Impregnable Precincts
Illustration by Thuan Pham
By 1900, most states in the U.S. required the Australian ballot process of voting, one where uniformly-printed ballots, funded with taxpayer dollars, are notably cast in private. Institutionalization of this process addressed several ills: candidate-printed ballots, some leaving out opponents (Lincoln was omitted on ten southern state ballots during the 1860 election, for example), and all manner of intimidation – imagine a voice vote, or specific candidate-colored ballots, where those electorally offended around you could settle the score after all votes were cast.
Today, in spite of still following the basic initial tenets of the Australian system, we lament the lack of faith by much of the American public in our voting process. Historically, the reasons abound as reported in these articles pertaining to presidential elections:
2000 Florida ballots recounted
1876 Reconstruction compromised
1800 A need for the 12th Amendment
Reports of malfeasance during the 2020 presidential vote tallies were rampant, but, according to many election officials, unfounded. Still, questions persist. Were machines rigged to provide a desired outcome? Did vanloads of mysterious mail-in ballots get counted to sway final vote counts? Do canvassing boards consistently and fairly evaluate the validity of questionable provisional/mail-in voter ballots? Is it acceptable for mail-in ballots to be mailed to all voters, registered or not?
Granted, Kansas counties are not lightning rods for controversy over voter fraud, but an analysis of three county’s election processes could provide meaningful criteria for the public to consider when determining voting security. Each county’s election officials were asked about the integrity and efficacy of voting machines and why they believe their county’s mail-in ballots are processed accurately and securely.
Jenna Fager and Donna Patton, Reno County Clerk’s Office
We believe Reno County’s voting machines are secure and accurate in counting votes for several reasons.
Contrary to what some believe, our voting machines are never connected to the internet. This has always been our policy and it is illegal to connect any machines to the internet.
We test every voting machine prior to election day to ensure votes are counted correctly. This process is open to the public.
We test every voting machine post-election day as well.
There is a random audit done after each election where a bi-partisan board hand-counts the race for the precincts selected. Reno County’s count is always accurate.
We have several processes in place to assure that our mail-in ballot system is secure and accurate.
Each registered voter must complete a mail ballot application for each election to receive a mail ballot. When that application comes in they must include their Kansas ID # or a photocopy of their government issued ID. We check this number through KDOR. We also check the persons signature against the signatures we have on file from their voter registration.
When we send mail ballots out, we give each envelope a unique tracking number and barcode. The voter must return the ballot in this envelope and sign it.
When we receive ballots back we log them in as returned so there is no way a person can vote more than once. We check the number and put them in numeric order. We also check the signature to make certain it matches with our records. If we ever question a signature we make contact with the voter.
We check the postage date of the incoming ballots to make sure the vote should legally be counted.
As for the number of ballots that need additional scrutiny, Fager said:
“The number of provisional ballots vary widely and typically increase with voter turnout. In 2020 there were 861 provisional ballots considered and only 3 mail ballots that required adjudication. In 2018 there were 440 provisionals, and no mail ballots, that required adjudication.”
Angela Caudillo, Sedgwick County Election Commissioner
Caudillo recommends watching these videos, created by the Kansas Secretary of State’s office, to better understand state policies regarding how to secure the voting process in all 105 Kansas counties: Sedgwick County Election Security videos
Per the type of voting machines and software the county uses, and the way Sedgwick County handles questionable ballots, Caudillo said:
“We have Election Systems & Software equipment. In Sedgwick County, we also require mail-in voters to sign the envelope containing their ballots. If a signature does not match, we reach out to the voter to give them the opportunity to cure the issue. If not cured before Canvass, the Board of County Canvassers will adjudicate those ballots. It is not uncommon to have provisional ballots, including those with challenged signatures, in every election.”
Tatum Stafford, Butler County Clerk
We’ve never had a breach of voter information
We utilize military grade software, secure USBs, and of course, secure passwords
Our voting machines use paper ballot verification
For mail-in ballots, the ballot envelope includes a voter signature line and we compare each one to the signature on file with voter registration; if we see a significant variation, we do try to reach out to people for verification – some people may have had medical conditions, for example strokes, or simply rushed their signature.
Our Kansas-required canvassing board investigates all provisional ballots and those with questionable signatures; sometimes it’s because of name changes.
We trust in our process, it has worked for years
Nationwide, election integrity controversies have dominated headlines, and over time, as technology advances, campaign managers, pollsters, and media pundits increasingly possess the data to pinpoint who is likely to vote, and for which candidates in “must win” states, counties, precincts, and even households. Consequently, previously anonymous local election officials have been thrust into the bright lights of public scrutiny, sometimes scalded by questions of process and commitment to getting it right. Locked voting machine rooms, passwords, machine paper ballot backup systems, signature comparisons . . . will that be enough to ensure the public’s confidence in election results when winners are too often decided by hundreds, or tens of votes? Will that be enough when the outcome doesn’t jibe with trusted polling numbers s projecting wins for powerful political conglomerations?
Look no further than the proposed Kansas abortion amendment vote fast approaching on August 2, which coincides with contentious Kansas primary races. It’s incumbent on all election officials to avoid malicious breachers, and to maintain the trust of Kansas voters.