When voting in the District, third time has to be the charm

Photo courtesy of
courtesy of ‘erin m’

The Board of Elections has done some rule-making for messy children. While you always were limited to two replacement ballots and one original they’ve added a requirement that you be told that this isn’t going to go on forever. Here’s your first replacement – after this there’s only one more!

It’s somewhat amazing that this rose to the level of enough of an issue that this needed to be spelled out. We all make mistakes, but who raised a fuss after being provided with two replacements and then being told they were just going to have to make do with that third chance?

Well I used to say something in my profile about not quite being a “tinker, tailor, soldier, or spy” but Tom stole that for our about us page, so I guess I’ll have to find another way to express that I am a man of many interests.

Hmm, guess I just did.

My tastes run the gamut from sophomoric to Shakespeare and in my “professional” life I’ve sold things, served beer, written software, and carried heavy objects… sometimes at the same place. It’s that range of loves and activities that makes it so easy for me to love DC – we’ve got it all.


2 thoughts on “When voting in the District, third time has to be the charm

  1. In the 2004 D.C. “first in the nation” primary, my wife tried to write in a name on her ballot, then tried to cast a blank ballot — as you may recall, all the major candidates except Howard Dean refused to be listed. She just wanted to participate in the process.

    The ballots were rejected, and she left without voting. When I pointed out to the poll workers that Eleanor Holmes Norton and others had suggested casting blank ballots just to take part, they had no idea what I was talking about.

  2. Interesting, but your wife still wouldn’t have had the issue this was meant to address – for this to be significant you’d have to get your initial ballot, then a replacement, then another replacement, THEN endeavor to get a fourth ballot.

    This rule simply states that when an individual is provided with a replacement ballot they must be told that they will only be able to get one more or no more if this is their second replacement.

    What you describe is a problem that needs to be addressed with better election official training, not more rule specifics.