County Clerk

According to the State Board of Elections, and their attorney, the Illinois Attorney General, the answer is NO.

Champaign County Clerk Mark Shelden has been blogging like crazy over at his official blog, on issues affecting the clerk's office and our local election like universal registration.  If you're an election processes junkie like me, just go here and start reading.

Today, he discusses:

Just how long is too long to vote?  How many people don’t vote because of long lines?  How big is the problem of long lines?  Why do these lines occur?  What can be done about it?

Go read the whole thing.

It's unimaginable to those who don't pay attention to politics, but the first day to circulate petitions is Tuesday, August 4:

Next Tuesday is actually the first day to circulate petitions to be on the ballot for the February 2, 2010 Primary Election in anticipation of the November 2, 2010 General Election.  I think this 15 month election cycle is the longest in the country.

We’ve made substantial improvements in the filing process over time to make it easier for candidates and volunteers to correctly file their nomination papers.  In Champaign County we actually create our own forms that I believe are clearer than the state forms.  We also have an extensive filing requirements document that explains some of the more confusing parts of the process and gives some helpful tips.

Forms for Champaign County candidates will be available on County Clerk Mark Shelden's website on Tuesday.

I wrote last month about the new absentee voter bill.  Two professors from the Institute for Government and Public Affairs also wrote about this in the News-Gazette also.  Their article is now available on line as well.

Additionally, while the bill will increase costs for local governments, it appears likely that our offices will receive reduced amounts for election judge reimbursements in the upcoming budget.

Occasionally a bill slides through the legislature with barely a murmur, even though its ramifications are significant.  Such is Senate Bill 2022, sponsored by our own Senator, Mike Frerichs.

SB 2022 essentially ends absentee voting as we know it and turns the early voting period from a 23 day period to a 40 day period and allows people to vote early by mail.  Every person will be able to vote before the election without excuse, either in person or by mail.  In person no excuse voting (early voting) will continue until the night before the election.

It’s hard to minimize the drastic change this can bring to the election process.  First, we’re going to see already overtaxed election staffs around the state struggling even more to prepare for elections.  The number of people voting early will increase dramatically and if these voters decide to do it through the mail it will add costs to the budgets of every election department.  The night before the election

Second, the early voting period will now overlap the last day to register to vote creating administrative problems and raising the problem of how to deal with those who move after they’ve voted.

Third, and most importantly, this is opening up the door to fraud in this state like we’ve never seen.  Historically, absentee voting is the most common area for fraud and the easiest to execute.  Here's an excellent summation of an article from  University of Illinois law professor Jessica Fay on the topic.  As a corollary, absentee voting by mail opens up a greater possibility of one spouse voting for another or parents voting for children. I’ve wryly noted that the all-mail ballot doubles the votes of every guy who beats his wife.

I’m not sure if this bill can be stopped, or at least modified to make it more palatable.  Republicans supported it unanimously in the Senate, but the bill received a partisan roll call in the House Elections Committee.  Hopefully, the House sponsor, Jakobsson, will be asked tough questions about why this bill is necessary and what safeguards are in place to avoid the problems that are sure to occur.  If members from both sides of the aisle understood this bill, I think it would have a tough time passing.

HB 4077, which extends the acceptable IDs for some first time voters to leases and mail has passed the Senate and is on the way to the Governor.  It was discussed earlier here and I blogged about on the my Clerk blog in 2005. 

This is a fair and equitable way of addressing this issue and should solve most election day issues for first time voters.  The bill was sponsored by Jakobsson and Frerichs.

The discovery recount for the Unit 4 School Boad race has showed no change from the computer count.  Stuckey will now decide whether to pursue a full recount.

More details later.

UPDATE from the County Clerk's blog:

With the caveats below applying today, the redundant recount of 4395 ballots in the Unit 4 school district race showed no change in results.

It's my understanding that Tomlinson, Lockman and Lanesskog were sworn in as new Board members prior to last night's meeting.

From County Clerk Mark Shelden:

As the Election Authority, I supervise the discovery recount. In that capacity, I faciliate the review of ballots and other election materials for the person requesting the discovery recount. We also conduct a redundant hand count of ballots. Nevertheless, my observations are just that; observations. What I say here in no way is binding upon a candidate or a court and is not dispositive.

With those caveats, I can tell you that my observation is that the hand count of ballots in Bondville was the same as the computer count reflected in the final canvass. WDWS was here and interviewed Karl Kennicker. You can listen to them to find out what he is going to do from here.

The Unit 4 Board discovery recount is tomorrow.

There were some questions regarding discovery recounts.  I answered a few questions on my County Clerk Blog.

The owner of Market Place Mall, General Growth Properties, has filed for bankruptcy.  It seems like bankruptcy doesn't have a major impact on the business operations in the short term.   But it does have a major impact on taxing districts.  I'm at home now, but my rough estimate is that Market Place pumped about a million dollars into Unit 4 alone last year.  Add another million for other districts.  GGP will still get the bill for that, but it will be tied up in bankruptcy court.  A bankruptcy prevents the property in question from being sold at the tax sale so it just creates a big hole in the collections.  The last big bankruptcy that I recall affecting us like this was KMart, but I'm sure that figure was nowhere close to what this one will be. 

Update:  General Growth can still opt to pay these taxes.  They will get charged interest if they don't, so they have some financial incentive to do that.  But obviously, they're broke, so it's likely they won't.  I'll keep you posted as the tax payment deadlines come around.

Last November, Attorney General Lisa Madigan and local Democrats falsely accused County Clerk Mark Shelden of asking student voters for unnecessary extra proof of address to vote.  Shelden correctly stated that he was merely following the laws as written, and that he had supported changing the law.  And he still does:

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Naomi Jakobsson, D-Urbana, and supported by Champaign County Clerk Mark Shelden, would allow first-time voters who have registered to vote to offer as proof of identification a college-issued identification card along with either a piece of mail or an apartment lease.

"I think it will be excellent," said Shelden, a Republican. "We've discussed this after the elections in 2004, 2006 and 2008, and it's finally percolated to the legislative level."

Yet another myth about Shelden suppressing votes on campus dies a deserving death.

I suppose if the only thing you knew about me was what you read here on IP, you might think that I don’t like my job.  You’d be wrong.  Very wrong.  Almost every day I thoroughly enjoy the work I do, my staff, and the people I work with.

But just like watching the evening news will not give you a complete idea about all the wonderful things that are happening in our community, this blog and my posts won’t give you much insight into what is happening in my office.

What you hear here are the exceptions.  And my frustration, and sometimes anger, that sometimes boils over into this blog is exacerbated to some extent by the fact that it is an exception.

Every week I deal with other government bodies, lawyers, staff, other departments in the county, county board members, and citizens.  Working with other people to get things done for my office and for the community is perhaps the most rewarding part of my job.  The number of people who I have a tough time working with can be counted on one hand.  If you read this blog, you’ll know most of their names.

But the list of people I have worked over 12 years as county clerk is long.  And the things we’ve been able to accomplish is, I believe, impressive.  For anyone to assume that I haven’t been working with others or that I haven’t been doing my job is an absurd extension of a limited number of posts on this blog.

Here are just a few examples in the last year of collaboration with other offices.  We worked with GIS to verify the boundary lines of every taxing district in the County.  As we do every year, we worked with the Supervisor of Assessments and the Treasurer to get tax bills out on time, one of the few Illinois County’s that does.  When Deb Busey asked for budget cuts we came up with about $50,000 in cuts quickly, and we continue to find ways to reduce costs.  We are working with GIS and the cities of Champaign and Urbana to come up with address standardization across the entire property tax and election process.  We are awaiting the installation of Sharepoint on our new server to make additional storage space available to other departments in the County to facilitate document archiving and sharing.

Over the years we’ve made one of shared drives on our server available to everyone on the County intranet to search for ordinances and resolutions.  In 1999, I came up with a plan that was adopted by the County Board to reduce one of my managerial positions in our office and to use those funds for an additional programming position in the County IT department.  I worked with the City of Urbana to provide for the live broadcast of County Board meetings. 

And on elections, the number of suggestions that I have taken and implemented from elected officials, election judges and citizens numbers in the hundreds. 

A comprehensive list of the examples of collaboration would bore you.  But it’s happening.  Every single day.  It will continue to happen.  In fact, I’ll continue to reach out to those who have seemed less inclined to take suggestions from me.  I’ll do it, because it’s in the best interest of the County.  I can’t make any listen to my suggestions.  But I don’t intend to sit back and not try to help.

Some things never change.  You would think that at a time when County employees are finding ways to reduce expenditures and offering up furlough days that you'd see cooperation from the actual people who run the County.  You would be wrong.

Last week I requested information from Pius Weibel about his meeting with Sheriff Walsh regarding what Weibel told me were concerns about security at the Courthouse and at Brookens.   I keep hundreds of thousands of confidential records here in my office and have been expressing concerns about security at Brookens for nearly a decade.  As such I was shocked to find out these discussions were happening without input from people who work at Brookens.  I also wanted to know what determinations were made regarding security in the very building I work in and where I am serve as custodian to records.

A simple request, that I consider reasonable.  Weibel didn't see it that way and instead responded with this.  (Weibel response.)  His letter betrays an utter ignorance of the Freedom of Information Act which could have been easily rectified by going to the meeting with the Public Access Counselor that I hosted or by watching the video of that meeting that we have on our County Clerk website.  If FOIA only covered documents from public meetings the law would have virtually no meaning.  In fact, the law exists precisely to cover those meetings and documents that aren't discussed in open.

So now we are going to be back in court to get routine documents that are clearly not exempt under FOIA.  I have an additional request to Inman about information regarding the County's proposed stimulus projects which has also not been responded to.

Oh, and don't forget.  The County picks up the tab when they lose a FOIA lawsuit.  They paid David Thies over $3,000 and they'll pay who ever I hire as an attorney as well.  This is a lay down case.

I posted something at my County Clerk Blog regarding changing the primary date next year.  I'd love to hear people's opinions.

A little more on the topic that I just can't let die.  :)

I was recalling the special election of Harris Wofford from Pennsyvlania in 1991 (which was something of the canary in the Republican coal mine as it turns out) and went to look for the Pennsylvania law on filling vacancies.

 § 2776. Special elections for United States Senator; nominations     

Whenever a vacancy shall occur in the office of United States Senator, said vacancy shall be filled for the unexpired term by the vote of the electors of the State at a special election to be held at the time of the next general or municipal election, occurring at least ninety (90) days after the happening of such vacancy, and it shall be the duty of the Governor to issue writs of election to the various county boards of elections and to the Secretary of the Commonwealth within ten (10) days after the happening of said vacancy. Candidates to fill vacancies in the office of United States Senator shall be nominated by political parties, in accordance with the party rules relating to the filling of vacancies, by means of nomination certificates, in the form prescribed in section 630 of this act; [FN1] and by political bodies, by means of nomination papers in accordance with the provisions of sections 951, 952 and 954 of this act. [FN2] Said nomination certificates and nomination papers shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of said special election. Until such time as said vacancy shall be filled by an election as herein provided, the Governor of the Commonwealth may make a temporary appointment to fill said vacancy.

Anyway, this is the type of law that I think could work well in Illinois, not just for this vacancy, but for future vacancies.

The News-Gazette had a nice editorial in support of the idea of having a special Senate election with slating of candidates instead of a primary.

Then how about a compromise offered by Champaign County Clerk Mark Shelden? It would certainly be much less expensive, and it would give voters the final say on Obama's successor.

Shelden proposes that leaders of the three qualified parties (Democratic, Green and Republican) each slate a candidate this winter in time for the April 7 consolidated election – when all Illinois voters are eligible to go to the polls anyway. Depending on how the special election law is written and when it is passed, there's even a chance that independent candidates could get on the April 7 ballot. Shelden estimates the additional cost statewide at about $25,000 (the expense to print special ballots).

A $50 million dollar figure for conducting a special election is being bandied about, generally by the opponents of the special election.  This figure is inaccurate, although it is based on some substance. $25 million is more accurate since the special election schedule could be wrapped in with the current election schedule.

But there's a free option that isn't getting enough attention.  As I said in a previous post, by having the parties slate candidates for the general election and allowing a filing period for independent candidates, we avoid the cost of a February primary and put the Senate candidates on the April 7th ballot when every voter in Illinois is already scheduled to vote.

This option isn't unusual.  In fact, if Barack Obama had quit on July 1st of this year, the scenario I am proposing would be exactly what would happen.  The Senate race would have been forced on to the November ballot, beyond  a primary date, thus creating a vacancy in nomination.  The three State Central Committees would then meet and slate candidates. 

The cost of doing this isn't quite free.  For Champaign County voters it would be under $1000.  About a thousand federal only ballots would have to be printed and some people overseas would be sent ballots who would otherwise be ineligible to vote in the April 7th election.  Add a few more bucks because the newspaper publication would increase by about two column inches. 

Of course, primary elections are the preferred way of selecting these candidates.  But the slating method would save $25 million and also give us a date certain for having a Senator.  It also is a reasonable compromise between all parties.  As it stands now, I wouldn't want to bet on the impeachment and removal process ending before then.  And certainly the public support for the person elected is going to be higher than if he/she is selected by the Governor, either Bloco or Quinn. 

That’s my question after reading the latest draft of the legislation to have a special election for the vacant United States Senate seat.  There’s no doubt that the legislation is inadequate as written and leaves gaping holes regarding its implementation. 

What the legislation does is create two scenarios for a special election.  The first is if the legislation is signed on January 1st or before.  In that case we’d have a primary election on February 24th in conjunction with the various municipal primaries happening around the state (and potentially in Champaign and Urbana).  That would be followed by the general election on April 7th, in conjunction with the already scheduled Consolidated Election which already includes every voter in the state of Illinois.

The second scenario kicks in if the legislation is signed after January 1st.  In that case, there will be a primary in conjunction with the April 7th election followed by a special election for Senate only on May 26th. 

The first problem with the legislation is that it gives our current Governor far too much leverage.  He gets to decide when he signs it, if he does, and thereby controls when the election will happen.  He could sign it as late as mid February, leaving the entire state in suspense.  In addition, after he signs it, he would still have to issue writs of election.  The proposed legislation takes that authority away from him should he fail to exercise it, but that particular provision is likely unconstitutional.  So he could sign it and just sit on the whole problem for an indeterminate amount of time.  The optimists in this process (which seems to be most everyone) are counting on the Governor’s rationality and fair play, not unlike what they counted on when they passed a budget that was $2 billion in the red.  Haven’t they learned?

In either case, the legislation gives sweeping authority to the State Board of Elections to write rules to make this whole event come off.  Good luck to them.  Crafting rules that will deal with the incredible time crunch for a primary while not running afoul of the legal requirements for ballot access, voter rights, absentee voting, and other items will be a tough task.  Tough enough that the legislative drafters apparently didn’t want to touch it here in this legislation.

As it stands now, filing for the February election is to close on Monday, December 15th, 71 days prior to the primary.  If the Governor actually signs the bill on Thursday, January 1st, it will be just 54 days prior to the primary election.   Let’s assume that the State Board of Elections has the rules already written to implement this and they meet on January 2nd to pass them.  I think as emergency rules they can be implemented immediately.  So now candidates have to swing into action to get petitions signed and turned in.  Because of the tight schedule, let’s say that the State Board of Elections reduces the signature requirement (2500?) and also requires filing to be done by January 9th.  Some sort of check for compliance will have to be conducted, at least by the State Board and possibly it will be allowed for others to check the papers (a time honored tradition in Illinois).  But let’s say the State Board passes rules that prevent any challenges and eliminates judicial review of the certification and the State Board certifies the ballot to County Clerks on January 12th, just 43 days prior to the primary.  Absentee voting is scheduled to start on Thursday, January 15th.  Ballots have to go out to overseas voters and military personnel. 

So even if the State Board passes rules immediately that include an evisceration of due process rules while liberalizing ballot access, the window to get ballots prepared is minuscule.  Expand the time to do any of these elements (a week to issue writs, a week to pass rules, two weeks to circulate, a week for judicial review) and we’re talking about a primary election that could turn into a debacle.  I haven’t even scratched the surface of the problems here.  And there are additional problems and costs should this legislation get signed after January 1st.

The cost for that potential debacle is about $25 million, at a time that when the state is flat broke, barely able to borrow money, and $2 billion in arrears on our payments to vendors.  Not surprisingly, this bill includes no money from the state to the counties.  So the cost will be passed on to tax payers in each of those counties, at a time when many of them are looking at cutbacks.

And why exactly are we doing this?  I keep hearing that it’s to bring back credibility, or take the taint out of the selection, or some similar sentiment. Is giving voters a chance to vote on the replacement for Obama a good idea.  Of course.  Will it wash away the taint of this scandal?  Of course not.  And at what cost?  And for what benefit?  A narrow window for an election puts an inordinate amount of importance on fundraising.  Barack Obama was able to win the Senate seat four years ago in large part because of his ability to develop a grass roots organization and to reach out to voters individually with personal appearances.  Well, that model won’t cut it this time.  This primary, should it happen, will likely be won by the candidates with the deepest pockets.  I fear that February 26th will be a day of bitter irony for Illinois voters as we nominate candidates for each party receiving less than 35% of the vote.  Think about the joy of spending $25 million to get a face off between Blair Hull and Jim Oberweis. 

There is another alternative.  The party state central committees of each party could meet and nominate a candidate for the April 7th election.  This is how vacancies in nomination are routinely filled in Illinois. Does it take away some choices for the voters?  Yes, it does.  But the legislature, in passing the provisions to fill vacancies, understood that a balance had to be struck between the cost and complications of running a special election and the benefits of giving voters a say in the process.   The cost to do this would drop from $25 million to about $25,000 (the cost of printing about 10 federal only ballots for each precinct in the state).

Every legislator feels the sting of this scandal, even without their personal involvement.  The reputations of those in State government have been battered for the last four or five years.  But giving voters this single vote (the legislation does not provide for this to ever happen again) is merely a bone thrown at disgruntled voters.  This move is certainly not based on some grand principle.  If it was, the same legislators falling all over themselves to give you a vote on this vacancy would support Rep. Mike Boland’s Constitutional Amendment to have special elections for vacancies in the General Assembly.  Not a single other legislator signed on to his HJRCA.

If politicians were serious about reform and the right of the public to have a voice in these matters, they have plenty of ways to accomplish that.  They could send voters Constitutional Amendments for recall, initiative, or a revision of the redistricting process.  They could put the Con Con question back on the ballot and give it a fair up or down vote.

This bill doesn’t make even a pretense of reform.  It’s the equivalent of making up to your wife with a bouquet of flowers that you bought by taking money out of her purse.

Champaign County Clerk Mark Shelden has an interesting post about the number of people who used his website to verify their voter registration, and to preview their ballots before Election Day:

On Monday, November 3rd and Election Day, November 4th we had over  8,000 visistors who checked their voter registration status on our website.  That works out to over 10% of the people who voted on November 4th.

On the other hand, the next step of viewing your ballot to better prepare for the election was taken by only 659 voters during the entire 40 day window when they were available.  I’ve broken down the list by total number of voters in a precinct viewing their ballot (first was City of Champaign 38 with 20) and highest percentage of registered voters viewing their ballot (Raymond with 1.9%)

My familty was responsible for at least two of the ballot previews for CC38.  I thought it was very useful, and I'm surprised it wasn't used more.  Anybody else use it?  Anybody else even know about it?

I wrote a post at my County Clerk blog about lines at the polls.

I plan to pursue some research on this, and as I said there, I still haven't really found anyone who's willing to stand up and say just what is the right amount of time to wait at the polls.  Where is the line between "too long" and "about right".  I think we all agree that when someone waits 5 hours, that's too long.  But is one hour?  One  hour and 15 minutes? 

Also, we didn't hear much in the way of complaints about lines on election day (although some during early voting).  How long did you have to wait, and was it excessive, in your opinion.