Case 1:13-cv-00660-TDS-JEP Document 121-3 Filed 05/19/14 Page 1 of 5 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Importance: exhibit McCue, George Monday, July 01, 2013 12:08 PM Strach, Kim FW: Survey: CBE Director input on prospect of reduced One-Stop voting period Analysis of Reducing One-Stop Period (HB451).pdf High c^/0 WIT; DATE:ijJ_^(^ ^DEMISE MYE^Yrd ' Kim, Istopped by your office but didn't see you in there. Wanted to checl< in regarding the One-Stop voting informationcollecting. We have 70 responses from counties thus far. Also, Dave Davis in Pitt County has forwarded along an analysis his office did regarding the potential reduced One-Stop voting period for the 2012 election, attached. Also, Michael Dickerson in Meek may have some materials he can forward along. I've performed a query to get daily numbers of One-Stop voters for the 2012 General Election by county, but did want to talk to you about that as well. My plan is to compile the responses from the survey this afternoon. Would a summary report by the end of the day today work, or do you need it even sooner? I'll try to check in with you after lunch. Thanks, George From: Davis, Dave [mailto:dave.davis@pittcountync.gov] Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 8:22 AM To: McCue, George Subject: RE: Survey: CBE Director input on prospect of reduced One-Stop voting period Ijust took the survey. I prepared the attached document for one of my Board members. Wasn't sure if it might be helpful; so, thought I'd share just in case. Dave From: McCue, George Fmailto:aeorae.mcCue@ncsbe.QOv1 Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 4:33 PM To: SBOE_Grp - Directors.BOE Subject: Survey: CBE Director input on prospect of reduced One-Stop voting period Importance: High Dear Directors, The North Carolina General Assembly Is currently considering law changes that could include the reduction of the One- Stop voting period. Our office is seeking input from CBE Directors regarding the potential effects of that reduction in the number of One-Stop voting days. The questions ask for impact that you as Directors would foresee arising from the change in the One-Stop period, based on your experience and expertise as County Board of Elections Directors. Please SBE-P-00054917 JA1868
Case 1:13-cv-00660-TDS-JEP Document 121-3 Filed 05/19/14 Page 2 of 5 answer questions, taking into consideration all the types of elections conducted in your county. All of the questions are Yes/No or a multiple-choice checkbox. Every question will also include the opportunity to explain your answer. Please limit written responses to one or two sentences to summarize the thought. No need to give complex details. Please respond to the survey by noon on Monday, July 1. The most important statistical input we can receive is the Yes/No or multiple choice answers. So if you do not have time to formulate the written responses on Monday morning, that's OK - please simply answer check the Yes/No and multiple choice questions and complete the survey so we can have that data. Survey link: http://www.survevmonkev.eom/s/8zyk6fy We greatly appreciate all that you do. Thank you in advance for working on short notice and a very quick turnaround for this survey. George McCue, Esq. North Carolina State Board of Elections P.O. Box 27255 Raleigh, NC27611 Phone 919-715-8213 Fax: 919-715-0135 george.mccue@ncsbe.gov E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to North Carolina public records laws and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized official. SBE-P-00054918 JA1869
Case 1:13-cv-00660-TDS-JEP Document 121-3 Filed 05/19/14 Page 3 of 5 Analysis of Reducing One-Stop Period House BIN 451 Section 2.1 of House Bill 451 proposes to reduce the early voting period by one week. Other portions of the bill address elimination of in-person registration (same day registration) and voting on Sunday; these issues are not the focus of this analysis. It is believed by this author that the period reduction of early voting will have a detrimental effect on the voting process for both the public and government agencies. Three key points must be considered in relation to reducing the One-Stop period: cost, site/location, and management. Cost In reviewing the early voting turnout of the previous two Presidential Elections we find that a high turnout has become the norm. In 2008 and 2012 comparable early voting turnouts are evidenced, 49,982 and 49,114 voters respectively, illustrating the consistent popularity of the early voting process. Because of this similarity we will offer projections based on the 2012 turnout if the early voting period is reduced. In looking at data provided in the 2012 General Status Quo spreadsheet we find the anticipated cost being $44,119.28. The status quo offers a total of 545 hours of voting from five sites with forty-four staff members. Each staff member is paid $8.00 per hour standard and $12.00 per hour of overtime (any time worked past forty hours in a week). These staff members served 49,114 voters over the course of the early voting period. As already stated, this has become the standard expected turnout for a Presidential Election. What will happen if the period of voting is decreased by a week? We address this instance from two different approaches: increased hours of operation and increased staff. As seen in the data provided in the House Bill 451 With Extended Hours spreadsheet we could experience a cost of $47,744.93. This exhibits a $3,625.65 increase in expenses. The cause of the increase is found in the overtime line item. In order to serve the same amount of voters with the same amount of staff currently in place, each site must operate thirteen hours per weekday and nine hours per Saturday. SBE-P-00054919 JA1870
Case 1:13-cv-00660-TDS-JEP Document 121-3 Filed 05/19/14 Page 4 of 5 As seen in the data provided in the House Bill 451 With Additional Staff we could experience a cost of $45,600.54. This exhibits a $1,481.26 increase in expenses. In this scenario the hours of operation remain the same as the status quo; however, the number of staff is increased to seventy-three to cover five sites. Ifthe hours remain the same with a decreased period of days, the amount of staff must be increased to accommodate the expected voter turnout. Thus, it can be found that reducing the early voting period by one week will in no way lead to a reduction in the cost of early voting. In actuality, such a reduction will increase costs. Site / Location Regardless of the county, there is always the problem of locating facilities that can accommodate voting. In 2012 three of the five Pitt County sites were conference rooms, offering a small amount of space for such a tremendous turnout. As shown above, a decrease in the early voting period will result in either concentrated turnout leading to long lines and hours; or, an increase in staff necessitating an equal increase in workspace. Conference rooms will not be adequate to address such matters. With limited options elsewhere, it may be a problem that we, and other counties, cannot solve. Increased lines, wait times, and congested voting spaces would be inescapable. Management Every county across the state can attest to the fact that finding qualified early voting staff can be difficult. If thirteen hour days are added to the equation, that task becomes increasingly difficult. It must be considered that the average age of an early voting staff member is sixtyfive, and they may not be physically able to commit to such long days. From the other point of view, if hours remain the same as the status quo, we are tasked with doubling our work force. Both scenarios offer a gloomy picture of what will happen; burned-out staff making critical mistakes and/or understaffed sites creating long lines and wait times. Summary From this analysis it does not appear that there is a positive outcome in reducing the early voting period. The result of such a change could be increased costs, longer lines, increased wait SBE-P-00054920 JA1871
Case 1:13-cv-00660-TDS-JEP Document 121-3 Filed 05/19/14 Page 5 of 5 times, understaffed sites, staff burn-out leading to mistakes, and inadequate polling places; or, in a worst case scenario, all of these problems together. Based on these findings it is the author's recommendation that the early voting period not be reduced by a week. If a compromise must be made, perhaps the bill should be amended to allow for the option of either a maximum (open the third Thursday before the election) or minimum (open the second Thursday before the election) early voting period. This would allow each individual county to determine and accommodate the needs of its voting public. In this way all possible stakeholders are satisfied. There appears to be only two possible answers. Either remain with the status quo or allow for an individual county option. SBE-P-00054921 JA1872