George Cody, President Registrars Of Voters Association Connecticut, responded to the Dead Voters Issue with a letter to the Hartford Courant <read>
Connecticut and the registrars are stuck between a rock and a hard place — aggressively clean up the database and risk dropping voters incorrectly — or demand clear evidence to drop a person from the rolls to avoid disenfranchisement.
Names are removed from the active rolls upon positive evidence of a change in status or residency. Proof positive is required to make changes in status. Registrars use several methods to seek out information. When notified of a voters death, they make every effort to verify the information through obituaries, death certificate records in the town clerk’s office or through local probate records. There is often a time gap in this information and, as the article points out, registrars do not have regular access to state and federal records. The time required to match and verify the information might lead to a delay in a voter’s final removal from the rolls, but the status of these voters is changed to inactive during the verification process.
When voters move out of state or town, their former town of residence is not necessarily notified, resulting in only anecdotal information…
The subsequent follow-up done by the students appears to have found clerical problems, rather than any evidence of potential fraud. Connecticut citizens can also rest assured that all voters are asked to present identification at all elections or to sign a statement about eligibility prior to voting. The Courant’s reporter has been kind enough to supply a list of the questionable names. This list will be disseminated to the towns for follow-up. We only wish we had this list earlier to make corrections and provide input to the study other than post-study comments.
Clerical problems do occur. When voters move out of town without notifying their former town, the chain of information is broken. They will often remain listed as active voters until we receive corrective information. If that move is out of state, notification is at best infrequent. Mistakes based on duplicate or similar names or incorrect post-election entry of who voted is another source of confusion.
We look forward to working with the list provided to further clean our lists. The centralized voter database has contributed to addressing in-state moves, but the real solution is with the voters and their families. If there is a change in any voter’s address or status, notify your registrar so corrective action can be taken.
We would like better data, but we are sympathetic to the registrars’ challenges on this issue. We are also interested in the Media’s and the Secretary of the State’s aggressive response to this issue in contrast to the much more significant issue of post-election audit integrity.
With the dead voter issue we are talking about 300 possible errors between 1994 and 2007. In just the last post-election audit we are talking about chain of custody lapses in several towns and 304 ballots missing in just one municipality in just one election. Perhaps it has to do with the media response to the two issues. While there has been a flurry of articles in the Connecticut press on the dead voters report, to our knowledge the mainstream media has yet to publish a single word on the results of the post-election audits of the November Election and the February Primary. Also missing is media concern with significant quality control issues in programming and testing elections also uncovered by researchers at the the University of Connecticut.
