Update: In Norco, ‘clerical error’ reverses votes in ballot printouts in two state judicial retention questions
Commonwealth Secretary Schmidt says such mistakes should not occur again
Northampton County officials attempted to reassure voters that results in Tuesday’s election will be reported accurately, despite a “clerical error” that affected ballot printouts for two state Superior Court judges’ retention questions.
Officials said the votes were tallied properly in the computer for all 300 or so voting machines. They also said the problem didn't affect any of the other dozens of races on the ballot.
Commonwealth Secretary Al Schmidt, the state’s top election official, singled out Northampton County in remarks he made at a 9 p.m. press conference.
“With one notable exception, voting today went smoothly,” he said.
“While the county has assured voters that this issue will not affect the tabulation of votes, we will be following up with both Northampton County and [voting machine manufacturer] ES&S in the coming days to determine why the error was not identified prior to Election Day. It is important that the county and the vendor continue to be transparent after the election so that voters have confidence that a similar issue will not occur in the future.”
For emphasis, he added later in his press conference: “I think it’s worth taking a look at how this occurred and make sure that errors like this don’t occur again. “
“We will at the end of this process … have a fair and equitable election,” county Executive Lamont McClure said at a 4 p.m. press conference in county council chambers at the Government Center in Easton. The press conference was live-streamed on the county’s YouTube channel.
McClure said he was angry earlier in the day, but said, “Now is not the time for anger. People are still voting. People can go vote safely and securely.”
“This is a clerical issue, not a tabulation issue,” said Charles Dertinger, director of county administration.
Matt Munsey, chair of the county Democratic Committee, said in an interview that the voting machine problem is “a disaster that nobody wants.”
The problem arose shortly after the polls opened at 7 a.m., Dertinger said. He received calls from two polling places around 7:15 a.m.
Here is what happened: After people cast votes on a touchscreen, they print a copy of their ballot that is enclosed inside a secure, plastic case so they can review their selections. In the retention question for Superior Court, the totals for judges Jack Panella (a former Northampton County judge) and Victor P. Stabile were reversed. A voter would notice a problem only if they had voted “yes” for one candidate and “no” for the other.
Dertinger said the judges of elections at the polling places were told to give voters paper ballots – emergency ballots and, if those ran out, provisional ballots. He did not know how many emergency and provisional ballots were used; that will be known when the county begins counting them later this week.
In testing the machines Tuesday morning, Dertinger said, they determined that the vote totals were accurately recorded in the units’ computer memory; the judges of elections were told to allow people to use the voting machines around 9:15 a.m.
A county court order instructed the county to tell poll workers to alert voters to the problem.
“[T]hey are to instruct voters before the voter enters the voting booth that there is an issue with the recording of their vote for the candidates for retention to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, that the paper ballot will record their selection for retention to the Pennsylvania Superior Court one candidate to the other candidate,” the court order said.
Linda Bennett, senior vice president of customer operations at Election Systems & Software, which manufactures the ExpressVote XL machines used in the county, Philadelphia and elsewhere in the U.S., apologized at the press conference.
“We deeply regret what has occurred today.” she said. “This was definitely missed in the [testing] process and is something that should have been caught. … It was a human error.”
In testing the machines, practice vote counts are inputted into the machines so officials will know what the totals should be. “But no one was looking at the [printout] card to see if they were printed in the correct order,” Dertinger said. It was too late to reprogram the machines after the problem was detected.
“It was logistically impossible to change programming on each machine” after voting had begun, he said,
The county alerted the state. “The Department of State became aware before 9 a.m. today of an issue in Northampton County related to the election for the two Superior Court retention candidates,” the DOS said in response to a question. “Secretary Al Schmidt quickly contacted county election officials and offered the Department’s full support and assistance,”
The court, in its order, rejected the idea of keeping the polls open until 9 p.m. – one hour later than usual.
Similar problems with the ExpressVote XL machines, manufactured by Election Systems & Software, occurred in November 2019, when the county first used the machines in a general election.
Votes in two county judicial retention questions were not recorded properly, and votes for one candidate in a county judge election significantly undercounted the totals reported on the computer. Scanning the paper printout for each voter determined that the candidate, Abe Kassis, won a seat on the court, according to media reports.
Kassis, ironically, was the judge who issued the court order this morning
In December 2019, the company apologized for the problems, a result of programming errors by some of its workers. The county’s voting machines have continued to be certified by the state. The county paid $2.8 million for the machines in 2019 under a five-year contract that expires next year.
“I feel like I did this four years ago,” Munsey said. “That was my sense at the time. … Do we know there weren't problems elsewhere? And for voters who can be told that you can confirm your vote but you have to imagine that it would be switched around, there’s not a lot of confidence.”
He added, “I don't know if there's such a thing as third chances. … I thought it was hard last time, but after a second mishap I don't know if you can regain the confidence of voters.”