Category: CT Law

CTVotersCount Testimony To The GAE Committee

Update: We provide Testimony Response & Clarification

The primary issues needing your attention are the post-election audits, ballot chain-of-custody, and the reporting of election results…As you consider the current audit laws and other bills before the committee effecting voting integrity and security, we encourage you to seek the best advice of legal experts, computer experts, security experts, and the experience of other states…What often is an attractive idea, also often has risky unintended consequences as well…

We want every citizen’s vote to be counted!
To be counted accurately!
And to be counted only once!

Update: 3/09/2009, comments on Secretary of The State’s Testimony <read>

Update: 2/24/2009, we provide Testimony Response & Clarification <read>

************************

The Government Administration and Elections Committee (GAE) held a public hearing on several elections bills on February 18, 2009.  CTVotersCount testified in favor of HB-6441 to improve the integrity of elections, while cautioning the committee about the voting integrity risks of several other bills.  The full testimony contains 17 pages of the most pertinent exhibits and references to additional supporting details <full testimony>

Update: Most of the testimony from yesterday is online <here>. Several citizens supported HR-6441 and the problems it addresses.  Others addressed concerns with the costs, effort, and details of the bill.  I am preparing a detailed response to some of the concerns raised including some suggested revised text for the bill.

Summary of my Testimony:

Chairs and members of the Committee, my name is Luther Weeks. I am the Executive Director of Connecticut Voters Count and the Connecticut Citizen Election Audit Coalition. Today I am representing Connecticut Voters Count. My testimony does not necessarily represent the views of the Coalition or its other members.

I am a Certified Moderator and have personally observed eighteen (18) post-election audits in municipalities across the state. I am also a retired computer scientist and software engineer involved in voting integrity since 2004.

I am here again to ask that you improve the election laws to provide real confidence to the voters of Connecticut. The primary issues needing your attention are the post-election audits, ballot chain-of-custody, and the reporting of election results.

Currently we have a weak chain-of-custody for ballots, dependent on unenforceable procedures that are often violated. We need stronger, enforceable protection for the ultimate record of our votes.

The election results posted on the Secretary of the State’s web site are inaccurate, difficult to check, and provide no confidence that critical results are correctly certified. These results are accumulated by an error prone three step process of transcription and addition, from polling place, to town hall, to the Secretary of the State’s Office. Advocates from across the state have found obvious errors almost everywhere they have looked.

Based on five public hearings last year and on the Coalition reports of four post-election audits, we continue to conclude that the audits as performed are inaccurate, unreliable, and ineffective. Fortunately, we can make the audits much more effective, without counting more ballots.

We remain committed to an Independent Audit Board, relieving the Secretary of the State, towns, and registrars of the audit work. However, in these fiscally challenging times we have also proposed text for HB-6441 which would make significant improvements without significant fiscal impact.

Even though most members of the GAE are lawyers, when the committee drafted campaign finance law, you sought the advice of The Brennan Center for Justice. As you consider the current audit laws and other bills before the committee effecting voting integrity and security, we encourage you to seek the best advice of legal experts, computer experts, security experts, and the experience of other states.

We don’t claim that our proposed text is perfect. One contributor is a lawyer. I am a computer expert. Yet, we turn to the collective work and experience of many others. Attached to my testimony are references endorsed by nationally recognized groups and individuals, used for drafting HB-6441. The Principles and Best Practices for Post-Election Audits created by a variety of experts, endorsed by the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, Verified Voting, the American Statistical Association, CTVotersCount, TrueVoteCT and others; and a similar document from the League of Women Voters, U.S.

We urge you to seek and follow the advice of recognized subject matter experts and the experience of other states as you consider improving our voting systems. What often is an attractive idea, also often has risky unintended consequences as well.

Summary
We want every citizen’s vote to be counted!
To be counted accurately!
And to be counted only once!

Thank you.

Petition Delivered: 994 Connecticut Voters Call For Action

We call for action to enhance integrity and confidence in Connecticut elections, during the 2009 legislative session.

We believe the incremental costs of post-election audits that meet the requirements of the petition are appropriate considering the key role voting plays in democracy. Yet, we recognize that less costly alternatives may need to be considered.

Today, we delivered our petition to the Governor, Secretary of the State, Government Administration and Elections Committee, and the Connecticut General Assembly <read petition>

We call for action to enhance integrity and confidence in Connecticut elections, during the 2009 legislative session.

We believe the incremental costs of post-election audits that meet the requirements of the petition are appropriate considering the key role voting plays in democracy.  Yet, we recognize that less costly alternatives may need to be considered.

Here is the complete  text of our cover letter:

The Honorable M. Jodi Rell, Governor
The Honorable Susan M. Bysiewicz, Secretary of the State
Government Administration and Elections Committee
Connecticut General Assembly                                                              January 9, 2009

Re:       Petition To Enhance Confidence In Connecticut Elections (2009)

Nine-hundred-ninety-four (994) voters of Connecticut request that laws be enacted to enhance integrity and confidence in elections as outlined in the attached petition.

Over the last year and since the petition was initiated, several relevant developments have transpired:

  • Principles and Best Practices for Post-Election Audits has been released and endorsed by The Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, The American Statistical Association, and others.  These principles closely parallel the details in the petition.
  • Connecticut has completed four post-election audits.  The Connecticut Citizen Election Audit Coalition has issued three reports indicating that the current post-election audits are inaccurate, unreliable, and ineffective.  These reports also uncovered extensive gaps in ballot chain-of-custody and frequent failures to follow procedures.
  • A series of five public hearings were conducted in 2008 by the Government Elections and Administration Committee demonstrating significant gaps in election integrity.
  • Nationally, the November 2008 election went smoothly, however, in that election and others over the year, several problems have demonstrated the risks of error and fraud in our voting systems.  Several of these errors highlight the critical need for effective post-election audits and manual recounts to assure the voters’ intent is realized.
  • In Connecticut the November 2008 election and post-election audits has once again demonstrated the need for significant improvements in our chain-of-custody and post-election audits.  In addition discrepancies between results posted online by the Secretary of the State’s Office and the actual results have highlighted the need for a more effective and transparent system for reporting and totaling votes.
  • Finally, the fiscal situation in Connecticut and the Nation has become critical.  We believe the incremental costs of post-election audits that meet the requirements of the petition are appropriate considering the key role voting plays in democracy.  Yet, we recognize that less costly alternatives may need to be considered.

CTVotersCount has prepared, with suggested text, an act that will fully meet the requirements outlined in the Principles and the petition.  We also have available alternative text with minimal fiscal impact that would significantly increase the effectiveness of post-election audits and the integrity of elections in Connecticut. We ask that you give full consideration to our concerns in the petition in the 2009 legislative session.

Also attached are the Principles and Best Practices for Post-Election Audits, copies of original signatures on paper, and a list of all signers both paper and online.

CT: Misstatements In Stamford Advocate

Three days ago we pointed out misleading statements made by the Secretary of the State on WNPR.

Now we see some similar misinformation in the Stamford Advocate. <read>

Was the Secretary of the State misquoted or misleading?

Legislation introduced this year that would have required poll workers to give all voters privacy folders and to maintain a “zone of privacy” around the ballot machines did not pass. But poll workers have been instructed to abide by such privacy rules nonetheless, Bysiewicz said.

Connecticut has one of the most carefully monitored voting systems in the United States, she said. Before and after every election, state officials send every ballot machine memory card to the University of Connecticut computer science department to be inspected for tampering or defects. And officials do a hand-count audit of 10 percent of all ballots cast.

“Connecticut is a leader in voting security and integrity because we don’t take the machine count as gospel,” Bysiewicz said.

We must give the benefit of the doubt to both the Secretary and the Stamford Advocate since the statements are not in quotes. All we can be sure of is that they are inaccurate and misleading.

  1. “Before and after every election, state officials send every ballot machine memory card to the University of Connecticut computer science department” – No! Some cards are sent to UConn before some elections, some cards are sent to UConn after some elections, sometimes cards have been sent by local election officials, and sometimes by our vendor, LHS in Massachusetts. Typically about one card per district or 25% are tested.See the reports from UConn.
  2. “And officials do a hand-count audit of 10 percent of all ballots cast” – No! Only those ballots counted by optical scanners in polling places are counted in the audit. Not audited are centrally counted absentee ballots originally counted by optical scanner and all ballots originally counted by hand.

Downsizing Newspaper Recommends Downsizing Registrars

Most of us would agree that Central Connecticut needs more than one daily newspaper. If there was any doubt it certainly was erased this week. On Monday the “New” Hartford Courant came out with its latest and most drastic downsizing. On Tuesday an editorial suggesting among other things that we should have a single elected registrar per municipality. However, downsizing to a single registrar will serve democracy no better than the continuous downsizing of the Courant. <read>

In Connecticut we have two elected registrars, a Democrat and a Republican in each of our one-hundred and sixty-nine towns. When a non-Democrat, non-Republican is elected registrar the law then calls for three registrars. The challenges, the potential problems, and the potential solutions all play differently in large cities, medium cities, and small towns. In large cities the elected registrars can be full time and professional with a professional staff – they can also be political hacks using excessive staffing to reward friends. In small towns they are in effect volunteers, often very part time, underpaid, overworked and often over their head in managing a system that has changed drastically, yet almost uniformly of high integrity and committed to Democracy. We and many others have concerns with this system, but any significant change must be complete and well thought out.

Case in point, Hartford and the Courant’s editorial:

Community activist Urania Petit has petitioned her way onto the Hartford ballot in November as a registrar of voters candidate for the Working Families Party. The party at last count had seven registered voters in the city. But due to a quirk in state law, if Ms. Petit finishes second, the city will have to have three registrars of voters, instead of the normal two, at an additional cost of about $200,000.

This is daft. No city in Connecticut needs three registrars. We don’t even see why they need two.

First, we disagree that the three registrars is a ‘quirk’ in the state law. Its the result of a two party system and two party thinking. Like the Courant we don’t agree with that part of the law, but we disagree with their solution.

Second, the editorial’s lack of imagination is daft. For a city the size of Hartford there should be no problem having three registrars and the costs should be minimal. Each city sets the budget, salary, hours, benefits, and staffing of their Registrars Of Voters Office. Hartford could simply cut staffing and perhaps cut registrars’ hours or salary when three are elected to do the job of two. Just cutting a full time staff position would go a long way toward reducing most of the $200,000.

For ages, municipalities have elected two registrars, virtually always one Democrat and one Republican. Apparently the idea was that they would serve as a check on each other, being from different parties, even though they are supposed to serve in a nonpartisan manner — “nonpartisan before 5 o’clock,” as one registrar put it. The wrinkle comes when a third-party candidate enters the field.

The Courant example demonstrates why two elected registrars are needed. One elected, political registrar by definition is not nonpartisan, would often be prone to partisanship, and would always be suspect. It would create a strong potential for the local equivalents of Ohio’s Ken Blackwell or Florida’s Katherine Harris to arise.

State law says the registrar candidates with the highest and second highest number of votes win the posts. But if a major-party candidate is not among the top two, that candidate is also named a registrar. So, if Ms. Petit outpolls either Democrat Olga Iris Vazquez or Republican Salvatore Bramante, all three must be named registrars.

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz said she could not recall a time when a third-party candidate was seated, but acknowledged that in Hartford “it is very possible.” The overwhelming number of registered Democrats, nearly 33,000, means Ms. Vazquez is a shoo-in. The GOP registration, under 2,000, is still greater than the Working Families’ seven. But the Working Families defeated five of six Republicans in last year’s council elections, electing two candidates to the GOP’s one, in large part by appealing to the nearly 10,000 unaffiliated voters in the city.

Other ‘quirks’ in the election law make it expedient for many voters to register as Democrats in Hartford to vote in primaries, but vote Working Families in the election to actually have their interests represented and keep the dominant party in check.

Here we have the crux of the problem and can see the obvious consequences of a simple solution. Change the law to have two registrars – the two highest vote getters of different parties. In Harford if the Working Families’ candidate wins we would still have the two leading parties represented. As we said earlier it would not be a big deal for Hartford to have three registrars, but for a small town three would seem especially cumbersome.

While we’re at it, why not create one registrar per town?

The post is vitally important, because it involves access to the ballot and voting rights, but in the past was not very complicated. In many small towns, retired people serve as part-time registrars. The level of professionalism varies.

But the job has gotten more complex. There have been numerous changes in election laws in recent years, plus increasing use of technology. Would it not make sense — and save money — to have one highly professional, nonpartisan registrar per town?

I agree with some of the arguments here. Elections could benefit from highly professional, non-partisan management, however, that is incompatible with having a single elected political registrar. Under a different, well thought out system of oversight with checks and balances a better system for Connecticut may well be possible.

Most states outside of New England have county election management by civil service officials. That can and does work. We hear about problems in Ohio, Florida, and California when that system breaks down. We don’t hear about success in those same states and many other states when things go reasonably well. Many of the problems have been under single partisan, elected state and county officials.

In Connecticut, perhaps electing two official registrars paid a small stipend to provide a check and balance over a professional civil service chief election official would provide the best of both worlds and would work for large cities. This would not work for small towns – a single chief election official and staff would need to serve several small towns – a change that would not easily be accepted in New England.

What clearly won’t work is half baked solutions.

The Perils of Dependent Investigation

One of the prime objectives our Petition To Enhance Confidence In Connecticut Elections is “Requiring the Independent Audit Review Board”. Here is an example of the questions that can surround an investigation by an elections entity attempting to investigate itself, in Washington, D. C., from the Washington Post, Primary Vote Still Doesn’t Add Up: <read>

As District officials continue to investigate errors in the early vote tallies from the Sept. 9 primary, one number stands out: 1,542.

That number appeared in the category for “over votes” in 13 separate races when the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics released early results on election night. But those votes inexplicably vanished shortly after midnight, when officials posted what they identified as corrected results…

A memo obtained by The Washington Post shows that three of the four members of the elections board task force reviewing the blunders also work for the board: Darlene Lesesne-Horton, data services manager; Mohammad M.B. Maeruf, information technology project manager; and Vialetta Graham, chief technology officer. The fourth member is Clifford Tatum, a Help America Vote Act consultant from Georgia…He said that too often elections boards become the chief investigators when something goes awry.

“Yet again, they are investigating their own mistakes,” Jefferson said. “Time and time again, experience shows we need independent technical investigations of incidents like this. I wish the D.C. Council or whoever has authority would just order it.”

Several years ago, questions arose about the academic background of Graham, the board’s chief technology officer.

In 2003, the District’s inspector general completed a year-long investigation on the board and found that Graham had misrepresented her academic credentials on two city job applications, saying she had received a bachelor’s degree in computer science from American University when she had not.

Update: What Could Possibly Be Worse Than Dependent Investigation? Relying on the vendor to explain discrepancies: The West Palm Beach problem goes on and on <read>

They’ve called in Sequoia Voting Systems, the company that sold the county the machines.

The board says those officials are flying in from California and are expected to look into the issue Monday.

Canvassing board interim chair, Judge Peter Evans, told election workers and reporters Sunday, “At this point we feel its best to step back and get these questions answered before we take any further steps hastily and that’s what we’re going to do.”…

The canvassing board is expected to meet Monday afternoon at 3pm for an update on Sequoia’s findings.

Reference: VotersUnite report on outsourcing.

FAQ: Why Would Anyone Steal A Referendum?

Connecticut’s post-election audit law exempts referendums and questions from audit. Often we hear that nobody would steal a referendum, that local control of elections in Connecticut would preclude that. We object: Two motivations and opportunities: The Town has the budget referendum turned down frequently at $20,000+ per referendum for a turnout of a small % … Continue reading “FAQ: Why Would Anyone Steal A Referendum?”

Connecticut’s post-election audit law exempts referendums and questions from audit. Often we hear that nobody would steal a referendum, that local control of elections in Connecticut would preclude that. We object:

Two motivations and opportunities:

The Town has the budget referendum turned down frequently at $20,000+ per referendum for a turnout of a small % of registered voters.

  • All the insiders of all parties are for it
  • Many town hall jobs are dependent on it
  • The insiders convince themselves that “if the right voters showed up then it would pass”
  • They think they are helping out the town out by passing the budget and saving multiple election costs
  • All look the other way

One insider is convinced the budget is too big.

  • Convinced that “If the people really knew then they would vote it down”
  • When nobody is looking, the insider takes advantage of sole access to voting machines and ballots, to hack the machine with the Hursti Hack before the election.

Constitutional Vote Will Not Be Audited

When Connecticut voters go to the polls in November, they will vote on calling a Constitutional Convention. Large groups are aligned for and against the bill with those in charge of the election opposed. Our personal stand for or against the bill is irrelevant. Integrity and confidence in elections is our concern.

Our points are that like all questions and referendums that vote is exempt from the post-election audit law and that those charged with running elections should not audit themselves. Questions should not be exempt from audit – they are not exempt from error and fraud. We need an independent election audit authority – audit decisions should not be made by the entity being audited.
Continue reading “Constitutional Vote Will Not Be Audited”

Principles and Best Practices for Post-Election Audits

(Full disclosure: I contributed to, participated in reviewing, and editing this document)

Released today at a press conference in Alexandria, VA, after many months of work:

http://www.electionaudits.org/files/best%20practices%20final_0.pdf

These principles were written to guide the design of high-quality post- election audits. They were developed by an ad hoc group comprising many stakeholders, including election officials, public advocates, computer scientists, statisticians, political scientists and legislators.

Nearly all US elections today are counted using electronic voting systems. Such voting systems have produced result- changing errors through problems with hardware, software, and procedures.[1] Errors can also occur in hand counting of ballots or in the compiling of results. Even serious error can go undetected if results are not audited effectively.

No person, voting official, legislator, or expert can comprehend the whole voting and auditing process. At some point we must rely on the considered judgment of experts rather than only on individual experience. Using these principles state legislators can assess and improve current election and post-election audit laws. Using the principles and best practices election officials can improve the integrity and confidence of the post-election audit process. In turn providing integrity and confidence in our elections and democracy.

The last page of the document has the list of endorsing groups:

VerifiedVoting – Common Cause
Brennan Center For Justice – American Statistical Association
Advocate groups from MN, MI, MA, CO, FL and CT

Update:  PCWorld Coverage

Update: New Mexico Independent Coverage

Audit No Evil, Recount No Evil, Uncover No Evil

Update: The vote was close and high given that it was a referendum with reduced poll hours. The insiders’ choice won by 52% to 48%. There is no reason to believe the result is incorrect, yet with no audit there will always be a question of credibility in Connecticut referendums.

***********

Referendum: Front Page Story, Yet Paper Ballots Will Be Ignored

Business As Usual In the Nutmeg State – Another Electronic Vote Without A Post-Election Audit
Continue reading “Audit No Evil, Recount No Evil, Uncover No Evil”