Election Information For 2012 From The North Carolina Board Of Elections

2012 Election Dates

Declare nominees

When Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Description Declare nominees, if no primary election is necessary, as soon as practical after filing period closes [NCGS 163-110]

 

Primary Absentee ballots

When Monday, Mar 19, 2012

Description Absentee ballots ready for Primary [NCGS 163-227.3]

More 

Candidates that have filed statewide

N.Carolina’s Statewide Instant Runoff Voting Contest – the facts, the regrets

48 days after the election, instant runoff voting produced a "winner" for the NC Court of Appeals, for the  "Wynn"seat. Thanks to IRV, an experimental tallying method was used, the election was almost a tie, a recount was called for, and we had a plurality result, not a majority win.

After counting the IRV votes,  the highest vote getter lost his 100,000 vote lead, and the contest became so close that a recount was requested. The declared winner won with 28% of votes from all ballots cast on election day. We do not know how many 2nd and 3rd choice votes each candidate got, as this data was not released to the public. (Read more)

Note: Joyce what in the hell? So now they have the audacity to not publicize all the results from an election? So how can we trust these jokers? This is just sad. C. Dancy II – DCN Publisher

The Real Story of Ashley Woolard’s Residency: According to State BOE, Woolard Can’t Vote For Himself. (Tea Partiers At Their Best)

I’ve had several emails asking this and here it is straight from The NC Board of Elections.

I pulled Ashley Woolard’s Sample Voter Ballot and according to the State BOE Woolard will not be able to vote for himself. (Read more)

See related:

Ashley Woolard

Board of Elections decides how to count instant runoff votes–Source: News 14

RALEIGH – The North Carolina Board of Elections has decided how to handle counting the returns for an instant runoff election.

Thirteen people are running for the Court of Appeals. Voters must choose three candidates and rank them in order of preference.

If no one gets over 50 percent of the "first choice" candidates, the top two "first choice" vote-getters advance.

Ballots picking those two candidates as their first choice are set aside. Then, elections workers look at the second and third choices of the rest of the voters and apply those votes to the runoff candidates. (Read more)

See related:

IRV – Instant Runoff Voting and the NC Court of Appeals (Judges) Election 2010

IRV – Instant Runoff Voting

NC Republicans Threaten Lawsuit Over ‘Widespread’ Touch-screen Failures, Votes Flipping to Dems–Source: The Brad Blog

It would have been nice if these guys had spoken up years ago, when the bulk of the Republican Party and their sympathizers were labeling Democrats as "conspiracy theorists" and "sore losers" for their documented complaints of touch-screen voting systems flipping votes on screen to Republican candidates. But better late than never, we suppose. (Read more)

Note: Now the tide has turned and it is an issue. Just like everything else Health Care Reform, they call it Obamacare. Oh well how many of them or their family members benefit from Health Care Reform and other things they b…. about just because the President is a black man. C. Dancy II – DCN Publisher

PR:Oct 28 10AM will NCSBE invite lawsuits? IRV tallying methods

^{For immediate release
Joyce McCloy, North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting 336-794-1240}

On October 28, 2010, at 10:00 AM the North Carolina State Board of Elections will meet – again, to
reconsider tallying methods for the statewide IRV contest for NC Court of Appeals.
Some board members want to allow the use of an illegal, uncertified workaround method of vote tabulation
with touchscreen machines that employs an  “electronic sort” using an excel spreadsheet and macros

On September 29, 2010 the State Board of Elections voted to use hand counting in touchscreen counties
if the IRV votes came into play.  Per the minutes:

^{"Following discussion among the Board, the Chairman moved that the Board’s actions related to counting
of the ballots in the IRV round, if needed, be in compliance with the law and use the RTAL for a hand to
eye count to determine the election results."}

^{State law is clear, only federally certified voting systems may be used in North Carolina elections.}

Our State Board of Elections must follow the law, or they will lose any creditability when ruling in future
cases of election law and also invite lawsuits from affected candidates or voters with standing.

Here is my testimony to the North Carolina State Board of Elections

The NC Coalition for Verified Voting
Joyce McCloy, Director
212 Evergreen Drive
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 27106
www.ncvoter.net

North Carolina State Board of Elections
506 North Harrington St,
Raleigh, NC 27603

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Statewide Instant Runoff Voting for NC Court of Appeals

To the Members of the State Board of Elections:
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the board’s meeting today. 

The State Board of Elections members are meeting to hold another vote either for or against the use an excel software macros to tally the statewide IRV contest for NC Court of Appeals.

Much rides on the results of this election.  There can only be one vote, and that is “to follow the law”,  just as Chairman Larry Leake said in the last SBoE meeting on Sept 29, 2010.

There is no certified software to tally IRV. The voting vendor says:  "IRV is not an approved function at the federal or state level of current ES&S software, firmware or hardware. Subsequently, we will work at the direction of the SBE and counties to assist but cannot be held responsible for issues as a result of IRV..".~  Letter from PrintElect to the North Carolina State Board of Elections, dated August 31, 2010.

North Carolina law requires voting systems to use either 1) federally certified voting systems, or
2) hand counted paper ballots.  For touchscreen voting systems, the only legal tallying method for the IRV contest is a hand to eye count of the voter verified paper trail, also called VVPAT or RTAL
Testing done by consultants or University professors is no substitute for the federal certification.

Consequences if the State Board of Elections votes to use the illegal excel software workaround:

•    Use of illegal tallying methods will invite lawsuits from any of the 13 candidates in the IRV contest for NC Court of Appeals, as well as from any voter in with standing.

•    The taxpayers will foot the bill if an election fiasco results, as the voting vendor cannot be held responsible for the use of illegal software the State Board of Elections has allowed.

•    The use of excel spreadsheets invites error and will have no transparency for the voters. 

•    Without a hand to eye count, only an audit could provide any measure of transparency, but   no one knows yet how to effectively audit a statewide  IRV contest.

•    The State Board of Elections would lose its creditability.

How can the state prove, to those who have standing, to all voters – that the automation is working properly and not committing fraud?

The Greensboro News and Record said 

“An election train wreck may be unavoidable this November, but it shouldn’t be allowed to happen again.” 

The State Board of Elections proposes to use an uncertified method of vote tabulation with DRE machines that allows for an “electronic sort” using uncertified software that requires five pages of over 100 single spaced instructions. There are over 100 steps in the process and one single keystroke error would change the outcome of the election, and audit data is deleted as steps are performed.  Experts warn that this spreadsheet tallying method is error prone, lacks an audit trail, and is not good enough for elections. (See next page for expert opinion)

A widely-cited paper finds that around 90% of spreadsheets used in business organizations contained some error or another , and also reported that many developers and organizations are overconfident about the accuracy of their spreadsheet calculations. [1]

Excel is a complex application and it can do peculiar unexpected things in certain conditions. Some examples: auto-incrementing numbers in a certain column when copying-and-pasting, interpreting data as a date when that was not intended, numbers with spaces in them being interpreted as strings and silently omitted from the calculation, cutting-and-pasting only copying to the displayed precision not to the precision of the underlying number, etc.

Any of these could at least theoretically cause issues despite the testing that NC State has performed, if the data inputs are "imperfect", since likely NC State tested with "perfect" inputs.  As long as the state uses an Excel spreadsheet that isn’t publicly available, there will be questions.

From an election transparency standpoint, the most important issue here is: can observers verify that the calculations were done properly? If the spreadsheet and its inputs are not released to the public, observers cannot, which erodes transparency.

If the State Board of Elections votes to break the law and allow the use of this uncertified software, then the SBOE should require that the spreadsheet macros and all of the data should be released to any individual who requests it, to enable observers to perform the calculations for themselves if they care.  This approval should be time-limited.

[1] "What We Know About Spreadsheet Errors". Published in the Journal of End User Computing’s
Special issue on Scaling Up End User Development Volume 10, No 2. Spring 1998, pp. 15-21
Revised May 2008. Raymond R. Panko, University of Hawai’i, College of Business Administration
http://panko.shidler.hawaii.edu/ssr/Mypapers/whatknow.htm

Other Expert Opinions on using excel to tally elections

Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 11:05:03 -0800
From: Philip B. Stark <stark@stat.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: stark@stat.berkeley.edu

To: Joyce McCloy <jmc27106@earthlink.net>, Rep. Verla Insko <Verlai@ncleg.net>
References: <49552090.1030004@earthlink.net>

Dear Rep. Insko and Joyce–

My previous email concerned Microsoft Excel in particular, and Mr. Capriglione’s assertion that it is bug-free.

Mr. Capriglione’s suggestion to use Lotus 123 would avoid Microsoft Excel’s particular bugs, but those are only part of the problem.
Certainly, using *both* Excel and Lotus 123 and comparing the results would add some comfort–as would using OpenOffice Calc as a third check. (OpenOffice has the advantage that it is free, open source software.) I do not agree with Mr. Capriglione’s characterization of the use of the software as simply verifying that 1+1=2. if the result of the calculation were known, there would be no need to do the calculation.

As Joyce knows, I have serious reservations regarding using _any_spreadsheet software for complex calculations like tabulating IRV voting. Here are some of them:

1) The procedure proposed is very complicated, with many manual steps.
Human error in such a complex task is almost inevitable. A slight slip can result in mis-copying data, overwriting data, hitting the wrong function, etc.

2) Spreadsheets mix data and programming. It is not possible to tell at a glance whether a cell in a spreadsheet is data or the result of a calculation. As a result, it is quite easy–deliberately or inadvertently–to corrupt a calculation or the data on which it is based. In principle that can be detected, but it requires additional scrutiny–such as clicking each cell and looking at what is displayed. And even that is not foolproof.

3) Because of the likelihood of error, using cut-and-paste, etc., as part of a "production" system is unheard of, in my experience. It is far preferable to use proper scientific software for calculations like this–especially because so much rides on the results. With proper software, the data are separated from the programming commands. Somebody can double check independently that the data were entered correctly (or exported correctly from the election management software), and that the programming is correct. The raw data can be made public so that others can replicate the calculation independently as a cross check. And, once the program is written, tested, and debugged, users of the software need only say "go," not perform step after step of error-prone data entry or manipulation.
.
– Philip B. Stark | Professor of Statistics | University of California Berkeley, CA
94720-3860 | 510-642-1430 | statistics.berkeley.edu/~stark

Tom Dahlberg of Dahlberg Business Logic Inc.
www.business-analysis-using-spreadsheets.com

As a 20 year veteran of software project management in business, here’s the most succinct statement of my scepticism toward the Excel workaround in your state:

The Excel solution presents your state with two equally vicious choices. If the Excel algorithm is not automated the process will be vulnerable to human error at numerous points, and is not even in principle susceptible to review (which might involve more human error). The review is as likely to suffer from error as the original process. If it is automated (in Excel VBA or in any other programming language), it becomes susceptible to review only by experts, who, like the original developers, can manipulate the algorithm and perhaps even erase their tracks. In other words, automation of the algorithm makes it even more vulnerable, in principle, to fraud that not even other experts can corner.

We currently have automated vote counting, but it is very straightforward by comparison and can be checked by a manual recount. It’s just counting. No complex rules are applied.
Election judges on site can see what is happening with physical ballots, even when they are counted automatically by scanners. But election judges cannot see into the calculation rules embedded in software without expertise, and even then, it can become very difficult to understand if the program has in fact consistently imposed the agreed upon rules. The more complicated the algorithm, the more impossible it becomes for people of good will to agree that the outcome is the one truly implied by the rules.

The primary goal of the voting system is to ensure the public’s confidence in the results. The more complicated the voting algorithm, the more impossible it becomes for the voters themselves to understand and review the process — whether it is automated or not. But the automation clearly increases the opportunity of "experts" to commit fraud.

Calculation rules can be placed in “arrays” and changed dynamically. The code that makes these
dynamic changes could also be placed in temporary arrays and then erased at the end of the automated process, destroying any evidence that the rules were being manipulated in the first place. The implication of this is that any voting system that cannot be backed up by a simple, manual recount makes it impossible, in principle, to prevent fraud. If IRV is not susceptible to manual processing (within a reasonable amount of time) it makes the voting algorithm more vulnerable than ever to fraudulent manipulation. If the business rules operating in a software program cannot be applied manually to the process in question, as a quality and accuracy test, to every permutation of the use cases in question, then we can never be sure that the system has produced the right outcome. This is acceptable when we test software systems in business, since nothing as serious as the voter’s franchise is in question. But it is an unacceptable risk when the integrity of our democracy is in question.

How can the state prove, to those who have standing (all voters) consistent with the compelling state interest, that the automation is working properly and not committing fraud? And who has the burden of proof if not the election officials responsible for the integrity of the process?

Tom Dahlberg
Dahlberg Business Logic Inc.
www.business-analysis-using-spreadsheets.com
25270 Smithtown Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Mobile: 952 237 3096

NCSBoE sets up Cnty BoEs to take the fall on IRV

R/ e today’s State Board of Elections Meeting in Asheville, and IRV
decision.

I hear that the NC SBoE is going to let counties decide how to
administer instant runoff voting aka IRV.
Some counties may use touchscreens and uncertified software or
spreadsheets to tally the vote.

That way, if the count blows up, if there is an election fiasco, or an
election trainwreck, then it will be the County Election Director who
will be blamed. This sets the county Board of Elections up for a fall.

Perhaps the NC SBoE doesn’t know how to to administer IRV legally.

"There are no provisions on ES&S equipment to tabulate IRV." ~ Keith
Long , Voting System Project Manager for the North Carolina State Board
of Elections Jan 7, 2008
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/Keith_Long_Machines_Not_IRV_Compatible.pdf

"We can use November 2007 as a pilot and not use IRV in May 2008 because
it poses too much of a risk. May request change in legislation for
retesting IRV with certified upgrades in 2009." ~ NC State Board of
Elections March 6, 2007
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/NCSBOE_3_6_07_IRV_Limitations_No_2008.doc

Regards;

Joyce McCloy

About us: The North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting is a
grassroots non-partisan organization fighting for clean and verified
elections. We study and research the issue of voting to ensure the
dignity and integrity of the intention of each voting citizen. The NC
Voter Verified Coalition has consistently fought for increasing access,
participation and ensuring the voter franchise. Contact Joyce McCloy,
Director, N.C. Coalition for Verifiable Voting – phone 336-794-1240 –
website www.ncvoter.net

See related:

Instant Run Off Voting

NC State Board of Elections helps military vote

Military bases to help troops register and vote, thanks to Sen Coryn & Schumer, DEMOS, OVF and NC State Board of Elections

Finally, the Dept of Defense will act as a Voter Registration Agency. Thanks go to US Senators Schumer and Coryn who pushed hard, also thanks to DEMOS and Overseas Vote Foundation who worked in the background. Thanks also to Gary Bartlett and the North Carolina State Board of Elections for writing a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. 3 other states also sent similar letters to the DOD: Ohio, Kansas, and Missouri.

Schumer, Cornyn secure voter registration at military bases
Dec 18, 2009. The designation means that military bases will offer the same kind of voter registration services provided at motor vehicle departments and state agencies all around the country under the so-called “motor voter” law of 1993.

On Oct 8, 2009 the NC State Board of Elections sent a letter to Robert Gates, Secretary of DOD enlisting their cooperation. See Letter to DOD, help us help troops vote says North Carolina State Board of Elections Gary Bartlett also explained that costs would be minimal and the NCSBE would assist in training and materials.
An excerpt of the letter sent by Gary Bartlett, Director of the NC State Board of Elections:

"I request that the Department of Defense, in its operation of military pay/personnel offices in North Carolina, agree to be designated as a voter registration agency. This designation would allow military citizens helped by your agency to be offered the same voter registration services given by state and county public services agencies to the persons they serve. "

"Designating the Department of Defense as a Voter Registration Agency will alleviate many of the problems military voters have in voting. Troops have to be registered to vote before they can vote. Problems of troops not getting the right ballot or the ballot being sent to the wrong place will be reduced as personnel will have help keeping their voter registration updated and get help in obtaining a ballot and getting that ballot returned. Thanks to the MOVE act, troops will be able to download blank ballots and then return the ballots via free expedited mail service. We applaud the North Carolina State Board of Elections for their part in bringing the franchise to our troops. " ~ Joyce McCloy, Director, NC Coalition for Verified Voting.

"Make Every Vote Count, Count Every Vote."
Contact Joyce McCloy, ncverifiablevoting @ yahoo.com
Coordinator, NC Coalition for Verified Voting
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27106
336-794-1240 website: ncvoter.net

The Former Governor Easley Saga Continues

Ruffin Poole is no longer an lawyer for the McGuireWoods law firm. A spokesman for the firm, Will Allcott, said that as of today Poole is gone. He would not say if he was fired or resigned. (Read more @ News & Observer)