Category: CT

Present, Past, and Future of Absentee Fraud in Connecticut

Absentee fraud may have changed the apparent winner in New Haven. The solution is not more absentee or mail-in voting.

While the Legislature is considering no-excuse absentee voting, we have a story of current likely and past documented fraud, with the Secretary of the State recommending even more risky main-in voting.

New Haven Independent story:  Voters Charge Absentee Fraud, Intimidation <read>

When college sophomore Shavalsia Sabb cast her first-ever ballot, she had no idea she would land in the middle of New Haven’s latest voting controversy.

Sabb, a Southern Connecticut State University student from Norwalk, said she voted for Audrey Tyson and Tom Ficklin in a Democratic ward co-chair election two weeks ago. She had never heard of them before. She voted by absentee ballot, even though she had no plans to be out of town and no reason to believe she couldn’t make it to the polls on election day.

Then she un-did her ballot. And decided this voting business wasn’t worth all the trouble.

“I didn’t really feel comfortable voting anymore the way it happened,” Sabb said in a conversation this week. The 20-year-old first-time voter said she felt misled and pressured by both sides in the election.

Sabb is among at least 10 Ward 29 voters—students and seniors—who either un-did votes or have filed affidavits with the State Election Enforcement Commission complaining of hanky-panky in the way that the Tyson campaign collected absentee ballots for the March 6 primary for two Democratic Town Committee ward co-chair seats.

Absentee ballots made the difference in that race. Tyson and Ficklin lost to their opponents when polling place votes were tallied on the voting machines. When absentee ballots were counted, they became the winners—Ficklin by one vote. A full 116 out of Tyson’s 256 votes came by absentee.

And at least some of the voters claim that her campaign tricked them into filling out absentees they either weren’t supposed to use, or else pressured them into voting for her against their intentions or wishes. State law requires that someone file absentee ballots only if planning to be out of town or otherwise physically unable to come to the polls; or because of military of poll-working duty or religious prohibition.

Two things to note here:

  • This may well have made the difference in the apparent winner of the election.
  • If we have no-excuse absentee balloting this would still be illegal voter intimidation, but likely more difficult to prove that there was in fact intimidation, while in this case it is clear that the voters were convinced to illegally apply for such ballots.

Sadly this is not the first time for New Haven (and Connecticut):

Aggressive collection of absentee ballots is an art form among New Haven Democrats. Charges of fraud and mishandling of ballots have sprung up regularly over the years. One City Hall supporter, Angelo Reyes, was found guilty of stealing absentee ballots in a 2002 town committee race, for instance. But usually evidence or accusations of fraud—including former Newhallville Alderman Charlie Blango’s admission last fall that his staff improperly collected them in a hotly contested aldermanic race—are met with shrugs and no follow-up, although officials did disqualify 15 ballots in that race. (Click here to read about that.) The concern is that with absentees, unlike at a polling station, campaigns can pressure people into voting for their candidate whether or not they want it.

Secretary Merrill and Senator Looney weigh in:

Secretary of the State Denise Merrill (pictured) said she has a couple of ideas of how to tackle absentee ballot fraud and get more people voting in the process. One step is to eliminate absentees altogether and let everyone cast votes by mail in advance of an election, no questions asked. There would still be polling places, but fewer people would use them….

Merrill supports a bill currently before the legislature to amend the state constitution to allow no-fault absentee, or mail-in, voting. Other states, like Oregon, allow people weeks to bring in ballots in person or mail them in; 80 percent of voters do so, she said.

She cited the controversy over SCSU absentee ballots in new Haven’s Ward 29 as a reason to make the change.

“This is what we’ve got to stop. We’re making liars out of people. A lot of people are thinking: ‘I may be out of town. …’ We have no way of knowing” if people filled out ballots truthfully, Merrill said.

State Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney said he’s “not convinced” about the no-fault mail-in ballot.

“You have a danger of losing the integrity of the ballot boxes,” he said. The process opens the door even wider to the possibility of employers or campaigns pressuring people to vote for candidates. “We fought 100 years ago for the secret ballot,” said Looney, who represents New Haven in the legislature.

“I would dispute that,” Merrill responded. “The fraud we’ve seen in elections is all absentee ballot fraud, people ‘helping’ [seniors and the disabled] fill out their ballots. That pool of people is already at risk.” She is supporting a separate measure to increase penalties for bribery, intimidation and other “real election fraud” to match the penalties for impersonating people at the polls.

Here we agree with Senator Loony. The point Secretary Merrill makes about all mail-in vs. Absentee voting fraud is a distinction without a difference. All mail-in would expose all mailed ballots to being voted by intimidation or mail box theft on the days they are all expected.  As we see from the two instances above it is not all filling out ballots for seniors.

Enthusiastic support for the Secretary’s Performance Task Force Recommendations

Given the many members, the brief meetings, and the lack of representation of all interests, we were skeptical when the Task Force was convened. To our delight, we find that we can offer endorsement of each of the twenty-one recommendations in the report.

There is a lot to do in all the recommendations. It will take time, money, and deliberate work with everyone at the table. Our hope is that each of the recommendations will be thoroughly explored, evaluated, and acted upon, that none get overlooked.

Last summer and fall, the Secretary of the State convened an Elections Performance Task Force to look at elections and what might be done to improve them in the State of Connecticut. Details, presentations, and videos of the Task Force meetings are available at the Secretary’s web site <here> The Secretary issued a final report and recommendations <here>

Given the many members, the brief meetings, and the lack of representation of all interests, we were skeptical when the Task Force was convened. To our delight, we find that we can  offer endorsement of each of the twenty-one recommendations in the report, starting on page 34.

We strongly endorse those recommendations in bold below [our comments in brackets]

Identify measures that will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the voting process.

1. The Secretary recommends an amendment to Article 6, Section 7 of the Connecticut State Constitution similar to House Joint Resolution Number 88 of the 2011 legislative session. The amendment would allow the General Assembly to adopt more flexible laws for voting.

2. The Secretary recommends partnering with Professor Heather Gerken to develop a Connecticut Democracy Index. This would allow for benchmarking across municipalities and with other states to track trends in the election process, to measure performance and to gain valuable data that can inform decisions going forward.

3. The Secretary recommends streamlining the absentee ballot process. A working group should be formed to examine and make recommendations around ideas like creating a single absentee ballot application and linking the absentee ballot tracking system with the Centralized Voter Registration System. [Assuming such streamlining does not increase integrity risks or confidence in the process]

4. The Secretary recommends further study of how regionalism could make Connecticut’s electoral  system more cost-effective and consistent. For instance, the use of a statewide online voter registration system, regional on-demand ballot printing, and regional voting centers should all be further explored. [Here we would go further to explore complete regionalizaton, “doing for elections what we have done for probate in Connecticut]

5. The Secretary recommends that the polling place for district elections be the same as for state elections. This will help eliminate voter confusion caused by having to go to different polling locations for different elections. [This would be convenient, yet if mandated, would be challenging for many towns due to different boundaries and contests]

6. The Secretary recommends exploring better ways of coordinating the printing of ballots with programming of memory cards in order to create a more efficient, reliable and cost-effective process.

7. The Secretary recommends the development of a certification process for Registrars of Voters. Additionally, standards and best practices should be developed for that office around issues such as election administration, voter registration and voter outreach. These standards and best practices may need to account for differences in small, medium and large municipalities. Finally, a mechanism for enforcement and, if necessary, the removal of a Registrar of Voters should be created. [We would especially recommend standardization and better practices for post-election audits and recanvasses, along with better manuals, including creating manuals for each pollworker position]

8. The Secretary recommends that a formal study of the cost of elections be undertaken, and that a standardized set of measures for such costs be established.[We would combine this into the Democracy Index, providing ongoing measures and comparison over time]

Maintain the security and integrity of the voting process.

9. The Secretary recommends the development of a secure online voter registration system in Connecticut. The system should be tied to other statewide databases, such as the Department of Social Services, the Department of Developmental Services, and the Department of Motor Vehicles, to allow for verification of data.

10. The Secretary recommends that the state acquire at least one high speed, high volume scanner to be utilized in the post-election auditing process. This centralization of the process will reduce the fiscal and logistical burdens on towns, as well as provide for a more accurate and secure auditing process.[We are a strong supporter of electronic auditing, done effectively and transparently. The number of scanners and their capacities should be a byproduct of an effective electronic auditing pilot, plan, cost benefit analysis, and appropriate law establishing and governing electronic audits]

11. The Secretary recommends that the post-election auditing process be amended to include all ballots that are machine-counted, including those counted centrally.[We would go farther and subject all ballots cast to selection for audit.]

12. The Secretary recommends that a greater emphasis be placed on ballot security. Ballots should be stored in a secure, locked facility. Additionally, two individuals should always be present whenever these facilities are accessed. This policy should be uniformly followed and enforced.

13. The Secretary recommends that the state join the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), an interstate data consortium that the Pew Center on the States is currently building. This data center would allow participating states to streamline the processes for registering eligible voters; update records of existing voters; and remove duplicate and invalid records from state voter files. The Secretary stresses the need to include multiple agencies in the database, including those that offer public assistance, interact with people with disabilities, and otherwise come into contact with eligible voters who may not normally visit the Department of Motor Vehicles. Evaluate ways to integrate technology into our election system.

14. The Secretary recommends further exploring the use of new technologies in the election process through pilot programs and examination of other states’ usage. However, the cost and security of any new technologies should be carefully examined. Examples of new technologies for consideration include:

a. Electronic poll books

   b. More advanced voting systems for the voters with disabilities

    c. Online voter registration

15. The Secretary recommends immediate implementation of a statewide web-based electronic reporting system for election results.

16. The Secretary recommends the use of web-based training to standardize election staff training across the state.[We would like to see video training and manuals having a pollworker focus, designed by professional technical writers]

Find ways to increase voter participation, particularly among minorities, young people, people with disabilities, and military and overseas voters.

17. The Secretary recommends Election Day registration in Connecticut and any necessary adjustments to the voter file system to ensure accuracy. Election Day registration has increased voter participation in states where it has been enacted.

18. The Secretary recommends an effort to increase voter participation in Connecticut, with a particular focus on youth, minorities, people with disabilities, and military and overseas voters.

a. Early voting bears further study as a possible mechanism for reaching minority voters. [We are skeptical that early voting has a particular focus on any group of voters]

   b. Since the electorate is becoming more mobile, voter registrations should be mobile as well.
   c. Connecticut’s curbside voting program should be better advertised to voters with disabilities, all polling  places should be easily handicapped accessible, and poll workers at all locations should be properly trained on utilizing the IVS vote by phone system. A viable, better alternative to the IVS system should also be sought.

   d. The military and overseas voting process should be amended to allow for the facsimile transmittal of completed absentee ballot applications. The original application would then be returned in the envelope along with the completed absentee ballot via mail, in order for the ballot to be counted.[Fax transmission should only be required to obtain a blank ballot in situations where the voter cannot print a blank ballot]

e. The military and overseas voting process should be streamlined by the electronic transmission of printable, mailable ballots. This, along with the above recommendation, would eliminate the mailing time of transmitting completed applications and blank ballots through manual post, and would allow for more time for participation by military and overseas voters.

f. The electronic transmission of ballots to military and overseas voters should be further streamlined through the use of the Centralized Voter Registration System.[Having the system aid the overseas voter in downloading their correct blank ballot]

19. The Secretary recommends that existing voter registration provisions included in legislation such as the National Voter Registration Act be fully enforced. The Secretary further recommends that Connecticut’s Department of Corrections be designated as an official voter registration agency.

20. The Secretary recommends a concerted effort to educate the public and the incarcerated population about the voting rights of those detained pre-sentencing and the restoration of voting rights to felons. The Secretary further recommends that the restoration of voting rights be extended to include parolees, as is the case in over a dozen states.

21. The Secretary recommends that Election Day be declared a holiday, as it is in many countries, and/or that elections include in-person voting on a weekend day. This would grant citizens more time to vote and would allow for the use of students and persons with the day off as poll workers.

We note several caveats:

Our endorsement of proposals is conditional. Conditional on the details of any proposed implementation or law. For instance, although we support Election Day Registration, we do not support the current bill before the Legislature which would call for Election Day Registration, because the bill is inadequate to protect the rights of EDR voters, other voters, and could result in chaos and uncertainty.

The report is the Secretary of the State’s, not approved by or endorsed by the Task Force as a whole.

Contained in this report are the findings of the Election Performance Task Force, organized by subcommittee subject matter, with the additional category of voting technology. The Secretary utilized these findings along with feedback from members of the task force, other interested parties, and the public to shape the recommendations that are detailed at the end of this report.

While we endorse the recommendations, we do not endorse the details in the report itself:

  • The statistical information and conclusions do not come close to meeting rigorous standards in justifying the conclusions reached.
  • As noted in the report, the cost of elections information provided is questionable. We find it wildly inaccurate to include data that elections might have been conducted at costs per voter less than the cost of printing a single ballot.
  • We strongly disagree that there is any basis to predict that online voting will be a safe and accepted practice within ten years.

There is a lot to do in all the recommendations. It will take time, money, and deliberate work with everyone at the table. Our hope is that each of the recommendations will be thoroughly explored, evaluated, and acted upon, that none get overlooked.

Busy Day: Testimony, Inaccuracy, and more

It was a busy day in Hartford today. I testified on two bills along with many others also testifying on those and other bills before the Government Elections and Administrations Committee. There is an AP article which may leave misunderstanding of my testimony and positions. Finally, the Secretary of the State released the final report of the Elections Performance Task Force. UPDATED

It was a busy day in Hartford today. I testified on two bills along with many others also testifying on those and other bills before the Government Elections and Administrations Committee.

One bill was the Constitutional Amendment for early voting. I testified for the bill and against expended absentee voting, provided the bill and ballot question accurately portray the intent of no-excuse absentee voting. <read>

Another bill authorized Online Voter Registration and Election Day Registration. I testified for both in concept, yet against the particular form of Election Day Registration which is quite different than the successful EDR systems in use in other states <read>

There is an AP article which may leave misunderstanding of my testimony and positions, here is one example <read>

Luther Weeks, the executive director of both CTVotersCount.org and the Connecticut Citizen Election Audit Coalition, spoke out against the Election Day registration proposal.

In his testimony to the committee, Weeks said the proposal does not protect the rights of voters and will lead to chaos at polling locations. He also raised concerns that people could be turned away if standing in line to register to vote when the polls close. Weeks’ coalition monitors post-election audits in Connecticut.

Like Weeks, Christopher Healy, the former Connecticut Republican Party chairman, also testified against Election Day and online voter registration. Healy argued that the two systems would lead to voter fraud because same-day registration is not verified until after votes are cast. He said online registration is only as good as the people updating the system.

For the record:

  • I testified only for CTVotersCount, not the Coalition (Coalition members have a variety of positions on election laws. We all agree on the importance of post-election audits)
  • I testified against the proposed from of Election Day Registration, although I support EDR in general.
  • I testified for Online Voter Registration
  • I testified against expanded absentee voting, but for the Constitutional Amendment, provided the Amendment and the ballot question clearly represent the purpose as providing for laws to allow expanded absentee voting.

Finally, the Secretary of the State released the final report of the Elections Performance Task Force. Once I have had a chance to review the report I will provide detailed commentary. From the Secretary’s remarks at the press conference and reading a draft report several months ago, I expect to support most if not all of the report’s recommendations. <report>

Update 3/3/2012: It seems that the AP quickly updated its article after my call last night. I appreciate their response. Our goal is also to expedite any corrections to errors in our postings brought to our attention:

Luther Weeks, the executive director of both CTVotersCount.org, spoke against the Election Day registration proposal. Weeks said the proposal does not protect the rights of voters and will lead to chaos at polling locations. He also raised concerns that people could be turned away if standing in line to register to vote when the polls close. Weeks also is executive director of the Connecticut Citizen Election Audit Coalition, which monitors postelection audits in Connecticut, but doesn’t have a consensus position on the proposal.

Absentee Ballot Hijinks in Hartford?

Evelyn Cruz filed a complaint accusing another resident, Clorinda Soldevila, of hand-delivering three absentee ballots to her home on Bond Street, and then picking up those ballots and delivering them to city hall.

Hartford Courant: Hartford Resident Alleges Illegal Handling Of Absentee Ballots <read>

Evelyn Cruz filed a complaint accusing another resident, Clorinda Soldevila, of hand-delivering three absentee ballots to her home on Bond Street, and then picking up those ballots and delivering them to city hall…

Cruz said in her complaint that Soldevila visited her on Feb. 4 and asked her to sign an application for an absentee ballot, which she did “with the understanding that [Soldevila] would return it to city hall.”

Cruz said she expected that city hall would mail her an absentee ballot, and that she would mail it back. But a week later, she wrote in the complaint, Soldevila turned up at her home again, this time with three absentee ballots — for Cruz, her husband and her daughter-in-law. She said Soldevila asked her to fill out a ballot, which she did, and put it into an envelope.

“Before I had a chance to place the envelope in the mail, Ms. Soldevila returned to my home and picked up the envelope, and told me that she would return it to city hall. This happened about two days after she brought the ballots,” Cruz wrote.

[Town and City Clerk John] Bazzano said, however, that the ballots were not dropped off, but that his office received the three absentee ballots by mail in sealed envelopes, which had been stamped and postmarked. He said the office would never accept hand-delivered ballots.

“We have the proof and the facts to back up that we did it right,” Bazzano said. “All of the envelopes are clearly stamped and postmarked.

Not sure we understand Bazzano’s statement or maybe the article is confused.  It could be accurate, however, if someone took the three absentee ballots illegally they still could have mailed them in and the main allegation would remain unresolved.

Scanners 0, Hand count 0, Officials 0, Press/Citizens 2

Connecticut has little reason to take comfort in New York’s latest election embarrassment. We do not expect an official system to recognize unofficial counts, yet we do expect a system that recognizes problems, and reacts by taking reasonable steps to correct errors.

Connecticut has little reason to take comfort in New York’s latest election embarrassment.

Yesterday we had this story from the New York Daily News:  Board of Elections does nothing as hundreds of Bronx votes go missing <read>

More than six months ago, voting experts at New York University Law School’s Brennan Center detected an alarming pattern at one polling place in the South Bronx:

The tallies from the electronic scanning machines at Public School 65 included high proportions of invalidated votes.

There were two possibilities: Either huge numbers of voters had improperly filled out their ballots, or at least one of the scanners had gone haywire. The board did nothing. Actually, the board did worse than nothing. It refused to check — even when asked to do so by state election officials.

Using the Freedom of Information Law, this editorial page then demanded the right to inspect ballots cast at PS 65 in the 2010 primary and general elections — the ones that put Gov. Cuomo into office.

The board complied, marking what may be the first time members of the public in New York State have been given permission to look over cast ballots and review how they were counted.

All too predictably, we discovered that voters had done their part correctly, while one of the three scanners at PS 65 misread and miscounted votes.

Scanners 0, Officials 0, Press/Citizens 1

But that is New York, not Connecticut. Our ancestors sold wooden nutmegs to the ancestors of today’s New Yorkers.

Recall November 2010 when Bridgeport had a  problem running out of ballots compounded by problems hand counting and accounting for the the photocopied ballots. The Connecticut Post asked to count the ballots, Bridgeport complied and citizens counted them.  And the State of Connecticut, nothing. The “Official” Bridgeport results still stand.

By our count, 20 of 25 polling places had photocopied paper ballots, but even that number was never recognized officially. We are reminded of this by an article, also yesterday, in the Hartford Courant covering a talk by the Secretary of the State: Secretary Of The State Outlines Proposed Changes In Elections <read>

Merrill has been considering changes to the way votes are cast in Connecticut following the November 2010 election fiasco in Bridgeport where only 21,000 paper ballots were preprinted in a city of 69,000 registered voters and 12 of 25 polling places ran out of ballots.

Of course we do not expect an official system to recognize unofficial counts, we do expect a system that recognizes problems, and reacts by taking reasonable steps to correct errors. We cannot hold the current Secretary accountable for actions that occurred before she took office yet we would like to see a system that not only reduced the changes of a very similar disaster, but also one that can recover from a variety of similar and dissimilar disasters in the future.

Scanners 0, Hand count 0, Officials 0, Press/Citizens 2

Testimony on powers of the Secretary of the State

One bill H.B. 5026 covered the emergency powers of the Secretary of the State…there were some additional important distinctions which should be included to expand and limit the bill, along with a related power the Committee should consider for unnatural disasters

Today I attended a public hearing of the Government Administration and Elections Committee. My intention was to listen to the meeting before the hearing, and listen to the hearing which was mostly on ethics related bills. One bill H.B. 5026 covered the emergency powers of the Secretary of the State.

Denise Merrill, Secretary of the State testified in favor of the bill. The Committee asked some insightful questions related to the scope and execution of the powers in the bill. I realized there were some additional important distinctions which should be included to expand and limit the bill, along with a related power the Committee should consider for unnatural disasters:

  • The word “elections” can be ambiguous the bill should explicitly cover “elections, primary elections, and special elections”.
  • The bill should be limited to postponing only entire elections, primary elections, and special elections.
  • The Secretary should have the power to call for discrepancy recanvasses, not just a single individual in each municipality.

See our full written testimony <read>

 

Improved election reporting on the way

But big changes are coming, including a precinct-by-precinct election reporting system that the state hopes to test in April and use publicly in August to gather unofficial results during the expected primaries for U.S. Senate and state legislative races.

This sounds like the kind of change we called for during the 2010 election for Secretary of the State

CTMirror: Connecticut gets low grade for online election info, but big changes are coming <read>

We are not surprised that the state elections web gets low grades again when compared to other states. But there is some potential good news.

But big changes are coming, including a precinct-by-precinct election reporting system that the state hopes to test in April and use publicly in August to gather unofficial results during the expected primaries for U.S. Senate and state legislative races.

This sounds like the kind of change we called for during the 2010 election for Secretary of the State: What could a Secretary of the State Do? <read>

Provide detailed, accurate, downloadable, election information and notices on the Secretary of the State’s web site

In a PEW study the Connecticut site ranked 48th out of 50 states.  We could debate if we should be higher in the rankings, or instead work to emulate and surpass the top ranked states.

The process of accumulating voting results in Connecticut is an error-prone three step process of addition and transcription, from polling place, to town hall, to the Secretary of the State’s Office, and to the web.  Citizens have identified errors large and moderate – errors of a magnitude  which could change election results, the initiation of recanvasses, or ballot access. See <here> <here>

Without reliable, publicly posted results, post-election audits cannot be accomplished which inspire confidence and provide integrity.  A trusted audit requires selecting districts for audit against previously posted results.  Since we audit against optical scanner tapes, and the tape results are not posted, then we fail to meet that requirement.

What can be done?

  • Post copies of the original documents: All district and central count absented ballot Moderator’s’ Reports and copies of scanner tapes should be faxed to the Secretary of the State’s Office and posted on the SOTS web site. (We know this is easily possible since the SOTS web site has recently included images of all local ballots, and is capable of the quick addition of press releases)
  • Post detailed and summary data: The SOTS could use temporary employees or outsourcing to input and double check the input of all that data, then post it to the web site in human and downloadable formats.
  • Side benefit: A free public audit: As a byproduct the public, candidates, and parties could check and audit the data at no cost to the state.  To do that today would involve visiting town halls across the state and performing all the calculations done today by hand – efficient auditing of selected districts is not possible because detailed data is not currently posted

Not quite as far as we would like and the details in the article are a bit sketchy. Hopefully the data will include details for each district that can be used to compare with the audit. Since the audit exempts all hand counted and all centrally counted absentee ballots from the audit, to be useful results must provide separate totals for hand counted and machine counted ballots in each district polling place and separate absentee counts by district centrally counted. Important as well would be to have the data in a downloadable format.

We would also hope that all registrars and moderators will support this initiative. We are not sure this requirement can actually be required and enforced without a change in the law.

Hacked newspaper recommends online voting

They also forget absentee voting fraud in Connecticut, while their print edition confuses tech-savvy with technical expertise.

Hartford Courant editorial supports Secretary of the State’s and Governor’s initiative, while asking for more: State Changes Will Make It Easier To Vote – New Initiatives: State officials want to increase voter participation <read>

January 19, 2012

Although 14 states have taken steps to make it more difficult to vote — by requiring identification that some people don’t possess, for example — Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, with the backing of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, is pushing Connecticut in the other direction.

Good for them. Voting is the essence of democracy. Making it easier to vote will increase a citizen’s stake in government.

Ms. Merrill unveiled her package of reforms on Monday, the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who called ballot access a bedrock civil right. The secretary of the state noted that in Connecticut nearly one-third of eligible voters are not registered, barely 30 percent of registered voters turned out in last fall’s municipal elections, and only 57 percent voted in the statewide and congressional elections in 2010.

That’s a worrisome dropoff in participation. Cynicism over partisan gridlock in Washington may have something to do with paltry voter participation, but so do antiquated election laws and practices.

As an antidote to voter malaise, Ms. Merrill proposes that Connecticut law allow Election Day registration, no-excuse absentee voting and online voter registration. She also proposes to increase criminal penalties on those who tamper with voting equipment or who interfere with, threaten or intimidate voters. Those are good changes — for starters. She and lawmakers should consider online voting and various forms of early voting as well.

Changes to absentee voting will take a constitutional amendment, but should be pursued. This is one promising avenue to increased voter participation. So is Election Day registration. Ms. Merrill says that in the nine states that have some form of Election Day registration, turnout has improved an average of 8 to 10 percent.

Opponents of these worthy efforts to improve access to the ballot raise the specter of fraud. That hasn’t been what experience teaches.

[Emphasis ours]

The Courant seems a bit forgetful. Online voting is risky.

We also note that the Courant makes two common errors in the final sentence of the editorial. I guess they, like the New York Times, question the obligation to present actual facts in the paper:

  • According to the best science available, early voting including non-excuse absentee voting do NOT increase voter turn-out (it DECREASES IT). Similar information was provided to the Secretary of the State’s Election Performance Task Force.
  • While there are few instances of votER fraud that many fear from election day registration and online registration, there are plenty of instances after most elections of the more dangerous votING fraud with absentee ballots. Even in the Courant’s state and backyard there is a hi story of fraud and allegations of fraud.<See here here here>

While we are at it, there is an relationship between what goes on in Washington and Hartford; between what goes on in the news section and the editorial section of the paper. In a blog entry yesterday Courant Reporter Daniela Altimari asks: How Tech-Savvy is the State’s Congressional Delegation? <read>

Sadly tech-savvy, meaning that representatives use iPads or listen to iTunes can be confused as Altimari points out at the end of the post:

Owning an iPad and a Netflix membership doesn’t mean you know the ins and outs of DNS filtering and the other complex technical issues surrounding SOPA. But if you are in a position of voting on potentially ground-breaking legislation with far-reaching implications, a grasp of how the Internet works is key.

Sadly this last paragraph was dropped from the print edition of the paper, leaving most readers with the impression that tech-savvy and consumerism are equivalent. As we said in a comment on the blog post:

Using an iPad or listening to iTunes is certainly not equivalent to understanding Internet. Sort of like confusing Dr. Mel [legendary CT meteorologist 1945-2012]  with a person who uses a snowblower. Sadly there remains only one Scientist in all of the U.S. Congress, Rep Rush Holt, unless one considers medical doctors and dentists. I can’t help but note that PIPA sounds like a tribute to Ted Stevens who famously referred to the Internet as a series of tubes. (Actually Stevens may have been unfairely ridiculed here as data communications experts often explain bandwidth variations in terms of garden hoses, fire hoses, and rivers – there is a pretty direct analogy – Stevens may at least have attepted to talk to experts)

Gov, SOTS call for election day registration, online registration, and amendment for absentee voting

CTVotersCount has long been in favor of Election Day Registration (EDR) and concerned with the risks of unlimited absentee voting. We also strongly support online voter registration, not to be confused with online voting which we and many others oppose. Studies show that EDR increases turn-out, while absentee voting decreases turn-out, the stated goal behind the measures proposed in today’s press conference.

Press release  GOV. MALLOY AND SECRETARY OF THE STATE MERRILL CALL FOR PRESERVING ACCESS TO ELECTIONS  <read>

To make registration more efficient and create a more accurate voter file, proposed legislation would create web-based voter registration for Connecticut citizens who have a valid and current driver’s license; allow for Election Day registration to improve voter turnout; and call for absentee ballots to be governed by statute, which would give legislators the ability to adopt laws that address voters who cannot get to polling locations on Election Day.   The legislation would also increase penalties on any effort to block or impede voter access. 

CTVotersCount has long been in favor of Election Day Registration (EDR) and concerned with the risks of unlimited absentee voting. We also strongly support online voter registration, not to be confused with online voting which we and many others oppose.

In the past Secretary Merrill has opposed EDR. We welcome the change.

In addition to our integrity concerns with unlimited absentee voting, studies show that EDR increases turn-out, while absentee voting decreases turn-out, the stated goal behind the measures proposed in today’s press conference.

Other coverage: CTNewsJunkie (with discussion and several of my comments)  CT-N Video of Press Conference

An alternative view at CTNewsJunkie <read>

Update – see my comment and those of others in a discussion at a cross-post at MyLeftNutmeg, where I am BlastFromGlast

More details on EDR can be obtained from reports at the Elections Performance Task Force.

Elections should not primarily (no pun intended) be about convenience of election officials or selection of our government in the cheapest way possible. However, in addition to other benefits Online Voter Registration in conjunction with motor vehicles can save lots overall – the state pays a bit and the towns save a lot – the reverse of an unfunded mandate. See:
http://www.sots.ct.gov/sots/li…
http://www.sots.ct.gov/sots/li…

From what I have heard there are plenty of registration problems in college towns now. EDR may mean more work on election day to benefit democracy, but costs should largely be offset by less work earlier and in Presidential elections the elimination of the special Presidential ballot for those not registered.

And there are errors in our current voter registration database that have not been solved by all the time available to fix them ahead of the election. Sadly, the State does not even have a good list of polling places in each election as evidenced by errors in the polling place list used to select districts for audit – according to the previous SOTS Office the voter reg database cannot be used for an accurate list because it has errors in polling places (not just the locations, but the number in use in each town), a presumably much easier item to keep up to date then voter lists, since it is entirely under the control of local election officials.

Voting Problems For Persons With Disabilites Probed In West Hartford

Voters should not have to put up with this system. All voters with disabilities deserve a better system. Pollworkers should not have to put up with this system, they deserve a system that is reliable. Yet, pollworkers should be careful to treat each voter with dignity even if they are themselves frustrated.

Courant: Panel Aims To Ease Voting Voting By Phone – Voter Describes Difficulty When Poll Workers Lack Training On Use Of Special System <read>

We would not normally describe it as voting by phone, but that is an apt name for the experience. Connecticut’s voting system for the disabled, the IVS, is as cumbersome system for polling place officials and voters, suitable primarily for the blind, if suitable for anyone.

Officials complain of the costs of providing a special phone line installed in many polling places before each election, difficult setup, and in many cases the system remains unused by any voter. The setup requires a test communication over the phone line with a faxed response. In 2010, the Coalition found in our small sample that some IVS systems took hours, or never responded to the setup test. <see page 34>

To vote, voters listen to the ballot over the phone, using the keypad to select their choices, the system responds with a fax that prints a special ballot which the voter must deposit in the auxiliary bin of the box below the scanner. At the end of the day such ballots are counted by hand as they are not scannable. At best the system may only meet the needs of vision impaired voters. In a complex local election it can take half an hour to listen to the ballot and make choices by the touch pad. The IVS is supposed to facilitate independent, anonymous voting, not require the aid of an individual to assist the voter in filling out the ballot. Yet, how independent is it when help is needed in setting up the system? How easy is it for the sight limited voter to collect and deposit the ballot across the room and keep it hidden all the way? How anonymous when at most one or two voters use the system an the ballots are easily identified, even after the election? In 2010, in one report, a voter used the system, waited two hours for the ballot to be faxed, left in frustration, while the ballot did print one more hour later.

Voters should not have to put up with this system. All voters with disabilities deserve a better system. Pollworkers should not have to put up with this system, they deserve a system that is reliable. Yet, pollworkers should be careful to treat each voter with dignity even if they are themselves frustrated.

When the state worked to pick  HAVA (Help America Vote Act) compliant systems for voting and for voters with disabilities, there were many individuals involved at the state and national levels working and pushing for solutions for those with disabilities. Connecticut chose the IVS system, perhaps intended as an interim solution. Since that time we have seen little attention by officials to evaluating purported better solutions. Since that time, we have seen little if any evidence of lobbying or calls for better solutions from or on behalf of those with disabilities.