Convened by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science
Main | Participants
Utah’s response to the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) has been
an exercise in collaboration. This approach led to the state’s success
in implementing its new voting solution. Future improvements to the voting
process will flow through continued cooperation.
Shortly after HAVA’s enactment, then Lieutenant Governor Olene Walker
convened stakeholders from state and local government and other interested
organizations. This group quickly determined that a statewide voting
solution was in the best interests of the people of Utah.
Governor Walker appointed a group of election officials, technology experts,
and disability community advocates to identify the vendor best suited
to provide the new voting system. During Lieutenant Governor Gayle McKeachnie’s
administration, this group prepared a request for proposals (RFP). Two
vendors responded.
Upon taking office, Lieutenant Governor Gary Herbert worked with the
selection group to analyze the vendors’ RFP responses. During this review
the public participated in a mock election that included a usability study
prepared by University of Utah Assistant Professor Thad Hall. At the
end of May 2005, Governor Herbert awarded Utah’s voting system contract
to Diebold Election Systems, Inc.
In August 2005, with vendor contract negotiations complete, Governor
Herbert traveled the state visiting with all 29 county commissions and
county clerks. As a result of these efforts, every county agreed to join
in implementing the statewide system.
The implementation phase included legislative revisions to provide a
legal framework for using the new system, equipment acceptance testing,
election official training, voter education and audit procedure development.
The entire process succeeded thanks to cooperation among state officials,
county officials, and university researchers.
The Center for the Study of Election and Democracy (CSED) at Brigham
Young University, led by College of Family, Home and Social Sciences Dean
David Magleby Associate Professor of Political Science Kelly Patterson,
and Assistant Professor of Political Science Quin Monson, interviewed
voters during the 2006 Primary Election to gauge the adequacy of poll
worker training, confidence in the new voting equipment, and the effectiveness
of voter education efforts. The lieutenant governor and county clerks
used the survey results to confirm useful endeavors and modify less effectual
initiatives. These same officials expect to utilize a similar survey
that CSED conducted during the General Election.
While Utah’s election officials consider their work of the past four
years immensely successful, they recognize several areas needing improvement.
Examples include: changes to ballot layout to prevent voter confusion
when casting straight party votes, additional poll worker training to
ensure voting continues even when primary systems are temporarily unavailable,
and improving polling place set-up to address private voting concerns.
Other valuable questions to answer include the effect Early Voting had
on voter participation in Utah’s elections.
One of the seven registered political parties in Utah is the Personal
Choice Party. The last selection in the 2006 General Election ballot’s
straight party voting section read, “Personal Choice” preceded by the
Personal Choice Party’s yellow smiley face emblem. Anecdotal evidence
suggests that a large number of voters expressed their desire to make
personal choices rather than vote straight party by selecting Personal
Choice in this section of the ballot. Analysis of vote data will help
confirm or dispel the anecdotes. Of particular interest will be learning
how many voters who chose Personal Choice in the straight party section
then changed their votes in races that included Personal Choice Party
candidates. Some suggest merely adding the word Party to the selection
will resolve the concern but research will help determine the most effective
response to this concern.
An urban county experienced a temporary county-wide problem with the
voting system as the polls opened. County officials quickly implemented
a back-up solution to the difficulty. The concern lingers that some poll
workers told voters to return later in the day rather than offering paper
ballots for immediate voting. Research will help identify the cause of
the problem in the hope of avoiding future instances. More importantly,
analysis of this event should help develop better responses should similar
problems arise in later years.
Prior to 2006, voting booths in Utah featured three walls and a curtain.
The new voting equipment is a tablet with privacy wings. Some voters
expressed concern that others could view their ballots during voting.
County clerks attempted to address this issue by re-orienting machines
and spacing them further apart. More work is needed to help make voters
comfortable using the new equipment and to ensure that they choose their
selections with privacy.
Previous studies suggest that Early Voting has not effect on voter turn-out.
Furthermore, most states experience about four percent participation the
first year Early Voting becomes available. However, in its first year
with Early Voting, Utah’s participation was four times this rate. Of
interest to Utah election officials is whether Early Voting increased
participation in the 2006 elections. Also of interest is what effect
Early Voting promotion by state and local officials had on both Early
Voting and overall participation.
Again, cooperation was the key that yielded Utah’s success in the 2006
election cycle. Utah’s election community acknowledges that teamwork
among government officials and scholars will ensure continued success.
| 
