Author: Luther Weeks

Improved election reporting on the way

But big changes are coming, including a precinct-by-precinct election reporting system that the state hopes to test in April and use publicly in August to gather unofficial results during the expected primaries for U.S. Senate and state legislative races.

This sounds like the kind of change we called for during the 2010 election for Secretary of the State

CTMirror: Connecticut gets low grade for online election info, but big changes are coming <read>

We are not surprised that the state elections web gets low grades again when compared to other states. But there is some potential good news.

But big changes are coming, including a precinct-by-precinct election reporting system that the state hopes to test in April and use publicly in August to gather unofficial results during the expected primaries for U.S. Senate and state legislative races.

This sounds like the kind of change we called for during the 2010 election for Secretary of the State: What could a Secretary of the State Do? <read>

Provide detailed, accurate, downloadable, election information and notices on the Secretary of the State’s web site

In a PEW study the Connecticut site ranked 48th out of 50 states.  We could debate if we should be higher in the rankings, or instead work to emulate and surpass the top ranked states.

The process of accumulating voting results in Connecticut is an error-prone three step process of addition and transcription, from polling place, to town hall, to the Secretary of the State’s Office, and to the web.  Citizens have identified errors large and moderate – errors of a magnitude  which could change election results, the initiation of recanvasses, or ballot access. See <here> <here>

Without reliable, publicly posted results, post-election audits cannot be accomplished which inspire confidence and provide integrity.  A trusted audit requires selecting districts for audit against previously posted results.  Since we audit against optical scanner tapes, and the tape results are not posted, then we fail to meet that requirement.

What can be done?

  • Post copies of the original documents: All district and central count absented ballot Moderator’s’ Reports and copies of scanner tapes should be faxed to the Secretary of the State’s Office and posted on the SOTS web site. (We know this is easily possible since the SOTS web site has recently included images of all local ballots, and is capable of the quick addition of press releases)
  • Post detailed and summary data: The SOTS could use temporary employees or outsourcing to input and double check the input of all that data, then post it to the web site in human and downloadable formats.
  • Side benefit: A free public audit: As a byproduct the public, candidates, and parties could check and audit the data at no cost to the state.  To do that today would involve visiting town halls across the state and performing all the calculations done today by hand – efficient auditing of selected districts is not possible because detailed data is not currently posted

Not quite as far as we would like and the details in the article are a bit sketchy. Hopefully the data will include details for each district that can be used to compare with the audit. Since the audit exempts all hand counted and all centrally counted absentee ballots from the audit, to be useful results must provide separate totals for hand counted and machine counted ballots in each district polling place and separate absentee counts by district centrally counted. Important as well would be to have the data in a downloadable format.

We would also hope that all registrars and moderators will support this initiative. We are not sure this requirement can actually be required and enforced without a change in the law.

Doug Chapin: New Pew Report Details Progress on Military, Overseas Voting

It really is remarkable how far this issue has come in about three years; Pew’s election team and its huge coalition of partners including OVF, the Pentagon’s Federal Voting Assistance Program and the Uniform Law Commission (whose Uniform Military and Overseas Voting Act is one ongoing vehicle for state and local reform) should be deeply gratified at everything they have accomplished.

Doug Chapin, Program for Excellence in Election Administration, New Pew Report Details Progress on Military, Overseas Voting <read>

Democracy from Afar finds that “47 states and the District of Columbia enacted laws to protect the voting rights of military and overseas citizens”. More specifically, Pew found that “many states have implemented changes to their laws or administrative codes,” including –

+ Enough time to vote: 38 states and the District have laws or rules meeting or exceeding federal requirements to send ballots to military and overseas voters at least 45 days before an election AND 8 additional states changed their primary dates to accommodate the requirement;

+ Electronic transmission of unvoted ballots: All states and the District allow military and overseas voters to receive blank ballots electronically;

+ Eliminating requirements for notarization or witnesses: 46 states and the District do not call for either for military and overseas voters; and

+ Expanded use of Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots (FWABs): 34 states and the District mandate FWABs be used as a backup ballot for all elections, including state and local.

All of these changes are summarized state-by-state in a typically handy-dandy Pew chart on page 5 of the report.

It really is remarkable how far this issue has come in about three years; Pew’s election team and its huge coalition of partners including OVF, the Pentagon’s Federal Voting Assistance Program and the Uniform Law Commission (whose Uniform Military and Overseas Voting Act is one ongoing vehicle for state and local reform) should be deeply gratified at everything they have accomplished.

Looking at the state summary report on page 5, we Connecticut meets all four of the major criteria.  We would go farther in web convenience: Better web information accessible to overseas voters; ballot selection on the web based on polling place look up for each.

All of these changes are summarized state-by-state in a typically handy-dandy Pew chart on page 5 of the report.

It really is remarkable how far this issue has come in about three years; Pew’s election team and its huge coalition of partners including OVF, the Pentagon’s Federal Voting Assistance Program and the Uniform Law Commission (whose Uniform Military and Overseas Voting Act is one ongoing vehicle for state and local reform) should be deeply gratified at everything they have accomplished.

Looking at the state by state summary on page 5 of the report, we see that Connecticut scores well, employing all the items used to compare states. We could go further following the states with best practices: Providing better web information, more conveniently and web ballot access and printing based on voter registration information.

Overall, one more reason not to employ risky, expensive online voting. Conventional, less flashy, methods are just as convenient and effective while being safe and more economical.

Coalition Nov 2011 Audit Observation Report – Data Available for Public Review

Coalition finds continuing problems with audit integrity
Provides calculations and official data on the web for public review and verification

For the first time, in the interest of public information and transparency, we are making all official municipal audit reports and the data we complied available for everyone to review on the web. Citizens can see the reports from their own town, other towns, and perform their own audit of the Coalition’s data entry and calculations based on those official reports. The November post-election audits still do not inspire confidence because of the continued:

  • Lack of integrity in the random district selection and race selection processes.
  • Lack of consistency, reliability, and transparency in the conduct of the audit.
  • Discrepancies between machine counts and hand-counts reported to the Secretary of the State by municipalities and the lack of standards for determining need for further investigation of discrepancies.
  • Weaknesses in the ballot chain-of-custody.

 <Full Report, Press Release, Excerpts>        <Review detail data and municipal reports>

Coalition finds continuing problems with audit integrity
Provides calculations and official data on the web for public review and verification

For the first time, in the interest of public information and transparency, we are making all official municipal audit reports and the data we complied available for everyone to review on the web. Citizens can see the reports from their own town, other towns, and perform their own audit of the Coalition’s data entry and calculations based on those official reports. The November post-election audits still do not inspire confidence because of the continued:

  • Lack of integrity in the random district selection and race selection processes.
  • Lack of consistency, reliability, and transparency in the conduct of the audit.
  • Discrepancies between machine counts and hand-counts reported to the Secretary of the State by municipalities and the lack of standards for determining need for further investigation of discrepancies.
  • Weaknesses in the ballot chain-of-custody.

 <Full Report, Press Release, Excerpts>        <Review detail data and municipal reports>

Patriocracy: A lesson in information and misinformation

Duncan Buell points out that non-science nonsense slips into the movie Patriocracy. It is an ever present danger. Our minds are easily tricked.

Verified Voting Blog:  Patriocracy Overlooks Internet Voting Security Concerns  by Duncan Buell <read>

Duncan Buell points out that non-science nonsense slips into the movie Patriocracy. It is an ever present danger. Our minds are easily tricked:

If one were doing a film about cures for cancer, and time were given to someone explaining theories of the arrangement of crystals around the patient, the science would be called into question. If one were doing a film about nuclear energy and time were given to someone explaining that the answer lay in extending the half life of uranium by a factor of four to six, the science would be called into question…the judgement of the filmmaker would be called into question in permitting a bogus argument like that to be included in what was purported to be a legitimate film…

However, as is so often the case, the film did not find it necessary to call into question the science (or lack) of internet security. So I asked Malone the question of who his computer security experts were, and what their credentials were, that would have led him to include a technical statement about internet voting in his film about political matters. He declined to directly answer my question, saying instead that he wanted to give different parties the right to express their different views of how to fix the situation, as if all possible discussions of nontechnical solutions of a technical problem needed to be presented to an uninformed public. But the the fact that Ackerman’s flawed analogy is left entirely unexamined calls the validity of the rest of the film into question. Whatever benefit it might offer on the debate about compromise and civility I think that benefit is more than undermined by including bogus statements about internet voting without substantiation, making the overall effect of the film on American democracy to be negative.

One of the high points of the film is a series of close-ups of former Senator Alan Simpson arguing that most people will recognize “bullshit” (Simpson’s word) when it is presented to them, and thus that the problem of the American political process can largely be fixed by ensuring that citizens are presented with the “bullshit” that comprises many of the current political arguments. Unfortunately, Senator Simpson’s conclusion has to be considered invalid, because the producer of the film amply demonstrates that the premise is incorrect.

[emphasis by CTVotersCount]

Hacked newspaper recommends online voting

They also forget absentee voting fraud in Connecticut, while their print edition confuses tech-savvy with technical expertise.

Hartford Courant editorial supports Secretary of the State’s and Governor’s initiative, while asking for more: State Changes Will Make It Easier To Vote – New Initiatives: State officials want to increase voter participation <read>

January 19, 2012

Although 14 states have taken steps to make it more difficult to vote — by requiring identification that some people don’t possess, for example — Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, with the backing of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, is pushing Connecticut in the other direction.

Good for them. Voting is the essence of democracy. Making it easier to vote will increase a citizen’s stake in government.

Ms. Merrill unveiled her package of reforms on Monday, the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who called ballot access a bedrock civil right. The secretary of the state noted that in Connecticut nearly one-third of eligible voters are not registered, barely 30 percent of registered voters turned out in last fall’s municipal elections, and only 57 percent voted in the statewide and congressional elections in 2010.

That’s a worrisome dropoff in participation. Cynicism over partisan gridlock in Washington may have something to do with paltry voter participation, but so do antiquated election laws and practices.

As an antidote to voter malaise, Ms. Merrill proposes that Connecticut law allow Election Day registration, no-excuse absentee voting and online voter registration. She also proposes to increase criminal penalties on those who tamper with voting equipment or who interfere with, threaten or intimidate voters. Those are good changes — for starters. She and lawmakers should consider online voting and various forms of early voting as well.

Changes to absentee voting will take a constitutional amendment, but should be pursued. This is one promising avenue to increased voter participation. So is Election Day registration. Ms. Merrill says that in the nine states that have some form of Election Day registration, turnout has improved an average of 8 to 10 percent.

Opponents of these worthy efforts to improve access to the ballot raise the specter of fraud. That hasn’t been what experience teaches.

[Emphasis ours]

The Courant seems a bit forgetful. Online voting is risky.

We also note that the Courant makes two common errors in the final sentence of the editorial. I guess they, like the New York Times, question the obligation to present actual facts in the paper:

  • According to the best science available, early voting including non-excuse absentee voting do NOT increase voter turn-out (it DECREASES IT). Similar information was provided to the Secretary of the State’s Election Performance Task Force.
  • While there are few instances of votER fraud that many fear from election day registration and online registration, there are plenty of instances after most elections of the more dangerous votING fraud with absentee ballots. Even in the Courant’s state and backyard there is a hi story of fraud and allegations of fraud.<See here here here>

While we are at it, there is an relationship between what goes on in Washington and Hartford; between what goes on in the news section and the editorial section of the paper. In a blog entry yesterday Courant Reporter Daniela Altimari asks: How Tech-Savvy is the State’s Congressional Delegation? <read>

Sadly tech-savvy, meaning that representatives use iPads or listen to iTunes can be confused as Altimari points out at the end of the post:

Owning an iPad and a Netflix membership doesn’t mean you know the ins and outs of DNS filtering and the other complex technical issues surrounding SOPA. But if you are in a position of voting on potentially ground-breaking legislation with far-reaching implications, a grasp of how the Internet works is key.

Sadly this last paragraph was dropped from the print edition of the paper, leaving most readers with the impression that tech-savvy and consumerism are equivalent. As we said in a comment on the blog post:

Using an iPad or listening to iTunes is certainly not equivalent to understanding Internet. Sort of like confusing Dr. Mel [legendary CT meteorologist 1945-2012]  with a person who uses a snowblower. Sadly there remains only one Scientist in all of the U.S. Congress, Rep Rush Holt, unless one considers medical doctors and dentists. I can’t help but note that PIPA sounds like a tribute to Ted Stevens who famously referred to the Internet as a series of tubes. (Actually Stevens may have been unfairely ridiculed here as data communications experts often explain bandwidth variations in terms of garden hoses, fire hoses, and rivers – there is a pretty direct analogy – Stevens may at least have attepted to talk to experts)

Gov, SOTS call for election day registration, online registration, and amendment for absentee voting

CTVotersCount has long been in favor of Election Day Registration (EDR) and concerned with the risks of unlimited absentee voting. We also strongly support online voter registration, not to be confused with online voting which we and many others oppose. Studies show that EDR increases turn-out, while absentee voting decreases turn-out, the stated goal behind the measures proposed in today’s press conference.

Press release  GOV. MALLOY AND SECRETARY OF THE STATE MERRILL CALL FOR PRESERVING ACCESS TO ELECTIONS  <read>

To make registration more efficient and create a more accurate voter file, proposed legislation would create web-based voter registration for Connecticut citizens who have a valid and current driver’s license; allow for Election Day registration to improve voter turnout; and call for absentee ballots to be governed by statute, which would give legislators the ability to adopt laws that address voters who cannot get to polling locations on Election Day.   The legislation would also increase penalties on any effort to block or impede voter access. 

CTVotersCount has long been in favor of Election Day Registration (EDR) and concerned with the risks of unlimited absentee voting. We also strongly support online voter registration, not to be confused with online voting which we and many others oppose.

In the past Secretary Merrill has opposed EDR. We welcome the change.

In addition to our integrity concerns with unlimited absentee voting, studies show that EDR increases turn-out, while absentee voting decreases turn-out, the stated goal behind the measures proposed in today’s press conference.

Other coverage: CTNewsJunkie (with discussion and several of my comments)  CT-N Video of Press Conference

An alternative view at CTNewsJunkie <read>

Update – see my comment and those of others in a discussion at a cross-post at MyLeftNutmeg, where I am BlastFromGlast

More details on EDR can be obtained from reports at the Elections Performance Task Force.

Elections should not primarily (no pun intended) be about convenience of election officials or selection of our government in the cheapest way possible. However, in addition to other benefits Online Voter Registration in conjunction with motor vehicles can save lots overall – the state pays a bit and the towns save a lot – the reverse of an unfunded mandate. See:
http://www.sots.ct.gov/sots/li…
http://www.sots.ct.gov/sots/li…

From what I have heard there are plenty of registration problems in college towns now. EDR may mean more work on election day to benefit democracy, but costs should largely be offset by less work earlier and in Presidential elections the elimination of the special Presidential ballot for those not registered.

And there are errors in our current voter registration database that have not been solved by all the time available to fix them ahead of the election. Sadly, the State does not even have a good list of polling places in each election as evidenced by errors in the polling place list used to select districts for audit – according to the previous SOTS Office the voter reg database cannot be used for an accurate list because it has errors in polling places (not just the locations, but the number in use in each town), a presumably much easier item to keep up to date then voter lists, since it is entirely under the control of local election officials.

Voting Problems For Persons With Disabilites Probed In West Hartford

Voters should not have to put up with this system. All voters with disabilities deserve a better system. Pollworkers should not have to put up with this system, they deserve a system that is reliable. Yet, pollworkers should be careful to treat each voter with dignity even if they are themselves frustrated.

Courant: Panel Aims To Ease Voting Voting By Phone – Voter Describes Difficulty When Poll Workers Lack Training On Use Of Special System <read>

We would not normally describe it as voting by phone, but that is an apt name for the experience. Connecticut’s voting system for the disabled, the IVS, is as cumbersome system for polling place officials and voters, suitable primarily for the blind, if suitable for anyone.

Officials complain of the costs of providing a special phone line installed in many polling places before each election, difficult setup, and in many cases the system remains unused by any voter. The setup requires a test communication over the phone line with a faxed response. In 2010, the Coalition found in our small sample that some IVS systems took hours, or never responded to the setup test. <see page 34>

To vote, voters listen to the ballot over the phone, using the keypad to select their choices, the system responds with a fax that prints a special ballot which the voter must deposit in the auxiliary bin of the box below the scanner. At the end of the day such ballots are counted by hand as they are not scannable. At best the system may only meet the needs of vision impaired voters. In a complex local election it can take half an hour to listen to the ballot and make choices by the touch pad. The IVS is supposed to facilitate independent, anonymous voting, not require the aid of an individual to assist the voter in filling out the ballot. Yet, how independent is it when help is needed in setting up the system? How easy is it for the sight limited voter to collect and deposit the ballot across the room and keep it hidden all the way? How anonymous when at most one or two voters use the system an the ballots are easily identified, even after the election? In 2010, in one report, a voter used the system, waited two hours for the ballot to be faxed, left in frustration, while the ballot did print one more hour later.

Voters should not have to put up with this system. All voters with disabilities deserve a better system. Pollworkers should not have to put up with this system, they deserve a system that is reliable. Yet, pollworkers should be careful to treat each voter with dignity even if they are themselves frustrated.

When the state worked to pick  HAVA (Help America Vote Act) compliant systems for voting and for voters with disabilities, there were many individuals involved at the state and national levels working and pushing for solutions for those with disabilities. Connecticut chose the IVS system, perhaps intended as an interim solution. Since that time we have seen little attention by officials to evaluating purported better solutions. Since that time, we have seen little if any evidence of lobbying or calls for better solutions from or on behalf of those with disabilities.

Some (more) concerns with the National Popular Vote

We are glad to see Democrats raising concerns with the National Popular Vote Agreement. Both political sides and those who support or oppose the Agreement create an unending stream of issues supporting their case. Some issues are objective, others are subjective, and others are subjective and speculative. Many issues raised have merit and are worth discussing.

We have long been opposed to the National Popular Vote Agreement/Compact. Not because we are against the popular election of the President in theory, but because the Agreement would cobble the popular vote onto a flawed electoral accounting system making it more risky and more subject to manipulation than the current electoral college system. Be careful what you ask for! An article from the Huffington Post raises some issues to consider.

Why National Popular Vote Is a Bad Idea <read>

This blog post is a joint effort with Leslie Francis, former executive director of the Democratic National Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

As the National Popular Vote (NPV) movement steps up its effort to impose a direct election for president, attempting to enlist states with a sufficient number of electors to constitute a majority (268) and to bind them to the winner of the national popular vote, those states considering the proposal might first reflect on the nightmare aftermath of the 2000 presidential election.

Because there was a difference of less than 1,000 tabulated votes between George W. Bush and Al Gore in one state, Florida, the nation watched as 6 million votes were recounted by machine, several hundred thousand were recounted by hand in counties with differing recount standards, partisan litigators fought each other in state and federal courts, the secretary of state backed by the majority of state legislators (all Republicans) warred with the state’s majority Democratic judiciary — until 37 days after the election the U.S. Supreme Court, in a bitterly controversial 5-4 decision effectively declared Bush the winner.

That nightmare may seem like a pleasant dream if NPV has its way. For under its plan, the next time the U.S. has very close national vote, a recount would not be of six million votes in one state but of more than 130 million votes in all states and the District of Columbia, all with their own rules for conducting a recount.

We are glad to see Democrats raising concerns with the National Popular Vote Agreement. Many Democrats are in favor of the Agreement in the mistaken belief that Al Gore would have won the 2000 election if the Agreement would have been in place. We point out that if there had been a complete recount of Florida, under the Electoral College he likely would have won under that system; the official popular vote gave Gore a slim margin, but without a recount it is not guaranteed that he did actually receive more votes than George Bush; and most important if the popular vote had been in effect, we agree that more individuals would have voted but nobody knows if Al Gore or George Bush would have benefited more from that.

We also find that most Republicans want to retain the Electoral College system as they believe it currently increases their chances for victory.

Both political sides and those who support or oppose the Agreement create an unending stream of issues supporting their case. Many of these issues have merit and are worth discussing e.g. Supporters argue for one person one vote while opponents argue for the Federal system and the wisdom of the Founders. Some issues are objective, others are subjective, and others are subjective and speculative. e.g. To what extent will candidates spend more time and money in non-swing states under the Agreement (speculative) and what value to democracy is more money to local outlets of national media, more mailers, more phone calls, and more candidates visits with the same sound bites (subjective); are small states disadvantaged by the Electoral College as proponents argue when visiting Connecticut, or are large states disadvantaged as the proponents also argue based on less electoral votes per person making their votes less equal? (subjective).

Each of these issues deserves an intricate debate before our system is changed.

However, we say that election integrity issues trump all the subjective issues. That the popular election of the President, especially via the Agreement, is too risky without effective reform of electoral accounting. For more details see our past posts and our testimony last year opposing the Agreement and opposing endorsement of the Electoral College as the best possible system of the electing the President.

While we agree that “That nightmare [of 2000] may seem like a pleasant dream if NPV has its way.” we point out the incorrect claim that:

For under its plan, the next time the U.S. has very close national vote, a recount would not be of six million votes in one state but of more than 130 million votes in all states and the District of Columbia, all with their own rules for conducting a recount.

This is incorrect because:

  • There is no official popular vote number available to officially determine the need for a recount prior to the date that each state is required to specify their electors
  • Many states do not have laws providing for recounts based on close vote margins
  • States that do have recount laws for close votes are based on close margins in those states, not based on national margins.
  • The Agreement does nothing to change that and in any case only applies to the states that sign it.

The article is inaccurate and  too optimistic in that regard. The rest of the article brings up several issues, subjective and speculative, that are worth evaluating before making a choice between the popular vote or the Electoral College.

The Courant hits some good points, yet ironically misses the mark on election accountability

Starting the year with a focus on accountability, the Courant Editorial Board overlooked integrity when it editorialized on elections. They also presented some ideas that we can and have supported

Starting the year with a focus on accountability, the Courant Editorial Board overlooked integrity when it editorialized on elections. They also presented some ideas that we can and have supported <read>

Voting. Voters report to one of hundreds of precincts on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, unless they have a specific reason to apply for an absentee ballot. The system worked well when more women were at home and more people walked to the polls.

Should it be tweaked to fit the needs of the 21st century? Secretary of the State Denise Merrill thinks so, and she is right. With the technology available today, there’s no reason that online registration should not become the norm — and, as soon as it can be adequately secured, online voting. A voter should be able to get an absentee ballot for any reason.

We agree that online line registration is a good thing that can save money, increase convenience, and increase integrity.

But when it comes to unlimited absentee balloting and online voting we disagree.

After every election we hear stories from around the country of absentee ballot fraud. Here in Connecticut we have had several charges, prosecutions, and penalties in our largest cities involving absentee voting fraud.

We recently had a symposium hosted by the Secretary of the State with national experts pointing out the risks of online voting, even if it were restricted to military and overseas voters. Fortunately the Courant called for waiting until “as soon as it can be adequately secured” – that will likely be a long time away given that it would require the repeal of a major theorem of computer science.

It may be possible for towns to save money by using regional voting centers. Instead of voting on Tuesdays, how about weekend voting? Voting by mail may make sense. The idea is to have a robust debate over what will work best in Connecticut.

Perhaps we should have that robust debate – a robust debate with everyone at the table – more than a couple of op-eds at the Courant. If security is a concern and the debate includes election integrity advocates and security experts -with complete, fair coverage in the new media, old media, and  extensive legislative hearings we expect we would find it too risky for democracy.

Voting on weekends instead of Tuesday would, in our opinion, need to start with a U.S. Constitutional amendment. There is a reason for an set national day for Federal elections – so that all states vote on the same day, such that voting does not continue after partial results are known. There other issues to consider with weekend voting <see>.

Regional voting centers would be convenient. The convenience would come at a considerable price – perhaps towns would save money if the State paid for it. In our opinion, it would require a Connecticut Constitutional Amendment to allow the State to take over some of the town by town responsibility for voting. Watch for debates along the lines of redistricting debates about the number and locations of the regional voting centers.

Registrars. If voting is dragged into the 21st century, it then behooves us to ask if each and every town needs to continue spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on two registrars of voters. Would one nonpartisan registrar do the trick for a town — or even a regional registrar?

At the very least, the legislature must eliminate a quirk in the law that has caused Hartford to have three registrars. The law says the candidates for registrar of voters who garner the highest and second-highest number of votes win the posts. But if a major-party candidate — Democrat or Republican —- is not among the top two finishers, that candidate must also be named a registrar.

In 2008, a Working Families Party candidate outpolled the Republican registrar, meaning that both of them, along with the Democrat, are all registrars. The cost of the extra registrar approaches a quarter-million dollars, money the city can ill afford to waste. Change the law.

We agree with evaluating regional registrars – we support professional civil service election management – “doing for elections what we have done for probate”. It would also require a Constitutional Amendment and effective, deliberate planning.

But as we have pointed out before there are good reasons when registrars are political having the check and balance of two individuals of opposing parties. We also see the original logic in having three registrars in situations like Hartford. And as we have pointed out before there is no reason why Hartford had to increase total salaries and staffing just because a third registrar was elected.

Courant declares Government Accountabiliy priorty for 2012 – we applaud

Like state employees, most election officials aim for integrity. All must be accountable for fully following laws and procedures. Elections should be independently audited to provide the value, integrity, and confidence the public deserves and democracy requires.

Courant Editorial  First, Make Government Accountable <read>

A democratically elected government must be accountable to the people it serves. It must be organized to provide necessary services efficiently and economically. It must avoid waste and duplication.

In 2012, The Courant’s editorial board will make accountability in government a top priority, along with fair play in Connecticut politics and job creation in the state.

We agree with all three goals: Accountability in Government; Fair Play in Politics; and Job Creation. CTVotersCount is especially associated with accountability in the elections arena of government and election integrity which are basic components and prerequisites for fair play in politics.

It extends well beyond the state, state employee accountability, and reasonable pensions.

Like state employees, most election officials aim for integrity. All must be accountable for fully following laws and procedures. Elections should be independently audited to provide the value, integrity, and confidence the public deserves and democracy requires.