Bysiewicz Urges Passage of S.B. 444 – We Urge Amendment #6141
Many of the changes necessary to start Connecticut on the road to stronger, effective audits that were in H.B. 5888 have now been offered as an amendment #6141 by Reps Caruso and Urban to S.B.444:
Continue reading “Tell Your Rep You Want Voter Integrity, Not Just Privacy!”
Update: More from Politico <read>. Billions for deficits and earmarks but nothing to provide voters confidence their choices were followed.
Larry Norden, director of the voting technology project at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s law school, called the vote “a sad statement on how little Congress has done on the issue of making sure elections are as secure and reliable as possible.â€
Update: Added prospective on cost from Huffington Post <read>
“It all depends what you compare it to,” said [Princeton Professor Ed] Felten. “If you compare the amount of money we spend actually administering the election versus the amount that’s spent trying to convince people to vote this way or that way, it looks pretty small. It you compare it against the importance of getting the outcome right, it also looks relatively small. So, to me, it’s an investment that we should be willing to make.”
Article from Rush Holt’s state, New Jersey: Vote-count bill’s rebuff doesn’t add up <read>
You wouldn’t think anyone would be opposed to voting machines that can, if necessary, verify their precise ballot totals at the end of Election Day…”
It came out of committee two weeks ago unanimously supported by both parties,” Holt says over the phone. “We had compromised so there would be strong support when it came to the floor.”
So confident was House leader ship that it waived the usual voting procedure of requiring a simple majority and sought a two-thirds “super majority.”
That, explains Holt, would have demonstrated to the Senate and the White House that HR5036, otherwise known as the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act, had veto-proof support.But on the day of the vote, something beat it to the House floor: the Bush administration’s objections.
Bush did not specifically threaten a veto, but he made it clear he didn’t like the bill, which was enough for most of its Republican supporters to bail out.The bill passed, 239-178. But that was way short of the super majority, which tells the White House that the House doesn’t have the votes to override a veto.
more on the Holt bill <read>
While Federal reform is delayed, reform moved forward yesterday in Connecticut. The General Assembly Appropriations Committee passed H.B. 5888 with a joint favorable recommendation to the Legislature. On March 19th, the Government Administration and Elections Committee also passed the bill with a joint favorable recommendation.
H.B. 5888, An Act Concerning Revisions To The Optical Scan Voting System, makes one large future leap forward, along with several small and moderate improvements to increase election integrity in the near term. Its most important provision is to create an independent audit board:
Not later than December 1, 2008, the board shall develop standards and procedures for conducting audits of elections and primaries. In developing such standards and procedures, the board shall be cognizant of the current level of science utilized in the area of election auditing. Additionally, subject to any other provisions of law, such standards and procedures shall enable any such audit to commence within forty-eight hours of the time when state election officials announce the final unofficial vote in each district…
An Independent Audit Board will provide an opportunity to dramatically revise our current post-election audits which are inadequate and have proven ineffective in practice.
Another notable provision is for the 100% independent testing of memory cards within the State of Connecticut, prior to their shipment to registrars. This one provision alone will go a long way to prevent errors and fraud, while greatly reducing the burden of “junk” memory cards imposed on registrars:
Not later than October 1, 2008 … the Secretary of the State shall select a separate entity that shall be responsible for the testing of such memory cards: (1) After such programming but prior to shipment to registrars of voters, and (2) after the applicable election. Such testing shall be located within the state. The Secretary of the State shall implement procedures for the secure transport of such memory cards to and from the entities described in this section.
While we would have stronger audits, codified, and started sooner, we fully support the bill as it will move Connecticut forward with an Independent Audit Board, while in the meantime increasing election integrity.
Our thanks to the GAE Committee leadership for holding public hearings across the state < 1 2 3 4 5 >, developing, and supporting this bill. We also thank the Secretary of the State, Susan Bysiewicz, for her support of the Independent Audit Board which will provide an audit entirely independent of her office.
Much work remains to be accomplished. The most pressing item is passing H.B. 5888 by the full legislature.
The Holt Emergency Bill, H.R. 5036, which we support, failed by 239 to 178 to get a required two-thirds margin in the House of Representatives. AlterNet has the story <read>
CTVotersCount thanks the entire Connecticut House Delegation for voting for the bill, with especial thanks to Representative Courtney, a co-sponsor. We also appreciate the work of Speaker Pelosi who worked to move the bill forward. We appreciate Rush Holt for his continuing efforts since 2003.
We are not surprised by this development, just disappointed that so much damage was caused so quickly by Washington’s Help America Vote Act, and that to road to correcting the problems is so long. Last year we supported Representative Rush Holt’s long term bill, H.R. 811, co-sponsored by 226 members of the house and lobbied Congress in 2006 for its predecessor. Our understanding is that Representative Holt will continue to work on the long term bill – we intend to continue our support.
Let me boldly predict that without unity behind a good bill, 2009 will be “too soon” to worry about election reform in Congress with other more pressing needs and that 2010, like 2008, will be “too late” to correct anything before an election.
Holt responded to the GOP’s main objection to the bill, its cost.
“I’d like to ask the opponents how much spending is too much to have verifiable elections in the United States,” he said. “I note that many people who opposed this legislation supported spending almost $330 million in recent years to provide election assistance in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. I would have hoped those who supported efforts to export democracy abroad would be equally committed to strengthening democracy here at home.”
Continue reading “Holt Bill Fails To Get Required 2/3 Of House”
They used optical scan! They had the paper! How could the wrong candidate be elected? (See Myth #9 )
Governor’s race decided by margin of 0.2% with highly questionable results. But not recounted or audited. Democratic Underground has the story <read>. Here are the pertinent details:
A close look at the 2002 Alabama Governor’s race suggests that the fraud perpetrated in that election was more obvious than even the 2000 or 2004 U.S. Presidential elections. The final official results were Riley 672,225, Siegelman 669,105 – a difference of 3,120 votes, representing a margin of 0.2% of the total.
The initial vote count for Governor for Baldwin County, reported from the Bay Minette tabulator at 10:45 p.m., was quite surprising to say the least. It reported: Riley (R) 30,142, Siegelman (D) 11,820, and the Libertarian candidate, John Sophocleus, 13,190. Although it was expected that Siegelman would lose Baldwin County, the margin of the loss not believable, as he had lost Baldwin County in the Governor’s race in 1998 by only a little over four thousand votes. Furthermore, the idea of his losing to the Libertarian candidate was not plausible.
Result: Free lodging for the ‘sore loser’, but not in the Governor’s Mansion:
Coalition Releases 2nd Post-Election Audit Report <read>
Continue reading “Procedures Alone Insufficient For Effective Election Audits”
Press Release: American Statistical Association Calls for Audits to Increase Confidence in Electoral Outcomes, ASA Board adopts position on Electoral Integrity <release> . This should erase all lingering doubt on the part of legislators, election officials, and non-statisticians:
“Trustworthy elections demand integrity throughout the entire electoral process, from voting laws and regulations to details of implementation, including maintaining voter registration lists and a secure chain of custody for voted ballots. All processes and data of US elections should be subject to statistically sound, continuous-quality monitoring and improvement. Data releases should be comprehensive and timely and follow standardized, readily analyzable formats. It is critical that the integrity of central vote tabulations be confirmed by audits of voter-verified hard-copy records in order to provide high — and clearly specified — levels of confidence in electoral outcomes...
Certification of any electoral outcome should require substantiating evidence that the putative winner was the intended selection of the plurality of voters. Compelling statistical evidence of electoral failure should be accepted as a basis for judicial remedy.
This is in addition to an earlier statement covered here several months ago:
The American Statistical Association’s Science and Public Affairs Advisory Committee has recommended that post election audits have at least a 90% level of confidence.
Election officials need to make sure the person elected winner is the person the most voters want..Election results are most trustworthy when the entire election process can be audited, not just the vote counts…the audit should have the statistical power to trigger additional action at least nine out of 10 times when the wrong winner is declared.(emboldening added)
There should be no remaining question that statistical audits represent the only recognized mainstream scientific method for insuring effective audits and are a necessary component of audits that can provide true confidence in election results.
Update 3/16/2008 Please see the 1st comment from George Cody correcting my impression that he was against the bill.
Yesterday, I testified in favor of HB 5888 recommending some suggested changes. With some improvements the bill would be a big step forward providing an Independent Audit Board, more effective statistics based audits, removes some of exemptions in the current law, and provides for “Hot Audits” close to election day.
The bill text is close to the recently passed New Jersey bill. It can be made clearer and stronger with some additions and revisions from proposed Federal “Holt Bill” HR 5036. It also needs some tweaking in its customizations for Connecticut. It should also remove all of the loopholes and exemptions from the current law passed last year. <my testimony>
HB 5888 also includes a Voters’ Bill of Rights and a provision calling for manual counting in recounts:
Sec. 2. (NEW) (Effective from passage) Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, if a recanvass is required by law in a municipality that uses marksense voting tabulators, such recanvass shall be conducted by hand count.
George Cody, representing the Registrars Of Voters Association, Connecticut (ROVAC) spoke later in the day. As expected George spoke in opposition to the bill. Mentioning in particular statistical provisions and the hand counted recanvass. Here is what I said yesterday:
We all know that people can count accurately – that manual recounts can produce results that can overcome any machine counting errors and accurately determine voters’ intent.
It is the burden of those proposing machine recounts to come forward with a detailed plan. It is their burden to prove that their detailed plan is workable. It is their burden to prove that their plan would be reliably accurate.
Although I doubt it, perhaps there is a reliable and workable machine recount plan possible. I have not seen a written detailed plan proposed. What I have heard is speculation of what might be done. Speculation and ideas that are incomplete – Speculation that is inconsistent and unworkable.
I wish we did not have to do manual audits and manual recounts, they are inconvenient. However, the promise of democracy and the necessity of election integrity are more important than wishes and inconvenience.
I will have more to say about hand and machine recounts in the next few days.
George Coty cited <Dr. Shvartsman’s slides> from his forum on Monday 3/10 to the GAE Committee as indicating in Coty’s opinion that our machines are statistically accurate. Coty and others may have seen Dr. Shvartsman’s answer to a question from the committee, aired on CT-N, stating that machines could be used to recount votes.
What was not covered was my conversation with Dr. Shvartsman after the forum, discussing the obvious problem that if an identical memory card is used, programmed from the same source as the first, that any errors or fraud in the original memory card would likely be repeated in the second card. I don’t have an exact quote, but Dr. Shvartsman agrees with me on this point. I pointed this out to the committee chairs, with Dr. Shvartsman confirming.
Also in questioning by the committee , Dr. Shvartsman agreed with the value of 100% independent testing of memory cards, after programming, and before shipment to registrars.
About three weeks ago we delivered the CTVotersCount petition to the Government Administration and Elections Committee and to Secretary of the State, Susan Bysiewicz. Secretary Bysiewicz sent a letter in response to the petition to each signer <letter> <petition>
Special thanks to each Connecticut voter who signed the petition. Your support will substantially contribute to the effort to provide voting integrity.
We extend our appreciation to the Secretary for taking the time to respond to each of you:
I am very grateful for your time and dedication, and I expect that you will have a continuing significant role as we refine our election process. We still have a lot of work to do and we need concerned citizens like you to stay involved. Thank you for your efforts.
At CTVotersCount we do not take lightly the role of representing your interests in election integrity and confidence.
We also appreciate the Secretary’s commitment that our audit law be the strongest in the nation, along with her articulation of the value of and testimony in support of an Independent Audit Board.
I recommend reading the entire letter. <letter>
On Friday 2/29/2008 the Government Administration And Elections Committee held hearings on a variety of bills, several of which involve election administration <Agenda>
While we have interests for and against some of the other bills, three members of CTVotersCount testified toward improvements in SB 444, AN ACT CONCERNING CERTAIN REVISIONS AND TECHNICAL CHANGES TO THE ELECTION LAWS.
Continue reading “CTVotersCount Members Testify At GAE Hearing”