Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Computerized Voter Registration Databases Need a Major Overhaul

Continued from page 2

By Katherine Bourzac

Monday, October 16, 2006

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

TR: This year, the Kentucky State Board of Elections attempted to purge voters based on a voter registration comparison with Tennessee and South Carolina. What happened?

TH: There are a very small number of states, primarily in the South, who have historically collected social-security numbers when they collect election data. They have a nine-digit SSN for each voter, which you'd think would be a unique identifier. The three states pulled their voter registration databases into a common format like Excel, and then they matched [them up]. First they tried to match on the SSN, but they didn't work very well for two reasons. One is, there are data entry issues--people mis-entered the SSNs. Secondly, some people reported themselves as, for example, "Mrs. Bob Smith" instead of "Margaret Smith," and when they did that, they also used their husband's SSN. You'd get matches on two people having the same SSN, but different genders.

They were able to identify people who were registered to vote in multiple states. The question became, legally, what could you do about this? The State of Kentucky was sued successfully by its attorney general, who argued that you have to follow the rules of the National Voter Registration Act to purge somebody off your list. You can't just purge people off, you have to send notice.

TR: Given that states and precincts, not the federal government, traditionally had the primary responsibility to run and regulate elections in the United States, how optimistic are you about the chances of federal adoption of electronic standards?

TH: The problem that you run into about any kind of federal standards is that the Help America Vote Act explicitly does not give the Election Assistance Commission [the four-year-old national clearinghouse for federal elections] the power to enforce federal standards. Any standard could be made voluntary by the commission, but for it to have any force of law it'd have to be enacted by Congress, and I don't think they're going to open that can of worms any time soon.

But I think we will see a demand for some kind of federal support for the states for both voting technology and voter registration. This will occur because there will continue to be election administration issues and demands for these technologies. I think what we're going to see is pressure for more funding to address these issues, and when that occurs there will be pressure to create federal standards. People will demand voting systems that are highly secure and meet certain standards for functionality and interoperability.

Comments

  • States Rights
    This also means that someone hacks one state,
    they have not hacked all states.
    We complain about the "monoculture" of windows,
    but will listen to this bozo wanting to create
    a federal system?!?!? Is there much more that
    you want D.C. to control?
    Let them define an XML schema, and go away.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    SirLanse
    10/16/2006
    Posts:42
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: States Rights
      I agree... an XML communications standard is a major missing component here.  I know that Thad Hall has advocated for this in another IBM paper.

      But there is another significant issue, and that is that these state voter registration databases were built without any detailed design guidelines in place nationally.  Hence, in order to meet the deadlines of HAVA, election officials from each state were forced to address schema design and data migration issues simultaneously, without any precedent or model.  Now, while we're uncertain just how well designed these schemas are, we are certain that data normalization & accuracy remains a big issue.

      In any event, I also agree that we don't need the FED's to enter the arena to address the issues currently faced.  Some best practices, a communication standard, and regular external independent reviews (audits) of these voter registration databases will go a long way toward improving the situation.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      stevensteven...
      10/16/2006
      Posts:1
  • Not a solution
    There is minimal complexity in interfacing a database of reasonable design with external agencies.  The design and function of CalVoter2 does not meet Federal expectations, which is one reason the system is slated for replacement.

    The problem with state-wide voter registration databases is the inconsistent source of the information.  As stated, incorrect information is often provided by the voters themselves - sometimes by accident (transposing numbers from their drivers license or SSN) or intentionally (particularly in the case of birth dates).

    I've been involved in the implementation of 6 statewide systems.  The structures behind each of those systems varies based on local standards and requirements, as well as historic parameters (what has traditionally been stored on varying county systems).

    The Feds have no idea what's necessary.  These requirements are driven from the bottom up (local jurisdictions who have been running elections for years to state officials working to enforce state and federal standards).  Having the Feds trying to dictate standards from their lofty perch can only make things worse.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Jvarner75
    10/16/2006
    Posts:1
    • Re: Not a solution
      I agree with a number of Jvarner's statements. I am the chief election official in a small town and it seems to me there is an undertone to Bourzac's message that the problem with state voters databases starts with the record keepers (does she mean me?) I am pretty fed up with the belief that electronic technology and federal standards will make voting problem free and some how much better and more reliable than it is now. Is this demonstrable or do I have to accept it on faith?  As far as I am concerned, HAVA is a knee-jerk reaction to voting problems spotlighted during Florida-2000. And, what's the rush to digitize elections?  Go slow, let the technology prove itself, rather than pushing the uninitiated (voters) toward the cliff without a safety net?
      Rate this comment: 12345

      clearbell
      10/17/2006
      Posts:1
  • Why centralized?
    To overcome the typical issues with centralized databases, why not a mobile personal voter card?
    The benefits of a biometric enabled Smart Card  Solution is obvious. Portable easy to update if you just relocate and the identification by a personal trait. Only a tracking number is required on the card to justify that you are enlisted somewhere in the States as an elligible voter.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    rdujardin
    10/17/2006
    Posts:1

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Laser-Triggered Chemical Reactions
Featured Content
Sponsored by:
White Papers

Twelve ways to reduce costs with SQL Server 2008
Find out how to reduce costs and get more efficient

Download

Total Economic Impact of SQL Server 2008 Upgrade
Forrester reports on increasing productivity and management capabilities

Download 

Achieving Cost and Resource Savings with UC
How Office Communications Server R2 and Exchange Server can make your business smarter and more efficient

Download 

The Compelling Case for Conferencing
Read how you can improve workload support and find IT efficiencies

Download

How Windows Server 2008 R2 Helps Optimize IT and Save you Money
Read how you can improve workload support and find IT efficiencies

Download

Windows Server 2008 R2 Hyper-V Live Migration
See how Windows Server 2008 R2 and Hyper-V enable virtualization and Live Migration

Download
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.