Anyone who read the July Edition of the Washington County Newsletter, “Our Great Community,” should be familiar with the incumbent county clerk’s election integrity package. (It was highlighted on the front page.)
Although there is merit to some of the measures like discontinuing central count and providing financial incentive for hand count audits at municipalities, there are two proverbial elephants in the room that should be acknowledged:
Over a year ago, I presented the incumbent with a report entitled, “The Way I See It…Observations of WI Election Vulnerabilities by a Common Citizen” with the objective of having Washington County election vulnerabilities addressed prior to 2024 Spring elections.
The election integrity package applies to the November 2024 General Election- not the August 13 Primary, in which the incumbent is a candidate seeking a total of 12 years in office.
These details are the reason I’m running for Washington County Clerk. I am committed to fulfilling all clerical responsibilities associated with the position. However, the election integrity initiative outlined below will be my greatest priority.
Sue True’s Election Integrity Initiative
Overview:
Genuine measures to address election integrity will likely take more than a few months to implement, which is why I will start immediately at the beginning of my four year term as County Clerk.
The approach is simple: Review election policies/ statutory requirements with teams consisting of municipal clerks, community residents & county officials to identify meaningful changes that can be implemented within the guidelines to create transparency throughout the process…I call it the “Learn Something, Do Something Approach”. (Perhaps Maya Angelou said it best, “When you know better, you do better.”)
Initial areas of interest include (but are not limited to) the following:
Ballot Placement Drawing (yes, even “random hat draws” need review)
Use of Electronic Voting Equipment (likely the longest lead time item due to relationship building, community involvement and learning curve requirements)
Drop Boxes (I cannot think of a better example of “elections having consequences” and the importance of safeguarding the process)
Voter Rolls (Last, but certainly not least…”Dirty” voter rolls represent “the heart of the beast” when it comes to election vulnerabilities)
Ballot Placement:
The current process is surprisingly primitive. As a first time candidate, I chose to observe the ballot placement drawing for my race. I noted that strips of paper with candidate names had already been folded into thirds? Or fourths? and I watched as a relatively wide/ shallow wicker basket was shaken with two folded papers inside. My main takeaway was that the process needs to be standardized to reduce subjective variability. For instance, can paper strips be creased tighter/ looser to affect the draw? Can paper of different weight be used? Can folded strips be loaded to favored sides prior to shaking? How much “shaking” does a shallow basket allow before the folded papers fly out?
Why this matters:
Some studies (such as those referenced in MIT Election Data Science Lab, “Academic Research on Ballot Order Effects”) suggest that top position candidate placement receives an electoral advantage.
I’m not inclined to revisit past elections; however, former candidates that were not declared the winner(s) may find it worthwhile to review historical ballot placement data (perhaps all elections over the past 8 years) and assess how often established incumbents won the ballot draw for top placement. Then compare that to how often the established incumbent was declared the winner.
I believe refining the current “drawing” practice will be a relatively simple task. Standardize the components (i.e., replace paper/folding with marbles or marked ping pong balls? Replace the shallow wicker basket with a deeper “sack” that is capable of being cinched (maybe standard pillowcase dimensions?) hold it closed at the top while shaking vigorously for a set amount of time before drawing…These are just brainstorming notes. The objective is to make the process as repeatable and transparent as possible, regardless of the personnel involved.
Use of Electronic Voting Machines
According to Wis.Stat. 5.40: Municipalities with a population of 7500 or more are required to use voting machines or electronic voting systems in every ward in the municipality at every election.
After a quick search of Census population data, it appears that only a handful of the twenty (20) municipalities in Washington County require the use of electronic voting machines. I would start there.
The residents of these less populated communities should be made aware of the pros/cons of using high tech equipment in elections. As County Clerk, I would aim to provide budgetary incentive for the potential “buy back” of equipment where applicable, and provide necessary research/ training for the hand-counting of paper ballots. I believe awareness is key.
Larger population municipalities that are required to use high tech voting equipment could benefit from the “best practices” of hand counting experience from the smaller communities. As County Clerk, I will communicate the importance of a “Trust-but-verify” approach to the required use of high tech voting equipment, with the ultimate goal of having the “top of ticket” race (at a minimum) hand-counted on site immediately after polls close in order to verify that machine tape results match original ballot results.
While door knocking, I’ve had the opportunity to speak with current and former municipal clerks as well as numerous election workers. I believe there may be a stigma surrounding some municipal clerks and poll workers that election integrity concerns are aimed at personnel vs the overall election process. I believe it will require sincere efforts to improve the morale of individuals directly involved with election integrity initiatives. The message needs to be clear and repeated often: The goal of election integrity initiatives is to improve the process through review of current practices to improve transparency, regardless of personnel. Furthermore, election integrity is neither partisan, nor dependent upon candidates.
As County Clerk, I would consider budgeting potential consultation from previous election workers and/or municipal clerks (who may have resigned/retired) in order to discuss best practices, areas of improvement associated with their experiences. The more we learn, the more we can do.
Drop Boxes:
If drop boxes are required to be used throughout Washington County, there must be continuous surveillance monitoring each location. By definition, drop boxes and transparency are polar opposites. As County Clerk, I would notify the public of where drop boxes can be found and encourage residents to keep watchful eyes on each location. I would propose the expedited purchase/ installation of recording cameras, with continuous live streaming accessible to the public. Perhaps various volunteers could be scheduled to watch the live stream feed for different assigned hours. I would also communicate the importance of patrolling locations to local law enforcement as part of ensuring safe/secure elections.
Voter Rolls:
Voter rolls are most near and dear to me, not just because I canvassed them throughout Washington County with teams of amazing patriots. It is because they literally fuel election vulnerabilities.
The comprehensive voter registration database and election management system known as WisVote contains approximately 7.7 million names*. Although this database is not technically the same as voter rolls (which are only “active” voters), it is a permanent record of Wisconsin’s election history that continues to grow. Ineligible voters are not permanently deleted from the database; they are simply deemed “inactive”. Furthermore, inactive records may simply be reactivated by clerks. In my opinion, the “never deleted” aspect combined with the potential to “reactivate” (i.e., add to the voter rolls) represents much of the problem.
*According to Election Integrity for Wisconsin Ad-Hoc Committee-FFPCA:
The WisVote database has nearly 7.7 million names on file. (Wisconsin has 5.6 million residents.)
Wisconsin has 4.6 million eligible electors.
According to the data, approximately 3 million names could potentially be reactivated (i.e, added to the voter rolls). Fortunately, there are dedicated groups that have developed systems to compare voter registration lists (i.e., “actives” per WisVote) to other state and/or federal databases (such as the US Postal Service). As County Clerk, I would welcome input from these groups to identify the most advanced cross checking opportunities as they become available, and invite the community to absorb the information. And finally, I would budget for any subscriptions necessary to access the cross referencing databases on a routine basis.
