www.nypirg.org | about us | good government | environment | consumer protection | straphangers campaign | fuel buyers group

III. Detailed Findings

A: The New York City Voter Agony Index

• Our Voter Agony Index found that 13% of voters surveyed experienced an 'agonizing' problem at the polls such as a broken machine or chaotic poll site. To create the index, we grouped some of the common problems faced by voters to gauge how many experienced major problems at the polls this past November 2 nd. Our survey of voters found:
• Manhattan fared worst on the Agony Index with 19% of voters surveyed reporting a major problem.
• Staten Island and Queens fared best at 7%.
• Four percent experienced a broken voting machine
• More than 7% described their polling site as either confusing or chaotic.
• In our survey, there was a significant disparity among the five boroughs. At least twice as many voters surveyed in Manhattan and Brooklyn faced agonizing problems as compared to Staten Island and Queens.

It should be noted that the problems encountered by voters in our Agony Index are separate from the problems faced by voters who were improperly asked for ID or didn't find their name in the poll site book. The flip side of our Voter Agony Index is that a substantial majority of New Yorkers don't experience significant problems on Election Day. Their sites are well run and operated by some of the vast majority of hard working and informed poll workers.

The Agony Index includes voters who reported: extended wait times of more than 20 minutes once reaching their table; confusing or chaotic poll sites; uninformed or disorganized poll workers; machine breakdowns; electioneering; harassment; or a disability access problem. Here are some selected samples of the agonizing difficulties faced by voters.

Confusing or Chaotic Poll Sites. Reported by 7% of voters. Here's one comment by our surveyor at the Methodist Home on Manhattan College Parkway. in the Bronx: "Upon speaking to the Poll Site Coordinator there were supposed to be 13 workers at the start of the day, but they were nine short. Everyone seemed to be doing their best to be helpful despite being understaffed."

Extended Wait Times of more than 20 minutes after voter reached their proper Election District table. Reported by 3% of voters. At Public School (PS) 44 on West 76 th Street in Manhattan our surveyor noted "one extremely long line that people reported (waited hour and twenty minutes). Some chaos, bad physical layout."

Machine Breakdowns. Reported by 4% of Voters. InManhattan at PS 3 on Hudson Street our surveyor noted: "One machine broke down two times and three voters left without voting because they felt that the paper ballots were not secure and might not be counted."

Electioneering. Reported by 1% of Voters. In Queens at PS 32 on 83 rd Street, our surveyor took a voter complaint that: "ladies at table were telling him who to vote for." And in Manhattan at the George Washington Bridge Station Lobby, our surveyor took a voter complaint that: "language interpreter was telling people who to vote for."

Disability Access Problems Reported by 1% of Voters. In Queens at PS 133 our surveyor took this voter complaint: "Voter could not get wheelchair … into the booth very easily, and the choices were listed so high that he could not read them himself. He also could not pull the levers because they were too high, and he was not strong enough to pull them."

B: Identification Requirements: Poll Site Coordinators

Our surveyors sought to determine how the Board of Elections administered new identification (ID) requirements for certain new voters in two ways. Surveyors: A) Directly asked 161 Poll Site Coordinators important questions regarding voter rights; and B) Interviewed 1,740 voters after they cast their ballots about their interactions with Poll Inspectors and identification checks. We found troubling responses in both these areas.

Forty five percent of Board of Elections' Poll Site Coordinators surveyed failed to correctly answer questions about new identification requirements required of certain voters. Our surveyors asked Poll Site Coordinators the following: "I have a question about the new identification requirements for voters that I was hoping you could answer. If a voter needs to show ID, would the following be considered valid: a current Costco card with the voter's name and photo on it; a current college student ID with the voter's name and photo on it; and a current NY State drivers license with the voters old address?" The correct responses are that all three forms of ID satisfy the federal law's requirements for a current and valid photo ID(2) ,(3).

• Only 55% of Poll Site Coordinators surveyed answered all three questions about what constitutes valid ID correctly.
• Only 74% of Coordinators correctly answered that a current Costco card with the voter's name and photo constitutes valid ID.
• Only 88% answered that a current college ID card with the voter's name and photo constitutes valid ID.
• Only 78% answered that a current New York State Driver's License with the voter's previous address constitutes valid ID.

Poll Site Coordinators are special positions created by the City Board of Elections to oversee operations at the city's poll sites. These staff members are supposed to be more experienced, knowledgeable and better trained than their fellow Poll Inspectors (the workers who most voters interact with at their particular table/machine.)

The survey's question to Poll Site Coordinators about the imposition of the ID requirement was meant to measure how the ID provisions were being implemented in sites across the city. Our intent was to gauge the Board's training efforts and evaluate whether the Board's policy NOT to provide detailed lists of sample IDs to poll workers would result in a lack of understanding of exactly what qualified as legitimate identification documents. Our results make clear that the Board continues this approach to the detriment of the voters it serves.

Besides the failure of nearly half of Coordinators to properly answer our three part ID question, our surveyors noted other troubling information such as the following position of a Coordinator at PS 19 on 99 th Street in Queens noted by one of our surveyors: "Poll Site Coordinator claims that people need some form of ID with a current address if they are not in the poll book." That's just plain wrong(4) ,(5) .

Board of Elections statistics show the vast majority of Poll Site Coordinators attended a General Election training session last year. Ninety four percent of those Coordinators (1,338) who attended, passed training and worked the election. Five percent (68) worked but did not attend class and 1% (9) failed the test but were allowed to work at the polls(6) . Given the high percentage of Coordinators attending training, it is troubling that such a high percentage failed to understand how to properly administer the ID requirement. Faulty implementation of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) could well lead to disparate enforcement of the law's provisions at poll sites across the city and ultimately, voters wrongly being forced to vote by paper/affidavit ballot.

While Poll Site Coordinator understanding of the identification requirement needs improvement, there is also good news concerning its' implementation. Only 2% of the 30,987 voters who were legally required to show ID at the polls were forced to vote by Affidavit Ballot because they failed to provide ID accepted by poll workers(7).

C: Identification Requirements: Poll Inspectors

Six percent of the voters surveyed were unjustly asked to produce ID at the polls on Election Day by Poll Inspectors. This percentage is separate from the 1.4% (30,987) of voters who were legally asked to produce ID under law(8) .

Poll Inspectors are the Board of Elections workers all voters interact with at their assigned Election District table. Inspectors' responsibilities include "signing in" each voter, administering the ID requirement, running the machine and determining which voters are directed to vote on paper/Affidavit Ballots. For this question, our surveyors asked 1,740 voters across the city about their interaction with Poll Inspectors and voting experiences.

Our survey of voters did not attempt to gauge the motivations of why poll workers asked for ID. However, we did give the opportunity for voters to provide additional information about their experiences. Sample comments noted by surveyors, from voters across the five boroughs who should have been exempt from ID requirements(9) included:

• Bronx : At PS 70 on Marion Avenue a voter reported, "I was asked for picture(10) ID."
• Brooklyn : At PS 58 on Smith Street, "voter produced ID voluntarily, because there was a sign instructing voters to have ID ready."
• Manhattan : At PS 167 on East 75 th Street poll worker announced, "get out your ID." Voter simply used drivers license.
• Queens : At the Queens Botanical Gardens site, poll worker, "asked for voter registration card."
• Staten Island : At PS 13 on Hylan Boulevard, "voter took ID out of wallet without prompting because other people ahead in the line were showing ID. The worker did ask her to see the ID."

In addition to the survey, the NYPIRG/Common Cause New York Election Day Helpline received numerous calls about poll workers inappropriately asking voters for ID. Here's some of the comments taken by intake staff:

• Bronx : At PS 277 on St. Anns Street a caller reported that poll workers were asking everyone for photo ID reporting that it was the first thing asked when voters got to the table. There were "…no long lines. No one would answer why…asking everyone." The Coordinator said 'this is a very important election, we heard it on the radio, everybody's doing it, we got to do it. There's lots of immigrants here and some of them shouldn't be voting.'"
• Manhattan : At Julia Richmond High School a caller reported: "Inspector made everyone show ID. When he was showed paperwork that stated this was not procedure he said 'I don't care.'"

Identification checks at the polls can lead to numerous problems that are magnified when checks are improperly implemented. Among these are: 1) voters who "fail" poll workers' requests for ID are not allowed to cast their ballots on machines and instead are directed to fill out Affidavit Ballots, a timely process that takes up poll worker time and lengthens lines at the polls; 2) Affidavit Ballots are difficult for many voters to correctly complete, leading to many disqualified votes from qualified voters; 3) having certain voters produce ID at the polls, but not others, can lead to confusion at sites and raise public skepticism about the impartial administration of elections; and 4) purposeful and selective use of the ID requirement by poll workers can intentionally disrupt or suppress voter turnout.

As a result of the HAVA certain first time voters who registered by mail were required to show identification for the 2004 elections(11) . According to the Board of Elections, 30,987 New Yorkers who showed up at the polls were subject to the requirement in 2004(12) .. Unfortunately, our survey found that an additional six percent of voters surveyed were improperly asked to produce ID. (That would mean more than 140,000 additional city voters if extrapolated city-wide.) Our survey asked voters: “ Were you asked to show ID at the polls today?” If voters answered yes, surveyors asked a series of additional questions regarding the voter’s registration history to determine whether the request was justified (see Appendix I, Incident Report Sheet: ID Problems).

As previously noted, this survey also found that many Poll Site Coordinators did not have a full understanding of the law’s ID requirements. The failure to adequately train poll workers could directly account for the improper request to produce IDs. The training rates for Poll Inspectors are disturbingly low. In 2004 one out of every four Poll Inspectors (5,366 or 24.6%) either failed to attend mandated training before the General Election or attended training, failed their exam and were still allowed to work.(13)

• Twenty one percent (4,667) of Poll Inspectors did not attend mandated training classes before the General Election.
• Three percent (699) of Poll Inspectors attended training, failed their poll worker test but still worked during the General Election.
• Only seventy five percent (16,463) of Poll Inspectors both attended training and passed their poll worker test for the General Election.

The Board of Elections must do a better job training and recruiting qualified poll workers. These "front line" employees play a crucial role in ensuring the smooth and fair administration of our elections.

It should be noted that some poll workers may request ID with the desire to ease the "signing in" process of voters when they approach the table. For example, instead of verbally asking voters their name, some poll inspectors find it easier to read the information off of an ID to assist them in finding their entry in the poll book. This practice is contrary to their training and a probable violation of state law. In our recommendations section we outline numerous suggestions that the city and Board of Elections can take to ease crowding at the polls and ensure that sufficient numbers of qualified poll workers work on Election Day. This will help ensure the smooth and proper running of the site without impinging on voters' rights.

Our survey was not able to determine how many voters were incorrectly directed to fill out affidavit ballots on the premise that they failed an ID check. Fortunately, the Affidavit Ballot envelope indicates the reason for its use, including a box identifying HAVA ID requirements as the trigger. It is essential that the Board of Elections commit to conducting a detailed analysis of whether any voters were incorrectly directed to complete an Affidavit Ballot for each election. Such an analysis can be used to identify poll sites and poll workers improperly implementing ID requirements.

D: Voters Name Not in Poll Books

Five percent of voters surveyed relayed to surveyors that, while properly registered, they did not find their name in the poll books on November 2 nd. Three percent of voters that visited the polls on Election Day, who had previously voted from their current address did not appear in the poll book on November 2 nd.An additional 2% of new voters who affirmed having registered before the deadline did not find their names at the polls.

While there are a variety of reasons a voter's name may be missing from the poll book, the size of this percentage indicates a significant problem faced by voters on Election Day. Some problems may be due to voter error and some to mistakes in the Board's data entry system and production of poll books. Others may be due to mistakes made by poll workers at sites who directed voters to wrong locations. Whatever the reason, the fact that such a large percentage of voters faced this problem is troubling.

Every year, we hear complaints from voters who are sent to the wrong poll site by poll workers themselves. Here's one example called in to NYPIRG from voter Jeremy R:

"On Election Day, I showed up at the site I'd voted from in the past at Baruch College on East 23 rd Street. The site wasn't there anymore so I found one on East 22 nd Street that I'd voted at in the past and waited on a line that wound out onto the street - about an hours wait. I asked a poll worker if I was at the correct location. After 20 minutes or so and asking more and more poll workers they looked up my name in a book and told me to go to a different site on 23 rd. There were no signs outside of the site, but found it in the American Sign Language Institute. After waiting again at that site I gave my address and was told it wasn't the correct one, but they didn't know where I should go. They sent me to someone they said was in charge of the site. He said I was at the wrong site and after looking in the poll book he was also unable to tell me where to go. I ended up filling out an Affidavit Ballot. The Board of Elections later sent me a letter telling me that my vote wasn't counted, not even for President. The irony is that later on, when NYPIRG looked up my site using the poll site books, my correct site was on West 20 th, something no one ever told me that day."

Every voter who shows up at the wrong site or wrong table within the correct site on Election Day can cause considerable delay and increases the likelihood that their vote may not be counted. Associated problems include:

• Voters at the correct ED are not allowed to cast their ballots on machines and instead are directed to fill out affidavit ballots, a timely process that takes up poll worker time and lengthens lines at the polls.
• Affidavit ballots are difficult for many voters to correctly complete, leading to many disqualified votes from qualified voters.
• Many voters complain that they are directed by poll workers to incorrect ED tables within the correct site, leading to longer lines, increased frustration and the possibility that the voter is directed to fill out an Affidavit Ballot.
• Many voters are directed by poll workers to incorrect poll sites to cast their votes. These voters’ Affidavit Ballots are disqualified.
• Many poll workers fail to check whether a voter whose name does not appear in the poll book is at the correct site or table. This failure can likely lead to voters at the wrong site having their Affidavit Ballot disqualified due to poll worker failure. It can also lead to unnecessarily increasing lines and wait time while an Affidavit Ballot is filled out at the wrong ED within the correct site.

Improved poll worker training on these issues could help alleviate wait times and aggravation for would-be voters.

Every year large numbers of voters complain that their name did not appear in the poll book at their ED (their assigned machine/table at their poll site). For voters who have been voting at the same location for years, the absence of their names is often particularly upsetting or confusing. There are however a number of valid reasons why a voter would not find their names at their accustomed location. These include:

• The voter has approached the wrong table at their site.
• The poll site for the voter’s Election District has changed.
• The voter was never registered because their registration form was incomplete, mailed after the deadline or improperly entered into the Board's database under another name or address.
• Voters not enrolled in a party attempt to vote in a Primary Election (not applicable for General Elections).

E: Broken Machines

One out of twenty five voters surveyed (4%) experienced problems with broken machines. Problems ranged from completely non-functional machines to ones that were still being used but had certain levers inside that were broken.

One of the more frustrating experiences for voters is to show up at their poll site only to find that their voting machine is broken. While the Board has made strides in recent years to better maintain their fleet of aging lever machines, too many voters face inoperative or partially functioning machines on Election Day. Our surveyors noted a wide variety of problems identified by voters including:

• Bronx : "Machine was broken so instructed to use paper ballot."
• Bronx : "Light kept going on and off, hard to see."
• Brooklyn : "Machine was too old. Button wouldn't let the push-door open to (cast) write-in vote. Voter was offered paper ballot."
• Manhattan : "ED 19 machine broken, the other ED 19 had sticky buttons."
• Manhattan : "One machine broke down two times and three voters left without voting because they felt that the paper ballots were not secure and might not be counted."
• Queens : "Couldn't pull down one lever…but was able to vote for remaining candidates."

• Many voters leave the site with the intention or returning later in the day in the hope their machine will be fixed.
• Many voters choose to wait at the poll site until their machine is fixed.
• Approximately 1,500(17) of the city's Election Districtswith large numbers of voters were required to have two machines(18) for the 2004 Presidential Election. If one machine was broken, voters were able to switch to the other, at the risk of dramatically increased wait times.
• Voters cast ballots on partially functioning machines that are awaiting mechanics or have not been taken out of service.
• Voters should not be faced with the dilemma of whether to wait for the machine to be fixed, come back later in the day, vote on a partially functioning machine or to vote on a paper "Emergency Ballot." Part of the problem lies in maintaining and setting up 40-year-old machines with thousands of moving parts. While the promise of the introduction of a new voting system is expected for the 2006 elections, structural changes will be needed to ensure the machines are well maintained and operated correctly on Election Day.

F: Poll Worker Instructions: Problems Inside the Booth

Contrary to Board policy, Poll Inspectors are failing to ask voters entering the booth if they know how to use the voting machine(19) . Our monitors asked voters: "Before you voted, did a poll worker ask if you know how to use the voting machine?" A disturbing 48.6% of voters responded that poll workers had not done so.

Voters unfamiliar with the workings of the machine can lead to numerous problems including lost votes and longer lines. New voters and those with limited reading skills are at greatest risk of jeopardizing their votes. This is another instance where Poll Inspectors are disregarding their training and Board procedure or have not been trained. As a result, votes are invariably lost and lines lengthen.

G: Affidavit Ballots: Good News Outside the Booth

Poll workers do a good job distributing paper (Affidavit) ballots to voters. Almost all voters were offered this option in our survey if problems arose with their registrations. Affidavit Ballots are supposed to be distributed to voters for a variety of reasons including when a voter at the correct table does not find their name in the poll book or a voter required to show identification is unable to provide documents accepted by poll workers.

While it's good news that voters are being offered Affidavits, often times other action is needed, such as directing voters to their proper site or table.

next>>