HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT.
Public Hearing.
March 19, 2003.
600 West Main Street.
Jefferson City, Missouri.
 
APPEARANCES: Matt Blunt, Secretary of State.
Pat Conway, Buchanan County Clerk. 
Judy Taylor, St. Louis County Democrat Election Director. 
Gary Stoff, St. Louis City Republican Election Director.
Richard Strueckhoff, Greene County Clerk.

REPORTED BY: 
20 Patricia A. Stewart.
RMR, RPR, CCR, CSR
ASSOCIATED COURT REPORTERS.
714 West High Street.
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101.
TOLL FREE - (888) 636-7551 

INDEX. 
GARY BALL.
MIKE GRIFFIN.
KEVIN R. JENKINS.
ROB HONAN.
WENDY S. NOREN.
DELORES HAMPTON.
KEVIN R. JENKINS.
BOB JONES.

PROCEEDINGS 
SECRETARY BLUNT: Well, I'd like to welcome 
everybody here. I'm Secretary of State Matt Blunt, and 
this is a public hearing for the State Plan Committee. 
The Federal Government passed the Help America 
Vote Act. One of the things they required is that every 
state submit a State Plan to the Federal Government about 
how to utilize Federal funding to improve their election 
process. 

And to do that we've created, I think, a State 
Plan Committee that really represents lots of different 
groups that have an interest in the election process, a 
very diverse group. 

Every political party is represented in the 
State Plan Committee. Just as I utilize local election 
authorities to be the core of a Bipartisan Reform 
Commission that made recommendations that were adopted in 
2002, local authorities are an important core of this 
group to ensure that our plan is indeed something that we 
can implement and really will provide a better service and 
a better election process for the people of Missouri. 
A number of those State Plan Committee members 
are here. I'm fortunate enough to have four with me to 
listen to testimony. 

To my far left is Greene County Clerk Richard 
Strueckhoff. Next to him is Gary Stoff, the St. Louis 
City Republican Election Director. On my right is 
Judy Taylor, St. Louis County Democrat Election Director. 
And then Pat Conway, Buchanan County Clerk. 
And we're very anxious to hear what you have to 
say. 

I might ask if Pat and Richard and Gary and 
Judy would like to make just a few comments. 

MR. CONWAY: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 
First of all, I'd like to thank you, the 
Secretary of State and his office, for allowing for 
implementing these sessions. 

I think what we have learned across the state 
so far has given us a lot of vital information that we 
need in order to make the best decision that we can with 
the Federal money that we will receive and have everyone 
adequately represented. 

Richard Strueckhoff, as was introduced, and I 
are co-chairing the Database and Provisional Voting 
Subcommittee, and we will be interested in hearing 
testimony from those people who have issues in those 
regards. 

My fellow co-chairs of other subcommittees will 
address their issues. 

I'd also like to thank these people who are 
serving on our committee who are here and have attended a 
number of these sessions, and we appreciate their coming 
to this session also. 

So Judy. 

MS. TAYLOR: I want to thank everyone for 
coming. This is our third hearing and they're going very 
well. We're getting an insight into the needs and the 
wants of the people. 

I co-chair the Equipment and Accessibility, and 
we're very interested in what everyone has to say, and 
we're just looking forward to working with everyone. 

MR. STOFF: I co-chair the Education and 
Training Subcommittee with my Democratic counterpart from 
Kansas City who couldn't be here this afternoon, and I 
would echo the comments of the other folks who have 
addressed you so far. 

We have a terrific opportunity to implement 
some changes and some recommendations that will be very 
beneficial both for the voters and for the election 
authorities. 

And the information that we have received so 
far at the hearing that I attended in St. Louis was very 
helpful and insightful and things that maybe we took for 
granted, now we're more sensitive to. 

So we look forward to receiving your comments 
and your constructive input to the process that we're 
going through, so we can make a valuable recommendation to 
the Secretary of State. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: My colleague and co-chair, 
Pat Conway, said it all. I don't need to say anything 
more. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: Well, to echo what has been 
said, public testimony is important. 
In Missouri, we had a Bipartisan Reform 
Commission that I appointed early in 2001, made 
recommendations that were adopted in 2002 and I believe 
helped improve our election process. 

Part of crafting those was public testimony 
around the state, public hearings around the state. And 
I'm hopeful that just as was beneficial then, it will be 
beneficial now. 

And there are two reasons to work and develop 
the State Plan that improves our election process. One is 
Federal funding, but the far more important reason is to 
improve the State election process. 

We already meet in Missouri -- because we've 
been aggressive in election reform -- several of the 
Federal mandates, but there are some things that we have 
to improve in our state, and I'm confident that the State 
Plan Committee working together will be able to craft 
recommendations that will show full compliance with the 
Federal law but it will also make substantive improvements 
in our election process. 

But having said that, the purpose of this 
hearing is to hear from Missourians and interested parties 
around the state, and I would encourage anybody to come 
forward and offer comments or thoughts. 

We'll start with Gary Ball. 

Mr. Ball. 

MR. BALL: My name is Gary Ball. I'm a 
resident here of Jefferson City. 
And I previously voted at the West School 
Elementary and now vote over at the National Guard Armory 
on St. Marys. 

My question is, that when I go into this 
National Guard Armory, I'm required to show an ID before I 
am allowed entrance into the building, and, therefore, 
this is before you get into the voting place. 

My question is not that I object to doing that, 
because that's the security of the necessity of the 
situation at the National Guard, but what about the 
security of the other polling places such as the 
elementary school? 

It seems inconsistent that we would have a 
higher level of security for a National Guard gymnasium 
than we do for elementary schools in the area for polling 
places. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: Certainly we wouldn't want to 
use polling places that have a more stringent ID 
requirement for entrance than we have to cast a ballot. 
And if that's the case, I think the local 
election authorities would want to look at -- I know this 
is a real issue, and I -- Richard, one of your 
constituents, we have had some e-mails you copied me on. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: We've been corresponding. 
In fact, this person talking to us about this, 
the school where her child goes. 
A lot of the schools in Missouri have really 
clamped down on security. You can't just walk into any 
door of a school now. 

MR. BALL: Yes. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: You can usually only go in 
one door. You must stop at the secretary or principal's 
office, and you have to get a visitor's name tag and sign 
in, sign out when you leave. 
Her concern was that on election day, all of 
the security measures are thrown to the wind, that people 
can come and go as they please. 

Her concern was that people could hide in the 
rest rooms, come in on the pretense that they're there to 
vote and then reek some kind of havoc after election day 
or during election day or whatever. 

We're really right in the middle of a great 
argument here. You know, we have people here who think 
that the polling places should be opened up, that they 
aren't accessible enough. We have other people that 
believe that they're too accessible and that we need to 
clamp down on security. And we're caught right in the 
middle of this. 

Her suggestion was that we stop using schools 
as polling places. 

In Greene County, in the 113th precinct, 
59 precincts are in schools. So we couldn't just suddenly 
say we're not going to use public buildings. 
No. 1, the law tells us that we should whenever 
possible. No. 2, most of our public building schools and 
whatever are handicapped accessible. They were ahead of 
the curve on accessibility. 

MR. BALL: That's correct. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: So we're kind of in a 
quandary. 

One idea that I forwarded to our Legislative 
Committee -- and it's not going to solve your Armory 
problem -- but as far as the schools are concerned, there 
was a day in this state when schools were closed for at 
least the general election 

MR. BALL: Yes, I remember that. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: We find, as election 
authorities, like, the Friday before or the Friday after, 
the same school that was open for class on Tuesday, while 
we're conducting an election, was closed for parent/ 
teacher conferences. 

Why can't we coordinate that with the school 
districts and say, plan your parent/teacher conference on 
the day of the election or close the school. 

That seems to me to be the answer. 

Now, as far as the Armory goes, is that 
something recently because of the terrorist threat? 

MR. BALL: Well, I really don't know, because 
this was the first time that I was scheduled to vote 
there. 

So when I walked in, naturally, I had to show 
ID before gaining entrance to the building in which the 
polling place was located. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: Yeah. 

MR. BALL: So I'm not sure what the policy was 
prior to that. 

MR. CONWAY: Richard, if I could, Gary and I 
appreciate your comments and concerns that election 
officials throughout the State have. 

I'd like to preface these remarks to one 
necessary item, I think, that we want people to understand 
who attend these hearings. 

And Secretary Blunt and all of his predecessors 
have discussed this issue in the Legislature, but all 
elections are paid for by the -- at the local level. 
Counties pick up the cost whether it's a 
presidential election, whether it's a statewide governor's 
race, whether it's any type of race on the state or 
national level, the county picks up the cost, school 
districts and, of course, cities and districts share in 
the costs of an election. 

So you have to remember one of the limitations 
that we have is funding, and as Richard pointed out, in 
Buchanan County in St. Joseph, Missouri we use over 
public buildings and schools. 

And we have -- we do that for a cost savings. 
We can't go out and just arbitrarily rent facilities even 
if we could get them. The cost factor would be 
prohibitive. So it's something we've discussed. 
One of the issues, as Richard pointed out, and 
I brought this to Congresswoman Danner's attention when 
she was in the 6th District, and I've discussed it several 
times, I've always felt that the presidential election, 
whichever election officials in the State has said over 
the years is the one that has the greatest turnout, we had 
an election in February and we had an 18 percent turnout, 
but in the presidential election of '92 we had an 
80 percent turnout. The presidential election is always 
the largest election. 

We all know that Veteran's Day is a very 
special day in the hearts of all people who have served. 

It occurs in November. 

It would seem to me that to honor veterans and 
to also implement a method of elections that people will 
participate in, that we would give some idea of changing 
Veteran's Day to the election day. 

We have floating holidays on every issue, and 
although November 11th celebrates the end of World War I, 
there is a number of other battles that people have served 
in, and veterans like myself and the Secretary who have 
seen situations of war are aware of the fact that that 
would honor all veterans. 

And, to me, if the election date was held on 
the second Tuesday of November, and that would also be 
celebrated on Veteran's Day, there is no more better way 
to commemorate Veteran's Day than actually voting. 
And then on the tactical and technical level, 
it would allow us access to all of the school buildings, 
possibly bank buildings and all of these facilities that 
we so desperately need on the election, by far the biggest 
election of the four-year cycle. 

MR. STOFF: In the City of St. Louis, we have a 
comparable problem in the sense that dollars are always 
tight and being able to use public buildings, especially 
schools, is very beneficial for us. It's a cost savings, 
that they're typically handicapped accessible, typically 
have parking available. 

And now it's a requirement, of course, that for 
every election you have to show some form of 
identification. 

And so if the concern is that your sort of 
being ID'd twice, once to get in the building and once to 
vote, that may be a peculiarity of that particular 
facility. 

But certainly one of the things we need to be 
concerned about is being as consistent as we can across 
the state with our requirements, and anything that we can 
do to make it more accessible for people to do that and to 
come out to the voting place and exercise their right to 
vote, we should give some consideration. 

MR. BALL: Well, there are many polling places 
that could be utilized that are not necessarily in a 
school that are other public buildings, from libraries to 
county offices to health departments and a variety of 
locations that could be utilized for that purpose and not 
be necessarily restricted simply to elementary education 
schools. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: I would think in Cole County 
you probably have more public buildings than anywhere in 
the state. 

MS. TAYLOR: In St. Louis County it seems that 
the schools are easily accessible to the handicapped, and 
that's our first priority. 

And, also, we would like to see the schools 
closed, and we would like to see the teachers utilized as 
judges. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: We don't want to tell them 
that yet, Judy. That's the next step. 

MR. CONWAY: Well, that's Part 2. That's 
something that we would really like to see. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: Go ahead, Mr. Ball. 

MR. BALL: Pardon me? 

SECRETARY BLUNT: Were you going to offer -- 

MR. BALL: That was the predominant issue that 
I was going to make, is the fact that we looked a little 
closer at the polling place that we select, ensure that 
it's the best choice, the wisest choice in the location 
and the locality that we're doing it, and that we make 
this as successful as possible, but, as always, as secure 
as possible for those individuals who reside in the 
building in which the polling is being conducted. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: Gary, just on the other side 
of the coin, I have voters in Greene County who wish our 
polling places were as secure as where you vote, so . . . 

MR. BALL: I imagine that's true. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: -- their level of security, 
their need for security, is a little higher than others, 
and I think that could begin to change as time goes on, 
unfortunately. 

And that's -- an election, I know how hard it 
is to find good polling places. 

As soon as, for example, you change 100, 200, 
500 people from this Armory, I'm sure your election 
authority here in Cole County is going to get letters from 
people that say, by golly, we voted there for 100 years 
and why did you change it and I'll never vote again. 
Because we all get letters like that. 

MR. BALL: Sure, certainly. 
And the other issue is whether or not there has 
been any discussion about posting security at some of the 
polling places and requesting -- as you said, this is a 
locally funded issue from the county, whether or not there 
is any potential for identifying certain areas to have 
some additional security on polling day, on voting day. 
 
MR. STRUECKHOFF: We appreciate your testimony. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: Next I'd like to ask Mike 
Griffin to come forward. 
Mr. Griffin. 

MR. GRIFFIN: Good afternoon, Gentlemen. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: Good afternoon. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: Good afternoon. 

MR. GRIFFIN: I live in Osage County, which is 
adjacent to Cole County, and one of my main concerns as a 
registered voter is the accessibility of the polling 
places. 

For my township it is a church, and I have a 
choice of six steps going up or seven steps going down for 
polling, so, naturally, it doesn't work. 
I usually have to take my mother along with me 
and then wait in the truck for her to go in and get a 
couple of people from the polling place to come out and 
bring me the ballots, and then I feel like we lose all of 
our privacy in our voting, and voting is a privilege I 
believe that I just don't want to share with everybody 
else at the pole on the way I vote. 

And the accessibility is the key issue to me. 
This gentleman said earlier that 56 percent of 
the places are public buildings for polling places. 
I agree. But the ones that we use that are not, that are 
private buildings, like churches, should also be 
accessible. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: And one of our real goals is 
to try and work towards where everybody has the privacy 
that most Missourians are able to associate with voting 
and casting their ballot and make those choices not only 
on their own but so only they know what choices they've 
made. 

And I know that's an issue for people that have 
a disability and gets into both equipment issues in those 
places, election issues that we are recently discussing. 

MR. GRIFFIN: I work for the Independent Living 
Resource Center in Jeff City, and I see a lot of people 
with disabilities all day long. 

One of the key things that part of my job is, 
is to make sure that people are registered to vote. If 
they're not, to have the opportunity to be registered to 
vote. 

And the biggest obstacle I hear is the 
accessibility level and privacy level. 
They feel like even if they were registered to 
vote, they wouldn't have access to the polling place, 
which is a hard argument, especially when I'm trying to 
get them to register to vote and I myself do not have an 
accessible polling place. 

It's a hard argument to overcome and to make 
sure that the people who are registered can exercise their 
right and participate in voting of this nation. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: Mike, you live in a rural 
area? 

MR. GRIFFIN: I live outside of Linn, Missouri, 
which is about 30 miles east. 
Unfortunately, they have broken it down into 
different townships for polling, and in the area I live 
it's, in a church. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: Okay. And you brought this 
to the attention of your election authority, your county 
clerk? 

MR. GRIFFIN: I have, and it just -- 
unfortunately, I get told that the financials are not 
available for any modification or of any relocating of the 
polling place to a different area where we would have 
accessibility. 

So until that time, I'm sure it's the same 
inaccessible point. 

MS. TAYLOR: And the church can't build a ramp? 

MR. GRIFFIN: No, they're not willing to do 
that. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: Is it a historic church, a 
really old church? 
 
MR. GRIFFIN: Yes. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: Are you aware of other 
buildings within the township that are -- 

MR. GRIFFIN: Actually, in the town they have 
the polling done, and there are not any other buildings. 

I think there is one little general store that 
has, I think, three steps going into it and maybe two to 
get on the porch and one to get in the door. It's also an 
old building. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: The Help America Vote Act 
provides some funding to improve accessibility in 
buildings like that, but if it's an historic building and 
they can't modify it because of its historical value, you 
come across that some of the times. 

MR. GRIFFIN: I don't believe it was historic. 
I believe it was torn down a couple of decades ago, I 
believe, and they had a concrete basement poured and then 
built the church on that but have no accessibility to it. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: And there are some grants 
that local authorities and State authorities can apply 
for, actually, through the Health and Human Services 
Department, is my understanding. 

I don't know if that money has been 
appropriated yet by the Federal government -- and I'm 
being told that it has been appropriated by the Federal 
government. So there are some grants out there that local 
election authorities could apply for to help make sites 
more handicapped accessible and just handicapped 
accessible. 

We need you to offer -- this is Wendy Noren, 
the Boone County Clerk. 

MS. NOREN: I have one suggestion. And, 
Mr. Secretary, your father drafted this section of 
Missouri law, that it allowed a voter who is assigned to 
an inaccessible polling place, to both voter and members 
of that voters family, to be assigned to an accessible 
polling place. 

And we do this all of the time. The election 
authorities need to know in advance to know that your 
property ballot -- because you've got different ballots, a 
different polling place is available to you there. 
So I can show you the section of the law. But 
Missouri was the first state to do that, and it was when 
your dad was County Clerk, he recommended that, and it's 
been in our law for 20 years now. 

MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: Thank you very much. 
Next I'd like to ask Kevin R. Jenkins to come 
forward. 
Mr. Jenkins. 

MR. JENKINS: Hi. My name is Kevin Jenkins. I 
am with Ozark Independent Living. 
And my statements echo just like the guy 
before. I live in a rural area, Douglas County. We're a 
pretty large county, but it's mostly -- there is no large 
city. It's just more a rural area county. 
And I have the same trouble in voting. I vote 
out of a church just down the road from me. And in order 
to get to the church, there is the accessibility as far as 
getting into the church, but they have their voting deal 
in the basement. And you have to actually go around into 
the grass and down a steep bank and into the basement. 
And I feel like, you know, I can't -- you know, 
if the handicapped people, especially a person in a 
wheelchair who is on crutches or on, you know, other 
things, they're needing help, a walker, you know, we have 
to have the accessibility. 

And most of your churches and other 
buildings -- we've got two buildings that we vote out of. 
One is an old building that you've got two steps to get 
into it. 

So if I go vote in it, they have to bring the 
voting machine out to me. 

And, of course, the other one in the church, I 
mean, I do have help getting down into the basement, but 
it's difficult when the grass is muddy or the place is 
muddy from the rain or what. 

And I feel like, you know, some of these -- 
like, the churches and that, you know, don't have the 
funding to completely do accessibility. 

And that's where, I believe, you know, more my 
voting rights. I think, you know, you guys need to help 
us to figure out how to get, you know, accomplished more 
in helping. 

I know several people in my county that is in a 
wheelchair, and they have not the opportunity to go in 
actually to a private, you know, room to vote. 

We're always -- you know, feel like we're 
either in the way or, you know, feel like, well, we're 
just such, you know, a burden to people. 
And we don't want to feel that way. We want 
our rights and our privileges to, you know, have that 
right to go in like everybody else and vote, you know, in 
our private own way. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: Kevin, is your courthouse 
handicapped accessible? 

MR. JENKINS: My court house is in Ava, and it 
is to -- to a point. 

I mean, it's -- it's accessible but, you know, 
a lot of -- of course, you know, that's -- you don't go 
voting over there, where I'm on the other end right there 
beside Douglas and Howell County. 

And so, I mean, it's -- you know, my voting is 
just right there, you know, in a church. And so, you 
know, in order to -- but our courthouse, it's the -- but 
it's difficult because of how they had to build the ramps, 
because the courthouse is an old building, and it's mostly 
downhill. 

And, you know -- so, you know, the rural 
area -- I mean, like I said, you know, there is a lot 
of -- a lot of Douglas County is rural area, you know. I 
think the biggest city is probably Ava in Douglas County. 
So, I mean, it needs to -- see that by looking 
on the map how -- how big Douglas County is, and we're all 
rural. 

So you've got these -- most people in Douglas 
County vote outside in the good old rural area, you know, 
in the church building or -- or, like, one of our 
buildings, 4H building that was abandoned years ago. 
It was an old school house and a church house. 
And so, you know, they never did upgrade 
nothing. You just, you know, have to get in there the 
best as you can to go vote if you want to vote. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: And you said you work for 
Ozark Independent Living? 

MR. JENKINS: I'm a board member of Ozark 
Independent Living. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: Where are they located? 

MR. JENKINS: West Plains, Missouri. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: Were you aware that you're 
eligible under State laws to vote at the courthouse up to 
six weeks before an election, up to the day before the 
election? 

MR. JENKINS: No, I'm not. You know, I'm not 
aware of that, no. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: A lot of people aren't aware 
of that. 

And election authorities are kind of caught in 
the middle. We have a group of people who don't have any 
handicaps at all who would like that same privilege, to 
vote early. That would cost the State an enormous amount 
of money. 

We already have people with any kind of 
disability or illness, people who are going to be out of 
the jurisdiction, serving in the Armed Forces or even 
religious, incarcerated but not convicted, they also have 
this privilege to vote early, six weeks before an 
election. 

MR. JENKINS: I shouldn't have to. I don't 
want to be, you know, a privileged person, so to speak, 
because I'm in a wheelchair, I get to vote six weeks early 
or three weeks early or a day early. I like to vote on 
the election day. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: And, again, you want to vote 
on election day, and we have all of these other people who 
would rather not. They don't want to stand in line. 

MR. JENKINS: Right. Being in a rural area, 
very seldom do you stand in line. It's not -- it's not 
the city, you know. 

You get -- you get to go in, you know, maybe 
two or three people at a time. But, I mean, in my area -- 
I mean, being that I know everybody in that area. So 
we're -- we're just a small community right in there. So 
I know, you know, how many goes in and vote. 
And most of the time I'm there early anyways, 
because I don't, you know, work outside of the home. So I 
can go in early during the day when the doors are open, 
and it's easier to get in and out, where I don't have to, 
you know, try to fight anybody. 

Of course, like I said, we're a small community 
anyways. 

So, no, I don't have to worry about standing in 
line and waiting on, you know, the poll. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: Kevin, as far as you know, if 
State or Federal money were available to make this church 
where you vote more accessible, do you think that they 
would have a problem with that? Do you think they 
wouldn't do it? 

MR. JENKINS: No, I don't think they have a 
problem. They have, you know, upgraded their building 
quite a bit as far as, you know, they had to put a ramp in 
there into their fellowship hall, and that's -- now you 
can go up there and vote, but they have to still bring it 
out of the basement up to that part, you know, if I -- you 
know, if I do that. 

But a lot of times, you know, I just go around 
and go in the back, and hopefully my wheelchair will make 
it down the -- you know, around the back without tipping 
or anything, because the ground is unlevel and that, 
and hopefully I can get back up. 

But, you know, I usually have someone there to 
help me. But I shouldn't have that problem. I should be 
able to do it on my own. 

MS. TAYLOR: Why can't they move it to the 
fellowship hall? 

MR. JENKINS: Because it's one big, open space. 

MS. TAYLOR: Well -- 

MR. JENKINS: Which -- I don't know. They 
probably never thought about it, maybe. 
 
MS. TAYLOR: Maybe you should recommend that to 
them, if that is accessible. 

MR. JENKINS: Right. 
But we have another old building that we vote 
in for the county votes. You know, we have the election 
vote in a building and the county in another building. 
And, of course, there is no way to, you know, 
get into it unless they actually built a ramp. And nobody 
has the funding for that, you know, that old building. 
It's just there to go in and vote and that's it. 
It's just all building for 4H Club, basically. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: Just to point out why, again, 
we like to use public buildings. 
As election authorities, we can go to any 
public building and we tell them what room we're going to 
use. If we use a private building, like a church, the 
church will say, okay, you can use this hall. 
Well, when we know there is a big fellowship 
all over here. We use it for day-care, we have sewing 
classes or whatever, and we just can't use that. 
And if the church decides, well, you know, this 
voting thing is really a hassle. We don't want it to be a 
polling place any more, then we have to go scrambling to 
find another place for people to vote. 

MR. JENKINS: Right. I don't think our 
community would, you know, be -- be like that. I mean, 
we're -- they pretty well, you know, take suggestions or, 
you know, help out in any way. 

But this -- you know, it has just been done 
this year, the ramp in the fellowship hall. So we've 
never had the election, you know, since it's been built. 
But I do know for the past -- I mean, how much 
trouble -- you know, I've been there for 16, 17 years, and 
I know what kind of trouble it is for -- you know, for 
people in a wheelchair or a handicapped person to that. 

That is a hard-time walk to get to it. 

I feel like if we had more accessibility -- I'm 
just not talking about our -- just our church and that. 
I'm talking about through the whole Douglas County area 
and other counties in Howell and Shannon and all of them, 
they use old buildings that, you know, we need to look at 
it and see what -- what needs to be done to upgrade it in 
any way, because I feel you guys are losing votes if you 
don't get the handicapped in there to vote. 
Because most handicapped -- I know -- I know 
several people don't go vote because it's too big of a 
hassle to get in and out. 

So, I mean, if you want those votes, you need 
to make a way for -- for it to happen. I mean, public 
buildings, I know, in the rural area is hard to come by, 
you know. You just got very few in-between areas and 
voting areas. 

But, you know, we -- you know, I feel like you 
need to look at it, stand back and look at it and see 
what -- you know, like I said, some people don't have the 
funding to, you know, upgrade something, build a ramp, 
because a ramp will cost, you know, quite a bit. 
But if you want -- if you want voters, you 
know, with a disability, you're going to have to -- you 
know, we're going to have to start changing something. 

MR. CONWAY: If I can give you one more example 
of the predicament that election officials get in. 
I have a brand new mental health facility, a 
great building, available parking, completely accessible. 
When the Federal government passed HIPPA, the 
Health Insurance Private Portability Act, now the State 
Department of Mental Health, even though it's a public 
building, says we can go no longer use that facility 
because it violates Federal law. 

So we're under the same limitations. And I 
know a number of us are concerned about using armories and 
those structures because they may be limited too. 

So even as the access to public buildings go, 
we're becoming more limited in those respects and trying 
to find facilities that can accommodate everyone. 

It is no excuse and we need to look at 
solutions for those, and I'm sure we'll find some, and 
hopefully with your comments we will be able to look at 
this in more depth. 

MR. JENKINS: I appreciate it. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: We do appreciate your 
comments and appreciate you coming in from the rural area. 

MR. JENKINS: Thank you very much. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: Thank you very much. 
Next if I could call Rob Honan. 
Mr. Honan is associated with the Governor's 
Council on Disabilities. 

Please, sir, go ahead. 

MR. HONAN: I appreciate this opportunity to 
provide some public testimony. 

First of all, I am the Director of the 
Governor's Council on Disabilities. We are out at the 
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. 
And I do a lot of the work with a broad 
coalition of persons with disabilities, cross-disability 
groups, and voting is actually one of the things that I'm 
working on right now. 

I work with the Missouri Voting Disability 
Right Coalition, as well as I'm on the Missouri State 
Plan. I'm actually on one of the subcommittees on the 
Provisional Voter ID and Database Subcommittee. 
There is several things I just want to bring 
up. And, obviously, I think you've heard some information 
from the folks that have testified already. 
One of the things that I think is critical is 
to make sure we have some sort of a statewide training for 
the poll workers. 

I know that this is part of the State Plan and 
part of the Help America Vote Act is to try to make some 
of the things as uniform as possible. 
I understand there is a lot of local issues 
still in place, especially as they are concerned with all 
of the counties and election officials, but I think 
statewide training for the polling workers is critical. 
One suggestion I might make -- and I've talked 
to some of the folks outside of the hearing for House 
Bill 511, was I talked with a college student, and they 
are very interested in helping out with the elections. 
Understandably, when Mr. Jenkins testified, 
there is a lot of issues as it relates to rural areas that 
are hard to address, and that's understandable, but, if 
possible, trying to incorporate, perhaps, college 
students, and, if possible -- I understand the funding is 
an issue, as well as maybe in the future the grand scheme 
of things is trying to professionalize this to some 
extent. 

I think that most of the poll workers are 
volunteers that maybe have a small stipend to try to 
increase the competency of the individuals that work. Not 
that they're not competent, but I think this is a big 
issue, especially that relates to disability etiquette and 
knowledge of how to work with people with disabilities. 
Another issue that actually is -- that I'm 
working on with this, is the non-supplementation clause, 
trying to make sure that when we do get Federal money for 
the local election authorities, trying to make sure that 
that funding is not actually replacing what is already in 
their budgets. 

We want to make sure that that is in addition 
to what there they're already working with. 
Understandably, there is going to be some 
budgets because of the tough economic times, that I -- 
that may not be where we'd like to see them, but the 
nonsupplementation issue is really a big issue for me as 
well. 

I'd like to see again accessibility in all 
public polling places. I know that -- I think having that 
is a goal, is something to really strive for, and I think 
this community -- or this committee should strive for as a 
goal. 
 
In addition to just physically accessing that, 
I think we're going to have some folks also testify in 
terms of the information technology as well, to make sure 
that people who can cast private votes -- I think it's 
also an issue that we can strive for as well. 
And that's also a self-esteem and a dignity 
issue, to allow people to vote on their own rather than 
rely on assistance of others, although sometimes that may 
be necessary as well. 

I live in Jeff City right now, and, in fact, my 
polling both -- or my polling precinct -- I should say 
polling place, is nonaccessible. 

And this is a really good size town, and I know 
there are some other spots that are accessible, but this 
is an example. We still have a long way to go. 
And hopefully the money that we receive from 
the Federal government can assist -- excuse me -- assist 
all local voting authorities in this respect. 
I think another thing that is really 
important -- and I'm very glad to serve on the Statewide 
Voting Committee. 

I think maybe promoting some -- obviously, it's 
something the local officials have to do, but trying to 
assist them in any way to make sure that they have 
citizens with disabilities on those commissions, as well 
on the local level, to try to provide input on how to 
improve the system, within the monies, of course, but I 
think trying to work with the local officials to create 
similar type advisory bodies from a local level as we have 
in the State level, I think that's something that can also 
be done. 

Basically the people with disabilities, all we 
want is to live in a life that is free of segregation. 
Integration is the hallmark of good society, and I think 
it is important that voting -- in the voting arena we have 
that. 
And I think that HAVA is an excellent piece of 
legislation, and I'm on the State Planning Committee as 
well, to do the best that we can to make sure all people's 
voices are heard, including people with disabilities. 
This is all I'm going to say. 
If you have any questions, I'd be more than 
happy to answer anything. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: I'll just say a couple of 
things, you know. 

On issues of polling place workers, of course, 
Missouri, they do receive compensation, but continue 
support we do to augment that compensation, because 
they're putting in a long day and everyone is making 
democracy work and we need to reward that effort not just 
through our words but through our deeds. 

And I think most of us will probably share your 
concern about HAVA money replacing existing support for 
the election process. 

I think we all need to watch to ensure that 
that doesn't happen. I think there are efforts, perhaps, 
in the Legislation to help ensure that doesn't happen. 
If the State level were actually required to 
compute what we call the maintenance of effort, which is 
essentially what we spent on elections in the last fiscal 
year that ended right before the November 2000 election, 
and we'll need to -- in order to match Federal funds, we 
can't go below that maintenance effort amount. 

So there is a safeguard there. But the best 
safeguard is going to be vigilant citizens trying to 
ensure that the HAVA money does lead to improvements 
rather than a maintenance of the status quo. 

MR. STOFF: You made comment that echoes 
several comments that have come out today and at the 
hearing in St. Louis. 

And there was one lady in St. Louis who 
expressed it very eloquently, I thought. 
She is visually handicapped. And her comment 
was that she has never had the opportunity to cast a 
secret ballot independently. 
 
And she was quick to comment. It's not that I 
don't trust the person who helps me and it's not that the 
election authorities aren't sensitive to making the 
polling place accessible; but the fact remains, I've never 
had a chance to do that, and I should have that 
opportunity. 

And I think everyone agreed with that. 
Our real challenge, I think, as a committee and 
in the recommendation to the Secretary of State is to find 
creative ways to do this with the relatively limited funds 
that are going to be available. And that doesn't mean we 
can't accomplish that. 

One of the real insights I'm developing from 
serving on this committee in terms of worker recruitment 
and training, we have several young people from the 
University of Missouri who are serving on the committee, 
and it's kind of interesting to watch the dynamics in the 
sense that young people bring an entirely different 
perspective to the table. And some of the more senior 
members of the committee, you can almost sense sort of a 
resistance at first until you listen to what they have to 
say. 

Because they do have good ideas, and they are 
bringing some ideas to the table in terms of recruitment 
that we had not thought about. 
 
One of the neat things that came out of the 
St. Louis hearing was after the hearing, one of the 
administrators at the University of Missouri-St. Louis who 
has a very, very long title, but I don't remember it, but 
the point is, he said we would have an interest in working 
with the election board in trying to help term -- he used 
professional training programs, not only looking at what 
you currently do in terms of training but in trying to 
work with your poll workers to help them become more 
comfortable and to help design materials that would be 
user friendly for them, so that they, in turn, can be more 
sensitive to the voters that come to the polling place. 
We have a real challenge -- I don't think it's 
peculiar to St. Louis City -- in recruiting poll workers. 
Part of it is financial. Part of it is sort of the times 
in which we live, with so many people working. 
But at the same time there are outreach 
programs that we have not effectively utilized that we're 
beginning to see by virtue of the comments that we're 
receiving at the hearings and the people who are serving 
on the committee. 

So I think at least in St. Louis City we're 
real enthused about what we're hearing and some ideas that 
are going to be forthcoming. So I think your comments are 
on target. 
 
SECRETARY BLUNT: We certainly appreciate your 
testimony and appreciate your participation in this. 

MR. HONAN: I do appreciate the opportunity to 
speak today, and I believe this is an excellent step 
forward. 

And, understandably, the funding issue is going 
to be one of the major barriers with which we have to work 
with, but also, I think, using the disability community as 
a creative outlet in getting participation from us will 
assist in the process. 

So please don't be afraid to, you know, call on 
me or call on anyone else with disabilities and others on 
the committee. I'm very happy to be able to testify in 
support of all of this. 

Thanks a lot. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: Thank you. 

MR. CONWAY: Thank you. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: Thank you. 
Next if I could call Wendy Noren, the Boone 
County Clerk. 

MS. NOREN: I'm Wendy Noren. I'm the County 
Clerk. 

There is a couple of things that I am a member 
of, the State Planning Committee and I'm on the Education 
Subcommittee. 
 
But I didn't know given the time frame we've 
got ahead of us and all of the work we have to do, what 
opportunity we were going to have, if we were a member of 
one committee, to have input on the other committees. 
As background, I think more than anybody else 
in this room, I have been working on HAVA and spent a good 
part of the last two years as part of a working group, as 
part of a national commission, looking at election reform. 
Prior to that I was on the National Task Force 
with the disability groups, trying to address some of the 
issues that we discussed today. 
I have spent literally hundreds and hundreds of 
hours the last two years with election officials, 
congressional staff, on some of the congressional -- 
senators, some of the reps, principals in the development 
of HAVA, as well as members of the Carter Ford Commission, 
the Caltech/MIT Commission and studying a lot of the 
issues involved. 

I live, breathe and died, and I'm so sick of 
talking about election forms. I just want it to happen. 
There are days like we've talked about it so much. 
There is some issues that I think need to be 
addressed as we move forward with this State Plan. 
I am not on the State Database Committee, but I 
hear a lot from other states and some of the people from 
this state as to what this entails, and I think there is a 
lot of confusion about it. 

If you take the basic premise that HAVA, the 
original drafters of this, took the Carter Ford Commission 
recommendations and applied it to Federal law. 
You go back to that document and you look at 
what they wanted to accomplish and what they wanted to 
address. 

At some point at least one staff member came to 
think ahead to me in an online system with everybody 
connected. 

But most people agreed, the model, the Carter 
Ford Commission -- in fact, the members of the Carter Ford 
Commission say the model was the Michigan voter registered 
system, where data moved hopefully seamlessly from NVRA 
agencies, such as the Department of Motor Vehicles, DFS, 
disability agencies, through the State's system to the 
local officials. 

In fact, the Carter Ford, their main 
recommendation is that all State agencies check voter 
registration information, collect residential addresses, 
so we can process it, collect signatures, so we can 
process it and store that data. 

That was the primary thing that we -- to reduce 
redundant collection and processing of information, and 
this is why they felt that the Michigan system had 
accomplished that. 

One of the things about Michigan that made it 
an advantage is that DMV is under the control of the 
Secretary of State. It's not a separate agency. The 
other reason it has had strong bipartisan support, all of 
us have thousands of records on our file that no longer 
live there. 

I think if you look at Missouri data, that 
47 percent of the people do not live in the same house 
they lived in five years before. 

So you can really anticipate that between 
presidential elections, over 40 percent no longer resides 
at their address. 

This movement, this high mobility, and in 
counties such as mine and probably Richard's, those 
numbers exceed 70. Over half of my population did not 
live in my county five years before. 

The mobility that we have in our society, this 
central database, hopefully, is designed to address by 
easing the workload of local election officials and 
transferring those data from jurisdiction to jurisdiction 
to the use of State databases, State agencies that are 
collecting this and moving this data through. 

Somehow or other this was broken down into a 
fight as to whether this has to be an online system, where 
everybody has to use the software, la, la, la. 
I think Missouri needs to take some leadership 
in trying to break out of this. 

I want to use an example of when the Federal 
reserves started ACH processing, direct deposit payroll, 
those kind of things, they didn't go out and tell every 
single entity in the world, if you want to do a direct 
deposit, you have to have exact same software. 
And there are still a million different payroll 
systems out there. There is only one transfer-of-data 
element file that goes through. 

And for 15 years I've been moving that file 
every other Thursday to my bank; it goes to the Federal 
reserve bank and out to the 40 or 50 other banks around 
the country. 

What I use on the front end doesn't matter. 
It's what we use in that packet of information is 
accurate. 

I think we need to look to business models like 
that to find the most accurate. 

How in the world does NASDAQ process millions 
of computer transactions in the course of a trading day? 
Every broker doesn't use the same front-end 
software, but every data packet that goes out and is 
picked up by the NASDAQ system is that way. 
This is what we're striving for not only from 
the local officials to the State, but from those State 
agencies that are required to pick up and process voter 
registration applications back to us. 

Why are they entering some of the data and then 
it comes to us and I have to re-enter the data? All of 
this -- the goal of the Carter Ford recommendation and the 
Caltech/MIT report was to have this data moving in packets 
through the State system between these agencies back to 
the local officials and from the local officials back to 
the State, so you can get rid of duplicates, so there 
would be better processing of felony convictions. 
And throughout, using all of that State 
agencies, I think that's the goal we ought to go for, what 
we ought to look for. 

Fighting over what the funding is going to be 
is a waste of money and a waste of time. We have business 
models to look at where really that front end doesn't 
matter. It's what packet you move and how you set up the 
communication system to do it. 

Another example, I have, you know -- I guess I 
have AT&T for my long distance. However, that long- 
distance bill from AT&T shows up on my Horizon bill. 
It doesn't mean that Horizon and AT&T have to 
use the same software, the same computer. That stuff 
moves back and forth. 

But I think we need to watch that we -- you 
know, voter registration is more than just a list. 
Many of us develop sophisticated election 
management systems, that if we focus on replacing them 
with -- you know, with a single online piece of software, 
we're going to do a lot of damage. 

For example, I'm one of only a couple of people 
in the country who let people get on and submit a change 
of address to me over the Internet. 

We still process it separately. It's not 
automatic. But I can't take the phone calls I have to 
take on election day to process. 

But I will tell you, over 40 percent of the 
change of addresses in my county came from the Internet 
last year that we processed. 

That walks out the barn. The State comes in 
and says you can't do that any more. 

We're going to have some serious problems in my 
county of people who have gotten used to this, accept the 
convenience of being able to do this 24 hours a day. 
Jackson County and myself have developed paging 
systems. I'm going to be having laptops at our polling 
places, starting next year, with online access to my 
database, so I can handle the volume of changes I need to 
do on election day. 

Again, I hope we don't focus on what you have 
to have at the front end, but moving the data that we need 
in an efficient manner should be the focus of that State 
database. 

I'm not on that committee, but Charlene Davis 
heard my spiel on this many times. She's one of the 
co-chairs on this. 

The next issue is equipment and access issues. 
And I think as I worked on the national 
division and the national task force for accessibility in 
elections, I heard all of these issues that you have been 
hearing on disabled access. 

It's clear to me -- and look at the census 
data -- that a number of people with disabilities, 
certainly, they have focused many of the efforts of HAVA. 
There is no question that a huge group that 
Congress wants to address were the issues faced by people 
with disabilities. 

There is grant money that is going to be 
available. I think they did 10 million of the 20 million 
authorization. 

Clearly, that's not going to be make every 
polling place in America accessible. 
 
The 10 million is going to be administered 
through HHS. We have to be ready to get that money, is 
going to go to the people who are ready, anticipating 
this. 

Last year I did the survey, went through, had 
the survey of the National Task Force on Accessibility put 
out in the FEC, sent to every election official two years 
ago. It is a time-consuming detailed survey. 
I will say I contracted at the University. 
They have now taken pictures of my polling places, the 
parking, the entrance. 

They made recommendations on better 
accessibility areas, equipment I need, whether I need just 
to repaint some lines, which room we need to go in, how 
many plugs, all of these things. 

And they did it for 40 polling places and have 
now created website links for me. So my voters will be 
able to click on their registration record. They can go 
look at that polling place and determine whether or not 
that polling place meets their accessibility requirements. 
But I also have the basic data I need to apply 
for the HHS grafts as soon as those things get out there. 
Most of the election officials in the State do not have 
that. They don't have that information available to them. 
They haven't been able to even identify what they need in 
these polling places, whether it's a simple, put a sign up 
with the accessible parking lot, get better signage to the 
doors, a railing on the pathway, all of these types of 
things. 

I think if the studies are done, many of them 
would be surprised how inaccessible some of their polling 
places are. You may think they are because of the door or 
not -- not stairs to the door, but when you get into 
interior hallways, trying to turn, the doors that are 
closed at the schools of the church keeps closed all of 
the time. These are issues, small issues. 

Like, I talked to the school district the other 
day. All of the buses block the accessible path, and so I 
said to them, you have got to keep those buses away on 
election day. 

You know, I can't have a voter sitting in the 
rain for 45 minutes while the buses unload because the 
only accessible pathway to the door is that. And they've 
agreed to do it. 

But until that study was done, I didn't know 
this was going on. 

And so we need a lot of education on this. 
In the area of equipment, this is an 
interesting issue. Clearly we'll need to have the ability 
to provide everybody with the secret ballot. 
 
The issues involving this are huge, where we go 
on what we're going to do with the requirements funding, 
which is the vast bulk of all of the funding is to go to 
pay for requirements such as this. 

Basically, we've got two models that we're 
working with that we've seen, and we can either follow 
some of those and/or we can think of some of our own. 
Some counties went with the blended/optical 
scan ballot counties, plus 1 DRE, which is the minimum the 
law is going to require from us of the polling places. 
Those issues include, you have to train your 
pollers to set up two different kinds. You have to have 
software that merges the data, two different kinds of 
systems. You have to craft it. 

In fact, for those of us who studied the 2000 
election, the worst conducted election as far as balloting 
equipment was not in Florida -- it was not the punch 
card -- but was in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where the 
ability to blend both the DREs with an optical scan 
totally fell apart. Trying to get the data on both of 
those systems was the worst. 

So those are huge issues if you go with the 
blended model. You could also go to all of DREs, but we 
have significant training issues involved in that. 
Clearly, those of us who watched what happened 
in Florida last September at the primary, in Miami-Dada 
and Broward, the meltdown because the number of resources 
necessary to implement that were not allocated to those 
counties. 

In order to be successful, basically the entire 
emergency management system in South Florida had to be 
designated to the conduct of that election in order to 
make it work. 

Georgia took another route. They bought all 
one system and implemented it statewide. It's another 
model. Everybody uses it, the same thing. 
There is a problem there though. They had one 
training program. They had one vendor to hold to the 
fire. They had Kennesaw State University develop training 
for voters, for poll workers, and by all accounts it was a 
success. It was a beautiful job. 

In the hidden lining there, though, it was all 
vendor revenue, and that vendor is not going to be there 
in 2004. 

Issues such as developing the audio ballot for 
computerized equipment are way beyond the technical 
expertise that any of us have available to us at a local 
level. I'm talking about the primary. 

And I have 1,500 different styles of ballots, 
and of which we have to make wave files available for, to 
make it available, is not something I have the technical 
expertise to do. 

And, in fact, some of the stuff has to be 
rigged in order to do it. 

These are huge issues above and beyond the 50 
to $70 million price tag for the equipment that we need to 
address. The monies is not going to be there for all of 
this. 

If we went with the blended model, you could 
look at somewhere between 39 and $50 million is what it's 
going to cost. If we went to all electronic to meet our 
current requirements of how many devices to put at each 
polling place, based on our number of precincts in this 
state, in excess of $70 million. 

That's more money than we're getting. And that 
doesn't include the ongoing 15 to 20 percent in ongoing 
maintenance costs that you'll have to pay or all of the 
other support you're going to have to have. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: Can you repeat those 
estimates, those numbers? 

MS. NOREN: Somewhere between 39 and 50 to have 
the blended based on cost estimates I've gotten in our 
number, in our precinct. It's over $70 million for all 
electronic if you want it. And I'll tell you, that's 
based on our one machine. 
 
MR. STRUECKHOFF: Can you really have all 
electronic, because you still have to mail ballots out? 

MS. NOREN: You still have to have designed 
some kind of an optical scan or a punch card, some type of 
paper system to do absentees. You still run into the 
blended, to having the software do it. 

These things -- none of us are set up to do 
this kind of thing or have been -- you know, it is 
difficult enough for us to get one kind of ballot put 
together and out there. And we're looking at no matter 
what, too, one for absentee, one for DRE. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: Wendy, in the systems that 
you've seen as far as an audio ballot, whose voice is 
used, where is the recording being done, or is it a 
computer, computerized voice? 

MS. NOREN: I've seen it done all different 
ways. Sometimes the vendor has done it. Sometimes the 
local election authority has done the recording. 
Sometimes they've gotten radio personalities who have a 
good voice to do it. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: It can't be computer 
generated? 

MS. NOREN: I don't know of any that has done 
that. 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: Because I share a concern, 
when you said in a primary election, you have 1,500 ballot 
styles, we probably have more than that. 

MS. NOREN: Well, St. Louis County, you know -- 

MR. STRUECKHOFF: How would you ever record all 
of that information? 

MS. TAYLOR: We would do it. 

MS. NOREN: Well, we're going to have to -- you 
know, the point is, that that argument is past. 
This is what it says. This is what our 
planning committee has to address, though, how are we 
going to do this, how are we going to make this possible, 
and what technical expertise do we need to provide to 
local election officials, where do we need to hold vendors 
to the fire, what are we going to have them provide, what 
are we going to be able to provide. 

Those are all issues that the Equipment 
Committee needs to address. It's not just a matter of, 
well, we'll do this by this date or this by this date. 
This is, let's look at what is involved in this, because 
it's way beyond that. 

I'm on the Education Committee, and we talked 
last time, poll worker education. Some of what we 
recommend is going to have to be based on what that 
Equipment Committee determines. 

We can't start looking at how we're going to 
design things until we know, are we going to have two at 
each polling, different kind of things, are we going to 
have these kind of things. So that we have -- we have a 
lot of other issues that are going on there. 
This stuff has not -- to a great extent, I see 
some vendors here. I always say things that make them 
mad. But, frankly, a lot of the stuff hasn't had the 
field testing we need. 

For example, in South Florida the fact -- I 
mean, this stuff had all been through the DRE, the old 
standards, tested, independent testing, everything, gets 
out to a polling place and there is no indicator to tell 
whether it has moved to battery power or not. 
A few hours after the poll is opened, these 
judges hadn't plugged the plug in. They didn't know it 
was running on battery, and the whole thing stopped. 
Well, the vendor very quickly adjusted it and 
altered the equipment. Now it has a battery in it, so the 
poll workers know when it's moved to battery. 
These are the kind of things that you're going 
to find that you can't find in testing that we're going to 
see as this process develops. 

In addition, Missouri has two representatives 
on it. HAVA anticipated the development of standards, 
before it went out and bought this equipment. 
 
Unfortunately, the EAC has not been appointed 
yet. The startup on developing those standards has not 
even occurred yet. 

We don't know what standards they're going to 
have. We don't know whether the equipment today is going 
to meet the standards that they're going to develop. 
A huge criticism of the current FEC standards 
is for lots of areas in the testing process. 
I think Ted Selker at MIT stated that, you 
know, the testing process spent more time determining 
whether this stuff could be developed there from a 20-foot 
height and survived as it -- as to whether or not the 
voter can use it or whether or not -- the underlying 
software. 

We have issues on touch screen as, you know, 
sometimes the stuff moves. You have to calibrate the 
stuff. 

Do we know how often you have to calibrate 
this? Where are the management standards we need to make 
sure that if, in fact, this equipment needs to be re- 
calibrated every 200 voters, it gets done during the day. 
These standards have not been sent. As a 
result of all of this, I would say that we need to really 
look at how we approach this. 

I would recommend that we gear towards 2004 in 
trying to address some basic disability needs. Maybe take 
10 percent of our polling place, or at least one precinct 
in smaller counties, where we lease a DRE from and use 
several of the vendors, so we can evaluate them. This 
would provide some accessibility access. 

I think those are also what we might need to 
maybe get the Legislature funding the other portions of 
early voting for next year, if we use some of this money 
committed, to have some of these DREs. We could also use 
it for an early voting program, which would reduce the 
pressure on us at the polling place and on presidential 
election, if we had the equipment and used that. 
I think we, you know, clearly have to determine 
all of these underlying costs. We have to evaluate what 
each of these equipment are and we need to wait for the 
standards. 

I would hope that we aren't going to rush out 
and buy all of this equipment by 2004. 
I think we're going to have better equipment. 
I think that the vendors are going to respond to the kinds 
of field testing. I've seen them do it in the past. 
I think once we have fuller roll-out -- I mean, 
we have issues as -- you know, in Colorado, you know, 
there were 4 or 500 votes that disappeared into a subfile 
for three weeks that nobody knew were there. The vendors 
addressed that issue. 

But until you get this stuff out, I don't want 
us -- as one of my friends said in Florida last September, 
I don't want us to be on the bleeding edge. Let somebody 
else do all of the testing on that. 
I think we can meet some basic goals. I think 
we can have a very small level of each of us having some 
experience with DREs next year, so we'll know what each of 
us need to with our own operation, what kinds of issues 
will be involved before we fully implement it. 
Finally, I want to talk about funding, budget 
and cost allocation. 

The disappointments I have -- I shouldn't have 
said this at first. 

I want to really thank the Secretary of State 
for what a broad base of people you've brought together in 
committees. 

I'm co-chair and I act on the National 
Association of Resource and Review Committee that is 
trying to keep track of what these State Plan Committees 
are doing. 

And I think you will find that Missouri's State 
Plan Committee is the broadest based and has local 
election officials, it has disability groups. We may be 
impossible and have a terrible time getting along with 
each over the next six months, but it is to Missouri's 
credit that he didn't just go out and say, I'm only going 
to work with local officials, and he didn't go, I'm only 
going to work with party people or disability groups. 

But he is bringing us all together to try and 
resolve these. And I think, from what I can see, it is 
the broadest-based committee that I've seen in the 
country. 

So I wish to congratulate you on that. 
The one criticism I have -- I hope it's just an 
oversight -- we have no committee looking at funding, 
budget, cost allocation, finance. 
As I have said, there are huge sums of money 
out there that are never going to come from the HAVA 
funding pool. 

Who is going to pay for the balance of this? 
The State says they have no money. The counties, we have 
less money than the State, quite frankly. The State 
hasn't missed a payroll yet. I know of one county last 
September that couldn't make their payroll until the sales 
tax dollars came in. 

Who else pays for elections? The schools, the 
municipalities, the special districts? These are huge 
cost impacts for them. 

The Florida counties are now seeing double and 
sometimes triple the cost of conducting an election, 
whether it's a blended model or whether it's a full DRE. 
These kinds of things we can't -- our smaller 
jurisdictions -- well, none of us. We're going to have to 
figure out a way how to finance the purchase of all of 
this equipment. 

I would like to see us look at some kind of 
financing. That is what the Caltech/MIT report 
envisioned. It talked about this Federal money being a 
capitalization fund, that the states use that money to 
leverage, to borrow, to spend the money over a period of 
time. 

Who is going to pay? Do we need some financing 
people? This -- how do we finance purchase this? How do 
we allocate the cost? 

Is it all -- is it going to be whatever the 
State doesn't pay for, the county has to pay. I don't 
think that's possible. 

I think maybe we want to look at a model like 
we did when we had the equal protection problem with our 
tax system in this State, where for the assessment 
maintenance fund, everybody who is a part of the property 
tax system pays to administer it. 

We need to bring the schools and the 
municipalities and the State. Everybody needs to 
participate in the ongoing cost of this. 
So if I had to make a recommendation on that, I 
really think we need some kind of finance committee 
looking at these issues, because there are a lot of -- not 
only initially how can we best leverage what money we're 
going to get from the Federal government, but, also, how 
are we going to make this long term. 

All of the congressional people say, you're not 
going to get any more than this. This is it, you know. 
We've done our part. We've washed our hands. We can now 
say, you know, don't blame us. We gave out X billion 
dollars and left it. 

But the long-term costs are very high. I 
didn't address any education issues because I'm on that 
committee. 

The accessibility issues, again, I think we try 
to make sure our counties are ready to apply for those 
grants, and that can only be done if we start fairly 
quickly in identifying what our polling places need. 
And I know from my experience with some of the 
survey stuff, I just didn't have time for it, which is why 
I ended up contracting it out. And that is very 
beneficial to do. 

I know I took a lot of time, but -- 

SECRETARY BLUNT: No. No. Those were great 
comments and I appreciate them, and I appreciate your 
comments about the broad-base nature of the State Planning 
Committee. 

And I think Missouri can take pride in the fact 
that we do have a State Plan Committee that I believe may 
be the most diverse in the entire country. 
The comments about the centralized voter 
registration database, I appreciate those. I think that 
may be the area in terms of meeting compliance with the 
Federal law that we have the furthest to go. 
You know, we can also take pride in the fact 
that we have met many of the mandates. The provisional 
balloting, we're very close to Federal law. We meet the 
identification requirement. 

But certainly in terms of the CVRDB, I don't 
believe that's where we need to be yet. 
And one thing I do want to be able to provide 
people that come here and ask for a list of registered 
voters is something that approaches an accurate snapshot 
for who those registered voters are, and we're not able to 
do that today. 

And so discussions about how we can get close 
to that and do so in a way the local election authorities 
can work with is important to me. 

Your equipment comments I think were important. 
You and I have talked in the past and agreed that the 
future is going to hold both better election equipment and 
less expensive unit cost for that election equipment, and 
that is part of the reason why I never thought Missouri 
should have made this knee-jerk investment in election 
equipment that I think other states did after November of 
2000. 

You know, EAC standards, there is a strong 
argument to wait until we have some sense at least of what 
they're going to say. 

We've got two members -- one of our two members 
to the National Commission here, and I asked you, you 
haven't been notified when your meeting will be. Correct? 

MS. BERRY: No. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: So we're certainly a long way 
for them issuing some kind of standards. 
One thing I notice that you didn't mention in 
your comments which was contained in your testimony 
related to paper audit trail. 

MS. NOREN: That is an issue that most recently 
came up in California. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: I think it came up in 
California studies, where you had computers and demanding 
that there may be some sort of paper ballot. 
When we were doing our testimony around the 
State in 2001, everywhere we went somebody said they 
didn't care what kind of election equipment we went to, as 
long as there was some sort of paper ballot that could be 
reviewed and counted. 

And I think that's an important issue, and 
there aren't a lot of systems out there that do produce -- 
not a lot of DRE systems that do produce a paper ballot. 
And, again, costs becomes a real issue with those systems. 
And with regard to finance, really it's 
something we ought to consider in terms of whether there 
should be a subcommittee on that. 

It's always been my intention that the 
individual subcommittees would analyze the financial needs 
to fulfill their mission and would be very thoughtful 
about how we perpetuate the Federal funding. 
I'm very interested in a revolving loan program 
for local election authorities to try and keep that money 
alive. Because you're right. This is not a one-time 
investment in the election process. There is going to be 
a continual need to upgrade an enhanced improvement 
systems decades ahead, and we want to do everything we can 
to ensure that we carry that money on out into the future. 
But I appreciate your comments. They're very 
thoughtful and well made. 

Anybody else? 
 
MR. STRUECKHOFF: I'll talk to her later. 

MR. CONWAY: Do you have any good news? 

MS. NOREN: I do. I think if we really -- I 
think we can meet a lot of needs. 
My one concern is this big pot of money. 
They're expecting a lot out of us. It's not enough to do 
everything they want us to do, but it's so much money you 
can't sit back and say, well, I can't do anything. 
But I really think that what is exciting to me 
is there are people actually talking about it. There are 
scientists looking at this. 

The very fact that you have people at Caltech, 
Stanford, MIT, looking at our systems. 
It was all -- you know, I've been in this 
business 25 years. It was all election officials and the 
small group of vendors, trying to think of better ways to 
do it and stumbling around in the dark. 

None of us, you know, were really experts in 
some of these areas, and there is a tremendous amount of 
research going on that never, never occurred before. To 
me, that's what is exciting. 

But, you know, that is why I'm concerned about 
running out and buying. Some states have done it right 
now or believing that's what we have to do. 
Because this -- this -- these concepts are just 
starting to bubble up. I mean, it really has only been in 
the last three weeks that the Stanford group came out on 
what to do. But that has huge issues itself. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: There is stuff on the 
market today that wasn't on the market yesterday. I mean, 
there has been substantial improvements just in the past 
two years. 

MS. NOREN: No question about that. And we'll 
be much better when we get human factor research done. 
I didn't know there was such a thing as human 
factor research, and now you all are going to be working 
on developing those standards, and it's a fascinating 
field of study. 

But these things are going to occur over the 
next couple of years, and we can benefit from that. 
How will we design our ballots, given the fact 
that the way I laid my ballot out may change the way 
people vote? It's a very interesting concept. And we'll 
be able to benefit from a lot of this that is going on. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: Thank you. 
The last person who has submitted a witness 
form is Delores Hampton, affiliated with Missouri Planning 
Council for Developmentally Disabled. 

MS. HAMPTON: Hi. I'm Delores Hampton with 
Missouri Planning Council for Developmental Disabilities, 
and I'm here today to talk with you about some of the 
barriers that individuals with developmental disabilities 
face in participating in the voting process. 
The Planning Council, too, would like to thank 
the Secretary of State for including us on the State Plan 
Committee. Your willingness to listen to the concerns and 
the issues faced by people with disabilities is extremely 
appreciated. 

People with disabilities want to have the right 
to exercise their right to vote just like everyone, the 
rest of us do, and there are issues and barriers that 
prevent that from happening. 

So thank you for being open to hearing those 
things. 

I want to talk to you first about a couple of 
individuals. Actually one person is a self-advocate, an 
individual with a disability who serves on Missouri 
Planning Council, and he could not be here today but asked 
me to talk with you about some of the issues that he faces 
in trying to vote in Rolla, Missouri. 
First of all, this individual uses a 
wheelchair. He has cerebral palsy, so he has some 
mobility problems with his hands as well. 

He says he has to go in the back door to get 
into the polling place, and sometimes that it's kind of 
steep back there, so he has difficulty with that as well 
if it's slick or if it's snowing or something like that. 
Once he gets inside the polling place, the 
equipment, the stylet he uses to punch the card is too 
small for him to use with his hands. 
He does have a personal care assistant, and 
that individual is allowed to assist him. But he says he 
can't get his wheelchair up to the polling place, to the 
booth itself. So he has to just vote out in a public area 
and does not have privacy of the polling place. 
So his wish is to be able to cast a private 
ballot just like everybody else. 

Then I also have an individual who serves on 
the Planning Council whose daughter experienced some 
cognitive disabilities. She is a registered voter. She 
is so excited to participate in the voting process. 
The family always gets the sample ballots in 
advance of the election. They spend a lot of time over 
dinner talking about the issues on the ballot, reading 
them to their daughter, making sure she understands that. 
And this past year when she went to vote in 
Kansas City, the election judges would not allow her 
mother to go into the polling place to assist her. 
And they had always done that in the past, and, 
as I said, they spent a lot of time going over the issues. 
 
So it was kind of intimidating for her daughter 
and took away a lot of the privilege that she had 
participating in the voting. 

So it's very important that election judges -- 
I think the standardized training for election judges 
around the state is a very, very important piece, and that 
election judges just have to be aware of the voters rights 
in the polling place and what can occur this. 
So just some general sensitivity issues about 
how to deal with people with disabilities, how to talk to 
them, how to use appropriate language, those kinds of 
things we feel will also be very important. 

Thank you. 

I think you've heard from a lot of people who 
have already testified about some of the other issues that 
people with disabilities face. So we appreciate your 
consideration of that, and, again, we would also like to 
offer ourselves as a resource if you'd like to hear from 
people with disabilities about some of these things. 
However we can assist you in working these issues out, we 
are willing to do that. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: That's a good point, 
etiquette to use with people who do have a disability. 
What sort of information is already out there 
produced and could be utilized by local election 
authorities? 

MS. HAMPTON: A statewide advocating 
association with people with disabilities called People 
First, and there is a lot of national publication and a 
lot of local publication on people, first language, how to 
use -- you talk about the person first, not the 
disability. But you recognize that is an individual 
first. 

And there are a lot of resources out there as 
far as helping with that sensitivity training and talking 
with people about the proper way to address. We'd be 
happy to work with you on that. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: I'm sure local election 
authorities sort of integrate into their training that 
they're willing. It would be helpful to them. 
Thank you very much for your testimony here 
today. 

MS. HAMPTON: Thank you. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: Is there anybody else that 
would like to offer any comments or testimony? 
Yes, sir. 

You're fine from there. 

MR. JENKINS: What I'd like to ask you, do you 
realize how many disabled people are in Missouri, you 
know, the percentage? 
 
MR. STRUECKHOFF: I pulled up the figure from 
the last census, and it's in the hundreds of thousands. 

MR. JENKINS: Out of those 100,000 that aren't 
registered to vote, and those who are not registered to 
vote because of not being able to get to a poll to vote, 
this is where you need to look at. 

I mean, you heard our testimony on how hard it 
is in some places to get to. Like I said earlier, we are 
getting frustrated that, you know, we've got -- we've got 
accessibility to different buildings but not to somewhere 
where we can vote at. 

Yes, the bigger city has places where -- you 
know, they got wide sidewalks, they have ramps, they've 
got the money and capability of doing it. 
But other areas, I mean, here, surprising, in 
Kansas City, will not let somebody vote. Now, that's -- 
that's against the law right there. Everybody has a right 
to vote. 

And if you're wanting votes, we have to make 
changes in the way the system is. And you can't rely on a 
church building or a house, you know. 

Just up the road from me in Texas County they 
use a person's personal house to vote in. They -- the 
requirement, they don't have to have accessibility for 
handicapped. It's a house. It's a residence. 
 
And, you know, that's only five miles, 
six miles up my road that they're using a house to vote 
in. 

You know, that's not -- is that considered a 
public building? That's -- that's a private home. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: And certainly the local 
authority, it's defined places to utilize as polling 
places, especially in rural areas in the state and really 
throughout the State of Missouri. 

But I think your testimony and the testimony of 
others is helpful to us because as we try and move 
forward, ensuring that polling places are indeed as 
accessible as possible for all registered voters in our 
state, people that it ought to be, registered voters. 

MR. JENKINS: One problem I see a lot, we're 
not dealing with the public issues with Ozark Independent 
Living. 

People that doesn't have a disability doesn't 
realize what we go through. 

Before I was ever in my wheelchair, I didn't 
know what -- I didn't know what a person had to fight 
through just to get somewhere in a chair, or somebody who 
has another disability. You never know. 
I mean, when I get out of my chair, I look at 
my town a whole different way. You can't get up -- in my 
town in Cabool, the nearest town to me, it is -- it was 
so -- it's so far away from -- for access for disabled 
people, you know. 

And a lot of towns, you know, are growing and 
getting things accessible, but we're far -- I mean, we're 
far from it. 

I mean, you know, I can go to Springfield or 
Kansas City or St. Louis. We're not up to date, people, 
on disability rights here. I mean, you know, you can't 
just come down to this building from the court -- from the 
State Capitol, you know. It's not accessible. 
We wanted to walk down here, and try to do it 
in a whole chair. 

And I'm not saying because, you know, of the 
hills. I'm saying the curbs that we have. You know, 
going over a curb that -- actually, going in the front of 
the building of the Capitol, they should have a ramp 
there, but it don't. You know, you have to step down off 
of the curb. 

So, I mean -- but you don't realize it because 
you're walking, not being in a chair. And somebody else 
who has, you know, a handicapped and hard to walk, you 
know, that is difficult for us. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: That is why your testimony 
is -- precisely why your testimony is so valuable to us, 
because we don't have those experiences and can only 
empathize with the challenges you face. 

And it's why your testimony is so valuable as 
we try and move forward and do a better job of meeting the 
needs of people who do have a disability. 

MR. JENKINS: And I appreciate it. I 
appreciate it very much. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: Thank you very much. 
Yes, sir. 

MR. JONES: Should I come forward? 

SECRETARY BLUNT: Please, sir. 

MR. JONES: I'm Bob Jones, Presiding 
Commissioner in Cole County. 

I apologize for not knowing more about the 
money situation, but I have had a little bit of discussion 
with our current county clerk, and we're really concerned 
about how we'll fund any shortfalls that might come in 
replacing the system that we've got. 

We feel like we have a good system now, and if 
we had to go and replace that entire system, it would be 
very costly to us. 

And the only way that we have to fund it, I 
think, out of our -- our remedy sources would be out of 
the general revenue fund. We just would not have the 
money to do that. 
 
So we really just want to make a statement that 
certainly we would hope that serious consideration would 
be given to the funding of the shortfalls that would occur 
in the counties, because it would really be a big problem 
for us. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: Thank you. 
And I think we all understand that it's going 
to be difficult for local government or State government 
to fill that gap, and there is not enough Federal money to 
do everything that everybody in this room would like to 
do, and how we meet that gap and do what we can with 
existing funds is an important part of the discussion in 
the State Plan process. 

MR. JONES: My understanding, is it a one-time 
shot if you don't take the money, that you don't have the 
opportunity -- 

SECRETARY BLUNT: The money is -- Missouri is 
qualified for a certain amount. We can access that money 
any time in the immediate years ahead. But once we've 
taken the money, there is not going to be another 
appropriation. 

MR. JONES: Okay. I just wanted to make sure 
that we were heard on the funding shortfall. 

SECRETARY BLUNT: I appreciate you being here. 
Anybody else? 
 
Thank you for your attendance here today. We 
are very grateful for the testimony that was offered by 
those that participated. 

I think the State Planning Committee actually 
is going to go work, the subcommittees get together, and 
be doing that tomorrow. 

(PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED.) 

STATE OF MISSOURI ) 
) ss. 
COUNTY OF COLE ) 
 
I, Patricia A. Stewart, Notary Public within 
and for the State of Missouri, do hereby certify that I 
was personally present at the proceedings had in the 
above-entitled cause at the time and place set forth in 
the caption sheet hereof; that I then and there took down 
in Stenotype the proceedings had and produced with 
computer-aided transcription and that the foregoing is a 
full, true and correct transcript of such Stenotype notes 
so made at such time and place. 
 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 
hand and seal on this 10th day of April, 2003. 
 
My commission expires January 26, 2007. 

Notary Public - State of Missouri.
(Commissioned in Cole County.) 


(end)