<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>CTVotersCount.org &#187; CT Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ctvoterscount.org/category/index/ct-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ctvoterscount.org</link>
	<description>because Connecticut voters count</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 12:58:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>ACLU Forum on Electoral Dysfunction</title>
		<link>http://ctvoterscount.org/aclu-forum-on-electoral-dysfunction/</link>
		<comments>http://ctvoterscount.org/aclu-forum-on-electoral-dysfunction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:20:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Luther Weeks</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CT Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Instant Runoff Voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislature2013]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Popular Vote]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Post-Election Audits]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ctvoterscount.org/?p=6683</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On Wednesday night I participated on a panel in Waterford, CT on Electoral Dysfunction, sponsored by the ACLU, Common Cause and the LWV.  It was a very good discussion with a variety of views from the panel, a wide range of excellent questions, and unsurpassed moderation. In the near future we may have video available. I promised to provide more information here on the topics covered. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ctvoterscount.org/aclu-forum-on-electoral-dysfunction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Others Weigh In On Election Reforms</title>
		<link>http://ctvoterscount.org/others-weigh-in-on-election-reforms/</link>
		<comments>http://ctvoterscount.org/others-weigh-in-on-election-reforms/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 12:40:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Luther Weeks</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CT Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislature2013]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Other Editorials]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ctvoterscount.org/?p=6511</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week Secretary of the State Denise Merrill weighed in at her press conference on, as the Courant headlines, how "Reforms Could Boost Voter Participation". Also weighing in was Melissa J. Russell, President of ROVAC (Registrars Of Voters Association, Connecticut).]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ctvoterscount.org/others-weigh-in-on-election-reforms/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Tale in two Courant Editorials</title>
		<link>http://ctvoterscount.org/a-tale-in-two-courant-editorials/</link>
		<comments>http://ctvoterscount.org/a-tale-in-two-courant-editorials/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:44:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Luther Weeks</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Chain of Custody]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CT Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ctvoterscount.org/?p=6409</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Where we disagree with the Courant, is that we believe ballots deserve the same level of protection as money and supplies, that the need for verification applies equally to private employees, public employees, and public officials. We are not so sure of trust part of 'trust but verify', we would 'verify sufficiently to deter and trust'.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ctvoterscount.org/a-tale-in-two-courant-editorials/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court to decide ballot layout and sovereign immunity</title>
		<link>http://ctvoterscount.org/supreme-court-to-decide-ballot-layout-and-sovereign-immunity/</link>
		<comments>http://ctvoterscount.org/supreme-court-to-decide-ballot-layout-and-sovereign-immunity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2012 12:08:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Luther Weeks</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CT Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ctvoterscount.org/?p=6330</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am not a lawyer, however: The law reads like the Secretary of the State is correct in interpreting the law. But it will be a tough precedent if the court accepts the sovereign immunity argument – I would think that would make it harder to sue over any election issue, including when the Secretary has declared an election winner. UPDATED]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ctvoterscount.org/supreme-court-to-decide-ballot-layout-and-sovereign-immunity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>We still disagree with the Courant on reforming the office of registrar</title>
		<link>http://ctvoterscount.org/we-still-disagree-with-the-courant-but-they-are-getting-closer/</link>
		<comments>http://ctvoterscount.org/we-still-disagree-with-the-courant-but-they-are-getting-closer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Sep 2012 10:14:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Luther Weeks</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CT Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ctvoterscount.org/?p=6322</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The comprehensive solution is to <b>“Do for Elections what we have done for Probate“. Consolidation, Professionalization, and Regionalization</b>. Not a panacea, but in our opinion a prerequisite. And change it in the Legislature by following the requirements of State law.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ctvoterscount.org/we-still-disagree-with-the-courant-but-they-are-getting-closer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Has anyone here seen my old friend Accuracy?</title>
		<link>http://ctvoterscount.org/has-anyone-here-seen-my-old-friend-accuracy/</link>
		<comments>http://ctvoterscount.org/has-anyone-here-seen-my-old-friend-accuracy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:37:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Luther Weeks</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CT Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ctvoterscount.org/?p=6273</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Seems like after just about every election we see media reports of potential and impending 'recounts', when there is no such thing in the applicable election statutes. Some may think we are too picky expecting the press and our chief elections official to be precise. Many people call 'primaries' 'elections' but in the statutes they are different things, just as 'recounts' and 'recanvasses' are different things in our statutes and in common use.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ctvoterscount.org/has-anyone-here-seen-my-old-friend-accuracy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Courant: Keep Primary in Aug. We agree.</title>
		<link>http://ctvoterscount.org/courant-keep-primary-in-aug-we-agree/</link>
		<comments>http://ctvoterscount.org/courant-keep-primary-in-aug-we-agree/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:17:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Luther Weeks</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CT Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Other Editorials]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ctvoterscount.org/?p=6237</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We agree with the Courant and add some details to the case against September and June.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ctvoterscount.org/courant-keep-primary-in-aug-we-agree/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Everything you wanted to know about voter ID, including Connecticut</title>
		<link>http://ctvoterscount.org/voter-id-including-ct/</link>
		<comments>http://ctvoterscount.org/voter-id-including-ct/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:24:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Luther Weeks</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CT Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ctvoterscount.org/?p=6222</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[REMINDER: Most voters do not need a voter ID in Connecticut.(but it is easier if you bring one)  Some 1st time registrants do under the Help America Vote Act.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ctvoterscount.org/voter-id-including-ct/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Newspapers join CTVotersCount, ACLU, and CBIA in objections to H.B. 5556</title>
		<link>http://ctvoterscount.org/newspapers-join-aclu-and-cbia-in-objections-to-h-b-5556/</link>
		<comments>http://ctvoterscount.org/newspapers-join-aclu-and-cbia-in-objections-to-h-b-5556/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2012 12:52:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Luther Weeks</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CT Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Electronic Vulnerability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislature2012]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ctvoterscount.org/?p=6100</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CTVotersCount opposes H.B. 5556 and has urged Governor Malloy to veto the bill because it contains a provision for risky, unconstitutional email and fax voting.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ctvoterscount.org/newspapers-join-aclu-and-cbia-in-objections-to-h-b-5556/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Which, if any, of Connecticut&#8217;s 169 towns would be secure for Internet voting (let alone email and fax voting)?</title>
		<link>http://ctvoterscount.org/which-if-any-connecticuts-169-towns-would-be-secure-for-internet-voting/</link>
		<comments>http://ctvoterscount.org/which-if-any-connecticuts-169-towns-would-be-secure-for-internet-voting/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 10:58:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Luther Weeks</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CT Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reports]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ctvoterscount.org/?p=6040</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Some of the smaller Connecticut towns have very part time registrars who maintain office hours as infrequent as one hour a week. Registrars in their 70's and 80's whose towns have not provided them with access to email.  Towns that have resisted laws to require them to post meeting minutes on the web as too challenging and costly? How will those towns accept and provide security for email and fax voting? How about even our larger cities? How well prepared are they and can they be?]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ctvoterscount.org/which-if-any-connecticuts-169-towns-would-be-secure-for-internet-voting/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
