Puzzled voters’ goofs disqualify some ballots

Some people don’t think the Legislature changed much when it rewrote election laws in the wake of the 2004 gubernatorial election. They’d have a hard time convincing the Spokane County canvassing board of that after a session late last week.

The canvassing board had to peruse several dozen mail-in ballots that were pulled from the stacks because of “irregularities” under the new laws.

Some were marked for more than one candidate. That’s always been a reason not to count a ballot, but it was the way they were marked that was causing the scrutiny.

Some voters apparently marked the oval in their ballots for one candidate, then changed their minds and voted for someone else. If they didn’t follow the rules that called for putting an X in the first oval, or clearly explained some other method they were using to clearly mark their true choice, the ballot couldn’t be counted for either candidate.

A couple of voters used a pencil, erased rather poorly, and marked a different oval. Their ballots couldn’t be counted because both marks could still be seen, and they didn’t follow the directions that require the ballots be marked in ink as well as marking out changes with an X.

One person put his or her initials through one marked oval, then filled in another one. The board let that slide, because the letters came close to making an X.

Some voters marked to the right of the candidate’s name, rather than filling in the oval to the left of the name. Others marked farther left, beyond the oval.

Until last year, canvassing officials might have been able to assume the voter meant to pick that candidate. Not this year; without a filled-in oval, those votes didn’t count.

Filled in the space between two candidates? Vote didn’t count.

Then there was the ballot from Precinct 3159, which arrived in an envelope from Precinct 6110. It was properly marked – both Spokane city precincts are in the same council district – so the marked candidate was going to get the vote. But the question became, which precinct should get a voter credit for that vote.

Those whose eyes aren’t glazing over at this point might recall last December’s great hue and cry over differences between vote totals, which record how people voted, and voter credits, which account for who voted. This led to the famous Republican battle cry: “Every vote should have a voter!” as a corollary to their allegations that dead people, convicts, illegal aliens and perhaps even Klingons voted for Democrat Christine Gregoire.

County Commissioner Mark Richard, a Republican drafted for his first tour of duty on the canvassing board, said it made more sense to credit the vote in question to the precinct on the ballot, not the envelope. But County Auditor Vicky Dalton, Democrat, explained that whatever the canvassing board did, the crediting numbers were likely to be off.

“So it’s not all because of convicted felons voting is what you’re trying to tell me,” Richard said.

“You got it,” replied Dalton.

Some voters in Spokane Valley and Spokane apparently got confused by ballots that told them Vote for One, but went on to describe odd council terms.

In the Valley’s sole council race, the position was described as a two-year term or a four-year term. That’s because they were picking someone who might be filling either, depending of the outcomes of all seven council races in the general election. The four winning candidates from the Nov. 8 election with the most votes get four-year terms, and the three winners with the least votes will get two-year terms.

The description of the variable terms led some voters to mark two candidates, presumably because they figured they could put up with one of those choices for four years, but the other for only two. (Those votes weren’t counted for either.)

“I have no idea what this means. Very poor layout,” one voter wrote in a critique on the returned ballot.

There was also confusion in Spokane’s South District race. The ballot mentioned a four-year term and a short term. That’s because the winner will serve a full four years starting in January, but also the period from the time the end of the election to the start of the year. That’s because the seat is currently held by an appointee, Mary Verner, who was named to the spot when Dennis Hession was elected council president.

So if Verner wins, she just continues. But if Dallas Hawkins wins, he will take over as soon as the votes are certified, rather than waiting until January.

No way to tell how many voters were confused. But at last count, there were 171 “over votes” – ballots marked for more than one candidate – in the city’s South District and 81 over votes in the Valley council race. That compares with 40 over votes in the city’s Northwest District, which is just for the standard four-year term.