There is an ongoing debate over how to count the so called "emphasis votes" in the HD-105 recount in Irving in the uncalled race between incumbent Republican Linda Harper-Brown and Democrat Bob Romano. Harper-Brown currently leads by 20 votes.
At issue, a recent ruling/instruction by the Secretary of State's Elections Division that Democrats claim contradicts an earlier policy. For review, Ann McGeehan, Director of Elections, posted the following notice to Election Clerks on October 31 which details how this type of vote should be counted.
The following are quick reference rules for counting a ballot:
An individual mark, or "cross-over voting," always overrides the straight-party mark. Individual marks include write-in votes.
An individual vote for a candidate in the same column as a straight-party mark is regarded as an "emphasis" vote and does not invalidate the straight-party mark. If the only individual votes are emphasis votes, the vote is tallied the same as a straight-party vote without regard to the emphasis votes.
Individual marks for more than one candidate in the same race constitutes an overvote, and neither candidate receives a vote. (This is the rule for general election for state and county officers, when only one vote is allowed in each race. In certain local elections, more votes are allowed, e.g., at-large voting.)
Bruce Sherbet, Dallas County Elections administrator posed the following question for the recount.
"In a recount, if a DRE image shows that the voter cast a straight party vote by there is no vote for the candidate of that same party (indicating it was deselected) does the straight party vote override the deselection (thus giving a vote to the candidate that was deselected)?"
Ann McGeehan of the Secretary of State's division responded in this letter (PDF).
It continues to reference a prior court ruling from 2007 between the TDP and Roger Williams where the court rejected arguments that "absent votes" on electronic eSlate machines (which would be the equivalent "emphasis voting" at issue in the HD-105 recount) could not be summarily judged and counted as emphasis votes because "voters engaging in such behavior were equally or even more likely intending to make no selection in a particular race". The 5th Circuit US Court of Appeals upheld that ruling.
While I'm in favor counting every vote and agree that it sounds like the SOS is reversing an earlier opinion, I hate to say that I actually agree with the SOS on this issue. The problem is the difference of how emphasis votes are marked on electronic ballots versus paper ballots.
Remember all the hoopla about the potentially malicious email that circulated telling people that to vote for Obama they needed to vote straight party Democrat and then also "emphasize" their vote by selecting him again? And remember how everyone tried to correct that rumor by mentioning that selecting Obama again actually deselected him from your ballot? That's all correct- for electronic voting machines which many Texas voters use and nearly all the urban counties.
Problem is, if you mark an "emphasis vote" on a paper ballot that is counted by hand or scanned in, that type of emphasis vote DOES NOT discard your vote for them. That's exactly what the original Oct 31 SOS advisory was referring to.
The problem is that on paper ballots an emphasis vote is a proactive mark which is plainly visible in a recount with no question of the intent of the voter. Why? Because on paper, a mark made for a straight party vote doesn't not automatically make a mark or selection for every candidate of that party on the ballot. It can't, it's paper. Therefore, making an emphasis vote by marking a candidate again visually reinforces a vote for that candidate on a paper ballot. In a recount, this would be obvious in reviewing the intent of the voter, separate from how a machine may have scanned the ballot.
BUT on an electronic ballot, like that used in the HD-105 race (specifically the iVotronic machine made by ES&S- view here), selecting the straight ticket option automatically fills in all candidates of that party on the screen with an X. An emphasis vote would occur by someone selecting a candidate who already had an X by their name. This deselects the candidate on that ballot and does so in the exact same way as if the voter wanted to cast a straight ticket vote but not vote for any candidate in a specific race (for whatever reason).
Because the electronic vote leaves no mark by "emphasizing" the vote which is the same end result as no mark made by choosing to skip the race it is impossible to determine the intent of the voter barring some other clear pattern on the ballot.
In more simple terms, on a paper ballot you "opt in" to the straight ticket vote and additional "opt ins" appears as clear intents to vote for that candidate. On the iVotronic, your "opt in" of the straight ticket immediately (and visually) "opts you in" for all of that party's candidates making any additional "opt in" emphasis votes to appear the same as "opted out" intended votes.
Therefore, the SOS's ruling appears contradictory only because electronic voting machines create a contradictory environment for casting and counting the vote. Which says more about the stupidity of electronic voting machines and their ballot design than the SOS.
Update: Phillip may be providing another perspective on this in the morning. I should make it clear the obviously I favor a Romano win, and if there are some additional fact to this story that alter the landscape, I very much want to hear that perspective.
The Star-Telegram this week rolled out the names of all the ambitious Republicans clamoring to make a run at the likely-to-vacate senate seat of Kay Bailey Hutchison. It would appear that the next election has already begun.
Nonetheless, because of what the Star-Telegram wrote about the likes of Republicans Joe Barton, Jeb Hensarling, and Kay Granger making a run for the senate, and the one Democratic name of John Sharp mentioned, coupled with the lively and hopeful discussion around the recent L.A. Times article about Texas being a battleground state in 2012, I think it is important to take a deep breath and really analyze some things here.
From the Lone Star Project, things we can look forward to in the upcoming recount in HD-105 to determine if Linda Harper-Brown really goes back to the House with her 20 vote lead over Bob Romano.
Final resolution of the HD105 contest may take some time. Here's what we can expect over the next several days:
The Dallas County Commissioners Court will certify the results as reported by election officials.
Bob Romano must file a request for a recount no later than two days following the certification of the ballot by the Commissioners Court.
A Recount Committee will be appointed by the Dallas Elections Administrator. The Committee will then examine each ballot to determine the intent of each voter.
Quirk in electronic voting machines could determine outcome
In Dallas County, ES&S electronic voting machines are used during early voting, while paper ballots are used on Election Day. One of the notable flaws in ES&S machines is that voters who cast a straight ticket ballot but then also attempt to "emphasis" vote by marking the box next to a particular candidate inadvertently deselect that candidate thereby canceling their vote.
When the voting screens are reviewed during a recount, these errors should be caught and corrected (Source: TX Election Code Section 65.007). In HD105, Democrats cast more straight ticket ballots than Republicans. As the under vote flaw caused by "emphasis" voting is caught and corrected, more Romano votes are likely to be restored than Harper-Brown votes.
Obviously, we don't know if the ES&S flaw will reveal enough previously uncounted votes for Romano to overcome Harper-Brown's narrow 20-vote lead. Clearly, though, a recount of the early votes in HD105 is justified. Further, this race points to the need that the electronic voting machine flaw should be corrected.
Bob Romano indicated today that he intends to officially request a recount in his race that is separated by 20-votes. Essentially, while it's still more likely that Representative Harper-Brown will represent Irving in the next legislative session, nothing yet is certain.
Here's his statement:
I am proud and humbled that so many voters in our community believe I should be our district's voice in the Texas House. In the coming days, my focus will be on doing everything I can to see that every ballot is counted and that every voter's intent is known. We must respect the voters, and protect the trust they have placed in our democracy. To that end, I intend to request a re-count of the ballots cast in this election.
Having seen Mr. Romano's initial reaction to the close race with a desire to go hunting, he probably genuinely is humbled. This is his second straight attempt at Harper-Brown's seat, and the 2006 result was not nearly this close. So his humility is understandable.
Whatever happens: Congratulations on your increased support, Bob Romano.
This just in from sources in Dallas. The final provisional ballots have been approved and counted into the tally. While overseas military ballots pushed up Linda Harper-Brown's lead from 29 votes to 34, the counting of provisional ballots knocked it down to a 20 vote lead.
The final ballot count should be as follows.
Linda Harper-Brown (R): 19,856
Bob Romano (D): 19,836
The waiting continues for state Rep. Linda Harper-Brown and her Democratic challenger Bob Romano in the race for state House District 105.
Harper-Brown had a 34-vote lead over Romano on Monday after overseas ballots were counted, according to Dallas County election figures.
Harper-Brown entered Monday's count with a 29-vote margin over Romano. She picked up nine overseas ballots and he gained four.
Dallas County Elections Administrator Bruce Sherbet says 61 provisional ballots remained to be counted Monday night.
The overseas ballots are military ballots, so it should have been expected to go in Harper-Brown's direction. Also, there is no saying if any of the already-counted provisional ballots have been included in the most recently released tally. Since the total vote count went up only slightly, I would assume the answer is no.
CBS 11 explains how the provisional ballots will be decided:
The race will be decided by a ballot board. It has eight teams with one democrat and one republican on each team.
Sherbet says if the teams can't agree on the validity of a ballot, then a provisional ballot judge casts the tie-breaker. In this case, she's a democrat.
It lies with the counting of provisional ballots in HD-105 between Rep. Linda Harper-Brown (R) and this man- Bob Romano. The margin is 25 votes.
If this man can win, the Texas House is tied 75-75.
Romano beat Jim Rea in the primary. Rea was endorsed by the Dallas Morning News and favored by the Lone Star Project and expected to win. Romano won the primary by 298 votes.
(Again great stuff from RBH. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
Using the data on the election analysis page (for 2004, I'll update slightly when the 2006 data is posted), here are the 7 Republicans who are in the bluest districts.
Haggerty (HD78), Murphy (HD133), Goolsby (HD102), England (HD106), Harper-Brown (HD105), Latham (HD101), and Branch (HD108).
Haggerty hasn't been challenged by a Democrat since 1998. He was almost unseated in the primary though.
Murphy and Latham are freshmen. Murphy won with 56%. Latham beat an incumbent in the primary and didn't face a Democrat.
Goolsby won with 52%, England won with 49%, Brown won with 55%, and Branch won with 56%.
