Chicagoist: Magic Pens Used in Rogers Park Vote

artdude75

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:30:21 -0600

can i get one of those invisible ink pens?

Thunderbelly

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:27:41 -0600

No problem BW. You werent being that harsh really. End of a long day I guess. Plus there is a cumulative effect of the attitudes on display on sites like these. I dont take anything personal on these sites, it just would be interesting to see if people really talk like they post. I don't know the rules, means just that. I hear you though people (me included) do misinterpret/read what they want to read. As for disenfranchising voters, I can see your point. I however do not necessarily agree. To me ID is an important thing to carry at all times. Now I know there are people out there who dont have id, and it would be something that would have to be worked out.

BWChicago

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:32:31 -0600

@thunderbelly: Perhaps I was a bit harsh. It is troubling when misinformation is repeated with the qualifier "I don't know the rules." The idea, well-informed or not, still gets out there. But I continue to disagree that not having to show your ID is a good thing; not everyone carries ID with them, nor are they required to, so to add another qualification to vote would disenfranchise a lot of voters and make the overall voting process slower and more tedious. It's not true that anyone can vote for anyone; we ask voters to sign their signature to verify ID and then match it to a copy that the voter can't see. The signature is there to also verify that the address data shown is correct, which would be a second form of fraud (although it would be admittedly difficult to track). It's generally pretty obvious if a signature doesn't match the one on file, and then it is appropriate to challenge the voter and request ID. As for raised by wolves, well... you'd be surprised. @sparky: the officials definitely do need to clarify how the primaries work. Here are all the possible ballots we had Tuesday: Dem, Dem Federal-Only, Rep, Rep Fed-Only, Green, Green Fed-Only, Moderate, Moderate Fed-Only, and Non-partisan. None of the judges I talked to had any idea what the Moderate ballots were for, including myself. Further, it needs to be clarified that you are only choosing what party to vote in *this* election, and not declaring your party. Anyone can vote any ballot. And a concise explanation that nonpartisan ballots include only referenda would be good too. Voter's rights and responsibilities are generally detailed on the various posters and handouts (theoretically) posted around the polling place, but nobody bothers to look at them really, and I would bet a lot of judges don't bother to put them out. A handout explaining the equipment and how it works would be a great idea, especially for people leery of the touchscreen.

sparky

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:37:52 -0600

Royce, I went to the ivi-ipo website, and I could only find the 2006 endorsements. Do you know where the 2008 endoresements were? I did have an ABA list of qualified judges, but there were multiple qualified candidates for the same seat, and I did not feel comfortable voting for them without knowing the issues. I felt I came prepared with what I could. And Thunderbelly, I think people are trying to get that into law; not only showing ID, but showing picture ID. I believe this issue has been taken to the Supreme Court regarding Indiana's new law. I do not have a problem showing picture ID per se, given identity theft in this country, and election judges are not handwriting experts. But election officials need to follow the law that is currently in the books. (I think we can agree on that). (Also: I agree that people can be a little rude on this site (me, included), but try to keep in mind 1. This is pretty much an anonymous site, so try not to take it personally; 2. More often than not, tone can be misread in posts. It's hard sometimes, I know) BW: Thank you for answering my questions. I do think there should be signs stating why and in what instance ID is required. I also think that they should have made people more aware that if you vote independent, you are not voting in the primary (it was an FAQ on th website, but they need to make that more widely availble). A few people I know voted as independents because they are nonpartisan, and were confused and frustrated. Finally, I think they should clarify voters' rights and responsibilities and hand it to every voter prior to voting (ID issues, what kind of pens are used--with a picture, what the ballots look like, etc.) Again, this is mostly on the website, but not every voter has access. I hope these issues get fixed before the general election.

Thunderbelly

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:42:35 -0600

Well BW thanks for the civics lesson. I clearly stated multiple times that I do not know the rules. Thanks for reiterating that by saying I obviously dont know what I am talking about. Oh really? Isnt that what I dont know the rules means? I think having to show your id is a good idea. Its not a rule now, and being forced to show it with the rules as they are now, is a breach of privacy. I think changing this rule is worth looking into for the reasons I have stated. Anyone can vote for anyone else now with the rules as they are. Please feel free to address this (lost, stolen, mismailed registration cards) instead of talking down to me as if I am some sort of child. Man sometimes people on here get all high and mighty. Pretend for a change we are in person having this conversation. Would you talk to someone like that in person? If so were you raised by wolves?

royce76

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:30:13 -0600

Next time take an ivi-ipo list to vote for prog judges

BWChicago

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:56:52 -0600

I've served as an election judge in each election for the past four years. Only one of these was in Chicago, though; the rest have been suburban. First: I'm guessing the confusion with non-working pens arose because the ballots are marked with special pigment ink pens. The reason they're used is that the ink is more stable. They might be described to uninitiated voters/judges as "special", which could cause the confusion. The ballots CAN be marked with a standard ink pen, but this is discouraged to keep things consistent. Inexcusable, but there may be some explanation. Second: Thunderbelly, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. No ID is required to vote; your identity is confirmed when you register and signature is used at the polling place. REPEAT: You don't need to show a registration card, ever. If ID is required (not only for first time voters, but also voters listed as inactive or voters who do not appear on the rolls and must cast provisional ballots), then a number of different sorts of ID are accepted. The registration card is one of them. But even if you are listed as inactive and don't have ID on you, you may vote provisionally and provide the ID to the Clerk's/Board's office in the timeframe afterward. We live in a country where we don't need to present papers if we don't want to, and to request them when it is not mandated IS a breach of privacy. That's why we have the system we have. There should, in fact, have been handouts available and posters about "Why do I have to show ID?" Third: On undervotes. This election, at least in the suburbs, the delegate ballot was a seperate sheet, which I speculate is specifically because of the high likelihood of people unintentionally leaving it blank. The only time the machine has ever notified about undervotes is when a ballot is left blank; undervotes alone have not and do not trigger an error. There is some debate over whether the machines should ask for confirmation of a blank ballot; it is technically a bunch of undervotes and is therefore somewhat inconsistent. @smussy: Yes, you DO need to show ID when early voting, because there is a much greater risk of fraud that way - think if someone walked in and said they were whoever from wherever, and that person walked into their polling place on election day and said someone already voted as them. That would be a huge problem, especially since ballots are secret; they could not be revoked. Similar logic is at play in why early voting is screen only; they would otherwise have to have the 5+ different ballots for the thousands of different precincts. It would be completely unwieldy, and that's why we have never had early voting before (in contrast the current system just uses a code to tell the touchscren what ballot style and precinct) If touchscreens bother you that much, then you can vote an absentee paper ballot if you are eligible.

Thunderbelly

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:13:28 -0600

Yes, but a registration card can be misplaced, lost stolen etc... To me this would be a good policy to install. As I said I dont know the rules, and have not had time to check out the link you provided. We disagree, I just don't feel its a major breach of privacy, and would prefer it be done that way.

sparky

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:08:03 -0600

But you showed ID when you registered 6 weeks or more before the election. If they want ID at the time of election as well, then they should allow same day resigstration, like in Wisconsin.

Thunderbelly

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:30:37 -0600

Seems to me showing and ID with your registration card is a good idea. A registration card can be delivered to the wrong address, mailbox, etc... And there are certainly people out there who would vote more than once, if given an easy opportunity. I am all for them checking my ID, over and over again. Ensures I am the person voting with my registration card.

Seanfeld

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:08:59 -0600

The reason there are no good election judges is because people don't give a crap about their government. I've worked as a poll watcher several times, for nothing, no money, no favors, and have asked responsible citizens to be judges so that things would go smoother but they all claim they are too busy. Well that's what you get then, unless you took the time to be a judge yesterday or work the election in some way, you are the reason this problem exists. However it has actually been a lot better in my opinion with the program where college students are head judges or something like that i forget the term. The best judges were machine people, fast, efficient, supposedly there could be election tampering which never occurred where I was watching, 2nd best what we have now, 1 college student in charge of 4 homeless people, worst is 5 homeless people if I didn't watch them and drive them to drop off the votes they literally would have thrown them out. Where is your average everyday citizen in all this, too busy, supposedly, to give a crap about their own government, well reap what you sow.

sparky

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:07:01 -0600

I also undervoted, as I wanted to abstain from the judge elections because I was unprepared. Last time, if you undervoted, I believe there was something that notified a judge that you undervoted and asked you if that is correct. That never happened to me this year. Maybe this year they were not even questioning undervoted ballots.

ilr

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:59:59 -0600

I was asked for an ID before receiving my ballot, and I've been voting in this precinct for a decade. I thought it was just because the judge could not understand my name verbally, even after spelling it. I showed a work id that has my name and picture and was given my form (white) to sign and choose a ballot. I'm a bit confused by the "magic pens" -- didn't that voting location have one of the validation machines? wouldn't that have immediately put a lie to the notion that the scanner would be able to read it? Or did those people undervote because they weren't prepared to vote in all of the races (something I salute -- if you don't have a basis for voting, better not to vote). It would be nice if the ballot had an "abstain" choice for those folks, so the rest of the ballot would be validated.

smussy

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:58:53 -0600

yeah, i was asked for my ID when i early voted. i didn't think a whole lot about it, but now that you mention it, i've never been asked before. i just sign the thing. ACTUALLY ... i never signed anything. normally, i sign something to prove that my signature matches. HEY! AND the lady was all snooty with me when i acted suspicious of touchscreens. i couldn't even GET a paper ballot. i had to wait until real election day, and i wasn't sure i'd be able to make it then, so i had to vote with snooty lady at welles park. grr.

Scooter Libbby

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:43:25 -0600

Didn't one of the 20 people who voted with the "invisible ink" have a real pen on them? Didn't one of them look at the pen & see it was just a stylus for the hackable touch screen machines? What a bunch of halfwits we have here in RP! They have the IQs of the goldfish that used to swim in the pond next to the Greenleaf & Clark fire house!

sparky

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:32:27 -0600

You can check out the rules at the Board of Elections website. http://www.chicagoelections.com/docs/ejbook.pdf Only first-time voters who register by mail and do not provide ID verification with their registration must show ID (picture or non-picture in IL) before voting. When I registered to vote, and received my voter registration card, I believe the informational form that accompanied the card stated that you did not need to bring other forms of ID. Can anyone else confirm this?

Thunderbelly

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:46:42 -0600

I agree with the Election Boards attitude was less than professional. Where I voted the applicant form/signature was given in the same room as where you voted. I don't know the exact rules, but it seems to me an ID should be checked in order to prevent people from voting with other people's registration cards.

sparky

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:35:57 -0600

Outside of the voting room, I was asked for ID before I received my ballot, before I signed my applicant form, but after I gave my name and address and they pulled out the applicant form. My form was white (meaning there was no challenge). They found my applicant form in the book right away. Nothing was out of the ordinary. There was also no verbal challenge to my applicant form by any judge (I have seen verbal challenges, so I know what to expect if there was one). When I stepped into the voting room to obtain my ballot, the guy asked me if I showed ID or if they checked my signature. I said they checked my ID. There was no verification of my signature against my scanned voter registration signature outside or inside of the voting room. He handed me my ballot and I voted. I guess in hindsight, I should have not shown my ID to the judge, as I knew that I didn't have to provide it unless my form was challenged. But, I am irritated that when judges mess with procedure, they put voters' ballots at risk. I am also irritated that the Board of Elections didn't appear to take my complaint seriously. "No harm, no foul" is not the attitude the Elections Board should have. I wonder if the Attorney General will have the same attitude after they see my complaint. .

Thunderbelly

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 12:44:28 -0600

You were asked for ID when turning in your ballot or when you received your ballot?

Spav1

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 12:20:45 -0600

I was asked for ID too, which rubbed me the wrong way. I didn't know however that it was illegal.

sparky

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:51:46 -0600

Last night, I was asked for ID, despite the fact that my ballot was not challenged and it was not pink. The judge also did not verify my signature. When I called the Board of Elections to complain, the guy didn't think this was a problem and told me "no harm, no foul." Compared to what happened with the invisible ink pens, this is nothing. But I do not understand why election judges cannot be properly trained. Asking for ID without a challenge is illegal. Next election, I am bringing the Election Judge Handbook.