Also serving the communities of De Luz, Rainbow, Camp Pendleton, Pala and Pauma

Voters deserve more information on Proposition A election

Voters deserve more information than they’re getting about the Proposition A election being run by North County Fire Protection District. From speaking to observers, here’s what I can add.

Once voting ended, David Taussig and associates spent the entire night counting the 6,315 ballots returned, batching them in groups of 50 and sealing the unopened envelopes in tamper-evident boxes. Ballot envelopes were also scanned in preparation for comparison with digital signatures on file with the Registrar of Voters. Impartial observers from the community that were not chosen by the district had good access to observe the process, as well as signature comparisons as they began Oct. 28, and several people made the trip to San Diego to observe.

Up to 20% of ballots in some batches have been inconclusive. Most of the time, the envelope signatures looked hastily made and simply didn’t match any of the multiple signatures the Registrar of Voters has on file to compare. The envelopes could have been better designed to allow more room for the signature. But after spending a couple of hours watching the process, observers agreed the consultants were doing a terrific job.

At this stage, they can’t see the vote, so their determination is impartial. I’m glad they’ve been working from scans instead of the see-through ballot envelopes. NCFPD said they would post schedules to observe signature verification and counting, but as of submitting this letter, http://www.ncfire.org had nothing posted.

The district’s two reasons for the delay in results published in their Nov. 1 press release were pure fiction. They knew it was vote by mail all along, and the signature validation was planned from the start. With two consultants hired, of course, it takes this long. That they didn’t take the five minutes needed to actually calculate an estimate was simply poor planning. Barcoding the ballots would have saved a lot of time and money. If this arrangement is an example of their level of operations skill, I wonder how many opportunities for cost reductions have been left on the table?

Last, the district owes an apology to voters for mis-stating that ballots needed to be received by Oct. 24 when they only needed to be postmarked in accordance with California election law. If they’re going to run their own election, they should know the rules.

Of the ballot signature verifications, observers noted from 6% to 20% of each batch were marked “TBD.” I’m disappointed in the district for not providing some instructions on these in its press release or the district website. Voters who don’t return the request for further verification will have their votes voided. As far as I know, the district will not be logging individual votes with the Registrar of Voters, so voters will have no way of knowing whether their votes were counted.

I would respectfully suggest that the district uses the Registrar of Voters for any future elections.

Jeannie Allen

 

Reader Comments(0)