Category: Mail/Absentee Voting

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.

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.

The Courant hits some good points, yet ironically misses the mark on election accountability

Starting the year with a focus on accountability, the Courant Editorial Board overlooked integrity when it editorialized on elections. They also presented some ideas that we can and have supported

Starting the year with a focus on accountability, the Courant Editorial Board overlooked integrity when it editorialized on elections. They also presented some ideas that we can and have supported <read>

Voting. Voters report to one of hundreds of precincts on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, unless they have a specific reason to apply for an absentee ballot. The system worked well when more women were at home and more people walked to the polls.

Should it be tweaked to fit the needs of the 21st century? Secretary of the State Denise Merrill thinks so, and she is right. With the technology available today, there’s no reason that online registration should not become the norm — and, as soon as it can be adequately secured, online voting. A voter should be able to get an absentee ballot for any reason.

We agree that online line registration is a good thing that can save money, increase convenience, and increase integrity.

But when it comes to unlimited absentee balloting and online voting we disagree.

After every election we hear stories from around the country of absentee ballot fraud. Here in Connecticut we have had several charges, prosecutions, and penalties in our largest cities involving absentee voting fraud.

We recently had a symposium hosted by the Secretary of the State with national experts pointing out the risks of online voting, even if it were restricted to military and overseas voters. Fortunately the Courant called for waiting until “as soon as it can be adequately secured” – that will likely be a long time away given that it would require the repeal of a major theorem of computer science.

It may be possible for towns to save money by using regional voting centers. Instead of voting on Tuesdays, how about weekend voting? Voting by mail may make sense. The idea is to have a robust debate over what will work best in Connecticut.

Perhaps we should have that robust debate – a robust debate with everyone at the table – more than a couple of op-eds at the Courant. If security is a concern and the debate includes election integrity advocates and security experts -with complete, fair coverage in the new media, old media, and  extensive legislative hearings we expect we would find it too risky for democracy.

Voting on weekends instead of Tuesday would, in our opinion, need to start with a U.S. Constitutional amendment. There is a reason for an set national day for Federal elections – so that all states vote on the same day, such that voting does not continue after partial results are known. There other issues to consider with weekend voting <see>.

Regional voting centers would be convenient. The convenience would come at a considerable price – perhaps towns would save money if the State paid for it. In our opinion, it would require a Connecticut Constitutional Amendment to allow the State to take over some of the town by town responsibility for voting. Watch for debates along the lines of redistricting debates about the number and locations of the regional voting centers.

Registrars. If voting is dragged into the 21st century, it then behooves us to ask if each and every town needs to continue spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on two registrars of voters. Would one nonpartisan registrar do the trick for a town — or even a regional registrar?

At the very least, the legislature must eliminate a quirk in the law that has caused Hartford to have three registrars. The law says the candidates for registrar of voters who garner the highest and second-highest number of votes win the posts. But if a major-party candidate — Democrat or Republican —- is not among the top two finishers, that candidate must also be named a registrar.

In 2008, a Working Families Party candidate outpolled the Republican registrar, meaning that both of them, along with the Democrat, are all registrars. The cost of the extra registrar approaches a quarter-million dollars, money the city can ill afford to waste. Change the law.

We agree with evaluating regional registrars – we support professional civil service election management – “doing for elections what we have done for probate”. It would also require a Constitutional Amendment and effective, deliberate planning.

But as we have pointed out before there are good reasons when registrars are political having the check and balance of two individuals of opposing parties. We also see the original logic in having three registrars in situations like Hartford. And as we have pointed out before there is no reason why Hartford had to increase total salaries and staffing just because a third registrar was elected.

Bridgeport: Early ballots bring victories, sometimes fraud

In Bridgeport, a hallmark of Democratic Party politics has been the aggressive use of absentee ballots — so aggressive, in fact, that more than a dozen consent decrees have been signed since 1988 with the State Elections Enforcement Commission stemming from allegations of wrongdoing by party operatives.

CTPost article: Absentees: Early ballots bring victories, sometimes fraud <read> The article discusses the pursuit of absentee votes in the recent primary, the history of absentee ballot fraud in Bridgeport, and the Secretary of the State’s comments for early voting in preference to absentee voting.

“Goal: 1,200 absentee applications,” read a sign hanging in Mayor Bill Finch’s campaign headquarters last month.

By the time polls opened at 6 a.m. on Sept. 27, that goal had been surpassed — more than 1,300 applications were turned in and nearly 900 ballots returned. Before the first paper ballot was marked, Finch already had a 420-vote lead over Democratic challenger Mary-Jane Foster on Primary Day, the fruits of a well-organized absentee ballot operation.

“We, the politicians, we will do whatever we can to get that vote,” said Lydia Martinez, an East Side city councilwoman who for years has led the most successful absentee ballot operations in the city. “You can give transportation to people. You can call people to ask if they got their absentee ballot. I do have a record of who votes by absentee every year. I’ve been doing this for 30 years. I know who the people are.”

In Bridgeport, a hallmark of Democratic Party politics has been the aggressive use of absentee ballots — so aggressive, in fact, that more than a dozen consent decrees have been signed since 1988 with the State Elections Enforcement Commission stemming from allegations of wrongdoing by party operatives.

Nearly all the cases involved a Democrat helping someone apply, vote or submit their absentee ballot.

Secretary of the State Denise Merrill said she’d like to make reforms that could prevent absentee voter fraud. She said the problems could be resolved if Connecticut took advantage of new technology. One area she is considering is keeping electronic copies of voter signatures on file so they could be compared to what appears on the ballot or application.

Additionally, she is proposing a constitutional amendment that would allow the state to explore methods of increasing voter turnout by such practices as early voting, thus eliminating reasons for voting by absentee ballot.

Connecticut is one of 15 states, including New York, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, that do not allow early voting and require valid reasons for voting by absentee ballot. Nearly 30 states allow voters to cast an absentee ballot without Connecticut’s required excuses of being out of town, working, disabled or sick on election day. In Oregon and Washington, voting is done entirely by mail.

“No system is going to be perfect,” Merrill said. “Think of how elaborate the process is now and you still get allegations of fraud.”

Good, Timely News: Military Voting Jumped Last Year

Partially implemented MOVE Act resulting in more military voting and registering than the general populace!

As Connecticut considers risky, expensive online voting, we have urged fully exploiting and complying with the MOVE Act, posting applications and ballots online and allowing for single envelope express return of ballots. Now we have proof that conventional safe, economical solutions are working.

Washington Post Article <read>

Buoyed by a new law requiring states to make absentee ballots more accessible to military troops serving overseas, troops voted at a higher rate than the general population in last year’s midterm elections, according to a new report.

Overall, 46 percent of the military voted in the 2010 midterm elections, a 21 percentjump from the 2006 midterms and slightly higher than the 45.5 percent of the general population that cast ballots last year…populace

Voter registration last year among troops also was higher than the general public; 65 percent of Americans registered to vote in 2010, but 77 percent of troops registered.

Brennan Center: Changes in state laws could make voting harder

“Over the past century, our nation expanded the franchise and knocked down myriad barriers to full electoral participation. In 2011, however, that momentum abruptly shifted.”

Report from the Brennan Center For Justice: Voting Law Changes in 2012 <read>

Executive Summary

Over the past century, our nation expanded the franchise and knocked down myriad barriers to full electoral participation. In 2011, however, that momentum abruptly shifted.

State governments across the country enacted an array of new laws making it harder to register or to vote. Some states require voters to show government-issued photo identification, often of a type that as many as one in ten voters do not have. Other states have cut back on early voting, a hugely popular innovation used by millions of Americans. Two states reversed earlier reforms and once again disenfranchised millions who have past criminal convictions but who are now taxpaying members of the community. Still others made it much more difficult for citizens to register to vote, a prerequisite for voting.

These new restrictions fall most heavily on young, minority, and low-income voters, as well as on voters with disabilities. This wave of changes may sharply tilt the political terrain for the 2012 election. Based on the Brennan Center’s analysis of the 19 laws and two executive actions that passed in 14 states, it is clear that:

  • These new laws could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.
  • The states that have already cut back on voting rights will provide 171 electoral votes in 2012 – 63 percent of the 270 needed to win the presidency.
  • Of the 12 likely battleground states, as assessed by an August Los Angeles Times analysis of Gallup polling, five have already cut back on voting rights (and may pass additional restrictive legislation), and two more are currently considering new restrictions.

States have changed their laws so rapidly that no single analysis has assessed the overall impact of such moves. Although it is too early to quantify how the changes will impact voter turnout, they will be a hindrance to many voters at a time when the United States continues to turn out less than two thirds of its eligible citizens in presidential elections and less than half in midterm elections.

This study is the first comprehensive roundup of all state legislative action thus far in 2011 on voting rights, focusing on new laws as well as state legislation that has not yet passed or that failed. This snapshot may soon be incomplete: the second halves of some state legislative sessions have begun.

We point out that “voter suppression” is different than “making it harder…to cast ballots”.

  • We see no significant fraud problems calling for the stiff voter ID requirements and for curtailing EDR. These, along with making it more difficult for felons to vote and stiffer registration requirements each would tend to suppress the vote to the detriment of older, poorer and disabled citizens.
  • While current initiatives may be politically motivated, we have frequently cited risks and fraud associated with expanded mail-in and no-excuse absentee voting.
  • Early voting may be expensive if done without increasing risk, it might also suppress or encourage voting by particular groups. For instance, early voting would benefit employed citizens if voting centers are located in areas where many people work.

We note that the Brennan Center agrees with the analysis that mail voting and early voting have little effect on turn-out <here> <here>. According to the Brennan Report:

The primary benefit of early voting is convenience. Voters are provided more options and days during which they can vote. While there is little evidence that early and absentee voting increase turnout, there is strong anecdotal evidence that it makes election administration easier, reducing the crush of voters at the polling place on a single day. In the past, that Election Day crush has led to hours-long lines, and resulted in the de facto disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters.

Bad News, Good News, Bad News, Good News, Bad News from Bridgeport

Oooops the law passed just this year to fix the problems in Bridgeport said nothing about the SOTS being able to walk into central absentee ballot counting operations, only polling places. In the words of Cindi Rice, “Who could have imagined…”

Update: More problems, documented this time. Was it fraud, mismanagement, or incompetence? Who knows for sure?

An editorial in the CT Post highlighting the excitement surrounding the election, the attention, and the hijinks: A chance for Bridgeport Democrats to weigh in <read>

 That there will be a Democratic mayoral primary Tuesday is a good thing for the city of Bridgeport.

Pick your favorite, but the exchange of ideas, suggestions, accusations, recriminations and so on between Mayor Bill Finch and challenger Mary-Jane Foster has put some energy in the air in a city that needs every bit of energy it can muster.

There are indeed ways to measure that energy.

Consider this: In 2007, when Christopher Caruso, a popular legislator from the North End of the city, challenged Finch, 493 absentee ballots were cast in the mayoral primary. Finch won that contest, incidentally, by fewer than 300 votes.

As of Friday, the Bridgeport Town Clerk’s office had received 1,200 applications for absentee ballots, and 756 executed ballots had been returned.

 The good news? There’s plenty of interest.

The potential bad news? All those absentee ballots should make fans of fair elections just a little nervous.

[good news] So it’s a pleasing development that Connecticut Secretary of the State Denise Merrill has said she’ll have a presence in Bridgeport on Tuesday for the 2011 version of the Democratic mayoral primary.

The Post covered and we commented on some absentee ballot allegations earlier this week: Absentee Fraud in Bridgeport? Who could have imagined? <read>  Now the Post covers more, the same day as the editorial: Bridgeport absentee ballots becoming focus of election complaints  <read>

[more bad news] Jason Bartlett, Foster’s campaign manager, said that Councilwoman Lydia N. Martinez, D-137, illegally assisted several elderly residents of Harborview Towers in filling out their absentee ballots. Martinez could not be reached for comment.

According to Bartlett, Martinez was at Harborview Towers collecting filled-in absentee ballots, which would be illegal under state law. The law requires that an absentee ballot can only be touched by a voter, a letter carrier, a police officer, a caretaker or an immediate family member. Bartlett said that this is “clearly illegal” activity, particularly because Martinez is a city council candidate.

Harborview Towers, on the city’s East Side, is a high-rise public housing complex that caters mostly to elderly and disabled residents.

Bartlett said that Martinez was also seen by Foster campaign workers engaged in similar activities in an apartment building on Grant Street, in the East End.

The Foster camp additionally charged that some Finch campaign workers were using the fact that the primary had to be rescheduled from Sept. 13 to Sept. 27 to confuse voters who support Foster.

“They’re taking advantage of the rescheduled primary by sending known Foster supporters second and third absentee ballot application forms. They’re trying to confuse them into voting twice, which would invalidate their vote,” he said. “We’ve asked that people from the secretary of the state’s office come down and safeguard the absentee ballot process.”

We have no way of substantiating or refuting the allegations.  There is one more piece of bad news, as we commented on the Editorial, including a quote from the article:

More bad news, the SOTS presence will not provide confidence with regard to Absentee Ballots. Oooops the law [passed just this year to fix the problems in Bridgeport] said nothing about the SOTS being able to walk into central absentee ballot counting operations, only polling places. (Of course like any citizen they can watch the AB operation from a distance). In the words of Cindi Rice “Who could have imagined…”

According to a CTPost article yesterday:

“But Av Harris, a spokesman for Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, said that her office’s authority over absentee ballots is very limited, adding that complaints on absentee irregularities must be heard by the state Elections Enforcement Commission and also the courts.”

Update: More problems, documented this time. Was it fraud, mismanagement, or incompetence? Who knows for sure? Finch campaign mails incorrect voting locations to some voters <read>

“The Finch campaign sent a mailing out last week to a couple hundred newly registered voters in an attempt to boost voter participation and educate these voters about the upcoming primary election and the mayor’s record of progress,” Breslin said in an email. “The campaign was also trying to educate voters about where to vote on Election Day, as many of these voters are first-time voters in Bridgeport. Unfortunately, this limited list of new voters included some inaccurate polling locations.”

The Connecticut Post discovered one instance in which a resident of developer Phil Kuchma’s Fairfield Avenue complex, just blocks away from City Hall, received a mailing informing the resident that Blackham School was her polling place.

A day or two later, an identical mailing arrived. The only difference in the mailing was the switching of the words Blackham School for City Hall.