Rotating Ballot Names Costly, Inefficient Practice, Clerk Argues

House panel sides with English, endorses random order remedy BOISE Kootenai County spent nearly $1,300 in the November election to print up six different versions of the ballot, just so each candidate could have his or her name appear first.

In return, the county got complaints from confused voters who wondered why the candidates’ names were listed differently than they were on sample ballots. But the rotation of names is required by Idaho law.

“It diverts a tremendous amount of staff time and resources that I think could be better spent,” Kootenai County Clerk Dan English told the House State Affairs Committee on Wednesday.

English, joined by the Idaho Association of Counties, the Idaho Association of County Recorders and Clerks, and the Idaho Secretary of State’s office, asked the committee to support legislation to do away with the requirement that counties rotate names on ballots. The same measure passed the House last year with just three dissenting votes, but died on a close vote in the Senate.

After questioning English, the committee voted unanimously to send the bill to the full House, with an amendment to clarify that it applies only to primary and general elections.

Twenty-eight states don’t require names to be rotated on ballots, said chief deputy Secretary of State Ben Ysursa. Twenty-two states do.

Some studies show that the candidate whose name is listed first has a built-in advantage. But English said any advantage, if it exists, can’t justify the time, expense and confusion of the rotation process.

Under the bill, the names would be listed in random order.

“In Kootenai County, I don’t think the order of the ballot made any difference,” English said.

The winners were nearly all Republicans, he said - and they appeared at the top, bottom and middle of the ballot.

Rep. John Alexander, D-Pocatello, said he’d favor requiring the incumbent’s name to be listed last.

An Oklahoma law required that the Democrat’s name always be listed first, Ysursa said - but a court struck that down in favor of a random order.

English said the six different ballots still don’t cover every possible ballot order, and varying turnout can cause one order to get more exposure than another. If ballot order really creates a bias, he said, the current system certainly isn’t perfect in addressing it.

Plus, Ysursa said the rotation system increases the possibility of error in counting votes.

English said he’s hopeful that this year, “with another year’s seasoning,” the bill will go through.

“This is something that makes sense to change,” he said.

, DataTimes ILLUSTRATION: Color photo