Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Harris County - Fors Marsh Election Evaluation
Harris County - Fors Marsh Election Evaluation
First Draft
FMG has undertaken three primary activities as part of this preliminary assessment:
First, FMG conducted in-depth interviews (IDIs) with representatives of the County Office of
the Elections Administrator (OEA), as well as election technology vendor Hart InterCivic, to
gather background on how the March 2022 primary election was administered, preparations
for this election, administrative and process changes for this election as compared to
previous elections, and issues that occurred. These IDIs were a follow-up from more informal
initial conversations held during April and May of 2022.
Second, FMG obtained results from the County’s post-election survey of election judges and
poll workers following the November 2021 general election and the March 2022 primary
election. FMG analyzed the data to identify “pain points” in election administration and how
these experiences differed across elections.
Third, FMG conducted an assessment of call log data and communications from the OEA
from the beginning of early voting (February 14, 2022) through Election Day (March 1,
2022) for the March 2022 primary election and a similar period for the November 2021
general election.
This draft discusses the results of these evaluation activities and provides details about the
future areas of inquiry and plans for the additional assessments to be conducted for the
final Comprehensive Report that will be delivered in August 31, 2022.
Since the 2020 general election, there have been a number of changes in how Harris
County conducts its elections. One of the two most notable changes was the creation of an
Office of the Elections Administrator (OEA) to coordinate and conduct the elections, which
formerly were conducted by the Clerk’s office. The new OEA took charge after the November
2020 general election.
The other major change in how the county conducts its elections was the update of voting
equipment. Until December 2020, the County used Direct-Recording Electronic (DRE)
devices not equipped with a voter-verified paper audit trail. In May 2021, the County
switched to electronic Ballot Marking Devices (BMD) which allow voters make their choices
and then generate a paper ballot that the voter runs through a scanner to cast their vote.
The change from DREs to BMDs and scanners is a result of the Texas state legislature’s
2021 mandate that Texas counties use voting machines that produce a paper record that
allows voters to review their choices and facilitates post-election audits starting no later than
August 2026.2
1 Election Assistance Commission (2021). “Election Administration and Voting Survey.” Available at:
https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/document_library/files/2020_EAVS_Report_Final_508c.pdf
2 Texas SB598, 2021.
The analysis of the surveys includes 727 election judges and 725 poll workers for the
November 2021 general election, and 470 election judges and 626 poll workers for the
March 2022 primary election. The following analyses focus on the questions covering the
topics more directly related to issues identified in the March 2022 primary election. For a
complete breakdown of the responses provided to the 2022 survey, please see Appendix I
of the report.
Additionally, when looking at the time of recruitment of poll workers and poll judges
separately for the March 2022 primary election, the results show that poll judges were
recruited slightly earlier than poll workers, with 63.2% of poll judges recruited three weeks or
40% 39%
31%
29% 28%
30%
25%
20%
20%
13%
11%
10%
2% 2%
0%
< 1 week before 1 - 2 weeks 3 - 4 weeks More than a Not contacted
ED before ED before ED month before ED
2021 2022
Wait Times
Election judges were asked about waiting times for picking up and dropping off voting
equipment, as well as maximum waiting times when calling the phone helpline. For voting
equipment pick up, 37.1% of judges reported waiting more than 30 minutes in line to obtain
their equipment for the March 2022 primary election, a sharp increase compared to the
November 2021 general election when 4.0% of judges reported waiting more than 30
minutes to obtain their voting equipment (see Figure 2). Over half (50.8%) of judges
reported waiting more than one hour to return their voting equipment after the March 2022
primary election, a slight decrease compared to the percentage that reported waiting more
than an hour for equipment return after the November 2021 general election (64.2%).
Finally, 52.8% of election workers and judges in the March 2022 primary election reported
that the maximum time they waited when contacting the phone help line was 5 minutes or
less, while 27.1% reported waiting 15 minutes or more on the line, and 1.3% provided
comments mentioning that they could not get through. These results are very similar to
those for the November 2021 general election.
The election judges and poll workers who responded to the surveys were also asked if they
had any issues setting up or operating the equipment. Results for the March 2022 primary
election were very similar to the November 2021 general election, with 36.5% of workers
reporting issues in 2022 and 32.3% in 2021. Interestingly, the most experienced workers—
those with 10 or more years of experience—reported the highest rates of issues setting up
and/or operating the new voting equipment (46.8%), and those that had served for 1-5
years the lowest rates of issues (30.9%) in the March 2022 primary election. When
comparing the results with the November 2021 general election, the most experienced
Figure 4. Percentage of Election Workers that Experienced Issues with Voting Equipment by
Working Experience for the 2021 and 2022 Elections.
50% 47%
44%
42%
40% 37%
33%
31%
30% 27% 27%
20%
10%
0%
First Election 1 - 5 Years 6 - 10 Years More than 10 Years
Election Worker Experience
2021 2022
Election workers were asked about the pieces of equipment they experienced problems with
between audio equipment for the hearing impaired, ePollBooks, DUO voting tablets and
Scanners. Overall, the pieces of equipment for which the respondents reported having the
most issues during the March 2022 primary election were the DUO voting tablets (31.4%)
and Scanners (19.3%). These two pieces of voting equipment were also flagged as the ones
that election workers had the most issues with during the November 2021 general election,
however, the percentage of respondents that reported issues was considerably lower than in
the 2022 election (see Figure 5).
40%
31%
30%
19% 18%
20%
10% 11%
10% 7% 7%
5%
0%
Audio Equipment for ePollBook Scanner Duo Voting Tablet
the Hearing Impaired
Type of Voting Equipment
2021 2022
Training
Nearly all respondents (91.5%) for the March 2022 survey reported being satisfied with the
knowledge of their instructors and the answers to their questions during training. Also, over
75% of respondents agreed that the training they received was in-depth enough, and that it
prepared them adequately to serve in the election. However, the reported level of
satisfaction with the depth of the training and the feeling of being prepared to serve in the
election was different depending on the respondents’ experience serving at the polls. First-
time election judges and poll workers were more than twice as likely to report that training
was not in-depth enough (41.7%) than non-first-time workers (19.1%). First-time election
judges and poll workers were also twice as likely to report that they did not feel adequately
prepared to serve in the election (35.4%) than non-first-time workers (14.1%). Interestingly,
election judges and poll workers who had been serving for 10 years or more reported not
feeling adequately prepared as a result of the training, and that the training was not in-depth
enough more frequently than did other, non-first-time workers who had fewer years of
experience (see Figure 6).
Responses to questions about training were relatively similar between respondents of the
2021 November general election and 2022 March 1, primary election except for a few
items. Among poll judges, there was a statistically significant increase in the perception that
the training was in-depth enough (66.5% in 2022 compared to 58.2% in 2021) Among poll
workers, results were also very similar between respondents of the 2021 November general
election and 2022 March 1 primary election, except for a few items for which 2022
respondents reported a statistically significant higher agreement with statements regarding
instructors’ knowledge, feeling prepared for the election, depth of training, and ease to find
information in the Elections’ Reference Manual.
Poll workers and election judges were recruited to work the polls closer to Election Day in
the March 2022 primary election compared to the November 2021 general election. In
2022, 35.7% of election judges, and 45.6% of poll workers were recruited 2 weeks or less
before the election. Nearly all (95.2%) of election judges and poll workers who assisted with
the March 2022 primary election reported that they will likely work at the polls again.
Figure 7. Helpline Calls Responded to by Day for the November 2021 General Election and
March 2022 Primary Election
While the total volume of calls was notably higher in 2022 compared to 2021, the
percentage of calls that were classified as “Technical Issues” was lower for the March 2022
primary election (16.1% of the total calls) compared with the November 2021 general
election (24.4% of the total calls. Calls classified as technical issues cover mostly calls by
election workers reaching out due to problems with equipment, such as voting equipment
not functioning correctly, as well as calls requesting supplies, like ballot paper and
connection cables.
For the March 2022 primary election, in addition to calls regarding issues with voting
equipment, the helpline attended calls on other topics from election judges, poll workers
and voters. The topic that generated the highest volume of calls to the helpline was vote by
mail applications and vote by mail ballots, with 3,109 calls from the beginning of early voting
Voters also reached out to the call center in 2022 for information on the election. A total of
1,552 calls were responded during early voting and Election Day on this topic (16.6% of the
total calls received), a majority of which were logged as questions on voting locations and
hours.
To better understand the dynamics of the helpline, FMG’s analysts completed a content
coding of 1,304 calls received between the start of early voting until Election Day for the
March 2022 primary election. The calls reviewed where those flagged as technological
issues that related to pieces of voting equipment or that were categorized as “Other.” The
types of calls that were coded are summarized in Table 1. These calls were coded according
to whether the issue was fixed during the call, what kind of escalation was needed to fix the
issue (in-person assistance or transferring the phone call to another staff member), the
cause of the issue (human error, technology error, or something else), whether the call
concerned missing equipment, whether an equipment resupply was needed, whether the
issue concerned a voting machine connection with other equipment, whether the call
concerned an issue with a ballot (i.e., unable to scan ballot, ballot jammed, or other),
whether the call involved a spoiled ballot, and whether the call related to the use of the
emergency slot for a ballot that needed to be scanned later.
Number of Percentage of
Equipment Type
Calls Coded Calls
DUO 322 24.7%
Scanner 243 18.6%
Controller 226 17.3%
ePollBook 196 15.0%
Other 193 14.8%
DUO-Go 124 9.5%
Total 1,304 100.0%
The results of the content coding showed that 72.6% of issues were solved during the phone
call. Another 19.5% of issues were not successfully solved during the call, and on the
remaining 7.9% of calls the description did not make clear whether the issue was solved
during the call. Of the 21.2% of calls that required additional assistance, 57.3% required in-
person assistance and 42.8% were transferred to another individual via phone. The vast
FMG also analyzed the content coded variables by the type of machine the call involved.
These analyses used two sample T-tests with equal variances to compare each specific type
of equipment against the other equipment in use for the March 2022 primary election. This
analysis allowed FMG to determine which types of voting equipment were statistically more
or less likely to cause certain types of issues during the primary election. The results of this
analysis are summarized in Table 2. Compared to other types of voting equipment, the
issues related to ePollBooks were more likely to be fixed during the call and were less likely
to require in-person assistance in order to solve the issue. This could be related to the fact
that the ePollBooks used in the March 2022 primary had been in use for several election
cycles, indicating that election site personnel were more accustomed to using them. Looking
closer at the issues reported involving ePollBooks, almost one-fourth related to the process
of spoiling a ballot and issuing a new access code to the voter, rather than an issue with the
machine itself, and in many instances, when the issue was related to the machine, it was
solved after re-starting or resetting the machine. For calls related to controllers, on the other
hand, the issues were less likely to be successfully resolved during the call compared to the
other types of voter equipment, with 28.9% of the calls related to controller flagged as not
being solved during the call. Of those, almost half of the calls required sending a technician
to the polling place and 32.3% of the calls were escalated.
In looking at whether the issue was caused by human error, as opposed to another source,
scanner-related issues were more likely to be caused by human error (e.g., a scanner not
plugged into the wall outlet), whereas DUO-Go-related issues were less likely to be caused by
human error (e.g., connection and printing issues). DUOs were the piece of voting equipment
that most commonly were associated with connection-related issues and spoiled ballots; 78
of the 130 calls (60.0%) that involved a voting machine connection issue were related to
DUOs, and 90 of the 173 calls (52.0%) that involved a spoiled ballot concerned a DUO.
Type of Equipment
Controller DUO DUO-Go Scanner ePollBook
Was issue fixed during Less likely More likely
call? than other than other
equipment equipment
Was in-person Less likely
assistance required? than other
equipment
Was issue caused by Less likely More likely
human error? than other than other
equipment equipment
Was issue related to Less likely More likely Less likely
voting machine than other than other than other
connection? equipment equipment equipment
Did issue involve a Less likely More likely Less likely
spoiled ballot? than other than other than other
equipment equipment equipment
Of the 1,304 calls reviewed, a total of 174 were coded as being related with an issue with
the ballot being jammed. DUOs accounted for 62.6% of the calls related to a jammed ballot,
scanners accounted for 16.1% and DUO Go for 13.8%. Additionally, 123 calls of those coded
(9.4%) were related with ballot scanning issues, and 111 (8.5%) were related to questions
regarding the use of the emergency slot—which is used for ballots that cannot be scanned
for some reason and need to be kept separately to be scanned after the polls close or
duplicated and scanned at the central location.
The results from the coding identify some of the most common reasons for poll workers to
reach out to the helpline and reveal frequent issues with certain types of election
equipment, such as controllers being more likely to require in-person assistance and poll
workers having connection issues with DUOs (generally issues with connections between
DUOs and Controllers or with other DUOs). These findings suggest that additional testing of
connections between DUO machines, in addition to more training of election workers on how
to connect DUOs to one another and to Controllers, could reduce such issues. Similarly, of
the calls analyzed, 15.1% were related to spoiled ballots. In many cases, the issue involved
3 In this table, blank cells indicate that there was no statistically significant difference in comparing a particular
equipment type to other equipment. The category “Other” for calls regarding technological issues was excluded
from the analysis shown in this table because it does not specify a particular type of equipment as the reason
for the call. Statistical significance was determined at the p<.05 level.
Focus Groups
To provide additional insight into the issues experienced during the March 2022 primary
election in Harris County, FMG conducted focus groups with poll workers and election judges
who served at polling places during the primary election. The goal of these interviews was to
better understand their experience with the training, and the new voting equipment, as well
as to identify specific challenges they faced during the election and to identify strategies to
improve their preparedness for such situations. The following section outlines the key
findings of these interviews, and the methodology utilized to select participants.
Key Takeaways
• Election judge groups tended to share more negative experiences and tended to
have stronger feelings about not being equipped with sufficient resources during the
March 2022 primary election than did poll worker groups.
• The ability to have continuous exposure to election materials, staff, and voting
machines during early voting helped both poll workers and election judges familiarize
themselves with election materials.
• Pick-up of voting materials was a much smoother process than drop-off during the
March 2022 primary election.
Methodology
Questions asked related to these topics were centered on the experience of poll workers
and election judges, and aimed to understand any shortfalls within these key areas and how
Participants who were selected to participate in either focus group then received a follow-up
email from FMG notifying them of their selection and included the Zoom login information.
FMG then followed up with participants 24 hours before their scheduled interview time to
remind them of their participation. The table below provides the breakdown of the number
of participants that attended each focus group.
Findings
While the training was well received, participants did note a few areas where the training
could be improved. Firstly, some respondents noted that there was no training that was
conducted near where they were located, which required some poll workers to travel long
distances in order to have access to an in-person training. In some instances the facilities in
which the trainings were held were crowded and could not accommodate the number of
people who attended the training. This proved to be particularly difficult, because the
overcrowded spaces meant that some poll workers did not get any hands-on experience with
the voting machines or other voting-related materials. Secondly participants noted that they
would have liked the training sessions to include content related to common “on the ground
issues” that a poll worker could experience, for example how to correctly fill out an affidavit.
Election judges echoed some of these challenges. Generally, they tended to be more critical
of the trainings, citing that they were disorganized and that newer judges experienced the
trainings differently from more experienced judges; one participant commented that newer
judges were confused and asked several questions about the process, while more
experienced judges were used to using the older equipment and wanted to know more
about the new equipment. Another participant felt trainings for these two groups should be
conducted separately, as much time is devoted to rehashing questions that not everybody
has.
The trainings were also criticized for being simultaneously too long and not in-depth enough.
This may be due in part to the volume of attendees. For example, one participant noted that
the training they attended was not able to cover all content sufficiently due to the number of
questions asked. Another commented that although trainers did their best to cover a large
amount of content, the trainings did not cover on-the-ground issues such as paper jams that
cause several problems on Election Day. Several election judges noted that in-person
trainings were crowded, that there was minimal physical space, and at least one election
judge felt that the trainer did not have sufficient experience.
Another key theme in discussions with election judges was the use of an incomplete, draft
equipment manual that did not fully reflect the workings of the new machines. Election
judges recalled seeing the word “Draft” on the manuals they used and felt the manual
Malfunctioning voting equipment was cited as one of the biggest difficulties that poll
workers experienced with the voting equipment. One of the most common malfunctions is
that polling places would receive voting machines that simply did not function. For example,
one participant noted that “in the runoff, there were 12 machines [at the polling place] and
one was working.” The second most common malfunction that participants cited was that
the voting machines would consistently have paper jams. As will be described later in this
report, voters would attempt to insert both pages of their ballot at once instead of inserting
them one at a time, causing the machines to jam. While poll workers were usually able to
rectify these issues with no problem it caused a bottleneck at polling sites when combined
with voting machines that were just not functional at all. One potential solution that poll
workers indicated could help with this issue it to increase the resources or information
available to voters so that they are more aware of how to correctly insert their ballots into
voting machines.
At the close of Election Day, poll workers did not reference any serious issues with breaking
down voting equipment at the polling place. The only issue participants mentioned was that
it was difficult to remember how to re-box the materials. Participants mentioned that if
Harris County could provide photos or visuals in the training materials outlining how to
repack these materials it could help alleviate these issues.
Some election judges described connectivity issues during equipment set-up and overall
difficulty getting set up in difficult locations (e.g., lack of space). Because the equipment
manual was in draft form, some election judges had difficulty when trying to resolve time-
sensitive issues during polling hours. One participant described having paper feeding
difficulties and a lack of instruction in the manual. Several also described having trouble
with the tape printing process, as it had changed since the previous election.
Generally, election judges felt that they would have liked more specific guidelines and
additional staff to help mitigate the problems of the new voting equipment, particularly when
machines were down and there were large crowds of voters. Several election judges
attributed equipment issues, such as paper jams and scanning problems, to the use of a
After the close of polls, election judges also tended to have difficulties when packing the
voting equipment into their storage cages. One judge suggested taking a picture of the
storage cages before they are unpacked during set-up to assist in organization at the close
of polls.
Voter Experience
When evaluating the voter experience during the March 2022 primary, poll workers
consistently indicated that the voters who tended to have the most difficulty were those who
had never used paper ballots before to cast their vote. As mentioned previously, many times
the voter would attempt to insert both sheets of their ballot into the machine at the same
time, which would cause the machine to jam. As poll workers mentioned, this happened so
often that it would lead to delays at their polling stations, which in turn led to increased wait
times for the voter. Additionally, poll workers indicated that they did receive some pushback
from voters related to the use of electronic devices in the polling place. Most poll workers
indicated that this was because voters were not aware that they could not use their cell
phones within a certain distance of a polling place. To mitigate this issue in future, poll
workers suggested that Harris County develop more signage and messages that could be
posted in the polling place to make it very clear to voters that the use of electronic devices
in prohibited.
Lastly, poll workers provided some insightful strategies they utilized to try to keep the voter
experience as smooth as possible. For example, some poll workers described how they
would approach voters who were in line to cast their vote at the polling station to ask if they
needed assistance with voting, or if they were familiar with the recent changes to the voting
process. In the event a voter did ask a poll worker for assistance, they would then provide a
step-by-step explanation to the voter on how to correctly fill out and cast their ballot. Poll
workers who did implement this strategy noted that they saw lines move smoothly at their
polling station and decreased the number of technical issues that arose with voting
equipment. In other instances, poll workers noted that voters would request to see a sample
ballot before they went to cast their vote to understand what the ballot looked like and how
to correctly fill it out. One poll worker even indicated that allowing voters to see a sample
ballot was “the most helpful piece of literature for [the voter].” As Harris County looks to the
future, providing resources such as a sample ballot for voters to review could help to
mitigate any issues that voters may have when casting their vote.
When reflecting on the voters’ experiences of the election, election judges agreed that there
is a need for expanded voter education and outreach prior to elections. For example, voters
seemed to be unaware of policies regarding cell phones at the polls, misunderstood the
mechanics of voting on party ballots, and some even mistakenly assumed that they were
Election judges were quick to offer suggestions for improvement; public information
campaigns can be expanded in the month leading up to an election and can cover topics
such as how to use new voting machines and how to scan completed ballots. During active
polling hours, screens detailing voting guidelines can be set up throughout a polling location.
Additionally, one participant described an existing information sheet that contains a small
icon explaining to voters that they are not permitted to have their cell phones out during
voting. The election judge suggested that a larger and more detailed graphic would have
more visibility and be more likely to be noticed by voters.
However, supply drop-off was described as very difficult. Election judges were typically
required to drive long hours late into the night after the close of polls to reach drop-off
locations. After arriving, there were long wait times to drop equipment off. Drop-off locations
were also described as being difficult to find and difficult to reach, especially late at night.
When asked if supply drop-off was always this difficult, election judges reflected that the
process in March 2022 was more frustrating than in other elections.
Although some election judges found staff at drop-off locations to be generally courteous
and helpful, the long wait times soured the experience. They suggested increasing the
amount of space allotted to drop-off locations to be able to accommodate more people at a
time and to expand the number of drop-off locations available. Additionally, some election
judges were uninformed or confused about the specific materials needing to be dropped off.
In some cases, a return to the polls may have been required. Additional clarity on the
materials list would be helpful. In some locations, election judges had staff available for
extra help during the breakdown and organization of equipment after the close of polls; in
these cases, close-out was faster and more efficient, and election judges were able to leave
the polling locations sooner. At least one judge explained that the availability of a constable
during equipment drop-off was an immense help.
One election judge explained that instead of conducting the March 2022 primary election in
polling locations common to previous elections, in some cases, polling was held in an
alternative location. These changes in location sometimes lead to difficulties; voters were
confused about the location change and complained of parking difficulties and long walks
between the parking lot and the building. For elections staff, the new locations may have
been smaller than what they were expecting. Moreover, some election judges recounted
unforeseen events like emergency hurricane testing taking place during active polling hours,
which greatly disrupted the day’s activities.
Several participants experienced both early voting and Election Day voting. Overall, early
voting seems to have been the more positive experience; judges noted that early voting is
supplied more sufficiently than Election Day voting (e.g., the use of laminated materials).
The continuous exposure to equipment, materials, and staff also allows early voting a sense
of continuity that Election Day does not offer. Early voting also allows clerks and judges to
have the option of a morning or an afternoon shift, which garnered positive feedback.
Participants also tended to feel election judges should have prior experience as clerks,
although this feeling was not universal.
However, when reflecting on changes since the March 2022 primary, election judges tended
to feel that the May election was an overall better experience, noting conscious positive
changes and improvements.
When asked about their experience communicating with the Central Elections Office,
Election judges expressed concerns about the knowledge and experience level of the
helpline staff compared to previous elections. The helpline also required longer hold times
and the use of an automated system, which participants explained was not the case before
March 2022. Some participants recalled that they never received an answer or never
received follow-up for their requests, with one recalling that they decided to reach out to
personal contacts to have their questions answered instead. Overall, there was a general
lack of technical support via the helpline. Reasons for calling the helpline included:
• To request additional clerks when staff was unavailable or did not arrive to their
assignments
• To ask questions about provisional ballots or voters who brought rejected mail ballots
with them to the polling location
• To ask questions regarding voter registration, which is a time-sensitive issue during
an election
• To request technical assistance with issues such as scanning
• To request additional supplies and voting materials
Election judges were also asked to evaluate the service provided by Protiviti technicians.
Some of the judges that recalled interacting with the technicians found them to be
unreliable and disliked their lack of identification, badges, or paperwork. Two participants
found that, rather than helping, the technicians arrived at the polling location to gather data
about defective voting machines; when asked what they would have liked the technicians to
provide, the judges expressed frustration that the voting machines were not fixed. On the
other hand, one participant who called the technicians for connectivity and paper issues
found the technicians helpful and knowledgeable. One participant also had the opportunity
to work with the technicians during the May election and found them to be cooperative and
helpful.
In-Depth Interviews
In addition to focus groups with poll workers and election judges, FMG conducted a series of
in-depth interviews with Hart InterCivic (the County’s voting technology vendor), Isabel
Longoria (Elections Administrator in Harris County) and Heider Garcia (Elections
Administrator of Tarrant County, TX). The goals of these interviews were different, as they
covered different roles in the March 2022 primary election (or no role in the case of Mr.
Garcia). The following sections provide details of the topics discussed and the findings.
Hart InterCivic summarized the challenges experienced by Harris County during the March
2022 primary election as primarily stemming from “the transition of electronic to paper-
based voting, compounded by the creation of a new Elections Office, the pandemic, and the
lack of funding for execution of an effective training and voter education effort,” noting that
while the new equipment had been used in previous elections (those held in Harris County in
May and November of 2021), the March 2022 primary election was by far the largest since
the transition and for many poll workers and voters their first experience with the new paper-
based voting technology. The transition to new technology particularly impacted three main
areas: internal election office operations, election judge and poll worker training, and voter
education.
As part of their contract with Harris County, Hart InterCivic provided the equipment displayed
in Table 4. In addition to this equipment, they provide the county with additional support
services, including an assigned Project Manager to assist Election Office staff in planning
and facilitating election project deliverables; though, as the entity ultimately responsible for
running elections, it is up to the county to fully implement any training and guidance
provided. Operational guidance includes resources and support related to activities such as
project schedules, equipment delivery and legacy pickups, equipment repairs, warehouse
storage requirements, pre-defining equipment, acceptance testing, staff training (review of
device and software guides), logic and accuracy testing, voter outreach resource
recommendations, labels and forms, best practices from Hart’s Knowledge Base Articles,
lessons learned workshop facilitation, and direct call center and field support for elections.
• Controller not ready—Controller needs to finish booting up and poll workers need to
Open the Polls
• Verity cable not properly plugged in
• Paper jam—skewed paper feed needs to be backed out
• Battery Not Charged—poll worker forgets to plug in device or does not plug device
into wall outlet (when required)
• Scanner—Barcode could not be read, which in some cases may be addressed by
testing for calibration prior to deploying the scanner for an election
• Tablet not locked into the base station or not seated in cradle properly
While these issues are often reported as “errors” with the technology, Hart InterCivic noted
that most are “user-based issues that could be resolved–or avoided all together–with
adequate poll worker training and reliance on the troubleshooting guides we provided the
County.” Hart also noted that, “even when poll workers are not adequately trained, the
overwhelming number of issues are resolved quickly with a call to Harris County’s Election
Day Call Center.” Hart continues to work with Harris county to help ensure proper poll worker
Across the 133 jurisdictions using the Hart Verity Duo solution nationwide, Hart reports that
true system issues requiring a device be returned for repair are rare, accounting for between
0.5% and 2.0% of total devices over the last 6 months. In Harris county, Hart InterCivic
estimates the return for repair rate at less than 1%. The following data was provided by Hart
InterCivic to illustrate the number and percentage of devices pulled out of duty and returned
to them for repair or replacement due to a technical system issue for the November 2021
and March 2022 Primary election.
Table 5: Hart InterCivic Voting Equipment Returned for Repair after the November 2021 and
March 2022 Elections
Hart reported that they “firmly believe this data indicates the reliability of our technology is
among the best in the industry and is consistent with the ownership experience of our other
satisfied customers. And, when there is a technical issue with a device, we are committed to
repairing or replacing those units to ensure that Harris County has reliable units for future
use.”
While Hart InterCivic reports working with Harris County Election Office to determine if it is
feasible to utilize standard 8.5” x 11” paper for the November 2022 General Election, ballot
paper size selection will ultimately be determined by the number of contests on the ballot
“To ensure the highest level of transparency and security, Verity uses Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) to read a voter’s selections–using the printed words on
the ballot that are directly verifiable by the voter him or herself. Verity never stores
vote data in a non-human readable barcode/QR code. In order to achieve this, the
OCR functionality requires a minimum font size to be effective and readable by all
voters. The Harris County ballot is already at the minimum font size to support OCR.”
A recent advisory from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) of the
Department of Homeland Security4 and report published by the Center for Democracy and
Technology5 discuss how voting technology that produces human- and machine-readable
text, such as that used by the Hart InterCivic Verity Duo system helps to protect against
election system vulnerabilities.
Furthermore, regarding the issues with ballot jams in the voter equipment, Hart noted that
while approximately 1,500 ballot pages from the March 2022 Primary election had to be
manually duplicated and re-processed, this represented only about 0.2% of the 657,590
total ballot pages for the March 2022 primary election. This rate of pre-processing of
damaged or unreadable ballot pages is consistent with that from other jurisdictions using
similar voting technologies.
Hart suggests that the issues experienced by Harris County during the March 2022 Primary
election could be mitigated through a more robust voter education and outreach effort as
well as enhanced poll worker education that includes more hands-on experience with voting
equipment.
4 https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/ics/advisories/icsa-22-154-01
5 https://cdt.org/insights/do-ballot-barcodes-threaten-election-security/
Hart credits the decrease in support calls related to equipment on May 24 and during early
voting to the additional run of each device through a series of tests prior to this election.
Some enhanced protocols could improve the performance of election equipment and avoid
malfunctions. While Hart does not perform equipment tests at customer sites, they provide
recommendations and instructions as part of their Support Procedures Manual and cover
these activities as part of their on-site training of elections staff. While testing cables before
an election may be more resource intensive than feasible given the number of cables in use,
however, it was noted that most cable failures are associated with visually noticeable
damage, such as bent connector ends. To mitigate cable-related issues, Hart recommends
including an extra Verity cable in each vote center supply box so that problematic cables can
quickly be identified and replaced on-site.
For most other equipment issues identified during the March 2022 Primary, Hart
recommends improved training procedures and voter education outreach. According to Hart,
polling place issues associated with connectivity issues can be mitigated by following
recommended best practices of booting up the Controller before connecting the DUOs or
printing reports. Better training of poll workers to understand and follow these procedures
would reduce perceived connectivity issues with machines, according to Hart.
Hart InterCivic also reported that they are currently investigating possible technical and
hardware enhancements to assist the voter in feeding their ballot into the scanner in order
to reduce paper skews and jams. However, their primary recommendation for reducing
these types of errors is to engage in more voter education, which had been done on a
limited basis ahead of the March 2022 Primary due both to lack of funding for these efforts
and restrictions on public gatherings associated with County social distancing requirements
in place ahead of that election. They noted several actions they are currently taking to better
support Harris County’s VEO efforts during future elections:
• “We have been consulting with the County on best practices for voter education
under the overarching recommendation of “the more, the better!” However, any
communication or education efforts on this front must be optimized, targeted, and
Isabel Longoria
FMG spoke with Isabel Longoria, Election Administrator of Harris County on June 14, 2022,
following up on a previous conversation from May 3, 2022 where Beth Stevens (Harris
County’s director of voting) was also present. In the first discussion questions centered
election processes and issues during the March 2022 primary election, while the June
interview focused on some specific portions of the election processes in the county as well
as background on the creation of the Office of the Elections Administrator and their goals.
EA Longoria noted that the transition to a EAO was challenging, as the newly created office
lacked some resources. For example, they could not dispose of their own budget and
needed the authorization from the Clerk’s office for expenditures. Additionally, in the first
months, they lacked personnel in charge of functions like IT or human resources, which
caused that she and other staff needed to fulfill those responsibilities, and they also lacked
sufficient office furniture and computers. During the transition, some workers from the
Clerk’s office were transferred to the EAO, however, it was only those workers that did
election related work full-time while in the Clerk’s office, and none of the workers that did
such tasks during 50% or 90% of the time, for example, were transferred, which led to a
shortage of personnel in the EAO. Additionally, they needed to create an organizational chart
and assign roles and responsibilities, and create goals and a culture for the office, which EA
Longoria mentioned that was centered in: kindness, professionalism, and accuracy.
EAO was created on July 14, 2020 and Harris County finalized the purchase of new voting
equipment from Hart InterCivic and replaced their DREs with Ballot Marking Devices and
Scanners on January The 26, 2021. The new voting equipment fully replaced the older
voting equipment. The first challenge the EAO experience with the new voting equipment
was the lack of space in their facilities to store the new equipment, which took a larger area
than the previous voting equipment. This change in election equipment started in February-
March of 2021 and the next election was the Joint Election of May 2021. In addition to the
challenge of the short period of time to provide training to the staff on the new voting
equipment, and then provide training to election workers for the May 2021 election, EA
Longoria mentioned that they were unable to provide in-person training due to COVID
restrictions on social distancing. During the rest of the year 2021 they had another three
elections, two of which were small runoff elections and the other was the November 2021
general election. For the last elections of the year, they were able to provide in-person
training for poll judges but had to continue with virtual training for poll workers. Fully in-
person training for all election workers would not be conducted until the training sessions
for the March 2022 primary election.
Another challenge for the March 2022 primary election arose just before Election Day. The
equipment supplies were not prepared by the corresponding manager, which caused that
EAO staff had to work overtime to get the equipment ready for pick up by election judges. EA
Longoria reported that they were able to have the equipment ready almost in time (only the
first scheduled pick-ups needed to be re-scheduled), but the effort caused that staff had
been working long hours before Election Day started. For equipment drop-off, Harris County
made available four locations for election judges to drop the equipment. EA Longoria
mentioned that they had to deploy staff to the drop-off sites to process equipment and have
trucks to take the equipment from the drop-off sites to the central location where the
counting would take place. EA Longoria reported that the lack of staff of her office caused
that a good portion of the EAO workers had to work in the drop-off process and delay the
start of the counting process. Because of this shortage of staff, and the long hours, EA
Longoria mentioned that a few workers became sick due to exhaustion, and some had to go
to the hospital. The fact that her staff had to fulfill multiple roles during the elections, was
the main reason in the misplacement of the V-drive with 10,000 by-mail ballots that was not
recorded during Election Night and had to be entered afterwards.
When asked about the issues with ballots jammed in the voting equipment and ballots that
could not be scanned, EA Longoria noted that Harris County is probably the only county
using a 2-page paper ballot with legal-size sheets (i.e., 8.5” x 14”). She noted that this
probably led to more chances of the ballots being damaged or not being able to be scanned.
In the November 2021 general election, the ballot was only one page, and the March 2022
primary election was the first one with two-ballots, which was also challenging for election
workers and voters. EA Longoria mentioned that they are working with Hart InterCivic in the
design of the ballots for the November 2022 midterm election to test ballot designs that
may reduce these issues, as well as working in how to improve the reliability of the
equipment. When asked about how often they test the equipment, she mentioned that
equipment is tested before every election, and that Hart had to re-supply calibration
materials around May 2022 because the materials they had were not working properly.
Tarrant County
FMG looked for other counties that have gone through a similar voting equipment change
similar to the one that Harris County conducted in 2021. The goal was to learn about the
FMG used the Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS) data from the 2018 and
2020 general elections, and conversations with Hart InterCivic and Harris County to identify
counties that had used Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting equipment in 2018 and that
had transitioned to Ballot Marking Devices (BMD) and Scanners for the 2020 General
Election. The goal was to identify counties that had done a similar transition to Harris County
recently, and if possible, relatively large counties, so the experience could be more
comparable.
FMG identified three main counties that met the requirements: Tarrant County, TX; Miami-
Dade County, FL; and Palm Beach County, FL. After reaching out to the counties in Florida,
we learned that, while these two counties had used DREs in 2018 and BMDs in 2020, they
only used these types of equipment for voters with accessibility needs, and the rest of the
voters had been using paper ballots and scanners for a long period of time, which of course
disqualified them as an apt comparison to learn about their voting equipment transition.
Upon further inspection of the data from the 2018 and 2020 EAVS surveys, FMG found that
a majority of counties using BMDs in their elections, only use such devices for voters with
accessibility needs and generally use paper ballots and scanners for the rest of the voters.
Tarrant County, however, uses BMDs as the primary mode of voting equipment for all voters,
transitioned from DREs to BMDs and scanners after the 2018 General Election, and use the
same Hart InterCivic equipment as Harris County.
FMG met with Tarrant County’s Election Administrator Heider Garcia, to ask about the
county’s experience with the voting equipment transition. Tarrant County transitioned to
BMDs and Scanners after the 2018 General Election; before that transition, the county
already used hand-marked paper ballots during Election Day voting, and only used DREs for
early voting, where voters of Tarrant County could go to any of the available vote centers to
cast their ballot, rather than have one assigned voting place depending on their voting
jurisdiction, as was the case for Election Day voting.
Since the new voting equipment was implemented, Tarrant County has used different types
of ballots (i.e., one and two-page ballots) and ballot sizes (i.e., 8.5” x 11” and 8.5” x 14”)
depending on the number of races in each given election for a voter. And while the county
has had issues with some paper ballots being jammed, or not able to be scanned, these
have been generally rare and nothing that they have found as a recurring or concerning
issue during their elections.
From their experience, Tarrant County highlighted that for the transition from DREs to BMDs
and Scanners, it was crucial to involve poll workers and judges in the change of equipment
and discuss the benefits of the transition. They also stressed the importance of hands-on
In addition to election workers training, Tarrant County also commented on the importance
of voter education, and how media presentations and community events helped to give
residents a chance to see and even interact with the new voting equipment.
In terms of lessons learned, after the November 2019 election the county identified some
processes in need of review, such as supply timing, parts of the training program, and
closing the voting equipment. However, they acknowledge that lessons learned will depend
on the experience from each county during an election. They also mentioned how with the
new equipment and processes they found the need for a larger space and are in the process
of getting a new warehouse for the elections division that meets their needs in terms of
storage and operations (e.g., space for training, staff, etc.).
Two different surveys were shared, one for poll workers and one for poll judges, with virtually
the same questions with the exception of a few items that were specific to poll judges and
did not appear in the poll worker survey. For the purposes of classifying the respondents
between poll judge and poll worker in these tables, however, we used the response of the
participants to Q5 that asked about their role in the election, instead of the original survey
they completed. There were, however, little discrepancies in terms of respondents reporting
their role was different than the survey they completed (e.g., respondents that were given
the poll worker survey and reported being Poll Judges).
For the age categories represented in the tables, there were some poll workers under the
age of 18 that were likely student workers. These were not separated into their own category
because they represented a very small portion of the respondents (n=8).
5 – 10 11 – 30 30 minutes
No wait >1 Hour
minutes minutes to 1 hour
Respondents
28.7% 20.2% 20.4% 14.1% 16.6%
(n=397)
Election Worker Type
Poll Judge
16.8% 22.9% 23.2% 17.1% 20.0%
(n=310)
Poll Worker
70.9% 10.5% 10.5% 3.5% 4.7%
(n=86)
Experience
First Election
51.6% 12.9% 3.2% 25.8% 6.5%
(n=31)
1–5 Years
30.7% 20.9% 20.2% 12.3% 16.0%
(n=163)
6–10 Years
29.6% 18.3% 22.5% 11.3% 18.3%
(n=71)
More than 10 Years
20.0% 21.5% 23.8% 15.4% 19.2%
(n=130)
Election Period Worked
Early Voting Only
56.4% 17.9% 15.4% 0.0% 10.3%
(n=39)
Election Day Only
23.5% 17.3% 22.9% 18.4% 17.9%
(n=179)
Early Voting and Election Day
27.9% 23.5% 19.0% 12.8% 16.8%
(n=179)
Election Worker’s Age
16–35 Years
53.6% 14.3% 10.7% 3.6% 17.9%
(n=28)
36–45 Years
18.8% 12.5% 37.5% 12.5% 18.8%
(n=16)
46–55 Years
25.9% 24.1% 22.2% 14.8% 13.0%
(n=54)
56–65 Years
32.4% 15.7% 12.7% 16.7% 22.5%
(n=102)
66–70 Years
11.1% 25.4% 28.6% 15.9% 19.0%
(n=63)
71+ Years
27.1% 21.2% 24.7% 15.3% 11.8%
(n=85)
Party Identification
Republican
18.4% 18.4% 22.7% 17.7% 22.7%
(n=141)
Democrat
33.0% 22.2% 18.9% 12.3% 13.7%
(n=212)
Independent / Other
40.0% 20.0% 23.3% 10.0% 6.7%
(n=30)
5 – 10 11 – 30 30 minutes
No wait >1 Hour
minutes minutes to 1 hour
Respondents
18.6% 9.7% 10.4% 18.9% 42.4%
(n=413)
Election Worker Type
Poll Judge
8.0% 9.9% 10.5% 20.7% 50.8%
(n=323)
Poll Worker
56.2% 9.0% 10.1% 12.4% 12.4%
(n=89)
Experience
First Election
45.2% 6.5% 3.2% 16.1% 29.0%
(n=31)
1–5 Years
21.9% 11.2% 10.7% 19.5% 36.7%
(n=169)
6–10 Years
18.9% 4.1% 18.9% 16.2% 41.9%
(n=74)
More than 10 Years
8.7% 11.6% 7.2% 20.3% 52.2%
(n=138)
Election Period Worked
Early Voting Only
52.9% 11.8% 8.8% 5.9% 20.6%
(n=34)
Election Day Only
13.2% 7.9% 10.0% 20.5% 48.4%
(n=190)
Early Voting and Election Day
18.0% 11.1% 11.1% 19.6% 40.2%
(n=189)
Election Worker’s Age
16–35 Years
35.5% 12.9% 9.7% 12.9% 29.0%
(n=31)
36–45 Years
12.5% 18.8% 12.5% 31.3% 25.0%
(n=16)
46–55 Years
14.5% 14.5% 7.3% 14.5% 49.1%
(n=55)
56–65 Years
15.0% 4.4% 8.8% 18.6% 53.1%
(n=113)
66–70 Years
11.1% 9.5% 11.1% 22.2% 46.0%
(n=63)
71+ Years
22.1% 9.3% 14.0% 25.6% 29.1%
(n=86)
Party Identification
Republican
9.0% 8.3% 10.3% 21.4% 51.0%
(n=145)
Democrat
23.5% 9.0% 11.8% 18.6% 37.1%
(n=221)
Independent / Other
21.2% 21.2% 6.1% 15.2% 36.4%
(n=33)
Recruitment Specialists Helped to Sign up for Supply Handout and Drop Off
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Respondents
35.3% 44.9% 13.2% 6.6%
(n=334)
Election Worker Type
Poll Judge
35.3% 45.2% 13.3% 6.2%
(n=323)
Poll Worker
36.4% 36.4% 9.1% 18.2%
(n=11)
Experience
First Election
11.1% 50.0% 22.2% 16.7%
(n=18)
1–5 Years
36.6% 42.5% 13.4% 7.5%
(n=134)
6–10 Years
37.9% 43.1% 15.5% 3.4%
(n=58)
More than 10 Years
35.8% 48.0% 10.6% 5.7%
(n=123)
Election Period Worked
Early Voting Only
30.0% 40.0% 20.0% 10.0%
(n=10)
Election Day Only
26.9% 49.7% 15.4% 8.0%
(n=175)
Early Voting and Election Day
45.6% 39.6% 10.1% 4.7%
(n=149)
Election Worker’s Age
16–35 Years
72.7% 18.2% 0.0% 9.1%
(n=11)
36–45 Years
37.5% 43.8% 12.5% 6.3%
(n=16)
46–55 Years
37.5% 47.9% 6.3% 8.3%
(n=48)
56–65 Years
36.2% 41.9% 15.2% 6.7%
(n=105)
66–70 Years
36.0% 50.0% 12.0% 2.0%
(n=50)
71+ Years
31.3% 46.9% 20.3% 1.6%
(n=64)
Party Identification
Republican
27.3% 46.2% 18.9% 7.6%
(n=132)
Democrat
42.7% 43.3% 9.9% 4.1%
(n=171)
Independent / Other
42.1% 47.4% 10.5% 0.0%
(n=19)
Age
16 – 35 36 – 45 46 – 55 56 – 65 66 – 70 71+ Years
Years Old Years Old Years Old Years Old Years Old Old
Respondents
5.8% 4.0% 9.6% 27.0% 17.3% 23.8%
(n=1,103)
Election Worker Type
Poll Judge
3.4% 4.9% 14.3% 29.8% 15.7% 20.6%
(n=470)
Poll Worker
7.7% 3.4% 6.2% 24.9% 18.4% 26.2%
(n=626)
Experience
First Election
11.6% 5.8% 14.0% 22.1% 18.6% 18.6%
(n=86)
1–5 Years
8.1% 4.9% 12.1% 29.4% 16.2% 16.2%
(n=554)
6–10 Years
3.6% 2.6% 5.1% 21.9% 17.9% 34.2%
(n=196)
More than 10 Years
0.8% 2.7% 5.8% 28.0% 19.1% 33.9%
(n=257)
Election Period Worked
Early Voting Only
7.4% 3.7% 6.7% 19.3% 17.0% 29.6%
(n=135)
Election Day Only
6.7% 4.4% 10.9% 26.8% 18.6% 20.2%
(n=451)
Early Voting and Election Day
4.7% 3.7% 9.3% 29.4% 16.3% 25.5%
(n=514)
Party Identification
Republican
4.3% 3.1% 7.7% 29.2% 15.9% 29.4%
(n=415)
Democrat
5.5% 3.9% 11.4% 26.6% 20.7% 22.7%
(n=542)
Independent / Other
15.8% 7.4% 10.5% 23.2% 9.5% 12.6%
(n=95)
Gender
Prefer not to Transgender or
Female Male
say Non-Binary
Respondents
69.8% 28.1% 1.9% 0.2%
(n=1,090)
Election Worker Type
Poll Judge
61.3% 35.7% 2.8% 0.2%
(n=465)
Poll Worker
76.3% 22.5% 1.1% 0.2%
(n=619)
Experience
First Election
70.9% 26.7% 2.3% 0.0%
(n=86)
1–5 Years
70.6% 27.4% 1.6% 0.4%
(n=548)
6–10 Years
72.5% 25.4% 2.1% 0.0%
(n=193)
More than 10 Years
65.5% 32.5% 2.0% 0.0%
(n=255)
Election Period Worked
Early Voting Only
65.7% 31.3% 3.0% 0.0%
(n=134)
Election Day Only
67.6% 29.3% 2.9% 0.2%
(n=444)
Early Voting and Election Day
73.0% 26.0% 0.8% 0.2%
(n=511)
Election Worker’s Age
16–35 Years
60.9% 37.5% 1.6% 0.0%
(n=64)
36–45 Years
65.9% 31.8% 2.3% 0.0%
(n=44)
46–55 Years
69.8% 26.4% 2.8% 0.9%
(n=106)
56–65 Years
70.4% 28.3% 1.0% 0.3%
(n=297)
66–70 Years
69.3% 29.1% 1.6% 0.0%
(n=189)
71+ Years
72.0% 27.2% 0.8% 0.0%
(n=261)
Party Identification
Republican
62.0% 35.5% 2.4% 0.0%
(n=411)
Democrat
76.9% 22.7% 0.0% 0.4%
(n=542)
Independent / Other
62.1% 31.6% 6.3% 0.0%
(n=95)
Race / Ethnicity
African- American Indian or Asian-Pacific
Hispanic Other White
American Native American Islander
Respondents
32.8% 0.5% 6.2% 13.5% 9.9% 37.2%
(n=1,103)
Election Worker Type
Poll Judge
31.5% 0.2% 3.8% 10.6% 10.2% 43.6%
(n=470)
Poll Worker
34.0% 0.6% 7.8% 15.5% 9.4% 32.6%
(n=626)
Experience
First Election
32.6% 0.0% 9.3% 10.5% 10.5% 37.2%
(n=86)
1–5 Years
31.9% 0.9% 7.9% 14.1% 8.8% 36.3%
(n=554)
6–10 Years
37.2% 0.0% 4.6% 14.8% 8.2% 35.2%
(n=196)
More than 10 Years
31.5% 0.0% 2.3% 12.8% 11.7% 41.6%
(n=257)
Election Period Worked
Early Voting Only
32.6% 0.0% 9.6% 16.3% 8.1% 33.3%
(n=135)
Election Day Only
23.9% 0.2% 5.5% 13.3% 10.4% 46.6%
(n=451)
Early Voting and Election Day
40.9% 0.8% 5.6% 13.0% 9.5% 30.2%
(n=514)
Election Worker’s Age
16–35 Years
28.1% 0.0% 12.5% 31.3% 9.4% 18.8%
(n=64)
36–45 Years
25.0% 0.0% 4.5% 27.3% 15.9% 27.3%
(n=44)
46–55 Years
34.0% 0.9% 7.5% 19.8% 9.4% 28.3%
(n=106)
56–65 Years
33.9% 0.3% 5.0% 11.4% 7.7% 41.6%
(n=298)
66–70 Years
40.3% 0.0% 2.1% 9.9% 7.9% 39.8%
(n=191)
71+ Years
28.6% 0.8% 5.7% 11.5% 7.3% 46.2%
(n=262)
Party Identification
Republican
2.2% 0.5% 10.1% 11.8% 9.4% 66.0%
(n=415)
Democrat
60.3% 0.0% 2.4% 14.4% 5.4% 17.5%
(n=542)
Independent / Other
17.9% 2.1% 13.7% 13.7% 17.9% 34.7%
(n=95)