[nabs-l] [acb-l] polling place access issues to this day in mi

Sat Jul 9 01:25:02 UTC 2011

Chris, why are you forwarding stuff from the ACB?
Blessings, Joshua

On 7/8/11, Chris Nusbaum <dotkid.nusbaum at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thoughts on this?
>
>  Chris
>
> "A loss of sight, never a loss of vision!" (Camp Abilities motto)
>
> The I C.A.N.  Foundation helps visually impaired youth in
> Maryland have the ability to confidently say "I can!" How? Click
> on this link to learn more and to contribute:
> www.icanfoundation.info or like us on Facebook at I C.A.N.
> Foundation.
>
>
>
>  Sent from my BrailleNote
>
>  ---- Original Message ------
> From: "joe harcz Comcast" <joeharcz at comcast.net
> Subject: [acb-l] polling place access issues to this day in mi
> Date sent: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 10:05:31 -0400
>
> A Call to Action –
>
> Unfinished Business to Ensure Michigan Voters with Disabilities
> Have Access to the Polls in 2012
>
> A Public Report on
> Polling Place
>
> Accessibility in Michigan
>
> Public Report by
>
> Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc.
>
> 2011
>
> Acknowledgements
>
> Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service (MPAS) is Michigan’s
> designated agency to advocate and protect the legal rights of
> persons with disabilities, mandated
> by federal and state law.  MPAS receives funding from the
> Administration on Developmental Disabilities, the center for
> Mental Health Services – Substance
> Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the
> Rehabilitation Services Administration, the Social Security
> Administration, the State of Michigan
> and from private donations.
>
> Funding for this report has been made possible through the U.S.
> Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
> Children and Families, and the
> Administration on Developmental Disabilities.  The contents are
> the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily
> represent the official views
> of the U.S.  Department of Health and Human Services.
>
> 2011 by Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc.  This
> publication may be reproduced in part or in its entirety for
> noncommercial purposes as long
> as appropriate credit is given.
>
> Table of Contents
>
> Executive
> Summary..........................................................
> ...................................................5
>
> Midterm
> Report...........................................................
> .........................................................6
>
> Michigan’s Polling Place Accessibility
> Project..........................................................
> .........7
>
> Communicating Accessibility Problems with Election
> Officials......................................10
>
> Next
> Steps............................................................
> ..............................................................11
>
> In
> Summary..........................................................
> ..............................................................11
>
> Accessibility Rate Per
> County...........................................................
> ................................13
>
> Executive Summary
>
> In Michigan, voters with disabilities face obstacles at voting
> locations often because their polling place lacks physical
> accessibility.  The Help America
> Vote Act (HAVA) acknowledged the unique obstacles faced by voters
> with disabilities and authorized funding for the federally
> mandated Protection and Advocacy
> Voting Access programs (PAVA) to help remove barriers.
> Unfortunately, this vital mandate has been targeted for
> elimination in the President’s proposed
> 2012 budget.
>
> HAVA charged Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, (MPAS),
> and other Protection & Advocacy agencies with helping to ensure
> the full participation of
> individuals with disabilities in the electoral process, including
> registering to vote, casting a ballot, and accessing polling
> places.
>
> The PAVA program at MPAS is designed to ensure that every
> eligible Michigan resident receives equal access to their polling
> location and has the opportunity
> to cast an independent secret ballot.  MPAS staff members are on
> the ground providing advice, technical assistance, and training
> to election officials about
> voting accessibility across the spectrum of disabilities.  The
> agency also provides outreach and training to voters with
> disabilities, poll workers, and
> service providers.  MPAS and the Secretary of State of Michigan
> partnered over the past six years working toward this goal, which
> has been effective in
> increasing physical access to polling locations throughout
> Michigan.
>
> Voting is a fundamental right protected by the United States
> Constitution, upheld by the Supreme Court and subject to intense
> public scrutiny each election
> cycle.  Provisions within these protections prohibit
> discrimination against people with disabilities in the electoral
> process.  Exercising their Constitutional
> right, however, has continued to be a challenge for individuals
> with disabilities despite changes made to federal and state laws
> intended to ensure full
> participation.
>
> Key Summary
>
> ¨      Disability advocates have visited 95% (3,457) and
> reviewed the exterior of polling locations in Michigan.
>
> ¨      Upon initial review, Michigan Protection and Advocacy
> Service found that only 75% of 3,457 Michigan polling places were
> compliant under the Americans
> with Disabilities Act.
>
> ¨      After working with state and local officials, it is
> anticipated that Michigan’s accessibility rate will be increased
> to 90% in 2012.
>
> ¨      Of the locations that were inaccessible, 60% had one
> barrier, 30% had two types of barriers, and 6% had three or more
> types of barriers.
>
> ¨      Only six of the 84 counties in Michigan were 100%
> physically accessible upon initial visit.
>
> ¨      MPAS continues to receive complaints regarding the
> AutoMARK, Michigan’s accessible ballot marking device.
>
> Michigan has made great strides toward accessibility at the
> polls.  This report will highlight the steps taken to ensure that
> all polling locations throughout
> Michigan are accessible to voters with disabilities.  In
> addition, the report will offer recommendations for Michigan to
> achieve and maintain an accessibility
> rate of 100%.
>
> 2010 Mid Term Report
>
> Acknowledging widespread irregularity throughout the country,
> Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002.  HAVA
> included sweeping legislation
> intended to modernize the electoral system for all voters,
> including those with disabilities.  The Help America Vote Act
> reinforced the application of
> Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504
> of the Rehabilitation Act.  Furthermore, in 2004, Michigan
> lawmakers amended Michigan election
> law (Public Act 92 of 2004) to require the removal of physical
> barriers at polling locations.  Irrespective of both federal and
> state law, 25% of Michigan's
> voting locations continued to be inaccessible for the November
> 2010 general election.  To achieve an all-encompassing voting
> standard for the fifty states,
> HAVA included two key components for the disability community:
>
> ¨      All polling places must have at least one voting system
> which allows all citizens to cast a ballot privately and
> independently, whether or not one
> has a disability.
>
> ¨      States must ensure accessibility at all public polling
> places in a manner compliant with the Americans with Disabilities
> Act (ADA).
>
> Accessible Voting System
>
> In 2004, the disability community and the Michigan Secretary of
> State’s Bureau of Elections (BOE) carefully assessing which
> accessible device would best
> fit the needs of Michigan voters, and in 2006 selected the
> AutoMARK.  The AutoMARK is an accessible ballot marking device
> that can be used by all voters
> with or without disabilities.
>
> Although every polling location is equipped with the AutoMARK,
> each municipality is responsible for making sure it is set up and
> operating properly.  Unfortunately,
> MPAS continues to receive complaints about the AutoMARK.  Voter
> complaints have included the following:  the AutoMARK was boxed
> up on Election Day, unplugged,
> jammed up, turned off, or set up so other voters could see the
> “secret” ballot.  Complaints concerning jammed ballots have been
> greatly reduced since the
> last round of updates were completed.  Because the AutoMARK is
> used only on Election Day, MPAS relies on voter feedback to
> correct these kinds of problems.
>  MPAS continues to monitor and respond to complaints as they
> arise.
>
> Accessible Polling Places
>
> Under HAVA, the federal government allocated money to assist with
> the purchase of accessible equipment like the AutoMARK, but also
> to help municipalities
> make their polling places physically accessible.  Congress
> recognized that in order for people to use the accessible voting
> machines, the building must
> also be accessible so voters can access the polling location and
> voting equipment.  It is the local election officials’
> responsibility to make sure all
> polling locations are accessible on Election Day.  To help cover
> the expense for removing barriers at polling locations, the
> Michigan BOE administers a
> grant program called Access for All, under the U.S.  Department
> of Health and Human Services with funding allocated through HAVA,
> to help the state comply
> with HAVA.  In most circumstances, the Access for All grants
> cover all costs associated with accessibility upgrades for
> polling locations.
>
> When Michigan’s State Plan to implement provisions under HAVA was
> initiated in 2004, municipal clerks were required to complete an
> accessibility checklist
> to determine whether or not their locations were accessible.
> This was one of the state’s first attempts to gather information
> on Michigan’s polling place
> accessibility.  During this time, MPAS and other organizations
> were working closely with individual election officials on
> polling location reviews and
> were also training the municipal clerks on the accessibility
> requirements.  MPAS also spent a considerable amount of time
> assisting clerks with assessing
> the accessibility of their polling locations and helping them
> apply for Access for All grant money.  MPAS found that the
> accessibility data provided by
> clerks was not, in certain instances, wholly reliable.
>
> MPAS brought this to the Bureau of Election’s (BOE) attention and
> shared independent accessibility reviews with them.  The BOE has
> since increased efforts
> to ensure the accuracy of reporting by improving communication
> and requiring additional documentation from the clerks.
>
> In 2008, MPAS started to assess municipal polling locations
> randomly, without notifying the election official in advance.
> After compiling this data on
> polling locations statewide, the systemic issue of
> inaccessibility became a heightened concern.  Once these concerns
> were communicated to the Bureau of
> Elections, they backed a new initiative in 2010 dramatically
> increasing their involvement in the advancement of polling place
> accessibility.
>
> This same year, the federal government began reviewing how the
> states were spending HAVA funds.  This fueled speculation that
> the federal government would
> eliminate the monies available under HAVA, since some states had
> not spent their money, rather placing it in an account and
> allowing the funds to gain
> interest.  Concerned that Congress would pull the allocated funds
> completely, which would prevent municipalities from accessing
> money to make polling places
> accessible, MPAS, along with the Michigan Bureau of Elections,
> embarked on a project to ensure 100% accessibility at all
> Michigan polling places.
>
> Michigan’s Polling Place Accessibility Project
>
> In 2010, Michigan started building the framework of a statewide
> plan to reach 100% polling place accessibility.  MPAS and the
> Bureau of Elections strengthened
> their partnership in order to achieve this goal.  Within this
> plan, MPAS would review the exterior of all locations throughout
> the state.  Michigan has
> approximately 3,600 polling places in total.  MPAS had already
> gathered information on 530 polling places prior to 2010,
> therefore, did not revisit those
> locations (some were initially accessible and others MPAS worked
> closely with clerks to improve accessibility.  MPAS is still
> working with clerks to bring
> the remaining 57 of the 530 polling locations into compliance).
> MPAS was able to visit the remaining 2,927 polling locations in
> 2010.
>
> Overall, MPAS conducted on-site reviews of at least 95% of the
> polling places in Michigan.
>
> The on-site reviews conducted in 2010, exposed nearly 25% of the
> polling places that remained physically inaccessible as required
> by the Americans with
> Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines.
>
> Of the 3,457 polling locations noted above, 2,927 were assessed
> between May-August 2010.  Using the ADAAG as a benchmark to
> determine physical accessibility,
> over 800 polling locations within the 2,927 locations visited,
> had physical barriers failing to comply with the ADAAG – barriers
> that create potential
> difficulties to voters with disabilities on Election Day.
>
> Barriers can prevent people with disabilities from fully
> participating in all aspects of society because of their
> disability.  This might include architectural
> barriers, physical barriers, communication barriers, attitudinal
> barriers, cultural barriers, etc.  Throughout this project, MPAS’
> reviews focused primarily
> on physical and external barriers, which are defined as something
> material that blocks passage.  Physical barriers addressed in
> this report include objects
> in the environment such as inaccessible doors or doorways,
> inaccessible elevators or lack thereof, inaccessible door
> hardware, inaccessible parking, etc.
>
> Among the 2,927 polling locations visited in 2010, 28% did not
> meet accessibility standards.  Based on discussions with the BOE
> in 2008, when MPAS completed
> the unannounced visits, clerks were not only notified with a
> letter from MPAS concerning accessibility, but they were also
> notified by the Bureau of Elections.
> MPAS and the BOE required prompt reply about the municipalities
> plans to meet ADA requirements.  The letters contained a
> photograph of the problem area(s),
> along with the appropriate ADAAG citation.  Within a five month
> period, letters were sent to over 440 municipalities concerning
> approximately 800 polling
> locations.
>
> As shown below, 28% of the polling places visited in 2010 had
> some type of physical barrier present at the time of review.
>
> The following chart highlights the most common number of physical
> barriers discovered at each location.
>
> A majority of the locations reviewed had only one physical
> barrier present.  While the largest and most frequent problem was
> related to parking, the types
> of barriers at each location varied as shown in the following
> chart.
>
> Text Box: Parking Signs: locations that had accessible parking
> but no signs posted  Parking:  locations that had no parking
> designated or noncompliant access
> aisles  Pathway:  barriers that existed between access aisles and
> entryway  Entrance:  problems such as door width, door
> thresholds, door hardware, vestibules,
> etc.  Ramps/Curbs: problems with curb cuts, ramps, handrails,
> thresholds greater than 1 inch, etc.
>
> Communicating Accessibility Problems with Election Officials
>
> After completing the on-site reviews, MPAS notified municipal
> clerks of locations where barriers were discovered.  Within a
> four-month period, over 440
> letters were sent to election officials.  By the end of 2010, 88%
> of those clerks responded back to MPAS with a plan of correction.
> In addition, MPAS
> provided technical assistance to the election officials on how to
> improve access to their polling location in order to come into
> compliance.   Based on
> the responses received from clerks, 43% informed us they were
> would make the changes required; 31% corrected the barriers at
> the polling locations; 9%
> were going to apply for Access for All grant; and the remaining
> responses varied from clerk using temporary equipment.
>
> When a clerk informed MAPS that the work was completed, MPAS
> required documentation from each clerk proving or stating that
> the work had been completed,
> including photographs and/or copies of purchase orders.  A
> majority of the clerks responded either with a plan of correction
> for spring 2011 or with a
> statement that the work was completed.  MPAS is still waiting for
> some clerks to confirm that the work was done sufficiently.  Once
> the removal of barriers
> at these locations has been verified, MPAS expects Michigan’s
> polling place accessibility rate to rise to nearly 90 % --
> one of the highest in the nation.
> There remains, however, substantial work to be completed in the
> city of Detroit in order to reach this goal.  The remaining 12%
> of clerks, who did not respond
> to MPAS or the Bureau of Election with a plan of correction, will
> become a 2011 priority in order to attain 100% accessibility.
>
> NEXT STEPS
>
> While the focus of this report has been on reaching the 90%
> accessibility rate, there would still be approximately 10% of
> polling locations in Michigan
> that are not accessible to all voters.  Some clerks disagree with
> the findings and MPAS is working with those clerks.
>
> In 2011, MPAS will be re-visiting a number of polling locations
> that are still recorded as being inaccessible, breaking them into
> three categories: failure
> to communicate; work promised but documentation still needed; and
> locations requiring review by MPAS.
>
> MPAS will focus attention on election officials who have failed
> to respond to MPAS communication attempts.  This may involve
> revisiting the location (some
> clerks correct the problem even when they fail to respond),
> attending city council/township meetings, filing official HAVA
> complaints, and/or pursuing
> legal action under different funding sources.  MPAS’ goal has
> always been to educate clerks and assist them with improving
> access first by proposing solutions
> to removing barriers.
>
> In 2011, MPAS will also direct its attention to monitoring the
> correction plans that election officials have submitted to ensure
> that barriers are removed.
>  MPAS will review the remaining 150 polling locations that have
> not been visited yet.
>
> In Summary
>
> Throughout the 2010 project, the partnership between MPAS and the
> Michigan Bureau of Elections (BOE) was crucial.  The state
> reinforced the necessity of
> accessible elections.  They followed up with each municipality
> whose polling place was noted as being inaccessible in order to
> determine the jurisdiction's
> planned course of action.  In addition, the BOE coordinated and
> extended Michigan's polling place improvement grant well into the
> fall to assist municipalities
> in removing barriers to voting at no cost.
>
> Local election officials can either upgrade their polling places
> (with or without grant funds), or relocate the polling place to
> an accessible site.  The
> Bureau of Elections reports that due to the 2010 project, they
> have seen a large increase in the number of municipalities
> applying for grant money.  In
> an effort to assist with the project, the BOE extended the
> typical grant cycle by two months, giving clerks additional
> opportunity to respond to MPAS’
> letter and correct the problem(s) by using grant funds.  The
> Michigan Bureau of Elections received 74 grant applications, the
> largest amount ever received
> in one grant cycle.  Of those 74 grant applications, 66
> applicants received letters from MPAS seeking a plan of
> correction - 89% of those who applied.
>  A large number of municipalities have pledged to apply when the
> next grant period opens in early 2011.
>
> If the HAVA/PAVA program survives the President’s proposed budget
> cuts, MPAS looks forward to continuing the partnership with the
> Secretary of State, ensuring
> all elections are accessible to all voters.  Additionally, MPAS
> encourages clerks to reach out to local disability groups for
> future trainings.  Listed
> below are additional recommendations moving forward.
>
> Summary/Recommendations:
>
> ¨      Local clerks must be required to notify the Bureau of
> Elections prior to relocating polling places.
>
> ¨      Accessibility checks should be completed when clerks
> change polling locations, to verify accessibility.  Reports (with
> photographs) should be submitted
> to the Bureau of Elections.
>
> ¨      New polling locations must be required to adhere to the
> Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines.
>
> ¨      The advisory committee in charge of amending the State
> Plan (under HAVA) should re-convene and identify ways to hold
> clerks accountable and implement
> model oversight programs.
>
> ¨      Access for All grant money should be available throughout
> the year, so accessibility problems can be addressed anytime they
> arise.
>
> ¨      The Bureau of Elections and local clerks should continue
> working with disability advocacy organizations to complete
> year-round polling place accessibility
> audits and training to clerks.
>
> Accessibility Rate by County
>
> Table with 9 columns and 85 rows
>
> County
>
> Polling Locations
>
> Visited
>
> Accessible
>
> Barriers Discovered
>
> Percent Visited
>
> % Accessible of those Visited
>
> Now Complete
>
> % Now Accessible
>
> Alcona
>
> 12
>
> 12
>
> 8
>
> 4
>
> 100%
>
> 67%
>
> 3
>
> 92%
>
> Alger
>
> 10
>
> 10
>
> 5
>
> 5
>
> 100%
>
> 50%
>
> 5
>
> 100%
>
> Allegan
>
> 37
>
> 37
>
> 35
>
> 2
>
> 100%
>
> 95%
>
> 1
>
> 97%
>
> Alpena
>
> 15
>
> 15
>
> 8
>
> 7
>
> 100%
>
> 53%
>
> 1
>
> 60%
>
> Antrim
>
> 15
>
> 15
>
> 9
>
> 6
>
> 100%
>
> 60%
>
> 2
>
> 73%
>
> Arenac
>
> 14
>
> 14
>
> 10
>
> 4
>
> 100%
>
> 71%
>
> 3
>
> 93%
>
> Baraga
>
> 8
>
> 6
>
> 1
>
> 5
>
> 75%
>
> 17%
>
> 1
>
> 33%
>
> Barry
>
> 23
>
> 23
>
> 18
>
> 5
>
> 100%
>
> 78%
>
> 1
>
> 83%
>
> Bay
>
> 49
>
> 48
>
> 36
>
> 12
>
> 98%
>
> 75%
>
> 1
>
> 77%
>
> Benzie
>
> 13
>
> 13
>
> 6
>
> 7
>
> 100%
>
> 46%
>
> 4
>
> 77%
>
> Berrien
>
> 57
>
> 57
>
> 43
>
> 14
>
> 100%
>
> 75%
>
> 8
>
> 89%
>
> Branch
>
> 18
>
> 17
>
> 9
>
> 8
>
> 94%
>
> 53%
>
> 6
>
> 88%
>
> Calhoun
>
> 46
>
> 43
>
> 34
>
> 9
>
> 93%
>
> 79%
>
> 3
>
> 86%
>
> Cass
>
> 19
>
> 19
>
> 12
>
> 7
>
> 100%
>
> 63%
>
> 6
>
> 95%
>
> Charlevoix
>
> 18
>
> 16
>
> 10
>
> 6
>
> 89%
>
> 63%
>
> 1
>
> 69%
>
> Cheboygan
>
> 20
>
> 20
>
> 14
>
> 6
>
> 100%
>
> 70%
>
> 5
>
> 95%
>
> Chippewa
>
> 19
>
> 18
>
> 13
>
> 5
>
> 95%
>
> 72%
>
> 4
>
> 94%
>
> Clare
>
> 19
>
> 16
>
> 13
>
> 3
>
> 84%
>
> 81%
>
> 2
>
> 94%
>
> Clinton
>
> 28
>
> 26
>
> 24
>
> 2
>
> 93%
>
> 92%
>
> 1
>
> 96%
>
> Crawford
>
> 7
>
> 7
>
> 6
>
> 1
>
> 100%
>
> 86%
>
> 0
>
> 86%
>
> Delta
>
> 21
>
> 20
>
> 11
>
> 9
>
> 95%
>
> 55%
>
> 1
>
> 60%
>
> Dickinson
>
> 15
>
> 15
>
> 6
>
> 9
>
> 100%
>
> 40%
>
> 5
>
> 73%
>
> Eaton
>
> 36
>
> 36
>
> 28
>
> 8
>
> 100%
>
> 78%
>
> 2
>
> 83%
>
> Emmet
>
> 19
>
> 19
>
> 12
>
> 7
>
> 100%
>
> 63%
>
> 5
>
> 89%
>
> Genesee
>
> 119
>
> 109
>
> 84
>
> 25
>
> 92%
>
> 77%
>
> 2
>
> 79%
>
> Gladwin
>
> 17
>
> 17
>
> 11
>
> 6
>
> 100%
>
> 65%
>
> 1
>
> 71%
>
> Gogebic
>
> 10
>
> 10
>
> 7
>
> 3
>
> 100%
>
> 70%
>
> 2
>
> 90%
>
> Grand Traverse
>
> 28
>
> 27
>
> 27
>
> 0
>
> 96%
>
> 100%
>
> 0
>
> 100%
>
> Gratiot
>
> 23
>
> 23
>
> 16
>
> 7
>
> 100%
>
> 70%
>
> 2
>
> 78%
>
> Hillsdale
>
> 21
>
> 21
>
> 12
>
> 9
>
> 100%
>
> 57%
>
> 3
>
> 71%
>
> Houghton
>
> 31
>
> 22
>
> 9
>
> 13
>
> 71%
>
> 41%
>
> 5
>
> 64%
>
> Huron
>
> 30
>
> 29
>
> 18
>
> 11
>
> 97%
>
> 62%
>
> 5
>
> 79%
>
> Ingham
>
> 95
>
> 81
>
> 78
>
> 3
>
> 85%
>
> 96%
>
> 0
>
> 96%
>
> Ionia
>
> 22
>
> 22
>
> 17
>
> 5
>
> 100%
>
> 77%
>
> 1
>
> 82%
>
> Iosco
>
> 15
>
> 15
>
> 14
>
> 1
>
> 100%
>
> 93%
>
> 1
>
> 100%
>
> Iron
>
> 12
>
> 12
>
> 6
>
> 6
>
> 100%
>
> 50%
>
> 2
>
> 67%
>
> Isabella
>
> 25
>
> 25
>
> 19
>
> 6
>
> 100%
>
> 76%
>
> 1
>
> 80%
>
> Jackson
>
> 47
>
> 45
>
> 34
>
> 11
>
> 96%
>
> 76%
>
> 2
>
> 80%
>
> Kalamazoo
>
> 97
>
> 97
>
> 79
>
> 18
>
> 100%
>
> 81%
>
> 7
>
> 89%
>
> Kalkaska
>
> 12
>
> 12
>
> 8
>
> 4
>
> 100%
>
> 67%
>
> 1
>
> 75%
>
> Kent
>
> 209
>
> 207
>
> 174
>
> 33
>
> 99%
>
> 84%
>
> 11
>
> 89%
>
> Keweenaw
>
> 5
>
> 4
>
> 4
>
> 0
>
> 80%
>
> 100%
>
> 0
>
> 100%
>
> Lake
>
> 15
>
> 15
>
> 8
>
> 7
>
> 100%
>
> 53%
>
> 2
>
> 67%
>
> Lapeer
>
> 24
>
> 24
>
> 20
>
> 4
>
> 100%
>
> 83%
>
> 2
>
> 92%
>
> Leelanau
>
> 13
>
> 13
>
> 8
>
> 5
>
> 100%
>
> 62%
>
> 1
>
> 69%
>
> Lenawee
>
> 30
>
> 30
>
> 23
>
> 7
>
> 100%
>
> 77%
>
> 4
>
> 90%
>
> Livingston
>
> 48
>
> 45
>
> 35
>
> 10
>
> 94%
>
> 78%
>
> 0
>
> 78%
>
> Luce
>
> 4
>
> 4
>
> 3
>
> 1
>
> 100%
>
> 75%
>
> 0
>
> 75%
>
> Mackinac
>
> 13
>
> 10
>
> 5
>
> 5
>
> 77%
>
> 50%
>
> 1
>
> 60%
>
> Macomb
>
> 235
>
> 233
>
> 188
>
> 45
>
> 99%
>
> 81%
>
> 17
>
> 88%
>
> Manistee
>
> 15
>
> 15
>
> 11
>
> 4
>
> 100%
>
> 73%
>
> 3
>
> 93%
>
> Marquette
>
> 29
>
> 29
>
> 16
>
> 13
>
> 100%
>
> 55%
>
> 1
>
> 59%
>
> Mason
>
> 23
>
> 23
>
> 15
>
> 8
>
> 100%
>
> 65%
>
> 3
>
> 78%
>
> Mecosta
>
> 22
>
> 22
>
> 18
>
> 4
>
> 100%
>
> 82%
>
> 1
>
> 86%
>
> Menominee
>
> 16
>
> 14
>
> 8
>
> 6
>
> 88%
>
> 57%
>
> 0
>
> 57%
>
> Midland
>
> 38
>
> 29
>
> 22
>
> 7
>
> 76%
>
> 76%
>
> 4
>
> 90%
>
> Missaukee
>
> 17
>
> 17
>
> 14
>
> 3
>
> 100%
>
> 82%
>
> 3
>
> 100%
>
> Monroe
>
> 42
>
> 36
>
> 27
>
> 9
>
> 86%
>
> 75%
>
> 5
>
> 89%
>
> Montcalm
>
> 26
>
> 25
>
> 21
>
> 4
>
> 96%
>
> 84%
>
> 2
>
> 92%
>
> Montmorency
>
> 9
>
> 9
>
> 7
>
> 2
>
> 100%
>
> 78%
>
> 1
>
> 89%
>
> Muskegon
>
> 72
>
> 71
>
> 68
>
> 3
>
> 99%
>
> 96%
>
> 2
>
> 99%
>
> Newaygo
>
> 28
>
> 28
>
> 22
>
> 6
>
> 100%
>
> 79%
>
> 3
>
> 89%
>
> Oakland
>
> 410
>
> 380
>
> 292
>
> 88
>
> 93%
>
> 77%
>
> 46
>
> 89%
>
> Oceana
>
> 18
>
> 18
>
> 12
>
> 6
>
> 100%
>
> 67%
>
> 0
>
> 67%
>
> Ogemaw
>
> 16
>
> 16
>
> 10
>
> 6
>
> 100%
>
> 63%
>
> 5
>
> 94%
>
> Ontonagon
>
> 14
>
> 10
>
> 3
>
> 7
>
> 71%
>
> 30%
>
> 0
>
> 30%
>
> Osceola
>
> 18
>
> 18
>
> 14
>
> 4
>
> 100%
>
> 78%
>
> 2
>
> 89%
>
> Oscoda
>
> 6
>
> 6
>
> 4
>
> 2
>
> 100%
>
> 67%
>
> 1
>
> 83%
>
> Otsego
>
> 10
>
> 10
>
> 7
>
> 3
>
> 100%
>
> 70%
>
> 2
>
> 90%
>
> Ottawa
>
> 88
>
> 88
>
> 79
>
> 9
>
> 100%
>
> 90%
>
> 5
>
> 95%
>
> Presque Isle
>
> 16
>
> 16
>
> 10
>
> 6
>
> 100%
>
> 63%
>
> 3
>
> 81%
>
> Roscommon
>
> 11
>
> 11
>
> 11
>
> 0
>
> 100%
>
> 100%
>
> 0
>
> 100%
>
> Saginaw
>
> 75
>
> 75
>
> 61
>
> 14
>
> 100%
>
> 81%
>
> 8
>
> 92%
>
> Sanilac
>
> 30
>
> 30
>
> 26
>
> 4
>
> 100%
>
> 87%
>
> 3
>
> 97%
>
> Schoolcraft
>
> 10
>
> 10
>
> 6
>
> 4
>
> 100%
>
> 60%
>
> 2
>
> 80%
>
> Shiawassee
>
> 27
>
> 27
>
> 17
>
> 10
>
> 100%
>
> 63%
>
> 3
>
> 74%
>
> St.  Clair
>
> 52
>
> 48
>
> 44
>
> 4
>
> 92%
>
> 92%
>
> 3
>
> 98%
>
> St.  Joseph
>
> 17
>
> 17
>
> 12
>
> 5
>
> 100%
>
> 71%
>
> 2
>
> 82%
>
> Tuscola
>
> 25
>
> 24
>
> 16
>
> 8
>
> 96%
>
> 67%
>
> 2
>
> 75%
>
> Van Buren
>
> 23
>
> 22
>
> 19
>
> 3
>
> 96%
>
> 86%
>
> 1
>
> 91%
>
> Washtenaw
>
> 106
>
> 100
>
> 70
>
> 30
>
> 94%
>
> 70%
>
> 0
>
> 70%
>
> Wayne
>
> 568
>
> 519
>
> 325
>
> 194
>
> 91%
>
> 63%
>
> 28
>
> 68%
>
> Wexford
>
> 20
>
> 20
>
> 14
>
> 6
>
> 100%
>
> 70%
>
> 1
>
> 75%
>
> Total
>
> 3635
>
> 3457
>
> 2579
>
> 878
>
> 95.10%
>
> 74.60%
>
> 289
>
> 83%
>
> table end
>
>
>