Hendersonville Instant runoff voting in Nov - Will your vote be counted? Surprising answer

Will Hendersonville voters' instant runoff votes in the November election count or even be counted? Does Hendersonville's IRV counting method rob some voters of their say in the runoff? How will Hendersonville North Carolina tally the upcoming instant runoff voting election for Mayor and City Council? Will voters understand how votes are sorted, allocated and reallocated? Will voters help or hurt their favorite candidate by ranking choices? The answers are discouraging if you care about every vote counting, about election integrity, transparency and about fairness to voters.

I sent an email to Henderson County's Board of Elections to find out: what votes will be counted and reported, which IRV votes will be counted, and how will the IRV votes be counted and reported? Henderson BoE Director Beverly Cunningham promptly provided these answers below in 2 emails on October 16, see lower down the page.

The answer -not all Instant runoff votes get counted. It is a fact that some or all 2nd and 3rd choice votes cast will be kept secret and hidden from the public and never counted. Just because second and third round votes are not needed or utilized in determining an outcome does not mean that they were not cast by a voter. It is a bad practice for government to keep any expression by voters secret.

If there is a winner in the first round of voting, then officials will not count or even report the voters 2nd and 3rd choice votes. If there is not a winner in the first round, then only votes for the top two candidates will be considered from the 2nd round. 2nd choice votes for any other candidates will not be counted or reported.

Not only will candidates and voters be in the dark as to how much support each candidate got, but voters will not be able to look at the results and see if they hurt or helped their preferred candidates by ranking. It is a fact that Hendersonville voters can hurt their preferred candidates just by ranking them, according to Dr. Steven Brams of New York University. But if Henderson's Board of Elections does not count and report all 2nd and 3rd choice votes, we have no way to know if this happens.

Nothing about how Hendersonville's election is typical of IRV - IRV is for single seat election contests, Hendersonville is using it for multi-seat elections and thwarting the use of bullet voting also called "single shot" voting.

Downsides with Hendersonville's Instant runoff voting procedures:

1. Voters are handicapped by IRV because they do not know who the top 2 candidates are that they should vote for, so there vote might not count in the "instant runoff". In a traditional runoff, voters would all have an equal opportunity to vote for the runoff candidates.

2. Candidates, supporters and IRV advocates will not know how IRV benefited or hindered their 2nd and 3rd choice votes since Henderson's BoE doesn't plan to count or report these votes. Democracy and transparency are weakened when all votes are not counted.

Most IRV jurisdictions count and report all of the voters choices. Only Hendersonville, NC will not do so. Below is an example of how San Francisco reports all of the vote data:

Henderson BoE Director Beverly Cunningham 2 emails on October 16:

1) In Hendersonville's 2007 IRV election, did the Henderson County BoE count or record or report any of the 2nd or 3rd choice votes? No, we stop counting when a threshold of victory is met.

2) What plans does the Henderson County Board of Elections have in order to count, record and report the 2nd and 3rd choice votes for the 2009 IRV election? I understand we will follow the same procedures as explained in No. 1).

3) In the 2009 IRV election, which if any of the 2nd and 3rd choice votes will be publicly reported and or counted? Only votes needed to determine the threshold of victory will be reported.

4) Provide the method, algorithm and spreadsheet that will be used to report and tally the IRV results. Still waiting on state to provide info.

5) Provide the "rules" to sorting and re-allocating the IRV 2nd and 3rd choice votes. (this is a second request) Still waiting on state to provide info.

Beverly W. Cunningham, Director
Henderson County Board of Elections
828 697 4970

Email 2, info requests continued:

4) Provide the method, algorithm and spreadsheet that will be used to report and tally the IRV results. The method of tabulation is a manual process utilizing Microsoft Excel to augment the sorting and totaling.

5) Provide the "rules" to sorting and re-allocating the IRV 2nd and 3rd choice votes.

1. Tabulation

o Determine the two (2) candidates with the most votes that are in the instant runoff.
o The candidates retain all the votes from the 1st round of tabulation. All ballots for the contest that have votes for candidates in the runoff are removed from the tabulation (they have
already been tabulated).
o Review (2nd Choice) to determine ifthere is a vote for either runoff candidate. If yes, add the vote to therunoff candidate and no further examination of the ballot is necessary.
o If there is no vote for either runoff candidate in (2ndChoice) then
review (3rd Choice) to determine if there is a vote for a runoff candidate.
If yes, add the vote to the runoff candidate and no further examination of the ballot is necessary.
o End of ballot examination. The runoff candidate with the most votes is declared the winner.

Beverly W. Cunningham,Director
Henderson County Board of Elections
828 697 4970

Hendersonville Contests and Candidates for November IRV election:

CITY OF HENDERSONVILLE MAYOR
Timm Kurtz
Mary Jo Padgett
Barbara G. Volk

CITY OF HENDERSONVILLE COUNCIL
Diane Caldwell
Jeff Collis
Ralph Freeman
Jerry Smith
Ron Stephens

Want to see what Hendersonville's ballot will look like?

If you vote in person, you will cast your ballot on a touchscreen machine. Here are screen shots of that ballot. Its easy to see how confusing the ballot would be when presented on a touchscreen machine.

If you cast an absentee by mail ballot, here is a copy of the paper ballot and some information: CITY OF HENDERSONVILLE w/ Instant Runoff Voting

About us: The North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting is a grassroots non-partisan organization fighting for clean and verified elections. We study and research the issue of voting to ensure the dignity and integrity of the intention of each voting citizen. The NC Voter Verified Coalition has consistently fought for increasing access, participation and ensuring the voter franchise. Contact Joyce McCloy, Director, N.C. Coalition for Verifiable Voting - phone 336-794-1240 website http://www.ncvoter.net/ and also http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/


To receive updates by email visit this link http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=ProtectNorthCarolinaElections-StopIrv&loc=en_US

Instant Runoff Voting Not So Good Polls: Cary NC, Hendersonville NC, Pierce Co WA, and San Francisco

FairVote touts polls saying that many voters like instant runoff voting. The idea is that if you like something, don't worry, be happy. FairVote does not mention that a significant number of voters do not understand IRV (whether they say they like it or not). While IRV might be "fun", if people don't understand it then they don't benefit from it and may have their vote count for less than other voters' ballots. If a voting method disenfranchise vulnerable segments of our voting population, then we shouldn't use it. We may like the taste of anti-freeze, but we shouldn't drink it.

Do voters understand Instant Runoff Voting? Here's what some polls say:
Cary, North Carolina tried Instant Runoff Voting in 2007 and said No More. The results of Cary NC’s 2008 bi-annual citizen survey indicate that a significant percent of voters do not understand IRV. The mean was 5.83 with 58.6% on the “understand” side (above 5) of the scale and 30.6% on the “not understand” side (Figure 19). This includes 22.0% who indicated they do not understand at all. Overall this indicates a degree of misunderstanding among the respondents. Keep in mind that Cary is the city with the most Ph.D.s per capita in the U.S. for towns larger than 75,000 people.
There also was an exit poll of voters conducted by Fair Vote and other volunteers. One volunteer even boasted of helping to shape voters views of IRV. See Slanting the exit poll of Cary's instant runoff voting election

Hendersonville, North Carolina participated in the 2007 IRV pilot. This town of "snow birds" never counted the IRV votes. Some voters went to the polls and didn't even realize they were ranking choices (Hendersonville votes on touchscreens), and some were surprised, IRV was deemed a success. An exit poll (conducted using IRV advocates) admits that one third of voters polled came to the polls unprepared to rank their choices. Hendersonville will use the single contest method IRV for their multi-seat elections again and thwart any efforts for bullet voting.

Pierce County Washington adopted instant runoff voting/aka ranked choice voting and tried it one time. 56,751 of 90,738 Pierce County Voters polled said they did not like instant runoff voting. In May of this year, the Pierce County Auditor found that IRV was costing too much and the county could save $600,000 if they scrapped instant runoff voting asap. This November voters will consider an amendment to the county charter repealing ranked choice voting.

Take a look at some of the findings in these studies of San Francisco’s 2004 & 2005 IRV election, conducted by the Public Research Institute at San Francisco State University:
An Assessment of Ranked-Choice Voting in the San Francisco 2004 Election
SUMMARY
The majority of voters appear to have made the transition to Ranked-Choice Voting with little problem: about seven out of eight we surveyed said that, overall, they understood it "fairly well" or "perfectly well." However, that leaves one in eight who expressed some lack of understanding.
…We found differences across racial and ethnic groups in regard to their prior knowledge of RCV, their overall understanding, and their propensity to rank candidates on the ballot.

2005 was worse for voters than 2004:
An Assessment of Ranked-Choice Voting in the San Francisco 2005 Election (pdf)

IRV was re-named Ranked-Choice Voting because it can take days or weeks to get the results.
Prior Knowledge of Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV)
- A narrow majority of voters surveyed (54%) knew before voting that they would be asked to rank candidates for City Treasurer and Assessor in the 2005 election.
- The proportion of voters who had prior knowledge of RCV was lower in 2005 (54%) than in the 2004 election for the Board of Supervisors (67%).
- Those with lower rates of prior knowledge tended to be those who were less educated, reported having lower incomes, and spoke a primary language other than Spanish.
- African Americans were considerably less likely than other racial and ethnic groups (41.9%) to know they would be ranking their choices for these offices.
-The majority of voters reported ranking three candidates in the race for City Treasurer (57%), while 33% reported selecting only one candidate.*
*That means that in the event the first choice does not win, 33% do not participate in the "run-off".

So it looks like instant runoff voting hurts the vulnerable populations that we normally try hard to assist.

Then there's this, 3 years later:
Grand jury report
*The 2007-2008 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury review of five elections for the city/county of San Francisco*
Ranked-Choice Voting and Absentee (Vote By Mail) Ballots RCV ballots were used in the November 2007 election for the offices of Mayor, District Attorney, and Sheriff. *Some pollworkers and voters told the Jury that they did not understand how to vote for candidates where RCV ballots were used... Additional education and outreach need to be provided to the voters to clarify the RCV process so that the ballots accurately reflect the intentions of the voters.

Rebutting FairVote misinfo on Cary, NC - Cary ditched IRV and is still glad

Rob Richie is doing his hard sell of Instant Runoff Voting again, claiming that poor, poor Cary North Carolina will have to suffer a one-to-one traditional runoff election. (All because they rejected IRV after using it once in 2007). How dare the little ole' city of Cary, North Carolina ignore the good advice of the FairVote and Rob Richie, who know what is better for everyone? Cary only has the most PHDs per capita for cities with population over 75,000. In one email, Rob Richie blamed the decision on politics, calling Cary, NC, a "Republican-leaning city." Using FairVote logic, can we assume that using IRV turned Cary into a "Republican-leaning city"? May I inject an "LOL" here? Neither candidate for Cary's runoff is complaining, not the republican candidate nor the democratic challenger. Nor are their colleagues complaining.

Voters are looking forward to the face off. The field has been narrowed from 4 candidates to 2. The only trauma is for Rob Richie, who uses any adoption of IRV as a "victory" to use to persuade other places to adopt it. He's seeing defeat as places continue to ditch IRV or are considering ditching it.
Here's Rob Richie's latest spin - which has already caused some people to email me and ask "what universe is RR living in?"

Runoff misery from New York City to Cary (NC) builds support for instant runoff voting October 10th, 2009. Rob Richie ...Cary’s city council voted to try IRV in 2007, and its voters overwhelmingly supported it.

The misery is Rob Richie's alone. Cary North Carolina was rushed into the decision to try IRV 2007. After Cary found out what IRV really was like, they decided not to do it again.

Cary's choice to try IRV in 2007 was a rush job: In 2007, the Wake County NC Board of Elections voted to volunteer for the IRV pilot. The City Council made a quick decision to give it a try. Cary voters were not involved in the decision and there was definite controversy after the decision was made. Two years later, Cary considered the matter again, and held several public meetings. see Cary NC tries IRV, then says ‘no more’ At Cary NC's City Council meeting on April 30, 2009, Cary City Council member Don Frantz reflected on the problem with the 2007 decision. He said:

"When our town agreed to IRV in 2007, it was kind of rush job..There was a lot of pushback, the public wasn’t involved …"

Rob Richie says but Cary voters polled loved IRV:

More than 70% of voters preferred IRV to their former runoff system in a North Carolina State exit poll, and a full poll conducted by Cary in 2008 affirmed an overwhelming preference for using IRV again rather than keeping the traditional runoff system — indeed, on a scale of to 9, with 1 being most opposed to 9 being most in favor, 67.1%indicated a 7 or higher (including 51% indicating the highest level of 9) while only 6.9% indicated 3 or less.

But liking does not = understanding. Liking does not = good practice.
At one time the majority of people liked literacy tests for voters, poll taxes, and butterfly ballots.
The fact is, a significant number of Cary voters did not understand instant runoff voting. When 22% just don't understand IRV at all, then it is just another glorified butterfly ballot, or a literacy test, 21st century style. Rob Richie also doesn't tell you how a FairVote employee admitted slanting the exit polling in Cary - see Slanting the exit poll of Cary's instant runoff voting election

Cary's Bi-Annual Survey says: 22% polled did not understand IRV at all.

See Instant Runoff Voting Not So Good Polls: Cary NC, Hendersonville NC, Pierce Co WA, and San Francisco

The results of Cary NC’s 2008 bi-annual citizen survey indicate that a significant percent of voters do not understand IRV. The mean was 5.83 with 58.6% on the “understand” side (above 5) of the scale and 30.6% on the “not understand” side (Figure 19). This includes 22.0% who indicated they do not understand at all. Overall this indicates a degree of misunderstanding among the respondents. Keep in mind that Cary is the city with the most Ph.D.s per capita in the U.S. for towns larger than 75,000 people.

Rob Richie again:

Furthermore, the county’s board of elections indicated its support for administering its new system, reporting that it saved more than $20,000 by avoiding a second-round runoff in one city council race.

Why did the Wake County Board of Elections support Instant Runoff Voting?
The then, now former Chairman of the Wake BoE was a active advocate of instant runoff voting. he even traveled to Minnesota to support IRV to a MN State Legislative Committee. His daughter-in-law, Elena Everett was the Director of Instant Runoff Voting, FairVote NC and worked very hard to promote IRV. While both are good people, they could hardly be objective.

Rob Richie continues to try to create "controversy" where there is none:

...The result in Cary fall on the heels of controversy stirred up in New York City by a hugely expensive, citywide runoff last month that was marked by bitter attacks between candidates before the runoff and a turnout of less than 8% of registered Democrats deciding two nominees....

Candidate Lori Bush looks forward to running in the upcoming runoff election:

No clear District A winner in Cary Oct 7, 2009.
Bush watched the election returns with a few dozen supporters at her home. She said it was nerve-racking to watch the votes come in. "I'm absolutely thrilled," she said. "This means it's one on one. It's time for us to show our clear differences to the voters of Cary."She said she hopes to engage Robinson in a series of debates for the runoff.

Don Frantz, Cary City Council member was asked if he regretted ditching IRV since his colleague, Julie Robinson is facing a runoff election. From the Cary Politics message board, Don Frantz answers a poster's question - does Don regret ditching IRV:

Re: Oct 6 2009 Election Predictions
Quote: Originally Posted by ncary42long
Don F, would you reconsider IRV again if Jennifer loses the runoff, knowing that she would have had a greater chance of winning this election with it? Just curious. Ruth

Why ask me?
Ask all of council as we are the ones who decided to not utilize IRV in Cary elections.But my answer is "no". I do not like instant runoff voting and have given my reasons as to why many times. I'll take in elections over funny math and 30% voter confusion any day. You also assume the initial results would be the same if IRV had been utilized. I don't believe that would be the case. __________________Don

Don Frantz was the candidate running for Cary City Council in 2007 whose contest was decided by the IRV votes in the 2nd and 3rd round. He is the only candidate in the state whose election outcome was decided by IRV. Don described his face to face experience explaining IRV to voters:

USA Today. Oct 17, 2007 To stem runoff votes, new ballots have voters rank top 3
Winning candidate Frantz said he heard from many confused voters on thecampaign trail ."I found myself, when I was at some places, that's all I was doing …explaining the new voting system," he said. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-10-17%20Runoff_N.htm

So please everyone remember, the outrage is all Rob Richie's and not that of Cary, North Carolina's. For further reading enjoyment, read How FairVote IRV propaganda has been very effective also read (more current) Responding to Rob Richie, IRV advocate

It is very easy to vote in North Carolina, we have 2 1/2 weeks of early voting, we have "no excuse" absentee by mail, and we have plenty of polling places with accessible entrances and accessible voting machines. If voters care about this election, they will vote.

Issues with Hendersonville's Instant Runoff Voting Pilot

Hendersonville North Carolina has volunteered for a second time to participate in the instant runoff voting pilot. They volunteered in 2007 but never counted the IRV votes in that election. Cary, North Carolina volunteered in 2007, had to count the IRV votes, and after several public meetings and much thought - ditched the system. See Cary NC tries IRV, then says ‘no more’
Hendersonville has not had meetings to invite public input.

The compromises IRV forces are highly toxic to election transparency and to create barriers to vulnerable segments of the population. The current guidelines and procedures for the Instant Runoff Voting pilot violate key values of election transparency and weaken the standards of the hard fought for and nationally acclaimed Public Confidence in Elections Act passed in 2005.

What is Instant Runoff? Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is a voting system intended for single-winner elections in which voters can rank candidates in order of preference. Hendersonville is using IRV for a multi seat contest because they just don't know any better and some of the candidates want to avoid a runoff election. IRV isn't instant to count - it can take days to figure out who won the election. All votes are not counted - only votes for the "top two" candidates are. It does not produce the same results as a runoff election, either.

Hendersonville participated in the 2007 IRV pilot, and since no computers burst into flames it was deemed a success. An exit poll (conducted using IRV advocates) said that one third of voters polled came to the polls unprepared to rank their choices, but thats ok in the minds of IRV advocates. In that election, the threshold to win was only 25%, and voters voted for 2 candidates in first round. Voters chose their top two candidates for the two open seats, as usual. Then they ranked the other three candidates by preference. There is very little chance that any of the "IRV" votes will ever come into play.

The Instant Runoff Voting Pilot is bad for Verified Voting. IRV is not "additive", so it increases reliance on more complex and bleeding edge technology and requires the central counting of votes. Central counting means hauling ballots away from the polling place to be counted elsewhere at a later time. This is in direct conflict with North Carolina statute § 163-182.2. and opens elections up to the risks of ballot box stuffing or tampering.

The procedures to tabulate IRV in touch-screen jurisdictions cut corners on election transparency. Since there is no federally certified software to tabulate IRV votes, the State Board of Elections has devised a work around. This "workaround" employs a spreadsheet using a 5 page single spaced algorithm to tabulate the votes. The NC Coalition for Verified Voting argues that this uncertified "workaround" is an encroachment on the hard fought for and nationally acclaimed standards of SL 323, The Public Confidence in Elections Law Certified voting systems are required per § 163-165.7.(2) "That the voting system comply with all federal requirements for voting systems." These standards were put into place to protect our elections from the types of failures we suffered in the past.I

RV is even more complicated when using touch-screen voting machines.
Hendersonville voters will once again have the disconcerting experience of casting an IRV ballot on touch-screen voting machines. With touchscreens, the voters will see a field of choices, make their selection, and then go to the next page. On the next page they will see the same candidates names - again. Voters may experience confusion wondering if they made a mistake in paging through the ballot.

Doing manual recounts or audits of complex IRV ballots on the long paper trail rolls would be difficult if not impossible, since these printouts do not have a ballot summary. Until the touchscreens print a simple voter verified ballot summary, IRV shouldn't even be considered, or Hendersonville should agree to use paper or optical scan ballots instead. Unfortunately, it seems as if the purpose of IRV IS to unravel the high standards set by the Public Confidence in Elections Act.

Berkely Professor Philip B Stark strongly advises against the use of a spreadsheet to tally IRV saying that "Spreadsheets mix data and programming. It is not possible to tell at a glance whether a cell in a spreadsheet is data or the result of a calculation. As a result, it is quite easy--deliberately or inadvertently--to corrupt a calculation or the data on which it is based. In principle that can be detected, but it requires additional scrutiny--such as clicking each cell and looking at what is displayed. And even that is not foolproof.

"Tom Dahlberg of Dahlberg Business Logic Inc. (his business IS spreadsheets) warns: "How can the state prove, to those who have standing (all voters) consistent with the compelling state interest, that the automation is working properly and not committing fraud? And who has the burden of proof if not the election officials responsible for the integrity of the process?"

The counting of IRV is complex — the elimination of some candidates at the end of the first round means that second choice votes are transferred to other candidates. If a third round is required the elimination and transfer process continues. The average voter has to place great trust in the reliability of the counting algorithm in a way far beyond what is necessary in plurality voting. So the counting is opaque and non-transparent — a kind of voting voodoo with election officials in the role of witch doctor producing the magical results. If one believes strongly that the average voter should be able to understand and observe the counting of votes in a democracy, then IRV fails to meet this standard.

IRV will disenfranchise some voters. Voters must choose their runoff choices before they know which candidates will be “in” the runoff. With IRV, if there is no winner in the “first round” of counting, only the top two candidates stay in the contest. Some voters’ choices will not be among the top two that go on to a runoff or the second round of counting, and their vote will never be counted.

There is still no provision to ensure that all votes will be recorded, transparent, and made public. Aside from the policy questions raised by keeping cast votes secret and away from the public, this makes evaluating any pilot problematic because that data is needed to make any scientific analysis.

IRV has proven to be a very flawed election form, even when used as it is intended, in a single winner election. The recent Burlington Vermont mayoral election exhibited paradoxes where IRV likely thwarted the will of the voters. See March 12th, 2009 Voting Paradoxes and Perverse Outcomes: Political Scientist Tony Gierzynski Lays Out A Case Against Instant Runoff Voting Also see Burlington Instant Runoff Election riddled with pathologies The instant runoff election in Burlington,Vermont suffered from nearly every pathology in the book! Non monotonicity, the spoiler effect, the no show effect, and majority failure.

Instant Runoff Voting discriminates against classes of voters

Political Scientist Tony Gierzynski, Supervisor for the Vermont Legislative Research Shop has analyzed the exit poll data of the recent Burlington, Vermont Mayoral Election. The Vermont Daily Briefing has an article up by Gierzynski, here's an excerpt:

March 12th, 2009 Voting Paradoxes and Perverse Outcomes: Political Scientist Tony Gierzynski Lays Out A Case Against Instant Runoff Voting Let’s get right into it: Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is not good. It is not good because it suffers from three fundamental problems: it discriminates against classes of voters by adding complexity the ballot; it has a very real potential to produce perverse outcomes or voting paradoxes that are not majoritarian; and it fails to address the real problem that arises when multiple parties compete in a two-party system.....

The effect of adding such complexity to the ballot is not neutral or random; it is more likely to confuse those same groups of disadvantaged voters confused by the Florida ballots. This fact was demonstrated by exit polls of both Burlington voters and San Francisco voters who have also used IRV.

Even when used in a single contest, IRV caused greater confusion among those on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale. In other words, IRV discriminates. Proponents of IRV like to frame this argument by countering that what critics of IRV are saying is that voters are stupid. We are saying no such thing.

These analyses are not impugning the intelligence of the American voter, just recognizing the limits to what a political system can ask of its citizens and recognizing that adding complexity to the ballot will disproportionately harm some groups of people more than others ... (more at the link )

Instant Runoff Voting does not even produce a majority winner most of the time:
Saturday, March 7, 2009 No Majority Winner in Instant Runoff Voting election in Burlington Vermont Mayoral Contest December 7, 2008 2 out of 3 Pierce County RCV "winners" don't have a true majority In Consistent Majority Failure in San Francisco's Instant Runoff Voting Elections. , a review of the results for San Francisco Ranked Choice Voting elections shows that IRV elects a plurality winner. These results are remarkably consistent. Out of 20 RCV elections that have been held since the referendum establishing it passed, when IRV was used, it elected a plurality winner

Regardless of how you feel about Instant Runoff Voting, current pilots cannot ensure the integrity of an election. The pilot sets a damaging precedent - where IRV votes are not counted and reported on election night, where uncertified error prone work-arounds are used to tally the IRV votes, and where some or even all of the IRV votes may go uncounted and unreported. This opens elections up to inaccuracy and fraud. The cost savings that IRV advocates tout are minimal at best and do not compensate for the erosion of election transparency. While we do hold our election officials in high esteem, the confidence in our elections can have no other basis than the transparency and integrity of the process.

The North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting is a grassroots non-partisan organization fighting for clean and verified elections. We study and research the issue of voting to ensure the dignity and integrity of the intention of each voting citizen. The NC Voter Verified Coalition has consistently fought for increasing access, participation and ensuring the voter franchise. Contact Joyce McCloy, Director, N.C. Coalition for Verifiable Voting - email joyce (at ) ncvoter.net or phone 336-794-1240