DOC

Use Case UC034201 Accept or Reject Duplicate Voter Match Case

By Mary Freeman,2014-11-25 18:17
7 views 0
Use Case UC034201 Accept or Reject Duplicate Voter Match Case

     VoteCal Statewide Voter Registration System Project

    Use Case: UC03.42.01 / Accept or Reject Duplicate Voter Match Case through

    VoteCal

    Use Case: UC03.42.01 / Accept or Reject Duplicate Voter Match Case

    through VoteCal

    System S1.3.1 VoteCal must provide SOS administrators with the ability to, with respect to any voter:

    Requirements: ; Update basic voter registration data (e.g., name, street address, mailing address, phone

    numbers, partisan affiliation, date of birth, etc.);

    ; Modify voter status;

    ; Merge and unmerge potential duplicate voter records;

    ; Add comments to a voter record; and

    ; Add entries to voter activity history, such as contacts with the voter.

    S2.1 VoteCal must provide functionality that enables authorized county and state users to add

    new registered voters and to update data associated with existing registered voters.

    S4.23 If VoteCal identifies potential matches for a voter during the registration process and the

    user processing the registration determines no matches are valid, then VoteCal must

    subsequently send notice of the potential duplicate registration to the appropriate county for the

    potential duplicate pre-existing record(s) for review and verification that there is no match.

    S9.2 Whenever duplicate registrations are confirmed for the same voter, whether through the

    process of duplicate matching or registration processing, VoteCal must:

    ; Effectively merge the registration records into a single registration record, including voter

    activity history and voting participation history into the record with the most recent date of

    registration (or voter registration update activity); and

    ; Automatically send an electronic notice to the county(s) whose voter records have been

    reassigned or merged with

    S13.5 VoteCal must flag potential duplicate records that have been verified as not being

    duplicates so they are no longer reported as unresolved potential duplicates, so that they may

    be omitted as potential duplicates in subsequent duplicate checks.

    Description: The purpose of this use case is to enable a user to make a determination as to whether or not a

    Duplicate Voter Match Case is valid working within the VoteCal application

    Actors: SOS User, County User

    Trigger: A pair of existing voter records has been identified by the Duplicate Voter Detection Job as

    possibly representing the same person and a resulting Duplicate Voter Match Case has been

    created.

    OR

    One county has completed the review of a potential duplicate (using this use case) and has

    elected to “flip” the work item, thus creating a new work item for the other county.

    04/15/2010 Page 1

    Version: 1.8

     VoteCal Statewide Voter Registration System Project

    Use Case: UC03.42.01 / Accept or Reject Duplicate Voter Match Case through

    VoteCal

OR

    A potential match was dismissed during the registration process and needs to be presented to the appropriate county for the potential duplicate pre-existing record(s) for review and

    verification.

    System: VoteCal Application

    Preconditions: ; A match case exists that was either identified via the Duplicate Voter Detection Job or

    was created during the registration process.

    ; All global preconditions apply.

    Post conditions: ; Two voter records are merged into a single record when the match case is accepted.

    ; The Duplicate Voter Match Case is marked as either accepted or rejected

    ; An appropriate notification is queued up to be sent to the county involved (when necessary).

    ; All global post conditions apply.

    Normal Flow: 1. User accesses the Work Item Management area of the application.

    2. System presents UI999.XX Work Item Summary Screen. This screen displays the various

    types of work items that exist with the corresponding count of open items for each type.

    3. User elects to work with Duplicate Voter Match Case work item type.

    4. System presents UI999.XX Duplicate Voter Match Case List. This screen displays a list of

    currently “Open” Duplicate Voter Match Cases. Each column of the list is sortable. Only

    match cases where the acceptance of the match case will result in the removal of a voter

    record belonging to the user‟s jurisdiction are displayed to the user.

    5. User selects a case from the list for review.

    6. System presents UI999.XX Duplicate Voter Match Case Detail. This screen displays the

    record details of each of the voter records in side-by-side panels to that the user can easily

    inspect them visually. Each voter‟s detail panel provides a link to drill down to see the full

    detail of that voter record. Buttons are present to allow the user to accept, reject, or flip the

    match case. The screen includes a comment area for the user to enter comments related to

    the accept, reject or flip decision, or view comments in the event the work item has already

    been flipped.

    7. User elects to accept the match case. (see alternate flow)

    7.1. VoteCal checks that the work item has not been accepted/rejected by another user

    (through VoteCal or EMS). If the work item has not been previously accepted/rejected,

    continue.

    8. VoteCal Application takes the following actions:

    8.1. The match case is set to the Accepted state.

    8.2. A “Record Merged by Duplicate Match” Voter Activity item is appended to the newer

    voter‟s record.

    8.3. The child records of the older voter record (including historical addresses, voter activity

    history, affidavit images, signature images, other attached documents, voting

    participation history, user comments/contact history, and custom voter data) are

    04/15/2010 Page 2

    Version: 1.8

     VoteCal Statewide Voter Registration System Project

    Use Case: UC03.42.01 / Accept or Reject Duplicate Voter Match Case through

    VoteCal

    copied, to support the undo operation.

    8.3.1. The copied child records have a StateVoterID set to the value of the newer record,

    and have an indicator flag that they were created as the result of a merge.

    8.3.2. Business rules are applied when the child records are copied (e.g. removing a

    First Time Federal Voter flag because voter participation records for a Federal

    Election were copied into the newer voter record).

    8.3.3. The original child records with a StateVoterID of the older voter are marked as

    deleted but not physically deleted, to support the undo operation.

    8.4. The older voter record is marked as deleted but not physically deleted, to support the

    undo operation.

    8.5. The Match Case record is saved with details of the version changes for each voter

    record and the new record‟s relationship to the older record so that the undo operation

    is supported. As a result, it is also removed from the open match case list.

    8.6. Appropriate messages are added to the EMS Message Queue for the counties of both

    the newer and older records to indicate that the voter record status must be

    synchronized locally.

    8.6.1. The County of the older record will change the status to „Cancelled‟ with reason

    „Merged to Newer Duplicate‟ to synchronize with the deleted record.

    8.6.2. The County with the newer record may pull down the additional data from the

    older voter record (e.g. voter participation history), based upon EMS Design

    configuration for that County.<GetVoter API>

    8.7. The System automatically displays the next item in the match case list to the user.

     Alternative 7.a. User elects to reject the match case.

    Flows: 7.a.1 User issues the reject command.

     7.a.2 System marks the match case as rejected and flags the voter-voter combination

    so as to not re-appear in the future. The System automatically displays the next item in

    the match case list to the user.

     7.a.3 System adds corresponding notice to the message queue of the EMS.

    7.a.4 If the work item was initially triggered due to a dismissed potential match at

    registration, and the two potential duplicates have the same DL/ID, a new work item will

    be created for SOS User to indicate both counties have rejected the potential match of a

    duplicate DL/ID. (See UC01.13.01 Check for Duplicate DL/ID Rejections)

    7.a.4 End Use Case.

    7.b User elects to “flip” the match case

    7.b.1 User issues the “flip” command. User enters comments in support of the reason

    for the flip.

    7.b.2 System modifies the match case such that the presumed older record to be

    merged is now the newer record to be saved. This results in the match case being

    removed from the open work item list for the user‟s county and to appear on the other

    county‟s work item list

    04/15/2010 Page 3

    Version: 1.8

     VoteCal Statewide Voter Registration System Project

    Use Case: UC03.42.01 / Accept or Reject Duplicate Voter Match Case through

    VoteCal

    7.b.3 System adds a voter activity record to both voter records.

    7.b.4 Use Case ends for the original County User. ”Other” county re-starts the use case

    from step 1 or through UC03.41.02 Accept or Reject Duplicate Voter Match Case

    through EMS.

    Exceptions: 7.1(a) If the work item has previously been accepted/rejected by another user, an error message

    is presented to the User and rejects the change to the work item. Skip to step 8.7.

    Includes: N/A

    Frequency of The Process Duplicate Voter Job is processed nightly. TBD how many work items are

    Use: generated as a result. TBD how many counties will elect to use VoteCal to process.

    Business Rules: ; Match Cases are presented to the “losing” county, which is defined as the county of the

    voter record with the oldest registration date. A “flip” option is presented, so that the original

    “losing” county can re-direct the decision to the other county.

    ; The “flip” option is not available if the work item was triggered due to a dismissed potential

    match at registration.

    ; The “flip” option is not available if the work item has already been flipped once.

    Assumptions: N/A

    Notes and N/A

    Issues:

Revision History

    12/25/2009 0.1 Initial Draft Ed Scott

    01/20/2010 0.2 Document Revisions Chad Hoffman

    01/25/2010 0.3 Changed UC Number Chad Hoffman

    01/26/2010 0.4 Document Revisions Chad Hoffman

    01/27/2010 1.0 Release to client Maureen Lyon

    02/03/2010 1.1 Incorporate Client Feedback Chad Hoffman

    02/03/2010 1.2 Submit to client for review Maureen Lyon

    02/10/2010 1.3 Incorporate Client Feedback Victor Vergara

    03/07/2010 1.4 Add Flip alternate flow based on Discovery session feedback Scott Hilkert

    03/08/2010 1.5 Minor edits and submit to client for review. Maureen Lyon

    03/15/2010 1.6 Incorporate Client Feedback from Discovery Sessions Kimanh Nguyen /

    Kalyn Farris

    03/24/2010 1.7 QA and Release to Client for Review Don Westfall

    04/15/2010 1.8 Update with client feedback Kimanh Nguyen

04/15/2010 Page 4

    Version: 1.8

     VoteCal Statewide Voter Registration System Project

    Use Case: UC03.42.01 / Accept or Reject Duplicate Voter Match Case through

    VoteCal

    mm/dd/yyyy 2.0 Submit to Client for Review (Deliverable 2.3 Draft) {Name} mm/dd/yyyy 2.1 Incorporate Client Feedback {Name} mm/dd/yyyy 2.2 Submit to Client for Approval (Deliverable 2.3 Final) {Name}

    04/15/2010 Page 5 Version: 1.8

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com