CT | CTVotersCount.org

My testimony yesterday against the proposed Ranked Choice Voting Bill

You can read my testimony submitted here <READ>
What I added to the written testimony, got a few laughs and summarizes it best:
“Warning: You are entering the dreaded MathZone, unrelated to any other testimony today, except that from the Secretary of the State.” Hers wasn’t exactly from the MathZone, yet she talked about the effort and time required which is a direct consequences of the details I covered.
You can read the Secretary’s testimony here <READ>

The rest of the RCV testimony was from cheerleaders/advocates for and against. <READ> And the bill itself <READ>

I also related it to the Math for fractals with the frequent summary of that science “Simple rules, complex interactions.”

Sometimes its good to be a later speaker where you can contradict or complement other speakers. Speaking just before me was RCV Task-force Co-Chair Sen Osten, she claimed we might have to alter the RCV software in our ES&S machines. I pointed that although we might alter that software, it would make it illegal to use those machines in our elections!

My Testimony Friday On Risk Limiting Audit Bill

Friday I submitted testimony on AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE RISK-LIMITING AUDITS WORKING GROUP.

The bill was almost the same as last year’s bill so my testimony was easy. Copy and make a few adjustments.

As I say in the testimony, I am generally in favor of Risk Limiting Audits, yet this bill is was off the mark and cannot easily be saved.

There were other bills with 260 speakers. There were only four submitting testimony on this bill. I am glad I did not take the time to testify in person.

Testimony to the Governor’s Ranked Choice Voting Working Group

From what I have seen calling it a “Working” Group is a bit of a stretch as the work I have seen is testimony from experts and enthusiasts applauding Ranked Choice Voting and its apparent recent successes. As I testified, I predict they will come up with a reasonable recommendations that fall short of what I would expect from a Working Group. Here is there web where you can review all of their meetings and all those of the public that testified: https://portal.ct.gov/governor/governors-working-groups/ranked-choice-voting?language=en_US

And my testimony: https://portal.ct.gov/governor/-/media/office-of-the-governor/working-groups/ranked-choice-voting/20241108-testimony/lweeks-rcv-testimony.pdf?rev=e438fd72d1ce4efa8570ac174bcbfd40&hash=2A296488FB5A883B05A33CFF06EEAB67

Early Voting: We told you so.

We have heard many changes suggested after the Early Voting issues from the recent election. First it was a huge job counting all those votes and then a long time before mostly accurate results were produced.

Back when the changes were being put into law by the General Assembly and the Secretary of the State we proposed three major changes to the proposed laws that were never considered. We have have heard calls for at least two of these, so far…

First that voters should cast the ballots into voting machines. We argued primarily that voters voted for Early “Voting” not another version of in-person absentee voting. Then they would have the assurance that their vote would be rejected if they made a mistake like overvoting and have a chance to correct their vote (I was a machine tender this election on election day and was amazed at the number of over votes, primarily by new voters. We had numerous voters voting for two, three or even four presidential and U.S. Senate candidates!!!) .

Now the reason some are calling for casting into the machine is to save time in counting on election day. Yes that will save much official time doing the tasks of opening, checking off envelopes, checking envelopes, organizing ballots and even hand counting those ballots that are rejected.

Others just want to get the results sooner.

Second making officials responsible for voters signing envelopes. I said that then because, once voters IDs are checked and their registration verified, just like election day voting they should not be subject to any more, redundant checks that they would on election. I a town where voters were told not to sign, instead of counseling officials, they made voters come back to sign them.

Third that early voting places should be polling places, except. Instead of a law that copied some polling place requirements, early voting places should simply be defined as polling places, with defined exceptions. Now we are seeing calls for individual changes to the law as time worn rules are implemented one at a time. (As far as I know, so far, nobody is calling for such changes.)

Missing the point on solving Bridgeport elections problems

All sorts of elections proposals to solve the Bridgeport elections problems from increasing penalties to a minimum of a year in jail to a 17 member committee under the Secretary of the State to take over elections in municipalities.

They are all missing the point. What we need is …

They are all missing the point. What we need is enforcement!

The penalties already are high enough but there all but no enforcement. As allegations rise, not just in Bridgeport, but all over the state, including campaign finance violations by candidates and other political entities the size of the staff for State Elections Enforcement Commission has slowly been eroded over the years. There are all sorts of allegations in Bridgeport. If even each violation were merely fined $5oo (let alone penalties are much higher including jail time) then several criminals would be facing fines of several thousands of dollars. Soon they and their actual and would-be associates would be completely deterred.

The SEEC has five investigators, one pulled back from retirement, with four of them full time on Bridgeport. That is not enough for timely investigations and a deterrent. There are previous cases referred to the U.S. Justice Department awaiting results for years. The chief culprit in Bridgeport is awaiting any action on allegations from 2019.

Nobody seems to be advocating for more staff for the SEEC. In comparison the Attorney General, admittedly with much more responsibility, has 200 attorneys plus investigators. Could it be that the General Assembly is reluctant to see investigations accelerated on campaign finance violations?

Meanwhile, maybe there should be some municipalities where the registrars responsibilities should be taken over by the State. Yet that will be quite a job for a 17 person committee which as about twice the size of the Secretary of the State’s elections staff. Who will fund the take overs? And what good would it do for a Bridgeport when the responsibility for absentee ballots lies mostly with the municipal clerk’s office? And even in Bridgeport the kind of fraud alleged in recent elections is mostly beyond the registrars and clerks control.

CT Attorney General’s opinion on Ranked Choice Voting

https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/AG/Opinions/2024/2024_1_AGO_Formal_Opinion_on_Ranked_Choice_Voting.pdf

AG William Tong concludes that for State Offices (General Assembly, Judge of Probate, Governor, LT Governor etc.) would require a Constitutional Amendment.

I would go one step further that the Constitutional requirement that such offices be counted and certified within 10 days of the election would be all but impossible to coordinate across the entire State if they required multiple hand recanvasses (recounts) , as the order of elimination can be critical and more than one can be very close.

https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/AG/Opinions/2024/2024_1_AGO_Formal_Opinion_on_Ranked_Choice_Voting.pdf

AG William Tong concludes that for State Offices (General Assembly, Judge of Probate, Governor, LT Governor etc.) would require a Constitutional Amendment.

Random Audit Drawing – First to use 10-sided die, rather than barrel

After several years of our asking, Secretary Thomas uses 10-sided die for drawing. This is much more fair, transparent, and random than drawing slips from a barrel. The Secretary gets our applause for this change.

Here are the districts chosen, from the Press Release:

…

This time there were a number of medium and large cities with recanvasses, exempt from the audit. So a higher percentage were chosen from the remaining towns. Also we believe Fairfield is exempt based on a highly publicized recanvass, so at least Suffield will be added from the alternates: <read>

Here are the districts chosen, from the Press Release:

List of polling places to be audited:

Killingly—District 5 – Board of Education Central Office Cafeteria
Norwalk – District 1-3 – Kendall School
Fairfield – District 133-5 – Fairfield Warde High School
Thompson—District 1 – Thompson Library, Louis P Faucher Comm. Ctr
East Haven – District 4 – Overbrook School
Goshen – District 1 – Camp Cochipianee
Trumbull – District 5 – Frenchtown School
Greenwich – District 10 – Glenville School
Waterbury – District 4-1 – Chase School Gym
Wallingford – District 9 – Park and Recreation Department
Norwich – Precinct 6 – AHEPA – 110 Community Room
Norwalk – District 2-1 – S. Norwalk School/Columbus School
New Fairfield – District 2 – New Fairfield Senior Center
Southington – District 4 – Kennedy School
Stamford – District 915 – Dolan Middle School
Bridgeport – Absentee Ballot Counting – Margaret Morton Government Center
Bristol – Absentee Ballot Counting – Bristol City Hall, Room G-1
Wolcott – Absentee Ballot Counting – Wolcott Town Hall
Wallingford – District 4 – Dag Hammarskjold Middle School
Torrington – District 2 – Coe Park
Waterbury – District 3-5 – Carrington School Gym
Waterbury— Absentee Ballot Counting – Waterbury City Hall, Cass Gilbert Conference Room
Putnam – District 2 – Town Hall Municipal Complex
Waterbury – District 1-1 – Kennedy High School Gym
Wallingford – District 1 – Pond Hill School
Pomfret – District 1 – Pomfret Community School
North Canaan – District 1 – Town Hall McCarthy Room
Stratford – District 1 – Lordship School
Wallingford – District 8 – Wallingford Senior Center
Darien – District 1-1 – Municipal Building
New Britain – District 7 – School Apartments
Wallingford – Absentee Ballot Counting — Town Hall, Room 315
Windsor – District 4 – Windsor Town Hall
Washington – District 1 – Town Hall, Main Hall
Bridgeport – District 132-2 – Bassick High School
New Canaan – Absentee Ballot Counting – Town Hall, Second Floor, Meeting Room
Newtown – District 3-6 — Reed Intermediate School Cafetorium
West Hartford – District 3 – West Hartford Town Hall Auditorium
East Haven – Absentee Ballot Counting – East Haven Town Hall

Alternates:

Suffield – District 1 – Suffield Middle School
Coventry – Absentee Ballot Counting- Coventry Town Hall Conference Room
Beacon Falls – District 1 – Laurel Ledge School
Guilford – District 2 – Abraham Baldwin School
Trumbull – District 6 – Middlebrook School
Westport – District 2 – Saugatuck Elementary School
Danbury – District 5 – War Memorial
Bethel- District 1 – Bethel Municipal Center
Griswold – District 1 – Griswold High School
Coventry – District 2 – Coventry High School
Bridgeport – District 134-2- Blackham School
West Hartford – District 4-2 – Charter Oak International Academy – Gym
Plainville- District 2 – Our Lady of Mercy Parish
Cornwall – District 1 – Town Hall
Manchester – AB Counting- Manchester Town Hall

Don’t be deceived: Drop Boxes are more of a solution than a problem

Since the absentee ballot cheating in Bridgeport we have heard more and more calls for banning drop boxes. That is illogical.

This evidence was only possible because of video surveilled drop boxes. Without drop boxes and surveillance ballots could have been mailed through many post office boxes, from individual mail boxes, or just added to the system in city hall, somewhere between the mail room and the municipal clerk’s office.

The alternative would be unsurveilled mail boxes, sent through the mail, to the mail room, and then through some unknown system to the clerk’s office. Even if U.S. mail boxes were surveilled (which might be illegal for those in post offices or at homes) there would be no way of identifying what was mailed by particular individuals…

You can legitimately be concerned with the greater risks of mail balloting. Yet we all should recognize that drop boxes are a part of the solution, not a part of the problem.

Since the absentee ballot cheating in Bridgeport we have heard more and more calls for banning drop boxes. That is illogical.

The culprit(s) were conclusively caught on video tape of a drop box outside of city hall, making multiple trips by the same person dropping in multiple envelopes into the same drop box. There was also much paper and statistical evidence pointing to likely a much larger number of fraudulent ballots, plenty to make it likely that the wrong winner was declared. The additonal evidence was partially related to the logging of daily drop box retrievals and reviewing the numbers of ballots unstamped, stamped, and cancelled.

The mail system is also more of a risk than drop boxes because of all the postal workers and contractors involved in collecting and delivering each piece of mail. Also because of all the city employees involved in distributing the mail from the mail room to the clerk’s office. Take Bridgeport, the city employee and campaign supporter caught using the drop boxes could have presumably put them in the system from postal boxes or somehow from the mail room and gotten away with it. Presumably the culprit(s) wanted to avoid paying for stamps.

Some have suggested that drop boxes be inside town halls and only available during business hours. That would be a solution to prevent people blowing up or stealing whole boxes (even though that has not proven to be a problem and at most would result in the theft of one day’s ballots – not the addition of many forged/fake ballots). It would also greatly inconvenience voters who want to submit ballots on the way to work, on the way home, or on the weekend. And still those drop boxes would need to be surveilled.

You can legitimately be concerned with the greater risks of mail balloting. Yet we all should recognize that drop boxes are a part of the solution, not a part of the problem.

Betting on the SEEC to get to the bottom of Bridgeport AB issues

From the CTNewsJunkie: State Commission Probes Bridgeport Primary Amid Ballot Concerns

I’m betting on the SEEC to get to the bottom of Bridgeport AB issues This might be a bit of work, but straight-forward. We have long advocated against signature checking during AB counting as that is a very sophisticated process requiring experts and a lot more than one signature given years ago or electronically at the DMV. However the value of signatures on AB applications and AB envelopes is just for these cases of suspected mass insider AB fraud…

Republicans focus on eliminating drop-boxes is exactly what not to do. The drop-boxes are not the problem, they are part of the solution…

From the CTNewsJunkie: State Commission Probes Bridgeport Primary Amid Ballot Concerns <read>

The tedious job is going through the applications and envelopes probing for those that have been filled out by the same individual(s). Not looking just at signatures but first those that have been filled out by the same pens and then all the writing to see if it was done by the same person. 1st line up all the ballot envelopes by the date and time received by the Clerk, stamped as required by law. The same to the extent possible with when applications were received and the ballots logged as sent. I would start with those received on the day when the video shows an individual submitting several. Its a big job because all those ballots may not have been submitted on the same day and only by one individual. Once similar items are identified, the experts can get to work to assess and prove they were filled out by the same individual(s) and perhaps identify them.

The great thing here is the video. It is very likely the individual can be identified and charged. It is also unlikely that a single individual was involved. That one individual can be used to identify others who were likely part of a conspiracy, leading to convictions. The bigger job is showing the likelihood that enough illegal ballots were cast to have changed the result. It is also possible that a campaign did legal things to get a large AB turn-out to win an election, even if there were some illegal votes.

Republicans focus on eliminating drop-boxes is exactly what not to do. The drop-boxes are not the problem, they are part of the solution. The video’s of the drop-boxes is what is raising suspicion. For $0.66 per ballot they could be mailed in any post-office or mailbox (1000 for $666, a drop in the bucket for a Bridgeport mayoral campaign.) ABs are risky, yet at this shows it is possible to catch and punish large scale fraud (If indeed it occurred in this case.) Drop-boxes, well secured eliminates all the risks of regular mail from the mail box, through postal employees, postal contractors, and from the mail room in town hall to the Clerk’s Office, where the risks from drop-boxes are concentrated in the Clerk’s office which is only a part of the process with regular mail.

Activists for hand-counting ballots don’t acknowledge drawbacks: More mistakes, time, and money

We have said it before, we will say it again: The best protection is machine counting in polling places on election night followed by sufficient post-election audits and recounts. <for example>

A recent article in Votebeat: Activists for hand-counting ballots don’t acknowledge drawbacks: More mistakes, time, and money

Years ago a minority of liberals wanted only hand-counts now its election-denying conservatives.

It seems that those who have never tried have opinions that are not informed by sufficient facts.

We have said it before, we will say it again: The best protection is machine counting in polling places on election night followed by sufficient post-election audits and recounts. <for example>

A recent article in Votebeat: Activists for hand-counting ballots don’t acknowledge drawbacks: More mistakes, time, and money <read>

Years ago a minority of liberals wanted only hand-counts now its election-denying conservatives. From the article:

Despite widespread coverage of the follies of hand-counting ballots, the quest to expand use of the method continues. This year alone, there have been 16 bills in 8 states that would ban the use of tabulators. It’s a really bad idea. And so, Votebeat has decided to compile a list of our favorite cold-hard evidence.

I’m sure many of you already understand the broad strokes of this: years of evidence and basic common sense shows that hand-counting is less accurate, more time consuming, and significantly more expensive than using tabulators. Still, the same arguments continue to motivate local officials and activists to attempt to upend elections systems. Let’s go through them here, point by point.

Contrary to the article, I assert that hand-counting can be quite accurate, yet it takes a lot to do that. A good plan with lots of double checking, high quality people, and high quality supervision. That is why when I led teams in the 25,000 ballot Citizen Recount of Bridgeport, I used teams of four supervised by a fifth person. Yet, even then for many of the counts we could compare to original machine counts of ballots and votes to further check everything and pursue any differences.

It seems that those who have never tried have opinions that are not informed by sufficient facts.

Editor’s Note: I have been publishing less lately. Mostly because, it seems, there is less novel to discuss.