The ruling makes clear that votes in races other than the Ward 3 city council race can be counted from the misprinted ballots. In-person voting takes place on Aug. 5, 2014.

That ruling came in response to a motion filed by Ward 3 candidate Bob Dascola’s attorney, Tom Wieder, on  July 7, 2014, asking that the city be enjoined from counting votes in the Ward 3 race that were cast on incorrectly printed ballots.

The question of counting votes arose because the ballots for the race were initially printed incorrectly, omitting the name of one of the candidates. Printed correctly on the ballots were Julie Grand and Samuel McMullen. However, Bob Dascola – who had filed a successful lawsuit against the city in order to be a candidate – was mistakenly left off the ballots.

About 400 of those incorrect ballots were sent to absentee voters. The city has taken steps to attempt to rectify the situation, sending replacement ballots with instructions to those voters who received incorrect ballots. For background on the series of events that led to the incorrect printing of ballots, see “Dascola Mistakenly Left Off Ward 3 Ballot.”

The number of potentially disputed ballots currently stands at less than a dozen.

Wieder’s July 7 motion was filed as a request for post-judgment relief in the federal case that was litigated to put Dascola’s name on the ballot in the first place. In that ruling, the court decided that the city charter eligibility requirements are not enforceable. Related to that, the city council voted at its July 21, 2014 meeting to place legally enforceable charter requirements in front of voters for the Nov. 4 general election.

The July 22 ruling from the court came in favor of Dascola, even though the Michigan Secretary of State had, on July 11, 2014, filed a successful motion to be allowed as an intervening party – and had argued for counting Ward 3 votes on the misprinted ballots.

The July 22 order includes a requirement that the city, Dascola and the Secretary of State all file with the court by noon on July 25 a description of the procedures that will be used to count votes in the Ward 3 race. One of the specific questions they must answer in their filings is: “What process will the Ann Arbor Defendants and the Secretary of State use to guarantee only those absentee votes cast for Third Ward Councilmember on accurate ballots are counted?”

In its July 22 order, the court also awarded as-yet-unspecified attorney fees to Dascola. As part of the lawsuit that put Dascola on the ballot, the city was already paying Wieder $30,731 in attorney’s fees and costs.

In addition to the description of the procedures it will use to ensure compliance with the court’s order on ballot counting, the city also must respond by July 23 to a show cause order from the court, explaining why the events that led to the omission of Dascola’s name do not amount to contempt of court.

Ed Golembiewski, chief deputy county clerk and elections director, spoke with The Chronicle by phone and said that corrected ballots were currently being printed and would be provided to the city clerk’s office by noon on Monday, June 30 for mailing. The exact wording of the letter to voters accompanying the corrected ballots was being worked out by the county and city clerk’s offices. Updated at 5 p.m.: According to a followup email and interview with Golembiewski, the language in the letters will be based on a template that will be provided by the state Bureau of Elections. Roughly 400 ballots are being reprinted and re-mailed, Golembiewski said.

Dascola’s name will appear on the corrected ballot, along with those of Julie Grand and Samuel McMullen. In-person voting for the primary will take place on Aug. 5.

Golembiewski indicated that if a voter has already mailed in an incorrect ballot and subsequently mails in the corrected ballot, then their vote on the corrected ballot will be the one that is counted. Clerk’s staff is still reviewing how the scenario will be evaluated if a voter mails in only an incorrect ballot – marked with a vote for Grand or McMullen, or with a write-in vote for Dascola.  Updated at 5 p.m.: According to a followup email and interview with Golembiewski, the state of Michigan’s Bureau of Elections has indicated that if someone mails in only the incorrect ballot, then their Ward 3 vote on the incorrect ballot should not be counted. Their votes in other races, however, should be counted. [.pdf of email from Michigan Dept. of State confirming procedures for handling this situation]

Golembiewski estimated the ballpark cost of reprinting the ballots at around $3,000. Updated at 5 p.m.: According to a followup interview with Golembiewski, the county’s third-party ballot programmer, Government Business Systems (GBS), has expressed some openness to helping to pay for the cost of reprinting ballots. All ballots for Ward 3 will need to be reprinted, including those that were to be used for in-person voting on Election Day.

Golembiewski noted that there’s “a ton of proofing” that goes into checking the ballots. The omission of Dascola’s name stemmed from an extended chain of events that ultimately resulted in the incorrect ballots being sent out.

Dascola’s name was initially not included in the information provided to the county’s third-party ballot programmer – Government Business Systems (GBS). But when a federal court ruling was made last month on May 20, 2014, that the city charter’s eligibility requirements were not enforceable, the new Ward 3 candidate slate – including Dascola – was provided to GBS. Proofs of the ballots were then sent to the county clerk and the city clerk as well as to the candidates. Those proofs included Dascola’s name – so the ballots survived those checks.

Then, a change to the ballots was requested by the city of Ypsilanti – to remove city council races from Ypsilanti ballots where there was not a contested race. This is a city charter provision – that when there’s not more than one candidate for a primary race, it’s not included on the ballot. But instead of removing the Ypsilanti council races, GBS removed the city of Ann Arbor council races. The proofing process identified that error. But in restoring the Ann Arbor city council races to the ballot, GBS reverted to the initial slate – which did not include Dascola’s name.

At that point, Golembiewski said, the mistake was missed – by him and by the county election commission, which consists of the county clerk (Larry Kestenbaum), county treasurer (Catherine McClary) and the chief probate judge (Darlene O’Brien). A resident who received the incorrect ballot identified the error.

When the clerk’s office was notified on the morning of June 27, Golembiewski said he immediately focused on getting the mistake corrected.

The only primary for the Ann Arbor city council is in Wards 3 and 4 – a Democratic primary in both cases. In Ward 3, voters will choose between incumbent Stephen Kunselman and Julie Grand. In Ward 4, voters will choose between incumbent Marcia Higgins and Jack Eaton.

A tally of the spreadsheet provide by the clerk’s office shows that 297 absentee ballots were sent to Ward 3, and 401 were sent to Ward 4 voters. [.jpg of map showing distribution of absentee ballots sent within the city limits] In 2011 only 286 absentee ballots were cast in the three-way Ward 3 race. So the fact that the first-wave total of 297 already exceeds that number could indicate more interest in the race this year. That 2011 race was between Kunselman, Ingrid Ault and Marwan Issa.

Absentee ballots can be requested by filling out a form available on the city clerk’s website. More information on primary elections also is available on the city clerk’s website.

Candidates for public office often subscribe to the clerk’s absentee voter mailing list, which arrives in periodic installments by email up until the election takes place. Direct mail or door-knocking campaigns target absentee voter lists based on the idea that these are voters who are almost certain to cast a ballot – which contrasts with a “shot-gun” style approach to campaigning.

A registered voter can apply for an absentee ballot by mail for the Aug. 7 primary up until the Saturday just prior to the election – Aug. 4, 2012. An absentee ballot can be obtained by calling the city clerk at 734-794-6140 or by scanning the absentee ballot application form and emailing it as an attachment to cityclerk@a2gov.org.

To see a sample ballot for your precinct, visit the Secretary of State’s website. The last day to register to vote for the Aug. 7 primary is July 9, 2012. Information on voter registration can be found on the Ann Arbor city clerk’s website.

In Ward 1, Romney won with 43% of the vote (42 absentee votes), compared to Santorum with 24% (24 absentee votes), Paul with 21% (21 absentee votes) and Gingrich with 8% (8 absentee votes). In the Democratic primary, 95 votes were cast for Obama in Ward 1.

In Ward 2, Romney took 61% of the votes (207 absentee votes), compared to Santorum with 18% (60 absentee votes), Gingrich with 10% (33 absentee votes), and Paul with 6% (21 absentee votes). In the Democratic primary, 215 votes were cast for Obama in Ward 2.

In Ward 3, Romney took 46% of the votes (70 absentee votes), compared to Santorum with 26% (40 absentee votes), Gingrich with 11% (17 absentee votes), and Paul with 10% (15 absentee votes). In the Democratic primary, 167 votes were cast for Obama in Ward 3.

In Ward 4, Romney took 60% of the votes (162 absentee votes), compared to Santorum with 15% (42 absentee votes), Gingrich with 9% (25 votes absentee votes), and Paul with 9% (24 absentee votes). In the Democratic primary, 168 votes were cast for Obama in Ward 4.

In Ward 5, Romney took 50% of the votes (104 absentee votes), compared with Santorum with 22% (46 absentee votes), Paul with 11% (23 absentee votes), and Gingrich with 9% (19 absentee votes). There were also votes for Jon Huntsman (4), Herman Cain (2), and Rick Perry (1). In the Ward 5 Democratic primary, 224 votes were cast for Obama.

Absent voter count board totals reflect absentee voting totals across all precincts in the ward. Those totals are thus not as susceptible to reflecting an advantage a candidate might enjoy that is peculiar to just one precinct. Still, to a certain extent, these voters self-select to vote using an absentee ballot, and as a group are not a random sample of voters in the ward. So some caution is warranted in drawing conclusions based on these totals.

Before the Aug. 26 recounting got started, Conan Smith (left), a current county commissioner acting as one of Youself Rabhi's official "watchers," chats with Mike Fried (right), who'd asked for the recount. Shooting video for the Michigan Election Reform Alliance was Jan BenDor. Seated in the background is Alice Ralph, who came third in the balloting for the District 11 seat.

The process started around 12:30 p.m., and about four hours later in the lower level conference room of the county building at 200 N. Main St., the final ballots had been recounted – the last ones coming from Precinct 2 in Ann Arbor Township. [District 11 covers parts of southeast Ann Arbor and one precinct in Ann Arbor Township.]

Fried summed up the afternoon, conceding to Rabhi – who was still the winner after the recounting, with a relatively comfortable margin of two votes: “Well, congratulations!”

Fried continued with compliments all around for  the board of canvassers and the election inspectors who handled the recounting, saying he was amazed that they had finished in four hours.

The board of canvassers consists of Tony DeMott (R), Melodie Gable (R), Ulla Roth (D), and Carol Kuhnke (D). The news was first reported by The Ann Arbor Chronicle live from the scene: “Rabhi Prevails on Recount.”

The work might have been completed sooner, had it not been for a snafu with the Ann Arbor Township ballot box. Initially, the box for Precinct 1, not Precinct 2, had been delivered for recounting. Getting access to the correct box depended on tracking down someone with a key to the room in the township clerk’s office, where the ballots are stored.

Recounted totals for the four candidates: Yousef Rabhi, 999; Mike Fried, 997; Alice Ralph, 280; LuAnne Bullington, 108.

The afternoon included a range of scenarios that illuminated some of the more arcane aspects of the voting system. Also in attendance was Joe Baublis, who will be on the ballot for the Republicans in November for the District 11 county board seat. He posed a question at the start of the proceedings: How much will this recount cost taxpayers?

How Much Does a Recount Cost?

In response to the question from Baublis, Washtenaw County deputy clerk Matt Yankee, who is acting director of elections, noted that the election inspectors at each of four tables are paid by the hour, and that the documents related to payment are subject to the Freedom of Information Act – in the event that anyone was curious to get an exact figure after the payments were made.

There were four tables with two election inspectors apiece, paid at an hourly rate of $15. For a roughly four-hour afternoon, that would amount to a ballpark estimate of (4 tables) x (2 people) x 15 (dollars/hr) x 4 (hours) = $480. In fact, the cost was dramatically less than that.

Melodie Gable and Tony DeMott, members of the board of canvassers, walk election inspectors through part of the unsealing procedure for the ballot duffel bags.

The Chronicle followed up with Yankee, who responded by email to a query for a better-than-ballpark estimate. The main reason that it cost less was that of the eight people who served as election inspectors, five didn’t need to be paid extra: one was a full-time permanent employee with the county clerk’s office; two were already part-time temp employees with the county clerk’s office; and two were employees from local jurisdictions.

That left three people people who needed to be hired specifically to work the day of the recount. Two of them worked 3.5 hours ($52.50) and the third worked 4.5 hours ($67.50). Yankee also noted that parking validation would be paid for those workers. [Based on hourly rates at structures of $0.45 per half hour, around $15 would cover parking for those three workers.]

Yankee noted that the $160 deposit posted by Fried ($10 per precinct for the 16 precincts involved in the recount) wouldn’t be refunded, because the outcome of the election did not change.

Based on board of canvasser Melodie Gable’s remarks in response to Baublis’ initial query, the four board members present were also paid $25 per day for their work.

An estimate of the final accounting for the day’s expenses:

EXPENSES

$ 52.50  Election Inspector
  52.50  Election Inspector
  67.50  Election Inspector
  25.00  Board of Canvassers
  25.00  Board of Canvassers
  25.00  Board of Canvassers
  25.00  Board of Canvassers
  15.00  Parking Validation

$287.50  Total

REVENUE

$160.00  Deposit

-

The Missing Box: Ann Arbor Township Precinct 2

It was a slightly longer day than expected, due to the delivery of the box for Ann Arbor Township Precinct 1 ballots instead of the box for Precinct 2.

Ann Arbor Township's ballot box for Precinct 1 showing the side with the temporary seal. The other side of the box also has an opening, with a permanent seal.

The mistake can be traced to the physical configuration of the metal boxes used to store the ballots. This style of box has a point of entry on each side of the box – one of which is required by the state of Michigan to have a “permanent” seal. The other side is the seal containing the information specific to a particular election, including the precinct number.

The permanent seal for the box indicated Box 2, which apparently was misunderstood to mean that it contained the ballots for Precinct 2. In fact, Box 2 contained Precinct 1′s ballots.

When the mistake was recognized, the call out to Ann Arbor Township indicated that locating the key to the room where ballots are secured might pose a challenge.

A combination of August vacations plus absences due to personal reasons had raised a brief specter of a door getting broken down by the fire department or sheriff’s deputies. When a key was successfully located, the resolution to the “crisis” proved to be far less dramatic.

The city of Ann Arbor uses sturdy duffel bags, not the older style boxes.

Does It Match? Ann Arbor City Ward 3, Precinct 3

Ann Arbor city Ward 3, Precinct 3′s ballots offered a chance to work through some of the more arcane aspects of validation and cross-checking involved in election recounts.

Ward 3, Precinct 3: Seal Matches Poll Book?

Before any ballot containers are opened, the first step is to confirm that the poll book number assigned to the container matches the number indicated on the container seal. In the case of the Ward 3, Precinct 3 duffel bag, the numerical sequence indicated in the poll book matched the sequence on the duffel seal – except that there was an extra number 5 tacked on the end in the poll book, compared to the sequence on the duffel.

Lyn Badalamenti was one of the election inspectors working the table who discovered the mismatch. Her name might strike some Chronicle readers as familiar, because she was the Ann Arbor city clerk staffer who supplied Steve Bean with his paper work, when Bean took out his petitions to file as an independent candidate for mayor of Ann Arbor.

Badalamenti observed that the extra 5 yielded an 8-digit number, but that the city of Ann Arbor has no 8-digit seals. That is, the number indicated in the poll book denoted an non-existent seal. Members of the board of canvassers were called over to rule and voted unanimously in favor of accepting the explanation that a 5 had inadvertently been added. Said Tony DeMott, “I prefer to see ballots counted.”

Ward 3, Precinct 3: Number of Ballots Matches Poll Book Total?

After opening a ballot container, and before the actual recounting of ballots begins, the total number of ballots in the container is counted and compared to the number of ballots recorded on the tape produced by the optical scanning voting machine and recorded in the poll book. If the numbers don’t match, the ballots don’t get recounted.

For Ward 3, Precinct 3, the total number of ballots in the container was counted twice as 831 – but the poll book indicated 830 ballots. One ballot was identified as possibly the “extra” ballot. It had the telltale folds indicating it had been sent through the mail – an absentee ballot. It had “Flawed #5″ handwritten on it – indicating a ballot that should have been run through the optical scanning machine with a manual override, but apparently was not.

A brief discussion unfolded at the table around the idea that the ballot should have been placed by poll workers on election day in one of two envelopes marked either “original” or “spoiled.” The two envelopes correspond to two kinds of scenarios. The first is when poll workers need to make a duplicate of a ballot in order to get the machine to accept the vote. This is associated with absentee ballots, which are typically processed on election day during the course of the day. Poll workers feed the absentee ballots into the machine on behalf of voters.

But suppose an absentee ballot is physically defective in some way. One example Melodie Gable gave was that sometimes absentee voters will put a really hard crease into the ballot when they place it into the envelope, which causes problems with the optical scanning. The solution to getting the machine to read and count that voter’s selections is to duplicate exactly on a “clean” ballot all voting choices and to feed that ballot into the machine, saving the original ballot for the “original” envelope.

A different scenario involves an in-person voter who tries to submit a ballot that the machine does not accept due, for example, to cross-voting – that is, voting in both the Republican and Democratic primaries on the same ballot. In that case, the voter can be provided with a new ballot, advised again not to vote in both primaries, and given another shot at voting. Their original ballot, however, is preserved in the “spoiled” envelope. The Chronicle stumbled across this kind of situation during primary election day coverage:

1 p.m. Ward 5, Precinct 3: Second Baptist Church (850 Red Oak Drive).

[...]

Poll workers are handling a spoiled ballot from someone who apparently accidentally filled in votes for both primaries. The voter must fold it in half and place it in a special envelope, then re-try with a new ballot. Voting is a success.

When an absentee ballot is fed into the optical scanning machine and it’s rejected due to a physical defect in the paper, a duplicate can be made on behalf of the voter. But if the rejection is due to cross-voting, then poll workers are supposed to force the optical scanner to accept the ballot through an override, which the machine then counts as a ballot, though it does not count any of the selections.

Mike Fried’s wife Liz, who served as one of his official watchers at the recount, told The Chronicle at the recount that she knew of three people who had voted for Fried, but had also voted in the Republican primary, so their votes for Fried didn’t count.

The board of canvassers clustered around the table and determined that the “extra” ballot was adequately explained by the theory that it had not been inserted into the scanner with an override. Canvasser Ulla Roth lamented the fact that the poll workers had not made a note in the poll book explaining what had happened.

In the course of the deliberations and discussion about the extra ballot, canvasser Tony DeMott pointed out that there were people touching the ballots who were not authorized to do so: “Are we going to have rules, or not?” And the unauthorized touching did not persist.

The One-Vote Swing

The one additional vote for Rabhi came as the result of a ballot that was not counted due to an apparent crossover vote – the absentee voter had been analyzed by the optical scanner as attempting to vote in both the Republican and Democratic primaries.

On manual inspection, however, the ballot indicated that the voter had started to fill in a selection on the Republican side of the ballot, had written the word “no” and then voted the Democratic side of the ballot. The instance fit the description of a “correction” described in the manual of guidelines for interpreting ballot markings and the selections on the Democratic side were allowed to count – that voter selected Rabhi.

Ballot Photography

Jan BenDor attended the Aug. 26 recount to shoot video for the Michigan Election Reform Alliance. In 2008, BenDor had run for Superior Township clerk in the Democratic primary. She lost to David Philips, and had requested a recount.

At the start of Thursday’s meeting, BenDor was told she could not shoot close-up video of actual ballots, but she stood her ground. She stated there was not a proscription against it and cited a Michigan attorney general opinion [Opinion No. 7247] from earlier this year stating that ballots are public documents subject to requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

From the opinion:

Voted ballots, which are not traceable to the individual voter, are public records subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.231 et seq. The Secretary of State, in her role as the Chief Elections Officer, or the Director of Elections through the authority vested in that office, may exercise supervisory authority over local elections officials responding to a Freedom of Information Act request for voted ballots by issuing directions for the review of the ballots in order to protect their physical integrity and the security of the voted ballots.

BenDor was allowed to shoot video throughout the recount proceedings.

Links

For a breakdown of the recounted results by precinct, see this Google Spreadsheet: Rabhi-Fried Recount.

Previous Chronicle coverage of recounts:

• “Anatomy of a Recount“
• “Recount Confirms Kunselman Wins“

Photos

Conan Smith, Washtenaw County commissioner for District 10, greets city of Ann Arbor clerk Jackie Beaudry. Seated next to Beaudry is Lyn Badalamenti with the city clerk's office.

Dave DeVarti (left), former city councilmember and former Downtown Development Authority board member, was one of Yousef Rabhi's official watchers. Rabhi is standing on the right.

Standing are members of the board of canvassers: Melodie Gable and Tony DeMott. They were handling the Ward 3, Precinct 3 ballots, which provided two opportunities for board of canvasser rulings. Seated is Conan Smith, who was watching on behalf of Yousef Rabhi.

Yousef Rabhi and Peggy Rabhi.

Matt Yankee, deputy county clerk and acting director of elections, brought materials by the box full.

Absentee voter applications are not printed on baseballs. This is just someone's execution of the concept that "Every article should have art!"

Now, you don’t have to go to the game in order to qualify for an absentee ballot. But just to be clear, if you do plan to make a whole day event out of your visit to Detroit to watch the game, that will absolutely qualify you for an absentee ballot. If you expect to be out of town, that’s a legally valid reason for voting absentee.

Maybe some of you would even like to make the short drive in to the ballpark after a Monday night stay at the Westin Book Cadillac – from what I understand, it’s a pleasant place to spend the night, even if you’re not a Washtenaw Communty College trustee.

What about you Chronicle readers who aren’t baseball fans? If you want to vote absentee, the current election law specifies a limited set of other reasons you can use, which include being older than 60, being in jail, or having religious beliefs that prevent attending the polls.

The topic came up a bit more than a week ago, when the Ann Arbor city Democrats hosted a forum for candidates contesting the Democratic primaries for Michigan’s 52nd and 53rd district state House seats. Jeff Irwin, who along with Ned Staebler is running for the 53rd District seat, threw out an idea for a tweak in Michigan’s election laws.

Irwin said he’d like to see “on-demand absentee” voting – citizens would be able to obtain an absentee ballot and avoid the lines at the polls for any or no reason at all. It’s not some new screwball idea – it’s been around a while and enjoys a lot of support, from Washtenaw County clerk Larry Kestenbaum, among others.

For the time being, though, the application for an absentee ballot requires that voters commit, you know, really commit – just like the guy on the mound has to commit to delivering the ball to the plate after starting in that direction – to at least one of the allowable reasons under the state statute. Through June 17, according to the first Absent Voter report sent out last week via email by the city clerk, over 1,800 Ann Arborites have already committed to one of those reasons.

The Absent Voter Report

Last week, the Ann Arbor city clerk’s office sent out an email containing its first Absent Voter report – absentee ballot applications requested through June 17. The first one, as well as subsequent reports, contains an updated list of names and addresses of all voters who have applied for an absentee ballot. That first email indicated that the city has taken delivery of its ballots, so starting this week, the absentee ballots will be mailed out to those who’ve requested them.

How do you sign up for the city clerk’s email alert service? It’s as simple as telling the city clerk you’d like to be added to the “daily AV list.”

Who would want to receive timely updates about people who’ve applied for absentee ballots as those requests roll in? Candidates on those ballots have a clear interest in knowing who has requested ballots and whether the ballots have been returned – both pieces of information are provided in the daily AV list.

As The Chronicle noted back in May, as a part of its coverage of the finalized primary field, someone who’s requested an absentee ballot is highly likely to vote, so from that point of view, candidates typically see them as a good time investment. It’s worth an extra knock on their door or an extra postcard in the mail. Similarly, if the person has already voted by absentee ballot, well, contacting them is not going to change their vote – a candidate’s time might be better invested knocking on new doors.

How Many People Vote Absentee?

Absentee ballot applications are accepted starting 75 days before the election. Calculating backwards from Aug. 3 puts the start of application acceptance on May 21. In the first daily AV list sent last week, 1,860 voters were listed. Broken down by ward, here’s what that picture looks like – the percentages indicate the percent of total ballots requested so far:

Absentee ballot requests
through June 17, 2010
for Aug. 3 primary

214 Ward 1  11.5%
569 Ward 2  30.6%
319 Ward 3  17.2%
475 Ward 4  25.5%
283 Ward 5  15.2%

Total: 1,860

-

That percentage distribution of absentee ballots roughly parallels the November 2009 general election absentee voting percentages. Separate absentee ballot count boards – one for each ward – made a breakdown of absentee votes visible in the election results [Ward 1, Ward 2, Ward 3, Ward 4, Ward 5]:

Absentee Voting
by Ward in Ann Arbor
November 2009

236 Ward 1   9.9%
678 Ward 2  28.4%
390 Ward 3  16.3%
551 Ward 4  23.1%
533 Ward 5  22.3%

Total 2,388

-

Ward 5 accounted for a greater relative percentage of the total absentee vote in the November 2009 general election than it does in the early requests for ballots for the Aug. 3, 2010 primary, but it’s still relatively early in the ballot request season – the daily AV report for Monday, June 21 added another 49 names and addresses.

How Many Is a Lot of Absent Voters?

Based on the general election of November 2009 and the early absentee ballot application numbers, it looks like the absentee voter numbers for the Aug. 3 primary will, on the very conservative side, be at least 2,000. Is that a lot?

Viewed through the lens of the last two Democratic mayoral primaries, 2,000 votes works out to be roughly the difference between a clear victory and a virtual dead heat.

In 2008, when Tom Wall challenged John Hieftje for mayor, Wall received 3,394 votes to Hieftje’s 7,447. Shift 2,000 votes to Wall and Wall would have still been short – 5,394 to 5,447 – but not by much.

Two years earlier in 2006, when Wendy Woods challenged Hieftje, she received 2,913 votes to Hieftje’s 6,703.  Shift 2,000 votes to Woods and Woods would have prevailed 4,913 to 4,703.

So it’s fair to say 2,000 votes is a lot of votes. It’s easy to understand why candidates for public office in Ann Arbor “work the absentees,” using the daily AV lists – they’re not just almost certain to vote, their numbers are great enough to have a potential impact on the election.

The Penalty of Law

The kind of on-demand absentee voting advocated by Jeff Irwin at the city Democratic Party candidate forum does not currently exist. Absent voter ballots require “application” because Michigan does not currently allow for absentee voting for no reason. An exhaustive list of justifiable reasons that can be checked on the absentee ballot application is:

• age 60 years old or older
• unable to vote without assistance at the polls
• expecting to be out of town on election day
• in jail awaiting arraignment or trial
• unable to attend the polls due to religious reasons
• appointed to work as an election inspector in a precinct outside of your precinct of residence.

The application notes that “A person making a false statement in this absent voter ballot application is guilty of a misdemeanor.” And a call to the state’s Bureau of elections confirmed that the check on the accuracy of statements – including the reason cited justifying the right to vote absentee – is the application itself. In signing the form, an applicant for a ballot is attesting: “I declare that the statements in this absent voter ballot application are true.”

Irwin isn’t alone in advocating for reform that would eliminate the need to commit to a reason for voting absentee. Archived on Washtenaw County clerk Larry Kestenbaum’s blog, Polygon, the Dancing Bear, is part of a Nov. 12, 2006 Ann Arbor News Q&A conducted by reporter Dave Gershman:

Q: What’s the trend you’re seeing in terms of absentee ballots?

A: Absentee ballots are being used more widely over time and you can see the percentage creeping up little by little, year by year. That may also have to do with the aging population as well. If you’re 60 years of age or older you’re automatically eligible to use an absentee ballot without having to state another reason.

And people certainly are aware of the fact that if you choose to vote absentee you can put down that, yes, you plan to be out of the jurisdiction on Election Day even if those plans later change. There has been a movement in the Legislature to enact basically freedom to use an absentee ballot instead of showing up in person without having to state a reason. That legislation, although supported by virtually all of the county and municipal clerks in the state and supported by the secretary of state, did not move forward in the Legislature in the last couple of years. It may in the next one.

Q: And you support that?

A: Oh, absolutely. … If people want to vote absentee they should be able to vote absentee, and the notion of swearing to a reason is really pretty superfluous.

That Q&A was published four years ago. But in response to a recent emailed query, Kestenbaum says: “All those things are still perfectly valid as far as I’m concerned.”

I think the case for on-demand voting is pretty straightforward: it would remove various barriers to participating in democracy. On-demand absentee voting would eliminate the need to make your vote on a specific day, the need to stand in a possibly long line, the need to brave possibly inclement weather, the need to arrange transportation to a polling place, among other barriers.

I don’t think on-demand absentee voting would be a grand-slam home run for democracy. I don’t think that such voting by itself would increase participation in the Ann Arbor August primaries a whole lot, beyond the roughly 14% of registered voters who decided the 2008 mayoral primary.

But improving our democratic process is not about hitting home runs – it’s about getting base hits. And on-demand absentee voting is like a solid base hit, straight up the middle.

For now, you need a reason for voting absentee. Planning an out-of-town excursion on election day – to a Tigers game – just so you can vote absentee might seem a little elaborate. But at least it means you’re planning to vote.

Absentee ballots can be requested by mail until the Saturday before the election. This year that’s July 31. The absentee ballot application form is available on the city clerk’s part of the city of Ann Arbor website. It can be sent via the full range of modern communication technologies: mailed; hand delivered to the city clerk’s office at 100 N. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48104; faxed  to 734-994-8296; or scanned and emailed to cityclerk@a2gov.org.

Go Tigs.

About the writer: Dave Askins is editor of The Ann Arbor Chronicle.