“The Elections Office admits that all-mail voting will not save money,” said Councilmember Kathy Lambert. “It probably will cost substantially more because of the staffing needs for the labor-intensive signature verification process, and the need to provide regional voting centers for equal access to the disabled. We don’t have any estimates yet about how much this change will cost taxpayers.”

“Respondents to a recent survey I conducted in my district were evenly divided in their support or opposition of all-mail voting,” said Councilmember Jane Hague. “The split opinions from my constituents further demonstrate the need for thoroughly reviewing strategic and fiscal plans before taking a final vote on a mandatory vote-by-mail system.”

“Fortunately, the amendments put in place today will require the Executive to produce a plan before moving forward,” said Councilmember Reagan Dunn. “But all-mail voting is no guarantee of preventing errors in ballot-counting and inappropriate voting. This was demonstrated in the 2004 election, when hundreds of absentee ballots were lost, and mail ballots from felons and dead people were counted inappropriately.”

Absentee ballots may go through a dozen hands or more, from the printer, to the mail house, to the post office, to the mail carrier, to the home of the voter, to the household member who picks up the mail, to the voter, to the mail box, to the mail carrier, to the post office, to postal sorters, to the elections office, where it is handled by clerks who remove the ballot from the outer envelope, others who sort ballots, others who verify signatures and others who run ballots through the central scanner. With poll voting, the voter shows identification and puts the ballot directly into the ballot-scanner, and it doesn’t go through any other hands before being counted.

“Mandatory all-mail voting actually increases the amount of ballot-handling and opportunity for fraud at each step,” said Councilmember Lambert. “We are taking a big step away from ballot security and accountability. This also increases the opportunity for coercion and tampering with votes in abusive family situations, which is unacceptable.”

Councilmembers also objected to the argument that all-mail voting would increase participation in elections, and cited the experience of the State of Oregon, which recently went to all-mail voting across the state. The first primary election in May had a turnout of 38.6 percent, down from 46.4 percent in 2004, 46.7 percent in 2002, and 51.3 percent in 2000.

Councilmembers further noted that the Elections office has more than a quarter of its positions unfilled. Those include vacancies in the top two management slots – the department director and elections superintendent. Additionally, the elections office soon will undergo the difficult logistical challenge of consolidating facilities.

“The integrity and trust in King County’s election system can be restored best by the establishment of a non-partisan elected county auditor to run elections,” said Councilmember Dunn. “We must find an elections director soon – and the best search committee is the voters of King County.”

“Distrust in elections means distrust in government,” said Councilmember Pete von Reichbauer. “At a time where government is asking so much of its citizens, our first priority should be in strengthening that trust by fixing the system before testing new processes.”

Councilmember Lambert’s amendment that would have referred the all-mail voting issue to the voters on an advisory ballot this November was rejected by the Council on a 4-5 vote. Additional amendments to require regional polling centers and no forwarding of undeliverable ballots also failed on 4-5 votes.