Patent Publication Number: US-7216807-B2

Title: Automated processing of by-mail ballots

Description:
RELATED APPLICATIONS 
     This application claims benefit of priority to provisional application Ser. No. 60/388,936 filed Jun. 12, 2002. 
    
    
     BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
     Governmental elections in the United States utilize a variety of subsystems to distribute ballots that individual voters use to record voted selections. For example, one type of subsystem uses paper ballots that are mailed to the voter who marks the ballot and then returns the ballot through the mail. Mailed ballots have been historically reserved for absentee voting and may be associated with additional documents, such as voting instructions or affidavits. For example, some jurisdictions may require absentee voters to sign an affidavit affirming the fact that they will be outside the boundaries of the election authority jurisdiction on election day. Over the last several years there has been a trend to relax the absentee requirement by allowing individuals who prefer to vote by mail to participate in an election through the mail without being absent from the jurisdiction. In fact, entire elections are being conducted exclusively “by-mail,” including an Oregon state law that requires all elections to be conducted in this manner. 
     The growth of by-mail voting and elections has increased the volume of piece mail that must be produced and handled by a jurisdiction. Any one election can contain hundreds, even thousands, of different ballot styles to account for the individual eligibility of voters within a jurisdiction. The management of by-mail subsystems becomes further complicated when multiple language requirements are added. Furthermore, there is limited amount of time available to produce, deliver and process the return mail. There may be as few as thirty days between the time the ballots are approved for distribution and the time by which all returned ballot must be processed. As the number of by-mail ballots increase, the complexity and difficulty of producing a large number of mail pieces in a short amount of time reaches daunting levels. Established processing systems, such as manual systems, tend to break down under these increased loads. The breakdown of services may be exacerbated by the fact that elections are held only periodically, so that there may be a lack of continuity of staffing and experience between different elections. 
     The production and processing of by-mail ballots has historically been performed manually or has been contracted out to facilities that specialize in mail handling. Each voter is required to receive a specific ballot in relation to his or her demographic location, e.g., a residence within a voting precinct within which all ballots are alike. Elections can have in excess of one thousand different precincts. This circumstance results in the generation of thousands of different ballot styles, which must be manually packaged. By-mail balloting systems require a legion of people who bring along the human error associated with such an effort. Specialized mail handling facilities must also manage their processing by precinct or even at a sub-precinct level, and this is done by creating individual production runs. Each production run increases overhead and introduces additional probability for error. 
     Unique challenges exist in bringing a level of automation to the production of packaged ballots. In order to achieve a desired level of automation, management of packaging of the correct ballot style to targeted voter must break the sub-precinct layer. Current systems are unable to manage mail at the sub-precinct or ballot-specific level, as opposed to precinct level management in use according to current practices. 
     Electronic systems that permit direct entry of votes have improved to the point where voters may be provided with ballots that are custom made according to voter eligibility to vote in a selected list of elections within a precinct, for example, as described and shown in U.S. Pat. No. 6,250,548 to McClure et al., which is hereby incorporated by reference to the same extent as though fully disclosed herein. Improvements in early voting, for in-person voting processes, have been achieved through the use of direct recording electronic (DRE) systems that support multiple precincts simultaneously and allows ballot styles to be assigned to specific voters as required. Automated packaging of by mail ballots must possess the same type of capability in order to produce a significant improvement in existing processes, but the present systems in place for this purpose lack capability to perform the job with the requisite reliability and flexibility. 
     An examination of automated mail processing industry techniques reveals no available existing method that solves the unique challenges associated with packaging by-mail ballots that are managed at the ballot level for an election. While a voter must receive a specific ballot, election law prohibits the voter&#39;s name from appearing on the ballot. Therefore, if a voter is incorrectly mailed a ballot that is intended for another individual, there is some likelihood that the error may never be noticed. The closest functional mail processing capability is exemplified by bills or invoices produced for credit cards or utilities, and targeted advertising where the content is sent to a specific recipient. This capability relies on the ability to print the recipient&#39;s name directly on the mail piece which is then inserted in a windowed envelop displaying the correct name. Printing the name along with the content on the same sheet provides a 100% guarantee that the relationship is correct. It is generally infeasible to produce ballots that are mailed in this manner because by law the voter must remain anonymous in most instances. Specifically, the voter&#39;s name cannot be printed on the ballot that is returned to the election authority. Prohibiting the name and content from appearing on the ballot introduces a processing requirement that has not been previously solved. 
     SUMMARY 
     The present mail handling system overcomes the problems outlined above and advances the art by permitting the handling of by-mail ballots at the ballot level. 
     According to one aspect, software in a computerized electronic system calls upon a list of voters who are approved for mail-in voting purposes. By way of example, voters make a request to the governing jurisdiction for an absentee by-mail ballot and receive approval by processes that the governing jurisdiction establishes for these purposes. For all mail-in elections, all approved registered voters are slated to receive a by-mail ballot. In either instance of absentee voting or general by-mail voting, a list of voters is compiled that are to be sent ballots. Historically, this list was used to print mailing labels that were manually affixed to an envelope or, once sorted by precinct, used to print envelops in a batch mode for semi-automated processes. 
     The ballot printing approach of the present system differs from historical processes by driving the ballot printing from the list of approved voters so that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the ballots and approved voters. In essence, a print on demand system provides the most efficient process and eliminates waste. Such a system is manufactured by Hart InterCivic, Inc of Austin Tex., called Ballot Now™, and is a component of a complete electronic voting system. Ballot Now™ allows on-demand printing of ballots, e.g., through use of a conventional laser printer. Indicia on each ballot includes a machine-readable code, such as a bar code representing the precinct number on the ballot. 
     Any other method of ballot printing will suffice, provided the precinct number appears in some machine-readable code on the ballot. Traditional ballot printing methods, such as are used for optically scanned ballots, require offset printing processes due to registration requirements, but can also contain a machine-readable precinct number that is used for tabulation. Use of a system without on-demand capability requires ballots to be “pulled” to match the precincts of approved voters. Pulling the ballots introduces an unnecessary process step and creates a source of error. 
     The present mail handling system is capable of scanning the printed code on the ballot to produce a corresponding envelop that is addressed to the correct voter from a queue of voter addresses derived from the approved voter list. The envelope is also provided with a precinct code so that there is optionally permitted confirmation and verification that the proper ballot is being mailed to the correct voter at multiple process points while maintaining anonymity of the individual voter with respect to indicia on the printed ballot. 
     In one embodiment, the system for use in packaging ballots in envelopes contains data storage including voter-specific address information that is associated with a ballot type identifier. A ballot printing system, such a s a computer-controlled laser printer, is configured to access instances of the voter-specific address information and print a plurality of ballots. Individual ballots are selected as a ballot type associated with the voter-specific address information and printed to contain first indicia identifying the ballot type. A scanner, such as an optical or digital scanner, is configured to read the first indicia from the individual ballots to produce a scanned ballot identifier signal. Ballot insertion equipment is configured to place the ballot in a corresponding envelope. An envelope printing system is configured to print the envelope with the voter address information according to the ballot identifier signal, second indicia representative of the ballot identifier signal, and third indicia representing the ballot type identifier that is associated with the voter address information. An optical scanning system, which may include the aforementioned optical or digital scanner or a different scanner, is configured to compare the second indicia against the third indicia to assure that the ballot type is correct for the voter address information. Alternately, the third indicia may include or be replaced with a scanned image of the voter address information which is processed by commercially available Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software producing an intelligent record of the printed address that can be referentially compared through data processing means to the second indicia. 
     In other aspects, the scanning system may be supplemented with program instructions and mail handling equipment that direct the ballot packaged in the envelope to an outgoing mail location in instances where the second indicia and the third indicia do match. The program instructions and mail handling equipment may also redirect the ballot packaged in the envelope to other processing when the second indicia and the third indicia do not match. This other processing may, for example, entail halting ballot packaging processes until the problem is resolved. 
     The ballot type identifier may identify a precinct-level ballot or any other ballot of a particular type. The identifier may be coded and decoded, for example, as a barcode indicia. A mobile ballot box may be configured to store a plurality of ballot types in one of an electronic, magnetic or optical storage format. 
     The envelope printing system may operate by accessing a random access queue that disables the voter information for a particular voter from future access as the envelopes are printed with the voter information. 
     The methodology of operation may entail storing data that includes voter-specific address information associated with a ballot type identifier, and printing a plurality of ballots by ballot type associated with the voter address information where the plurality of ballots include individual ballots that bear first indicia identifying the ballot type. Scanning the first indicia produces a scanned ballot identifier signal. Thereafter, individual ballots are each into a corresponding envelope, which is printed with the voter address information, second indicia representative of the scanned identifier signal, and third indicia representing the ballot type identifier that is associated with the voter address information. Subsequent processing includes scanning the envelope to ascertain the second indicia and the third indicia, and comparing the second indicia with the third indicia to determine whether the ballot type is correct for the voter address information. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
         FIG. 1  is a process schematic diagram for methodology, equipment and materials embodied by the present system. 
     
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION 
     As shown by way of example in  FIG. 1 , a controller, processor or other programmable device may be programmed with instructions to implement a system  100  for automated printing of paper ballots. Voter registration data  102  originates from a conventional election headquarters or election governing authority. The voter registration data  102  contains a list of approved mail-in voters with associated mailing addresses and indicators of voter eligibility to vote in an election, such as precinct assignment data. For example, the voter address may be processed to ascertain eligibility to vote in state, county, municipal or elections of other subdivisions. The voter registration data is provided to a print queue  104 . 
     A data module referred to herein as a mobile ballot box  106  provides a plurality of system-selectable ballot layouts in electronic form, e.g., forms B 1 , B 2 , and B 3 . These layouts correspond to every possible layout that is called for in a subsequent print ballot step  108 . For example, an electronic ballot form B 1  may be specifically constructed to contain all elections in which a particular voter or group of voters are eligible to vote. Alternatively a database or scanner capable of constructing these ballots may be used in place of the mobile ballot box  106 . A mobile ballot box  106  is described, for example, in U.S. Pat. No. 6,250,548 to McClure et al. 
     The print ballot step  108  generates output including printed ballots  110 . The printed ballots  108  may be generated in batch mode or individually, as needed. One software program useful in the print ballot step  108  is the Ballot Now™ product from Hart InterCivic of Austin, Tex. The print ballot step  108  generates printed ballots  110  on the basis of voter registration data from print queue  104 . More generally, the print ballot step  108  produces a plurality of printed ballots  110  that are specially constructed for voter eligibility to vote in elections according to the voter registration data  102 . The printed ballots  110  each contain a machine readable code  112  or identifier that identifies the ballot type. The machine readable code  112  or identifier may be, for example, a precinct number in barcode form where the ballots do not differ at the sub-precinct level, or a sub-precinct code that is unique to a ballot type within a precinct if the ballots differ at the sub-precinct level. By way of example, ballots may differ at the sub-precinct level for rotational purposes as required under California law. See, e.g., application Ser. No. 10/074,839 to McClure et al. describing equal time ballot rotational processes, which is hereby incorporated by reference to the same extent as though fully replicated herein. The voter registration data  102  forms the basis for ballot selection in print queue  104 , e.g., by associating a ballot identifier as described above with the same identifier for an electronic ballot configuration stored in mobile ballot box  106 . 
     Optionally, the processes and materials  102 – 112  may be outsourced in step  114  to a third party printer who implements the ballot packaging process  116 . 
     The voter registration data  102  and the printed ballots  110  are the two primary inputs to the present ballot packaging process  116 . It is significant to the discussion that follows that the voter list in print queue  104  and printed ballots  110  can be in any order, for example, so long as one of the printed ballots  110  can be or is associated with one voter in the voter registration data  102 . Thus, printing mixups and inversions of order do not result in misdirected ballots once the envelopes are stuffed, printed and mailed according to the ballot packaging process  116  described below. 
     The following is a description of the overall ballot packaging process  116  that is operable to package a ballot for mail distribution using a high level of automation. The process steps can be re-ordered for convenience or other steps added, but the core functionality to produce an accurately packaged ballot in a manner that can be audited are represented. 
     The ballot packaging process  116  is provided as program instructions to hardware, for example, the commercially available automated mail processing equipment made by Pitney Bowes as the Model 8-Series folder/inserters or similar devices. The basic equipment is supplemented with program instructions and optical scanning equipment, as described below. Ballots are fed individually from the printed ballots  110  into the ballot packaging process  116 . The printed ballots  110  are individually folded in step  118  in a manner that presents the bar code  112  or other machine readable identifier for optical scanning availability at scanner  120 . For example, each individual ballot  122  is folded in such a manner that a machine readable barcode  112  is visible or readable. The barcode  112  is readily available for optical scanning such that optical scanner  120  reads the barcode  112  from the ballot  122  to produce a signal representative of the barcode  112 , such as a digital or analog sequence identifying the barcode  112 . This signal is positively checked to match to a code or other identifier that is allocated to one of the ballot types B 1 , B 2 , or B 3  stored in the mobile ballot box  106 . By way of example, it is usually sufficient to match these codes at a precinct level where the precinct uses only one type of ballot. The barcode  124  is read in step  126  using the optical scanner  120 . 
     The ballot packaging process  116  proceeds in parallel paths beginning at step  126 . According to one path, the folded ballot  122  continues through the mail processing system for insertion into envelope  128  in step  130 . Other materials and other inserts, e.g., a return envelope and voting instructions, are added as is optionally required in step  132  until the insertion process results in the correct number of inserts as determined by program instructions in step  134 . Another path receives the barcode signal read in step  126 , decodes the machine signal to identify a ballot type, and in step  136  uses the ballot type to access a list  138  of approved voters. The approved voter list  138  contains voter name, voter mailing address, and the identifier that produced a printed ballot for that voter by association with ballot type in the information stored in mobile ballot box  106 . 
     Processing in step  136  identifies a registered voter by name and address where the registered voter is associated with an identifier that matches the ballot type of the ballot that was inserted into the envelope in step  130 . The approved voter list  138  exists in a random access queue (RAQ) that, for example, initially contains an identical list of approved voters with respect to print queue  104  and may even be the same queue saved for subsequent operations. Access of the approved voter list  138  in step  136  returns the name and mailing address of an approved voter and his or her assigned ballot identifier code, which should match the barcode  112  on the ballot that was inserted into envelope  128  in step  130 . The voter name and address information from step  136  is printed on the envelope  128  in step  140 , as is the ballot identifier code  142  that is obtained from the approved voter list  138 . 
     Once a voter name has been retrieved from the approved voter list  138  and printed on envelope  128  in step  140 , the name and associated individual voter information is tagged or deleted from the approved voter list  138 . This deletion or tagging prevents the name from being used again to print ballots or address envelopes for the current election. Tagging is preferred, as opposed to deletion, because tagging permits manual reactivation of the voter name in cases where a problem may arise in the ballot packaging process  116  such that a particular ballot  120  cannot be mailed. Further, the accumulated record of tagged voters can be fed back to the voter registration data  102  to create a history of ballots being packaged for the election, adding to auditability of the process. 
     One advantage of this processing is that positional equivalency is not required between the name retrieved from the approved voter list  138  and the position of a particular ballot  122  in the printed ballots  110 . For example, one name from the approved voter list  138  can be in the 95 th  position and a ballot  122  originate from the 3 rd  ballot in a stack of printed ballots  110 . All that is required is that the name retrieved in step  136  has a matching ballot code or identifier with the current ballot  122  that is inserted into an envelope during step  130 . Under these requirements, the approved voter list  138  becomes a Random Access Queue (RAQ) and eliminates the need to logistically manage the tasks either of sequentially designating a specific ballot style to a particular voter or manually managing the order of the ballots inserted during step  130  to the order of the names on the approved voter list  138 . By way of example, this feature is very useful in cases where ballot handling equipment causes a reordering of the printed ballots  110 . 
     According to these processes, the only requirement is that the number of ballots in the printed ballots  110  for precinct X matches by ballot type the number of voters for precinct X by ballot type in the approved voter list  138 . This fact greatly simplifies the ballot packing process by requiring that only the approved voter list  138  and printed ballots  110  correspond in number, not necessarily in sequence, and allows the printed ballots  110  to be packaged across all precincts, not one precinct at a time. 
     Step  144  entails printing a second machine readable code on envelope  122 , such as a barcode  142 . The barcode  142 , by way of example, matches or is associated with the signal generated from barcode  112  that was read from ballot  122  in step  126  using optical scanner  120 . Alternatively, the ballot  122  may be folded in such a way as to be visible from a transparent window in the envelope  128  (not shown), in which case it is not necessary to print the barcode on the envelope  128 ; however, it should here be noted that some election authorities are not permitted to package ballots in envelopes that have windows. 
     The ballot  122  within envelope  128  enters a mail processing quality control subsystem  148 , which tracks the ballot  122  for quality control purposes through the remaining process steps. 
     At this point, envelope  128  visibly displays a first barcode  142  representing an intended machine readable code from the approved voter list  138  and a second barcode  146  representing a scanned machine readable code obtained by optical scanner  120  from barcode  124  on the folded ballot  122 . The two machine-readable codes  142 ,  146  represent an intended code and an actual code that should match one another. The two machine-readable codes  142 ,  146  are scanned or read in step  150  using optical scanner  152 . Step  154  entails a comparison to determine whether the machine readable codes  142 ,  146  do match. If so, the match assures that the envelope  128  contains a ballot type that is approved for use by a particular voter. Accordingly, the ballot  120  and envelope  128  may be placed in an outgoing mail stack  158 . If the machine readable codes  142 ,  146  do not match, this indicates a systematic problem, such as the loss of an envelope between steps  140  and  142 , and the ballot packaging process is halted  158  for manual resolution of the problem. Alternatively, the mismatched ballot  120  and envelope  128  may be submitted in step  158  to an outstack for manual resorting and recombination among a plurality of such mismatches. 
     Alternately, the third indicia may be replaced with a scanned image of the voter address information that is processed by commercially available Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software producing an intelligent record of the printed address that can be referentially compared through data processing means to the second indicia. 
     The quality control subprocess  148  prevents a voter from receiving the wrong ballot, which is a critical requirement of ballot packaging systems. It will be appreciated that the matching of machine readable codes  142 ,  146  does not necessarily have to occur at the precinct level. Matching may alternatively occur, for example, at a sub-precinct level for ballot rotation purposes, or a level higher than a precinct, depending upon whether different ballot types are required at these levels. 
     The quality control subprocess  148  also provides an audit trail testifying that a specific voter had a ballot packaged according to his or her eligibility. An audit trail is a requirement as given in the Federal Election Commission&#39;s Voting System Standards, 1990; however, no other systems, other than manual packaging systems, are capable of meeting this requirement. 
     Other process steps can be added including exception handling and error handling capabilities and integrate with the core of ballot packaging process  116 . For example, the optical scanning processes involving bar codes may be replaced with magnetic scanning processes, e.g., using stickers with magnetic inserts. It is not necessary that machine readable codes  142 ,  146  must match to identity as printed on envelope  128 . Matching may be accomplished indirectly, e.g., through a lookup table associating one code with another, if there is ever a reason to have two different codes printed on envelope  128 . Additionally, it is not a system requirement that ballot  122  be folded prior to step  126 , which entails reading the barcode  124  on ballot  122 . The barcode  124  may be read in step  126  before or after the folding step  118 . 
     Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the foregoing functionalities may be implemented as a combination of software and hardware. The teaching is by way of example to show a preferred embodiment, and should not be unduly construed to limit the scope of the claims. The inventor hereby states his intention to rely upon the Doctrine of Equivalents in protecting the fill scope of the invention.