AutoMark Questionnaire

Question/Response	Tabulation	Comments
1. Did you have to assist people to use the AutoMark? If so, what kind of assistance did you provide?
Yes	82	Suggested use of the headphones Coaxed people to use it when they were hesitant. Mostly help inserting ballot Just a few verbal comments Not much, it’s quite intuitive. Pretty easy to use. It varied by age of the person. The "younger" users were comfortable after a brief introduction. The "old" person tended to get confused with the many steps it took to vote. We had 3 people use our machine. Two were blind totally and one impaired. The blind both were enthusiastic to use it but it malfunctioned and it had to be replaced. Only one side of the ballot was marked so we judges finished the marking. The other voter increased the font size and marked the ballot and then voted. All liked the machine. We explained to them how to begin and what was going to happen before they inserted their ballot. Then we stayed nearby to assist if they needed further assistance. They did not need further assistance Detailed instructions on how the AutoMark would respond under certain circumstances when voting for certain races in our district. Assistance was required for the single person who used the equipment during the election. We told them it was a 'touch screen' method of marking the ballot. We told them the speaker on the headphones would guide them through the entire process. We had 21 people use the machine, however, one person hit 'Exit' instead of 'Mark the ballot', so they had to start over...that person decided to use the manual-marking method instead of starting over. After that, we warned people about the purpose of the 'Exit' button. inserting ballot, setting audio or large-print screen I offered instructions on how to use the machine, assisted non computer users on how to load ballot, and to show them some of the features of the machine. No one used it as intended; some voters tried and did insert their completed ballots in it thinking it was the tabulator! Showed the voter how to put ballot in and how to press the screen for the desired candidate One Person. Two judges assisted, one from each party. Person had no difficulty in using the machine. Very hands on assistance to an elderly female, visual/sight issues and computer illiterate. (Voter didn't want to use the headphones/audio.) I assisted people by telling them where to insert the ballot and then assuring that the ballot was accepted. Everyone using the AutoMark needed help to get started with voting on it. Once they were started they did well. I set up the machine only I provided help to an elderly man who was confused with which button to press. He was becoming frustrated and I asked him if I could assist him. The voter was not pressing the next or continue to next page buttons correctly but was ending his vote and the machine was putting out an unmarked ballot. Just showed them where it was.
No	105	No one tried to use it in our polling place, though one person did in the primary. Several people thought it was the vote counting machine though and tried to put their completed ballot in it before we stopped them. The machine was intuitive enough that most people had no problems with it. There was some confusion over what the machine did. Some voters thought it also counted their ballots and almost left with the ballot still sticking in the machine. Someone else was assisting them. I did not have to help people because I had no training on the machine. Other election judges did have to help some of the voters
2. How much time did it take AutoMark voters to vote?
Less than 5 minutes	18	Most took 2-3 min. Those with vision problems as long as 10 min.
Between 5-10 minutes	26
Between 10-15 minutes	17
Between 15-20 minutes	24
More than 20 minutes	12
Other	59	Minimal No idea too busy to record the time. Longer than waiting in line for a booth No one used the machine On paper ballot, about 5-10 min. on AutoMark 10 min upwards to 30 min. None were successful About the same as a paper ballot I think each took several minutes becoming acquainted and playing with the machine All liked the machine even though we had trouble. All voters except one used the paper ballot with no problems and all moved right along. It took voters longer to use the machine than to mark ballot by hand. Can't give a time in minutes. None It took longer For most it was fairly rapid, given the number of items on the ballot and that both sides had questions. It took the voters a long time. I do not know exactly how long or why it took so long. I don't know about the AutoMark, but everyone else was processed in a few minutes. We have optical scan, so people could vote anywhere they could sit if the booths were occupied. Longer than it did at the "regular" voting stations (even for the able-bodied voters who volunteered to use it) No longer than other voters in regular booths. But I thought it took a long time for most people to vote.
3. What was the general response from voters about the machine?
Positive (liked it easy to use, good.)	33	Very favorable Liked to be able to vote for themselves. Lukewarm
n/a	19
Curiosity	2
Nice but didn’t need it	11
Did not like it	3	The overall response when the system was suggested to people -- even those waiting to cast a paper ballot -- was negative. That is, they chose to go with the paper ballot, even if it meant a longer wait. However, it seemed virtually everyone who used the AutoMark system voted without difficulty and seemed favorably impressed with it. The only voter that used our machine had his ballot mangled by the machine. We had a terrible time even getting the ballot out of the machine. After that, he had his friend mark a new ballot for him.
Too slow	12	Liked it but it was too slow I did not hear any of the responses from the voters. It certainly was a big help to those who were legally blind or had vision problems but it seemed slow.
Other	26	Cost too high Many voters mistook it for the Accu-Vote machine. Casual about it oh so this is the new machine. Preferred to use it rather than wait in line. Most people that inquired thought it was good to have for those who really needed it but felt they wouldn’t want to use it. Most voters preferred the paper ballot, but those who tried it seemed satisfied even though it took longer to vote. Reluctant to try Some of the limited vision people were disappointed that they could not read the screen. Overall the response was positive. * Love the touch screen method * Easy to use once you get started * Liked to sit and vote! * Liked knowing when they made an error right away It was basically ignored and people had no interest in it. Mixed. Seniors had difficulty understanding the directions given by the machine. Younger voters not so much. People preferred to use a table instead. I think it is still too new for comfort. It was very positive, many seniors thought that the device was the ballot box and did not understand that it was only a marking device. They did think that it was easy to use and the instructions were clear, but thought it took too long. I had one voter tell me it was the first time in her entire life that she was able to vote unassisted. (sight impaired) I don't know, but the lady trained to use them tried to assist them, I didn't see anyone upset about it. Did not know about it. Most thought it was the mark/sense tabulator machine - during busy times, several input their ballots before one of us could intercept them. We were able to reject the ballot with no further problems and were able to direct the voters to the correct machine. Not enough information to decide. I heard little response about the machine. Several comments were made about putting the ballot into the machine and the machine not pulling the ballot in. Didn’t want to bother with it several asked for assistance from the head judge The older man who made check marks seemed frustrated. I didn't hear any other complaints. I think most people had either used the machines before or were familiar with filling in circles for tests.
4. Did you receive sufficient training?
Yes	148	Used it in training.
Probably	1
No	6	Could have used some interactive training with the machine prior to primary. I was a sub and received no election judge education this year.
Other	20	Would like more. Additional training is always welcome. Too many people trying to get hands-on experience and encouraging use of it at absentee voting would have provided that additional training. Pretty brief Had training but it takes experience in use or explaining it to feel comfortable and adequate with it. More attention to detail would have been helpful especially if there were problems. Many would of used more We were just told to get acquainted with it. I used it to vote myself and then felt fairly comfortable with it. For this reason, I felt comfortable encouraging people to try it. I suspect others did not mention it to voters. I received no training, probably because I signed up for election judge late (this fall). I had no training, but I was just a part time election judge, and no-one used the machined while I was there. I was an OJT judge. Due to the lack of people applying for the voting judge position. I will be going to the next judges’ class available. My wife is a head judge and gave me a very good overview of what the "do's" and "don'ts" of the job were, as well as the various station duties.
5. Did you have trouble setting up or closing down?
No	148
Yes	17	Set something up incorrectly We could not get it to work. We called in our problem, but no one came. Better education or instructions would help. Finally, we were able to get it to work. Cover on ink Bad chip in machine Took a long time. Not strong enough Problem with test ballot it continued to run three times before allowing ballot to be ejected Only in folding down the screen at closing was afraid of damaging it by pushing too hard, but call to headquarters informed us that it was stiff and pushing harder worker. Directions for closing down confusing very vague Setting up took a little longer and audio did not work. Half day to close. Closing went fairly smoothly. Only difficulty was in the manual counts of registered voters actually voting. Human error got an incorrect count so we recounted and balanced the voters with the votes and ballots. There seemed to be some problems in getting the machine up and running. We thought it took a long time to run through the sample ballots. I did not help in closing it down so I do not know about that. We had no trouble setting up but did seem to have trouble getting the numbers to come out right closing down. During close-down, we did lose power in the building for a short period (estimated: 3 minutes). One other problem was that we did not have enough sealable envelopes for the marked ballots; we had to use the box from the ballot forms. A small glitch with the write-in ballots. When people would fill in the write-in spot and then not put a name in the line reserved for the name of a write-in candidate/s.
n/a or no response	17
6. Were there any machine malfunctions? If so, please describe
No	167	None...only 'skew' issues a couple times when feeding the ballot in. Also, we had to tell each voter to give the ballot a 'tug' when the completed ballot came out.
Yes	22	Not enough tape in machine at end of day to record voting should have a spare roll in box Bad chip in machine The counting machine jammed mostly because absentee ballots were folded and didn’t feed in smoothly. Write in ballots were not sorted correctly. We had to hand search for write-ins to equal number on the counter extra 1 hr of work for 8 people. Ballot counting machine malfunctioned. The AutoMark started rejecting ballots. Yes the Accuvote made a funny noise one time and the next ballot did not increment the counter. The next ballot was ok and the next one did not increment but all of the rest of them were ok One ballot got caught only once for both elections. One ballot stopped printing. One side of the ballot did not get marked. The screen read printing malfunction contact judge. Problem with test ballot it continued to run three times before allowing ballot to be ejected Three people stated that their ballot markings were not complete when they checked the ballot and two people had the machine freeze on them and not proceed; but each stated that they had pushed options on the screen before they called us for help. They couldn’t tell us what they had done so we had to proceed to fix it by guessing. No audio There were 3 sample ballots included and used at startup. It wasn't clear to go until a 4th ballot was inserted by the tech. It was then ready to go The tabulator didn't have enough tape in it to print out the final results completely. Which was one reason we had trouble closing down. Twice the machine failed to mark front side of the ballot, but completed backside (judicial offices). Ballot mangled and jammed so badly that we could hardly get it out. The complaint I would have was that when not in use for a long period of time it would shut down and had a lot of trouble getting up and working again...
7. Are there other comments you’d like to share?
		On the back of the ballot there were judge races, and there was no way to skip to the end if the voter chooses not to vote on every race. They had to click click on every line, it would be nice to have a way to finish without doing that. Thank you for asking, Minnesota voting is the best!!! We the judges all think that there is need for this machine by a small number of voters and that as time passes its use will increase. The only suggestions I would have, and we devised a makeshift solution for the headphone problem. Laying on top of the machine or on the narrow stand is NOT handy or intuitive. So we made a hook type hanger and taped it to the side of the shield (sticking out alongside of the shield) so that people could find them. I realize blind people might have some trouble but if they felt for it they could grab them to use them. There just was no good place to put them otherwise. We also had many people think that IT was the BALLOT BOX. So we put a couple of HANDICAP POSTERS on the back and side of the shield. That seemed to deter non-handicapped people from trying to use it. I would suggest a poster permanently placed on the shield (larger and bolder than 8.5 x 11). Otherwise the AutoMark worked wonderfully. Great alternative for the disabled people in the USA. Due to heavy turn out of voters, there was very little time to either direct or inform voters about the AutoMark and its use. The voters in this precinct were only interested in voting and leaving. I would suggest that a flier or brochure be made available to all voters explaining the AutoMark purpose and its use. Unless more people use the AutoMark, it could appear to be a solution looking for a problem. Very expensive and a lot of extra work for little use. Of the 20 that used the AutoMark... * 7 didn't want to wait for an open booth... * 5 volunteered after an explanation of what is was... * 2 asked to use it right away... * 2..a mother and son (in wheelchair)... * 2 amputees * 1 other wheelchair person * 1 with bad knees Our polling place had little to no interest in the AutoMark and we all felt things moved along very well. The paper ballot was very popular vs. the Auto Mark Think that the machine is a good, useable device. Over all I think the AutoMark's worked OK. As more people become familiar with them they will find them easier to use. Older seniors who are afraid of the machines will continue to not want to use them. A WASTE OF MONEY, FOR ALL VOTERS THAT WE ENCOUNTERED There were several people that confused it with the ballot counting machine and tried to put ballot in. I will need to move machine to avoid confusion. A good start, but a much faster system needs to be used if we are to push through any volume of voters. There was often a line to use the system, and we only had about 600 registered voters in the precinct. I would hate to see what happened in precincts with larger numbers. The instructions on how to view the completed ballot could be clearer; we had a couple of voters clear out their ballots and had to start over as they did not clearly read the instructions on how to review the completed ballot. Again this was a limited problem. I think that judges should encourage the use of the machine as another tool and to not discourage the use for handicapped individuals only. Some of the voters put their completed ballots in the AutoMark vs. the tabulator. We had to continuously guard the AutoMark and direct voters to the tabulator which was at the opposite end of the room. Better signage might help, but some voters are challenged no matter what you do. Not about the voting. But you could have save the State of Minnesota (therefore the people - and me) some money by taking out two spaces in the answer areas and printing everything on one sheet of paper. It was silly to let it flow over to the second sheet by just two lines. One wheelchair bound voter used it and made a mistake and she would not go back and correct it and was very disgusted. (It was her own fault but she didn't accept that) The voting machines may be alright in the future if everyone is trained on them and something is done to speed them up. Part of the slowness problem may that the people using them were not used to using computers. We may have had only 3-5 people use the machine, but they were pleased to have the machines. Advertise the AutoMark on media that people, who could benefit from it, would use (i.e. radio, TV, Clubs etc.} How can we identify voters who would benefit by using the AutoMark machine, and how then do we suggest or recommend its use with sensitivity and respect, without the implication they are incompetent or inept to vote with a normal ballot? One blind voter came in with her husband to assist her, and the recommendation that she use the machine was received with some resentment by her spouse. (I am guessing that the implication was that he couldn't manage the task properly or would improperly mark her ballot for her.) If you wish to contact me about this please do so... Robert Chamberlin - Rochester. robchamberlin@charter.net This is made especially for the handicapped. The elderly have a hard time with it and need help. As I said previously it will have to be faster if it is to be used for all elections. Some people did not realize the machine was used only to mark ballots. Some people thought it was the voting machine. I voted absentee and used the machine in the Sept. election. I liked it. It was a little uncomfortable assisting the person using the AutoMark in terms of privacy. Voter was very apprehensive about touching any buttons on the COMPUTER. Therefore, the voter would tell me who she wanted to vote for or a yes or no answer to the questions. I know at times she wished she could have kept some of her choices private yet insisted on having assistance. Only one wheelchair bound person used it and she voted for 2 candidates in the governor's spot and the tabulator reflected it and she wouldn't re-vote. Area of concern - because we did not have enough pens and the voters were unwilling to wait, some took pencils from the "Kids Vote" table to mark their ballots (I was informed of this the next day by some students that manned the "Kids Vote" table). In order for the ballots to be read and counted, did the marks have to be made with black pen? The elderly may need more training. I would emphasize with voters that there is a paper trail and voters will get a printed out ballot that they can insert into the Ballot Counter as with all ballots. The public voter needs more education about the functions of the machine. The Head Judges seemed unwilling to use the machine as an extra machine for when our lines grew long. My husband used the machine in his voting precinct which was different from the one I judged. He is very technology friendly, and was eager to try the new machine. He was very disappointed in it because it only allowed him one question per screen, which as you could imagine, took him significantly longer. He's very impatient. However, I will say another judge related a response from one voter stating that this was the first time in over 30 years that he was able to vote unassisted. That's neat! The biggest concern was how slow it was. People were willing to use it instead of standing in line but wished it was faster. It seems an incredible expense for the number of people who use the machine. I realize that we need to accommodate the physically challenged but I would like to think that there might have been a more economical solution and that the funds could have been used for the greater good than providing this machine for every precinct I think it is a nice machine. I think you almost need a machine with some pretend election on it to train the users. People who should be using it are mostly older and are not sure about technology and therefore a chance to use it with some assistance before voting would be helpful. If a blind person does not know Braille it is not useable. Maybe some training for the blind would also help. Not many of us would like to try something for the first time for something as important as an election with a test drive. Thanks Mike McDonough 289-9045 If there was some method of speeding up the AutoMark and maintaining the accuracy. It reads well and keeps a paper trail to do any recheck required. Two of the people had not heard about the machine. The people demonstrating need to be well versed so they are confident in using the machine themselves. I was not as the primary election. But being a co-head judge I made my self use the machine and as I stated above I reviewed the machine about 4 days ahead of the general. I do not feel this machine will help a person with vision problems like macular degeneration. Because of a backup with many voters, we encouraged others who did not need assistance to use the AutoMark and they did and seemed to like it. I do not think the voters knew what "AutoMark" was. Overall, my sense was that voters were skeptical of using a computer-based system, even though it was made clear to them that it would generate a paper ballot in the end. Only a handful of voters chose to use the system The idea of the AutoMark is good. It can be an effective tool for voters who have trouble marking the ovals. It was generally well received by the voters This if a cumbersome machine to simply mark a ballot. The process of voting would be extremely slow is many voters would chose to use this machine. Overall, a very good election. What I like about the AutoMark system, when we had a backup in the booths, we just set up tables and spread them out and offered to anyone who wished the option of sitting at a table. This kept things moving. Voters with computer experience were much less intimidated than those with less computer experience. 500 voters and no takers. No one used machine suggests having one machine for absentee balloting and no machines during election day. We don’t need a machine. It would seem a central place (or places) would work better for the AutoMark location. Most of the people would be arriving by car anyway. There is enough to do to set up for 7amwithout another machine to deal with. AutoMark was used by one person during both elections other than election judges trying it out. It would have taken less time and certainly less money to have helped the voter in the booth. For a handicapped person, it is a good thing. The voters who used the AutoMark were all impressed with the ease at which they were able to use the machine. We had no handicap person voting. Personally, I think the machines are a waste of money – The government loves to spend our money. Only one voter (out of 1877) opted to use the machine. They seemed to prefer confidence & ease of help from judges or friends to privacy of machine (probably need help anyway.) Many disabled voters are older and may not be familiar with computer use. Voters seem intimidated by machine and not willing to try it. A big expense for such little use. Some used the machine to show their children how to vote. Those that used it liked the machine. In our precinct, we had to take down 2 voting booths to make room for the AutoMark, while only 2 people used it out of 1,361 total voters. What ever the cost of the machine, it was worth every penny after seeing the blind person after she had voted. The response for use was very sparse. Does it offset the cost? It is easy and simple to use. It needs more use. Some people are intimidated with technology but the AutoMark is a real service to voters. I am pleased that we could offer AutoMark to voters. One visual handicapped person expressed to me that she would rather have help from her husband than use the machine. It’s hard to talk people into using AutoMark, but the one who did enjoyed it. Thanks for ensuring access to those with certain disabilities (hearing)(eyes)./ etc... I am not sure the machines are fulfilling their intended purpose. People thought the concept of the machine was admirable but the actual performance left something to be desired. Have it count the number of voters using it, have adjustable legs to raise and lower the machine, have an additional light for persons who can’t see under the dark privacy hood. Everything was absolutely precision and my election head judge was superior. Good tool for handicapped. We even had a visually impaired person use the large print and were quite pleased with it. It’s hard to justify the expense. Maybe the next generation will appreciate it more and use it more. It’s too complicated for older senior citizens to use alone. Disabled Equipment Accu-Vote – One voters vote would not be accepted by the Accu-vote. We tried it 6 times. LCD did not explain why it was being rejected. The voter let 2 of us judges check it. We found no reason why it was rejected. I would like to see the day when all the voters would use the auto mark unit. Just like some people are frustrated by telephone prompts. For voters to request it, they have to be aware of its existence (publicity is needed.) It takes a long time to load each ballot. Would be nice to have ballot pre-scanned and not have to wait for each person. We had some young people use it rather than wait for an open booth. They are fast entering on the AutoMark and it still took a lot longer. It worked for handicapped individuals as they could get their wheelchairs close to the screen to see. Maybe making the key to speed MP speech more visually visible when lines got long, and AutoMark not in use, I encouraged sighted people to use the AutoMark. It’s not as effective as when we assist people to vote as we did in the past. Think it would have been smarter to purchase one or two machines and set them up at the county to offer the handicapped voters an opportunity to use these machines. Actually need more info on the use of new system. One young man sat at it for a while and went to regular form. Not many handicapped in this district. Takes too much time to assist voter each time a new voter used it. Wasted time. I did not get any instructions on how to use the machine and I was not ever in a position to have anything to do with it. Mostly because there were very few people who used the machine. It was suggested to several people who voted, but they preferred the paper ballot. I know one or two used. It. I think most people still like to vote the regular way. My blind friend said it was the first time she could vote by herself and not need someone else to know how she was voting. Was very glad to have the machine. Personally, I think the AutoMark is great. Easy to use. I feel it will be a very useful tool in the voting process for the sight impaired. The one voter who used the machine commented that he had great difficulty reading the screen because he needed greater magnification. We had a blind voter use it without any help. He really appreciated the opportunity to vote without help. If everyone used these voting machines the voting lines would be long. The initial set-up and printing of the ballot took a long time. For myself, I still would prefer to use the paper ballot, but it was great for the person who used it. I was glad to participate. The training staff and my fellow judges were just wonderful. I was also glad we had “paper trail” back-up. I found this to be quite interesting and really enjoyed doing it. Too slow!!! Not too many used it. I believe the older voters prefer to use the method with which they are familiar. Younger people will accept any electronic method. There weren’t very effective “how to use it” instructions. I don’t think the machine is needed. It is a remarkable invention-adaptable for any handicap-good directions to quide the voter-only drawback being the time involved to mark a ballot, but then it has few users so that’s not a problem. Slow. Machines are slow, and a waste of taxpayers money.

AutoMark Questionnaire

Responses from Election Judges