Legislature2011 | CTVotersCount.org

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 The no-excuse option would quickly strain an outdated, inefficient and manual process for mailing, accounting for and counting of absentee ballots.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.

Public hearings for 15 election related bills – Update: Our Testimony

Today we provided testimony on ten bills. We talked six times and complemented the Committee on their new format of handling bills one at a time, allowing each person who wanted to the opportunity to testify on each bill separately. It worked very well and did not take as much time as one would expect over the old format of one opportunity per person for the day. Most of the testimony today was agreement or friendly disagreement between registrars, town clerks, state officials, and advocates. In the end we expect that better laws will result.

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.

Update: 1/14/2011:

Related: Secretary of the State Merrill’s press conference CTNewsJunkiee report and CTMirror.

***********Original Post:

On Monday the General Administration and Elections Committee will hold hearings of 15 elections related bills <agenda>

Most of these bills became publicly available on the Legislature’s website on Wednesday morning and late Wednesday they appeared on the agenda for Monday’s public hearing. A lot to absorb in a few days, yet we can say at this point that there are some good, not so good, and some highly questionable proposals in these bills.

Several of the bills are consolidations and committee rewrites of other bills, specifically for no-excuse absentee voting and an associated Constitutional amendment. One focuses on “Election Integrity” dealing with some of the issues raised by ballot shortages in Bridgeport, moderator training, registrars identifying polling places to the Secretary of the State etc. Another focuses on “Post-Election Audits”, authorizing local officials to audit via “independent machine rather than a tabulator” as an alternative to the current manual count.

Many of the bills are “Technical Bills” primarily intended to make small “technical” changes to the statutes to adjust to the move from lever machines to optical scanner. By our count these bill total 256 pages of details and redundancy since many address the same existing statutes. It seems they must have been written by different groups but perhaps based on previous bills which failed to pass the legislature over the last three years. We are in the process of reading through the bills to prepare detailed testimony for Monday, with suggestions for revisions, deletions and improvements. After reading through all the bills and discussing some portions with other advocates we can summarize a few items at this point:

It is all well and good to replace “machine” with “tabulator”, replace “registrars” with “registrars of voters”, and remove “he”s throughout, we doubt these changes will make any difference in the interpretation of the law by registrars of voters or the courts.

There are many changes that seem necessary to the conduct of elections by optical scanner that are not included. For instance, several sections do not seem to recognize that in addition to optical scanners and absentee ballots we now have polling place paper ballots, both scanned and hand counted to deal with secure and count.

The election laws, I suppose like many others, remain highly convoluted from amendments over the years and redundant. For example there are extensive, almost completely redundant, separate sections for primaries and elections. The problem is that they often differ in critical, substantial ways that make little sense. One bill makes a positive change that would allow officials from other towns to serve in primaries as they the existing law allows for elections. Asked to serve in another town for a primary, I declined to avoid breaking the law.

Within the bills are many good changes as well as some needing improvement. For example, the bill for “Integrity of Elections” calls for registrars to file plans for ballot printing with the Secretary of the State, locations of each polling place, and the names of moderators for each polling place to the Secretary of the State in advance of the election. Our reading indicates that moderators can be rejected by the Secretary but with no specified deadline for such rejections. We have called for the Secretary of the State to have an accurate list of polling places to restore the integrity of the post-election audits. While we applaud that change to enable an accurate list,we will also suggest a possibly more efficient method to accomplish that same goal.

But also within these 256 pages are several significant changes that may or may not be advisable. For instance, one calls for a demonstration “device” for voting in each polling place instead of a demonstration “machine” – it is hard to tell what would satisfy the requirement or if such would also be required for the IVS machines intended for voters with disabilities; our reading of another clause intended to codify the current recanvass procedures would eliminate a critical step in the process; another in our reading would significantly change the counting of cross-endorsed candidate votes – to the likely detriment of candidates and voters.

I am a strong supporter of new techniques and technologies that support independent machine auditing, but we will oppose change authorizing local officials to audit via “independent machine rather than a tabulator” as an alternative to the current manual count. While well intended, the proposed law provides no restrictions on such a machine, no requirements for the process, no standards, no guarantee the process would be anything like the successful example in Humboldt County, CA, and no budget for implementation. Voting integrity and confidence require that any independent machine audit be required to meet requirements that provide for public transparency and validation. In other words, vendors need to dot the “i”s and cross the ‘t”s in software and hardware products, while the law must require election officials to also dot the “i”s and cross the ‘t”s in implementing such audits. Municipalities that balk at spending a few hundred dollars on an audit when they are randomly selected are hardly in a position to acquire such equipment, let alone evaluate the equipment, and develop an effective, satisfactory process.

HB 5732: Bill would eliminate the secret ballot at each voter’s option

The secret vote was implemented in the United States to prevent the selling and coercion of votes. Subjecting the secret ballot to each voter’s choice would negate its purpose and value. Each voter’s vote being secret, preserves the the value everyone’s vote, because my vote’s value depends on yours not being sold or coerced.

House Bill 5732

Introduced by:
REP. MOLGANO, 144th Dist.

AN ACT CONCERNING RECEIPTS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF BALLOTS.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General

Assembly convened:

That chapter 147 of the general statutes be amended to require a receipt for ballots cast by voters who vote by coloring in, with pencil, their selections and feed their ballots into a reader or by electronically recording selections using a station designed for physically disabled voters unable to use a paper ballot.

Statement of Purpose:

To allow voters using a colored-in or electronically recorded ballot cast at a station designed for physically disabled voters assurance of their selections.

First, we point out that a critical “or” in the bill gives any voter going to a polling place the option to get a receipt for their ballot, by filling it out with a pencil: “to require a receipt for ballots cast by voters who vote by coloring in, with pencil, their selections and feed their ballots into a reader or..”

Even if that were corrected, any voter can choose to use “a station designed for physically disabled voters”. Thus any polling place voter could choose the option of obtaining a receipt for their ballot.

Although apparently well intended, we point out that the IVS system does not meet the needs of disabled voters other than the visually impaired, presumably visually impaired severely enough to have significant problems reading a paper ballot; further the disabled have pursued such machines to provide themselves ability to vote independently and secretly. Do we need to point out that those same disabilities would prevent them from using the receipt independently and preserving their secret vote. If they wanted someone to make sure their vote was accurately cast the can choose almost anyone to assist them in the polling place, perhaps with more secrecy since they can choose someone to trust with filling out their ballot; keeping it secure from others; and not risking that a poll worker sees their ballot or gives them a receipt that does not indeed match their vote.

Finally, we note no mechanism, costs, or safeguards in the bill. How are the copies made? How much would it cost? How can the voter be sure the copy matches their ballot? How is disclosure to any poll workers prevented in a way that the voter can be confident their vote is secret?

SB 804: Bill would wipe out post-election audits 7 years in 10

From an audit and election integrity standpoint, this law is even worse than the one we discussed yesterday. Instead of giving small municipalities an exemption for four years, this one would exempt all municipalities for about seven years in ten!

Yesterday, we covered a bill that would provide small municipalities a way to avoid audits and open season for fraud and error to go undetected. Today we cover a bill that would wipe out all post-election audits about 7 years in 10!

Senate Bill 804

Introduced by:

SEN. DAILY, 33rd Dist.

AN ACT CONCERNING RECURRING POST-ELECTION AUDITS.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

That section 9-320f of the general statutes be amended to provide that any municipality that has successfully completed a post-election audit shall not be subject to the Secretary of the State’s random drawing of districts for post-election audits for ten years.

Statement of Purpose:
To allow for greater time periods for voting districts between post-election audits.

As we said, yesterday:

“Exempting any municipalities and any ballots from the post-election audit would be at the expense of election integrity, defeating the purpose of a random audit. Any gap in the random selection known in advance provides the opportunity for fraud, and the cover up of error. If this bill were to become law, once a particular small municipality was audited, for the next four years (about 9 elections) it would be known in advance that no audit would occur, skulduggery with scanners, memory cards or accounting would not be subject to detection in a audit.

Such an exemption would be similar to announcing that Fort Knox would only be guarded in Jan, May, and September; that imported toys, school buses, or restaurants would only be inspected every ninth year; or that highway contractors would have nine projects exempted in advance from any inspections after one project was inspected.”

From an audit and election integrity standpoint, this law is even worse. Instead of giving small municipalities an exemption for four years, this one would exempt all municipalities for about seven years in ten!

Lets do some approximate math.

Connecticut has 169 municipalities.
In most audited elections we have about 800 districts.
Of those about 80 districts are randomly selected (exactly 10% plus rounding to make it at least 10%).
And 40-50 municipalities are selected under the current audit law.

Notes on the current situation:

Audits select 10% of districts in the election, while the bill would exempt entire municipalities with districts selected.
If we were starting with a clean slate and had no previous audits, since municipalities with many districts are selected more often under the current law, they they would quickly all be selected and exempted, and each subsequent drawing would select and exempt larger numbers of municipalities. After about three or four audited elections all municipalitieswould be exempt. Until 10 years after they were previously audited.
Every four years there are about 9audited elections: 4 November Elections, 4 August Primaries and 1 Presidential Primary. Sometimes the August Primary covers only part of the state, other times it is statewide.
According to our records, since 2007 we have had about 130 of our 169 municipalities, with all the medium to large municipalities included.

So going forward, if this law were passed:

After the August 2011 Primary and the November 2011 Election essentially, if not in reality, all municipalities would be exempt from audit until 2017
After 2017, not exactly, but pretty much as each municipality reached the 10 year exemption, it would be audited again. Perhaps a few would slip being selected that time, but would soon be selected and be exempt for another ten years.
Approximately, after a municipality was selected once it would be exempted for the next twenty-four or twenty-five elections.
And we would have no audits, in the long run for about 7 years in 10.
And never have anything approaching a random audit.

As we said this would defeat much of the purpose and value of our post-election audits.

Merrill pushes for authority over election ballot supply

This seems like a very workable and reasonable proposal. Much more realistic and less wasteful than blindly printing 100% every time. We hope that this is not the only reform considered in the light of the problems in Bridgeport. The Audit Coalition has several recommendations in the hands of the Secretary of the State and the Government Administration and Elections Committee.The Audit Coalition has several recommendations in the hands of the Secretary of the State and the Government Administration and Elections Committee.

Just as we completed our last post and the note above, we see encouragement for our optimism that some concepts will improve election integrity:

From the Connecticut Post: Merrill pushes for authority over election ballot supply <read>

New Secretary of the State Denise Merrill wants the authority to require local registrars of voters to order more ballots should her office determine they have underestimated Election Day turnout.

Merrill’s bill, her response to the Nov. 2 ballot debacle in Bridgeport that delayed the declaration of a winner in the hotly contested governor’s race, was raised Friday by the Legislature’s Government Administration and Elections Committee.

The proposal will be formally drafted in the coming days and presented for a public hearing Feb. 14…

Merrill wants to require cities and towns to certify with her office the number of ballots ordered and any decisions to purchase less than one per registered voter. The Secretary of the State would then have 30 days to review and approve the plan or instruct registrars to order additional ballots.

“And if a town doesn’t feel they want to certify to us, then they would order 100 percent,” Merrill said.

The proposal has its supporters and critics:

Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch, through his spokesperson, said he had spoken with Merrill Friday morning and supported her proposal. Finch has appointed a special panel to review Bridgeport’s handling of the elections…

The measure got an immediate blast of disapproval from Anthony Esposito, president of the Registrars of Voters Association of Connecticut and the Republican Registrar in Hamden.

“The registrars of voters are opposed to any statute that in any way, shape or form mandates how many ballots a town must order for any election or referendum,” he said…

Her proposal has the initial support of GAE Committee co-chair Sen. Gayle Slossberg, D-Milford, and of Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield.

Although municipalities are always wary of the Legislature’s passing new mandates, Slossberg said, the changes would be meaningless unless the Secretary of the State has the authority to enforce them.

“What good does it do to alert somebody to a ballot shortage if they turn around and say, `This is our estimate. We’re not willing to go with yours’?” she asked.

Slossberg believes the public will embrace Merrill’s changes because voters prior to what happened in Bridgeport assumed “someone in the state has the authority to make sure they’re not disenfranchised. This is common sense.”

McKinney said Merrill spoke to him about her bill and he, too, agrees with the concepts but would like to see the final language. McKinney has continually said Bysiewicz bore some of the blame for what happened in Bridgeport.

“Secretary Merrill’s willingness to take control of this issue is a good sign,” he said.

This seems like a very workable and reasonable proposal. Much more realistic and less wasteful than blindly printing 100% every time. We also we look forward to seeing a full draft all the concepts and all of the changes they contain. We hope that this is not the only reform considered in the light of the problems in Bridgeport. The Audit Coalition has several recommendations in the hands of the Secretary of the State and the Government Administration and Elections Committee.

HB 5727: Bill to add new audit exemption, shift burden to large towns, and exempt officials from fines

Exempting any towns and any ballots from the post-election audit would be at the expense of election integrity, defeating the purpose of a random audit. It would be a unique, bad precedent if taxpayers foot the bill for officials’ fines levied for improperly conducting their duties.

House Bill 5727

Introduced by:
REP. GIULIANO, 23rd Dist.

AN ACT CONCERNING POST-ELECTION AUDIT PROCEDURES.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General
Assembly convened:

That title 9 of the general statutes be amended to reform post
election audit procedures to provide that (1) after an audit, a town
shall have a four-year exemption to relieve the town from holding a
post-election audit, provided such town is a small town; and (2)
registrars of voters shall no longer be held personally liable for fines
for failure to comply with audit procedures. Instead, such fines shall be
levied against the municipalities.

Statement of Purpose:
To reform post-election audit procedures.

You would think from listening to registrars complain that post-election audits were the most expensive, time consuming part of the job; that the audits are almost the sole cause of breaking town budgets. They are not. Post-election audits represent a small part of the costs of election management. Paper ballots cost $0.30 to $0.50 each, elections cost $5.00 to $20.00 and much higher per ballot cast. Audits amount to about $0.10 or about $70,000-$80,000 for a major November election.

This bill would dramatically reduce the audits and provide a four year, nine election period for small towns to to be exempt from post-election audits altogether, at the expense of large towns. We also hear many complaints from large towns as well. They do not understand the basic math that a 10% random selection of districts would be expected to select multiple districts, almost every time for towns with 20 to 30 plus districts.

Exempting any towns and any ballots from the post-election audit would be at the expense of election integrity, defeating the purpose of a random audit. Any gap in the random selection known in advance provides the opportunity for fraud, and the cover up of error. If this bill were to become law, once a particular small town was audited, for the next four years (about 9 elections) it would be known in advance that no audit would occur, skulduggery with scanners, memory cards or accounting would not be subject to detection in a audit.

It would be a unique, bad precedent if taxpayers foot the bill for officials’ fines levied for improperly conducting their duties. There is a reason that the state did not serve time for pay fines for the ethics violations of Governor John Roland and several of our big city Mayors. If officials are exempt from such fines the public would pay thrice: for the official duties improperly performed, for the election integrity not maintained, and the fine itself.

PS: We are unaware of any election official yet fined or otherwise punished for violating post-election audit procedures, regulations, or laws. One of the reasons is that, in Connecticut, such procedures and regulations are unenforceable – one of the things that for three years the Audit Coalition has been recommending the Legislature consider changing.

Lawmakers Seek To Change Presidential Elections [To make them more risky, reduce confidence]

What often appears simple is not. The Compact being proposed would get around the requirement for a constitutional amendment. It would cobble the popular vote onto a system designed for the Electoral College. Such a system has largely unanticipated, but predictable consequences that are overlooked and glossed over by national organizations supporting the proposition – similar to the situations when we focus on the national debt one week and lowering taxes the next.

CTNewsJunkie: Lawmakers Seek To Change Presidential Elections <read>

Once again, Connecticut faces the prospect of the well intended but risky National Popular Vote Compact/Agreement. From the article:

A winner-take-all rule has permitted a candidate to win the presidency without winning the popular vote in four out of 56 elections. Sen. Gary LeBeau, D-East Hartford, wants to stop that trend by implementing something called the National Popular Vote.

If enacted, Electoral College delegates from the state would be mandated to cast their votes for whichever presidential candidate wins the national popular vote.

“It’s simple,” LeBeau said Wednesday, “the person who’s elected president becomes the president.”

The goal is to restore voter confidence in the electoral system, LeBeau said. His own confidence was shaken after the 2000 presidential elections when President George W. Bush won the election despite losing the national popular vote to candidate and former-Vice President Al Gore, he said.

Like Senator LeBeau, most people, Democrats and Republicans, believe that Al Gore would have won in 2000 if we had the national popular vote then.

But we do not know who would have won then, because as the national popular vote supporters claim different voters would be motivated to vote under the national popular vote, so the national total would have been different.in 2000.
Under the current system, the damage due to error, fraud, and voter suppression is limited to the few so called, swing states. Under the national popular vote, errors, fraud, and suppression in every state, by anyone, any party would count toward the totals. Rather than restore confidence enacting the national popular pote on top of our flawed state by state system will start open season on fraud and suppression.
Finally, if Florida had a good, uniform, automatic recount law in 2000, then Al Gore would also have won with the Electoral College. More that anything, it was likely skulduggery in Florida and a partisan Supreme Court that decided the 2000 election.

“One could argue that the total disenfranchisement and repression of African Americans throughout the end of the 19th century was largely enabled by the dysfunction of the Electoral College,” [Fleishman] said.

This is the 21st century. Yet, one could also still argue that legitimately today, that the claim that the national popular vote will result in one person one vote is bogus, since states vary in who is franchised today and the obstacles placed in the way of various groups in registering and voting.

Our comments on the post (edited and combined):

While I understand the good arguments for the national popular vote and would support it, except there are some extreme risks to the Compact which attempts to force fit it onto our inaccurate state by state voting system.

There is no official national popular vote number complied and certified nationally that can be used to officially and accurately determine the winner in any reasonably close election.

There is no national recount available for close elections to establish an accurate number. Only in some individual states with close numbers in those states would there ever be a recount.

Currently the Electoral College limits the damage to states with close votes. With the national nopular vote errors, voter suppression, and fraud in all states would count against the national totals.

With stronger election laws, national uniformity, enforceable and enforced laws in place I would favor the NPV.

For more see: https://www.ctvoterscount.org/the-case-against-the-npv/

For example: The inaccuracies in Bridgeport did not change the winner here in the Governor’s race 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. But with the Compact they would all have counted against one candidate toward that national popular vote number reported by the media or any other number calculated nationwide.

We also point to this story we came across today, pointing out just one more example of the normal errors in vote counts that get certified across the country. Human error, not voting machines, skewed Colleton County election results <read>

The Colleton County Board of Elections reported nearly 1,400 extra votes in the November election. The discrepancy came to light after the Election Commission certified the results…

Frank Heindel of Mount Pleasant, who maintains a website documenting problems with electronic voting machines, lined up an independent audit to see if the machines were at fault.

“Why do we have such poorly written software that allows candidates to receive more votes than the number of ballots cast?” Heindel said today. “Poorly written software creates human error.”

He said the independent auditors were still waiting for the files to finish their work.

Whitmire’s explanation differs from Colleton County Elections Director Eric Campbell’s guess at what happened. Campbell had said he suspected some votes got counted twice when he held the memory cards from six smaller precincts in the machine too long while tabulating the votes. That raised questions whether the computer software was at fault. Whitmire said there’s no indication the mistake had anything to do with the machine reading the memory cards.

“It wasn’t a problem with the machines, and it wasn’t something mysterious,” Whitmire said. “Whenever there are humans involved, there is always going to be the chance of error.”

We also point out that apparently this error came to light only through citizen expense and diligence. Instructively, like Bridgeport and Connecticut, the original inaccurate results still stand.

Update: Another post from the Norwich Bulletin. <read> Be sure and read the comments on this and the ones on the article at CTNewsJunkie above.

Voter ID: Good Idea? or Bad Idea? and Costly

“little evidence of actual voter fraud, and plenty to suggest that the laws will end up costing states millions of dollars that they don’t have…But criticism of the Voter ID bills often falls starkly along party lines. While Republicans say that they’re necessary to combat growing fraud, there’s little to suggest rampant fraud is actually taking place. Meanwhile, Democrats argue that there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that it’s the elderly, African American, and Latino voters who are most likely to vote without the types of identification that’s being required in the new legislation.”

ColorLines: The Real Cost of the GOP’s Push for Voter ID Laws <read>

One of those highly partisan issues where the facts are obscured by dug in opponents:

The effort is part of much larger push by Republicans nationwide to enact stronger Voter ID legislation. In addition to Texas, party leaders are already in talks to introduce similar bills in Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina and Wisconsin. But as Chris Khrom wrote last week at the Institute for Southern Studies, each bill comes at a substantial cost.

Take Texas, for instance. The state faces a budget shortfall of over $10 billion. But Republican Gov. Rick Perry declared voter ID a legislative emergency to help fast-track the bill. All this despite little evidence of actual voter fraud, and plenty to suggest that the laws will end up costing states millions of dollars that they don’t have. Khrom writes that officials in Missouri estimated last year that a similar program there could cost the state’s taxpayers $20 million over three years.

And there’s more:

Studies show that up to 11% of citizens don’t have a photo ID. Forcing voters to buy cards has made states the target of lawsuits claiming such costs amount to a modern-day poll tax. To solve the problem, many states now issue free ID cards, but it’s expensive: In 2009, Wisconsin (3.5 million voters) projected a total $2.4 million cost [pdf]; Missouri estimated $3.4 million [pdf].

So what’s behind the push? Surely it’s at least partially an effort to gear up for the 2012 presidential elections. But criticism of the Voter ID bills often falls starkly along party lines. While Republicans say that they’re necessary to combat growing fraud, there’s little to suggest rampant fraud is actually taking place. Meanwhile, Democrats argue that there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that it’s the elderly, African American, and Latino voters who are most likely to vote without the types of identification that’s being required in the new legislation.

It is difficult not to believe that it is partisan politics, not voting integrity behind much of the debate. As we have said before, “As we have said before, When we are in favor of something, we ignore the costs, no matter how great. When we are against something, we highlight the costs, no matter how small.“

We are skeptical of the need for voter-ID, especially considering the costs and inconvenience involved. We would like to see more proof of significant fraud and a detailed plan for serving the needs of those without conventional voter ID’s, along with the costs. Compared to no-excuse absentee voting the proven risks of fraud are much lower, while the convenience of no-excuse absentee voting seems to have the negative effect of reducing turn-out.

In Connecticut, a senator has introduce a bill for Voter ID <read>. Two representatives would go further, requiring not only Voter ID, but proof of citizenship.<read>

No-Excuse for Mail-In Voting and three “interesting” bills

Today we sent the following email to nine legislators proposing a total of six bills this year in Connecticut for no-excuse absentee voting. Some of the bills state the purpose of increasing voter participation. The facts don’t seem to support the claim of increased participation.

Subject: No-Excuse Absentee Voting Bill: __

Senator/Representative ___,

I am writing because you are a sponsor of the above bill for early voting via no-excuse absentee voting.

Consider this PEW sponsored. University of Wisconsin research, that shows early voting has the effect of DECREASING turnout. And candidates are having challenges with advertising and GOTV. https://ctvoterscount.org/researchers-early-voting-alone-decreases-turnout/

Here is another article about various concerns with mail voting: https://ctvoterscount.org/vote-by-mail-cheaper-but-advocates-have-concerns/
Including a study of three CA counties showing a similar drop in turn-out in all but special elections: http://weber.ucsd.edu/~tkousser/votebymail.htm

PS: CTVotersCount is primarily opposed to, expanded mail-in or no-excuse absentee voting because of the opportunity and record of fraud – it seems that after every national election we find stories of fraud, prosecution, and conviction based on mail-in voting. Recent examples:
OH: https://ctvoterscount.org/absentee-ballot-fraud-in-ohio/
FL: https://ctvoterscount.org/no-excuse-absentee-voting-unintended-consequences/
AZ, CA, FL: https://ctvoterscount.org/absenteeearly-voting-raise-questions-and-risks/
TX: https://ctvoterscount.org/how-not-to-increase-voter-participation/

Readers may also be interested in three bills that will likely be dead on arrival:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/h/pdf/2011HB-05727-R00-HB.pdf

Purpose: To reform post-election audit procedures.

(1) after an audit, a town shall have a four-year exemption to relieve the town from holding a post-election audit, provided such town is a small town; and (2) registrars of voters shall no longer be held personally liable for finesfor failure to comply with audit procedures. Instead, such fines shall be levied against the municipalities.

Reform? It would gut the post-election audit law since random audits of all districts are required to catch fraud and error, at the expense of mid and large municipalities. After an audit, a small town would have a four year open season for covering errors and insider fraud.

A rather unique concept that municipalities pay fines for the failure of officials to follow laws and procedures. Should that be extended to Mayors and Governors? Perhaps election officials should be required to budget in advance for their future anticipated transgressions. (Note: We are aware of no fines as yet having been imposed for violations of the post-election audit law, and in Connecticut procedures and regulations are unenforceable.)

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/s/pdf/2011SB-00646-R00-SB.pdf

provide that the threshold for state-wide automatic recounts in closely contested elections be lowered to a three-thousand-vote difference.

Quite an accomplishment to lower it to 3000, since the current threshold is a 2000 vote difference. We would likely support the increase.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/h/pdf/2011HB-05732-R00-HB.pdf

require a receipt for ballots cast by voters who vote by coloring in, with pencil, their selections and feed their ballots into a reader or by electronically recording selections using a station designed for physically disabled voters unable to use a paper ballot.

This would eliminate the secret ballot that protects us from vote buying and coercion. Anyone can use a machine designed for the disabled…so anyone can get a receipt and sell their vote or be coerced!!! PS: This would hardly help the blind voter, the most likely disabled users of our difficult to setup and use IVS system. Update: On closer reading of the part before the “or”, the act would not only apply to IVS voters, but to anyone who brings a pencil to the polls and uses it to fill out their ballot. No mention of how the receipt would be generated.