APPENDIX A: NATIONAL SURVEY 

OF 

LOCAL ELECTION OFFICIALS’ 

EXPERIENCES WITH PROVISIONAL VOTING 

Conducted by: 

Eagleton Institute of Politics 

Center for Public Interest Polling 

Data Collection:

July-August 2005 
ii

NATIONAL SURVEY 

OF 

LOCAL ELECTIONS OFFICIALS’ 

EXPERIENCES WITH PROVISIONAL VOTING 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................i 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...............................................................1 

A. Project Background and Objectives.........................................................1 

B. Summary of the Research Methodology...................................................1 

D. Profile of Study Participants...................................................................2 

C. Organization of the Report...................................................................2 

E. Statistical Tabulations.........................................................................5 

APPENDICES: 

A. SURVEY METHODOLOGY 

B. PRE-NOTIFICATION LETTER 

C. ANNOTATED QUESTIONNAIRE 

D. VERBATIM RESPONSES TO OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS 
i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: NATIONAL SURVEY OF 

LOCAL ELECTION OFFICIALS’ 

EXPERIENCES WITH PROVISIONAL VOTING 

 To assess and improve the experiences of local elections officials with provisional 

voting, the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling (ECPIP) at the Eagleton Institute of 

Politics, Rutgers University conducted a national survey of local elections officials. 

Telephone interviews were conducted between July 21 and August 4, 2005 with a random 

sample of 400 local election officials. The sample of local election officials were drawn from 

counties, or equivalent election jurisdictions such as boroughs, municipalities, parishes, 

towns or cities. The sample of local election officials was then stratified according to when 

the state had enacted provisional voting systems -- before or after the passage of the Help 

America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) -- as well as the population size of the voting 

jurisdiction. Those states that offered voters lost in the system the opportunity to cast a 

ballot pre-HAVA (2002) were considered “old provisional voting states”; and the states 

where voters not found on the registration list were not offered any recourse and thus, were 

not permitted to vote in the 2000 Election were labeled “new provisional voting states.” 

Further adjustments were made to take into consideration the population size of the 

voting jurisdiction. The “Old” and “New” states were separated into three categories – 

small, medium, and large – based on the population size of the voting jurisdiction. A voting 

jurisdiction with a population of 49,999 or less was considered small, 50,000 to 199,999 
ii

regarded as medium, and large consisted of 200,000 or more. This sampling frame yielded 

400 cases (196 Old; 204 New)1

 consisting of six sample types: New Small (n=83), Old Small 

(n=71), New Medium (n=83), Old Medium (n=75), New Large (n=38), and Old Large 

(n=50). 

The survey addressed the following topics: experience with the administration of 

provisional voting system, state guidance for implementing provisional voting, implementing 

provisional voting, general perceptions, and recommendations for the future. This 

Executive Summary provides an overview of key findings from the study. 

Experiences with Provisional Voting System in Jurisdiction

Survey participants were asked a number of questions regarding their general experience 

with provisional voting. 

• A majority of the “New” states’ election officials (62%), and nearly twice as 

many as the “Old” (33%), indicated that “100 or less ballots” were cast in the 

election jurisdiction. A significantly larger percentage (14%) of the “Old” 

(28%) estimated that “between 100 to just under 500” provisional ballots 

were cast. 

• Most (61%) of the “Old” states reported that “A lot” of these provisional 

ballots were counted compared to only 19 percent for the “New” states. A 

 

1 At the studies conclusion it was determined that Rhode Island’s affidavit voting system did not meet the 

criteria for placement in the Old State status and thus, the state was reassigned as “New.” The reassignment of 

local election respondents representing Rhode Island resulted in a 49 (Old)/51 (New) split, rather than half of 

the sample being drawn from “Old” and half from “New.” Unlike the other states (AL, KY, MI, MS, TX) with 

affidavit voting systems in place pre-HAVA, Rhode Island did not offer voters any real recourse to cast a ballot 

if the individual’s name was not listed on the registration rolls. Instead, the state allowed voter’s claiming 

eligibility, but not found on the registration rolls, to sign an affidavit enabling the election official to call the 

central registrar to verify the voter’s eligibility. Only if the voter’s name was found on the list was he or she 

permitted to cast a ballot. 
iii

much larger percentage of the “New” subgroup felt that only “Some” (32%) 

or “Very Few” (32%) provisional ballots were actually counted. 

• A sizeable majority of both subgroups (Old=64%, New=77%) attributed the 

most need for the use of provisional ballots in their jurisdiction to 

“individual’s name not listed on the voter registration rolls.” 

• More than 7-in-10 in both subgroups agreed that “individuals who were not 

registered at the time of casting their provisional ballots” constituted the 

most important reason that these ballots were not validated and counted in 

their jurisdiction. 

 

State Guidance for Implementing Provisional Voting

• A sizeable majority of both subgroups (Old=85%, New=83%) received 

provisional voting instruction from their state governments. 

• Appreciable differences in the type of instruction received involved “whether 

the provisional ballot could be used as an application to update the voter’s 

registration” (Old=74%; New 59%); “guidelines for determining which 

provisional ballots were to be counted” (Old=87%; New=94%); and “how 

to design the structure of the provisional ballot (Old=71%; New 57%).” 

• Overall, 98 percent of both subgroups found the voting instructions they 

received from the state government useful. 

Implementing Provisional Voting in Jurisdiction 

• When asked to describe the instructions or information provided to poll 

workers to help determine voters correct precinct or polling place, both 
iv

subgroups employed various strategies including access to a list of eligible 

voters (Old=81%; New 80%), dedicated telephone line for poll workers 

(Old=93%; New=91%), and additional staff such as “greeters” (Old=46%; 

New=42%). Very few election officials in both (Old=11%, New=12%) 

reported the existence of a statewide voter registration database. 

• A much larger percentage (70%) of “Old” states’ election officials compared 

with 50 percent of the “New” used maps to help identify correct polling 

locations. 

• 14 percent of all the election officials said that they did not provide written 

procedures or training to poll workers for the counting of provisional ballots. 

However, overall both subgroups felt that the administration of provisional 

voting in their jurisdiction was a success on all accounts. 

• A variety of measures were employed to enable voters to determine if their 

provisional ballots were counted. In both subgroups the most widely used 

method was “the main telephone for the local or county election office” with 

66 percent of the New compared to 75% of the Old indicating this method 

was provided. 

• The measure least cited for voters to determine if their provisional ballots 

were counted was “email notification.” Only 10% reported that the election 

jurisdiction offered voters this opportunity. 

General Perceptions

• Close to half (40%) of the election officials felt more training for poll 

workers was needed. 
v

• 39 percent of the “New” states’ election officials agreed that more 

information should have been provided to voters about the jurisdiction 

where provisional ballots must be cast in order to be counted compared to 

28% of the “Old”. 

• 13 percent more of the election officials from “New” states (39%) reported 

that more time was needed to implement provisional voting procedures. 

• Only about half (56%) of the “New” states’ election officials reported the 

provisional voting system was easy to implement while 73 percent from the 

“Old” found this to be the case. 

• Seventeen percent more of the “Old” states’ election officials (75%) agreed 

that the provisional voting system in their polling jurisdiction enabled more 

people to vote. 

Recommendations for the Future 

Survey participants were asked a number of questions regarding their general level of 

agreement with several statements regarding provisional voting. 

• More election officials from “Old” states agreed that provisional voting sped 

up and improved polling place operations on Election Day (Old=53%; 

New=41%); and that the process helped election officials maintain more 

accurate registration databases (Old=63%; New=38%). 

• 60 percent of the “New” states’ election officials agreed that provisional 

voting created unnecessary problems for election officials and poll workers, 

compared with only 42% of the “Old.” 
vi

• A majority of both subgroups agreed that “there is a need to offer voters the 

opportunity to cast provisional ballots.” However, a 19 percent differential 

exists between the two subgroups (Old=81%; New=62%). 

• A slightly larger percentage (9%) of the “Old” states’ election officials (93%) 

felt that the provisional voting system in their polling jurisdiction was a 

success. 

• Forty percent of the local election officials felt that the most effective way to 

increase the number of provisional ballots validated and counted in an 

election would be to administer provisional voting in a central location rather 

than at individual polling places. 

• When asked what would be most effective in reducing the number of 

provisional ballots cast in an election, most (28%) of the local election 

officials chose providing a state sponsored website for individuals to check 

registration status online before going to the polling place. A slightly smaller 

number (26%) favored having a statewide voter registration database 

available at polling places. 
1

CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION 

A. Project Background and Objectives 

To assess and improve the experiences of local election officials with provisional 

voting, the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling (ECPIP) at the Eagleton Institute of 

Politics, Rutgers University conducted a national survey of local elections officials. 

 The study was designed to examine the experiences, attitudes, and general 

impressions of local election officials with implementing provisional voting. Specifically, the 

study sought to ascertain the type of information, guidance, and training local election 

officials received from the State government in administering provisional voting, and how 

the information, guidance, and training was then distributed to poll workers and voters. 

B. Summary of the Research Methodology 

 The survey involved telephone interviews conducted between July 21 and August 4, 

2005 with a random sample of 400 local election officials. The sampling error for this total 

sample of 400 is +4.9 percent at a 95 percent confidence level. Of these local election 

officials, 196 were selected to represent “old provisional voting states” and 204 for “new 

provisional voting states.”2

 These subgroups have a sampling error of +6.9 percent for the 

“New” and +7.0 for the “Old” at a 95 percent confidence level. 

 Sampling error is the probability difference in results between interviewing everyone 

in a population versus interviewing a scientific sample taken from that population. Sampling 

error does not take into account any other possible sources of error inherent in any study of 

 

2

 See footnote 1. 
2

public opinion. A more comprehensive description of the research methodology is included 

in Appendix A. 

C. Profile of Survey Participants 

 Table 1.1 provides a profile of survey participants by status including the entire 

sample of counties or equivalent and the subgroups within the “Old” or “New” status. The 

subgroup definitions of “Old” and “New” were provided by a report released by Election 

Line titled “The Provisional Voting Challenge” (December, 2001). The “New” states 

include: Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, 

Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and 

Vermont; and the “Old” states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, 

Colorado, Washington D.C., Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, 

Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, 

Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. 

 D. Organization of the Report 

 The next chapter of this report examines the substantive survey results illustrated by 

statistical tables. The exact question wording precedes the table summarizing the 

percentages of the actual responses provided by the local election officials. In most cases 

the percentages on the tables read from top to bottom with the total equal to a 100 percent. 

In instances where there is statistical rounding, the total may be more or less than 100 

percent. 

 The tables will also report the sample size “(n)” for each group referenced in the 

table. The “(n)” is the actual number of people in the group upon which the percentages are 
3

based. Readers should be aware of the “(n)” when referencing the percentages on a table. 

Smaller subgroups will have a higher margin of sampling error. Therefore, in some cases 

what may appear to be a large difference between groups is a result of the larger sampling 

error and may not be statistically significant. 

Following the statistical tables there are four appendices. Appendix A provides 

additional information about the survey methodology so that interested readers may have a 

better understanding of the process used to obtain the data. Appendix B consists of the prenotification letter explaining the purpose of the study and inviting local election officials to 

participate in the study if called. The text of the questions asked in the survey and used in 

the analysis of the data is contained in Appendix C. The verbatim responses (as recorded by 

the interviewers) to open-end questions included in the survey are found in Appendix D. 
4

TABLE 1.1 

PROFILE OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS BY STATUS 

 TOTAL OLD PV STATES NEW PV STATES

Gender 

--Male 29% 30% 28% 

--Female 71 71 72 

 

Title 

Administrator of Elections 10 5 14 

Chairman of Elections 3 5 1 

Clerk of Court 2 1 4 

Commissioner of Elections 7 15 -- 

County Clerk 17 16 18 

Director of Elections 16 20 12 

Registrar of Elections 8 8 8 

Secretary of Elections 3 1 5 

Supervisor of Elections 7 7 8 

Town Clerk 4 2 6 

Other 25 23 27 

 

Position 

--Hired 14 16 12 

--Appointed 42 41 44 

--Promoted 2 1 3 

--Elected 42 42 42 

--Other 1 1 1 

 

Years Worked 

--Less than one year 1 2 1 

--1-10 years 49 49 50 

--11-20 years 34 37 32 

--21-30 years 12 11 14 

--31-43 years 3 3 4 

 

Region 

--West 17 14 20 

--South 29 28 30 

--Midwest 46 48 44 

--Northeast 9 11 7 

 

Statewide Registration 

--Yes 34 20 48 

--No 66 81 52 

 

Battleground State 

--Yes 17 19 14 

--No 84 81 86 
5

TABLE 2.1 

EXPERIENCE WITH 

PROVISIONAL VOTING SYSTEM 

IN JURISDICTION [Q.3-6] 

3. What is your best estimate of the total number of provisional ballots cast in the 2004 

election in your jurisdiction, whether they were ultimately counted or not? Your best 

estimate is fine. 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

1 to less than 100 33% 62% (191) 

Between 100 to just under 

500 28 14 (82) 

Between 500 to just under 

1000 12 5 (35) 

1000 or more 19 9 (57) 

(VOL) None/Zero 7 9 (31) 

(VOL) Don't Know 1 1 (4) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 100 100 (400) 

***statistically significant at the .000 level. 

4. In your opinion, how many of these provisional ballots were counted – a lot, some, 

very few, or none at all? 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

A lot 61% 19% (146) 

Some 17 32 (90) 

Very few 18 32 (91) 

None at all 4 17 (38) 

(VOL) Don't Know 1 1 (4) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- --- 

 101 101 (369) 

***statistically significant at the .000 level. 
6

5. In your opinion, which one of the following, if any, created the most need for the 

use of provisional ballots in your jurisdiction on Election Day, 2004? 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Individual's name not listed on the 

voter registration rolls 

64% 77% (260) 

FIRST TIME voters couldn't provide 

the proper identification 

5 7 (21) 

Voter's eligibility challenged 12 5 (30) 

Registered voters could not provide the 

proper identification 

4 7 (19) 

(VOL) Other (SPECIFY) 14 4 (32) 

(VOL) Don't Know 2 2 (6) 

(VOL) Refused 1 --- (1) 

 102 102 (369) 

***statistically significant at the .01 level. 

6. In your opinion, which one of the following, if any, was the most important reason 

that provisional ballots cast in your jurisdiction were not validated and ultimately not 

counted in the 2004 Election? 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Individual failed to provide the identification 

required to validate the provisional ballot 2% 3% (10) 

Signature on the provisional ballot did not match 

the signature on the registration form 1 --- (1) 

Provisional ballot cast in the incorrect voting 

precinct 16 10 (48) 

Individual was not registered 75 76 (280) 

(VOL) All provisional ballots were validated and 

counted in 2004 Election 2 4 (12) 

(VOL) Other (SPECIFY) 3 4 (13) 

(VOL) Don't Know 1 2 (5) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 100 99 (369) 
7

TABLE 2.2 

PRE-ELECTION EXPERIENCE: 

STATE INSTRUCTION AND INFORMATION [Q.7-13] 

7. Were provisional voting instructions provided by the state government for the 2004 

Election? 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Yes 85% 83% (335) 

No 14 17 (63) 

(VOL) Don't know 1 --- (2) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 100 100 (400) 
8

8. Which of the following provisional voting instructions, if any, did you receive from 

the state government? 

Old versus New Old New (n=335) 

How to administer the provisional voting system 90% 91% (303) 

 

Who is eligible to vote using a provisional ballot 93 92 (310) 

How individuals vote using a provisional ballot 90 85 (292) 

 

The jurisdiction where individuals can vote by 

provisional ballot 78 80 (265) 

 

Whether the provisional ballot could be used as an 

application to update the voter’s registration*** 74 59 (222) 

 ***statistically significant at the .01 level. 

 

How to train poll workers to process provisional 

ballots 89 88 (295) 

How to provide voters with the opportunity to 

verify if their provisional ballot was counted 92 90 (304) 

 

Guidelines for determining which provisional 

ballots are to be counted*** 87 94 (304) 

 ***statistically significant at the .05 level. 

 

Strategies to reduce the need for voters to use 

provisional ballots 54 54 (182) 

How to design the structure of the provisional 

ballot*** 71 57 (213) 

 ***statistically significant at the .05 level. 

 

Other (VOL) --- --- (---) 

All of the above (VOL)** --- --- (22**) 

None of the above (VOL) --- --- (---) 

Don’t Know (VOL) 1 2 (5) 

Refused (VOL) --- --- (---) 

**included in totals above.
9

9. You said that you received provisional voting instructions from the state 

 government. Please tell me how useful the instructions were on the jurisdiction 

where individuals can vote by provisional ballot -- very useful, somewhat useful, not 

very useful, or not useful at all? 

[ASKED ONLY AMONG THOSE WHO SAID RECEIVED STATE 

INSTRUCTION ON THE JURISDICTION WHERE INDIVIDUALS CAN 

VOTE BY PROVISIONAL BALLOT IN Q8] 

Old versus New 

 Old New (n) 

Not useful 2% 3% (6) 

Useful 96 95 (253) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 2 2 (6) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 100 100 265 

10. You said that you received provisional voting instructions from the state 

government. Please tell me how useful the instructions were on how to provide 

voters with the opportunity to verify if their provisional ballot was counted -- very 

useful, somewhat useful, not very useful, or not useful at all? 

[ASKED ONLY AMONG THOSE WHO SAID RECEIVED STATE 

INSTRUCTION ON HOW TO PROVIDE VOTERS WITH THE 

OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY IF THEIR PROVISIONAL BALLOT WAS 

COUNTED IN Q8] 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Not useful 2% 1% (4) 

Useful 97 96 (293) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 1 3 (7) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 100 100 (304) 
10

11. You said that you received provisional voting instructions from the state 

government. Please tell me how useful the instructions were for establishing 

guidelines for determining which provisional ballots are to be counted -- very useful, 

somewhat useful, not very useful, or not useful at all? 

[ASKED ONLY AMONG THOSE WHO SAID RECEIVED STATE 

INSTRUCTION FOR ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING 

WHICH PROVISIONAL BALLOTS ARE TO BE COUNTED IN Q8] 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Not useful 2% 3% (8) 

Useful 97 96 (293) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 1 1 (3) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 100 100 (304) 

12. You said that you received provisional voting instructions from the state 

government. Please tell me how useful the instructions were for establishing 

strategies to reduce the need for voters to use provisional ballots -- very useful, 

somewhat useful, not very useful, or not useful at all? 

[ASKED ONLY AMONG THOSE WHO SAID RECEIVED STATE 

INSTRUCTION FOR ESTABLISHING STRATEGIES TO REDUCE THE 

NEED FOR VOTERS TO USE PROVISIONAL BALLOTS IN Q8] 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Not useful 7% 8% (13) 

Useful 90 92 (166) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 3 --- (3) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 100 100 (182) 
11

13. Thinking generally, overall how useful were the provisional voting instructions you 

received from the state government -- very useful, somewhat useful, not very useful, 

or not useful at all? 

[ASKED ONLY AMONG THOSE WHO SAID RECEIVED STATE 

INSTRUCTION IN Q8] 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Not useful 1% 1% (4) 

Useful 98 98 (324) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 1 1 (2) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 100 100 (330) 
12

TABLE 2.3 

IMPLEMENTATION OF INSTRUCTIONS AND 

DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION TO ELECTION EMPLOYEES [Q.14-21] 

14. Please tell me which of the following, if any, was provided in your jurisdiction for the 

2004 Election to help poll workers determine voters’ assigned precinct and polling 

place? 

Old versus New Old New (n=400) 

Access to a list of eligible voters in the jurisdiction 81% 80% (322) 

 

Telephone line for poll workers to speak immediately to 

an election official with access to the list of eligible 

voters in the jurisdiction 

90 93 (365) 

 

Maps of adjacent precincts for poll workers to help 

voters locate their residence and corresponding polling 

place*** 

70 50 (239) 

 ***statistically significant at the .001 level. 

 

Additional staff such as “greeters” at polling places to 

direct voters to the correct polling location 46 42 (176) 

Statewide voter registration database available at polling 

places 11 12 (46) 

Other (VOL) 1 --- (1) 

None of the above (VOL) 2 1 (6) 

Don’t Know (VOL) --- 1 (2) 

Refused (VOL) --- --- (---) 
13

When implementing provisional voting in your jurisdiction, please tell me how 

successfully you think the following activities were performed: [PROBE: Would you say 

that activity was performed very successfully, somewhat successfully, not very 

successfully, or not successfully at all?] 

(READ AND ROTATE Q.15 – Q.21) 

15. Providing training to poll workers on how to administer provisional ballots. 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Not successfully 1% 2% (5) 

Successfully 96 95 (382) 

(VOL) Didn’t perform this activity 3 3 (11) 

(VOL) Don’t Know --- 1 (2) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 100 101 (400) 

16. Providing written procedures to poll workers on how to administer provisional 

ballots. 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Not successfully 2% 2% (7) 

Successfully 93 94 (373) 

(VOL) Didn’t perform this activity 4 3 (14) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 2 1 (5) 

(VOL) Refused --- 1 (1) 

 101 101 (400) 

17. Providing your local election officials with written procedures on the casting of 

provisional ballots. 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Not successfully 2% 1% (4) 

Successfully 95 94 (378) 

(VOL) Didn’t perform this activity 2 4 (13) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 2 1 (4) 

(VOL) Refused --- 1 (1) 

 101 101 (400) 
14

When implementing provisional voting in your jurisdiction, please tell me how 

successfully you think the following activities were performed: [PROBE: Would you say 

that activity was performed very successfully, somewhat successfully, not very 

successfully, or not successfully at all?] (cont’d.) 

18. Providing your local election officials with written procedures on the counting of 

provisional ballots. 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Not successfully 2% 1% (5) 

Successfully 81 85 (333) 

(VOL) Didn’t perform this activity 16 12 (56) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 2 1 (4) 

(VOL) Refused --- 1 (2) 

 101 100 (400) 

19. Providing your local election officials training for the counting of provisional ballots. 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Not successfully 1% 3% (7) 

Successfully 80 87 (334) 

(VOL) Didn’t perform this activity 18 10 (56) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 1 --- (2) 

(VOL) Refused --- 1 (1) 

100 101 (400) 

20. Making information available to help poll workers determine voters’ assigned 

precinct or polling place. 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Not successfully 2% 3% (11) 

Successfully 92 91 (367) 

(VOL) Didn’t perform this activity 5 5 (20) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 1 1 (2) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 100 100 (400) 
15

When implementing provisional voting in your jurisdiction, please tell me how 

successfully you think the following activities were performed: [PROBE: Would you say 

that activity was performed very successfully, somewhat successfully, not very 

successfully, or not successfully at all?] (cont’d.) 

21. Providing training to help poll workers determine voters’ assigned precinct or polling 

place. 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Not successfully 2% 2% (7) 

Successfully 92 88 (360) 

(VOL) Didn’t perform this activity 6 8 (27) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 1 2 (6) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 101 100 (400) 
16

TABLE 2.4 

POST-ELECTION EXPERIENCE: 

COUNTING BALLOTS [Q.22-25] 

22. After the 2004 Election, which of the following, if any, did your jurisdiction offer 

voters to determine if their provisional ballot was counted? 

 (ACCEPT MULTIPLE RESPONSES; READ AND ROTATE LIST) 

Old versus New 

Old New (n=400) 

Notification by mail 50% 45% (188) 

Dedicated Toll-Free Telephone 

Hotline 42 36 (156) 

 

Email notification 13 9 (43) 

Website confirmation 21 24 (90) 

Main telephone number for the 

local or county election office 75 66 (281) 

All of the above (VOL)   **  

None of the above (VOL) 3 6 (17) 

Other (VOL) 1 1 (2) 

Don’t Know (VOL) 1 1 (3) 

Refused (VOL) --- --- (---) 

**included in the totals above. 
17

23. How confident are you that poll workers properly distributed provisional ballots to 

voters? 

[Q23-25 - ASKED ONLY AMONG THOSE WHO GAVE BEST ESTIMATE OF 

TOTAL NUMBER OF PROVISIONAL BALLOTS CAST IN THE 2004 

ELECTION (Q3=1-4)]

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Not confident 4% 6% (18) 

Confident 93 93 (344) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 3 1 (7) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 100 100 (369) 

24. How confident are you that election officials accurately assessed and validated 

 provisional ballots? 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Not confident 2% 2% (7) 

Confident 95 95 (350) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 3 3 (10) 

(VOL) Refused 1 1 (2) 

 101 101 (369) 

25. How confident are you that the validated provisional ballots were accurately included 

in the final vote count? 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Not confident 1% --- (1) 

Confident 99 98 (363) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 1 2 (5) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 101 100 (369) 
18

TABLE 2.5 

GENERAL PERCEPTIONS [Q.26-35] 

26. Now I am going to read you a list of items, please tell me which one you believe 

presented the biggest challenge in implementing provisional voting in your 

jurisdiction for the 2004 Election. (POSSIBLY BIGGEST PROBLEM) 

(READ AND ROTATE 1-4) 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Training of poll workers 38% 42% (160) 

Length of time provided before the election to 

implement the provisional voting process 13 14 (53) 

Clarity of instruction received from your State 

Government 5 8 (27) 

Having enough staff at the polling place 9 14 (46) 

(VOL) Other (SPECIFY) 5 3 (15) 

(VOL) All of the above 2 3 (9) 

(VOL) None of the above 26 16 (83) 

(VOL) Don't Know 3 1 (7) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 101 101 (400) 
19

Please tell me how much you agree or disagree with the following statements about 

Provisional voting in your jurisdiction for the 2004 Election. [IF AGREE OR 

DISAGREE, ASK:] Would you say you agree/disagree strongly or agree/disagree 

somewhat? 

(READ AND ROTATE Q.27 –Q.35) 

27. More training was needed on how to administer the provisional voting process. 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Disagree 54% 46% (200) 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 6 5 (22) 

Agree 38 49 (174) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 2 --- (4) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 100 100 (400) 

28. More funding was needed to educate voters about their rights to cast a provisional 

ballot. 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Disagree 50% 43% (185) 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 11 12 (45) 

Agree 39 45 (168) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 1 1 (2) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 101 101 (400) 

29. More information should have been provided to voters about the jurisdiction where 

provisional ballots must be cast in order to be counted. 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Disagree 62% 50% (222) 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 8 8 (32) 

Agree 28 39 (133) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 3 4 (13) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

101 101 (400) 

 ***statistically significant at the .05 level. 
20

30. More information was needed for poll workers to determine the voter’s assigned 

precinct and polling place. 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Disagree 68% 63% (261) 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 7 5 (25) 

Agree 23 29 (104) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 2 3 (10) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 100 100 (400) 

31. More time was needed to implement provisional voting procedures. 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Disagree 66 55 (242) 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 7 5 (24) 

Agree 26 39 (130) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 1 1 (4) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

100 100 (400) 

 ***statistically significant at the .05 level. 

32. The provisional voting system was easy to implement. 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Disagree 24% 35% (117) 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 9 (25) 

Agree 74 56 (258) 

(VOL) Don’t Know --- --- (---) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

101 100 (400) 

 ***statistically significant at the .01 level. 
21

33. The provisional voting system in my polling jurisdiction enabled more people to 

vote. 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Disagree 19% 29% (97) 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 12 (32) 

Agree 75 58 (266) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 2 1 (5) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 100 100 (400) 

 ***statistically significant at the .01 level. 

34. I feel that voters in my jurisdiction were provided adequate information to 

successfully cast a provisional ballot. 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Disagree 3% 5% (17) 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 2 4 (12) 

Agree 93 91 (368) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 2 --- (3) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 100 100 (400) 

35. Adequate support was provided to me to assist in the implementation of provisional 

voting. 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Disagree 7% 11% (37) 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 2 8 (20) 

Agree 91 81 (343) 

(VOL) Don’t Know --- --- (---) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 100 100 (400) 

 ***statistically significant at the .01 level. 
22

TABLE 2.6 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

FOR THE FUTURE [Q.36-46] 

36. Now I am going to read you a list of items. Please tell me which one you believe is 

the most important change needed in the implementation of provisional voting. 

(RANDOMLY ROTATE 1-4) 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

More funding for poll worker training 24% 34% (116) 

More time for poll worker training 18 18 (72) 

Clearer instruction from the Federal 

Government 19 18 (75) 

Clearer instruction from the State 

Government 14 9 (47) 

(VOL) Other (SPECIFY) 6 3 (19) 

(VOL) All of the above 1 3 (7) 

(VOL) None of the above 15 12 (55) 

(VOL) No changes needed 2 1 (6) 

(VOL) Don't Know --- 2 (3) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 99 100 (400) 
23

In general, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with the following statements 

about provisional voting. [IF AGREE OR DISAGREE, ASK:] Would you say you 

agree/disagree strongly or agree/disagree somewhat? 

(READ AND ROTATE Q.37–Q.44) 

37. A statewide voter registration database, accessible to poll workers on Election Day, 

would decrease the need for voters to cast provisional ballots. 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Disagree 43% 35% (155) 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 7 6 (26) 

Agree 49 56 (210) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 2 3 (9) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 101 100 (400) 

38. A state-sponsored website designed for individuals to check registration status 

online, before going to the polling place on Election Day, would decrease the need 

for voters to cast provisional ballots. 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Disagree 24% 23% (93) 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 6 5 (22) 

Agree 68 70 (277) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 2 2 (7) 

(VOL) Refused 1 --- (1) 

 101 100 (400) 
24

In general, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with the following statements 

about provisional voting. [IF AGREE OR DISAGREE, ASK:] Would you say you 

agree/disagree strongly or agree/disagree somewhat? (cont’d.) 

39. Provisional voting speeds up and improves polling place operation on Election Day 

by resolving disputes between voters and poll workers. 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Disagree 40% 55% (190) 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 6 3 (18) 

Agree 53 41 (188) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 1 1 (3) 

(VOL) Refused 1 --- (1) 

 101 100 (400) 

40. Provisional voting helps election officials maintain more accurate registration 

databases. 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Disagree 31% 49% (161) 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 11 (31) 

Agree 63 38 (201) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 2 2 (7) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 100 100 (400) 

 ***statistically significant at the .000 level. 

41. Provisional voting creates unnecessary problems for election officials and poll 

workers. 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Disagree 52% 34% (171) 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 5 5 (20) 

Agree 42 60 (206) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 1 1 (3) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 100 100 (400) 

 ***statistically significant at the .01 level. 
25

In general, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with the following statements 

about provisional voting. [IF AGREE OR DISAGREE, ASK:] Would you say you 

agree/disagree strongly or agree/disagree somewhat? (cont’d.) 

42. Provisional voting can be avoided by simplifying registration procedures. 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Disagree 55% 43% (195) 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 6 5 (23) 

Agree 38 50 (176) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 2 2 (6) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 101 100 (400) 

43. There is a need to offer voters the opportunity to cast provisional ballots. 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Disagree 17% 31% (98) 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 2 6 (15) 

Agree 81 62 (285) 

(VOL) Don’t Know --- 1 (2) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 100 100 (400) 

 ***statistically significant at the .001 level. 

44. The provisional voting system in my polling jurisdiction was a success. 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Disagree 5% 8% (27) 

Neither Agree nor Disagree 2 7 (18) 

Agree 93 84 (353) 

(VOL) Don’t Know 1 1 (2) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 101 100 (400) 

 ***statistically significant at the .05 level. 
26

45. Which one of the following do you think would be the most effective in increasing 

the number of provisional ballots validated and ultimately counted in an election? 

(RANDOMLY ROTATE 1-3) 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

In-precinct provisional voting only 21% 18% (79) 

Provisional voting from a central location 

rather than in individual polling places 37 44 (161) 

In-jurisdiction provisional voting only 21 18 (77) 

(VOL) Other (SPECIFY) 1 3 (7) 

(VOL) All of the above 1 1 (2) 

(VOL) None of the above 15 8 (47) 

(VOL) Don't Know 4 9 (27) 

(VOL) Refused --- --- (---) 

 100 101 (400) 
27

46. Which one of the following do you think would be the most effective in reducing the 

number of provisional ballots cast in an election? 

(RANDOMLY ROTATE 1-5) 

Old versus New Old New (n) 

Having a statewide voter registration database available at polling 

places 22% 30% (105)

Providing additional staff such as “greeters” at polling places to 

direct voters to the correct polling location 6 6 (24) 

Providing a state sponsored website to enable individuals to check 

registration status online before going to the polling place 30 27 (113)

Providing poll workers access to an updated printed list of eligible 

voters in the jurisdiction 5 5 (20) 

Providing a dedicated telephone line for poll workers to speak 

immediately to an election official with access to the list of eligible 

voters in the jurisdiction 

14 18 (63) 

(VOL) Other (SPECIFY) --- 1 (2) 

(VOL) All of the above 4 3 (14) 

(VOL) None of the above 16 9 (51) 

(VOL) Don't Know 2 2 (7) 

(VOL) Refused --- 1 (1) 

 99 102 (400)
28

APPENDIX A: 

SURVEY METHODOLOGY 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 This survey represents a joint venture of two programs – the Eagleton Institute of 

Politics, Rutgers University and the Eagleton Institute’s Center for Public Interest Polling 

(ECPIP). This survey was designed to assess and improve the experiences of local elections 

officials with provisional voting. 

II. QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT 

The questionnaire was developed for telephone administration by ECPIP researchers 

in consultation with Eagleton staff. The draft questionnaire was pretested with a random 

group of local election officials that yielded five completes. Only minor changes were made 

from that version and no further pretest was needed. 

The questionnaire interview length averaged 18.4 minutes. An annotated version of 

the final survey instrument is included in this report (see Appendix C). 

The questionnaire was programmed into a CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone 

Interviews) software system know as Quancept. The system facilitates the loops, rotations, 

randomization, and complex skip patterns found in this survey instrument. The 

programming was extensively checked and all logical errors were corrected. 

III. SAMPLE DESIGN 

 A random national sample was compiled based on information acquired from the 

State Board of Elections in each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia. In all, 3,820 
29

local election officials were eligible to participate in the study. To enhance compliance rates, 

pre-notification letters were sent to 2,471 of the local election officials. These letters 

explained the study’s objectives and asked for the officials’ participation in the study if 

contacted by an interviewer. Overall, 1,018 were contacted by telephone to participate in the 

study and among these, a total of 400 local election officials agreed to participate in the 

study. 

The “Old” and “New” states were separated into three categories – small, medium, 

and large – based on the population size of the voting jurisdiction. A voting jurisdiction 

with a population of 49,999 or less was considered small, 50,000 to 199,999 regarded as 

medium, and large consisted of 200,000 or more. The sample was designed to make sure 

that each of the six sample types: New Small (n=83), Old Small (n=71), New Medium 

(n=83), Old Medium (n=75), New Large (n=38), and Old Large (n=50) were represented in 

the study. Overall, the survey yielded a response rate of 30 percent for the “Old” state 

sample and 53 percent for the “New” state sample. 
30

APPENDIX B: 

PRE-NOTIFICATION LETTER

DATE 

NAME 

TITLE 

ADDRESS 

CITY STATE ZIP 

Dear NAME, 

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, is conducting a national survey of elections 

officials’ experiences with provisional voting in the 2004 national election. Through this survey we 

will learn the perspective of those who administer elections. It will improve our understanding of the 

process as we complete a broad research project on provisional voting in the context of effective 

election administration, voter access, and ballot security. The findings of the project will be the basis 

for recommendations to the U. S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to consider in the 

development of its guidance to the states in 2006. 

The EAC was established by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002. It is an 

independent, bipartisan, federal agency that provides federal funds to states to upgrade voting 

systems and improve election administration. The EAC publishes voluntary guidelines for the states 

and serves as a national clearinghouse of information regarding election administration. The EAC is 

funding the research project. 

Participants in this study will be selected randomly and asked to share their experiences 

administering the provisional voting process in the 2004 election. The study will be conducted July 

18th through August 5th. During that period a survey researcher may call you if you are, in fact, 

chosen at random from a national list of election officials. The researcher will ask you questions 

about your experience with provisional voting, your evaluation of the process, and your 

recommendations to improve it. The survey will take approximately 10-15 minutes. All of your 

answers will be completely confidential, and no statement or comment you make will be ascribed to 

you. 

At the conclusion of the research project, we will present a report to the EAC including 

analysis of provisional voting procedures as well as recommendations for future practices and 

procedures. The guidance document based on our research will be published by the EAC in the 

Federal Register for public review and comment, and the EAC will hold a hearing on the guidance 

document this fall before adopting it. 

Your participation in the survey will assure that we understand the views of election officials 

who have direct experience with provisional voting. We hope you will participate if called. Thank you 

for your consideration and interest. 

Sincerely, 

[scanned signature] 

Ruth B. Mandel 

Director 

Board of Governors Professor of Politics
31

APPENDIX C: 

ANNOTATED QUESTIONNAIRE 

PROVISIONAL VOTING SURVEY

Sample: Local Elections Officials 

National sample: 400 telephone interviews 

Draft Version: July 19, 2005

Initial Screener 

Hello, my name is and I’m calling on behalf of the Eagleton 

Institute of Politics at Rutgers University. Rutgers University is conducting a study on 

provisional voting based on experiences from the 2004 election. May I please speak to 

[INSERT NAME FROM SAMPLE]? 

[IF UNSURE WHO THIS INDIVIDUAL IS – ASK:] 

May I please speak to the individual who was responsible for overseeing voting 

procedures for the 2004 election at the county, borough, municipality, or parish level 

such as the Registrar of Elections, County Clerk, Commissioner of Elections, Director of 

Elections, Administrator of Elections, or Clerk of Court? 

[SKIP TO “CONSENT OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENT FROM SAMPLE 

CONTACT”] 

Consent 

Hello, my name is and I’m calling on behalf of the Eagleton 

Institute of Politics at Rutgers University. Rutgers University is conducting a study on 

provisional voting based on experiences from the 2004 election. We recently sent you a 

letter requesting your participation in the confidential survey we are conducting with 

elections officials. Your participation in the survey will assure that we understand the 

views of election officials who have direct experience with provisional voting. We would 

very much like to include your opinions and would really appreciate it if you could assist 

us by providing as much information as you can to the best of your knowledge. You 

were randomly selected for the survey from a nationally representative list of election 

officials. We are not selling anything, and not asking for money. 
32

The information you will be sharing today will be the basis for recommendations 

to the U. S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to consider in the development of its 

guidance to the states in 2006. This information will be maintained at a secure site and 

your name will not be identified in the report. All your answers are completely 

confidential.

The survey should take no more than 10 or 15 minutes to complete. 

Consent of Individual Different from Sample Contact 

Hello, my name is and I’m calling on behalf of the Eagleton 

Institute of Politics at Rutgers University. Rutgers University is conducting a study on 

provisional voting based on experiences from the 2004 election. We recently sent a letter 

to your office requesting participation in a confidential survey we are conducting with 

elections officials. Your participation in the survey will assure that we understand the 

views of election officials who have direct experience with provisional voting. We would 

very much like to include your opinions and would really appreciate it if you could assist 

us by providing as much information as you can to the best of your knowledge. You 

were randomly selected for the survey from a nationally representative list of election 

officials. We are not selling anything, and not asking for money. 

The information you will be sharing today will be the basis for recommendations 

to the U. S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to consider in the development of its 

guidance to the states in 2006. This information will be maintained at a secure site and 

your name will not be identified in the report. All your answers are completely 

confidential.

The survey should take no more than 10 or 15 minutes to complete. 

IF NECESSARY: If you should have any questions about the study, you may contact 

the Research Project Coordinator, April Rapp, at the Eagleton Center for Public Interest 

Polling at 732-932-9384 ext. 261.

IF RESPONDENT DECLINES TO PARTICIPATE, ADDITIONAL PRODDING 

NEEDED: 

--Your participation is very important because only 400 election officials have been randomly 

selected for this survey and your views will be used to provide provisional voting policy 

recommendations. We would be happy to fax you a letter outlining the study objectives. [If yes, 

can I please have your fax number?] (RECORD FAX NUMBER) 
33

Screener 

1. On Election Day, November 2nd, 2004 was it your responsibility to supervise the 

election at the county, borough, municipality, or parish level? 

 (n=400) 

100% YES GO TO Q2 

-- NO GO TO Q1a 

 -- DON’T KNOW TERMINATE 

 -- REFUSED TERMINATE 

1a. May I please have the name and phone number of the individual who was 

responsible for supervising the 2004 election at the county, borough, 

municipality, or parish level? 

[RECORD NAME/PHONE NUMBER OF REFERRAL] (THANK AND 

TERMINATE) 

Jurisdiction 

2. What was your job title on Election Day, November 2nd, 2004? 

(DO NOT READ – VOLUNTEER RESPONSE) 

 (n=400) 

10% Administrator of Elections 

3 Chairman of Elections 

2 Clerk of Court 

7 Commissioner of Elections 

17 County Clerk 

16 Director of Elections 

8 Registrar of Elections 

3 Secretary of Elections 

7 Supervisor of Elections 

4 Town Clerk 

25 Other (specify) 

 -- Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 
34

General: Provisional Voting 

Now, I would like to ask you some questions about provisional voting in your 

jurisdiction. 

3. What is your best estimate of the total number of provisional ballots cast in the 

2004 election in your jurisdiction, whether they were ultimately counted or not? 

Your best estimate is fine. 

(n=400) 

 48% Less than 100 

 21 Between 100 to just under 500 

 9 Between 500 to just under 1000 

 14 1000 or more 

 8 None/Zero (GO TO Q7)

 1 Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 

(ASK ONLY IF Q3=1-4) 

4. In your opinion, how many of these provisional ballots were counted – a lot, 

some, very few, or none at all? 

 (n=400) 

 40% A lot 

 24 Some 

 25 Very few 

 10 None at all 

 1 Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 
35

5. In your opinion, which one of the following, if any, created the most need for the 

use of provisional ballots in your jurisdiction on Election Day, 2004? 

(READ AND ROTATE 1-4) 

(n=369) 

 71% Individual’s name not listed on the voter registration rolls 

 6 First time voters couldn’t provide the proper identification 

 8 Voter’s eligibility challenged 

 5 Registered voters could not provide the proper identification 

 9 Other (specify) 

 2 Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 

6. In your opinion, which one of the following, if any, was the most important 

reason that provisional ballots cast in your jurisdiction were not validated and 

ultimately not counted in the 2004 Election? 

(READ AND ROTATE 1-4) 

 (n=369) 

 3% Individual failed to provide the identification required to validate 

the provisional ballot 

 -- Signature on the provisional ballot did not match the signature on 

the registration form 

 13 Provisional ballot cast in the incorrect voting precinct 

 76 Individual was not registered 

3 All provisional ballots were validated and counted in 2004 election 

4 Other (specify) 

 1 Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 

Pre-Election Experience: Instructions and Information Received (Content and Quality ) 

7. Were provisional voting instructions provided by the state government for the 

2004 Election? 

 

 (n=400) 

 

 84% Yes (GO TO Q8)

 16 No (GO TO Q14) 

 1 Don’t Know (GO TO Q14) 

 -- Refused 
36

STATE GOVERNMENT INSTRUCTIONS AND INFORMATION 

(ASK ONLY IF Q7=1) 

8. Which of the following provisional voting instructions, if any, did you receive 

from the state government? 

(ACCEPT MULTIPLE RESPONSES; ROTATE LIST) 

(n=335) 

 Yes No

How to administer the provisional voting system 90% 10% 

Who is eligible to vote using a provisional ballot 93 8 

How individuals vote using a provisional ballot 87 13 

The jurisdiction where individuals can vote by provisional 

ballot 79 21 

Whether the provisional ballot could be used as an application 

to update the voter’s registration 66 34 

How to train poll workers to process provisional ballots 88 12 

How to provide voters with the opportunity to verify if their 

provisional ballot was counted 91 9 

Guidelines for determining which provisional ballots are to be 

counted 91 9 

Strategies to reduce the need for voters to use provisional 

ballots 54 46 

How to design the structure of the provisional ballot 64 37 

Other (specify) -- -- 

All of the above 7 93 

None of the above -- -- 

Don’t know 2 99 

Refused -- -- 
37

(ASK ONLY IF Q8=4) 

9. You said that you received provisional voting instructions from the state 

government. Please tell me how useful the instructions were on the jurisdiction

where individuals can vote by provisional ballot -- very useful, somewhat useful, 

not very useful, or not useful at all? 

 (n=265) 

73% Very useful 

23 Somewhat useful 

2 Not very useful 

-- Not useful at all 

2 Don’t know 

 -- Refused 

(ASK ONLY IF Q8=7) 

10. You said that you received provisional voting instructions from the state 

government. Please tell me how useful the instructions were on how to provide 

voters with the opportunity to verify if their provisional ballot was counted -- very 

useful, somewhat useful, not very useful, or not useful at all? 

(n=304) 

77% Very useful 

20 Somewhat useful 

1 Not very useful 

-- Not useful at all 

2 Don’t know 

 -- Refused 
38

(ASK ONLY IF Q8=8) 

11. You said that you received provisional voting instructions from the state 

government. Please tell me how useful the instructions were for establishing 

guidelines for determining which provisional ballots are to be counted -- very 

useful, somewhat useful, not very useful, or not useful at all? 

 (n=304) 

80% Very useful 

16 Somewhat useful 

2 Not very useful 

1 Not useful at all 

1 Don’t know 

 -- Refused 

(ASK ONLY IF Q8=9) 

12. You said that you received provisional voting instructions from the state 

government. Please tell me how useful the instructions were for establishing 

strategies to reduce the need for voters to use provisional ballots -- very useful, 

somewhat useful, not very useful, or not useful at all? 

 (n=182) 

60% Very useful 

31 Somewhat useful 

5 Not very useful 

2 Not useful at all 

2 Don’t know 

 -- Refused 

(ASK ONLY IF Q8=1-10) 

13. Thinking generally, overall how useful were the provisional voting instructions 

you received from the state government -- very useful, somewhat useful, not very 

useful, or not useful at all? 

 (n=330) 

76% Very useful 

22 Somewhat useful 

1 Not very useful 

-- Not useful at all 

1 Don’t know 

 -- Refused 
39

Implementation of Instructions and Distribution of Information to Election 

Employees 

Now I’m going to ask you some questions about poll worker training. 

14. Please tell me which of the following, if any, was provided in your jurisdiction for 

the 2004 Election to help poll workers determine voters’ assigned precinct and 

polling place? 

(ACCEPT MULTIPLE RESPONSES; READ EACH ITEM; AND ROTATE 

LIST) 

 (n=400) 

 Yes No

Access to a list of eligible voters in the jurisdiction 81% 20% 

Telephone line for poll workers to speak immediately to an 

election official with access to the list of eligible voters in the 

jurisdiction 91 9 

Maps of adjacent precincts for poll workers to help voters locate 

their resident and corresponding polling place 60 40 

Additional staff such as “greeters” at polling places to direct 

voters to the correct polling location 44 56 

Statewide voter registration database available at polling places 12 89 

Other (specify) -- -- 

None of the above 2 99 

Don’t know -- -- 

Refused -- -- 
40

When implementing provisional voting in your jurisdiction, please tell me how 

successfully you think the following activities were performed: 

(READ AND ROTATE Q15-Q21) 

[PROBE: Would you say that activity was performed very successfully, somewhat 

successfully, not very successfully, or not successfully at all? 

 

15. Providing training to poll workers on how to administer provisional ballots. 

 (n=400) 

69% Very successfully 

 27 Somewhat successfully 

1 Not very successfully 

1 Not successfully at all 

3 Didn’t perform this activity 

1 Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 

16. Providing written procedures to poll workers on how to administer provisional 

ballots. 

 (n=400) 

71% Very successfully 

 22 Somewhat successfully 

1 Not very successfully 

1 Not successfully at all 

4 Didn’t perform this activity 

1 Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 

17. Providing your local election officials with written procedures on the casting of 

provisional ballots. 

 (n=400) 

68% Very successfully 

 27 Somewhat successfully 

1 Not very successfully 

-- Not successfully at all 

3 Didn’t perform this activity 

1 Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 
41

18. Providing your local election officials with written procedures on the counting of 

provisional ballots. 

(n=400) 

65% Very successfully 

 18 Somewhat successfully 

1 Not very successfully 

-- Not successfully at all 

14 Didn’t perform this activity 

1 Don’t Know 

 1 Refused 

19. Providing your local election officials training for the counting of provisional 

ballots. 

(n=400) 

66% Very successfully 

 17 Somewhat successfully 

1 Not very successfully 

1 Not successfully at all 

14 Didn’t perform this activity 

1 Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 

20. Making information available to help poll workers determine voters’ assigned 

precinct or polling place. 

 (n=400) 

70% Very successfully 

 22 Somewhat successfully 

2 Not very successfully 

1 Not successfully at all 

5 Didn’t perform this activity 

1 Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 
42

21. Providing training to help poll workers determine voters’ assigned precinct or 

polling place. 

 (n=400) 

64% Very successfully 

 26 Somewhat successfully 

2 Not very successfully 

-- Not successfully at all 

7 Didn’t perform this activity 

2 Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 

Post-Election Experience: Counting Ballots 

22. After the 2004 Election, which of the following, if any, did your jurisdiction offer 

voters to determine if their provisional ballot was counted? 

(ACCEPT MULTIPLE RESPONSES;READ AND ROTATE LIST) 

 (n=400) 

 Yes No

Notification by mail 47% 54% 

Dedicated Toll-Free Telephone Hotline 39 62 

Email notification 10 90 

Website confirmation 22 78 

Main telephone number for the local or county election office 70 30 

All of the above -- -- 

None of the above 4 96 

Other (specify) 1 99 

Don’t Know -- -- 

Refused -- -- 
43

(ASK Q23-Q25 ONLY IF Q3=1-4) 

23. How confident are you that poll workers properly distributed provisional ballots 

to voters? 

 (n=369) 

 63% Very confident 

 30 Somewhat confident 

 4 Not very confident 

 1 Not at all confident 

 2 Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 

24. How confident are you that election officials accurately assessed and validated 

 provisional ballots? 

 (n=369) 

 75% Very confident 

 20 Somewhat confident 

 2 Not very confident 

 -- Not at all confident 

 3 Don’t Know 

 1 Refused 

25. How confident are you that the validated provisional ballots were accurately 

included in the final vote count? 

 (n=369) 

 95% Very confident 

 3 Somewhat confident 

 -- Not very confident 

 -- Not at all confident 

 1 Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 
44

General Perceptions 

26. Now I am going to read you a list of items, please tell me which one you believe 

presented the biggest challenge in implementing provisional voting in your 

jurisdiction for the 2004 Election. (POSSIBLY BIGGEST PROBLEM) 

(READ AND ROTATE 1-4) 

 (n=400) 

 40% Training of poll workers 

 13 Length of time provided before the election to implement the 

provisional voting process 

 7 Clarity of instruction received from your State Government 

 12 Having enough staff at the polling place 

 4 Other (specify) 

 2 All of the above 

 21 None of the above 

2 Don’t Know 

-- Refused 

Please tell me how much you agree or disagree with the following statements about 

Provisional voting in your jurisdiction for the 2004 Election. 

(READ AND ROTATE Q27 –Q35) 

[IF AGREE OR DISAGREE, ASK:] Would you say you agree/disagree strongly or 

agree/disagree somewhat? 

27. More training was needed on how to administer the provisional voting process 

 (n=400) 

18% Agree strongly 

25 Agree somewhat 

6 Neither agree nor disagree 

22 Disagree somewhat 

 29 Disagree strongly 

 1 Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 
45

28. More funding was needed to educate voters about their rights to cast a provisional 

ballot. 

 (n=400) 

24% Agree strongly 

18 Agree somewhat 

11 Neither agree nor disagree 

22 Disagree somewhat 

 24 Disagree strongly 

 1 Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 

29. More information should have been provided to voters about the jurisdiction 

where provisional ballots must be cast in order to be counted. 

 (n=400) 

16% Agree strongly 

17 Agree somewhat 

8 Neither agree nor disagree 

22 Disagree somewhat 

 33 Disagree strongly 

 3 Don’t Know 

-- Refused 

30. More information was needed for poll workers to determine the voter’s assigned 

precinct and polling place. 

 (n=400) 

8% Agree strongly 

18 Agree somewhat 

6 Neither agree nor disagree 

26 Disagree somewhat 

 39 Disagree strongly 

 3 Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 
46

31. More time was needed to implement provisional voting procedures. 

 (n=400) 

16% Agree strongly 

17 Agree somewhat 

6 Neither agree nor disagree 

27 Disagree somewhat 

 33 Disagree strongly 

 1 Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 

32. The provisional voting system was easy to implement. 

 (n=400) 

33% Agree strongly 

32 Agree somewhat 

6 Neither agree nor disagree 

15 Disagree somewhat 

 14 Disagree strongly 

 -- Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 

33. The provisional voting system in my polling jurisdiction enabled more people to 

vote. 

(n=400) 

40% Agree strongly 

27 Agree somewhat 

8 Neither agree nor disagree 

9 Disagree somewhat 

 15 Disagree strongly 

 1 Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 
47

34. I feel that voters in my jurisdiction were provided adequate information to 

successfully cast a provisional ballot. 

(n=400) 

70% Agree strongly 

22 Agree somewhat 

3 Neither agree nor disagree 

3 Disagree somewhat 

 2 Disagree strongly 

 1 Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 

35. Adequate support was provided to me to assist in the implementation of 

provisional voting. 

 (n=400) 

57% Agree strongly 

29 Agree somewhat 

5 Neither agree nor disagree 

6 Disagree somewhat 

 3 Disagree strongly 

 -- Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 

Recommendations for the Future 

36. Now I am going to read you a list of items. Please tell me which one you believe 

is the most important change needed in the implementation of provisional voting. 

(RANDOMLY ROTATE 1-4) 

(n=400) 

 29% More funding for poll worker training 

 18 More time for poll worker training 

 19 Clearer instruction from the Federal Government 

 12 Clearer instruction from the State Government 

 5 Other: specify 

 2 All of the above 

 14 None of the above 

 2 No changes needed 

1 Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 
48

In general, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with the following statements 

about provisional voting. 

(READ AND ROTATE Q37-Q44) 

[IF AGREE OR DISAGREE, ASK:] Would you say you agree/disagree strongly or 

agree/disagree somewhat? 

37. A statewide voter registration database, accessible to poll workers on Election 

Day, would decrease the need for voters to cast provisional ballots. 

 (n=400) 

34% Agree strongly 

19 Agree somewhat 

7 Neither agree nor disagree 

20 Disagree somewhat 

 20 Disagree strongly 

 2 Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 

38. A state-sponsored website designed for individuals to check registration status 

online, before going to the polling place on Election Day, would decrease the 

need for voters to cast provisional ballots. 

 (n=400) 

45% Agree strongly 

25 Agree somewhat 

6 Neither agree nor disagree 

9 Disagree somewhat 

 15 Disagree strongly 

 2 Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 
49

39. Provisional voting speeds up and improves polling place operation on Election 

Day by resolving disputes between voters and poll workers. 

 (n=400) 

25% Agree strongly 

23 Agree somewhat 

5 Neither agree nor disagree 

18 Disagree somewhat 

 30 Disagree strongly 

 1 Don’t Know 

-- Refused 

40. Provisional voting helps election officials maintain more accurate registration 

databases. 

 (n=400) 

27% Agree strongly 

24 Agree somewhat 

8 Neither agree nor disagree 

16 Disagree somewhat 

 24 Disagree strongly 

 2 Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 

41. Provisional voting creates unnecessary problems for election officials and poll 

workers. 

 

 (n=400) 

31% Agree strongly 

21 Agree somewhat 

5 Neither agree nor disagree 

19 Disagree somewhat 

 24 Disagree strongly 

 1 Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 
50

42. Provisional voting can be avoided by simplifying registration procedures. 

 (n=400) 

28% Agree strongly 

16 Agree somewhat 

6 Neither agree nor disagree 

20 Disagree somewhat 

 29 Disagree strongly 

 2 Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 

43. There is a need to offer voters the opportunity to cast provisional ballots. 

 (n=400) 

44% Agree strongly 

28 Agree somewhat 

4 Neither agree nor disagree 

8 Disagree somewhat 

 17 Disagree strongly 

 1 Don’t Know 

-- Refused 

44. The provisional voting system in my polling jurisdiction was a success. 

 (n=400) 

59% Agree strongly 

30 Agree somewhat 

5 Neither agree nor disagree 

3 Disagree somewhat 

 4 Disagree strongly 

 1 Don’t Know 

 -- Refused 
51

45. Which one of the following do you think would be the most effective in 

increasing the number of provisional ballots validated and ultimately counted in 

an election? 

(RANDOMLY ROTATE 1-3) 

 (n=400) 

20% In-precinct provisional voting only 

40 Provisional voting from a central location rather than in individual 

polling places 

19 In-jurisdiction provisional voting only 

2 Other (specify) 

1 All of the above 

12 None of the above 

7 Don’t Know 

-- Refused 
52

46. Which one of the following do you think would be the most effective in reducing 

the number of provisional ballots cast in an election? 

(RANDOMLY ROTATE 1-5) 

(n=400) 

 26% Having a statewide voter registration database available at polling 

places 

 6 Providing additional staff such as “greeters” at polling places to 

direct voters to the correct polling location 

28 Providing a state sponsored website to enable individuals to check 

registration status online before going to the polling place 

5 Providing poll workers access to an updated printed list of eligible 

voters in the jurisdiction 

16 Providing a dedicated telephone line for poll workers to speak 

immediately to an election official with access to the list of eligible 

voters in the jurisdiction 

1 Other (specify) 

 

4 All of the above 

13 None of the above 

2 Don’t Know 

 

-- Refused 
53

Demographics (ASK ALL) 

I only have a few more questions for statistical purposes.... 

D1. As election official were you hired, appointed, promoted, or elected to the 

position? 

 

 (n=400) 

 14% Hired 

 42 Appointed 

 2 Promoted 

42 Elected 

 1 Other/Specify 

-- Don’t know 

-- Refused 
54

D2. For how many years have you served as the election official? [CODE IN WHOLE 

NUMBERS – IF LESS THAN 1 YEAR RECORD AS “LESS THAN ONE 

YEAR”] 

 (n=400) 

 

LESS THAN 1 YEAR 1%

1 4

2 7

3 5

4 5

5 7

6 4

7 5

8 3

9 3

10 7

11 2

12 5

13 3

14 5

15 7

16 4

17 1

18 4

19 2

20 3

21 1

22 2

23 2

24 1

25 1

26 1

27 2

28 2

29 1

30 1

31 --

32 --

33 1

34 1

35 1

36 --

38 --

43 --

 
55

D3. Interviewer please record gender. 

 71% Female 

 29 Male 

That completes our survey. Thank you very much for your time and cooperation. 
56

APPENDIX D: 

VERBATIM RESPONSES 

*****VERBATIM EAGLETON NATIONAL SURVEY OF LOCAL ELECTIONS OFFICIALS’***** 

2. What was your job title on Election Day, November 2nd, 2004? 

 

Q2 ACCESSOR/RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK\REGISTAR OF VOTERS 

Q2 ADMISTRATIVE ASSISTANT SUPERVISOR ELECTIONS 

Q2 ASSISTANT ADMIN 

Q2 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ELECTION COMMISSION 

Q2 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 

Q2 asst rgiter of voters 

Q2 Asst. Registrar of Elections 

Q2 auditer 

Q2 auditor 

Q2 chairwoman 

Q2 chief clerk 

Q2 Chief Elections Officer 

Q2 clerk of county commisions 

Q2 Clerk of Elections 

Q2 CO-MANAGER 

Q2 COLLECTOR | 

Q2 county auditer 

Q2 county auditor 

Q2 county clerk election authority 

Q2 COUNTY COMM CLERK 

Q2 county election officer 

Q2 COUNTY ELECTION OFFICER 

Q2 county of registrar 

Q2 democrat comissioner 

Q2 DEPUPTY COMISSIONER 

Q2 DEPUTY CLERK IN CHARGE OF ELECTIONS 

Q2 DEPUTY CLERK SUPERVISOR 

Q2 DEPUTY ELECTION OFFICER 

Q2 DEPUTY ELECTIONS COMMISSIONER 

Q2 Deputy General Register 

Q2 dir of voter registration and elections 

Q2 DIRECTION COMISSIONER 

Q2 electioin supt. 

Q2 ELECTION BOARD ADMIN 
57

Q2 election board secretary 

Q2 election deputy 

Q2 ELECTION DIVISIONS MGR 

Q2 election officer 

Q2 ELECTION OFFICER 

Q2 election official 

Q2 ELECTION SUPER 

Q2 election superintendant 

Q2 election superintendent 

Q2 ELECTION SUPERINTENDENT 

Q2 election superitendent 

Q2 Elections Admin 

Q2 elections administrater 

Q2 ELECTIONS SUP 

Q2 EXEC DIRECTOR BOARD OF ELECTIONS 

Q2 FULTON COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER 

Q2 General REegistar 

Q2 general registrar 

Q2 GENERAL REGISTRAR 

Q2 IN CHARGE OF PROVISIONAL BALANCE 

Q2 judge 

Q2 Local Election Official 

Q2 overseeres 

Q2 Rebgistrar 

Q2 Region 2 Election Supervisor 

Q2 regisrtar of voters 

Q2 registar of voter 

Q2 registra of voters 

Q2 registrar of voters 

Q2 Registrar of Voters 

Q2 REGISTRAR OF VOTERS 

Q2 Republican election commishioner 

Q2 Republican Elections Commisioner 

Q2 Republican Registrar of Voters 

Q2 SEC OF TULSA COUNTY ELECTION BOARD 

Q2 senior clerk register assistant 

Q2 sherriff 

Q2 SPECIALIST /ELECTIONS COORDINATOR 

Q2 SUPERINTENDENT 

Q2 SUPERINTENDENT OF ELECTIONS 

Q2 supt, of elections 

Q2 voter of registrar 

Q2 voter register 

Q2 VOTER REGISTRATION ADMINISTRATOR 
58

5. In your opinion, which one of the following, if any, created the most need for the use of 

provisional ballots in your jurisdiction on Election Day, 2004? 

Q5 a lot of ppl have moved from one town to another and they weren't registered 

Q5 ADDRESS CHANGES 

Q5 change of address 

Q5 college students (ellab) registered voters couldnt get home to vote!! 

Q5 fail to change the address 

Q5 FAILED TO REPORT ADDRESS CHANGE SO IN WRONG PRECINCT 

Q5 inspector error 

Q5 MOST HAD MOVED OUT OF A DIFERENT JURISDICTION 

Q5 moved and no address change 

Q5 MOVING FROM ONE PRECINCT TO ANOTHER 

Q5 not registered 

Q5 NOT REGISTERED IN PROPPER PLACE - ADDRESS CHANGES 

Q5 NOT REGISTERED WITHIN 5 YEARS 

Q5 OUT OF PRECINCT 

Q5 they have moved within the county 

Q5 they sd they didn't get their ballot and some were military 

Q5 Unreported Move - their name does not show on their new address' voting precinct 

Q5 voter fail to update their registration 

Q5 Voter going to wrong polling place 

Q5 VOTER WENT TO INCORECT POLLING PLACE 

Q5 voters moved 

Q5 VOTERS MOVED 

Q5 VOTERS MOVING FROM ONE COUNTY TO ANOTHER OR WITHIN THE COUNTY AND 

NOT UPDATING THEIR REGISTRATION 

Q5 voters not registered 

Q5 voters showed up to wrong precinct 

Q5 voters voting in the wrong precinct 

Q5 voters were at wrong precinct 

Q5 wrong precient 
59

6. In your opinion, which one of the following, if any, was the most important 

reason that provisional ballots cast in your jurisdiction were not validated and ultimately 

not counted in the 2004 Election? 

Q6 b/c they were not voters.. 

Q6 Combination of not being registered, also individual voted incorrect precinct (else)no 

Q6 Individual registered in wrong county 

Q6 individual was not registered in the right state 

Q6 judge did not put provisional envelopes in ballot box 

Q6 MEDIA DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT PROVISIONAL VOTING 

Q6 NO SIGNATURE AT ALL 

Q6 none 

Q6 pirch for 10 year skip and voting 

Q6 POLL WORKER DID NOT COMPLETE FORM CORRECTLY(ELSE)NO 

Q6 There was confusion due to the newness of the provisional ballot procedure 

Q6 THEY WERE IN THE WRONG COUNTY COLLEGE STUDENTS REGISTERED INOTHER 

COUNTIES 

Q6 were not completed properly\ 
60

14. Please tell me which of the following, if any, was provided in your jurisdiction for the 2004 

Election to help poll workers determine voters’ assigned precinct and polling place? 

Q14 NO POLL WORKERS IN OREGON 
61

22. After the 2004 Election, which of the following, if any, did your jurisdiction offer voters to 

determine if their provisional ballot was counted? 

Q22 THERE WAS ONLY ONE AND HE WAS INFORMED IN PERSON 

Q22 voters were given written documents informing them on how to inquire about their votes 
62

26. Now I am going to read you a list of items, please tell me which one you believe 

presented the biggest challenge in implementing provisional voting in your jurisdiction for 

the 2004 Election. (POSSIBLY BIGGEST PROBLEM) 

Q26 

Q26 access to the voters after the election 

Q26 age of the poll workers 

Q26 

 getting the poll workers to understand what I was explaining. Implementing the provisional 

ballot and the purpose of a provisisional ballot was the biggest challenge in getting the poll 

workers to understand what this meant. 

Q26 having enoug ballots 

Q26 having the voter get and understand the information 

Q26 lack of awareness of voter's opportunity for provisional voting 

Q26 MISREPRESENTATION OF PROVISIONSL BALLOTING WAS THE KEY PROBLEM 

Q26 NOT ENOUGH TIME TO VALIDATE THE BALLOT AFTER ELECTION OFFICE 

Q26 people saying go anywhere and get a provisional ballot.. it was falsified information given 

through newspapers and political parties 

Q26 POLL WORKERS MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT PROVISIONAL BALLOTS WERE FOR / PUBLIC 

EDUCATION 

Q26 state worker getting back to us 

Q26 the staff, not enough 

Q26 to verify that they were a valid provisional voter after the election the research was quuite 

involved and time consuming 

Q26 verification 
63

36. Now I am going to read you a list of items. Please tell me which one you believe is the 

most important change needed in the implementation of provisional voting. 

Q36 accessibilty for the voters 

Q36 CHANGES IN STATE LAW 

Q36 clearer instructions from both state and federal on who can vote provisional ballots 

Q36 clearer intruction to the voter 

Q36 Elimation of provisional voting should be dumped 

Q36 ELIMINATE IT 

Q36 MAKING THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS TO AGREE ON WHO SHOULD AND 

WHERE THEY CAST PROVISIONAL BALLOTS 

Q36 more correct information from the media 

Q36 MORE EDUCATION FOR VOTERS...GENERAL INFO EDUCATION 

Q36 

 more funding in every aspect in provisional voting, it has become very costly and time 

consuming (else) if the polls have to close for any reason, anyone who has not voted has to use 

a provisional vote, it is very costly, at 40 

Q36 more simpler 

Q36 more technical work force (ellab) if we could provide a laptop.. we did not have this, we need 

help in recruiting... what I would like to see is vote centers for provisional ballots.. 

Q36 NOT ENOUGH TIME TO VALIDATE VOTE AFTER THE ELECTION 

Q36 PUBLIC EDUCATION ON PROVISIONAL VOTING 

Q36 REGISTERATION OF THE VOTERS, AND THE VOTERS BEING MORE AWARE OF THE 

VOTING PROCESS 

Q36 

 they need to look at the whole system... the system does not allow enough time from the time 

the provisional ballots are cast and the time they are actually counted is 3 days... therefore we 

dont have enough time to inquire more 

Q36 VOTER AND PUBLIC EDUCATION - VOTER NEEDS TO KNOW WHAT A PROVISIONAL 

BALLOT IS 

Q36 voters need to be trained 

Q36 VOTERS SHOULD EDUCATE THEMSELVES BETTER. THE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE 

TO THEM. 
64

45. Which one of the following do you think would be the most effective in 

increasing the number of provisional ballots validated and ultimately counted in 

an election? 

Q45 DON'T WANT TO INCREASE 

Q45 how to correct provisional to educate the public. 

Q45 INCREASE PROVISIONAL VOTING IN REGULAR VOTING PLACES (ELSE)NO 

Q45 NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR VALIDATION AFTER ELECTION 

Q45 they need to have provisional voting in BOTH a central location and in-precient location as well 

Q45 UPDATE REGISTRATION BEFORE DEADLINE 

Q45 VOTERS TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR REGISTRATION 
65

46. Which one of the following do you think would be the most effective in reducing the 

number of provisional ballots cast in an election? 

Q46 advanced voting 

Q46 VOTERS UPDATE REGISTRATION 
66

D1. As election official were you hired, appointed, promoted, or elected to the 

position? 

D1 elected then turned out to be appointed 

D1 I WAS ELECTED AS A PROBATE JUDGE PART OF THAT JOB IS SUPERVISING 

ELECTIONS 

D1 INHERITTED