Author: Luther Weeks

Laws interact – be careful what you legislate

Earlier this month we cautioned the legislature about enacting the UMOVE Act without providing election officials an opportunity to check for conflicts with existing laws. We highlight an example of a similar conflict in existing state and local laws that frustrates officials and disenfranchises voters.

Earlier this month we cautioned the legislature on enacting an unspecified “Uniform” Military and Overseas Voting Act (UMOVE Act).  The “Uniform” bill requires forty-five days advanced availability of absentee ballots for optionally specified state and local elections, primaries, and referendums. The proposed law had only the following text available for the public hearing:

That the general statutes be amended to adopt the Uniform Military and Overseas Voters Act.

In our testimony (page 13), we warned and recommended, among other things:

The uniform law text has options that each state may or may not include primaries, run-offs, and referendums in the “uniform law”. For any of these included, absentee ballots must be available 45 days in advance, just as they are in Federal elections. Currently under Sec. 9-369c of the statutes, absentee ballots must be made available three weeks in advance of a referendum and in some circumstances, less. This may pose even more difficult timing challenges if run-offs are included…

I caution against passing this bill without public hearings, providing for review and comment on the actual text of a proposed bill – especially, giving election officials an opportuntity to point out implementation challenges and conflicts with current statutory deadlines.

Today we highlight an article which brings our point home. It is a story of election officials trying to cope with conflicting state and local laws for election deadlines and absentee ballot deadlines. In the Monroe Patch: Absentee Ballots Won’t be Mailed Out. Who’s at Fault? <read>

Town Clerk’s Office employees will be busy preparing for the April 5 budget referendum, issuing absentee ballots over the counter to residents who will not be able to vote in person and processing mailed in ballots voters obtain online…

On Friday, Town Clerk Marsha Beno said she wants to avoid another State Elections Enforcement complaint…

The statute requires a town clerk to have the exact language on a ballot at least three weeks before absentee ballots are mailed out to voters. Beno said the town could not meet that timeline for the April 5 referendum…

[Democratic Town Committee Chairwoman Patricia] Ulatowski says Town Attorney Jack Fracassini, Beno and Town Council leadership are to blame, because they were informed of the State Election Enforcement Commission’s decision on her complaint agreeing that the town violated General Statute 9-369c during two referendums in 2009, and could have influenced a speeding up of the budget process to meet the three week deadline to mail out absentee ballots.

Democratic Registrar of Voters Sue Koneff looked at the Town Charter and came up with a schedule that could allow the town to meet the three-week deadline and comply with the state statute, according to Ulatowski.

The result is frustrated officials and disenfranchised voters.

A little bit of nonsense in well intended proposed law

“If you cannot fit all the races or candidates on a paper ballot…then use a paper ballot”

The Government Administration and Elections Committee recently passed H.B. 6330, AN ACT CONCERNING TECHNICAL AND MINOR REVISIONS TO ELECTIONS RELATED STATUTES.

Three years in the making, it revises some of the law to take into account that we vote with optical scanners rather than lever machines. Many of the changes substitute text for “he”, change “registrar” to “registrar of voters”, and “machine” to “tabulator” etc. Reading and writing such can be a bit boring, raising the potential for errors.  One paragraph on page 27, that we had previously not noticed, caught our attention:

After the changes, in essence it says: “If you cannot fit all the races or candidates on a paper ballot…then use a paper ballot”

Here is the final text that would become law:

(a) Voting tabulators shall be used at each primary, provided, (1) if, because of the number of offices and positions to be voted upon at a primary, there is an insufficient number of vertical columns on any ballot to be used in a municipality, the vote in such municipality at such primary for such offices or positions as the Secretary of the State determines shall be taken by paper ballots, and (2) if, because of the number of candidates for any office or position to be voted upon at a primary, there is an insufficient number of horizontal rows with respect to such office or position on any  allot to be used in the municipality, the vote in such municipality at such primary for such office or position shall be taken by paper ballots.

Here is the full text with the old and new language:

(a) Voting [machines] tabulators shall be used at each primary, provided, (1) if, because of the number of offices and positions to be voted upon at a primary, there is an insufficient number of vertical columns on any [machine] ballot to be used in a municipality, the vote in such municipality at such primary for such offices or positions as the Secretary of the State determines shall be taken by paper ballots, and (2) if, because of the number of candidates for any office or position to be voted upon at a primary, there is an insufficient number of horizontal rows with respect to such office or position on any  [machine] ballot to be used in the municipality, the vote in such municipality at such primary for such office or position shall be taken by paper ballots.

Hopefully, the final bill be will be corrected before it is enacted.  In any case, we can rest assured that we will continue using paper ballots.

Efforts to make Internet secure are ineffective

Could Connecticut or any or our 169 municipalities accomplish what the U.S. Government and the Defense Department has not?

“cyber crime and cyber espionage are daily occurrences in the United States and are doing long-term damage to the nation’s economy and global competitiveness. What’s more, they set the stage for cyber attacks. ‘Some of our opponents use cyber criminals as mercenaries,'”

Last week we testified against a bill <page 9> which would have authorized online voting in Connecticut.  We have been asking:

  • Would each of Connecticut’s 169 municipalities be able to afford such systems and accomplish what Washington D.C. has not?
  • Could Connecticut accomplish centrally what Washington D.C. has not?

An article in Government Security News reminds us to ask:

  • Could any State or any City accomplish what the U.S. Government and the Defense Department has not?
  • Could Connecticut or any or our 169 municipalities accomplish what the U.S. Government and the Defense Department has not?

“What we are doing now to secure cyberspace is not working,” a House subcommittee was told March 16 by James Lewis, director and a senior fellow in the Technology and Public Policy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC…

Military establishments in some countries have the capability to launch a cyber attack on the United States…

He declared that cyber crime and cyber espionage are daily occurrences in the United States and are doing long-term damage to the nation’s economy and global competitiveness. What’s more, they set the stage for cyber attacks. “Some of our opponents use cyber criminals as mercenaries,” he said.

“Our most advanced opponents in cyber crime and cyber espionage can overpower even the most technologically sophisticated U.S. company,” he maintained.

It might take a lot to attack a highly secure military system, but it only took an accomplished professor and some graduate students a couple of days to attack the Washington D.C. voting system in a public test.

Update: 3/20/2011: For doubters, we learn today of a successful attack on a company that provides Internet encryption technology, RSA Security <read>

Op-Ed: Photo ID’s downsides for voting

Photo ID may be a well-intentioned idea, but it is expensive “security theater” that will disenfranchise far more voters than any fraud it will prevent.

Joyce McCloy of the NC. Coalition for Verified Voting outlines the case against current proposals for Photo ID’s <read>

Requiring voters to present a photo ID at the polls sounds like a good idea – but it is everything we hate about government: a complex and expensive nonsolution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

To implement such a law would cost millions each year, would likely disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters – especially women, the elderly and minorities – and would not prevent fraud that it is designed to stop. Now the issue is coming to a head in North Carolina: The House Elections Committee is scheduled to take public comments on photo ID at 2 p.m. Tuesday in Room 643 of the Legislative Office Building in Raleigh.

At issue is not “voter ID” but rather the matter of imposing photo ID restrictions at the polling place. There’s no problem, in general, with “voter ID,” providing that there are many options for establishing identity, as there are in Alabama and Missouri, where many types of documents suffice.

Currently 18 states require “voter ID,” and eight states require “photo ID.” These eight states, however, do not have a way to verify the ID. Someone determined to commit voter impersonation could simply use a fake ID. Obtaining fake ID cards is easy enough – kits can be bought cheaply. In reality, the most common and difficult to detect voter fraud happens in absentee balloting. Requiring picture IDs on Election Day does nothing to prevent that…

The Brennan Center for Justice cites three basic principles that must be satisfied to avoid a constitutional challenge of any photo ID law:

First, photo IDs sufficient for voting must be available free for all those who do not have them. States cannot limit free IDs to those who swear they are indigent. North Carolina would need to pay the costs of obtaining the supporting documents necessary to obtain photo IDs.

Second, photo IDs must be readily accessible to all voters, without undue burden. To make ID easily accessible, our state might have to expand the number of ID-issuing offices and extend their operating hours.

Third, states must undertake substantial voter outreach and public education efforts to ensure that voters are apprised of the law’s requirements and the procedures for obtaining the IDs they will need to vote…

Photo ID may be a well-intentioned idea, but it is expensive “security theater” that will disenfranchise far more voters than any fraud it will prevent.

Testimony on eight bills, including the National Popular Vote

Today the Government Administration and Election Committee (GAE) held hearings on a variety of election related bills. We testified against seven bills and lukewarmly for one.

Since 2007, I have been the only person to testify against the National Popular Vote (NPV) Compact in Connecticut. Finally, this year I was not alone. But I remain the only Connecticut citizen to testify against the NPV Compact.

I challenge anyone to a responsible public blog debate on any and all of the issues we raised in our testimony on the National Popular Vote Compact.

Note: The General Administration and Elections Committee has taken up several election bills and concepts for this session. We are optimistic that some of the concepts will be developed and passed to provide increased election integrity.  Many of the bills taken up, often well intended, have unintended negative consequences. We are highlighting several of them to point out highlighting several of them to point out the good, the bad, and the unbelievable.

Today the Government Administration and Election Committee (GAE) held hearings on a variety of election related bills.  We testified against seven bills and lukewarmly for one.  We would like to be testifying for bills that would improve election integrity in Connecticut, but when a bill would harm election integrity we testify against it.  When a bill would be a help to voters, but has some potentially risky issues, we we will point them out. <our testimony>

Bills included two that would gut the post-election audit, one that would eliminate the secret ballot, one for Internet voting, one to help military voters that was inadequately specified, and one for the National Popular Vote Compact.  Since 2007, I have been the only person to testify against the National Popular Vote (NPV) Compact in Connecticut. Finally, this year I was not alone.  But I remain the only Connecticut citizen to testify against the NPV Compact.  As usual, many of our friends testified for the NPV Compact. Fortunately, we have the facts and logic on our side.  It is easy to advocate for something that you understand.  I will have more to say on the NPV Compact.  Here is the main testimony page.   Please also read the additional supporting material in our full testimony it was the first bill on the agenda and is the first few pages of testimony.

I oppose the National Popular Vote Compact. I understand the theoretical advantages of the national popular vote, yet there are extreme risks in its mismatch with our existing state by state voting system.

Three minutes is far too short to change anyone’s opinion. Today, my goal is to open minds to consider a more comprehensive analysis.

What often appears simple is not. The Compact would cobble the national popular vote onto a flawed system designed for the Electoral College, with no means to change that system. It would result in unanticipated, yet predictable consequences that are overlooked and glossed over by advocates for the national popular vote

There is no official national popular vote number compiled in time, such that it could be used to officially and accurately determine the winner in any close election.

Even if there were such a number, it would aggrivate the flaws in the system. The Electoral College limits the risk and the damage to a few swing states in each election. With a national popular vote, errors, voter suppression, and fraud in all states would count against the national totals.

There is no national recount available for close elections, to establish an accurate number. Only in some individual states, if close numbers happened to occur in those states, would there be even a fraction of a national recount.

For Example: The inaccuracies in Bridgeport did not change the winner here in the race for governor and would not have been enough to change the Electoral College. If it was closer we would have had a recanvass and presumably those errors corrected. However, with the Compact the errors would have counted in a national popular vote number reported by the media or any other number calculated nationwide.

With the Compact there is every reason to believe that any close election would be decided by partisian action of the Congress or the Supreme Court – the same Court that ruled in Gore v. Bush, that not having a uniform recount law in Florida was grounds to stop the recount to avoid harm to the apparent winner. Would that same Court rule differently, faced with a close national popular vote and, even less uniformity between states than existed between Florida counties in 2000? Citizens and candidates can be expected to bring court challenges of Governors and Secretaries of State for relying on and providing inaccurate results in awarding Electoral College votes. As in Gore v. Bush, since the founding, close election controversies have all been decided in seemingly partisian decisions by Congress, special commissions, or the Supreme Court.

This is not a partisan issue. It is opposed by promintent members of both major parties. Those who have publicly spoken against the Compact include former Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz (D), Connecticut College Political Scientist Dorothy B. James, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), and Minnesota Secretary of State and current President of the National Association of Secretaries of State Mark Ritchie (D).

I urge you to consider the risks and chaos made possible if Connecticut were to endorse the National Popular Vote Compact.

I challenge anyone to a responsible public blog debate on any and all of the issues I raised in testimony on the National Popular Vote. If you think I am wrong in any objection, let us us debate it. Right here on CTVotersCount.org. (If you wish to debate, you must use your own name and satisfy me that you are who you say you are, you must be civil, and must avoid excessive redundancy. I am open to changing my mind on my objections. If they are all refuted, I may have more, but I am open to changing my overall conclusions. Email me which item you wish to debate and I will start a post for that item and the debate will begin.)

Clerks: No-Excuse Absentee Voting Creates Problems

The opinion piece hits all of the bases, articulating the costs, the increased opportunity for fraud, increased disenfranchisement, and that it will not increase turnout.

Courant article by Joseph V. Camposeo,  town clerk of Manchester and president of the Connecticut Town Clerks Association.  <read>

The opinion piece hits all of the bases, articulating the costs, the increased opportunity for fraud, increased disenfranchisement, and that it will not increase turnout:

Research from other states has shown that when offered no-excuse absentee ballot voting, the volume of people using this method has doubled or tripled. But it is important to note that in these states overall voter turnout has not increased.

Further, our current system for processing absentee ballots could not handle the increase in volume under a no-excuse system. The no-excuse option would quickly strain an outdated, inefficient and manual process for mailing, accounting for and counting of absentee ballots. A no-excuse option for voting will have a significant effect on our municipal budgets as an unfunded mandate.

A significant concern among town clerks and the state Elections Enforcement Commission is the potential for voter fraud in this highly manual process. The current system does not provide for the security and storage of a large number of ballots within the town clerks’ vaults. Also, with higher volumes, there is greater opportunity for counting errors.

Under a no-excuse system there is no way to guarantee the applicant is voting the ballot. The absentee voting system already has been the focus of forgery, coercion, bribery and multiple-voting complaints. In contrast, at an early voting polling site, which opens prior to Election Day, individuals would need to produce identification before getting a ballot.

Furthermore, clerks are concerned that an increased number of voters would be disenfranchised under a no-excuse absentee ballot system. Already many absentee votes are disqualified and not counted because voters fail to sign the envelopes, mail them back too late or mismark their ballots. During the 2008 election in Missouri, 8,000 absentee ballots were not counted for these reasons. Those ballots could have changed the outcome of the election. At an early voting polling site, these voters would have been given another chance to vote their ballots correctly and not be disenfranchised…

No-excuse voting would also change the election season for candidates if residents were allowed to vote up to 30-days prior to Election Day, causing campaigns to start much earlier. Voters could be casting votes before they have all the information necessary to make an informed decision.

Once again, myth of accurate official vote counting debunked

South Carolina voting system audited by citizens shows votes lost, images of ballots do not support numbers. Like Bridgeport, this is an example of where transparency, FOI, and independent citizen investigation eventually provided the facts. Yet, again where government and the official system failed to certify accurate election results. Machines, hand counting, and communication procedures should be expected to occasionally breakdown, but the official system should be expected to find and correct those errors.

South Carolina voting system audited by citizens shows that votes, images of ballots do not support numbers. Like Bridgeport, this is an example of where transparency, FOI, and independent citizen investigation eventually provided the facts. Yet, again where government and the official system failed to certify accurate election results. Machines, hand counting, and communication procedures should be expected to occasionally breakdown, but the official system should be expected to find and correct those errors.

Charleston City Paper: Voting process must be simple and transparent – Too complicated for its own good <read>

A group of citizens, in association with the S.C. League of Women Voters, has conducted an audit of Richland County voting machine results from last November, and the numbers don’t lie. According to the LWV, more than 1,000 votes from various precincts were missing from the certified totals in November’s General Election. Elsewhere in the county, the detailed vote image file did not provide confirmation for the 1,362 votes that were certified.

The Richland County voting machine data was independently analyzed by Duncan Buell, a computer science professor from the University of South Carolina, and Chip Moore, a Massachusetts programmer and South Carolina native.

“The failure to count votes from some voting machines and the failure to document votes from other voting machines is a human failure, but it’s a human failure that the software should have caught, so the root cause is a software system that isn’t doing what it’s supposed to do,” Moore said in a LWV statement. “What we have done is to run some self-checks that should always have been in the system.”

This is only the latest controversy over the 1,200 iVotronic touchscreen voting machines that the state uses exclusively. A few weeks ago, Colleton County reported 13,045 votes for statewide offices on Nov. 2. But an election audit showed that only 11,656 ballots were cast that day, according to the signature rolls. That means an extra 1,389 votes were reported and certified.

More from the Press Release, Q&A, and Report. Conclusion from the report:

Conclusions
We are not suggesting or making accusations of fraud, conspiracy, or similar
deliberate attempts to corrupt the vote in Richland County. What we feel we
can justifiably say, however, is that the election system (hardware,
software, and procedures) has failed. Software that is not written to perform
obvious checks and balances to anticipate and check for the errors likely to be
made by fallible (and mostly volunteer) poll workers at the end of a long
election day is unacceptable, and it is a software failure that such checks and
balances apparently do not exist in the election system used in South Carolina.

What we have done is really no more sophisticated than totaling a spreadsheet
across rows and down columns and then totaling the row sums and column
sums to get a grand total in the bottom right corner. From the event log we
can get (or should be able to get, if the logs are complete) a list of machines
used and a count of votes cast per machine. From the vote image file we can
get detailed counts by precinct, machine, ballot image, and candidate. If the
problems we have observed in Richland County can be exposed as easily as
this, by citizen observers without access to hardware, software, or procedures
manuals, then we suggest that the system has failed and that post-election
audits such as ours should be mandated. If the software as written and in use
will not find these errors, then software should be written and used that will
find these errors.

Yale Daily News: Absentee voting may not attract students

At Yale, the biggest challenge campus organizers face is not getting people to the polls on Election Day. Instead, the problem is getting people to register to vote in Connecticut in the first place, said Marina Keegan, president of the Yale College Democrats

As readers know we oppose expanded mail-in voting, including no-excuse absentee voting for voting integrity issues. We recently covered reports that show early voting, including no-excuse absentee voting, actually DECREASES turnout. Now a story from Yale Daily News arguing why it may not increase student turnout: Absentee voting may not attract students <read>

Even if proposed changes to Connecticut elections bring more voters to the polls, Yalies may not be among them.

Secretary of the State Denise Merrill unveiled exhaustive election reforms last week, including one, no-excuse absentee voting, that is designed to boost voter turnout by making voting easier. But while the expansion of Connecticut’s absentee ballot program, which currently restricts mail-in voting to the sick, elderly or out-of-state, may increase voter turnout overall, it is not likely to change the number of Yalies who vote, or how they do so, student and city activists said.

Av Harris, Merrill’s spokesman, said that of the secretary’s proposals, the constitutional amendment to allow for mail-in voting is most likely to impact students.

“The constitutional amendment is the one thing that could really improve the ability of students, and all voters, really, to vote,” Harris said. “But I think of students in particular because their schedules are so varied and it does become an issue of convenience,” Harris said, noting that not one university in the state has a polling station on campus.

At Yale, the biggest challenge campus organizers face is not getting people to the polls on Election Day. Instead, the problem is getting people to register to vote in Connecticut in the first place, said Marina Keegan, president of the Yale College Democrats. Roughly 1,100 students vote in Ward 1, and Keegan said the majority of those students vote at the New Haven Free Public Library, the ward’s Elm Street polling station.

“I think we miss the most votes from people who say, ‘Oh no, no, I’m gonna vote absentee at home,’” Keegan said, adding that they have no way of knowing how many of these people actually end up voting. “But it’s kind of a pain to vote absentee in your home state.”

Any type of absentee voting can be a pain for students, said New Haven Democratic Town Chair Susie Voigt. A former Yale employee herself, Voigt noted that students do not often check their mail, many do not have stamps on hand and going to the post office at all can be a hassle in itself.

“I never want to go to that post office — the line is like two miles long,” Voigt said of Yale Station.

As a result, Voigt said she doubts expanding absentee voting to anyone who wants to vote by mail will encourage Yalies to vote in Connecticut. And Michael Knowles ’12, an active Republican on campus, said he thinks students who want to vote will find a way to vote, and that the current system is not prohibitively difficult.

WFSB: What It Takes To Be A Registrar – Politics Play Out In Registrar’s Office

Connecticut is the only state where a registrar from each political party is elected into office. Many registrars told the I-Team while this may seem inefficient, it has worked literally for centuries.

The I-Team provides a bit of an introduction to our unique system of 339 local elected Registrars of Voters along with some interesting tidbits <read>

“The secretary of state’s office sets the rules and sets the regulations, but we have very little power over local decision making,” said Secretary of the State Denise Merrill.Registrars’ offices are in each of the state’s 169 cities and towns.

There are at least two in every office, a Republican and Democrat, who are nominated by their parties and most often run unopposed. Responsibilities include running the polls on Election Day, but also maintaining the voter rolls, and making sure voting machines are available and in working order — to name just a few things.

“We want to assure the voters that their elections are clean,” said Karen Doyle Lyons, Republican registrar in Norwalk.The I-Team’s research showed most registrars are part time and do not receive benefits.

The ones from Burlington earned just $1,900 a year, but registrars are full time in the state’s larger cities.In Bridgeport, the two registrars each earn $65,000.

In Hartford, there are three registrars because of a significant third party, and they each receive $80,000 plus benefits, and they often have full-time support staff…

Connecticut is the only state where a registrar from each political party is elected into office. Many registrars told the I-Team while this may seem inefficient, it has worked literally for centuries.

“If you had one person, you’d be paying them twice as much because you’re splitting up the work,” said Will Brinton, Republican registrar in Bethany.

Readers may recall we suggested a pay cut for the Hartford registrars so that three could do the same job at the same rate as two.

Urania Petit is one of three [Hartford registrars]  making $80,000 there and she’s with the Working Families Party.”The law says if I got one vote over a major party, and in this case it was the Republican Party, I become a registrar, but the major party stays,” Petit said.

Petit said she tried to take a pay cut and she was instructed not to.

She told the I-Team she tried to share the load in the office, but the Democratic registrar of voters would not let her.”I receive a memo one time that said if a Democrat came into the office,

I could not serve that Democratic voter, yet still the office is nonpartisan,” she said.

Readers may recall how this non-partisan thing goes, when a slate was ruled intelligible to run, just one year ago: Registrar of Voters suit: Alleged to have fudged petitions for herself and relatives

Last week we testified to the Legislature. Also testifying was Judi Beaudreau, Registrar of Voters in Vernon, for whom we have worked on three election days. Judi and I do not agree on everything, but we certainly agreed when Judi testified for consolidation. We should consider doing for elections what we have done for  probate in Connecticut. As Judi suggested to the I-team:

Beaudreau, a registrar with almost 30 years experience, said many of her colleagues are underpaid, overworked and unappreciated, but added that’s not always the case.

“Registrars come into the job they don’t even have computer skills,” Beaudreau said. “A lot of them are in fear they are going to lose their job.

Well, maybe some of them should.”Beaudreau explained in a number of towns, the registrars of voters remains a patronage job.

“What happens now in the system is that the political parties will pick a person to run for the office, and it may be a person who has put stamps on envelopes or labels on envelopes. Nobody else has the guts to say it because it would be political suicide to ’em,” she said.

And Beaudreau said many registrars’ offices have become so poisoned by politics they cannot operate effectively.”Politics has got to stay out of the elections,” Beaudreau said…

Beaudreau believes just one registrar, who is not elected but has some kind of training certification and is chosen by the state, could work in Connecticut’s larger communities, and smaller towns could get by without one at all, instead having a regional approach, much the way probate judges have been reorganized.

“Each of these small little towns would be just another polling place, but there would be one major registrar, and if political parties needed to have representation in the office, have deputies, one from each political party,” Beaudreau said.

NY: Hard lesson in why we need recounts and uniform election laws

Supermajority and candidate doomed by vague election law crafted by his own lawyer.

New York Daily News: Dem Frank Skartados doomed by vague election law crafted by his own lawyer <read>

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver’s former adviser wrote the state law that may have cost him his powerful, veto-proof, Democratic supermajority.

Democrat Frank Skartados was forced to concede the seat for the 100th Assembly District last week when he was a mere 15 votes behind.

In his heart of hearts, he believes he won.

But in a double whammy of irony, Skartados was seemingly doomed by a vague election law that was crafted by his own lawyer, Kathleen O’Keefe, while she worked as Silver’s chief election counsel. O’Keefe’s strict interpretation of her own law walled off one of Skartados’ last hopes of fighting for the seat…

In New York City, Board of Elections rules automatically require a hand inspection of the paper trail from voting machines in any election where the margin is 0.5% or less.

State election law doesn’t