With the dust from the general election settled, the Island County Canvassing Board met one last time Tuesday to evaluate stringent state-imposed voter intent guidelines that resulted in the rejection of a significant number of votes.

Board members pored over survey questions posed by the Secretary of State to each county canvassing board across the Washington. The goal is to generate a new voter intent manual to replace the emergency rules that were put in place right before absentee ballots were mailed last fall.

“This survey was put forward in response to the experience in the last election, where counties across the state were not able to count what appeared to be votes because of the way the rules were written,” Island County Auditor Suzanne Sinclair said.

“Although the Secretary of State’s Office had good intentions when the rules were made, and the rules were made because they were required by the Help America Vote Act, I didn’t think the outcome matched the intent, and apparently many other counties agreed. It was painful for all of us to watch and painful for the canvassing board to reject those votes.”

The canvassing board for the 2006 election was made up of Dave Jamieson, the Island County Prosecutor’s Office chief deputy, who sat in for prosecutor Greg Banks; Anne LaCour, chief deputy in the Auditor’s Office, sitting in for Sinclair; and Mac McDowell, chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. Banks and Sinclair, on the ballot in 2006, were able to participate in the Tuesday meeting now that election results are final.

One area of confusion during the ballot tallying process was the issue of identifying marks. Wading through the awkward and sometimes confounding survey language, the group agreed that only ballots with signatures or initials traceable to the voter should be rejected.

The original directions read, “A ballot is invalid and no votes on that ballot may be counted if it is found together with another ballot or it is marked so as to identify the voter.” After a lengthy discussion, the board members decided the last part of the directions should be omitted. In situations where voters wrote their initials on the ballots, the board felt it was meant to verify that the voter had made a correction.

“Those people are doing everything they can to make sure that their ballot counts in the face of some uncertainty,” Banks said. “I think we’re probably getting more in the way of counting valid ballots than stopping voter fraud. I wonder what we’re gaining by having that provision.”

In some cases, apparent votes were nullified because the state laws tied the canvassing board’s hands. On Tuesday, the canvassing board and elections staff struggled to define how much latitude should be given to counties.

“At what point is there too much discretion?” Sinclair asked.

To alleviate any confusion, the group suggested changing the directions and only allowing written instructions that clearly state which candidate the person is voting for.

“If you make a mark in more than one box, provide clear written instructions that specify the choice,” Banks said.

Defining a “consistent pattern” proved troublesome. With only multiple choice options, the survey was not successful in synthesizing all scenarios.

“Do we allow people to vote and not follow instructions? That’s what this is about,” McDowell said, adding that he did not agree with the current definition of a consistent pattern.

In the end, the board took the pragmatic approach and factored in the certainty of human error, agreeing that any irregular marks made inside the target area should be counted. For irregular marks made outside the target area to be counted, they would have to be uniform. Even the agreed upon definition did not encompass everything the board felt. Staving off frustration, they chose the most palatable of the three choices.

“Is there a time limit for this test?” Jamieson quipped.

Accepting an ‘X’ as a proper mark would also necessitate changing the existing directions, as the ballot instructions state that an ‘X’ should be used to correct a vote.

Arguably the most pertinent question on the survey, the canvassing board had to decide how much discretionary power the group should be granted. The members agreed that with the input of all counties, one uniform standard should be adopted statewide for determining voter intent, even if that means some canvassing boards would need to change past practices. However, county canvassing boards should still have the authority to determine voter intent on circumstances that are not included in the manual.

“The canvassing board is a creature of local government,” Banks said. “We have three elected officials and we’re accountable to the voters. That’s why we’re here. … I like the idea of maintaining some local control. We’re the closest thing local voters have to know how their votes are counted. The more you give away to the state, I think the more people get distrustful.”

McDowell was candid about his opinion of the current guidelines and the survey process aimed at correcting any deficiencies.

“This attempt to change things has missed the mark completely,” he said, adding that ovals should be used on the ballots in place of rectangles. McDowell’s opinion was that the large box on the ballot invited marks that were unacceptable under the current rules. “We should be focused on how to correct the voting problem, not how to fix the problem that you’re accepting.”

“To base new rules only on this survey would be a mistake,” Banks added. “They need to study ballot styles and identify ballots that will reduce these problems.”