of you that are here, we�re very eager to listen to your testimony and we should have a very fruitful evening.

We�ve been conducting� the partnership of the NAACP and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights under the Law, People for the American Way Foundation has been conducting these hearings throughout the state. The purpose of these hearings is to gather information to help mold our election reform agenda in partnership with all of our partner organizations. And we haven�t started here. This is an additional step in a long line of steps that reflect our commitment to election reform.

Most of you know that the partners around Election Protection this past election were in all of the states all over the country. As a matter of fact, People from the American Way Foundation had over 25,000 volunteers around the country in precincts trying to learn what we could do to ensure that people�s vote was counted and that people actually got an opportunity to vote. We then produced, in collaboration with our partners, a report called �Shattering the Myth� that sort of quantified and qualified all the things that we experienced across the country. And that, of course, is available to anyone who wants it at the front desk. It really sort of gives you an overview of the kind of things we experienced.

Today what we�re doing, like we did in other cities around the state � we�re giving an opportunity to those folks that possibly may not have had an opportunity to present a formal complaint and we wanted to sort of dot our i�s and cross our t�s as we sort of develop a legislative agenda. And as we sort of look for leaders around the state to help us correct the problems that still exist.

Now many of you heard and possibly experienced the fact that things were a lot better this year than they were in 2000. Well, there was certainly nowhere to go but up I suppose. But we�re happy, we�re not looking for the problems, as a matter of fact we�re looking for the solutions. And our hope is that now that the partisan rhetoric is turned off we can really focus on ensuring that legislation in the state of Florida reflects the kinds of solutions that folks like yourself need in order to have your vote count in the future. And the truth of the matter is� it�s... I think I can say it�s People For�s position and I suspect it�s the position of the many organizations that are represented here today� is that, you know, when one person�s vote isn�t counted, to us that�s enough. There isn�t a magic number, one, a thousand, a hundred thousand� I don�t know what that number is. I know that when one person�s vote doesn�t count that�s enough because it�s not about someone else � tomorrow it could be your vote.

So we�re very happy that you�re here. Before we introduce our panelists I just want to recognize a couple of people in the room that we very much appreciate that they�re here�

Moderator recognizes some members of the audience:
Selden Carter, national representative of AFL-CIO
Emilio Vazquez, regional director for Senator Bill Nelson
Ronald A. Brisey (spelling?), representing Representative Philip Brutus (Florida state representative)
Milton Collins, Deputy Supervisor of Elections, Miami-Dade County
Ida Corman (spelling?) Assistant Supervisor of Elections, Miami-Dade County
Arthur Anderson, Supervisor of Elections, Palm Beach County
Edina Sorrell and Jeff Tarter (spelling?) with the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections
Marsha Barnham (spelling?), League of Women Voters of Broward County
Mary Mann (spelling?), United Teachers of Dade (organization hosting the hearing)
Monica Russo, SEIU

Moderator introduces panelists:
Courtnay Strickland, ACLU-Florida
Ana Cela Harris, Lawyers� Committee for Civil Rights under the Law
Andy Rivera, the Advancement Project
Jill Hanson, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
Adora Obi Nweze, National Board of Directors, NAACP
Edeline Clermont, SEIU
Reggie Mitchell, Florida Legal Director, Election Protection

<Panelists, in turn, say a few words about themselves and their mission>

Witness Arthur Anderson, Supervisor of Elections, Palm Beach County: Good evening to the panel and to the audience. I�m delighted to have this opportunity to appear before you this evening and have a few remarks.

Let me say that not only is our topic of the evening one that is timely at any point in time in our lives but it�s especially meaningful to me this evening because as you know we are in the midst of the observance of Black History Month. And when I think in terms of the black historical experience in America, which of course is an integral component of the American historical experience, much of that effort was centered toward a focus on acquiring voter rights for all of our citizens � the most fundamental and basic guarantee that we have under the Constitution of these United States.

You know, we should all be very grateful to the fact that much of the impetus toward voter reform in this state and nationwide originated in our outstanding county. For if it were not for the butterfly ballot, to some great degree we might not be here this evening. So, in a less than desirable fashion, we�re now moving in the right direction, which is � ultimately we want to guarantee that every vote counts.

And if we think back to the 2000 elections, of course, which again very much has contributed to us being at this point this evening, we know that there was much concern, much dismay, much disenfranchisement of voters by way of the fact that every vote apparently did not count. Going back to the 2000 election in Palm Beach County, where we utilized that <inaudible> punch card ballot approach to voting we find that some 6.4% of punch card ballots went uncounted in the 2000 presidential race. However, since we have adopted in Palm Beach County the touch screen voting systems, the electronic ballots and equipment, we utilize Sequoia, again, that some .4% (a reduction of 93%) of touch screen voters did not record a vote of the presidential election in 2004. We were concerned as well you would understand that many voters either still casted <sic> a vote for president in 2000 or made some errors in casting their vote. I am reminded that 92,843 Palm Beach County voters who cast a vote by an absentee paper ballot vote or a provisional ballot vote, only .9% went uncounted in the recent presidential election.

Much of the debate since we moved away from the punch card balloting, driven in large measure by <inaudible, Congress?> as well as our own state reform initiatives, the controversy has very much centered over what is best - to go with an optical scan system of voting or to go with electronic balloting equipment. As you know, some 52 counties in the state of Florida have selected the optical scan system; 15 have selected the electronic balloting equipment. There has been much debate and also, of course, legal actions brought against certain parties in this state and others that those residents in the 52 counties that have acquired the optical scan system enjoy an advantage to those in the 15 counties that did not due to the fact that as required by state law if a contested election outcome occurs you should be able to conduct a manual recount. We, of course, are not able to do that with electronic ballot equipment. And so, much debate has then emanated over that seeming disparity and that possibly residents in the 15 counties are being denied their equal rights as regarded by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution.

As I�ve endeavored to address these concerns, of course, it has been <inaudible> suggested that we institute the paper audit trail and add printers to those electronic balloting machines that are currently in place. In Palm Beach County we are apparently moving in that direction. The County Commission has approved the expenditure to purchase the printers for the electronic ballot equipment when they are indeed certified in the State of Florida. Personally I have encouraged my staff, and we will be forming a technology advisory committee in the near future, that we�re welcomely open to any innovations or recent technological developments that might occur in the field. Ultimately what we want to do is ensure that every vote does count for our citizens and, although we are in the mode of moving forward with our electronic balloting equipment, we will consider any developments elsewhere and ultimately provide to our students <sic> the best remedy that is possible for them. Thank you very much.

Moderator Mursuli: Mr. Anderson, if you would just remain there in case there are any questions.

Panelist Nweze: Mr. Anderson, can you tell us something about what you�re doing regarding ex-felons and getting their rights restored as well as how they�re going to vote � those who are really eligible and not <inaudible>?

Witness Anderson: Well as pertains to the ex-felon issue, I�m very much on record as stating that I believe that felons� rights should be automatically restored once they have served their commitment obligation to society. So as a community I believe that that is the prevailing sentiment. Of course, we do not have the right of determination but we will maintain that posture and we will support any initiatives that are directed to attaining that end.

Panelist Mitchell: Mr. Anderson, during the 2004 election, West Palm Beach was� sort of became famous for the fifty foot rule, which instead of allowing folks to solicit and non-partisan folk to pass out information within fifty feet of the polling place, there were armed sheriffs to push people further back to a hundred or two hundred feet from the polling place and actually kind of roughed up a famous one of Ralph Nader�s original Nader�s Raiders. Now the state supervisor of elections is proposing pushing the fifty feet rule back to a hundred feet and also saying that you can�t solicit within the last person in line, wherever that may be, whether it�s two miles away from the polling place. What�s your position on this cone of influence rule and this fifty foot, two hundred foot rule?

Witness Anderson: Well, let me just say generally speaking, we want to have a user and voter-friendly operation in Palm Beach County and so we will look to be as accommodating as we can but by the same token to protect rights and the interests of every voter. And so what we�ve decided to do is that we are going to have a community focus approach, where we�re going to look to reach out and be inclusive of having the input of our constituent groups in society. And so this is a major issue that we�re going to discuss. We think that we have to proceed in a fashion where we�ve got to preserve the integrity of the process, not intrude upon individual voter rights but we want to accommodate the necessary functions that <inaudible> go along with an election process. So we haven�t made a definitive positional statement on that but we will be moving in that direction.

Panelist Strickland: I understand from your comments that the Commission hasn�t approved the expenditure for a paper audit trail if and when that is certified by the state. My question, however, concerns what to do in the meantime. Because I�m sure you know that the state imposed an emergency rule once the rule banning manual recounts in touch screen counties was thrown out by the courts and that rule is sun setting. So what is the best procedure in your opinion to make sure that the votes are being counted by the machines in the way that they should be until such time as there are other measures available?

Witness Anderson: Well, I think there are a number of things that you can do. One is we have very capable staff at our Supervisor of Elections office. And so they are being most thorough in terms of their pre-tested procedures for the equipment. Also we believe that much of the error that is apparent at the polls is occurring as a result of there not being proper voter education. So we�re looking to step up our voter education efforts and activities as well. Along with that we feel that poll workers sometimes are not adequately trained as well to provide the level of assistance that voters require as they go out to the polls. So we�re stepping up our efforts and intensifying those also. We�ll also be looking to have an aggressive effort to have more language translators available on a more widely dispersed basis around the county and that will help too in terms of those people who are going to the polling booths and have some areas of confusion. So we think� and of course there is <see transcriber�s note 3> an audit function that can be conducted on the machinery of course at this time that�s in terms of the amount of voter utilization cast on the machines rather than being able to see how individual votes are cast. But we plan to maintain the integrity of any audits-related functions as well in our equipment.

Panelist Clermont: Mr. Anderson, did you say that 93% of the voters did not record the touchscreen machine?

Witness Anderson: No, we said a reduction in error of 93%. So that�s <inaudible> a little bit in the right direction. And the� you know you�ve probably seen the report from the division of elections, which points out to us that in terms of the amount of say undervotes� if we look at undervotes and overvotes cast that the optical scan and the electronic balloting equipment - it�s now pretty much functioning at a level of insignificant difference as far as the level of voter error performance that�s been reported.

Panelist Rivera: Mr. Anderson, as a <inaudible> election official for election reform and things for you to do your job better and be more responsive to the community� first two or three things that come up into your head?

Witness Anderson: Well, the first two or three things that come to my head in terms of what we need in that regard is� as I mentioned I do remain an advocate for having the verifiable paper ballot trail. The greatest challenge that I see right now facing my community is that of restoring voter confidence. I think that�s pretty much of a national dilemma if you will at this point in time. So the initiatives that we can take to give them a greater level and sense of confidence that they can be assured that their vote will count and there�s a means of verifying that I think will go a long way in terms of restoring voter confidence.

Secondly as I�ve pointed out previously, we have to do a much better job of voter education. But also in that respect, making a more intensified effort to reach out to those that have been historically disenfranchised from the process� and so we will have extensive outreach initiatives in my administration and we will reach into again those traditionally under-serviced communities and populations in order to accomplish that. And those of you who are familiar with my community know that that is a dire need out in the west area of our county � out in the Belle Glades community. There�s no office out there, there�s never been, but we�re going to have an office out there and we�re going to staff that office and we aren�t going to� thank you� we�re not going to maintain a posture where everyone has to come to the mountain. We�re going to adopt a service delivery model, if you will, but we�re going to go out into those communities. And the more dire the needs are then the more we�re going to focus and emphasize that we have to have the outreach.

And then of course to have the aggressive ongoing voter registration initiatives and then when it comes time to vote to provide the information that people need to make intelligent decisions when they go to the booth to vote, and that will be to a machine in these times� but to make certain that we aggressively reach out and encourage them to participate in the process. So we�re going to do a lot of mission building and we�ll outreach in the way of providing the level and quality of services that will make people feel that they are indeed a part of the American dream.

Moderator Mursuli: Thank you Mr. Anderson. You can count on a lot of folks in this room and in these organizations to help you ensure that all that happens because that�s all really good stuff so� thank you very much. The next three-minute testimony is from Suzanne Goldstein.

Witness Suzanne Goldstein: I�d like to read this affidavit that was prepared on October 27th.

<Reading> I�m a registered voter in the state of Florida, precinct 4176 in the southeast <inaudible> Palm Beach County. On October 27th, 2004, I went to cast my vote early at the Supervisor of Elections office in West Palm Beach, Florida. I stood in line starting at about 2 pm. At around 3:30 pm I was standing in front of a touchscreen voting machine and started to vote. When the screen came up it showed my choices for U.S. President. I touched the circle for John Kerry and I saw the checkmark appear in the circle for John Kerry� and I touched the screen to bring up my next set of choices. I continued in this manner. After placing each vote I looked to see that the checkmark appeared in the correct circle before moving on to the next voting screen. In this manner I voted a straight Democratic ticket. I looked at the last screen � the review screen that is supposed to show all the voting choices I made. I was surprised to see the screen indicated my voting preferences as a straight Republican ticket. George W. Bush for U.S. President, Mel Martinez and on down the line. After a moment of looking at the screen I called my husband and the clerk. A woman came over to me. I showed her the screen and told her that everything that I see is opposite and wrong and that these are not the candidates I checked. She said, �Well let�s just go back and look at your ballot because you could�ve made some mistakes�. I told her I would not touch anything. My thinking was that I wanted others to see this screen. At that point another woman came over and said basically the same thing. After a few minutes, Tony Enos, E N O S, I think is the spelling of the last name, came over. I told him that I would not touch anything and that I wanted an attorney from outside to come in. After a few minutes an attorney did come in. He introduced himself to me as Jeffrey Stein. I asked for and received his card. I explained the problem to him. Tony Enos and the two women confirmed to Mr. Stein that the final review screen showed Republican choices. Mr. Enos said, �Well let�s review your ballot and your choices�. When we did that, we saw my checkmarks in the circles for John Kerry and the Democratic slate. At this point Mr. Enos told me I could go ahead and cast my ballot and not pay any attention to the review screen because my actual choices would override the review screen. I was told, go ahead and vote with confidence. I did not do that. I asked, how could this have happened? Mr. Enos said that the review screen I saw was probably the previous voter�s and somehow it didn�t clear. I told him I didn�t understand that explanation because when you start to vote you put a card into the machine and the machine holds it until you cast your ballot. When that card comes out the machine is supposed to be cleared. I requested that this machine be removed because it was not working properly. One of the clerks left and came back and made preparations to shut down the machine and remove it. They cleared my screen and gave me back the card I was using and showed me the tape that comes out of the ballot machine. At that point I noted the number of the machine � 21660. I was directed to the voting machine on my right where I began the voting process again. I looked at the review screen at the end and this time all the voting preferences were correct. I touched the screen to submit the ballot and left.

Moderator Mursuli: Thank you Ms. Goldstein. Any questions? Well that was pretty clear�

Witness Goldstein: Allright, and I was also able to give two interviews on CNN on election day around 1 pm at the Supervisor of Elections office explaining briefly what had happened.

Panelist Harris: But that was not your testimony, you�re reading somebody else�s testimony?

Witness Goldstein: No, this is me.

Panelist Harris: Oh, okay, when you were reading an affidavit, that�s your affidavit.

Witness Goldstein: Yeah, this is mine. Yeah, I prepared it with an attorney the same day it happened.

Panelist Hanson: Did you ever get any explanation as to how a machine could do that?

Witness Goldstein: Just what I was told that, you know, maybe it was the previous voter�s, you know, ballot, which made no sense. But I was very upset also when I was told, don�t worry about it, you know, now we see that you have, you know, when you go back and you see it�s Kerry, well just vote. Don�t pay attention to the review screen. And I wondered, how many people, you know, went through these steps, you know. How many people, you know, took the time or even knew to stop and ask and how many people were told the same thing I was told and just went ahead and voted.

Panelist Strickland: What time during election day was it again?

Witness Goldstein: It was early voting. On October 27th at 3 pm.

Panelist Strickland: October 27th.

Witness Goldstein: Uh huh.

Moderator Mursuli: Ms. Hanson, were you done, I�m sorry?

Panelist Hanson: No, I just wondered if you knew if other people had had a similar problem.

Witness Goldstein: I�ve heard many people had that experience and what I�ve heard is that� I never heard of anything going the other way. All I ever heard was that people had tried to vote for Kerry and it come up Bush and never the reverse.

Panelist Hanson: I understand that the folks who made the machines were at one point asked, how could this happen, and they said, well it just shows that the review screen process is working and that was their explanation. As far as I know, <inaudible>.

Moderator Mursuli: We won�t answer that tonight. Thank you very much Ms. Goldstein.

< Remainder of hearing not yet transcribed >

Transcriber�s notes:
(1) I made every attempt to be accurate. There may be minor transcription errors but none, I believe, that change the meaning or intent of the dialogue.
(2) I have omitted some of the moderator�s housekeeping comments such as calling the next witness, and so on, in order to make the transcript cleaner and to deliver it more quickly.
(3) While the audio is not clear, it sounds like Anderson says �isn�t� but from the context it appears that his intent was to say �is�.