Category: Mail/Absentee Voting

Absentee/Early Voting Method: Raise Questions and Risks

Another example from Arizona raises questions about the potential risks to integrity inherent in mail-in voting, unlimited absentee voting, and early voting by means similar to absentee voting. This is also similar to the method of election day registration voting proposed in Connecticut this year.

Another example from Arizona raises questions about the potential risks to integrity inherent in mail-in voting, unlimited absentee voting, and early voting by means similar to absentee voting.  This is also similar to the method of voting for election day registration voting proposed in Connecticut this year.

From the YumaSun: 

State calls for San Luis vote probe <read>

Smith: Recorder should investigate vote <read>

The basic question:

The issue of possible voter fraud became public with the release Wednesday of a letter Bennett had sent to Smith dated May 4 asking the county attorney to investigate irregularities in the San Luis primary election on March 9. His concern rose from the rejection of nearly 10 percent of early ballots for that election because they had signatures that didn’t match those of the registered voters.

Bennett’s letter stated: “Based on the extraordinary rejection rates alone and irrespective of the anecdotal stories, I believe that reasonable cause exists that voter fraud occurred in San Luis in the March 2010 election. I ask that your office investigate these irregularities.”

On the surface this seems like a lot of votes to be rejected based on mismatched signatures, raising several questions:

  • Were election officials too cautious in rejecting ballots?
  • Do we expect too much of officials who are not trained in handwriting recognition?
  • Were there really that many wrong signatures/forgeries? Is there some kind of fraud occurring?
  • If there was no fraud, then we must assume that most of the rejected ballots represent voters who intended to vote and are now disenfranchised.

On the other hand do we usually have too few ballots rejected?  Can we really expect election officials to reliably perform handwriting analysis and comparison?

More critical information from the Secretary of State’s information:

Of the total 2,983 ballots cast in the San Luis election, 1,477 were by early ballots. And of those, 143 ballots were rejected because they had signatures that didn’t match the registered voters’, said Jim Drake, assistant secretary of state.

That’s an error rate of nearly 10 percent, he noted.

“The numbers were so extraordinary,” he told the Yuma Sun Wednesday. “Just looking at the raw numbers, something is amiss in the community. We based our request on just the numbers.”

In comparison, in the May 2008 election in El Mirage, there were 1,578 early ballots cast; only 18 were rejected because of bad signatures. This equates to a rejection rate of only 1.14 percent, Drake said.

In another comparison, in a March election in Maricopa County (excepting El Mirage and Guadalupe), 155,605 early ballots were returned, with only 46 rejected for bad signatures – a rejection rate of 0.03 percent.

“As you can see from these figures, something is terribly amiss in San Luis,” Secretary of State Ken Bennett wrote in a letter dated May 4 to Yuma County Attorney Jon Smith.

The 10% is extreme for the state.  It also represents almost 5% of the votes in the election.

This might have gone undetected, but for added scrutiny based on earlier charges of fraud:

The spotlight was placed on the election when Bennett, the state’s top election official, and two members of his staff observed the San Luis election.

The visit was prompted by a previously circulated letter signed by Guillermina Fuentes claiming she had observed early ballots being destroyed in the 2006 municipal election.

Fuentes was the coordinator for incumbent Mayor Juan Carlos Escamilla’s re-election bid in March, but in 2006 she was a backer of then-City Councilwoman Nieves Riedel, who lost that year’s mayoral race to Escamilla.

In the letter circulated earlier this year, Fuentes alleged that Riedel had opened early ballots that voters entrusted her to deliver to county officials who were conducting the 2006 election under contract with the city of San Luis. Any of the opened ballots that were for Riedel were delivered to the county, the letter alleged, but any for Escamilla were trashed.

The reasons we are conditionally opposed to no-excuse absentee balloting and mail-in balloting are the risks of fraud, loss of voter anonymity, and the level of possible disenfranchisement.  Another recent story of absentee ballot questions from Dallas.

Update 7/27/2010: Another Tale from CA: DA probes voter fraud allegations in Calif. city <read>

District attorney spokeswoman Jane Robison said her office was looking into claims that off-duty Bell police officers were recruited to distribute absentee ballots in last year’s election and tell people which candidates to vote for.

It was only one of several allegations the district attorney is looking into in the city where three top officials resigned last week after it was disclosed they were being paid salaries totaling about $1.6 million a year…

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday that a retired Bell police sergeant had filed a lawsuit claiming off-duty city police officers were recruited to distribute absentee ballots in last year’s election and tell people which candidates to vote for.

One Bell resident, Hugo Herrera, told The Associated Press his mother was among those approached by an officer who asked if she would sign a paper showing her support for Hernandez.

When she got to her polling place and attempted to vote, Herrera said, she was told the paper she had signed was actually an absentee ballot. She asked that the ballot be disallowed and that she be allowed to vote for another candidate, adding she never really supported Hernandez but just wanted the officer to go away.

DA probes voter fraud allegations in Calif. city

Update 8/11/2010: Ballot blunder could keep votes from counting; envelope design to blame

Florida another story of voters potentially disenfranchised by voting absentee: <read>

LEE COUNTY, Fla. – A ballot blunder could keep your vote from counting in the upcoming primary election. A new envelope design is forcing the return of some absentee ballots back to Lee County voters. They should be going to election’s officials for processing.

The tiny bar code at the top of the ballot return envelopes is behind the mess. Mail sorting machines are reading the envelope’s return bar code, instead of it’s destination… potentially leaving some absentee ballots in limbo.

Phil Douglas didn’t think twice about sending off his absentee ballot in the mail last week.

“I signed the ballot on the back, I took it to the Estero post office and low and behold, on Monday I got it back!” Douglas said Wednesday.

Frustrated and confused, Douglas tried to send his vote again, taking his ballot to the Three Oaks Parkway post office… only to find it returned to his mailbox for the second time in a week.

“The first thing that came to mind was, hey, this can’t happen. But it did,” Douglas said.

It could be happening across Lee County. Over 40,000 absentee ballots were requested, and all sent out with the same faulty return envelope design. Lee County Elections officials are working with USPS on the problem. Still, the ballot blunder is a sorespot for many, who are trying to make their vote count in the upcoming election.

How Not To Increase “Voter” Participation

Dallas: It may turn out that mail-in voting enhanced turnout in the wrong way

Dallas, WFAA-TV: Dallas vote fraud allegations multiply <read/view>

It may turn out that mail-in voting enhanced turnout in the wrong way:

News 8 first reported the allegations early last month. Now there is new evidence of a more orchestrated campaign by so-called “vote harvesters” allegedly tampering with mail-in ballots.

In question are the Dallas County Precinct 5 Constable and Justice of the Peace races. The primary concern surrounds the mail-in ballots cast in those races.

A growing number of residents have cited case after case of mystery mail-in ballots and strangers showing up at their door, allegedly stealing their votes.

Bob Carter of Oak Cliff said it has happened before at election time, and it happened again a few weeks ago. Mail-in ballots arrived in his mailbox in someone else’s name.

The same thing happened to his neighbor next door.

Four mail-in ballots were received by the elections bureau from that address from four people who voted in the March primary.

Carter owns that house, and the people who voted don’t live there.

Mail-in voting, including no-excuse absentee voting is risky.   It can contribute to an image of democracy, but not always the reality of democracy.

Update: 4/21/2010:  A list of mail-in voting problems <read>

Trading the security, integrity, and shared experience of the in-person election process for all-mail elections is a bad idea for a number of reasons. An exam­ination of voter fraud cases over the past two decades reveals that ballots requested and sent through the mail are vote thieves’ tool of choice. Despite claims that voting by mail will increase voter turnout, the evidence leads to the exact opposite conclusion. Such elections, while possi­bly less expensive for election administrators, can be more expensive for candidates, thereby increasing the costs of campaigns for ordinary citizens who want to run for office. Mail elections put voters at the mercy of the postal service: If their ballots are delayed or misdirected, their votes will not count. Also, voters could be casting their ballots without the same access to timely informa­tion about candidates. Finally, elections conducted through the mail destroy the communal act of voting in a way that is damaging to America’s voting traditions and the inculcation of civic virtues.

Trading the security, integrity, and shared experience of the in-person election process for all-mail elections is a bad idea for a number of reasons. An exam­ination of voter fraud cases over the past two decades reveals that ballots requested and sent through the mail are vote thieves’ tool of choice. Despite claims that voting by mail will increase voter turnout, the evidence leads to the exact opposite conclusion. Such elections, while possi­bly less expensive for election administrators, can be more expensive for candidates, thereby increasing the costs of campaigns for ordinary citizens who want to run for office. Mail elections put voters at the mercy of the postal service: If their ballots are delayed or misdirected, their votes will not count. Also, voters could be casting their ballots without the same access to timely informa­tion about candidates. Finally, elections conducted through the mail destroy the communal act of voting in a way that is damaging to America’s voting traditions and the inculcation of civic virtues.

The Risks of Mail-In and No-Excuse Absentee Voting

Voting at your precinct on a paper ballot has been the gold standard in elections around the world and in Boulder County for a long time. When comparing the security of precinct polling place voting to the security of the mailed ballot, there is little doubt about which is gold and which is tin. [Or in Connecticut which is more befitting our nickname, ‘The Constitution State’ and which ‘The Nutmeg State’]

Daily Camera:  Guest opinion: Keep Colorado’s voting integrity <read>

The opinion covers most of the reasons we are concerned when the Legislature moves toward no-excuse absentee voting.  Mail-in voting seems so good to the voter, just like high-fat, high-sugar fast food, but it is not good for democracy:

it is worth reviewing the vulnerabilities of this method of voting and how voting by mail weakens the integrity of our elections.

Voting at your precinct on a paper ballot has been the gold standard in elections around the world and in Boulder County for a long time. When comparing the security of precinct polling place voting to the security of the mailed ballot, there is little doubt about which is gold and which is tin. [Or in Connecticut which is more befitting our nickname, ‘The Constitution State’ and which ‘The Nutmeg State’]

Neither the chain of custody of a ballot mailed from the clerk`s office nor the chain of custody of the ballot mailed back by the voter is as secure as the chain for votes cast at a polling place or hand-delivered to the clerk`s office. While the U.S. Postal Service is among the best in the world, its margin of error is greater than our elections can afford. Low-income urban dwellers do not receive their ballots as reliably as property owners with stable addresses. Of course, transient and marginalized peoples lose ballot access. There are instances in Boulder County and elsewhere when ballots turned up in Dumpsters rather than ballot boxes on Election Day.

Elected officials will state authoritatively that absentee ballot fraud doesn`t happen when, if the truth be told, they don`t know. Researchers at Project Vote have found that absentee voter fraud is more common in local, county, and municipal elections than in general elections. There are four known forms of absentee ballot fraud: forging signatures or signing fictitious names, coercing or influencing a vote, vote buying, and misappropriating absentee ballots. It`s happened in a mayoral race in Miami and a Dodge County (Georgia) sheriff race.

Many Coloradans fear union hall voting brunches as much as church congregations` voting breakfasts during the two-week run-up to Election Day. The potential for voter intimidation is much greater with mailed ballots than at the polls. And while voting at the kitchen table is convenient, the secrecy of the ballot can be compromised in ways that do not exist at the polls.

To this we would add that in addition to ballots lost in the mail or “lost in the mail”: Significant numbers of voters are disenfranchised when their ballot is disqualified because of an innocent mistake in completing the envelopes properly, or when they overvote and are not given the opportunity they have in a polling place to correct that problem.

Guest opinion: Keep Colorado’s voting integrity

Retail Fraud – A Stitch In Time Could Save Democracy

So, in Hartford, it seems that nothing is wrong with a little tax evasion a “lot of people” do it. It seems that voting fraud is regarded as almost in that same category except we don’t really know if a “lot of people” and officials do it or not. Maybe it is treated casually elsewhere in Connecticut and around the country. This is one of the two reasonse we are against expanded mail-in voting which includes no-excuse absentee voting – at a minimum it will mean more retail fraud and more voters unknowingly disenfranchised.

Update:  Looks like the changes will be difficult to confirm and maybe there is nothing behind them <read>

***********

There is no agreement on the demarcation between retail vote fraud and wholesale vote fraud.  In general retail fraud represents fraud that involves individual voters and individual votes, while wholesale fraud would represent fraud an a large scale by insiders or hackers.  Everyone would agree that forging a handful of ballots would be retail fraud and that misprogramming voting machines would be wholesale fraud.  The middle ground comes when in a statewide election an official in a single town substitutes or votes a few dozen ballots, or in a Presidential election one hacker changes the results on a single polling place machine.

Sometimes the existence of retail fraud is denied, ignored, or almost dismissed.  We tend to think it dosen’t happen, accept it as part of the system, or believe that it does not matter.  Two stories in Connecticut this week seem to conform to these views:

New Haven Register: Alderman alleges voter fraud <read>

In a complaint filed this week with the state Elections Enforcement Commission, Alderman Greg Morehead, D-22 accuses write-in opponent Lisa Hopkins of applying for and filling out absentee ballots against the wishes of voters, allegations Hopkins says are not true.

Hopkins lost to Morehead by eight votes in a hotly contested Democratic primary in September. She returned in the general election as a write-in candidate, securing 194 votes to Morehead’s 237. More than half of Hopkins’ votes, 107, came from absentee ballots. Morehead received 24 absentee ballot votes, records show.

In his complaint, Morehead alleges Hopkins told an elderly voter to hand Hopkins a signed absentee ballot before selecting a candidate. Morehead claims Hopkins told the voter she would complete the form.

In a close race with a margin of eight votes two alleged cases of fraud.  If true, that could cut the margin to four.  And this would be just the fraud discovered by this one candidate – if true, what are the odds there was more fraud?

To vote by absentee ballot, voters must show they are unable to make it to the polls on Election Day. “We don’t have ‘no excuse’ absentee ballot voting,” said Av Harris, spokesman for the Office of the Secretary of the State.

To be eligible, voters must show they will be out of state on Election Day, have an illness or physical disability that prevents them from getting to a polling place, or have a religious reason why they cannot vote on Election Day.

Voters must swear in an affidavit that they personally filled out the ballot. There may be rare circumstances in which a voter’s disability requires that someone fill out their ballot for them, but “it has to be a pretty compelling reason,” Harris said.

Absentee ballot fraud is not common, he said.

We agree that you need to have an excuse or lie to vote absentee ballot in Connecticut.  We are not so sure that absentee ballot fraud is uncommon – maybe, maybe not – here is a recent story on three instances of absentee very retail voting fraud <read>  And another from a while back <read page 1>

Here is another story this week showing how little we regard the seriousness of absentee ballot fraud.  The Hartford Courant: Tax Troubles At City Hall <read>

Four years ago, Hartford Democratic operative Prenzina Holloway was fined $10,000 for absentee ballot fraud. But state officials allowed her to pay only $2,000 of the fine because she demonstrated financial hardship.

Yet a year and a half later, the apparently financially strapped Ms. Holloway bought a used Hummer for $31,727, state motor vehicle records show. According to city records, she never paid city taxes on the Hummer. She owes Hartford $3,500.

But she did draw a city paycheck recently for a one-week stint in the registrar of voters’ office — a temporary job she shouldn’t have been given because of her unsavory ballot-fraud past.

And the delinquent taxes? That seems to present no problem to Ms. Holloway’s daughter, rJo Winch, who just happens to be Democratic majority leader of the Hartford city council. “A lot of people in city hall owe the city money,” sniffed Ms. Winch.

So, in Hartford, it seems that nothing is wrong with a little tax evasion a “lot of people” do it.  It seems that voting fraud is regarded as almost in that same category except we don’t really know if a “lot of people” and officials do it or not.  Maybe it is treated casually elsewhere in Connecticut and around the country.  This is one of the two reasonse we are against expanded mail-in voting which includes no-excuse absentee voting – at a minimum it will mean more retail fraud and more voters unknowingly disenfranchised.

A Candidate’s View – Early Voting, Vote-By-Mail

A candidate’s view from FL, where early voting has changed the campaign calendar, increased cost, and perhaps reduced voter knowledge along with costing some voters their votes.

As CTVotersCount readers know, we are concerned with the integrity issues associated with early voting and vote-by-mail including no excuse absentee voting.  We are also concerned with the costs of early voting.

Now we have a candidate’s view from FL, where early voting has changed the campaign calendar, increased cost, and perhaps reduced voter knowledge along with costing some voters their votes: <read>

Instead of campaigns intensifying as Election Day nears, candidates have geared up to reach thousands of people voting well in advance of the polls opening. Ballots started hitting the mail on Sept. 18, and more than 57,600 have been sent.

Already, more than 5,980 people have voted by mail in the general election.

“It feels like we’re in the middle of Election Day each day,” said Kathleen Ford, who is running for mayor against Bill Foster…

It doesn’t just affect strategy. It affects the bottom line of campaigns. Being able to effectively reach mail voters makes the campaign more expensive, Ford and Foster said…

Some civic groups have yet to endorse candidates. Community forums and debates are still on tap.

Danner said he somewhat questions the early start to voting, particularly as someone who was out of the public eye without a primary race.

But returning mail ballots later doesn’t necessarily mean better voting.

Of the 701 ballots that arrived too late to be counted in the Sept. 1 primary, 70 percent came from people who received them within four weeks of the election, Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections Deborah Clark said.

The ballots take the place of early voting sites, because the city and Clark decided it would be less costly.

Some of our earlier posts:

<Absentee Ballots Unaudited In CT>
<Is Early Voting A Good Idea  For CT?>
<CT Could Be Minnesota>
More at  <NoVoteByMail>

Connecticut Could be Minnesota

Here is an article from the National Journal pointing out what Minnesota demonstrated about absentee ballots which is instructive as we consider expanding their use here in Connecticut:

Update: Median Lawsuit for public access to ballots: <read>

We have the same concern in Connecticut where ballots are sealed from public access and then immediately shredded.

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

We have pointed to the integrity of the Minnesota recounts and audits as models of integrity.  We have also pointed to the lessons learned in Minnesota that call into question the idea of a national popular vote and the risks of absentee ballots.  Here is an article from the National Journal pointing out what Minnesota demonstrated about absentee ballots which is instructive as we consider expanding their use here in Connecticut:  National Journal: Your State Could Be Minnesota -The Disputed Senate Race Highlights Problems With The Way States Count Absentee Ballots <read>

Absentee ballots were “definitely the Achilles’ heel of Minnesota,” said Edward B. Foley, a professor at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law, who predicts that errors in counting absentee ballots could become one of the next big problems plaguing the nation’s election system. (A related trouble spot on the horizon, according to Foley, is the erratic counting of provisional ballots.)

Absentee ballot use rose in the 2008 election, fueled by high interest in the presidential race and anticipated long lines. Nearly 30 states now allow absentee voting without an excuse such as medical or travel reasons. Early voting is also on the increase.

As states have embraced absentee voting, however, reports of problems have rolled in. Voters in Colorado, Florida and Ohio had their ballots rejected because of errors such as failing to include a copy of their ID with the ballot, forgetting to sign or signing in the wrong place, and failing to seal an inner envelope.

Town Clerks Oppose Unlimited Absentee Balloting

Town clerks statewide are opposing bills seeking a constitutional change to allow early voting in Connecticut because they fear the proposals lack sufficient safeguards to deter election fraud.

Hartford Courant story: Connecticut Town Clerks Concerned About Proposals To Expand Absentee Balloting <read>

Town clerks statewide are opposing bills seeking a constitutional change to allow early voting in Connecticut because they fear the proposals lack sufficient safeguards to deter election fraud.

“We’re not against the concept of having more people vote. But we’re concerned about the loss of accountability in any law allowing anyone to use absentee ballots for any reason,” said Joseph Camposea, Manchester town clerk and president of the Connecticut Town Clerks Association. “There’s no reason to rush into this.”…

The expansion is supported by Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, who said she believes that it will allow more people to vote.

“This is an opportunity to expand participation in our electoral process,” she said. “The impetus came during the presidential election, when people saw early voting that was allowed in some states. Thousands of people cast ballots prior to Election Day in those states.”

We understand the attraction of unlimited absentee voting, yet the attraction is accompanied by risks that votes will not be counted.   We we have several concerns beyond the potential for voter fraud expressed by town clerks.  One risk is of votes being lost or fradulently destroyed between the time the voter places the votes in the mail and they are delivered to the counting officials. Ballots pass through the U.S. Mail and then through receipt, storage, and delivery in town hall.  Not a potential, but a real problem, is the significant percentage of absentee ballots disqualified through  innocent mistakes made by voters.  <Example:  Minnesota Senate Race>

The Perils Of No Excuse Absentee Voting

Vote Absentee: Your Vote May Not Count Today we learn of the problems in Minnesota with absentee voting in a Minneapolis Star Tribune Editorial <read> A nasty bug emerges in the state election system Absentee ballots emerged as the biggest flaw in Minnesota’s election system and may hold the key to finally resolving the Senate … Continue reading “The Perils Of No Excuse Absentee Voting”

Vote Absentee: Your Vote May Not Count

Today we learn of the problems in Minnesota with absentee voting in a Minneapolis Star Tribune Editorial <read>

A nasty bug emerges in the state election system

Absentee ballots emerged as the biggest flaw in Minnesota’s election system and may hold the key to finally resolving the Senate contest…

But here and nationwide, the rejection of absentee ballots — either because voters improperly filled out documents or because election officials erroneously spiked them — is a problem that’s long been hiding in plain sight.

“For years, people know some part of the [elections] system isn’t working, but it flies under the radar screen because it doesn’t cause problems until you have a situation like Florida in 2000 or Minnesota now,” said Edward Foley, an election law expert at Ohio State University’s law school. “Suddenly, it becomes a huge problem. Rejected absentee ballots are the new hanging chad.”

“Boy, is that true,” said Minnesota Deputy Secretary of State Jim Gelbmann, who has estimated that more than 13 percent of rejected absentee ballots in the Senate race — possibly as many as 1,580 — were improperly set aside.


Yet, the problem with absentee ballots is much worse than the rejected 13%:

What about the 87% of absentee ballots rejected for legitimate reasons? Most of them represent the votes of legally registered voters that made a simple mistake. Unknown to most of them, their votes did not count and never will. There are other problems with all mail-in ballots, including absentee ballots, see: No Vote By Mail Project

We will hear continuing calls in Connecticut for the Legislature to enact early voting in one of several forms: Early voting in polling places, mail-in voting, and no excuse absentee voting. For a variety of different reasons we conditionally oppose each of these. “No excuse absentee voting” is another name for mail-in voting.

Also, ECM Editorial on issues with absentee voting in Minnesota <read>