"There’s been little progress in improving city elections in the last year," said Gene Russianoff, NYPIRG senior attorney. "Our findings augur poorly for a move to new voting machines, where it will be critical for poll workers to instruct voters on how to use a new technology."

"Voters should be provided the right information," said Dave Palmer, government reform advocate for NYPIRG. "The Board of Elections needs to do a better job training and recruiting poll workers." Palmer noted that the Board of Elections had made serious efforts to improve poll worker training following the problems uncovered by the survey of the 2001 election. These included producing a training video and an easy-to-read Election Day flip-chart for poll workers.

The report recommends further upgrading training materials for poll workers and replacing inadequate poll workers.

Voters participating in the survey completed a form asking them to note a number of readily discernible and measurable occurrences that reflect the quality of election day operations. They did not survey other voters. (Click to see a copy of the form.)

Surveyors were asked to note: how long they waited to vote; whether poll workers wore nametags; whether a sample ballot poster was visible; answers they received from poll workers to questions about voter rights; whether the poll workers asked them if they knew how to use the voting machine; their opinion of the clarity of the ballot; and general impressions of conditions. Among the key findings of the report are:

1. As in 2001, few poll workers in 2002 gave fully correct answers to basic voter rights questions. Our surveyors asked poll workers one of two different questions:

• Our surveyors asked: "If someone is registered and recently moved from one place within the city to another, can they vote today if they haven’t re-registered? Do they vote at the poll site for their old address or for their new address?" While 85% of poll workers replied correctly to the first part of the question, 59% of these said incorrectly that a voter should vote at their old site. Indeed, fewer than 34% of poll workers who said "yes" gave the fully correct answer. The right response is that voters can and must vote at the election district at the polling site for their new address. Any voter following the incorrect advice to vote at their old site could end up losing their vote or breaking the law. This poor performance is nearly identical to our findings in 2001: Then 54% told voters incorrectly they could vote at their old site.


• Our surveyors asked: "If a voter needs assistance, can someone come into the booth with them? Can anyone help?" While 93% of poll workers replied correctly to the first part of the question, 41% percent of these said incorrectly that only poll workers could help. Indeed, fewer than 11% of poll workers who answered "yes" gave the fully correct answer.

The right response is that anyone except a voter’s employer or union representative can assist a voter in the booth. Voters following wrong instructions would lose their right to be helped by friends, family or co-workers. This performance, while still very inadequate, was slightly better than our findings in 2001: Then 53% incorrectly told voters that only poll workers could assist. Still, fewer than 11% of poll workers who answered "yes" gave the fully correct answer on who could assist you. Compare this to 2001, when 14% of surveyors recorded a fully correct answer.

2. There are significant disparities among the five boroughs in how well elections are conducted. Poll workers are required to assist voters in a variety of ways. These include asking voters if they know how to use the voting machine wearing nametags, and posting sample ballots in a visible place. But performance varies significantly among boroughs:

• Manhattan was worst on poll workers wearing badges (66%); Staten Island was best (94%).
• Staten Island was worst on asking voters if they needed help using the (41%); Queens was best (65%).
• The Bronx was worst on visible ballot posters (59%); Queens was best (74%).

3. Many surveyors in 2002 faced the same or worse obstacles in getting basic information as they did in 2001:

• More than half of poll workers (52%) citywide failed to ask our surveyors if they needed help using the voting machine, even though they are required to do so—exactly the same as in 2001;
• 27% of poll workers citywide were not wearing required nametags, similar to our surveyors’s experiences in 2001, when 30% of poll workers were not wearing badges; and
• Some 29% of our surveyors citywide were unable to see a required ballot poster; compare that to 2001, when 23% could not see the ballot poster.

4. One-third of our surveyors found the ballot either slightly confusing or very confusing—less than the 49% that rated the 2001 ballot as slightly or very confusing. In both 2001 and 2002, surveyors expressed confusion about locating ballot proposals. New York’s complex multi-party "full face" ballot can often lead to a crowded ballot face.

5. Few of our surveyors experienced major problems, such as broken machines.

The elections survey was made possible through the financial support of the Charles H. Revson Foundation and the Robert Sterling Clark Foundation.