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

Chris Nusbaum dotkid.nusbaum at gmail.com
Sun Jul 10 15:30:00 UTC 2011


I forwarded this because since the NFB is working to ensure 
accessible voting and was the driving force behind the Help 
America Vote Act (HAVA.) So, we might be able to work jointly 
with ACB on this.  What does
everyone think?
 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: Joshua Lester <jlester8462 at students.pccua.edu
To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list 
<nabs-l at nfbnet.org
Date sent: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 20:25:02 -0500
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] [acb-l] polling place access issues to this 
day in mi

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




_______________________________________________
nabs-l mailing list
nabs-l at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info 
for nabs-l:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/dotkid.nu
sbaum%40gmail.com





More information about the NABS-L mailing list