Ballot adjudication in voting systems utilizing ballot images

Methods, systems, and devices are described for adjudicating votes made on voter-marked paper ballots. Voter-marked paper ballots may be scanned to obtain optical image data of the voter-marked paper ballots. The optical image may be analyzed to determine the votes contained in the ballot for tabulation purposes. One or more votes on the ballot may be identified as requiring adjudication by an election official. Adjudication information, according to various embodiments, is appended to the optical images of the voter-marked paper ballots such that the image of the ballot and the image of the adjudication information may be viewed in an optical image. The optical image may be stored in a file format that allows the ballot image and the appended adjudication information to be viewed using readily available image viewers.

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/470,091, filed May 11, 2012, entitled, “BALLOT ADJUDICATION IN VOTING SYSTEMS UTILIZING BALLOT IMAGES,” which is incorporated by reference in its entirety for all purposes.

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/de/c0/45/5c2744d3143350/US9202113.pdf

In some instances optical scan systems may not be able to determine with high confidence that a particular vote has been cast. For example, a voter may partially fill in a target area next to a candidate name, may place a mark next to the target area rather than filling in the target area, and/or soil the ballot in some fashion (e.g., coffee stain).

Furthermore, in many jurisdictions voter intent is used as a basis for evaluating and adjudicating ballots for purposes of tabulating votes. Thus, if a voter improperly completed a ballot with a mark outside of a target area, a review of the ballot may indicate that the voter intended to cast a certain vote, and thus the ballot should be properly tabulated to include the intended vote. Similarly, a voter may mark an area for a particular candidate, and afterward realize that they made an error or change their mind. The voter may cross out the vote and mark a different area for a different candidate, and make a note such as, for example, writing “not this one” next to the crossed-out mark. An electronic scanning and tabulation system may not tabulate such a vote properly, while a human review of the ballot may readily reveal that the voter did intend to vote for the different candidate. Such instances may consume a significant amount of resources at the polling place or later, when the votes recorded on the ballots are being tabulated.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US9202113B2/en