After the premiere of new voting technology this year, Pima County election officials have reviewed issues faced during the primary election and made plans some changes before the general election in November.
Election officials have said that while the majority of vote centers operated smoothly at the Aug. 2 primary election, the first election using new voting equipment revealed some issues that will be addressed before the Nov. 8 general election, which will likely draw a much larger turnout.
This year’s primary election marked the county’s debut of e-pollbooks and voting centers, where poll workers check in voters with an iPad, or e-pollbook, that scans voters’ IDs and confirms their eligibility to vote. The e-pollbook then sends a ballot specific to each voter to a ballot-on-demand printer.
The new voting model also replaces the precinct-based polling system under which voters were required to vote at the location assigned to them based on their residence. Pima County voters could instead show up at any of 129 vote centers across the county to cast a ballot regardless of the precinct they live in.
Pima County Elections Director Constance Hargrove detailed problems encountered during the primaries and solutions to address them in a 17-page “after-action report” requested by the county’s Board of Supervisors.
Supervisors discussed the report Tuesday with Hargrove and Pima County Recorder Gabriella Cázares-Kelly but mainly asked clarifying questions instead of commenting on the matter.
Most of the board’s questions came from Supervisor Steve Christy, the board’s sole Republican who has expressed concern with the obstacles elections officials faced in August.
“These are the types of issues, and I’ll be very blunt, that drive my side of the aisle crazy and get them all riled up and understandably so,” Christy said. He added later, “If these issues aren’t either resolved one way or another to everybody’s satisfaction, we’re going to have the same cycle of conspiracy theories, lack of confidence, distrust, and it’s imperative that these issues be taken seriously and addressed.”
In an interview after the board’s meeting, Supervisor Rex Scott, who has continuously expressed his confidence in the county’s elections system, said: “I think (Hargrove) was very candid and transparent about what they needed to do better. She had an action plan for all those areas and all the subsets under those areas. So I think we are in very good hands.”
Expectations vs. reality
The introduction of e-pollbooks came with expectations of quicker election results, shorter wait times and increased voter security.
Although those goals were not completely realized in the initial run of the new technology on Aug. 2, elections officials say the general election will see better results now that key issues have been recognized.
Anticipated quicker election results were partially based on an estimated 83% reduction in provisional ballots as voters could cast a ballot at any vote center instead of only in their precinct.
But according to the after-action report, provisional ballots increased to 4,368 this year compared to 4,206 in the 2018 primary election. About 90% of those provisional votes were from those on the early voting list due to a state law that requires voters who received an early ballot to vote provisionally, the report says. The number of provisional ballots should decrease in the general election as new legislation goes into effect that permits those on the early voting list to use a regular ballot on Election Day.
None of the e-pollbooks, printers nor routers experienced breaches on Election Day, according to the report. The report acknowledges, however, that some concern arose after the election over a “lack of understanding of how transactions are processed.”
While the county’s initial understanding was that the e-pollbooks transferred data in real-time through a cloud server, staff later learned the tablets also communicate “sideways” to each other to update the database of all voting-related transactions. This process occurs in real time if all devices are connected, but elections staff were unaware of the need to update the tablets the Monday before election day to ensure all data is updated on the e-pollbooks, which “created a scenario that could allow someone to check in more than once.”
The sideways communication transfers information called delta files, which host information such as voter registration updates, poll worker information and early ballot returns. That information must be preloaded into the system ahead of Election Day.
Only one voter was checked in more than once, the report says, but did not vote twice after a poll worker spoiled the original ballot after realizing the error.
Elections staff will be trained to monitor the e-pollbooks to ensure information is transferred throughout the day, and “Ensuring that delta files are current will prevent voters from checking in more than once,” the report says. E-pollbooks may “require a manual push because of inactivity … to wake up the touchpad” to ensure all information is up-to-date.
Focus on training, supplies
Training poll workers, the report acknowledges, was a key issue going into the primaries and “did not adequately prepare some poll workers to conduct the election successfully.”
The report says the large class sizes for poll workers to learn the new voting system didn’t create the best learning environment.
Some poll workers didn’t understand how to close the polls and packed away e-pollbooks before recording the information in the Official Ballot Report, while others didn’t permit observers in the centers, a process that’s allowed by state law.
The elections department plans to provide new training for both returning and new poll workers before Nov. 8 while reducing class sizes to allow for hands-on experience with the e-pollbooks.
While most vote centers operated smoothly on election day, the Kirk-Bear Canyon Library on the east side of the county had to close for two hours after running out of ballot stock.
Poll workers encouraged voters to go to another voting center, an option that didn’t exist in precinct-based voting. A line formed around the library, however, as many decided to stay and wait to cast their votes.
Other vote centers ran out of envelopes that provisional ballots must be placed in, but late delivery of the envelopes to the elections department delayed the envelopes’ arrival to vote centers to the morning of the election. According to the report, this caused delays at three vote centers.
Heading into the general election, the elections department plans to increase ballot stock by up to 30% and has ballot envelopes ready to be sent to vote centers, the report says.
Technical difficulties also affected the primary election, with some vote centers experiencing tables dipping inwards and causing printer malfunctions, calibration issues and operational errors.
The printers worked after being transferred to a flat surface, and simply turning the e-pollbooks on and off again often allowed them to reconnect to printers, the report states.
Some vote centers had further issues with provisional ballots due to poll workers using incorrect passwords, which was corrected with help from the IT department.
During the general election, the elections department plans to increase staff at their call center to handle technical support questions from poll workers while assigning a supervisor to manage equipment replacement and another employee to monitor connectivity throughout the day.
Although the report focused on issues with the primary election, Hargrove acknowledged, “Overall, the response from poll workers and the public regarding vote centers and e-pollbooks was very positive. Poll workers commented that they loved the new system, stating that it was an improvement from 2020 and that the e-pollbooks allowed for a faster and smoother process.”
