1989 Election Returns - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Procedure The following procedure was used for the recount and analysis: 1. The ballots from Precinct 5 were manually recounted and the correct tallies established. 2. The ballots were next processed through the counting unit used in Precinct 5 on election day. 3. A new counter was used next with the back-up "prom" or programed memory unit for that precinct. 4. Other factors involved on election day were reviewed. 5. Leftover ballots from Precinct 5 were marked to test the tentative explanation for the undervote. Findintxs 1. Both optical scan readings of the ballots (using the original and the backup equipment) produced essentially the same tallies as those from election night. 2. The ballots were in good physical condition. They were free of dogears, tears, etc. 3. With only a handful of exceptions, all ballots were voted for three candidates as specified on the ballot instructions and were adequately marked with a black soft-tipped pen. The exceptions included two blank ballots, three marked outside the designated target area on the ballot, and very few "bullets" or ballots voted for only one candidate rather than three. 4. There .was no obvious reason for the differences between the hand count and the machine counts of the ballots. 5. Visual inspection of the ballots suggested that there was a subtle difference in intensity in the otherwise identical markings made by the voters on the ballots. 6.'` City staff found that the boxes from Precinct 5 that contained the vendor supplied marking pens also contained three Papermate Flair pens. Papermates were included in the precinct supply box for general use by the election judges but not for ballot marking. 7. All test ballots marked with the vendor-supplied Berol soft tipped pens were correctly read by the ballot counters. Testing of the Papermates, on the other hand, revealed that only approximately one vote of 30 would be detected by the ballot counters. Only the most heavily scored Papermate marks were read.