Legislature 2015 | CTVotersCount.org

Help Wanted: Low pay, long hours, impossible demands, no benefits

A Courant article reminds us of an idea out of left-field enacted last year by the General Assembly as a “rat*”: Deadline Looms For Regional Election Monitors

When the Connecticut General Assembly passed the budget implementer bill in June 2015, buried in its 702 pages was the stipulation that regional election monitors be in place by March 1.

Those regional monitors were to be hired by each of the nine planning regions in the state. They would be certified by the Secretary of State’s office, but not paid by them.

Gentle reader, before you rush out and apply we note several items which might not be apparent.

A Courant article reminds us of an idea out of left-field enacted last year by the General Assembly as a “rat*”: Deadline Looms For Regional Election Monitors <read>

When the Connecticut General Assembly passed the budget implementer bill in June 2015, buried in its 702 pages was the stipulation that regional election monitors be in place by March 1.

Those regional monitors were to be hired by each of the nine planning regions in the state. They would be certified by the Secretary of State’s office, but not paid by them. They would represent, consult with, and act on the SOS’s behalf, but would not be state employees. Instead, each council of government would be expected to contract an individual to serve as a monitor and enter into a memorandum of understanding with the SOS about them.

But plenty of questions have yet to be answered with a March 1 deadline and April 26 primary on the horizon.

“There are a lot of details still to be worked out,” Filchak said. “We have a lot of questions about the ‘what ifs’ and those take time to work out.”

One question concerns liability issues. The REM would be an employee of the COG, but his or her duties would include working with registrars in the towns of each COG. NECCOG has 16 towns in its region. The REM for NECCOG would have to do several things for each of those municipalities.

They’d have to hold regional instructional sessions for moderators and alternate moderators. They might be called on to assist registrars in preparing for and conducting elections, primaries, a recanvass, or audit. And they would be expected to transmit any order issued by the SOS…

Legislation calls for $100,000 to be allocated for REMs. How that money will be divided up between nine COGs and what the hours and benefits will be is still unknown.

SOS Communications Director Patrick Gallahue said details are still being worked out between the COGs and the SOS office. He said the REMs would provide supplemental assistance to local election officials such as trainings, audits, and help with the implementation of new laws or elections hardware and software.

Gentle reader, before you rush out and apply we note several items which might not be apparent:

You will be a contractor, so there will be no benefits. The annual pay will be about $11,111.
At minimum in 2016 expect to work at least three 18-24 hour days supervising one election and two primary elections.
You will receive training, leading to a required certification. Training will attending instruction for 2-4 hours on 9 occasions (moderator and registrar certification), several hours of online training, and passing several tests at home (be sure not to have someone else take the test for you). (For now lets ingnore the law for certification that says you cannot be so certified, unless you are simultaneously serving as a registrar or deputy registrar, which also requires performing a very demanding job for those same three 18-24 hour days.)
You will be directly supervising about 16-24 individuals in about 8 to 12 towns, while they are working those 18-24 hour days.
You may be singly or jointly responsible for any errors and legal violations of those individuals or the several hundred temporary individuals they employ for those three days a year. You will also be responsible for assisting in the training of all those individuals. Not to worry, some of those individuals have been performing their duties for many years. Others will be very new to their jobs. None of the registrars are currently certified, but most will be by November 2017. (So you might want to check very carefully before elections, after elections, and all year, that they faithfully perform all their many legally mandated responsibilities).
It may, in some cases, be a bit challenging: The two registrars in each town are from opposing parties, most get along well, yet many bicker constantly and in rare cases assaulted their “partner” from the other party. Even though many have performed well for years, some frequently make mistakes, failing to follow the law. Your supervisor has little or no experience in the actual job you will be supervising, yet is confident that your registrars will all perform well once they are certified, with your guidance.
You will not have to worry about firing anyone. Registrars are elected officials – no matter what, they will stay on the job, except in very rare circumstances, as yet, never tested in court.

* Def: Rat – In Connecticut slang, a section of a long bill, a.k.a. Public Act**, inserted near the end of the session, usually near the end of a long bill, without hearings, by legislators unknown to the public. Legend has it that most pass without the knowledge of most legislators.
** Def: Public Act – A fictional drama performed in public.

Concerned with two partisan registrars? Be careful what you ask for.

How to manage and judge our elections without partisan bias is tough. Occasionally Secretary’s of State act in blatantly partisan ways. Cases in recent history include Catherine Harris in Florida and Ken Blackwell in Ohio.

Here in Connecticut the Secretary of the State proposed turning elections over to a single unelected official in each town, rather than the current two elected registrars of opposing parties.

Meanwhile in Kansas a bill would give the Secretary of State the power to prosecute election fraud.

Here in Connecticut the Secretary of the State proposed turning elections over to a single unelected official in each town, rather than the current two elected registrars of opposing parties. Later that bill was changed dramatically – watered down, yet still increasing the Secretary’s powers in several ways, including temporarily suspending registrars. We are skeptical of a single unelected official in each of our 169 towns would actually be non-partisan. We would rather see regionalization with professional administration because it would be more professional, and less likely to be partisan. We are also skeptical of a single elected official being able to suspend other elected officials.

Bi-partisan management/judgement does not always work. It seems to work better in Connecticut towns than it does Nationally. Take the Federal Elections Commission – please! A recent article in the Hill: Partisanship stalemates FEC, says report <read>

Meanwhile in Kansas a bill would give the Secretary of State the power to prosecute election fraud. How one feels about that bill may depend on one’s political opinion of the sitting Secretary and one’s opinion of election fraud. Similarly one may lean for or against the Connecticut Secretary being able to remove registrars based on the current Secretary.

We suggest caution in Connecticut and in Kansas.

S.B. 1051: Too much, too little, too risky

Last week the Government Administration and Elections Committee passed a modified version of S.B. 1051, hailed by the Secretary of the State and ROVAC (Registrars Of Voters Association of Connecticut) as a ‘bipartisan’ compromise.

Yet, all the compromising seems to be the agreement of election officials on a bill that would make registrars jobs easier while adding largely undefined and unchecked powers for the current and future Secretaries of the State.

Two members of the Republican minority voted against the bill primarily because it would give the Secretary sole authority decide to temporarily remove registrars from office for any complaint filed by the Secretary or failing to maintain certification. We agree it goes too far in that provision. It should and does provide a more objective means for permanently removing registrars. We fail to see where a provision for the Secretary to temporarily remove registrars would have solved the recent problems noticed in the heat of election days. If that were the only weak and risky provision we might be able to live with the bill and some of its helpful provisions.

We are all in favor of effective training, certification, and fair procedures for removing registrars from office. The bill has what we suspect will turn out to be relatively weak certification requirements and an alternate procedure for removal by charges from the state’s attorney and any superior court judge. Even that seems to be a bit weak, requiring only a single judge to rule on removing an elected official from office. Consider:

Their is an ‘advisory’ committee to create certification. In the existing law, never implemented, the committee was not advisory. Now the current or future Secretary of the State approves the certification program.
The committee consists of six members, five appointed by the Secretary.
Decertifying a registrar does take concurrence of a majority of the committee.
Strengthening the existing law, sitting registrars must be certified within two years of taking office, except perhaps untended, the law requires registrars who are appointed to fill the remainder of two-year terms to complete certification by the end of the term.
We can hope that the actual certification, examination, and continuing education result in relevant, meaningful requirements.

We support professionalization. Certification in election matters is only part of that. Additional skills, education, and experience also play a part. We are skeptical that without increased compensation that many highly skilled, organized, and experienced individuals will be attracted to the jobs in small towns. We wonder how much certification would have prevented the problems seen in recent years in Hartford, West Hartford, and Bridgeport. We support professionalization through regionialization. That might be the result of another bill passed by the committee, S.B. 1083.

There are other risky, insufficiently defined provisions in the bill associated with closing of the polls and reporting results:

One requires quicker reporting of partial results “Once completed, the vote totals produced by the tabulator shall be prepared for transmission to the Secretary of the State”.
This is ambiguous. Yet, according to the Secretary’s testimony on the bill, it seems that the intention is to transmit the results from optical scanners to the central GEMs system for automated calculation of results.
To connect our optical scanners to the GEMS requires reversing longstanding security policy implemented by the Bysiewicz administration to keep the scanners sealed from communication that risks infecting the scanners with fraudulent code.
We add that the GEMS system is no gem. It figured prominently in the reporting errors discovered in the Humboldt Project. We also recall Bev Harris demonstrating to Howard Dean how easy it would be for him to change election results on the GEMS, undetected.
Maybe it will turn out OK. Once again, we are left to hope that in the end, this Secretary and all future secretaries work to maintain security of the scanners, memory cards, and their programming.

Further, the bill gives officials 48 hours after the election to report the rest of the results: hand counted ballots, write-in ballots, and for checkers to sign the pollbooks.

We are all for giving officials time to get thing right. Especially in situations like Bridgeport in 2010 where there are huge numbers of unexpected ballots to count by hand. We wish the media could hold off the pressure for “results, any results”.
Yet, these changes seem to lack any security and transparency requirements. If counting is stopped to continue later, we need convincing, sufficient, enforceable, and enforced security for ballots and checkin lists. We need formal requirements for notification of the public of when counting will resume.
When it comes to checkin lists, we see no point in not having checkers total and sign the lists at the polling place on election night — except it they are using electronic pollbooks and the lists are not printed until later by someone else — then we see nt good reason to have them sign printed paper lists that they have not created, from a system they do not understand, and have not held in custody. Perhaps they or the polling place moderator should have a form to record the number of voters the machine reports as having checked in – signed and submitted on election night.

Finally, we come to electronic auditing. The bill has this provision near the end:

Notwithstanding any provision of title 9 of the general statutes, the Secretary of the State, in consultation and coordination with The University of Connecticut, may authorize the use of electronic equipment for the purpose of conducting any audit required pursuant to section-320f of the general statutes, as amended by this act, for any primary or general election held on or after January 1, 2016, provided (1) the Secretary of the State prescribes specifications for (A) the testing, set-up and operation of such equipment, and (B) the training of election officials in the use of such equipment; and (2) the Secretary of the State and The University of Connecticut agree that such equipment is sufficient in quantity to accommodate the total number of audits to be conducted. Nothing in this section shall preclude any candidate or elector from seeking additional remedies pursuant to chapter 149 of the general statutes as a result of any information revealed by such process.

As readers of CTVotersCount know, we have long been supporters of machine assisted auditing. We are here left to hope that the Secretary and UConn do the right thing i.e. support a method of auditing that is transparent and meets the requirements of evidence based elections, such that the public can verify the results of the audit without depending on officials. How is that possible? It has been outlined by three leading experts in the field of election auditing and prototyped in CA and CO.

In fact, we provided a bill which included a provision for safe machine assisted auditing this year, S.B. 1041. Even though that bill received wide support and no opposition in testimony, it did not move forward.

If S.B. 1051 moves forward in its current form we are left to hope that the Secretary and UConn will use its provisions to provide safe verifiable auditing. Yet, left with the concern that they might not, and that some future Secretary and some future UConn scientist or UConn leader collude to disregard science to provide some all but useless, untrustworty version of electronic “black-box” auditing.

Bill to study regionalization of elections moves forward

Last week Government Administration and Elections Committee (GAE) on passed a modified version of S.B. 1083out of committee. It would empower a task force to study regionalization of election administration. Earlier we testified in favor of the bill pointing to the possible benefits of such a task force.

Last week Government Administration and Elections Committee (GAE) on passed a modified version of S.B. 1083 <here> out of committee. It would empower a task force to study regionalization of election administration. Earlier we testified in favor of the bill pointing to the possible benefits of such a task force. <read>

No bill is perfect and all our subject to modification before passage by the General Assembly. In this case we would be pleased if the bill passed in its current form. However, we believe that the time frame for the task force completion before the next legislative session is too constraining. We suggest it be extended for a year.

Testimony – Do for Elections What We Have Done for Probate

How often is there a bill with everyone testifying for it? Not often!

Monday I testified to the Government Administration and Elections Committee on S.B. 1083 that would empower a task force to study regionalization of election administration.

Monday I testified to the Government Administration and Elections Committee (GAE) on S.B. 1083 that would empower a task force to study regionalization of election administration. From my testimony: <read>

In evaluating various organization structures it is customary to look at Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats.

The strengths of our current system are:

Its low cost compared to other states, as shown by Matt Waggner on S.B. 1051 last week, and

resistance to fraud or error in statewide elections, based on a decentralized, adversarial system (Yet, not in local elections, where the current system has weaknesses which pose risks.)

Its weaknesses, several of which have been obvious of late are,

its lack of professional training and. in some cases, action,

an inability to attract, grow, and compensate skilled professionals, and

the inability of the system to solve and correct problems

To elaborate on that last point. The Citizen Audit conducted an unofficial recount of Bridgeport in 2010 – we found that votes were not counted and that ballots counted and voters checked-in varied significantly in both directions.

The current system never investigated, or corrected those specific problems, nor developed effective means of preventing or recovering from such problems. Cases-in-point,

towns continue to run out of ballots, and

Hartford’s recent discrepancies in absentee ballots, accompanied by official reports of more votes counted than ballots, that I believe, have not been investigated, and officially corrected.

The current system has limitations that, in my opinion, cannot be overcome with municipal election management. Regionalization offers opportunities not possible under the limitations of the current system, including:

Regions with multiple full time jobs with specialized expertise, with opportunities for individuals to gain experience to be effective professionals. As articulated by Mr. Waggner last week — when it comes to elections there is a lot for a single person to know and to manage.

The opportunity for shared expertise and resources can provide more voter service, with regional “vote centers” safely supporting early voting and election-day convenience.

How often is there a bill with everyone testifying for it? Not often!

I was joined by the Registrars Of Voters Association Connecticut (ROVAC), the Town Clerks Association, the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, the League of Women Voters, and Fairfield Registrar, Matt Waggner. Here is the written testimony posted by the GAE <read>

ROVAC had one concern, that Jan 2016 was too soon to start the reorganization before a Presidential Election. I agreed for “radically different reasons” ending my testimony cautioning against a quick fix:

Rome was not built in a day. No matter what change is appropriate, it will require several years to evaluate, plan, and execute a significant transformation, while we continue to support elections along the way. I suspect 1-2 years for the task force and Legislature to choose a direction, 1-2 years for a small agency of appropriate professionals empowered to plan the transition in detail, and likely 2 years to perform the transition. Probate reorganization, a similar, yet simpler, transformation, I believe took at least four years

CORRECTED: Testimony On Five Bills

Monday I testified to the Government Administration and Elections Committee on five elections bills. For one bill and against four others.

Most of the testimony was on the Secretary of the State’s bill, S.B. 1051, that would turn elections over to a single registrar in each town under the direction of an official appointed by the town council or similar body. Like the registrars, I testified against that bill. Unlike the registrars, I only favor a couple of the many details in the bill, while they support many of them.

Most of my testimony was on S.B. 1041 which I drafted and was endorsed by the Citizen Audit. It would greatly strengthen the post-election audits, while reducing costs by about 40%. I am pleaed that ROVAC (Registrars of Voters Association of Connecticut) endorsed the bill, except for two clauses.(*)

My testimony, which also points to the text of each bill:

https://ctvoterscount.org/CTVCdata/15/03/SB1041ElectronicAudit20150309.pdf
https://ctvoterscount.org/CTVCdata/15/03/SB1042ElectronicAudit20150309.pdf
https://ctvoterscount.org/CTVCdata/15/03/SB1051SingleRegistrar20150309.pdf
https://ctvoterscount.org/CTVCdata/15/03/HB6904SingleRegistrar20150309.pdf
https://ctvoterscount.org/CTVCdata/15/03/HB6950ElectronicAuditCrossEndorsed20150309.pdf

There is also a recording of the nine-hour hearing at CT-N: <video>
I would suggest:
5:50 My Testimony and Matt Waggner the 2nd person after me.
0:00 The Secretary of the State’s Testimony

(*) An earlier version of this post incorrectly stated that ROVAC subsequently changed its position in later testimony. (The problem of listening too quickly when bills are numbered 1041 and 1051). We regret the error.

Testimony on another flawed bill

Last week there was a public hearing for another well-intended yet risky bill. This bill would allow absentee voting for any person who was absent for any amount of time from their town on election day. We are sympathetic to those who are gone most of the day and cannot be sure if they will get back from work in time.

Absentee voting is most prevalent cause of detected voting fraud in Connecticut and across the country.We offered a compromise of allowing an absentee ballot to anyone gone from 7:00am to 6:00pm. That should give them time to vote in the morning or in the evening, even if they are a bit late returning to town.

Our testimony <here> All testimony <here> (The 0fficial web page does not have the corrected version of our testimony – a member of the Committee pointed out one of the links was broken – I corrected and emailed the testimony, but it did not get posted)

SOTS Plan: Real problems, yet no solution

One Wednesday, Secretary of the State Denise Merrill held a press conference to introduce her solutions to the recent problems with elections caused by registrars in several towns. The problems are real. These solutions will do little to help, and might actually might make things worse. Its not worth the effort and the risks. As we have said many times, the solution is to “Do for elections what we have done for probate: Regionalize, Professionalize, Economize”.

The details will be in the actual legislation, but from the press release and press conference we can assume:

Towns will have the option of appointing a single registrar, rather than the current two elected registrars. The changes are not mandatory and would require a charter revision in each town for them to apply.
We are not sure what the Secretary means by non-partisan. In any case, the change is likely, in many towns, especially those that have had problems, to result in a partisan appointment by a partisan town council. The effect might be to further politicize the town clerk position as well.
Certification of registrars is a good idea. Not sure that it can be mandated for an elected registrar, yet a good program would provide needed education and where certified individuals are available it could be a positive factor in the selection of elected or appointed registrars. Yet it depends – depends on the content and the rigor of certification. I am a certified moderator. I can attest that the certification program is useful, yet has its problems. Revised a couple of years ago, the online portion of the training was useful, drawn out, and too simplistic – yet the online tests had errors, expecting incorrect answers.
Mandatory yearly training is also a good idea. Yet there is currently yearly non-mandatory training available, attended by the majority of registrars. Our understanding from those that regularly attend is that the training from the Secretary’s Office is all but useless.
“As a municipal employee the Registrar would have all the support staff necessary, and would be required to follow all state and federal election laws, as well as election directives issued by the Secretary of the State”. We see no reason moving the job to the town clerk would, in itself, force towns to fully staff the function. Clearly registrars today are required to follow all election laws. Of course, if the long sought change to the law to require officials to follow SOTS directives were passed than that would be the case.
“

The problems are real. We need more professional election administration. In our opinion these solutions do not go far enough.

They would change from two opposing officials, to a single individual in each town – making it easier for a single individual to manipulate or even rig the system toward the party in power, or toward their chosen path.
There would still be a need for multiple competent individuals in each town, especially in case sickness, death, or family emergency occurred to the single chief election official.
The problem of registrars with insufficient resources, insufficient hours to do a good job, keep up with technology, and attract qualified individuals would largely remain, especially in small towns.
The SOTS said: “Other New England states leave election administration to the local municipal clerk, or through local bipartisan boards of election who hire professional staff to manage day-to-day operations.” We say, “No system is perfect.” For instance here is how well the system works up north in East Longmeadow: <read>

This “solution” will do little to help, and might actually might make things worse. Its not worth the effort and the risks. As we have said many times, the solution is to “Do for elections what we have done for probate: Regionalize, Professionalize, Economize“.

As might be expected, there has been quite a bit of push back from registrars. Here are some of the recent press reports, quoting some of the critics.:

<CTMirror, including some of my comments>
<CTNewsJunkie>
<Newtown Bee>
<Bristol Press Editorial>
<WAMC>

Aaron Swartz, me, you, and our money.

Aaron Swartz “killed by our Government.” ? Fittingly his life, torture, and death available for all in an outstanding, free documentary. What does this have to do with you and me? Why is it fitting that the documentary is free? Read on.

Some who believe that our Government is always right or don’t know the full Aaron Swartz story, simply see it as:

“He was a criminal, so he deserves what he got.”

True, he was a criminal like Daniel Ellsberg or Martin Luther King. What he did was more like King than Ellsberg, a virtual protest against a certain type of copyright, yet he was facing 35 years in prison. Actually he was yet to be convicted, committed suicide. Our Government did the prosecution. Was it fair or was it overkill?

There is more. The enormous loss is ours. A powerful life cut short, enormous potential lost. As he said “I want to make the World a better place.”. You be the judge of his actions, and history will judge how far the changes and his influence will last. (Yet, today as we celebrate net neutrality, we can see that we might not be here without Aaron’s efforts.)

What Was The Crime?

Was it at the level of terrorism? Or more like blocking traffic in protesting a business he disagreed with, trespassing at a Government facility, or speaking out at a Congressional hearing?

Aaron was protesting at the time of his arrest against a certain kind of copyright, legally demonstrating a certain type of theft, yet protesting a theft from us, of the rewards of our investment. All of us.

He violated some rules at MIT, broke into the network and downloaded a trove of files – making illegal copies of a large database of research papers, largely paid for by our Government and foundations. Some would say our property. The crime he was protesting was private libraries that charge for public access to those publications. Make huge sums, yet neither the creators of the information or their sponsors (largely us) reap the rewards. Watch the film. It is a very good film, yet it has a sad ending.

Me and You

As the documentary points out, we all lose when information we paid for is not available for our use. Cures for cancer? Food safety? Information needed by our legislature.

This all came home to me yesterday. I was testifying against a bill to the legislature. My testimony was basically a cut-and-paste of past testimony – presenting past arguments to the current legislature the same concerns with a law proposed this year, similar to previously proposed laws. As usual my testimony was based on documented facts.

One of the legislators pointed out one of my links to an academic paper was broken. It was a link to a paper by researchers at the University of Wisconsin partially underwritten by PEW, formerly for several years, available for free at PEW. No longer. It is now behind a “pay wall” at one of those libraries. Just the type of paper and wall Aaron was protesting. I was able to point the legislators to a) A summary of the paper, b) An abstract, and c) The pay wall where anyone could purchase a copy. Unfortunately,

These proved there was such an article, gave the general drift of the article, yet failed to cover critical statistic in my testimony; failed to describe in extensive detail why many earlier studies were flawed and the care taken by these researchers to provide a more complete analysis.
Left anyone wanting more; wanting to verify my claims with only the option of paying the fee.
I could have accessed a .pdf for that same fee, but posting it for the legislature to see would risk the same crime and potential prosecution.
And what about that person or legislature in another state doing research on similar laws, they may never find this critical information, that they helped underwrite?
So we all lose the value of the research we paid for.

Watch the film and see what we also lost with the loss of Aaron Swartz.

Testimony on two well-intended, yet (hopefully) fatally flawed bills

A week ago Friday, I testified against two well-intended, flawed bills that hopefully will not go forward. One illustrates a terribly written bill that may have some underlying merit, yet leaves the public with no opportunity to understand the merits, the risks, and propose reasonable solutions. The other intended to save work for registrars of voters, would not save much work at the expense of the voters and pollworkers.

My prepared remarks:

Chairs and members of the Committee, my name is Luther Weeks. I am Executive Director of CTVotersCount, a webmaster, and a Certified Moderator.

I have three objections to S.B. 27 as drafted.

First, as written the bill is way too broad, likely unconstitutional, and would shut down the Internet as we know it.

Second, Public access to voter lists is an important check – that only qualified individuals are registered and that people that did not vote, are in fact listed as not voting.

Finally, without knowing what might be proposed in a workable, detailed bill, it is difficult to provide testimony to the Committee that would articulate the benefits of keeping some information off the web vs. the risks to democracy of suppressing that information.

The public should have another opportunity to comment on a more fully formed bill.

I oppose S.B. 601. It is intended to reduce work for officials in counting and accounting for multiple votes for cross-endorsed candidates. However, the bill would do little to reduce work for officials and have unintended, negative consequences, especially for voters.

The first thing to note is that our current optical scanners likely cannot meet the certification requirements of this bill. If the certification requirements are interpreted to de-certify our scanners, then until they are replaced, the only legal method for voting in Connecticut would be paper ballots and hand counting.

In any case, S.B. 601 fails to do what the title implies, “eliminate overvoting for a candidate”. It would require a more error prone process than we have today.

It would result in a less positive voting experience for voters and for poll workers as voters are told they have “done something wrong” and need to vote again.

Time savings, if any, would be minimal and offset by increased time explaining the problem to voters, replacing their ballots and added hand counting of more ballots.

This change will be unnecessary, with electronic election night reporting, all calculations would then be handled automatically, relieving moderators of the allocation task.

Several times in the past I have testified against similar bills, pointing out similar concerns.
I encourage you to drop this bill as your predecessors have so wisely done.

Thank you.

You can see my full testimony at <S.B. 27> and <S.B. 601>. All the testimony at <S.B. 27> <S.B. 601>

For S.B. 27 it is interesting to note than nobody in favor of the bill appeared in person to explain what the bill was intended to prevent. A few days later, we can deduce the motivation from some of the testimony submitted, <here>. Unfortunately, the bill is way overkill for the problem. Perhaps there is a middle ground, yet the public needs access to voter lists including, name, address, age (if not birthdate), party and voting history. Why should such information only be made available electronically to political parties and candidates, while leaving it only on paper in town hall for voters to check that only eligible citizens are registered and that individuals listed as voting actually did so. Perhaps sites could be prohibited from posting the list, while the towns or the state required to publish it – in any case, it should already be a crime to use the list other than its intent. It seems that the Senate sponsor was not interested enough in the bill to come or event write testimony in favor of it, nor was anyone who proposed the bill. Hopefully the bill will not move forward, and perhaps someone will write a more reasonable bill, open to more responsive testimony.

Bills similar to S.B. 601 have been proposed in the past. They actually are designed by the Registrars of Voters Association of Connecticut (ROVAC) to save themselves a small amount of work, imposed by the Legislature. As you can see from my testimony the scheme would save little work, cause voters work, causes voters disenfranchisement, more work for pollworkers, and may even outlaw our current voting machines. In any case there are simpler, better solutions, suggested by me and others who testified. Notice that some registrars testified for the bill, others against, while everyone else, including the municipal clerks association testified against it.