Report: Chain of mistakes in Berks
Issues began when voter signatures were not uploaded to poll books
An investigation commissioned by Berks County into the failures that led to primary election day problems concluded the issues originated with voter signatures not being uploaded to new electronic polls books before election day.
And that mistake led to a chain of other problems that caused confusion and challenges at the polls, the report says.
The report was made public Thursday, with the commissioners reviewing it during an election board meeting.
The commissioners had little to say publicly about the specific details of the report, but thanked the independent law firm that put it together and announced they would be following the report’s recommendations.
The county hired West Chester-based MacMain, Connell & Leinhauser to produce the report in hopes of avoiding future challenges seen during the May primary election.
Those challenges included difficulties communicating a change over from the electronic poll books to paper books; challenges distributing paper pollbooks; difficulties communicating that a court order extending voting hours had been issued; and challenges preparing and distributing provisional ballots.
The report is based on interviews with workers from the county elections office and employees of Election Systems & Software, the company that manufactures the electronic poll books. It also included an analysis of key documents related to the election.
The cause
The report found the election day problems started when voter signatures were not uploaded to the electronic poll books before the election.
The process of loading voter data onto the electronic polls books included ES&S pulling the data from the Pennsylvania Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors system, formatting it and loading it onto a secure portal to be downloaded by the county.
The data set consisted of five files that the county should have downloaded from the secure site. It was the county’s responsibility to download the data and drop that data onto USB sticks to be loaded onto the electronic poll books.
The county was provided with training and instruction on downloading the data and loading it onto the USBs. But that training was minimal because the county informed ES&S that it had uploaded the data before when the poll books were being used in a pilot program.
It was determined that leading up to election day the county only downloaded four of the five data files. The file that wasn’t downloaded was the one that was needed for the poll books to display the signature.
According to ES&S, the responsibility of making sure all the data files are downloaded falls on the county running the election.
The report found that before election day the county subjected the poll books to logic and accuracy testing to ensure they were loaded with the necessary data and working properly. But county and ES&S workers conducting the test failed to recognize that the voter signatures were not uploaded.
It was determined that key county personnel were not present for the entirety of the testing and the ES&S personnel who were on site were unaware that the state election code requires poll workers to verify the signature of voters at the polls.
“The responsibility to identify missing data falls on both sides, but if the county had been more actively involved in the L&A
testing, they would have been able to resolve the issue as it was clear that the signatures are missing,” the report states.
The report found that election officials only became aware that the signatures were missing on election day when workers discovered the error while visiting polling precincts to assist with other technical issues.
While there are indications some of the voting precincts were able to use the poll books, it was later learned that the devices at all precincts lacked signature verification.
Once it was reported that the signatures were not being verified, the election board decided sometime between 8 and 8:30 a.m. to discontinue use of the poll books and switch back to paper poll books.
The reaction
The report found that the county experienced communication challenges notifying the 202 precincts of the switch to the paper poll books, despite the fact that all precincts are assigned a county-issued cellphone.
While an attempt was made to call all precincts, the county was receiving so many calls that it was difficult to make outgoing calls. County staff were using personal cellphones to try and reach the precinct countyissued cellphones, however, many of the phones were not turned on or were not
answered.
The county also prepared a statement that went out to local media outlets in an attempt to inform the public that there was an issue with the electronic poll books.
The report found that it took the county hours to distribute the paper poll books to the 202 voting precincts.
Although the election board had decided to print paper poll books, there was hesitancy to pass out the paper poll books to the polling locations because individuals who are not fans of technology may have reverted to paper in the event of frustration with the electronic versions.
The report found that the county does not know how each precinct handled the signature issue from the time the polls opened to the time the paper poll books were deployed. However, the county is unaware of any instances where precincts turned voters away due to the issue.
Due to the delays caused by the missing signatures and the switch to paper poll books, the county’s Democratic and Republican committees joined forces to petition the courts to extend voting by one hour. That petition was granted by a county judge.
Once the court order was signed, there were issues informing poll workers at the 202 precincts about that development. The report found that the order extending
the polling hours was placed on the desks of election services personnel, but there was no announcement made regarding a notification plan.
Because the court order stated that voters who arrived at the poll between 8 and 9 p.m. had to cast provisional ballots, several county personnel were more focused on printing and delivering additional provisional ballots to precincts than calling poll workers.
It was also assumed that poll workers would be told about the change when the provisional ballots were dropped off.
However, since some of the individuals hand delivering the provisional ballots did not leave the Berks County Services Center until 8 p.m. some precincts were not made aware that voting was extended by an hour and closed.
Recommendations
The report recommended the election board make the following changes before the next election:
• Employees from elections services must attend additional ES&S training.
• Poll workers should receive expanded hands-on training on the use of the electronic poll books.
• All county election officials have an essential and functional knowledge of the Pennsylvania election code before attending training and logic and accuracy testing.
• Request that ES&S have someone present at all logic and accuracy testing that has a basic understanding of the Pennsylvania election code.
• A direct line of communication is established between elections services and the 202 polling precincts like a live chat or dedicated website to ensure communications are received and addressed in a timely and efficient manner.
• Ensure that the cellphones for each judge of elections are turned on and operational before each election.
Commissioners’ comments
The commissioners thanked the team responsible for compiling the report and said it brings greater clarity to the issues the county experienced.
Commissioners Chairman Christian Leinbach said he was pleased the investigation stuck to the facts without placing blame. However, he acknowledged the commissioners are responsible for the failures.
“This investigation has not been about blame,” he said. “It has been about what happened, why it happened and what we need to do to make sure it does not happen again.”
Leinbach said the county is already addressing a number of the recommendations.
“We are committed to getting this right,” he said.
Commissioner Kevin Barnhardt said representatives from ES&S have indicated they are also committed to getting this right. He read a statement from the company saying it is willing to work with the county to ensure the recommendations in the report are carried out.
Commissioner Michael Rivera said that dissecting exactly what happened on election day was not a comfortable process. But he said there are only two ways to respond: You can sit down and lament or you can learn from the experience.
“We have been saying what can we learn, why did it happen and how can we prevent it from happening again,” he said.
Rivera added that he has full confidence in the elections office to run a smooth election in November.