ShareThis Page
Poor training cited in election problems |

Poor training cited in election problems

Carnegie Mellon University student Abigail Rives spent four hours trying to vote in the presidential election on Nov. 2.

After finding that her name was not on the rolls at her polling place and that there were no provisional ballots there, she traveled to Downtown and obtained a court order allowing her to vote.

When she returned to her polling place, election workers said they had since learned that their provisional ballots were marked “absentee” ballots, so they’d had them all along.

Celeste Taylor, of the Election Protection Coalition, which hosted a public hearing Downtown Wednesday night to discuss voting problems, said the primary complaints from voters were that the provisional ballot system did not operate effectively and voters arriving at the proper polling place found they were not on the rolls.

“For the most part, it’s a lack of training, and I think we need a different attitude taken toward voters,” Taylor said. “It shouldn’t be hard to vote.”

According to Election Protection, a national nonpartisan voters rights group that deployed more than 25,000 volunteer poll watchers in the election, the voter hot line run by Common Cause received 6,089 calls from Allegheny County — more than from any other county in the nation.

Carlos Brossard, representing the Western Pennsylvania Black Political Assembly, said areas of Allegheny County with large numbers of young, poor or black residents had the biggest problems.

“No single routine controlled who was turned away or for what reason,” he said at the hearing. “How in heaven’s name can you have an election without minimum operational procedures?”

Taylor said about 20 people signed up to testify and about 30 more provided written affidavits detailing their problems.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.