* *** COMMENTS_ON_QG_MAY_DRAFTS TXT - 2 Jun 2025 00:34:38 - JGKNAUTH The comments below are for QG drafts I received on 5/29/25. In the text the "attached" file is actually the temporarily linked file, https://jgkhome.name/WakeBOE/Comments_RTQG_May_Flowchart_Revision.HEIC "$$$$$$$" identifies comments that are more significant than just editorial suggestions, typos caught, etc. Registration Table Quick Guide 2025.v.1 ------------ ----- ----- ----- Page 1: Under "Monday Setup": Extraneous line break in checkbox 2. Page 4: Under "End of Election Day", checkbox 2 is misplaced. It has nothing to do with setting up pollbooks, the subject of this page. This checkbox should be on page 1 under "Packing Up After the Polls Close". Pages 2 and 3, Registration Table Flowchart: "Peeling" placements: $$$$$$$$$ I still have big problems with the flowchart. I documented the details and my rationale in my comments last year, first in my 4/20/24 email. I won't repeat them here. In the comments below I'll point out some specific bugs in the current flowchart and how to fix them. In the following to identify a block, "Cx By" means column x and block y. The attached marked-up flowchart shows my proposed changes. Of course with the block and text deletions, the remaining things could be arranged much better than in the attachment. The big circled column numbers at the top are just to help you match that flowchart with the following text. I don't mean the circles to be part of the flowchart. In the 2025.v.1 draft of the RTQG flowchart, you added more "Peel the label ... of the ATV." statements -- now it's up to six plus two related C3 B4 comments. Instead if the peeling were placed earlier as I had recommended, only two peel statements would be required in the current flowchart structure: in C1 B4 and C3 B2. No special peel-related comments would be required in C3 B4, a block that should be deleted anyway to fix some bugs as described in the 'Handling "I forgot my ID"' section below. In detail: Delete the peels in C2 B5, C5 B1, C5 B3, C5 B4, and C5 B5. Statements 1, 2, and 3 in C1 B5 would be moved up into C1 B4 right after the "Confirm you have ..." statement. (This also fixes the ATV-marking bug described in an item below.) The only thing left in C1 B5 would be a "Proceed to step D." The second peel statement would be inserted in C3 B2 right after the "Confirm you have found..." statement. Pages 2 and 3, Registration Table Flowchart: Handling "I forgot my ID" $$$$$$$$$ In line with my recommendation to send *all* the "I forgot my Photo (or HAVA) ID" voters from the RT to the HT, delete blocks C3 B3, C3 B4, and C4 B4 (the "forgetful voter" blocks). Then, as shown in the attachment, the "No" arrow from C3 B2 will go to C2 B5 and the "No" arrow from C4 B3 will go to C5 B5. If instead the deleted blocks were kept (I disagree with doing that), C3 B4 would have problems. For example C3 B1 allows a label to be attached at any time and marked for the "wrong name" exception. With the current flowchart, if either a photo ID or HAVA ID or both fail, the current flow does not mark those exceptions on the ATV created by the "wrong name" exception; C3 B4 just says send the voter to the HT since the label is attached. A "wrong address" exception can also be unmarked. That lack of exception information is bad news for the HT. Of course "V", "A", and "T" checkboxes aren't marked either, but at least those special designations are visible. For this and other reasons I documented last year in https://jgkhome.name/WakeBOE/TEMPORARY/Forgetful_Voters_and_Label_Attachment_Order.htm I say get rid of the three "forgetful voter" blocks and always send the forgetful voter to the HT. Related is the bug described in the following section if my peeling recommendation is not followed. Then the "forgetful voter" blocks, if kept, aid in creating that bug. Pages 2 and 3, Registration Table Flowchart: ATV-marking bug: $$$$$$$$$ As it now stands, there is another bug. The last block in column 2 (C2 B5) must simultaneously do two contradictory things. When reached by one path, it MUST x out the ballot style and mark the "wrong address" checkbox. However if reached by another path, it MUST NOT do those two things. MUST path: C1 B1, C1 B2, C2 B2, C2 B3, C2 B4, C3 B3, C2 B5, i.e., wrong address, no photo ID, and refuses to go get one. MUST NOT path: C1 B1, C1 B2, C2 B2, C3 B2, C3 B3, C2 B5, i.e., good address, no photo ID, and refuses to go get one. Additionally, consider if either path is followed thru C3 B3, but goes to C3 B4 instead of C2 B5. If the label has been attached, e.g., because of C3 B1, the voter can be sent to the Help Table with only SOME of the appropriate exception boxes checked even though more should have been, e.g., "wrong address". So the HT would have to (hopefully) rediscover these things that might need ATV section C work. Pages 2 and 3, Registration Table Flowchart: HTML/CSS flowchart $$$$$$$$$ Even with the above simplifications and bug fixes, the flowchart would still be complicated and could be difficult for an under-pressure RT Official to follow. In contrast, see https://jgkhome.name/WakeBOE/RT_Flowchart.htm , which has a more linear flow and emphasizes the Perfect Scenario path. The logic in that flowchart still applies as it did last year. For this year the only changes needed seem to be: Add "T on the label" in three places, paralleling where "A on the label" appears now. As I have commented before, it is very easy to convert my HTML file (which the BOE Staff can edit) into a PDF file to put in your documents: Just have the browser "print" to a PDF file. (Firefox: "Destination" > "Save to pdf" or Edge: "Printer" > "Save to pdf". Ditto for any other competent browser). Such browsers and the Adobe Acrobat program allow things like orientation, scale (size), and margins to be adjusted to match whatever your printed document requires. The HTML files also allow colors to be adjusted so two views are available from the same file, e.g., a colored one for a display and a black and white one for printing on a B/W-only printer. It also allows what text is displayed to be different from what text is printed. As I have offered before, I'm willing to teach BOE Staff members some basic HTML/CSS if they don't already know it, so they can easily edit such files or create their own. Last year I had put together a web page along those lines: https://jgkhome.name/HTML_CSS/HTML-CSS_Fundamentals.htm Everyone responsible for document creation really should have some HTML/CSS capability in their toolkit. It's one of the best things I have ever learned. Pages 2 and 3, Registration Table Flowchart: HTML/CSS flowchart card $$$$$$$$$ Is there any 2025 plan to create a card or page like this one? https://jgkhome.name/WakeBOE/RT_Procedure_SMALL.htm . I heard from both Laura and Spencer that they loved it and would look into having one in 2025. At our polling place in 2024, we used this at our Monday Setup meeting to warn of some RT processing gotchas. Then on Election Day the RT Officials kept it handy as private notes if they needed a quick reminder. It is really much easier for an RT Official to follow than the current RTQG flowchart, especially for the RT processing most voters require. Page 2, Registration Table Flowchart: Easy to miss footnote callout: Here I have my usual comment about the nearly invisible footnote callout for footnote 1 in column 2 block 2. Instead of a callout, just add text saying something like , "See Note 1 below." You have a lot of room. Ballot Table Quick Guide 2025.v.1 ------ ----- ----- ----- No comments. Help Table Quick Guide 2025.v.1 ---- ----- ----- ----- Page 1: Under "Monday Setup", checkbox 3: "sign on the table" => "signs on the table" Page 1: Under "During Election Day", checkbox 3: 1) In the left sub-checkbox, the first "with" should be bold to match the bold "without" in the second sub-checkbox. $$$$$$$ 2) In the second checkbox, a "label" word got chopped off. Page 2: Column 2, block 1: Put the " At the Help Table" phrase in quotes or italics to separate it from the other text. Page 2: Block C: First "or" should probably be "OR". Page 4: Column 1, block 4, footnote 3 callout has been deleted. That's probably appropriate since the callout before seemed strangely placed. I'm just checking in case the deletion was unintentional. Page 4: As noted for past years' documents, the footnote callouts are $$$$$$$$ so tiny they are very easy to miss. Since they are the only place saying a photo ID must be done, that's not good. I propose the following: 1) Delete all four of the tiny callouts to footnote 1, including the one in the "Unreported Move" block. 2) In the "Unreported Move" block, add a new 3 note saying "Do a photo ID check". Renumber the following notes. 3) In the three "footnotes", delete note 1 and renumber the rest. They would no longer be footnotes since there would be no callouts to any of them. 4) To the Provisional Envelope, add a checkbox to do a photo ID check if a voter has no ATV. I have proposed this often before. It seems a MUCH more reliable way to ensure the photo ID check is done rather than depending on the nearly invisible footnote callouts in Flow Chart #2. Page 4, block 7, "Call the Precinct..." I like the idea of now calling the other precinct and creating an ATV instead of going thru the long provisional process and creating yet one more envelope to process after Election Day. $$$$$$$$ However this means the HT at the other precinct now has to answer the phone and then do a pollbook lookup for the name read to them over the phone. In the past, the BOE Staff has expressed concern about adding HT work, e.g., my strong recommendation that the HT handles all the "I forgot my ID" voters, not just some of them. This "remote lookup" for an unreported move is definitely more HT work for the called HT. It's far more than the very few "I forgot my ID, but got all the way to the RT" voters would require. There definitely will be far more "I didn't report my move." voters than "I forgot my ID." voters. Some Things To Consider ---- ------ -- -------- 1) Does the calling HT get put in line behind the work currently in process at the called HT? This could leave both phones offhook for possibly a long time as well as hold up other things at the calling HT while waiting for the called HT to free up. Or does the calling HT get priority and interrupt the called HT processing that is underway? This might cause the called HT Officials to lose track of what they had been doing, to say nothing about what the HT-voters at the called HT might feel about being put "on hold". (HT Muzak anyone?) The remote pollbook lookup might take several minutes or more, especially if the RT has the relevant pollbook(s) tied up. 2) The called Officials will need to be extra careful doing the pollbook lookup since they will not have the voter to interact with in person. I definitely predict some pink "T"s marked on the wrong ATVs, leading to future trips to the HT when the true label owners come in to vote and then have to vote provisionally. 3) With the previous Provisional Envelope Unreported Move process, when the BOE Staff examines those envelopes after the election, don't they do some sort of check to see if the voter really moved to where the voter claimed? If the claimed move is not validated, does the BOE cast the ballot anyway or do they NOT cast the ballot? With the new "T" process, that checking capability before ballot casting is lost. I could see some shenanigans possible. The liars could be caught later if the voter's ATV C section is checked, but that would not un-cast the ballot the liar had cast. 4) I assume a list of precinct phone numbers will now be on the HT laptop and/or in the HT Binder. Also, in the HTQG you should emphasize (bold highlight or justifying text?) the added importance of turning on the phone and setting up the volume -- checkbox 4 under "Tuesday Before Opening the Polls". I once had an HT Official (not one of my normal ones) who didn't do this. The BOE Help Line finally had to call me on my personal cell phone to ask me to find out why the HT was not answering the phone. The new proposal makes quick and reliable phone answering much more critical. 5) Having two active HT Officials as a rule would seem appropriate to support this work. In fact we do always try to have two at our polling place with a third as a backup. Nevertheless, this new "T" approach seems worthwhile to try in an attempt cut down on provisional processing during and after the election. We'll learn from experience what matters in the considerations listed above. Voter Assistance Quick Guide 2025.v.1 ----- ---------- ----- ----- Page 2: The last Q/A on the page should be moved up to just below the "Voter Assistance Rules" figures, if not somehow combined with the figure on the right. Maybe just strike out the "including an Election Official" from the figure on the left and then move the "May Precinct Officials provide..." to be the first Q/A. As it stands, the left and right boxes leave hanging the "Can a Precinct Official assist in all cases?" until you get all the way down to the bottom of the page. I had commented on this last year. All Officials Quick Guide 2025.v.1 --- --------- ----- ----- No comments. Jeff