Category Archives: Peoria County

Peoria voter error makes Time Magazine story

Time Magazine Nov 2006Peoria is getting some national press, but not in a flattering way. A story in the most recent issue of Time Magazine begins with this anecdote:

A woman walked into a polling place in Peoria, Ill. last week and proceeded to use one of the new electronic voting machines set up for early voting. She logged on, went through each contest and seemed to be making her choices. After reviewing each race, the machine checked to see if she was satisfied with her selections and wanted to move on. Each time, she pressed YES, and the machine progressed to the next race. When she was done, a waving American flag appeared on the screen, indicating that her votes had been cast and recorded.

But there was a problem. The woman had not made any choices at all. She had only browsed. Now when she told the election judges she was ready to do it again–but this time actually vote–they told her it was too late. Pressing the last button, they said, is like dropping your ballot in an old-fashioned ballot box. There’s no getting it back.

What does that story lead you to believe? When I first read it, it sounded like a voting machine malfunction to me. However, I called the county elections office and talked to John Ramsey. He explained that it was voter error. Apparently the woman misunderstood the instructions; there is no “browse” mode, so to speak, nor a “trial run” at the ballot. You choose your candidates and at the end, you are presented with a chance to review your choices. If you made a mistake and want to change one of your choices, you can go back and make changes. However, once you press the “Cast Ballot” button, your vote is cast and there is no turning back.

Time Magazine concludes:

In one week, more than 80 million Americans will go to the polls, and a record number of them–90%–will either cast their vote on a computer or have it tabulated that way. When that many people collide with that many high-tech devices, there are going to be problems. Some will be machine malfunctions. Some could come from sabotage by poll workers or voters themselves. But in a venture this large, trouble is most likely to come from just plain human error, a fact often overlooked in an environment as charged and conspiratorial as America is in today.

Time mentions Peoria one more time in the article, in this paragraph:

Perhaps the biggest fallacy in this debate is the notion that elections were perfect before Congress decided to hold them on computers. They weren’t. “Stuffing the ballot box” is not an expression from the world of fiction. The problem with overvoting punch cards existed for decades before the dateline PALM BEACH COUNTY became a household term. Peoria County clerk JoAnn Thomas says she routinely tossed out several hundred twice-punched ballots every year. That represents roughly 1% of all registered voters in her jurisdiction.

I called Ms. Thomas to ask her about the article. She hadn’t seen it yet, as it just came out online today. She explained that what the author (Michael Duffy) is describing is a woman who came in and accidentally cast a blank ballot. The voter had not marked any candidates, yet still pressed “Cast Ballot” at the end, apparently thinking that a blank ballot doesn’t count. But it does.

Technically, this is called “undervoting.” Many people undervote to a degree; for instance, if someone just wants to vote for President, but chooses not to vote in any of the other races. However, there is nothing to prohibit someone from casting a completely blank ballot — one where they haven’t voted in any race at all — like the woman in the Time Magazine story.

While the new voting machines allow you to undervote (as did all prior voting methods, Thomas points out), it will not let you “overvote.” For example, you can’t mark Aaron Schock and Bill Spears on your ballot — the voting machine will only let you vote for one. That’s what Duffy was referring to when he said Thomas had thrown out hundreds of “twice-punched” ballots in the past. On the old ballots, if you overvoted, your vote for that race wasn’t counted at all. Now, you’re prevented from overvoting in the first place, so that’s no longer a problem.

The state requires a random sampling of precincts to be audited each election to make sure the voting machine vote total on the hard drive matches the total printed out on the paper receipts. Thomas confirmed that so far there had been no voting machine malfunctions, and the audits have come back perfect.

As long as I had her on the phone, I asked a couple other questions not directly related to the article. I found out that roughly 1,500 people in the county (not including the city) had already voted under the county’s early-voting initiative. She thought it was about the same number in the city, so she estimated that about 3,000 people had already voted in this election. She also confirmed that early voting costs more money and requires a fair amount of staff time to administer, but she won’t know totals until after the election.

I also found out that, contrary to popular belief, you don’t have to know how to spell a write-in candidate’s name exactly to have your vote count. As long as election judges can determine the voter’s intent, and as long as the name is an official write-in candidate (i.e., they’ve filed their paperwork), the vote counts. I’d still recommend knowing how to spell the write-in candidate’s name, just so there’s no confusion. Votes for Mickey Mouse or Elvis Presley aren’t counted, by the way.

Peoria County tax rate to decrease slightly

Budget news from Peoria County:

Peoria County Administration has released its recommended 2007 Peoria County budget. The 2007 budget of $110.5 million is an increase of 6.2% over 2006. Much of this difference is attributed to twenty new funds in an effort to increase the financial transparency between the annual budget and the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report; previously only those funds the County Board had control over were budgeted. Some of the new funds are: emergency telephone system; hazard mitigation assistance; public transportation; Family Violence Coordinating Council; and the World War Memorial capital project.

The estimated property tax rate sees a minimal decrease of less than 1% from May 2006 tax bills. Peoria County Administrator Patrick Urich explains the rationale for the lower tax rate, “Other revenue sources have continued to strengthen, and concerns over the housing market afford the County the opportunity to marginally reduce property tax rates.” Stronger sources of revenue include a 5% increase in income tax and a 3.5% increase in sales tax; licenses, permits, and charges for services are expected to increase approximately 9.4%.

So, the budget is expected to go up 6.2%, but our tax rate will go slightly down (less than 1%). It’s always nice to see a tax rate go down, regardless of how small that decrease may be.

Maybe we should just revoke voting rights

On the Peoria County website there’s an article titled “County Clerk’s Office Encourages Early Voting” (October 9):

The Peoria County Clerk’s Office is ready for the 2006 General Election. It has to be; early voting begins October 16, 2006. While Election Day is Tuesday, November 7, registered voters can begin voting at one of several locations throughout Peoria County as early as next week. The final day to vote early is Thursday, November 2. Persons who have not registered by October 10 and wish to vote in this year’s General Election may do so through Tuesday, October 24. Those living in Peoria County outside the City of Peoria may register during Grace Period Registration at the Peoria County Courthouse. Persons registering during the grace period, however, must also cast their ballot at the time of registration.

Prior to this year’s Primary Election, the Illinois State Legislator and Governor Blagojevich passed a law that allows voters to vote early without having to provide a reason. Although early voters are not required to state a reason, they are required to present photo identification prior to voting. Early voting grants more people an opportunity to vote; the County Clerk’s Office grants more voting opportunities by establishing satellite locations for early voters who live in Peoria County but outside the city of Peoria. An early voting schedule for the General Election follows.

I guess my question is, why? There were already procedures in place to allow for absentee voting. Why the need for reason-free early voting? Apparently it’s an attempt to get more voter turnout. Here’s what a 2004 Washington Post article had to say:

The number of states that offer no-excuse early voting has nearly tripled in the past eight years, fueled in part by the demand for election changes that followed the deadlocked 2000 presidential race. Early voting is transforming the way campaigns do business, and because this presidential race is so closely contested, it could have a significant impact on the outcome.

In some battleground states, voting will commence nearly six weeks before Election Day. For the Bush and Kerry campaigns, that means an earlier start to television, radio and mail advertising, adding to the campaign’s overall cost.

[…] Supporters tout early voting as a way to reverse declining voter turnout. In 2000, only about a third of those registered to vote cast ballots, with more than 50 million opting not to exercise their constitutional right.

In states that offer early voting, the record shows that the convenience has had a modest impact on turnout. It does not turn nonregistered voters into voters, studies show. What it does do, said Michael W. Traugott, a University of Michigan political science professor who has studied the impact of early voting in Oregon, is persuade voters who might miss the odd election to vote more regularly.

I think it would be fair to say that the goal is to woo a lazy electorate to the polls. And I think that’s a waste of time and money. I understand the cynicism many feel toward our electoral system; I understand how some people don’t feel their vote counts due to gerrymandering and other abuses. Nevertheless, it is still a right that only a small percentage of us exercise (less than 40% in non-presidential elections), and that’s a travesty.

Probably the only way people are ever going to get off their collective butts and go to the polls is if the threat arises to take that right away. One would hope that would be enough to motivate people. If it’s not, then I suppose such an apathetic nation as that deserves tyranny.

Waiting for my PDC subpoena

I see Peoria Disposal Company has sent subpoenas to opponents of their landfill expansion plans. That’s nice. I wonder if I’ll get one, since I, too, opposed the expansion. I wonder if all the letter-writers to the Journal Star’s forum who opposed the expansion will also have to testify.

It’s a shame that PDC, which has had such a good reputation in town, is now poised to throw that away in their effort to force more out-of-state toxic waste down our throats. Guy Brenkman sued the county and won his “right” to put his Fantasyland strip club on Farmington Road (another form of toxic waste), and now he’s universally reviled. I guess they care more about making money than having a good reputation. Too bad they couldn’t just graciously accept the County Board’s decision, like a good neighbor.

A taxing weekend

Yesterday I got my property tax bill.

Looking it over, I see that over half my taxes go to Peoria Public School District 150. They’re going to have another forum on the future plans for Glen Oak and White schools, this time just for parents of kids who attend those schools. Superintendent Ken Hinton said, “It’s important to me to hear the voice of the parents.” Okay, I’ll take him at his word, but he’d be a whole lot more convincing if he had listened to their voice before deciding the site of a new school.

I have the same concerns about the format as other people, so I won’t repeat that here. But I would like to make another point: I think it’s important to listen to the parents of kids who attend there, but this decision doesn’t just affect them. Alterations to Glen Oak Park affects all of Peoria. Replacing the Glen Oak School site with a park, public housing, or a vacant building affects all of the East Bluff. Let’s just suppose, for the sake of argument, that the parents of kids at Glen Oak and White right now are indifferent to the location of a new school. That should be taken into consideration, but shouldn’t trump overall neighborhood and city concerns.

Also on my bill, I see I’m paying a good amount to the “Pleasure Driveway PKD,” aka the Peoria Park District. The park board was just slapped with a lawsuit this weekend by neighborhood activists Karrie Alms and Sara Partridge. According to the Journal Star, the suit “alleges closed meetings held by the board on March 8 and 22 violated the state’s Open Meetings Act by discussing plans to replace Glen Oak School when that wasn’t appropriate.” If the court finds that the board met illegally, and if the decision to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with District 150 was made in one of those meetings, one possible remedy would be to nullify the agreement that was made in secret.

I’m glad somebody cares enough to act on this. People complain about back-room deals and shady politics, but more often than not nobody does anything about it. Here are a couple of people who are willing to hold the Park Board accountable for their actions. Kudos to Karrie and Sara!

Let’s see, what else is on my tax bill? There’s Illinois Central College and the Peoria Library. Don’t have much to say about those except that I think the library here in Peoria is under-utilized. There’s a wealth of information and expertise down there — I’ve learned more about Peoria from the library than one could ever learn online.

The Greater Peoria Mass Transit District, aka CityLink, makes an appearance on my bill. They do a pretty good job of moving people around the city — a tough job when the city is as spread out as it is. On the Peoria Rails Yahoo group, several people have been throwing around the idea of using the Kellar Branch for a light passenger rail system instead of a walking/biking trail:

The expansion of Peoria population into the far northwest part of the city, the growth of shopping in that area, and greatly increased fuel costs might make light rail service feasible. The Kellar branch could up upgraded and extended over Rt 6 to a parking and depot area behind or near the Grand Prairie. Interconnecting bus service there, downtown, and perhaps at a stop or two along the way would make public transportation quicker and more user friendly. The light rail service could terminate at the old Rock Island Depot and the light rail unit could be run in the push/pull – Chicago METRA style. A shuttle bus could take passengers to and from the CITYLINK terminal on Adams St.

Not a bad idea, especially given the cost of gas these days. However, there are two things not mentioned that would have to happen for it to be successful: (1) the speed limit for this light rail system would have to be faster than the 10 mph city code dictates for trains, and (2) part of the upgrade of the Kellar Branch would have to be better signals at grade crossings and fences along the tracks where the tracks pass through neighborhoods.

CityLink isn’t the only transportation entity on my tax bill. There’s also the Greater Peoria Regional Airport Authority. They have a new skipper (Ken Spirito from Gulfport, Mississippi), and part of his mission is to “redevelop and redo this terminal building. […] I want it to be a ‘wow’ impression. I want to ‘wow’ them,” according to the Journal Star‘s May 1 article. At least one person doesn’t like that idea. Polly Peoria, usually an advocate of tearing down old buildings, likes this one, so it can stay. I haven’t flown since before 9/11/01, so I honestly have no idea what kind of condition Peoria’s airport is in. If remodeling can bring in more business though, I say go for it. It’s not like that terminal was built to be a hallmark civic building.

What’s left? Let’s see, Peoria County, which recently voted down an expansion to the hazardous waste landfill. Now there’s a public board that listened to the public. District 150 and the Park Board could learn a few things from them. I’ve already blogged about this issue at length, so I’ll move on.

Finally, there’s the City of Peoria and Peoria Township. Why we need both I don’t quite understand, and yes, I have read the Journal Star’s special series on this issue. It’s an interesting read, but given what services the township now provides, it seems like they could just as easily provide it as part of city services and eliminate redundant government bodies.

As usual, my wife and I will pick a day to go down to the courthouse, eat at the pushcarts, listen to the Arts in Education bands play, enjoy the beautiful weather (hopefully), and pay our property taxes. Doing it that way lessens the pain of all the money we’re paying.

Whither goest the civic-minded?

Not too long ago, I was doing some research on the Richwoods Township annexation back in 1964. During the time leading up to the referendum, there was a lot of heated rhetoric, and when the vote came around, the citizens were split almost right down the middle. The annexation passed by a mere 336 votes.

Yet, when it was all over, I was struck by a comment made by one of the opposition leaders. He expressed his disappointment over the loss, but then he added that he was a civic-minded man and wanted to see Peoria succeed, so he would get behind the annexation and do what he could to make sure the transition went smoothly. He wanted what was best for Peoria. This man was a true statesman.

Compare that response to the hazardous waste landfill proponents after the county board denied PDC’s application for expansion:

  • Hazardous-waste enthusiast Bill Dennis said on his blog, “The NIMBY […] crowd think they won last night. I’ll let them savor their ‘victory.’ After the lawsuits start and the bills rack up […] and the unemployment claims are filed, I’ll try not to gloat about being right.”
  • County board member and expansion supporter Merle Widmer wrote similarly, “This highly Christian community denies they are of the NIMBY crowd. Good Christians are compassionate and willingly accept other people’s problems, they say. We’ll see. The businesses leaders of this community see why the closure of this disposal site could prevent waste creating companies from coming here like, say medical laboratories….”
  • A pro-expansion commenter on Bill’s blog added, “The Peoria County Board reacted in cowardice because they are politicians and their chief responsibility is to ensure that they get re-elected. Had more of them looked at the facts, and had the virility to make the right decision even though the vocal minority of the public wouldn’t like it, the vote would have been to approve by a good margin.”

You get the feeling from reading some of the blogs and comments that these proponents actually wish the county would lose an appeal, or PDC would lay off a bunch of workers, or some other ill-will, just so they can spitefully say “I told you so.” Where are the statesmen today who lose gracefully and wish the best for the community?

The only comment I could find that had a hint of graciousness was, in all places, the Journal Star’s editorial: “Though we endorsed the landfill’s expansion, with conditions, for the community’s sake we hope there is no reversal.”

If proponents are correct that a reversal would mean PDC could expand the landfill without any of the conditions or safeguards the county requested, including their offer not to add to the oldest part of the landfill, I would hope proponents wouldn’t really be wishing the worst on Peoria just because the vote didn’t go their way.

Landfill expansion soundly defeated; time to move on

Last night, the Peoria County Board voted 12-6 to deny Peoria Disposal Company’s (PDC) hazardous waste landfill expansion application.  Opponents cheered, proponents were disappointed (if not a little bitter), PDC is planning to appeal to the Illinois Pollution Control Board.

But I think regardless of how the appeals come out, it’s time we all got on the same team and started seriously researching alternatives to burying hazardous waste.  It can be done.  I found this interesting piece of information (PDF) on Caterpillar’s website.  On page 11 of this document, it says:

We can set the example for others to follow.  In 1997, an employee team at our Sumter, South Carolina, facility set out to develop a process that would, for the first time ever, recycle 100 percent of hazardous waste and totally eliminate landfill. They succeeded. It cost half-a-million dollars to do it, but the new process also saves Caterpillar more than $400,000 every year. It was the right thing for the environment. It saved Caterpillar money as well.

The first thing that struck me was the fact that this happened in 1997 — that’s almost ten years ago.  Has this process been refined/improved?  Marketed?  Is this something that PDC and other hazardous waste landfills could employ?  Or that Keystone could employ?

The second thing that struck me is that it cost “half-a-million dollars to do it.”  Converting that to 2006 dollars, that’s still only $631,000 (approx.).  It doesn’t sound like it takes a tremendous amount of money to find these solutions, does it?  Compare that to the million dollars PDC spent just on their expansion application — let alone how much it’s going to cost to appeal the board’s decision.

I don’t think one has to be a rabid environmentalist to see the value of recycling this waste versus encasing it in concrete and burying it in the ground.  Even if you’re a proponent of the landfill expansion, wouldn’t you still rather live in a world where there’s no need for such landfills?

PDC concessions not likely to change outcome

Peoria Disposal Company is trying to woo Peoria County Board members into voting for their landfill expansion by making some concessions. Briefly, these concessions include (according to the Journal Star):

  • agree not to expand over trench C-1 (oldest part of landfill)
  • reduce the expansion area’s life to 12 years (down from 15)
  • shift landfill operations to 275 feet from the eastern boundary
  • agree to pay a yearly flat fee of $281,250 into a perpetual care fund
  • allow County Board committee veto power over any new waste streams
  • guarantee the Sankoty aquifer will not be polluted
  • place earlier proposed conditions in a host agreement enforceable in circuit court

PDC’s attorney told the Journal Star “the concessions should meet all the concerns expressed by board members, the county’s staff and even opposition groups.” I think it meets some of the concerns expressed by those various people, but definitely not all.

In early April, the board voted down three of the nine criteria for approval of the expansion. PDC’s concessions may change some votes on two of those three criteria, but they don’t change anything regarding criterion number one: whether this expansion is needed to accommodate area waste. PDC still only needs this expansion so they can continue to receive waste from out of state. If the board didn’t feel that was needed three weeks ago, they’re not going to feel it’s needed next week.

If just one of the nine criteria isn’t met (in the judgement of the county board members), they have to vote against the expansion request.

Bill Dennis, a hazardous waste proponent, casts a cynical eye on the county board, saying, “If the county board rejects this now, it just provides proof they rejected the permit contrary to the evidence and were prejudiced against it from the start.” Of course, in reality there is evidence for both sides in this battle. A board member’s disagreement with Bill’s interpretion of the evidence does not prove anything except that two rational people can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions.

Council Roundup: Ady report dispels some myths about Peoria’s attractiveness to business

As stated in the council’s request for action, “In 2005, the City Council and County of Peoria approved a sole source contract with Ady International Company (AIC) to evaluate locational characteristics of the City and County as a preferred location for business attraction.”  In other words, when companies are looking for a city in which to locate, how does Peoria stack up?

Mr. Ady gave a presentation to the council on his findings. Interestingly, there were a couple of popular beliefs that were dispelled :

  • First of all, we don’t need a Peoria-Chicago highway to attract more business.  Businesses want a city that is close to an interestate — multiple interstates don’t add or detract from a city’s attractiveness.
  • Secondly, the public school system was not a detractor.  To be fair, the school system wasn’t a plus for making the community attractive to business either, but it was neutral.

One other thing is worth mentioning: “Community appearance” is one of the city’s weaknesses.  I really expected that to be one of our strengths.  Even with all the public and private projects the city has been doing to beautify Peoria, apparently outsiders are getting a bad first impression of  our fair city.  This should give us all pause.  Why are visitors getting this impression?  What specific things can we or should we do to change our appearance?

Peoria County poised to deny PDC expansion

The Peoria County Board took an “initial vote” on the PDC landfill expansion request tonight, and unless some board members change their mind between now and May 3 when they take the final vote, it looks like the application will go down to defeat.

I wasn’t able to attend, but WEEK-TV was there and offered this report on this evening’s news.

The county board can only evaluate the site application based on nine criteria (listed here verbatim from the county’s website):

  1. The facility meets the needs of the area it is intended to serve;
  2. Public health, safety and welfare are protected in the facility design and location;
  3. Care has been taken to minimize the incompatibility of the facility with the character of the surrounding area and property values;
  4. The facility is outside the boundary of the 100-year flood plain;
  5. The facility operating plans minimize the danger to the surrounding area from fire, spills or other operational accidents;
  6. The traffic patterns to and from the facility minimize the impact on existing traffic flow;
  7. An emergency response plan for the facility has been developed to include notification, containment and evacuation procedures in case of an accidental release.
  8. Groundwater protection provisions have been met; and
  9. The facility is consistent with the County’s solid waste management plan.

In their “initial vote” tonight — WEEK called it a “dress rehearsal” — the board approved only seven of the nine. The two they didn’t approve? Numbers 2 & 3 above — the same reasons I was against the application.

Expect to see some heavy lobbying by the Journal Star, Peoria Pundit, and of course PDC over the next few weeks as they try to persuade the board that having a hazardous waste dump next door really won’t affect property values or endanger our health. Maybe they can also try convincing us that pigs can fly.

I’ll be hoping the vote on May 3 is the same as the vote tonight. The board made the right decision.

UPDATE (4/7/06): WMBD-AM Radio and the Journal Star this morning report that the county board voted down three of the criteria — the two WEEK mentioned as well as number 1 above (in other words, they voted the expansion is not needed to accommodate area waste). The vote was 10-7.