CTVotersCount.org

Nov 08 Election Audit Reports – Part 1 – Bad Cards, Procedural Lapses Continue

This week the University of Connecticut VoTeR Center released reports on post-election audits and memory card testing for the November 2008 election. Today we will highlight and comment on the Memory Card Report.

We should all applaud the unique memory card testing program, yet we must also act aggressively to close the gaps it continues to expose.

Introduction

This week the University of Connecticut (UConn) VoTeR Center released reports on post-election audits and memory card testing for the November 2008 election. These reports were announced by a press release from the Secretary of the State, Susan Bysiewicz. <Press Release> <Post-Election Memory Card Report> <Post-Election Audit Report>. Today we will highlight and comment on the Memory Card Report. In Part 2 we will highlight and comment on the Post-Election Audit Report.

We should all applaud the unique memory card testing program, yet we must also act aggressively to close the gaps it continues to expose.

Summary

From the press release:

My office entered into this historic partnership with the University of
Connecticut VoTeR Center so that we could receive an independent, unbiased accounting of Connecticut’s optical scan voting machines,” said Bysiewicz. “The results of these two studies confirm that numbers tallied by the optical scanners were remarkably accurate on Election Day November 4, 2008. Voters should feel confident that their votes were secure and accurately counted.

From the Post-Election Memory Card Audit Report:

In summary. (1) all cards used in the election were properly programmed, (2) cards with junk data continues to be a problem, and additional analysis is in progress to determine the cause, (3) a number of cards show that the pre-election procedures are not followed uniformly and that cards continue to be duplicated; we recommend a stronger policy statement is needed on handling the cards before and during the election an disallowing memory card duplication.

The Secretary of the State, her Office, and UConn are rightfully proud of initiating the audit in 2008 and instituting the unique memory card testing program. We recognize and appreciate that everyone works hard on these programs, performing the audits, and creating these reports including the Registrars, Secretary of the State’s staff, and UConn. We also welcome Secretary Bysiewicz’s committment to solve the problems identified:

From the Press Release:

“Overall, I’m pleased that our first pre- and post-testing procedures with UConn demonstrate the security of our office’s chain of custody practices with election officials,” said Bysiewicz. “However, the percentage of unreadable cards is still too high and we await UConn’s forthcoming investigation into possible causes and recommended solutions for guidance on this issue. In the interim we will provide additional training to local election officials to make sure regulations concerning the handling and security of memory cards used by the optical scanners are uniformly followed throughout the State of Connecticut.”

From the Secretary of the State’s May 14th Newsletter:

Moving forward, my office will continue to improve the training we give to Registrars of Voters and local election officials to reduce any further errors in counting. We will also start new training within weeks to improve the security of memory cards used by the optical scanners to record votes on Election Day.

Our comments and concerns:

This is not a random audit of memory cards. We continue to applaud this unique memory card testing program, yet it is a registrar selected set of memory cards, not exhaustive, not a random sample. 297 cards used in the election were tested out of 833 districts. This opens a huge hole for covering up errors and fraud – just don’t send in your card. It also biases any statistics one way or another based on which cards tend to be sent to UConn.
9% error memory card failure rate is bad enough, but is it the actual rate? 9% of all cards sent to UConn had memory problems. These are all classified as cards not used in the election, if so, the rate would be 41/142 or 29%. We wonder if many bad cards are found in the process of testing and not used in the election thus not counted in the audit. Or could some of these cards have worked in the election and failed subsequently? Bottom line we don’t know the actual failure rate % since we don’t have a random sample. The 9% is within the range of previous UConn pre and post election tests <all UConn Reports> <Our Past Commentary>
There is a serious failure of officials to follow procedures. A rate of 34% or 144 failures to follow procedures on 421 non-junk-data cards is a serious pervasive problem. (52-Not Set for Election, 20 Results Print Aborted, 2-Set for Election, Zero Counters, 41-Duplication Events, 29-Zero Totals Printed Before Date of Election) In some cases multiple problems may have occurred on the same card so the number of districts detected as failing to follow procedures is likely a bit less that the 34%. (This paragraph has corrected numbers, in an earlier version we had double counted some of the errors)Once again, this is not a random sample yet it’s a totally unacceptable level of not following procedures. The report correctly suggests these should be changed through better training and instruction to municipalities. If procedures are necessary, then when they are not followed it means there is an opportunity for problems to occur. This should cause everyone to wonder to what extent other unaudited election procedures are regularly not followed. Most procedures are in place because they are intended to prevent election day problems, errors, and fraud. In fact, this memory card finding is very consistent with the Audit Coaltion Reports which have consistently shown a significant level of failures to follow procedures, for instance the chain-of-custody failures described in the most recent Coalition report <read>

Our bottom line:

A non-random partial post-election audit of memory cards is useful, but it is insufficient. A more rigorous sampling process would yield more accurate information and, just as importantly, it would eliminate the existing opportunity for errors or fraud to be covered up by not sending the cards for testing. Last year we proposed and the GAE Committee passed 100% pre-election independent testing of memory cards. We stand by that recommendation to protect the cards from front-end insider fraud and to make it less likely that election officials have to deal with junk data cards. Post-election random testing or 100% testing of memory cards is also advisable.
How many more tests, reports, and elections will it take before the junk data problem is significantly reduced? Ridiculous, Unacceptable, Unconscionable come to mind to describe the junk data problem. 5%, 9%, 20% or even 1% is way out of line for electronic equipment. Why do we stand for it? What about all the other states that use this exact same technology, why are they putting up with it?
Almost every failure to follow procedures is an opportunity to cause problems, cover up errors, or cover up fraud. Perhaps it is easier to understand human failure to follow procedures exactly, every time. Once again no mater if failure to follow procedures is 5%, 10%, 20% or 40% in handling memory cards it points to a likely much higher rate of failure to follow all procedures. How can we have confidence in elections with such a lack of ability or attention to following procedures, many of which are performed outside of public view, outside of audits purview to discover. We can only hope that the Registrars of Voters will join in the commitment to meet a much higher standard.

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

Related story 5/28: Diebold memory card problems in Florida — a different model, this time it is high speed wireless cards <read>

Safe Ways To Protect And Speed Military Votes

Protecting the Military Vote. High security, high privacy, low cost. Bills by Republicans in the U.S. Senate and a Democrat in the U.S. House.

Senator Schumer(D) is holding hearings on military voting delays and lost votes. Senators Inhof(R) and Chrnyn(R) are offering legislation to get the job done, without risking security and privacy <American Chronicle Story>

The legislation attempts to reduce delays in the current absentee voting process for our overseas troops by allowing the U.S. Postal Service to express-ship their completed absentee ballots to local election offices. The bill amends the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA) and ensures that the ballots are delivered to the appropriate state election officials by the jurisdiction´s statutory deadline, while safeguarding voter privacy and ballot secrecy.

And from Representative Rush Holt(D): <H.R.2082>

To amend the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act to require States to accept absentee ballots of overseas military and civilian voters which are submitted by the voter to a provider of express mail services not later than the day before the date of the election involved for transmission to the appropriate State election official, to require the Secretary of Defense to reimburse overseas military voters for the costs of using a provider of express mail services to transmit the ballot to the official, and for other purposes.

These are the right ways to do it. No need to compromise security. No need for Connecticut’s Secretary of the State to develop methods that Computer Scientists and the Department of Defense are unable to develop. No need to spend upwards of $500 per vote. Earlier coverage <here>

National Popular Vote Squeaks Through Connecticut House

Initially defeated by 1 vote, legislators change their votes.

Most votes on this bill are along party lines with Democrats generally for the bill and Republicans generally against the bill. However, there are prominent Democrates who oppose the Agreement including Connecticut Secretary of the State, Susan Bysiewicz and Minnesota Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie.

The National Popular Vote Agreement passed the Connecticut House after initially being defeated by one vote. See how your representative voted <here> As reported by the Hartford Courant <read>

The vote was a nail-biter to the end, and it passed only after four veteran Democrats switched their votes from negative to affirmative: Deputy House Speakers Robert Godfrey of Danbury and Emil “Buddy” Altobello of Meriden, and Reps. Peggy Sayers of Windsor Locks and Peter Tercyak of New Britain.

As frequent CTVotersCount readers are aware we strongly oppose the National Popular Vote Agreement. For more information read our Case Against The National Popular Vote or a recent talk by Conn College Professor Dorothy B. James.

**********************
Update: Similar articles at CTNewsJunkie.com, TheDay, and ConnPolitics.tv . Here is a conglomerate of my comments on those sites:

There are other reasons to be against the National Popular Vote agreement: 1)The national vote number is not accurate, it is the result of error prone counts in various states which usually would not matter except in close swing states. 2)There is no national recount law to correct those results. 3)Close elections can be expected to all end at the Supreme Court as voters could sue their Secretary of the State for using unreliable results.

Mr. Ritchie’s opposition is based, in part, on the fact that there is no national recount law that would provide a number that would have any hope of being credible.

Since state electors would be awarded by Secretaries of the State based on questionable results in other states, I can see close elections all ending up in the Supreme Court based on voters suing their Secretary and others states’ Secretaries based on providing or relying on questionable results.

Also, in passing, I mention that the following argument is questionable:

“In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in just six states and 98 percent of their money in just 15 states, a press release touting the bills passage said.”

This is a media centric concern. In recent elections almost all of the media money goes to out of state media moguls. Does the average voter in Connecticut need more phone calls and candidate ads to be better informed? No. Do candidates have to visit Connecticut for the election to be covered responsibly by the Connecticut media? I doubt it.

Several comments on those sites are from “mvymvy” who shows up on many blogs, with comments as useful and redundant as his or her name, but does not actually address the issues that we bring up. I suspect because the facts and logic are with our arguments.

Ray Hackett: Let citizens decide issue of early voting

Surely Connecticut’s election officials are capable of setting up a system that would provide the necessary safeguards to prevent voter fraud — just like election officials in all those other states have.

Mr. Hacket’s article is balanced, yet there are more details to consider. CTVotersCount took a position as “Conditionally Against” early voting in any form during our testimony at the Legislature earlier this year.

Ray Hackett, Norwich Bulletin weighs in on early voting <read>

Last week, there were borough elections held in the state. Turnout for those was often just as bad or worse — mostly a result of no contests on the ballots. At least in Norwich, there was a contest between two candidates.

But is poor turnout at the polls sufficient enough reason to change the rules? And would allowing voters to vote when it’s convenient for them actually result in greater participation?
The Connecticut Town Clerks Association has expressed its opposition to the idea of early voting, claiming it hasn’t been studied sufficiently to ensure voter fraud will not run rampant. I certainly appreciate the concern about fraud, but I find that argument weak. Many states allow early voting, and pictures of thousands of voters in long lines waiting for the opportunity to cast a ballot in last year’s presidential election were seen in newspapers and on television.

Surely Connecticut’s election officials are capable of setting up a system that would provide the necessary safeguards to prevent voter fraud — just like election officials in all those other states have.

Early Voting, Mail-In Voting, and Unlimited/No Excuse Absentee Voting

– Conditionally Against*: Significant numbers of absentee voters are disenfranchised in every election by rejection of their ballots – usually for good reason, but they are disenfranchised and their intentions are not realized. These methods in general have security and secrecy challenges, invite fraud, error, and disenfranchisement. We also note in these tough economic times that early voting can be a significant expense, especially in New England with town administered voting.

(*) When we say we are “Conditionally Against” a proposition, we mean that nobody has proposed a realistic safe way to accomplish the proposition. We remain open to the possibility that a means may be found that would pass the scrutiny of the majority of computer scientists, security experts, election officials, and voting integrity advocates.

We are not as confident as Mr. Hackett is that early voting in Connecticut could be done as easily as in other states out west. Most states manage elections by county with full time civil service election officials — they do early voting in a few polling places in each county — Connecticut manages elections by two elected registrars, often part-time, in each of 169 towns, making early voting much more of a challenge and potential expense. Changing this structure to allow early voting centers would be quite a change, requiring in our opinion, a constitutional amendment of much greater scope than the one currently under consideration.

We are open to the possibility that early voting could work in Connecticut, however, we are skeptical that the state, towns, and citizens would be willing to pay for the added costs of early voting in polling places. We will remain conditionally opposed unless and until a plan is presented which provides security accompanied by an honest cost assessment. If the citizens are to decide, they deserve a complete plan describing how it will be accomplished and what it would cost.

We are also skeptical of no excuse absentee voting which has questionable security, privacy, and when so many absentee ballots are discarded due to errors on the part of voters, effectively disenfranchising them.

May Elections: Random District Selection for Post Election Audit

Connecticut towns must hold municipal elections in May or November of odd years. On May 4th, elections were held and as required by law 10% of districts holding municipal elections are subject to the Post-Election Audit. CTVotersCount attended the drawing this morning, representing the public.

Analysis and Opinion: Some might question the value of such a small audit. Considering the value of elections and statistics, we disagree.

Connecticut towns must hold municipal elections in May or November of odd years.

The Secretary of the State’s pre-election Press Release: Bysiewicz: Polls Will Be Open Monday May 4th, 15 Connecticut Communities Holding Municipal Elections In May <read>

As required by law 10% of districts holding municipal elections are subject to the Post-Election Audit. CTVotersCount attended the drawing this morning, representing the public. Some might question the value of such a small audit. Considering the value of elections and statistics, we disagree. (see our analysis and opinion below)

The law:

Not earlier than the fifteenth day after any election or primary and not later than two business days before the canvass of votes by the Secretary of the State, Treasurer and Comptroller, for any federal or state election or primary, or by the town clerk for any municipal election or primary, the registrars of voters shall conduct a manual audit of the votes recorded in not less than ten per cent of the voting districts in the state, district or municipality, whichever is applicable.

However, not all these elections were “municipal elections”, several were “borough elections”. As such, the “borough elections” do not fall under the post-election audit laws, adding another item to our list of “loopholes” or exemptions in the law.

By the numbers:

6 Municipalities had municipal elections on May 4th
13 Election districts* in the election
2 10% of districts in the election that must be audited
3 Municipalities had recanvasses** in at least one race, exempting districts in those municipalities from audit

The law:

If a selected voting district has an office that is subject to recanvass or an election or primary contest pursuant to the general statutes, the Secretary shall select an alternative district

The process:

The 10 districts in the three towns without districts are printed and separated.

The public has the opportunity to review the list of districts:

The eligeable districts — The eligible 13 districts

The slips of paper are folded uniformly. The public is invited to randomly draw districts:

CTVotersCount Co-Founder, Denise Weeks selects districts — CTVotersCount Co-Founder, Denise Weeks, selects districts

The chosen districts and alternates*** are announced as they are drawn:

Deputy Secretary of the State, Lesley Mara, announces district

The eligible districts include eight from Naugatuck along with one each from Andover, and Woodbridge. That would give about a 62% chance that Naugatuck would be selected for both districts to be audited:

Two selected districts and alternate, all from Naugatuck

What is next:

The individual municipalities (in this case just one) will be notified of their selection.

The municipal clerks in each town will randomly select three races to audit for the districts selected. (We’d like to report on these to provide confidence that they are truly random and fair, however, they are not required to be public or noticed to the public)

The municipal registrars will determine and publicly notice a date of the local counting session which must occur between May 19th to, we understand, May 29th. The Election Audit Coalition will observe the audit counting sessions.

Election Audit Coaltion will analyze and report the results. Independently, The University of Connecticut is required by law to analyze and report audit results.

Analysis and Opinion:
Some might question the value of such a small audit. Considering value of elections and the statistics, we disagree.

We question the wisdom of not subjecting all elections, all contests, and all ballots to the possibility of being selected for audit. In addition to the recanvassed races in this election several contests and ballots are entirely exempt from audit. Exemptions include other races in recanvassed districts, all questions, all referendums, all ballots initially counted by hand, and all centrally scanned absentee ballots. Exemptions open up opportunities for error and fraud to go undetected, and openings for fraudsters to know in advance what will never be audited. Every type of election, contest and ballot should be subject to being selected for audit. No election contest is unimportant, no ballot is exempt from changing election results.

We also point out that the statistical implications of auditing municipal elections are different than the implications for Congressional or statewide contests. Statistically each municipal election is independent, selection 10% of districts produces the same level of confidence in a race if the municipality is one of six in May or one of 163 in November.

Other coverage: Orient Lodge Secretary of the State’s Press Release

—————
* Districts are similar to precincts in other states

** Recanvasses are similar to recounts in other states, with perhaps less rigor. They are done with a combination of machine and manual counting. According to the Recount Proceedures Manual, revised last July, there is no public notice requirement.

*** Alternates are chosen in case a district is subsequently subject to an election contest prior to the audit counting session.

McCain, Obama Counsels Agree: Start With The Facts

It may be news to many readers that reforms are still needed. The media widely reported a smooth election, and in some places, those reports were accurate.

An article in RollCall by Obama and McCain campaign general counsels: Next Phase of Election Reform: Start With Facts <read>

we share a deep commitment to fair and well-run elections in which all qualified voters have the opportunity to vote, and all the votes that they cast are accurately counted.

Looking back on the 2008 elections, we have no doubt that reforms in the administration of elections in this country are needed if we are to meet these standards. We also believe such reforms can be achieved, with potentially transformative success for the American voter.

It may be news to many readers that reforms are still needed. The media widely reported a smooth election, and in some places, those reports were accurate. The problems — and there were many, scattered across the country — received comparatively little attention because the outcome of the voting was clear…

Understandably, Americans seem to care about these problems most when, and sometimes only when, elections are close. Even when these problems receive the attention that they deserve, there remains a major obstacle to rational dialogue and effective reform: the absence of reliable, comparative data on how our election system is performing.

If these debates are to move forward in the face of much partisan mistrust and reflexive disagreement, we need some factually grounded agreement on where we are now. Only then will we have some sense of what kind of solutions are likely to succeed.

We agree with the thrust of the article. Facts are required. Just because we had an election that produced a clear winner is no reason to be complacent. We would add that post-election audits are an important piece of the facts that are needed. All states need paper ballots followed by sufficient and reliable post-election audits, producing facts, that lead to actions, that result in confidence in our election process, including a system where any problems will be surfaced and addressed.

Diebold: Revenue way down. $25,000,000 settlement proposed

Results included a $25 million charge for a deal Diebold reached with the Securities and Exchange Commission to settle civil charges related to a pending enforcement inquiry. The proposed settlement still needs final SEC approval.

The New York Times reports the story <read>

Results included a $25 million charge for a deal Diebold reached with the Securities and Exchange Commission to settle civil charges related to a pending enforcement inquiry. The proposed settlement still needs final SEC approval.

Diebold spun off its election system business after a failed attempt to sell it. The settlement is related to accounting tricks presumably intended to puff up voting system results to produce a sale.

Town Clerks Oppose Unlimited Absentee Balloting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It Pays To Complain – Election Officials Complain, Diebold Makes Public Pay

Humboldt County, CA found problems with the Dieblod GEMS system which it intended to replace, while it intended to continue to use its Diebold voter registration system. Now it is left with 90 days to find another solution as Dieblod executes its option to terminate its support of the county. Hard to interpret this as anyting but retribution and intimidation of the other juristictions, Brad Blog has the story <read>

As if you complained to GM that your fully paid for Humvee was a lemon and they said they would reposses it and your GTO next week.

It is interesting that the letter concerning the voter registration system, known as DIMS — in which no problems were either discovered or reported — is dated March 17, the day before the GEMS letter. The county’s DIMS voter registration database system is entirely separate from the GEMS vote counting system, and the county had hoped to continue using it. In fact, the county IT department was in the middle of performing a software upgrade to the DIMS system when the letters were received…

Back on April 6, Premier’s unfortunately-named spokesman Chris Riggall commented on the contract terminations to the Times-Standard: “We just believed it prudent to kind of make a, well, to essentially provide a clean break, or a fresh start, for however the county would like to proceed going forward. We thought it would provide the county an opportunity to make a fresh start.”

Another cautionary tale of they type of company we trust with our democracy and the dangers of dependence on vendors who supply proprietary technology.

John Gideon, 1947-2009

Voting integrity has lost a great friend, John Gideon. John had a huge impact and leaves us all with a large gap to fill.

I share the deep sense of sadness of everyone in the voting integrity community at the untimely loss of this giant of a man – Rep Rush Holt

Update 05/07/2009: TalkNationRadio Clips of John Gideon and Interviews his collaborators

Update 05/07/2009: TalkNationRadio Clips of John Gideon and Interviews his collaborators <read/listen>

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

Voting integrity has lost a great friend, John Gideon. John had a huge impact and leaves us all with a large gap to fill.

John was the co-founder of VotersUnite.org and the producer of the Daily Voting News. John scanned the news daily to provide us all with news from all corners of the Nation and Globe. We found many of the stories relevant to Connecticut at the Daily Voting News. They frequently became the basis of some of our posts. We benefited from his insight and correspondence. John also kindly ran many of our posts. I met John twice and we corresponded frequently. I last saw him three weeks ago when he served as a local host of a conference in Seattle, as always, warm, friendly, and full of life, a friend to everyone.

Photos and more from about John from <Brad Friedman>

Update: Statement By NJ Rep Rush Holt <read>

I share the deep sense of sadness of everyone in the voting integrity community at the untimely loss of this giant of a man whom we all relied on for the most up-to-date information on issues related to electronic voting security through his Daily Voting News and the endless research and reports on the VotersUnite.org website. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends. He will be missed greatly. whom we all relied on for the most up-to-date information on issues related to electronic voting security through his Daily Voting News and the endless research and reports on the VotersUnite.org website. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends. He will be missed greatly.

Update: A collection of tributes to John Gideon <read>