Testimony on two election bills. One poorly written, the other needing more.

Yesterday I submitted testimony on two bills before the GAE (General Administration and Elections Committee. Unfortunately I was unable to testify in person. It was not for a lack of trying. I had submitted testimony and signed up for the hearing two days in advance, yet only one of my two testimonies was posted in time for the hearing and neither I nor the committee staff could get me the link to testify. Its happened before this year and last, yet only for this committee – in the past the staff was able to correct the problems. In one case not much was lost except to my reputation as the committee still called may name when I was supposed to testify.

S.B.472 Would change our existing 5% audit, adding risk-limiting audits. Unfortunately it is a highly flawed bill. I submitted the most detailed testimony, articulating its many flaws new and existing. Fortunately the testimony, so far, us unanimously against the current bill, with more on the way. Overall no harm done that I could not speak. It would seem that its is very unlikely to move forward this year.

H.J.114 The Constitutional Amendment to provide for no-excuse absentee voting. In this case, not being able to testify in person and my testimony not being up hurt. I am likely the only person speaking and submitting testimony asking that the bill remove another unfortunate restriction in the Constitution that will bite us along the way with absentee voting and/or ranked choice voting. Of course we can wait and learn our lesson the hard way.

Yesterday I submitted testimony on two bills before the GAE (General Administration and Elections Committee.) Unfortunately I was unable to testify in person. It was not for a lack of trying. I had submitted testimony and signed up for the hearing two days in advance, yet only one of my two testimonies was posted in time for the hearing and neither I nor the committee staff could get me the link to testify. Its happened before this year and last, yet only for this committee – in the past the staff was able to correct the problems. In one case not much was lost except to my reputation as the committee still called may name when I was supposed to testify.

S.B.472 Would change our existing 5% audit, adding risk-limiting audits. Unfortunately it is a highly flawed bill. I submitted the most detailed testimony, articulating its many flaws new and existing. Fortunately the testimony, so far, us unanimously against the current bill, with more on the way. Here is the testimony so far: <read>. Overall no harm done that I could not speak. It would seem that its is very unlikely to move forward this year.

I thank all the nationally recognized experts in Risk Limiting Audits and advocates from around the country who testified in person and submitted testimony.

Also a shout out to Chris Prue and ROVAC for catching a civil rights issue that we opposed last year and was a section of another bill being heard this yesterday, the testimony by Chris Prue: <Video 4:04 in>

S1 Tempers “For the People Act” Impact on Connecticut

As we pointed out earlier, H1, the House version of the “For The People Act” would have a large impact on Connecticut’s elections.

Recently there was a new Managers’ Amendment in the Senate, S1 https://www.rules. senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Klobuchar%20Substitute%20S1.pdf

We have reviewed the new version and are pleased to report that there are many improvements that would ease its impact on Connecticut election officials, yet the impact remains significant.

Among the changes:

As we pointed out earlier, H1, the House version of the “For The People Act” would have a large impact on Connecticut’s elections.

Recently there was a new Managers’ Amendment in the Senate, S1 https://www.rules. senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Klobuchar%20Substitute%20S1.pdf

We have reviewed the new version and are pleased to report that there are many improvements that would ease its impact on Connecticut election officials, yet the impact remains significant.

Among the changes:

It now leaves a single day between early voting and election day and does not require early voting on election day. Still just a single day to print updated voting lists and load ePollbooks is very short – especially if there is a natural disaster or internet outage – just when you need those printed voter lists the most.
It now reduces the requirement for 20 days delay in results for accepting and curing absentee ballots to 10 days. Yet, that is not enough to save Connecticut from two elections, with two deadlines each even year, until we pass a Constitutional Amendment to conform state elections to federal election deadlines. Its complicated. Unfortunately the Elections Committee apparently did not get the urgency in my testimony.
It also removed the requirement for absentee balloting signature checking.
For smaller jurisdictions it eased some of the requirements for Election Day Registration and early voting – it seems that these will help large-area, small-voter rural areas more that Connecticut small towns.
It postponed many of the deadlines and provided an option for a state to apply for exemptions for a few years in some cases.
It also eased impossible requirements for support of those with disabilities. Some are good, but removing grants for research are disappointing.
It also removed grants for Risk Limiting Audits, that is not bad since it made Risk Limiting Audits mandatory.
Overall it included many of the changes recommended by the State Audit Working Group, which I moderate. We held sessions with staffers of four Senators on the Rules and Administration committees: Senators Klobuchar, Merkley, Feinstein, and Padilla Embarrassingly, to me, Sen Blumenthal on the Administration Committee did not respond to calls to meet with his staff.

It would remain a huge scramble for the State to meet all the deadlines and for local registrars to double to quadruple (depending on size) their work and budgets for each election.

Testimony on two more election bills: RLAs and Internet Voting

H.B.6325 was a second bill similar to an earlier on that proposed a task force for Risk limiting Audits (RLAs). My detailed testimony only changed a little bit. For the previous bill, I only testified on paper. For this bill I spoke, especially giving my answer to a legislators question of another on another bill. I’m glad I had a few days contemplate an answer: “How would you explain RLAs to forth graders?”

That is a good question: Risk Limiting Audits are intended to confirm that elections are correctly counted and totaled or to correct incorrect results…

That is a good question: Risk Limiting Audits are intended to confirm that elections are correctly counted and totaled or to correct incorrect results. Over a 10-year period, Connecticut has about 20,000 election contests. For instance, if 20 of those contests were incorrectly decided due to error or fraud, rigorous Risk Limiting Audits which examine all 20,000 contests would correct at least 19 of the 20.

After several hiatus an Internet voting bill is being proposed, one of 28 sections. It also included a flawed proposal for curing absentee ballots rejected for signature issues etc. S.B.5 was patterned after systems that have failed independent security studies, spectacularly.

Testimony on two Elections Bills

Earlier this week we testified on two elections bills.

First a bill for a Task Force to provide a prototype and recommend state laws for Risk Limiting post-election Audits (RLAs). See our testimony and that of the inventor of RLAs, Philip Stark, and John Marion of RI. Phil and I disagree just a bit on our recommendations. I find November is just not the best time to do a prototype and then providing less that two months to make recommendations to the General Assembly is not enough time. Here is all thee testimony <read>

Then on a long bill with several election changes recommended by the Secretary of the State. We had comments on two sections: We asked that two officials empty drop boxes and sign logs listing their content. Also a reform we have been requesting for a long time – including central count absentee ballots and Election Day Registration ballots in post-election audits <testimony>

Earlier this week we testified on two elections bills.

Testimony on Early Voting/Absentee Voting Constitutional Amendments

On Monday, the Government Administration and Elections Committee will hear testimony on bills to modify Connecticut’s Constitution for Early Voting and No-Excuse Voting. Meanwhile another Constitutional Amendment or change is advisable to pave the way for related and unrelated voting changes which Connecticut may desire or may be forced upon Connecticut by H.R.1. My testimony is below and <here in .pdf>

H.J.58, H.J.59 – Needed – A Further Critical Change to the CT Constitution

Chairs, members of the Committee, and Connecticut voters, my name is Luther Weeks, Executive Director of CTVotersCount, a computer scientist, and a Certified Moderator since 2008. I also lead one national group and participate in another that discuss, evaluate, and regularly propose changes to state and Federal election laws.

As you are contemplating amendments to the Connecticut Constitution for elections, we need to go just a bit farther than the changes now in H.J.59. Just a few more words would make a great difference going forward. The additional changes would remove deadlines for reporting state contest results that are now baked into our Constitution. These same deadlines would remain in effect, in law, yet easier to change in short order should that become necessary.

Why are these changes critical?

There are at least four reasons why these deadlines may need to change quickly in the near future. Not removing them as soon as possible in our Constitution would cause significant problems and limitations, while waiting for another years-long amendment process to change them…<more>

Portions in bold are those that I intend for my oral testimony:

H.J.58, H.J.59 – Needed – A Further Critical Change to the CT Constitution

Why are these changes critical?

Reason #1: The U.S. Congress is contemplating H.R.1[1] which if passed in its current form, would mandate no-excuse absentee voting for Federal contests, including allowing ballots post-marked by election day to be counted, if received, within a minimum of 10 days after election day. And subject to “curing”[2] for a minimum of 10 ten days after that.

If H.R.1 or a similar Federal law were to pass, it would only apply and override our Constitution for Federal races, then in even-year elections Connecticut would be faced with two election deadlines, one for Federal elections, and another for state elections, likely requiring two ballot designs per district. Ballots would have to be segregated, with some counted and declared within the currently mandated 10 days and others accepted, cured, and added in 20 days later, with the possibility of two sets of recanvass deadlines etc. To do what we do now within 10 days after an election, under H.R.1 would take at least 30 days! Not something that could be completed before early December.

Reason #2: If our Constitution is amended to provide for no-excuse absentee voting, presumably there will be calls for the same things in H.R.1, i.e. accepting ballots post-marked by election day, followed by curing.That would be impossible for state offices until and unless the Connecticut Constitution were to be amended as recommended here.

Reasons #3 and #4 are Ranked Choice Voting and Risk Limiting Audits. If either were to be implemented in Connecticut, they would require days and sometimes weeks longer than the current limit of 10 days – even longer if they were combined with H.R.1:

Reason #3: If Connecticut were to institute Ranked Choice Voting, in some cases it could take days to a few weeks to determine initial results, followed by days or weeks of recanvassing. Those time requirements would be impossible for State offices without this change to the Constitution.

Reason #4: If Connecticut were to institute Risk Limiting Audits (RLAs), by definition RLAs, must be coordinated statewide, completed before certification, may take several rounds, and can sometimes take several days for the last round, as they did in Georgia this past November. That would be impossible without these changes.

The changes I suggest are based on those already in H.J.59, plus the ones in bold and larger type below:

Section 9 of article third of the Constitution is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9. At all elections for members of the general assembly the presiding officers in the several towns shall [receive the votes of the electors, and] count and declare [them] the votes of the electors in open meeting. The presiding officers shall make and certify duplicate lists of the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each. One list shall be delivered [within three days to the town clerk,] and [within ten days after such meeting,] the other shall be delivered [under seal] to the secretary of the state.

Section 4 of article fourth of the Constitution is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 4. [At the meetings of the electors in the respective towns held quadrennially as herein provided for the election of state officers, the presiding officers shall receive the votes and shall count and declare the same in the presence of the electors] The votes at the election of state officers shall be counted and declared in open meeting by the presiding officers in the several towns. The presiding officers shall make and certify duplicate lists of the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each. One list shall be delivered [within three days] to the town clerk, and [within ten days after such meeting,] the other shall be delivered [under seal] to the secretary of the state. The votes so delivered shall be counted, canvassed and declared by the treasurer, secretary, and comptroller[, within the month of November]… that currently even without being limited by our Constitution, all contests in Connecticut are similarly limited by law. The clauses in the Constitution above only apply to State Contests.

At this time, H.J.59 cannot be changed. There are two courses going forward 1) Place the additional changes in H.J.58 or 2) Create an additional amendment with only these changes. I recommend placing the additional changes in H.J.58, rather than as a separate amendment which would likely confuse voters.

Please consider the urgency of making these critical changes in Connecticut’s Constitution.

Thank you

[1] U.S. House Resolution 1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1/text

A bill that would mandate many changes for Federal elections nationwide by 11/2022 with some by 1/2020, including accepting absentee ballots for 10 days after election day if post-marked by election day followed by 10 subsequent days for “curing” them. It would also mandate at least 15 contiguous days of in-person early voting including on election day.
For more analysis of H.R.1, see: https://ctvoterscount.org/whats-the-matter-with-h-r-1-part-1/

[2] Curing – Processes by which voters are notified of errors in mail-in ballots in signatures, envelope protocols etc. and provided a period for correcting such errors.

Rant Against Congress’s Plans to Rescue the Election

Both the US House and Senate have proposals to improve our elections in the age COVID-19. They are huge and dangerous, impossible to implement in Connecticut and many other states by November.

Instead of our usual format here, I will cover them by rants I have posted as comments on Facebook over the last two days. They are just to complex and out of touch with reality to comer in a neat and organized, point by point way.

Both the US House and Senate have proposals to improve our elections in the age COVID-19. They are huge and dangerous, impossible to implement in Connecticut and many other states by November.

Instead of our usual format here, I will cover them by rants I have posted as comments on Facebook over the last two days. They are just to complex and out of touch with reality to comment in a neat and organized, point by point way.

By my count the Senate bill has eleven significant changes to current election law, procedures, and electronic systems in Connecticut elections. I have not counted the details in the House bill, while it is similar to the Senate bill it has at least two additional very difficult to implement requirements.

Senate Bill Page Summary <read> Senate Bill <read> House Bill (start at page 814) <read>

Selected Recent Rants (edited):

As Denise Merrill testified, just one of these changes is too much to do by Nov especially for the biggest election of the cycle. The Election Night Reporting system took about 5 years to get right, if it is now. Motor Voter has taken two years so far, if it is right now. The Senate bill has 11 significant changes we don’t have now including online AB requests, permanent AB for all, count ABs until the day before certification, signature cure also until that date, expanded email ballot delivery for disabled and those that don’t receive it by two days before the election, no exception for a disaster without internet or phone service, expanded (ambiguous) requirements for disabled, 20 days polling place early voting, etc. The House bill adds mandatory signature match for all ABs and days 15 days of early voting that must include the day before Election Day – that is a significant addition, where the Senate bill provides four days between early voting and election day. The bills would pay for some hardware, software and implementation but I doubt for most of those local costs. We would almost necessarily need epollbooks to integrate the early voting data. Miss one part or screw it up for one voter, the US AG or v ANY citizen can sue for injunctive relief.

I’ll add it’s not 7 months as the AB stuff must be ready in Sept and Early voting in Oct. Plus all this is developed, tested, implemented and executed under COVID-19 separation rules. Unless it passes in time that we need it for the Aug Primary.

Lets not forget this is all being done under the gun of COVID-19. And the Electoral Count Act:

The bills have provisions for ABs that took CA, WA, OR, and CO years to implement. Secretary Merrill testified to the GAE last month that just one of those provisions was too difficult and risky to implement for Nov, I agree. There are several others even more difficult. Meeting those provisions and counting ABs are compounded by precautions for COVID-19. Even in CA where they have years of experience, they have 30 days to count ABs – now they have extended that to 51 days for the recent Primary – for 2020 the Safe Harbor date to report votes for electors is Dec 14, just 41 days after the election – Ask yourself what would happen if the Supreme Court stuck with the strong precedent from 1876 and disqualified the CA electors? And on top of that CT is starting years behind in procedures, practices, automation, and systems.

What would I recommend?

By executive order of Governor Lamont, allow no-excuse AB, allow counting to go for 9 days not 2, to delay recanvasses until after day 10 – Day 10 is the certification date which is hard baked into the Connecticut Constitution, Registrar/SOTS and Clerk task forces created to plan to get their jobs done within the necessary time constraints, with state funding to cover planning training and the large staffing and supervision challenges for municipalities, including extra overhead for COVID-19. PS: The same for protecting everyone in polling places. Printers added to essential businesses.

The challenges of elections in the age of COVID-19

Secretary of the State Denise Merrill has called on Governor Lamont to use emergency posters to expand Absentee Voting.
From CTNewsJunkie Merrill Calls On Lamont To Allow Absentee Voting For Presidential Primary <read>

This will be complex and expensive. So is operating a safe polling place.

Counting a large number of Absentee Ballots is a huge increase in work for the clerks office and for election day officials. If the deadlines for counting, recanvassing, and certification are not extended then it could take 5-10 times the number of AB counters, along with lots of supervision and planning. Everything needs to be double-checked by staff of opposing interests, yet now they need to be six feet apart and protected from contaminating ballots, likely with latex or plastic gloves. Expanding staff will mean fewer works will have experience counting ABs and doing the work in the clerk’s office before election day. CT law gives, at most, two days to complete the count, and then six more days to complete recanvasses, and the certification deadline is ten days. In CA they have three weeks to count ABs after the election. Unless something has changed in the last few days, they are still counting the presidential primary.

Recent repeated failures to staff up and organize to handle Election Day Registration should be a cautionary tale.

I used to think that wipes etc. were the solution for polling places, yet we have learned that they harm the ink on ballots and then gum up optical scanners. (And the surface touch screens as well). Once again, plastic/latex gloves may be the best solution for voters and pollworkers. It will take staff to help voters with gloves. What happens if they refuse?

In addition to gloves, in polling places voters and pollworkers need to keep a six foot distance. A great challenge for checkers, ballot clerks, and for curb-side voting. We should give up on privacy folders as well in this emergency.

Perhaps better ideas will emerge as we think about it and hopefully learn from other states.

I am not opposed to the idea of no-excuse AB in this emergency, yet it would be quite a challenge, as will be safe polling place voting.

Testimony on three bills

Last Friday, provided testimony on three bills. As I said in my prepared remarks:

I oppose S.B.365. As I testified last Friday, we humans have difficulty balancing risks and rewards. This is a case where the added risks outweigh the added convenience.

This bill, while well intended, would remove the valuable fraud detection mechanism of hand-signed absentee ballot applications.

I support H.B.5414. The bill would have the Judiciary rather than the House or Senate rule on remedies to contested elections

The overall result of systems to adjudicate close elections, as our current system for Senator and Representative, is less trust in the system by the public and candidates.

I would support H.B.5404, IF it were Broadened and Corrected.

My written testimony contains a laundry list of issues such a Task Force should address.

I am concerned that this Task Force needs more time, a significant staff budget to handle all the issues, and also to reimburse experts to provide information, analysis, and suggestions to the committee, in order for there to be a thorough evaluation.

Last Friday, provided testimony on three bills. As I said in my prepared remarks:

(Click on the bill numbers for a link to my testimony, which contains links to each bill’s status page, which links to bill text)

I oppose S.B.365. As I testified last Friday, we humans have difficulty balancing risks and rewards. This is a case where the added risks outweigh the added convenience.

This bill, while well intended, would remove the valuable fraud detection mechanism of hand-signed absentee ballot applications.

I support H.B.5414. The bill would have the Judiciary rather than the House or Senate rule on remedies to contested elections

Observing all the meetings or hearings in last year’s Committee on Contested Elections and the overall result on public confidence, I strongly support this bill.

The overall result of systems to adjudicate close elections, as our current system for Senator and Representative, is less trust in the system by the public and candidates.

As I said in answer to a question: It does not need eliminate the House and Senate’s prerogative to decide to seat a member or not. I could be worded so that the courts could adjudicate election issues, leaving the House and Senate with the final review.

I would support H.B.5404, IF it were Broadened and Corrected.

First, I would support this Task Force if some significant changes were made, especially to the charge for the Task Force, and if it was appropriately funded and staffed.

This proposal is limited to one, incorrectly defined, type of Ranked Choice Voting known as Instant Runoff Voting. This proposal defines the study in a way that would be impossible to satisfy.

Secondly, My written testimony contains a laundry list of issues such a Task Force should address.

Finally, The Task Force should entail several, opportunities for expert and public oral and written testimony, noticed well in advance.

Four pieces of testimony on five bills

Last Friday, provided five pieces of testimony on six bills. As I said in my prepared remarks:

The context for my testimony on four bills is that humans are not good at accessing risks. We can focus excessively on minor, all but non-existent, risks. We often minimize rare catastrophic risks and ignore frequent familiar risks.

We also do a poor job of balancing risks and rewards.

This Friday I will be submitting three pieces of testimony on three more bills. The theme also applies to one of them.

Last Friday, provided four pieces of testimony onfive bills. As I said in my prepared remarks:

The context for my testimony on four bills is that humans are not good at accessing risks. We can focus excessively on minor, all but non-existent, risks. We often minimize rare catastrophic risks and ignore frequent familiar risks.

We also do a poor job of balancing risks and rewards.

(Click on the bill numbers for a link to my testimony, which contains links to each bill’s status page, which links to bill text)

I support S.B.233. It would eliminate a long-standing civil rights violation and unnecessary Election Day Registration work.

It would remove the cross-check requirement that results in massive extra work for officials, delays for voters, and has led to the civil rights violation.

There is no experience of risks from EDR, without cross-checks, in any state.

This Friday I will be submitting three pieces of testimony on three more bills. The theme also applies to one of them.

I oppose S.B.241. This bill is an example of excessive concern for, all but non-existent, risks.

It would require checkers be appointed for all EDR locations and authorize unofficial checkers. Apparently, the proponents are unaware that there are no lists to check in EDR locations.

I oppose S.J.15 and H.B.5278 as written. These bills are examples of ignoring actual risks that occur frequently in Connecticut – proven risks for expanded mail-in voting in Connecticut.

When Connecticut passed the Citizens Election Program, part of the justification was a history of corruption. Similarly avoiding expanded mail-in voting is justified by Connecticut’s ongoing record of campaign and insider voting fraud via absentee.

I do not oppose all early voting. I support in-person early voting. See my testimony for a low-cost early voting method suited to Connecticut.

I caution that contrary to intuition, the best science indicates early voting, in any form, tends to DECREASE turnout.

I support, only if modified. S.B.234.

This Friday I will be submitting three pieces of testimony on three more bills. The theme also applies to one of them.

Four pieces of testimony on five bills, including Blockchain and RCV

On Wednesday the GAE Committee held testimony on another raft if bills.

The bills, and links to my testimony, in priority order: (Take a look at all the testimony <here>, best to look by bill number than date)

On Wednesday the GAE Committee held testimony on another raft if bills.

The bills, and links to my testimony, in priority order: (Take a look at all the testimony <here>, best to look by bill number than date)

H.B.5417 A proposed study to use blockchain to solve some undefined problem in voter registration. I opposed, perhaps the only one in the room who is a computer scientist. In summary, if someone wants to sell you or asks you to invest in blockchain – Run. Run fast and keep your eye on your wallet and passwords! In addition to my own testimony on how to solve problems (i.e. define the problem then look at all cures), I provided an article by a true expert.

H.B.5820 A proposed study to evaluate Ranked Choice Voting. I opposed unless the bill is corrected and the study is broadened. I provided a laundry list of items that should be considered by a Task Force.

S.B.156 and S.B.195 Two proposals to no linger require signatures on absentee ballot applications. Opposed based on Connecticut’s history of absentee ballot votING fraud, by political operatives and insiders. Those signatures are a key component of proving fraud.

H.B.6876 To cut the onerous cost of scanning public records by cell phones and other meetings. Supported, along with every other person supporting Freedom of Information. Opposed by officials who gain revenue from the fees. copying a single document costs $20.