FIXING WHAT'S BROKE? Election Reform, Fraud, & News Sunday 04/08/08

[freedomfries]

FIXING WHAT'S BROKE? Election Reform, Fraud, & News Sunday 04/08/08



All members welcome and encouraged to participate.
Please post Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News on this thread.
If you can:
:argh:
1. Post stories and announcements you find on the web.
2. Post stories using the "Election Fraud and Reform News Sources" listed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x371233
3. Re-post stories and announcements you find on DU, providing a link to the original thread with thanks to the Original Poster, too.
4. Start a discussion thread by re-posting a story you see on this thread.
Please "Recommend" for the Greatest Page.
:patriot:

[freedomfries]

1. OH: Fixing what's broke

Fixing what's broke

Editorial
The Plain Dealer, Cleveland
April 08, 2007
http://www.cleveland.com/open/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/isope/117598412583670.xml&coll=2

It's been three weeks since Jennifer Brunner, Ohio's new secretary of state, took personal responsibility for reshaping Cuyahoga County's troubled elections machinery.

Since then, she has forced three of the four Board of Elections members to resign, suspended the lone holdout and put the agency's operations under oversight from her office. She has also ratified the appointment of one new board member - former Common Pleas Judge Jeff Hastings - who instantly sets a new standard for competence, acumen and temperament.

That's a pretty good start on the overhaul the board needs. Now, Brunner needs to maintain her momentum and judgment, because the next month will help determine her success. By the first Tuesday in May, Brunner will have chosen two new Democrats for the board. They need to match the stature of Hastings, whose GOP registration was never apparent to those who appeared in his courtroom or dealt with him when he ran the Cleveland office of Ohio's attorney general. If Brunner gives in to those in her party who value political loyalty more than integrity or intellect, her work so far will have been in vain and her credibility will suffer immeasurably.
http://www.cleveland.com/open/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/isope/117598412583670.xml&coll=2

[freedomfries]

2. OH: Removal hearing for Cuyahoga elections chairman delayed one week

Removal hearing for Cuyahoga elections chairman delayed one week

The Repository, Canton, OH
April 7, 2007
http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=346887&Category=13&subCategoryID=

CLEVELAND (AP) — The removal hearing for Cuyahoga County board of elections chairman Bob Bennett has been delayed one week at the request of his attorney.

Bennett, also the head of the Ohio GOP, is the only remaining elections board member in the state’s most populous county, which has more than 1 million registered voters.

He is fighting a resignation demand by Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat. The hearing will take place at 9 a.m. April 16 at Euclid City Hall, Brunner’s spokesman Jeff Ortega said.

The board’s three other members, one Republican and two Democrats, stepped down under pressure from Brunner.

Brunner on Tuesday suspended Bennett from the elections board, and she announced Monday that any policy or procedure changes by the board must be approved by her through the end of 2008.

Brunner has accused the panel of shoddy work, including elections glitches and cost problems. The county has experienced election problems, including improperly trained poll workers and a hand count of 18,000 absentee ballots that delayed the May 2006 primary results for six days.

Bennett has argued that Brunner’s actions are political harassment and that she is trying the help her party in the 2008 presidential election. The state clinched re-election for President Bush in 2004.
http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=346887&Category=13&subCategoryID=

[freedomfries]

3. OH: Misfeasance and confeasance: SoS Jennifer Brunner's removal complaint

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/Removal%20Complaint.PDF

[freedomfries]

4. OH: Brunner issues Ohio voter ID rules

Brunner issues Ohio voter ID rules
Federal case could alter things

Mark Rollenhagen
The Plain Dealer, Cleveland
April 6, 2007
Re-Post
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1175848652321660.xml&coll=2

Columbus- Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner issued new rules that detail the identification voters will need to cast ballots in the May election and how they can vote absentee or provisionally.

With a federal lawsuit in Columbus still not resolved, Brunner's 16-page directive isn't necessarily the last word on voting in Ohio. But elections officials are happy for the guidance - mostly definitions and notes that anticipate questions about exactly which government IDs, utility bills and government checks suffice as proper identification.

"We're pleased that the secretary of state has given us clear direction," said Jane Platten, interim director of the Cuyahoga County elections board. "It's set, and it's clear, and it's something I can use with poll worker training as well as staff training."

Matthew Damschroder, president of the Ohio Association of Election Officials and director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, also welcomed the direction.

"I think the good news is that she has given very clear guidance on some of the identification issues that were in question, and that guidance is not at all a significant departure from the court order last year, which is helpful for continuity purposes," Damschroder said.

The biggest change in the directive is a prohibition against using touch-screen, electronic voting machines for casting provisional ballots - but not until after the upcoming May 8 election. Elections officials issue provisional ballots to people whose names do not appear on registration lists, who appear at the wrong polling places or who don't have the proper identification.

Brunner's directive said problems with recounts and risks of violating the secrecy of provisional ballots "make it more prudent to eliminate the use" of the machines.

Damschroder said only a few counties used electronic machines for provisional ballots. Franklin is one of them.

"We recognize her concerns about voter secrecy, and we look forward to working with her to address that," he said.

Platten said Cuyahoga has used paper ballots for provisional voting since last year, so it won't be affected by the new rule.

The directive lays out detailed definitions, explanations and notes related to identification requirements, absentee voting procedures and rules regarding provisional ballots. The surest way to cast a regular ballot is to bring a current driver's license to the polls.

The constitutional challenge to the new Ohio voting law that took effect last year is still before a federal judge in Columbus. A temporary order by the judge in that case applied only to last November's election.
[e-mail], 1-800-228-8272
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1175848652321660.xml&coll=2

[freedomfries]

5. OH: Provisional ballots to go on paper

State: Provisional ballots to go on paper

Associated Press
Cincinnati Post
April 6, 2007
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070406/NEWS01/704060371

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Ohio's new elections chief on Thursday ordered the state's 88 boards of elections to record all provisional ballots on paper, beginning with the first elections after the May 8 primary.

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner said electronic machines assign each provisional voter a number that is printed on a paper record in each machine, putting ballot secrecy at risk if a recount occurs. If the number is visible while votes are being counted, it would be possible to learn the identity of the voter.

A provisional ballot is cast when a voter does not have suitable identification or if the address on the ID differs from the one written in precinct poll books.

Most counties still use paper for provisional ballots, said Matt Damschroder, director of the Franklin County elections board and president of the Ohio Association of Election Officials.

Elections officials should have no problem making the switch, he said.

Brunner also ordered boards to adopt statewide standards in voter identification requirements for those seeking absentee ballots.
...
The new standards require election workers to accept as valid identification a driver's license or state issued ID; a photo ID issued by the federal government or a military ID; or an original or copy of a utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check or other government document.
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070406/NEWS01/704060371

[freedomfries]

6. CA: SoS Bowen: Californians must know their vote counts

Secretary of State Debra Bowen: Californians must know their vote counts
Are all of California's voting systems secure, accurate, reliable and accessible?

Debra Bowen
Opinion
Santa Cruz Sentinel
April 8, 2007
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/April/08/edit/stories/03edit.htm

It's a relatively simple question and I believe California's voters are entitled to an answer. If the answer to that question is "no," then some voting-machine vendors and county elections officials who rely on their equipment will undoubtedly be inconvenienced. But it's the 37 million Californians who will truly suffer if we don't have the courage to ask that question in the first place.

Reviewing the accuracy and security of these instruments of our democracy shouldn't be viewed as a criticism of any county or county elections official. The single goal of the top-to-bottom review is to determine if the voting systems California's counties bought to comply with the federal Help America Vote Act HAVA are doing the job that California's voters count on them to do.

Contrary to the Sentinel's assertion, this assessment won't cost the counties any time or money because the review is being conducted under my authority as the state's chief elections officer. I have asked county officials for their input and it's heartening to know that some of them believe there is value in thoroughly examining the voting systems certified for use here in California. As one county clerk wrote about my proposed review:

"The right to vote and to have one's vote accurately recorded and counted is among the rights properly held to be most important to the citizens of a democracy. Citizens should expect this right to be vigorously protected by those public servants whose duties attach thereto. It is my opinion that the draft criteria you propose make significant progress in this effort on behalf of the citizens of California.

"Since the introduction of computer-based technology to the voting process, citizens have experienced a subtle closing of the window of transparency and accountability and a gradual dimming of the light of public inspection on elections. We are long overdue in our move to correct these defects"
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/April/08/edit/stories/03edit.htm

[freedomfries]

7. CA: Realistic poll machine test looks likelier

Realistic poll machine test looks likelier

Thomas D. Elias
The Valley Chronicle, Hemet CA
April 8, 2007
http://www.thevalleychronicle.com/articles/2007/04/06/opinion/06elias.txt

Just in case there was some confusion, California's new Democratic secretary of state, Debra Bowen, has now made it crystal clear she doesn't trust many of the electronic voting machines commonly used in the last few California elections.

Nor does she appear impressed with safeguards that satisfied her appointed Republican predecessor Bruce McPherson. McPherson believed the presence of voter-verified paper trails from touch-screen and other new voting machines would guarantee accurate recounts wherever needed.
...
Bowen, meanwhile, wants voting machines to be sufficiently trustworthy that paper trail recounts will rarely be requested, but also would like recounts in ultra-close elections such as Orange County's to be publicly subsidized so that candidates without much money can also seek a fair outcome by counting the paper trails.

County paper trials could occasionally be important, Bowen knows, because there are many open questions about the hackability of the machines in wide use today.

In several small tests, both independent and university-connected computer experts have shown votes tallied on electronic machines can be manipulated and falsified. No one has yet proven this actually happened in any election, but charges flew after every major vote since 2000.

That's why national attention was drawn to Riverside County late last year when Supervisor Jeff Stone issued this challenge to activists questioning the accuracy of the Sequoia Voting Systems machines used in his county:

“Maybe we should bring the media in and let's see if your programmer can manipulate that machine. My guess is that it is not gonna happen, but I'm willing to take a chance on that. I'm gonna bet 1,000 to one that they cannot do it.”

Later, it turned out Stone's version of a challenge was to have a programmer enter a voting booth just like a regular voter and see if he or she could manipulate the machine in the space of 10 to 15 minutes.

That's not a realistic test, snorted the activists, who noted that switches on the backs of some machines make them vulnerable to hacking by persons setting them up. They also pointed out that in some counties, voting machines are taken home weeks before elections by poll workers and often kept in closets and garages until Election Day. It is during those “sleepovers” that many skeptics feel hacking can occur.

Bowen checks in on the side of the skeptics. In a letter to Stone, she noted that “I am not aware of any state law that would prohibit the kind of security test you described.” But she added that Stone's proposed ground rules are “too narrow” and risk giving voters “a false sense of security” because they “wouldn't address the larger issue of whether someone who has access to the voting equipment before the polls open or after they close could interfere with the proper use of the equipment.”

She added that, “As you know, voting equipment is subject to tampering in a wide range of settings. This test you have proposed wouldn't address the issue of whether someone who can reach around to the back of the machine undetected or can bring a tool into the voting booth without being noticed by a poll worker will be able to gain access to the machine.”

Bowen stressed that the greatest threat to election integrity comes from “insiders” allowed to take machines home prior to elections. Any test that doesn't factor in voting machine “sleepovers,” then, would be inadequate, she contended.

The logical next step is for Bowen to have her own office conduct a closely supervised test of what can feasibly be done to voting machines before, during and after elections.
...
http://www.thevalleychronicle.com/articles/2007/04/06/opinion/06elias.txt

[freedomfries]

8. ACTION ALERT: Contact Congress to Ban DRE Voting Machines and Amend HR 811

ACTION ALERT: Contact Congress to Ban DRE Voting Machines and Amend HR 811

OpEdNews
Re-Post Velvet Revolution
April 5, 2007
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_the_web_070405_action_alert_3a_contac.htm

CONTACT CONGRESS TO BAN DRE VOTING MACHINES AND AMEND HR 811


HR 811, Congressman Rush Holt's Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007, must be amended to ban the Direct Record Electronic (DRE) voting machine. DRE victories are electronic and faith based. Even with a paper trail, DRE results are impossible to verify for accuracy and transparency.

DRE ballots are electronic, not paper. Their electronic tally of electronic ballots is official, without check or balance, in 90% of DRE elections – even with a paper trail. Without amendment, HR 811 perpetuates this situation for years to come.

Many well-meaning legislators support HR 811 because they believe its "voter-verified permanent paper ballot" means that from now on, Americans will be voting on paper for security and accuracy. They are mistaken.

In HR 811, the DRE "voter-verified permanent paper ballot" is a paper audit trail. It will be used to check less than 10% of the vote. And studies show that many DRE voters forget or neglect to verify the paper trail.

DREs can target neighborhoods and minorities for electronic disenfranchisement. Civil rights leader Dolores Huerta recently brought that message recently to Capitol Hill, bearing a study from New Mexico that showed undervote rates soaring when Native Americans and Spanish language voters used DREs. Rates were similar to that in Anglo communities when New Mexicans went to all opti-scanned paper ballots.

DREs, touted as necessary for special-needs voters, are as insecure for those voters' intent as for others. Touch-screen computers that do not tabulate but assist voters with disabilities and language needs to mark their ballots can restore security to those voters as they improve acessibility.

TELL YOUR CONGRESS MEMBER TODAY: BAN THE DRE!
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_the_web_070405_action_alert_3a_contac.htm

[freedomfries]

9. Nat: TPMCafe: Barred from the Polls:

Barred from the Polls

Erin Ferns
Project Vote
April 6, 2007
http://americaabroad.tpmcafe.com/blog/project_vote/2007/apr/06/barred_from_the_polls

Voting Rights & Election News Roundup: April 6, 2007 Edition

This an entry in a series of blogs to keep people informed on current election reform and voting rights issues in the news.

Featured Stories of the Week:

Clemency board votes to automatically restore felons' rights – Associated Press

Flawed voter ID ruling – The Journal Gazette
This week, we focus on two separate but equally important issues affecting voting rights: felon re-enfranchisement and voter ID. Thursday, an Associated Press story published in the St. Petersburg Times reported a movement to re-enfranchise ex-felons in Florida and an editorial in Monday's printing of Fort Wayne Newspapers' Journal Gazette examined “Draconian” ID requirements upheld in Indiana with a focus on a recent academic paper discussing why ID requirements have a severe impact on historically marginalized voters.

According to the Sentencing Project, an organization advocating a fair and just criminal justice system, nearly one million ex-felons in Florida have been stripped of their right to vote. The majority of affected former felons are Black. According to a Project Vote report, minority and low-income citizens are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and underrepresented at the polls: “The disenfranchisement rate of African-American men is seven times the national average at 13%.”

Until Thursday, Florida was one of three states, including Kentucky and Virginia, that permanently disenfranchised most former felons. While this is a step forward in re-enfranchising American citizens who had already served their sentences, essentially “paying their dues,” the Florida rule still does not fully or automatically restore civil rights, and leaves out those who have been released prior to the policy change.

“There isn't even agreement as to how many of those are out there – although it's definitely more than a half million people,” AP reporter David Royse wrote.

There are only two states that do not revoke the right to vote as a result of felony conviction; Maine and Vermont.

Restoring the right to vote to ex-felons is an integral aspect of reintegration into society. Consistent policies are necessary to prevent large-scale disenfranchisement not only of the ex-felons themselves, but also of the communities to which they belong. Society as a whole benefits when government truly represents all its citizens.

Not surprisingly, voters from socio-economic communities similar to those of former felons are potentially disenfranchised by ID requirements, according to the Journal Gazette editorial: “Those who could be turned away are more likely to be poor and/or minority voters – who tend to vote Democratic.”

Indiana is one of 26 states that goes beyond the voter ID mandates of the Help American Vote Act of 2002. Even Richard Posner, the federal appeals court judge who wrote the ruling upholding Indiana's ID law, recognized it would deny some people from voting, according to the editorial. Voter ID is generally implemented as a safeguard against voter fraud, but has been shown to suppress voter turnout while at the same time, address a problem that simply does not exist. Between 2002 and 2005, just 24 people were convicted of illegal voting, averaging 8 convictions per year.

Requiring ID at the polls for eight convictions per year is a hefty price to pay for many Americans. In many cases people simply don’t have the required documents. A recent Brennan Center for Justice survey found 11% of Americans do not have government-issued photo ID. This amounts to more than 21 million citizens, disproportionately including the elderly, students, women, people with disabilities, low income people and people of color. Additionally, Voter ID has been shown to disproportionately suppress the turnout of minority voters.

Government at all levels has an obligation to help citizens exercise their rights, including the right to vote. After all, unlike others rights, such as speech, government controls all the mechanisms by which this right is exercised. Laws that create barriers to voting must prove that they are not hindering more legally eligible citizens from voting than they are catching ineligible voters. Given the infrequency of voter fraud in America and the Eagleton Institute findings that show voter ID laws reduce minority participation, voter ID laws clearly fail this cost-benefit test. More information on voter ID can be found in this Project Vote report.
http://americaabroad.tpmcafe.com/blog/project_vote/2007/apr/06/barred_from_the_polls

[freedomfries]

10. Nat: Should opponents of voter ID laws petition to Supreme Court?

Follow-up on Crawford: Should Opponents of Voter Identification Laws Want Plaintiffs to Petition for Cert. in the Supreme Court?

Rick Hasen
Election Law Blog
April 6, 2007
http://www.electionlawblog.org/

Yesterday I wrote that I thought the Supreme Court would be likely to take Crawford, the Indiana Voter identification decision if the plaintiffs petitioned for cert. Marcia Oddi thinks plaintiffs are likely to do so. I also suggested in my post yesterday that this may not be the best case for voter i.d. opponents to take to the Supreme Court.

Why not? I've suggested that the Court should take the case to correct its own errors in Purcell v. Gonzales, as well as to mitigate the influence of Judge Posner's troubling majority opinion in Crawford. But there are two dangers, one general and one specific to Indiana. The general point is the one made by Dan Tokaji: "I hope that this case won't wind up before the Supreme Court, as I'm concerned that this could do greater damage to the equal protection law in this area." I too have been pessimistic about the new Roberts' Court protection of voting rights, but it is not clear that things would be worse than they already are with an affirmance in Crawford. And it is possible a Justice such as Justice Kennedy could be concerned enough about the Judge Posner opinion to put some limits on it, and on the use of voter id without any proof of voter fraud.

The specific issue is whether the record in the Indiana case is sufficiently strong. First, Indiana has an indigency exemption (though not a generous one, as I have written). A stronger case might challenge a state whose law lacks such an exemption. Second, there is a question whether the plaintiffs presented a strong enough case on the evidence that the Indiana law would actually burden many voters. The district court and 7th Circuit opinions make it seem as though there is very little evidence. I plan to look into this more, by examining some of the district court documents.

Aside from the interest of opponents of voter id laws, would it be good as a matter of election administration for the Court to take Crawford? Chris Elmendorf thinks not, as he'd rather let the issues percolate in the lower courts for a while first.

Ordinarily, I agree with such a sentiment; indeed, I devoted a chapter of my book to the idea that the Court should initially leave election law standards murky, allowing for lower courts to explore various ways of structuring equal protection rights in the election law area. But I've come to believe that in the area of election administration, where the stakes are so high and the results immediately obvious, there is not time for such percolation. The Court needs to provide clarity, especially after its very bad opinion in Purcell.

There is one other possibility in terms of a cert grant. It might be that the Burdick/standard of scrutiny issues get clarified in the Washington state party primary case being heard by the Court next term. So Crawford might end up a case granted, vacated and remanded in light of that case under the Burdick standard.
http://www.electionlawblog.org/

[freedomfries]

11. Happy Easter!

[rumpel]

12. Happy Easter

[rumpel]

13. WI: Election reversal stuns Ruud (oops wrong place..)

Late votes change results in Town of Burlington
By KRIS KOCHMAN
Special to the Journal Sentinel
Posted: April 7, 2007

Town of Burlington - An error in the county clerk's election reporting left chairman Barbara Ruud reeling last week after early results showed she won the election by three votes and then she later learned she had lost by three votes.

The final tally shows 645 votes for Kurt Petrie and 642 for Ruud.

Town Clerk Adelheid Streif said the Racine county clerk did not add 20 votes in the chairman's race from a handicap-accessible voting machine before posting results on the county's election web page.

Numbers from most of the town's voting machines are sent electronically over phone lines, but Streif had to later fax the numbers from the one voting machine to the county clerk, she said.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=587409

[countingvotes]

19. Belated Happy Easter to You!

[rumpel]

14. MS: Attorneys in Noxubee Co. voting lawsuit face final deadline this week

By John Mott Coffey
[e-mail]
Saturday, April 7, 2007 9:42 PM CDT

JACKSON -- Attorneys this week are to submit final documents to the federal judge deciding whether Noxubee County blacks have discriminated against whites in elections.

U.S. District Judge Tom Lee is being asked by the federal government to impose measures to ensure fair elections for whites in the predominately black county.

The black-controlled Noxubee County Democratic Party and Election Commission are being accused of shutting whites out. The U.S. Department of Justice has called this “the most extreme case of racial exclusion seen by the (department's) Voting Section in decades.”

In denying they've violated whites' voting rights, the black political leaders have argued that they try to include whites in Noxubee County politics.

The Democrats maintain the federal government is misconstruing their rivalry against Republicans as racial bias. They say the Justice Department filed the lawsuit in February 2005 only after Republicans complained about being left out of county politics.

http://www.cdispatch.com/articles/2007/04/07/state_news/state01.txt

[rumpel]

15. NC: Expert will advise city on growth

Rocky Mount Telegram

By John Ramsey
Rocky Mount Telegram

Sunday, April 08, 2007

A voting rights expert with experience in Rocky Mount will on Monday brief the City Council about the racial issues it must consider to ensure its planned annexations comply with federal regulations.

Anita Earls, director of advocacy at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Center for Civil Rights, will meet with the council during its 5 p.m. Committee of the Whole meeting to explain how the U.S. Department of Justice's oversight of Rocky Mount under the Voting Rights Act could affect any planned annexations.

Under Section 5 of the act, the Justice Department is required to preclear any significant addition to the city's population to guarantee it does not strip minorities of the ability to elect representatives of their choice.

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/04/08/growth.html

[rumpel]

16. WA: Auditors worry about bill on voter registration

Union Bulletin

Updated: Saturday, April 7, 2007 10:17 PM PDT

The bill would allow citizens to register to vote at the same time as they cast a ballot in any election.
By Andy Porter of the Union-Bulletin

A proposal to let people register to vote on election days has raised hackles with county elections officials.

County auditors say they fear if Senate Bill 5561 passes it will open the door to potential election fraud and raise election costs by thousands of dollars.

In a release issued Thursday, the Washington State Association of County Auditors called on citizens to urge their legislators to vote ``no'' on the bill, which has passed the Senate and is now in the House.

``The integrity of elections is the central question,'' said Walla Walla County Auditor Karen Martin, president of the state auditor's association this year.

The bill would allow citizens to register to vote at the same time as they cast a ballot in any election. The bill was introduced by Sen. Eric Oemig, D-Kirkland, and has eight co-sponsors.

http://www.union-bulletin.com/articles/2007/04/08/local_news/local01.txt

[rumpel]

17. CO: Vote’s still out on mail polls

The Gazette

By PAM ZUBECK THE GAZETTE
April 8, 2007 - 7:34AM

When Randy Purvis won his first term on the Colorado Springs City Council in 1987, council chambers were packed.

Milling about in the only place to get real-time results, Purvis and others watched for hours as the city clerk jotted updated vote counts on poster paper as precincts reported.

When Purvis won last week, he got the news silently from his computer at home, alone, 15 minutes after voting ended.

The results came fast because it was a mail-only ballot, and most votes were counted ahead of time.

“It’s like everything in the rest of our culture, instantaneous,” Purvis said. “There’s no suspense.”

Mail balloting saved the city about $209,000 compared with a polling-place election, and about 41 percent of those who got ballots returned them.

Turnout wasn’t as high as it appears, though, because not all registered voters received ballots. Only “active voters” — defined by the city as those who voted in the last general election and newly registered voters — and those who requested ballots got them.

That means about 75,000 registered voters in Colorado Springs didn’t receive mail ballots. If the turnout is figured using registered voters, about 27 percent voted.

http://www.gazette.com/articles/mail_21009___article.html/election_ballots.html

[Kurovski]

18. Kick to the top.

Thanks, ff!