8/25/2010: Via CTNewsJunkie, Ken Green has filed a complaint in the Hartford election, where election night results had him winning by two votes and a close vote racanvass has him losing by two votes. His complaint alleges several questionable machine counts . irregularities, and potential chain of custody issues. The race was for a state house seat which crosses Bloomfield and Hartford requiring a recanvass of the race in both towns. <The Complaint>
Update: Hartford Courant Artilce with more details from the candidates <read>
Just how close do elections need to be to cause an actual, thorough, complete and adversarial recount?
Our Opinion:
The Connecticut Recanvass law is a useful method of reviewing results in close elections. It is based on the former practice of recounting absentee ballots, rereading totals from the backs of all lever machines and retotalling. Now most votes are recounted by scanner with some held back for hand counting. It is not the careful, adversarial, recount performed in other states such as Minnesota. When there is a moderate spread between candidates it would be of value to detect totalling errors, transcription errors, and scanner errors.
But the ultimate value of the recanvass is limited because each ballot is not thoroughly reviewed for voter’s intent and disqualifying marks which could identify the voter. Identifying marks could occur on either side of a ballot and would require that both sides be evaluated by election officials under the watchful eyes of representatives of both candidates. In fact, every ballot in a very close race should be evaluated by election officials and representatives for each candidate. There are usually a small number of ballots that can be difficult to classify which require study, discussion, and even adjudication by a court (e.g. as we saw in the Minnesota recount for Senate in 2008). A recanvass does not provide for such thorough scrutiny by election officials. It does not provide for close scrutiny or objections by candidate representatives. The law only allows two observers for each candidate. Two observers may not be enough to observe every activity going on simultaneously in a recanvass.
In our opinion, in a race a close as this one, the only satisfactory solution is a complete, manual, adversarial recount. While some of Mr. Green’s allegations are cause for concern, even if the recanvass was performed competently, thoroughly, and legally there may be ballots that were not properly classified due to insufficient scrutiny for voter intent and voter identification. Such differences could easily change the winner is this close a race, disqualifying two votes or reversing just one vote could make a tie.
We have observed some aspects of three recanvasses in three municipalities. All were performed using different methods and understandings of the same law. None were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of accuracy in this close a race. Here are two examples of my experiences:<Cromwell> <Hartford>
Update, also via CTNewsJunkie: Second Lawsuit Filed Over Hartford Recount <the 2nd Complaint>
This complaint is by the losing candidate in the other election recanvassed (not recounted) in Hartford. This complaint alleges election management and chain of custody irregularities that question the fairness of the election and the credibility of the paper ballots.
Update: Green’s day in court <read>
Update: Green Says Registrar Lied On Stand <read>
I do remember, with no small amount of joy, the discussion of the “Lizard People” ballot in Minnesota. That was a hoot. I was skeptical about the voter signature / identification disqualifying a ballot, but you’re right! Sec. 9-295.
What’s alarming to me is that I can actually think of an election where, very strictly enforced, that provision would have changed who was elected. (There was a townwide office where one party had a candidate and the other didn’t, so that many who voted party line wrote *themselves* in on the write-in line. The party that was missing a candidate in the townwide race narrowly won two seats in a district race by a small handful of votes, even though there were dozens of self-write-ins.)
I try not to make a habit of nitpicking with people who know more about a subject than I do — as you do here — but the recanvass *law* doesn’t speak to any division of the ballots between tabulator and hand counts. As it was last updated in 1995, it’s silent on what to do with non-absentee ballots — leaving SOTS to offer a recommendation of best practices based partly in statute, partly in common sense, and partly in the preferences of your average Registrar.
What’s funny is that they spelled out a 100% manual recanvass standard for DRE machines — 9-242b(3) — but defined it narrowly enough that it doesn’t apply to paper ballots. Hopefully the situation in Green v Ritter will inspire the legislature to revisit the subject in next session’s package of technical corrections (and will inspire the State Senate not to crush the eventual bill in the closing hours of the session.)
I should add, my understanding is that SOTS is fine with a Registrar doing a 100% manual recanvass if they and their Head Moderator insist.
Here are more details comparing CT to Minnesota: https://www.ctvoterscount.org/minnesota-recount-vs-connecticut-recanvass/
Here is the story of the Secretary of the State (SOTS) dropping manual recount standards for recanvasses: https://www.ctvoterscount.org/bysiewicz-to-consider-elimination-of-manual-recounts/
My understanding now is that regulations and procedures are unenforceable, which means that no matter what the SOTS puts into procedures and regulations it would not legally prevent registrars from performing the recanvass based on the actual law and its interpretation. It is also my understanding that it is the SOTS Office interpretation that the statute, written for lever machines, does not require manual recounting since the statute anticipated simply rereading results on the back of the machine – this is reflected in the current unenforceable recanvass proceedures
Certainly a registrar could do a manual recount if they chose. However, the real issue is that what is needed is a thorough, adversarial, transparent recount in cases like this when the vote is so close. The law only allows two observers per candidate and has been interpreted that those observers do not have the right to object, just observe. In contrast, in Minnesota, there are two representatives of each candidate allowed for each counting team, to see both sides of each ballot and to object.
BUT, for example in the Hartford/Bloomfield situation if the registrars had done the recanvass and then called for a manual count yet stuck to the two observer rule and allowed no objections then the losing candidate could charge that the registrar was continuing the counting in an attempt to have their chosen candidate win, and still have lots of basis to object based on observations of votes incorrectly decided. Even if they did the manual recount in the 1st place most of these objections would still apply.
When I observed the May recanvass in Hartford, until I objected (possible but risky to do) there was no human review of ballots before they were read by the scanner. I observed one voter identifiable ballot that was counted, and a very questionable ballot that was improperly handled such that it would have been impossible to ever perform an actual recount in the future. As the problems I observed would not have been sufficient to change the winner in the election, there would have been no value for the losing slate to pursue the matter. I also had to object and argue to be able as a designated observer to see what I needed to see.
Note that my objections were based on the law and published procedures not being followed. I did not object to what I believed were questionable ballot interpretations where I did not believe I had that right. Also when I objected and won the argument, the SOTS Office representatives were present to assist Hartford in understanding the law and procedures. After they left, my objection to the mishandled ballot was rebuffed.
Lets imagine a statewide recanvass in a very close election with each town performing the recanvass under their own interpretation of the statutes, many ballots in some towns, with several counting teams, and only two observers.