Nope. I just can't let this one go.

[BWdem4life]

To: King County Elections
Attn: Julie Wise, Director of Elections

Dear Julie,

I am a former temporary elections worker, most recently stationed in ballot review / scan.

I have communicated with you before regarding my belief that King County voters are being systematically disenfranchised via improper interpretation of the state voter intent guide.

This is a very big deal in my opinion and something that could come back to haunt King County if it is not remedied. I know I am not alone in my belief that many valid votes are being tagged as overvotes, and that the procedure in place ("over ¼ of a bubble is a vote" ) is not consistent with the spirit of the Washington State Voter Intent Manual.

https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/administrators/2018_voter-intent_web.pdf

Specifically, on page 15, two examples are shown of a voter beginning to vote for one candidate and then changing their mind and completely blacking in a bubble for a different candidate. The manual makes clear that this is NOT an overvote. Then on page 51 there is a single example of an overvote where most of one bubble is filled in, as well as a complete second bubble. There is not a clear choice made and this is an overvote.

In case after case, King County has been making the decision that when a voter begins to fill in a bubble from the center as opposed to a corner, this should be treated differently than the case on page 15. In case after case, even though there is really no way to truly discern what ¼ of a bubble really means, even in fact in cases where the machine originally COUNTS something as a vote and not an overvote, King County employees are being forced to reverse this and declare something an overvote even though as per page 15 there is a clear vote for one candidate - i.e., one bubble is completely darkened and the other bubble is considerably less darkened.

I have constantly objected to this. When I last reached out to you, the result was a meeting between the STT's and [Ballot Review / Scan lead] which changed nothing.

Aside from this issue and what one might term whistleblowing on the issue, I believe I did a good job in Ballot Review and Scan -- attendance was good, I got along with co-workers and management, and did competent work wherever I was placed.

I understatnd that there is no guarantee of employment as a temporary worker - but, at the same time, we are told that retaliation is not tolerated at King County. So, the decision not to offer me a position during the last primary election came as a surprise. It made me think back on things that might have caused it, and I can only pinpoint a single thing: My insistence that King County is misinterpreting the State Voter Intent Manual with regard to overvotes.

I reached out to [union representative] after not being selected last time around (I did not even receive a survey until I specifically requested one) and I just contacted her again. I also called [Ballot review & Scan lead] since he is a shop steward; he said that he would pass my concern on to someone else in the union (I forget the name) and that it would be a conflict of interest for him to represent me since his work group is where I was last stationed.

This time I wanted to bring you in on the conversation as well. My fiance has recently received an offer letter for the same group, and once again I have not. I can handle not being selected if it's for good cause, but not if it's retaliation for protected whistleblower activities. I was told that if we didn't care whether people's votes were counted, we shouldn't be working for elections. Well, I do care -- and it seems to me that ironically, this may be why I'm not being selected.

I am considering further action including speaking out to the press, but at the current time I am still hoping to work things out more quietly, possibly with your help and the help of the Union.

Thank you

[AverageOldGuy]

1. In my VA county . . .

. . . I am long time member of Electoral Board in rural Virginia county.

In our county as well as rest of Virginia, if the voter voted for one candidate then changed his/her mind and voted for another candidate IN THE SAME RACE, AND THE VOTER BRINGS THE BALLOT TO AN OFFICER OF ELECTION, that is a SPOILED BALLOT. Voter gets a new ballot, the spoiled ballot is marked as such and sealed in the spoiled ballot envelope; voter given a new ballot which is cast.

If the voter marks two candidates in same race and DOES NOT ASK FOR A NEW BALLOT, that is an OVERVOTE, the scanner does not accept the ballot, instead, the scanner displays a warning that this is an overvote, two candidates marked for same race, that race will be IGNORED AND NEITHER OF THE TWO COUNTED; scanner then asks what does the voter want to do: CAST AS IS, or, GET A NEW BALLOT. If voter selects CAST AS IS, the ballot is pulled into the scanner, that race is ignored, other races on the ballot are tallied. If the voter selects GET A NEW BALLOT, the marked ballot is marked SPOILED and placed in spoiled ballot envelope, voter gets new ballot.

If the voter completely marks one candidate, then, partially marks another candidate IN THE SAME RACE, that ballot is rejected by the scanner as a ballot with extraneous marks. Voter gets a new ballot, mis-marked ballot is SPOILED.

[BWdem4life]

2. In our state, things are done a completely different way.

I'm not saying one way is better, but this is current state law and it's not being followed correctly by the county.