The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0151.006 2008-2010KENNETH G. GOODENOW County Clerk Mailing Address: (Former County Building) 25 Aup:eni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 County of Hawai `i Office of the County Clerk Telephone: (808)961-8255 Facsimile: (808)961-8912 RODNEY OSHIRO Deputy County Clerk Business Address: 333 Kilauea Avenue, Second Floor Ben Franklin Building Hilo, Hawaii 96720 rv TO: Dominic Yagong, Chair and Members of the Finance Committee p.-. ~ FROM: Kenneth G Goodeno~ c `- G' '.- . County Clerk ~- ~ r+ , i. ~. ~ --_ RE: Office of the Clerk Program Review ~ ~~ April 1, 2009 '~'=' '~ '' ~ L Funding Issues Facing the Office of Elections = ~ o DATE: March 31, 2009 Attached for your information is a report entitled "2010 Elections at Risk" which was generated by the State of Hawaii Elections Office in coordination with our office and the clerks of Maui, Kauai and Honolulu. Comm. Ra. ~ S (. (o Ref. To:4reaea~u , FL Ref. Gage APR 0 1 2009 Serving the lnteres[s of the People of Our /stand Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer f..~......M,.9h AJ V ~ I. ~} ~~ ,f~. ~,~rd STATE OF HAWAII OFFICE OF ELECTIONS 002 LEHUA AVENUE PEARL CITY, HAWAII 96]02 www. hawaii.yovleleccions 2O 1 ~ ELECTIONS AT RISK: Federal Funds for Elections Exhausted County Clerk of Hawaii City and County Clerk of Honolulu County Clerk of Kauai County Clerk of Maui and Chief Election Officer March 30, 2009 2010 ELECTIONS AT RISK: Federal Funds for Elections Exhausted The 2010 elections, if administered as the elections have been conducted historically, cannot reasonably be implemented with the funding amount anticipated to be appropriated. The federal Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) funds allocated to Hawaii have supported and underwritten the states' elections' costs since 2004 and are no longer available in sufficient amounts for the 2010 elections and beyond. HAVA imposed expensive new federal election requirements for the states. They include the requirement that voting machines used in federal elections identify voter errors for correction and provide for accessibility for persons with disabilities. This requirement has nearly doubled the cost of elections. The state, however, has not appropriated any funds to pay for the HAVA- required voting equipment and continues election funding essentially the same since the 2000 elections. Fortunately for the state, HAVA provided to the 50 states initial grant money to help transition to meeting these new voting machine requirements. Hawaii used its grant funds primarily to pay for the cost of the federal required voting machines in 2004, 2006, and 2008 to meet the requirement of the law. But during this time, the state did not gradually increase its general fund appropriation appropriated elections' funds for each election to prepare for the day when the state could no longer rely on the grant money. The day has arrived. The original HAVA money has been used for the last three elections to the point where the remaining funds have been earmarked for compliance with HAVA's mandatory statewide voter registration system requirement. The state remains obligated to provide federally compliant devices in each polling place in all elections. These circumstances are compounded by the impact of severe budgeting issues for all, including the elections office. The facts about the voting system funding below support and illustrate our contention that a fundamental change in the amount of funding is necessary for the state to meet its service obligations to voters fo'r the 2010 elections. The total cost of elections that has increased since 2000 rose dramatically after 2002 while the state's elections' appropriations remained virtually unchanged, subsidized by HAVA funds. These costs, equally paid by the state and counties, appear here. Year/Vendor(s) Total Contract Price State Share Counties' Total Share Supplemental Federal Funds (Hel America VoteACt) 2000 FS&S $2,379,000 $1,189,500 $1,189,500 $ 0 2002 ES&S $2,573,000 $1,286,500 $1,286,500 $ 0 2004 ES&S/Hart $5,148,000 $1,286,500 $1,286,500 $2,575,000 2006 ES&S/Hart $5,934,225 $1,477,113.06 $1,477,113.06 $2,979,999 2008 Hart $6,599,999 $1,299,999.50 $1,299,999.50 $4,000,000 Table I. Costs of Hawaii Elections between 2000 and 2008. 2010 8lections at Risk March 30, 2009 Page 2 of 4 The cost of elections and the state and county contributions have artificially remained relatively the same before and after the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). Before 2004 when direct recording electronic devices (DBEs) were not required, the elections' costs averaged approximately $2.4 million. After 2002 when HAVA required DBEs in each polling place for the 2004 elections and thereafter, the election costs escalated to an average $5.9 million dollar range. This HAVA requirement alone added an additional approximately $2.7 million dollars to each election cost. See Chart 1. 2,121,000 Total Ballots Precinct Voting Equipment and Services for 434 Voting and 434 HAVA Required DBEs for 339 Polling Places $3,761,999 $1,254,000 19% Counting Center Equipment and Services for 4 Counting Centers Statewide $1,584,000 Chart 1. 2008 Primary and General Elections' Functional Elements as Amount and Percentage of Total Contract Price of $6.6 Million Dollars. Chart 1 illustrates the main point as it applies to the 2010 elections. Assuming the same general fund appropriations for the 2010 elections as 2008, the shortfall of $4.0 million that HAVA funds had provided translates to the loss of essentially the precinct 2010 Elections at Risk March 30, 2009 Page 3 of 4 voting equipment and services. The fixed costs alone exceed the historically appropriated amount. Without voting equipment, how can more than 250,000 Primary and 450,000 General Elections voters vote and with what impacts? See Figure 1. Figure 1 shows the state's election costs as the registered voters continue to increase. The state's historical appropriations were insufficient to pay for the 2004 through 2008 elections. The funding difference was made up with HAVA funds. These are no longer available, leaving no funds for voting equipment for the expected hundreds of thousands of voters to use. Note, however, that a general fund matching appropriation of $26, 316 now will enable the Office of Elections to obtain from the U S. EAC an additional $SOQ 000 of HAVA funds made available days ago that could be used for the 2010 elections. This $26,316 and $500,000 combined would still not be sufficient to pay for voting equipment for the 2010 elections. Clearly, the state can no longer continue to expect the type of elections it has historically received since 2000 without an increase in appropriations to address the requirements of HAVA and to fill the gap resulting from the lack of its funds. Normally, we would observe the likelihood of establishing a reduced number of polling places at the 2010 Primary and General Elections, thereby creating the likelihood of long lines and waits for the hundreds of thousands of voters who wish to exercise their right to vote. This will cause confusion and disruptions in the polling places and major parking and traffic problems. Inevitably these circumstances will generate voter dissatisfaction, frustration, and, for many, disincentives to vote at worst. We do not make the observation, however We do not even have the option of reducing the number of polling places. The expected 2010 elections' appropriations fail to provide sufficient funds to open the polls on the election days. The assumed appropriations would not provide sufficient funds to purchase a voting machine for one polling place. As such, the reality is this. To continue elections as they have been known, a significant increase above the historical $2.6 million average appropriation is necessary to acquire a voting equipment system for the 2010 elections, assuming one can be acquired if proposed procurement law changes pending in the legislature are adopted. Otherwise, if the appropriated funds remain the status quo, the amount would only be sufficient to meet the cost for ballots and counting center operations. The funds would be insufficient to pay for voting equipment for voters to cast their ballots. Otherwise, the state will need to explore, consider, and accept changing its expectations of election services and results to a model that it can afford. A revised election model, however, would likely generate confusion and disorder among voters and officials at the polls; a not insignificant reduction in the number of votes cast; and much criticism of all. In the end, as election administrators, our obligation is to implement the elections consistent with appropriated funds under the law faces challenges. The current funding and laws, however, plainly prevent accomplishing our mission for 2010. As such, we are respectfully asking you to appropriate the funds to meet the state's responsibilities to support the current election system, or alternatively to consider authorizing a new election model for which the current funding may be adequate. Finally, we are available to meet and discuss with any committee and/or any policy and decision maker(s) these serious 2010 election issues on request at any time. 2010 Elections at Risk March 30, 2009 Page 4 of 4