Dirty Voter Rolls

Rep. Rayfield (D, HD-16) is the Chief Sponsor of HB 2681, which prohibits removing inactive voters from the voter rolls.

Janice Dysinger, President of Oregonians for Fair Elections, is a member of the newly formed Clean Voter Rolls Petition Committee that has filed Referendum 302 which would veto HB 2681, introduced by Representative Dan Rayfield (D-Corvallis). Their website, CleanVoterRolls.com, provides a printable petition and explains why a referendum is needed:

Oregon voter rolls will become dirty and bloated if we allow recently passed Legislative House Bill 2681 to go into effect. No one will be taken off the active voter rolls even if their address is wrong or they have not voted for any period of time, that is, 10, 20, 30 years or more. It will be easier to cheat with dirty voter rolls. Clean voter rolls are the hallmark of good elections.

The US Election Assistance Commission answers the question, “Why is voter registration list maintenance important?”

“Maintaining accurate voter registration lists is essential to protecting election integrity. Americans deserve an election system that produces an accurate result based on each eligible voter casting a single ballot in their proper jurisdiction. Maintaining an accurate voting roll enfranchises voters because it lowers the likelihood of lines at the polls, reduces voter confusion and decreases the number of provisional ballots. Updated records also allow election administrators to plan, to better manage their budget and poll workers, and to improve voter experience.”

Oregon has gone from a 5-year maintenance plan to 10 years allowing inactivity before removing an inactive voter. The NVRA suggests a 4-year cycle and then names should be removed. HB 2681 will remove the 10-year safeguard. Students that registered at local colleges and universities will never have their voter record updated from the dorms. Apartment dwellers and others will have numerous ballots delivered to them from the previous residents, and adult care centers will get flooded with ballots every election.

Dysinger has worked on election integrity issues since 2014, and notes that people often do not notify the Elections Division when they move out of state. New people at that address rarely notify the Elections Division that the person is no longer living there.

She sees HB 2681 as costing taxpayers a lot more to send out ballots to addresses that are no longer accurate for that voter. But mostly, she sees an increase in facilitating voter fraud opportunities. It compromises protected voter status by delivering mail to an address that is no longer, but once was a valid address.

Voters have shown that they want clean voter rolls by supporting voter ID. A Rasmussen Poll from a national telephone and online survey finds that 75% of likely U.S. voters believe voters should be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license before being allowed to vote. Only 21% are opposed to such a requirement. “It is seldom that we find this much agreement by so many American people,” Dysinger said.

Is our Secretary of State internet system technology producing fair and honest elections? Former Election Director, Steve Trout’s letter to both SOS candidates last election cycle brought Oregon’s election security system vulnerability into question. Then, the Elections Division Transition Document identified major technology challenges in elections from old and out of date systems that are no longer supported.

“Of the 56 known bugs or problems, eight have been completed, eight have failed leaving 40 not done. Many of these projects have been talked about and/or worked on for years but never finished. Most of the projects that have been completed in the past couple of years have had to be undone because there were changes made that resulted in breaking other things. Elections Division staff has a lack of confidence in IT services and is frustrated that whenever a project is undertaken it often makes things worse.”

What is the real reason for HB 2681? Whatever it is, political or technical, it won’t make voters feel more confident in election results.
–Donna Bleiler

Posted at the Nortwest Observer on 7-4-21

Date: 2021-07-04 11:10

Related Posts


  1. I believe there is a need to implement two factor id for ballots, e.g., UV thumbprint in a box next to the signature. Because the software does most of the signature validation, adding thumbprint validation for rejected signatures should reduce the number fo manual validations required in addition to providing more security.

    Protection of ballots for delivery to election office:
    Chain of custody for ballots placed in dropbox when collected
    Ballot container sealed upon collection at dropbox
    Timestamp of ballot envelope when placed in dropbox tied to barcode on envelope
    Ballot barcode and timestamp written to electronic memory device that accompanies ballots but placed in separate, tracked and secured container. On processing of ballots, use memory device data to validate ballots as received.

    Ballot security
    Any unmarked ballots used for duplication purposes should be different color or otherwise marked.
    Any unmarked ballots given as replacements on day of election should be different color or markings than ballots delivered normally.

    Count security
    Because it was proven at a university using Clackamas County ballots that the Clear Ballot system (used by several Oregon counties) scanned images could be compromised without detection, any challenges to the results should not use the previously scanned images for recounts, but the software should be wiped and reloaded on the scanner systems, scanners disconnected and the ballots rescanned.

Leave a Reply

Receive Email Notifications?