If banks loose billions online, why would we leave democracy to online voting?

Even if ecommerce transactions were safe, the security technology underpinning them would not suffice for voting. In particular, the voting security and privacy requirements are unique and in tension in a way that has no analog in the ecommerce world.

If banks loose billions online, why would we leave democracy to online voting?<.pdf>

This is a very fair question, and it deserves a careful, thorough answer because the reasons are not obvious. Unfortunately it requires substantial development to explain fully. But in brief, our answer is in two-parts:

  1. It is not actually “safe” to conduct ecommerce transactions online. It is in fact very risky, and more so every day. Essentially all those risks apply equally to online voting transactions.
  2. The technical security, privacy, and transparency requirements for voting are structurally different from, and actually much more stringent than, those for ecommerce transactions. Even if ecommerce transactions were safe, the security technology underpinning them would not suffice for voting. In particular, the voting security and privacy requirements are unique and in tension in a way that has no analog in the ecommerce world.

The rest of this essay expands upon these two points in order.

Why Tuesday? Why Saturday? Why Sunday?

UPDATED: Representative Larson to introduce “Weekend Voting Act”. We do not find a compelling, complete case for this particular change. Our own suggestion would be to make election day a holiday, and even better change it to Wednesday, to get the election as far from the weekend as possible, reducing the temptation to use it as convenient four day extended vacation.

UPDATED: Our Representative, John Larson will be introducing a bill, “Weekend Voting Act” to move elections to the weekend. <read>

HARTFORD — With low voter participation across the nation at the polls this week, Congressman John B. Larson (CT-01), announced today that he supports an initiative to move elections from Tuesdays to the weekend to make it easier for all citizens to do their civic duty.

“As a representative democracy, voting is a fundamental responsibility for all Americans and the system should be as accessible as possible for as many as possible,” said Larson. “Unfortunately, the system we have now was designed to meet our country’s needs over 160 years ago and it no longer makes any sense. It’s time we stop making people choose between exercising their responsibility to vote, and meeting their everyday obligations.”

The current system, with national and local elections held on Tuesdays, was originally established in 1845 to accommodate the schedule of a largely agrarian society. Today, as an urban society, with many competing demands on everyone’s time, taking the time to go vote during a busy workday is a large impediment for many Americans. In fact, voter turnout has decreased in almost every presidential election since 1965.

The solution is simple, Larson says, “moving our elections to the weekend would make it much easier for everyone to get out and vote.” That is the goal of the ‘Why Tuesday’ Initiative, a non-partisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization founded in 2005 to find solutions to increase voter participation.

‘Why Tuesday’ supports the Weekend Voting Act which will be introduced this Congress to move Congressional and presidential elections to weekends. “Bill Wachtel and the folks at Why Tuesday are right,” Larson noted. “Even one American voter disenfranchised because of an outdated scheduling policy is too many. I will be working to make this change in how we vote so that more Americans can participate without having to choose between work, or their families, and their desire to vote.”

Reading the details we find some voting integrity implications and we are skeptical of the benefits:

  • We question if weekend voting would actually increase turnout, decrease it, or be a wash. In Connecticut we have about half the turn-out in municipal elections as in Federal elections – clearly some of the voters are less motivated for municipal elections. Would elections on weekends motivate those same and other voters to interrupt their weekend activities or mini-vacations to vote? We see arguments for weekend voting but no rigorous argument at WhyTuesday. The overall effect seems difficult to predict.
  • Which days would we vote? Saturday and/or Sunday? I am a big supporter of separation of State and Church, but staffing elections might be challenging because many voters and potential election officials hold Saturday or Sunday as days reserved for their religion. Most might be willing to vote, but many might pass on working the polls or participating in get out the vote efforts – some might reasonably be expected to be offended by such efforts culminating on their day of worship.
  • On the other hand it might be possible to attract other individuals without strong religious or other weekend commitments to be poll workers. Once again, perhaps a wash as some people prefer taking a vacation day to work the polls rather than sacrificing “their time” on a weekend. Retired folks might prefer during the week and keep the weekend for visiting children and grandchildren. Once again, it might be difficult to predict.
  • With weekend voting we might find more volunteers on election day around town and around the polls holding signs encouraging everyone to vote. Especially if the election were Saturday, much of the flyering activities now largely accomplished on the weekend before the election would have to be accomplished during on the weekdays prior.
  • Would it have an effect on the demographics of who votes?  Once again, hard to tell. On the surface it would seem to favor those whose work makes it impossible to vote during polling hours – those that are not out of town all day (those out of town all day are eligible to vote by absentee ballot), or so busy working and driving children around that voting before or after work is just too much of a hassle. It should have little effect on the unemployed, or the many who work on weekends.

Looking at Representative Steve Israel’s site we find more details, not readily apparent at WhyTuesday:

The system needs to be upgraded to accommodate the needs of all American citizens. That’s why Rep. Israel introduced The Weekend Voting Act, H.R. 254 in the 111th Congress (2009-2010), which would move Election Day to the weekend. Rep. Israel is planning to reintroduce the legislation during the 112th (2011-2012) Congress. His bill would require polling places in the continental United States to be open on Saturday at 10:00 a.m. EST and close on Sunday at 6:00 p.m. EST during a presidential election.

Update:  Representative Israel’s description is inexact.  Here is the summary of the previous bill, our comments are updated accordingly:

Amends the Revised Statutes with respect to the time of election to establish the first Saturday and Sunday after the first Friday in November, in every even numbered year, as the days for the election, in each state and territory, of Delegates to, or Members of, Congress. Amends federal law with respect to presidential elections and vacancies to establish the first Saturday and Sunday after the first Friday in November, in every fourth year, as the days for the election of the President and Vice President of the United States. Amends such federal laws to establish the same polling place hours in the United States for both congressional and presidential elections, namely from 10:00 a.m. EST on Saturday till 6:00 p.m. EST on Sunday, with polls allowed to close between the hours of 10:00 p.m. local time on Saturday and 6:00 a.m. local time on Sunday as provided by the law of the state in which the polling place is located.

  • Looks like it would only apply to Federal elections, the ones that currently have the highest turnout.
  • One thing for sure, variation between Presidential, other Federal, Primaries and all other elections would increase voter and official confusion, with may changes required in other deadlines along the way.
  • We also note that while 10:00am to 6:00pm might be fine for many voters and would be hailed by election officials, those hours would make it much more difficult for retail employees required to work on Saturday and inconvenience those voters who would like to vote early and late avoid interrupting their normal Saturday or Sunday activities.
  • With Sunday undefined for hours, would States take into account religious services in setting polling hours? If they did, would that provide opportunities for constitutional challenges?
  • We do find that there are Integrity challenges, at least in Connecticut.  Currently we have only one day of voting, thus securing the ballots, machines, and the polling place would be a new challenge to integrity.
  • At least in Connecticut, it would likely almost double the election day costs for election personnel, building rental, campaigns, and volunteers.
  • Weekends would also present challenges and complains where elections are held in facilities that are currently used during the weekends for other activities.
  • One positive aspect would be an end to long pollworker days. Starting later and ending at earlier  would provide for more rested officials opening and closing the polls.

We do not find a compelling, complete case for this particular change. Our own suggestion would be to make election day a holiday, and even better change it to Wednesday, to get the election as far from the weekend as possible, reducing the temptation to use it as convenient four day extended vacation.

Beware: Americans Elect – We were just too optimistic

We were just too optimistic, yet prophetic when we suggested the founders might not be happy with anything but their type of candidate.

In July we posted about Americans Elect a new third party aimed directly at the center of politics as defined by Tom Friedman: Friedman predicts 2012 Presidential candidate via Estonia-like Internet voting system <read> Sadly we were just plain too optimistic when we said things such as:

This is  reminiscent of the article on Estonian voting we covered yesterday. No mention of any transparency in the development, testing, and operation of the actual system. Rather than quoting independent technical experts, we see the system pronounced safe by the architect. Did Ronald Reagan say “Trust Me”?  Of course not. Actually it sounds like something Bernard Madoff might have said. President Reagan actually said “Trust But Verify”…

Or maybe the process is not “hijacked” but the people create a party platform close to some of the results we have seen in some recent polls? A platform of banning guns, protecting Social Security, universal health care, and decriminalization of pot? (Remember when Obama asked his supporters to vote on initiatives after the election? Not much publicity after they voted pot decriminalization as the top priority). What is scary is the potential for insiders to actually hijack the process by disqualifying or discrediting such votes. Or outsiders successfully attacking the system undetected.

No mention here of the possibility of candidates being chosen such as Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or, Pat Roberson forbid, Michael Moore, Keith Olberman, or Ralph Nadar.

It does not sound transparent financially or electorally. Yet, I can see why almost everyone would want to sign-up to promote their favorite type of candidates and party platform.

We were just too optimistic, yet prophetic when we suggested the founders might not be happy with anything but their type of candidate. So now we have an article from Politico confirming our worst fears and them some. Democracy deficit at Americans Elect? <read>

Rather than gush about this group, I fear many aspects of it: its secrecy; the uncertain security for its Internet election and, most important, the lack of democracy in its system for electing a presidential nominee.

While it is providing voters a path to choose a presidential ticket through the democratizing force of the Internet, the process can, in fact, be overruled by a small board of directors, who organized the group. This board is to have unfettered discretion in picking a committee that can boot the presidential ticket chosen by voters if it is not sufficiently ?centrist and even dump the committee if it doesn’t like the direction it’s heading...

Campaign finance reformers have already condemned Americans Elect for switching its organizational status under the Tax Code from political organization to 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. This change allows an organization to shield its donors

Kahlil Byrd, the president of Americans Elect, told NPR that the group does not disclose donors because they fear retribution…Who is going to throw a Molotov cocktail through the window of a radical centrist?

Perhaps one reason Americans Elect is hiding the names of its donors is that people might draw conclusions about the group’s interests based on the contributors — especially given the rumor that most of its money comes from the hedge fund industry...

Despite the veneer of democracy created by having ?delegates? choose a presidential candidate through a series of Internet votes, the unelected, unaccountable board of Americans Elect, funded by secret money, will control the process for choosing a presidential and vice presidential candidate — who could well appear on the ballot in all 50 states.

Update: 05/01/2012 Yet another silent majority of almost none starts biting the dust. We are not surprised.

Americans Elect Cancels its First Primary Ballot — not enough Actual People want their Candidates <read>

Well, most Americans don’t agree. As the Pew Research Center documented in a poll last December, most Americans don’t buy centrist talk. Most Americans — three out of four of them — believe there is “too much power in the hands of a few rich people and large corporations”. Most Americans believe the “country’s economic system unfairly favors the wealthy.” Most Americans “believe Wall Street hurts the economy more than it helps.” These are not centrist positions. They’re not Americans Elect’s positions. The few financiers of Americans Elect whose names have been leaked out are Wall Street money managers and hedge fund operators. Americans Elect spokeswoman Ileana Wachtel last week declared of her organization: “No one at AE can dispute that Mr. Peterson’s message is the right one.” “Mr. Peterson” is billionaire Pete Peterson, who wants to cut social security, cut medicare, cut medicaid and make this country safer for big business.

Secretary of the State’s Online Voting Symposium

An excellent panel of experts on voting technology and the challenges of overseas voting. Credit is due to the panelists, the Secretary, and those who contributed behind the scenes in making this event possible. John Dankowski, of Connecticut Public Broadcasting did an exemplary job of moderating a very civil, thorough debate. If only typical panels and Legislative hearings could be more like this format, interactive, civil, and informative.

On October 27th, the Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill held an ‘Online Voting Symposium’ at Central Connecticut State University (CCSU) in New Britain. We were there with our amateur video. The Connecticut Television Network (CT-N) was also there. When CT-N videos become available we will also post them here.

Summary

This is was an exceptional panel of experts on voting technology and the challenges of overseas voting. Credit is due to the panelists, the Secretary, and those who contributed behind the scenes in making this event possible. John Dankowski, of Connecticut Public Broadcasting did an exemplary job of moderating a very civil, thorough debate. If only typical panels and Legislative hearings could be more like this format, interactive, civil, and informative.

On a rainy/snowy night with competing demands at the State Capitol, we were pleased that several Legislators attended. In total about eighty people attended with a good mixture of registrars of voters, town clerks, and advocates. We expect many more will watch our videos or the videos and replays on CT-N.

Secretary Tennant of West Virginia, a proponent of online voting, was outnumbered four to one by the other panelists. Dankowski provided her a fair opportunity to respond and challenge the other panelists.

The Panelists

Susan Dzieduszycka-Suinat
President & Co-Founder of Overseas Vote Foundation
The Overseas Vote Foundation is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization established in 2005 that helps overseas and military voters participate in federal elections by providing public access to interactive web services. 4.75 million individuals visited OVF’s 17 voter services sites in 2008.

Natalie Tennant
West Virginia Secretary of State

In 2010, West Virginia launched a piloted an online voting initiative for military members and overseas citizens for the primary election. Tennant has testified before Congress on the success of the state’s pilot program and her office has recently issued a report detailing the ways in which voters benefitted.

Assistant Professor, University of Michigan
Halderman, a computer science professor, led a team from the University of Michigan to successfully penetrate and manipulate the internet voting system Washington D.C. planned to use for military and overseas voters for the general election in 2010
 
Ron Rivest
Professor, M.I.T.

Rivest is a cryptographer and a member of the Election Assistance Commission’s Technical Guidelines Development Committee.  In 2006 he published his invention of the ThreeBallot voting system, which incorporates the ability for the voter to discern that their vote was counted while still protecting their voter privacy.
 
Alex Shvartsman
Director of UConn Center for Voting Technology Research

The mission of the VoTeR center is to advise state agencies in the use of voting technologies and to investigate voting solutions and voting equipment to develop and recommend safe use procedures for their usage in elections.

Videos (may take a bit to load into post) (click video to go to page allowing larger views)

 

 

My Two Cents
The panel covered most issues surrounding online voting during close to one-hundred minutes. The time flew by, well focused, and engaging. There is always more that could be said, more details, and additional important points which could have been discussed. Here are some additional points that I would like to have seen raised or had more emphasis.
  • Voting challenges and solutions should not be limited to military voters. As a veteran I appreciate the service and the challenges to voting for soldiers. All overseas voters should have effective access to voting. Many face similar challenges, many deserve our thanks, while all should be able to have their votes counted. Consider some examples: Volunteers and NGO staff in Darfur and Hati; Business representatives in China, South America, and Africa; Oil rig workers; Merchant Marine; State Department employees; Military contractors; and Peace Corps volunteers.
  • Insider attacks are easier and more effective than external threats. Like most panels the focus was on outsider attack, yet the risk of a single insider is likely greater. An insider likely needs much less sophisticated means, has more opportunity, and ready means to attack, in less detectable ways.
    • The government believes, a singly Army Private could have accessed and stolen government documents from many agencies. Whether they have the correct suspect or not, they seem quite convinced that it is possible. Many election officials, government technologists, contractors, and vendor employees would have similar opportunities to compromise online voting systems.
    • Ironically, driving home I caught snippets of the rebroadcast of the day’s John Dankowski show, Where We Live. The subject was Art Theft. One of the main contentions was that almost all museum art theft is accomplished by unsophisticated insiders – typically low paid security guards with access, using unsophisticated means.
  • The possibility of error. Online voting systems could have errors which lose votes irretrievably or mis-classify them. Without the paper records votes can be lost or changed, with or without detection, yet without recourse.
  • The confusion of the possibility of  a ‘secure’ government network, with reality and what is on the table. Panelists discussed the possiblity of a non-public Intenet, a highly secure, government network for online voting, using highly secure computers and servers as well. Even though a perfect system is impossible, such a network would be much safer than systems using individual’s computers, the public Internet, or a regular government Internet – many of us might agree such a system was ‘good enough’.  Yet we should not confuse that possibility with what was actually the subject of the symposium, what is being actually proposed around the country, or what is reasonable:
    • Neither the Federal Government, Connecticut, or any state is actually seriously considering such a system. For starters it would be hugely expensive, require agreement to let the military handle all such voting for every jurisdiction, along with huge investments and operating expense on the part of the Federal Government and each election jurisdiction.
    • It would likely have to be a huge network with a huge number of locations and secure computers, separate from other Military networks, especially if it were used to serve all overseas voters.
    • Remember that anecdotal extreme cases of voting challenges include front line troops in Afghanistan, relief workers in the most challenging conditions, Peace Corps volunteers in remote villages etc. It is hard to imagine a secure, expensive, network reaching in all such environments. We cannot lose sight of realistic means to solve the real challenge we started out to address.
Other Coverage
The Hartford Courant <read>
New Britain Herald <read>
Connecticut Network (CT-N) <video>
Waterbury Republican and Senator Kane <read>

Justice John Paul Stevens: Bush v. Gore, “frivolous”

Stevens recalls talking to fellow Justice Stephen Breyer about Bush’s suit – and them both agreeing that, “the application was frivolous… To secure a stay, a litigant must show that one is necessary to prevent an … irreparable injury. Bush’s attorneys had failed to make any such showing.”

Tom Hartman covering Justice Stevens’ new book <read>

According to a new book by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens – the lawsuit brought to the high court in 2000 by George W. Bush regarding the recount in Florida was “frivolous” and should never have been heard.  In his book “Five Chiefs” – Stevens recalls talking to fellow Justice Stephen Breyer about Bush’s suit – and them both agreeing that, “the application was frivolous… To secure a stay, a litigant must show that one is necessary to prevent an … irreparable injury. Bush’s attorneys had failed to make any such showing.”  Yet – the High Court took up the case anyway – and as well all know, stopped a recount in Florida that would have proven Al Gore was the actual winner of the 2000 Presidential Election.  Not to mention that Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife was working on the Bush transition team at the time – and Justice Scalia’s son was working for a law firm representing Bush at the time.  Not only was the Bush presidency defined by corruption – it was birthed by corruption as well.

For more background  see our testimony earlier this year, <read page 6>

 since the founding, close election controversies have all been decided in seemingly partisan decisions by Congress, special commissions, or the Supreme Court.

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.

NJ: Questionable practices – Questioning courts and watchdogs

Rigged election or three human errors – we may never know for sure.

Update: All four parts of the series are now complete in one <.pdf>

Significant that the Judge ordered a redo of the election. For the reasons stated, that may not be the best solution when the voters’ intentions are clear.

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

Rigged election or three human errors – we may never know for sure.  Freedom To Tinker: NJ election cover-up <read>

The Court: The 2011 New Jersey Primary Election was held on June 7, 2011. In District 3 of Fairfield Township, Cumberland County, four individuals ran for two open seats on the Democratic Executive Committee. Following the election, the County Clerk certified the results as Vivian Henry, 34 votes; Mark Henry, 33 votes; Ernest Zirkle, 9 votes; and Cynthia Zirkle, 10 votes…

[Administrator of the Cumberland County Board of Elections] Ms. Hernandez claimed that she has programmed the voting machines in Cumberland County since June of 2008, to avoid the cost of the County of hiring a programmer. She further claimed that she mistakenly placed the position for Vivian and Mark Henry onto the position of Cynthia and Ernest Zirkle, and vice versa. This information was then put into the voting machine cartridge and sent to the warehouse for testing. The voting machine technicians inserted the cartridge into the voting machine and began the necessary testing. Ms. Hernandez then claims that the voting machine technicians did not catch her error in the programming…

On August 17, 2011, an expert retained by the Plaintiffs, Dr. Andrew W. Appel, made an inspection of the voting machine and the laptop, pursuant to the Order following the July 11 hearing. In conducting this inspection, Mr. Appel found certain concerns with the security procedures which the Administrator had put in place.

He also discovered that his ability to examine the Administrator’s WinEDS laptop was seriously compromised by what appeared to be an action that someone performed on the computer on August 16, 2011, which erased a number of files which Dr. Appel wanted to examine…

In response to the August 22, 2011 Order to Show Cause, the Attorney General filed a Certification of Jason W. Cossaboon, Sr., a Computer System Analyst employed by Cumberland County. Mr. Cossaboon, in his Certification, states that on August 16, 2011, he was asked by the Administrator to determine the date the hardening process was applied to the laptop used to program the voting machines. [editor’s note: I’ll explain “hardening” in the sequel article]

 

He apparently was not able to find a log file for the laptop to indicate the date the hardening was done. However, he states that while working on the laptop, he noticed the computer was running very slowly. As a result, he deleted certain “temporary files.” He also, for some reason, deleted the event view logs…

I do not know and may never know exactly why this election was defective. I have suspicions that something happened here that was improper and I even question whether something happened here that may have been criminal. And I strongly encourage the Attorney General to turn this over to the Attorney General Division of Criminal Justice, so that appropriate criminal investigators can conduct a full and complete investigation of this matter, to assure that criminality did not take place.

Although the Board of Elections and the Administrator maintain that human error was all that was involved here, for me to believe that I have to believe that three independent errors, human errors, occurred here, and that somewhat stretches my belief of common sense and reality, but it’s possible.

Accordingly, I am ordering a new election to be conducted on September 27, 2011.

To be continued. This is part one of four blog posts promised.

Absentee votes in Florida, voters not required to participate

A three part series highlights ongoing, organized, absentee vote fraud in Florida. The [low] highlight is the video and story in the first part, of a disabled former county worker who tried her darnedest to vote but in the end was denied.

A three part series highlights ongoing, organized, absentee vote fraud in Florida.  The [low] highlight is the video and story in the first part, of a disabled former county worker who tried her darnedest to vote but in the end was denied. <part1> <part2> <part3>

Could Mrs. Thompson have forgotten that she received and returned the ballot? She said no numerous times. As a former County worker, she was sharp as a tack mentally. We compared the ballot envelope signature to a fresh signature sample done by Judith at Elections as well as to the signature on her State identification card. The signature on the absentee ballot envelope when compared with Mrs. Thompson’s valid signature wasn’t even close. There were three of us looking at the signatures. The envelope signature was very tight compared to her looser hand and the capital letters were written differently. I asked Elections how they verify absentee ballot signature, they said:

The signatures are verified electronically. If the signature on the certificate requires further review, then the certificate is reviewed manually. – Michelle G. McClain, Assistant Deputy Supervisor, Voter Services

It is interesting to note that when Miami Dade County Clerk Harvey Ruvin reviewed petition signatures he did them ALL manually and had a handwriting expert on hand. Maybe the Elections Department’s program is not working as it allowed Mrs. Thompson to be disenfranchised by a forged signature. I got a few different stories about how signatures are verified at the Election’s Department. I even called the software company that supplies Elections and they were very defensive. I asked them about statistics on accuracy, They never called  back. Joe Centorino at the State’s Attorney’s office (now head of County’s Ethics), at my urging, instituted an investigation into Mrs. Thompson’s lost vote.  He said it was difficult proving these cases. His biggest complaint was that there is no penalty for people from campaigns picking up absentee ballots from voters even though it is illegal. He needs to have a penalty to impose on the illegal activity in order to make arrests….

We had spent some time at the Miami–Dade County Department of Elections looking at returned absentee ballot envelopes and ballots from the preceding election. What we reviewed were the now empty ballot-filled envelopes which have the voter’s address information and signature. The actual ballots do not have any identifying numbers, names or marks on them. We viewed those separately. We were not allowed to touch or copy the envelopes or ballots. They were held up in front of our faces.

What we saw during our time at Elections amazed us. It actually prepared us for Ms. Thompson’s experience. What we learned through interviews before Ms. Thompson’s trek to Elections was not surprising.

During our time at Elections, we saw ballots that were filled in strangely.

Among the oddities were numerous ballots that had only 2 candidates (the same two) filled in out of the scads of candidates in the November election. There were ballots with pencil circles around the “correct” bubble with dark ink colored in them. It may not sound like much, but when you are sitting there looking at page after page, you soon realize that some things you see are not quite right.

When it came to the ballot certification envelopes, our review offered up many questions and we oftentimes received answers from the department about the absentee process that didn’t make sense.

On the envelopes we noted some strange things like unusual numbers of voters in a certain area missing required printed signatures at the envelope top while other areas had all of the required printing on them. There were envelopes with signatures in the wrong place allowing the envelopes to be opened or closed; there were different hand writing styles on the top, bottom and front of the envelope; there were envelopes with NO signature (they were counted, now I want you to try that at a poll) and other things that just seemed weird.

In some cases we asked to compare the envelope signatures with the one on file and we were denied the opportunity. We asked questions about the envelope review process. The response really didn’t calm our discomfort with what we saw. After this visit, I am still not convinced that the envelopes are truly looked at in a comprehensive matter – having found one vote counted with NO signature…

Miami Herald’s Columnist Fred Grimm said:

“In 1993, after the Hialeah city election was tainted by illicit commerce in absentee votes, a Miami Herald editorial warned, “Florida’s absentee ballot guidelines are among the nation’s most lenient. Indeed, the laws encourage ‘ballot brokers’ who exchange blocs of absentee ballots for money. The Legislature needs to adopt tighter regulations for obtaining absentee ballots. The Florida Senate wisely voted down a bill this year that would have made the code even looser.”

 That bit of wisdom did not hold. In 2004, the Legislature relaxed absentee ballot rules. And ballot brokers are still deciding elections. (The Miami-Dade Supervisor of Elections mailed out 126,372 absentee ballots for Tuesday’s county mayoral election.) If the rules were any looser, my dog Jasper could vote absentee.”…

A View from an Insider:

There are cases where they would be “using” the absentee ballots mailed to the typical Cuban seniors — those who are handicapped by their physical problems, and many who are not. These people don’t speak English; most live either in nursing homes or in private nursing homes [family homes that take up to 8 seniors], so the people who are the managers at these places are in control of the votes/people.

These seniors don’t know how to vote, so they trust their “handlers” to do this for them. Let’s say that there’s a private home that houses 8 seniors; the person who manages the place will sell their ballots to the people who are gathering votes for the candidates. This manager can collect anywhere from $50 to $100 per ballot. It all depends on how badly the campaigns need the vote and, most all, how much money is available for negotiating.

Why on earth do you think that the costs of running a political campaign in Miami-Dade get higher with every new election? Do you really believe that they need the money for radio and TV?

In the case of the dining rooms [“comedores”], I understand that it is more of a communal process. As the ballots arrive, the “handlers” sit with the seniors and they tell them that they are going to help complete the voting process, so it is easier for them. These seniors have no idea how to vote, and even the presence of a ballot scares them to death.

In the cases of the hundreds of Cuban clinics in Miami-Dade – that are no more than Medicare mills – the owners, or managers, ask the seniors if they want to “negotiate” their ballots, and they offer them money. Naturally, a Medicare mill is there to help the senior make money, one way or the other. And then the seniors request their ballots by phone, and even if they would need a medical excuse, stating that they “can’t go to the polls,” remember who’s helping them to do the transaction, THEIR CLINIC…

Here is a last word from the Miami Herald:

“Still, interviews with at least a half-dozen people involved in Greater Miami elections paint a picture of a flourishing cottage industry in which ballot brokers promise to deliver blocks of absentee votes for a price. To be sure, many strategies for targeting absentee voters are legal, but the practice becomes dubious when voters are pressured with insistent phone calls and home visits. And the efforts can cross the line into fraud, when ballots that are collected under the guise of helping a voter are altered or destroyed.”

How much safer/riskier is Connecticut? We are not so sure. People here have been prosecuted. We are certain, that our President and the make-up of our Congress is dependent on errors and fraud in Florida and in every other state.

CO: Chain-Of-Custody and Confidence broken

Confidence depends on counting everything, the chain-of-custody, and what is discovered. It looks like faults in all three do not inspire confidence and integrity in Saguache County

Update 1/26/2012: Recall election brings new Saguache clerk  <read>

County Clerk and Recorder Melinda Myers lost her recall election by more than a 2-1 margin Tuesday night and will be replaced by the candidate she beat in a controversial 2010 election. Voters recalled Myers, 941-453, pushing her from office 14 months after an election that prompted two reviews by the secretary of state and another by a statewide grand jury. Republican Carla Gomez, who lost to Myers in the last election, topped independent Patricia Jenkins, 762-319, according to Tuesday’s final unofficial results.

**********

CO: Citizens challenge SOS plan, discover ballot irregularities <read>

Confidence depends on counting everything, the chain-of-custody, and what is discovered. It looks like faults in all three do not inspire confidence and integrity in Saguache County:

The group peppered Secretary of State’s Office (SOS) staff with questions about how the review should be conducted and what should be reviewed. They protested that the votes cast in Prec. 5 (Crestone) have been in question since the election and since they were largely mail-in, should be counted as a precinct in order to decide if the Nov. 5 “retabulation” of these votes following the discovery of the error was accurate…

The SOS assigned teams to citizen volunteers Monday and began sorting out the ballots. Citizens asked the counting activities be delayed until their questions could be answered but Munster and communications officer Andrew Cole simply stated that the directives issued for the review by the SOS last week must be followed…

In opening the ballot boxes, volunteers discovered that only two of the three boxes had the necessary seals attached. None of the seal logs were where they were supposed to be, watchers observed. Counting judge Duboe and another individual, while possibly trying to trying to locate unvoted ballot stock, opened the ballot boxes March 30.

One of the four teams counting ballots discovered more signatures than ballots. Another team found several ballots with white out covering votes, different inks used on the same ballot and marks that appeared to be made by felt tip markers which had bled through to the other side of the ballot.

Another team found what seemed to be an entire batch of provisional ballots that had not been opened or reviewed. Some 10 ballots were discovered that had votes made only for Joseph and Myers and no other candidates. The SOS said that these votes were valid, although they did disqualify one vote cast for Linda Joseph found by another team that was unverifiable.

Some ballots apparently were missing and there was confusion concerning a set of odd provisional ballots, all blank, cast in Precincts 7, 8 and 9. One voter signature had been cut from a provisional ballot out of another pollbook and taped over a signature of the same person into a different pollbook. “We have no idea what happened there,” Marks said.

See earlier coverage <here>